On 6/1/2025 5:12 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Dec 12 18:37:02 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/12/2024 2:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/12/2024 11:51 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 12/12/2024 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/12/2024 7:19 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 12/11/2024 4:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
So you agree with me that the crucial aspects are the actor and the >>>>>> act, not the hardware.
To a certain extent.
If every human being could be trusted to act responsibly, allowing a >>>>> device that was developed expressly to kill other human beings to be >>>>> possessed without any restrictions wouldn't be a problem.
But in that case, why would a person possess such a device? Some level
of intent to kill is what drives ownership.
Yes, yes, I know that Andrew is not intent on killing when he takes his
AR to the range. But somewhere in there is "practicing in case I need
it" as motivation. That is, the motivation is not to put closely spaced
holes in paper, because a .177 air rifle can do that as well or better.
Somewhere is "I can blast away and destroy."
Following your posit to the extreme, there should be no reasonWell, you could.
therefore to prevent me from mounting a fully- operational m134
minigun on the roof of my car. Hey, I'm a responsible adult, never
been arrested, I've never committed any acts of violence, even had a >>>>> security clearance for a time. If the criteria is _solely_ 'the actor >>>>> and the act', why shouldn't I be able to do that?
Why shouldn't _any_ one who has never had any history of violent
behavior _not_ be allowed to own weapons of war? It's not like people >>>>> with no history of violence have _ever_ engaged in a mass shooting.... >>>>
Tedious lengthy process plus $200 will get you your very own NFA tax
stamp,
But nobody does that without harboring at least the image of using such
a gun to kill other people.
I think it's a bit weird even when it's confined to the world of video
games. But when it leads to possession and proliferation of devices
designed for such killing, it's a real societal problem.
Tell me Frank, what does it feel like for the law itself to disagree with you?
Damn, Tom, what does it feel like to have to resurrect arguments from December 12 to feel good about yourself? Have you been constantly
stewing over that for almost six months?
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/1/2025 5:12 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Dec 12 18:37:02 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/12/2024 2:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/12/2024 11:51 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 12/12/2024 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/12/2024 7:19 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 12/11/2024 4:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
So you agree with me that the crucial aspects are the actor and the >>>>>>> act, not the hardware.
To a certain extent.
If every human being could be trusted to act responsibly, allowing a >>>>>> device that was developed expressly to kill other human beings to be >>>>>> possessed without any restrictions wouldn't be a problem.
But in that case, why would a person possess such a device? Some level >>>> of intent to kill is what drives ownership.
Yes, yes, I know that Andrew is not intent on killing when he takes his >>>> AR to the range. But somewhere in there is "practicing in case I need
it" as motivation. That is, the motivation is not to put closely spaced >>>> holes in paper, because a .177 air rifle can do that as well or better. >>>> Somewhere is "I can blast away and destroy."
Following your posit to the extreme, there should be no reasonWell, you could.
therefore to prevent me from mounting a fully- operational m134
minigun on the roof of my car. Hey, I'm a responsible adult, never >>>>>> been arrested, I've never committed any acts of violence, even had a >>>>>> security clearance for a time. If the criteria is _solely_ 'the actor >>>>>> and the act', why shouldn't I be able to do that?
Why shouldn't _any_ one who has never had any history of violent
behavior _not_ be allowed to own weapons of war? It's not like people >>>>>> with no history of violence have _ever_ engaged in a mass shooting.... >>>>>
Tedious lengthy process plus $200 will get you your very own NFA tax >>>>> stamp,
But nobody does that without harboring at least the image of using such >>>> a gun to kill other people.
I think it's a bit weird even when it's confined to the world of video >>>> games. But when it leads to possession and proliferation of devices
designed for such killing, it's a real societal problem.
Tell me Frank, what does it feel like for the law itself to disagree with you?
Damn, Tom, what does it feel like to have to resurrect arguments from
December 12 to feel good about yourself? Have you been constantly
stewing over that for almost six months?
I suspect in this case it�s incompetence rather than deliberate!
Roger Merriman
On 2 Jun 2025 08:28:17 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/1/2025 5:12 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Dec 12 18:37:02 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/12/2024 2:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/12/2024 11:51 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 12/12/2024 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/12/2024 7:19 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 12/11/2024 4:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
So you agree with me that the crucial aspects are the actor and the >>>>>>>> act, not the hardware.
To a certain extent.
If every human being could be trusted to act responsibly, allowing a >>>>>>> device that was developed expressly to kill other human beings to be >>>>>>> possessed without any restrictions wouldn't be a problem.
But in that case, why would a person possess such a device? Some level >>>>> of intent to kill is what drives ownership.
Yes, yes, I know that Andrew is not intent on killing when he takes his >>>>> AR to the range. But somewhere in there is "practicing in case I need >>>>> it" as motivation. That is, the motivation is not to put closely spaced >>>>> holes in paper, because a .177 air rifle can do that as well or better. >>>>> Somewhere is "I can blast away and destroy."
Following your posit to the extreme, there should be no reasonWell, you could.
therefore to prevent me from mounting a fully- operational m134
minigun on the roof of my car. Hey, I'm a responsible adult, never >>>>>>> been arrested, I've never committed any acts of violence, even had a >>>>>>> security clearance for a time. If the criteria is _solely_ 'the actor >>>>>>> and the act', why shouldn't I be able to do that?
Why shouldn't _any_ one who has never had any history of violent >>>>>>> behavior _not_ be allowed to own weapons of war? It's not like people >>>>>>> with no history of violence have _ever_ engaged in a mass shooting.... >>>>>>
Tedious lengthy process plus $200 will get you your very own NFA tax >>>>>> stamp,
But nobody does that without harboring at least the image of using such >>>>> a gun to kill other people.
I think it's a bit weird even when it's confined to the world of video >>>>> games. But when it leads to possession and proliferation of devices
designed for such killing, it's a real societal problem.
Tell me Frank, what does it feel like for the law itself to disagree with you?
Damn, Tom, what does it feel like to have to resurrect arguments from
December 12 to feel good about yourself? Have you been constantly
stewing over that for almost six months?
I suspect in this case its incompetence rather than deliberate!
Roger Merriman
The 6 month delay is not Tom's incompetence or malice. Tom is using newshosting.com as his Usenet News service and his news reader
program:
<https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
I tried it and soon found that it supports various ways of displaying
a thread of articles. Some combinations work, while others stumble
over duplicate message ID's, corrupted message ID's, and probably
other bugs. An easy one to see is in the NNTP header of Tom's
messages, which all contain a growing number of alternating "Re:" and
"re:" tags. Something like this:
Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Machine Shop
There are probably other bugs, which have not been addressed by the
vendor. I could blame the vendor for offering a buggy news reader. Or
I could blame Tom for knowingly using a buggy news reader. Of course,
Tom has ignored my recommended news reader. There are some other
possible reasons.
On 6/2/2025 12:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On 2 Jun 2025 08:28:17 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/1/2025 5:12 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Dec 12 18:37:02 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/12/2024 2:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/12/2024 11:51 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 12/12/2024 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/12/2024 7:19 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 12/11/2024 4:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
So you agree with me that the crucial aspects are the actor and the >>>>>>>>> act, not the hardware.
To a certain extent.
If every human being could be trusted to act responsibly, allowing a >>>>>>>> device that was developed expressly to kill other human beings to be >>>>>>>> possessed without any restrictions wouldn't be a problem.
But in that case, why would a person possess such a device? Some level >>>>>> of intent to kill is what drives ownership.
Yes, yes, I know that Andrew is not intent on killing when he takes his >>>>>> AR to the range. But somewhere in there is "practicing in case I need >>>>>> it" as motivation. That is, the motivation is not to put closely spaced >>>>>> holes in paper, because a .177 air rifle can do that as well or better. >>>>>> Somewhere is "I can blast away and destroy."
Following your posit to the extreme, there should be no reason >>>>>>>> therefore to prevent me from mounting a fully- operational m134 >>>>>>>> minigun on the roof of my car. Hey, I'm a responsible adult, never >>>>>>>> been arrested, I've never committed any acts of violence, even had a >>>>>>>> security clearance for a time. If the criteria is _solely_ 'the actor >>>>>>>> and the act', why shouldn't I be able to do that?Well, you could.
Why shouldn't _any_ one who has never had any history of violent >>>>>>>> behavior _not_ be allowed to own weapons of war? It's not like people >>>>>>>> with no history of violence have _ever_ engaged in a mass shooting.... >>>>>>>
Tedious lengthy process plus $200 will get you your very own NFA tax >>>>>>> stamp,
But nobody does that without harboring at least the image of using such >>>>>> a gun to kill other people.
I think it's a bit weird even when it's confined to the world of video >>>>>> games. But when it leads to possession and proliferation of devices >>>>>> designed for such killing, it's a real societal problem.
Tell me Frank, what does it feel like for the law itself to disagree with you?
Damn, Tom, what does it feel like to have to resurrect arguments from
December 12 to feel good about yourself? Have you been constantly
stewing over that for almost six months?
I suspect in this case it�s incompetence rather than deliberate!
Roger Merriman
The 6 month delay is not Tom's incompetence or malice. Tom is using
newshosting.com as his Usenet News service and his news reader
program:
<https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
I tried it...
It's nice of you to be kind, but I don't think the bad newsreader
excuses Tom's incompetence. If we can tell he's responding to a 6 month
old thread, Tom ought to be able to tell.
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 23:10:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/2/2025 12:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On 2 Jun 2025 08:28:17 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/1/2025 5:12 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Dec 12 18:37:02 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/12/2024 2:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/12/2024 11:51 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 12/12/2024 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/12/2024 7:19 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 12/11/2024 4:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
So you agree with me that the crucial aspects are the actor and the >>>>>>>>>> act, not the hardware.
To a certain extent.
If every human being could be trusted to act responsibly, allowing a >>>>>>>>> device that was developed expressly to kill other human beings to be >>>>>>>>> possessed without any restrictions wouldn't be a problem.
But in that case, why would a person possess such a device? Some level >>>>>>> of intent to kill is what drives ownership.
Yes, yes, I know that Andrew is not intent on killing when he takes his >>>>>>> AR to the range. But somewhere in there is "practicing in case I need >>>>>>> it" as motivation. That is, the motivation is not to put closely spaced >>>>>>> holes in paper, because a .177 air rifle can do that as well or better. >>>>>>> Somewhere is "I can blast away and destroy."
Following your posit to the extreme, there should be no reason >>>>>>>>> therefore to prevent me from mounting a fully- operational m134 >>>>>>>>> minigun on the roof of my car. Hey, I'm a responsible adult, never >>>>>>>>> been arrested, I've never committed any acts of violence, even had a >>>>>>>>> security clearance for a time. If the criteria is _solely_ 'the actor >>>>>>>>> and the act', why shouldn't I be able to do that?
Why shouldn't _any_ one who has never had any history of violent >>>>>>>>> behavior _not_ be allowed to own weapons of war? It's not like people >>>>>>>>> with no history of violence have _ever_ engaged in a mass shooting....
Well, you could.
Tedious lengthy process plus $200 will get you your very own NFA tax >>>>>>>> stamp,
But nobody does that without harboring at least the image of using such >>>>>>> a gun to kill other people.
I think it's a bit weird even when it's confined to the world of video >>>>>>> games. But when it leads to possession and proliferation of devices >>>>>>> designed for such killing, it's a real societal problem.
Tell me Frank, what does it feel like for the law itself to disagree with you?
Damn, Tom, what does it feel like to have to resurrect arguments from >>>>> December 12 to feel good about yourself? Have you been constantly
stewing over that for almost six months?
I suspect in this case it’s incompetence rather than deliberate!
Roger Merriman
The 6 month delay is not Tom's incompetence or malice. Tom is using
newshosting.com as his Usenet News service and his news reader
program:
<https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
I tried it...
It's nice of you to be kind, but I don't think the bad newsreader
excuses Tom's incompetence. If we can tell he's responding to a 6 month
old thread, Tom ought to be able to tell.
I'm not being kind. I'm being honest.
Tom can probably tell when he's doing something wrong.
It's not just
responding to an ancient posting in rec.bicycles.tech. He also
ignores his copious typing errors. He invents amazing facts and
numbers out of thin air. When challenged, he tries to substantiate
his amazing facts with difficult to verify ancient postings. When
that fails, he puts words into other peoples mouths, claims that they
said something ridiculous, and continues to "prove" his original
amazing facts. When that doesn't work, he resorts to repetition, resurrecting an old amazing fact and repeats the process. To do all
that, he has to know what he's doing. In some cases, the mistakes are
not intentional, such as the typing errors, which might be from
intoxication or peripheral neuropathy. These mistakes might not be intentional, but leaving them uncorrected is probably malicious and intentional.
Do you see a pattern here? To Tom, what is important is NOT whether something is true, can be verified, makes sense, is logical, etc. In
other words, all the necessary components of a fact. What is
important to Tom is that the information, right or wrong, came from
Tom as the sole source and authority. If Tom said it, it must be true
and correct, even if he invented it.
If Tom makes or ignores a mess,
such as responding to an old thread and ignoring obvious errors, he's
doing it because all the lies and mistakes can be directly
attributable to Tom. Something like:
"Hey world. Look at me. I did all this by myself".
When he can't get it right, he just changes the topic to something
he's more familiar with. When he doesn't know what to say, he just
invents something or writes something incoherent.
On 6/3/2025 2:19 AM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On Mon, 2 Jun 2025 23:10:07 -0400, Frank Krygowski
<[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/2/2025 12:02 PM, Jeff Liebermann wrote:
On 2 Jun 2025 08:28:17 GMT, Roger Merriman <[email protected]> wrote:
Frank Krygowski <[email protected]> wrote:
On 6/1/2025 5:12 PM, cyclintom wrote:
On Thu Dec 12 18:37:02 2024 Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 12/12/2024 2:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/12/2024 11:51 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 12/12/2024 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
On 12/12/2024 7:19 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
On 12/11/2024 4:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
So you agree with me that the crucial aspects are the actor and the >>>>>>>>>>> act, not the hardware.
To a certain extent.
If every human being could be trusted to act responsibly, allowing a >>>>>>>>>> device that was developed expressly to kill other human beings to be >>>>>>>>>> possessed without any restrictions wouldn't be a problem.
But in that case, why would a person possess such a device? Some level >>>>>>>> of intent to kill is what drives ownership.
Yes, yes, I know that Andrew is not intent on killing when he takes his
AR to the range. But somewhere in there is "practicing in case I need >>>>>>>> it" as motivation. That is, the motivation is not to put closely spaced
holes in paper, because a .177 air rifle can do that as well or better.
Somewhere is "I can blast away and destroy."
Following your posit to the extreme, there should be no reason >>>>>>>>>> therefore to prevent me from mounting a fully- operational m134 >>>>>>>>>> minigun on the roof of my car. Hey, I'm a responsible adult, never >>>>>>>>>> been arrested, I've never committed any acts of violence, even had a >>>>>>>>>> security clearance for a time. If the criteria is _solely_ 'the actor
and the act', why shouldn't I be able to do that?
Why shouldn't _any_ one who has never had any history of violent >>>>>>>>>> behavior _not_ be allowed to own weapons of war? It's not like people
with no history of violence have _ever_ engaged in a mass shooting....
Well, you could.
Tedious lengthy process plus $200 will get you your very own NFA tax >>>>>>>>> stamp,
But nobody does that without harboring at least the image of using such
a gun to kill other people.
I think it's a bit weird even when it's confined to the world of video >>>>>>>> games. But when it leads to possession and proliferation of devices >>>>>>>> designed for such killing, it's a real societal problem.
Tell me Frank, what does it feel like for the law itself to disagree with you?
Damn, Tom, what does it feel like to have to resurrect arguments from >>>>>> December 12 to feel good about yourself? Have you been constantly
stewing over that for almost six months?
I suspect in this case it’s incompetence rather than deliberate!
Roger Merriman
The 6 month delay is not Tom's incompetence or malice. Tom is using
newshosting.com as his Usenet News service and his news reader
program:
<https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
I tried it...
It's nice of you to be kind, but I don't think the bad newsreader
excuses Tom's incompetence. If we can tell he's responding to a 6 month
old thread, Tom ought to be able to tell.
I'm not being kind. I'm being honest.
Tom can probably tell when he's doing something wrong.
IMHO I don't believe that to be the case. There is a delusion at work
here, I don't believe he actually can discern between the truth and his fantastic inventions.
It's not just
responding to an ancient posting in rec.bicycles.tech. He also
ignores his copious typing errors. He invents amazing facts and
numbers out of thin air. When challenged, he tries to substantiate
his amazing facts with difficult to verify ancient postings. When
that fails, he puts words into other peoples mouths, claims that they
said something ridiculous, and continues to "prove" his original
amazing facts. When that doesn't work, he resorts to repetition,
resurrecting an old amazing fact and repeats the process. To do all
that, he has to know what he's doing. In some cases, the mistakes are
not intentional, such as the typing errors, which might be from
intoxication or peripheral neuropathy. These mistakes might not be
intentional, but leaving them uncorrected is probably malicious and
intentional.
Do you see a pattern here? To Tom, what is important is NOT whether
something is true, can be verified, makes sense, is logical, etc. In
other words, all the necessary components of a fact. What is
important to Tom is that the information, right or wrong, came from
Tom as the sole source and authority. If Tom said it, it must be true
and correct, even if he invented it.
This goes to my point above. He believes what he says is the truth
regardless of any evidence to the contrary. In that, I don't believe he
is capable of knowing what he is doing is wrong.
If Tom makes or ignores a mess,
such as responding to an old thread and ignoring obvious errors, he's
doing it because all the lies and mistakes can be directly
attributable to Tom. Something like:
"Hey world. Look at me. I did all this by myself".
When he can't get it right, he just changes the topic to something
he's more familiar with. When he doesn't know what to say, he just
invents something or writes something incoherent.
| Sysop: | Keyop |
|---|---|
| Location: | Huddersfield, West Yorkshire, UK |
| Users: | 715 |
| Nodes: | 16 (2 / 14) |
| Uptime: | 33:04:58 |
| Calls: | 12,109 |
| Files: | 15,006 |
| Messages: | 6,518,309 |