From: Savageduck on
On 2010-01-01 18:59:00 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:

>
> Someone, (probably Ray) says:
>
>>> Or the classic "guns don't kill people ...".
>>
> I guess it will be all right when someone beats him to death with a
> baseball bat......In my case, being that I am an overweight 74 year
> old, I will carry a snubby 38 to protect myself, thanks.......:^).

Bill,
Your citations just went haywire again.

You responded to Ray's comment in my response to him, and snipped my
comment, making it look like you had no idea who you were responding
to, Ray or me.
His original message was; Message-ID: <4b3ea4b2$0$1650$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>

If you are going to respond to a remark, make that response to the
appropriate post, don't hijack and edit a post which includes the
remark you want to respond to, and confuse the issue.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: Bill Graham on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010010120121550878-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-01-01 18:59:00 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:
>
>>
>> Someone, (probably Ray) says:
>>
>>>> Or the classic "guns don't kill people ...".
>>>
>> I guess it will be all right when someone beats him to death with a
>> baseball bat......In my case, being that I am an overweight 74 year old,
>> I will carry a snubby 38 to protect myself, thanks.......:^).
>
> Bill,
> Your citations just went haywire again.
>
> You responded to Ray's comment in my response to him, and snipped my
> comment, making it look like you had no idea who you were responding to,
> Ray or me.
> His original message was; Message-ID:
> <4b3ea4b2$0$1650$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>
>
> If you are going to respond to a remark, make that response to the
> appropriate post, don't hijack and edit a post which includes the remark
> you want to respond to, and confuse the issue.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck
>

Not so. - I have Ray kill filed, so I can't respond to him directly. So, I
piggybacked off of your post, and cut out any reference to anyone, so it
couldn't be surmised that it was anything you said at all. I said, "Someone,
(probably Ray) said", and I quoted the guns don't kill people statement, and
refuted his objection to it. Accuse me of piggybacking if you will, but
don't accuse me of not knowing what I was doing.....I know full well what I
was doing, and I didn't accuse you of the statement in any case.

From: Savageduck on
On 2010-01-01 20:28:07 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:

>
> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
> news:2010010120121550878-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>> On 2010-01-01 18:59:00 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:
>>
>>>
>>> Someone, (probably Ray) says:
>>>
>>>>> Or the classic "guns don't kill people ...".
>>>>
>>> I guess it will be all right when someone beats him to death with a
>>> baseball bat......In my case, being that I am an overweight 74 year
>>> old, I will carry a snubby 38 to protect myself, thanks.......:^).
>>
>> Bill,
>> Your citations just went haywire again.
>>
>> You responded to Ray's comment in my response to him, and snipped my
>> comment, making it look like you had no idea who you were responding
>> to, Ray or me.
>> His original message was; Message-ID: <4b3ea4b2$0$1650$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>
>>
>> If you are going to respond to a remark, make that response to the
>> appropriate post, don't hijack and edit a post which includes the
>> remark you want to respond to, and confuse the issue.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Savageduck
>>
>
> Not so. - I have Ray kill filed, so I can't respond to him directly.
> So, I piggybacked off of your post, and cut out any reference to
> anyone, so it couldn't be surmised that it was anything you said at
> all. I said, "Someone, (probably Ray) said", and I quoted the guns
> don't kill people statement, and refuted his objection to it. Accuse me
> of piggybacking if you will, but don't accuse me of not knowing what I
> was doing.....I know full well what I was doing, and I didn't accuse
> you of the statement in any case.

If you have kill filed him, then why would you care to respond to him?

It seems you couldn't resist the temptation to renew your relationship,
using my post as the means. Since you have found it uncomfortable to
deal with Ray's posts, but are drawn to respond anyway, you might as
well just restore his status in your news client and respond to him
face to face.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

From: Bill Graham on

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
news:2010010120451077923-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
> On 2010-01-01 20:28:07 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:
>
>>
>> "Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message
>> news:2010010120121550878-savageduck1(a)REMOVESPAMmecom...
>>> On 2010-01-01 18:59:00 -0800, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> said:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Someone, (probably Ray) says:
>>>>
>>>>>> Or the classic "guns don't kill people ...".
>>>>>
>>>> I guess it will be all right when someone beats him to death with a
>>>> baseball bat......In my case, being that I am an overweight 74 year
>>>> old, I will carry a snubby 38 to protect myself, thanks.......:^).
>>>
>>> Bill,
>>> Your citations just went haywire again.
>>>
>>> You responded to Ray's comment in my response to him, and snipped my
>>> comment, making it look like you had no idea who you were responding to,
>>> Ray or me.
>>> His original message was; Message-ID:
>>> <4b3ea4b2$0$1650$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>
>>>
>>> If you are going to respond to a remark, make that response to the
>>> appropriate post, don't hijack and edit a post which includes the remark
>>> you want to respond to, and confuse the issue.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Savageduck
>>>
>>
>> Not so. - I have Ray kill filed, so I can't respond to him directly. So,
>> I piggybacked off of your post, and cut out any reference to anyone, so
>> it couldn't be surmised that it was anything you said at all. I said,
>> "Someone, (probably Ray) said", and I quoted the guns don't kill people
>> statement, and refuted his objection to it. Accuse me of piggybacking if
>> you will, but don't accuse me of not knowing what I was doing.....I know
>> full well what I was doing, and I didn't accuse you of the statement in
>> any case.
>
> If you have kill filed him, then why would you care to respond to him?
>
> It seems you couldn't resist the temptation to renew your relationship,
> using my post as the means. Since you have found it uncomfortable to deal
> with Ray's posts, but are drawn to respond anyway, you might as well just
> restore his status in your news client and respond to him face to face.
>
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck

Ha! -- Nice try, but you and I both know that's a loser......I would just
have to put up with his "rightard" comments for a few more weeks/days until
I couldn't stand it and have to kill file him again. You are right about one
thing though.....I shouldn't have responded to him at all, through your post
or not........Many people I have kill filed in the past have made it back,
but Ray is an exception.......I believe he is the only one I have there
right now, and I see no reason to remove him..... When I start to see
reasonable comments from him through other people's posts I will be the
first one to remove him from killfiledom, but I'm not going to hold my
breath until that happens......:^)

From: Peter on
"Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
news:W72dneX5A8t1WaPWnZ2dnUVZ_jSdnZ2d(a)giganews.com...
>
> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
> news:4b3ebaa4$0$31310$8f2e0ebb(a)news.shared-secrets.com...
>
>> What about laws against murder, extortion, robbery, etc.
>> If I deliberately and knowingly manufacture a substance that causes harm,
>> should that be illegal?
>> --
>> Peter
> Two separate questions. Laws against murder and etc. should definitely be
> on the books, because they impact the rest of us.



>
> If you need or want a dangerous substance for your own experimentation,
> well, why should you be refused it as long as you don't harm anyone else
> with it? There is a talk show host in the bay area who was all for banning
> books that told people how to build bombs from the library. I couldn't
> convince her otherwise. The fact that a policeman who specializes in
> disarming bombs might need such a book, didn't make no never mind to her.
> She was for censoring books that contained specific knowledge about
> anything that she personally considered to be "bad" Like this would make
> for a "good" society........Just like banning guns would make for a "safe"
> society to Ray. Well, I disagree with that. I think all knowledge should
> be available to everyone. Who is good or bad has nothing to do with who
> knows what. the more intelligent the society, the less crime there will
> likely be in any case. Intelligent people can make a good living without
> resorting to crime.

You didn't answer my question. What about the seducer, the guy that
knowingly induces the abuser. Please read my question again, carefully.
After you answer, I will have a grater understanding of your thought
process. We may or may not agree. But, I will certainly then know how, or
whether to pursue this discussion.

--
Peter