From: Die Wahrheit on 7 May 2010 14:41
On Fri, 7 May 2010 12:52:31 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com>
> Because I refuse to read the real definition of the word, only in my small
> mind does "marriage" continue to be exactly what has been all along: the
> legal union of a man and a woman. All your beliefs, theories and opinions
> to the contrary do not change that simple-minded ignorant belief of mine.
Yeah, that's exactly what I thought you said. If you were ever going to be
honest, that is.
From: Neil Harrington on 7 May 2010 14:46
> On 2010-05-07 09:05:28 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said:
>> "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote in message
>>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>>>> In New England gun laws vary a lot from one little state to the
>>>> next. Massachusetts and Rhode Island are very tough about guns,
>>>> Connecticut has been getting tough, the other three states are
>>>> generally pretty relaxed.
>>> IIRC, in New York City, you couldn't even own a gun in your own home
>>> during the years I lived there....(from 1935 to 1952) Judging from
>>> how liberal they are there, I doubt if the law has changed at
>>> all......Bernie Goetz doesn't even live there anymore.....
>> When I was a kid on Long Island (1930 to 1945) most of the kids I
>> knew had guns in their homes, sometimes many guns. Whether they were
>> legal or not I don't know, but if not it didn't matter much as there
>> was none of the anti-gun hysteria we've had since the '60s.
>> In those days there was still the big Bannerman's store in NYC. Are
>> you familiar with Bannerman's? They sold all sorts of arms, armor,
>> ammunition, uniforms, etc., picked up from the battlefields of the
>> world or bought cheap from governments that were upgrading their
>> equipment and selling off their old stuff. Bannerman's had a huge
>> catalog and all sorts of stuff in the store, and a lot more on
>> Bannerman's private island in the Hudson. They had everything from
>> suits of armor and lances to sabers, cannon and Gatling guns. And a
>> great deal of Civil War equipment. A friend of mine (about 15 at the
>> time) went in to the city and at
>> Bannerman's bought a Joslyn single-shot carbine, a Civil War weapon
>> that took the same .56 rimfire cartridges as the Spencer repeating
>> carbine of the period. He also bought an original pack of seven
>> cartridges (that was the magazine capacity of the Spencer). We took
>> the Joslyn out to a nearby meadows to try it out. The 80-year-old
>> cartridges still went off with a satisfying boom and cloud of
>> black-powder smoke, and hit the old sign he'd picked as a target
>> about 100 yards away. Gun and cartridges had only cost him a few
>> dollars. Of course he had to carry them home via subway and then the
>> L.I.R.R. -- nobody cared about such things in those days; high
>> school and college students on rifle teams in the city used to carry
>> their target rifles on the subway. Alas, I guess we will never see such
>> days again. It was a much
>> better and more innocent time.
> You could always get yourself a catalogue, for nostalgia's sake.
> < http://www.cornellpubs.com/old-guns/item_desc.php?item_id=942 >
Thanks for the heads-up on that. I think I had a reprint of one of his
catalogs many years ago, dunno what happened to it.
The photos on that page are not identified there, but they are of
Bannerman's castle on his island in the Hudson. The "90 tons of explosives"
mentioned were in the castle until several years ago, when they were judged
to be a serious danger because the whole place had deteriorated so, and were
destroyed. I don't know if the castle itself is still there, or who owns the
place now. I'll have to Google that and see what I can find out.
From: Neil Harrington on 7 May 2010 15:05
> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>> Some time ago I saw in the news that a little kid in grammar school
>> had been suspended for playing cops 'n' robbers or something during
>> recess. He said "Bang! Bang!" while pointing a forefinger at a kid
>> he was playing with
> If you do that do my daughter's dog, she rolls over on her back and
> sticks all four feet in the air. (the dog, not my daughter.)
From: Will T on 7 May 2010 15:14
On Fri, 7 May 2010 14:23:11 -0400, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com>
>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>>> "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote in message
>>>> "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> wrote in message
>>>>> "David Ruether" <d_ruether(a)thotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> Unless they are suddenly afflicted by a severe attack of Humpty
>>>>> Dumptyism (or a couple more Obama radical-lib appointees, which
>>>>> effectively amounts to the same thing), they will not.
>>>> Exactly which "radical-lib" was appointed by our President?
>>> Obviously, Sotomayor.
>>>> Which decision[s] made prior to appointment, of his one appointee
>>>> do you object to?
>>> Most famously, her ruling against white firefighters in New Haven, on
>>> purely racist grounds. She was then and undoubtedly still is in
>>> favor of discriminating against white males. That ruling of hers was
>>> of course overturned by the U.S. Supreme Court. Now she's part of
>>> that court, which is bad news for anyone who cares about justice.
>>> The "wise Latina woman" remains what she always has been, in favor of
>>> preferential treatment for certain races and genders, such as her
>>> own. She has as much as said she wants to use the court for her own
>>> political agenda, rather than to support the Constitution as it
>>> stands. She made a joke of it on at least one occasion.
>> That's what I thought you were talking about. Her original decision,
>> which was fortunately overturned, was based upon precedents that
>> existed at the time of her decision.
>> That decision doesn't make her a
>> racist. We will have to wait and see her subsequent decisions.
>I think she's already made it clear what she is. Of course she downplayed
>her agenda during confirmation, as anyone with that sort of agenda would.
>> At the risk of starting a flame war, I agree with the the decision
>> that , race or ethnicity should never be a factor in hiring. Having
>> said that, my comment only applies if the hiring tests are not
>> skewed. e.g. if an "intelligence" test included a ;question on the
>> meaning of "pants on the ground" it would be skewed.
>I believe the claims that certain population groups consistently score lower
>on intelligence tests because the tests are "skewed" has been pretty well
Wow. What century are you living in.
From: Neil Harrington on 7 May 2010 15:35
> On 2010-05-07 09:36:43 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com> said:
>> Savageduck wrote:
>>> On 2010-05-06 22:28:29 -0700, "Neil Harrington" <never(a)home.com>
>>>> The Left Coast is hopeless I think, not even salvageable. We
>>>> probably should give California back to Mexico, which it seems to
>>>> have effectively become part of anyway. Among other benefits giving
>>>> it back would much improve the electoral college.
>>> My Spanish is terrible to nonexistent. My Spanglish is
>> Some provision should be made. I have a nephew on the Left Coast,
>> and I wouldn't want him subjected to the total Mexicization of
>> California either. But really, what are the state's prospects?
>> Leftist-liberals and unions seem to be succeeding in turning the
>> state, for all its wealth and other blessings, into an economic
>> basket case.
> Tell me about it.
> One of the reasons I retired 2 years sooner than I initially planned,
> was Arnie's furlough plan. That was costing me around $900/month. My
> pension nets me about $15 less than I had been netting the year before
> I retired. If I had stayed on I would be netting less than I do now on
> my pension. Retiring was a no brainer.
> As far as Mexicanization goes, there is also the argument that
> Americans were the the illegal aliens in Texas, and all Santa Anna was
> doing at the Alamo was enforcing his nation's authority, in their own
> country, against that invasion of American illegal aliens bent on
> stealing Texas for themselves.
I don't think that's quite right, but maybe it's close enough.
After independence from Spain, during the same 15 or 16 years that all the
rest of Latin America was breaking free of Spain, Mexico badly needed new
settlers and invited Americans to come and settle in Texas. Many Americans
did, moving ever westward after exhausting the soil of their old farms and
plantations by not using proper crop rotation. As one commentator at the
time put it, they kept moving west "looking for new land to ruin."
The problem was, American planters moving into Texas insisted on bringing
their slaves with them -- and slavery was not legal in Mexico. (Somehow this
never seems to get mentioned in stories about heroism at the Alamo, etc.)
So there was conflict between the new "Texicans" and the Mexican government.
Mexico then had other problems of its own and was not in a position to do
much about about the new arrivals doing as they wanted. Eventually the
Texicans declared independence from Mexico (which seems ungrateful to say
the least) and declared Texas an independent republic. The Mexican
government didn't like that much either but again decided to accept it;
perhaps they felt at least it removed the problem of slavery from Mexican
But then through a somewhat convoluted series of circumstances and maneuvers
the republic of Texas decided to join the U.S. as a state. THAT was too much
for the Mexicans to swallow, and the Mexican War began.
> The same could be said for California.
Yes. That and the rest of the Southwest, all part of Polk's dreams of