The Value Of An Apology, At Least From A Republican's Perspective!!
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Pittsburgh
Next: Incompatible jpeg?
From: Ray Fischer on 23 Sep 2009 14:03 Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: >The principal is simple and logical. When you make laws against carrying >guns, only the law abiding citizens will obey these laws, and so only the >criminals will carry guns, and the crime rate will go up. But that makes the illogical assumption that guns will continue to be freely available even when illegal. Everybody knows that that is nonsense. There would be vastly fewer guns and thus fewer people killed by guns. >Why the hell the stupid liberals can't see and understand this is beyond me, Why you rightards canot simply look at the facts is bizarre. We see that countries that have gun laws have lower rates of gun deaths. It's not rocket science, but when you worship a cult then logic is the first casualty. -- Ray Fischer rfischer(a)sonic.net
From: Chris Malcolm on 23 Sep 2009 14:51 In rec.photo.digital D. Peter Maus <DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: > On 9/23/09 10:01 , Chris Malcolm wrote: >> In rec.photo.digital Bill Graham<weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: >> >>> The principal is simple and logical. When you make laws against carrying >>> guns, only the law abiding citizens will obey these laws, and so only the >>> criminals will carry guns, and the crime rate will go up. When you allow >>> everyone to carry guns, some percentage of the honest people will do so, and >>> this is bad news for the criminals, and the crime rates will go down. Or. at >>> least, the criminals will go elsewhere. >> >>> Why the hell the stupid liberals can't see and understand this is beyond me, >>> but they can't, and haven't been able to for all of my life. >> >> It's the evidence, Bill. What those stupid liberals consider is the >> evidence. What the stupid fools don't realise is that if you take >> facts seriously you might have to change your mind about some >> things. That's why if you know you're right it's so important to >> ignore facts. But liberals are too stupid to realise that. > It's not a matter of stupidity, Chris. In fact, many liberals are > among the brightest. But rather, it's a matter of selective and > adaptive hearing that morph or redefine facts into conveniently > ignored limitations. Limitations to be blown past by the elite, > educated, and those privileged by their positions on core issues. I agree with your explanation about how sophisticated reasoners spin the presentation of selective facts to persuade the gullible of a desired point of view. It's now seems to have become generally accepted by all political parties and large corporations that instead of telling the public uncomfortable truths they should invent plausible stories which justify what they think they should do. People who are good at spinning plausible justifications for hidden agendas are now so valuable that they command very high salaries indeed. But I must correct your mistaken explanation of the hoary old "scientists say the bumblebee can't fly". > Now, here's the fact. > No one has ever said that the bumblebee can't fly. Clearly it > can, it happens every day. Science has never been so blind as to > make such a claim. But what Science HAS said, is that the bumblebee > is UNSTABLE in flight, an aerodynamically unsound design. This > doesn't mean or even imply that it can't fly. Just that there would > be easier and better ways to achieve flight. Not so. What science said until recently was simply that according to our understanding of fixed wing aeroplane flight the bumblebee had insufficient wing area to fly. Not that it was unstable. It is in fact unusually stable in flight due to its relatively low centre of gravity and large effective dihedral. The problem was that theoretically the wings weren't large enough to do the job they clearly were doing. So something was wrong with a simplified analysis of bee flight based on fixed wing aerodynamics. In the 1990s the important missing factor was discovered -- the trailing edge vortices which are such an important source of lift loss in fixed wing aerodynamics were exploited to add lift in the flight of many insects. In the 2000s high speed cinematography and mechanical simulations of bee wing motion demonstrated in practical detail that this was in fact what the bee was doing. -- Chris Malcolm
From: mikey4 on 23 Sep 2009 15:22 "Ray Fischer" <rfischer(a)sonic.net> wrote in message news:4aba62df$0$1606$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > Bill Graham <weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>The principal is simple and logical. When you make laws against carrying >>guns, only the law abiding citizens will obey these laws, and so only the >>criminals will carry guns, and the crime rate will go up. > > But that makes the illogical assumption that guns will continue to be > freely available even when illegal. Everybody knows that that is > nonsense. There would be vastly fewer guns and thus fewer people > killed by guns. > >>Why the hell the stupid liberals can't see and understand this is beyond >>me, > > Why you rightards canot simply look at the facts is bizarre. We see > that countries that have gun laws have lower rates of gun deaths. > It's not rocket science, but when you worship a cult then logic is the > first casualty. > > -- Following this logic we should ban cars and put everyone on bicycles. You are right ray this isn't rocket science and here's why. The following is taken from http://www.britainneedsguns.co.uk/gunmythspa2.htm Allowing homeowners to own guns would encourage intruders to arm themselves. Despite having been researching gun laws for over three years, I have found no evidence whatsoever to support this line of thinking. A "hot" burglary is a break in where the residents are at home when the criminals strike. In the United Kingdom 59 percent of burglaries are classed as "hot" burglaries. By contrast, the United States has a hot burglary rate of just 13 percent. Consistent with this, surveys of convicted felons in America reveal that during burglaries they are much more worried about encountering armed victims than they are about running into the police. This fear of potentially armed victims causes American burglars to spend more time "casing" a house to ensure nobody is home. Felons frequently comment in these interviews that they avoid late night burglaries because "that's the way to get shot". (Source - The Bias Against Guns by John R Lott, Jr Page 140) Look at all the gun deaths in the United States, there are far too many of them. In 2006 the United States had around 30,000 deaths from firearms, of those 55 percent were suicides. Around 650 gun deaths were classed as "accidental" or "unintentional". The number of people killed by motor vehicles in America is more than 3 times the number of people killed every year in accidents and murders involving guns. Despite the fact that they only make up between 7 and 8 percent of the population, almost half of all firearm homicide victims in the USA are young black males. Many of these are killed using illegal held weapons in poor, run down areas during gang or drug-related activity. If gang related violence is removed from the murder statistics, the US has a murder rate that is actually not far from the overall murder rate of the United Kingdom, and may actually be slightly lower. (Source - Center For Disease Control - Injury Mortality Reports 1999 - 2006 ) (Source - US Department Of Justice - Bureau of Justice Statistics ) (PDF File) And if that isn't enough we have an article in the New York Times showing a 50% increase in fatal stabbings. Ok every one turn in your knives... :) http://www.nytimes.com/2009/04/28/nyregion/28knives.html
From: D. Peter Maus on 23 Sep 2009 15:52 On 9/23/09 13:51 , Chris Malcolm wrote: > In rec.photo.digital D. Peter Maus<DPeterMaus(a)worldnet.att.net> wrote: >> On 9/23/09 10:01 , Chris Malcolm wrote: >>> In rec.photo.digital Bill Graham<weg9(a)comcast.net> wrote: >>> >>>> The principal is simple and logical. When you make laws against carrying >>>> guns, only the law abiding citizens will obey these laws, and so only the >>>> criminals will carry guns, and the crime rate will go up. When you allow >>>> everyone to carry guns, some percentage of the honest people will do so, and >>>> this is bad news for the criminals, and the crime rates will go down. Or. at >>>> least, the criminals will go elsewhere. >>> >>>> Why the hell the stupid liberals can't see and understand this is beyond me, >>>> but they can't, and haven't been able to for all of my life. >>> >>> It's the evidence, Bill. What those stupid liberals consider is the >>> evidence. What the stupid fools don't realise is that if you take >>> facts seriously you might have to change your mind about some >>> things. That's why if you know you're right it's so important to >>> ignore facts. But liberals are too stupid to realise that. > >> It's not a matter of stupidity, Chris. In fact, many liberals are >> among the brightest. But rather, it's a matter of selective and >> adaptive hearing that morph or redefine facts into conveniently >> ignored limitations. Limitations to be blown past by the elite, >> educated, and those privileged by their positions on core issues. > > I agree with your explanation about how sophisticated reasoners spin > the presentation of selective facts to persuade the gullible of a > desired point of view. It's now seems to have become generally > accepted by all political parties and large corporations that instead > of telling the public uncomfortable truths they should invent > plausible stories which justify what they think they should do. I remember a staff meeting at CBS where we were told that there are no experts, and that our position, once chosen is to be 'the truth.' And we spent the next several hours defining what 'truth' would be. > People > who are good at spinning plausible justifications for hidden agendas > are now so valuable that they command very high salaries indeed. No kidding. > > But I must correct your mistaken explanation of the hoary old > "scientists say the bumblebee can't fly". > >> Now, here's the fact. > >> No one has ever said that the bumblebee can't fly. Clearly it >> can, it happens every day. Science has never been so blind as to >> make such a claim. But what Science HAS said, is that the bumblebee >> is UNSTABLE in flight, an aerodynamically unsound design. This >> doesn't mean or even imply that it can't fly. Just that there would >> be easier and better ways to achieve flight. > > Not so. What science said until recently was simply that according to > our understanding of fixed wing aeroplane flight the bumblebee had > insufficient wing area to fly. Not that it was unstable. It is in fact > unusually stable in flight due to its relatively low centre of gravity > and large effective dihedral. The problem was that theoretically the > wings weren't large enough to do the job they clearly were doing. So > something was wrong with a simplified analysis of bee flight based on > fixed wing aerodynamics. Fair enough. I never heard anything growing up but that the bumblebee was unstable. Nor in Physics, either, for that matter. But this may be a distinction without a difference. The point still stands, that no one ever said that the bumblebee can't fly. Only that it was unstable, or, in the case you cite, that the current understanding of aerodynamic theory didn't support flight. Clearly, reality speaks and spoke a different volume. Either way, the point still stands that it was recognized that the bumblebee could fly. And it was equally understood that it could fly without breaking the laws of Physics. There was simply, as you state: > > In the 1990s the important missing factor was discovered -- the > trailing edge vortices which are such an important source of lift loss > in fixed wing aerodynamics were exploited to add lift in the flight of > many insects. In the 2000s high speed cinematography and mechanical > simulations of bee wing motion demonstrated in practical detail that > this was in fact what the bee was doing. Have you gotten to see those images? If you can, track them down. They're amazing. It will give you a new respect for so-called 'lower forms.' >
From: Bill Graham on 23 Sep 2009 18:20
"SMS" <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote in message news:4ab9f518$0$1653$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net... > John A. wrote: >> On Tue, 22 Sep 2009 21:19:45 -0700, "Bill Graham" <weg9(a)comcast.net> > >>> I am just trying to get converts to my cause. I want everyone to take >>> his/her streets back by putting fake and/or garage sale plates on their >>> automobiles or motor vehicles when they park, so their parking tickets >>> will go to never-never land as did mine for years and years. The streets >>> belong to the people!! - Take them back!! >>> >>> Or, you can continue to be a woos, and pay your liberal government for >>> stealing your streets from you and renting them back to you. >> >> You are quite mad. > > Fake plates may work once or twice, but what happens in some cities in > California is if you have too many outstanding tickets on a specific plate > number they will impound your car regardless of who the plate is > registered to. So you'd have to keep switching plates since they record > the plate numbers. Also you have to be careful about garage sale plates as > they are often stolen plates since in California the plate stays with the > car for the life of the car (unless your plates are stolen or lost then > you get new plates but the old plates are listed as missing in the > database and can't be used). The old plate could have outstanding tickets > on it as well. If they do impound your vehicle they have no way of > contacting you if the plates are fake, so you're stuck trying to figure > out where you car is, then proving that it's yours. > > While out of state plates used to be a pretty safe bet, now the computers > of many states are tied together, and the vehicle that the plate is > assigned to may show up on the officers computer in the car, and if it's > not the proper vehicle you'll be in a lot more trouble than just a $50 > parking ticket. It's just another bad idea by a communist that's trying to > undermine the U.S.. > > Advocating illegal activity is something that Bill and other Republicans > may support, but in reality it contributes to higher taxes when people > don't pay their fair share. All the sales tax evasion by buying out of > state drives up taxes for everyone else and hurts small business (not that > Republicans have ever cared about small businesses!). You have a funny definition of, "fair". but I should have expected that.....You are a liberal. Did it ever occur to you that sales taxes are not fair? They do represent double taxation, you know. Just how many times are you willing to let yourself be taxed on the same income? Have you ever heard of a "tea party"? Let's face it. You liberals are idiots. I have had to put up with your insanity all of my life. Today, I have found a way to live without your idiocy, but I still love to argue with you guys on this forum, just to remind myself that this world is full of illogic. |