The psychology of the bully
in [Slackware]
|
Prev: where is zmodem?
Next: props to the slack developers
From: rm on 15 May 2007 13:06 Two Ravens <two-ravens(a)operamail.com> wrote: > rm(a)biteme.org wrote: > >> No. ?A ".22" refers to a rimfire, not a centerfire. ?Centerfire >> cartridges are huge compared to the .22. > For most of the time whilst I was actively shooting calibre was defined by > the barrel rimfire or centrefire they were all considered to be '?22s' Horseshit. >> Again, a .223 is not a .22 and anyone who thinks so is being >> disengenuous. > see above the Nomenclature ?223 differentiates between it and the > rimfire it is still a ?22 barrel Oh, so you can put a .223 into a .22? Is that right? >> ?!? ?What does that have to do with anything? ?If you took a shot at >> a bear with a .22 you would have to be very lucky and shoot it in >> the eye or the throat. ?Even then it would probably kill you. ?But a >> .223 has 50% more power, enough to go through thick bone. > Indeed so! Where did I claim otherwise. But you can't shoot a .223 from a .22 rifle. Please, have a clue. You just want to argue. cordially, as always, rm
From: Two Ravens on 15 May 2007 15:03 rm(a)biteme.org wrote: > Horseshit. > When I had my first certificate the calibre was exactly that the calibre not the chambering, I happen to live in a different jurisdiction to you. > > Oh, so you can put a .223 into a .22? �Is that right? > No, and I didn't claim it was, the bullets from both will however fit the barrels of both, do not be mislead by their nomenclature, there are so many differing ways of measuring the calibre, across the groves across the lands or a non-existant measurement which is merely the trade description of the cartridge. > > But you can't shoot a .223 from a .22 rifle. > Where did I write that one could? > > Please, have a clue. �You just want to argue. > Do I, or could it be that I simply hold a differing point of view? -- Two Ravens "...hit the squirrel..."
From: rm on 15 May 2007 17:21 Two Ravens <two-ravens(a)operamail.com> wrote: > rm(a)biteme.org wrote: >> But you can't shoot a .223 from a .22 rifle. >> > Where did I write that one could? Well, you said that a .223 was a .22. If so, it should fit in a .22 rifle. But it doesn't. So functionally, and that is all that counts at the end of the day, a .223 is not a .22. >> Please, have a clue. ?You just want to argue. >> > Do I, or could it be that I simply hold a differing point of view? Nope. You just want to argue. Anyone who claims that a .223 is a ..22 just wants to argue. cordially, as always, rm
From: Two Ravens on 15 May 2007 18:21 rm(a)biteme.org wrote: > > Well, you said that a .223 was a .22. No I said that �223 bullets were the same calibre/diameter as �22 bullets I think that this discussion is not usefully going to go any further, so therefore I will agree that we disagree on this point. -- Two Ravens "...hit the squirrel..."
From: rm on 15 May 2007 19:28
Two Ravens <two-ravens(a)operamail.com> wrote: > rm(a)biteme.org wrote: >> >> Well, you said that a .223 was a .22. > > No I said that ?223 bullets were the same calibre/diameter as ?22 bullets > > I think that this discussion is not usefully going to go any further, so > therefore I will agree that we disagree on this point. Well, since you clipped it away, this is what you said: >For most of the time whilst I was actively shooting calibre was >defined by the barrel rimfire or centrefire they were all >considered to be '?22s' Now you said that "they were all considered to be '.22s'" This is what you said. And since "they" included the .223, you said that a ..223 is considered a .22. That's what you said. Now you can weasel around all you want. But we just quoted you. Now we think that we can agree on one thing: you don't have a clue. And we'll leave it at that. cordially, as always, rm |