What Kind of Sheep Allow Themselves to be Massacred Without Resisting?

April 21, 2007

"Omnipotent" <Omnipotent@heaven.org> wrote in message

news:462a5249$0$24756$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...

> Too_Many_Tools wrote:

>> On Apr 21, 1:20 am, Luc <zx034blas...@bazooka.e4ward.com> wrote:

>>> --forwarded post--

>>>

>>> >From what I gather, this Korean nutball took a .22 caliber pistol and

>>>

>>> a 9 mm pistol to Virignia Tech and began shooting. Those are not high

>>> powered, high-capacity magazine weapons. He shot two people, then

>>> left, came back, and opened fire. He was locked in a classroom with

>>> another sixty people who could not get out, and thus he shot them,

>>> reloaded, shot them, reloaded, shot them, reloaded, probably five to

>>> six times before he ran low on ammo and killed himself.

>>>

>>> Think about that. What group of people allows a gunman locked in a

>>> room with them to shoot them, stop, reload, shoot them, stop, reload,

>>> shoot them, stop, reload, and on and on and on. Sixty people were shot

>>> by one man with a pistol without a single one of them making any

>>> substantial resistance. Isn't this noteworthy? What kind of sheep live

>>> in our society who would allow someone to shoot them and sixty others

>>> without making any kind of resistance?

>>>

>>> The Virginia Tech shooting is a minor incident because, as a shooting,

>>> it has no greater relevance. Mentally ill individuals are inevitable

>>> in a society with 300 million people, and occassionally, there are

>>> going to be mass murders. This guy wasn't politically motivated; he

>>> doesn't seem to have been making any greater comment on society; he

>>> just got angry about a girl and killed a lot of people over it. This

>>> kind of garbage happens all the time and is just part of the human

>>> personality, though this is an extreme manifestation of it. Unlike

>>> even a flood or a hurricane, there is nothing that can be done to

>>> prevent these occassional incidents.

>>>

>>> If there is any greater message to be taken from this, it is a comment

>>> on how weak-willed people in our society have become that they would

>>> allow one man with a pistol to massacre them. With our brains full of

>>> all this garbage about how we can't fight, can't resist, have to go

>>> along, accept multi- culturalism, accept immigration, being loving, be

>>> tolerant, et cetera, the people of our society -- and particularly

>>> those who are groomed for the privileged layers of the working class,

>>> which is what all higher-salary workers are -- have been neutered and

>>> denied any sense of transcendence -- and thus are completely lacking

>>> in courage. They'd rather cringe under a desk and hope against reason

>>> to live than stand up and fight and lose their lives protecting

>>> others.

>>>

>>> That's the lesson of Virginia Tech. The fact that sixty people allowed

>>> themselves to be victimized by one gunman disgusts me almost more than

>>> the fact a gunman existed. Sick people like Cho are inevitable, but

>>> the lack of courage needed to face them is a unique product of the

>>> Judaification of society.

>>

>> Yeah...it must suck to you.

>>

>> Funny how you forgot to mention that one of the dead professors who

>> barricaded the door to the classroom with his body was a Jew...a

>> survivor from the camps.

Well he was the exception and perhaps being in a camp taught him something

about people that the soft spoiled US jews don't know.I remember something

someone I know said, he's an Israeli jew,he said "there's nothing worse than

a NY jew" lol

>>

>> His sacrifice saved over a dozen kids.

>>

>> And he died on international day for rememberance of the Nazi camps.

One day shy of Hitler's birthday on the 20th and the day of the Waco

massacre.

>>

>>>From what I have read so far, anybody in the line of fire did

>> everything they could to live...or for someone else to live.

>>

>>> The Virginia Tech shooting is a minor incident because, as a shooting,

>>> it has no greater relevance.

>>

>> Any SOB who thinks this needs to look down a barrel of a loaded gun

>> for an adjustment in their thinking...there is never a minor incident

>> when it comes to a needless and senseless death.

>>

>> In my corner of the world, I am going to make it VERY

>> RELEVANT....meanwhile you can go back and crawl under the rock you

>> came from.

He meant that this sort of thing happens and there is nothing you can really

do. Cho was not insane(the insane actually have a very low rate of violence)

but a bitter person who took his aggression out on others in revenge for

real or imagined slights probably involving females. If you really want to

avoid situations like this you should train females to be courteous to men

and not insult them.

>>

>> TMT

>>

>

> Your right, if all the people in the room would have charged the nut he

> wouldn't have reloaded the first time.

>

April 21, 2007

>>

>> others.

>>

>> That's the lesson of Virginia Tech. The fact that sixty people allowed

>> themselves to be victimized by one gunman disgusts me almost more than

>> the fact a gunman existed. Sick people like Cho are inevitable, but

>> the lack of courage needed to face them is a unique product of the

>> Judaification of society.

>

> I think you suffer from 20/20 hindsight, and a lack of understanding about

> human nature.

>

> Sure, looking back on it, a group rush would have saved many lives.

>

> People, however, don't think as groups, they think as individuals. The

> first person to try to rush him almost certainly will die;

I think the problem here is what people will do based on instinct,attitude

and how they were brought up. If your attitude was to immediately retaliate

without even thinking this guy would have been stopped. Furthermore, the

first person rushing him would not certainly die.It's very easy to miss when

you're under pressure and Cho may have panicked.

this may even

> have happened, I don't know. Upon seeing that failure, many others may

> have decided that their best survival chance was to do what the gunman

> said.

That's the problem, while some people will immediately act on instinct the

society at large is pussified. This attitude of trying to protect everyone

from everything is insane. When people encounter a hostile situation they

panic. This attitude permeates society even to trivial things like smoking.

Do we really have to make bars child friendly? lol

>

> There is also the "herd mentality", to do what everyone else was doing.

Exactly my point on society at large.

> In retrospect, that got a lot of them killed.

>

> Most people have never been in a situation where a murderer was in the

> process of mass murder, and don't know what to do. Doing what everyone

> else is doing would then seem a good choice. Of course, it wasn't. But

> there is a certain (il)logic to doing what the guy with the gun demands:

> perhaps he won't kill you if you comply? Why tell you what to do if he was

> going to kill you? You don't want to do what he says because it makes it

> easier to kill you, of course, but most people are afflicted with this

> thing called "hope" and "fear", and don't want to see it that way. Most

> people are incapable of accepting an ugly truth at all, and even less so

> when under pressure.

>

April 21, 2007

Support the gun industry, join the NRA. The gun industry sponsored gun lobbyist

NRA says that buying more guns from the gun manufacturers is the answer

to America's gun problem and the fact that lenient gun laws allow all kinds of

criminals to walk around threatening our lives with guns in the first place.

Myth: The Second Amendment guarantees the individual right to own a gun.

Fact: The Supreme Court has always interpreted this as a state's militia's

right, not an individual's.

Summary

Over the centuries, the Supreme Court has always ruled that the 2nd Amendment

protects the states' militia's rights to bear arms, and that this protection

does not extend to individuals. In fact, legal scholars consider the issue

"settled law." For this reason, the gun lobby does not fight for its perceived

constitutional right to keep and bear arms before the Supreme Court, but in

Congress. Interestingly, even interpreting an individual right in the 2nd

Amendment presents the gun lobby with some thorny problems, like the right to

keep and bear nuclear weapons.

Argument

The Second Amendment states:

"A well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free

state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

Pro-gun advocates claim that this amendment guarantees their individual right

to own a gun, and that gun control laws are therefore a violation of their

constitutional rights. In fact, the term "violation of our Second Amendment

rights" has become a battle cry in gun lobbyist literature, repeated everywhere

in their editorials and essays.

However, this raises a fascinating observation. If gun control laws are so

obviously a violation of the Second Amendment, then why doesn't the National

Rifle Association challenge them on constitutional grounds before the Supreme

Court? The answer is that they know they face certain defeat, for reasons we

shall explore below. Consequently, the NRA has abandoned all hope in the

courts.

Instead, the NRA has chosen to lobby Congress to prevent gun control

legislation, and has become in fact one of the most powerful lobbies on Capital

Hill. This is a supreme and exquisite irony, given the conservative and

libertarian's love of constitutions and hatred of democracy. But, at any rate,

the NRA is fighting for its perceived constitutional rights on Capital Hill, by

bribing our legislators with millions of dollars in campaign contributions.

The reason is because the Supreme Court -- this nation's final arbiter on the

interpretation of the Constitution -- has always ruled that the Second

Amendment does not extend the right to keep and bear arms to individuals, but

to the well-regulated militias mentioned in the first part of the amendment.

Specifically, these are militias that are regulated by the federal and state

governments. Article I, Section 8 authorizes Congress:

"To provide for calling forth the militia to execute the laws of the

union, suppress insurrections and repel invasions; to provide for organizing,

arming and disciplining the militia, and for governing such part of them as may

be employed in the service of the United States, reserving to the states

respectively the appointment of officers, and the authority of training the

militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."

The Founders were passionately opposed to standing peacetime armies -- in fact,

Thomas Jefferson listed it as one of their grievances against the British Crown

in the Declaration of Independence. Intent on eliminating this evil, they

created a system whereby citizens kept their arms at home and could be called

by their state militias at a moment's notice. These militias eventually became

the states' National Guard, and the courts have always interpreted them that

way.

In 1886, the Supreme Court ruled in Presser vs. Illinois that the Second

Amendment only prevents the federal government from interfering with a state's

ability to maintain a militia, and does nothing to limit the states' ability to

regulate firearms. Which means that states can regulate, control and even ban

firearms if they so desire!

Even so, this left a question about how much the federal government can limit a

citizen's right to own a gun. In 1939, the Supreme Court addressed this issue

in United States vs. Miller. Here, the Court refused to strike down a law

prohibiting the interstate commerce of a sawed-off shotgun on the basis of the

Second Amendment. Rejecting the argument that the shotgun had "some reasonable

relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well-regulated militia,"

the Court held that the Second Amendment "must be interpreted and applied" only

in the context of safeguarding the continuation and effectiveness of the state

militias.

In other words, the federal government is free to regulate and even ban guns so

long as it does not interfere with the state's ability to run a militia. Since

then, both the Supreme and lesser courts have consistently interpreted the

right to bear arms as a state's right, not an individual's right. At times they

have even expressed exasperation with some gun advocates' misinterpretation of

the Second Amendment.

In United States v. Warin, the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in 1976 upheld

the conviction of an illegal gun-owner who argued that his Second Amendment

rights had been violated. In pointed language, the court wrote: "It would

unduly extend this opinion to attempt to deal with every argument made by

defendant...all of which are based on the erroneous supposition that the Second

Amendment is concerned with the rights of individuals rather than those of the

states."

In 1972 Justice William O. Douglas wrote: "A powerful lobby dins into the ears

of our citizenry that these gun purchases are constitutional rights protected

by the Second Amendment....There is no reason why all pistols should not be

barred to everyone except the police."

Gun advocates have bitterly decried the "activist courts" that have supposedly

changed the plain meaning of the constitution. But over 100 years of courts

have interpreted a states'-rights meaning, and so has a broad body of

constitutional scholars. Gun advocates simply have a different "plain meaning"

of the constitution than everyone else, one that coincidentally legalizes their

desired goal of owning weapons.

The only apparent recourse for gun advocates now is to reject the system of

judicial review that has led to a perfect record of court defeats. But the

alternative is even worse: trusting Congress to pass laws that respect our

constitutional rights. On all other issues but gun ownership, the idea is

anathema to conservatives and libertarians.

But even accepting the gun lobby's interpretation of the Second Amendment does

not spare the gun owner from gun control. The amendment simply states that the

people have a right "to keep and bear" arms. It says absolutely nothing about

regulating them for safety, design or caliber. The gun lobby argues that the

lack of of such language means that individuals are free to own any arms they

please, and government cannot use constitutional silence to infer permission to

regulate them. But this isn't true; look at the First Amendment. It simply says

that "congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech" -- yet the

government regulates countless forms of speech -- slander, malicious

falsehoods, fraud, insider trading, etc. -- and these regulations are upheld by

the Supreme Court. The same principle applies to the regulation of guns.

This point becomes especially important when considering the regulation of arms

by category. For example: do the people have a right to own nuclear weapons?

(Pro-gun advocates contemptuously call this the "nuclear straw-man argument,"

yet they have not even come close to providing a satisfactory answer to it.)

How about chemical and biological weapons? Tanks? Battleships? Bombers? In a

society where people get drunk, angry, jealous, self-destructive and mentally

ill, you certainly wouldn't want the unregulated sale of nuclear weapons on the

market. Prohibition of such arms seems like the best thing to do, but, strictly

speaking, that too would be a violation of the Second Amendment.

Some pro-gun advocates admit that a literalist interpretation allows the right

to keep and bear all arms, including nuclear weapons, and that this is surely

archaic. Certainly the Founders could not have foreseen or intended this

situation. However, pro-gun advocates claim the correct reaction of modern

America should be to amend the constitution to exclude ownership of nuclear

weapons; creatively interpreting the constitution is the wrong way.

This is a curious argument, for a couple of reasons. First, the entire

rationale of an individual right to keep and bear arms is to defend against a

tyrannical government. But to surrender an advantage as overwhelming as nuclear

weapons and smart weaponry to the government is irrational. Given the

fanaticism of the gun lobby to protect themselves from government tyranny, this

meek acquiescence towards weapons of terrible destruction is more than little

strange, and begs explanation. It suggests that, down deep, the gun lobby is

not really serious about its claim that government threatens them. (How could

they be, in a democracy with high-speed, mass communication?) What is more

likely is that they feel the need to empower themselves, and firearms are

sufficient to fulfill that need.

The argument is also strange because it concedes a point to gun control;

namely, that there are some weapons so deadly that they should not be allowed

in society. That is exactly what gun-control advocates have been arguing, and

you don't need nuclear weapons to achieve the feared results; the U.S. already

has the high murder statistics to prove it with handguns alone.

The argument is also strange because the gun lobby fervently hopes to avoid

public mobilization on a constitutional amendment limiting the right to keep

and bear arms. A huge majority of Americans favor stricter gun control laws;

and as long as they're excluding nuclear weapons they might as well throw in

assault weapons and Saturday Night Specials.

But ultimately, calling for a constitutional amendment banning the ownership of

nuclear weapons is moot. Individuals do not even have a guaranteed right to

keep and bear firearms, much less modern military weapons. To overcome the

Supreme Court on this issue, the gun lobby would have to promote fundamental

changes in our political structure that would surely be disimprovements.

April 21, 2007

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:59:04 -0600, Notan

<notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>Omnipotent wrote:

>> Notan wrote:

>>> Omnipotent wrote:

>>>

>>> <snip>

>>>

>>>> Your right, if all the people in the room would have charged the nut

>>>> he wouldn't have reloaded the first time.

>>>

>>> What was the distance between Cho and those in the classroom?

>>>

>>> If it was anything more than 10-15 feet, with practice (and I'm sure

>>> he did)

>>> he'd have no problem loading a new magazine.

>>>

>>> Also remember that those in the classroom weren't ready for the events

>>> that

>>> followed... He was.

>>>

>>

>> They should have charged him while he was shooting. Somebody would have

>> tackled him before he needed to reload. If young people can't cover 15

>> to 20 feet in a few seconds they are in serious need of physical

>> conditioning.

>

>Easy to say, after the fact, from behind the security of a computer.

Nope.

http://www.cnn.com/US/9806/16/kinkel.arraign.update/

And Kip was stopped, in the middle of his shooting people in the

Thurston HS gym, by a group of boys that tackled him. One at least was

shot even before he nailed Kip. He fought anyway.

He didn't kill 32, but was well on his way, and well armed to carry it

out.

Now imagine if someone earlier in the shootings had had a gun to fight

back. That would be illegal, of course, to have a gun in a school.

Perfect place for the violent to act out with more safety for

themselves. Do away with restrictive stupid gun laws. If one can

legally carry at all there should be nowhere in public that one could

not carry.

I even hate having to check my gun into a locker before entering

court. There certainly have been shootings in courtrooms. Everyone was

defenseless but the bailiff, who often hasn't much choice but to duck

like everyone else. But if two or three were armed against the perp?

Try the real world, for a change, "Notan."

Kane

April 21, 2007

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 15:49:56 -0400, Omnipotent <Omnipotent@heaven.org>

wrote:

>Notan wrote:

>> Omnipotent wrote:

>>

>> <snip>

>>

>>> Your right, if all the people in the room would have charged the nut

>>> he wouldn't have reloaded the first time.

>>

>> What was the distance between Cho and those in the classroom?

>>

>> If it was anything more than 10-15 feet, with practice (and I'm sure he

>> did)

>> he'd have no problem loading a new magazine.

>>

>> Also remember that those in the classroom weren't ready for the events that

>> followed... He was.

>>

>

>They should have charged him while he was shooting. Somebody would have

>tackled him before he needed to reload. If young people can't cover 15

>to 20 feet in a few seconds they are in serious need of physical

>conditioning.

Highschool kids stopped Kip Kinkel at Thurston high. The primary one,

in fact, had already been shot by Kip. They took him down anyway. The

boy that tackled Kip survived.

And no one with a gun in the "guns off limits" victim shooting

gallery.

Except Kip.

He could not have wounded and killed so many, had there been armed

resistence from a staffer.

Kane

April 21, 2007

0:-] wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:59:04 -0600, Notan

> <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>

>> Omnipotent wrote:

>>> Notan wrote:

>>>> Omnipotent wrote:

>>>>

>>>> <snip>

>>>>

>>>>> Your right, if all the people in the room would have charged the nut

>>>>> he wouldn't have reloaded the first time.

>>>> What was the distance between Cho and those in the classroom?

>>>>

>>>> If it was anything more than 10-15 feet, with practice (and I'm sure

>>>> he did)

>>>> he'd have no problem loading a new magazine.

>>>>

>>>> Also remember that those in the classroom weren't ready for the events

>>>> that

>>>> followed... He was.

>>>>

>>>

>>> They should have charged him while he was shooting. Somebody would have

>>> tackled him before he needed to reload. If young people can't cover 15

>>> to 20 feet in a few seconds they are in serious need of physical

>>> conditioning.

>> Easy to say, after the fact, from behind the security of a computer.

>

> Nope.

>

> http://www.cnn.com/US/9806/16/kinkel.arraign.update/

>

> And Kip was stopped, in the middle of his shooting people in the

> Thurston HS gym, by a group of boys that tackled him. One at least was

> shot even before he nailed Kip. He fought anyway.

<snip>

> Try the real world, for a change, "Notan."

And unless the circumstances/scenarios/etc. were exactly the same,

there's no way to say what worked in one would work in the other.

Try the real world, for a change, "Kane."

--

Notan

April 22, 2007

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 16:06:30 -0600, Notan

<notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>0:-] wrote:

>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:59:04 -0600, Notan

>> <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>>

>>> Omnipotent wrote:

>>>> Notan wrote:

>>>>> Omnipotent wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>> <snip>

>>>>>

>>>>>> Your right, if all the people in the room would have charged the nut

>>>>>> he wouldn't have reloaded the first time.

>>>>> What was the distance between Cho and those in the classroom?

>>>>>

>>>>> If it was anything more than 10-15 feet, with practice (and I'm sure

>>>>> he did)

>>>>> he'd have no problem loading a new magazine.

>>>>>

>>>>> Also remember that those in the classroom weren't ready for the events

>>>>> that

>>>>> followed... He was.

>>>>>

>>>>

>>>> They should have charged him while he was shooting. Somebody would have

>>>> tackled him before he needed to reload. If young people can't cover 15

>>>> to 20 feet in a few seconds they are in serious need of physical

>>>> conditioning.

>>> Easy to say, after the fact, from behind the security of a computer.

>>

>> Nope.

>>

>> http://www.cnn.com/US/9806/16/kinkel.arraign.update/

>>

>> And Kip was stopped, in the middle of his shooting people in the

>> Thurston HS gym, by a group of boys that tackled him. One at least was

>> shot even before he nailed Kip. He fought anyway.

>

><snip>

>

>> Try the real world, for a change, "Notan."

>

>And unless the circumstances/scenarios/etc. were exactly the same,

>there's no way to say what worked in one would work in the other.

>

>Try the real world, for a change, "Kane."

I do. I have. I will. Trust me on this.

R R R R R ... you just insisted that I cannot, since no two scenarios

are exact. Of course they aren't. That does not stop me. Does it you?

Why would you claim that one can't make good predictions based on

approximations?

These things are studied and certain outcomes ARE predictable.

One such was made by the FBI: Those intended victims that fight back

increase their odds of survival and those that fight back ARMED

increase their chances even more.

You wouldn't really want to claim that there are not various scenarios

where fighting back could save lives, each different than the prior

ones, now would you?

Did you read the link I posted a number of times today on violent or

potentially violent confrontations where fighting back won the day?

Or do you need, to survive emotionally, the idea that it's hopeless to

fight back and cowering in approaching death is more sensible?

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

All different unduplicate scenarios that resulting in wins for the

armed intended victims, or someone that came to their rescue armed.

Live with it

Kane

April 22, 2007

You do not know if nobody tried to fight back.

Maybe some did.

"Luc" <zx034blast56@bazooka.e4ward.com> wrote in message

news:1177136452.388185.134240@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...

> --forwarded post--

>

> >From what I gather, this Korean nutball took a .22 caliber pistol and

> a 9 mm pistol to Virignia Tech and began shooting. Those are not high

> powered, high-capacity magazine weapons. He shot two people, then

> left, came back, and opened fire. He was locked in a classroom with

> another sixty people who could not get out, and thus he shot them,

> reloaded, shot them, reloaded, shot them, reloaded, probably five to

> six times before he ran low on ammo and killed himself.

>

> Think about that. What group of people allows a gunman locked in a

> room with them to shoot them, stop, reload, shoot them, stop, reload,

> shoot them, stop, reload, and on and on and on. Sixty people were shot

> by one man with a pistol without a single one of them making any

> substantial resistance. Isn't this noteworthy? What kind of sheep live

> in our society who would allow someone to shoot them and sixty others

> without making any kind of resistance?

>

> The Virginia Tech shooting is a minor incident because, as a shooting,

> it has no greater relevance. Mentally ill individuals are inevitable

> in a society with 300 million people, and occassionally, there are

> going to be mass murders. This guy wasn't politically motivated; he

> doesn't seem to have been making any greater comment on society; he

> just got angry about a girl and killed a lot of people over it. This

> kind of garbage happens all the time and is just part of the human

> personality, though this is an extreme manifestation of it. Unlike

> even a flood or a hurricane, there is nothing that can be done to

> prevent these occassional incidents.

>

> If there is any greater message to be taken from this, it is a comment

> on how weak-willed people in our society have become that they would

> allow one man with a pistol to massacre them. With our brains full of

> all this garbage about how we can't fight, can't resist, have to go

> along, accept multi- culturalism, accept immigration, being loving, be

> tolerant, et cetera, the people of our society -- and particularly

> those who are groomed for the privileged layers of the working class,

> which is what all higher-salary workers are -- have been neutered and

> denied any sense of transcendence -- and thus are completely lacking

> in courage. They'd rather cringe under a desk and hope against reason

> to live than stand up and fight and lose their lives protecting

> others.

>

> That's the lesson of Virginia Tech. The fact that sixty people allowed

> themselves to be victimized by one gunman disgusts me almost more than

> the fact a gunman existed. Sick people like Cho are inevitable, but

> the lack of courage needed to face them is a unique product of the

> Judaification of society.

>

April 22, 2007

0:-] wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 16:06:30 -0600, Notan

> <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>

>> 0:-] wrote:

>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:59:04 -0600, Notan

>>> <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Omnipotent wrote:

>>>>> Notan wrote:

>>>>>> Omnipotent wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>> <snip>

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Your right, if all the people in the room would have charged the nut

>>>>>>> he wouldn't have reloaded the first time.

>>>>>> What was the distance between Cho and those in the classroom?

>>>>>>

>>>>>> If it was anything more than 10-15 feet, with practice (and I'm sure

>>>>>> he did)

>>>>>> he'd have no problem loading a new magazine.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Also remember that those in the classroom weren't ready for the events

>>>>>> that

>>>>>> followed... He was.

>>>>>>

>>>>> They should have charged him while he was shooting. Somebody would have

>>>>> tackled him before he needed to reload. If young people can't cover 15

>>>>> to 20 feet in a few seconds they are in serious need of physical

>>>>> conditioning.

>>>> Easy to say, after the fact, from behind the security of a computer.

>>> Nope.

>>>

>>> http://www.cnn.com/US/9806/16/kinkel.arraign.update/

>>>

>>> And Kip was stopped, in the middle of his shooting people in the

>>> Thurston HS gym, by a group of boys that tackled him. One at least was

>>> shot even before he nailed Kip. He fought anyway.

>> <snip>

>>

>>> Try the real world, for a change, "Notan."

>> And unless the circumstances/scenarios/etc. were exactly the same,

>> there's no way to say what worked in one would work in the other.

>>

>> Try the real world, for a change, "Kane."

>

> I do. I have. I will. Trust me on this.

>

> R R R R R ... you just insisted that I cannot, since no two scenarios

> are exact. Of course they aren't. That does not stop me. Does it you?

>

> Why would you claim that one can't make good predictions based on

> approximations?

>

> These things are studied and certain outcomes ARE predictable.

>

> One such was made by the FBI: Those intended victims that fight back

> increase their odds of survival and those that fight back ARMED

> increase their chances even more.

>

> You wouldn't really want to claim that there are not various scenarios

> where fighting back could save lives, each different than the prior

> ones, now would you?

>

> Did you read the link I posted a number of times today on violent or

> potentially violent confrontations where fighting back won the day?

>

> Or do you need, to survive emotionally, the idea that it's hopeless to

> fight back and cowering in approaching death is more sensible?

>

> http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

>

> All different unduplicate scenarios that resulting in wins for the

> armed intended victims, or someone that came to their rescue armed.

I'm not saying that, in general, attempting to stop an attacker isn't

better than just sitting back, but there are circumstances where it's

not.

You said, "They should have charged him while he was shooting. Somebody

would have tackled him before he needed to reload..."

Without knowing the layout of the room, the training, if any, the people

had in self-defense, <again> how close Cho was to the people, and a

multitude of other variables, there's no way to know what a "stand" would

have resulted in. It's possible they did try to rush him.

But your answer is an absolute. If they did this, this is what the

outcome would have been.

Unless you know something that no one else seems to know, it's nothing

but speculation.

--

Notan

April 22, 2007

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 19:36:57 -0600, Notan

<notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>0:-] wrote:

>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 16:06:30 -0600, Notan

>> <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>>

>>> 0:-] wrote:

>>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:59:04 -0600, Notan

>>>> <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Omnipotent wrote:

>>>>>> Notan wrote:

>>>>>>> Omnipotent wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> <snip>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Your right, if all the people in the room would have charged the nut

>>>>>>>> he wouldn't have reloaded the first time.

>>>>>>> What was the distance between Cho and those in the classroom?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> If it was anything more than 10-15 feet, with practice (and I'm sure

>>>>>>> he did)

>>>>>>> he'd have no problem loading a new magazine.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Also remember that those in the classroom weren't ready for the events

>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>> followed... He was.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>> They should have charged him while he was shooting. Somebody would have

>>>>>> tackled him before he needed to reload. If young people can't cover 15

>>>>>> to 20 feet in a few seconds they are in serious need of physical

>>>>>> conditioning.

>>>>> Easy to say, after the fact, from behind the security of a computer.

>>>> Nope.

>>>>

>>>> http://www.cnn.com/US/9806/16/kinkel.arraign.update/

>>>>

>>>> And Kip was stopped, in the middle of his shooting people in the

>>>> Thurston HS gym, by a group of boys that tackled him. One at least was

>>>> shot even before he nailed Kip. He fought anyway.

>>> <snip>

>>>

>>>> Try the real world, for a change, "Notan."

>>> And unless the circumstances/scenarios/etc. were exactly the same,

>>> there's no way to say what worked in one would work in the other.

>>>

>>> Try the real world, for a change, "Kane."

>>

>> I do. I have. I will. Trust me on this.

>>

>> R R R R R ... you just insisted that I cannot, since no two scenarios

>> are exact. Of course they aren't. That does not stop me. Does it you?

>>

>> Why would you claim that one can't make good predictions based on

>> approximations?

>>

>> These things are studied and certain outcomes ARE predictable.

>>

>> One such was made by the FBI: Those intended victims that fight back

>> increase their odds of survival and those that fight back ARMED

>> increase their chances even more.

>>

>> You wouldn't really want to claim that there are not various scenarios

>> where fighting back could save lives, each different than the prior

>> ones, now would you?

>>

>> Did you read the link I posted a number of times today on violent or

>> potentially violent confrontations where fighting back won the day?

>>

>> Or do you need, to survive emotionally, the idea that it's hopeless to

>> fight back and cowering in approaching death is more sensible?

>>

>> http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

>>

>> All different unduplicate scenarios that resulting in wins for the

>> armed intended victims, or someone that came to their rescue armed.

>

>I'm not saying that, in general, attempting to stop an attacker isn't

>better than just sitting back, but there are circumstances where it's

>not.

>

>You said, "They should have charged him while he was shooting. Somebody

>would have tackled him before he needed to reload..."

>

>Without knowing the layout of the room, the training, if any, the people

>had in self-defense, <again> how close Cho was to the people, and a

>multitude of other variables, there's no way to know what a "stand" would

>have resulted in. It's possible they did try to rush him.

>

>But your answer is an absolute. If they did this, this is what the

>outcome would have been.

>

>Unless you know something that no one else seems to know, it's nothing

>but speculation.

News Bulletin for Notan:

Every object in a room is a potential weapon. How hard would it have

been to throw tables and chairs at the perp? 30 people with a room

full of very hard material objects, some of which must have been in

and on their desks. All throwing shit at the perp at the same time

whilst rushing him with some table in front of you to slow down the

ammo.

PEOPLE NEED TO BE TRAINED TO REACT AGRESSIVELY WHEN ATTACKED.

SUBMISSION EQUALS DEATH.

It is kill or be killed. Remember that Notan. You kill them, or they

WILL kill you. There is no choice in such a situation. Kill them or

die.

Lg

April 22, 2007

Lawrence Glickman wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 19:36:57 -0600, Notan

> <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>

>> 0:-] wrote:

>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 16:06:30 -0600, Notan

>>> <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>>>

>>>> 0:-] wrote:

>>>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:59:04 -0600, Notan

>>>>> <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>>> Omnipotent wrote:

>>>>>>> Notan wrote:

>>>>>>>> Omnipotent wrote:

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> <snip>

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Your right, if all the people in the room would have charged the nut

>>>>>>>>> he wouldn't have reloaded the first time.

>>>>>>>> What was the distance between Cho and those in the classroom?

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> If it was anything more than 10-15 feet, with practice (and I'm sure

>>>>>>>> he did)

>>>>>>>> he'd have no problem loading a new magazine.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Also remember that those in the classroom weren't ready for the events

>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>> followed... He was.

>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> They should have charged him while he was shooting. Somebody would have

>>>>>>> tackled him before he needed to reload. If young people can't cover 15

>>>>>>> to 20 feet in a few seconds they are in serious need of physical

>>>>>>> conditioning.

>>>>>> Easy to say, after the fact, from behind the security of a computer.

>>>>> Nope.

>>>>>

>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/US/9806/16/kinkel.arraign.update/

>>>>>

>>>>> And Kip was stopped, in the middle of his shooting people in the

>>>>> Thurston HS gym, by a group of boys that tackled him. One at least was

>>>>> shot even before he nailed Kip. He fought anyway.

>>>> <snip>

>>>>

>>>>> Try the real world, for a change, "Notan."

>>>> And unless the circumstances/scenarios/etc. were exactly the same,

>>>> there's no way to say what worked in one would work in the other.

>>>>

>>>> Try the real world, for a change, "Kane."

>>> I do. I have. I will. Trust me on this.

>>>

>>> R R R R R ... you just insisted that I cannot, since no two scenarios

>>> are exact. Of course they aren't. That does not stop me. Does it you?

>>>

>>> Why would you claim that one can't make good predictions based on

>>> approximations?

>>>

>>> These things are studied and certain outcomes ARE predictable.

>>>

>>> One such was made by the FBI: Those intended victims that fight back

>>> increase their odds of survival and those that fight back ARMED

>>> increase their chances even more.

>>>

>>> You wouldn't really want to claim that there are not various scenarios

>>> where fighting back could save lives, each different than the prior

>>> ones, now would you?

>>>

>>> Did you read the link I posted a number of times today on violent or

>>> potentially violent confrontations where fighting back won the day?

>>>

>>> Or do you need, to survive emotionally, the idea that it's hopeless to

>>> fight back and cowering in approaching death is more sensible?

>>>

>>> http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

>>>

>>> All different unduplicate scenarios that resulting in wins for the

>>> armed intended victims, or someone that came to their rescue armed.

>> I'm not saying that, in general, attempting to stop an attacker isn't

>> better than just sitting back, but there are circumstances where it's

>> not.

>>

>> You said, "They should have charged him while he was shooting. Somebody

>> would have tackled him before he needed to reload..."

>>

>> Without knowing the layout of the room, the training, if any, the people

>> had in self-defense, <again> how close Cho was to the people, and a

>> multitude of other variables, there's no way to know what a "stand" would

>> have resulted in. It's possible they did try to rush him.

>>

>> But your answer is an absolute. If they did this, this is what the

>> outcome would have been.

>>

>> Unless you know something that no one else seems to know, it's nothing

>> but speculation.

>

> News Bulletin for Notan:

>

> Every object in a room is a potential weapon. How hard would it have

> been to throw tables and chairs at the perp? 30 people with a room

> full of very hard material objects, some of which must have been in

> and on their desks. All throwing shit at the perp at the same time

> whilst rushing him with some table in front of you to slow down the

> ammo.

>

> PEOPLE NEED TO BE TRAINED TO REACT AGRESSIVELY WHEN ATTACKED.

> SUBMISSION EQUALS DEATH.

>

> It is kill or be killed. Remember that Notan. You kill them, or they

> WILL kill you. There is no choice in such a situation. Kill them or

> die.

Was it a classroom with tables and chairs? Or was it a lecture hall,

where everything is bolted down?

--

Notan

April 22, 2007

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:35:28 -0600, Notan

<notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>Lawrence Glickman wrote:

>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 19:36:57 -0600, Notan

>> <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>>

>>> 0:-] wrote:

>>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 16:06:30 -0600, Notan

>>>> <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> 0:-] wrote:

>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:59:04 -0600, Notan

>>>>>> <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Omnipotent wrote:

>>>>>>>> Notan wrote:

>>>>>>>>> Omnipotent wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> <snip>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Your right, if all the people in the room would have charged the nut

>>>>>>>>>> he wouldn't have reloaded the first time.

>>>>>>>>> What was the distance between Cho and those in the classroom?

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> If it was anything more than 10-15 feet, with practice (and I'm sure

>>>>>>>>> he did)

>>>>>>>>> he'd have no problem loading a new magazine.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Also remember that those in the classroom weren't ready for the events

>>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>> followed... He was.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> They should have charged him while he was shooting. Somebody would have

>>>>>>>> tackled him before he needed to reload. If young people can't cover 15

>>>>>>>> to 20 feet in a few seconds they are in serious need of physical

>>>>>>>> conditioning.

>>>>>>> Easy to say, after the fact, from behind the security of a computer.

>>>>>> Nope.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/US/9806/16/kinkel.arraign.update/

>>>>>>

>>>>>> And Kip was stopped, in the middle of his shooting people in the

>>>>>> Thurston HS gym, by a group of boys that tackled him. One at least was

>>>>>> shot even before he nailed Kip. He fought anyway.

>>>>> <snip>

>>>>>

>>>>>> Try the real world, for a change, "Notan."

>>>>> And unless the circumstances/scenarios/etc. were exactly the same,

>>>>> there's no way to say what worked in one would work in the other.

>>>>>

>>>>> Try the real world, for a change, "Kane."

>>>> I do. I have. I will. Trust me on this.

>>>>

>>>> R R R R R ... you just insisted that I cannot, since no two scenarios

>>>> are exact. Of course they aren't. That does not stop me. Does it you?

>>>>

>>>> Why would you claim that one can't make good predictions based on

>>>> approximations?

>>>>

>>>> These things are studied and certain outcomes ARE predictable.

>>>>

>>>> One such was made by the FBI: Those intended victims that fight back

>>>> increase their odds of survival and those that fight back ARMED

>>>> increase their chances even more.

>>>>

>>>> You wouldn't really want to claim that there are not various scenarios

>>>> where fighting back could save lives, each different than the prior

>>>> ones, now would you?

>>>>

>>>> Did you read the link I posted a number of times today on violent or

>>>> potentially violent confrontations where fighting back won the day?

>>>>

>>>> Or do you need, to survive emotionally, the idea that it's hopeless to

>>>> fight back and cowering in approaching death is more sensible?

>>>>

>>>> http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

>>>>

>>>> All different unduplicate scenarios that resulting in wins for the

>>>> armed intended victims, or someone that came to their rescue armed.

>>> I'm not saying that, in general, attempting to stop an attacker isn't

>>> better than just sitting back, but there are circumstances where it's

>>> not.

>>>

>>> You said, "They should have charged him while he was shooting. Somebody

>>> would have tackled him before he needed to reload..."

>>>

>>> Without knowing the layout of the room, the training, if any, the people

>>> had in self-defense, <again> how close Cho was to the people, and a

>>> multitude of other variables, there's no way to know what a "stand" would

>>> have resulted in. It's possible they did try to rush him.

>>>

>>> But your answer is an absolute. If they did this, this is what the

>>> outcome would have been.

>>>

>>> Unless you know something that no one else seems to know, it's nothing

>>> but speculation.

>>

>> News Bulletin for Notan:

>>

>> Every object in a room is a potential weapon. How hard would it have

>> been to throw tables and chairs at the perp? 30 people with a room

>> full of very hard material objects, some of which must have been in

>> and on their desks. All throwing shit at the perp at the same time

>> whilst rushing him with some table in front of you to slow down the

>> ammo.

>>

>> PEOPLE NEED TO BE TRAINED TO REACT AGRESSIVELY WHEN ATTACKED.

>> SUBMISSION EQUALS DEATH.

>>

>> It is kill or be killed. Remember that Notan. You kill them, or they

>> WILL kill you. There is no choice in such a situation. Kill them or

>> die.

>

>Was it a classroom with tables and chairs? Or was it a lecture hall,

>where everything is bolted down?

It was a classroom. But how would you like to be the target of 30

notebook computers thrown at you with extreme prejudice. All the

books that were available, equals a bag of bricks for each student.

You need two things to survive.

Guts and brains.

Lg

April 22, 2007

Lawrence Glickman wrote:

<snip>

> It was a classroom. But how would you like to be the target of 30

> notebook computers thrown at you with extreme prejudice. All the

> books that were available, equals a bag of bricks for each student.

>

> You need two things to survive.

>

> Guts and brains.

Somehow, y'all know exactly what should have been done, without

any clue as to what might have been done. If anything.

Isn't armchair, after-the-fact quarterbacking a wonderful thing.

Most of you would probably just shit yourselves, if ever put in

a similar situation.

--

Notan

April 22, 2007

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:47:38 -0600, Notan

<notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>Lawrence Glickman wrote:

>

><snip>

>

>> It was a classroom. But how would you like to be the target of 30

>> notebook computers thrown at you with extreme prejudice. All the

>> books that were available, equals a bag of bricks for each student.

>>

>> You need two things to survive.

>>

>> Guts and brains.

>

>Somehow, y'all know exactly what should have been done, without

>any clue as to what might have been done. If anything.

>

>Isn't armchair, after-the-fact quarterbacking a wonderful thing.

>

>Most of you would probably just shit yourselves, if ever put in

>a similar situation.

I am tempted to call you a FUCKING NITWIT, but won't because that

would reflect badly on myself.

I have looked down the wrong end of a gun barrel more times than you

have jacked off. I've lived to tell the tale because I have been

ARMED WITH A KNIFE. IOW, you try to kill me, you are coming along for

the ride.

The time I faced down 5 full grown men, college age, whilst alone in

the wilderness, where my remains wouldn't have been found except by a

dog.

The times in the City I've been chased through streets and alleyways

by madmen with bad thoughts in their heads. You haven't a fucking

clue. I'm 61, alive, and will KILL anybody who tries to bring harm to

myself or my family. I will kill them dead. I have little to live

for except to try to wake you freaks out of your drug-induced comas.

I was hitch hiking on night and the guy who picked me up pulled a gun

on me and held it to my head. I pulled my razor knife and held it

tight to his jugular vein. I commanded him to stop the vehicle and

let me out or we BOTH were going to die. If he didn't get that bullet

placement just right, my muscular reflex would have slit him open in

the middle of nowhere and he would have died from exsanguination.

I've been in more fights than you have dreamed of. Some for my Life.

You cannot say the same. I won them all, in one way or another, and

have the scars to prove it.

Lg

April 22, 2007

Lawrence Glickman wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:47:38 -0600, Notan

> <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>

>> Lawrence Glickman wrote:

>>

>> <snip>

>>

>>> It was a classroom. But how would you like to be the target of 30

>>> notebook computers thrown at you with extreme prejudice. All the

>>> books that were available, equals a bag of bricks for each student.

>>>

>>> You need two things to survive.

>>>

>>> Guts and brains.

>> Somehow, y'all know exactly what should have been done, without

>> any clue as to what might have been done. If anything.

>>

>> Isn't armchair, after-the-fact quarterbacking a wonderful thing.

>>

>> Most of you would probably just shit yourselves, if ever put in

>> a similar situation.

>

> I am tempted to call you a FUCKING NITWIT, but won't because that

> would reflect badly on myself.

>

> I have looked down the wrong end of a gun barrel more times than you

> have jacked off. I've lived to tell the tale because I have been

> ARMED WITH A KNIFE. IOW, you try to kill me, you are coming along for

> the ride.

>

> The time I faced down 5 full grown men, college age, whilst alone in

> the wilderness, where my remains wouldn't have been found except by a

> dog.

>

> The times in the City I've been chased through streets and alleyways

> by madmen with bad thoughts in their heads. You haven't a fucking

> clue. I'm 61, alive, and will KILL anybody who tries to bring harm to

> myself or my family. I will kill them dead. I have little to live

> for except to try to wake you freaks out of your drug-induced comas.

>

> I was hitch hiking on night and the guy who picked me up pulled a gun

> on me and held it to my head. I pulled my razor knife and held it

> tight to his jugular vein. I commanded him to stop the vehicle and

> let me out or we BOTH were going to die. If he didn't get that bullet

> placement just right, my muscular reflex would have slit him open in

> the middle of nowhere and he would have died from exsanguination.

>

> I've been in more fights than you have dreamed of. Some for my Life.

> You cannot say the same. I won them all, in one way or another, and

> have the scars to prove it.

And, yet, you still live in what describe as a bad part of town (to say

the least), and probably continue to put yourself in situations where

you can "prove yourself."

I am tempted to call you a FUCKING NITWIT, but won't because that would

reflect badly on myself.

--

Notan

April 22, 2007

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:35:28 -0600, Notan

<notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>Lawrence Glickman wrote:

>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 19:36:57 -0600, Notan

>> <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>>

>>> 0:-] wrote:

>>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 16:06:30 -0600, Notan

>>>> <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> 0:-] wrote:

>>>>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:59:04 -0600, Notan

>>>>>> <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Omnipotent wrote:

>>>>>>>> Notan wrote:

>>>>>>>>> Omnipotent wrote:

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> <snip>

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>>> Your right, if all the people in the room would have charged the nut

>>>>>>>>>> he wouldn't have reloaded the first time.

>>>>>>>>> What was the distance between Cho and those in the classroom?

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> If it was anything more than 10-15 feet, with practice (and I'm sure

>>>>>>>>> he did)

>>>>>>>>> he'd have no problem loading a new magazine.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>>> Also remember that those in the classroom weren't ready for the events

>>>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>>>> followed... He was.

>>>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> They should have charged him while he was shooting. Somebody would have

>>>>>>>> tackled him before he needed to reload. If young people can't cover 15

>>>>>>>> to 20 feet in a few seconds they are in serious need of physical

>>>>>>>> conditioning.

>>>>>>> Easy to say, after the fact, from behind the security of a computer.

>>>>>> Nope.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> http://www.cnn.com/US/9806/16/kinkel.arraign.update/

>>>>>>

>>>>>> And Kip was stopped, in the middle of his shooting people in the

>>>>>> Thurston HS gym, by a group of boys that tackled him. One at least was

>>>>>> shot even before he nailed Kip. He fought anyway.

>>>>> <snip>

>>>>>

>>>>>> Try the real world, for a change, "Notan."

>>>>> And unless the circumstances/scenarios/etc. were exactly the same,

>>>>> there's no way to say what worked in one would work in the other.

>>>>>

>>>>> Try the real world, for a change, "Kane."

>>>> I do. I have. I will. Trust me on this.

>>>>

>>>> R R R R R ... you just insisted that I cannot, since no two scenarios

>>>> are exact. Of course they aren't. That does not stop me. Does it you?

>>>>

>>>> Why would you claim that one can't make good predictions based on

>>>> approximations?

>>>>

>>>> These things are studied and certain outcomes ARE predictable.

>>>>

>>>> One such was made by the FBI: Those intended victims that fight back

>>>> increase their odds of survival and those that fight back ARMED

>>>> increase their chances even more.

>>>>

>>>> You wouldn't really want to claim that there are not various scenarios

>>>> where fighting back could save lives, each different than the prior

>>>> ones, now would you?

>>>>

>>>> Did you read the link I posted a number of times today on violent or

>>>> potentially violent confrontations where fighting back won the day?

>>>>

>>>> Or do you need, to survive emotionally, the idea that it's hopeless to

>>>> fight back and cowering in approaching death is more sensible?

>>>>

>>>> http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

>>>>

>>>> All different unduplicate scenarios that resulting in wins for the

>>>> armed intended victims, or someone that came to their rescue armed.

>>> I'm not saying that, in general, attempting to stop an attacker isn't

>>> better than just sitting back, but there are circumstances where it's

>>> not.

>>>

>>> You said, "They should have charged him while he was shooting. Somebody

>>> would have tackled him before he needed to reload..."

>>>

>>> Without knowing the layout of the room, the training, if any, the people

>>> had in self-defense, <again> how close Cho was to the people, and a

>>> multitude of other variables, there's no way to know what a "stand" would

>>> have resulted in. It's possible they did try to rush him.

>>>

>>> But your answer is an absolute. If they did this, this is what the

>>> outcome would have been.

>>>

>>> Unless you know something that no one else seems to know, it's nothing

>>> but speculation.

>>

>> News Bulletin for Notan:

>>

>> Every object in a room is a potential weapon. How hard would it have

>> been to throw tables and chairs at the perp? 30 people with a room

>> full of very hard material objects, some of which must have been in

>> and on their desks. All throwing shit at the perp at the same time

>> whilst rushing him with some table in front of you to slow down the

>> ammo.

>>

>> PEOPLE NEED TO BE TRAINED TO REACT AGRESSIVELY WHEN ATTACKED.

>> SUBMISSION EQUALS DEATH.

>>

>> It is kill or be killed. Remember that Notan. You kill them, or they

>> WILL kill you. There is no choice in such a situation. Kill them or

>> die.

>

>Was it a classroom with tables and chairs? Or was it a lecture hall,

>where everything is bolted down?

Then you throw books, brief cases, purses, cell phones, IPods.....

--

There may come a time when the CO2 police will wander the earth telling

the poor and the dispossed how many dung chips they can put on their

cook fires. -- Captain Compassion.

Wherever I go it will be well with me, for it was well with me here, not

on account of the place, but of my judgments which I shall carry away

with me, for no one can deprive me of these; on the contrary, they alone

are my property, and cannot be taken away, and to possess them suffices

me wherever I am or whatever I do. -- EPICTETUS

"Civilization is the interval between Ice Ages." -- Will Durant.

"Progress is the increasing control of the environment by life.

--Will Durant

Joseph R. Darancette

daranc@NOSPAMcharter.net

April 22, 2007

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:13:58 -0600, Notan

<notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>Lawrence Glickman wrote:

>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:47:38 -0600, Notan

>> <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>>

>>> Lawrence Glickman wrote:

>>>

>>> <snip>

>>>

>>>> It was a classroom. But how would you like to be the target of 30

>>>> notebook computers thrown at you with extreme prejudice. All the

>>>> books that were available, equals a bag of bricks for each student.

>>>>

>>>> You need two things to survive.

>>>>

>>>> Guts and brains.

>>> Somehow, y'all know exactly what should have been done, without

>>> any clue as to what might have been done. If anything.

>>>

>>> Isn't armchair, after-the-fact quarterbacking a wonderful thing.

>>>

>>> Most of you would probably just shit yourselves, if ever put in

>>> a similar situation.

>>

>> I am tempted to call you a FUCKING NITWIT, but won't because that

>> would reflect badly on myself.

>>

>> I have looked down the wrong end of a gun barrel more times than you

>> have jacked off. I've lived to tell the tale because I have been

>> ARMED WITH A KNIFE. IOW, you try to kill me, you are coming along for

>> the ride.

>>

>> The time I faced down 5 full grown men, college age, whilst alone in

>> the wilderness, where my remains wouldn't have been found except by a

>> dog.

>>

>> The times in the City I've been chased through streets and alleyways

>> by madmen with bad thoughts in their heads. You haven't a fucking

>> clue. I'm 61, alive, and will KILL anybody who tries to bring harm to

>> myself or my family. I will kill them dead. I have little to live

>> for except to try to wake you freaks out of your drug-induced comas.

>>

>> I was hitch hiking on night and the guy who picked me up pulled a gun

>> on me and held it to my head. I pulled my razor knife and held it

>> tight to his jugular vein. I commanded him to stop the vehicle and

>> let me out or we BOTH were going to die. If he didn't get that bullet

>> placement just right, my muscular reflex would have slit him open in

>> the middle of nowhere and he would have died from exsanguination.

>>

>> I've been in more fights than you have dreamed of. Some for my Life.

>> You cannot say the same. I won them all, in one way or another, and

>> have the scars to prove it.

>

>And, yet, you still live in what describe as a bad part of town (to say

>the least), and probably continue to put yourself in situations where

>you can "prove yourself."

>

>I am tempted to call you a FUCKING NITWIT, but won't because that would

>reflect badly on myself.

Are you a 13 year old pizza face like I thought??

prove myself? I don't have to prove anything to anybody, except that

if they try to harm me, they're going to regret it for the brief few

minutes they have left on earth.

Some day you might grow up, but I highly doubt it. You may grow old,

but I don't think you have what it takes to grow up.

Lg

April 22, 2007

Captain Compassion wrote:

<snip>

> Then you throw books, brief cases, purses, cell phones, IPods.....

For all we know, these were first year students, just out of high school.

How much experience, in the real world, do high schoolers have?

Do you really expect someone of this age to do anything, when face-to-face

with some gun waving lunatic, other than freeze?

Maybe a few of them did throw things... And maybe they were the first to

be shot!

--

Notan

April 22, 2007

Lawrence Glickman wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:13:58 -0600, Notan

> <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>

>> Lawrence Glickman wrote:

>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:47:38 -0600, Notan

>>> <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>>>

>>>> Lawrence Glickman wrote:

>>>>

>>>> <snip>

>>>>

>>>>> It was a classroom. But how would you like to be the target of 30

>>>>> notebook computers thrown at you with extreme prejudice. All the

>>>>> books that were available, equals a bag of bricks for each student.

>>>>>

>>>>> You need two things to survive.

>>>>>

>>>>> Guts and brains.

>>>> Somehow, y'all know exactly what should have been done, without

>>>> any clue as to what might have been done. If anything.

>>>>

>>>> Isn't armchair, after-the-fact quarterbacking a wonderful thing.

>>>>

>>>> Most of you would probably just shit yourselves, if ever put in

>>>> a similar situation.

>>> I am tempted to call you a FUCKING NITWIT, but won't because that

>>> would reflect badly on myself.

>>>

>>> I have looked down the wrong end of a gun barrel more times than you

>>> have jacked off. I've lived to tell the tale because I have been

>>> ARMED WITH A KNIFE. IOW, you try to kill me, you are coming along for

>>> the ride.

>>>

>>> The time I faced down 5 full grown men, college age, whilst alone in

>>> the wilderness, where my remains wouldn't have been found except by a

>>> dog.

>>>

>>> The times in the City I've been chased through streets and alleyways

>>> by madmen with bad thoughts in their heads. You haven't a fucking

>>> clue. I'm 61, alive, and will KILL anybody who tries to bring harm to

>>> myself or my family. I will kill them dead. I have little to live

>>> for except to try to wake you freaks out of your drug-induced comas.

>>>

>>> I was hitch hiking on night and the guy who picked me up pulled a gun

>>> on me and held it to my head. I pulled my razor knife and held it

>>> tight to his jugular vein. I commanded him to stop the vehicle and

>>> let me out or we BOTH were going to die. If he didn't get that bullet

>>> placement just right, my muscular reflex would have slit him open in

>>> the middle of nowhere and he would have died from exsanguination.

>>>

>>> I've been in more fights than you have dreamed of. Some for my Life.

>>> You cannot say the same. I won them all, in one way or another, and

>>> have the scars to prove it.

>> And, yet, you still live in what describe as a bad part of town (to say

>> the least), and probably continue to put yourself in situations where

>> you can "prove yourself."

>>

>> I am tempted to call you a FUCKING NITWIT, but won't because that would

>> reflect badly on myself.

>

> Are you a 13 year old pizza face like I thought??

>

> prove myself? I don't have to prove anything to anybody, except that

> if they try to harm me, they're going to regret it for the brief few

> minutes they have left on earth.

>

> Some day you might grow up, but I highly doubt it. You may grow old,

> but I don't think you have what it takes to grow up.

61 years old and still using phrases like "pizza face."

Impressive.

--

Notan

April 22, 2007

On Apr 21, 8:51 pm, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

> Lawrence Glickman wrote:

> > On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:13:58 -0600, Notan

> > <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>

> >> Lawrence Glickman wrote:

> >>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:47:38 -0600, Notan

> >>> <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>

> >>>> Lawrence Glickman wrote:

>

> >>>> <snip>

>

> >>>>> It was a classroom. But how would you like to be the target of 30

> >>>>> notebook computers thrown at you with extreme prejudice. All the

> >>>>> books that were available, equals a bag of bricks for each student.

>

> >>>>> You need two things to survive.

>

> >>>>> Guts and brains.

> >>>> Somehow, y'all know exactly what should have been done, without

> >>>> any clue as to what might have been done. If anything.

>

> >>>> Isn't armchair, after-the-fact quarterbacking a wonderful thing.

>

> >>>> Most of you would probably just shit yourselves, if ever put in

> >>>> a similar situation.

> >>> I am tempted to call you a FUCKING NITWIT, but won't because that

> >>> would reflect badly on myself.

>

> >>> I have looked down the wrong end of a gun barrel more times than you

> >>> have jacked off. I've lived to tell the tale because I have been

> >>> ARMED WITH A KNIFE. IOW, you try to kill me, you are coming along for

> >>> the ride.

>

> >>> The time I faced down 5 full grown men, college age, whilst alone in

> >>> the wilderness, where my remains wouldn't have been found except by a

> >>> dog.

>

> >>> The times in the City I've been chased through streets and alleyways

> >>> by madmen with bad thoughts in their heads. You haven't a fucking

> >>> clue. I'm 61, alive, and will KILL anybody who tries to bring harm to

> >>> myself or my family. I will kill them dead. I have little to live

> >>> for except to try to wake you freaks out of your drug-induced comas.

>

> >>> I was hitch hiking on night and the guy who picked me up pulled a gun

> >>> on me and held it to my head. I pulled my razor knife and held it

> >>> tight to his jugular vein. I commanded him to stop the vehicle and

> >>> let me out or we BOTH were going to die. If he didn't get that bullet

> >>> placement just right, my muscular reflex would have slit him open in

> >>> the middle of nowhere and he would have died from exsanguination.

>

> >>> I've been in more fights than you have dreamed of. Some for my Life.

> >>> You cannot say the same. I won them all, in one way or another, and

> >>> have the scars to prove it.

> >> And, yet, you still live in what describe as a bad part of town (to say

> >> the least), and probably continue to put yourself in situations where

> >> you can "prove yourself."

>

> >> I am tempted to call you a FUCKING NITWIT, but won't because that would

> >> reflect badly on myself.

>

> > Are you a 13 year old pizza face like I thought??

>

> > prove myself? I don't have to prove anything to anybody, except that

> > if they try to harm me, they're going to regret it for the brief few

> > minutes they have left on earth.

>

> > Some day you might grow up, but I highly doubt it. You may grow old,

> > but I don't think you have what it takes to grow up.

>

> 61 years old and still using phrases like "pizza face."

>

> Impressive.

>

> --

> Notan- Hide quoted text -

>

> - Show quoted text -

AMERICAN SHEEP SOLDIERS IN IRAQ, ARE SHEEP GETTING MASSACRED

April 22, 2007

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:51:13 -0600, Notan

<notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>

>61 years old and still using phrases like "pizza face."

>

>Impressive.

I think I know what you need. A good smackdown. Somebody to whup on

your ass until a fire gets lit in your belly. And then you start

fighting back.

I know it sounds a little harsh, but I think that might do the job.

Somebody to thump on you until that instinct to survive causes you

to wake up and fight back.

You see, if you DON'T fight back, you're going to get the shit beat

out of you, because the perp gets his jollies off making your face

look like the ass end of a donkey. If you DO fight back, you still

end up looking like shit, but so does the perp! So...which way do you

want it to be?

Keeping in mind one thing. When the shit hits the fan, and it is time

to ACT, you ARE going to get hurt. There are a lot worse things than

getting hurt. So you go into battle KNOWING you are going to get

hurt, you get over that idea, and get on with the job of taking down

the opposition.

In some situations, you know you're going to DIE. Like that Jewish

Holocaust Survivor Professor who kept a door closed so that Cho

couldn't get inside the room to kill more students. He knew he was

going to die. He took the bullets through the closed door. What a

GODLY MAN. You and I should kiss his feet. We should bow to him on

bended knee, because he knew what being a grown up was all about. A

MENCH! Balls of steel. Fire in the gut. Putting others safety

before his own. He is a Saint. There should be more MEN like him in

our tribe. Don't shame us by being a pussy.

Lg

April 22, 2007

Lawrence Glickman wrote:

> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:51:13 -0600, Notan

> <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>

>> 61 years old and still using phrases like "pizza face."

>>

>> Impressive.

>

> I think I know what you need. A good smackdown. Somebody to whup on

> your ass until a fire gets lit in your belly. And then you start

> fighting back.

Your definition of "a man" seems to focus on someone who gets into

dangerous situations, then successfully fights his way out.

Sorry, not mine.

While I've taken self defense classes in hand-to-hand combat and various

arms, I do my best not to put myself in situations that may require me to

rely on them.

While I think I'm prepared, I wouldn't really know until things presented

as such.

I hope I never have to find out.

--

Notan

April 22, 2007

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:35:28 -0600, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed>

wrote:

>>

>> News Bulletin for Notan:

>>

>> Every object in a room is a potential weapon. How hard would it have

>> been to throw tables and chairs at the perp? 30 people with a room

>> full of very hard material objects, some of which must have been in

>> and on their desks. All throwing shit at the perp at the same time

>> whilst rushing him with some table in front of you to slow down the

>> ammo.

>>

>> PEOPLE NEED TO BE TRAINED TO REACT AGRESSIVELY WHEN ATTACKED.

>> SUBMISSION EQUALS DEATH.

>>

>> It is kill or be killed. Remember that Notan. You kill them, or they

>> WILL kill you. There is no choice in such a situation. Kill them or

>> die.

>

>Was it a classroom with tables and chairs? Or was it a lecture hall,

>where everything is bolted down?

>

>--

>Notan

Unload a fire extingusher in his face or direction and under cover of

the cloud..the rest of the pack do the same and then beat him to death

with the extingusher. Yes..people may have been shot. Even killed. And

he would be dead and unable to kill more.

You saying you wouldnt take a bullet to prevent kids from being

murdered?

Gunner

"I don't want to abolish government.

I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can

drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.

-- Grover Norquist

April 22, 2007

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 19:36:57 -0600, Notan

<notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>0:-] wrote:

>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 16:06:30 -0600, Notan

>> <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>>

>>> 0:-] wrote:

>>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 13:59:04 -0600, Notan

>>>> <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Omnipotent wrote:

>>>>>> Notan wrote:

>>>>>>> Omnipotent wrote:

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> <snip>

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>>> Your right, if all the people in the room would have charged the nut

>>>>>>>> he wouldn't have reloaded the first time.

>>>>>>> What was the distance between Cho and those in the classroom?

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> If it was anything more than 10-15 feet, with practice (and I'm sure

>>>>>>> he did)

>>>>>>> he'd have no problem loading a new magazine.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>>> Also remember that those in the classroom weren't ready for the events

>>>>>>> that

>>>>>>> followed... He was.

>>>>>>>

>>>>>> They should have charged him while he was shooting. Somebody would have

>>>>>> tackled him before he needed to reload. If young people can't cover 15

>>>>>> to 20 feet in a few seconds they are in serious need of physical

>>>>>> conditioning.

>>>>> Easy to say, after the fact, from behind the security of a computer.

>>>> Nope.

>>>>

>>>> http://www.cnn.com/US/9806/16/kinkel.arraign.update/

>>>>

>>>> And Kip was stopped, in the middle of his shooting people in the

>>>> Thurston HS gym, by a group of boys that tackled him. One at least was

>>>> shot even before he nailed Kip. He fought anyway.

>>> <snip>

>>>

>>>> Try the real world, for a change, "Notan."

>>> And unless the circumstances/scenarios/etc. were exactly the same,

>>> there's no way to say what worked in one would work in the other.

>>>

>>> Try the real world, for a change, "Kane."

>>

>> I do. I have. I will. Trust me on this.

>>

>> R R R R R ... you just insisted that I cannot, since no two scenarios

>> are exact. Of course they aren't. That does not stop me. Does it you?

>>

>> Why would you claim that one can't make good predictions based on

>> approximations?

>>

>> These things are studied and certain outcomes ARE predictable.

>>

>> One such was made by the FBI: Those intended victims that fight back

>> increase their odds of survival and those that fight back ARMED

>> increase their chances even more.

>>

>> You wouldn't really want to claim that there are not various scenarios

>> where fighting back could save lives, each different than the prior

>> ones, now would you?

>>

>> Did you read the link I posted a number of times today on violent or

>> potentially violent confrontations where fighting back won the day?

>>

>> Or do you need, to survive emotionally, the idea that it's hopeless to

>> fight back and cowering in approaching death is more sensible?

>>

>> http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html

>>

>> All different unduplicate scenarios that resulting in wins for the

>> armed intended victims, or someone that came to their rescue armed.

>

>I'm not saying that, in general, attempting to stop an attacker isn't

>better than just sitting back, but there are circumstances where it's

>not.

Not even up to the point of his tightening his finger on the trigger

is there ANY circumstance that will save your life OTHER than fighting

back.

But if you can think of one, do let us know. Cowering did not work. He

shot them anyway.

Now what have you other than cowering?

>You said, "They should have charged him while he was shooting. Somebody

>would have tackled him before he needed to reload..."

Actually no, I did not. You have miscalculated the attributions level

authors. It was "Omnipotent" who wrote that. No fault, just an error

any of us could make in sorting attributions when they've gone three

or four deep.

I believe, if I may correct my colleague Omnipotent that at the point

of needing to reload would be the BEST time to charge the perp. He

more than likely did not afford them that chance, but left the room,

reloaded and attempted to reenter.

Just calculating from the media reports of course.

>

>Without knowing the layout of the room, the training, if any, the people

>had in self-defense, <again> how close Cho was to the people, and a

>multitude of other variables, there's no way to know what a "stand" would

>have resulted in. It's possible they did try to rush him.

One, none of your 'what ifs' really matter in a survival situation.

You do what you have to do in the circumstances and environment you

find yourself in. A hail of chairs thrown at him by a lot of healthy

strong young people would very well have given them the moments they

needed to lay hands on him and his gun.

The schoolboys that took down Kip Kinkel at Thurston some years ago

proved that. They did it bare handed, even with one of them already

shot by fighting to live and to stop the slaughter.

>

>But your answer is an absolute. If they did this, this is what the

>outcome would have been.

Nope. You are projecting meanings I have not offered.

Or, you may feel free to point to my very words and show where I said

they would succeed automatically.

They still might have all died who did die, or be wounded. "Might" is

about odds, not certainty.

I know perfectly well that continuation of my life every single day,

and as I age, even every hour, is based on the odds. My time WILL run

out, but odd are, because I am extraordinarily healthy and strong (I

heat with wood and chop it all...from standing tree to feeding my wood

stove) I'll, by the odds, outlive a great many that are my age now.

I've already outlived my own father's age at death, a hail and hearty

carpenter, by 12 years.

>Unless you know something that no one else seems to know, it's nothing

>but speculation.

I would have to know things others don't. That goes with reality. And

others know things I don't.

Are you referring to this particular issue, survival in extremis?

I believe I do some things others don't, on that matter. I've been in

dangerous situations both by choice and chance.

And that I'm writing this proves that I was either extraordinarily

lucky, or gifted at tactics, or both.

I've survived three such attacks. One where I was armed, and that

really created a no win for the thug...who wisely, when he discovered

it, walked away muttering that he'd have gotten me etc etc etc.

One where I faked out the perp, a young man with a length of pipe

beating on the side of my pickup door with intent to do harm, I must

presume.

And the last, but the first one chronologically, a young man with a

10" heavy chef's knife already around my throat from behind. He handed

it to me after I made a couple of comments. I won't bore you with the

conversation, but I did follow through. I bought him some coffee and

donuts, and I hooked him up with a contractor and a job doing labor on

a high rise construction below Diamond Head on Oahu, Hawaii.

I still have the knife. It's in our kitchen knife drawer but only I

use it, at my request. And I smile when I do.

It's been there since 1962, the morning after the incident.

I've had an "interesting" life. Like the Chinese curse says. I must

have really offended some chinese person. R R R R R

You've been hallucinating.

Real life is nothing like your boring existence, my boy. That's why

you know so little.

Go get a hard job. Join the military. Travel. Drink in seedy bars down

by the docks. Learn a couple of languages, at least well enough to

curse someone.

It'll do yah some good. Honest.

0:]

April 22, 2007

On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:51:13 -0600, Notan <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed>

wrote:

>Lawrence Glickman wrote:

>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 21:13:58 -0600, Notan

>> <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>>

>>> Lawrence Glickman wrote:

>>>> On Sat, 21 Apr 2007 20:47:38 -0600, Notan

>>>> <notan@ddressthatcanbespammed> wrote:

>>>>

>>>>> Lawrence Glickman wrote:

>>>>>

>>>>> <snip>

>>>>>

>>>>>> It was a classroom. But how would you like to be the target of 30

>>>>>> notebook computers thrown at you with extreme prejudice. All the

>>>>>> books that were available, equals a bag of bricks for each student.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> You need two things to survive.

>>>>>>

>>>>>> Guts and brains.

>>>>> Somehow, y'all know exactly what should have been done, without

>>>>> any clue as to what might have been done. If anything.

>>>>>

>>>>> Isn't armchair, after-the-fact quarterbacking a wonderful thing.

>>>>>

>>>>> Most of you would probably just shit yourselves, if ever put in

>>>>> a similar situation.

>>>> I am tempted to call you a FUCKING NITWIT, but won't because that

>>>> would reflect badly on myself.

>>>>

>>>> I have looked down the wrong end of a gun barrel more times than you

>>>> have jacked off. I've lived to tell the tale because I have been

>>>> ARMED WITH A KNIFE. IOW, you try to kill me, you are coming along for

>>>> the ride.

>>>>

>>>> The time I faced down 5 full grown men, college age, whilst alone in

>>>> the wilderness, where my remains wouldn't have been found except by a

>>>> dog.

>>>>

>>>> The times in the City I've been chased through streets and alleyways

>>>> by madmen with bad thoughts in their heads. You haven't a fucking

>>>> clue. I'm 61, alive, and will KILL anybody who tries to bring harm to

>>>> myself or my family. I will kill them dead. I have little to live

>>>> for except to try to wake you freaks out of your drug-induced comas.

>>>>

>>>> I was hitch hiking on night and the guy who picked me up pulled a gun

>>>> on me and held it to my head. I pulled my razor knife and held it

>>>> tight to his jugular vein. I commanded him to stop the vehicle and

>>>> let me out or we BOTH were going to die. If he didn't get that bullet

>>>> placement just right, my muscular reflex would have slit him open in

>>>> the middle of nowhere and he would have died from exsanguination.

>>>>

>>>> I've been in more fights than you have dreamed of. Some for my Life.

>>>> You cannot say the same. I won them all, in one way or another, and

>>>> have the scars to prove it.

>>> And, yet, you still live in what describe as a bad part of town (to say

>>> the least), and probably continue to put yourself in situations where

>>> you can "prove yourself."

>>>

>>> I am tempted to call you a FUCKING NITWIT, but won't because that would

>>> reflect badly on myself.

>>

>> Are you a 13 year old pizza face like I thought??

>>

>> prove myself? I don't have to prove anything to anybody, except that

>> if they try to harm me, they're going to regret it for the brief few

>> minutes they have left on earth.

>>

>> Some day you might grow up, but I highly doubt it. You may grow old,

>> but I don't think you have what it takes to grow up.

>

>61 years old and still using phrases like "pizza face."

>

>Impressive.

And apparently accurate. Seems The Glick hit a nerve.

Gunner

"I don't want to abolish government.

I simply want to reduce it to the size where I can

drag it into the bathroom and drown it in the bathtub.

-- Grover Norquist

Sign In

What Kind of Sheep Allow Themselves to be Massacred Without Resisting?

Recommended Posts

Guest Avenger

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Days

Guest Avenger

Guest Imus Limbaugh

Guest 0:-]

Guest 0:-]

Guest Notan

Guest 0:-]

Guest -HoSt-

Guest Notan

Guest Lawrence Glickman

Guest Notan

Guest Lawrence Glickman

Guest Notan

Guest Lawrence Glickman

Guest Notan

Guest Captain Compassion

Guest Lawrence Glickman

Guest Notan

Guest Notan

Guest bongblaster54@yahoo.com

Guest Lawrence Glickman

Guest Notan

Guest Gunner

Guest 0:-]

Guest Gunner

Join the conversation

Browse

Activity

Support