If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#51
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] New Mandate: "For Sale"
In article ,
PeterN wrote: We're not talking about the same thing, Peter. Clarke asked Tony a question, Tony squirmed away from answering it post upon post probably because he realized the scenario he had put forward was impossible in the actual real world. I am for gun control. Or rather, I'm against guns, full stop. This has nothing to do with Tony's inability to admit to a mistake or realize that he is way over his head in a "debate". Sorry, I think you have got an anti Tony bias in your head, to the extent that you can't agree with anything he says. Then you haven't been following his and Clarke's discussion. A case in point: "J. Clarke" When Grandpa kicks it and Grandma wants to get rid of his guns, she's not going to consult a lawyer to find out that she has to do background checks Tony Cooper A state law could require Grandma to sell the gun on consignment through a licensed retail gun seller "J. Clarke" Fine, you pass that law. Since Grandma has no interest in guns and gun laws and wasn't paying attention the day you passed it, she has no idea that there is such a law and goes ahead and lists the guns on Craigslist anyway. Now what? Tony Cooper Grandma is probably quite unaware of many extant laws. "J. Clarke" Meaningless noise. Grandma has disobeyed your law. Now what do you do? Tony Cooper Prevent it. Require the refusal of any advertisement for a gun in any medium unless the advertiser is an authorized seller of guns. "J. Clarke" Have you been successful in enforcing those rules on Craiglist? How about community bulletin boards? There are many commonplace venues for advertising that are not subject to editorial control. Tony Cooper What rules? No rules exist today. Full circle. Tony can't actually argue his point, morally correct as it may be, so he just squirms and misdirects. When Clarke asks how he is going to enforce the proposed rules he just suggested, Tony misdirects that there are no such rules, but they should exist - not how they could possibly be enforced. Which of course they can't, which Tony knows, so he misdirects, like the troll he is. This has *nothing* to do with wether or not I "agree" with Tony. For the record - I *DO* agree with him, I think there should be rules and laws that prohibit guns in many ways, so your suggestion that my stance in this has anything to do with my level of agreement with the troll is way off. I am correctly pointing out that Tony lacks the ability to "discuss" things and admit to being wrong about things. It's what he does - he enters subjects he knows nothing about and then argues until his face is blue and then some more. With everything and anything. -- Sandman[.net] |
#52
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] New Mandate: "For Sale"
On 9/20/2013 7:33 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote: We're not talking about the same thing, Peter. Clarke asked Tony a question, Tony squirmed away from answering it post upon post probably because he realized the scenario he had put forward was impossible in the actual real world. I am for gun control. Or rather, I'm against guns, full stop. This has nothing to do with Tony's inability to admit to a mistake or realize that he is way over his head in a "debate". Sorry, I think you have got an anti Tony bias in your head, to the extent that you can't agree with anything he says. Then you haven't been following his and Clarke's discussion. A case in point: "J. Clarke" When Grandpa kicks it and Grandma wants to get rid of his guns, she's not going to consult a lawyer to find out that she has to do background checks Tony Cooper A state law could require Grandma to sell the gun on consignment through a licensed retail gun seller "J. Clarke" Fine, you pass that law. Since Grandma has no interest in guns and gun laws and wasn't paying attention the day you passed it, she has no idea that there is such a law and goes ahead and lists the guns on Craigslist anyway. Now what? Tony Cooper Grandma is probably quite unaware of many extant laws. "J. Clarke" Meaningless noise. Grandma has disobeyed your law. Now what do you do? Tony Cooper Prevent it. Require the refusal of any advertisement for a gun in any medium unless the advertiser is an authorized seller of guns. "J. Clarke" Have you been successful in enforcing those rules on Craiglist? How about community bulletin boards? There are many commonplace venues for advertising that are not subject to editorial control. Tony Cooper What rules? No rules exist today. Full circle. Tony can't actually argue his point, morally correct as it may be, so he just squirms and misdirects. When Clarke asks how he is going to enforce the proposed rules he just suggested, Tony misdirects that there are no such rules, but they should exist - not how they could possibly be enforced. Which of course they can't, which Tony knows, so he misdirects, like the troll he is. This has *nothing* to do with wether or not I "agree" with Tony. For the record - I *DO* agree with him, I think there should be rules and laws that prohibit guns in many ways, so your suggestion that my stance in this has anything to do with my level of agreement with the troll is way off. I am correctly pointing out that Tony lacks the ability to "discuss" things and admit to being wrong about things. It's what he does - he enters subjects he knows nothing about and then argues until his face is blue and then some more. With everything and anything. And if yoy had ben following the entire discussion you would have noticed that he Duck pointed out that California has just such a law, and it seems to be working. Yes, tony seems to enjoy a good discussion. Like ALL of of here he makes misstatements. I remember quite clearly times when he admitted error. There are only a few here who have never admitted being wrong. We all know wo they are, and Tony is not one of them. Some use the technique of plonk. One even warns before a plonk. He said in substance that he would plonk me if he didn't like my reply. I have little patience for such childish actions. I know that A hoole is readng wht I write, and is wallowing in his discomfort at not letting himeself reply. -- PeterN |
#53
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] New Mandate: "For Sale"
On 9/20/2013 9:44 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 13:33:17 +0200, Sandman wrote: In article , PeterN wrote: We're not talking about the same thing, Peter. Clarke asked Tony a question, Tony squirmed away from answering it post upon post probably because he realized the scenario he had put forward was impossible in the actual real world. I am for gun control. Or rather, I'm against guns, full stop. This has nothing to do with Tony's inability to admit to a mistake or realize that he is way over his head in a "debate". Sorry, I think you have got an anti Tony bias in your head, to the extent that you can't agree with anything he says. Then you haven't been following his and Clarke's discussion. A case in point: "J. Clarke" When Grandpa kicks it and Grandma wants to get rid of his guns, she's not going to consult a lawyer to find out that she has to do background checks Tony Cooper A state law could require Grandma to sell the gun on consignment through a licensed retail gun seller "J. Clarke" Fine, you pass that law. Since Grandma has no interest in guns and gun laws and wasn't paying attention the day you passed it, she has no idea that there is such a law and goes ahead and lists the guns on Craigslist anyway. Now what? Tony Cooper Grandma is probably quite unaware of many extant laws. This is J. Clarke's reply, not mine. If you can't follow who-said-what, how can you understand the discussion? "J. Clarke" Meaningless noise. Grandma has disobeyed your law. Now what do you do? Tony Cooper Prevent it. Require the refusal of any advertisement for a gun in any medium unless the advertiser is an authorized seller of guns. "J. Clarke" Have you been successful in enforcing those rules on Craiglist? How about community bulletin boards? There are many commonplace venues for advertising that are not subject to editorial control. Tony Cooper What rules? No rules exist today. Full circle. Tony can't actually argue his point, morally correct as it may be, so he just squirms and misdirects. When Clarke asks how he is going to enforce the proposed rules he just suggested, Tony misdirects that there are no such rules, but they should exist - not how they could possibly be enforced. Talk about misdirection and squirming...what J. Clarke asked was how successful we've *been* in enforcing the rules. Jonas slyly changed that to the future tense and made J. Clarke's question to be how we are *going* to enforce the rule. I answered J. Clarke's question, not Jonas' misdirection. My statement is totally accurate and to the point. There are no laws extant in Florida about re-sale of guns. There are no restrictions currently in place regarding Craigslist and gun sales in Florida. I cannot possibly answer the question of how successful we've *been* in enforcing the rules, when the rules don't exist. The suggestion was that rules or laws should be enacted to prevent the media from accepting ads for the sale of guns if the seller is not an authorized re-seller of guns who is required to adhere to the present laws about gun sales (Background checks and waiting days). As far as how a ban on accepting advertising from non-authorized gun sellers would be enforced, that was touched on. The media are already restricted in other areas of advertising and I pointed this out. There is no particular reason to dwell on enforcement methods when there is an accepted practice in place. Which of course they can't, which Tony knows, so he misdirects, like the troll he is. This has *nothing* to do with wether or not I "agree" with Tony. For the record - I *DO* agree with him, I think there should be rules and laws that prohibit guns in many ways, so your suggestion that my stance in this has anything to do with my level of agreement with the troll is way off. I am correctly pointing out that Tony lacks the ability to "discuss" things and admit to being wrong about things. It's what he does - he enters subjects he knows nothing about and then argues until his face is blue and then some more. With everything and anything. If Jonas has not read my postings, or read only what has been quoted in the posts of others, he has no ability to judge the accuracy or reasonableness of my posts. It is laughable that Jonas says I "know nothing about" the issue of gun sales...especially the issue of gun sales in Florida. While I do know "nothing about" the laws in Sweden regarding gun sales, I know that gun laws in the US are primarily the bailiwick of the state government, not the federal government. Note particularly that the State of California does exactly what I have suggested would be what the State of Florida should do regarding how gun sales are regulated. the real problem with gun control is that it is left to the States, even though Congress has the authority to promulgate reasonable control legislation, it doesn't. -- PeterN |
#54
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] New Mandate: "For Sale"
In article ,
PeterN wrote: And if yoy had ben following the entire discussion you would have noticed that he Duck pointed out that California has just such a law, and it seems to be working. Which, of course, wasn't the point - which my entire thread recap should have told you. Yes, tony seems to enjoy a good discussion. Huh? I've never seen him discuss anything in this group. Argue everything and anything (mostly things he knows nothing about), yes, but "discuss"? Nope. snip -- Sandman[.net] |
#55
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] New Mandate: "For Sale"
On 9/20/2013 11:26 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote: And if yoy had ben following the entire discussion you would have noticed that he Duck pointed out that California has just such a law, and it seems to be working. Which, of course, wasn't the point - which my entire thread recap should have told you. Yes, tony seems to enjoy a good discussion. Huh? I've never seen him discuss anything in this group. Argue everything and anything (mostly things he knows nothing about), yes, but "discuss"? Nope. snip Somewhere you missed Tony Cooper's point. If you objectively read what he said, you would not have the same conslucion. Now back to photography. -- PeterN |
#56
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] New Mandate: "For Sale"
In article ,
PeterN wrote: Somewhere you missed Tony Cooper's point. Peter. Stop this. I have already identified Tony's "point" and subsequently even explicitly *agreed* with it. I painstakingly summarized and substantiated exactly what I meant by him not being able to *discuss* things, you ignored that and made claims that had *NOTHING* to do with what I had written and *MY* point. -- Sandman[.net] |
#57
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] New Mandate: "For Sale"
On 9/20/2013 12:49 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 17:26:21 +0200, Sandman wrote: In article , PeterN wrote: And if yoy had ben following the entire discussion you would have noticed that he Duck pointed out that California has just such a law, and it seems to be working. Which, of course, wasn't the point - which my entire thread recap should have told you. Yes, tony seems to enjoy a good discussion. Huh? I've never seen him discuss anything in this group. Argue everything and anything (mostly things he knows nothing about), yes, but "discuss"? Nope. snip It's interesting how one person defines a "discussion" and an "argument". A discussion is simply a discourse on a subject that may or may not contain points of disagreement. It's especially interesting from a person who thinks that proving a point is done by no more than repeating the point over and over. It's amusing that Jonas says I know nothing about what I discuss since the points of contention that I have had with him primarily center on the use and meaning of words in English...a subject that Jonas seems to be working with under a handicap. While Jonas is proficient in English for a non-native speaker, he has some limitations that he doesn't recognize. Our other points of disagreement have been in the area of business practices. While Jonas seems to have some experience in this, his certainly does not surprass mine. Tony, Please don't turn this into a pointless "my penis is larger than your penis," discussion. YOu were quite successful in your business. We really don't have any idea how successful Jonas is in his. And frankly I don't give a damn. Successful business has nothing to do with photography, unless you are in that business. I strongly suspect that the vast majority here only are concerned with improving their photography. If it makes Jonas feel good to think he understands English nuance better than you or I, so be it. There will definitely be linguistic misunderstandings in the future, and I personally will deal with them as I see fit. -- PeterN |
#58
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] New Mandate: "For Sale"
On 9/20/2013 12:29 PM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 11:20:51 -0400, PeterN wrote: On 9/20/2013 9:44 AM, Tony Cooper wrote: On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 13:33:17 +0200, Sandman wrote: In article , PeterN wrote: We're not talking about the same thing, Peter. Clarke asked Tony a question, Tony squirmed away from answering it post upon post probably because he realized the scenario he had put forward was impossible in the actual real world. I am for gun control. Or rather, I'm against guns, full stop. This has nothing to do with Tony's inability to admit to a mistake or realize that he is way over his head in a "debate". Sorry, I think you have got an anti Tony bias in your head, to the extent that you can't agree with anything he says. Then you haven't been following his and Clarke's discussion. A case in point: "J. Clarke" When Grandpa kicks it and Grandma wants to get rid of his guns, she's not going to consult a lawyer to find out that she has to do background checks Tony Cooper A state law could require Grandma to sell the gun on consignment through a licensed retail gun seller "J. Clarke" Fine, you pass that law. Since Grandma has no interest in guns and gun laws and wasn't paying attention the day you passed it, she has no idea that there is such a law and goes ahead and lists the guns on Craigslist anyway. Now what? Tony Cooper Grandma is probably quite unaware of many extant laws. This is J. Clarke's reply, not mine. If you can't follow who-said-what, how can you understand the discussion? "J. Clarke" Meaningless noise. Grandma has disobeyed your law. Now what do you do? Tony Cooper Prevent it. Require the refusal of any advertisement for a gun in any medium unless the advertiser is an authorized seller of guns. "J. Clarke" Have you been successful in enforcing those rules on Craiglist? How about community bulletin boards? There are many commonplace venues for advertising that are not subject to editorial control. Tony Cooper What rules? No rules exist today. Full circle. Tony can't actually argue his point, morally correct as it may be, so he just squirms and misdirects. When Clarke asks how he is going to enforce the proposed rules he just suggested, Tony misdirects that there are no such rules, but they should exist - not how they could possibly be enforced. Talk about misdirection and squirming...what J. Clarke asked was how successful we've *been* in enforcing the rules. Jonas slyly changed that to the future tense and made J. Clarke's question to be how we are *going* to enforce the rule. I answered J. Clarke's question, not Jonas' misdirection. My statement is totally accurate and to the point. There are no laws extant in Florida about re-sale of guns. There are no restrictions currently in place regarding Craigslist and gun sales in Florida. I cannot possibly answer the question of how successful we've *been* in enforcing the rules, when the rules don't exist. The suggestion was that rules or laws should be enacted to prevent the media from accepting ads for the sale of guns if the seller is not an authorized re-seller of guns who is required to adhere to the present laws about gun sales (Background checks and waiting days). As far as how a ban on accepting advertising from non-authorized gun sellers would be enforced, that was touched on. The media are already restricted in other areas of advertising and I pointed this out. There is no particular reason to dwell on enforcement methods when there is an accepted practice in place. Which of course they can't, which Tony knows, so he misdirects, like the troll he is. This has *nothing* to do with wether or not I "agree" with Tony. For the record - I *DO* agree with him, I think there should be rules and laws that prohibit guns in many ways, so your suggestion that my stance in this has anything to do with my level of agreement with the troll is way off. I am correctly pointing out that Tony lacks the ability to "discuss" things and admit to being wrong about things. It's what he does - he enters subjects he knows nothing about and then argues until his face is blue and then some more. With everything and anything. If Jonas has not read my postings, or read only what has been quoted in the posts of others, he has no ability to judge the accuracy or reasonableness of my posts. It is laughable that Jonas says I "know nothing about" the issue of gun sales...especially the issue of gun sales in Florida. While I do know "nothing about" the laws in Sweden regarding gun sales, I know that gun laws in the US are primarily the bailiwick of the state government, not the federal government. Note particularly that the State of California does exactly what I have suggested would be what the State of Florida should do regarding how gun sales are regulated. the real problem with gun control is that it is left to the States, even though Congress has the authority to promulgate reasonable control legislation, it doesn't. That's a difficult problem to solve. The 10th Amendment to the Constitution clearly states that powers not granted to the federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the States. The states routinely refuse to accept some attempts to set federal law on some issues, and any federal laws about gun control would be hotly contested by the states. We have had various federal laws regarding guns - the importation and sales of assault weapons, for example - passed and contested. Any federal law passed is likely to conflict with some individual state's laws. The State's Rights issue is as dear to the hearts of Americans as is the Second Amendment supposed rights even though the Second Amendment rights are considered to be ambiguous regarding an "organized militia". The real problem, of course, is that our Congressmen are extremely reluctant to propose or support any federal law that may be against the wishes of the Congressmen from other states. If we can't get cooperation in providing health care to our citizens, which is of benefit to all, we certainly can't expect cooperation on an issue like gun control. The real, real problem, as I see it is that we have an adversarial system between Republicans and Democrats. Both are more interested in gain to them rather than gain to the citizens of the country. Congress has the authority to regulate guns under the Interstate Commerce Clause, as well as its authority to provide for the common defense. If it had the balls it could impose a hevy tax on certain types of gun transactions. The Supremes have never interpreted the Second Amendment, so we can only speculate as to its meaning. But again, all this has nothing to do with photography. -- PeterN |
#59
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] New Mandate: "For Sale"
In article ,
PeterN wrote: Tony, Please don't turn this into a pointless "my penis is larger than your penis," discussion. That's his only mode of operation, Peter -- Sandman[.net] |
#60
|
|||
|
|||
[SI] New Mandate: "For Sale"
On 9/20/2013 5:41 PM, Sandman wrote:
In article , PeterN wrote: Tony, Please don't turn this into a pointless "my penis is larger than your penis," discussion. That's his only mode of operation, Peter My above comment was intended for you too. It's back to photography for me. My BS tolreance limit has been reached. -- PeterN |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
[SI] New Mandate - The letters "F", "G" and "S" | Bowser | 35mm Photo Equipment | 0 | August 27th 12 12:22 PM |
[SI] New Mandate - The letters "F", "G" and "S" | [email protected] | Digital Photography | 3 | August 26th 12 02:20 PM |
"Corset-Boi" Bob "Lionel Lauer" Larter has grown a "pair" and returned to AUK................ | \The Great One\ | Digital Photography | 0 | July 14th 09 12:04 AM |
[SI] Weekly Reminder. The current mandate ("open") is due 2008.08.31 | Alan Browne | Digital SLR Cameras | 9 | August 18th 08 02:21 AM |