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 |
#391
|
|||
|
|||
SO GOOD IT'S CRIMINAL !
smb wrote:
On Sun, 04 Mar 2007 08:33:48 -0600, Jer wrote: smb wrote: On Sat, 03 Mar 2007 13:28:32 -0600, Jer wrote: smb wrote: On Fri, 02 Mar 2007 21:10:50 -0600, Jer wrote: smb wrote: On Thu, 01 Mar 2007 10:47:38 -0500, 223rem wrote: smb wrote: Let's say that mythical piece of paper in your pocket has information that is also known to others. Would you still object to showing it to a police officer if he asks? Damn right I would object. The cop has no right to violate my privacy and humiliate me. Where the hell do you think we live, Stalin's USSR? I would object also. But in the context of this conversation, nobody was stopped and required to show private information about anything. My comment above was in response to an example about how we volunteer private information to agents of the government all the time when we file our taxes. Someone is taking pictures in public. A cop asks to see those pictures that were just taken. Big deal. Did he demand to confiscate the memory card? Yes. Did he demand to see any other personal pictures that might be on the camera? Yes. Did he demand to see any other personal information? Yes. So I take it that you have personally experienced this situation, which is *different* from the one which started this thread? Different situation? Hardly. Well, quite different that in the situation described, the police didn't demand to confiscate anything. I can see you're still having a problem with that reading comprehension thing. In the original scenario, the only difference is Bret helped them with their "investigation" and I refused to. Several times, my refusal sent the cop on their way to go suspect someone else of nefarious acts. Twice it didn't, and after a short stint in a holding cell, I grabbed the car at the pound and went on my way. On one occasion, my equipment was damaged, but an insurance claim fixed that. It's the ones that didn't have the guts to "do the right thing" that bother me - not the two that did their job right. Surprised? Go survive alone in a cold bloody foxhole with two dead guys for three days, you'll understand. That or you just really don't give a **** about anybody but yourself. No, I have no problem with reading comprehension. If they demanded to take his camera from him to search it, I would be complaining as loudly as you are. What in the world were you taking pictures of that prompted the police to physically confiscate your memory card? The situation in mind was when I was collecting evidence of a man sticking his tongue (and other appendages) down the throat of someone he wasn't married to. Mind you, the cop's demands went unanswered. Ok, I actually suspected that was your line of work. Kind of ironic, isn't it? You loudly complain about someone violating your right to privacy while you are in the process of violating the privacy of others? Oh, that's right... you get paid to do that so it's ok. Your mark didn't happen to be our previous president, did it? ;-) Taking pictures of someone in a park violates their privacy? You'll have to explain this to me. Next time someone is hiding in the bushes taking pictures of you putting various appendages down someone's throat, let us know how you feel about your privacy being violated. Understand this Grasshopper, the instant you stick a toe out your door, I own the photo evidence of what you do. I don't have a family depending on me to keep my pants on and not drag home this week's STD for my wife to deal with. I'm not out spending this week's pay check leaving my family to go without food or a home. Philandering parents don't deserve the shame foisted upon them in divorce court, they deserve much more, and I enjoy sticking it to every one. Or let's say you're in a store with a heavy coat and the security cameras see you opening and closing that coat several times near the merchandise with your back to the camera... would you object to a cop asking you to open your coat to show that you haven't been putting stuff in there? That's probably private property and behavior that gives reasonable cause for search. Has nothing to do with our original scenario. You forget that the hypothetical questional behavior potentially violates some very public laws against shoplifting. Would you say the same thing about committing murder on private property, that it's just a private matter? Remember, we're not talking about a cop "pawing through" anything, rather merely showing him something that you are actively doing in a public place at the time. Like texting my girlfriend on my cellphone for example? Should I show him the text messages in my phone's memory if he asks to see them? Or the emails on my laptop? I guess I should, since there's nothing illegal in them, right? If there was just cause, sure. But it's hard to imagine a cop randomly wanting to see your text messages. It's not difficult for me to imagine this, they do it all the time. Really. Where do you live? In the United States of the Offended. Does the term Carnivore II ring a bell? Your tax dollars at work. Weep Grasshopper. Oh, I'm not weeping at all, Mr. Entomology. You're very naive if you think email is or should be secure and private. If your messages to someone are that sensitive, you should be using strong encryption. What makes you think I don't? Down here in Mexico things are a little different. If you think American cops are abusive of your rights, don't try to start anything with the ones down there... unless you have enough money to bribe them, of course. Mexican cops and I get along just fine, they don't hassle me a bit. But then, they think I'm a tourista. Just wear baggy shorts, white socks and sandals, a broad brim 'Mexican' hat, stand around looking stupid and they ignore me like everybody else does. -- jer email reply - I am not a 'ten' |
#392
|
|||
|
|||
20D: SO GOOD IT'S CRIMINAL !
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 13:06:48 -0500, J. Clarke
wrote: On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:23:08 -0500, 223rem wrote: J. Clarke wrote: It might hold a machine gun off the ground but when you start shooting you'll find that it's nowhere near stiff enough to stand up to recoil. Snipers dont use machine guns, that's dumb. But a good photography tripod would be adequate for a bolt action rifle. Maybe a studio tripod. But I'd be very, very surprised if any of the portable models actually improved accuracy. It's not enough to hold the firearm off the ground, it has to hold it stable during recoil. Hate to disagree with one of the posters on here whom I judge as the "expert", but in this case I must. As a long range rifle shooter of many years, and not much different in method than sniping, I assure you such shooting does NOT depend on the firearm being held stable during recoil. We presume the projectile has exited the barrel before the firearm reacts to the recoil force, otherwise shooting over sandbags with no pressure downward would be useless. Olin McDaniel |
#393
|
|||
|
|||
20D: SO GOOD IT'S CRIMINAL !
Olin K. McDaniel wrote:
On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 13:06:48 -0500, J. Clarke wrote: On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:23:08 -0500, 223rem wrote: J. Clarke wrote: It might hold a machine gun off the ground but when you start shooting you'll find that it's nowhere near stiff enough to stand up to recoil. Snipers dont use machine guns, that's dumb. But a good photography tripod would be adequate for a bolt action rifle. Maybe a studio tripod. But I'd be very, very surprised if any of the portable models actually improved accuracy. It's not enough to hold the firearm off the ground, it has to hold it stable during recoil. Hate to disagree with one of the posters on here whom I judge as the "expert", but in this case I must. As a long range rifle shooter of many years, and not much different in method than sniping, I assure you such shooting does NOT depend on the firearm being held stable during recoil. We presume the projectile has exited the barrel before the firearm reacts to the recoil force, otherwise shooting over sandbags with no pressure downward would be useless. Since you seem to have the facilities to do so, why not try shooting using a photographic tripod and get back to us and see how it works. One test outweighs all the opinions in the world. -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
#394
|
|||
|
|||
20D: SO GOOD IT'S CRIMINAL !
"J. Clarke" wrote in message ... Olin K. McDaniel wrote: On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 13:06:48 -0500, J. Clarke wrote: On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:23:08 -0500, 223rem wrote: J. Clarke wrote: It might hold a machine gun off the ground but when you start shooting you'll find that it's nowhere near stiff enough to stand up to recoil. Snipers dont use machine guns, that's dumb. But a good photography tripod would be adequate for a bolt action rifle. Maybe a studio tripod. But I'd be very, very surprised if any of the portable models actually improved accuracy. It's not enough to hold the firearm off the ground, it has to hold it stable during recoil. Hate to disagree with one of the posters on here whom I judge as the "expert", but in this case I must. As a long range rifle shooter of many years, and not much different in method than sniping, I assure you such shooting does NOT depend on the firearm being held stable during recoil. We presume the projectile has exited the barrel before the firearm reacts to the recoil force, otherwise shooting over sandbags with no pressure downward would be useless. Since you seem to have the facilities to do so, why not try shooting using a photographic tripod and get back to us and see how it works. One test outweighs all the opinions in the world. -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) O.K., I had to shoot weapons that was used during the Korean war. I was also in an Army Band, that had to play musical instruments. We were required to target shoot all type of weapons every so often since a Band had been wiped out in Korea. Everyone has their own way of shooting photos, but I think shooting photos is more like playing a musical instrument than shooting a gun. There is no doubt that using a tripod will result in a cleaner photo. But, when shooting without a tripod, I hold the camera (Nikon D200) lightly, apply pressure on the button to get the auto focus, and then press the button further not knowing exactly when the camera will take the shot. Of course, camera settings are preset when necessary. There is little doubt in my mind that the best photo shot will be the one that is on a tripod with a remote switch of some sort. But, I do a lot of shooting "out of hand" in order to get photos I would not get otherwise. Most of my travel photos are taken without a tripod, and I find a 1st level sharpening/focusing of a photo with software is all I ever need if any sharpening/focusing is needed at all. Some of my photos taking on my last trip report in Lybia are acessed by clicking the highlighted text in the report at: http://site01789.customer.hagenhosti...ibyaindex.html Robert |
#395
|
|||
|
|||
20D: SO GOOD IT'S CRIMINAL !
Robert Nabors wrote:
"J. Clarke" wrote in message ... Olin K. McDaniel wrote: On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 13:06:48 -0500, J. Clarke wrote: On Sun, 25 Feb 2007 12:23:08 -0500, 223rem wrote: J. Clarke wrote: It might hold a machine gun off the ground but when you start shooting you'll find that it's nowhere near stiff enough to stand up to recoil. Snipers dont use machine guns, that's dumb. But a good photography tripod would be adequate for a bolt action rifle. Maybe a studio tripod. But I'd be very, very surprised if any of the portable models actually improved accuracy. It's not enough to hold the firearm off the ground, it has to hold it stable during recoil. Hate to disagree with one of the posters on here whom I judge as the "expert", but in this case I must. As a long range rifle shooter of many years, and not much different in method than sniping, I assure you such shooting does NOT depend on the firearm being held stable during recoil. We presume the projectile has exited the barrel before the firearm reacts to the recoil force, otherwise shooting over sandbags with no pressure downward would be useless. Since you seem to have the facilities to do so, why not try shooting using a photographic tripod and get back to us and see how it works. One test outweighs all the opinions in the world. -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) O.K., I had to shoot weapons that was used during the Korean war. I was also in an Army Band, that had to play musical instruments. We were required to target shoot all type of weapons every so often since a Band had been wiped out in Korea. Everyone has their own way of shooting photos, but I think shooting photos is more like playing a musical instrument than shooting a gun. There is no doubt that using a tripod will result in a cleaner photo. But, when shooting without a tripod, I hold the camera (Nikon D200) lightly, apply pressure on the button to get the auto focus, and then press the button further not knowing exactly when the camera will take the shot. Of course, camera settings are preset when necessary. There is little doubt in my mind that the best photo shot will be the one that is on a tripod with a remote switch of some sort. But, I do a lot of shooting "out of hand" in order to get photos I would not get otherwise. Most of my travel photos are taken without a tripod, and I find a 1st level sharpening/focusing of a photo with software is all I ever need if any sharpening/focusing is needed at all. Some of my photos taking on my last trip report in Lybia are acessed by clicking the highlighted text in the report at: http://site01789.customer.hagenhosti...ibyaindex.html That's all well and good but what was under discussion was the validity of forbidding the use of photographic tripods in certain locations on the assumption that they are useful as aids to the use of weapons. -- -- --John to email, dial "usenet" and validate (was jclarke at eye bee em dot net) |
#396
|
|||
|
|||
OT: SO GOOD IT'S CRIMINAL !
smb wrote:
On Wed, 28 Feb 2007 06:20:27 -0500, Cynicor wrote: smb wrote: On 27 Feb 2007 08:37:24 -0800, "Annika1980" wrote: On Feb 27, 9:06 am, smb wrote: Nobody has yet documented where Bush has lied about anything. ROFL! How about his first lie as President? "I will preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States." I said documented, not politically-slanted opinion. (Marked OT because it's OT now.) So anyway, here are some documented lies from Bush: "The British Government has learned that Saddam Hussein recently sought significant quantities of uranium from Africa." "I would like this to end as quickly as possible. If someone committed a crime, they will no longer work in my administration." "177 of the opposition party said, 'You know, we don't think we ought to be listening to the conversations of terrorists.'" "Had I known that the enemy was going to use airplanes to strike America, to attack us. I would have used very resource, every asset, every power of this government to protect the American people." "We do not torture." "These are people picked up off the battlefield in Afghanistan. They weren't wearing uniforms . . . but were there to kill." "A wiretap requires a court order." "We found the weapons of mass destruction. We found biological laboratories." "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." "I remember campaigning in Chicago and one of the reporters said, 'Would you ever deficit spend?' I said, 'Only – only – in times of war, in times of economy insecurity as a result of a recession or in times of national emergency.'" You've taken some out of context partial (supposed) quotes from Always the excuses. -- Ray Fischer |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Ebay Betrueger Criminal Ebayseller | Preferred Photography Book Edition | General Equipment For Sale | 0 | July 3rd 04 01:41 PM |