[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]

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

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

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]

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

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]

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

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

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]

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