Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!fu-berlin.de!uni-berlin.de!individual.net!not-for-mail
From: Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com>
Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech
Subject: Re: Todays rant
Date: 2 Jun 2025 19:38:23 GMT
Lines: 84
Message-ID: <ma6ctfF700U1@mid.individual.net>
References: <vjcgsd$1klr9$3@dont-email.me>
 <vjcijb$1l1q3$1@dont-email.me>
 <vjckja$1klr9$9@dont-email.me>
 <vjcr1f$1mp9t$1@dont-email.me>
 <vjcut2$1m78i$3@dont-email.me>
 <vjd208$1o18h$4@dont-email.me>
 <vjent1$253ke$2@dont-email.me>
 <vjepiu$25d06$1@dont-email.me>
 <vjf7rm$253ke$4@dont-email.me>
 <vjfep1$2te9j$1@dont-email.me>
 <vjfs30$30hcn$1@dont-email.me>
 <Dm3%P.355044$%uk3.202223@fx10.iad>
 <101ivd4$2nld9$4@dont-email.me>
 <ma55l1Fomq6U1@mid.individual.net>
 <3lhr3kpdgobli9eu2bor349st8u7o7cemd@4ax.com>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
X-Trace: individual.net NCWoENZH43+Mng31tXbVnAwFd8wNCTUiI+dpVbLsQR0+C+R9Dd
Cancel-Lock: sha1:VtX5ZJuuRPXwnjIM7SLswkQtjsU= sha1:pOD+3kNgpi3yMXR5X8jlP/Zpfes= sha256:qhRTB8OuzNyYCqf5j2SbV6nD5PsdZ4uNGr3w5zuoqhI=
User-Agent: NewsTap/5.6 (iPad)

Jeff Liebermann <jeffl@cruzio.com> wrote:
> On 2 Jun 2025 08:28:17 GMT, Roger Merriman <roger@sarlet.com> wrote:
> 
>> Frank Krygowski <frkrygow@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>>> On 6/1/2025 5:12 PM, cyclintom wrote:
>>>> On Thu Dec 12 18:37:02 2024 Frank Krygowski  wrote:
>>>>> On 12/12/2024 2:49 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>> On 12/12/2024 11:51 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/12/2024 8:48 AM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/12/2024 7:19 AM, Zen Cycle wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/11/2024 4:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
>>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>>> So you agree with me that the crucial aspects are the actor and the
>>>>>>>> act, not the hardware.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> To a certain extent.
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> If every human being could be trusted to act responsibly, allowing a
>>>>>>> device that was developed expressly to kill other human beings to be
>>>>>>> possessed without any restrictions wouldn't be a problem.
>>>>> 
>>>>> But in that case, why would a person possess such a device? Some level
>>>>> of intent to kill is what drives ownership.
>>>>> 
>>>>> Yes, yes, I know that Andrew is not intent on killing when he takes his
>>>>> AR to the range. But somewhere in there is "practicing in case I need
>>>>> it" as motivation. That is, the motivation is not to put closely spaced
>>>>> holes in paper, because a .177 air rifle can do that as well or better.
>>>>> Somewhere is "I can blast away and destroy."
>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Following your posit to the extreme, there should be no reason
>>>>>>> therefore to prevent me from mounting a fully- operational m134
>>>>>>> minigun on the roof of my car. Hey, I'm a responsible adult, never
>>>>>>> been arrested, I've never committed any acts of violence, even had a
>>>>>>> security clearance for a time. If the criteria is _solely_ 'the actor
>>>>>>> and the act', why shouldn't I be able to do that?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> Why shouldn't _any_ one who has never had any history of violent
>>>>>>> behavior _not_ be allowed to own weapons of war? It's not like people
>>>>>>> with no history of violence have _ever_ engaged in a mass shooting....
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Well, you could.
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Tedious lengthy process plus $200 will get you your very own NFA tax
>>>>>> stamp,
>>>>> 
>>>>> But nobody does that without harboring at least the image of using such
>>>>> a gun to kill other people.
>>>>> 
>>>>> I think it's a bit weird even when it's confined to the world of video
>>>>> games. But when it leads to possession and proliferation of devices
>>>>> designed for such killing, it's a real societal problem.
>>>> 
>>>> Tell me Frank, what does it feel like for the law itself to disagree with you? 
>>> 
>>> Damn, Tom, what does it feel like to have to resurrect arguments from 
>>> December 12 to feel good about yourself? Have you been constantly 
>>> stewing over that for almost six months?
>> 
>> I suspect in this case it’s incompetence rather than deliberate!
>> Roger Merriman
> 
> The 6 month delay is not Tom's incompetence or malice.  Tom is using
> newshosting.com as his Usenet News service and his news reader
> program:
> <https://www.newshosting.com/newsreader/>
> I tried it and soon found that it supports various ways of displaying
> a thread of articles.  Some combinations work, while others stumble
> over duplicate message ID's, corrupted message ID's, and probably
> other bugs.  An easy one to see is in the NNTP header of Tom's
> messages, which all contain a growing number of alternating "Re:" and
> "re:" tags.  Something like this:
> Subject: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: RE: Re: Machine Shop
> There are probably other bugs, which have not been addressed by the
> vendor.  I could blame the vendor for offering a buggy news reader. Or
> I could blame Tom for knowingly using a buggy news reader.  Of course,
> Tom has ignored my recommended news reader.  There are some other
> possible reasons.  
> 
> 
That does sound rather too kind on him to be honest!

Roger Merriman