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 Newsgroups: rec.bicycles.tech Subject: Re: Todays rant Date: 2 Jun 2025 19:38:23 GMT Lines: 84 Message-ID: References: <101ivd4$2nld9$4@dont-email.me> <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 wrote: > On 2 Jun 2025 08:28:17 GMT, Roger Merriman wrote: > >> Frank Krygowski 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 itÂ’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: > > 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