From: russell-watson@att.net   
      
   On Fri, 22 Aug 2003 18:52:09 GMT, html5lover@7yahoo.com (toadmonkey)   
   wrote:   
      
   >On Thu, 21 Aug 2003 22:10:02 -0500, "laro"  wrote:   
   >>   
   >>"Gerald Clough"  wrote in message   
   >>news:3F456179.5040005@texas.net...   
   >>> Right. It would violate some basic physics. If it was enough to throw   
   >>> the man-mass target back, it would have thrown the shooter back as well.   
   >>   
   >>Is that correct, Gerald?  I'm not experienced in that sort   
   >>of business, but I would expect that a slug from a 1911   
   >>at short range would knock the recipient of same back   
   >>just a few inches.  Not so?   
   >>   
   >>(of course, I don't mean it would knock a person back   
   >>across a room or over a car hood, just 'back'.)   
   >>   
   >>I didn't see the movie referred to (yet) and maybe there   
   >>was an overly-dramatic screen gunfight.   
   >>   
   >Kinda like that western flic with Sharon Stone and Gene Hackman.  Sharon   
   picked   
   >Gene off, he fliped backwards, head over heels, and he had a clean hole right   
   >through him that you could look through.   
   >TM   
      
   Now that's some major-league BS. I've never been able to watch more   
   than a couple of minutes of that stupid thing. I don't know who's   
   harder to believe as a gunslinger, Leonardo DiCaprio or Sharon Stone.   
   Not that I have trouble seeing her as a killer: she seems to me to be   
   the sort of woman who would just as soon castrate a man as look at   
   him, which is why I don't care for anything she's in. About the only   
   thing I liked about that flick was the little gal who used to be   
   Dorothy Jane Torkelson was in it, but even that was ruined because she   
   was a whore.   
      
      
   '97 FLSTF   
   To reply by e-mail, remove nospam from address.   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)