XPost: talk.politics.guns, uk.politics.guns, aus.politics.guns
XPost: aus.politics.guns
From: murff@warlock.org
On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 18:38:23 -0500, Scout wrote:
> "Murff" wrote in message
> news:l5gpt8$o79$3@dont-email.me...
>> On Thu, 07 Nov 2013 12:07:47 -0500, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>
>> Not a very eloquent admission of defeat. Not very original either - I
>> think I first saw that particular gambit on Usenet in about 1988.
>
> Sorry, but you're attempting to change the subject.....if there is a
> defeat, it yours in that you had to attempt to change the subject.
Seen that one before, too.
So to summarise:
1. We had a point that guns are not the smartest way to deal with
problems.
2. You countered with a highly specific case.
3. You case was demonstrated to be flawed.
4. So instead of attempting any counter-demonstration, you merely whined
about it and tried to take your rattle home...
5. ... and were called because it really isn't a very original ploy...
6. ... and now are trying the equally unoriginal ploy that it wasn't you
all along.
Poor showing. Lets try round 2.
So. You wish to define relevance. Feel free to do so and maybe we can do
something more interesting, eh ?
I return to my assertion that resort to firearms or other violently
incapacitating force on humans may be necessary in extreme cases, but is
not the smartest outcome - it indicates somewhere along the line at least
one, and maybe many, prior failures.
Your objection is, what ? Because, if we're talking about relevance, then
that paragraph there is immediately and directly relevant to the thread
topic.
--
Murff...
--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)
|
