Jeep Fought The Rock -- And The Rock Won
#151
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Fought The Rock -- And The Rock Won
Kate wrote:
>
> Ya'll are out of your f-ing minds if you think some is going to do something
> stupid simply because they turn their hat around.
Then let us rephrase: Something stupid is about to happen when someone
wears their cap (not hat) backwards when they're NOT welding or trying
to keep their neck from sunburning (although a hat, not a cap, would be
a better solution in that case, but I'll adit that sometimes all I have
is a cap when I need sun protection). I wouldn't even turn mine around
to keep it from blowing off in my convertible- I wouldn't want to be
mistaken for a damnfool urban punk.
>
> Ya'll are out of your f-ing minds if you think some is going to do something
> stupid simply because they turn their hat around.
Then let us rephrase: Something stupid is about to happen when someone
wears their cap (not hat) backwards when they're NOT welding or trying
to keep their neck from sunburning (although a hat, not a cap, would be
a better solution in that case, but I'll adit that sometimes all I have
is a cap when I need sun protection). I wouldn't even turn mine around
to keep it from blowing off in my convertible- I wouldn't want to be
mistaken for a damnfool urban punk.
#152
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Fought The Rock -- And The Rock Won
Kate wrote:
>
> Ya'll are out of your f-ing minds if you think some is going to do something
> stupid simply because they turn their hat around.
Then let us rephrase: Something stupid is about to happen when someone
wears their cap (not hat) backwards when they're NOT welding or trying
to keep their neck from sunburning (although a hat, not a cap, would be
a better solution in that case, but I'll adit that sometimes all I have
is a cap when I need sun protection). I wouldn't even turn mine around
to keep it from blowing off in my convertible- I wouldn't want to be
mistaken for a damnfool urban punk.
>
> Ya'll are out of your f-ing minds if you think some is going to do something
> stupid simply because they turn their hat around.
Then let us rephrase: Something stupid is about to happen when someone
wears their cap (not hat) backwards when they're NOT welding or trying
to keep their neck from sunburning (although a hat, not a cap, would be
a better solution in that case, but I'll adit that sometimes all I have
is a cap when I need sun protection). I wouldn't even turn mine around
to keep it from blowing off in my convertible- I wouldn't want to be
mistaken for a damnfool urban punk.
#153
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Fought The Rock -- And The Rock Won
Kate wrote:
>
> Ya'll are out of your f-ing minds if you think some is going to do something
> stupid simply because they turn their hat around.
Then let us rephrase: Something stupid is about to happen when someone
wears their cap (not hat) backwards when they're NOT welding or trying
to keep their neck from sunburning (although a hat, not a cap, would be
a better solution in that case, but I'll adit that sometimes all I have
is a cap when I need sun protection). I wouldn't even turn mine around
to keep it from blowing off in my convertible- I wouldn't want to be
mistaken for a damnfool urban punk.
>
> Ya'll are out of your f-ing minds if you think some is going to do something
> stupid simply because they turn their hat around.
Then let us rephrase: Something stupid is about to happen when someone
wears their cap (not hat) backwards when they're NOT welding or trying
to keep their neck from sunburning (although a hat, not a cap, would be
a better solution in that case, but I'll adit that sometimes all I have
is a cap when I need sun protection). I wouldn't even turn mine around
to keep it from blowing off in my convertible- I wouldn't want to be
mistaken for a damnfool urban punk.
#154
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Fought The Rock -- And The Rock Won
Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net> writes:
> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>> "Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>> "Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:1bwsuihdiy.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net ...
>>>
>>>>Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>LOL! Any time you see young white guys wearing their hats backwards
>>>>>(for many, it's all the time), you can always bet on something stupid
>>>>>happening.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, don't be racist and ageist. Don't have to be white, don't have to
>>>>be young.
>>>
>>>
>>>Making an accurate observation is neither.
>>>It is merely a statement of the truth.
>>
>>
>> My point was that it was unnecessarily narrow. When you see guys of
>> other colors, and old guys, with their hats on backwards you can still
>> bet on something stupid happening (it's arguable whether something
>> stupid has *already* happened when he put his hat on).
>
> You're reading *way* too much into it, Joe.
I tried to extend the joke a notch and found myself labelled PC....
> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>> "Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>> "Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:1bwsuihdiy.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net ...
>>>
>>>>Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>LOL! Any time you see young white guys wearing their hats backwards
>>>>>(for many, it's all the time), you can always bet on something stupid
>>>>>happening.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, don't be racist and ageist. Don't have to be white, don't have to
>>>>be young.
>>>
>>>
>>>Making an accurate observation is neither.
>>>It is merely a statement of the truth.
>>
>>
>> My point was that it was unnecessarily narrow. When you see guys of
>> other colors, and old guys, with their hats on backwards you can still
>> bet on something stupid happening (it's arguable whether something
>> stupid has *already* happened when he put his hat on).
>
> You're reading *way* too much into it, Joe.
I tried to extend the joke a notch and found myself labelled PC....
#155
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Fought The Rock -- And The Rock Won
Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net> writes:
> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>> "Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>> "Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:1bwsuihdiy.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net ...
>>>
>>>>Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>LOL! Any time you see young white guys wearing their hats backwards
>>>>>(for many, it's all the time), you can always bet on something stupid
>>>>>happening.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, don't be racist and ageist. Don't have to be white, don't have to
>>>>be young.
>>>
>>>
>>>Making an accurate observation is neither.
>>>It is merely a statement of the truth.
>>
>>
>> My point was that it was unnecessarily narrow. When you see guys of
>> other colors, and old guys, with their hats on backwards you can still
>> bet on something stupid happening (it's arguable whether something
>> stupid has *already* happened when he put his hat on).
>
> You're reading *way* too much into it, Joe.
I tried to extend the joke a notch and found myself labelled PC....
> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>> "Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>> "Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:1bwsuihdiy.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net ...
>>>
>>>>Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>LOL! Any time you see young white guys wearing their hats backwards
>>>>>(for many, it's all the time), you can always bet on something stupid
>>>>>happening.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, don't be racist and ageist. Don't have to be white, don't have to
>>>>be young.
>>>
>>>
>>>Making an accurate observation is neither.
>>>It is merely a statement of the truth.
>>
>>
>> My point was that it was unnecessarily narrow. When you see guys of
>> other colors, and old guys, with their hats on backwards you can still
>> bet on something stupid happening (it's arguable whether something
>> stupid has *already* happened when he put his hat on).
>
> You're reading *way* too much into it, Joe.
I tried to extend the joke a notch and found myself labelled PC....
#156
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Fought The Rock -- And The Rock Won
Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net> writes:
> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>> "Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>> "Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:1bwsuihdiy.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net ...
>>>
>>>>Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>LOL! Any time you see young white guys wearing their hats backwards
>>>>>(for many, it's all the time), you can always bet on something stupid
>>>>>happening.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, don't be racist and ageist. Don't have to be white, don't have to
>>>>be young.
>>>
>>>
>>>Making an accurate observation is neither.
>>>It is merely a statement of the truth.
>>
>>
>> My point was that it was unnecessarily narrow. When you see guys of
>> other colors, and old guys, with their hats on backwards you can still
>> bet on something stupid happening (it's arguable whether something
>> stupid has *already* happened when he put his hat on).
>
> You're reading *way* too much into it, Joe.
I tried to extend the joke a notch and found myself labelled PC....
> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>> "Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>> "Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:1bwsuihdiy.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net ...
>>>
>>>>Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>LOL! Any time you see young white guys wearing their hats backwards
>>>>>(for many, it's all the time), you can always bet on something stupid
>>>>>happening.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, don't be racist and ageist. Don't have to be white, don't have to
>>>>be young.
>>>
>>>
>>>Making an accurate observation is neither.
>>>It is merely a statement of the truth.
>>
>>
>> My point was that it was unnecessarily narrow. When you see guys of
>> other colors, and old guys, with their hats on backwards you can still
>> bet on something stupid happening (it's arguable whether something
>> stupid has *already* happened when he put his hat on).
>
> You're reading *way* too much into it, Joe.
I tried to extend the joke a notch and found myself labelled PC....
#157
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Fought The Rock -- And The Rock Won
Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net> writes:
> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>> "Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>> "Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:1bwsuihdiy.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net ...
>>>
>>>>Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>LOL! Any time you see young white guys wearing their hats backwards
>>>>>(for many, it's all the time), you can always bet on something stupid
>>>>>happening.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, don't be racist and ageist. Don't have to be white, don't have to
>>>>be young.
>>>
>>>
>>>Making an accurate observation is neither.
>>>It is merely a statement of the truth.
>>
>>
>> My point was that it was unnecessarily narrow. When you see guys of
>> other colors, and old guys, with their hats on backwards you can still
>> bet on something stupid happening (it's arguable whether something
>> stupid has *already* happened when he put his hat on).
>
> You're reading *way* too much into it, Joe.
I tried to extend the joke a notch and found myself labelled PC....
> Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
>> "Spdloader" <askforit@nospam.triad.rr.com> writes:
>>
>>
>>> "Joe Pfeiffer" <pfeiffer@cs.nmsu.edu> wrote in message
>>> news:1bwsuihdiy.fsf@snowball.wb.pfeifferfamily.net ...
>>>
>>>>Bill Putney <bptn@kinez.net> writes:
>>>>
>>>>>LOL! Any time you see young white guys wearing their hats backwards
>>>>>(for many, it's all the time), you can always bet on something stupid
>>>>>happening.
>>>>
>>>>Oh, don't be racist and ageist. Don't have to be white, don't have to
>>>>be young.
>>>
>>>
>>>Making an accurate observation is neither.
>>>It is merely a statement of the truth.
>>
>>
>> My point was that it was unnecessarily narrow. When you see guys of
>> other colors, and old guys, with their hats on backwards you can still
>> bet on something stupid happening (it's arguable whether something
>> stupid has *already* happened when he put his hat on).
>
> You're reading *way* too much into it, Joe.
I tried to extend the joke a notch and found myself labelled PC....
#158
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Fought The Rock -- And The Rock Won
Dave Milne wrote:
> "Frank_v7.0" <none@no.net> wrote in message
> news:ZdcJi.17195$B25.16215@news01.roc.ny...
>> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>>> Dave Milne wrote:
>>>> I've met plenty of people I'd trust with a gun, and plenty of people
> who
>>>> should never be allowed out by themselves.
>>>>
>>>> Just for an OT discussion, are the following statements true, scaled
>>>> up to
>>>> country level ?
>>>>
>>>> "an armed North Korea is a polite North Korea"
>>> No, you have to keep things in context. An armed society is a polite
>>> society because you never know who might be armed so it's best to assume
>>> everyone is. On a nation to nation level that doesn't work so well
>>> because it's hardly ever the leaders that get hurt if the shooting
> starts.
>>>> "Its not WMDs that kill people, its people that kill people".
>>> WMD's DON'T kill people, someone has to set off the WMD and it's that
>>> someone that is doing the killing.
>>>
>>> The US and the old Soviet Union had insane amounts of nuclear weapons
>>> pointed at each other and those weapons never hurt a soul because no one
>>> used them (thank God), indeed it could be argued that WMD SAVE people
>>> because all those weapons may have kept the cold war from becoming hot.
>>>
>>> Jeff DeWitt
>> Yup! That was M.A.D. Mutually Assured Destruction. You'd have to be nuts
>> to start a nuclear war. The problem today is people who are nuts getting
>> their hands on nukes. And I apologize in advance for getting so far O.T.
>> in a Jeep Group :-)
>>
>> --
>> FRH
>
> oh well, since I agree with you both in the main, no point in arguing
> further :-)
>
> I not totally convinced an armed society is a polite society, as it depends
> on how many nutters you have. Equally, nuclear societies like the US,
> Britain and Russia are polite societies (for the MAD point you made).
> However as you said "you'd have to be nuts..", and I'm sure Iran and N Korea
> are nuts.
>
> Dave. Milne, Scotland
>
> Dave
>
>
In an armed society the nutters either learn to control themselves or
they are quickly taken care of. One thing they DON'T do is show up on a
collage campus and start blasting away, because if they do they quickly
get dealt with.
Jeff DeWitt
> "Frank_v7.0" <none@no.net> wrote in message
> news:ZdcJi.17195$B25.16215@news01.roc.ny...
>> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>>> Dave Milne wrote:
>>>> I've met plenty of people I'd trust with a gun, and plenty of people
> who
>>>> should never be allowed out by themselves.
>>>>
>>>> Just for an OT discussion, are the following statements true, scaled
>>>> up to
>>>> country level ?
>>>>
>>>> "an armed North Korea is a polite North Korea"
>>> No, you have to keep things in context. An armed society is a polite
>>> society because you never know who might be armed so it's best to assume
>>> everyone is. On a nation to nation level that doesn't work so well
>>> because it's hardly ever the leaders that get hurt if the shooting
> starts.
>>>> "Its not WMDs that kill people, its people that kill people".
>>> WMD's DON'T kill people, someone has to set off the WMD and it's that
>>> someone that is doing the killing.
>>>
>>> The US and the old Soviet Union had insane amounts of nuclear weapons
>>> pointed at each other and those weapons never hurt a soul because no one
>>> used them (thank God), indeed it could be argued that WMD SAVE people
>>> because all those weapons may have kept the cold war from becoming hot.
>>>
>>> Jeff DeWitt
>> Yup! That was M.A.D. Mutually Assured Destruction. You'd have to be nuts
>> to start a nuclear war. The problem today is people who are nuts getting
>> their hands on nukes. And I apologize in advance for getting so far O.T.
>> in a Jeep Group :-)
>>
>> --
>> FRH
>
> oh well, since I agree with you both in the main, no point in arguing
> further :-)
>
> I not totally convinced an armed society is a polite society, as it depends
> on how many nutters you have. Equally, nuclear societies like the US,
> Britain and Russia are polite societies (for the MAD point you made).
> However as you said "you'd have to be nuts..", and I'm sure Iran and N Korea
> are nuts.
>
> Dave. Milne, Scotland
>
> Dave
>
>
In an armed society the nutters either learn to control themselves or
they are quickly taken care of. One thing they DON'T do is show up on a
collage campus and start blasting away, because if they do they quickly
get dealt with.
Jeff DeWitt
#159
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Fought The Rock -- And The Rock Won
Dave Milne wrote:
> "Frank_v7.0" <none@no.net> wrote in message
> news:ZdcJi.17195$B25.16215@news01.roc.ny...
>> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>>> Dave Milne wrote:
>>>> I've met plenty of people I'd trust with a gun, and plenty of people
> who
>>>> should never be allowed out by themselves.
>>>>
>>>> Just for an OT discussion, are the following statements true, scaled
>>>> up to
>>>> country level ?
>>>>
>>>> "an armed North Korea is a polite North Korea"
>>> No, you have to keep things in context. An armed society is a polite
>>> society because you never know who might be armed so it's best to assume
>>> everyone is. On a nation to nation level that doesn't work so well
>>> because it's hardly ever the leaders that get hurt if the shooting
> starts.
>>>> "Its not WMDs that kill people, its people that kill people".
>>> WMD's DON'T kill people, someone has to set off the WMD and it's that
>>> someone that is doing the killing.
>>>
>>> The US and the old Soviet Union had insane amounts of nuclear weapons
>>> pointed at each other and those weapons never hurt a soul because no one
>>> used them (thank God), indeed it could be argued that WMD SAVE people
>>> because all those weapons may have kept the cold war from becoming hot.
>>>
>>> Jeff DeWitt
>> Yup! That was M.A.D. Mutually Assured Destruction. You'd have to be nuts
>> to start a nuclear war. The problem today is people who are nuts getting
>> their hands on nukes. And I apologize in advance for getting so far O.T.
>> in a Jeep Group :-)
>>
>> --
>> FRH
>
> oh well, since I agree with you both in the main, no point in arguing
> further :-)
>
> I not totally convinced an armed society is a polite society, as it depends
> on how many nutters you have. Equally, nuclear societies like the US,
> Britain and Russia are polite societies (for the MAD point you made).
> However as you said "you'd have to be nuts..", and I'm sure Iran and N Korea
> are nuts.
>
> Dave. Milne, Scotland
>
> Dave
>
>
In an armed society the nutters either learn to control themselves or
they are quickly taken care of. One thing they DON'T do is show up on a
collage campus and start blasting away, because if they do they quickly
get dealt with.
Jeff DeWitt
> "Frank_v7.0" <none@no.net> wrote in message
> news:ZdcJi.17195$B25.16215@news01.roc.ny...
>> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>>> Dave Milne wrote:
>>>> I've met plenty of people I'd trust with a gun, and plenty of people
> who
>>>> should never be allowed out by themselves.
>>>>
>>>> Just for an OT discussion, are the following statements true, scaled
>>>> up to
>>>> country level ?
>>>>
>>>> "an armed North Korea is a polite North Korea"
>>> No, you have to keep things in context. An armed society is a polite
>>> society because you never know who might be armed so it's best to assume
>>> everyone is. On a nation to nation level that doesn't work so well
>>> because it's hardly ever the leaders that get hurt if the shooting
> starts.
>>>> "Its not WMDs that kill people, its people that kill people".
>>> WMD's DON'T kill people, someone has to set off the WMD and it's that
>>> someone that is doing the killing.
>>>
>>> The US and the old Soviet Union had insane amounts of nuclear weapons
>>> pointed at each other and those weapons never hurt a soul because no one
>>> used them (thank God), indeed it could be argued that WMD SAVE people
>>> because all those weapons may have kept the cold war from becoming hot.
>>>
>>> Jeff DeWitt
>> Yup! That was M.A.D. Mutually Assured Destruction. You'd have to be nuts
>> to start a nuclear war. The problem today is people who are nuts getting
>> their hands on nukes. And I apologize in advance for getting so far O.T.
>> in a Jeep Group :-)
>>
>> --
>> FRH
>
> oh well, since I agree with you both in the main, no point in arguing
> further :-)
>
> I not totally convinced an armed society is a polite society, as it depends
> on how many nutters you have. Equally, nuclear societies like the US,
> Britain and Russia are polite societies (for the MAD point you made).
> However as you said "you'd have to be nuts..", and I'm sure Iran and N Korea
> are nuts.
>
> Dave. Milne, Scotland
>
> Dave
>
>
In an armed society the nutters either learn to control themselves or
they are quickly taken care of. One thing they DON'T do is show up on a
collage campus and start blasting away, because if they do they quickly
get dealt with.
Jeff DeWitt
#160
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Jeep Fought The Rock -- And The Rock Won
Dave Milne wrote:
> "Frank_v7.0" <none@no.net> wrote in message
> news:ZdcJi.17195$B25.16215@news01.roc.ny...
>> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>>> Dave Milne wrote:
>>>> I've met plenty of people I'd trust with a gun, and plenty of people
> who
>>>> should never be allowed out by themselves.
>>>>
>>>> Just for an OT discussion, are the following statements true, scaled
>>>> up to
>>>> country level ?
>>>>
>>>> "an armed North Korea is a polite North Korea"
>>> No, you have to keep things in context. An armed society is a polite
>>> society because you never know who might be armed so it's best to assume
>>> everyone is. On a nation to nation level that doesn't work so well
>>> because it's hardly ever the leaders that get hurt if the shooting
> starts.
>>>> "Its not WMDs that kill people, its people that kill people".
>>> WMD's DON'T kill people, someone has to set off the WMD and it's that
>>> someone that is doing the killing.
>>>
>>> The US and the old Soviet Union had insane amounts of nuclear weapons
>>> pointed at each other and those weapons never hurt a soul because no one
>>> used them (thank God), indeed it could be argued that WMD SAVE people
>>> because all those weapons may have kept the cold war from becoming hot.
>>>
>>> Jeff DeWitt
>> Yup! That was M.A.D. Mutually Assured Destruction. You'd have to be nuts
>> to start a nuclear war. The problem today is people who are nuts getting
>> their hands on nukes. And I apologize in advance for getting so far O.T.
>> in a Jeep Group :-)
>>
>> --
>> FRH
>
> oh well, since I agree with you both in the main, no point in arguing
> further :-)
>
> I not totally convinced an armed society is a polite society, as it depends
> on how many nutters you have. Equally, nuclear societies like the US,
> Britain and Russia are polite societies (for the MAD point you made).
> However as you said "you'd have to be nuts..", and I'm sure Iran and N Korea
> are nuts.
>
> Dave. Milne, Scotland
>
> Dave
>
>
In an armed society the nutters either learn to control themselves or
they are quickly taken care of. One thing they DON'T do is show up on a
collage campus and start blasting away, because if they do they quickly
get dealt with.
Jeff DeWitt
> "Frank_v7.0" <none@no.net> wrote in message
> news:ZdcJi.17195$B25.16215@news01.roc.ny...
>> Jeff DeWitt wrote:
>>> Dave Milne wrote:
>>>> I've met plenty of people I'd trust with a gun, and plenty of people
> who
>>>> should never be allowed out by themselves.
>>>>
>>>> Just for an OT discussion, are the following statements true, scaled
>>>> up to
>>>> country level ?
>>>>
>>>> "an armed North Korea is a polite North Korea"
>>> No, you have to keep things in context. An armed society is a polite
>>> society because you never know who might be armed so it's best to assume
>>> everyone is. On a nation to nation level that doesn't work so well
>>> because it's hardly ever the leaders that get hurt if the shooting
> starts.
>>>> "Its not WMDs that kill people, its people that kill people".
>>> WMD's DON'T kill people, someone has to set off the WMD and it's that
>>> someone that is doing the killing.
>>>
>>> The US and the old Soviet Union had insane amounts of nuclear weapons
>>> pointed at each other and those weapons never hurt a soul because no one
>>> used them (thank God), indeed it could be argued that WMD SAVE people
>>> because all those weapons may have kept the cold war from becoming hot.
>>>
>>> Jeff DeWitt
>> Yup! That was M.A.D. Mutually Assured Destruction. You'd have to be nuts
>> to start a nuclear war. The problem today is people who are nuts getting
>> their hands on nukes. And I apologize in advance for getting so far O.T.
>> in a Jeep Group :-)
>>
>> --
>> FRH
>
> oh well, since I agree with you both in the main, no point in arguing
> further :-)
>
> I not totally convinced an armed society is a polite society, as it depends
> on how many nutters you have. Equally, nuclear societies like the US,
> Britain and Russia are polite societies (for the MAD point you made).
> However as you said "you'd have to be nuts..", and I'm sure Iran and N Korea
> are nuts.
>
> Dave. Milne, Scotland
>
> Dave
>
>
In an armed society the nutters either learn to control themselves or
they are quickly taken care of. One thing they DON'T do is show up on a
collage campus and start blasting away, because if they do they quickly
get dealt with.
Jeff DeWitt