Gun books recommendations

On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, J. Gleixner wrote:

> Tom Anderson wrote:
>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Omelet wrote:
>>
>>> In article <VM8rh.3541$Oe2.153@bignews7.bellsouth.net>,
>>> "Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl RemoveThis @yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "J. Gleixner" <glex_no-spam RemoveThis @qwest-spam-no.invalid> wrote in message
>>>> news:45ad14ec$0$503$815e3792@news.qwest.net...
>>>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>>>> David Cohen recommended this one sometime back:
>>>>>
>>>>> What does this have to do with fitness?
>>>>
>>>> Oh dear.
>>>
>>> Chill dude.
>>>
>>> This is mfw.
>>
>> To clarify: here, as the group title indicates, we are primarily about
>> miscellany, secondarily about fitness, and lastly about weights.
>
> No, the specific topic is weights, as it pertains to fitness, in a
> general category of miscellaneous. In other words, the post should have
> some relation to weights/weight lifting, as it relates to fitness. The
> topic becomes more specific at each '.', left to right.

Good god! You must be some sort of rocket scientist or something. This
stuff is way over my head.

Sadly, your analysis, whilst logical and compelling, is wrong - you are
taking an essentially prescriptivist line, assuming that the nature of the
newsgroup should follow its name, and that any deviation from this, such
as you have so astutely observed here, is evil and bad and, dare i say it,
wrong. The simple truth is that names are not special; they have no
magical power or moral authority, no imprimatur to give, they are simply
labels applied to objects. The nature of the object does not follow from
the name, any more than the nature of a person or street does. That the
object in question here, a newsgroup frequented by a stew of strange and
unsavoury characters and used for discussion of guns, dogs, unsettling
pornography, one another's acts and qualities, weightlifting, politics,
films, recipes, comics and other nonsense, goes by a somewhat
inappropriate name is perhaps unhelpful, but, as you will learn once
you've used the internet for more than four or five minutes, really quite
normal and nothing to worry about.

tom

--
Understanding the universe is the final purpose, as far as I'm
concerned. -- Ian York

"Tom Anderson" <twic.RemoveThis@urchin.earth.li> wrote
> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, J. Gleixner wrote:
>> Tom Anderson wrote:
>>> On Tue, 16 Jan 2007, Omelet wrote:
>>>> "Edna Pearl" <edna_pearl.RemoveThis@yahoo.BiteMeSpammer.com> wrote:
>>>>> "J. Gleixner" <glex_no-spam.RemoveThis@qwest-spam-no.invalid> wrote
>>>>>> Omelet wrote:
>>>>>>> David Cohen recommended this one sometime back:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What does this have to do with fitness?
>>>>>
>>>>> Oh dear.
>>>>
>>>> Chill dude.
>>>>
>>>> This is mfw.
>>>
>>> To clarify: here, as the group title indicates, we are primarily about
>>> miscellany, secondarily about fitness, and lastly about weights.
>>
>> No, the specific topic is weights, as it pertains to fitness, in a
>> general category of miscellaneous. In other words, the post should have
>> some relation to weights/weight lifting, as it relates to fitness. The
>> topic becomes more specific at each '.', left to right.
>
> Good god! You must be some sort of rocket scientist or something. This
> stuff is way over my head.
>
> Sadly, your analysis, whilst logical and compelling, is wrong - you are
> taking an essentially prescriptivist line, assuming that the nature of the
> newsgroup should follow its name, and that any deviation from this, such
> as you have so astutely observed here, is evil and bad and, dare i say it,
> wrong. The simple truth is that names are not special; they have no
> magical power or moral authority, no imprimatur to give, they are simply
> labels applied to objects. The nature of the object does not follow from
> the name, any more than the nature of a person or street does. That the
> object in question here, a newsgroup frequented by a stew of strange and
> unsavoury characters and used for discussion of guns, dogs, unsettling
> pornography, one another's acts and qualities, weightlifting, politics,
> films, recipes, comics and other nonsense, goes by a somewhat
> inappropriate name is perhaps unhelpful, but, as you will learn once
> you've used the internet for more than four or five minutes, really quite
> normal and nothing to worry about.

Tom, if we change the name of the group to
soc.rec.whineydouchebagsarenotwelcome, maybe he'll go away.

David