Weight loss with elliptical

Dopey Bastard <dbastard.RemoveThis@LinxNet.com> wrote:
>In article <hraPe.126020$a81.107802@fe03.news.easynews.com>,
> Blair P. Houghton <b.RemoveThis@p.h> writes:
>> Peter Allen <peteronusenet.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote:
>[snip]
>>>
>>>CCW = an irrelevance that should come with a gun license anyway, if you're
>>>going to do it that way.
>>
>> Actually, I think that's not a bad idea.
>>
>> In the sense that those vetted to get a CCW would be the
>> only ones competent to have a gun in the first place.
>[snip]
>
>I don't understand what Peter's comment meant, but, Blair, you're
>ignoring the Law Of Unintended Consequences. Consider: If everybody
>that wanted to own a gun (*any* gun, or just handguns, btw?) had to
>go to the trouble of first getting a CCW license: Yes, you'd probably
>cut down on the total number of legally-possessed guns. You'd also
>increase, perhaps by a couple orders of magnitude, the number of CCW
>holders. Which means you'd probably have many more people actually
>carrying. (Logic: "Since I have the license anyway, I might as well
>use it.") Do you really want to increase the number of armed
>citizens walking the streets?

You wouldn't get the license unless you intended to get a gun.
You wouldn't get a gun unless you met the standard for licensing.

In this country, today, there are two standards. You may
carry a gun if by the determination of the state you are
neither too young, too old, too criminally bent, too mentally
unsound, nor under a court's order not to carry a gun.

You may conceal your gun if you fit the state's criteria
for that (usually claiming some sort of need and taking
a class).

If we limit gun ownership to those willing to fit that
standard for concealing a gun, then we will limit gun
ownership.

Simple rule of retail economics: the easier it is to make
the purchase, the more people will do it. The people whose
deciding factor is ease of obtaining it will be the ones
with the least need for it.

>It's kind of like when anti-gun-nuts push Yet Another Anti-Gun
>Initiative. Firearms sales, particularly ones that might appear
>threatened, go though the roof. Anti-gun-nuts have probably been
>responsible for putting more guns "on the street" than any other
>single cause.

Possibly, but then I'm not an anti-gun nut.

>You want to get guns out of the hands of citizens, Blair? Shut up
>about taking guns out of the hands of law-abiding citizens. Put
>criminals, especially violent, repeat criminals, away and *keep* them
>away.

We do. It hasn't slowed the manufacture and marketing of
guns one bit. They keep manufacturing scary stories, too.

>But as long as you keep coddling criminals and threatening peoples'
>natural inclination to self defense, gun sales will continue to
>flourish.
>
>This really isn't rocket surgery.

I used to do that. It's not really rocket surgery either.

--Blair
"You don't want to know how laws,
sausages, or airplanes are made."
 >> Stay informed about: Weight loss with elliptical 

Dopey Bastard wrote:
> In article <deke2r$f7m$1@newsm1.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Peter Allen" <peteronusenet DeleteThis @hotmail.com> writes:
> [snip]
>>
>> If you trust someone to own a gun, then you might as well let them
>> carry it, they aren't going to misuse it anyway and they might use
>> it to stop some relatively minor (i.e. not homicide) crime.
>>
>> If you don't trust someone to carry a gun, then you shouldn't let
>> them own one at all.
>>
>> Can you give an example of a situation where you think someone
>> should be allowed to own a gun but not be allowed CCW?
>
> Oh. Well, yeah, I can. Somebody might be just fine to occasionally
> go shooting at the range, punching paper targets, maybe plinking
> tin-cans in some rural, wilderness setting, etc. But they might have
> neither the desire nor the ability to deal with a combat situation.

I don't see how that means it would be a bad thing for them to carry. Please
clarify.

Peter
 >> Stay informed about: Weight loss with elliptical 

Larry Hodges wrote:
> Peter Allen wrote:
>>
>> If you trust someone to own a gun, then you might as well let them
>> carry it, they aren't going to misuse it anyway and they might use it
>> to stop some relatively minor (i.e. not homicide) crime.
>>
>> If you don't trust someone to carry a gun, then you shouldn't let
>> them own one at all.
>>
>> Can you give an example of a situation where you think someone should
>> be allowed to own a gun but not be allowed CCW?
>
> I used mine to prevent a crime. I might also point out that having a
> gun actually averted violence.

I don't see how that's relevant. I'm well aware that in some cases someone
with a gun can stop a crime - like I said in the first quoted paragraph.

Again - any example of someone who should be allowed a gun but not a CCW?
I'm thinking of a case where having a CCW would cause a public danger or
similar, not just a case of someone who wants a gun to shoot targets at a
range but doesn't need or want CCW.

Peter
 >> Stay informed about: Weight loss with elliptical 

Peter Allen wrote:
> Larry Hodges wrote:
>> Peter Allen wrote:
>>>
>>> If you trust someone to own a gun, then you might as well let them
>>> carry it, they aren't going to misuse it anyway and they might use
>>> it to stop some relatively minor (i.e. not homicide) crime.
>>>
>>> If you don't trust someone to carry a gun, then you shouldn't let
>>> them own one at all.
>>>
>>> Can you give an example of a situation where you think someone
>>> should be allowed to own a gun but not be allowed CCW?
>>
>> I used mine to prevent a crime. I might also point out that having a
>> gun actually averted violence.
>
> I don't see how that's relevant. I'm well aware that in some cases
> someone with a gun can stop a crime - like I said in the first quoted
> paragraph.
> Again - any example of someone who should be allowed a gun but not a
> CCW?

Sure. Anybody not willing to be proficient with a handgun. Or an elderly
person who can't shoot a handgun, but a shotgun within their own home would
work for them. Or someone with limited vision. I wouldn't consider them
CCW material, but wouldn't deny them a gun to protect their home.

>I'm thinking of a case where having a CCW would cause a public
> danger or similar, not just a case of someone who wants a gun to
> shoot targets at a range but doesn't need or want CCW.

I can't think of one.

> Peter

--
-Larry

"The troll hasn't been born who can troll us worse than we troll
ourselves." Hugh Beyer
 >> Stay informed about: Weight loss with elliptical 

Larry Hodges wrote:
> Peter Allen wrote:
>> Larry Hodges wrote:
>>> Peter Allen wrote:
>>>>
>>>> If you trust someone to own a gun, then you might as well let them
>>>> carry it, they aren't going to misuse it anyway and they might use
>>>> it to stop some relatively minor (i.e. not homicide) crime.
>>>>
>>>> If you don't trust someone to carry a gun, then you shouldn't let
>>>> them own one at all.
>>>>
>>>> Can you give an example of a situation where you think someone
>>>> should be allowed to own a gun but not be allowed CCW?
>>>
>>> I used mine to prevent a crime. I might also point out that having
>>> a gun actually averted violence.
>>
>> I don't see how that's relevant. I'm well aware that in some cases
>> someone with a gun can stop a crime - like I said in the first quoted
>> paragraph.
>> Again - any example of someone who should be allowed a gun but not a
>> CCW?
>
> Sure. Anybody not willing to be proficient with a handgun. Or an
> elderly person who can't shoot a handgun, but a shotgun within their
> own home would work for them. Or someone with limited vision. I
> wouldn't consider them CCW material, but wouldn't deny them a gun to
> protect their home.

These are people who do not need a CCW, not people who would be a public
danger if given one.

>> I'm thinking of a case where having a CCW would cause a public
>> danger or similar, not just a case of someone who wants a gun to
>> shoot targets at a range but doesn't need or want CCW.
>
> I can't think of one.

Which is why I think the whole idea of a CCW permit is pointless - you might
as well simply issue it with a gun license, currently every so often there
will be someone who doesn't have a CCW, hence doesn't carry, hence is unable
to prevent a crime, whereas a criminal who owns a gun and wants to misuse it
will do so whether or not they have a CCW.

Peter
 >> Stay informed about: Weight loss with elliptical 

In article <del0qh$ut$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
"Peter Allen" <peteronusenet RemoveThis @hotmail.com> writes:
[snip]
>
> I don't see how that means it would be a bad thing for them to carry. Please
> clarify.

There's a world of difference between casual shooting at the range
and combat shooting. While I support the right, the responsibility,
even, of every individual to protect and defend themselves, I believe
it *unwise* for somebody not adequately instructed and practiced in
firearms use to carry one for defense.

--
Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
jseymour RemoveThis @LinxNet.com | - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876
 >> Stay informed about: Weight loss with elliptical 

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 00:09:26 -0000, dbastard RemoveThis @LinxNet.com (Dopey
Bastard) wrote in misc.fitness.weights:

>In article <del0qh$ut$1@newsg4.svr.pol.co.uk>,
> "Peter Allen" <peteronusenet RemoveThis @hotmail.com> writes:
>[snip]
>>
>> I don't see how that means it would be a bad thing for them to carry. Please
>> clarify.
>
>There's a world of difference between casual shooting at the range
>and combat shooting. While I support the right, the responsibility,
>even, of every individual to protect and defend themselves, I believe
>it *unwise* for somebody not adequately instructed and practiced in
>firearms use to carry one for defense.

I think individuals should be the judge of their own combat shooting
proficiency regarding carrying for personal defense.
 >> Stay informed about: Weight loss with elliptical 

"Charles" <charles DeleteThis @uk.com> wrote in message
news:ogqrg1hbfbh3atjmrgk93h8vj62cj1v4sb@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 15:41:56 -0000, dbastard DeleteThis @LinxNet.com (Dopey
> Bastard) wrote:
>
> >In article <8mcrg1tuc183j9nrk8gj2rn1t0o4um0m0g DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
> > Charles <charles DeleteThis @uk.com> writes:
> >> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:38:31 -0000, dbastard DeleteThis @LinxNet.com (Dopey
> >> Bastard) wrote:
> >>
> >>>In article <gfqqg15go5cr98jbvrqp82f2tjto817bha DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
> >>> Charles <chucky DeleteThis @gb.com> writes:
> >>>[snip]
> >>>>
> >>>> You are beginning to emerge as the Group's resident "troll" Jim!!
> >>>
> >>>Yay for me!
> >>
> >> Not so Sir, those of us who have been vying for the title for a number
> >> of years, may not be too impressed at your rate of emergence!
> >
> >One may perhaps be forgiven for suspecting what you really meant by
> >that was "not too happy."
>
> I can speak for only myself but it is acknowledged that my sense of
> humour has not been over stimulated by the speed that you have taken
> to the task at hand, given the length of time it took others to
> achieve authentic "troll" status!
>
> You will need positive assessment by the Idiot Michaels, together with
> proof of harassment upon a helpless hapless female, and positive
> evidence that you have been responsible for the departure from the
> Group of at least two "old regulars", before you are able to achieve
> full authentication.
>
> You're degree of irritating bastard is already at above average, and
> you possess superior levels of dopiness.
>
> Until the above criteria stipulated in paragraph two has been
> achieved, the Board of Resident "Trolls" have decided that you will be
> designated Local Temporary Unpaid Acting Probationary "Troll" 2nd
> Class.

I think you are being overly generous Charles.- Dopey has a long way to go
before he can be designated even "Apprentice Troll". You forgot that in
order to earn that rarefied title he needs at the very least to have been
killfiled by the idiot Michaels.
 >> Stay informed about: Weight loss with elliptical 

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:39:13 GMT, "David" <forgotwhy.TakeThisOut@yahoo.com.au>
wrote:

>
>"Charles" <charles.TakeThisOut@uk.com> wrote in message
>news:ogqrg1hbfbh3atjmrgk93h8vj62cj1v4sb@4ax.com...
>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 15:41:56 -0000, dbastard.TakeThisOut@LinxNet.com (Dopey
>> Bastard) wrote:
>>
>> >In article <8mcrg1tuc183j9nrk8gj2rn1t0o4um0m0g.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>,
>> > Charles <charles.TakeThisOut@uk.com> writes:
>> >> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:38:31 -0000, dbastard.TakeThisOut@LinxNet.com (Dopey
>> >> Bastard) wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>In article <gfqqg15go5cr98jbvrqp82f2tjto817bha.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>,
>> >>> Charles <chucky.TakeThisOut@gb.com> writes:
>> >>>[snip]
>> >>>>
>> >>>> You are beginning to emerge as the Group's resident "troll" Jim!!
>> >>>
>> >>>Yay for me!
>> >>
>> >> Not so Sir, those of us who have been vying for the title for a number
>> >> of years, may not be too impressed at your rate of emergence!
>> >
>> >One may perhaps be forgiven for suspecting what you really meant by
>> >that was "not too happy."
>>
>> I can speak for only myself but it is acknowledged that my sense of
>> humour has not been over stimulated by the speed that you have taken
>> to the task at hand, given the length of time it took others to
>> achieve authentic "troll" status!
>>
>> You will need positive assessment by the Idiot Michaels, together with
>> proof of harassment upon a helpless hapless female, and positive
>> evidence that you have been responsible for the departure from the
>> Group of at least two "old regulars", before you are able to achieve
>> full authentication.
>>
>> You're degree of irritating bastard is already at above average, and
>> you possess superior levels of dopiness.
>>
>> Until the above criteria stipulated in paragraph two has been
>> achieved, the Board of Resident "Trolls" have decided that you will be
>> designated Local Temporary Unpaid Acting Probationary "Troll" 2nd
>> Class.
>
>I think you are being overly generous Charles.- Dopey has a long way to go
>before he can be designated even "Apprentice Troll". You forgot that in
>order to earn that rarefied title he needs at the very least to have been
>killfiled by the idiot Michaels.

I think that was covered under his "positive assessment by the Idiot
Michaels" clause.

However, if you believe that an alleged "killingfiling" from the guru
of all things "whingeing" and "whining" is appropriate, no doubt the
self-appointed master of such things will oblige in due course!! ;o)

HAGW!

TFIF!
 >> Stay informed about: Weight loss with elliptical 

"Martha S. Gallagher" wrote:
> Yes, ellipticals are great for losing weight. One way to get a great
> workout is to listen to an mp3 player (or any other music source that's
> permissible in your gym), really get going for the fast/energetic songs
> and then ease back down for the slower songs.

I whole heartedly agree with this. When I had my mp3 player and was using cross
trainers, I tended to workout harder with a Def Leppard/GNR/Metallica/ACDC etc
track
and when something like Sweet Home Alabhama came on I slowed
 >> Stay informed about: Weight loss with elliptical 

In article <5b7ug1t52fvfbktmooo13nk3nb7cqpfe4l.TakeThisOut@4ax.com>,
John Hanson <jhanson.TakeThisOut@northernlinks.com> writes:
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 00:09:26 -0000, dbastard.TakeThisOut@LinxNet.com (Dopey
> Bastard) wrote in misc.fitness.weights:
[snip]
>>There's a world of difference between casual shooting at the range
>>and combat shooting. While I support the right, the responsibility,
>>even, of every individual to protect and defend themselves, I believe
>>it *unwise* for somebody not adequately instructed and practiced in
>>firearms use to carry one for defense.
>
> I think individuals should be the judge of their own combat shooting
> proficiency regarding carrying for personal defense.

I tend to agree--simply because allowing others to do the judging
can lead to abuse. Probably would lead to abuse. But that doesn't
change the fact that one ought not carry unless one can do so
competently. Controlling deadly force is a heavy responsibility.

--
Jim Seymour | "It is wrong always, everywhere and
WARNING: The "From:" address is a | for everyone to believe anything upon
spam trap. DON'T USE IT! Use: | insufficient evidence."
jseymour.TakeThisOut@LinxNet.com | - W. K. Clifford, ca. 1876
 >> Stay informed about: Weight loss with elliptical 

On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:29:23 +0100, Charles <charles DeleteThis @uk.com> wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:39:13 GMT, "David" <forgotwhy DeleteThis @yahoo.com.au>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>"Charles" <charles DeleteThis @uk.com> wrote in message
>>news:ogqrg1hbfbh3atjmrgk93h8vj62cj1v4sb@4ax.com...
>>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 15:41:56 -0000, dbastard DeleteThis @LinxNet.com (Dopey
>>> Bastard) wrote:
>>>
>>> >In article <8mcrg1tuc183j9nrk8gj2rn1t0o4um0m0g DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
>>> > Charles <charles DeleteThis @uk.com> writes:
>>> >> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:38:31 -0000, dbastard DeleteThis @LinxNet.com (Dopey
>>> >> Bastard) wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>>In article <gfqqg15go5cr98jbvrqp82f2tjto817bha DeleteThis @4ax.com>,
>>> >>> Charles <chucky DeleteThis @gb.com> writes:
>>> >>>[snip]
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>> You are beginning to emerge as the Group's resident "troll" Jim!!
>>> >>>
>>> >>>Yay for me!
>>> >>
>>> >> Not so Sir, those of us who have been vying for the title for a number
>>> >> of years, may not be too impressed at your rate of emergence!
>>> >
>>> >One may perhaps be forgiven for suspecting what you really meant by
>>> >that was "not too happy."
>>>
>>> I can speak for only myself but it is acknowledged that my sense of
>>> humour has not been over stimulated by the speed that you have taken
>>> to the task at hand, given the length of time it took others to
>>> achieve authentic "troll" status!
>>>
>>> You will need positive assessment by the Idiot Michaels, together with
>>> proof of harassment upon a helpless hapless female, and positive
>>> evidence that you have been responsible for the departure from the
>>> Group of at least two "old regulars", before you are able to achieve
>>> full authentication.
>>>
>>> You're degree of irritating bastard is already at above average, and
>>> you possess superior levels of dopiness.
>>>
>>> Until the above criteria stipulated in paragraph two has been
>>> achieved, the Board of Resident "Trolls" have decided that you will be
>>> designated Local Temporary Unpaid Acting Probationary "Troll" 2nd
>>> Class.
>>
>>I think you are being overly generous Charles.- Dopey has a long way to go
>>before he can be designated even "Apprentice Troll". You forgot that in
>>order to earn that rarefied title he needs at the very least to have been
>>killfiled by the idiot Michaels.
>
>I think that was covered under his "positive assessment by the Idiot
>Michaels" clause.
>
>However, if you believe that an alleged "killingfiling" from the guru
>of all things "whingeing" and "whining" is appropriate, no doubt the
>self-appointed master of such things will oblige in due course!! ;o)

I forgot to mention that if the Idiot Michaels has retired or perhaps
died (he is very old), which may well be the case as he has been
noticeable by his absence, do you think that we could have a early
upgrade to Group idiot for Jim "Dopey Bastard" Seymour?

Jim is more than qualified, even to changing his ID to "Dopey Bastard"
in recognition of his special qualities and abilities, which when
added to his other qualifications make him the ideal candidate.

Perhaps we could have your thoughts on this very important
appointment, or do you think it is more appropriate that it be done by
one of your surveys or polls? ;o)

HAGW!!

TFIF!
 >> Stay informed about: Weight loss with elliptical 

"Charles" <charles.DeleteThis@uk.com> wrote in message
news:ojiug1lehe96ddn8o73vvt698s5ocpt8n0@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 11:29:23 +0100, Charles <charles.DeleteThis@uk.com> wrote:
>
> >On Fri, 26 Aug 2005 09:39:13 GMT, "David" <forgotwhy.DeleteThis@yahoo.com.au>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>
> >>"Charles" <charles.DeleteThis@uk.com> wrote in message
> >>news:ogqrg1hbfbh3atjmrgk93h8vj62cj1v4sb@4ax.com...
> >>> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 15:41:56 -0000, dbastard.DeleteThis@LinxNet.com (Dopey
> >>> Bastard) wrote:
> >>>
> >>> >In article <8mcrg1tuc183j9nrk8gj2rn1t0o4um0m0g.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
> >>> > Charles <charles.DeleteThis@uk.com> writes:
> >>> >> On Thu, 25 Aug 2005 11:38:31 -0000, dbastard.DeleteThis@LinxNet.com (Dopey
> >>> >> Bastard) wrote:
> >>> >>
> >>> >>>In article <gfqqg15go5cr98jbvrqp82f2tjto817bha.DeleteThis@4ax.com>,
> >>> >>> Charles <chucky.DeleteThis@gb.com> writes:
> >>> >>>[snip]
> >>> >>>>
> >>> >>>> You are beginning to emerge as the Group's resident "troll" Jim!!
> >>> >>>
> >>> >>>Yay for me!
> >>> >>
> >>> >> Not so Sir, those of us who have been vying for the title for a
number
> >>> >> of years, may not be too impressed at your rate of emergence!
> >>> >
> >>> >One may perhaps be forgiven for suspecting what you really meant by
> >>> >that was "not too happy."
> >>>
> >>> I can speak for only myself but it is acknowledged that my sense of
> >>> humour has not been over stimulated by the speed that you have taken
> >>> to the task at hand, given the length of time it took others to
> >>> achieve authentic "troll" status!
> >>>
> >>> You will need positive assessment by the Idiot Michaels, together with
> >>> proof of harassment upon a helpless hapless female, and positive
> >>> evidence that you have been responsible for the departure from the
> >>> Group of at least two "old regulars", before you are able to achieve
> >>> full authentication.
> >>>
> >>> You're degree of irritating bastard is already at above average, and
> >>> you possess superior levels of dopiness.
> >>>
> >>> Until the above criteria stipulated in paragraph two has been
> >>> achieved, the Board of Resident "Trolls" have decided that you will be
> >>> designated Local Temporary Unpaid Acting Probationary "Troll" 2nd
> >>> Class.
> >>
> >>I think you are being overly generous Charles.- Dopey has a long way to
go
> >>before he can be designated even "Apprentice Troll". You forgot that in
> >>order to earn that rarefied title he needs at the very least to have
been
> >>killfiled by the idiot Michaels.
> >
> >I think that was covered under his "positive assessment by the Idiot
> >Michaels" clause.
> >
> >However, if you believe that an alleged "killingfiling" from the guru
> >of all things "whingeing" and "whining" is appropriate, no doubt the
> >self-appointed master of such things will oblige in due course!! ;o)
>
> I forgot to mention that if the Idiot Michaels has retired or perhaps
> died (he is very old), which may well be the case as he has been
> noticeable by his absence, do you think that we could have a early
> upgrade to Group idiot for Jim "Dopey Bastard" Seymour?
>
> Jim is more than qualified, even to changing his ID to "Dopey Bastard"
> in recognition of his special qualities and abilities, which when
> added to his other qualifications make him the ideal candidate.
>
> Perhaps we could have your thoughts on this very important
> appointment, or do you think it is more appropriate that it be done by
> one of your surveys or polls? ;o)

It's a vexing issue, Charles. Maybe we could ask Art to expand his portfolio
and try to resolve this for us? (I only conduct polls on matters of national
interest)
 >> Stay informed about: Weight loss with elliptical