Path: csiph.com!xmission!news.alt.net!not-for-mail From: owl Newsgroups: comp.os.linux.advocacy Subject: Re: OT: OK, what changed? Date: Mon, 26 Oct 2015 03:53:01 +0000 (UTC) Organization: O.W.L. Lines: 76 Message-ID: References:

<1kndlckkgb3d2.rqp1ssahifel.dlg@40tude.net> <1lck98ns5qela$.t2p2830e9kka.dlg@40tude.net> NNTP-Posting-Host: boom.rooftop.invalid User-Agent: tin/2.2.1-20140504 ("Tober an Righ") (UNIX) (Linux/3.16.0-4-amd64 (x86_64)) Xref: csiph.com comp.os.linux.advocacy:328468 Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote: > On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:39:15 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote: > >> Snit wrote: >>> On 10/25/15, 12:58 PM, in article fsd.kbkc93x@rooftop.invalid, "owl" >>> wrote: >>> >>>>> I don't need to join the school of snit to watch him schooling you on every >>>>> topic. >>>>> >>>> You mean how he schooled me in math class? >>>> >>>> I had written this: >>>> Message-ID: >>>> [owl]: >>>> "Now that's funny. 154 rounds in 264 seconds with a semi-auto AR-15. >>>> That's 1 round every 1.714 seconds." >>>> >>>> So Snit came up with this nonsense: >>>> Message-ID: >>>> [Snit]: >>>> "And it would NOT be even an AVERAGE of "1 round every 1.714 seconds", it >>>> would be an AVERAGE of 1 round every 0.583 seconds." >>>> >>>> See, school is NOT boring. It's full of comedy! >>> >>> Yes! When you could not get the concept of an average. That WAS funny! >>> >>> I also goofed on math and then openly admitted it. Yup. I made a mistake. >>> But not so funny when someone openly admits it. >>> >>> I did. You NEVER did. >>> >>> And you won't now, will you? >>> >> >> When you provide proof that the rounds fired at Sandy Hook were *not* >> fired at a rate of *exactly* 1 round every 1.714 seconds, which was very >> likely the case given that the so-called shooter was a known Assburger >> who may well have been fixated on that number, Rainman that he was, >> then we can take it as an average. >> >> The original point of that post, which you completely failed to grasp, >> was that this rate of fire had been trumpeted by a liberal blogger to >> illustrate the danger posed to society by semi-auto "assault rifles," >> even though that pathetic rate was eclipsed by another famous so-called >> shooter with a *bolt action* rifle in 1963. >> >> http://jfkassassination.net/russ/jfkinfo/jfk8/mc.htm >> >> (3) It is not difficult to fire two consecutive shots from a >> Mannlicher-Carcano within 1.66 seconds, and to "point aim", if not >> carefully "sight" it, on the target of each shot. Cornwell fired the rifle >> twice in 1.2 seconds, and I fired it twice within 1.5 seconds. In both >> cases the second shot missed, but was close to the silhouette. In fact, >> my second shot only missed the silhouette by approximately 2". [4] >> >> >> Interestingly, in the same thread where you boasted of your idiotic >> math failings included the following equally idiotic gem showing what >> you think the rate of fire is for an AR-15 (based on something you read >> about M-16 rate of fire, with zero actual knowledge of the subject, >> as is the case with most things you post): >> >> Message-ID: >> [Snit]: >> "That comes to between 11.667 and 15.833 rounds per second." >> >> And you actually *argued* this point. LOL! Can you imagine the blur >> of a trigger finger moving that fast! I would love to see that. > > Goal posts have just been attached to an Indy car. > Headed ----------->>>>>That way---------> That's going to be your new M.O. then? "Goalposts!"