Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]


Groups > comp.os.linux.advocacy > #327971 > unrolled thread

OT: OK, what changed?

Started bySteve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com>
First post2015-10-23 12:10 -0700
Last post2015-10-30 07:55 -0700
Articles 20 on this page of 101 — 9 participants

Back to article view | Back to comp.os.linux.advocacy


Contents

  OT: OK, what changed? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 12:10 -0700
    Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-23 21:14 +0000
      Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-23 14:35 -0700
        Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-23 21:58 +0000
          Re: OT: OK, what changed? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 15:16 -0700
            Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-23 22:46 +0000
              Re: OT: OK, what changed? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 15:53 -0700
                Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-23 22:57 +0000
                  Re: OT: OK, what changed? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 16:11 -0700
                    Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-23 23:46 +0000
                      Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-23 21:10 -0700
                  Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-23 21:14 -0700
                    Re: OT: OK, what changed? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 21:58 -0700
              Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-23 20:57 -0700
                Re: OT: OK, what changed? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 21:55 -0700
      Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-23 14:40 -0700
        Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-23 21:53 +0000
          Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-23 15:34 -0700
            Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-23 22:43 +0000
              Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-23 20:52 -0700
                Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-24 18:06 +0000
                  Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-24 12:17 -0700
                    Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-24 23:03 +0000
                      Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-24 16:27 -0700
                        Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-24 23:41 +0000
                          Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-24 16:57 -0700
                            Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 00:11 +0000
                              Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-24 17:17 -0700
                                Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 00:25 +0000
                                  Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-24 17:47 -0700
                                  Re: OT: OK, what changed? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-25 12:54 -0400
                                    Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 10:36 -0700
                                    Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 18:23 +0000
                                      Re: OT: OK, what changed? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-25 14:32 -0400
                                        Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 18:46 +0000
                                          Re: OT: OK, what changed? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-25 16:45 -0400
                                            Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 21:08 +0000
                                      Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 11:45 -0700
                                      Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 14:54 -0400
                                        Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 19:18 +0000
                                          Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 15:23 -0400
                                            Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 19:34 +0000
                                              Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 15:37 -0400
                                                Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 19:58 +0000
                                                  Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 16:01 -0400
                                                    Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 20:11 +0000
                                                      Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 16:11 -0400
                                                        Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 20:27 +0000
                                                          Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 16:27 -0400
                                                            Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 20:38 +0000
                                                              Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 16:47 -0400
                                                                Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 21:02 +0000
                                                                  Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 17:08 -0400
                                                                    Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 21:31 +0000
                                                                      Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 17:33 -0400
                                                                        Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 21:51 +0000
                                                                          Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 18:07 -0400
                                                                            Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 22:28 +0000
                                                                              Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 17:17 -0700
                                                                          Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 17:32 -0700
                                                                      Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 17:20 -0700
                                                                  Re: OT: OK, what changed? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-25 17:28 -0400
                                                                    Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-25 21:37 +0000
                                                                    Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 17:21 -0700
                                                              Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 17:15 -0700
                                                          Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 17:14 -0700
                                                            Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 20:23 -0400
                                                      Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 17:13 -0700
                                                    Re: OT: OK, what changed? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-25 17:25 -0400
                                                      Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 17:30 -0400
                                                        Re: OT: OK, what changed? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-25 20:06 -0400
                                                          Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 20:12 -0400
                                                      Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 17:22 -0700
                                                  Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 17:11 -0700
                                                    Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 20:13 -0400
                                                      Re: OT: OK, what changed? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-27 08:44 -0700
                                                    Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 00:39 +0000
                                                      Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 20:42 -0400
                                                        Re: OT: OK, what changed? Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-25 20:58 -0400
                                                        Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 03:53 +0000
                                                      Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 17:46 -0700
                                                        Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 03:56 +0000
                                                          Re: OT: OK, what changed? Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> - 2015-10-25 23:57 -0400
                                                            Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 04:46 +0000
                                                              Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 22:22 -0700
                                                                Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 05:43 +0000
                                                                  Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-26 13:05 -0700
                                                          Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 21:11 -0700
                                                            Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 04:48 +0000
                                                              Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-25 22:27 -0700
                                                                Re: OT: OK, what changed? owl <owl@rooftop.invalid> - 2015-10-26 05:51 +0000
                                                                  Re: OT: OK, what changed? Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> - 2015-10-26 13:05 -0700
            Re: OT: OK, what changed? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 15:47 -0700
        Re: OT: OK, what changed? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-23 15:10 -0700
          Re: OT: OK, what changed? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-27 22:46 -0400
            Re: OT: OK, what changed? Tattoo Vampire <sitting@this.computer> - 2015-10-29 00:31 +0000
              Re: OT: OK, what changed? chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> - 2015-10-29 07:10 -0500
                Re: OT: OK, what changed? Charmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s> - 2015-10-29 08:36 -0400
                Re: OT: OK, what changed? Peter Köhlmann <peter-koehlmann@t-online.de> - 2015-10-29 14:46 +0100
            Re: OT: OK, what changed? DFS <nospam@dfs.com> - 2015-10-29 09:41 -0400
              Re: OT: OK, what changed? Steve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com> - 2015-10-30 07:55 -0700

Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →


#328414

FromSnit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date2015-10-25 17:20 -0700
Message-ID<D252BFD1.616ED%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
In reply to#328353
On 10/25/15, 2:31 PM, in article ase93.fjaig02@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

>>>>> For starters, if you agree with Snit that 154 rounds in 264 seconds equals
>>>>> an average of 1 round every 0.583 seconds, then you are bad at math.  Do
>>>>> you agree with Snit's math?
>>>> 
>>>> Where did I make that claim?
>>>> 
>>> I'm just asking if you agree with Snit's math or not, and for some reason
>>> you don't want to answer that question.
>> 
>> I do not agree with snit's math as it stands.
> 
> Then why did you claim that the key word was "AVERAGE" and ignore the
> glaring basic math error?

Your error with the very concept of an average is a bigger error than mine
given I showed no lack of understanding of the concept *and* I admitted to
my error.

You have not shown you even understand why your claim was wrong.

>> As usually the case, snit is wrong.
> 
> I have to agree with you there.
> 
>> 
>> However in recent threads, snit has your ball sack in a twisted mess.
>> 
> 
> Surely you can quote an example of him twisting my ball sack in a recent
> thread.  Maybe his insinuation that it would take "much developer time" to
> change a malloc() limit?

You are in error in saying that. You made that up.

> Or his defense of his intentionally deceptive
> quoting style that includes no attribution for the majority of the quote?

Your functional illiteracy is NOT my weakness.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#328351

FromDFS <nospam@dfs.com>
Date2015-10-25 17:28 -0400
Message-ID<n0jhec$l5$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#328345
On 10/25/2015 5:02 PM, owl wrote:
> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 20:38:42 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>
>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 20:27:25 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 20:11:41 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 19:58:19 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 19:34:10 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 19:18:46 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 18:23:53 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/2015 8:25 PM, owl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will let you. When are you going to start trying? Below you just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate, again, that you are functionally illiterate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you have no argument.  None.  Just repetition of nonsense.  Got it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's all it takes to totally control you, Carroll, cc, Kohlmann and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And like the proverbial self-righteous ex-smoker, DFS tosses a PKB without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full disclosure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me, Snit is just a convenient practice dummy that I pull from the drawer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on occasion to keep my claws sharp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You need a better scratching post because Snit owns you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> He needs all the help he can get, so it's good to see that you're doing
>>>>>>>>>>>>> your part.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Boring.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you had the proper attitude, you wouldn't find school so boring.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> 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: <mbjcur96.kdi@rooftop.invalid>
>>>>>>>>>     [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: <D1A24EE6.4D65B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>>>>>>>     [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!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Key word AVERAGE.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, Snit's key words were "1 round every 0.583 seconds."  FAIL!  LOL!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What words were those?
>>>>>>
>>>>> Are you bad at math too?
>>>>
>>>> Define bad.
>>>>
>>> For starters, if you agree with Snit that 154 rounds in 264 seconds equals
>>> an average of 1 round every 0.583 seconds, then you are bad at math.  Do
>>> you agree with Snit's math?
>>
>> Where did I make that claim?
>>
> I'm just asking if you agree with Snit's math or not, and for some reason
> you don't want to answer that question.


You gave this dumbass too much time, and too many outs.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#328356

Fromowl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
Date2015-10-25 21:37 +0000
Message-ID<asd3.fa03@rooftop.invalid>
In reply to#328351
DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
> On 10/25/2015 5:02 PM, owl wrote:
>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 20:38:42 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>>
>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 20:27:25 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 20:11:41 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 19:58:19 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 19:34:10 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 19:18:46 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 18:23:53 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/2015 8:25 PM, owl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will let you. When are you going to start trying? Below you just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate, again, that you are functionally illiterate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you have no argument.  None.  Just repetition of nonsense.  Got it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's all it takes to totally control you, Carroll, cc, Kohlmann and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And like the proverbial self-righteous ex-smoker, DFS tosses a PKB without
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> full disclosure.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> For me, Snit is just a convenient practice dummy that I pull from the drawer
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> on occasion to keep my claws sharp.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You need a better scratching post because Snit owns you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> He needs all the help he can get, so it's good to see that you're doing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your part.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Boring.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> If you had the proper attitude, you wouldn't find school so boring.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> 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: <mbjcur96.kdi@rooftop.invalid>
>>>>>>>>>>     [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: <D1A24EE6.4D65B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>>>>>>>>     [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!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Key word AVERAGE.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No, Snit's key words were "1 round every 0.583 seconds."  FAIL!  LOL!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> What words were those?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Are you bad at math too?
>>>>>
>>>>> Define bad.
>>>>>
>>>> For starters, if you agree with Snit that 154 rounds in 264 seconds equals
>>>> an average of 1 round every 0.583 seconds, then you are bad at math.  Do
>>>> you agree with Snit's math?
>>>
>>> Where did I make that claim?
>>>
>> I'm just asking if you agree with Snit's math or not, and for some reason
>> you don't want to answer that question.
> 
> 
> You gave this dumbass too much time, and too many outs.
> 

I know.  It's a fine line you have to walk when you're stringing it out to let
a fool dig himself to China.  I could use some improvement in that skill area.
Hence the need for practicing on ragdolls like snit and his socks. 

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#328416

FromSnit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date2015-10-25 17:21 -0700
Message-ID<D252BFFF.616F7%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
In reply to#328351
On 10/25/15, 2:28 PM, in article n0jhec$l5$2@dont-email.me, "DFS"
<nospam@dfs.com> wrote:

>>>>>>>> No, Snit's key words were "1 round every 0.583 seconds."  FAIL!  LOL!
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>>> What words were those?
>>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Are you bad at math too?
>>>>> 
>>>>> Define bad.
>>>>> 
>>>> For starters, if you agree with Snit that 154 rounds in 264 seconds equals
>>>> an average of 1 round every 0.583 seconds, then you are bad at math.  Do
>>>> you agree with Snit's math?
>>> 
>>> Where did I make that claim?
>>> 
>> I'm just asking if you agree with Snit's math or not, and for some reason
>> you don't want to answer that question.
> 
> 
> You gave this dumbass too much time, and too many outs.

No matter how many chances Owl is given he will NEVER admit to how his quote
shows he did not even get the concept of an average.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#328412

FromSnit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date2015-10-25 17:15 -0700
Message-ID<D252BEA0.616EA%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
In reply to#328340
On 10/25/15, 1:38 PM, in article fadsle9.dsfj@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

>>>>>>> I had written this:
>>>>>>> Message-ID: <mbjcur96.kdi@rooftop.invalid>
>>>>>>>    [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: <D1A24EE6.4D65B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>>>>>    [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!
>>>>>> 
>>>>>> Key word AVERAGE.
>>>>>> 
>>>>> 
>>>>> No, Snit's key words were "1 round every 0.583 seconds."  FAIL!  LOL!
>>>> 
>>>> What words were those?
>>>> 
>>> Are you bad at math too?
>> 
>> Define bad.
>> 
> For starters, if you agree with Snit that 154 rounds in 264 seconds equals
> an average of 1 round every 0.583 seconds, then you are bad at math.  Do
> you agree with Snit's math?

Again: I openly admitted to my error.

Why don't you show you are as reasonable as I am and admit to yours?


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#328411

FromSnit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date2015-10-25 17:14 -0700
Message-ID<D252BE7C.616E9%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
In reply to#328337
On 10/25/15, 1:27 PM, in article fda3a.fe3h@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:

>>>>> I had written this:
>>>>> Message-ID: <mbjcur96.kdi@rooftop.invalid>
>>>>>    [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: <D1A24EE6.4D65B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>>>    [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!
>>>> 
>>>> Key word AVERAGE.
>>>> 
>>> 
>>> No, Snit's key words were "1 round every 0.583 seconds."  FAIL!  LOL!
>> 
>> What words were those?
>> 
> Are you bad at math too?

Have you figured out what an average is yet?

Remember: I openly admitted to my error. Yup - I goofed.

When if ever will you admit to yours?


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#328420

FromBig Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com>
Date2015-10-25 20:23 -0400
Message-ID<h0y1hcrypdr6.yay2d8ltrvlg.dlg@40tude.net>
In reply to#328411
On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 17:14:36 -0700, Snit wrote:

> On 10/25/15, 1:27 PM, in article fda3a.fe3h@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> 
>>>>>> I had written this:
>>>>>> Message-ID: <mbjcur96.kdi@rooftop.invalid>
>>>>>>    [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: <D1A24EE6.4D65B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>>>>    [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!
>>>>> 
>>>>> Key word AVERAGE.
>>>>> 
>>>> 
>>>> No, Snit's key words were "1 round every 0.583 seconds."  FAIL!  LOL!
>>> 
>>> What words were those?
>>> 
>> Are you bad at math too?
> 
> Have you figured out what an average is yet?
> 
> Remember: I openly admitted to my error. Yup - I goofed.
> 
> When if ever will you admit to yours?

Owl seems to have a multitude of problems with reading comprehension.

-- 
You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#328409

FromSnit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date2015-10-25 17:13 -0700
Message-ID<D252BE26.616E7%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
In reply to#328334
On 10/25/15, 1:11 PM, in article fsds93.a8f3@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> 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: <mbjcur96.kdi@rooftop.invalid>
>>>    [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: <D1A24EE6.4D65B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>    [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!
>> 
>> Key word AVERAGE.
>> 
> 
> No, Snit's key words were "1 round every 0.583 seconds."  FAIL!  LOL!

Yeah: we both goofed. I did incorrect math and openly admitted it. You did
not even get the CONCEPT of an average and STILL have not.

Yeah: great comedy. Even more funny is you STILL do not even recognize your
error - or at least will not admit to it.

Prove me wrong and show you are the adult I am: admit to your error.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#328350

FromDFS <nospam@dfs.com>
Date2015-10-25 17:25 -0400
Message-ID<n0jh81$l5$1@dont-email.me>
In reply to#328333
On 10/25/2015 4:01 PM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 19:58:19 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>
>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 19:34:10 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>>
>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 19:18:46 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 18:23:53 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/2015 8:25 PM, owl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I will let you. When are you going to start trying? Below you just
>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate, again, that you are functionally illiterate.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So you have no argument.  None.  Just repetition of nonsense.  Got it.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That's all it takes to totally control you, Carroll, cc, Kohlmann and
>>>>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> And like the proverbial self-righteous ex-smoker, DFS tosses a PKB without
>>>>>>>> full disclosure.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> For me, Snit is just a convenient practice dummy that I pull from the drawer
>>>>>>>> on occasion to keep my claws sharp.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You need a better scratching post because Snit owns you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> He needs all the help he can get, so it's good to see that you're doing
>>>>>> your part.
>>>>>
>>>>> Boring.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> If you had the proper attitude, you wouldn't find school so boring.
>>>
>>> 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: <mbjcur96.kdi@rooftop.invalid>
>>     [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: <D1A24EE6.4D65B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>     [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!
>
> Key word AVERAGE.


I'm smelling a fucking idiot named NoBrains.

154 rounds fired in 264 seconds is an AVERAGE of 1 round every 1.714 
seconds, just like owl said.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#328352

FromBig Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com>
Date2015-10-25 17:30 -0400
Message-ID<182td1dxfav6p$.lz7lemsxbg9a.dlg@40tude.net>
In reply to#328350
On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 17:25:09 -0400, DFS wrote:

> On 10/25/2015 4:01 PM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 19:58:19 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>
>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 19:34:10 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 19:18:46 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 18:23:53 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/2015 8:25 PM, owl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I will let you. When are you going to start trying? Below you just
>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate, again, that you are functionally illiterate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> So you have no argument.  None.  Just repetition of nonsense.  Got it.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That's all it takes to totally control you, Carroll, cc, Kohlmann and
>>>>>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> And like the proverbial self-righteous ex-smoker, DFS tosses a PKB without
>>>>>>>>> full disclosure.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> For me, Snit is just a convenient practice dummy that I pull from the drawer
>>>>>>>>> on occasion to keep my claws sharp.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You need a better scratching post because Snit owns you.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> He needs all the help he can get, so it's good to see that you're doing
>>>>>>> your part.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Boring.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> If you had the proper attitude, you wouldn't find school so boring.
>>>>
>>>> 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: <mbjcur96.kdi@rooftop.invalid>
>>>     [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: <D1A24EE6.4D65B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>     [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!
>>
>> Key word AVERAGE.
> 
> 
> I'm smelling a fucking idiot named NoBrains.
> 
> 154 rounds fired in 264 seconds is an AVERAGE of 1 round every 1.714 
> seconds, just like owl said.

I'm smelling a redneck.
Right Bull Connor?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqNMjZpSbnU


-- 
You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#328404

FromDFS <nospam@dfs.com>
Date2015-10-25 20:06 -0400
Message-ID<n0jqmd$46h$2@dont-email.me>
In reply to#328352
On 10/25/2015 5:30 PM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 17:25:09 -0400, DFS wrote:
>
>> On 10/25/2015 4:01 PM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote:
>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 19:58:19 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>>
>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 19:34:10 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 19:18:46 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 18:23:53 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/2015 8:25 PM, owl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will let you. When are you going to start trying? Below you just
>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate, again, that you are functionally illiterate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So you have no argument.  None.  Just repetition of nonsense.  Got it.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That's all it takes to totally control you, Carroll, cc, Kohlmann and
>>>>>>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> And like the proverbial self-righteous ex-smoker, DFS tosses a PKB without
>>>>>>>>>> full disclosure.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> For me, Snit is just a convenient practice dummy that I pull from the drawer
>>>>>>>>>> on occasion to keep my claws sharp.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You need a better scratching post because Snit owns you.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> He needs all the help he can get, so it's good to see that you're doing
>>>>>>>> your part.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Boring.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you had the proper attitude, you wouldn't find school so boring.
>>>>>
>>>>> 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: <mbjcur96.kdi@rooftop.invalid>
>>>>      [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: <D1A24EE6.4D65B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>>      [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!
>>>
>>> Key word AVERAGE.
>>
>>
>> I'm smelling a fucking idiot named NoBrains.
>>
>> 154 rounds fired in 264 seconds is an AVERAGE of 1 round every 1.714
>> seconds, just like owl said.
>
> I'm smelling a redneck.
> Right Bull Connor?
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqNMjZpSbnU


Better a 'redneck' than a fucking idiot who can't figure out rounds per 
second.


[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#328407

FromBig Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com>
Date2015-10-25 20:12 -0400
Message-ID<1csba6nvlxvdj$.1pchr12sthiz8.dlg@40tude.net>
In reply to#328404
On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 20:06:25 -0400, DFS wrote:

> On 10/25/2015 5:30 PM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote:
>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 17:25:09 -0400, DFS wrote:
>>
>>> On 10/25/2015 4:01 PM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote:
>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 19:58:19 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 19:34:10 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 19:18:46 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 18:23:53 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> DFS <nospam@dfs.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 10/24/2015 8:25 PM, owl wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I will let you. When are you going to start trying? Below you just
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate, again, that you are functionally illiterate.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you have no argument.  None.  Just repetition of nonsense.  Got it.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's all it takes to totally control you, Carroll, cc, Kohlmann and
>>>>>>>>>>>> others.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> And like the proverbial self-righteous ex-smoker, DFS tosses a PKB without
>>>>>>>>>>> full disclosure.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> For me, Snit is just a convenient practice dummy that I pull from the drawer
>>>>>>>>>>> on occasion to keep my claws sharp.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You need a better scratching post because Snit owns you.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> He needs all the help he can get, so it's good to see that you're doing
>>>>>>>>> your part.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Boring.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you had the proper attitude, you wouldn't find school so boring.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> 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: <mbjcur96.kdi@rooftop.invalid>
>>>>>      [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: <D1A24EE6.4D65B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>>>      [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!
>>>>
>>>> Key word AVERAGE.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm smelling a fucking idiot named NoBrains.
>>>
>>> 154 rounds fired in 264 seconds is an AVERAGE of 1 round every 1.714
>>> seconds, just like owl said.
>>
>> I'm smelling a redneck.
>> Right Bull Connor?
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqNMjZpSbnU
> 
> 
> Better a 'redneck' than a fucking idiot who can't figure out rounds per 
> second.

I had it figured out from the first post.
It boils down to semantics, George.
You should appreciate that as you seem to have a penchant for correcting
people's grammar and word usage.

After all, what's good for the stuck pig (that's you) should be good for
your superior, that's me.

So how is the video business coming along George?


-- 
You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#328417

FromSnit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date2015-10-25 17:22 -0700
Message-ID<D252C03A.616FA%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
In reply to#328350
On 10/25/15, 2:25 PM, in article n0jh81$l5$1@dont-email.me, "DFS"
<nospam@dfs.com> 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: <mbjcur96.kdi@rooftop.invalid>
>>>     [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: <D1A24EE6.4D65B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>     [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!
>> 
>> Key word AVERAGE.
> 
> 
> I'm smelling a fucking idiot named NoBrains.
> 
> 154 rounds fired in 264 seconds is an AVERAGE of 1 round every 1.714
> seconds, just like owl said.

Owl never showed any understanding of the concept of an average.


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#328406

FromSnit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
Date2015-10-25 17:11 -0700
Message-ID<D252BDC5.616E6%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
In reply to#328331
On 10/25/15, 12:58 PM, in article fsd.kbkc93x@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
<owl@rooftop.invalid> 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: <mbjcur96.kdi@rooftop.invalid>
>    [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: <D1A24EE6.4D65B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>    [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?


-- 
* OS X / Linux: What is a file?     <http://youtu.be/_dMbXGLW9PI>
* Mint MATE Trash, Panel, Menu:     <http://youtu.be/C0y74FIf7uE>
* Mint KDE working with folders:    <http://youtu.be/7C9nvniOoE0>
* Mint KDE creating files:          <http://youtu.be/N7-fZJaJUv8>
* Mint KDE help:                    <http://youtu.be/3ikizUd3sa8>
* Mint KDE general navigation:      <http://youtu.be/t9y14yZtQuI>
* Mint KDE bugs or Easter eggs?     <http://youtu.be/CU-whJQvtfA>
* Easy on OS X / Hard on Linux:     <http://youtu.be/D3BPWANQoIk>
* OS / Word Processor Comparison:   <http://youtu.be/w6Qcl-w7s5c>

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#328410

FromBig Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com>
Date2015-10-25 20:13 -0400
Message-ID<3pipyrmosu9b$.159szo0q356y9$.dlg@40tude.net>
In reply to#328406
On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 17:11:33 -0700, Snit wrote:

> On 10/25/15, 12:58 PM, in article fsd.kbkc93x@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> 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: <mbjcur96.kdi@rooftop.invalid>
>>    [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: <D1A24EE6.4D65B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>    [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!

Yes.
Key word AVERAGE.
 
> I also goofed on math and then openly admitted it. Yup. I made a mistake.
> But not so funny when someone openly admits it.

You did.
 
> I did. You NEVER did.
> 
> And you won't now, will you?

Owl is dancing around once again.
He needs to find another nest.
This one is obviously polluted.

-- 
You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#328841

FromSteve Carroll <fretwizzer@gmail.com>
Date2015-10-27 08:44 -0700
Message-ID<ebb596c7-445b-4c0e-b5ae-b2c429d5303c@googlegroups.com>
In reply to#328410
On Sunday, October 25, 2015 at 6:13:47 PM UTC-6, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote:
> On Sun, 25 Oct 2015 17:11:33 -0700, Snit wrote:
> 
> > On 10/25/15, 12:58 PM, in article fsd.kbkc93x@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> > <owl@rooftop.invalid> 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: <mbjcur96.kdi@rooftop.invalid>
> >>    [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: <D1A24EE6.4D65B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
> >>    [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!
> 
> Yes.
> Key word AVERAGE.

Ok, "Crotch", ask Snit *how* he arrived at the number he did if he's such an expert on "AVERAGE" ;)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#328427

Fromowl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
Date2015-10-26 00:39 +0000
Message-ID<asd39r.gjiua@rooftop.invalid>
In reply to#328406
Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 10/25/15, 12:58 PM, in article fsd.kbkc93x@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <owl@rooftop.invalid> 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: <mbjcur96.kdi@rooftop.invalid>
>>    [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: <D1A24EE6.4D65B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>    [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
<quote>
(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]
</quote>

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: <D1A24EE6.4D65B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
   [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.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#328428

FromBig Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com>
Date2015-10-25 20:42 -0400
Message-ID<itiro065xdpj$.u5wwyzsmo254$.dlg@40tude.net>
In reply to#328427
On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:39:15 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:

> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>> On 10/25/15, 12:58 PM, in article fsd.kbkc93x@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> 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: <mbjcur96.kdi@rooftop.invalid>
>>>    [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: <D1A24EE6.4D65B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>    [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
> <quote>
> (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]
> </quote>
> 
> 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: <D1A24EE6.4D65B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>    [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--------->
-- 
You Ain't The Biggest Fish In The Crotch.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#328444

FromCharmed Tuna <.m@nsn.s>
Date2015-10-25 20:58 -0400
Message-ID<n0jtmo$ch0$8@dont-email.me>
In reply to#328428
On 2015-10-25 8:42 PM, Big Fish in a Small Crotch wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:39:15 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/25/15, 12:58 PM, in article fsd.kbkc93x@rooftop.invalid,
>>> "owl" <owl@rooftop.invalid> 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: <mbjcur96.kdi@rooftop.invalid> 
>>>> [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:
>>>> <D1A24EE6.4D65B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> [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 <quote> (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] </quote>
>> 
>> 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: <D1A24EE6.4D65B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> [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--------->

Hi, Edwin.


-- 
Charmed Tuna

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


#328468

Fromowl <owl@rooftop.invalid>
Date2015-10-26 03:53 +0000
Message-ID<fsdkvm.b@rooftop.invalid>
In reply to#328428
Big Fish in a Small Crotch <bigfishinasmallcrotch@myself.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Oct 2015 00:39:15 +0000 (UTC), owl wrote:
> 
>> Snit <usenet@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
>>> On 10/25/15, 12:58 PM, in article fsd.kbkc93x@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
>>> <owl@rooftop.invalid> 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: <mbjcur96.kdi@rooftop.invalid>
>>>>    [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: <D1A24EE6.4D65B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>>>    [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
>> <quote>
>> (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]
>> </quote>
>> 
>> 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: <D1A24EE6.4D65B%usenet@gallopinginsanity.com>
>>    [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!"

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]


Page 4 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 2 3 [4] 5 6  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.os.linux.advocacy


csiph-web