'Bout Fekkin' Time.

[SeaCat]

But do note that Mattel sued the seller of "Bondage Barbie" (a standard Barbie doll with, shall we say, non-standard attire).

Shanglan

LOLOL
Oh where in the world was I when that one came out? I missed it damn it.
(I do have a Pap Smurf and Smurfete I could let go cheap though. Complete with handcuffs and chains. )

Cat

 

[SeaCat]

I've seen even hot loads in a nine leave 'em spinning on the table. No thanks. I'll just stay with my .45 for that. 185 gr. "flying ashtrays" at 1000 fps removes the pin from the table. And with the two chamber comp. it's pretty damn controllable. My best time was last year, shot a 2.07.

Nope, no hot loads for that. I use standard Ball, but yeah it does tend to leave them on the table if you don't hit them just right.
(I like my nine though. Uncle Sam gave it to me in 1984 and I've been shooting it ever since, with a couple of mods of course. It now has the nice Cherry grips, and the nice engraved and inlayed slide courtesy of my wife. Also trijicon sights, I also use it for self defense)

My wife has what has got to be my favorite target pistol of all time. Ruger Mk.II with modified sights. (Three dot trijicon sights. Easier for her to see.)

Cat

 

[gauchecritic]

Can we get back to me now?

I've switched off now that you all are talking about guns.

but I did want to say something to Min.

You know, I've scrolled past this a number of times and I just can't seem to let go of how unbelievably unfair that comparison is. Admittedly, that could be because, while I disagree with Shanglan on the issue of businesses firing smokers, I also saw the contradiction in Dran's opinions and had thought it odd myself, but I really did find that observation to be a bit shocking, Gauche.

Is this as tongue in cheek as Dran, Shang and my posts were meant to be? If it is, don't read the next.

Now I have to put words in people's mouths and may get it entirely wrong, but this is the situation as I read it.

Dran posted on the absurdity of local law, citing the 'no underwear showing' thing. Without any research, because I can't be arsed, in an entirely other thread he was against being told how to run his private life by someone to whom he sells a product (his labour). Where is the contradiction? Elected government versus customer.

Then the horsey weighed in tying two separate threads together with an observation about another guys personal politics, phrasing it in such a way as to be confrontational and with a totally right wing bias, money and freedom. The very last thing of which I would accuse Shang of being is right wing (I could easily be wrong because he never actually states things, just suggests how things may appear to others.) As I read it, horse-boy/girl (hermaphrodite centaur?) was (in his own inimitabley slick and subtle way) widening the scope of the original debate without resorting to hijack. (widening the scope, making personal remarks about the thread starter, what's the difference?)

Then, without the above explanation, I call Shang out on his deception, which hopefully he laughed at (for that is my first aim in many posts) and he responded in kind.

Must it end like this, gauche? All of my admiration and fond regard for you, blown away in a pistol duel over a comment like this?

Where then is the greater shock? In the revelation of Shang's more complex subtlety or in my gaucheness?


You can go back to your guns now.

 

[Guest]

Re: Can we get back to me now?

I've switched off now that you all are talking about guns.

but I did want to say something to Min.



Is this as tongue in cheek as Dran, Shang and my posts were meant to be? If it is, don't read the next.

Now I have to put words in people's mouths and may get it entirely wrong, but this is the situation as I read it.

Dran posted on the absurdity of local law, citing the 'no underwear showing' thing. Without any research, because I can't be arsed, in an entirely other thread he was against being told how to run his private life by someone to whom he sells a product (his labour). Where is the contradiction? Elected government versus customer.

Then the horsey weighed in tying two separate threads together with an observation about another guys personal politics, phrasing it in such a way as to be confrontational and with a totally right wing bias, money and freedom. The very last thing of which I would accuse Shang of being is right wing (I could easily be wrong because he never actually states things, just suggests how things may appear to others.) As I read it, horse-boy/girl (hermaphrodite centaur?) was (in his own inimitabley slick and subtle way) widening the scope of the original debate without resorting to hijack. (widening the scope, making personal remarks about the thread starter, what's the difference?)

Then, without the above explanation, I call Shang out on his deception, which hopefully he laughed at (for that is my first aim in many posts) and he responded in kind.



Where then is the greater shock? In the revelation of Shang's more complex subtlety or in my gaucheness?


You can go back to your guns now.

You sexy-minded funny fucker.

(I snickered at those posts, btw, but gave up on this thread a while ago. For some reason, I cannot have a "serious" debate about boxer shorts. Or any kind of underwear, for that matter. Guns? Pah!)

 

[BlackShanglan]

Re: Re: Can we get back to me now?

You sexy-minded funny fucker.

(I snickered at those posts, btw, but gave up on this thread a while ago. For some reason, I cannot have a "serious" debate about boxer shorts. Or any kind of underwear, for that matter. Guns? Pah!)

Yes. It's a load of pants, really.

"Inimitably slick and subtle" might have to became part of my sig. It's hard not to preen oneself on comments like that

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

Re: Can we get back to me now?

Dran posted on the absurdity of local law, citing the 'no underwear showing' thing. Without any research, because I can't be arsed, in an entirely other thread he was against being told how to run his private life by someone to whom he sells a product (his labour). Where is the contradiction? Elected government versus customer.

Actually I prefer this to the guns comment. I think that you are right, on the whole, that there is a difference between demands made by a government and demands made in a customer/seller or worker/employer relationship. However, is it really the latter that is the more frightening? Granted, the employer has the disadvantage of not being even theoretically there for one's own good. S/he is forthrightly there to get the maximum out of the worker for the minimum investment. But at least this is clear and above board. I think it's been some time since most of us felt that the government's actions were really driven by a benevolent desire to advance the human race; they're just a little more veiled in their operations.

Balance against this the one key fact that reassures me on the topic of corporate sellers and hirers: I have a choice. I don't have to work for them, buy from them, or sell to them. Yes, I may need to make some sacrifices if I don't want to. Ethical and moral ideals are not generally free of effort. But if I don't like my company's policy, I can get away from it. If I don't like my government's policy, on the other hand, there's really no where to go.

For this reason, I would argue, we already allow corporations to do things we don't allow our governments to, like tell us what to wear or how to speak. Partly, yes, it's the contract of labor - they pay us, and we voluntarily surrender some rights. But I would argue that part of what makes this contract voluntary is the knowledge that we have other options. We let them get away with a bit more, because we don't have to take it if we don't want to.

Hence too, of course, our nervousness of "trends." That picture changes if everyone adopts the same policy. The fewer choices we have about it, the more nervous we become.

No?

Shanglan

 

[BlackShanglan]

Bad news, Dranoel:

http://www.cnn.com/2005/ALLPOLITICS/02/10/droopy.pants.ap/index.html


Commiserations.

 

[cantdog]

I laugh.

 

[cantdog]

A big hollow one.