Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: Rabelaise, Giants and Dwarves

Expand Messages
  • nothing@theabsurd.com
    I don t know as if I d say related as much as that the responsibility seems to fall with the
    Message 1 of 9 , Sep 1, 2001
    • 0 Attachment
      << No2: ...Interestinglly bookdoc related to the victim while >>

      I don't know as if I'd say 'related' as much as that the
      responsibility seems to fall with the chance that I had entered
      into the situation, and seem the only catalyst for change — and
      deemed change positive. Violating the rights of one for the
      pleasure of many is not right from my perspecitve (it would not,
      potentially serve the best interests of all). She would seemingly
      wish for a break, and the others needed to remove themselves
      from activity to discover motive/interest in their actions.

      <<I have taken courses in weapons self defense and have
      friends who are practical shooters. They approach the situation
      with very set rules. If you produce a weapon you must be willing
      to kill with it. Shoot to kill, two rounds per target. >>

      Understood, which is what I meant to suggest by 'knowing the
      gun.' However, if all were naked, with no sign of clothes or other
      place for hiding weapons, I might suggest that one killed may
      demoralize, one killed and 3 wounded would perhaps sway the
      upper hand (if not total numbers), and if there were even one
      shot left after that (a practical possibility), it may be that pain and
      fear in the wounded would not make for a rally. I would suspect
      that if there are 4 men on one woman (which is hardly a fight, no
      matter who the woman is) they would probably not be well
      armed.

      There are, of course, many other unmentioned factors:
      landscape, distance, detection (they of me), etc.

      Sorry to disappoint your wife. However, if her response was to
      play the lone ranger, it is as good a response as any of ours --
      and perhaps more so as it speaks of more interest and
      involvement. There is no safer place to postulize, fantasize and
      become a hero than in your own imagination, and I am sorry to
      have floundered the opportunity in order to appear honest.

      yuck.
      ------
    • William Harris
      Bookdoc, I think your response is that of a reasoned individual in the face of barbaric and savage behavior. We just had a terrible mass murder in Sioux City
      Message 2 of 9 , Sep 4, 2001
      • 0 Attachment
        Bookdoc, I think your response is that of a reasoned individual in the face
        of barbaric and savage behavior. We just had a terrible mass murder in
        Sioux City Iowa, seven stabbed and bludgeoned. Just going through this
        exercise has made me rethink my ideas regarding firearms and their limited
        use in this type of situation. As far as your philosophy is concerned it
        would seem that we all strove to do the least harm . That is a humanistic
        response , a response worthy of an existentialist. Perhaps just walking into
        the open, sitting down and weeping might do the most good Bill

        nothing@... wrote:

        > << No2: ...Interestinglly bookdoc related to the victim while >>
        >
        > I don't know as if I'd say 'related' as much as that the
        > responsibility seems to fall with the chance that I had entered
        > into the situation, and seem the only catalyst for change — and
        > deemed change positive. Violating the rights of one for the
        > pleasure of many is not right from my perspecitve (it would not,
        > potentially serve the best interests of all). She would seemingly
        > wish for a break, and the others needed to remove themselves
        > from activity to discover motive/interest in their actions.
        >
        > <<I have taken courses in weapons self defense and have
        > friends who are practical shooters. They approach the situation
        > with very set rules. If you produce a weapon you must be willing
        > to kill with it. Shoot to kill, two rounds per target. >>
        >
        > Understood, which is what I meant to suggest by 'knowing the
        > gun.' However, if all were naked, with no sign of clothes or other
        > place for hiding weapons, I might suggest that one killed may
        > demoralize, one killed and 3 wounded would perhaps sway the
        > upper hand (if not total numbers), and if there were even one
        > shot left after that (a practical possibility), it may be that pain and
        > fear in the wounded would not make for a rally. I would suspect
        > that if there are 4 men on one woman (which is hardly a fight, no
        > matter who the woman is) they would probably not be well
        > armed.
        >
        > There are, of course, many other unmentioned factors:
        > landscape, distance, detection (they of me), etc.
        >
        > Sorry to disappoint your wife. However, if her response was to
        > play the lone ranger, it is as good a response as any of ours --
        > and perhaps more so as it speaks of more interest and
        > involvement. There is no safer place to postulize, fantasize and
        > become a hero than in your own imagination, and I am sorry to
        > have floundered the opportunity in order to appear honest.
        >
        > yuck.
        > ------
        >
        >
        > Our Home: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/existlist
        > (Includes community book list, chat, and more.)
        >
        > TO UNSUBSCRIBE from this group, send an email to:
        > existlist-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
        >
        > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.