Badmovies.org Forum

I know some will call me cruel for this, but I don't have a lot of sympathy for people who die while doing tremendously stupid things, and I rank armed robbery on the Top 10 of stupid things to do. 

Just find it interesting this story even got reported, usually the media tend to ignore stuff like this (that or say the would be victim "fought off" the attacker, without bothering to mention the good guy had a weapon to do it with.)

Oh, and it turns out one of the robbers accidentally shot his partner in crime!   :teddyr:

http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/53259052.html (http://www.todaystmj4.com/news/local/53259052.html)

Victim Kills Would-Be Robber
By Elizabeth Braun, Melanie Stout

MILWAUKEE - A man was being robbed at gunpoint when he pulled out his own gun and shot one of the suspects.

It all happened early Thursday near 1st and Clarke. The 23-year-old Milwaukee man was in the area when two teenagers pulled out a gun and tried to rob him.

That victim also had a gun. He shot and killed one suspect, 17-year-old Kevin Ollie. Ollie's gun also went off, and he accidentally shot the other teen robber.

The robbery victim's family says he had no choice but to fight back.

That robbery victim has never been convicted of a crime and is not in custody.

The 19-year-old surviving robber is behind bars. The DA is deciding whether he will face felony murder charges for his role in the botched robbery.

The robbery victim's family hopes that happens.

The robbery victim was not hurt during the ordeal. Friday detectives brought him to a line up to identify the robbery suspect.

A decision on charges against the 19-year-old surviving robber should come Monday.

(http://i41.photobucket.com/albums/e262/maybrook1/bronson.jpg)

I don't get any satisfaction from anybody dying. Not even Kevin Spacey at the end of Se7en.

I do.

You are a dark man.

Epic win?   :buggedout:  "Robbery victim"?  Carrying a gun...  All of these young men under 25, all carrying their own guns...?  I don't think this story is what it has been characterized as.  "The robbery victim has never been convicted of a crime..."   :lookingup:

Its like the wild, wild west. yes, i am a proponent of gun control.  :smile:

Me too.  If you can't control your gun, you shouldn't pack one.   :bouncegiggle:

I'm not in favor of the wild west era, but if some jerk decides to whip out a gun to commit a crime, it would be nice for him to have it in the back of his fried little mind that he might be facing one himself. 

But then, I advocate a life sentence if a gun is used in the commission of a crime, whether it is loaded or not. And if anyone dies during the crime, even just a heart attack, the criminals should receive the death penalty.  In both cases, you have 120 days to appeal.  If there is no evidence to back up any appeal, pull their plug on day 121.  Allow people to make their own choices, but make sure there is no question as to the consequences of their actions.

I hear this often, and the rebuttal is always "Well if guns were BANNED, that guy wouldn't be able to do that in the first place".

IMO, how it should read is "but if some jerk decides to whip out a WEAPON to commit a crime, it would be nice for him to have it in the back of his fried little mind that he might be facing A GUN himself". I've been mugged several times, every time the person had a knife, every time it was a knife anyone could buy at Wal-mart. Once the guy's intent was to kill me no matter what, had I not been faster, I would have died. A slower person could have only survived with a gun the way I see it.

The problem with gun control laws is that they only disarm law-abiding citizens.  A few years ago Australia enacted Draconian handgun control laws in response to a dreadful day-care shooting - a massacre, actually.

The result has been a massive increase in the number of gun crimes, as the criminal element realizes that all their potential victims are now weaponless.

And, in case you are wondering, I am neither a handgun owner nor an NRA member.

But the solution to every  problem is not to pass another new law.  Every law passed is one more freedom lost.

By the time the firearm was invented, mankind had long before given up hunting (except as sport) in favor of farming.  Guns were invented and improved upon for the singular purpose of killing people.  I am not at all in favor of stripping freedoms from free people.  I do believe, however, that if handguns and assault weapons were illegal to own and almost impossible to acquire, gun deaths will fall.   It is an insightful culture that recognizes fallacies and just plain wrong thinking.   When the founding fathers hammered out basic rights, the firearm was a necessary tool, most particularly in the battles with redcoats, as well as for things like hunting and protection (at a time when there were no police, but plenty of robbers, pirates, and displaced natives...)  We live in a very different culture and a much smaller world than 200 years ago.   

Rose McGowan's M16.  :bouncegiggle: :twirl: :bouncegiggle:

(http://img8.imageshack.us/img8/9507/84723747.png) (http://img8.imageshack.us/i/84723747.png/)

. . . and will be replaced by beatings, stabbings. Getting rid of guns altogether changes little, except that you put physical size/strength back into it. IOW, it will come down to the bigger/stronger/faster/more drug-fueled person always having the upper hand. Why people think that is better is beyond me.


Since we know know that the police are at all times everywhere, and never more that a few seconds away. That argument is oh so stale. There are far less police now than there have been in the past, and a large part of this is because the police are very ineffective at solving immediate problems. Adding more police solves nothing but budget surpluses. I have NEVER had nor heard of police showing up for anything in less than 10 minutes, they are not even remotely close to a suitable replacement for someone being able to defend themselves. Gun control proponents' so often answer with "call the police" as a solution to a problem, even after hearing hundreds of 911 recordings of people being attacked, all the while being told "Just stay calm, the police are almost there" for minutes on end.

The news story does not mention whether the man who defended himself had a permit to carry or not.  However, I am firmly in support of citizens being able to keep and bear arms.  I taught my wife how to safely handle a firearm and how to use it correctly.  I will teach my children once they are old enough to do so and to understand the responsibility.

Well, I think you're overlooking the ease with which a gun kills.  Sure there will always be murder, but how many more people might live if no gun is involved?  It's a lot harder to kill with your hands than with a gun. 

I don't understand your complete bump over 200 years of history.  I was discussing the police then, not now.  I never said they were "seconds away..."  I have nothing to say about modern police responsiveness, tactics, or reliability.  There may indeed be "far less police now than there have been in the past"  but I was referring to the founding fathers, you know, as in the long past when there were no police, not say 1900, or the post war era, or whenever you think there may have been far more police.  I am merely offering an opinion about why the right to bear arms was included in the Bill of Rights.  Don't construe a point of view from my commentary; in my thought process, it is a starting point only.  In other words, don't stick me with your stale old argument. 

Well that's a well considered response. 

Yes, you are right, it is much easier to stop/kill an attacker/rapist/whatever with a gun than it is without. It's not just the number people that die, it's also WHO dies. People act as if criminals are timid little 85-lb weaklings that have to use a gun to accomplish their crime, watch any show on prisons and you'll see that 's not true, the majority of prisoners are larger than average. Take away all the guns, and they have the distinct advantage, not to mention the fact that most criminals are male. I hope we can agree that that is not a good thing.


Because we live TODAY, not 200 years ago. . . Read your own posting, you stated that 200 years ago, guns were a necessary tool, then implied they are no longer by stating that the world is now much different. You stated that they were needed partially because there were no police, as if police are the answer. They are not, and history, RECENT history, as in, the time you and I live in, has proven that to be wrong, regardless of what happened 200 years ago.

The right to bear arms was included in the Constitution so that the citizenry could protect themselves against encroachments on their liberties by a tyrannical government as much as to defend themselves against criminals!  I do not trust my government enough - not even when good ol' george W. was in charge, much less our current socialist-in-chief - to let them have all the firepower.

Nope, not a good thing...  :bouncegiggle:  They're mostly bigger...?  You're sure?  Is that like knowing a chicken when you see one 'cause you saw it on TV?   :wink:  :drink:

Well, I did indeed state that guns were a necessary tool, sure, to fight the British, remember British search and seizure practices which greatly sensitized colonists to firearm control. 

You want an argument and I don't.  I don't know that we actually disagree, but we were certainly not discussing the same topic.  I think what I'm trying to do is cover the founding fathers' asses because I have so much faith in the American system.   :smile:

Oh, and you don't think a gun can give a punk the nerve? 

No, , Because I WORK IN A PRISON. I was telling YOU to look at them on TV so maybe you would know who we were talking about. .  :lookingup: Even without, I'm sure you're not trying to argue against the fact that most criminals are MALE. And for the record, those shows on prisons that show a bunch of big, muscled-up thugs are fairly accurate. I'm 6'1 ~190 lbs and the majority of the guys where I work, I'd say 80% are guys I wouldn't even think about going against even on my best day.


Just when exactly did I say that? I have no doubt that some punks get their nerve up by having a gun. I also think many of those people wouldn't NEED to get their nerve up if they KNEW whoever they were going against with a knife or screwdriver had no chance of having a gun. I'm not under any illusions here. Whoever said "An armed society is a polite society" was full of hot air. BUT, and armed society is no less polite that a totally unarmed society, it goes both ways.

My point is that you say removal of handguns and assault rifles will cause deaths to go down. Would this be because CRIME would go down? Would this be because robbers/rapists/whatever do LESS, or because people just have to give in to them? How many of those supposed lives that are save go on to rape or rob another person? Or would it even happen at all? How many MORE crimes would be committed because some 'punk' only needed a knife to, as you say, "get his nerve up"?

Who's "we"...?  Only you and I are engaged in this exchange.  I have many law enforcement personnel in my family, so I've had enough time to make up my own mind about cops, not to mention my personal experience, and I have several friends who work in prisons.  I don't doubt your word, but it sure sounded humorous.  And there are... how many prisons in the USA? 

I think I could take you.  I'm about the same height, but may weigh 5 lbs less...  :tongueout:

I didn't say you said anything.  This is obviously a hot topic for you.  Working in a prison, that's understandable. 
I believe victims of crime will always exist, regardless of guns. 
I suppose there are situations where a crime victim has saved him or herself because they possessed a firearm.  I also wonder how many of these instances where death occurred was deadly force necessary?  More importantly, how often is a victim saved from a crime because they happened to possess a firearm?  I will not take up the old debate about every citizen armed like the Wild West.  Morally, I believe guns are evil.   

This reminds me of ...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kQFKtI6gn9Y

The problem is that in spite of any effort to eliminate guns, they will never be impossible to obtain by illegal means. It's the same with anything illegal - if somebody wants it, and has the resources, it is available. If guns are banned somewhere, they'll be smuggled from somewhere else. If they can't be purchased over the counter, someone will be willing to sell them under the table. And if every gun was destroyed and all legitimate manufacturers shut down, there will be illegal machine shops turning out firearms of varying accuracy and user safety, with none of the controls currently in place. Prohibition is a fine example - banning booze just made a few people rich, either smuggling the stuff or making it themselves, and the end users got everything from high-quality liquor to bathtub gin and wood alcohol, depending on the source. Meanwhile, legitimate brewers and distillers were decimated.

Laws only work on the law-abiding. Criminals, by definition, break laws. Disarming the law-abiding public might prevent accidents and crimes of passion, but it won't take guns out of the hands of criminals.

And, I have to say, an incident like this one, with one robber killed and the other wounded and possibly facing a murder charge, should make a few people think twice before trying the same thing. I've never really agreed with the advice to cooperate and hand over your money. It might be safer for you in the short term, but I think it encourages criminals in the long run. If they think there might be some risk involved, that they might have to earn their money, armed robbery is going to seem less attractive. Stories of crooks picking the wrong guy to attack ought to be played up for all they're worth.

A WHOLE LOT of situations like that exist.  Thousands a year, in fact.



Here is a blog that keeps track of news stories involving civilian self-defense with firearms.  These are all news stories published by the media.

http://www.claytoncramer.com/gundefenseblog/blogger.html



How do you define necessary?



A gun is a lump of metal and plastic.  It cannot be good or evil.  Some people are evil, and will use any tool available to them for evil.

The whole thing boils down to this: If there are no guns, criminals will use something else, weather it be a knife, a baseball bat, or just their own sheer size. Guns make it much easier for people to level the playing field. Put a 90 year old woman with a gun against a 20 year old male with a gun, and the odds are much better for her than the 0% chance she has if they were just going to go at it hand-to-hand. The fact is that anything a person does to defend themselves is REACTIVE, so that person is already at a disadvantage EVEN if all other things are equal, which they rarely are, attackers don't look for a TOUGH fight, they look for an EASY one more often than not.

The problem is that outright gun control just makes things worse by the immediate result being innocent people going unarmed, where what SHOULD be focused on is getting and keeping the guns out of the WRONG hands. One problem is that we HAVE laws that are supposed to do this, and even those laws are not enough, but are sparsely enforced it seems. Our system has gotten lazy, rather than inflict a 10-year sentence on a felon that has a gun, they usually (in Alaska anyways) just violate his parole, which can easily turn into an in-and-out, there's less paperwork that way.

The way I believe it should be is this:

You commit a violent crime or a sex crime, you don't get to use, own, possess, or in any way have a firearm again. You do, 10 - 20 years in prison, life the second time just for HAVING it, life if you used it in a crime. EVERY crime should have a 10-year automatic aggrivator for possessing a gun during it's commission. (except common traffic infractions). There are also some 'red flag' crimes that more often than not indicate bad things, like cruelty to animals, road rage situations.

You get a DWI or other non-violent crime, there should be a period that you can't possess one afterward. I know DWI isn't a violent crime, but it shows extreme irresponsibility.

If someone gets a T.O.P. against you, and it is deemed necessary, same thing, no firearms for some period of time.

You get caught possessing, making, selling, or using hard drugs (Heroin, Coke, Meth, all the violence-inducing drugs), same thing, no weapons for some period of time no matter the quantity, forever if the amount constitutes a felony. Even if the person pleads down to a misdemeanor, the gun restrictions should stay.

They should enforce the laws making it illegal to knowingly make a gun available to a felon, so when a felon gets pulled over he can't say the gun between the seats is his passenger's and dodge the law.

My point of view is that people often put themselves into bad positions. If a person attacks your family and you need to use deadly force, that's NOT YOUR FAULT, it's THEIRS. It sucks, and it's sad to see someone die, but in the end everybody dies eventually. We seem to be stuck in this trying to be politically correct mode where everyone is equal. NO, we are BORN equal, the rest is up to us. I believe there are people out there that because of their own actions, do not deserve to live as much as some others. That is why we have war, that is why some places have a death penalty, and that is why people have the right to defend themselves. Truth be told, Jeffery Dahlmer's life wasn't as valuable as many other people's, because he chose to do horrible things, things other people would never do.

I'm not sure I understand the problem...  Would you rather they have called him an "attempted robbery victim"?  But if you're thinking this may be gang related or something...  I'd say that is plausible. 

Anyway, Wisconsin is one of only two states (the other is Illinois) to have no form of concealed carry.  Apparently, the state does allow open carry, I'm not sure if Milwaukee law would allow it though.  In any case, the would-be robbery victim may have been on someone else's private property, or had other extenuating circumstances. 

That's a good way to disarm all the law abiding people.

Damn, where do you live man?  Maybe I should avoid that area...

Glad to hear you're okay though! 

When I say gun control thats what i mean, Im not saying outlaw them. Control the types and number of guns on the streets. No one needs an AK47.

Guns are too easy to get and a lot of the people getting them are uneducated about gun safety or have mental issues and should not have a gun period. I have met several people who i would call "gun nuts" and not a single one of them should have had 1 gun much less dozens.

Guns have become such an acceptable part of our lives that most dont blink when a man straps a gun to his leg and goes to where the President is speaking, in high school when someone said we will settle it after school you could count on a fist fight, not now... now they get shot.

Parents are not keeping their guns away from children and they are blowing each others heads off..   This one.. http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/27399337/Education.  and more recently..http://hubpages.com/hub/FATHER-CHARGED-AFTER-BOY-DIES-FROM-SELF-INFLICTED-GUN-SHOT   my point is people like this idiot should not have had a gun.
I dont have a problem with responsible gun owners i have a problem with how easy it is for any half wit with little money to purchase a gun.

Why not?



What firearms experience and training do you have that you can declare someone unfit to have a gun?



If he intended to shoot the President, I don't think he'd carry the gun there in plain sight.



More children drown in pools than shoot themselves.

You shouldn't keep guns away from children.  If you have guns in the home, your children should be trained to handle them safely.  Like this little tyke, here ...

http://www.break.com/index/little-kid-at-a-shooting-range.html

He's far less likely to have a gun-related accident than a kid who's never been trained.




But who defines what a responsible gun owner is?  Is it the guy who keeps his guns locked in a safe and unloaded at all times so no one can get to them?  Is it the guy who keeps his guns loaded, ready, and within reach at all times in case of a home invasion scenario?

What a smartass you turned out to be.  You know what an AK-47 was designed and is used for.  It is not a sporting rifle. 

Sure, I agree that's plausible, for one scenario.  I think there's much hypocrisy at the heart of American culture, including political correctness in news reporting.   

I thought, my friend, you were above mincing words... you know what I meant. 
So, you like to play with guns?  Good for you!  It's your right.  However, I don't really believe any of your assertions.  But, to each his own. 

Intended for it or not, people do use it for hunting.  Many, many people also use the SKS (the SKS was the USSR's rifle before the AK47) for hunting, as it is cheap, reliable, and the pretty easy to find and inexpensive surplus ammunition is a good deer cartridge.

I also find it worth noting that any gun that effectively kills deer will effectively kill people.  The only really significant differences might be the potential rate of fire and the magazine capacities.

I understand what you're getting at, I just don't think you can draw a particularly effective line between appropriate hunting weapons and those purely for killing people.  Someone who knows what they're doing with a bolt action rifle could kill 10 people a minute without problem.

Yes, because as we all know, the poor should not have the right to defend themselves. . .

I understand the 'half wit' part, but mentioning money in this capacity speaks volumes. .



You are right. Now look at THIS http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,126205.msg281064.html#msg281064 (http://www.badmovies.org/forum/index.php/topic,126205.msg281064.html#msg281064), and maybe you will understand.

where the hell do you get the poor from anything I posted? I didnt mention poor, you did. My point was very simple, just because someone has money to buy a gun does not mean they should. I dont give a rats ass if they make 10K a year or a million. One has nothing to do with the other.



Why not?


What firearms experience and training do you have that you can declare someone unfit to have a gun?












[/quote]

No one needs an AK47. Its certainly not for defense.

Someone is unfit when 1, they dont take a gun safety class and 2, they have mental issues.

It wasnt about killing the president but about intimidation.  saying we are here and we are armed be afraid.

If someone has children they have a responsibility to keep that child save that includes making sure they know a gun is a dangerous weapon and not a toy. To often parents buy the gun and just let it sit around. They dont teach the children gun safety because they dont know about it. They just bought the gun and said yeah, I have a gun im not going to worry about educating myself or my family.

It's for defense if you use it for defense.  It's for hunting if you use it for hunting.  It's for shooting varmints if you use it to shoot varmints.  It's for whatever use you put it to.  There's no valid reason to make a blanket statement like, "Nobody needs an AK-47."

Your words. A person with, as YOU put it, "LITTLE MONEY", is considered POOR.


Whoa, did you get whiplash changing directions so fast?


Perhaps you should talk to Allhallowsday, he says they are made for use against people. That is what 'defense' means.


Now you're just throwing crap at the wall and seeing what sticks. I guess we need to get rid of all household cleaners, because WAY more kids die from those that guns, even accounting for possession rates. You just need to admit you're taking a couple articles out of the news and that's all you have.


I seriously doubt you know any of that for fact at all. I just called every friend of mine I know that I know has guns, none of them fit this. How many people did YOU ask first hand? Yep, I didn't think so. .

To be fair, I think that was a typo. I read it as "anyone with A little money" meaning the only qualification for gun ownership is being able to afford one. If it wasn't a typo, it would be a really awkward choice of words for someone who otherwise writes clearly. I tend to agree with you on the broader issue Ghouck, but your interpretation of the sentence is a bit of a stretch, and I don't see how you can keep arguing this particular point even after she clarified what she meant.

I've noticed he's been doing that quite a bit. 

Sorry Andy, but are you now her spokesperson? I don't see where she clarified anything. Yes, they way YOU interpret it doesn't sound bad, but that's not what I got out of it. Please point out just where she pointed out it was a typo? Didn't think so. .

I have clarified, its not my fault if you dont get it. I will say it again. Just because someone has money to buy a gun does not mean they should. How does that say anything about the poor? It doesnt.  Guns are cheap and the only thing required is that you have the money. Poor or rich it doesnt matter and i made no distinction. You did.

you dont know anything about me or who i know. And I never said fact. I said too often parents buy guns and dont worry about gun safety. I have known several like this and have family members who are also this way. I never said all parents who own guns are irresponsible. not once.

You need to calm down.  And not having the "sack" as you've put on my karma with your commentary, I address here in the public forum.  Apparently you don't know whom you are addressing.  I hadn't realized Mr. H, that you behave on this forum a little loop-de-loo.  I'd pointed out that you are creating arguments, though you've stated off forum I don't have the "sack".  We didn't disagree, certainly we were talking about different subjects, yet you seemed determined to perpetuate discord.   You can disagree with a person and remain a gentleman.  I'll take the negative along with the insult, and still wish you the best.   :smile:

I am calm, and that post has nothing to do with you. Nice try at shifting focus though.

So your answer is a blanket policy due to just those few people who don't fit YOUR idea of responsibility? I also never accused you of blaming ALL parents.  :lookingup:

It's not about shifting focus, it's about my response to your negative karma left for me and the insult to boot.  I do not repay this.  Apparently you cannot be contrite, but remain rude... and kookoo is yer specialty.   :wink:  :drink:  :thumbup:

Quote the GHOUCK: If you have something to say, have the sack to say it to me
Uhm, gook, this is an internet forum. 

Wait here, You post "You need to calm, down", I respond, and you EDIT YOUR POST, and respond as if MY response was to what you edited your message to. For the record, when I posted "I am calm, and that post has nothing to do with you. Nice try at shifting focus though.", the post I was responding to was only "You need to calm down. ", everything else was added AFTER my response.

And, just what is 'gook' supposed to mean?

I was in the midst of editing it, but you again illustrate why you need to "calm down."   :wink:  :thumbup:

You posted "any half wit with little money. . " I understand what you mean now, and I'm glad you clarified, but you really didn't make it clear at first, you didn't indicate that was a typo, I had no reason to believe you didn't mean exactly what you typed. I understand what you're saying in that regard now.

Uh, , how is that? Lol, this is getting comical. I am calm, but I am getting a kick out of you trying vainly to show otherwise. I'm not sure what tone of voice you're reading my posts in, but I assure it's not the same tone I am typing them in.  :question: Not my fault.

Still wondering what you meant by 'gook', you do know that's a racial slur, right?

Never heard it as a "racial slur" it's a typo.  Your name is GHOUCK isn't it?  close.  And it's true, when did I post and when did I edit?  I'm often on here posting and editing.  I try to write carefully, though I do mess up when I drink.   :drink:  I am not your enemy and I am not that armed rapist serial killer at your door.  I want you and everybody to be safe.  I don't believe Gun Control could work, but you never gave me the opportunity to state that.  Though idealistic, I am a pragmatist.  The record of our exchange is there for all to scrutinize and determine a characterization.  Thanks for the negative karma; here's a positive because I learned that lesson long ago. 

EDIT: I edited this because I misspelled "karma".   :smile:  I hope that was okay.   :wink: :thumbup:

It is, they used it in Viet Nam alot, if you know what I mean

Actually, It's G HOUCK, my first initial (G) and my last name (Houck). It sounds like Gee-How-k (Now I just have to get Rev to SPELL it right. You'd think a bartender could spell better than that  :bouncegiggle: )

Yes you are, but you're not the one doing the raping THIS TIME. I hope you did some stretching exercises. .



Now I KNOW you're trying to get into my pants. . Keep it above the waist pal, homie don't swing that way. .


Don't make me punch you in the taco. . .

You're an ass and a weirdo.   :thumbup:

Yea, but it pays to diversify. .

You're an ass and a weirdo. 

You said that already. . .

With you it all seems redundant.   :smile:

Yea, but with me it all seems redundant. . .

"I like swords!"


(Karma to whoever gets the reference.)

I guess the battle has ended. (it was getting good too) jk

(http://img10.imageshack.us/img10/2799/mk2friendship.png) (http://img10.imageshack.us/i/mk2friendship.png/)

To the conversation that has been going on here, all I can honestly say is:  wow.  Just...wow.

 :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers: :cheers:

And I don't know the reference, but I prefer rattan swords and a solid wrap-shot to the helm, but that's the SCA in me talking.

Hey Ghouck...

Pretty much all of us pronounce your screen name as "Gook".
I always have and still do.
We're not being racist.  We're just pronouncing it like we see it.
It's essentially "Ghoul" with a "ck" on the end of it instead of an "L".
How else did you think we'd pronounce it?

I knew it was G. Houck because you told me so awhile back.
But most everyone else didn't know that.

Same here. Pronounced it "gook" from the beginning, like "goon" with a K. Still do in spite of knowing for a while that it's G. Houck. No offense, G.H., but as a comical nickname, it kind of suits you.

Sometimes I sample my own inventory.   :drink:

In all seriousness, I am glad this thread defused.  I got here late and missed most of the fireworks. 

It's not unusual for people who love to debate to refuse to quit even when it's clear the argument isn't going anywhere.  I find that if a debate with a single individual goes on for more than two exchanges of posts, the other person usually has their mind made up on the issue and nothing I can say is going to change it.  At that point, no matter how right I think I am, I find it's best to stop responding; continuing to debate is pointless, I'm not going to change someone's mind.   

Hopefully people can remember to always make it clear that they're arguing against the other person's OPINION, not attacking the other person directly.  But in the heat of argument it's very likely that personal attacks will occur, or that people will interpret a difference in opinion as a personal attack.  You have to have a thick skin if you're going to get into these types of highly divisive debates.     

I handled myself fine, and have no love for debate.  Read all exchanges and then reconsider whether or not there was a genuine debate.  Seemed to me Ghouck was arguing with himself.  My mistake was trying to point this out, though once again I get branded with an argument that wasn't mine and one that I never took up, and get negative shot for no good reason.   :lookingup:  I am disappointed in Ghouck, but have no right to expect anything more from him, like civility. 

(http://img24.imageshack.us/img24/6622/fighte.gif) (http://img24.imageshack.us/i/fighte.gif/)

I'm only joking guys ...

Fine, I will kill this thread so that the argument here will not continue.  I had also hoped that it was over, but it seems not.

/thread.