At 11:37 5/19/2000, BRENT CHRISTENSEN wrote:

>Do you all remember the thread last year about this time that started out
>innocently enough about the

I do.  Sigh.

>PS: I am withholding my opinion on the whole gun subject, since I think it
>is silly to even discuss it on this forum.  It is pretty easy to figure
>out that there are about two or three subjects that ANY group of humans
>WILL NEVER AGREE ON, and gun ownership is certainly one of them.

Guns tend to be a "religious" issue, i.e. one where the various viewpoints
are not generally susceptible to reasoned argument and therefore one where
it is unlikely that person A will bring even one of persons B, C, D, E to
change his opinion one iota (and since I've mentioned the R word, I'll
indulge myself by mentioning that the expression arises because the
difference in belief between the parties in the most famous Christian
heresy -- a profound difference if you care about such things -- was
expressed by spelling a single word with or without the letter
"iota."  Thus doth the language grow...).

A prime aspect of "religious" issues is that, since the energy in the
discussion is unavailable for light or motion, it has noplace to go except
heat.  Because of this, and because of the resulting embarrassment and
discomfort of innocent bystanders, and since the history of the list bears
this out...

...therefore I Propose a special amendment to the list rules, specifically
forbidding discussion of the philosophy of guns on the list.

I also think that it would be wise to avoid discussing the various
enthusiastic details of personal armament, since it tempts non-enthusiasts
to begin discussing philosophy, but I'm not asking that this be banned.

david
David Beierl - Providence, RI
  http://pws.prserv.net/synergy/Vanagon/
'84 Westy "Dutiful Passage"
'85 GL "Poor Relation"