arachne-digest Wednesday, January 15 2003 Volume 01 : Number 2023
---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 16:52:40 -0500 From: "Sam Ewalt" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Communism and monastic communities On Mon, 13 Jan 2003 15:40:06 -0400, L.D. Best wrote: > Sorry Sam, > The lay orders, convents, and the priesthood -- none of then are > communistic in concept or day-to-day operation. The control is > strict, from the top down, and it is dead wrong to equate poverty, or > self-deprivation with communism. Well, L. D. (or should I call you Mrs. Best?) What do you mean by communism? The Rule of Saint Benedict abolishes private property for monks-- all goods being held in common by the community. Their distribution is to be made according to need as determined by the Abbot with the guidance of the rule in mind. "Let all things be common to all." Quoting from the Rule "It is written, distribution was made to everyone according as he had need." This is a referance made by the Rule to Acts 4:35. Were Marx and Engels secret monks in another lifetime? As this is almost the same as the famous phrase "From each according to their ability, to each according to their need." of the Communist Manifesto. While the governance of monastic communities varies, the Rule provides for the election of Abbots by the professed members of the community. And while some monks may engage in fasting and other austerities, in general they are amply and comfortably provided for, with adequate food, clothing and other necessities depending on their situation. http://www.benedictine.edu/abbey/site2/rule.html A democratic community without private property--would that fufill your definition of communism? Sam Ewalt Croswell, Michigan, USA - -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:57:33 +0100 From: flox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [ot?]could somebody test my page? Many thanks to all of you, who tested it. btw: The counter isn't visible, but in the statistics it will show me Arachne & DOS (statistics of used Software). Textcounter (www.textcounter.org) seems to work ok! bye, flox ps: Some colors aren't very good. But i hope, that i will find better one :-) - -- Florian Xaver http://www.drdos.org http://www.flox.at.tf/ ICQ#:59264800 ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:01:15 -0800 (PST) From: John Vertegaal <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Quicker loading pages Ron Clarke wrote: > ... resize the original first. This will give you a smaller version > of the original, but with the same quality resolution. I may very well be dense Ron; but as far as I understand, resizing in PictView, or any other graphics program I'm familiar with, alters the resolution by definition. But if I'm missing something, I'd sure like to know it. > I have sometimes found that even this can give a poor result, and > I have used an alternative method to reduce file size without losing > quality - convert the graphic to a GIF, using PictView or Compushow > 2000. > This will reduce the colours from 16 million to 256, and greatly reduce > file size. With a good dithering converter, it is hard to spot any loss > of detail. I was informed that GIFS are interlaced, whatever that means; so it may be worth a try for that reason too. > Have you tried CompuShow 2000 ? Yes many years ago, both cshow and 2show. And I was pretty convinced at the time, that it was the source of innumerable hard disk problems; caused by the programs because I didn't pay for them. It swore me off keeping current shareware on my hard drive. Thanks again for your attempts to help me, I appreciate it. John V ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 08:34:32 +0000 From: "Ron Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: OT: weapons Hi Folks, David, On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:28:56 -0500, david gunnells wrote: > Hello Ron, > Maybe you'd be interested in these: > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/ > specifically, this page: > http://members.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/confiles.html Sadly, this page locked up Arachne1.71, so I didn't get to read any of it, but what I did get seems to be from our own (Oz) gun lobby. I will try again to get this page to load. Regards, Ron Ron Clarke http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html http://tadpole.aus.as - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 09:28:56 +0000 From: "Ron Clarke" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Quicker loading pages HI John, On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:01:15 -0800 (PST), John Vertegaal wrote: > I may very well be dense Ron; but as far as I understand, resizing in > PictView, or any other graphics program I'm familiar with, alters the > resolution by definition. But if I'm missing something, I'd sure like > to know it. I am probably not using the correct words here. :) What I mean to say is that, to the eye, the clarity of the graphic is at least as good after resizing as it was before, while the actual total pixels (and the file size) is much reduced. > I was informed that GIFS are interlaced, whatever that means; so it may > be worth a try for that reason too. Interlaced just means that the graphic is built up of a number of low-quality layers that together make all the detail in a graphic. Both GIF and JPEG can be interlaced - it is a means of keeping the surfer's interst while a larger graphic is downloaded, it gives them something to look at. But GIFs are not all interlaced. >> Have you tried CompuShow 2000 ? > Yes many years ago, both cshow and 2show. And I was pretty convinced at > the time, that it was the source of innumerable hard disk problems; > caused by the programs because I didn't pay for them. It swore me off > keeping current shareware on my hard drive. I haven't had that problem. > Thanks again for your attempts to help me, I appreciate it. A thought ! Would you like me to see if I can get your "large" graphic down to the size you want to display it at ? Just give me the URL and I will have a go. :) Regards, Ron Ron Clarke http://homepages.valylink.net.au/~ausreg/index.html http://tadpole.aus.as - -- This mail was written by user of The Arachne Browser - http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:52:44 -0800 From: "Ray Andrews" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: arachne-digest V1 #2022 Hi all: Glenn, > - --- Article 1, section 8 clearly states --- > ... > Those are some of the examples that Steve was referring to where > our constition was NOT followed. > The US was not attacked. > No declaration of war was ever made by congress. > No treaty between the US and those countries been violated. Thanks for the direct quote from the Constitution; I clearly saw how the power to make war rests with Congress, but what about the other two points? Article 1/8 didn't seem to mention that war could only be declared if the US is attacked, or if a treaty has been violated ... unless I missed something. Mrs. Best, > To the rest of you who have been possibly over-exposed to l.d., just > tell me to shut up and I'll shut up. <G> Thanks for the Bio. That was not only informative, it was moving! Bob, > Perhaps you, Bart, might be the guy to write the code I need for > the HTML-DGI-DBMS scheme. Wouldn't that be a blast, a communist > and a christian cooperating to fight against poverty and injustice > and to work together for world peace. Stranger things have happened. I'm a Christian and a moderate creationist, one of my very best friends is a fanatical anti-religious evolutionist. He's as far left as you can go, almost a Stalinist, I'm moderate right in my politics. He sees the world in black and white, for me, everything is shades of grey. But we're friends just the same. Ray Andrews, Vancouver, Canada - -- Arachne V1.71;UE01, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:08:31 -0500 From: Roger Turk <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [ot?]could somebody test my page? Hi Florian, I went to your page earlier today and took a quick look at it. Thanks for reminding me that you wanted input. I didn't see the counter, but you just now explained that it is not visible, so that's the reason. The color combination was what I was going to key my comments on. The white lettering on a mottled gray background is rather hard for these old eyes to read. Roger Turk Tucson, Arizona Florian Xaver wrote: . > Many thanks to all of you, who tested it. . > btw: The counter isn't visible, but in the statistics it will show me . > Arachne & DOS (statistics of used Software). . > Textcounter (www.textcounter.org) seems to work ok! . > bye, flox . > ps: Some colors aren't very good. But i hope, that i will find better . > one :-) . > -- . > Florian Xaver ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:38:41 -0400 From: "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: On Topic -- failure to load page [was Re: OT: weapons Ron, The problem is probably linked to the fact that there are a whole bunch of big graphics files on that page. That could totally eat up cache space etc with Arachne. I didn't try with 1.71, but did go in with 1.70 ... AFTER I used the tilde " ~ " to turn off automatic graphics insertion on the page. I was able to right click and un-Tilde quite a few of the graphics and view them ... but I made sure I did the tilde thing again before going back to the page. If 1.71 does lock up on the page, even using the tilde approach I more or less outlined above, then get back here to so advise ... because that would be a bug that needs fixing or a "fixed bug" that needs unfixing. <EWG> l.d. ==== On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 08:34:32 +0000, Ron Clarke wrote: > Hi Folks, David, > On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 14:28:56 -0500, david gunnells wrote: >> Hello Ron, >> Maybe you'd be interested in these: >> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/ >> specifically, this page: >> http://members.ozemail.com.au/~confiles/confiles.html > Sadly, this page locked up Arachne1.71, so I didn't get to read any > of it, but what I did get seems to be from our own (Oz) gun lobby. > I will try again to get this page to load. - -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:45:16 -0400 From: "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Communism and monastic communities Really quick non-quoted reply on monastic v. communist societies 1. A communist society is not headed up by a single individual, elected or not, who has the power of "life or death" -- membership or dismissal or condemnation to an eternity of suffering -- over others within the society. 2. A communist society does not live upon donations from outsiders. 3. A communist society does not recognize the overall power of a single remote individual [God's Representative on Earth] to approve its existance, and to have final say on its "rules." - -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 18:21:23 -0400 From: "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: $$ and [non?]sense on death penalty We all, in one way or another, base what we believe and what we do -- or want others to do -- upon a personal definition of "right/wrong" "good/bad" ... One problem which has always faced any person or organization is the fact that nothing can be totally good or totally bad, and at what point does the good for the many off-set or excuse the bad for the few. We all know that the death penalty does not do a good job of deterring murders. Those who would commit murder [please be aware I am being very specific here, because "murder" and "kill" are not the same thing] are either those who think they won't be caught and those who don't care if they die, or those who are unsane [NOT insane] during the time of the murder; for them the consequences are meaningless, never entering into the decision making formula. However, the death penalty -- when carried out -- does guarantee that one person will never murder again. However, at what point should society start to reconsider the consequences of not having the death penalty? Yes, there ARE consequences. In GB it isn't unusual for a murderer to only serve 10 years prison time; anyone want to bet their life that those ten years changed a murderer into a useful member of society? I wouldn't, but millions do. So here in the USofA we have a thing called "life in prison" which sometimes means "until you die of natural causes." But the money spent to keep someone in prison could support a family of four which would otherwise be homeless. Doesn't anyone beside me see something wrong with that picture? I wear dentures because I could not afford a decent dentist; I'm permanently disabled because I could not afford decent medical care. My mother died after years with a heart problem that could only be fixed by a transplant; recently a convicted killer received a heart transplant at the expense of the state. Doesn't anyone beside me see something wrong with that picture? It is against international conventions to visit "cruel & unusual punishment, torture" upon prisoners. Ask some of the people sitting on death row somewhere, ask their families, about having to wait ten or twenty years to know if there will really be an execution ... and they are likely to define it as the most cruel of tortures. At what point do we draw the line about using limited resources [and even sunlight is "limited" in a long enough time frame] for criminals when non-criminals are deprived of the basics of life? And please -- don't expect me to take that debate to a world-wide level; it hasn't been properly addressed yet on the local level. There are times that I get really upset with "bleeding hearts" and WWJD radicals. At one point or another, if survival of the "good" is going to be a possibility, we're going to have to do what was the rule of survival in the 60s & 70s: Kill 'em all and let God sort them out! [GAWD! Did she really say that?!?!?!??????!!!!! If you believe in a good god of any sort, don't you think it might be kinder to "send someone on" a bit earlier, than to increase the suffering of many for decades?? If you don't see that as a possibility, might I suggest that your religion or ethics may need rethinking.] I'll head for the bunker now ... ==== - -- Arachne V1.70;rev.3, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 21:47:05 -0500 (EST) From: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: $$ and [non?]sense on death penalty On Tue, 14 Jan 2003, L.D. Best wrote: > We all, in one way or another, base what we believe and what we do -- or > want others to do -- upon a personal definition of "right/wrong" > "good/bad" ... Yup... though some use logic and reason to define what is right and wrong. > One problem which has always faced any person or organization is the > fact that nothing can be totally good or totally bad, and at what point > does the good for the many off-set or excuse the bad for the few. The logical answer is that the few are a subset of the many. Therefore any negative for the few is also a negative for the many. > However, at what point should society start to reconsider the > consequences of not having the death penalty? Ends justify means talking. Please don't fall into that trap. "We the people" delegate certain of our rights to a group of people we designate as "government." As individuals, we have an inherent right to protect life and property. That includes the use of deadly force when it's the only way. As individuals, we do not have an inherent right to kill in revenge. We can not therefore delegate a non-existent right to government. Government has no lawful authority to kill in revenge because individuals have no such right. > But the money spent to keep someone in prison could support a family of > four which would otherwise be homeless. > > Doesn't anyone beside me see something wrong with that picture? Yes, I see something wrong with it. Taxpayers should not support murderers at all. Victimless crimes should all be put in proper perspective and all such laws should be revoked. Those who remain in prison need to support themselves. Prison should be a place where murderers, rapists and robbers learn how to farm, build furniture, weave cloth, and whatever else it takes to support themselves. Taxpayers should probably be responsible for paying the warden and guards, but all care and feeding of the prisoners should be provided by the prisoners. The answer doesn't have to be either death or taxpayer supported luxurious living. > At what point do we draw the line about using limited resources [and > even sunlight is "limited" in a long enough time frame] for criminals > when non-criminals are deprived of the basics of life? Simple. Do not rob from the taxpayer to pay the prisoner. > And please -- don't expect me to take that debate to a world-wide level; > it hasn't been properly addressed yet on the local level. I believe a prison should consist of a few hundred acres of mixed arable land and forest. A life sentence should consist of being supplied an ax, a knife, a few packages of seeds, and the standard Vulcan salutation. The prisoner perishes or prospers depending on how well he can adapt, both to the harsh new living conditions as well as the "society" that will already exist among pre-existing prison population. > There are times that I get really upset with "bleeding hearts" and WWJD > radicals. At one point or another, if survival of the "good" is going > to be a possibility, we're going to have to do what was the rule of > survival in the 60s & 70s: Kill 'em all and let God sort them out! We have no right to do so. > [GAWD! Did she really say that?!?!?!??????!!!!! If you believe in a > good god of any sort, don't you think it might be kinder to "send > someone on" a bit earlier, than to increase the suffering of many for > decades?? If you don't see that as a possibility, might I suggest that > your religion or ethics may need rethinking.] You look at a situation only in black and white. Please try out a few shades of gray. > I'll head for the bunker now ... Grenades aren't the only answer. ;-) - -- Steve Ackman http://twoloonscoffee.com (Need green beans?) http://twovoyagers.com (glass, linux & other stuff) ------------------------------ Date: Mon, 13 Jan 2003 18:37:02 +00 From: "Bastiaan Edelman, PA3FFZ" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: [ot?]could somebody test my page? Hi Flox, tested your homepage and all seems OK with Arachne 1.61 But... please change the light green color to something darker for this color is hardly readable. But... your counter did not show But... how to quit after signing your guestbook? Clicking 'back to guestbook' does nothing at all. Nice that there is no frame at the left side... but no way to naviga through the pages either. My homepage has a small one line frame at the top of the page to make navigating easy. I had to use "load images" button in Arachne. CU, Bastiaan On Tue, 14 Jan 2003 13:58:07 +0100, flox <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Hi! > I updated my web page ( http://www.drdos.org ) and would need somebody, > who tests it with Arachne/DOS, because i have no internet connection and > so i cannot try if the counter (textcounter.org) is supporting DOS and > Arachne now. I would also like to hear about display-problems of the page. > Thanks to everybody who could help me (you could give me feedback at > [EMAIL PROTECTED] ). > Thank you, flox > -- > Florian Xaver > http://www.drdos.org > http://www.flox.at.tf/ > ICQ#:59264800 ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 03:12:17 +0000 From: "Laurie L Proud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Small image creation Hi Gang, I've started (slowly) to learn how to create a homepage using the Arachne Editor and I have two questions. Web pages usually have small graphic images contained within them, what programs are used to create them in the first place ? 2) Using the <IMG> tag how do I position an image somewhere between the extreem left, or flush right ? Regards Laurie - -- Arachne V1.71;UE01, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 23:58:50 -0500 (EST) From: Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Small image creation On Wed, 15 Jan 2003, Laurie L Proud wrote: > I've started (slowly) to learn how to create a homepage using the > Arachne Editor and I have two questions. > > Web pages usually have small graphic images contained within them, > what programs are used to create them in the first place ? You can use a digital camera, and then add effects to a photograph, something like the top photo here: http://stackman.www6.50megs.com/0004/14.html Or you can mirror, copy'n'paste, etc, to create something that looks completely different than what you start with. Case in point is the photo at the top of this page: http://twoloonscoffee.com/order.html There is no lake; no water at all. Just an Arizona desert sunset. ;-) Or you can use a graphics program to create something from scratch like the green add buttons on that same page. There was no "raw material" for those. They were created completely in the GIMP. The burlap add buttons were created from a photo of a burlap bag I sewed up. The grease bottle is just that... a photo, cropped, dropped onto a transparent background, and then shrunk. The baskets were created from a "found" graphic, which I changed rather substantially into a "coffee handbasket." If you hung out on alt.coffee at all, you would realize the significance of the "handbasket" reference. If you're still working strictly in DOS, well, I did this one in GeoDraw several years ago: http://wizard.dyndns.org/stackman/buz_card.gif the logo part being but a shrunken version of the larger one at http://twovoyagers.com/metamorphosis/ The metal butterflies were placed under a piece of glass and scanned in with a handheld scanner (also under DOS). I swore by GeoDraw for several years... until I found GIMP. No vector graphics, but it can do *everything* else. For vector graphics, Linux has xfig, which is certainly more capable than GeoDraw ever was. > 2) Using the <IMG> tag how do I position an image somewhere between > the extreem left, or flush right ? You could use HSPACE and VSPACE values. Though they're depracated, almost any browser will still render them. Another trick is to use an invisible spacer graphic(s) to the left or right to nudge the visible graphic over to where you want it. Generally, the trick was to make a 1x1 transparent gif, and then abuse the width and height attributes to "display" it at whatever size "white space" you want. Keep in mind, however, that this sort of "publisher" mentality will only work when the web surfer has the same screen resolution that you do. Acutally, that's true with HSPACE and VSPACE too. Generally speaking, positioning graphics other than left or right edge will best be done using tables. Set a table to width of 100%. Then if you put a spacer element of 20%, it'll be 20% of any screen, no matter what the resolution. Again, I'd refer you to the twoloonscoffee order page, where the add buttons are positioned using tables, and use relative table sizes. HTH, - -- Steve Ackman http://twoloonscoffee.com (Need green beans?) http://twovoyagers.com (glass, linux & other stuff) ------------------------------ Date: Tue, 14 Jan 2003 22:58:37 -0700 From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: Small image creation On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 03:12:17 +0000 "Laurie L Proud" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> writes: > > Web pages usually have small graphic images contained within them, > what programs are used to create them in the first place ? > In addition to what Steve offered ... By far the easiest way to get a good collection of graphics is to copy from others when you find something you like. There are a lot of free graphics available, so the public domain sources should provide something for almost every occasion. It is possible, BTW, to make the references point to different places in the internet. That will slow things down, and most webmasters will NOT appreciate you using their site in this way, but it is technically possible. Your graphics (or text, or files, etc.) CAN be located on different domains. You'll find this mostly on free sites where you are limited to a certain amount of MBs. Sometimes people will store graphics, photos, or music on one free site and actual pages (the HTML) on another. Not necessarily pretty, but it will work. I suggest keeping the graphics on the home page to a minimum. It will load faster, so that newcomers won't quit before they load the page and view it completely. I'm glad you're taking a shot at creating a home page. And you thought you couldn't write the code ... As they say here in the hood, "you go girl" ... Bob - - ________________________________________________________________ Sign Up for Juno Platinum Internet Access Today Only $9.95 per month! Visit www.juno.com ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 02:51:44 -0500 (EST) From: "Thomas Mueller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Headers: "From Ronald Bleckendorf" On Sun, 12 Jan 2003 18:59:54 -0500, Roger Turk wrote: > Has anyone else noticed that virtually all of the headers indicate that they > are from "Ronald Bleckendorf" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>, even when the message > is signed by Glenn, Bastiaan, and others? : Somehow... Ronald resent every message right back to the list. : -- : Glenn I noticed the date, Thu, 13 Jan 2011, on those resent messages. Did IncrediMail live up to its name by sending messages that reached the destination 8 years before they were sent? X-Mailer: IncrediMail 2001 (1750670) (from the headers of one of those messages, which was sent Date: Thu, 13 Jan 2011 07:16:47 +1000 (E. Australia Standard Time) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 02:51:45 -0500 (EST) From: "Thomas Mueller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Stll no unsubscribe[Fwd: Majordomo results] > I haven't seen anything where you were not able to delete mail which contained > a string in the headers ... so simply search for arachne.cz in the mail > headers. > CU, Ricsi Actually, it is not necessary to look all through the headers, just the Return-Path or equivalent line is sufficient, something like Return-Path: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 02:51:47 -0500 (EST) From: "Thomas Mueller" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and Excerpt from Steve <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > Several years ago one of the suburbs of Atlanta was having > problems with crime, so they passed a very controversial law > that everyone must own a gun. Crime dropped 83% within a > month of passage. Was this city by any chance Kennesaw GA? They had such a law as of 1985, it must have been passed some time earlier. Excerpt from "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > I "live in a free country"; that country passed a law which made my 80 > year old mother a felon -- because she still had the semi-automatic > .22 cal rifle I used to hunt rabbits to feed us many years ago, and it > was capable of holding more than 20 rounds of ".22 shorts." Hunting laws in many places would prohibit use of semi-automatic rifles. Hunters need to read the game laws carefully. What did that law say about people who owned such to-be-prohibited guns before the law was passed or even conceived? No grandfather clause? to Sam Ewalt: I noticed one line with weird characters in one of your messages in this thread and am curious how those weird characters got there. Here is the excerpt, quoted without adding any line-prefix character: America needs to grow up, learn more about the world and get smarter about how to handle the responsibilities that our global strength imposes on us. ���-�a (end of quote, end of message) ------------------------------ Date: Wed, 15 Jan 2003 03:58:50 -0400 From: "L.D. Best" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Subject: Re: Keeping track of the news [was Re: UT (extreme:): the US and Thomas, semi-automatic small calibre weapons were, and are, legal in most places where you can have guns at all anymore. What happened is that our Congress decided to define "assault rifle" ... posession of which is against Fed law ... and being semi-automatic and holding X number of rounds with "one loading" was a big part of the definition. The rifle that a 9 yo learned to use to get food suddenly became an Federally prohibited ASSAULT RIFLE and the owner a criminal ... ex post facto prohibition be damned. I much doubt it got turned in by her before her death; since my bro had me totally written out of the will, I never got a chance to see if it was still there and "mine" according to the original will. Maybe my dearly beloved brother realized that if I ever had reason to go up there, and got him in my sights, his participation in the estate would have been moot? [Actually, if I had to choose between spending half a day with him in the same room to collect my inheritance, and living without the inheritance, I would always pick the latter. He's not worth a bullet, let alone a go-round with the law.] ==== On Wed, 15 Jan 2003 02:51:47 -0500 (EST), Thomas Mueller wrote: >> I "live in a free country"; that country passed a law which made my 80 >> year old mother a felon -- because she still had the semi-automatic >> .22 cal rifle I used to hunt rabbits to feed us many years ago, and it >> was capable of holding more than 20 rounds of ".22 shorts." > Hunting laws in many places would prohibit use of semi-automatic rifles. > Hunters need to read the game laws carefully. > What did that law say about people who owned such to-be-prohibited guns before > the law was passed or even conceived? No grandfather clause? - -- Arachne V1.71;UE01, NON-COMMERCIAL copy, http://arachne.cz/ ------------------------------ End of arachne-digest V1 #2023 ******************************
