> > > >>>>>>> Children can fly a plane (there is *no* lower limit on pilot's
> >>>>>>> licenses)
>
> >> =A0 =A0Not true, you can fly a plane under tuition at any age but you =
must be
>> 16 to fly solo. You need to have flown solo in order to obtain a pilot=
's
>> =A0 =A0licence.
>
> > Good to see you back Keith
>
> So you missed me princess, thats sad, sorry if you have been pining in
> my absence.
>
> > how are your friends at the Brady Bunch?
>
> The "Brady bunch" wan't that a crappy yank sitcom? Personally I make it
> a point not to watch crappy sitcoms no matter what their origin. You
> perhaps aren't so choosey, so you'll have to fill us in on the details.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > Here's something I posted earlier, I'd really like your opinion on it
>
> > =3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D
> >
> >> Understand? Or shall we begin discussing your wife's mental illness? U=
p to
>> you. Start acting like a reasonable human or act like a f****it.
>
> > I'd like to know what those dickheads on aus.electronics think of
> > their "long standing and highly respected" poster making comments
> > like
> > this?
>
> > Well?????????
>
> The princess stamps her foot and demands and answer, all that is missing
> are the spotlights in the face and the rubber hose. Ask politely and I
> may answer your question if I feel like it.
>
Lack of worthwhile response noted, I guess you consider such remarks from your ";long standing and highly valued poster" to be accepatable.
Meanwhile, here is a question for you, put politely that you may answer
> if you wish.
>
> It appears that the perpetrator of the recent nastyness in the UK was a
> licenced gun owner and the weapons that he used were legally owned by
> him. Presumably, he presented as a normal sane person at the time that
> he obtained his licence, but due to some real or imagined sleight,
> became overly vindictive leading to a major disaster. Do you think that
> anybody who shows signs of excessive vindictiveness (such as conducting
> vendettas agains third parties) from minor sleights should be
> investigated as to their suitability to own weapons?
"Ask politely and I may answer your question if I feel like it."
My understanding was that the perpetrator in the recent UK shootings was a convicted felon, but the Police decided to allow him to retain his licence anyway.
Do I consider attacking someone's freedom of speech over a political issue to be a "minor sleight"? Just to remind you, the posters on aus.electronics accepted Trevor's anti-gun and anti-gunowner diatribes being posted on "their" little corner of Usenet without either challenge, comment or complaint. As soon as I started reponding to Trevor's word vomit, they went feral. They clearly consider it OK for an anti-gun zealot to be posting his opinions there, but are not prepared to afford me the same right? Considering the treatment that has been handed out to law abiding Australian gun owners over the last decade and a half, I see nothing "minor" in their attitudes to people like me at all.
How is Dorothy by the way?