NSW, Australia, criminalises the possession of 3D printable gun designs.

Text-chopping can be fun, but it does tend to reveal the fact that you haven't got much sense, as does the argument that my opinions might be driven by fear. I do have the occasional rational anxiety, but I've always been able to get on and do the sensible thing, even when it has been a bit nerve-wracking.

Find another insult. That one is plain silly, as we'd expect from you.

On Mon, 23 Nov 2015 10:38:30 -0800 (PST), snipped-for-privacy@yahoo.com Gave us:

You are an idiot.

We could not go in there with tanks, etc. Then China would have considered it "an escalation" and stepped in with their assistance being more than mere migs and Ak-47s.

We did not use all that we had available to us as it was considered to be an escalation of the war. Nixon's bombing campaign resulted in the tet offensive.

We may have done better if we had abut five or ten more "puff the magic dragons" and better IR sensing technology to make their aim better with.

They didn't "hold us off", idiot. We held back on our own. You seem completely unaware of the negotiating talks which were had at the time.

It really didn't matter whether the war would be won or not and with what kind of weapons. The military-industrial complex wanted a war so the stockpile of weapons, bombs and other materials would be consumed in order for them to get more money for new orders from the American peopl... government to replenish the stocks.

China were not to be involved because that would have caused too much additional uncertainty about the outcome of the conflict.

Eventually retreat was inevitable, but no worries: the mission was successfully completed nevertheless and money was earned.

Governments always hype up their people against German monsters, nazi monsters, kamikaze monsters, communist monsters, terrorist monsters, isis monsters, while in fact it's only about money.

joe

The problem is that your reasoning is mostly based on speculation, not facts. Your postings are full of 'seems to be', 'appears to', etc. It doesn't show much confidence that your opinion 'might be' supported by real facts merely than by fantasy and speculation.

joe

On Tue, 24 Nov 2015 16:12:52 +0000, Joe Hey Gave us:

China most certainly was involved with Vietnam. That is the whole reason we didn't go in with tanks and obliterate North Vietnam.

That's what you like to think.

If you thought that you had a god-like capacity to certify you own opinion as fact, the absurdity of of most of your opinions should by now have let y ou work out that your "this-is-true" indicator doesn't work reliably. You d o seem to be pretty stupid, so it may be taking a while for idea to penetra te your remarkably thick skull.

The rest of us have learned to check that plausible hypotheses fit the obse rvable facts - as they can be seen to appear.

It's you who posts fantasy and speculation around here.

Tanks aren't much use in soggy jungle. You hide a guy with a wire-guided missile in dense vegetation, and let him wait until the tank gets within point blank range.

Wire-guided missiles are a lot cheaper than tanks.

Yes, I should have written that China wasn't to get involved above that threshold level into an all-out war between them and the US.

joe

And were available during the Vietnam war?

joe

Talking about speculation? Contrary to all sorts of available case and research reports you still speculate that this is all bullshit and that vitamin C has no function other than to prevent scurvy. And, oh yes, after being pointed out to you, to produce collagen, which happens to prevent scurvy. So, 2 simple questions for you:

1. How much vitamin C do we need in order to produce a sufficient amount of collagen not to acquire *acute* scurvy?
2. How much vitamin C do we need in order to produce a sufficient amount of collagen not to acquire *sub-clinical* scurvy (which causes damage to the arteries, requiring repair through the deposition of Lipoprotein-a on the cell walls, eventually leading to artherosclerosis and heart attacks in many people)?

I think my reasoning is using a lot of common sense, and that your 'reasoning' is just a heard headed sticking to some old and obsolete medical dogma that just doesn't want to die. Semmelweiss revisited, I call that attitude.

Oh sorry, this thread was about guns, I believe... :)

joe

Yes. they date back to the end of WW2.

If you could learn to do a Google search, you might look less like a mindless idiot.

I'm sure the body uses it for other purposes when there is spare vitamin C around, but preventing scurvy seems to be the only job where it's irreplaceable.

About 60 milligrams per day.

About 60 milligrams per day. You've advanced a testable hypothesis, which has been tested, and found false.

actually suggests that extra vitamin C taken as a supplement, as opposed to coming form foods that are high in vitamin C, has a damaging effect.

You would. Of course your "reasoning" involves swallowing a lot of speculative guff, and deciding that it is "common sense" rather than speculative nonsense.

The process of looking at the facts and understanding what they appear to tell us - when rightly understood - is one that you don't seem to be equipped to appreciate.