In article <C5yypo.EI2@dscomsa.desy.de> hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker) writes:   >In article <1993Apr22.041542.11054@a.cs.okstate.edu>, kennejs@a.cs.okstate.edu (KENNEDY JAMES SCOT) writes: > >|>From article <C5t9IA.6F9@dscomsa.desy.de>, by hallam@dscomsa.desy.de (Phill Hallam-Baker): >|>Just what the hell do you base that ludicrous claim on?  There are >|>*plenty* of fine, decent people people who read/post to t.p.g.  If >|>any of these people are paranoid it is because of people like you. > >Hey dude you are making me paranoid! What an argument!!!            While I wouldn't be too terribly impressed with anybody who got to be paranoid based on either Usenet in general or Phill Hallam-Baker's comments in general, you'd be surprised.          For most people, if you accuse them of something long enough and loud enough, to enough people, they start to ask why they're bothering to fight it.          If nothing you do will be considered right, why bother to do right? It's pretty basic human nature.   >|>I'd have a spot of tea with them. :)  You probably gave up on arguing the >|>case for arms control directly long ago because posters who *know* >|>what they are talking about (e.g., Frank Crary) disproved all your >|>arguments for why more gun control is needed.  So, you gave up because >|>you know they are right and you couldn't refute their answers. > >No, Frank Crary's arguments are based on the assumption that most people >are sane, normal people. tpg disproves this of gun owners.          What an amazing thing.  I didn't realize that over a hundred million gun owners all posted to tpg.          Even if *all* the posts in talk.politics.guns illustrated what you say they illustrate, it would still only reflect the written personas (which is often different from face-to-face) of a very, very small and select group.          Anybody who seriously generalizes any attitudes or positions on Usenet to the general population of any country either doesn't care about accuracy or needs to have a few realities explained to them.   >USEnet as a whole >disproves it of humanity as a whole.           Speaking of which...         Most of the "readership" posts I've seen put the most read newsgroups at about 160,000 readers, a number I have a feeling is fairly inflated.  The posters, rare and regular, are themseleves a very tiny minority of that group.  And the whole of Usenet readers are themselves a very distorted sample of humanity.          If anything, the only real thing you can get out of the relative sample of Usenet readers is that we've got too much equipment and too much time available to us.   >We now have proof positive that guns don't make you safer. Buy a lot of >guns and you either get shot in the no knock raid or get the FBI to burn >down your house.           Proof that guns don't make you safer is that if you buy one the government will show up and kill you?           Tell me, if the government took away the voting rights of everybody who exercised their free speech, would that then be proof that free speech squelches political activity?           You are equating two things with each other that don't.   >See even in the paranoid mindset of tpg there are good reasons >to support gun control.           Phill, if you really believe that the various posts on computer nets represents *either* most of the poster's in person personalities *or* the general public's general opinions, then I have some serious reservations about your grasp on reality.           But don't expect you really do believe that.  It's simply a convenient way to make your point, and hopefully make those people you don't like look bad.   >Cuddles 'n kisses > >Phill           Have a nice day, Phill.