rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Scenic areas in England - 25 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
* Why EVFs will replace reflex systems - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ddb39c7b20935920?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Scenic areas in England
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/1076be556766c491?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 25 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 6:35 am
From: tony cooper
On Tue, 12 May 2009 13:09:32 +0100, "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
>On Tue, 12 May 2009 07:52:17 -0400, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>UK roads are in better condition than US roads? I certainly haven't
>>noticed that. I don't see any difference at all in surface or the
>>general state of repair.
>
>I read a travel book the other day, a biker riding across the states,
>the overall impression of the book (on this facet) was Harleys are
>good for slow comfortable on baddish surfaces while a ducatti excels
>leant into a fast bend on smooth tarmac. Of course one book or one
>experience does not make a reality, but he wasn't the first to say it.
>But your different expereince is noted.
A biker riding across the US would not normally get off the regular
paved roadway system. Out west, he might venture off on some dirt
roads in mostly uninhabited areas, or up a dirt road to some house,
but the cross-country rider would not normally ever be on a dirt road.
You wouldn't do it on a Harley or a Ducatti, but there are dirt bikes
with larger wheels and knobby tires that are designed for off-road
riding. Riders of these bikes *look* for dirt roads or go across
country where there are no roads. Harleys are cruisers, and Ducattis
are not, so there would be different riding experiences. (You sit
upright on a cruiser, and lean forward on a non-cruiser)
There's something in the context of that book that would explain the
comment. It's not something that is understandable from what has been
posted. Also, I can't imagine a Harley rider mixing with a Ducatti
rider. I have a vintage Moto Guzzi Ambassador (cruiser-style bike),
but it's in storage since I haven't ridden it for a couple of years.
It needs some work, and I haven't gotten around to fixing it.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
== 2 of 25 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 6:38 am
From: "Mike"
On Tue, 12 May 2009 14:15:27 +0100, "William Black"
<william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>>Broxa Forest.
>>>
>>>They're private, you have to pay.
>>
>> so I can just pay to charge round like a hooligan in my 4x4
>What on earth are you rabbiting on about?
4x4s tend to unpopular vwith other users
>You asked where there are dirt roads in the UK.
>
>I told you.
OK, not sure ive pinned down the actual place.
>Now you want to destroy them!
now this is confusing, I might drive along them but the consensus now
seems to be that is a bad thing, as elsewhere.
Are you talking about paying for a 4x4 expereince or a dirt toll road
that might take me somwhere nice without upsetting almost everybody
else. (my usual use of 4x4 is (a)snow (b) parking where nobody else
can for hillwalks or birdwatching (c) getting a higher view (d)
annoying non 4x4 drivers.)
--
Mike
== 3 of 25 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 6:41 am
From: "Mike"
On Tue, 12 May 2009 09:10:15 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
<cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Not socialist, you say?
correct
>And will forever remain untouched by mere mortals.
>
>"[OXFORD, UK] ACADEMICS at Oxford University have banned
>step-ladders from
>its world famous Bodleian library - because of health and
>safety fears. The
>ban means students are unable to reach books on the top
>shelves but dons
>refuse to bring them lower...Books on the top shelves
>include tomes about
>art history and poetry."
I have read that twice, there's not a trace of socialism there, do you
actually know what socialism is or do you use it as a general term of
abuse for anything you disagree with?
--
Mike
== 4 of 25 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 6:40 am
From: Chris H
In message <h0ni059ombptarqufhot3bi04up40v9c2m@4ax.com>, Mike
<rubbish@live.com> writes
>On Tue, 12 May 2009 11:50:03 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>wrote:
>
>>>I absolutely agree. It's a non-issue.
>>>There are no bar (hairdresser, taxi) talks about allowing the
>>>population to carry guns.
>>
>>Yes there are. Well more along the lines that the previous bann was
>>pointless.
>
>yes, about the extra ban being just tough on target shooters,
Yes.
>nothing
>about right to bear arms, in 60 years it never came up for me in those
>circumstances
Not in the way the Americans talk about it.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 5 of 25 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 6:39 am
From: Chris H
In message <guboh4$m5u$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
<william.black@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:IE0EXQMPNVCKFACs@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>
> There
>> are more guns in the UK than when the handguns were banned (shortly
>> after they banned pump shotguns and rifles)
>
>Cite please,
There are many about. I have lost track of them since I lost my guns.
The number of legally held guns removed was AFAIK about 10% of the
estimated number of criminal guns in the UK . then number estimated to
come in per year was about 5% Though with an influx of eastern
Europeans that number has risen
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 6 of 25 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 6:36 am
From: Chris H
In message <jomi0594k35diqs9lk2o9magp7ak01pgsi@4ax.com>, Mike
<rubbish@live.com> writes
>On Tue, 12 May 2009 11:45:35 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
>wrote:
>
>>A LOT of UK citizens think the handgun ban was stupid and excessive.
>
>I agree, but that comes under minor changes. Not a right to bear arms.
>
>>>but you will not find anything
>>>more than a handful advocating the right to bear arms in general.
>>
>>At the moment everyone bears arms except law abiding citizens.
>
>that's a very odd way of saying the vast majority do not have guns.
That wasn't what I said.
>>There are more guns in the UK than when the handguns were banned (shortly
>>after they banned pump shotguns and rifles)
>
>Yes, everyone is keen to stop that, not respond with more guns.
Not correct. (See Switzerland)
>>Also Armed crime rose year on year and we have far more armed Police.
>
>so you are saying armed police don't stop crime rising, I agree.
Then we agree
>
>>The disarming of the relatively few private owners was a pointless
>>exercise as regards crime and public safety.
>
>I pretty much agree, most of the people disarmed were responsible
>target shooters.
All of them were.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 7 of 25 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 6:53 am
From: "William Black"
"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:+hZZOLR5tXCKFAnk@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <jomi0594k35diqs9lk2o9magp7ak01pgsi@4ax.com>, Mike
>>Yes, everyone is keen to stop that, not respond with more guns.
>
> Not correct. (See Switzerland)
Swiss guns are something of a special case as the holders usually cannot use
them for home defence, or anything else much.
Anyway, there's currently a strong movement to get them all handed in and
locked away in nice strong government arsenals.
--
William Black
Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy dog
== 8 of 25 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 6:44 am
From: Chris H
In message <08si0514vc5t9mi0s9p5ulnm19e7nmoa10@4ax.com>, Mike
<rubbish@live.com> writes
>On Tue, 12 May 2009 08:15:35 -0400, tony cooper
><tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
>>There are many Americans who are against any gun controls who are not
>>interested in owning guns themselves. These are Americans who feel
>>that the rights granted in the Constitution should not be taken away
>>or the whole system starts to crumble.
>
>this probably sums up the (fundamentally different) view taken by some
>Americans and no Europeans.
Not correct
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 9 of 25 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 6:42 am
From: Chris H
In message <gubopt$o4u$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
<william.black@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:f0DBr5MQQVCKFAiJ@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>
>> I agree.. As a former UK gun owner it was never about self protection or
>> stopping crime. The members of the UK population who were in a
>> position to carry firearms for self protection were not affected by the
>> banning of guns for the general population anyway.
>
>Nobody on the UK mainland has been issued a 'carry for the purposes of self
>defence' type firearm certificate for about three decades now.
>
>Only two were ever issued in Northern Ireland, and these were withdrawn
>after the Good Friday Agreement.
>
>The only people carrying firearms for use on the UK mainland are members of
>the police force. Soldiers are not usually permitted loaded firearms for
>operational use when in the UK except under exceptional circumstances.
Lot of exceptions then.
>For example, when the Met shot a Brazilian electrician by mistake a
>parliamentary answer indicated that although members of the National
>Reconnaissance Regiment were deployed on the operation, none of them were
>armed.
Where do you get your information? Cites please.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 10 of 25 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 6:58 am
From: "Mike"
On Tue, 12 May 2009 09:35:54 -0400, tony cooper
<tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote:
>There's something in the context of that book that would explain the
>comment.
he was riding across US using back roads mostly, he found the Harley
good at that but he found it poor if he tried to push it to fast,
which is ducati territory, he was of the opinion that the Harley
suited US roads, thats about all I remember.
--
Mike
== 11 of 25 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 6:59 am
From: "Mike"
On Tue, 12 May 2009 14:36:57 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
wrote:
>>Yes, everyone is keen to stop that, not respond with more guns.
>
>Not correct. (See Switzerland)
gun people always drag in the exceptions in Switzerland
--
Mike
== 12 of 25 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 7:03 am
From: "William Black"
"Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote in message
news:gmui05lsf092fuka8m50gr647hjij8s6t3@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 14:15:27 +0100, "William Black"
> <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>>You asked where there are dirt roads in the UK.
>>
>>I told you.
>
> OK, not sure ive pinned down the actual place.
Broxa Forest is a large wooded area that runs roughly from Burniston to
Pickering across the Yorkshire Moors National Park.
>>Now you want to destroy them!
>
> now this is confusing, I might drive along them but the consensus now
> seems to be that is a bad thing, as elsewhere.
Why?
> Are you talking about paying for a 4x4 expereince or a dirt toll road
> that might take me somwhere nice without upsetting almost everybody
> else. (my usual use of 4x4 is (a)snow (b) parking where nobody else
> can for hillwalks or birdwatching (c) getting a higher view (d)
> annoying non 4x4 drivers.)
http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/recreation.nsf/LUWebDocsByKey/EnglandNorthYorkshireNoForestBroxa
If you're talking about the company that used to rent out part of the forest
and then rented cheap and nasty Dacia 4x4 vehicles out to the public for
them to go charging about the place then I think they've ceased business.
If you want to rent a 4x4 and go charging through mud then there are any
number of specialist companies around who will sell you that experience,
but I can't say I can recommend it as a recreational activity...
--
William Black
Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy dog
== 13 of 25 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 7:05 am
From: "William Black"
"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:pBlcGgRLwXCKFAGk@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <guboh4$m5u$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
> <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>>
>>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>news:IE0EXQMPNVCKFACs@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>
>> There
>>> are more guns in the UK than when the handguns were banned (shortly
>>> after they banned pump shotguns and rifles)
>>
>>Cite please,
>
> There are many about. I have lost track of them since I lost my guns.
>
> The number of legally held guns removed was AFAIK about 10% of the
> estimated number of criminal guns in the UK . then number estimated to
> come in per year was about 5% Though with an influx of eastern
> Europeans that number has risen
I didn't ask for your opinion, I asked for some sort of proof.
The big influx of small-arms from the old Soviet Union and its slave states
dried up a decade ago.
--
William Black
Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy dog
== 14 of 25 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 7:20 am
From: "Mike"
On Tue, 12 May 2009 15:03:41 +0100, "William Black"
<william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/recreation.nsf/LUWebDocsByKey/EnglandNorthYorkshireNoForestBroxa
right, so the forest drive to get there is a dirt road and I pay an
entrance fee, correct?
>If you're talking about the company that used to rent out part of the forest
>and then rented cheap and nasty Dacia 4x4 vehicles out to the public for
>them to go charging about the place then I think they've ceased business.
>
>If you want to rent a 4x4 and go charging through mud then there are any
>number of specialist companies around who will sell you that experience,
>but I can't say I can recommend it as a recreational activity...
I've done plenty of that in spain (sand not mud).
--
Mike
== 15 of 25 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 7:42 am
From: Chris Malcolm
In rec.photo.digital Mike <rubbish@live.com> wrote:
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 09:10:15 -0400, "Stormin Mormon"
> <cayoung61**spamblock##@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>Not socialist, you say?
> correct
>>And will forever remain untouched by mere mortals.
>>
>>"[OXFORD, UK] ACADEMICS at Oxford University have banned
>>step-ladders from
>>its world famous Bodleian library - because of health and
>>safety fears. The
>>ban means students are unable to reach books on the top
>>shelves but dons
>>refuse to bring them lower...Books on the top shelves
>>include tomes about
>>art history and poetry."
> I have read that twice, there's not a trace of socialism there, do you
> actually know what socialism is or do you use it as a general term of
> abuse for anything you disagree with?
There's not a lot of socialism in Oxford dons either :-) But Stormin
Mormon probably thinks socialist means foreign freedom-hating
firearm-banning fascist fuddy duddies. It was probably a wise move
chasing his ancestors out of Europe.
--
Chris Malcolm
== 16 of 25 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 7:43 am
From: "William Black"
"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:VBjTmdSTzXCKFAh$@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <gubopt$o4u$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
> <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>>
>>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>news:f0DBr5MQQVCKFAiJ@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>
>>> I agree.. As a former UK gun owner it was never about self protection or
>>> stopping crime. The members of the UK population who were in a
>>> position to carry firearms for self protection were not affected by the
>>> banning of guns for the general population anyway.
>>
>>Nobody on the UK mainland has been issued a 'carry for the purposes of
>>self
>>defence' type firearm certificate for about three decades now.
>>
>>Only two were ever issued in Northern Ireland, and these were withdrawn
>>after the Good Friday Agreement.
>>
>>The only people carrying firearms for use on the UK mainland are members
>>of
>>the police force. Soldiers are not usually permitted loaded firearms for
>>operational use when in the UK except under exceptional circumstances.
>
> Lot of exceptions then.
Well no, outside Northern Ireland there aren't.
What's more no loony tune can claim there are.
There's this lack of dead people with soldiers with guns standing over
them...
>>For example, when the Met shot a Brazilian electrician by mistake a
>>parliamentary answer indicated that although members of the National
>>Reconnaissance Regiment were deployed on the operation, none of them were
>>armed.
>
> Where do you get your information? Cites please.
The statement about the NRR not being armed is in the IPCC report 'Stockwell
1' available at http://www.ipcc.gov.uk/stockwell_one.pdf
The matter of the issue of gun licenses for self defence is in a
parliamentary answer in 2009 by Jack Straw, the then Home Secretary. If
you're interested then you can look it up, but it's old news..
--
William Black
Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy dog
== 17 of 25 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 7:36 am
From: Chris H
In message <gubv0c$ace$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
<william.black@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:+hZZOLR5tXCKFAnk@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <jomi0594k35diqs9lk2o9magp7ak01pgsi@4ax.com>, Mike
>
>>>Yes, everyone is keen to stop that, not respond with more guns.
>>
>> Not correct. (See Switzerland)
>
>Swiss guns are something of a special case as the holders usually cannot use
>them for home defence, or anything else much.
>
>Anyway, there's currently a strong movement to get them all handed in and
>locked away in nice strong government arsenals.
Very silly idea.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 18 of 25 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 7:37 am
From: Chris H
In message <gubvni$g7q$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
<william.black@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>
>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>news:pBlcGgRLwXCKFAGk@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>> In message <guboh4$m5u$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
>> <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>>>
>>>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>>news:IE0EXQMPNVCKFACs@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>
>>> There
>>>> are more guns in the UK than when the handguns were banned (shortly
>>>> after they banned pump shotguns and rifles)
>>>
>>>Cite please,
>>
>> There are many about. I have lost track of them since I lost my guns.
>>
>> The number of legally held guns removed was AFAIK about 10% of the
>> estimated number of criminal guns in the UK . then number estimated to
>> come in per year was about 5% Though with an influx of eastern
>> Europeans that number has risen
>
>I didn't ask for your opinion, I asked for some sort of proof.
>
Not see you give any yet
>The big influx of small-arms from the old Soviet Union and its slave states
>dried up a decade ago.
Cites please... we could do with some evidence
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
== 19 of 25 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 7:44 am
From: "William Black"
"Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote in message
news:t40j05l3me4r6omg21dake50bahh65fmop@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 14:36:57 +0100, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org>
> wrote:
>
>>>Yes, everyone is keen to stop that, not respond with more guns.
>>
>>Not correct. (See Switzerland)
>
> gun people always drag in the exceptions in Switzerland
Which is odd because there's now a strong movement in Switzerland to take
the guns back.
I believe they've already removed the ammunition.
--
William Black
Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy dog
== 20 of 25 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 7:47 am
From: "William Black"
"Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote in message
news:p91j05dk0toumt1ut5pmc7g4ke3vvqa56q@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 12 May 2009 15:03:41 +0100, "William Black"
> <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>
>>
>>http://www.forestry.gov.uk/website/recreation.nsf/LUWebDocsByKey/EnglandNorthYorkshireNoForestBroxa
>
> right, so the forest drive to get there is a dirt road and I pay an
> entrance fee, correct?
At the coast end the entrance to the forest is just past the Moorcock Inn at
Langdale End. You put coins in a machine and buy a ticket, I've never seen
anyone collecting money there, and then you can drive on the forest roads
as far as you want to go.
I'd recommend you take the appropriate OS map with you if you intend going
off the marked route.
--
William Black
Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy dog
== 21 of 25 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 7:51 am
From: Erick T. Barkhuis
William Black:
>
> "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote in message
> > gun people always drag in the exceptions in Switzerland
>
> Which is odd because there's now a strong movement in Switzerland to take
> the guns back.
>
> I believe they've already removed the ammunition.
Correct. That was decided June 20th, 2007.
So, soldiers will have their arms at home, next to a box with private
ammunition. The official bullets stay at the army warehouses.
--
Erick
== 22 of 25 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 7:54 am
From: "William Black"
"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:0$675PV0mYCKFA2P@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <gubvni$g7q$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
> <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>>
>>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>news:pBlcGgRLwXCKFAGk@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <guboh4$m5u$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
>>> <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>>>>
>>>>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>>>news:IE0EXQMPNVCKFACs@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>>>
>>>> There
>>>>> are more guns in the UK than when the handguns were banned (shortly
>>>>> after they banned pump shotguns and rifles)
>>>>
>>>>Cite please,
>>>
>>> There are many about. I have lost track of them since I lost my guns.
>>>
>>> The number of legally held guns removed was AFAIK about 10% of the
>>> estimated number of criminal guns in the UK . then number estimated to
>>> come in per year was about 5% Though with an influx of eastern
>>> Europeans that number has risen
>>
>>I didn't ask for your opinion, I asked for some sort of proof.
>>
>
>
> Not see you give any yet
>
>>The big influx of small-arms from the old Soviet Union and its slave
>>states
>>dried up a decade ago.
>
> Cites please... we could do with some evidence
You must be new to this.
Nobody, including myself, can prove a negative.
It's up to you to prove your positive.
--
William Black
Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy dog
== 23 of 25 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 7:56 am
From: "William Black"
"Erick T. Barkhuis" <erick.use-net@ardane.c-o-m> wrote in message
news:MPG.2473ab617c6f35c7989865@127.0.0.1...
> William Black:
>>
>> "Mike" <rubbish@live.com> wrote in message
>
>> > gun people always drag in the exceptions in Switzerland
>>
>> Which is odd because there's now a strong movement in Switzerland to take
>> the guns back.
>>
>> I believe they've already removed the ammunition.
>
> Correct. That was decided June 20th, 2007.
> So, soldiers will have their arms at home, next to a box with private
> ammunition. The official bullets stay at the army warehouses.
Ammunition in Switzerland, as in the UK, is sold to an individual only on
production of a valid certificate allowing ownership.
Or are you suggesting that the holders of military firearms in Switzerland
are, in the main, criminals?
--
William Black
Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy dog
== 24 of 25 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 7:57 am
From: "William Black"
"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
news:uPZ9FrU7lYCKFAXz@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
> In message <gubv0c$ace$1@news.motzarella.org>, William Black
> <william.black@hotmail.co.uk> writes
>>
>>"Chris H" <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote in message
>>news:+hZZOLR5tXCKFAnk@phaedsys.demon.co.uk...
>>> In message <jomi0594k35diqs9lk2o9magp7ak01pgsi@4ax.com>, Mike
>>
>>>>Yes, everyone is keen to stop that, not respond with more guns.
>>>
>>> Not correct. (See Switzerland)
>>
>>Swiss guns are something of a special case as the holders usually cannot
>>use
>>them for home defence, or anything else much.
>>
>>Anyway, there's currently a strong movement to get them all handed in and
>>locked away in nice strong government arsenals.
>
> Very silly idea.
Why?
The firearms are issued to military reservists.
What is the credible threat to the Swiss state?
--
William Black
Free men have open minds
If you want loyalty, buy dog
== 25 of 25 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 7:58 am
From: "Mike"
On Tue, 12 May 2009 15:47:09 +0100, "William Black"
<william.black@hotmail.co.uk> wrote:
>> right, so the forest drive to get there is a dirt road and I pay an
>> entrance fee, correct?
>
>At the coast end the entrance to the forest is just past the Moorcock Inn at
>Langdale End. You put coins in a machine and buy a ticket, I've never seen
>anyone collecting money there, and then you can drive on the forest roads
>as far as you want to go.
>
>I'd recommend you take the appropriate OS map with you if you intend going
>off the marked route.
thanks, i will try it on way to from a scottish trip
--
Mike
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why EVFs will replace reflex systems
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ddb39c7b20935920?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, May 12 2009 7:47 am
From: Mark Sieving
On May 12, 8:28 am, Don Stauffer <stauf...@usfamily.net> wrote:
> Rich wrote:
> > imaged. Most optical viewfinders do not because of cost. The cost of
> > a pentaprism in a full frame digital is not inconsiderable.
>
> On the contrary. Almost every SLR I have owned, film or digital, shows
> slightly MORE than what is contained by the format.
What SLRs have you owned? Of the current Nikon lineup, only the D3x,
D3, and D300 have 100% viewfinders. The rest are about 95% coverage.
For Canon, the 1D MK III and 1Ds Mk III have 100% viewfinders. The 5D
Mk II has 98% coverage, and the rest are about 95%.
Now, there's nothing wrong with 95% coverage. That's perfectly
adequate for almost any practical application. But it is a fact that
only a few SLRs have 100% viewfinder coverage.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
0 comments:
Post a Comment