Bear Pit: now the sole domicile of politics at LuLa

[Peter McLennan]

O fuck.  Why did you have to put that asshole on here.  Even if it's as short as that.   
The very sight of him makes me want to put my fist through the screen.

[Peter McLennan]

Meanwhile, elsewhere in America...

Sound is off by default.  Turn it on before viewing.

https://twitter.com/new_orleansjazz/status/1544490105636671488

[TechTalk]

O fuck.  Why did you have to put that asshole on here.  Even if it's as short as that.   
The very sight of him makes me want to put my fist through the screen.

Totally understandable. Unfortunately, the creator and beneficiary of The Big Lie is the only one that some cult members will believe. My apologies.

[Alan Klein]

We gave you links. What else would you like?  Have us read them out to you over Zoom?

FFS, Alan, your posts are blatant trolling, nothing else.  You have precisely zero interest in learning (or discussing) anything.

You really need to get yourself a hobby.

You never provide backup to your claims just relying on insults.

[TechTalk]

You have precisely zero interest in learning (or discussing) anything.

When you're convinced that your ideology knows all and answers every question, there's nothing left to learn and most of all... zero uncertainty; that's the important thing. No uncertainty permitted! Uncertainty is for wishy-washy "experts" who realize that knowledge progresses over time... and there's no tolerance for that kind of thinking.

But really, it's about the need for constant attention and validation — even if the validation mostly consists of self-validation and self-congratulation. For attention seekers, we're only a pawn in their game.

[Robert Roaldi]

You never provide backup to your claims just relying on insults.

You don't read the links, you don't listen to the podcasts but by now no one expects you to.

[digitaldog]

FFS, Alan, your posts are blatant trolling, nothing else.  You have precisely zero interest in learning (or discussing) anything.

You really need to get yourself a hobby.

Don't support his only hobby; trolling.

[Alan Klein]

When you're convinced that your ideology knows all and answers every question, there's nothing left to learn and most of all... zero uncertainty; that's the important thing. No uncertainty permitted! Uncertainty is for wishy-washy "experts" who realize that knowledge progresses over time... and there's no tolerance for that kind of thinking.

But really, it's about the need for constant attention and validation — even if the validation mostly consists of self-validation and self-congratulation. For attention seekers, we're only a pawn in their game.

If I wanted validation, I wouldn't come here.  You guys wouldn't give away ice in winter.

[Alan Klein]

You don't read the links, you don't listen to the podcasts but by now no one expects you to.

Posters should make short explanations.  Asking people you disagree with to listen to hours-long podcasts should be used as a backup to points you make.  Do not ask others to prove your points.  That's your job.

[digitaldog]

If I wanted validation, I wouldn't come here. 

It's pretty clear why you Troll here.

[Robert Roaldi]

Posters should make short explanations.  ...

They do, have done for a long time, but you don't read those either. What's actually more puzzling is why you think complex ideas that take pages and pages or minutes and minutes to discuss can be summarized in an easy to digest sentence or two. That pretty much guarantees that the concepts will be poorly explained.

[Robert Roaldi]

Difficulty in tracing guns in the US: I wonder how many people know about this, . It's a 10 min film.

Tracing guns is largely a manual process since there is a legal prohibition of machine-searchable data base of gun owners. I don't know if this is federal only. It must make it difficult for law enforcement.

[Alan Klein]

They do, have done for a long time, but you don't read those either. What's actually more puzzling is why you think complex ideas that take pages and pages or minutes and minutes to discuss can be summarized in an easy to digest sentence or two. That pretty much guarantees that the concepts will be poorly explained.

I sometimes fail at explaining myself.  That's my fault.  Also, forums are often difficult to clearly explain in a sentence or two.  But to ask someone to listen to a 60-minute podcast is asking too much.  Explain the best you can and then hash out the details further in later posts. That's what I try to do.

[Alan Klein]

Difficulty in tracing guns in the US: I wonder how many people know about this, . It's a 10 min film.

Tracing guns is largely a manual process since there is a legal prohibition of machine-searchable data base of gun owners. I don't know if this is federal only. It must make it difficult for law enforcement.

The issue in the  latest shooting on July 4th parade is that this guy was clearly nuts.  The police were aware he tried to commit suicide and on more recent occasion they seized over a dozen knives he had after he threateded to kill people. 

So how was he able to buy a gun?  Why did the government fail at red flagging this guy so that when he tried to buy guns, the dealer would have not gotten a clearance to sell them?  What's the point of having all these laws to protect against nuts, and then failing at using them?   Who's to blame? The recent legislation about a week ago added more red flags to 18-21-year-olds and people who abuse girlfriends.  What's the point of these more stringent laws if the government does nothing.

If I recall, the USAF was sued when they failed to pass on to civilian control about an Air FOrce person who violated the girlfriend abuse rules or another similar rule.  Then he went out and killed a bunch of people who sued the government for their lack of follow-up.  I bet that happens in this case.  The local police said they reported it to the state. But did anyone file the red flag with gun-buying control?

[Robert Roaldi]

I sometimes fail at explaining myself.  That's my fault.  Also, forums are often difficult to clearly explain in a sentence or two.  But to ask someone to listen to a 60-minute podcast is asking too much.  Explain the best you can and then hash out the details further in later posts. That's what I try to do.

No one is asking you to do anything. A topic arises, someone has knowledge of an in-depth article or podcast (or whatever) about that topic and they make it known to everyone so they can access it. If you don't want to access that content, then don't. If you continually ask for a 1-sentence summary of a complex topic, you're going to be disappointed. If you continually denigrate the contents of those referrals without reading/listening to them, you will meet with criticism.

Over the years, those referrals about complex topics, including many photographic topics, have been the best part of this site.

[Alan Klein]

No one is asking you to do anything. A topic arises, someone has knowledge of an in-depth article or podcast (or whatever) about that topic and they make it known to everyone so they can access it. If you don't want to access that content, then don't. If you continually ask for a 1-sentence summary of a complex topic, you're going to be disappointed. If you continually denigrate the contents of those referrals without reading/listening to them, you will meet with criticism.

Over the years, those referrals about complex topics, including many photographic topics, have been the best part of this site.

This site has a rule that you can;t post links to articles and podcasts without explaining in some detail what they're about.  Leaving that aside, it's just a courtesy to explain to people what to expect plus it gives you the opportunity to highlight the main point you're trying to make without forcing someone to listen for an hour and still not know what your point is.  You're a smart guy.  Certainly you can make your point known in 25 words or less.  50?

[Robert Roaldi]

This site has a rule that you can;t post links to articles and podcasts without explaining in some detail what they're about. ...

What?!?  I believe the requirement is that a general description of the content be given to avoid having blind links. Where did you get the idea that a detailed explanation of the content is required?

Like I said, if you don't want to read or listen, then don't. That's your choice, don't put it on others.

[Alan Klein]

What?!?  I believe the requirement is that a general description of the content be given to avoid having blind links. Where did you get the idea that a detailed explanation of the content is required?

Like I said, if you don't want to read or listen, then don't. That's your choice, don't put it on others.

Posting a link to another video or article is not a good way to counter my points.  If you don't present your point, then other readers will only see my point if they don't watch your video or read your article, which is likely.  Even if they read it, you're expecting them to figure out your counterargument.  Well, maybe.

So if that's the way you want to debate things, that's great for my side's presentation.   

[Robert Roaldi]

Posting a link to another video or article is not a good way to counter my points.  If you don't present your point, then other readers will only see my point if they don't watch your video or read your article, which is likely.  Even if they read it, you're expecting them to figure out your counterargument.  Well, maybe.

So if that's the way you want to debate things, that's great for my side's presentation.

What are you talking about? I don't debate anything with you. When a topic comes up and I find something of interest I sometimes post it for people to see. I do occasionally have some fun poking holes in your repeated homilies but that's pretty old by now. As for your side, what's a side? Nobody is running for office here, there's nothing to win or lose. If some interesting info emerges, that's for the good.

I mean, geez Alan, you probably still think that Trump came up with the Covid vaccines. There's no common reality here.

[Robert Roaldi]

The issue in the  latest shooting on July 4th parade is that this guy was clearly nuts.  The police were aware he tried to commit suicide and on more recent occasion they seized over a dozen knives he had after he threateded to kill people. 

So how was he able to buy a gun?  Why did the government fail at red flagging this guy so that when he tried to buy guns, the dealer would have not gotten a clearance to sell them?  What's the point of having all these laws to protect against nuts, and then failing at using them?   Who's to blame? The recent legislation about a week ago added more red flags to 18-21-year-olds and people who abuse girlfriends.  What's the point of these more stringent laws if the government does nothing.

If I recall, the USAF was sued when they failed to pass on to civilian control about an Air FOrce person who violated the girlfriend abuse rules or another similar rule.  Then he went out and killed a bunch of people who sued the government for their lack of follow-up.  I bet that happens in this case.  The local police said they reported it to the state. But did anyone file the red flag with gun-buying control?

Your comments have little or nothing to do with the contents of that video but that's ok, I don't care if you didn't watch it. I don't post things here for you, that's a waste of time. I'll be generous in that maybe you're just trying to raise a different topic for discussion. Fair enough.

As for the whole mass shooting US gun thing, it's more than obvious by now that the US is such an outlier on this that there is no common ground for discussion. Gun sales are going to continue and people will be killed, there's nothing to be done about it so far as I can see. Basically, it's normal now, it's how you live. If you can live with kids being shot in schools every now and then, then so be it, good luck with those thoughts and prayers. Isn't it obvious by now that nobody is listening to those prayers?