Boston Bomb triggered by cell phone?

Ill email you a copy of Agent 1.93 You wont go back to Tbird

Gunner

Reply to
Gunner Asch
Loading thread data ...

Gunner Asch fired this volley in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Gunner, I'll scan those as time permits, but let me ask you a question, prefaced with a statement of my conditions.

I have been involved directly with ATF's field agents and inspectors many times per year since 1995; before that, only sporadically, but in the same roles; me the 'user' and they the 'enforcers'.

I've only _ever_ had ONE bad experience with any of them across five states, six or seven different posts with different inspectors and agents, and about twenty different people. And when ATF got my end of the story, they punished HIM, not me. When their safety director behaved that way toward others (not me), they punished her, not the industry.

So -- wouldn't my own personal experiences with them trump some 'web publishing' of stuff like that; stuff that likely cannot be verified; Stuff that could be trumped up because they have a personal 'bone to pick' with ATF; Or stuff that comes out of conspiracy theories?

I hear those sorts of unverifiable rumors all the time, but I've had great experiences working with them, and intend to continue in that same mode. I have a dozens of friends and business associates in the military explosives and fireworks businesses. Almost all of them would tell you the same thing I just did.

If ATF really is that bad, then all I can say is that they treat us very well.

Lloyd

Reply to
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh

Keep in mind..that your line of business isnt "Guns"

Fortunately.

Now..the People and the NRA largely gutted the BATF 12 or so yrs ago...but..some of those people are still on board.

I have dead friends from the actions of the BATF..back in the 1990s

formatting link

Then of course we have Waco, Ruby Ridge and many many thousands of similar actions

The ATF should have been gutted 2 decades ago. And the management, lined up and executed with aforethought.

Slowly.

Over many hours.

Gunner, not a fan of the ATF

Reply to
Gunner Asch

Obviously you didnt know how to set it up properly... particularly if you are using Thunderbird (snicker)

The current version is an overblown pile of crapola that has sequinns and gold plating on the tail fins.

In fact...they all do ..going back to version 2.5

Now there are other newsreaders out there..Pan, MicroplanetGravity...etc etc

formatting link

Enjoy!

Btw..there are other

Reply to
Gunner Asch

message

Still using Agent 1.91 (and driving a 17 year old Ranger)

Reply to
clare

He was hiding in the Boston Whaler

Reply to
Bulkhead

message

Whats to support? I run 1.93...and it was fully mature and bug free. Ive been running it since 1998. No issues noted, dont need any bells and whistles..dont need "desks" and all that happy horseshit.

Shrug

Gunner

Reply to
Gunner Asch

The free versions lack the spell checking ability but Agent isn't a really expensive program....(even if you can't find a bootleg copy :-)

Reply to
J.B.Slocomb

message

I first used Netscape (after Al Gore invented the internet). Before that I don't remember what it was called. I think it was just a ymodem serial package. Procomm or some such?

Reply to
Richard

message

Hmm, same reason I don't "upgrade" from T-Bird 2.0 I don't need all the tabs, color threads and the rest. I want a plain text E-Mail program, newsreader without all the gimmicks and easy to use filtering.

Reply to
Steve W.

'Sorry this is taking me so long, but I'm really busy. So I'll keep this as short as I can.

I really appreciate your taking the time to explain this. Your post and some from Richard made me realize I'd better clarify my thinking about these things, and you both helped. I think we can narrow down the points of agreement and disagreement with a little taxonomic analysis. d8-) This is what I've thought about.

We have four basic situations we discuss, and we get into arguments partly because we tangle them up indiscriminantly:

1) Activites that involve a risk only to the participant (solo mountain climbing; most skydiving) 2) Activities that involve a risk to the participant and to others who are participating with him (car racing; setting up fireworks) 3) Activities that involve a risk to the participant and to others who are not participating, who may even be unaware that the activity is going on (people into whose homes cars crash; people on the unlucky end of stray bullets;), or who are aware of the activity but have no reason to believe they're at risk, as in this famous tragedy:

formatting link

4) Activities that may not involve a risk in themselves, but which require the means by which other risks are created. In the cases we discuss here, involving guns and explosives, it is those objects that create most of the controversy.

This one requires more thinking to categorize. I could include a fifth category, in which *some* people pose a risk to others without knowing about it: new hunters who don't think or know about safe carrying of guns in groups, or who aren't trained to be acutely aware of their backstops. It could be part of 2 and 3.

We impose regulations to try to alleviate these risks as much as possible. For example, requiring hunter-safety training to get a license.

Without getting into the breakdowns of category 4, it doesn't sound like there is much training requirement on amateur pyros.

You're aware of the huge number of fireworks injuries, no doubt:

formatting link

...and the full detail:

formatting link

Of course, most of those are fools with fireworks, not serious amateur pyrotechnicians. But the problem is real, and huge.

It's in the category of things any civilized society, one with a respect for human life, would try to regulate, in an attempt to reduce injuries. Furthermore, concerning the issue that prompted this thread, there is the danger than the means of producing fireworks and to handload ammunition also provides the means for bombers to conduct mass murders.

These are tough issues and they are not ones that sensibly can be polarized to the extremes. Rarely do we have to ban things to make them tolerably safe; the ATF agent you mentioned was over the top, and deserved to be kicked down. On the other hand, if someone pops off with a claim that they're not the problem, when they ARE the problem in the sense that the means for their toys/hobby/vocation necessarily require that any mass murderer or bomber can easily obtain the means to carry out his terror, they, too, deserve to be kicked to the bottom. Human lives trump hobbies, no matter how much these "amateurs" contribute to the professional side of pyrotechnics.

I'm not proposing any simple solutions. All I'm trying to do is to get a stronger grip on the types of problems we're dealing with.

Thanks again. I'll try to think about this some more.

Reply to
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress fired this volley in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Just two points, although I will also read and digest:

Of course an 'amateur pyro' could pursue his interests on his own. But he'd do so without the support of a guild, without licensed shooting sites, without training, etc. The guilds do NOT EVER allow the general public to participate or even watch, except from a large, safe distance away from the activities. They even hire the local fire departments (at substantial cost) to attend their shoots, so as to contain any mishap that might affect the public's safety. The guilds generally (I think, all) hold federal licenses, and have to attend to all the regulatory control that a professional fireworks company would.

If one were to pursue the hobby alone, without a guild, it's very likely that discharging his wares would attract the attention of law- enforcement, since these sorts of activities are otherwise illegal in most communities.

ALL of the amateur fireworking guilds in the US require extensive safety training. After a formal, standardized written exam on a fairly large body of regulatory and safety information, new members are also put on a probationary status, where they're supervised during their activites (while on guild events), and not 'promoted' to "shooter" until they've shown their merits.

The other point: The "fireworks accident reports" you read about are mostly the product of the CPSC, which also has a strong anti-fireworks bias. There have been, as far as I know of, only four fireworks accidents of any significance by guild amateurs in the last five years. In every case, only the person doing the activity was hurt (a couple were killed, or died shortly after). A very few of the accidents are caused by miscreant professional companies trying to save a buck. Those companies usually build a record of accidents, and lose their licenses.

On the other hand, the CPSC does whatever it can to falsely ante-up the numbers. They have reported numerous "fireworks accidents" that were traffic accidents (sometimes MILES away from the show), because the person was enroute to or leaving a fireworks show. Virtually 100% of the fireworks accidents that legitimately happened, happened in the hands of private citizens shooting (usually illegal) Class-C consumer fireworks. And well over 85% of those were minor burns (hot sparkler wires, or ash in the eye). Some weren't, and it's all the pity that people with no experience or training could be allowed to buy and shoot such products.

The CPSC's annual "chicken-busting and mannequin burning demo" uses and demonstrates the use of fireworks that have been outlawed in the US since

1968. It's a federal felony to even possess them, and yet the CPSC represents them as the 'normal' type of fireworks anybody might buy at a corner stand. (!!) They do it every year. And they felony-violate the law by even possessing them, because THEY are not licensed professional fireworkers...
Reply to
Lloyd E. Sponenburgh

Reply to
Ed Huntress

message

And that is one of the problems with T-bird..its a text/email program. And not well executed.

Many versions of Agent are as well, but they are better executed and are weighted for newsgroups rather than email

Shrug. I ran Tbird when I first got internet. That lasted no more than

6 months and then I upgraded.

Pegasus for email (free even today) was my mainstay for years

formatting link

Gunner

Reply to
Gunner Asch

in message

Procomm got you online..and IRRC..it had an email package with it

Cant remember what it was. Ive got several versions..but digging through the 5 " and the 3" disks is for only when Im really really bored.

Reply to
Gunner Asch

Dunno about the email part but Procom 2.4.3 is available.

formatting link

technomaNge

Reply to
technomaNge

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.