On 8/29/24 8:15 AM, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> Scout wrote:
>>>
>>> You do realize that most people only buy 1 or 2 at a time.. nothing
>>> THOUSANDS.
>>
>> But there's hundreds of thousands of them, and (1)*(500K) = (500K)*(1)
>
> Check-out the disingenuous idiot evading the point that the
> individuals don't get the "volume discount".

Translation:
chrisv shows that he doesn't understand how free markets work.
Profit motives foster increased efficiency in cost-to-market.

It should come as no surprise that he's a COLA FOSS fanboy. /s

> Snits, like -highhorse, *never* concede a point.

On the contrary: I do, if I'm actually wrong.
Problem is that you've not shown that I'm wrong.
Again.
And that's why you're constantly butthurt, chrisv.
Look within to fix your problems, instead of trying to blame others.

>>> Further federal law sort of prohibits most people from buying
>>> directly from the manufacturer, thus requiring the inclusion of middle
>>> men who mark up the price so they can get paid.
>>
>> Oh, so you're claiming that the manufacturers are just barely squeaking
>> by with no margins, but the middlemen are making a 100% profit?
>>
>> Problem that you have there is that the middlemen don't have any IP to
>> be a price moat for them to be able to charge high margins.
>
> The middlemen, distributors and retailers, are often more far
> profitable than the manufacturers, despite no "IP". To deny this is
> idiocy.
>
> -highhorse reponse to be deleted, unread.
>

"deleted unread" because chrisv knows that he made an unsubstantiated
claim that he'll be called on to prove.

Specifically, his claim is that those without a competitive advantage
moat are 'often' able to be more profitable than those who do have a
moat (eg, IP) to support a larger price differential.

Substantiate your claim, you "deleted unread" luzer.

Plus go read up on who Adam Smith was too, for these aren't anything
close to being profoundly new economic principles.

-hh

-hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> On 8/29/24 8:15 AM, chrisv wrote:
>> -hh wrote:
>>
>>> Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>> You do realize that most people only buy 1 or 2 at a time.. nothing
>>>> THOUSANDS.
>>>
>>> But there's hundreds of thousands of them, and (1)*(500K) = (500K)*(1)
>>
>> Check-out the disingenuous idiot evading the point that the
>> individuals don't get the "volume discount".
>
> Translation:
> chrisv shows that he doesn't understand how free markets work.
> Profit motives foster increased efficiency in cost-to-market.
>
> It should come as no surprise that he's a COLA FOSS fanboy. /s

Heck, I'm a cola foss fanboy too! Always grateful that software libre has found
a significant toehold.

<all other 'froups snipped>

--
I don't know half of you half as well as I should like; and I like less
than half of you half as well as you deserve.
-- J. R. R. Tolkien

Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:

>Heck, I'm a cola foss fanboy too! Always grateful that software libre has found
>a significant toehold.

Using Winblows is just annoying, to me. Linux gives me what I really
want.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Joel wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:

> Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>
>>Heck, I'm a cola foss fanboy too! Always grateful that software libre has found
>>a significant toehold.
>
> Using Winblows is just annoying, to me. Linux gives me what I really
> want.

Same here. And actually fewer issues as well, in spite of the rapid pace of
updates.

--
Sheriff Chameleotoptor sighed with an air of weary sadness, and then
turned to Doppelgutt and said 'The Senator must really have been on a
bender this time -- he left a party in Cleveland, Ohio, at 11:30 last
night, and they found his car this morning in the smokestack of a British
aircraft carrier in the Formosa Straits.'
-- Grand Panjandrum's Special Award, 1985 Bulwer-Lytton
bad fiction contest.

Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:

>>>Heck, I'm a cola foss fanboy too! Always grateful that software libre has found
>>>a significant toehold.
>>
>> Using Winblows is just annoying, to me. Linux gives me what I really
>> want.
>
>Same here. And actually fewer issues as well, in spite of the rapid pace of
>updates.

openSUSE Leap has been moderate with updates. I've never been happier
with my box, than I am today.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 16:02:47 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

>>
>> Using Winblows is just annoying, to me. Linux gives me what I really
>> want.
>
> Same here. And actually fewer issues as well, in spite of the rapid pace of
> updates.
>

GNU/Linux/FOSS is the superior choice all around.

The problem is to convince the legions of total idiots that have
been conditioned, like Pavlov's dog, to Microslop/Apphole.

But one cannot "convince," which is a logical process, a mental
retard of anything.

Hence Microslop/Apphole shall continue unabated.

GNU/Linux shall remain for the truly superior.

--
Systemd: solving all the problems that you never knew you had.

Farley Flud <ff@linux.rocks> wrote:
>On Thu, 29 Aug 2024 16:02:47 -0400, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>>> Using Winblows is just annoying, to me. Linux gives me what I really
>>> want.
>>
>> Same here. And actually fewer issues as well, in spite of the rapid pace of
>> updates.
>
>GNU/Linux/FOSS is the superior choice all around.
>
>The problem is to convince the legions of total idiots that have
>been conditioned, like Pavlov's dog, to Microslop/Apphole.
>
>But one cannot "convince," which is a logical process, a mental
>retard of anything.
>
>Hence Microslop/Apphole shall continue unabated.
>
>GNU/Linux shall remain for the truly superior.

Microsoft and Apple know that people's minds operate in patterns,
comfortable recurring activity, they know that they can sell software
to people like that, by making it uber-intuitive. People living on
the edge will always prefer Linux.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Joel <joelcrump@gmail.com> wrote at 20:23 this Thursday (GMT):
> Chris Ahlstrom <OFeem1987@teleworm.us> wrote:
>
>>>>Heck, I'm a cola foss fanboy too! Always grateful that software libre has found
>>>>a significant toehold.
>>>
>>> Using Winblows is just annoying, to me. Linux gives me what I really
>>> want.
>>
>>Same here. And actually fewer issues as well, in spite of the rapid pace of
>>updates.
>
>
> openSUSE Leap has been moderate with updates. I've never been happier
> with my box, than I am today.

I use debian now and it's pretty dang good :D
--
user <candycane> is generated from /dev/urandom

candycanearter07 <candycanearter07@candycanearter07.nomail.afraid>
wrote:

>I use debian now and it's pretty dang good :D

I installed Debian, once, when it booted it immediately hacked my
neighbor's WiFi, presumably to phone home. Weird. Good distro,
though.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

Chris Ahlstrom wrote:

> -highhorse wrote:
>>
>> (snipped, unread)
>
>Heck, I'm a cola foss fanboy too! Always grateful that software libre has found
>a significant toehold.

Is -highhorse claiming that the FOSS advocates ridicule people for
buying software? Because that would be another of his lies.

FOSS advocates often tout the value of FOSS. That's not ridiculing
others for making the choice to pay for what they want. FOSS
advocates are pro choice.

It's assholes like -highhorse who come into an advocacy group and
attack the advocates. The advocates aren't in some Windows group
attacking them for their choices.

-highhorse sits in judgement of other consumers. If he thinks you
cheaped-out, he'll call you a "sloppy cheapskate". If he think you
paid too much, he will "*laugh*" at you for failing to do you
"homework".

-highhorse *lives* to attack decent, reasonable people

Baxter wrote:

>Trump appears to be referring to a letter sent by Mark Zuckerberg, Meta
>CEO, to the House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jim Jordan on Monday.
>Zuckerberg admitted in the letter that, in 2021, Joe Biden’s
>administration “pressured” Meta to censor certain COVID-19 content.

There you have it. From your own source, you fscking moron.

Your response will be deleted, unread.

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:vaogdr$3m0tk$1@dont-email.me...
> On 8/26/24 9:34 AM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>> news:vahrqn$24i6v$2@dont-email.me...
>>> On 8/25/24 2:16 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>> In article <vafpij$210a8$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On 8/24/24 4:04 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>> -hh says...
>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of the AR is
>>>>>>> an
>>>>>>> interesting one, particularly in light of how little the DoD pays
>>>>>>> for
>>>>>>> them relative to how much they retail for in the civilian market...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's just a gun.
>>>>>
>>>>> Doesn't matter: a poor value product is still a poor value product.
>>>>
>>>> Maybe you buy cheap shit.
>>>
>>> Quite the opposite: the manufacturing which fails to meet MIL standards
>>> gets re-binned & sold off in the civilian market distribution channel.
>>
>> BS.. I don't know a civilian that would accept 5 MOA out of the box as
>> the military does.
>
> Problem is that you don't know the relevant testing conditions &
> requirements thereof to know how much BS you're spewing.

-Yawn-

Don't see you don't much.

"Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:9govcjh680sjghvcoo7q4nidsb0flr87je@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 08:34:36 -0500, "Scout"
> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>
>>Then keeping in mind that government is buying in BULK. Na, government
>>equipment is OK, but civilian is far superior.
>
> So ... Colt sent our guys into combat zones with faulty rifles in order to
> increase their profits?

Nope, they fulfilled the specifications set by the government. If the
government produced specifications that resulted in an inferior weapon...
seems to me the fault is on the government for their poor specifications.

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:vapjbt$3ub7d$1@dont-email.me...
> On 8/28/24 10:52 PM, Governor Swill wrote:
>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 08:34:36 -0500, "Scout"
>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Then keeping in mind that government is buying in BULK. Na, government
>>> equipment is OK, but civilian is far superior.
>>
>> So ... Colt sent our guys into combat zones with faulty rifles in order
>> to
>> increase their profits?
>
> The AR-15s & first generation M16s that went to Vietnam were very much
> "commercial spec" guns as they lacked a MILSPEC chrome plated barrel,

Show us where the government produced such a MILSPEC for the barrels of
these rifles.

"Skeeter" <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in message
news:66cf439d$1$3068687$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com...
> In article <vand73$3gq1h$2@dont-email.me>, bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com
> says...
>>
>> Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com> wrote
>> in
>> news:qv1ucj1ip4dtb6rhd6of3ebjrphaq2q0ep@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
>> ing.dwarf.com:
>>
>> > [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>> >
>> >>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
>> wrote
>> >>in
>> >>
>> news:ir8scjplbgfn26v88ptb4n5iqubho9pvbc@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
>> >>ing.dwarf.com:
>> >>
>> >>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>> >>>
>> >>>>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
>> >>wrote
>> >>>>in
>> >>>>
>> >>
>> news:0n2ncjhb5obi733dhpti70gnmhah9l3pqu@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
>> >>>>ing.dwarf.com:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>You are still evading the point - the primary purpose of a gun is
>> >>that
>> >>>>>>it is a tool for killing
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Wrong, as you usually are, Admitted Pedophile Groomer Nazi Baxter.
>> >>The
>> >>>>> gun doesn't decide its purpose.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>So what, then, does the gun decide is it's purpose - weird gun-pimp
>> >>>>groomer KKKlaun?
>> >>>
>> >>> Admitted Pedophile Groomer Nazi Baxter tries to claim that guns
>> decide
>> >>> things.
>> >>>
>> >>> That's how retarded he is.
>> >>>
>> >>
>> >>Actually that's YOUR claim - when you say "guns don't kill people".
>> >
>> > Wrong, stupid. YOU are the one claiming guns "have a purpose-- to
>> > kill."
>> >
>> > Normal people know guns aren't sentient beings. A concept you seem to
>> > be struggling with for some reason.
>> >
>> >
>>
>> Admitted groomer weird gun-pimp and pedophile KKKlaun - what a doofus --
>> eggbeaters have a purpose, hammers have a purpose, garage doors have a
>> purpose. Everything we invent and make has a purpose.
>
> So? That can't do anything without a human making a decision.

yes, and garage doors kill. Hammers kill, I suppose even eggbeaters have
killed.. Yet somehow we're told those deaths don't count because they didn't
have a 'purpose'.

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:vaogl3$3m0tk$2@dont-email.me...
> On 8/28/24 10:56 AM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>> news:valdjt$339at$2@dont-email.me...
>>> On 8/27/24 1:16 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:vai6p3$2ggu5$2@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On 8/26/24 9:56 AM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>> -hh says...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/25/24 2:16 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <vafpij$210a8$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com says...
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 8/24/24 4:04 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> -hh says...
>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of the
>>>>>>>>>>> AR is an
>>>>>>>>>>> interesting one, particularly in light of how little the DoD
>>>>>>>>>>> pays for
>>>>>>>>>>> them relative to how much they retail for in the civilian
>>>>>>>>>>> market...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's just a gun.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter: a poor value product is still a poor value
>>>>>>>>> product.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe you buy cheap shit.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quite the opposite: the manufacturing which fails to meet MIL
>>>>>>> standards
>>>>>>> gets re-binned & sold off in the civilian market distribution
>>>>>>> channel.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> ...and that's despite how the MIL contracts has significantly
>>>>>>>>>>> higher QA
>>>>>>>>>>> and testing expenses in their manufacturing overhead.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's still just a gun.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So? The point is that there's a large bunch of fools who pay too
>>>>>>>>> much.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So? Why do you care?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Its the same fools who try the "derp! it wasn't an M16, but an
>>>>>>> M16A2!"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It comes down to marketing hype for a profitable product, just
>>>>>>>>>>> like how
>>>>>>>>>>> automakers push SUVs because they're more profitable for them
>>>>>>>>>>> too.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Guns don't kill people.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So then if they're so harmless, you're saying that you're also
>>>>>>>>> willing
>>>>>>>>> to take the same risk of being hit by a few rounds...right?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The gun didn't shoot them. The person holding the gun did.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> After all, you've defended the claim that "its just a fancy .22!"
>>>>>>>>> /s
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It is. and how it's used is up to the person holding it.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> So you going to stand downrange to take a few 'mosquito bites' or
>>>>>>> not?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It's still just a gun.
>>>>>
>>>>> Sure is. My point is to not get mad at those who *laugh* at those who
>>>>> fail to do their homework & pay twice as much as its actually worth.
>>>>
>>>> Hmmm.. So tell me how exactly did you determine it's worth half of what
>>>> people are paying and why hasn't someone come along selling it at a 25%
>>>> discount and still making a fortune?
>>>
>>> a) historical DoD contract prices; b) IP restricts copycats.
>>
>> You do realize that most people only buy 1 or 2 at a time.. nothing
>> THOUSANDS.
>
> But there's hundreds of thousands of them, and (1)*(500K) = (500K)*(1)

Yep, when 500K are buying guns one at a time.. it's more expensive than one
person buying 500K guns.

Remind me to talk to you about the difference between wholesale and retail
sometime.

"-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:vaoh67$3m34v$1@dont-email.me...
> On 8/28/24 10:57 AM, Scout wrote:
>>
>>
>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>> news:vald68$339at$1@dont-email.me...
>>> On 8/27/24 1:29 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "-hh" <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:vake0k$2vdj8$1@dont-email.me...
>>>>> On 8/26/24 7:38 PM, max headroom wrote:
>>>>>> In news:vahrqn$24i6v$2@dont-email.me, -hh
>>>>>> <recscuba_google@huntzinger.com>
>>>>>> typed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 8/25/24 2:16 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <vafpij$210a8$1@dont-email.me>,
>>>>>>>> recscuba_google@huntzinger.com
>>>>>>>> says...
>>>>>>>>> On 8/24/24 4:04 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> -hh says...
>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of the
>>>>>>>>>>> AR is an
>>>>>>>>>>> interesting one, particularly in light of how little the DoD
>>>>>>>>>>> pays for
>>>>>>>>>>> them relative to how much they retail for in the civilian
>>>>>>>>>>> market...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> It's just a gun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter: a poor value product is still a poor value
>>>>>>>>> product.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Maybe you buy cheap shit.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Quite the opposite: the manufacturing which fails to meet MIL
>>>>>>> standards
>>>>>>> gets re-binned & sold off in the civilian market distribution
>>>>>>> channel....
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not in the U.S.
>>>>>
>>>>> With ~99% parts commonality, why wouldn't both be coming off of the
>>>>> same production line?
>>>>
>>>> Well, most of the military stuff is probably what didn't pass quality
>>>> control standards for the civilian market.
>>>>
>>>> After all the government has no issues buying a 5 MOA rifle..
>>>
>>> I said 0.5 MOA, not 5 MOA.
>>
>> I'm sure YOU did.. the government however, did not.
>
> Done with different sample sizes and testing conditions that your range
> buddies who claim 1-2 MOA in reality

Yawn.. I see you flapping your lips, but I don't see you actually proving
anything.

"Skeeter" <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in message
news:66cf42a2$0$3068691$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com...
> In article <92otcj569ro8sfffqru895itsk72ig6vbs@4ax.com>,
> governor.swill@gmail.com says...
>>
>> On 27 Aug 2024 23:31:19 GMT, Charlie Glock <"Charlie
>> Glock"@localhost.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >I'm conserving mine for the inevitable coming civil war.
>> >I suggest you do likewise.
>>
>> Why do you guys fantasize civil war so much? If you can't win at the
>> ballot
>> box, what makes you think you can win with a gun in your hand?
>
> Because we have guns and you don't.

*boom*

"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:vaongv$3qm00$2@dont-email.me...
> Skeeter <skeeterweed@photonmail.com> wrote in
> news:66cf42a2$0$3068691$882e4bbb@reader.netnews.com:
>
>> In article <92otcj569ro8sfffqru895itsk72ig6vbs@4ax.com>,
>> governor.swill@gmail.com says...
>>>
>>> On 27 Aug 2024 23:31:19 GMT, Charlie Glock <"Charlie
>>> Glock"@localhost.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> >I'm conserving mine for the inevitable coming civil war.
>>> >I suggest you do likewise.
>>>
>>> Why do you guys fantasize civil war so much? If you can't win at the
>>> ballot box, what makes you think you can win with a gun in your hand?
>>
>> Because we have guns and you don't.
>>
>
> heh, heh, you just keep thinking that.

Baxter now claims to own guns, which he asserts are only for killing people.

So one has to wonder why Baxter feels he wants to murder people.

For those that missed it that was Baxter biting his own ass.

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:

>Your response will be deleted, unread.

Why do you think anyone gives a shit, dude? Lighten up.

--
Joel W. Crump

Amendment XIV
Section 1.

[...] No state shall make or enforce any law which shall
abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the
United States; nor shall any state deprive any person of
life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;
nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal
protection of the laws.

Dobbs rewrites this, it is invalid precedent. States are
liable for denying needed abortions, e.g. TX.

"Baxter" <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> wrote in message
news:vaonds$3qm00$1@dont-email.me...
> Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com> wrote
> in
> news:i7fucj9tn63vfdev6tkrf9etc6drs7no5h@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
> ing.dwarf.com:
>
>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>
>>>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
> wrote
>>>in
>>>
> news:qv1ucj1ip4dtb6rhd6of3ebjrphaq2q0ep@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
>>>ing.dwarf.com:
>>>
>>>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>
>>>>>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
>>>wrote
>>>>>in
>>>>>
>>>
> news:ir8scjplbgfn26v88ptb4n5iqubho9pvbc@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
>>>>>ing.dwarf.com:
>>>>>
>>>>>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>Klaus Schadenfreude <klaus.schadenfreude.Zwergentöter.@gmail.com>
>>>>>wrote
>>>>>>>in
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
> news:0n2ncjhb5obi733dhpti70gnmhah9l3pqu@Rudy.Canoza.is.a.forging.cocksuck
>>>>>>>ing.dwarf.com:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> [Default] Baxter <bax02_spamblock@baxcode.com> typed:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>You are still evading the point - the primary purpose of a gun is
>>>>>that
>>>>>>>>>it is a tool for killing
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Wrong, as you usually are, Admitted Pedophile Groomer Nazi
> Baxter.
>>>>>The
>>>>>>>> gun doesn't decide its purpose.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>So what, then, does the gun decide is it's purpose - weird gun-pimp
>>>>>>>groomer KKKlaun?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Admitted Pedophile Groomer Nazi Baxter tries to claim that guns
>>>decide
>>>>>> things.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That's how retarded he is.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Actually that's YOUR claim - when you say "guns don't kill people".
>>>>
>>>> Wrong, stupid. YOU are the one claiming guns "have a purpose-- to
>>>> kill."
>>>>
>>>> Normal people know guns aren't sentient beings. A concept you seem to
>>>> be struggling with for some reason.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>Admitted groomer weird gun-pimp and pedophile KKKlaun - what a doofus
> --
>>>eggbeaters have a purpose, hammers have a purpose, garage doors have a
>>>purpose. Everything we invent and make has a purpose.
>>
>> Admitted Nazi Pedophile Groomer Baxter claims guns have only one
>> purpose - to kill.
>>
> But wait! They slice! They dice! They peel potatoes! They catch fish!
>
> Go ahead, idiot admitted pedophie groomer weird gun-pimp KKKlaun, tell us
> what other non-dirived purpose a gun has (target practice is "dirived" -
> it is done in support of the designed purpose.)

So target shooting is a legitimate reason to own a gun..... any gun...

Right????

Baxter's brain melts down in 3... 2... 1...

On 8/29/24 5:38 PM, Scout wrote:
>
>
> "Governor Swill" <governor.swill@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:9govcjh680sjghvcoo7q4nidsb0flr87je@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 26 Aug 2024 08:34:36 -0500, "Scout"
>> <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Then keeping in mind that government is buying in BULK. Na, government
>>> equipment is OK, but civilian is far superior.
>>
>> So ... Colt sent our guys into combat zones with faulty rifles in
>> order to
>> increase their profits?
>
> Nope, they fulfilled the specifications set by the government. If the
> government produced specifications that resulted in an inferior
> weapon... seems to me the fault is on the government for their poor
> specifications.

It is telling that you're needing to reach back ~60 years to find a
deficient specification to claim as your 'proof' that supposedly holds
true to this day.

-hh

On 8/29/24 3:19 PM, Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
> -hh wrote this copyrighted missive and expects royalties:
>
>> On 8/29/24 8:15 AM, chrisv wrote:
>>> -hh wrote:
>>>
>>>> Scout wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> You do realize that most people only buy 1 or 2 at a time.. nothing
>>>>> THOUSANDS.
>>>>
>>>> But there's hundreds of thousands of them, and (1)*(500K) = (500K)*(1)
>>>
>>> Check-out the disingenuous idiot evading the point that the
>>> individuals don't get the "volume discount".
>>
>> Translation:
>> chrisv shows that he doesn't understand how free markets work.
>> Profit motives foster increased efficiency in cost-to-market.
>>
>> It should come as no surprise that he's a COLA FOSS fanboy. /s
>
> Heck, I'm a cola foss fanboy too!

Sure, but you actually understand economics, and know better than to
make profoundly dumb claims.

> Always grateful that software libre has found
> a significant toehold.

I'm glad that it exists too.

> <all other 'froups snipped>

Its all good. How's retirement been going?

-hh

On 8/29/24 5:26 PM, chrisv wrote:
> Chris Ahlstrom wrote:
>
>> -highhorse wrote:
>>>
>>> (snipped, unread)

Oh Suuuuuuure it wasn't read, because that snip was performed by chrisv,
not Chris Ahlstrom.

>>
>> Heck, I'm a cola foss fanboy too! Always grateful that software libre has found
>> a significant toehold.
>
> Is -highhorse claiming that the FOSS advocates ridicule people for
> buying software? Because that would be another of his lies.

Nope. You know exactly what it said.

> FOSS advocates often tout the value of FOSS. That's not ridiculing
> others for making the choice to pay for what they want. FOSS
> advocates are pro choice.

True, but that doesn't apply to your own tomfoolery.

> It's assholes like -highhorse who come into an advocacy group and
> attack the advocates. The advocates aren't in some Windows group
> attacking them for their choices.

Nope. I view Linux as just another tool in the toolbox, which is why I
have it running on a couple of my systems. What you're really trying to
say is that of the major desktop OSs, the one today whose advocates
still have a huge inferiority complex is ... Linux.

> -highhorse sits in judgement of other consumers. If he thinks you
> cheaped-out, he'll call you a "sloppy cheapskate". If he think you
> paid too much, he will "*laugh*" at you for failing to do you
> "homework".
>
> -highhorse *lives* to attack decent, reasonable people
>

Nah, as I've said before: if you don't want to get slammed for saying
stupid stuff, the solution is to not say stupid stuff to begin with.
Its not my fault that you get slammed more often than not.

-hh

On 8/29/24 6:23 PM, Scout wrote:

> "-hh" wrote:
>> On 8/28/24 10:56 AM, Scout wrote:
>>> "-hh" wrote:
>>>> On 8/27/24 1:16 PM, Scout wrote:
>>>>> "-hh" wrote:
>>>>>> On 8/26/24 9:56 AM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>> -hh says...
>>>>>>>> On 8/25/24 2:16 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>>> -hh says...
>>>>>>>>>> On 8/24/24 4:04 PM, Skeeter wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> -hh says...
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...
>>>>>>>>>>>> In any event, the saga of the popular civilian adoption of
>>>>>>>>>>>> the AR is an
>>>>>>>>>>>> interesting one, particularly in light of how little the DoD
>>>>>>>>>>>> pays for
>>>>>>>>>>>> them relative to how much they retail for in the civilian
>>>>>>>>>>>> market...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's just a gun.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Doesn't matter:  a poor value product is still a poor value
>>>>>>>>>> product.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Maybe you buy cheap shit.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Quite the opposite: the manufacturing which fails to meet MIL
>>>>>>>> standards
>>>>>>>> gets re-binned & sold off in the civilian market distribution
>>>>>>>> channel.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...and that's despite how the MIL contracts has
>>>>>>>>>>>> significantly higher QA
>>>>>>>>>>>> and testing expenses in their manufacturing overhead.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It's still just a gun.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So?  The point is that there's a large bunch of fools who pay
>>>>>>>>>> too much.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So? Why do you care?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Its the same fools who try the "derp!  it wasn't an M16, but an
>>>>>>>> M16A2!"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It comes down to marketing hype for a profitable product,
>>>>>>>>>>>> just like how
>>>>>>>>>>>> automakers push SUVs because they're more profitable for
>>>>>>>>>>>> them too.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Guns don't kill people.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> So then if they're so harmless, you're saying that you're also
>>>>>>>>>> willing
>>>>>>>>>> to take the same risk of being hit by a few rounds...right?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> The gun didn't shoot them. The person holding the gun did.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> After all, you've defended the claim that "its just a fancy
>>>>>>>>>> .22!" /s
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> It is. and how it's used is up to the person holding it.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> So you going to stand downrange to take a few 'mosquito bites'
>>>>>>>> or not?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> -hh
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It's still just a gun.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Sure is. My point is to not get mad at those who *laugh* at those
>>>>>> who fail to do their homework & pay twice as much as its actually
>>>>>> worth.
>>>>>
>>>>> Hmmm.. So tell me how exactly did you determine it's worth half of
>>>>> what people are paying and why hasn't someone come along selling it
>>>>> at a 25% discount and still making a fortune?
>>>>
>>>> a) historical DoD contract prices; b) IP restricts copycats.
>>>
>>> You do realize that most people only buy 1 or 2 at a time.. nothing
>>> THOUSANDS.
>>
>> But there's hundreds of thousands of them, and (1)*(500K) = (500K)*(1)
>
> Yep, when 500K are buying guns one at a time.. it's more expensive than
> one person buying 500K guns.

Except you've already noted that individuals typically can't buy direct
from the gunmakers, so your claim isn't relevant or valid.

> Remind me to talk to you about the difference between wholesale and
> retail sometime.

Oh, that's the part where you've tried to claim that retailers are the
one gouging customers with a 100% price markup ... even though retail
distribution doesn't have the IP to be a competitive advantage ("moat")
to prevent another gun shop from undercutting their margins and only
selling with a 90% markup..nor a third gun shop undercutting them both
with only an 80% markup ... and so on, spiraling down to thin margins,
because you then don't have any explanation for who's profiteering.

-hh