-
We are now running on a new, and hopefully much-improved, server. In addition we are also on new forum software. Any move entails a lot of technical details and I suspect we will encounter a few issues as the new server goes live. Please be patient with us. It will be worth it! :) Please help by posting all issues here.
-
If you are having trouble seeing the forum then you may need to clear your browser's DNS cache. Click here for instructions on how to do that
-
Please review the Forum Rules frequently as we are constantly trying to improve the forum for our members and visitors.
On carrying...
- Thread starter Strike
- Start date
Bill Starks
State Researcher
learned this in grade school....
Sticks and stones my break my bones but names will never hurt me.
Sticks and stones my break my bones but names will never hurt me.
Dave_pro2a
Regular Member
@ the OP:
6 cuss words to convey the idea "be mellow."
6 cuss words to convey the idea "be mellow."
Last edited:
Is the shield or the sword more important?
"Never throw the first punch and Fire only if fired upon are two pieces of pseudo-tactical advice thrown out so often that people now merely parrot the phrases without ever thinking about what they mean. When examined at the most basic level, the advice is often given by those who will not actually be involved in the anticipated conflict. Parents tell their kids “never throw the first punch” and Military Officers issue orders for their troops to “fire only if fired upon” . . .
In both of the previous examples, the parent or the military officer, neither party is likely to be in actual physical jeopardy when their advice is applied.
Nonetheless, telling others to exercise restraint, even to the point of putting them in harm’s way, is on the face both reasonable and civilized. You see, in a perfect world where the first punch doesn’t maim you and the first incoming rounds don’t kill you, exercising restraint puts one on the moral high ground. But, is this strategy valid or does it simply embolden and enable the aggressors?
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/11/paul-markel/the-failed-strategy-of-defense/#more-170715
Great Blog, Great Writing, Read the whole article, very enlightening..........
XD
"Never throw the first punch and Fire only if fired upon are two pieces of pseudo-tactical advice thrown out so often that people now merely parrot the phrases without ever thinking about what they mean. When examined at the most basic level, the advice is often given by those who will not actually be involved in the anticipated conflict. Parents tell their kids “never throw the first punch” and Military Officers issue orders for their troops to “fire only if fired upon” . . .
In both of the previous examples, the parent or the military officer, neither party is likely to be in actual physical jeopardy when their advice is applied.
Nonetheless, telling others to exercise restraint, even to the point of putting them in harm’s way, is on the face both reasonable and civilized. You see, in a perfect world where the first punch doesn’t maim you and the first incoming rounds don’t kill you, exercising restraint puts one on the moral high ground. But, is this strategy valid or does it simply embolden and enable the aggressors?
http://www.thetruthaboutguns.com/2012/11/paul-markel/the-failed-strategy-of-defense/#more-170715
Great Blog, Great Writing, Read the whole article, very enlightening..........
XD