Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login
Posted: 4/30/2002 4:17:26 AM EDT
What is the smallest caliber you would consider using for a carry gun?

I was looking at a .32 h&r mag, but I have some concerns as far as stopping power.

Any opinions would be appreciated.

Thanks
QWK
Link Posted: 4/30/2002 6:54:23 AM EDT
I always suggest shooting the most powerful caliber with which you are comfortable. Realize that the weapon itself, by method of operation, layout, and mass, has almost as much to do with recoil as the cartridge.

That being said, the least powerful cartridge with which I would feel confident in stopping an aggressor would be 9mm NATO/Luger, preferably Hydra-shoks, Winchester RangerSXT, or the new expanding FMJ round. I would not feel confident that I would stop an adversary with 9mm FMJ, or a standard HP round.

Your mileage may vary, and the above is only my OPINION.
Link Posted: 4/30/2002 7:53:24 AM EDT
I agree with Kpel308 in that you should carry the largest caliber that you can shoot well. That being said 9mm is the smallest that I WILL carry.
Link Posted: 4/30/2002 11:08:26 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/4/2002 11:17:09 AM EDT
If you will do your part, a .22 is fine. Lots of nice .32s out there these days designed for CCW. I wouldn't worry too much about the whole stopping power mess.
Link Posted: 5/4/2002 1:02:48 PM EDT

Originally Posted By darm441:
If you will do your part, a .22 is fine. Lots of nice .32s out there these days designed for CCW. I wouldn't worry too much about the whole stopping power mess.




.........just as long as you face nothing worse than an enraged rodent
Link Posted: 5/4/2002 9:27:46 PM EDT
If a 22 is the most powerful round that he feels comfortable with, then I say go for it. People with small hands, pain due to arthritis or other disease like carpal tunnel SHOULD consider the 22. Otherwise, one is just being foolish. Fine motor control goes out the window when confronted by an adversary and you are fighting for your life.

Why handicap yourself? I'm not a "jell-o junkie" and am not overly impressed with terminal ballistics data by itself. I have worked in an emergency room, and have seen people hit with .380 and smaller projectiles go home the same day. If some jerk is trying to ruin MY day, I don't want him going on to hurt others.

Sure, a .25ACP is sufficient, with perfect placement, to lay someone to their eternal rest. Let's just say that when the crap is hitting the fan, my hands shake a little bit. If I can even remember anything other than the image of the attacker's muzzle pointed at me, that is.

A big bullet that misses is less effective than a small bullet that hits. That being said, a big bullet that hits is generally better than a little bullet that hits. When I say COMFORTABLE, I mean a load that the shooter is able to place on target without flinching or worrying about it.

And nowhere in my recommendation did I mention "stopping power." That is a subjective matter, and means different things to different people. I would rather that the round expend all its energy in the target, and not go on to harm a bystander. So, a 105mm howitzer round is not necessarily the best thing for home defense. I would argue that the .17BR Remington isn't, either.
Link Posted: 5/4/2002 9:57:30 PM EDT
32 ACP or 32 magnum
Link Posted: 5/6/2002 6:36:24 AM EDT
I have read a lot of good points here. But one thing you folks should think about is that the smallest, weakest handgun on your person is still way better than the hand cannon you left at home! I heartily concur with the belief that a high quality 9mm HP is a minimum, but sometimes, those short, skinny people can't hide a compact auto the way us 6'3" 300 pounders can. I think every one agrees, the first rule of a gun fight is... HAVE A GUN.
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 12:16:59 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/17/2002 12:18:44 AM EDT by darm441]
>>just as long as you face nothing worse than an enraged rodent<<
If you think that the small calibers are only effective on enraged rodents, you are sorely mistaken. The smaller calibers have done and still do a fine job in stopping attackers. If you aren't good enough to do it with a small caliber, you probably aren't good enough to do it with a large one.
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 2:56:08 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 5:32:00 AM EDT
The issue of what is the mininimum caliber or what has stopping power will be debated until we switch to energy beams and light swords.

Most of the SD incidents will occur at close to arms length. The likely target will be within twenty feet. At that range, hitting the right spot quickly and repeatedly becomes far more important than what you hit it with.

JMHO and YMMV, but for me, a small 380 or less pistol or a revolver of nearly any caliber, are the best possible SD weapons (excluding knives that I'll deal with on another thread). In pistols, I prefer a blowback design with a fixed barrel. Since the barrel is fixed, accuracy will be better than with a traditional browning swing lock design.

I have a small SiG 230 380 that is very, very accurate at close ranges. If I can point my finger at a spot, I can hit it with that pistol. With that kind of accuracy, and with the hot 380 loads available from CorBon, Triton and CCI/Speer, the 380 is a very viable option.

Link Posted: 5/17/2002 8:48:02 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/17/2002 8:52:00 AM EDT by SGB]

Originally Posted By darm441:
>>just as long as you face nothing worse than an enraged rodent<<
If you think that the small calibers are only effective on enraged rodents, you are sorely mistaken. The smaller calibers have done and still do a fine job in stopping attackers. If you aren't good enough to do it with a small caliber, you probably aren't good enough to do it with a large one.



While I'll agree that any firearm is better than no firearm I will point out that a .22 is a piss poor fight stopper. While it has the ability to inflict fatal wounds it lacks in its ability to "Stop all aggressive activity" from an assailant. In as NO handgun caliber is %100 in its fight stopping abilities it time tested that Larger Calibers have better fight stopping characteristics.

And as to ....

If you aren't good enough to do it with a small caliber, you probably aren't good enough to do it with a large one.


Concealed Carry is a personal choice, but for what it's worth.......

It's a proven fact that we lose all of our finer motor skills in the adrenaline rush of a fire fight. Only our coarse motor skills are going to work, and this is going to affect our shooting abilities.

A narrow miss to a vital organ from a .45 will be considerably more effective than the same miss from a .22. Same reason that a Hollow point is more effective than FMJ'd ammo. It's an attempt to make up for the inaccuracies of combat.

The entire reason for Carrying a Concealed Handgun is for Self Preservation. There is "No second place winner in a gunfight."........don't allow a mouse gun to give you a sense of false security.
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 9:19:23 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 9:21:44 AM EDT
This is an interesting article that is worth reading:


"Reality of the Street? A Practical Analysis of Offender Gunshot Wound Reaction for Law Enforcement"


www.firearmstactical.com/tacticalbriefs/volume4/number2/article421.htm


If you don't know about this website, give it a try.

www.firearmstactical.com
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 10:59:01 AM EDT
>>While I'll agree that any firearm is better than no firearm I will point out that a .22 is a piss poor fight stopper.<<
That statement is true about any handgun round, not just the .22. One can say it about the ,45 ACP and be perfectly accurate.
>>The entire reason for Carrying a Concealed Handgun is for Self Preservation. There is "No second place winner in a gunfight."........don't allow a mouse gun to give you a sense of false security. <<
If your sense of security is based on how big your gun is, you're probably not really secure.
Link Posted: 5/17/2002 11:37:01 AM EDT

Originally Posted By darm441:
>>While I'll agree that any firearm is better than no firearm I will point out that a .22 is a piss poor fight stopper.<<
That statement is true about any handgun round, not just the .22. One can say it about the ,45 ACP and be perfectly accurate.



Very cute try, now lets take the entire paragraph in context.

While I'll agree that any firearm is better than no firearm I will point out that a .22 is a piss poor fight stopper. While it has the ability to inflict fatal wounds it lacks in its ability to "Stop all aggressive activity" from an assailant. In as NO handgun caliber is %100 in its fight stopping abilities it time tested that Larger Calibers have better fight stopping characteristics.

>>The entire reason for Carrying a Concealed Handgun is for Self Preservation. There is "No second place winner in a gunfight."........don't allow a mouse gun to give you a sense of false security. <<
If your sense of security is based on how big your gun is, you're probably not really secure.


Again very cute, nothing being said about the size of ones gun, {obvious reference to PENIS size} caliber is the topic.

No I would not feel secure with a .22, it's simply not the best tool for the job. However if you feel secure in the use of a .22 for self defense all I can say is more power to you.
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 7:33:51 AM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2002 7:34:40 AM EDT by DScott]
From the above cited article:


Wound Trauma

Finally, what anatomy a penetrating bullet damages and disrupts is important to consider. If a bullet comes into direct contact with the spinal cord, spinal bones or brain, the offender usually has no choice in what his reaction will be, and collapse or incapacitation is almost always instantaneous.

If a bullet passes through a major blood distribution organ or a large blood-processing organ, rapidity of physiological incapacitation will be dependent on the rate and volume of blood loss, as well as the offender's individual tolerance for blood loss.

A bullet that hits an arm or leg only may be enough to force an offender to decide to voluntarily give-up. Hits to the head and neck that don’t produce damage to, or disruption of, central nervous system (CNS) structures or major blood vessels should be analyzed also.

Rapid incapacitation resulting from an extremity wound(s) only is unequivocally psychological in nature, but it is important to keep track of such events because they might indicate how often psychological incapacitation occurs in the real world.



The short answer is it depends...

Clearly, caliber is only one factor. Where and how deep it penetrates is also important. A .22 can kill, can incapacitate immediately, or scare a victim to death (more or less). Placement and penetration matter most, it seems.

Obviously, bigger is better, but not everyone wants to or can carry a hand cannon.

BTW, a near miss is a near miss, regardless if the hole made is .22 or .45, doncha think?
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 10:47:17 AM EDT
>>Very cute try, now lets take the entire paragraph in context.<<
Doesn't have to be looked at in it's entirety unless the context changes, and it doesn't. ALL handgun rounds are poor stoppers, adn the ability to use the gun is of far more importance than the caliber is. In fact, in the overall scheme of the gunfight, caliber is quite likely the least important thing to worry about.
>>Again very cute, nothing being said about the size of ones gun, {obvious reference to PENIS size} caliber is the topic.
Given the context of the discussion, and the fact that caliber is the topic, I felt it was obvious that "big" would refere to caliber, not weapon size. I would suggest that if yo are concerned about PENIS size, this really isn't the right forum.
>>No I would not feel secure with a .22, it's simply not the best tool for the job.<<
True, but "best" wasn't the question, it was "smallest."
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 2:45:10 PM EDT

Originally Posted By darm441
>>Very cute try, now lets take the entire paragraph in context.<<
Doesn't have to be looked at in it's entirety unless the context changes, and it doesn't. ALL handgun rounds are poor stoppers, adn the ability to use the gun is of far more importance than the caliber is. In fact, in the overall scheme of the gunfight, caliber is quite likely the least important thing to worry about.
>>Again very cute, nothing being said about the size of ones gun, {obvious reference to PENIS size} caliber is the topic.
Given the context of the discussion, and the fact that caliber is the topic, I felt it was obvious that "big" would refere to caliber, not weapon size. I would suggest that if yo are concerned about PENIS size, this really isn't the right forum.
>>No I would not feel secure with a .22, it's simply not the best tool for the job.<<
True, but "best" wasn't the question, it was "smallest."



darm441, could you have made that any harder to read? You may also notice the "Spell Check" option when you reply. It allows for spelling corrections and grammar suggestions.


As to qwkrw's original question:


Originally Posted By qwkdrw:
What is the smallest caliber you would consider using for a carry gun?

I was looking at a .32 h&r mag, but I have some concerns as far as stopping power.

Any opinions would be appreciated.

Thanks
QWK




Now I know that he's asking for opinion's and that he has concerns as to the "stopping power" of calibers in the .32H&R magnum range.

It is held in the Professional community that the 9mm/.38 special class of handgun cartridges are the minimum acceptable for reliable self defense use. It is also held that the current premium JHP designs in +P and +P+ are the best self defense performers in these calibers.

It is also held that lesser calibers are not a good choice for self defense as they have proven to NOT deliver reliable stopping power.
The ..25 acp and the .22 short being the worst.

You would have us believe that the .22 short is perfectly adequate for self defense as you apparently don't believe in "Stopping Power".

continued:
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 3:31:08 PM EDT
[Last Edit: 5/18/2002 3:45:34 PM EDT by SGB]

Originally Posted By darm441:
If you will do your part, a .22 is fine. Lots of nice .32s out there these days designed for CCW. I wouldn't worry too much about the whole stopping power mess.



First I would note that firearms like all other products are marketed to SELL. And the fact that they are marketed towards a particular application does not necessitate that they are adequate for the intended purpose.

The goal of self defense is to STOP all aggressive activity from your assailant in that he/she can no longer cause you bodily harm. You want to STOP them, should they live or die at this point is unimportant. This requires that a bullet be placed into the vital organs with as much trauma as possible.

Granted should your superman reflex's and unshakable nerve allow you to place that .22 with the surgical precision necessary to instantly incapacitate your assailant in the midst of an adrenaline induced fight or flight response, then the .22 is fine.

However, I'm not superman but merely mortal. Combat or the reality of impending combat with its adrenaline rush, increased heart rate, accelerated breathing and narrowed focus affects my motor functions. Because of this I prefer the larger caliber to assist in making up for my potential shortcomings in the surgical application of bullet placement.

After all choosing a CCW weapon and caliber is a choice you may very well be betting your LIFE on.


Given the context of the discussion, and the fact that caliber is the topic, I felt it was obvious that "big" would refere to caliber, not weapon size.


You can crawfish all you like but your meaning was perfectly clear...this is what you said.

If your sense of security is based on how big your gun is, you're probably not really secure.


and as to...


I would suggest that if yo are concerned about PENIS size, this really isn't the right forum


You are quit right, should you wish to discuss your shortcomings in this area feel free to e- mail me. I don't know if I can help, but I'm willing to listen.
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 8:16:19 PM EDT
.22 Magnum in a NAA mini-revolver.


(in my Speedos of course!)

Link Posted: 5/18/2002 10:09:51 PM EDT
>>darm441, could you have made that any harder to read? You may also notice the "Spell Check" option when you reply. It allows for spelling corrections and grammar suggestions.<<
I notice that you manage to read it, so it must not be very hard. And yes, I have noticed the spell check option, but with my old computer and slow dial-up connection, it frequently takes an inordinately long time for the check to complete.
>>You would have us believe that the .22 short is perfectly adequate for self defense as you apparently don't believe in "Stopping Power".<<
I don't believe anything is "perfectly" adequate for self defense, including the .45. And no place have I said that I don't believe in "stopping power". What I have said is that caliber is the least important element of the gunfight, or if you prefer, caliber is the least important component in stopping someone. My statement is simple and easily verified--a .22 will do fine if you do your part. You made the rather assinine comment that it would do "just as long as you face nothing worse than an enraged rodent" which is incorrect and a false representation of the facts.
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 10:24:30 PM EDT
>>The goal of self defense is to STOP all aggressive activity from your assailant in that he/she can no longer cause you bodily harm. You want to STOP them, should they live or die at this point is unimportant. This requires that a bullet be placed into the vital organs with as much trauma as possible.<<
That is one school of thought. Others disagree with that beleif, and propose that other methods are best at stopping the opponent. What most schools of thought agree with is that no handgun can be reliably counted on to do it.
>>Because of this I prefer the larger caliber to assist in making up for my potential shortcomings in the surgical application of bullet placement.<<
As I said earlier, if you can't do it with a small caliber, what makes you think you can do it with a large caliber? Given that a .22 is one of the easiest calibers to shoot accurately, why do you think you'll do better with another? As DScott pointed out, placement and penetration are what matter. However, if you feel inadequate, and carrying a big caliber makes you feel better, by all means carry it. Just don't delude yourself into thinking it is going to matter.
>>You can crawfish all you like but your meaning was perfectly clear...this is what you said.<<
No crawfishing, I know exactly what I said. If you chose to interpret it in a manner that is inconsistent with the discussion, that is your problem, not mine.
>>You are quit right, should you wish to discuss your shortcomings in this area feel free to e- mail me. I don't know if I can help, but I'm willing to listen.<<
Please, now, you're the one that brought the issue up, so apparently you have this strange urge to discuss penises when it is of no relevance to the topic. I'm certainly not going to call you to talk about the topic, as I don't swing that way at all. Nothing wrong with your being that way, of course, but it just isn't my bag.
Link Posted: 5/18/2002 11:47:36 PM EDT

Others disagree with that beleif, and propose that other methods are best at stopping the opponent.


And these people would be.........who?


What most schools of thought agree with is that no handgun can be reliably counted on to do it.


And those schools would be.........?


As I said earlier, if you can't do it with a small caliber, what makes you think you can do it with a large caliber? Given that a .22 is one of the easiest calibers to shoot accurately, why do you think you'll do better with another?


I shoot my .45acp Colt as accurately as I shoot my .22lr Browning. The .45 was designed for combat and the .22 was designed for targets. I match the proper tool to the job.


I don't believe anything is "perfectly" adequate for self defense


but then again you say.......


If you will do your part, a .22 is fine


So which is it?


As DScott pointed out, placement and penetration are what matter


And you think that a .22 will supply adequate penetration to get the job done?


And no place have I said that I don't believe in "stopping power".


I wouldn't worry too much about the whole stopping power mess


Which is it?


However, if you feel inadequate, and carrying a big caliber makes you feel better, by all means carry it. Just don't delude yourself into thinking it is going to matter.


Well I'll let you in on a little secret, I feel very adequate with my 1911 in .45acp. And I'll continue to delude myself that men like Cooper and Keith know more about this subject than you.

You can crawfish all you like but your meaning was perfectly clear...this is what you said.


If your sense of security is based on how big your gun is, you're probably not really secure.



No crawfishing, I know exactly what I said. If you chose to interpret it in a manner that is inconsistent with the discussion, that is your problem, not mine.


You can try and explain it any way you want, it still reads the way you intended it to. As a veiled attack against my manhood.


Please, now, you're the one that brought the issue up, so apparently you have this strange urge to discuss penises when it is of no relevance to the topic. I'm certainly not going to call you to talk about the topic, as I don't swing that way at all. Nothing wrong with your being that way, of course, but it just isn't my bag.


You really should try and pay attention to the smilies, they denote certain things that add meaning to the typed words appearing here.
= SmartAss, denotes my attempt at levity. Obviously you either missed it or your just an ASS.

Ps..... have a nice day

Link Posted: 5/19/2002 3:36:19 AM EDT
Well, it's time to settle this whole issue of smallest and largest caliber once and for all.

IMHO, the one that you shoot the best is the best size, I would not go below that but I would consider shooting a caliber above that to see if I were as accurate as with the smaller.

One big exception to the rule involves the 45acp.There has been a urban legend of sorts that acp stands for automatic cartridge pistol.

Wrong

Actually, it was a quote from your youth, and most likely familar to each and every one of you. It means

A Clean Plate. The cartridege simply swept all other aside and left them choking in it's dust.

It's unknown how the automatic pistol stuff got associated with acp since evry one knows the proper thing to shoot a 45acp with is a revolver and moon clips. That's how we got that other great phrase, "Shoot the Moon".

Link Posted: 5/19/2002 9:18:03 AM EDT
Not exactly all conclusive but this should give a fair idea of the masses.......

Opinion Poll

All Forums • General Firearm Discussion • CCW - Take the Poll, What Caliber do you carry.
Topic Poll

What caliber do you carry 90% of the time?
.22/.25 : 0%
.32/.380 : 5%
9mm/.38 : 26%
.357mag/.357sig : 5%
.40/.44/.45 : 64%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
58 Total Votes


Link Posted: 5/19/2002 9:48:14 AM EDT
>>And these people would be.........who?<<
That is the whole basis of the big split between the two groups affectionately known as "Jello Junkies" and Morgue Monsters," also commonly referred to as the Facklerites and the M&S crowd. A third group (see the Calibers website) argues that we don't have enough valid data to be able to make any factual statements concerning the relationship between caliber, human beings, and terminal ballistic effects.
>>And those schools would be.........?<<
Everybody that I'm aware of, including such notables as Cooper, Farnam, Ayoob, Taylor, Smith, DuVernay, Miller, and so on. If you can find anybody in the field who will go on record as advocating that any common handgun round is a good man-stopper, I'd sure like to see it.
>>The .45 was designed for combat and the .22 was designed for targets.<<
Again, your lack of knowledge is showing. The .22 was specifically designed as a self-defense round and used extensively for that in its early years.
>>---------------------------------------------
I don't believe anything is "perfectly" adequate for self defense
------------------------------------------------

but then again you say.......

----------------------------------------------
If you will do your part, a .22 is fine
-----------------------------------------------

So which is it?<<
Both. The two are not mutually exclusive. If you do your part, the .22 is just fine, but it, along with every other caliber, cannot be considered perfectly adequate for self defense. The term perfectly indicates that it will never fail in its task. We use handguns because they are an excellent compromise for self-defense concerns, not because they provide a perfect solution.
>>And you think that a .22 will supply adequate penetration to get the job done?<<
Just like other handgun calibers, sometimes it will, sometimes it won't.
>>----------------------------------------------
And no place have I said that I don't believe in "stopping power".
------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------
I wouldn't worry too much about the whole stopping power mess
------------------------------------------------

Which is it?<<
Once again, the two are not mutually exclusive. In fact, the two statements involve very different concepts.
>>Well I'll let you in on a little secret, I feel very adequate with my 1911 in .45acp.<<
That's great. Like I said, if you feel that you aren't good enough to do the job with a smaller caliber, and it takes a big caliber for you to feel adequate, by all means carry the big caliber. As I said, in a gunfight caliber is probably the least important factor.
>>You can try and explain it any way you want, it still reads the way you intended it to. As a veiled attack against my manhood.<<
There you go again, trying to bring your penis into the discussion. Forget it, I'm not interested, and I doubt that others care much about it either.
>>You really should try and pay attention to the smilies, they denote certain things that add meaning to the typed words appearing here.<<
Your meaning was quite clear, you wanted to discuss your penis and have me talk to you about mine. I'll pass, thank you.
Link Posted: 5/19/2002 9:55:21 AM EDT
>>What caliber do you carry 90% of the time?<<
Intersting that you chose to link the .40 with the .45, instead of its closer relation the 9mm. Afraid to see if your vaunted .45 ACP can stand on its own??
Link Posted: 5/19/2002 10:10:16 AM EDT
Ok, I give in. darm441 you are the man. I am totally humbled by your prowess of wit, knowledge of firearms and lack of ability or willingness to use the spell check. I stand in awe of your awful formatting abilities. As well as your total lack of humor.

You sir are the definitive GODof self defense, please allow me forgiveness for having offended you.

Link Posted: 5/19/2002 8:03:23 PM EDT
Well, I'm glad we got all that cleared up.
Link Posted: 5/19/2002 10:06:29 PM EDT
>>You sir are the definitive GOD of self defense, please allow me forgiveness for having offended you.<<
I make no claims to godhood or unusual expertise, and you didn't offend me at all. You made a statements that were incorrect according to the facts, I felt that they should be corrected.
Link Posted: 5/20/2002 6:05:29 PM EDT
Ok, for those who may be interested...

Topic - CCW - Take the Poll, What Caliber do you carry.

Question - For those of you that actively carry a concealed handgun during the course of every day life. What is the Caliber that you carry 90% of the time.





What caliber do you carry 90% of the time?
.22/.25 : 2%
.32/.380 : 4%
9mm/.38 : 25%
.357mag/.357sig : 4%
.40/.44/.45 : 65%

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
162 Total Votes

Of the 162 that answered the poll 94% chose the 9mm/.38's and larger calibers for defense.

YMMV You decide ......

Bad Darm, Bad Bad Bad Darm

Link Posted: 5/20/2002 10:06:54 PM EDT
>>Bad Darm, Bad Bad Bad Darm<<
Bad poll, bad bad bad poll. First, it has no validity and probably no reliability. Second, it has nothing to do with the topic of this thread. Third, the parameters of the poll itself make no sense at all. And far from reflecting the "masses" it at best reflects a narrow and unrepresentative group.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 3:43:21 AM EDT
Darm

You are a Troll and you have never met an opinion that you liked.

Oopps, wrong.

you have never been introduced to an opinion that you liked.

I've tried to leave lot's of room between each line for you to respond in. And please, try to use quoting correctly so that someone can read your responses and get a good chuckle. Right now, the punch line gets lost in the clutter.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 4:08:58 AM EDT
OK, guys. I think that's enough of the insulting stuff. Let's focus, please, on the subject, and realize that everybody has their own opinion.

Back to your neutral corners! I don't want to try out my "lock" button, yet. There is plenty of room in this thread for everyone.
Link Posted: 5/21/2002 9:41:09 AM EDT
>>You are a Troll and you have never met an opinion that you liked.<<
Excellent, When faced with facts and reality that you cannot logically respond to, you resort to attacking and insulting the individual. You would be far better off trying to respond to the topic instead of resorting to personal attack and insult. And there are many opinions and idea that I have liked, and do like. I fail to see how my failing to agree with every bit of nonsense posted by every person out there, or asking people to justify silly statements makes me a troll.
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 8:37:36 AM EDT
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 12:41:24 PM EDT
>>Is there ANY part of this statement that is unclear?<<
No, the statement is quite clear. What is not clear to me is why you think my follow up post is in that vein. It is not personally insulting, it makes the same point Ken did (that the previous post did not address the topic) and it agrees with his point that one should focus on the subject, not the individual. So I am confused as to why you would think it to be a problem post.
Link Posted: 5/22/2002 9:24:40 PM EDT
Top Top