# The Little Red Hen-Modern version



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

Here is a great forward I got.

Once upon a time, on a farm in Texas, there was a little red hen
who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered quite a few
grains of wheat.

She called all of her neighbors together and said, "If we plant this 
wheat, we shall have bread to eat. Who will help me plant it?"

"Not I," said the cow.

"Not I," said the duck.

"Not I," said the pig.

"Not I," said the goose.

"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen. And so she did;
The wheat grew very tall and ripened into golden grain.

"Who will help me reap my wheat?" asked the little red hen.

"Not I," said the duck.

"Out of my classification," said the pig.

"I'd lose my seniority," said the cow.

"I'd lose my unemployment compensation," said the goose.

"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen, and so she did.
At last it came time to bake the bread.

"Who will help me bake the bread! ?" asked the little red hen.

"That would be overtime for me," said the cow.

"I'd lose my welfare benefits," said the duck.

"I'm a dropout and never learned how," said the pig.

"If I'm to be the only helper, that's discrimination," said the goose.

"Then I will do it by myself," said the little red hen. She baked five
loaves and held them up for all of her neighbors to see. They 
wanted some and, in fact, demanded a share. But the little red hen 
said, "No, I shall eat all five loaves."

"Excess profits!" cried the cow.

"Capitalist leech!" screamed the duck.

"I demand equal rights!" yelled the goose.

The pig just grunted in disdain.

And they all painted "Unfair!" picket signs and marched around and
around the little red hen, shouting obscenities.

Then a government agent came, he said to the little red hen, "You 
must not be so greedy."

"But I earned the bread," said the little red hen.

"Exactly," said the agent. "That is what makes our free enterprise 
system so wonderful. Anyone in the barnyard can earn as much as 
he wants. But under our modern government regulations, the 
productive workers must divide the fruits of their labor with those 
who are lazy and idle,"

And they all lived happily ever after, including the little red hen, who
smiled and clucked, "I am grateful, for now I truly understand,"

But her neighbors became quite disappointed in her. She never again 
baked bread because she joined the "party" and got her bread free.

And all the Democrats smiled. 'Fairness' had been established.
Individual initiative had died, but nobody noticed; perhaps no one 
cared....as long as there was free bread that "the rich" were 
paying for.

Bill Clinton is getting $12 million for his memoirs.

Hillary got $8 million for hers.

That's $20 million for memories from two people, who for eight years,
repeatedly testified, under oath, that they couldn't remember anything.
[/quote]


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Makes me wonder if Bush will claim that he worked on the "best information he had" when he writes his autobiography and screws up that story too?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Makes me wonder if Bush will claim that he worked on the "best information he had" when he writes his autobiography and screws up that story too?


I get a kick out of how you never let reality get in the way of "your facts". No matter how hard you hope MT you will not be able to make reality change to fit your imagination. Have you ever considered writing children's fairy tales when you grow up?


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Makes me wonder if Bush will claim that he worked on the "best information he had" when he writes his autobiography and screws up that story too?


MT, somehow I don't believe you would make a pimple on President Bush's A$$. 8)


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Makes me wonder how this president will be remembered. Can they just omit a worthless president from the history books?


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Makes me wonder how this president will be remembered. Can they just omit a worthless president from the history books?


No, If they could you favorite.........Clintons would be omitted. They also keep this info in your FACE so when you are old enough to vote someday you will be INFORMED so maybe if your smart enough you won't make the same misstake. But we all know that you will.....with your moronic approach to any subject; that's why it's so important that the majority rules agaist MORONS. :beer:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Considering how many democrats have been elected in the past 50 years, I wouldn't go calling the minority idiots so quickly.


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Considering how many democrats have been elected in the past 50 years, I wouldn't go calling the minority idiots so quickly.


If all the people with IQ's above 127 voted against all others who would win?.......... :eyeroll: as you say:


> I wouldn't go calling the minority idiots so quickly


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Generally liberals are better educated than conservatives, so I'm really not certain what you are getting at.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

Once again ABBK can't debate without calling people names again...... :eyeroll:


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

ABBK,

Although I hardly ever agree with MT and I do think he does tend to "spin" things a bit....I dont think you want to go comparing IQ's with the guy. I do think you would have the short end of the stick on that deal.....


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

Jiffy said:


> ABBK,
> 
> Although I hardly ever agree with MT and I do think he does tend to "spin" things a bit....I dont think you want to go comparing IQ's with the guy. I do think you would have the short end of the stick on that deal.....


Yea your right, he's much smarter than me, and all the liberals are so highly educated, :eyeroll: were do they get the money for all this education? You can't get a rock to suck in water :wink:


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

> he's much smarter than me


That should be: "he's much smarter than I.." dont worry about it....nobody is keeping track. :wink:



> You can't get a rock to suck in water


Yeah, actually you can. Grind it up into sand. Dont worry I get what you are saying. It is just a weak statement....thats all.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> I dont think you want to go comparing IQ's with the guy


Really....... take any of a couple sentences from his posts, high light them and throw into a google search and you will find what he said is nothing but cut and paste, almost to the extent of 100% with very few of his own words. Doesn't take much of a IQ for that now does it. Cut and paste to support or explain a opinion is one thing and acceptable but cut and paste to fool some into thinking his IQ is high......well, guess it does work on some. Oh, don't bother to call him on it as he has two excuses memorized.... "I just skimmed over it" or "I just woke up so I'll read it again".


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Considering the fact that I do not cut and paste any of my posts unless cited and quoted, that is quite a compliment.

Your conspiracy theories get less and less believable with each day Gohon.


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

Gohon, go take a few more high blood pressure pills....I do think you may need them!!

If anybody was going to "sway" me to go more liberal....it would be you!!!


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Makes me wonder if Bush will claim that he worked on the "best information he had" when he writes his autobiography and screws up that story too?


That was way off the subject and we suckered for it.

Back to the subject. Flashboomsplash, I have seen this same thing, only about an industrious grasshopper. It fits the working class (conservative) and the liberal attitude perfectly. I don't think MT wanted to go down the path of what this meant so threw in a hate Bush distraction. Nice try MT. So how does everyone else see this parallel story?


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Seemed like a chain letter story, I didn't feel too bad throwing it off topic. If this is evidence of my conspiracy to throw meaningful discussion off topic I think you should put your tin foil hat on.


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

Ah yes, the diversionary tactics of the liberals. Is it not somewhat like the "blind subordination" of the extreme right wing conservative??? You all make me laugh!!!

Plainsman, you are a very intelligent and diplomatic man. You are also a great moderator. Good job on getting this thread back on topic. I don't believe you are so blind as to not see the trees through the forest. However, there are some on this site that are&#8230;.YOU know who I am talking about!!!

As far as "seeing a parallel"&#8230;..I'll let all you "old women" discuss that. :wink: :wink: :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> I didn't feel too bad throwing it off topic.


To take the subject a step further: I see on many threads you begin your rebutal with "it's sad". For example on the Mistakes in Iraq you say:


> It is rather sad to see people with so much love for a country


I find it sad that you plan on being a looser in the future. I say this because you support the causes of the lazy as depicted by the farm animals that want to do no work, but reap the benefits of the little red hen's success. Why don't you decide today to be a success and forget feathering your future welfare nest. Your parents will not be with you forever, but I think you have enough intelligence to take care of yourself.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Where did you ever get the idea that I plan on living home beyond college, or that I seek/will seek welfare? Said assumptions are wrong, unfounded and unrelated.

By the way, beautiful cherry picking on the second quote. Changes the meaning entirely.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

No problem Jiffy...... I don't think anyone really cares which way you sway in life. And it is sway me to be more liberal, not sway me to go more liberal, Mr. IQ.


----------



## FlashBoomSplash (Aug 26, 2005)

I just love to see all the liberals try to twist things around even with a forward. Man you guys are really digging now. MT you have the hardest time staying on topic. We could start a topic about baseball and you would turn it into a WMD debate so sad. Well I am going goose hunting Later.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> By the way, beautiful cherry picking on the second quote. Changes the meaning entirely.


There you go trying to divert a subject again. I wasn't looking for any meaning to the quote. simply that you like to say "it's sad". It's sad you can't understand anything.

Back on subject, I think you were the goose in the story.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I see, so you can misquote me but when I call you on it I am to blame for bringing it up. Your logic is rather... illogical.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> I see, so you can misquote me but when I call you on it I am to blame for bringing it up. Your logic is rather... illogical.


I didn't misquote you silly boy, I was simply looking at one part. How dense can you get. Whine whine whine.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

By the way MT, I thought you were pulling an all nighter Friday night and fishing Saturday. How did it go?
To me it looks like you spent the week-end here.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> didn't misquote you silly boy, I was simply looking at one part. How dense can you get. Whine whine whine.


That is called misquoting. You cherry picked one part of the statement to make it seem anti-American. A low practice to say the least.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Would you have felt better if I had quoted only "it's rather sad"? I didn't even pay any attention to the rest of the quote, but then you are just looking for something to whine about aren't you. What is that other thread you started again? Something about conservatives are whiners as children. I think Bobm says you will be conservative in a few years. Maybe, who knows. I think you whine to much to ever become independent enough to be a conservative.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I just find it unusual that you quoted just enough to make the statement look like a full, unAmerican sentence. If you want to play dirty so be it, but I'm going to point it out.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

The quote didn't have a period behind it, it didn't state that anyone was talking about America. It was obvious to anyone that it was incomplete. Face it you're a whiner. You haven't changed since you whined "my people faced greater atrocities than the Jews, but history has forgotten us". Perhaps that is the base for your anti semantic attitude. Your jealous because they get more sympathy.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

You misquoted on purpose, and refuse to face the music. Childish certainly, but if that is the way you gain support so be it.


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

For somebody who's name conjures up connotations of animated charaters&#8230;.Little Gohon seems to be rather touché. May I suggest a name change&#8230;. :lol:


----------



## T3|-| F7U&gt;&lt; C4P4C41 (Mar 22, 2006)

FlashBoomSplash, that was great! Two thumbs up!!! Thanks for sharing :beer:


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Jiffy said:


> Ah yes, the diversionary tactics of the liberals. Is it not somewhat like the "blind subordination" of the extreme right wing conservative??? You all make me laugh!!!


The "diversionary tactics" of the liberals is easily seen. "Blind subordination" is a term used by liberals for the lack of understanding of why some people have such strong beliefs and refuse to fold to their tactics.

It cracks me up that liberals think they are better educated than conservatives. Take a look at the states that are blue and those that are red. Then take a look at education rating of these states (ND for instance). You could also look at the number of college graduates per capita. Liberals like to consider themselves refined above others, but it's this attitude that that really shows their lack of intelligence.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Jiffy go play in your sand box and stop trying to pick a fight here. Gohon is the Japanese word for Rice or Food and one of those is my last name. "Conjures up connotations of animated charaters" my ***. You ever thought about what the word Jiffy brings to mind........... are you creamy, smooth, chunky, or nutty....... now that is touché and correctly used.

You jump in and question ABBK's IQ when you yourself couldn't even constructed the sentence properly that you used to criticize him with. Then you try to cut me down and can't even spell the word character correctly. Ever heard that old saying about people living in glass houses? Just in case you don't really get it, when someone calls a statement stupid or even moronic, that is not calling that person stupid but only the statement stupid. Even very intelligent people make stupid comments on occasions. Albert Einstein was known for doing that very thing. You're starting to whine as much as mt so what do you say we just get off the subject and back to the topic at hand..


----------



## T3|-| F7U&gt;&lt; C4P4C41 (Mar 22, 2006)

Gohon! :beer:


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

:lol: Gohon is Japanese for something alright.....heartattack!!! :lol:

Your too funny....alright, I messed with you enough. Have at it old ladies.... :wink:


----------



## R y a n (Apr 4, 2005)

Plainsman said:


> By the way MT, I thought you were pulling an all nighter Friday night and fishing Saturday. How did it go?
> To me it looks like you spent the week-end here.


I was wondering if anyone else was going to remember that.... Go look at all the timestamps of MT's posts over the weekend. Tell us MT... did you have wireless access out on the trout stream?

Or are more than one person using the same login to continually SPAM this group?

Do tell...

Ryan

.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

> By the way MT, I thought you were pulling an all nighter Friday night and fishing Saturday. How did it go?
> To me it looks like you spent the week-end here.


MT. How about an answer..................
Or at least give us your :bs: spin :eyeroll: 
Would you know a trout if you caught one????????????
oke: :toofunny: :idiot: :box: :stirpot:

Love you little buddy,

Old Zoggy


----------



## SlipperySam (Jan 17, 2006)

I hate to defend MT on this issue but the weather kinda sucked Friday night/Saturday morning in Michigan. I stayed inside as well. To cold and wet to be chasing trout that won't bite in cold water temps anyway. Not to mention trout season is closed on most rivers. Steelhead are running though.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

I told Sotaman about it, I just dislike many of you and I don't feel like sharing my personal stories with you as such. I recall plainsman refusing to send me a picture of his truck and tire which he supposedly ruined with 7 1/2 shot at 90 yards. If I recall correctly his words went something like "I dont have to prove anything to you". Frankly I don't care if you think I hunt or fish, it doesn't change the validity of my statements.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

Your statements are :toofunny: oke: NEVER valid.............


----------



## Alaskan Brown Bear Killer (Feb 22, 2005)

FlashBoomSplash said:


> Here is a great forward I got.
> 
> Once upon a time, on a farm in Texas, there was a little red hen
> who scratched about the barnyard until she uncovered quite a few
> ...


[/quote]

Thanks for the POST; somehow a great starting thread always turns out with with someone SPINING it into something centered on them.
Thanks again :beer:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> I told Sotaman about it, I just dislike many of you and I don't feel like sharing my personal stories with you as such. I recall *plainsman refusing to send me a picture of his truck *and tire which he supposedly ruined with 7 1/2 shot at 90 yards. If I recall correctly his words went something like "I dont have to prove anything to you". Frankly I don't care if you think I hunt or fish, it doesn't change the validity of my statements.


It wasn't a truck MT it was a little Mazda GLC and the picture has been on this site for over a month. Just after your little tirade where you called me a liar several times. Oh, and I never made any statement about 90 yards. Anyone can look that up. Your credibility deserves to be in the dumper. You also PM'ed me some very erroneous ballistics data and I had to point out to you that the pellets at impact still were going over 1000 fps. MT it will be a cold day in you know where when you teach me about ballistics.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

You refused to send the picture to me, whether you posted it here or not I don't know. I have been called a liar in this situation as well, perhaps not directly but a rose smells just a sweet by any other name.

As to 90 yards, that was what I remember, if you said 70 so be it, the claim still sounds like rubbish to me.


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

MT check out Plainsmans photo gallery.

Not that it really matters but the tire in that picture looks completely intact. It looks as if the paint has been chipped a bit but the tire looks good.

I am no ballistics expert myself but for 7 1/2 shot to blow out a tire at 70 yrds seems a bit steep. If infact that was what was orginally stated. I'm not familar with the conversation.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

That was the claim. By the way, it wouldn't be 1000 fps at 70 yards.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Well, here is my calculation for a 7 1/2 shot with a ballistic coefficient of .09 which is the same as a round ball, or sphere. The lowest weight on my program is 5 grains. Ballistic coefficient controls velocity and rate of velocity loss so it should be accurate.  I had to use the calculator for energy and that is velocity squared times mass, divided by 450240 which gives me 3.3 ft/lb of energy. Here is the velocity:
Range	Drop	Drop	Windage	Windage	Velocity
(yds)	(in)	(moa)	(in)	(moa)	(ft/s)
0	-0.5	***	0.0	***	1420.2
10	0.6	5.7	0.1	0.8	1360.9
20	1.5	7.2	0.3	1.6	1305.2
30	2.2	7.1	0.7	2.3	1253.5
40	2.7	6.5	1.3	3.1	1206.1
50	3.0	5.7	2.1	3.9	1163.1
60	3.0	4.7	3.0	4.7	1124.7
70	2.7	3.6	4.0	5.5	1090.6
80	2.1	2.5	5.2	6.2	1060.5
90	1.2	1.3	6.5	6.9	1033.6
100	-0.0	-0.0	8.0	7.6	1009.5

I don't remember my load, but the powder was Blue Dot with a l 5/8 ounce three inch magnum load. I normally load lower following an old english proverb "little powder much lead shoots far kills dead".

I am not much into shotguns, so someone may want to check this over for accuracy of the data I entered. The velocity looks high to me also, but the only mistake may be in the ballistic coefficient. There is a slight difference in ballistic coefficient of a 50 cal and 45 caliber round ball, so a 7 1/2 shot my be less than the ballistic coefficient I could find. This would reduce my velocity estimation. I remember reading an article in one of my shooting magazines that said a number 8 shot lost half it's velocity at 100 yards.

Edit: Jiffy, it didn't blow the tire out it put in three small holes. I was able to drive 60 miles to Dickinson, North Dakota and buy an inertube.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

To begin with, you're talking 1.5 grains for 7 1/2 shot, not 5.



> I am not much into shotguns, so someone may want to check this over for accuracy of the data I entered.


Nice of you to step back from your statement after defending it to the hilt.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

> To begin with, you're talking 1.5 grains for 7 1/2 shot, not 5.


You must be sleeping, or just skimming again MT I explained that in my post.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

You did cover it, but that means your data is wrong.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

MT, you sure know how to through a post off topic.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Militant_Tiger said:


> You did cover it, but that means your data is wrong.


No, it doesn't mean it is wrong. I used the program for velocity only, because I could not get a light enough weight. Then I used my calculator for the energy. Go back and read it again. I like to play with ballistics, so if you don't understand it I will PM you a more elaborate explanation.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Kinetic Energy = K = 1/2 mv^2, not mv^2.


----------



## zogman (Mar 20, 2002)

MT,

Plainsman shoots more rounds a year out of more different guns than you will ever in your life time. :eyeroll:

If you want to run with the pack :run: Quit pi$$in like a pup :splat:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Robert it has been a long time since I had any math. I don't even recognize your symbols. The formula I used comes out of Lyman's Black Powder Handbook. 
Example a 165 gr bullet out of your 308 is 2700 fps. 
2700 X 2700 = 7,290,000 X 165 = 1,202,850,000 ¸ 450240 = 2671 Gun and Ammo Annual lists Hornady at 2670 that's close. How do you figure it with your formula? It's kind of hard to get new things into this old brain, but does that other formula have an advantage over the one I have used for 20 years? If it does I am interested.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Plainsman,

The formula for kinetic energy that I know is 1/2 x mass x (velocity squared).

Dynamics this semester has been fun, I could go on forever about masses, forces, accelerations, etc.

That is all I was trying to say. Not trying to question your methods. Here is some interesting reading.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballistics

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physics_of_firearms


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Plainsman

I checked it with my Sierra program and an online one that I have used before and it checks out. Ft/lbs = mass x acceleration (Newton's 2nd law). Acceleration = V^2. Conversion being 7000 grains/lb x 2 x 32.17 ft/sec^2 at sea level (gravity) = 450380.

It's been too long since I've done this.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Gotta love google:

I search 450240 to find this:

http://www.pyramidair.com/site/articles/formulas

I see your method now Plainsman.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

Robert

I had to edit my post to explain better. Not easy to type out these formulas on here. :lol: I got to go to bed my head hurts now.

Later.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> To begin with, you're talking 1.5 grains for 7 1/2 shot


No it's not. If you're going to attempt to correct someone then get your facts straight.


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

> No it's not. If you're going to attempt to correct someone then get your facts straight.


Thats what my research shows, have you got another answer?


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

> Thats what my research shows, have you got another answer?


Yep, and 7.5 lead shot does not weigh 1.5 grains. It weighs 1.25 grains as per Lyman shotshell reloading manual. And since you had to research it, that tells me you weren't interested in the formula or experience being described as much as you were looking for some bs crap to argue with. Typical MT bs at work..............


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

So Plainsman's results were even farther off than I thought. Thanks for the backup, even if it was just a 0.25 grain difference.


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> So Plainsman's results were even farther off than I thought. Thanks for the backup, even if it was just a 0.25 grain difference.


You didn't get any back up. 1.5 is your figure........... Plainsman's never said what he used for a actual weight of the shot. "farther off than I thought" my ***. Don't you ever get tired of being proven to be the little boy you are so desperate to not be. Poor baby............. :lol:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

Plainsman said


> The lowest weight on my program is 5 grains.


Gohon said


> Plainsman's never said what he used for a actual weight of the shot.


----------



## always_outdoors (Dec 17, 2002)

:beer:


----------



## T3|-| F7U&gt;&lt; C4P4C41 (Mar 22, 2006)

:rollin:


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

:toofunny:


----------



## Gohon (Feb 14, 2005)

Militant_Tiger said:


> Plainsman said
> 
> 
> > The lowest weight on my program is 5 grains.
> ...


What part of "The lowest weight on my program is 5 grains. Ballistic coefficient controls velocity and rate of velocity loss so it should be accurate" is it that is going over your head. He said *HIS PROGRAM only went to down to 5 grains*. I guess his clarification of his use of a calculator went over your head also. You three yoyo's ought to just get a motel room together and get it over with.... :lol: Now which one of you three little boys wants to show where he states what one #7.5 shot pellet weighs?


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

It's not worth arguing over 100 fps much less 10, 20, or 30. Give it even 900 fps and a small diameter, and see what it will penetrate compared to a good .177 caliber air rifle. What would you be willing to sit in front of that? Hey, MT lets try your behind. 
:rollin:


----------



## Militant_Tiger (Feb 23, 2004)

:lol: at gohon

Plainsman, you so crazy.

On a side note, I have attempted to put a hole in an old, old (at least 20 years) tire with a .177 springer that went about 850-900 fps as I recall. Didn't go through at point blank range. Your story is still ridiculous and everyone with even a hint of knowledge about shotguns knows that.


----------



## Robert A. Langager (Feb 22, 2002)

Militant_Tiger said:


> :Your story is still ridiculous and everyone with even a hint of knowledge about shotguns knows that


Not nearly as rediculous as the thread that spawned the story to begin with.


----------



## T3|-| F7U&gt;&lt; C4P4C41 (Mar 22, 2006)

"You three yoyo's ought to just get a motel room together and get it over with.... "

Sorry, I don't molest little boys like Brian J. Doyle. How sick of you to imply that Gohon.


----------



## Longshot (Feb 9, 2004)

MT,

Having read your multiple posts in the rifle and pistol forums I'm surprised you know how to shoot a shotgun. I don't think you have any real experience.

As to the Three Amigos I'd suspect that the emoticons were used in place of intelligent comments to back up their theories.


----------



## T3|-| F7U&gt;&lt; C4P4C41 (Mar 22, 2006)

We fight fire with fire now. However, it should be refered to as immature horseplay instead, or as I'd like to call it, crap.


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

You know I am really ticked at myself for letting this go this far. We said in the past this isn't going to happen anymore. Then I let myself get suckered into this silly argument. Sorry guys. Now it's time to nock it off and move on with something else. Best to let this thread die. Don't make me lock it.


----------



## T3|-| F7U&gt;&lt; C4P4C41 (Mar 22, 2006)

Good to hear someone else here has a level head. :beer:


----------



## dlip (May 16, 2004)

I will now show no mercy in hijacking ANY of MT's topics.


----------



## dlip (May 16, 2004)

MT, honestly, do you have nothing better to do, than argue with people twenty years older than you, about politics? Maybe it's just me who thinks this, but man alive, you don't get much play do you. I've never met a guy, or girl(with a life), who spent this much time slinging non-sense.

Now, back to my previous post, this will be fun giving MT a taste of his own medicine.


----------



## Jiffy (Apr 22, 2005)

How many of you are familar with Pavlov's conditioned response experiment?? I think MT may be the bell and you all may be the dog. He's pushing your buttons guys!!! Cant you see that!! It is WAY to easy to do to some of you. If you truly think he's "full of it"....IGNORE HIM!!!

I happen to think it is quite entertaining...to a point. However, it does get old after a while. I do think some of you LOVE bickering with him....please!! :eyeroll:

As far as taking sides on a ballistics debate.....you'd be a fool not to believe Plainsman. It's amazing what a little :toofunny: placed in the right spot will do. Pavlov's dog guys......Pavlov's dog.......... :wink:

Plainsman, you might as well lock this one. Nothing good is going to come from it.......what was this about again????? :lol: :lol:


----------



## Plainsman (Jul 30, 2003)

Good advise there Jiffy, and I took it. Thanks.


----------

