When I came back to base camp, I was issued a M-14. (Both these
were "sleep-ins".

Seriously, they GAVE me a weapon. I asked about signing for it and they
didn't understand
what I meant so I said slightly bowed my head, said"thank you" and went
back to the compound and test fired it. Oh my, oh, me, >oh my.

I'm just going to stick the pic at the end of a web page (bottom right)
and you'll see what I mean. Flak vest? I'm sitting on it.

uT0g.6081$kg.308@news02.roc.ny>
Lines: 69
X-Trace: sv3-nQJLUriv+6HWj8HaBu08hLiSEDd6OYtndSjMGbSdN3Ytza+lJFjMMSjL4qexrM6vGblWhjDbOMDclHu!RLtMYOzsWEEF5PFgX6c8VaLf0zccwBjLjD895EOii6XwpJYKgeIEAMRE3CwOy1zBnstCYxcdhRaj!/aJGGw==
X-Complaints-To:

"Gray Shockley" <

I'm reasonably sure that the A2 still had the forward assist but, I could
be
wong, I've never seen one although I think - from what I'd been told -
that
the A2 was an improvement.

The A2 is the only variant I've handled with authority but it had one. I
don't recall ever using it, though; it's the part of the rifle that the
government approves banging on if something seems to be wrong.

I'm more into using bullet launchers that I own (the trinity of handgun,
rifle and shotgun) but I would dearly to fire an A2 for thirty or forty
rounds on "burst".

Q: What is the purpose of "Auto"?
A: To run out of ammunition when one really needs it.

Q: What is the purpose of "3-rd burst"?
A: "To kill the enemy and break their toys"


I had a Platoon Sergeant that thought I was a fair-headed child unltil he
found out - much to his dismay - that I wasn't a racist & that I was a better
mech than he was. Anyway, he would, occasionally, do something to try and get
me killed.

I was out on det my first 4 or so months there and had made friends with the
Supply Sergeant and he issued me (Signal Corps) a M-79 and 12 rounds of he +
12 canister. When I came back to base camp, I was issued a M-14. (Both these
were "sleep-ins".

I got sent up to Darlac Province to (are you ready for this?) be an advisor
to the advisors in MAC-V. My PSG had very specifically ordered me not to take
along my bang-bang because I "would be issued a weapon" from the unit to
which I would be attached.

So I was processing in and told the SupGuy that I needed a weapon. He looked
at me as if I were crazy (actually, he joined a crowd) and asked, "Why in the
(naughty word) didn't you bring one?" I told him why & he just shrugged his
shoulders and told me they didn't have one single bullet launcher that wasn't
signed out and suggested I go over to the ARVN camp. No go. They sent me over
to - and I had never even heard of them - a group of "Rural Forces, Popular
Forces" aka "RFPF" aka "Ruff-Puff" and they gave me a weapon. Seriously, they
GAVE me a weapon. I asked about signing for it and they didn't understand
what I meant so I said slightly bowed my head, said"thank you" and went back
to the compound and test fired it. Oh my, oh, me, oh my.


I'll illustrate just how funny this is, in retrospect; I wasn't overly amused
at the time.

I'm just going to stick the pic at the end of a web page (bottom right) and
you'll see what I mean. Flak vest? I'm sitting on it.

Q: What is the purpose of "Auto"?
A: To run out of ammunition when one really needs it.

Q: What is the purpose of "3-rd burst"?
A: "To kill the enemy and break their toys"

I had a Platoon Sergeant that thought I was a fair-headed child unltil he
found out - much to his dismay - that I wasn't a racist & that I was a better
mech than he was. Anyway, he would, occasionally, do something to try and get
me killed.

I was out on det my first 4 or so months there and had made friends with the
Supply Sergeant and he issued me (Signal Corps) a M-79 and 12 rounds of he +
12 canister. When I came back to base camp, I was issued a M-14. (Both these
were "sleep-ins".

I got sent up to Darlac Province to (are you ready for this?) be an advisor
to the advisors in MAC-V. My PSG had very specifically ordered me not to take
along my bang-bang because I "would be issued a weapon" from the unit to
which I would be attached.

So I was processing in and told the SupGuy that I needed a weapon. He looked
at me as if I were crazy (actually, he joined a crowd) and asked, "Why in the
(naughty word) didn't you bring one?" I told him why & he just shrugged his
shoulders and told me they didn't have one single bullet launcher that wasn't
signed out and suggested I go over to the ARVN camp. No go. They sent me over
to - and I had never even heard of them - a group of "Rural Forces, Popular
Forces" aka "RFPF" aka "Ruff-Puff" and they gave me a weapon. Seriously, they
GAVE me a weapon. I asked about signing for it and they didn't understand
what I meant so I said slightly bowed my head, said"thank you" and went back
to the compound and test fired it. Oh my, oh, me, oh my.


I'll illustrate just how funny this is, in retrospect; I wasn't overly amused
at the time.

I'm just going to stick the pic at the end of a web page (bottom right) and
you'll see what I mean. Flak vest? I'm sitting on it.

Curt wrote:

Just sayin.. you're talking about him like he for sure existed.

And you've really got no evidence that he did.

I don't need to explain the existence of the Bible. It's either a

of the myths of a hill tribe from the Middle East, or it's the Inspired

Of The Lord, or it's somewhere in between.

There is no "historical evidence" about Jesus.

"No direct and first-hand information about Jesus survives.
Information from outside Christian sources is unavailable. One must
therefore rely exclusively on Christian sources. The semi biographical
framework of the gospel stories, however, is the result of the
editorial work of the gospel writers and can therefore not be used for
the reconstruction of the ministry of Jesus. All traditional materials
about Jesus preserved within the framework of the canonical and ([pg
79] some noncanonical gospels have been formed ("inscribed") by the
needs of the communities of Jesus' followers after his death."
[Harvard Professor Helmut Koester. History and Literature of Early
Christianity, Volume 2, Introduction to the New Testament, 2d edition.
(2000), pg. 78-9]
amazon link:
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/3110146924/paganoriginofthe


No NON-CHRISTIAN alive when Jesus lived ever mentions seeing Jesus or
hearing Jesus -- or even hearing about Jesus!
They don't mention the star that heralded His birth.
They don't mention Herod's slaughter of boy babies.
They don't mention crowds gathered to hear Him preach.
They don't mention His trial.
They don't mention His crucifixion.
They don't mention His resurrection.
They never mention anything He said, or anywhere He went, or anything
He thought, or anything He said, or anything He did.

No non-Christian alive when Jesus lived ever mentions Him. Not once.

WHAT ABOUT CHRISTIANS? Neither do they.

Paul, who wrote in the 50s and 60s, does not mention facts about Jesus'
life and ministry. In Paul there is no Mary or Joseph, no trial before
a Roman official, no Jerusalem as the place of His death, no John the
Baptist, no Judas. Paul never mentions any miracles Jesus did. There is
no evidence Paul, (who never met Jesus, who converted not by hearing
stories about Jesus, but in a personal mystic experience) even _knew_
any details of Jesus life outside his crucifixion and resurrection.
Paul's Christ is a mythic godman with no earthly history outside the
crucifixion. Likewise the other early epistles. No mention of the
Galilean Jesus.

As to our Gospels - the surviving four from the dozens of early gospels
-- there is no evidence our modern picked-by-Catholic- priests-in-the-
fourth-century gospels existed before 130 AD. And if our four modern
gospels did exist within 120 years of Jesus' death, there is absolutely
zero evidence they contributed to Christian belief or worship before
130 AD. No Christian writing up through the early first century
mentions our Gospels. They do not quote from them, do not tell any
stories from them, do not recall an miracles from them -- there is no
evidence they knew they existed -- until about 130 AD.

Our Gospel myths about the Galilean Jesus' story were unknown, as far
as the evidence goes, until well into the second century.

There is no contemporary record that Jesus existed. None.

Jesus is not historical. Jesus is a legend.


Dirk Hartog
---------------------
This is the view I have held up to now, though I can modify it if you
disagree; only please give me your reasons if you do. I know I should
bow to your authority, but on an important question like this I would
rather yield to a reasoned argument than to authority alone.
[Pliny the Younger, Letters, 1.20 ]

"No direct and first-hand information about Jesus survives.
Information from outside Christian sources is unavailable. One must
therefore rely exclusively on Christian sources.

Curt wrote:

"rbwinn" <rbwinn3@juno.com> wrote in message
news:1145280425.139111.55400@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...

Curt wrote:

I think that the parents of Judas Iscariot had an entirely

reason for the name they gave their son.

Assuming he existed. For which there is, AFAIK, absolutely no

evidence.

Well, I do not know what you would consider historical evidence.
According to you most people who lived on the earth did not exist
because there was nothing written about them. As far as Jesus Christ
was concerned, more has been written about him than any other person.
How do you explain the existence of the Bible?

Just sayin.. you're talking about him like he for sure existed.

And you've really got no evidence that he did.

I don't need to explain the existence of the Bible. It's either a

of the myths of a hill tribe from the Middle East, or it's the Inspired

Of The Lord, or it's somewhere in between.

Curt

Well, there are some things you would need to explain if you are going
to portray it as a collection of myths. For instance, the book of
Isaiah, book of 1 Chronicles, and the book of 1 Kings all describe the
construction of a conduit for water dug from Gihon Spring through solid
rock to the Pool of Siloam in Jerusalem. The gospels of the New
Testament speak of the pool of Siloam in connection with events in the
life of Christ. How do you explain the fact that writers 700 years
apart wrote accurately about the same thing if they were writing myths?

If you doubt what I say, go to Jerusalem and take the tour. You can
walk through the conduit for water called Hezekiah's tunnel from Gihon
spring to the Pool of Siloam. Educated people of today would have us
believe that most of these so-called myths were written in places far
from Jerusalem, but are nevertheless accurate in their description of
places and events. What do you think happened, they sent researchers
to the Holy Land so that their fiction would match the frame of
reference of Jerusalem?

Well, there are some things you would need to explain if you are going
to portray it as a collection of myths. For instance, the book of
Isaiah, book of 1 Chronicles, and the book of 1 Kings all describe the
construction of a conduit for water dug from Gihon Spring through solid
rock to the Pool of Siloam in Jerusalem. The gospels of the New
Testament speak of the pool of Siloam in connection with events in the
life of Christ. How do you explain the fact that writers 700 years
apart wrote accurately about the same thing if they were writing myths?