http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080815/ts_nm/texas_guns_dc_2
Texas school district to let teachers carry guns

CJ Dunnaway wrote:

>http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080815/ts_nm/texas_guns_dc_2
>Texas school district to let teachers carry guns 

It may give cause for some pupils, and their parents, to think twice
before giving a teacher undue hassle.

"CJ Dunnaway"  wrote in message 
news:uRopk.17931$cW3.14365@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080815/ts_nm/texas_guns_dc_2
> Texas school district to let teachers carry guns

I loved this line
"Texas bars guns at schools without the school's permission."


"Please sir, can I bring my gun with me tomorrow?"
I'd have got bullied a lot less if I'd had a .44 magnum.

"Lachlan - KotU" <hamfish(nospam)@gmail.com> wrote in news:MuudnU_zk-
fyXjvVnZ2dnUVZ8sTinZ2d@posted.plusnet:

> 
> 
> "CJ Dunnaway"  wrote in message 
> news:uRopk.17931$cW3.14365@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com...
>> http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080815/ts_nm/texas_guns_dc_2
>> Texas school district to let teachers carry guns
> 
> I loved this line
> "Texas bars guns at schools without the school's permission."
> 
> 
> "Please sir, can I bring my gun with me tomorrow?"
> I'd have got bullied a lot less if I'd had a .44 magnum. 
> 
> 

I remember Texas bars. I don't think you can get them any more.

-- 
Don’t worry about avoiding temptation as you grow older, it will avoid you.

Winston Churchill

Ariel  wrote:

> CJ Dunnaway wrote:
> 
> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080815/ts_nm/texas_guns_dc_2
> >Texas school district to let teachers carry guns 
> 
> It may give cause for some pupils, and their parents, to think twice
> before giving a teacher undue hassle.

Guns for teachers is ludicrous.

If you're going to send your kids to a school, do you want them in a
place where the teachers are authorised and equipped (as a matter of
routine) to use lethal force against them?

Or would you rather the teachers were allowed to do things the old
fashioned way?  When I was at school, the teachers didn't get much
hassle because they were allowed to hit the kids.  This is problematic
with the bigger ones - but it did mean that the PE staff were allowed to
break up a big fight between the 3rd and 4th years (many of whom were
bigger and stronger than the PE staff) by steaming into the ruck
wiedling hockey sticks.  Better than guns, and it worked.

Rowland.

-- 
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                            Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Lachlan - KotU <hamfish(nospam)@gmail.com> wrote:

> "CJ Dunnaway"  wrote:
> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080815/ts_nm/texas_guns_dc_2
> > Texas school district to let teachers carry guns
> 
> I loved this line
> "Texas bars guns at schools without the school's permission."
> 
> "Please sir, can I bring my gun with me tomorrow?"
> I'd have got bullied a lot less if I'd had a .44 magnum. 

I'd've preferred a saber with the training to use it properly.

If you shoot a .44 magnum in a school as a schoolchild, you'll do two
things: kill anyone the bullet hits, and (probably) break your wrist[1].
Not good.

But if you've got a sword and the training to use it, it is easy to use
the weapon as an effective weapon of defence *without killing*.

Unlike with a gun where most people seem to think you just have to know
how to pull a trigger, it's obvious you've got to have training and
practice to use a sword effectively.

Rowland.

[1]  My dad, a very beefily built chap, fired a .38 magnum (IIRC) on a
target shooting range once, back when handguns were still legal.  He
said it nearly broke *his* wrist - which was a bit of a shock.  You've
got to hold it just so to avoid the problems.

-- 
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                            Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

On 2008-08-16, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> Lachlan - KotU <hamfish(nospam)@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "CJ Dunnaway"  wrote:
>> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080815/ts_nm/texas_guns_dc_2
>> > Texas school district to let teachers carry guns
>> 
>> I loved this line
>> "Texas bars guns at schools without the school's permission."
>> 
>> "Please sir, can I bring my gun with me tomorrow?"
>> I'd have got bullied a lot less if I'd had a .44 magnum. 
>
> I'd've preferred a saber with the training to use it properly.
>
> If you shoot a .44 magnum in a school as a schoolchild, you'll do two
> things: kill anyone the bullet hits, and (probably) break your wrist[1].
> Not good.
>
> But if you've got a sword and the training to use it, it is easy to use
> the weapon as an effective weapon of defence *without killing*.
>
> Unlike with a gun where most people seem to think you just have to know
> how to pull a trigger, it's obvious you've got to have training and
> practice to use a sword effectively.
>
> Rowland.
>
> [1]  My dad, a very beefily built chap, fired a .38 magnum (IIRC) on a
> target shooting range once, back when handguns were still legal.  He
> said it nearly broke *his* wrist - which was a bit of a shock.  You've
> got to hold it just so to avoid the problems.

Even a .22 can raise a bruise on the hand or shoulder.  That strange flap 
on the right shoulder of a traditional trench-coat is to hold padding so 
that firing the .303 rifle doesn't hurt quite so much.

Whatever happened to the quarterstaff?  (Now there's an idea for a 
keep-fit hobby ... <http://www.quarterstaff.org/index.html>).

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

Whiskers  wrote:

[snip]

> Even a .22 can raise a bruise on the hand or shoulder.  That strange flap
> on the right shoulder of a traditional trench-coat is to hold padding so
> that firing the .303 rifle doesn't hurt quite so much.

Ah!

> Whatever happened to the quarterstaff?  (Now there's an idea for a 
> keep-fit hobby ... <http://www.quarterstaff.org/index.html>).

I've long felt that one would need less skill with a sword to scare
people away than one would need with a quarterstaff.

Still, I've often fancied learning to use a long thin stick...

But why does the British Quarterstaff Association only seem to teach
men?  I can understand keeping women out of Morris dancing, but why
this?

Pfft.

Here's a nice photo instead.

<http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Prokudin-Gorskii-12.
jpg>

Rowland.

-- 
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                            Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Rowland McDonnell wrote:

>Ariel  wrote:
>
>> CJ Dunnaway wrote:
>> 
>> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080815/ts_nm/texas_guns_dc_2
>> >Texas school district to let teachers carry guns 
>> 
>> It may give cause for some pupils, and their parents, to think twice
>> before giving a teacher undue hassle.
>
>Guns for teachers is ludicrous.
>
>If you're going to send your kids to a school, do you want them in a
>place where the teachers are authorised and equipped (as a matter of
>routine) to use lethal force against them?
>
>Or would you rather the teachers were allowed to do things the old
>fashioned way?  When I was at school, the teachers didn't get much
>hassle because they were allowed to hit the kids.  This is problematic
>with the bigger ones - but it did mean that the PE staff were allowed to
>break up a big fight between the 3rd and 4th years (many of whom were
>bigger and stronger than the PE staff) by steaming into the ruck
>wiedling hockey sticks.  Better than guns, and it worked.
>
>Rowland.

It may have worked but I don't think that teachers should be allowed
to hit kids and believe, with the fair for all disciplinary measures
now in place, it still works.

Guns for teachers is, as you rightly say, ludicrous (even in America).

(Maybe I shouldn't have been so flippant, in my initial post, on such
a serious subject)

On 2008-08-16, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> Whiskers  wrote:

[...]

>> Whatever happened to the quarterstaff?  (Now there's an idea for a 
>> keep-fit hobby ... <http://www.quarterstaff.org/index.html>).
>
> I've long felt that one would need less skill with a sword to scare
> people away than one would need with a quarterstaff.

There is the tale of Robin Hood meeting one of his men for the first time 
as enemies and the other man was armed with a sword whereas Robin had a 
staff; so Robin allowed him to make a staff of his own before they fought, 
as a staff is so much superior a weapon to a sword.  But that does rather 
prompt one to ask why anyone would bother to have a sword ... 

> Still, I've often fancied learning to use a long thin stick...
>
> But why does the British Quarterstaff Association only seem to teach
> men?  I can understand keeping women out of Morris dancing, but why
> this?
>
> Pfft.

Perhaps the very thought of a woman with a broom-stick who knows how to use
it, is just too scary?  But Xena's sidekick Gabrielle is nifty with a
staff, and she's not scary at all.  For a woman, that is.

> Here's a nice photo instead.
>
> <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Prokudin-Gorskii-12.
> jpg>
>
> Rowland.

He seems to have wasted an awful lot of trees to get his staff (which 
actually looks like bamboo any way).  Good hat, though.

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~

"Rowland McDonnell" <real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet> wrote in message 
news:1ilrt5l.gzqfvwngh33tN%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet...
> Lachlan - KotU <hamfish(nospam)@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "CJ Dunnaway"  wrote:
>> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080815/ts_nm/texas_guns_dc_2
>> > Texas school district to let teachers carry guns
>>
>> I loved this line
>> "Texas bars guns at schools without the school's permission."
>>
>> "Please sir, can I bring my gun with me tomorrow?"
>> I'd have got bullied a lot less if I'd had a .44 magnum.
>
> I'd've preferred a saber with the training to use it properly.
>
> If you shoot a .44 magnum in a school as a schoolchild, you'll do two
> things: kill anyone the bullet hits, and (probably) break your wrist[1].
> Not good.
>

All depends on the load, if you use light JHP bullets with a smaller load, 
you get a LOT less felt recoil, but the .44 caliber, because it's quite a 
wide bullet still has plenty of stopping power.  And fitting a muzzle brake 
helps a lot too.  I almost always had a knife with me at school, not for 
fighting or anything like that, just so I could go straight to the woods 
without needing to head home first.  Quite a lot of the time it was an old 
butcher knife with a 10" blade that I used as a light machete.  And also 
sometimes and air pistol or a black widow catapult with some ammo.  Nowadays 
I would've ended up in the papers.  And they would've mentioned the number 
of miles away from Dunblane, like they always do.

"Whiskers"  wrote in message 
news:slrngaeg4n.b27.catwheezel@ID-107770.user.individual.net...
> On 2008-08-16, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet> 
> wrote:
>> Whiskers  wrote:
>
> [...]
>
>>> Whatever happened to the quarterstaff?  (Now there's an idea for a
>>> keep-fit hobby ... <http://www.quarterstaff.org/index.html>).
>>
>> I've long felt that one would need less skill with a sword to scare
>> people away than one would need with a quarterstaff.
>
> There is the tale of Robin Hood meeting one of his men for the first time
> as enemies and the other man was armed with a sword whereas Robin had a
> staff; so Robin allowed him to make a staff of his own before they fought,
> as a staff is so much superior a weapon to a sword.  But that does rather
> prompt one to ask why anyone would bother to have a sword ...
>
>> Still, I've often fancied learning to use a long thin stick...
>>
>> But why does the British Quarterstaff Association only seem to teach
>> men?  I can understand keeping women out of Morris dancing, but why
>> this?
>>
>> Pfft.
>
> Perhaps the very thought of a woman with a broom-stick who knows how to 
> use
> it, is just too scary?  But Xena's sidekick Gabrielle is nifty with a
> staff, and she's not scary at all.  For a woman, that is.
>
>> Here's a nice photo instead.
>>
>> <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Prokudin-Gorskii-12.
>> jpg>
>>
>> Rowland.
>
> He seems to have wasted an awful lot of trees to get his staff (which
> actually looks like bamboo any way).  Good hat, though.
>
> -- 
> -- ^^^^^^^^^^
> --  Whiskers
> -- ~~~~~~~~~~

you just can't get the staff these days........

On Aug 16, 7:36 pm, Ariel  wrote:
> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
> >Ariel  wrote:
>
> >> CJ Dunnaway wrote:
>
> >> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080815/ts_nm/texas_guns_dc_2
> >> >Texas school district to let teachers carry guns
>
> >> It may give cause for some pupils, and their parents, to think twice
> >> before giving a teacher undue hassle.
>
> >Guns for teachers is ludicrous.
>
> >If you're going to send your kids to a school, do you want them in a
> >place where the teachers are authorised and equipped (as a matter of
> >routine) to use lethal force against them?
>
> >Or would you rather the teachers were allowed to do things the old
> >fashioned way?  When I was at school, the teachers didn't get much
> >hassle because they were allowed to hit the kids.  This is problematic
> >with the bigger ones - but it did mean that the PE staff were allowed to
> >break up a big fight between the 3rd and 4th years (many of whom were
> >bigger and stronger than the PE staff) by steaming into the ruck
> >wiedling hockey sticks.  Better than guns, and it worked.
>
> >Rowland.
>
> It may have worked but I don't think that teachers should be allowed
> to hit kids and believe, with the fair for all disciplinary measures
> now in place, it still works.
>
> Guns for teachers is, as you rightly say, ludicrous (even in America).
>
> (Maybe I shouldn't have been so flippant, in my initial post, on such
> a serious subject)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I agree....if hitting another adult is wrong, then hitting a kid is
worse, as it's a power thing...( which is not to say that I condemn
folks who have smacked their kids, or teachers who have belted kids in
the past )..it was jiust the way of things then, it was how it was.
But what message are we giving out here??..It's not ok to smack an
adult ( as they can sue you for assault ) , but it's ok to smack a wee
child who is a lot smaller than you and can't retaliate???...or belt a
youth because he's in your school and it's a way to keep him in
line??....
Nope! It's not right, it can't be right to say that it's not ok to hit
another adult, but it's ok to hit a child...I'm not saying that
anyone's been harmed by the odd smack on the backside as a child , but
I just think that we have to think of the message we're getting across
with it..if we ever want to get rid of violence in our communities,
then we have to look at things from the cradle up....

On Aug 17, 1:03 am, Isla  wrote:
> On Aug 16, 7:36 pm, Ariel  wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rowland McDonnell wrote:
> > >Ariel  wrote:
>
> > >> CJ Dunnaway wrote:
>
> > >> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080815/ts_nm/texas_guns_dc_2
> > >> >Texas school district to let teachers carry guns
>
> > >> It may give cause for some pupils, and their parents, to think twice
> > >> before giving a teacher undue hassle.
>
> > >Guns for teachers is ludicrous.
>
> > >If you're going to send your kids to a school, do you want them in a
> > >place where the teachers are authorised and equipped (as a matter of
> > >routine) to use lethal force against them?
>
> > >Or would you rather the teachers were allowed to do things the old
> > >fashioned way?  When I was at school, the teachers didn't get much
> > >hassle because they were allowed to hit the kids.  This is problematic
> > >with the bigger ones - but it did mean that the PE staff were allowed to
> > >break up a big fight between the 3rd and 4th years (many of whom were
> > >bigger and stronger than the PE staff) by steaming into the ruck
> > >wiedling hockey sticks.  Better than guns, and it worked.
>
> > >Rowland.
>
> > It may have worked but I don't think that teachers should be allowed
> > to hit kids and believe, with the fair for all disciplinary measures
> > now in place, it still works.
>
> > Guns for teachers is, as you rightly say, ludicrous (even in America).
>
> > (Maybe I shouldn't have been so flippant, in my initial post, on such
> > a serious subject)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> I agree....if hitting another adult is wrong, then hitting a kid is
> worse, as it's a power thing...( which is not to say that I condemn
> folks who have smacked their kids, or teachers who have belted kids in
> the past )..it was jiust the way of things then, it was how it was.
> But what message are we giving out here??..It's not ok to smack an
> adult ( as they can sue you for assault ) , but it's ok to smack a wee
> child who is a lot smaller than you and can't retaliate???...or belt a
> youth because he's in your school and it's a way to keep him in
> line??....
> Nope! It's not right, it can't be right to say that it's not ok to hit
> another adult, but it's ok to hit a child...I'm not saying that
> anyone's been harmed by the odd smack on the backside as a child , but
> I just think that we have to think of the message we're getting across
> with it..if we ever want to get rid of violence in our communities,
> then we have to look at things from the cradle up....- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

...though much of our behavour is instictive,,,a lot of it is also
'learnt'. :)
isla

Whiskers  wrote:

> Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> > Whiskers  wrote:
> 
> [...]
> 
> >> Whatever happened to the quarterstaff?  (Now there's an idea for a
> >> keep-fit hobby ... <http://www.quarterstaff.org/index.html>).
> >
> > I've long felt that one would need less skill with a sword to scare
> > people away than one would need with a quarterstaff.
> 
> There is the tale of Robin Hood meeting one of his men for the first time
> as enemies and the other man was armed with a sword whereas Robin had a
> staff; so Robin allowed him to make a staff of his own before they fought,
> as a staff is so much superior a weapon to a sword.  But that does rather
> prompt one to ask why anyone would bother to have a sword ... 

I always put that down to the chap with the quarterstaff having been
very highly skilled, and yer man Robin putting his effort in to getting
good at archery rather more than for swordfighting.

And in any case, the idea was `What's scariest' - to the average
mugger/burglar/moron with a sharp thing.

(which reminds me of the tale I was told one day by a chap who claimed
to have disarmed a knife-wielding mugger in the street using his snooker
cue case.  He showed me the damaged case and the alleged knife.  He had
lots of knives himself - but *this* one was a cheap and crummy item.  I
believed him when he said he'd caught the knife and made a sardonic
comment to the mugger, who ran like hell)

> > Still, I've often fancied learning to use a long thin stick...
> >
> > But why does the British Quarterstaff Association only seem to teach
> > men?  I can understand keeping women out of Morris dancing, but why
> > this?
> >
> > Pfft.
> 
> Perhaps the very thought of a woman with a broom-stick who knows how to use
> it, is just too scary? 

My mother's mother could use a broomstick effectively without any
training at all.  Mind you, the target tended to be blind drunk and she
was never once drunk in all her life as far as I know.

> But Xena's sidekick Gabrielle is nifty with a
> staff, and she's not scary at all.  For a woman, that is.

Women are scarier than men, especially when they've got weapons.

> > Here's a nice photo instead.
> >
> > <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Prokudin-Gorskii-12.
> > jpg>
> >
> > Rowland.
> 
> He seems to have wasted an awful lot of trees to get his staff (which
> actually looks like bamboo any way).  Good hat, though.

Yes, above a clever brain: 1915, and the colour photography was his
process.

Rowland.


-- 
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                            Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Ariel  wrote:

> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
> 
> >Ariel  wrote:
> >
> >> CJ Dunnaway wrote:
> >> 
> >> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080815/ts_nm/texas_guns_dc_2
> >> >Texas school district to let teachers carry guns 
> >> 
> >> It may give cause for some pupils, and their parents, to think twice
> >> before giving a teacher undue hassle.
> >
> >Guns for teachers is ludicrous.
> >
> >If you're going to send your kids to a school, do you want them in a
> >place where the teachers are authorised and equipped (as a matter of
> >routine) to use lethal force against them?
> >
> >Or would you rather the teachers were allowed to do things the old
> >fashioned way?  When I was at school, the teachers didn't get much
> >hassle because they were allowed to hit the kids.  This is problematic
> >with the bigger ones - but it did mean that the PE staff were allowed to
> >break up a big fight between the 3rd and 4th years (many of whom were
> >bigger and stronger than the PE staff) by steaming into the ruck
> >wiedling hockey sticks.  Better than guns, and it worked.
> >
> >Rowland.
> 
> It may have worked but I don't think that teachers should be allowed
> to hit kids and believe, with the fair for all disciplinary measures
> now in place, it still works.

I don't see why teachers should not be permitted to defend themselves as
they law permits.

I think that teachers should be allowed to use force in self defence and
to stop dangerous criminal activity - as the law permits them, but
school rules frequently do not.

You say `it still works', but out of control pupils turned up in a lot
of schools with the end of corporal punishment, and quite a few teachers
got injured because they felt they couldn't defend themselves. It
stopped working in a lot of schools, and still doesn't work in plenty of
them in part because the teachers are not permitted to exercise their
legal rights.

When I was a teacher, I used force against one pupil to stop him doing
something criminal and potentially fatal.

Was I wrong to knock his hand to one side? -  leaving no mark, causing
no injury, and causing no pain (but quite a lot of surprise)?  He was
about to open a gas tap in the lab - criminal behaviour on his part in
breach of health and safety law (naturally, the poster telling him all
about his legal responsibilities was clearly displayed in the lab) -
because it's also very dangerous behaviour that risks the lives of
everyone who's anywhere near the gas pipe network that the gas tap's
connected to.

(air can get into the network if you fling open a bunch of gas taps, and
then all it needs is one little source of ignition and the whole lot
explodes)

As far as I was concerned, I had an obligation to do what I did.  I got
the response `You can't do that'.  It took about half a second of me
looking at him to get him to wilt.  I think I probably glared at him.

Corporal punishment is a different matter - and one that I'm not at all
sure about.

> Guns for teachers is, as you rightly say, ludicrous (even in America).

If the guns are thought to be needed, then the kids shouldn't be at
anything like a normal school and their parents should be had up in
court.

> (Maybe I shouldn't have been so flippant, in my initial post, on such
> a serious subject)

Flippancy is good.

Rowland.

-- 
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                            Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Lachlan - KotU <hamfish(nospam)@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Rowland McDonnell" <real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> > Lachlan - KotU <hamfish(nospam)@gmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "CJ Dunnaway"  wrote:
> >> > http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080815/ts_nm/texas_guns_dc_2
> >> > Texas school district to let teachers carry guns
> >>
> >> I loved this line
> >> "Texas bars guns at schools without the school's permission."
> >>
> >> "Please sir, can I bring my gun with me tomorrow?"
> >> I'd have got bullied a lot less if I'd had a .44 magnum.
> >
> > I'd've preferred a saber with the training to use it properly.
> >
> > If you shoot a .44 magnum in a school as a schoolchild, you'll do two
> > things: kill anyone the bullet hits, and (probably) break your wrist[1].
> > Not good.
> >
> 
> All depends on the load, if you use light JHP bullets with a smaller load,
> you get a LOT less felt recoil, but the .44 caliber, because it's quite a
> wide bullet still has plenty of stopping power. 

The magnum bit means you've got a longer than standard bullet.

> And fitting a muzzle brake 
> helps a lot too.  I almost always had a knife with me at school, not for
> fighting or anything like that, just so I could go straight to the woods
> without needing to head home first. 

Ye gods.

> Quite a lot of the time it was an old 
> butcher knife with a 10" blade that I used as a light machete.  And also
> sometimes and air pistol or a black widow catapult with some ammo.  Nowadays
> I would've ended up in the papers. 

And you would have done if they'd found you with all that on you in my
high school back in the early 1980s.  Maybe only the local papers, but
you'd get a mention.

> And they would've mentioned the number 
> of miles away from Dunblane, like they always do. 

I can't say I've noticed that sort of thing this side of the border.

Rowland.


-- 
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                            Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Isla  wrote:

[snip]

> I agree....if hitting another adult is wrong, then hitting a kid is
> worse, as it's a power thing...

So you should just let the little blighters run riot?  You should permit
yourself to be used as a punch bag?  Kicked?  Knifed?  You should stand
by wringing your hands, looking on as one kid deals out a selection of
the above to another?

You reckon that it's improper to use - as the law permits - reasonable
force to stop violent and/or dangerous criminal activity going on in
front of you, do you?

I once watched a teacher put an instant stop to potentially fatal
bullying.  One lad pushed another lad down a flight of stone stairs.
That can - and often has - killed.

The teacher concerned saw the shove and picked up the 13 (ish) year old
miscreant by his ears and slammed him up against the wall.  The teacher
was about 63 and crippled - didn't seem to slow him down.  The miscreant
got a terrifying tirade in a broad Gloucestershire accent then was
lowered to the floor white and shaking but clearly unharmed.

I'd bet a large sum of money that he never, ever pushed anyone down the
stairs ever again and took great care to consider the possible
consequences of his actions forever afterwards.

In fact, just being within earshot made *me* think that I ought to think
a bit more about what I did, and I never ever bullied anyone ever (quite
the opposite).  And it also told me that I shouldn't upset Harry Mees
'cos he had a hell of a temper on him - on the other hand, not upsetting
him was easy enough: you just had to avoid being a dangerous hooligan
(or a collapsing desk, but that's another tale).

That teacher would get the sack these days - for all that he did
*exactly* the right thing.

>( which is not to say that I condemn
> folks who have smacked their kids, or teachers who have belted kids in
> the past )..it was jiust the way of things then, it was how it was.
> But what message are we giving out here??

The message that's given out to the kids is simple: the teachers cannot
touch you, do you may do what the hell you like.  And many of the kids
do.

>..It's not ok to smack an
> adult ( as they can sue you for assault )

You reckon?  The kids seem to get away with smacking the teachers and
each other in many cases.

I know a lass who was raped at school.  She later broke the leg of the
rapist (cheers!).

What sort of message are we sending out to the kids, sending them to
schools where the teachers have so little control over the kids that
*that* sort of thing happens?

> , but it's ok to smack a wee
> child who is a lot smaller than you and can't retaliate???...or belt a
> youth because he's in your school and it's a way to keep him in
> line??....

Who's talking about abusive violence?  I'm not.

> Nope! It's not right, it can't be right to say that it's not ok to hit
> another adult, but it's ok to hit a child...

It can be right to say that it's okay to use reasonable force to stop
violent and dangerous criminal behaviour, such as a kid assaulting
someone or performing an action that is meant to run a significant risk
of causing harm to someone.

Or do you think it's a good idea for people to just stand back and let
them commit crimes of violence?

>I'm not saying that
> anyone's been harmed by the odd smack on the backside as a child ,

I reckon that plenty of children have been psychologically scarred that
way - me, for example.

Ad-hoc corporal punishment has no place in child rearing once they can
talk.  I'm undecided about court ordered corporal punishment.  Singapore
has the birch and it's an incredibly safe and peaceful society.

> but
> I just think that we have to think of the message we're getting across
> with it..if we ever want to get rid of violence in our communities,
> then we have to look at things from the cradle up....

Yes, we do - and from the cradle up, the kids are taught that violence
is the solution to problems, then they learn that they can in fact get
what they want by applying violence, and they find that they can get
away with it more or less scot-free.

What sort of message are we giving the kids, bringing them up like that?

A few months ago, I was talking to a little lad who was about five years
old (not long started school).  He told me he wanted a gun.  I asked him
what for.  He told me so that he could shoot people dead if he thought
they were bad.  His inspiration was the hip-hop he heard his parents
playing at home.

That's how `we' are bringing up the kids.

I was shocked, and decided to explain that if he *did* shoot people dead
because he thought they were bad, then that person's friends would think
that *he* was bad and they'd want to shoot him dead in return.

(I needed something that a five year old could dig, you dig?)

I left him looking thoughtful, which I considered a good result.

Rowland.

-- 
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                            Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Isla  wrote:

[snip]

> ...though much of our behavour is instictive,,,a lot of it is also
> 'learnt'. :)

Oh yeah?

Prove that claim - any of it.  What does `instinctive' mean, for
starters?

(obviously, all our behaviour is a combination of pre-programmed and
learnt - but what's what?  No-one's figured it out as far as I can tell)

Rowland.

-- 
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                            Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

"Rowland McDonnell" <real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet> wrote in message 
news:1ilslkx.17fama5u6rcr5N%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet...
> Ariel  wrote:
>
>> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>>
>> >Ariel  wrote:
>> >
>> >> CJ Dunnaway wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080815/ts_nm/texas_guns_dc_2
>> >> >Texas school district to let teachers carry guns
>> >>
>> >> It may give cause for some pupils, and their parents, to think twice
>> >> before giving a teacher undue hassle.
>> >
>> >Guns for teachers is ludicrous.
>> >
>> >If you're going to send your kids to a school, do you want them in a
>> >place where the teachers are authorised and equipped (as a matter of
>> >routine) to use lethal force against them?
>> >
>> >Or would you rather the teachers were allowed to do things the old
>> >fashioned way?  When I was at school, the teachers didn't get much
>> >hassle because they were allowed to hit the kids.  This is problematic
>> >with the bigger ones - but it did mean that the PE staff were allowed to
>> >break up a big fight between the 3rd and 4th years (many of whom were
>> >bigger and stronger than the PE staff) by steaming into the ruck
>> >wiedling hockey sticks.  Better than guns, and it worked.
>> >
>> >Rowland.
>>
>> It may have worked but I don't think that teachers should be allowed
>> to hit kids and believe, with the fair for all disciplinary measures
>> now in place, it still works.
>
> I don't see why teachers should not be permitted to defend themselves as
> they law permits.
>
> I think that teachers should be allowed to use force in self defence and
> to stop dangerous criminal activity - as the law permits them, but
> school rules frequently do not.
>
> You say `it still works', but out of control pupils turned up in a lot
> of schools with the end of corporal punishment, and quite a few teachers
> got injured because they felt they couldn't defend themselves. It
> stopped working in a lot of schools, and still doesn't work in plenty of
> them in part because the teachers are not permitted to exercise their
> legal rights.
>
> When I was a teacher, I used force against one pupil to stop him doing
> something criminal and potentially fatal.
>
> Was I wrong to knock his hand to one side? -  leaving no mark, causing
> no injury, and causing no pain (but quite a lot of surprise)?  He was
> about to open a gas tap in the lab - criminal behaviour on his part in
> breach of health and safety law (naturally, the poster telling him all
> about his legal responsibilities was clearly displayed in the lab) -
> because it's also very dangerous behaviour that risks the lives of
> everyone who's anywhere near the gas pipe network that the gas tap's
> connected to.
>
> (air can get into the network if you fling open a bunch of gas taps, and
> then all it needs is one little source of ignition and the whole lot
> explodes)
>
> As far as I was concerned, I had an obligation to do what I did.  I got
> the response `You can't do that'.  It took about half a second of me
> looking at him to get him to wilt.  I think I probably glared at him.
>
> Corporal punishment is a different matter - and one that I'm not at all
> sure about.
>
>> Guns for teachers is, as you rightly say, ludicrous (even in America).
>
> If the guns are thought to be needed, then the kids shouldn't be at
> anything like a normal school and their parents should be had up in
> court.
>
>> (Maybe I shouldn't have been so flippant, in my initial post, on such
>> a serious subject)
>
> Flippancy is good.
>
> Rowland.
>
> -- 
> Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
>                                            Sorry - the spam got to me
> http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
> UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

We used to light all the gas taps at once in the 6th year chemistry room and 
see how hot we could get the room.  We managed 50°C one day.  Then I got 
caught making ether bombs and banned for 2 weeks.  That was the best year I 
ever had at school, although I ended up having to do all my experiments 
supervised because I knew too much about chemistry and what to mix to make 
proper explosives (and I frequently did).  I had (still have) a book called 
"Hazardous Chemicals" telling you what was incompatible with what, that was 
my bible.  Conc. sulphuric acid mixed with potassium permanganate and a very 
small amount of water then added gives manganese heptoxide (Mn2O7) which is 
unusual for a metal oxide in that it's liquid at room temperature.  It also 
causes ANY organic matter to spontaneously combust (and quite often explode) 
on contact.  One of my mates tried to paint some onto another classmate's 
jotter, but the paintbrush burst into flames halfway there.  Silly twat.
Then there was the time we made 100ml of amyl nitrite and poured it down the 
sink to get rid of it.  We washed it away with hot water, forgetting that 
there were open sink traps under all the sinks.  My mate Niall and I were 
high as kites for about 3 hours.

On Aug 17, 2:22 am, real-address-in-...@flur.bltigibbet (Rowland
McDonnell) wrote:
> Isla  wrote:
>
> [snip]
>
> > ...though much of our behavour is instictive,,,a lot of it is also
> > 'learnt'. :)
>
> Oh yeah?
>
> Prove that claim - any of it.  What does `instinctive' mean, for
> starters?
>
> (obviously, all our behaviour is a combination of pre-programmed and
> learnt - but what's what?  No-one's figured it out as far as I can tell> Rowland.
>
> --
> Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonn...@dog.physics.org
>                                             Sorry - the spam got to mehttp://www.mag-uk.org                           http://www.bmf.co.uk
> UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

of course everyone has to defend themselves and others against
violence..teachers are in a real dilemma in some schools and they have
to act to defend themselves and other students  against attack...but
when I referred to ;'IT Has to start form the cradle' ..that's what i
meant..it's teaching the kids from as early as possible that violence
is not the way to resolve any problems...it won't help the current
generation, agreed...but it may well be the way forward for the
next..and so to the future!
ISLA

On Aug 17, 2:38 am, "Lachlan - KotU" <hamfish(nospam)@gmail.com>
wrote:
> "Rowland McDonnell" <real-address-in-...@flur.bltigibbet> wrote in message
>
> news:1ilslkx.17fama5u6rcr5N%real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Ariel  wrote:
>
> >> Rowland McDonnell wrote:
>
> >> >Ariel  wrote:
>
> >> >> CJ Dunnaway wrote:
>
> >> >> >http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20080815/ts_nm/texas_guns_dc_2
> >> >> >Texas school district to let teachers carry guns
>
> >> >> It may give cause for some pupils, and their parents, to think twice
> >> >> before giving a teacher undue hassle.
>
> >> >Guns for teachers is ludicrous.
>
> >> >If you're going to send your kids to a school, do you want them in a
> >> >place where the teachers are authorised and equipped (as a matter of
> >> >routine) to use lethal force against them?
>
> >> >Or would you rather the teachers were allowed to do things the old
> >> >fashioned way?  When I was at school, the teachers didn't get much
> >> >hassle because they were allowed to hit the kids.  This is problematic
> >> >with the bigger ones - but it did mean that the PE staff were allowed to
> >> >break up a big fight between the 3rd and 4th years (many of whom were
> >> >bigger and stronger than the PE staff) by steaming into the ruck
> >> >wiedling hockey sticks.  Better than guns, and it worked.
>
> >> >Rowland.
>
> >> It may have worked but I don't think that teachers should be allowed
> >> to hit kids and believe, with the fair for all disciplinary measures
> >> now in place, it still works.
>
> > I don't see why teachers should not be permitted to defend themselves as
> > they law permits.
>
> > I think that teachers should be allowed to use force in self defence and
> > to stop dangerous criminal activity - as the law permits them, but
> > school rules frequently do not.
>
> > You say `it still works', but out of control pupils turned up in a lot
> > of schools with the end of corporal punishment, and quite a few teachers
> > got injured because they felt they couldn't defend themselves. It
> > stopped working in a lot of schools, and still doesn't work in plenty of
> > them in part because the teachers are not permitted to exercise their
> > legal rights.
>
> > When I was a teacher, I used force against one pupil to stop him doing
> > something criminal and potentially fatal.
>
> > Was I wrong to knock his hand to one side? -  leaving no mark, causing
> > no injury, and causing no pain (but quite a lot of surprise)?  He was
> > about to open a gas tap in the lab - criminal behaviour on his part in
> > breach of health and safety law (naturally, the poster telling him all
> > about his legal responsibilities was clearly displayed in the lab) -
> > because it's also very dangerous behaviour that risks the lives of
> > everyone who's anywhere near the gas pipe network that the gas tap's
> > connected to.
>
> > (air can get into the network if you fling open a bunch of gas taps, and
> > then all it needs is one little source of ignition and the whole lot
> > explodes)
>
> > As far as I was concerned, I had an obligation to do what I did.  I got
> > the response `You can't do that'.  It took about half a second of me
> > looking at him to get him to wilt.  I think I probably glared at him.
>
> > Corporal punishment is a different matter - and one that I'm not at all
> > sure about.
>
> >> Guns for teachers is, as you rightly say, ludicrous (even in America).
>
> > If the guns are thought to be needed, then the kids shouldn't be at
> > anything like a normal school and their parents should be had up in
> > court.
>
> >> (Maybe I shouldn't have been so flippant, in my initial post, on such
> >> a serious subject)
>
> > Flippancy is good.
>
> > Rowland.
>
> > --
> > Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonn...@dog.physics.org
> >                                            Sorry - the spam got to me
> >http://www.mag-uk.org                           http://www.bmf.co.uk
> > UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking
>
> We used to light all the gas taps at once in the 6th year chemistry room and
> see how hot we could get the room.  We managed 50°C one day.  Then I got
> caught making ether bombs and banned for 2 weeks.  That was the best year I
> ever had at school, although I ended up having to do all my experiments
> supervised because I knew too much about chemistry and what to mix to make
> proper explosives (and I frequently did).  I had (still have) a book called
> "Hazardous Chemicals" telling you what was incompatible with what, that was
> my bible.  Conc. sulphuric acid mixed with potassium permanganate and a very
> small amount of water then added gives manganese heptoxide (Mn2O7) which is
> unusual for a metal oxide in that it's liquid at room temperature.  It also
> causes ANY organic matter to spontaneously combust (and quite often explode)
> on contact.  One of my mates tried to paint some onto another classmate's
> jotter, but the paintbrush burst into flames halfway there.  Silly twat> Then there was the time we made 100ml of amyl nitrite and poured it down the
> sink to get rid of it.  We washed it away with hot water, forgetting that
> there were open sink traps under all the sinks.  My mate Niall and I were
> high as kites for about 3 hours.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

i haddn't a clue in chemistry...I st fire to the desk, and that was an
accident ( homest ) :)

I hate to say it, but "if we ever want to get rid of violence in our 
communities,
then we have to" change species.

Lachlan - KotU <hamfish(nospam)@gmail.com> wrote:

> "Rowland McDonnell" <real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:

[snip oh you could if you wanted to, couldn't you Lachy?  Kiss, kiss.]

> We used to light all the gas taps at once in the 6th year chemistry room and
> see how hot we could get the room.  We managed 50°C one day.

6th form?  Dear god...

Thing is, once that sort of thing's underway, you can't stop it with a
slap to the hand - you've got to take one of the other approaches.

>  Then I got 
> caught making ether bombs and banned for 2 weeks. 

When I was a high school and later at 6th form, the two lads I knew who
were `in' to explosives were both provided with books on how to do it
properly by a chemistry teacher.

> That was the best year I 
> ever had at school, although I ended up having to do all my experiments
> supervised because I knew too much about chemistry and what to mix to make
> proper explosives (and I frequently did).

Riiight...  At my 6th form, the hazard to the students was more like
them accidentally not noticing that they've been gassing themselves with
H2S and things like that (the nose shuts down at a certain
concentration, and shortly after that, you die - a mate of mine got to
the nose shut down stage once).

>  I had (still have) a book called 
> "Hazardous Chemicals" telling you what was incompatible with what, that was
> my bible. 

<grin>  Reading up on the Me163 can be quite illuminating, if you're
interested in hypergolic mixtures.

> Conc. sulphuric acid mixed with potassium permanganate and a very 
> small amount of water then added gives manganese heptoxide (Mn2O7) which is
> unusual for a metal oxide in that it's liquid at room temperature. 

Uhuh - sounds *ever* so stable, does that one.

> It also 
> causes ANY organic matter to spontaneously combust (and quite often explode)
> on contact. 

Whee!

> One of my mates tried to paint some onto another classmate's 
> jotter, but the paintbrush burst into flames halfway there.  Silly twat.

Yes.

> Then there was the time we made 100ml of amyl nitrite 

100ml of the stuff?  Good grief.

>and poured it down the 
> sink to get rid of it.  We washed it away with hot water, forgetting that
> there were open sink traps under all the sinks.  My mate Niall and I were
> high as kites for about 3 hours. 

Oh boy oh boy oh boy...

Rowland.

-- 
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                            Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Isla  wrote:

[snip]

> of course everyone has to defend themselves and others against
> violence..

But teachers are denied the option of doing so in most cases.  If you
use reasonable force to defend yourself as the law permits, you face the
sack due to breaking the terms of your contract.

>teachers are in a real dilemma in some schools and they have
> to act to defend themselves and other students  against attack...

But they must not do so in any fashion that involves using reasonable
force, on pain of losing their jobs.

I've been taught about the methods that teachers are permitted to use to
break up fights in certain particular schools, and they leave the
teacher vulnerable to attack with no opportunity to defend themselves if
it comes.

I've read of many teachers who have had to let themselves suffer a
beating at the feet and fists of their pupils to avoid being sacked.

> but
> when I referred to ;'IT Has to start form the cradle' ..that's what i
> meant..it's teaching the kids from as early as possible that violence
> is not the way to resolve any problems...

Kids are taught from the cradle that violence is the way to settle
problems.

>it won't help the current
> generation, agreed...but it may well be the way forward for the
> next..and so to the future!

I was taught from the cradle that violence was not the solution to
problems, and I was taught that I must never hit anyone.

As a result, I got bullied horribly at school because I had no way to
defend myself.

Kids these days are taught that violence is the answer by their parents,
by the telly, by the music they listen to, by what they see on the news,
and so on.

Why do you think that while knife crime has remained level and even
dropped in some places, it's increased amongst school kids?

The kids are *scared* - terrified of deadly violence, so they carry
knives for self-defence.  And so they stab each other, and some end up
maimed and others end up dead.

And all because they are taught that violence is the answer and there is
no safety but what they can make for themselves - the establishment, the
law, the police: all useless for protecting the kids.

The kids know that.

I don't blame the kids for carrying knives, given the shit they have to
live in. I do blame their parents, the music biz, the telly people, the
film people, and the government (for being responsible for the laws,
police, and school system which have been letting us all down for a very
long time).

But you know, I was once asked by a policeman's daughter why I didn't
just call the police when I found an intruder in my back yard.  Well,
because by the time I had finished dialling 999, he might have stolen
either of two motorcycles, set fire to the rear of the house, or taken
any number of other seriously antisocial steps to harm me and/or my
property so I decided to see him off myself.

I looked at him from an upstairs window, and immediately went
downstairs.  By the time I hit the back yard, he was gone.

Job done - no problems.

(motor vehicle theft was very common where I was living at the time, and
a house across the back alley suffered two (or was it three?) serious
arson attacks while I was living opposite it)

But no, the police take the line that the public must not do that kind
of thing: we must sit still and just let ourselves suffer loss due to
criminal activity without making any attempt to look after ourselves and
with no chance of adequate compensation for the loss we suffer due to
criminal activity, because it's the job of the police to look after us.

A shame that the police do bugger all to look after us.  And a shame
that they expect us to just sit still while the bastards steal and burn
and smash and so on and /then/ we're expected to foot the bill for all
this criminal damage, or just put up with the deaths and maimings and
lesser injuries.

Rowland.

-- 
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                            Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Lachlan - KotU <hamfish(nospam)@gmail.com> wrote:

> I hate to say it, but "if we ever want to get rid of violence in our 
> communities,
> then we have to" change species. 

Aye, but we can do something to lessen the nastiness of the violence we
have, do something to lessen the use of lethal weapons, and so on.  Do
something also to lessen the fear many people feel - because if they
should defend themselves against criminal violence, there's a strong
chance that the real crook will get off scot free and *they* will be
punished, on account of not knowing how to play the system.

In short, we need better laws than the current iniquitous, oppressive
set; and we need police forces that do their jobs properly.

Rowland.

-- 
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                            Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

Isla  wrote:

[snip - oh, go on, it's not hard]

> i haddn't a clue in chemistry...I st fire to the desk, and that was an
> accident ( homest ) :)

Setting fire to a desk in chemistry?  What the hell kind of a chemistry
lab was that?  Couldn't be done in the labs at my school - well, not
easily.

Solid chunks of tropical hardwood do not ignite readily.

Rowland.


-- 
Remove the animal for email address: rowland.mcdonnell@dog.physics.org
                                            Sorry - the spam got to me
http://www.mag-uk.org                             http://www.bmf.co.uk
UK biker?   Join MAG and the BMF and stop the Eurocrats banning biking

x-no-archive: yes

On Aug 17, 12:07 am, "Lachlan - KotU" <hamfish(nospam)@gmail.com>
wrote:

> I almost always had a knife with me at school, not for
> fighting or anything like that, just so I could go straight to the woods
> without needing to head home first.

I usually carry a small penknife with me because I never know when I
might want to help myself to a sample of some botanical curiosity.

The current anti-knife hysteria worries me because I don't know what
the law is about carrying knives and I'm damned sure the cops don't
either.

Evil Nigel

On 2008-08-17, Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
> Whiskers  wrote:
>> Rowland McDonnell <real-address-in-sig@flur.bltigibbet> wrote:
>> > Whiskers  wrote:

[...]

>> > Here's a nice photo instead.
>> >
>> > <http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/8/87/Prokudin-Gorskii-12.
>> > jpg>
>> >
>> > Rowland.
>> 
>> He seems to have wasted an awful lot of trees to get his staff (which
>> actually looks like bamboo any way).  Good hat, though.
>
> Yes, above a clever brain: 1915, and the colour photography was his
> process.
>
> Rowland.

Indeed, a clever and hard-working brain 
<http://www.loc.gov/exhibits/empire/object.html> - The Empire That Was
Russia: The Prokudin-Gorskii Photographic Record Recreated (A Library of
Congress Exhibition)

-- 
-- ^^^^^^^^^^
--  Whiskers 
-- ~~~~~~~~~~