[Paleopsych] electile dysfunction

[Steve Hovland]

Overnight I have come to the conclusion that we experienced
an electronic coup d'etat on Tuesday.

During the count there were periods when few electoral votes
were tallied.  I think those were the times when the contents
of the electronic voting machines were being edited via wired
or wireless connections.  I once heard the data inside those
things refered to as an "mdb."  "mdb" is the file extension for
the Microsoft Access database many of us have on our desk tops.

I think John Kerry was a co-conspirator, and that Edwards was
placed on the ticket to neutralize him.  He is charismatic
enough to be dangerous to some people.

Steve Hovland
www.stevehovland.net


-----Original Message-----
From:	Val Geist [SMTP:kendulf at shaw.ca]
Sent:	Wednesday, November 03, 2004 11:18 PM
To:	The new improved paleopsych list
Subject:	Re: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction

Dear Lynn,

The Discovery Channel had an interesting series comparing weapons, 
including one on the M-16 versus the Kalatchnikov. There is little doubt 
that I would prefer the Russian creation in battle! I have never fired 
either one, having qualified on the Lee Enfield No. 4, mark I in 303 
British in a Canadian rifle regiment (Regina Rifles). With a sling from 
prone using the regular peep-sight I could place then five shots into less 
than a 3 inch circle at 100 yds. Merely to illustrate that I am addicted to 
the quick, but aimed shot, which I am also in hunting. So, the automatic 
weapon has never quite appealed to me though I did fire the 9 mm sten gun a 
good many times. Hence my appreciation of the modern assault rifle is 
purely distant and intellectual. How could you knock out an enemy taking 
cover behind a tree with either the M-16 or the Kalatchnikov, as neither 
has much ability to penetrate? With the old 303 amour piercing ammo the 
chap behind the tree would be quickly knocked out! Automatic fire? I'd be 
afraid of running out of ammo! Accuracy in automatic fire? Accurate 
automatic fire is an oxymoron! (Though the old Bren gun was very accurate 
in single fire!). However, I have to defer to the following: In WW II the 
German military gave battle-experienced lieutenants the task of designing 
the ideal infantry rifle, based on their collective experience. That's how 
the G 43 in 8mm short came to be, a precursor to and the inspiration for 
the Kalatchnikov. And that I have to respect! That's experience used to its 
best advantage, and the Kalatchnikov proved these German lieutenants right! 
So, it's probably better than the tried and true Lee Enfield, a superior 
infantry weapon to the Mauser 98 or the old Springfield. I have handled the 
M-14 but never shot it. On my last day ever on maneuver the new FN rifles 
in 7.62 Nato were brought out for us kids to try. The Canadian army was 
about to ditch the old lee Enfield. There was only enough ammo to allow us 
4 shots apiece, which I put at a 100 yds into a 4 inch circle. It was a 
pleasant rifle to shoot! Then my days in uniform were over and I went on to 
university. I still have a hard time believing that I was never recalled 
for service. Lucky me.  Cheers, Val Geist
  ----- Original Message -----
  From: Lynn D. Johnson, Ph.D.
  To: The new improved paleopsych list
  Sent: Wednesday, November 03, 2004 9:45 PM
  Subject: Re: [Paleopsych] electile dysfunction


  Val, your point is well taken. The support troops qualify on the M-16 in 
basic training, and then hardly ever fire their weapon. It is a scandal. 
 With fluid battle situations and no front lines, everyone should be highly 
skilled with infantry weapons.
      I liked the M-14, the weapon I originally qualified on. Big, heavy, 
with a .30 round that could knock down a water buffalo. But it could not be 
fired full-auto, so we went to the M-16 (.223 round) . Light, nice to 
carry, not as noisy, but not a good combat weapon, not as good as the old 
M-14. We probably should have copied the klashnikov and stayed with a .30 
round (7.62 mm). If I were the king I would do just that. the AK-47 is a 
splendid weapon. The soviet system may have been dumb, but they did amazing 
things with their weapons. I appreciate the fascinating story about your 
father.  And I find your posts consistently insightful and informative.
  Lynn Johnson

  Val Geist wrote:

    Dear Lynn,

    The M-16 was trouble in Vietnam, and appears to be so again. Issue 
Klatchnikows! IN WW II the German military was reduced to begging industry 
to copy the Russian T-34 tank - and forget fancy tanks. The Panther was the 
reply! The Russians sure loved the one's they captured and re-used! My 
father in law, a long-serving Wehrmacht officer who survived, had a 
professional's admiration for Russian weaponry. It worked when the German 
failed! Russia's "primitive" Moisin sniper rifle with a - superlative! - 
little scope was used also by German snipers!

    Do your support troops fail to get a thorough infantry training? 
Amazing!

    Cheers, Val Geist




------------------------------------------------------------------------  
------


  _______________________________________________
  paleopsych mailing list
  paleopsych at paleopsych.org
  http://lists.paleopsych.org/mailman/listinfo/paleopsych



  ---
  Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free.
  Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).
  Version: 6.0.788 / Virus Database: 533 - Release Date: 11/1/2004 << File: 
ATT00004.html >>  << File: ATT00005.txt >>