More on G3s

[Jim Choate]

Another Tim May attempt at changing history. "No, it wasn't ME that made
that claim, it was Choate!, yeah, that's it. Blaim it on Choate." It's as
lame as his 'Choate claimed Gauss' Law didn't apply' when in fact it was
Tim who made the claim. Don't answer the question, complain about the
quoting practice, or that it has an attachment, anything but participating
as an EQUAL in a dialectic.

Go back to the archives and you will find Tim May claiming that ANY HK
rifle with *3 (eg 93 or G3) is a .223 whereas the *1's (eg 91) are .308.
When in fact the '3 means .223' applied ONLY to the '90' (ie 91 or 93) 
class weapons. The reality (which Tim never admited either) is that a G3
IS in fact a 91, or the other way around if you prefer historical
lineage. The G3 was the mil-spec and the 91 was the civilian clone. But
hey, since when was Tim interested in FACTS? Never.

He went on and on about the '3 means .223' and that this applied to ALL
HK weapons.

Check the archives. At one point I forwared a HK hompage asking him to explain 
the page. He never responded. Though he did continue the ad hominim.

The rest of the points, who didn't make the 'other G3' or who happens to
own HK today are his typical strawman argument techniques. Don't answer
the question, it might be unfomfortable.

As to people trying to paint life with broad strokes and ignoring the
distinctions is another typicall May'ism. He's always making comparisons
that are flawed because of some 'minor' point that Tim 'overlooked'. It's
'minor' because it usually blows a hole the size of a grayhound bus in
whatever crank anarchist idea he's had today (crack induced is a
supposition at best).

Tim's general approach (Declan's as well) is "if they disagree with me
they must be stupid". What you'll find is Tim making argument after
argument but he never defends them. When questioned he simply attacks the
questioner and hopes nobody notices he slipped the real point in the
dialectic. He's always claiming how easy it would be to destroy this
argument or that, but when it comes down to it Timmy always comes up
short. He NEVER participates. He's quick to lay the challenge down but
he's never delivered. A perfect example of intellectus interruptus.

Look at the free market/economic equilibrium debate. He's quick to refer
to Hayek, though never by particular quote that is verifiable. And when he
is faced with Hayek quotes to the contrary he attacks the messenger. He's
quick to suggest this or that book but when questioned he never has a
responce. Sometimes I doubt he actually reads them. Just puts them on the
shelf so he can be somebody.

His backstroke isn't any better today than yesterday. Tim believe he
should be able to dictate from on high and that he has zero responsiblity
to other people with respect to treating them with respect or
consideration, let alone responding to questions about his claims.

Come on Tim, show us the email wher I (not you) claim Gauss's Law doesn't
apply? Show us the email where I (not you) claim the G3 is not .308. Or
that ESS's are real, or how the economic equilibrium is achieved in the
bullshit anarchic free market. Etc., etc., etc.

    ____________________________________________________________________

           Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a
           smaller group must first understand it.

                                           "Stranger Suns"
                                           George Zebrowski

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------


On Thu, 11 Jan 2001, Tim May wrote:

> On Choate's point above, it is not FAL (a rifle, but I assume Choate 
> must mean the maker of the FAL, Fabrique Nationale, now owned by 
> another company, IIRC) who are making a caseless ammo rifle. Rather, 
> it is in fact H-K. The G11 has been in development for close to 30 
> years now.
> 
> (H-K are _also_ owned by another company. Last I heard, a British 
> company bought H-K, though the factories and design groups remain in 
> Germany.)
> 
> Most NATO countries have now adopted some variant of the 5.56 mm 
> cartridge, in either M-16-type variants or in bullpup designs like 
> the excellent Steyr AUG or the newer HK G36 (with a civilian model, 
> the SL8). Neither the caseless ammo of the H-K G11 not the 
> flechette-firing prototypes are getting wide acceptance.
> 
> And as relates to Choate's "I was right" point, repeated again 
> recently, the G3 in use by the German army was most definitely a 7.62 
> mm, i.e., a .308 Winchester. It was _not_ the 5.56 mm variant, at 
> least not for wide use. (I say this because quibblers like Choate 
> like to find examples where _someone_ used a 5.56 mm and then say 
> "See, I was RIGHT!")

    ____________________________________________________________________

           Before a larger group can see the virtue of an idea, a
           smaller group must first understand it.

                                           "Stranger Suns"
                                           George Zebrowski

       The Armadillo Group       ,::////;::-.          James Choate
       Austin, Tx               /:'///// ``::>/|/      ravage at ssz.com
       www.ssz.com            .',  ||||    `/( e\      512-451-7087
                           -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'-
    --------------------------------------------------------------------