The Seven Varieties of Gun-o-phobes

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I recall a long time ago you posted about an incident in which your family was threatened, even hurt I vaguely recall, by an armed thug. Your response was (again going on old memory) to vow to never again be defenseless in such a situation. I deduce that incident had a big influence on your feelings on the issue.

Carolyn_McCarthy lost her husband, and her son was left permanently disabled, by a nutter with a gun. Her response was to do everything she could to keep nutters (and pretty much everyone else) and guns apart.

Similar experiences, different reactions. Neither person is a demon.

First of all, I've never used the word "demon" to characterize anti-gun folks.

From our respective encounters with armed criminals, I learned that it is not guns that are to be feared, but violent criminals. McCarthy just fears all guns, and that makes her a gun-o-phobe - she has a phobia, an irrational fear, of guns. That's not demonizing her, it just describes her actual mindset. And that puts her in the category of "dysfunctionaly unworldly", because she's naive about violent criminals and guns - she seems to think that if guns are just banned by legislation, then the violent criminals won't be able to shoot anyone anymore. Wrong! She has a fairy tale view of how things work. She's also of the "authoritarian" bent, believing that only the government should have guns.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Felons are already prohibited from gun ownership.
People adjudicated to be mentally ill are already prohibited from gun ownership.

.

Indeed they are. However, when people of your persuasion have knee-jerk opposition to any effective implementation of such prohibitions, the prohibitions become meaningless.

Still waiting for you to outline for us what those "effective implementations" are...

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

I guess if not wanting the clearly mentally messed up to have guns because my ex-girlfriend call killed by such a guy (domestic violence dispute) makes me an elitist authoritarian in your world, then I find myself wearing that label as a badge of fucking honor.

If you're under the impression that I DO want the "clearly mentally messed up" to have guns, then you're mistaken. If the definition of your term means people who have been adjudicated to be dangerous to others, then I support the current law prohibiting them from having guns.

And this is not a good reason to take guns away from people who are normal and law-abiding. We shouldn't punish the innocent because of what the criminals do.

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Way to go John. You claim that you never meant the term "gun-o-phobe" in a pejorative sense, then you post crap like that? I could make up shit about "gun-o-philes" as failed cop wannabees, or narcissists enjoying the secret thought that they could take out half their workplace before anyone could blink an eye, and it would be about as accurate.

Your piece of crap troll bait (which I admit to biting on) leaves out a lot of people, such as the victims who have suffered great harm at the hands of an armed lunatic, and don't want anyone else to have to go through the same pain. Or the regular people who just want to be able to go pick up a pizza without feeling they have to look over their shoulder all the time lest some punk who feels empowered by his gun decide to relieve them of some cash, or maybe their life.

Lots of decent folks don't want to feel threatened all the time, don't want the responsibility of carrying and the associated implied responsibility of making split second live-or-die decisions, and resent being effectively barred from going into certain areas or being confined to their homes after dark.

The last sentect of the prior paragraph and directly above are *perfect* examples of what John is talking about - fear of an inanimate object or fear due to projection. Link.

Quote

For the record I'm no gun-o-phobe. But I can understand how some people may resent crime, and conclude that criminals would be less bold if they weren't so well armed. I might not agree with them, but it's just stupid to continuously demonize everybody who disagrees with you.

Don

Haven't read much by the gun control nuts lately, have you? That's *ALL* they do - demonize gun owners.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

I can understand how some people may resent crime, and conclude that criminals would be less bold if they weren't so well armed.

Great! So let's concentrate on taking the guns away from THEM, and not the law-abiding.

Great idea. I look forward to reading your suggestions on making implementation of existing laws prohibiting gun acquisition by felons and the mentally ill more effective.

Get us your numbers of those people who were GCA-68 barred who subsequently bought from gunstores and we'll discuss it. After that, we can discuss the 97% or so of crime guns that *DIDN'T* come from gunstores.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[skybill 19]

Quote

News:

The Seven Varieties of Gun Control Advocate

"There is a substantial body of Americans, many occupying positions of influence, who contend that the abrogation of the Second Amendment is the quickest path to domestic tranquility. Since this is as absurd as advocating blood-letting as a cure for anemia, it would seem advisable to question the motives and mentalities of the gun control advocates themselves.

"In my observation, weapon prohibitionists can be broken down into seven major categories..."

Full story: JPFO.org

This is a good look at the psychology of gun-haters. I suppose it would be against the rules to name names and categorize resident gun-o-phobes here into those categories, but I think we've got at least one of each!

Hi John,
'Guess ya' hit a raw nerve with a bunch of "Gun-o-phobes!!....also known as "Hoplophobes" those with an irrational fear of "Guns!!"(term coined by Jeff Cooper, look him up in yer Funk and Wagnals!!) Sorry about that troops but ya' jez gonna havta' live with it!! For a bunch of Skydivers I'm really surprised by the number of wimps that have replied to your post!! Hmmmmm.... oh well! Anyway John, anytime ya' wanna get together and pop some caps and drink some beers I'll be around.

SCR-2034, SCS-680

III%,
Deli-out

[Topgun1992 0]

Quote

Way to go John. You claim that you never meant the term "gun-o-phobe" in a pejorative sense, then you post crap like that? I could make up shit about "gun-o-philes" as failed cop wannabees, or narcissists enjoying the secret thought that they could take out half their workplace before anyone could blink an eye, and it would be about as accurate.

Your piece of crap troll bait (which I admit to biting on) leaves out a lot of people, such as the victims who have suffered great harm at the hands of an armed lunatic, and don't want anyone else to have to go through the same pain. Or the regular people who just want to be able to go pick up a pizza without feeling they have to look over their shoulder all the time lest some punk who feels empowered by his gun decide to relieve them of some cash, or maybe their life.

Lots of decent folks don't want to feel threatened all the time, don't want the responsibility of carrying and the associated implied responsibility of making split second live-or-die decisions, and resent being effectively barred from going into certain areas or being confined to their homes after dark.

For the record I'm no gun-o-phobe. But I can understand how some people may resent crime, and conclude that criminals would be less bold if they weren't so well armed. I might not agree with them, but it's just stupid to continuously demonize everybody who disagrees with you.

Don

Let me make a comparison just so you can decide the rationality of your statement.

If this is the case then you should ban all alcohol(guns) sales. Lots of innocent people(Joe getting his pizza) die everyday from drunk drivers(nutters/criminals with guns). But you don't ban all alcohol sales, because as we know from experience that leads to gangs taking over and creating more death than the product itself.
This next part is streching, but. Think about it that innocent person(joe getting his pizza) had been drunk(had a gun) too. He wouldn't have tensed up and might have walked away like most drunk drivers(nutter/criminal with a gun). If you don't want to drink you don't have to but you are accepting that you have no defence.

[popsjumper 2]

I think I'll reply to this for myself.....

Quote

Way to go John. You claim that you never meant the term "gun-o-phobe" in a pejorative sense,

I'll take ownership of meaning it in a pejorative sense!

Quote

I could make up shit about "gun-o-philes" as failed cop wannabees, or narcissists enjoying the secret thought that they could take out half their workplace before anyone could blink an eye, and it would be about as accurate.

And all that would be true in many cases.

Quote

Your piece of crap troll bait (which I admit to biting on) leaves out a lot of people, such as the...victims...who...

Well Don, it didn't cover today's baseball scores either. May a different article addressing those people would be a good place to look for that info, eh?

Quote

Lots of decent folks don't want to feel threatened all the time, don't want the responsibility of carrying and the associated implied responsibility of making split second live-or-die decisions, and resent being effectively barred from going into certain areas or being confined to their homes after dark.

Say! A good partial description of gun-o-phobes. A very good one!

Quote

For the record I'm no gun-o-phobe. But I can understand how some people may resent crime, and conclude that criminals would be less bold if they weren't so well armed. I might not agree with them,...

How could you possibly disagree with that?????

Quote

but it's just stupid to continuously demonize everybody who disagrees with you.

Well, Don....simple disagreement is not the issue. You know better than that.

My reality and yours are quite different.
I think we're all Bozos on this bus.
Falcon5232, SCS8170, SCSA353, POPS9398, DS239

[mnealtx 0]

Quote

Quote

I could make up shit about "gun-o-philes" as failed cop wannabees, or narcissists enjoying the secret thought that they could take out half their workplace before anyone could blink an eye, and it would be about as accurate.

And all that would be true in many cases.

Gotta disagree on that one, the Walter Mitty types are a pretty small subset.

Unfortunately, they're also the ones that the newsies seek out for interviews.

Mike
I love you, Shannon and Jim.
POPS 9708 , SCR 14706

[jakee 1,256]

Quote

Quote

It's a good look at the psychology of JohnRich. Just about the only thing we can learn from that article is that you're a liar.

Oh my, that certainly looks like a prohibited personal insult to me. I don't think the little winky-face gets you out of that one.

Perhaps you should be more specific about what it is that you think I said that is untrue. I'm afraid you've provided nothing to which I can respond, and therefore the allegation is meaningless.

It's already been pointed out.

A week ago you defended yourself against accusations of hypocrisy by saying that you did not use the term gun-o-phobe as a derogatory word because it simply meant 'person who is afraid of guns'. Now, however, you've revealed that you actually use the term gun-o-phobe to convey the meaning of elitist, authoritarian, criminal, security monopolist, dysfunctionally unwordly ideological chameleon. As well as fearful to the point of general cowardice.

JohnRich, hypocrite and liar

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[jakee 1,256]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Show me where I called anyone a name

If you are posting to the word demonize
I borrowed that from your post

But do you know what it means?

Oh lookee whos posting now!

Do you?

It doesn't matter that you borrowed the word from his post because you agreed that it describes what you do. So do you know what it means?

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Thank you for the detailed reply. Unfortunately you completely missed the point of my post. Not surprising that you and certain others would do so, as you are evidently so blinded by your hatred of "gun-o-phobes" that you can't read all the way to the end of a post.

Here it is again, with the important bits underlined this time so you (hopefully) can't miss it:
"For the record I'm no gun-o-phobe. But I can understand how some people may resent crime, and conclude that criminals would be less bold if they weren't so well armed. I might not agree with them, but it's just stupid to continuously demonize everybody who disagrees with you."

I have no problem with the gentleman in the link you gave. I understand the second amendment, and I am aware that the "genie is out of the bottle" regarding guns in American society. I do not have access to a "nutter detector" and so I have no solution to the problem of keeping guns and nutters apart, but I do not believe the answer is to keep guns out of everybody's hands. I accept the argument that when guns are outlawed only the outlaws will have guns.

I do also believe that it is not unreasonable to wish for a less violent and dangerous society. I do understand why people would be seduced by the idea of simplistic solutions (take guns away) instead of the probably impossible task of changing human nature so everybody will be law abiding. I do not think it is helpful to caricaturize such people, or demonize them.

I recall a long time ago you posted about an incident in which your family was threatened, even hurt I vaguely recall, by an armed thug. Your response was (again going on old memory) to vow to never again be defenseless in such a situation. I deduce that incident had a big influence on your feelings on the issue.

This woman lost her husband, and her son was left permanently disabled, by a "nutter with a gun". Her response was to do everything she could to keep nutters (and pretty much everyone else) and guns apart.

Similar experiences, different reactions. Neither person is a demon.

Don

Again
I dont think anyone missed your points
And if you had posted in this manner the first time I would not have even replied to you

but you didnt
that aside

My points are still a valid reply to you

Wish for what you want
But those who do not try and remove guns from society are not the ones JR and others post about
This is where YOU miss the point

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

Quote

Quote

Felons are already prohibited from gun ownership.
People adjudicated to be mentally ill are already prohibited from gun ownership.

.

Indeed they are. However, when people of your persuasion have knee-jerk opposition to any effective implementation of such prohibitions, the prohibitions become meaningless.

So tell us

what would you implement to reach the effectiveness you desire?

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

Let me make a comparison just so you can decide the rationality of your statement.

Sorry,I only teach molecular parasitology and medical entomology. Remedial reading is not my field, you'll have to seek help from someone who is trained in that. And probably very patient too.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Quote

First of all, I've never used the word "demon" to characterize anti-gun folks.

Demonize definition: To represent as evil or diabolic: wartime propaganda that demonizes the enemy.

Note that you don't actually have to call someone a "demon" to "demonize" them.

I've never thought much of the tactic, but I may be in the minority as it seems to be strategy #1 for a lot of people. Much like negative campaign ads I guess,everybody claims to hate them but they do seem to work. Go figure.

Regarding people like McCarthy, remember you have the constitution on your side so in the end you will win and she will lose. Take a deep breath, hear her out, provide calm rational explanations of why her approach cannot work. Agree that violent crime is a problem. Who can disagree with that, although the actual danger is exaggerated by politicians for campaign advantage, and by the news media to sell advertising. Propose rational solutions. Stop opposing every effort (public education, after school activities and community centers) to provide alternatives to crime as an unconstitutional theft of taxpayer dollars. Be aware that taxpayers can pay now (good schools, supervised evening/weekend activities for at-risk kids) or pay later (prisons) after the damage is done. Be sympathetic to the loss she and many others have suffered, and recognize that it is basic human nature to fear the thing that hurt you. If necessary, resist her in court, where you know you will prevail.

But labeling her as "dysfunctional unworldly" does demonize her, and does nothing to resolve the underlying reasons for the conflict. Think of her as a misguided victim, lashing out in the only way she knows, someone in need of patient correction.

Those points are directed at the gun-o-phile crowd in general, specific points may or may not apply to you John.

Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[RonD1120 58]

From a recent VVAtalklist post:

"VVA Talklist
------------------

PEOPLE ask Why Carry a Gun?

My old grandpa said to me 'Son, there comes a time in every man's life
when he stops bustin' knuckles and starts bustin' caps and usually
it's when he becomes too old to take a whoopin.'

I don't carry a gun to kill people.
I carry a gun to keep from being killed.

I don't carry a gun to scare people.
I carry a gun because sometimes this world can be a scary place.

I don't carry a gun because I'm paranoid.
I carry a gun because there are real threats in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I'm evil.
I carry a gun because I have lived long enough to see the evil in the world.

I don't carry a gun because I hate the government.
I carry a gun because I understand the limitations of government.

I don't carry a gun because I'm angry.
I carry a gun so that I don't have to spend the rest of my life hating
myself for failing to be prepared.

I don't carry a gun because I want to shoot someone.
I carry a gun because I want to die at a ripe old age in my bed, and
not on a sidewalk somewhere tomorrow afternoon.

I don't carry a gun because I'm a cowboy.
I carry a gun because, when I die and go to heaven, I want to be a cowboy.

I don't carry a gun to make me feel like a man.
I carry a gun because men know how to take care of themselves and the
ones they love.

I don't carry a gun because I feel inadequate.
I carry a gun because unarmed and facing three armed thugs, I am inadequate.

I don't carry a gun because I love it.
I carry a gun because I love life and the people who make it meaningful to me.



Police protection is an oxymoron.
Free citizens must protect themselves.
Police do not protect you from crime, they usually just investigate
the crime after it happens and then call someone in to clean up the
mess.

Personally, I carry a gun because I'm too young to die and too old to
take an "ass" whoopin'.....author unknown (but obviously brilliant)"

The following is a reply from an attorney and VVA member.

"Long time ago federal courts established that it is not the purpose of the police to protect citizens. They are there to enforce the laws by investigating criminal acts, detaining suspects of perpetrating criminal acts, arresting those identified as having perpetrated a criminal act and if they happen to apprehend someone perpetrating a criminal act and this results in preventing an innocent person from being harmed, it's just plain luck and not the true purpose for their intervention. Supreme Court denied certiorari so, all those police slogans on the doors of their vehicles that say to protect and defend or to serve and protect are just false advertisement. The case in which that happened was filed as a suit against some municipal police for allegedly failing to protect a citizen who became the victim of a crime. He lost because it was not the police's job to protect nor defend him. But... maybe now a citizen can sue for false advertisement.
Kique"

Look for the shiny things of God revealed by the Holy Spirit. They only last for an instant but it is a Holy Instant. Let your soul absorb them.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Quote

Quote

It's a good look at the psychology of JohnRich. Just about the only thing we can learn from that article is that you're a liar.

Oh my, that certainly looks like a prohibited personal insult to me. I don't think the little winky-face gets you out of that one.

Perhaps you should be more specific about what it is that you think I said that is untrue. I'm afraid you've provided nothing to which I can respond, and therefore the allegation is meaningless.

It's already been pointed out.

A week ago you defended yourself against accusations of hypocrisy by saying that you did not use the term gun-o-phobe as a derogatory word because it simply meant 'person who is afraid of guns'. Now, however, you've revealed that you actually use the term gun-o-phobe to convey the meaning of elitist, authoritarian, criminal, security monopolist, dysfunctionally unwordly ideological chameleon. As well as fearful to the point of general cowardice.

JohnRich, hypocrite and liar

The linked article said that, not me. "Gun-o-phobe" is limited strictly to the irrational fear of guns. I've said nothing beyond that. Where the root cause of that irrational fear comes from is their business.

If someone is deathly afraid of snakes and you call them a snake-o-phobe, then that's a correct attribution. It says nothing about where their fear of snakes comes from and what causes it. That root cause may or may not be something negative about their character, but calling them a snake-o-phobe doesn't make any judgement about that. You, on the other hand, presume to know what's in my heart, and you've got that wrong.

The next time you call me a liar, you should append it with "...pants on fire" for extra emphasis.

[jakee 1,256]

Quote

The linked article said that, not me.

No John, that is a lie.

I was kinda waiting for you to say that, because you always try and hide behind the "they said it not me" defence. Unfortunately it just doesn't work this time. The article does not mention gun-o-phobes. The article describes several highly derogatory classes of 'gun control advocate', you specifically state that the term 'gun-o-phobe' describes them. Not the article, but you and you alone. You even state that the people on this forum you call gun-o-phobes do fall into those categories!

Quote

"Gun-o-phobe" is limited strictly to the irrational fear of guns. I've said nothing beyond that.

Except for the fact that, as stated above, that's a lie.

Quote

If someone is deathly afraid of snakes and you call them a snake-o-phobe, then that's a correct attribution. It says nothing about where their fear of snakes comes from and what causes it. That root cause may or may not be something negative about their character, but calling them a snake-o-phobe doesn't make any judgement about that. You, on the other hand, presume to know what's in my heart, and you've got that wrong.

Oh John, once agin, you've just posted an article describing the seven* (again, highly derogatory) root causes of what you have chosen to describe as gun-o-phobia. You started this thread claiming you knew what was in other people's hearts. I, on the other hand, have simply pointed out why this makes you a hypocrite and a liar, I haven't speculated on your motive at all.

*And several of those categories have absolutely nothing to do with fear! The ideological chameleons aren't afraid. The security monoploists aren't afraid. The dysfunctionally unwordly aren't afraid. They all supposedly oppose gun ownership for entirely different reasons, and yet you have chosen to include them under the umbrella of gun-o-phobe.

Quote

The next time you call me a liar, you should append it with "...pants on fire" for extra emphasis.

Please. It's so obvious it doesn't need emphasis.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

I can understand how some people may resent crime, and conclude that criminals would be less bold if they weren't so well armed.

Great! So let's concentrate on taking the guns away from THEM, and not the law-abiding.

Great idea. I look forward to reading your suggestions on making implementation of existing laws prohibiting gun acquisition by felons and the mentally ill more effective.

Get us your numbers of those people who were GCA-68 barred who subsequently bought from gunstores and we'll discuss it. After that, we can discuss the 97% or so of crime guns that *DIDN'T* come from gunstores.

Thank you for proving the point, yet again.

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[kallend 1,625]

Quote

Quote

Way to go John. You claim that you never meant the term "gun-o-phobe" in a pejorative sense, then you post crap like that? I could make up shit about "gun-o-philes" as failed cop wannabees, or narcissists enjoying the secret thought that they could take out half their workplace before anyone could blink an eye, and it would be about as accurate.

Your piece of crap troll bait (which I admit to biting on) leaves out a lot of people, such as the victims who have suffered great harm at the hands of an armed lunatic, and don't want anyone else to have to go through the same pain. Or the regular people who just want to be able to go pick up a pizza without feeling they have to look over their shoulder all the time lest some punk who feels empowered by his gun decide to relieve them of some cash, or maybe their life.

Lots of decent folks don't want to feel threatened all the time, don't want the responsibility of carrying and the associated implied responsibility of making split second live-or-die decisions, and resent being effectively barred from going into certain areas or being confined to their homes after dark.

For the record I'm no gun-o-phobe. But I can understand how some people may resent crime, and conclude that criminals would be less bold if they weren't so well armed. I might not agree with them, but it's just stupid to continuously demonize everybody who disagrees with you.

Don

Let me make a comparison just so you can decide the rationality of your statement.

If this is the case then you should ban all alcohol(guns) sales. Lots of innocent people(Joe getting his pizza) die everyday from drunk drivers(nutters/criminals with guns). But you don't ban all alcohol sales, because as we know from experience that leads to gangs taking over and creating more death than the product itself.

You learned well from the JohnRich School of Strawman Creation.

Can you name one person on this list who advocates banning ALL gun sales?

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[GeorgiaDon 340]

Well John, can we at least agree that you are a "Gun-o-phobe-o-phobe"?

One last thing and then I'm going to pull the plug on my involvement with this thread. When I moved to the US from Canada I brought the typical Canadian dislike of the US gun culture with me. What changed my attitude? You did. Not with calling names, or belittling, or anything like that. Just a rational statement: "If guns were to be outlawed, all it would do is take the last means of self-defense from law abiding citizens. Criminals won't surrender their guns, only the law abiding would." (Paraphrasing a bit I'm sure). I thought about that and saw that it is true. Just a simple, rational argument, but irrefutable. When you call people names and belittle and demonize them (as the article you linked does) all it does is makes people get their back up and dig in their heels. Persuasive arguments, calmly delivered, carry the day if you really want to persuade.

Hope you have a safe weekend and blue skies,
Don

_____________________________________
Tolerance is the cost we must pay for our adventure in liberty. (Dworkin, 1996)
“Education is not filling a bucket, but lighting a fire.” (Yeats)

[fernjack455 0]

Quote

Quote

But I live in NJ and one stray 22 could do some serious damage due to population density.

an aimed 22 can only do moderate damage. A stray one...no, not really. You'd have to be rather unlucky. A typical rifle round, otoh, can go through quite a few walls.

Just to clarify. An AK74 is a .22. Actually a 5.45 mm or .214. So is an M16. at 5.56mm or .218 Robt. Kennedy was killed by a .22 revolver.

[JohnRich 4]

Quote

Well John, can we at least agree that you are a "Gun-o-phobe-o-phobe"?

Nope - I do not fear them.

Thank you for your well-reasoned and well-spoken posts.

You even made your point without saying "Liar liar pants on fire!"

[jakee 1,256]

Quote

Thank you for your well-reasoned and well-spoken posts.

You even made your point without saying "Liar liar pants on fire!"

Well that's interesting, because GeorgiaDon also pointed out your lie, and even used profanity while doing so. (I seem to remember you're not a big fan of anyone but you swearing).

So if his posts are well reasoned, you must admit that you're wrong, and if his posts are well spoken, you must admit that I have been the very model of civility...

Do you want to have an ideagasm?

[JohnRich 4]

I didn't say I agreed with everything G-Don said, I simply complimented him on being "well-reasoned and well-spoken". Unfortunately, I can't say the same about your posts.

The only thing I notice from you is that you repeatedly invent your own reality, and that you don't have any valid arguments to rebut my messages, so all you do is attack the messenger.

"Play the ball, not the player". Your one warning.

- John "pants-not-on-fire" Rich