Liberal Forum

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 7:13 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 7:13 am

Sorry, you didn't seem to have a problem with that when I first posted it.  It means the round tested was not a .22 round.  Consider that another answered question.

Now, explain your citation to prove you understand it AND acknowledge I provided an example of me explaining a citation. Attack all you like.  It shows your an idiot.

Sorry, you didn't seem to have a problem with that when I first posted it. 

I show you that I did, and you leave the forum for 10 years.

It means the round tested was not a .22 round.  Consider that another answered question

"Round tested"?

We are talking about the SCHV program not any small component.

What was the purpose of SCHV?

This is something you cannot be made to grasp because you are stupid.


Now acknowledge the facts in the citation, so you can take your next taint punt.

 

Blackvegetable » 06 Sep 2022, 1:43 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 1:43 pm

Huey » 06 Sep 2022, 1:34 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 1:34 pm

or:

Huh, a .22 firing at 3700 FPS designed in the 30s. Who deemed 1100 a muzzle velocity long held sufficient for civilian purposes?

You should have read the link I provided.  What else ya got?  This is fun and your argument is ignorant.  Sit down, shut the **** up, and don't challenge me on this again.

This is irrelevant. 

As noted before, the posted muzzle velocity of a .22 is 1070fps.

My guess is that it is the most common load.

Now, let's get back to the lesson.

The development of the cartridge that eventually became the .223 Remington (from which 5.56mm NATO would eventually be developed) would be intrinsically linked to the development of a new lightweight combat rifle. The cartridge and rifle were developed as one unit by Fairchild Industries, Remington Arms, and several engineers working toward a goal developed by U.S. Continental Army Command (CONARC). Early development work began in 1957.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO



do you understand and accept the underlined?

At your first balk, or extraneous yap, I'm done.

 

IF you are  going to give a lesson you first have to tell us what you are teaching.  I mean, if you going to design a new rifle platform that is lighter for less of a load for soldiers you of course need a lighter round.  DUH!  Your turn and no questions.  Show me how smart you are. 

My guess is that it is the most common load.

So your answer is NO ONE deemed it sufficient because their were faster rounds available and 22 rifles that could handle it.  

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 7:21 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 7:21 am

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 7:13 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 7:13 am

Sorry, you didn't seem to have a problem with that when I first posted it.  It means the round tested was not a .22 round.  Consider that another answered question.

Now, explain your citation to prove you understand it AND acknowledge I provided an example of me explaining a citation. Attack all you like.  It shows your an idiot.

Sorry, you didn't seem to have a problem with that when I first posted it. 

I show you that I did, and you leave the forum for 10 years.

It means the round tested was not a .22 round.  Consider that another answered question

"Round tested"?

We are talking about the SCHV program not any small component.

What was the purpose of SCHV?

This is something you cannot be made to grasp because you are stupid.


Now acknowledge the facts in the citation, so you can take your next taint punt.

 

 

I thought we were talking about the citation in your post, and your 1957 report which is about the .223 and 5.56 devolopement?

That is why you must provide narrative to show you understand the content. 

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 7:25 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 7:25 am

I thought we were talking about the citation in your post, and your 1957 report which is about the .223 and 5.56 devolopement?

That is why you must provide narrative to show you understand the content.

No...we were just trying to get you to type the title.

Didn't have much luck.

That is why you must provide narrative to show you understand the content.

No...I don't. 

You're kinda stupid. I can't spend my life tossing you fish.

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 7:24 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 7:24 am

IF you are  going to give a lesson you first have to tell us what you are teaching.  I mean, if you going to design a new rifle platform that is lighter for less of a load for soldiers you of course need a lighter round.  DUH!  Your turn and no questions.  Show me how smart you are. 

So your answer is NO ONE deemed it sufficient because their were faster rounds available and 22 rifles that could handle it.

I don't need to do ANYTHING for you to acknowledge the facts in citations.

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 7:33 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 7:33 am

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 7:24 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 7:24 am

IF you are  going to give a lesson you first have to tell us what you are teaching.  I mean, if you going to design a new rifle platform that is lighter for less of a load for soldiers you of course need a lighter round.  DUH!  Your turn and no questions.  Show me how smart you are. 

So your answer is NO ONE deemed it sufficient because their were faster rounds available and 22 rifles that could handle it.

I don't need to do ANYTHING for you to acknowledge the facts in citations.

 

As you can clearly see I understand what the citation is saying.  I am not so sure you do.  Your turn.  Until 06 Mar 2023 we are playing under my rules concerning demands and questions.  Explain the citation.  

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 7:32 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 7:32 am

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 7:25 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 7:25 am

I thought we were talking about the citation in your post, and your 1957 report which is about the .223 and 5.56 devolopement?

That is why you must provide narrative to show you understand the content.

No...we were just trying to get you to type the title.

Didn't have much luck.

That is why you must provide narrative to show you understand the content.

No...I don't. 

You're kinda stupid. I can't spend my life tossing you fish.

 

No...we were just trying to get you to type the title.

Didn't have much luck.

It has been reposted THREE times.  You can stop lying at any point now.  Apparently you did not have a point.  Just wanted the Title posted.  Oh, andyou never did make a point over that either.

No...I don't.

I have already explained the citation to you (you crossed it out).  Consider that your acknowledgement.  Now it is your turn. Or accept your defeat. 

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 7:38 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 7:38 am

It has been reposted THREE times.  You can stop lying at any point now.  Apparently you did not have a point.  Just wanted the Title posted.  Oh, andyou never did make a point over that either.

I have already explained the citation to you (you crossed it out).  Consider that your acknowledgement.  Now it is your turn. Or accept your defeat.

THREE different answers.

Now focus and stop yapping..

I'm about to punt your taint, again.

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 7:41 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 7:41 am

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 7:38 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 7:38 am

It has been reposted THREE times.  You can stop lying at any point now.  Apparently you did not have a point.  Just wanted the Title posted.  Oh, andyou never did make a point over that either.

I have already explained the citation to you (you crossed it out).  Consider that your acknowledgement.  Now it is your turn. Or accept your defeat.

THREE different answers.

Now focus and stop yapping..

I'm about to punt your taint, again.

 

THREE different answers.

And all were correct.

I'm about to punt your taint, again.

Finally you are going to make a point.  Been waiting for that for a while.  Remember, no questions or demands.  All you baby.  
 

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 7:35 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 7:35 am

As you can clearly see I understand what the citation is saying.  I am not so sure you do.  Your turn.  Until 06 Mar 2023 we are playing under my rules concerning demands and questions.  Explain the citation.

Until 06 Mar 2023 we are playing under my rules concerning demands and questions.  Explain the citation.  

Who is this "we", little turdy..

As you can clearly see I understand what the citation is saying.

This article describes the many variations of the Colt AR-15 and M16 rifle family of weapons produced by Colt's Manufacturing Company. Weapons patterned on the original ArmaLite AR-15 design

how many families?

How many designs?

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 7:43 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 7:43 am

And all were correct.

Finally you are going to make a point.  Been waiting for that for a while.  Remember, no questions or demands.  All you baby.

Do we need to continue at this point?

 

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 7:49 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 7:49 am

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 7:43 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 7:43 am

And all were correct.

Finally you are going to make a point.  Been waiting for that for a while.  Remember, no questions or demands.  All you baby.

Do we need to continue at this point?

 

 

 

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 7:48 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 7:48 am

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 7:35 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 7:35 am

As you can clearly see I understand what the citation is saying.  I am not so sure you do.  Your turn.  Until 06 Mar 2023 we are playing under my rules concerning demands and questions.  Explain the citation.

Until 06 Mar 2023 we are playing under my rules concerning demands and questions.  Explain the citation.  

Who is this "we", little turdy..

As you can clearly see I understand what the citation is saying.

This article describes the many variations of the Colt AR-15 and M16 rifle family of weapons produced by Colt's Manufacturing Company. Weapons patterned on the original ArmaLite AR-15 design

how many families?

How many designs?

 

Your words.

I'm about to punt your taint, again.

You can't punt anyone's taint unless you can offer an argument. Until you make it you are a loser.  GO on record with that record with that argument.

So far you are losing.  

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 7:52 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 7:52 am

Your words.

You can't punt anyone's taint unless you can offer an argument. Until you make it you are a loser.  GO on record with that record with that argument.

So far you are losing.

If I didn't offer an argument,  what have you been yapping at?

If you give 3 different answers to the same question, and insist they are all correct, there is clearly no point in having a debate with you about anything.

Which is why we will focus on the citations and facts therein.

Blackvegetable » 06 Sep 2022, 1:43 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 1:43 pm

This is irrelevant. 

As noted before, the posted muzzle velocity of a .22 is 1070fps.

My guess is that it is the most common load.

Now, let's get back to the lesson.

The development of the cartridge that eventually became the .223 Remington (from which 5.56mm NATO would eventually be developed) would be intrinsically linked to the development of a new lightweight combat rifle. The cartridge and rifle were developed as one unit by Fairchild Industries, Remington Arms, and several engineers working toward a goal developed by U.S. Continental Army Command (CONARC). Early development work began in 1957.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO

do you understand and accept the underlined?

At your first balk, or extraneous yap, I'm done.

@Huey  

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 7:58 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 7:58 am

If I didn't offer an argument,  what have you been yapping at?

If you give 3 different answers to the same question, and insist they are all correct, there is clearly no point in having a debate with you about anything.

Which is why we will focus on the citations and facts therein.

It was posted at least THREE times.  The actual title.

Run away.  You are not capable of making an argument.

You lose. 

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 8:00 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 8:00 am

Blackvegetable » 06 Sep 2022, 1:43 pm » wrote: ↑

06 Sep 2022, 1:43 pm

This is irrelevant. 

As noted before, the posted muzzle velocity of a .22 is 1070fps.

My guess is that it is the most common load.

Now, let's get back to the lesson.

The development of the cartridge that eventually became the .223 Remington (from which 5.56mm NATO would eventually be developed) would be intrinsically linked to the development of a new lightweight combat rifle. The cartridge and rifle were developed as one unit by Fairchild Industries, Remington Arms, and several engineers working toward a goal developed by U.S. Continental Army Command (CONARC). Early development work began in 1957.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/5.56%C3%9745mm_NATO

do you understand and accept the underlined?

At your first balk, or extraneous yap, I'm done.

@Huey  

 

What about it?   I already explained it to you.

Waiting for a point.  Balls in your court.  Consider your taint punted. 

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 8:02 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 8:02 am

It was posted at least THREE times.  The actual title.

Run away.  You are not capable of making an argument.

You lose.

Tiny,

You have already stipulated to the reason you never answer questions.
Because answering makes my case.

Who, other than a lying little piece of ****, would try to claim that 3 different titles are all the same?

At this point, all you are being asked to do is stipulate to facts in a citation.

You can't do it......because Objective Facts are consistently unkind to you.
 
 

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 8:10 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 8:10 am

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 8:02 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 8:02 am

It was posted at least THREE times.  The actual title.

Run away.  You are not capable of making an argument.

You lose.

 

 

I can't lose.  You have not offered an argument yet.  Because you do not understand your own citations.  

You have delusions of grandeur and have to make a grand production out every conversation.  You are not a lawyer or an investigator.  If you can't make an argument and kick my *** with it on your own take you L and move on.  You have no **** clue what you are talking about. 

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 8:14 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 8:14 am

I can't lose.  You have not offered an argument yet.  Because you do not understand your own citations.  

You have delusions of grandeur and have to make a grand production out every conversation.  You are not a lawyer or an investigator.  If you can't make an argument and kick my *** with it on your own take you L and move on.  You have no **** clue what you are talking about.

you have no idea what an argument is.


To demonstrate, I invite you to DEFINE "argument"


In order to cut off your escape route, I pledge to offer my own, once you make your attempt. 


It is an assertion upon which you repeatedly rely when I'm stomping.
 

Blackvegetable » 07 Sep 2022, 8:20 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 8:20 am

Huey » 07 Sep 2022, 8:14 am » wrote: ↑

07 Sep 2022, 8:14 am

I can't lose.  You have not offered an argument yet.  Because you do not understand your own citations.  

You have delusions of grandeur and have to make a grand production out every conversation. You are not a lawyer or an investigator.  If you can't make an argument and kick my *** with it on your own take you L and move on.  You have no **** clue what you are talking about.

 

Still waiting.  Enough of your diversions.

Bring it on.