Frank White wrote:


In article .net,
says...

Jim Dauven wrote:


David

I love you man.

I can always count on you to make my day with your creative
paranoid explanation of things. I always get a chuckle out
of reading your posts.

The Independent



That's fine. But "paranoia" is an unreasonable fear.

You're not paranoid if they really ARE out to get you!

If you think that anyone who has read the posts of many of the people
on this group, or has spent any time relating to the average family or
group or person that calls themselves "survivalists" shouldn't be
afraid of them, then you are simply stupid.

Hey!

Not ALL of us are Gunkid or Mabu or alanc, you know!

And those that are will probably not last long, purely as a
matter of survival of the fittest.



I will live longer and better than you do.

Being far more fit to deal with the realities of no more stores than
you are.

As well as the realities of protecting myself from people like you.

You cannot shoot what you cannot locate. Think about it.

Have a nice day.


-dir

--
The greatest fine art of the future will be the making
of a comfortable living from a small piece of land.

Abraham Lincoln

"Babberney" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 03:04:34 -0500, "rick etter"
wrote:


====================
And that would be the case if it really were more profitable. fact is,
it
must not be in very many of the places you're talking about, otherwise,
farmers would switch. They aren't raising cattle for us out the goodness
of
their hearts, and if the land would truly support crops at a greater
profit,
they would change.

Who said anything about a profit? I said you get 20X the protein from
the same acreage.
=======================
Because dolt, you can only get that 20x if the land is suitable and the
farmer is doing it. have a hard time with this, don't you?

"Peter H" wrote in message
...
rick etter wrote:

"Peter H" wrote in message



and this giddy develop-increase-grow-engulf-or-bust economy
we're riding either [will] collapse under its own weight or at least goe
into
the spasms of severe change & redirection, ...... people will need to
eat.


=================
LOL Now you're depending on a second rate sci-fi hack

Satirist, not sci-fi. Hack? Most likely.
==================
Still doesn't shine brightly for your role model of world predictions, now
does it?



to base your world
predictions on?

The obsession with growth & continued expansion of consumerism to keep
an economy afloat can't be sustained forever.
======================
You know, I think somebody has been saying that for well more than 100 years
now. Afterall, everything that could have been invented already was a 100
years ago, according to the 'experts' then...


Someday a vigorous if not
violent shift will come about, regardless of which fanciful parallel is
used to point out its ineveitability. No culture can last indefinitely,
not even the current one.

What a hoot.



Some people are easily amused.
================
Yep, the idiocy on usenet from the idiots is far better entertainment than
anything the industry has to offer. They should bottle this stuff.
Keep supplying it!



Pete H

--
Never needlessly disturb a thing at rest.
anon.

"Peter H" wrote in message ...
Bob Peterson wrote:



Not a problem in the US. WE have far more arable land than what we would
ever need to feed ourselves and much of the world as well.

And if the remainder should come knocking at the door?
=====================
The rest of the world has even more area available. that they don't use it
efficiently now doesn't mean they never will.
Again, more than enough food is already produced.


Modern
agriculture is extrememly efficient at producing the most food per area
planted.



A good geal of what's produced isn't very good.
=================
LOL It only has to 'feed' people, remember?



Pete H

--
Never needlessly disturb a thing at rest.
anon.

Xref: kermit rec.gardens.edible:66093 rec.gardens:260353 misc.survivalism:505096 misc.rural:117118 rec.backcountry:173513

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 09:01:38 -0600, "Bob Peterson"
wrote:


The Oil pull were not as efficient as today's tractors but the
beat the hell out of a team of horses. The modern Gasoline
tractor didn't really become available until the 1930's

I thought most modern tractors were diesel. Hmm...

Modern ones yes..but not those of the 30s-70s

Gunner

'If you own a gun and have a swimming pool in the yard, the swimming
pool is almost 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.'"
Steven Levitt, UOC prof.

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 09:08:01 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote:


We're talking about a complete and total breakdown
scenario, here, something that shuts down all commercial
and government operations and lasts for years. And
while I'm sure that, eventually, we'd get the oil
pumping, the refineries producing, and the transport
network going again in such a case, it could take a
LONG TIME.

You can call me a raving optimist if you like, but my honest
best guess is that it will always take less time to restart
oil refineries and an economy to support them than to
refurbish steam engines, learn to use them and put them to
efficient use.

I agree.

Gunner

'If you own a gun and have a swimming pool in the yard, the swimming
pool is almost 100 times more likely to kill a child than the gun is.'"
Steven Levitt, UOC prof.

"Jim Dauven" wrote in message
...


Don wrote:
snipped
Why is the word *need* in your sentence?
Isn't that a word often used by the anti-gunners?
I have a Winchester Model 71, .348, inherited from my deceased father.
It is a great gun and will someday be passed on to my son.
In the future a LIEberal may ask him, "Why do you *need* a gun like
that?"
To which he will reply, "My guns are none of your goddamned business!"
The .348 has taken many a deer in the Pennsylvania area over the
decades.
The bullets, 225 grain silvertips, are becoming rarer all the time but I
manage to scrounge up a few boxes everytime I go to a gun show.

My son has a friend whose family owns a machine shop in Coose
Bay Oregon that specializes in making tools for the gun
industry.

If you run out of the ability to find .348 ammo or projectiles
(Hornady and Barnes still makes them) you might have a gunsmith
rebore the barrel to .358 cal as as there are lots of projectiles
in that diameter.

Thanks Jim, but boring is not really an option.
I've saved all my brass and will eventually get into reloading and molding
bullets if necessary.
I don't shoot the .348 alot as it is, ahem, rather uncomfortable to shoot
more than about 10 times in a row.
Its an awesome gun.

One the reasons that I like large bore rifles is that the larger
the bore the longer the range as they have more mass for inertia
to work with. Also the mass of the bullet will require more
energy from external sources to move from its path and there
for will have better long range accuracy. The accuracy, added
mass, and velocity has greater killing power at long ranges.

This long range accuracy is proof why snipers rifles are .30
caliber in most countries and now .338 Lapua by England and
some other countries. Also the .50 cal browning for Sniping
but the .50 Cal Browning weighs to much for humping up and down
15,000 foot mountains.

Besides having the biggest gun induces penis envy in those who
have smaller guns. (bseg)

The Independent


The Independent

"Richard Lewis" wrote in message
k.net...
"Don" wrote:

"Richard Lewis" wrote
Jim Dauven wrote:
If they were serious about survivalism especially in the west
they would have some serious shooting irons, like a M1, M1A, G3,
FAL, or a bolt action in a heavy caliber of .35 or larger.

Btw, what do you need a .35 cal rifle round to kill that a .30 won't?
Rogue Oregonian mammoths?

Why is the word *need* in your sentence?

Some idiot above suggested that *I* should have one....I am asking by
what logic he figures *I* need one?

No one said that, you just made it up.

You surely must have seen the sentence. You certainly quoted it
above.

If it was said, you would have quoted it.
But you didn't, I wonder why?

Isn't that a word often used by the anti-gunners?
I have a Winchester Model 71, .348, inherited from my deceased father.
It is a great gun and will someday be passed on to my son.
In the future a LIEberal may ask him, "Why do you *need* a gun like
that?"
To which he will reply, "My guns are none of your goddamned business!"

And your point is?

*blink*

The point is, that YOU have no say in what other people have, regarding
guns.
So consider not asking people whay they *need* a certain gun, it makes you
appear as an anti-gunner, and I'm quite certain you're not.

Should your son walk up to someone else and say "you should have one
simply because I have one and I say you should", I hope the other guy
laughs his ass off and calls him an idiot. I surely would.

Now you're just being ridiculous.

The .348 has taken many a deer in the Pennsylvania area over the decades.
The bullets, 225 grain silvertips, are becoming rarer all the time but I
manage to scrounge up a few boxes everytime I go to a gun show.

More deer are taken with .30 cal rounds than all other rounds
combined.

And now you want to get into a ****ing contest that can't be proven?

The question stiull stands....why do you suggest that *I
need* something other?

There ya go again Richard, using the word *need* in association with a gun.
Here's the deal.
You own whatever gun you want, and I'll own whatever gun I want.
But please, stop insisting that anyone *need* a gun, for YOU have no say in
what other people own.
Thanks.

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 23:45:47 GMT, (Richard
Lewis) wrote:


The .348 has taken many a deer in the Pennsylvania area over the
decades.
The bullets, 225 grain silvertips, are becoming rarer all the time but I
manage to scrounge up a few boxes everytime I go to a gun show.

More deer are taken with .30 cal rounds than all other rounds
combined. The question stiull stands....why do you suggest that *I
need* something other?

ral

The 3030 is reputed to be the #1 deer cartridge in the US. Id
suspect..if the truth be known..that its actually the .22lr that has
shot the most deer...generally in company with a spotlight and out of
season.

Its doubtful that it can be proven which gun has killed the most deers.

Neither of which cartridge Id much care to shoot a polar bear with.
The eskimos used to hunt polar bear with a .22 Hornet. Shot them in
the nose, let them drop into a hole in the ice, where they would
drown, then pull them back out on the ice and butcher them.

In Alaska I carried a Wingmaster 12 ga. with 3" deer slugs while running
traplines and a .357 Blackhawk.
Figured I'd wait til the charging bear got close, then empty the 6 deer
slugs into its head, then finish it off with the .357.
Glad one never charged, especially that 15 footer that was killed recently
with a 7mm. sheesh.....

According to my Rodale Encyclopedia Of Organic Gardening, you need
1200 running feet of row crops for the average adult for a year.
Space them at least 2 feet apart, that would be 12 hundred foot long
rows, or a 24' x 100' space--or you could do it in a 48' x 50' foot
space for each person you intend to be entirely self sufficient (with
veggies) for a year.

Frank Rizzo

Ian Stirling wrote in message ...
In misc.survivalism Down Under On The Bucket Farm wrote:
Hi Everybody,

I am working on long-term plans for self-sufficiency, oriented to
buying some bare land and building an off-grid house, rainwater
catchment, composting toilet, etc, etc.

One issue is the question of how much physical space would be
needed to grow enough food to completely support myself?

The answer kind of depends if you'r in the middle of the Amazon, Antarctica,
or Austria.

On Fri, 26 Dec 2003 19:29:00 -0800, Tim May
wrote:



A silly analysis. Hunter-gatherer societies faced periodic total
wipeouts, due to shortages of game or wild berries, etc.

Unlike the drought that lasts 5 years or the grasshoppers getting even
the seed grain, etc.? Without an infrastructure, a whole lot can
happen to any small group. Or large group. No one still knows what
happened to the Anaszi (SP?) in the US SW. Or that whole civilization
that was forgotten down in Mexico? Toltec? Something like that.
Both had extensive agriculture, large water systems, the whole
apparatus. Though they're both bad examples, having had
infrastructure.


They didn't "adopt" farming for some abstract reason. Rather, before it
existed it wasn't an option, and after it was invented there was no
going back. About 8000 years ago in central Turkey.

A better point is made in the post following yours about being able to
store enough of their work to keep ahead of the game and be more ready
for the bad years. Or at least one bad year interspersed among some
good to adequate ones.



--
rbc: vixen Fairly harmless

Hit reply to email.
Though I'm very slow to respond.
http://www.visi.com/~cyli

On Sat, 27 Dec 2003 18:16:41 -0600, lid wrote:



A better point is made in the post following yours about being able to
store enough of their work to keep ahead of the game and be more ready
for the bad years. Or at least one bad year interspersed among some
good to adequate ones.

Oops. I forgot a few pro / anti-settlement ones. The viability of
the land you're settling on. Get that one right and you can farm well
and need almost nothing from outside. Nice rich land like Appalachian
or Smokey mountain valleys (at least years ago, I don't know what
they're like now) versus Canadian Shield with thin soil and mineral
deficiencies such that osteoporosis is a worse enemy to moose than
wolves (until the end, when it, obviously, makes them easier prey.).

Most places distant enough from large numbers of humans for
survivalism are underpopulated because they're not productive land for
farming. Check out Iowa versus North Dakota. The Four Corners
versus the Napa Valley.

So make your bug out spot somewhere where it's easier to survive, if
you want to raise crops?
--
rbc: vixen Fairly harmless

Hit reply to email.
Though I'm very slow to respond.
http://www.visi.com/~cyli

In article ,
says...

snip

You can call me a raving optimist if you like, but my honest
best guess is that it will always take less time to restart
oil refineries and an economy to support them than to
refurbish steam engines, learn to use them and put them to
efficient use.

I agree. It would take a cataclysm of unparalleled-in-
human-history dimensions to knock things down to the point
that they can't be put back up fairly quickly.

But it's interesting to consider what sort of things it
would be good to have, if such an event WERE to happen.

FW

In article k.net,
says...

Frank White wrote:


In article .net,
says...

Jim Dauven wrote:


David

I love you man.

I can always count on you to make my day with your creative
paranoid explanation of things. I always get a chuckle out
of reading your posts.

The Independent



That's fine. But "paranoia" is an unreasonable fear.

You're not paranoid if they really ARE out to get you!

If you think that anyone who has read the posts of many of the people
on this group, or has spent any time relating to the average family or
group or person that calls themselves "survivalists" shouldn't be
afraid of them, then you are simply stupid.

Hey!

Not ALL of us are Gunkid or Mabu or alanc, you know!

And those that are will probably not last long, purely as a
matter of survival of the fittest.



I will live longer and better than you do.

You will?

Being far more fit to deal with the realities of no more stores than
you are.

You are?

As well as the realities of protecting myself from people like you.

You can?

You cannot shoot what you cannot locate. Think about it.

You think?

Have a nice day.

That alanc jibe rather irritated you, I think. Remember,
you are not him. You say.

You also might want to remember that while I've been
poking fun, I haven't been throwing bricks. And have
steered you towards useful info like how to get salt-
peter. I'm also - as my above comment makes clear if
you know about Gunkid and Mabu - not one of those who
thinks that looting and pillage is the way to go. The
only way you'll need protecting from me is if YOU are
the one attacking; in which case, you'll need a LOT of
protection...

Have a nice day, too. And a Happy new year! ^_^

FW

In article , says...

The big steam powered engines that you are referring to were used
for thrashing of grains. They were two big to use as prime
movers. During the Buhl Idaho Sage Brush days in 1967 I got the
chance to be a fireman on a 42 hp Peerless steam thrashing
engine.
Let me tell you keeping the dammed thing in water for a two mile
parade was a backbreaking chore and I never wanted to do that
again. The thrashing machine was also pretty large and took
a two man crew to keep it fed and lubricated during operation.
A thrashing crew was generally 6 men for the engine the thrasher.

If you're talking about the school bus sized steam tractors,
I agree. Those things are too heavy and bulky to be anything
except mobile power stations. Although in the event of a
total TEOTWAWKI, one of those WOULD be good to have...

But there were smaller steam tractors that could be used for
plowing. In fact our local community fair has restored one
of each - the big and the small - to function, and they show
off what they can do at a thrashing bee / plowing demonstration
each year. I'm not saying the small one plows WELL, or that
I'd trust it on a steep side hill, but it DOES work.

And I agree that running a thrasher/steam engine combo
takes a lot of men who know that they're doing, and a lot of
work. And is an amazingly active sight.

(It took major effort to keep a steam engine watered for
just two miles? Did it have a leak?)

space saving snip

I should do all right if TEOTWAWKI ever occures.

Good-o! ^_^

The Independent

FW