Ossicle,
I can't speak for Paul R, who's been around for a while so I have a sense of him, but I doubt he was trying to control what you post. At least, that's not what I got from what he'd written.

Thanks - I have never and would never try to control anyone's right to free speech. Well, maybe my wife's when I'm losing an arguement !

I have an uncle who is a vietnam vet. He collects a lot of things... including old manuals on working with military ordinance. Military manuals he found in flea markets and things like that. He also collects japanese swords, german wwII helmets.... and has live vietnames rounds encased in empty steel shell casings.

If Jack's father is a veteran, it was possible that there were manuals. Jack's sister is a doctor, i thought that was mentioned. So she's not exactly a slacker in reading books. She could have picked something up as a child and learned the basics.

Really!? Cool, I didn't remember that -- I think it's a good point, and makes the situation much more plausible.

(Okay, how about this: How was Jack's sister so readily able to wire up that plastic explosive she found in Jack's apartment!? Competence must run in the family. Then there's dad, parting a guy's hair with a bullet fired from a 40-year old rifle from 300 yds. away. Quite a family! )

-oss

Just to clarify. How bad are heroine users compared to heroine users?

Heroin users are among the most pathetic people I've ever met and should not be included in fiction. Almost as bad as heroine users! (You know I mean you, Clark Kent!)

-oss

Just to clarify. How bad are heroine users compared to heroine users?

Heroin and heroine. I think one is a female hero and the other is a drug. Using a female hero may or may not be bad. I guess it depends on what you are using her for. If you are using her for the wrong things, then it may be worse than someone who uses the drug. If you are the female hero's employer, and you're using her to get a job done, then that's not a bad thing.

I'm running out of time here, so I've read this thread very fast and maybe I'm missing something. But as far as elevators go, they played a big part in LEGACIES (remember Milkdud?). I can easily imagine Jack thinking knowing how to gimmick elevators would be potentially useful knowledge and getting together with Dud to pick his brain.

Oh Boy...talk about a PC term. That's P'est C'est term I've heard all year.

Agreed


KRW

(Okay, how about this: How was Jack's sister so readily able to wire up that plastic explosive she found in Jack's apartment!? Competence must run in the family.
-oss

She DID watch Jack disassemble it right? Plus it was a strait forward bomb. No frills, only thrills. She was also pretty desperate at the time, so if she watched Jack disasseble it, it's no stretch to think she could reassemble it.

Then there's dad, parting a guy's hair with a bullet fired from a 40-year old rifle from 300 yds. away. Quite a family! ) What's wrong with a forty year old rifle? Tom was a sniper, and good at his job. He had a chance to sight it in. For him it was old school.
-oss

Your right, that family is very compentent. I'm sure it stems from their ancestors and caries on to their futre generations. Hell, I've two sisters that could split your hair at 300 yards and in a pinch stiil get the oil changed in their cars.

She DID watch Jack disassemble it right? Plus it was a strait forward bomb. No frills, only thrills. She was also pretty desperate at the time, so if she watched Jack disasseble it, it's no stretch to think she could reassemble it.



Your right, that family is very compentent. I'm sure it stems from their ancestors and caries on to their futre generations. Hell, I've two sisters that could split your hair at 300 yards and in a pinch stiil get the oil changed in their cars.

My mom is a perfect shot, even though she never practices. I shoot a lot, and she puts me to shame. She also got up on water skiis, on her very first try, and rode all over the lake till she got tired and waved us off. It took me forever to learn how to water ski.

I'm running out of time here, so I've read this thread very fast and maybe I'm missing something. But as far as elevators go, they played a big part in LEGACIES (remember Milkdud?). I can easily imagine Jack thinking knowing how to gimmick elevators would be potentially useful knowledge and getting together with Dud to pick his brain.

I think it may have even been mentioned in Crisscross. Maybe not.

Take it easy!
Of course I'm not trying to control what you post, Mr Ossicle (still respectful, if that's alright with you) and nor do I have a problem with what you post.
You seem to be an intelligent person, so I'm surprised you've decided to dissect what I've written and come to such conclusions. All I was saying was that you should just sit back and enjoy a book instead of pulling it to pieces. (And the same might be said for reading a post and pulling that to pieces too!)

Given Maggers's endorsement and your own apparent ingenuousness, I'll take this as sincere.

However, I think it would be worth your time to revisit what you said, as your remarks certainly come across as controlling/censuring.

You wrote:

"[C]an't you just sit down and read a book without overly analyzing it?"
"Every time I see a thread that you've started, you seem to be saying how he could have or should have done something different, or - in your eyes - better."
"Just sit back and enjoy!"
"[Ossicle] seems to be so very negative."
"[Ossicle] seems to be in a different corner than everybody else."

You cannot fail to see that, in the above, you _are_ expressing a not-at-all humble preference for what I write. You can play semantic games if you want, but among the accurate ways to describe that preference, when it's conveyed in the language you use, is "controlling/censuring." Even if you believe you don't mean it that way.

Then there's the material quoted at the very top of this post:

First:

"You seem to be an intelligent person, so I'm surprised you've decided to dissect what I've written and come to such conclusions."

That one's a doozy. You relate two separate things to (the presence or absence of) intelligence: (i) my "dissecting" what you wrote and (ii) me coming to the conclusions I did about it.

(i) is simply a bad point (are you really prepared to argue that it's unintelligent to reply to someone's remarks about oneself?). (ii) cuts in the opposite direction than you would like: my conclusions, per the above quotes from your posts, are correct, whereas your beliefs about what you posted are incorrect.

Second:

"All I was saying was that you should just sit back and enjoy a book instead of pulling it to pieces."

Mind more boggled than ever, I can only say: In your world it is not controlling to tell someone what they should and should not discuss, and how they should and should not read?

Obviously, feel free to reply, but I won't be reading it.

-oss