Prev: Re: [GZG] weights was Slightly OT - Hypothetical weapon Next: Re: [GZG] Slightly OT - Hypothetical weapon question

Re: [GZG] Slightly OT - Hypothetical weapon question

From: Oerjan Ariander <orjan.ariander1@c...>
Date: Tue, 28 Oct 2008 18:32:35 +0100
Subject: Re: [GZG] Slightly OT - Hypothetical weapon question

John Atkinson wrote:

> >>"Gosh, I thought it was a directional explosion. . . "
> >>
> >>Something like that?  Hehehe. . .
> >
> >Sometimes I get that impression, yes... though I wouldn't laugh about
it if
> >I were you :-/
>
>It's only funny because most of the folks who kill themselves off in
>this manner will be Infantrymen, [...]

It might be funny if the persons demanding those insanely-short minimum 
arming distances were the same ones who will actually, personally use
the 
weapons in question. If that were the case, they'd really only have 
themselves to blame when they get a fin assembly stuck in the forehead.

Unfortunately, the people making those demands *aren't* the end users of

the product, and thus will never personally have to suffer the effects
of 
their demands >:-(

/Oerjan

orjan.ariander1@comhem.se

"Life is like a sewer.
  What you get out of it, depends on what you put into it."
-Hen3ry

_______________________________________________
Gzg-l mailing list
Gzg-l@vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu
http://vermouth.csua.berkeley.edu:1337/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gzg-l


Prev: Re: [GZG] weights was Slightly OT - Hypothetical weapon Next: Re: [GZG] Slightly OT - Hypothetical weapon question