Return-Path: <stagecraft-report [at] theatrical.net>
X-Scanned-By: RAE MPP/Clamd http://raeinternet.com/mpp
X-Scanned-By: This message was scanned by MPP Lite Edition (www.messagepartners.com)!
X-Real-To: stagecraftlist [at] theatrical.net
Received: by prxy.net (CommuniGate Pro PIPE 4.2.10)
  with PIPE id 36668844; Thu, 19 Oct 2006 01:22:50 -0700
X-Spam-Checker-Version: SpamAssassin 3.1.5 (2006-08-29) on localhost
X-Spam-Status: No, score=-0.7 required=5.0 tests=AWL,EMPTY_MESSAGE,
	NO_RECEIVED,NO_RELAYS autolearn=no version=3.1.5
X-Spam-Level: 
X-ListServer: CommuniGate Pro LIST 4.2.10
List-Unsubscribe: <mailto:stagecraft-off [at] theatrical.net>
List-ID: <stagecraft.theatrical.net>
Message-ID: <list-36668781 [at] prxy.net>
From: "Stagecraft" <stagecraft [at] theatrical.net>
Sender: "Stagecraft" <stagecraft [at] theatrical.net>
To: "Stagecraft" <stagecraft [at] theatrical.net>
Precedence: list
Subject: Stagecraft Digest #987
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 01:21:26 -0700
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="ISO-8859-1"
Content-Disposition: inline
X-TFF-CGPSA-Version: 1.4
X-prxy-Spam-Filter: Scanned

For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
---------------------------------------------------

Stagecraft Digest, Issue #987

 1. Re: Black-and-white or sepia photo effect
    by "Tony Deeming" <deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
 2. Re: Academic Help
    by Loren Schreiber <lschreib [at] mail.sdsu.edu>
 3. Re: Black-and-white or sepia photo effect
    by Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
 4. Re: Black-and-white or sepia photo effect
    by "ladesigners [at] juno.com" <ladesigners [at] juno.com>
 5. Re: Sepia Tone
    by Kim Hartshorn <kim.hartshorn [at] plattsburgh.edu>
 6. a political stance
    by "Frank E. Merrill" <Lamplighter [at] tcon.net>
 7. Re: a political stance
    by "Tony Deeming" <deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
 8. Re: a political stance
    by Howard Ires <hi [at] hillinteractive.net>
 9. Re: a political stance
    by "Bill Nelson" <billn [at] peak.org>
10. Re: Black-and-white or sepia photo effect
    by "Bill Nelson" <billn [at] peak.org>
11. Re[2]: a political stance
    by "Frank E. Merrill" <Lamplighter [at] tcon.net>
12. Re: Re[2]: a political stance
    by Bill Potter <bpotter [at] sps.edu>
13. Re: a political stance
    by Ford Sellers <fhs4 [at] cornell.edu>
14. Re: Black-and-white or sepia photo effect
    by Myself <artguy66 [at] gmail.com>
15. Re: a political stance
    by Jerry Durand <jdurand [at] interstellar.com>
16. Re: a political stance
    by Jeffrey Cebula <jmcebula [at] yahoo.com>
17. A clarifying point
    by "Frank E. Merrill" <Lamplighter [at] tcon.net>
18. Re: a political stance
    by Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
19. Re: a political stance
    by Pat Kight <kightp [at] peak.org>
20. Re: a political stance
    by Chip Wood <chip.a.wood [at] gmail.com>
21. Re: Re[2]: a political stance
    by "Ray-Pfeifer, Merel" <raypf1mg [at] cmich.edu>
22. Re: a political stance
    by "Tony Deeming" <deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
23. Re: a political stance
    by "Benjamin G. Stickels" <benjamin.stickels [at] gmail.com>
24. Re: a political stance
    by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
25. Re: a political stance
    by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
26. Re: Sound Checks in Dinner Theatre
    by CB <psyd [at] cox.net>
27. Re: Fall harness
    by CB <psyd [at] cox.net>
28. Re: a political stance
    by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
29. Re: a political stance
    by "Nigel Worsley" <nigle [at] dsl.pipex.com>
30. Re: Black-and-white or sepia photo effect
    by "JUSTIN DAVID BENNETT" <jbennett43 [at] mail.accd.edu>
31. Re: Black-and-white or sepia photo effect
    by "Laura McMeley" <lmcmeley [at] msn.com>
32. Re: a political stance
    by "ladesigners [at] juno.com" <ladesigners [at] juno.com>
33. Re: a political stance
    by "ladesigners [at] juno.com" <ladesigners [at] juno.com>
34. Re: a political stance
    by "Tony Deeming" <deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
35. Re: Black-and-white or sepia photo effect
    by Clive Mitchell <bigclive1 [at] ntlworld.com>
36. Re: a political stance
    by Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
37. Re: Black-and-white or sepia photo effect
    by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
38. Re: a political stance
    by FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
39. Re: a political stance
    by <rigger [at] tds.net>
40. Re: a political stance
    by <rigger [at] tds.net>
41. Re: a political stance
    by Chip Wood <chip.a.wood [at] gmail.com>
42. Re: Black-and-white or sepia photo effect
    by Clive Mitchell <bigclive1 [at] ntlworld.com>
43. Re: a political stance
    by "Jason Salvatori" <theatretd [at] gmail.com>
44. Re: a political stance
    by "Benjamin G. Stickels" <benjamin.stickels [at] gmail.com>
45. Re: a political stance
    by "Tony Miller" <tonymille [at] gmail.com>
46. Re: a political stance
    by <rigger [at] tds.net>
47. Re: a political stance
    by <rigger [at] tds.net>
48. oh i'm just fannin th flames...
    by "Frank E. Merrill" <Lamplighter [at] tcon.net>
49. Re: a political stance
    by "Paul Schreiner" <pschreiner [at] rmwc.edu>
50. Re: a political stance
    by Stuart Wheaton <sdwheaton [at] fuse.net>
51. Re: a political stance
    by MissWisc [at] aol.com
52. Re: a political stance
    by Brian James <brianedwardjames [at] gmail.com>
53. guns,  was re:  political stance
    by Jacqueline Haney Kidwell <jacki14fr [at] yahoo.com>
54. Re: a political stance
    by Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
55. Re: a political stance
    by Charlie Richmond <charlier [at] RichmondSoundDesign.com>
56. Re: a political stance
    by Simon Shuker <simon [at] ef-ae.com>
57. Re: a political stance
    by Brian James <brianedwardjames [at] gmail.com>
58. Re: a political stance
    by "Bill Nelson" <billn [at] peak.org>
59. Re: a political stance
    by "Bill Nelson" <billn [at] peak.org>
60. Re: a political stance
    by "Bill Nelson" <billn [at] peak.org>
61. Re: a political stance
    by "Bill Nelson" <billn [at] peak.org>
62. Re: Black-and-white or sepia photo effect
    by "Bill Nelson" <billn [at] peak.org>

*** Please update the subject line of your reply to use the subject
*** line of the message you are replying to! Please only reply to
*** one message subject in each reply.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

From: "Tony Deeming" <deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
Subject: RE: Black-and-white or sepia photo effect
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:10:21 +0100
Message-ID: <ODEMKLAMIBKNHPJLNKDPEEDOENAA.deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-36607148 [at] prxy.net>

John, hi.

It is feasible to set a lighting state for a single pose in a sepia tone
(b/w nigh more difficult) by using stark cold burning open white combined
with copious amounts of chocolate (lots of backlight in choc). A little dark
amber sidelight has also worked for me in this situation as well (not a lot,
tho).

However I suspect that it would be hellishly difficult to run any sort of
scene, let alone a whole show in that sort of lighting state. I suspect it
would also put some strain on the audience to a point.... The thing with
most lighting effects is that they're great as just that - an effect - once
the punters get used to a different lighting setup it can start to grate a
little, I suspect.

It may be feasible to do a "Wizard of Oz" style transition - ie START the
show in a sepia style then move to a more traditional style soon after. This
sets the mood, but doesn't restrict your options.

I've done a few shows with Sepia effects, and all have been for static
poses. I have also had some success with (again a static pose) for one that
whilst not quite b/w, gave a good impression of the starkness of a b/w
state. In LSOH 4 years ago I lit "Skid Row) with lots of harsh white light,
several from the sides & back with not too much from FoH. Many of the
costumes were monochrome, and the set at that point was mainly b/w - to be
re-dressed as the show progressed.

The pics on our web site don't really do justice (taken from a video cam)
but do give the idea.
http://www.btinternet.com/~abbey.theatre/LSOH_Photos.htm

HTH

TD

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net]On Behalf Of John
> Arrowsmith
> Sent: 18 October 2006 10:26
> To: Stagecraft
> Subject: Black-and-white or sepia photo effect
>
>
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Aaarggghhh ... tried to search the archives on variations of
> "black-and-white photo" or "sepia photo" keywords but in every case
> the search timed out ...
>
> I'm sure it's in there somewhere - just can't remember what the
> recommendations were :((
>
> For a schools drama production, the director is apparently dressing
> the characters in black-and-white costumes and would like the result
> to look like either a black-and-white photo or one in sepia tones. I'd
> prefer sepia myself :)
>
> I seem to remember chocolate being recommended as THE filter of
> choice, but am also very well aware that my memory cells are pretty
> suspect ...
>
> ... can anyone remember the discussion and the recommendation(s) and
> let me know what they were / where they are ?
>
> Show goes out on Friday ... I'll need to buy later today / tomorrow,
> so prompt-ish would be great :)))
>
> John the Somewhat Elderly
> --
> John Arrowsmith (john [at] arrowsmith.demon.co.uk)
> Voluntary website provider / editor for the annual schools / colleges
> anti-substance-abuse performing-arts extravaganza called UK Rock
> Challenge at http://www.rockchallenge.co.uk
>
>
>



------------------------------

Message-Id: <7.0.1.0.2.20061018061629.03799da0 [at] mail.sdsu.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 06:35:39 -0700
From: Loren Schreiber <lschreib [at] mail.sdsu.edu>
Subject: Re: Academic Help
In-Reply-To: <list-36608091 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-36608091 [at] prxy.net>

I dunno, Moe. I looked at your program on the web and theatre is 
certainly given short-shrift. I guess it figures when the chair is 
from communications. What struck me most was the lack of any dramatic 
literature within the department. I presume that is handled by the 
English department, effectively killing any "live" component. How can 
you spark a student's interest in a subject if it has no context? It 
looks to me like the handwriting is already on the wall (to wax 
biblical for a moment); there is no mention of theatre at all on the 
page for "theatre arts." So, bump your program down from a major to a 
minor? Hell, bump it up to its own department! Lack of departmental 
support seems to be the real problem here. Forget Sophocles, 
Euripides, Plautus! Forget Shakespeare, Lorca, Wilson! What's any of 
that got to do with becoming a TV personality?

I feel for you Moe.


Loren "Grits" Schreiber, Technical Director
School of Theatre, Television and Film
San Diego State University

Long Reach Long Riders announce dates for the 2007 Charity Ride.
Check out www.lrlr.org   for more information, and then join us! 


------------------------------

In-Reply-To: <list-36610766 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-36610766 [at] prxy.net>
Message-Id: <933EA204-441C-43F4-BD39-19E4E26B66C8 [at] rochester.rr.com>
From: Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
Subject: Re: Black-and-white or sepia photo effect
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:52:34 -0400


On 18 Oct 2006, at 07:10, Tony Deeming wrote:

> However I suspect that it would be hellishly difficult to run any  
> sort of
> scene, let alone a whole show in that sort of lighting state. I  
> suspect it
> would also put some strain on the audience to a point.... The thing  
> with
> most lighting effects is that they're great as just that - an  
> effect - once
> the punters get used to a different lighting setup it can start to  
> grate a
> little, I suspect.

	I have a feeling that the effect wouldn't work for too long for  
another reason as well. The audience's eyes (Actually their brains)  
would adjust after a short while and they'd start to se the colour  
anyway. The brain has an amazing ability to compensate!

	I agree that for a short tableau it could work well, but not for an  
extended time.

Bruce
____________________
Bruce Purdy
Technical Director
Smith Opera House




------------------------------

From: "ladesigners [at] juno.com" <ladesigners [at] juno.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:11:28 GMT
Subject: Re: Black-and-white or sepia photo effect
Message-Id: <20061018.071141.833.617715 [at] webmail34.lax.untd.com>

Just do the scene(s) under a monochromatic light source such as a =

Sodium, [yellowish] or Mercury [bluish] high intensity discharge =

lamps, such as are used to illuminate parking lots and you can get a =

black and white or even Sepia effect. You will need plenty of Black-
wrap and/or barndoors to control beam angle and spill.
/s/ Richard
___________________________
> For a schools drama production, the director is apparently dressing =

> the characters in black-and-white costumes and would like the =

result to look like either a black-and-white photo or one in sepia =

> tones. I'd prefer sepia myself :)



------------------------------

Message-ID: <20061018104021.5o7af8ulvogswsg4 [at] webmail.plattsburgh.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:40:21 -0400
From: Kim Hartshorn <kim.hartshorn [at] plattsburgh.edu>
Subject: Re: Sepia Tone
References: <list-36608091 [at] prxy.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-36608091 [at] prxy.net>


This is not a good effect on stage.  Sepia toned photographs are washed in a
uniform tone.  The only real way to do this on stage is if you could somehow
create an even haze that stays in place for the whole show that you can color
with light.  Otherwise if you wash the whole stage in a chocolate filter you
will simply wash out anything that is visually interesting...while making
everyone look more or less jaundiced.

An alternative might be to open the show in a tableau, maybe even a 
small posed
group framed in black legs and borders to a small 'posed photo' look.  
This you
could light till you get the effect you like, then pull the black frame out,
drop out of the tableau light and start the show.  If appropriate, 
scenes could
end in the same manner.

good luck

Kim





------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:01:02 -0400
From: "Frank E. Merrill" <Lamplighter [at] tcon.net>
Reply-To: "Frank E. Merrill" <Lamplighter [at] tcon.net>
Message-ID: <817482876.20061018110102 [at] tcon.net>
Subject: a political stance

Howdy all!

I apologize for...no...on the other hand I DON'T apologize for posting
this, because I believe this strikes at the core of basic freedom in
the United States of America:

Why would an honest person even want a gun?"

by Alan Korwin, Author
"Gun Laws of America"

It's time to remember what the Democrat party generally seeks
regarding guns and gun rights. The democrat-backed Brady group and
similar outfits have been quiet about guns because they want to win
the election, and impose their goals on your rights --

THE FIVE YEAR PLAN:

1. National Licensing of all handgun purchases.

2. Licenses for Rifle and Shotgun owners.

3. State Licenses for ownership of firearms.

4. Arsenal Licenses (5 guns and 250 rounds of ammunition).

5. Arsenal License Fees (at least $300.00, with a cap of $1,000.00).

6. Limits on Arsenal Licensing (None in counties with populations of more
than 200,000).

7. Requirement of Federally Approved Storage Safes for all guns.

8. Inspection License. (Gun safe licenses, yearly fee for spot inspections).

9. Ban on Manufacturing in counties with a population of more than 200,000.

10. Banning all military style firearms.

11. Banning Machine Gun Parts or parts which can be used in a Machine gun.

12. Banning the carrying a firearm anywhere but home or target range or in
transit from one to the other.

13. Banning replacement parts (manufacturing, sale, possession, transfer,
installation) except barrel, trigger group.

14. Elimination of the Curio Relic list.

15. Control of Ammunition belonging to Certain Surplus Firearms. (7.62x54R
and .303).

16. Eventual Total Ban of Handgun Possession..

17. Banning of Any ammo that fits military guns (post 1945).

18. Banning of any quantity of smokeless powder or black powder which would
constitute more than the equivalent of 100 rounds of ammunition.

19. Ban the possession of explosive powders of more than 1 kg. at any one
time.

20. Banning of High Powered Ammo or Wounding ammo.

21. A National License for Ammunition.

22. Banning or strict licensing of all re-loading components.

23. National Registration of ammunition or ammo buyers.

24. Requirements of special storage safe for ammunition and licensing.

25. Restricting Gun Ranges to counties with populations less than 200,000.

26. Special Licensing of ranges.

27. Special Range Tax to visitors. ($85.00 per visit per person).

28. Waiting period for rentals on pistol ranges.

29. Banning Gun Shows.

30. Banning of military reenactments.

PLUS:

Ban of all clips and magazines holding over 6 bullets.

Elimination of the Dept. of Civilian Marksmanship.

Ban on all realistic replica and toy guns (including "air soft" and
paintball). 

The right of gun-violence victims to sue, with financial assistance
from government programs, the gun manufacturers.

Taxes on ammo, dealers, guns, licenses to offset medical costs to society.

The eventual ban on all semi-automatics regardless of when made or caliber.

While it's true Republicans haven't done very much to defend your gun rights
(OK, they have done a little) in six years of control, they offer no support
for the anti-rights disarm-the-public plans the left wing will impose on you
if they gain power in the next election. It's your choice:  Do you stay home
and evaporate your rights, or go out and defend them at the ballot box?

Tell your friends.

If you took the bait and voted early, instead of rising up as a whole and
voting on election day like you're supposed to, this message is too late and
you got screwed.

Thanks for reading.
Alan Korwin, Author
"Gun Laws of America"

Permission to circulate this message gladly granted.

Best regards,
  Frank E. Merrill
  MERRILL STAGE EQUIPMENT
  Indianapolis
  Established 1946
  www.merrillstage.com 

This email is a natural hand made product. The slight variations in spelling and grammar
enhance its individual character and beauty, and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects.
 
  Running THE BAT!  Natural e-mail system v.3.85.03        mailto:Lamplighter [at] tcon.net



------------------------------

From: "Tony Deeming" <deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
Cc: Lamplighter [at] tcon.net (Frank E. Merrill)
Subject: RE: a political stance
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 16:09:08 +0100
Message-ID: <ODEMKLAMIBKNHPJLNKDPGEEBENAA.deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-36621881 [at] prxy.net>

Hey, Frank.
Forgive this non-gun-toting Brit for being dumb, but what are you asking
here?
Are you pro-gun or anti?

Here in Blighty of course we already have a ban on hand-guns and pretty
strict laws about other firearms. The problem, of course, is that we seem to
be rapidly approaching the situation 'over there' where it matters not
whether the laws are there - if the crims want a gun, they GET a gun and
care little where/how they use them!!

TD

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net]On Behalf Of Frank E.
> Merrill
> Sent: 18 October 2006 16:01
> To: Stagecraft
> Subject: a political stance
>
>
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Howdy all!
>
> I apologize for...no...on the other hand I DON'T apologize for posting
> this, because I believe this strikes at the core of basic freedom in
> the United States of America:
>
> Why would an honest person even want a gun?"
>
> by Alan Korwin, Author
> "Gun Laws of America"
>
> It's time to remember what the Democrat party generally seeks
> regarding guns and gun rights. The democrat-backed Brady group and
> similar outfits have been quiet about guns because they want to win
> the election, and impose their goals on your rights --
>
> THE FIVE YEAR PLAN:
>
> 1. National Licensing of all handgun purchases.
>
> 2. Licenses for Rifle and Shotgun owners.
>
> 3. State Licenses for ownership of firearms.
>
> 4. Arsenal Licenses (5 guns and 250 rounds of ammunition).
>
> 5. Arsenal License Fees (at least $300.00, with a cap of $1,000.00).
>
> 6. Limits on Arsenal Licensing (None in counties with populations of more
> than 200,000).
>
> 7. Requirement of Federally Approved Storage Safes for all guns.
>
> 8. Inspection License. (Gun safe licenses, yearly fee for spot
> inspections).
>
> 9. Ban on Manufacturing in counties with a population of more
> than 200,000.
>
> 10. Banning all military style firearms.
>
> 11. Banning Machine Gun Parts or parts which can be used in a Machine gun.
>
> 12. Banning the carrying a firearm anywhere but home or target range or in
> transit from one to the other.
>
> 13. Banning replacement parts (manufacturing, sale, possession, transfer,
> installation) except barrel, trigger group.
>
> 14. Elimination of the Curio Relic list.
>
> 15. Control of Ammunition belonging to Certain Surplus Firearms. (7.62x54R
> and .303).
>
> 16. Eventual Total Ban of Handgun Possession..
>
> 17. Banning of Any ammo that fits military guns (post 1945).
>
> 18. Banning of any quantity of smokeless powder or black powder
> which would
> constitute more than the equivalent of 100 rounds of ammunition.
>
> 19. Ban the possession of explosive powders of more than 1 kg. at any one
> time.
>
> 20. Banning of High Powered Ammo or Wounding ammo.
>
> 21. A National License for Ammunition.
>
> 22. Banning or strict licensing of all re-loading components.
>
> 23. National Registration of ammunition or ammo buyers.
>
> 24. Requirements of special storage safe for ammunition and licensing.
>
> 25. Restricting Gun Ranges to counties with populations less than 200,000.
>
> 26. Special Licensing of ranges.
>
> 27. Special Range Tax to visitors. ($85.00 per visit per person).
>
> 28. Waiting period for rentals on pistol ranges.
>
> 29. Banning Gun Shows.
>
> 30. Banning of military reenactments.
>
> PLUS:
>
> Ban of all clips and magazines holding over 6 bullets.
>
> Elimination of the Dept. of Civilian Marksmanship.
>
> Ban on all realistic replica and toy guns (including "air soft" and
> paintball).
>
> The right of gun-violence victims to sue, with financial assistance
> from government programs, the gun manufacturers.
>
> Taxes on ammo, dealers, guns, licenses to offset medical costs to society.
>
> The eventual ban on all semi-automatics regardless of when made
> or caliber.
>
> While it's true Republicans haven't done very much to defend your
> gun rights
> (OK, they have done a little) in six years of control, they offer
> no support
> for the anti-rights disarm-the-public plans the left wing will
> impose on you
> if they gain power in the next election. It's your choice:  Do
> you stay home
> and evaporate your rights, or go out and defend them at the ballot box?
>
> Tell your friends.
>
> If you took the bait and voted early, instead of rising up as a whole and
> voting on election day like you're supposed to, this message is
> too late and
> you got screwed.
>
> Thanks for reading.
> Alan Korwin, Author
> "Gun Laws of America"
>
> Permission to circulate this message gladly granted.
>
> Best regards,
>   Frank E. Merrill
>   MERRILL STAGE EQUIPMENT
>   Indianapolis
>   Established 1946
>   www.merrillstage.com
>
> This email is a natural hand made product. The slight variations
> in spelling and grammar
> enhance its individual character and beauty, and in no way are to
> be considered flaws or defects.
>
>   Running THE BAT!  Natural e-mail system v.3.85.03
mailto:Lamplighter [at] tcon.net





------------------------------

Message-ID: <45364496.3030308 [at] hillinteractive.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:13:26 -0400
From: Howard Ires <hi [at] hillinteractive.net>
Subject: Re: a political stance
References: <list-36621881 [at] prxy.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-36621881 [at] prxy.net>

Frank E. Merrill wrote:
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> Howdy all!
> 
> I apologize for...no...on the other hand I DON'T apologize for posting
> this, because I believe this strikes at the core of basic freedom in
> the United States of America:

don't worry, there's enough gun-toting Democrats to keep laws like that 
from happening.  here in Vermont you can still buy guns & ammo at a 
general store.

--------------------H

------------------------------

Message-ID: <1362.205.215.255.215.1161184632.squirrel [at] webmail.peak.org>
In-Reply-To: <list-36622392 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-36621881 [at] prxy.net> <list-36622392 [at] prxy.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 08:17:12 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: a political stance
From: "Bill Nelson" <billn [at] peak.org>

> don't worry, there's enough gun-toting Democrats to keep laws like that
> from happening.  here in Vermont you can still buy guns & ammo at a
> general store.

Yep. And the same is pretty much true for states West of the Mississippi,
except for California.

Bill


------------------------------

Message-ID: <1371.205.215.255.215.1161184978.squirrel [at] webmail.peak.org>
In-Reply-To: <list-36607148 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-36607148 [at] prxy.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 08:22:58 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Black-and-white or sepia photo effect
From: "Bill Nelson" <billn [at] peak.org>

> For a schools drama production, the director is apparently dressing
> the characters in black-and-white costumes and would like the result
> to look like either a black-and-white photo or one in sepia tones. I'd
> prefer sepia myself :)

It won't work for a whole show - the audiences eyes will adapt.

About a year ago, I used the effect for the opening scene or two of the
revival edition of Annie Get Your Gun. It then transitioned to normal
lighting.

Quite a few audience members commented on loving the "old time photograph"
look of the opening, so it must have worked.

Bill


------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:32:58 -0400
From: "Frank E. Merrill" <Lamplighter [at] tcon.net>
Reply-To: "Frank E. Merrill" <Lamplighter [at] tcon.net>
Message-ID: <1566915790.20061018113258 [at] tcon.net>
Subject: Re[2]: a political stance
In-Reply-To: <list-36622194 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-36621881 [at] prxy.net> <list-36622194 [at] prxy.net>

Howdy !

Wednesday, October 18, 2006, Tony Deeming wrote:

> Are you pro-gun or anti?

I am in favor of citizens having the right to own a gun if they choose
to do so.

> if the crims want a gun, they GET a gun and care little where/how
> they use them!

"Does not play by the rules" is fundamental to the definition of
being a crook.

Best regards,
  Frank E. Merrill
  MERRILL STAGE EQUIPMENT
  Indianapolis
  Established 1946
  www.merrillstage.com

This email is a natural hand made product.  The slight variations in
spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty, and
in no way are to be considered flaws or defects.

  Running THE BAT!  Natural e-mail system v.3.85.03          mailto:Lamplighter [at] tcon.net

   



------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:37:52 -0400
Subject: Re: Re[2]: a political stance
From: Bill Potter <bpotter [at] sps.edu>
Message-ID: <C15BC290.4A1%bpotter [at] sps.edu>
In-Reply-To: <list-36623251 [at] prxy.net>

Isn't this TOTALLY off topic for this list?

If we all posted about about our "basic freedoms," would there be any time
left for anything actually stagecraft related?

Bill Potter
TD, St. Paul's School
Concord NH


On 10/18/06 11:32 AM, "Frank E. Merrill" <Lamplighter [at] tcon.net> wrote:

> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> Howdy !
> 
> Wednesday, October 18, 2006, Tony Deeming wrote:
> 
>> Are you pro-gun or anti?
> 
> I am in favor of citizens having the right to own a gun if they choose
> to do so.
> 
>> if the crims want a gun, they GET a gun and care little where/how
>> they use them!
> 
> "Does not play by the rules" is fundamental to the definition of
> being a crook.
> 
> Best regards,
>   Frank E. Merrill
>   MERRILL STAGE EQUIPMENT
>   Indianapolis
>   Established 1946
>   www.merrillstage.com
> 
> This email is a natural hand made product.  The slight variations in
> spelling and grammar enhance its individual character and beauty, and
> in no way are to be considered flaws or defects.
> 
>   Running THE BAT!  Natural e-mail system v.3.85.03
> mailto:Lamplighter [at] tcon.net
> 
>    
> 
> 


------------------------------

Message-Id: <6.2.5.6.2.20061018113617.031d2670 [at] cornell.edu>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 11:39:23 -0400
From: Ford Sellers <fhs4 [at] cornell.edu>
Subject: Re: a political stance
In-Reply-To: <list-36621881 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-36621881 [at] prxy.net>

Do you mean rights like...say...Habeas Corpus? maybe the right to 
hear the evidence against you.  The right to an attorney?  The right 
to have a phone call?  the right to notify your family if you've been 
arrested?  The right to have an independent judiciary review the 
charges against you and release you if there isn't adeqate evidence 
to justify your detention?

At 11:01 AM 10/18/2006, you wrote:
>It's your choice:  Do you stay home
>and evaporate your rights, or go out and defend them at the ballot box?

************************
Ford H Sellers
Master Electrician
Cornell University
Schwartz Center for the Performing Arts
430 College Avenue
Ithaca NY, 14850
(607) 254-2736  office
(607) 254-2733  fax 



------------------------------

Message-ID: <7b8450b90610180847n28403bbao896ccfa80f752d74 [at] mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 08:47:10 -0700
From: Myself <artguy66 [at] gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Black-and-white or sepia photo effect
In-Reply-To: <list-36619063 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-36619063 [at] prxy.net>

On 10/18/06, ladesigners [at] juno.com <ladesigners [at] juno.com> wrote:
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Just do the scene(s) under a monochromatic light source such as a
> Sodium, [yellowish] or Mercury [bluish] high intensity discharge
> lamps, such as are used to illuminate parking lots and you can get a
> black and white or even Sepia effect. You will need plenty of Black-
> wrap and/or barndoors to control beam angle and spill.
> /s/ Richard


The baggage claim in Sydney had sodium lights over the carasel.  I
spent half an hour looking for my green bag- All the bags looked
black.  It certainly looked sepia like. Not very pleasant for a long
time, however.

Mark-O

(As for the other thread going on, G-mail sure makes it easy to
dispose of crap like that)

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 08:27:56 -0700
From: Jerry Durand <jdurand [at] interstellar.com>
Subject: Re: a political stance
In-reply-to: <list-36621881 [at] prxy.net>
Message-id: <AE9F59D5-6754-4A3F-BD36-26DB026AC892 [at] interstellar.com>
References: <list-36621881 [at] prxy.net>


On Oct 18, 2006, at 8:01 AM, Frank E. Merrill wrote:

> I apologize for...no...on the other hand I DON'T apologize for posting
> this, because I believe this strikes at the core of basic freedom in
> the United States of America:

"The USA Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has proposed that =20
airlines cruise lines, and operators of all other ships and planes -- =20=

including charter flights, air taxis, fishing vessels, etc. -- be =20
required to get individual permission (=94clearance=94) from the DHS for =
=20
each passenger on all flights or ocean voyages to, from, or via the =20
USA. "

http://hasbrouck.org/blog/archives/001156.html

I guess that will kill the spur of the moment deep sea fishing =20
trips.  I wonder if that would include dreaming about being outside =20
the country?  :)


------------------------------

Message-ID: <20061018160330.39598.qmail [at] web32412.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:03:30 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jeffrey Cebula <jmcebula [at] yahoo.com>
Subject: Re: a political stance
In-Reply-To: <list-36621881 [at] prxy.net>



--- "Frank E. Merrill" <Lamplighter [at] tcon.net> wrote:
 
> Why would an honest person even want a gun?"
> 

three reasons:  Hunting, Self Defense, and fun.

On the self defense part, if you leave your guns in
your basement gun safe unloaded with the ammo in
another safe, what good is it when the person breaking
into your house has his gun loaded and in his hand? 
or, if you're in your car and your gun is under the
passenger seat loaded, but with the saftey on, but the
guy who's carjacking you has his gun pointed at your
face?

On the hunting part, do you need a magazine with more
than six bullets?  wouldn't the
deer/quail/duck/bear/cute woodland creature have run
away by the time you missed with the first five?

As far as getting a license goes, now you can keep
track of who's got a gun, and what the specific
qualities of that gun are(I'm not a ballistics person,
so I can't go into that).  That at least gives the
police something to go on if someone's shot with your
gun.

As far as the fun part goes, couldn't the gun club buy
all the assault rifles and machine guns, and then you
pay to use them for the evening?  You pay membership
dues or a shooting fee to shoot the guns at the range
anyway, and then they have to worry about maintaining
and securing the firearms.

but, I also agree with "If guns are outlawed, only
outlaws will have guns."  

I'm for gun registration and regulation, not banning.

(stepping off the soapbox)

Jeff

Jeffrey M. Cebula
Scenic and Lighting Design
610-620-4125
jeffreymcebula.com



__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:07:43 -0400
From: "Frank E. Merrill" <Lamplighter [at] tcon.net>
Reply-To: "Frank E. Merrill" <Lamplighter [at] tcon.net>
Message-ID: <1218813969.20061018120743 [at] tcon.net>
Subject: A clarifying point

Howdy !

What appeared to have been a question of mine ("Why would an honest
person even want to own a gun?") was in fact the title of the document
I posted.

Best regards,
  Frank E. Merrill
  MERRILL STAGE EQUIPMENT
  Indianapolis
  Established 1946
  www.merrillstage.com 

This email is a natural hand made product. The slight variations in spelling and grammar
enhance its individual character and beauty, and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects.
 
  Running THE BAT!  Natural e-mail system v.3.85.03        mailto:Lamplighter [at] tcon.net



------------------------------

In-Reply-To: <list-36621881 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-36621881 [at] prxy.net>
Message-Id: <6A7E7694-7CD7-480B-8EDF-D3AE6262E278 [at] rochester.rr.com>
From: Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
Subject: Re: a political stance
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:08:44 -0400

Frank, I would have to agree with Tony - your post was rather  
confusing - even contradictory. You started off by asking

> Why would an honest person even want a gun?"

And then went into a long diatribe as to what the Democrats would  
allegedly do to gun rights! Whilst I don't entirely agree with it,  
the original question (Not answered or addressed in the rest of the  
post unless I missed it somewhere) does have some merit.

	What I found interesting is that the Republicans, already well known  
for there fear-mongering, have turned the technique against the  
Democrats. It seems like Dems are on an equal footing with  
"Terrorists" and MUST be defeated. Pure propaganda!  It's also ironic  
that the Democrats are accused of wanting to take away personal  
rights and freedoms when no administration in this nation's history  
has done more of exactly that!

	I DO apologise for this WAY off topic post, but as my kids always  
used to say: "He started it!"

Bruce
____________________
Bruce Purdy
Technical Director
Smith Opera House




------------------------------

Message-ID: <45365228.6020401 [at] peak.org>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:11:20 -0700
From: Pat Kight <kightp [at] peak.org>
Subject: Re: a political stance
References: <list-36623446 [at] prxy.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-36623446 [at] prxy.net>

Bill Potter wrote:

> Isn't this TOTALLY off topic for this list?
> 
> If we all posted about about our "basic freedoms," would there be any time
> left for anything actually stagecraft related?

Agreed.

Particularly since (a) the list has a small but growing number of 
non-USian posters to whom none of this is particularly relevant and 
(b)it's unlikely that we're any more unanimous about this subject than 
we are about anything else.

(I will, however, second the recommendation that those who can do so, vote.)

--
Pat Kight
kightp [at] peak.org

------------------------------

Message-ID: <453654F9.30901 [at] gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 09:23:21 -0700
From: Chip Wood <chip.a.wood [at] gmail.com>
Subject: Re: a political stance
References: <list-36624514 [at] prxy.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-36624514 [at] prxy.net>

Jeffrey Cebula wrote:

> ...if you leave your guns in
> your basement gun safe unloaded with the ammo in
> another safe, what good is it when the person breaking
> into your house has his gun loaded and in his hand? 

This is exactly the reason of using it for self-defense is idiotic!  If 
you sleep with it loaded and safety off under your pillow, you probably 
are going to kill your kid coming home late.


>(Registration) That at least gives the
> police something to go on if someone's shot with your
> gun.

After it is pried from your cold, dead hand by the crook.
Chip

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 12:55:15 -0400
Subject: Re: Re[2]: a political stance
From: "Ray-Pfeifer, Merel" <raypf1mg [at] cmich.edu>
Message-ID: <C15BD4B3.80EC%raypf1mg [at] cmich.edu>
In-Reply-To: <list-36623446 [at] prxy.net>




On 10/18/06 11:37 AM, "Bill Potter" <bpotter [at] sps.edu> wrote:

> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> Isn't this TOTALLY off topic for this list?
> 
> If we all posted about about our "basic freedoms," would there be any time
> left for anything actually stagecraft related?
> 
> Bill Potter
> TD, St. Paul's School
> Concord NH
> 

Not really off topic at all.  How many of you out there have a prop gun
stored in your office?  Or other safe lock up site.  When was the last time
you had to purchase one, or blank amo for a show.

We may not be going out snipeing at deer and bunnies but we do have to deal
with these items during the normal course of putting up a show. Sometimes
you just have to have a gun onstage.

Look at how the recent pryo legislation has effected our lives if you don't
think it would have any impact.

If you don't vote you have no right to critique the outcome.

Merel Ray-Pfeifer
TD
Cent. Mich. Univ.
Mt Pleasant, MI


------------------------------

From: "Tony Deeming" <deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
Subject: RE: a political stance
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:56:54 +0100
Message-ID: <ODEMKLAMIBKNHPJLNKDPMEEFENAA.deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-36624514 [at] prxy.net>

Takes deep breath, dons kevlar & flame-proof armour and dives
in..................

> > Why would an honest person even want a gun?"
> >
>
> three reasons:  Hunting, Self Defense, and fun.
>
> On the self defense part, if you leave your guns in
> your basement gun safe unloaded with the ammo in
> another safe, what good is it when the person breaking
> into your house has his gun loaded and in his hand?
> or, if you're in your car and your gun is under the
> passenger seat loaded, but with the saftey on, but the
> guy who's carjacking you has his gun pointed at your
> face?

How many burglars over there break in with a loaded gun? Serious question.
Over here, in Blighty, most 'respectable' thieves doing over domestic
properties will likely want to travel light for all sorts of reasons! Why
should it be different over in the US? Because householders ALSO have guns
and the burglar probably thinks he's taking HIS (or HER) handgun along for
THEIR self-defence!!!
Ludicrous!!
And if a guy jumps in your vehicle brandishing his pistol, does it matter
where yours is? If it's in a belt pouch or shoulder holster the jacker will
probably be most likely to unload a clip into your head before you get
chance to draw your weapon!

>
> On the hunting part, do you need a magazine with more
> than six bullets?  wouldn't the
> deer/quail/duck/bear/cute woodland creature have run
> away by the time you missed with the first five?

Have GOT to smile at this one!
If you need more than a couple of shots to put down your prey then you ain't
gonna be much of a hunter!! I suspect it would be considered pretty poor
sport if the only way you can down a deer is by firing off a volley from an
automatic rifle!!
>
> As far as getting a license goes, now you can keep
> track of who's got a gun, and what the specific
> qualities of that gun are(I'm not a ballistics person,
> so I can't go into that).  That at least gives the
> police something to go on if someone's shot with your
> gun.

Now this is perhaps the most sensible option available, knowing that in no
world that I live in will guns EVER be banned outright. IMHO, ALL guns
should be test-fired AT MANUFACTURE to record the characteristic ballistics
and registered in a national database.
But then again - I still live in MY world, not Utopia!!

> As far as the fun part goes, couldn't the gun club buy
> all the assault rifles and machine guns, and then you
> pay to use them for the evening?  You pay membership
> dues or a shooting fee to shoot the guns at the range
> anyway, and then they have to worry about maintaining
> and securing the firearms.

Again, another sensible suggestion.
>
> but, I also agree with "If guns are outlawed, only
> outlaws will have guns."

But even then, there would be less of a need for the outlaws to carry one.
This is a national mentality issue in the US, dare I say 'Cowboy' mentality.
I appreciate this is likely to aggravate many of you guys across the pond,
cos I hear all the spouts about the American's right to bear arms being a
constitutional right, but heck - you tamed the west almost a couple hundred
years ago! The UK used to have all sorts of people carrying weapons, but
that seemed to fade away before the turn of the 19th Century almost! Isn't
it time to drop this already??

The old adage "Guns don't kill people - PEOPLE kill people" is of course
very true, but with guns in easy reach, there's a lot more people doing so
who might not have opportunity to if there were fewer around!
>
> I'm for gun registration and regulation, not banning.

Don't get me (totally) wrong - I've had some small experience with guns in
my time but only small calibre air rifles. And I can admit to a certain
fascination with target shooting as a skill. I've never hunted, BUT should
the occasion demand I feel I could do so without too much problem. My take
is that I just don't see the overall 'need' of your typical US citizen to
have a pistol in their pocket.
How many crimes HAVE been prevented by such a citizen being armed? And of
those, how many have resulted in the death or serious injury of the
aggressor? And how many attempted crimes where the victim has drawn a weapon
have actually resulted in that victim being shot as a result?

There you go - a very off-topic reply to a very off-topic post.

<Runs and hides behind Big Clive>

TD



------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 13:26:34 -0400
Subject: Re: a political stance
Message-ID: <C15BDC0A.1178%Benjamin.Stickels [at] gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-36627053 [at] prxy.net>
From: "Benjamin G. Stickels" <benjamin.stickels [at] gmail.com>

On 10/18/06 12:56 PM, "Tony Deeming" <deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com> wrote:

> 
> How many burglars over there break in with a loaded gun? Serious question.
> Over here, in Blighty, most 'respectable' thieves doing over domestic
> properties will likely want to travel light for all sorts of reasons! Why
> should it be different over in the US? Because householders ALSO have guns
> and the burglar probably thinks he's taking HIS (or HER) handgun along for
> THEIR self-defence!!!
> Ludicrous!!

Out of curiouity, is there some reference, some stats that prove this?  That
most criminals don't carry firearms?

> And if a guy jumps in your vehicle brandishing his pistol, does it matter
> where yours is? If it's in a belt pouch or shoulder holster the jacker will
> probably be most likely to unload a clip into your head before you get
> chance to draw your weapon!

>The UK used to have all sorts of people carrying weapons, but
> that seemed to fade away before the turn of the 19th Century almost! Isn't
> it time to drop this already??

  I would have to find the reports yet again, but unless something has
changed in the past two years, violent crime and crimes involving firearms
have gone UP over there.  (As well as in Australia, where they also have
banned firearms).

 
> The old adage "Guns don't kill people - PEOPLE kill people" is of course
> very true, but with guns in easy reach, there's a lot more people doing so
> who might not have opportunity to if there were fewer around!

>> 
>> I'm for gun registration and regulation, not banning.


I'm simply going to point out that the first step to every national gun
confiscation (Germany, anyone?, not to mention several others) is
registration.


> How many crimes HAVE been prevented by such a citizen being armed? And of
> those, how many have resulted in the death or serious injury of the
> aggressor? And how many attempted crimes where the victim has drawn a weapon
> have actually resulted in that victim being shot as a result?

Again, I'd have to dig up my paperwork, but a couple of points here:  In
virtually all cases where someone who is attacked draws a firearm, the sight
alone is enough to scare the would-be perp away - without firing a shot.
Very rarely does a victim having a firearm mean that the victim ends up
shot.  And if I'm being attacked in some form, where I fear for my life, why
are we concerned with the one doing the harm?

- -

Benjamin G. Stickels
Benjamin.Stickels [at] gmail.com



------------------------------

From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <26a.36f4a633.3267c65b [at] aol.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:03:07 EDT
Subject: Re: a political stance

In a message dated 18/10/06 16:10:21 GMT Daylight Time, 
deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com writes:

> Hey, Frank.
>  Forgive this non-gun-toting Brit for being dumb, but what are you asking
>  here?
>  Are you pro-gun or anti?

Neutral. 
>  
>  Here in Blighty of course we already have a ban on hand-guns and pretty
>  strict laws about other firearms. The problem, of course, is that we seem 
to
>  be rapidly approaching the situation 'over there' where it matters not
>  whether the laws are there - if the crims want a gun, they GET a gun and
>  care little where/how they use them!!

Exactly so. This ban was a knee-jerk reaction to the Dunblane massacre, which 
was carried out with legally held and properly licensed weapons. It was one 
of the most stupid actions of what I find to be a pretty stupid government. It 
seems to have had no effect on gun crime at all, as you would expect, apart 
from probably putting up the price for illegal weapons and ammunition.

As I said, or should have said (this thread got started some time ago, and my 
memory is fallible), I feel no need myself to sleep with a loaded handgun on 
the bedside table. If ever I do, I shall emigrate. But I have no complaint if 
someone does. Me, I have a loaded cane reasonably to hand, which I inherited. 
Two feet of marocco wood, the end of which has been bored out and filled with 
lead. Carefully applied, this should discourage an intruder.

Frank Wood

------------------------------

From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <c65.2a61095.3267c7ff [at] aol.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:10:07 EDT
Subject: Re: a political stance

In a message dated 18/10/06 16:39:51 GMT Daylight Time, fhs4 [at] cornell.edu 
writes:

> >It's your choice:  Do you stay home
>  >and evaporate your rights, or go out and defend them at the ballot box?

Always vote. There is always something to vote against. 

Frank Wood

------------------------------

Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20061018104915.00c60620 [at] pop.west.cox.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:49:15
From: CB <psyd [at] cox.net>
Subject: Re: Sound Checks in Dinner Theatre

>Your definition of facts and mine seem to be at variance. You, and many 
>others, seem to believe that a widely and strongly held opinion is a fact. 

See, it's statements like these that I'm talking about.  I'm actually an
activist working *against* commonly held beliefs being used as facts.  In
my social circles, and some work environments, I'm kinda known for it.  No
one that knows me refers to a podium when they speak about the lectern.
OTOH, I've had the opportunity to post websites to you that showed, for
sale, items that you unequivically stated did not (and could not) exist. 
Therein lies the irony that 'another poster' was talking about.
In any case, we're having a bit of OT fun at your expense.  You keep
feeding us the straight lines, we'll keep writing the jokes...
				Chris "Chris" Babbie
				Location Sound
				MON AZ

Delete key training and post trimming done by appointment.  Rates
negotiable, will trade for typing lessons/ADD treatment...

------------------------------

Message-Id: <3.0.6.32.20061018105319.00c4c858 [at] pop.west.cox.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 10:53:19
From: CB <psyd [at] cox.net>
Subject: Re: Fall harness

>The one thing that stood out about that harness to me was the lack of an
>ANSI standard printed in the notices or mentioned on the website.

A website geared for selling rigging support kit in France wouldn't sport
an ANSI cert, would they?  They'd have a FNSI or something, nes't-ce pas?
				Chris "Chris" Babbie
				Location Sound
				MON AZ

Delete key training and post trimming done by appointment.  Rates
negotiable, will trade for typing lessons/ADD treatment...

------------------------------

From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <c7a.2af9def.3267cbe6 [at] aol.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:26:46 EDT
Subject: Re: a political stance

In a message dated 18/10/06 17:10:01 GMT Daylight Time, 
bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com writes:

> Frank, I would have to agree with Tony - your post was rather  
>  confusing - even contradictory. You started off by asking
>  
>  > Why would an honest person even want a gun?"

I am not sure that this post was mine. Nor that this reply is properly 
addressed to me. Frank Merrill and Frank Wood are two different people. Not all 
e-mail servers differentiate between the original post and the replies.

The post you quote might have been mine: the diatribe against the Democrats' 
alleged proposals is not. 

Frank Wood

------------------------------

Message-ID: <00d501c6f2e4$23b99cf0$0e00a8c0 [at] Nogle>
From: "Nigel Worsley" <nigle [at] dsl.pipex.com>
References: <list-36630902 [at] prxy.net>
Subject: Re: a political stance
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:33:53 +0100

FrankWood95 [at] aol.com wrote:
> In a message dated 18/10/06 16:39:51 GMT Daylight Time, fhs4 [at] cornell.edu 
> writes:
> 
>> >It's your choice:  Do you stay home
>>  >and evaporate your rights, or go out and defend them at the ballot box?
> 
> Always vote. There is always something to vote against. 

Not if everyone that you can vote for supports what you want to vote against,
which certainly seems to be the case in the UK at the moment with regard to
tax rises and car use.

Nigel Worsley


------------------------------

From: "JUSTIN DAVID BENNETT" <jbennett43 [at] mail.accd.edu>
Subject: RE: Black-and-white or sepia photo effect
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 14:07:18 -0500
Message-ID: <000e01c6f2e8$a1bc8960$1a0f150a [at] spc.ad.root>
In-Reply-To: <list-36619063 [at] prxy.net>

Low Pressure Sodium (LPS) High Intensity Discharge (HID) lamps only emit
light on one wavelength. It's kind of sepia in color and will give you a
monochrome effect if no other lights are used. 

Justin Bennett
Technical Director / Theatre Manager
St. Philip's College - Watson Fine Arts Center
jbennett43 [at] mail.accd.edu
(210) 531-4706 Office
(210) 531-4768 Fax
 
-----Original Message-----
From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net] On Behalf Of
ladesigners [at] juno.com

Just do the scene(s) under a monochromatic light source such as a 
Sodium, [yellowish] or Mercury [bluish] high intensity discharge 
lamps, such as are used to illuminate parking lots and you can get a 
black and white or even Sepia effect. You will need plenty of Black-
wrap and/or barndoors to control beam angle and spill.
/s/ Richard
___________________________
> For a schools drama production, the director is apparently dressing 
> the characters in black-and-white costumes and would like the 
result to look like either a black-and-white photo or one in sepia 
> tones. I'd prefer sepia myself :)





------------------------------

Message-ID: <BAY109-DAV139D0626CD8B7F0D2D92DADF0F0 [at] phx.gbl>
From: "Laura McMeley" <lmcmeley [at] msn.com>
Cc: stagecraft [at] jeffsalzberg.com
Subject: RE: Black-and-white or sepia photo effect
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:07:21 -0500
Message-ID: <007601c6f2f1$05a0c420$6600a8c0 [at] tdolighting01>
In-Reply-To: <list-36607406 [at] prxy.net>

The Pegasus theatre (http://www.pegasustheatre.org/) in Dallas, TX has a
tradition of black and white productions. There is no color anywhere on =
the
set, in the lights or on the actors. They do have to use heavy makeup =
for
this effect I believe. I haven't seen it myself but apparently it=92s =
pretty
effective.=20

> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net] On Behalf Of =
Jeffrey
> E. Salzberg
> Sent: Wednesday, October 18, 2006 4:44 AM
> To: Stagecraft
> Subject: Re: Black-and-white or sepia photo effect
>=20
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see =
<http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>=20
> > For a schools drama production, the director is apparently dressing
> > the characters in black-and-white costumes and would like the result
> > to look like either a black-and-white photo or one in sepia
> > tones. I'd
> > prefer sepia myself :)
>=20
> Unless you're going to paint their skin, it's going to be very =
difficult.



------------------------------

From: "ladesigners [at] juno.com" <ladesigners [at] juno.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:11:00 GMT
Subject: Re: a political stance
Message-Id: <20061018.131105.15735.609632 [at] webmail30.lax.untd.com>

Yes; those and many more, including the right to be LEFT ALONE unless =

there is a REALLY GOOD reason to disturb your privacy that has been =

proved to a judge in open court with advance notice to all parties.
/s/ Richard
[Past recipient of the Lawyer of the Year (in Private Practice) award =

given yearly by the Constitutional Rights Foundation. I do take the =

recent diminution of these rights by Homeland Security very seriously.]
______________________________________

Do you mean rights like...say...Habeas Corpus? maybe the right to =

hear the evidence against you.  The right to an attorney?  The right =

to have a phone call?  the right to notify your family if you've been =

arrested?  The right to have an independent judiciary review the =

charges against you and release you if there isn't adeqate evidence =

to justify your detention?

___________________
>It's your choice:  Do you stay home and evaporate your rights, or go =

out and defend them at the ballot box?
Ford H Sellers
 


------------------------------

From: "ladesigners [at] juno.com" <ladesigners [at] juno.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:15:50 GMT
Subject: Re: a political stance
Message-Id: <20061018.131615.15735.609669 [at] webmail30.lax.untd.com>

California is the most HIGHLY REGULATED state. It usually works for us.
/s/ Richard
___________________________
> don't worry, there's enough gun-toting Democrats to keep laws like =

that from happening.  here in Vermont you can still buy guns & ammo at =

a general store.
_________________________
Yep. And the same is pretty much true for states West of the =

Mississippi, except for California.

Bill


------------------------------

From: "Tony Deeming" <deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
Subject: RE: a political stance
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:39:14 +0100
Message-ID: <ODEMKLAMIBKNHPJLNKDPMEEMENAA.deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-36628407 [at] prxy.net>



> -----Original Message-----
> From: Stagecraft [mailto:stagecraft [at] theatrical.net]On Behalf Of Benjamin
> G. Stickels
> Sent: 18 October 2006 18:27
> To: Stagecraft
> Subject: Re: a political stance
>
>
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> On 10/18/06 12:56 PM, "Tony Deeming" <deeming.tony [at] btinternet.com> wrote:
>
> >
> > How many burglars over there break in with a loaded gun?
> Serious question.
> > Over here, in Blighty, most 'respectable' thieves doing over domestic
> > properties will likely want to travel light for all sorts of
> reasons! Why
> > should it be different over in the US? Because householders
> ALSO have guns
> > and the burglar probably thinks he's taking HIS (or HER)
> handgun along for
> > THEIR self-defence!!!
> > Ludicrous!!
>
> Out of curiouity, is there some reference, some stats that prove
> this?  That
> most criminals don't carry firearms?

Probably, but my comments stem from the common knowledge that whilst gun
crime here in the UK is certainly on the increase, it tends to be most
prevalent in the 'organised' end of the fraternity and street gang types.
Your common house-breaker is probably not going to be anywahere near a
firearm.
I may not have factual references, but I know enough coppers (we have 4 or 5
within our theatre fraternity) to pick up general rules of thumb.

>
> > And if a guy jumps in your vehicle brandishing his pistol, does
> it matter
> > where yours is? If it's in a belt pouch or shoulder holster the
> jacker will
> > probably be most likely to unload a clip into your head before you get
> > chance to draw your weapon!
>
> >The UK used to have all sorts of people carrying weapons, but
> > that seemed to fade away before the turn of the 19th Century
> almost! Isn't
> > it time to drop this already??
>
>   I would have to find the reports yet again, but unless something has
> changed in the past two years, violent crime and crimes involving firearms
> have gone UP over there.  (As well as in Australia, where they also have
> banned firearms).
>
Can't disagree that gun crime is on the up - said so above - but it's still
in the minority when all other crimes are considered.
>
> > The old adage "Guns don't kill people - PEOPLE kill people" is of course
> > very true, but with guns in easy reach, there's a lot more
> people doing so
> > who might not have opportunity to if there were fewer around!
>
> >>
> >> I'm for gun registration and regulation, not banning.
>
>
> I'm simply going to point out that the first step to every national gun
> confiscation (Germany, anyone?, not to mention several others) is
> registration.

Fair point.
>
>
> > How many crimes HAVE been prevented by such a citizen being
> armed? And of
> > those, how many have resulted in the death or serious injury of the
> > aggressor? And how many attempted crimes where the victim has
> drawn a weapon
> > have actually resulted in that victim being shot as a result?
>
> Again, I'd have to dig up my paperwork, but a couple of points here:  In
> virtually all cases where someone who is attacked draws a
> firearm, the sight
> alone is enough to scare the would-be perp away - without firing a shot.
> Very rarely does a victim having a firearm mean that the victim ends up
> shot.  And if I'm being attacked in some form, where I fear for
> my life, why
> are we concerned with the one doing the harm?
>
I would actually be interested in seeing what you can find there - from an
outsider's POV.

TD



------------------------------

Message-ID: <tXD+nuETZpNFFwyc [at] ntlworld.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:02:11 +0100
From: Clive Mitchell <bigclive1 [at] ntlworld.com>
Subject: Re: Black-and-white or sepia photo effect
References: <list-36607148 [at] prxy.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-36607148 [at] prxy.net>

In message <list-36607148 [at] prxy.net>, John Arrowsmith 
<john [at] johnarro.karoo.co.uk> writes
>I seem to remember chocolate being recommended as THE filter of choice, 
>but am also very well aware that my memory cells are pretty suspect ...

Chocolate is indeed a filter of choice for the sepia effect.  Other 
extreme monochromatic effects can be achieved with powerful single 
wavelength light sources like low pressure sodium (SOX).

-- 
Clive Mitchell
http://www.bigclive.com

------------------------------

In-Reply-To: <list-36631736 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-36631736 [at] prxy.net>
Message-Id: <5ADE8B7B-1CD8-472D-9F29-7BE7F8B2D301 [at] rochester.rr.com>
From: Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
Subject: Re: a political stance
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 17:54:44 -0400


On 18 Oct 2006, at 14:26, FrankWood95 [at] aol.com wrote:

>> Frank, I would have to agree with Tony - your post was rather
>>  confusing - even contradictory. You started off by asking
>>
>>> Why would an honest person even want a gun?"
>
> I am not sure that this post was mine. Nor that this reply is properly
> addressed to me. Frank Merrill and Frank Wood are two different  
> people. Not all
> e-mail servers differentiate between the original post and the  
> replies.

	Frank (Wood), do you read the Stagecraft list? I replied to a post  
by Frank (Merrill) close to an hour after he posted it. If you had  
read his post you would have easily seen this, as he sent his befire  
mine. The quote came directly from his post, as did the subject line!

	By the way, you also replied to Tony:
>> Hey, Frank.
>>  Forgive this non-gun-toting Brit for being dumb, but what are you  
>> asking
>>  here?
>>  Are you pro-gun or anti?
>>
>
> Neutral.

	Tony's reply was also aimed at the other Frank. (Same subject line  
post and quoted.)

Bruce
____________________
Bruce Purdy
Technical Director
Smith Opera House




------------------------------

From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <3b7.8f4da90.32680167 [at] aol.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:15:03 EDT
Subject: Re: Black-and-white or sepia photo effect

In a message dated 18/10/06 20:08:48 GMT Daylight Time, 
jbennett43 [at] mail.accd.edu writes:

> Low Pressure Sodium (LPS) High Intensity Discharge (HID) lamps only emit
>  light on one wavelength. It's kind of sepia in color and will give you a
>  monochrome effect if no other lights are used. 

 Just for the sake of accuracy, they emit light on two wavelengths: 589.0 and 
589.6 nM, and they are a bright orange in colour. They are also completely 
undimmable, and have quite a long re-strike time.

Myself, I think that a sepia effect is a non-starter. Black and white is 
realisable. Suitable costumes and make-up, together with 1/4 or 1/2 CT blue gels 
will do it. But I agree that it is not a long term lighting solution. It will 
not leave the audience happy after more than a few minutes.

No strange lighting will. I remember one show that was uniformly lit from the 
level of the performers' feet. I failed to enjoy it.I have seen others which 
used only side and back lighting, by the same designer. They didn't work for 
me, either. I like to be able to see the performers' faces.

Frank Wood

------------------------------

From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <c64.2ab7258.3268067d [at] aol.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 18:36:45 EDT
Subject: Re: a political stance

In a message dated 18/10/06 22:55:12 GMT Daylight Time, 
bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com writes:

>   Frank (Wood), do you read the Stagecraft list? I replied to a post  
>  by Frank (Merrill) close to an hour after he posted it. If you had  
>  read his post you would have easily seen this, as he sent his befire  
>  mine. The quote came directly from his post, as did the subject line!

Yes, I do. But the post from Frank Merill, which may include a line of mine, 
does not make it clear what is quoted, and what not.

Certainly there is no way I should have subscribed to his rant against the 
Democrats. While some of the proposals he quotes seem sensible, most do not. I 
detect a note of hysteria here. And, from observation, the equally hysterical 
ban on handguns after Dunblane has served no useful purpose.


Frank Wood

------------------------------

From: <rigger [at] tds.net>
Subject: Re: a political stance
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:38:46 +0000
Message-Id: <20061018223846.JOZY9318.outaamta01.mail.tds.net [at] smtp.tds.net>


> 
> From: "Frank E. Merrill" <Lamplighter [at] tcon.net>
> Date: 2006/10/18 Wed PM 03:01:02 GMT
> 
> Why would an honest person even want a gun?"


Hmm. I thought this was the stagecraft list.

Okay, I'll play:

Because my accuracy suffers when I merely throw the bullets at the target I'm aiming at, plus all the other shooters on my bull's-eye team laugh at me.

(...And because the Constitution of the United States guarantees me the right to have one. Or two. Or thirty.)

-- 
Dave Vick
rigger [at] tds.net
20/20 Design
NRA Life Member
GOA Life Member
Michigan Coalition of Responsible Gun Owners Life Member
Michigan Rifle & Pistol Club Life Member
Camp Perry National Matches Volunteer Range Safety Officer


------------------------------

From: <rigger [at] tds.net>
Subject: Re: Re: a political stance
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:49:31 +0000
Message-Id: <20061018224931.JSKA9318.outaamta01.mail.tds.net [at] smtp.tds.net>


> 
> From: FrankWood95 [at] aol.com
> Date: 2006/10/18 Wed PM 06:03:07 GMT
>
>>  Here in Blighty of course we already have a ban on hand-guns and pretty
>>  strict laws about other firearms. The problem, of course, is that we seem 
> to
>>  be rapidly approaching the situation 'over there' where it matters not
>>  whether the laws are there - if the crims want a gun, they GET a gun and
>>  care little where/how they use them!!
> 
> Exactly so. This ban was a knee-jerk reaction to the Dunblane massacre, which 
> was carried out with legally held and properly licensed weapons. It was one 
> of the most stupid actions of what I find to be a pretty stupid government. It 
> seems to have had no effect on gun crime at all, as you would expect, apart 
> from probably putting up the price for illegal weapons and ammunition.


Would someone please fetch me a cold compress; I'm actually agreeing with something Frank Wood wrote.

-- 
Dave Vick
rigger [at] tds.net
20/20 Design


------------------------------

Message-ID: <4536B0C9.6000002 [at] gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 15:55:05 -0700
From: Chip Wood <chip.a.wood [at] gmail.com>
Subject: Re: a political stance
References: <list-36644179 [at] prxy.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-36644179 [at] prxy.net>

rigger [at] tds.net wrote:
(...And because the Constitution of the United States guarantees
 >me the right to have one. Or two. Or thirty.)
> 
Are you a member of a well regulated militia?

The ENTIRE 2nd Amendment:
" A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free 
State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be 
infringed."


Chip

------------------------------

Message-ID: <RFERTnGOHrNFFwUe [at] ntlworld.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:59:26 +0100
From: Clive Mitchell <bigclive1 [at] ntlworld.com>
Subject: Re: Black-and-white or sepia photo effect
References: <list-36643061 [at] prxy.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-36643061 [at] prxy.net>

In message <list-36643061 [at] prxy.net>, FrankWood95 [at] aol.com writes
> Just for the sake of accuracy, they emit light on two wavelengths: 
>589.0 and 589.6 nM, and they are a bright orange in colour. They are 
>also completely undimmable, and have quite a long re-strike time.

Low pressure sodium restrikes instantly.

-- 
Clive Mitchell
http://www.bigclive.com

------------------------------

Message-ID: <1caebf780610181603o7fbec055r2adb55ff924e7940 [at] mail.gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:03:49 -0400
From: "Jason Salvatori" <theatretd [at] gmail.com>
Subject: Re: a political stance
In-Reply-To: <list-36644179 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-36644179 [at] prxy.net>

I hate to be the typical Canadian on the list, but I don't see any
reason ever to own a handgun or Automatic of any kind.

Rifles are used for hunting... and they shoot 1 bullet at a time.  If
you miss with 2, the game is gone.

For those who want target practice, why not have the clubs keep the
guns, you use them when you're there.

For self defense, if someone has a gun on you, and you go for
yours.... there's a good chance he's going to shoot first.  I've seen
countless "amazing police videos" etc.  where the clerk grabs the gun
in the robbery, gets shot, maybe gets a shot at the robber, both end
up in the hospital or dead.  why not just give him the money, claim it
on insurance, live to see another day.

All guns do is escalate situations.  If I get in a fist fight with
someone, we're both going to get hurt.  Someone brings a knife and
there's a decent cahnce someone will die.  Someone (or both) bring a
gun, and it's pretty sure someone is dead.

Automatics - Why do you ever NEED to shoot more than 1 bullet at a time?

Constitutional right - Because someone wrote it down 200 years ago, it
must still be appropriate for today???  Right???

Finally, how many times does a 7-year-old have to take Daddy's gun to
school and shoot another child before people get the idea that hand
guns in the house are a bad idea.

Done with my "crazy canuck" views.  Let's get back to Stagecraft.

We need a fire-arms license here in Canada to use blanks and replica
guns on stage.  Never been a problem, just go get the card, learn how
to handle a gun safely, and keep it locked up.  Works for me.  Last
thing I need is a kid from the highschool using my facility taking a
replica gun outside for "fun" (no one know why teens think like
this...) and end up getting shot by the cops who think it's a real
gun.
Goes the same for Pyro licenses.  Might have prevented the Great White
club fire if the Pyrotech had been licensed and known what he was
doing.

My $0.02

Jason Salvatori
Technical Director
Vaughan City Playhouse

------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:11:24 -0400
Subject: Re: a political stance
Message-ID: <C15C2CDC.11A7%Benjamin.Stickels [at] gmail.com>
In-Reply-To: <list-36645487 [at] prxy.net>
From: "Benjamin G. Stickels" <benjamin.stickels [at] gmail.com>

On 10/18/06 6:55 PM, "Chip Wood" <chip.a.wood [at] gmail.com> wrote:

> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> rigger [at] tds.net wrote:
> (...And because the Constitution of the United States guarantees
>> me the right to have one. Or two. Or thirty.)
>> 
> Are you a member of a well regulated militia?

The US code states that the militia is comprised of the reserves and "all
able bodied men between the ages of 18 and 42 who are, or have made
declaration to become, citizens of the United States."

> 
> The ENTIRE 2nd Amendment:
> " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free
> State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be
> infringed."
> 
> 
> Chip

Benjamin G. Stickels
Benjamin.Stickels [at] gmail.com



------------------------------

Message-ID: <ef7240340610181620x26542f2r393531728cba04c [at] mail.gmail.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:20:14 +0100
From: "Tony Miller" <tonymille [at] gmail.com>
Subject: Re: Re: a political stance
In-Reply-To: <list-36645061 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-36645061 [at] prxy.net>

Sometimes you Americans scare the pants off me. I have just finished
reading how a trigger happy American patrol shot a wounded English
journalist through the head in Iraq with a heavy calibre machine gun
and the military are refusing to provide statements from the soldiers
involved. Then you come on with this scary off topic stuff.

The figures I have with me are admittedly old (1999) but still give
some idea  of the depth of your problem.

Gun crime deaths per 100,000 population
USA                   homicide 4.08, Suicide, 6.08
England / Wales  homicide 0.12, Suicide, 0.22

These translate as total firearms deaths in the USA 8,259
                                                                    UK        42

And you still fight for the right to bear arms and come out with the
platitudes of "it's people that kill people, not guns". How wrong can
you be.

Sorry to get so emotive but this is one topic that I feel very
passionate about.

Tony Miller.

------------------------------

From: <rigger [at] tds.net>
Subject: Re: Re: a political stance
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:20:59 +0000
Message-Id: <20061018232059.KAXZ9318.outaamta01.mail.tds.net [at] smtp.tds.net>


> 
> From: Chip Wood <chip.a.wood [at] gmail.com>
> Date: 2006/10/18 Wed PM 10:55:05 GMT
> To: "Stagecraft" <stagecraft [at] theatrical.net>
> Subject: Re: a political stance
> 
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
> 
> rigger [at] tds.net wrote:
> (...And because the Constitution of the United States guarantees
>  >me the right to have one. Or two. Or thirty.)
> > 
> Are you a member of a well regulated militia?

Have been before, could be again.


> The ENTIRE 2nd Amendment:
> " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free 
> State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be 
> infringed."

And then there's those commas in there, that people delight in trying to interpret.

-- 
Dave Vick
rigger [at] tds.net
20/20 Design


------------------------------

From: <rigger [at] tds.net>
Subject: Re: Re: a political stance
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:24:22 +0000
Message-Id: <20061018232422.KBSJ9318.outaamta01.mail.tds.net [at] smtp.tds.net>


> 
> From: "Tony Miller" <tonymille [at] gmail.com>
> Date: 2006/10/18 Wed PM 11:20:14 GMT

> And you still fight for the right to bear arms and come out with the
> platitudes of "it's people that kill people, not guns". How wrong can
> you be.
> 
> Sorry to get so emotive but this is one topic that I feel very
> passionate about.


Don't like our laws? Don't visit our country.

-- 
Dave Vick
rigger [at] tds.net
20/20 Design


------------------------------

Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:27:37 -0400
From: "Frank E. Merrill" <Lamplighter [at] tcon.net>
Reply-To: "Frank E. Merrill" <Lamplighter [at] tcon.net>
Message-ID: <1317431382.20061018192737 [at] tcon.net>
Subject: oh i'm just fannin th flames...

Howdy !

I wasn't really planning on it, but since I started this whole mess
today I believe I'll load up my gun case with my Glock, S&W.40,
Walther P1, M1911A1 and Browning Buckmark .22 and spend fifty bucks or
so at the range this evening.

With a little luck maybe I'll encounter some doofus filled with road
rage...  I'M JOKING!

Best regards,
  Frank E. Merrill
  MERRILL STAGE EQUIPMENT
  Indianapolis
  Established 1946
  www.merrillstage.com 

This email is a natural hand made product. The slight variations in spelling and grammar
enhance its individual character and beauty, and in no way are to be considered flaws or defects.
 
  Running THE BAT!  Natural e-mail system v.3.85.03        mailto:Lamplighter [at] tcon.net



------------------------------

Subject: RE: a political stance
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 20:30:22 -0400
Message-ID: <6E497ADB607656479C24E6D7BF6B505A067BEED5 [at] exchange.rmwc.edu>
In-Reply-To: <list-36646062 [at] prxy.net>
From: "Paul Schreiner" <pschreiner [at] rmwc.edu>

> I hate to be the typical Canadian on the list, but I don't=20
> see any reason ever to own a handgun or Automatic of any kind.

Y'know, it's weird.  I've fired a shotgun once in my life with real
ammo.  I don't own any guns.  I'm more of a pacifist.

But at the same time, I believe very strongly that whatever weapons a
government has at its disposal to use against its own people should be
legal for the people to also have access to.

*That* is what *I* talk about when I mention self-defense...

------------------------------

Message-ID: <4536D0DF.5000909 [at] fuse.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:12:00 -0400
From: Stuart Wheaton <sdwheaton [at] fuse.net>
Reply-To:  sdwheaton [at] fuse.net
Subject: Re: a political stance
References: <list-36644179 [at] prxy.net> <list-36645487 [at] prxy.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-36645487 [at] prxy.net>

Chip Wood wrote:

> The ENTIRE 2nd Amendment:
> " A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free 
> State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be 
> infringed."


Please diagram that sentence in a way the separates the word "Right" 
from the word "people".

AND

Show me any other place in the rest of the Constitution or Bill Of 
Rights where the word people is assumed to be ambiguous in it's meaning.




The fear mongering about Dems is pure BS.  As Howard said, there's 
enough of us gun toting Dems to keep our rights secure...And don't 
forget Dubya said he'd sign an extension of the AWB.


Stuart

Who's a little grumpy right now cause I missed the pistol match because 
I had to work overtime tonite.

------------------------------

From: MissWisc [at] aol.com
Message-ID: <bfd.75cb3e2.326832ab [at] aol.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:45:15 EDT
Subject: Re: a political stance

Why would an honest person want a gun??

Ever try to kill a bear with  your bare hands? Gonna wrestle that deer to the 
ground? How would you protect  yourself in the woods? How would you 
"humanely" kill an animal to feed your  family? 

How about my friend in Washington DC who pulled out an  (unloaded!) pistol 
when someone tried to jack her motorcycle... the perp ran.  

Just because it doesn't fit your circumstances, doesn't make it wrong  for 
others.
 
Never take a knife to a gun fight. And don't have a gun if you don't know  
how to correctly use it.

Kristi
 

------------------------------

Message-ID: <4536DB16.5090406 [at] gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 21:55:34 -0400
From: Brian James <brianedwardjames [at] gmail.com>
Reply-To:  brianedwardjames [at] gmail.com
Subject: Re: a political stance
References: <list-36653377 [at] prxy.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-36653377 [at] prxy.net>

Excellent point!
I always find it amusing that people site gun fatalities as a reason to 
ban guns. Car accidents are pretty deadly. Lets ban cars! Alcohol is 
dangerous and potentially deadly, lets ban it!

I do not understand where the fear of a gun has come from, which I am 
sure it why people want to ban them. A gun is like every tool found in 
our shops, potentially deadly if used wrong, but secure the right 
training and using the right tool for the job minimizes risks. Accidents 
unfortunately happen, they happen with guns, tools, fire, cars, planes, 
etc.

Again, why are "we" more afraid of a gun than anything else?



MissWisc [at] aol.com wrote:
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
> Why would an honest person want a gun??
>
> Ever try to kill a bear with  your bare hands? Gonna wrestle that deer to the 
> ground? How would you protect  yourself in the woods? How would you 
> "humanely" kill an animal to feed your  family? 
>
> How about my friend in Washington DC who pulled out an  (unloaded!) pistol 
> when someone tried to jack her motorcycle... the perp ran.  
>
> Just because it doesn't fit your circumstances, doesn't make it wrong  for 
> others.
>  
> Never take a knife to a gun fight. And don't have a gun if you don't know  
> how to correctly use it.
>
> Kristi
>  
>
>   


------------------------------

Message-ID: <20061019020122.30553.qmail [at] web36206.mail.mud.yahoo.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 19:01:22 -0700 (PDT)
From: Jacqueline Haney Kidwell <jacki14fr [at] yahoo.com>
Subject: guns,  was re:  political stance

Respectfully, ladies and gentlemen, could we get
off this topic?

My father was murdered, shot in the head, when I
was 16, by a 17-year-old with someone else's
"legal" gun.  My uncle was killed with his own
"legal" gun (there is some disagreement whether
he pulled the trigger himself or whether his wife
did it).  A dear friend of mine was shot in the
head and killed at age 31, again by a
"legally-owned" weapon.  

The topic of gun control is a little different
when your life has been impacted by "legal
weapons".  Remember, the Constitution also
assumes that ownership of slaves is appropriate. 
That has changed.  Maybe some of the other items
should as well.

        Jacqueline Haney Kidwell
whose father took her to the first play she
remembers, when she was four years old

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
http://mail.yahoo.com 

------------------------------

In-Reply-To: <list-36653724 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-36653377 [at] prxy.net> <list-36653724 [at] prxy.net>
Message-Id: <EB620E28-834B-4916-A9C2-4A4C8C562C02 [at] rochester.rr.com>
From: Bruce Purdy <bpurdy [at] rochester.rr.com>
Subject: Re: a political stance
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:42:06 -0400

> A gun is like every tool found in our shops, potentially deadly if  
> used wrong, but secure the right training and using the right tool  
> for the job minimizes risks. Accidents unfortunately happen, they  
> happen with guns, tools, fire, cars, planes, etc.

	Interesting analogy, but fatally flawed. The ONLY "correct" use for  
a gun is to kill (Target practice aside). It is not to wound or to  
scare. No other tool in your shop has death as it's only intended  
purpose. Yes, accidents can happen causing injury or death when those  
tools are "used wrong" but death will happen when a gun is "used right"!

	Some of us believe that killing is wrong, be it human or otherwise.  
I don't try to impose that view on hunters or "gun lovers" in  
general, but I do bristle at the carefree attitude towards guns shown  
in the quote above!

Bruce
____________________
Bruce Purdy
Technical Director
Smith Opera House




------------------------------

Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 04:02:04 +0100 (BST)
From: Charlie Richmond <charlier [at] RichmondSoundDesign.com>
Subject: Re: a political stance
In-Reply-To: <list-36647107 [at] prxy.net>
Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.64.0610190359310.26344 [at] viscount.richmondsounddesign.com>
References: <list-36647107 [at] prxy.net>

On Wed, 18 Oct 2006, rigger [at] tds.net wrote:

> Don't like our laws? Don't visit our country.

Not so easily done when the US abducts people from the streets of other 
countries and incarcerates them without due process.

Or simply imposes American laws on the rest of the world.

------------------------------

Message-ID: <4536EFA2.7070308 [at] ef-ae.com>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 07:23:14 +0400
From: Simon Shuker <simon [at] ef-ae.com>
Subject: Re: a political stance
References: <list-36647107 [at] prxy.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-36647107 [at] prxy.net>

<!DOCTYPE html PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
  <meta content="text/html;charset=ISO-8859-1" http-equiv="Content-Type">
  <title></title>
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
And likewise don't impose your views on ours!<br>
<br>
The Thing I find quite funny in all this, is that some of your arms are
now made with components from Arab owned countries.&nbsp; There was a big
fuss to stop Dubai buying the US ports of P and O, yet they marched in
and bought The Doncaster group which make arms components in a number
of factories in the US.<br>
<br>
Its also worth looking at all the spending from the extra oil revenue
created by the "war on terror" and how it is being used by the Arabs to
buy up the Western world.<br>
<br>
<a class="moz-txt-link-abbreviated" href="mailto:rigger [at] tds.net">rigger [at] tds.net</a> wrote:
<blockquote cite="midlist-36647107 [at] prxy.net" type="cite"><br>
  <pre wrap=""><!---->

Don't like our laws? Don't visit our country.

  </pre>
</blockquote>
</body>
</html>


------------------------------

Message-ID: <4536F16E.1070402 [at] gmail.com>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:30:54 -0400
From: Brian James <brianedwardjames [at] gmail.com>
Reply-To:  brianedwardjames [at] gmail.com
Subject: Re: a political stance
References: <list-36653377 [at] prxy.net> <list-36653724 [at] prxy.net> <list-36655484 [at] prxy.net>
In-Reply-To: <list-36655484 [at] prxy.net>

I can see your point........... and you and I basically share the same 
philosophy. I would disagree with the "right" use of a gun from a sports 
point of view. I guess I was looking at this from too narrow a perspective.

Thank you for the insight and thought.

Bruce Purdy wrote:
> For info, archives & UNSUBSCRIBE, see <http://stagecraft.theprices.net/>
> ---------------------------------------------------
>
>> A gun is like every tool found in our shops, potentially deadly if 
>> used wrong, but secure the right training and using the right tool 
>> for the job minimizes risks. Accidents unfortunately happen, they 
>> happen with guns, tools, fire, cars, planes, etc.
>
>     Interesting analogy, but fatally flawed. The ONLY "correct" use 
> for a gun is to kill (Target practice aside). It is not to wound or to 
> scare. No other tool in your shop has death as it's only intended 
> purpose. Yes, accidents can happen causing injury or death when those 
> tools are "used wrong" but death will happen when a gun is "used right"!
>
>     Some of us believe that killing is wrong, be it human or 
> otherwise. I don't try to impose that view on hunters or "gun lovers" 
> in general, but I do bristle at the carefree attitude towards guns 
> shown in the quote above!
>
> Bruce
> ____________________
> Bruce Purdy
> Technical Director
> Smith Opera House
>
>
>
>


------------------------------

Message-ID: <1100.64.28.53.215.1161234344.squirrel [at] webmail.peak.org>
In-Reply-To: <list-36649541 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-36646062 [at] prxy.net> <list-36649541 [at] prxy.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 22:05:44 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: a political stance
From: "Bill Nelson" <billn [at] peak.org>

>> I hate to be the typical Canadian on the list, but I don't
>> see any reason ever to own a handgun or Automatic of any kind.

A few million of your own countrymen do not agree with you. They have
acquired the necessary licenses to own handguns - even though the
government makes it difficult to do so. Many more own unlicensed handguns
- either from before the current laws were passed or since obtained
illegally.

> But at the same time, I believe very strongly that whatever weapons a
> government has at its disposal to use against its own people should be
> legal for the people to also have access to.

I think it was Jefferson who said there are two reasons for owning
firearms. 1) To protect against invaders and 2) To overthrow a tyranical
government.

These days it would be difficult to do either, given the weaponry now
available to any military. When Jefferson wrote, the most advanced weapons
were the muzzle loading rifle and the muzzle loading cannon. Either could
be made by any competent blacksmith and neither is really a long range
weapon.

Bill


------------------------------

Message-ID: <1226.64.28.53.215.1161240503.squirrel [at] webmail.peak.org>
In-Reply-To: <list-36646973 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-36645061 [at] prxy.net> <list-36646973 [at] prxy.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:48:23 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: a political stance
From: "Bill Nelson" <billn [at] peak.org>

> Sometimes you Americans scare the pants off me. I have just finished
> reading how a trigger happy American patrol shot a wounded English
> journalist through the head in Iraq with a heavy calibre machine gun
> and the military are refusing to provide statements from the soldiers
> involved. Then you come on with this scary off topic stuff.

Such things bother me as well.

> The figures I have with me are admittedly old (1999) but still give
> some idea  of the depth of your problem.
>
> Gun crime deaths per 100,000 population
> USA                   homicide 4.08, Suicide, 6.08
> England / Wales  homicide 0.12, Suicide, 0.22
>
> These translate as total firearms deaths in the USA 8,259  UK 42

Check the total homicide rate and you will find that there is not such a
disparity. Eliminate all the drug crime homicides and they will be even
closer. You will also find that most of the crimes occur in the major
cities, that have "slum" areas. Desperate people often do desperate things
to survive. Many countries with strict firearm control have higher murder
rates. For example, Russia's rate is 5 times the US rate - yet handguns
are essentially prohibited to ordinary citizens and even long guns are
strictly controlled.

The firearm crime rate is increasing in the UK - even the Bobbies are now
carrying handguns in many areas.

Check the overall suicide rates. I think you will find that there is less
of a disparity. As an example, the rates in Canada are much higher than in
the US - yet they have strict gun control. Australia is even worse - also
with strict gun control. About half the countries in the world have a
higher suicide rate than the US.

> And you still fight for the right to bear arms and come out with the
> platitudes of "it's people that kill people, not guns". How wrong can
> you be.

It isn't wrong. I have never heard of a firearm that killed a person, all
by itself. Unfortunately, there are people who will misuse any weapon at
hand. If a firearm is not available, they will use a knife, club or even
their bare hands.

We don't need to eliminate firearms, we need to get violent people off the
street and keep them locked up where they cannot maim/kill others.

"If lax firearms laws are a contributing factor in murder rates, the
enormous variation across California suggests that it is a very minor
factor, or that some other factors must also be present for lax gun laws
to cause a high murder rate."

"Moreover, in recent years the murder rate in England has been going up
under still more severe gun control laws, while the murder rate in the
United States has been going down as more and more states have allowed
private citizens to carry concealed weapons -- and have begun locking up
more criminals."

> Sorry to get so emotive but this is one topic that I feel very
> passionate about.

Just because you are passionate does not mean that you are right.

There are a lot of misperceptions out there, on both sides of the issue.
Further, much of the information is intentionally misleading or even
cooked to produce the desired result. For example, there was a study
recently that showed a nearly linear correlation between percentile
firearm ownership and murder rate. But when the data was examined, it was
found that the person doing the study had selected the countries he needed
to produce the desire results.

The whole point is - firearms are not the cause of crime, although they
may be used to carry out various crimes. What we need to do is address the
reasons for violence and find ways to reduce/eliminate those reasons.

Bill


------------------------------

Message-ID: <1231.64.28.53.215.1161240647.squirrel [at] webmail.peak.org>
In-Reply-To: <list-36646526 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-36645487 [at] prxy.net> <list-36646526 [at] prxy.net>
Date: Wed, 18 Oct 2006 23:50:47 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: a political stance
From: "Bill Nelson" <billn [at] peak.org>

> Are you a member of a well regulated militia?

No, I am too old. But if YOU are a US citizen between the ages of 18 and
42, then you are - whether you realize it or not.

Bill


------------------------------

Message-ID: <1237.64.28.53.215.1161241474.squirrel [at] webmail.peak.org>
In-Reply-To: <list-36646062 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-36644179 [at] prxy.net> <list-36646062 [at] prxy.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:04:34 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: a political stance
From: "Bill Nelson" <billn [at] peak.org>

> Automatics - Why do you ever NEED to shoot more than 1 bullet at a time?

Fully automatic weapons require special licensing and registration. They
are also illegal for hunting. There are automatic weapons clubs that have
target shooting competitions - such as bursting a bunch of balloons strung
between two poles. You should try it sometime - it is not as easy as one
might think. The members often get together for fun shoots - where they
get to shoot other members firearms - maybe the only chance they will get
with that particular variety of firearm. I once went to such a shoot with
a friend that is a member of one such club. I got the chance to shoot a 50
cal sniper rifle. Quite an experience, but one shot was enough for me.

> Constitutional right - Because someone wrote it down 200 years ago, it
> must still be appropriate for today???  Right???

Maybe even more so than anytime in the history of the US.

> Finally, how many times does a 7-year-old have to take Daddy's gun to
> school and shoot another child before people get the idea that hand
> guns in the house are a bad idea.

As far as I know, the number of such instances is zero. There have been a
few instances of teenagers doing so. Figure out the number per 100,000
children on that one.

Handguns in the house are not, by themselves, a bad idea. Improper
upbringing of children is. Unfortunately, it is hard to bring up a child
properly these days, where even strong words can be interpreted as "child
abuse". And catering to the whims of their spoiled children makes matters
even worse.

Bill


------------------------------

Message-ID: <1262.64.28.53.215.1161242774.squirrel [at] webmail.peak.org>
In-Reply-To: <list-36637216 [at] prxy.net>
References: <list-36607406 [at] prxy.net> <list-36637216 [at] prxy.net>
Date: Thu, 19 Oct 2006 00:26:14 -0700 (PDT)
Subject: Re: Black-and-white or sepia photo effect
From: "Bill Nelson" <billn [at] peak.org>

> The Pegasus theatre (http://www.pegasustheatre.org/) in Dallas, TX has a
> tradition of black and white productions. There is no color anywhere on
> the
> set, in the lights or on the actors. They do have to use heavy makeup for
> this effect I believe. I haven't seen it myself but apparently it’s pretty
> effective.

It would be "pretty effective" at keeping me from attending any
performances. I am NOT color blind. I cannot think of a single play that
would be enhanced by such lighting - although some of the modern
experimental stuff might be an exception.

By the way, if they use lights, there is color in them. You might be able
to come close to matching the color temperature of sunlight - if that is
your white reference - but you had better only use one intensity, unless
you use dowsers on all instruments.

Bill


------------------------------

End of Stagecraft Digest #987
*****************************