03-01-2019, 06:16 AM
CaptnC Wrote:Well sir..."troll"
Take a few minutes to click on my handle in one of the links I posted. Look at the ratio of "liked" posts I have. I think it's close to 50%...that means a lot of their members agree with the things I say.
Respectfully sir, no it does not. It means that for less than half of what you've posted, out of the many people who read it, a few expressed agreement.
CaptnC Wrote:Also note I've have one of my threads published in their Online Magazine. Also look at the number of my threads that have been featured in their weekly news letter.
Troll....I don't thing so!
Based on your spelling and grammar, they have editorial standards even lower than their publishing standards.
CaptnC Wrote:Take time to investigate a little further before you start throwing the word around so freely! Troll...piffft
I've followed every link you've posted to this point, and it has only served to reinforce the points that have already been made about your rhetoric in this thread.
As has already been pointed out, the context here is NOT what barrel length capitalizes on the ballistic potential of the cartridge, but rather what length barrel would satisfy a specified set of functional parameters, none of which were applicable to any significant distance. Yet you followed up with a diatribe that was entirely outside the context of the responses to the original question, projected your own ego onto those in disagreement, and then resorted to self-aggrandizing as a response to being called out for your nonsense.
If you're not trolling, take the time to apply the reading comprehension skills you've demanded of everyone else to the entire thread. Maybe then you'll realize that no one is questioning the validity of your central premise, but rather rejecting it's relevance to the premise of the original post.