The Crazy Rants of Samantha Burns

Gun safety is very important there was a documentary I saw once where children were observed for their actions and reactions to finding a firearm.

ALL the children from houses with firearms and where gun safety was taught and instilled immediately went for an adult without touching it.

Most of the other children from families who did not do the approve and disapproved highly of firearms in possession of those not in the military or police dept PLAYED with what they found to the horror of their parents!

Very englightending/

do i know you?

My site meter results indicate that my blog received a referal from this one, but I cannot find a link anywhere over here. Am I missing something? If I am linked somewhere on your site, thanks!

www.wisgrove98.blogspot.com

Regular posting will resume at my blog in around three weeks.

"do i know you?

Posted by: Giasen at August 14, 2005 03:10 PM"

Since you posted this right after my comment, I will guess you might be referring to me.

I am on the Blogroll to the left as

Committees of Correspondence

Dan,

My mistake. I was refering to whoever operates this blog, presumably one Samantha Burns.

The little private blogroll thing at the left side of the page shows Samantha and myself links others don't see. I have an extensive list of blogs there, plus a new batch of random blogs to check out every time I visit so every day I can visit a new set of uncharted blogs. The page would be way too slow if I were to make that public so for now it's marked as double super top secret. Thanks for dropping by!

I have been quite a few hits reffered by this website, so OF COURSE I am going to be dropping by, just linking with someone who has linked to me is meaningless without the participation of going to their website on a regular basis!

Hint hint you could leave ME a comment from time to time? ;-)

PS I try to make it a practice to visit each link in my blogroll daily to see if their is anything new or interesting. Now if I get FAMOUS I may have to curtail some of that, LOL so far my links 7 and my average traffic 32/day gives me plenty of time to do this and even if I should get a host of sites linking to me the ones who first did so I will always consider specail friends. ;-)

LOL That IS funny! Very interesting Dan, the results in the documentary you refer to. It makes sense though, knowledge overcomes ignorance every time. (Unless you're playing poker on PokerStars ;)

@Diane. Ever read Mark Twain's

SCIENCE VS. LUCK.

http://www.twainquotes.com/Galaxy/187010d.html

At that time, in Kentucky (said the Hon. Mr. Knott M. C.), the law was very strict against what it termed "games of chance." About a dozen of the boys were detected playing "seven-up" or "old sledge" for money, and the grand jury found a true bill against them. Jim Sturgis was retained to defend them when the case came up, of course. The more he studied over the matter and looked into the evidence, the plainer it was that he must lose a case at last -- there was no getting around that painful fact. Those boys had certainly been betting money on a game of chance. Even public sympathy was roused in behalf of Sturgis. People said it was a pity to see him mar his successful career with a big prominent case like this, which must go against him.

But after several restless nights an inspired idea flashed upon Sturgis, and he sprang out of bed delighted. He thought he saw his way through. The next day he whispered around a little among his clients and a few friends, and then when the case came up in court he acknowledged the seven-up and the betting, and, as his sole defence, had the astounding effrontery to put in the plea that old sledge was not a game of chance! There was the broadest sort of a smile all over the faces of that sophisticated audience. The judge smiled with the rest. But Sturgis maintained a countenance whose earnestness was even severe. The opposite counsel tried to ridicule him out of his position, and did not succeed. The judge jested in a ponderous judicial way about the thing, but did not move him. The matter was becoming grave. The judge lost a little of his patience, and said the joke had gone far enough. Jim Sturgis said he knew of no joke in the matter -- his clients could not be punished for indulging in what some people chose to consider a game of chance, until it was proven that it was a game of chance. Judge and counsel said that would be an easy matter, and forthwith called Deacons Job, Peters, Burke, and Johnson, and Dominies Wirt and Miggles, to testify; and they unanimously and with strong feeling put down the legal quibble of Sturgis, by pronouncing that old sledge was a game of chance.

"What do you call it now!" said the judge.

"I call it a game of science!" retorted Sturgis; "and I'll prove it, too!"

They saw his little game.

He brought in a cloud of witnesses, and produced an overwhelming mass of testimony, to show that old sledge was not a game of chance, but a game of science.

Instead of being the simplest case in the world, it had somehow turned out to be an excessively knotty one. The judge scratched his head over it a while, and said there was no way of coming to a determination, because just as many men could be brought into court who would testify on one side, as could be found to testify on the other. But he said he was willing to do the fair thing by all parties, and would act upon any suggestion Mr. Sturgis would make for the solution of the difficulty.

Mr. Sturgis was on his feet in a second:

"Impanel a jury of six of each, Luck versus Science -- give them candles and a couple of decks of cards, send them into the jury room, and just abide by the result!"

There was no disputing the fairness of the proposition. The four deacons and the two dominies were sworn in as the "chance" jurymen, and six inveterate old seven-up professors were chosen to represent the "science" side of the issue. They retired to the jury room.

In about two hours, Deacon Peters sent into court to borrow three dollars from a friend. [Sensation.] In about two hours more, Dominie Miggles sent into court to borrow a "stake" from a friend. [Sensation.] During the next three or four hours, the other dominie and the other deacons sent into court for small loans. And still the packed audience waited, for it was a prodigious occasion in Bull's Corners, and one in which every father of a family was necessarily interested.

The rest of the story can be told briefly. About daylight the jury came in, and Deacon Job, the foreman, read the following

VERDICT.

We, the jury in the case of the Commonwealth of Kentucky vs. John Wheeler et al., have carefully considered the points of the case, and tested the merits of the several theories advanced, and do hereby unanimously decide that the game commonly known as old sledge or seven-up is eminently a game of science and not of chance. In demonstration whereof, it is hereby and herein stated, iterated, reiterated, set forth, and made manifest, that, during the entire night, the "chance" men never won a game or turned a jack, although both feats were common and frequent to the opposition; and further more, in support of this our verdict, we call attention to the significant fact that the "chance" men are all busted, and the "science" men have got the money. It is the deliberate opinion of this jury that the "chance" theory concerning seven-up is a pernicious doctrine, and calculated to inflict untold suffering and pecuniary loss upon any community that takes stock in it.

"That is the way that seven-up came to be set apart and particularized in the statute books of Kentucky as being a game not of chance but of science, and therefore not punishable under the law," said Mr. Knott. "That verdict is of record, and holds good to this day."

Return to Galaxy index

No! I haven't and I have a book of Twain's writings around here somewhere, she shamefully mumbled. What a great story. I sure would like to play some of the people I meet at the online poker tables in person and see what flies then- LOL Thanks for such a lengthy reply- I blogrolled you for the effort!