"Shooting fish in a barrel is equally remote to me. I never understood it. For example, you mentioned the fish in the barrel are dead. I never imagined someone shooting at already dead fish."
It is just an example of something that's easy to do, not an example of something that people commonly did. Fish used to be packed tightly in barrels with salt to preserve them:
The traditional method of preserving these fish involves arranging them in a barrel as soon as they are caught, alternating layers of fish with layers of salt. At regular intervals the barrels are flipped upside down and rolled to ensure that the salt is distributed evenly and that the fish cure properly.
When the saying originated everyone knew what "fish in a barrel" referred to, and that it would be very easy to shoot fish in a barrel if someone wanted to. A similar saying is, "[...] as easy as falling off a log." That doesn't mean anyone actually wants to fall off a log, it just means it's easy to do.
"Nonetheless, your response proves just how obsessed you are with this idea."
Your laughable attempt to redefine the word "obsessed" is dismissed. I made exactly one post about it 3 months ago, then you came along and started an argument about it, and if someone wants to argue about something I've said, I'm always up for it, regardless of the topic.
"You've put entirely too much thought into killing birds with tennis rackets."
It obviously requires "too much thought" for a simpleton, but for someone who has even a basic grasp of how things work in general, it requires very little thought, in the same way that arguing with you requires very little thought.
"Also, one other thing that occurred to me - the tennis rackets that would have been available to the cast in 1963 were not the same as rackets produced in the '80's and beyond."
So? They were more than sufficient for killing small birds.
"Do you really think the wooden frame and strings could have held up against birds (as opposed to rubber balls)."
Of course they would.
"I think the birds would have broken the strings, and then you'd have nothing with which to bludgeon the other birds."
You obviously know nothing about tennis rackets (which is ironic, given that you're trying to argue about them). Tennis racket strings are very tough and so are wooden tennis rackets. Björn Borg used to string his wooden rackets at 80 pounds of tension (and that was with natural gut, which isn't as strong as cheap nylon strings, which have been around since the 1950s). I've had a stringing machine for 29 years and I have many tennis rackets, most of which I strung myself, including a classic Davis wooden one, which I strung at 60 pounds with Prince nylon string. The idea that hitting crows would break the strings and/or the racket itself is utterly absurd.
"I don't think tennis rackets are a solution for any time if posed with a situation like this, but I especially don't think rackets would have sufficed in 1963."
It doesn't matter what you think, since you've repeatedly demonstrated that you don't know what you're talking about.
reply
share