If there is any cohesion or logic in this rant I have not been able to locate it.

The author does not know what cross hairs are, or she would not have made the false accusation about the use of cross hairs. Perhaps she does not care and is quite happy to state an untruth.

This is an example of the result of exposure of a truth phobic personality, as the author appears to be, to a personality as direct and honest as Sarah Palin

All the author wants is for everyone to stop talking and listen to her. She is confused and totally biased and I think she has never listened to anyone in her life.
The usual left wing sook who is happy to dish it out but when it comes back turns into a cry-baby!

Leo: everybody in the world knows what crosshairs are, except, apparently, you:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reticle

Pay particular attention to this bit:

"Most commonly associated with telescopic sights for aiming firearms..."

And then you go on to claim that the author is making false accusations.... ROFLMAO.

I think Blind Freddy would be able to spot who's telling the porkies here.

Can I request, in the interests of my own health and safety, that you refrain from political comment in the future? Your comment about the author not knowing what crosshairs are made me bruise myself when I fell of my chair laughing; I damn near choked laughing when you called Sarah Palin honest. I truly fear that your next contribution to political debate will see me hospitalised by hilarity.

JBowyer: is the some really clever form of irony I'm too tired to understand, or are you just an idiot? My insomnia has reached the point where I'm too sleep-deprived to tell the difference.

Aleister, you have obviously never looked through a gunsight, but that does not stop you from talking nonsense about it.

The symbols used on Sara Palin’s map are location symbols used by surveyors and printers to show locations. Do you know a better way to indicate locations? Tell the surveyors, they will be delighted.

You have joined the ignorami, Aleister, or probably you were always part of it.

With your concept of truth, I feel comfortable that you believe that I am lying. Come back and have another go when you leave school. Keep away from articles like this, and try to absorb something about the real world.

Work your way up to relating to the truth as ably expounded by Sara Palin. A great example is her statement that the US would not be in thrall to OPEC, if the oil reserves locked up in Alaska as the result of the efforts of lying green activists, were opened up.

Perceive the real world. It will not be easy, starting from where you are now, but it will be rewarding.

I do hope this helps, but I am, of course, open to the possibility that you are just an imbecile.

Since new evidence has come to light regarding this psycho's political beliefs - mainly that he had none and that, if anything, he was more to the left in his views than the right - do you wish to revise any of this garbage? To think that this ill thought out rant based entirely on political ideology as opposed to scholarship, research and deductive reasoning comes from the mind of a "Professor" is absolutely frightening. It is a terrible indictment on the scholarship produced by universities in the last 30 years.

No, I have never looked through a gunsight. I hope I never have to. But I looked through a refractometer, and it had crosshairs. As it says in the article I linked to and which you presumably didn't read, lots of devices have crosshairs - including not only refractometers and theodolites, but also rifle scopes. Your insistence that surveying theodolites are the only devices to make use of crosshairs is most amusing to those of us who prefer to deal with facts, rather than sweeping them under the rug when they get in the way of our sycophantic devotion to politicians.