"Dave" wrote in message ...
Gunner wrote:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:42:41 +0100, Dave
wrote:


We do, whe just don't get 'British'.

'English', not British, was the language that your founding fathers brought to your shore. Was it
the Mayflower that was one of the first ships to land and populate that land?

It was you that chose to *******ise it, by ignoring the changes that we made to it over the years.
Hence we talk the same language, but do not understand each other

Dave



Lets see..as I recall..yall also broght slavery,

Oh for goodness sake you gave us Lloyd Grossman. Lets call it even.

"Dave" wrote in message ...
willshak wrote:
on 9/12/2007 5:42 PM Dave said the following:

Michael A. Terrell wrote:

raden wrote:

In message , Gunner
writes

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 22:23:05 GMT, raden wrote:


John


Here in the US it is called a crew cut too. Back in the 50's there was
a singin8 group called "The Crew Cuts"



We used to call it a "bog brush" at school


--
geoff



why would anyone want to brush a swamp?

(you do know he means the brush you clean the toilet with, don't you?)

Count the postings to this thread. YOu'll find that even though OT it
is generating more interest
then anything else going on in this newsgroup right now. That's the
First Amendment at work. Don't like it? Then exercise your own rights
rather than try to suppress others, by just ignoring this thread.



Count the number of postings in this thread. Divide by the number of
letters in the average post. Multiply by .084757836 and you get the secret
code for "idiot".

People screeching in this newsgroup on OT subjects have the credibility of
anyone screeching from atop a step ladder on the corner in a major city.

Everything in its time and place. Usenet has provided a place for bloggers
and kooks to get an imprisoned audience where they can spew their spew
cheaply. They just don't have the common sense to know that they look like
idiots, and are read mostly by other idiots.

Were they credible debaters, statesmen, politicians, informed voters, or
just the common Joe interested in current events, they'd spend half as much
time ACTIVELY following these events and making a change.

And just because it has most posts doesn't mean that it has the most
interest. There is a legion of people here who post endlessly, but nothing
about the actual topic of the newsgroup.

You DO remember the topic of this newsgroup, don't you? No? Sigh
......................

I bet you go to parties and gatherings and just screech and prattle on
endlessly about whatever you want, and are terminal boors.

Steve

SteveB wrote:

| You DO remember the topic of this newsgroup, don't you? No? Sigh

Which of the three newsgroups you posted to is "this newsgroup"?

:-)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:54:36 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:


So it was the Spanish given smallpox infected blankets to the
Indians
and paying bounties on scalps?

By the time anybody started giving "smallpox infected blankets" to the
Indians the indigenous population had already been decimated.


Hardly so.

Gunner

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 18:41:43 +0100, Colin Wilson
o.uk wrote:

You left out "by other means"
Is there some reason you wish to hide those figures?

I see no reason to bother continuing with your feeble arguments - your
murder rate is three times higher despite your attempts to say gun
ownership prevents crime.


What you seem to be missing, laddyboyo..is that when gun ownership was
totally unrestricted in the UK and the US..the murder rate was even
lower in both countries.

London reported (1) firearms murder in 1890, when firearms were
readily available at any hardware store and any self respecting gent
or lady didnt leave home without one.

If one removes the gang murders between minority groups competing for
drug territory..the murder rate between the UK and the US falls to
just within a few points.

So if its not the availiblity of firearms that is the root cause of
the problem..and thats been demonstrated aptly by many nations,
including Switzerland..it has to be something else.

"Its the culture, stupid", or the culture of groups within the
society.

You can blither all you wish, but guns cause crime like flies cause
garbage.

Gunner

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:42:32 +0100, "Dave Gordon" d@p wrote:


"J. Clarke" wrote in message ...
raden wrote:
In message , J. Clarke
writes
Uh, you _want_ to get close to someone who is trying to kill you
because?

I think his point is that guns can kill at a distance, which makes it easier to reach a state of mind
where shooting someone is desirable, and where it carries less consequences.

It should be noted that of serial murderers..damned few used any sort
of firearm, most were up close and personal.

Gunner

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 21:29:36 +0100, "Dave Gordon" d@p wrote:


True. Federal courts have consistently held that the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment is
an individual right, not a right belonging to a "well regulated militia" or to members of a
militia.

Even though the Amendment itself limits the right to a "well-regulated militia".


Define well regulated and militia in the terms of year it was laid on
paper.

Try the Oxford Dictionary of 1788

Gunner

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:42:02 -0400, Kurt Ullman
wrote:

In article ,
Just Wondering wrote:


Where did you get your copy of the Constitution? 'Cause I've read the Second
Amendment dozens of times from dozens of sources, and and NONE of the copies
I
EVER saw limit the right to bear arms to "a well regulated militia." And
read
my first post above again.

Amendment II

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.


Yes, and where is the limiting parts?

Gunner

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 20:47:58 GMT, M Q
wrote:



Gunner wrote:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:42:41 +0100, Dave
wrote:


We do, whe just don't get 'British'.

'English', not British, was the language that your founding fathers
brought to your shore. Was it the Mayflower that was one of the first
ships to land and populate that land?

It was you that chose to *******ise it, by ignoring the changes that we
made to it over the years. Hence we talk the same language, but do not
understand each other

Dave



Lets see..as I recall..yall also broght slavery, small pox, syphillis
and broken promises just to name a few...

...
Actually, syphilis went from the Americas to Europe in 1493.


True indeed. I should have said "the pox" or Frenchman's Disease, or
Travelers Disease or...G

Gunner

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:25:48 +0100, Dave
wrote:


Well..you did give my people "scalping" for which We are forever
grateful

It is nice to know that you are native American, but can you expand on
that for an ignorant Brit please?

Dave

Im partially Ojibwa indian.

http://www.geocities.com/bigorrin/chippewa_kids.htm

Glad to have been of help

Gunner

"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:25:48 +0100, Dave
wrote:


Well..you did give my people "scalping" for which We are forever
grateful

It is nice to know that you are native American, but can you expand on
that for an ignorant Brit please?

Dave

Im partially Ojibwa indian.

(...you'll be sorry if you ask about the other parts...)

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:49:55 +0100, "Dave Gordon" d@p wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message ...
Gunner wrote:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:42:41 +0100, Dave
wrote:


We do, whe just don't get 'British'.

'English', not British, was the language that your founding fathers brought to your shore. Was it
the Mayflower that was one of the first ships to land and populate that land?

It was you that chose to *******ise it, by ignoring the changes that we made to it over the years.
Hence we talk the same language, but do not understand each other

Dave



Lets see..as I recall..yall also broght slavery,

Oh for goodness sake you gave us Lloyd Grossman. Lets call it even.

errrr.....whoops..sorry about that....but you did give us Twiggy....

Gunner

Dave Gordon wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 7, 9:52 pm, Ken wrote:
What have been the worst (serious or humorous) handyman or handywoman
accidents that you've experienced so far (or someone you know, or saw
it happen to, got to experience) and please elaborate on what
unfortunately went wrong.
Guy I knew was hanging fascia board on a two story building, no safety
equipment. He fell off and landed on a piece of #4 rebar sticking out
of a masonry footing. The bar went up his rectum. Some idiot ran over
with a cutting torch and started cutting. He stopped, and they used a
cut off wheel on a angle grinder to cut it off. He couldn't walk or
sit for three weeks. Rectum, damn near killed him.

Yow! Couldn't they just, kinda, lift him off? Gently.



Just in case anyone ever is confronted with such a situation impaled
objects are never removed in the field. The are cut to a size that can
be transported with the patient and immobilized in place with a rather
massive dressing. The patient is then transported to the nearest trauma
center were the impaled object is surgically removed with very large
amounts of blood on hand. Removing an impaled object in the field will
do as much or more damage as the object did going in and can result in
catastrophic bleeding.

The only impaled objects that are not imobilized are those that have
penetrated the pericardium and are moving with each beat of the heart.
I have only seen one such case in twenty five years as an Emergency
Medical Technician.
--
Tom Horne

Dave Gordon wrote:

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article om,
Robatoy wrote:

My _preferred_ weapons are keyboard and ballot.

Too bad the candidate of my choice is NEVER on the ballot - NONE OF THE
ABOVE

Nice protest, but what if it was? What if that choice got the most votes?


An empty office can't pass bad bills, so what's your problem?

--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Just Wondering wrote:


Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Just Wondering wrote:



Where did you get your copy of the Constitution? 'Cause I've read the
Second
Amendment dozens of times from dozens of sources, and and NONE of the
copies
I
EVER saw limit the right to bear arms to "a well regulated militia." And
read
my first post above again.


Amendment II

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.


That's right, the right of THE PEOPLE (not the militia) to keep arms shall
not
be infringed.


But the need for a well-regulated militia is what is stated first and
succinctly. You conveniently ignore that. The right of the people to
bear arms flows from the necessity of a well-regulated militia. There is
a hierarchy here in the flow and ordering of the statements concerning
how and why the rights are bestowed by the constitution.

The "militia" consisted of all able bodied men. It was not limited to a
government-sponsored military force.

SteveB wrote:

Count the postings to this thread. YOu'll find that even though OT it
is generating more interest
then anything else going on in this newsgroup right now. That's the
First Amendment at work. Don't like it? Then exercise your own rights
rather than try to suppress others, by just ignoring this thread.


People screeching in this newsgroup on OT subjects have the credibility of
anyone screeching from atop a step ladder on the corner in a major city.

Perhaps so, but so what? As you point out, some posters consider much of what
is said idiotic. It does no need to cry about it, and those who do any way are
well on the road to becoming anal retentive.
Usenet is a forum for people to speak out. If they are speaking out on an
off-topic subject and you want to stay on-topic, just mark the whole thread as
"read" and get on with your life.

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
SteveB wrote:

| You DO remember the topic of this newsgroup, don't you? No? Sigh

Which of the three newsgroups you posted to is "this newsgroup"?

:-)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/



Well, I guess that would be the three where this inane discussion is taking
place, wouldn't it?

Steve

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
...
SteveB wrote:

Count the postings to this thread. YOu'll find that even though OT it
is generating more interest
then anything else going on in this newsgroup right now. That's the
First Amendment at work. Don't like it? Then exercise your own rights
rather than try to suppress others, by just ignoring this thread.


People screeching in this newsgroup on OT subjects have the credibility
of anyone screeching from atop a step ladder on the corner in a major
city.

Perhaps so, but so what? As you point out, some posters consider much of
what is said idiotic. It does no need to cry about it, and those who do
any way are well on the road to becoming anal retentive.
Usenet is a forum for people to speak out. If they are speaking out on an
off-topic subject and you want to stay on-topic, just mark the whole
thread as "read" and get on with your life.

NO, NO, NO. I killfile the idiots first. Most never have anything to say
about the group they are responding to anyway. When I killfile some of
these people, my list of posts sometimes lessen by 20%. They must need to
get a life to get on with.

Steve

SteveB wrote:

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
...

SteveB wrote:


Count the postings to this thread. YOu'll find that even though OT it
is generating more interest
then anything else going on in this newsgroup right now. That's the
First Amendment at work. Don't like it? Then exercise your own rights
rather than try to suppress others, by just ignoring this thread.


People screeching in this newsgroup on OT subjects have the credibility
of anyone screeching from atop a step ladder on the corner in a major
city.


Perhaps so, but so what? As you point out, some posters consider much of
what is said idiotic. It does no need to cry about it, and those who do
any way are well on the road to becoming anal retentive.
Usenet is a forum for people to speak out. If they are speaking out on an
off-topic subject and you want to stay on-topic, just mark the whole
thread as "read" and get on with your life.


NO, NO, NO. I killfile the idiots first. Most never have anything to say
about the group they are responding to anyway. When I killfile some of
these people, my list of posts sometimes lessen by 20%. They must need to
get a life to get on with.

Steve

When you skip an OT thread, you've saved yourself from having to see it. When
you killfile a poster, though, you not only eliminate the OT stuff, you also
prevent yourself from seeing any good on-topic stuff from his as well. As long
as you are OK with that, by all means killfile away.

SteveB wrote:
| "Morris Dovey" wrote in message
| ...
|| SteveB wrote:
||
||| You DO remember the topic of this newsgroup, don't you? No? Sigh
||
|| Which of the three newsgroups you posted to is "this newsgroup"?
||
|| :-)
|
| Well, I guess that would be the three where this inane discussion
| is taking place, wouldn't it?

Ok, since the conversation(s) have wandered a bit afield, I'm happy to
help you out with this subthread by prepending "[OT]" to the subject
so you can filter more conveniently for all three of this newsgroup.

HTH

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

"Morris Dovey" writes:

SteveB wrote:

| You DO remember the topic of this newsgroup, don't you? No? Sigh

Which of the three newsgroups you posted to is "this newsgroup"?

I think his point is valid for any of them.

On Sep 14, 3:44 pm, "Morris Dovey" wrote:
SteveB wrote:

| "Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...| | SteveB wrote:

||
||| You DO remember the topic of this newsgroup, don't you? No? Sigh
||
|| Which of the three newsgroups you posted to is "this newsgroup"?
||
|| :-)
|
| Well, I guess that would be the three where this inane discussion
| is taking place, wouldn't it?

Ok, since the conversation(s) have wandered a bit afield, I'm happy to
help you out with this subthread by prepending "[OT]" to the subject
so you can filter more conveniently for all three of this newsgroup.

HTH


First of all, Morris, thank you for the response to my part of thread
some way back...(You know the one, and I don't give a rat's ass if
nobody else does.. =o)
Now, about the inanity of it all (If it isn't a word, maybe it is
now?)
Sometimes I like it when a thread wanders a bit. The discussion may
not be on topic, but it can still be informative. Then again,
sometimes the beak throttles up-side pocket.... if you catch my drift.

r

willshak wrote:
on 9/13/2007 10:17 AM clifto said the following:
willshak wrote:

on 9/11/2007 1:28 AM John B said the following:

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"willshak" wrote in message

My hair has been cut so that it is no more than 1/2" long.

Mine has not been that long in a couple of years now. 1/6" on the
sides, uh, even less on top. Eliminates a lot of problems and is
easy to style in the morning.


G'day Ed,
I'm in your camp. I call it a 6 month hair cut
In Oz they are commonly called a Crew Cut.


Here in the US it is called a crew cut too.


Careful. There were definite distinctions between any number of short
hair styles. IIRC a buzz cut was shorter than a crewcut, which was shorter
than a butch. The shortest of all was the baldy sour.


Back in the 50's there was a
singin8 group called "The Crew Cuts"
The "Life is but a Dream" melody immediately comes to mind, but I don't
know if that was by the Crew Cuts


"Sh-Boom"

Right!

Yadadadadadadadadadaaaaa

--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.

on 9/14/2007 6:52 PM clifto said the following:
willshak wrote:

on 9/13/2007 10:17 AM clifto said the following:

willshak wrote:


on 9/11/2007 1:28 AM John B said the following:


Edwin Pawlowski wrote:


"willshak" wrote in message


My hair has been cut so that it is no more than 1/2" long.


Mine has not been that long in a couple of years now. 1/6" on the
sides, uh, even less on top. Eliminates a lot of problems and is
easy to style in the morning.



G'day Ed,
I'm in your camp. I call it a 6 month hair cut
In Oz they are commonly called a Crew Cut.



Here in the US it is called a crew cut too.


Careful. There were definite distinctions between any number of short
hair styles. IIRC a buzz cut was shorter than a crewcut, which was shorter
than a butch. The shortest of all was the baldy sour.



Back in the 50's there was a
singin8 group called "The Crew Cuts"
The "Life is but a Dream" melody immediately comes to mind, but I don't
know if that was by the Crew Cuts


"Sh-Boom"

Right!


Yadadadadadadadadadaaaaa

I even had the lyric wrong. It's "Life could be a dream".

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

Kurt Ullman wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
Amendment II

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.


That's right, the right of THE PEOPLE (not the militia) to keep arms shall
not
be infringed.

But the need for a well-regulated militia is what is stated first and
succinctly. You conveniently ignore that.

What you're ignoring is that the entire first part of that is commentary.
The actual meat of the amendment says simply and eloquently, "the right
of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The grammatical construction of the first part sounds stilted in today's
world, but translating it into modernese, it says "Because a well-regulated
militia is necessary to the security of a free State..."

--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.

clifto wrote:

Kurt Ullman wrote:

Just Wondering wrote:

Amendment II

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.


That's right, the right of THE PEOPLE (not the militia) to keep arms shall
not
be infringed.

But the need for a well-regulated militia is what is stated first and
succinctly. You conveniently ignore that.


What you're ignoring is that the entire first part of that is commentary.
The actual meat of the amendment says simply and eloquently, "the right
of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The grammatical construction of the first part sounds stilted in today's
world, but translating it into modernese, it says "Because a well-regulated
militia is necessary to the security of a free State..."


You guys sure are beating a dead dog......at least as far as this thread
goes. If we go way back, before the "Founding Fathers", to the early
colonists.....they were required to keep arms and powder. They had to
bring their guns to church and to town meetings. They were also
required by law to keep provisions in their homes in order to feed
travellers. Also required to be members of the church in order to vote.
Some ornery characters in Connecticut, whom I am distantly related to,
didn't go for that. Seriously religious, church-goin' folks, some of
whom sentenced Quakers - male or female - to be lashed "twenty stripes"
on their bare backs whilst being pulled by a cart out of the
jurisdiction. But, they weren't as conservative as they sound...the law
generally was that a man had to leave at least one-third of his estate
to his wife, and there were always officials charged with caring for the
poor.

Here is an interesting take on the matter of militia vs. army, from
someone who should know:
http://www.army.mil/cmh/books/AMH-V1/epilogue.htm

Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
| "Morris Dovey" writes:
|
|| SteveB wrote:
||
||| You DO remember the topic of this newsgroup, don't you? No? Sigh
||
|| Which of the three newsgroups you posted to is "this newsgroup"?
|
| I think his point is valid for any of them.

But are you certain it's valid for _all_ of them? :-D

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Gunner wrote:

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:49:55 +0100, "Dave Gordon" d@p wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message ...

Gunner wrote:


On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:42:41 +0100, Dave
wrote:



We do, whe just don't get 'British'.

'English', not British, was the language that your founding fathers brought to your shore. Was it
the Mayflower that was one of the first ships to land and populate that land?

It was you that chose to *******ise it, by ignoring the changes that we made to it over the years.
Hence we talk the same language, but do not understand each other

Dave



Lets see..as I recall..yall also broght slavery,

Oh for goodness sake you gave us Lloyd Grossman. Lets call it even.


errrr.....whoops..sorry about that....but you did give us Twiggy....

Who has turned out to be an everlasting beauty and a glam gran to boot :-)

Dave

Gunner wrote:

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:25:48 +0100, Dave
wrote:


Well..you did give my people "scalping" for which We are forever
grateful

It is nice to know that you are native American, but can you expand on
that for an ignorant Brit please?

Dave


Im partially Ojibwa indian.

http://www.geocities.com/bigorrin/chippewa_kids.htm

Glad to have been of help

Gunner

Gunner wrote:

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:25:48 +0100, Dave
wrote:


Well..you did give my people "scalping" for which We are forever
grateful

It is nice to know that you are native American, but can you expand on
that for an ignorant Brit please?

Dave


Im partially Ojibwa indian.

http://www.geocities.com/bigorrin/chippewa_kids.htm

Glad to have been of help

Gunner

Manny, many thanks for that.

Dave

"clifto" wrote in message
...
Kurt Ullman wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
Amendment II

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.


That's right, the right of THE PEOPLE (not the militia) to keep arms
shall
not
be infringed.

But the need for a well-regulated militia is what is stated first and
succinctly. You conveniently ignore that.

What you're ignoring is that the entire first part of that is commentary.
The actual meat of the amendment says simply and eloquently, "the right
of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

The grammatical construction of the first part sounds stilted in today's
world, but translating it into modernese, it says "Because a
well-regulated
militia is necessary to the security of a free State..."

Not necessarily. Nominative absolute sentences are just as (un)common today
as they were in the latter part of the 18th century. Yes, I researched it,
around 20 years ago.

And the "because" is just one possible "in other words" for such a
nominative absolute. The accurate meaning of the others would produce an
awkward sentence -- which is why the nominative absolute is used from time
to time in literature. You will not see it used in legal documents today
because of the ambiguity.

I don't look this stuff up for fun, but if you doubt all this and want to
see some parallel examples, I'll dig out my grammar books. They have some
good ones.

--
Ed Huntress

willshak wrote:
on 9/14/2007 6:52 PM clifto said the following:

willshak wrote:

on 9/13/2007 10:17 AM clifto said the following:

willshak wrote:

on 9/11/2007 1:28 AM John B said the following:

Back in the 50's there was a singing group called "The Crew Cuts"
The "Life is but a Dream" melody immediately comes to mind, but I
don't know if that was by the Crew Cuts

"Sh-Boom"

Right!

Yadadadadadadadadadaaaaa

I even had the lyric wrong. It's "Life could be a dream".


Here ya go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmEGEmUBJUI

You're welcome.

"My heros have always killed cowboys".

Comanche

But not enough to count anywhere but
my oen heart...


Richard

Morris Dovey wrote:

SteveB wrote:
| "Morris Dovey" wrote in message
| ...
|| SteveB wrote:
||
||| You DO remember the topic of this newsgroup, don't you? No? Sigh
||
|| Which of the three newsgroups you posted to is "this newsgroup"?
||
|| :-)
|
| Well, I guess that would be the three where this inane discussion
| is taking place, wouldn't it?

Ok, since the conversation(s) have wandered a bit afield, I'm happy to
help you out with this subthread by prepending "[OT]" to the subject
so you can filter more conveniently for all three of this newsgroup.


OT isn't allowed on RCM. Our resident net Nazi gets upset about OT
posts.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

Ed Huntress wrote:
I don't look this stuff up for fun, but if you doubt all this and want to
see some parallel examples, I'll dig out my grammar books. They have some
good ones.

Actually, I'd love that. I saw these constructs so often in my early
reading that they became ingrained; if I've missed something I wanna know.

--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:44:17 -0700, Gunner
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 Dave wrote:

Well..you did give my people "scalping" for which We are forever
grateful

It is nice to know that you are native American, but can you expand on
that for an ignorant Brit please?

Im partially Ojibwa indian.

Do the Ojibwa have any casinos?

I know the Pechangas are tossing people out of the tribe left and
right - even with impeccable lineage research that goes back a few
hundred years - just because they didn't vote the right way on casino
related tribal elections. Cutting off casino profit participation
checks, throwing them out of schools and hospitals, out of houses on
tribal land, canceling health insurance...

-- Bruce --

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
| Morris Dovey wrote:
||
|| SteveB wrote:
||| "Morris Dovey" wrote in message
||| ...
|||| SteveB wrote:
||||
||||| You DO remember the topic of this newsgroup, don't you? No?
||||| Sigh
||||
|||| Which of the three newsgroups you posted to is "this newsgroup"?
||||
|||| :-)
|||
||| Well, I guess that would be the three where this inane discussion
||| is taking place, wouldn't it?
||
|| Ok, since the conversation(s) have wandered a bit afield, I'm
|| happy to help you out with this subthread by prepending "[OT]" to
|| the subject so you can filter more conveniently for all three of
|| this newsgroup.
|
| OT isn't allowed on RCM. Our resident net Nazi gets upset about
| OT posts.

Bummer. You have my condolances. The folks here on rec.woodworking
have decided that putting up with net nannies/control freaks is worse
than the occasional off-topic thread - and one of our regulars
maintains a filtering package for those who'd prefer not to see the OT
threads (or the occasionally really nasty garbage posts) at all.

Normally (but obviously not always) we add "OT" to the subject to
facilitate filtering, and it works fairly well. RW (the "wreck") is a
fairly convivial group - and occasionally the people who've gotten to
know each other here do enjoy OT side discussions. The antisocial
types who pop in and object are generally held in low regard - the
wreck values right answers, but not people who're all about _being_
right.

I'll gladly trim RCM from my future responses. :-)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:46:28 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:25:48 +0100, Dave
wrote:


Well..you did give my people "scalping" for which We are forever
grateful

It is nice to know that you are native American, but can you expand on
that for an ignorant Brit please?

Dave

Im partially Ojibwa indian.

(...you'll be sorry if you ask about the other parts...)


German, Finn and Black Irish.

Gunner