On Wednesday, September 18, 2013 7:41:38 PM UTC-4, nestork wrote:
Yes, but I just see the whole idea of arguing with someone on the

internet to be a big waste of time because neither person is going to

change the other's opinion. No one is ever going to say:



"By golly, you're right! I just never thought of it that way before.

Thanks for setting me straight!"



Won't happen. All that ends up happening is that the discussion turns

into an argument and the argument turns into a name calling/insult

hurling contest, and that turns into two people not speaking to each

other on the board for a few months. It's kind of inevitable how things

seem to always work out that way online.



Maybe better to avoid that path right from the start cuz it always leads

to the same end result; two people not talking to each other because the

other one is stupid.

.. --

nestork

See, here's the difference. I couldn't care less if I never engage
with the person in question again. No loss there. You have this
moral equivalency concept, you're basically claiming that all statements
here are just as valid. I provided citations
to the definition of "shoplifting" and to an example of shoplifting law.
KRW has provided just his flapping gums.
It's clearly *not* shoplifting if a cashier by mistake somehow fails to scan one of many items that you've placed on the counter to be scanned. That is what krw has claimed. Do you believe that? It's not shoplifting, because
shoplifting requires that it be done on purpose, by the customer, with
the intent of stealing.
Do you believe him when he claims he checks with 100% certainty that the cashier has correctly scanned ever single item in a shopping cart full
of stuff at the supermarket? Maybe if 10 people told him he's wrong,
he'd start to learn. That's what finally happened in the thread where he
was all wrong about 4 wire vs 3 wire oven connections, yet he kept digging
himself deeper. It took two EE's and an electrician or two. When someone blows smoke in your face, you may choose to accept it, but not me.

As for the name calling, I reject your assertion that I'm equally at fault.
Go look back at not only this thread, but all the other threads where KRW
starts hurling insults at everyone and anyone, especially as soon as they
correct him on something. Look at who's started the name calling. He's
called me idiot, moron, stupid, etc. I believe about the most I've said in response to all that in this thread is that he's making an ass of himself.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 01:41:38 +0200, nestork
wrote:


Yes, but I just see the whole idea of arguing with someone on the
internet to be a big waste of time because neither person is going to
change the other's opinion. No one is ever going to say:

"By golly, you're right! I just never thought of it that way before.
Thanks for setting me straight!"

Won't happen. All that ends up happening is that the discussion turns
into an argument and the argument turns into a name calling/insult
hurling contest, and that turns into two people not speaking to each
other on the board for a few months. It's kind of inevitable how things
seem to always work out that way online.

Maybe better to avoid that path right from the start cuz it always leads
to the same end result; two people not talking to each other because the
other one is stupid.

Maybe you have not paid attention. Just last week or so I was
corrected by bubba, in another thread, about "investigative
detention". He showed me I was wrong, I conceded he was correct and
learned something in the process. I'm retired LEO w/25 years
experience and had never heard of it. I felt I was correct but learned
I was not. I publicly stated that. Other times I've been corrected and
apologized.

Then we have the resident limey troll from the U.K., harry. He is a
constant lying liar, always telling lies, a bigot and a socialist.
Allowing him to spew his lies must be corrected. The idiot moron
******* and I remind of it.

.... you danged Canuck!

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:38:51 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 9/18/2013 6:07 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 15:55:35 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Sorry, but when I see BS, I call it. And I do admit
enjoying watching him make an ass of himself. I'm sure
I'm not the only one.

I've had people go after me, here before.

I go right back at 'em and question their mother's integrity.

I can talk **** with the best of 'em!

...

Right harry?!


Heck I just call everyone names you asshole, I don't want to
discriminate and have anyone feel LEFT(no Pun) out. ^_^

TDD

You damn cavebilly, at least my mother wasn't a Yankee /\-O-O-/\

"Im going to take it like a man and hate you."- Gavin McInnes

I think you're correct. Google "Mens Rea", which comes from the Latin "Guilty Mind". It means that for someone to be guilty of a criminal act, they must have both committed the crime and had the intention of committing it. So, if I'm out hunting moose in the bush with Oren, and I mistake him for a moose, and... well, you know how that ends.

In that case, it was an accident because I had no intent to shoot at him. I thought I was bagging a moose. Ditto for the shoplifting. If there's something at the bottom of your cart, like a newspaper that the cashier doesn't scan, then paying and pushing the cart out of the store isn't shoplifting. You had no intention of stealing the newspaper.

But, I'm not sure if there would be a difference between a petty crime like shoplifting and a serious crime like murder.

Also, I suspect things would change if you notice that she didn't scan the newspaper and walked out without paying for it. Then, you'd be shoplifting because at that point, you realize there's the opportunity to heist a free newspaper and you consiously take advantage of her mistake and start walking out of the store with the intention of stealing it.

Mens rea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

It's called diplomacy. In order to actually get someone to talk openly about something that's kinda sensitive to them, you need to do it with velvet gloves on. You can't start a dialogue by criticizing one person as being at fault because that person will just go on the defensive and respond to your criticisms with criticisms of their own, and the conversation goes no where.


Exactly. No one in here knows everything, and we all learn from each other.

What matters is "WHAT is right", not "WHO is right" because the people coming in here asking questions are only after information they can rely on. And "WHAT is right" is that we discuss their problems on a technical level so the OP can understand the solution, and hopefully, the nature of the problem to begin with as well. But, "What's right" also means that we don't let technical discussions turn in to personal arguements cuz that serves no purpose whatsoever.

Sorry, I wanted to change the last sentance in my last post to:

"But, "What's right" also means that we don't let technical discussions turn in to personal arguements cuz that just makes the entire forum look bad; like it's populated by children that don't know any better."

But, the web site wouldn't let me change it for some reason. I just got the rotating dots and an hourglass until I was tired of waiting for the changes to take effect. So, I just decided to type another post giving those changes.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 18:13:30 +0200, nestork
wrote:

I think you're correct. Google "Mens Rea", which comes from the Latin
"Guilty Mind". It means that for someone to be guilty of a criminal
act, they must have both committed the crime and had the intention of
committing it. So, if I'm out hunting moose in the bush with Oren, and
I mistake him for a moose, and... well, you know how that ends.

In that case, it was an accident because I had no intent to shoot at
him. I thought I was bagging a moose.

No, that would be called "reckless endangerment" and/or "negligent
homicide". Since I'm not a moose, you showed "premeditation" LOL!

On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 07:21:54 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 2:48:50 PM UTC-4, wrote:


You *ARE* responsible to pay for good received.





You keep saying that. I don't disagree. No one else

here does either. But you claim if one doesn't, like

in the case of one can of tuna being missed at checkout

by the cashier making a mistake, then it's SHOPLIFTING.



It is taking, therefore SHOPLIFTING.






noun: shoplifting

the criminal action of stealing goods from a shop while pretending to be a customer.

You really are a pedantic asshole when you want to be. You do know
that there are civil recourses for criminal actions, as well. You
know, like OJ. No, I suppose you're too stupid to know.

What a dumbass.

On 9/19/2013 11:13 AM, nestork wrote:

[_2_ Wrote:
;3123606']
It's clearly *not* shoplifting if a cashier by mistake somehow fails to
scan one of many items that you've placed on the counter to be scanned.
That is what krw has claimed. Do you believe that? It's not
shoplifting, because
shoplifting requires that it be done on purpose, by the customer, with
the intent of stealing.


I think you're correct. Google "Mens Rea", which comes from the Latin
"Guilty Mind". It means that for someone to be guilty of a criminal
act, they must have both committed the crime and had the intention of
committing it. So, if I'm out hunting moose in the bush with Oren, and
I mistake him for a moose, and... well, you know how that ends.

In that case, it was an accident because I had no intent to shoot at
him. I thought I was bagging a moose. Ditto for the shoplifting. If
there's something at the bottom of your cart, like a newspaper that the
cashier doesn't scan, then paying and pushing the cart out of the store
isn't shoplifting. You had no intention of stealing the newspaper.

But, I'm not sure if there would be a difference between a petty crime
like shoplifting and a serious crime like murder.

Also, I suspect things would change if you notice that she didn't scan
the newspaper and walked out without paying for it. Then, you'd be
shoplifting because at that point, you realize there's the opportunity
to heist a free newspaper and you consiously take advantage of her
mistake and start walking out of the store with the intention of
stealing it.

'Mens rea - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia'
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mens_rea)


As for the name calling, I reject your assertion that I'm equally at
fault.
Go look back at not only this thread, but all the other threads where
KRW
starts hurling insults at everyone and anyone, especially as soon as
they
correct him on something. Look at who's started the name calling.
He's
called me idiot, moron, stupid, etc. I believe about the most I've said
in response to all that in this thread is that he's making an ass of
himself.

It's called diplomacy. In order to actually get someone to talk openly
about something that's kinda sensitive to them, you need to do it with
velvet gloves on. You can't start a dialogue by criticizing one person
as being at fault because that person will just go on the defensive and
respond to your criticisms with criticisms of their own, and the
conversation goes no where.



Maybe you have not paid attention. Just last week or so I was
corrected by bubba, in another thread, about "investigative
detention". He showed me I was wrong, I conceded he was correct and
learned something in the process. I'm retired LEO w/25 years
experience and had never heard of it. I felt I was correct but learned
I was not. I publicly stated that. Other times I've been corrected and
apologized.


Exactly. No one in here knows everything, and we all learn from each
other.


Darn! That was mean, I thought I knew everything and you have just
devastated me. The only honorable thing for me to do is to commit
hari-kari with a serrated, dull, rusty blade. ^_^


What matters is "WHAT is right", not "WHO is right" because the people
coming in here asking questions are only after information they can rely
on. And "WHAT is right" is that we discuss their problems on a
technical level so the OP can understand the solution, and hopefully,
the nature of the problem to begin with as well. But, "What's right"
also means that we don't let technical discussions turn in to personal
arguements cuz that serves no purpose whatsoever.


Heck, I DON'T know everything but I know a lot, more importantly, if I
don't know something, I know who to ask. Ignorance and stupidity are not
the same thing. Ignorance means you don't know but you can learn,
stupidity is acting out of ignorance when you know darn well you're
ignorant of something. ^_^

TDD

On 9/19/2013 9:38 AM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 00:38:51 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 9/18/2013 6:07 PM, Oren wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 15:55:35 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

Sorry, but when I see BS, I call it. And I do admit
enjoying watching him make an ass of himself. I'm sure
I'm not the only one.

I've had people go after me, here before.

I go right back at 'em and question their mother's integrity.

I can talk **** with the best of 'em!

...

Right harry?!


Heck I just call everyone names you asshole, I don't want to
discriminate and have anyone feel LEFT(no Pun) out. ^_^

TDD

You damn cavebilly, at least my mother wasn't a Yankee /\-O-O-/\

"Im going to take it like a man and hate you."- Gavin McInnes


Hey, my ancient Southern ancestors were Cavebillies and my even more
ancient Italian ancestors were Cavewops. Don't insult my ancestors,
especially the Italians. I'm sure you dealt with some of them when you
worked in the prison system so you know how crazy they can be. ^_^

TDD

wrote:
On Wed, 18 Sep 2013 07:21:54 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:

On Tuesday, September 17, 2013 2:48:50 PM UTC-4, wrote:

You *ARE* responsible to pay for good received.

You keep saying that. I don't disagree. No one else
here does either. But you claim if one doesn't, like
in the case of one can of tuna being missed at checkout
by the cashier making a mistake, then it's SHOPLIFTING.


It is taking, therefore SHOPLIFTING.





noun: shoplifting

the criminal action of stealing goods from a shop while pretending to be a customer.
You really are a pedantic asshole when you want to be. You do know
that there are civil recourses for criminal actions, as well. You
know, like OJ. No, I suppose you're too stupid to know.

What a dumbass.

And that vernacular is indigenous to ???

No, there are no stupid people in here, krw.

No dumbasses either, so far as I can see.

Some of us know more than others about some subjects, and others know more than some about different subjects. And, in that way, we all learn from each other.

On Friday, September 20, 2013 12:23:25 AM UTC-4, nestork wrote:
;3123897 Wrote:



You really are a pedantic asshole when you want to be. You do know

that there are civil recourses for criminal actions, as well. You

know, like OJ. No, I suppose you're too stupid to know.

What a dumbass.



Satisfied now, nestork? lol See where your kinder,
gentler, let's all get along approach got you?

I believe everyone in here is of good intelligence and realizes that:

1. Arguing with someone about something ad nauseum makes this web site look bad to people who come here looking for reliable advice from knowledgeable people. It makes it look like none of us know what we're talkling about, and that whomever argues the longest and loudest is the ultimate authority on the subject. No poster wants that. They want to be able to talk to people knowledgeable about their problem so they can find a solution, not just someone who's sole credential is the ability to shout down everyone else in the room.

2. Name calling and hurling insults at the other person doesn't "win" an argument, it only makes the other person get fed up with arguing because he no more wants to be insulted than he wants to stoop to the level of calling his opponent names and hurling insults at him in response. That is, no one "wins" a name calling contest; it ends because one person or the other doesn't want to continue it.

And I believe Krw understands that as well, it's just that he's competitive in nature and considers name calling and hurling insults all part and parcel of "winning" an argument.

He doesn't realize the damage he's doing to the board, especially with new people that come here hoping to get reliable advice from knowledgeable and experienced people.

What would you think if you went into a garage asking why your car is making a clunk clunk clunk noise, and the two mechanics you were talking to started arguing and insulting each other's intelligence so that you didn't know what or who to believe, only that it appeared to be more important to each of them to out-argue the other one than it was to help you solve your problem? That's what's happening in here.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 21:26:30 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Don't insult my ancestors,
especially the Italians. I'm sure you dealt with some of them when you
worked in the prison system so you know how crazy they can be. ^_^

Actually, the Italians were the easiest to manage. _Very_ seldom any
incidents. The dangerous lunatics ones are the inner-city feral thugs
trying to prove themselves as some tough ass.

I cannot help but remember watching a TV interview with one of the judges who retired from your US Supreme Court.

He said that in the entire time he served on that bench with 8 (is it?) other supreme court judges, they were always discussing the various aspects of each case they heard, but he never once heard any one of them raise their voice in anger or insult anyone else's intelligence during those private discussions they had.

I expect that was because all of them knew and understood the law and respected the other's opinion when it came to conflicting aspects of the law.

And, that struck me as an important thing for me to remember.

If those judges can make decisions that are important enough to affect the future of an entire country, why can't we discuss matters of vastly less importance with similar respect and dignity?

On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:14:48 +0200, nestork
wrote:


I believe everyone in here is of good intelligence and realizes that:

1. Arguing with someone about something ad nauseum makes this web site
look bad to people who come here looking for reliable advice from
knowledgeable people. It makes it look like none of us know what we're
talkling about, and that whomever argues the longest and loudest is the
ultimate authority on the subject. No poster wants that. They want to
be able to talk to people knowledgeable about their problem so they can
find a solution, not just someone who's sole credential is the ability
to shout down everyone else in the room.

2. Name calling and hurling insults at the other person doesn't "win" an
argument, it only makes the other person get fed up with arguing because
he no more wants to be insulted than he wants to stoop to the level of
calling his opponent names and hurling insults at him in response. That
is, no one "wins" a name calling contest; it ends because one person or
the other doesn't want to continue it.

And I believe Krw understands that as well, it's just that he's
competitive in nature and considers name calling and hurling insults all
part and parcel of "winning" an argument.

He doesn't realize the damage he's doing to the board, especially with
new people that come here hoping to get reliable advice from
knowledgeable and experienced people.

What would you think if you went into a garage asking why your car is
making a clunk clunk clunk noise, and the two mechanics you were talking
to started arguing and insulting each other's intelligence so that you
didn't know what or who to believe, only that it appeared to be more
important to each of them to out-argue the other one than it was to help
you solve your problem? That's what's happening in here.

Are you suggesting that Usenet is a democracy? Democracy is two dogs
fighting over a bone.

On 9/20/2013 12:26 PM, nestork wrote:
I cannot help but remember watching a TV interview with one of the
judges who retired from your US Supreme Court.

He said that in the entire time he served on that bench with 8 (is it?)
other supreme court judges, they were always discussing the various
aspects of each case they heard, but he never once heard any one of them
raise their voice in anger or insult anyone else's intelligence during
those private discussions they had.

I expect that was because all of them knew and understood the law and
respected the other's opinion when it came to conflicting aspects of the
law.

And, that struck me as an important thing for me to remember.

If those judges can make decisions that are important enough to affect
the future of an entire country, why can't we discuss matters of vastly
less importance with similar respect and dignity?


Long ago, a gentleman told me, when having disagreement, the first one
raising their voice loses. Same idea. Cursing, belittling, disparaging
is just a reflection of yourself.

On 9/20/2013 11:19 AM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 21:26:30 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Don't insult my ancestors,
especially the Italians. I'm sure you dealt with some of them when you
worked in the prison system so you know how crazy they can be. ^_^

Actually, the Italians were the easiest to manage. _Very_ seldom any
incidents. The dangerous lunatics ones are the inner-city feral thugs
trying to prove themselves as some tough ass.


You mean the Italians were sneaky, they didn't show off like the feral
thugs. I wonder if the feral thugs messed with the Wops? You probably
found a feral thug's head on a pike every now and then and the Italians
didn't see a thing. ^_^

TDD

On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 13:35:42 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Long ago, a gentleman told me, when having disagreement, the first one
raising their voice loses. Same idea. Cursing, belittling, disparaging
is just a reflection of yourself.

That just might explain the President, when he stood in the Well of
the House of Representatives, demeaning the Supreme Court Justices
during a joint session of Congress at a State of the Nation speech.

On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:42:37 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 9/20/2013 11:19 AM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 21:26:30 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Don't insult my ancestors,
especially the Italians. I'm sure you dealt with some of them when you
worked in the prison system so you know how crazy they can be. ^_^

Actually, the Italians were the easiest to manage. _Very_ seldom any
incidents. The dangerous lunatics ones are the inner-city feral thugs
trying to prove themselves as some tough ass.


You mean the Italians were sneaky, they didn't show off like the feral
thugs. I wonder if the feral thugs messed with the Wops? You probably
found a feral thug's head on a pike every now and then and the Italians
didn't see a thing. ^_^


I'll just say the feral thugs did not mess with the real mobsters.

Guys from the French Connection, hit men, Nick the Blade (from Philly)
or folks like Nicky Scarfo ( a cold blooded killer (Philly / NJ
mobster).

The mafia was always respectful to staff. They did run their
operations and did look out for their own interest. Always on the
low-down. Most often they farmed out to white guys they could trust
and would take the fall.

Post video to youtube, maybe?
Sell popcorn, invite the family?

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 9/20/2013 12:14 PM, nestork wrote:
I believe everyone in here is of good intelligence and realizes that:

1. Arguing with someone about something ad nauseum makes this web site
look bad to people who come here looking for reliable advice from
knowledgeable people. It makes it look like none of us know what we're
talkling about, and that whomever argues the longest and loudest is the
ultimate authority on the subject. No poster wants that. They want to
be able to talk to people knowledgeable about their problem so they can
find a solution, not just someone who's sole credential is the ability
to shout down everyone else in the room.

2. Name calling and hurling insults at the other person doesn't "win" an
argument, it only makes the other person get fed up with arguing because
he no more wants to be insulted than he wants to stoop to the level of
calling his opponent names and hurling insults at him in response. That
is, no one "wins" a name calling contest; it ends because one person or
the other doesn't want to continue it.

And I believe Krw understands that as well, it's just that he's
competitive in nature and considers name calling and hurling insults all
part and parcel of "winning" an argument.

He doesn't realize the damage he's doing to the board, especially with
new people that come here hoping to get reliable advice from
knowledgeable and experienced people.

What would you think if you went into a garage asking why your car is
making a clunk clunk clunk noise, and the two mechanics you were talking
to started arguing and insulting each other's intelligence so that you
didn't know what or who to believe, only that it appeared to be more
important to each of them to out-argue the other one than it was to help
you solve your problem? That's what's happening in here.

I wonder if he's suggesting this is a "web site"?

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 9/20/2013 1:33 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 18:14:48 +0200, nestork
wrote:


I believe everyone in here is of good intelligence and realizes that:

1. Arguing with someone about something ad nauseum makes this web site
look bad to people who come here looking for reliable advice from
knowledgeable people. It makes it look like none of us know what we're

Are you suggesting that Usenet is a democracy? Democracy is two dogs
fighting over a bone.

On 9/20/2013 1:07 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:42:37 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 9/20/2013 11:19 AM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 21:26:30 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Don't insult my ancestors,
especially the Italians. I'm sure you dealt with some of them when you
worked in the prison system so you know how crazy they can be. ^_^

Actually, the Italians were the easiest to manage. _Very_ seldom any
incidents. The dangerous lunatics ones are the inner-city feral thugs
trying to prove themselves as some tough ass.


You mean the Italians were sneaky, they didn't show off like the feral
thugs. I wonder if the feral thugs messed with the Wops? You probably
found a feral thug's head on a pike every now and then and the Italians
didn't see a thing. ^_^


I'll just say the feral thugs did not mess with the real mobsters.

Guys from the French Connection, hit men, Nick the Blade (from Philly)
or folks like Nicky Scarfo ( a cold blooded killer (Philly / NJ
mobster).

The mafia was always respectful to staff. They did run their
operations and did look out for their own interest. Always on the
low-down. Most often they farmed out to white guys they could trust
and would take the fall.


Well heck, they've been doing it for thousands of years. It's kind of
like the Chinese, they've been dealing with governments and ways to get
around laws and regulations for several millennium so they're experts at
it. ^_^

TDD

On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 13:49:29 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 9/20/2013 1:07 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 12:42:37 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 9/20/2013 11:19 AM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 21:26:30 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Don't insult my ancestors,
especially the Italians. I'm sure you dealt with some of them when you
worked in the prison system so you know how crazy they can be. ^_^

Actually, the Italians were the easiest to manage. _Very_ seldom any
incidents. The dangerous lunatics ones are the inner-city feral thugs
trying to prove themselves as some tough ass.


You mean the Italians were sneaky, they didn't show off like the feral
thugs. I wonder if the feral thugs messed with the Wops? You probably
found a feral thug's head on a pike every now and then and the Italians
didn't see a thing. ^_^


I'll just say the feral thugs did not mess with the real mobsters.

Guys from the French Connection, hit men, Nick the Blade (from Philly)
or folks like Nicky Scarfo ( a cold blooded killer (Philly / NJ
mobster).

The mafia was always respectful to staff. They did run their
operations and did look out for their own interest. Always on the
low-down. Most often they farmed out to white guys they could trust
and would take the fall.


Well heck, they've been doing it for thousands of years. It's kind of
like the Chinese, they've been dealing with governments and ways to get
around laws and regulations for several millennium so they're experts at
it. ^_^


We had _monitoring_ and classification of "Special Groups" - Cosa
Nostra, Black Gorilla Family, Arian Brotherhood, Mexican Mafia ,
Crips, Bloods and all the rest of the heathens, including those that
were threats against government officials.

Cosa Nostra (mafia) was the first special group I saw that was removed
from the special group monitoring. They still have phone calls
recorded, etc. It's a new day

On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 05:27:08 -0700 (PDT), "
wrote:


Satisfied now, nestork? lol See where your kinder,
gentler, let's all get along approach got you?

I'm guessing nestork is not familiar with groups in the "alt" USENET
news Hierarchy. These groups a meant to be anarchist in nature.

Which means there is no Utopia, Unicorns and Rainbows.

On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 21:20:09 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Heck, I DON'T know everything but I know a lot, more importantly, if I
don't know something, I know who to ask.

I would tell my former staff; I don't expect you to know or remember
everything, I do expect you to know where to find the answer.

On 9/20/2013 3:26 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 21:20:09 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Heck, I DON'T know everything but I know a lot, more importantly, if I
don't know something, I know who to ask.

I would tell my former staff; I don't expect you to know or remember
everything, I do expect you to know where to find the answer.


I had kids working for me and I told them that if they weren't 100% sure
about something it wasn't a disgrace to ask because a **** up is a
mistake that can't be fixed. ^_^

TDD

On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 13:35:42 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:

Long ago, a gentleman told me, when having disagreement, the first one
raising their voice loses. Same idea. Cursing, belittling, disparaging
is just a reflection of yourself.

I was told long ago, a gentleman could count the hairs on a vagina and
not get a erection. Who was correct?

On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 15:33:28 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

On 9/20/2013 3:26 PM, Oren wrote:
On Thu, 19 Sep 2013 21:20:09 -0500, The Daring Dufas
wrote:

Heck, I DON'T know everything but I know a lot, more importantly, if I
don't know something, I know who to ask.

I would tell my former staff; I don't expect you to know or remember
everything, I do expect you to know where to find the answer.


I had kids working for me and I told them that if they weren't 100% sure
about something it wasn't a disgrace to ask because a **** up is a
mistake that can't be fixed. ^_^


My office door was always open or they could call me. I had a staff
member, with more education on books that kept calling me about things
that were in her post orders.

Finally, and the last time she called me, I said: "Give me three
solutions!" She knew them all, so I said "pick one and make a
decision."

I give anyone that makes a bad decision a chance, because they could
at least make a decision.

I ran a staff member from my office once. Standing there and telling
me how great he was. I sent him back to the convict-wolves and told
him to rub elbows with real criminals. It was the lesson he needed to
learn.

Learning moments are often easier than re-do.

You hear about the rather nervous, new bank robber?
Strides into the bank and waving a gun. Hollered
"Freeze, mother stickers, this is a **** up!"
One at a time the customers started laughing. The
perp shrank, and walked out.

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 9/20/2013 4:33 PM, The Daring Dufas wrote:

I would tell my former staff; I don't expect you to know or remember
everything, I do expect you to know where to find the answer.


I had kids working for me and I told them that if they weren't 100% sure
about something it wasn't a disgrace to ask because a **** up is a
mistake that can't be fixed. ^_^

TDD

No, democracy is two dogs voting on the ownership of the bone.
So far, after 3 rounds of voting, it's still a 1:1 tie.

Two dogs fighting over a bone is an election campaign.

On Friday, September 20, 2013 1:34:06 PM UTC-7, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 13:35:42 -0400, Ed Pawlowski wrote:



Long ago, a gentleman told me, when having disagreement, the first one

raising their voice loses. Same idea. Cursing, belittling, disparaging

is just a reflection of yourself.



I was told long ago, a gentleman could count the hairs on a vagina and

not get a erection. Who was correct?

Grammar Police he

http://grammarist.com/usage/vagina-vulva/

HB

On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 17:05:54 -0700 (PDT), Higgs Boson
wrote:

I was told long ago, a gentleman could count the hairs on a vagina and

not get a erection. Who was correct?

Grammar Police he

http://grammarist.com/usage/vagina-vulva/


HB,

Any man ever count the pubic hair on your Coochie?

How was the grammar?

When I was a young lad, under 10. I played vulva in a
scrabble game with my grand parents. Neither of them
knew the word. My grand father challenged, and lost.
It's part of a flower. Or, so the big old dictionary
said.

..
Christopher A. Young
Learn about Jesus
www.lds.org
..

On 9/20/2013 8:16 PM, Oren wrote:
On Fri, 20 Sep 2013 17:05:54 -0700 (PDT), Higgs Boson
wrote:

I was told long ago, a gentleman could count the hairs on a vagina and

not get a erection. Who was correct?

Grammar Police he

http://grammarist.com/usage/vagina-vulva/


HB,

Any man ever count the pubic hair on your Coochie?

How was the grammar?

On Tue, 24 Sep 2013 05:17:50 +0200, nestork
wrote:


'Oren[_2_ Wrote:
;3125541']
The follower does not push "bullets" - it pushes the cartridges /
rounds / shells upward.


Come on Oren. You know what he meant.


No. I only know what he said. As you've stated before, people that may
not know things can learn from people that do know. The poster's
statement was wrong in two ways: about "bullets" and about a
"magazine" being a "clip". I pointed them both out.

If someone says cement instead of concrete, or calls it concrete instead
of cement, most times it's not necessary to correct them. I know what
they meant from the context of the conversation and they know what they
wanted to say.


Good for you!

How many people go to the gun or sporting goods store and ask for a "box
of bullets" for such and such a gun or rifle, pay for their purchase and
walk out the door without ever being corrected on their terminology.
Probably happens 100 times a day in every gun store or sporting goods
store that sells... ...bullets.

Giggle. I asked for a specific caliber, i.e. .45, .357, etc. and a
specific type of round - FMJ, HP.

Saying "give me a box of bullets" will require the clerk to ask
inquisitive questions. Same as if you ask a sales clerk for a dozen
donuts. Are they supposed to read your mind or know what you "meant"?

Same with buying paint at a local store. We don't say "give me some
paint". We ask for specific types based on our needs.

The liberal media (spit) is full of bad information from journalist
about guns and ammo. Like calling an AR-15 a machine gun or calling a
_magazine_ a "high capacity clip."

Know what I mean?