Metalworking (rec.crafts.metalworking) Discuss various aspects of working with metal, such as machining, welding, metal joining, screwing, casting, hardening/tempering, blacksmithing/forging, spinning and hammer work, sheet metal work.

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #81   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT-143 days


"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
.. .

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
.. .

snip

Ed: We are driving a 2003 Jetta TDI at least one occasion have seen
55mpg on a 500mile trip. The worst was 47mpg driving 80mph into a 25mph
headwind. However, California made them illegal in 2004.


I saw your comment about that before, Stuart, and it's remarkable. If
diesel wasn't so ridiculously overpriced I'd consider it. My former
neighbor has a turbodiesel New Beetle of about that vintage and he says
he gets 45+ mpg with it, too.

Also BTW I will take the "illegal profiteering" if it means the bloody
incompetent federal government will keep their bureacratic noses out of
our everyday business: FEMA is dictating building codes out in the
desert and establishing "Flood Plains" where there is no record of
anykind of flooding in the past 75 years. I was told that I might be
required to raise my existing structure (40X72 steel building setting on
a concrete slab) 1.5' above the existing ground grade!!! Libertarian?
You bet. After seeing the government in action with Star Wars (I was
involved in Star Wars for 6 years), the current Iraq farce, BATF, DEA
etc etc. I don't see how anyone could avoid Libertarian leanings.


Leanings, yes. Most Americans have a little streak of libertarian in
them.

Political party or ideology, no. Political candidates -- well, it keeps
the libertarians from voting for jerks like Bush. g

I'm reminded of one of the complaints registered in the Declaration of
Independence: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent
hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their
substance." If that doesn't describe our BLM, FEMA, BATF, DEA etc. etc.
We interfaced directly with FEMA in support of disaster relief in the
Marshall Islands for two years and were sick and tired of apoligizing to
the Marshallese people for the stupid, arrogant behavior of FEMA.
Libertarian? And the alternatives are?


It depends on what you want. If you want to grumble and have nothing
happen, libertarianism is great. It's the ideology for people who won't
be happy no matter what happens.


This is probably true since the "something that happens" is generally
being done by people who want to exert power over someone else. Waiting
for the government to make "something happen" is guaranteed to yield
"something" that will be resented in the near future. Most of the
Libertarians see the problems that need solving are problems better solved
by something other than an agency whose existence does not depend on their
competence.


Like what? Do you mean the "free market"? If that's the case, are you
willing to live with what the "free market" decides?

The few such as the highways and national defense are a few of the
problems needing a more global approach offered by the Feds. Even then
look at the military industrial complex and at just one example of fraud,
waste and abuse created by the military being forced to deal with
"expiring funds".


It is, and if you have a solution, a lot of people will be interested.
Libertarians don't have solutions. They have faith.


But it's a mish-mash of different ideas that just don't fit together.
Basically, self-styled libertarians are pure moralists, who have a
patchwork quilt of moral principles that depend on everyone else thinking
precisely like them.


Yep. Somewhere we need to start with a guiding principle that we can all
agree on. Otherwise we just have a morass not unlike looting.


That's libertarianism: Everyone tries to loot everyone else.


Of course, this is the opposite of what libertarians claim. But look at
the current example: calling a fortuitous profit "profiteering," and
favoring making it illegal. If those same gas stations got caught short
with long-term oil purchases, while one guy in town was buying spot-market
oil when it was on the way down and dropped prices below the cost of the
other guys, and they all took a bath, the anti-profiteering "libertarians"
would just shrug and say "that's the market for you."

It's a moralism of convenience. Libertarians will claim that it isn't
true, but few of them think it through sufficiently to recognize what
they're doing.


Ed: This can certainly be said for all of the political parties and
especially our "Representatives"


Then what's different about libertarianism?

The current state of our society is to a large measure the result of our
society allowing the people who "make things happen" to run loose. The
constantly increasing size of government to do for people what they should
be doing for themselves and the things like the Iraq war, the War on drugs
which is costing a bunch and not yielding any significant results. Who is
thinking their way thru to these results?


What I hear, Stuart, is that you don't like the way things are going and
that you think they'd go better if the government did very little. As I
said, that's faith, not a solution. There is no example in modern history
that supports the libertarian view -- except for tribal societies run by
warlords.

Like most philosophical, political ideologies, libertarianism is based on a
mistaken view of human nature and a nearly complete disregard for the system
of incentives that results from the libertarian plan. Free-market
philosophies lead to the incentive structure that gave us Enron and the
mortgage debacle. Most of those atrocities were *not* the result of breaking
fundamental laws. They were examples of exploiting the weaknesses of
markets, especially in today's complex economic world.

Libertarianism itself is a prescription for chaos. The "guiding principles"
you mention bear further exploration: if you sort out what they really mean,
you'll find that you're founding your system on intellectual conservatism,
which leads inevitably to a much more restrictive society than the one
you're talking about. The libertarian principle is more like what Thomas
Jefferson proposed, when he said that we should scrap our Constitution every
19 years and write a new one.

I'm sure that's not what you have in mind. g As I said earlier, the small
streak of libertarian leaning shared by most Americans is a common and a
good thing. But it's not a system; it produces all truly stupid party
platform; and it's unworkable. With apologies to Jean Kirkpatrick, it
amounts to a letter to Santa Claus.

I took a course in the Weapons Systems Acquistion Management put on by
DoD. The word results was almost never used. The whole thing was about
the process and making the process fit some model. The students didn't
have a clue as to whether the results would solve the original problem.
In fact they were all relatively ignorant and didn't care what the
original problem was. Think their way thru? A very rare activity in my
experience with the Federal Government and one usually only used in
programming a path to promotion.
One thing lacking in all of the political parties that I see is the lack
of a guiding principle. Looking on the internet for expressions of
guiding philosophy of the Democrats, the Republicans and the Libertarians,
the only one with a clear statement of philosophy was the Libertarians.


That's the problem. They're about a philosophy, not about running a
government. Government is about assuring that the structure of incentives
produces a beneficial result -- maximum life, liberty, and pursuit of
happiness.

I get the impression that both the Democrats and the Republicans are for
whatever will get them elected. The Constitution, Declaration of
Independence and even the Articles of Confederation don't seem to provide
a clear statement that we are going to use as a guiding principle. At
present, our basic principle seems to be: "Whats in it for me?"
I know a bunch of people who are really for the government controlled
health care. They ain't thought that thru very far. They are blinded
with "what it can do for me" and ignore the myriad of examples of
government incompetencies and costs demonstrated over and over again. The
long range effect of some of these social programs is the reduction in the
need to fend for yourself and will ultimately lead to the downfall of the
nation. Who was it said the death of democracy is ordained when the
people find out that they can vote themselves money.


An old fool who said that before he got a chance to see what actually
happens. In the US right now, it's the rich who tend to vote themselves more
money. In any case, it doesn't work the way democracy's detractors thought
it would.

I tend to agree the formal Libertarian party seems to be just a "spit and
whittle" kind of organization. I offered to start a fund raising pyramid
to raise funds for Libertarian candidates and got zero response. I know
that I'm tired of bureaucrats stripping my freedoms away and forcing me
to pay for the process.


Maybe you should re-name it the Grumbler's Party. Then you'd probably get
more takers. g

--
Ed Huntress


  #82   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,154
Default OT-143 days

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:46:08 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner Asch quickly quoth:

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:57:16 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:


Besides, I can't get in and out of my shop as it is.


Plan on leaving heavy


I can't afford the gas to get to the free stuff, Gunner. DAMN!
Well, I probably could if you could scare up a free mini-mill and
mini-lathe. Let me know soon, eh? vbg



got a neat little japanese turret lathe......

And the 918 rivette i could maybe trade you something for...case of
Monsters or something...but none of them are Mini..though the jap
lathe is pretty close


What are a "918 rivette" and "case of Monsters", pray tell?

--
Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants,
is the liberty of appearing. -- Thomas Paine
  #83   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT-143 days


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 09:16:22 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 20:17:35 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
m...
On Sun, 29 Jun 2008 18:09:45 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:
Whoopee, the free market in action! g

Can you say "illegal profiteering"? I knew you could.

Pfffhhht. That sounds like something a socialist would say. Watch out,
they'll take away your libertarian card. d8-)

No, we Libertarians want the gov't out of our pockets, but we still
want businesses to be fair.


And that's one of the intellectual contradictions that leads me to scoff
at
libertarianism. You want it both ways: keep the government out of free
markets, but employ the government to correct the things you believe are
"unfair." To be a libertarian of that sort, you have to be comfortable
with
a lot of contradictions. For starters, you have to accept the fact that


To profess allegiance to any politcal party demands that you be in
contradiction with either reality or beliefs at some point in time.
So what's your point?


It's not just parties. It's also ideologies, party-based or not.



Profiteering is not only illegal, it's
downright wrong. Google sez:

"Definitions of profiteering on the Web:

* Profiteering is a pejorative term for the act of making a profit
by methods considered unethical. Business owners may be accused of
profiteering ...
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Profiteering (business)

* The act of making an unreasonable profit not justified by the
corresponding assumption of risk, or by doing so unethically
en.wiktionary.org/wiki/profiteering"


Whose ethics? And, if profit making has to conform to a prescribed
correspondance between risk and reward -- and if the libertarian admits
that
free markets don't always do that, because they can lead to
profiteering --
who is to establish the "fair" relationship between risk and reward? That
comes awfully close to the thinking behind centrally controlled markets.
It
sounds a lot like socialism.


First, I thought that gas prices were set by the gov't.


Nope. They set the taxes, not the retail price.

Stations can
make a set percentage above the price they pay to the oil companies.


Where is that? Not in NJ. The market sets the price here.

Numerous articles in the newspaper over the years complaining about
collusion by the stations have fueled (sorry) that.


Loose regulation, lots of collusion. That's the free market for you.


Second, I thought profiteering was also frowned upon by societal
norms. I don't consider that socialism, per se.


The people who pay the price frown upon it. But give them a chance to screw
a local gas station, and that's just the free market at work. Right?



When they switched to the mandated 10% ethanol here, my mileage went
from 14 down to 12.3mpg. I'm hoping to do considerably better next
month on the trip to CA. The Tundra stickered at 15-19mpg. sigh
I only carry about 500 pounds of tools around with me, so it's not
like I'm loading the half tone pickup down and losing gas mileage as a
result. sigh2


That sounds gruesome to me. My Sonata gets 30 mpg highway. My Focus gets
around 33. Next time, I'm going to buy something that *really* gets good
mileage. d8-)


Can you carry 400 pounds of tools + plywood + a dozen 2"x6"x16' boards
in your Focus?


I don't have to. But you could be driving something a lot smaller that could
handle it.

I'm not suggesting that you should, only that it's clear you're paying a lot
more than you have to, both for the vehicle and for the cost to fuel it.
That's your choice.

Unfortunately, my truck is both a luxury and a
necessity. If the brakes in the Tacomas hadn't been so damned hard to
push, I might have bought one of those, with twice the fuel economy.
But they just felt -wrong-. The Tundra has 4-wheel discs and could
prolly toss beanbags out of the back of the bed with precision. 65-0
in 158 feet flat!


That's great. I hope it compensates you for the fuel cost. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


  #84   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT-143 days

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 18:06:51 -0500, cavelamb himself
wrote:



There is no way I'm going to try correcting Wikipedia definitions. For that
much writing I expect to be paid. d8-)

The thing to do with Wikipedia is to use it for references, IMO.

Centrism is not a compromise between the two poles. That's muddle-headed
middle-of-the-roadism (see if Wikipedia has a definition for *that*). It's a
recognition that the two poles are incomplete in themselves, and that they
lead to falling-off-the-road-and-running-into-the-ditchism, because they may
get the ying, but they never get the yang, and vice-versa.

OK? d8-)

--
Ed Huntress



Well be that way!


I meant to post a link to that "radical centrist" thinking I was
talking about, in case you want a taste of it. This is the primary
site for the serious intellectuals in that crowd:

http://www.newamerica.net/

--
Ed Huntress
  #85   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,502
Default OT-143 days

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 06:28:06 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 16:46:08 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner Asch quickly quoth:

On Mon, 30 Jun 2008 15:57:16 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:


Besides, I can't get in and out of my shop as it is.


Plan on leaving heavy

I can't afford the gas to get to the free stuff, Gunner. DAMN!
Well, I probably could if you could scare up a free mini-mill and
mini-lathe. Let me know soon, eh? vbg



got a neat little japanese turret lathe......

And the 918 rivette i could maybe trade you something for...case of
Monsters or something...but none of them are Mini..though the jap
lathe is pretty close


What are a "918 rivette" and "case of Monsters", pray tell?


918 rivett lathe, second ops, with turret, cross slide and a drawer
full of dead length collets, 3 jaw, the manual etc etcetc

http://www.ozarkwoodworker.com/item/...orparts-manua/


Hanson's Monster Energy Drink

http://www.monsterenergy.com/



"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the
name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program
until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it
happened." -- Norman Thomas, American socialist


  #86   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default OT-143 days


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
.. .

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
.. .

snip

Ed: We are driving a 2003 Jetta TDI at least one occasion have seen
55mpg on a 500mile trip. The worst was 47mpg driving 80mph into a
25mph headwind. However, California made them illegal in 2004.

I saw your comment about that before, Stuart, and it's remarkable. If
diesel wasn't so ridiculously overpriced I'd consider it. My former
neighbor has a turbodiesel New Beetle of about that vintage and he says
he gets 45+ mpg with it, too.

Also BTW I will take the "illegal profiteering" if it means the bloody
incompetent federal government will keep their bureacratic noses out of
our everyday business: FEMA is dictating building codes out in the
desert and establishing "Flood Plains" where there is no record of
anykind of flooding in the past 75 years. I was told that I might be
required to raise my existing structure (40X72 steel building setting
on a concrete slab) 1.5' above the existing ground grade!!!
Libertarian? You bet. After seeing the government in action with Star
Wars (I was involved in Star Wars for 6 years), the current Iraq farce,
BATF, DEA etc etc. I don't see how anyone could avoid Libertarian
leanings.

Leanings, yes. Most Americans have a little streak of libertarian in
them.

Political party or ideology, no. Political candidates -- well, it keeps
the libertarians from voting for jerks like Bush. g

I'm reminded of one of the complaints registered in the Declaration of
Independence: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent
hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their
substance." If that doesn't describe our BLM, FEMA, BATF, DEA etc.
etc. We interfaced directly with FEMA in support of disaster relief in
the Marshall Islands for two years and were sick and tired of
apoligizing to the Marshallese people for the stupid, arrogant behavior
of FEMA. Libertarian? And the alternatives are?

It depends on what you want. If you want to grumble and have nothing
happen, libertarianism is great. It's the ideology for people who won't
be happy no matter what happens.


This is probably true since the "something that happens" is generally
being done by people who want to exert power over someone else. Waiting
for the government to make "something happen" is guaranteed to yield
"something" that will be resented in the near future. Most of the
Libertarians see the problems that need solving are problems better
solved by something other than an agency whose existence does not depend
on their competence.


Like what? Do you mean the "free market"? If that's the case, are you
willing to live with what the "free market" decides?

Yes if it gets rid of BLM, FEMA, BATF, DEA, TSA, and a number of others
that are questionable in terms of "powers explicitly" those of the federal
government. Those agencies are costing us a bunch with questionable yield.
And once an agency is established, it is there for life.
The few such as the highways and national defense are a few of the
problems needing a more global approach offered by the Feds. Even then
look at the military industrial complex and at just one example of fraud,
waste and abuse created by the military being forced to deal with
"expiring funds".


It is, and if you have a solution, a lot of people will be interested.
Libertarians don't have solutions. They have faith.

Hell yes I have a solution: Quit focussing on the accounting process that
likes "Expiring funds" and focus on the problem that needs to be solved and
commit to solving the problem, not making the books look good. I worked in
R&D for years and watched good ideas go down the tube because of "Expiring"
funds. Example: Vertical seeking ejection seat. Demonstrated in the 70s
right where I work. USN still doesn't have them. Would save lives
(expensively trained lives if you want to make it an matter of economics).
I can rattle off a bunch of similar examples from my experience.



But it's a mish-mash of different ideas that just don't fit together.
Basically, self-styled libertarians are pure moralists, who have a
patchwork quilt of moral principles that depend on everyone else
thinking precisely like them.


Yep. Somewhere we need to start with a guiding principle that we can all
agree on. Otherwise we just have a morass not unlike looting.


That's libertarianism: Everyone tries to loot everyone else.

Excuse me if I remember correctly we are not presently being exposed to
libertarianism but the looting is certainly going on right now. The looting
is being done by the Republican administration and the Democratic congress.
Of course, this is the opposite of what libertarians claim. But look at
the current example: calling a fortuitous profit "profiteering," and
favoring making it illegal. If those same gas stations got caught short
with long-term oil purchases, while one guy in town was buying
spot-market oil when it was on the way down and dropped prices below the
cost of the other guys, and they all took a bath, the anti-profiteering
"libertarians" would just shrug and say "that's the market for you."

It's a moralism of convenience. Libertarians will claim that it isn't
true, but few of them think it through sufficiently to recognize what
they're doing.


Ed: This can certainly be said for all of the political parties and
especially our "Representatives"


Then what's different about libertarianism?

Libertarianism doesn't want the government in our pants everytime we turn
around. It isn't hard to see the effects of the government contrived
agencies designed to protect us from the internal ravages of our own
stupidity example the current mortgage farce where people borrowed money
they couldn't pay back. That situation will take care of itself by letting
the people learn that that kind of stupidity doesn't work. The lenders?
They will learn when they have to reposess houses they can't sell. Will
they learn that in the present? No because our government will borrow money
to bail them out and the penalty for their actions will not be felt. We
learn by making mistakes and if someone snatches the mistakes from us the
learning is greatly reduced.

The current state of our society is to a large measure the result of our
society allowing the people who "make things happen" to run loose. The
constantly increasing size of government to do for people what they
should be doing for themselves and the things like the Iraq war, the War
on drugs which is costing a bunch and not yielding any significant
results. Who is thinking their way thru to these results?


What I hear, Stuart, is that you don't like the way things are going and
that you think they'd go better if the government did very little. As I
said, that's faith, not a solution. There is no example in modern history
that supports the libertarian view -- except for tribal societies run by
warlords.

Like most philosophical, political ideologies, libertarianism is based on
a mistaken view of human nature and a nearly complete disregard for the
system of incentives that results from the libertarian plan. Free-market
philosophies lead to the incentive structure that gave us Enron and the
mortgage debacle. Most of those atrocities were *not* the result of
breaking fundamental laws. They were examples of exploiting the weaknesses
of markets, especially in today's complex economic world.

Yep and the fall of the Soviet Union was not because Libertarian principles
were being practiced. Government intervention conducted by bureacrats that
haven't a clue about the things that they are supposed to manage is quite a
prescription for disaster.
Libertarianism itself is a prescription for chaos. The "guiding
principles" you mention bear further exploration: if you sort out what
they really mean, you'll find that you're founding your system on
intellectual conservatism, which leads inevitably to a much more
restrictive society than the one you're talking about. The libertarian
principle is more like what Thomas Jefferson proposed, when he said that
we should scrap our Constitution every 19 years and write a new one.

We might just as well do that if we are going to ignore the Constitution and
just interpret it to justify what we want to do. Current examples are again
rampant.
I'm sure that's not what you have in mind. g As I said earlier, the
small streak of libertarian leaning shared by most Americans is a common
and a good thing. But it's not a system; it produces all truly stupid
party platform; and it's unworkable. With apologies to Jean Kirkpatrick,
it amounts to a letter to Santa Claus.

I took a course in the Weapons Systems Acquistion Management put on by
DoD. The word results was almost never used. The whole thing was about
the process and making the process fit some model. The students didn't
have a clue as to whether the results would solve the original problem.
In fact they were all relatively ignorant and didn't care what the
original problem was. Think their way thru? A very rare activity in my
experience with the Federal Government and one usually only used in
programming a path to promotion.
One thing lacking in all of the political parties that I see is the lack
of a guiding principle. Looking on the internet for expressions of
guiding philosophy of the Democrats, the Republicans and the
Libertarians, the only one with a clear statement of philosophy was the
Libertarians.


That's the problem. They're about a philosophy, not about running a
government. Government is about assuring that the structure of incentives
produces a beneficial result -- maximum life, liberty, and pursuit of
happiness.

Yep and FEMA telling me that I may have to raise my existing 40X72 steel
building 1.5' because of some imagined Flood Plain is one hell of an example
of that beneficial result.

I get the impression that both the Democrats and the Republicans are for
whatever will get them elected. The Constitution, Declaration of
Independence and even the Articles of Confederation don't seem to provide
a clear statement that we are going to use as a guiding principle. At
present, our basic principle seems to be: "Whats in it for me?"
I know a bunch of people who are really for the government controlled
health care. They ain't thought that thru very far. They are blinded
with "what it can do for me" and ignore the myriad of examples of
government incompetencies and costs demonstrated over and over again.
The long range effect of some of these social programs is the reduction
in the need to fend for yourself and will ultimately lead to the downfall
of the nation. Who was it said the death of democracy is ordained when
the people find out that they can vote themselves money.


An old fool who said that before he got a chance to see what actually
happens. In the US right now, it's the rich who tend to vote themselves
more money. In any case, it doesn't work the way democracy's detractors
thought it would.

I tend to agree the formal Libertarian party seems to be just a "spit and
whittle" kind of organization. I offered to start a fund raising pyramid
to raise funds for Libertarian candidates and got zero response. I know
that I'm tired of bureaucrats stripping my freedoms away and forcing me
to pay for the process.


Maybe you should re-name it the Grumbler's Party. Then you'd probably get
more takers. g


Well Ed you had better hope that the Grumblers keep telling the King he
ain't got clothes on. The non-Grumblers seem to be approving of business
as usual. As I recall it was a bunch of Grumblers that got fed up and
started this whole Union. Also take note that Ron Paul is creating a
growing following.

--
Ed Huntress



  #87   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT-143 days


"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
.. .

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
.. .

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
.. .

snip

Ed: We are driving a 2003 Jetta TDI at least one occasion have seen
55mpg on a 500mile trip. The worst was 47mpg driving 80mph into a
25mph headwind. However, California made them illegal in 2004.

I saw your comment about that before, Stuart, and it's remarkable. If
diesel wasn't so ridiculously overpriced I'd consider it. My former
neighbor has a turbodiesel New Beetle of about that vintage and he says
he gets 45+ mpg with it, too.

Also BTW I will take the "illegal profiteering" if it means the bloody
incompetent federal government will keep their bureacratic noses out
of our everyday business: FEMA is dictating building codes out in the
desert and establishing "Flood Plains" where there is no record of
anykind of flooding in the past 75 years. I was told that I might be
required to raise my existing structure (40X72 steel building setting
on a concrete slab) 1.5' above the existing ground grade!!!
Libertarian? You bet. After seeing the government in action with Star
Wars (I was involved in Star Wars for 6 years), the current Iraq
farce, BATF, DEA etc etc. I don't see how anyone could avoid
Libertarian leanings.

Leanings, yes. Most Americans have a little streak of libertarian in
them.

Political party or ideology, no. Political candidates -- well, it keeps
the libertarians from voting for jerks like Bush. g

I'm reminded of one of the complaints registered in the Declaration
of Independence: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent
hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their
substance." If that doesn't describe our BLM, FEMA, BATF, DEA etc.
etc. We interfaced directly with FEMA in support of disaster relief in
the Marshall Islands for two years and were sick and tired of
apoligizing to the Marshallese people for the stupid, arrogant
behavior of FEMA. Libertarian? And the alternatives are?

It depends on what you want. If you want to grumble and have nothing
happen, libertarianism is great. It's the ideology for people who won't
be happy no matter what happens.


This is probably true since the "something that happens" is generally
being done by people who want to exert power over someone else. Waiting
for the government to make "something happen" is guaranteed to yield
"something" that will be resented in the near future. Most of the
Libertarians see the problems that need solving are problems better
solved by something other than an agency whose existence does not depend
on their competence.


Like what? Do you mean the "free market"? If that's the case, are you
willing to live with what the "free market" decides?


Yes if it gets rid of BLM, FEMA, BATF, DEA, TSA, and a number of others
that are questionable in terms of "powers explicitly" those of the federal
government. Those agencies are costing us a bunch with questionable
yield. And once an agency is established, it is there for life.


Then prepare to be turned upside down and have your pockets shaken out. g
Food prices will immediately double without subsidies, oil will *really* get
expensive, and, within a couple of years, every business in America will be
owned by one or two companies.

They'll wring you dry, because there will be nothing to stop monopolies,
cartels, oligopolies, and other manipulators from taking over.

The few such as the highways and national defense are a few of the
problems needing a more global approach offered by the Feds. Even then
look at the military industrial complex and at just one example of
fraud, waste and abuse created by the military being forced to deal with
"expiring funds".


It is, and if you have a solution, a lot of people will be interested.
Libertarians don't have solutions. They have faith.


Hell yes I have a solution: Quit focussing on the accounting process that
likes "Expiring funds" and focus on the problem that needs to be solved
and commit to solving the problem, not making the books look good. I
worked in R&D for years and watched good ideas go down the tube because of
"Expiring" funds. Example: Vertical seeking ejection seat. Demonstrated
in the 70s right where I work. USN still doesn't have them. Would save
lives (expensively trained lives if you want to make it an matter of
economics). I can rattle off a bunch of similar examples from my
experience.


What R&D? What Navy? You're talking about the libertarian world, remember.
Whose going to invest in R&D in a free market? It only happens because of
tax breaks, subsidies, and preferential treatment of certain business
operations. In a free market, those things are gone.


But it's a mish-mash of different ideas that just don't fit together.
Basically, self-styled libertarians are pure moralists, who have a
patchwork quilt of moral principles that depend on everyone else
thinking precisely like them.

Yep. Somewhere we need to start with a guiding principle that we can
all agree on. Otherwise we just have a morass not unlike looting.


That's libertarianism: Everyone tries to loot everyone else.


Excuse me if I remember correctly we are not presently being exposed to
libertarianism but the looting is certainly going on right now. The
looting is being done by the Republican administration and the Democratic
congress.


If you get a liberatarian government, you ain't seen nothing yet. Looting
will be fully privatized, with real incentives to perform. d8-)

Of course, this is the opposite of what libertarians claim. But look at
the current example: calling a fortuitous profit "profiteering," and
favoring making it illegal. If those same gas stations got caught short
with long-term oil purchases, while one guy in town was buying
spot-market oil when it was on the way down and dropped prices below the
cost of the other guys, and they all took a bath, the anti-profiteering
"libertarians" would just shrug and say "that's the market for you."

It's a moralism of convenience. Libertarians will claim that it isn't
true, but few of them think it through sufficiently to recognize what
they're doing.

Ed: This can certainly be said for all of the political parties and
especially our "Representatives"


Then what's different about libertarianism?


Libertarianism doesn't want the government in our pants everytime we turn
around. It isn't hard to see the effects of the government contrived
agencies designed to protect us from the internal ravages of our own
stupidity example the current mortgage farce where people borrowed money
they couldn't pay back. That situation will take care of itself by
letting the people learn that that kind of stupidity doesn't work.


Good plan. Do you have plenty of ammo, for when those impoverished, starving
people come knocking at your door? Maybe they'll form mobs and will have a
few guns themselves. After all, what will they have to lose?

The lenders? They will learn when they have to reposess houses they can't
sell.


No way, Hose-A. They no longer own the houses. They sold the mortgages to
your retirement fund.

Will they learn that in the present? No because our government will
borrow money to bail them out and the penalty for their actions will not
be felt. We learn by making mistakes and if someone snatches the mistakes
from us the learning is greatly reduced.

The current state of our society is to a large measure the result of our
society allowing the people who "make things happen" to run loose. The
constantly increasing size of government to do for people what they
should be doing for themselves and the things like the Iraq war, the War
on drugs which is costing a bunch and not yielding any significant
results. Who is thinking their way thru to these results?


What I hear, Stuart, is that you don't like the way things are going and
that you think they'd go better if the government did very little. As I
said, that's faith, not a solution. There is no example in modern history
that supports the libertarian view -- except for tribal societies run by
warlords.

Like most philosophical, political ideologies, libertarianism is based on
a mistaken view of human nature and a nearly complete disregard for the
system of incentives that results from the libertarian plan. Free-market
philosophies lead to the incentive structure that gave us Enron and the
mortgage debacle. Most of those atrocities were *not* the result of
breaking fundamental laws. They were examples of exploiting the
weaknesses of markets, especially in today's complex economic world.


Yep and the fall of the Soviet Union was not because Libertarian
principles were being practiced. Government intervention conducted by
bureacrats that haven't a clue about the things that they are supposed to
manage is quite a prescription for disaster.



Libertarianism itself is a prescription for chaos. The "guiding
principles" you mention bear further exploration: if you sort out what
they really mean, you'll find that you're founding your system on
intellectual conservatism, which leads inevitably to a much more
restrictive society than the one you're talking about. The libertarian
principle is more like what Thomas Jefferson proposed, when he said that
we should scrap our Constitution every 19 years and write a new one.


We might just as well do that if we are going to ignore the Constitution
and just interpret it to justify what we want to do. Current examples are
again rampant.


OK, governement intervention, disregarding the Constitution...'sounds like
you could attract a lot of grumblers with your growing list.

I'm sure that's not what you have in mind. g As I said earlier, the
small streak of libertarian leaning shared by most Americans is a common
and a good thing. But it's not a system; it produces all truly stupid
party platform; and it's unworkable. With apologies to Jean Kirkpatrick,
it amounts to a letter to Santa Claus.

I took a course in the Weapons Systems Acquistion Management put on by
DoD. The word results was almost never used. The whole thing was about
the process and making the process fit some model. The students didn't
have a clue as to whether the results would solve the original problem.
In fact they were all relatively ignorant and didn't care what the
original problem was. Think their way thru? A very rare activity in my
experience with the Federal Government and one usually only used in
programming a path to promotion.
One thing lacking in all of the political parties that I see is the lack
of a guiding principle. Looking on the internet for expressions of
guiding philosophy of the Democrats, the Republicans and the
Libertarians, the only one with a clear statement of philosophy was the
Libertarians.


That's the problem. They're about a philosophy, not about running a
government. Government is about assuring that the structure of incentives
produces a beneficial result -- maximum life, liberty, and pursuit of
happiness.


Yep and FEMA telling me that I may have to raise my existing 40X72 steel
building 1.5' because of some imagined Flood Plain is one hell of an
example of that beneficial result.


I gather from an earlier message that you're on a 75-year flood plain. Is
that right? Have you checked the historical record?


I get the impression that both the Democrats and the Republicans are
for whatever will get them elected. The Constitution, Declaration of
Independence and even the Articles of Confederation don't seem to
provide a clear statement that we are going to use as a guiding
principle. At present, our basic principle seems to be: "Whats in it
for me?"
I know a bunch of people who are really for the government controlled
health care. They ain't thought that thru very far. They are blinded
with "what it can do for me" and ignore the myriad of examples of
government incompetencies and costs demonstrated over and over again.
The long range effect of some of these social programs is the reduction
in the need to fend for yourself and will ultimately lead to the
downfall of the nation. Who was it said the death of democracy is
ordained when the people find out that they can vote themselves money.


An old fool who said that before he got a chance to see what actually
happens. In the US right now, it's the rich who tend to vote themselves
more money. In any case, it doesn't work the way democracy's detractors
thought it would.

I tend to agree the formal Libertarian party seems to be just a "spit
and whittle" kind of organization. I offered to start a fund raising
pyramid to raise funds for Libertarian candidates and got zero response.
I know that I'm tired of bureaucrats stripping my freedoms away and
forcing me to pay for the process.


Maybe you should re-name it the Grumbler's Party. Then you'd probably get
more takers. g


Well Ed you had better hope that the Grumblers keep telling the King he
ain't got clothes on. The non-Grumblers seem to be approving of business
as usual. As I recall it was a bunch of Grumblers that got fed up and
started this whole Union. Also take note that Ron Paul is creating a
growing following.


Yeah. Both of them are going to vote for him, too. g Just remember, a vote
for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama.

I wouldn't know where to begin addressing those points of yours, Stu. But I
believe that you would get the opposite of what you want in most cases.

--
Ed Huntress


  #88   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default OT-143 days


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
.. .

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
.. .

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
.. .

snip

Ed: We are driving a 2003 Jetta TDI at least one occasion have seen
55mpg on a 500mile trip. The worst was 47mpg driving 80mph into a
25mph headwind. However, California made them illegal in 2004.

I saw your comment about that before, Stuart, and it's remarkable. If
diesel wasn't so ridiculously overpriced I'd consider it. My former
neighbor has a turbodiesel New Beetle of about that vintage and he
says he gets 45+ mpg with it, too.

Also BTW I will take the "illegal profiteering" if it means the
bloody incompetent federal government will keep their bureacratic
noses out of our everyday business: FEMA is dictating building codes
out in the desert and establishing "Flood Plains" where there is no
record of anykind of flooding in the past 75 years. I was told that I
might be required to raise my existing structure (40X72 steel
building setting on a concrete slab) 1.5' above the existing ground
grade!!! Libertarian? You bet. After seeing the government in action
with Star Wars (I was involved in Star Wars for 6 years), the current
Iraq farce, BATF, DEA etc etc. I don't see how anyone could avoid
Libertarian leanings.

Leanings, yes. Most Americans have a little streak of libertarian in
them.

Political party or ideology, no. Political candidates -- well, it
keeps the libertarians from voting for jerks like Bush. g

I'm reminded of one of the complaints registered in the Declaration
of Independence: "He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent
hither swarms of Officers to harass our people and eat out their
substance." If that doesn't describe our BLM, FEMA, BATF, DEA etc.
etc. We interfaced directly with FEMA in support of disaster relief
in the Marshall Islands for two years and were sick and tired of
apoligizing to the Marshallese people for the stupid, arrogant
behavior of FEMA. Libertarian? And the alternatives are?

It depends on what you want. If you want to grumble and have nothing
happen, libertarianism is great. It's the ideology for people who
won't be happy no matter what happens.

This is probably true since the "something that happens" is generally
being done by people who want to exert power over someone else.
Waiting for the government to make "something happen" is guaranteed to
yield "something" that will be resented in the near future. Most of
the Libertarians see the problems that need solving are problems better
solved by something other than an agency whose existence does not
depend on their competence.

Like what? Do you mean the "free market"? If that's the case, are you
willing to live with what the "free market" decides?


Yes if it gets rid of BLM, FEMA, BATF, DEA, TSA, and a number of others
that are questionable in terms of "powers explicitly" those of the
federal government. Those agencies are costing us a bunch with
questionable yield. And once an agency is established, it is there for
life.


Then prepare to be turned upside down and have your pockets shaken out.
g Food prices will immediately double without subsidies, oil will
*really* get expensive, and, within a couple of years, every business in
America will be owned by one or two companies.

Ed: Where do the subsidies come from? Who is paying the subsidies? What
agency syphons off their operating expenses for handling the subsidies?
What farmers have received subsidies for Not growing rice in a field on the
side of a hill that only grows rocks? Again personal experience.

They'll wring you dry, because there will be nothing to stop monopolies,
cartels, oligopolies, and other manipulators from taking over.

Sounds a bit like what we've got now.

The few such as the highways and national defense are a few of the
problems needing a more global approach offered by the Feds. Even then
look at the military industrial complex and at just one example of
fraud, waste and abuse created by the military being forced to deal
with "expiring funds".

It is, and if you have a solution, a lot of people will be interested.
Libertarians don't have solutions. They have faith.


Hell yes I have a solution: Quit focussing on the accounting process
that likes "Expiring funds" and focus on the problem that needs to be
solved and commit to solving the problem, not making the books look good.
I worked in R&D for years and watched good ideas go down the tube because
of "Expiring" funds. Example: Vertical seeking ejection seat.
Demonstrated in the 70s right where I work. USN still doesn't have them.
Would save lives (expensively trained lives if you want to make it an
matter of economics). I can rattle off a bunch of similar examples from
my experience.


What R&D? What Navy? You're talking about the libertarian world, remember.
Whose going to invest in R&D in a free market? It only happens because of
tax breaks, subsidies, and preferential treatment of certain business
operations. In a free market, those things are gone.


We don't receive a subsidy for our business and R&D is done. I don't think
that Bill Gates got a subsidy when he started Microsoft. I know that a
bunch of the experimental helo businesses operate without subsidies and R&D
is a part of their business to stay competitive. The Robinson helicopter
"monopoly" is being impacted by a privateer operating without subsidies.
The old idea that businesses can't operate without government subsidies
doesn't hold water. The justification of "Thats the way it has been
operating" doesn't justify its continuance. The syphoning off of monies to
support the government bureaucrats like FEMA , who by the way my wife and I
had 2 yrs of direct interface with them, not just one or two individuals but
the entire west coast operation and the taxpayer in me cried to see the
ignorant stupid actions.
We are being turned upside down now and our pockets shaken. There are
billions of dollars being misspent and wasted by a growing federal
government and candidates standing in line to grow more of these agencies.
Cut the tax exemptions to increase revenue? How about getting more
competent management of the government budget as it presently exists and use
the surplus that could be created by competent management.


But it's a mish-mash of different ideas that just don't fit together.
Basically, self-styled libertarians are pure moralists, who have a
patchwork quilt of moral principles that depend on everyone else
thinking precisely like them.

Yep. Somewhere we need to start with a guiding principle that we can
all agree on. Otherwise we just have a morass not unlike looting.

That's libertarianism: Everyone tries to loot everyone else.


Excuse me if I remember correctly we are not presently being exposed to
libertarianism but the looting is certainly going on right now. The
looting is being done by the Republican administration and the Democratic
congress.


If you get a liberatarian government, you ain't seen nothing yet. Looting
will be fully privatized, with real incentives to perform. d8-)


This is of course opinion and not based on personal experience?

Of course, this is the opposite of what libertarians claim. But look at
the current example: calling a fortuitous profit "profiteering," and
favoring making it illegal. If those same gas stations got caught short
with long-term oil purchases, while one guy in town was buying
spot-market oil when it was on the way down and dropped prices below
the cost of the other guys, and they all took a bath, the
anti-profiteering "libertarians" would just shrug and say "that's the
market for you."

It's a moralism of convenience. Libertarians will claim that it isn't
true, but few of them think it through sufficiently to recognize what
they're doing.

Ed: This can certainly be said for all of the political parties and
especially our "Representatives"

Then what's different about libertarianism?


Libertarianism doesn't want the government in our pants everytime we turn
around. It isn't hard to see the effects of the government contrived
agencies designed to protect us from the internal ravages of our own
stupidity example the current mortgage farce where people borrowed money
they couldn't pay back. That situation will take care of itself by
letting the people learn that that kind of stupidity doesn't work.


Good plan. Do you have plenty of ammo, for when those impoverished,
starving people come knocking at your door? Maybe they'll form mobs and
will have a few guns themselves. After all, what will they have to lose?

This maybe not too far in the future anyway. with gas prices increasing
there are going to be people starting to have to steal to eat. There are
bunches of people that have to commute distances to work. Distances where a
private car is the only way to get there. Stealing gas has begun to increase
in our area.

The lenders? They will learn when they have to reposess houses they can't
sell.


No way, Hose-A. They no longer own the houses. They sold the mortgages to
your retirement fund.

If that is true it is another example of government incomptence. My
retirement fund is the Civil Service Retirement System which by the way
fails to honor their own commitments. Didn't the Fed recently bail out some
Wall Street organization that had heavily involved themselves with cheap
mortgages?

Will they learn that in the present? No because our government will
borrow money to bail them out and the penalty for their actions will not
be felt. We learn by making mistakes and if someone snatches the
mistakes from us the learning is greatly reduced.

The current state of our society is to a large measure the result of
our society allowing the people who "make things happen" to run loose.
The constantly increasing size of government to do for people what they
should be doing for themselves and the things like the Iraq war, the
War on drugs which is costing a bunch and not yielding any significant
results. Who is thinking their way thru to these results?

What I hear, Stuart, is that you don't like the way things are going and
that you think they'd go better if the government did very little. As I
said, that's faith, not a solution. There is no example in modern
history that supports the libertarian view -- except for tribal
societies run by warlords.

Jesus Ed look where the current system has got us!! We are in hock up to our
gills and it doesn't look like there is any real positive change available
in the future. McCain wants to fight wars and be the world's policeman,
Obama wants to increase the social programs and has indicated a willingness
to provide taxpayer money to religious organizations.

Like most philosophical, political ideologies, libertarianism is based
on a mistaken view of human nature and a nearly complete disregard for
the system of incentives that results from the libertarian plan.
Free-market philosophies lead to the incentive structure that gave us
Enron and the mortgage debacle. Most of those atrocities were *not* the
result of breaking fundamental laws. They were examples of exploiting
the weaknesses of markets, especially in today's complex economic world.


Yep and the fall of the Soviet Union was not because Libertarian
principles were being practiced. Government intervention conducted by
bureacrats that haven't a clue about the things that they are supposed to
manage is quite a prescription for disaster.



Libertarianism itself is a prescription for chaos. The "guiding
principles" you mention bear further exploration: if you sort out what
they really mean, you'll find that you're founding your system on
intellectual conservatism, which leads inevitably to a much more
restrictive society than the one you're talking about.

Is there an example where this occurred? I can't believe that the belief in
much restricted reduced government that was held accountable for its actions
would lead to more restrictive society.
The libertarian
principle is more like what Thomas Jefferson proposed, when he said that
we should scrap our Constitution every 19 years and write a new one.


We might just as well do that if we are going to ignore the Constitution
and just interpret it to justify what we want to do. Current examples
are again rampant.


OK, governement intervention, disregarding the Constitution...'sounds like
you could attract a lot of grumblers with your growing list.

I'm sure that's not what you have in mind. g As I said earlier, the
small streak of libertarian leaning shared by most Americans is a common
and a good thing. But it's not a system; it produces all truly stupid
party platform; and it's unworkable. With apologies to Jean Kirkpatrick,
it amounts to a letter to Santa Claus.

I took a course in the Weapons Systems Acquistion Management put on by
DoD. The word results was almost never used. The whole thing was about
the process and making the process fit some model. The students didn't
have a clue as to whether the results would solve the original problem.
In fact they were all relatively ignorant and didn't care what the
original problem was. Think their way thru? A very rare activity in
my experience with the Federal Government and one usually only used in
programming a path to promotion.
One thing lacking in all of the political parties that I see is the
lack of a guiding principle. Looking on the internet for expressions
of guiding philosophy of the Democrats, the Republicans and the
Libertarians, the only one with a clear statement of philosophy was the
Libertarians.

That's the problem. They're about a philosophy, not about running a
government. Government is about assuring that the structure of
incentives produces a beneficial result -- maximum life, liberty, and
pursuit of happiness.


Yep and FEMA telling me that I may have to raise my existing 40X72 steel
building 1.5' because of some imagined Flood Plain is one hell of an
example of that beneficial result.


I gather from an earlier message that you're on a 75-year flood plain. Is
that right? Have you checked the historical record?

Yep. There is a drainage that comes out of the Sierras to the North of me.
It is aimed for what is now a county road that is over 30' below me in
elevation. There is no history of any significant water flow for the past
75 years based on talks with people who have lived here that long. I used
to do drainage calculations for the USFS for road design. Besides that when
I asked them just what hazard to the public we were trying to avoid by my
raising the structure 1.5' I was totally ignored. I told them I didn't need
or want their flood insurance and would assume the risk to my structure
myself. Seems I don't have the freedom to do that.



I get the impression that both the Democrats and the Republicans are
for whatever will get them elected. The Constitution, Declaration of
Independence and even the Articles of Confederation don't seem to
provide a clear statement that we are going to use as a guiding
principle. At present, our basic principle seems to be: "Whats in it
for me?"
I know a bunch of people who are really for the government controlled
health care. They ain't thought that thru very far. They are blinded
with "what it can do for me" and ignore the myriad of examples of
government incompetencies and costs demonstrated over and over again.
The long range effect of some of these social programs is the reduction
in the need to fend for yourself and will ultimately lead to the
downfall of the nation. Who was it said the death of democracy is
ordained when the people find out that they can vote themselves money.

An old fool who said that before he got a chance to see what actually
happens. In the US right now, it's the rich who tend to vote themselves
more money. In any case, it doesn't work the way democracy's detractors
thought it would.

I tend to agree the formal Libertarian party seems to be just a "spit
and whittle" kind of organization. I offered to start a fund raising
pyramid to raise funds for Libertarian candidates and got zero
response. I know that I'm tired of bureaucrats stripping my freedoms
away and forcing me to pay for the process.

Maybe you should re-name it the Grumbler's Party. Then you'd probably
get more takers. g


Well Ed you had better hope that the Grumblers keep telling the King he
ain't got clothes on. The non-Grumblers seem to be approving of
business as usual. As I recall it was a bunch of Grumblers that got fed
up and started this whole Union. Also take note that Ron Paul is
creating a growing following.


Yeah. Both of them are going to vote for him, too. g Just remember, a
vote for Ron Paul is a vote for Obama.

I wouldn't know where to begin addressing those points of yours, Stu. But
I believe that you would get the opposite of what you want in most cases.

Well Ed I have come to the belief from watching your postings that you are
one of the brighter bulbs in this string, but I can't imagine that you
believe that the present path being taken by the Federal and State
governments of increased size and increased borrowing and increased
inefficiency is going to lead to a positive sunny future.
Ed Huntress




  #89   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,154
Default OT-143 days

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:41:33 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner Asch quickly quoth:

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 06:28:06 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:


What are a "918 rivette" and "case of Monsters", pray tell?


918 rivett lathe, second ops, with turret, cross slide and a drawer
full of dead length collets, 3 jaw, the manual etc etcetc

http://www.ozarkwoodworker.com/item/...orparts-manua/


How big is that beastie? HxWxL, lbs, etc? What's the jap turret
lathe? (same questions)

Mini mill? Sieg x2 or x3 for dirt cheap?


Hanson's Monster Energy Drink

http://www.monsterenergy.com/


Ah, so; you're a caffeine freak. Is this better than Jolt? I tapered
off caffeine because I hated the caffeine hangovers (as bad as a
migrane) and now drink just 2 cups of coffee (infrequent) or 3 cups of
tea per day. I wake up and am running at 90% by the time my feet hit
the floor--without any damned drugs, TYVM.

Anywho, who sells cases cheap?

--Your Frugal Friend

--
Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants,
is the liberty of appearing. -- Thomas Paine
  #90   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT-143 days


"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
...

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...


snip


Like what? Do you mean the "free market"? If that's the case, are you
willing to live with what the "free market" decides?


Yes if it gets rid of BLM, FEMA, BATF, DEA, TSA, and a number of others
that are questionable in terms of "powers explicitly" those of the
federal government. Those agencies are costing us a bunch with
questionable yield. And once an agency is established, it is there for
life.


Then prepare to be turned upside down and have your pockets shaken out.
g Food prices will immediately double without subsidies, oil will
*really* get expensive, and, within a couple of years, every business in
America will be owned by one or two companies.


Ed: Where do the subsidies come from? Who is paying the subsidies?


You, me,....and the farmers of every underdeveloped country that is trying
to sell farm produce here. Our subsidies, and those of the other developed
countries, suppress produce-export prices from Central America and grain and
meat prices from several other parts of the world. Neat, huh? Farm subsidies
are the gift that keeps on giving.

What agency syphons off their operating expenses for handling the
subsidies? What farmers have received subsidies for Not growing rice in a
field on the side of a hill that only grows rocks? Again personal
experience.

They'll wring you dry, because there will be nothing to stop monopolies,
cartels, oligopolies, and other manipulators from taking over.


Sounds a bit like what we've got now.


What we have now is the result of Reaganomics' disbanding of the many
regulations put into place since Standard Oil raped the country a century
ago. Now we have a new raping going on -- everything from lax FCC
regulations leading to NewsCorp. and Clear Channel, to Exxon-Mobil, to a
handful of cable TV companies controlling the market and driving prices up
endlessly. And if you think this stinks, try implementing a libertarian
scheme. It will be Katie-bar-the-doors.

Those alphabet-soup agencies you so despise are what keeps the wolf at bay,
Stu. We learned a harsh lesson over a century ago and then conservative
ideologues pretended that Standard Oil, the coal cartel, toxic drugs and
fouled meat never happened. So now we're paying the price.

The costs versus benefits of these programs are hardly recognized by most
people, which is why there are so many grumblers around. d8-) For example,
US farm subsidies run around $178 billion. Total administrative cost is less
than $0.5 billion. But you may want to include regulatory costs, research,
conservation, and all the other costs, which amount to around $20 billion.
The entire cost of running the Agriculture department, including all of the
school lunch subsidies, the forest service, and all the other bits and
pieces is only a little more than 10% of the direct givebacks in subsidies.

How about BLM? You don't seem to like them, either. Their FY 2009 budget is
almost exactly $1 billion. So, what happens if you get rid of it? How do you
manage the competing interests for federal land? Or do you just sell all of
it? Maybe the Chinese would put in the best bid for our national forests,
which they would then clearcut, libertarian-style. They really need the
lumber and they have a lot or ready cash. Once the trees are cleared they
can build a hell of a lot of golf courses and the Japanese tourists will
pour in. Maybe we can get jobs as greens keepers.

Disney would probably get Yellowstone, eh? It would make a hell of a theme
park. Wolves behind glass. Bison wearing Micky Mouse ears. So cute! They'll
have a waterslide powered by Old Faithful. Brought to you by America's
libertarians. They saved you $3 in annual operating costs for every man,
woman, and child in the US, and all it cost you was every tree and every
square mile of public land in the country. The payoffs will let us live on
that big credit card in the sky for at least another five or ten years.
Whoopie!

And so on. If you don't like the way things are run, maybe you should try to
elect someone who cares. Instead, it sounds like you want to elect someone
who just wants to tank all of it, so we can go back to the bad old days.
Maybe they're nostalgic for the company stores and rotten meat.

The market will sort it all out. When people buy a drug and die from it,
other people will learn the lesson. When there are no more forests, we'll
have room for more cows. Maybe the Japanese will buy our beef. When
financial managers rape the currency and move to the Côte d'Azur, we'll be
praising the free market while we eat beans and squash. It was good enough
for the Indians.



The few such as the highways and national defense are a few of the
problems needing a more global approach offered by the Feds. Even
then look at the military industrial complex and at just one example
of fraud, waste and abuse created by the military being forced to deal
with "expiring funds".

It is, and if you have a solution, a lot of people will be interested.
Libertarians don't have solutions. They have faith.


Hell yes I have a solution: Quit focussing on the accounting process
that likes "Expiring funds" and focus on the problem that needs to be
solved and commit to solving the problem, not making the books look
good. I worked in R&D for years and watched good ideas go down the tube
because of "Expiring" funds. Example: Vertical seeking ejection seat.
Demonstrated in the 70s right where I work. USN still doesn't have
them. Would save lives (expensively trained lives if you want to make it
an matter of economics). I can rattle off a bunch of similar examples
from my experience.


What R&D? What Navy? You're talking about the libertarian world,
remember. Whose going to invest in R&D in a free market? It only happens
because of tax breaks, subsidies, and preferential treatment of certain
business operations. In a free market, those things are gone.


We don't receive a subsidy for our business and R&D is done.


I doubt if there would have been helicopters for another ten years if LePage
and Sikorsky hadn't gotten all kinds of development contracts from the US
military, Stuart. That wasn't payment for production, it was a subsidy. That
whole industry needed a shot in the arm just to get moving.

I don't think that Bill Gates got a subsidy when he started Microsoft. I
know that a bunch of the experimental helo businesses operate without
subsidies and R&D is a part of their business to stay competitive. The
Robinson helicopter "monopoly" is being impacted by a privateer operating
without subsidies. The old idea that businesses can't operate without
government subsidies doesn't hold water.


Most businesses operate without subsidies. Some others wouldn't exist
without them. The microcircuit business, for example, was developed largely
on military purchases with big up-front "development" contracts. Those are
subsidies.

The justification of "Thats the way it has been operating" doesn't justify
its continuance. The syphoning off of monies to support the government
bureaucrats like FEMA , who by the way my wife and I had 2 yrs of direct
interface with them, not just one or two individuals but the entire west
coast operation and the taxpayer in me cried to see the ignorant stupid
actions.


We are being turned upside down now and our pockets shaken. There are
billions of dollars being misspent and wasted by a growing federal
government and candidates standing in line to grow more of these agencies.
Cut the tax exemptions to increase revenue? How about getting more
competent management of the government budget as it presently exists and
use the surplus that could be created by competent management.


How about it? Do you have a plan for running a better government?

Everybody wants better government. I doubt if any of them could begin to
deal with it. It's all wishful thinking and general griping.



But it's a mish-mash of different ideas that just don't fit together.
Basically, self-styled libertarians are pure moralists, who have a
patchwork quilt of moral principles that depend on everyone else
thinking precisely like them.

Yep. Somewhere we need to start with a guiding principle that we can
all agree on. Otherwise we just have a morass not unlike looting.

That's libertarianism: Everyone tries to loot everyone else.


Excuse me if I remember correctly we are not presently being exposed to
libertarianism but the looting is certainly going on right now. The
looting is being done by the Republican administration and the
Democratic congress.


The looting is being done by multinational corporations and financial
manipulators -- just the kind of people who libertarians would leave alone
to practice their craft in the "free market."


If you get a liberatarian government, you ain't seen nothing yet. Looting
will be fully privatized, with real incentives to perform. d8-)


This is of course opinion and not based on personal experience?


We have lots of experience with unregulated finance and corporations that go
monopolistic (or oligopolistic, as with the Big Three US car makers). If I
understand libertarianism, the idea is to get the government out of free
markets, right? Those companies would love it. Banks would be orgasmic about
it. They've already shown us what they can do if you loosen the reigns. Take
the reigns off, and it's payday for them, 365 days a year.


Of course, this is the opposite of what libertarians claim. But look
at the current example: calling a fortuitous profit "profiteering,"
and favoring making it illegal. If those same gas stations got caught
short with long-term oil purchases, while one guy in town was buying
spot-market oil when it was on the way down and dropped prices below
the cost of the other guys, and they all took a bath, the
anti-profiteering "libertarians" would just shrug and say "that's the
market for you."

It's a moralism of convenience. Libertarians will claim that it isn't
true, but few of them think it through sufficiently to recognize what
they're doing.

Ed: This can certainly be said for all of the political parties and
especially our "Representatives"

Then what's different about libertarianism?


Libertarianism doesn't want the government in our pants everytime we
turn around. It isn't hard to see the effects of the government
contrived agencies designed to protect us from the internal ravages of
our own stupidity example the current mortgage farce where people
borrowed money they couldn't pay back. That situation will take care of
itself by letting the people learn that that kind of stupidity doesn't
work.


Good plan. Do you have plenty of ammo, for when those impoverished,
starving people come knocking at your door? Maybe they'll form mobs and
will have a few guns themselves. After all, what will they have to lose?


This maybe not too far in the future anyway. with gas prices increasing
there are going to be people starting to have to steal to eat. There are
bunches of people that have to commute distances to work. Distances where
a private car is the only way to get there. Stealing gas has begun to
increase in our area.


Wait 'till you see what happens if you take away the safety net. They'll be
pouring off the reservation.


The lenders? They will learn when they have to reposess houses they
can't sell.


No way, Hose-A. They no longer own the houses. They sold the mortgages to
your retirement fund.


If that is true it is another example of government incomptence. My
retirement fund is the Civil Service Retirement System which by the way
fails to honor their own commitments. Didn't the Fed recently bail out
some Wall Street organization that had heavily involved themselves with
cheap mortgages?


So you wouldn't lose your retirement. g If you're Civil Service, that's a
bad example. My 401K is taking a hit. Free-market, you know. That'll l'arn
me, eh?


Will they learn that in the present? No because our government will
borrow money to bail them out and the penalty for their actions will
not be felt. We learn by making mistakes and if someone snatches the
mistakes from us the learning is greatly reduced.

The current state of our society is to a large measure the result of
our society allowing the people who "make things happen" to run loose.
The constantly increasing size of government to do for people what
they should be doing for themselves and the things like the Iraq war,
the War on drugs which is costing a bunch and not yielding any
significant results. Who is thinking their way thru to these results?

What I hear, Stuart, is that you don't like the way things are going
and that you think they'd go better if the government did very little.
As I said, that's faith, not a solution. There is no example in modern
history that supports the libertarian view -- except for tribal
societies run by warlords.


Jesus Ed look where the current system has got us!! We are in hock up to
our gills and it doesn't look like there is any real positive change
available in the future. McCain wants to fight wars and be the world's
policeman, Obama wants to increase the social programs and has indicated a
willingness to provide taxpayer money to religious organizations.


Whatever it is, libertarianism isn't the answer, it's just more fuel on the
fire. Loosen up those markets and watch them take the socks right off your
feet.


I gather from an earlier message that you're on a 75-year flood plain. Is
that right? Have you checked the historical record?


Yep. There is a drainage that comes out of the Sierras to the North of
me. It is aimed for what is now a county road that is over 30' below me in
elevation. There is no history of any significant water flow for the past
75 years based on talks with people who have lived here that long. I used
to do drainage calculations for the USFS for road design. Besides that
when I asked them just what hazard to the public we were trying to avoid
by my raising the structure 1.5' I was totally ignored. I told them I
didn't need or want their flood insurance and would assume the risk to my
structure myself. Seems I don't have the freedom to do that.


You'll have to fight that battle, Stuart. I don't know what to say.
Something tells me there's more to it, but I can't even guess.



I wouldn't know where to begin addressing those points of yours, Stu. But
I believe that you would get the opposite of what you want in most cases.


Well Ed I have come to the belief from watching your postings that you are
one of the brighter bulbs in this string, but I can't imagine that you
believe that the present path being taken by the Federal and State
governments of increased size and increased borrowing and increased
inefficiency is going to lead to a positive sunny future.


Hardly. I think the economic policies we've followed under Reagan and Bush
are absolute disasters. And libertarian policies would be even more extreme,
except that we wouldn't get *any* of it back. With no income taxes, they'd
be unable to pay debts and they would strangle the infrastructure until the
economy collapsed for good.

As I said, Stuart, it's a good program for grumblers and for people who
resent all kinds of things that are going on. It's a lousy program for
running a country.

--
Ed Huntress




  #91   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,154
Default OT-143 days

On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 22:41:41 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

--minor (several hundred line) snippage here--

Stu said:
Well Ed I have come to the belief from watching your postings that you are
one of the brighter bulbs in this string, but I can't imagine that you
believe that the present path being taken by the Federal and State
governments of increased size and increased borrowing and increased
inefficiency is going to lead to a positive sunny future.


Hardly. I think the economic policies we've followed under Reagan and Bush
are absolute disasters. And libertarian policies would be even more extreme,
except that we wouldn't get *any* of it back. With no income taxes, they'd
be unable to pay debts and they would strangle the infrastructure until the
economy collapsed for good.


Ed, libertarian principles aren't anarchy and they aren't a total
dismissal of government. They're just a lot more limiting on the
government. I think you're totally overreacting here.


As I said, Stuart, it's a good program for grumblers and for people who
resent all kinds of things that are going on. It's a lousy program for
running a country.


The way you're talking, you seem to think the change from what we have
to what we want would be overnight. That surely wouldn't work. It
would have to be gradual, allowing for all those displaced gov't
employees to find honest work as their worthless agencies are
disbanded. Most could immediately find work in the EU, with their
politically correct fellows, don't you think? snicker

--
Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants,
is the liberty of appearing. -- Thomas Paine
  #92   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT-143 days


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 22:41:41 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

--minor (several hundred line) snippage here--

Stu said:
Well Ed I have come to the belief from watching your postings that you
are
one of the brighter bulbs in this string, but I can't imagine that you
believe that the present path being taken by the Federal and State
governments of increased size and increased borrowing and increased
inefficiency is going to lead to a positive sunny future.


Hardly. I think the economic policies we've followed under Reagan and Bush
are absolute disasters. And libertarian policies would be even more
extreme,
except that we wouldn't get *any* of it back. With no income taxes, they'd
be unable to pay debts and they would strangle the infrastructure until
the
economy collapsed for good.


Ed, libertarian principles aren't anarchy and they aren't a total
dismissal of government. They're just a lot more limiting on the
government. I think you're totally overreacting here.


What I've described is the consequences of the libertarian program, Larry,
and they should be no mystery at this point. Libertarians oppose government
regulation of business. We've seen what happens in the world of finance when
regulations are too lax; take the regulations off, and you'll just be
clearing the sea lanes for the financial pirates.

Libertarians oppose government ownership of property, and an end to
restrictions on cross-national flows of capital. China needs lumber; they'll
clear-cut the national forests, and it won't take them more than a few years
to do it. They've already been exploring the purchase or lease of large
tracts of western timberlands.

I suppose you know about how current grazing policies have wrecked the land
and the water in the plains. Take off the regulations, and the plains will
be a desert.

And so on. The entire libertarian program is something that you'd expect
high school students to cook up for a civics class project. It's mindless of
consequences, and ignorant of the signals and trends that are already
getting us into trouble. It would be hard to imagine a dumber set of policy
ideas than the ones in the current Libertarian Party platform. As I said,
it's a letter to Santa Claus.




As I said, Stuart, it's a good program for grumblers and for people who
resent all kinds of things that are going on. It's a lousy program for
running a country.


The way you're talking, you seem to think the change from what we have
to what we want would be overnight. That surely wouldn't work. It
would have to be gradual, allowing for all those displaced gov't
employees to find honest work as their worthless agencies are
disbanded. Most could immediately find work in the EU, with their
politically correct fellows, don't you think? snicker


So, you want to bleed the economy to death slowly, rather than all at once.
d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


  #93   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,154
Default OT-143 days

On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 06:38:57 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 22:41:41 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

--minor (several hundred line) snippage here--

Stu said:
Well Ed I have come to the belief from watching your postings that you
are
one of the brighter bulbs in this string, but I can't imagine that you
believe that the present path being taken by the Federal and State
governments of increased size and increased borrowing and increased
inefficiency is going to lead to a positive sunny future.

Hardly. I think the economic policies we've followed under Reagan and Bush
are absolute disasters. And libertarian policies would be even more
extreme,
except that we wouldn't get *any* of it back. With no income taxes, they'd
be unable to pay debts and they would strangle the infrastructure until
the
economy collapsed for good.


Ed, libertarian principles aren't anarchy and they aren't a total
dismissal of government. They're just a lot more limiting on the
government. I think you're totally overreacting here.


What I've described is the consequences of the libertarian program, Larry,
and they should be no mystery at this point. Libertarians oppose government
regulation of business. We've seen what happens in the world of finance when
regulations are too lax; take the regulations off, and you'll just be
clearing the sea lanes for the financial pirates.


Can you say "Ideals tempered by judgment"? I knew you could. Why
haven't you here? Libertarian policies aren't black and white as you
show them, just as Republican and Democrat policies aren't set in
stone.


Libertarians oppose government ownership of property, and an end to
restrictions on cross-national flows of capital. China needs lumber; they'll
clear-cut the national forests, and it won't take them more than a few years
to do it. They've already been exploring the purchase or lease of large
tracts of western timberlands.


Show me one Libertarian who has suggested that. I dare you. But under
current politics, vast amounts of timber are already going to Japan,
both from USA and CA, and probably other countries. From what I
understand, Japan takes the bark-on logs intact and mills them there.


I suppose you know about how current grazing policies have wrecked the land
and the water in the plains. Take off the regulations, and the plains will
be a desert.

And so on. The entire libertarian program is something that you'd expect
high school students to cook up for a civics class project. It's mindless of
consequences, and ignorant of the signals and trends that are already
getting us into trouble. It would be hard to imagine a dumber set of policy
ideas than the ones in the current Libertarian Party platform. As I said,
it's a letter to Santa Claus.


Taken standalone, intact, as law, you're probably close to right. But
that's not how policies are made politically. What libertarians want
is a movement -away- from the authoritarian style and -toward- the
less-regulated libertarian style of government. I haven't heard a
single libertarian candidate who would completely toss the entire
current workings of government, but there's a whole lot which needs
fixing. Jesus, Ed. You're being far to literal on this issue.


As I said, Stuart, it's a good program for grumblers and for people who
resent all kinds of things that are going on. It's a lousy program for
running a country.


The way you're talking, you seem to think the change from what we have
to what we want would be overnight. That surely wouldn't work. It
would have to be gradual, allowing for all those displaced gov't
employees to find honest work as their worthless agencies are
disbanded. Most could immediately find work in the EU, with their
politically correct fellows, don't you think? snicker


So, you want to bleed the economy to death slowly, rather than all at once.
d8-)


Slowly is much better that fast, as Shrub is doing, eh?

--
"Excess regulation and government spending destroy jobs and increase
unemployment. Every regulator we fire results in the creation of over
150 new jobs, enough to hire the ex-regulator, the unemployed, and
the able-bodied poor." -Michael Badnarik
  #94   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT-143 days


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 06:38:57 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
. ..
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 22:41:41 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

--minor (several hundred line) snippage here--

Stu said:
Well Ed I have come to the belief from watching your postings that you
are
one of the brighter bulbs in this string, but I can't imagine that you
believe that the present path being taken by the Federal and State
governments of increased size and increased borrowing and increased
inefficiency is going to lead to a positive sunny future.

Hardly. I think the economic policies we've followed under Reagan and
Bush
are absolute disasters. And libertarian policies would be even more
extreme,
except that we wouldn't get *any* of it back. With no income taxes,
they'd
be unable to pay debts and they would strangle the infrastructure until
the
economy collapsed for good.

Ed, libertarian principles aren't anarchy and they aren't a total
dismissal of government. They're just a lot more limiting on the
government. I think you're totally overreacting here.


What I've described is the consequences of the libertarian program, Larry,
and they should be no mystery at this point. Libertarians oppose
government
regulation of business. We've seen what happens in the world of finance
when
regulations are too lax; take the regulations off, and you'll just be
clearing the sea lanes for the financial pirates.


Can you say "Ideals tempered by judgment"? I knew you could. Why
haven't you here? Libertarian policies aren't black and white as you
show them, just as Republican and Democrat policies aren't set in
stone.


When you start to "temper" the libertarian program, you wind up with
something else. Call it "conservatism light." The basic ideas of smaller
government, privatization, free trade and laissez-faire are cornerstones of
intellectual conservatism, Larry. Those folks, too, would say their ideals
should be "tempered by judgment." In fact, if you study their program (a big
job; they've had around 230 years to develop it, because it was founded
contemporaneously with the founding of our country -- although in
contradiction to large parts of it), you'll see that it's something like the
supposed libertarian program run through the wringer of experience.

That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it stands
today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would define it, is a
form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that their
opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you need an
agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos, he's surely talking
about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform, because
those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking about the
kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as explained in
detail by Edmund Burke.

I don't want to start a big exegesis of libertarianism and conservatism. My
point here is a lot simpler: It's that the so-called libertarians of today
are, for the most part, grumblers who don't like one thing or another, or
many things, about the way government is going and their solution is to all
but do away with government. They can only do this because they've jumped to
some conclusions based on wishful thinking and a wilfull belief in markets
that is not supported by history. They do this by ignoring the broader
context and by focusing on selected examples. When you point out some
counterexamples, they hedge their idealist, radical theories with
"temperence." Those are the words of an ideologue who hasn't really thought
through to the consequences of his ideology, but who just knows he doesn't
like the way things are.

The bottom line is that, if you were to work out examples of how the
libertarian program would work in practice, issue by issue, and expose it to
the light of history and experience -- issue by issue -- it would come out
about as I've described. It's a bunch of ideas that describe the feelings
and attitudes that drive an important part of politics in the US. As a
program, it's silly and juvenile.

Most adults realize this, which is why the party gets nowhere, and will
never get anywhere. It's useful as an outlet for grumblers who don't want to
get their hands dirty by getting into the real game. Sometimes third parties
have a pernicious effect, when they become spoilers, as the Naderites did in
2000. Otherwise, though, they're a harmless escape valve for discontent.



Libertarians oppose government ownership of property, and an end to
restrictions on cross-national flows of capital. China needs lumber;
they'll
clear-cut the national forests, and it won't take them more than a few
years
to do it. They've already been exploring the purchase or lease of large
tracts of western timberlands.


Show me one Libertarian who has suggested that. I dare you.


That's the point. Most Libertarians haven't considered the fact that it
would be a likely consequence of their program, should they accidentally get
it enacted. d8-)

But under
current politics, vast amounts of timber are already going to Japan,


Under libertarian politics, you could multiply that volume by some large
factor.

...both from USA and CA, and probably other countries. From what I
understand, Japan takes the bark-on logs intact and mills them there.


They'd prefer just to break off a big chunk of North America that produces
trees and sail it to Japan. Barring that, they'll take their trees whole,
thank you, sans limbs and roots



I suppose you know about how current grazing policies have wrecked the
land
and the water in the plains. Take off the regulations, and the plains will
be a desert.

And so on. The entire libertarian program is something that you'd expect
high school students to cook up for a civics class project. It's mindless
of
consequences, and ignorant of the signals and trends that are already
getting us into trouble. It would be hard to imagine a dumber set of
policy
ideas than the ones in the current Libertarian Party platform. As I said,
it's a letter to Santa Claus.


Taken standalone, intact, as law, you're probably close to right. But
that's not how policies are made politically. What libertarians want
is a movement -away- from the authoritarian style and -toward- the
less-regulated libertarian style of government. I haven't heard a
single libertarian candidate who would completely toss the entire
current workings of government, but there's a whole lot which needs
fixing. Jesus, Ed. You're being far to literal on this issue.


I don't know anyone who doesn't think there's "a whole lot which needs
fixing. Jesus..." g But we sure see a lot of categorical dismissal of
government here, by people who describe themselves as libertarians. For
example, Stuart. And you, on a bad day.



As I said, Stuart, it's a good program for grumblers and for people who
resent all kinds of things that are going on. It's a lousy program for
running a country.

The way you're talking, you seem to think the change from what we have
to what we want would be overnight. That surely wouldn't work. It
would have to be gradual, allowing for all those displaced gov't
employees to find honest work as their worthless agencies are
disbanded. Most could immediately find work in the EU, with their
politically correct fellows, don't you think? snicker


So, you want to bleed the economy to death slowly, rather than all at
once.
d8-)


Slowly is much better that fast, as Shrub is doing, eh?


I'll leave that one alone. I'm busy thinking about the new Republican plan
to use whale oil for biofuel, anyway.

--
Ed Huntress


  #95   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,154
Default OT-143 days

On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:37:39 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 06:38:57 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 1 Jul 2008 22:41:41 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:

--minor (several hundred line) snippage here--

Stu said:
Well Ed I have come to the belief from watching your postings that you
are
one of the brighter bulbs in this string, but I can't imagine that you
believe that the present path being taken by the Federal and State
governments of increased size and increased borrowing and increased
inefficiency is going to lead to a positive sunny future.

Hardly. I think the economic policies we've followed under Reagan and
Bush
are absolute disasters. And libertarian policies would be even more
extreme,
except that we wouldn't get *any* of it back. With no income taxes,
they'd
be unable to pay debts and they would strangle the infrastructure until
the
economy collapsed for good.

Ed, libertarian principles aren't anarchy and they aren't a total
dismissal of government. They're just a lot more limiting on the
government. I think you're totally overreacting here.

What I've described is the consequences of the libertarian program, Larry,
and they should be no mystery at this point. Libertarians oppose
government
regulation of business. We've seen what happens in the world of finance
when
regulations are too lax; take the regulations off, and you'll just be
clearing the sea lanes for the financial pirates.


Can you say "Ideals tempered by judgment"? I knew you could. Why
haven't you here? Libertarian policies aren't black and white as you
show them, just as Republican and Democrat policies aren't set in
stone.


When you start to "temper" the libertarian program, you wind up with
something else. Call it "conservatism light." The basic ideas of smaller
government, privatization, free trade and laissez-faire are cornerstones of
intellectual conservatism, Larry. Those folks, too, would say their ideals
should be "tempered by judgment." In fact, if you study their program (a big
job; they've had around 230 years to develop it, because it was founded
contemporaneously with the founding of our country -- although in
contradiction to large parts of it), you'll see that it's something like the
supposed libertarian program run through the wringer of experience.


You're not suggesting that we've achieved perfection after 230 years,
are you, Ed?


That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it stands
today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would define it, is a
form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that their
opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you need an
agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos, he's surely talking
about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform, because
those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking about the
kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as explained in
detail by Edmund Burke.


I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of
information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here.


I don't want to start a big exegesis of libertarianism and conservatism. My
point here is a lot simpler: It's that the so-called libertarians of today
are, for the most part, grumblers who don't like one thing or another, or
many things, about the way government is going and their solution is to all
but do away with government. They can only do this because they've jumped to
some conclusions based on wishful thinking and a wilfull belief in markets
that is not supported by history. They do this by ignoring the broader
context and by focusing on selected examples. When you point out some
counterexamples, they hedge their idealist, radical theories with
"temperence." Those are the words of an ideologue who hasn't really thought
through to the consequences of his ideology, but who just knows he doesn't
like the way things are.


grumble, grumble


The bottom line is that, if you were to work out examples of how the
libertarian program would work in practice, issue by issue, and expose it to
the light of history and experience -- issue by issue -- it would come out
about as I've described. It's a bunch of ideas that describe the feelings
and attitudes that drive an important part of politics in the US. As a
program, it's silly and juvenile.


Well 'Neener, Neener' to you, too.


Most adults realize this, which is why the party gets nowhere, and will
never get anywhere. It's useful as an outlet for grumblers who don't want to
get their hands dirty by getting into the real game. Sometimes third parties
have a pernicious effect, when they become spoilers, as the Naderites did in
2000. Otherwise, though, they're a harmless escape valve for discontent.


We almost did it (made REAL changes) in '92. It scared the holy ****
out of both the Reps and Dems, but it didn't scare them into doing
their jobs or out of further criminal activities. It's a damned shame.


Libertarians oppose government ownership of property, and an end to
restrictions on cross-national flows of capital. China needs lumber;
they'll
clear-cut the national forests, and it won't take them more than a few
years
to do it. They've already been exploring the purchase or lease of large
tracts of western timberlands.


Show me one Libertarian who has suggested that. I dare you.


That's the point. Most Libertarians haven't considered the fact that it
would be a likely consequence of their program, should they accidentally get
it enacted. d8-)


How the **** do I argue with that pretzel logic? sigh You're a
master(ful) debater, Ed.


Taken standalone, intact, as law, you're probably close to right. But
that's not how policies are made politically. What libertarians want
is a movement -away- from the authoritarian style and -toward- the
less-regulated libertarian style of government. I haven't heard a
single libertarian candidate who would completely toss the entire
current workings of government, but there's a whole lot which needs
fixing. Jesus, Ed. You're being far to literal on this issue.


I don't know anyone who doesn't think there's "a whole lot which needs
fixing. Jesus..." g But we sure see a lot of categorical dismissal of
government here, by people who describe themselves as libertarians. For
example, Stuart. And you, on a bad day.


Nah, we're just dismissing various entire sectors of gov't each day,
not the whole enchilada.

--
Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants,
is the liberty of appearing. -- Thomas Paine


  #96   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT-143 days


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:37:39 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:




That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it stands
today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would define it, is
a
form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that their
opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you need an
agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos, he's surely
talking
about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform, because
those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking about
the
kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as explained in
detail by Edmund Burke.


I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of
information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here.


I think I got carried away. I'll relax now. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


  #97   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 719
Default OT-143 days

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:37:39 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:




That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it
stands today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would
define it, is a
form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that
their opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you
need an agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos,
he's surely talking
about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform,
because those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly
talking about the
kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as explained
in detail by Edmund Burke.


I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of
information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here.


I think I got carried away. I'll relax now. d8-)


Grab your copy of the Constitution, a couple gallons of ethanol and harass
the neighborhood spouting the second amendment at 50 or 60 MPH in your go
cart!
You will feel better in no time Ed G

"Stoichiometric", damned Ed, I worked that into so many conversations the
day after seeing it and laughed so hard I can't believe it. What was really
funny was the number of sage nods there were after weavung the word -
completely senslessly mind you - into a technical discussion of the project
I'm on right now. I'll surely catch hell shortly but it was worth it.

Stoichiometric!

--

John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com


  #98   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,475
Default OT-143 days

On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 20:07:43 -0700, the renowned "John R. Carroll"
wrote:

Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:37:39 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:




That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it
stands today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would
define it, is a
form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that
their opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you
need an agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos,
he's surely talking
about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform,
because those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly
talking about the
kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as explained
in detail by Edmund Burke.

I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of
information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here.


I think I got carried away. I'll relax now. d8-)


Grab your copy of the Constitution, a couple gallons of ethanol and harass
the neighborhood spouting the second amendment at 50 or 60 MPH in your go
cart!
You will feel better in no time Ed G

"Stoichiometric", damned Ed, I worked that into so many conversations the
day after seeing it and laughed so hard I can't believe it. What was really
funny was the number of sage nods there were after weavung the word -
completely senslessly mind you - into a technical discussion of the project
I'm on right now. I'll surely catch hell shortly but it was worth it.

Stoichiometric!


Sounds like fun. Tomorrow try 'adiabatic'. I think it would work
wonderfully in business situations. "See, we want our expansion to be
(emphasis) *adiabatic*". (wait for earnest nods)



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
  #99   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 733
Default OT-143 days

Spehro Pefhany wrote:

Sounds like fun. Tomorrow try 'adiabatic'. I think it would work
wonderfully in business situations. "See, we want our expansion to be
(emphasis) *adiabatic*". (wait for earnest nods)



Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany




Sorry Spehro,
Can't let you get by with that one without giving you some heat!

Richard
  #100   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,210
Default OT-143 days

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:47:05 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

tea per day. I wake up and am running at 90% by the time my feet hit
the floor--without any damned drugs, TYVM.



Oh..did I mention I was working at an altitude of 26 feet above floor
level, just a couple feet below the (metal) roof, with an outside temp
of around 99F all day?

A two liter bottle of Mt. Dew, refilled once with water , refilled
again, 2 bottles of Iced tea, 2 Monsters and Ive still not ****ed
yet.

But my clothes go crunch...crunch when I move



  #101   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,210
Default OT-143 days

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:47:05 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 08:41:33 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner Asch quickly quoth:

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 06:28:06 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:


What are a "918 rivette" and "case of Monsters", pray tell?


918 rivett lathe, second ops, with turret, cross slide and a drawer
full of dead length collets, 3 jaw, the manual etc etcetc

http://www.ozarkwoodworker.com/item/...orparts-manua/


How big is that beastie? HxWxL, lbs, etc? What's the jap turret
lathe? (same questions)


Probably 5 wide, 3 high and 3 deep, maybe 500 lbs....wired 440 3ph,
but I think I can set you up with a motor

May not suit yur needs...it is a 2nd ops lathe....shrug

The Jap is about 250 lbs, uses 4c collets, may also not fit your
needs.

Ill hunt you up a Logan 11"

Mini mill? Sieg x2 or x3 for dirt cheap?


Nope...mills are much harder to find.


Hanson's Monster Energy Drink

http://www.monsterenergy.com/


Ah, so; you're a caffeine freak. Is this better than Jolt? I tapered
off caffeine because I hated the caffeine hangovers (as bad as a
migrane) and now drink just 2 cups of coffee (infrequent) or 3 cups of
tea per day. I wake up and am running at 90% by the time my feet hit
the floor--without any damned drugs, TYVM.


Im old, tired and out of sorts, and often sore as hell when I wake up.

Example...

I got off work tonight..er this morning rather..at 2:30am then drove
back 35 minutes to the RV.

After spending all ****ing day wiring up a 5 ton overhead crane,
conduit, sub, disconnect, which in the process my Delta sawzall
stripped its gears, my favorite 3 watt LED flashlight went tits up...I
finally powered up the hoist..ran it up and down 2 times and on the
3rd lift, I short stroked it, as ignorant villagers for whom broken
English is a second language at best...will do.. and it
inconvieniently belched out a puff of magic smoke with a loud CRACK
and a flash, blew all the breakersin a line out to a 200 amp sub (460
volts)..and welding one relay partially closed, blew out 2 of the 3
connector pins from the plug in power leads..welding them into the
females and blowing them out of the male socket.

The 20 amp breaker its tied to did trip, but the 200 amp 460 sub did
also...

Best as I can figure..up and down contactors engaged
simultainiously...or one stuck......

Brand spanking new 5 ton electric hoist. Brand rhymes with Net.

All this today, so they could unload the 8' x 19' stainless steel
tanks that are coming in in the morning for the internals to be welded
in....made mucho phone calls at 2:30 am to voice mails, hoping they
could cancel the delivery trucks carrying the tanks...cause there is
no way to unload them.

They are so ****ed.......

Anyways...its 4:37 am..Im still ****ed off as hell, sucking on a cig,
with a Monster at hand, thinking about taking a cold shower (ran out
of propane here at the RV sometime today) and have to be back at the
clients shop at 9am to give him the details.

Anywho, who sells cases cheap?


Sams Club. About $15 for a 24 can, case.

--Your Frugal Friend

  #102   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,154
Default OT-143 days

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:55:28 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner quickly quoth:

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:47:05 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

tea per day. I wake up and am running at 90% by the time my feet hit
the floor--without any damned drugs, TYVM.



Oh..did I mention I was working at an altitude of 26 feet above floor
level, just a couple feet below the (metal) roof, with an outside temp
of around 99F all day?


It sounds like you're wiring another machine shop this month.

BUT...Are you wearing a hat? How about a cool-tie (wet scarf?) Both
help immensely in the summer under those conditions. That said, I
wonder if DoN ever made his last month.


A two liter bottle of Mt. Dew, refilled once with water , refilled
again, 2 bottles of Iced tea, 2 Monsters and Ive still not ****ed
yet.

But my clothes go crunch...crunch when I move


And you just crinkle a sleeve over your french fries for extra salt,
right? BTDT.

Take a 5gal cooler filled with cool water. It's much, much better on
your system than icy, sugary, caffeinated crap, G-mon.

--
Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants,
is the liberty of appearing. -- Thomas Paine
  #103   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,154
Default OT-143 days

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:56:13 -0700, with neither quill nor qualm,
Gunner quickly quoth:

On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:47:05 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:


How big is that beastie? HxWxL, lbs, etc? What's the jap turret
lathe? (same questions)


Probably 5 wide, 3 high and 3 deep, maybe 500 lbs....wired 440 3ph,
but I think I can set you up with a motor


Eek! Too big.


May not suit yur needs...it is a 2nd ops lathe....shrug

The Jap is about 250 lbs, uses 4c collets, may also not fit your
needs.

Ill hunt you up a Logan 11"


That doesn't sound "mini" to me.


Mini mill? Sieg x2 or x3 for dirt cheap?


Nope...mills are much harder to find.


I've had a definite need for a mill half a dozen times but can't think
of a time where I needed a lathe, other than for wood. The mill is
first on my list...after cleaning out that shop so I can breathe in
there without hitting something on all sides.


Hanson's Monster Energy Drink

http://www.monsterenergy.com/


Ah, so; you're a caffeine freak. Is this better than Jolt? I tapered
off caffeine because I hated the caffeine hangovers (as bad as a
migrane) and now drink just 2 cups of coffee (infrequent) or 3 cups of
tea per day. I wake up and am running at 90% by the time my feet hit
the floor--without any damned drugs, TYVM.


Im old, tired and out of sorts, and often sore as hell when I wake up.


I know. I'm 54, too; 55 on Aug 5th. But I'm not out of sorts when I
wake up. Morning is my brightest and clearest time and I love it. I
haven't yet had time to beat up my body and wear out my mind. g


Example...

I got off work tonight..er this morning rather..at 2:30am then drove
back 35 minutes to the RV.

After spending all ****ing day wiring up a 5 ton overhead crane,
conduit, sub, disconnect, which in the process my Delta sawzall
stripped its gears, my favorite 3 watt LED flashlight went tits up...I
finally powered up the hoist..ran it up and down 2 times and on the
3rd lift, I short stroked it, as ignorant villagers for whom broken
English is a second language at best...will do.. and it
inconvieniently belched out a puff of magic smoke with a loud CRACK
and a flash, blew all the breakersin a line out to a 200 amp sub (460
volts)..and welding one relay partially closed, blew out 2 of the 3
connector pins from the plug in power leads..welding them into the
females and blowing them out of the male socket.

The 20 amp breaker its tied to did trip, but the 200 amp 460 sub did
also...

Best as I can figure..up and down contactors engaged
simultainiously...or one stuck......

Brand spanking new 5 ton electric hoist. Brand rhymes with Net.

All this today, so they could unload the 8' x 19' stainless steel
tanks that are coming in in the morning for the internals to be welded
in....made mucho phone calls at 2:30 am to voice mails, hoping they
could cancel the delivery trucks carrying the tanks...cause there is
no way to unload them.

They are so ****ed.......

Anyways...its 4:37 am..Im still ****ed off as hell, sucking on a cig,
with a Monster at hand, thinking about taking a cold shower (ran out
of propane here at the RV sometime today) and have to be back at the
clients shop at 9am to give him the details.


I had a better day than you did yesterday. I did a short freebie job
for my Hawaiian client and she's going to send me a nice gift basket
in return. Otherwise, it was dead and I stayed in the air-conditioned
house all day, away from the heat and all that California smoke. The
Happy Camp fire is very close and blowing into Oregon this week.

Work is DEAD up here right now. I've had two calls all week. One was
from a drunk who wanted to find 1/4" hardware cloth. The other was
from a guy who wanted a quote for his insurance company for putting in
a new mailbox. He also stated that if I didn't hear back from him, it
was probably because he was going to install it himself. sigh


--
Such is the irresistible nature of truth that all it asks, and all it wants,
is the liberty of appearing. -- Thomas Paine
  #104   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT-143 days


"John R. Carroll" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:
"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 2 Jul 2008 12:37:39 -0400, with neither quill nor qualm, "Ed
Huntress" quickly quoth:




That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it
stands today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would
define it, is a
form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that
their opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you
need an agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos,
he's surely talking
about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform,
because those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly
talking about the
kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as explained
in detail by Edmund Burke.

I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of
information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here.


I think I got carried away. I'll relax now. d8-)


Grab your copy of the Constitution, a couple gallons of ethanol and harass
the neighborhood spouting the second amendment at 50 or 60 MPH in your go
cart!
You will feel better in no time Ed G

"Stoichiometric", damned Ed, I worked that into so many conversations the
day after seeing it and laughed so hard I can't believe it. What was
really
funny was the number of sage nods there were after weavung the word -
completely senslessly mind you - into a technical discussion of the
project
I'm on right now. I'll surely catch hell shortly but it was worth it.

Stoichiometric!


A good word. Wait 'till you try it at a bar, when trying to describe to the
bartender how to make the perfect Martini.

--
Ed Huntress


  #105   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,355
Default OT-143 days

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner
wrote on Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:55:28
-0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:47:05 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

tea per day. I wake up and am running at 90% by the time my feet hit
the floor--without any damned drugs, TYVM.



Oh..did I mention I was working at an altitude of 26 feet above floor
level, just a couple feet below the (metal) roof, with an outside temp
of around 99F all day?

A two liter bottle of Mt. Dew, refilled once with water , refilled
again, 2 bottles of Iced tea, 2 Monsters and Ive still not ****ed
yet.

But my clothes go crunch...crunch when I move


Under similar conditions, the instructions were "Drink the cup of
Gatorade. If it tastes good, keep drinking until it no longer does."

You may substitute you preferred electrolyte rich fluid of choice.

pyotr

"Hydrate or Die!" - to use another old expression.
--
pyotr filipivich
"I had just been through hell and must have looked like death warmed
over walking into the saloon, because when I asked the bartender
whether they served zombies he said, ‘Sure, what'll you have?'"
from I Hear America Swinging by Peter DeVries


  #106   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 1,210
Default OT-143 days

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:24:00 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner
wrote on Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:55:28
-0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:47:05 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

tea per day. I wake up and am running at 90% by the time my feet hit
the floor--without any damned drugs, TYVM.



Oh..did I mention I was working at an altitude of 26 feet above floor
level, just a couple feet below the (metal) roof, with an outside temp
of around 99F all day?

A two liter bottle of Mt. Dew, refilled once with water , refilled
again, 2 bottles of Iced tea, 2 Monsters and Ive still not ****ed
yet.

But my clothes go crunch...crunch when I move


Under similar conditions, the instructions were "Drink the cup of
Gatorade. If it tastes good, keep drinking until it no longer does."

You may substitute you preferred electrolyte rich fluid of choice.

pyotr

"Hydrate or Die!" - to use another old expression.


Indeed. I had a couple in there as well.

Survivalist, remember?

G

GUnner

  #107   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,154
Default OT-143 days

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:24:00 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
pyotr filipivich quickly quoth:

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner
wrote on Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:55:28
-0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:47:05 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

tea per day. I wake up and am running at 90% by the time my feet hit
the floor--without any damned drugs, TYVM.



Oh..did I mention I was working at an altitude of 26 feet above floor
level, just a couple feet below the (metal) roof, with an outside temp
of around 99F all day?

A two liter bottle of Mt. Dew, refilled once with water , refilled
again, 2 bottles of Iced tea, 2 Monsters and Ive still not ****ed
yet.

But my clothes go crunch...crunch when I move


Under similar conditions, the instructions were "Drink the cup of
Gatorade. If it tastes good, keep drinking until it no longer does."

You may substitute you preferred electrolyte rich fluid of choice.


Electrolytes are one thing. Gatorade is sugar (+ carbohydrates with a
few stray electrolytes) and water. Gatorade and the so-called "energy
drinks" are as bad for you as most "power bars", which are sugar and
oats with a few nuts and raisins tossed in for "natural" ingredients.
What a freakin' scam!

Most fruit juices on market shelves are dosed heavily with sugar, too.

What I do: Eat more salty foods (natural, not processed) and drink
lots of water during the hot months. Honest electrolytes are good,
too, but expensive. (Hmmm, Pedialyte 4/$9, I guess not much more than
sports drinks, huh? Medicinal elecrolytes are much higher.)

Non-adiabatic exercise creates an imbalance of the intracellular and
extracellular milieu. Water and salt help bring the body into
homeostasis (a sort of liquid stochiometry) without undue hormonal
flow.

Got it? bseg

--
Honor unto death, or at least unto discomfort.
  #108   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,924
Default OT-143 days


Gunner wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:24:00 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner
wrote on Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:55:28
-0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:47:05 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

tea per day. I wake up and am running at 90% by the time my feet hit
the floor--without any damned drugs, TYVM.


Oh..did I mention I was working at an altitude of 26 feet above floor
level, just a couple feet below the (metal) roof, with an outside temp
of around 99F all day?

A two liter bottle of Mt. Dew, refilled once with water , refilled
again, 2 bottles of Iced tea, 2 Monsters and Ive still not ****ed
yet.

But my clothes go crunch...crunch when I move


Under similar conditions, the instructions were "Drink the cup of
Gatorade. If it tastes good, keep drinking until it no longer does."

You may substitute you preferred electrolyte rich fluid of choice.

pyotr

"Hydrate or Die!" - to use another old expression.


Indeed. I had a couple in there as well.

Survivalist, remember?



Do you have any idea how many gators go into a gallon of Gatorade?


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.
  #109   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,924
Default OT-143 days


Larry Jaques wrote:

I know. I'm 54, too; 55 on Aug 5th. But I'm not out of sorts when I
wake up. Morning is my brightest and clearest time and I love it. I
haven't yet had time to beat up my body and wear out my mind. g



My birthday is on Aug 5th, too. I shared it with an uncle who died a
few years ago. I used to start work at 4) AM, and work till noon,
when it got too hot in the metal building. The AC hadn't been installed
yet, so it was a good compromise. I was the only one around for the
first five hours, and I could concentrate on wiring the TV station I was
building.


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.
  #110   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 410
Default OT-143 days

Gunner wrote:
On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:24:00 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner
wrote on Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:55:28
-0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:47:05 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

tea per day. I wake up and am running at 90% by the time my feet hit
the floor--without any damned drugs, TYVM.

Oh..did I mention I was working at an altitude of 26 feet above floor
level, just a couple feet below the (metal) roof, with an outside temp
of around 99F all day?

A two liter bottle of Mt. Dew, refilled once with water , refilled
again, 2 bottles of Iced tea, 2 Monsters and Ive still not ****ed
yet.

But my clothes go crunch...crunch when I move

Under similar conditions, the instructions were "Drink the cup of
Gatorade. If it tastes good, keep drinking until it no longer does."

You may substitute you preferred electrolyte rich fluid of choice.

pyotr

"Hydrate or Die!" - to use another old expression.


Indeed. I had a couple in there as well.

Survivalist, remember?


Drink a lot of citrus juice and it increases your heat tolerance almost
immediately. try it.


  #111   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 658
Default OT-143 days



That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it stands
today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would define it,

is
a
form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that their
opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you need an
agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos, he's surely
talking
about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform, because
those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking about
the
kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as explained in
detail by Edmund Burke.


I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of
information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here.


I think I got carried away. I'll relax now. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress



Hey, way to go Ed. You sat on a Libertarian and made him give, you bully. I
think that's a first. The fact that he agreed to bow to your logic was a
real triumph. Usually when you give a Libertarian/Conservative a thumping by
argument all they do is go away mad, start a fight, or call you some names,
like Gunner would. You also nailed Libertarianism. It's not realistic. It's
for complainers. They don't like the way things are now; with that we can
all agree. But instead of coming up with real and feasible ways of making
concrete changes all they can come up with is to throw out the baby with the
bath water. But that explains why that party will never be anything more
than a blip on the radar. As long as it can't come up with real alternatives
to the status quo that might actually work it'll stay irrelevant. However,
as Americans we all have at least some measure of Libertarian in us though
it may be really, really small.

Hawke


  #112   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT-143 days


"Hawke" wrote in message
...


That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it
stands
today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would define it,

is
a
form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that their
opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you need an
agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos, he's surely
talking
about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform,
because
those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking about
the
kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as explained in
detail by Edmund Burke.

I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of
information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here.


I think I got carried away. I'll relax now. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress



Hey, way to go Ed. You sat on a Libertarian and made him give, you bully.
I
think that's a first. The fact that he agreed to bow to your logic was a
real triumph. Usually when you give a Libertarian/Conservative a thumping
by
argument all they do is go away mad, start a fight, or call you some
names,
like Gunner would. You also nailed Libertarianism. It's not realistic.
It's
for complainers. They don't like the way things are now; with that we can
all agree. But instead of coming up with real and feasible ways of making
concrete changes all they can come up with is to throw out the baby with
the
bath water. But that explains why that party will never be anything more
than a blip on the radar. As long as it can't come up with real
alternatives
to the status quo that might actually work it'll stay irrelevant. However,
as Americans we all have at least some measure of Libertarian in us though
it may be really, really small.

Hawke


Now, don't get carried away. The impulse behind libertarianism is a
perfectly good one. It's the thought that's lacking.

--
Ed Huntress


  #113   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,502
Default OT-143 days

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:27:58 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:


Gunner wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 07:24:00 -0800, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I missed the Staff meeting, but the Memos showed that Gunner
wrote on Thu, 03 Jul 2008 04:55:28
-0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Tue, 01 Jul 2008 14:47:05 -0700, Larry Jaques
wrote:

tea per day. I wake up and am running at 90% by the time my feet hit
the floor--without any damned drugs, TYVM.


Oh..did I mention I was working at an altitude of 26 feet above floor
level, just a couple feet below the (metal) roof, with an outside temp
of around 99F all day?

A two liter bottle of Mt. Dew, refilled once with water , refilled
again, 2 bottles of Iced tea, 2 Monsters and Ive still not ****ed
yet.

But my clothes go crunch...crunch when I move

Under similar conditions, the instructions were "Drink the cup of
Gatorade. If it tastes good, keep drinking until it no longer does."

You may substitute you preferred electrolyte rich fluid of choice.

pyotr

"Hydrate or Die!" - to use another old expression.


Indeed. I had a couple in there as well.

Survivalist, remember?



Do you have any idea how many gators go into a gallon of Gatorade?



42



"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the
name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program
until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it
happened." -- Norman Thomas, American socialist
  #114   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 311
Default OT-143 days

Ed Huntress wrote:


Now, don't get carried away. The impulse behind libertarianism is a
perfectly good one. It's the thought that's lacking.


Many philosophies of governance seem to ignore or deny that those who
rise to positions of power and influence (both in government and in the
governed society) are capable of abusing the system and the other people
in the society. The other philosophies tend to deny that most people
are inclined to honesty and even altruism.

As the constitution was conceived, it seems to emphasize individual
freedom and liberty until that freedom interferes with another person's
freedom and liberty, at which point a court can step in and weigh the
relative burdens on each person's freedoms.

Governments also exist to represent the whole of the community, since a
company might claim the freedom to dump dioxin in the river, and it
would be hard to show that the dioxin represented harm for any given
person, but easy to make a case that it presents a risk to all of society.

Stuart
  #115   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 112
Default OT-143 days


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it
stands
today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would define
it,

is
a
form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that
their
opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you need an
agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos, he's surely
talking
about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform,
because
those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking
about
the
kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as explained in
detail by Edmund Burke.

I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of
information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here.

I think I got carried away. I'll relax now. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress



Hey, way to go Ed. You sat on a Libertarian and made him give, you bully.
I
think that's a first. The fact that he agreed to bow to your logic was a
real triumph. Usually when you give a Libertarian/Conservative a thumping
by
argument all they do is go away mad, start a fight, or call you some
names,
like Gunner would. You also nailed Libertarianism. It's not realistic.
It's
for complainers. They don't like the way things are now; with that we can
all agree. But instead of coming up with real and feasible ways of making
concrete changes all they can come up with is to throw out the baby with
the
bath water. But that explains why that party will never be anything more
than a blip on the radar. As long as it can't come up with real
alternatives
to the status quo that might actually work it'll stay irrelevant.
However,
as Americans we all have at least some measure of Libertarian in us
though
it may be really, really small.

Hawke


Now, don't get carried away. The impulse behind libertarianism is a
perfectly good one. It's the thought that's lacking.


Ed: You criticize the Libertarians for the lack of thinking thru their
ideas. Where is there any evidence that the other parties have thought thru
their ideas? The present method of dealing with problems is called "Knee
Jerk". I'll repeat what has been ignored: Get on the internet and look into
the Democrat and Republican parties. Try to find a statement of philosophy.
The Libertarian party is the only one willing to state theirs clearly. I'm
not an registered Libertarian, but I'm sure a supporter of smaller less
intrusive government.
Ed: You don't like monopolies. I agree they tend to run away with
themselves in an unbridled manner. The Federal, State, County and to a
lesser extent even City governments are simply monopolies. They have no
competition. They are not held accountable by any other than themselves for
their actions. I wish I had a job where I could vote myself pay raises and
create my own retirement system that someone else pays for. No it has been
said that no alternatives have been proffered. Wrong. Ron Paul offered up
some alternatives, granted not all would be acceptable or work, but he
evened offered a method to fix that: Constitutional Amendment. His ideas of
restricting the government to those powers granted by the Constitution would
be a big step in the right direction to at least curtail some of the Federal
Governements monopolistic behaviours presently viewed as the way of doing
business. What do the Centrists offer to get us out of our current Morass?
It seems their technique is to wait and see what happens.

Stu

Ed Huntress





  #116   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT-143 days


"Stuart & Kathryn Fields" wrote in message
.. .

"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it
stands
today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would define
it,
is
a
form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that
their
opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you need an
agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos, he's surely
talking
about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform,
because
those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking
about
the
kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as explained
in
detail by Edmund Burke.

I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of
information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here.

I think I got carried away. I'll relax now. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


Hey, way to go Ed. You sat on a Libertarian and made him give, you
bully. I
think that's a first. The fact that he agreed to bow to your logic was a
real triumph. Usually when you give a Libertarian/Conservative a
thumping by
argument all they do is go away mad, start a fight, or call you some
names,
like Gunner would. You also nailed Libertarianism. It's not realistic.
It's
for complainers. They don't like the way things are now; with that we
can
all agree. But instead of coming up with real and feasible ways of
making
concrete changes all they can come up with is to throw out the baby with
the
bath water. But that explains why that party will never be anything more
than a blip on the radar. As long as it can't come up with real
alternatives
to the status quo that might actually work it'll stay irrelevant.
However,
as Americans we all have at least some measure of Libertarian in us
though
it may be really, really small.

Hawke


Now, don't get carried away. The impulse behind libertarianism is a
perfectly good one. It's the thought that's lacking.


Ed: You criticize the Libertarians for the lack of thinking thru their
ideas. Where is there any evidence that the other parties have thought
thru their ideas?


Over 200 years of successful governance. And if you don't think it's been
successful, compare our legal, economic, and other situations with those of
almost any other country.

The present method of dealing with problems is called "Knee Jerk". I'll
repeat what has been ignored: Get on the internet and look into the
Democrat and Republican parties. Try to find a statement of philosophy.


Thank God, they really don't have one, beyond a few things that might better
be called attitudes.

The Libertarian party is the only one willing to state theirs clearly.


Deliver us from ideologues who have a philosophy. Philosophy is for college
classes and books. When it comes to governance, it's a prescription for
disaster. Every time. No exceptions.

I'm not an registered Libertarian, but I'm sure a supporter of smaller
less intrusive government.


So is 90% of the US population -- until you try to make *their* favorite
project smaller.

Ed: You don't like monopolies. I agree they tend to run away with
themselves in an unbridled manner. The Federal, State, County and to a
lesser extent even City governments are simply monopolies.


No, they're democratically elected governments. That's the exact opposite of
a monopoly. You can get rid of them as easily as by voting them out. That's
our job.

They have no competition.


Of course they do -- every politician who wants their job is a competitor.

They are not held accountable by any other than themselves for their
actions.


That's why we have a tripartite government with a distribution of powers and
an institutionalized system of checks and balances.

I wish I had a job where I could vote myself pay raises and create my own
retirement system that someone else pays for.


So do I. d8-)

No it has been said that no alternatives have been proffered. Wrong.
Ron Paul offered up some alternatives, granted not all would be acceptable
or work, but he evened offered a method to fix that:


Ron Paul is a half-baked crackpot who should stay in Arizona, where nothing
destructive that he could do matters very much. If he goes out in the sun
much, maybe he'll be fully baked some day.

Constitutional Amendment. His ideas of restricting the government to those
powers granted by the Constitution would be a big step in the right
direction to at least curtail some of the Federal Governements
monopolistic behaviours presently viewed as the way of doing business.


Bull.

What do the Centrists offer...


Government that works.

...to get us out of our current Morass?


What morass? Are you starving? Are you threatened by some other country? Did
you have to sell your children into slavery? What in the hell are you
talking about, "morass"?

It seems their technique is to wait and see what happens.

Stu


What are you, a radical who has a program for overturning tradition? g Of
course it's to wait and see what happens.

What is it you want, Stu? Is it 6,000-pound, 6-liter SUVs and pickup trucks
forever? A McMansion for everyone, with a 40-mile commute? Didn't you
realize 10 years ago, or even 20 years ago, that we were sliding downhill on
a waterslide into a swamp?

We get caught by our own wretched excess from time to time. That's the
product of a hot economy and an....uh, expansive attitude. That's the US. It
means we'll swing up and down, and drive ourselves silly, probably forever.
I happen to like the system, and the people in it, silly or not.

But spare us the talk about "morass." There is no morass. There is only the
roller coaster. Hang on tight.

--
Ed Huntress


  #117   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT-143 days


"Stuart Wheaton" wrote in message
...
Ed Huntress wrote:


Now, don't get carried away. The impulse behind libertarianism is a
perfectly good one. It's the thought that's lacking.


Many philosophies of governance seem to ignore or deny that those who rise
to positions of power and influence (both in government and in the
governed society) are capable of abusing the system and the other people
in the society. The other philosophies tend to deny that most people are
inclined to honesty and even altruism.

As the constitution was conceived, it seems to emphasize individual
freedom and liberty until that freedom interferes with another person's
freedom and liberty, at which point a court can step in and weigh the
relative burdens on each person's freedoms.


OK, that's a good basic description.


Governments also exist to represent the whole of the community, since a
company might claim the freedom to dump dioxin in the river, and it would
be hard to show that the dioxin represented harm for any given person, but
easy to make a case that it presents a risk to all of society.

Stuart


Then what the polluter has to do is to get a good lobbying firm. That worked
for decades. We'll see how much longer it works. My feeling is that there
are too many watchdogs, and there is too much Internet, for that to go on
forever.

However, it does work both ways, as we've seen with global warming. If
there's a perceived public interest in ignoring the facts, the facts will be
turned upside down and pseudo-facts inserted into the equation. For example,
there's Larry... d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


  #118   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,924
Default OT-143 days


Gunner Asch wrote:

On Thu, 03 Jul 2008 14:27:58 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
wrote:

Do you have any idea how many gators go into a gallon of Gatorade?


42



Correct. Give that man a cigar! ;-)


--
http://improve-usenet.org/index.html

If you have broadband, your ISP may have a NNTP news server included in
your account: http://www.usenettools.net/ISP.htm

Sporadic E is the Earth's aluminum foil beanie for the 'global warming'
sheep.
  #119   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2,502
Default OT-143 days

On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 07:51:35 -0700, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...

"Hawke" wrote in message
...


That's categorically different from the libertarian program as it
stands
today. Libertarianism, as an intellectual conservative would define
it,
is
a
form of radicalism (and intellectual conservatives recognize that
their
opposites are radicals, not liberals). When Stuart says you need an
agreement on some fundamental principles to avoid chaos, he's surely
talking
about some things that are not part of the Libertarian platform,
because
those things aren't there. In fact, he's almost certainly talking
about
the
kinds of principle upon which conservatism is founded, as explained in
detail by Edmund Burke.

I can tell that I don't have the historical or political depth of
information that you do, Ed, so I'll just bow out here.

I think I got carried away. I'll relax now. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress


Hey, way to go Ed. You sat on a Libertarian and made him give, you bully.
I
think that's a first. The fact that he agreed to bow to your logic was a
real triumph. Usually when you give a Libertarian/Conservative a thumping
by
argument all they do is go away mad, start a fight, or call you some
names,
like Gunner would. You also nailed Libertarianism. It's not realistic.
It's
for complainers. They don't like the way things are now; with that we can
all agree. But instead of coming up with real and feasible ways of making
concrete changes all they can come up with is to throw out the baby with
the
bath water. But that explains why that party will never be anything more
than a blip on the radar. As long as it can't come up with real
alternatives
to the status quo that might actually work it'll stay irrelevant.
However,
as Americans we all have at least some measure of Libertarian in us
though
it may be really, really small.

Hawke


Now, don't get carried away. The impulse behind libertarianism is a
perfectly good one. It's the thought that's lacking.


Ed: You criticize the Libertarians for the lack of thinking thru their
ideas. Where is there any evidence that the other parties have thought thru
their ideas? The present method of dealing with problems is called "Knee
Jerk". I'll repeat what has been ignored: Get on the internet and look into
the Democrat and Republican parties. Try to find a statement of philosophy.
The Libertarian party is the only one willing to state theirs clearly. I'm
not an registered Libertarian, but I'm sure a supporter of smaller less
intrusive government.
Ed: You don't like monopolies. I agree they tend to run away with
themselves in an unbridled manner. The Federal, State, County and to a
lesser extent even City governments are simply monopolies. They have no
competition. They are not held accountable by any other than themselves for
their actions. I wish I had a job where I could vote myself pay raises and
create my own retirement system that someone else pays for. No it has been
said that no alternatives have been proffered. Wrong. Ron Paul offered up
some alternatives, granted not all would be acceptable or work, but he
evened offered a method to fix that: Constitutional Amendment. His ideas of
restricting the government to those powers granted by the Constitution would
be a big step in the right direction to at least curtail some of the Federal
Governements monopolistic behaviours presently viewed as the way of doing
business. What do the Centrists offer to get us out of our current Morass?
It seems their technique is to wait and see what happens.

Stu

Hear Hear!!



"The American people will never knowingly adopt socialism, but under the
name of liberalism they will adopt every fragment of the socialist program
until one day America will be a socialist nation without ever knowing how it
happened." -- Norman Thomas, American socialist
  #120   Report Post  
Posted to rec.crafts.metalworking
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 12,529
Default OT-143 days


"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 4 Jul 2008 07:51:35 -0700, "Stuart & Kathryn Fields"
wrote:


snip

What do the Centrists offer to get us out of our current Morass?
It seems their technique is to wait and see what happens.

Stu

Hear Hear!!


That's the trouble, Gunner. You only hear half the story, so you have mostly
half-assed opinions.

--
Ed Huntress


Reply
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules

Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
O/T: It' Been One Of Those days Lew Hodgett[_2_] Woodworking 12 May 2nd 08 11:57 PM
Win XP goes off after 30 days [email protected] Electronics Repair 33 March 5th 08 02:30 AM
Is everything around $400 these days? MRS. CLEAN Home Repair 8 November 6th 06 09:29 PM
Those were the days! bobandcarole Electronics Repair 12 September 18th 06 07:39 PM
$759,350.00 in 20 to 60 days!!!!!!!!! arfykins Woodturning 0 March 19th 05 01:01 AM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 02:54 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 DIYbanter.
The comments are property of their posters.
 

About Us

"It's about DIY & home improvement"