"Frank J Warner" wrote in message
news:241020091906288366%warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon .net...
snip

-Frank

--
Here's some of my work:
http://www.franksknives.com

Very nice looking knives! I saw that you used some D2, does that make a
good blade? I've been wanting to attempt to make a blade from D2 sometime,
thought it might hold an edge good.

RogerN

Hawke wrote:
You're also mistaken thinking that pretense is something confined to
liberals. I can cite you scads of republicans just like that. It makes
no sense to make accusations about one party when the facts show the
other is just as guilty. All that shows is a personal bias.

Hawke

Hawke, Just a comment on your statement:
You are implying that "liberal" equals "Democrat" and that
"republican" is something other.
In my opinion, with lots of observed instances, there are
almost as many "liberal" Republicans as there are Democrats.
ie. please don't mix the two dominant political parties up
with the principles of liberalism and conservatism.
:-(

Lewis Hartswick wrote:
Hawke wrote:
You're also mistaken thinking that pretense is something confined to
liberals. I can cite you scads of republicans just like that. It makes
no sense to make accusations about one party when the facts show the
other is just as guilty. All that shows is a personal bias.

Hawke

Hawke, Just a comment on your statement:
You are implying that "liberal" equals "Democrat" and that
"republican" is something other.
In my opinion, with lots of observed instances, there are
almost as many "liberal" Republicans as there are Democrats.
ie. please don't mix the two dominant political parties up
with the principles of liberalism and conservatism.
:-(


I'm not. It's customary to equate liberal with Democrats and
conservative with republicans. While there are conservative and moderate
Democrats and some moderate republicans they are quite small minorities
in those parties. For example, I doubt you can find a single "liberal"
republican even though you said there are lots of them, but you do find
quite a few conservative Democrats. The bottom line is there are
exceptions to the rule of Democrats=liberal, republicans=conservative.
But as a general rule those labels work pretty well. When I comment as
if this connection is always valid it should be known that there are
always plenty of exceptions to it and it doesn't apply to all.

Hawke

"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
...
On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 08:59:48 GMT, the infamous "Harold and Susan
Vordos" scrawled the following:


"RogerN" wrote in message
news:icadncvSH4j1Cn7XnZ2dnUVZ_jidnZ2d@earthlink. com...

"Harold and Susan Vordos" wrote in message
...

"Buerste" wrote in message
...
snip---

You are not an atheist, you are an antitheist. Atheists don't carry
the
hate baggage.

That's not hate baggage----it's wisdom.

Harold

Off Off Topic:

Harold, did you ever get anywhere with the CNC machine you were
considering?

RogerN



Got the CNC. It's sitting in the RV storage portion of my shop, but I'm
not
anywhere near ready to start learning. I'll move it to the shop and set
it
up permanently when I finish building our house, which should be sometime
around the middle of some year! :-)

Thanks for asking.

By the way, it's a HAAS TM-1, built in 2004.

Y'know, if you set it up and knocked out several runs of 100 of
something, it'd pay for the laborers to finish your house for you, and
you could oversee every step without the added sweat. Just a thought.

If you understood how I feel about machining, you likely wouldn't think
that's a good idea. I run machines because they are a means to an end.
I don't enjoy the process, and wouldn't run them for gain, even at gun
point. That's why I closed the doors on what was a very successful machine
shop.

(I know, good laborers are hard to find.)

No, not hard----impossible. I have hired very little of the work that
has been accomplished. What little I have hired has been a problem. Like
having to remove and replace roughly 40% of the screws that hold the rain
gutter in place-----due to morons that can't seem to find the end of the
roof trusses when they are exposed.

I am not willing to settle for inferior workmanship, which, from all
appearances, appears to be the norm of late, and the reason I insist that
most workmen are overpaid. Worse yet, they have no pride, nor a concept
of doing a job well.

I tend to reject offers of help, secure in the knowledge that those that
want to aren't capable of delivering what I desire, good workmanship.

Harold

--
The only reason I would take up exercising is
so that I could hear heavy breathing again.

"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Buerste wrote:
"Hawke" wrote in message
...
Buerste wrote:
"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip
I rarely joke without letting you know that I'm joking. This is not a
joke. If you have some evidence to support what you're saying, let's
hear it.

One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing group" of the non-religious, would be noticeable among a group
that's grown in numbers by 20,000,000 people over the last 18 years.

--
Ed Huntress

As usual you are trying the "Ed Twist" of what I said. Let me quote.

-"You are completely leaving out antitheists. They take the view that
theism
-is dangerous and destructive. Their hatred of religion is proactive,
often
-organized, often violent and craving power. THIS is the fastest
growing
-group of non-religious and in many ways can be considered a
"religion".
-Think of them as radical secularists bordering on fanatical
terrorists.

And somehow you extracted this:

"One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing
group" of the non-religious"

Now, your manipulations confuse me. Do you want to discuss the growth
of "antitheists" or "violent antitheists"? I know you would prefer to
change the meaning of my post, as usual, but... Either that or I'm a
****ty communicator, or you're a ****ty reader. Take your pick.

I'm going with you're a ****ty communicator.



Hawke

I freely admit that. I have never pretended to be intelligent or a
wordsmith. I'm blessed by occasionally being mechanically clever or
lucky and sometimes think clearly. I never have the arrogant, liberal
pretence that everything I think, do or say is dripping with wisdom.

You're also mistaken thinking that pretense is something confined to
liberals. I can cite you scads of republicans just like that. It makes no
sense to make accusations about one party when the facts show the other is
just as guilty. All that shows is a personal bias.

Hawke

Very well said! In fact...dripping with wisdom!

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 07:09:51 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip

I rarely joke without letting you know that I'm joking. This is not a
joke. If you have some evidence to support what you're saying, let's hear
it.

One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing group" of the non-religious, would be noticeable among a group
that's grown in numbers by 20,000,000 people over the last 18 years.

--
Ed Huntress


As usual you are trying the "Ed Twist" of what I said. Let me quote.

-"You are completely leaving out antitheists. They take the view that
theism
-is dangerous and destructive. Their hatred of religion is proactive, often
-organized, often violent and craving power. THIS is the fastest growing
-group of non-religious and in many ways can be considered a "religion".
-Think of them as radical secularists bordering on fanatical terrorists.

And somehow you extracted this:

"One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing
group" of the non-religious"

Now, your manipulations confuse me. Do you want to discuss the growth of
"antitheists" or "violent antitheists"? I know you would prefer to change
the meaning of my post, as usual, but... Either that or I'm a ****ty
communicator, or you're a ****ty reader. Take your pick.

Its Ed's reading comprehension issues mixed with his desire to be picked
on by those better than he is.

Ive noticed a tendency for Leftists to read what they want into
something quite different.

Ed is no different.

Gunner

And the radical right-wing paternalistic anti-intellectual god-squad
will fan the flames of ignorance and ideological hatred against anyone
who attempts to make them think. I've seen you twist words and fail to
read EXACTLY what was posted, Gunner. You have your hard-held beliefs
and anyone who tries to change your mind is ignorant, evil, stupid,
leftist, communist, whatever. Arguing with you is like ****ing upwind.

--
Tin Lizzie
"Elephant: A mouse built to government specifications."-Lazarus Long

On Sun, 25 Oct 2009 22:08:19 -0700, TinLizziedl
wrote:

In article ,
says...
On Sat, 24 Oct 2009 07:09:51 -0400, "Buerste"
wrote:


"Ed Huntress" wrote in message
...
snip

I rarely joke without letting you know that I'm joking. This is not a
joke. If you have some evidence to support what you're saying, let's hear
it.

One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing group" of the non-religious, would be noticeable among a group
that's grown in numbers by 20,000,000 people over the last 18 years.

--
Ed Huntress


As usual you are trying the "Ed Twist" of what I said. Let me quote.

-"You are completely leaving out antitheists. They take the view that
theism
-is dangerous and destructive. Their hatred of religion is proactive, often
-organized, often violent and craving power. THIS is the fastest growing
-group of non-religious and in many ways can be considered a "religion".
-Think of them as radical secularists bordering on fanatical terrorists.

And somehow you extracted this:

"One would think that violent anti-theists, if they were the "fastest
growing
group" of the non-religious"

Now, your manipulations confuse me. Do you want to discuss the growth of
"antitheists" or "violent antitheists"? I know you would prefer to change
the meaning of my post, as usual, but... Either that or I'm a ****ty
communicator, or you're a ****ty reader. Take your pick.

Its Ed's reading comprehension issues mixed with his desire to be picked
on by those better than he is.

Ive noticed a tendency for Leftists to read what they want into
something quite different.

Ed is no different.

Gunner

You have your hard-held beliefs
and anyone who tries to change your mind is ignorant, evil, stupid,
leftist, communist,

Not everyone. Just most.

VBG


Gunner

"Upon Roosevelt's death in 1945, H. L. Mencken predicted in his diary
that Roosevelt would be remembered as a great president, "maybe even
alongside Washington and Lincoln," opining that Roosevelt "had every
quality that morons esteem in their heroes.""

In article ,
says...

"Frank J Warner" wrote in message
news:241020091851032865%warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon .net...
In article t,
TinLizziedl wrote:

The only religious precept I feel I need to know and follow: Treat
others as you would want to be treated.

That is not a religious precept. It is a social one.

-Frank

Yes, it is, and it's more than adequate for all circumstances. The Golden
Rule.

The problem is trying to get folks to reciprocate in kind. Ain't likely
to happen, eh? Seems like most folks consider anything that is to their
benefit a good thing, regardless of how it may harm others.

Harold


Unfortunately true. It often is easier and more effective to appeal to
someone's self-interest than to any sence of altruism or morality they
might have.

Humanity is not altruistic by nature.
--
Tin Lizzie
"Elephant: A mouse built to government specifications."-Lazarus Long

"TinLizziedl" wrote in message
.net...
In article ,
says...

"Frank J Warner" wrote in message
news:241020091851032865%warnerf@veriSPAMMERSDIEzon .net...
In article t,
TinLizziedl wrote:

The only religious precept I feel I need to know and follow: Treat
others as you would want to be treated.

That is not a religious precept. It is a social one.

-Frank

Yes, it is, and it's more than adequate for all circumstances. The
Golden
Rule.

The problem is trying to get folks to reciprocate in kind. Ain't
likely
to happen, eh? Seems like most folks consider anything that is to
their
benefit a good thing, regardless of how it may harm others.

Harold


Unfortunately true. It often is easier and more effective to appeal to
someone's self-interest than to any sence of altruism or morality they
might have.

Humanity is not altruistic by nature.

I would assume that's a result of the survival instinct (on steroids,
perhaps?)

Harold