On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 07:30:27 -0700, wrote:


I said I know of no filling station in my area where an employee will
pump fuel for me.

Yes, but that was part of weaseling out of your original claim that
"there are no longer any gas-pumping jobs". See any qualifiers?

I overgeneralized, sorry. There are none around here but there must be
gas-pumping jobs somewhere in the world, apparently in New Jersey and
Oregon among other places. So those without jobs here need only
migrate to New Jersey, Oregon, or perhaps Arizona? Ah, but the
welfare is so much better in MN than in NJ, OR or AZ!

Let's extend the logic snorf you've employed here...

Idiot: There are no cars anymore
Perplexed: Huh? There are more cars now than there ever were.
Idiot: No, there aren't. At least, I can't see any ever since I locked
myself in my basement.

That's rich, coming from an anonymous and remote hermit.

The refutation is clear - that there are lots of low-end jobs, more
than there's ever been, including gas pumping jobs, and including
entire states where self-serve doesn't exist. And places where
self-serve stations are not only required to pump for the disabled,
but at self-serve prices.

Far as I know, MN has no such laws. We don't need such laws. Outside
the metro area and within it in most cases, I'm quite sure that a
disabled person would be cheerfully assisted as a matter of "Minnesota
Nice" and that isn't limited to employees. I'd help in a heartbeat as
would most Minnesotans.

Are you in touch with the minimum wage job market?

LOL Who's trolling now? I'm retired as well, and you damned well know
it.

Retired as in dropped out for at least a decade, unemployed and living
as a hermit making no contributions to society like FICA or medicare.
Totally self-sufficient, off-grid, independent. Healthy, hearty and
fit now, will eventually quietly die in the desert anonymously without
recourse to the public tit you've avoided contributing to for at least
a decade? If so, I respect that choice and course.

Or will you eventually cry out as a citizen, claiming your rights to
the earnings of others via medicare and Obamacare as you now invoke
first amendment rights that you've never defended?

Not judging your choice of lifestyle, it's a free country. I do note
the hypocrisy in your choice of lifestyle vs your judgement of others.
Probably a troll but I'm a gullible mark for benefit of doubt.
Minnesota nice and all, yoo betcha.

On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 22:31:28 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 18:35:27 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

"Gloves-in-a-bottle" lotions prevent the skin from taking on the scent and
somewhat prevent the pores from taking on grease so deeply. I strongly
recommend the stuff.

Do they transfer your fingerprints? The other day, I patched my tire tube,
and when I rubbed in the rubber cement, I left the stuff on my finger to
dry, just out of curiosity. When it was dry, I dabbed a atamp pad and put
my prints on paper; evidently the rubber cement dried so thin that my
prints still showed through.

I hear that if you scan currency and print it on your color laser or
whatever that you should obscure your fingerprints, and those plastic or
rubber gloves make my hands sweat. =:-O

Yes, it's a thin, protective coating and your whorls are still
stickin' out in patterns. You won't fool the T-men with lotion, Rich.

GIVE UP YOUR LIFE OF CRIME, BOY!

--
Invest in America: Buy a CONgresscritter today!

On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 02:43:46 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 07:30:27 -0700, wrote:


I said I know of no filling station in my area where an employee will
pump fuel for me.

Yes, but that was part of weaseling out of your original claim that
"there are no longer any gas-pumping jobs". See any qualifiers?

I overgeneralized, sorry.

No ****? Coulda' saved yourself lots of time by admitting the obvious
up front, instead of hilariously trying to defend the indefensible.

There are none around here but there must be
gas-pumping jobs somewhere in the world, apparently in New Jersey and
Oregon among other places.

Oops, there goes the time-saving argument! Frickin continuous
weaseling. Most self-service station attendants probably pump gas
occasionally as part of their duties. Any skilled person can do that
job, and every other argument you've made or will make is just silly
semantics.

So those without jobs here need only
migrate to New Jersey, Oregon, or perhaps Arizona?

Disregarding the logical fallacy, apparently you believe that the only
low-wage jobs are at filling stations. You might want to get out more
instead of sitting there claiming that others don't get out enough.

Ah, but the
welfare is so much better in MN than in NJ, OR or AZ!

Your bicker-banter "logic" never ceases to amaze.

Let's extend the logic snorf you've employed here...

Idiot: There are no cars anymore
Perplexed: Huh? There are more cars now than there ever were.
Idiot: No, there aren't. At least, I can't see any ever since I locked
myself in my basement.

That's rich, coming from an anonymous and remote hermit.

1. no rebuttal
2. BS argument
3. this "hermit" isn't the one who can't go for a walk without a
handgun

The refutation is clear - that there are lots of low-end jobs, more
than there's ever been, including gas pumping jobs, and including
entire states where self-serve doesn't exist. And places where
self-serve stations are not only required to pump for the disabled,
but at self-serve prices.

Far as I know, MN has no such laws.

Ah, the "if I don't know about it, then it must not exist" argument...
again! Why not look up the facts instead of trying to extrapolate
based on your limited experience and critical thinking abilities?
Here, http://tinyurl.com/2f3f7k3
http://www.state.mn.us/portal/mn/jsp...agency =MSCOD
Took me about 30 seconds. How long before you do the selective quoting
thing again to pretend that the cite says the opposite of what it
actually says?

We don't need such laws.

You probably need them just as much as most other places. There are
pigheaded folks everywhere, as you've amply demonstrated time and time
again.

Outside
the metro area and within it in most cases, I'm quite sure

Well, you're often "quite sure" about things that you don't know much
or anything, about, right? Why should this time be any different?

that a
disabled person would be cheerfully assisted as a matter of "Minnesota
Nice" and that isn't limited to employees. I'd help in a heartbeat as
would most Minnesotans.

Same as most places, but there are always exceptions and that's what
laws are designed to minimize. Also provides a way to punish those who
refuse to use common sense. Anyway, your admission that employees will
cheerfully pump gas makes your whole "no gas pumping jobs" all the
more ridiculous.

Are you in touch with the minimum wage job market?

LOL Who's trolling now? I'm retired as well, and you damned well know
it.

Retired as in dropped out for at least a decade


Not judging your choice of lifestyle

LOL It's *all* you can do when you're running low on your usual
bicker-banter goofiness

Wayne

On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 05:37:30 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 22:31:28 -0700, Rich Grise
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 18:35:27 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

"Gloves-in-a-bottle" lotions prevent the skin from taking on the scent
and somewhat prevent the pores from taking on grease so deeply. I
strongly recommend the stuff.

Do they transfer your fingerprints? The other day, I patched my tire
tube, and when I rubbed in the rubber cement, I left the stuff on my
finger to dry, just out of curiosity. When it was dry, I dabbed a atamp
pad and put my prints on paper; evidently the rubber cement dried so thin
that my prints still showed through.

I hear that if you scan currency and print it on your color laser or
whatever that you should obscure your fingerprints, and those plastic or
rubber gloves make my hands sweat. =:-O

Yes, it's a thin, protective coating and your whorls are still stickin'
out in patterns. You won't fool the T-men with lotion, Rich.

GIVE UP YOUR LIFE OF CRIME, BOY!

I actually did that with a $20; I showed it to my brother, tore it up,
and flushed it. He said he'd thought of printing some up to use in the
bill changer at the casino - I said that I'd rather deal with the Feds
than casino security. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
...


Retired as in dropped out for at least a decade, unemployed and living
as a hermit making no contributions to society like FICA or medicare.
Totally self-sufficient, off-grid, independent. Healthy, hearty and
fit now, will eventually quietly die in the desert anonymously without
recourse to the public tit you've avoided contributing to for at least
a decade? If so, I respect that choice and course.

Or will you eventually cry out as a citizen, claiming your rights to
the earnings of others via medicare and Obamacare as you now invoke
first amendment rights that you've never defended?

Not judging your choice of lifestyle, it's a free country. I do note
the hypocrisy in your choice of lifestyle vs your judgement of others.
Probably a troll but I'm a gullible mark for benefit of doubt.
Minnesota nice and all, yoo betcha.


I'm not going to get into the back and forth between Wayne and Gunner, but
how do you figure someone retiring with assets is a deadbeat? It's likely he
made plenty of contributions before going off the grid. If he needs medical
care that is not covered by insurance, private or government, his assets
will be at risk.

On 9/23/2010 10:23 AM, wrote:
On Sep 23, 1:10 pm, Don wrote:


No, that assertion stands, at least in my area. I know of no filling
station where an employee will pump my fuel for me. Things may be
different in Arizona. I trust that your job continues to be
satisfactory as you make your regular contributions to social security
and medicare (thank you) like a good, responsible citizen.

New Jersey and Oregon prohibit pumping gas by the driver. I think
their idea is to create jobs, but my response is to continue on to the
next state.

Dan


I was in Oregon a while back and they still had people pumping gas for
you. It always surprised me when someone would come out to pump the gas
for me. I found it kind of insulting. I mean, here in California
everyone pumps their own gas. It's so simple that nobody thinks a thing
about it. The idea that it's something you need help with is ridiculous.
The worst part is when you're sitting in your car waiting for the
"expert" to come out and pump the gas and the guy doing it looks like a
sixth grade dropout. But maybe that's just the way Oregonians look?

Hawke

On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 11:11:19 -0400, "ATP"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .

Not judging your choice of lifestyle

I'm not going to get into the back and forth between Wayne and Gunner, but
how do you figure someone retiring with assets is a deadbeat? It's likely he
made plenty of contributions before going off the grid. If he needs medical
care that is not covered by insurance, private or government, his assets
will be at risk.

Don doesn't care about logic like that, but only with coming up with
silly smears whenever he can't win a debate. Increasingly he's
escalating his dopey rhetoric to include ever-wilder claims made from
whole cloth. Same M.O. as his deadbeat buddy, including the drive to
get on the wrong side of every issue, and stay there come hell or high
water and no matter how much it drives down his own stock.

Wayne

On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 14:46:48 -0700, Hawke wrote:
On 9/23/2010 10:23 AM, wrote:
On Sep 23, 1:10 pm, Don wrote:

No, that assertion stands, at least in my area. I know of no filling
station where an employee will pump my fuel for me. Things may be
different in Arizona. I trust that your job continues to be
satisfactory as you make your regular contributions to social security
and medicare (thank you) like a good, responsible citizen.

New Jersey and Oregon prohibit pumping gas by the driver. I think
their idea is to create jobs, but my response is to continue on to the
next state.

I was in Oregon a while back and they still had people pumping gas for
you. It always surprised me when someone would come out to pump the gas
for me. I found it kind of insulting. I mean, here in California everyone
pumps their own gas. It's so simple that nobody thinks a thing about it.
The idea that it's something you need help with is ridiculous.

It's not. The idea is, you don't have to get out of your car, dink around
with that stupid hose and get gasoline and other crud from the gas pump
nozzle all over your hands and clothes.

I guess Californians have never heard the term, "Service Station." ;-)

In fact, several years ago I was kind of surprised that at this one
station I didn't have to pre-pay!

Cheers!
Rich

On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 11:11:19 -0400, "ATP"
wrote:


"Don Foreman" wrote in message
.. .


Retired as in dropped out for at least a decade, unemployed and living
as a hermit making no contributions to society like FICA or medicare.
Totally self-sufficient, off-grid, independent. Healthy, hearty and
fit now, will eventually quietly die in the desert anonymously without
recourse to the public tit you've avoided contributing to for at least
a decade? If so, I respect that choice and course.

Or will you eventually cry out as a citizen, claiming your rights to
the earnings of others via medicare and Obamacare as you now invoke
first amendment rights that you've never defended?

Not judging your choice of lifestyle, it's a free country. I do note
the hypocrisy in your choice of lifestyle vs your judgement of others.
Probably a troll but I'm a gullible mark for benefit of doubt.
Minnesota nice and all, yoo betcha.


I'm not going to get into the back and forth between Wayne and Gunner, but
how do you figure someone retiring with assets is a deadbeat?

I don't, and I didn't use that term. All of the retired people I know
have some assets and are not deadbeats.

Most retired people, unlike dropouts and fugitives, maintain some
contributive connection with society and community.

It's likely he made plenty of contributions before going off the grid.

If ever employed then he made some contributions before dropping out,
but his period of contribution was quite short so the aggregate was
small. Medicare (and Obamacare) are not pro-rated based on
contribution.

If he needs medical care that is not covered by insurance, private or government, his assets
will be at risk.

Not if he stays out in the desert and continues to be entirely
self-sufficient and separate from society. He may well plan to do
that. If he does, no harm and no foul.

On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 07:21:52 -0700, wrote:


Most self-service station attendants probably pump gas
occasionally as part of their duties.

Job description: probably pump gas occasionally like most others with
similar jobs. Arizona crisp.

3. this "hermit" isn't the one who can't go for a walk without a
handgun

on some trails in MN, out of cell range for 911 but closer to varied
populace than your remote hide in AZ. I occasionally carry a handgun
while your misanthropy compels you to live in off-grid isolation
distant even from nearest civilization, the garden spot of Kingman, AZ
where the nicest domocile in town has wheels. Curious readers may
consult google maps, street view. OK, it's hard to see the wheels on
some of the mansions...

You are the hermit who strives to irritate, aggrivate, ridicule and
offend on several newsgroups while hiding behind anonymity and in
isolation, fouling usenet with virtual graffiti like scorning the
Deities of faithful folks as "skydaddies". Anonymously, of course.
From your remote hide. Cravenly nameless, vicious hermit.

Ah, the "if I don't know about it, then it must not exist" argument...
again! Why not look up the facts instead of trying to extrapolate
based on your limited experience and critical thinking abilities?
Here, http://tinyurl.com/2f3f7k3

This does not create gas-pumping jobs. It merely requires
already-employed attendants of gas stations to assist a very few who
are unable to pump for themselves.

I have never seen a MN driver unable to pump his or her fuel,
handicapped plates and wheelchair vans included. Back when there were
pump jockeys there were those of us that would rather be served than
get out of the warm car when it was 20 below, but that was long ago.

The only place I've seen gas pumped by an attendant in the last decade
was on Lake Minnetonka at a marina where a very comely young lass was
quite happy to jump aboard my boat and pump a few gallons at price
approximating that of Chanel #5. Weather loomed, I was far from the
launch and low on fuel. She said she often would pump a couple
hundred gallons into a boat on Friday night and do it again for the
same boat on Sunday. 'Tonka is a rich folks playground of 10,000
acres, also a superb fishery. I bought 5 gallons, all I needed to get
back to the launch before the storm hit. Very pricey fuel, but a
memorable attendant so what the hell.

On Sep 27, 1:11*am, Don Foreman wrote:

If ever employed then he made some contributions before dropping out,
but his period of contribution was quite short so the aggregate was
small. *Medicare (and Obamacare) are not pro-rated based on
contribution. *

What kind of argument is that? Are you saying that if a twenty-
something person invents the next whiz-bang doodad and sells the
rights for a zillion dollars, pays the taxes on said zillion and then
declares himself "retired," that said twenty-something is now a
deadbeat? That one is required, in Don's world to continue to work
until he's 65? Even if continuing to work takes a job away from te
next guy in line?

Is that what you're saying?

On Sep 26, 9:08*pm, Rich Grise wrote:


It's not. The idea is, you don't have to get out of your car, dink around
with that stupid hose and get gasoline and other crud from the gas pump
nozzle all over your hands and clothes.


Cheers!
Rich

If the reason is convenience to the customer, why should the state
care?

Dan

On Sep 26, 10:31*am, Rich Grise wrote:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 05:37:30 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 22:31:28 -0700, Rich Grise
On Sat, 25 Sep 2010 18:35:27 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:

"Gloves-in-a-bottle" lotions prevent the skin from taking on the scent
and somewhat prevent the pores from taking on grease so deeply. I
strongly recommend the stuff.

Do they transfer your fingerprints? The other day, I patched my tire
tube, and when I rubbed in the rubber cement, I left the stuff on my
finger to dry, just out of curiosity. When it was dry, I dabbed a atamp
pad and put my prints on paper; evidently the rubber cement dried so thin
that my prints still showed through.

I hear that if you scan currency and print it on your color laser or
whatever that you should obscure your fingerprints, and those plastic or
rubber gloves make my hands sweat. =:-O

Yes, it's a thin, protective coating and your whorls are still stickin'
out in patterns. *You won't fool the T-men with lotion, Rich.

GIVE UP YOUR LIFE OF CRIME, BOY!

I actually did that with a $20; I showed it to my brother, tore it up,
and flushed it. He said he'd thought of *printing some up to use in the
bill changer at the casino - I said that I'd rather deal with the Feds
than casino security. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

a) not a chance that your counterfeit twenty would get past a casino
bill changer. I used to design these things. They're way smarter than
that. You'd have better luck getting one past a human cashier.

b) After dealing with casino security, you'd likely end up dealing
with the Feds as well. Sort of a twofer.

c) many (all?) color copiers will refuse to copy US currency. I'm not
sure if this is by law or by "cooperation" of the manufacturers, but
it's a fact. My Brother MFC9840CDW will copy the currency, but it
overprints the entire page in red. Interestingly, though, I can scan
the bill to a pdf file, and then print it with no trouble. Of course,
said copy then goes straight into the shredder.

d) It always amuses me when the cashier at the supermarket holds my
$20 up to the light, as if she knows what she's looking for. "Real"
counterfeiters were producing bills with the plastic strips and
microprint a few weeks after they were released.

e) A more realistic copy machine counterfeitting scenario would be
making bogus store coupons - $5 McDonald's coupons from the office
copier could get you free lunches forever, or until the "food" kills
you.

f) the T-men are very, very smart, and they have some very, very
sophisticated tools at their disposal.

On Sep 25, 8:09*pm, " wrote:
On Sep 24, 9:31*pm, rangerssuck wrote:

Probably not. I worked for several years as a motorcycle mechanic. I
hated the smell before I started. Hated it more when I finished. And
it's damned near impossible to get off your hands.

Paint thinner always worked for me.

* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *Dan

Then, of course, you've got hands that smell like paint thinner ;-) I
used to scrub my hands with a brush and a paste of borax (not boraxo)
and lemon-scented dishwashing detergent. It would get them clean but
would not quite remove the gasoline odor. That stuff is tenacious.

If I were ever going to do that kind of work again, I'd be wearing
nitrile gloves.

In article 80091837-b3c9-4d93-a860-
, says...

On Sep 26, 9:08*pm, Rich Grise wrote:


It's not. The idea is, you don't have to get out of your car, dink around
with that stupid hose and get gasoline and other crud from the gas pump
nozzle all over your hands and clothes.


Cheers!
Rich

If the reason is convenience to the customer, why should the state
care?

The "state" in a "democracy" is the same as "the people". So the people
don't want to pump their own gas and they get a law passed that says
that gas stations have to pump it for them.

The fact that you make a distinction between "the state" and "the
people" says that you realize that the system of government in the US is
_not_ democracy and that the state is not controlled by the will of the
people.

" wrote:

On Sep 26, 9:08 pm, Rich Grise wrote:

It's not. The idea is, you don't have to get out of your car, dink around
with that stupid hose and get gasoline and other crud from the gas pump
nozzle all over your hands and clothes.


Cheers!
Rich

If the reason is convenience to the customer, why should the state
care?


Right, and why should they care if lazy bums don't want to pump their
own gas? If it's so much trouble, let them ride a bus.


--
Politicians should only get paid if the budget is balanced, and there is
enough left over to pay them.

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 01:57:46 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 07:21:52 -0700, wrote:


Most self-service station attendants probably pump gas
occasionally as part of their duties.

Job description: probably pump gas occasionally like most others with
similar jobs. Arizona crisp.

Will you be sending a decoder ring to help figure out what you're
trying to say?

3. this "hermit" isn't the one who can't go for a walk without a
handgun

on some trails in MN, out of cell range for 911 but closer to varied
populace than your remote hide in AZ.

And yet I get 5 bars from inside my "remote hide" living room. What
have the cell companies got against *your* "varied populace"? Maybe
you could donate a drum of DEET to encourage the techs to bring your
service up to rural AZ standards.

I occasionally carry a handgun

Hahaha! *I* occasionally carry a handgun. *You* have guns on the
brain. I used to think it was driven by your feebleoldfartness, but
after reading some of your anti-muslim fear mongering, it seems that
your elevator just doesn't go all the way to the top anymore, assuming
it ever did.

while your misanthropy compels you to live in off-grid isolation
distant even from nearest civilization

I've corrected the same misunderstanding several times now. It's clear
that you prefer to keep lying.

, the garden spot of Kingman, AZ
where the nicest domocile in town has wheels.

Hoo boy! So your new strategy is to cut me snorf by denigrating a
place... where I don't live! Strike one.

Kingman certainly has its share of gummer-type accommodations, but I
thought you were fine with that. Anyway, let's check for wheels on
something less than "the nicest domicile" in Kingman. A couple of
examples -
http://www.realtor.com/realestateand...401_1111538137
http://www.realtor.com/realestateand...401_1106350126
So where are the wheels? Strike two.

And how would you say those places compare to yours? Strike three.

My quote yesterday - "Increasingly he's (foreman) escalating his dopey
rhetoric to include ever-wilder claims made from whole cloth" Gosh,
where do I get ideas like those?

BTW, I may have visited the nicest home in Kingman, way fancier than
the examples above. 100 acres IIRC, ~half mile concrete driveway,
ridiculously fancy home, life-size animal statuary "roaming" the
grounds. Feel free to put up some photos of your place so we can see
how it compares. Or risk being accused of living in a "hide". LOL

OK, it's hard to see the wheels on
some of the mansions...

Sure, but readers need only join you in pretending, right?

Ah, the "if I don't know about it, then it must not exist" argument...
again! Why not look up the facts instead of trying to extrapolate
based on your limited experience and critical thinking abilities?
Here, http://tinyurl.com/2f3f7k3

This does not create gas-pumping jobs. It merely requires
already-employed attendants of gas stations to assist a very few who
are unable to pump for themselves.

As I said, you're hanging your hat on semantics. You implied that
skilled folks hadn't anywhere to work if things were slow in their
fields. Will you ever admit being wrong about that? Of course not.
Regardless, our favorite whipping boy's case tells the tale. He said
he's a licensed electrician for gawd's sake. Do you imagine that no
electricians have been hired in all the time he's claimed to be
looking for work? Oh wait, could it be that you no more believe he's
an electrician than I do? Too funny.

I have never seen a MN driver unable to pump his or her fuel,
handicapped plates and wheelchair vans included.

Well heck then! There must not be any.

Back when there were
pump jockeys there were those of us that would rather be served than
get out of the warm car when it was 20 below, but that was long ago.

Pumping gas at 20 below, and nice folks who volunteer to join culls.
What more could anyone ask?

The only place I've seen gas pumped by an attendant in the last decade
was on Lake Minnetonka at a marina where a very comely young lass was
quite happy to jump aboard my boat and pump a few gallons at price
approximating that of Chanel #5. Weather loomed, I was far from the
launch and low on fuel. She said she often would pump a couple
hundred gallons into a boat on Friday night and do it again for the
same boat on Sunday. 'Tonka is a rich folks playground of 10,000
acres, also a superb fishery. I bought 5 gallons, all I needed to get
back to the launch before the storm hit. Very pricey fuel, but a
memorable attendant so what the hell.

I never tire of your ability to talk in irrelevant circles rather than
admit to the obvious.

Wayne

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 00:11:54 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 11:11:19 -0400, "ATP"
wrote:

I'm not going to get into the back and forth between Wayne and Gunner, but
how do you figure someone retiring with assets is a deadbeat?

If he needs medical care that is not covered by insurance, private or government, his assets
will be at risk.

Not if he stays out in the desert and continues to be entirely
self-sufficient and separate from society.

"Entirely self-sufficient and separate from society"? Impressive! For
minor values of "entirely" anyway. But here on planet Earth, how does
generating one's own electricity preclude the need for medical care?

"For Christ's sake, listen to yourself" - Ed Huntress

He may well plan to do
that. If he does, no harm and no foul.

I thought of waiting for your reply to ATP before responding. Glad I
got my predictions on the record instead, and that my summary of your
M.O. hit the mark so accurately.

Wayne

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 06:00:13 -0700, rangerssuck wrote:
On Sep 26, 10:31*am, Rich Grise wrote:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 05:37:30 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
...
GIVE UP YOUR LIFE OF CRIME, BOY!

I actually did that with a $20; I showed it to my brother, tore it up,
and flushed it. He said he'd thought of *printing some up to use in the
bill changer at the casino - I said that I'd rather deal with the Feds
than casino security. ;-)

And anyway, I knew it wouldn't work in a changer anyway, since I didn't
have any magnetic ink. ;-)

a) not a chance that your counterfeit twenty would get past a casino bill
changer. I used to design these things. They're way smarter than that.
You'd have better luck getting one past a human cashier.

I was just thinking, when you sit down at the blackjack table, you hand
the dealer a 20; he handles it a little bit, creases it lengthwise and
makes a little pup tent on the table, announces "Twenty Down!" and sticks
it in the slot on the table.

But what if they have a UV spotlight? I bought an RV toilet once, and when
I handed the checker a Franklin, she held it under a black light. It
didn't fluoresce; ordinary paper does. So I guess I'll have to get some
100% rag vellum. :-)

b) After dealing with casino security, you'd likely end up dealing with
the Feds as well. Sort of a twofer.

c) many (all?) color copiers will refuse to copy US currency. I'm not sure
if this is by law or by "cooperation" of the manufacturers

Does it make a difference? ;-)


, but it's a
fact. My Brother MFC9840CDW will copy the currency, but it overprints the
entire page in red. Interestingly, though, I can scan the bill to a pdf
file, and then print it with no trouble. Of course, said copy then goes
straight into the shredder.

d) It always amuses me when the cashier at the supermarket holds my $20 up
to the light, as if she knows what she's looking for. "Real"
counterfeiters were producing bills with the plastic strips and microprint
a few weeks after they were released.

Yeah, but that should still thwart the home CFer, because how do you
duplicate that?

e) A more realistic copy machine counterfeitting scenario would be
making bogus store coupons - $5 McDonald's coupons from the office
copier could get you free lunches forever, or until the "food" kills
you.

Hmmmmmm.....

In Minnesota, they used to have paper coupons for food stamps. I saw
an exposé of people working at the food stamp factory pocketing huge
piles of them. When I had a job beertending at a local honky-tonk, the
welfare recipients would come in and offer to sell food stamps for .50
on the dollar.


f) the T-men are very, very smart, and they have some very, very
sophisticated tools at their disposal.

Well, one generally doesn't associate the words "government" and "smart"
in the same paragraph, but then again, money isn't controlled by da
gubmint, but by the banks, who have essentially the power of the Mafia.

Thanks,
Rich

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 04:50:57 -0700, wrote:
On Sep 26, 9:08*pm, Rich Grise wrote:

It's not. The idea is, you don't have to get out of your car, dink
around with that stupid hose and get gasoline and other crud from the
gas pump nozzle all over your hands and clothes.

If the reason is convenience to the customer, why should the state care?

It's the sickness. The statists want to control every minute detail of
your life, at all costs, and DAMN the Constitution.

America needs to get into rehab for its addiction to excessive government.

Thanks,
Rich

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:02:07 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

The fact that you make a distinction between "the state" and "the people"
says that you realize that the system of government in the US is _not_
democracy and that the state is not controlled by the will of the people.

Thank GAW!!! It's such a relief to know that there is at least ONE sane
person left! ;-D

Thanks!
Rich

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 10:25:09 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
" wrote:
On Sep 26, 9:08 pm, Rich Grise wrote:

It's not. The idea is, you don't have to get out of your car, dink
around with that stupid hose and get gasoline and other crud from the
gas pump nozzle all over your hands and clothes.

If the reason is convenience to the customer, why should the state care?

Right, and why should they care if lazy bums don't want to pump their
own gas? If it's so much trouble, let them ride a bus.

How about an option? In fact, I seem to remember seeing stations with
different lanes, and different prices. Back at the time, I guess prices
were still less than a buck, but there'd be a sign like, "We pump,
$0.98/gal. You pump, $0.94/gal." or some such. That way, everybody has the
option, which is what Freedom is for, which was supposed to be what
America is for.

Thanks,
Rich

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 01:57:46 -0500, Don Foreman wrote:

'Tonka is a
rich folks playground of 10,000 acres, also a superb fishery. I bought 5
gallons, all I needed to get back to the launch before the storm hit.
Very pricey fuel, but a memorable attendant so what the hell.

In the winter, you can walk (or drive) across Lake Minnetonka because the
ice is 4'-5' thick. (unless Global Warming has turned Minnesota into some
kind of tropical paradise.)

In the summer, you can walk across Lake Minnetonka by just stepping from
boat to boat. ;-D

Cheers!
Rich

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 07:42:50 -0700, wmbjkREMOVE wrote:
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 01:57:46 -0500, Don Foreman

on some trails in MN, out of cell range for 911 but closer to varied
populace than your remote hide in AZ.

And yet I get 5 bars from inside my "remote hide" living room. What have
the cell companies got against *your* "varied populace"? Maybe you could
donate a drum of DEET to encourage the techs to bring your service up to
rural AZ standards.

Northern Minnesota isn't like Sedona. The cell coverage is probably
pretty sparse because the population is pretty sparse - it kind of loads
up in the summer, with all the lakes and woods and stuff, but the summer
crowds are pretty much on vacation, so don't really need to call in to
the office.

But they have landlines, which seem to be adequate; out in the sticks
they've got CB radio, good buddy. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:04:58 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 07:42:50 -0700, wmbjkREMOVE wrote:
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 01:57:46 -0500, Don Foreman

on some trails in MN, out of cell range for 911 but closer to varied
populace than your remote hide in AZ.

And yet I get 5 bars from inside my "remote hide" living room. What have
the cell companies got against *your* "varied populace"? Maybe you could
donate a drum of DEET to encourage the techs to bring your service up to
rural AZ standards.

Northern Minnesota isn't like Sedona.

Same with our area. Cell coverage is mostly along the highway
corridors, as is the bulk of the population.

The cell coverage is probably
pretty sparse because the population is pretty sparse

At our place the population is 2 per sq. mile, or even less if we
count surrounding property. And yet we have good cell service, which
tells the sensible that we're not very remote. sarah palin
impression We can see Home Depot from our house! (with binoculars)

- it kind of loads
up in the summer, with all the lakes and woods and stuff, but the summer
crowds are pretty much on vacation, so don't really need to call in to
the office.

But they have landlines, which seem to be adequate;

Same here generally. But the copper is stretched pretty thin in most
of the rural areas. Good enough for voice and terrible dialup. Some
need satellite for internet access, for others it's cell plus sat.
There's an outfit offering wimax with optional VOIP at attractive
prices, but relatively few rurals have the necessary 10 mile line of
sight to the limited number of base stations. Great for those who can
get it though, up to 8 meg unlimited IIRC.

out in the sticks
they've got CB radio, good buddy. ;-)

Yikes. We have 6 meg wireless ethernet, and dedicated VOIP hardware
which provides up to 4 full-service telephone lines. We pay regular
rates as if we're a wired DSL customer. The package includes all the
usual caller ID crap etc, plus a couple hours national long distance.
4 more hours NLD available on a $20 cell plan, but we usually only use
a few minutes of that. Not to mention unlimited international
skype-to-landline. IOW, typical hermit. :-)

Wayne

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 14:00:46 -0700, Rich Grise
wrote:

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 01:57:46 -0500, Don Foreman wrote:

'Tonka is a
rich folks playground of 10,000 acres, also a superb fishery. I bought 5
gallons, all I needed to get back to the launch before the storm hit.
Very pricey fuel, but a memorable attendant so what the hell.

In the winter, you can walk (or drive) across Lake Minnetonka because the
ice is 4'-5' thick. (unless Global Warming has turned Minnesota into some
kind of tropical paradise.)

In the summer, you can walk across Lake Minnetonka by just stepping from
boat to boat. ;-D

Cheers!
Rich

Yup. 15 or 20 years ago 'Tonka was very pleasant on a weekday summer
morning. Fishin' was usually good to excellent and traffic was maybe 2
boats per bay. Tonka has 42 bays of amazingly diverse limnology. It's
a complex lake. But on weekends even then, it was a zoo. There's a
chop even on a dead calm day just from boat wakes.

I haven't been to 'Tonka for 7 or 8 years now. It's a zoo about
anytime during the summer now and it's no fun to fish anymore because
of the milfoil.

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 04:46:09 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Sep 27, 1:11*am, Don Foreman wrote:

If ever employed then he made some contributions before dropping out,
but his period of contribution was quite short so the aggregate was
small. *Medicare (and Obamacare) are not pro-rated based on
contribution. *

What kind of argument is that? Are you saying that if a twenty-
something person invents the next whiz-bang doodad and sells the
rights for a zillion dollars, pays the taxes on said zillion and then
declares himself "retired," that said twenty-something is now a
deadbeat? That one is required, in Don's world to continue to work
until he's 65? Even if continuing to work takes a job away from te
next guy in line?

Is that what you're saying?

No. I didn't say any of that, those are your words. I didn't use the
pejorative term "deadbeat" at all, it's wmbjk (whomever that might
be) that uses that term liberally and often. Try to read and
understand what I actually wrote. You're irresponsibly extrapolating
and attributing inferentially for sensational effect. Hey, it's
Usenet, enjoy!

I merely observed that if wmbjk (whomever that might be) dropped out
about mid-life or so, then if (s)he later draws on Medicare or
Obamacare rather than accumulated assets (s)he will be riding on the
backs of contributive, employed working people if taking more than
(s)he contributed.

That's quite legal and exemplarily liberal. Do you think (s)he will
pay for his/her medical care in later life from his/her asset base
rather than drawing far more from Medicare and Obamacare than (s)he
ever contributed? If in similar circumstances, would you?

This successful working of the system wouldn't be noteworthy if (s)he
wasn't so vituperatively (if anonymously) intent upon scathing others
who also "work the system" successfully with different approach.

Perhaps a matter of professional jealousy?

In article ,
says...

On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 06:00:13 -0700, rangerssuck wrote:
On Sep 26, 10:31*am, Rich Grise wrote:
On Sun, 26 Sep 2010 05:37:30 -0700, Larry Jaques wrote:
...
GIVE UP YOUR LIFE OF CRIME, BOY!

I actually did that with a $20; I showed it to my brother, tore it up,
and flushed it. He said he'd thought of *printing some up to use in the
bill changer at the casino - I said that I'd rather deal with the Feds
than casino security. ;-)

And anyway, I knew it wouldn't work in a changer anyway, since I didn't
have any magnetic ink. ;-)

a) not a chance that your counterfeit twenty would get past a casino bill
changer. I used to design these things. They're way smarter than that.
You'd have better luck getting one past a human cashier.

I was just thinking, when you sit down at the blackjack table, you hand
the dealer a 20; he handles it a little bit, creases it lengthwise and
makes a little pup tent on the table, announces "Twenty Down!" and sticks
it in the slot on the table.

But what if they have a UV spotlight? I bought an RV toilet once, and when
I handed the checker a Franklin, she held it under a black light. It
didn't fluoresce; ordinary paper does. So I guess I'll have to get some
100% rag vellum. :-)

b) After dealing with casino security, you'd likely end up dealing with
the Feds as well. Sort of a twofer.

c) many (all?) color copiers will refuse to copy US currency. I'm not sure
if this is by law or by "cooperation" of the manufacturers

Does it make a difference? ;-)


, but it's a
fact. My Brother MFC9840CDW will copy the currency, but it overprints the
entire page in red. Interestingly, though, I can scan the bill to a pdf
file, and then print it with no trouble. Of course, said copy then goes
straight into the shredder.

d) It always amuses me when the cashier at the supermarket holds my $20 up
to the light, as if she knows what she's looking for. "Real"
counterfeiters were producing bills with the plastic strips and microprint
a few weeks after they were released.

Yeah, but that should still thwart the home CFer, because how do you
duplicate that?

e) A more realistic copy machine counterfeitting scenario would be
making bogus store coupons - $5 McDonald's coupons from the office
copier could get you free lunches forever, or until the "food" kills
you.

Hmmmmmm.....

In Minnesota, they used to have paper coupons for food stamps. I saw
an exposé of people working at the food stamp factory pocketing huge
piles of them. When I had a job beertending at a local honky-tonk, the
welfare recipients would come in and offer to sell food stamps for .50
on the dollar.


f) the T-men are very, very smart, and they have some very, very
sophisticated tools at their disposal.

Well, one generally doesn't associate the words "government" and "smart"
in the same paragraph, but then again, money isn't controlled by da
gubmint, but by the banks, who have essentially the power of the Mafia.

The banks have no authority in the US to print money. It is all printed
by the government and if it is counterfeited it is the US Secret Service
that will come hunt you down, not some bank's rent-a-cops. I don't know
where you people get the idea that banks print money. The Federal
Reserve decides how much currency is in circulation at any given time,
but it does not print the currency.

And you really really don't want to get the T-men upset with you.
Remember Ruby Ridge and Waco?

On Sep 28, 3:19*am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 04:46:09 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck





wrote:
On Sep 27, 1:11*am, Don Foreman wrote:

If ever employed then he made some contributions before dropping out,
but his period of contribution was quite short so the aggregate was
small. *Medicare (and Obamacare) are not pro-rated based on
contribution. *

What kind of argument is that? Are you saying that if a twenty-
something person invents the next whiz-bang doodad and sells the
rights for a zillion dollars, pays the taxes on said zillion and then
declares himself "retired," that said twenty-something is now a
deadbeat? That one is required, in Don's world to continue to work
until he's 65? Even if continuing to work takes a job away from te
next guy in line?

Is that what you're saying?

No. I didn't say any of that, those are your words. *I didn't use the
pejorative term "deadbeat" at all, it's *wmbjk (whomever that might
be) that uses that term liberally and often. *Try to read and
understand what I actually wrote. * You're irresponsibly extrapolating
and attributing inferentially for sensational effect. *Hey, it's
Usenet, enjoy! *

I merely observed that if wmbjk (whomever that might be) dropped out
about mid-life or so, then if (s)he later draws on Medicare or
Obamacare rather than accumulated assets *(s)he will be riding on the
backs of contributive, employed working people if taking more than
(s)he contributed. *

That's quite legal and exemplarily liberal. Do you think (s)he will
pay for his/her medical care in later life from his/her asset base
rather than drawing far more from Medicare and Obamacare than (s)he
ever contributed? *If in similar circumstances, would you? *

This successful working of the system wouldn't be noteworthy if (s)he
wasn't so vituperatively (if anonymously) intent upon scathing others
who also "work the system" successfully with different approach.

Perhaps a matter of professional jealousy?

That is such complete bull****, Don. You're comparing a successful,
self-sufficient person who may, at some point in the future, receive
Medicare benefits to someone who "works the system."

ANYONE who collects social security or medicare is "riding on the
backs" of the current contributors. So what's your point?

I assume the the "others who also "work the system" successfully with
different approach" refers to Gunner. The difference is that Gunner
rails against the system while sucking at its teat, and is a scoflaw
and a tax cheat.

Wayne signs each and every one of his posts "Wayne" which is, in my
experience, a male name. You on the other hand, may be "Donald" or,
perhaps "Donna." Do you see how childish that sort of crap is, Donna?

RS

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 04:42:56 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:

On Sep 28, 3:19*am, Don Foreman wrote:
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 04:46:09 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck





wrote:
On Sep 27, 1:11*am, Don Foreman wrote:

If ever employed then he made some contributions before dropping out,
but his period of contribution was quite short so the aggregate was
small. *Medicare (and Obamacare) are not pro-rated based on
contribution. *

What kind of argument is that? Are you saying that if a twenty-
something person invents the next whiz-bang doodad and sells the
rights for a zillion dollars, pays the taxes on said zillion and then
declares himself "retired," that said twenty-something is now a
deadbeat? That one is required, in Don's world to continue to work
until he's 65? Even if continuing to work takes a job away from te
next guy in line?

Is that what you're saying?

No. I didn't say any of that, those are your words.

Forget it, weasel. Readers were able to discern your meaning exactly
as you intended. Gave the smear your usual amount of thought, eh?
Figured that gummer gets away with **** like that dozens of times per
day, right? Time for you to use another of his idiotic techniques -
trying a different smear to reinforce the previous one...

*I didn't use the
pejorative term "deadbeat" at all, it's *wmbjk (whomever that might
be) that uses that term liberally and often. *Try to read and
understand what I actually wrote. * You're irresponsibly extrapolating
and attributing inferentially for sensational effect. *Hey, it's
Usenet, enjoy! *

I merely observed that if wmbjk (whomever that might be) dropped out
about mid-life or so, then if (s)he later draws on Medicare or
Obamacare rather than accumulated assets *(s)he will be riding on the
backs of contributive, employed working people if taking more than
(s)he contributed. *

That's quite legal and exemplarily liberal. Do you think (s)he will
pay for his/her medical care in later life from his/her asset base
rather than drawing far more from Medicare and Obamacare than (s)he
ever contributed? *If in similar circumstances, would you? *

This successful working of the system wouldn't be noteworthy if (s)he
wasn't so vituperatively (if anonymously) intent upon scathing others
who also "work the system" successfully with different approach.

Perhaps a matter of professional jealousy?

You mean, like a culler anticipating TEOTWAWKI, and who's dependent on
SS and Medicare and powerlines, being jealous of someone who isn't?

That is such complete bull****, Don.

Unfortunately, that's become his habit. Which has the inevitable
result of him being unable to keep his theories snorf straight. With
one breath he claims that I'm already "*entirely* self-sufficient",
but with the next he contradicts himself by speculating that I "might"
"someday" turn into a drain on society. The fact is that the facts
don't matter to him in the slightest. Same M.O. as his buddy - truth
is merely an impediment, something to be twisted or ignored whenever
it interferes with their smears or the fun of pontificating - as
opposed the "bore" of critical thinking.

Wayne signs each and every one of his posts "Wayne" which is, in my
experience, a male name.

It's also the first letter in the initials with which I sign my posts,
which always include a valid email address. In addition, my
home-building project is described in detail on a web site that I've
shared hundreds of times, and which we know that don has read because
he's commented favorably. Yet he says he still doesn't know my gender,
and has repeatedly spent time trying to convince readers that it could
go either way. As if I could blend into the crowd of females posting
on Usenet. :-) How to tell if he's serious, as he assures us he is,
or an insincere phony as I claim... Money talks, so let's imagine he
was offered the chance to make some on his best "guess". I'd bet that
*he'd* bet quite a lot on his choice. If he'd like to bet against my
contention, then I'd be happy to give him favorable odds. :-) Anybody
think he'd go for that? And yet whenever he's losing a debate, here
comes foreman again with the same old lame "he or she" BS. But he
pretends that he doesn't deserve to be called insincere! Only on
Usenet.

You on the other hand, may be "Donald" or,
perhaps "Donna." Do you see how childish that sort of crap is, Donna?

Occasionally folks ask me to do this or that or with one of my old
tractors. I tell them the truth - that the iron is tired, that each
job might be its last, and I'd prefer that any death throes take place
close to home. Maybe Don's made the same realization about his brain,
and has decided to not to put any unnecessary strain on it. :-)

Wayne

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 04:42:56 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:



That is such complete bull****, Don. You're comparing a successful,
self-sufficient person who may, at some point in the future, receive
Medicare benefits to someone who "works the system."

Self sufficiency goes a bit beyond producing one's own electricity.
The annual contributions to medicare and FICA for those who earn a
living are considerably higher than their electric bills.

If he is indeed successfully self-sufficient, then he won't draw
support later from the system he's not contributing to now (and hasn't
for years) and hats off to him.

ANYONE who collects social security or medicare is "riding on the
backs" of the current contributors. So what's your point?

The point is that there must be current contributors for the system to
work. People who collect that didn't previously contribute to support
those before them are parasitically working the system as much as AFDC
mothers who prolifically pop progeny to get the cheese checks.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:17:12 -0500, Don Foreman
wrote:

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 04:42:56 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:


That is such complete bull****, Don. You're comparing a successful,
self-sufficient person who may, at some point in the future, receive
Medicare benefits to someone who "works the system."

Self sufficiency goes a bit beyond producing one's own electricity.
The annual contributions to medicare and FICA for those who earn a
living are considerably higher than their electric bills.

"continues to be entirely self-sufficient" - don foreman

Now *that* guy sounds likes he's got it all figured out!

If he is indeed successfully self-sufficient

Hey, weasel, maybe you should check with don foreman to see exactly
how self-sufficient I am.

, then he won't draw
support later from the system he's not contributing to now (and hasn't
for years) and hats off to him.

Just a thought... perhaps the hat doffing could be postponed until
when and if necessary, instead of spending so much time on speculative
smearing. In the meantime, if you're going to be judgmental, shouldn't
you be directing your ire at the people who are *already* proven
leechers? Know anybody like that?

ANYONE who collects social security or medicare is "riding on the
backs" of the current contributors. So what's your point?

The point is that there must be current contributors for the system to
work.

Hmm, so since *you're* already collecting, and haven't provided any
proof that your benefits thus far haven't already exceeded your
contributions, you figured it made sense to crack the whip on the
"entirely self-sufficient" who "might" someday collect! Anticipating
your usual go-to attempt at distraction, whatever happened to your
description of *exactly* which part of the constitution you defended
against whom?

Anyway, you're the sole admitted volunteer for "the great cull", which
according to thousands of assurances from general gummy, will be
finished "within 2 years". Not to mention his dozens of detailed
descriptions of my imminent death, without a single word of dispute
from you. Therefore, doesn't your sudden concern about my long-term
leeching prospects undercut your leader's credibility a tad? guffaw
Are you bucking for a court martial? Besides, surely you nitwits
aren't gonna' go waaaaay out to my "remote hide" to kill me, and then
walk away from the windfall of my assets, right?

People who collect that didn't previously contribute to support
those before them are parasitically working the system as much as AFDC
mothers who prolifically pop progeny to get the cheese checks.

And there we have it. The "entirely self-sufficient" guy = welfare
mom! A few more posts and I'll probably be related to Kevin Bacon as
well.

Now, where are those photos of *your* hide? Surely it's much nicer
than the wheeled "mansions" you were going on about yesterday. You
remember them, right? The ones you were inviting others to look up.
How about a side-by-side comparison of yours, and the "best domicile
in Kingman" that you were telling us about?

Wayne

"Don Foreman" wrote in message
news
On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 04:42:56 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:



That is such complete bull****, Don. You're comparing a successful,
self-sufficient person who may, at some point in the future, receive
Medicare benefits to someone who "works the system."

Self sufficiency goes a bit beyond producing one's own electricity.
The annual contributions to medicare and FICA for those who earn a
living are considerably higher than their electric bills.

If he is indeed successfully self-sufficient, then he won't draw
support later from the system he's not contributing to now (and hasn't
for years) and hats off to him.

ANYONE who collects social security or medicare is "riding on the
backs" of the current contributors. So what's your point?

The point is that there must be current contributors for the system to
work. People who collect that didn't previously contribute to support
those before them are parasitically working the system as much as AFDC
mothers who prolifically pop progeny to get the cheese checks.


There's no reason to believe that Wayne didn't previously contribute.

On 9/27/2010 1:50 PM, Richard the Dreaded Libertarian wrote:
On Mon, 27 Sep 2010 04:50:57 -0700, wrote:
On Sep 26, 9:08 pm, Rich wrote:

It's not. The idea is, you don't have to get out of your car, dink
around with that stupid hose and get gasoline and other crud from the
gas pump nozzle all over your hands and clothes.

If the reason is convenience to the customer, why should the state care?

It's the sickness. The statists want to control every minute detail of
your life, at all costs, and DAMN the Constitution.

America needs to get into rehab for its addiction to excessive government.

Either that or just stop electing republicans. Because if you look at
the facts you see that even though the republicans make a big show about
being for small government that's not what they are when they are in
charge. The size of the government has grown greatly under every
republican president. The country's debt and spending has grown greatly
under every republican president. The country's freedom has shrunk more
under republicans every time one of them is the president. So if you
actually want a smaller, less intrusive government, you would never vote
for a republican. Because they say one thing and do the opposite.

Hawke

On 9/27/2010 7:02 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article80091837-b3c9-4d93-a860-
, says...

On Sep 26, 9:08 pm, Rich wrote:


It's not. The idea is, you don't have to get out of your car, dink around
with that stupid hose and get gasoline and other crud from the gas pump
nozzle all over your hands and clothes.


Cheers!
Rich

If the reason is convenience to the customer, why should the state
care?

The "state" in a "democracy" is the same as "the people". So the people
don't want to pump their own gas and they get a law passed that says
that gas stations have to pump it for them.

The fact that you make a distinction between "the state" and "the
people" says that you realize that the system of government in the US is
_not_ democracy and that the state is not controlled by the will of the
people.


It's a good thing too. Because if we did what they will of the people is
you'd really hate the country. We have a representative government for a
reason. It's real simple. The ordinary person is an ignorant, uninformed
or misinformed, over emotional, boob. Just the kind of person you
wouldn't want making any important decisions.

We try to elect the best people to decide things for us. We hope they
are not as stupid as the average boob. Letting the average Joe make our
decisions for us would lead to disaster. Hey, wasn't the last president
seen as an "average guy"? Yep, and see what that did for us.

Hawke

On 9/28/2010 5:27 PM, Hawke wrote:

America needs to get into rehab for its addiction to excessive
government.

Either that or just stop electing republicans. Because if you look at
the facts you see that even though the republicans make a big show about
being for small government that's not what they are when they are in
charge. The size of the government has grown greatly under every
republican president. The country's debt and spending has grown greatly
under every republican president. The country's freedom has shrunk more
under republicans every time one of them is the president. So if you
actually want a smaller, less intrusive government, you would never vote
for a republican. Because they say one thing and do the opposite.

Hawke

Once again you point out that Republicans are indistinguishable from
Democrats, as I've been telling you all along.

David

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 04:42:56 -0700 (PDT), rangerssuck
wrote:



Wayne signs each and every one of his posts "Wayne" which is, in my
experience, a male name.

Mine too, but anonymity is genderless. You sign yours "Rangersuck",
is that the name on your driver's license and passport?

I didn't attribute either gender to wmbjk (whomever that might be),
only ambiguity. That said, maintaining mystery and mystique is
certainly a feminine behavior. Ask any psychologist, anthropologist,
author, or any cogent woman that will talk to you freely. Feminist
Betty Friedan titled her landmark book "The Feminine Mystique".

You on the other hand, may be "Donald" or,
perhaps "Donna."

I'd prefer "Dawn" if you fancy puerile modification of names.

Folks in Missouri and Arkansas pronounce my forename as "Dawn" with no
gender confusion. Whenever I think about that I recall the scolding
from Russ Dickerson, the bassmaster and guide that taught me so much.
"Dawn, did you tah a palomar knot on thet spinnerbait lahk I told ye?"
Abashedly: "No, Russ, I used a trilene knot."

"Dawn, you deserved to lose that fish."

http://www.bassfishingtv.com/videopaged.php?0000365

Very few occasions in my life where I've had so much fun standing up.
There is no anonymity or ambiguity here. I'm Don. It's a real name,
short for Donald. I don't sling usenet vitriol from behind a veil,
Rangersuck. I'm listed in the phonebook, and a google search will get
several hits if you add the keyword "patent". If you follow those
you'll get a lot more.

I don't always agree with Ed Huntress, but I do acknowledge that he
has the integrity to sign on as a genuine entity. Gunner, gummer to
the puerile name modifiers, uses a usenet pseudonym but makes no
secret who he is or where he lives: Mark Weibel on Olive Street in
Taft, CA.

I'm grinning as I imagine a passionate moment with you and a woman
screaming "Rangersuck, Rangersuck, OHHHH YESSS RANGERSUCK..."

You ever been pulled over in Texas, Rangersuck? You might want to
avoid Flippin Arkansas where Ranger boats are built one at a tahm.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 12:59:07 -0700, wrote:


Now, where are those photos of *your* hide? Surely it's much nicer
than the wheeled "mansions" you were going on about yesterday. You
remember them, right? The ones you were inviting others to look up.
How about a side-by-side comparison of yours, and the "best domicile
in Kingman" that you were telling us about?

We're not hiding or pretending.

I'm easy to find with Google, and our modest Fridley domocile is
visible in Google street view and earth view. Think you can figure it
out from here or do you need GPS coordinates? Go to google maps,
enter 7092 Hickory Drive Fridley MN. Will thus suffice or must you be
teat-fed?

Our very modest summer lake cabin is shown here, with directions and
GPS coords:
http://members.goldengate.net/dforeman/cabin/

Note that we display the American flag every day, scorn as you might.

We enjoy our modest little cabin a lot. Good lake, wonderful
neighbors, good times with friends and neighbors during our short
summers.

We're not as urban as Rangersuck in New Jersey but perhaps more social
than you since you prefer population density of 2 per square mile. Not
saying that's wrong, it's the assaults from hiding that's wrong.

Pick yer pony, take yer ride, nobody elected me as moderator.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 16:57:48 -0400, "ATP"
wrote:



There's no reason to believe that Wayne didn't previously contribute.

Right, he undoubtedly did.

On Tue, 28 Sep 2010 20:26:38 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

On 9/28/2010 5:27 PM, Hawke wrote:

America needs to get into rehab for its addiction to excessive
government.

Either that or just stop electing republicans. Because if you look at
the facts you see that even though the republicans make a big show about
being for small government that's not what they are when they are in
charge. The size of the government has grown greatly under every
republican president. The country's debt and spending has grown greatly
under every republican president. The country's freedom has shrunk more
under republicans every time one of them is the president. So if you
actually want a smaller, less intrusive government, you would never vote
for a republican. Because they say one thing and do the opposite.

Hawke

Once again you point out that Republicans are indistinguishable from
Democrats, as I've been telling you all along.

Why do so many people continue to argue with the trolls?

The definition of insanity is "Doing the same thing over and over
again, expecting different results." Please consider it, folks.

--
You can't wait for inspiration. You have to go after it with a club.
--Jack London