"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...
In article ,
says...

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..
"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in
news:U6KdnVel4OUkaozNnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@scnresearch. com:

And then of course there are people like YOU...

KooKs....who do not realize that government is "by the people and for
the
people" and who instead imagine "government" as being some kind of
evil,
uncontrollable monster that was created by lazy, selfish individuals
in
order to make life miserable for everbody else [...]

That's not what it was created as, of course -- but that *is* what it
has
become.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_P...of_Bureaucracy


I can happily report that our own community, through public involvement,
was
recently successful at reversing city policy which had been poised to
greatly expand the use of red light cameras...

At this point in time they have removed all of the cameras and
additionally,
city planners actually hired a consulting firm and then followed their
recomendations of instituting low-cost safety improvements which included
extending the yellow interval to meet or exceed federal standards and
adding
an all-red phase to EVERY light-controlled intersection.

Which sure beats the crap out of having to try and decide within a split
second whether you'd rather get a ticket or have your dog and groceries
forcefully impact the windshield.

That's good but when the Feds start telling the states that they _must_
install such cameras or lose their highway trust fund income do you
think it's going to be as easy to reverse? After all if it only saves
one life . . .


The problem with your logic is that it's actually federal studies that have
repeatedly shown that red light cameras rarely if ever result in a overall
level of improved safety at intersections that couldn't have been attained
by low cost methods ( maintaining an adequate yellow duration and
incorporating an all red phase )

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersect...ras/qas.cfm#q4

What is happening instead, is that municipalities are intentionally
shortening the yellow phase to well below the minimum that's required to
make a safe stop, in order to generate revenue by manufacturing scoffaws,
with deadly results.

http://www.alternet.org/story/145752...eadly _profit

For what it's worth, pretty sure red light cameras aren't allowed on the
federal highway system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lig...#North_America

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...

"J. Clarke" wrote in message

That's good but when the Feds start telling the states that they _must_
install such cameras or lose their highway trust fund income do you
think it's going to be as easy to reverse? After all if it only saves
one life . . .

The liberal mindset is that they are inherently Good and should be free to
do as they please, but conservatives (=heretics) are inherently Evil and
deserve to be suppressed.

Sometimes they reveal a sullen resentment toward the people who provide
them with what they need but can't provide for themselves, such as utility
services. The innocence of ignorance isn't really a virtue.

They get a really strange twisted facial expression when I successfully
point out their self-serving irrational bias to them in person.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cognitive_dissonance

They were visibly depressed to discover the large fraction of very
intelligent, literate and articulate conservatives in Mensa. It just
wasn't any fun to shift the conversation to Renaissance art and music, and
discover that this techie could also discuss Telemann, Palladio,
Monteverdi, Caravaggio, Brunelleschi.

Normally we are too busy DOING to have as much time as they do for
talking, and don't have the insecure need for public self-validation such
as studies "proving" liberals' wished-for mental superiority.


The problem with "liberals" is that in common usage, seemingly there no
longer even exists a stable definition for the word itself.

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
The problem with "liberals" is that in common usage, seemingly there
no longer even exists a stable definition for the word itself.

I can only hope someone will recognize themselves and reexamine their
old assumptions.

jsw

Doug Miller wrote:

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in news:rcmdnXNeKL1cj4
:


I can happily report that our own community, through public involvement, was
recently successful at reversing city policy which had been poised to
greatly expand the use of red light cameras...

Too bad. I'd like to see red light cameras everywhere.


There is an intersection near here that I have seen seven vehicles
make a left turn after the light turns red. That includes big trucks,
and sometimes a tractor trailer that was third or forth in the line.
Sometimes the only way to get through that intersection after work lets
out is to pull out and force them to stop. THAT is a place that needs a
red light camera.

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 7/26/2012 10:27 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

TROLL


We all know that you're a liberal DNC troll. Do you have anything new
to add?


Even the DNC would have nothing to do with him, he's even worthless to them.


That's because he can't even cut the free cheese without a CNC
machine.

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 7/26/2012 10:25 PM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

BTW I'm posting from a new computer...

plonk




Did you sell some "clips" for your gun to buy it?


Probably dug it out of a dumpster behind Beast Buy.

PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

The problem with "liberals" is that in common usage, seemingly there no
longer even exists a stable definition for the word itself.


Which is quite appropriate, considering how unstable most liberals
are.

In article ,
says...

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...
In article ,
says...

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
...
"Doug Miller" wrote in message
. ..
"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in
news:U6KdnVel4OUkaozNnZ2dnUVZ_rqdnZ2d@scnresearch. com:

And then of course there are people like YOU...

KooKs....who do not realize that government is "by the people and for
the
people" and who instead imagine "government" as being some kind of
evil,
uncontrollable monster that was created by lazy, selfish individuals
in
order to make life miserable for everbody else [...]

That's not what it was created as, of course -- but that *is* what it
has
become.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jerry_P...of_Bureaucracy


I can happily report that our own community, through public involvement,
was
recently successful at reversing city policy which had been poised to
greatly expand the use of red light cameras...

At this point in time they have removed all of the cameras and
additionally,
city planners actually hired a consulting firm and then followed their
recomendations of instituting low-cost safety improvements which included
extending the yellow interval to meet or exceed federal standards and
adding
an all-red phase to EVERY light-controlled intersection.

Which sure beats the crap out of having to try and decide within a split
second whether you'd rather get a ticket or have your dog and groceries
forcefully impact the windshield.

That's good but when the Feds start telling the states that they _must_
install such cameras or lose their highway trust fund income do you
think it's going to be as easy to reverse? After all if it only saves
one life . . .


The problem with your logic is that it's actually federal studies that have
repeatedly shown that red light cameras rarely if ever result in a overall
level of improved safety at intersections that couldn't have been attained
by low cost methods ( maintaining an adequate yellow duration and
incorporating an all red phase )

http://safety.fhwa.dot.gov/intersect...ras/qas.cfm#q4

What is happening instead, is that municipalities are intentionally
shortening the yellow phase to well below the minimum that's required to
make a safe stop, in order to generate revenue by manufacturing scoffaws,
with deadly results.

http://www.alternet.org/story/145752...eadly _profit

For what it's worth, pretty sure red light cameras aren't allowed on the
federal highway system.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Red_lig...#North_America

You are laboring under the misconception that laws are made by
bureaucrats who write reports. They are not, they are made by
legislators whose skills are strained by the writing of the word
"potato" and to whom the worst disaster that can possibly befall the
world is that they fail of reelection.

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message ...
"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in message

"Jim Wilkins" wrote in message
The problem with "liberals" is that in common usage, seemingly there
no longer even exists a stable definition for the word itself.

I can only hope someone will recognize themselves and reexamine their
old assumptions.


I'll proudly wear the badge, but only so long as the definition is the same as the one in the Webster's dictionary.

On 7/27/2012 2:00 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 7/26/2012 10:27 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

TROLL


We all know that you're a liberal DNC troll. Do you have anything new
to add?


Even the DNC would have nothing to do with him, he's even worthless to them.


That's because he can't even cut the free cheese without a CNC
machine.


Have you ever read any of his on-topic posts? He's totally clueless if
not dangerous. A total twit. I doubt he's ever touched anything CNC.

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 7/27/2012 2:00 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 7/26/2012 10:27 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

TROLL


We all know that you're a liberal DNC troll. Do you have anything new
to add?


Even the DNC would have nothing to do with him, he's even worthless to them.


That's because he can't even cut the free cheese without a CNC
machine.


Have you ever read any of his on-topic posts? He's totally clueless if
not dangerous. A total twit. I doubt he's ever touched anything CNC.


He only uses the start button.

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 7/27/2012 2:00 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 7/26/2012 10:27 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

TROLL


We all know that you're a liberal DNC troll. Do you have anything new
to add?


Even the DNC would have nothing to do with him, he's even worthless to them.


That's because he can't even cut the free cheese without a CNC
machine.


Have you ever read any of his on-topic posts? He's totally clueless if
not dangerous. A total twit. I doubt he's ever touched anything CNC.


That was obvious when he said 'the barrel would get warm' in response
to 'what would a burst of 100 rounds do to a rifle barrel'.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...

You are laboring under the misconception that laws are made by
bureaucrats who write reports. They are not, they are made by
legislators whose skills are strained by the writing of the word
"potato" and to whom the worst disaster that can possibly befall the
world is that they fail of reelection.


Everybody who's smart enough to properly run the government is already too
busy; complaining on the internet about how crappily the government is being
run...

"Michael A. Terrell" on Fri, 27 Jul 2012
13:58:32 -0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

Doug Miller wrote:

"PrecisionmachinisT" wrote in news:rcmdnXNeKL1cj4
:


I can happily report that our own community, through public involvement, was
recently successful at reversing city policy which had been poised to
greatly expand the use of red light cameras...

Too bad. I'd like to see red light cameras everywhere.


There is an intersection near here that I have seen seven vehicles
make a left turn after the light turns red. That includes big trucks,
and sometimes a tractor trailer that was third or forth in the line.
Sometimes the only way to get through that intersection after work lets
out is to pull out and force them to stop. THAT is a place that needs a
red light camera.

Let me see if I have this correct. The "only" way to get make a
left through the intersection is technically illegal, and you want to
put a camera up to prevent traffic from moving.
--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
you are a bloody fool, only an ignorant cretin would even ask the
question, forty two, 47, the second door, and how many blonde lawyers
does it take to change a lightbulb.

On Jul 27, 9:51*pm, Tom Gardner wrote:
On 7/27/2012 2:00 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:







Tom Gardner wrote:

On 7/26/2012 10:27 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

PrecisionmachinisT wrote:

TROLL

* * We all know that you're a liberal DNC troll. *Do you have anything new
to add?

Even the DNC would have nothing to do with him, he's even worthless to them.

* * That's because he can't even cut the free cheese without a CNC
machine.

Have you ever read any of his on-topic posts? *He's totally clueless if
not dangerous. *A total twit. *I doubt he's ever touched anything CNC..- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Have you ever read any of Tom's on-topic posts? He's totally clueless
if
not dangerous. A total twit sucking off the business his parents gave
him.
I doubt he's ever touched anything but his penis.

TMT

pyotr filipivich wrote:


Let me see if I have this correct. The "only" way to get make a
left through the intersection is technically illegal, and you want to
put a camera up to prevent traffic from moving.


No. The traffic turning left gets 50% of the green light while
traffic in the other direction is stopped. They just keep turning until
the light in the thru lane turns red instead of stopping when the
oncoming traffic has the right of way. Sometimes you sit though four or
five cycles before you can drive straight thru the intersection becasue
of all the illegal turns. There were days that it took an extra 15
minutes to get home from work because of them. Some were dump trucks
heading to their parking lot on that road and they didn't even slow down
before racing through the intersection.


The intersection is at SE 110th St. & SE Baseline Rd. The traffic
turning north is the problem.


https://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&q=Belleview+fl+map&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x88e7d1c4090cc44d:0x5f45bebe28b0d9e2, Belleview,+FL&gl=us&ei=Hd0TUPmuD9LC6gH3tYDQCw&ved= 0CAkQ8gEwAA

original poster lost

KooKs....who do not realize that government is "by the people and for the
people"

===============
Try not to conflate what ought (or what was) with what is.
If voting changed anything it would be illegal...


--
Unka' George

"Gold is the money of kings,
silver is the money of gentlemen,
barter is the money of peasants,
but debt is the money of slaves"

-Norm Franz, "Money and Wealth in the New Millenium"

On 7/28/2012 1:18 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

That was obvious when he said 'the barrel would get warm' in response
to 'what would a burst of 100 rounds do to a rifle barrel'.


Since he never knows what he's blithering about, you'd think he could
Google a few things as not to look like a total idiot ALL the time. But
nope...he's even too stupid to do that.

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 7/28/2012 1:18 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

That was obvious when he said 'the barrel would get warm' in response
to 'what would a burst of 100 rounds do to a rifle barrel'.


Since he never knows what he's blithering about, you'd think he could
Google a few things as not to look like a total idiot ALL the time. But
nope...he's even too stupid to do that.


Firing short bursts was the first thing drilled into you in the
military, so you didn't damage the barrel. Idiots see Hollywood special
effects with hundreds of rounds being fired, non stop from one weapon
and think it's real.

"Michael A. Terrell" on Sat, 28 Jul 2012
08:50:56 -0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

pyotr filipivich wrote:


Let me see if I have this correct. The "only" way to get make a
left through the intersection is technically illegal, and you want to
put a camera up to prevent traffic from moving.


No. The traffic turning left gets 50% of the green light while
traffic in the other direction is stopped. They just keep turning until
the light in the thru lane turns red instead of stopping when the
oncoming traffic has the right of way. Sometimes you sit though four or
five cycles before you can drive straight thru the intersection becasue
of all the illegal turns. There were days that it took an extra 15
minutes to get home from work because of them. Some were dump trucks
heading to their parking lot on that road and they didn't even slow down
before racing through the intersection.

Ah, I miss understood. In that case, heck, have the cops show up
and hand out tickets till they can get the camera installed. They can
fund the camera installation.


The intersection is at SE 110th St. & SE Baseline Rd. The traffic
turning north is the problem.

https://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&q=Belleview+fl+map&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x88e7d1c4090cc44d:0x5f45bebe28b0d9e2, Belleview,+FL&gl=us&ei=Hd0TUPmuD9LC6gH3tYDQCw&ved= 0CAkQ8gEwAA

Arrgh - not your fault, but I have a distinct dislike for Google
Map/Earth. Apparently, they've never heard of "I want a close view
from overhead. I do not want to try and navigate the streets view."
Farkign geeks.

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
you are a bloody fool, only an ignorant cretin would even ask the
question, forty two, 47, the second door, and how many blonde lawyers
does it take to change a lightbulb.

On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 09:32:48 -0700, the renowned pyotr filipivich
wrote:


Arrgh - not your fault, but I have a distinct dislike for Google
Map/Earth. Apparently, they've never heard of "I want a close view
from overhead. I do not want to try and navigate the streets view."
Farkign geeks.

Where would that data come from? AFAIUI, Google buys/licenses data
from aerial and satellite photography for the overhead views, and has
gathered street view data with cars like this, where it made sense and
where they were allowed to do so:

http://www.chrisd.ca/blog/wp-content...ar-toronto.jpg

Maybe some day they'll have autonomous quadracopters flying all over
the place so you can inspect the freckles on your sunbathing neighbor,
but I don't think that will happen anytime soon.



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

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
...
Arrgh - not your fault, but I have a distinct dislike for Google
Map/Earth. Apparently, they've never heard of "I want a close view
from overhead. I do not want to try and navigate the streets view."
Farkign geeks.

tschus
pyotr

They recorded it with camera pods atop cars, not from helicopters.

jsw

"Jim Wilkins" on Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:31:58
-0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
.. .
...
Arrgh - not your fault, but I have a distinct dislike for Google
Map/Earth. Apparently, they've never heard of "I want a close view
from overhead. I do not want to try and navigate the streets view."
Farkign geeks.

tschus
pyotr

They recorded it with camera pods atop cars, not from helicopters.

Yeah, I know that. But if I zoom in close to the ground, say to
look and see if there is a sidewalk there, or what might be behind a
building , the default assumption is that I want the street view.
Which of course doesn't know about back alleys, side streets, or what
I am looking for.

jsw

--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
you are a bloody fool, only an ignorant cretin would even ask the
question, forty two, 47, the second door, and how many blonde lawyers
does it take to change a lightbulb.

Spehro Pefhany on Sat, 28 Jul 2012
12:49:03 -0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Sat, 28 Jul 2012 09:32:48 -0700, the renowned pyotr filipivich
wrote:


Arrgh - not your fault, but I have a distinct dislike for Google
Map/Earth. Apparently, they've never heard of "I want a close view
from overhead. I do not want to try and navigate the streets view."
Farkign geeks.

Where would that data come from? AFAIUI, Google buys/licenses data
from aerial and satellite photography for the overhead views, and has
gathered street view data with cars like this, where it made sense and
where they were allowed to do so:

Yes. But when the overhead is what I want, I don't want to look
at the storefront. Which is the default _assumption_ that if I am
"flying" at ten feet, I must ergo want to read street numbers or
something.

Fark, the S/w is so freaking "helpful" I forget what it was I
wanted, trying to get back to useful data.

tschus
pyotr
--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
you are a bloody fool, only an ignorant cretin would even ask the
question, forty two, 47, the second door, and how many blonde lawyers
does it take to change a lightbulb.

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
"Jim Wilkins" on Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:31:58

They recorded it with camera pods atop cars, not from helicopters.

Yeah, I know that. But if I zoom in close to the ground, say to
look and see if there is a sidewalk there, or what might be behind a
building , the default assumption is that I want the street view.
Which of course doesn't know about back alleys, side streets, or
what
I am looking for.

Well, the SR-71s are retired and satellites can orbit only so low.
Until Google deploys a drone fleet to surveil every street, rooftop
and backyard swimming pool you're stuck with horizontal car or
vertical satellite photos.

Just be happy they aren't scanning you with millimeter waves yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimeter_wave_scanner

Do you want tinfoil underwear to go with that beanie?

Would this create a new market demand for chain mail?

Maybe we should be designing steel-wool knitting machines.

jsw

In article ,
says...

"Jim Wilkins" on Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:31:58
-0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
.. .
...
Arrgh - not your fault, but I have a distinct dislike for Google
Map/Earth. Apparently, they've never heard of "I want a close view
from overhead. I do not want to try and navigate the streets view."
Farkign geeks.

tschus
pyotr

They recorded it with camera pods atop cars, not from helicopters.

Yeah, I know that. But if I zoom in close to the ground, say to
look and see if there is a sidewalk there, or what might be behind a
building , the default assumption is that I want the street view.
Which of course doesn't know about back alleys, side streets, or what
I am looking for.

The idea is that when you get so low that the vertical imagery they have
is useless anyway due to lack of resolution, they switch you to street
view.

On 7/28/2012 7:19 AM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Have you ever read any of Tom's on-topic posts? He's totally
clueless if not dangerous. A total twit sucking off the business his
parents gave him. I doubt he's ever touched anything but his penis.

TMT

I sense the envy, you wish he'd let you touch his penis.

David

pyotr filipivich wrote:

"Michael A. Terrell" on Sat, 28 Jul 2012
08:50:56 -0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

pyotr filipivich wrote:


Let me see if I have this correct. The "only" way to get make a
left through the intersection is technically illegal, and you want to
put a camera up to prevent traffic from moving.


No. The traffic turning left gets 50% of the green light while
traffic in the other direction is stopped. They just keep turning until
the light in the thru lane turns red instead of stopping when the
oncoming traffic has the right of way. Sometimes you sit though four or
five cycles before you can drive straight thru the intersection becasue
of all the illegal turns. There were days that it took an extra 15
minutes to get home from work because of them. Some were dump trucks
heading to their parking lot on that road and they didn't even slow down
before racing through the intersection.

Ah, I miss understood. In that case, heck, have the cops show up
and hand out tickets till they can get the camera installed. They can
fund the camera installation.


They are the worst during shift change when the couple cops in that
small town are off the streets


The intersection is at SE 110th St. & SE Baseline Rd. The traffic
turning north is the problem.

https://maps.google.com/maps?oe=utf-8&client=firefox-a&q=Belleview+fl+map&ie=UTF-8&hq=&hnear=0x88e7d1c4090cc44d:0x5f45bebe28b0d9e2, Belleview,+FL&gl=us&ei=Hd0TUPmuD9LC6gH3tYDQCw&ved= 0CAkQ8gEwAA

Arrgh - not your fault, but I have a distinct dislike for Google
Map/Earth. Apparently, they've never heard of "I want a close view
from overhead. I do not want to try and navigate the streets view."
Farkign geeks.


You used to be able to select any point and resolution for a link on
Goggle maps. No more.

pyotr filipivich wrote:

Yes. But when the overhead is what I want, I don't want to look
at the storefront. Which is the default _assumption_ that if I am
"flying" at ten feet, I must ergo want to read street numbers or
something.


That storefront was the only way I could center the map on that
intersection.

Jim Wilkins wrote:

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
...
"Jim Wilkins" on Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:31:58

They recorded it with camera pods atop cars, not from helicopters.

Yeah, I know that. But if I zoom in close to the ground, say to
look and see if there is a sidewalk there, or what might be behind a
building , the default assumption is that I want the street view.
Which of course doesn't know about back alleys, side streets, or
what
I am looking for.

Well, the SR-71s are retired and satellites can orbit only so low.
Until Google deploys a drone fleet to surveil every street, rooftop
and backyard swimming pool you're stuck with horizontal car or
vertical satellite photos.

Just be happy they aren't scanning you with millimeter waves yet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Millimeter_wave_scanner

Do you want tinfoil underwear to go with that beanie?

Would this create a new market demand for chain mail?

Maybe we should be designing steel-wool knitting machines.


And breeding a new species of stainless steel sheep? ;-)

On 7/28/2012 12:27 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 7/28/2012 1:18 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

That was obvious when he said 'the barrel would get warm' in response
to 'what would a burst of 100 rounds do to a rifle barrel'.


Since he never knows what he's blithering about, you'd think he could
Google a few things as not to look like a total idiot ALL the time. But
nope...he's even too stupid to do that.


Firing short bursts was the first thing drilled into you in the
military, so you didn't damage the barrel. Idiots see Hollywood special
effects with hundreds of rounds being fired, non stop from one weapon
and think it's real.


Have you EVER heard a real gun owner use the word "clip" for a box
magazine? THAT'S the true mark of a non gun owner. So, we all KNOW how
full of **** he is about this topic too. Typical lying libtard!

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 7/28/2012 12:27 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 7/28/2012 1:18 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

That was obvious when he said 'the barrel would get warm' in response
to 'what would a burst of 100 rounds do to a rifle barrel'.


Since he never knows what he's blithering about, you'd think he could
Google a few things as not to look like a total idiot ALL the time. But
nope...he's even too stupid to do that.


Firing short bursts was the first thing drilled into you in the
military, so you didn't damage the barrel. Idiots see Hollywood special
effects with hundreds of rounds being fired, non stop from one weapon
and think it's real.


Have you EVER heard a real gun owner use the word "clip" for a box
magazine? THAT'S the true mark of a non gun owner. So, we all KNOW how
full of **** he is about this topic too. Typical lying libtard!


I try not to talk to girly men.

"J. Clarke" on Sat, 28 Jul 2012 16:15:19 -0400
typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
In article ,
says...

"Jim Wilkins" on Sat, 28 Jul 2012 13:31:58
-0400 typed in rec.crafts.metalworking the following:

"pyotr filipivich" wrote in message
.. .
...
Arrgh - not your fault, but I have a distinct dislike for Google
Map/Earth. Apparently, they've never heard of "I want a close view
from overhead. I do not want to try and navigate the streets view."
Farkign geeks.

tschus
pyotr

They recorded it with camera pods atop cars, not from helicopters.

Yeah, I know that. But if I zoom in close to the ground, say to
look and see if there is a sidewalk there, or what might be behind a
building , the default assumption is that I want the street view.
Which of course doesn't know about back alleys, side streets, or what
I am looking for.

The idea is that when you get so low that the vertical imagery they have
is useless anyway due to lack of resolution, they switch you to street
view.

That is what I've learned. It sucks, and you can't zoom up. I
don't want street view - most of the time it is not available where I
want to look. And getting "back" is non-intuitive.

There was a time when it would simply display "Sorry, we don't
have a better resolution". and leave it up to you.
--
pyotr
Go not to the Net for answers, for it will tell you Yes and no. And
you are a bloody fool, only an ignorant cretin would even ask the
question, forty two, 47, the second door, and how many blonde lawyers
does it take to change a lightbulb.

In article , says...

On 7/28/2012 12:27 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 7/28/2012 1:18 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

That was obvious when he said 'the barrel would get warm' in response
to 'what would a burst of 100 rounds do to a rifle barrel'.


Since he never knows what he's blithering about, you'd think he could
Google a few things as not to look like a total idiot ALL the time. But
nope...he's even too stupid to do that.


Firing short bursts was the first thing drilled into you in the
military, so you didn't damage the barrel. Idiots see Hollywood special
effects with hundreds of rounds being fired, non stop from one weapon
and think it's real.


Have you EVER heard a real gun owner use the word "clip" for a box
magazine? THAT'S the true mark of a non gun owner. So, we all KNOW how
full of **** he is about this topic too. Typical lying libtard!

I've heard plenty of "real gun owners" use "clip" for "box magazine".
I've even heard a US Army gunnery sergeant use it.

But maybe you classify "real gun owner" as something other than "person
who owns a real gun".

pyotr filipivich wrote:
That is what I've learned. It sucks, and you can't zoom up. I
don't want street view - most of the time it is not available where I
want to look. And getting "back" is non-intuitive.


I just use the - sign to back out of street view. You can pan and
tilt in street view, and zoom in to read most signs.

"J. Clarke" wrote:

I've heard plenty of "real gun owners" use "clip" for "box magazine".
I've even heard a US Army gunnery sergeant use it.

But maybe you classify "real gun owner" as something other than "person
who owns a real gun".


You didn't call it a 'gun' in the Army. It was a 'weapon', which
they were quick to remind those who forgot. Usually followed by 20,
and having to recite: "This is my weapon, this my gun! One is for
shooting, the other is for fun!!!"

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
in.local...

I've heard plenty of "real gun owners" use "clip" for "box
magazine".
I've even heard a US Army gunnery sergeant use it.

That would be "f**n' clip" or f##n' mag", and you didn't because
gunnys are Marines, equivalent to Sergeant First Class in the army.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Templat...rat ive_ranks

NCOs aren't trained in the finer points of the English language. It's
more important to be understood over background noise than to please
the teacher, thus Atten-HUT!

There was a litany of canned responses for calling a sergeant "Sir".

Primarily he would answer "Don't call me Sir, I WORK for a living!"

I was a Specialist 5 (~tech sergeant) and was also supposed to say
"Don't call me Sergeant, I can read and write!".

On 7/30/2012 4:24 AM, J. Clarke wrote:
In article , says...

On 7/28/2012 12:27 PM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

Tom Gardner wrote:

On 7/28/2012 1:18 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

That was obvious when he said 'the barrel would get warm' in response
to 'what would a burst of 100 rounds do to a rifle barrel'.


Since he never knows what he's blithering about, you'd think he could
Google a few things as not to look like a total idiot ALL the time. But
nope...he's even too stupid to do that.


Firing short bursts was the first thing drilled into you in the
military, so you didn't damage the barrel. Idiots see Hollywood special
effects with hundreds of rounds being fired, non stop from one weapon
and think it's real.


Have you EVER heard a real gun owner use the word "clip" for a box
magazine? THAT'S the true mark of a non gun owner. So, we all KNOW how
full of **** he is about this topic too. Typical lying libtard!

I've heard plenty of "real gun owners" use "clip" for "box magazine".
I've even heard a US Army gunnery sergeant use it.

But maybe you classify "real gun owner" as something other than "person
who owns a real gun".



Clips ARE used by the military, most rifle ammunition is packed and
shipped on clips. Maybe you herd the term used correctly. Plenty of
military people in my family and none would make the mistake of using
the term interchangeably . You can stick up for the idiot, your choice.
There are plenty of other clues that he is a liar, he trips up in
almost every thing he posts.

On 7/30/2012 6:41 AM, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

"J. Clarke" wrote:

I've heard plenty of "real gun owners" use "clip" for "box magazine".
I've even heard a US Army gunnery sergeant use it.

But maybe you classify "real gun owner" as something other than "person
who owns a real gun".


You didn't call it a 'gun' in the Army. It was a 'weapon', which
they were quick to remind those who forgot. Usually followed by 20,
and having to recite: "This is my weapon, this my gun! One is for
shooting, the other is for fun!!!"



As an NRA Instructor, we are not allowed to use the term "weapon". We
use "Firearm", "Sidearm", "Rifle", "Pistol", etc. "Weapon" has a
negative connotation and most of our instruction is geared to sport
shooters, just a small portion of our teaching is CCW. There are
thousands of NRA sport shooting events every year and the NRA's prime
directive is education in safety and these events.

The only thing that I add to the program is by insisting that my
students have a gun safe. I also strongly recommend continuing
education, training and LOTS of regular practice. My CCW students are
encouraged to join IDPA. We have a chapter at our local club. Between
teaching, training and programs, I shoot over 1k/mo. Thank goodness I
have an endless supply of range lead but always looking for Linotype and
wheel weights, range lead tends to be too soft and needs alloy
adjustment. There are just too many .22s and jacketed slugs in the mix.

On 7/28/2012 6:03 PM, David R. Birch wrote:
On 7/28/2012 7:19 AM, Too_Many_Tools wrote:

Have you ever read any of Tom's on-topic posts? He's totally
clueless if not dangerous. A total twit sucking off the business his
parents gave him. I doubt he's ever touched anything but his penis.

TMT

I sense the envy, you wish he'd let you touch his penis.

David

I get requests from him all the time. He doesn't take "NO" as a final
answer.