On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 08:22:37 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 7:49 PM, J.B.Slocomb wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 01:50:09 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 12:08 AM, jon_banquer wrote:
On Apr 20, 9:25 am, wrote:
On 4/20/2013 10:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:



Anyway, I've long since put it behind me. It sounds like it still eats
at you. Again, I'm sorry for that.

It always will, Ed.

You can admit what eats at you. Ed can't.

Ed still has tons of things that still eat at him but he can't admit
it and pretends he's put it all behind him. He hasn't. Ed is filled
with anger and rage. To cover it up he often accuses others of being
angry and filled with rage.


That's a pretty common thing.

Just look at the stranger creatures that post here.
LOTS of repressed rage and transference.

Not to defend Ed but are you sure that the others you mention are
demonstrating "repressed rage and transference", or are just shouting
abuse from behind their mother's apron as believe that they are safe
on the Internet.

I have always surmised the latter :-)


Transference is the term for seeing your own denied faults in other.


I don't believe well behaved mother's sons behave that way.

I know my own mom would pin my ears if she caught me doing that.


It may be that you are an "Old Duffer". There is a modern day law that
you can't beat your kids or pin their ears back. I suppose that you
are supposed to reason with them :-(
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:09:12 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 8:27 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 04:59:08 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 4:10 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 01:52:49 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 9:50 AM, ATP wrote:
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
. 3.70...
snip TMT quote

Oh, I forgot.

You're a moron for saying something definitive about two activities you
know nothing about. You've proven over and over that you don't know much
about anything you comment on, so this isn't new behavior on your part.

LLoyd

His only purpose is to troll and it seems to be working.


We should really do something about that some day.

Maybe declare a TMT-Free week?

Ignore TMT!

Everybody (else) can start a thread if the want.
And we should continue working existing threads

But not respond to any new threads from this guy.

I'll bet his head would explode.


What..you guys dont have permanant kill filters?


Nope. Still running Tbird.
But I've about worn the lettering off of my K key.

Ill email you a copy of Agent 1.93 You wont go back to Tbird

Gunner


I played with one of the free versions (dunno what's current)
and was a bit underwhelmed...


The free versions lack the spell checking ability but Agent isn't a
really expensive program....(even if you can't find a bootleg copy :-)

--
Cheers,

John B.

On 4/22/2013 6:38 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:08:40 -0400, "Steve
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:13:21 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 10:43 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:22:05 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 10:21 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:09:12 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 8:27 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 04:59:08 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 4:10 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 01:52:49 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 9:50 AM, ATP wrote:
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
. 3.70...
snip TMT quote
Oh, I forgot.

You're a moron for saying something definitive about two activities you
know nothing about. You've proven over and over that you don't know much
about anything you comment on, so this isn't new behavior on your part.

LLoyd
His only purpose is to troll and it seems to be working.


We should really do something about that some day.

Maybe declare a TMT-Free week?

Ignore TMT!

Everybody (else) can start a thread if the want.
And we should continue working existing threads

But not respond to any new threads from this guy.

I'll bet his head would explode.

What..you guys dont have permanant kill filters?


Nope. Still running Tbird.
But I've about worn the lettering off of my K key.
Ill email you a copy of Agent 1.93 You wont go back to Tbird

Gunner

I played with one of the free versions (dunno what's current)
and was a bit underwhelmed...

Obviously you didnt know how to set it up properly... particularly if
you are using Thunderbird (snicker)

The current version is an overblown pile of crapola that has sequinns
and gold plating on the tail fins.

In fact...they all do ..going back to version 2.5

Now there are other newsreaders out there..Pan,
MicroplanetGravity...etc etc

http://www.newsreaders.info/recommended-newsreaders.htm

Enjoy!



Btw..there are other

Ohhhh...fins!

How I lusted in my 12 year old heart after Billy Sol's 62 Cadillac.
(His sister lived next door)
Still using Agent 1.91 (and driving a 17 year old Ranger)
Hang on to it, because it looks like Forte doesn't support it anymore?

Whats to support? I run 1.93...and it was fully mature and bug free.
Ive been running it since 1998. No issues noted, dont need any bells
and whistles..dont need "desks" and all that happy horse****.

Shrug

Gunner


Hmm, same reason I don't "upgrade" from T-Bird 2.0 I don't need all the
tabs, color threads and the rest. I want a plain text E-Mail program,
newsreader without all the gimmicks and easy to use filtering.

And that is one of the problems with T-bird..its a text/email program.
And not well executed.

Many versions of Agent are as well, but they are better executed and
are weighted for newsgroups rather than email

Shrug. I ran Tbird when I first got internet. That lasted no more than
6 months and then I upgraded.

Pegasus for email (free even today) was my mainstay for years

http://www.pmail.com/

Gunner



I first used Netscape (after Al Gore invented the internet).
Before that I don't remember what it was called.
I think it was just a ymodem serial package.
Procomm or some such?

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:13:21 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 10:43 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:22:05 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 10:21 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:09:12 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 8:27 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 04:59:08 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 4:10 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 01:52:49 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 9:50 AM, ATP wrote:
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
. 3.70...
snip TMT quote
Oh, I forgot.

You're a moron for saying something definitive about two activities you
know nothing about. You've proven over and over that you don't know much
about anything you comment on, so this isn't new behavior on your part.

LLoyd
His only purpose is to troll and it seems to be working.


We should really do something about that some day.

Maybe declare a TMT-Free week?

Ignore TMT!

Everybody (else) can start a thread if the want.
And we should continue working existing threads

But not respond to any new threads from this guy.

I'll bet his head would explode.

What..you guys dont have permanant kill filters?


Nope. Still running Tbird.
But I've about worn the lettering off of my K key.
Ill email you a copy of Agent 1.93 You wont go back to Tbird

Gunner

I played with one of the free versions (dunno what's current)
and was a bit underwhelmed...

Obviously you didnt know how to set it up properly... particularly if
you are using Thunderbird (snicker)

The current version is an overblown pile of crapola that has sequinns
and gold plating on the tail fins.

In fact...they all do ..going back to version 2.5

Now there are other newsreaders out there..Pan,
MicroplanetGravity...etc etc

http://www.newsreaders.info/recommended-newsreaders.htm

Enjoy!



Btw..there are other

Ohhhh...fins!

How I lusted in my 12 year old heart after Billy Sol's 62 Cadillac.
(His sister lived next door)
Still using Agent 1.91 (and driving a 17 year old Ranger)
Hang on to it, because it looks like Forte doesn't support it anymore?

Whats to support? I run 1.93...and it was fully mature and bug free.
Ive been running it since 1998. No issues noted, dont need any bells
and whistles..dont need "desks" and all that happy horse****.

Shrug

Gunner


Hmm, same reason I don't "upgrade" from T-Bird 2.0 I don't need all the
tabs, color threads and the rest. I want a plain text E-Mail program,
newsreader without all the gimmicks and easy to use filtering.

--
Steve W.

Does that mean that you are filled with hate and rage?
..
Christopher A. Young
Learn more about Jesus
www.lds.org
..
..
"Richard" wrote in message
m...

Ed still has tons of things that still eat at him but he can't admit
it and pretends he's put it all behind him. He hasn't. Ed is filled
with anger and rage. To cover it up he often accuses others of being
angry and filled with rage.


That's a pretty common thing.

Just look at the stranger creatures that post here.
LOTS of repressed rage and transference.

Transference is the term for seeing your own denied faults in other.

On Sat, 20 Apr 2013 21:19:51 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Ed Huntress fired this volley in
:

Ok, then, just what "freedoms" were you talking about, when you said
"an amateur pyrotechnician - would have a lot of their freedoms
restricted. That's what they want."?

Ooookay... if you're listening -- the 'they' is the power mongers
(mostly, but not all democrats) in government who truly want to remove
all 'power' from all citizens, including the use of dangerous materials
or the pursuit of dangerous activities, even when those only endanger the
participants.

And no, I'm not 'anti government'. It serves many good, necessary
purposes. It's not just our government, either; governments have
inevitably devolved into controlling forms that use public doles and
restrictive regulations to turn their citizens into drones.

But, to the point: The amateur pyros know that any criminal use of
explosives by any person, regardless of motive, will cause these same
power mongers to _attempt_ to further restrict their access to and use of
the materials to make their fireworks. They've already restricted a
number of ordinary, essentially harmless chemicals used almost
exclusively by pyros because they MIGHT be used to make illegal
explosives. (no, I'm not talking about ammonium nitrate, which is not
used in pyrotechnics).

They'll also attempt to restrict their firing of the fireworks (which is
done mostly at licensed shoot sites, during organized fireworks
festivals).

The government has already sought to further restrict amateurs by putting
their suppliers out of business, and without any provocation, but just
because the (now prior) BATFE safety director had "an agenda".

The safety director of BATFE declared in public (in a fireworks
symposium, no less) that her personal goal was to have all fireworks
outlawed everywhere in the US. She was a young, minority, power-hungry
feminist who eventually got thrown out of power, but she set a lot of
things in motion that have yet to have their full effects on the
industry.

And Ed... the amateurs do no harm. They don't even compete with, but
rather contribute to, the professional trade.

Except for the same rare 'fringe element' you'll find in any activity,
they all follow the rules and stringent safety protocols, use care AND
good judgement, and care very much what the communities around them think
of their activities. Most of the guilds will, indeed, censure and
_report_ members whom they find doing illegal things.

So, any time the government gets involved, the amateur fireworkers
rightly fear that their ability to ply their craft will be restricted
further.

LLoyd

'Sorry this is taking me so long, but I'm really busy. So I'll keep
this as short as I can.

I really appreciate your taking the time to explain this. Your post
and some from Richard made me realize I'd better clarify my thinking
about these things, and you both helped. I think we can narrow down
the points of agreement and disagreement with a little taxonomic
analysis. d8-) This is what I've thought about.

We have four basic situations we discuss, and we get into arguments
partly because we tangle them up indiscriminantly:

1) Activites that involve a risk only to the participant (solo
mountain climbing; most skydiving)

2) Activities that involve a risk to the participant and to others who
are participating with him (car racing; setting up fireworks)

3) Activities that involve a risk to the participant and to others who
are not participating, who may even be unaware that the activity is
going on (people into whose homes cars crash; people on the unlucky
end of stray bullets, or who are aware of the activity but have no
reason to believe they're at risk, as in this famous tragedy:

http://www.ewilkins.com/wilko/lemans.htm

4) Activities that may not involve a risk in themselves, but which
require the means by which other risks are created. In the cases we
discuss here, involving guns and explosives, it is those objects that
create most of the controversy.

This one requires more thinking to categorize. I could include a fifth
category, in which *some* people pose a risk to others without knowing
about it: new hunters who don't think or know about safe carrying of
guns in groups, or who aren't trained to be acutely aware of their
backstops. It could be part of 2 and 3.

We impose regulations to try to alleviate these risks as much as
possible. For example, requiring hunter-safety training to get a
license.

Without getting into the breakdowns of category 4, it doesn't sound
like there is much training requirement on amateur pyros.

You're aware of the huge number of fireworks injuries, no doubt:

http://tinyurl.com/csgcfcg

....and the full detail:

http://www.nfpa.org/assets/files/pdf/os.fireworks.pdf

Of course, most of those are fools with fireworks, not serious amateur
pyrotechnicians. But the problem is real, and huge.

It's in the category of things any civilized society, one with a
respect for human life, would try to regulate, in an attempt to reduce
injuries. Furthermore, concerning the issue that prompted this thread,
there is the danger than the means of producing fireworks and to
handload ammunition also provides the means for bombers to conduct
mass murders.

These are tough issues and they are not ones that sensibly can be
polarized to the extremes. Rarely do we have to ban things to make
them tolerably safe; the ATF agent you mentioned was over the top, and
deserved to be kicked down. On the other hand, if someone pops off
with a claim that they're not the problem, when they ARE the problem
in the sense that the means for their toys/hobby/vocation necessarily
require that any mass murderer or bomber can easily obtain the means
to carry out his terror, they, too, deserve to be kicked to the
bottom. Human lives trump hobbies, no matter how much these "amateurs"
contribute to the professional side of pyrotechnics.

I'm not proposing any simple solutions. All I'm trying to do is to get
a stronger grip on the types of problems we're dealing with.

Thanks again. I'll try to think about this some more.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:49:07 +0700, J.B.Slocomb
wrote:

On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 01:50:09 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 12:08 AM, jon_banquer wrote:
On Apr 20, 9:25 am, wrote:
On 4/20/2013 10:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:



Anyway, I've long since put it behind me. It sounds like it still eats
at you. Again, I'm sorry for that.

It always will, Ed.

You can admit what eats at you. Ed can't.

Ed still has tons of things that still eat at him but he can't admit
it and pretends he's put it all behind him. He hasn't. Ed is filled
with anger and rage. To cover it up he often accuses others of being
angry and filled with rage.


That's a pretty common thing.

Just look at the stranger creatures that post here.
LOTS of repressed rage and transference.

Not to defend Ed but are you sure that the others you mention are
demonstrating "repressed rage and transference", or are just shouting
abuse from behind their mother's apron as believe that they are safe
on the Internet.

I have always surmised the latter :-)


Transference is the term for seeing your own denied faults in other.

Thanks for the comment, JB, but trying to analyze Jon's emotional
problems online is a fruitless exercise. His symptoms would challenge
any professional shrink. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Ed Huntress fired this volley in
:

Without getting into the breakdowns of category 4, it doesn't sound
like there is much training requirement on amateur pyros.

Just two points, although I will also read and digest:

Of course an 'amateur pyro' could pursue his interests on his own. But
he'd do so without the support of a guild, without licensed shooting
sites, without training, etc. The guilds do NOT EVER allow the general
public to participate or even watch, except from a large, safe distance
away from the activities. They even hire the local fire departments (at
substantial cost) to attend their shoots, so as to contain any mishap
that might affect the public's safety. The guilds generally (I think,
all) hold federal licenses, and have to attend to all the regulatory
control that a professional fireworks company would.

If one were to pursue the hobby alone, without a guild, it's very likely
that discharging his wares would attract the attention of law-
enforcement, since these sorts of activities are otherwise illegal in
most communities.

ALL of the amateur fireworking guilds in the US require extensive safety
training. After a formal, standardized written exam on a fairly large
body of regulatory and safety information, new members are also put on a
probationary status, where they're supervised during their activites
(while on guild events), and not 'promoted' to "shooter" until they've
shown their merits.

The other point: The "fireworks accident reports" you read about are
mostly the product of the CPSC, which also has a strong anti-fireworks
bias. There have been, as far as I know of, only four fireworks
accidents of any significance by guild amateurs in the last five years.
In every case, only the person doing the activity was hurt (a couple were
killed, or died shortly after). A very few of the accidents are caused
by miscreant professional companies trying to save a buck. Those
companies usually build a record of accidents, and lose their licenses.

On the other hand, the CPSC does whatever it can to falsely ante-up the
numbers. They have reported numerous "fireworks accidents" that were
traffic accidents (sometimes MILES away from the show), because the
person was enroute to or leaving a fireworks show. Virtually 100% of the
fireworks accidents that legitimately happened, happened in the hands of
private citizens shooting (usually illegal) Class-C consumer fireworks.
And well over 85% of those were minor burns (hot sparkler wires, or ash
in the eye). Some weren't, and it's all the pity that people with no
experience or training could be allowed to buy and shoot such products.

The CPSC's annual "chicken-busting and mannequin burning demo" uses and
demonstrates the use of fireworks that have been outlawed in the US since
1968. It's a federal felony to even possess them, and yet the CPSC
represents them as the 'normal' type of fireworks anybody might buy at a
corner stand. (!!) They do it every year. And they felony-violate the
law by even possessing them, because THEY are not licensed professional
fireworkers... just sayin'


LLoyd

On Apr 22, 9:22*am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:49:07 +0700, J.B.Slocomb









wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 01:50:09 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 12:08 AM, jon_banquer wrote:
On Apr 20, 9:25 am, *wrote:
On 4/20/2013 10:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Anyway, I've long since put it behind me. It sounds like it still eats
at you. Again, I'm sorry for that.

It always will, Ed.

You can admit what eats at you. Ed can't.

Ed still has tons of things that still eat at him but he can't admit
it and pretends he's put it all behind him. He hasn't. Ed is filled
with anger and rage. To cover it up he often accuses others of being
angry and filled with rage.

That's a pretty common thing.

Just look at the stranger creatures that post here.
LOTS of repressed rage and transference.

Not to defend Ed but are you sure that the others you mention are
demonstrating "repressed rage and transference", or are just shouting
abuse from behind their mother's apron as believe that they are safe
on the Internet.

I have always surmised the latter :-)

Transference is the term for seeing your own denied faults in other.

Thanks for the comment, JB, but trying to analyze Jon's emotional
problems online is a fruitless exercise. His symptoms would challenge
any professional shrink. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

When you have to resort to talking to a sock puppet like J.B. Slocomb
is I think that alone is very telling about how many issues you have,
Ed.

On Apr 22, 10:18*am, jon_banquer wrote:
On Apr 22, 9:22*am, Ed Huntress wrote:









On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:49:07 +0700, J.B.Slocomb

wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 01:50:09 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 12:08 AM, jon_banquer wrote:
On Apr 20, 9:25 am, *wrote:
On 4/20/2013 10:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Anyway, I've long since put it behind me. It sounds like it still eats
at you. Again, I'm sorry for that.

It always will, Ed.

You can admit what eats at you. Ed can't.

Ed still has tons of things that still eat at him but he can't admit
it and pretends he's put it all behind him. He hasn't. Ed is filled
with anger and rage. To cover it up he often accuses others of being
angry and filled with rage.

That's a pretty common thing.

Just look at the stranger creatures that post here.
LOTS of repressed rage and transference.

Not to defend Ed but are you sure that the others you mention are
demonstrating "repressed rage and transference", or are just shouting
abuse from behind their mother's apron as believe that they are safe
on the Internet.

I have always surmised the latter :-)

Transference is the term for seeing your own denied faults in other.

Thanks for the comment, JB, but trying to analyze Jon's emotional
problems online is a fruitless exercise. His symptoms would challenge
any professional shrink. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

When you have to resort to talking to a sock puppet like J.B. Slocomb
is I think that alone is very telling about how many issues you have,
Ed.

"J.B. Slocomb" first started posting to Usenet in January 2013.

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 12:13:02 -0500, "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"
lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote:

Ed Huntress fired this volley in
:

Without getting into the breakdowns of category 4, it doesn't sound
like there is much training requirement on amateur pyros.

Just two points, although I will also read and digest:

Of course an 'amateur pyro' could pursue his interests on his own. But
he'd do so without the support of a guild, without licensed shooting
sites, without training, etc. The guilds do NOT EVER allow the general
public to participate or even watch, except from a large, safe distance
away from the activities. They even hire the local fire departments (at
substantial cost) to attend their shoots, so as to contain any mishap
that might affect the public's safety. The guilds generally (I think,
all) hold federal licenses, and have to attend to all the regulatory
control that a professional fireworks company would.

If one were to pursue the hobby alone, without a guild, it's very likely
that discharging his wares would attract the attention of law-
enforcement, since these sorts of activities are otherwise illegal in
most communities.

ALL of the amateur fireworking guilds in the US require extensive safety
training. After a formal, standardized written exam on a fairly large
body of regulatory and safety information, new members are also put on a
probationary status, where they're supervised during their activites
(while on guild events), and not 'promoted' to "shooter" until they've
shown their merits.

The other point: The "fireworks accident reports" you read about are
mostly the product of the CPSC, which also has a strong anti-fireworks
bias. There have been, as far as I know of, only four fireworks
accidents of any significance by guild amateurs in the last five years.
In every case, only the person doing the activity was hurt (a couple were
killed, or died shortly after). A very few of the accidents are caused
by miscreant professional companies trying to save a buck. Those
companies usually build a record of accidents, and lose their licenses.

On the other hand, the CPSC does whatever it can to falsely ante-up the
numbers. They have reported numerous "fireworks accidents" that were
traffic accidents (sometimes MILES away from the show), because the
person was enroute to or leaving a fireworks show. Virtually 100% of the
fireworks accidents that legitimately happened, happened in the hands of
private citizens shooting (usually illegal) Class-C consumer fireworks.
And well over 85% of those were minor burns (hot sparkler wires, or ash
in the eye). Some weren't, and it's all the pity that people with no
experience or training could be allowed to buy and shoot such products.

The CPSC's annual "chicken-busting and mannequin burning demo" uses and
demonstrates the use of fireworks that have been outlawed in the US since
1968. It's a federal felony to even possess them, and yet the CPSC
represents them as the 'normal' type of fireworks anybody might buy at a
corner stand. (!!) They do it every year. And they felony-violate the
law by even possessing them, because THEY are not licensed professional
fireworkers... just sayin'


LLoyd

The guilds sound excellent; something like the SCCA in sports-car
racing. If they solve the problems, it's better than having government
agencies do it. The limitations on going it alone may well be enough
to keep the safety issues under control.

Then we're left with the type 4 situation in my "taxonomy." That needs
further consideration. And that was where your complaint was in your
earlier post.

Maybe later. Meantime, it sounds like the CPSC is to you what the ATF
is to Gunner. g I read the detailed report and I recognize that most
of them are trivial. One thing I can't forget, though, is that a Roman
candle almost killed my dad at age 11. Sad story, but he recovered,
obviously. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:18:52 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Apr 22, 9:22*am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:49:07 +0700, J.B.Slocomb









wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 01:50:09 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 12:08 AM, jon_banquer wrote:
On Apr 20, 9:25 am, *wrote:
On 4/20/2013 10:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Anyway, I've long since put it behind me. It sounds like it still eats
at you. Again, I'm sorry for that.

It always will, Ed.

You can admit what eats at you. Ed can't.

Ed still has tons of things that still eat at him but he can't admit
it and pretends he's put it all behind him. He hasn't. Ed is filled
with anger and rage. To cover it up he often accuses others of being
angry and filled with rage.

That's a pretty common thing.

Just look at the stranger creatures that post here.
LOTS of repressed rage and transference.

Not to defend Ed but are you sure that the others you mention are
demonstrating "repressed rage and transference", or are just shouting
abuse from behind their mother's apron as believe that they are safe
on the Internet.

I have always surmised the latter :-)

Transference is the term for seeing your own denied faults in other.

Thanks for the comment, JB, but trying to analyze Jon's emotional
problems online is a fruitless exercise. His symptoms would challenge
any professional shrink. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

When you have to resort to talking to a sock puppet like J.B. Slocomb
is I think that alone is very telling about how many issues you have,
Ed.

Well, Jon, I'm not discriminating about who I'll talk to. Hell, I'll
even talk to YOU, until you get too nasty. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Apr 22, 10:44*am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:18:52 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer









wrote:
On Apr 22, 9:22 am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:49:07 +0700, J.B.Slocomb

wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 01:50:09 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 12:08 AM, jon_banquer wrote:
On Apr 20, 9:25 am, wrote:
On 4/20/2013 10:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Anyway, I've long since put it behind me. It sounds like it still eats
at you. Again, I'm sorry for that.

It always will, Ed.

You can admit what eats at you. Ed can't.

Ed still has tons of things that still eat at him but he can't admit
it and pretends he's put it all behind him. He hasn't. Ed is filled
with anger and rage. To cover it up he often accuses others of being
angry and filled with rage.

That's a pretty common thing.

Just look at the stranger creatures that post here.
LOTS of repressed rage and transference.

Not to defend Ed but are you sure that the others you mention are
demonstrating "repressed rage and transference", or are just shouting
abuse from behind their mother's apron as believe that they are safe
on the Internet.

I have always surmised the latter :-)

Transference is the term for seeing your own denied faults in other.

Thanks for the comment, JB, but trying to analyze Jon's emotional
problems online is a fruitless exercise. His symptoms would challenge
any professional shrink. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

When you have to resort to talking to a sock puppet like J.B. Slocomb
is I think that alone is very telling about how many issues you have,
Ed.

Well, Jon, I'm not discriminating about who I'll talk to. Hell, I'll
even talk to YOU, until you get too nasty. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

I agree that you're not discriminating at all, Ed. That you're proud
of not being discriminating speaks volumes about what your true self-
esteem is.

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:57:36 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Apr 22, 10:44*am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:18:52 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer









wrote:
On Apr 22, 9:22 am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:49:07 +0700, J.B.Slocomb

wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 01:50:09 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 12:08 AM, jon_banquer wrote:
On Apr 20, 9:25 am, wrote:
On 4/20/2013 10:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Anyway, I've long since put it behind me. It sounds like it still eats
at you. Again, I'm sorry for that.

It always will, Ed.

You can admit what eats at you. Ed can't.

Ed still has tons of things that still eat at him but he can't admit
it and pretends he's put it all behind him. He hasn't. Ed is filled
with anger and rage. To cover it up he often accuses others of being
angry and filled with rage.

That's a pretty common thing.

Just look at the stranger creatures that post here.
LOTS of repressed rage and transference.

Not to defend Ed but are you sure that the others you mention are
demonstrating "repressed rage and transference", or are just shouting
abuse from behind their mother's apron as believe that they are safe
on the Internet.

I have always surmised the latter :-)

Transference is the term for seeing your own denied faults in other.

Thanks for the comment, JB, but trying to analyze Jon's emotional
problems online is a fruitless exercise. His symptoms would challenge
any professional shrink. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

When you have to resort to talking to a sock puppet like J.B. Slocomb
is I think that alone is very telling about how many issues you have,
Ed.

Well, Jon, I'm not discriminating about who I'll talk to. Hell, I'll
even talk to YOU, until you get too nasty. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

I agree that you're not discriminating at all, Ed. That you're proud
of not being discriminating speaks volumes about what your true self-
esteem is.

As I said, Jon, I'll even talk to *you*.

What would you like to talk about next? How about, "How Social Media
Has Impacted The Metalworking Manufacturing World."

It should be a really short thread.

--
Ed Huntress

On Apr 22, 11:20*am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:57:36 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer









wrote:
On Apr 22, 10:44 am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:18:52 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer

wrote:
On Apr 22, 9:22 am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:49:07 +0700, J.B.Slocomb

wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 01:50:09 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 12:08 AM, jon_banquer wrote:
On Apr 20, 9:25 am, wrote:
On 4/20/2013 10:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Anyway, I've long since put it behind me. It sounds like it still eats
at you. Again, I'm sorry for that.

It always will, Ed.

You can admit what eats at you. Ed can't.

Ed still has tons of things that still eat at him but he can't admit
it and pretends he's put it all behind him. He hasn't. Ed is filled
with anger and rage. To cover it up he often accuses others of being
angry and filled with rage.

That's a pretty common thing.

Just look at the stranger creatures that post here.
LOTS of repressed rage and transference.

Not to defend Ed but are you sure that the others you mention are
demonstrating "repressed rage and transference", or are just shouting
abuse from behind their mother's apron as believe that they are safe
on the Internet.

I have always surmised the latter :-)

Transference is the term for seeing your own denied faults in other.

Thanks for the comment, JB, but trying to analyze Jon's emotional
problems online is a fruitless exercise. His symptoms would challenge
any professional shrink. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

When you have to resort to talking to a sock puppet like J.B. Slocomb
is I think that alone is very telling about how many issues you have,
Ed.

Well, Jon, I'm not discriminating about who I'll talk to. Hell, I'll
even talk to YOU, until you get too nasty. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

I agree that you're not discriminating at all, Ed. That you're proud
of not being discriminating speaks volumes about what your true self-
esteem is.

As I said, Jon, I'll even talk to *you*.

What would you like to talk about next? How about, "How Social Media
Has Impacted The Metalworking Manufacturing World."

It should be a really short thread.

--
Ed Huntress

You could make many threads even shorter by moving on but that would
deny you the immense pleasure you get from being smarmy and claiming
you don't care.

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:25:17 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Apr 22, 11:20*am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:57:36 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer









wrote:
On Apr 22, 10:44 am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:18:52 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer

wrote:
On Apr 22, 9:22 am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:49:07 +0700, J.B.Slocomb

wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 01:50:09 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 12:08 AM, jon_banquer wrote:
On Apr 20, 9:25 am, wrote:
On 4/20/2013 10:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Anyway, I've long since put it behind me. It sounds like it still eats
at you. Again, I'm sorry for that.

It always will, Ed.

You can admit what eats at you. Ed can't.

Ed still has tons of things that still eat at him but he can't admit
it and pretends he's put it all behind him. He hasn't. Ed is filled
with anger and rage. To cover it up he often accuses others of being
angry and filled with rage.

That's a pretty common thing.

Just look at the stranger creatures that post here.
LOTS of repressed rage and transference.

Not to defend Ed but are you sure that the others you mention are
demonstrating "repressed rage and transference", or are just shouting
abuse from behind their mother's apron as believe that they are safe
on the Internet.

I have always surmised the latter :-)

Transference is the term for seeing your own denied faults in other.

Thanks for the comment, JB, but trying to analyze Jon's emotional
problems online is a fruitless exercise. His symptoms would challenge
any professional shrink. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

When you have to resort to talking to a sock puppet like J.B. Slocomb
is I think that alone is very telling about how many issues you have,
Ed.

Well, Jon, I'm not discriminating about who I'll talk to. Hell, I'll
even talk to YOU, until you get too nasty. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

I agree that you're not discriminating at all, Ed. That you're proud
of not being discriminating speaks volumes about what your true self-
esteem is.

As I said, Jon, I'll even talk to *you*.

What would you like to talk about next? How about, "How Social Media
Has Impacted The Metalworking Manufacturing World."

It should be a really short thread.

--
Ed Huntress

You could make many threads even shorter by moving on but that would
deny you the immense pleasure you get from being smarmy and claiming
you don't care.

I think your admirers on your LinkedIn group are calling you, Jon.
Maybe you'd better spend more time over there. They get lonely without
you, and just worshipping your golden statue isn't enough for them.

They need the real thing. Go help them out, Jon.

--
Ed Huntress

On 4/22/2013 11:44 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:25:17 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Apr 22, 11:20 am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:57:36 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer









wrote:
On Apr 22, 10:44 am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:18:52 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer

wrote:
On Apr 22, 9:22 am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:49:07 +0700, J.B.Slocomb

wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 01:50:09 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 12:08 AM, jon_banquer wrote:
On Apr 20, 9:25 am, wrote:
On 4/20/2013 10:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Anyway, I've long since put it behind me. It sounds like it still eats
at you. Again, I'm sorry for that.

It always will, Ed.

You can admit what eats at you. Ed can't.

Ed still has tons of things that still eat at him but he can't admit
it and pretends he's put it all behind him. He hasn't. Ed is filled
with anger and rage. To cover it up he often accuses others of being
angry and filled with rage.

That's a pretty common thing.

Just look at the stranger creatures that post here.
LOTS of repressed rage and transference.

Not to defend Ed but are you sure that the others you mention are
demonstrating "repressed rage and transference", or are just shouting
abuse from behind their mother's apron as believe that they are safe
on the Internet.

I have always surmised the latter :-)

Transference is the term for seeing your own denied faults in other.

Thanks for the comment, JB, but trying to analyze Jon's emotional
problems online is a fruitless exercise. His symptoms would challenge
any professional shrink. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

When you have to resort to talking to a sock puppet like J.B. Slocomb
is I think that alone is very telling about how many issues you have,
Ed.

Well, Jon, I'm not discriminating about who I'll talk to. Hell, I'll
even talk to YOU, until you get too nasty. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

I agree that you're not discriminating at all, Ed. That you're proud
of not being discriminating speaks volumes about what your true self-
esteem is.

As I said, Jon, I'll even talk to *you*.

What would you like to talk about next? How about, "How Social Media
Has Impacted The Metalworking Manufacturing World."

It should be a really short thread.

--
Ed Huntress

You could make many threads even shorter by moving on but that would
deny you the immense pleasure you get from being smarmy and claiming
you don't care.

I think your admirers on your LinkedIn group are calling you, Jon.

His chest-puffing about his LinkedIn followers is hysterical. I think
LinkedIn, for now, is just a more narrowly focused Facebook and not
terribly useful, although it seems to be evolving into something more
useful; it's just not there yet. I have linked with a lot of people in
LinkedIn, but like the earlier days of Facebook, it seems to be
something where people think it's cool to collect the largest number of
connections (or "friends"), as if that's the goal - some kind of prize
given out. I don't use LinkedIn for any practical purpose at all, and
to the best of my knowledge, none of my professional colleagues do. My
career (as opposed to my employment) is a little in the doldrums, so
maybe it's time to do a little work and see what LinkedIn might do for
me, but I think the answer at present is, "not very much."

jonny bonkers is just an asshole, and I doubt very many people pay much
attention to anything he says or does on LinkedIn or Twitter.


Maybe you'd better spend more time over there. They get lonely without
you, and just worshipping your golden statue isn't enough for them.

They need the real thing. Go help them out, Jon.

On Apr 22, 11:44*am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:25:17 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer









wrote:
On Apr 22, 11:20 am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:57:36 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer

wrote:
On Apr 22, 10:44 am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:18:52 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer

wrote:
On Apr 22, 9:22 am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:49:07 +0700, J.B.Slocomb

wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 01:50:09 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 12:08 AM, jon_banquer wrote:
On Apr 20, 9:25 am, wrote:
On 4/20/2013 10:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Anyway, I've long since put it behind me. It sounds like it still eats
at you. Again, I'm sorry for that.

It always will, Ed.

You can admit what eats at you. Ed can't.

Ed still has tons of things that still eat at him but he can't admit
it and pretends he's put it all behind him. He hasn't. Ed is filled
with anger and rage. To cover it up he often accuses others of being
angry and filled with rage.

That's a pretty common thing.

Just look at the stranger creatures that post here.
LOTS of repressed rage and transference.

Not to defend Ed but are you sure that the others you mention are
demonstrating "repressed rage and transference", or are just shouting
abuse from behind their mother's apron as believe that they are safe
on the Internet.

I have always surmised the latter :-)

Transference is the term for seeing your own denied faults in other.

Thanks for the comment, JB, but trying to analyze Jon's emotional
problems online is a fruitless exercise. His symptoms would challenge
any professional shrink. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

When you have to resort to talking to a sock puppet like J.B. Slocomb
is I think that alone is very telling about how many issues you have,
Ed.

Well, Jon, I'm not discriminating about who I'll talk to. Hell, I'll
even talk to YOU, until you get too nasty. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

I agree that you're not discriminating at all, Ed. That you're proud
of not being discriminating speaks volumes about what your true self-
esteem is.

As I said, Jon, I'll even talk to *you*.

What would you like to talk about next? How about, "How Social Media
Has Impacted The Metalworking Manufacturing World."

It should be a really short thread.

--
Ed Huntress

You could make many threads even shorter by moving on but that would
deny you the immense pleasure you get from being smarmy and claiming
you don't care.

I think your admirers on your LinkedIn group are calling you, Jon.
Maybe you'd better spend more time over there. They get lonely without
you, and just worshipping your golden statue isn't enough for them.

They need the real thing. Go help them out, Jon.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed, it's more than obvious that you have never read my LinkedIn group
and know nothing about it. If you had read my LinkedIn group you would
know it's a very diverse group and many active participants strongly
disagree with my opinions. That you won't read it and instead post
this kind of uniformed nonsense is the Ed Huntress I and many others
have come to know so well.

At least you're no longer making a total fool out of yourself by
calling LinkedIn groups blogs. I see that as progress. How soon before
you undo the tiny progress you have made in finally realizing that
LinkedIn discussion groups are very different than blogs?

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:51:38 -0700, George Plimpton
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 11:44 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:25:17 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Apr 22, 11:20 am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:57:36 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer









wrote:
On Apr 22, 10:44 am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:18:52 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer

wrote:
On Apr 22, 9:22 am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:49:07 +0700, J.B.Slocomb

wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 01:50:09 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 12:08 AM, jon_banquer wrote:
On Apr 20, 9:25 am, wrote:
On 4/20/2013 10:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Anyway, I've long since put it behind me. It sounds like it still eats
at you. Again, I'm sorry for that.

It always will, Ed.

You can admit what eats at you. Ed can't.

Ed still has tons of things that still eat at him but he can't admit
it and pretends he's put it all behind him. He hasn't. Ed is filled
with anger and rage. To cover it up he often accuses others of being
angry and filled with rage.

That's a pretty common thing.

Just look at the stranger creatures that post here.
LOTS of repressed rage and transference.

Not to defend Ed but are you sure that the others you mention are
demonstrating "repressed rage and transference", or are just shouting
abuse from behind their mother's apron as believe that they are safe
on the Internet.

I have always surmised the latter :-)

Transference is the term for seeing your own denied faults in other.

Thanks for the comment, JB, but trying to analyze Jon's emotional
problems online is a fruitless exercise. His symptoms would challenge
any professional shrink. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

When you have to resort to talking to a sock puppet like J.B. Slocomb
is I think that alone is very telling about how many issues you have,
Ed.

Well, Jon, I'm not discriminating about who I'll talk to. Hell, I'll
even talk to YOU, until you get too nasty. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

I agree that you're not discriminating at all, Ed. That you're proud
of not being discriminating speaks volumes about what your true self-
esteem is.

As I said, Jon, I'll even talk to *you*.

What would you like to talk about next? How about, "How Social Media
Has Impacted The Metalworking Manufacturing World."

It should be a really short thread.

--
Ed Huntress

You could make many threads even shorter by moving on but that would
deny you the immense pleasure you get from being smarmy and claiming
you don't care.

I think your admirers on your LinkedIn group are calling you, Jon.

His chest-puffing about his LinkedIn followers is hysterical. I think
LinkedIn, for now, is just a more narrowly focused Facebook and not
terribly useful, although it seems to be evolving into something more
useful; it's just not there yet. I have linked with a lot of people in
LinkedIn, but like the earlier days of Facebook, it seems to be
something where people think it's cool to collect the largest number of
connections (or "friends"), as if that's the goal - some kind of prize
given out. I don't use LinkedIn for any practical purpose at all, and
to the best of my knowledge, none of my professional colleagues do. My
career (as opposed to my employment) is a little in the doldrums, so
maybe it's time to do a little work and see what LinkedIn might do for
me, but I think the answer at present is, "not very much."

I don't know. I'm there, nominally, because a client requested it. I
never go there myself but old friends and even a long-lost cousin
found me there.

So I keep it up. If it evolves into something more useful, at least I
have a membership.


jonny bonkers is just an asshole, and I doubt very many people pay much
attention to anything he says or does on LinkedIn or Twitter.

I don't know, and, I'll say it again...I don't care. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress



Maybe you'd better spend more time over there. They get lonely without
you, and just worshipping your golden statue isn't enough for them.

They need the real thing. Go help them out, Jon.

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:58:20 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Apr 22, 11:44*am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:25:17 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer









wrote:
On Apr 22, 11:20 am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:57:36 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer

wrote:
On Apr 22, 10:44 am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:18:52 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer

wrote:
On Apr 22, 9:22 am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:49:07 +0700, J.B.Slocomb

wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 01:50:09 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 12:08 AM, jon_banquer wrote:
On Apr 20, 9:25 am, wrote:
On 4/20/2013 10:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Anyway, I've long since put it behind me. It sounds like it still eats
at you. Again, I'm sorry for that.

It always will, Ed.

You can admit what eats at you. Ed can't.

Ed still has tons of things that still eat at him but he can't admit
it and pretends he's put it all behind him. He hasn't. Ed is filled
with anger and rage. To cover it up he often accuses others of being
angry and filled with rage.

That's a pretty common thing.

Just look at the stranger creatures that post here.
LOTS of repressed rage and transference.

Not to defend Ed but are you sure that the others you mention are
demonstrating "repressed rage and transference", or are just shouting
abuse from behind their mother's apron as believe that they are safe
on the Internet.

I have always surmised the latter :-)

Transference is the term for seeing your own denied faults in other.

Thanks for the comment, JB, but trying to analyze Jon's emotional
problems online is a fruitless exercise. His symptoms would challenge
any professional shrink. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

When you have to resort to talking to a sock puppet like J.B. Slocomb
is I think that alone is very telling about how many issues you have,
Ed.

Well, Jon, I'm not discriminating about who I'll talk to. Hell, I'll
even talk to YOU, until you get too nasty. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

I agree that you're not discriminating at all, Ed. That you're proud
of not being discriminating speaks volumes about what your true self-
esteem is.

As I said, Jon, I'll even talk to *you*.

What would you like to talk about next? How about, "How Social Media
Has Impacted The Metalworking Manufacturing World."

It should be a really short thread.

--
Ed Huntress

You could make many threads even shorter by moving on but that would
deny you the immense pleasure you get from being smarmy and claiming
you don't care.

I think your admirers on your LinkedIn group are calling you, Jon.
Maybe you'd better spend more time over there. They get lonely without
you, and just worshipping your golden statue isn't enough for them.

They need the real thing. Go help them out, Jon.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed, it's more than obvious that you have never read my LinkedIn group
and know nothing about it.

'You got that right, pal! Also, I've never read the Kuran or the
Shurangama Sutra. Woe is me....

If you had read my LinkedIn group you would
know it's a very diverse group and many active participants strongly
disagree with my opinions.

Well, the latter point doesn't surprise me....

That you won't read it and instead post
this kind of uniformed nonsense is the Ed Huntress I and many others
have come to know so well.

Which nonsense are you thinking of, particularly? We aren't back to
GT40s again, are we?


At least you're no longer making a total fool out of yourself by
calling LinkedIn groups blogs.

Now there's a social faux pas that I'll never live down. sob!

I see that as progress.

"Progress" would be if you got the chips off your shoulder, Jon.

How soon before
you undo the tiny progress you have made in finally realizing that
LinkedIn discussion groups are very different than blogs?

Golly, is it going to appear on a test?

--
Ed Huntress

On 4/22/2013 12:52 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:58:20 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Apr 22, 11:44 am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 11:25:17 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer









wrote:
On Apr 22, 11:20 am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:57:36 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer

wrote:
On Apr 22, 10:44 am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:18:52 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer

wrote:
On Apr 22, 9:22 am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:49:07 +0700, J.B.Slocomb

wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 01:50:09 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 12:08 AM, jon_banquer wrote:
On Apr 20, 9:25 am, wrote:
On 4/20/2013 10:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Anyway, I've long since put it behind me. It sounds like it still eats
at you. Again, I'm sorry for that.

It always will, Ed.

You can admit what eats at you. Ed can't.

Ed still has tons of things that still eat at him but he can't admit
it and pretends he's put it all behind him. He hasn't. Ed is filled
with anger and rage. To cover it up he often accuses others of being
angry and filled with rage.

That's a pretty common thing.

Just look at the stranger creatures that post here.
LOTS of repressed rage and transference.

Not to defend Ed but are you sure that the others you mention are
demonstrating "repressed rage and transference", or are just shouting
abuse from behind their mother's apron as believe that they are safe
on the Internet.

I have always surmised the latter :-)

Transference is the term for seeing your own denied faults in other.

Thanks for the comment, JB, but trying to analyze Jon's emotional
problems online is a fruitless exercise. His symptoms would challenge
any professional shrink. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

When you have to resort to talking to a sock puppet like J.B. Slocomb
is I think that alone is very telling about how many issues you have,
Ed.

Well, Jon, I'm not discriminating about who I'll talk to. Hell, I'll
even talk to YOU, until you get too nasty. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

I agree that you're not discriminating at all, Ed. That you're proud
of not being discriminating speaks volumes about what your true self-
esteem is.

As I said, Jon, I'll even talk to *you*.

What would you like to talk about next? How about, "How Social Media
Has Impacted The Metalworking Manufacturing World."

It should be a really short thread.

--
Ed Huntress

You could make many threads even shorter by moving on but that would
deny you the immense pleasure you get from being smarmy and claiming
you don't care.

I think your admirers on your LinkedIn group are calling you, Jon.
Maybe you'd better spend more time over there. They get lonely without
you, and just worshipping your golden statue isn't enough for them.

They need the real thing. Go help them out, Jon.

--
Ed Huntress

Ed, it's more than obvious that you have never read my LinkedIn group
and know nothing about it.

'You got that right, pal! Also, I've never read the Kuran or the
Shurangama Sutra. Woe is me....

If you had read my LinkedIn group you would
know it's a very diverse group and many active participants strongly
disagree with my opinions.

Well, the latter point doesn't surprise me....

That you won't read it and instead post
this kind of uniformed nonsense is the Ed Huntress I and many others
have come to know so well.

Which nonsense are you thinking of, particularly? We aren't back to
GT40s again, are we?


At least you're no longer making a total fool out of yourself by
calling LinkedIn groups blogs.

Now there's a social faux pas that I'll never live down. sob!

I see that as progress.

"Progress" would be if you got the chips off your shoulder, Jon.

"Chips"? jonny bonkers has 1/4 cord of wood on each shoulder.



How soon before
you undo the tiny progress you have made in finally realizing that
LinkedIn discussion groups are very different than blogs?

Golly, is it going to appear on a test?

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:08:40 -0400, "Steve W."
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:13:21 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 10:43 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:22:05 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 10:21 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:09:12 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 8:27 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 04:59:08 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 4:10 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 01:52:49 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 9:50 AM, ATP wrote:
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
. 3.70...
snip TMT quote
Oh, I forgot.

You're a moron for saying something definitive about two activities you
know nothing about. You've proven over and over that you don't know much
about anything you comment on, so this isn't new behavior on your part.

LLoyd
His only purpose is to troll and it seems to be working.


We should really do something about that some day.

Maybe declare a TMT-Free week?

Ignore TMT!

Everybody (else) can start a thread if the want.
And we should continue working existing threads

But not respond to any new threads from this guy.

I'll bet his head would explode.

What..you guys dont have permanant kill filters?


Nope. Still running Tbird.
But I've about worn the lettering off of my K key.
Ill email you a copy of Agent 1.93 You wont go back to Tbird

Gunner

I played with one of the free versions (dunno what's current)
and was a bit underwhelmed...

Obviously you didnt know how to set it up properly... particularly if
you are using Thunderbird (snicker)

The current version is an overblown pile of crapola that has sequinns
and gold plating on the tail fins.

In fact...they all do ..going back to version 2.5

Now there are other newsreaders out there..Pan,
MicroplanetGravity...etc etc

http://www.newsreaders.info/recommended-newsreaders.htm

Enjoy!



Btw..there are other

Ohhhh...fins!

How I lusted in my 12 year old heart after Billy Sol's 62 Cadillac.
(His sister lived next door)
Still using Agent 1.91 (and driving a 17 year old Ranger)
Hang on to it, because it looks like Forte doesn't support it anymore?

Whats to support? I run 1.93...and it was fully mature and bug free.
Ive been running it since 1998. No issues noted, dont need any bells
and whistles..dont need "desks" and all that happy horse****.

Shrug

Gunner


Hmm, same reason I don't "upgrade" from T-Bird 2.0 I don't need all the
tabs, color threads and the rest. I want a plain text E-Mail program,
newsreader without all the gimmicks and easy to use filtering.

And that is one of the problems with T-bird..its a text/email program.
And not well executed.

Many versions of Agent are as well, but they are better executed and
are weighted for newsgroups rather than email

Shrug. I ran Tbird when I first got internet. That lasted no more than
6 months and then I upgraded.

Pegasus for email (free even today) was my mainstay for years

http://www.pmail.com/

Gunner

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:44:03 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:18:52 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Apr 22, 9:22*am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:49:07 +0700, J.B.Slocomb









wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 01:50:09 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 12:08 AM, jon_banquer wrote:
On Apr 20, 9:25 am, *wrote:
On 4/20/2013 10:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Anyway, I've long since put it behind me. It sounds like it still eats
at you. Again, I'm sorry for that.

It always will, Ed.

You can admit what eats at you. Ed can't.

Ed still has tons of things that still eat at him but he can't admit
it and pretends he's put it all behind him. He hasn't. Ed is filled
with anger and rage. To cover it up he often accuses others of being
angry and filled with rage.

That's a pretty common thing.

Just look at the stranger creatures that post here.
LOTS of repressed rage and transference.

Not to defend Ed but are you sure that the others you mention are
demonstrating "repressed rage and transference", or are just shouting
abuse from behind their mother's apron as believe that they are safe
on the Internet.

I have always surmised the latter :-)

Transference is the term for seeing your own denied faults in other.

Thanks for the comment, JB, but trying to analyze Jon's emotional
problems online is a fruitless exercise. His symptoms would challenge
any professional shrink. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

When you have to resort to talking to a sock puppet like J.B. Slocomb
is I think that alone is very telling about how many issues you have,
Ed.

Well, Jon, I'm not discriminating about who I'll talk to. Hell, I'll
even talk to YOU, until you get too nasty. d8-)

I am beginning to wonder about old Jon-boy. I've certainly been here
for a while, I even remember a long drawn out discussion, about car
suspension systems, with Ed a year or more, may two years, ago.

--
Cheers,

John B.

On Apr 22, 4:51*pm, J.B.Slocomb wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:44:03 -0400, Ed Huntress









wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:18:52 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Apr 22, 9:22 am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:49:07 +0700, J.B.Slocomb

wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 01:50:09 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 12:08 AM, jon_banquer wrote:
On Apr 20, 9:25 am, wrote:
On 4/20/2013 10:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Anyway, I've long since put it behind me. It sounds like it still eats
at you. Again, I'm sorry for that.

It always will, Ed.

You can admit what eats at you. Ed can't.

Ed still has tons of things that still eat at him but he can't admit
it and pretends he's put it all behind him. He hasn't. Ed is filled
with anger and rage. To cover it up he often accuses others of being
angry and filled with rage.

That's a pretty common thing.

Just look at the stranger creatures that post here.
LOTS of repressed rage and transference.

Not to defend Ed but are you sure that the others you mention are
demonstrating "repressed rage and transference", or are just shouting
abuse from behind their mother's apron as believe that they are safe
on the Internet.

I have always surmised the latter :-)

Transference is the term for seeing your own denied faults in other..

Thanks for the comment, JB, but trying to analyze Jon's emotional
problems online is a fruitless exercise. His symptoms would challenge
any professional shrink. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

When you have to resort to talking to a sock puppet like J.B. Slocomb
is I think that alone is very telling about how many issues you have,
Ed.

Well, Jon, I'm not discriminating about who I'll talk to. Hell, I'll
even talk to YOU, until you get too nasty. d8-)

I am beginning to wonder about old Jon-boy. I've certainly been here
for a while, I even remember a long drawn out discussion, about car
suspension systems, with Ed a year or more, may two years, ago.

--
Cheers,

John B.

Sock puppets that show up in January 2013 and start posting to Usenet
are always left wondering.

On Apr 22, 12:23*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:

"I don't know, and, I'll say it again...I don't care. d8-)"

Please keep saying it because it's very telling. The time you have
spent posting how little you care easily out numbers the time it would
take to check the facts you wish to keep hiding from and pretending
you don't care about.

On Tue, 23 Apr 2013 06:51:10 +0700, J.B.Slocomb
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 13:44:03 -0400, Ed Huntress
wrote:

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:18:52 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Apr 22, 9:22*am, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:49:07 +0700, J.B.Slocomb









wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 01:50:09 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 12:08 AM, jon_banquer wrote:
On Apr 20, 9:25 am, *wrote:
On 4/20/2013 10:54 PM, Ed Huntress wrote:

Anyway, I've long since put it behind me. It sounds like it still eats
at you. Again, I'm sorry for that.

It always will, Ed.

You can admit what eats at you. Ed can't.

Ed still has tons of things that still eat at him but he can't admit
it and pretends he's put it all behind him. He hasn't. Ed is filled
with anger and rage. To cover it up he often accuses others of being
angry and filled with rage.

That's a pretty common thing.

Just look at the stranger creatures that post here.
LOTS of repressed rage and transference.

Not to defend Ed but are you sure that the others you mention are
demonstrating "repressed rage and transference", or are just shouting
abuse from behind their mother's apron as believe that they are safe
on the Internet.

I have always surmised the latter :-)

Transference is the term for seeing your own denied faults in other.

Thanks for the comment, JB, but trying to analyze Jon's emotional
problems online is a fruitless exercise. His symptoms would challenge
any professional shrink. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

When you have to resort to talking to a sock puppet like J.B. Slocomb
is I think that alone is very telling about how many issues you have,
Ed.

Well, Jon, I'm not discriminating about who I'll talk to. Hell, I'll
even talk to YOU, until you get too nasty. d8-)

I am beginning to wonder about old Jon-boy. I've certainly been here
for a while, I even remember a long drawn out discussion, about car
suspension systems, with Ed a year or more, may two years, ago.

Jon wasn't in the suspension discussion, IIRC, but he was in one about
Ford GT40s.

I feel bad now; he's been trying to play nice, and was doing better,
but then he started commenting on so many people's pyschological
problems, and the irony was just too thick for me to avoid. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:10:50 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Apr 22, 12:23*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:

"I don't know, and, I'll say it again...I don't care. d8-)"

Please keep saying it because it's very telling. The time you have
spent posting how little you care easily out numbers the time it would
take to check the facts you wish to keep hiding from and pretending
you don't care about.

But you miss the point, Jon. I'm here, therefore I post. I'm here,
therefore I'm not there. I'm here, and don't want to go there.

Ok? Is there some reason I should care? There are lots of things I
don't care about. Your hat size, for example.

--
Ed Huntress

On Apr 22, 5:19*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:10:50 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer

wrote:
On Apr 22, 12:23*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:

"I don't know, and, I'll say it again...I don't care. d8-)"

Please keep saying it because it's very telling. The time you have
spent posting how little you care easily out numbers the time it would
take to check the facts you wish to keep hiding from and pretending
you don't care about.

But you miss the point, Jon. I'm here, therefore I post. I'm here,
therefore I'm not there. I'm here, and don't want to go there.

Ok? Is there some reason I should care? There are lots of things I
don't care about. Your hat size, for example.

--
Ed Huntress

No reason that you are capable of comprehending, Ed. In the same way
it's very similar to how you can't comprehend what iggy is even though
someone else in another recent thread spelled it all out. In the
recent past others have done so as well. When others post about iggy
you ignore it because it's not convenient for you to acknowledge the
truth. Just like in my case, the truth completely invalidates your
assessment. I frequently find some of your other assessments to be
badly flawed. Others do as well and point them out to you. You
basically make a similar type of mistake over and over again and you
never learn from your mistake.

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:37:53 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer
wrote:

On Apr 22, 5:19*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:10:50 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer

wrote:
On Apr 22, 12:23*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:

"I don't know, and, I'll say it again...I don't care. d8-)"

Please keep saying it because it's very telling. The time you have
spent posting how little you care easily out numbers the time it would
take to check the facts you wish to keep hiding from and pretending
you don't care about.

But you miss the point, Jon. I'm here, therefore I post. I'm here,
therefore I'm not there. I'm here, and don't want to go there.

Ok? Is there some reason I should care? There are lots of things I
don't care about. Your hat size, for example.

--
Ed Huntress

No reason that you are capable of comprehending, Ed. In the same way
it's very similar to how you can't comprehend what iggy is even though
someone else in another recent thread spelled it all out. In the
recent past others have done so as well. When others post about iggy
you ignore it because it's not convenient for you to acknowledge the
truth.

No, it's because you're a prick who can't function unless he puts
someone else down.

It's your only way to drag your self-esteem out of the gutter, Jon. If
you were getting any support for it on your group, you wouldn't be
here.

Aren't they praising you enough? I thought you said they think you're
wonderful.

Just like in my case, the truth completely invalidates your
assessment. I frequently find some of your other assessments to be
badly flawed. Others do as well and point them out to you. You
basically make a similar type of mistake over and over again and you
never learn from your mistake.

The reason is that I don't give a **** about your opinion, Jon. You're
emotionally disturbed and an unreliable commentator.

--
Ed Huntress

On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 07:14:25 -0500, Richard
wrote:

On 4/22/2013 6:38 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 10:08:40 -0400, "Steve
wrote:

Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 11:13:21 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 10:43 PM, wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:22:05 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 10:21 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 10:09:12 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 8:27 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 04:59:08 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 4:10 PM, Gunner Asch wrote:
On Sun, 21 Apr 2013 01:52:49 -0500,
wrote:

On 4/21/2013 9:50 AM, ATP wrote:
"Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"lloydspinsidemindspring.com wrote in message
. 3.70...
snip TMT quote
Oh, I forgot.

You're a moron for saying something definitive about two activities you
know nothing about. You've proven over and over that you don't know much
about anything you comment on, so this isn't new behavior on your part.

LLoyd
His only purpose is to troll and it seems to be working.


We should really do something about that some day.

Maybe declare a TMT-Free week?

Ignore TMT!

Everybody (else) can start a thread if the want.
And we should continue working existing threads

But not respond to any new threads from this guy.

I'll bet his head would explode.

What..you guys dont have permanant kill filters?


Nope. Still running Tbird.
But I've about worn the lettering off of my K key.
Ill email you a copy of Agent 1.93 You wont go back to Tbird

Gunner

I played with one of the free versions (dunno what's current)
and was a bit underwhelmed...

Obviously you didnt know how to set it up properly... particularly if
you are using Thunderbird (snicker)

The current version is an overblown pile of crapola that has sequinns
and gold plating on the tail fins.

In fact...they all do ..going back to version 2.5

Now there are other newsreaders out there..Pan,
MicroplanetGravity...etc etc

http://www.newsreaders.info/recommended-newsreaders.htm

Enjoy!



Btw..there are other

Ohhhh...fins!

How I lusted in my 12 year old heart after Billy Sol's 62 Cadillac.
(His sister lived next door)
Still using Agent 1.91 (and driving a 17 year old Ranger)
Hang on to it, because it looks like Forte doesn't support it anymore?

Whats to support? I run 1.93...and it was fully mature and bug free.
Ive been running it since 1998. No issues noted, dont need any bells
and whistles..dont need "desks" and all that happy horse****.

Shrug

Gunner


Hmm, same reason I don't "upgrade" from T-Bird 2.0 I don't need all the
tabs, color threads and the rest. I want a plain text E-Mail program,
newsreader without all the gimmicks and easy to use filtering.

And that is one of the problems with T-bird..its a text/email program.
And not well executed.

Many versions of Agent are as well, but they are better executed and
are weighted for newsgroups rather than email

Shrug. I ran Tbird when I first got internet. That lasted no more than
6 months and then I upgraded.

Pegasus for email (free even today) was my mainstay for years

http://www.pmail.com/

Gunner



I first used Netscape (after Al Gore invented the internet).
Before that I don't remember what it was called.
I think it was just a ymodem serial package.
Procomm or some such?

Procomm got you online..and IRRC..it had an email package with it

Cant remember what it was. Ive got several versions..but digging
through the 5 " and the 3" disks is for only when Im really really
bored.

On Apr 22, 7:55*pm, jon_banquer wrote:

Sock puppets that show up in January 2013 and start posting to Usenet
are always left wondering.

If you bothered to learn something about the profiles google
presents , you would know that several things can make in appeal that
someone has not been posting in a use group for a long time.

For example if you look at my profile as google shows it, you would
think that I was not posting before 2001. But the actual fact is that
I was posting a long time before that.

Dan

On Apr 22, 6:35*pm, " wrote:
On Apr 22, 7:55*pm, jon_banquer wrote:

Sock puppets that show up in January 2013 and start posting to Usenet
are always left wondering.

If you bothered to learn something about the profiles google
presents , you would know that several things can *make in appeal that
someone has not been posting in a use group for a long time.

For example if you look at my profile as google shows it, you would
think that I was not posting before 2001. *But the actual fact is that
I was posting a long time before that.

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

I've read enough of "J.B. Slocomb's" posts to see that he spends a
good deal of time stroking Wieber.

Do I really need to go much further? No need to answer. It's a
rhetorical question.

What "J.B Slocomb" posted today to Precision Machinist confirms what
I've know all along... he's a brain dead moron.

On Apr 22, 5:51*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:37:53 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer









wrote:
On Apr 22, 5:19*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:
On Mon, 22 Apr 2013 17:10:50 -0700 (PDT), jon_banquer

wrote:
On Apr 22, 12:23*pm, Ed Huntress wrote:

"I don't know, and, I'll say it again...I don't care. d8-)"

Please keep saying it because it's very telling. The time you have
spent posting how little you care easily out numbers the time it would
take to check the facts you wish to keep hiding from and pretending
you don't care about.

But you miss the point, Jon. I'm here, therefore I post. I'm here,
therefore I'm not there. I'm here, and don't want to go there.

Ok? Is there some reason I should care? There are lots of things I
don't care about. Your hat size, for example.

--
Ed Huntress

No reason that you are capable of comprehending, Ed. In the same way
it's very similar to how you can't comprehend what iggy is even though
someone else in another recent thread spelled it all out. In the
recent past others have done so as well. When others post about iggy
you ignore it because it's not convenient for you to acknowledge the
truth.

No, it's because you're a prick who can't function unless he puts
someone else down.

It's your only way to drag your self-esteem out of the gutter, Jon. If
you were getting any support for it on your group, you wouldn't be
here.

Aren't they praising you enough? I thought you said they think you're
wonderful.

Just like in my case, the truth completely invalidates your
assessment. I frequently find some of your other assessments to be
badly flawed. Others do as well and point them out to you. You
basically make a similar type of mistake over and over again and you
never learn from your mistake.

The reason is that I don't give a **** about your opinion, Jon. You're
emotionally disturbed and an unreliable commentator.

--
Ed Huntress


Ed, I'm the kind of guy that has who and what you are, as well as how
you operate, completely figured out.

On Apr 22, 10:25*pm, jon_banquer wrote:



I've read enough of "J.B. Slocomb's" posts to see that he spends a
good deal of time stroking Wieber.

Do I really need to go much further? No need to answer. It's a
rhetorical question.

What "J.B Slocomb" posted today to Precision Machinist confirms what
I've know all along... he's a brain dead moron.

Your reply has nothing to do with how long J.B. Slocomb has been
posting. So it is noted that you are too lazy to learn about google
groups.

And while I am posting, why do you post off topic threads about food
and links to lame videos? You claim you want to have RCM about
metalworking and then post off topic threads. And keep posting to
the threads you started , so they do not die.


Dan

On Apr 23, 5:07*am, " wrote:

And while I am posting, why do you post off topic threads about food
and links to lame videos? *You claim you want to have RCM about
metalworking and then post off topic threads. * And keep posting to
the threads you started , so they do not die.

Dan

Why do you read what I post if you're so unhappy with what I post?

What does that say about you and your complaints?

On Apr 23, 10:41*am, jon_banquer wrote:


Why do you read what I post if you're so unhappy with what I post?

What does that say about you and your complaints?

I do not read everything you post. That says I am a pragmatist. But
I do read some , which says I am a optimist.


Dan

On Apr 23, 10:58*am, " wrote:
On Apr 23, 10:41*am, jon_banquer wrote:



Why do you read what I post if you're so unhappy with what I post?

What does that say about you and your complaints?

I do not read everything you post. *That says I am a pragmatist. *But
I do read some , which says I am a optimist.

Dan

Try reading none of what I post. What I have to say isn't anything you
can comprehend or use to your advantage. Best for you to move on.

On Apr 23, 2:02*pm, jon_banquer wrote:

Try reading none of what I post. What I have to say isn't anything you
can comprehend or use to your advantage. Best for you to move on

Certainly true of the O.T. posts on food.

Dan

On Apr 23, 12:47*pm, " wrote:
On Apr 23, 2:02*pm, jon_banquer wrote:

Try reading none of what I post. What I have to say isn't anything you
can comprehend or use to your advantage. Best for you to move on

Certainly true of the O.T. posts on food.

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

It's true for all posts I make. Strongly suggest you move on.

On Apr 23, 3:50*pm, jon_banquer wrote:

Try reading none of what I post. What I have to say isn't anything you
can comprehend or use to your advantage. Best for you to move on

Certainly true of the O.T. posts on food.

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

It's true for all posts I make. Strongly suggest you move on.

I agree. Your posts are worthless and can not be used to anyone's
advantage. But I was trying to be nice to you. As far as moving
on,,,,,,,,,,,,,,,I was here long before you. So you are the one that
should move on.


Dan