On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:19:04 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Dave Hinz
wrote back on 21 Feb 2005 18:33:34 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
On 21 Feb 2005 09:27:13 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

then there is Carl Rowan....

Man, I _loved_ that show. Especially that dirty old guy on the park
bench.

You sir have just dated yourself rather severely.

Oh, damn. "Do you believe in the hereafter? Well, then I guess
you know what I'm here after..."

You would not have known about that unless you were...

Er, Old?

Yes, old.

Or possibly just suffering from premature Senior Moments.

It was "Gary Owens". Not the guy who wrote the tune for the 7th Cav,
but "This is Gary Owens saying 'this is Gary Owens.'"

Carl Rowan was some nut in a tree suit, thought he was the fourth
singer in the Trio "Oak Ash and Thorn".


tschus
pyotr

In an act of supreme hypocrisy, leftwing syndicated columnist and
gun-control champion Carl T. Rowan shot and wounded an teenaged
intruder who was taking an unauthorized dip in the swimming pool of
Rowan's Washington D.C. home. The handgun used by Rowan was
unregistered.

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

In article , Gunner says...

In an act of supreme hypocrisy,

As usual, Gunner can be relied to

"Sock it to us."

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 08:53:23 GMT, Gunner wrote:

In an act of supreme hypocrisy, leftwing syndicated columnist and
gun-control champion Carl T. Rowan shot and wounded an teenaged
intruder who was taking an unauthorized dip in the swimming pool of
Rowan's Washington D.C. home. The handgun used by Rowan was
unregistered.

Wow. Is that more, or less, hypocritical than our California senators
who have armed guards, while saying people shouldn't be able to arm
to defend themselves?

On 23 Feb 2005 07:19:02 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Gunner says...

In an act of supreme hypocrisy,

As usual, Gunner can be relied to

"Sock it to us."

Jim, rather than just attacking Gunner, can you refute or counter
any of his statements as being false or deceptive? What do _YOU_ see
the situation as?

In article , Dave Hinz says...

"Sock it to us."

Jim, rather than just attacking Gunner, can you refute or counter
any of his statements as being false or deceptive? What do _YOU_ see
the situation as?

I'm sure gunner goes to bed happy at night knowing you're
there to keep the big, bad, Jim wolf away.

Situation? I was unaware things had deteriorated into
'a situation.'

The situation, then, is that gunner's a big boy, he and I
see eye-to-eye on a bunch of stuff. We disagree on a bunch
more stuff. Things tend to get a bit "serious" around
here and I enjoyed your (it was you, right?) foray into
the laugh-in mode. I haven't thought of that in years.

If we need to return to "it's a serious situation" mode
and I missed the signal, then consider me to be suitably
chastised.

We now resume our situation in progress.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 23 Feb 2005 08:26:11 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

"Sock it to us."

Jim, rather than just attacking Gunner, can you refute or counter
any of his statements as being false or deceptive? What do _YOU_ see
the situation as?

I'm sure gunner goes to bed happy at night knowing you're
there to keep the big, bad, Jim wolf away.

Sorry that it bothers you that I also challenge your statement, Jim.

Situation? I was unaware things had deteriorated into
'a situation.'

Word games. Lovely.

The situation, then, is that gunner's a big boy, he and I
see eye-to-eye on a bunch of stuff. We disagree on a bunch
more stuff. Things tend to get a bit "serious" around
here and I enjoyed your (it was you, right?) foray into
the laugh-in mode. I haven't thought of that in years.

The "situation" I'm talking about was the Rowan incident.
What about Gunner's statements about it, do you see as
less than accurate please?

If we need to return to "it's a serious situation" mode
and I missed the signal, then consider me to be suitably
chastised. We now resume our situation in progress.

See above. Are you just sniping at him, or do you have something
to show that he's wrong and/or lying about it?

On 23 Feb 2005 15:54:46 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 08:53:23 GMT, Gunner wrote:

In an act of supreme hypocrisy, leftwing syndicated columnist and
gun-control champion Carl T. Rowan shot and wounded an teenaged
intruder who was taking an unauthorized dip in the swimming pool of
Rowan's Washington D.C. home. The handgun used by Rowan was
unregistered.

Wow. Is that more, or less, hypocritical than our California senators
who have armed guards, while saying people shouldn't be able to arm
to defend themselves?

Pretty much the same as Rosie O'Donnel haveing an armed body guard
while at the same time trying to condem Tom Selleck for doing NRA ads.

Or Teddy Kennedy abandoning his bodyguards when they in the course of
their duties..tried to carry their Uzi's into a Federal Building.

The list is endless...

Gunner

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

In article , Dave Hinz says...

The "situation" I'm talking about was the Rowan incident.
What about Gunner's statements about it,

I do not disagree with him on this particular issue.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 23 Feb 2005 10:01:41 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

The "situation" I'm talking about was the Rowan incident.
What about Gunner's statements about it,

I do not disagree with him on this particular issue.

But you just couldn't help but snipe at him. I see.

In article , Dave Hinz says...

I do not disagree with him on this particular issue.

But you just couldn't help but snipe at him. I see.

Like I said, it's a good thing he has you to look out
for him. g

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 23 Feb 2005 12:19:44 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

I do not disagree with him on this particular issue.

But you just couldn't help but snipe at him. I see.

Like I said, it's a good thing he has you to look out
for him. g

Hardly. It's more like you following him around nipping on his
heels.

On 23 Feb 2005 07:19:02 -0800, the inscrutable jim rozen
spake:

In article , Gunner says...

In an act of supreme hypocrisy,

As usual, Gunner can be relied to

"Sock it to us."

I'd sure rather it be a bippy than a 20mm round, eh?


-----------------------------------------------------------------
When I die, I'm leaving my body to science fiction. --Steven Wright
----------------------------
http://diversify.com Comprehensive Website Development

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On 23 Feb 2005 10:01:41 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

The "situation" I'm talking about was the Rowan incident.
What about Gunner's statements about it,

I do not disagree with him on this particular issue.

But you just couldn't help but snipe at him. I see.

Dave, of all of the people here, Jim is among the most patient with Gunner.
Watch the dynamic a little longer before being so quick to make judgments.

--
Ed Huntress

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Dave Hinz
wrote back on 22 Feb 2005 18:23:34 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:19:04 GMT, pyotr filipivich wrote:
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Dave Hinz
wrote back on 21 Feb 2005 18:33:34 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
On 21 Feb 2005 09:27:13 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

You sir have just dated yourself rather severely.

Oh, damn. "Do you believe in the hereafter? Well, then I guess
you know what I'm here after..."
You would not have known about that unless you were...
Er, Old?

Yes, old.

Ouch. That's harsh, you know that?

Or possibly just suffering from premature Senior Moments.

Does it help to mention I first watched 'em as reruns? That's not
entirely true, I remember as a young kid watching them with my
folks and not laughing at the same times or (apparently) for the
same reasons as my parents were laughing.

I was just old enough to get it. "Here come de' judge." Pigmeat
Markham - another classic "nut".

It was "Gary Owens". Not the guy who wrote the tune for the 7th Cav,
but "This is Gary Owens saying 'this is Gary Owens.'"

Right, he was the announcer guy, right?

"This program was prerecorded, so the cast members could leave town
before it was broadcast."

Carl Rowan was some nut in a tree suit, thought he was the fourth
singer in the Trio "Oak Ash and Thorn".

Ah, the fourth member of the trio. Is that like the Hitchhiker's Guide
trilogy (all 5 books)?

Maybe. Or like the "Four Postmen", which has five members.

--
pyotr filipivich.
as an explaination for the decline in the US's tech edge, James
Niccol wrote "It used to be that the USA was pretty good at
producing stuff teenaged boys could lose a finger or two playing with."

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Gunner
wrote back on Wed, 23 Feb 2005 08:53:23 GMT
in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Tue, 22 Feb 2005 18:19:04 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:

I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Dave Hinz
wrote back on 21 Feb 2005 18:33:34 GMT in
rec.crafts.metalworking :
On 21 Feb 2005 09:27:13 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

then there is Carl Rowan....

Man, I _loved_ that show. Especially that dirty old guy on the park
bench.

You sir have just dated yourself rather severely.

Oh, damn. "Do you believe in the hereafter? Well, then I guess
you know what I'm here after..."

You would not have known about that unless you were...

Er, Old?

Yes, old.

Or possibly just suffering from premature Senior Moments.

It was "Gary Owens". Not the guy who wrote the tune for the 7th Cav,
but "This is Gary Owens saying 'this is Gary Owens.'"

Carl Rowan was some nut in a tree suit, thought he was the fourth
singer in the Trio "Oak Ash and Thorn".


In an act of supreme hypocrisy, leftwing syndicated columnist and
gun-control champion Carl T. Rowan shot and wounded an teenaged
intruder who was taking an unauthorized dip in the swimming pool of
Rowan's Washington D.C. home. The handgun used by Rowan was
unregistered.

Well, isn't he just "special". I knew that, but was wondering if
anyone else had heard of "Oak Ash & Thorn." Only group I've ever heard
sing "To Acheion in Heaven" a-cappella. [That's the tune used for the
"Star Spangled Banner". Lovely tune, but meant for four voices, the
proverbial fish quartet: couple Tunas, Barracuda and Bass.] [They sang for
scale, and were always good for a fin apiece.]


Whale, as the Saigon Cats used to say, "time to Di-di meow"

tschus
pyotr

--
pyotr filipivich
"With Age comes Wisdom. Although more often, Age travels alone."

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 00:07:00 GMT, pyotr filipivich
wrote:
I missed the staff meeting but the minutes show Gunner
wrote back on Wed, 23 Feb 2005 08:53:23 GMT
in rec.crafts.metalworking :

In an act of supreme hypocrisy, leftwing syndicated columnist and
gun-control champion Carl T. Rowan shot and wounded an teenaged
intruder who was taking an unauthorized dip in the swimming pool of
Rowan's Washington D.C. home. The handgun used by Rowan was
unregistered.

Well, isn't he just "special". I knew that, but was wondering if
anyone else had heard of "Oak Ash & Thorn." Only group I've ever heard
sing "To Acheion in Heaven" a-cappella. [That's the tune used for the
"Star Spangled Banner". Lovely tune, but meant for four voices, the
proverbial fish quartet: couple Tunas, Barracuda and Bass.] [They sang for
scale, and were always good for a fin apiece.]


Whale, as the Saigon Cats used to say, "time to Di-di meow"

Arte Johnson
Verrrrrrry Interestink. But Schtupid. ;-)
/Arte Johnson

-- Bruce --
--
Bruce L. Bergman, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles) CA - Desktop
Electrician for Westend Electric - CA726700
5737 Kanan Rd. #359, Agoura CA 91301 (818) 889-9545
Spamtrapped address: Remove the python and the invalid, and use a net.

Dave Hinz wrote:

On 23 Feb 2005 07:19:02 -0800, jim rozen wrote:

In article , Gunner says...


In an act of supreme hypocrisy,

As usual, Gunner can be relied to

"Sock it to us."


Jim, rather than just attacking Gunner, can you refute or counter
any of his statements as being false or deceptive? What do _YOU_ see
the situation as?

Jim just did the old Rowan "Sock it to me" bit to us in stead.

Martin

--
Martin Eastburn, Barbara Eastburn
@ home at Lion's Lair with our computer
NRA LOH, NRA Life
NRA Second Amendment Task Force Charter Founder

In article , Martin H. Eastburn
says...

Jim just did the old Rowan "Sock it to me" bit to us in stead.

Martin

Hmm. That was Rowan and...

Oh. Nevermind!

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:49:38 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On 23 Feb 2005 10:01:41 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

The "situation" I'm talking about was the Rowan incident.
What about Gunner's statements about it,

I do not disagree with him on this particular issue.

But you just couldn't help but snipe at him. I see.

Dave, of all of the people here, Jim is among the most patient with Gunner.
Watch the dynamic a little longer before being so quick to make judgments.

Gunner made a statement of fact. Jim sniped at him about his post. I
asked what was wrong with Gunner's post, and Jim didn't have a reason
other than that it's Gunner. What's _your_ problem with Gunner's post?

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 23 Feb 2005 17:49:38 -0500, Ed Huntress
wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...
On 23 Feb 2005 10:01:41 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

The "situation" I'm talking about was the Rowan incident.
What about Gunner's statements about it,

I do not disagree with him on this particular issue.

But you just couldn't help but snipe at him. I see.

Dave, of all of the people here, Jim is among the most patient with
Gunner.
Watch the dynamic a little longer before being so quick to make
judgments.

Gunner made a statement of fact. Jim sniped at him about his post. I
asked what was wrong with Gunner's post, and Jim didn't have a reason
other than that it's Gunner. What's _your_ problem with Gunner's post?

Watch a few hundred more exchanges like this, and you will know. Right now,
you don't have a clue, and I'm not going to recount several years worth of
discussions just to satisfy your sense of indignation.

If you don't want to sound like a deaf man shouting from inside a barrel,
listen first.

--
Ed Huntress

On Thu, 24 Feb 2005 11:41:21 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Gunner made a statement of fact. Jim sniped at him about his post. I
asked what was wrong with Gunner's post, and Jim didn't have a reason
other than that it's Gunner. What's _your_ problem with Gunner's post?

Watch a few hundred more exchanges like this, and you will know.

OK, let's word it this way. Gunner made a reasonable post, and Jim
took exception to it. I'm asking what the problem is.

Right now,
you don't have a clue, and I'm not going to recount several years worth of
discussions just to satisfy your sense of indignation.

It's obvious where the problem is. By the way, the lecture-tone doesn't
work with me.

If you don't want to sound like a deaf man shouting from inside a barrel,
listen first.

I've heard all I need to hear to know what the situation is. Jim doesn't
like Gunner. I was challenging his post where he was criticizing
Gunner's statement, because I wanted to know exactly what he thought
was false about Gunner's post.

"Dave Hinz" wrote in message
...

Watch a few hundred more exchanges like this, and you will know.

OK, let's word it this way. Gunner made a reasonable post, and Jim
took exception to it. I'm asking what the problem is.

The full answer is too long to post.


Right now,
you don't have a clue, and I'm not going to recount several years worth
of
discussions just to satisfy your sense of indignation.

It's obvious where the problem is. By the way, the lecture-tone doesn't
work with me.

I know. I don't care.


If you don't want to sound like a deaf man shouting from inside a
barrel,
listen first.

I've heard all I need to hear to know what the situation is. Jim doesn't
like Gunner.

That's where you first jumped the track. Jim DOES like Gunner. And I like
Gunner. Gunner's head is as thick as an old stump, but he's a very decent
guy and he's well liked.

Next issue?

I was challenging his post where he was criticizing
Gunner's statement, because I wanted to know exactly what he thought
was false about Gunner's post.

As he said, he didn't disagree about the Rowan case.

You and pyotr were joking about Carl Rowan. Gunner took the opportunity to
pass on one of his anti-liberal monologues (he rarely misses a chance to
kick them) and Jim cracked that Gunner was "socking it to 'em," which fit
with the subject of the jokes and also commented on Gunner never failing to
stick his pitchfork into liberals or Democrats in any conversation, whether
it's a joke or not. Nearly every regular here knew what was going on and
what the comment was about.

You, in your sometimes bristly manner, got ****y with Jim and Jim then
brushed you off because he wasn't up for it.

That's what happened. That's what it was all about. And that's why I say to
listen before jumping.

--
Ed Huntress

In article , Ed Huntress says...

You, in your sometimes bristly manner, got ****y with Jim and Jim then
brushed you off because he wasn't up for it.

I'd discuss this with the principle here. Doesn't make much sense to
do it via proxy though.

That fact that he hasn't commented probably means
there really isn't a 'situation.'

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article , Ed Huntress says...

You, in your sometimes bristly manner, got ****y with Jim and Jim then
brushed you off because he wasn't up for it.

I'd discuss this with the principle here. Doesn't make much sense to
do it via proxy though.

That fact that he hasn't commented probably means
there really isn't a 'situation.'

Jim

I don't know if the "principal" is you or Gunner, or if the "principle" is
some issue. Any way you look at it, though, something like that is going to
run off of Gunner's back like water off a duck. g

--
Ed Huntress

On 24 Feb 2005 10:57:30 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Ed Huntress says...

You, in your sometimes bristly manner, got ****y with Jim and Jim then
brushed you off because he wasn't up for it.

I'd discuss this with the principle here. Doesn't make much sense to
do it via proxy though.

That fact that he hasn't commented probably means
there really isn't a 'situation.'

The "situation" was the Rowan situation, not you and Gunner's love-fest.

In article , Ed Huntress says...

I don't know if the "principal" is you or Gunner,

Gunner. If I'm going to have a discussion with him, I'll
do it with him. Not with Dave.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 24 Feb 2005 11:34:59 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Ed Huntress says...

I don't know if the "principal" is you or Gunner,

Gunner. If I'm going to have a discussion with him, I'll
do it with him. Not with Dave.

Jim, you're posting in a public group. You made a statement that I
disagreed with, and asked you to explain what you meant.

In article , Dave Hinz says...

... You made a statement that I
disagreed with, ...

Seems like I've been doing that a lot lately.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 24 Feb 2005 12:18:39 -0800, jim rozen wrote:
In article , Dave Hinz says...

... You made a statement that I
disagreed with, ...

Seems like I've been doing that a lot lately.

Well, we seem to agree on audio issues....

On 24 Feb 2005 12:18:39 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Dave Hinz says...

... You made a statement that I
disagreed with, ...

Seems like I've been doing that a lot lately.

Jim
Jim,
You know what you were talking about the other day? Well, you're
wrong. And that other thing you were saying? I disagree with you about
that too. Oh yeah, and there was someting else you were saying that
somebody else disagreed with.
Cheers,
Eric

In article , Eric R Snow says...

Seems like I've been doing that a lot lately.

You know what you were talking about the other day? Well, you're
wrong. And that other thing you were saying? I disagree with you about
that too. Oh yeah, and there was someting else you were saying that
somebody else disagreed with.
Cheers,
Eric

:^)

Pretty soon we're gonna have to submit all my posts to a
moderator before they hit the ng. I nominate Gunner!!

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 24 Feb 2005 17:01:39 -0800, jim rozen
wrote:

In article , Eric R Snow says...

Seems like I've been doing that a lot lately.

You know what you were talking about the other day? Well, you're
wrong. And that other thing you were saying? I disagree with you about
that too. Oh yeah, and there was someting else you were saying that
somebody else disagreed with.
Cheers,
Eric

:^)

Pretty soon we're gonna have to submit all my posts to a
moderator before they hit the ng. I nominate Gunner!!

Jim

**** NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Gack!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

"Pax Americana is a philosophy. Hardly an empire.
Making sure other people play nice and dont kill each other (and us)
off in job lots is hardly empire building, particularly when you give
them self determination under "play nice" rules.

Think of it as having your older brother knock the **** out of you
for torturing the cat." Gunner

Here is another discussion that you might be interested in....

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmp.../cell_phones_1

More people than ever are driving under the influence of their cell
phones, according to a survey released Tuesday by the National Highway
Traffic Safety Administration.

The survey showed 8 percent of drivers, or 1.2 million people, were
using hand-held or handsfree cell phones during daylight hours last
year, a 50 percent increase since 2002 and a 100 percent rise in four
years.

All that talking is a potential safety issue, said NHTSA spokesman Rae
Tyson.

"While we don't have hard evidence that there's been an increase in the
number of crashes, we know that talking on the phone can degrade driver
performance," Tyson said.

The District of Columbia and New Hampshire no longer allow talking on
hand-held cell phones while driving, according to the Governors Highway
Safety Association.

Some communities, such as Brookline, Mass., Santa Fe, N.M., and
Lebanon, Pa., require handsfree cell phones, but about a half-dozen
states prohibit local governments from restricting cell phone use in
motor vehicles.

Young drivers, between 16 and 24, increased their talking on cell
phones by 60 percent between 2002 and 2004.

The National Transportation Safety Board said it wants all 50 states to
ban those with learner's permits from using cell phones or other
wireless devices while driving. New Jersey and Maine are the only two
that have passed such laws.

The survey was conducted between June 7 and July 11, 2004, at 1,200
road sites across the country and, in some cases, supplemented by
telephone surveys.

In article .com,
Too_Many_Tools says...

The District of Columbia and New Hampshire no longer allow talking on
hand-held cell phones while driving, according to the Governors Highway
Safety Association.

Your site may be somewhat outdated, NY state also prohibits that.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
Too_Many_Tools says...

The District of Columbia and New Hampshire no longer allow talking on
hand-held cell phones while driving, according to the Governors
Highway
Safety Association.

Your site may be somewhat outdated, NY state also prohibits that.

Jim

A large part of the rest of the world has not allowed hand held cell
phones for 15 or more years.

Will the USA (Unusually Slow America) maybe catch up when they realize
the rest of the world uses metric measurement which they (the USA)
actually enacted back in 1887 or some such, and have not got the guts to
enforce?
Oh yeh and use A4 paper and Amber turn signas too!
--
John G

Wot's Your Real Problem?

In article ,
says...

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
Too_Many_Tools says...

The District of Columbia and New Hampshire no longer allow talking on
hand-held cell phones while driving, according to the Governors
Highway
Safety Association.

Your site may be somewhat outdated, NY state also prohibits that.

Jim

A large part of the rest of the world has not allowed hand held cell
phones for 15 or more years.

Will the USA (Unusually Slow America) maybe catch up when they realize
the rest of the world uses metric measurement which they (the USA)
actually enacted back in 1887 or some such, and have not got the guts to
enforce?
Oh yeh and use A4 paper and Amber turn signas too!

We've apparently decided to stop executing children, so anything is
possible g.

But keep that funny size paper outta here.

Ned Simmons

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:08:12 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:

We've apparently decided to stop executing children, so anything is
possible g.

Remind me again how a murderer who is a day short of 18 years is a
"child" please? The age of the murderer doesn't change the outcome
for the victim and their family, and if you're old enough to murder
someone you're damn well old enough to suffer the consequences.

But keep that funny size paper outta here.

On that, we agree. It just looks _wrong_.

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:08:12 -0500, Ned Simmons
wrote:

In article ,
says...

"jim rozen" wrote in message
...
In article .com,
Too_Many_Tools says...

The District of Columbia and New Hampshire no longer allow talking on
hand-held cell phones while driving, according to the Governors
Highway
Safety Association.

Your site may be somewhat outdated, NY state also prohibits that.

Jim

A large part of the rest of the world has not allowed hand held cell
phones for 15 or more years.

Will the USA (Unusually Slow America) maybe catch up when they realize
the rest of the world uses metric measurement which they (the USA)
actually enacted back in 1887 or some such, and have not got the guts to
enforce?
Oh yeh and use A4 paper and Amber turn signas too!

We've apparently decided to stop executing children, so anything is
possible g.
When did we execute children?


But keep that funny size paper outta here.

Ned Simmons

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

On 2 Mar 2005 15:39:05 GMT, Dave Hinz wrote:

On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:08:12 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:

We've apparently decided to stop executing children, so anything is
possible g.

Remind me again how a murderer who is a day short of 18 years is a
"child" please? The age of the murderer doesn't change the outcome
for the victim and their family, and if you're old enough to murder
someone you're damn well old enough to suffer the consequences.

And since it takes at minimum on average 10 yrs to execute
anyone...that 14 yr old serial gang murderer will be 24yrs old before
they give him the big dirt nap.

But keep that funny size paper outta here.

On that, we agree. It just looks _wrong_.

Rule #35
"That which does not kill you,
has made a huge tactical error"

In article ,
says...
On Wed, 2 Mar 2005 10:08:12 -0500, Ned Simmons wrote:

We've apparently decided to stop executing children, so anything is
possible g.

Remind me again how a murderer who is a day short of 18 years is a
"child" please?

Take it up with the Supremes.

"While drawing the line at 18 is subject to the objections
always raised against categorical rules, that is the point
where society draws the line for many purposes between
childhood and adulthood and the age at which the line for
death eligibility ought to rest."

Do you have a good argument for 17-1/2 years? 8-1/2?

The age of the murderer doesn't change the outcome
for the victim and their family,

Are you looking for revenge here, or is this an eye for an
eye thing?

and if you're old enough to murder
someone you're damn well old enough to suffer the consequences.

6-1/2 years?


But keep that funny size paper outta here.

On that, we agree. It just looks _wrong_.

It *is* wrong (and doesn't fit in any of my binders).

Ned Simmons