"Dave" wrote in message
...
willshak wrote:
on 9/15/2007 5:17 PM Rich Grise said the following:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:12:14 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

willshak wrote:

You had dirt to grow berries in?


i know, you were so poor that you had to use borrowed belly button
lint to grow berries from seeds found in bird droppings, and you liked
it that way.



Sheesh! You only get belly button lint if you can afford clothes! ;-)

Cheers!
Rich




You had a belly button?

Talking about belly buttons, what causes a woman's to protrude when they
get pregnant?

The same thing that makes them have to pee every five minutes- lack of room.
Anything that can get shoved out of the way or compressed, does.

aem sends...

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:02:36 GMT, Rich Grise wrote:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:37:34 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:
ameijers wrote:
...
pony tail as a teenager, but am back to above-the collar now. The
current buzz-cut fad, presumably war-inspired, leaves me cold.

Doubt that it really has anything to do with war.

It has _everything_ to do with war. Militaries have regulated hair length
and beard length (or even a mandatory clean shave) for centuries, because
even the Phoenicians knew what a convenient hand-hold either one is.

Also to prevent major lice infestations.

I saw a guy in the NFL get pulled down by his hair, and it wasn't a foul,
because the defender hadn't grabbed his face mask, horse-collared him, or
clotheslined him, but pulled him down by his own body part, as if he'd had
his arm or something. It was the guy's hair, but the NFL ruled that if
he's stupid enough to leave it dangle out of his hat like that, that it's
fair game.

I wear my hair long, but I go to great lengths (pun unintended, but noted)
to avoid altercations with drunks. :-)

Cheers!
Rich

Cops used to wear uniform shirts with those nifty epaulets on the
shoulders. Great hand holds for the bad guys.

I cut mine loose and put velcro on the shirt and epaulets. First bad
ass to grab one as he had so many before, stood there staring at it
with a surprised and stupid look on his face, long enough for me to
chop him down like an oak with my baton.

Gunner

on 9/16/2007 3:31 PM Gunner Asch said the following:
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:02:36 GMT, Rich Grise wrote:


On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 13:37:34 -0400, J. Clarke wrote:

ameijers wrote:

...

pony tail as a teenager, but am back to above-the collar now. The
current buzz-cut fad, presumably war-inspired, leaves me cold.

Doubt that it really has anything to do with war.

It has _everything_ to do with war. Militaries have regulated hair length
and beard length (or even a mandatory clean shave) for centuries, because
even the Phoenicians knew what a convenient hand-hold either one is.


Also to prevent major lice infestations.

I saw a guy in the NFL get pulled down by his hair, and it wasn't a foul,
because the defender hadn't grabbed his face mask, horse-collared him, or
clotheslined him, but pulled him down by his own body part, as if he'd had
his arm or something. It was the guy's hair, but the NFL ruled that if
he's stupid enough to leave it dangle out of his hat like that, that it's
fair game.

I wear my hair long, but I go to great lengths (pun unintended, but noted)
to avoid altercations with drunks. :-)

Cheers!
Rich


Cops used to wear uniform shirts with those nifty epaulets on the
shoulders. Great hand holds for the bad guys.

I cut mine loose and put velcro on the shirt and epaulets. First bad
ass to grab one as he had so many before, stood there staring at it
with a surprised and stupid look on his face, long enough for me to
chop him down like an oak with my baton.

Gunner

How times have changed. When I started, I wore a Sam Browne belt with
the leather shoulder strap over a dress blouse. It wasn't until the 70's
when the strap became a hazard, and we became pigs, that it was removed.

--

Bill
In Hamptonburgh, NY
To email, remove the double zeroes after @

On Sep 8, 6:53 pm, "Bob Eager" wrote:
On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 22:47:23 UTC, "Dave Gordon" d@p wrote:
What have been the worst (serious or humorous) handyman or handywoman
accidents that you've experienced so far (or someone you know, or saw
it happen to, got to experience) and please elaborate on what
unfortunately went wrong.

Don't really want to feed this journalist/'researcher' but..

(a not uncommon scenario)

I worked in a large garage for a couple of summers. Guy fiddling around
under dashboard of car. Wearing watch with stainless steel bracelet.
Yes...shorted heavy 12 volt cable to car body via bracelet. Lots of
current and heat.

I wear a loose, thin stainless steel chain on one wrist. Take it off
when working inside PCs, on cars, near batteries, etc...

Traditional "grounding strap" when working on static sensitive
MOSFETs is a steel wris****ch band connected via a 1 meg
resistor to a wire connected to a grounded pipe.

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 02:20:52 UTC, Ferd Farkel
wrote:

On Sep 8, 6:53 pm, "Bob Eager" wrote:
On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 22:47:23 UTC, "Dave Gordon" d@p wrote:
What have been the worst (serious or humorous) handyman or handywoman
accidents that you've experienced so far (or someone you know, or saw
it happen to, got to experience) and please elaborate on what
unfortunately went wrong.

Don't really want to feed this journalist/'researcher' but..

(a not uncommon scenario)

I worked in a large garage for a couple of summers. Guy fiddling around
under dashboard of car. Wearing watch with stainless steel bracelet.
Yes...shorted heavy 12 volt cable to car body via bracelet. Lots of
current and heat.

I wear a loose, thin stainless steel chain on one wrist. Take it off
when working inside PCs, on cars, near batteries, etc...

Traditional "grounding strap" when working on static sensitive
MOSFETs is a steel wris****ch band connected via a 1 meg
resistor to a wire connected to a grounded pipe.

Pretty stupid idea unless the outside of the band is insulated, though.
Proper earthing straps are cheap.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

After a Computer crash and the demise of civilization, it was learned
Gunner wrote on Wed, 12 Sep 2007 23:07:28
-0700 in rec.crafts.metalworking :
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 21:03:05 +0100, Colin Wilson
REMOVEEVERYTHINGBUTnewsgroup@phoenixbbsZEROSPAM. co.uk wrote:

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...ers-per-capita

So you're only 3 times more likely to be murdered in the US - so much
for guns keeping crime down...

With 5 x the population of the UK..seems like we are ahead on safety
points.

http://www.nationmaster.com/graph/cr...rms-per-capita

Your stats are working great - we're only 27 times less likely to be
murdered by a gun toting luntic

27 times more likely to be murdered by a gun - I wonder why...

You left out the part about being murdered by other means, or raped or
robbed..

But then..I knew you would.

But being raped or robbed, let alone murdered, by someone using
something other than a firearm, is morally superior, don'tcha know.

Personally, I think these neo-luddites should be forced to do away
with other modern labor saving devices, in addition to firearms. It
will keep them busy, and in much better shape physically. Not sure it
will improve their mental capacity, but then conservatives aren't really
into that whole "reeducation through labor" thing. We're more inclined
towards "the idle brain is the devil's workshop".

tschus
pyotr


Gunner
--
pyotr filipivich
"Quemadmoeum gladuis neminem occidit, occidentis telum est. "
Lucius Annaeus Seneca, circa 45 AD
(A sword is never a killer, it is a tool in the killer's hands.)

On 17 Sep 2007 06:39:55 GMT, "Bob Eager" wrote:

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 02:20:52 UTC, Ferd Farkel
wrote:

On Sep 8, 6:53 pm, "Bob Eager" wrote:
On Sat, 8 Sep 2007 22:47:23 UTC, "Dave Gordon" d@p wrote:
What have been the worst (serious or humorous) handyman or handywoman
accidents that you've experienced so far (or someone you know, or saw
it happen to, got to experience) and please elaborate on what
unfortunately went wrong.

Don't really want to feed this journalist/'researcher' but..

(a not uncommon scenario)

I worked in a large garage for a couple of summers. Guy fiddling around
under dashboard of car. Wearing watch with stainless steel bracelet.
Yes...shorted heavy 12 volt cable to car body via bracelet. Lots of
current and heat.

I wear a loose, thin stainless steel chain on one wrist. Take it off
when working inside PCs, on cars, near batteries, etc...

Traditional "grounding strap" when working on static sensitive
MOSFETs is a steel wris****ch band connected via a 1 meg
resistor to a wire connected to a grounded pipe.

Pretty stupid idea unless the outside of the band is insulated, though.
Proper earthing straps are cheap.


Generally when working with static sensitive electronics your power is
also limited toless than an amp. Generally you would blow the
protection fuse before heating the bracelet up enough to do any
damage.

In automotive and high power apps this obviously is not true.

--
Posted via a free Usenet account from http://www.teranews.com

About 20 years ago, when I was in the US Navy, I was stationed on a LSD
(Landing Ship Dock). We had a yound machinest that had a string of stupid
mistake, and one too many.

- He was trying to cut a wrag in half by pulling the knife towards him,
knife went thru the rag and slipped into and through his right nostril. Nice
fillet job.

- Next, he used the same knife to attempt tochang a fuze to the power source
for a piece of machinery he was trying to operate. He used it to pry out the
440V 20A fuze and welded the knife and the fuze panel together.

- Final and best was when he needed to drill a small hole in a short board.
He didn't have a vise in the part of the shop he was in so he put the board
on his lap. He was sitting on one of those old military cloth covered
stools. He put his weight on the 1/2 " drive drill, and the bit went thru
the board, his pants, his underwear, his scrotum, back out thru all of them
then into the bottom of the stool. As any of you that have tried to drill
thru cloth know, it likes to twist up on the bit. The Chief corpsman and I
were walking by and heard him scream. After he analyzed the problem. the
Chief corpsman gave me the choice, hold the mans scrotum in place or
manually back out the drill. I chose the drill. It is hard to believe how
much blood can come out of 2 small holes and a couple of tears in a scrotum
nor how much one person can scream. After recovery he was discharged for the
good of the navy.


"Ken" wrote in message
oups.com...
What have been the worst (serious or humorous) handyman or handywoman
accidents that you've experienced so far (or someone you know, or saw
it happen to, got to experience) and please elaborate on what
unfortunately went wrong.

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:50:03 UTC, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

Generally when working with static sensitive electronics your power is
also limited toless than an amp. Generally you would blow the
protection fuse before heating the bracelet up enough to do any
damage.

That would include the 30A 5 volt supply, then.

--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Neil Larson wrote:

manually back out the drill. I chose the drill. It is hard to believe how
much blood can come out of 2 small holes and a couple of tears in a scrotum
nor how much one person can scream. After recovery he was discharged for the
good of the navy.

Last thing you need is thick seamen all over the place.... ;-)

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:34:12 -0500, "Neil Larson"
wrote:

About 20 years ago, when I was in the US Navy, I was stationed on a LSD
(Landing Ship Dock). We had a yound machinest that had a string of stupid
mistake, and one too many.

- He was trying to cut a wrag in half by pulling the knife towards him,
knife went thru the rag and slipped into and through his right nostril. Nice
fillet job.

- Next, he used the same knife to attempt tochang a fuze to the power source
for a piece of machinery he was trying to operate. He used it to pry out the
440V 20A fuze and welded the knife and the fuze panel together.

- Final and best was when he needed to drill a small hole in a short board.
He didn't have a vise in the part of the shop he was in so he put the board
on his lap. He was sitting on one of those old military cloth covered
stools. He put his weight on the 1/2 " drive drill, and the bit went thru
the board, his pants, his underwear, his scrotum, back out thru all of them
then into the bottom of the stool. As any of you that have tried to drill
thru cloth know, it likes to twist up on the bit. The Chief corpsman and I
were walking by and heard him scream. After he analyzed the problem. the
Chief corpsman gave me the choice, hold the mans scrotum in place or
manually back out the drill. I chose the drill. It is hard to believe how
much blood can come out of 2 small holes and a couple of tears in a scrotum
nor how much one person can scream. After recovery he was discharged for the
good of the navy.


"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by
legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being
stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime: the
sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out
automatically and without pity".
Robert A. Heinlein,

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 20:35:37 +0100, John Rumm
wrote:

Neil Larson wrote:

manually back out the drill. I chose the drill. It is hard to believe how
much blood can come out of 2 small holes and a couple of tears in a scrotum
nor how much one person can scream. After recovery he was discharged for the
good of the navy.

Last thing you need is thick seamen all over the place.... ;-)



eeewwwwww!!!!

Gunner

"Gunner Asch" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 13:34:12 -0500, "Neil Larson"
wrote:

- Final and best was when he needed to drill a small hole in a short board.
He didn't have a vise in the part of the shop he was in so he put the board
on his lap. He was sitting on one of those old military cloth covered
stools. He put his weight on the 1/2 " drive drill, and the bit went thru
the board, his pants, his underwear, his scrotum, back out thru all of them
then into the bottom of the stool. As any of you that have tried to drill
thru cloth know, it likes to twist up on the bit. The Chief corpsman and I
were walking by and heard him scream. After he analyzed the problem. the
Chief corpsman gave me the choice, hold the mans scrotum in place or
manually back out the drill. I chose the drill. It is hard to believe how
much blood can come out of 2 small holes and a couple of tears in a scrotum
nor how much one person can scream. After recovery he was discharged for the
good of the navy.


"Stupidity cannot be cured with money, or through education, or by
legislation. Stupidity is not a sin, the victim can't help being
stupid. But stupidity is the only universal capital crime: the
sentence is death, there is no appeal, and execution is carried out
automatically and without pity".
Robert A. Heinlein,

Yup. One of my favourites.

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:36:16 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 16:51:51 -0500, "David R. Birch"
wrote:

Gunner wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 14:54:36 -0400, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

So it was the Spanish given smallpox infected blankets to the
Indians and paying bounties on scalps?
By the time anybody started giving "smallpox infected blankets" to the
Indians the indigenous population had already been decimated.

Hardly so.

Gunner
Probably so. The original meaning of "decimated" was "one in ten".
Between the Spaniards' genocide and European diseases, a 10% decline
between 1492 and the late 1800 isn't unlikely.

David

The British were gone before 1800.

From Canada? Other new world colonies?

David

From the US. The Canadians had a far more enlightened relationship
with their Native Peoples.

Gunner

Bob Eager wrote:

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:50:03 UTC, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:


Generally when working with static sensitive electronics your power is
also limited toless than an amp. Generally you would blow the
protection fuse before heating the bracelet up enough to do any
damage.


That would include the 30A 5 volt supply, then.

The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Are they still steeling our posts?

Dave

On Tue, 18 Sep 2007 19:39:01 UTC, Dave wrote:

Bob Eager wrote:

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 16:50:03 UTC, clare at snyder.on.ca wrote:

Generally when working with static sensitive electronics your power is
also limited toless than an amp. Generally you would blow the
protection fuse before heating the bracelet up enough to do any
damage.

That would include the 30A 5 volt supply, then.

The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

Are they still steeling our posts?

Yup.
--
The information contained in this post is copyright the
poster, and specifically may not be published in, or used by
http://www.diybanter.com

John Rumm wrote:

Neil Larson wrote:

manually back out the drill. I chose the drill. It is hard to believe
how much blood can come out of 2 small holes and a couple of tears in
a scrotum nor how much one person can scream. After recovery he was
discharged for the good of the navy.


Last thing you need is thick seamen all over the place.... ;-)

After reading that, I am still persuading my nuts to come back down from
my neck :-(

Dave

Neil Larson wrote:

About 20 years ago, when I was in the US Navy, I was stationed on a LSD
(Landing Ship Dock). We had a yound machinest that had a string of stupid
mistake, and one too many.

- He was trying to cut a wrag in half by pulling the knife towards him,
knife went thru the rag and slipped into and through his right nostril. Nice
fillet job.

- Next, he used the same knife to attempt tochang a fuze to the power source
for a piece of machinery he was trying to operate. He used it to pry out the
440V 20A fuze and welded the knife and the fuze panel together.

- Final and best was when he needed to drill a small hole in a short board.
He didn't have a vise in the part of the shop he was in so he put the board
on his lap. He was sitting on one of those old military cloth covered
stools. He put his weight on the 1/2 " drive drill, and the bit went thru
the board, his pants, his underwear, his scrotum, back out thru all of them
then into the bottom of the stool. As any of you that have tried to drill
thru cloth know, it likes to twist up on the bit. The Chief corpsman and I
were walking by and heard him scream. After he analyzed the problem. the
Chief corpsman gave me the choice, hold the mans scrotum in place or
manually back out the drill. I chose the drill. It is hard to believe how
much blood can come out of 2 small holes and a couple of tears in a scrotum
nor how much one person can scream. After recovery he was discharged for the
good of the navy.



In his case, it sounds like a 'Self Lobotomy', because he certainly
didn't have any brains in his other head.


--
Service to my country? Been there, Done that, and I've got my DD214 to
prove it.
Member of DAV #85.

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 22:06:49 -0700, Gunner Asch
wrote:


From the US. The Canadians had a far more enlightened relationship
with their Native Peoples.

Gunner
Not really, we tried for many years to convert them to white men, what
with English only residential schools where the religious leaders
sexually abused all of the children then sent them home as
"incorrigibles" or worse. Gathered them together on reserves making
use of land that no one could find a use for, then when mineral
resources were discovered, relocate them to some other barren island.
Now we are starting to pay the price!
Gerry :-)}
London, Canada

raden wrote:

In message , Morris Dovey
writes
willshak wrote:

| Why is it that some believe that the US Constitution guarantees
| weapons ownership?

Because it does (in the last fourteen words of what you've quoted
below.)

| Most of these people have never read the law, and those that have
| read it, completely ignore the first clause of the sentence.
| "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free
| state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be
| infringed".

That first clause is the rationale for what follows. If you don't
understand the motivation, a review of colonial history will
contribute to your appreciation of the principles involved. You might
find a review of the grievances listed in the Declaration of
Independence illuminating. The authors of the Constitution ensured
that citizens would be empowered to say "No!" to tyranny - both from
outside and from within our borders.

If you want to rebut by pointing out that there is no tyranny, then I
give you my very happiest smiley. :-)

One of our political comedians offered three thousand pounds ( the
proceeds from an article he wrote) to anyone who killed George Bush, and
as a true patriot, you should all be leaping at the chance


I can hear the sound of splintering wood and breaking glass now!
And the wan and pitiful sound of someone who is about to disappear forever
screaming that they have rights.

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:51:03 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
In article , clifto
The grammatical construction of the first part sounds stilted in
today's world, but translating it into modernese, it says "Because a
well-regulated
militia is necessary to the security of a free State..."

Pure guesswork. You can make no such assumption with a nominative absolute
construction. You need to know the context, and there is no context.

The way I read it is, "Since it is necessary that the militia be
well-regulated, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

What this means that it is the duty of the well-armed citizenry to
keep the militia from turning itself into a police state. In other
words, it's the duty of the citizens to do the actual regulating.

For example, when the militia man shows up with his squad and
says, "We're going to confiscate all of your guns and burn all of
your subversive books", you can lock and load, aim, look him in
the eye, and say, "Guess again, bucko!"

Unfortunately, these days it seems that too many people are willing
to throw away their Liberty in exchange for the illusion of security.

Thanks,
Rich

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:56:28 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
....
I have some definitions of nominative absolute that may help but I hope
the examples clear it up.

It won't do any good - the confiscators, neosocialist and neonazi alike,
simply want absolute power, and are incapable of reason.

Cheers!
Rich

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:58:06 +0000, wrote:

On Sun, 16 Sep 2007 11:58:06 +0000, top-posted:

They have a blade with the stop jambed in it at the local Woodcraft store
signed by an ukulele maker who got to keep all his fingers, so I'd say it
works. I'd still be just as carefull as I would with any other table saw.
Karl


According to "Ask This Old House", you also have to push your work with
a weiner. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich



On Sep 15, 10:06 am, Rich Grise wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:47:40 -0400, willshak wrote:
on 9/10/2007 2:11 PM Ed Huntress said the following:
"willshak" wrote in message
on 9/9/2007 11:18 AM Shawn Hirn said the following:
Ken wrote:

What have been the worst (serious or humorous) handyman or
handywoman accidents that you've experienced so far (or someone
you know, or saw it happen to, got to experience) and please
elaborate on what unfortunately went wrong.

I'm not going to read anymore of this thread. I'm afraid to go into
my work shed or pick up a tool!

I'm with you. It's scaring the pants off of me.

I'll tell you one thing: I'm going to make darned sure I keep my hair
cut short...

My hair has been cut so that it is no more than 1/2" long. The one
tool that I use that I have the most respect for (read scared of) is
the radial arm saw, especially when ripping. Somehow, the blade over
the table is more respected (read scared of) than one under the table.
The others, I'm just merely careful.

Would you trust one of these?http://www.sawstop.com/

Cheers!
Rich- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

"Richard The Dreaded Libertarian" wrote in message
news
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 17:51:03 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
In article , clifto
The grammatical construction of the first part sounds stilted in
today's world, but translating it into modernese, it says "Because a
well-regulated
militia is necessary to the security of a free State..."

Pure guesswork. You can make no such assumption with a nominative
absolute
construction. You need to know the context, and there is no context.

The way I read it is, "Since it is necessary that the militia be
well-regulated, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be
infringed.

What this means that it is the duty of the well-armed citizenry to
keep the militia from turning itself into a police state. In other
words, it's the duty of the citizens to do the actual regulating.

For example, when the militia man shows up with his squad and
says, "We're going to confiscate all of your guns and burn all of
your subversive books", you can lock and load, aim, look him in
the eye, and say, "Guess again, bucko!"

Unfortunately, these days it seems that too many people are willing
to throw away their Liberty in exchange for the illusion of security.

I suppose that's as good an interpretation as any. One of the beauties of
the 2nd, and of many such sentences, is that you can read into it what you
want -- and it's clear that people do just that.

Taking into account what the FFs were trying to accomplish with the Bill of
Rights, I firmly believe that the 2nd was intended to be ambiguous, while,
at the same time, drawing attention to what was then the most uniformly
agreed upon argument in favor of a right to bear arms. After the
Revolutionary War, no state legislature would argue the point, and that was
the desired result.

But the history of the issue over the decades preceding the B of R suggests
that the most common argument (although not, possibly, the most forceful
one) was an individual right to self-defense. Why the FFs didn't seize on
that one, we can only guess. A key point is that there was no debate over
the right itself. It was a no-brainer at the time.

--
Ed Huntress

In message , Ed Huntress
writes

But the history of the issue over the decades preceding the B of R suggests
that the most common argument (although not, possibly, the most forceful
one) was an individual right to self-defense. Why the FFs didn't seize on
that one, we can only guess. A key point is that there was no debate over
the right itself. It was a no-brainer at the time.

blah blah

excuse me girls, can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts

thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this


--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ed Huntress
writes

But the history of the issue over the decades preceding the B of R
suggests
that the most common argument (although not, possibly, the most forceful
one) was an individual right to self-defense. Why the FFs didn't seize on
that one, we can only guess. A key point is that there was no debate over
the right itself. It was a no-brainer at the time.

blah blah

excuse me girls, can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts

thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this


--
geoff

Sure, Geoff. We wouldn't want you to know this stuff, anyway. You might be
dangerous if you did. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ed Huntress
writes

But the history of the issue over the decades preceding the B of R
suggests
that the most common argument (although not, possibly, the most forceful
one) was an individual right to self-defense. Why the FFs didn't seize on
that one, we can only guess. A key point is that there was no debate over
the right itself. It was a no-brainer at the time.

blah blah

excuse me girls, can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts

thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this


--
geoff

Sure, Geoff. We wouldn't want you to know this stuff, anyway. You might be
dangerous if you did. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

Terrific. And take it off all the other off-topic groups, as well. Let's
see, that would leave, uh, um, alt.idiotic.flagwavers as your only
appropriate group.

In message , Ed Huntress
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ed Huntress
writes

But the history of the issue over the decades preceding the B of R
suggests
that the most common argument (although not, possibly, the most forceful
one) was an individual right to self-defense. Why the FFs didn't seize on
that one, we can only guess. A key point is that there was no debate over
the right itself. It was a no-brainer at the time.

blah blah

excuse me girls, can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts

thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this


--
geoff

Sure, Geoff. We wouldn't want you to know this stuff, anyway. You might be
dangerous if you did. d8-)

Another stupid septic ...

--
geoff

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:07:15 GMT, geoff wrote:

uk.d-i-y

Here ya go geoff your very own thread

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ed Huntress
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ed Huntress
writes

But the history of the issue over the decades preceding the B of R
suggests
that the most common argument (although not, possibly, the most forceful
one) was an individual right to self-defense. Why the FFs didn't seize
on
that one, we can only guess. A key point is that there was no debate
over
the right itself. It was a no-brainer at the time.

blah blah

excuse me girls, can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts

thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this


--
geoff

Sure, Geoff. We wouldn't want you to know this stuff, anyway. You might be
dangerous if you did. d8-)

Another stupid septic ...

Well, don't be too hard on yourself. I wouldn't say you're stupid, just
crude and unimaginative.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sep 22, 8:07 am, geoff wrote:
In message , Ed Huntress
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ed Huntress
writes

But the history of the issue over the decades preceding the B of R
suggests
that the most common argument (although not, possibly, the most forceful
one) was an individual right to self-defense. Why the FFs didn't seize on
that one, we can only guess. A key point is that there was no debate over
the right itself. It was a no-brainer at the time.

blah blah

excuse me girls, can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts

thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this

--
geoff

Sure, Geoff. We wouldn't want you to know this stuff, anyway. You might be
dangerous if you did. d8-)

Another stupid septic ...

--
geoff

Would you please trim the "rec." groups from your rants, hypocrite t?

Thanks.

Slater

On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:07:15 GMT, geoff wrote:

In message , Ed Huntress
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ed Huntress
writes

But the history of the issue over the decades preceding the B of R
suggests
that the most common argument (although not, possibly, the most forceful
one) was an individual right to self-defense. Why the FFs didn't seize on
that one, we can only guess. A key point is that there was no debate over
the right itself. It was a no-brainer at the time.

blah blah

excuse me girls, can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts

thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this


--
geoff

Sure, Geoff. We wouldn't want you to know this stuff, anyway. You might be
dangerous if you did. d8-)

Another stupid septic ...


Another stupid turd heard from.

Turd = **** rhymes with Brit.

Gunner

In message .com,
writes
On Sep 22, 8:07 am, geoff wrote:
In message , Ed Huntress
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ed Huntress
writes

But the history of the issue over the decades preceding the B of R
suggests
that the most common argument (although not, possibly, the most forceful
one) was an individual right to self-defense. Why the FFs didn't seize on
that one, we can only guess. A key point is that there was no debate over
the right itself. It was a no-brainer at the time.

blah blah

excuse me girls, can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts

thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this

--
geoff

Sure, Geoff. We wouldn't want you to know this stuff, anyway. You might be
dangerous if you did. d8-)

Another stupid septic ...

--
geoff

Would you please trim the "rec." groups from your rants, hypocrite t?

FFS **** off you window lickers

you reply including uk.d-i-y in your header, I'll reply back with abuse

OK ?

now **** off

--
geoff

In message , Gunner Asch
writes
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:07:15 GMT, geoff wrote:

In message , Ed Huntress
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ed Huntress
writes

But the history of the issue over the decades preceding the B of R
suggests
that the most common argument (although not, possibly, the most forceful
one) was an individual right to self-defense. Why the FFs didn't seize on
that one, we can only guess. A key point is that there was no debate over
the right itself. It was a no-brainer at the time.

blah blah

excuse me girls, can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts

thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this


--
geoff

Sure, Geoff. We wouldn't want you to know this stuff, anyway. You might be
dangerous if you did. d8-)

Another stupid septic ...


Another stupid turd heard from.

Turd = **** rhymes with Brit.

Gunner

Not really good with words are you ?

now as I said

"can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts
thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this"

--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
FFS **** off you window lickers

you reply including uk.d-i-y in your header, I'll reply back with abuse

OK ?

now **** off

--
geoff

Oh, you Brits have such a way with words. You make your mother proud.

In message , Edwin Pawlowski
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
FFS **** off you window lickers

you reply including uk.d-i-y in your header, I'll reply back with abuse

OK ?

now **** off

--
geoff

Oh, you Brits have such a way with words. You make your mother proud.


I'm not actually trying to outdo Shakespeare - I just want the x-posting
inbreds to **** off

plain and simple


--
geoff

"geoff" wrote in message
...
Would you please trim the "rec." groups from your rants, hypocrite t?

FFS **** off you window lickers

you reply including uk.d-i-y in your header, I'll reply back with abuse

OK ?

Oh, we don't doubt that, Geoff. From your first little sniveling drips of
snotty sarcasm, it's been obvious that's what you do. You're a little wimpy
at it but you're consistent.

All you had to do was ask nicely. I assure you that no one posted to you
intentionally, as no one wants to converse with a dull and snarling ****
like you. So go back to your gluepot and finish whatever you were
doing-it-yourself -- or do it to yourself, if you wish, and see if it helps
you relax a bit.

--
Ed Huntress

On Sep 7, 11:52 pm, Ken wrote:
What have been the worst (serious or humorous) handyman or handywoman
accidents that you've experienced so far (or someone you know, or saw
it happen to, got to experience) and please elaborate on what
unfortunately went wrong.

Not exactly handman accident - but witnessed campfire surrounded by
half dozen folks, do-ggooder decides to stoke fire with coleman
lantern fuel by sloshing it out of gallon can. Can catches fire - he
drops can - then decides it might explode or something crazy - he
kicks the can away from the fire - he explodes into very pretty bluish
and orange flame. Quickly he is wrapped in sleeping bag by on-lookers
once able to catch him ...still 40% burned..took ambulance 45 minutes
to get there - a horrible 45 minutes to watch anyone endure.

On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:38:53 GMT, geoff wrote:

In message , Gunner Asch
writes
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:07:15 GMT, geoff wrote:

In message , Ed Huntress
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ed Huntress
writes

But the history of the issue over the decades preceding the B of R
suggests
that the most common argument (although not, possibly, the most forceful
one) was an individual right to self-defense. Why the FFs didn't seize on
that one, we can only guess. A key point is that there was no debate over
the right itself. It was a no-brainer at the time.

blah blah

excuse me girls, can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts

thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this


--
geoff

Sure, Geoff. We wouldn't want you to know this stuff, anyway. You might be
dangerous if you did. d8-)

Another stupid septic ...


Another stupid turd heard from.

Turd = **** rhymes with Brit.

Gunner

Not really good with words are you ?

Im not particularly conversant with Cockney Rhyming Slang, but isnt
the term you ****s use for the US..."septic" + tank rhymes with Yank?

So you stupid Turds (I did get the connection correct, did I not?)
are now going to get all ****y and upset about it?

now as I said

"can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts
thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this"

Intelligent enough, of course. On the other hand, ****ing off arrogant
sniveling little Turds is fun.

The DIY shall remain. In fact, I may subscribe to the group, just to
view how the semi intelligent manage to fumble**** their way through
hanging wallpaper or whatever buffoonish tasks it is that your lot is
having difficulty with. Advanced bridge building using popsicle
sticks perhaps?

I anticipate your Turdish response.

Gunner

In message , Gunner Asch
writes
On Sun, 23 Sep 2007 11:38:53 GMT, geoff wrote:

In message , Gunner Asch
writes
On Sat, 22 Sep 2007 12:07:15 GMT, geoff wrote:

In message , Ed Huntress
writes

"geoff" wrote in message
...
In message , Ed Huntress
writes

But the history of the issue over the decades preceding the B of R
suggests
that the most common argument (although not, possibly, the most forceful
one) was an individual right to self-defense. Why the FFs didn't seize on
that one, we can only guess. A key point is that there was no debate over
the right itself. It was a no-brainer at the time.

blah blah

excuse me girls, can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts

thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this


--
geoff

Sure, Geoff. We wouldn't want you to know this stuff, anyway. You might be
dangerous if you did. d8-)

Another stupid septic ...


Another stupid turd heard from.

Turd = **** rhymes with Brit.

Gunner

Not really good with words are you ?

Im not particularly conversant with Cockney Rhyming Slang, but isnt
the term you ****s use for the US..."septic" + tank rhymes with Yank?

So you stupid Turds (I did get the connection correct, did I not?)
are now going to get all ****y and upset about it?

now as I said

"can you please remove uk.d-i-y from your x-posts
thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this"

Intelligent enough, of course. On the other hand, ****ing off arrogant
sniveling little Turds is fun.

The DIY shall remain. In fact, I may subscribe to the group,

DIGAF - I'm off to Africa the day after tomorrow,

Why do you insist on displaying your father's predeliction for
domesticated animals ?

I used to feel sorry for Indians, now I realise that, like the Dodo,
they are just too stupid to survive

--
geoff