I'm watching one of these run of the mill, JIT home makeover shows last
night and the contractor has tools stolen from the work site on 2
consecutive nights. So he gets the bright idea for him and another to
stake out the place at night. Ok so far but the passanger is drinking
Michelob light while the vehicle is being driven (clearly shown and
mentioned by the pass), then they stop and park, and the driver pops one
open. Then the driver pulls out a shotgun to bolster his courage, then
they show them drinking more and more and tossing the cans into the bed
of the truck until late at night the thieves return. He never shoots
the shotgun, and the probably half drunk pass loses his courage as the
thief enters the trees so nothing is lost this night, but nobody was
caught either.

My point is how stupid can a TV show be to advocate drinking while
driving and drinking in public in that manner showing off a loaded
shotgun? Freaking dumb! I'm no prohibitionist but booze and guns do
not mix - period!

Grandpa John

On Tue, 21 Feb 2006 09:07:10 -0700, John DeBoo
wrote:

I'm watching one of these run of the mill, JIT home makeover shows last
night and the contractor has tools stolen from the work site on 2
consecutive nights. So he gets the bright idea for him and another to
stake out the place at night. Ok so far but the passanger is drinking
Michelob light while the vehicle is being driven (clearly shown and
mentioned by the pass), then they stop and park, and the driver pops one
open. Then the driver pulls out a shotgun to bolster his courage, then
they show them drinking more and more and tossing the cans into the bed
of the truck until late at night the thieves return. He never shoots
the shotgun, and the probably half drunk pass loses his courage as the
thief enters the trees so nothing is lost this night, but nobody was
caught either.

My point is how stupid can a TV show be to advocate drinking while
driving and drinking in public in that manner showing off a loaded
shotgun? Freaking dumb! I'm no prohibitionist but booze and guns do
not mix - period!

One of my favorite shows, because the boss is a dead ringer for my
son-in-law (they even went to Clemson at about the same time--these
guys are from Charleston--s-i-l is from upstate), but I had the same
reaction.

It was bad enough that they were sitting there at 0200 for the reason
they were (and he has the nerve to say, "some call it vigilanteism,
but down here we call it common sense"), it was doubly bad to be
popping the tops (with a can count shown in the bed of the truck), but
when the GC jacked the action of the shotgun, I said, "this is
stupid."

In all fairness, I don't think the shotgun ever left the truck.

How about the cans on Ginger, though?

And if you like redheads (I do), you have to love Lori.


--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

email addy de-spam-ified due to 1,000 spams per month.
If you can't figure out how to use it, I probably wouldn't
care to correspond with you anyway.

John DeBoo wrote:
....
My point is how stupid can a TV show be to advocate drinking while
driving and drinking in public in that manner showing off a loaded
shotgun? Freaking dumb! I'm no prohibitionist but booze and guns do
not mix - period!


If they were smoking too they might have been mistaken for agents of
the
BATF....

--

FF

Which show was that. I'll make a point of not watching it. I presume there
wasn't the obligatory, "don't try this at home" safety message.

--

You know, I spent a fortune on deodorant
before I realized that people didn't like me anyway.
"John DeBoo" wrote in message
...
I'm watching one of these run of the mill, JIT home makeover shows last
night and the contractor has tools stolen from the work site on 2
consecutive nights. So he gets the bright idea for him and another to
stake out the place at night. Ok so far but the passanger is drinking
Michelob light while the vehicle is being driven (clearly shown and
mentioned by the pass), then they stop and park, and the driver pops one
open. Then the driver pulls out a shotgun to bolster his courage, then
they show them drinking more and more and tossing the cans into the bed of
the truck until late at night the thieves return. He never shoots the
shotgun, and the probably half drunk pass loses his courage as the thief
enters the trees so nothing is lost this night, but nobody was caught
either.

My point is how stupid can a TV show be to advocate drinking while driving
and drinking in public in that manner showing off a loaded shotgun?
Freaking dumb! I'm no prohibitionist but booze and guns do not mix -
period!

Grandpa John


*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

It's not one I recall from the normal pak of that ilk. The ads in
general show a make over from a dilapidated barn to a beautiful home.
That's not what this show did but what it shows as their general
advertising blurb. Its some realty company who buys cheap, fixes up
then sells homes.

No safety msg (common sense though) was posted. It took a serious
cavalier attitude towards alcohol, vigilantism and guns. I can live
with vigilantism in some extreme cases but guns and alcohol don't mix
and advocating such in a nationwide TV show was totally irresponsible on
the part of the network (which one I didn't take note of). If I locate
it again I'll write to them for sure to voice my displeasure over their
stupidity to air that segment.

Grandpa John

Scratch Ankle wrote:
Which show was that. I'll make a point of not watching it. I presume there
wasn't the obligatory, "don't try this at home" safety message.

The vigilantism isn't of a particular concern to me. Regardless of how good
a police force you have they are not going to sit on your property and stake
out your property to protect it. Nor to protect you from someone who has
threatened you for that matter. TV cop shows use this as a staple but it
doesn't happen in real life except as an extremely rare instance. It is
your responsibility to take care of your stuff. The guns don't bother me
either. The booze bothers me a lot. Even without the guns, it's showing
them drinking and driving apparently. Add the guns in and it's totally
unbelievable it was shown without at least some disclaimer. Those idiots
should have been spending some time in jail. And if the thieves could be
found, they could share a cell.

I don't watch those flipping (?) shows so I guess I don't have to worry
about boycotting them but it would be nice to know where that was aired to
let them know that was totally irresponsible. I'm not sure the network
isn't as dumb as those guys. I would think the show's producers would have
been subject to some liability if those drunks had injured someone (thief or
innocent bystander).
--

You know, I spent a fortune on deodorant
before I realized that people didn't like me anyway.

"John DeBoo" wrote in message
. ..
It's not one I recall from the normal pak of that ilk. The ads in general
show a make over from a dilapidated barn to a beautiful home. That's not
what this show did but what it shows as their general advertising blurb.
Its some realty company who buys cheap, fixes up then sells homes.

No safety msg (common sense though) was posted. It took a serious
cavalier attitude towards alcohol, vigilantism and guns. I can live with
vigilantism in some extreme cases but guns and alcohol don't mix and
advocating such in a nationwide TV show was totally irresponsible on the
part of the network (which one I didn't take note of). If I locate it
again I'll write to them for sure to voice my displeasure over their
stupidity to air that segment.

Grandpa John

Scratch Ankle wrote:
Which show was that. I'll make a point of not watching it. I presume
there wasn't the obligatory, "don't try this at home" safety message.



*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

John DeBoo wrote:

It's not one I recall from the normal pak of that ilk. The ads in
general show a make over from a dilapidated barn to a beautiful home.
That's not what this show did but what it shows as their general
advertising blurb. Its some realty company who buys cheap, fixes up
then sells homes.

No safety msg (common sense though) was posted. It took a serious
cavalier attitude towards alcohol, vigilantism and guns. I can live
with vigilantism in some extreme cases but guns and alcohol don't mix
and advocating such in a nationwide TV show was totally irresponsible on
the part of the network (which one I didn't take note of). If I locate
it again I'll write to them for sure to voice my displeasure over their
stupidity to air that segment.

Are you sure this incident wasn't intended to be a dig at firearms owners?

Grandpa John

Scratch Ankle wrote:
Which show was that. I'll make a point of not watching it. I presume
there wasn't the obligatory, "don't try this at home" safety message.


--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

The best defense might be to have Dick Chenny out there with beer in
hand with his good old 28 gauge. That might be enough to scare anyone,
let alone a thief away from a job site.

Incidently as a shooter, the beer on the day of the shoot before
hunting was too much for me; that was totally irresponsible.

Randy

On Thu, 23 Feb 2006 09:32:11 -0700, John DeBoo
wrote:

It's not one I recall from the normal pak of that ilk. The ads in
general show a make over from a dilapidated barn to a beautiful home.
That's not what this show did but what it shows as their general
advertising blurb. Its some realty company who buys cheap, fixes up
then sells homes.

No safety msg (common sense though) was posted. It took a serious
cavalier attitude towards alcohol, vigilantism and guns. I can live
with vigilantism in some extreme cases but guns and alcohol don't mix
and advocating such in a nationwide TV show was totally irresponsible on
the part of the network (which one I didn't take note of). If I locate
it again I'll write to them for sure to voice my displeasure over their
stupidity to air that segment.

Grandpa John

Scratch Ankle wrote:
Which show was that. I'll make a point of not watching it. I presume there
wasn't the obligatory, "don't try this at home" safety message.

"Chuck" wrote in message
...

Yeah, much better to have 15 or 20 of them and then drive your illicit
girlfriend home, drive off a bridge and leave her choking her life out
in the bottom of a creek while you run away and sober up.

"Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns."

You are one sad, pathetic NeoCon - as are they all these days.
Does any of your spew relate to anything relevant, or is it just another
lame attempt to grind your brainwashed axe in public? Does everything in
life - somehow - relate to Kennedy?
Is Ted Kennedy truly the only excuse you can muster for all of the greed
soaked, self-serving transgressions and cronyism exhibited by modern day
Republicans?

I hate to be the one who points this out this FACT, but they are ALL lying
*******s who would do you in a heartbeat to protect their own interests. On
both sides of the fence.

You are simple fool at best.

September 11, 2001 - Never Forget

And in true fear-mongering NeoCon fashion, you continue to spread the hate
and fear.
How about a new tag line for you, bubba:

100 years of oppression, rape, murder, and slavery - Never Forget.

See how STUPID that looks?

Take it elsewhere - you moronic shill.

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 09:23:47 -0800, Randy Dickinson
wrote:

The best defense might be to have Dick Chenny out there with beer in
hand with his good old 28 gauge. That might be enough to scare anyone,
let alone a thief away from a job site.

Incidently as a shooter, the beer on the day of the shoot before
hunting was too much for me; that was totally irresponsible.

Yeah, much better to have 15 or 20 of them and then drive your illicit
girlfriend home, drive off a bridge and leave her choking her life out
in the bottom of a creek while you run away and sober up.


"Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns."
--
Chuck *#:^)
chaz3913(AT)yahoo(DOT)com
Anti-spam sig: please remove "NO SPAM" from e-mail address to reply.


September 11, 2001 - Never Forget

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

On Sun, 26 Feb 2006 15:07:17 -0500, "SuperNova"
wrote:

"Chuck" wrote in message
...

Yeah, much better to have 15 or 20 of them and then drive your illicit
girlfriend home, drive off a bridge and leave her choking her life out
in the bottom of a creek while you run away and sober up.

"Ted Kennedy's car has killed more people than my guns."


Hey TrollBoy, what festering commie-hole did you slither out of?

You are one sad, pathetic NeoCon - as are they all these days.

Good parrot-job. You sound just like...oh, I don't know, pick a
Klintonite...


--
Chuck *#:^)
chaz3913(AT)yahoo(DOT)com
Anti-spam sig: please remove "NO SPAM" from e-mail address to reply.


September 11, 2001 - Never Forget

----== Posted via Newsfeeds.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.newsfeeds.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! 120,000+ Newsgroups
----= East and West-Coast Server Farms - Total Privacy via Encryption =----

"Chuck" wrote: Yeah, much better to have 15 or 20 of them and then drive
your illicit girlfriend home, drive off a bridge and leave her choking her
life out in the bottom of a creek while you run away and sober up.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yeah--Hitler was responsible for the holocaust, which was also worse--how is
that relevant? According to your thinking, is is okay to do anything, as
long as its not the worst thing ever done.

This is beginning to sound like rec.woodworking. So many people made the
twit filter that there wasn't any point going there any more. Hate to see
this place go the same way.

--

You know, I spent a fortune on deodorant
before I realized that people didn't like me anyway.
"Leo Lichtman" wrote in message
...

"Chuck" wrote: Yeah, much better to have 15 or 20 of them and then drive
your illicit girlfriend home, drive off a bridge and leave her choking her
life out in the bottom of a creek while you run away and sober up.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Yeah--Hitler was responsible for the holocaust, which was also worse--how
is that relevant? According to your thinking, is is okay to do anything,
as long as its not the worst thing ever done.



*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

"Arch" wrote: Nothing, as far as I can see. Arch, did you hit send
accidentally? Or is it me.

I"m not trying to make this thread, which has now drifted inappropriately
off-topic, even more so. Yes, I am guilty of contributing to this, I know.
But I can't go on without knowing what you were going to say, Arch.

Sorry, Scratch Ankle.

"Leo Lichtman" wrote in message
...

"Arch" wrote: Nothing, as far as I can see. Arch, did you hit send
accidentally? Or is it me.

I"m not trying to make this thread, which has now drifted inappropriately
off-topic, even more so. Yes, I am guilty of contributing to this, I
know. But I can't go on without knowing what you were going to say, Arch.

Sorry, Scratch Ankle.
Seems to me he said all that was worthy on the matter....

Hi Leo,
No accident. I wrote exactly what I think we should speak of re
politics.

Not directed at you, old friend nor anyone in particular, but maybe I
said it too well for a change.


Turn to Safety, Arch
Fortiter



http://community.webtv.net/almcc/MacsMusings

"Arch" wrote: No accident. I wrote exactly what I think we should speak of
re politics. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks for helping me out here. I thought I might have missed something
profound, and it turns out that I did.

I have seen publications from IBM with a page having only the following
words: "This page intentionally left blank."

For my part, I don't mind the off topic discussion as long as it's in it's
own thread. When it hijacks a thread I'm reading I have to wade through it
and can't just filter it out. The worse part is when it starts to
degenerate into childish name calling although I think the children get a
bad rap for that since they learn from observing adults. Irritates me to no
end when I see some of the things my son learned from me.
--

You know, I spent a fortune on deodorant
before I realized that people didn't like me anyway.
"Leo Lichtman" wrote in message
...

"Arch" wrote: Nothing, as far as I can see. Arch, did you hit send
accidentally? Or is it me.

I"m not trying to make this thread, which has now drifted inappropriately
off-topic, even more so. Yes, I am guilty of contributing to this, I
know. But I can't go on without knowing what you were going to say, Arch.

Sorry, Scratch Ankle.



*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

"Leo Lichtman" wrote in message
...

"Arch" wrote: No accident. I wrote exactly what I think we should speak of
re politics. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks for helping me out here. I thought I might have missed something
profound, and it turns out that I did.

I have seen publications from IBM with a page having only the following
words: "This page intentionally left blank."


Which, of course, should read: "This page intentionally left otherwise blank."
(or "This page intentionally left almost blank.")

Matt Heffron
Inland Woodturners

Matt Heffron wrote:


"Leo Lichtman" wrote in message
...

"Arch" wrote: No accident. I wrote exactly what I think we should speak
of re politics. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks for helping me out here. I thought I might have missed something
profound, and it turns out that I did.

I have seen publications from IBM with a page having only the following
words: "This page intentionally left blank."


Which, of course, should read: "This page intentionally left otherwise
blank." (or "This page intentionally left almost blank.")

Either way, the same appears in many government publications. Presumably
there is a standard somewhere over which some committee agonized for weeks
before deciding to require that specific wording.

Matt Heffron
Inland Woodturners

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

J. Clarke wrote:
Matt Heffron wrote:


"Leo Lichtman" wrote in message
...

"Arch" wrote: No accident. I wrote exactly what I think we should speak
of re politics. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks for helping me out here. I thought I might have missed something
profound, and it turns out that I did.

I have seen publications from IBM with a page having only the following
words: "This page intentionally left blank."


Which, of course, should read: "This page intentionally left otherwise
blank." (or "This page intentionally left almost blank.")


Either way, the same appears in many government publications. Presumably
there is a standard somewhere over which some committee agonized for weeks
before deciding to require that specific wording.


Matt Heffron
Inland Woodturners



The government (or at least Federal Aviation Administration) rules for
orders requires the statement on blank pages so that you can tell that
the page is supposed to be empty, and not just a printer error. It
sounds silly until you find a page that's really not supposed to be blank...

Keith Hughes

Keith Hughes wrote:

J. Clarke wrote:
Matt Heffron wrote:


"Leo Lichtman" wrote in message
...

"Arch" wrote: No accident. I wrote exactly what I think we should
speak of re politics. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks for helping me out here. I thought I might have missed something
profound, and it turns out that I did.

I have seen publications from IBM with a page having only the following
words: "This page intentionally left blank."


Which, of course, should read: "This page intentionally left otherwise
blank." (or "This page intentionally left almost blank.")


Either way, the same appears in many government publications. Presumably
there is a standard somewhere over which some committee agonized for
weeks before deciding to require that specific wording.


Matt Heffron
Inland Woodturners



The government (or at least Federal Aviation Administration) rules for
orders requires the statement on blank pages so that you can tell that
the page is supposed to be empty, and not just a printer error. It
sounds silly until you find a page that's really not supposed to be
blank...

I think we all understand the purpose. The humor comes from the page not
being blank and the thought of a group of bureaucrats agonizing into the
wee hours over whether it should be "this page intentionally left blank" or
"this page is supposed to be blank" or "this page is supposed to be mostly
blank" or "blank page" or . . .

Keith Hughes

--
--John
to email, dial "usenet" and validate
(was jclarke at eye bee em dot net)

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...
I think we all understand the purpose. The humor comes from the page not
being blank and the thought of a group of bureaucrats agonizing into the
wee hours over whether it should be "this page intentionally left blank"
or
"this page is supposed to be blank" or "this page is supposed to be mostly
blank" or "blank page" or . . .


Even important in classified documents, of course.

Why anyone who understood the essence would quibble over the wording is the
real question.

leo - I have published a specification for an aerospace product with
the phrase "this page unintentionally left blank" - after about 12
months, one of our customers noticed it and was suitably amused.

Arch's comments recapitulate a song by a late 60s group called the
West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band, titled "Aniversary of WWIII" -
it was 3:20 of silence. I used to play it on my radio show on WRPI

now back to the topic of wood turning, which should not be left blank
(or is it that the blank should not be left?)

On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:11:18 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
wrote:


"Arch" wrote: No accident. I wrote exactly what I think we should speak of
re politics. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks for helping me out here. I thought I might have missed something
profound, and it turns out that I did.

I have seen publications from IBM with a page having only the following
words: "This page intentionally left blank."

Bill

www.wbnoble.com

to contact me, do not reply to this message,
instead correct this address and use it

will iam_ b_ No ble at msn daught com
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from http://www.SecureIX.com ***

"William B Noble (don't reply to this address)"
wrote:

leo - I have published a specification for an aerospace product with
the phrase "this page unintentionally left blank" - after about 12
months, one of our customers noticed it and was suitably amused.

Arch's comments recapitulate a song by a late 60s group called the
West Coast Pop Art Experimental Band, titled "Aniversary of WWIII" -
it was 3:20 of silence. I used to play it on my radio show on WRPI

now back to the topic of wood turning, which should not be left blank
(or is it that the blank should not be left?)

You hadda good Blank and you LEFT!
....
Left, right ...


On Mon, 27 Feb 2006 18:11:18 GMT, "Leo Lichtman"
wrote:


"Arch" wrote: No accident. I wrote exactly what I think we should
speak of re politics. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Thanks for helping me out here. I thought I might have missed
something profound, and it turns out that I did.

I have seen publications from IBM with a page having only the
following words: "This page intentionally left blank."

Bill

www.wbnoble.com

to contact me, do not reply to this message,
instead correct this address and use it

will iam_ b_ No ble at msn daught com
*** Free account sponsored by SecureIX.com ***
*** Encrypt your Internet usage with a free VPN account from
http://www.SecureIX.com ***

Bill,
I understand the message but the tactic causes me to smile. Like some of the
pop/modern art? Plain white canvass? I'm amazed the radio station would go
along with the idea. People changing stations cause they think the
station's off air.
TomNie

"Tom Nie" writes:

Bill,
I understand the message but the tactic causes me to smile. Like some of the
pop/modern art? Plain white canvass? I'm amazed the radio station would go
along with the idea.

WRPI was run by the students of RPI. Non-profit engineers. :-)

We did many avant-garde experiments.

--
Sending unsolicited commercial e-mail to this account incurs a fee of
$500 per message, and acknowledges the legality of this contract.