I've got too much time on my hands :-).

I just did a Google search on postings to this group by Tim in the last
12 months. There were 116. 5 or 6 were on woodworking topics based on
the subject line.

Just to be fair, since I've been known to get drawn into these off topic
discussions, I checked my own history. At least the first 128 Google
showed me (it omitted 202 "similar" postings). Of the 128, better than
60 were on woodworking or responding to things like Toms stories, beer
jokes, computer questions, etc..

So I'm on topic about 50% of the time. Tim's on topic about 5% of the
time.

I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair in adding him to my
killfile :-).


--
It's turtles, all the way down

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
I've got too much time on my hands :-).

I just did a Google search on postings to this group by Tim in the last
12 months. There were 116. 5 or 6 were on woodworking topics based on
the subject line.

Just to be fair, since I've been known to get drawn into these off topic
discussions, I checked my own history. At least the first 128 Google
showed me (it omitted 202 "similar" postings). Of the 128, better than
60 were on woodworking or responding to things like Toms stories, beer
jokes, computer questions, etc..

So I'm on topic about 50% of the time. Tim's on topic about 5% of the
time.

I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair in adding him to my
killfile :-).

If Tim's posts make you uncomfortable, there's no need to come up with a
public justification. Just killfile him and move on. Why the need to call
attention to yourself?

todd

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
...
I've got too much time on my hands :-).

I just did a Google search on postings to this group by Tim in the last
12 months. There were 116. 5 or 6 were on woodworking topics based on
the subject line.

Just to be fair, since I've been known to get drawn into these off topic
discussions, I checked my own history. At least the first 128 Google
showed me (it omitted 202 "similar" postings). Of the 128, better than
60 were on woodworking or responding to things like Toms stories, beer
jokes, computer questions, etc..

So I'm on topic about 50% of the time. Tim's on topic about 5% of the
time.

I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair in adding him to my
killfile :-).


--
It's turtles, all the way down

Why would anyone care who you killfile . We [most of us] have the ability to
make our own choices.

todd wrote:

...

So I'm on topic about 50% of the time. Tim's on topic about 5% of the
time.

I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair in adding him to my
killfile :-).

If Tim's posts make you uncomfortable, there's no need to come up with a
public justification. Just killfile him and move on. Why the need to call
attention to yourself?


There is an old adage "Silence implies consent". That I daresay, is
why Mr Blanchard and I contribute to off-topic threads, to prove that
we do not consent to whatever it is that Pat Robertson has told
them to post about this week.

Posting a 'plonk' announcement creates a UseNet record that the
author's silence, in the future should not be considered indicative
of consent.

--

FF

Larry Blanchard wrote:

I've got too much time on my hands :-).

I just did a Google search on postings to this group by Tim in the last
12 months. There were 116. 5 or 6 were on woodworking topics based on
the subject line.

Just to be fair, since I've been known to get drawn into these off topic
discussions, I checked my own history. At least the first 128 Google
showed me (it omitted 202 "similar" postings). Of the 128, better than
60 were on woodworking or responding to things like Toms stories, beer
jokes, computer questions, etc..

So I'm on topic about 50% of the time. Tim's on topic about 5% of the
time.

I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair in adding him to my
killfile :-).




First, thank you for my very own thread.

Second, Good Manners dictates that you mark this sort of thing OT, or at
the very least mark it a META thread since it is NOT about WWing.

Third, you might continue your deep statistical analysis by examining
just how many OT threads I actually *start*. In my recollection, it
is few. But I will not sit back and watch other people pitch bad ideas,
dangerous to my future, hence I get involved in OT threads. But
mostly, this is well after they are underway.

Fourth, I rarely start or add to On-Topic threads because I have little
useful to say there. I am a rookie WWer, having only done it for about
8 years and anything I might add would be of little value beyond the
expertise already found here.

Fifth, if this group gnerally practiced self-restraint and avoided OTs
and/or limited them to very short exchanges, I would observe this without
reservation. In fact, most NGs I read do exactly this and I observe
the customs of the community. But you and your ilk cannot on the one
hand jump in with all of the ideological gas passing the characterizes
your posts and expect everyone else to observe a moment of silence in your
honor. I've no idea what kind of human you are - perhaps we'd be friendly
neighbors in the Real World - but by your testimony, I know your ideas
are pernicious and dangerous to Liberty, hence you get counterargument
from me and others. Lead by example, and I will be similarly still.

Fifth, I am gratified to know that I have gotten on your nerves enough that
you feel the need to make the debate about my personal posting behavior.
Squealing of this sort is almost always the evidence of the lack of
coherent ideas and it's time to go after the speaker.
--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

I've looked at your posting history on Usenet and you seem to be both a
Usenet junky and a Conflict junky.

You have admitted that you have little to contribute to this newsgroup
- why don't you bugger off, then!

Mr. Blanchard ("What does the turtle stand on?") has made a reasonably
polite interrogative.

Other than the misspelling of your name, I see no reason not to use his
reasoning to add you to the killfile.

The brace of twits who missed the point can look forward to your posts
in the future.

I will not.

entfillet wrote:

I've looked at your posting history on Usenet and you seem to be both a
Usenet junky and a Conflict junky.

You have admitted that you have little to contribute to this newsgroup
- why don't you bugger off, then!

Sorry to disappoint, but I do not fit your demographic.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

"First, thank you for my very own thread."

You are to be congratulated, although you will have to search for the
initiation under a misspelled attribution.


"Second, Good Manners dictates that you mark this sort of thing OT, or
at
the very least mark it a META thread since it is NOT about WWing."

As you have not been particularly careful about this in your own
posting history I would not blow this horn too loudly.

"Third, you might continue your deep statistical analysis by examining
just how many OT threads I actually *start*. In my recollection, it
is few. But I will not sit back and watch other people pitch bad
ideas,
dangerous to my future, hence I get involved in OT threads. But
mostly, this is well after they are underway."

It would seem that you imply a distinction between the origination of
an OT thread and the participation in an OT thread. There are some of
us who would not embrace the distinction.

"Fourth, I rarely start or add to On-Topic threads because I have
little
useful to say there. I am a rookie WWer, having only done it for about

8 years and anything I might add would be of little value beyond the
expertise already found here."

This is actually the funniest statement that I have found, so far.
Google shows 148 postings by you to rec. woodworking, and as you claim
that few of these have to do with actual woodworking, and therefore are
OT, I am left to wonder at your persistance in expressing your views in
a forum where you, admittedly, have no special knowledge.

"Fifth, if this group gnerally practiced self-restraint and avoided OTs

and/or limited them to very short exchanges, I would observe this
without
reservation. In fact, most NGs I read do exactly this and I observe
the customs of the community. But you and your ilk cannot on the one
hand jump in with all of the ideological gas passing the characterizes
your posts and expect everyone else to observe a moment of silence in
your
honor. I've no idea what kind of human you are - perhaps we'd be
friendly
neighbors in the Real World - but by your testimony, I know your ideas
are pernicious and dangerous to Liberty, hence you get counterargument
from me and others. Lead by example, and I will be similarly still. "

Now, this is a very interesting expression of intent. Do you mean to
say that on; alt.smokers.pipes, comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,
comp.lang.python, rec.photo.equipment.medium-format, fa.freebsd.stable,
rec.photo.darkroom, comp.protocols.smb,
rec.photo.equipment.large-format, rec.photo.equipment.large-format,
comp.mail.sendmail, comp.lang.python.announce, gnu.emacs.bug,
alt.comp.sys.palmtops.pilot, comp.mail.sendmail, rec.photo.misc,
mailing.freebsd.ports, muc.lists.freebsd.stable - all of which
represent a subset of the newsgroups that you have been a participant
in, you have found the level of restraint greater than here on
rec.woodworking?

Would you care to have this proven to be false?

Is it really necessary?

Isn't the truth obvious?

Isn't it actually the case that you have made a Usenet career of
inserting yourself into groups where you have nothing to contribute and
only seek to call attention to yourself , without regard for the
culture of the groups that you violate?

You are a Usenet junky, Daneliuk.

You are also a conflict junky.

And your song has grown tired unto our ears.

Mr. Blanchard ("What does the turtle stand on?") has made a reasonably
polite inquiry; followed by a brace of fools who misunderstood his
intent.

I am not one who uses killfiles, but, if I did, you would be one of the
first in the bin.

Other than his misspelling of your name, for use in the blocking of
your posts, I believe him to be right on target.

Good Day, Sir.

Entfillet wrote: snipfollowed by a brace of fools who misunderstood
his
intent.snip

I'll bet 90% of _all_ our problems result from this very
thing. But Mr. Blanchard has too much time on his hands, which can
lead to mischief. Internet mischief. The Googling of people! I suppose
now we've all googled Mr Blanchard. I for one look back on a lot of my
posts as an exercise in humiliation, at least that's my excuse for now.
A thicker skin may help, but not as much when the intent is obscured.
Or was his intent obscured at all? Tom

entfillet wrote:

SNIP

from me and others. Lead by example, and I will be similarly still. "

Now, this is a very interesting expression of intent. Do you mean to
say that on; alt.smokers.pipes, comp.unix.bsd.freebsd.misc,
comp.lang.python, rec.photo.equipment.medium-format, fa.freebsd.stable,
rec.photo.darkroom, comp.protocols.smb,
rec.photo.equipment.large-format, rec.photo.equipment.large-format,
comp.mail.sendmail, comp.lang.python.announce, gnu.emacs.bug,
alt.comp.sys.palmtops.pilot, comp.mail.sendmail, rec.photo.misc,
mailing.freebsd.ports, muc.lists.freebsd.stable - all of which
represent a subset of the newsgroups that you have been a participant
in, you have found the level of restraint greater than here on
rec.woodworking?

I've exhibited *absolutely* more restraint in all but rec.woodworking and
a.s.pipes *both* of which are NGs that regularly practice OT sideshows
with many participants. Years ago, there were some of these in some of
the photo groups but they were relatively few in number and not widely
practiced by the larger community AND they tended to die down pretty
quickly. In the vast majority of the aforementioned groups I have
stayed very much OT to either ask questions, answer questions (because
these are groups wherein I *do* have expertise to share), or make
OT comments. I hope this is OK with you and your fellow NG Policemen.


Would you care to have this proven to be false

Is it really necessary?

Isn't the truth obvious?

Yes the truth is quite obvious. OT postings are permitted / encouraged /
nurtured so long as they contain the politically correct content that a
few self-anointed nannies have prescribed. When said nannies get backed
into a rhetorical corner by someone equal to their writing, the scream
"foul, you're OT." Sorry Sparky, you cannot on the one hand have a culture
that embraces OT chatter and then howl about how much its been hijacked
by "conflict junkies." For example, I despised Clinton but you will not
find reams of OT threads I initiated to beat him up. When others
defended him, I sometimes jumped in, but I respected the silence
otherwise. Jaques, Fred, Watson, et al are very quick to howl about
any political topic they wish, and then howl again when they get
countering argument they cannot refute.

If this group seriously wishes for OT threads to go away, I will honor
it in the same degree other members do. Which is to say that the Usual
Suspects cannot jump in, rant about Bush, the War, the color of their
underwear, or whatever else strikes their fancy and then demand those of
us with opposing view be still. (Note: I have no distinct position on
the color of people's underwear.) In short - and I'll use simple concepts
and small words for the Guilty - I did not (typically) start political
conflict and I will not do so in the future. But if you start with
the nonsense that has characterized this group for years, expect to
get spanked (no doubt some of you enjoy it).


Isn't it actually the case that you have made a Usenet career of
inserting yourself into groups where you have nothing to contribute and
only seek to call attention to yourself , without regard for the
culture of the groups that you violate?

I am *very* much a part of the wreck culture in which OT threads are
regularly intiated (usually/almost never by me) on political topics.
You cannot rationally chastise me for something I did not initiate
and which goes on whether I post or not. You can, of course, do
so irrationally ... oh, you already have.


You are a Usenet junky, Daneliuk.

I don't have to be a junky. I read and write rapidly, thereby making
the refutation of foul ideas a minor part of the day.

You are also a conflict junky.

Only when presented with pernicious ideas and boneheaded logic. I'm
actually rather easy to get on with otherwise.


And your song has grown tired unto our ears.

Then don't listen. In fact, I offer you the opportunity to make
it go away completely by not starting the humming in the first place.
Personally, I don't think you and the rest can do it, but I'm absolutely
willing to honor your doing so.


Mr. Blanchard ("What does the turtle stand on?") has made a reasonably
polite inquiry; followed by a brace of fools who misunderstood his
intent.

Yes, I know, we mere unenlightened plebes are indeed a "brace of fools"
for failing to sign up for the politically correct outcome dictated
by our betters.


I am not one who uses killfiles, but, if I did, you would be one of the
first in the bin.

I am smitten with sadness about that and will work diligently to
overcome my despair.


Other than his misspelling of your name, for use in the blocking of
your posts, I believe him to be right on target.

A belief you are entitled to. But if you give your beliefs voice
here, then expect counterargument from people who do not share your
religion. This is not cruel, ill-intentioned, or mean-spirited,
it is called _discussion_, something that's been dying at the hands
of the PC Thought Police for too long.

Good Day, Sir.


Well, at least you have one positive note. I think I already *did*
have a Good Day and hopefully will have many more.

N.B. I really am not trying to be a wise guy here. The culture of
the Wreck was contentious when I first started reading it and it
has always been so with many an OT thread, political especially.
I will *absolutely* honor the culture of the group as it evolves
as I presently honor it by engaging in its normal practices.

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Bourbon. Crushed mint. Branch water. More ice than for most drinks.

Most anything neat, for me. But I have too much time on my hands(insert
smiley-face here). Tom

"entfillet" writes:


Isn't it actually the case that you have made a Usenet career of
inserting yourself into groups where you have nothing to contribute and
only seek to call attention to yourself , without regard for the
culture of the groups that you violate?

Actually, could it be more likely that Daneliuk is the current
nom de plume of a whitehouse staffer?

scott

In article , Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Fifth, I am gratified to know that I have gotten on your nerves enough that
you feel the need to make the debate about my personal posting behavior.
Squealing of this sort is almost always the evidence of the lack of
coherent ideas and it's time to go after the speaker.

I've come to a similar conclusion. I confess that I don't understand
the almost pathological need to announce additions to one's kill file.

Bizarre.

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

"I've exhibited *absolutely* more restraint in all but
rec.woodworking..."

KP to KP3.


"Years ago, there were some of these in some of
the photo groups but they were relatively few in number and not widely
practiced by the larger community AND they tended to die down pretty
quickly."

QP to QP3.


"In the vast majority of the aforementioned groups I have
stayed very much OT to either ask questions, answer questions (because
these are groups wherein I *do* have expertise to share), or make
OT comments."

KP3 to KP4.


"Yes the truth is quite obvious. OT postings are permitted / encouraged
/
nurtured so long as they contain the politically correct content that a

few self-anointed nannies have prescribed. When said nannies get backed

into a rhetorical corner by someone equal to their writing, the scream
"foul, you're OT." Sorry Sparky..."

QP3 to QP4.


"For example, I despised Clinton but you will not
find reams of OT threads I initiated to beat him up."

KBP to KBP3.


"Jaques, Fred, Watson, et al are very quick to howl about
any political topic they wish, and then howl again when they get
countering argument they cannot refute."

QB to KB4. ??

"f this group seriously wishes for OT threads to go away, I will honor
it in the same degree other members do."

QKn to QB4 (possible?)


" I am *very* much a part of the wreck culture..."

(Attempted castle move - denied)


"You cannot rationally chastise me for something I did not initiate..."

(Move denied - insufficient pieces.)


"I don't have to be a junky. I read and write rapidly, thereby making
the refutation of foul ideas a minor part of the day."

(Move denied - insufficient pieces..)


"I really am not trying to be a wise guy here."

(Game results in default.)


Yes, the notation is antiquated and the commentary is silly. So is the
argument.




Daneliuk is an admitted troll with a predeliction for political
pomposity. He has made no contribution to the woodworking knowledge of
the group and has made fun of Larry's turtles.

I am particularly incensed by his disrespect for the turtles.

I hope that you agree. Turtles should be respected.

On 31 Jan 2006 09:27:27 -0800, wrote:


todd wrote:

...

So I'm on topic about 50% of the time. Tim's on topic about 5% of the
time.

I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair in adding him to my
killfile :-).

If Tim's posts make you uncomfortable, there's no need to come up with a
public justification. Just killfile him and move on. Why the need to call
attention to yourself?


There is an old adage "Silence implies consent". That I daresay, is
why Mr Blanchard and I contribute to off-topic threads, to prove that
we do not consent to whatever it is that Pat Robertson has told
them to post about this week.


Is that the current put-down that Mr Soros is telling you to use this
month for any comments that don't fit into his worldview?




+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

entfillet wrote:

"I've exhibited *absolutely* more restraint in all but
rec.woodworking..."

KP to KP3.


"Years ago, there were some of these in some of
the photo groups but they were relatively few in number and not widely
practiced by the larger community AND they tended to die down pretty
quickly."

QP to QP3.


Nice "proof" ...

More feeble chess deleted ..

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

Those notations were for your moves.

I was just watching.

Those notations were for your moves.

I was just watching.

Dave Balderstone wrote:

I've come to a similar conclusion. I confess that I don't
understand the almost pathological need to announce additions to
one's kill file.

Bizarre.

Not bizarre at all. Seems like a perfectly human thing to do... for
some humans. What better way for someone with twittish tendencies to
get a petty little jolly on than to announce that they're going to
ignore someone? It's not a very impressive display but it's certainly
understandable... and done an awful lot on usenet by an awful lot of
twittish people. So there is the answer... they do it because they are
very human twits.

Now that I've ****ed off a few people, let me **** off a few more.
EVERY newsgroup has some off topic discussion. If you don't want to
read it, then figure out how to work your newsreader so that you can
ignore threads, or even ignore certain posters if you must. If you're
a twit and suffering from a petty little jolly deficit, you can
announce it to the world ;-)

And to **** off one or two more... I encourage Tim D. to post and
comment to his his heart's content about whatever he wants. Personally
I find his comments to be thoughtful and intelligent and I enjoy
reading what he has to say.

Joe Barta

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 31 Jan 2006 09:27:27 -0800, wrote:


todd wrote:

...

So I'm on topic about 50% of the time. Tim's on topic about 5% of the
time.

I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair in adding him to my
killfile :-).

If Tim's posts make you uncomfortable, there's no need to come up with a
public justification. Just killfile him and move on. Why the need to call
attention to yourself?


There is an old adage "Silence implies consent". That I daresay, is
why Mr Blanchard and I contribute to off-topic threads, to prove that
we do not consent to whatever it is that Pat Robertson has told
them to post about this week.


Is that the current put-down that Mr Soros is telling you to use this
month for any comments that don't fit into his worldview?

I don't recall any correspondence from any Mr Soros.

My guess is you mean George Soros:

http://www.altavista.com/web/results...os&kgs=1&kls=0

--

FF

Joe Barta says:

"And to **** off one or two more... I encourage Tim D. to post and
comment to his his heart's content about whatever he wants. Personally
I find his comments to be thoughtful and intelligent and I enjoy
reading what he has to say."



Oh, Good!

Mr. Barta from alt.politics, talk.politics.misc, alt.politics.kerry,
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, soc.culture.irish, alt.idiots,
alt.smokers.cigars, alt.html, soc.college.financial-aid,
alt.building.construction, alt.home.repair, etc., etc., etc. ... has
graced us with his opinion, so carefully constructed, so closely held
and studied.

On 31 Jan 2006 20:21:53 -0800, wrote:


Mark & Juanita wrote:
On 31 Jan 2006 09:27:27 -0800, wrote:


todd wrote:

...

So I'm on topic about 50% of the time. Tim's on topic about 5% of the
time.

I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair in adding him to my
killfile :-).

If Tim's posts make you uncomfortable, there's no need to come up with a
public justification. Just killfile him and move on. Why the need to call
attention to yourself?


There is an old adage "Silence implies consent". That I daresay, is
why Mr Blanchard and I contribute to off-topic threads, to prove that
we do not consent to whatever it is that Pat Robertson has told
them to post about this week.


Is that the current put-down that Mr Soros is telling you to use this
month for any comments that don't fit into his worldview?

I don't recall any correspondence from any Mr Soros.

My guess is you mean George Soros:

My apologies, I didn't realize that George Soros was on a first-name
basis with his sheeple. I'll keep that in mind in the future.





+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

entfillet wrote:

Mr. Barta from alt.politics, talk.politics.misc,
alt.politics.kerry, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, soc.culture.irish,
alt.idiots, alt.smokers.cigars, alt.html,
soc.college.financial-aid, alt.building.construction,
alt.home.repair, etc., etc., etc. ... has graced us with his
opinion, so carefully constructed, so closely held and studied.

Ok, Mr. Marlowe, here's the story... sometimes I'll reply to a message
that has been crossposted to a bunch of assorted groups. I suppose I
should be more vigilant about such things, but I'm not. It happens to
everyone I suppose. I'll take credit for posting to woodworking,
construction, html and cigars over the years... but if my replies
ended up in various nefarious political groups, it was not
intentional.

Joe Barta

P.S. alt.idiots? Gotta check that one out ;-)

wrote in message
oups.com...

todd wrote:

...

So I'm on topic about 50% of the time. Tim's on topic about 5% of the
time.

I wanted to make sure I wasn't being unfair in adding him to my
killfile :-).

If Tim's posts make you uncomfortable, there's no need to come up with a
public justification. Just killfile him and move on. Why the need to
call
attention to yourself?


There is an old adage "Silence implies consent".

I doubt it's very applicable to a USENET newsgroup, where dozens of topics
are being discussed at a any particular time. Does this mean that I can go
back in the rec.ww archives and if I find a thread you have not posted in I
can assume you consent to the content?

That I daresay, is
why Mr Blanchard and I contribute to off-topic threads, to prove that
we do not consent to whatever it is that Pat Robertson has told
them to post about this week.

I have no problem with people posting to off-topic threads. What I do have
a problem with is hyprocrites. Here's another old adage: "And why do you
look at the splinter in your brother's eye, and not notice the beam which is
in your own eye?"

Posting a 'plonk' announcement creates a UseNet record that the
author's silence, in the future should not be considered indicative
of consent.

Riiiight. Good thing everyone keeps track of who has plonked whom, just so
we can keep the score up to date. No one cares that someone has been
plonked.

todd

In article , Joe Barta
wrote:

If you don't want to
read it, then figure out how to work your newsreader so that you can
ignore threads, or even ignore certain posters if you must.

The Standard Advice:

Ignore, filter, help others to do the same.

;-)

--
Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and repression!

Dave Balderstone wrote:

Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and
repression!

I have a different take... I think it's a matter of a little something
being better than all of nothing. I'm happy to see Google in China...
getting the foot in the door so to speak. If I'm not mistaken, there
will be a notice on the search results page stating that certain items
have been blocked due to censorship. Google wants access to China's
market and I think that was a fair compromise for now. Plus, most
certainly some of that awful content like "democracy" and "freedom"
will make it through... and I'd say that can only be good.

Joe Barta

entfillet wrote:

Joe Barta says:

"And to **** off one or two more... I encourage Tim D. to post and
comment to his his heart's content about whatever he wants. Personally
I find his comments to be thoughtful and intelligent and I enjoy
reading what he has to say."



Oh, Good!

Mr. Barta from alt.politics, talk.politics.misc, alt.politics.kerry,
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, soc.culture.irish, alt.idiots,
alt.smokers.cigars, alt.html, soc.college.financial-aid,
alt.building.construction, alt.home.repair, etc., etc., etc. ... has
graced us with his opinion, so carefully constructed, so closely held
and studied.


OK, so now you've established that you're able to use Google to
examine posting history. This is a skill held by most technologically
savvy 12 year olds and is: a) Not an impressive skill and b) Not germane
to your argument (that all of us who annoy or disagree with you should
slink quietly into the night).

I am in an excellent mood, BTW. I just watched W's SOTN speech rerun.
While I both agreed and disagreed with some of what he said, it brought
joy to my heart knowing that it certainly annoyed the Usual Suspects
On The Wreck to the point of Chappackidick Ted levels of apoplexy...

--
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tim Daneliuk
PGP Key: http://www.tundraware.com/PGP/

entfillet wrote:... has
graced us with his opinion, so carefully constructed, so closely held
and studied.

Everybody's got one. Or two. Or thirteen. No reason to get touchy. Tom

wrote:

There is an old adage "Silence implies consent".

There's another adage... "Tis better to be silent and thought a
fool..."

That I daresay,

Daresay? Damn, you're pullin out all the stops here.

is why Mr Blanchard and I contribute to off-topic threads, to
prove that we do not consent

Hey, contribution is a wonderful thing. But who cares if you prove or
disprove consent? Just speak your mind and leave it at that.

to whatever it is that Pat Robertson
has told them to post about this week.

Pat who? You mean that TV preacher guy that tried for the Republican
nomination for President once? That guy that finds his wobbly old ass
on TV apologizing for clumsy statements that he made the previous
week? That Pat Robertson? Do YOU listen to him? I sure don't.

Posting a 'plonk' announcement creates a UseNet record that the
author's silence, in the future should not be considered
indicative of consent.

And here I thought you were just a twit getting his jollies by telling
someone you "plonked" them. I'll consider myself straightened out.

Joe Barta

On 01 Feb 2006 00:04:51 EST, Tim Daneliuk wrote:

entfillet wrote:

Joe Barta says:

"And to **** off one or two more... I encourage Tim D. to post and
comment to his his heart's content about whatever he wants. Personally
I find his comments to be thoughtful and intelligent and I enjoy
reading what he has to say."



Oh, Good!

Mr. Barta from alt.politics, talk.politics.misc, alt.politics.kerry,
alt.fan.rush-limbaugh, soc.culture.irish, alt.idiots,
alt.smokers.cigars, alt.html, soc.college.financial-aid,
alt.building.construction, alt.home.repair, etc., etc., etc. ... has
graced us with his opinion, so carefully constructed, so closely held
and studied.


OK, so now you've established that you're able to use Google to
examine posting history. This is a skill held by most technologically
savvy 12 year olds and is: a) Not an impressive skill and b) Not germane
to your argument (that all of us who annoy or disagree with you should
slink quietly into the night).

I am in an excellent mood, BTW. I just watched W's SOTN speech rerun.
While I both agreed and disagreed with some of what he said, it brought
joy to my heart knowing that it certainly annoyed the Usual Suspects
On The Wreck to the point of Chappackidick Ted levels of apoplexy...

Heard part of it on the way home, so I didn't get to see the facial
expressions. Bet the swimmer just about burst a blood vessel with the
comment indicating that while debate and criticism are valid exercises in
our system, second guessing and application of hindsight are not.



+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

In article ,
"todd" wrote:

Here's another old adage: "And why do you
look at the splinter in your brother's eye, and not notice the beam which is
in your own eye?"

Bingo! Finally back to woodworking.

Let's discuss The Beam.

You first.

In article ,
Mark & Juanita wrote:

Heard part of it on the way home, so I didn't get to see the facial
expressions. Bet the swimmer just about burst a blood vessel with the
comment indicating that while debate and criticism are valid exercises in
our system, second guessing and application of hindsight are not.

Post SOTU, a few of the media's talking heads even ventured out and said
that W "may have some credibility issues with some viewers."

*wiping monitor*

In article ,
Joe Barta wrote:

I encourage Tim D. to post and
comment to his his heart's content about whatever he wants. Personally
I find his comments to be thoughtful and intelligent and I enjoy
reading what he has to say.

Ditto.

But!...............


:+

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"todd" wrote:

Here's another old adage: "And why do you
look at the splinter in your brother's eye, and not notice the beam which
is
in your own eye?"

Bingo! Finally back to woodworking.

Let's discuss The Beam.

You first.

Well, there is a very large LVL beam sitting in my driveway right now. It's
3 1/2" thick, 14" deep, and about 19 feet long waiting to start holding the
second floor of my home addition so it doesn't become part of the first
floor.

todd

In article ,
"todd" wrote:

"Robatoy" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"todd" wrote:

Here's another old adage: "And why do you
look at the splinter in your brother's eye, and not notice the beam which
is
in your own eye?"

Bingo! Finally back to woodworking.

Let's discuss The Beam.

You first.

Well, there is a very large LVL beam sitting in my driveway right now. It's
3 1/2" thick, 14" deep, and about 19 feet long waiting to start holding the
second floor of my home addition so it doesn't become part of the first
floor.

todd

Let me be the first to congratulate you on the fact that that beam is
not in your eye.

I find those LVL beams much more elegant than the steel I have used in
the past.
I recently saw a hallway table made from a beam like that. About 8 feet
long...about 14" wide maybe, but nice and thick. The vertical pieces
were just a continuation of the beam, but attached at either end of the
horizontal piece with large box joints. Very attractive.. just clear
poly as a finish.

todd wrote:

Well, there is a very large LVL beam sitting in my driveway right
now. It's 3 1/2" thick, 14" deep, and about 19 feet long waiting
to start holding the second floor of my home addition so it
doesn't become part of the first floor.

When I was a carpenter we used to set those things all the time. Was
actually pretty dangerous. Imagine joist hangers nailed every 16" on
each side while it's still on a pair of sawhorses (and 14" is small).
Two guys on one end and two on the other. You then proceed to hoist
this thing on your collective shoulders and up a pair of step ladders
into position. Being a big and tall guy, I was always one of the main
shoulders. I used to have nightmares of those things starting to slide
or fall and those joist hangers taking out chunks of shoulder or neck
flesh before breaking a few bones. The Gods must have been smiling
because never once did we lose control of one.

Joe Barta

in 1270117 20060201 050448 Joe Barta wrote:
Dave Balderstone wrote:

Boycott Google for their support of communist censorship and
repression!

I have a different take... I think it's a matter of a little something
being better than all of nothing. I'm happy to see Google in China...
getting the foot in the door so to speak. If I'm not mistaken, there
will be a notice on the search results page stating that certain items
have been blocked due to censorship. Google wants access to China's
market and I think that was a fair compromise for now. Plus, most
certainly some of that awful content like "democracy" and "freedom"
will make it through... and I'd say that can only be good.

Joe Barta

I agree with you. So many people seem not to recognize the need for
compromise now and then.

In article . com, "entfillet" wrote:

KP to KP3.
[...]
QP to QP3.
[...]
KP3 to KP4.
[...]
QP3 to QP4.
[...]
KBP to KBP3.

LOL -- you've been caught pretending to knowledge you do not possess. Perhaps
you should have talked to a *real* chess player before you tried to
impersonate one, so that you'd have half a chance of succeeding.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.

"LOL -- you've been caught pretending to knowledge you do not possess.
Perhaps
you should have talked to a *real* chess player before you tried to
impersonate one, so that you'd have half a chance of succeeding."


I'm sorry that you did not see the humor in my characterizing Mr. D's
arguments as a series of lame and/or impossible moves. I would have
thought that the use of the outdated notation form would have given it
away. I would have thought that not being able to castle due to
"insufficent pieces" would have been the final straw but...apparently
not. I will try to be even less subtle in the future.

BTW - I let my USCF membership lapse a few years ago and so am
technically not rated any longer but, if you would like to stop by for
a game some time, that would be fine.

Bring money.