Why should I think that you believe differently than the views you have
been expressing? Are you now saying that you are a liar?

"Upscale" wrote in message
...

You don't know me and if it interests you, my ethics prevent me from the
type of greed you're accusing me of.

"CW" wrote in message news:2x3Og.11282
Why should I think that you believe differently than the views you have
been expressing? Are you now saying that you are a liar?

**** off and get a life. At this point you're just trying to stir up an
argument.

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 17:56:28 -0400, "Upscale"
wrote:


"Joe Bemier" wrote in message

Thats about it Upscale. If it were a $10 chunk of metal that cannot
cause me headaches down the road, I would just accept it and move on.

Well, if it's any consolation, a few years down the road with competitor
models coming out and improvements in the technology, I expect it to be
close to that. Not $10 of course, but under $100. Someone will come up with
a system that makes it reusable and not destroy the blade in the process of
a firing.

Lets hope so...

Good day!

On Wed, 13 Sep 2006 21:34:08 -0400, "Upscale"
wrote:

"Dave Hall" wrote in message
years ago that would effectively and selectively eliminated the bulk of

Try reading into the response a little more.

substantially. Outlaw red meat. Outlaw white bread. Outlaw refined
sugar. It would be fairly simple to identify those food items that
contribute the most to an unhealthy diet and simply outlaw those
items. Death rates would drop. Physical (as opposed to mental) health
would improve. Natrural life expectancy would probably soar. Life
would suck.

"Effectively and selectively" suggests "what if" it could be done simply and
easily. You've posted three foods that have a wide distribution and
eliminating them "effectively and selectively" could not be done easily.

I guess I don't understand the difficulty in passing and enforcing a
law saying you cannot sell red meat(other than of course ****ing
people off, but since the Gov't knows what is best for me they
shouldn't care if they **** me off). Even easier would be laws making
it illegal to produce and sell white flour and white sugar since few
people have the ability to make those products on the sly. I guess you
could make it easier by allowing "home grown" - just as I assume that
even after SS is mandated I would be able to build and use my own
(non- sawstop equiped) tablesaw in my own garage.

And as an aside, if the elimination of those three foods from your diet
means that your life would suck, then you lead an extremely limited,
one-sided life.

Sorry my lifestyle doesn't live up to your exhaulted expectations. I
think that having very limited food choices would be detrimental to my
"pursuit of happiness". I like steak. I like white bread. Hey, I even
like stuff made with refined sugar. I guess you are just more evolved
that I.

Dave Hall

"Dave Hall" wrote in message

Sorry my lifestyle doesn't live up to your exhaulted expectations. I
think that having very limited food choices would be detrimental to my
"pursuit of happiness". I like steak. I like white bread. Hey, I even
like stuff made with refined sugar. I guess you are just more evolved
that I.

Actually, I probably like steak better than you do. If you ever visit
Toronto, I'd be happy to take you out to my favourite steak house and feed
you some.

Shrimp cocktail, whiskey sour, rib steak, rare, grilled mushrooms in the
side. In fact, I'll be eating and drinking all those things tomorrow
evening.

Upscale wrote:

Shrimp cocktail, whiskey sour, rib steak, rare, grilled mushrooms in
the side. In fact, I'll be eating and drinking all those things
tomorrow evening.

Is that a Gloat? :-)

--
Dave
www.davebbq.com

R. Pierce Butler wrote:
The scariest saw in my shop? The band saw. My sons and I agree on that.
The one that will maim the quickest? The table saw of course. The tool
most likely to injure you? The drill press. The safest saw in the shop?
The scroll saw.

Wow, I don't agree with that scary rating. I think the bandsaw is the
safest saw to use. The cutting motion is down, no risk of kick back.
Basically, all you have to do is pay attention that you don't move your
hand into the blade.. Don't see it as any scarier than a scroll saw.

The drill press is most likely to injure you? How? Unless a bit gets
caught in a piece of wood and spins around, how are you going to get
hurt on a drill press? Obviously, like the bandsaw, I assume you pay
attention and don't put your hand under the bit.

wrote:
On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 05:56:21 -0400, Joe Bemier
wrote:

Gass cannot accept that, cannot go out and make the world
understand that his product is superior, to compete in the
marketplace.
Since this is a "one shot" cartridge I wonder how many people would be
enamoured with it after a couple false triggers and being "down" until
you get a new cartridge. I'm sure there will be a way to bypass it on
the internet but that defeats the whole purpose.

Yes, another poster said replacement cartirages cost 70-90 each. I
imagine after the first fire (whether it was legit or not), most
consumers aren't going to cough up that much money to buy a replacement
cartridge. I know I wouldn't. Maybe that makes me reckless, but I'm
being honest. For example, I spent an entire afternoon trying to adjust
the splitter/blade guard that came with my contractors saw.. never
could get it to work right so I just tossed it in frustration. At the
time, I said I'd buy an aftermarket one. But I started making stuff,
and 16 years later I still haven't bought one.

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message

Shrimp cocktail, whiskey sour, rib steak, rare, grilled mushrooms on
the side. In fact, I'll be eating and drinking all those things
tomorrow evening.

Is that a Gloat? :-)

Closer to a self-indulgent pig out if I can get through it. These last few
years see me bringing sections of the meal home in a doggy bag. It maybe a
piece of cold steak the next day, but most of the taste is still there. One
of the few benefits of getting older is that I can't eat near as much, so
when I get my hands on something good, it usually lasts a little longer.
I've also noticed that I'm more interested in quality these days, not bulk.

ROn Wed, 13 Sep 2006 18:38:48 -0400, Dave Hall
wrote:

On Mon, 11 Sep 2006 16:59:03 -0400, "Upscale"
wrote:

"Dave Bugg" wrote in message

But, these degenerative disease costs are hitting us now from what was
generated in the past 10 years and before. And the expense, to both
dollars
and productivity, keep occurring now and into the future. Are you saying
that
the cost of say, cardiovascular disease or diabetes, is less today than
the
cost of whirlysharp injuries?

So you're fine to accuse me of ridiculous comparisons, but you feel free to
use them yourself? Grow up, you know damned well I suggested no such
comparison.

Let me ask you. Knowing what you know now about increasing diabetes and
cardiovascular disease, if one single mandate could have been enacted 30
years ago that would effectively and selectively eliminated the bulk of
these conditions, would you still say it was undesirable? Knowing all the
misery and strife that these two conditions have caused to our society,
would you still be sticking to your "no government involvement"?


I have to answer yes to that question. There was and still is a simple
government mandate that would in fact reduce these medical conditions
substantially. Outlaw red meat. Outlaw white bread. Outlaw refined
sugar. It would be fairly simple to identify those food items that
contribute the most to an unhealthy diet and simply outlaw those
items. Death rates would drop. Physical (as opposed to mental) health
would improve. Natrural life expectancy would probably soar. Life
would suck.

It could be taken a little further by mandating limited portion sizes
in restaurants and limiting all patrons to one entree. I guess we
could go whole hog and if someone invented and patented the safe food
(ala soylent green maybe) mandate that all meals must incorporate this
food item.

Shut down Baskin Robbins - shut down McDonalds - no more
McCallan's 18 year old

Tune in every morning to government run calisthenics TV

I would appear that I have made you see yourself for what you are. Don't
like it,eh?

"Upscale" wrote in message
...


**** off

bf wrote:
R. Pierce Butler wrote:

The scariest saw in my shop? The band saw. My sons and I agree on that.
The one that will maim the quickest? The table saw of course. The tool
most likely to injure you? The drill press. The safest saw in the shop?
The scroll saw.


Wow, I don't agree with that scary rating. I think the bandsaw is the
safest saw to use. The cutting motion is down, no risk of kick back.
Basically, all you have to do is pay attention that you don't move your
hand into the blade.. Don't see it as any scarier than a scroll saw.

The drill press is most likely to injure you? How? Unless a bit gets
caught in a piece of wood and spins around, how are you going to get
hurt on a drill press? Obviously, like the bandsaw, I assume you pay
attention and don't put your hand under the bit.

The drill press is most likely to injure because it is taken for granted
too often. Not likely to be too bad but painful.

Jess.S

"CW" wrote in message
I would appear that I have made you see yourself for what you are. Don't
like it,eh?

No dummy, you view me for what your paranoia about government has warped you
into thinking.

I've been arguing the way I have because I feel that eliminating a good deal
of pain and injury is more important than worrying about government
involvement. For some reason, your paranoia about government transformed
that into my being greedy.

I'm concerned about people suffering. You feel that personal choice is more
important than people suffering. Who is the greedy one here?

George Shouse wrote:

I have to answer yes to that question. There was and still is a simple
government mandate that would in fact reduce these medical conditions
substantially. Outlaw red meat. Outlaw white bread. Outlaw refined
sugar.

Shut down Baskin Robbins - shut down McDonalds - no more
McCallan's 18 year old


Let's see. We outlawed booze and got the Mafia. We outlawed drugs and got
the Columbian Cartel (and a few others). I wonder what the outcome of
outlawing something else that people want will be?

Actually, I can probably just wait and see what happens with tobacco :-).


--
It's turtles, all the way down

On Thu, 14 Sep 2006 12:23:26 -0400, "Upscale"
wrote:


"Dave Hall" wrote in message

Sorry my lifestyle doesn't live up to your exhaulted expectations. I
think that having very limited food choices would be detrimental to my
"pursuit of happiness". I like steak. I like white bread. Hey, I even
like stuff made with refined sugar. I guess you are just more evolved
that I.

Actually, I probably like steak better than you do. If you ever visit
Toronto, I'd be happy to take you out to my favourite steak house and feed
you some.

Damn, now that is truly a reason to visit Toronto ;-)

Shrimp cocktail, whiskey sour, rib steak, rare, grilled mushrooms in the
side. In fact, I'll be eating and drinking all those things tomorrow
evening.

Now you're just making me hungry - Just change the whiskey to a
non-alcholic beverage and make the steak medium and place my order in
abstentia.

Dave Hall

So, you know what is best for everyone right? You running for god next
election?

"Upscale" wrote in message
...


I'm concerned about people suffering. You feel that personal choice is
more
important than people suffering.

"CW" wrote in message news:e6VOg.12939
So, you know what is best for everyone right? You running for god next
election?

For a troll, you're remarkably inept.