"Gunner" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:25:48 +0100, Dave
wrote:


Well..you did give my people "scalping" for which We are forever
grateful

It is nice to know that you are native American, but can you expand on
that for an ignorant Brit please?

Dave

Im partially Ojibwa indian.

(...you'll be sorry if you ask about the other parts...)

--
Ed Huntress

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:49:55 +0100, "Dave Gordon" d@p wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message ...
Gunner wrote:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:42:41 +0100, Dave
wrote:


We do, whe just don't get 'British'.

'English', not British, was the language that your founding fathers brought to your shore. Was it
the Mayflower that was one of the first ships to land and populate that land?

It was you that chose to *******ise it, by ignoring the changes that we made to it over the years.
Hence we talk the same language, but do not understand each other

Dave



Lets see..as I recall..yall also broght slavery,

Oh for goodness sake you gave us Lloyd Grossman. Lets call it even.

errrr.....whoops..sorry about that....but you did give us Twiggy....

Gunner

Dave Gordon wrote:
wrote in message
oups.com...
On Sep 7, 9:52 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.
Guy I knew was hanging fascia board on a two story building, no safety
equipment. He fell off and landed on a piece of #4 rebar sticking out
of a masonry footing. The bar went up his rectum. Some idiot ran over
with a cutting torch and started cutting. He stopped, and they used a
cut off wheel on a angle grinder to cut it off. He couldn't walk or
sit for three weeks. Rectum, damn near killed him.

Yow! Couldn't they just, kinda, lift him off? Gently.



Just in case anyone ever is confronted with such a situation impaled
objects are never removed in the field. The are cut to a size that can
be transported with the patient and immobilized in place with a rather
massive dressing. The patient is then transported to the nearest trauma
center were the impaled object is surgically removed with very large
amounts of blood on hand. Removing an impaled object in the field will
do as much or more damage as the object did going in and can result in
catastrophic bleeding.

The only impaled objects that are not imobilized are those that have
penetrated the pericardium and are moving with each beat of the heart.
I have only seen one such case in twenty five years as an Emergency
Medical Technician.
--
Tom Horne

Dave Gordon wrote:

"nick hull" wrote in message
.. .
In article om,
Robatoy wrote:

My _preferred_ weapons are keyboard and ballot.

Too bad the candidate of my choice is NEVER on the ballot - NONE OF THE
ABOVE

Nice protest, but what if it was? What if that choice got the most votes?


An empty office can't pass bad bills, so what's your problem?

--
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

Kurt Ullman wrote:
In article ,
Just Wondering wrote:


Kurt Ullman wrote:

In article ,
Just Wondering wrote:



Where did you get your copy of the Constitution? 'Cause I've read the
Second
Amendment dozens of times from dozens of sources, and and NONE of the
copies
I
EVER saw limit the right to bear arms to "a well regulated militia." And
read
my first post above again.


Amendment II

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's right, the right of THE PEOPLE (not the militia) to keep arms shall
not
be infringed.


But the need for a well-regulated militia is what is stated first and
succinctly. You conveniently ignore that. The right of the people to
bear arms flows from the necessity of a well-regulated militia. There is
a hierarchy here in the flow and ordering of the statements concerning
how and why the rights are bestowed by the constitution.

The "militia" consisted of all able bodied men. It was not limited to a
government-sponsored military force.

SteveB wrote:

Count the postings to this thread. YOu'll find that even though OT it
is generating more interest
then anything else going on in this newsgroup right now. That's the
First Amendment at work. Don't like it? Then exercise your own rights
rather than try to suppress others, by just ignoring this thread.


People screeching in this newsgroup on OT subjects have the credibility of
anyone screeching from atop a step ladder on the corner in a major city.

Perhaps so, but so what? As you point out, some posters consider much of what
is said idiotic. It does no need to cry about it, and those who do any way are
well on the road to becoming anal retentive.
Usenet is a forum for people to speak out. If they are speaking out on an
off-topic subject and you want to stay on-topic, just mark the whole thread as
"read" and get on with your life.

"Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...
SteveB wrote:

| You DO remember the topic of this newsgroup, don't you? No? Sigh

Which of the three newsgroups you posted to is "this newsgroup"?

:-)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/



Well, I guess that would be the three where this inane discussion is taking
place, wouldn't it?

Steve

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
...
SteveB wrote:

Count the postings to this thread. YOu'll find that even though OT it
is generating more interest
then anything else going on in this newsgroup right now. That's the
First Amendment at work. Don't like it? Then exercise your own rights
rather than try to suppress others, by just ignoring this thread.


People screeching in this newsgroup on OT subjects have the credibility
of anyone screeching from atop a step ladder on the corner in a major
city.

Perhaps so, but so what? As you point out, some posters consider much of
what is said idiotic. It does no need to cry about it, and those who do
any way are well on the road to becoming anal retentive.
Usenet is a forum for people to speak out. If they are speaking out on an
off-topic subject and you want to stay on-topic, just mark the whole
thread as "read" and get on with your life.

NO, NO, NO. I killfile the idiots first. Most never have anything to say
about the group they are responding to anyway. When I killfile some of
these people, my list of posts sometimes lessen by 20%. They must need to
get a life to get on with.

Steve

SteveB wrote:

"Just Wondering" wrote in message
...

SteveB wrote:


Count the postings to this thread. YOu'll find that even though OT it
is generating more interest
then anything else going on in this newsgroup right now. That's the
First Amendment at work. Don't like it? Then exercise your own rights
rather than try to suppress others, by just ignoring this thread.


People screeching in this newsgroup on OT subjects have the credibility
of anyone screeching from atop a step ladder on the corner in a major
city.


Perhaps so, but so what? As you point out, some posters consider much of
what is said idiotic. It does no need to cry about it, and those who do
any way are well on the road to becoming anal retentive.
Usenet is a forum for people to speak out. If they are speaking out on an
off-topic subject and you want to stay on-topic, just mark the whole
thread as "read" and get on with your life.


NO, NO, NO. I killfile the idiots first. Most never have anything to say
about the group they are responding to anyway. When I killfile some of
these people, my list of posts sometimes lessen by 20%. They must need to
get a life to get on with.

Steve

When you skip an OT thread, you've saved yourself from having to see it. When
you killfile a poster, though, you not only eliminate the OT stuff, you also
prevent yourself from seeing any good on-topic stuff from his as well. As long
as you are OK with that, by all means killfile away.

SteveB wrote:
| "Morris Dovey" wrote in message
| ...
|| SteveB wrote:
||
||| You DO remember the topic of this newsgroup, don't you? No? Sigh
||
|| Which of the three newsgroups you posted to is "this newsgroup"?
||
|| :-)
|
| Well, I guess that would be the three where this inane discussion
| is taking place, wouldn't it?

Ok, since the conversation(s) have wandered a bit afield, I'm happy to
help you out with this subthread by prepending "[OT]" to the subject
so you can filter more conveniently for all three of this newsgroup.

HTH

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

"Morris Dovey" writes:

SteveB wrote:

| You DO remember the topic of this newsgroup, don't you? No? Sigh

Which of the three newsgroups you posted to is "this newsgroup"?

I think his point is valid for any of them.

On Sep 14, 3:44 pm, "Morris Dovey" wrote:
SteveB wrote:

| "Morris Dovey" wrote in message
...| | SteveB wrote:

||
||| You DO remember the topic of this newsgroup, don't you? No? Sigh
||
|| Which of the three newsgroups you posted to is "this newsgroup"?
||
|| :-)
|
| Well, I guess that would be the three where this inane discussion
| is taking place, wouldn't it?

Ok, since the conversation(s) have wandered a bit afield, I'm happy to
help you out with this subthread by prepending "[OT]" to the subject
so you can filter more conveniently for all three of this newsgroup.

HTH


First of all, Morris, thank you for the response to my part of thread
some way back...(You know the one, and I don't give a rat's ass if
nobody else does.. =o)
Now, about the inanity of it all (If it isn't a word, maybe it is
now?)
Sometimes I like it when a thread wanders a bit. The discussion may
not be on topic, but it can still be informative. Then again,
sometimes the beak throttles up-side pocket.... if you catch my drift.

r

willshak wrote:
on 9/13/2007 10:17 AM clifto said the following:
willshak wrote:

on 9/11/2007 1:28 AM John B said the following:

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:

"willshak" wrote in message

My hair has been cut so that it is no more than 1/2" long.

Mine has not been that long in a couple of years now. 1/6" on the
sides, uh, even less on top. Eliminates a lot of problems and is
easy to style in the morning.


G'day Ed,
I'm in your camp. I call it a 6 month hair cut
In Oz they are commonly called a Crew Cut.


Here in the US it is called a crew cut too.


Careful. There were definite distinctions between any number of short
hair styles. IIRC a buzz cut was shorter than a crewcut, which was shorter
than a butch. The shortest of all was the baldy sour.


Back in the 50's there was a
singin8 group called "The Crew Cuts"
The "Life is but a Dream" melody immediately comes to mind, but I don't
know if that was by the Crew Cuts


"Sh-Boom"

Right!

Yadadadadadadadadadaaaaa

--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.

on 9/14/2007 6:52 PM clifto said the following:
willshak wrote:

on 9/13/2007 10:17 AM clifto said the following:

willshak wrote:


on 9/11/2007 1:28 AM John B said the following:


Edwin Pawlowski wrote:


"willshak" wrote in message


My hair has been cut so that it is no more than 1/2" long.


Mine has not been that long in a couple of years now. 1/6" on the
sides, uh, even less on top. Eliminates a lot of problems and is
easy to style in the morning.



G'day Ed,
I'm in your camp. I call it a 6 month hair cut
In Oz they are commonly called a Crew Cut.



Here in the US it is called a crew cut too.


Careful. There were definite distinctions between any number of short
hair styles. IIRC a buzz cut was shorter than a crewcut, which was shorter
than a butch. The shortest of all was the baldy sour.



Back in the 50's there was a
singin8 group called "The Crew Cuts"
The "Life is but a Dream" melody immediately comes to mind, but I don't
know if that was by the Crew Cuts


"Sh-Boom"

Right!


Yadadadadadadadadadaaaaa

I even had the lyric wrong. It's "Life could be a dream".

--

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

Kurt Ullman wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
Amendment II

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's right, the right of THE PEOPLE (not the militia) to keep arms shall
not
be infringed.

But the need for a well-regulated militia is what is stated first and
succinctly. You conveniently ignore that.

What you're ignoring is that the entire first part of that is commentary.
The actual meat of the amendment says simply and eloquently, "the right
of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

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..."

--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.

Joe Pfeiffer wrote:
| "Morris Dovey" writes:
|
|| SteveB wrote:
||
||| You DO remember the topic of this newsgroup, don't you? No? Sigh
||
|| Which of the three newsgroups you posted to is "this newsgroup"?
|
| I think his point is valid for any of them.

But are you certain it's valid for _all_ of them? :-D

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Robatoy wrote:

| Sometimes I like it when a thread wanders a bit. The discussion may
| not be on topic, but it can still be informative. Then again,
| sometimes the beak throttles up-side pocket.... if you catch my
| drift.

Y'know, I'd just been thinking that it'd been awhile since there'd
been a good venting on the wreck...

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

Gunner wrote:

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:49:55 +0100, "Dave Gordon" d@p wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message ...

Gunner wrote:


On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:42:41 +0100, Dave
wrote:



We do, whe just don't get 'British'.

'English', not British, was the language that your founding fathers brought to your shore. Was it
the Mayflower that was one of the first ships to land and populate that land?

It was you that chose to *******ise it, by ignoring the changes that we made to it over the years.
Hence we talk the same language, but do not understand each other

Dave



Lets see..as I recall..yall also broght slavery,

Oh for goodness sake you gave us Lloyd Grossman. Lets call it even.


errrr.....whoops..sorry about that....but you did give us Twiggy....

Who has turned out to be an everlasting beauty and a glam gran to boot :-)

Dave

Gunner wrote:

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:25:48 +0100, Dave
wrote:


Well..you did give my people "scalping" for which We are forever
grateful

It is nice to know that you are native American, but can you expand on
that for an ignorant Brit please?

Dave


Im partially Ojibwa indian.

http://www.geocities.com/bigorrin/chippewa_kids.htm

Glad to have been of help

Gunner

Gunner wrote:

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:25:48 +0100, Dave
wrote:


Well..you did give my people "scalping" for which We are forever
grateful

It is nice to know that you are native American, but can you expand on
that for an ignorant Brit please?

Dave


Im partially Ojibwa indian.

http://www.geocities.com/bigorrin/chippewa_kids.htm

Glad to have been of help

Gunner

Manny, many thanks for that.

Dave

"clifto" wrote in message
...
Kurt Ullman wrote:
Just Wondering wrote:
Amendment II

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's right, the right of THE PEOPLE (not the militia) to keep arms
shall
not
be infringed.

But the need for a well-regulated militia is what is stated first and
succinctly. You conveniently ignore that.

What you're ignoring is that the entire first part of that is commentary.
The actual meat of the amendment says simply and eloquently, "the right
of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

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..."

Not necessarily. Nominative absolute sentences are just as (un)common today
as they were in the latter part of the 18th century. Yes, I researched it,
around 20 years ago.

And the "because" is just one possible "in other words" for such a
nominative absolute. The accurate meaning of the others would produce an
awkward sentence -- which is why the nominative absolute is used from time
to time in literature. You will not see it used in legal documents today
because of the ambiguity.

I don't look this stuff up for fun, but if you doubt all this and want to
see some parallel examples, I'll dig out my grammar books. They have some
good ones.

--
Ed Huntress

willshak wrote:
on 9/14/2007 6:52 PM clifto said the following:

willshak wrote:

on 9/13/2007 10:17 AM clifto said the following:

willshak wrote:

on 9/11/2007 1:28 AM John B said the following:

Back in the 50's there was a singing group called "The Crew Cuts"
The "Life is but a Dream" melody immediately comes to mind, but I
don't know if that was by the Crew Cuts

"Sh-Boom"

Right!

Yadadadadadadadadadaaaaa

I even had the lyric wrong. It's "Life could be a dream".


Here ya go:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VmEGEmUBJUI

You're welcome.

"My heros have always killed cowboys".

Comanche

But not enough to count anywhere but
my oen heart...


Richard

Morris Dovey wrote:

SteveB wrote:
| "Morris Dovey" wrote in message
| ...
|| SteveB wrote:
||
||| You DO remember the topic of this newsgroup, don't you? No? Sigh
||
|| Which of the three newsgroups you posted to is "this newsgroup"?
||
|| :-)
|
| Well, I guess that would be the three where this inane discussion
| is taking place, wouldn't it?

Ok, since the conversation(s) have wandered a bit afield, I'm happy to
help you out with this subthread by prepending "[OT]" to the subject
so you can filter more conveniently for all three of this newsgroup.


OT isn't allowed on RCM. Our resident net Nazi gets upset about OT
posts.


--
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

Ed Huntress wrote:
I don't look this stuff up for fun, but if you doubt all this and want to
see some parallel examples, I'll dig out my grammar books. They have some
good ones.

Actually, I'd love that. I saw these constructs so often in my early
reading that they became ingrained; if I've missed something I wanna know.

--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 10:44:17 -0700, Gunner
wrote:
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 Dave wrote:

Well..you did give my people "scalping" for which We are forever
grateful

It is nice to know that you are native American, but can you expand on
that for an ignorant Brit please?

Im partially Ojibwa indian.

Do the Ojibwa have any casinos?

I know the Pechangas are tossing people out of the tribe left and
right - even with impeccable lineage research that goes back a few
hundred years - just because they didn't vote the right way on casino
related tribal elections. Cutting off casino profit participation
checks, throwing them out of schools and hospitals, out of houses on
tribal land, canceling health insurance...

-- Bruce --

Michael A. Terrell wrote:
| Morris Dovey wrote:
||
|| SteveB wrote:
||| "Morris Dovey" wrote in message
||| ...
|||| SteveB wrote:
||||
||||| You DO remember the topic of this newsgroup, don't you? No?
||||| Sigh
||||
|||| Which of the three newsgroups you posted to is "this newsgroup"?
||||
|||| :-)
|||
||| Well, I guess that would be the three where this inane discussion
||| is taking place, wouldn't it?
||
|| Ok, since the conversation(s) have wandered a bit afield, I'm
|| happy to help you out with this subthread by prepending "[OT]" to
|| the subject so you can filter more conveniently for all three of
|| this newsgroup.
|
| OT isn't allowed on RCM. Our resident net Nazi gets upset about
| OT posts.

Bummer. You have my condolances. The folks here on rec.woodworking
have decided that putting up with net nannies/control freaks is worse
than the occasional off-topic thread - and one of our regulars
maintains a filtering package for those who'd prefer not to see the OT
threads (or the occasionally really nasty garbage posts) at all.

Normally (but obviously not always) we add "OT" to the subject to
facilitate filtering, and it works fairly well. RW (the "wreck") is a
fairly convivial group - and occasionally the people who've gotten to
know each other here do enjoy OT side discussions. The antisocial
types who pop in and object are generally held in low regard - the
wreck values right answers, but not people who're all about _being_
right.

I'll gladly trim RCM from my future responses. :-)

--
Morris Dovey
DeSoto Solar
DeSoto, Iowa USA
http://www.iedu.com/DeSoto/

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:46:28 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:25:48 +0100, Dave
wrote:


Well..you did give my people "scalping" for which We are forever
grateful

It is nice to know that you are native American, but can you expand on
that for an ignorant Brit please?

Dave

Im partially Ojibwa indian.

(...you'll be sorry if you ask about the other parts...)


German, Finn and Black Irish.

Gunner

On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 01:10:28 +0100, Dave
wrote:

Gunner wrote:

On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 15:49:55 +0100, "Dave Gordon" d@p wrote:


"Dave" wrote in message ...

Gunner wrote:


On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:42:41 +0100, Dave
wrote:



We do, whe just don't get 'British'.

'English', not British, was the language that your founding fathers brought to your shore. Was it
the Mayflower that was one of the first ships to land and populate that land?

It was you that chose to *******ise it, by ignoring the changes that we made to it over the years.
Hence we talk the same language, but do not understand each other

Dave



Lets see..as I recall..yall also broght slavery,

Oh for goodness sake you gave us Lloyd Grossman. Lets call it even.


errrr.....whoops..sorry about that....but you did give us Twiggy....

Who has turned out to be an everlasting beauty and a glam gran to boot :-)

Dave


Really? I thought she had fallen though a storm drain grill and had
washed out to sea?

Gunner

"Dave Gordon" d@p wrote in message

How big would the manual have to be to tell that retard all the things he
should not use his lawnmower for.
"Do not cut your finger nails with this device"
"Do not cut your hair with this device"
"This is not an extractor fan"

I teach HS wood shop. While most of my kids are pretty good, some are
dumber than a bucket of rocks. A few years back (thank God it was in
another teacher's class, not mine) one boy, an emo, had long fingernails.
He thought it would be "cool" to cut a notch in his nail on his pointer
finger, right hand. Sort of like a snakes tongue. He decided to use the
big Powermatic band saw. He ended up splitting his finger right up to the
first joint. Dumb.

Last year I caught two who were doing something almost as dumb. Anothe kid
was turning a handle for a gavel out of walnut. The piece broke and he
through the parts in the scrap bucket and started over. Two of my more
"genius" kids saw the piece and thought it would make a pretty ornate hash
pipe. The waited until they thought I wasn't looking and the one was
holding the handle vertically in his hands while the other was preparing to
bore through it with the drill press. Fortunately I caught them before they
turned on the DP.

If you ever work in a HS shop, believe me, you will soon learn the meaning
of stupid!

Glen

"Glen" wrote in message
...

"Dave Gordon" d@p wrote in message

How big would the manual have to be to tell that retard all the things he
should not use his lawnmower for.
"Do not cut your finger nails with this device"
"Do not cut your hair with this device"
"This is not an extractor fan"

I teach HS wood shop. While most of my kids are pretty good, some are
dumber than a bucket of rocks. A few years back (thank God it was in
another teacher's class, not mine) one boy, an emo, had long fingernails.
He thought it would be "cool" to cut a notch in his nail on his pointer
finger, right hand. Sort of like a snakes tongue. He decided to use the
big Powermatic band saw. He ended up splitting his finger right up to the
first joint. Dumb.

Last year I caught two who were doing something almost as dumb. Anothe
kid was turning a handle for a gavel out of walnut. The piece broke and
he through the parts in the scrap bucket and started over. Two of my more
"genius" kids saw the piece and thought it would make a pretty ornate hash
pipe. The waited until they thought I wasn't looking and the one was
holding the handle vertically in his hands while the other was preparing
to bore through it with the drill press. Fortunately I caught them before
they turned on the DP.

If you ever work in a HS shop, believe me, you will soon learn the meaning
of stupid!



It goes with youth. We were all there at some point - thought we knew
better, or thought we knew it all. It's a rite of passage thing. That's
why experienced people mentor inexperienced people. My only question is why
the experienced people talk about the inexperienced ones as if it's some
surprise, or as if it's something unique. You really expected something
different/smarter out of people at this stage of life?

--

-Mike-

"Gunner" wrote in message
news
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:46:28 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:25:48 +0100, Dave
wrote:


Well..you did give my people "scalping" for which We are forever
grateful

It is nice to know that you are native American, but can you expand on
that for an ignorant Brit please?

Dave

Im partially Ojibwa indian.

(...you'll be sorry if you ask about the other parts...)


German, Finn and Black Irish.

Yeah, they used to set fire to the Irish around here, too. g

--
Ed Huntress

on 9/15/2007 5:21 AM Gunner said the following:
On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 13:46:28 -0400, "Ed Huntress"
wrote:


"Gunner" wrote in message
...

On Thu, 13 Sep 2007 23:25:48 +0100, Dave
wrote:


Well..you did give my people "scalping" for which We are forever
grateful

It is nice to know that you are native American, but can you expand on
that for an ignorant Brit please?

Dave

Im partially Ojibwa indian.

(...you'll be sorry if you ask about the other parts...)



German, Finn and Black Irish.

Gunner

I have two of yours, but I don't know what Black Irish is.
Mine is N Ireland Catholic.
The other German.

--

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

"willshak" wrote in message

I have two of yours, but I don't know what Black Irish is.
Mine is N Ireland Catholic.
The other German.

Seems to be some question as to what it is
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a930730.html
Many years ago my grandmother told me that her grandfather's ethnicity was
"Black Irish." Recently I've heard three different explanations concerning
the origin of the term:

(1) It refers to a mixture of Irish and Spanish blood dating from the time
of the Spanish Armada, when many shipwrecked Spanish sailors were washed up
on the Irish coastline and wound up staying.

(2) It refers to a mixture of Irish and eastern European blood.

(3) It refers to a mixture of Irish and Italian blood from the time of the
Roman Empire.

||| You DO remember the topic of this newsgroup, don't you? No? Sigh

Sometimes I like it when a thread wanders a bit. The discussion may
not be on topic, but it can still be informative. Then again,
sometimes the beak throttles up-side pocket.... if you catch my drift.

All newsgroup discussions are off topic by the 30th post ;-)

That's also about when the mud slinging and flaming takes
over and there are only a few posters left.

Sortta like being in a bar ;-)

But still much better than the spam bots and the idiots that
think cancel message is actually enabled on a public
newsgroup server.

-larry / dallas

larry wrote:
All newsgroup discussions are off topic by the 30th post ;-)

That's also about when the mud slinging and flaming takes
over and there are only a few posters left.

Oh yeah?

--
If you really believe carbon dioxide causes global warming,
you should stop exhaling.

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 16:59:47 -0400, Mike Marlow wrote:
"Joe Pfeiffer" wrote in message
John Rumm writes:

You know its a bad day when you fall off a scaffold and "Carpenter
fell from a 2nd floor scaffold onto a running table saw, lost most of
his hand."

If I fell from a second floor scaffold onto a running table saw and
the news said "lost most of his hand", I'd consider myself to have
gotten off very lucky.

I somehow doubt that any of us would really feel lucky in such an event.

Uh, yeah, like, not fall off the scaffold in the first place? Acrophobia
can be pretty handy sometimes. ;-)

("Yeah, you get me a cherry picker, and I'll go up there again. Oh, and
let me double-check my harness...") ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

On Sun, 09 Sep 2007 13:59:24 +0000, Bill wrote:
In message , Edwin
Pawlowski writes

That bring sup another point. My workshop is in a detached garage. I
usually work by myself, but I always take either the portable phone or my
cell phone.
So when you are knocked unconscious either by a blow or by shock you can
phone for help?

May be better to rig up a timed loan worker system that sends an alarm,
i.e. if you don't reset it at a predetermined time it will alarm. The
timing could depend on the severity of the expected injuries.

How about a dead-man switch like they have on Ski-doo type things? There's
a short lanyard around your wrist, and you have to plug in the little plug
to make the machine go. If it knocks you back (or out!), the plug pulls
out of the socket, and it shuts down the whole shop, rings the alarm, and
calls the paramedics. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 02:00:07 +0000, DoN. Nichols wrote:
According to Bill :

Bl**dy spell checkers, I really should look at what I type.

Lone

A spelling checker would not make much difference there, both
are valid words.

Or did you do some kind of typo and you are stuck with a
spelling checker which auto-corrects your typos without asking you what
you really meant to say?

Well, there are spelling checkers, but can you imagine trying to write
an "is this the right word here" checker? ;-)

I just type so fast that I have time to proofread before I hit "send",
most of the time. And I usually catch most of the other mistrakes[SIC] an
ohnosecond _after_ hitting "send". ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 09:30:22 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Michael A. Terrell" wrote in message
Ed Huntress wrote:

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

You SURE don't want to go into your shop without pants. ;-)

Oh, jeez, did you have to say that? I'm not going anywhere near my lathe for
a while now...

Lathe? Pants? Man, that's one LOW lathe! ;-)

Cheers!
Rich