On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 14:34:29 -0400, Ed Huntress wrote:
"Lee Michaels" 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...

Reminds me of a conversation I had with a deputy sheriff. He used to have
....
He said if he retires or takes up another line of work, he might grow
some hair agin. But as long as he is a law enforcement officer, he will
go with a buzz cut.

'Sounds wise to me. When I hear these stories I have to wonder why some
do-gooder group hasn't done PSAs on television showing how your scalp
can get peeled off if your hair is long and it gets caught in something.

Spiro Agnew would have liked those.

I wear my hair long, but if I'm going to be working around moving
machinery, I tie it back and don't dangle it in moving parts.

And I'm very unlikely to get into an altercation with an intoxicated
woman, so I'm fairly safe in that respect. ;-)

Cheers!
Rich

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

Doubt that it really has anything to do with war.

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

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

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

Cheers!
Rich

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers!
Rich

In article ,
clifto wrote:

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."

Nope. The first part of the amendment is a well regulated militia. It
is mentioned first, not as an add on, not as an afterthought, but as the
introductory clause of the piece. It sets out HOW and WHY it must not be
infringed. The context of when infringement takes place. It sets limits.
If you want to include the last part, you can't pretend that the first
doesn't exist.


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..."

"clifto" wrote in message
...
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.

Hokay. As I said, the construction is uncommon but you'll recognize these
familiar examples:

(From The American Heritage Book of English Usage, "Absolute Construction"):

"No other business arising, the meeting was adjourned."
"The paint now dry, we brought the furniture out on the deck."
"The truck finally loaded, they said goodbye to their neighbors and drove
off."
"The horse loped across the yard, her foal trailing behind her."
"The picnic is scheduled for Saturday, weather permitting."
"Barring bad weather, we plan to go to the beach tomorrow."
"All things considered, it's not a bad idea."

Note that in some of these, the ones about the horse and her foal and the
one about the picnic, the absolute phrase is almost, but not quite,
incidental. The foal did not restrict the horse from loping across the yard,
so far as we can tell. The weather may decide if we have the picnic, but it
doesn't change the fact that the picnic is scheduled for Saturday.

We brought the furniture out on the deck at least partly because the paint
was dry. We would not have done so if it wasn't, probably, so the dryness of
the paint in this case is logically (but not grammatically) restrictive. The
good idea is logically, but not grammatically, connected to the idea that we
have considered all things. It still would have been a good idea if we had
not considered all things, in all likelihood, but the sentence is ambiguous
on this point.

Is it clearing up? The nominative absolute allows a variety of logical
connections between the phrase and the clause.

(Here's one I picked up online):

"High heels clattering on the pavement, the angry women marched toward the
mayor's office."

The women were marching regardless of whether their heels were clattering.

I hope this is enough to satisfy what you're looking for. I should point out
that the nominative absolute is a slightly controversial issue to
grammarians, but it may appear that way because some don't like the fact
that it's derived from Latin, in which the parallel to the English
nominative absolute is the "ablative absolute," and it really works better
in Latin than in English.

In English, the construction has always been rare. Linguists say it started
when early literary writers tried to adopt Latin constructions. John Milton
used in heavily in _Paradise Lost_. But it has never, otherwise, been
common.

Why the FFs used it is a good question. It's a literary device whose meaning
depends on context. But the 2nd has no context. My guess, after years of
studying it, is that it was an intentional ambiguity.

You probably noticed that Gunner made a point of the commas, which many
writers have done over the years. The commas would be an issue if the
grammatical question was whether the phrase is restrictive or not. But
that's not the issue. Absolute constructions -- the nominative absolute, in
this case -- have no grammatical relationship to the rest of their
sentences. They have various logical connections but "absolute" means they
are grammatically self-contained, or not connected. Once it's absolute,
there is no "restrictive" or "unrestrictive."

The point is that the commas don't matter. If the sentence of the 2nd
Amendment were written today, we would not use the first comma, but the
meaning would be identical to the original. The use of such "ear-based"
commas has declined but the meaning remains the same.

I have some definitions of nominative absolute that may help but I hope the
examples clear it up.

--
Ed Huntress

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

You had dirt to grow berries in?

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

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

Cheers!
Rich

"Kurt Ullman" wrote in message
...
In article ,
clifto wrote:

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."

Nope. The first part of the amendment is a well regulated militia. It
is mentioned first, not as an add on, not as an afterthought, but as the
introductory clause of the piece.

It's not a clause. No predicate. It's a nominative absolute phrase.

It sets out HOW and WHY it must not be
infringed.

See my message to clifto. You can make no such assumptions.

The context of when infringement takes place. It sets limits.

It could just as well set a sufficient but not necessary condition, which,
after decades of studying it, is exactly what I think was intended.

If you want to include the last part, you can't pretend that the first
doesn't exist.

Neither can you draw any conclusions about what relationship it has to the
clause just from the sentence itself.



The grammatical construction of the first part sounds stilted in today's
world, but translating it into modernese, it says "Because a
well-regulated
militia is necessary to the security of a free State..."

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

--
Ed Huntress

"Rich Grise" wrote in message

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? ;-)

Microsoft Word does have a grammar checker. Not perfect either, but it
helps at times.

on 9/15/2007 5:17 PM Rich Grise said the following:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:12:14 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

willshak wrote:

You had dirt to grow berries in?

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


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

Cheers!
Rich



You had a belly button?

--

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

Rich Grise writes:

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...") ;-)

That's not acrophobia. Acrophobia is, "no." Trust me on this one.

willshak wrote:

on 9/15/2007 5:17 PM Rich Grise said the following:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:12:14 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:

willshak wrote:

You had dirt to grow berries in?

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


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

Cheers!
Rich



You had a belly button?


He did, till he tried to grow a wacky weed in it.


--
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

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



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers!
Rich- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

wrote:

They have a blade with the stop jambed in it at the local Woodcraft
store signed by an ukulele maker who got to keep all his fingers,

Jings that's a shame. I'm as devastated as the day that I heard the
local accordion factory had been saved from a fire.

wrote:

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

From _Systemantics_:

When a failsafe system fails, it fails by failing to fail /safe/.

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

willshak wrote:
on 9/15/2007 5:17 PM Rich Grise said the following:

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


willshak wrote:


You had dirt to grow berries in?


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



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

Cheers!
Rich




You had a belly button?

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

Dave

Dave wrote:
| willshak wrote:
|| on 9/15/2007 5:17 PM Rich Grise said the following:
||
||| On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:12:14 -0400, Michael A. Terrell wrote:
|||
|||| willshak wrote:
||||
||||| You had dirt to grow berries in?
||||
|||| i know, you were so poor that you had to use borrowed belly
|||| button lint to grow berries from seeds found in bird droppings,
|||| and you liked it that way.
|||
||| Sheesh! You only get belly button lint if you can afford clothes!
||| ;-)
||
|| You had a belly button?
|
| Talking about belly buttons, what causes a woman's to protrude when
| they get pregnant?

straight man

I dunno, Mr Interlocutor, what makes her belly button protrude?

/straight man

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

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

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

willshak wrote:

You had dirt to grow berries in?


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



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

Cheers!
Rich




You had a belly button?

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

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

aem sends...

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

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

Doubt that it really has anything to do with war.

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

Also to prevent major lice infestations.

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

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

Cheers!
Rich

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

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

Gunner

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


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

ameijers wrote:

...

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

Doubt that it really has anything to do with war.

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


Also to prevent major lice infestations.

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

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

Cheers!
Rich


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

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

Gunner

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

--

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

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

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

(a not uncommon scenario)

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

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

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

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

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

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

(a not uncommon scenario)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But then..I knew you would.

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

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

tschus
pyotr


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

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

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

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

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

(a not uncommon scenario)

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

Neil Larson wrote:

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

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

--
Cheers,

John.

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

Neil Larson wrote:

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

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



eeewwwwww!!!!

Gunner

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

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


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

Yup. One of my favourites.

John Rumm wrote:

Neil Larson wrote:

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


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

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

Dave

Neil Larson wrote:

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

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

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

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



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


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

Michael A. Terrell
Central Florida

raden wrote:

In message , Morris Dovey
writes
willshak wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Thanks,
Rich

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

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

Cheers!
Rich

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

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

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


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

Cheers!
Rich



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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheers!
Rich- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

--
Ed Huntress

In message , Ed Huntress
writes

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

blah blah

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

thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this


--
geoff

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

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

blah blah

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

thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this


--
geoff

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

--
Ed Huntress

In article ,
"Ed Huntress" wrote:

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

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

blah blah

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

thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this


--
geoff

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

--
Ed Huntress

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

In message , Ed Huntress
writes

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

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

blah blah

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

thanks in anticipation that you are intelligent enough to do this


--
geoff

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

Another stupid septic ...

--
geoff