Old but still funny.
+++++++++++++++++++++

Don't mess with the older generation!!

HOW TO CALL THE POLICE WHEN YOU'RE OLD AND DON'T MOVE FAST ANYMORE.

George Phillips of Meridian, Mississippi was going up to bed when his wife
told him that he'd left the light on in the garden shed, which she could
see from the bedroom window.

George opened the back door to go turn off the light but saw that there
were people in the shed stealing things.

He phoned the police, who asked 'Is someone in your house?' and he said
'no'.
Then they said that all patrols were busy, and that he should simply
lock his door and an officer would be along when available.

George said, 'Okay,' hung up, counted to 30, and phoned the police again.

'Hello, I just called you a few seconds ago because there were people
stealing things from my shed

Well, you don't have to worry about them now because I've just shot them.'
Then he hung up.

Within five minutes three police cars, an Armed Response Unit, and an
ambulance showed up
at the Phillips' residence and caught the burglars red-handed.

One of the Policemen said to George: 'I thought you said that you'd shot
them!'

George said, 'I thought you said there was nobody available!'

(True Story) I LOVE IT - Don't mess with old people!!

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

Old but still funny.

And still not true, Snopes.com is real useful when checking out these urban
myths.

"DGDevin" wrote in message
...

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

Old but still funny.

And still not true, Snopes.com is real useful when checking out these
urban myths.

I presumed it was a joke.

"todd" wrote in message
. ..

Old but still funny.

And still not true, Snopes.com is real useful when checking out these
urban myths.

I presumed it was a joke.

It was widely circulated as fact, some versions even naming the newspaper
where it supposedly originally appeared.

It's at the point where I'm beginning to suspect not everything one reads on
the internet is true, shocking, but it sure looks that way. ;^)

DGDevin said:


"todd" wrote in message
...

Old but still funny.

And still not true, Snopes.com is real useful when checking out these
urban myths.

I presumed it was a joke.

It was widely circulated as fact, some versions even naming the newspaper
where it supposedly originally appeared.

It's at the point where I'm beginning to suspect not everything one reads on
the internet is true, shocking, but it sure looks that way. ;^)

Tis what happens when the Internet ceases to be the domain of
academics and engineers and turns into a tool of commerce for idiots.


Greg G.

I hate seeing AlGore's invention getting abused this way.

Glen

--
"When you men get home and face an anti-war protester, look him in the eyes
and shake his hand. Then, wink at his girlfriend, because she knows she's
dating a pussy."

General Tommy Franks


"Greg G." wrote in message
...
DGDevin said:


"todd" wrote in message
m...

Old but still funny.

And still not true, Snopes.com is real useful when checking out these
urban myths.

I presumed it was a joke.

It was widely circulated as fact, some versions even naming the newspaper
where it supposedly originally appeared.

It's at the point where I'm beginning to suspect not everything one reads
on
the internet is true, shocking, but it sure looks that way. ;^)

Tis what happens when the Internet ceases to be the domain of
academics and engineers and turns into a tool of commerce for idiots.


Greg G.

Glen said:

I hate seeing AlGore's invention getting abused this way.

Minorly amusing. Except that Al Gore never actually made that claim.
Just another media-created load of BS.



Greg G.

"Greg G." wrote

Glen said:

I hate seeing AlGore's invention getting abused this way.

Minorly amusing. Except that Al Gore never actually made that claim.
Just another media-created load of BS.

Personally, I love seeing Al Gore's creation getting abused this way.


--
www.e-woodshop.net
Last update: 12/14/07
KarlC@ (the obvious)

Greg G. said:

Glen said:

I hate seeing AlGore's invention getting abused this way.

Minorly amusing. Except that Al Gore never actually made that claim.
Just another media-created load of BS.

And before I am accosted by either right-wing or left-wing hyperbole,
look he http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

I am living in a nation of media polarized, out of context five second
sound bite consuming, non-analytical minded, bandwagon jumping sheep.

Beam me up, Scotty...


Greg G.

Swingman said:

"Greg G." wrote

Glen said:

I hate seeing AlGore's invention getting abused this way.

Minorly amusing. Except that Al Gore never actually made that claim.
Just another media-created load of BS.

Personally, I love seeing Al Gore's creation getting abused this way.

:-)

Better watch it, another dose of the Christmas 2005 rant is brewing.


Greg G.

AL GORE CLAIMS TO BE "THE CREATOR"!

GORE EMBRACES CREATIONISM!

"THE DECIDER" VS "THE CREATOR" - REMATCH!

"I DID NOT HAVE @#$% WITH THAT INTERNET", SAYS AL GORE!

INVENTOR OF ALGORITHM DISOWNS NAMESAKE!



(be careful with what you say, 'cause nobody else will be...)






On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 08:31:14 -0600, "Swingman" wrote:

Personally, I love seeing Al Gore's creation getting abused this way.
Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

Greg G. wrote:
Greg G. said:

Glen said:

I hate seeing AlGore's invention getting abused this way.
Minorly amusing. Except that Al Gore never actually made that claim.
Just another media-created load of BS.

And before I am accosted by either right-wing or left-wing hyperbole,
look he http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

....and http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/create

to create (third-person singular simple present creates, present
participle creating, simple past created, past participle created)

1. to make
2. to manufacture
3. to put into existence


I am living in a nation of media polarized, out of context five second
sound bite consuming, non-analytical minded, bandwagon jumping sheep.

Beam me up, Scotty...


Greg G.

thanks. at the risk of dating myself, I was involved with an early
incarnation of the internet in the late 60's early 70's. I think around
that time there were several versions, BITNET ( memory's dim but I think
this came a bit later and was the genesis of USENET), APRANET, DARAPNET,
etc.

I don't know how old Al Gore is, but suspect he was still in diapers around
then.


"Greg G." wrote in message
...
Greg G. said:

Glen said:

I hate seeing AlGore's invention getting abused this way.

Minorly amusing. Except that Al Gore never actually made that claim.
Just another media-created load of BS.

And before I am accosted by either right-wing or left-wing hyperbole,
look he http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

I am living in a nation of media polarized, out of context five second
sound bite consuming, non-analytical minded, bandwagon jumping sheep.

Beam me up, Scotty...


Greg G.

"Greg G." wrote in message
...
Glen said:

I hate seeing AlGore's invention getting abused this way.

Minorly amusing. Except that Al Gore never actually made that claim.
Just another media-created load of BS.



Greg G.

If you read the actual quote, the word "created" was used by him. Sloppy
(or cunning) use on his part. Red what he said and see how it can easily be
interpreted as such
http://www.snopes.com:80/quotes/internet.asp

Doug Winterburn said:

Greg G. wrote:

And before I am accosted by either right-wing or left-wing hyperbole,
look he http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

...and http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/create

to create (third-person singular simple present creates, present
participle creating, simple past created, past participle created)

1. to make
2. to manufacture
3. to put into existence

Well, Doug, in your zealous frenzy to further promote pointless,
polarized animosity, you obviously didn't read the article or hear the
original statement in context. As well, most of the infrastructure of
what is know as the "Internet" was already in place as
ARPANET/DARPANET - which clearly precludes Gore having "invented" the
Internet from scratch. I witnessed its existence while providing
computer services to the military in the mid-late 80s. I also think he
was fully aware of this at the time of the interview.

Even then, Gore was instrumental in "putting into existence" the
Internet _as we currently know it_ from its origins as ARPANET, so I
conclude that even taken verbatim, his statement is not completely
erroneous. Either way, it is a niggling nit to pick.

Intelligence is what allows one to extrapolate genuine intent to
deceive from clumsy wording - not looking up words in an Internet
encyclopedia that you can thank Al Gore and others for helping to
bring into your home so that you may childishly argue politically
motivated linguistic semantics.

See below:

I am living in a nation of media polarized, out of context five second
sound bite consuming, non-analytical minded, bandwagon jumping sheep.

Fits well, don't you think?


Greg G.

Greg G. wrote:
Doug Winterburn said:

Greg G. wrote:

And before I am accosted by either right-wing or left-wing hyperbole,
look he http://www.snopes.com/quotes/internet.asp

...and http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/create

to create (third-person singular simple present creates, present
participle creating, simple past created, past participle created)

1. to make
2. to manufacture
3. to put into existence

Well, Doug, in your zealous frenzy to further promote pointless,
polarized animosity, you obviously didn't read the article or hear the
original statement in context. As well, most of the infrastructure of
what is know as the "Internet" was already in place as
ARPANET/DARPANET - which clearly precludes Gore having "invented" the
Internet from scratch. I witnessed its existence while providing
computer services to the military in the mid-late 80s. I also think he
was fully aware of this at the time of the interview.

Even then, Gore was instrumental in "putting into existence" the
Internet _as we currently know it_ from its origins as ARPANET, so I
conclude that even taken verbatim, his statement is not completely
erroneous. Either way, it is a niggling nit to pick.

Intelligence is what allows one to extrapolate genuine intent to
deceive from clumsy wording - not looking up words in an Internet
encyclopedia that you can thank Al Gore and others for helping to
bring into your home so that you may childishly argue politically
motivated linguistic semantics.

See below:

I am living in a nation of media polarized, out of context five second
sound bite consuming, non-analytical minded, bandwagon jumping sheep.

Fits well, don't you think?


Greg G.

Dear Greg,

I argued nothing. In fact, I was trying to point out that the meaning
of Al's words didn't mean "invented". You seem to be the one going off
the deep end.

Edwin Pawlowski said:

"Greg G." wrote in message
.. .
Glen said:

I hate seeing AlGore's invention getting abused this way.

Minorly amusing. Except that Al Gore never actually made that claim.
Just another media-created load of BS.

If you read the actual quote, the word "created" was used by him. Sloppy
(or cunning) use on his part. Red what he said and see how it can easily be
interpreted as such

I heard and have read the text of the interview. As I pointed out
above, and when considering the massive amounts of BS modern political
players spew from both sides of the fence, a minor obfuscation even
when taken at its worst.

Still far less damaging than, oh, say, Iraq has WMD's and mushroom
clouds will be seen over a major American city. Or Ohio's coingate
scandal, or "I am not Gay", or ...

I hate to point this out, but they are mostly all lying idiots. Some
are just wose than others.


Greg G.

Doug Winterburn said:

Dear Greg,

I argued nothing. In fact, I was trying to point out that the meaning
of Al's words didn't mean "invented". You seem to be the one going off
the deep end.

Sorry about that, Doug.
See how easy it is to be misunderstood, even in print? :-o
I have to admit to have been watching Norm, so I didn't scrutinize as
carefully as I should have. It appeared that you were arguing the use
of the word "created" as being tantamount to the same thing. My bad!
Perhaps I'm just used to being jumped on by counter arguments, seldom
does anyone agree on anything.

Namaste,

Greg G.

Yeah, and the Wikipedia is the Gold Standard for research.

And Fox News is not an oxymoron.

....who the hell died and left Snopes.com in charge?







On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 23:15:58 -0800, "DGDevin"
wrote:


"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

Old but still funny.

And still not true, Snopes.com is real useful when checking out these urban
myths.

Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:


"Greg G." wrote in message
...
Glen said:

I hate seeing AlGore's invention getting abused this way.

Minorly amusing. Except that Al Gore never actually made that claim.
Just another media-created load of BS.



Greg G.

If you read the actual quote, the word "created" was used by him. Sloppy
(or cunning) use on his part. Red what he said and see how it can easily
be interpreted as such
http://www.snopes.com:80/quotes/internet.asp

Yep, that along with his having "discovered" Love Canal, and he and Tipper
being the inspiration for "Love Story" were all about conflating his
somewhat minimal achievements as a US senator into being worthy of the
office of president.

Of course he has grown beyond that now and is working to fight the
Earth's "fever". Anybody have any ideas where he intends to stick the
thermometer?

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Tom Watson said:

On Fri, 11 Jan 2008 23:15:58 -0800, "DGDevin" wrote:

And still not true, Snopes.com is real useful when checking out these urban
myths.

Yeah, and the Wikipedia is the Gold Standard for research.

And Fox News is not an oxymoron.

...who the hell died and left Snopes.com in charge?

LOL. I was wondering that very thing earlier this morning.
Al Gore, of course. Oh, wait - he's not dead...


Greg G.

On Jan 12, 12:46*pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"todd" wrote in message

. ..



Old but still funny.

And still not true, Snopes.com is real useful when checking out these
urban myths.

I presumed it was a joke.

It was widely circulated as fact, some versions even naming the newspaper
where it supposedly originally appeared.

It's at the point where I'm beginning to suspect not everything one reads on
the internet is true, shocking, but it sure looks that way. *;^)

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...oy/WGAFMed.jpg

Image edited for LRod

Robatoy wrote:
On Jan 12, 12:46 pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"todd" wrote in message

. ..



Old but still funny.
And still not true, Snopes.com is real useful when checking out these
urban myths.
I presumed it was a joke.
It was widely circulated as fact, some versions even naming the newspaper
where it supposedly originally appeared.

It's at the point where I'm beginning to suspect not everything one reads on
the internet is true, shocking, but it sure looks that way. ;^)

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...oy/WGAFMed.jpg

Image edited for LRod

I'm still puzzling over the ****ometer.
Does it mean that I don't give a **** if
it's Zero, or does that mean I really care?

OTOH, could it be that at full scale,
5000 is the ultimate in DontGiveA****?

Currently that meter is reading nothing,
so does that mean,if the former is true,
that Rob don't give a ****, or does it
mean the meter isn't hooked up?

More information is required, I'm afraid.

--
Tanus

This is not really a sig.

http://www.home.mycybernet.net/~waugh/shop/

Mark & Juanita said:

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:


"Greg G." wrote in message
...
Glen said:

I hate seeing AlGore's invention getting abused this way.

Minorly amusing. Except that Al Gore never actually made that claim.
Just another media-created load of BS.


If you read the actual quote, the word "created" was used by him. Sloppy
(or cunning) use on his part. Red what he said and see how it can easily
be interpreted as such
http://www.snopes.com:80/quotes/internet.asp

Yep, that along with his having "discovered" Love Canal, and he and Tipper
being the inspiration for "Love Story" were all about conflating his
somewhat minimal achievements as a US senator into being worthy of the
office of president.

OMG, like any of these clowns possess more worthy claims to the job?

Bush? A pathetic moron sock puppet riding his father's coattails.
Clinton? A coin operated tool.
Reagan, for Gods sake? Thompson? Get serious - another actor?
Freakin' Gulianni? A noun, a verb and 9/11?
Halliburton "Go **** Yourself" Cheney?

Need I continue?
At least Gore was well meaning, affable, not criminal or on the take.
He wasn't a hypocritical, closet gay, had a genuine interest in public
service, and further, is not even a consideration at this point. Yes,
he was paid well, but I trust his intentions more so than most of the
current crop of miscreants.

Damned if I'd want the job - at any salary. Major portions of this
country have become a morass of the most loudmouthed, arrogant,
misguided, unappreciative, simplistic louts in the free world; who
really need to get over the shrieking media whores and form
conclusions based on facts - or reasonable facsimiles thereof.

Of course he has grown beyond that now and is working to fight the
Earth's "fever". Anybody have any ideas where he intends to stick the
thermometer?

I have a suggestion or two. :-o


Greg G.

Tanus said:

I'm still puzzling over the ****ometer.
Does it mean that I don't give a **** if
it's Zero, or does that mean I really care?

OTOH, could it be that at full scale,
5000 is the ultimate in DontGiveA****?

Currently that meter is reading nothing,
so does that mean,if the former is true,
that Rob don't give a ****, or does it
mean the meter isn't hooked up?

More information is required, I'm afraid.

I'm afraid as well.
It could represent the number of people who give a **** - which in
this particular meter's case, is zero.
I'm going to go sweep up sawdust at this point... ;-)


Greg G.

Greg G. wrote:

Mark & Juanita said:

Edwin Pawlowski wrote:


"Greg G." wrote in message
...
Glen said:

I hate seeing AlGore's invention getting abused this way.

Minorly amusing. Except that Al Gore never actually made that claim.
Just another media-created load of BS.


If you read the actual quote, the word "created" was used by him.
Sloppy
(or cunning) use on his part. Red what he said and see how it can
easily be interpreted as such
http://www.snopes.com:80/quotes/internet.asp

Yep, that along with his having "discovered" Love Canal, and he and
Tipper
being the inspiration for "Love Story" were all about conflating his
somewhat minimal achievements as a US senator into being worthy of the
office of president.

OMG, like any of these clowns possess more worthy claims to the job?

Bush? A pathetic moron sock puppet riding his father's coattails.
Clinton? A coin operated tool.
Reagan, for Gods sake? Thompson? Get serious - another actor?
Freakin' Gulianni? A noun, a verb and 9/11?
Halliburton "Go **** Yourself" Cheney?

Need I continue?
At least Gore was well meaning, affable, not criminal or on the take.

You seem to have forgotten his "no overriding legal authority" remark vis
a vis a certain bunch of donations from some Buddhist nuns (who supposedly
had taken vows of poverty).


He wasn't a hypocritical,

Let's see, jetting around the world in a private Gulfstream while
lecturing the rest of us on our need to reduce our "carbon footprints",
living in a house with annual energy bills greater than the entire income
of many US families again while railing against greenhouse gases and the
need to reduce consumption, pushing people to buy carbon offsets then
buying his own from his own company that sells carbon offsets. Excoriating
oil companies while his own personal wealth was a product of Occidental
oil.

Nope, no self-serving hypocrisy there at all.

, had a genuine interest in public
service,

If the desire to see and oversee an increasing federal presence in
everyone's personal lives and business constitutes a genuine interest in
public service, yeah, I guess that is as good a description as any.

and further, is not even a consideration at this point.

No, he is trying to achieve the same goals through his global warming
scam. His open trashing of the US at the Bali conference is hardly
commendable for a former US VP.

Yes,
he was paid well, but I trust his intentions more so than most of the
current crop of miscreants.

Damned if I'd want the job - at any salary. Major portions of this
country have become a morass of the most loudmouthed, arrogant,
misguided, unappreciative, simplistic louts in the free world; who
really need to get over the shrieking media whores and form
conclusions based on facts - or reasonable facsimiles thereof.


I get the fact you don't like the other politicians (most notably the
Republican side), but please, Al Gore was another of those people whose
attitude was that he was born and raised to the office (per his father).



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

On Jan 13, 1:39*pm, Tanus wrote:
Robatoy wrote:
On Jan 12, 12:46 pm, "DGDevin" wrote:
"todd" wrote in message

m...

Old but still funny.
And still not true, Snopes.com is real useful when checking out these
urban myths.
I presumed it was a joke.
It was widely circulated as fact, some versions even naming the newspaper
where it supposedly originally appeared.

It's at the point where I'm beginning to suspect not everything one reads on
the internet is true, shocking, but it sure looks that way. *;^)

http://i123.photobucket.com/albums/o...oy/WGAFMed.jpg

Image edited for LRod

I'm still puzzling over the ****ometer.
Does it mean that I don't give a **** if
it's Zero, or does that mean I really care?

OTOH, could it be that at full scale,
5000 is the ultimate in DontGiveA****?

Currently that meter is reading nothing,

Actually, it is reading minus 3000 (-3000) Which, by my standards,
means I couldn't possibly give less of a ****.

Da Meta don't go Lowa

It is in 'negative ****-giving-' mode.

Chandler (from Friends) would have said: "could *I* possibly give less
of a ****?"

On Jan 13, 1:55 pm, Greg wrote:


More information is required, I'm afraid.

I'm afraid as well.
It could represent the number of people who give a **** - which in
this particular meter's case, is zero.
I'm going to go sweep up sawdust at this point... ;-)

Ask and ye shall receive.

The ****ometer(tm) stands at the lowest at about minus 3000.
If it was indicating zero, it would be indictating indifference. Any
position above zero would indicate maybe..just maybe that I gave a
****...which, by the reading of the published result, I don't.

Mark & Juanita said:

Greg G. wrote:

Need I continue?
At least Gore was well meaning, affable, not criminal or on the take.

You seem to have forgotten his "no overriding legal authority" remark vis
a vis a certain bunch of donations from some Buddhist nuns (who supposedly
had taken vows of poverty).

They all seem to have questionable means of finance.
Try getting elected with no funding - whatever the source.
But I'll take points away for that.

He wasn't a hypocritical,

Let's see, jetting around the world in a private Gulfstream while
lecturing the rest of us on our need to reduce our "carbon footprints",
living in a house with annual energy bills greater than the entire income
of many US families again while railing against greenhouse gases and the
need to reduce consumption, pushing people to buy carbon offsets then
buying his own from his own company that sells carbon offsets. Excoriating
oil companies while his own personal wealth was a product of Occidental
oil.

Nope, no self-serving hypocrisy there at all.

OK - I'll deduct another point.

, had a genuine interest in public
service,

If the desire to see and oversee an increasing federal presence in
everyone's personal lives and business constitutes a genuine interest in
public service, yeah, I guess that is as good a description as any.

No different that any other frontrunner. Personally, I'd rather see
small, efficient accountability than what we have now. Yet unbridled
capitalism is as bad a failure to society as is bloated, ineffectual
bureaucracy.

and further, is not even a consideration at this point.

No, he is trying to achieve the same goals through his global warming
scam. His open trashing of the US at the Bali conference is hardly
commendable for a former US VP.

I would hardly call this statement a trashing:

"But the outcome will be decisively influenced by two nations that are
now failing to do enough: the United States and China. While India is
also growing fast in importance, it should be absolutely clear that it
is the two largest CO2 emitters -- most of all, my own country -- that
will need to make the boldest moves, or stand accountable before
history for their failure to act.

Both countries should stop using the other's behavior as an excuse for
stalemate and instead develop an agenda for mutual survival in a
shared global environment."

He is free to speak his mind, whatever his opinion. And the statement
is true in that we are the primary contributors to world resource
consumption, much pollution, and greenhouse gas release. We are pigs
in contrast to the majority of the world by virtue of population and
"standards of living" - for now. Competition for all resources is
rising due to the spread of "modern" standards of living. As they
grow, we lose ground. At some point in the future, it will equalize
somewhat worldwide, but I sure wish it hadn't been during MY lifetime.

Yes,
he was paid well, but I trust his intentions more so than most of the
current crop of miscreants.

Damned if I'd want the job - at any salary. Major portions of this
country have become a morass of the most loudmouthed, arrogant,
misguided, unappreciative, simplistic louts in the free world; who
really need to get over the shrieking media whores and form
conclusions based on facts - or reasonable facsimiles thereof.

I get the fact you don't like the other politicians (most notably the
Republican side), but please, Al Gore was another of those people whose
attitude was that he was born and raised to the office (per his father).

OK - I'll concede that he is yet another privileged asshat with an
agenda - possibly more benign than a few others. I've yet to see one
in the last 30 years that wasn't. So where do we turn now?

Personally, I'm for my own personal anarchy on a tropical island full
of scantily, yet tastefully draped women serving margaritas at the
beach. Wind, wave, and solar powered, of course.



Greg G.

On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 13:39:09 -0500, Tanus wrote:

I'm still puzzling over the ****ometer.
Does it mean that I don't give a **** if
it's Zero, or does that mean I really care?

OTOH, could it be that at full scale,
5000 is the ultimate in DontGiveA****?

Currently that meter is reading nothing,
so does that mean,if the former is true,
that Rob don't give a ****, or does it
mean the meter isn't hooked up?

More information is required, I'm afraid.

It's only puzzling for people who think "I could care less" is an
effective expression of their indifference. If one recognizes that the
only proper such expression is "I couldn't care less" than the
****ometer is perfeclty understandable.

I only asked Rob to modify it so I could use my own pet phrase which
posits that the instrument has yet to be devised which could measure
my indifference. In other words, I couldn't care less.



--
LRod

Master Woodbutcher and seasoned termite

Shamelessly whoring my website since 1999

http://www.woodbutcher.net
http://www.normstools.com

Proud participant of rec.woodworking since February, 1997

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

On Jan 13, 2:56*pm, Greg wrote:


Personally, I'm for my own personal anarchy on a tropical island full
of scantily, yet tastefully draped women serving margaritas at the
beach. Wind, wave, and solar powered, of course.

Sir, could we please have ONE white horse as well?

http://fitblog.files.wordpress.com/2...ndchen_036.jpg

Robatoy said:

On Jan 13, 1:55 pm, Greg wrote:


More information is required, I'm afraid.

I'm afraid as well.
It could represent the number of people who give a **** - which in
this particular meter's case, is zero.
I'm going to go sweep up sawdust at this point... ;-)

Ask and ye shall receive.

The ****ometer(tm) stands at the lowest at about minus 3000.
If it was indicating zero, it would be indictating indifference. Any
position above zero would indicate maybe..just maybe that I gave a
****...which, by the reading of the published result, I don't.

OK - I got it. I didn't notice the non-linear, edited face which went
below zero in my cursory exam.

There is a moral to this which I will add to my list:

Don't drink and drive unless it is in your own cow pasture.
Never trust a lawyer or the subsequent politician.
The woman is always right - even when she's wrong.
(At least if you expect to get laid regularly.)
Never drink preprocessed beer.
And finally, Don't Usenet while Norming.


Greg G.

Greg G. wrote:

Mark & Juanita said:

.... snip
No different that any other frontrunner. Personally, I'd rather see
small, efficient accountability than what we have now. Yet unbridled
capitalism is as bad a failure to society as is bloated, ineffectual
bureaucracy.

Would vehemently disagree with that assertion depending upon the meaning
of the word "unbridled". History also disagrees with that assertion. The
most prosperous and free countries have been those with as close to a free
market as possible.

On the other hand, bloated ineffectual, or bloated effective (read
intrusive) bureaucracies have done more to destroy and ruin nations'
ability to live well, and pose the most significant threat to a people's
freedom and ability to prosper and do well than most any other influence.
Again, historical examples abound: The Soviet Union, Cuba, China, and
others.



and further, is not even a consideration at this point.

No, he is trying to achieve the same goals through his global warming
scam. His open trashing of the US at the Bali conference is hardly
commendable for a former US VP.

I would hardly call this statement a trashing:

"But the outcome will be decisively influenced by two nations that are
now failing to do enough: the United States and China. While India is
also growing fast in importance, it should be absolutely clear that it
is the two largest CO2 emitters -- most of all, my own country -- that
will need to make the boldest moves, or stand accountable before
history for their failure to act.

Both countries should stop using the other's behavior as an excuse for
stalemate and instead develop an agenda for mutual survival in a
shared global environment."


Maybe not, but the following statement:
€œSo,€� said Al Gore at the recent Bali, Indonesia, conference on global
warming, €œI am going to speak an inconvenient truth. My own country, the
United States, is principally responsible for obstructing progress here in
Bali. We all know that.€�

Certainly falls into that category.


He is free to speak his mind, whatever his opinion. And the statement
is true in that we are the primary contributors to world resource
consumption, much pollution, and greenhouse gas release. We are pigs
in contrast to the majority of the world by virtue of population and
"standards of living" - for now. Competition for all resources is
rising due to the spread of "modern" standards of living. As they
grow, we lose ground. At some point in the future, it will equalize
somewhat worldwide, but I sure wish it hadn't been during MY lifetime.


Yet there are massive deposits of energy yet unused: Oil shale in the
west, Anwar in the north, coal deposits throughout the west. Oil and
natural gas off the coasts of California and Florida. While we don't
drill, the Chinese have started drilling off the coast of Cuba.

.... snip

Personally, I'm for my own personal anarchy on a tropical island full
of scantily, yet tastefully draped women serving margaritas at the
beach. Wind, wave, and solar powered, of course.


On that, we both agree. But I'm going to have a big ol' generator on the
other side of my island to light my shop at night and power the tools. :-)



--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Robatoy said:

On Jan 13, 2:56*pm, Greg wrote:


Personally, I'm for my own personal anarchy on a tropical island full
of scantily, yet tastefully draped women serving margaritas at the
beach. Wind, wave, and solar powered, of course.

Sir, could we please have ONE white horse as well?

http://fitblog.files.wordpress.com/2...ndchen_036.jpg

Oh, my - YES!
You can have the white horse, I'll take the babe...


Greg G.

Greg G. said:

Robatoy said:

On Jan 13, 2:56*pm, Greg wrote:


Personally, I'm for my own personal anarchy on a tropical island full
of scantily, yet tastefully draped women serving margaritas at the
beach. Wind, wave, and solar powered, of course.

Sir, could we please have ONE white horse as well?

http://fitblog.files.wordpress.com/2...ndchen_036.jpg

Oh, my - YES!
You can have the white horse, I'll take the babe...

BTW, is it just me, or does that lovely young lady have the largest
feet I've ever seen on a nubile waif?


Greg G.

Greg G. wrote:
Greg G. said:

Robatoy said:

On Jan 13, 2:56 pm, Greg wrote:


Personally, I'm for my own personal anarchy on a tropical island full
of scantily, yet tastefully draped women serving margaritas at the
beach. Wind, wave, and solar powered, of course.

Sir, could we please have ONE white horse as well?

http://fitblog.files.wordpress.com/2...ndchen_036.jpg

Oh, my - YES!
You can have the white horse, I'll take the babe...

BTW, is it just me, or does that lovely young lady have the largest
feet I've ever seen on a nubile waif?


Greg G.

Feet? What feet?

--
Gerald Ross
Cochran, GA

War doesn't determine who's right, but
who's left.

Pale Horse - Pale Rider.


The feet are beyond the pale.









On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 15:35:31 -0500, Greg wrote:

Greg G. said:

Robatoy said:

On Jan 13, 2:56*pm, Greg wrote:


Personally, I'm for my own personal anarchy on a tropical island full
of scantily, yet tastefully draped women serving margaritas at the
beach. Wind, wave, and solar powered, of course.

Sir, could we please have ONE white horse as well?

http://fitblog.files.wordpress.com/2...ndchen_036.jpg

Oh, my - YES!
You can have the white horse, I'll take the babe...

BTW, is it just me, or does that lovely young lady have the largest
feet I've ever seen on a nubile waif?


Greg G.
Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

On Jan 13, 3:30*pm, Greg wrote:
Robatoy said:

On Jan 13, 2:56*pm, Greg wrote:

Personally, I'm for my own personal anarchy on a tropical island full
of scantily, yet tastefully draped women serving margaritas at the
beach. Wind, wave, and solar powered, of course.
Sir, could we please have ONE white horse as well?

http://fitblog.files.wordpress.com/2...ndchen_036.jpg

Oh, my - YES!
You can have the white horse, I'll take the babe...

Greg G.

AHA! You fell for my cunning plan...while you are occupied with the
waif, I get to have all the other margarita-bearing babes..AND the
horse!

You succeeded because you are a cunning linguist.





On Sun, 13 Jan 2008 12:49:40 -0800 (PST), Robatoy
wrote:

On Jan 13, 3:30*pm, Greg wrote:
Robatoy said:

On Jan 13, 2:56*pm, Greg wrote:

Personally, I'm for my own personal anarchy on a tropical island full
of scantily, yet tastefully draped women serving margaritas at the
beach. Wind, wave, and solar powered, of course.
Sir, could we please have ONE white horse as well?

http://fitblog.files.wordpress.com/2...ndchen_036.jpg

Oh, my - YES!
You can have the white horse, I'll take the babe...

Greg G.

AHA! You fell for my cunning plan...while you are occupied with the
waif, I get to have all the other margarita-bearing babes..AND the
horse!
Regards,

Tom Watson

tjwatson1ATcomcastDOTnet (real email)

http://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/

On Jan 13, 3:11*pm, LRod wrote:




If one recognizes that the
only proper such expression is "I couldn't care less" than the
****ometer is perfeclty understandable.

I only asked Rob to modify it so I could use my own pet phrase which
posits that the instrument has yet to be devised which could measure
my indifference. In other words, I couldn't care less.


Hence, there is no number where the pointer 'hits the pin'.
I could have marked the pin with a -5000 mark, but that could have
given ammunition to those who proclaim to give even less of a ****
than that.
This way, all we have is the minimal ****-giving background
radiation.... at which point you simply could NOT care less.