On Oct 3, 4:13*pm, jo4hn wrote:
Tom Watson wrote:
On Sat, 3 Oct 2009 10:59:11 -0700 (PDT), Robatoy
wrote:

On Oct 3, 11:38 am, Tom Watson wrote:
On Sat, 03 Oct 2009 11:04:39 -0400, wrote:
*Orientation is rrelated to direction. You can go off in random
directions - and it is not an oxymoron. Nor is Random orientation.
The boy's about as sharp as a bowling ball.

Try an appeal to authority.

Tell him that Rush, Glenn and Sean say it's true.

That seems to have worked on him so far.

Regards,

Tom Watsonhttp://home.comcast.net/~tjwatson1/
Rush is a certified Oxy-moron, isn't he?

You mean Oxycontin Moron.

Regards,

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

Now now, boys. *Try to be "fair and balanced".

Fox Fair and Balanced...now THAT is mutually exclusive...errrmmm, I
mean an oxymoron.

wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:

Doesn't matter. Random denotes no particular direction, and oriented
denotes direction, and using them together in this context is an
oxymoron, just like cruel kindness or deafening silence...
Robocop wrote:
You know... random orientation?
Perfectly acceptable usage in the English language.

Yes, perfectly acceptable usage, and a near perfect example of an
oxymoron... Go figure.

Orientation is rrelated to direction.

Yep, and random is related to no direction, as in haphazard.

You can go off in random directions - and it is not an oxymoron.

Perhaps.

Nor is Random orientation.

Wrong. Oriented denotes *a* direction, not *any* direction, the
opposite of haphazard or random directions. Used together "randomly
oriented" is an oxymoron. You can prove this by reading the tripe the
morons are writing about Rush, Fox news, Bush... whatever silliness
spews forth from their empty, collective heads.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server: http://www.eternal-september.org/
http://jbstein.com

On Oct 4, 10:19*am, Jack Stein wrote:
wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
Doesn't matter. *Random denotes no particular direction, and oriented
denotes direction, and using them together in this context is an
oxymoron, just like cruel kindness or deafening silence...
Robocop wrote:
You know... random orientation?
Perfectly acceptable usage in the English language.
Yes, perfectly acceptable usage, and a near perfect example of an
oxymoron... Go figure.
* Orientation is rrelated to direction.

Yep, and random is related to no direction, as in haphazard.

You can go off in random directions - and it is not an oxymoron.

Perhaps.

Nor is Random orientation.

Wrong. *Oriented denotes *a* direction, not *any* direction, the
opposite of haphazard or random directions. *Used together "randomly
oriented" is an oxymoron. *You can prove this by reading the tripe the
morons are writing about Rush, Fox news, Bush... whatever silliness
spews forth from their empty, collective heads.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server:http://www.eternal-september.org/http://jbstein.com

plonk

On Oct 4, 1:29*pm, Tanus wrote:
On Oct 4, 10:19*am, Jack Stein wrote:



wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
Doesn't matter. *Random denotes no particular direction, and oriented
denotes direction, and using them together in this context is an
oxymoron, just like cruel kindness or deafening silence...
Robocop wrote:
You know... random orientation?
Perfectly acceptable usage in the English language.
Yes, perfectly acceptable usage, and a near perfect example of an
oxymoron... Go figure.
* Orientation is rrelated to direction.

Yep, and random is related to no direction, as in haphazard.

You can go off in random directions - and it is not an oxymoron.

Perhaps.

Nor is Random orientation.

Wrong. *Oriented denotes *a* direction, not *any* direction, the
opposite of haphazard or random directions. *Used together "randomly
oriented" is an oxymoron. *You can prove this by reading the tripe the
morons are writing about Rush, Fox news, Bush... whatever silliness
spews forth from their empty, collective heads.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server:http://www.eternal-september.org/http://jbstein.com

plonk

Put another way ... can any of you provide an estimate as to how long
you intend to flog this /particular/ dead horse??

I provided a link or two that answers the question: Oriented Strand
Board IS oriented to provide greater strength along one of its axes.
Imaging data has proved that the orientation is FAR from optimized (by
design? default??), and that further improvements are possible.

I'm no stranger to Usenet, but ... wow. Kids, kids, kids.

On Oct 4, 3:29*pm, Tanus wrote:
On Oct 4, 10:19*am, Jack Stein wrote:





wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
Doesn't matter. *Random denotes no particular direction, and oriented
denotes direction, and using them together in this context is an
oxymoron, just like cruel kindness or deafening silence...
Robocop wrote:
You know... random orientation?
Perfectly acceptable usage in the English language.
Yes, perfectly acceptable usage, and a near perfect example of an
oxymoron... Go figure.
* Orientation is rrelated to direction.

Yep, and random is related to no direction, as in haphazard.

You can go off in random directions - and it is not an oxymoron.

Perhaps.

Nor is Random orientation.

Wrong. *Oriented denotes *a* direction, not *any* direction, the
opposite of haphazard or random directions. *Used together "randomly
oriented" is an oxymoron. *You can prove this by reading the tripe the
morons are writing about Rush, Fox news, Bush... whatever silliness
spews forth from their empty, collective heads.

--
Jack
Using FREE News Server:http://www.eternal-september.org/http://jbstein.com

plonk

Now don't go plonking Glennjack Beckstein... it's fun watching that
douche-nozzle squirm like this...

Neil Brooks wrote:
Put another way ... can any of you provide an estimate as to how long
you intend to flog this /particular/ dead horse??

This is way past the beating of a dead horse, it's beating the petrified
skeleton of a dead horse.

--
See Nad. See Nad go. Go Nad!
To reply, eat the taco.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/bbqboyee/

Robatoy wrote:
On Oct 4, 3:29 pm, Tanus wrote:
On Oct 4, 10:19 am, Jack Stein wrote:





wrote:
Jack Stein wrote:
Doesn't matter. Random denotes no particular direction, and oriented
denotes direction, and using them together in this context is an
oxymoron, just like cruel kindness or deafening silence...
Robocop wrote:
You know... random orientation?
Perfectly acceptable usage in the English language.
Yes, perfectly acceptable usage, and a near perfect example of an
oxymoron... Go figure.
Orientation is rrelated to direction.
Yep, and random is related to no direction, as in haphazard.
You can go off in random directions - and it is not an oxymoron.
Perhaps.
Nor is Random orientation.
Wrong. Oriented denotes *a* direction, not *any* direction, the
opposite of haphazard or random directions. Used together "randomly
oriented" is an oxymoron. You can prove this by reading the tripe the
morons are writing about Rush, Fox news, Bush... whatever silliness
spews forth from their empty, collective heads.
--
Jack
Using FREE News Server:http://www.eternal-september.org/http://jbstein.com
plonk

Now don't go plonking Glennjack Beckstein... it's fun watching that
douche-nozzle squirm like this...

Pfft. 23 seconds to read his drivel. 23 seconds I'll never ever get back.

Another 42 seconds to attempt a classification of asshole.

Asshole Type A has no idea that they're wrong, and blithely carries on
life ignorant of the mayhem they cause.

Asshole Type B knows full well what they do, and rejoices in said mayhem.

Asshole Type C thinks "mayhem" is the length of skirts in the 5th month.

I still haven't figured how to classify in this particular case, but
those 42 seconds are gone as well.

Tanus

On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 19:29:40 -0400, Tanus wrote:

Pfft. 23 seconds to read his drivel. 23 seconds I'll never ever get back.
Another 42 seconds to attempt a classification of asshole.
those 42 seconds are gone as well.

How many seconds did you waste trying to classify specific types of
assholes when you should have just created one general large
classification and be done with it?

wrote:
On Sun, 04 Oct 2009 19:29:40 -0400, Tanus wrote:

Pfft. 23 seconds to read his drivel. 23 seconds I'll never ever get back.
Another 42 seconds to attempt a classification of asshole.
those 42 seconds are gone as well.

How many seconds did you waste trying to classify specific types of
assholes when you should have just created one general large
classification and be done with it?

Factoid: The number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin is
approximately equal to the sperm whale population of northwest Nebraska.

Neil Brooks wrote:
Tanus wrote:

plonk

Put another way ... can any of you provide an estimate as to how long
you intend to flog this /particular/ dead horse??

A better question is how long will those not interested continue to read
and post replies? I always quit when no one replies, or I lose
interest, whichever comes first.

I provided a link or two that answers the question: Oriented Strand
Board IS oriented to provide greater strength along one of its axes.

That topic ended long ago. The question the dim wits are pondering now
is by "oriented" did you mean random?

I'm no stranger to Usenet, but ... wow. Kids, kids, kids.

Then you are Use to it, right?

--
Jack
Got Change: 4% unemployment ===== 10% Unemployment!
http://jbstein.com