Greg G." wrote:

Probably worked out for the best considering the corruption
prevalent
during that time.

Shondor, Danny Green (AKA: Irish Mafia), the Teamsters, the Lettuce
mafia, not to mention the boys from Youngstown.

Bombs were popular back then.

Jackie Presser (Teamsters) was an FBI informant.

The unions had a strangle hold on almost everything at the time that
the mafia didn't want.

Probably no more than any other major city like Chicago or Detroit.

I thought Gund, the founder, was dead at that point and was a
philanthropist.

The Gund Foundation was going strong but Dennis brought out the heavy
hitters. He died a few years later.

http://www.freetimes.com/stories/15/...ennis-kucinich

Reading that brings back names and places I had long forgotten.

I'm beginning to like this guy more and more...

A leopard doesn't change it's spots and neither will Dennis.

Lew

Tim Daneliuk said:

Greg G. wrote:
I believe part of the issue is that in 7 years, I have seen a dozen or
so woodworking related posts by Tim. A floor question, couple of
...

There was a time ... but my "circumstances" have made any significant
WWing impossible, or at least very limited. Those "circumstances" are
...

I can empathize with that, for sure. Hope things get better.

http://www.tundraware.com/Woodworking/

Cool - and an interesting pipe collection. My Dad and several
relatives smoked a pipe - I can still remember the colorful aromas and
the fancy woods used in their construction.

I dunno how "partisan" my view are. After all, I cannot abide the
left and can barely tolerate the right. You're in a lonely place
when none of the cool kids at school like you

Cool isn't all it's cracked up to be. I hang with a pretty
introspective lot, the "cool kids" are usually grating.


Greg G.

Larry Jaques wrote:

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 07:37:52 -0500, the infamous Greg
scrawled the following:

J. Clarke said:

Now, if someone could make black smoke come out of a reporter, _that_ I'd
_pay_ to watch.

Make that two tickets for admission.

YOUTUBE THAT PUPPY!


Nope. That's Pay Per View there -- and would be more profitable than pr0n


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Ed Pawlowski wrote:


"Larry Jaques" wrote in message
But
if you want real distortion, try a pair of progressive lenses. OMG!
80% of them isn't even prescription lens, and the transitions left me
dizzy and sick to my stomach. I forced my opto's office managerette to
put me into bifocals and a pair of single vision readers. She wouldn't
even let me pay the extra for going bifocal for the readers, so I
never went back to that office again. I was mad as hell about the
whole thing. Varilux SUCKS!

Matter of opinion. I hesitated with my first pair of bifocals and then
next time around tried the progressive lenses. I'd never go back to
standard now.
Varilux ROCKS I'm on my fourth pair in about 12 years.

Seems to be a very person specific thing. I've spoken with folks who,
like you, absolutely love 'em and others, like Larry, who could not wear
them for the reason stated even after a protracted attempt to adapt.

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Lew Hodgett said:

Greg G." wrote:

The unions had a strangle hold on almost everything at the time that
the mafia didn't want.

Not having grown up in a union area, I missed the **** they were
involved in and where much of the animosity towards them stemmed from.
Don't have a problem with workers organizing for a united voice, but
many unions, like most hired guns, seem to end up thoroughly corrupt.

All we had were the Dixie Mafia - same premise, different people.
Now it's all one homogenous mess of mobsters from all over.

Probably no more than any other major city like Chicago or Detroit.

That's comforting to know. :-o

http://www.freetimes.com/stories/15/...ennis-kucinich

Reading that brings back names and places I had long forgotten.

And probably could have done without the reminder, eh?

I'm beginning to like this guy more and more...

A leopard doesn't change it's spots and neither will Dennis.

Is that a good thing?
Being couched in that vernacular makes me uneasy...


Greg G.

Larry Blanchard wrote:

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 04:54:24 -0800, Larry Jaques wrote:

I've been cleaning my plastic-lensed eyeglasses with my t-shirt every
hour for 40 years now and I've never had much scratching. After 2
years, it's visible when you look for it, but not when you look through
them. Occasional buffing with RainX helps. I haven't tried the swirl
remover Maguire puts out, but I'll bet it'd work, too. Give it a try.

I've been breathing on mine and wiping them with a Kleenex for about the
same number of years.

You obviously don't use the aloe-impregnated Kleenex (much easier on the
nose when you've got a cold, for cleaning glasses, not so much) ;-)



If I don't get the scratch resistant coating they
do scratch, but still last for 2-4 years. If I do get the coating, the
frames usually wear out before the lenses.


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Nonny wrote:


.... snip


Over the past 2 months, I had both cataracts replaced with the
inserted lens'. The ones I got are called Restore, and like most
nowadays, have a built-in UV coating to stop ultraviolet light.
What's cooler is that they are also a yellow color and block a lot
of the blue light as well, like the natural lens. The result is
that I have built-in sunglasses. Of course, there's always a
downside, and the lens' don't let in as much light as one without
the blue blocker, but it is supposed to also help prevent macular
degeneration.


My optometrist was telling me that the inserted lenses negate the need for
glasses (at least for a while). He advised me against lasik since I
tolerate my contacts well and there was no reason to take the risk if I'm
satisfied with them.

.... snip

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 12:50:02 -0500, FrozenNorth
BTW, the length of your arms will have a dramatic impact on your
decision to accept bifocals.
Ok, you're going to have to explain that one to me.

Finding the proper focus point for reading various sizes of type, or
doing really fine close up work.

I'm 6'5" so arm length isn't an issue.

Understand, but doesn't it bring up another issue? Considering the
length of your arms, isn't there all sorts of distances you'll be
doing stuff where you won't be able to focus minutely? Obviously, you
want to work at an arm length that's generally most comfortable.
*That's* probably the length you'll want to predetermine and then get
glasses to accommodate.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:23:06 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

No, we elect the government, which then goes on doing what it has always
been doing.

Have to agree with that statement unfortunately. And if someone is
elected who doesn't do what the rest of the government does, he/she
learns to damn fast.

Larry Blanchard wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:56:20 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

Why
bother to pursue excellence or make significant sacrifices only to see
any resulting reward mandatorily re-distributed to someone who either
lacked the skill or motivation to achieve?

So money is the only motivator?


No. Time, money, reward all roll together. In the real world, success is
often the reward for extra effort and significant success the reward for
extraordinary effort. We all are providing a slice of our lives to our
work and expect to be compensated accordingly. Extraordinary effort in
advancing an organization's objectives or ensuring a project's success is
professionally rewarding, but those efforts often demand a large slice of
one's personal life -- soccer or basekeball games missed, extended or
frequent travel, long hours at the office and away from home. It is not
unreasonable that those who put forth such effort should rightly expect
monetary reward for such effort. A plaque, thank-you, or title may be nice
for the recipient, but does little to compensate both the laborer and his
family for the sacrifice. Fiscal reward provides both laborer and family
with some amount of compensation for the other things given up. In a
confiscatory society, why should someone make those sacrifices, often
giving up family time and other elements of personal life if most of the
reward is going to be taxed such that the benefit is barely noticeable and
the confiscated amounts used to subsidize somebody who is [maybe] working a
straight 40 hours, attending all of the family events and other benefits of
time away from work?


So in your mind, the person working 60+ hour weeks should be happy to give
60 to 70% of the added compensation for such labor (either by direct
overtime compensation or associated salary rewards) away so that it can be
used to provide largesse to people not working or barely putting forth the
effort?



--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

Greg G." wrote:

A leopard doesn't change it's spots and neither will Dennis.

Is that a good thing?
Being couched in that vernacular makes me uneasy...

With Dennis, you know what you have.

There are over 100 millionaires in Congress.

Dennis will never be one unless a rich relative comes out of the wood
work and leaves him the money.

Lew

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 10:58:42 -0800, "CW"
wrote:

These days, you would have a hard time trying to get plastic eyeglass
lenses that don't have scratch coating. It's pretty much standard.

Yea, standard if you ask for it. Every place I've seen around here it's an
added cost option.

That glasses I most recently bought had and extra scratch coating. (at
a cost) Naturally, I selected it with the instructions that I wanted
the most scratch coating available.

When a pair of four month old plastic lensed glasses looked like
they've had some 240 grit sandpaper applied to them producing a
constant vague fog, then it's time to look for additional protection.

Larry Blanchard wrote:

On Mon, 09 Nov 2009 22:31:04 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

The problem with this whole thing is that it fundamentally changes the
relationship of citizens to the government; your comments regarding the
Howard government sort of reinforce that. What this kind of program
does is change us from citizens to subjects, making us dependent upon
the government for a very basic need.

But we ARE the government.

Do you really think that Nancy Pelosi and Harry Ried really think that
way? If so, this abomination of a health care bill would never have gotten
as far as it has with polls showing a solid majority opposing it. With the
direct taxation from the income tax, the near-certainty of incumbent
re-election (strengthened through McCain-Feingold), you are electing
aritocrats who intend to rule and intend to use bills like Pelosi-care and
cap and tax to rule as much of citizens' personal lives as they can. They
no longer view themselves as representatives of the people.


--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 11:00:24 -0800, "CW"
wrote:

The more nearsighted you become, the further away you have to hold something
to be able to see it.

Guess I'm lucky in that regard. I take my glasses off to read and
focus properly as well as to focus on small minute things. Glasses
required starts at computer screen distance.

HeyBub said:

Greg G. wrote:

Timber, energy, food, water - all being stressed at this point. There
are many countries where famine and drought are commonplace. I'm not
...

You make a good point about areas where famine and drought are commonplace.
But the fix is relatively easy - at least easy to say.

Ah - The best laid schemes o' mice an' men. ;-)


There has never been a famine in a democracy.

Blind luck, most likely - at least as far as disasters are concerned.


Replace thugocracies, monarchies, theocracies, etc., with democracies
and the famine problem goes away.

Good luck with that - *******s are too profitable to do business with.
It's worked well for some countries, not so much in others.
I'm still waiting on the US to fully adopt Democracy. We are not yet
equal in the face of the law - money trumps right much of the time.


As for droughts, this will be harder and require a change in the
area's economy. In areas where droughts are common, the area needs to give
up reliance on water for crops. That is, either change their crops from
watermelons to moss or quit farming altogether. If the latter, they will
have to import food from less radical climates.

Which is currently what most do - even if through foreign aid. Yet
even that is problematic because of corrupt governments that divert
aid into their own pockets while populations starve. It still happens.
Of course, new technologies help, as do cisterns & proper management.


In order to import food, they will need currency with which to buy it. That
means they'll have to export something or find ways of bringing exchange
currency to their country. Maybe they could mine for minerals or set up an
international vacation spot.

That's worked out well for Africa. Diamonds are mined by the locals
who work for sustenance wages and the profit is pocketed by DeBeers.
Myanmar sells natural gas to the French, US and Russia, but the
workers are slave laborers.


As for running out of oil, reserves increase every year.

Worldwide competition, including the boom in consumption from India
and especially China, makes this unlikely. Usage is going up
dramatically, especially with the poor efficiency of crude foundries
and such used in developing nations.


Even if we did run out, so what?
The Romans denuded North Africa to make charcoal, then the
Europeans did the same to their forests. When wood got scarce, they turned
to coal. Coal fueled the industrial revolution until it became too expensive
relative to imported oil.

When oil gets too expensive, we'll find something else. We always have;
that's what humans do. We discover, we innovate, we improvise.

This is historically true. But we have advanced to the point where it
is unlikely we will uncover any new natural resources to exploit for
energy. That puts the onus on science to come up with either a way to
deal with nuclear by-products or figure a way to break the covalent
bonds of water for hydrogen. Until some concrete promise in these
areas is shown, it would be arrogant of us to ignore the possibility
that we won't come up with that next step in the evolution of energy.

Not trying to be negative, just careful. (And argumentative...) ;-)



Greg G.

On 10 Nov 2009 19:33:08 GMT, Puckdropper
puckdropper(at)yahoo(dot)com wrote:

You have that backwards. The reason old folks get reading glasses is
because they become more FAR sighted.

They also become more hind-sighted as they get older.

Isn't that hind-sight an euphemism for "cautious"?

diggerop wrote:

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
m...


The problem with this whole thing is that it fundamentally changes the
relationship of citizens to the government; your comments regarding the
Howard government sort of reinforce that. What this kind of program does
is change us from citizens to subjects, making us dependent upon the
government for a very basic need. Future debates then no longer revolve
around freedom, they revolve around the cost of the health system, what
special interest groups get funded, what rationing is applied to what
unfortunate group of citizens. [Yeah, I know, the statists will cry that
the health insurance companies do that now. The fact is however, that if
one doesn't like what a health insurance company determines, there are
alternatives. At worst, one can leverage one's personal assets and get a
loan for the needed treatment. When government says, "no", the answer
based on the 2000+ page Pelosi/Obama-care bill is "NO".]

.... snip
At the end of the day, on a personal level, what freedoms did I give up?
I still have a choice of private health care. I still can have any medical
procedure that is not offered under the government system using the same
means you referred to above. Insurance and my private means.
Cost? My taxes increased. My insurance premiums fell dramatically. On
balance, one cancelled out the other. What about the bludgers?, (leeches
feeding off the taxpayer.) There seems to be no greater or lesser number
of them than there always were. I sure as hell would like to see them
weeded out, but it would seem that are and always have been, an inevitable
part of any society.
Financially, my income is far better than it has ever been. I still have
every single one of the freedoms I had before. My fellow citizens are
healthier overall because of it and therefore, so is the state of the
nation. For 9% of GDP, against your 15%.

What was your country spending before the reform? If it hasn't changed,
then I would submit you haven't seen any net benefit except giving the
government more control -- control that I would suspect frames political
debate. You also are not limited to only going to the government (as in
the British system), that provides somewhat of a relief valve.

In the US, we have 87% of people satisfied with their insurance. For 13%
of our people, we are proposing a government takeover of 1/6 of the economy
(the only way they will save money is by rationing) and spending over $2
Trillion dollars in the next 10 years) -- and government programs never
cost what they are originally projected nor deliver the results promised.
Seems a steep price to pay.

Out of curiosity, how many new drugs or medical procedures have been
developed in Australia? Part of the US cost is significant development of
new drugs and medical procedures (yeah, some of them are frivolous, but
other countries seem to like them after they are developed).



Maybe we're just cleverer. ; )


Or maybe your system just hasn't been in place long enough yet for the
full effect to have occurred. Looking at the British health system that
has been in place for significantly longer, the only way they are saving
money is by rationing.



Overall, on reflection, I think that what I did give up, was merely an
illusion.


diggerop

--

There is never a situation where having more rounds is a disadvantage

Rob Leatham

said:

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 13:23:06 -0500, "J. Clarke"
wrote:

No, we elect the government, which then goes on doing what it has always
been doing.

Have to agree with that statement unfortunately. And if someone is
elected who doesn't do what the rest of the government does, he/she
learns to damn fast.

Seems that way. Learns or gets offed. Tough slog.
But the longer you wait, the worse it gets.
Yet freedom require diligence - what's a few more bodies?
Probably explains why so few possess a shred of integrity.


Greg G.

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 03:42:06 +0800, "diggerop" toobusy@themoment
wrote:

This country has, even today, a desperate shortage of skilled workers. Every
sick day incurred is a loss we cannot afford. Keeping the population healthy
makes a much sense to me as the rationale for sevicing your motor vehicle
regularly. It's efficient and pays dividends.

At the end of the day, on a personal level, what freedoms did I give up? I
still have a choice of private health care. I still can have any medical
procedure that is not offered under the government system using the same
means you referred to above. Insurance and my private means.
Cost? My taxes increased. My insurance premiums fell dramatically. On
balance, one cancelled out the other. What about the bludgers?, (leeches
feeding off the taxpayer.) There seems to be no greater or lesser number of
them than there always were. I sure as hell would like to see them weeded
out, but it would seem that are and always have been, an inevitable part of
any society.

Well said. Try explaining that to the Daneliuks of the world who
insist on labeling it as stealing, mooching and evil. There's no
allowance or consideration for the fact that it keeps people working
and making a contribution. As far as they're concerned, it's someone
else reaching into their pocket to survive.

Lew Hodgett said:

Greg G." wrote:

A leopard doesn't change it's spots and neither will Dennis.

Is that a good thing?
Being couched in that vernacular makes me uneasy...

With Dennis, you know what you have.

A mafia mark with a hot wife? ;-)
Didn't know if you had some latent dirt on the guy.

There are over 100 millionaires in Congress.

At least - and if K-Street has anything to do with it, more every day.

Dennis will never be one unless a rich relative comes out of the wood
work and leaves him the money.

Good enough. Cue the theme song from "The Untouchables."

More and more it seems that all the infighting and partisan squabbling
is just public cover for who ends up collecting the bribe money. Feh.


Greg G.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:08:11 -0500, Greg wrote:

Some people...
A nubile waif, a fifth of Knob Creek and 50 acres are plenty for me.
And maybe a talking parrot. ;-)

A talking parrot... Ah yes, I can just see it.

What are you doing with that girl?
I want to see at least a foot of air between you two.
Where did you get that bottle?
All you do is drink all day. You're a lush. Get off your butt and do
some work for once.
Go plow the back forty. Get that fat butt moving.

You see, unfortunately for you, you've chosen to live in paradise with
a previously owned live in mother-in-law parrot.

"Greg G." wrote in message
...

Not having grown up in a union area, I missed the **** they were
involved in and where much of the animosity towards them stemmed from.
Don't have a problem with workers organizing for a united voice, but
many unions, like most hired guns, seem to end up thoroughly corrupt.


My grandfather was jailed for going on strike in his youth. A decent man
who was prepared to stand by his principles. Ultimately, he went into
politics. Instilled in the family that standing up for what you believed in
was the only way to live.
Ironically, standing by my principles, led me in the opposite direction. I
was doing some contract work for an employer who paid better than anyone in
the construction industry and treated his employees as if they were family.
The construction union gained access to that particular site through a
sweetheart deal with the prime contractor.
Compulsory unionism had by then been outlawed. (HA! Sure it had.) Some of my
employers people joined up, each for their own reasons. Myself and a couple
of others opted not to.
So then the games began. After another week, I was the only holdout.
The daily visits from the union organiser included conversations along the
lines of, "We'd really like you to join us, we would never force you to,
just remember, you have a choice." Then the crap started. Two or three times
a day, they pulled a stop work meeting. The entire site was involved.
Immediately before each stop work, the organiser would come to me and let me
know that there was going to be a problem but he wanted to personally assure
me that it had nothing to do with me not being a union member. Riiiiight!
The prime contractor asked my employer to remove me, he declined and get
this! - the union rep said if I was removed from site they would strike over
that - because they supported a man's right to free choice!
After a week, I capitulated and joined up. If not, I believe they would have
sent my employer broke. I then immediately resigned my position, - that was
perfectly ok, - as a union member that was my right!
I've refused to work on any site that has union involvement from that day
on.
Looking back, I'm not sure who I'm angrier with, - the union for their
corrupt tactics, - or myself for my lack of balls in giving in to them. I
somehow suspect it's the latter. : )

diggerop

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:16:36 -0600, -MIKE-
wrote:

Tim Daneliuk wrote:
What I do not do is assault the person or character of the
*individuals* who disagree with me. I might call their ideas bad,
absurd, or wrong, but I do not describe them in personally malicious
I've stay out of most of these political threads, but I have noticed the
above to be true. I think these guys really get off on talking down to
you and targeting you with the ad hominems.

It gets old fast and I think they need new picture to jerk off to. :-)

He's also an outright liar. On several occasions he's called me evil
and a thief solely on the basis of my receiving medical support in the
Canadian medical system.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:08:12 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:

The AR coating makes a difference for vision at times. No reflections and
better night vision when driving. I'm willing to pay for the benefits, at
least for my prescription.

Maybe, but then no more shirt sleeve cleaning and a cleaning only by
approved methods. That pair of glasses of mine that formed a slightly
haze vision after several months, had the AR coating. Next pair didn't
and lasted to this day. That was the only difference.

On Nov 11, 3:02*am, wrote:
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 20:08:12 -0500, "Ed Pawlowski"
wrote:

The AR coating makes a difference for vision at times. *No reflections and
better night vision when driving. *I'm willing to pay for the benefits, at
least for my prescription.

Maybe, but then no more shirt sleeve cleaning and a cleaning only by
approved methods. That pair of glasses of mine that formed a slightly
haze vision after several months, had the AR coating. Next pair didn't
and lasted to this day. That was the only difference.

My grandmother at age 87, didn't need glasses.
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
The old bag drank right out of the bottle.
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
..
I'll be here all week
Try the veal
Don't forget to tip your waitress.

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
news


What was your country spending before the reform? If it hasn't changed,
then I would submit you haven't seen any net benefit except giving the
government more control -- control that I would suspect frames political
debate. You also are not limited to only going to the government (as in
the British system), that provides somewhat of a relief valve.

Maybe we have somehow arrived at the best of both worlds.
There's been a very definite net benefit. The previously uninsured under the
old system when compared to those of us who were insured, cost the country
dearly by the time they were eligible for automatic age related benefits.
The effects of that which was treatable for those of us that were
financially able to seek preventative health care was minimised. For those
who could not, or would not, the end result was a huge financial burden on
the taxpayer when they ultimately hit the system. In the interim they were
of far less value to the nation because they were less able.
No altruism here. I just want the *******s out there working, paying taxes
and supporting themselves. If that means forcing a system onto them to
ensure the best possibility health wise of that happening, then so be it.
( I did mention that I'm not necessarily a nice person, did I not?)

In the US, we have 87% of people satisfied with their insurance. For 13%
of our people, we are proposing a government takeover of 1/6 of the
economy
(the only way they will save money is by rationing) and spending over $2
Trillion dollars in the next 10 years) -- and government programs never
cost what they are originally projected nor deliver the results promised.
Seems a steep price to pay.


It will interest me greatly to see where it all ends up for the US.

Out of curiosity, how many new drugs or medical procedures have been
developed in Australia? Part of the US cost is significant development of
new drugs and medical procedures (yeah, some of them are frivolous, but
other countries seem to like them after they are developed).

Extraordinary. Are you saying your drug companies are not- for -profit
organisations, which don't recover development costs? If not, are you saying
their costs form part of the national healthcare spending GDP %. And
accordingly, are the profits they do make make offset against the overall
GDP spending?



Has Australia developed anything of significance in the medical field?
There's been the odd one or two, - a few examples of some more significant
ones:

Heart pacemaker-In 1926 a doctor from a Sydney hospital, who wished to
remain anonymous, invented the original heart pacemaker.

Penicillin-In 1941, penicillin was extracted and refined by a team led by
Australian Howard Florey. It was successfully trialled on humans and went
into production in time to aid Second World War casualties.

Ultrasound scanner-In 1961, two Australians built the first ultrasound.

Cochlear implant-In 1979, university professor Graeme Clark invented the
cochlear implant, designed to help the hearing impaired and profoundly deaf.

Skin polarprobe-In 1998, a team of scientists developed the SolarScan, which
can quickly detect cancerous sunspots.

Cervical cancer vaccine-Professor Ian Frazer received an Australian of the
Year award in 2006 for developing the world's first vaccine to prevent
cervical cancer

The world's first anti-influenza drug, Relenza, was developed in Australia
in 1996.

Plus several Nobel prizes

a.. 1960-Sir Frank Macfarlane Burnet
a.. Awarded the prize in medicine for work on immunology, the basis for
organ transplants.
a.. 1963-Sir John Carew Eccles
a.. Awarded the prize in medicine for work on how nerves and the brain
function.
a.. 1975-Sir John Warcup Cornforth
a.. Awarded the prize in chemistry for work on the structure of living
matter.
a.. 1996-Professor Peter Doherty
a.. Awarded the prize in medicine for work on immunology.
a.. 2005-Professor Barry Marshall and Dr Robin Warren
a.. Awarded the prize in medicine for the discovery of the Helicobacter
pylori bacterium and the role it plays in inflammation of the stomach and in
ulcers of the stomach and duodenum.

Not bad at all for a population of less than 7.5% of the US.

diggerop

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 15:53:14 -0600, Markem
wrote:

wrote:

What? You expel your rhetoric from your keyboard. Like that will
change the direction of politicians?

This media is just a platform for him to start politically related
arguments and inflame discussion as time goes on. He has no practical
involvement in political affairs other than discussion and doesn't
seem to have anything to do with politics at all, other than whining
and criticizing incessantly about the state of affairs. Hell, the last
election he didn't bother to vote for *anybody*. Basically, Tim is a
**** disturber par excellence when it comes to discussing politics.
That appears to be his sole function and purpose.

"Lew Hodgett" wrote in message
...

"diggerop" wrote:

Do you have a photo you can post Lew?

http://tinyurl.com/yal9unm

Lew





55' of class! That's a truly magnificent effort, Lew.
When she goes, I imagine it will be like raising a kid and then sending them
off into the wide world to face who knows what.
You did well.

diggerop

wrote:

This media is just a platform for him to start politically related
arguments and inflame discussion as time goes on.

Shunning works.

Lew

Lew Hodgett wrote:
Greg G." wrote:

A leopard doesn't change it's spots and neither will Dennis.
Is that a good thing?
Being couched in that vernacular makes me uneasy...

With Dennis, you know what you have.

There are over 100 millionaires in Congress.

Way more than that - 44% or 237.


Dennis will never be one unless a rich relative comes out of the wood
work and leaves him the money.

Lew

On Nov 11, 12:41*am, Tim Daneliuk wrote:
Greg G. wrote:
Lew Hodgett said:

Greg G." wrote:

A leopard doesn't change it's spots and neither will Dennis.
Is that a good thing?
Being couched in that vernacular makes me uneasy...
With Dennis, you know what you have.

A mafia mark with a hot wife? *;-)
Didn't know if you had some latent dirt on the guy.

There are over 100 millionaires in Congress.

At least - and if K-Street has anything to do with it, more every day.

Dennis will never be one unless a rich relative comes out of the wood
work and leaves him the money.

Good enough. Cue the theme song from "The Untouchables."

More and more it seems that all the infighting and partisan squabbling
is just public cover for who ends up collecting the bribe money. Feh.

Greg G.

If they can just "save one child" it will all have been worth it.

No matter if they kill a hundred others.

said:

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:08:11 -0500, Greg wrote:

Some people...
A nubile waif, a fifth of Knob Creek and 50 acres are plenty for me.
And maybe a talking parrot. ;-)

A talking parrot... Ah yes, I can just see it.

What are you doing with that girl?
I want to see at least a foot of air between you two.
Where did you get that bottle?
All you do is drink all day. You're a lush. Get off your butt and do
some work for once.
Go plow the back forty. Get that fat butt moving.

You see, unfortunately for you, you've chosen to live in paradise with
a previously owned live in mother-in-law parrot.

Ordinarily, that would be my luck. :-) But nah, raise 'em from an egg.
That way you train them to spew the vile rhetoric of your choosing.
Just never leave one alone in a room with talk radio. And NEVER let
one read the wreck without a good filter in place. ;-)


Greg G.

Doug Winterburn wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Greg G." wrote:

A leopard doesn't change it's spots and neither will Dennis.
Is that a good thing?
Being couched in that vernacular makes me uneasy...

With Dennis, you know what you have.

There are over 100 millionaires in Congress.

Way more than that - 44% or 237.


Dennis will never be one unless a rich relative comes out of the wood
work and leaves him the money.

Lew



All 237 millionaires are democrats or a mix?

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

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 17:08:11 -0500, Greg wrote:

Some people...
A nubile waif, a fifth of Knob Creek and 50 acres are plenty for me.
And maybe a talking parrot. ;-)

A talking parrot... Ah yes, I can just see it.

What are you doing with that girl?
I want to see at least a foot of air between you two.
Where did you get that bottle?
All you do is drink all day. You're a lush. Get off your butt and do
some work for once.
Go plow the back forty. Get that fat butt moving.

You see, unfortunately for you, you've chosen to live in paradise with
a previously owned live in mother-in-law parrot.

Ordinarily, that would be my luck. :-) But nah, raise 'em from an egg.
That way you train them to spew the vile rhetoric of your choosing.
Just never leave one alone in a room with talk radio. And NEVER let
one read the wreck without a good filter in place. ;-)


Greg G.


Q. What's the ideal weight for a mother-in-law?
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
A. About 2.5 lbs, ....... including the urn. : )

Diggerop

diggerop said:

"Greg G." wrote in message
.. .

Not having grown up in a union area, I missed the **** they were
involved in and where much of the animosity towards them stemmed from.
Don't have a problem with workers organizing for a united voice, but
many unions, like most hired guns, seem to end up thoroughly corrupt.


My grandfather was jailed for going on strike in his youth. A decent man
who was prepared to stand by his principles. Ultimately, he went into
politics. Instilled in the family that standing up for what you believed in
was the only way to live.
Ironically, standing by my principles, led me in the opposite direction. I
was doing some contract work for an employer who paid better than anyone in
the construction industry and treated his employees as if they were family.
The construction union gained access to that particular site through a
sweetheart deal with the prime contractor.
Compulsory unionism had by then been outlawed. (HA! Sure it had.) Some of my
employers people joined up, each for their own reasons. Myself and a couple
of others opted not to.
So then the games began. After another week, I was the only holdout.
The daily visits from the union organiser included conversations along the
lines of, "We'd really like you to join us, we would never force you to,
just remember, you have a choice." Then the crap started. Two or three times
a day, they pulled a stop work meeting. The entire site was involved.
Immediately before each stop work, the organiser would come to me and let me
know that there was going to be a problem but he wanted to personally assure
me that it had nothing to do with me not being a union member. Riiiiight!
The prime contractor asked my employer to remove me, he declined and get
this! - the union rep said if I was removed from site they would strike over
that - because they supported a man's right to free choice!
After a week, I capitulated and joined up. If not, I believe they would have
sent my employer broke. I then immediately resigned my position, - that was
perfectly ok, - as a union member that was my right!
I've refused to work on any site that has union involvement from that day
on.
Looking back, I'm not sure who I'm angrier with, - the union for their
corrupt tactics, - or myself for my lack of balls in giving in to them. I
somehow suspect it's the latter. : )

diggerop

And this was in AU. or have you lived in the US?
Never joined or had the desire to join a union, even if they had been
prevalent in this area. Figured I could negotiate a better deal on my
own behalf anyway. Most of my employers in the past were small
businesses and I liked it that way. Like you said, more like family.
Had a few friends in the Brotherhood of Electrical workers and have
know a few pipefitters in the Navy shipyards but didn't keep up with
much of what went on there.

At one time, they served a purpose and helped improve conditions for
some mightily downtrodden workers. Self-serving thugs are not
something I cater too, however. Even the NEA is suspect at this point.

Standing up for principles has bitten me in the ass more times that I
care to count, and I don't seem to ever learn from my... mistakes?
The minute ANY arm twisting starts I become immotile and my middle
digit seems to stand to attention on it's own. As for your final
quandary, I suspect it's that latter as well.

But of all the union and professional groups in existence, the worst
one I've seen yet are the "Brothers and Sisters of the Bar." Crikey!


Greg G.

Tim Daneliuk said:

Greg G. wrote:
More and more it seems that all the infighting and partisan squabbling
is just public cover for who ends up collecting the bribe money. Feh.


If they can just "save one child" it will all have been worth it.

sigh...



Greg G.

Rita and Neil Ward wrote:
Doug Winterburn wrote:
Lew Hodgett wrote:
Greg G." wrote:

A leopard doesn't change it's spots and neither will Dennis.
Is that a good thing?
Being couched in that vernacular makes me uneasy...

With Dennis, you know what you have.

There are over 100 millionaires in Congress.

Way more than that - 44% or 237.


Dennis will never be one unless a rich relative comes out of the wood
work and leaves him the money.

Lew



All 237 millionaires are democrats or a mix?

http://www.opensecrets.org/pfds/over...pe=W&year=2008

Greg G. wrote:
That puts the onus on science to come up with either a way to
deal with nuclear by-products or figure a way to break the covalent
bonds of water for hydrogen. Until some concrete promise in these
areas is shown, it would be arrogant of us to ignore the possibility
that we won't come up with that next step in the evolution of energy.

Not trying to be negative, just careful. (And argumentative...) ;-)

You raise the point often made by the anti-nuclear crowd - We don't have a
plan to deal with nuclear waste.

But we have several plans:

* Shoot the **** into the sun
* Encapsulate it in molten glass and sink it in the Mariannas Trench
* Mix it with liquid concrete and inject it into a salt dome
* Sell it to China as a building material
* Other

The fact is, we haven't done any of these things because we don't have to.
There is no compelling need to take any action regarding nuclear waste and
the longer we wait the greater the chance an even better solution will be
found.

It would be a pity to dump the all the crud in the ocean, then find out next
year we could use it to cheaply convert water to Hydrogen.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 21:53:49 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

I believe part of the issue is that in 7 years, I have seen a dozen or
so woodworking related posts by Tim. A floor question, couple of

There was a time ... but my "circumstances" have made any significant
WWing impossible, or at least very limited. Those "circumstances" are
my problem, and I prefer not to broadcast them across USENET. Suffice

I'd say "Bull****" and you want to know why? If you've built all those
things, (and I use the word "if" with serious doubt") then you'd have
plenty of knowledge to share and tips to offer. Whatever affliction
you have or might have or imagine you have is irrelevant. You can
obviously type and **** disturb every political conversation known to
man, so why can't you type about woodworking?

As usual and par for the course, you manipulate your answer into
something else. You never answer a question directly, but instead
redirect it into something almost the same, but essentially a
different direction.

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

"Greg G." wrote in message
. ..

Not having grown up in a union area, I missed the **** they were
involved in and where much of the animosity towards them stemmed from.
Don't have a problem with workers organizing for a united voice, but
many unions, like most hired guns, seem to end up thoroughly corrupt.


My grandfather was jailed for going on strike in his youth. A decent man
who was prepared to stand by his principles. Ultimately, he went into
politics. Instilled in the family that standing up for what you believed
in
was the only way to live.
Ironically, standing by my principles, led me in the opposite direction. I
was doing some contract work for an employer who paid better than anyone
in
the construction industry and treated his employees as if they were
family.
The construction union gained access to that particular site through a
sweetheart deal with the prime contractor.
Compulsory unionism had by then been outlawed. (HA! Sure it had.) Some of
my
employers people joined up, each for their own reasons. Myself and a
couple
of others opted not to.
So then the games began. After another week, I was the only holdout.
The daily visits from the union organiser included conversations along the
lines of, "We'd really like you to join us, we would never force you to,
just remember, you have a choice." Then the crap started. Two or three
times
a day, they pulled a stop work meeting. The entire site was involved.
Immediately before each stop work, the organiser would come to me and let
me
know that there was going to be a problem but he wanted to personally
assure
me that it had nothing to do with me not being a union member. Riiiiight!
The prime contractor asked my employer to remove me, he declined and get
this! - the union rep said if I was removed from site they would strike
over
that - because they supported a man's right to free choice!
After a week, I capitulated and joined up. If not, I believe they would
have
sent my employer broke. I then immediately resigned my position, - that
was
perfectly ok, - as a union member that was my right!
I've refused to work on any site that has union involvement from that day
on.
Looking back, I'm not sure who I'm angrier with, - the union for their
corrupt tactics, - or myself for my lack of balls in giving in to them. I
somehow suspect it's the latter. : )

diggerop

And this was in AU. or have you lived in the US?
Never joined or had the desire to join a union, even if they had been
prevalent in this area. Figured I could negotiate a better deal on my
own behalf anyway. Most of my employers in the past were small
businesses and I liked it that way. Like you said, more like family.
Had a few friends in the Brotherhood of Electrical workers and have
know a few pipefitters in the Navy shipyards but didn't keep up with
much of what went on there.

At one time, they served a purpose and helped improve conditions for
some mightily downtrodden workers. Self-serving thugs are not
something I cater too, however. Even the NEA is suspect at this point.

Standing up for principles has bitten me in the ass more times that I
care to count, and I don't seem to ever learn from my... mistakes?
The minute ANY arm twisting starts I become immotile and my middle
digit seems to stand to attention on it's own. As for your final
quandary, I suspect it's that latter as well.

But of all the union and professional groups in existence, the worst
one I've seen yet are the "Brothers and Sisters of the Bar." Crikey!


Greg G.


This was in Aus. There certainly was a need for unionism earlier last
century, but then the pendulum swung the other way. (As it seems to with
most reforms.) By the time I hit the workforce, union power was enormous. It
had complete political power over the Labor Party. (Still has large
influence.) Many major industries were "no ticket - no start" jobs. These
included shearers,mining, forestry, rail, building, maritime and waterside
workers. (Stevedores)

Much of their power has been broken, partly by investigative commissions
into the massive corruption that existed and partly by falling membership as
Aussie workers incomes rose over the last couple of decades and shortages of
labour caused employers to offer wages and benefits far above what the
unions had established. - An example is mining, where I have worked for many
years and where my wife still works. A union rep on a membership drive would
a hard time convincing workers to join up for better pay and conditions when
the people he is talking to are on incomes of $130 - $160,000 p.a. work 2
weeks on and two weeks off, get flown to and from the site in jet aircraft,
get everything provided at work, - food, clothing, entertainment.
The most common expression a union rep would hear on a minesite these days
would go something like, "**** off, you parasite *******" ..... or even
something impolite.... : )

diggerop