On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:13:08 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Try to argue fairly and truthfully. What you said above is utterly
false. I said it was immoral and thieving to *continue to support

Along the way you amended your description and only when you were
called on it. Shall I post some examples of your direct attacks?

On second thought, forget that. Your standard practice of not directly
answering to examples of proof and changing the course of the subject
is well known. You are a liar (a clever one admittedly) and a bull****
master on par with the best. That I'll admit.

I ask you again. You don't discuss woodworking so what are you doing
here? Post as many images as you want. Even on the slight chance that
they are yours and you're no longer capable of doing woodworking,
every image you post fails to explain why you can't type about
woodworking. No one is asking you to build anything. You're being
asked to participate in the charter of this group by TYPING about it.

Now, you can type your misdirecting message and FAIL AGAIN to answer
the question.

Greg G. wrote:
HeyBub said:

Greg G. wrote:

Canadians can purchase a script for Liptor for $33 and yet those in
the US pay anywhere from $125 to $334.

Yep. But Canadians can pay much more for generic drugs. It averages
out. For example, one generic I take costs $8.00. It's available at
a Canadian pharmacy for $286.00.

I think I'd find a new pharmacy. There is absolutely no reasonable
excuse for that short of gouging to make up for losses elsewhere or
perhaps the patent hasn't expired in CA yet. Sounds like a fluke as
most of the popular patented drugs I researched were considerably
cheaper. Maybe they priced out the creator's pills instead of generic.
Since you did not identify the drug, it's all conjecture as to why.

Generic Vicodon. Hydrocodone + acetaminophen

As I said, name brand drugs are almost always cheaper in Canada but generic
drugs are often more expensive. In your example of Lipitor for about $33 in
Canada vs ~$200 in the U.S., the other startling example is that the U.S. is
currently subsidizing the Canadian sick.

It's a balance of terror - here's how it works.

1. The Canadian health system (CHS) approaches Pfizer and says we'll give
you 6¢ per pill for Lipitor
2. Pfizer says they will be glad to sell Lipitor to CHS at $1.00 per tablet.
3. CHS say balderdash! Our people need the drug. We can make it ourselves
for 5¢ per tablet
4. Pfizer says CHS cannot do that as the drug is protected by international
patents
5. CHS says we will abrogate the treaty in the name of saving lives
6. Pfizer says we'll use our clout to engage in a trade war with Canada
7. CHS says we don't have anything to do with oil, so we don't care. Saving
lives is the moral high ground. Do your worst.
8. Pfizer and CHS agree on a price of 8¢


Maybe. But greed is good. The results of greed are better.

Bettering yourself and your station is life is good, abject greed not
so much if it harms those who can ill afford it - that is predatory.

Agreed. It's the CONSEQUENCES of greed that can sometimes cause the problem,
not the greed itself.

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:14:31 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

Shunning works.

Obviously. You're still here and too caught up in you're own devices
to leave. The only reason I don't take the advice to shun your
rhetoric is that you infect, misdirect and aggravate people. I'm here
to tap you on the should and let you know you're not going to get away
with it carte blanche.

Mark & Juanita wrote:

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.

I suggest that Nancy Pelosi represents her San Francisco constituency
accurately.

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 08:57:46 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:


Regularly and with gusto.

Not in the last election. If you did, then you're either lying now or
you lied then.

You stated categorically that you didn't vote for either incumbent and
explained why. Shall I quote the text for you TIMbull****?

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:10:08 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

What question was that.

(Here with the redirection game.)

The questions is: Why do you not type about woodworking? You type
about politics. You've claimed to have woodworking experience.

I'll ask it again. Why do you not type about woodworking?

Greg G. wrote:
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. ;-)

And be careful of the reading matter with which you line their cages--it may
give you joy to have your parrot crap on the Washington Post but when your
parrot starts spouting the party line you'll be singing a different tune.

Greg G. wrote:
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.

If you mean the teacher's union and not the Federal arts supporter, they've
been suspect forever. I remember when I was a kid, the day before they went
on strike, my algebra teacher told the class "we're striking to improve
education, not for more money".

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.

I've done myself out of a couple of good paying jobs with good benefits that
way. Also missed out on a couple of good women.

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.

diggerop wrote:
"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.... : )

Holy crap did _I_ ever go into the wrong field.


diggerop

HeyBub said:

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.

Not a good long term plan for material with a half-life of 713 million
years. There is somewhere around 60,000 metric tons of the ****, and
we still have no plans for dealing with it long term. We import 85% of
the uranium used - 42% from those crazy Canuckistanians alone - and
fuel imports fostered a $370 million trade deficit in 2000 alone.

But we have several plans:

* Shoot the **** into the sun

I've argued that for years - what better place? The cost factor at
this point makes it prohibitive. Same as collecting He3 from the moon.
Where there's a will, and a profit, however...

* Encapsulate it in molten glass and sink it in the Mariannas Trench

The French do it. Expensive and not my favorite but better than what
we are currently doing which is allowing much of it to stand inside
the plants in shallow steel wells. Talk about a security risk...

* Mix it with liquid concrete and inject it into a salt dome

And then turn it into an Indian reservation. :-o
( Uranium tailings in the west.)
Again better than the current method.

* Sell it to China as a building material

Turn about's fair play. But seriously...

* 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.

The same could be argued for the plants themselves. Most were one-off
designs, modern inexpensive microprocessors and monitoring equipment
were either in their infancy or just around the corner. Huge cost
overruns during construction, marginal designs, short life spans,
expense of decommission, and public outcry over Three Mile Island and
Chernobyl all spelled the death of reactors build in the 60s and 70s.
And none have been slated since, while existing plants fell dormant.

I kept hoping for some positive results from the Tokamak fusion
reactors, but that fizzled - I think the Russians got one to ~10%
efficiency before dropping the project as not cost effective.

I don't mind that we stopped development at that time, but with
advancing electronics, CAD and simulators, new research and
standardized designs that could be implemented at lower costs, it may
well be time to reconsider investing in development of a new age of
nuclear plants. Preferably something which produces waste with a much
shorter half-life however. Science has yet to produce a solution.

Coal is a nasty material to mine and burn, and cleaning the exhaust of
sulfur dioxide, mercury and particulates is marginal and expensive.
And as the TVA ash disaster of last year proves, no existing
technology is completely immune from waste disposal problems:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnJUSHpTm-E

After a 60 year history of 97% approval rates from local residents and
customers, gross mismanagement allowed the accumulation of this crap
in a retention "pond." 1 Billion gallons of toxic sludge (5.3 million
cubic yards of coal ash) flooded neighboring communities and ran
downstream to adjoining waterways. Nice!

(I can't believe no one mentioned this event in earlier discussions of
the TVA - did no one notice or did Santa bump it off the mainstream
news? I waited and waited...)

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.

I wouldn't hold my breath - unless near the stack of a 30 year old
reactor or coal plant. ;-)



Greg G.

J. Clarke said:

diggerop wrote:
....
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.... : )

Holy crap did _I_ ever go into the wrong field.

That's what I was thinking... Do they hire old farts over 50?
I've wanted to live in Oz for decades - just for a change of pace.


Greg G.

J. Clarke said:

Greg G. wrote:

.....
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.

If you mean the teacher's union and not the Federal arts supporter, they've
been suspect forever. I remember when I was a kid, the day before they went
on strike, my algebra teacher told the class "we're striking to improve
education, not for more money".

I have acquaintances who are teachers and a good friend who is a
professor of microbiology so I've not put them in the same class as
the cock worker's union.

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.

I've done myself out of a couple of good paying jobs with good benefits that
way. Also missed out on a couple of good women.

Big Sigh Ditto.
But at least I still have my finger to keep me warm.


Greg G.

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

Greg G. wrote:

I also don't want to live at the horrific densities of Hong Kong - or
New York City, for that matter. Good God, man, do you not realize the
problems China (and others) have faced concerning overpopulation?

People /do/ seem to huddle together.

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

I hear yah,
I can't imagine living in sight of another dwelling, unfortunatley in the
winter, if I look hard enough I can see someone elses security light
and sometimes hear their dog bark. It doesn't qualify for rural anymore.

It makes a person self reliant, my truck is the fastest ambulance around,
there are no police prowling around and if you start a fire you better be
equipped to put it out.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

Oh, I perfer Elijah Craig.

basilsik

On Nov 11, 1:00*pm, Greg wrote:
HeyBub said:

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.

Not a good long term plan for material with a half-life of 713 million
years. There is somewhere around 60,000 metric tons of the ****, and
we still have no plans for dealing with it long term. We import 85% of
the uranium used - 42% from those crazy Canuckistanians alone - and
fuel imports fostered a $370 million trade deficit in 2000 alone.

If it has a half-life of 713M years, we don't need to do anything with
it. It's not at all dangerous. It's the short-lived isotopes that
will kill. Danger from radioactivity is (more or less) inversely
proportional to half-life.


But we have several plans:

* Shoot the **** into the sun

I've argued that for years - what better place? *The cost factor at
this point makes it prohibitive. Same as collecting He3 from the moon.
Where there's a will, and a profit, however...

For half the cost of sending it into the sun, it could be sent into an
escape trajectory. Look how much money the Demonicrats could save!

* Encapsulate it in molten glass and sink it in the Mariannas Trench

The French do it. *Expensive and not my favorite but better than what
we are currently doing which is allowing much of it to stand inside
the plants in shallow steel wells. Talk about a security risk...

Blame the Demonicrats.

* Mix it with liquid concrete and inject it into a salt dome

And then turn it into an Indian reservation. *:-o
*( Uranium tailings in the west.)
Again better than the current method.

* Sell it to China as a building material

Turn about's fair play. But seriously...

They'd just make kid's toys for McDonalds out of it and send it back.

* 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.

The same could be argued for the plants themselves. Most were one-off
designs, modern inexpensive microprocessors and monitoring equipment
were either in their infancy or just around the corner. *Huge cost

It's my understanding that digital controls specifically not allowed.

overruns during construction, marginal designs, short life spans,

Unions.

expense of decommission, and public outcry over Three Mile Island and
Chernobyl all spelled the death of reactors build in the 60s and 70s.

They were dead in the US *long* before Chernobyl, and they're not dead
anywhere else, so that's a red herring.

And none have been slated since, while existing plants fell dormant.

How about the decommissioning of Shoreham. There was another
government boondoggle. Let it go hot, generate zero power, then pay
billion$ to shut it down.

I kept hoping for some positive results from the Tokamak fusion
reactors, but that fizzled - I think the Russians got one to ~10%
efficiency before dropping the project as not cost effective.

Not going to happen.

I don't mind that we stopped development at that time, but with
advancing electronics, CAD and simulators, new research and
standardized designs that could be implemented at lower costs, it may
well be time to reconsider investing in development of a new age of
nuclear plants. Preferably something which produces waste with a much
shorter half-life however. *Science has yet to produce a solution.

Shorter half-life == hotter. There are all sorts of *good*
alternatives, but the better the alternative the more politically
incorrect it is. The problem isn't energy, it's politics.

Coal is a nasty material to mine and burn, and cleaning the exhaust of
sulfur dioxide, mercury and particulates is marginal and expensive.
And as the TVA ash disaster of last year proves, no existing
technology is completely immune from waste disposal problems:

....and only a small part of the problem. Coal plants put out a few
thousand times the radioactivity into the environment than a nuke
plant does.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XnJUSHpTm-E

After a 60 year history of 97% approval rates from local residents and
customers, gross mismanagement allowed the accumulation of this crap
in a retention "pond." *1 Billion gallons of toxic sludge (5.3 million
cubic yards of coal ash) flooded neighboring communities and ran
downstream to adjoining waterways. *Nice!

(I can't believe no one mentioned this event in earlier discussions of
the TVA - did no one notice or did Santa bump it off the mainstream
news? *I waited and waited...)

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.

I wouldn't hold my breath - unless near the stack of a 30 year old
reactor or coal plant. *;-)

Greg G.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...


Holy crap did _I_ ever go into the wrong field.


diggerop


Heh. Yes, it's been really good. Ironic too, when many plant operators earn
more than the engineers, surveyors and geologists that control the pits.
It's all about supply and demand.
Huge demand for materials (think China) huge resources in the ground and a
seemingly perpetual shortage of skilled operators to fill that demand.

Those figures are the best of it, it's fair to say, but almost anyone
working as an operator in mining over here would get no less than $110,000
per year. Some rosters are not as good at some sites, two on and one off is
more common.

Those of us that have been doing it for many years and can produce, get
offered top dollar. After I stopped contracting in my own right, I went back
to machine operating. My sig comes from that more recent period.
The top operating job is as a production excavator operator. In mining over
here, we call them diggers. Therefore, I was a "diggeroperator," which the
crew traditionally shorten to "diggerop."

It's not all beer and skittles. Production digger operators in high
production outfits generally only stop for a break once in a 12 hour shift,
while the machine is being fuelled. Responsibility is huge.
Pressure to perform is unrelenting. Competition between operators to be the
"top gun" is never ending. (That's the fun part.)

The job involves sitting on a a piece of machinery that is the most
technologically advanced available at the time, weighing anywhere from 120
tonnes to 4 or 500 tons in big mines. They cost several million dollars each
for the small ones and truly obscene amounts for the big machines. It
operates 24 hours a day, 365 days a year. Always. Christmas day included.
Breakdowns, servicing, accidents or pit closures due to bad weather are the
only exceptions. For as much of that shift as possible, that machine must
keep loading at the maximum rate it is capable of. Iron ore is the easiest
to produce from, but even that involves knowing exactly what is ore, what
grade of ore and where to send the truck once it is loaded. Waste, the
material that is not suitable for processing, is sent to a separate
location. Getting them mixed up, even for a short period can cost thousands
or even millions. (Waste mistakenly sent to the ore dumps can contaminate
the ore enough that the whole stockpile has to be condemned and removed.
That could result in the loss of several thousand tons of high grade ore.)
Digging gold ore is even more critical.

Damage to the machine or the truck being loaded is also the operator's
responsibility. A moments inattention can result in huge losses. (With the
cost of these things, not many mines have a spare machine available.) High
production is achieved by digging in exactly the right spot, filling the
bucket to maximum capacity (20 to 80 tons of ore) and then lifting and
swinging the bucket over the back of the truck waiting to be loaded, just
missing the side of the truck by a few inches, as hard and fast as that
machine will perform. For 12 hours. Nonstop. Misjudge that and production is
lost, or more seriously, the truck will be hit, resulting in damage,
possible serious injury to the truck operator and an inevitable accident
investigation. I equate it to a tennis player serving aces continuously for
12 hours, not once being allowed to hit the net. It requires that level of
concentration.

When I get my little health problem sorted, I'll go back to it if I can
: )

diggerop

Greg G. wrote:
J. Clarke said:

Greg G. wrote:

.....
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.

If you mean the teacher's union and not the Federal arts supporter,
they've been suspect forever. I remember when I was a kid, the day
before they went on strike, my algebra teacher told the class "we're
striking to improve education, not for more money".

I have acquaintances who are teachers and a good friend who is a
professor of microbiology so I've not put them in the same class as
the cock worker's union.

Ask your friends what they think of the union. Personally the only thing
they ever did for me was negotiate a pay cut.

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.

I've done myself out of a couple of good paying jobs with good
benefits that way. Also missed out on a couple of good women.

Big Sigh Ditto.
But at least I still have my finger to keep me warm.

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

Holy crap did _I_ ever go into the wrong field.

That's what I was thinking... Do they hire old farts over 50?
I've wanted to live in Oz for decades - just for a change of pace.




Yes they do. Standard entry path without prior skills is as a haulpak
operator. (Dumptruck weighing anywhere between 100 and 240 tons empty and
185 and 480 tons loaded.)
Need to be fit and healthy. Need to be able to cope with working a week of
12 hour days followed by a week of 12 hour nights. Need to be able to do as
you are told. It gets *really, really* mind numbingly boring. Lots of people
try it and can't hack it for a variety of reasons.

Not easy for older people without prior mining experience to get in when
things are static, but the whole industry, gold, nickel and iron ore along
with huge new natural gas developments is gathering pace for what they are
saying is an even bigger boom than the last. We don't have the people to
cope with that, so we'll train new ones. One of the main qualifications when
there are huge labour shortages is having a heartbeat. : )
One of our more common sources of operators has traditionally been Kiwi's,
but the *******s are already all over here now. (I hope the last one to
leave NZ remembered to turn the lights out : )

diggerop

basilisk said:

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

Greg G. wrote:

I also don't want to live at the horrific densities of Hong Kong - or
New York City, for that matter. Good God, man, do you not realize the
problems China (and others) have faced concerning overpopulation?

People /do/ seem to huddle together.

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

I hear yah,
I can't imagine living in sight of another dwelling, unfortunatley in the
winter, if I look hard enough I can see someone elses security light
and sometimes hear their dog bark. It doesn't qualify for rural anymore.

I have and do, but not by choice. Economies and such...
Prefer to see stars and critters, not police choppers, gray air, and
stray bullets. Run the tablesaw at 4:00AM? Cut up bowl blanks at
6:00am? Play music at 1:00AM? No worries - no complaints.

It makes a person self reliant, my truck is the fastest ambulance around,
there are no police prowling around and if you start a fire you better be
equipped to put it out.

Self-reliant - Ha! The city dwellers I know here aren't much help
anyway - assuming they show when you mention installing a transmission
or humping a stack of shingles. But who do they call when their car
breaks down? Last 5'2" girlfriend was handier than the guys I know.
If it weren't for a hoist/chain lift and a strong back nothing would
get done. A friend got married years back and I suggested replacing
rusty old galvanized plumbing in his house as a wedding gift - they
showed in slacks and dress shirts and drank beer while me and an old
one legged Marine did the work. And I was a 5'10", 145lb geek.

I wouldn't have it any other way.

Oh, I perfer Elijah Craig.

Not tried it, but you've got three years on Knob Creek - and it's hard
enough to find. Wild Turkey and Makers Mark are the most common in
these parts. (Plus all the gaud-awful cheap stuff.) Any small batch
12 year old named after a southern Baptist preacher has to be tried.
I'm heading down to the package store now. Just for a taste.


Greg G.

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:49:13 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

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.


From USA Today:

"By 56%-33%, those surveyed endorse the idea of enacting major health
care changes this year. Just one in four say it's not important to them.

When it comes to financing the costs, six of 10 favor the idea of
requiring employers to provide health insurance for their workers or pay
a fee instead. Increasing income taxes on upper-income Americans, an
approach backed by House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.,
is endorsed by 58%. Just over half support taxing sugary soft drinks."

Now where do you get "a solid majority opposing it"?

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:53:24 +0800, diggerop wrote:

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

Damm it Digger, every time someone posts a rant, you dazzle'em with facts
- that's just not fair :-)

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
om...
On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:49:13 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

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.


From USA Today:

"By 56%-33%, those surveyed endorse the idea of enacting major health
care changes this year. Just one in four say it's not important to them.

When it comes to financing the costs, six of 10 favor the idea of
requiring employers to provide health insurance for their workers or pay
a fee instead. Increasing income taxes on upper-income Americans, an
approach backed by House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.,
is endorsed by 58%. Just over half support taxing sugary soft drinks."

it's all in the phrasing of the questions. you can read this as

"do you want health insurance if it doesn't come out of your paycheck and
someone else is going to pay for it?"

heck, in my area, there is currently plans for a strike against 2 major
supermarket chains simply because the contract presented to the union is
identical to the one they are working under except that workers would have
to pay $5/paycheck for health insurance (currently their cost is $0, with
copays of $0).

Now where do you get "a solid majority opposing it"?

regards,
charlie
phoenix, az

"Larry Blanchard" wrote in message
om...
On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 16:53:24 +0800, diggerop wrote:

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

Damm it Digger, every time someone posts a rant, you dazzle'em with facts
- that's just not fair :-)

--
Intelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw


Heh. Anyone opens their mouth becomes fair game. (Me included.)
Too much time on my hands is the problem. Sitting in this chair for 4 x 1
hour periods a day having treatment leaves me with nothing better to do than
bother other unsuspecting decent folk on the wreck. Messes up the momentum
in the woodworking dept as well.
The good news is that it's all working well and I will soon go onto a
nocturnal treatment regime that will let me keep normal hours and most
likely allow me to rejoin the workforce.

diggerop

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

Holy crap did _I_ ever go into the wrong field.

That's what I was thinking... Do they hire old farts over 50?
I've wanted to live in Oz for decades - just for a change of pace.




Yes they do. Standard entry path without prior skills is as a haulpak
operator. (Dumptruck weighing anywhere between 100 and 240 tons empty
and 185 and 480 tons loaded.)

Always wanted to drive one of those things.

Need to be fit and healthy.

Need to get back in shape--if I can I might just apply for this.

Need to be able to cope with working a
week of 12 hour days followed by a week of 12 hour nights.

Actually that's not too bad for me--sometimes I think I'm a Martian with a
25 hour biological clock.

Need to be
able to do as you are told.

Now that's been a problem for me, but mostly in an office setting where I
was supposed to be a decision maker and others with less information would
overrule me.

It gets *really, really* mind numbingly
boring.

That actually appeals a bit.

Lots of people try it and can't hack it for a variety of
reasons.

Not easy for older people without prior mining experience to get in
when things are static, but the whole industry, gold, nickel and iron
ore along with huge new natural gas developments is gathering pace
for what they are saying is an even bigger boom than the last. We
don't have the people to cope with that, so we'll train new ones. One
of the main qualifications when there are huge labour shortages is
having a heartbeat. : )
One of our more common sources of operators has traditionally been
Kiwi's, but the *******s are already all over here now. (I hope the
last one to leave NZ remembered to turn the lights out : )

diggerop

On Wed, 11 Nov 2009 11:41:17 -0600, Tim Daneliuk
wrote:

I'll ask it again. Why do you not type about woodworking?
Work to date: http://www.tundraware.com/Woodworking/
Nothing new to report.

Dodgy reply. No one can actually confirm those are pictures of your
projects. Try actually talking about them and demonstrating some
knowledge.

"J. Clarke" wrote in message
...

Always wanted to drive one of those things.

Need to be fit and healthy.

Need to get back in shape--if I can I might just apply for this.

Need to be able to cope with working a
week of 12 hour days followed by a week of 12 hour nights.

Actually that's not too bad for me--sometimes I think I'm a Martian with a
25 hour biological clock.

Need to be
able to do as you are told.

Now that's been a problem for me, but mostly in an office setting where I
was supposed to be a decision maker and others with less information would
overrule me.

It gets *really, really* mind numbingly
boring.

That actually appeals a bit.


If you seriously want to, then I hope you succeed
In fairness, I should relate some of the other side of the coin.

Both mining and construction have been very good to me over the years, the
former driving the latter. Therein lies the problem. Mining is the main
driving force behind our strong economy.
(Basically, Australia is a great big quarry.) Whilst mining is booming, the
construction industry follows suit and the effect flows right through our
economy. It is also our Achilles heel. China has become our most important
customer for iron ore, the big money earner. As a result we are largely
dependant on the Chinese demand for our raw materials for our continued
growth. A slowing down of demand will have dramatic effects on our economy.
Not least because we have little to replace it with. Manufacturing here
struggles because of our tiny population and consequent small labour pool.
Who is going to want to work in a mundane city environment earning minimum
wages when the mining and construction industries are offering three times
the money? If China sneezes, Australia is going to catch a really bad cold.
Then we are really only left with agriculture for any large scale export
earnings.

Secondly, it can be a very tough environment to be in mentally. Newcomers to
the industry can very often find it difficult to assimilate. Aussies are by
nature fairly open gregarious people. When we go mining, there seems to be a
transformation. There are some very aggressive people in mining. Perhaps
because it is a pressure driven environment, it attracts a disproportionate
number of aggressive, competitive types. (Of which I'm probably one.)

Thirdly, there is no job security whatsoever. If a mine has to close,
because of falling prices or the ore-body is exhausted, then everyone loses
their jobs. This happens more frequently with gold and nickel mines, which
results in a flood of experienced miners looking for work at the iron ore
mines. A precarious existance, at times.

I like it because I'm a risk taker. In spite of several of the mines I have
worked on over the years closing down, I've always been lucky enough to find
work. Not so for everyone.

diggerop

diggerop wrote:

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
news

.... snip

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.



... and herein lies the heart of the issue. The statists often use the
argument that the United States is the only industrialized country in the
world that does not have socialized medicine and therefore we should get
with it and join the rest of the industrialized, free and oppressed world
in implementing it as well. I would turn that around and state that the
United States is the only industrialized country in the world that has a
free market in health care with which 87% of its citizens are satisfied
with their health care. If elements of the remaining 13% are so intent on
the need for a socialized system and feel so strongly that socialized
medicine is so critical, I would suggest that they leave the remaining 87%
alone and find one of the other industrialized countries with socialized
medicine, there are enough that they can pick the strength of flavor of
socialism they desire and, along with their wealth and skills emigrate to
that country where they can enjoy the benefits of the socialized health
care system they so crave. I am sure that any of those countries would be
more than happy to have productive, useful people add to their GDP. Why is
it that people want to take away free choice from the only country that
still has it?


.... snip of Australian medical advances

Very good, although I think you might get some pushback on the penicillin
credits -- Fleming of England discovered it and Florey's work was achieved
at Oxford. I would also note that a significant number of those
breakthroughs seem to have come before your 20 years ago comment about the
start of socialized medicine.


--

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

Rob Leatham

Larry Blanchard wrote:

On Tue, 10 Nov 2009 22:49:13 -0700, Mark & Juanita wrote:

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.


From USA Today:

"By 56%-33%, those surveyed endorse the idea of enacting major health
care changes this year. Just one in four say it's not important to them.

When it comes to financing the costs, six of 10 favor the idea of
requiring employers to provide health insurance for their workers or pay
a fee instead. Increasing income taxes on upper-income Americans, an
approach backed by House Ways and Means Chairman Charles Rangel, D-N.Y.,
is endorsed by 58%. Just over half support taxing sugary soft drinks."

Now where do you get "a solid majority opposing it"?

From the ultra-conservative CNN:
http://politicalticker.blogs.cnn.com/2009/11/06/cnn-poll-public-wants-congress-to-keep-working-on-health-care/
45% support / 53% oppose. Now, given the fact that this was pretty much
Obama's margin of victory last November, and we were all told that this was
a "solid majority for Obama", I am going to apply that same standard and
say that 53% oppose is a solid majority *against* the health care bill.

Other polls:

From that bastion of conservatism -- the AP poll:
http://www.ap-gfkpoll.com/pdf/AP-GfK_Poll_11_10_09.pdf HC1 showing a 39%
for 45% against -- when you look at the internals, the poll was heavily
weighted toward democrats with 43% democrats, 31% republicans surveyed.
Even with a 12 point democrat advantage the poll couldn't get a favored
win.

Other polls:
http://www.pollster.com/polls/us/healthplan.php
Rasmussen: 45% favor/ 52% oppose
Pew 34% favor / 47% oppose

As far as the USA Today poll, the numbers you cite are from a July 14 poll
before people had a chance to really delve into the details of the [then]
1200 page monstrosity that has now grown to over 2000 pages.

--

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

Rob Leatham

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

"Mark & Juanita" wrote in message
news

... snip

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.



... and herein lies the heart of the issue. The statists often use the
argument that the United States is the only industrialized country in the
world that does not have socialized medicine and therefore we should get
with it and join the rest of the industrialized, free and oppressed world
in implementing it as well. I would turn that around and state that the
United States is the only industrialized country in the world that has a
free market in health care with which 87% of its citizens are satisfied
with their health care. If elements of the remaining 13% are so intent on
the need for a socialized system and feel so strongly that socialized
medicine is so critical, I would suggest that they leave the remaining 87%
alone and find one of the other industrialized countries with socialized
medicine,


That would solve that problem. (We'd probably be glad to have a lot of them,
as long as they weren't lawyers.) Then the ones that don't like gun
ownership could also leave, along with those who object to the US being
involved militarily in other countries. Then there's the ones that want
nuclear disarmament and the ones that want freedom of choice on abortion,
the ones who feel they are over-taxed and under represented, the ones who
want even less government than you have now. Left leaning media
organisations could also follow suit along with all the greenies. Last but
not least, every registered Democrat. You could have a really good cleanout.
Sounds like utopia to me.


there are enough that they can pick the strength of flavor of
socialism they desire and, along with their wealth and skills emigrate to
that country where they can enjoy the benefits of the socialized health
care system they so crave. I am sure that any of those countries would be
more than happy to have productive, useful people add to their GDP. Why
is
it that people want to take away free choice from the only country that
still has it?

I'm sympathetic to the freedom from government interference part of your
view, and also the unwillingness to give up freedom of choice. In a
nutshell, we managed to keep the parts that enable us to retain freedom of
choice. Government interference? It's their very nature and intended
purpose. - in all facets of life. Easily fixed if a majority want it that
way. Just abolish government and let your lives become an unfettered
free-for -all.

... snip of Australian medical advances

Very good, although I think you might get some pushback on the penicillin
credits -- Fleming of England discovered it and Florey's work was achieved
at Oxford. I would also note that a significant number of those
breakthroughs seem to have come before your 20 years ago comment about the
start of socialized medicine.


We've had socialised healthcare since 1975, in various guises. Instituted
by the left, almost immediately partially dismantled by the right when they
gained office in the same year, re-named Medicare and it's 1975 components
re-instated when Labor won office again in 1984. The 20 years I referred to
was about when I still had the view that it was no good and unworkable.
Subsequent to that, my view began to shift. For about the last ten years,
the federal government has also encouraged private health fund membership
via a tax rebate of up to 30% of premiums.
Interestingly, had it been an election issue at the time it was instituted
it would have been soundly defeated. It was unpopular on both sides of the
electorate. Also, like most people, we hate change, simply because it is
change.

We're a very parochial lot, us Aussies. We'll fiercely claim as our own
anyone who can in any way be called an Aussie. As an example, we've had
elite athletes who were born and raised overseas
were fostered and developed in their field overseas, who then emigrated to
Australia and took out citizenship. Any achievement will then be trumpeted
as "Australian Champion ........"
On the other side of the coin, one of this year's Nobel Laureates was a
woman, born in Australia but living in the US and now an American citizen.
Our local newspaper saw no problem in reporting her win with the headline
"Australian wins Nobel Prize" : )

diggerop