Doug Miller wrote:


And if the Court rules that Congress has no power to do that? What then?

Article III, Section 2. Clause 2. Last phrase. This gives the Congress
the
power to preclude the SC from addrssing an issue.

The First Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from enacting laws
that abridge freedom of speech or of the press. They did just that last
year. The Court ruled that they didn't.

You keep repeating that.

You state it as FACT and use it as a premise to show that the SC has done
something wrong.

YOU might believe they allowed a law that violated free speech - others do
too. But many others do not. And I haven't been convinced either way. Nor
am I a constitutional scholar - and I bet you aren't one either.

So while you want to be convinced of it, I'm sorry but I reject it as some
sort of starting point:

You haven't proven it and I'm not interested in that rathole debate.
Especially since neither one of us knows what we would be talking about.

Believe it if you want - that's certainly your right. but dont' state it as
an absolute fact that can be used in this discussion.

I stay with the view that SC decisions MAY NOT be perfect or correct, but
there's a mechanism to change the decision. Which is my whole point anyways
-
you ask what can you do? I say - Lots.



My point is: what do you do, what *can* you do, when the Court simply
*ignores* the plain language of the Constitution and makes whatever ruling
it damn pleases?

Again - you're making an assumption about that particular case. but *IF*
there is some ruling that is wrong, it is correctable in a lot of ways.


personal opinion about McCain-Feingold snipped



I suspect what you are suggesting with your "examples" is that *IF* the SC
decides to become dictatorial there's no recourse, under the Constitution,
to check them.

There's always impeachment... if we can find 67 Senators with enough
courage to do the right thing.

That's one of the zillions of ways I'm talking about.


And this is patently untrue. Among other things, Article II, Section I.

Excuse me? Article II, Section I deals with the manner of electing the
President.

Sorry my typing error - Article III, section I.

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , Doug Winterburn
wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 00:55:53 +0000, Doug Miller wrote:



My point is: what do you do, what *can* you do, when the Court simply
*ignores* the plain language of the Constitution and makes whatever
ruling it damn pleases?

As the SC did in obliterating the tenth amendment when they determined
that Social Security was OK as part of the commerce clause of the
constitution?

That would be another example, sure. It's time to throw all their damned
tea in the harbor again.


So if you believe this, and if you feel about it so strongly, why don't you
hire a lawyer and work it up the legal chain and get it taken care of?

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

In article , gregg wrote:

So if you believe this, and if you feel about it so strongly, why don't you
hire a lawyer and work it up the legal chain and get it taken care of?

Simply put, it's the old story: champagne tastes and a beer budget. If I ever
hit the lottery big (unlikely, since I don't buy tickets) that's on my list of
things to do.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

In article , gregg wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:


And if the Court rules that Congress has no power to do that? What then?

Article III, Section 2. Clause 2. Last phrase. This gives the Congress
the
power to preclude the SC from addrssing an issue.

The First Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from enacting laws
that abridge freedom of speech or of the press. They did just that last
year. The Court ruled that they didn't.

You keep repeating that.

You keep failing to understand it.

You state it as FACT and use it as a premise to show that the SC has done
something wrong.

It IS a fact that the McCain-Feingold law prohibits certain types of political
advertising within certain time frames preceding elections.

YOU might believe they allowed a law that violated free speech - others do
too. But many others do not. And I haven't been convinced either way. Nor
am I a constitutional scholar - and I bet you aren't one either.

It's not necessary to be a constitutional scholar to understand the meaning of
"Congress shall make no law...". [Personally, I kinda wish they had stopped
right there, but that's another discussion.] It requires only the ability to
read and comprehend the English language.

So while you want to be convinced of it, I'm sorry but I reject it as some
sort of starting point:

Read the law.

You haven't proven it and I'm not interested in that rathole debate.
Especially since neither one of us knows what we would be talking about.

Speak for yourself.

Believe it if you want - that's certainly your right. but dont' state it as
an absolute fact that can be used in this discussion.

Read the law. It IS a fact, whether you know it or not.

personal opinion about McCain-Feingold snipped

It's not opinion, it's fact that that law prohibits certain types of
advertising during certain time periods.


--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , gregg
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:


And if the Court rules that Congress has no power to do that? What
then?

Article III, Section 2. Clause 2. Last phrase. This gives the Congress
the
power to preclude the SC from addrssing an issue.

The First Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from enacting laws
that abridge freedom of speech or of the press. They did just that last
year. The Court ruled that they didn't.

You keep repeating that.

You keep failing to understand it.

Wrong. I keep refusing to:

1) accept your opinion as fact

2) get into a debate about that particular law.


You state it as FACT and use it as a premise to show that the SC has done
something wrong.

It IS a fact that the McCain-Feingold law prohibits certain types of
political advertising within certain time frames preceding elections.

But is is NOT a fact that it's unconstitutional. It's merely your opinion.
I daresay your uneducated (from the standpoint of being a Constitutional
scholar) opinion.

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that all sorts of speech is limited by
law.


YOU might believe they allowed a law that violated free speech - others do
too. But many others do not. And I haven't been convinced either way. Nor
am I a constitutional scholar - and I bet you aren't one either.

It's not necessary to be a constitutional scholar to understand the
meaning of "Congress shall make no law...".

Except that since there are many kinds of prohibited speech, it DOES take a
constitutional scholar to decide if one particular law is a violation of
the first amendment.

And you ain't it... again, you are entitled and welcome to your opinion.
But I don't consider yoor opinion as necessarily true.

And as is often the case you stop short in quoting the amendment. Don't
forget the word "abridging". You have to show that the law abridges speech
in a serious way.

And that's s close as I'm getting to a debate about the M-F law.

[Personally, I kinda wish they
had stopped right there, but that's another discussion.] It requires only
the ability to read and comprehend the English language.

Sorry. You are simply, totally, wrong about that.


So while you want to be convinced of it, I'm sorry but I reject it as
some
sort of starting point:

Read the law.

You are not getting it. You continue to miss the point.


You haven't proven it and I'm not interested in that rathole debate.
Especially since neither one of us knows what we would be talking about.

Speak for yourself.

Well tell us, what training in Constitutional Law do you have? formal
training?

I have none.


Believe it if you want - that's certainly your right. but dont' state it
as an absolute fact that can be used in this discussion.

Read the law. It IS a fact, whether you know it or not.

Horse Hockey (see above)


personal opinion about McCain-Feingold snipped

It's not opinion, it's fact that that law prohibits certain types of
advertising during certain time periods.

Beating a dead horse..see above. That's simply NOT enough to show it's
unconstitutional. it MAYt turn out to be, but your opinion is no proof.

Again, I wish to address ONE point you made:

that if the SC makes an unconstitutional decision, that we are powerless to
fix that. That they are unstoppable if they wish to be dictatorial.

you are uttery, simply, completely wrong on that and you admitted it
yourself (when you suggested impeachment).

a debate about M-F belongs somewhere else and can be done without me.

cheers,


--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , gregg
wrote:

So if you believe this, and if you feel about it so strongly, why don't
you
hire a lawyer and work it up the legal chain and get it taken care of?

Simply put, it's the old story: champagne tastes and a beer budget. If I
ever hit the lottery big (unlikely, since I don't buy tickets) that's on
my list of things to do.


Uh huh. Yeah right. You could always start a web page, gather money, get
other people to join in the suit etc.

You fear your constitutional rights are in serious jeopardy..right?



--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 18:02:15 -0500, gregg wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , gregg
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:


And if the Court rules that Congress has no power to do that? What
then?

Article III, Section 2. Clause 2. Last phrase. This gives the Congress
the
power to preclude the SC from addrssing an issue.

The First Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from enacting laws
that abridge freedom of speech or of the press. They did just that last
year. The Court ruled that they didn't.

You keep repeating that.

You keep failing to understand it.

Wrong. I keep refusing to:

1) accept your opinion as fact

Where is the opinion? The facts a
1. The first amendment states very clearly, "Congress shall make no law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the right
of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a
redress of grievances.
2. Congress passed a law, McCaine/Feingold, that prohibits the airing of
political ads x number of days prior to an election unless those ads are
placed by the candidates themselves or are news or opinions expressed by
journalists who are members of the press.
3. What (2) says is that you, as a citizen, or group of citizens banding
together, cannot buy airtime to air a commercial that would allow you to
express a political opinion regarding those running for office a certain
number of days before an election.
4. What (3) says is that your freedom of speech has been abridged because
5. The candidates for election are able to buy airtime
6. The press is allowed to either report news or express opinions before
the election
7. you, part of "the People" are *not* allowed to even buy airtime to
express your opinion


2) get into a debate about that particular law.


Which is especially frightening. One does not have to be a
constitutionsal scholar to understand what this law does or how it abridges
the constitution. A person with even a modicum of history realizes that
the very ads that McCain-Feingold prohibit are at the heart of the kinds of
speech the founding fathers were trying to protect. The first amendment
wasn't written so that somebody in the 21'st century could download
pictures of naked women without fear of the law all in the name of "free
speech", or so that some deranged artist could urinate in a jar and
desecrate a religious symbol in the name of "free speech" The first
amendment was written to assure that the government did not become so
powerful that it could suppress the opinions of its citizens and prevent
them from expressing those opinions at any time, but especially during
elections. That particular law not only spits in the face of the first
amendment, it tears at the heart of why the constitution was originally
formulated.


You state it as FACT and use it as a premise to show that the SC has done
something wrong.

It IS a fact that the McCain-Feingold law prohibits certain types of
political advertising within certain time frames preceding elections.

But is is NOT a fact that it's unconstitutional. It's merely your opinion.
I daresay your uneducated (from the standpoint of being a Constitutional
scholar) opinion.


When one believes that a constitutional scholar is required to interpret
that which is expressed in plain English, the uneducated opinion is not
coming from the person interpreting the plain English phrase.

Take a look at the Supreme Court decision, read the opinions, both
supporting, but especially the dissenting opinions. It's pretty obvious
who the real constitutional scholars are (hint -- it wasn't the supporting
justices -- *they* were expressing opinion, not fact). Scalia's dissent is
particularly well expressed.


I'm sure I don't have to tell you that all sorts of speech is limited by
law.


Yeah, yeah, the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" chestnut. By
allowing McCaine Feingold to pass that test, there is *no* law suppressing
free speech that could possibly be found to be in violation of the first
amendment.


... snip


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita wrote:

On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 18:02:15 -0500, gregg wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , gregg
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:


And if the Court rules that Congress has no power to do that? What
then?

Article III, Section 2. Clause 2. Last phrase. This gives the
Congress the
power to preclude the SC from addrssing an issue.

The First Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from enacting laws
that abridge freedom of speech or of the press. They did just that
last year. The Court ruled that they didn't.

You keep repeating that.

You keep failing to understand it.

Wrong. I keep refusing to:

1) accept your opinion as fact

Where is the opinion? The facts a

The opinion is, well, yours and Doug's. But the larger point is that you
either (probably) haven't read my posts on this, or are being purposefully
obtuse, because I've stated several times that I don't KNOW if the law in
unconstitutional or not. I've also stated that it COULD be.

But that my ONLY point is that Doug was saying the SC could not be stopped
if they wanted to be dictatorial and I disagreed.

My secondary point was that whether or not any particular finding of the SC
is right or wrong is irrelevant to that point, and that I have no desire to
debate that law's constitutionality.


Your 7 point analysis snipped.



2) get into a debate about that particular law.


Which is especially frightening. One does not have to be a
constitutionsal scholar to understand what this law does or how it
abridges
the constitution.

Sorry I disagree. But as you see above, that's irrelevant to my point.


But is is NOT a fact that it's unconstitutional. It's merely your
opinion.
I daresay your uneducated (from the standpoint of being a Constitutional
scholar) opinion.


When one believes that a constitutional scholar is required to interpret
that which is expressed in plain English, the uneducated opinion is not
coming from the person interpreting the plain English phrase.

No it's coming from someone (you)who thinks they know everything about the
law and how it's supposed to be interpreted and cannot be wrong.

I'm sure I don't have to tell you that all sorts of speech is limited by
law.


Yeah, yeah, the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" chestnut.

Happens to be a fine example.

By
allowing McCaine Feingold to pass that test, there is *no* law suppressing
free speech that could possibly be found to be in violation of the first
amendment.

You keep harping on a point I'm not debating. Enjoy yourself.



--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm

Note corssposting and follow-ups.

Mark & Juanita wrote:
On Tue, 01 Feb 2005 18:02:15 -0500, gregg
wrote:

Doug Miller wrote:

In article , gregg
wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:


And if the Court rules that Congress has no power to do that?
What
then?

Article III, Section 2. Clause 2. Last phrase. This gives the
Congress
the
power to preclude the SC from addrssing an issue.

The First Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from
enacting laws
that abridge freedom of speech or of the press. They did just
that last
year. The Court ruled that they didn't.

You keep repeating that.

You keep failing to understand it.

Wrong. I keep refusing to:

1) accept your opinion as fact

Where is the opinion? The facts a
1. The first amendment states very clearly, "Congress shall make no
law
respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free
exercise
thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or the
right
of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government
for a
redress of grievances.
2. Congress passed a law, McCaine/Feingold, that prohibits the airing
of
political ads x number of days prior to an election unless those ads
are
placed by the candidates themselves or are news or opinions
expressed by
journalists who are members of the press.
3. What (2) says is that you, as a citizen, or group of citizens
banding
together, cannot buy airtime to air a commercial that would allow you
to
express a political opinion regarding those running for office a
certain
number of days before an election.
4. What (3) says is that your freedom of speech has been abridged
because
5. The candidates for election are able to buy airtime
6. The press is allowed to either report news or express opinions
before
the election
7. you, part of "the People" are *not* allowed to even buy airtime to
express your opinion


Correct.


2) get into a debate about that particular law.


Which is especially frightening. One does not have to be a
constitutionsal scholar to understand what this law does or how it
abridges
the constitution. A person with even a modicum of history realizes
that
the very ads that McCain-Feingold prohibit are at the heart of the
kinds of
speech the founding fathers were trying to protect.

Correct.


The first amendment
wasn't written so that somebody in the 21'st century could download
pictures of naked women without fear of the law all in the name of
"free
speech", or so that some deranged artist could urinate in a jar and
desecrate a religious symbol in the name of "free speech"

Arguable, but not really at issue here.

The first
amendment was written to assure that the government did not become so
powerful that it could suppress the opinions of its citizens and
prevent
them from expressing those opinions at any time, but especially
during
elections. That particular law not only spits in the face of the
first
amendment, it tears at the heart of why the constitution was
originally
formulated.


Correct.


You state it as FACT and use it as a premise to show that the SC
has done
something wrong.

It IS a fact that the McCain-Feingold law prohibits certain types
of
political advertising within certain time frames preceding
elections.

But is is NOT a fact that it's unconstitutional. It's merely your
opinion.
I daresay your uneducated (from the standpoint of being a
Constitutional
scholar) opinion.


When one believes that a constitutional scholar is required to
interpret
that which is expressed in plain English, the uneducated opinion is
not
coming from the person interpreting the plain English phrase.

Agreed. McCain Feingold prohibits persons from publishing their
opinions about politics. That is as plain a violation of the First
Amendment as one can imagine.


Take a look at the Supreme Court decision, read the opinions, both
supporting, but especially the dissenting opinions. It's pretty
obvious
who the real constitutional scholars are (hint -- it wasn't the
supporting
justices -- *they* were expressing opinion, not fact). Scalia's
dissent is
particularly well expressed.

Online, perhpas?



I'm sure I don't have to tell you that all sorts of speech is
limited by
law.


Yeah, yeah, the "yelling fire in a crowded theatre" chestnut. By
allowing McCaine Feingold to pass that test, there is *no* law
suppressing
free speech that could possibly be found to be in violation of the
first
amendment.


Pretty much true as well. One wonders if gregg considers the
dissenters on the USSC to be ignorant of Constitutional Law.

--

FF

Doug Miller wrote:

: The First Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from enacting laws that
: abridge freedom of speech or of the press. They did just that last year. The
: Court ruled that they didn't.

: My point is: what do you do, what *can* you do, when the Court simply
: *ignores* the plain language of the Constitution and makes whatever ruling it
: damn pleases?


Hmmm. Where in the dictionary does it list a definition of the word
speech that defines it as "the act of making enormous cash contributions
to a political candidate by a corporation or union"? Can't seem to find
one that looks much like that.


-- Andy Barss

On 2 Feb 2005 14:36:40 -0800, wrote:

Note corssposting and follow-ups.


Noted and fixed.

Mark & Juanita wrote:

... snip

Take a look at the Supreme Court decision, read the opinions, both
supporting, but especially the dissenting opinions. It's pretty
obvious
who the real constitutional scholars are (hint -- it wasn't the
supporting
justices -- *they* were expressing opinion, not fact). Scalia's
dissent is
particularly well expressed.

Online, perhpas?


Do a google search for " mcconnell_fec.pdf ". I have it saved on my
local drive, but did download it when the ruling first came out.

.... snip


+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

gregg wrote:

: And this is patently untrue. Among other things, Article II, Section I.


Exactly right.


- Andy Barss

Doug Miller wrote:
: In article , gregg wrote:
:Doug Miller wrote:
:
: In article , gregg
: wrote:
:Doug Miller wrote:
:
:
: Now tell me what overrides the Supreme Court?
:
: When Congres precludes the Court from addressing an issue
:
: And if the Court rules that Congress has no power to do that? What then?
:
: Article III, Section 2. Clause 2. Last phrase. This gives the Congress the
:power to preclude the SC from addrssing an issue.

: The First Amendment specifically prohibits Congress from enacting laws that
: abridge freedom of speech or of the press. They did just that last year. The
: Court ruled that they didn't.

The court ruled that certain forms of monetary contributions to
politicians doesn't constitute free speech.


: There's not much subtlety in it: the law prohibits certain types of political
: advertising within certain time frames preceding an election.


Yup. So, e.g., GM can't pay a million dollars to endorse a politician,
say, GWB, who has promised them some mighty fine rewards if they do so.

This is not the constitutional notion of free speech by a member of the
press or an individual.



What type, what
: time frame, what purpose -- none of that matters. Amendment I flatly prohibits
: any restrictions of any sort

Actually, not true.

: When a later Court decides that an earlier Court was smoking dope (Dred
:Scott).


Interesting that neither Doug, nor Mark/Juanita has replied to this
point.

-- Andy Barss


Remember when republicans claimed to be for fiscal reponsibility?

Jeez, the good old days.

no spam wrote:
: The other day I heard a radio talk-show host state that "Liberalism is a
: mental disorder." I can't help but agree.


So, you're a dittohead, yes? Happily following the serial divorcer, drug
addict Rush Limbaugh down whatever path he decides to stagger, eh?

Have fun!


-- Andy Barss

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 05:22:43 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
wrote:

no spam wrote:
: The other day I heard a radio talk-show host state that "Liberalism is a
: mental disorder." I can't help but agree.


So, you're a dittohead, yes? Happily following the serial divorcer, drug
addict Rush Limbaugh down whatever path he decides to stagger, eh?

Have fun!


-- Andy Barss


Not the OP there Andy, but just FYI so you don't appear uninformed next
time you launch your anti-limbaugh vitriol -- it weren't Limbaugh who uses
that quote. It's a different talk show host, but I'll leave the
determination of which one as an exercise for the reader.





+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

The absence of accidents does not mean the presence of safety

Army General Richard Cody

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+

Mark & Juanita wrote:
: On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 05:22:43 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
: wrote:

:no spam wrote:
:: The other day I heard a radio talk-show host state that "Liberalism is a
:: mental disorder." I can't help but agree.
:
:
:So, you're a dittohead, yes? Happily following the serial divorcer, drug
:addict Rush Limbaugh down whatever path he decides to stagger, eh?
:
:Have fun!
:
:
: -- Andy Barss

Let me guess: Michael Weiner, who has a degree in biology, and who passes
himself off as Dr. Michael Savage, political expert.

A step even below Limbaugh in the grand scheme of things.


-- AB

In article , Andrew Barss wrote:
gregg wrote:

: And this is patently untrue. Among other things, Article II, Section I.


Exactly right.

Hey, Andy -- you didn't read the Constitution before you posted that, did you?
(Have you *ever* read it?)

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)

Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.

Mark & Juanita wrote:

On Thu, 3 Feb 2005 05:22:43 +0000 (UTC), Andrew Barss
wrote:

no spam wrote:
: The other day I heard a radio talk-show host state that "Liberalism is a
: mental disorder." I can't help but agree.


So, you're a dittohead, yes? Happily following the serial divorcer, drug
addict Rush Limbaugh down whatever path he decides to stagger, eh?

Have fun!


-- Andy Barss


Not the OP there Andy, but just FYI so you don't appear uninformed next
time you launch your anti-limbaugh vitriol -- it weren't Limbaugh who uses
that quote. It's a different talk show host, but I'll leave the
determination of which one as an exercise for the reader.


Let me guess:
'
The vaunted Jay Severin? ;^)

--
Saville

Replicas of 15th-19th century nautical navigational instruments:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/backstaffhome.html

Restoration of my 82 year old Herreshoff S-Boat sailboat:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/SBOATrestore.htm

Steambending FAQ with photos:

http://home.comcast.net/~saville/Steambend.htm