twitter: rec.crafts.metalworking - 24 new messages in 13 topics

rec.crafts.metalworking
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking?hl=en

rec.crafts.metalworking@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Where it all began.....
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/8f855abc4b77a41e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 19 2009 8:16 am
From: "John R. Carroll"

Ed Huntress wrote:
> "John R. Carroll" <nunya@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> news:TMidnaUz1N-ZZ7HWnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> axolotl wrote:
>>> On 12/19/2009 9:14 AM, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>
>>>> Yeah, some do. But most don't protest enough.
>>>
>>> Gentlemen,
>>>
>>> It is time to brush aside the clouds of discord floating over our
>>> little newsgroup.
>>> Let us consult the, or at least a, good book by Jeff Whitty with
>>> music and lyrics by Robert Lopez and Jeff Marx.
>>>
>>> <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BbQiSVeQwVQ>
>>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aIlJ8ZCs4jY&feature=related
>>
>
> Jeez, I miss Tom Lehrer.

"In German and English, I know how to count down, und I'm learning Chinese"
says Werner Von Braun.

LOL

--
John R. Carroll

==============================================================================
TOPIC: IR reflective thermometer
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/7bd3a8e5e7b557e0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 19 2009 8:24 am
From: Mark Rand

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 10:05:00 -0600, Ralph <henrichs_1@charter.net> wrote:

>I got a low end HF infrared unit & it reads about 10 deg + or_ Junk!
>

Unless you were always measuring a surface with the same emissivity as the
unit was calibrated with, I'd say your results were pretty good.

Mark Rand
RTFM

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What's your favorite "stuck bolt" removal process?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/290bd005950e57ff?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 19 2009 9:31 am
From: "Steve B"

"spaco" <spaco@baldwin-telecom.net> wrote in message
news:YeKdnQRaxYp1ZLHWnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@bright.net...
> The other day, a guy asked me how to remove stuck bolts. It was a general
> question; he didn't have a specific problem at that moment.
> As I started to answer him, I kept having to backtrack, explaining that
> a particular situation begets a particular range of solutions.
>
> That got me to thinking about how pervasive this problem is to modern man
> and how uncomfortable I am when I have to go about it.
>
> So, I put up a webpage that focuses on simply defining the problem:
>
> http://www.spaco.org/MachineShop/StuckFasteners.html
>
> Right now I am in the process of reviving an old Onan 6.5KW RV-style
> generator set and it has numerous stuck bolts. Some of them are steel
> bolts, about 1/4-20 in size, stuck into aluminum. There is lots of rust.
> In my googling around I have found references to "Bolt Extractor
> Sockets".
> Have any of you folks tried them and what have your experiences been?
>
> And, what is YOUR favorite "stuck bolt" removal process?
>
> Pete Stanaitis

PB Blaster. If that don't work, go to plan B. Let it sit for 24 hours, and
apply more than once if it looks like it evaporated off.

Steve

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 19 2009 8:47 am
From: "Pete C."

Steve B wrote:
>
> "spaco" <spaco@baldwin-telecom.net> wrote in message
> news:YeKdnQRaxYp1ZLHWnZ2dnUVZ_qOdnZ2d@bright.net...
> > The other day, a guy asked me how to remove stuck bolts. It was a general
> > question; he didn't have a specific problem at that moment.
> > As I started to answer him, I kept having to backtrack, explaining that
> > a particular situation begets a particular range of solutions.
> >
> > That got me to thinking about how pervasive this problem is to modern man
> > and how uncomfortable I am when I have to go about it.
> >
> > So, I put up a webpage that focuses on simply defining the problem:
> >
> > http://www.spaco.org/MachineShop/StuckFasteners.html
> >
> > Right now I am in the process of reviving an old Onan 6.5KW RV-style
> > generator set and it has numerous stuck bolts. Some of them are steel
> > bolts, about 1/4-20 in size, stuck into aluminum. There is lots of rust.
> > In my googling around I have found references to "Bolt Extractor
> > Sockets".
> > Have any of you folks tried them and what have your experiences been?
> >
> > And, what is YOUR favorite "stuck bolt" removal process?
> >
> > Pete Stanaitis
>
> PB Blaster. If that don't work, go to plan B. Let it sit for 24 hours, and
> apply more than once if it looks like it evaporated off.
>
> Steve

Kroil, soak time and heat.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT - How to Manufacture a Climate Consensus -- The East Anglia emails
are just the tip of the iceberg. I should know
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/87c09d00cb8a4132?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 19 2009 8:37 am
From: Joseph Gwinn

In article <4b2cf6af$0$4981$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
"Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote:

> "Buerste" <buerste@wowway.com> wrote in message
> news:OxZWm.51885$ZF3.19111@newsfe13.iad...
> >
> > "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
> > news:3pgoi5dapn89p1f44hohrkapv3vai7ttqk@4ax.com...
> >> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:00:35 -0500, the infamous Joseph Gwinn
> >> <joegwinn@comcast.net> scrawled the following:
> >>
> >>>More fallout from Climategate, as the implications sink in. The last
> >>>paragraph appears to be a shot across the EPA's bow, fortelling legal
> >>>action against the EPA.
> >>>
> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html>
> >>>
> >>>The Wall Street Journal, 17 December 2009. (Appeared in the 18 December
> >>>print issue.)
> >>
> >> Excellent article, Joe.
> >>
> >> --
> >
> > The trouble is that the climate idiots are too stupid to read the WSJ.

No Tom, they do read, but then only fume. But the WSJ is not expecting
to convince the people at Copenhagen.

> That's not the WSJ. That's an op-ed written by a guy who claims to have been
> the "state climatologist" of Virginia, but of whom Virginia says there's no
> such thing. The Global Climate Coalition, a carbon-producing industry front
> group, pulled back from supporting his claims because their internal review
> said that the data doesn't support what he said. That review was obtained
> through a court order. In one paper he co-authored, he "proved" that global
> warming wasn't happening by mixing up degrees with radians. <g>
>
> Before you get too excited, you might want to know more about Pat Michaels.
> He's a long-time skeptic, and apparently an honest one, but he's also a
> lonely voice. He actually agrees with the projections on human-induced
> global warming but he says it will be at the lowest end of the estimates. I
> checked his claim about the editorial board and it's apparently misleading;
> I have more checking to do.
>
> Anyway, you might want to know who's behind him. Here's a partial list of
> the people funding his work, either directly for the "research" or by paying
> him to speak:
>
> The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
> The Western Fuels Association
> North Carolina Coal Institute
> Pacific Research Institute (an industry front)
> Kentucky Coal Operators Association
> AMAX Energy Corporation
> Consolidation Coal Corporation
> Cincinnati Gas and Electric
> The National Aerosol Association
> Massie Coal Corporation
> Indiana Coal Mining Institute
> Arizona Electric Power Cooperative
> Virginia Petroleum Council
> Alabama Electric Power Cooperative
> World Coal Conference
> American Mining Congress
>
> And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
>
> The point is, Michaels is deeply dependent upon industry funding to support
> him. That doesn't automatically mean that he's a shill, but if he isn't,
> it's smart to be wary about the things he says.
>
> Of course, you know all about this stuff and have the science down pat, so
> you know who's right and who's not. d8-)

You forgot to mention that many (most?) of the studies Michaels
mentioned were funded by the American Petroleum Institute as well. This
was acknowledged in the articles, and is no secret.

However, saying that someone is funded by <hated entity> so we should
close our ears is an inherently ad hominem argument. It is also self
defeating, as sinners can speak the truth, and saints can be wrong, as
all are human. Nor do their motives matter, fair or foul.

And believers in a theory are unlikely to fund research that questions
that theory, so to get questioning research funded, one must go to those
entities that are at least agnostic on that theory, if not outright
disbelievers and critics. It has always been thus.

I think that the main long term outcome of Climategate is that we will
at last see the various arguments pro and con given the standard
scientific wire-brush scrubbing treatment. This will take a few years,
if history is any guide.

A likely immediate consequence is that politicians (who don't understand
science but do understand human foibles all too well) will step back,
thinking that if the science is really so good as they say, why did
these scientists feel the need to suppress dissenting opinions?

Joe Gwinn

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 19 2009 9:39 am
From: "Ed Huntress"

"Joseph Gwinn" <joegwinn@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:joegwinn-7B8818.11375219122009@news.giganews.com...
> In article <4b2cf6af$0$4981$607ed4bc@cv.net>,
> "Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>> "Buerste" <buerste@wowway.com> wrote in message
>> news:OxZWm.51885$ZF3.19111@newsfe13.iad...
>> >
>> > "Larry Jaques" <novalidaddress@di\/ersify.com> wrote in message
>> > news:3pgoi5dapn89p1f44hohrkapv3vai7ttqk@4ax.com...
>> >> On Fri, 18 Dec 2009 11:00:35 -0500, the infamous Joseph Gwinn
>> >> <joegwinn@comcast.net> scrawled the following:
>> >>
>> >>>More fallout from Climategate, as the implications sink in. The last
>> >>>paragraph appears to be a shot across the EPA's bow, fortelling legal
>> >>>action against the EPA.
>> >>>
>> <http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704398304574598230426037244.html>
>> >>>
>> >>>The Wall Street Journal, 17 December 2009. (Appeared in the 18
>> >>>December
>> >>>print issue.)
>> >>
>> >> Excellent article, Joe.
>> >>
>> >> --
>> >
>> > The trouble is that the climate idiots are too stupid to read the WSJ.
>
> No Tom, they do read, but then only fume. But the WSJ is not expecting
> to convince the people at Copenhagen.

The WSJ is not trying to "convince" anyone with their opinion pieces and
op-eds. Their purpose is to give voice to various opinions and to provoke
thought. That is, good ones are. The WSJ often just tries to be provocative
in those pages. That's their legacy from being regarded as a paper too dull
for mass audiences. You can trace it back to the 1950s, if you've worked in
journalism.

>
>
>> That's not the WSJ. That's an op-ed written by a guy who claims to have
>> been
>> the "state climatologist" of Virginia, but of whom Virginia says there's
>> no
>> such thing. The Global Climate Coalition, a carbon-producing industry
>> front
>> group, pulled back from supporting his claims because their internal
>> review
>> said that the data doesn't support what he said. That review was obtained
>> through a court order. In one paper he co-authored, he "proved" that
>> global
>> warming wasn't happening by mixing up degrees with radians. <g>
>>
>> Before you get too excited, you might want to know more about Pat
>> Michaels.
>> He's a long-time skeptic, and apparently an honest one, but he's also a
>> lonely voice. He actually agrees with the projections on human-induced
>> global warming but he says it will be at the lowest end of the estimates.
>> I
>> checked his claim about the editorial board and it's apparently
>> misleading;
>> I have more checking to do.
>>
>> Anyway, you might want to know who's behind him. Here's a partial list of
>> the people funding his work, either directly for the "research" or by
>> paying
>> him to speak:
>>
>> The Alliance of Automobile Manufacturers
>> The Western Fuels Association
>> North Carolina Coal Institute
>> Pacific Research Institute (an industry front)
>> Kentucky Coal Operators Association
>> AMAX Energy Corporation
>> Consolidation Coal Corporation
>> Cincinnati Gas and Electric
>> The National Aerosol Association
>> Massie Coal Corporation
>> Indiana Coal Mining Institute
>> Arizona Electric Power Cooperative
>> Virginia Petroleum Council
>> Alabama Electric Power Cooperative
>> World Coal Conference
>> American Mining Congress
>>
>> And that's just the tip of the iceberg.
>>
>> The point is, Michaels is deeply dependent upon industry funding to
>> support
>> him. That doesn't automatically mean that he's a shill, but if he isn't,
>> it's smart to be wary about the things he says.
>>
>> Of course, you know all about this stuff and have the science down pat,
>> so
>> you know who's right and who's not. d8-)
>
> You forgot to mention that many (most?) of the studies Michaels
> mentioned were funded by the American Petroleum Institute as well. This
> was acknowledged in the articles, and is no secret.

It's hardly a secret. I was suggesting that the entire force behind Michaels
is so uniform in its financial interest that you should be skeptical about
what he writes. That's the flip side of the skeptics' argument about the
funding for academic research that they claim leads to uniformity on the
global warming issue. It cuts both ways.

The fact is that Tom is just blowing smoke, which is what he does about half
the time. He has no idea about how "stupid" people are who don't read the
WSJ. I'm reasonably sure that he doesn't have a clue about the science. It
isn't a matter of who is stupid. It's a matter of who is so overconfident
and full of himself that he thinks he knows enough about global warming to
have an opinion worth the powder to blow it to hell. That's Tom, and Larry,
and the rest of the climatology four-flushers -- as well as many, but not
all, of those who support AGW.

>
> However, saying that someone is funded by <hated entity> so we should
> close our ears is an inherently ad hominem argument.

No it's not. It's being aware of what forces are informing a controversial
opinion. You have no way of judging Michaels' science, do you? Neither does
99.99% of the world's population. So you have to look behind his words, to
see if you can detect a biasing influence that should cause you to be
cautious. I made it quite clear that being funded by financial interests who
have a stake in debunking AGW does not necessarily make one a shill. It does
make one suspect, however. There is no reason to believe that he's a
reliable witness, given the stake he has in being antagonistic to AGW.

> It is also self
> defeating, as sinners can speak the truth, and saints can be wrong, as
> all are human. Nor do their motives matter, fair or foul.

If you believe that, you can believe anything. Your only guidance would be
your personal biases and self-interest. Come to think of it, that seems to
be the guiding interest of most of the skeptics, eh? And, with a caveat,
it's also true of many of the supporters. Neither group, on the whole,
understands the science.

>
> And believers in a theory are unlikely to fund research that questions
> that theory, so to get questioning research funded, one must go to those
> entities that are at least agnostic on that theory, if not outright
> disbelievers and critics. It has always been thus.

So you recognize that the knife cuts both ways. Since that's true, and since
all we have to go on is the matter of which experts we believe, what's your
guidance for believing what clearly is a minority view among expert
climatologists?

Don't claim I'm supporting either side. I do not understand enough of the
science to have an opinion. What *I* have to go on is the historical success
of majority views among scientists. That's not enough to form a "belief." It
is enough to place one's bets on red or black, if the wheel is being spun
and you have to make a choice. If you do it enough times you'll come out
ahead.

>
>
> I think that the main long term outcome of Climategate is that we will
> at last see the various arguments pro and con given the standard
> scientific wire-brush scrubbing treatment. This will take a few years,
> if history is any guide.

Maybe. I certainly hope so.

>
> A likely immediate consequence is that politicians (who don't understand
> science but do understand human foibles all too well) will step back,
> thinking that if the science is really so good as they say, why did
> these scientists feel the need to suppress dissenting opinions?
>
> Joe Gwinn

I have no such belief in the consequence. Politicians are in it for the
politics. If they get their funding from the coal industry and if their
constituents have been led by the nose to become skeptics, they'll oppose
the science. It's not going to be unequivocal, or even unarguable, until
most of us are dead. Well, until I'm dead, anyway. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

==============================================================================
TOPIC: And Another Wingnut Turns in His Balls -> was: Noted Climatologist
Sarah Palin Speaks
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/eec65e65482c1bb5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 19 2009 8:39 am
From: Winston_Smith

Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:45:15 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real@bogus.net> wrote:

>>Some more folks that get a government pay check to pass the party
>>line.
>
> IOW Science is WAY over the pointed little heads of wingers
>with tinfoil caps glued on.

Name calling instead of facts.

>>>Now, please feel free to show your chops and refute the science as
>>>described:
>>
>>Please show your chops and prove the science as described. That's
>>where the burden is.
>
> So see the science.

You can't prove a damn thing, huh? Hope and Faith are great girls.

> It's not like endless & clueless winger lies.

Well, there's always name calling for a leftist winger in a corner.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 19 2009 9:15 am
From: Aratzio

On Sat, 19 Dec 2009 09:39:58 -0700, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
Winston_Smith <not_real@bogus.net> got double secret probation for
writing:

>
>You can't prove a damn thing, huh? Hope and Faith are great girls.

The typical wingnut when faced with actual peer reviewed science:
1. Place fingers in ears or any other available orifice.
2. Scream at top of lungs "I CAN'T HEAR YOU"
3. Blame interlocutor for fingers blocking hearing.
4. Play victim card because educated people are meany elitists and
make fun of the "STUPID".
5. Repeat until convinced that science bad, ignorance good.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Faux & their proud teabaggng
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/e883bd2c67e987d2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 19 2009 8:42 am
From: Winston_Smith

Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 19:20:10 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real@bogus.net> wrote:
>>Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 19:07:15 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real@bogus.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> So you can pretty much follow the money and figure
>>>>out who did the deed.
>>>
>>>http://thinkprogress.org/2009/04/09/lobbyists-planning-teaparties/
>>
>>Left winger source.
>
> Truth hurts.
>
Leftist wingers lie.

>>>http://motherjones.com/environment/2009/12/dirty-dozen-climate-change-denial-08-freedomworks
>>
>>Left winger source.
>
> Truth hurts.

Leftist wingers lie.

>>God, you get more pathetic - and desperate - by each post.
>>
>>> "There's a sucker born every minute" is a phrase often credited to P.T. Barnum
>>
>>But correctly ascribed to socialist firm of Lenin, Trotsky and Obama.
>
> Wingers lie.

Truth hurts.

Are you starting to see how ridiculous your little circular arguments
are?

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 19 2009 9:20 am
From: Winston_Smith

Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:54:20 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real@bogus.net> wrote:
>>Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 20:00:48 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real@bogus.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>You notice how "global warming" has morphed to global "change".
>>>
>>> BS.
>>> Global warming causes changes.
>>> What did you expect?
>>
>>The trouble is the data shows flat or decreasing.
>
> Why don't you go find some *actual* data.

Why can't you tell us about it? It's supposedly all over the place.
But all you post are articles by true believers saying how they
believe the same things some other true believers wrote about what yet
some more true believers thought.
>
>>Depends on who measures it and how.
>
> Nope, though one military satellite had a calibration problem once IIRC.

A disclaimer without fact. Tell us why the people that look at the
same data and get different conclusions are wrong. Spare us your
usual tin foil escape.

And then maybe you can tell us why a lot of the data was destroyed.
All that's left is questionable conclusions. And then maybe you can
tell us why a lot of the data is hidden away even from legal
inquiries.

>>The leftist wing loons changed the word from
>>"warming" to "change". It covers whatever happens and you think you
>>can't get called out for lying.
>
> BS.

Why did you change it? Why did you do it just after the first
embarrassing indications that we are currently cooling? The leftist
wingers went from a specific description to a generic one as soon as
the first cracks appeared in their story.

Are we seeing BOTH man made heating and man made cooling at the same
time? Are they BOTH caused by the same thing? That's the story
you're telling us.

>>It ain't warming. It's cooling.
>
> ONLY when we get more ocean mixing I think ..

"I think"? Oh, wow, now there is a deep scientific statement that
should satisfy any leftist winger.

>more heat/energy goes there for a bit.
> That raises the background energy content of that heat sink for the
>future.

It's only cooling when it's not heating? Finally, you say something
that is probably true.

>>Just like it did in the 50s and many
>>times before that. You get your ass handed to you when you try to
>>defend "warming", so you just change the word so you can keep on
>>weaseling.
>
> I changed NO words.

Your ilk did. It's just part of the leftists massaging the mantra to
cover holes in their story.

>>Do you know ANY of your so called "climitologists" that don't depend
>>on government for their paycheck? One world socialists tell them the
>>agenda so we can all get scared and accept international government,
>>money, and control.
>
> Winger BS & lies.

The last refuge of a leftist winger in a corner - name calling with
zero facts and zero line of reasoning to offer.

>>Follow the money and you will find the motive and the perpetrators.
>
> Big coal & big oil for starters, right?

For a change you have stumbled into one single truth. There are many
groups with big bucks at stake. It's an all out war to see who gets
the cash and who gets pushed out.

>>> It's politics, not science <<<

You leftist wingers are, knowingly or in well-meant ignorance,
carrying the sword for the prophets. The rightist wingers are
carrying the swords for other prophets. Prophets don't like truth.
They like wingers to do the fighting so they can loot the common
treasury. Prophets like profits.

>>http://www.dailyfinance.com/2009/11/03/al-gore-the-worlds-first-carbon-billionaire/print/
>>Gore is poised to reap hundreds of millions from
>>investments in the companies that will benefit from the government's
>>increased emphasis on green technology. According to The New York
>>Times's John Broder, Gore could become the world's first "carbon
>>billionaire."
>
> Good for him !!

Only if you leftist wingers can make it so he gets his hands on the
treasury. You did it for the banksters. You did it for the war
mongers. I'll bet you will get Gore his cut of the pie too. And then
we all get to pay for it. Left, right, middle, one big happy,
over-taxed world. Gore gets nothing without government mandates,
regulation, and controls put in place.

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 19 2009 9:35 am
From: Winston_Smith

Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 18:45:41 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real@bogus.net> wrote:
>>Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 05 Dec 2009 20:00:48 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real@bogus.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>The climate is changing?
>>>>Well yes, it always has, always will.
>>>
>>> We are causing this very rapid change.
>>
>>It's happened before. Many times. Before there was evil fossil fuel
>>usage. Even before there was people.
>
> Over hundreds of thousands or millions of years for various reasons, none
>of which apply now.

Why? Has the universe changed so that none of those reasons could
possibly apply now?

>>> OTOH We depend on how things are now.
>>
>>Do you really think you can change the way the universe works?
>
> By denying the effects of greenhouse gasses?
> Does the universe or physics care about wingers
>& the lies they tell? Nope.

You are right. It does not care what lies you leftist wingers tell.
That's why other planets are heating too. Unless of course the
universe has evolved Martians complete with SUVs.

After Obama gets done with his war in Afghanistan and Pakistan and
Whosevernextistan, maybe he can build a space fleet to protect us from
the Martians when they come to steal "our" oil.

>>Of course you do. What's been happening over and over, what's been
>>happening on multiple planets, that is all the fault of evil mankind.
>
> Like producing all the added greenhouse gasses.

Greenhouse gasses? Like CO2? Stop breathing. Kill a leftist; plant
a tree.

>>You won't be happy until we kill ourselves off.
>
> Wingers keep working at it, right?

Yes, yes you do. There are lots of wingers on the left.

>>Then your socialist
>>agenda will be compete and you can die happy.
>
> IOW You are confused.

Perhaps IOW is confused; I'm not.

>>> 10 degrees more might not be a very good idea.
>>> 20 or 30 + might be even worse.
>>
>>And that is so far from the wildest fear mongering estimates that I
>>can only characterize your BS as, well ... BS.
>
> The usual stuff is in degrees C by 2100.
> What happens AFTER 2100?

A mini-ice age if history is any guide.

Alternately, peak fuel and we are all back to walking to work our
fields. And you leftists will be back to groveling in the soil for
your lunch instead of trying to save the world from facts.

>>>>Next they are going to fight continental drift. I hear some polar
>>>>bears are having to swim an extra 0.000000001 inch to get back to
>>>>their nests in the trees.
>>>
>>> What trees are in the polar ice regions?
>>> And their habitat is vanishing.

So is the American entrepreneurs habitat.

>>Hee, hee.
>
> OTOH A few Polar Bears are now adapting a bit to other diets.
> Perhaps Palin would like to meet them on a hungry day ....

Typical refuge of a leftist in a corner. No facts, no line of
reasoning - just attack. And a subject change attack at that.

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 19 2009 9:38 am
From: Winston_Smith

Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:47:49 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real@bogus.net> wrote:
>>Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>>Winston_Smith <not_real@bogus.net>
>>
>>>>You may want to look up my posts from when Bush was president. You
>>>>may be surprised to find out I'm anything but hard right. My critics
>>>>at the time called me, incorrectly, hard left.
>>>
>>>That was then, this is now. Please feel free to explain how dismissal
>>>of a source based solely upon your definition of their bias is not
>>>definitive of your own ideology.
>>
>>In other words you are going to pick what fits, what you like, and
>>ignore eight years of details you find embarrassing to address.
>>
>>Let me guess. You are a liberal?
>
> You don't have "eight years of embarrassing details".
>
> You really should find out what things are about before
>buying from Rush & Faux though.

Your ability to stand up and tell bold face lies is impressive.

Google me you fool. Put in m.s and Bush and you should come up with
lots of reading. Google me and Rush and you will find dozens of times
I said he was a fool.

Alternately, you can just keep on making up lies.

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 19 2009 9:45 am
From: Winston_Smith

Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:59:46 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real@bogus.net> wrote:
>>Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:

>>> <Snicker - utterly off the wall nutcases & liars>
>>
>>I thought you would speak more politely about Gore.
>
> ??
> You just found crazed (& paid for) winger lies.

Translation, anything that doesn't tell leftist winger lies.

You are left wing. You accuse everyone that doesn't parrot your stuff
of being right wing.

News flash for wingers of both flavors - there is a whole lot of
middle. We see you both as nuts.

And I for one am getting tired of the NeoCons calling me a left winger
and the GoreCons calling me a right winger. Sometimes for the very
same post.

It just proves that both wings are paranoid crazy. You have Bush "for
me or against me" thinking and you can only see "enemies" as the
extreme of the far distant camp. In this as in everything else, they
are both wrong. Dangerously wrong.

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 19 2009 9:51 am
From: Winston_Smith

Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>On Thu, 17 Dec 2009 18:56:48 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real@bogus.net> wrote:
>>Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>>On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 14:58:11 -0700, Winston_Smith <not_real@bogus.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>Unless you have some source to contradict the facts as stated rather
>>>>>than your childish knee jerk reaction?
>>>>
>>>>Another ad hominid attack. Why can't leftist wingers accept there are
>>>>more opinions in the world than the ones they like at the moment?
>>>
>>> Show us your magical faries & tinfoil hat.
>>
>>It took you seven posts to respond to one????
>
> For wingers keep it simple. Use baby talk if possible.
> Otherwise use winger lies & hate speech, right?

So why do you break one reply into seven parts? It does let you keep
your nonsense from being cross checked for inconsistencies.

You would be the expert on "winger lies & hate speech". I didn't use
any. But you did.

>>Divide and conquer. I guess you are afraid a bunch of facts in one
>>place is hard for you to address. Chopping them up you can lie,
>>weasel, and distort more.
>
> You've had NO facts.

How does anyone present facts to something that starts out with no
facts? You are telling me to make sense out of your witless babble.

>>The ultra left has an amazing thought process. I suppose that's what
>>you call a scientific approach.
>
> Such as has long been used in science ... which wingers
>& rethugs just hate.

"Wingers & rethugs"? I'm glad to see that you acknowledge that there
are left and right extremes and that they are both idiots.

> Lies do not work.

But you will keep on trying.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Colorado USA area snow storm
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/9c25102fda582c8a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 19 2009 8:45 am
From: Eregon

Gunner Asch <gunner@lightspeed.net> wrote in
news:9cpoi55pu2jk18l7g28hs2bdem11u3ptpc@4ax.com:

> On Wed, 09 Dec 2009 15:10:30 -0800, Rich Grise <richgrise@example.net>
> wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 07 Dec 2009 17:53:17 -0500, Ed Huntress wrote:
>>>
>>> I mean, when Pittsburgh is the western frontier of civilization,
>>> what do you call Cincinnati?
>>
>>Fort Apache? ;-)
>>
>>Actually, it was never the "frontier of civilization". The Original
>>Americans were civilized for hundreds of years before the white
>>Europeans brought them measles, smallpox, dysentery, plague, cholera,
>>alcohol, etc., and steamrollered over the "treaties," raping their
>>women and slaughtering men, women, and children.
>>
>>Hope This Helps!
>>Rich
>>
>
> But only if you consider raiding, murdering, enslaving, raping and
> slaughtering each others tribes to be "civilized"
>
>
> Gunner
>
>

You just described Medieval Europe's concept of "Civilization".

Also Rome's, Stalinist Russia's, and Nazi Germany's.

Thus, by European Standards, the practices you described would seem to be
the very definition of "Civilization".

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT - Soon and Baliunas on the hocky-stick curve versus the Little Ice
Age and the Medieval Warm Period
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/b0afca4792920a51?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 19 2009 8:55 am
From: Joseph Gwinn

This article in Climate Research (the journal that the CRU folk were
apparently trying to put out of business) caused a firestorm back in
2003, but I never got around to chasing it down to see for myself.

The recent WSJ oped piece by Patrick Michaels ("OT - How to Manufacture
a Climate Consensus -- The East Anglia emails are just the tip of the
iceberg. I should know ", posted 18 December 2009) got my curiosity up,
so I tracked the 2003 article down.

The article is "Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the
past 1000 years" (Soon and Baliunas):

<http://www.int-res.com/articles/cr2003/23/c023p089.pdf>

There was much fallout from this article, as mentioned in in Michaels'
opinion piece and detailed in Climate Research. The easiest way to find
the details is to search for "Soon Baliunas" (without the quotes) at
<http://www.int-res.com/journals/cr/cr-home/>.

Climate Research allows free downloads of articles older than five
years, so all are now available gratis.

Joe Gwinn

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Time to get tougher
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/857dcab3153330a8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 19 2009 9:18 am
From: "Lib Loo"

"Bama Brian" <claypoolbrian@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hgil51$r53$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Hawke wrote:
>> Bama Brian wrote:
>>
>>> Are you saying anyone who doesn't meet your mental, physical, and level
>>> of training shouldn't have a gun?
>>>
>>> How wonderful it must be, to be a god.
>>>
>>
>> All I'm saying is that there needs to be sensible rules and regulations
>> regarding firearms just like with any dangerous object. I have seen
>> people trying to get concealed carry licenses that I don't think are
>> capable of safely carrying a loaded weapon. Guess what, a lot of them
>> didn't pass the test either. I suppose you have never seen what I have.
>> If you were the person in charge of deciding who got to carry a weapon
>> and who didn't you would let everybody have one. I just wonder if it
>> would bother you if some of the people you thought were okay to have a
>> gun killed or paralyzed some innocent people and if that might change
>> your mind about letting everyone have a gun. It's real easy to say
>> everyone should have the right to a gun if you aren't responsible for the
>> damage they do with it. It's a bit different if you are accountable for
>> your decision to give a gun to the wrong person.
>>
>
> I suppose both Vermont and Alaska are just chock-a-block full of your
> nightmare scenarios; neither state even bothering with CCW licenses? Just
> put the gun in your pocket and go...
>
> Funny how they don't seem to have all those old geezers shooting up the
> neighborhoods.
>
> And just for your Straw Man army; I don't "give" guns to anyone, any more
> than you, as a supposed instructor, do. For Libertarians, it's each
> person's choice to BUY their own guns.
>
> But your writing shows clearly how pervasive the nanny state has become.
> Rather than "...the right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.",
> you want "...the states' right to render the aged and infirm defenseless,
> as a non-medical person shall judge them in a personal windage call."
>
> And sadly you see nothing wrong with this. But then, way back in the late
> 1700's, a surprising number of colonists thought the Crown was the only
> way to go.
>
> Old Hawke, old Hawke, whatcha gonna do when they come for you?
>
>

Flail his wrists about and shriek.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 19 2009 9:36 am
From: "Lib Loo"

"Bama Brian" <claypoolbrian@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hgiqmt$7mb$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Hawke wrote:

>> But you also say average Joes with little experience can fight back when
>> they have to, or that a 90 lb. woman would be able to defend herself
>> against a 200 lb. rapist.
>
> Provided, of course, that you don't take away their chosen means of
> self-defense.

Hawke would like to see all women as vulnerable to attack as they are in
Illinois.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lA9XCa31G6w

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Lie of the Year
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/631768a4d3953f6e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 19 2009 9:28 am
From: Frank

On 12/19/2009 10:53 AM, Neolibertarian wrote:
> In article<vaapi5994i2ul468ni0pn4o6lqget4kg18@4ax.com>,
> Cliff<Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>> http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977953779
>> "Sarah Palin Tells 'Lie of the Year'; Glenn Beck Takes Second"
>> [
>> Pulitzer Prize-winning political fact-checking project PolitiFact has
>> announced
>> their first-ever Lie of the Year: Death panels. Though right-wing nut job
>> Betsy
>> McCaughey proffered the notion everywhere she could, Sarah Palin, with 61% of
>> the vote, earns the dishonor of having coined the phrase and made it a
>> household
>> fear. The first documented use of 'death panels' was on Palin's Facebook page
>> in
>> the wake of her resignation as governor of Alaska.
>
> The idea of "death panels" wasn't cooked up by Republican strategists.
>
> Such commissions and "panels" have formed in most socialist systems:
>
> http://tiny.cc/sPtTl
>
> Ezekiel Emanuel, special health care advisor to President Obama, has
> written extensively about rationing health care. His speeches and
> articles are readily available on the internet. See: New England Journal
> of Medicine, September 19, 2002.
>
> What Palin opined on her Facebook page was essentially correct.
> Universal Health Care will involve rationing.
>
> What's really funny is that PolitiFact felt compelled to disprove what
> an ex-Governor posted on her Facebook page.
>
> And, since it couldn't actually disprove what Palin clearly labels her
> opinion, which she feels is substantiated by a Thomas Sewell OpEd, it
> decided to claim it had disproved it anyway.
>
> Claiming to disprove something isn't the same as disproving something,
> of course.
>
> Well, it /might be/ if...say, you're stupid enough to believe that
> universal health care means you get any treatment option you want, any
> time, any where, anytime you think your health and well-being depend on
> it.
>
> Heh.
>

Here's a real life example from the UK:

http://www.phassociation.uk.com/petition_nice_introduction.asp

It took a petition to change panel's action on withholding expensive
drugs used to treat pulmonary hypertension. While these drugs are
extremely expensive, >$100,000 per year, very few people are involved.

"Death panel" as I said before is hyperbole but bottom line is their
decisions can result in people dying - in this case maybe 100 per year
in the UK.

I discussed this with colleague in UK and he told me that there are
regional panels, some will allow drugs that others will not.

Do you want to put your life in the hands of government bureaucrats?

How do you like the NICE acronym? This from the nation of writer that
authored "1984".

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 19 2009 9:42 am
From: "Ed Huntress"

"Frank" <frankperiodlogullo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hgj2fn$j0s$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 12/19/2009 10:53 AM, Neolibertarian wrote:
>> In article<vaapi5994i2ul468ni0pn4o6lqget4kg18@4ax.com>,
>> Cliff<Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>>
>>> http://www.gather.com/viewArticle.action?articleId=281474977953779
>>> "Sarah Palin Tells 'Lie of the Year'; Glenn Beck Takes Second"
>>> [
>>> Pulitzer Prize-winning political fact-checking project PolitiFact has
>>> announced
>>> their first-ever Lie of the Year: Death panels. Though right-wing nut
>>> job
>>> Betsy
>>> McCaughey proffered the notion everywhere she could, Sarah Palin, with
>>> 61% of
>>> the vote, earns the dishonor of having coined the phrase and made it a
>>> household
>>> fear. The first documented use of 'death panels' was on Palin's Facebook
>>> page
>>> in
>>> the wake of her resignation as governor of Alaska.
>>
>> The idea of "death panels" wasn't cooked up by Republican strategists.
>>
>> Such commissions and "panels" have formed in most socialist systems:
>>
>> http://tiny.cc/sPtTl
>>
>> Ezekiel Emanuel, special health care advisor to President Obama, has
>> written extensively about rationing health care. His speeches and
>> articles are readily available on the internet. See: New England Journal
>> of Medicine, September 19, 2002.
>>
>> What Palin opined on her Facebook page was essentially correct.
>> Universal Health Care will involve rationing.
>>
>> What's really funny is that PolitiFact felt compelled to disprove what
>> an ex-Governor posted on her Facebook page.
>>
>> And, since it couldn't actually disprove what Palin clearly labels her
>> opinion, which she feels is substantiated by a Thomas Sewell OpEd, it
>> decided to claim it had disproved it anyway.
>>
>> Claiming to disprove something isn't the same as disproving something,
>> of course.
>>
>> Well, it /might be/ if...say, you're stupid enough to believe that
>> universal health care means you get any treatment option you want, any
>> time, any where, anytime you think your health and well-being depend on
>> it.
>>
>> Heh.
>>
>
> Here's a real life example from the UK:
>
> http://www.phassociation.uk.com/petition_nice_introduction.asp
>
> It took a petition to change panel's action on withholding expensive drugs
> used to treat pulmonary hypertension. While these drugs are extremely
> expensive, >$100,000 per year, very few people are involved.
>
> "Death panel" as I said before is hyperbole but bottom line is their
> decisions can result in people dying - in this case maybe 100 per year in
> the UK.
>
> I discussed this with colleague in UK and he told me that there are
> regional panels, some will allow drugs that others will not.
>
> Do you want to put your life in the hands of government bureaucrats?

How do you think it's handled by insurance companies in the US now? No
smoke-blowing. I was a medical editor who wrote for the health care
insurance industry.

The only difference is that the insurance companies don't respond to
petitions. They respond to their stock price.

--
Ed Huntress

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 19 2009 9:45 am
From: "Altered History"

"Frank" <frankperiodlogullo@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:hgip7h$agm$4@news.eternal-september.org...
> The left hates hyperbole, unless it is their own ;)

Fwank's a Tard.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: New gun sight design
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/0b06a8cf8e8cba3d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 19 2009 9:27 am
From: "David R.Birch"

cavelamb wrote:
> David R.Birch wrote:
>> Larry Jaques wrote:
>>> On Wed, 16 Dec 2009 20:08:29 -0600, the infamous "David R.Birch"
>>> <dbirch@wi.rr.com> scrawled the following:
>>
>>>> At work I program 4kW LASERS. Can't figure out how to mount one on a
>>>> pistol, though.
>>>
>>> Ooh, I want one of those for the roof of my house. Bluejays, skunks,
>>> raccoons, stray dogs, and other invasive bipedal species would be
>>> history!
>>>
>>> All I want for Christmas is a Vaporizing Laser for my roof! Hooyah!
>>
>> All you have to do is lure them within .020" of the LASER head.
>>
>> David
>
> Just guessing, but I'd bet that thing will go through soft tissue
> at quite a greater distance than what it takes to slice steel...
>
> Hmm?

Not really. The beam is focused for greatest intensity about halfway
through the material its cutting, it's not simply a narrow beam of
coherent light.

David

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Obama speaks about Tiger Woods
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/d95bf64a6822d451?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 19 2009 9:42 am
From: "Lib Loo"

"Rob Cypher aka "The Anti-Bob"" <balst32@aol.com> wrote in message
news:44mpi51ndgn3av6o5j4eu263aaucvjddlq@4ax.com...
> On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 07:15:30 +0800, Superdave
> <the.big.rst.kahuna@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 16:09:51 -0700, striker714@mail.com wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 11 Dec 2009 10:04:25 -0600, "Lib Loo"
>>><heezback@crazymother.kom> wrote:
>>>
>>>>WASHINGTON (Routers) - "I wish I had played more golf and less
>>>>basketball"
>>>>President Barack Obama responded to reporters when asked to comment
>>>>about
>>>>the Tiger Woods affairs.
>>>
>>>Hey there, porch monkeys are always shooting hoops.
>>>
>>>ted
>
> You know I did.

okay!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Dark Matter Detected?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/b0b718fbeeeed5fe?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 19 2009 9:51 am
From: Dan

Cliff wrote:
> http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2009/12/091218-dark-matter-detected-mine-minnesota.html
> [
> Dark matter may have been "felt" for the first time deep in a Minnesota mine,
> physicists say.
>
> Detectors in the mine, part of the Cryogenic Dark Matter Search experiment, were
> tripped recently by what might be weakly interacting massive particles, or
> WIMPs.
> .....
> ]

I didn't know the Hamster lived in a Minnesota mine.

Dan

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.crafts.metalworking"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.crafts.metalworking+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

twitter

Saturday, December 19, 2009

rec.crafts.metalworking - 24 new messages in 13 topics - digest

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

Previous Posts