twitter: rec.crafts.metalworking - 26 new messages in 11 topics

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

rec.crafts.metalworking@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Tarnow lathes?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/c3da114c072ca535?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 9:18 am
From: john

Dave H. wrote:
> "Richard W." wrote...
>>
>> If it's in good shape it not a bad lathe. The one's I ran were built in
>> the late 70's and early 80's. They seem to chatter easy on long shafts. I
>> think they needed more iron in the bed on the longer lathes. (20" swing
>> 10' centers) Seemed fine for chuck work though, which is most of what we
>> did on it. Can't say much about a small one like the one you are looking
>> at. It may be just fine. Although if I was in the market for a new lathe
>> they would be near the bottom of the list.
>>
>
> Thanks for the feedback, Richard, may I pick your brains a little more?
>
> I'd mostly be using it for work in the chuck, things like machining hubs and
> clutches I guess, and boring smallish castings on the carriage with a b/c
> boring bar, occasional work on driveshafts etc., it'd be an addition to my
> tools for working on / modifying motorcycles - I don't imagine I'm likely to
> be doing anything that would tax it too much :)
>
> I'd be interested to know why you'd put them at the bottom of the list,
> though - rigidity? This one (the TUB32 model) comes in at around 2.2 tons
> for the 12" swing, 40" and is quite a bit heavier than a Colchester of that
> size, sounds like it should have plenty of iron in it! Newer ones may have
> gone the same way as a lot of manufacturers' kit though, lighter castings,
> 18g sheet steel where cast iron would have once been used...
>
> If it's a matter of "fit and finish", I wouldn't be expecting too much from
> the eastern bloc (I've seen their motorcycles from the 60's!), if it's down
> to durability and reliability that's a whole 'nother thing?
>
> While I think of it, it runs (as delivered from the factory) a 10HP 3-phase
> motor - reckon I'd get away with a lower-output VFD if I kept the cuts
> fairly light? 7.5KW VFD's cost an Imperial Arm and Leg (more than I can pick
> the lathe up for, anyway) as does getting the 'lectric co. to install
> 3-phase power, but here in the UK 3KW (4HP) are getting to be reasonable -
> and 10HP in a 12" swing lathe seems kinda generous anyway! I'm still at the
> stage of factoring in rental of a plant trailer and truck to tug it, new
> reinforced concrete base for the 'shop, 50 yards of heavy armoured cable,
> VFD etc. and want to keep the collateral damage to my wallet down...
>
> Thanks, Dave H.

If you bolt the lathe to the concrete floor you can make it a lot moe
rigid. Also proper leveling makes a big difference. There is an art to
doing long thin parts without getting chatter, a steady rest or follower
rest being manditory.

I would not recommend using an underrated VFD. I would spring for a
single phase motor of about 5 hp or so and eliminate all your other
electrical problems. It would probably be cheaper in the long run and
would also make the lathe easier to sell.

John

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pawn Shop Bargains ...
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/b7474a867df329f8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 9:33 am
From: Larry Jaques

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:08:14 -0800, the infamous "Steve B"
<deserttraver@fishymail.net> scrawled the following:

>
>"Wes" <clutch@lycos.com> wrote in message
>news:3Mgin.394627$H15.184169@en-nntp-02.dc1.easynews.com...
>> "Robert Swinney" <judybob@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>>You're lucky Snag. It's become pretty hard to score a bargain in a pawn
>>>shop anymore; esp. since
>>>the pawnbrokers discovered ebay.
>>
>>
>> I believe even Goodwill has found the internet.
>>
>> Wes
>
>Almost every "thrift" shop I have been in recently, even religious charities
>are very aware of ebay. And those items that they receive, they cull for
>the "home runs" for ebay sale. Those people got smart, and when you have
>valuables donated, you don't put them out for a quarter. Any more, I should
>say. I am not amazed at the level of knowledge and sophistication of the
>managers of these thrift outlets. Lots of good deals to be had, just
>nothing that's worth a lot for a cheap price any more.

I've bought lots of books through the San Francisco Goodwill via eBay.
Good prices, quick shipping.

--
Pessimist: One who, when he has the choice of two evils, chooses both.
--Oscar Wilde (1854-1900)

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 10:25 am
From: Don Foreman

On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 23:44:43 -0600, cavelamb <cavelamb@earthlink.net>
wrote:

>Don Foreman wrote:
>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:29:24 -0600, "Robert Swinney"
>> <judybob@tx.rr.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Snag sez:
>>>
>>> "I think we may see a change in that , Robert . At least around here , there
>>> seem to be more people pawning stuff , and fewer buyers . Ten bucks profit
>>> each on twenty transactions beats 40 bucks each on no transactions ..."
>>>
>>> You are probably right. My reply was based on experience over 5 years old during the height of the
>>> ebay craze. I had not factored in today's lousy economy.
>>>
>>> Bob Swinney
>>
>> You can inspect the goods at a pawn shop, and when you lay your money
>> down you get the goods rather than a promise to ship from a faceless,
>> sometimes anonymous, distant stranger.
>>
>> Helluvit is, the stuff in the pawn shop is sometimes there because of
>> some working guy's tough luck: job loss or divorce, need to sell tools
>> for cash to get by. They continue to hope for change while we who
>> still have some jingle in our jeans scarf up their tools for a song.
>>
>> I'm not gloating. I'd like to see Americans who care to work be back
>> at work.
>>
>That stuff in the pawn shop is also offered at near retail - with little
>or no guarantees...

In this area pawn shop prices are well below retail.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 10:48 am
From: "Robert Swinney"

Steve sez: "In my book, used is instantly half retail. Maybe a bit more if I need it.
I wouldn't be doing a lot of business with that fellow."

Totally agreed, Steve! I only buy from him on a "convenience-store" basis. Other than such
emergency quickies, most all other tooling purchases are made on line. On line service is getting
better all the time. The other day, I ordered some things from MSC one morning and got them the
next. FWIW, I like McMaster Carr even better but MSC's nice catalog keeps me coming back.

Bob Swinney

"Steve B" <deserttraver@fishymail.net> wrote in message news:oafq57-4322.ln1@news.infowest.com...

"Robert Swinney" <judybob@tx.rr.com> wrote in message
news:scCdnRW1ksgSyBfWnZ2dnUVZ_v-dnZ2d@giganews.com...
> Steve sez: "Almost every "thrift" shop I have been in recently, even
> religious charities
> are very aware of ebay. . . ."
>
> We've got a small shop nearby that sells used, reconditioned, and surplus
> tooling. The place is run
> by an ex-machinist from an electronics manufacturer. He has some some good
> stuff and some
> not-so-good. Caveat emptor. Bargains are hard to find there. He seems to
> "price" near retail,
> referencing catalogs from major suppliers. The convenience factor and no
> shipping costs offset his
> near-retail prices.
>
> Bob Swinney

Steve

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 11:08 am
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

Steve B wrote:
>
> "Snag" <snag_one@comcast.net> wrote
>
> > I think we may see a change in that , Robert . At least around here ,
> > there seem to be more people pawning stuff , and fewer buyers . Ten bucks
> > profit each on twenty transactions beats 40 bucks each on no transactions
> > ...
> > --
> > Snag
>
> That is a very close paraphrase to what my pawn dealer told me. He is
> tickled to see me and my old pardner, as we usually drop a Franklin or more
> apiece. But we hammer him.
>
> An old salesman once told me, "A fast quarter is better than a slow dollar."

I always heard: "A fast dime is better than a slow dollar."

--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: building jeep frame
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/32fc57a529507b1b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 10:09 am
From: clare@snyder.on.ca

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 06:52:53 -0800 (PST), mark <markhabbi@hotmail.com>
wrote:

>My original jeep CJ-7 frame has rusted out and I was thinking of
>building a new one from aluminum. Would 2 X 4 X 1/4 wall (if that is
>even available) box tubing have the equivalent strength of the stock
>1/8" wall steel frame? I would like aluminum because it will last
>forever, no need of any paints etc..., very easy to work with and
>cheaper than building a steel one and having it galvanized. My second
>choice would be stainless 1/8" box tubing.

You do NOT ewant an aluminum frame. Perhaps stainless steel.
Aluminum frames on a jeep WILL flex. Particularly a 2X4 x1/4 tube.
ANY time aluminum flexes it is a stress, and all stresses are
cumulative. Frame life would likely be measured in months.

Steel is different. It has an elastic limit, and as long as that
loimit is not exceeded, no cumulative stress occurs.

I'd build a stainless steel TUBE frame if I was going to the trouble -
but Iron Horse (I believe that is still the name of the company)
supplies ready made replacement frames at a very reasonable price.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 10:18 am
From: RoyJ

I have the full dimensions for the CJ frames, they have a LOT of bends,
brackets, and quirks to make a fabrication job pretty messy. There are
several companies that do these from 2x4" tube to replace the double
channel original. Under $2000. A quick google came up with
http://www.throttledownkustoms.com/framesCJ7.html
http://www.acmejeepparts.com/products/product_search.php?cn=Frames+%26+Accessories&c=38
The galvanized versions run around $800 more IIRC

You do not want to use aluminum: flex, fatigue, and strength all work
against you.

mark wrote:
> My original jeep CJ-7 frame has rusted out and I was thinking of
> building a new one from aluminum. Would 2 X 4 X 1/4 wall (if that is
> even available) box tubing have the equivalent strength of the stock
> 1/8" wall steel frame? I would like aluminum because it will last
> forever, no need of any paints etc..., very easy to work with and
> cheaper than building a steel one and having it galvanized. My second
> choice would be stainless 1/8" box tubing.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 10:54 am
From: mark

On Feb 28, 2:18 pm, RoyJ <spaml...@microsoft.net> wrote:
> I have the full dimensions for the CJ frames, they have a LOT of bends,
> brackets, and quirks to make a fabrication job pretty messy. There are
> several companies that do these from 2x4" tube to replace the double
> channel original. Under $2000. A quick google came up withhttp://www.throttledownkustoms.com/framesCJ7.htmlhttp://www.acmejeepparts.com/products/product_search.php?cn=Frames+%2...
> The galvanized versions run around $800 more IIRC
>
> You do not want to use aluminum: flex, fatigue, and strength all work
> against you.
>
>
>
> mark wrote:
> > My original jeep CJ-7 frame has rusted out and I was thinking of
> > building a new one from aluminum. Would 2 X 4 X 1/4 wall (if that is
> > even available) box tubing have the equivalent strength of the stock
> > 1/8" wall steel frame? I would like aluminum because it will last
> > forever, no need of any paints etc..., very easy to work with and
> > cheaper than building a steel one and having it galvanized. My second
> > choice would be stainless 1/8" box tubing.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Roy, as for the bends, I am going to eliminate the arches for the leaf
springs, I have a 4" suspension lift so straight frame rails will be
fine although I will have to bring them in narrower at the front.
Around here we use 4X4 1/4 aluminum box tube to build cranes for
aquaculture boats that are constantly lifting 1500+ lbs 8'-10' out
from the hydraulic lift cylinder and I see many aluminum boat trailers
made form I beam, box tubing should be stronger. Also i have a
fiberglass body which is much lighter. Each frame rail will have the
load spread out to 4 points due to the leaf springs. Maybe if I use 4
X 4 instead, a 20' length is only ~$200.00

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 12:47 pm
From: "Steve W."

Aluminum is a VERY poor choice for a frame of a Jeep. The frame in them
is engineered to flex and allow the suspension to operate well. That
flex in aluminum will work harden the frame in a short time and cause
failures. The welds will be the first failures and then the rails
themselves.
Even if you doubled the thickness the frame will be the weak point.

Now if you have access to stainless and a way to work with it that would
be a MUCH better choice. It would flex like the steel and retain it's
strength. The alloy of the stainless would be a BIG factor though.

Personally if I wanted a long lasting rig I would start with a custom
tube frame and a fiberglass or stainless body. One of the locals has a
set up like that.

--
Steve W.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Gun nuts need psych tests, at least "obsessed" 0bama lovers do.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/11438d55184e2ddd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 10:28 am
From: "RD (The Sandman)"

"Jeff R." <contact@this.ng> wrote in
news:4b89941d$0$16520$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au:

>
> "Scout" <me4guns@verizon.removeme.this2.nospam.net> wrote in message
> news:nvbin.7947$mn6.2188@newsfe07.iad...
>> Jeff R. wrote:
>>> "SaPeIsMa" <SaPeIsMa@HotMail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:Y5-dnad-U6DpCxXWnZ2dnUVZ_hmdnZ2d@bright.net...
>>>
>>>> If you don't believe in God, then you can simply state that it's an
>>>> inate right that comes with life
>>>
>>> Don't be silly.
>>> There are no "innate" rights.
>>> You and I have no rights whatsoever - other than those granted by
>>> the society in which we live.
>>
>> I see, and if a society were to deem that you had no rights, and
>> indeed wanted to put you to death....then that's ok because no one
>> has any rights other than those granted by the society that now wants
>> you dead?
>>
>
> Yes.
> Exactly.
> Now you've got it.
>
> That is precisely how it is, and how it has always been.
>
> For evidence, witness the stonings of adulterers and apostates in some
> (allied to us!) middle eastern states.
> Fortunately, the culture developed by my ancestors is a great deal
> more civilised.

Ahhh, then you agree that the US should not get involved in rights
violations like genital mutilation or genocide in other nations. After
all, it is simply the social construct of those nations and whatever they
decide are rights are right.

--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

"Expecting a carjacker, rapist or drug pusher to care that his
possession or use of a gun is unlawful is like expecting a terrorist
to care that his car bomb is taking up two parking spaces."

--Joseph T. Chew

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 10:38 am
From: "RD (The Sandman)"

Zombywoof <fishwings@live.com> wrote in
news:ua7jo5tmalkher5ifje46tmnhjtti8eova@4ax.com:

>>If you don't believe in God, then you can simply state that it's an
>>inate right that comes with life
>> End result is the same even though the formulation is world's
>> apart.
>>But hey, if you morons want to waste time splitting hairs, that's your
>>problem, not ours.
>>
> Well it gets just a little bit more complicated then that from a U.S.
> Constitution standpoint.
>
> There are Legal Rights (sometimes also called civil rights or
> statutory rights) & Natural Rights (also called moral rights or
> unalienable rights).

Constitutionally, there are four types of rights. There are, as you
noted below, natural rights and civil rights, some of which are actually
considered in the context of one of those listed below.

There are also political rights, defined as the power to participate,
directly or indirectly in the establishement or administration of
government, such as the right of citizenship, suffrage, the right to hold
public office and the right of petition.

And, there are personal rights which is rather a vague term but generally
means the right of personal security, comprising those of life, limb,
body, health, reputation and the right of personal liberty.

Legally, all four of those types of rights are recognized.

Black's Law, 6th Ed.

> Legal Rights are rights conveyed by a particular polity, codified into
> legal statutes by some form of legislature (or unenumerated but
> implied from enumerated rights), and as such are contingent upon local
> laws, customs, or beliefs.
>
> Then there are Natural rights (also called moral rights or unalienable
> rights) rights which are not contingent upon the laws, customs, or
> beliefs of a particular society or polity. Natural rights are thus
> necessarily universal, whereas legal rights are culturally and
> politically relative. These would be the infamous; Life, Liberty and
> the pursuit of Happiness in the U.S. Declaration of Independence.
>
> Of course James Madison also believed there was such a thing as Social
> Rights. Social rights are rights made by a group of people to
> maintain social order within a society. The term social rights is
> sometimes used to distinguish those rights arising from the social
> contract, in contrast to natural rights which arise from the natural
> law, but before the establishment of legal rights by positive law. For
> example, Madison advocated that a right such as trial by jury arose
> neither from nature nor from a constitution of government, but from
> the social compact.
>
> Many so-called Progressives now argue that individuals have Social
> Rights to adequate minimum income, housing, health care, and
> education, and that those rights must be entrenched in the
> constitution of a democratic state. That is, the democratic majority
> should not be able to repeal them, and certain institutions (for
> instance, the judiciary) should be given the power to strike down laws
> passed by the legislature that are in breach of those rights. However,
> most of these people are the same ones who would be more then happy to
> throw the Second Amendment out the window.

Yes, but those types of rights would be embodied in personal rights
concept of law.

--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

"Expecting a carjacker, rapist or drug pusher to care that his
possession or use of a gun is unlawful is like expecting a terrorist
to care that his car bomb is taking up two parking spaces."

--Joseph T. Chew

==============================================================================
TOPIC: References for Designing a gearbox
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/2df57341ff32768b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 10:33 am
From: Louis Ohland

Looking for a good book on machine gearboxes. Belts and pulleys are
nice, but a tad limited.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Gunlogix 102
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/ddbce96971d01884?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 10:34 am
From: Don Foreman

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 06:45:59 -0600, Lookout <mrLookout@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 05:57:18 -0500, Cliff
><Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>>
>>http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2010/02/22/if-you-dont-shoot-your-attacker-in-kansas-then-waive-bye-bye-to-claiming-self-defense/
>> "If You Don�t Shoot Your Attacker In Kansas Then Waive Bye-Bye To Claiming
>>Self-Defense"
>>[
>>Kansas is a whacky place, what with its impossibly flat land and endless fields
>>of wheat and sorghum (which is apparently a type of sustainable livestock feed
>>and ethanol fuel source), not to mention the perpetual parade of impervious
>>aliens and supernatural portals.
>>
>>Well, the crazy Kansans of the Sunflower State can now add a new claim to fame
>>by being the only state that requires you to shoot your attacker with your gun
>>as a prerequisite to claiming self-defense, or else the defense will be waived
>>and you�ll be charged with aggravated assault.
>>
>>Hmm� That new one doesn�t quite roll off the tongue as easily as �The Barbed
>>Wire Capital of the World.�
>>
>>In a recent case before the Kansas Court of Appeals, a majority of the court
>>held that under Kansas law, citizens who attempt to claim self-defense when
>>confronted by either the threat of harm which they reasonably believe will occur
>>or are under actual physical attack, can only claim the defense if they use
>>actual physical force against their attacker.
>>
>>What constitutes actual physical force? Well in the case of State v. Flint
>>described in the previous paragraph, it meant that the defendant, Flint, had to
>>actually fire the gun he was holding at his attacker.
>>
>>Sound weird? Well it sounds even stranger when you know the actual facts of the
>>case. Flint and his fianc�e were in a bar when his fianc�e got into an argument
>>with two male bar patrons. The argument eventually moved outside of the bar and
>>became more heated.

Was Flint or his fiance forcibly and unwillingly dragged outside of
the bar by the combative bar patrons? If not, then he or his fiance
were willing participants, so much for self defense.

Then somewhere along the line there was a �scuffle� and
>>Flint�s fianc�e end up on the floor. Flint then grabbed a gun from his car and
>>pointed it at the men who then backed off.
>
>He should have got in his car and left.
>Yes, HE was in the wrong.
>>
>>Now you�d think that this might sound like a clear-cut case for self-defense,
>>and a more preferable use of it as well since the situation was resolved with no
>>one getting hurt. And if anything, the question of whether Flint should be
>>allowed a self-defense claim should revolve around whether his belief that he or
>>his fianc�e were under the threat of harm was reasonable and whether his
>>pointing a gun was a reasonable response.
>>
>>Well, not quite � in Kansas anyway. The court convicted Flint of aggravated
>>assault. .......
>>]
>>
>And rightly so.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 10:39 am
From: Zombywoof

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 05:57:18 -0500, Cliff
<Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:

>
>http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2010/02/22/if-you-dont-shoot-your-attacker-in-kansas-then-waive-bye-bye-to-claiming-self-defense/
> "If You Don't Shoot Your Attacker In Kansas Then Waive Bye-Bye To Claiming
>Self-Defense"
>[
>Kansas is a whacky place, what with its impossibly flat land and endless fields
>of wheat and sorghum (which is apparently a type of sustainable livestock feed
>and ethanol fuel source), not to mention the perpetual parade of impervious
>aliens and supernatural portals.
>
>Well, the crazy Kansans of the Sunflower State can now add a new claim to fame
>by being the only state that requires you to shoot your attacker with your gun
>as a prerequisite to claiming self-defense, or else the defense will be waived
>and you'll be charged with aggravated assault.
>
>Hmm… That new one doesn't quite roll off the tongue as easily as "The Barbed
>Wire Capital of the World."
>
>In a recent case before the Kansas Court of Appeals, a majority of the court
>held that under Kansas law, citizens who attempt to claim self-defense when
>confronted by either the threat of harm which they reasonably believe will occur
>or are under actual physical attack, can only claim the defense if they use
>actual physical force against their attacker.
>
>What constitutes actual physical force? Well in the case of State v. Flint
>described in the previous paragraph, it meant that the defendant, Flint, had to
>actually fire the gun he was holding at his attacker.
>
>Sound weird? Well it sounds even stranger when you know the actual facts of the
>case. Flint and his fiancée were in a bar when his fiancée got into an argument
>with two male bar patrons. The argument eventually moved outside of the bar and
>became more heated. Then somewhere along the line there was a "scuffle" and
>Flint's fiancée end up on the floor. Flint then grabbed a gun from his car and
>pointed it at the men who then backed off.
>
>Now you'd think that this might sound like a clear-cut case for self-defense,
>and a more preferable use of it as well since the situation was resolved with no
>one getting hurt. And if anything, the question of whether Flint should be
>allowed a self-defense claim should revolve around whether his belief that he or
>his fiancée were under the threat of harm was reasonable and whether his
>pointing a gun was a reasonable response.
>
>Well, not quite – in Kansas anyway. The court convicted Flint of aggravated
>assault. .......
>]
>
Just goes to show what I've always said; if you need to pull it, it
better be to shoot it. Drawing a weapon is one swift fluid motion of
removing it from its holster, disengaging any safety devices, aiming &
firing.

Now that being said; there sounds like something else is in this case
other then what was presented in the article.

Aggravated assault is a more serious form of threat than ordinary
assault. This may be because the threat was made with a deadly weapon,
or with intent to rape, maim, or murder. So if someone threatens
another while holding a large stick, that is probably simple assault,
but if the assailant has a gun or knife, that would most likely be the
more serious crime of aggravated assault. If the assailant holding the
stick threatens to rape or kill the victim, that might also be
aggravated assault. Not all jurisdictions use this term, but all of
them will punish an assault with a firearm more severely than an
assault with a stick or a fist, so the end result is similar.
--

"Gustatus Similis Pullus"

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 10:41 am
From: Zombywoof

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 06:45:59 -0600, Lookout <mrLookout@yahoo.com>
wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 05:57:18 -0500, Cliff
><Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> wrote:
>
>>
>>http://lawblog.legalmatch.com/2010/02/22/if-you-dont-shoot-your-attacker-in-kansas-then-waive-bye-bye-to-claiming-self-defense/
>> "If You Don't Shoot Your Attacker In Kansas Then Waive Bye-Bye To Claiming
>>Self-Defense"
>>[
>>Kansas is a whacky place, what with its impossibly flat land and endless fields
>>of wheat and sorghum (which is apparently a type of sustainable livestock feed
>>and ethanol fuel source), not to mention the perpetual parade of impervious
>>aliens and supernatural portals.
>>
>>Well, the crazy Kansans of the Sunflower State can now add a new claim to fame
>>by being the only state that requires you to shoot your attacker with your gun
>>as a prerequisite to claiming self-defense, or else the defense will be waived
>>and you'll be charged with aggravated assault.
>>
>>Hmm… That new one doesn't quite roll off the tongue as easily as "The Barbed
>>Wire Capital of the World."
>>
>>In a recent case before the Kansas Court of Appeals, a majority of the court
>>held that under Kansas law, citizens who attempt to claim self-defense when
>>confronted by either the threat of harm which they reasonably believe will occur
>>or are under actual physical attack, can only claim the defense if they use
>>actual physical force against their attacker.
>>
>>What constitutes actual physical force? Well in the case of State v. Flint
>>described in the previous paragraph, it meant that the defendant, Flint, had to
>>actually fire the gun he was holding at his attacker.
>>
>>Sound weird? Well it sounds even stranger when you know the actual facts of the
>>case. Flint and his fiancée were in a bar when his fiancée got into an argument
>>with two male bar patrons. The argument eventually moved outside of the bar and
>>became more heated. Then somewhere along the line there was a "scuffle" and
>>Flint's fiancée end up on the floor. Flint then grabbed a gun from his car and
>>pointed it at the men who then backed off.
>
>He should have got in his car and left.
>Yes, HE was in the wrong.
>>
So you are out for a night on the town, two men assault your fiancée
and you'll just get in your car & leave her -- I guess that will save
you a trip to the alter.
>
--

"Gustatus Similis Pullus"

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Checking on post problem, Help
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/863ed0c38b450cec?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 11:15 am
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

Steve Ackman wrote:
>
> In <4B89BC1F.71CFA9FF@earthlink.net>, on Sat, 27 Feb 2010 19:43:11 -0500,
> Michael A. Terrell, mike.terrell@earthlink.net wrote:
>
> > Someone with a clue wouldn't want to skew the results, good or bad.
>
> Stawman noted.

ID10T noted.

--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Glenn Beck Is an AMERICAN PATRIOT
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/03ecfef2321238cb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 11:16 am
From: "RD (The Sandman)"

"Seon Ferguson" <seongf@gmail.com> wrote in
news:v-SdnUoTR5FuARTWnZ2dnUVZ_g6dnZ2d@westnet.com.au:

>
>
> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in message
> news:Xns9D2C986A74938hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>> "Seon Ferguson" <seongf@gmail.com> wrote in
>> news:AtCdnX9xKaVgFxTWnZ2dnUVZ_sadnZ2d@westnet.com.au:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "RD (The Sandman)" <rdsandman(spamlock)@comcast.net> wrote in
>>> message news:Xns9D2C8B429E7D7hopewell@216.196.97.130...
>>>> "Seon Ferguson" <seongf@gmail.com> wrote in
>>>> news:M5ydnTifyaxZAxXWnZ2dnUVZ_jqdnZ2d@westnet.com.au:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Gray Ghost" <grey_ghost471-newsgroups@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>> news:Xns9D2BE802118ABWereofftoseethewizrd@216.196.97.142...
>>>>>> Darrell Stec <darstec@neo.rr.com> wrote in news:7ula93F9sjU1
>>>>>> @mid.individual.net:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Fred B. Brown wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Barck Obama has
>>>>>>>> repeatedly
>>>>>>>> stated the the Constitution and Bill Of Rights are outdated and
>>>>>>>> should be
>>>>>>>> scrapped.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You are confusing him with Georgie Boy Bush, who actually did
>>>>>>> state such things in public.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Do you have any speeches or videos where Obama stated what you
>>>>>>> claim?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Why yes i've heard audio of Obamao calling the Constitution
>>>>>> flawed. Can you
>>>>>> produce anything where Bush says what you claim he did?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't think so. Delusions and hallucinations are a not a
>>>>>> vaction destination.
>>>>>>
>>>>> Bush also said the Constitution is a God damn peace of paper. The
>>>>> issue isn't republican vs democrat or left vs right. But Glen beck
>>>>> is a hypocrite. On one hand he says we should ask questions but
>>>>> when people ask questions he doesn't like they are part of some
>>>>> dangerous cult.
>>>>
>>>> He's a good speaker and presenter.
>>>>
>>> Yes and he does appeal to the common American who is sitting in the
>>> bar talking about this sort of stuff.
>>
>> I disagree with a lot of that he says, but he is interesting to
>> listen to. ;)
>>
> I disagree with a lot of what fox news say but they sure are
> entertaining and they know how to entertain their viewers. From becks
> crying to Orilleys "no spin zone" I can't get enough.

It's addictive....one reason a lot of liberals, independents and
libertarians watch the shows and then bitch about how dishonest FOX is
when they are back in public. ;)

--
Sleep well tonight,

RD (The Sandman)

"Expecting a carjacker, rapist or drug pusher to care that his
possession or use of a gun is unlawful is like expecting a terrorist
to care that his car bomb is taking up two parking spaces."

--Joseph T. Chew

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 11:32 am
From: sittingduck

D Murphy wrote:

> So now I'm whining? Actually I'm pointing out facts that you are failing
> to respond to. And now you want to shift the argument to "crazy talk"?
> Who gets to define crazy? I didn't post some screed insinuating that
> Glenn Beck was a racist, you did. Where is the evidence?

Funny you should focus on the racist angle, I didnt' get that. I thought
the point was that he was whipping the ignorant into a mob. With crazy
talk.

> You seem long on accusations but short on specifics. Fox is on 24/7 and
> the left employs a host of folks whose only job is to find something,
> anything that can be construed as offensive. So you should be able to
> assemble a list of Fox's transgressions with ease.

I don't feel the need to prove anything. Anyone with a reasonably open mind
can judge for themselves.

> I also noticed that you've chosen not to respond to evidence of actual
> racism among the left.

And you accuse ME of shifting focus? <G>

--
We have broken from reality--a psychotic Nation. Ignorance with a pretense
of knowledge replacing wisdom. -- Ron Paul

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 11:45 am
From: sittingduck

Glenn Beck Has Gone from Crazy Talk to Dangerous Incitement
By Jeff Musall
The American conservative movement has devolved into an all fear movement,
hopping from one hot-button "fear this" specter to another with a
propaganda machine that would make many a fear-monger of the past blush.
Fear "death panels." Fear the Marxist in the closet. Fear "government."
Fear the imagined civilian "security force" being built. Fear ACORN and
SEIU, Nancy Pelosi and Bernie Sanders. He sees ACORNs everywhere, and
imagines Marxists in every closet. His favorite term for government
advisers and department heads is "CZAR." and it's not an accident. He uses
it to further fears that somehow, once again, the Commies are coming!
At the spear head of the right wing fear machine are the talk radio crowd.
Too easily dismissed in the past, the real power of right wing radio is
becoming more obvious. Literally tens of millions of "ditto heads" and the
like tune in each and every day, sometimes for hours a day, to hear
different versions of the latest talking points.
Sure, there are differences. Limbaugh is mostly a blowhard, Hannity mostly
a bully-coward. And Glenn Beck is a quasi-messianic cuckoo. Still, if that
was all, Beck could be dismissed and ignored, blowing in the wind to those
who will listen. But there's more to it. He's pushing the envelope of
sanity on those who might be dancing on a knife edge already.
What does it take for a person to move from disgruntled, angry, or
disenchanted to a potential terrorist? They must feel victimized. Right
wing radio has spent decades telling conservatives everything from the
"liberal media" to Hollywood to the United Nations is out to get them. To
take their guns, to make their kids get abortions, and yes, to give them
health care.
A person must also be certain that as bad as they perceive things to be,
it's getting worse, and soon. The world is closing in on them, and it's a
world bent on destroying the very fiber of their lives. The person feels
everything dear to them is under imminent threat. And a strict line in the
sand must be drawn, separating those who would not fall in line with those
who are "in the know."
Glenn Beck has told his audience that nothing is open for compromise, that
nothing can be supported from Washington, that nothing but complete
destruction of the president's agenda can be accepted. He often uses the
sound bite from Lord of the Rings where Gandalf bellows "You shall not
pass!" when he tells his minions that they cannot support anything or any
compromise. "Us against them" to the extreme.
Another component is a strange combination of loneliness and community. The
person thinks they are part of a select group that is under attack. That's
not the extraordinary part of course, that happens in reality all of the
tome in various situations. When it gets dangerous is when the particular
paranoia is fed by derangement.
And finally, they need feel that God is on their side. Once the potential
terrorist is convinced that they are a holy warrior, the final piece is in
place. When the potential terrorist thinks their instructions are coming
from God, there you go.
Where does Glenn Beck come in? He is an instigator and promoter of such a
scenario. Sure, he says he doesn't want his followers to use guns, to bring
violence, or to do anything but "turn the other cheek." You don't have to
see him to get the wink and the nod. He sometimes seems like he is setting
himself up to be the martyr of the movement, pushing the envelope until he
loses enough sponsors that his show can't pay the bills. And he has gone
just plain nutty.
I've listened to his radio show when I can for about two weeks now, and
occasionally caught his FOX television bit. He is quite a bit more tame on
television, turning down the Christian martyr stuff and trying to appear a
tad more sane. The real followers listen to the radio show every day.
What do the hear? "We are on the edge of some very bad things." Obama is
aiming for "the destruction of our very way of life." The "time is now."
The government is "filled with Marxists." Health care is designed to
"destroy America." Pushing fear while saying but "don't you be afraid."
Then he will say "something bad is going to happen soon." His inference is
that Obama will use an attack or disaster to seize power.
The primary undertone of what Beck does is to fuel the feelings of imminent
attack and tie those feelings to being part of "God's Plan." He doesn't
invoke the almighty nearly as much on television as on radio. His radio
show might as well be on religious stations. He incessantly talks about how
he prays for the "knowledge" he imparts to mere mortals. He infers that he
has some special conduit to God, which is a mainstay to the deranged mind
in most cases.
"Your defense is the belief in the power of God" Beck says, extolling
followers to "stand where he wants you to stand," and to "listen to his
voice." He tells them God will "save America," with Beck's help. of course.
He speaks with a desperation in his voice that could lead followers to
conclude the time to act is now, if they were so inclined. Once a group is
sure those who oppose them politically also are enemies of God - a
threshold is crossed.
Most other right wing talkers invoke God, but not with the fervor and on-
the-edge flavor that Beck does. His tone, his mannerisms, his body language
- all seem like something one might expect from a prophet of old. And yes,
Beck does call himself a prophet.
Another trick he uses is to throw in enough reality to bring cover to the
loony parts of what he says. When Beck says he believes four decades of
dependency on foreign oil is a travesty, he also attacks alternative energy
proposals. His favorite target is who he calls the "Green jobs Czar," Van
Jones. Beck's approach is to say things need to be done, but to then
promise to obstruct everything.
Regardless of how paranoid Beck may be, progressives aren't out to deny him
his voice. He is going to alienate enough advertisers to in all likelihood
do that himself. Nor would I try to say what Beck can and can't talk about.
I will, however, continue to point out that Beck has moved from the
ridiculous to the inciting. He, like Hannity and others, want something
"bad" to happen. And for that their listeners should hold them accountable.

--
We have broken from reality--a psychotic Nation. Ignorance with a pretense
of knowledge replacing wisdom. -- Ron Paul

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/30a39cd522bcf038?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 11:32 am
From: Beam Me Up Scotty

On 2/28/2010 11:37 AM, �n�hw��f wrote:
> Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> clouded the waters of pure thought
> with news:lcjio51m889kftu4aqa94e1t4b58obk7c1@4ax.com:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:45:01 -0600, in the land of
> alt.usenet.kooks,
>> "�n�hw��f" <snuhwolf@yahoo.com> got double secret probation for
>> writing:
>>
>>> Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everything@Talk-n-dog.com> clouded
>>> the waters of pure thought with
>>> news:4b891ec4$0$2102$ec3e2dad@unlimited.usenetmonster.com:
>>>
>>>> On 2/27/2010 12:39 AM, Cliff wrote:
>>>>> http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968042,00.html
>>>>> "Study: Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives?"
>>>>> [
>>>>> The notion that liberals are smarter than conservatives is
>>>>> familiar to anyone
>>>>
>>>> .....Who ever listened to a pampas Liberal speaking?
>>>>
>>>>> who has spent time on a college campus. The College Democrats
> are
>>>>> said to be ugly, smug and intellectual; the College Republicans,
>>>>> pretty, belligerent and dumb. There's enough truth in both
>>>>> stereotypes that the vast majority of college students opt not
> to
>>>>> join either club.
>>>>>
>>>>> But are liberals actually smarter? A libertarian (and, as such,
>>>>> nonpartisan) researcher, Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School
> of
>>>>> Economics and Political Science, has just written a paper that
> is
>>>>> set to be published in March by the journal Social Psychology
>>>>> Quarterly. The paper investigates not only whether conservatives
>>>>> are dumber than liberals but also why that might be so. ...
>>>>> The short answer: Kanazawa's paper shows that more-intelligent
>>>>> people are more
>>>>
>>>> What was the Basis for "intelligence" was it problem solving,
>>>> Liberals are a big fat ugly zero when it comes to being problem
>>>> solvers, they live in Utopia-land and they solve gas problems by
>>>> riding their Unicorns to work every day.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> likely to say they are liberal. They are also less likely to say
>>>>> they go to religious services. These aren't entirely new
>>>>> findings; last year, for example, a British team found that kids
>>>>> with higher intelligence scores were more likely
>>>>
>>>> Is Intelligence equal to "smart" NO. Are intelligent people more
>>>> practical than the Average person, NO. Just the opposite,
>>>> intelligent people are some of the most irrational people I have
>>>> ever met and they can seldom function in the real world and end
> up
>>>> stuck in Academia where they can't get themselves in too much
>>>> trouble.
>>>>
>>>>> to grow into adults who vote for Liberal Democrats, even after
>>>>> the researchers controlled for socioeconomics. What's new in
>>>>> Kanazawa's paper is a provocative theory about why intelligence
>>>>> might correlate with liberalism. He argues that smarter people
>>>>> are more willing to espouse "evolutionarily novel" values � that
>>>>> is, values that did not exist in our ancestral environment,
>>>>> including weird ideas about, say, helping genetically unrelated
>>>>> strangers (liberalism, as Kanazawa defines it), which never
> would
>>>>> have occurred to us back when we had to hunt to feed our own
> clan
>>>>> and our only real technology was fire.
>>>>
>>>> He should have quit at "espouse evolutionary novel" and realized
>>>> that egg heads are already evolutionary misfits from the Island
> of
>>>> egg head Misfits. They love to espouse ridiculous ideas that are
>>>> of little value but even crazy people stumble onto the truth once
>>>> in a while, yet we don't call them genius... *or do we* .......?
>>>>
>>>>> ....
>>>>> ]
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Wow...just *wow*...you did a better job of supporting Cliff's
>>> argumentative thesis than I ever could! And I had a funny caveman
>>> example to make the point about conservatives vs liberals to
>>> interject.
>>>
>>> Good Job!
>>>
>>> <golf clap>
>>
>> It would not be so frightening if they did not actually believe
> that
>> their stupidity is actually an advantage.
>>
>
> Its got packaging going for it :)
> Teh bumper stickrz is way easy to memorize!
>
>> As long as there are people like Imhofe allowed to serve in public
>> office the country is fucked.
>>

Here we go again, down that long empty road of Liberalism telling us
that they are the only ones smart enough to rule the humans. Omnipotent
and arrogant and just plain wrong. So how intelligent do you need to be
to get it that wrong?

> Its been fucked since FZ started singing about how fucked it was in
> the 60's.
> Its just getting worse.
>

The farther to the left we go the worse it gets? HHHhhhmmm who'd a
thunk it?

> NP: Freak Out
>

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 11:47 am
From: Beam Me Up Scotty

> Its been fucked since FZ started singing about how fucked it was in
> the 60's.
> Its just getting worse.
>

The farther to the left we go the worse it gets? HHHhhhmmm who'd a
thunk it? Liberals are dum.

> NP: Freak Out
>

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 11:57 am
From: Aratzio

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 14:32:58 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everything@Talk-n-dog.com> got double
secret probation for writing:

>On 2/28/2010 11:37 AM, �n�hw��f wrote:
>> Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> clouded the waters of pure thought
>> with news:lcjio51m889kftu4aqa94e1t4b58obk7c1@4ax.com:
>>
>>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 09:45:01 -0600, in the land of
>> alt.usenet.kooks,
>>> "�n�hw��f" <snuhwolf@yahoo.com> got double secret probation for
>>> writing:
>>>
>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everything@Talk-n-dog.com> clouded
>>>> the waters of pure thought with
>>>> news:4b891ec4$0$2102$ec3e2dad@unlimited.usenetmonster.com:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2/27/2010 12:39 AM, Cliff wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.time.com/time/health/article/0,8599,1968042,00.html
>>>>>> "Study: Are Liberals Smarter Than Conservatives?"
>>>>>> [
>>>>>> The notion that liberals are smarter than conservatives is
>>>>>> familiar to anyone
>>>>>
>>>>> .....Who ever listened to a pampas Liberal speaking?
>>>>>
>>>>>> who has spent time on a college campus. The College Democrats
>> are
>>>>>> said to be ugly, smug and intellectual; the College Republicans,
>>>>>> pretty, belligerent and dumb. There's enough truth in both
>>>>>> stereotypes that the vast majority of college students opt not
>> to
>>>>>> join either club.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But are liberals actually smarter? A libertarian (and, as such,
>>>>>> nonpartisan) researcher, Satoshi Kanazawa of the London School
>> of
>>>>>> Economics and Political Science, has just written a paper that
>> is
>>>>>> set to be published in March by the journal Social Psychology
>>>>>> Quarterly. The paper investigates not only whether conservatives
>>>>>> are dumber than liberals but also why that might be so. ...
>>>>>> The short answer: Kanazawa's paper shows that more-intelligent
>>>>>> people are more
>>>>>
>>>>> What was the Basis for "intelligence" was it problem solving,
>>>>> Liberals are a big fat ugly zero when it comes to being problem
>>>>> solvers, they live in Utopia-land and they solve gas problems by
>>>>> riding their Unicorns to work every day.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> likely to say they are liberal. They are also less likely to say
>>>>>> they go to religious services. These aren't entirely new
>>>>>> findings; last year, for example, a British team found that kids
>>>>>> with higher intelligence scores were more likely
>>>>>
>>>>> Is Intelligence equal to "smart" NO. Are intelligent people more
>>>>> practical than the Average person, NO. Just the opposite,
>>>>> intelligent people are some of the most irrational people I have
>>>>> ever met and they can seldom function in the real world and end
>> up
>>>>> stuck in Academia where they can't get themselves in too much
>>>>> trouble.
>>>>>
>>>>>> to grow into adults who vote for Liberal Democrats, even after
>>>>>> the researchers controlled for socioeconomics. What's new in
>>>>>> Kanazawa's paper is a provocative theory about why intelligence
>>>>>> might correlate with liberalism. He argues that smarter people
>>>>>> are more willing to espouse "evolutionarily novel" values � that
>>>>>> is, values that did not exist in our ancestral environment,
>>>>>> including weird ideas about, say, helping genetically unrelated
>>>>>> strangers (liberalism, as Kanazawa defines it), which never
>> would
>>>>>> have occurred to us back when we had to hunt to feed our own
>> clan
>>>>>> and our only real technology was fire.
>>>>>
>>>>> He should have quit at "espouse evolutionary novel" and realized
>>>>> that egg heads are already evolutionary misfits from the Island
>> of
>>>>> egg head Misfits. They love to espouse ridiculous ideas that are
>>>>> of little value but even crazy people stumble onto the truth once
>>>>> in a while, yet we don't call them genius... *or do we* .......?
>>>>>
>>>>>> ....
>>>>>> ]
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Wow...just *wow*...you did a better job of supporting Cliff's
>>>> argumentative thesis than I ever could! And I had a funny caveman
>>>> example to make the point about conservatives vs liberals to
>>>> interject.
>>>>
>>>> Good Job!
>>>>
>>>> <golf clap>
>>>
>>> It would not be so frightening if they did not actually believe
>> that
>>> their stupidity is actually an advantage.
>>>
>>
>> Its got packaging going for it :)
>> Teh bumper stickrz is way easy to memorize!
>>
>>> As long as there are people like Imhofe allowed to serve in public
>>> office the country is fucked.
>>>
>
>Here we go again, down that long empty road of Liberalism telling us
>that they are the only ones smart enough to rule the humans. Omnipotent
>and arrogant and just plain wrong. So how intelligent do you need to be
>to get it that wrong?

Good to see that you believe one person defines all of conservatism. A
moron at that. Simplistic thinking refined to bumper sticker meme and
then espoused as "common sense". No sense analyzing the situation just
use your gut.

>
>> Its been fucked since FZ started singing about how fucked it was in
>> the 60's.
>> Its just getting worse.
>>
>
>The farther to the left we go the worse it gets? HHHhhhmmm who'd a
>thunk it?

Short term memory of the morons is defined by the statement above.

Here is a quick test:

1. Which president signed into law the lagest single tax increase?
2. Who were the presidents when the three largest economic crisis of
the 20th & 21st century orgiginated?
3. Who was the last president to raise taxes on the wealthy and when?

>> NP: Freak Out
>>

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 11:59 am
From: Cliff

On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 07:44:57 -0800, Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote:

>On Sun, 28 Feb 2010 07:38:12 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>Cliff <Clhuprichguesswhat@aoltmovetheperiodc.om> got double secret
>probation for writing:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 18:08:30 -0800, Aratzio <a6ahlyv02@sneakemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 20:36:05 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>Jane Q. <private@liberal.minded> got double secret probation for
>>>writing:
>>>
>>>>In article <gpeio5dt19avsurdgiv7anlvbccc0cvgo9@4ax.com>, a6ahlyv02
>>>>@sneakemail.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 08:40:13 -0500, in the land of alt.usenet.kooks,
>>>>> Beam Me Up Scotty <Then-Destroy-Everything@Talk-n-dog.com> got double
>>>>> secret probation for writing:
>>>>>
>>>>> >
>>>>> >.....Who ever listened to a pampas Liberal speaking?
>>>>>
>>>>> Define irony.
>>>>
>>>>I didn't know Cliff was from Argentina.
>>>
>>>He has a thing for grass. He likes knolls too.
>>
>> What a spelling flame !!
>
>No, irony flame. Do pay attention. That sentence was proof the study
>has at least anecdotal validity.

Exactly.
--
Cliff

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 12:20 pm
From: Winston

On 2/27/2010 11:37 PM, Don Foreman wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 21:50:33 -0800, Winston<Winston@bigbrother.net>
> wrote:

(...)

>> Is there a better way to do this?
>>
>> Thanks!
>>
>> --Winston
>
> Think separation of variables. I'm guessing that your primary need for
> strength is in shear, which could be served by one or more flush-cut
> steel rods. Retention by horizontal tension could be accomplished
> with lag bolts.

Thanks, Don!

--Winston

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ping Don Foreman: ICD Alert
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/73fe240947f1f05b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 12:24 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

Don Foreman wrote:
>
> On Sat, 27 Feb 2010 23:33:09 -0500, "Michael A. Terrell"
> <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
>
> >
> >Don Foreman wrote:
> >>
> >> Beware of gray-haired gents with grog, nitro capsules and a
> >> slingshot...
> >
> >
> > Can you shoot one of the capsules hard enough for make it detonate?
> >:)
>
> I wonder that too. If I had any nitro capsules that mystery would
> soon be resolved. I have a wrist rocket and I'm not half bad with it.

I wonder if you could shoot one in a paintball gun? :)

--
Greed is the root of all eBay.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bowers Boremike zero setting
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/d571bc4d4e1220c1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Feb 28 2010 12:46 pm
From: oldjag

I have several Bowers Boremikes, on one of them the zero is off by
0.0003". I bought these used and have no manuals. They are the
mechanical type with the plastic window over the micrometer barrel,
this one covers the 3/4" to 1" range. When I check it against the ring
gage it's reading high by 0.0003" so I'm guessing there must be some
way of rotating the barrel or the spindle to compensate, but It does
not seem obvious what to adjust. Anyone play with one of these?

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

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

Sunday, February 28, 2010

rec.crafts.metalworking - 26 new messages in 11 topics - digest

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

Previous Posts