twitter: rec.crafts.metalworking - 25 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: Machine safety
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/c8ed0e0e3ad0e725?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 26 2010 11:13 am
From: steamer

Pete C. <aux3.DOH.4@snet.net> wrote:
>Clumsiness isn't the main route to danger, carelessness is. I wouldn't
>allow one of those nanny saws near my shop, especially since a lot of
>the time I'm not cutting wood and sometimes I'm cutting conductive
>material.
--It has an override for cutting stuff like this; have used it with
no probs.

--
"Steamboat Ed" Haas : Blue Cross socks us
Hacking the Trailing Edge! : $23,000/yr!! ...
www.nmpproducts.com
---Decks a-wash in a sea of words---

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 26 2010 12:42 pm
From: "Pete C."

steamer wrote:
>
> Pete C. <aux3.DOH.4@snet.net> wrote:
> >Clumsiness isn't the main route to danger, carelessness is. I wouldn't
> >allow one of those nanny saws near my shop, especially since a lot of
> >the time I'm not cutting wood and sometimes I'm cutting conductive
> >material.
> --It has an override for cutting stuff like this; have used it with
> no probs.

I override by not having that threat there to begin with. I am not
careless in my shop, therefore I don't need such a nanny device.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What is it? Set 329
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/1132fdc41582b35f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 26 2010 11:25 am
From: J Burns

Rob H. wrote:
> A new set has been added to the web site:
>
> http://55tools.blogspot.com/
>
>
> Rob
1890: The teeth are made to plane. The handle seems long and spindly,
as if to reach somewhere besides foot level.

How about planing a groove in a soft mineral? Ibeams used to be
fireproofed with blocks of gypsum. Suppose gypsum blocks were not sold
with grooves to fit your ibeams. You'd use this tool.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Who will be the first?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/f434d5963fd21822?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 26 2010 11:56 am
From: wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:02:32 -0500, Don Foreman
<dforeman@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:25:37 -0700, wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 02:01:02 -0500, Don Foreman
>><dforeman@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote:
>>
>>>On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:13:25 -0700, wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net wrote:
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There's nothing patriotic about anarchy. There is also nothing
>>>>>> patriotic about acceptance of greed and corruption in our congress and
>>>>>> offensive arrogance exhibited by our elected president.
>>>>
>>>>Your point would be more meaningful if not for the fact that you get
>>>>offended, or at least pretend to be offended, by things like missing
>>>>uppercase.
>>>
>>>You may have me confused with someone else
>>
>>Nope. I remember two times, one the "g" in god, and one with
>>somebody's surname I think. Both were part of your trying to avoid
>>responding to straight talk. I also remember comparing you to someone
>>I knew who took offense at the wearing of ball caps in restaurants. I
>>thought that everybody had heard the fable about the boy who cried
>>wolf, but apparently not.
>>
>>> I don't recall declaring
>>>offense by missing upper case. I've no problem with the writings of
>>>poet e.e. cummings who sometimes eschewed use of uppercase letters.
>>>
>>>In any case, upper or lower, do you disagree with my assertions?
>>
>>Only the mealy-mouthed parts.
>>
>>> Do
>>>you support anarchy, greed and corruption in our congress
>>
>>Of course I don't, and you well know it. Perhaps you thought that
>>asking that question might get me to take you more seriously? LOL
>>Meanwhile, apparently you've also forgotten that you and gummer have
>>discussed trusting each other in foxholes, as well as the need to
>>watch out for 12 year-old girls who might sneak up and flatten your
>>tires during a sortie. My point then was that anarchist loudmouth old
>>farts are a joke, but the two of you seemed to be taking it pretty
>>seriously.
>>
>>> and
>>>presidential arrogance?
>>
>>There you go again. You not only proclaimed Obama arrogant, but
>>implied that he rates right up there with Bush in that department. Yet
>>you don't say what you based that on, because trying to flesh out that
>>opinion would be like explaining why lakes and toilets are equally
>>good for fishing.
>>
>>Wayne
>
>Personal attack, insults, name-calling, irrelevancies, gross
>distortions and outright falsehoods.

Gosh, what a shock, you back up your declarations by sidestepping with
more declarations. Again, just like Boehner, whose sincere <guffaw>
call for civility was accompanied by an apparent failure to recall
that he's been using words like "Armageddon". As evidence of your own
insincerity, I cited your declaration that BA is somehow in the same
"offensive arrogance" league as GW. If you came to that belief based
on facts, then why not spell them out? Not even gonna' try, eh? How
does that make you any different from those "noisy dissidents
clamoring for attention or trolling on usenet"? Anyway,
congratulations, holding unsupportable opinions and dodging straight
talk qualifies you for an automatic honorary tea party membership.

Wayne

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 26 2010 12:01 pm
From: "Pete C."

Gunner Asch wrote:
>
> On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:47:27 -0500, "Pete C." <aux3.DOH.4@snet.net>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >Hawke wrote:
> >>
> >> >>> It sounds like you're anticipating an asymmetric war with home-grown
> >> >>> terrorists and youth death squads that are organizing in church basements
> >> >>> as
> >> >>> we speak.
> >> >>
> >> >> Interesting since that is exactly the situation you have in the middle
> >> >> east, yet you think somehow it couldn't happen here.
> >> >
> >> > It's bizarre that you think your fellow Americans are as vulnerable to
> >> > superstitious nonsense and value life as little as the members of Al Queda,
> >> > and would form death squads to cleanse the country for the True Believers.
> >> >
> >> > If you believe that, you must not think very much of your countrymen. You
> >> > certainly wouldn't trust them to own guns. Are you sure you're in the right
> >> > country here, Pete?
> >> >
> >> >>
> >> >>>
> >> >>> The short take is that I think you guys have lost a few of your marbles.
> >> >>
> >> >> And I think you are blinding yourself to possibilities you don't want to
> >> >> consider.
> >> >
> >> > I'm working on more likely scenarios, like an invasion from Alpha Centauri.
> >> >
> >>
> >> I'll tell you what it is, Ed. See, Pete's a conservative, and from 2001
> >> until last year he's gotten used to having a government that did pretty
> >> much what he wanted it to. He got used to seeing conservatives win every
> >> battle in Washington and so did all the other conservatives. But now
> >> they have been losing every battle and the government is doing the
> >> opposite of what he wants it to do. He's gone from being in the majority
> >> to being a minority and it doesn't feel right. It seems like his country
> >> isn't his anymore and that somehow he's being mistreated. All the
> >> conservatives like him feel like their wants should be catered to and
> >> instead they are a minority that is getting nothing the way they want
> >> it. This has upset them very much. So much they are talking about
> >> secession, rebellion, lynching, killing, and other such things.
> >> Unfortunately, they seem to be headed for minority status for a long
> >> time to come. They will get used to it, their anger will subside, and in
> >> time they will shut up. But it's going to take a while for them to
> >> adjust to the new normal. It's like losing your wealth. At first it's a
> >> terrible shock but in time you learn to adjust. You don't like it but
> >> you adjust. Pete is just learning that his party doesn't get to run the
> >> country anymore and his opponents do. He's not happy like all
> >> conservatives so they are being pricks about it. But isn't that what you
> >> would expect from them?
> >>
> >> Hawke
>
> Democrats Losing Party Members Rapidly According to Poll
> By Tom White, on March 3rd, 2010, at 1:24 pm
>
> Rasmussen Reports has an interesting take on their Party Affiliation
> survey. While their conclusion that membership in both parties is down,
> the decline for the Democrats has been rapid since 2008, indicating that
> many who became Democrats during the Bush presidency have now become
> unaffiliated again, with those identifying as Democrats shrinking to the
> lowest numbers since the poll began in January, 2004.
>
> While the Republicans have held within a range of 31% to 34% going back
> to January, 2008, the Democrats peaked prior to the Obama election at
> almost 42% and are now down to 35%. At one point, the advantage (now
> only 3%) was over 10% for the Democrats.
>
> It appears that while Republicans are holding fairly steady, Democrats
> are in a steep and rapid decline.
>
> I disagree with the Rasmussen conclusion that both parties are losing
> members. To be sure, the poll proves that Democrats are leaving in
> droves – membership is down nearly 20% from 2008. But the numbers
> leaving the Republican ranks are far smaller, and most are likely "Tea
> Party" Republicans who are moving away from the Republicans, but
> definitely not towards the Democrats. Most will ultimately vote for the
> Republican candidates.
>
> Those leaving the Democratic party are moving towards the Republican
> party, as they shift to the right. Or more likely as the Democrats shift
> to the left.
>
> While the Republicans would no doubt like to see a trend moving towards
> Republicans, the good news is, the Democrat deserters are moving to the
> right.
>
> Those abandoning the Democrats are angry with the leftist policies and
> radicalism of the Democratic Party. But while they are angry with the
> Democrats, they are not exactly falling in love with Republicans.

Nope, the "democrat deserters" are not moving to the rights at all, they
are remaining in the center as the democratic party moves further to the
left. They are the centrists who marginally aligned themselves with the
democrats in opposition to some of the conservatives, but who are not
about to stick with the democrats as they move further to the left.

The real problem in this country is that the majority of the population
is centrist, but the two political parties have been over run by wingers
so neither party represents the majority of the population.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 26 2010 12:08 pm
From: wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net

On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 11:00:13 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunnerasch@gmail.com>
wrote:

>On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 12:02:32 -0500, Don Foreman
><dforeman@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 08:25:37 -0700, wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net wrote:
>>
>>>On Fri, 26 Mar 2010 02:01:02 -0500, Don Foreman
>>><dforeman@NOSPAMgoldengate.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 15:13:25 -0700, wmbjkREMOVE@citlink.net wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There's nothing patriotic about anarchy. There is also nothing
>>>>>>> patriotic about acceptance of greed and corruption in our congress and
>>>>>>> offensive arrogance exhibited by our elected president.
>>>>>
>>>>>Your point would be more meaningful if not for the fact that you get
>>>>>offended, or at least pretend to be offended, by things like missing
>>>>>uppercase.
>>>>
>>>>You may have me confused with someone else
>>>
>>>Nope. I remember two times, one the "g" in god, and one with
>>>somebody's surname I think. Both were part of your trying to avoid
>>>responding to straight talk. I also remember comparing you to someone
>>>I knew who took offense at the wearing of ball caps in restaurants. I
>>>thought that everybody had heard the fable about the boy who cried
>>>wolf, but apparently not.
>>>
>>>> I don't recall declaring
>>>>offense by missing upper case. I've no problem with the writings of
>>>>poet e.e. cummings who sometimes eschewed use of uppercase letters.
>>>>
>>>>In any case, upper or lower, do you disagree with my assertions?
>>>
>>>Only the mealy-mouthed parts.
>>>
>>>> Do
>>>>you support anarchy, greed and corruption in our congress
>>>
>>>Of course I don't, and you well know it. Perhaps you thought that
>>>asking that question might get me to take you more seriously? LOL
>>>Meanwhile, apparently you've also forgotten that you and gummer have
>>>discussed trusting each other in foxholes, as well as the need to
>>>watch out for 12 year-old girls who might sneak up and flatten your
>>>tires during a sortie. My point then was that anarchist loudmouth old
>>>farts are a joke, but the two of you seemed to be taking it pretty
>>>seriously.
>>>
>>>> and
>>>>presidential arrogance?
>>>
>>>There you go again. You not only proclaimed Obama arrogant, but
>>>implied that he rates right up there with Bush in that department. Yet
>>>you don't say what you based that on, because trying to flesh out that
>>>opinion would be like explaining why lakes and toilets are equally
>>>good for fishing.
>>>
>>>Wayne
>>
>>Personal attack, insults, name-calling, irrelevancies, gross
>>distortions and outright falsehoods. Yawn. Perhaps TMT will play with
>>you.
>
>
>Im not terribly sure that they are not the same people.

Still making a career of setting the weak-retort bar ever lower, eh
gummy?

Don Foreman: "noisy dissidents clamoring for attention or trolling on
usenet"

Who do you think he's talking about there, nitwit? Oh wait, he might
still try to explain that he didn't mean that comment to apply to
*the* noisiest dissident. Even better, as he did a year or so ago,
maybe he'll try to convince me to fear toothless deadbeats. Perhaps
they're not just deadly <snorf>, but coincidentally deadly-slow as
well! Must be some new secret form of "fieldcraft". The kind where a
warrior <guffaw> makes thousands of threats over a decade, yet remains
firmly attached to his office chair whining about being broke. LOL

Wayne

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 26 2010 12:33 pm
From: Hawke

> Sorry dippy-do, I'm a centrist extremist and I don't have a "party".

You're a centrist extremist, are you? That's different. In fact it's so
different that no one but you has ever heard of it. Truth is that term
is an oxymoron. So you're something, but not that, just like you're not
a short, tall man. I smell a conservative in disguise. I don't have a
party either but some people still insist on calling me a liberal. So I
think you're a conservative.

> If you actually comprehended anything I wrote you would have seen that I
> think the liberals are ineffective in dealing with the islamist threat,
> and the religious conservatives (of any religion) are the main threat to
> civilization.

Well, I do agree that religion is a threat to humanity but I don't know
if it's a main threat. I don't think you have the evidence to support
your belief that liberals are ineffective in dealing with Islamic
threats. "Islam" in itself is not a threat to the U.S. There is a group
of fundamentalist Muslims that do pose a threat to the U.S. but it's not
that big a threat and it's not a threat that liberals can't handle. The
facts show that Obama's administration and policies regarding anti U.S.
Muslims are proving more effective than the last administration was in
dealing with them. I think your view is based on emotion and not facts.
If you were just looking at the facts you would see the liberal Obama
administration is dealing quite well with what you call the islamist
threat. Which, all by itself, indicates your conservative point of view
despite what label you put on yourself.

Hawke

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 26 2010 12:41 pm
From: "Pete C."

Hawke wrote:
>
> > Sorry dippy-do, I'm a centrist extremist and I don't have a "party".
>
> You're a centrist extremist, are you? That's different. In fact it's so
> different that no one but you has ever heard of it. Truth is that term
> is an oxymoron. So you're something, but not that, just like you're not
> a short, tall man. I smell a conservative in disguise. I don't have a
> party either but some people still insist on calling me a liberal. So I
> think you're a conservative.

Nope, very center. Pro gun, pro choice, anti-socialist and
anti-superstition.

>
> > If you actually comprehended anything I wrote you would have seen that I
> > think the liberals are ineffective in dealing with the islamist threat,
> > and the religious conservatives (of any religion) are the main threat to
> > civilization.
>
> Well, I do agree that religion is a threat to humanity but I don't know
> if it's a main threat. I don't think you have the evidence to support
> your belief that liberals are ineffective in dealing with Islamic
> threats. "Islam" in itself is not a threat to the U.S. There is a group
> of fundamentalist Muslims that do pose a threat to the U.S. but it's not
> that big a threat and it's not a threat that liberals can't handle. The
> facts show that Obama's administration and policies regarding anti U.S.
> Muslims are proving more effective than the last administration was in
> dealing with them. I think your view is based on emotion and not facts.
> If you were just looking at the facts you would see the liberal Obama
> administration is dealing quite well with what you call the islamist
> threat. Which, all by itself, indicates your conservative point of view
> despite what label you put on yourself.
>
> Hawke

I didn't say that the previous administration did any better at dealing
with the threat. I certainly do not agree that the current
administration is making much progress either.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hardwood Flooring
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/68660c4f6d11e53c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 26 2010 11:59 am
From: Jim Stewart

Tim Wescott wrote:
> Joe AutoDrill wrote:
>> Disrgard. rec.woodworking is right below rec.crafts.metalworking on
>> my list of subscribed newsgroups. The rest is history.
>
> Although if you really want durability, tongue & groove 304 stainless
> may be the way to go.
>
> Polish to a _high_ shine.

Fastened with socket head capscrews every 12 inches.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 26 2010 12:05 pm
From: "Pete C."

Joe AutoDrill wrote:
>
> Any advantage of one or the other when considering pre-finished VS
> unfinished wood flooring other than the obvious work involved in finishing
> the raw stuff?
>
> I'm thinking total cost and durability, etc.
>
> I'm told pre-finished lasts longer but is tougher to install... But I'm
> doing the install so...
>
> Pergo and other "fake stuff" is NOT for me so don't bother telling about it.

Some thoughts:

Factory applied finishes are more consistent and don't stink up the
house.

Pre-finished relies on an even subfloor for an even finish, while
unfinished is sanded in place so an uneven subfloor can be compensated
for.

So called "Engineered hardwood flooring" is not "fake" and may be worth
considering. It is essentially plywood with the top layer the expensive
hardwood and the lower layers of cheaper woods.

Other stuff such as bamboo flooring is also worth a look, it is
engineered, but available as full dimensional like traditional hardwood.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 26 2010 1:23 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

Tim Wescott wrote:
>
> Ignoramus8345 wrote:
> > On 2010-03-26, Joe AutoDrill <autodrill@yunx.com> wrote:
> >>> Although if you really want durability, tongue & groove 304 stainless may
> >>> be the way to go.
> >> Trust me, if I were single, I'd seriously consider it or some custom made
> >> stainless tiles.
> >
> > Could change a minor electrical accident into a major one, if you are
> > standing on stainless floor barefoot and get "zapped" due to faulty
> > insulation or some such.
>
> OTOH, with stainless flooring and copper ceilings, you could get some
> old bumper cars for the romper room.

Wait a few years and you'll get a great deal on hybrid cars with bad
batteries. Then add you own brushes. ;-)

--
Lead free solder is Belgium's version of 'Hold my beer and watch this!'

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 26 2010 1:27 pm
From: "Joe AutoDrill"

As a side note to this whole conversation...

I've always wanted to design stainless steel or aluminum "blocks" about the
size of retaining wall blocks to be used in that very purpose. I thought it
would be neat to have a steel wall for landscape rather than the concrete
"rock" stuff that's out there... But I can't figure out a way to design it
to look nice.

I've got a supplier who can make them and ship them, but... I don't have
the design and maybe more importantly, the cash. :)

Regards,
Joe Agro, Jr.
(800) 871-5022
01.908.542.0244
Automatic / Pneumatic Drills: http://www.AutoDrill.com
Multiple Spindle Drills: http://www.Multi-Drill.com
Production Tapping: http://Production-Tapping-Equipment.com/
Flagship Site: http://www.Drill-N-Tap.com
VIDEOS: http://www.youtube.com/user/AutoDrill

V8013-R

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: A simple fix for health care.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/71a212adc13a7894?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 26 2010 12:30 pm
From: Too_Many_Tools

On Mar 25, 6:28 pm, "RogerN" <re...@midwest.net> wrote:
> "Tim Wescott" <t...@seemywebsite.now> wrote in message
>
> news:peydnf3H_vBYczbWnZ2dnUVZ_qCdnZ2d@web-ster.com...
>
>
>
>
>
> > Wes wrote:
> >> One of the things I would like seeing is for non emergency care, an up
> >> front price for a
> >> proceedure. How about submitting the proposed bill first and let me
> >> decide after I know
> >> what it is going to cost me if I want to have it?
>
> >> Wes
> > Oh god, I'm doing it! I'm responding to a political post!!
>
> > <rant>
>
> > Not anymore! It'll all be taken care of by your favorite mint. Not
> > peppermint, spearmint, or even double mint -- no, by the Governmint!!!
>
> > I am just furious at the Republican't party for staying out of the whole
> > health care thing. It was a tactical hardball politics decision, made in
> > the hopes that by sniping from the sidelines they could bring the whole
> > thing down an hand Obama and the Democrats a huge loss. Instead, they
> > handed them a huge win.
>
> > Had they actually _participated_, they could have either thrown enough
> > sand in the gears to stall this thing until Obama died of old age, or they
> > could have made it much more reasonable. But no, they had to listen to
> > Rush Drugbaugh.
>
> > And I still have to pay taxes on my health insurance premiums, unless I go
> > to work for da man!!! So I'm just screwed screwed screwed unless I want
> > to check my stomach lining into the Betty Ford Clinic and go to work for
> > some poor middle manager who's squeezed between the needs of his employees
> > and the supercilious desires of some idiot in a corner office somewhere.
>
> > </rant>
>
> > --
> > Tim Wescott
> > Control system and signal processing consulting
> >www.wescottdesign.com
>
> If the Republicans win the majority in the November election, they plan to
> refuse to fund Obamacare. Then the Obamanation will have his health care
> bill that the majority didn't want but he won't have the funding to pay for
> it. Until November, it is not clear if it is constitutional for congress to
> pass a bill forcing people to buy from private companies against their will.
> And the individual mandate has never been done before. If the people stay
> with America they will have litigation until November, no funding for
> Obamacare after that, and the SOB thrown out a couple of years later.
>
> RogerN
>
> RogerN- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Roger is a sore loser.

I would love to see the Republicans underfund health care...it would
guarantee a Democrat win in 2012.

Also...PLEASE run Sarah Palin for President....I and David Letterman
would love to see that happen.

TMT

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 26 2010 12:32 pm
From: Too_Many_Tools

On Mar 25, 10:14 pm, Gunner Asch <gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Mar 2010 18:50:25 -0500, Ignoramus30639
>
>
>
>
>
> <ignoramus30...@NOSPAM.30639.invalid> wrote:
> >On 2010-03-25, RogerN <re...@midwest.net> wrote:
> >> Until November, it is not clear if it is constitutional for congress
> >> to pass a bill forcing people to buy from private companies against
> >> their will. And the individual mandate has never been done before.
>
> >There is already a law requiring us to buy insurance form private
> >companies.
>
> >It is called car insurance.
>
> >Apparently, it is considered constitutional.
>
> >Many professions are required to maintain liability insurance, as well.
>
> >i
>
> But its not the same thing. Car insurance is for those who drive
> vehicles on public roadways. If you dont drive on public
> roadways..insurance is not required.
>
> Same with "many professions"
>
> Making EVERY American buy insurance is going to put 30 million people
> out on the street.
>
> I made $18,000 last year, gross. Making me pay $15,000 for insurance
> out of that $18k...will have me living in a cardboard box.
>
> Thats not a solution, but a death sentence
>
> Gunner
>
> "First Law of Leftist Debate
> The more you present a leftist with factual evidence
> that is counter to his preconceived world view and the
> more difficult it becomes for him to refute it without
> losing face the chance of him calling you a racist, bigot,
> homophobe approaches infinity.
>
> This is despite the thread you are in having not mentioned
> race or sexual preference in any way that is relevant to
> the subject." Grey Ghost- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Got that box picked out yet.

Sell your guns and you can supersize that box...and have your health
insurance paid....and a few of your creditors.

TMT

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 26 2010 1:13 pm
From: "Roger Shoaf"

"." <.@-.org> wrote in message news:Xns9D46E16F69265Eragon@74.209.131.10...
> "Roger Shoaf" <shoaf@nospamsyix.com> wrote in
> news:1269564706.660582@news01.syix.com:
>
> > I like sort of a different approach. Assuming that the congress
> > perceives that our health care system is way too expensive and should
> > be more reasonably priced perhaps a system of medical schools could be
> > built and funded where the best and the brightest could then be
> > educated tuition free to those who qualify.
> >
>
> Affirmative Action will insure that only the dumbest will be accepted to
> those schools and, then, you will be required to use their services
> exclusively.
>
> Is that what you TRULY want?

How do you construe the phrase "the best and the brightest" to mean "only
the dumbest"?

--
Roger Shoaf
If you are not part of the solution, you are not dissolved in the solvent.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 26 2010 1:22 pm
From: "Roger Shoaf"

"Steve W." <csr684@NOTyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:hohfsf$1l5$1@speranza.aioe.org...
> Roger Shoaf wrote:
>
> >
> > I like sort of a different approach. Assuming that the congress
perceives
> > that our health care system is way too expensive and should be more
> > reasonably priced perhaps a system of medical schools could be built and
> > funded where the best and the brightest could then be educated tuition
free
> > to those who qualify.
>
> Will you also be allowing people from other countries to attend like
> they do now? Take a look at current medical schools and see how many
> people that make it through stay in the U.S.

An education visa is not a work visa, so theose forign candidates would not
qualify unless they were elegible for the catch to the free education ie
being able to work for theten year period.

> >
> > The docs graduate debt free, but the catch would be 10 years service in
> > public hospitals and clinics as assigned. The funds we currently pay
for
> > Medicaid, Medicare etc would then be paid into these teaching
> > hospital/clinic systems as well as offering care to those that are on a
> > limited budget.
>
> Indentured servitude is illegal. Oh and this is the predominant area
> that the Medicaid and Medicare money now goes.

Depends on how you were to word the contract. For instance, if the tuition
subsidy was contingent on the service, failure to provide the service
agreed would then make the tuition due and payable with interest. Also the
docs would be getting a salary for their work so I don't think that makes
them indentured servants.

Roger Shoaf

About the time I had mastered getting the toothpaste back in the tube, then
they come up with this striped stuff.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Western snow plow with all hydraulics and controller
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/f415f0567c066041?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 26 2010 12:36 pm
From: Pete Snell

Larry Jaques wrote:

>
> --
> Challenges are gifts that force us to search for a new center of gravity.
> Don't fight them. Just find a different way to stand.
> -- Oprah Winfrey

Wait a minute! Larry quoting Oprah? Is this bizarro-usenet?

Pete

--
Pete Snell
Department of Physics
Royal Military College
Kingston, Ontario,
Canada
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
It is not the critic who counts: not the man who points out how the
strong man stumbles or where the doer of deeds could have done better.
The credit belongs to the man who is actually in the arena.

Theodore Roosevelt (1858-1919)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: If George Bush........
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/ee503716cb3ad0d5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 26 2010 12:56 pm
From: Hawke

> How many jobs has my company created in 131 years? How many jobs has my
> >$15k/wk payroll created considering that those dollars circulate in a
> community 7 times? You create wealth by mining it, growing it or adding
> value (manufacturing) to it and arguably by creating intellectual property.
> The wealthy only provide capital to risk and maybe expertise and for this
> they are entitled to a fair ROI proportional to risk. Wealthy people don't
> hoard money, it's ALWAYS put to work. Take it away from them and there is
> less to invest and less incentive to invest it in the US. The gov likes to
> confiscate as much as it can and give it away to buy votes. The more people
> on the hand-out end will keep voting to keep the free money coming thus
> insuring the continual elections of the politicians giving the confiscated
> money away. Why should these people learn anything and go to work? They
> get it all for free! Good system you got going there! It sure is to the
> advantage to these politicians to keep these people lazy and stupid...and,
> it's working very well!

Just as I expected, your explanations for how wealth is created is
exactly what is always trotted out. The traditional three ways of
creating wealth; mining, manufacturing, and agriculture. Nothing new
there. Then there are the three factors of production; land, labor, and
capital. Nothing new there either. So there you go. Everything you cited
as how wealth is created I've known for 40 years. But you are wrong in
your assessment of how government works or how it is supposed to work.
Government that is run by the consent of the governed does not
confiscate money from the people. The people indicate to their leaders
what they want and the leaders collect enough in taxes from them to
accomplish their goals.
What you don't comprehend is that under our capitalist economic system
there will always be a large proportion of the population that will not
be able to make a decent living not matter how hard they try. I think
you can see that no matter how much you may want a good job today they
just don't exist. That is how capitalist systems work. They never
produce enough jobs for everyone to have a decent level of living. The
whole point of a safety net acknowledges that fact. Society as a whole
has made the choice to help those who cannot provide an adequate level
of life. You may not like that choice but that is what our people have
chosen. You also don't understand that people who need government help
don't want to be in that position. They would rather have a good job and
good pay than to barely get by on government handouts. At least most
would. But there's never going to be enough good jobs to go around.

> What ever you subsidize, you get more of...what ever you tax you get less
> of. Write that down and live it! Consider very carefully what you want to
> subsidize and what you want to tax. You want to tax business and money
> suppliers and subsidize illegal aliens, welfare recipients and abortions. I
> want to create favorable conditions for businesses and investors to create
> jobs, teach skills to people and create wealth. You guys have it completely
> backwards.

Now we don't. We want the same thing as to creating favorable conditions
for businesses to be successful. Without them the people are not going
to have a high level of wealth. No good businesses, only poor people. So
we do want that. But we also know the government is supposed to do what
the people want. That requires taking a certain amount of money in
taxes. If you have to get money for taxes it only makes sense to go to
those who have it. In the last decade the wealth of the country has
become way too concentrated in too few hands. That means we have to take
a lot more from those lucky few. If we had an egalitarian society where
everyone had equal wealth we could go to everyone for the money. But
when all the money is held by the few then they are going to have to pay
for everything, but they have it so why not. So you choose. You can have
an unequal society where a few own everything and thus pay all the
taxes, or you can have a more economically equal society where all the
people pay the taxes. Right now most wealth is held by a small number.
So they have to pay. To which I say, if you don't like it you can move
to another country.

Hawke

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 26 2010 1:01 pm
From: Hawke

>> How many jobs has my company created in 131 years? How many jobs has my
>>> $15k/wk payroll created considering that those dollars circulate in a
>> community 7 times? You create wealth by mining it, growing it or adding
>> value (manufacturing) to it and arguably by creating intellectual property.
>> The wealthy only provide capital to risk and maybe expertise and for this
>> they are entitled to a fair ROI proportional to risk. Wealthy people don't
>> hoard money, it's ALWAYS put to work. Take it away from them and there is
>> less to invest and less incentive to invest it in the US. The gov likes to
>> confiscate as much as it can and give it away to buy votes. The more people
>> on the hand-out end will keep voting to keep the free money coming thus
>> insuring the continual elections of the politicians giving the confiscated
>> money away. Why should these people learn anything and go to work? They
>> get it all for free! Good system you got going there! It sure is to the
>> advantage to these politicians to keep these people lazy and stupid...and,
>> it's working very well!
>>
>> What ever you subsidize, you get more of...what ever you tax you get less
>> of. Write that down and live it! Consider very carefully what you want to
>> subsidize and what you want to tax. You want to tax business and money
>> suppliers and subsidize illegal aliens, welfare recipients and abortions. I
>> want to create favorable conditions for businesses and investors to create
>> jobs, teach skills to people and create wealth. You guys have it completely
>> backwards.
>>
>
> Brainless socialists always do that.
>
> Gunner

Brainless capitalists like Gunner wind up just like he has, broken and
living in poverty while collecting huge amounts of taxpayer's money in
handouts from the government. And don't forget, as he takes every
possible benefit he can from the government he's complaining about the
government doing too much for the poor.

Hawke

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 26 2010 1:02 pm
From: Hawke

Same place as yours you stupid cunt!

Hawke

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 26 2010 1:16 pm
From: Hawke

>> Everything isn't roses in the U.S. that's for sure. But for the first
>> time in years at least we are starting to move in the right direction
>> again. We are now starting to make some of the big changes that we need
>> to make to improve. Addressing our health care problems is a good first
>> step. Do we have a long way to go to get back to where we should be?
>> That's a big affirmative. But we're still a hell of a long way from
>> Thailand.
>>
>> Hawke
>
> You are correct, however I'm not sure whether the big changes are
> reality, or just window dressing. Is the new health plan really going
> to do much for the average working guy?
>
> If he is working he probably has some sort of health plan already,
> doesn't he? Every company I have worked for here in Asia has had
> medical coverage, of some sort. The cheapest bunch had a company medic
> at every site and would pay for all on-the-job injuries.
>
> I haven't read the bill but from hearsay it seems to be mainly day
> laborers and the unemployed. who will benefit.

Then by your own admission you don't know very much about how the health
care bill is going to work. You see that the countries in Asia have
taken the step we just did but they did it years ago. The question is if
every other country has already taken the step why so late for us?
Here's why. Everyone knows that we were on an unsustainable path with
our system. The other countries saw the same facts and made the changes
to their systems they thought were necessary. We finally did what we had
to do but only minimally, and not right away. Things aren't going to
change much here for a number of years but at least we're not still
moving in the wrong direction. The main thing we did was to take some
power away from the insurance companies. They will not be able to rip
people off like they were doing. All countries are in the process of
changing from one kind of health care system to a modern one. There are
a lot of different variations in different places and some are better
than others. As time passes they will change as we see which really work
and which aren't so efficient. The main thing is the over arching goal
is now the same for everyone, to provide taxpayer funded basic health
care for everyone. That was not a function of government for many years.
Now it is accepted by just about every country. With that goal in mind
everyone is now looking to reach the same goal but they will have
different methods for doing it. What will be interesting is to see
exactly what health care looks like around the world in ten years,
twenty years, and longer. I'm guessing it'll be a lot different than
what we are seeing today.

Hawke

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Reading RCM via Mac?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/903342897565e9ff?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 26 2010 1:01 pm
From: Jon Elson

steamer wrote:
> --A pal of mine was wondering what other Mac users prefer for
> reading usenet. I'm on the PC side of the fence using putty and haven't a
> clue what's on the Mac side.
> Suggestions welcome and I'll pass 'em along to my pal
>

Well, I run Linux, but that is the base of OS-X anyway. I use
thunderbird for both email and usenet groups. I find it integrates
mail/news and web stuff pretty well. I've been using some form of
netscape/mozilla/firefox/thunderbird for at least 12 years, I think.

Jon

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT-Escape Obummer care
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/25e744b389bb8f86?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 26 2010 1:26 pm
From: "Michael A. Terrell"

Stormin Mormon wrote:
>
> A protection scam from a Chicago thug? Who'da thunk?

It makes Al Capone & Iggy proud!

--
Lead free solder is Belgium's version of 'Hold my beer and watch this!'

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Closing aluminium tube ends
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/5d4e22498f315783?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 26 2010 1:29 pm
From: Robin

I'm working on a little project (a spotlight) that is basically a bit
of aluminium tubing, 50mm ID, 5mm wall thickness. I was wondering the
best way to close the end of the tube that doesn't have the light
shining out. I'm hoping to make it water resistant

a) Turn a round plate of 60mm diameter, drill and tap the tube and
screw the plate on - problem being the wall thickness isn't that great
so I'd be limited to about M3

b) Cut an internal thread in the tube and a threaded plug to fit
(probably a 1.5mm ISO thread) - would require some form of sealant/
threadlocker

c) Cut a chamfered plug and bond it to the tube - not sure what
adhesive to use

Any other ideas? I'll be using my Myford Super 7 and indexable tools

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Republican losing streak continues
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/acd15706db55f813?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 26 2010 1:29 pm
From: Hawke

On 3/25/2010 5:16 PM, RogerN wrote:
> "John R. Carroll"<nunya@bidness.dev.nul> wrote in message
> news:4uadnY5wT-3bdTbWnZ2dnUVZ_rudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>> RogerN wrote:
>>> "rangerssuck"<rangerssuck@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> news:77d0c54f-b532-4165-960b-2e9cce0d3e55@r27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
>>> On Mar 25, 1:23 am, "RogerN"<re...@midwest.net> wrote:
>>>> "rangerssuck"<rangerss...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>> news:32fc54fa-0339-4cb4-b62b-ec26ee9f54ed@19g2000yqu.googlegroups.com...
>>>> On Mar 24, 6:46 am, "RogerN"<re...@midwest.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> "Too_Many_Tools"<too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>
>> news:61cc1381-1633-4588-ae7d-944fdf7f6d95@q16g2000yqq.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Mar 22, 5:03 pm, Gunner Asch<gunnera...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 22 Mar 2010 12:40:05 -0500, Ignoramus7894
>>>>
>>> Then why didn't they want the Stupak abortion ban, if, as you're
>>> claiming, it's already there, "no need for it".
>>
>> Because any amendment to the bill would have required that it be sent back
>> to the Senate to be voted on again Roger.
>> The Senate Republicans would have filibustered the bill.
>>
>>
>>> Did you believe
>>> Nancy Pelosi's lies? Why, when Stupak wanted anti-abortion in the
>>> bill, didn't he get what he wanted instead of Obama signing an
>>> executive order, that he can remove any time?
>>>
>>> I see your point and I thank you for being reasonable, but here's the
>>> facts. They (Pelosi for one) claim that abortion isn't covered by
>>> taxpayer money. Stupak, a Democrat, wants it in writing, just so
>>> there is no question. They refuse to give it to him in writing, why?
>>
>> Because any amendment to the bill would have required that it be sent back
>> to the Senate to be voted on again Roger.
>> The Senate Republicans would have filibustered the bill.
>
> So Obama would have been held to his bi-partisan promise? How terrible!
>
>>> Why does Planned Parenthood say it is a victory that it is without
>>> the Stupak abortion ban? Sorry to say but I'm afraid that your party
>>> had duped you.
>>
>> You are indeed sorry. In an earlier post you demonstrated that you don't
>> even have a grip on what actually happened Roger.
>> The Senate passed their version of the bill. The House passed theirs.
>> Rather than conference the bill, it went to reconciliation. The House
>> passed
>> the Senate bill and then the budget reconciliation.
>> The reconciliation package went to the Senate and while every attempt to
>> amend the bill was voted down, the Parliamentarian found two technical
>> flaws. The reconciliation package, with the flawed language removed, was
>> then passed by the Senate and the House will take it up tonight. Pelosi
>> has
>> indicated that it will pass and if it does, Obama will then sign it into
>> law.
>>
>> HTH
>> But I doubt it.
>>
>> --
>> John R. Carroll
>
>
> But I keep getting people like you or Ed to explain it and take me in a full
> circle back to what I said in the first place. Has reconciliation ever been
> used for this significant of a power grab by the Government? Is it
> constitutional for Congress to pass a bill mandating citizens to buy
> something from private companies? Why couldn't we wait for a Health Care
> that the majority wanted? Why the rush to cram Obamacare down our throats?
> You explained it but you didn't explain it, you explained that if the
> Democratic Stupak amendment was added, it would have to be voted on again,
> so? Is their something wrong with passing a bill that the majority of
> Americans want, both Democrats and Republicans? But instead Obama cancels
> trips to force his crappy bill upon us. Why not vote on a basic health care
> plan that the majority agree on and take the more difficult issues
> separately? Yeah, I know, but isn't what's good for our country more
> important than what any political party wants? Like I heard, the only thing
> bi-partisan about the bill was the opposition to it.
>
> With all the bad laws in this land, I personally feel that something this
> big is worth doing right, even if it takes more time to do it right. Is
> this about healthcare or about Obama? Or is it about political parties? I
> hope they prove me wrong for the sake of our country, I guess all I can do
> is wait and see.
>
> RogerN

You're missing the whole point here, Roger. This bill was passed
entirely legitimately. It was not rammed through anything. There were
solid majorities in both houses that voted for this bill. It was only
because of extreme opposition by the minority party that all this hassle
happened. Any bill that can get 59 senators to vote for it and gets well
over 200 congressmen to vote for it has wide support. In this case a
strong majority of senators wanted to pass the bill, a strong majority
of congressmen wanted to pass the bill, and the president wanted to pass
the bill. That should be an easy road to passing a bill. Those people
represent the will of the majority of the American people. What you had
was a concerted and intense opposition by a minority to stop the
majority from doing what it was elected to do. That is not democracy.
The minority is supposed to lose in a majority rule arena, and they did.
They just made it a real big deal and made a hell of a fuss because they
refused to accept what the majority wanted. Actually, the republicans
and their supporters should be ashamed of how they acted but since they
have no sense of shame that'll never happen. In fact, they're proud of
acting like asses.

Hawke

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

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

Friday, March 26, 2010

rec.crafts.metalworking - 25 new messages in 11 topics - digest

0 Comments:

Post a Comment

About Me

Previous Posts