rec.crafts.metalworking - 26 new messages in 9 topics - digest

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

rec.crafts.metalworking@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* This..is utter bullshit: USA recession - 9 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/038a0f36b5dc5f22?hl=en
* Bad U-joint? - 5 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/627fa6f76545fa29?hl=en
* Somewhat related to metalworking - 3 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/40cbe52b5861d954?hl=en
* The Koch Brothers - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/0604c287bc0d228b?hl=en
* Bugster's phony "charity" - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/55b08de0e27c326e?hl=en
* NY school teaches students to be pussies - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/60c1f9ca50441979?hl=en
* Metal spark Plug - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/0525a8bf59a2dffe?hl=en
* Shredded Jellyfish - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/011750de71f711d2?hl=en
* Delusional seller - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/020b3f73a6e90ce7?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: This..is utter bullshit: USA recession
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/038a0f36b5dc5f22?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 9 2013 9:29 am
From: RD Sandman


George Plimpton <george@si.not> wrote in
news:1d919$5254bfae$414e828e$12193@EVERESTKC.NET:

> On 10/8/2013 6:55 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>> On 10/8/2013 7:44 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>> On 10/8/2013 3:41 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> George Plimpton <george@si.not> wrote in
>>>> news:587fa$525448b0$414e828e $7941@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/8/2013 10:49 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/8/2013 1:10 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/8/2013 10:07 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>>> In article <boudnZ5TapGppMnPnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@bright.net>,
>>>>>>>> jim lied:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> "Definition of 'Price Inflation'
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I don't want a pop web site definition. I want an economics
>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Too bad. You don't get what you want.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That doesn't sto
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I did get what I wanted. 'jim' lied.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A change in the price of a single good or service is not
>>>>>>> inflation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> SO then the price of houses were NOT inflated, but when the
>>>>>> bubble popped they lost real value and NOT paper inflated value?
>>>>>
>>>>> Correct. Suppose you bought a house in 2000 for $285,000, and in
>>>>> 2006 comparable houses to it in your neighborhood were selling for
>>>>> something in the range of $625,000-$650,000 [that's the situation
>>>>> I was in.] That's a price appreciation of at least 119%.
>>>>> Meanwhile, suppose the general price level over those six years
>>>>> had gone up by, say, 15%. Then, if you had sold your house (as I
>>>>> wish I had) and pocketed the $340,000 difference, you clearly
>>>>> would have made *real* money.
>>>>>
>>>>> The fact that I didn't sell then, and instead sold for $450,000 in
>>>> 2011,
>>>>> after prices had taken a beating, means I lost over $175,000.
>>>>> That's a *real* loss.
>>>>
>>>> No, it isn't. It is a paper loss.
>>>
>>> It isn't. There was absolutely a forgone opportunity to pocket
>>> $340,000.
>>>
>>
>>
>> Then why weren't you taxed for your real capital gains
>
> The fact that I didn't realize the gain doesn't mean I didn't miss out
> on the opportunity to realize it.
>
>

True....so your loss was in what you failed to gain, not a real loss.

--
Sleep well tonight.......

RD (The Sandman}

One bullet in the possession of a criminal is too many.....
Ten bullets in the possession of a mother trying to protect
her children....may not be enough.




== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 9 2013 9:36 am
From: George Plimpton


On 10/9/2013 9:28 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
> George Plimpton <george@si.not> wrote in news:80e86$5254a56b$414e828e
> $24237@EVERESTKC.NET:
>
>> On 10/8/2013 5:21 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> George Plimpton <george@si.not> wrote in news:425fb$5254984e$414e828e
>>> $20262@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>
>>>> On 10/8/2013 3:41 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> George Plimpton <george@si.not> wrote in news:587fa$525448b0
> $414e828e
>>>>> $7941@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/8/2013 10:49 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/8/2013 1:10 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/8/2013 10:07 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <boudnZ5TapGppMnPnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@bright.net>,
>>>>>>>>> jim lied:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Definition of 'Price Inflation'
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want a pop web site definition. I want an economics
>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Too bad. You don't get what you want.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That doesn't sto
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I did get what I wanted. 'jim' lied.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A change in the price of a single good or service is not
> inflation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SO then the price of houses were NOT inflated, but when the bubble
>>>>>>> popped they lost real value and NOT paper inflated value?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Correct. Suppose you bought a house in 2000 for $285,000, and in
>>> 2006
>>>>>> comparable houses to it in your neighborhood were selling for
>>> something
>>>>>> in the range of $625,000-$650,000 [that's the situation I was in.]
>>>>>> That's a price appreciation of at least 119%. Meanwhile, suppose
> the
>>>>>> general price level over those six years had gone up by, say, 15%.
>>>>>> Then, if you had sold your house (as I wish I had) and pocketed the
>>>>>> $340,000 difference, you clearly would have made *real* money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that I didn't sell then, and instead sold for $450,000 in
>>>>> 2011,
>>>>>> after prices had taken a beating, means I lost over $175,000.
> That's
>>> a
>>>>>> *real* loss.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it isn't. It is a paper loss.
>>>>
>>>> It isn't. There was absolutely a forgone opportunity to pocket
>>> $340,000.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> On paper...you did NOT lose that money out of your wallet.
>>
>> It is wholly *irrelevant* if it literally came out of my wallet or not.
>
> It is very relevant if you are claiming it was an actual loss.

It's an actual loss of money I could entirely realistically have had if
I had sold then.


>> I made the same point to jeffy m - the disbarred lawyer - about
>> opportunity cost. He claims they're not "real". He is absolutely
>> wrongabout that.
>
> Oh, you had a real loss....between what you *could* have done and what
> you did. I have had several of those. I have also had some losses "out
> of my wallet". Believe me, they are NOT the same.

If the appreciation from purchase price to market price is not "real",
then why do banks lend against it? They do, as you well know.





== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 9 2013 9:36 am
From: George Plimpton


On 10/9/2013 9:29 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
> George Plimpton <george@si.not> wrote in
> news:1d919$5254bfae$414e828e$12193@EVERESTKC.NET:
>
>> On 10/8/2013 6:55 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>> On 10/8/2013 7:44 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>> On 10/8/2013 3:41 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> George Plimpton <george@si.not> wrote in
>>>>> news:587fa$525448b0$414e828e $7941@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/8/2013 10:49 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>> On 10/8/2013 1:10 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/8/2013 10:07 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article <boudnZ5TapGppMnPnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@bright.net>,
>>>>>>>>> jim lied:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Definition of 'Price Inflation'
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want a pop web site definition. I want an economics
>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Too bad. You don't get what you want.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> That doesn't sto
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I did get what I wanted. 'jim' lied.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> A change in the price of a single good or service is not
>>>>>>>> inflation.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> SO then the price of houses were NOT inflated, but when the
>>>>>>> bubble popped they lost real value and NOT paper inflated value?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Correct. Suppose you bought a house in 2000 for $285,000, and in
>>>>>> 2006 comparable houses to it in your neighborhood were selling for
>>>>>> something in the range of $625,000-$650,000 [that's the situation
>>>>>> I was in.] That's a price appreciation of at least 119%.
>>>>>> Meanwhile, suppose the general price level over those six years
>>>>>> had gone up by, say, 15%. Then, if you had sold your house (as I
>>>>>> wish I had) and pocketed the $340,000 difference, you clearly
>>>>>> would have made *real* money.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The fact that I didn't sell then, and instead sold for $450,000 in
>>>>> 2011,
>>>>>> after prices had taken a beating, means I lost over $175,000.
>>>>>> That's a *real* loss.
>>>>>
>>>>> No, it isn't. It is a paper loss.
>>>>
>>>> It isn't. There was absolutely a forgone opportunity to pocket
>>>> $340,000.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Then why weren't you taxed for your real capital gains
>>
>> The fact that I didn't realize the gain doesn't mean I didn't miss out
>> on the opportunity to realize it.
>>
>>
>
> True....so your loss was in what you failed to gain, not a real loss.

It is a *real* gain if banks will lend against it, which they do.





== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 9 2013 12:33 pm
From: RD Sandman


George Plimpton <george@si.not> wrote in news:b8303$52558558$414e828e
$27053@EVERESTKC.NET:

> On 10/9/2013 9:28 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> George Plimpton <george@si.not> wrote in news:80e86$5254a56b$414e828e
>> $24237@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>
>>> On 10/8/2013 5:21 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>> George Plimpton <george@si.not> wrote in news:425fb$5254984e
$414e828e
>>>> $20262@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>>
>>>>> On 10/8/2013 3:41 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>> George Plimpton <george@si.not> wrote in news:587fa$525448b0
>> $414e828e
>>>>>> $7941@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/8/2013 10:49 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/8/2013 1:10 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/2013 10:07 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <boudnZ5TapGppMnPnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@bright.net>,
>>>>>>>>>> jim lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Definition of 'Price Inflation'
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want a pop web site definition. I want an economics
>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Too bad. You don't get what you want.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't sto
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I did get what I wanted. 'jim' lied.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A change in the price of a single good or service is not
>> inflation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SO then the price of houses were NOT inflated, but when the
bubble
>>>>>>>> popped they lost real value and NOT paper inflated value?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Correct. Suppose you bought a house in 2000 for $285,000, and in
>>>> 2006
>>>>>>> comparable houses to it in your neighborhood were selling for
>>>> something
>>>>>>> in the range of $625,000-$650,000 [that's the situation I was
in.]
>>>>>>> That's a price appreciation of at least 119%. Meanwhile, suppose
>> the
>>>>>>> general price level over those six years had gone up by, say,
15%.
>>>>>>> Then, if you had sold your house (as I wish I had) and pocketed
the
>>>>>>> $340,000 difference, you clearly would have made *real* money.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that I didn't sell then, and instead sold for $450,000
in
>>>>>> 2011,
>>>>>>> after prices had taken a beating, means I lost over $175,000.
>> That's
>>>> a
>>>>>>> *real* loss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it isn't. It is a paper loss.
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't. There was absolutely a forgone opportunity to pocket
>>>> $340,000.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> On paper...you did NOT lose that money out of your wallet.
>>>
>>> It is wholly *irrelevant* if it literally came out of my wallet or
not.
>>
>> It is very relevant if you are claiming it was an actual loss.
>
> It's an actual loss of money I could entirely realistically have had if
> I had sold then.

No, it is an "if".


>>> I made the same point to jeffy m - the disbarred lawyer - about
>>> opportunity cost. He claims they're not "real". He is absolutely
>>> wrongabout that.
>>
>> Oh, you had a real loss....between what you *could* have done and
what
>> you did. I have had several of those. I have also had some losses
"out
>> of my wallet". Believe me, they are NOT the same.
>
> If the appreciation from purchase price to market price is not "real",
> then why do banks lend against it? They do, as you well know.

Because you are holding it as an asset of that particular value.
However, that value is hypothetical. You have to sell to realize that
value. I have had several properties that if I had bought them would be
worth millions today. I did not buy them and I am not worth millions
today because of them. I have also had properties that if I had bought
them, I would have lost my ass. I did not buy them and I did not lose my
ass when they tanked.

--
Sleep well tonight.......

RD (The Sandman}

One bullet in the possession of a criminal is too many.....
Ten bullets in the possession of a mother trying to protect
her children....may not be enough.




== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 9 2013 12:36 pm
From: RD Sandman


George Plimpton <george@si.not> wrote in news:674d2$5255857a$414e828e
$27053@EVERESTKC.NET:

> On 10/9/2013 9:29 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>> George Plimpton <george@si.not> wrote in
>> news:1d919$5254bfae$414e828e$12193@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>
>>> On 10/8/2013 6:55 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>> On 10/8/2013 7:44 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>> On 10/8/2013 3:41 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>> George Plimpton <george@si.not> wrote in
>>>>>> news:587fa$525448b0$414e828e $7941@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 10/8/2013 10:49 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 10/8/2013 1:10 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/2013 10:07 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In article <boudnZ5TapGppMnPnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@bright.net>,
>>>>>>>>>> jim lied:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Definition of 'Price Inflation'
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want a pop web site definition. I want an economics
>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Too bad. You don't get what you want.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't sto
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I did get what I wanted. 'jim' lied.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A change in the price of a single good or service is not
>>>>>>>>> inflation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> SO then the price of houses were NOT inflated, but when the
>>>>>>>> bubble popped they lost real value and NOT paper inflated value?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Correct. Suppose you bought a house in 2000 for $285,000, and in
>>>>>>> 2006 comparable houses to it in your neighborhood were selling
for
>>>>>>> something in the range of $625,000-$650,000 [that's the situation
>>>>>>> I was in.] That's a price appreciation of at least 119%.
>>>>>>> Meanwhile, suppose the general price level over those six years
>>>>>>> had gone up by, say, 15%. Then, if you had sold your house (as I
>>>>>>> wish I had) and pocketed the $340,000 difference, you clearly
>>>>>>> would have made *real* money.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The fact that I didn't sell then, and instead sold for $450,000
in
>>>>>> 2011,
>>>>>>> after prices had taken a beating, means I lost over $175,000.
>>>>>>> That's a *real* loss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, it isn't. It is a paper loss.
>>>>>
>>>>> It isn't. There was absolutely a forgone opportunity to pocket
>>>>> $340,000.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Then why weren't you taxed for your real capital gains
>>>
>>> The fact that I didn't realize the gain doesn't mean I didn't miss
out
>>> on the opportunity to realize it.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> True....so your loss was in what you failed to gain, not a real loss.
>
> It is a *real* gain if banks will lend against it, which they do.
>
>

No, the banks lend against the current value of your assets and the
expected gain or loss. Whether you end up making a mint or losing your
ass later only matters to them if they have enough value for you to
satisfy your loan or what you owe the bank.

--
Sleep well tonight.......

RD (The Sandman}

One bullet in the possession of a criminal is too many.....
Ten bullets in the possession of a mother trying to protect
her children....may not be enough.




== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 9 2013 12:41 pm
From: George Plimpton


On 10/9/2013 12:33 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> George Plimpton <george@si.not> wrote in news:b8303$52558558$414e828e
> $27053@EVERESTKC.NET:
>
>> On 10/9/2013 9:28 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> George Plimpton <george@si.not> wrote in news:80e86$5254a56b$414e828e
>>> $24237@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>
>>>> On 10/8/2013 5:21 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>> George Plimpton <george@si.not> wrote in news:425fb$5254984e
> $414e828e
>>>>> $20262@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 10/8/2013 3:41 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>> George Plimpton <george@si.not> wrote in news:587fa$525448b0
>>> $414e828e
>>>>>>> $7941@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/8/2013 10:49 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/2013 1:10 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/2013 10:07 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <boudnZ5TapGppMnPnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@bright.net>,
>>>>>>>>>>> jim lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Definition of 'Price Inflation'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want a pop web site definition. I want an economics
>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Too bad. You don't get what you want.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't sto
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I did get what I wanted. 'jim' lied.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A change in the price of a single good or service is not
>>> inflation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> SO then the price of houses were NOT inflated, but when the
> bubble
>>>>>>>>> popped they lost real value and NOT paper inflated value?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Correct. Suppose you bought a house in 2000 for $285,000, and in
>>>>> 2006
>>>>>>>> comparable houses to it in your neighborhood were selling for
>>>>> something
>>>>>>>> in the range of $625,000-$650,000 [that's the situation I was
> in.]
>>>>>>>> That's a price appreciation of at least 119%. Meanwhile, suppose
>>> the
>>>>>>>> general price level over those six years had gone up by, say,
> 15%.
>>>>>>>> Then, if you had sold your house (as I wish I had) and pocketed
> the
>>>>>>>> $340,000 difference, you clearly would have made *real* money.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that I didn't sell then, and instead sold for $450,000
> in
>>>>>>> 2011,
>>>>>>>> after prices had taken a beating, means I lost over $175,000.
>>> That's
>>>>> a
>>>>>>>> *real* loss.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it isn't. It is a paper loss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It isn't. There was absolutely a forgone opportunity to pocket
>>>>> $340,000.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> On paper...you did NOT lose that money out of your wallet.
>>>>
>>>> It is wholly *irrelevant* if it literally came out of my wallet or
> not.
>>>
>>> It is very relevant if you are claiming it was an actual loss.
>>
>> It's an actual loss of money I could entirely realistically have had if
>> I had sold then.
>
> No, it is an "if".

Irrelevant. Suppose the market price rises to a certain level above
what I paid and stays there. I can more or less permanently "bank" on
being able to sell it at a gain, or borrow against it.


>
>>>> I made the same point to jeffy m - the disbarred lawyer - about
>>>> opportunity cost. He claims they're not "real". He is absolutely
>>>> wrongabout that.
>>>
>>> Oh, you had a real loss....between what you *could* have done and
> what
>>> you did. I have had several of those. I have also had some losses
> "out
>>> of my wallet". Believe me, they are NOT the same.
>>
>> If the appreciation from purchase price to market price is not "real",
>> then why do banks lend against it? They do, as you well know.
>
> Because you are holding it as an asset of that particular value.

Exactly.


> However, that value is hypothetical.

Not to the bank it isn't.


> You have to sell to realize that
> value.

No, I don't. I can borrow against it and put it in my pocket right now.


> I have had several properties that if I had bought them would be
> worth millions today. I did not buy them and I am not worth millions
> today because of them. I have also had properties that if I had bought
> them, I would have lost my ass. I did not buy them and I did not lose my
> ass when they tanked.
>





== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 9 2013 12:47 pm
From: George Plimpton


On 10/9/2013 12:36 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
> George Plimpton <george@si.not> wrote in news:674d2$5255857a$414e828e
> $27053@EVERESTKC.NET:
>
>> On 10/9/2013 9:29 AM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>> George Plimpton <george@si.not> wrote in
>>> news:1d919$5254bfae$414e828e$12193@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>
>>>> On 10/8/2013 6:55 PM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>> On 10/8/2013 7:44 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>> On 10/8/2013 3:41 PM, RD Sandman wrote:
>>>>>>> George Plimpton <george@si.not> wrote in
>>>>>>> news:587fa$525448b0$414e828e $7941@EVERESTKC.NET:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 10/8/2013 10:49 AM, BeamMeUpScotty wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/2013 1:10 PM, George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 10/8/2013 10:07 AM, Siri Cruise wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article <boudnZ5TapGppMnPnZ2dnUVZ_qednZ2d@bright.net>,
>>>>>>>>>>> jim lied:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> George Plimpton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "Definition of 'Price Inflation'
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I don't want a pop web site definition. I want an economics
>>>>>>>>>>>>> definition.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Too bad. You don't get what you want.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> That doesn't sto
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I did get what I wanted. 'jim' lied.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> A change in the price of a single good or service is not
>>>>>>>>>> inflation.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> SO then the price of houses were NOT inflated, but when the
>>>>>>>>> bubble popped they lost real value and NOT paper inflated value?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Correct. Suppose you bought a house in 2000 for $285,000, and in
>>>>>>>> 2006 comparable houses to it in your neighborhood were selling
> for
>>>>>>>> something in the range of $625,000-$650,000 [that's the situation
>>>>>>>> I was in.] That's a price appreciation of at least 119%.
>>>>>>>> Meanwhile, suppose the general price level over those six years
>>>>>>>> had gone up by, say, 15%. Then, if you had sold your house (as I
>>>>>>>> wish I had) and pocketed the $340,000 difference, you clearly
>>>>>>>> would have made *real* money.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The fact that I didn't sell then, and instead sold for $450,000
> in
>>>>>>> 2011,
>>>>>>>> after prices had taken a beating, means I lost over $175,000.
>>>>>>>> That's a *real* loss.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, it isn't. It is a paper loss.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It isn't. There was absolutely a forgone opportunity to pocket
>>>>>> $340,000.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why weren't you taxed for your real capital gains
>>>>
>>>> The fact that I didn't realize the gain doesn't mean I didn't miss
> out
>>>> on the opportunity to realize it.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> True....so your loss was in what you failed to gain, not a real loss.
>>
>> It is a *real* gain if banks will lend against it, which they do.
>>
>>
>
> No, the banks lend against the current value of your assets and the
> expected gain or loss. Whether you end up making a mint or losing your
> ass later only matters to them if they have enough value for you to
> satisfy your loan or what you owe the bank.

If I have one property for which I paid $100,000 that now has a market
value of $500,000, and another $500,000 property I just bought for
$500,000 with 20% down and a $300,000 mortgage, the bank will lend me on
the order of $400,000 on the first property because they consider that
appreciation to be *real*, while they wouldn't lend me a dime on the
second one.





== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 9 2013 12:47 pm
From: Winston_Smith


On Wed, 9 Oct 2013 00:19:14 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"
<precisionmachinist123@notmail.com> wrote:

>
>"Winston_Smith" <invalid@butterfly.net> wrote in message
>news:aqb9595um13bujubu21v8p3dgke7iabghh@4ax.com...
>> On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 06:28:29 -0700, "Fred C. Dobbs" wrote:
>>
>>>They could only reach $4000 for a household if that household had
>>>$400,000 of income, you idiot. It's $95 per person or 1% of household
>>>income, whichever is greater. $4000 is 1% of $400,000.
>>>
>>>Can't you do basic arithmetic?
>>
>> Then the UPI story is wrong. I did the math in one of my posts. Show
>> us what's wrong with the UPI story or show me where I made a math
>> error.
>>
>
>Why do you always push the work off onto critics?
>
>Anything you say about the left is to be taken at face value, but anything
>said
>about right is denied with a demand for proof.
>
>>>you idiot
>>
>> I see our liberal contingent is still making their points with name
>> calling instead of facts and logical argument.
>
>Perhaps if you stopped *acting* like an idiot.....

Then you would start responding to facts and give up insult as the
liberal substitute for facts ?? I doubt that.




== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 9 2013 12:55 pm
From: Winston_Smith


On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 23:55:54 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT" wrote:
>"Winston_Smith" wrote
>> On Tue, 8 Oct 2013 00:41:29 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"wrote:
>>>"Winston_Smith" wrote
>>>> On Sun, 6 Oct 2013 20:54:46 -0700, "PrecisionmachinisT"wrote:
>>>>>"Winston_Smith" wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>>> Call them what you wish. They were insults.
>>>>>
>>>>>Walks like a duck, talks like a duck.
>>>>
>>>> Precisely. It walked like a duck. I called you no names. You found
>>>> yourself in a bit of a debating corner and opened up with the name
>>>> calling. Classic liberal technique by the way.
>>>
>>>It's you that's found yourself in a corner, Winston...
>>>
>>>--Poor little baby. I feel sorry for you, really I do.
>>
>> I've stuck to issues; you have digressed to name calling. If it walks
>> like a duck ...
>
>Except your "issues" were based upon pure right wing bullshit that came
>straight out of a fucking right wing propaganda chain mail, and your
>changing the dialog to "name calling" does not alter this fact.

The classic liberal arguement. Anything the right says is bullshit and
can be responed to solely by name calling. Anything the left says is
solid fact and must not be explored as left wing propaganda. Left is
right and right is wrong. God said so; so be it for now and forever.

Bullshit.

>>>> Then time and inflation. Do libs thing we are dumb enough to buy that
>>>> one AGAIN?
>
>Sure looks like you're "name calling" above....

I asked what you think. I asked if you consider the right "dumb". Not
uneducated, not misled, not uninformed, not mis-informed. But that it
appears you think we are DUMB and asked if that was correct.

I did not say liberals ARE dumb, but you seem to have read it that
way.

>> Oh, ho. My numbers are no longer debated, with insult. The focus now
>> shifts to the wonderful world of the future.
>
>Your "numbers" are clearly false, Winston, that's beyond debate, and it's
>time for you to man up and admit it.

But yet you can't tell me where the error is. You just tell us there
is one somewhere and if it WERE to be identified, that would prove you
right. But point to the error? Oh, no. No need to go there.

>A good part of the problem is that far too many people, yourself included,
>obviously aren't capable of distinguishing the difference between
>information and disinformation.

As you seem incapable of identifying the difference between the two.
Whatever makes your point, must be the truth.





==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bad U-joint?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/627fa6f76545fa29?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 9 2013 9:49 am
From: Erik



> I had a truck's rear u-joint go while I was following it once. The
> center flew out and hit my windshield right between my eyes. Luckily,
> it was spinning beneficially to the slant of the windshield, so my
> F-150 glass only got a shearing scratch there, no puncture. Most of
> it polished out. I was -really- lucky that day. A truck cross through
> the forehead would have kinda hurt. I avoided the drive shaft which
> the truck jumped over because I was in the next lane over by that
> time. Talk about adrenaline shakes...

Reminded me of this video:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOhgMAOrp0c

As a kid I remember my dad coming home one day and telling us of a lost
driveshaft scare he's had... IIRC he said it came from the opposite side
of the freeway bouncing/flailing end over end through traffic, hopped
the center divider for another bounce or two before impaling itself
javelin style into an ice-plant covered embankment.

I've heard, (but don't know to be fact) that US Federal Motor Vehicle
Safety Standards now require vehicles contain and prevent driveshaft
separation in the event of joint failure.

Erik




== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 9 2013 9:54 am
From: "Jim Wilkins"


"Ignoramus27351" <ignoramus27351@NOSPAM.27351.invalid> wrote in
message news:8pidnXXLecRd88jPnZ2dnUVZ_hudnZ2d@giganews.com...
>I investigated this further. The drive shaft (prop shaft) does not
> appear to be loose.

Mine didn't either. IIRC wiggling a jacked-up tire showed the loose
u-joint better than trying to turn the driveshaft when the wheels were
on the ground and the parking brake applied. Unbolting it was even
better but I had to go out to buy a 12mm 12 point flex socket to get
the front one off, and more importantly to torque it back on.
jsw






== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 9 2013 11:31 am
From: David Billington


On 09/10/13 17:49, Erik wrote:
>> I had a truck's rear u-joint go while I was following it once. The
>> center flew out and hit my windshield right between my eyes. Luckily,
>> it was spinning beneficially to the slant of the windshield, so my
>> F-150 glass only got a shearing scratch there, no puncture. Most of
>> it polished out. I was -really- lucky that day. A truck cross through
>> the forehead would have kinda hurt. I avoided the drive shaft which
>> the truck jumped over because I was in the next lane over by that
>> time. Talk about adrenaline shakes...
> Reminded me of this video:
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rOhgMAOrp0c
>
> As a kid I remember my dad coming home one day and telling us of a lost
> driveshaft scare he's had... IIRC he said it came from the opposite side
> of the freeway bouncing/flailing end over end through traffic, hopped
> the center divider for another bounce or two before impaling itself
> javelin style into an ice-plant covered embankment.
>
> I've heard, (but don't know to be fact) that US Federal Motor Vehicle
> Safety Standards now require vehicles contain and prevent driveshaft
> separation in the event of joint failure.
>
> Erik
When I was living in Wichita around 1981 a woman was killed when a IIRC
plastic drain fitting fell off another vehicle and smashed through her
windscreen. I myself have received minor facial cuts when a rock was
jettisoned from a tipper truck, possibly having been stuck between the
twin rear wheels, hit the back edge of the bonnet (US hood) and smashed
the windscreen in front of me puncturing the laminated interlayer,
fortunately I saw it coming in time the shut my eyes. Luckily no one
else was in the car as they would have been showered in glass shards. I
was surprised just how much glass was in the car from front to back, it
got everywhere.




== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 9 2013 12:28 pm
From: Jon Elson


Ignoramus27351 wrote:

> I investigated this further. The drive shaft (prop shaft) does not
> appear to be loose.
>
> The vibration seems to be related to a gear. If I drive wnd watch RPM,
> at around 35 MPH, the vibration starts as soon as the RPM drops,
> indicating a gear change. Again, it only appears when I push on gas,
> and seems to be further limited to that gear.
>
Oh OH! That is NOT a good symptom. It may be a combination of
gear and speed, but if it really is only in one gear, it could mean
transmission trouble.

Jon




== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 9 2013 1:29 pm
From: "Lloyd E. Sponenburgh"


Jon Elson <jmelson@wustl.edu> fired this volley in
news:HoidnZAr27fPMcjPnZ2dnUVZ_sGdnZ2d@giganews.com:

> it could mean
> transmission trouble.
>

Really?
<G>
(not making fun of you, Jon. It's just that the idea was ridiculed not 24
hours ago.)

Lloyd





==============================================================================
TOPIC: Somewhat related to metalworking
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/40cbe52b5861d954?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 9 2013 9:53 am
From: "Bob La Londe"


"Joe "Dufu"" <autodrill@yunx.com> wrote in message
news:2js85910hh51diq7lfctp5g9rnmt2455ok@4ax.com...
>>Individual electric 3 way valves. By allowing it to vent to air when
>>turned
>>off the spindle should stop much faster. Add a manual valve to each OR an
>>individual electric switch. Switches are probably cheaper. Get fancy and
>>wire up a control panel with an LED for each one that is turned on in the
>>same array pattern as the air spindles. Don't know enough about your feed
>>setup, but if this is something like banks of drills with each bank
>>processing a single part then maybe you can have a simple mechanical
>>interlink between banks that allows you to not even feed those that are
>>not
>>actually processing a part.
>
> The addition of spring activated solenoid valves and a PLC make this
> easier, that's for sure.
>
> But see if you can solve it with pneumatic logic only.


Valve (gang valve if necessary) provides mass air to the entire assembly.
The quills are fed by a spring retracted pneumatic cylinder with some form
of control valve to control speed. A manual valve allows you to turn off
air to the feed quill piston and the spindle. When you cut main air all
engaged spindles stop turning and retract. Air pressure has to be fairly
strictly regulated once you dial it all in. Timing could be another issue.

Pneumatics isn't really my thing, and I when you say "pneumatic logic only"
I don't know how much mechanical control is allowed.








>
> If you do, I'll tell you about the more complex nine drill set-up we
> had a month ago and even show you photos. :)
>
> --
> Until you wake up, I will fight for you...
>
> Regards,
> Joe Agro, Jr.
> (800) 871-5022 x113
> 01.908.542.0244
> Flagship Site: http://www.Drill-HQ.com
> Automatic / Pneumatic Drills: http://www.AutoDrill.com
> Multiple Spindle Drills: http://www.Multi-Drill.com
> Production Tapping: http://www.Drill-HQ.com/?page_id=226
> VIDEOS: http://www.youtube.com/user/AutoDrill
> FACEBOOK: http://www.facebook.com/AutoDrill
> TWITTER: http://twitter.com/AutoDrill
>
> V8013-R





== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 9 2013 9:57 am
From: "Bob La Londe"


"Joe "Dufu"" <autodrill@yunx.com> wrote in message
news:u9ha59dtmtab2afrnl788oml7h6e37tgo9@4ax.com...
> On Tue, 08 Oct 2013 14:06:48 -0700, Gunner Asch <gunnerasch@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>The addition of spring activated solenoid valves and a PLC make this
>>>easier, that's for sure.
>>>
>>>But see if you can solve it with pneumatic logic only...
>>
>>but...why would you?
>
> Because the customer demands it. Logical reasons would include a
> situation whree they are drilling out a container filled with hydrogen
> gas and the "pneumatic" part of it is run on an inert gas, etc.

I considered explosion proof environment as a possible reason. See my other
reply. Mechanical ball valves are cheap (relatively) so simply installing a
valve to shut off all air to each spindle and quill as described in my other
reply is easy enough.





== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 9 2013 10:04 am
From: "Bob La Londe"


"Bob La Londe" <none@none.com99> wrote in message
news:l341m2$l9n$1@dont-email.me...
> "Joe "Dufu"" <autodrill@yunx.com> wrote in message
> news:2js85910hh51diq7lfctp5g9rnmt2455ok@4ax.com...
>>>Individual electric 3 way valves. By allowing it to vent to air when
>>>turned
>>>off the spindle should stop much faster. Add a manual valve to each OR
>>>an
>>>individual electric switch. Switches are probably cheaper. Get fancy
>>>and
>>>wire up a control panel with an LED for each one that is turned on in the
>>>same array pattern as the air spindles. Don't know enough about your
>>>feed
>>>setup, but if this is something like banks of drills with each bank
>>>processing a single part then maybe you can have a simple mechanical
>>>interlink between banks that allows you to not even feed those that are
>>>not
>>>actually processing a part.
>>
>> The addition of spring activated solenoid valves and a PLC make this
>> easier, that's for sure.
>>
>> But see if you can solve it with pneumatic logic only.
>
>
> Valve (gang valve if necessary) provides mass air to the entire assembly.
> The quills are fed by a spring retracted pneumatic cylinder with some form
> of control valve to control speed. A manual valve allows you to turn off
> air to the feed quill piston and the spindle. When you cut main air all
> engaged spindles stop turning and retract. Air pressure has to be fairly
> strictly regulated once you dial it all in. Timing could be another
> issue.
>
> Pneumatics isn't really my thing, and I when you say "pneumatic logic
> only" I don't know how much mechanical control is allowed.

Alternatively the quill feed piston could be bidirectional and you could
employ a 3 way gang valve. When your main gang valve is engaged it feeds
air to the feed the piston and to the spindles. When the valve is reversed
it cuts air from the spindle and forces the piston to retract. Cutting air
to individual drill heads as described before still works, and if any quills
experience creep they are forced back each time the valve is reversed.
Spring assist for retraction is still an option.










==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Koch Brothers
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/0604c287bc0d228b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 9 2013 10:10 am
From: "PrecisionmachinisT" <123machinist@notmail.com>



"jon_banquer" <jonbanquer@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:5a36c86d-2303-4fb0-b46d-b0ca3afd98c9@googlegroups.com...
> "They are obsessed, by among other things, making sure 25 million American's have no health insurance at all"
>
>
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNj8bpY2PEY

"The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover didn't know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow's hands."

--Will Rogers in the St. Petersburg Times - Nov 26, 1932




== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 9 2013 10:28 am
From: Delvin Benet


On 10/9/2013 10:10 AM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
>
> "jon_banquer" <jonbanquer@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:5a36c86d-2303-4fb0-b46d-b0ca3afd98c9@googlegroups.com...
>> "They are obsessed, by among other things, making sure 25 million American's have no health insurance at all"
>>
>>
>> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fNj8bpY2PEY
>
> "The money was all appropriated for the top in the hopes that it would trickle down to the needy. Mr. Hoover didn't know that money trickled up. Give it to the people at the bottom and the people at the top will have it before night, anyhow. But it will at least have passed through the poor fellow's hands."
>
> --Will Rogers in the St. Petersburg Times - Nov 26, 1932

I forget where Dr. Rogers received his Ph.D in economics. I'm hopeful
someone here can look it up.





== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 9 2013 10:28 am
From: George Plimpton


On 10/9/2013 10:10 AM, PrecisionmachinisT wrote:
>
> "jon_banquer" <jonbanquer@yahoo.com> wrote in message news:5a36c86d-2303-4fb0-b46d-b0ca3afd98c9@googlegroups.com...
>> "They are obsessed, by among other things, making sure 25 million American's have no health insurance at all"

Bullshit.






==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bugster's phony "charity"
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/55b08de0e27c326e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 9 2013 10:23 am
From: George Plimpton


Bugster has been pissing his panties lately about whether it is helpful
to poor people to give them cheap but useful things, like inexpensive
bicycles. Bugster's position is that giving poor people charity in the
form of second-hand or cheap merchandise teaches them the "wrong lesson"
and is no better than giving them nothing at all. He goes on to say
that the only acceptable form of charity is to give poor people
top-quality new stuff, and lots of it. He adds that this is required by
supposedly "Christian" values.

Now, never mind that Bugster has never given *any* sort of new
merchandise away as charity; never mind that Bugster, along with all the
rest of the left, mock and sneer at Christianity and Christians; and
never mind that Bugster gives *far* less to charity in terms of
percentage of income, and almost certainly far less in absolute dollar
value, than conservatives earning half as much as he does. Bugster the
hypocrite isn't really talking about charity at all. Bugster believes
that people have a "right" to have good stuff, and lots of it, and if
they won't earn it for themselves, he wants the state to take it at
gunpoint from productive decent people and hand it over to deadbeat
47-percenters.

I don't believe there is ever going to be a "great cull" or "second
revolution" or any such bullshit, but if there ever is, it will be
brought on by America-hating filth like Bugster, and it is to be hoped
that Bugster would be among the first people killed.





==============================================================================
TOPIC: NY school teaches students to be pussies
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/60c1f9ca50441979?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 9 2013 10:46 am
From: George Plimpton


On 10/9/2013 10:27 AM, Wayne wrote:
> Footballs, baseballs, cartwheels, and tag are banned. Don't even THINK
> about dodgeball.
>
>
> http://dailycaller.com/2013/10/08/middle-school-bans-footballs-baseballs-cartwheels-fun-games-of-tag/
>
>
> The dark forces aiming at the total wussification of America have struck
> again—this time at a Long Island middle school where administrators have
> banned imposed a recess ban on footballs, baseballs, lacrosse balls and
> hard soccer balls.
>
> But wait! There's more. Students at Weber Middle School in the suburban
> hamlet of Port Washington can't do cartwheels on school grounds unless
> they are under the strict supervision of a coach, reports CBS New York.
> Games of tag will also be verboten unless they are milquetoast and boring.
>
> The Daily Caller is not making this up.

Understand that it isn't primarily motivated by a real concern for the
well-being of the precious little darlings. The big motivation is fear
of litigation, and that's entirely rational.

Once again, Democrats - this time serving their plaintiffs' bar trial
attorneys constituency - have fucked up society.






==============================================================================
TOPIC: Metal spark Plug
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/0525a8bf59a2dffe?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 9 2013 12:02 pm
From: "Steve W."


Tom Gardner wrote:
> On 10/9/2013 9:08 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
>> On 10/9/2013 8:37 AM, Joe "Dufu" wrote:
>>> Full tank in storage always. Heavy dose of SeaFoam, Napa part SF16.
>>> Prior to storage, either use the little drain button thingy to empty
>>> the carb bowl *after* shutting off the supply or simply run the engine
>>> to stall.
>>>
>>> You should be able to go a full year without a problem.
>>>
>>> Works in my genrator, lawnmower, tractors, power washer, snowblower,
>>> motorcycles (even the six carb one!), etc.
>> With a two stroke, I'm told it's not wise to run the
>> carb bowl dry. The last moments when the engine is
>> going around, (but no gas mix coming in) there is no
>> oil mix to lube the innerds.
>>
>>
>> .
>> Christopher A. Young
>> Learn about Jesus
>> www.lds.org
>> .
>
>
> I've heard of people "fogging" the motor with oil but not sure of the
> procedure.


Basically you buy a can of fogging oil. With the engine running you
spray the oil into the intake and shut it down when the engine starts
smoking good.

Works good for engines that you want to store for long periods but for a
gen-set the best thing is to fire it up at least once a month or so just
to make sure it is working and running properly.
I also mix SeaFoam in the gas and only run non-booze fuel in mine.

--
Steve W.





==============================================================================
TOPIC: Shredded Jellyfish
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/011750de71f711d2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 9 2013 12:19 pm
From: rangerssuck


I'm not at all sure how I feel about this...

http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1319743&itc=eetimes_sitedefault&cid=NL_EET_Daily_20131009&elq=739216f96eda430bbbd98f63b7318671&elqCampaignId=1591




== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 9 2013 12:52 pm
From: George Plimpton


On 10/9/2013 12:19 PM, rangerssuck wrote:
> I'm not at all sure how I feel about this...
>
> http://www.eetimes.com/author.asp?section_id=36&doc_id=1319743&itc=eetimes_sitedefault&cid=NL_EET_Daily_20131009&elq=739216f96eda430bbbd98f63b7318671&elqCampaignId=1591
>

They're invertebrates with no brain and no central nervous system, you
stupid weepy "animal rights" fuckwit.

Animals do not have - *cannot* have - rights. Get over your infantile
emotionalism.





==============================================================================
TOPIC: Delusional seller
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.crafts.metalworking/t/020b3f73a6e90ce7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 9 2013 11:05 am
From: "Bob La Londe"


"Bob La Londe" <none@none.com99> wrote in message
news:l31gs0$muc$1@dont-email.me...
> "Howard Beal" <H.beal@network.com> wrote in message
> news:l2vs9g$v88$1@speranza.aioe.org...
>>
>>
>> http://lasvegas.craigslist.org/tls/4113962613.html
>>
>> Best Regards
>> Tom.
>
> Its just an RF-30. Top price used in perfect condition is maybe 1000. I
> bought one with an 8x18 lathe for 900 for both a while back. It makes a
> dandy drill press, but I hardly ever use it for milling. Too much
> deflection in the spindle quill. $500 is more realistic if you just want
> to have one.


I would note that the one in the picture is an older Taiwan unit rather than
a newer Chinese unit. Some guys in some groups claim those made in Taiwan
are slightly better quality.





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

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