 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
| HomeDiscussion Groups General ModelsRailroadsRocketsRadio Controlled Air ModelsHelicoptersLand ModelsWater ModelsModelGeeks.com Contact UsLink To UsSearch & Site Map |
Model Forum / General / Railroads / July 2009Where can you get these?
My scratch building supplies have developed a hole in the inventory. Where can I obtain small sheaves and pulleys in HO gauge? I had several but recently needed 4 sheaves the same size for a high ball signal and I couldn't even match any two form the small pile on hand and I've been out of pulleys for quite awhile. I looked on the web but found nothing useful. Specifically I need a small sheave about 18" diameter and single block pulleys but can't seem to find either. I'd appreciate any help you can give me. Roy > My scratch building supplies have developed a hole in the inventory. Where > can I obtain small sheaves and pulleys in HO gauge? I had several but [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > me. > Roy http://www.naturecoast.com/hobby/catalog.htm lists several sizes of sheaves and blocks.  SignatureMike "A man who thinks of himself as belonging to a particular national group in America has not yet become an American. And the man who goes among you to trade upon your nationality is no worthy son to live under the Stars and Stripes." -- Woodrow Wilson > "A man who thinks of himself as belonging to a particular > national group [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Stripes." > -- Woodrow Wilson Uh, the Wilson that segregated the US government, encouraged Jim Crow laws, praised the film "Birth of a Naton", excused the Klan, etc.? (He also muffed the post-WW I treaty negotiations, letting the French and British create the punitive conditions that lead to the rise of the Nazis.) 'Woodrow Wilson's record on race relations was not very good. African Americans welcomed his election in 1912, but they were worried too. During his first term in office, the House passed a law making racial intermarriage a felony in the District of Columbia. His new Postmaster General also ordered that his Washington offices be segregated, with the Treasury and Navy soon doing the same. Suddenly, photographs were required of all applicants for federal jobs. When pressed by black leaders, Wilson replied, "The purpose of these measures was to reduce the friction ? It is as far as possible from being a movement against the Negroes. I sincerely believe it to be in their interest."' http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/amex/wilson/portrait/wp_african.html After the "battle" of Veracruz, where US battleships shelled the Mexican Naval Academy and killed cadets, Wilson's Secretary of the Navy Josephus Daniels ordered that more Medals of Honor be awarded thatn for any other single action in US history, and close to hald the number that would be awarded in either WW I or Korea. Major Smedley Butler, who received one of the 9 awarded to Marines, later wanted to return it. He claimed that the Veracruz affair and the over the top puffing up of MoH awards was an "unutterable foul perversion of Our Country's greatest gift", and claimed he'd done nothing heroic. I heard Woodrow Wilson's guns I heard Maria crying Late last night I heard the news That Veracruz was dying Veracruz was dying Someone called Maria's name I swear it was my father's voice Saying, "If you stay you'll all be slain You must leave now - you have no choice Take the servants and ride west Keep the child close to your chest When the American troops withdraw Let Zapata take the rest" I heard Woodrow Wilson's guns I heard Maria calling Saying, "Veracruz is dying And Cuernavaca's falling" Aquel dia yo jure (On that day I swore Hacia el puerto volvere (To the port I will return Aunque el destino cambio mi vida (Even though destiny changed my life En Veracruz morire (In Veracruz I shall die Aquel dia yo jure (On that day I swore) I heard Woodrow Wilson's guns I heard them in the harbor Saying, "Veracruz is dying" - Warren Zevon from the album "Excitable Boy", one of his finest, and definitely one of the best of the '70s - and it's onl $7.98 at Amazon http://www.amazon.com/Excitable-Boy-Warren-Zevon/dp/B000002GW7 1. Johnny Strikes up the Band 2. Roland the Headless Thompson Gunner 3. Excitable Boy 4. Werewolves of London 5. Accidentally Like a Martyr 6. Night Time in the Switching Yard 7. Veracruz 8. Tenderness on the Block 9. Lawyers, Guns and Money SignatureSteve On 6/10/2009 6:16 AM fl@liner spake thus: >> My scratch building supplies have developed a hole in the >> inventory. Where can I obtain small sheaves and pulleys in HO [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > http://www.naturecoast.com/hobby/catalog.htm > lists several sizes of sheaves and blocks. Dunno where you came up with that. Searching for "pulley", "sheave" and "block" on that page comes up with zilch. (They show kits that *include* pulleys, but none separately that I can see.) Can you point us to a link to pulleys there? SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism > On 6/10/2009 6:16 AM fl@liner spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > pulleys, but none separately that I can see.) Can you point us to a link > to pulleys there? Check Fittings, Wood, Figures, etc page 3 has blocks and working block page 7 has brass sheaves page 8 has bulk supply of bocks Do you want us to blow your nose too? > Do you want us to blow your nose too? Yup. Someone asks politely for more information, and someone else feels compelled to post a snotty put down in reply. There's always gotta be one. >> Do you want us to blow your nose too? > >Yup. Someone asks politely for more information, and someone else >feels compelled to post a snotty put down in reply. > >There's always gotta be one. Fans of irony take note. -- Ray > >There's always gotta be one. > > Fans of irony take note. Good advise from the one single soul on RMR who's managed to make enemies of a coalition of posters who would normally have nothing in common save a love of model railroading and an abiding dislike for *him*. So when are *you* going to begin posting some relevant threads, Poopsie? On 6/10/2009 5:00 PM Twibil spake thus: >>>There's always gotta be one. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > So when are *you* going to begin posting some relevant threads, > Poopsie? Probably never, if history is any guide. SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism > > So when are *you* going to begin posting some relevant threads, > > Poopsie? > > Probably never, if history is any guide. Eh. I've not been here long enough pass judgement on what Ray has -or hasn't- posted in the past, but he seems singularly bent on trying to build up his own ego by putting other folks down, and he doesn't bother letting truth stand in his way, either. Now me, I've never claimed to be the pink fairy of sweetness, but telling obvious -and repeated- lies would seem to be counter- productive for someone who wants people to respect him... >> > So when are *you* going to begin posting some relevant threads, >> > Poopsie? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >telling obvious -and repeated- lies would seem to be counter- >productive for someone who wants people to respect him... The fans of irony are laughing their heads off at you both. -- Ray >>> > So when are *you* going to begin posting some relevant threads, >>> > Poopsie? [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > -- > Ray You still haven't replied to my polite query as to why you imagine that culture resides solely in the USa. Regards, Greg.P. >>>> > So when are *you* going to begin posting some relevant threads, >>>> > Poopsie? [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >You still haven't replied to my polite query as to why you imagine >that culture resides solely in the USa. You inferred that. I stated that you had none. -- Ray >>>>> > So when are *you* going to begin posting some relevant threads, >>>>> > Poopsie? [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > -- > Ray Ok, I'll go with your implied amazing "culture" is less than my "none". Regards, Greg.P. > The fans of irony are laughing their heads off at you both. Sure they are, Ray. Note: should you ever discover the meaning of the word "truth", you will find that nearly everyone respects it, and that those who don't are held in almost universal contempt. Your call. >> The fans of irony are laughing their heads off at you both. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Your call. Ok. I find you in contempt. Man, you really are stupid. -- Ray On 6/11/2009 3:27 AM Ray Haddad spake thus: >>> The fans of irony are laughing their heads off at you both. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Man, you really are stupid. Sayeth the man with no discernible friends here. How smart is *that*? SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism >On 6/11/2009 3:27 AM Ray Haddad spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >Sayeth the man with no discernible friends here. How smart is *that*? Just because you are not numbered among them doesn't mean that can't change. Relax and try again. I've been known to forgive stupidity when it is congenital. -- Ray On 6/11/2009 1:59 PM Ray Haddad spake thus: >> On 6/11/2009 3:27 AM Ray Haddad spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Just because you are not numbered among them doesn't mean that can't > change. "Them"? I challenge you to name even one. Oh, you mean all those folks who don't write *anything* in response to you. I see you're mistaking silence for "friendship". On the other hand, if you're that hard up for friends, I can see it. SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism >On 6/11/2009 1:59 PM Ray Haddad spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >you. I see you're mistaking silence for "friendship". On the other hand, >if you're that hard up for friends, I can see it. If that's your measure then you must be one guy with tons of friends. All of whom dislike you. How odd. -- Ray > If that's your measure then you must be one guy with tons of friends. > All of whom dislike you. How odd. And how untrue. (Gee, what a surprise: an untruth coming from Ray!) Dave *is* sometimes edgy, and *has* been known to snap at people (notably *me* on occasion), but I cannot recall one single time that I've ever seen him indulge in blatant prevarication either for the sake of an insult or for propping up his own ego. (Which seems to be quite reasonably healthy from everything I've seen so far.) At worst, he annoys me from time to time -as I most likely annoy him- but no, I don't dislike him. Because even though we frequently disagree on subjects such as politics, we share a love of model railroading, an out-front respect for candor -and (Surprise!) somewhat abrasive personalities. But you, on the other hand, don't seem to have ever graduated from the monkey-house school of repartee. Like them, you simply pick up steaming handfulls of feces whenever you're annoyed and fling them in every direction, hoping that something may randomly stick to those who you see as your tormentors. You *really* don't seem to comprehend that you can't hurt an adult's feelings by telling lies about them: they (and everyone else) will simply assume that you're stuck somewhere lower on the emotional or evolutionary scale, and either ignore you or treat you as a free amusement park ride, depending on their inclinations. In short; Dave and I aren't exactly doing sleep-overs at each other's homes yet, but I respect him and I'm not afraid to say so: he's reasonably knowledgable about things I know very little about, and he's always been willing to share that knowledge when asked. Now: about that multitude of irony fans you seem to think are being amused by my "ignorance".........where are they all hiding? (Insert sounds of crickets and wind blowing across the arid desert sands...) >> If that's your measure then you must be one guy with tons of friends. >> All of whom dislike you. How odd. [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] >amused by my "ignorance".........where are they all hiding? (Insert >sounds of crickets and wind blowing across the arid desert sands...) And the irony pours out of you like leaks from a punctured pig. Don't you even see how blatantly aggressive you are? I did nothing to you yet you continue this baloney. You're the dumbest person to ever inhabit a spot on USENET and you are just too stupid to see it. The rest of this thread is yours. -- Ray If you can't say anything nice, JUST SHUT UP!!! -- Bob May rmay at nethere.com http: slash /nav.to slash bobmay http: slash /bobmay dot astronomy.net >If you can't say anything nice, JUST SHUT UP!!! Everything I write here is nice and polite. The irony of this is that your post is quite rude. -- Ray > The rest of this thread is yours. Whoops! Turns out he was fibbing, because he followed the above with... > LOL > Serious denial, more bragging and plenty of lies from you. No surprise > there. Being a patient there doesn't allow you to put it on your CV. And then after the above, he posted... > Everything I write here is nice and polite. The irony of this is that > your post is quite rude. And yet once more... > Everything I write here is nice. As this sequence demonstrates, the poor guy can't even recall what he's said in his last few posts, which pretty much demonstrates that he honestly can't tell the difference between reality and whatever the little voice in his head is telling him to say at any given moment. So at this point I'm going to recommend that everyone do what I'm going to do from now on: simply ignore him. We can't *make* him get better, and nobody who's this far into delusional thought-processes ever seeks out help unless it's thrust upon them -which is unlikely these days unless they've been molesting the neighbor's pets or children. Too bad. There might have been something worthwhile hiding inside Ray Haddad at one time. > On 6/11/2009 3:27 AM Ray Haddad spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Sayeth the man with no discernible friends here. How smart is *that*? What do you mean? Ray counts me as his best friend! Greg.P. > On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 05:27:47 +1200, David Nebenzahl > [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > > What do you mean? Ray counts me as his best friend! OW! With friends like you, who needs enemas? (Bows, does quick buck-and-wing off to stage-right.) >> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 05:27:47 +1200, David Nebenzahl >> [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > > (Bows, does quick buck-and-wing off to stage-right.) Are you no good with sarcasm? I guess US humour really is different to the real world's. Regards, Greg.P. NZ > >> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 05:27:47 +1200, David Nebenzahl > [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Are you no good with sarcasm? Apparently I'm better at it than you are at reading comprehension. > I guess US humour really is different to the real world's. And speaking of Trolls. On Jun 15, 5:06 pm, "Greg.Procter" <proc...@ihug.co.nz> wrote: > > On Jun 11, 7:01 pm, "Greg.Procter" <proc...@ihug.co.nz> wrote: > >> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 05:27:47 +1200, David Nebenzahl [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Are you no good with sarcasm? Apparently I'm better at it than you are at reading comprehension. > I guess US humour really is different to the real world's. And speaking of Trolls. =============================================================== I think "buck and wing" is pretty local to the US. And also pretty Old. > I think "buck and wing" is pretty local to the US. Shouldn't matter: it took Google only 0.15 seconds to find 174,000 returns for "buck and wing". Besides, who needs Google to understand the point of a terrible pun such as "with friends like you, who needs enemas"? > And also pretty Old. Time to throw out every reference that's over 50 years old then? No more steam engines, guys. >> I think "buck and wing" is pretty local to the US. > > Shouldn't matter: it took Google only 0.15 seconds to find 174,000 > returns for "buck and wing". Besides, who needs Google to understand > the point of a terrible pun such as "with friends like you, who needs > enemas"? Googling doesn't get those of us not aware of your intended meaning to where you attempt to take us. How should I be supposed to know what you intend by those terms??? The "enema" pun was fine - sorry to hear your constipation is not clearing up. >> And also pretty Old. > > Time to throw out every reference that's over 50 years old then? > > No more steam engines, guys. SignatureUsing Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ On Jun 15, 9:50 pm, "LD" <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote: > I think "buck and wing" is pretty local to the US. Shouldn't matter: it took Google only 0.15 seconds to find 174,000 returns for "buck and wing". Besides, who needs Google to understand the point of a terrible pun such as "with friends like you, who needs enemas"? > And also pretty Old. Time to throw out every reference that's over 50 years old then? No more steam engines, guys. ------------------------------------------------------------------ Not everyone is as old as you. > On Jun 15, 9:50 pm, "LD" <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Not everyone is as old as you. So? Not everyone is distainful of references that aren't right up-to- the-minute, either. You know: the folks who value literature over twitters, music over rap, the Greek philosophers over Mister Spock, and history over transitory fads. On Jun 16, 11:28 pm, "LD" <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote: > "Twibil" <nowayjo...@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > ------------------------------------------------------------------ > Not everyone is as old as you. So? Not everyone is distainful of references that aren't right up-to- the-minute, either. You know: the folks who value literature over twitters, music over rap, the Greek philosophers over Mister Spock, and history over transitory fads. ==================================================== You've got a couple meters broken ..., > You've got a couple meters broken ... If you intended irony, you failed. "Not everyone is as old as you" isn't an ironic phrase because I *am* old, and it's perfectly *true* that not everyone is as old as I am. But "irony" means "The use of words to convey the opposite of their literal meaning; a statement or situation where the meaning is contradicted by the appearance or presentation of the idea.", and there was no implication that you actually meant the opposite of what you posted. >> >> On Fri, 12 Jun 2009 05:27:47 +1200, David Nebenzahl >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Apparently I'm better at it than you are at reading comprehension. That's two seperate subjects in one sentence; sarcasm and reading comprehension(?) >> I guess US humour really is different to the real world's. > > And speaking of Trolls. That wasn't my intention. Regards, Greg.P. >> Apparently I'm better at it than you are at reading comprehension. > >That's two seperate subjects in one sentence; sarcasm and reading >comprehension(?) And you have just proven that you *can't* comprehend written English... >>> Apparently I'm better at it than you are at reading comprehension. >> >> That's two seperate subjects in one sentence; sarcasm and reading >> comprehension(?) > > And you have just proven that you *can't* comprehend written English... Twibil first refered to "it", that being the subject she was responding to, and then added a new subject at the end of her sentence. I understand English very well, but it would appear that you are (on this occassion at least) incapable of comprehending basic written English. Regards, Greg.P. >>>> Apparently I'm better at it than you are at reading comprehension. >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >I understand English very well, but it would appear that you are (on > this occassion at least) incapable of comprehending basic written English. Wow, you still can't make sense of a very simple sentence. Try these examples: "I'm better at basketball than you are at football." "I'm a better doctor than you are a lawyer." Both make perfect sense if English is your first language. >>>>> Apparently I'm better at it than you are at reading comprehension. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > Both make perfect sense if English is your first language. Exactly how can one make a comparison between sarcasm, which requires comprehension of basic written English, and comprehension of basic written English? <sheesh> >> Wow, you still can't make sense of a very simple sentence. Try these >> examples: [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >written English? ><sheesh> Jebus, you are slow. That isn't just poor reading, it's a developmental disability. > >Exactly how can one make a comparison between sarcasm, which requires > >comprehension of basic written English, and comprehension of basic [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Jebus, you are slow. That isn't just poor reading, it's a developmental > disability. It's unwillingness. On 6/18/2009 12:03 AM Twibil spake thus: >>> Exactly how can one make a comparison between sarcasm, which >>> requires comprehension of basic written English, and [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It's unwillingness. Bingo. AKA obtuseness. Willful "misunderstanding". SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism > On 6/18/2009 12:03 AM Twibil spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Bingo. AKA obtuseness. Willful "misunderstanding". It is the writer's responsibility to make his or her meaning clear, when putting his or her view into text. As the reader I may take whatever meaning I see from that text. Regards, Greg.P. >It is the writer's responsibility to make his or her meaning clear, when >putting his or her view into text. As the reader I may take whatever >meaning I see from that text. Good thing you aren't a professor of literature... I can see your dissertation... "Bare bodkins? Fardels? This Shakespeare dude was an idiot!" >> It is the writer's responsibility to make his or her meaning clear, when >> putting his or her view into text. As the reader I may take whatever [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > I can see your dissertation... "Bare bodkins? Fardels? This Shakespeare > dude was an idiot!" Shakespeare wrote plays intended for immediate performance. <sheesh> >> Good thing you aren't a professor of literature... >> I can see your dissertation... "Bare bodkins? Fardels? This Shakespeare >> dude was an idiot!" > >Shakespeare wrote plays intended for immediate performance. ><sheesh> And? > > Good thing you aren't a professor of literature... > > I can see your dissertation... "Bare bodkins? Fardels? This Shakespeare > > dude was an idiot!" > > Shakespeare wrote plays intended for immediate performance. > <sheesh> Yes, and we *all* know that Shakspur's plays are no longer performed... Consigned to the dust-bin of history... Forgotten... (Snork, chuckle, titter, guffaw, chortle, snicker, choke.) >> > Good thing you aren't a professor of literature... >> > I can see your dissertation... "Bare bodkins? Fardels? This [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > (Snork, chuckle, titter, guffaw, chortle, snicker, choke.) That was his expectation, so we are told by better brains than yours. [...] (1) Apparently I'm better at it than you are at reading comprehension. (2) That's two separate subjects in one sentence; sarcasm and reading [...] OK, class, here beginneth the grammar lesson. ;-) Sentence (1) is a well-formed English sentence. Whoever wrote (2) is confused - not surprising, since he was certainly subjected to the mess that passes for "grammar" in English-speaking schools. Sentence (1) consists of two clauses linked by a conjunction. The parsing (in phrasal grammar) is: Adverb, [Subject - Complement(Verb - Object<Preposition - Nominal>)] +(Comparator) - [Subject - Complement(Verb - Object<Preposition - Nominal>)]. The Verb is of the form <Be + Nominal>. Nominals are "nouns", "pronouns", "adjectives" and "gerunds" in traditional school grammars. In the second clause, the Nominal is omitted, to avoid repetition. There are other grammars that describe English accurately, but I prefer this one, as it's easiest to learn. Forget the "grammar" you learned in grade school - it does not describe English. It's the result of a 16th century schoolteacher's mistaken notion that English is a species of Latin. Harrumph. I promise not to subject you to a proper grammar if you promise to stop critiquing each other's use of English. If you can't make sense of what someone wrote, say so, and offer (politely) what you think was intended. Our aim should clear (and with luck, entertaining) communication. Got that? Good. cheers, wolf k. > [...] > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > > wolf k. Wolf, old idiot, the item under discussion was the exchange which took place _before_ the sentence you have defined as "[1]". Twibil claimed that her use of US slang could have it's meaning illuminated by simply Googling the slang terms. I attempted to point out that one would have to recognise that the terms were actually foreign slang and were not intended literally, both "buck" and "wing" having several non-foreign-slang meanings which she may well have intended. You may well consider that English is not a species of Latin, but I would suggest to you that yank english is no longer a species of English. Regards, Greg.P. SignatureUsing Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ >> [...] >> [quoted text clipped - 56 lines] > You may well consider that English is not a species of Latin, but I would > suggest to you that yank english is no longer a species of English. And "buck and wing" is no longer a species of Contemporary Yank English. ;o) >>> [...] >>> [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > And "buck and wing" is no longer a species of Contemporary Yank English. > ;o) As I was largely unaware that they ever were (exception: buck = dollar) it's no great loss to me that they are no longer contemporary there. Regards, Greg.P. (what's you current PC term for Negros?) > And "buck and wing" is no longer a species of Contemporary Yank English. Let's see: it's been used here a number of times in just the last few days which means......yes.......that's right: it's perfectly contemporary. (That *is* what "contemporary" means, you know...) On Jun 18, 4:19 pm, "LD" <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote: > And "buck and wing" is no longer a species of Contemporary Yank English. Let's see: it's been used here a number of times in just the last few days which means......yes.......that's right: it's perfectly contemporary. (That *is* what "contemporary" means, you know...) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Not really ... > Let's see: it's been used here a number of times in just the last few > days which means......yes.......that's right: it's perfectly [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Not really ... Bets? con·tem·po·rar·y: adj. 1. Belonging to the same period of time: a fact documented by two contemporary sources. 2. Of about the same age. 3. Current; modern. Note #3 and bite your tongue. (Besides; how can you deny it? That's exactly how *you* were using the word, silly person!) On Jun 19, 1:38 am, "LD" <lobby.dos...@verizon.net> wrote: > Let's see: it's been used here a number of times in just the last few > days which means......yes.......that's right: it's perfectly [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Not really ... Bets? con·tem·po·rar·y: adj. 1. Belonging to the same period of time: a fact documented by two contemporary sources. 2. Of about the same age. 3. Current; modern. Note #3 and bite your tongue. (Besides; how can you deny it? That's exactly how *you* were using the word, silly person!) --------------------------------------------------------------------- The phrase is neither current nor modern. > The phrase is neither current nor modern. Alas, despite your egalitarian ideals, I think I shall continue to write as I wish, rather than writing down to your level so as to make you more comfortable. Now: If at some point you should ever find yourself sitting in an office with the word "EDITOR" printed on the door, and you discover a manuscript of mine sitting on your desk, you'll be more than welcome to make suggestions. But up until then, I fear I'll have to use my background as a writer as a basis for deciding what to say and how to say it, rather then relying upon your qualifications as a volunteer net-nanny. Thanks, but no thanks. > > The phrase is neither current nor modern. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > Thanks, but no thanks. wow, I enjoyed that, but being the simple person I am, I'd just say F Y :-) > The phrase is neither current nor modern. Alas, despite your egalitarian ideals, I think I shall continue to write as I wish, rather than writing down to your level so as to make you more comfortable. =========================================================== You really need to get a life! > "Twibil" <nowayjose6@gmail.com> wrote in message >> The phrase is neither current nor modern. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > =========================================================== > You really need to get a life! twibil? life? mutually exclusive. next you'll be telling Greg P to use his brains, which is even more implausible. >> "Twibil" <nowayjose6@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > next you'll be telling Greg P to use his brains, which is even more > implausible. That's just your jealousy at missing out on your quota at birth. > Twibil first refered to "it", that being the subject she was responding to, > and then added a new subject at the end of her sentence. BU-AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!! And *he* claims to be the one who understands everything! Classic "whoosh". >> Twibil first refered to "it", that being the subject she was responding >> to, [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Classic "whoosh". I do not claim to understand "everything". I certainly wouldn't claim to understand incomprehensible people such as you. Your claim is your very own "whoosh". Regards, Greg.P. > >> Twibil first refered to "it", that being the subject she was responding > >> to, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > to understand incomprehensible people such as you. > Your claim is your very own "whoosh". No, Poopsie, the "whoosh" is that you not only fail to understand what others have said, but that you also completely fail to comprehend what you've said about yourself. But follow the bouncing ball, and I shall demonstrate: (A) You don't like me, but you lacked anything cogent to say and so resorted to the good old Ad Hominem insult by repeatedly calling me "she" and "her". (B) This is about what we've come to expect of you, and using ad hominem arguments generally only makes the guy who uses them look bad, but even that pales next to the suicidal path you chose to take: implying that I'm a "she". (C) Ya see, you would't have said that unless you thought it was an insult, and *that* tells us exactly how you think about women: as inferiors that any man should be ashamed to be associated with. If you *didn't* think of them that way it wouldn't have been an effective insult, and that was quite obviously what you intended. It's the sexual equivalent of calling someone a "nigger". (D) The word we're looking for here is "misogynist" ["a misanthrope who dislikes women in particular"], and it is *not* a complimentary term, any more than are "racist" or "bigot". (E) It's 2009, and most of the non-muslim world has long accepted that women are not our inferiors, and are indeed frequently fun to be around for reasons other than rough sex or being fed non-frozen and non-canned food on a regular basis. (I'm told that some guys have even grown to *like* them!) (Aside) I was once engaged to a lovely young New Zealand girl, and before taking me home to meet her parents she cautioned me to "Set your watch back 30 years when we get off of the plane". Turned out she was right. But in your personal case, I suspect that you're going to need a really healthy time-machine to shoot you back to that place much- beloved of insecure males: the place where "men were men", females were considered inherently inferior, and guys like you were run-of-the- mill citizens instead of being considered pathetic losers, as you are today. >> >> Twibil first refered to "it", that being the subject she was >> responding [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > resorted to the good old Ad Hominem insult by repeatedly calling me > "she" and "her". Actually, it was you who responded to my comment in regards to Ray with a put-down. "Twibil" sounds to me like a feminine name. > (B) This is about what we've come to expect of you, and using ad > hominem arguments generally only makes the guy who uses them look bad, > but even that pales next to the suicidal path you chose to take: > implying that I'm a "she". Did you fail to notice that I used "he or she" numerous times? Yes, you would fail to notice that. > (C) Ya see, you would't have said that unless you thought it was an > insult, and *that* tells us exactly how you think about women: as > inferiors that any man should be ashamed to be associated with. If you > *didn't* think of them that way it wouldn't have been an effective > insult, and that was quite obviously what you intended. It's the > sexual equivalent of calling someone a "nigger". I assumed "Twibil" to be a name for a female, hust as I would "Sue" or "Marion". There was _no_ insult intended or implied. Obviously, as you've taken _three_ points (A, B and C) you consider being judged a female to be inferior and an equivalent to being called a "nigger". So you're both a sexist and a racist. Hmmm. > (D) The word we're looking for here is "misogynist" ["a misanthrope > who dislikes women in particular"], and it is *not* a complimentary > term, any more than are "racist" or "bigot". Four points! > (E) It's 2009, and most of the non-muslim world has long accepted that > women are not our inferiors, and are indeed frequently fun to be > around for reasons other than rough sex or being fed non-frozen and > non-canned food on a regular basis. (I'm told that some guys have even > grown to *like* them!) Hmm, now you're a religeous bigot as well! For your information, the Koran specifically states that men and women are equals, while the Bible demands that they are not equals. <sigh> > (Aside) I was once engaged to a lovely young New Zealand girl, and > before taking me home to meet her parents she cautioned me to "Set > your watch back 30 years when we get off of the plane". Turned out > she was right. That would put you yanks back talking about niggers and women staying barefoot in the kitchen while pregnant. Here in New Zealand women gained the vote and equality in (from memory) 1892. Our "niggers" gained equality in 1840. Obviously you still haven't spotted her sarcasim. > But in your personal case, I suspect that you're going to need a > really healthy time-machine to shoot you back to that place much- > beloved of insecure males: the place where "men were men", females > were considered inherently inferior, and guys like you were run-of-the- > mill citizens instead of being considered pathetic losers, as you are > today. So, have you decided yet which gender you are? Regards, Greg.P. On 6/19/2009 4:47 PM Greg.Procter spake thus: >> (C) Ya see, you would't have said that unless you thought it was an >> insult, and *that* tells us exactly how you think about women: as >> inferiors that any man should be ashamed to be associated with. > > I assumed "Twibil" to be a name for a female, hust as I would "Sue" or > "Marion". You assumed "Twibil" was a *name*? Really? And a feminine one at that? If so, you're clearly the stupidest one in this discussion. (Either that, or NZers have *really* weird names for their kids.) It's obviously a Usenet "handle", not a name. SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism > On 6/19/2009 4:47 PM Greg.Procter spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > It's obviously a Usenet "handle", not a name. You mean like "David Nebenzahl" or "Greg.P." Excellent point! > "Twibil" sounds to me like a feminine name. Sure it did. And of *course* you've never heard of Googling a strange word before, you poor ignorant thing... twibill definition twi·bill or twibil twi′·bil′ (twī′bil′) noun 1. a double-bladed battle-ax 2. Brit., Dialectal a kind of mattock > Did you fail to notice that I used "he or she" numerous times? > Yes, you would fail to notice that. Liar. This is your exact wording: " Twibil first refered to "it", that being the subject she was responding to, and then added a new subject at the end of her sentence. " There is no "he" or "he or she" in evidence. Not in that entire post. > I assumed "Twibil" to be a name for a female, hust as I would "Sue" or > "Marion". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > racist. > Hmmm. Oldest trick in the book. "You caught me doing something stupid and called me on it so *you* must be guilty of the same thing or you wouldn't have noticed." Doesn't fly when the White Power/Stormfront a.sholes try it, and doesn't fly for you either. > > (D) The word we're looking for here is "misogynist" ["a misanthrope > > who dislikes women in particular"], and it is *not* a complimentary > > term, any more than are "racist" or "bigot". > > Four points! ? Are you raving? (Okay, silly question.) > > (E) It's 2009, and most of the non-muslim world has long accepted that > > women are not our inferiors, and are indeed frequently fun to be [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Hmm, now you're a religeous bigot as well! Oh. My. God. The little prick thinks that nobody reads the papers or knows anything about Fundie Islamists and how they treat women. > For your information, the Koran specifically states that men and women are > equals, while the Bible demands that they are not equals. > <sigh> Yeah, "sigh". Now tell us how women are actually treated in Christian countries as opposed to say, Afghanistan or Nothern Pakistan, where women are regularly killed for the crime of learning how to read. Or perhaps you'd prefer Saudi Arabia and varous other locales where they're simply kept in reasonably comfortable slavery for their entire lives? Seems Muslim Fundies define "equality" a bit differently than civilised folks. > > (Aside) I was once engaged to a lovely young New Zealand girl, and > > before taking me home to meet her parents she cautioned me to "Set [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Here in New Zealand women gained the vote and equality in (from memory) > 1892. Uh-huh. She *left* New Zealand because if she'd stayed there rather than emigrating to US she could have -in her words- been a teacher, a librarian, a secretary, or somebody's stay-at-home wife. > Obviously you still haven't spotted her sarcasim. There wasn't any. She came back to the US and last I heard was high in the management of a large department store chain: something she'd have had no chance of doing in New Zealand. > > But in your personal case, I suspect that you're going to need a > > really healthy time-machine to shoot you back to that place much- [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > So, have you decided yet which gender you are? And once again he demonstrates what he just claimed wasn't true. >> "Twibil" sounds to me like a feminine name. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > 1. a double-bladed battle-ax > 2. Brit., Dialectal a kind of mattock Hmmmm, so it IS a name! Glad we sorted that one. >> Did you fail to notice that I used "he or she" numerous times? >> Yes, you would fail to notice that. > > Liar. This is your exact wording: " Twibil first refered to "it", that > being the subject she was responding to, > and then added a new subject at the end of her sentence. " You're calling me a liar because you can find one of my postings where I _didn't_ use "he/she"? <sheesh> > There is no "he" or "he or she" in evidence. Not in that entire post. Oh dear, how sad, never mind. You'd need to show that I _never_ used "he/she" or variations in _any_ of my posts and never had any intentions of doing so to show that I was a liar. >> I assumed "Twibil" to be a name for a female, hust as I would "Sue" or >> "Marion". [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > called me on it so *you* must be guilty of the same thing or you > wouldn't have noticed." It appears to me that you are excessively upset over being called "she". Would you have been equally upset if I had said "he"? I think we've identified the person here with the sexist tendencies! > Doesn't fly when the White Power/Stormfront a.sholes try it, and > doesn't fly for you either. "White Power/Stormfront"??? I think we've identified the racist as well! >> > (D) The word we're looking for here is "misogynist" ["a misanthrope >> > who dislikes women in particular"], and it is *not* a complimentary [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > ? Are you raving? (Okay, silly question.) No, merely counting the number of points put forward by the person intent on demonstrating his/her extreme sexism. >> > (E) It's 2009, and most of the non-muslim world has long accepted that >> > women are not our inferiors, and are indeed frequently fun to be [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Oh. My. God. Great demonstration! > The little prick thinks that nobody reads the papers or knows anything > about Fundie Islamists and how they treat women. Are you suggesting that Christians aren't sexist? >> For your information, the Koran specifically states that men and women >> are [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > they're simply kept in reasonably comfortable slavery for their entire > lives? So when did women in the USa get the vote? Equal pay? > Seems Muslim Fundies define "equality" a bit differently than > civilised folks. Civilization in Muslim countries has been around for c8,000 years, USa, perhaps 25-30 years. >> > (Aside) I was once engaged to a lovely young New Zealand girl, and >> > before taking me home to meet her parents she cautioned me to "Set [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > than emigrating to US she could have -in her words- been a teacher, a > librarian, a secretary, or somebody's stay-at-home wife. How many centuries ago was that? >> Obviously you still haven't spotted her sarcasim. > > There wasn't any. She came back to the US and last I heard was high in > the management of a large department store chain: something she'd have > had no chance of doing in New Zealand. What planet are you on??? We had a female Prime Minister for the last 9 years. We have numerous heads of Government Departments who are female and numerous female CEOs etc. We're way ahead of the USa on such matters. <sheesh> >> > But in your personal case, I suspect that you're going to need a >> > really healthy time-machine to shoot you back to that place much- [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > And once again he demonstrates what he just claimed wasn't true. Did you post a picture of your testies somewhere? How should I know your gender other than by the name you post under? > Civilization in Muslim countries has been around for c8,000 years, USa, > perhaps 25-30 years. Civilisation in the USA in the last 25-30 years? That was probably when it ceased, not when it began. >> Civilization in Muslim countries has been around for c8,000 years, USa, >> perhaps 25-30 years. > > Civilisation in the USA in the last 25-30 years? That was probably when > it ceased, not when it began. You seem like a person I'd rather not offend, but from the outside I'd have to question when civilization ever existed in the US? - was it while yanks were wiping out the natives? - in the slavery years? - your civil war? - gold rush era? - abolistion decades? - your depression? - while ignoring World War? - while profiteering from WW? - McCarthy era? - Black civil rights era? - Attacking/invading other nations? (c1900-2009) - Nixon era? - Bush era? Regards, Greg.P. >>> Civilization in Muslim countries has been around for c8,000 years, USa, >>> perhaps 25-30 years. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >to question when civilization ever existed in the US? >- was it while yanks were wiping out the natives? You Kiwis had your share of this. >- in the slavery years? And this. >- your civil war? >- gold rush era? And this. >- abolistion decades? >- your depression? >- while ignoring World War? Disbanding your armed forces? Shame on you. >- while profiteering from WW? Who didn't? Don't even try to tell me NZ didn't. >- McCarthy era? >- Black civil rights era? When you have yours, let us know. >- Attacking/invading other nations? (c1900-2009) >- Nixon era? >- Bush era? <cough> Helen Clarke era <cough> -- Ray >>>> Civilization in Muslim countries has been around for c8,000 years, >>>> USa, [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You Kiwis had your share of this. Actually Ray, we did not in the degree that you yanks achieved. >> - in the slavery years? > > And this. Not at all. >> - your civil war? >> - gold rush era? > > And this. I'm not aware of more than one civil war, and that was the same event that you're sure to claim for your first point above. Sure, we had a gold rush - mostly the same individuals who took part in the US gold rushes and who moved on to the Australian gold rush. >> - abolistion decades? >> - your depression? >> - while ignoring World War? > > Disbanding your armed forces? Shame on you. Where do you get such stupid stories??? >> - while profiteering from WW? > > Who didn't? Don't even try to tell me NZ didn't. Obviously you're totally ignorant of WWII. No, it wasn't allowed here. >> - McCarthy era? >> - Black civil rights era? > > When you have yours, let us know. We're rather more civilized than to destroy people's lives because we disagree with their politics. "Blacks", by which I assume you mean we Maori, got our "rights" with the signing of the 1840 Treaty. >> - Attacking/invading other nations? (c1900-2009) >> - Nixon era? >> - Bush era? > > <cough> Helen Clarke era <cough> Best Prime-Minister we've ever had - I realize the concept of having a female head of Government is totally foreign to you, but actually women can do almost everything that males can do, and v.v. Regards, Greg.P. >>>>> Civilization in Muslim countries has been around for c8,000 years, >>>>> USa, [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Actually Ray, we did not in the degree that you yanks achieved. But you did and that's the point. -- Ray >>>>>> Civilization in Muslim countries has been around for c8,000 years, >>>>>> USa, [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > -- > Ray You assassinated several of your Presidents, but I'd neither suggest that all yanks are assassins nor that all/most your Presidents were assassinated. You did, and that's the point. Greg.P. >>>>>>> Civilization in Muslim countries has been around for c8,000 years, >>>>>>> USa, [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >that all yanks are assassins nor that all/most your Presidents were >assassinated. I did no such thing. You must have someone else in mind. >You did, and that's the point. You do still have slaves, Greg. Look around you. Every one of you is a slave to socialistic govenment. You've lost your say entirely in what your government does to you. You have enslaved yourselves. Never mind what you did historically to the native New Zealanders, for heaven's sake. That was bad enough but today, you bow down to your government and sadly, it's with your own permission. -- Ray >>>>>>>> Civilization in Muslim countries has been around for c8,000 years, >>>>>>>> USa, [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > > I did no such thing. You must have someone else in mind. Presumably you were blaming me personally for slaughtering my Maori ancestors??? Quote: " But you did and that's the point." <sheesh> >> You did, and that's the point. > > You do still have slaves, Greg. Look around you. Every one of you is a > slave to socialistic govenment. That's you yanks who are embracing Socialism. We moved away from that 25 years ago. > You've lost your say entirely in what > your government does to you. You have enslaved yourselves. That's the very nature of modern (so called) Democracy. We get the opportunity to dump our slavemasters every three years, and even to become one ourselves. > Never mind > what you did historically to the native New Zealanders, for heaven's > sake. I think you have some confusion about what we did to our natives. (it's a common problem amongst you PCers. > That was bad enough but today, you bow down to your government > and sadly, it's with your own permission. It is in fact _our_ government. You on the other hand bow down to a leader imposed upon you. Regards, Greg.P. >That's you yanks who are embracing Socialism. We moved away from that >25 years ago. Welcome to Fantasy Island, Greg. -- Ray >> That's you yanks who are embracing Socialism. We moved away from that >> 25 years ago. > > Welcome to Fantasy Island, Greg. Your government buying up banks isn't Socialisim??? Buying a majority shareholding in GM isn't Socialism??? Giving subsidies to agriculture isn't Socialism??? I'd welcome you to Fantasy Island, Ray, but I'm not the one going there. Regards, Greg.P. >>> That's you yanks who are embracing Socialism. We moved away from that >>> 25 years ago. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >Giving subsidies to agriculture isn't Socialism??? >I'd welcome you to Fantasy Island, Ray, but I'm not the one going there. You're already there, mate. -- Ray >>>> That's you yanks who are embracing Socialism. We moved away from that >>>> 25 years ago. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -- > Ray It's very easy for you to shoot your mouth off, Ray, but reality isn't where you're at. Regards, Greg.P. >>>>> That's you yanks who are embracing Socialism. We moved away from that >>>>> 25 years ago. [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >It's very easy for you to shoot your mouth off, Ray, but reality isn't >where you're at. A few here have tried to show you the error of your thinking but you simply refuse to be educated. Must be nice to know it all, Greg. That was sarcasm. You may not have recognized it. -- Ray >>>>>> That's you yanks who are embracing Socialism. We moved away from >>>>>> that [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > That was sarcasm. You may not have recognized it. It must be nice to be like you and know everything, to the point where you try to point out the error of other's ways, Ray. Regards, Greg.P. >>>>>>> That's you yanks who are embracing Socialism. We moved away from >>>>>>> that [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] >It must be nice to be like you and know everything, to the point where >you try to point out the error of other's ways, Ray. And Greg sticks out his tongue, puts his thumbs in his ears, waggles his fingers then says, "I know you are, but what am I?" -- Ray >>>>>>>> That's you yanks who are embracing Socialism. We moved away from >>>>>>>> that [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > -- > Ray You made the stupid statement in the first place, Ray. Why on Earth did you think that it doesn't apply equally to you? Regards, Greg.P. SignatureUsing Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ >>>>>>>>> That's you yanks who are embracing Socialism. We moved away from >>>>>>>>> that [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] >You made the stupid statement in the first place, Ray. Why on Earth did >you think that it doesn't apply equally to you? See? This is the difference between you and me, Greg. I don't have to be told while you do. Sad for you, really. You don't have an original thought. You trot out the party line of "I hate America" at every opportunity and when someone calls you on it, you deny it. You're pathetic. -- Ray >>>>>>>> On Thu, 25 Jun 2009 10:44:51 +1200, Ray Haddad >>>>>>>> <ray@perthmagic.com> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > -- > Ray I've never heard of a "I hate America" organisation, let alone a "party line". So answer the question: "why would anyone hate the USa?" Regards, Greg.P. >I've never heard of a "I hate America" organisation, let alone a "party >line". >So answer the question: "why would anyone hate the USa?" Ask yourself that question Greg. Your posts here all indicate you have a great deal of animosity towards America and Americans. Who can forget your rant about gallons? -- Ray >> I've never heard of a "I hate America" organisation, let alone a "party >> line". [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -- > Ray You keep demonstrating your poor intellectual abilities, Ray. There's a _BIG_ difference between animosity towards a nation and animosity towards what a nation does to others. A single nation using unique and unknown measures while naming them in parallel with another nation's unique measures can be annoying, particularly to someone who uses measurements regularly. Regards, Greg.P. >>> I've never heard of a "I hate America" organisation, let alone a "party >>> line". [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >in parallel with another nation's unique measures can be annoying, >particularly to someone who uses measurements regularly. And you haven't a clue about any of it. -- Ray On 6/24/2009 8:48 PM Greg.Procter spake thus: >>> That's you yanks who are embracing Socialism. We moved away from that >>> 25 years ago. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Buying a majority shareholding in GM isn't Socialism??? > Giving subsidies to agriculture isn't Socialism??? This shows just how far out of touch w/reality you are. Socialism? In the US? Believe me, if it ever did come to pass, I would be among those celebrating in the streets. We have the farthest thing *from* socialism. And your arguments above make you sound like the garden-variety American redneck get-gubmint-off-my-back retrograde conservative. Which, I'm sure, is about 180° out of whack with what you intended--am I right? The recent "bailouts" of Wall Street firms and the auto isn't anything close to socialism; it's actually part of a rather transparent, and desperate, plan to keep our tottering capitalist system from imploding. The day we (the US) adopt socialized medicine, just like EVERY OTHER INDUSTRIALIZED DEMOCRACY in the world, then I'll agree that we're on a socialist path. But guess what: it ain't gonna happen. (It is true that some of the things you mentioned, like agricultural subsidies, had their origins under administrations that could be reasonably accused of having some socialist tendencies--namely FDRs--but that's about as far as it went. Today we're rapidly dismantling all those dreaded S-word programs as fast as we can; witness the repeal of the Glass-Steagall act, by none other than a *Democrat*, Bill Clinton, one of the things that got us into the financial shitstorm we're in today.) SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism > The recent "bailouts" of Wall Street firms and the auto isn't anything > close to socialism; it's actually part of a rather transparent, and > desperate, plan to keep our tottering capitalist system from imploding. As a citizen of the United States, I don't agree, but considering how ignorant I am, my opinon doesn't really count. I know my ancestors were here before there was a United States and my family lost alot TO the United States goverment over several generations. Of course even after the Louisiana Purchase, it seems most of my ancestors didn't claim to be part of the USA. Even though one great great grandfather refused to participate in the war of northern aggresion, his fleet of ocean going ships were stolen by the US goverment, one the other side of the family, a great great grandfather was a pretty high ranking officer in the Confederacy ( no, not dunces, he wasn't ignorant like me ). Our country has a long history of screwing people and countries over but few of u want to admit to it. I am blessed that I was born in the USA, yet I'm fearful as anyone in the world as to what our goverment can, and usually does to anyone they please. I'm just glad we are not in conflict with any nation filled with fat white guys. I don't think I would do well in an internment camp. As long as we think we are free, they can do what they want in the name of freedom. "A nation can survive its' fools, and even the ambitious. But it cannot survive treason from within. An enemy at the gates is less formidable, for he is known and he carries his banners openly. But the traitor moves among those within the gate freely, his sly whispers rustling through all the galleys, heard in the very hall of government itself. "Cicero, 42 B.C., Roman Statesman, orator, and author. > On 6/24/2009 8:48 PM Greg.Procter spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Socialism? In the US? Believe me, if it ever did come to pass, I would > be among those celebrating in the streets. You deny that your Government has been buying banks? You deny that your Government has a 70% shareholding in GM? You deny that your Government is giving subsidies to farmers? All those points have been reported in financial publications over recent weeks and months. > We have the farthest thing *from* socialism. And your arguments above > make you sound like the garden-variety American redneck [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > close to socialism; it's actually part of a rather transparent, and > desperate, plan to keep our tottering capitalist system from imploding. That is socialism. <sheesh> > The day we (the US) adopt socialized medicine, just like EVERY OTHER > INDUSTRIALIZED DEMOCRACY in the world, then I'll agree that we're on a > socialist path. But guess what: it ain't gonna happen. And you wonder why the World pities you all. > (It is true that some of the things you mentioned, like agricultural > subsidies, had their origins under administrations that could be [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > one of the things that got us into the financial shitstorm we're in > today.) This latest subsidy announcement grabbed the press here, because it relates to dairy produce and making US dairy produce viable on World markets. As 60 odd % of our (New Zealand) exports are of dairy products that has the potential of destroying our economy - we're not pleased with the USa. Greg.P. SignatureUsing Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ >> On 6/24/2009 8:48 PM Greg.Procter spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >All those points have been reported in financial publications over recent >weeks and months. You REALLY need to look up the definition of socialism, Greg. The more you try to justify your hatred of America, the more stupid you become. -- Ray >>> On 6/24/2009 8:48 PM Greg.Procter spake thus: >>> [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > You REALLY need to look up the definition of socialism, Greg. The more > you try to justify your hatred of America, the more stupid you become. Why would you stupidly imagine that anyone would hate the USa? Regards, Greg.P. >Why would you stupidly imagine that anyone would hate the USa? Fans of irony, take note. -- Ray >> Why would you stupidly imagine that anyone would hate the USa? > > Fans of irony, take note. > -- > Ray I was looking for a logical answer from you, Ray, but I see you're not capable of giving one. Regards, Greg.P. >>> Why would you stupidly imagine that anyone would hate the USa? >> >> Fans of irony, take note. > >I was looking for a logical answer from you, Ray, but I see you're >not capable of giving one. Greg, it's ironic that you don't even realize that you put forward an "I hate America" attitude here. Don't believe me? Just ask around. -- Ray >>>> Why would you stupidly imagine that anyone would hate the USa? >>> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > -- > Ray So who would I ask, Ray? Why would anyone hate America? I have discussed the US's actions in WWII with relatives who were involved, I must admit I was amazed at the negativeness of their responses. BTW, my Great-Grand-Father loaned his Aickland townhouse to the US Army as their New Zealand headquarters for the short time they bothered to be involved. (William Parker, maternal GGF - townhouse, Shortland Street Auckland, if you feel the need to check) Regards, Greg.P. >I have discussed the US's actions in WWII with relatives who were involved, >I must admit I was amazed at the negativeness of their responses. Just as I suspected. No mind of your own. How sad to be Greg Procter. >BTW, my Great-Grand-Father loaned his Aickland townhouse to the US Army as >their New Zealand headquarters for the short time they bothered to be >involved. Just think of what had happened if America had gone to war unprepared back then. In fact, just imagine how you would have lost everything had America never joined the war effort. All they did was wait until they were ready and more certain of winning instead of leaping in with an unprepared presence. Look at it logically Greg. America was far enough from the war to mobilize and create the largest war machine in history until that time. Once it was ready, there was no holding back the armed forces of the United States of America and together with allies around the world, both fronts were pushed back and soundly defeated. America could safely wait a while to create a hardware and human force that was more effective in the grand scheme of things than one that could have been put forward immediately. Strategically, it was the absolute perfect way to mobilize and enter the war. Pearl Harbor or not, the United States was prepared for war when December 7, 1941 happened along. It was a defining moment, certainly, but the thrust of the mobilization was the intention to fully participate in the war in Europe and the Pacific. To pretend otherwise shows how truly ignorant you are Greg. -- Ray >> I have discussed the US's actions in WWII with relatives who were >> involved, >> I must admit I was amazed at the negativeness of their responses. > > Just as I suspected. No mind of your own. How sad to be Greg Procter. Your suspicions are obviously based on your own lack of intellect. >> BTW, my Great-Grand-Father loaned his Aickland townhouse to the US Army >> as [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Just think of what had happened if America had gone to war unprepared > back then. Aww Ray, the only nation prepared for war in 1939 was Germany. <sheesh> > In fact, just imagine how you would have lost everything > had America never joined the war effort. I had assumed you would have joined the Allied side, not Germany's. > All they did was wait until > they were ready and more certain of winning instead of leaping in with > an unprepared presence. Just as I suspected. No mind of your own. How sad to be Ray Haddad. > Look at it logically Greg. America was far enough from the war to > mobilize and create the largest war machine in history until that > time. Who tells you these silly stories? Russia was the largest war machine with the greatest forces at that time. <sigh> > Once it was ready, there was no holding back the armed forces of > the United States of America and together with allies around the [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > have been put forward immediately. Strategically, it was the absolute > perfect way to mobilize and enter the war. Sure, you wait until Britain was on the point of collapse and then claim all the glory as well as the profits. > Pearl Harbor or not, the United States was prepared for war when > December 7, 1941 happened along. Where do you get this stuff? Captain Marvel perhaps? > It was a defining moment, certainly, > but the thrust of the mobilization was the intention to fully > participate in the war in Europe and the Pacific. To pretend otherwise > shows how truly ignorant you are Greg. So explain the 40,000 US troops in Auckland while New Zealand troops back from over three years of fighting were diverted to clear Japs from the Pacific Islands. Regards, Greg.P. (we'll leave the Aussies until later) >So explain the 40,000 US troops in Auckland while New Zealand troops back > from over three years of fighting were diverted to clear Japs from the >Pacific Islands. They were released from your prison camps? Just guessing here. -- Ray >> So explain the 40,000 US troops in Auckland while New Zealand troops >> back [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > Ray You obviously haven't a clue about anything. Regards, Greg.P. >>> So explain the 40,000 US troops in Auckland while New Zealand troops >>> back [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >You obviously haven't a clue about anything. Your hatred of America is showing again. You're a nutcase, mate. -- Ray >>>> So explain the 40,000 US troops in Auckland while New Zealand troops >>>> back [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > -- > Ray Why would you stupidly imagine I would hate America, or even the small pert of America called The United States of America, Ray? You question my intelligence and yet you can't even justify your utterances at the most basic level. Regards, Greg.P. >Why would you stupidly imagine I would hate America, or even the >small pert of America called The United States of America, Ray? >You question my intelligence and yet you can't even justify >your utterances at the most basic level. No imagination required, Greg. You do hate America and Americans. -- Ray >> Why would you stupidly imagine I would hate America, or even the >> small pert of America called The United States of America, Ray? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > Ray Actually Ray, I like most of the yanks I have met and the US being a foreign country on the far side of the world doesn't affect me one way or the other. What's to hate? Regards, Greg.P. >>> Why would you stupidly imagine I would hate America, or even the >>> small pert of America called The United States of America, Ray? [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >a foreign country on the far side of the world doesn't affect me >one way or the other. What's to hate? No you don't. You take every shot you can at them and at America. -- Ray >>> No imagination required, Greg. You do hate America and Americans. >> Actually Ray, I like most of the yanks I have met and the US being >> a foreign country on the far side of the world doesn't affect me >> one way or the other. What's to hate? > No you don't. You take every shot you can at them and at America. But he loves to hate them. >>>> No imagination required, Greg. You do hate America and Americans. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >But he loves to hate them. He probably thinks nobody notices. Right. -- Ray You've both written entirely too much! Go away until you can post something pertaining to model railroading. If someone else will let m know when they do, I'll take them out of my filter file. SignatureIntelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw >You've both written entirely too much! Go away until you can post >something pertaining to model railroading. > >If someone else will let m know when they do, I'll take them out of my >filter file. Bye bye, Larry. Do you really think that punishes anyone? -- Ray >> You've both written entirely too much! Go away until you can post >> something pertaining to model railroading. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > -- > Ray Certainly not as much as you're punishing everyone but it does lend an air of peace and tranquility to his life! Krypsis >>> You've both written entirely too much! Go away until you can post >>> something pertaining to model railroading. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >Certainly not as much as you're punishing everyone but it does lend an >air of peace and tranquility to his life! You do realize that you just joined in and haven't posted a Model Railroading post today. Or maybe you have. I have a few more messages to catch up on. Time will tell. -- Ray >Certainly not as much as you're punishing everyone but it does lend an >air of peace and tranquility to his life! Nope. Not a Model Railroading post to be seen. How precious it is to see a hypocrite arrive. -- Ray >> Certainly not as much as you're punishing everyone but it does lend an >> air of peace and tranquility to his life! [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > -- > Ray Did it ever cross your mind that I might just like reading "relevant" posts? Not all of us have model railroad experience to share but get great ideas from this forum. You, however, detract greatly from that experience. If you want to rant and rave off topic, I'm sure there are plenty of other forums that will satiate your desires. The hypocrite here is you! Krypsis > Did it ever cross your mind that I might just like reading "relevant" > posts? Not all of us have model railroad experience to share but get > great ideas from this forum. Do not feed the trolls - it just encourages them. SignatureIntelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw >>> Certainly not as much as you're punishing everyone but it does lend an >>> air of peace and tranquility to his life! [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >experience. If you want to rant and rave off topic, I'm sure there are >plenty of other forums that will satiate your desires. Um, the irony of this is you are perpetuating the off topic postings here with your own. I'd much prefer to discuss Model Railroading myself but don't want to put up with the intolerance of guys like Greg and a few others here who just want to be mean. Simple. >The hypocrite here is you! Not really. I'm not berating you for posting. I am calling you what you are. A hypocrite. You blast me for off topic replies to Greg yet here you are doing the same exact thing. Only, it's OK when you do it. -- Ray >>>> Certainly not as much as you're punishing everyone but it does lend an >>>> air of peace and tranquility to his life! [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > myself but don't want to put up with the intolerance of guys like Greg > and a few others here who just want to be mean. Simple. My intolerance??? I have 50 years of model railway experience - 35 years of commercial model railway repair and restoration experience, 30 years of model railway component manufacturing, 25 years of counselling experience ... No sane person has ever described me as intolerant. Regards, Greg.P. >>>>> Certainly not as much as you're punishing everyone but it does lend an >>>>> air of peace and tranquility to his life! [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >railway component manufacturing, 25 years of counselling experience ... >No sane person has ever described me as intolerant. And yet you are. -- Ray >>>>>> Certainly not as much as you're punishing everyone but it does lend >>>>>> an [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] > -- > Ray Aww Ray, that's the nicest thing you've said to me all week! Regards, Greg.P. On 7/1/2009 11:58 AM Ray Haddad spake thus: >>>> Certainly not as much as you're punishing everyone but it does lend an >>>> air of peace and tranquility to his life! [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > myself but don't want to put up with the intolerance of guys like Greg > and a few others here who just want to be mean. Simple. You're the one who can't see how absurd your own position is. What you're saying is tantamount to pissing in the well, and then accusing everyone who drinks from it of loving urine. Think about it, "mate". SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism >On 7/1/2009 11:58 AM Ray Haddad spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] > >Think about it, "mate". As you add to the well. Oh, my. How precious. -- Ray On 7/1/2009 9:02 PM Ray Haddad spake thus: >> You're the one who can't see how absurd your own position is. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > As you add to the well. Oh, my. How precious. You clearly haven't thought this through. You're saying "It's OK for *me* to piss in the well, but not for you." (If you thought otherwise, you'd have posted nothing in response to me.) SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism >On 7/1/2009 9:02 PM Ray Haddad spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >*me* to piss in the well, but not for you." (If you thought otherwise, >you'd have posted nothing in response to me.) No, actually. I was saying that about YOU. Read for comprehension. -- Ray <snip> > Civilization in Muslim countries has been around for c8,000 years, USa, > perhaps 25-30 years. Civilisation has been denied to Islamic countries for the past 1500 or so years. Civilisation there ended when Islam took over. On the other hand, the USA inherited its civilisation from all those countries from whence its population came. A veritable melting pot. Therefore, it would be quite fair to say that the origins of the civilisation of the USA goes back 8,000 years or more. Krypsis <snip> > <snip> >> Civilization in Muslim countries has been around for c8,000 years, USa, >> perhaps 25-30 years. >> > Civilisation has been denied to Islamic countries for the past 1500 or > so years. Civilisation there ended when Islam took over. On the contrary, for the first 5-6 centuries after Islam became the dominant religion in the Middle East, Islamic culture thrived, and geopolitically Islam expanded. Muslin culture preserved and built on Greek science, philosophy, and especially mathematics. Muslim scholars preserved and transmitted Greek (and to a lesser extent Roman) culture to Western Europe. They enlarged and widened the philosophical reach of Islam, and emphasised Mohammed's teachings on ethics and social justice. Etc. Muslim culture began a slow and steady decline after the defeat of the Turkish armies at Vienna in 1630 (IIRC the date). The Moors (North African Muslims) had already been pushed out of Spain. The military and commercial rise of Western Europe changed the focus of the Muslim world from expansion and growth to defense and preservation. That's what caused the regression to the narrow, fundamentalist version of Islam that we see in too many parts of the Muslim world. cheers, wolf k. > They enlarged and widened the philosophical reach of Islam, and > emphasised Mohammed's teachings on ethics and social justice. Etc. Sometimes they "emphasized" them with a sword :-). SignatureIntelligence is an experiment that failed - G. B. Shaw I'd like to thank all of you who have helped me better understand how clueless I am about history......................... Good Lord I didn't realize just how ignorant I am > I'd like to thank all of you who have helped me better understand how > clueless I am about history......................... > > Good Lord I didn't realize just how ignorant I am Just stay with slaughtering nasty commies who want rice and self- determination. (AKA take over the World) Greg.P. (didn't this used to be a model rail forum?) >> They enlarged and widened the philosophical reach of Islam, and >> emphasised Mohammed's teachings on ethics and social justice. Etc. > > Sometimes they "emphasized" them with a sword :-). Seems to be a common MO with the followers of many religions. SignatureRick Jones Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me The Lake Erie & Oregon Railroad http://www.geocities.com/seventysixinchesoffun/ "Every gun that is made, every warship launched, every rocket fired signifies, in the final sense, a theft from those who hunger and are not fed, those who are cold and are not clothed." - Dwight D. Eisenhower, U.S. general and 34th president (1890-1969) >> They enlarged and widened the philosophical reach of Islam, and >> emphasised Mohammed's teachings on ethics and social justice. Etc. > > Sometimes they "emphasized" them with a sword :-). Sure - my "umpteen Greats" grandfather was hung, drawn and quartered during the English civil war by Cromwell and his son escaped to America. It's only my opinion, but he may well have prefered a sword. Twenty generations back one of my ancestors lead a crusade to oppress the nasty Arabs in Jerusalem. >>> They enlarged and widened the philosophical reach of Islam, and >>> emphasised Mohammed's teachings on ethics and social justice. Etc. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Sure - my "umpteen Greats" grandfather was hung, drawn and quartered >during the English civil war by Cromwell and his son escaped to America. Too bad you can't suffer the same fate. Would it be asking too much to get back on topic or is that beyond you? >It's only my opinion, but he may well have prefered a sword. >Twenty generations back one of my ancestors lead a crusade to oppress the >nasty Arabs in Jerusalem. And today, you shirk that same responsibility. Shame on you. -- Ray >> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:19:28 +1200, Larry Blanchard >> <lblanch@fastmail.fm> [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > And today, you shirk that same responsibility. Shame on you. What "responsibility" are we shirking? - To be terrorists like the USa? - to interfere in other nations rights and freedoms? - to slaughter millions of innocent people like the US? - to attempt to destroy the World's economy like the US has? - to become a Nationalist Socialist nation like the US, lead by a charismatic leader, and try to create a final solution for a race and religion? (No, I'm not thinking of that bloke we aren't allowed to mention in Internet discussions on politics) Regards, Greg.P. >>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:19:28 +1200, Larry Blanchard >>> <lblanch@fastmail.fm> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >(No, I'm not thinking of that bloke we aren't allowed to mention in >Internet discussions on politics) You can't claim any moral high ground because you exaggerate and spout hyperbole. You're still just spouting lies of the party line from your "I Hate America" handbook. That and you still leave your own defense of freedom to others. Shame on you. At least America is willing to carry your bucket, mate. And right now it's quite full of manure. -- Ray . You're still just spouting lies of the party line from your > "I Hate America" handbook. That and you still leave your own defense > of freedom to others. [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > - Show quoted text - 5 points > . You're still just spouting lies of the party line from your >> "I Hate America" handbook. That and you still leave your own defense [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > 5 points ... in the Ray is brainwashed ledger. >>>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:19:28 +1200, Larry Blanchard >>>> <lblanch@fastmail.fm> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > hyperbole. You're still just spouting lies of the party line from your > "I Hate America" handbook. There's a book? Do you happen to have the title and author? Where do I apply to join the party??? You're shooting yourself in the foot/head with your own dogma! I don't hate the USa or it's people - I do however hate your national anti- freedom, anti-rights actions. (I know that distinction is difficult for terminally stupid people to grasp) That and you still leave your own defense > of freedom to others. Strange, we were busy defending _your_ freedom for 3 years during WWII before you were dragged kicking and screaming into the conflict. We were there through numerous post WWII wars (rightly or wrongly) and our military is currently involved in numerous UN actions, including Afghanistan. > Shame on you. At least America is willing to carry your bucket, mate. > And right now it's quite full of manure. Where is the necessity to invade and occupy innocent nations, destroy their infrastructures and to steal their resources as you do? Why should we be shamed for not removing peoples freedoms? Regards, Greg.P. >>>>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:19:28 +1200, Larry Blanchard >>>>> <lblanch@fastmail.fm> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] >(I know that distinction is difficult for terminally stupid people to >grasp) Freedom? Don't make me laugh, mate. You live in a country that has been taken over by a socialistic form of government. The only place that is more of a nanny state than New Zealand is Australia. There's got to be a law for everything here. Bash a cop? Make it MORE illegal than bashing your neighbor. How stupid is that? Bashing is bashing. >That and you still leave your own defense >> of freedom to others. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >and our military is currently involved in numerous UN actions, including >Afghanistan. America was not prepared for war in 1939 on the scale required. Rather than put the meager resources at hand to the test and fail, the government of the time decided to wait and mobilize. The Americans turned up in droves to build ships, warplanes and armaments for the war that was inevitable. There were the protestors of the day, the men and women who signed up in British and French units and the weak and feeble who avoided service. After WWI, the war that was so horrible it would end all future wars before they started, was the reason that the military was so depleted at the time. Protectionism was the order of the day rather than the ability to project a military presence. Asking the US to join in the fight at the onset of the war was asking it to commit suicide. As it turned out, the timing was perfect and in spite of the ramping up and preparedness, the US suffered large numbers of casualties. It set the stage for the level of preparedness the US has today. New Zealand, on the other hand, has ramped down over the years until today, your armed forces are considered a joke. The last one I heard from an Aussie soldier was that the North Island isn't even prepared enough to take the South Island. >> Shame on you. At least America is willing to carry your bucket, mate. >> And right now it's quite full of manure. > >Where is the necessity to invade and occupy innocent nations, destroy >their infrastructures and to steal their resources as you do? Why >should we be shamed for not removing peoples freedoms? It is necessary when dictators kill thousands if innocent people for no other reason than the region in which they live. There are a few hundred thousand displaced Kurds who were being murdered by the dictator of their country. Over 200,000 were gassed before the UN asked the world to depose Saddam. How quickly you forget. How quickly you rewrite the reasons to suit your own hatreds. Grow up, Greg. Be a man instead of a wet noodle. -- Ray >>>>>> On Tue, 23 Jun 2009 03:19:28 +1200, Larry Blanchard >>>>>> <lblanch@fastmail.fm> [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > Freedom? Don't make me laugh, mate. You live in a country that has > been taken over by a socialistic form of government. You really have to stop looking in that mirror, Ray! We had a socialistic government in the 50s/60/70s but we dumped all that in the 1980s. Now we're looking in horror at your (US) leap into socialism! > The only place > that is more of a nanny state than New Zealand is Australia. There's > got to be a law for everything here. Bash a cop? Make it MORE illegal > than bashing your neighbor. How stupid is that? Bashing is bashing. Australia is a foreign country, just as the US is. >> That and you still leave your own defense >>> of freedom to others. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > America was not prepared for war in 1939 on the scale required. Oh dear, you just didn't see it coming, did you, even though you were a major part in setting up that situation(s). > Rather > than put the meager resources at hand to the test and fail, the > government of the time decided to wait and mobilize. Yeah yeah, we defended democracy while you yanks sat back and profiteered from others misery. (Aside: Tribil has done a great job trolling us!) > The Americans > turned up in droves to build ships, warplanes and armaments for the > war that was inevitable. There were the protestors of the day, the men > and women who signed up in British and French units and the weak and > feeble who avoided service. Yeah yeah, you sat back and profiteered. > After WWI, the war that was so horrible it would end all future wars > before they started, was the reason that the military was so depleted > at the time. Protectionism was the order of the day rather than the > ability to project a military presence. You happily oversaw the destruction of the British Empire (Pacific Naval protection a joint Japan/US exercise) and backed France in demanding retribution payments from Germany which were patently impossible. > Asking the US to join in the > fight at the onset of the war was asking it to commit suicide. Ohh Diddums - do you think the Commonwealth countries were ready for war?? No, we went anyway. (well not me personally, but my parents' generation) > As it > turned out, the timing was perfect and in spite of the ramping up and > preparedness, the US suffered large numbers of casualties. It set the > stage for the level of preparedness the US has today. New Zealand had a far higher casualty rate (per head of pop) that the US. Yours was almost laughable. > New Zealand, on the other hand, has ramped down over the years until > today, your armed forces are considered a joke. The last one I heard > from an Aussie soldier was that the North Island isn't even prepared > enough to take the South Island. Aussies are always suspect. I'll admit we probably aren't geared up for a civil war, what with half our forces being overseas on peace keeping missions and the fact that we don't keep slaves. >>> Shame on you. At least America is willing to carry your bucket, mate. >>> And right now it's quite full of manure. When did the US ever do any bucket carrying for NZ? There were of course the 40,000 US troops in WWII who sat in Auckland while NZ troops returning from 3-4 years in Crete, Greece and N.Africa cleared the Pacific Islands of Japanese. (my Father-in-Law was one of them) >> Where is the necessity to invade and occupy innocent nations, destroy >> their infrastructures and to steal their resources as you do? Why [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > you rewrite the reasons to suit your own hatreds. Grow up, Greg. Be a > man instead of a wet noodle. Let's see: - 1978 US backs Saddam Hussein into power in Iraq. - US backs Saddam Hussein to attack Iran. - US backs Saddam while he slaughters over a million Iraqis. - 1991 Saddam invades Kuwait at behest of US. - US bows to world outrage and chases Saddam out of Kuwait. - US allows Saddam to remain in power, imposes sanctions and allows Saddam to slaughter another million Iraqis. - World oil supplies begin to diminish, Bush trumps up charges of Saddam having WMDs to justify invassion. - US and corrupt allies invade Iraq. - First and only objective is to get Iraqi oil on World market. - Bush invents "Al Quada terrorists" to justify maintaining control of Iraq, Afghanistan and now Pakistan. > -- > Ray SignatureUsing Opera's revolutionary e-mail client: http://www.opera.com/mail/ >> Freedom? Don't make me laugh, mate. You live in a country that has >> been taken over by a socialistic form of government. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >that in the 1980s. Now we're looking in horror at your (US) leap into >socialism! Oh, I do agree that Australia is also socialistic and it horrifies me. But I don't bash Australia nor do I bash New Zealand. I merely point to the facts at hand to show your own hypocrisy in judging other nations where you have no business doing so. But then, that's Greg Procter and you're not about to change. >> The only place >> that is more of a nanny state than New Zealand is Australia. There's >> got to be a law for everything here. Bash a cop? Make it MORE illegal >> than bashing your neighbor. How stupid is that? Bashing is bashing. > >Australia is a foreign country, just as the US is. Both Australia and New Zealand are nanny states. Deal. -- Ray >>> Freedom? Don't make me laugh, mate. You live in a country that has >>> been taken over by a socialistic form of government. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > nations where you have no business doing so. But then, that's Greg > Procter and you're not about to change. My comments re Australia are in the same vein that yours would be if I commented on what Mexico is doing and claimed that applied to the US also. >>> The only place >>> that is more of a nanny state than New Zealand is Australia. There's [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Both Australia and New Zealand are nanny states. Deal. Certainly Australia (and Britain) are seen as yank wannabees, but you're totally ignorant to think of New Zealand as being a "nanny state" like the US now is. > Civilisation has been denied to Islamic countries for the past 1500 or > so years. Civilisation there ended when Islam took over. Oh? The liberal muslims who came to the Iberian peninsula (there was no "Spain" then) in AD 700 brought a sophisticated, scientific and relatively religiously tolerant true civilization to an area ruled by local gothic chieftains about as cultured as your local motorcycle gang. The muslim rulers in Andalusia were miles more cultured and tolerant than any of the jumped up warlords ruling the rest of Europe or Britain. Now later they were overthrown by some fundamentalist fuckheads out of North Africa, who brought the situation for the most part back to where it had been, and where it would be in spades under those paragons of Christianity who brought the world the expulsion of Jews and Moors, and that institution beloved of fundamentalist fuckheads everywhere, the Spanish Inquisition. THOSE a.sholes even managed to f.ck up 16th century Italy. Of course, as a fundamentalist fuckhead yourself, I'm sure you prefer "truth" over tolerance, but don't f.cking imagine that your sort represent civilization, or that your "truth" is anything more than indoctrination and blind faith. Islamic, Hindu, Jewish, Christian, Burmese or Sri Lankan Buddhist, or self labeled "Christians", fundamentalist fuckheads of your sort are the bane of civilization all over the world. Your combination of arrogance, ignorance and hatred brought us the slaughters that gave rise to those t-shirts beloved of pimply faced rambo wannabes and chickenhawk patriots that say "Kill 'Em All And Let God Sort 'Em Out" - the trailer trash translation of "Tuez-les tous, Dieu reconnaitra les siens."* * If, despite evidence to the contrary, you are curious, do a Google search for Arnaud Amaury or for the siege of Beziers. SignatureSteve Anyone seriously using the word "heretic" should themselves be burned at the stake. > <snip> >> Civilization in Muslim countries has been around for c8,000 years, USa, >> perhaps 25-30 years. >> > Civilisation has been denied to Islamic countries for the past 1500 or > so years. Civilisation there ended when Islam took over. Perhaps your concept of civilization is different to mine? > On the other hand, the USA inherited its civilisation from all those > countries from whence its population came. A veritable melting pot. Sure, England 1640-1776, Germany, Italy, Russia ... <sheesh> > Therefore, it would be quite fair to say that the origins of the > civilisation of the USA goes back 8,000 years or more. You'd have to go that far back to identify any. Greg.P. <snip> >> That would put you yanks back talking about niggers and women staying >> barefoot in the kitchen while pregnant. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > than emigrating to US she could have -in her words- been a teacher, a > librarian, a secretary, or somebody's stay-at-home wife. There is something wrong with a career in teaching, librarianship or even looking after ones own children? Your career is made worthy by the achievements you will be remembered for, not how much money you make nor the height you climb in management. >> Obviously you still haven't spotted her sarcasim. > > There wasn't any. She came back to the US and last I heard was high in > the management of a large department store chain: something she'd have > had no chance of doing in New Zealand. Since when has being "high in the management of a large department store chain" been equated to a pinnacle of achievement? I can't recall most of the senior management people I've seen come and go in my 70+ years and I've been in management myself for over 40 years. On the other hand, I still remember the local librarian in my home town. I recently phoned the now very senior lady and was surprised that she still remembered me after an absence from the district of at least 50 years. She would have to be in her 90's now, a lovely lady then and still a lovely lady now. Without people like her guiding me on my career path, I might not have reached my pinnacle of achievement. Krypsis <snip> > <snip> > [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > > Krypsis I think Twibil was attempting a put-down of New Zealand by suggesting that the USa was ahead of us in allowing women equal opportunities with men. Never mind facts like NZ being the first democratic country in the modern world to give women the vote, that women here took overmen's factory jobs during WWII before the US noticed there was a war, that 10 years ago we elected our second woman Prime Minister ... (I could go on and on ...) Regards, Greg.P. > >> The fans of irony are laughing their heads off at you both. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Ok. I find you in contempt. My, how judgemental of you. > Man, you really are stupid. Tested out at 168 the last time they ran me through the Stanford-Binet IQ tests, Ray. Remember the bit above concerning "truth"? (Oh well, apparently not. Shrug.) >> >> The fans of irony are laughing their heads off at you both. >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Tested out at 168 the last time they ran me through the Stanford-Binet >IQ tests, Ray. Oh, dear. Anyone bragging about their IQ is always found to be lying. Not only that but it proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are indeed stupid. >Remember the bit above concerning "truth"? (Oh well, apparently not. >Shrug.) You are a breeding ground of laughs for the fans of irony, mate. Don't ever change. -- Ray > >Tested out at 168 the last time they ran me through the Stanford-Binet > >IQ tests, Ray. > > Oh, dear. Anyone bragging about their IQ is always found to be lying. Poor baby: anyone redefining words to suit themselves gets labeled a "revisionist" at best, and then people invariably point out Lewis Carrol's Humpty-Dumpty quote to them, which must be embarassing if you happen to be British and style yourself literate as well. "Boasting" it would be if I was making an unprovoked claim out of sheer pride, but when you accuse me of being "stupid" and I reply by squashing you with the hard facts, it's neither "boasting" nor unprovoked. The fact that you stuck your own balls into the crusher and then pushed the "on" button to see what would happen is not my problem, nor do I feel sorry for your hurt, um, feelings. > Not only that but it proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are > indeed stupid. Sure, Ray. And in your own mind you've "won" this the same way you "win" all of your disagreements: by lying, resolutely refusing to recognise reality, and insisting on getting in the last post, no matter what. As Dave N. would say "How's that working out for you?" Shrug. >> >Tested out at 168 the last time they ran me through the Stanford-Binet >> >IQ tests, Ray. [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >pushed the "on" button to see what would happen is not my problem, nor >do I feel sorry for your hurt, um, feelings. Well, you ARE stupid. More so in trying to prove you're not. Don't you see the irony in all that? What am I asking? There's not a chance you could ever see it. >> Not only that but it proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are >> indeed stupid. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >recognise reality, and insisting on getting in the last post, no >matter what. Speaking of lying, mate. How about that IQ test? Ever seen one? >As Dave N. would say "How's that working out for you?" Do tell. Where's your IQ test? >Shrug. Ah, the one headed salute. Must not be from Arkansas. -- Ray > >The fact that you stuck your own balls into the crusher and then > >pushed the "on" button to see what would happen is not my problem, nor > >do I feel sorry for your hurt, um, feelings. > > Well, you ARE stupid. More so in trying to prove you're not. Of course. You said so. And in your odd little world that apparently makes *anything* true. > Don't you see the irony in all that? What am I asking? There's not a chance you > could ever see it. Er, Ray, although I dropped out of college to become a musician long before I took my Master's degree, my major was psychology and I spent quite a bit of time working with various sorts of the mentally ill at Patton State Hospital. (Lovely spot.) http://www.dmh.ca.gov/Services_and_Programs/State_Hospitals/Patton/default.asp As a result, I know *exactly* what I'm seeing here. Ta-ta, Poopsie, you "win" again. >> >The fact that you stuck your own balls into the crusher and then >> >pushed the "on" button to see what would happen is not my problem, nor [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >Ta-ta, Poopsie, you "win" again. LOL Serious denial, more bragging and plenty of lies from you. No surprise there. Being a patient there doesn't allow you to put it on your CV. -- Ray iF YOU CAN'T SAY ANYTHING NICE AND CONSTRUCTIVE, SHUT UP!!! -- Bob May rmay at nethere.com http: slash /nav.to slash bobmay http: slash /bobmay dot astronomy.net >iF YOU CAN'T SAY ANYTHING NICE AND CONSTRUCTIVE, SHUT UP!!! Everything I write here is nice. -- Ray > The fact that you stuck your own balls into the crusher and then > pushed the "on" button to see what would happen is not my problem, nor > do I feel sorry for your hurt, um, feelings. Now THIS is funny. The jury is still out on the bear story. > > The fact that you stuck your own balls into the crusher and then > > pushed the "on" button to see what would happen is not my problem, nor > > do I feel sorry for your hurt, um, feelings. > > Now THIS is funny. The jury is still out on the bear story. Shrug. Some music fans hate everything the Beatles ever did. Same thing's true of Sinatra or Bach. Nothing pleases everybody, so what else can one ask except that someone somewhere pays you for your work and someone else -hopefully several someones- gets some pleasure out of it? >>> >> The fans of irony are laughing their heads off at you both. >>> [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > Not only that but it proves beyond the shadow of a doubt that you are > indeed stupid. Ray, ol' buddy, a person with an IQ of 168 can in fact be stupid, but generally only in isolated instances. You've proven that you aren't. >> Remember the bit above concerning "truth"? (Oh well, apparently not. >> Shrug.) Must we presume either that you tell lies constantly, or that you consider yourself to have the highest possible IQ? (84) > You are a breeding ground of laughs for the fans of irony, mate. Don't > ever change. > -- > Ray Regards, Greg.P. On 6/10/2009 1:32 PM Howard R Garner spake thus: >> On 6/10/2009 6:16 AM fl@liner spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] > page 7 has brass sheaves > page 8 has bulk supply of bocks Yikes. There it is. Dunno how I missed that. 20 lashes with a wet noodle for me. > Do you want us to blow your nose too? Um, no, not this time. But thanks for offering. SignatureFound--the gene that causes belief in genetic determinism > On 6/10/2009 6:16 AM fl@liner spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > pulleys, but none separately that I can see.) Can you point us to a link > to pulleys there? Scroll down to the heading: FITTINGS, WOOD, FIGURES, ETC. There are nine pages of bits to look through. Look on page 3 and page 7. SignatureMike "A man who thinks of himself as belonging to a particular national group in America has not yet become an American. And the man who goes among you to trade upon your nationality is no worthy son to live under the Stars and Stripes." -- Woodrow Wilson Thanks folks for the info- don't know why I didn't think of checking ship models sites.... I guess I've been a bit tunnel visioned with trains for too long. You've solved my inventory problems and looking through all those fittings have me thinking about other odd scratch projects- thanks again Roy Also, don't forget the logging uses of these. There are a number of manufacturers of logging railroad parts and one of the things all logging scenes need is sheaves for the rigging. -- Bob May rmay at nethere.com http: slash /nav.to slash bobmay http: slash /bobmay dot astronomy.net > My scratch building supplies have developed a hole in the inventory. Where > can I obtain small sheaves and pulleys in HO gauge? I had several but [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > me. > Roy Model Expo offers a variety of sizes, some of which are close enough to HO scale. Considering that in Real Life these things vary a lot in size, I wouldn't sweat the scale. cheers, wolf k. >My scratch building supplies have developed a hole in the inventory. Where >can I obtain small sheaves and pulleys in HO gauge? I had several but [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >me. >Roy These are might do. The 5 mm would scale out at 17" http://www.modelexpo-online.com/search.asp?PAGLEN=20&STARTPAGE=1&FNM=34&UID=2009 061016182681&SKW=pulley&B1.x=0&B1.y=0&B1=Go! Just happened to get their catalog this afternoon. Jim > My scratch building supplies have developed a hole in the inventory. Where > can I obtain small sheaves and pulleys in HO gauge? I had several but [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > pulleys but can't seem to find either. I'd appreciate any help you can give > me. Besides what already has been mentioned, here's a bulk assortment of 100 misc. pulleys, sheaves, etc. in HO scale: http://valleymodeltrains.com/catalog/product_info.php?products_id=6241 No photos unfortunately so hard to tell if it's what you need. I also looked at WSM's web page for the product and they don't have any photos either. Perhaps an e-mail to them might get something you can peruse. SignatureRick Jones Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me "Democracy means simply the bludgeoning of the people by the people for the people." -Oscar Wilde >> SNIP forgotten post subject. Wow! It's been over two weeks since the original post and the Greg & Ray show still continues! There ought to be some kind of Guinness world record for this sh.t, huh? Time to change the channel. SignatureThe seabat Filtering GoogleGroups & Goobers with extreme prejudice! Usenet Improvement Project: http://improve-usenet.org/ > On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 05:30:06 -0500, "Roy Tansill" > > Wow! It's been over two weeks since the original post and the Greg & > Ray show still continues! There ought to be some kind of Guinness > world record for this sh.t, huh? Time to change the channel. Getting kind of tired of watching the kids play Who's Got The Biggest Dick? SignatureRick Jones Remove the Extra Dot to e-mail me The Lake Erie & Oregon Railroad http://www.geocities.com/seventysixinchesoffun/ Election 2000: Republicrats 1, Citizens 0 >> On Wed, 10 Jun 2009 05:30:06 -0500, "Roy Tansill" >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Getting kind of tired of watching the kids play Who's Got The >Biggest Dick? As two more competitors show up . . . -- Ray |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2010 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.