Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
In article <s7pg65d5su3v7totj1fgm6ioueabmlpgqk@4ax.com>, UltimatePatriot@thebestcountry.org wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 06:28:50 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
They weren't all direct hits, or it would have driven that horn back
into his thick skull.
Ahhh... so I am a unicorn.
No, a rhinoceros: clumsy, slow, and stupid.
At least in the discussions I've had with him, he hasn't claimed to be anDoug Miller wrote:
In article <4A67ADBB.B78F76D6@earthlink.net>, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
Or the guts. A real man would turn them in for all the violations
before people die.
Michael, half the things that Jamie thinks are violations -- aren't. The
other
half are, but he doesn't know why.
That doesn't put him in a good position to be making complaints.
Then he is taking pay for a job he isn't qualified for.
PMFJI but how this exchange start?On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:13:41 -0700, Gunner Asch
gunner@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
Go ahead..provide cites so you can back up your claims. Or can we
all safely assume that you are no more than an ignorant buffoon with
delusions of self adequacy and probably a really expensive drug
problem?
Gunner
Depends on whether you were a doughnut retard that wrote traffic
tickets or an abusive pussy retard that used to hassle the kids before
they even got out of high school.
Might be an application for an optical switch.On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:18:00 -0500,
hal-usenet@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote:
In article <17if65dmihe0fodjodepqqkbmhe1bj9ipb@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes:
We bought some 850 nm fiber-type laser diodes that acted as if they
had a microseconds-response PIN diode built into them, in series with
the actual laser. If you applied current suddenly, the voltage would
overshoot almost 2:1, as if there were an inductor in series. As long
as the current wasn't cut off for too many nanoseconds, it behaved
like a diode. Fine for telecom and maybe for burning CDs, but terrible
for sending baseband on/off digital stuff.
The telcom guys are using baseband. They use scramblers to ensure
that there are enough transitions to do clock recovery. There isn't
much low freqency energy.
What sort of data were you sending? Were there long strings of
1s or 0s?
It's for a pure digital logic transmission link,
http://www.highlandtechnology.com/DSS/J724DS.html
where the light is supposed to follow the logic input no matter what.
A lot of lasers do goofy things when you just turn them on and off.
It's hard to make a clean step of light.
http://www.leosbenelux.org/symp02/s02p75.pdfI seem to remember something about not turning something all the
way off. I have forgotten the context and reasoning.
I think the idea was to modulate it from 10% to 100% rather
than turn it all the way off in order to avoid transients/problems
like you described.
We do sometimes bias them a little below the lase threshold. That
improves prop delay and sometimes cleans up the edges. I think the
laser vendors buy their wafers in some back alleys in Taiwan; you
never really know how the next batch will work.
Yes. For clean, fast modulation, use a CW laser and a lithium niobateJohn Larkin wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:18:00 -0500,
hal-usenet@ip-64-139-1-69.sjc.megapath.net (Hal Murray) wrote:
In article <17if65dmihe0fodjodepqqkbmhe1bj9ipb@4ax.com>,
John Larkin <jjlarkin@highNOTlandTHIStechnologyPART.com> writes:
We bought some 850 nm fiber-type laser diodes that acted as if they
had a microseconds-response PIN diode built into them, in series with
the actual laser. If you applied current suddenly, the voltage would
overshoot almost 2:1, as if there were an inductor in series. As long
as the current wasn't cut off for too many nanoseconds, it behaved
like a diode. Fine for telecom and maybe for burning CDs, but terrible
for sending baseband on/off digital stuff.
The telcom guys are using baseband. They use scramblers to ensure
that there are enough transitions to do clock recovery. There isn't
much low freqency energy.
What sort of data were you sending? Were there long strings of
1s or 0s?
It's for a pure digital logic transmission link,
http://www.highlandtechnology.com/DSS/J724DS.html
where the light is supposed to follow the logic input no matter what.
A lot of lasers do goofy things when you just turn them on and off.
It's hard to make a clean step of light.
Might be an application for an optical switch.
Cool. Some of the Optek gigabit-rated lasers had cold-start turnonI seem to remember something about not turning something all the
way off. I have forgotten the context and reasoning.
I think the idea was to modulate it from 10% to 100% rather
than turn it all the way off in order to avoid transients/problems
like you described.
We do sometimes bias them a little below the lase threshold. That
improves prop delay and sometimes cleans up the edges. I think the
laser vendors buy their wafers in some back alleys in Taiwan; you
never really know how the next batch will work.
http://www.leosbenelux.org/symp02/s02p75.pdf
Ah there we go. He made it up and won't back it up!On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:18:55 -0700 (PDT), Tom Horne
horn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 21, 6:30 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:44:51 -0700 (PDT), Tom Horne
horn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 20, 11:17 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:06:54 -0700 (PDT), Tom Horne
horn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 3:39 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:16:25 -0700 (PDT), Tom Horne
horn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 12:12 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:50:40 GMT, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:
In article <3mv765da9sgkg1k9t2iiq8lovjgea4m...@4ax.com>, jk <kles...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
There was a transition period
allowed to give plenty of time for the switch over, mean while, they
simply did things like 480 volts in a 240 volt receptacle...
A particular inspectior in a particular jurisdiction might have
allowed this, but it would not be to code, and ther eIS NO GRANDFATHER
CLAUSE any where in the NEC.
Well, no, but any attempt at forcing compliance with a code that didn't exist
at the time the installation was made falls under the Constitutional
prohibitions against ex post facto legislation...
Fire codes do this all the time, particularly in commercial and rental
units. Smoke and CO detectors being prime examples.
OK Explain how requiring the installation of smoke or CO detectors in
rental or commercial properties after the enactment of the enabling
legislation is the same as applying the current electric code to a
preexisting installation.
They're both ex post facto laws. The buildings were existing long
before the law was passed.
To be an ex post facto law the the requirements you are complaining
about would have to require a change to what is already built.
Complaining? No, just stating a fact. Yes, the building was already
built.
Requiring the addition of smoke, CO, and explosive gas detectors to an
existing building as a condition of a renewal of the use and occupancy
only regulates the future condition of the building and then only as a
condition of it being used in a certain way such as rental property.
...and commercial property, and not on change of residents.
*IMMEDIATELY*. Same with sprinkler systems.
The code in question would be an ex post facto law if it required that
the existing electrical plant be brought up to current code, that the
pitch of the stairs be changed, or that the width of doorways that met
the code at the time of construction be changed to match a new code
requirement in the absence of a change in use. The difference is
admittedly subtle but there is a difference.
You got me there. How is a CO detector different than any other code
item? Just to make the point, they must be AC powered and *DO*
require renovation to the electrical system.
I wanna hear this twisting....
Site
Building. Or do you mean "cite", as in "citation". Vermont, 2006-7
and still going on. All existing commercial and rental structures
were required to install *wired* CO detectors and commercial buildings
were/are (not sure of the deadline) required to install sprinkler
systems. The VFW I frequented didn't know where they were going to
get the $100-$150K to install sprinklers (they also needed a 6" water
main to supply it would have to get a right-of-way to). Now, tell me
that ex post facto laws are illegal.
Please excuse my misspelling but I repeat Cite.
No misspelling. Wrong word.
I do not mean some vague year and state.
Not vague at all. I told you the state and the year, within one.
I mean chapter and verse.
If you can't see how *clearly* you're wrong, I'm not about to waste my
time chasing down details that you're going to ignore anyway.
As in what law, enacted by what legislature, signed by which executive, ....
Are you totally illiterate?
Localities try all sorts of tricks to get past the prohibition and
they get away with a fair number of them because their victims cannot
afford the cost of the legal talent to fight them. That does not make
what is done legal.
It is punishable by a fine and imprisonment, it's the law. In case
you hadn't noticed, no one pays attention to ugly details, like the
Constitution anymore.
It must have been a difficult task, but you've managed to be asOn Jul 22, 7:15 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:18:55 -0700 (PDT), Tom Horne
horn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 21, 6:30 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:44:51 -0700 (PDT), Tom Horne
horn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 20, 11:17 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:06:54 -0700 (PDT), Tom Horne
horn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 3:39 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:16:25 -0700 (PDT), Tom Horne
horn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 12:12 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:50:40 GMT, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:
In article <3mv765da9sgkg1k9t2iiq8lovjgea4m...@4ax.com>, jk <kles...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
There was a transition period
allowed to give plenty of time for the switch over, mean while, they
simply did things like 480 volts in a 240 volt receptacle..
A particular inspectior in a particular jurisdiction might have
allowed this, but it would not be to code, and ther eIS NO GRANDFATHER
CLAUSE any where in the NEC.
Well, no, but any attempt at forcing compliance with a code that didn't exist
at the time the installation was made falls under the Constitutional
prohibitions against ex post facto legislation...
Fire codes do this all the time, particularly in commercial and rental
units. Smoke and CO detectors being prime examples.
OK Explain how requiring the installation of smoke or CO detectors in
rental or commercial properties after the enactment of the enabling
legislation is the same as applying the current electric code to a
preexisting installation.
They're both ex post facto laws. The buildings were existing long
before the law was passed.
To be an ex post facto law the the requirements you are complaining
about would have to require a change to what is already built.
Complaining? No, just stating a fact. Yes, the building was already
built.
Requiring the addition of smoke, CO, and explosive gas detectors to an
existing building as a condition of a renewal of the use and occupancy
only regulates the future condition of the building and then only as a
condition of it being used in a certain way such as rental property.
...and commercial property, and not on change of residents.
*IMMEDIATELY*. Same with sprinkler systems.
The code in question would be an ex post facto law if it required that
the existing electrical plant be brought up to current code, that the
pitch of the stairs be changed, or that the width of doorways that met
the code at the time of construction be changed to match a new code
requirement in the absence of a change in use. The difference is
admittedly subtle but there is a difference.
You got me there. How is a CO detector different than any other code
item? Just to make the point, they must be AC powered and *DO*
require renovation to the electrical system.
I wanna hear this twisting....
Site
Building. Or do you mean "cite", as in "citation". Vermont, 2006-7
and still going on. All existing commercial and rental structures
were required to install *wired* CO detectors and commercial buildings
were/are (not sure of the deadline) required to install sprinkler
systems. The VFW I frequented didn't know where they were going to
get the $100-$150K to install sprinklers (they also needed a 6" water
main to supply it would have to get a right-of-way to). Now, tell me
that ex post facto laws are illegal.
Please excuse my misspelling but I repeat Cite.
No misspelling. Wrong word.
I do not mean some vague year and state.
Not vague at all. I told you the state and the year, within one.
I mean chapter and verse.
If you can't see how *clearly* you're wrong, I'm not about to waste my
time chasing down details that you're going to ignore anyway.
As in what law, enacted by what legislature, signed by which executive, ...
Are you totally illiterate?
Localities try all sorts of tricks to get past the prohibition and
they get away with a fair number of them because their victims cannot
afford the cost of the legal talent to fight them. That does not make
what is done legal.
It is punishable by a fine and imprisonment, it's the law. In case
you hadn't noticed, no one pays attention to ugly details, like the
Constitution anymore.
Ah there we go. He made it up and won't back it up!
I posted the Indiana statute that shows that it is a felony if the amount is
over 30g, or if it's a second offense regardless of the amount. Not my fault
if you didn't read it, or can't understand it.
In article <s7pg65d5su3v7totj1fgm6ioueabmlpgqk@4ax.com>, UltimatePatriot@thebestcountry.org wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 06:28:50 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
They weren't all direct hits, or it would have driven that horn back
into his thick skull.
Ahhh... so I am a unicorn.
No, a rhinoceros: clumsy, slow, and stupid.
Then he is taking pay for a job he isn't qualified for.
Cryptic retards get no credence, and typically get ignored.UltimatePatriot wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 18:13:41 -0700, Gunner Asch
gunner@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
Go ahead..provide cites so you can back up your claims. Or can we
all safely assume that you are no more than an ignorant buffoon with
delusions of self adequacy and probably a really expensive drug
problem?
Gunner
Depends on whether you were a doughnut retard that wrote traffic
tickets or an abusive pussy retard that used to hassle the kids before
they even got out of high school.
PMFJI but how this exchange start?
In article <4A687E43.D684F563@earthlink.net>, "Michael A. Terrell" <mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
Doug Miller wrote:
In article <4A67ADBB.B78F76D6@earthlink.net>, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
Or the guts. A real man would turn them in for all the violations
before people die.
Michael, half the things that Jamie thinks are violations -- aren't. The
other
half are, but he doesn't know why.
That doesn't put him in a good position to be making complaints.
Then he is taking pay for a job he isn't qualified for.
At least in the discussions I've had with him, he hasn't claimed to be an
electrician. I figured he was the janitor.
With a retarded dope like you making the declaration, we all know thatOn Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:30:42 -0700 (PDT), Tom Horne
hornetd@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 22, 7:15 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:18:55 -0700 (PDT), Tom Horne
horn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 21, 6:30 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:44:51 -0700 (PDT), Tom Horne
horn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 20, 11:17 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:06:54 -0700 (PDT), Tom Horne
horn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 3:39 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:16:25 -0700 (PDT), Tom Horne
horn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 12:12 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:50:40 GMT, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:
In article <3mv765da9sgkg1k9t2iiq8lovjgea4m...@4ax.com>, jk <kles...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
There was a transition period
allowed to give plenty of time for the switch over, mean while, they
simply did things like 480 volts in a 240 volt receptacle..
A particular inspectior in a particular jurisdiction might have
allowed this, but it would not be to code, and ther eIS NO GRANDFATHER
CLAUSE any where in the NEC.
Well, no, but any attempt at forcing compliance with a code that didn't exist
at the time the installation was made falls under the Constitutional
prohibitions against ex post facto legislation...
Fire codes do this all the time, particularly in commercial and rental
units. Smoke and CO detectors being prime examples.
OK Explain how requiring the installation of smoke or CO detectors in
rental or commercial properties after the enactment of the enabling
legislation is the same as applying the current electric code to a
preexisting installation.
They're both ex post facto laws. The buildings were existing long
before the law was passed.
To be an ex post facto law the the requirements you are complaining
about would have to require a change to what is already built.
Complaining? No, just stating a fact. Yes, the building was already
built.
Requiring the addition of smoke, CO, and explosive gas detectors to an
existing building as a condition of a renewal of the use and occupancy
only regulates the future condition of the building and then only as a
condition of it being used in a certain way such as rental property.
...and commercial property, and not on change of residents.
*IMMEDIATELY*. Same with sprinkler systems.
The code in question would be an ex post facto law if it required that
the existing electrical plant be brought up to current code, that the
pitch of the stairs be changed, or that the width of doorways that met
the code at the time of construction be changed to match a new code
requirement in the absence of a change in use. The difference is
admittedly subtle but there is a difference.
You got me there. How is a CO detector different than any other code
item? Just to make the point, they must be AC powered and *DO*
require renovation to the electrical system.
I wanna hear this twisting....
Site
Building. Or do you mean "cite", as in "citation". Vermont, 2006-7
and still going on. All existing commercial and rental structures
were required to install *wired* CO detectors and commercial buildings
were/are (not sure of the deadline) required to install sprinkler
systems. The VFW I frequented didn't know where they were going to
get the $100-$150K to install sprinklers (they also needed a 6" water
main to supply it would have to get a right-of-way to). Now, tell me
that ex post facto laws are illegal.
Please excuse my misspelling but I repeat Cite.
No misspelling. Wrong word.
I do not mean some vague year and state.
Not vague at all. I told you the state and the year, within one.
I mean chapter and verse.
If you can't see how *clearly* you're wrong, I'm not about to waste my
time chasing down details that you're going to ignore anyway.
As in what law, enacted by what legislature, signed by which executive, ...
Are you totally illiterate?
Localities try all sorts of tricks to get past the prohibition and
they get away with a fair number of them because their victims cannot
afford the cost of the legal talent to fight them. That does not make
what is done legal.
It is punishable by a fine and imprisonment, it's the law. In case
you hadn't noticed, no one pays attention to ugly details, like the
Constitution anymore.
Ah there we go. He made it up and won't back it up!
It must have been a difficult task, but you've managed to be as
clueless as DimBulb.
In this case, yes, DimBulb.On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:20:15 -0500, krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 10:30:42 -0700 (PDT), Tom Horne
hornetd@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 22, 7:15 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 09:18:55 -0700 (PDT), Tom Horne
horn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 21, 6:30 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Tue, 21 Jul 2009 09:44:51 -0700 (PDT), Tom Horne
horn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 20, 11:17 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Mon, 20 Jul 2009 19:06:54 -0700 (PDT), Tom Horne
horn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 3:39 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 10:16:25 -0700 (PDT), Tom Horne
horn...@gmail.com> wrote:
On Jul 19, 12:12 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
On Sun, 19 Jul 2009 12:50:40 GMT, spamb...@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:
In article <3mv765da9sgkg1k9t2iiq8lovjgea4m...@4ax.com>, jk <kles...@suddenlink.net> wrote:
Jamie <jamie_ka1lpa_not_valid_after_ka1l...@charter.net> wrote:
There was a transition period
allowed to give plenty of time for the switch over, mean while, they
simply did things like 480 volts in a 240 volt receptacle..
A particular inspectior in a particular jurisdiction might have
allowed this, but it would not be to code, and ther eIS NO GRANDFATHER
CLAUSE any where in the NEC.
Well, no, but any attempt at forcing compliance with a code that didn't exist
at the time the installation was made falls under the Constitutional
prohibitions against ex post facto legislation...
Fire codes do this all the time, particularly in commercial and rental
units. Smoke and CO detectors being prime examples.
OK Explain how requiring the installation of smoke or CO detectors in
rental or commercial properties after the enactment of the enabling
legislation is the same as applying the current electric code to a
preexisting installation.
They're both ex post facto laws. The buildings were existing long
before the law was passed.
To be an ex post facto law the the requirements you are complaining
about would have to require a change to what is already built.
Complaining? No, just stating a fact. Yes, the building was already
built.
Requiring the addition of smoke, CO, and explosive gas detectors to an
existing building as a condition of a renewal of the use and occupancy
only regulates the future condition of the building and then only as a
condition of it being used in a certain way such as rental property.
...and commercial property, and not on change of residents.
*IMMEDIATELY*. Same with sprinkler systems.
The code in question would be an ex post facto law if it required that
the existing electrical plant be brought up to current code, that the
pitch of the stairs be changed, or that the width of doorways that met
the code at the time of construction be changed to match a new code
requirement in the absence of a change in use. The difference is
admittedly subtle but there is a difference.
You got me there. How is a CO detector different than any other code
item? Just to make the point, they must be AC powered and *DO*
require renovation to the electrical system.
I wanna hear this twisting....
Site
Building. Or do you mean "cite", as in "citation". Vermont, 2006-7
and still going on. All existing commercial and rental structures
were required to install *wired* CO detectors and commercial buildings
were/are (not sure of the deadline) required to install sprinkler
systems. The VFW I frequented didn't know where they were going to
get the $100-$150K to install sprinklers (they also needed a 6" water
main to supply it would have to get a right-of-way to). Now, tell me
that ex post facto laws are illegal.
Please excuse my misspelling but I repeat Cite.
No misspelling. Wrong word.
I do not mean some vague year and state.
Not vague at all. I told you the state and the year, within one.
I mean chapter and verse.
If you can't see how *clearly* you're wrong, I'm not about to waste my
time chasing down details that you're going to ignore anyway.
As in what law, enacted by what legislature, signed by which executive, ...
Are you totally illiterate?
Localities try all sorts of tricks to get past the prohibition and
they get away with a fair number of them because their victims cannot
afford the cost of the legal talent to fight them. That does not make
what is done legal.
It is punishable by a fine and imprisonment, it's the law. In case
you hadn't noticed, no one pays attention to ugly details, like the
Constitution anymore.
Ah there we go. He made it up and won't back it up!
It must have been a difficult task, but you've managed to be as
clueless as DimBulb.
With a retarded dope like you making the declaration, we all know that
your claims are all 100% invalid.
So, can you afford more than a lid at a time?On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:14:36 -0700, pyotr filipivich
phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
You recon he can afford more than a lid at a time?
The word is 'reckon', Dipovich.
The language of the law is very clear. Like I said, it's not my fault if youOn Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:16:27 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:
I posted the Indiana statute that shows that it is a felony if the amount is
over 30g, or if it's a second offense regardless of the amount. Not my fault
if you didn't read it, or can't understand it.
No, it CAN be charged as a felony on subsequent offenses. It rarely
is, if it ever was even once.
Depends on the species, you fool.On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:17:43 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:
In article <s7pg65d5su3v7totj1fgm6ioueabmlpgqk@4ax.com>,
UltimatePatriot@thebestcountry.org wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 06:28:50 -0400, "Michael A. Terrell"
mike.terrell@earthlink.net> wrote:
They weren't all direct hits, or it would have driven that horn back
into his thick skull.
Ahhh... so I am a unicorn.
No, a rhinoceros: clumsy, slow, and stupid.
Rhinos have more than one horn, you retarded twit.
me...Let the Record show that UltimatePatriot
UltimatePatriot@thebestcountry.org> on or about Wed, 22 Jul 2009
23:00:32 -0700 did write/type or cause to appear in
rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:14:36 -0700, pyotr filipivich
phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
You recon he can afford more than a lid at a time?
The word is 'reckon', Dipovich.
So, can you afford more than a lid at a time?
Or did a typo completely derail your choo-choo of "thought"?
Aside from the fact that you were 'asking' the total retard, and not
toodles
pyotr
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
The circumstance of reality, however, is all that matters, and inIn article <hqvh65tqnv1o2ujpqsvqr6uttthbg2o96d@4ax.com>, UltimatePatriot@thebestcountry.org wrote:
On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 14:16:27 GMT, spambait@milmac.com (Doug Miller)
wrote:
I posted the Indiana statute that shows that it is a felony if the amount is
over 30g, or if it's a second offense regardless of the amount. Not my fault
if you didn't read it, or can't understand it.
No, it CAN be charged as a felony on subsequent offenses. It rarely
is, if it ever was even once.
The language of the law is very clear. Like I said, it's not my fault if you
can't understand it.
Okay, you can't afford a complete lid.On Thu, 23 Jul 2009 18:29:29 -0700, pyotr filipivich
phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
Let the Record show that UltimatePatriot
UltimatePatriot@thebestcountry.org> on or about Wed, 22 Jul 2009
23:00:32 -0700 did write/type or cause to appear in
rec.crafts.metalworking the following:
On Wed, 22 Jul 2009 22:14:36 -0700, pyotr filipivich
phamp@mindspring.com> wrote:
You recon he can afford more than a lid at a time?
The word is 'reckon', Dipovich.
So, can you afford more than a lid at a time?
Or did a typo completely derail your choo-choo of "thought"?
Aside from the fact that you were 'asking' the total retard, and not
me...
AND aside from the fact that it was nothing more than a retarded peanut
gallery comment to begin with...
There was no "train of thought" directed toward your retarded query by
me. I usually completely ignore stupid questions, but I occasionally do
toy with them. In this case, I toyed with your vocabulary.
A typo is a typing error. I suspect this was more like you just do not
know how to spell it.
You guys always call them typos though, and then you piss and moan at
the poster for bringing it up, and make some lame remark about that being
all they could focus on. Blah blah fucking blah.
"thought"? Yeah... one day you may actually have some that are
relevant in the real world. Right now, you are simply transparent.
pyotr filipivichtoodles
pyotr
-
pyotr filipivich
We will drink no whiskey before its nine.
It's eight fifty eight. Close enough!
-