"Jordon" wrote in message
...
SteveB wrote:

I drove forklifts for years at Vegas conventions. We had a lot of female
operators. When a person is an operator, they either make it, or they
wash out quickly. They don't let bad operators run for very long. Many
a person, both male and female got put on a horse out there either by
knowing someone or blowing someone, and with their first ****up, they
were ground pounding again. Most were screened by mandatory drug testing
before they ever got on the horse, and then mandatory in case of any
accident or injury. It was one of the few jobs in the place that was
performance based.

Horse? You call a forklift a horse? When I operated them
we used to call them bulls. Like this one...

http://www.portstrategy.com/__data/a...orklift_11.JPG

I loaded barges destined for Alaska out of Seattle, for
about five years. 80,000 pound capacity.

--
Jordon

We just had mostly the 3500# Toyotas and Komatsus. We did have a 10,000#,
but rarely used it. During the heavy equipment show, bigger ones were
rented, or provided by the individual companies for assembly. We really
didn't get into that much heavy stuff. Just lots of stuff. During CES one
year, one of the exhibitor's display took 113 flatbeds.

Steve

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:30:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:07:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:44:17 -0400, JohnH
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:34:44 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:52:14 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:23:44 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 23, 1:25 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 23, 1:11 am, "nom=de=plume" wrote:





"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 22, 10:49 pm, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message

news
On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

If you condone any of the crap of the people you've put
in
office,
you
have
serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies.

?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama.
Compared to
previous
presidents, he seems pretty good to me.

Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's
idiocy. I
fear
the
led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for Bush.
And for
Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like
Bush
would
have.
Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look
good.
That's
the
same
as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie O'Donald
washes
up
on
the
beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the horrid
mental
imagery)

Are you telling us you condone what the previous president
*you*
put
in
office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush
rationale if
that
makes
you feel better.

With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you.
You're
doing
fine
by
yourself.

I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him. (The
reality
is
NO
one
voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or for
Mr. Magoo
or
Obama)

You have confirmed that your you have a sycophant-affection
for a
political
party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again confirms
the
deficiencies.
Mindless affection for a "party" establishes dysfunctional
status.
You
have
LOADS of company.

You never answered - government "employee" or union member?
BOTH??????

Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a loser.

Why would you consider "government employee" and "union
member"
names?

And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name?

Why would consider re-reading all his previous posts, since it
would be
obvious what I'm talking about.

What would you call him?

--
Nom=de=Plume
Correct.

Thank you, but calling him a loser more than once isn't
appropriate.

--
Nom=de=Plume

There's that lack of reading comprehension again. Or are you being
intentionally bitchy?

reply: Debating with Nom=de=Plume is like debating a jellyfish and
contesting the results. As Nancy Reagan said, JUST SAY NO.


Too similar to 'debating' Harry.

Probably is...

De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better ally.

De Plume is simply a 'little' better mannered De Krause.

I suspect that, in person, De Plume is affable and considerate. But,
her propensity for disconnected thinking and her penchant for
sophistry in these threads is disquieting. I was tempted with the
thought of encouraging the title "Queen Quintessa of Sophistry." That
would be mean-spirited, though. In the long run, I have no doubt that
she means well, unlike Harry.


I'm affable and considerate here also.

I didn't say that you weren't, Miss De Plume. However, you have
demonstrated in these threads that you can be patronizing and
condescending, at least in tone if not in intent. And those
particular qualities are not in accord with one who can also
demonstrate substantially poor powers of reasoning. That does not
take away from your affability, in any event.


Patronizing and condescending are not traits one associates with affableness
(not sure this is a word). Please feel free to post instances of either.

The "qualities" (condescention and patronization) are certainly associated
with poor powers of reasoning. How could they not be? Perhaps you meant they
_are_ in accord with those two things....

Honestly, I don't know anyone who is condescending and patronizing _and_
affable.

Actually, I would ascribe those exact attributes to our current
President. To say that a person has those qualities is not to suggest
that those qualities fail to manifest themselves in particular
instances, separated by circumstance, which is why I qualified my
observation by saying "you can be" instead of a more inflexible "you
'are' patronizing..." Likewise, I was careful not to insinuate that
you persist in poor thinking, only that you, by demonstration, "can"
do so. And to be honest, there isn't a person in the world that isn't
capable of lapsing into occasional episodes of poor thinking. However,
some will try to recognize when they fall prey to poor thinking and
try to correct it, even when cajoled to do so by another. It would be
a wondeful world if we were all that humble.

It seems to me that you do try to be civil and engaging; but, there
has been at least one instance in responding to me in which you were
overtly patronizing (and that's forgiveable). That doesn't rob you of
your overall comportment, though, which appears benign. And that's a
characteristic missing in far too many conversations in this group.

(Your liberal bent is forgiveable, too. Everyone has room for
improvement

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:35:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:11:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:50:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:02:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:vj0nb5tgbhfre620gncu7s81tisd98jcp6@4ax .com...

De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better
ally.


Sophistry and chaos are not allies. I don't use sophistry, but I would
love
to be called a sophist. I like the original meaning, since I'm not
into
deceiving anyone, unlike some on the right. In case you're not
familiar:

In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of philosophy
and
rhetoric.

I'll go with the Greek description of chaos also:

http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/th...-Sophists.html

Have a wonderful day!

Actually, I'm more familiar with Sophism than you may care to believe,
I have no doubt. Too, Sophism was not as treated as deferentially by
the Socratics as you may care to believe.

"Plato is largely responsible for the modern view of the "sophist" as
a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and
ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support fallacious
reasoning."

However, I was going with the modern, popular definition.
Concordantly, the "chaos" that I submitted above was not in relative
to "sophism." It was relative to the subject of my first sentence.
It's odd that parsing could be a difficult operation when sophistry
comes so easily.


I never mentioned Aristotle, and I would never assert that he was
deferential to that philosophy. I'm not sure where you got that from my
comment or the links.

You said the two (sophism and chaos) were allies. That seems like a
relativistic statement.

Neither did I mention Aristotle. And why could "quintessence" not
have been the ally that I was speaking of?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access


Sorry I meant Socatics. This is a method of arriving at the "truth"
through
questions and answers. This has something to do with sophistry, but
nothing
to do with chaos. I'm not a big fan of Aristotle.

That's fine. I suspected that you had misstated what you had intended
to say. By "Socratics," I was referring to the students of Socrates,
or those subsequently influenced by his philosophies or his methods of
inquiry. Those who were of the Socratic school frowned on the
Sophists and may have done so with good reason. But, whether there
was merit in the disdain shown by the Socratic school for the Sophists
is a point of contention among those who explore these things
assiduously, as I understand it. Two other prominent schools that
come from that epoch are the Epicurean and Stoic. Both are worth
exploring, for those interested in early philosophy, to appreciate how
currently popular conceptions of the Stoic and the Epicurean differ
from their original precepts.


I've always had an affinity toward stoicism, and I appreciate the attacks
Epicureans have on superstition and deity worship. I'm not a hedonist,
particularly.

I guess I'm not a stoic either. lol

Perhaps you're more of a Utilitarian?

I'm a Kierkegaard existentialist myself (at least in some small
measure).

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

wrote
I'm a Kierkegaard existentialist myself (at least in some small
measure).

I'm a reactionary libertarian Luddite transcendentalist conservative.

Steve

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:30:10 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:07:56 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:44:17 -0400, JohnH
wrote:

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 09:34:44 -0500, wrote:

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 21:52:14 -0400, JustWait
wrote:

In article ,
says...

On Wed, 23 Sep 2009 17:23:44 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


"Jack" wrote in message
...
On Sep 23, 1:25 pm, "nom=de=plume" wrote:
"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 23, 1:11 am, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:





"Jack" wrote in message

...
On Sep 22, 10:49 pm, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

"Steve" wrote in message

news
On 22-Sep-2009, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

If you condone any of the crap of the people you've
put
in
office,
you
have
serious moral, ethical and intellectual deficiencies.

?? Please tell us about your deep-seated fear of Obama.
Compared to
previous
presidents, he seems pretty good to me.

Your statement confirms my analysis. Fear Obama?? That's
idiocy. I
fear
the
led-by-the-nose disciples that voted for him. And for
Bush.
And for
Clinton. Obama would make a great class president, like
Bush
would
have.
Bush and Obama's legacy is that they make CLINTON look
good.
That's
the
same
as being stranded for years on an island and Rosie
O'Donald
washes
up
on
the
beach - then, she'd look good too. (sorry about the
horrid
mental
imagery)

Are you telling us you condone what the previous
president
*you*
put
in
office did? Feel free to insult me or say it's Bush
rationale if
that
makes
you feel better.

With YOUR voluntary input, I don't need to insult you.
You're
doing
fine
by
yourself.

I didn't put Bush in office, and never voted for him.
(The
reality
is
NO
one
voted for Bush, or the losers that ran against him. Or
for
Mr. Magoo
or
Obama)

You have confirmed that your you have a
sycophant-affection
for a
political
party, as about 25% of "Americans" do. That again
confirms
the
deficiencies.
Mindless affection for a "party" establishes
dysfunctional
status.
You
have
LOADS of company.

You never answered - government "employee" or union
member?
BOTH??????

Neither. Feel free to call me some more names. What a
loser.

Why would you consider "government employee" and "union
member"
names?

And isn't calling someone a "loser" calling a name?

Why would consider re-reading all his previous posts, since
it
would be
obvious what I'm talking about.

What would you call him?

--
Nom=de=Plume
Correct.

Thank you, but calling him a loser more than once isn't
appropriate.

--
Nom=de=Plume

There's that lack of reading comprehension again. Or are you
being
intentionally bitchy?

reply: Debating with Nom=de=Plume is like debating a jellyfish
and
contesting the results. As Nancy Reagan said, JUST SAY NO.


Too similar to 'debating' Harry.

Probably is...

De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better ally.

De Plume is simply a 'little' better mannered De Krause.

I suspect that, in person, De Plume is affable and considerate. But,
her propensity for disconnected thinking and her penchant for
sophistry in these threads is disquieting. I was tempted with the
thought of encouraging the title "Queen Quintessa of Sophistry." That
would be mean-spirited, though. In the long run, I have no doubt that
she means well, unlike Harry.


I'm affable and considerate here also.

I didn't say that you weren't, Miss De Plume. However, you have
demonstrated in these threads that you can be patronizing and
condescending, at least in tone if not in intent. And those
particular qualities are not in accord with one who can also
demonstrate substantially poor powers of reasoning. That does not
take away from your affability, in any event.


Patronizing and condescending are not traits one associates with
affableness
(not sure this is a word). Please feel free to post instances of either.

The "qualities" (condescention and patronization) are certainly associated
with poor powers of reasoning. How could they not be? Perhaps you meant
they
_are_ in accord with those two things....

Honestly, I don't know anyone who is condescending and patronizing _and_
affable.

Actually, I would ascribe those exact attributes to our current
President. To say that a person has those qualities is not to suggest
that those qualities fail to manifest themselves in particular
instances, separated by circumstance, which is why I qualified my
observation by saying "you can be" instead of a more inflexible "you
'are' patronizing..." Likewise, I was careful not to insinuate that
you persist in poor thinking, only that you, by demonstration, "can"
do so. And to be honest, there isn't a person in the world that isn't
capable of lapsing into occasional episodes of poor thinking. However,
some will try to recognize when they fall prey to poor thinking and
try to correct it, even when cajoled to do so by another. It would be
a wondeful world if we were all that humble.

By that measure, everyone, anyone "can" exhibit just about anything. I can
even be humble.

It seems to me that you do try to be civil and engaging; but, there
has been at least one instance in responding to me in which you were
overtly patronizing (and that's forgiveable). That doesn't rob you of
your overall comportment, though, which appears benign. And that's a
characteristic missing in far too many conversations in this group.

Really? I'm not a patronizing person in general... perhaps you deserved it
and I couldn't help myself. smirk

(Your liberal bent is forgiveable, too. Everyone has room for
improvement

Even GWB! Did you read Andrew Sullivan's article in The Atlantic. It was
wonderful.

--
Nom=de=Plume

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:35:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
. ..
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:11:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
m...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:50:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:21enb5ls4p3judu9fr1lag7p53ufr2ct5j@4ax. com...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:02:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:vj0nb5tgbhfre620gncu7s81tisd98jcp6@4a x.com...

De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better
ally.


Sophistry and chaos are not allies. I don't use sophistry, but I
would
love
to be called a sophist. I like the original meaning, since I'm not
into
deceiving anyone, unlike some on the right. In case you're not
familiar:

In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of
philosophy
and
rhetoric.

I'll go with the Greek description of chaos also:

http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/th...-Sophists.html

Have a wonderful day!

Actually, I'm more familiar with Sophism than you may care to
believe,
I have no doubt. Too, Sophism was not as treated as deferentially
by
the Socratics as you may care to believe.

"Plato is largely responsible for the modern view of the "sophist"
as
a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and
ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support
fallacious
reasoning."

However, I was going with the modern, popular definition.
Concordantly, the "chaos" that I submitted above was not in relative
to "sophism." It was relative to the subject of my first sentence.
It's odd that parsing could be a difficult operation when sophistry
comes so easily.


I never mentioned Aristotle, and I would never assert that he was
deferential to that philosophy. I'm not sure where you got that from
my
comment or the links.

You said the two (sophism and chaos) were allies. That seems like a
relativistic statement.

Neither did I mention Aristotle. And why could "quintessence" not
have been the ally that I was speaking of?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access


Sorry I meant Socatics. This is a method of arriving at the "truth"
through
questions and answers. This has something to do with sophistry, but
nothing
to do with chaos. I'm not a big fan of Aristotle.

That's fine. I suspected that you had misstated what you had intended
to say. By "Socratics," I was referring to the students of Socrates,
or those subsequently influenced by his philosophies or his methods of
inquiry. Those who were of the Socratic school frowned on the
Sophists and may have done so with good reason. But, whether there
was merit in the disdain shown by the Socratic school for the Sophists
is a point of contention among those who explore these things
assiduously, as I understand it. Two other prominent schools that
come from that epoch are the Epicurean and Stoic. Both are worth
exploring, for those interested in early philosophy, to appreciate how
currently popular conceptions of the Stoic and the Epicurean differ
from their original precepts.


I've always had an affinity toward stoicism, and I appreciate the attacks
Epicureans have on superstition and deity worship. I'm not a hedonist,
particularly.

I guess I'm not a stoic either. lol

Perhaps you're more of a Utilitarian?

I'm a bit rusty when it comes to philosophy, but isn't that much like
practicalism? I can be very not practical.

I'm a Kierkegaard existentialist myself (at least in some small
measure).

I always preferred reading Sartre... cut from the same cloth, but more
modern.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

wrote
I'm a Kierkegaard existentialist myself (at least in some small
measure).

I'm a reactionary libertarian Luddite transcendentalist conservative.

Steve

Heh.. from what to what or are you just intuitive by nature.

--
Nom=de=Plume

"SteveB" wrote in message
...

wrote
I'm a Kierkegaard existentialist myself (at least in some small
measure).

I'm a reactionary libertarian Luddite transcendentalist conservative.

Steve

I'm a compassionate conservative. Oh wait, someone used that one...

--
Nom=de=Plume

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:30:07 -0600, "SteveB"
wrote:


wrote
I'm a Kierkegaard existentialist myself (at least in some small
measure).

I'm a reactionary libertarian Luddite transcendentalist conservative.

Steve


Thanks for the update. I never would have guessed the 'conservative'
part.

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access

On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 22:06:35 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 14:35:18 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 13:11:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
om...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:50:11 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:21enb5ls4p3judu9fr1lag7p53ufr2ct5j@4ax .com...
On Thu, 24 Sep 2009 11:02:04 -0700, "nom=de=plume"
wrote:

wrote in message
news:vj0nb5tgbhfre620gncu7s81tisd98jcp6@4 ax.com...

De Plume is the quintessence of sophistry. Chaos has no better
ally.


Sophistry and chaos are not allies. I don't use sophistry, but I
would
love
to be called a sophist. I like the original meaning, since I'm not
into
deceiving anyone, unlike some on the right. In case you're not
familiar:

In Ancient Greece, the sophists were a group of teachers of
philosophy
and
rhetoric.

I'll go with the Greek description of chaos also:

http://www.blavatsky.net/magazine/th...-Sophists.html

Have a wonderful day!

Actually, I'm more familiar with Sophism than you may care to
believe,
I have no doubt. Too, Sophism was not as treated as deferentially
by
the Socratics as you may care to believe.

"Plato is largely responsible for the modern view of the "sophist"
as
a greedy instructor who uses rhetorical sleight-of-hand and
ambiguities of language in order to deceive, or to support
fallacious
reasoning."

However, I was going with the modern, popular definition.
Concordantly, the "chaos" that I submitted above was not in relative
to "sophism." It was relative to the subject of my first sentence.
It's odd that parsing could be a difficult operation when sophistry
comes so easily.


I never mentioned Aristotle, and I would never assert that he was
deferential to that philosophy. I'm not sure where you got that from
my
comment or the links.

You said the two (sophism and chaos) were allies. That seems like a
relativistic statement.

Neither did I mention Aristotle. And why could "quintessence" not
have been the ally that I was speaking of?

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access


Sorry I meant Socatics. This is a method of arriving at the "truth"
through
questions and answers. This has something to do with sophistry, but
nothing
to do with chaos. I'm not a big fan of Aristotle.

That's fine. I suspected that you had misstated what you had intended
to say. By "Socratics," I was referring to the students of Socrates,
or those subsequently influenced by his philosophies or his methods of
inquiry. Those who were of the Socratic school frowned on the
Sophists and may have done so with good reason. But, whether there
was merit in the disdain shown by the Socratic school for the Sophists
is a point of contention among those who explore these things
assiduously, as I understand it. Two other prominent schools that
come from that epoch are the Epicurean and Stoic. Both are worth
exploring, for those interested in early philosophy, to appreciate how
currently popular conceptions of the Stoic and the Epicurean differ
from their original precepts.


I've always had an affinity toward stoicism, and I appreciate the attacks
Epicureans have on superstition and deity worship. I'm not a hedonist,
particularly.

I guess I'm not a stoic either. lol

Perhaps you're more of a Utilitarian?

I'm a bit rusty when it comes to philosophy, but isn't that much like
practicalism? I can be very not practical.

I'm a Kierkegaard existentialist myself (at least in some small
measure).

I always preferred reading Sartre... cut from the same cloth, but more
modern.

Kierkegaard is essentially considered the father of existentialism.
Kierkegaard and Sartre approached existentialism from different paths
since Kierkegaard was a devout Christian and Sartre was an avowed
atheist. Existentialism has taken the same route that Humanism did.
Early Humanism started with Christian scholarship in an effort to
re-establish the cultural milleu of the Pax Romana (and a Hellenistic
cosmopolitanism) and was punctuated by the work of the northern
Humanist Erasmus, and since that early campaign, Humanism has devolved
into a secular 'pragmatism' in search of a human utopia.
Existentialism has similarly traced a path from the nascent
explorations of passion (especially in an individual's relationship to
God) to its modern incarnation and interpretation.

A really good web resource for more info on these things is the
Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy:

http://plato.stanford.edu/

It's worth taking a quick peak. Honest!

--
Posted via NewsDemon.com - Premium Uncensored Newsgroup Service
-------http://www.NewsDemon.com------
Unlimited Access, Anonymous Accounts, Uncensored Broadband Access