Well ....
 

On 11/19/2014 7:52 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 18:47:51 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/18/2014 6:17 PM, Califbill wrote:
wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 12:01:14 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


On 11/18/14 11:15 AM, Poco Loco wrote:

When I kill an animal or bird, TOAD, I eat it for dinner that night or
the next. If I didn't eat it for dinner, I'd be hungry that night.
Therefore I'm a subsistence hunter.


Or, you could hop on the 'guzi and run down to the supermarket to buy a
nice, thick steak.



My preference ;-)

Thick pork chop, better.



I go along with that. Not overcooked though. Too often chops are
overcooked and dried out.

The loin has little fat anyway. I think it should be cooked with a
little pink left in the middle. Trichinosis in store-bought pork is
pretty rare these days.



I saw a show on TV recently that described some of the work being done
to modify the DNA of pigs raised for consumption. The pigs are much
more lean with high levels of omega-3 fatty acids similar to that found
in some fish.

Well ....
 

On 11/18/2014 11:19 PM, KC wrote:
They needed to make sure at least 15% of us were minorities...
You speakglish. You're a minority.

Well ....
 

On 11/18/2014 11:58 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/18/2014 10:41 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 21:24:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/18/2014 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:57:53 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Ahh...libertarianism...no regs because tainted food makes you strong.

That is the problem with you Harry. You can't see the difference
between reasonable regulation and oppressive regulation that only a
corporate compliance department can deal with.
You complain about Walmart running the Mom and Pop operations out of
business but you won't admit, over regulation is part of the problem.
The fact remains that a 200,000 square foot Walmart has just about the
same regulatory burden as a 200 square foot fruit stand. Who do you
think can absorb it easier?



I don't believe that.


The elements are still pretty much the same, Walmart just has more of
each item.
If you have a compliance department that knows all the rules, it is
just a process that you have done 100 times. When you are learning by
"citation and fine" it is not as intuitive.
In my wife's club, the municipality changed (same dirt, different
government) and the new life safety officer read the code different
than it had been interpreted for the last 25 years.
In real life, he was right and the previous guys were not keeping up.
There wasn't one single compliant business or club in the city of
Bonita for almost a year. Some just closed.

These codes change every 3 years. (another pet peeve of mine)
Because of bureaucratic inertia, by the time a code cycle is adopted,
a newer version is already out.
The problem with commercial codes is there is very little grand
fathering. The rule changes, you have to comply.
ADA is the worst and sometimes makes the least sense.


I am not an electrician but having some knowledge of electrical issues
it seems to me that some of the NFPA codes are getting a little carried
away. I can certainly understand the purpose of ground fault sensors,
especially on outdoor services but from what my son-in-law tells me
(he's a working, state licensed electrician) arc detection sensors and
other circuit protection are now required as well.

I discovered a while ago that ground fault protectors don't work well
with some inverter/battery chargers that use switching power supplies.
When they turn on the first half cycle fakes the ground fault out
causing it to trip. The first RV we had did this and it took me quite a
while to discover the problem. It worked fine on a circuit with no
ground fault detector but when plugged into a protected circuit it
tripped the ground fault every time.

Does your LOCAL electrical code require you to install outlets upside down?

Well ....
 

On 11/19/2014 2:36 AM, wrote:
On 19 Nov 2014 03:39:55 GMT, F*O*A*D wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 21:19:29 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/18/14 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:57:53 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Ahh...libertarianism...no regs because tainted food makes you strong.

That is the problem with you Harry. You can't see the difference
between reasonable regulation and oppressive regulation that only a
corporate compliance department can deal with.
You complain about Walmart running the Mom and Pop operations out of
business but you won't admit, over regulation is part of the problem.
The fact remains that a 200,000 square foot Walmart has just about the
same regulatory burden as a 200 square foot fruit stand. Who do you
think can absorb it easier?



We have lots of roadside produce stands around here. Dozens. The regs
they must follow can't be that burdensome. As a libertarian, you're
against most regs, right?

We are talking about a building, not a guy in a truck but maybe you
don't really have that much regulation up there.
Agriculture is just a hobby for most Marylanders so they don't care
that much about where produce comes from.
Who knows if you even have life safety officers?

You mentioned fruit stands. Can't stick with the subjects you bring up?

I am talking about fruit stands, in a building, not a guy on the side
of the road selling fruit off of the tail gate of his truck.

You can't just throw up one of those 2x4 and plywood shacks on the
side of the road like you see in southern Maryland, here. Any
structure needs to meet the current building code, even a shed in your
back yard.
If customers come inside, it also need to meet the other safety codes

This is what we call a fruit stand
http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Ametts.jpg


It's a bit more relaxed up there in Klan land.

Well ....
 

On 11/19/2014 3:01 AM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 23:58:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/18/2014 10:41 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 21:24:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/18/2014 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:57:53 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Ahh...libertarianism...no regs because tainted food makes you strong.

That is the problem with you Harry. You can't see the difference
between reasonable regulation and oppressive regulation that only a
corporate compliance department can deal with.
You complain about Walmart running the Mom and Pop operations out of
business but you won't admit, over regulation is part of the problem.
The fact remains that a 200,000 square foot Walmart has just about the
same regulatory burden as a 200 square foot fruit stand. Who do you
think can absorb it easier?



I don't believe that.


The elements are still pretty much the same, Walmart just has more of
each item.
If you have a compliance department that knows all the rules, it is
just a process that you have done 100 times. When you are learning by
"citation and fine" it is not as intuitive.
In my wife's club, the municipality changed (same dirt, different
government) and the new life safety officer read the code different
than it had been interpreted for the last 25 years.
In real life, he was right and the previous guys were not keeping up.
There wasn't one single compliant business or club in the city of
Bonita for almost a year. Some just closed.

These codes change every 3 years. (another pet peeve of mine)
Because of bureaucratic inertia, by the time a code cycle is adopted,
a newer version is already out.
The problem with commercial codes is there is very little grand
fathering. The rule changes, you have to comply.
ADA is the worst and sometimes makes the least sense.


I am not an electrician but having some knowledge of electrical issues
it seems to me that some of the NFPA codes are getting a little carried
away. I can certainly understand the purpose of ground fault sensors,
especially on outdoor services but from what my son-in-law tells me
(he's a working, state licensed electrician) arc detection sensors and
other circuit protection are now required as well.


The AFCI boondoggle even has most inspectors disgusted NFPA has been
taken over by the big suppliers and it was Cuttler Hammer that rammed
the AFCI down our throats. Unfortunately the swing votes were NEMA and
the IBEW members.

This was actually written in the code in 1999 before C/H even had a
commercially viable model so it was a deferred requirement until 2002
in the 99 code and it was only going to be for the bedroom. The
problem was they never actually had any but when the 2002 cycle rolled
around they had already expanded the places they had to be used. The
product that was rushed into production really did not even work and
when it did it fell far short of the promise. It could find a shorting
arc but it couldn;t see a broken wire arc (the justification they used
in 1999) Each cycle after that saw increasing numbers of places where
they have to be used and some of the promised devices with the
capabilities they promised are just coming into the supply stream.
There have already been recalls from Square D but some of us think all
of the early version AFCIs should be recalled. That would probably put
the manufacturers out of business tho if they also had to cover the
labor. Millions of people have AFCIs that do not offer the protection
people think they have and they nuisance tripped so badly, a lot were
simply thrown away with regular breakers going in.
,

I discovered a while ago that ground fault protectors don't work well
with some inverter/battery chargers that use switching power supplies.
When they turn on the first half cycle fakes the ground fault out
causing it to trip. The first RV we had did this and it took me quite a
while to discover the problem. It worked fine on a circuit with no
ground fault detector but when plugged into a protected circuit it
tripped the ground fault every time.

The usual reason GFCIs trip is because you have a leak to ground and
that can be on the neutral side. A lot of equipment manufacturers
assume that since neutral is "grounded" anyway that they do not have
to worry about regrounding it.
AFCIs share that same problem because they have ground fault
protection in them too (at 30ma not 5ma like a GFCI)

Generally speaking if you are tripping a GFCI, you have a problem with
the equipment.. AFCIs can trip from some of those transients, phase
shifts and other stuff GFCIs get accused of seeing but not usually
GFCIs.

The one that is an urban legend is refrigerators. The fact is, an old
fridge trips a GFCI because there are internal shorts in the
compressor most of the time. You can see it with a current probe on a
scope and I guarantee, if you cut open that freon line, you will get
burned smelling freon coming out.


All but one of those bedroom breakers have failed in our house. I just
replaced them with regular breakers.

Well ....
 

On 11/19/2014 6:48 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/18/14 9:49 PM, wrote:
On 19 Nov 2014 01:52:03 GMT, F*O*A*D wrote:

wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 20:27:12 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

I'm not drawing lines. I'm merely stating I have no objections to
subsistence hunting as it is generally described.

It does sound like you are saying homeless people could corner a fawn
in your neighborhood, beat it to death with baseball bats and that
would be OK if they were hungry enough.

You are trying much too hard.

I am just trying to figure out where the line is drawn with you. Is it
only that you do not like the idea of anyone on Rec Boats doing
something you don't do?
You have created this straw man of subsistence hunting but you don't
seem to be able to define it. Wouldn't a homeless person killing a
deer for food be subsistence?
Why isn't Tim doing it OK if he is eating the deer?

I assume fishing is morally repugnant to you too?

I don't do either one so I don't really have a dog in the fight but I
am curious about the rules.


I previously have stated over the years here my disdain for so-called
"sport" hunting. A homeless man without resources who kills a deer to
eat because he has no reasonable way to get food is not sport hunting.

Subsistence hunting as I am using the phrase is not a difficult concept
to understand except, perhaps, to you and a few other right-wingers here.



Please enlighten me as to the difference between sport fishing and sport
hunting. And don't hand me that catch and release bull****.

Well ....
 

On 11/19/2014 7:47 AM, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/19/14 7:37 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:30:04 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/18/14 7:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:49:08 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/18/14 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:41:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Not by the normal definition of subsistence hunting.

BTW I noticed that you ducked the question about taking invasive
exotics.


No, just not playing your change the subject game.

You are talking about hunting. Hog hunting is hunting, in fact a very
popular type of hunting here. That is not changing the subject at all.

For that matter white tail deer are reaching unsustainable populations
all over the country. I bet you think shooting them is wrong too.
Is dying from starvation and disease better than simply being shot?
I suppose we could round them up and kill them in a slaughterhouse.
You think that is OK for other mammals we eat..


I was discussing subsistence hunting. You know, the sort of hunting
people engage in when they cannot afford to shop at the market or live
out in the wilderness with no markets nearby. I have no objections to
subsistence hunting.

Bull****. You were talking about the lack of morality in
non-subsistence hunting.

Greg's question had to do with non-subsistence hunting - i.e., the
hunting of invasive species. He was much in line with what you'd
changed the subject to - non-subsistence hunting.


No, ****head. I mentioned that non-subsistence hunting was lacking in
morality...I wasn't discussing it in any detail here. My points were
about subsistence hunting and that I had no objections to it as
generally defined.

Greg changed the subject to the hunting of invasive species. I'm not
playing that game with him in this discussion.

Ooooo. Greg wants to play hardball with you and you can't handle
anything more manly than wiffleball. Pansy.

Well ....
 

On 11/19/2014 9:14 AM, Harrold wrote:
On 11/18/2014 11:58 PM, Mr. Luddite wrote:
On 11/18/2014 10:41 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 21:24:49 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/18/2014 8:28 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:57:53 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Ahh...libertarianism...no regs because tainted food makes you strong.

That is the problem with you Harry. You can't see the difference
between reasonable regulation and oppressive regulation that only a
corporate compliance department can deal with.
You complain about Walmart running the Mom and Pop operations out of
business but you won't admit, over regulation is part of the problem.
The fact remains that a 200,000 square foot Walmart has just about the
same regulatory burden as a 200 square foot fruit stand. Who do you
think can absorb it easier?



I don't believe that.


The elements are still pretty much the same, Walmart just has more of
each item.
If you have a compliance department that knows all the rules, it is
just a process that you have done 100 times. When you are learning by
"citation and fine" it is not as intuitive.
In my wife's club, the municipality changed (same dirt, different
government) and the new life safety officer read the code different
than it had been interpreted for the last 25 years.
In real life, he was right and the previous guys were not keeping up.
There wasn't one single compliant business or club in the city of
Bonita for almost a year. Some just closed.

These codes change every 3 years. (another pet peeve of mine)
Because of bureaucratic inertia, by the time a code cycle is adopted,
a newer version is already out.
The problem with commercial codes is there is very little grand
fathering. The rule changes, you have to comply.
ADA is the worst and sometimes makes the least sense.


I am not an electrician but having some knowledge of electrical issues
it seems to me that some of the NFPA codes are getting a little carried
away. I can certainly understand the purpose of ground fault sensors,
especially on outdoor services but from what my son-in-law tells me
(he's a working, state licensed electrician) arc detection sensors and
other circuit protection are now required as well.

I discovered a while ago that ground fault protectors don't work well
with some inverter/battery chargers that use switching power supplies.
When they turn on the first half cycle fakes the ground fault out
causing it to trip. The first RV we had did this and it took me quite a
while to discover the problem. It worked fine on a circuit with no
ground fault detector but when plugged into a protected circuit it
tripped the ground fault every time.

Does your LOCAL electrical code require you to install outlets upside down?


Depends on how you look at it.

Well ....
 

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:47:57 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/19/14 7:37 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:30:04 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/18/14 7:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:49:08 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/18/14 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:41:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Not by the normal definition of subsistence hunting.

BTW I noticed that you ducked the question about taking invasive
exotics.


No, just not playing your change the subject game.

You are talking about hunting. Hog hunting is hunting, in fact a very
popular type of hunting here. That is not changing the subject at all.

For that matter white tail deer are reaching unsustainable populations
all over the country. I bet you think shooting them is wrong too.
Is dying from starvation and disease better than simply being shot?
I suppose we could round them up and kill them in a slaughterhouse.
You think that is OK for other mammals we eat..


I was discussing subsistence hunting. You know, the sort of hunting
people engage in when they cannot afford to shop at the market or live
out in the wilderness with no markets nearby. I have no objections to
subsistence hunting.

Bull****. You were talking about the lack of morality in
non-subsistence hunting.

Greg's question had to do with non-subsistence hunting - i.e., the
hunting of invasive species. He was much in line with what you'd
changed the subject to - non-subsistence hunting.


No, ****head. I mentioned that non-subsistence hunting was lacking in
morality...I wasn't discussing it in any detail here. My points were
about subsistence hunting and that I had no objections to it as
generally defined.

Greg changed the subject to the hunting of invasive species. I'm not
playing that game with him in this discussion.

Your subject was 'non-subsistence hunting'. Greg's was invasive
species hunting. Greg's subject is clearly a subset of yours.

Well ....
 

Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:47:57 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/19/14 7:37 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 19:30:04 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/18/14 7:12 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 17:49:08 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/18/14 5:09 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:41:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

Not by the normal definition of subsistence hunting.

BTW I noticed that you ducked the question about taking invasive
exotics.


No, just not playing your change the subject game.

You are talking about hunting. Hog hunting is hunting, in fact a very
popular type of hunting here. That is not changing the subject at all.

For that matter white tail deer are reaching unsustainable populations
all over the country. I bet you think shooting them is wrong too.
Is dying from starvation and disease better than simply being shot?
I suppose we could round them up and kill them in a slaughterhouse.
You think that is OK for other mammals we eat..


I was discussing subsistence hunting. You know, the sort of hunting
people engage in when they cannot afford to shop at the market or live
out in the wilderness with no markets nearby. I have no objections to
subsistence hunting.

Bull****. You were talking about the lack of morality in
non-subsistence hunting.

Greg's question had to do with non-subsistence hunting - i.e., the
hunting of invasive species. He was much in line with what you'd
changed the subject to - non-subsistence hunting.


No, ****head. I mentioned that non-subsistence hunting was lacking in
morality...I wasn't discussing it in any detail here. My points were
about subsistence hunting and that I had no objections to it as
generally defined.

Greg changed the subject to the hunting of invasive species. I'm not
playing that game with him in this discussion.

Your subject was 'non-subsistence hunting'. Greg's was invasive
species hunting. Greg's subject is clearly a subset of yours.

In your mind, Johnny ****head Herring.
--
Sent from my iPhone 6+