BoatBanter.com

BoatBanter.com (https://www.boatbanter.com/)
-   General (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/)
-   -   Well .... (https://www.boatbanter.com/general/162520-well.html)

Poco Loco November 19th 14 06:25 PM

Well ....
 
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:00:30 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/19/14 12:02 PM, Califbill wrote:
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.




Nope, homeless person is breaking the law. We have problems with homeless
encampments in San Jose, who use grocery carts to trap endangered salmon
going up the Guadalupe to spawn. That OK because they are homeless?




You're confusing "legality" with morality. Let me offer an analogy. When
the founders wrote and enacted the U.S. Constitution, they left the
document silent on the issue of slavery. Because of that, slavery
remained legal in the south. Legal, but not moral. The founders
deliberately sidestepped the issue, even though by doing so they were
morally wrong.

I don't have moral issues with a hungry person with no other means to
obtain meat-fish-poultry breaking the law by poaching an animal for his
fire and table. *That* is subsistence hunting/fishing. The legality of
it is an entirely separate issue.

If you have hungry homeless people in encampments in San Jose, and these
people cannot get food stamps or reasonably get to stores, then I am not
offended by their poaching salmon. If they all can get to stores easily
and have legal ways to buy enough decent food there, then there is no
reason for them to poach, is there...


Moral issues with fishing, Toad?

Harrold November 19th 14 06:46 PM

Well ....
 
On 11/19/2014 1:25 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:00:30 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/19/14 12:02 PM, Califbill wrote:
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.




Nope, homeless person is breaking the law. We have problems with homeless
encampments in San Jose, who use grocery carts to trap endangered salmon
going up the Guadalupe to spawn. That OK because they are homeless?




You're confusing "legality" with morality. Let me offer an analogy. When
the founders wrote and enacted the U.S. Constitution, they left the
document silent on the issue of slavery. Because of that, slavery
remained legal in the south. Legal, but not moral. The founders
deliberately sidestepped the issue, even though by doing so they were
morally wrong.

I don't have moral issues with a hungry person with no other means to
obtain meat-fish-poultry breaking the law by poaching an animal for his
fire and table. *That* is subsistence hunting/fishing. The legality of
it is an entirely separate issue.

If you have hungry homeless people in encampments in San Jose, and these
people cannot get food stamps or reasonably get to stores, then I am not
offended by their poaching salmon. If they all can get to stores easily
and have legal ways to buy enough decent food there, then there is no
reason for them to poach, is there...


Moral issues with fishing, Toad?

I doubt if you or I could make any sense of his visions of morality.
It's my opinion that Krause is amoral.

F*O*A*D November 19th 14 07:29 PM

Well ....
 
On 11/19/14 1:23 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:56:47 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/19/14 10:32 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On 19 Nov 2014 15:28:02 GMT, F*O*A*D wrote:

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 ch
ange 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.



Wow, Toad, all that typing to exercise your anger and frustration.



If Greg or someone else wants to start a thread on the morality of
non-subsistence hunting, I am sure it will garner all the
"positivity" you want.

Why, you could tell us how you hunted those dangerous squirrels and
bunnies and how you want to shoot geese; FlaJim could regale us with
tales of how he shot his relatives, the wild Florida hogs; PsychoScotty
could tell us how he hunted down a joint and got busted for it, and, of
course, Greg could tell how it doesn't matter, because everything is the
same and we don't need so many regulations.

Fun times in rec.boats, for sure.


The bitter Toad.


Yeah, because I didn't have to eat rodents for dinner when I was a kid.
Right.

--
Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Your
morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a
child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, not a child
clothed, not a child able to see the doctor. That’s not pro-life…that’s
pro-birth.

F*O*A*D November 19th 14 07:41 PM

Well ....
 
On 11/19/14 2:27 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 07:47:57 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

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


It is still hunting. Hog hunting may be the most popular hunting we
have here, right behind alligators.


Well, goody, I suppose, for you and yours, although I would consider you
and yours the most dangerous "invasive species" in Florida. Not you and
yours personally, of course, but you and yours generally have done more
to ruin Florida than the wild hogs. What's the bounty on "invasive
humans" who ruin the state?

--
Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Your
morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a
child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, not a child
clothed, not a child able to see the doctor. That’s not pro-life…that’s
pro-birth.

Mr. Luddite November 19th 14 07:52 PM

Well ....
 
On 11/19/2014 2:17 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 06:33:38 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:


I agree with all you said but switching power supplies have an
additional issue with ground fault detectors, due to their design and
how they function. Not so much with smaller battery chargers but
anything that draws significant current (like an RV or Boat
inverter/charger system) usually trips it. I've had problems with
three different RV's. Works fine on a non-GFI circuit.


I know of nothing in a switcher that should trip a GFCI and I have a
couple of PCs that run just fine on the GFCIs. Current may lag voltage
but Dr Kirchoff says the current in will equal the current out at any
given instant and that is what a GFCI compares.
AFCIs are different, they actually look at current "signatures" and
those spiky switching power supplies can trick one.
I bet your charger has regrounded the neutral, probably through an RF
filter. That is usually the culprit.
Wayne has the answer, A transformer. If the noise is not an issue to
you, disconnecting the filter is always an option or just couple it to
ground through a capacitor..



Low current devices like a PC usually are not a problem although
nuisance tripping has been reported. Higher current draw devices (like
an RV inverter/charger have more issues.

There's nothing wrong with the inverter/charger or the GFI. It's a
reflected component of the high frequency power supply induced into the
power source line that confuses the GFI. Not an issue unique to my
experience. You can find discussions on it elsewhere.

Wayne's transformer recommendation works just fine. I ended up having
to use a Hughes Autoformer for the RV's in Florida because the voltage
where we were often drooped significantly during parts of the day. I
measured as low as 105 vac at times. As an experiment, I tried using
the Autoformer back up in MA on the GFI circuit and everything worked fine.





Harrold November 19th 14 07:52 PM

Well ....
 
On 11/19/2014 2:38 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 09:22:02 -0500, Harrold wrote:

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


You are exactly the customer I am talking about. Just the fact that
you call it a "bedroom" breaker tells me it was installed under the
2002 code. By 2005 it had expanded to other rooms That is the code
cycle, not necessarily when your jurisdiction adopted it) . You
probably had the version 1.0 AFCI and we are up to about v3.2 right
now.
As the "Dead" say "What a long strange trip it's been"


Am I going to die because I don't use the damn things?

F*O*A*D November 19th 14 07:58 PM

Well ....
 
On 11/19/14 2:51 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:56:47 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:


Why, you could tell us how you hunted those dangerous squirrels and
bunnies


Tell us more about the deadly water bottles again you big brave man
you.



I don't pretend to be a great white hunter engaged in the non-sport of
shooting animals with a gun. Refilled one and two liter plastic bottles
at 50 and 100 yards are colorful targets. Just bought a steel "gong" to
take out to the range and hang on chains.

There's a slight chance we might be able to extend the range out from
100 to 200 yards, depending on interest and how many guys want to chip
in for the grading and planting. If it happens, it'll be done in the
spring.


--
Just because you are opposed to abortion doesn’t make you pro-life. Your
morality is deeply lacking if all you want is a child born but not a
child fed, not a child educated, not a child housed, not a child
clothed, not a child able to see the doctor. That’s not pro-life…that’s
pro-birth.

Poco Loco November 19th 14 08:28 PM

Well ....
 
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:29:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/19/14 1:23 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:56:47 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/19/14 10:32 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On 19 Nov 2014 15:28:02 GMT, F*O*A*D wrote:

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 ch
ange 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.



Wow, Toad, all that typing to exercise your anger and frustration.



If Greg or someone else wants to start a thread on the morality of
non-subsistence hunting, I am sure it will garner all the
"positivity" you want.

Why, you could tell us how you hunted those dangerous squirrels and
bunnies and how you want to shoot geese; FlaJim could regale us with
tales of how he shot his relatives, the wild Florida hogs; PsychoScotty
could tell us how he hunted down a joint and got busted for it, and, of
course, Greg could tell how it doesn't matter, because everything is the
same and we don't need so many regulations.

Fun times in rec.boats, for sure.


The bitter Toad.


Yeah, because I didn't have to eat rodents for dinner when I was a kid.
Right.


A lack of rodents made you this bitter, Toad?

Harrold November 19th 14 08:29 PM

Well ....
 
On 11/19/2014 2:48 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:06:28 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/19/2014 9:14 AM, Harrold wrote:


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



Depends on how you look at it.


The code is actually silent on the issue and I have heard plenty of
compelling arguments of why "ground up" is preferable but people are
used to it looking like a face.
The usual convention is that switched receptacles are the opposite of
the rest but that is not written anywhere.

Call me old fashioned but I like my night lights right side up.

Poco Loco November 19th 14 08:30 PM

Well ....
 
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:58:00 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/19/14 2:51 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 10:56:47 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:


Why, you could tell us how you hunted those dangerous squirrels and
bunnies


Tell us more about the deadly water bottles again you big brave man
you.



I don't pretend to be a great white hunter engaged in the non-sport of
shooting animals with a gun. Refilled one and two liter plastic bottles
at 50 and 100 yards are colorful targets. Just bought a steel "gong" to
take out to the range and hang on chains.

There's a slight chance we might be able to extend the range out from
100 to 200 yards, depending on interest and how many guys want to chip
in for the grading and planting. If it happens, it'll be done in the
spring.


Do you tell all those who hunt how immoral they are, Toad?

You've never answered the fishing question. Immoral or not, Toad?


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 01:51 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com