Well ....
 

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/18/2014 7:39 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 18:45:42 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/18/2014 5:16 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 16:44:24 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:51:25 -0500, wrote:

Does that mean we should be shooting illegal immigrants?

(just a joke, relax)

If we did that, who would do all of the hard work?

We would starve, nothing would be built and the grass would be over
the house.

And the Democrats would lose lots of votes!

I think the democrats are overestimating the number of immigrants they
are going to pick up. These people may start out as democrats but once
they get their businesses going, they will be republicans and
immigrants are the ones most likely to actually start a small business
... at least that is what we see here.
The biggest factor is usually oppressive regulations that actually
favor the same large corporations the democrats say they are against.
A company like Walmart can afford a compliance division and a staff to
sort through all of this red tape. Jose and Julio's little fruit store
doesn't stand a chance.



Nonsense.

Jose and Julio's are unlikely to start out anywhere near the scale of a
Walmart. Much more likely as a sole proprietorship or simple "S" or
"C" corporation. Very simple and inexpensive process to file.

Jose and Julio will most likely rent or buy a small, existing facility
to conduct their business in. Local codes and rules apply for an
occupancy permit but certainly not a major deal.



You are just talking about their business license (what they call a
business tax receipt in Florida ... fact)
It does not actually allow you to do anything but have a business
address and pay taxes on it. If you are just selling fresh fruit your
store needs to meet a number of health department regulations, you
need to have documentation about where ther fruit actually came from
(a lot of fruit can't even come into Florida) and it has to be clearly
labeled by country of origin. Your stand also needs to meet fire
codes, egress codes, building codes and have an assortment of signs
and placards, perhaps even sprinklers.
If you actually have the gaul to try to sell any kind of prepared food
you have not even scratched the surface of the rules you are dealing
with. When you hire someone to work behind the counter there is
another bureaucracy that kicks in (IRS, OSHA, the Labor department
several kinds of insurance)
All that and you might even have a DEA SWAT team come in and dump out
all of your fruit boxes looking for dope.

You really should talk to my buddy Ammet who runs the little stand at
the end of my street. He will tell you about things I forgot.



Sounds like you live in a nanny state. :-)

I've been through the process several times.
The first was for an engineering/metal fab company that ultimately
employed over 70 people in a 40,000 sq.ft. facility.
Took all of 2 or 3 days to purchase and install the required fire
extinguishers, update the exit signs, build an area to house the various
high pressure gas cylinders (argon, nitrogen, oxygen, propane etc.)

All requirements were outlined for us by a courtesy visit by the fire
department and building inspector. They came back a week later, did the
sign off inspection and we were open for business. 24 years later it's
still in business under different ownership and management.

While operating that business I also bought a small breakfast and lunch
shop that was going to close. It was in the park that my business was
located and was a popular place for people to have breakfast and get
lunches. The woman who owned it was retiring, so I bought it and hired
the former employees who had worked there to run it. I became very
familiar with the food handling requirements, inspections and licenses.
None were an issue to speak of and a license was granted in less than a
week. Biggest issue was keeping the grease traps clean.
Interesting experience but not my bag. I ended up selling it to the
employees on a simple time payment schedule that they could afford.

Then, years later, when I decided to open the guitar shop/performance
venue, I went through the process again. There was a bit of a
controversy because we had seating and a stage for live performances as
well as the retail area for guitar and amp sales. A question arose as to
our status being "retail" or "place of assembly". The codes are
different. After discussions between the fire department and the
building inspector that took all of about 3 minutes, the issue was
resolved and we were issued an occupancy permit.

Point is, it wasn't a very involved process in any of the three cases. No
"red tape" to speak of other than going to the respective town hall,
filling out the applications and equipping the buildings with whatever
was required by the fire department primarily.

Biggest issue was with the electrical inspectors for the guitar shop.
They tend to have their own ideas on what they like to see. I had done a
lot of new wiring myself for the stage, stage lights, etc. without
bothering with a permit, so I was a little apprehensive when he arrived
for the occupancy permit inspection. He checked everything out and asked
who did the new wiring. I told him "Me", expecting all hell to break
loose but he said it was all fine. I've learned that everyone needs to
feel they did their job so when he insisted that the exit lights be
changed to the newer, LED types and the electrical room have a sign on
the door saying. "Electrical Room", I was happy to accomodate him. That was easy enough.

You were lucky maybe. Have a friend who had a string of hotdog carts in
the San Jose area. Health dept. Agent says they need a hot water sink on
the cart. In case they dropped the tongs. Ignoring the fact that the cart
had a supply of spares for just that case.

Well ....
 

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 have given the generally accepted definition of subsistence hunting
several times. Try reading for content and comprehension.

--
Sent from my iPhone 6+

Well ....
 

On 11/18/2014 8:34 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 20:13:28 -0500, KC wrote:



Just did one of my old fall backs the other night. I take a pork loin
(say 8" long) and a good filet knife and I slice it in a spiral like a
jelly roll to the center and lay it out on the cutting board so I have a
flat rectangle. Sprinkle on a bit of salt and pepper then I lay a layer
of cheese down, followed by a layer of browned crumbled sausage (about a
half pound), and then a layer of spinach leaves. Then I roll the thing
back up into a roast (like I said, it looks like a jelly roll) and tie
it up with cotton butchers string and put it in the oven uncovered in a
glass pan at 350 degrees.. I forget how long, I just watch the meat
thermometer.. Sometimes I lay bacon strips over the top, but others I
rub salt and pepper and bread crumbs then sprinkle with balsamic vinegar
before I put it in the oven... Sorry, just thought I would pass that
along. Also, I have used broccoli instead of spinach, all is good... go
heavy on the greens, it's a great stick to your ribs meal....

Publix calls that pork florentine. They sell it ready to go in the
meat case. It is rolled up and tied so they can just slice off 1" or
so slices. I cook on the stove in a covered skillet on a bed of sweet
onions.


Hummm, I don't think we have Publix here. First time I saw it we bought
one in a little Italian deli near home..

Well ....
 

On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 21:49:24 -0500, wrote:

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.

===

It's too bad we can't shoot evasive species. :-)

On the other hand, I don't think anyone would want an asshat mounted
on their wall.

Well ....
 

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?
--
Sent from my iPhone 6+

Well ....
 

On 11/18/2014 10:20 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 21:49:24 -0500, wrote:

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.

===

It's too bad we can't shoot evasive species. :-)

On the other hand, I don't think anyone would want an asshat mounted
on their wall.


LOL....

Well ....
 

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.


Ten years ago we built a part of a website for the University of
Connecticut. Before we could even start we had to sign a contract which
included over 20 pages of regulations and questions relating to anti
discrimination / affirmative action information we had to fill out even
though we were a partnership of 2. They needed to make sure at least 15%
of us were minorities... Just was just that section of regulations, it
took us a week to fill in the papers, do do a job that took a week and a
half...

Well ....
 

On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 3:50:11 AM UTC-8, F*O*A*D wrote:
On 11/18/14 12:51 AM, wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2014 22:22:10 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:




If you mean the palins, they are not subsistence hunters. I have no idea
who the "motor city mad man" is. I have no objection to, for example,
tribesmen who hunt because it is the only way they can feed themselves
and their families. You really should stop coming to conclusions based
upon your wild-assed guesses.

So someone who just hunts to supplement their income is evil?
Do you feel the same about gardening?

Personally I do not see much difference between shooting a deer and
paying Giant food to kill a steer, butcher and wrap it for me.
Both are going to be a dead mammal that we cook and eat.




*My* point was that there is no morality in non-subsistence hunting. If
a family with very little money can put food on the table or have
something to sell or trade by hunting, then *that* is subsistence hunting.

You don't seem to understand the point.

--

Your idea of subsistence hunting is signing up for a FSP/WIC card.

Well ....
 

On Tuesday, November 18, 2014 2:07:27 PM UTC-8, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 15:41:35 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/18/14 1:12 PM, wrote:

You don't seem to understand the point.

Maybe I do.

If the hunter is eating the game, it is subsistence hunting.

Not by the normal definition of subsistence hunting.

A pound of meat taken home from a hunt is a pound of meat that didn't
come off a factory farm. That should be worth something to all of you
global warming and pollution folks.

Natural free range with no growth vaccinations, synthetic feed supplements, nor antibiotics. The animal activists should love that idea!

Well ....
 

On 11/18/2014 10:21 PM, wrote:
On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 21:23:28 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

Sounds like you live in a nanny state. :-)

Probably.
A population of people on walkers who have a bad habit of not getting
out of burning buildings and a few hurricanes where the building code
process failed have created a culture of regulation that does seem
oppressive sometimes.
We have life safety officers who actually know the code and enforce
it. The agriculture inspectors are also very serious about their job
because of the number of weird 3d world (plant) diseases and insects
we could import.


I read your stories and I understand these rules may seem easy for
you, coming in, well capitalized and well educated but if you are an
immigrant who came from a place where starting a business was just
building a shack, it is overwhelming. That was my point.
Remember where this conversation started.
I said the GOP can appeal to immigrants by saying they will cut the
red tape ... even if it is a lie.


Good point. An immigrant may also have a language barrier issue also.

Well ....
 

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.

Well ....
 

On Tue, 18 Nov 2014 23:58:02 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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 easiest solution to that is an isolation transformer. I'm going
to get one for the boat next time we go to the Caribbean. It would
also solve the European style 220 volt shore power issue for us.

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.



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.

Well ....
 

On 11/18/14 10:03 PM, 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?


Within 15 minutes of here, we have at least a half dozen large, enclosed
seasonal produce markets/stands, free-standing, with electricity,
running water, et cetera, and a couple of those are at least 20' x 30'.
Most of what I buy from them is grown locally.

I wouldn't trust "libertarians" to set and enforce anything to do with
safety that involves governmental agencies.


--
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.

Well ....
 

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.



--
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.

Well ....
 

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.

Well ....
 

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 06:48:31 -0500, 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.

TOAD - you seem to forget, you brought up the lack of morality in
non-subsistence hunting. I agree that you are an expert in 'lack of
morality', but you don't seem to have much knowledge of why folks
hunt, other than to put down those who do so.

Is all your fishing 'subsistence fishing'?

http://tinyurl.com/kmv32tf

Well ....
 

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.

--
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.

Well ....
 

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.

Well ....
 

On 11/19/14 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.


There's always hope for you, Johnny ****head Herring. Chow down.

--
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.

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+

Well ....
 

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 08:05:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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, the shoulder is still pretty well fat-endowed and is the best
cut for pulled pork anyway. Smoked ham is pretty good. Pork chops are
best breaded, IMHO, 'cause that tends to keep the juice inside. Of
course the breading and fat from frying isn't all that great, but once
in a while you just gotta live.

Well ....
 

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.

Well ....
 

On 11/19/2014 10:28 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 08:05:59 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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, the shoulder is still pretty well fat-endowed and is the best
cut for pulled pork anyway. Smoked ham is pretty good. Pork chops are
best breaded, IMHO, 'cause that tends to keep the juice inside. Of
course the breading and fat from frying isn't all that great, but once
in a while you just gotta live.


Pretty much same feeling here.. I posted that "recipe" figuring you
might like the sound of it. You can put different veggies or cheese in
to taste...

Well ....
 

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.

--
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.

Well ....
 

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
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.

A couple years ago, the pigs were even leaner. I understand they have gone
back to a fatter pig, as people did not like the dry meat.

Well ....
 

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?

Well ....
 

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.


And FOAD could tell us how he hunted a couple times for the best bankruptcy
lawyer.

Well ....
 

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...



--
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.

Well ....
 

On 11/19/2014 10:56 AM, 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.

Sad to see how you've turned into a sayer of gibberish. I guess that's
just part of getting old.

Well ....
 

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.