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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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?

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.

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?

Well ....
 

On 11/19/2014 2:58 PM, 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.


Are you planning on upgrading the communal bed as well?

Well ....
 

On 11/19/2014 3:33 PM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:52:17 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

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.




You are not getting much isolation with an autotransformer. The
primary and secondary are tied together.
It still might solve the problem thought because the connection is on
one if the circuit conductors so the differential toroid in the GFCI
sees the current as being balanced
I still say if you are tripping a GFCI, it is because there is a
circuit from the line conductors and ground, usually a RF suppressor.
It will be designed to pass more if you have a higher current
switcher.
I know there is plenty of "discussion" and plenty of theories but the
guys who actually design them have the opinion I trust.



Isolation transformers are effective in quenching noise (and in some
cases arcs) that can be induced either in the supply side or by the item
being powered. Basically acts as a big choke.

Ever notice what's missing in high frequency switching power supplies?
Big, heavy, iron core transformers.

Switchers are great but they can be noisy.

Well ....
 

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


SNERK!
What's the matter StinkyOne......afraid of the dark?

Well ....
 

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:48:42 -0800 (PST), True North
wrote:

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


SNERK!
What's the matter StinkyOne......afraid of the dark?

You keep your house totally dark at night? Pitch black?

To me, that would be quite stupid.

Well ....
 

On 11/19/14 5:10 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:48:42 -0800 (PST), True North
wrote:

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


SNERK!
What's the matter StinkyOne......afraid of the dark?

You keep your house totally dark at night? Pitch black?

To me, that would be quite stupid.



Hmmm. Perhaps you and Flatulent Jim should have nightlights installed
inside your skulls so you're not totally in the dark.

--
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 ....
 

John H.
- hide quoted text -
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:48:42 -0800 (PST), True North
wrote:

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


SNERK!
What's the matter StinkyOne......afraid of the dark?

"You keep your house totally dark at night? Pitch black?

To me, that would be quite stupid. "


Is that so, Johnny?
Earlier this year I saw a report that concluded that troubled sleep from even minimal light sources could have major effects on the health of people.
They even recommended dark colored pillow slips and sheets, let alone eliminating night lights, lighted clock displays etc.
This might explain some of your problems...such as needing Valium before a somewhat simple dental procedures.

Well ....
 

On 11/19/2014 3:40 PM, wrote:
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.

I don't remember anyone here saying they hunted to prove any bravery.
It has been presented as a way to put food on the table.
The rest of that is just in your head.


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.

You are destroying more habitat. Way to go.

What does he care as long as he and his boyfriends have a place to
frolic and shoot guns.

Well ....
 

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:49:43 -0800 (PST), True North
wrote:

John H.
- hide quoted text -
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:48:42 -0800 (PST), True North
wrote:

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


SNERK!
What's the matter StinkyOne......afraid of the dark?

"You keep your house totally dark at night? Pitch black?

To me, that would be quite stupid. "


Is that so, Johnny?
Earlier this year I saw a report that concluded that troubled sleep from even minimal light sources could have major effects on the health of people.
They even recommended dark colored pillow slips and sheets, let alone eliminating night lights, lighted clock displays etc.
This might explain some of your problems...such as needing Valium before a somewhat simple dental procedures.

Do you keep your house totally dark at night?

You kinda skipped over that question.

Well ....
 

On 11/19/2014 5:10 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:48:42 -0800 (PST), True North
wrote:

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


SNERK!
What's the matter StinkyOne......afraid of the dark?

You keep your house totally dark at night? Pitch black?

To me, that would be quite stupid.

His place looks better in the dark.

Well ....
 

On 11/19/2014 6:03 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:49:43 -0800 (PST), True North
wrote:

John H.
- hide quoted text -
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:48:42 -0800 (PST), True North
wrote:

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


SNERK!
What's the matter StinkyOne......afraid of the dark?

"You keep your house totally dark at night? Pitch black?

To me, that would be quite stupid. "


Is that so, Johnny?
Earlier this year I saw a report that concluded that troubled sleep from even minimal light sources could have major effects on the health of people.
They even recommended dark colored pillow slips and sheets, let alone eliminating night lights, lighted clock displays etc.
This might explain some of your problems...such as needing Valium before a somewhat simple dental procedures.

Do you keep your house totally dark at night?

You kinda skipped over that question.

Darkness hides his reality.

Well ....
 

On 11/19/2014 6:19 PM, Harrold wrote:
On 11/19/2014 6:03 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:49:43 -0800 (PST), True North
wrote:

John H.
- hide quoted text -
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:48:42 -0800 (PST), True North
wrote:

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


SNERK!
What's the matter StinkyOne......afraid of the dark?

"You keep your house totally dark at night? Pitch black?

To me, that would be quite stupid. "


Is that so, Johnny?
Earlier this year I saw a report that concluded that troubled sleep
from even minimal light sources could have major effects on the
health of people.
They even recommended dark colored pillow slips and sheets, let alone
eliminating night lights, lighted clock displays etc.
This might explain some of your problems...such as needing Valium
before a somewhat simple dental procedures.

Do you keep your house totally dark at night?

You kinda skipped over that question.

Darkness hides his reality.

It's weird, these guys are so hard up to "better" someone they get
narrow vision.. As if the night light can't be in the kitchen or the
lav, no where near the sleep area... Anyway, I sleep with the tv on,
have for 50 years. Guess it's something else that's gonna' kill me :)

Well ....
 

On 11/19/14 6:28 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/19/2014 6:19 PM, Harrold wrote:
On 11/19/2014 6:03 PM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:49:43 -0800 (PST), True North
wrote:

John H.
- hide quoted text -
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:48:42 -0800 (PST), True North
wrote:

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


SNERK!
What's the matter StinkyOne......afraid of the dark?

"You keep your house totally dark at night? Pitch black?

To me, that would be quite stupid. "


Is that so, Johnny?
Earlier this year I saw a report that concluded that troubled sleep
from even minimal light sources could have major effects on the
health of people.
They even recommended dark colored pillow slips and sheets, let alone
eliminating night lights, lighted clock displays etc.
This might explain some of your problems...such as needing Valium
before a somewhat simple dental procedures.

Do you keep your house totally dark at night?

You kinda skipped over that question.

Darkness hides his reality.

It's weird, these guys are so hard up to "better" someone they get
narrow vision.. As if the night light can't be in the kitchen or the
lav, no where near the sleep area... Anyway, I sleep with the tv on,
have for 50 years. Guess it's something else that's gonna' kill me :)


Hope is eternal.

--
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 Wed, 19 Nov 2014 16:49:49 -0500, wrote:

Servo systems on the ships were 400 hz and I am sure the air force
guys will jump in and talk about the power systems on their planes.
You know the difference right away when you touch it. You get a ring,
not a hum..

===

400 Hz systems on planes date back to the days of World War 2. It was
well understood that higher AC frequencies saved considerable weight
on power components like transformers and servos.

Well ....
 

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 13:48:42 -0800 (PST), True North
wrote:

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


SNERK!
What's the matter StinkyOne......afraid of the dark?

===

Don, that was really uncalled for. This is a good technical
discussion. Let's leave personalities out of it.

Well ....
 

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:24:17 -0500, wrote:

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.

OK you have done everything but answer the question, is hunting an
invasive exotic like wild hogs a sport or a public service?

===

I'll chime in here since I know you're not going to get an answer from
our favorite "evasive species".

I think it's both a sport *and* a public service.

Too bad there's no season on asshats.

Well ....
 

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:27:17 -0500, 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.

===

What's the gun of choice for hog hunting?

Well ....
 

On 11/19/2014 8:39 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 16:49:49 -0500, wrote:

Servo systems on the ships were 400 hz and I am sure the air force
guys will jump in and talk about the power systems on their planes.
You know the difference right away when you touch it. You get a ring,
not a hum..

===

400 Hz systems on planes date back to the days of World War 2. It was
well understood that higher AC frequencies saved considerable weight
on power components like transformers and servos.


One thing about switch mode supplies ... there are many types and
selection is dependent on application. Like everything their design is
a compromise between performance, cost and other operating parameters.

I think many run at converted frequencies of 50khz and higher, depending
on application.

Well ....
 

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 21:03:16 -0500, "Mr. Luddite"
wrote:

On 11/19/2014 8:39 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 16:49:49 -0500, wrote:

Servo systems on the ships were 400 hz and I am sure the air force
guys will jump in and talk about the power systems on their planes.
You know the difference right away when you touch it. You get a ring,
not a hum..

===

400 Hz systems on planes date back to the days of World War 2. It was
well understood that higher AC frequencies saved considerable weight
on power components like transformers and servos.


One thing about switch mode supplies ... there are many types and
selection is dependent on application. Like everything their design is
a compromise between performance, cost and other operating parameters.

I think many run at converted frequencies of 50khz and higher, depending
on application.

===

Higher frequencies are more efficient up to a point. Radiated EFI
noise becomes a bigger issue however, although now that Loran-C is
dead, that's less of a concern on boats.

I had a heavy duty alternator on one of my old sail boats that was so
electrically noisy that I had to install a field coil disconnect
switch so that I could get an accurate Loran fix. No amount of
filtering would help.

Well ....
 

On Wednesday, November 19, 2014 8:43:38 PM UTC-5, Wayne. B wrote:

Don, that was really uncalled for. This is a good technical
discussion. Let's leave personalities out of it.

cocksucking hang-ons like donnie cant help being like their Masters. Like krause, like dicklicker.

The only cure for dicklicker, is a stiff head-beating.

Well ....
 

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...




With the welfare net in California, those homeless get big bucks. Instead
of spending on home or other worthwhile items, they prefer to set up an
encampment with no sanitary facilities, and poach endangered fish, and
spend money on drugs and alcohol.

Well ....
 

"Mr. Luddite" wrote:
On 11/19/2014 8:39 PM, Wayne.B wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 16:49:49 -0500, wrote:

Servo systems on the ships were 400 hz and I am sure the air force
guys will jump in and talk about the power systems on their planes.
You know the difference right away when you touch it. You get a ring,
not a hum..

===

400 Hz systems on planes date back to the days of World War 2. It was
well understood that higher AC frequencies saved considerable weight
on power components like transformers and servos.


One thing about switch mode supplies ... there are many types and
selection is dependent on application. Like everything their design is a
compromise between performance, cost and other operating parameters.

I think many run at converted frequencies of 50khz and higher, depending on application.

At one company we had a pass transistor power supply. That POS was always
a problem in certain areas of the country. Would pass every spike on the
power line through to the output. The Rockies with lots of lightning were
always faulting the disk controller.

Well ....
 

On 11/19/2014 11:05 PM, Califbill wrote:
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...




With the welfare net in California, those homeless get big bucks. Instead
of spending on home or other worthwhile items, they prefer to set up an
encampment with no sanitary facilities, and poach endangered fish, and
spend money on drugs and alcohol.


Yeah, cause they're broke....
http://joeforamerica.com/2014/11/welfare-payout-statistics-will-make-really-mad/

Have fun...

Well ....
 

On 11/20/14 1:24 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 20:51:41 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:27:17 -0500, 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.

===

What's the gun of choice for hog hunting?

You need something that hits pretty hard but a slug in a shotgun is
the easy choice. They also like 308/30 08 class 30 cals.
There are guys who go with .44mag revolvers but they better be good.
I imagine my .,44 carbine would work but I still like the slug idea,

It depends on whether you have dogs and whether you have backup I
suppose.
Folks used to say Auggie Doggie looked like a "hog dog". Being from
Arcadia, it was certainly a possibility. He certainly wasn't afraid of
much

75# bull dog mix.
http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Auggie%20on%20watch2.jpg



Surely Wayne, who describes himself as a terrific shot, could drop a hog
with that pellet rifle he keeps advocating from, say, five yards away.
At the very least, it would be entertaining for observers and the hog.

--
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 11/19/14 11:45 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/19/2014 11:05 PM, Califbill wrote:
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...




With the welfare net in California, those homeless get big bucks.
Instead
of spending on home or other worthwhile items, they prefer to set up an
encampment with no sanitary facilities, and poach endangered fish, and
spend money on drugs and alcohol.


Yeah, cause they're broke....
http://joeforamerica.com/2014/11/welfare-payout-statistics-will-make-really-mad/


Have fun...


The "fun" part is the crap you believe.

--
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 Thu, 20 Nov 2014 06:39:53 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/19/14 11:45 PM, KC wrote:
On 11/19/2014 11:05 PM, Califbill wrote:
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...




With the welfare net in California, those homeless get big bucks.
Instead
of spending on home or other worthwhile items, they prefer to set up an
encampment with no sanitary facilities, and poach endangered fish, and
spend money on drugs and alcohol.


Yeah, cause they're broke....
http://joeforamerica.com/2014/11/welfare-payout-statistics-will-make-really-mad/


Have fun...


The "fun" part is the crap you believe.


Check out pages 4 and 5, Toad.

http://object.cato.org/sites/cato.org/files/pubs/pdf/the_work_versus_welfare_trade-off_2013_wp.pdf

I hope you don't mind the nickname 'Toad'. Using the 'F' word all the
time wasn't very nice. I don't know why anyone would call themselves
something starting with the 'F' word anyway.

Using 'T' for 'Toodle' is much more appropriate, don't you think?

"Toodle Off and Die" sounds nice...has a ring. Doncha think?

And all the upper case letters and asterisks is just, well,
pretentious. Doncha think?

It's like something a narcissist would do.

Besides, there's always the physical resemblance to consider. Just
remember to keep that smile on your face!

http://tinyurl.com/kof5s9l

Well ....
 

On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 06:37:57 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/20/14 1:24 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 20:51:41 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:27:17 -0500, 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.

===

What's the gun of choice for hog hunting?

You need something that hits pretty hard but a slug in a shotgun is
the easy choice. They also like 308/30 08 class 30 cals.
There are guys who go with .44mag revolvers but they better be good.
I imagine my .,44 carbine would work but I still like the slug idea,

It depends on whether you have dogs and whether you have backup I
suppose.
Folks used to say Auggie Doggie looked like a "hog dog". Being from
Arcadia, it was certainly a possibility. He certainly wasn't afraid of
much

75# bull dog mix.
http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Auggie%20on%20watch2.jpg



Surely Wayne, who describes himself as a terrific shot, could drop a hog
with that pellet rifle he keeps advocating from, say, five yards away.
At the very least, it would be entertaining for observers and the hog.

Surely Wayne, or anyone else here, could outshoot your ass any day of
the week, Toad.

Well ....
 

On 11/20/14 7:35 AM, Poco Loco wrote:
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 06:37:57 -0500, F*O*A*D wrote:

On 11/20/14 1:24 AM, wrote:
On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 20:51:41 -0500, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Wed, 19 Nov 2014 14:27:17 -0500, 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.

===

What's the gun of choice for hog hunting?

You need something that hits pretty hard but a slug in a shotgun is
the easy choice. They also like 308/30 08 class 30 cals.
There are guys who go with .44mag revolvers but they better be good.
I imagine my .,44 carbine would work but I still like the slug idea,

It depends on whether you have dogs and whether you have backup I
suppose.
Folks used to say Auggie Doggie looked like a "hog dog". Being from
Arcadia, it was certainly a possibility. He certainly wasn't afraid of
much

75# bull dog mix.
http://gfretwell.com/ftp/Auggie%20on%20watch2.jpg



Surely Wayne, who describes himself as a terrific shot, could drop a hog
with that pellet rifle he keeps advocating from, say, five yards away.
At the very least, it would be entertaining for observers and the hog.

Surely Wayne, or anyone else here, could outshoot your ass any day of
the week, Toad.


snerk Doubtful

--
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 Thu, 20 Nov 2014 07:35:16 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

Surely Wayne, or anyone else here, could outshoot your ass any day of
the week, Toad.

===

Would that require a weapon of ass destruction?

Well ....
 

Wayne. B
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 07:35:16 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

Surely Wayne, or anyone else here, could outshoot your ass any day of
the week, Toad.

===

"Would that require a weapon of ass destruction? "


Weren't you just admonishing me for making uncalled for comments?

Well ....
 

On 11/20/2014 12:33 PM, True North wrote:
Wayne. B
On Thu, 20 Nov 2014 07:35:16 -0500, Poco Loco
wrote:

Surely Wayne, or anyone else here, could outshoot your ass any day of
the week, Toad.

===

"Would that require a weapon of ass destruction?"


Weren't you just admonishing me for making uncalled for comments?



You have to admit though. It was pretty funny.