On Dec 4, 9:21 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 4, 9:13 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 4, 8:49 am, HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
.. .
wrote in message
...
On Dec 3, 1:31 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 3, 2:15 am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
You want investment advice?
Not from the handyman.
Better than from a pothead.
True, I'd have to agree with that. Why, are you a pothead, too?
Bill probably thinks pot is a gateway drug, orders of magnitude more
dangerous than booze.
Why do you suppose that? Loogy, the former Atl_man, the former on_lanier,
and the former basskisser seems to think stating that he is growing pot on
a pot newsgroup means he was spouting lies then. Or lies now. As to the
pot, my opinion is legalize and tax most drugs. If you steal to support
your habit, you get an extension to your sentence. If you can afford the
drugs and not be a burden on society, it's freedom of choice. I graduated
from San Francisco State University, so knew lots of people who used pot.
I do not use any drugs, as I get sick with most prescription painkillers,
and I do not smoke. Earn a lot of money from smoking as Altria has done
very well for me. Better than RTN and your other choices.
You do seem to attach a certain stigma or evil to pot, though, which is
silly, since it's really no worse for the body than booze, assuming both are
abused to a certain level. And, it's pretty rare that people steal to get
money for pot.
I sort of dropped out of this discussion, which I initiated. How did it
devolve into an argument about pot?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Another lib was making stuff up and got cornered.... Kinda' like the
guy who said he saw Jesus on a cross at a Christmas parade but would
not for his life tell us what town or any other details
If you are referring to me, I never said I saw "Jesus on a cross at a
Christmas parade."

What I saw in the mid-1990s during a Christmas parade in a small north
Florida town were several floats sponsored by fundie churches on which
were mounted crosses with live guys tied onto them. The guys were acting
out the crucifixion of the Jewish guy Christians refer to as Jesus, I
was told. At least I think that was what I was told, since I was
practically falling to the ground from the spasms caused by my
uncontrollable laughter at the sight, and might have missed the precise
explanation.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think you missed the precise truth

Nope. But if you and the others who doubt this want to put up some real
dollars in order to make the effort worth my while, I will be glad to
expend a little getting details and corroboration.

If so, the amount and the "holder" of the funds would have to be someone
I trust to release the bucks to me after I provide the proof.

I believe I stated I do not know if the practice continues as I
described, nor am I aware of any photos of the event. But I am sure I
could find satisfactory documentation from someone connected with the
sponsoring organizations. They can't all be dead.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't gamble...

On Dec 3, 9:22 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message

...



wrote in message
...
On Dec 3, 1:31 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Dec 3, 2:15 am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
You want investment advice?

Not from the handyman.

Better than from a pothead.

True, I'd have to agree with that. Why, are you a pothead, too?

Bill probably thinks pot is a gateway drug, orders of magnitude more
dangerous than booze.

Why do you suppose that? Loogy, the former Atl_man, the former on_lanier,
and the former basskisser seems to think stating that he is growing pot on a
pot newsgroup means he was spouting lies then.

Wrong, as usual, in many ways. Listen well, dumb Bill. What I asked
for was PROOF, EVIDENCE, not heresay. Do you even know the legal
difference between the two? Do you realize that knowingly making false
statements about someone is a crime?




Or lies now. As to the pot,
my opinion is legalize and tax most drugs. If you steal to support your
habit, you get an extension to your sentence. If you can afford the drugs
and not be a burden on society, it's freedom of choice. I graduated from
San Francisco State University, so knew lots of people who used pot. I do
not use any drugs, as I get sick with most prescription painkillers, and I
do not smoke. Earn a lot of money from smoking as Altria has done very well
for me.

Just a drunk old handyman aren't you?

wrote:
On Dec 4, 9:21 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 4, 9:13 am, HK wrote:
wrote:
On Dec 4, 8:49 am, HK wrote:
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Dec 3, 1:31 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
wrote in message
...
On Dec 3, 2:15 am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
You want investment advice?
Not from the handyman.
Better than from a pothead.
True, I'd have to agree with that. Why, are you a pothead, too?
Bill probably thinks pot is a gateway drug, orders of magnitude more
dangerous than booze.
Why do you suppose that? Loogy, the former Atl_man, the former on_lanier,
and the former basskisser seems to think stating that he is growing pot on
a pot newsgroup means he was spouting lies then. Or lies now. As to the
pot, my opinion is legalize and tax most drugs. If you steal to support
your habit, you get an extension to your sentence. If you can afford the
drugs and not be a burden on society, it's freedom of choice. I graduated
from San Francisco State University, so knew lots of people who used pot.
I do not use any drugs, as I get sick with most prescription painkillers,
and I do not smoke. Earn a lot of money from smoking as Altria has done
very well for me. Better than RTN and your other choices.
You do seem to attach a certain stigma or evil to pot, though, which is
silly, since it's really no worse for the body than booze, assuming both are
abused to a certain level. And, it's pretty rare that people steal to get
money for pot.
I sort of dropped out of this discussion, which I initiated. How did it
devolve into an argument about pot?- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
Another lib was making stuff up and got cornered.... Kinda' like the
guy who said he saw Jesus on a cross at a Christmas parade but would
not for his life tell us what town or any other details
If you are referring to me, I never said I saw "Jesus on a cross at a
Christmas parade."
What I saw in the mid-1990s during a Christmas parade in a small north
Florida town were several floats sponsored by fundie churches on which
were mounted crosses with live guys tied onto them. The guys were acting
out the crucifixion of the Jewish guy Christians refer to as Jesus, I
was told. At least I think that was what I was told, since I was
practically falling to the ground from the spasms caused by my
uncontrollable laughter at the sight, and might have missed the precise
explanation.- Hide quoted text -
- Show quoted text -
I think you missed the precise truth
Nope. But if you and the others who doubt this want to put up some real
dollars in order to make the effort worth my while, I will be glad to
expend a little getting details and corroboration.

If so, the amount and the "holder" of the funds would have to be someone
I trust to release the bucks to me after I provide the proof.

I believe I stated I do not know if the practice continues as I
described, nor am I aware of any photos of the event. But I am sure I
could find satisfactory documentation from someone connected with the
sponsoring organizations. They can't all be dead.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I don't gamble...


It's not a gamble. It's payment for my time. It would take some effort
to track down confirmable details, and I don't give away my time.

On Dec 3, 10:32 am, wrote:
On Dec 3, 10:08 am, wrote:





On Dec 2, 8:30 pm, wrote:

On Dec 2, 8:23 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:

wrote in message

...

On Dec 2, 7:59 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Dec 2, 7:28 pm, "JoeSpareBedroom" wrote:
"HK" wrote in message

m...

Sorry to interrupt the usual drivel in here, but
I did want to report good customer service from Raymarine.

I have a Ray fishfinder/depthfinder on son of Yo Ho. I didn't think
the
display was bright enough, so last September I called and asked what
to
do. I was told to simply return the unit after the boating season
and
Ray's service department would look it over.

Sent the unit back last week, got a phone call Wednesday, told there
was
nothing out of the ordinary, but the company was sending a brand new
unit
just to make sure.

It arrived yesterday.

Cool.

Oh...side benefit...everyone I spoke with at Ray spoke English
properly,
with a solid Yankee accent!

I'd tell you what's paying for that great service, but it would turn
this
into a political discussion. It's enough to say that it's your tax
dollars,
and that you should buy as much RTN stock as you can afford, along
with
some
HRS.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Aren't you the one who went all tin foil hat about some kids website a
couple of months back?

No. You must be imagining that.

Right now, explain how you came to that conclusion based on what I said.
Do
it carefully. Remember that you are disabled.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No Joe, it was you. You freaked out and told us we were all
downloading some malware by clicking on the kids site. The kid post
the site every few months, been doing it for years... smerk...

OK. You're right.

Now, explain your tin foil hat bull****, and how it made sense as a response
to my stock suggestions.- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

I think you see conspiracy where it is not, and I think your personal
politics leads your imagination.

Sort of like 90%+ of scientists that are lying about global warming?- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No, only about 50%, the other 50% see it the other way. But as with
the 90% figure, we know that "your side" is willing to lie...- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

[edit] American Meteorological Society
The American Meteorological Society (AMS) statement adopted by their
council in 2003 said:

There is now clear evidence that the mean annual temperature at the
Earth's surface, averaged over the entire globe, has been increasing
in the past 200 years. There is also clear evidence that the abundance
of greenhouse gases in the atmosphere has increased over the same
period. In the past decade, significant progress has been made toward
a better understanding of the climate system and toward improved
projections of long-term climate change... Human activities have
become a major source of environmental change. Of great urgency are
the climate consequences of the increasing atmospheric abundance of
greenhouse gases... Because greenhouse gases continue to increase, we
are, in effect, conducting a global climate experiment, neither
planned nor controlled, the results of which may present unprecedented
challenges to our wisdom and foresight as well as have significant
impacts on our natural and societal systems

[edit] American Geophysical Union
The American Geophysical Union (AGU) statement [11] adopted by the
society in 2003 affirms that rising levels of greenhouse gases will
cause the global surface temperature to be warmer:

Human activities are increasingly altering the Earth's climate. These
effects add to natural influences that have been present over Earth's
history. Scientific evidence strongly indicates that natural
influences cannot explain the rapid increase in global near-surface
temperatures observed during the second half of the 20th century.
Human impacts on the climate system include increasing concentrations
of atmospheric greenhouse gases (e.g., carbon dioxide,
chlorofluorocarbons and their substitutes, methane, nitrous oxide,
etc.), air pollution, increasing concentrations of airborne particles,
and land alteration. A particular concern is that atmospheric levels
of carbon dioxide may be rising faster than at any time in Earth's
history, except possibly following rare events like impacts from large
extraterrestrial objects.
Atmospheric carbon dioxide concentrations have increased since the
mid-1700s through fossil fuel burning and changes in land use, with
more than 80% of this increase occurring since 1900. Moreover,
research indicates that increased levels of carbon dioxide will remain
in the atmosphere for hundreds to thousands of years. It is virtually
certain that increasing atmospheric concentrations of carbon dioxide
and other greenhouse gases will cause global surface climate to be
warmer.

American Institute of Physics
The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics endorsed the
AGU statement on human-induced climate change:[12]

The Governing Board of the American Institute of Physics has endorsed
a position statement on climate change adopted by the American
Geophysical Union (AGU) Council in December 2003.

[edit] American Astronomical Society
The American Astronomical Society has endorsed the AGU statement:[13]

In endorsing the "Human Impacts on Climate" statement, the AAS
recognizes the collective expertise of the AGU in scientific subfields
central to assessing and understanding global change, and acknowledges
the strength of agreement among our AGU colleagues that the global
climate is changing and human activities are contributing to that
change.

[edit] Federal Climate Change Science Program, 2006
On May 2, 2006, the Federal Climate Change Science Program
commissioned by the Bush administration in 2002 released the first of
21 assessments. Though it did not state what percentage of climate
change might be anthropogenic, the assessment concluded:

Studies ... show clear evidence of human influences on the climate
system (due to changes in greenhouse gases, aerosols, and
stratospheric ozone). ... The observed patterns of change over the
past 50 years cannot be explained by natural processes alone, nor by
the effects of short-lived atmospheric constituents (such as aerosols
and tropospheric ozone) alone.[14]

And on and on........

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:52:17 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Dec 3, 1:31 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Dec 3, 2:15 am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
You want investment advice?
Not from the handyman.
Better than from a pothead.
True, I'd have to agree with that. Why, are you a pothead, too?

Bill probably thinks pot is a gateway drug, orders of magnitude more
dangerous than booze.

Why do you suppose that? Loogy, the former Atl_man, the former
on_lanier, and the former basskisser seems to think stating that he is
growing pot on a pot newsgroup means he was spouting lies then. Or lies
now. As to the pot, my opinion is legalize and tax most drugs. If you
steal to support your habit, you get an extension to your sentence. If
you can afford the drugs and not be a burden on society, it's freedom of
choice. I graduated from San Francisco State University, so knew lots
of people who used pot. I do not use any drugs, as I get sick with most
prescription painkillers, and I do not smoke. Earn a lot of money from
smoking as Altria has done very well for me. Better than RTN and your
other choices.



You do seem to attach a certain stigma or evil to pot, though, which is
silly, since it's really no worse for the body than booze, assuming both
are abused to a certain level. And, it's pretty rare that people steal to
get money for pot.


I sort of dropped out of this discussion, which I initiated. How did it
devolve into an argument about pot?


I steered it off a cliff after billy bob said "Better than a pothead". Since
I love words, I see "pothead" and wonder why people never say "bourbon head"
or "vodka head". It's always more than just a term learned by habit. It's a
belief based on who-knows-what.


Would 'booze hound' be the equivalent? Or just, 'a drunk'?
--
John H

"John H." wrote in message
...
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:52:17 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
m...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Dec 3, 1:31 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Dec 3, 2:15 am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
You want investment advice?
Not from the handyman.
Better than from a pothead.
True, I'd have to agree with that. Why, are you a pothead, too?

Bill probably thinks pot is a gateway drug, orders of magnitude more
dangerous than booze.

Why do you suppose that? Loogy, the former Atl_man, the former
on_lanier, and the former basskisser seems to think stating that he is
growing pot on a pot newsgroup means he was spouting lies then. Or
lies
now. As to the pot, my opinion is legalize and tax most drugs. If
you
steal to support your habit, you get an extension to your sentence.
If
you can afford the drugs and not be a burden on society, it's freedom
of
choice. I graduated from San Francisco State University, so knew lots
of people who used pot. I do not use any drugs, as I get sick with
most
prescription painkillers, and I do not smoke. Earn a lot of money
from
smoking as Altria has done very well for me. Better than RTN and your
other choices.



You do seem to attach a certain stigma or evil to pot, though, which is
silly, since it's really no worse for the body than booze, assuming
both
are abused to a certain level. And, it's pretty rare that people steal
to
get money for pot.


I sort of dropped out of this discussion, which I initiated. How did it
devolve into an argument about pot?


I steered it off a cliff after billy bob said "Better than a pothead".
Since
I love words, I see "pothead" and wonder why people never say "bourbon
head"
or "vodka head". It's always more than just a term learned by habit. It's
a
belief based on who-knows-what.


Would 'booze hound' be the equivalent? Or just, 'a drunk'?
--
John H


Maybe, but people like Bill use "pothead" to describe anyone who uses pot.
"Booze hound" or "drunk" are more commonly used to describe someone whose
use of alcohol has reached the point of habitual abuse. There are people who
partake of marijuana at levels similar to someone who has a glass of wine
once or twice a week. Nobody would call those people drunks, although they
might GET a little drunk from that glass of wine under certain conditions.

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

There are people who partake of marijuana at levels similar to someone who
has a glass of wine once or twice a week. Nobody would call those people
drunks, although they might GET a little drunk from that glass of wine
under certain conditions.


*Twice* a week?

I'll be back.

Eisboch

"Eisboch" wrote in message
...

"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...

There are people who partake of marijuana at levels similar to someone
who has a glass of wine once or twice a week. Nobody would call those
people drunks, although they might GET a little drunk from that glass of
wine under certain conditions.


*Twice* a week?

I'll be back.

Eisboch


This early? :-)

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 06:48:55 -0800 (PST), wrote:



And on and on........

Please view: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FOLkze-9GcI

Be sure to view all parts.

And on and on......
--
John H

On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 14:55:12 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"John H." wrote in message
.. .
On Tue, 04 Dec 2007 13:52:17 GMT, "JoeSpareBedroom"
wrote:

"HK" wrote in message
om...
JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
"Calif Bill" wrote in message
...
"JoeSpareBedroom" wrote in message
...
wrote in message
...
On Dec 3, 1:31 pm, "Calif Bill" wrote:
wrote in message

...

On Dec 3, 2:15 am, "Calif Bill" wrote:
You want investment advice?
Not from the handyman.
Better than from a pothead.
True, I'd have to agree with that. Why, are you a pothead, too?

Bill probably thinks pot is a gateway drug, orders of magnitude more
dangerous than booze.

Why do you suppose that? Loogy, the former Atl_man, the former
on_lanier, and the former basskisser seems to think stating that he is
growing pot on a pot newsgroup means he was spouting lies then. Or
lies
now. As to the pot, my opinion is legalize and tax most drugs. If
you
steal to support your habit, you get an extension to your sentence.
If
you can afford the drugs and not be a burden on society, it's freedom
of
choice. I graduated from San Francisco State University, so knew lots
of people who used pot. I do not use any drugs, as I get sick with
most
prescription painkillers, and I do not smoke. Earn a lot of money
from
smoking as Altria has done very well for me. Better than RTN and your
other choices.



You do seem to attach a certain stigma or evil to pot, though, which is
silly, since it's really no worse for the body than booze, assuming
both
are abused to a certain level. And, it's pretty rare that people steal
to
get money for pot.


I sort of dropped out of this discussion, which I initiated. How did it
devolve into an argument about pot?


I steered it off a cliff after billy bob said "Better than a pothead".
Since
I love words, I see "pothead" and wonder why people never say "bourbon
head"
or "vodka head". It's always more than just a term learned by habit. It's
a
belief based on who-knows-what.


Would 'booze hound' be the equivalent? Or just, 'a drunk'?
--
John H


Maybe, but people like Bill use "pothead" to describe anyone who uses pot.
"Booze hound" or "drunk" are more commonly used to describe someone whose
use of alcohol has reached the point of habitual abuse. There are people who
partake of marijuana at levels similar to someone who has a glass of wine
once or twice a week. Nobody would call those people drunks, although they
might GET a little drunk from that glass of wine under certain conditions.


Oh. I didn't realize Bill was expanding the term 'pothead' to include
anyone who tries the stuff. I would put 'pothead' in the same category as
'alcoholic'.
--
John H