From: |||newspam||| on

Sambo wrote:

> hill(a)rowland.org wrote:
> > hill(a)rowland.org wrote:
> >
> >>Winfield Hill wrote:
> >>
> >>> 4200 postings and still going strong. Amazing.
> >>
> >> Wow, now 7200 posts and still going strong. And most
> >> of the posts were under the original subject title. This
> >> must be some kind of a record. Certainly it's a stress
> >> test for the Google Groups web-page display code, etc.

> > Amazing, now nearing 9000 posts and still going strong.
> > Furthermore, a subtle point, the posts haven't strayed far
> > from the original post in terms of individual thread-segment
> > lengths, so Google Groups tree view still nicely handles all
> > the pieces in a narrow sidebar. BTW, my own usenet-news
> > server completely lost it on this one long ago.
> >
> Lucky you. I wish netscape finaly allowed to totly delete news articles ( and possibly ignore further posts in a thread in selected for download groups,without dumping another feature ) , takes me about 5 minutes to come up when I select this group.

Won't create filter from message with "Subject: Re: Jihad needs
scientists" do that in Netscrape?

Regards,
Martin Brown

From: Spehro Pefhany on
On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 17:45:28 +0000, the renowned Eeyore
<rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>
>krw wrote:
>
>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says...
>>
>> > Thanks. I used to thread pipe for my Dad. He never called
>> > it a tap. He called a threader.
>>
>> A pipe "threader" would be called a "die".
>
>Not if it was an internal thread.
>
>Graham

Usually pipes are threaded (externally) using machines called "pipe
threaders". The fittings come from the factory with internal threads,
but the pipe is cut to length and threaded on site. There's a die or
"die head" inside the machine which does the actual cutting.

http://www.northerntool.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/NTELargeImageView?storeId=6970&catalogId=4006970&langId=-1&rfno=200317065&zoomId=none&moreImages=none&fullTime=none&totalSounds=none&rotate=none

This kind of thing is widely used by plumbers and tradespeople working
on natural gas lines. The threads (NPT = National Pipe Thread) in
North America are tapered 1:16 so the male thread jams into the female
thread and seals.

NTP threaded male quick-connect fittings (and occasionally threaded
nipples as described above) are also widely used for things such as
the cooling water lines on plastic injection molds. ;-)


Best regards,
Spehro Pefhany
--
"it's the network..." "The Journey is the reward"
speff(a)interlog.com Info for manufacturers: http://www.trexon.com
Embedded software/hardware/analog Info for designers: http://www.speff.com
From: Eeyore on


|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk wrote:

> Sambo wrote:
>
> > hill(a)rowland.org wrote:
> > > hill(a)rowland.org wrote:
> > >
> > >>Winfield Hill wrote:
> > >>
> > >>> 4200 postings and still going strong. Amazing.
> > >>
> > >> Wow, now 7200 posts and still going strong. And most
> > >> of the posts were under the original subject title. This
> > >> must be some kind of a record. Certainly it's a stress
> > >> test for the Google Groups web-page display code, etc.
>
> > > Amazing, now nearing 9000 posts and still going strong.
> > > Furthermore, a subtle point, the posts haven't strayed far
> > > from the original post in terms of individual thread-segment
> > > lengths, so Google Groups tree view still nicely handles all
> > > the pieces in a narrow sidebar. BTW, my own usenet-news
> > > server completely lost it on this one long ago.
> > >
> > Lucky you. I wish netscape finaly allowed to totly delete news articles ( and possibly ignore further posts in a thread in selected for download groups,without dumping another feature ) , takes me about 5 minutes to come up when I select this group.
>
> Won't create filter from message with "Subject: Re: Jihad needs
> scientists" do that in Netscrape?

It should do.

Graham

From: Don Bowey on
On 11/14/06 9:45 AM, in article a733f$4559fde9$49ecfb0$8894(a)DIALUPUSA.NET,
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote:

> Don Bowey wrote:
>> On 11/14/06 8:58 AM, in article
>> MPG.1fc3a4bd42402541989b33(a)news.individual.net, "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In article <aa7jl21smbdfqca8rjki6o4mc0c0h1dlek(a)4ax.com>,
>>> ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk says...
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 14 Nov 2006 03:16:44 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Ben Newsam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Mon, 13 Nov 2006 18:50:42 -0600, unsettled <unsettled(a)nonsense.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> It might be a part time second
>>>>>>> job, or a kid might do it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Send them down the mines or up the chimneys, best place for them.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's *your* answer, of course.
>>>>
>>>> There's nothing socialist about me, remember.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The very idea of a "living wage" is socialist.
>>
>>
>> Or fair, humanistic, concerned.
>>
>> It must be time to organize workers who are receiving less than decent
>> wages.
>
> Oh goody, yet another Bolshevik movement.

Labor Unions are not Bolshevik. Back one grade for you!

>
>> Do you really want to improve your personal condition by cheating people out
>> of a fair share of their country?
>
> They should work for what they're worth rather than
> what you think they're worth.
>
>

The problem with that is that, at least while the Republicans still have
some power, they won't get their worth, because uncaring cheapskates like
you don't want to pay any more for your received goods and services, and the
politicians don't want to upset you.

If the 'below working wage' people had any political power we'd be reading
your whines about the cost of fruits and vegetables, housekeeping, and so
on.... Would it bust you to pay a little more so people receive a decent
wage?

By the way, who helped you get the wage you receive(d)? If you say 'nobody'
you're a fool.

From: Don Bowey on
On 11/14/06 9:46 AM, in article 6146e$4559fe19$49ecfb0$8894(a)DIALUPUSA.NET,
"unsettled" <unsettled(a)nonsense.com> wrote:

HO HUMMMMMMMMMMM

------------
> Don Bowey wrote:
>
>> On 11/14/06 8:58 AM, in article
>> MPG.1fc3a8d14611ef0a989b34(a)news.individual.net, "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> In article <YIqdnVejL9AsT8XYRVnytw(a)pipex.net>,
>>> usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com says...
>>>
>>>> "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message
>>>> news:MPG.1fc11bd2984185bf989af4(a)news.individual.net...
>>>>
>>>>> <nsadnUzBav053sjYnZ2dnUVZ8sKdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>,
>>>>> usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com says...
>>>>>
>>>>>> I dont agree. However, if that is the case then no minimum wage means no
>>>>>> one
>>>>>> has worth.
>>>>>
>>>>> BS. The worth is decided by what one is willing to pay for the
>>>>> services rendered. If it's worth zero, the service isn't very
>>>>> important, eh? Why should it get done. If it's worth $5 an hour
>>>>> and someone is willing to do the service for $5 an hour it's worth
>>>>> *exactly* $5 per hour. Minimum wage means that the government
>>>>> decrees that there are no jobs worth less. Perhaps there are.
>>>>
>>>> Circular argument.
>>>
>>> No, it's not. It's called "capitalism". You have a widget I want
>>> more than $$ and you want $$ more than what I want. We come to an
>>> agreement on how many $$ the widget is worth. We're both happy.
>>> Substitute "labor" for "widget" and it's *exactly* the same. Price
>>> fixing is anti-capitalistic.
>>>
>>>
>>>> If the minimum wage is $5 an hour then jobs that are
>>>> worth less wont get done. It is the same as if there is no minimum wage.
>>>> Why
>>>> should jobs which pay less than $5 an hour get done?
>>>
>>> Why is there an artificial limit on what jobs get done?
>>>
>>>> What you are saying is there are jobs which are worth so little people
>>>> should still do them but not be paid a reasonable amount for it.
>>>
>>> You don't read well, eh? I'll slow down... If someone is offering
>>> a job for $4 and someone is willing to do a job for $4 it is
>>> *worth* $4, no more no less. At $5 the person offering the job may
>>> decide that it's not worth doing and the person who was willing for
>>> $4 no makes $0.
>>>
>>> What is "reasonable"? Who determines "reasonable"? You? You
>>> lefties sure like to control others, eh?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> Surely, your argument is that a persons "worth" is what they are being
>>>>>> paid?
>>>>>
>>>>> Kinda the definition of "worth" isn't it?
>>>>
>>>> Well a minimum wage keeps peoples worth up as it is saying no one is worth
>>>> _less_ than $5 an hour. You seem to say some people should be.
>>>
>>> If they're willing to work for $1 and someone is willing to hire
>>> them for $1, that's the _exactly_ the worth of their effort.
>>>
>>>
>>>> With or without a minimum wage people are free to get better paid jobs.
>>>> With
>>>> a minimum wage people desparate for work are protected from over
>>>> exploitation.
>>>
>>> Spoken like a good little party member.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> That being minimum wage is no different from it being any other poorly
>>>>>> paid
>>>>>> wage. If someone is affronted by being told they are worth ?5.15 an
>>>>>> hour,
>>>>>> they can get a different job.
>>>>>
>>>>> Exactly.
>>>>
>>>> So what is wrong with the minimum wage?
>>>
>>> The same thing that's wrong with any price fixing.
>>>
>>>
>>>>>> If there is no minimum wage, they will still be affronted working for so
>>>>>> little, surely?
>>>>>
>>>>> Maybe they're willing to work for $4 rather than not work for $5.
>>>>> Why are you telling them they can't.
>>>>
>>>> Why should their employer get away with making people labour for so little?
>>>
>>> I didn't think we were talking about slavery.
>>>
>>>
>>>> It is not telling the person they cant choose to work for less money it is
>>>> telling people they cant make people work for less than what is considered
>>>> the minimum to live on.
>>>
>>> Why should there be an artificial bound? Who decides, komrad?
>>>
>>>
>>>>>>> Do you think the cost of living in east-bumfuck IA is the same as
>>>>>>> downtown Manhattan?
>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all. I am sure I didnt say that and I hope I didnt imply that.
>>>>>
>>>>> Then why do you support a FEDERAL minimum wage, exactly the same
>>>>> for both?
>>>>
>>>> Because a minimum wage is better than none.
>>>
>>> That's exactly what's wrong with the minimum wage; the "none" part.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Where the cost of living is
>>>> greater less people will work for minimum wage.
>>>
>>> So why would people work for less than it takes to live without the
>>> minimum wage? You're the circular one here.
>>>
>>>
>>>> You seem to be arguing for higher minimum wages here. This flies in the
>>>> face
>>>> of your previous arguments.
>>>
>>> Again, you don't read well. I'm arguing for NO minimum wage. Let
>>> the market decide what a "fair" wage is, just like it decides what
>>> a "fair" price is.
>>>
>>>>>> You said you didnt think anyone worked for the minimum, and I asked if
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> was the case what is the problem with the minimum wage?
>>>>>
>>>>> There are people who do work for minimum wage, but they don't
>>>>> "live" on it. Think kids.
>>>>
>>>> I did say I didn't think any one could live on the minimum wage. It is odd
>>>> you back this up with suggesting people should be paid less - which is even
>>>> less than you can live on in your example.
>>>
>>> Good grief, would you *READ*! Bye!
>>
>>
>> Yes. I see you are a greedy person with no soul.
>>
>
> I see you're a modern day Bolshevik.
>