New Book of Rules
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 8 Aug 2006 09:03 On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 19:35:21 -0300, YD <ydtechHAT(a)techie.com> wrote: >On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 19:05:27 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" ><mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> wrote: > >>Eeyore wrote: >>> >>> Phat Bytestard wrote: >>> >>> > On Sun, 06 Aug 2006 15:29:14 GMT, "Michael A. Terrell" >>> > <mike.terrell(a)earthlink.net> Gave us: >>> > >>> > > Yes, it does. If you're in the paper products or produce business. >>> > >It would be damn hard to make money selling apples and other fruit >>> > >without growing them on trees. It would also be very hard to build >>> > >decent homes without lumber, which grows on trees, as well. >>> > >>> > Yep... even the media that the "money" got printed on came from >>> > trees. >>> >>> Rag has been traditionally used actually ! You can't get much right can you ? >>> >>> Graham >> >> >> YOU don't know much about paper. Yes, some paper does use other >>fibers, and it is sometimes listed as RAG content. Some experiment >>paper used other sources of fiber, such as common weeds, so you might >>even have RAGweed paper. I grew up around the paper industry. High >>quality writing paper and cardboard (Corrugated) box manufacturing were >>some of the larger industries in the Middletown Ohio area. Harding >>Jones, Crystal Tissue, Inland Container, Packaging Corporation of >>America, Akers Packaging, Stone Container Corporation, Jefferson >>Smurfit, and a number of smaller paper related paper manufacturing >>companies. We also had the world headquarters of what is now AK steel, a >>Wadsworth Electric plant that was bought out by Square "D", and a lot of >>large machine shops that made parts for paper processing equipment. The >>paper ranged from basic unbleached wood pulp, to the thinnest grades of >>tissue wrapping paper, and one company specialized in fine watermarked >>papers, including custom manufactured paper for birth certificates, and >>property titles. >> >> As far as paper for money, some of it has synthetic fibers added to >>make them last longer, and to be harder to tear. >> >> I installed paging systems in several paper mills, and knew the >>owners or managers of several more. My dad worked 25 years in a >>corrugated box plant, and spent most of his time working in management >>so I had piles of trade journals to read about the various processes >>used to make different papers, on different machines. >> >> One of my uncles ran a "Beater" which was a huge machine used to >>grind up railroad carloads of magazines and junk mail to turn it back >>into pulp that was used to make egg cartons and formed paper shipping >>materials. He used to laugh about whole train car loads of Playboy and >>Penthouse being ground up to remove the staples, and some of the guys >>whining because there was no access between the time the train cars >>arrived, and the paper was shredded. >> >> >> Any more lies about paper you'd like to tell? > > >http://www.moneyfactory.gov/document.cfm/18/106 > >Scroll down about 1/3 and read: > >"Currency paper is composed of 25% linen and 75% cotton. Red and blue >synthetic fibers of various lengths are distributed evenly throughout >the paper. Prior to World War I the fibers were made of silk." > > >Seems the paper base has been replaced by a plastic base, or will be >shortly. I'm not chasing it. --- No, it hasn't. The red and blue fibers are used to differentiate note paper from ordinary paper in order to make counterfeiting more difficult and aren't structurally important to the paper, which is made from linen and cotton, both vegetable products. -- John Fields Professional Circuit Designer
From: Eeyore on 8 Aug 2006 09:36 John Woodgate wrote: > In message <44D84DE5.4A07C7DA(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com>, dated Tue, 8 Aug > 2006, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> writes > > >" Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar > >of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary > >to Bush's claim that we hate freedom. > > Read that carefully; it's nonsense, isn't it. 'Free men do not forfeit > security. We do not forfeit security. Therefore we are free men.' You > can prove a horse is a cow (count the legs) with that brand of logic. You've chosen to rewrite it. The original words ( from a translation ) seem clear enough to me. You can of course argue about what interpretations of freedom means. Graham
From: Eeyore on 8 Aug 2006 09:38 Frank Bemelman wrote: > "John Fields" <jfields(a)austininstruments.com> schreef in bericht > news:vtsgd2lfuljv0fc2jnmnftnko8ajaefnum(a)4ax.com... > > > Us "throwing money" at Israel is part of our way of defending > > ourselves under our own laws and in our own way, so if you don't > > have a problem with Israel doing the same thing (defending herself > > under her own laws and in her own way) why do you have a problem > > with us doing the same thing? > > It's not exactly staying neutral in the conflicts that Israel > has, is it? So you can't complain that this money throwing also > brings you new enemies, ones that take down a WTC tower or two. > In fact, by throwing money at it, you increased Isreals problems, > and your own at the same time. That's a fairly accurate and concise statement of the situation. > And yes, I have a problem with that. I don't enjoy seeing > people with problems, regardless where they live. Me neither - on either 'side'. Graham
From: Eeyore on 8 Aug 2006 09:40 Frank Bemelman wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com> schreef in > bericht news:44D875BB.DE97FBA0(a)REMOVETHIS.hotmail.com... > > > > John Fields wrote: > > > >> Us "throwing money" at Israel is part of our way of defending > >> ourselves > > > > Yourselves ? Sorry, don't quite get that. > > IMO, it's an offensive action, using a 3rd party. > Indirect provocation or something. You mean a 'proxy war'. Sorry, I didn't get it first time round. I had hoped that the USA was smarter than that. Of course that's exactly how the Arabs see it. Graham
From: Eeyore on 8 Aug 2006 09:43
John Fields wrote: > On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 22:24:29 GMT, Richard The Dreaded Libertarian > <null(a)example.net> wrote: > > >On Mon, 07 Aug 2006 13:10:11 -0500, John Fields wrote: > > > >> Well, then, you support Israel's right to defend herself under her > >> own laws and in her own way? > > > >I merely know that I detest the mindset that rationalizes murdering > >your neighbors and their wives and children as "defense". > > --- > Then you agree that Hezbollah are murderers and the Israelis are > defending themselves against murderers. Switch Hezbollah and Israel and ask if it reads any differently. Graham |