leroy

Thanks Broomhead.  Is there a specific epoxy ya like?   leroy

Looks good!!  What did ya glue the scales on (...and the pins...) with; or  did ya just upset 'em with a hammer and punch?  I'm gettin ready to do some myself.  I've got some cocobolo scales commin and i may glue them in instead of using screws.   Thanks for sharing.  Keep up the good work! leroy

I guess im conflicted about this one a bit.  I see the wisdom in DUI checkpoints.  I think it does save lives and get impared folks off the roads. The problem begins in the weighing of citizen's rights vs a small bit of inconvenience.  I've been thru 'em.  It wuz a nothin.  The officers in my neck of the woods are always professional and you can tell they are simply lookin for signs of imparement; and it doesnt take 'em log to do it.  Lots of times it's just a glance and a "thank you".    The "deal" seems to be some small inconvenience to the driver vs the safety of the public.  I will agree that this is a touchy subject, especially to the libertarians (...like me, and im sure others...) among us.  I agree that when they find somethin they dont like; you need to make 'em get a warrant.  I'm like some other posters on this one; "....the roadside aint the place to take a stand on constitutional ethics, and to banter words with a guy with police power and a gun.  If you sandpaper him, he will find somethin wrong...".  Is that ok?  Of course not.     leroy

We've travelled off in lots of pasture fields with this little bit of examinaton of a real 'hot button' topic.  We've heard lots of reasoned debate, satire (...some of it pretty good...), some laughable stuff (...meant to be laughable, some not...) and some regrettable stuff.     The discussion of late has turned to the "supposed hipocracy of "Christians" who pick and choose just what sins are "ok" and what are "not-ok".  As a person of faith, i feel compelled to try in my small way to answer the question that when asked as a genuine and serious question is supremely important to both believers and non-believers; and, at it's worst, is a "rhetorical "gotcha".   I think it is a supremely important, "really big" question which is very important to this discussion and all "pop-culture" questions.  It is the question of how should a christian react and ineract with his brother and sister human beings -- especially those labelled as "heinous sinners"....  Here goes:   The New Testament narrative gives us this answer in an account of the God-Man being asked a question by the "religious elites" of his time (...Think Westboro Baptist Church here; plus some others i wont name...).   This woman was caught in "the very act of adultry" the narrative says; and she was brought to the God-Man for a "legal ruling" on her "sin" by the "religious elites".   Actually, the religious elites weren't interested in the woman's sin; they were interested in entrapping the The God-Man in a matter of Old Testament jewish law which would allow them to accuse the God-Man of blasphemy and put Him to death (...Old Testament Jewish Law...) for it to shut Him up. The "old testament jewish law clearly called for stoning to death for adultry"..   The God-Man didnt answer the question directly ---- He said nothing.   He simply wrote in the dust of the street "...Let him who is without sin cast the first stone...".  He got no takers and the religious elites left one by one, starting with the oldest first.   Finally, no one was left other than the God-Man and the woman who was clearly guilty.  He then said "...Woman, where are your accusers?...".   He then said: "...Go and sin no more...".    The moral.  He loved the "sinful" woman in a brotherly and alturistic way --- He did not condemn her; even though she was clearly guilty under the law.   He did not condone the sin, He mentioned it privately to her and placed His life (...He later gave it to save all of us...) in danger to save her life.   That's where the ole "hate the sin", but "love the sinner" thing came from.     ... Whether you choose as an individual to believe this account or not (...i happen to believe it...); or whether you see it as a fanciful tale; you cannot help but see the wisdom, kindness, and majesty in this act.   You can find this account in any New Testament concordance.  I wont bother with the citations...   The way i see things, as christians, we are called to be like the God-Man if we are His followers.  We are also reminded that we too, are not without sin -- it aint just "them" that are sinners.  We are all sinners, whether christian or "unaffilliated".  The christians are just "forgiven"...As christians, we are also called to be honest and even-handed in our dealings with everyone.  That means we should never ostracize anyone, no matter how heinous (...or minor-- by our flawed standards...) the sin.  Does that mean christians must "approve and embrace sin"?  Of course not.  It does, however, mean that we are to be intellectually and ethically fair in our treatment of any matter; whether it's "approved of or not".   Remember this, the "unaffilliated' and jhadists among us are watching our actions and are lookin for an excuse to call us out and point us out as hypocrites.  The fact is that we are all hypocrites, because we are human.  We have all "sinned' in some way.    All that bein said, if we claim His Name, we need to be like Him in as much as we possible can.  I say to my brother and sister christians; "...be fair and loving in your dealings with others, no matter who they are...".  You can campaign against certain things based on moral issues; just be sure that campaign is fair.    The DOMA thing wasn't fair as soon as the individual states recognized more than one species of marriage....I would say in the kindest way possible, think everything thru, be kind, be reasonable, be supremely honest.  Otherwise, we denigrate that Name by which we claim to be called.  Remember, marriage was sanctioned by the Christian God in the beginning; not the state.    leroy

As i remember this whole thing on DOMA; it seems to me that a couple of very well to do gays were doing their "estate planning".  They discovered that the inheritance tax for the state wuz pretty hefty (...$300k if i remember right...).   They sued.  Worked the suit thru the court system until it got to the supremes.  The supremes struck DOMA down as we've discussed.    At the end of the day, as has been said several times before, the two lesbos from New York got this whole thing going. ...check here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_v._Windsor     Poor folks and pop culture jhadists dont have the dollars to mount monumental lawsuits.   The "gay" community owes these two coots a debt of gratitude for having the dollars to see this thing thru to it's end.  I would guess this whole thing cost into the seven figures range.  The inheritance must be stupedous.  By the way, these two married in canada and moved to new york state.  New York as we all know recognizes "gay" marriage.   Remember the words of the great "Godfather" Rahm; he said the other day "...gays are the new jews of fundraising...".  That's why this is a hot topic.  It's about the money, man; nothin more.   leroy

I like analogs story.  Thanks for sharing it.   It reminds me of another one.  When i was a young man (...aeons ago...), a good friend of mine decided to proclaim his enduring love for his then current girlfriend and future fiancee by getting the old heart shaped tatoo with his true love's name inscribed thereon.  He went off to vietnam sportin the tatoo of his true love.  She got lonely and went boyfriend hunting.    You can guess the rest.  She caught a new boyfriend and eventually a husband that wasnt my ole buddy.  There are two morals to this story.  The first, be careful whos name goes on the old heart tatoo.  The second, absence doesnt always make the heart grow fonder.   Be careful whos' name goes in the tatoo... I would sugguest "mom"....   leroy

ET:  RE: the libertarians being viewed as lunatics.   I'm a bit older than some here and my political memory goes back a ways.  The "old perceived problem" with libertarianism wuz that it was tied to the drug culture of the 60's.  That's why some people hated (...and sitll do, for that matter...) them and worked to marginalize and demonize them.  I'm like you; i think the Tea Party is a legitimate branch of the libertarian movement.  I also think that long ago, the "drug culture" thing wuz thrown off the libertarian party.   The republicans were very guilty of "demonizing" the libertarians.   Hope this helps. leroy

TMF.  I think the recent supreme court thing on DOMA was exactly what you say.  What the state regulates, the state has to even-handly enforce.  It's the old "equal protection under law" thing.  Like you, im ok with that.   Ray Charles could see that DOMA would be struck down if the court wuz fair as soon as there wuz more than one kind of marriage recognized by the state.   As to the "pop culture" tolerance thing; i think lots of folks are intimidated into backing certain things because of peer pressure. It's "tolerance jhad" at work.  It's a tool used to further the "movement" based on wanting to be "part of the crowd" by those who dont take the time to think things thru.  It's fodder for the "children" and 'beings of lower estate"..    Im like you and some others, i dont believe that you can say you are for personal liberty, then limit the liberties of a certain class of citizens with discriminatory law passed to salve some political constituency.   I think you are exactly right  RE: the "....state meddling in marriage..." thing.  They need to get out of that business.  As you have also opined, sadly, i dont think for a minute that they will.  I say, get married in church if ya like that (...i happen to, that's what we did years ago...).  If ya dont like that one, get married where ever else ya want to.   leroy

Looks to me like ya are learning a bit:  RE: This: (1)....Why ya dont support the movement?  "...We..." dont have to; there is already governmental support for "the movement".   Its called "equal protection under law".... Regarding the "support of the movement".  Some of us believe that support of the movement by many, especially in the political class and in the business class is nothin more than pandering for dollars.  As you have graciously granted, "we" are free to debate its merits and need; even if those debates and reasioning seem unkind to some hearers.  In my view; the whole thing was masterfully answered by Good Steward" in post #247.  That's pretty much my view on a personal basis.   (2)....The religion thing....  Deeply held religious beliefs will automatically translate into actions in word and deed if the person holding them actually believes those "deeply held religious beliefs".  That's the way the "deeply held religious beliefs" thing (...or lack thereof...) works. William Wilberforce had a "deeply held religious belief" (...and a freedom belief...) that slavery wuz wrong. He and others like him translated those beliefs into action freeing the slaves in the British Empire in 1833 without firing a shot.   "Deeply held religious beliefs" can be a powerful force for good.   By contrast; when these "deeply held religious beliefs" translate theselves into lawless acts ALA muslum honor killings and the like; the government restrains them via law.   In summary, there is no prohabition in having "deeply held religious beliefs" as the motive for acceptance or rejection on any ideal or movement.  That's one of the reasons why we have debate and different political parties.   RE;  the "...religion pushed on ya...." thing.  It (...religion, or the lack thereof...) is already protected by the First Amendment.  Laws passed by legislatures cant override the Constitution (...yet...).  Do legislatures pass laws that they full well know wont pass Constitutional muster? "....Yes..." they do it all the time, hopin no one is watching.  It's called pandering and influence peddling; and in some cases governmentally sanctioned stealing...  But that aint workin out too well lately.  The internet has seen to that, thankfully.   As for the 'billygoat gruff" thing; thanks for the kind permission and acceptance.  Iv'e thought it over and i think ill stay "leroy" since the tenor of the discussion has changed a bit.  However i do believe the "out of context" thing is a bit snippy; but ill forgive that.   leroy..

  This right here is good stuff!!  I salute you sir on your superlive powers of folksy illustration and quick wit !!!  It dont get bette than this!!   With great admiration, leroy

As usual, OS makes some great points, especially RE: the Tea Party being diluted by the national Republicans thing.  I think he is dead right.   The republicans have been pretty successful in keeping the Tea Party in check, in large part.  They've coopted and diluted the movement; and they know there's not another viable alternative out there now.   I think to be successful, the Tea Party is gonna have to contrast themselves with the democrat and republican parties and their appartarajiks, period.   leroy 

  I guess you really told us and devistated us with your brilliance, powerful logic, and powers of debate.  You keep sayin the same things over and over.  I got news for ya; that aint debate; its repetition.    I figured id give you a little dose of what you were passin out so you could see that most everything is a two way street.  You aint got the inside track on richeousness or the last word in debate; nor has anyone else here.  Like your fond of sayin; "...ive got the right to call him on it (...whatever "it" is at the moment...)....".  So do others (...in this case, that's me...). You aint the only person on this forum with permission to opine.  I (...and others too...) have that right too; as long as we are polite about it.    Now, if you want to have a dialogue or a forum discussion, i would recommend that you back it up with opinions based on facts and citations rather than  relying on school yard name callin, mischaracterizations, and repetition; but that's just me.  If i wuz your debate teacher i would give ya an "F" on your performance up to now; but i realize that in some places ya would get an "A" for preachin the party line.  Too much speculation and name callin and not enough facts is the reason for my failing grade.   By the way, that's my opinion, you have the right to protest it.    I'll leave you with this little quip: "...you always know your winnin the debate when the debate goes from the discussion of facts to name callin...".     By the way, i kinda like the "troll" thing; but i really prefer "billygoat gruff".  Would you mind using that instead of "troll"?.  I see this as more of a clash of ideas.  "...Troll..." doesnt give the right ambiance to this little discussion. I think "billygoat" (...or maybe person goat; gender neutral, ya know...) may give just the right ambiance to this little debate ALA the "clash of ideas" thing.  Whaddy ya think?   leroy the "troll", and maybe with mr keal's permission "billygoat (...or even "person goat"...) gruff" leroy... heres hopin.

Guys.  Aint a "faraday cage" simply a conducting box like Mike is sayin?  It seems ive seen that before.  Went up to A. B. Chance one time and watched their lightning generator in action (...flashover tests on high voltage insulator strings and fiberglass crossarms, i think...).  It seems we watched it all in a control cage that wuz called a "faraday cage".  Am i dreamin this up?  It's been a long time ago.   leroy

If the establisment republicans do much more stupid stuff; they may need to morph into democrats.  That's what they are at heart for the most part anyway.  I think the time is ripe for a third party, and the Tea Party may well be it.  Folks are tired of government giving them the finger and telling them ".... its for your own good.  We know best...."   Heres hopin. leroy

Ya aint expectin trouble are ya brother??!   The EMP thing sounds pretty bad to me.  Keep us posted with any news.   leroy

Thanks for all the posts and opinions RE:  handeability and extra weight.  That wuz exactly what i wuz lookin for.  A special thank for Mac RE: the slug changeover thing.  It makes perfect sense, and i never even thought about it.   Thanks again everybody! leroy

Aint ya got an ole buddy who is a paint and body man?   If ya dont, do a bit of a google search and see how to sand the spot out and fair the paint primer and clear coat back by hand sanding.  When ya look at the "how to" stuff you'll see what i mean.  That little spot will get about 3 or 4 times larger if ya do it right.  Sand it out, goin finer and finer until it's slick as a baby's rumpus; then sand some more.  Then find some spray primer and spot it back in.  It'll look bad; but the problem will be fixed and the bare metal sealed back against the weather.     When paint is cut to the bare metal like yours is and rust starts; the only real good way to fix it is what ive described.  Ya really need to find an old buddy that does this sort of thing.  He can probably spot it back in to where ya hardly notice it.  Sorry for the bad news.  I've got some of the same problems on the hood of my 08 tacoma thanks to some sons of satan carving it with a key.  The fix.  Paint the hood.    leroy

  Mike makes a real good point here.   There are places in the employed world (...think customer relations with big companies, folks that meet and represent companies like accounting firms, engineering firms, capital equipment sales, IT contractors, ect.ect ---  you get the picture...) that simply will not hire folks that look like a canvas, no matter the quality of the art; nor the abilities of the applicant.  They may not say anything about it during the interview; but they dont need to.  They have eyes, if ya get my drift.   I would keep that in mind when i went to the tatoo parlor or the job interview and govern myself accordingly.    Long sleeves can cover lots of stuff up; but i would think twice before i got that great set of ss runes tatooed on the back of my head (...like I saw the other day on an ole boy that was slick headed, muscular, and weighed about 250 or so....).  Or, if i wuz of the fairer sex; i would be careful about them leg tatoos when i put on my best business skirt and jacket for that big interview.    I know it may seem a bit unfair and narrow minded; but that's how things happen in the corporate, business, and engineering world where first impressions are important.   Remember this; lots of us here wuz young once ourselves, and we did lots of 'avant guarde" things.  Lots of these negative vibes we're puttin out are the result of experience.   leroy

Is this it: http://hotair.com/archives/2013/07/05/a-real-3rd-amendment-case/   Interestn read. leroy

Police and other LE have a tough, thankless job.  There have been, and always will be those who third base their every move.  All that bein said; most folks hold them to a higher standard.  They signed on for the duty knowin it would be that way.  I simply wouldn't do it.  I'm glad there are those who are willing to do it.   leroy

Damn!!  I didnt know they made knives that big....   Keep up the good work. leroy

Runco; you are right.  There is a "tatoo explosion" among the younger of us.   I think it's an uncoscious pop culture thing.  I really like the ones the young mothers have.  I would love to hear the discussion several years into the future when their 2 year old becomes 18 and says "...i want a tatoo..." on my tooshie or some other place equally discrete...(...if there is one by then...).   Remember Quequeeg (....terrible spelling...) the south sea islander in "Moby Dick"; that's what i think of when i see em.    To each his own. leroy

I'm like Ernest P Worrell said in "Ernest Saves Christmas" when he delivered the "pison snakes"... "I had one once (...the sharpener...)"..., but, sadly some son of satan stole it out of the front seat of my jeep and cut the door to get in.  By the way, the sharpener works very well.  You will enjoy using it.  Mine cost $70 at Northern tool.   leroy

Very true.  Very true.  Let's keep 'em stirred up...   Keep up the good work. leroy

RE:  Partial quotes.   My perrogative.  It also saves space. RE:  To push against (...notice another partial quote...)   His perrogative. While im on the subject; the "equal rights" thing is is a red herring.  Everybody has "equal rights".  It's called "equal protection under the law".  Its against the law to beat up on gays (...and everybody else, except in florida, maybe....).  Poor argument.  I say its the pop culture "tolerance" thing.  See my distain for it in my post above.   RE: this "..He has clearly stated..."  Did he?  He may have simply vented his disgust for Youtube's actions in pandering to a specific class of viewer (...my guess...).  If he's not in support; that's his perrogative (...it happens to be mine too... I say its pandering pure and simple...).  Who elected you the sheriff of seeing that he's beaten until he does like it?    RE: "...possibly harboring hatred..." .  Another opinion and another "so what" if he does.  There is more than one side to every issue.  Again, who elected you the "tolerance sheriff"?  (...notice the "name callin"; it could be a literary device too...).     RE:  "...i have every right to call him on them....  OK. Why do you have this right??? Who gave it to you, and not to him if he disagrees?  How about me?... Do i have this right too; or is it just for a select and enlightened few who see things the way you happen to see 'em?  Wuz there an election and did you get to be the "tolerance sheriff" or the "grand isquisitor"?  I wanted to be him.  How come they elected you and not me??  But that's ok with me; we'll do it your way.  Quit callin him names and hinting at possible character defects and stick to the arguement and ill "leave you alone"... .   How's that workin out for ya?   RE:  ...he doesn't seem to be able to answer... .  Maybe he is too nice to answer (...since you seem to like the speculative....).  That's my guess.  There's another possibility; he may not want to dignify some of the comments with a response.  I, on the other hand, love to wrestle with the pigs and get a little bit of mud on me.  How about you??   wrestlin leroy the pig man