author: Bill

subject: Re: Posting link vs full article

text:
I think it is best to copy the headline of a news story, a descriptive
paragraph, then provide a link to the page so people can read the entire
story.

If you post the entire story, no one will go to the link. News sources keep
track of what people are reading on their web sites. If they have a good
story and a lot of people are clicking on the link, this will tell them
that a lot of people are interested in that story. This will give them
feedback about what you want to read and what you *don't* want to read!

Also they make money from advertising on their web sites. If it is a good
story, then they should get something back by having people click on their
link.

Even if it is a non-profit or government web site [where they don't care if
you copy the whole thing] it is still best to copy just the headline and a
descriptive paragraph and add the link. When people click on the link to
read the information, they are saying they are interested in reading about
that subject. [gives feedback to website]


author: [redacted]

subject: Re: Posting link vs full article

text:
On 5 May 2003 10:53:10 -0700, [email] (Curtis CCR)
wrote:

I see nothing wrong with posting the complete article, especially when
the source implicitly appears not to be interested in preventing it
(by restricting the copying of the contents, etc.) and not actively
taking the necessary actions to enforce their copyright by initiating
actions against persons who are using their material(s) in violation
of the copyright.

What feedback do you get when you, as I have to conclude you would
routinely do, report persons who violate a copyright holders right to
them?


author: Steve

subject: Re: Posting link vs full article

text:
[email] (Michael Black) wrote:

Good point.  But even when there are comments posted in addition to
the link, the subsequent discussion tends to be only about those
comments.  Whereas when the entire article is posted, there can be
many other discussion points that may have nothing to do with the OP's
particular interests.  (Ignoring for the moment the copyright
infringement issues)


author: Ned Flanders

subject: Re: Posting link vs full article

text: [email] (Geoff Miller) wrote in message news:<b9bvl8$[email]>...


author: Keith R. Williams

subject: Re: Posting link vs full article

text:
In article <b9bvl8$[email]>, [email]
says...

Wilson, you're simply not being PC.  We have chair-persons,
congress-persons, and all the rest of the -persons.  How dare you
claim that -man is correct!  (BTW, has anyone noticed that
-person has "son" in it? ...rather flagrant violation of the ERA
isn't it?)

Indeed.  However they get their *rights* protected when you visit
their site.  They get whatever it is that induces them to publish
the material.  If it's copied to another site, they lose control
and any potential profit.  Now if one paraphrases the material
and adds to it, it's absolutely okey-dokey.  Copying wholesale is
simply wrong!

Most don't understand "fair-use".  If they did they would copy
wholesale other's work.


author: Bryce

subject: Re: Posting link vs full article

text:
Keith R. Williams <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

And if you could get away with it without getting caught, I'm sure you would too.


author: Ron Peterson

subject: Re: Posting link vs full article

text:
"Bill" <[email]> wrote in message news:<b98gmo$ghd08$[email]>...

You shouldn't assume that a person can use a web browser. Post your
comment, the link, and just the relevant paragraphs.


author: Carl.

subject: Re: Posting link vs full article

text:
<[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

So it's OK to steal stuff that isn't tied down?


author: Gordon Burditt

subject: Re: Posting link vs full article

text:
or lay perdaughter.

No, these are congress-critters.  They may be human when first
elected, but they don't stay that way long.  I'm sure some animal
activists will say this is a gross insult to the rat, skunk, and
weasel (and it is).

The counterpart of a "mail man" is a femail perdaughter.
For that matter, even the word "woman" is sexist; it
should be woperchild.

					Gordon L. Burditt


subject: Re: Posting link vs full article

text:
On Wed, 7 May 2003 21:56:13 -0400, Keith R. Williams
<[email]> wrote:

It is CongressMAN, regardless of the sex of the office holder!


subject: Re: Posting link vs full article

text:
In article <[email]>,
[email] says...

So, you believe that because you won't get caught you'd cheat on
your wife?  ...with your brother's wife?  Interesting philosophy.


author: Geoff Miller

subject: Re: Posting link vs full article

text:
Ron Peterson <[email]> writes:

On the off-chance that you're not being facetious...

By this point, it's a reasonable assumption that if someone
can use a computer, he can use a Web browser.  If he can't,
either through ignorance or because of outdated hardware,
then time has passed him by; as far as I can see, the rest
of us have moved on and are relieved of any obligation to
pander to his incapacity.  From the lofty perch of the
Twenty-First Century, people who can't use a Web browser
are "no longer supported," as the saying goes.  That's
no more defensible than not knowing how to dial a tele-
phone is.  Fuck 'em.  Learn computers or die.

Geoff


subject: Re: Posting link vs full article

text:
In article <[email]>,
[email] says...

Absolutely!  Without comments and copier in its entirety, it's
nothing but plagiarism.  Without comments it's a waste of USENET
bandwidth, since this is supposed to be a conversational medium.


author: Michael Black

subject: Re: Posting link vs full article

text:
Ron Peterson ([email]) writes:

That was likely  the case years back, I had two years of newsgroup access
via BBSs before I had full internet access, but these days I suspect anyone
who has newsgroup access has web access.  Indeed, at this point
more people have web access than know or use the newsgroups.

I remember being really annoyed back in 1985 when someone posted
an announcement to a local event in a local newsgroup, but then
pointed to a webpage for the details.  I couldn't get to the webpage
beause I didn't have web access.

But now that is only going to be the case in a handful of cases.

I've seen whole newsgroups that consist of nothing more than people
posting news articles they've found elsewhere.  It is pathetic.
They have no comments on what is being posted, not even the posters,
they just think of themselves as some sort of "alternative" news
source where they seek out stories and post them to "their favorite
newsgroup".  They abuse the concept of "fair use" under the guise
that some might not be able to read the articles on the website, so
they post the whole article (and some of them even put disclaimers
at the bottom about how posting the whole article is fair use).

SOme of the problem with all this is the concept that the story
is so important that everyone needs to see it.  That is rarely the
case, and even then, one can extract the pertinent bits and put
it in their own words.

   Michael


subject: Re: Posting link vs full article

text:
On Mon, 05 May 2003 22:35:07 GMT, "Carl." <[email]>
wrote:

see my reply to Joseph's article


subject: Re: Posting link vs full article

text:
In article <[email]>,
[email] says...

Really?  Perhaps you should tell them:

http://tammybaldwin.house.gov/     <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/berkley/      <="Congresswoman"
http://judybiggert.house.gov/      <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/blackburn/    <="Congressman"
http://www.house.gov/bono/         <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/corrinebrown/ <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/brown-waite/  <="Representative"
http://www.house.gov/capito/       <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/capps/        <="Congresswoman"
http://www.juliacarson.house.gov/  <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/cubin/        <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/joanndavis/   <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/susandavis/   <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/degette/      <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/delauro/      <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/dunn/         <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/emerson/      <="Representative"
http://www-eshoo.house.gov/        <="Congresswoman"
http://kaygranger.house.gov/       <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/harman/       <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/harris/       <="Representative"
http://hart.house.gov/             <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/hooley/       <="Congresswoman"
http://www.jacksonlee.house.gov/   <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/nancyjohnson/ <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/tubbsjones/   <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/kaptur/       <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/suekelly/     <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/kilpatrick/   <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/lee/          <="Congresswoman"
http://zoelofgren.house.gov/       <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/lowey/        <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/carolynmccarthy/ <="Congresswoman"
http://mccarthy.house.gov/         <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/mccollum/     <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/majette/      <="Representative"
http://www.house.gov/maloney/      <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/millender-mcdonald/ <="Congresswoman"
http://candicemiller.house.gov/    <="Congresswoman"
http://wwwa.house.gov/musgrave/    <="Congresswoman"
http://myrick.house.gov/           <="Congresswoman"
http://www.napolitano.house.gov/   <="Congresswoman"
http://northup.house.gov/          <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/pelosi/       <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/pryce/        <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/roybal-allard/ <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/lindasanchez/ <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/sanchez/      <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/schakowsky/   <="Representative"
http://www.slaughter.house.gov/    <="Congresswoman"
http://solis.house.gov/            <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/tauscher/     <="Representative"
http://www.house.gov/velazquez/    <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/waters/       <="Congresswoman"
http://www.house.gov/watson/       <="Congresswoman"
http://wilson.house.gov/           <="Congresswoman"
http://woolsey.house.gov/          <="Congresswoman"

Of the 57, I only see one who calls herself Congressman.

If you count: http://www.house.gov/frank/ that's two.


author: Karen Wheless

subject: Re: Posting link vs full article

text:
Even though the web is now the internet standard, there are people who
are disabled and find the web more difficult to use than newsgroups.
There are ways for the blind to use web browsers, for example, but it's
difficult and many web sites don't set up their sites to be usable by
blind users.  People with other disabilities (people who can't use a
mouse, for example) also find the web hard to navigate, especially web
sites that aren't set up to handle non-mouse input.

I agree that peole shouldn't post entire articles to the newsgroup, but
a lot of people just post a link, or a link and a vague sentence or two.
It's annoying for everyone who doesn't want to waste the time of going
to a web site if the article isn't worth reading, but it's particularly
problematic for a disabled person who has to go to much greater lengths
to read the web than they do to read a newsgroup.

Anyone posting a link should post a fairly detailed description of what
the article is and why it's important or useful.  It's just the polite
thing to do.

Karen


subject: Re: Posting link vs full article

text:
Karen Wheless <[email]> writes:

The tail is starting to wag the dog where this sort of thing is
concerned.  I was thinking about this a while back when I was
in a public restroom somewhere, and I had to bend over at the
waist in order to comb my hair because the mirror had been
mounted down low on the wall for the convenience of people in
wheelchairs.  Er, what about the 99.9999% of us who *aren't*
in wheelchairs, I thought?  Shouldn't *our* convenience be the
driving factor here, simply by virtue of our sheer numbers?
At the very least, shouldn't there be one tall mirror that's
easily usable by all, or two normal-sized ones mounted at
different levels?  The additional cost would be trivial.

I'm getting really tired of the way that more and more, normal
people are expected to be endure being inconvenienced for the
sake of the crippled.  I first started thinking about this
when I noticed how, every time a typical shopping center
parking lot gets repaved, more handicap parking spaces seem
to be added.  Funny, but one would think that the number of
handicapped people remained more or less constant -- partic-
ularly given that the *existing* handicap spaces are seldom
occupied.

Stuff like this is well-intended, but the underlying sentiment
has taken on a life of its own.  It's become a situation of
compassion run amok, a "the last shall be first" mindset where
normal, abled people almost seem to be looked upon as second-
class citizens in some contexts.  Bearing that in mind, it's
unrealistic as hell to expect the Usenet community at large
to adjust its style for the benefit of a tiny minority whose
physical limitations largely preclude their participating
in this medium to begin with.

Given that the Web is by nature a visual medium, I'm not sure
I understand how it could ever be made usable by blind people.

More to the point, if we've reached the level where inherently
visual media and blind people are being mentioned in the same
breath, then clearly, this idea that everybody should be able to
do everything has reached the point of absurdity and needs to
be reconsidered.  It's time for all of us, but particularly
the people in question, to get a grip on reality and accept
the fact that there are certain things that certain people
just cannot do.

In a word, tough.  The Web is inherently a mouse-intensive
medium.  That's just the way it is.

I'm astounded that to some people's way of thinking, the
incredible convenience of the Web seems to have taken a
back seat to the trivial "inconvenience" of occasionally
following a pointer to an article only to decide that
the article isn't worthwhile.  That's petty almost
beyond words.

One doesn't know whether an article is worth reading
until one reads it, whether on a Web site or anywhere
else.  So what?  That's just part of life.  Enduring
certain inconveniences is also part of life, especially
when one is crippled.  C'est la vie.

Then such people should accept their limitations and
consider the Web outside the bounds of realistic
accessibility to themselves.  That strikes me as a
much more sensible solution than expecting the rest
of us to dumb down our posting styles for their
benefit, both in principle and because they're
such a tiny minority of Usenet readers.

Geoff


author: SoCalMike

subject: Re: Posting link vs full article

text:
"Geoff Miller" <[email]> wrote in message
news:b9e8nm$[email]...

all depends. population is getting older, some cities might be requiring
more spaces when the lot is repaved, etc. i dont think any store would offer
*more* spaces for the handicapped, unless it was a requirement. after all,
it takes away potential opportunity from the other shoppers, who arent
allowed to park there.


subject: Re: Posting link vs full article

text:
Geoff Miller ([email]) writes:
Now admittedly the INTERNET is pretty much visual, with a few
exceptions for audio.

But your comments seem to be based on the way it's come to be,
rather than it's "inherent" nature.

The Web, and that's only a small part of the internet, was
originally text only.  It was only after a few iterations that
graphics came into play. Likewise, the use of a mouse derives
from the common software, not because it's the only way.

The only browser I had, from mid-96 to mid-2001, was text only.
For that time, it really was the only browser I could run, since
I was using a limited computer.  It was also fast because time
wasn't wasted transferring graphics.  I avoided some of the most
commercial aspects of the Web, since I didn't see op-ups, and
even inline advertising was text and no bigger than content.
The browser was not controlled by a mouse, but only by keystrokes,
mostly cursor keys.

Even when I got a computer that would run a graphic browser two
years ago, I did not have the patience for it. Most of the time I
still use the text only browser, only firing up Netscape for
certain situations.  It's still fast, and I don't waste my time with empty
graphics.

I am looking at words with that text only browser, so of course
the internet is about text.  But it sure isn't inherently mouse
based.

If you want a picture of Jennifer Lopez, of course you need that
picture (and even with a text only browser, I can download the picture
and display it).  In this case, the graphic is (some of) the content.

But way too much of the web is  about pretty pictures that mean nothing.
"Press this fancy button if you want to volunteer", so they waste
time intricately crafting that fancy buttone, when one could just
as easily have clickable text.  But, the page it leads to is not
there; they've wasted time on the gloss instead of the content.
Even later, when the page appears, it says virtually nothing, because
the gloss-masters think the flash carries information, rather
than the information itself.

A simple page based on text can (I gather) be easily parsed by
a text to speech program.  But a page that has graphics for
the sake of graphics is much more problematic.  The things that
are mouse and graphics based are usually just flash, and it's
that that gets in the way, of speedy access and accessiblity.

   Michael


subject: Re: Posting link vs full article

text:
On Fri, 09 May 2003 01:15:11 GMT, "SoCalMike"
<[email]> wrote:

The ADA requires any facility that was not in compliance with the law
when it was passed to bring their access up to the required level when
renovations are made.  Usually in the case of parking, this will
involve bringing existing non-complying parking spaces up to the
required standard (usually means increasing width of spaces) as well
as adding additional spaces to meet required number specified under
the law!


subject: Maximum Amount In RRSP?

text:
Is there a maximum amount a person should have in their RRSP's or
should they keep adding the maximum allowable amount year after year?

I realize that money grows tax free in a RRSP and the principal amount
is deferred. But down the line when the money is rolled over into a
RRIF, this tax will have to be paid. I understand that if a person
were in a lower tax bracket, it would be to their advantage. But is it
to their advantage if they are in the high bracket with their
government payments clawed back? Would it be better to pay the tax now
or later? Rather than putting the maximum amount in a RRSP every year,
would it be better to divide the amounts inside and outside a RRSP?

I have been putting the maximum amount in my own RRSP and Spousal RRSP
for quite a while and wonder if I have been doing the right thing...


author: J Smith

subject: Re: Maximum Amount In RRSP?

text:
You know, I used to do the same thing and max out my RRSPs.  With the
whole industry pumping RRSPs, why shouldn't I ?! However, after doing
some severe number crunching, it turned out to not be worth it in the
long run.

There are some serious limitations in RRSPs that can really limit
one's return.  This includes the illiquid Cdn markets, commissions,
30% foreign content rule (yeah, I know there are tricks to increase
that limit).

Even after factoring in the deferred tax growth, tax refund, and all
the other benefits, all calculations come out ahead for a non-RRSP
approach.

I would advise everyone to create a simple spreadsheet to make sure
that RRSPs make sense for their particular situation.  In my case, it
didn't.  In yours, it might.

JS

[email] (8192) wrote in message news:<[email]>...


author: Greg Goss

subject: Re: Maximum Amount In RRSP?

text:
[email] (8192) wrote:

Don't forget that dividends and capital gains inside an RRSP will
eventually be taxed at the much higher "income" rate.


author: Alan T. Bowler

subject: Re: Maximum Amount In RRSP?

text:
8192 wrote:

Paying it later (even if at a higher rate) is almost always
a gaine because in the meantime you get to earn income from
the deferred tax money.

It's not an absolute rule for everyone, but as a rule of thumb
continuing to contribute as much as you can to your RRSP
is generally the best strategy.  A couple of years back you
heard a lot about leveraged equity strategies that gave
a higher expected after tax return.  However, the expected gain
was not much more, and as the stock market dropped most people
found that they didn't have the stomach for the extra risk
involved.  It's possible that if they had stuck with the
plan through the full term they would eventually have been
ahead, but they could not and are now well behind.

The only real competing investment for after tax payoff
and piece of mind is paying down your mortgage.  Once that
is done use some of the cash that was going to mortgage
payments and buy equities outside the RRSP, and concentrate
more on bonds etc. inside the RRSP.

As for the clawback of the Old Age Pension, my plan for
retirement (as is many people's) always has been that I expect
to have an income large enough that I would receive little
of no OAP anyway.  It's the Old Age Pension and Old Age Supplement
(GIS?) that get clawed back, NOT the CPP.  The old age pension and
supplement just are not that big.  There is just far too much
noise about the "clawback".


author: DMacD

subject: Re: Maximum Amount In RRSP?

text:
Recently, I have read a lot about whether to contribute or not to
contribute to RRSPs and although I have contributed religiously to the max
in past years, there is a real concern over what will happen to stock based
RRSPs when the baby-boomers start to withdraw their money (somewhere around
2010-2012).  Some say that, just like there was huge over valuation of the
stock market due to large sums of money being added to RRSPs and mutual
funds in the last decade, there will be wide spread market crashes once the
government forces baby-boomers to start to withdraw their funds.

I'm not an financial planner so I would never advise anyone to contribute
or not to contribute. I don't necessarily believe that financial planners
fully know or understand the "possible" long term ramifiications of huge
amounts of funds being pulled from the stock market due to rolling over of
RRSPs. I can say that I have moved from a position of religious
contributing to one of a cautious overall approach to financial management
which includes mortgage reduction with investing inside and outside of an
RRSP.

DM

[email] (J Smith) wrote in
news:[email]:


author: Sylvestre

subject: Re: Maximum Amount In RRSP?

text:
and that if you invest in stocks and such, losses cannot be claimed against
income.


subject: Re: Maximum Amount In RRSP?

text:
DMacD wrote:

RRSPs should have a hefty portion of the funds in fixed
income investments.


subject: Re: Maximum Amount In RRSP?

text:
"Sylvestre" <[email]> wrote:

I do it all the time.  My RRSP currently contains both CCR.un (TSX)
and AOT(TSX-V).  When the time comes to withdraw my savings, the
losses from the latter will definately be claimed against the former.

Gain $3000.  Lose $1000.  Withdraw initial contribution plus $2000.  I
would then pay taxes on the initial contribution plus $2000.  The
fiasco in AOT has been simply deducted from the gains on CCR, without
me having to keep track of ANY paperwork.  Very slick, very simple.


author: Mike Higgs

subject: Re: Maximum Amount In RRSP?

text:
"Alan T. Bowler" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

....depending on your age.  The balance should be skewed towards equity if
you are young and move towards fixed as you age.   How should the mix be
determined?  The rule of thumb often cited is 100 less your age equals the
equity weight.  A twenty year old would have at 80/20 equity/fixed income
split; a 50 year old, a 50/50 split and a 65 year old, a 35/65 split.  It's
rough and dirty and doesn't need adjusting every year other than as a
by-product of re-balancing.

Regards,
Mike


author: David Skene

subject: Re: Maximum Amount In RRSP?

text:
????.

You can't do that with RRSPs.

If you contribute $2000 you have already had the benefit of a tax reduction
on that $2000.  Gains and losses inside are immaterial. You don't pay any
tax on a sale - only on a withdrawal. At the end, if you withdraw $4000 you
pay tax on $4000.

"Greg Goss" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
against


subject: Re: Maximum Amount In RRSP?

text:
"Mike Higgs" and "Alan T. Bowler" wrote

And half of those should be in inflation-protected securities.  I have
two different kinds of Canadian Government RRBs in mine.  (2026 whole
bond and 2021 strip).

An RRB adjusts automatically for inflation, and is quoted on the
interest rate it provides after inflation.  It can be really ugly on
the taxable side of your account.  I only hold these in the RRSP side.

The other half should be in protected-principal investments.  I don't
refer to these as "fixed income" because the income is completely
irrelevant, even a nuisance, to a youngster.  Is a strip bond a "fixed
income" investment?

I am not much of a fan of current bond rates.  I have the "protected
principal" quarter of my savings in various non-bond structured
products.  I have a small holding in TD GIC Plus which is a "bull
collar" on the TSX60, with the dividends disappearing as TD's
commission on the operation.  I have a larger holding in BDC's
"managed futures notes", which combine a 5% bond with a leveraged
market futures play, and pays out  at least 1% times eight years.

(The experts at the investments discussion board (where I earlier
discovered RRBs) are horrified at my use of these structured products.
They feel that protected-principal should be purely bonds, and that
I'm paying too much garnish to whoever sets these things up for me.  I
disagree, but neither of us have ever convinced the other.  Caveat
emptor.  I am not a financial products theorist, and the use of these
products is controversial.)


subject: Re: Maximum Amount In RRSP?

text:
"David Skene" <[email]> wrote:

Right.  $2000 plus $3000 minus $1000.  Equals $4000.

Please pay careful attention to that "minus $1000".  Isn't that what
we are talking about here?  I deduct the losses from the gains, and
pay taxes both on the result and on the original principal.

(And why are you top-posting?  I hate having to edit the discussion on
each response.)


author: egpowers

subject: 7 SWIFT Accidents in 15 days.

text:
Alright, I know I said I was going to stay away for a few, but this is
too good.

  The week of 12/9-12/13 there were three backing accidents involving
SWIFT drivers at one customer, including one in which the driver
ignored three people telling him to stop backing, instead he hit a 3
week old 53'  Great Dane trailer belonging to a small fleet contracted
with Ultimate Electronics, gouging the side of the trailer for 30ft,
and causing $10,000 in damage to the TV's inside the trailer, and
minor injuries to an employee inside the trailer.
  12/18/02 An OTR SWIFT driver doing local hostling for the local
SWIFT terminal was picking up a SWIFT trailer at the BNSF ramp.  The
driver backed into a loaded container parked behind the SWIFT trailer
with enough force to knock the landing gear out from under the
container.
  12/21-12/23  In the last three days there have been three more
accidents.  In one case, the driver was backing out of the fuel
island????, and backed into three delivery enroute Macks Vision
tractors.

  Somebody is not doing enough training.


author: Rodney Tomlinson

subject: Re: 7 SWIFT Accidents in 15 days.

text:
Oddly enough....

Drivers lounges at some Walmart DCs have accident reports on the bulletin
board....I recall one I read in Bentonville, AR.  They had 15 reports
stapled together on the board....12 of them were Swift.  2 involved other
carriers (dont remember which) and other one was involved a yard driver.
Most of them involved the driver getting under the trailer and pulling it
out with the fork lift driver inside...or trying to.

A Sams we deliver to in Knoxville, TN has a "Wall of Shame" at the receiving
office.  Pictures with drivers with load shifts...not just small
shifts....we're talking loose cases scattered all over the floor.  All
Swift.

Although no company that hires newbies are perfect, seems like Swift could
improve their training in that area....Unless they're told to maintain 60mph
in curves and intersections.....maybe to make up for lost time on the road?

Guess I cant talk too much though....

"egpowers" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


author: I C S

subject: Re: 7 SWIFT Accidents in 15 days.

text:
After doing some careful checking of these SWIFT drivers... all 7 of these
drivers were in fact trained by Karen ******* a.k.a. Karen47.
All 7 of these drivers had crew cuts or shorter.  All 7 of these drivers in
their accident reports stated they had seen a bald headed woman walk behind
their trailer.  They all stated that they had a sudden urge to run the woman
over and "mashed" the accelerator pedal to the floor while in reverse gear.
Coincidence?  I think not.  Even your former trainee's hate you Karen!

"egpowers" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


subject: Re: 7 SWIFT Accidents in 15 days.

text:
egpowers wrote:
___________________________________________

Yup, I opposed the 4 week training and no crew-cut policy. I trained for
a full 8 weeks and required crew-cuts. It oviously made a big
difference. By the way which terminal caused all this. Was it Gary ?
Karen Former Swift Trainer


subject: Re: 7 SWIFT Accidents in 15 days.

text:
"karen47" <[email]> wrote in message news:<3e07d772$[email]>...

  I know I'm going to hate myself for this.   Hmmm, crewcuts,
interesting, I'll remember to ask the women drivers at work, none of
whom have crewcuts, all have 10+ yrs exp., none have any tickets, and
only minor accidents, why they don't have crewcuts.  BTW, one of these
women is a former SWIFT driver, 6 years with SWIFT before she wisened
up and ran from the place screaming.  And no, this is in Denver,
Colo., and the driver that did the worst damage, "WAS" an OTR driver
based on the east coast.  Not the capital WAS.


author: Sean G.

subject: Re: 7 SWIFT Accidents in 15 days.

text:
"karen47" <[email]> wrote in message
news:3e07d772$[email]...

Yes it was the crew cuts that made the difference....

Christ....

*shakes head*


author: Lynne

subject: Re: 7 SWIFT Accidents in 15 days.

text:
OK, I never realized that a crew cut made a better driver.  Maybe it
keeps the brain from overheating?

trained for a full 8 weeks >> and required crew-cuts. It oviously made a


subject: Re: 7 SWIFT Accidents in 15 days.

text:
Why would your requiring crew cuts have prevented these accidents?
No suppositions or guesses... just facts with supporting documents will do
fine.
Your lack of a response will indicate you being a complete worthless pice of
dog meat.

A piece of dog meat is something that has not yet become dog shit.


author: shannon jones

subject: Re: 7 SWIFT Accidents in 15 days.

text:
How would you know, your just the one that sits at home while hubby drivers
"Lynne" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


subject: Re: 7 SWIFT Accidents in 15 days.

text:
I C S wrote:

A woman who is willing to get a crewcut before training shows a lot of
dedication and willingness to learn. Or as I would say, a very good
attitude. As a trainer, I always supervised any backing. No sleeping
while the trainee backs was my policy! This is a personal training
theory of mine. I had a excellant record as a trainer. To me my resuls
prove me correct, I have no need to prove it to you or anyone else for
that matter! Karen


subject: Re: 7 SWIFT Accidents in 15 days.

text:
So you're saying, as a driver, that crew cuts improve driving?

BTW, not that it matters, but I don't "sit at home" I work full time.


author: John Smith for example

subject: Re: 7 SWIFT Accidents in 15 days.

text:
"karen47" <[email]> wrote in message
news:3e080384$[email]...

When will you learn? Length of one's hari has nothing to do with education.
that is your personal feeling and never never never demand it of someone
else.
that's probably why swift kicked your ass out.
as you say, it's difficult to find a lady trainer and you want every bitch
who trains with you to go bald?
Walt Disney had a policy that holds true even today.
Men could not sport a beard or a mustache.
Yet he always had a mustache.
As one recruiter at my school put it, "We don't care what your hair length
is, the truck gets there the same".
And having been on the road for almost a year now, haven't you noticed that
the truck doesn't give a damn either?
Continue this attitude of yours, and you'll soon be out of the industry
altogether.
You might have to go into dispatching. Heaven forbid.


author: MikeyT

subject: Re: 7 SWIFT Accidents in 15 days.

text:
On 24 Dec 2002 01:49:40 -0500, "karen47" <[email]>
wrote these profound words:

------------------------------------------------------------
*WARNING*  *WARNING* *WARNING*

JillBWAS, Karen47 (Karen Company Driver) Beatrus Swarm, and Elmer Are
all the same person!  This is a prankster who deliberately gives
people false and mis-leading information.  It is unclear why this
person does this, or who this person actually is, but he/it seems to
prey on newbies.

Anything said by the above named *people* should be taken with a grain
of salt.  For your own verification, simply keyword search in
google.com group section:

http://www.google.com/grphp

And look up BWAS as your keyword, or:
 JillBWAS, Elmerandlinda or even karen47.
 Read some of the past postings and replies before taking anything
they say seriously, I encourage you to use your own judgement.

Things that Elmer and his many sock puppets have done in this group:

1. The biggest thing is the lies he/it spreads about Swift
Transportation.  Verifiable information disputing the outlandish
claims by this person are routinely ignored, logic questions go
unanswered as well.

2. Claims to have become a trainer with above mentioned company in 6
months and claims that he/it can make close to or above 80K.  Several
CREDIBLE posters have disputed this with actual facts, examples and
math, yet the reality of it is ignored.

3.  Encourages the use of "creative logging".  Makes up things like
"Log hours vs actual hours".  This in and of itself can be DEADLY to a
newbie who accidentally reads this garbage and thinks this is a real
truck driver giving the advice and takes it serious.  Reason being is
with this thing's system you will grossly violate HOS (hours of
service).

4.  Made up a phoney feminist organization called BWAS.  Claims to
recruit woman convicts, shave their heads, tell them that they are
superior to all men, and that there is no such thing as a woman felon!
Among the outrageous claims is that men are ONLY good enough to be
servants of woman.  All crimes woman are convicted of are a direct
result of men. (I am not making this up, do your newsgroup searchs,
this one's a real wacko!).

5.  The organization was recently proven to be a fabrication (big
surprise) when Elmer slipped up and claimed ownership of bwas.org.  I
did an internic whois and wrote the real owner of it, who naturally
never heard of them.  Then he claims the deal fell through.  Well, if
someone "never heard of you" than they obviously made no deal at all,
not even one that fell through.

There is simply too much crap to list it all here, this list is not
complete, but is just a primer for you to make your own decision.

The REASON for this FAQ on Q-BALL is to WARN you not to take Elmer the
Q-Ball and his many sock-puppets seriously.  Every single thing said
above is verifiable by searching this newsgroup.  PLEASE research this
BEFORE you consider believing a single word they/it say!

Safe trucking!

MikeyT

No matter where you go, there you are...


subject: Re: 7 SWIFT Accidents in 15 days.

text:
Your right, my haircut policy along with changing from a 8 week training
peroid to a 4 week peroid is why Swift and I parted ways. On the other
hand I had the best training completion records in the company. My
policies worked! Karen
________________________________________


subject: Why are convertible funds so down? Bonds?  Amazing

text:
Why are convertible funds so down?  CVF, BCF, CHY to name a few.  I
know about "busted convertibles" and all that, but this phenomena can
be seen with hybrid stock-bond funds too (NCBIX which is 60% bonds,
40% stocks, is almost as far down as the DJ30, -25% vs. -37% ytd).

It's bizarre.  All the 'traditional' bear market tools are not
working, even gold.

Everything goes down.

I once saw this in reference to LTCM in 1998--they say during a bear
market crisis 'meltdown' the various financial elements, stocks,
bonds, cash, normally distinct, become like "plasma" in physics and
start to merge into one amorphous state that acts the same, and just
goes down.  Even money market funds broke the buck in this crisis.

So much for continuous mathematics financial engineering.

RL


author: BuffetHater

subject: Re: Why are convertible funds so down? Bonds? Amazing

text:
Same as 'safe haven stocks', ends up being bullsh*t the talking heads
spew.   KO and MCD are going to react badly as people become less
prone to spend.
And in the midst of it all the USD takes off powered on below
inflation
rates of return.

China is taking a beating and not a single stock tout is talking about
how
china dumping N.American securities and bonds will play out.   China
stocks down another 12%.   China holds half a trillion of US debt and
they are expected to dole out the cash going into all those bailouts.

The stable, surplus generating Canadian buck is down 33% from its
summer highs VS the US$.   In this fear driven market, nothing makes
sense.   I closed out 3/4 of my short stuff and only have 1,000 shares
of the SRS.   That may end up sold off by days end.


author: Mr Bubble

subject: Re: Why are convertible funds so down? Bonds?  Amazing

text:
raylopez99 <[email]> wrote in news:829de3dd-9b63-41f9-a2be-
[email]:

 This hedge fund manager, Busson, mentioned Convertible Market dryup in
Hedgeworld in an article about the damage done by the Short Selling ban
shortly ago...  the ban is lifted now but maybe it had some lingering
effect  ?

======

EIM's Busson Says Short Ban, Lehman Collapse Made Crisis Worse
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601087
&sid=aNklLVEVFejc&refer=home

Convertible Bonds

Bans against the practice have crippled convertible arbitrage, a
traditional hedge-fund strategy in which an investor buys a convertible
bond and shorts the underlying stock.

``One of the ways that companies finance themselves is through
convertible bonds,'' Busson said. ``The ban on short selling has
completely stopped the convertible market.''

Global sales of equity-linked securities totaled $42 million from Sept.
15 to Sept. 30, compared with $3.2 billion in the same period a year
earlier, according to Bloomberg data.

The short selling ban hasn't stopped the decline in bank stocks. An index
of the 34 U.K. financial stocks on the banned list has fallen 22 percent
since Sept. 19, compared with an 18 percent drop for the FTSE 100 Index
of the largest U.K. companies and 10 percent for the FTSE All-Share
Index.

``If short selling isn't available, your position in the market becomes a
lot more vulnerable,'' said Antonio Borges, head of the Hedge Fund
Standards Board, a London-based industry group, and a former vice
chairman at Goldman Sachs International. ``Without short selling, many
investors simply withdraw from the market, which is extremely
detrimental.''


author: Lubow

text:
To compare convertible bond funds (which by now should really be junk or
near-junk bond funds) go to

http://www.etfconnect.com/

I'd wait at least until March before putting new money into corporate
securities.  Give the market time to sell off an Obama presidency.

"BuffetHater" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


author: Cedric Johnson

subject: Re: Memory Blow-out!

text:
If you still have some 4mb sims available, I would be interested in two
for my 7100/80.  As the posting states, they are 70ns 4mb 72pin simms.
I need two.  Can you ship COD via post office.  I will pay the COD cost.

E-mail me if possible.

Cedric


author: richard

subject: Unbelievable and caught on video tape

text:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xlSFenzYOvQ&feature=related

An alert trucker snares a bad guy for the good guys.
Hollywood couldn't have scripted it any better.


author: Rocky

subject: Re: Unbelievable and caught on video tape

text:
"richard" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Yes, you posted great information earlier today but this is far more
"Unbelievable and caught on video tape" than your video:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PWgSaBT9hNU

and don't forget that the jets used for the "Unbelievable and caught on
video tape" contained incendiary devices:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Incendiary_device
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=huK0MAb0Xa4

Rocky


text:
On Sun, 7 Nov 2010 12:00:16 -0600, Rocky wrote:

If you really want an eerie prediction try this one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-D58LDbpp8k&NR=1&feature=fvwp


author: realitytrucker

text:
On Nov 7, 12:00 pm, "Rocky" <[email]> wrote:

In other words..."Mine's better".


text:
"richard" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

Yes that was interesting but that is not a prediction if Bush and Cheney got
their idea from there.

FYI there were too many things that made it 9-11 look like an inside job
from the very first day it made the news and I'm convinced of that now more
than ever.

Rocky


author: Douglas W. "Popeye" Frederick

text:
"Rocky" <[email]> wrote

  But you're convinced you're a truck driver, too.


author: Lance R Apple

subject: Re: Advent Subwoofer systems $25

text:
still haven't received speakers paid $29 on 8/3  so watch out !!
Steve Thompson <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
color. $5


author: Robert Cote

subject: Re: Porto's Light Railway website

text:
In article <[email]>,
 Hans-Joachim Zierke <[email]> wrote:

[among many errors also said;]
...

Debian for sure an excellent as I use MT-NewsWatcher/3.4 (PPC Mac OS X)
but I also notice your interesting header content:

   "X-Copyright: Alle Rechte beim Autor."

No.  You might wish it so (I agree) but the act of posting wipes out
almost all these legitimate rights regardless of your stated wishes.

Such is life.


author: Martin Edwards

subject: Re: Porto's Light Railway website

text:
Robert Cote wrote:

A picturesque German analogue is, "Das Leben is maaslos traurig".


subject: Re: Porto's Light Railway website

text:
In article <di0pk9$8c1$[email]>,
 Martin Edwards <[email]> wrote:

I resisted "that's the way the cookie crumbles" given the context.


author: Jovy Banaag

subject: Green Card Question

text:
I am on an H1-B visa and my wife has an H4. We've been here in the US for
close to 4 years now and have a 2 & a half year old girl. She was born here.
My company is currently sponsoring the processing of my green card. I was
just wondering if there is an advantage of having a child that was born here
in the US as I have no idea. Any help would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks,
jovy

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----


author: Sylvia Ottemoeller

subject: Re: Green Card Question

text:
Jovy Banaag wrote:

What kind of advantage were you thinking of?

The existence of a U.S. citizen child is essentially
irrelevant to your employment-based permanent resident
process.

Of course, if any form asks for information about your
children, information about her is to be included.


author: Joachim Feise

subject: Re: Green Card Question

text:
On Thu, 11 Jul 2002, Jovy Banaag wrote:

No. A US citizen child does not provide you with any immigration benefit
until the child is 21.
Once the child turns 21, he or she could sponsor the parents for a GC.

-Joe


subject: Re: Green Card Question

text:
Thanks for the info.

"Sylvia Ottemoeller" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
for
here.
was
here

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----


subject: Re: Green Card Question

text:
Oh, OK. Thanks for the info.

"Joachim Feise" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
for
here.
was
here

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----


author: H. Williams

subject: Window Law Software

text: Anyone know of an good legal case managing software for Windows?


author: Keith Nummela

subject: Re: Window Law Software

text:
In article <[email]>, [email] (H. Williams) says:

IdeaLaw is a law package developed for MS-DOS, MS-Windows, or SCO Unix.
Call The Ideal Computer Group at (604) 298-9077 for more information.


author: Gilles Dignard

subject: Re: Window Law Software

text:
Amicus by Gavel & Gown Software is an excellent one. (905) 847-7515

----------------------
####      /\      ####  Gilles Dignard - [email]
####  ]\/\  /\/[  ####
####  \ \    / /  ####  I loathe people who keep dogs. They are cowards
####  /--------\  ####  who haven't got the guts to bite people
themselves.
####      ][      ####           -- August Strindberg
----------------------


subject: Fire House Building Plans

text:
We're a small VFD in Northern California planning to build our first
firehouse.  We've sketched out a 60' x 80' building with three bays.  We
also want room for community meetings and storage for Office of Emergency
Services equipment in case we are cut off from highways, etc.  Anyone been
through this type of planning and have suggestions or plans?  Or do you
have a firehouse and wish it was different in some ways that might help
us?  Thanks, Ken


author: Larry Girard

subject: Re: Fire House Building Plans

text:
KJC1122 <[email]> writes:

You will never have enough room.  We have a 50 x 50 truck barn, a 40 x 100
building for social functions (which we rent out) and an old barn for the
things we don't need right now but don't want to get rid of (like our 1929
Sanford Pumper).  The truck barn has two double doors, and we have two bays
running two deep, with a john and work area as well.  That's six apparatus,
and if we got a fly car, I'm not sure where we'd put it. I'll second the
seperate building (or at least the extra entrance - check codes - you may need
several)  Look well ahead - if you are going to have public social functions,
you may eventually need the ability to handle alchololic beverages, and more
kitchen than a household 4-burner stove.  Even if you aren't in the position
to get all that equipment now, leave room.  If you're concerned about being
cut off from the rest of the world, the shelter angle has merit.  Have you
thought about a locker room with shower?  Mens and Ladie"loos"?
And for God's sake, spend the few extra bucks and install sprinklers.  Makes
a good example.  If you're far enough north to worry about snow, consider
heating the floor itself.  Along withthe drains, that will help thaw out your
apparatus faster than anything else (and I have thawed apparatus...)

Good luck!

       _____      _____         +-----------------------------------------+
      /     \____/     \____    |  Larry Girard     [email]   |
     |       |   \   __/    \   |    "Tree"    [email] |
      \     / ()  |    \  __/   |                                         |
       |   |    -<   __/    \   |  Firefighter/EMT (Basic), Depauville VFD|
       |   | |   |     \  __/   |  Depauville, Jefferson County, New York |
        \_/  |   |_____/    \   |  ARC CPR/First Aid Instructor           |
         \__/ \_/     \_____/   |  Commissioner (Chairman),               |
                                |               Depauville Fire District  |
   Theatre people are said to   |  Secretary, Jefferson County EMS Council|
   have greasepaint in their    |  Fire Prevention Committee,             |
   blood.  That explains fire-  |   Jefferson Co. Vol Firefighter & Chiefs|
   fighters, I guess...  =-}    +-----------------------------------------+
<-


author: Margaret F Riley

subject: Re: Fire House Building Plans

text:
In article <30q9um$[email]> [email] (KJC1122) writes:

I've never done this type of planning, but may I make a suggestion?
If you want space for community meetings, it could either be in a nicely
done basement or in a separate room off the house, but either way you
want it to have a separate access door so that you don't have to open
the whole station.   This could probably also double as a shelter during
emergencies, so maybe a small kitchen area would be good and rest rooms.
Back in Muncy, PA, you could rent this space for private parties, etc.,
so some money came into the dept. for equipment and other needs.

Just a thought.

Margaret Riley
[email]


author: Daryl Jones

subject: Re: Fire House Building Plans

text:
KJC1122 ([email]) wrote:
: We're a small VFD in Northern California planning to build our first
: firehouse.  We've sketched out a 60' x 80' building with three bays.  We
: also want room for community meetings and storage for Office of Emergency
: Services equipment in case we are cut off from highways, etc.  Anyone been
: through this type of planning and have suggestions or plans?  Or do you
: have a firehouse and wish it was different in some ways that might help
: us?  Thanks, Ken

This architectural firm has significant experience in fire station design.
We frequently work with them on public-safety telecommunications issues.

	Group 4 Architecture, Research & Planning
	301 Linden Avenue
	South San Francisco, CA 94080
	Ph: 415/871-0709


author: Bill Moore

subject: Re: Fire House Building Plans

text:
I'm with a small VFD in North Idaho. Our building is about the same
as the one you're contemplating, and it has some short comings tha
maybe you can overcome with proper planning.

o Make sure you have an apparatus door for every truck, with electric openers.
o Plan for expansion ... you will get bigger.
o Have a hydrant on your property with good water flow for training.
o Allow sufficient room for hanging turnouts, and room to have at least
  half of your personel putting them on at once. Preferably out of view
  of the public in case you need to remove good street cloths before
  putting on dirty fire cloths.
o Possibly plan for a hose druing tower.
o Use the cheapest form of heating possible. Also, install ceiling
  fans to get the warmed air down where it'll do more good.
o Install some kind of warning light at the entrance to the public
  road so if you're responding to something, oncoming traffic will
  be warned.
o Provide for electric and air for each vehicle that needs it.
o How about a sink and clean-up area in the truck bays. Saves getting
  your rest-rooms all gunked up.
o Watch your slope when putting in the foundation. Outside training, or
  a heavy rain may cause standing water. Also, include a good healthy
  drain on the apparatus floor: fire trucks always seem to 'seep'.

Hope these help!


author: Jim

subject: Re: Scam Alert: Avoid An Incredible Scam to Steal *Millions* of Dollars!

text:
This is INCREDIBLE!!

It's not a scam "alert," it's the scam itself!!!  This joker is
selling information about how to avoid scams.  At least he's
telling the truth, that it is unbelievable.

FWIW, the URL sends you toa n ad-page that gives a blurb on
what's called "the Nigerian letter scheme," which is a twist
on the pigeon-drop.

I remember the Nigerian floppy-disk scheme of the 1980s.  Anybody
else see that one?


author: Hand Therapy

subject: Hand Function

text:
I am now doing final year project on hand function evaluation, and i
hope to know what is the relationship between chopstick manipulation,
hand muscle strength and dexterity ? and why ?

Thank you !!


author: susanne

subject: Re: Hand Function

text:
Hand Therapy <[email]> skrev i meddelelsen
<[email]>...
manipulation,

And you chose to post your question here because????????????

susanne.dk

(Who's now very puzzled with the thought of what happens to a chinese
person who sustains a SCI of say C5/C6. But I guess they do hand out
forks and spoons as special equipment?)


author: tony auer

subject: Re: Hand Function

text:
Huh? What? At first I thought this was some nut trolling but it looks like
the sender's from Hong Kong. If you're a c5-6 quad and need to feed yourself
with chopsticks, then you will starve to death with a great big pile of
spilled rice under your wheelchair. Unless, of course, you're bright enough
to ask for a spoon or fork.

Umm, what 'final year' are you in?

"Hand Therapy" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...


subject: Re: Hand Function

text:
tony auer skrev i meddelelsen ...

Hmm.. Maybe we should lend the man a hand then:

Try this newsgroup instead:

misc.health.therapy.occupational

(for and by occupational therapists - also hand therapists)

susanne


author: Chris

subject: Audio Adventures

text:
I got a letter from Audio Adventures yesterday....and they gave me a
lifetime membership card.  I thought that was nice of them.  Maybe I did
something right......like turning the books in on time.....or maybe I just
rented enough of the darn things last year.  Funny.... I never even listened
to books on tape until last year....I saw a title that I was very interested
in....I signed up....and got addicted to it.  Helps to pass the time....and
the miles just slip by when you get a good one.  As far as I know I think
the rental fee's would fall under a tax deduction for entertainment purposes
while OTR......no ?

Chris


author: George Washington

subject: Re: Audio Adventures

text:
"Chris" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
listened
interested
time....and
purposes

If you can do that, can you write off the expenditures on a lot lizard for
entertainment purposes?


author: informant

subject: Re: Audio Adventures

text:
"George Washington" <[email]> wrote in message
news:3c80352b$0$56604$[email]...
just
think

You have to have a job before you can write off expenses. And even lot
lizards have standards.


author: Paulo Joe Jingy

subject: OT -- Yeah?--well, what did they know!

text:
"Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the
nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those
conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and
refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by
convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God  for the
better sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception."
    -- Mark Twain (1916)

"To announce that there must be no criticism of the President,
or that we are to stand by the President, right or wrong, is not only
unpatriotic and servile, but is morally treasonable to the American
Public."
    --Former Republican President Theodore Roosevelt, in challenge to
President Woodrow Wilson's crackdown on dissent following America's
entry into World War I (1918)


author: Joe Myers

subject: Re: OT -- Yeah?--well, what did they know!

text:
"Paulo Joe Jingy" <[email]> wrote

[snip]

Pretty neat trick for Twain, since he died in 1910.

Joe Myers
"Halley's Comet, ya know?"


text:
except today. there is now massive evidence
that the president was correct to take down iraq
and the troops find more reasons everyday

there are a couple a hundred thousand people in iraq seeing this
evidence with their own eyes, telling their families when they return
and then on to their extended families

all categorically disproving the Left, completely, absolutely

each Leftist rant to the contrary, draws them further from reality
dooming them to oblivion politically and socially

check susan sarandons latest numbers for the social climate
these people are now radioactive

"Paulo Joe Jingy" <[email]> wrote in message
news:b83prd$5trvm$[email]...


author: MC

text:
In article <HOepa.592$[email]>,
 "Joe Myers" <[email]> wrote:

He flashed forwarrd and killed kist grandson, and while he was waiting
to be picked up for the return journey, dashed off a couple of bons
mots.


text:
Joe Myers wrote:

The Mysterious Stranger; A Romance by Mark Twain [pseud.] with
illustrations by N.C. Wyeth.
Twain, Mark, 1835-1910
Illustrator N.C. Wyeth

Creation of machine-readable version: The Naked Word

Conversion to TEI.2-conformant markup: University of Virginia Library
Electronic Text Center. ca. 210 kilobytes This version available from
the University of Virginia Library Charlottesville, Virginia

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/modeng/modengT.browse.html

Twain, Mark, 1835-1910
Illustrator N.C. Wyeth [3] l., 150, [1] p. col. front., col. plates. 24 cm.
Harper & Brothers
New York, London
1916
Source copy consulted: PS 1322 .M97 1916, Special Collections, Alderman
Library, University of Virginia

Published: 1916

http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=TwaMyst.sgm&images=images/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=teiHeader

See Chapter 9


author: RonB

text:
Joe Myers wrote:

Here's the quote in context with the correct date:

...
The loud little handful--as usual--will shout for the war. The pulpit
will--warily and cautiously--object--at first; the great, big, dull bulk
of the nation will rub its sleepy eyes and try to make out why there
should be a war, and will say, earnestly and indignantly, 'It is unjust
and dishonorable, and there is no necessity for it.'

Then the handful will shout louder. A few fair men on the other side
will argue and reason against the war with speech and pen, and at first
will have a hearing and be applauded; but it will not last long; those
others will outshout them, and presently the anti-war audiences will
thin out and lose popularity.

Before long you will see this curious thing: the speakers stoned from
the platform, and free speech strangled by hordes of furious men who in
their secret hearts are still at one with those stoned speakers--as
earlier--but do not dare to say so. And now the whole nation--pulpit and
all--will take up the war-cry, and shout itself hoarse, and mob any
honest man who ventures to open his mouth; and presently such mouths
will cease to open.

Next the statesmen will invent cheap lies, putting the blame upon the
nation that is attacked, and every man will be glad of those
conscience-soothing falsities, and will diligently study them, and
refuse to examine any refutations of them; and thus he will by and by
convince himself that the war is just, and will thank God for the better
sleep he enjoys after this process of grotesque self-deception.

Mark Twain, "The Mysterious Stranger," 1910
...


text:
Figured it was something like that...a posthumous publishing of earlier
writing.

There's a lot of significance, though, if the cited quotes come within the
Great World War.  Clearly, Twain's observation didn't.  It would be
interesting to know exactly when he wrote it and why he never saw fit to
publish it during his lifetime.

Joe Myers
"He did have a good excuse
   for missing the deadline."

"Paulo Joe Jingy" <[email]> wrote in message
news:b84ald$65srq$[email]...
cm.
http://etext.lib.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=TwaMyst.sgm&images=image
s/modeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public&part=teiHeader


author: WRabkin

text:
That is a powerful and brilliant piece of writing, as true now as it was then.
Thank you for posting it.


author: Jonathan Mau

subject: Pulling fence staples from old posts

text:
Hello People:

I am only changing 2 more posts so this is more along the lines of how to
do it easier next time.

I am changing some old posts where a new electric fence is being put
around the orchard.  I figure no point leaving the old rotters because
then I'll have to take down the electric fence wires to change them 5
years from now when they finally do fall over.  The problem is that
digging the staples out is a PITA.  The claw of the hammer has to go
around the staple such that the pull is balanced with one prong under the
fence wire on both sides of the staple, otherwise one just gets bent wire.
 To get the claw under the fence wire, I have to dig out under the wires,
a major nuisance.  I havn't found anything better than my chainsaw tool
for doing this- basically a screwdriver with a tee handle.

So assuming I don't want to cut and replace the fence wire, how can one
do this easier?  The last 2 posts I did had a good 2 dozen staples (why???
when about 8 would do) and they must have taken me close to an hour each.
 The only thing I can think of is a special vice grip like tool, but I
doubt that would work for the grip of a rusty staple in rotting cedar is
most amazing.

Jonathan


author: Stu

subject: Re: Pulling fence staples from old posts

text:
On 5 May 2005 20:25:18 GMT, [email] (Jonathan
Mau)wrote:

There is a tool especially for this:
http://tinyurl.com/d2o27


author: Don Bruder

text:
In article <d5dvfe$qo3$[email]>,
 [email] (Jonathan Mau) wrote:

You need an article called (amazingly enough) "fence pliers" - It's a
funky-shaped, "multi-tool" looking thing that's based on a pair of
pliers. It has a spike on one side, a hammer head on the other, and
multiple gripping surfaces (including one specifically designed for
grabbing fence staples) in the "pliers" part, plus (usually) two
different flavors of wire cutter. Get it for somewhere between 10 and 20
dollars from any decent place that sells fencing supplies/equipment -
Any farm place or co-op worth the name will have them. Our local
"Country Post" (formerly Fiskos) has them always available, for about
$15. Or look here: <http://www.hooverfence.com/tools/fence-pliers.htm>
(No connection - just the first place google found that had a picture of
them) The ones you want from this place are the bottom image, labeled
"2T-1900". Looks like this outfit sells 'em for $17 and change - It's a
fair price, if a tad higher than I can get them locally.

Once you've got it, you "spear" under the staple/fence wire with the
"spike" side, rock it far enough to start pulling the staple, then grab
the staple with the first notch of the pliers and rock the it out the
rest of the way. 15 seconds or less per staple isn't unusual.

Once you get the hang of using them, they make short work of pulling,
replacing, stretching, splicing, and just-about-everything-else-ing wire
fence.


author: Peter Huebner

text:
In article <d5dvfe$qo3$[email]>, [email]
says...

Others have mentioned fencing pliers (the best are made by Crescent,
b.t.w.) but if you want to go the whole hog you can get a Hayes EZE Pull
tool - in effect a luxury edition of the fencing pliers that was
invented by a New Zealand farmer some 10 or 15 years ago. I easily found
shops selling it by googling, for instance:

http://www.kencove.com/ShopItems.php?cat=Tools

Gotta scroll down a bit. It's expensive (we have to pay NZ$200 which is
around 140 US$ ) but i.mo.o. worth every cent of it. Particularly if you
have miles of fence to maintain or replace :-) No way would I want to go
back to the old style ones ...
It has Alu handles for weight, the head is HT hardened steel, it has a
geared action and self-locks in the closed position so you can
concentrate on pulling the staples instead of having to put power into
gripping them at the same time. Furthermore the nose that it rolls over
is wide and flat so it doesn't cut into the timber - hence it pulls
easier and quicker. The longer handles help, too. I've had mine for
about 8-9 years and the cutting edges don't even show a nick yet ...

I can beat 3 helpers working with conventional fencing pliers and barely
break a sweat :-) but I am pretty fast any-old-way (I like to get back
to my armchair as quickly as possible).

-Peter


author: Harry K

text:
Jonathan Mau wrote:
how to
because
the
wire.
wires,
tool
one
(why???
each.
I
is

Although I have used the 'fencing pliers' ref'd in othe posts, I prefer
my tools.  1 standard 22 oz hammer (for driving staples, etc.), fence
pliers I have used/seen are too light for driving. and a flush cutting
end nippers to pull with.  The flush cutters can get a grip with one
corner of them on any staple that hasn't been fully buried in the wood,
rock a bit to start the staple, take another bite and it is out.

Harry K


text:
Hi Don and others:

OK, this looks sensible.  Too bad I didn't see it at the 3 or so places I
have shopped in for electric fence parts.  Maybe thats the problem, they
aren't used on electric fences.

I'll keep my eyes out for one of these for there will be more fence work
in my future, just not this year (hopefully!).

Thanks

Jonathan


author: Anne Marie

subject: Drinking while prego

text:
Hello all. I have a question for everyone. what do you think about
pregnant women drinking?  My sister keeps on telling me that its ok to
have a glass of wine. Do you really believe that 2 glasses is ok but 5
isn't? Personally, i am not ok with that and i will do not drink. My
sister told me that he doc told her to ( i am taking that comment with a
grain of salt). What have you'll heard?.. Or what are your thoughts...

Take care,

AnneMaire


author: Rupert

subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
Anne Marie <[email]> wrote in message news:<[email]>...

Alcohol in even small amounts definately is not good for the baby, and
it may be slightly harmful, so why drink any alcohol?


author: lea-b

subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
[email] says...

I would have a glass of wine every night with a meal, after work, or
while cooking before PG.  Sometimes, two.

Now I will have 1 on a Friday night when we normally have a meal out,
and sometimes one mid-week when cooking and I really wanted one.  Not a
large glass, mind you - and often only a few sips would be nice.

My doc says a glass or two every now & again is fine.


author: Donna

subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
"Anne Marie" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

My understanding is that the current acceptable standards in the US (and I
think in western Europe, but I don't have a cite for that) is that one to
two glasses, once or twice a week is acceptable.

Donna


author: Sophie

subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
"Anne Marie" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I personally don't drink when I'm pregnant.  I'm not a drinker when I'm not
pregnant either.  I don't think an occasional drink would do any harm
though.  But if you don't feel comfortable doing it, don't.

Sophie
#4 due 7/18/04


author: Ericka Kammerer

subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
Anne Marie wrote:

	It's always a hotbed of contention.  In much of
Europe (unless it's changed fairly recently) very moderate
drinking was considered absolutely okay.  In the US, we
tend to take far more dogmatic stances on just about
everything, partly because public policy makers think
we're stupid or undisciplined and that if they say *any*
drinking is okay, we'll just blow right past moderate
drinking into binge drinking with no reserve whatsoever.
NO ONE has EVER found any serious problems resulting
from moderate drinking (e.g., on the other of a drink
or two a week, no more than one drink at a time).  That
said, there have been a few studies that have shown
some minor differences even with moderate drinking
(e.g., babies responding slightly differently to a
buzzer or things like that).  These have to be taken
with a bit of a grain of salt, though.  There are
frequently huge reporting errors with studies of drinking.
*Everyone* knows you're not supposed to drink (or drink
much) while pregnant, so there's a strong underreporting
bias.  Studies showing effects resulting from "moderate"
drinking may really be showing effects from more
significant drinking.

	Personally, I'd drop dead of shock if anyone
could ever find a problem with drinking on the order
of, say, a glass of champagne at a wedding once or
twice during pregnancy.  I wouldn't recommend drinking
regularly.  Drinking frequently and binge drinking (even
if the binges are rare) are definitely problems.

Best wishes,
Ericka


author: Daye

subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
On Wed, 10 Dec 2003 18:20:02 -0700, Anne Marie
<[email]> wrote:

The recommendation in Australia is no more than 5 standard drinks a
week, and never 2 in a row.  So according to the Australian
guidelines, your sister is correct.  It is okay to have a glass a
wine.

However, if you don't feel safe having a drink, don't.  I haven't had
any alcohol in this pregnancy.  I know that I can have a drink, but I
don't want to take the risk.


author: Leanne

subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
Your sister is right according to standards. Drinking though, is a personal
choice. If you don't feel comfortable drinking just tell people that.

I've never been much of a drinker myself so I dont find missing out on
alcohol is a huge thing during pregnany... if i drink... which is like never
anyways, even when not pregnant, i drink to get drunk... not because i like
the taste ;) Maybe it will change when i get older :)

Leanne
EDD: 23rd April 2004, expecting a boy!


author: *Kristi*

subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
"Anne Marie" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I work at a wine shop and we get a lot of informational pamphlets and the
such. In one of them, it says "Pregnant women who drink wine lightly or
moderately actually have larger babies than abstainers." I don't have
scientific proof of this, as it's just on a wine facts list with no
references. There's a lot of neat things about wine on the list. For
example: In dilutions as little as 5% wine in water will kill most viruses
including Polio, Cold Viruses, Influenza, Hepatitus A&B, and Cockasacki
viruses. Also no known human pathogen ( germ that produces disease) can live
in wine. I'm not going to test it, but it's possible that if this info is
correct, drinking a glass of wine a day can help prevent you from getting
the flu. It's amazing stuff! I miss it, but I don't want to take the chance
that I could hurt my baby. I've had a sip of DH's beer but that's about it.
Kristi
EDD#1  June 14, 2004


author: alissa

subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
"Anne Marie" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

One of my friends was told the same thing and had the odd glass of wine
throughout her pregnancies.
I personally would rather not just incase, I even feel bad if I have to take
a panadol (parecetamol) even though they say its safe. I try to minimise
exposure to any substance including not using fly sprays, bleach and smelly
cleaning products, air freshener etc esp in the first trimester.
Alissa


author: Naomi Pardue

subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
Well... from a practical standpoint, why shouldn't that be true.  Alcohol is a
drug.  Like all drugs, the more you take, the greater the risk of harm from
using it.

I have seen little evidence to suggest that an occassional drink will do the
slightest harm to the developing baby. (Historically, women have used alcohol
in moderation for milennia, and there has NOT been an epidemic of babies born
with FAS.)

Which is, of course, your choice.  Nobody should be required to use alcohol (or
any other drug), if they do not choose to do so.  If you'd rather not drink,
for any reason, don't.

Her doctor told her to drink?  Or her doctor told her that if she chose to have
a drink or two on occassion, it was not likely to be harmful? The fomer seems
unlikely (since I can't imagine any doctor telling a patient, pregnant or not
that she SHOULD drink alcohol). The latter is entirely possible. IMO, the
'abstinance only' attitude towards alcohol in pregnancy is something of an
over-reaction. (Perhaps because they figure that some women, if they hear that
"an occassional drink is ok", will assume that that means it's ok to polish off
a bottle of wine, or a six-pack every night, or every Saturday.)

Naomi
CAPPA Certified Lactation Educator

(either remove spamblock or change address to [email] to e-mail
reply.)


author: Denise

subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
"Anne Marie" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

I've had a couple glasses of wine in most of my pregnancies.  I had half a
glass the other night at my husband's ship's Xmas party.  I think if you
don't feel comfortable with it, you shouldn't do it, as with most stuff in
pregnancy.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----


subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
Rupert wrote:

	It's a matter of balance.  There are many, many
things which might possibly be harmful.  Sitting too long
isn't good.  Stress isn't good.  Empty calories aren't
good.  Sitting in traffic with exhaust fumes isn't good.
I'm sure the list could go on and on, and that's even
before we get to the list of things one *ought* to do
to be healthier.  The bottom line is that you can't do
everything that just *might* have some impact on the
baby, and you'll kill yourself if you try.  There are
plenty of things *proven* to be problematic.  Why not
start there?  After that, if you want to move on to
totally eliminating every drop of alcohol in your
life, well, go right ahead.  There's certainly no
need for anyone to consume alcohol during pregnancy--
for some of us, that's no change from non-pregnant
life and hence no biggie! ;-)  But for those who
really enjoy a little glass of wine now and again,
assuming it's done in moderation, there is only
the flimsiest evidence that it makes any difference
at all.  Why ride people about it?  There's more
evidence of harm for, say, epidurals.  Wanna tell
everyone they can't have those too?  Or maybe we should
stick to allowing individuals to weigh their personal
situations and make their own decisions within
reasonable parameters when the risk/benefit ratio
can be a close call.

Best wishes,
Ericka


subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
"Donna" <[email]> wrote in message

Eh.. Probably not in the US.  At least not socially acceptable, anyway.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----


author: Deirdre

subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
Pardon the top posting --

FWIW, a great many THOU SHALT NOTs issued toward pregnant women seem to be
geared as Ericka characterizes, IMO.  As if the powers that be believe that
in order to protect their own liability (understandably so), it's better to
issue categorical prohibitions than assume people can understand and
responsibly exercise "moderation".  Throughout my pregnancy, I've tried to
remember (when tempted to panic) that women have been having babies for
thousands of years, up to & including the last 100 years, when our access to
damaging substances was at it's highest & our understanding of those
substances was at it's lowest.  Now, don't misconstrue -- I'm not advocating
getting ripped every night and smoking 3 packs a day while sniffing glue,
but by the same token, occasional exposure to any number of undesirable
influences hasn't exactly been killing babies in job lots either.  Women
that launch into a full scale panic when peripherally exposed to, say, small
amounts of alcohol, are doing themselves and their babies a disservice by
virtue of increased stress levels, I think.  I recall reading on another
newsgroup about a woman that was *convinced* that the smoke from her
neighbor's cigarettes (smoked outside, and potentially floating through her
windows) would somehow hurt her unborn baby & she was considering asking
said neighbor to refrain from smoking outside <eye roll>.   Clearly, none of
the posters here are quite this hysterical, and I don't mean to imply as
much.
Point of this jabbering is that unless we're talking about something like
heroin or crack, I doubt that an occasional drink, or drag off a cigarette
is going to affect a fetus at all.  Not that I'm any kind of prime example,
but for comparison's sake, my mother's OB never told her to avoid anything.
She smoked a pack a day, drank vodka tonics every night, even took diet
pills, of all things, and I turned out just fine.  So -- even at the seeming
worst, the human body has an amazing ability to protect a developing baby
and we'll do well to remember that as we pour over our list of 65,428 things
to worry about while pregnant.

</rant>


author: Linz

subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 17:12:54 +1100, Daye <[email]> wrote:

And here in the UK it's pretty similar - one to two units, once or
twice a week.

I had the occasional drink, partook of sherry trifle, had a glass of
champagne when a friend's baby was born, and had a swallow of Bloke's
beer of an evening now and again - but again, if you don't feel it's
right for you, don't have a drink!


author: Aprill

subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
Daye wrote:

I have had a glass or two of champagne very occasionally throughout my
pregnancy. i have stayed away from deli meats and dodgy sandwich shops
becuase I've been more worried about listeria than an occasional tipple.

cheerio,
Aprill

#1 EDD 6-feb-04


author: Jill

subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
"alissa" <[email]> wrote . My

My doctor told me the same thing. That in moderation it is ok- she
specifically said you shouldn't go for the hard stuff and/or have more than
1 drink and just occasionally but that there is nothing wrong with one glass
of wine now and then.

I personally have not had a drop of alcohol while pregnant. I'm not much of
a drinker, and all I ever enjoyed was the occasional mixed drink, and I do
not feel okay about that while pregnant- besides since I don't like wine or
anything, I can get my favorite drink ( a plain old strawberry dacquiri!)
alcohol-free.

So even though some doctors may say a little is ok, I personally think it's
better not to, to be safe. Also, I worry about the fact that alcohol can
thin your blood- so wouldn't that make it a risk to the placenta or for
bleeding, similar to NSAIDS such as aspirin or ibuprofen? maybe not but
that's what I worry about...


subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
To Naomi:
Hi there. Thank for you thoughts. Actual she said that her doctor told
her to have a drink.
Like i said beofore i take that comment with a grain of salt.
AnnMarie

Naomi Pardue wrote:


subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
But drinking alcohol is a decision, sitting down, being exposed to
exhaust, fumes, and taking in empty calories is often not a decision-
these are just things that cannot be avoided. I love having the
occassional drink, but I haven't done it lately because my wife
cannot. It hasn't been hard...  ;-)


subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
"Denise" <[email]> wrote

Probably the ones who would say something about it are annoying like my
mother-in-law. Don't walk outside, you're going to get sick! You need to eat
chicken or steak or it will hurt the baby! Don't do anything active, you
will hurt the baby! Let me turn the thermostat up to "Hell's Kitchen" level,
or you will get sick!....or, my own mother...."Those maternity pants are not
good for the baby, because they don't have a panel!", "Don't ride in a
bouncy vehicle it's not good for the baby!", etc.

I would ignore whoever said something about having one drink while pregnant-
they don't know your situation and it is none of their business. How do they
know *what* you drink?


subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
"Denise" <[email]> wrote in message
news:3fd8a791$[email]...
I
to

I'm speaking of the current medical data, not of what someone *assumes*
without researching it.  I recently read an article (which naturally I can't
call up right now -- did anyone else come across it in NEJM or JAMA?) which
indicates that one to two drinks, once or twice a week is does not
correllate with any impact on the foetus.  (I'm paraphrasing.  If anyone can
find the cite (it's very recent - last six months or so), I'd be very
grateful.).

Why thanks for your input.  It's such a relief not to have to think for
myself.

Donna


subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
In article <[email]>, [email]
says...

nice post, Diedre.


author: Buzzy Bee

subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
On Thu, 11 Dec 2003 03:54:48 GMT, "Jill" <[email]> wrote:
 but then again I might just have mucked up the snipping as usual!

My doctor not only told me the same thing (before and after Seoras),
but recently told me that she is certainly still having a glass or two
every now and then (she's pregnant).

She trained as an OB/GYN but is now a GP.

Megan


author: Carol Ann

subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
My
:::: sister told me that he doc told her to ( i am taking that comment with
a
:::: grain of salt).
::
:: My doctor told me the same thing. That in moderation it is ok- she
:: specifically said you shouldn't go for the hard stuff and/or have more
than
:: 1 drink and just occasionally but that there is nothing wrong with one
glass
:: of wine now and then.
::
:: I personally have not had a drop of alcohol while pregnant. I'm not much
of
:: a drinker, and all I ever enjoyed was the occasional mixed drink, and I
do
:: not feel okay about that while pregnant- besides since I don't like wine
or
:: anything, I can get my favorite drink ( a plain old strawberry dacquiri!)
:: alcohol-free.
::
:: So even though some doctors may say a little is ok, I personally think
it's
:: better not to, to be safe. Also, I worry about the fact that alcohol can
:: thin your blood- so wouldn't that make it a risk to the placenta or for
:: bleeding, similar to NSAIDS such as aspirin or ibuprofen? maybe not but
:: that's what I worry about...

I personally would LOVE to have a glass or two of red wine on my BIG
birthday coming up!  I am not sure how I feel about it.

~Carol Ann
www.lowcarblosers.com ~ Home of the Monthly Weightloss Challenge


subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
Rupert wrote:

	Really?  Lots of people would say not.  Lots of people
would say that you should make the necessary lifestyle changes
so that you're not exposed to these things.  The oh-so-lovely
_What to Eat When You're Expecting_ will tell you that you
should evaluate every bite of food you put into your mouth
to ensure you're doing the best you can for your baby--and
they'll tell you that you shouldn't even be eating *any*
white bread at all (only whole grain breads, thank you very
much).  When you're pregnant, there's a humongous list of
DOs and DON'Ts that would drive any sane person mad if you
tried to follow every one of them.  There are pregnant women
who wig out because a sauce they consumed might have had
some alcohol in it, or a cookie fer cryin' out loud.  You
can drive yourself utterly bonkers.

	Well, and it wasn't hard for me either, as I don't
drink when not pregnant.  But I wouldn't hesitate,
pregnant or not, to have a glass of champagne at a wedding
or whatever.  There just isn't any evidence that it's a
problem.  I take far greater risks every day of my life.
I think there's value in keeping things in perspective.
If a pregnant woman really wants a little drink every once
in a blue moon, well, I'm not going to judge.

Best wishes,
Ericka


subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
"Jill" <[email]> wrote in message
news:3s2Cb.120671$[email]...
eat
level,
not
pregnant-
they

Have you ever tried being in a liquor store while you're pregnant?  We were
having a party while I was pregnant with one of my kids, so I had to go to
the store for beer and such..  I had a cart full of beer, Mudslide mix,
vodka, etc..  I thought the lady at the checkout was going to have a heart
attack.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----


subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
Donna wrote:

	Current medical data are all over the map.  Some recent
studies from Europe claim effects from very low levels of drinking.
However, the devil's in the details.  There are significant
methodological issues in most of these studies.

Best wishes,
Ericka


subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
"Donna" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
(and
can't
which
can

I meant to the masses, its not socially acceptable.  I already stated in a
post, I thought it was fine, and everyone should make their own decisions.
Jeez.

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----==  Over 100,000 Newsgroups - 19 Different Servers! =-----


subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
"lea-b" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
be

Snip fabulous rant

I missed this the first time around - I'm so glad lea-b reposted it.  What a
*great* post.  :)

Donna


subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
"lea-b" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
In article <[email]>, [email]
says...
that
to
to
advocating
small
her
of
example,
anything.
seeming
things

:)  Thanks.


subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
"Carol Ann" <[email]> wrote

I think it would be fine, Carol Ann. I really don't think a rare occasion of
having just a glass or two of wine would ever hurt anything or be a big
deal. I don't really have much of a taste for wine (or beer actually) so
it's not something I want...I love mixed drinks but I figure since they
taste just as good without the alcohol (at least the frozen ones that is),
I'll skip it... I think if I wanted a glass of champagne or something on New
Years or even a daquiri, I'd have it without feeling like I was doing
something harmful. I don't think it's that big of a deal. I've chosen not to
drink, but I honestly feel that it's not that big of a deal occasionally in
moderation.


author: Vicki S

subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
"Carol Ann" <[email]> wrote:

My little sister was born in 1985.  She's in college now.  While Mom was
pregnant, her OB/GYN said she could have one glass of wine a week, and
Mom did.  Sis seems fine.  :-)


author: C&J

subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
"Denise" <[email]> wrote in message
news:3fd8b66a$[email]...
anyway.
were

I have and as a matter of fact I go out and by beer for my DH all the time
and I never have or had anyone give me any sort of bad look or comment.  I
actually never gave it another thought because I never experience any
negativity from anyone in the grocery store or liquor store.

Crystal
37 weeks 6 days & counting!!!


subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
"Donna" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...

"lea-b" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
be

Snip fabulous rant

a

Thanks, Donna.  I half expected to piss at least a few people off.  I'll be
glad they're staying quiet if I did.  <grin>


author: lea-b

subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
Last night was my work Xmas Party.

Amazing how much a Lime & Soda tastes like a Vodka, Lime & Soda ;)
Although I didn't seem to loosen up and get down and boogie as much as
last year ;))


subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
::: I personally would LOVE to have a glass or two of red wine on my BIG
::: birthday coming up!  I am not sure how I feel about it.
:::
::
:: I think it would be fine, Carol Ann. I really don't think a rare occasion
of
:: having just a glass or two of wine would ever hurt anything or be a big
:: deal. I don't really have much of a taste for wine (or beer actually) so
:: it's not something I want...I love mixed drinks but I figure since they
:: taste just as good without the alcohol (at least the frozen ones that
is),
:: I'll skip it... I think if I wanted a glass of champagne or something on
New
:: Years or even a daquiri, I'd have it without feeling like I was doing
:: something harmful. I don't think it's that big of a deal. I've chosen not
to
:: drink, but I honestly feel that it's not that big of a deal occasionally
in
:: moderation.

That's what I'm thinking too.  I am gathering my girlfriends for my annual
36th birthday.  I am surprised to actually find that 3 of them are flying in
to have dinner and drinks!  I am shocked!  For me!  Just one night!
Amazing!

I am just so happy.  I gather girlfriends each year, but this time I invited
even the ones out of town.  I never thought they would come.  It is truly a
special time for me.

Each year we have dinner and cocktails and a few of us spend the night at
the Ritz and then wake up, have brunch and shop on Sunday.  I'm soooo
looking forward to seeing everyone.

Some saw me when I was 119lbs.  YIKES!  I'm 175 now!!  ARGH!!

~Carol Ann


subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
[email] says...

You turn 36 every year ?
Wow, clever ! :)


subject: Re: Drinking while prego

text:
::: That's what I'm thinking too.  I am gathering my girlfriends for my
annual
::: 36th birthday.
::
::
:: You turn 36 every year ?
:: Wow, clever ! :)

Oh yes!  This is my 6th annual one I think!  My friends think I am between
36 and 42 years old.  LOL!

"I'll never tell" !

~Carol Ann


author: Michael A. Maturen

subject: Re: Environmental causes of disease..

text:
Steven Fawks DDS wrote:

He's partially right...etching CAN lead to sensitivity if it is not
properly rinsed.  Once you apply the bonding agent and seal the dentinal
tubules, you can seal the acid in, too.  This can irritate the
edontoblasts, leading to a pain sensation.

Most hybrid composites can be used in a posterior application.  Of
course, you want to avoid the microfills for posterior work.

Mike


author: Jeff

subject: Re: Going for the Throat: Hyping HPV Vaccine for Young Boys

text:
Ilena Rose wrote:
<...>

That's the bottom line. The vaccine saves lives.

I have no problem with spending my tax- and insurance-dollars on a
vaccine that saves lives. And I have no problem what's so ever with
companies that develop life-saving medicines make a profit, even a big
profit.

Gee, that is much better than making money with the latest way to get
advertising dollars.

Jeff

<...>


author: Myrl

text:
The HPV virus affects men, and well as women.  For information on how
- you can visit the links below.  Generally men suffer genital warts,
and oral cancers as complications of the HPV virus.

http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/conditions/08/28/hm.cancer.warts.reut/index.html

http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/38279/new_vaccine_from_merck_prevents_cervical.html

http://www.stdsite.com/Warts/index.html

On Sep 12, 5:34 pm, Ilena Rose <[email]> wrote:


text:
On Sep 13, 4:39 am, "t" <[email]> wrote:

As a 64 year old grandmother, who is also a Cervical Cancer survivor,
it is too late for me.  However, I am most interested in knowing ALL
the facts surrounding Gardasil, because I have daughters, and grand-
daughters.  And ultimately this vaccine may be of benefit to my
grandsons.

I was one of the first to talk about Gardasil on this newsgroup, and
was quite skeptical and cautious, in the beginning.  I still continue
to be against mandatory vaccination of our children.

However, when I see how many women die each year from Cervical Cancer
(250,000 - 290,000), and that 70% of those cancers are caused by the
HPV virus, which Gardasil would protect against, I become increasingly
supportive of this vaccine.

Thus far the most negative things reported in relationship to the
vaccine is "7" UNPROVEN associated deaths, and somewhere between 2200
- 3000 adverse reactions.  Many of the adverse reactions, mention
redness at the site of injection, fainting spells, and things of that
nature.

While the anti-vac folks taut the adverse reactions, they do not
mention the millions and millions of women, who each year, must be
treated for HPV related disease and illness, while managing to
survive.  They won't mention the hundreds of thousands of Cervical
Cancer deaths at all.

Given a choice between saving lives of 70% of the 250,000 - 290,000
women who die, vs. 7 UNPROVEN associated deaths. . .I don't think
there is any choice, for most logically thinking people.

http://www.webstarmagic.com/wisletter.htm


author: Ilena Rose

text:
Note from Ilena Rosenthal:  Looks like Merck took their cues from the
breast implant industry ...

http://ilena-rosenthal.blogspot.com

Years ago they decided that small breasts were a disease ...
"micromastia" they claimed could be cured by Breast Implants!

I have far less faith in Merck & it's usenet Mouth,  Myrl Jeffcoat ...
that anything close to scientific has been proven about their
expensive new drugs they want to inject in everyone from babies to
boys & girls.

Just like the consultants at Inamed claimed that breast implants were
safe and needed ... the Vac Industry consultant say the same thing ...
anything to put more $$$$$ in their mutual pockets risking the health
of the innocent children of the world.

~~~~~
Excerpt:

 One of the authors of a recent article in
Cancer, which pointed out that oral cancer increases among boys makes
them perfect candidates for HPV vaccination, has been a consultant for
Sanofi-Aventis, GlaxoSmithKline, Xemova and Pfizer.


text:
We will park the hysteria for a moment, and replace it with some
REALITY.  Breast implants are an elective surgery, not meant to save
lives, but only to enhance them - either cosmetically, or
reconstructively.  And many women receiving implants, have had tragic
results and ill health because of that wish.

But, the Gardasil vaccine, can save hundreds of thousands of lives.
And, it will save millions and millions more, from lengthy, traumatic,
expensive treatment, to return them to health after contracting the
HPV virus.

Again, we have seen anti-vac flaks promote their "7" UNPROVEN
associated deaths to Gardasil, without acknowledging the 250,000 -
290,000 women who die each year from Cervical Cancer.  70%+ of these
cancers are said to be caused by the HPV virus, which Gardasil would
protect against.
They harp about the 225 mcgs of Aluminum in a Gardasil jab, when 4
times that amount of Aluminum exists in a single serving of Spinich,
with even larger amounts existing in other "healthy" foods.

The anti-vac folks taut somewhere between 2200 - 3000 adverse
reactions.  Many of the adverse reactions, mention redness at the site
of injection, fainting spells, and things of that nature.

But, while mentioning "adverse "reactions, they do not mention the
millions and millions of women, who each year, must be treated for HPV
related disease and illness, while managing to survive.  They won't
mention the hundreds of thousands of Cervical Cancer deaths at all.

Given a choice between saving lives of 70% of the 250,000 - 290,000
women who die, vs. 7 UNPROVEN associated deaths. . .I don't think
there is any choice, for most logically thinking people.

http://www.webstarmagic.com/wisletter.htm

On Sep 13, 8:01 am, Ilena Rose <[email]> wrote:


author: t

text:
"Myrl" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...
So go and get yours already.


author: Sarah Booth

subject: I can't do it anymore... *very* sad.

text:
I've been lurking here... and I think it might be the only place I can
vent this where I might be understood.  I posted a little while back
about thrush, poor latch, cracked nipples etc etc.

I breastfed my son until he was 9 months old (when he gave up despite my
best efforts to keep it going) and was very sad when our breastfeeding
relationship ended.  I had a tough time with him for the first 10-12
weeks but we got it sorted.  When I was pregnant with my daughter I got
really excited about the prospect of breastfeeding again.

My daughter is now 6 weeks old and we've had what feels like every
problem under the sun.  I've been working with breastfeeding counsellors
including one IBCLC (they are few and far between in the UK!), I've had
two courses of fluconazole and got drug induced hepatitis (and we've
still got thrush), I took my daughter to a hospital 1.5 hours away to
get her tongue-tie clipped (when it was finally spotted when she was 4.5
weeks old), I've worked and worked on getting her latched on properly
without significant success.  She has a high arched palate and a short
lower jaw... they often accompany tongue-tie, I gather, but they aren't
as fixable as tongue-tie!

I have had cracked nipples since she was two days old - they started
healing for a couple of days and then we got the thrush and the healing
stopped.  The thrush has been excruciating.  It improved by the end of
the last course of fluconazole but it hasn't gone - and I can't take any
more fluconazole because of the hepatitis it caused. I've been using
topical miconazole for her and me too - and still am. I've been taking
painkillers round the clock for five and a half weeks and I'm still in
lots of pain.

It's too painful to express - I can't get hand expressing sorted and the
pumps are too painful.

Since last weekend my daughter has been having formula when I haven't
been able to face putting her to the breast again.  This is happening
more and more - and she's now hit a growth spurt.

The whole scenario is making me very unhappy and drained (I've got a
cold sore coming up on my lip now, just to make me feel really great).

I did figure that I would give up breastfeeding if I couldn't get rid of
the thrush - and I can't.  I can't get her latch right either.  The
breastfeeding counsellors have tried everything and have said they
haven't got any more solutions for me to try.

I'm faced with having to give up a very painful breastfeeding
experience... and to accept that I'll never enjoy the breastfeeding
relationship with my daughter like I did with my son.  I am extremely
upset about it and swing from desperately trying to make it work (and
being beaten by pain at some point every day) to desperately wanting to
give it up and try to enjoy my relationship with my daughter rather than
battling with feeding her.

I feel that I need to accept that I just can't do it this time - but I'm
finding it really hard to do that.  Meantime I'm still in pain all the
time - be it breast pain from the thrush or nipple pain when I'm
feeding, it's dreadful.

How do I stop feeding with the least physical pain?  Am I doing the
right thing?  Is there anything else that anyone can think of that I can
try?

I'm very very sad :-(


author: nutcat

subject: Re: I can't do it anymore... *very* sad.

text:
Sarah-
Unfortunately I can't help you because I haven't experienced the problems
you have.
I just wanted to say I really feel for you & I'm sorry for what you're going
through.
I will say a prayer for you & your daughter that whatever happens is the
best for both of you.
Take Care, Paula
"Sarah Booth" <[email]> wrote in message
news:[email]...