On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 2:28:08 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-06 14:03, Doug Landau wrote:
On Wednesday, September 6, 2017 at 11:44:01 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-06 11:10, Doug Landau wrote:
On Monday, September 4, 2017 at 12:27:34 PM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-09-02 07:56, wrote:
On Saturday, September 2, 2017 at 7:49:34 AM UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-30 18:00, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 30 Aug 2017 10:41:49 -0700 (PDT),
wrote:

On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 3:31:55 PM UTC-7, Joerg
wrote:
On 2017-08-29 14:38, wrote:
On Tuesday, August 29, 2017 at 11:45:45 AM UTC-7,
Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-29 09:42, sms wrote:
On 8/28/2017 3:59 PM, AMuzi wrote:
On 8/28/2017 4:28 PM, wrote:
On Monday, August 28, 2017 at 1:59:20 PM
UTC-7, Joerg wrote:
On 2017-08-28 13:43, sms wrote:
I replaced the chain that I broke on
Saturday with one I had in my garage that I
must have purchased five to ten years ago.

It has a connecting link and it says "Taya"
on it. It's for 6,7,8 gearing. It seems
okay, but I think that this is the first
time I've used a chain with a connecting
link since childhood. I looked up Taya and
it's a big Taiwanese chain manufacturer.


I still have a Sachs-Sedis 7-speed chain on
my road bike which I bought from a friend as
NOS, for $6 which was the old sticker price
(the sticker had already turned brownish). No
link, mounted with hammer and anvil as usual.
To my utter amazement it doesn't show any
measurable stretch after over 2000mi and
sometimes I really put the coals on because
of our hills. Even the old Wippermann chains
could not rival that. I am very religious
about chain cleaning and lube though.

The old 5-6-7 speed Sachs chains wore out
three days after the bike was junked.


The Sedis (later Sachs-Sedis) material and Delta
hardening process was not only exceptional but
unsurpassed down to today except for possibly
Record chains. That ended with SRAM.

You can still find some NOS (new old stock) of the
Sedisport 6/7 chains. About $25.


I saw a lot of them on EBay at that price range
stating "pre-owned" in the ad, meaning used and who
knows for how many miles or whether properly
maintained.

The topper I ever saw was "pre-owned" underwear.
Yikes.

What if they were pre-owned by Elizabeth Taylor?


It was men's underwear ...

What makes you think that Elizabeth Taylor didn't wear
men's underwear? She got pretty large near the end.

In a less humorousness vein, did you know that "back in the
day" runners used to wear women's panties?


I remember a cowboy on horseback telling us something similar
and it was a real manly John Wayne style guy. "Now I'll let you
in on a secret on how to avoid rashes from very long rides, but
don't ya tell your mama or anyone for that matter, ya hear?"

Speaking of manly - virtually every single star in Hollywood
after the mid-40's had been in the service and many of them
(often the guys that played bad guys) had silver stars and purple
hearts. Even Soupy Sales and Ernest Borgnine. The one exception
was, surprisingly, John Wayne, who volunteered three times but
they wouldn't let him in because of a bad back or something.

Today we have these guys playing heros that don't even know what
a hero is.


John Wayne could certainly play them right. On Sunday we saw
"Flying Tigers" for the umpteenth time.

What was one of his sayings? "Courage is being scared to death but
saddling up anyhow".

-- Regards, Joerg

http://www.analogconsultants.com/

Uhm... OTOH, we have him saying to a Viet Namese 6-y/o, at the end of
'the green berets': "You're what this is all about." Yea, rite.
Uh-huh.


He was right. If we hadn't lost that war the 6-year olds back then would
now not have to live under communism.

That may be, but it's not why we were there.


Then why in your opinion?

History generally says it was to suppress the spread of communism, just
like that line in the movie was meant.
Whoa whoa whoa! Already you make an assumption and try to pretend that I subscribe to it also. What makes you think that stopping the spread of something - evil or not - is done for the benefit of the future generation, rather than for one's own pleasure, revenge, satisfaction, zeal, fullfillment of desire or of self, or as an outlet of natural agression?

Seems to me that we need a war every 20 years. Every 20 years there is a new crop of 20-y/olds, full of natural agression, and their attitude is contagious, and does affect/spread to the population at large, to some extent

http://www.historylearningsite.co.uk...e-vietnam-war/

Quote "The causes of the Vietnam War revolve around the simple belief
held by America that communism was threatening to expand all over
south-east Asia".

http://www.english.illinois.edu/maps/vietnam/causes.htm


Do you think if I google looking for alternative reasons for us to be in there, that I'll find some? Who cares.

Quote "U.S. policymakers, and most Americans, regarded communism as the
antithesis of all they held dear. ..."

I agree with that sentence.
I agree with it in part, too, but that is not what is in question.

I think that there are a number of reasons that came together why we were in that war. Not absent is the element of Jihad in our own souls. Also present were our relationship with France, and our own fear of losing our own country, after the dominos all fall around us. Also present was pressure from the industries that benefit, and from the politicians who subscribe to that.

Capitalism is a great idea. But for a prosecutor to bust up a monopoly, and break up AT&T or come down on Microsoft, and then say to a 6-y/o "this is all for you, now you will have a better future" is (er, would be) just bull****, and deceiving one's self in the highest possible way. The righteous act for themselves, even when they are right.