degrees of screw stainless steel

On Tuesday, June 13, 2017 at 6:57:04 PM UTC-7, Doug Landau wrote:
One day I was being slapped around and my little brother came running over to help me and one of them knocked him down. I ran right up the side of the SOB and kicked him in the face so hard blood spurted all over the place.

that was a looooooooooooooooooooooooooooong time ago

But on two occasions within 20 years I haven't had the problem of size. After joining the Air Force I grew 6" in four years. And two inches in belt size. Two people that started fights in the last 20 years didn't seem to care.. I don't particularly like to fight. I backed away twice and warned both of them. The third time I didn't back away and both went to the emergency rooms with broken bones. So few people that start fights know how to fight that it quite surprises me. But then perhaps growing up in Oakland has it's effects.

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:49:58 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:20:14 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 18:33:28 +0700, John B.
wrote:
It is called being civilized, I suppose. And, of course, Civil Rights.

Yep. Civilization can be a problem.

From: Congressional Research Service
Title: U.S. Foreign Aid to the Palestinians
December 16, 2016

Excerpts:

The U.S. government has committed more than $5 billion in bilateral
economic and non-lethal security assistance to the Palestinians,

Since June 2007, U.S. aid to the Palestinians has occurred within the
context of a geographical and factional split between
1. West Bank/Fatah: a U.S.- and Western-supported Palestinian
Authority (PA) in the West Bank led by President Mahmoud Abbas (who
also directs the secular nationalist Fatah faction and the Palestine
Liberation Organization, or PLO) 4 ; and
2. Gaza Strip/Hamas: Hamas de facto control in Gaza.

From the same source,
At the same time:
Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance
since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel
$127.4 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in
bilateral assistance.

Is there a bit of confusion here?

Chuckle. What's wrong with supporting both sides? During election
season, large companies often give money to both political parties to
insure that they end up on the winning side, no matter who wins. In
this case, I suspect it's something like buying peace, also knowns as
bribing both sides not to shoot at each other. Oddly, it hasn't
worked too well and will probably need to eventually be re-evaluated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_aid_to_Palestinians
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/which-countries-get-the-most-foreign-aid/
The cartograms (graphs) are rather interesting.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:27:40 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:49:58 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:20:14 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 18:33:28 +0700, John B.
wrote:
It is called being civilized, I suppose. And, of course, Civil Rights.

Yep. Civilization can be a problem.

From: Congressional Research Service
Title: U.S. Foreign Aid to the Palestinians
December 16, 2016

Excerpts:

The U.S. government has committed more than $5 billion in bilateral
economic and non-lethal security assistance to the Palestinians,

Since June 2007, U.S. aid to the Palestinians has occurred within the
context of a geographical and factional split between
1. West Bank/Fatah: a U.S.- and Western-supported Palestinian
Authority (PA) in the West Bank led by President Mahmoud Abbas (who
also directs the secular nationalist Fatah faction and the Palestine
Liberation Organization, or PLO) 4 ; and
2. Gaza Strip/Hamas: Hamas de facto control in Gaza.

From the same source,
At the same time:
Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance
since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel
$127.4 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in
bilateral assistance.

Is there a bit of confusion here?

Chuckle. What's wrong with supporting both sides? During election
season, large companies often give money to both political parties to
insure that they end up on the winning side, no matter who wins. In
this case, I suspect it's something like buying peace, also knowns as
bribing both sides not to shoot at each other. Oddly, it hasn't
worked too well and will probably need to eventually be re-evaluated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_aid_to_Palestinians
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/which-countries-get-the-most-foreign-aid/
The cartograms (graphs) are rather interesting.

One of the least understood facts about Terrorism is that it takes a
lot of money to finance. Terrorist cells do not function in a
financial vacuum. So, if you finance both parties it is, effectually,
encouraging both parties to continue the struggle.

But I find foreign aid and public opinion a bit of a joke.

Most of sub-Saharan Africa, for example, was, not that many years ago,
colonies of various European countries and, apparently made a profit
for their colonial overlords. Then came the "home rule" movement which
the U.S. liberals encouraged emphatically. So now all the former
colonies have became independent and we have "ethnic cleansing" and
"give us more money" in all the colonies. Some, Zambia comes to mind,
had been extremely rich colonies and now are financial basket cases.
--
Cheers,

John B.

On 6/14/2017 8:36 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:27:40 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:49:58 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:20:14 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 18:33:28 +0700, John B.
wrote:
It is called being civilized, I suppose. And, of course, Civil Rights.

Yep. Civilization can be a problem.

From: Congressional Research Service
Title: U.S. Foreign Aid to the Palestinians
December 16, 2016

Excerpts:

The U.S. government has committed more than $5 billion in bilateral
economic and non-lethal security assistance to the Palestinians,

Since June 2007, U.S. aid to the Palestinians has occurred within the
context of a geographical and factional split between
1. West Bank/Fatah: a U.S.- and Western-supported Palestinian
Authority (PA) in the West Bank led by President Mahmoud Abbas (who
also directs the secular nationalist Fatah faction and the Palestine
Liberation Organization, or PLO) 4 ; and
2. Gaza Strip/Hamas: Hamas de facto control in Gaza.

From the same source,
At the same time:
Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance
since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel
$127.4 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in
bilateral assistance.

Is there a bit of confusion here?

Chuckle. What's wrong with supporting both sides? During election
season, large companies often give money to both political parties to
insure that they end up on the winning side, no matter who wins. In
this case, I suspect it's something like buying peace, also knowns as
bribing both sides not to shoot at each other. Oddly, it hasn't
worked too well and will probably need to eventually be re-evaluated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_aid_to_Palestinians
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/which-countries-get-the-most-foreign-aid/
The cartograms (graphs) are rather interesting.

One of the least understood facts about Terrorism is that it takes a
lot of money to finance. Terrorist cells do not function in a
financial vacuum. So, if you finance both parties it is, effectually,
encouraging both parties to continue the struggle.

But I find foreign aid and public opinion a bit of a joke.

Most of sub-Saharan Africa, for example, was, not that many years ago,
colonies of various European countries and, apparently made a profit
for their colonial overlords. Then came the "home rule" movement which
the U.S. liberals encouraged emphatically. So now all the former
colonies have became independent and we have "ethnic cleansing" and
"give us more money" in all the colonies. Some, Zambia comes to mind,
had been extremely rich colonies and now are financial basket cases.

I'm not sure what the moral of this story is. Did the white men shirk
their burden? Should we re-colonize Africa?


--
- Frank Krygowski

On Wednesday, June 14, 2017 at 6:20:06 PM UTC-7, Frank Krygowski wrote:
On 6/14/2017 8:36 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:27:40 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:49:58 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:20:14 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 18:33:28 +0700, John B.
wrote:
It is called being civilized, I suppose. And, of course, Civil Rights.

Yep. Civilization can be a problem.

From: Congressional Research Service
Title: U.S. Foreign Aid to the Palestinians
December 16, 2016

Excerpts:

The U.S. government has committed more than $5 billion in bilateral
economic and non-lethal security assistance to the Palestinians,

Since June 2007, U.S. aid to the Palestinians has occurred within the
context of a geographical and factional split between
1. West Bank/Fatah: a U.S.- and Western-supported Palestinian
Authority (PA) in the West Bank led by President Mahmoud Abbas (who
also directs the secular nationalist Fatah faction and the Palestine
Liberation Organization, or PLO) 4 ; and
2. Gaza Strip/Hamas: Hamas de facto control in Gaza.

From the same source,
At the same time:
Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance
since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel
$127.4 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in
bilateral assistance.

Is there a bit of confusion here?

Chuckle. What's wrong with supporting both sides? During election
season, large companies often give money to both political parties to
insure that they end up on the winning side, no matter who wins. In
this case, I suspect it's something like buying peace, also knowns as
bribing both sides not to shoot at each other. Oddly, it hasn't
worked too well and will probably need to eventually be re-evaluated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_aid_to_Palestinians
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/which-countries-get-the-most-foreign-aid/
The cartograms (graphs) are rather interesting.

One of the least understood facts about Terrorism is that it takes a
lot of money to finance. Terrorist cells do not function in a
financial vacuum. So, if you finance both parties it is, effectually,
encouraging both parties to continue the struggle.

But I find foreign aid and public opinion a bit of a joke.

Most of sub-Saharan Africa, for example, was, not that many years ago,
colonies of various European countries and, apparently made a profit
for their colonial overlords. Then came the "home rule" movement which
the U.S. liberals encouraged emphatically. So now all the former
colonies have became independent and we have "ethnic cleansing" and
"give us more money" in all the colonies. Some, Zambia comes to mind,
had been extremely rich colonies and now are financial basket cases.

I'm not sure what the moral of this story is. Did the white men shirk
their burden? Should we re-colonize Africa?

I'm with you. Many natives of this area were educated. If they cannot carry on a civilization on their own are we responsible because we showed them it was possible?

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 07:36:55 +0700, John B.
wrote:

Most of sub-Saharan Africa, for example, was, not that many years ago,
colonies of various European countries and, apparently made a profit
for their colonial overlords. Then came the "home rule" movement which
the U.S. liberals encouraged emphatically. So now all the former
colonies have became independent and we have "ethnic cleansing" and
"give us more money" in all the colonies. Some, Zambia comes to mind,
had been extremely rich colonies and now are financial basket cases.

Basket case? You mean that 92,233,720,368,547,760 Zimbabwe dollars to
one US dollar is a basket case?
http://coinmill.com/USD_ZWD.html
Oops. That was the old Zimbabwe dollar. The 2nd dollar is only:
46,116,860,184,273,880,000 Zimbabwe dollars to one US dollar.
http://coinmill.com/USD_ZWN.html
Oh wait. That was replaced by the 3rd Zimbabwe dollar at:
10,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 US dollar.
http://coinmill.com/USD_ZWR.html
Holdit. The 4th and final Zimbabwe dollar was released at:
10,000 to one 1 US dollar, but abandoned when it looked like it was
going to follow the example of the previous 3 currencies.
http://coinmill.com/USD_ZWL.html
Since Zimbabwe no longer issues its own currency, what do they use?
Yeah, I guess they're a basket case.


--
Jeff Liebermann
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hype...eimar_Republic

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 21:20:05 -0400, Frank Krygowski
wrote:

On 6/14/2017 8:36 PM, John B. wrote:
On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 09:27:40 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 14:49:58 +0700, John B.
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 21:20:14 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Tue, 13 Jun 2017 18:33:28 +0700, John B.
wrote:
It is called being civilized, I suppose. And, of course, Civil Rights.

Yep. Civilization can be a problem.

From: Congressional Research Service
Title: U.S. Foreign Aid to the Palestinians
December 16, 2016

Excerpts:

The U.S. government has committed more than $5 billion in bilateral
economic and non-lethal security assistance to the Palestinians,

Since June 2007, U.S. aid to the Palestinians has occurred within the
context of a geographical and factional split between
1. West Bank/Fatah: a U.S.- and Western-supported Palestinian
Authority (PA) in the West Bank led by President Mahmoud Abbas (who
also directs the secular nationalist Fatah faction and the Palestine
Liberation Organization, or PLO) 4 ; and
2. Gaza Strip/Hamas: Hamas de facto control in Gaza.

From the same source,
At the same time:
Israel is the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance
since World War II. To date, the United States has provided Israel
$127.4 billion (current, or non-inflation-adjusted, dollars) in
bilateral assistance.

Is there a bit of confusion here?

Chuckle. What's wrong with supporting both sides? During election
season, large companies often give money to both political parties to
insure that they end up on the winning side, no matter who wins. In
this case, I suspect it's something like buying peace, also knowns as
bribing both sides not to shoot at each other. Oddly, it hasn't
worked too well and will probably need to eventually be re-evaluated.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_aid_to_Palestinians
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/world/which-countries-get-the-most-foreign-aid/
The cartograms (graphs) are rather interesting.

One of the least understood facts about Terrorism is that it takes a
lot of money to finance. Terrorist cells do not function in a
financial vacuum. So, if you finance both parties it is, effectually,
encouraging both parties to continue the struggle.

But I find foreign aid and public opinion a bit of a joke.

Most of sub-Saharan Africa, for example, was, not that many years ago,
colonies of various European countries and, apparently made a profit
for their colonial overlords. Then came the "home rule" movement which
the U.S. liberals encouraged emphatically. So now all the former
colonies have became independent and we have "ethnic cleansing" and
"give us more money" in all the colonies. Some, Zambia comes to mind,
had been extremely rich colonies and now are financial basket cases.

I'm not sure what the moral of this story is. Did the white men shirk
their burden? Should we re-colonize Africa?

I was using it as an example of things that people do in the pursuit
of "doing what is right" that turn out to be just the opposite.

There was a discussion about the poor Somalia refugee who if not
admitted to the U.S. probably would have been massacred, which sounds
pitiful, except that last year it was her tribe that was doing the
killing and the present day killers were the ones that were being
massacred. It might be noted that as colonies this inter tribal
killing never reached the intensity that it is today.

Were the "common people" better or worse off under colonialism? A
difficult question but certainly in Zimbabwe the standard of living
has gone down hill since freedom, tribal warfare between the Matabele
and the Shona tribes began with the country's independence in 1980 and
continues till today although currently the shooting has stopped. But
in 2016 nationwide protests took place regarding the economic collapse
in the country

Zimbabwe's commercial farming sector was traditionally a source of
exports and foreign exchange, and provided 400,000 jobs. However, the
government's land reform program badly damaged the sector, turning
Zimbabwe into a net importer of food products. For example, between
2000 and 2016 annual wheat production fell from 250,000 tons to 60,000
tons, maize was reduced from two million tons to 500,000 tons and
cattle slaughtered for beef fell from 605,000 to 244,000.

So tell me. Is the average Zimbabwean better, or worse, off now that
the country is independent?
--
Cheers,

John B.

On Wed, 14 Jun 2017 20:55:50 -0700, Jeff Liebermann
wrote:

On Thu, 15 Jun 2017 07:36:55 +0700, John B.
wrote:

Most of sub-Saharan Africa, for example, was, not that many years ago,
colonies of various European countries and, apparently made a profit
for their colonial overlords. Then came the "home rule" movement which
the U.S. liberals encouraged emphatically. So now all the former
colonies have became independent and we have "ethnic cleansing" and
"give us more money" in all the colonies. Some, Zambia comes to mind,
had been extremely rich colonies and now are financial basket cases.

Basket case? You mean that 92,233,720,368,547,760 Zimbabwe dollars to
one US dollar is a basket case?
http://coinmill.com/USD_ZWD.html
Oops. That was the old Zimbabwe dollar. The 2nd dollar is only:
46,116,860,184,273,880,000 Zimbabwe dollars to one US dollar.
http://coinmill.com/USD_ZWN.html
Oh wait. That was replaced by the 3rd Zimbabwe dollar at:
10,000,000,000,000,000 to 1 US dollar.
http://coinmill.com/USD_ZWR.html
Holdit. The 4th and final Zimbabwe dollar was released at:
10,000 to one 1 US dollar, but abandoned when it looked like it was
going to follow the example of the previous 3 currencies.
http://coinmill.com/USD_ZWL.html
Since Zimbabwe no longer issues its own currency, what do they use?
Yeah, I guess they're a basket case.

On 29 January 2014, the Zimbabwe central bank announced that the US
dollar, South African rand, Botswana pula, Pound sterling, Euro,
Australian dollar, Chinese yuan (renminbi), Indian rupee, and Japanese
yen would all be accepted as legal currency within the country.
--
Cheers,

John B.

Like yourself involved in gross changes, a transition period occurs esp in large irganizations.