"Gary" wrote in message ...

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 6:18:50 PM UTC-4,
> wrote:
>
> > Most people have dead bolts, doesn't work on them.
>
> But there are other ways to break (many) deadbolts:
>
> <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock_bumping>

You won't get into my front door when I'm home.
It's a steel door ant frame with:

- a cheap door knob lock that you
can wiggle open from the outside.

- Then I have a deadbolt that could be picked, I suppose.

- Once inside, I have a chain lock. Lol and totally worthless

- Once inside I have a slide bolt. No key. No one
gets in here without bashing the hell out of a steel
door and frame.

That could backfire on me though if I have to call 911 and can't get to
the front door to unlock it.

Help, I've fallen and I can't get up.
========

<g> Leave the door unlocked if you are worried and get a dog )



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

Ophelia wrote:
>
> "Gary" wrote in message ...
>
> Ophelia wrote:
> >
> > =============
> >
> > We have deadlocks
>
> They only repel the zombies/the undead.
> Normal thieves (the good ones) can pick a deadlock quickly.
>
> :-D
>
> ============
>
> lol if he can do it without our dog hearing)

CORRECT! When my daughter was in elementary school, they had a police
officer come to give a talk. He did say, the best security you can have
for your home is a barking dog.

Ophelia wrote:
>
> "Gary" wrote in message ...
>
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 6:18:50 PM UTC-4,
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Most people have dead bolts, doesn't work on them.
> >
> > But there are other ways to break (many) deadbolts:
> >
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock_bumping>
>
> You won't get into my front door when I'm home.
> It's a steel door ant frame with:
>
> - a cheap door knob lock that you
> can wiggle open from the outside.
>
> - Then I have a deadbolt that could be picked, I suppose.
>
> - Once inside, I have a chain lock. Lol and totally worthless
>
> - Once inside I have a slide bolt. No key. No one
> gets in here without bashing the hell out of a steel
> door and frame.
>
> That could backfire on me though if I have to call 911 and can't get to
> the front door to unlock it.
>
> Help, I've fallen and I can't get up.
> ========
>
> <g> Leave the door unlocked if you are worried and get a dog )

Come on, O. You know I need a ferret or two, not some barking dog.
heheheh

PS - 911 responders will come through a window if necessary.
I do often leave off the slide bolt though.

On 9/18/2016 9:45 AM, Gary wrote:

> - Then I have a deadbolt that could be picked, I suppose.
>
> - Once inside, I have a chain lock. Lol and totally worthless
>
> - Once inside I have a slide bolt. No key. No one
> gets in here without bashing the hell out of a steel
> door and frame.
>
> That could backfire on me though if I have to call 911 and can't get to
> the front door to unlock it.
>
> Help, I've fallen and I can't get up.
>

Did you see the family in Tennessee that 9 died in a fire? Small one
story house, but the windows had bars and the doors were deadbolted.
They were so secure they perished.

On 9/18/2016 7:43 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 9/18/2016 9:45 AM, Gary wrote:
>
>> - Then I have a deadbolt that could be picked, I suppose.
>>
>> - Once inside, I have a chain lock. Lol and totally worthless
>>
>> - Once inside I have a slide bolt. No key. No one
>> gets in here without bashing the hell out of a steel
>> door and frame.
>>
>> That could backfire on me though if I have to call 911 and can't get to
>> the front door to unlock it.
>>
>> Help, I've fallen and I can't get up.
>>
>
> Did you see the family in Tennessee that 9 died in a fire? Small one
> story house, but the windows had bars and the doors were deadbolted.
> They were so secure they perished.

another unintended consequence of a lax judicial system.

wrote:
>
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 11:53:51 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>
> wrote:
> >>
> >> In Canada the ratio of female CEOs is dismal, mostly because
> >> the men in power don't consider the woman could do the same job,
> >> usually better too.
> >
> >Why usually better? Are you biased?
> >
> >That said, you are a liberal Democrat in voice and you hate all of the
> >greedy corporations and their CEOs. So tell my just WHY you wish
> >more women would become CEOs and then be considered the greedy enemy?
> >
> >Keep in mine, the sole duty of a CEO is to make maximum money for the
> >stockholders. If SHE passes up opportunities to do this, she will be
> >fired/replaced quickly.
>
> Because I figure females could not possibly do a worse job! I wasn't
> asking there be more, just equal numbers, don't you feel that way?

A candidate for any position should be based on talent and
work/education history. I would never even think of basing it on
black/white, woman/man, etc... Job applications should eliminate all
that and let the employers base their decision on qualifications only.

If there is inequality in positions though, I would hope the pick would
be based on qualifications, no matter what the person is, and not
picking a gender or race to make it all equal. That is wrong.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 10:43:18 -0400, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 9/18/2016 9:45 AM, Gary wrote:
>
>> - Then I have a deadbolt that could be picked, I suppose.
>>
>> - Once inside, I have a chain lock. Lol and totally worthless
>>
>> - Once inside I have a slide bolt. No key. No one
>> gets in here without bashing the hell out of a steel
>> door and frame.
>>
>> That could backfire on me though if I have to call 911 and can't get to
>> the front door to unlock it.
>>
>> Help, I've fallen and I can't get up.
>>
>
>Did you see the family in Tennessee that 9 died in a fire? Small one
>story house, but the windows had bars and the doors were deadbolted.
>They were so secure they perished.

Now that is a tragedy

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 10:57:35 -0400, Gary > wrote:

wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 11:53:51 -0400, Gary > wrote:
>>
>> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> In Canada the ratio of female CEOs is dismal, mostly because
>> >> the men in power don't consider the woman could do the same job,
>> >> usually better too.
>> >
>> >Why usually better? Are you biased?
>> >
>> >That said, you are a liberal Democrat in voice and you hate all of the
>> >greedy corporations and their CEOs. So tell my just WHY you wish
>> >more women would become CEOs and then be considered the greedy enemy?
>> >
>> >Keep in mine, the sole duty of a CEO is to make maximum money for the
>> >stockholders. If SHE passes up opportunities to do this, she will be
>> >fired/replaced quickly.
>>
>> Because I figure females could not possibly do a worse job! I wasn't
>> asking there be more, just equal numbers, don't you feel that way?
>
>A candidate for any position should be based on talent and
>work/education history. I would never even think of basing it on
>black/white, woman/man, etc... Job applications should eliminate all
>that and let the employers base their decision on qualifications only.
>
>If there is inequality in positions though, I would hope the pick would
>be based on qualifications, no matter what the person is, and not
>picking a gender or race to make it all equal. That is wrong.

Definitely - I am against affirmative action where i.e ten percent of
available jobs must be given to certain sections of the population.
However most studies show if there is a male candidate for a high
level job and a female with identical qualifications, he will get the
job 9 out of 10.

There was also a study out of Australia a few weeks back which shows
that women do ask for raises as often as men, but are not granted them
as often. Previously it was brushed off as 'Oh women simply don't ask
as much as men for a raise'

"Gary" wrote in message ...

Ophelia wrote:
>
> "Gary" wrote in message ...
>
> Ophelia wrote:
> >
> > =============
> >
> > We have deadlocks
>
> They only repel the zombies/the undead.
> Normal thieves (the good ones) can pick a deadlock quickly.
>
> :-D
>
> ============
>
> lol if he can do it without our dog hearing)

CORRECT! When my daughter was in elementary school, they had a police
officer come to give a talk. He did say, the best security you can have
for your home is a barking dog.

===========

Ours hates any and everyone but us and if she think someone is coming in she
goes berserk)


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

"Gary" wrote in message ...

Ophelia wrote:
>
> "Gary" wrote in message ...
>
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >
> > On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 6:18:50 PM UTC-4,
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Most people have dead bolts, doesn't work on them.
> >
> > But there are other ways to break (many) deadbolts:
> >
> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock_bumping>
>
> You won't get into my front door when I'm home.
> It's a steel door ant frame with:
>
> - a cheap door knob lock that you
> can wiggle open from the outside.
>
> - Then I have a deadbolt that could be picked, I suppose.
>
> - Once inside, I have a chain lock. Lol and totally worthless
>
> - Once inside I have a slide bolt. No key. No one
> gets in here without bashing the hell out of a steel
> door and frame.
>
> That could backfire on me though if I have to call 911 and can't get to
> the front door to unlock it.
>
> Help, I've fallen and I can't get up.
> ========
>
> <g> Leave the door unlocked if you are worried and get a dog )

Come on, O. You know I need a ferret or two, not some barking dog.
heheheh

PS - 911 responders will come through a window if necessary.
I do often leave off the slide bolt though.

===========

Good, so long as you can be safe. About those ferrets? When are you going
to put that big smile back on your face and have ferrets to love again???
Hmmm??



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk

On 2016-09-18, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> Did you see the family in Tennessee that 9 died in a fire? Small one
> story house, but the windows had bars and the doors were deadbolted.
> They were so secure they perished.

No, but I read in the newspaper about the family that lived in the
rural South. They lived almost 100 yds downhill from a roadway curve
that bordered their property. One Winter night, as they were all
sleeping in a corner back bedroom --to preserve heat--, a car ran off
the road at their curve, crashed and banged the entire 100 yds down
the hill to the house fulla sleeping occupants, crashed into and took
out that exact corner of the house, killing all 4 family members.

IOW, when you get kilt, you be dead. --WoW:notbob

nb

On 2016-09-18 12:05 PM, notbob wrote:
> On 2016-09-18, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

> No, but I read in the newspaper about the family that lived in the
> rural South. They lived almost 100 yds downhill from a roadway curve
> that bordered their property. One Winter night, as they were all
> sleeping in a corner back bedroom --to preserve heat--, a car ran off
> the road at their curve, crashed and banged the entire 100 yds down
> the hill to the house fulla sleeping occupants, crashed into and took
> out that exact corner of the house, killing all 4 family members.
>
> IOW, when you get kilt, you be dead. --WoW:notbob
>

You never know when your number is going to be up. I remember an
accident that happened not far from here. A family of four was sitting
in their living room watching television when a truck ran off the
highway and into their house, killing two children and the mother. The
father survived. A few years later I met the father. He was a classmate
in some of my classes at university. He was a nice guy, met a nice
young lady, married her and started another family.


>

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Ophelia wrote:
>>
>> "Gary" wrote in message ...
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> >
>> > On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 6:18:50 PM UTC-4,
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> > > Most people have dead bolts, doesn't work on them.
>> >
>> > But there are other ways to break (many) deadbolts:
>> >
>> > <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock_bumping>
>>
>> You won't get into my front door when I'm home.
>> It's a steel door ant frame with:
>>
>> - a cheap door knob lock that you
>> can wiggle open from the outside.
>>
>> - Then I have a deadbolt that could be picked, I suppose.
>>
>> - Once inside, I have a chain lock. Lol and totally worthless
>>
>> - Once inside I have a slide bolt. No key. No one
>> gets in here without bashing the hell out of a steel
>> door and frame.
>>
>> That could backfire on me though if I have to call 911 and can't get to
>> the front door to unlock it.
>>
>> Help, I've fallen and I can't get up.
>> ========
>>
>> <g> Leave the door unlocked if you are worried and get a dog )
>
> Come on, O. You know I need a ferret or two, not some barking dog.
> heheheh
>
> PS - 911 responders will come through a window if necessary.
> I do often leave off the slide bolt though.

They could also take down the door in a hurry if need be.

Cheri

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:45:58 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 6:18:50 PM UTC-4, wrote:
>
>> Most people have dead bolts, doesn't work on them.
>
>But there are other ways to break (many) deadbolts:
>
><https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lock_bumping>
>
>Cindy Hamilton

Thieves mostly obtain entry through windows, once ascertained the
house is empty they test the windows, typically one is found
unlatched, or they will break the glass. It's very rare that thieves
waste time with door locks... modern tumbler locks are not so simple
to bump/pick. Theives especially avoid burglarizing an occupied
dwelling, if caught the penalty is much more severe plus they don't
want to meet up with a shotgun toting resident.

In article >, says...

> A candidate for any position should be based on talent and
> work/education history.

Then it's very hard to understand why you would even consider
supporting Trump.

Janet UK

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 17:48:36 +0100, Janet > wrote:

>In article >, says...
>
>> A candidate for any position should be based on talent and
>> work/education history.
>
> Then it's very hard to understand why you would even consider
>supporting Trump.
>
> Janet UK
+1
Janet US

On 2016-09-18 12:48 PM, Janet wrote:
> In article >, says...
>
>> A candidate for any position should be based on talent and
>> work/education history.
>
> Then it's very hard to understand why you would even consider
> supporting Trump.
>


I am shaking my head in astonishment that he didn't get tossed out in
the early stages of the nomination process.

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 20:43:23 -0400, Alex > wrote:

>Je?us wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 22:59:21 -0400, Alex > wrote:
>>
>>> Je?us wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 21:56:01 -0400, Alex > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>>>> On 9/16/2016 1:25 PM, Gary wrote:
>>>>>>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>>>>>> I don't think anyone has a pic of Sheldon, other than the one on the
>>>>>>>> not
>>>>>>>> up to date web site which shows him looking like he's 30 when we know
>>>>>>>> he's in his 70's. heh
>>>>>>> Yep, that's the only one we've seen. Since he won't post a recent pic,
>>>>>>> maybe he lying about still being alive. hehehh

At least I've posted a picture of myself (actually I've posted a few
as I've changed my pic a few times), teh picture posted now has been
there some ten years, wasn't very old at the time I posted it
considering I was 43 in the pic. Most of the pictures posted are of
people who are departed or otherwise disappeared. Pitifully few here
now have the cajones to post a picture of themselves, most won't even
post their name... using a fake name tells me all I need to know about
who/what they are.


>>>>>>> He's 73 now. I'm 63 now.
>>>>>>> I last posted a pic of me about 7 years ago at my daughter's wedding.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Challenge to all here. Post a recent pic of yourself and I'll do the
>>>>>>> same.
>>>>>>> In my case, I'll have to take about 20 pics before I find one worth
>>>>>>> sending.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> No thanks. People shouldn't care what I look like.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jill
>>>>>>
>>>>> You cared when you posted that Glamour Shot from 20 years ago, eh?
>>>> I knew you'd show up.
>>> So you know the truth, too.
>> Umm, no. Not sure I want to either.
>You're better off not seeing the before and after.

On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 1:42:27 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 6:30:52 PM UTC-4, Jeßus wrote:
> > On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 08:21:07 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > > wrote:
> >
> >
> > >Well, I'm not too sure about Bush,
>
> Bush the elder was perhaps low on folksy charm. He had the advantage
> of being the Vice President when he ran for POTUS.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

My ex-boss went to a corporate function that had GW and Bill Clinton as guest speakers. He said that Clinton had aged shockingly and had gotten somewhat wooden. GW still had kind of a frat boy charm about him.

On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 1:03:16 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2016-09-18 12:48 PM, Janet wrote:
> > In article >, says...
> >
> >> A candidate for any position should be based on talent and
> >> work/education history.
> >
> > Then it's very hard to understand why you would even consider
> > supporting Trump.
> >
>
>
> I am shaking my head in astonishment that he didn't get tossed out in
> the early stages of the nomination process.

Well, look at his constituency.

<https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-profile-of-the-average-Trump-supporter>

1.less educated than the average Republican
2.poorer than the average Republican
3.middle aged
4.authoritarian
5.populist
6.unlikely to have a good credit score

The salt of the earth. <Insert Blazing Saddles quote here.>

Cindy Hamilton

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 20:52:48 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 9/16/2016 10:15 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 21:56:01 -0400, Alex > wrote:
>>
>>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>> On 9/16/2016 1:25 PM, Gary wrote:
>>>>> jmcquown wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't think anyone has a pic of Sheldon, other than the one on the
>>>>>> not
>>>>>> up to date web site which shows him looking like he's 30 when we know
>>>>>> he's in his 70's. heh
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep, that's the only one we've seen. Since he won't post a recent pic,
>>>>> maybe he lying about still being alive. hehehh
>>>>>
>>>>> He's 73 now. I'm 63 now.
>>>>> I last posted a pic of me about 7 years ago at my daughter's wedding.
>>>>>
>>>>> Challenge to all here. Post a recent pic of yourself and I'll do the
>>>>> same.
>>>>> In my case, I'll have to take about 20 pics before I find one worth
>>>>> sending.
>>>>>
>>>> No thanks. People shouldn't care what I look like.
>>>>
>>>> Jill
>>>>
>>>
>>> You cared when you posted that Glamour Shot from 20 years ago, eh?
>>
>> I knew you'd show up.
>>
>We both knew it. I don't pay any attention to his posts.
>
>As for the Glamour Shot it was taken 12 years ago, not 20... unless he's
>been stalking me for much longer than I thought. That's what I looked
>like. So what if I had professional photos taken? I don't sit around
>taking "selfies". (Heck, I didn't even know what that term meant until
>a couple of years ago.)
>
>Chatty Cathy doesn't bother to maintain the RFC web site anymore. I
>haven't seen her post here in a very long time. Gary's suggestion that
>we submit updated pictures really won't fly unless someone else is
>planning to take over the web hosting.
>
>Jill

Chatty Cathy is still alive and well and still maintaining the RFC web
site, was only a few months ago we exchanged email. Anyone wants to
post their picture they have no excuse... there's a button at the site
for sending email:
http://www.recfoodcooking.org/

On 9/18/2016 1:03 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2016-09-18 12:48 PM, Janet wrote:
>> In article >, says...
>>
>>> A candidate for any position should be based on talent and
>>> work/education history.
>>
>> Then it's very hard to understand why you would even consider
>> supporting Trump.
>>
>
>
> I am shaking my head in astonishment that he didn't get tossed out in
> the early stages of the nomination process.
>
>
>
My thought too. Some of the others made more sense to me.

Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> Well, look at his constituency.
>
> <https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-profile-of-the-average-Trump-supporter>
>
> 1.less educated than the average Republican
> 2.poorer than the average Republican
> 3.middle aged
> 4.authoritarian
> 5.populist
> 6.unlikely to have a good credit score

Typical liberal Democraps that know they are going to lose. Name
calling, grim faces, never any sense of humor. If you don't believe in
THEIR way, you are an idiot. ho hum.

Trump is going to win. When he does, too bad he can't deport all the
libtards that follow democratic party no matter who runs...

I vote the person, not the party. I'm not a party lemming.

In article >,
says...
>
> On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 1:42:27 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 6:30:52 PM UTC-4, Jeßus wrote:
> > > On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 08:21:07 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > > > wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > >Well, I'm not too sure about Bush,
> >
> > Bush the elder was perhaps low on folksy charm. He had the advantage
> > of being the Vice President when he ran for POTUS.
> >
> > Cindy Hamilton
>
> My ex-boss went to a corporate function that had GW and Bill Clinton as guest speakers. He said that Clinton had aged shockingly and had gotten somewhat wooden. GW still had kind of a frat boy charm about him.

I saw Bill Clinton on TV the other day and was shocked at how old he
looked; when he spoke he also seemed confused. I wondered if he's in
early stages dementia.

Janet UK

In article >,
says...
>
> On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 17:48:36 +0100, Janet > wrote:
>
> >In article >, says...
> >
> >> A candidate for any position should be based on talent and
> >> work/education history.
> >
> > Then it's very hard to understand why you would even consider
> >supporting Trump.
> >
> > Janet UK
> +1

To teach foreigners a lesson.

In article >, gravesend10
@verizon.net says...
>
> At least I've posted a picture of myself (actually I've posted a few
> as I've changed my pic a few times), teh picture posted now has been
> there some ten years, wasn't very old at the time I posted it
> considering I was 43 in the pic. Most of the pictures posted are of
> people who are departed or otherwise disappeared. Pitifully few here
> now have the cajones to post a picture of themselves, most won't even
> post their name... using a fake name tells me all I need to know about
> who/what they are.

Why ask for more then?

On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 8:37:01 AM UTC-10, Janet wrote:
> In article >,
> dsiyahoo.com says...
> >
> > On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 1:42:27 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > > On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 6:30:52 PM UTC-4, Jeßus wrote:
> > > > On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 08:21:07 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > > > > wrote:
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > >Well, I'm not too sure about Bush,
> > >
> > > Bush the elder was perhaps low on folksy charm. He had the advantage
> > > of being the Vice President when he ran for POTUS.
> > >
> > > Cindy Hamilton
> >
> > My ex-boss went to a corporate function that had GW and Bill Clinton as guest speakers. He said that Clinton had aged shockingly and had gotten somewhat wooden. GW still had kind of a frat boy charm about him.
>
> I saw Bill Clinton on TV the other day and was shocked at how old he
> looked; when he spoke he also seemed confused. I wondered if he's in
> early stages dementia.
>
> Janet UK

I was helping out my ex-boss last week. He always had a youthful look but I was surprised at how slow he's running these days. It takes him a tick longer to respond to questions and he had tremors on one of his hands. Sooner or later, time catches up with us. Hopefully, I can keep my mind for a little while longer.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 04:42:24 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Saturday, September 17, 2016 at 6:30:52 PM UTC-4, Jeßus wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 08:21:07 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>> >Well, I'm not too sure about Bush,
>
>Bush the elder was perhaps low on folksy charm. He had the advantage
>of being the Vice President when he ran for POTUS.

That certainly helps. Am I right in recalling he wasn't a particularly
popular president? As you mentioned, he wasn't great at putting on the
charm (not that something like that would influence my opinion).

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 13:03:36 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2016-09-18 12:48 PM, Janet wrote:
>> In article >, says...
>>
>>> A candidate for any position should be based on talent and
>>> work/education history.
>>
>> Then it's very hard to understand why you would even consider
>> supporting Trump.
>>
>
>
>I am shaking my head in astonishment that he didn't get tossed out in
>the early stages of the nomination process.

Angry people are not particularly rational.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 13:59:04 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>
>> Well, look at his constituency.
>>
>> <https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-profile-of-the-average-Trump-supporter>
>>
>> 1.less educated than the average Republican
>> 2.poorer than the average Republican
>> 3.middle aged
>> 4.authoritarian
>> 5.populist
>> 6.unlikely to have a good credit score
>
>Typical liberal Democraps that know they are going to lose. Name
>calling, grim faces, never any sense of humor. If you don't believe in
>THEIR way, you are an idiot. ho hum.
>
>Trump is going to win. When he does, too bad he can't deport all the
>libtards that follow democratic party no matter who runs...

Yes. Once again you show how much you respect the democratic process.
You would have loved 1930's Germany, they tended to do things your
way.

>I vote the person, not the party. I'm not a party lemming.

'The person' is mostly just a figurehead. You can't just ignore the
rest of the party.

On 2016-09-18, Jeßus > wrote:

> Angry people are not particularly rational.

True! Apparently, they become unaccountably stupid.

nb

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 21:16:03 -0400, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 9/17/2016 8:57 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 20:54:10 -0400, jmcquown >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/16/2016 11:04 PM, Je?us wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 22:59:21 -0400, Alex > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I knew you'd show up.
>>>>>
>>>>> So you know the truth, too.
>>>>
>>>> Umm, no. Not sure I want to either.
>>>>
>>> I usually try to ignore this stuff but I wonder WTF he thinks the
>>> "truth" is?! I have no idea what this loser is talking about.
>>
>> Who knows what's in it's head? Strange that it's fixated on you when
>> you're not one to get nasty or obnoxious.
>>
>For some reason this person obsessed with my looks. I'm willing to bet
>"Alex" isn't a living example of 'The Picture of Dorian Grey'. Unless
>you're dead, everyone gets older. Time didn't halt for him any more
>than it did me. Haven't seen a picture of him, have we? LOL
>
>As it is, I don't believe I look all that bad for a 56 year old woman.

I imagine that is the case, I get the impression this person has/had
some sort of infatuation with you... maybe you unwittingly spurned it
somewhere along the line

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 21:31:22 -0400, Alex > wrote:

>Je?us wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 20:54:10 -0400, jmcquown >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/16/2016 11:04 PM, Je?us wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 22:59:21 -0400, Alex > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> I knew you'd show up.
>>>>> So you know the truth, too.
>>>> Umm, no. Not sure I want to either.
>>>>
>>> I usually try to ignore this stuff but I wonder WTF he thinks the
>>> "truth" is?! I have no idea what this loser is talking about.
>> Who knows what's in it's head? Strange that it's fixated on you when
>> you're not one to get nasty or obnoxious.
>
>She loved to attack Julie whenever she had the chance and was very nasty

Interesting comment. Why do you care so much about Julie when your
participation in this group is tangential at best? What other nyms of
yours would we be familiar with? I've never seen Jill be 'nasty', BTW.

>and occasionally obnoxious.

We all can be at times. None of this explains your infatuation anyway.

>She's now responding to many other posts
>and inserting her opinion as if it was requested.

OMG!?!

>Are you her handler?

Are you her stalker?

On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 21:39:34 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2016-09-17 8:41 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 20:34:40 -0400, Alex > wrote:
>
>>>>>>> The shit old people do to occupy their time is unbelievable.
>>>>>> Like you, for example. Stalking somebody online.
>>>>> **** off.
>>>> Make me.
>>> Are you twelve?
>>
>> Yes. Four times over, in fact.
>>
>
>
>Your threatening manner probably made him think you were older than he is.

On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 7:57:46 AM UTC-10, Gary wrote:
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >
> > Well, look at his constituency.
> >
> > <https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-profile-of-the-average-Trump-supporter>
> >
> > 1.less educated than the average Republican
> > 2.poorer than the average Republican
> > 3.middle aged
> > 4.authoritarian
> > 5.populist
> > 6.unlikely to have a good credit score
>
> Typical liberal Democraps that know they are going to lose. Name
> calling, grim faces, never any sense of humor. If you don't believe in
> THEIR way, you are an idiot. ho hum.
>
> Trump is going to win. When he does, too bad he can't deport all the
> libtards that follow democratic party no matter who runs...
>
> I vote the person, not the party. I'm not a party lemming.

Sounds like you'll vote for any party without prejudice - as long as it ain't the democratic party. It's none of my business who you want to vote for but you're sending out mixed messages here.

In article >, says...
>
> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 21:31:22 -0400, Alex > wrote:
>
> >Je?us wrote:
> >> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 20:54:10 -0400, jmcquown >
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 9/16/2016 11:04 PM, Je?us wrote:
> >>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 22:59:21 -0400, Alex > wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>>> I knew you'd show up.
> >>>>> So you know the truth, too.
> >>>> Umm, no. Not sure I want to either.
> >>>>
> >>> I usually try to ignore this stuff but I wonder WTF he thinks the
> >>> "truth" is?! I have no idea what this loser is talking about.
> >> Who knows what's in it's head? Strange that it's fixated on you when
> >> you're not one to get nasty or obnoxious.
> >
> >She loved to attack Julie whenever she had the chance and was very nasty
>
> Interesting comment. Why do you care so much about Julie when your
> participation in this group is tangential at best? What other nyms of
> yours would we be familiar with? I've never seen Jill be 'nasty', BTW.

Oh come on.

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 05:38:49 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>In article >, says...
>>
>> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 21:31:22 -0400, Alex > wrote:
>>
>> >Je?us wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 20:54:10 -0400, jmcquown >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On 9/16/2016 11:04 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> >>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 22:59:21 -0400, Alex > wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>>> I knew you'd show up.
>> >>>>> So you know the truth, too.
>> >>>> Umm, no. Not sure I want to either.
>> >>>>
>> >>> I usually try to ignore this stuff but I wonder WTF he thinks the
>> >>> "truth" is?! I have no idea what this loser is talking about.
>> >> Who knows what's in it's head? Strange that it's fixated on you when
>> >> you're not one to get nasty or obnoxious.
>> >
>> >She loved to attack Julie whenever she had the chance and was very nasty
>>
>> Interesting comment. Why do you care so much about Julie when your
>> participation in this group is tangential at best? What other nyms of
>> yours would we be familiar with? I've never seen Jill be 'nasty', BTW.
>
>Oh come on.

You're not at all objective when it comes to Jill. What another person
can say, Jill cannot, according to you.

In article >, says...
>
> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 05:38:49 +1000, Bruce >
> wrote:
>
> >In article >, says...
> >>
> >> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 21:31:22 -0400, Alex > wrote:
> >>
> >> >Je?us wrote:
> >> >> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 20:54:10 -0400, jmcquown >
> >> >> wrote:
> >> >>
> >> >>> On 9/16/2016 11:04 PM, Je?us wrote:
> >> >>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 22:59:21 -0400, Alex > wrote:
> >> >>>>
> >> >>>>>> I knew you'd show up.
> >> >>>>> So you know the truth, too.
> >> >>>> Umm, no. Not sure I want to either.
> >> >>>>
> >> >>> I usually try to ignore this stuff but I wonder WTF he thinks the
> >> >>> "truth" is?! I have no idea what this loser is talking about.
> >> >> Who knows what's in it's head? Strange that it's fixated on you when
> >> >> you're not one to get nasty or obnoxious.
> >> >
> >> >She loved to attack Julie whenever she had the chance and was very nasty
> >>
> >> Interesting comment. Why do you care so much about Julie when your
> >> participation in this group is tangential at best? What other nyms of
> >> yours would we be familiar with? I've never seen Jill be 'nasty', BTW.
> >
> >Oh come on.
>
> You're not at all objective when it comes to Jill. What another person
> can say, Jill cannot, according to you.

Maybe we're at two different sides of the spectrum here.

On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 06:32:35 +1000, Bruce >
wrote:

>In article >, says...
>>
>> On Mon, 19 Sep 2016 05:38:49 +1000, Bruce >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >In article >, says...
>> >>
>> >> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 21:31:22 -0400, Alex > wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >Je?us wrote:
>> >> >> On Sat, 17 Sep 2016 20:54:10 -0400, jmcquown >
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>> On 9/16/2016 11:04 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> >> >>>> On Fri, 16 Sep 2016 22:59:21 -0400, Alex > wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>> I knew you'd show up.
>> >> >>>>> So you know the truth, too.
>> >> >>>> Umm, no. Not sure I want to either.
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>> I usually try to ignore this stuff but I wonder WTF he thinks the
>> >> >>> "truth" is?! I have no idea what this loser is talking about.
>> >> >> Who knows what's in it's head? Strange that it's fixated on you when
>> >> >> you're not one to get nasty or obnoxious.
>> >> >
>> >> >She loved to attack Julie whenever she had the chance and was very nasty
>> >>
>> >> Interesting comment. Why do you care so much about Julie when your
>> >> participation in this group is tangential at best? What other nyms of
>> >> yours would we be familiar with? I've never seen Jill be 'nasty', BTW.
>> >
>> >Oh come on.
>>
>> You're not at all objective when it comes to Jill. What another person
>> can say, Jill cannot, according to you.
>
>Maybe we're at two different sides of the spectrum here.

Perhaps.

On Sun, 18 Sep 2016 10:50:17 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Sunday, September 18, 2016 at 1:03:16 PM UTC-4, Dave Smith wrote:
>> On 2016-09-18 12:48 PM, Janet wrote:
>> > In article >, says...
>> >
>> >> A candidate for any position should be based on talent and
>> >> work/education history.
>> >
>> > Then it's very hard to understand why you would even consider
>> > supporting Trump.
>> >
>>
>>
>> I am shaking my head in astonishment that he didn't get tossed out in
>> the early stages of the nomination process.
>
>Well, look at his constituency.
>
><https://www.quora.com/Is-there-a-profile-of-the-average-Trump-supporter>
>
>1.less educated than the average Republican
>2.poorer than the average Republican
>3.middle aged
>4.authoritarian
>5.populist
>6.unlikely to have a good credit score
>
>The salt of the earth. <Insert Blazing Saddles quote here.>
>
>Cindy Hamilton

He focused his attention on all the kinds of people he successfully
bilked before. He knows what they like.
Janet US