"hank alrich" wrote in message
...
Is there a serious chance that if we ignore this dip**** he'll crawl to
some other forum and **** it over with his trudging witlessness? We
could give it a try.

They've been trying on Aus.Hi-Fi for years. Still no luck. Now he's here too
unfortunately.

TonyP.

** You still need to figure out what a circuit is first.


my understanding of a circuit is a closed loop. it seems to me that
when i connect my meter, whether it is set to read amperage (low
impedance) or voltage (high impedance), across the cable, it completes
the circuit. that is, in both cases, i have a complete circuit, just
the impedances have changed. in one case i detect current, in the
other, voltage. i'm trying to figure out whether a magnetic field
will induce current and voltage in a wire or just voltage.




** Can I beg you to please do the test as suggested with the loop and mic-
pre or desk plus headphones.

Your ears will tell you the results.




i should have time to do it today. could you explain it in more
detail -- i want to make sure i do it right. i am to take an
unshielded single conductor wire across the inputs of a preamp, and
then place the wire next to an ac xformer, then listen to the amount
of hum that results at the output of the preamp, correct?

cheers,
chris deckard
saint louis mo

** You still need to figure out what a circuit is first.


my understanding of a circuit is a closed loop. it seems to me that
when i connect my meter, whether it is set to read amperage (low
impedance) or voltage (high impedance), across the cable, it completes
the circuit. that is, in both cases, i have a complete circuit, just
the impedances have changed. in one case i detect current, in the
other, voltage. i'm trying to figure out whether a magnetic field
will induce current and voltage in a wire or just voltage.




** Can I beg you to please do the test as suggested with the loop and mic-
pre or desk plus headphones.

Your ears will tell you the results.




i should have time to do it today. could you explain it in more
detail -- i want to make sure i do it right. i am to take an
unshielded single conductor wire across the inputs of a preamp, and
then place the wire next to an ac xformer, then listen to the amount
of hum that results at the output of the preamp, correct?

cheers,
chris deckard
saint louis mo

"mr c deckard"


** You still need to figure out what a circuit is first.

my understanding of a circuit is a closed loop. it seems to me that
when i connect my meter, whether it is set to read amperage (low
impedance) or voltage (high impedance), across the cable, it completes
the circuit. that is, in both cases, i have a complete circuit, just
the impedances have changed. in one case i detect current, in the
other, voltage. i'm trying to figure out whether a magnetic field
will induce current and voltage in a wire or just voltage.


** Current flow cannot exist in an electrical circuit without a driving
voltage *BUT* a voltage can exist between the ends of an open in a circuit
without any current flow.




** Can I beg you to please do the test as suggested with the loop and
mic-
pre or desk plus headphones.

Your ears will tell you the results.



i should have time to do it today. could you explain it in more
detail -- i want to make sure i do it right. i am to take an
unshielded single conductor wire across the inputs of a preamp, and
then place the wire next to an ac xformer, then listen to the amount
of hum that results at the output of the preamp, correct?



" Get a length of insulated wire, connect the ends to pins 2 and 3 of an
XLR, plug it into a mic pre and try the effect of having an open loop,
closed loop and then twisted tightly all along its length when held close
proximity to an AC power transformer. "




............. Phil

"mr c deckard"


** You still need to figure out what a circuit is first.

my understanding of a circuit is a closed loop. it seems to me that
when i connect my meter, whether it is set to read amperage (low
impedance) or voltage (high impedance), across the cable, it completes
the circuit. that is, in both cases, i have a complete circuit, just
the impedances have changed. in one case i detect current, in the
other, voltage. i'm trying to figure out whether a magnetic field
will induce current and voltage in a wire or just voltage.


** Current flow cannot exist in an electrical circuit without a driving
voltage *BUT* a voltage can exist between the ends of an open in a circuit
without any current flow.




** Can I beg you to please do the test as suggested with the loop and
mic-
pre or desk plus headphones.

Your ears will tell you the results.



i should have time to do it today. could you explain it in more
detail -- i want to make sure i do it right. i am to take an
unshielded single conductor wire across the inputs of a preamp, and
then place the wire next to an ac xformer, then listen to the amount
of hum that results at the output of the preamp, correct?



" Get a length of insulated wire, connect the ends to pins 2 and 3 of an
XLR, plug it into a mic pre and try the effect of having an open loop,
closed loop and then twisted tightly all along its length when held close
proximity to an AC power transformer. "




............. Phil

In article
mr c deckard wrote:

: my understanding of a circuit is a closed loop. it seems to me that
: when i connect my meter, whether it is set to read amperage (low
: impedance) or voltage (high impedance), across the cable, it completes
: the circuit. that is, in both cases, i have a complete circuit, just
: the impedances have changed. in one case i detect current, in the
: other, voltage. i'm trying to figure out whether a magnetic field
: will induce current and voltage in a wire or just voltage.

I tried to explain this a few days ago, (and I may have failed or
it may have gotten lost in the flaming). But if you didn't read my former
response, give it a try.

Summary: *Changing* magnetic fields induce an *electric field* around
a closed path encircling the field lines. If a conductor with a gap
in it follows that path, charge in the conductor will redistribute
itself a bit to cancel the electric field within it (that's what
conductors *do*), the effect of which will be to squeeze the entire
electric field into the gap, the net result being a measureable
voltage across the gap. If the wire loop is closed, a current will
flow in the wire proportional to the integral of the electric field
along the path (emf), and inversely proportional to the total
resistance of the path (Ohm's law).

Changing mag field enclosed by loop induces
an Electric field around the loop which results in

- a measureable voltage across a gap in a conducting loop
- a current in a closed conducting loop according to Ohm's law

Intermediate (practical) cases with a resistor in the gap (or gaps)
left as homework ;-)

Bob Miller
Agilent Technologies
(remove spammenot to reply)

In article
mr c deckard wrote:

: my understanding of a circuit is a closed loop. it seems to me that
: when i connect my meter, whether it is set to read amperage (low
: impedance) or voltage (high impedance), across the cable, it completes
: the circuit. that is, in both cases, i have a complete circuit, just
: the impedances have changed. in one case i detect current, in the
: other, voltage. i'm trying to figure out whether a magnetic field
: will induce current and voltage in a wire or just voltage.

I tried to explain this a few days ago, (and I may have failed or
it may have gotten lost in the flaming). But if you didn't read my former
response, give it a try.

Summary: *Changing* magnetic fields induce an *electric field* around
a closed path encircling the field lines. If a conductor with a gap
in it follows that path, charge in the conductor will redistribute
itself a bit to cancel the electric field within it (that's what
conductors *do*), the effect of which will be to squeeze the entire
electric field into the gap, the net result being a measureable
voltage across the gap. If the wire loop is closed, a current will
flow in the wire proportional to the integral of the electric field
along the path (emf), and inversely proportional to the total
resistance of the path (Ohm's law).

Changing mag field enclosed by loop induces
an Electric field around the loop which results in

- a measureable voltage across a gap in a conducting loop
- a current in a closed conducting loop according to Ohm's law

Intermediate (practical) cases with a resistor in the gap (or gaps)
left as homework ;-)

Bob Miller
Agilent Technologies
(remove spammenot to reply)

Phil Allison wrote:
* More bull**** - the solvent *dissolves* the grease and carbon particle
mess that builds up on wipers.

and this dissolved grease and carbon just magically dissapears?

--
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." |
"someday the industry will have throbbing frontal lobes and will be able
to write provably correct software. also, I want a pony." -- Zach Brown

Phil Allison wrote:
* More bull**** - the solvent *dissolves* the grease and carbon particle
mess that builds up on wipers.

and this dissolved grease and carbon just magically dissapears?

--
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." |
"someday the industry will have throbbing frontal lobes and will be able
to write provably correct software. also, I want a pony." -- Zach Brown

Phil Allison wrote:
"Scott Dorsey"
Phil Allison

"Scott Dorsey"

I really would appreciate it if you would quote properly.

** I already do.

your attribution above is certainly a step in the correct direction.

You really should use the e-mail address like the RFC suggests.

* Nope - using names is correct.

perhaps in Phil land, but usenet has been around longer than the
internet, and that trumps you.

WD-40 is a silicone oil in a light naptha vehicle.

** It **actually** says on the can: " CFC free. No silicone.
Propellant
CO2 ".

According to the MSDS that I have, it's full of cyclomethicone,

** Who cares what you *say* you have.

The makers say on the can there is "no silicone".

Capice?

the US MSDS from their web site is he
http://www.wd40.com/Brands/pdfs/msds...aerosol.us.pdf

* Aliphatic Petroleum Distillates
* Petroleum Base Oil
* LVP Hydrocarbon Fluid
* Carbon Dioxide
* Non-hazardous Ingredients

no silicone here, unless I'm missing something.

--
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." |
"someday the industry will have throbbing frontal lobes and will be able
to write provably correct software. also, I want a pony." -- Zach Brown

Phil Allison wrote:
"Scott Dorsey"
Phil Allison

"Scott Dorsey"

I really would appreciate it if you would quote properly.

** I already do.

your attribution above is certainly a step in the correct direction.

You really should use the e-mail address like the RFC suggests.

* Nope - using names is correct.

perhaps in Phil land, but usenet has been around longer than the
internet, and that trumps you.

WD-40 is a silicone oil in a light naptha vehicle.

** It **actually** says on the can: " CFC free. No silicone.
Propellant
CO2 ".

According to the MSDS that I have, it's full of cyclomethicone,

** Who cares what you *say* you have.

The makers say on the can there is "no silicone".

Capice?

the US MSDS from their web site is he
http://www.wd40.com/Brands/pdfs/msds...aerosol.us.pdf

* Aliphatic Petroleum Distillates
* Petroleum Base Oil
* LVP Hydrocarbon Fluid
* Carbon Dioxide
* Non-hazardous Ingredients

no silicone here, unless I'm missing something.

--
Aaron J. Grier | "Not your ordinary poofy goof." |
"someday the industry will have throbbing frontal lobes and will be able
to write provably correct software. also, I want a pony." -- Zach Brown

"Aaron J. Grier"
Phil Allison

** More bull**** - the solvent *dissolves* the grease and carbon
particle
mess that builds up on wipers.

and this dissolved grease and carbon just magically dissapears?



** Long as it is gone form the wiper and electrical contact areas the job
is done.

Gravity takes it out of harms way, plus operating the control or
switch.




............ Phil

"Aaron J. Grier"
Phil Allison

** More bull**** - the solvent *dissolves* the grease and carbon
particle
mess that builds up on wipers.

and this dissolved grease and carbon just magically dissapears?



** Long as it is gone form the wiper and electrical contact areas the job
is done.

Gravity takes it out of harms way, plus operating the control or
switch.




............ Phil

"Aaron J. Grier"
Phil Allison
"Scott Dorsey"

According to the MSDS that I have, it's full of cyclomethicone,

** Who cares what you *say* you have.

The makers say on the can there is "no silicone".

Capice?

the US MSDS from their web site is he
http://www.wd40.com/Brands/pdfs/msds...aerosol.us.pdf

* Aliphatic Petroleum Distillates
* Petroleum Base Oil
* LVP Hydrocarbon Fluid
* Carbon Dioxide
* Non-hazardous Ingredients

no silicone here, unless I'm missing something.



** When Scott Dorsey lacks facts to support his wild assertions - he
just makes some up.





............ Phil

"Aaron J. Grier"
Phil Allison
"Scott Dorsey"

According to the MSDS that I have, it's full of cyclomethicone,

** Who cares what you *say* you have.

The makers say on the can there is "no silicone".

Capice?

the US MSDS from their web site is he
http://www.wd40.com/Brands/pdfs/msds...aerosol.us.pdf

* Aliphatic Petroleum Distillates
* Petroleum Base Oil
* LVP Hydrocarbon Fluid
* Carbon Dioxide
* Non-hazardous Ingredients

no silicone here, unless I'm missing something.



** When Scott Dorsey lacks facts to support his wild assertions - he
just makes some up.





............ Phil

"Phil Allison" wrote in message ...


no silicone here, unless I'm missing something.



** When Scott Dorsey lacks facts to support his wild assertions - he
just makes some up.



i don't believe scott is making anything up (he said he had a msds
that listed a silicone as an ingredient), and here's why: phil, you
say your can of wd-40 says, "no silicones", i have one here that
doesn't state that (it just has the "no cfc's logo and propellant:
CO2). all of this doesn't add up. i can think of 4 possibilities:


1) i can't find the "no silicones" on the label (in which case, please
specify where it is)

2) there was an older formulation that *did* contain silicones, which
scott has a msds from, and i have a can of.

3) the formulation is different in the us and australia

4) phil is making the "no silicones" thing up


(you may say i'm making it up, but i can provide pictures of this
can.)

i'm interested by this, since i common lore says wd-40 is bad stuff to
use on electronics. phil is challenging this, and if wd-40 had
changed its formulation, then he could be right.

cheers,
chris deckard
saint louis mo

"Phil Allison" wrote in message ...


no silicone here, unless I'm missing something.



** When Scott Dorsey lacks facts to support his wild assertions - he
just makes some up.



i don't believe scott is making anything up (he said he had a msds
that listed a silicone as an ingredient), and here's why: phil, you
say your can of wd-40 says, "no silicones", i have one here that
doesn't state that (it just has the "no cfc's logo and propellant:
CO2). all of this doesn't add up. i can think of 4 possibilities:


1) i can't find the "no silicones" on the label (in which case, please
specify where it is)

2) there was an older formulation that *did* contain silicones, which
scott has a msds from, and i have a can of.

3) the formulation is different in the us and australia

4) phil is making the "no silicones" thing up


(you may say i'm making it up, but i can provide pictures of this
can.)

i'm interested by this, since i common lore says wd-40 is bad stuff to
use on electronics. phil is challenging this, and if wd-40 had
changed its formulation, then he could be right.

cheers,
chris deckard
saint louis mo

I don't think Phil said there was writing that specifically said
"no silicones" on the can, but that since it was not explicitly
listed as an ingredient that one can assume that it is not in there.

Anyway, back to the topic of the thread ... is this Rivers IDIOT
for real?

-mike

"mr c deckard" wrote in message
. ..
"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...


no silicone here, unless I'm missing something.



** When Scott Dorsey lacks facts to support his wild assertions - he
just makes some up.



i don't believe scott is making anything up (he said he had a msds
that listed a silicone as an ingredient), and here's why: phil, you
say your can of wd-40 says, "no silicones", i have one here that
doesn't state that (it just has the "no cfc's logo and propellant:
CO2). all of this doesn't add up. i can think of 4 possibilities:


1) i can't find the "no silicones" on the label (in which case, please
specify where it is)

2) there was an older formulation that *did* contain silicones, which
scott has a msds from, and i have a can of.

3) the formulation is different in the us and australia

4) phil is making the "no silicones" thing up


(you may say i'm making it up, but i can provide pictures of this
can.)

i'm interested by this, since i common lore says wd-40 is bad stuff to
use on electronics. phil is challenging this, and if wd-40 had
changed its formulation, then he could be right.

cheers,
chris deckard
saint louis mo

I don't think Phil said there was writing that specifically said
"no silicones" on the can, but that since it was not explicitly
listed as an ingredient that one can assume that it is not in there.

Anyway, back to the topic of the thread ... is this Rivers IDIOT
for real?

-mike

"mr c deckard" wrote in message
. ..
"Phil Allison" wrote in message
...


no silicone here, unless I'm missing something.



** When Scott Dorsey lacks facts to support his wild assertions - he
just makes some up.



i don't believe scott is making anything up (he said he had a msds
that listed a silicone as an ingredient), and here's why: phil, you
say your can of wd-40 says, "no silicones", i have one here that
doesn't state that (it just has the "no cfc's logo and propellant:
CO2). all of this doesn't add up. i can think of 4 possibilities:


1) i can't find the "no silicones" on the label (in which case, please
specify where it is)

2) there was an older formulation that *did* contain silicones, which
scott has a msds from, and i have a can of.

3) the formulation is different in the us and australia

4) phil is making the "no silicones" thing up


(you may say i'm making it up, but i can provide pictures of this
can.)

i'm interested by this, since i common lore says wd-40 is bad stuff to
use on electronics. phil is challenging this, and if wd-40 had
changed its formulation, then he could be right.

cheers,
chris deckard
saint louis mo

"Mike Turk" wrote in message...

Anyway, back to the topic of the thread ... is this Rivers IDIOT
for real?

Rivers who?

"Mike Turk" wrote in message...

Anyway, back to the topic of the thread ... is this Rivers IDIOT
for real?

Rivers who?

David Morgan wrote:

"Mike Turk" wrote in message...

Anyway, back to the topic of the thread ... is this Rivers IDIOT
for real?

Rivers who?

Rivers Real. I think he's a banjo player.

Meanwhile, Filly Assilon is in the ER; he broke an elbow when he fell
off the fader he was trying to ride.

--
ha

David Morgan wrote:

"Mike Turk" wrote in message...

Anyway, back to the topic of the thread ... is this Rivers IDIOT
for real?

Rivers who?

Rivers Real. I think he's a banjo player.

Meanwhile, Filly Assilon is in the ER; he broke an elbow when he fell
off the fader he was trying to ride.

--
ha

"hank alrich" wrote in message
. ..
David Morgan wrote:

"Mike Turk" wrote in message...

Anyway, back to the topic of the thread ... is this Rivers IDIOT
for real?

Rivers who?

Rivers Real. I think he's a banjo player.


No, he's a Cuban guitar player and his name is Riviera Real. Everybody
knows that.

Steve King

"hank alrich" wrote in message
. ..
David Morgan wrote:

"Mike Turk" wrote in message...

Anyway, back to the topic of the thread ... is this Rivers IDIOT
for real?

Rivers who?

Rivers Real. I think he's a banjo player.


No, he's a Cuban guitar player and his name is Riviera Real. Everybody
knows that.

Steve King

Mike Turk wrote:
I don't think Phil said there was writing that specifically said
"no silicones" on the can, but that since it was not explicitly
listed as an ingredient that one can assume that it is not in there.

Phil did say precisely that.

The MSDS that I have here is a decade or so old, though. So something
may have changed in the meantime. On the other hand, the new MSDS has
a number of items which are basically catch-alls for all sorts of
different things, so it may not have.

Anyway, back to the topic of the thread ... is this Rivers IDIOT
for real?

Mike is real. Which is more than I can say for some of the folks
that occasionally turn up here.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Mike Turk wrote:
I don't think Phil said there was writing that specifically said
"no silicones" on the can, but that since it was not explicitly
listed as an ingredient that one can assume that it is not in there.

Phil did say precisely that.

The MSDS that I have here is a decade or so old, though. So something
may have changed in the meantime. On the other hand, the new MSDS has
a number of items which are basically catch-alls for all sorts of
different things, so it may not have.

Anyway, back to the topic of the thread ... is this Rivers IDIOT
for real?

Mike is real. Which is more than I can say for some of the folks
that occasionally turn up here.
--scott
--
"C'est un Nagra. C'est suisse, et tres, tres precis."

Anyway, back to the topic of the thread ... is this Rivers IDIOT
for real?

No, he's a figment of our imagination, now Phil can move on :-)

Anyway, back to the topic of the thread ... is this Rivers IDIOT
for real?

No, he's a figment of our imagination, now Phil can move on :-)

"mr c deckard"
"Phil Allison"


** When Scott Dorsey lacks facts to support his wild assertions - he
just makes some up.


i don't believe scott is making anything up (he said he had a msds
that listed a silicone as an ingredient),


** What you chose to believe is a comment on yourself and how gullible you
are.

A document someone *says* they have but cannot produce is not
evidence.



and here's why: phil, you say your can of wd-40 says, "no silicones",


* WRONG - the words " No silicone" are printed on every can sold in
Australia.

See: http://www.wd40.com/Brands/wd40_faqs.html for a company statement
on what WD40 does NOT contain.



i have one here that
doesn't state that (it just has the "no cfc's logo and propellant:
CO2). all of this doesn't add up. i can think of 4 possibilities:


1) i can't find the "no silicones" on the label (in which case, please
specify where it is)

2) there was an older formulation that *did* contain silicones, which
scott has a msds from, and i have a can of.

3) the formulation is different in the us and australia

4) phil is making the "no silicones" thing up

5) C. Deckard is a bloody idiot.



i'm interested by this, since i common lore


** Whaaaaaat !! Is "common lore" just like the "common law" ???????


says wd-40 is bad stuff to use on electronics.


** Now I see, "common lore" = mindless bull**** spewed by Yank
lunatics.





.............. Phil

"mr c deckard"
"Phil Allison"


** When Scott Dorsey lacks facts to support his wild assertions - he
just makes some up.


i don't believe scott is making anything up (he said he had a msds
that listed a silicone as an ingredient),


** What you chose to believe is a comment on yourself and how gullible you
are.

A document someone *says* they have but cannot produce is not
evidence.



and here's why: phil, you say your can of wd-40 says, "no silicones",


* WRONG - the words " No silicone" are printed on every can sold in
Australia.

See: http://www.wd40.com/Brands/wd40_faqs.html for a company statement
on what WD40 does NOT contain.



i have one here that
doesn't state that (it just has the "no cfc's logo and propellant:
CO2). all of this doesn't add up. i can think of 4 possibilities:


1) i can't find the "no silicones" on the label (in which case, please
specify where it is)

2) there was an older formulation that *did* contain silicones, which
scott has a msds from, and i have a can of.

3) the formulation is different in the us and australia

4) phil is making the "no silicones" thing up

5) C. Deckard is a bloody idiot.



i'm interested by this, since i common lore


** Whaaaaaat !! Is "common lore" just like the "common law" ???????


says wd-40 is bad stuff to use on electronics.


** Now I see, "common lore" = mindless bull**** spewed by Yank
lunatics.





.............. Phil

"Mike Turk"

I don't think Phil said there was writing that specifically said
"no silicones" on the can,


** I certainly did say it was written on the can.


but that since it was not explicitly
listed as an ingredient that one can assume that it is not in there.


** Wrong.


see http://www.wd40.com/Brands/wd40_faqs.html




........... Phil

"Mike Turk"

I don't think Phil said there was writing that specifically said
"no silicones" on the can,


** I certainly did say it was written on the can.


but that since it was not explicitly
listed as an ingredient that one can assume that it is not in there.


** Wrong.


see http://www.wd40.com/Brands/wd40_faqs.html




........... Phil

In article writes:

Anyway, back to the topic of the thread ... is this Rivers IDIOT
for real?

No. He's really someone else.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

In article writes:

Anyway, back to the topic of the thread ... is this Rivers IDIOT
for real?

No. He's really someone else.

--
I'm really Mike Rivers )
However, until the spam goes away or Hell freezes over,
lots of IP addresses are blocked from this system. If
you e-mail me and it bounces, use your secret decoder ring
and reach me he double-m-eleven-double-zero at yahoo

David Morgan (MAMS) wrote:
"Mike Turk" wrote in message...

Anyway, back to the topic of the thread ... is this Rivers IDIOT
for real?

Rivers who?

Rivers Phoenixs ?

geoff

From: "Geoff Wood" -nospam

Rivers who?

Rivers Phoenixs ?

geoff


How can it be that no one has mentioned Rivers Cuomo??
-John Vice
www.summertimestudios.com

Phil, Phil, Phil, relax, take a deep breath, exhale negativity,
breathe in positive energy!

Mr. Rivers knows a lot about electronics, and helps out a lot of
people on rec.audio.pro.

You seem to be going *crazy* over some minor point about electronics
that I can barely comprehend. Now I would say with certainty that you
and Mr. Rivers both know more about circuits in your little fingers
than I know in my entire body. But, I mean, you're totally railing on
the guy over semantics and some arcane point. Even if he *was* off
on some idea or mis-explained something in passing, his batting
average is really good, and he's definitely not a f--- wit! I mean,
please cut the guy some slack!

"xy"

Phil, Phil, Phil, relax, take a deep breath, exhale negativity,
breathe in positive energy!

Mr. Rivers knows a lot about electronics and helps out a lot of
people on rec.audio.pro.

You seem to be going *crazy* over some minor point about electronics
that I can barely comprehend. Now I would say with certainty that you
and Mr. Rivers both know more about circuits in your little fingers
than I know in my entire body. But, I mean, you're totally railing on
the guy over semantics and some arcane point. Even if he *was* off
on some idea or mis-explained something in passing, his batting
average is really good, and he's definitely not a f--- wit! I mean,
please cut the guy some slack!



** You and a few other mindless sycophants round here should volunteer to
pay Mike River's dry cleaning bill. With all that *****ing in his pocket*
you have been doing it will cost him plenty to remove the foul smell of your
collective urine from his clothes. Time to pass the hat around.


BTW 1 Mr Rivers needs to take serious heed of the words of a famous
American movie maker when he said " ... a man's gotta know his limitations
".


BTW 2 In order to declare that someone is not a ****wit you first of
all have to be sure you are not one yourself.




................. Phil

Phil Allison wrote:
** You and a few other mindless sycophants round here should volunteer to
pay Mike River's dry cleaning bill.

Who's Mike River?

- Logan