What has happened to McFeeleys

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 8:31:12 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> On 9/25/2015 5:35 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 2:03:28 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> >> DerbyDad03 <[email protected]> wrote:
> >>> On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 10:12:51 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> >>>> On 9/23/2015 9:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >>>>> On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 8:41:34 PM UTC-4, krw wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:50:33 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> >>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>> On 9/23/2015 11:48 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 9:06:23 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On 9/23/2015 6:41 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>> On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 5:33:42 PM UTC-4, Mike M wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:03:20 -0400, woodchucker <[email protected]>
> >>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/21/2015 12:48 PM, Leon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>>> Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?
> >>>>>>>>>>>> yea, I noticed that too.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Also having a tough time locating simple screws..
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Seems like they went off the deep end.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> Not a great design.
> >>>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>>> I think many sites lose track of simplicity.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> to many of the young crowd (developers) they think it's intuitive.
> >>>>>>>>>>>> But not to me. Too many make it easy so they can develop it, but not so
> >>>>>>>>>>>> it's functionable.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> No kidding, I find that everywhere, what happened to the expression
> >>>>>>>>>>> tell it to me as though I were an idiot. Now I'm not getting any
> >>>>>>>>>>> younger but it seems like making it flashy is more important then
> >>>>>>>>>>> making it work. Hmmm kind of like are government.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Mike M
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> If you want to hear about the ridiculous process for developing a
> >>>>>>>>>> government website, listen to this podcast:
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> https://soundcloud.com/replyall/34-dmv-nation
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> I think one only had to try to sign up for Obamacare to understand the
> >>>>>>>>> development of a government website. ;~)
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> That very subject is discussed in that podcast. Regardless of whether you
> >>>>>>>> are for Obamacare or not, it's a shame that the website development process
> >>>>>>>> (which was in place long before Obamacare was a gleam in Barack's eye) was
> >>>>>>>> what caused so much of the initial problems with signing up. First
> >>>>>>>> impressions and all that. "Obamacare? Have you seen their website? Man, does
> >>>>>>>> Obamacare suck!"
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> It may (or may not) suck, but the pre-existing website design process was
> >>>>>>>> what caused many of the initial problems. Per the podcast, it wasn't clear
> >>>>>>>> which of the many contractors involved was responsible for stitching all of
> >>>>>>>> the various modules together. Integrated testing wasn't started until 2
> >>>>>>>> weeks before it went live. That design process wouldn't work well for *any*
> >>>>>>>> program, retailer, forum, etc.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> The difference between a business financial report and a government
> >>>>>>> financial report is that the government report has no bottom line. So
> >>>>>>> anything that the government does is pretty much the result of
> >>>>>>> operating blind.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> A *big* +1
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> Government never does a cost/benefit analysis.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Really? Is Executive Order 12866 no longer in effect? It was issued in
> >>>>> 1993 and amended in 2007. I see no record of it being reversed. Do you
> >>>>> know that it has been?
> >>>>>
> >>>>> http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/2560
> >>>>>
> >>>>> https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12866.pdf
> >>>>>
> >>>>
> >>>> Yeah, that is not working like it should. If it really was working the
> >>>> debt would be getting smaller.
> >>>
> >>> Not necessarily. It all depends on what you consider a "benefit" and how you price it.
> >>>
> >>> A cost-benefit analysis may have nothing to do with reducing costs. If the
> >>> govt adds 15 new programs and are able to justify the costs based on the
> >>> benefits provided, our debt could go higher.
> >>>
> >>> e.g. If the govt were to borrow a few billion to fix our roads, the benefits
> >>> might be that you and I would spend less on car repairs and lives might even
> >>> be saved. The govt goes deeper in debt, but the welfare of it's people
> >>> improves.
> >>>
> >>> If I decide to buy curtains, the benefit might be that I can walk around
> >>> nude instead of wearing all these damn clothes. My costs may go up, but
> >>> my family would gain the benefit of laughing at me.
> >>
> >> The problem of not operating with in a budget is that eventually the money
> >> that the government spends either dries up because its credit rating
> >> continues to drop or it continues to water down the buying power by adding
> >> more currency to the world. Neither scenario is on I want to see happen.
> >
> > I have argument with that at all.
> >
> > My only point was that cost benefit analysis doesn't neccesarily save money. In fact, one could argue that it can actually waste money by justifying more expenditures.
> >
>
> I think that was the point I was trying to make in the beginning with
> not bottom line on a financial report.

Gotcha!

On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 5:26:07 PM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
=20
> I'll look at Highland and Fastenal. I tried McMaster and was=20
> unsuccessful. Strangely enough.

After my recent unsatisfactory experience with Spax, I decided that they do=
have their use, but I can't carry a hardware store of different screws wit=
h me. I need a good, strong, 3 - 3 1/4" screw, and when I saw the Spax at =
3 1/4' (or something close) I bit. They are OK, and when in a place where =
I can get over the screws they are great.

For what I do, they are OK. But I now have about 250 or so of them, and wi=
ll use them all since I found that the sell the genuine Spax driver separat=
ely for about a buck and a half.

After that, off to Fastenal, or like Lew said, Jamestown. Many years ago, =
I think at Lew's suggestion, I bought a bunch of all stainless screw for a =
large commercial repair. They were excellent quality, and in the end, I di=
dn't care about the price since I was so pleased with the product.

Robert

DerbyDad03 <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 10:12:51 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
>> On 9/23/2015 9:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>> On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 8:41:34 PM UTC-4, krw wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:50:33 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/23/2015 11:48 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 9:06:23 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
>>>>>>> On 9/23/2015 6:41 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 5:33:42 PM UTC-4, Mike M wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:03:20 -0400, woodchucker <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 9/21/2015 12:48 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
>>>>>>>>>>> You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?
>>>>>>>>>> yea, I noticed that too.
>>>>>>>>>> Also having a tough time locating simple screws..
>>>>>>>>>> Seems like they went off the deep end.
>>>>>>>>>> Not a great design.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I think many sites lose track of simplicity.
>>>>>>>>>> to many of the young crowd (developers) they think it's intuitive.
>>>>>>>>>> But not to me. Too many make it easy so they can develop it, but not so
>>>>>>>>>> it's functionable.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> No kidding, I find that everywhere, what happened to the expression
>>>>>>>>> tell it to me as though I were an idiot. Now I'm not getting any
>>>>>>>>> younger but it seems like making it flashy is more important then
>>>>>>>>> making it work. Hmmm kind of like are government.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Mike M
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you want to hear about the ridiculous process for developing a
>>>>>>>> government website, listen to this podcast:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> https://soundcloud.com/replyall/34-dmv-nation
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I think one only had to try to sign up for Obamacare to understand the
>>>>>>> development of a government website. ;~)
>>>>>>
>>>>>> That very subject is discussed in that podcast. Regardless of whether you
>>>>>> are for Obamacare or not, it's a shame that the website development process
>>>>>> (which was in place long before Obamacare was a gleam in Barack's eye) was
>>>>>> what caused so much of the initial problems with signing up. First
>>>>>> impressions and all that. "Obamacare? Have you seen their website? Man, does
>>>>>> Obamacare suck!"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> It may (or may not) suck, but the pre-existing website design process was
>>>>>> what caused many of the initial problems. Per the podcast, it wasn't clear
>>>>>> which of the many contractors involved was responsible for stitching all of
>>>>>> the various modules together. Integrated testing wasn't started until 2
>>>>>> weeks before it went live. That design process wouldn't work well for *any*
>>>>>> program, retailer, forum, etc.
>>>>>>
>>>>> The difference between a business financial report and a government
>>>>> financial report is that the government report has no bottom line. So
>>>>> anything that the government does is pretty much the result of
>>>>> operating blind.
>>>>
>>>> A *big* +1
>>>>
>>>> Government never does a cost/benefit analysis.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Really? Is Executive Order 12866 no longer in effect? It was issued in
>>> 1993 and amended in 2007. I see no record of it being reversed. Do you
>>> know that it has been?
>>>
>>> http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/2560
>>>
>>> https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12866.pdf
>>>
>>
>> Yeah, that is not working like it should. If it really was working the
>> debt would be getting smaller.
>
> Not necessarily. It all depends on what you consider a "benefit" and how you price it.
>
> A cost-benefit analysis may have nothing to do with reducing costs. If the
> govt adds 15 new programs and are able to justify the costs based on the
> benefits provided, our debt could go higher.
>
> e.g. If the govt were to borrow a few billion to fix our roads, the benefits
> might be that you and I would spend less on car repairs and lives might even
> be saved. The govt goes deeper in debt, but the welfare of it's people
> improves.
>
> If I decide to buy curtains, the benefit might be that I can walk around
> nude instead of wearing all these damn clothes. My costs may go up, but
> my family would gain the benefit of laughing at me.

The problem of not operating with in a budget is that eventually the money
that the government spends either dries up because its credit rating
continues to drop or it continues to water down the buying power by adding
more currency to the world. Neither scenario is on I want to see happen.

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 9:06:23 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> On 9/23/2015 6:41 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 5:33:42 PM UTC-4, Mike M wrote:
> >> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:03:20 -0400, woodchucker <[email protected]>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 9/21/2015 12:48 PM, Leon wrote:
> >>>> I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
> >>>> You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.
> >>>>
> >>>> Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?
> >>> yea, I noticed that too.
> >>> Also having a tough time locating simple screws..
> >>> Seems like they went off the deep end.
> >>> Not a great design.
> >>>
> >>> I think many sites lose track of simplicity.
> >>> to many of the young crowd (developers) they think it's intuitive.
> >>> But not to me. Too many make it easy so they can develop it, but not so
> >>> it's functionable.
> >>
> >> No kidding, I find that everywhere, what happened to the expression
> >> tell it to me as though I were an idiot. Now I'm not getting any
> >> younger but it seems like making it flashy is more important then
> >> making it work. Hmmm kind of like are government.
> >>
> >> Mike M
> >
> > If you want to hear about the ridiculous process for developing a government website, listen to this podcast:
> >
> > https://soundcloud.com/replyall/34-dmv-nation
> >
>
>
> I think one only had to try to sign up for Obamacare to understand the
> development of a government website. ;~)

That very subject is discussed in that podcast. Regardless of whether you
are for Obamacare or not, it's a shame that the website development process
(which was in place long before Obamacare was a gleam in Barack's eye) was
what caused so much of the initial problems with signing up. First
impressions and all that. "Obamacare? Have you seen their website? Man, does
Obamacare suck!"

It may (or may not) suck, but the pre-existing website design process was
what caused many of the initial problems. Per the podcast, it wasn't clear
which of the many contractors involved was responsible for stitching all of
the various modules together. Integrated testing wasn't started until 2
weeks before it went live. That design process wouldn't work well for *any*
program, retailer, forum, etc.

Beseech entreat adjure conjure press. Ask for or express earnestly.

Those from Visual Thesaurus seems good to me.

Martin

On 9/27/2015 8:34 AM, John McCoy wrote:
> DerbyDad03 <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> I still don't understand your use of the word "bid". As far as I know,
>> to "bid" on something usually involves money.
>
> "Bid" is the word that's used. I assume by analogy with
> bidding on a contract to provide some service, but I don't
> know the background of it.
>
> John
>

On 9/21/2015 2:03 PM, woodchucker wrote:
> On 9/21/2015 12:48 PM, Leon wrote:
>> I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
>> You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.
>>
>> Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?
> yea, I noticed that too.
> Also having a tough time locating simple screws..
> Seems like they went off the deep end.
> Not a great design.


Exactly, thank goodness I had a part number. After 30 minutes I got
tired of hunting.


>
> I think many sites lose track of simplicity.
> to many of the young crowd (developers) they think it's intuitive.
> But not to me. Too many make it easy so they can develop it, but not so
> it's functionable.
>

On 9/22/2015 11:41 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 8:44:02 AM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
>
>> With a screw you seldom
>> start straight and the bit is 8~10" from your hand.
>
> Exactly my problem. I encountered this when trying to attach a runner under a cabinet that was wet for some time, then the "legs" of the carcass began to rot. With a new marble top going on and me unable to remove the cabinets without tearing up the wall treatments, I decided to get my butt face down on the floor and reach under the cabinets to attach new legs/runners when the kick was off. This became a project unto itself, with me resorting to starting the screw on the 2x4, then positioning it, and finally driving the screw.
>
> Not a chance.
>
> After a about a half hour of wrestling with them, I went out to the truck and got some square drive, galvanized screws that were on plastic tape for a screw gun. Problem solved. Spax, back in the tool box.
>
>> Anyway don't let your Spax screw experience detour you from all Spax. I
>> don't use many Spax screws but HD carries Spax Lag Screws. They have
>> the expected hex head that you put a common wrench or socket on and they
>> are much higher quality and stronger than the common lag screw. I used
>> them to hang my lumber rack on the wall. I did not want to break a 5"
>> lag screw.
>
> I wouldn't hesitate to buy Spax for a specific job or purpose, but I want utility type screws for my everyday repairs. I often find myself reaching inside framing structures, inside walls, and generally in tight places where I can't be right over the work with the driver nearly perpendicular to the work. I saw those whopper Spax screws... impressive.
>
> When I finally get to Fastenal, I will let you know if I find something for general utility use.
>
> Robert
>
;~)

I went to a local Fastenal yesterday looking for #6, 5/8" washer or pan
head screws. No luck. Odd screw anyway.

I finally ended up finding the online catalog on the McFeeley web site,
thanks to J.Clarke. I found what I needed and ordered. I did order
1,000 of the Spax #6, 5/8", pan head, self taping, combo screws. Those
are only supposed to be square and Phillips. We'll see.

I tried Quick Screws. An order of 1000 similar screws was about $18.
+$2 handling + $12.95 shipping. I passed. McFeeleys was only $8.95 for
shipping. Ended up being a couple of dollars cheaper with a #1 square
drive bit for the Spax screws and 100, 1-1/8 washer head screws for
attaching drawer fronts.

Unfortunately HD does not carry much of what I need so I try to buy in
bulk on every project screws.

On another note the last box of "deck" screws that I bought, about 3
years ago I was not pleased. What ever brand Lowe's sells with the star
bit drive and yellow color. I built a small porch/deck for our storage
shed and I would say that 5~8 screws have broken several months after
being driven. The same screws were used inside the shed for shelving
with no issues. The boards that had the broken screws warped, so I am
sure that is why the screws broke but damn those screws were being used
exactly for what they were intended. Other brand replacement screws
pulled the boards back down into position and are doing fine up to this
point.

Concerning the cool deal at Highland Hardware, the Festool box with the
1,300 Spax screws, I verified that they were all combo and not torx.
BUT all were flat head and I seldom use that screw any more. I steer
more towards washer head and pan head screws, when I use them. The Kreg
screws are pretty darn good for most any use.

On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 8:41:34 PM UTC-4, krw wrote:
> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:50:33 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> wrote:
>
> >On 9/23/2015 11:48 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >> On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 9:06:23 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> >>> On 9/23/2015 6:41 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >>>> On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 5:33:42 PM UTC-4, Mike M wrote:
> >>>>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:03:20 -0400, woodchucker <[email protected]>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> On 9/21/2015 12:48 PM, Leon wrote:
> >>>>>>> I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
> >>>>>>> You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?
> >>>>>> yea, I noticed that too.
> >>>>>> Also having a tough time locating simple screws..
> >>>>>> Seems like they went off the deep end.
> >>>>>> Not a great design.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> I think many sites lose track of simplicity.
> >>>>>> to many of the young crowd (developers) they think it's intuitive.
> >>>>>> But not to me. Too many make it easy so they can develop it, but not so
> >>>>>> it's functionable.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> No kidding, I find that everywhere, what happened to the expression
> >>>>> tell it to me as though I were an idiot. Now I'm not getting any
> >>>>> younger but it seems like making it flashy is more important then
> >>>>> making it work. Hmmm kind of like are government.
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Mike M
> >>>>
> >>>> If you want to hear about the ridiculous process for developing a government website, listen to this podcast:
> >>>>
> >>>> https://soundcloud.com/replyall/34-dmv-nation
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> I think one only had to try to sign up for Obamacare to understand the
> >>> development of a government website. ;~)
> >>
> >> That very subject is discussed in that podcast. Regardless of whether you
> >> are for Obamacare or not, it's a shame that the website development process
> >> (which was in place long before Obamacare was a gleam in Barack's eye) was
> >> what caused so much of the initial problems with signing up. First
> >> impressions and all that. "Obamacare? Have you seen their website? Man, does
> >> Obamacare suck!"
> >>
> >> It may (or may not) suck, but the pre-existing website design process was
> >> what caused many of the initial problems. Per the podcast, it wasn't clear
> >> which of the many contractors involved was responsible for stitching all of
> >> the various modules together. Integrated testing wasn't started until 2
> >> weeks before it went live. That design process wouldn't work well for *any*
> >> program, retailer, forum, etc.
> >>
> >The difference between a business financial report and a government
> >financial report is that the government report has no bottom line. So
> >anything that the government does is pretty much the result of
> >operating blind.
>
> A *big* +1
>
> Government never does a cost/benefit analysis.
>

Really? Is Executive Order 12866 no longer in effect? It was issued in 1993 and amended in 2007. I see no record of it being reversed. Do you know that it has been?

http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/2560

https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12866.pdf

"Leon" wrote:

>I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
> You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.
>
> Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?

------------------------------------------------
Check out Jamestown Distributors.

Excellent marine supplier.

May be a tad expensive.

Lew

Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

>
> Bidding is tendering an offer for something,usually in an auction
> style format. The something could be anything, like a car, or a job,
> or a wife.
>
> What the offer you are tendering could be money, years of service, or
> goats.
>
> I bid 3 goats for your daughter, I bid 20 years service for that job,
> I big 200 gold bars for that Festool vacuum.
>

I don't have any of those things, but 200 gold bars for a Festool vacuum?
I'll get one!

You'd have to offer a lot more than 3 goats for a daughter nowadays.
Haven't you heard of inflation?

Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.

Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

> On 9/27/2015 4:06 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 9/27/2015 9:37 AM, Jack wrote:
>>
>>> I bid 3 goats for your daughter, I bid 20 years service for that
>>> job, I big 200 gold bars for that Festool vacuum.
>>>
>>
>> I'll take your offer for the goats. Daughter is packing now. if the
>> goats will be here in time for dinner I'll toss in a wheelbarrow full
>> of her toiletries in the bathroom.
>
> I wasn't really bidding, just scratching my nose...
>

I queried 10 fathers about their daughters, and none of them had
anything bad to say about them. You'll be alright. :-)

Puckdropper
--
Make it to fit, don't make it fit.

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 3:38:24 PM UTC-4, John McCoy wrote:
> "[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 10:54:47 AM UTC-5, John McCoy wrote:
> >> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
> >> news:[email protected]:
> >>
> >>
> >> > Found out the other day, talking to a new mail carrier, that this
> >> > is how the USPS is awarding carrier jobs in the area.
> >> >
> >> > Current employee's actually bid on available routes.
> >>
> >> Nothing odd there, that's how union jobs are usually handled.
> >> Airlines, railroads, post office, they all work that way.
> >>
> >> John
> >
> > Man... I am so out of touch with the rest of the world sometimes. I
> > have been self employed for over thirty years now and it never has
> > occurred to me (except in a cigar smoke and whiskey induced pleasant
> > dream) of being able to pick and choose my work or how hard I would
> > like to work that week or month. I cannot in my wildest dreams imagine
> > being very well paid and then getting to decide what I wanted to do
> > and how hard I wanted to work.
>
> OK, I think you're misunderstanding how this works. There's
> a set number of jobs (postal routes, whatever), that matches
> the number of workers. Guys bid on which one they want. The
> bidder with highest seniority wins. Typically, the new guy
> ends up with the least desirable job - worst hours, least
> overtime, grouchiest customers or whatever. Then they work
> that job every day until something changes (a new route is
> added, or something), then everyone bids again.
>
> I can use my buddy at the railroad as an example. Last time
> they rearranged jobs and everyone had to rebid, he had two
> he bid on (he's in the middle of the seniority rank, so no
> point bidding on the best jobs). One was a day job that
> usually worked 8 hours, the other went on at 3am but usually
> got a couple hours overtime each day. A lot of guys wouldn't
> bid the 3am job, even tho it paid better, because of the
> hours. My buddy actually likes working nights, so he was
> pleased to win that job.
>
> John

Could you define "bid" this context? Does it simply mean "choose"?

There's a list of jobs and you choose from what's left when it's your turn, based on your seniority rank, right?

On Sunday, September 27, 2015 at 9:37:21 AM UTC-4, Jack wrote:
> On 9/27/2015 3:23 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>
> > I still don't understand your use of the word "bid". As far as I know, to "bid" on something
> > usually involves money.
> > "I won the auction because I bid higher than everyone else."
> >
> > "I got the contract because I bid lower than everyone else."
> >
> > I assume that these guys aren't paying the jobs or taking a lower > >
> > salary to get them, so how is this a "bidding" process?
>
> Bidding is tendering an offer for something,usually in an auction style
> format. The something could be anything, like a car, or a job, or a wife.
>
> What the offer you are tendering could be money, years of service, or goats.
>

Isn't there typically an exchange of the item that was tendered when the
bid is accepted/won?

I give you my goats, you give me your daughters.

How do you give someone "years of service" if that is the "tender" offered?

"I have 20 years of service, Jack only has 15, so I win the bid for that
primo job. I'll deliver my 20 years of service by noon tomorrow."

It still sounds like a "ordered choice" based on some criteria, not a "bid".

On 9/21/2015 12:48 PM, Leon wrote:
> I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
> You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.
>
> Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?

The original McFeelys had a wealth of information too. Gone. All sorts
of information on selecting the proper screw is nowhere to been seen
these days.

On 9/25/2015 2:36 PM, John McCoy wrote:

>>> Nothing odd there, that's how union jobs are usually handled.
>>> Airlines, railroads, post office, they all work that way.

Yep, and in a nutshell why we see such mediocre performance from
entities where jobs are based on politics instead of market forces.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 9:10:58 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
=20
> Congress does. They simplified the process. If it benefits us, the=20
> cost to the taxpayer does not matter.

Amen, brother!

I have several folks in my social group that work for the government, and t=
he way they describe the waste (explained to me as , "since when is providi=
ng jobs/employment a waste?") for people that do nothing is incredible.

One has a govt job that has a section of about 45 people. There is so litt=
le work that they actually bid on the work to be done against their fellow =
employees, and then the folks that don't bid have nothing to do. They are =
written up if they have 3 months in a row with little or no production, but=
since they are only making about $60K a year each, the govt doesn't fuss t=
hat much over the small potatoes.

Robert

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 2:03:28 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> DerbyDad03 <[email protected]> wrote:
> > On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 10:12:51 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> >> On 9/23/2015 9:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >>> On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 8:41:34 PM UTC-4, krw wrote:
> >>>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:50:33 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> >>>> wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 9/23/2015 11:48 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >>>>>> On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 9:06:23 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> >>>>>>> On 9/23/2015 6:41 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >>>>>>>> On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 5:33:42 PM UTC-4, Mike M wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:03:20 -0400, woodchucker <[email protected]>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> On 9/21/2015 12:48 PM, Leon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>> I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
> >>>>>>>>>>> You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.
> >>>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>>> Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?
> >>>>>>>>>> yea, I noticed that too.
> >>>>>>>>>> Also having a tough time locating simple screws..
> >>>>>>>>>> Seems like they went off the deep end.
> >>>>>>>>>> Not a great design.
> >>>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>>> I think many sites lose track of simplicity.
> >>>>>>>>>> to many of the young crowd (developers) they think it's intuitive.
> >>>>>>>>>> But not to me. Too many make it easy so they can develop it, but not so
> >>>>>>>>>> it's functionable.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> No kidding, I find that everywhere, what happened to the expression
> >>>>>>>>> tell it to me as though I were an idiot. Now I'm not getting any
> >>>>>>>>> younger but it seems like making it flashy is more important then
> >>>>>>>>> making it work. Hmmm kind of like are government.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Mike M
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> If you want to hear about the ridiculous process for developing a
> >>>>>>>> government website, listen to this podcast:
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> https://soundcloud.com/replyall/34-dmv-nation
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> I think one only had to try to sign up for Obamacare to understand the
> >>>>>>> development of a government website. ;~)
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> That very subject is discussed in that podcast. Regardless of whether you
> >>>>>> are for Obamacare or not, it's a shame that the website development process
> >>>>>> (which was in place long before Obamacare was a gleam in Barack's eye) was
> >>>>>> what caused so much of the initial problems with signing up. First
> >>>>>> impressions and all that. "Obamacare? Have you seen their website? Man, does
> >>>>>> Obamacare suck!"
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> It may (or may not) suck, but the pre-existing website design process was
> >>>>>> what caused many of the initial problems. Per the podcast, it wasn't clear
> >>>>>> which of the many contractors involved was responsible for stitching all of
> >>>>>> the various modules together. Integrated testing wasn't started until 2
> >>>>>> weeks before it went live. That design process wouldn't work well for *any*
> >>>>>> program, retailer, forum, etc.
> >>>>>>
> >>>>> The difference between a business financial report and a government
> >>>>> financial report is that the government report has no bottom line. So
> >>>>> anything that the government does is pretty much the result of
> >>>>> operating blind.
> >>>>
> >>>> A *big* +1
> >>>>
> >>>> Government never does a cost/benefit analysis.
> >>>>
> >>>
> >>> Really? Is Executive Order 12866 no longer in effect? It was issued in
> >>> 1993 and amended in 2007. I see no record of it being reversed. Do you
> >>> know that it has been?
> >>>
> >>> http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/2560
> >>>
> >>> https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12866.pdf
> >>>
> >>
> >> Yeah, that is not working like it should. If it really was working the
> >> debt would be getting smaller.
> >
> > Not necessarily. It all depends on what you consider a "benefit" and how you price it.
> >
> > A cost-benefit analysis may have nothing to do with reducing costs. If the
> > govt adds 15 new programs and are able to justify the costs based on the
> > benefits provided, our debt could go higher.
> >
> > e.g. If the govt were to borrow a few billion to fix our roads, the benefits
> > might be that you and I would spend less on car repairs and lives might even
> > be saved. The govt goes deeper in debt, but the welfare of it's people
> > improves.
> >
> > If I decide to buy curtains, the benefit might be that I can walk around
> > nude instead of wearing all these damn clothes. My costs may go up, but
> > my family would gain the benefit of laughing at me.
>
> The problem of not operating with in a budget is that eventually the money
> that the government spends either dries up because its credit rating
> continues to drop or it continues to water down the buying power by adding
> more currency to the world. Neither scenario is on I want to see happen.

I have argument with that at all.

My only point was that cost benefit analysis doesn't neccesarily save money. In fact, one could argue that it can actually waste money by justifying more expenditures.

On 9/23/2015 11:48 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 9:06:23 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
>> On 9/23/2015 6:41 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>> On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 5:33:42 PM UTC-4, Mike M wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:03:20 -0400, woodchucker <[email protected]>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 9/21/2015 12:48 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>>> I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
>>>>>> You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?
>>>>> yea, I noticed that too.
>>>>> Also having a tough time locating simple screws..
>>>>> Seems like they went off the deep end.
>>>>> Not a great design.
>>>>>
>>>>> I think many sites lose track of simplicity.
>>>>> to many of the young crowd (developers) they think it's intuitive.
>>>>> But not to me. Too many make it easy so they can develop it, but not so
>>>>> it's functionable.
>>>>
>>>> No kidding, I find that everywhere, what happened to the expression
>>>> tell it to me as though I were an idiot. Now I'm not getting any
>>>> younger but it seems like making it flashy is more important then
>>>> making it work. Hmmm kind of like are government.
>>>>
>>>> Mike M
>>>
>>> If you want to hear about the ridiculous process for developing a government website, listen to this podcast:
>>>
>>> https://soundcloud.com/replyall/34-dmv-nation
>>>
>>
>>
>> I think one only had to try to sign up for Obamacare to understand the
>> development of a government website. ;~)
>
> That very subject is discussed in that podcast. Regardless of whether you
> are for Obamacare or not, it's a shame that the website development process
> (which was in place long before Obamacare was a gleam in Barack's eye) was
> what caused so much of the initial problems with signing up. First
> impressions and all that. "Obamacare? Have you seen their website? Man, does
> Obamacare suck!"
>
> It may (or may not) suck, but the pre-existing website design process was
> what caused many of the initial problems. Per the podcast, it wasn't clear
> which of the many contractors involved was responsible for stitching all of
> the various modules together. Integrated testing wasn't started until 2
> weeks before it went live. That design process wouldn't work well for *any*
> program, retailer, forum, etc.
>
The difference between a business financial report and a government
financial report is that the government report has no bottom line. So
anything that the government does is pretty much the result of
operating blind.

Notice I said a financial report vs. P&L statement.

On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 5:33:42 PM UTC-4, Mike M wrote:
> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:03:20 -0400, woodchucker <[email protected]>
> wrote:
>
> >On 9/21/2015 12:48 PM, Leon wrote:
> >> I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
> >> You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.
> >>
> >> Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?
> >yea, I noticed that too.
> >Also having a tough time locating simple screws..
> >Seems like they went off the deep end.
> >Not a great design.
> >
> >I think many sites lose track of simplicity.
> >to many of the young crowd (developers) they think it's intuitive.
> >But not to me. Too many make it easy so they can develop it, but not so
> >it's functionable.
>
> No kidding, I find that everywhere, what happened to the expression
> tell it to me as though I were an idiot. Now I'm not getting any
> younger but it seems like making it flashy is more important then
> making it work. Hmmm kind of like are government.
>
> Mike M

If you want to hear about the ridiculous process for developing a government website, listen to this podcast:

https://soundcloud.com/replyall/34-dmv-nation

On 9/25/2015 5:35 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 2:03:28 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
>> DerbyDad03 <[email protected]> wrote:
>>> On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 10:12:51 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
>>>> On 9/23/2015 9:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>>> On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 8:41:34 PM UTC-4, krw wrote:
>>>>>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:50:33 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 9/23/2015 11:48 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 9:06:23 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 9/23/2015 6:41 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 5:33:42 PM UTC-4, Mike M wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:03:20 -0400, woodchucker <[email protected]>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 9/21/2015 12:48 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?
>>>>>>>>>>>> yea, I noticed that too.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Also having a tough time locating simple screws..
>>>>>>>>>>>> Seems like they went off the deep end.
>>>>>>>>>>>> Not a great design.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I think many sites lose track of simplicity.
>>>>>>>>>>>> to many of the young crowd (developers) they think it's intuitive.
>>>>>>>>>>>> But not to me. Too many make it easy so they can develop it, but not so
>>>>>>>>>>>> it's functionable.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No kidding, I find that everywhere, what happened to the expression
>>>>>>>>>>> tell it to me as though I were an idiot. Now I'm not getting any
>>>>>>>>>>> younger but it seems like making it flashy is more important then
>>>>>>>>>>> making it work. Hmmm kind of like are government.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Mike M
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you want to hear about the ridiculous process for developing a
>>>>>>>>>> government website, listen to this podcast:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> https://soundcloud.com/replyall/34-dmv-nation
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think one only had to try to sign up for Obamacare to understand the
>>>>>>>>> development of a government website. ;~)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That very subject is discussed in that podcast. Regardless of whether you
>>>>>>>> are for Obamacare or not, it's a shame that the website development process
>>>>>>>> (which was in place long before Obamacare was a gleam in Barack's eye) was
>>>>>>>> what caused so much of the initial problems with signing up. First
>>>>>>>> impressions and all that. "Obamacare? Have you seen their website? Man, does
>>>>>>>> Obamacare suck!"
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It may (or may not) suck, but the pre-existing website design process was
>>>>>>>> what caused many of the initial problems. Per the podcast, it wasn't clear
>>>>>>>> which of the many contractors involved was responsible for stitching all of
>>>>>>>> the various modules together. Integrated testing wasn't started until 2
>>>>>>>> weeks before it went live. That design process wouldn't work well for *any*
>>>>>>>> program, retailer, forum, etc.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The difference between a business financial report and a government
>>>>>>> financial report is that the government report has no bottom line. So
>>>>>>> anything that the government does is pretty much the result of
>>>>>>> operating blind.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A *big* +1
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Government never does a cost/benefit analysis.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Really? Is Executive Order 12866 no longer in effect? It was issued in
>>>>> 1993 and amended in 2007. I see no record of it being reversed. Do you
>>>>> know that it has been?
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/2560
>>>>>
>>>>> https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12866.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Yeah, that is not working like it should. If it really was working the
>>>> debt would be getting smaller.
>>>
>>> Not necessarily. It all depends on what you consider a "benefit" and how you price it.
>>>
>>> A cost-benefit analysis may have nothing to do with reducing costs. If the
>>> govt adds 15 new programs and are able to justify the costs based on the
>>> benefits provided, our debt could go higher.
>>>
>>> e.g. If the govt were to borrow a few billion to fix our roads, the benefits
>>> might be that you and I would spend less on car repairs and lives might even
>>> be saved. The govt goes deeper in debt, but the welfare of it's people
>>> improves.
>>>
>>> If I decide to buy curtains, the benefit might be that I can walk around
>>> nude instead of wearing all these damn clothes. My costs may go up, but
>>> my family would gain the benefit of laughing at me.
>>
>> The problem of not operating with in a budget is that eventually the money
>> that the government spends either dries up because its credit rating
>> continues to drop or it continues to water down the buying power by adding
>> more currency to the world. Neither scenario is on I want to see happen.
>
> I have argument with that at all.
>
> My only point was that cost benefit analysis doesn't neccesarily save money. In fact, one could argue that it can actually waste money by justifying more expenditures.
>

I think that was the point I was trying to make in the beginning with
not bottom line on a financial report.

On 9/23/2015 9:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 8:41:34 PM UTC-4, krw wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:50:33 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/23/2015 11:48 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>> On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 9:06:23 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
>>>>> On 9/23/2015 6:41 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>>>> On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 5:33:42 PM UTC-4, Mike M wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:03:20 -0400, woodchucker <[email protected]>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 9/21/2015 12:48 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>>>>>> I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
>>>>>>>>> You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?
>>>>>>>> yea, I noticed that too.
>>>>>>>> Also having a tough time locating simple screws..
>>>>>>>> Seems like they went off the deep end.
>>>>>>>> Not a great design.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I think many sites lose track of simplicity.
>>>>>>>> to many of the young crowd (developers) they think it's intuitive.
>>>>>>>> But not to me. Too many make it easy so they can develop it, but not so
>>>>>>>> it's functionable.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No kidding, I find that everywhere, what happened to the expression
>>>>>>> tell it to me as though I were an idiot. Now I'm not getting any
>>>>>>> younger but it seems like making it flashy is more important then
>>>>>>> making it work. Hmmm kind of like are government.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Mike M
>>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want to hear about the ridiculous process for developing a government website, listen to this podcast:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> https://soundcloud.com/replyall/34-dmv-nation
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I think one only had to try to sign up for Obamacare to understand the
>>>>> development of a government website. ;~)
>>>>
>>>> That very subject is discussed in that podcast. Regardless of whether you
>>>> are for Obamacare or not, it's a shame that the website development process
>>>> (which was in place long before Obamacare was a gleam in Barack's eye) was
>>>> what caused so much of the initial problems with signing up. First
>>>> impressions and all that. "Obamacare? Have you seen their website? Man, does
>>>> Obamacare suck!"
>>>>
>>>> It may (or may not) suck, but the pre-existing website design process was
>>>> what caused many of the initial problems. Per the podcast, it wasn't clear
>>>> which of the many contractors involved was responsible for stitching all of
>>>> the various modules together. Integrated testing wasn't started until 2
>>>> weeks before it went live. That design process wouldn't work well for *any*
>>>> program, retailer, forum, etc.
>>>>
>>> The difference between a business financial report and a government
>>> financial report is that the government report has no bottom line. So
>>> anything that the government does is pretty much the result of
>>> operating blind.
>>
>> A *big* +1
>>
>> Government never does a cost/benefit analysis.
>>
>
> Really? Is Executive Order 12866 no longer in effect? It was issued in 1993 and amended in 2007. I see no record of it being reversed. Do you know that it has been?
>
> http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/2560
>
> https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12866.pdf
>

Yeah, that is not working like it should. If it really was working the
debt would be getting smaller.

"Puckdropper" wrote in message
news:[email protected]...

>You'd have to offer a lot more than 3 goats for a daughter nowadays.
>Haven't you heard of inflation?

That's for sure... some guys would want an entire herd of goats to take some
daughters. ;~)

On 9/21/2015 5:50 PM, [email protected] wrote:

> I didn't care about the price since I was so pleased with the product.

We can't have that attitude around here.
It causes butthut ...

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 9/23/2015 8:41 PM, krw wrote:

>
> Government never does a cost/benefit analysis.
>

Congress does. They simplified the process. If it benefits us, the
cost to the taxpayer does not matter.

On 9/21/2015 5:50 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 5:26:07 PM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
>
>> I'll look at Highland and Fastenal. I tried McMaster and was
>> unsuccessful. Strangely enough.
>
> After my recent unsatisfactory experience with Spax, I decided that
> they do have their use, but I can't carry a hardware store of
> different screws with me. I need a good, strong, 3 - 3 1/4" screw,
> and when I saw the Spax at 3 1/4' (or something close) I bit. They
> are OK, and when in a place where I can get over the screws they are
> great.
>
> For what I do, they are OK. But I now have about 250 or so of them,
> and will use them all since I found that the sell the genuine Spax
> driver separately for about a buck and a half.
>
> After that, off to Fastenal, or like Lew said, Jamestown. Many years
> ago, I think at Lew's suggestion, I bought a bunch of all stainless
> screw for a large commercial repair. They were excellent quality,
> and in the end, I didn't care about the price since I was so pleased
> with the product.
>
> Robert
>

Wow Thanks Robert. I already forgot that a lot of the Spax screws use
the Torx Plus drive. That alone is a problem for me. The older Fein
Multimasters use that drive and I find I have to be deliberate when
inserting the wrench, not like square drive. And that is with the
wrench in my hand going relatively straight in. With a screw you seldom
start straight and the bit is 8~10" from your hand.

Kim almost pulled the trigger for me when she saw the Spax/Festool screw
assortment, 1300 screws with Festool Systainer. Really a good deal.

Anyway don't let your Spax screw experience detour you from all Spax. I
don't use many Spax screws but HD carries Spax Lag Screws. They have
the expected hex head that you put a common wrench or socket on and they
are much higher quality and stronger than the common lag screw. I used
them to hang my lumber rack on the wall. I did not want to break a 5"
lag screw.

On 9/27/2015 4:48 PM, Mike Marlow wrote:
> Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 9/27/2015 9:37 AM, Jack wrote:
>>
>>> I bid 3 goats for your daughter, I bid 20 years service for that
>>> job, I big 200 gold bars for that Festool vacuum.
>>>
>>
>> I'll take your offer for the goats. Daughter is packing now. if the
>> goats will be here in time for dinner I'll toss in a wheelbarrow full
>> of her toiletries in the bathroom.
>
> Only a wheelbarrow full? What are you planning to do with all of the rest
> of it?
>

The Army can use it for HazMat training. When she moved out we did not
have to buy shampoo, conditioner, or any other chemical for years.

In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
@swbelldotnet says...
>
> I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
> You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.

??? There's a picture of a cell phone about a third of the way down on
the right side of the main page and next to it "ANYWHERE ANY DEVICE
CATALOG" that, when you click it, opens a catalog. It's a crappily
implemented catalog that seems to take forever and a day to load a page
and gives the impression that it's nothing but blank pages until you let
it sit for a while, but it _is_ a catalog.

> Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?

I haven't ordered screws in quite some time, however the last time I did
I think it was from Highland Hardware. If I needed some right now I'd
probably try the Fastenal down the street. McMaster of course has just
about anything.

In article <[email protected]>, [email protected]
says...
>
> On 9/21/2015 12:48 PM, Leon wrote:
> > I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
> > You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.
> >
> > Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?
>
> The original McFeelys had a wealth of information too. Gone. All sorts
> of information on selecting the proper screw is nowhere to been seen
> these days.

I just read through the online catalog and it's mostly there.
The catalog remains a pain though, however once it downloads it seems to
stay downloaded.

In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] says...
>
> On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 8:41:34 PM UTC-4, krw wrote:
> > On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:50:33 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> > wrote:
> >
> > >On 9/23/2015 11:48 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > >> On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 9:06:23 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> > >>> On 9/23/2015 6:41 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > >>>> On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 5:33:42 PM UTC-4, Mike M wrote:
> > >>>>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:03:20 -0400, woodchucker <[email protected]>
> > >>>>> wrote:
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>>> On 9/21/2015 12:48 PM, Leon wrote:
> > >>>>>>> I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
> > >>>>>>> You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.
> > >>>>>>>
> > >>>>>>> Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?
> > >>>>>> yea, I noticed that too.
> > >>>>>> Also having a tough time locating simple screws..
> > >>>>>> Seems like they went off the deep end.
> > >>>>>> Not a great design.
> > >>>>>>
> > >>>>>> I think many sites lose track of simplicity.
> > >>>>>> to many of the young crowd (developers) they think it's intuitive.
> > >>>>>> But not to me. Too many make it easy so they can develop it, but not so
> > >>>>>> it's functionable.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> No kidding, I find that everywhere, what happened to the expression
> > >>>>> tell it to me as though I were an idiot. Now I'm not getting any
> > >>>>> younger but it seems like making it flashy is more important then
> > >>>>> making it work. Hmmm kind of like are government.
> > >>>>>
> > >>>>> Mike M
> > >>>>
> > >>>> If you want to hear about the ridiculous process for developing a government website, listen to this podcast:
> > >>>>
> > >>>> https://soundcloud.com/replyall/34-dmv-nation
> > >>>>
> > >>>
> > >>>
> > >>> I think one only had to try to sign up for Obamacare to understand the
> > >>> development of a government website. ;~)
> > >>
> > >> That very subject is discussed in that podcast. Regardless of whether you
> > >> are for Obamacare or not, it's a shame that the website development process
> > >> (which was in place long before Obamacare was a gleam in Barack's eye) was
> > >> what caused so much of the initial problems with signing up. First
> > >> impressions and all that. "Obamacare? Have you seen their website? Man, does
> > >> Obamacare suck!"
> > >>
> > >> It may (or may not) suck, but the pre-existing website design process was
> > >> what caused many of the initial problems. Per the podcast, it wasn't clear
> > >> which of the many contractors involved was responsible for stitching all of
> > >> the various modules together. Integrated testing wasn't started until 2
> > >> weeks before it went live. That design process wouldn't work well for *any*
> > >> program, retailer, forum, etc.
> > >>
> > >The difference between a business financial report and a government
> > >financial report is that the government report has no bottom line. So
> > >anything that the government does is pretty much the result of
> > >operating blind.
> >
> > A *big* +1
> >
> > Government never does a cost/benefit analysis.
> >
>
> Really? Is Executive Order 12866 no longer in effect? It was issued in 1993 and amended in 2007. I see no record of it being reversed. Do you know that it has been?
>
> http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/2560
>
> https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12866.pdf

do yhou knolw with certainty that any government agency actually obeys
said order? And it is most assuredly not binding on the Congress.

In article <[email protected]>,
Puckdropper says...
>
> Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
> >
> > Bidding is tendering an offer for something,usually in an auction
> > style format. The something could be anything, like a car, or a job,
> > or a wife.
> >
> > What the offer you are tendering could be money, years of service, or
> > goats.
> >
> > I bid 3 goats for your daughter, I bid 20 years service for that job,
> > I big 200 gold bars for that Festool vacuum.
> >
>
> I don't have any of those things, but 200 gold bars for a Festool vacuum?
> I'll get one!
>
> You'd have to offer a lot more than 3 goats for a daughter nowadays.
> Haven't you heard of inflation?

But you haven't met the daughter in question--3 goats might be
excessive.

On 9/23/2015 6:41 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 5:33:42 PM UTC-4, Mike M wrote:
>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:03:20 -0400, woodchucker <[email protected]>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 9/21/2015 12:48 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>> I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
>>>> You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.
>>>>
>>>> Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?
>>> yea, I noticed that too.
>>> Also having a tough time locating simple screws..
>>> Seems like they went off the deep end.
>>> Not a great design.
>>>
>>> I think many sites lose track of simplicity.
>>> to many of the young crowd (developers) they think it's intuitive.
>>> But not to me. Too many make it easy so they can develop it, but not so
>>> it's functionable.
>>
>> No kidding, I find that everywhere, what happened to the expression
>> tell it to me as though I were an idiot. Now I'm not getting any
>> younger but it seems like making it flashy is more important then
>> making it work. Hmmm kind of like are government.
>>
>> Mike M
>
> If you want to hear about the ridiculous process for developing a government website, listen to this podcast:
>
> https://soundcloud.com/replyall/34-dmv-nation
>


I think one only had to try to sign up for Obamacare to understand the
development of a government website. ;~)

On 9/21/2015 4:27 PM, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>, lcb11211
> @swbelldotnet says...
>>
>> I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
>> You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.
>
> ??? There's a picture of a cell phone about a third of the way down on
> the right side of the main page and next to it "ANYWHERE ANY DEVICE
> CATALOG" that, when you click it, opens a catalog. It's a crappily
> implemented catalog that seems to take forever and a day to load a page
> and gives the impression that it's nothing but blank pages until you let
> it sit for a while, but it _is_ a catalog.
>

I use their chat and the "who ever" indicated to look for a telephone.
I never found it.

Now I found it. I saw that and thought it was an app. thank you.


>> Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?
>
> I haven't ordered screws in quite some time, however the last time I did
> I think it was from Highland Hardware. If I needed some right now I'd
> probably try the Fastenal down the street. McMaster of course has just
> about anything.
>
>

I'll look at Highland and Fastenal. I tried McMaster and was
unsuccessful. Strangely enough.

On 9/21/2015 3:36 PM, dpb wrote:

>
> I did look at the McF web site; it appears to be using the same package
> at the Grainger site. Not terribly surprising once the Grainger
> accounting folks got McFeely fully integrated.
>

I used to buy from Grainger a couple of times a month, the old fashioned
way over the phone. At some point both Grainger an McMaster put up web
sites. I hate using the Granger web site and order maybe once a year.
McMaster is easy to use and gets 99% of the business..

On 9/29/2015 7:12 AM, Jack wrote:
> On 9/28/2015 12:24 PM, Puckdropper wrote:
>> Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:
>
>>> I wasn't really bidding, just scratching my nose...
>
>> I queried 10 fathers about their daughters, and none of them had
>> anything bad to say about them. You'll be alright. :-)
>
> Sure, I've heard that nonsense before. I'd bet that at least one in 200
> are bad, or, is it the other way around?
>
> Mine of course was the best. I know because she was really, really
> expensive. I happily gave her away though, no goats but a deal is a
> deal. She says in 9 days she's promoting me to a GF, we'll see how that
> goes.
>


Girl Friend??? LOL

Congratulations! I'm hoping our son eventually settles down, gets
married, and begins working on grand kids.

On 9/24/2015 4:28 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 9:10:58 AM UTC-5, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>
>> Congress does. They simplified the process. If it benefits us, the
>> cost to the taxpayer does not matter.
>
> Amen, brother!
>
> I have several folks in my social group that work for the government, and the way they describe the waste (explained to me as , "since when is providing jobs/employment a waste?") for people that do nothing is incredible.
>
> One has a govt job that has a section of about 45 people. There is so little work that they actually bid on the work to be done against their fellow employees, and then the folks that don't bid have nothing to do. They are written up if they have 3 months in a row with little or no production, but since they are only making about $60K a year each, the govt doesn't fuss that much over the small potatoes.

Found out the other day, talking to a new mail carrier, that this is how
the USPS is awarding carrier jobs in the area.

Current employee's actually bid on available routes.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:


> Found out the other day, talking to a new mail carrier, that this is
> how the USPS is awarding carrier jobs in the area.
>
> Current employee's actually bid on available routes.

Nothing odd there, that's how union jobs are usually handled.
Airlines, railroads, post office, they all work that way.

John

"[email protected]" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 10:54:47 AM UTC-5, John McCoy wrote:
>> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>
>> > Found out the other day, talking to a new mail carrier, that this
>> > is how the USPS is awarding carrier jobs in the area.
>> >
>> > Current employee's actually bid on available routes.
>>
>> Nothing odd there, that's how union jobs are usually handled.
>> Airlines, railroads, post office, they all work that way.
>>
>> John
>
> Man... I am so out of touch with the rest of the world sometimes. I
> have been self employed for over thirty years now and it never has
> occurred to me (except in a cigar smoke and whiskey induced pleasant
> dream) of being able to pick and choose my work or how hard I would
> like to work that week or month. I cannot in my wildest dreams imagine
> being very well paid and then getting to decide what I wanted to do
> and how hard I wanted to work.

OK, I think you're misunderstanding how this works. There's
a set number of jobs (postal routes, whatever), that matches
the number of workers. Guys bid on which one they want. The
bidder with highest seniority wins. Typically, the new guy
ends up with the least desirable job - worst hours, least
overtime, grouchiest customers or whatever. Then they work
that job every day until something changes (a new route is
added, or something), then everyone bids again.

I can use my buddy at the railroad as an example. Last time
they rearranged jobs and everyone had to rebid, he had two
he bid on (he's in the middle of the seniority rank, so no
point bidding on the best jobs). One was a day job that
usually worked 8 hours, the other went on at 3am but usually
got a couple hours overtime each day. A lot of guys wouldn't
bid the 3am job, even tho it paid better, because of the
hours. My buddy actually likes working nights, so he was
pleased to win that job.

John

DerbyDad03 <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Could you define "bid" this context? Does it simply mean "choose"?
>
> There's a list of jobs and you choose from what's left when it's your
> turn, based on your seniority rank, right?

Not exactly. There's a list of jobs, and everyone bids at
the same time. Highest seniority guy bidding on a particular
job wins it.

If you don't win the job you bid on, you stay in your current
job, unless someone with higher seniority bid on it. If that
happens you get a "roll", and you get to pick from the jobs
held by lower seniority guys. That propagates down the chain
until everyone is in a job.

It sounds like it could get messy, but in practice everyone
knows their seniority, and which jobs different people like,
so guys just bid the job they know they'll get. Pretty much
the only thing that scrambles it up is when an older guy
decides to move from a job with lots of overtime to one with
fewer hours (because he doesn't need the money and wants to
take it easy for the his few years). Then you have a high
seniority guy bidding on what's usually a low seniority job,
and a low seniority guy might end up in the primo job if he's
the only one who took a chance bidding on it.

(note - I've never actually worked that sort of union job,
so this is based on how I understand what my buddy at the
railroad has explained)

John

DerbyDad03 <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> I still don't understand your use of the word "bid". As far as I know,
> to "bid" on something usually involves money.

"Bid" is the word that's used. I assume by analogy with
bidding on a contract to provide some service, but I don't
know the background of it.

John

Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> On 9/28/2015 12:49 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>

>> It still sounds like a "ordered choice" based on some criteria, not a
>> "bid".

> You are using a very narrow definition, but a bid does not have to
> involve money.

A word is defined by the way it is used. The OED folks wrote
a big huge book based on that premise.

In this case the normal usage for the job selection process
in a union enviroment is "bid". Regardless of what you may
think the definition of "bid" is, by virtue of a century or
more of common usage "bid" now includes "enter into competition
for a position, role, or job" amoung it's meanings.

John

On 9/21/2015 12:48 PM, Leon wrote:
> I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
> You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.
>
> Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?
yea, I noticed that too.
Also having a tough time locating simple screws..
Seems like they went off the deep end.
Not a great design.

I think many sites lose track of simplicity.
to many of the young crowd (developers) they think it's intuitive.
But not to me. Too many make it easy so they can develop it, but not so
it's functionable.

--
Jeff

On 9/21/2015 2:36 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 09/21/2015 11:48 AM, Leon wrote:
>> I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
>> You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.
>>
>> Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?
>
> Haven't had any recent need so no direct contact suggestion.
>
> I did look at the McF web site; it appears to be using the same package
> at the Grainger site. Not terribly surprising once the Grainger
> accounting folks got McFeely fully integrated.
>
> As for the question specifically, I'd probably use the "live chat" or
> contact tech support by (gasp!) actually dialing the phone and see how
> it goes when ask for the specific product.

I tried the live chat. I waited 5 minutes for every response and each
seemed to be referring me to click on something that did not exist.
And then the responses were so illiterate that I think Hodgi was doing
the typing.

I hate calling. I would rather browse.





That'll probably immediately
> tell you whether it's time to switch vendors or they're still capable
> _despite_ corporate.

I do believe it is time.

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:50:33 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
wrote:

>On 9/23/2015 11:48 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 9:06:23 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
>>> On 9/23/2015 6:41 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>>>> On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 5:33:42 PM UTC-4, Mike M wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:03:20 -0400, woodchucker <[email protected]>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 9/21/2015 12:48 PM, Leon wrote:
>>>>>>> I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
>>>>>>> You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?
>>>>>> yea, I noticed that too.
>>>>>> Also having a tough time locating simple screws..
>>>>>> Seems like they went off the deep end.
>>>>>> Not a great design.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I think many sites lose track of simplicity.
>>>>>> to many of the young crowd (developers) they think it's intuitive.
>>>>>> But not to me. Too many make it easy so they can develop it, but not so
>>>>>> it's functionable.
>>>>>
>>>>> No kidding, I find that everywhere, what happened to the expression
>>>>> tell it to me as though I were an idiot. Now I'm not getting any
>>>>> younger but it seems like making it flashy is more important then
>>>>> making it work. Hmmm kind of like are government.
>>>>>
>>>>> Mike M
>>>>
>>>> If you want to hear about the ridiculous process for developing a government website, listen to this podcast:
>>>>
>>>> https://soundcloud.com/replyall/34-dmv-nation
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I think one only had to try to sign up for Obamacare to understand the
>>> development of a government website. ;~)
>>
>> That very subject is discussed in that podcast. Regardless of whether you
>> are for Obamacare or not, it's a shame that the website development process
>> (which was in place long before Obamacare was a gleam in Barack's eye) was
>> what caused so much of the initial problems with signing up. First
>> impressions and all that. "Obamacare? Have you seen their website? Man, does
>> Obamacare suck!"
>>
>> It may (or may not) suck, but the pre-existing website design process was
>> what caused many of the initial problems. Per the podcast, it wasn't clear
>> which of the many contractors involved was responsible for stitching all of
>> the various modules together. Integrated testing wasn't started until 2
>> weeks before it went live. That design process wouldn't work well for *any*
>> program, retailer, forum, etc.
>>
>The difference between a business financial report and a government
>financial report is that the government report has no bottom line. So
>anything that the government does is pretty much the result of
>operating blind.

A *big* +1

Government never does a cost/benefit analysis.

>Notice I said a financial report vs. P&L statement.

On 9/21/2015 5:50 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 5:26:07 PM UTC-5, Leon wrote:
>
>> I'll look at Highland and Fastenal. I tried McMaster and was
>> unsuccessful. Strangely enough.
>
> After my recent unsatisfactory experience with Spax, I decided that
> they do have their use, but I can't carry a hardware store of
> different screws with me. I need a good, strong, 3 - 3 1/4" screw,
> and when I saw the Spax at 3 1/4' (or something close) I bit. They
> are OK, and when in a place where I can get over the screws they are
> great.
>
> For what I do, they are OK. But I now have about 250 or so of them,
> and will use them all since I found that the sell the genuine Spax
> driver separately for about a buck and a half.
>
> After that, off to Fastenal, or like Lew said, Jamestown. Many years
> ago, I think at Lew's suggestion, I bought a bunch of all stainless
> screw for a large commercial repair. They were excellent quality,
> and in the end, I didn't care about the price since I was so pleased
> with the product.
>
> Robert
>

FWIW the Festool/Spax screw assortment from Highland has all
combo/Philips heads according to a rep.

This is a great deal but I really don't use flat top screws anymore
these days. ;~(

On Tuesday, September 22, 2015 at 8:44:02 AM UTC-5, Leon wrote:

> With a screw you seldom=20
> start straight and the bit is 8~10" from your hand.

Exactly my problem. I encountered this when trying to attach a runner unde=
r a cabinet that was wet for some time, then the "legs" of the carcass bega=
n to rot. With a new marble top going on and me unable to remove the cabin=
ets without tearing up the wall treatments, I decided to get my butt face d=
own on the floor and reach under the cabinets to attach new legs/runners wh=
en the kick was off. This became a project unto itself, with me resorting =
to starting the screw on the 2x4, then positioning it, and finally driving =
the screw.

Not a chance.

After a about a half hour of wrestling with them, I went out to the truck a=
nd got some square drive, galvanized screws that were on plastic tape for a=
screw gun. Problem solved. Spax, back in the tool box.

> Anyway don't let your Spax screw experience detour you from all Spax. I=
=20
> don't use many Spax screws but HD carries Spax Lag Screws. They have=20
> the expected hex head that you put a common wrench or socket on and they=
=20
> are much higher quality and stronger than the common lag screw. I used=
=20
> them to hang my lumber rack on the wall. I did not want to break a 5"=20
> lag screw.

I wouldn't hesitate to buy Spax for a specific job or purpose, but I want u=
tility type screws for my everyday repairs. I often find myself reaching i=
nside framing structures, inside walls, and generally in tight places where=
I can't be right over the work with the driver nearly perpendicular to the=
work. I saw those whopper Spax screws... impressive.

When I finally get to Fastenal, I will let you know if I find something for=
general utility use.

Robert

On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 4:44:44 AM UTC-4, J. Clarke wrote:
> In article <[email protected]>,
> [email protected] says...
> >
> > On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 8:41:34 PM UTC-4, krw wrote:
> > > On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:50:33 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> > > wrote:
> > >
> > > >On 9/23/2015 11:48 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > > >> On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 9:06:23 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> > > >>> On 9/23/2015 6:41 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > > >>>> On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 5:33:42 PM UTC-4, Mike M wrote:
> > > >>>>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:03:20 -0400, woodchucker <[email protected]>
> > > >>>>> wrote:
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>>> On 9/21/2015 12:48 PM, Leon wrote:
> > > >>>>>>> I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
> > > >>>>>>> You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.
> > > >>>>>>>
> > > >>>>>>> Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?
> > > >>>>>> yea, I noticed that too.
> > > >>>>>> Also having a tough time locating simple screws..
> > > >>>>>> Seems like they went off the deep end.
> > > >>>>>> Not a great design.
> > > >>>>>>
> > > >>>>>> I think many sites lose track of simplicity.
> > > >>>>>> to many of the young crowd (developers) they think it's intuitive.
> > > >>>>>> But not to me. Too many make it easy so they can develop it, but not so
> > > >>>>>> it's functionable.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> No kidding, I find that everywhere, what happened to the expression
> > > >>>>> tell it to me as though I were an idiot. Now I'm not getting any
> > > >>>>> younger but it seems like making it flashy is more important then
> > > >>>>> making it work. Hmmm kind of like are government.
> > > >>>>>
> > > >>>>> Mike M
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> If you want to hear about the ridiculous process for developing a government website, listen to this podcast:
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>> https://soundcloud.com/replyall/34-dmv-nation
> > > >>>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>>
> > > >>> I think one only had to try to sign up for Obamacare to understand the
> > > >>> development of a government website. ;~)
> > > >>
> > > >> That very subject is discussed in that podcast. Regardless of whether you
> > > >> are for Obamacare or not, it's a shame that the website development process
> > > >> (which was in place long before Obamacare was a gleam in Barack's eye) was
> > > >> what caused so much of the initial problems with signing up. First
> > > >> impressions and all that. "Obamacare? Have you seen their website? Man, does
> > > >> Obamacare suck!"
> > > >>
> > > >> It may (or may not) suck, but the pre-existing website design process was
> > > >> what caused many of the initial problems. Per the podcast, it wasn't clear
> > > >> which of the many contractors involved was responsible for stitching all of
> > > >> the various modules together. Integrated testing wasn't started until 2
> > > >> weeks before it went live. That design process wouldn't work well for *any*
> > > >> program, retailer, forum, etc.
> > > >>
> > > >The difference between a business financial report and a government
> > > >financial report is that the government report has no bottom line. So
> > > >anything that the government does is pretty much the result of
> > > >operating blind.
> > >
> > > A *big* +1
> > >
> > > Government never does a cost/benefit analysis.
> > >
> >
> > Really? Is Executive Order 12866 no longer in effect? It was issued in 1993 and amended in 2007. I see no record of it being reversed. Do you know that it has been?
> >
> > http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/2560
> >
> > https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12866.pdf
>
> do yhou knolw with certainty that any government agency actually obeys
> said order? And it is most assuredly not binding on the Congress.

Have you asked krw if he knows with certainty that they don't? He said "never". I think the odds are in my favor.

On Thursday, September 24, 2015 at 10:12:51 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> On 9/23/2015 9:50 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> > On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 8:41:34 PM UTC-4, krw wrote:
> >> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:50:33 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
> >> wrote:
> >>
> >>> On 9/23/2015 11:48 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >>>> On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 9:06:23 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
> >>>>> On 9/23/2015 6:41 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> >>>>>> On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 5:33:42 PM UTC-4, Mike M wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:03:20 -0400, woodchucker <[email protected]>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> On 9/21/2015 12:48 PM, Leon wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
> >>>>>>>>> You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.
> >>>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>>> Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?
> >>>>>>>> yea, I noticed that too.
> >>>>>>>> Also having a tough time locating simple screws..
> >>>>>>>> Seems like they went off the deep end.
> >>>>>>>> Not a great design.
> >>>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> I think many sites lose track of simplicity.
> >>>>>>>> to many of the young crowd (developers) they think it's intuitive.
> >>>>>>>> But not to me. Too many make it easy so they can develop it, but not so
> >>>>>>>> it's functionable.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> No kidding, I find that everywhere, what happened to the expression
> >>>>>>> tell it to me as though I were an idiot. Now I'm not getting any
> >>>>>>> younger but it seems like making it flashy is more important then
> >>>>>>> making it work. Hmmm kind of like are government.
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>> Mike M
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> If you want to hear about the ridiculous process for developing a government website, listen to this podcast:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> https://soundcloud.com/replyall/34-dmv-nation
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>> I think one only had to try to sign up for Obamacare to understand the
> >>>>> development of a government website. ;~)
> >>>>
> >>>> That very subject is discussed in that podcast. Regardless of whether you
> >>>> are for Obamacare or not, it's a shame that the website development process
> >>>> (which was in place long before Obamacare was a gleam in Barack's eye) was
> >>>> what caused so much of the initial problems with signing up. First
> >>>> impressions and all that. "Obamacare? Have you seen their website? Man, does
> >>>> Obamacare suck!"
> >>>>
> >>>> It may (or may not) suck, but the pre-existing website design process was
> >>>> what caused many of the initial problems. Per the podcast, it wasn't clear
> >>>> which of the many contractors involved was responsible for stitching all of
> >>>> the various modules together. Integrated testing wasn't started until 2
> >>>> weeks before it went live. That design process wouldn't work well for *any*
> >>>> program, retailer, forum, etc.
> >>>>
> >>> The difference between a business financial report and a government
> >>> financial report is that the government report has no bottom line. So
> >>> anything that the government does is pretty much the result of
> >>> operating blind.
> >>
> >> A *big* +1
> >>
> >> Government never does a cost/benefit analysis.
> >>
> >
> > Really? Is Executive Order 12866 no longer in effect? It was issued in 1993 and amended in 2007. I see no record of it being reversed. Do you know that it has been?
> >
> > http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/2560
> >
> > https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12866.pdf
> >
>
> Yeah, that is not working like it should. If it really was working the
> debt would be getting smaller.

Not necessarily. It all depends on what you consider a "benefit" and how you price it.

A cost-benefit analysis may have nothing to do with reducing costs. If the
govt adds 15 new programs and are able to justify the costs based on the
benefits provided, our debt could go higher.

e.g. If the govt were to borrow a few billion to fix our roads, the benefits
might be that you and I would spend less on car repairs and lives might even
be saved. The govt goes deeper in debt, but the welfare of it's people
improves.

If I decide to buy curtains, the benefit might be that I can walk around nude instead of wearing all these damn clothes. My costs may go up, but my family would gain the benefit of laughing at me.

On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 10:09:24 AM UTC-4, John McCoy wrote:
> DerbyDad03 <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
> > Could you define "bid" this context? Does it simply mean "choose"?
> >
> > There's a list of jobs and you choose from what's left when it's your
> > turn, based on your seniority rank, right?
>
> Not exactly. There's a list of jobs, and everyone bids at
> the same time. Highest seniority guy bidding on a particular
> job wins it.
>
> If you don't win the job you bid on, you stay in your current
> job, unless someone with higher seniority bid on it. If that
> happens you get a "roll", and you get to pick from the jobs
> held by lower seniority guys. That propagates down the chain
> until everyone is in a job.
>
> It sounds like it could get messy, but in practice everyone
> knows their seniority, and which jobs different people like,
> so guys just bid the job they know they'll get. Pretty much
> the only thing that scrambles it up is when an older guy
> decides to move from a job with lots of overtime to one with
> fewer hours (because he doesn't need the money and wants to
> take it easy for the his few years). Then you have a high
> seniority guy bidding on what's usually a low seniority job,
> and a low seniority guy might end up in the primo job if he's
> the only one who took a chance bidding on it.
>
> (note - I've never actually worked that sort of union job,
> so this is based on how I understand what my buddy at the
> railroad has explained)
>
> John

I still don't understand your use of the word "bid". As far as I know, to "bid" on something usually involves money.

"I won the auction because I bid higher than everyone else."

"I got the contract because I bid lower than everyone else."

I assume that these guys aren't paying the jobs or taking a lower salary to get them, so how is this a "bidding" process?

On Friday, September 25, 2015 at 10:54:47 AM UTC-5, John McCoy wrote:
> Swingman <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:=20
>=20
>=20
> > Found out the other day, talking to a new mail carrier, that this is
> > how the USPS is awarding carrier jobs in the area.
> >=20
> > Current employee's actually bid on available routes.
>=20
> Nothing odd there, that's how union jobs are usually handled.
> Airlines, railroads, post office, they all work that way.
>=20
> John

Man... I am so out of touch with the rest of the world sometimes. I have b=
een self employed for over thirty years now and it never has occurred to me=
(except in a cigar smoke and whiskey induced pleasant dream) of being able=
to pick and choose my work or how hard I would like to work that week or m=
onth. I cannot in my wildest dreams imagine being very well paid and then g=
etting to decide what I wanted to do and how hard I wanted to work.

I never worked for anyone that gave me a choice, either. I was paid a wage=
about 40+ years ago, then have worked for myself or on commission only for=
the rest of the time. I am amazed at the concept of 3 week plus vacations=
, 10 days paid sick/personal time a year, and all kinds of other things tha=
t go on in the workplace now as nearly a case of American Civil Rights.

When I started in the trades in the 70s, I worked for a very progressive gu=
y that let us have 1 week vacation (unheard of for trades people then)that =
was UNPAID. No sick days. He worked all of us like rented mules, and if w=
e didn't like it that was fine. You could always quit. Or get fired. His=
hourly pay was low, but we had a ton of overtime weekly, he paid time and =
a half, and his checks never bounced.

I could never in a million years imagine approaching that mean old hard cas=
e from Jasper, Texas to tell him I wanted to bid on the work I was interest=
ed in.

Gawd, I feel like a dinosaur.

Robert

On 9/27/2015 2:23 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
> On Saturday, September 26, 2015 at 10:09:24 AM UTC-4, John McCoy wrote:
>> DerbyDad03 <[email protected]> wrote in
>> news:[email protected]:
>>
>>> Could you define "bid" this context? Does it simply mean "choose"?
>>>
>>> There's a list of jobs and you choose from what's left when it's your
>>> turn, based on your seniority rank, right?
>>
>> Not exactly. There's a list of jobs, and everyone bids at
>> the same time. Highest seniority guy bidding on a particular
>> job wins it.
>>
>> If you don't win the job you bid on, you stay in your current
>> job, unless someone with higher seniority bid on it. If that
>> happens you get a "roll", and you get to pick from the jobs
>> held by lower seniority guys. That propagates down the chain
>> until everyone is in a job.
>>
>> It sounds like it could get messy, but in practice everyone
>> knows their seniority, and which jobs different people like,
>> so guys just bid the job they know they'll get. Pretty much
>> the only thing that scrambles it up is when an older guy
>> decides to move from a job with lots of overtime to one with
>> fewer hours (because he doesn't need the money and wants to
>> take it easy for the his few years). Then you have a high
>> seniority guy bidding on what's usually a low seniority job,
>> and a low seniority guy might end up in the primo job if he's
>> the only one who took a chance bidding on it.
>>
>> (note - I've never actually worked that sort of union job,
>> so this is based on how I understand what my buddy at the
>> railroad has explained)
>>
>> John
>
> I still don't understand your use of the word "bid". As far as I know, to "bid" on something usually involves money.
>
> "I won the auction because I bid higher than everyone else."

That always seemed strange to me, winning an auction. Are you really a
winner when you agree to pay more for something than anyone else was
willing to pay? ;~)
Seems to me the seller is the winner.




>
> "I got the contract because I bid lower than everyone else."
>
> I assume that these guys aren't paying the jobs or taking a lower salary to get them, so how is this a "bidding" process?
>

On 9/27/2015 8:37 AM, Jack wrote:
> On 9/27/2015 3:23 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>
>> I still don't understand your use of the word "bid". As far as I know,
>> to "bid" on something
>> usually involves money.
> > "I won the auction because I bid higher than everyone else."
> >
> > "I got the contract because I bid lower than everyone else."
> >
> > I assume that these guys aren't paying the jobs or taking a lower > >
> > salary to get them, so how is this a "bidding" process?
>
> Bidding is tendering an offer for something,usually in an auction style
> format. The something could be anything, like a car, or a job, or a wife.
>
> What the offer you are tendering could be money, years of service, or
> goats.
>
> I bid 3 goats for your daughter, I bid 20 years service for that job, I
> big 200 gold bars for that Festool vacuum.
>

I bid 4 in a game of Spades. ;~)

On 9/28/2015 12:49 PM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

> Isn't there typically an exchange of the item that was tendered when the
> bid is accepted/won?
>
> I give you my goats, you give me your daughters.
>
> How do you give someone "years of service" if that is the "tender" offered?
>
> "I have 20 years of service, Jack only has 15, so I win the bid for that
> primo job. I'll deliver my 20 years of service by noon tomorrow."
>
> It still sounds like a "ordered choice" based on some criteria, not a "bid".
>
>

You are using a very narrow definition, but a bid does not have to
involve money. See #3 below.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bid
noun
: an offer to pay a particular amount of money for something

: an offer to do a job for a particular price

: an attempt to win, get, or do something

With that, I bid you adieu.

On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 19:50:45 -0700 (PDT), DerbyDad03
<[email protected]> wrote:

>On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 8:41:34 PM UTC-4, krw wrote:
>> On Wed, 23 Sep 2015 12:50:33 -0500, Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet>
>> wrote:
>>
>> >On 9/23/2015 11:48 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> >> On Wednesday, September 23, 2015 at 9:06:23 AM UTC-4, Leon wrote:
>> >>> On 9/23/2015 6:41 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:
>> >>>> On Monday, September 21, 2015 at 5:33:42 PM UTC-4, Mike M wrote:
>> >>>>> On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:03:20 -0400, woodchucker <[email protected]>
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>> On 9/21/2015 12:48 PM, Leon wrote:
>> >>>>>>> I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
>> >>>>>>> You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?
>> >>>>>> yea, I noticed that too.
>> >>>>>> Also having a tough time locating simple screws..
>> >>>>>> Seems like they went off the deep end.
>> >>>>>> Not a great design.
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> I think many sites lose track of simplicity.
>> >>>>>> to many of the young crowd (developers) they think it's intuitive.
>> >>>>>> But not to me. Too many make it easy so they can develop it, but not so
>> >>>>>> it's functionable.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> No kidding, I find that everywhere, what happened to the expression
>> >>>>> tell it to me as though I were an idiot. Now I'm not getting any
>> >>>>> younger but it seems like making it flashy is more important then
>> >>>>> making it work. Hmmm kind of like are government.
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Mike M
>> >>>>
>> >>>> If you want to hear about the ridiculous process for developing a government website, listen to this podcast:
>> >>>>
>> >>>> https://soundcloud.com/replyall/34-dmv-nation
>> >>>>
>> >>>
>> >>>
>> >>> I think one only had to try to sign up for Obamacare to understand the
>> >>> development of a government website. ;~)
>> >>
>> >> That very subject is discussed in that podcast. Regardless of whether you
>> >> are for Obamacare or not, it's a shame that the website development process
>> >> (which was in place long before Obamacare was a gleam in Barack's eye) was
>> >> what caused so much of the initial problems with signing up. First
>> >> impressions and all that. "Obamacare? Have you seen their website? Man, does
>> >> Obamacare suck!"
>> >>
>> >> It may (or may not) suck, but the pre-existing website design process was
>> >> what caused many of the initial problems. Per the podcast, it wasn't clear
>> >> which of the many contractors involved was responsible for stitching all of
>> >> the various modules together. Integrated testing wasn't started until 2
>> >> weeks before it went live. That design process wouldn't work well for *any*
>> >> program, retailer, forum, etc.
>> >>
>> >The difference between a business financial report and a government
>> >financial report is that the government report has no bottom line. So
>> >anything that the government does is pretty much the result of
>> >operating blind.
>>
>> A *big* +1
>>
>> Government never does a cost/benefit analysis.
>>
>
>Really? Is Executive Order 12866 no longer in effect? It was issued in 1993 and amended in 2007. I see no record of it being reversed. Do you know that it has been?
>
>http://www.foreffectivegov.org/node/2560
>
You're kidin' me, right?

>https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/executive-orders/pdf/12866.pdf

On 9/21/2015 5:50 PM, [email protected] wrote:
> After my recent unsatisfactory experience with Spax, I decided that they do have their use, but I can't carry a hardware store of different screws with me. I need a good, strong, 3 - 3 1/4" screw, and when I saw the Spax at 3 1/4' (or something close) I bit. They are OK, and when in a place where I can get over the screws they are great.

I use Spax mostly for when I need something to withstand sheer force and
has has a smaller head/will be plugged or out of sight. And yes, best to
use their included driver bit if you want good results.

For installing side by side cabinet runs I've had good luck with FastCap
cabinet screws; and they can fitted with a plastic cap for appearance if
necessary.

The 1 1/4 size and that big head insure they will not penetrate two
layers of 3/4" plywood casework

I carry two sizes of these in the truck:

https://picasaweb.google.com/111355467778981859077/EWoodShopJustStuff?noredirect=1#5703874944464528402

Mostly filled with #8 square drive screws from Circle Saw here in
Houston. Also buy Rockler for those cases where I'm sure they will not
twist off (have learned to pre-drill the longer Rockler screws in
hardwoods to be safe).

Except for Spax, drywall and deck screws, I rarely buy any screw from
the Borgs.

--
eWoodShop: www.eWoodShop.com
Wood Shop: www.e-WoodShop.net
https://www.google.com/+eWoodShop
https://plus.google.com/+KarlCaillouet/posts
http://www.custommade.com/by/ewoodshop/
KarlCaillouet@ (the obvious)

On 9/21/2015 11:48 AM, Leon wrote:
> I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
> You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.
>
> Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?


O! M! G!

I found Festool Screws! ;~)

http://www.highlandwoodworking.com/festool-systainer-1-box-with-1300-spax-screws.aspx

On 9/21/2015 4:30 PM, Lew Hodgett wrote:
> "Leon" wrote:
>
>> I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
>> You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.
>>
>> Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?
>
> ------------------------------------------------
> Check out Jamestown Distributors.
>
> Excellent marine supplier.
>
> May be a tad expensive.
>
> Lew

I found Quick Screws. They beat the hell out of McFeeleys on price but
limited selection. I'll take a look at Jamestown.

Expensive is an inexpensive screw that breaks. ;~)

Thanks Lew.

On Thu, 24 Sep 2015 10:21:10 -0400, Ed Pawlowski <[email protected]> wrote:

>On 9/23/2015 8:41 PM, krw wrote:
>
>>
>> Government never does a cost/benefit analysis.
>>
>
>Congress does. They simplified the process. If it benefits us, the
>cost to the taxpayer does not matter.

No, they don't. They use numbers to justify what they're going to do
anyway. BTW, the CBO, by law, uses static scoring. Hate to break it
to them but the world is quite dynamic.

On 09/21/2015 11:48 AM, Leon wrote:
> I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
> You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.
>
> Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?

Haven't had any recent need so no direct contact suggestion.

I did look at the McF web site; it appears to be using the same package
at the Grainger site. Not terribly surprising once the Grainger
accounting folks got McFeely fully integrated.

As for the question specifically, I'd probably use the "live chat" or
contact tech support by (gasp!) actually dialing the phone and see how
it goes when ask for the specific product. That'll probably immediately
tell you whether it's time to switch vendors or they're still capable
_despite_ corporate.

--

In article <[email protected]>
Leon <lcb11211@swbelldotnet> writes:
>I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
>You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.

I have a 2015 catalog that came along with my last order (I forget
whether I checked something to request a catalog).



--
In Dr. Johnson's famous dictionary patriotism is defined as the
last resort of the scoundrel. With all due respect to an enlightened
but inferior lexicographer I beg to submit that it is the first.
-- Ambrose Bierce

On 9/27/2015 3:23 AM, DerbyDad03 wrote:

> I still don't understand your use of the word "bid". As far as I know, to "bid" on something
> usually involves money.
> "I won the auction because I bid higher than everyone else."
>
> "I got the contract because I bid lower than everyone else."
>
> I assume that these guys aren't paying the jobs or taking a lower > >
> salary to get them, so how is this a "bidding" process?

Bidding is tendering an offer for something,usually in an auction style
format. The something could be anything, like a car, or a job, or a wife.

What the offer you are tendering could be money, years of service, or goats.

I bid 3 goats for your daughter, I bid 20 years service for that job, I
big 200 gold bars for that Festool vacuum.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 9/27/2015 9:37 AM, Jack wrote:
>
>> I bid 3 goats for your daughter, I bid 20 years service for that
>> job, I big 200 gold bars for that Festool vacuum.
>>
>
> I'll take your offer for the goats. Daughter is packing now. if the
> goats will be here in time for dinner I'll toss in a wheelbarrow full
> of her toiletries in the bathroom.

Only a wheelbarrow full? What are you planning to do with all of the rest
of it?

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 9/27/2015 4:06 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 9/27/2015 9:37 AM, Jack wrote:
>
>> I bid 3 goats for your daughter, I bid 20 years service for that job, I
>> big 200 gold bars for that Festool vacuum.
>>
>
> I'll take your offer for the goats. Daughter is packing now. if the
> goats will be here in time for dinner I'll toss in a wheelbarrow full of
> her toiletries in the bathroom.

I wasn't really bidding, just scratching my nose...

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On 9/27/2015 9:45 AM, Puckdropper wrote:

> You'd have to offer a lot more than 3 goats for a daughter nowadays.
> Haven't you heard of inflation?

She'd have to be a really good cook, not mind cleaning and laundry,
shopping, mowing the lawn and sewing.

Otherwise 3 goats is an over bid.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

DerbyDad03 wrote:

> Isn't there typically an exchange of the item that was tendered when
> the bid is accepted/won?
>
> I give you my goats, you give me your daughters.
>
> How do you give someone "years of service" if that is the "tender"
> offered?
>
> "I have 20 years of service, Jack only has 15, so I win the bid for
> that primo job. I'll deliver my 20 years of service by noon tomorrow."
>
> It still sounds like a "ordered choice" based on some criteria, not a
> "bid".

Well actually, one of the definitions of the word bid is an attempt to
attain some goal or purpose (a bid for election).

--

-Mike-
[email protected]

On 9/28/2015 12:24 PM, Puckdropper wrote:
> Jack <[email protected]> wrote in news:[email protected]:

>> I wasn't really bidding, just scratching my nose...

> I queried 10 fathers about their daughters, and none of them had
> anything bad to say about them. You'll be alright. :-)

Sure, I've heard that nonsense before. I'd bet that at least one in 200
are bad, or, is it the other way around?

Mine of course was the best. I know because she was really, really
expensive. I happily gave her away though, no goats but a deal is a
deal. She says in 9 days she's promoting me to a GF, we'll see how that
goes.

--
Jack
Add Life to your Days not Days to your Life.
http://jbstein.com

On Mon, 21 Sep 2015 15:03:20 -0400, woodchucker <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 9/21/2015 12:48 PM, Leon wrote:
>> I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
>> You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.
>>
>> Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?
>yea, I noticed that too.
>Also having a tough time locating simple screws..
>Seems like they went off the deep end.
>Not a great design.
>
>I think many sites lose track of simplicity.
>to many of the young crowd (developers) they think it's intuitive.
>But not to me. Too many make it easy so they can develop it, but not so
>it's functionable.

No kidding, I find that everywhere, what happened to the expression
tell it to me as though I were an idiot. Now I'm not getting any
younger but it seems like making it flashy is more important then
making it work. Hmmm kind of like are government.

Mike M

On 9/28/2015 11:08 AM, Jack wrote:
> On 9/27/2015 4:06 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> On 9/27/2015 9:37 AM, Jack wrote:
>>
>>> I bid 3 goats for your daughter, I bid 20 years service for that job, I
>>> big 200 gold bars for that Festool vacuum.
>>>
>>
>> I'll take your offer for the goats. Daughter is packing now. if the
>> goats will be here in time for dinner I'll toss in a wheelbarrow full of
>> her toiletries in the bathroom.
>
> I wasn't really bidding, just scratching my nose...
>


ROTFL

On 9/21/2015 3:36 PM, dpb wrote:
> On 09/21/2015 11:48 AM, Leon wrote:
>> I seldom get a catalog any more and their web site no longer has one.
>> You now must use the "Screw Selector" and it leaves screws out.
>>
>> Where do you buy your "quality" square drive screws?
>
> Haven't had any recent need so no direct contact suggestion.
>
> I did look at the McF web site; it appears to be using the same package
> at the Grainger site. Not terribly surprising once the Grainger
> accounting folks got McFeely fully integrated.
>
> As for the question specifically, I'd probably use the "live chat" or
> contact tech support by (gasp!) actually dialing the phone and see how
> it goes when ask for the specific product. That'll probably immediately
> tell you whether it's time to switch vendors or they're still capable
> _despite_ corporate.
>
> --
>

Oh really? That explains alot. Grainger is one of the worst sites. I
think all the hard goods guys. Enco, MSC... they suck too.



--
Jeff

On 9/27/2015 9:37 AM, Jack wrote:

> I bid 3 goats for your daughter, I bid 20 years service for that job, I
> big 200 gold bars for that Festool vacuum.
>

I'll take your offer for the goats. Daughter is packing now. if the
goats will be here in time for dinner I'll toss in a wheelbarrow full of
her toiletries in the bathroom.