just received a reply from Lodge, Rob:::
check this out --

http://www.lodgemfg.com/seasoned-cast-ir...

-- j

Well I guess it wasn't a serious contract then, or else I'd have remembered it. Preferably the former... lol omg. You may have dreamt the whole thing.

You had a "dead, or alive...preferably the former" contract out on me for the longest time!

KH will recall this....

If it is now 'safe' for me to walk about the Gulch once again, then I am totally stoked! ;-)

Garrett Cook @ Lodge -- 423.837.7181 -- good
folks down there!!! -- j

We have a contract?

I have some friends who are dutch oven experts...they go on hunting trips just to do all the cooking and don't even hunt. My husband still talks about how great the food was.

check this out, LS:::

http://www.lodgemfg.com/seasoned-cast-ir...

-- j

check this out, Rocky:::

http://www.lodgemfg.com/seasoned-cast-ir...

-- j

While I completely agree. Germany is a good example of the kind of longevity and resources that we have placed in Europe, that we have not been willing to place do elsewhere.

We needed to be in Germany until about 1991 when the wall fell but if it hadn't been for Russia we could likely have left Germany in the 60's or 70's at the latest.

So let's use Germany as a yardstick. That puts us in Germany for 15 to 25 years before we had completed the mission with the Germans, if you ignore the Russian part of that equation.

The Germans have always been much closer to us philoscopally than the Arabs, so that would suggest that we would need to be in any Arab country much longer than we have been in Germany and likely by a factor of 3 or 4. This means that to complete the mission in Iraq at the shortest amount of time possible we would have needed to spend at least 45 years there and likely nearer to 100.

Now I do not in any way support the policy of nation building that America has attempted to at least pose as following. It seems that the policies of America have been more akin to intentionally causing unrest in as many places as possible, mainly to keep the arms manufactures in business but this shows that our policies of the last 20 years or so in the Middle East have actually been nothing more than a way to keep things off balance.

My question is why? Who is to gain? Any policy that is advanced lines someone pockets. You might answer it is the arms manufacture again but I believe that there is more to this and while I do not have the answer. I am sure that there are people here who have some idea as to the answer.

With the cluster of ditherers involved when you count the White House, Congress, and the State Department. I don't hold out much hope on a timely and complete evacuation.

Honestly we could and should have left Germany a long time ago.

Or failing that at least have the Germans subsidize the cost. As it is we are paying for Europe's defense for no discernible reason.

Given the observed difficulty people have ordering coffee at Dunkin Donuts or Starbucks I would have to say critical thinking would be well nigh impossible for a lot of people

Well, you were right to feel let down. You should never have been sent to the Nam in the first place. As for drawing lines, winning against the communists and the rest of that Imperialist BS, we'd be better off strengthening our economy and, to the extent we have a government at all, focus strictly on self defense. Communism, collectivism, naziism, imperialism, all eventually collapse under their own weight It's very demoralizing to me to watch these young lives being wasted. It's very sad and maddening that they were whipped up into a jingoistic frenzy by cynical sociopaths who never had to fight, most of whom never spent a day in uniform. You're free to go and fight wherever and whoever you want, nobody is stopping you.-- just don't steal from me to do it.

Right, but why? Why do the Iraqi insurgents and foreign fighters seem to be brave?

I will tell them. -- j

The point of war is not to "win" but to buy arms from crony weapons companies.

I cannot take the credit for 'catching' this error: I sent it on to some (like-minded) friends and one of them noticed that it was a faux speech. The stunning thing is how believable it was to me.

Jan, too innocent, sometimes

It is obvious that 8.1 is meant for touch screen, and would be awesome in that mode...but I only have a desktop computer, and have to use the mouse to get around.

I'm growing to like 8.1 more each day, although I do most of my work from the desktop app.

When I first built this computer with win 8 on it I thought "where's the beef"? It just seemed that the interface was under powered and I couldn't find things. After a year of daily use I've come to enjoy 8.1 more than win 7, it's just different.

I should confess that I'm running a 23" touch screen monitor on this computer and I really do feel that's opened up the real power of 8.1 for me.