AHPP

They do a pedestrian machine. MT100? You don’t see many of them here and I think they’re on the old fashioned (ish) control pattern.

Ask on tree facebook. Then give it a few weeks for people to forget. Then ask if anyone has a second hand one to sell.

Like Mick says. 500i is the answer to a lot of arb questions. Even a 661 on the same bar and chain is (or at least feels) slower on smaller wood. I’m aware that might sound like bollocks because displacement is displacement but I’ve just cut about 150 tonnes of 4-40” firewood with a 500i and a 661 on the same bars so feel fairly qualified to comment. 881/3120. Forget it. No point until you’re regularly doing six foot cuts. Too much misery for not enough reward.

This week’s job has been trying to diligently tie off all the little fiddle-fuxk decisions on the winch that I’ve been putting off for months. Got some final answers from my machinist on how much clearance he wants designed in for certain ops etc (I know - dream client!) so no excuses to not get the bits my end done. A few more (tens of) hours of CAD and then buy a piece of aluminum the size of a phone book and commit. IMG_5801.MOV

*plough See.

Learning how to do the job so bark, ratedpeople etc can generate leads with the pricing already completed for you.

Who got the other sets of cheap Sherpa tyres the other day then? I was going to buy them all but seemed rude when other people were wanting them. Long overdue. My current ones are bald as.

All it’s doing is averaging/summarising the things people have put on the internet. People. Average people. The people in the middle of the bell curve. Pig ignorant slags whose collective wit has probably already been harnessed to control the rods in nuclear reactors. I might move closer to one. Get it over with quickly. Christ we’ve cocked this planet up.

No vision. Milan, Monaco, Malton.

Not calling it Dempsey International was a mistake.

Did you get to the bottom of your mewp fault?

I keep meaning to put a steel biner on my SRT rope end. Sometimes feel uneasy about sideloading when I'm choking. The weight might be nice for throwing it ahead too.

My favourite bit of television on race relations btw. And the whole series is good anyway. It's the same recycled plots as all the other legal drama/comedies like Rumpole, Silk etc, set in the 1990s, with excellent music and pop culture references.

In western legal systems, rights are broadly based on an ability to own oneself and advocate for a property right to yourself. That's why animals don't have rights, don't have a legal personality etc (so you have to set up a trust with a human trustee if you want to leave everything to your cat). I asked a while ago on here, probably in this thread when someone was calling someone racist, what they define racism as. I define it as when you think a certain group of people are unworthy or incapable of self ownership. If they fall below the threshold of being human in a legal ish sense. So you can dislike blacks, Indians, whoever as much as you like but you're not a racist until you think they can be owned as property because they're not capable of being their own property. I find generally blacks are thick and Asians are clever (though unfortunately dishonest with it). I always take the time to speak to blacks I cross paths with and see if I can find a spark of European style intellect. I've never even got as far as I did with Oldfeller up the page. I don't think they're programmable.

Good question. Don't know. You'd hope he'd have addressed that in the research (and the people whose research he relied on did too) or they'd be just as guilty of peddling weak science as the people who wailed and gnashed teeth at him. I've not read the whole thing. Now it's buried in the canceling. There's no such thing as right or wrong in this instance. It's just suitability for your environment. If you compete for money at Canary Wharf, you need to be western intelligent. If you want to find water and eat the right berries in Limpopo, you might need to be African intelligent. Anecdotally, I nearly always find blacks thick. I think like a westerner though of course.

But I do agree. I'm a smashing fellow.

I don't mind. It's not just written for him. I write for anyone who reads, wants to understand and is capable of understanding. Plenty of people are.

I'm challenging you to think about things that you probably haven't had to before. I get why that jars. We're used to the way things are, the structures etc. We're trained to not think too hard about it and just get on with the day to day. But anyway. You don't have to answer the challenge.

Yes. And people have a right to be who they are, closer to or further from animals or possessing more or less of any other characteristic. Birds of a feather flock together, which generally works. Africans scrat about mud huts for food and dancing. Londoners scrat about Canary Wharf for money and Porsches. Both peoples are surrounded by others with similar outlooks, goals, needs, wants etc so people understand each other and are able to get on and interact with relatively similar and equal understandings and demands of each other. The other way to look at it is to use intelligence as a metric. James Watson, half of the Watson and Crick known for discovering DNA brought up the issue a few years ago. In 2007, the scientist, who once worked at the University of Cambridge's Cavendish Laboratory, told the Times newspaper that he was "inherently gloomy about the prospect of Africa" because "all our social policies are based on the fact that their intelligence is the same as ours - whereas all the testing says not really". From https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-us-canada-46856779 He brought it up, from a scientific perspective of looking at a load of intelligence tests and then coming to a conclusion from the numbers. Then all the Brighton types called him a nasty racist so he said sod you and retired from serving the world if reason no longer matters to it.

No. I'm saying you might be if you can't keep up with what I'm saying. But how about we be civil instead and we might advance discourse and human understanding. It's not for me to design the world. Nobody can. People try, which is why it's goosed. But indicatively, no dole, no state housing, no state jobs where people can be hired at the expense of someone who has no say in who's hired. It relies on the eradication (or bloody close to) of the state, which is why it's hard to visualise. We're used to the state. But we don't need it.

See. Not mental. Not drunk. Comes from a coherent ideology of individual rights.

Of course they don't. One person's rights end where another person's rights begin.

Vastly reduce the number of them here by eradicating the public property and public money that harbours them. Ensure women can carry guns.

It boils down to believing in the rights of the individual. If you don't believe in those rights, fine. Plenty of people don't.

Don't worry. He'll have found your posts.