On 7/18/24 8:56 AM, RonB wrote:
> On 2024-07-18, chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>> chrisv wrote:
>>
>>> chrisv wrote:
>>>
>>>> Before -highhorse posted his above "gotcha", I'd already realized that
>>>> I'd forgotten something, and amended my post with "Or, all part of the
>>>> plan."
>>>
>>> Correction, -highhorse posted his "gotcha" post at 8:20, while I
>>> posted my amendment at 8:21. I loaded new headers before 8:20, so his
>>> "gotcha" post wasn't yet showing.
>>
>> And if -highhorse comes back with "well I didn't see your amendment,
>> either", it's a moot point.
>>
>> Bottom line, it was clearly a simple oversight, on my part, to have
>> not included the "or all part of the plan" in my first response.
>> There was no "gotcha". My argument is consistent.
>
> I wouldn't worry about it. This is how -highhorse operates. Instead of
> substantially engaging in an argument he's petty and picayunish. He latches
> on to minor issues because his argument is weak. It's a small-minded tactic,
> but that's all he's got and he knows it. You can waste a lot of time arguing
> with someone like him, which is why I have had him killfiled for a long
> time.
>

Golly, those points are soooo "weak" that chrisv tries is "unread" act
instead of being able to dispute them.

And you do the same avoidance bit too, RonB.

-hh

On 7/17/24 9:42 PM, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> Try reading current construction regulations for working on roofs.
>> Specifically, the sections on fall protection and when a harness is
>> required.
>
> My God, you are a fscking moron. That tiny slope requires no harness.
>
> Sheesh!
>

Did I say "harness"? Nope.

Sounds like you actually read part of the OSHA regulations, but not all
of them ...

.... or you read the second part I was referring to and realized that I
was right and you are wrong, but your fragile little ego doesn't allow
you to apologize to someone who you hate.

Choose your poison.

-hh

On 7/18/24 6:25 PM, chrisv wrote:
> rbowman wrote:
>
>> According to today's explanation a local cop got on the roof, saw a rifle
>> pointed at him, and got the hell out of Dodge. Was he going to violate
>> OSHA regulations?
>>
>> Just keep spinning like a dreidel.
>
> Well, we're just "civilians" and -highhorse is some sorta black-ops
> expert (laff).

Compared to you duffs, I am.

> Do you suppose that -highhorse is such a pussy that he'd be too afraid
> to walk on that roof, if lives were at stake? Sounds like it, to me.

But this wasn't a combat zone and civilians (police) are doing it on the
job, so OSHA regulations form the baseline standard.

A summary in plain English:

"If workers are within 6' of the roof edge they must be protected using
a guardrail system, safety net system, travel restraint system, or
personal fall arrest system. No other options are provided by OSHA."

<https://www.memic.com/workplace-safety/safety-net-blog/the-flat-roof-dilemma---when-is-fall-protection-required-in-general-industry>

All I'm doing is illustrating to the newsgroup just how UNINFORMED you
loudmouthed fools are on basic commercial industry safety standards.

You each owe me an apology ... not that I ever expect one.

-hh

On 7/18/24 9:12 AM, vallor wrote:
> On Thu, 18 Jul 2024 07:38:25 -0400, -hh wrote:
>> On 7/16/24 9:15 PM, chrisv wrote:
>>> -hh wrote:
>>>
>>>> Dumfsck wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> He gave up his 2A and 4A rights well before that.  The minute he
>>>>> committed the extremely suspicious act of carrying a gun up a ladder
>>>>> to the roof of a building near a political rally, he was subject to
>>>>> lawful detainment and investigation.
>>>>
>>>> Yes, but that's not a capital offense.
>>>
>>> If you think that's how it works, with the secret service, you're a GD
>>> idiot.
>>>
>>> "We couldn't shoot him. Our only option was to run over there to
>>> detain and investigate."
>>>
>>> Sheesh! Listen to yourself!
>>>
>>>
>> Have you read yet what Vallor posted? Suggest you do so before you open
>> your mouth up again.
>
> The scenario I forwarded looks much more likely to me than
> all these speculatory statements that do little more than
> attempt to "make the other guys look bad". :/

While it does sound like a deflection attempt, there's also truth in it,
because boundaries of roles/responsibilities has historically been a
weak point. In military ops, there's hundreds of years of examples.

-hh

On 7/17/24 8:34 PM, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> If chrisv wants to be credible, he'd promptly apologize for being wrong.
>
> You responded to RonB's indisputably correct statement with "Nah",
> making you wrong. When are you going to apologize?
>

Ron's statement wasn't indisputably correct, because what he said was:

"If the situation had been turned around and Trump had made the bullseye
statement and Biden had been nearly assassinated, Trump would probably
be arrested for inciting attempted murder."

This is incorrect because --> it already has effectively happened <--
and Trump wasn't arrested.

This was documented by the pics of rifle scope crosshair posters of
Hillary at Republican events during the 2016 election with no arrests.

-hh

-hh wrote:

> (snipped, unread)

Idiot.

-hh wrote:

> (snipped, unread)

Idiot.

-hh wrote:

> (snipped, unread)

Idiot.

-hh wrote:

> (lies snipped)

I've already disputed your idiocy. As usual, you now only assert the
ridiculous and deny the obvious.

-hh wrote:

> (idiocy snipped)

Guffaw. Was anyone fooled?

Only one person made a friggen jackass of himself in this thread, and
it's you.

-hh wrote:

> (snipped, unread)

There is no disputing that the MSM has double standards, -highhorse.

What will you apologize to RonB for denying his correct statement?

On 7/19/24 3:42 PM, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> (snipped, unread)
>
> There is no disputing that the MSM has double standards, -highhorse.

And I didn't dispute that claim. Reading comprehension fail.

> What will you apologize to RonB for denying his correct statement?

I will not apologize for correcting RonB's **false** statement, which
was as follows:

"If the situation had been turned around and Trump had made the bullseye
statement and Biden had been nearly assassinated, Trump would probably
be arrested for inciting attempted murder."
- RonB

This is incorrect because --> it already has effectively happened <--
and Trump wasn't arrested.

This was documented by the pics of rifle scope crosshair posters of
Hillary at Republican events during the 2016 election with no arrests.

Plus there were also statements last year about how it was okay that Ron
Pelosi got attacked (& nearly killed) with a hammer.

Deplorable hypocrisy from RonB .. and from you too, for getting it wrong
for which one of his statements I was correcting: is it because you're
literally farm animal stupid, or that you know that you're lying?

-hh

On 7/19/24 3:38 PM, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> (snipped, unread)
>
> Idiot.
>

Thanks for your post, for it proves that you didn't miss being
dressed-down as follows:

[quote]
But this wasn't a combat zone and civilians (police) are doing it on the
job, so OSHA regulations form the baseline standard.

A summary in plain English:

"If workers are within 6' of the roof edge they must be protected using
a guardrail system, safety net system, travel restraint system, or
personal fall arrest system. No other options are provided by OSHA."

<https://www.memic.com/workplace-safety/safety-net-blog/the-flat-roof-dilemma---when-is-fall-protection-required-in-general-industry>

All I'm doing is illustrating to the newsgroup just how UNINFORMED you
loudmouthed fools are on basic commercial industry safety standards.
[/quote]

You'd better stick to being a keyboard jockey warrior .. because you
clearly aren't smart enough to make it in the physical world.

-hh

On 7/19/24 3:37 PM, chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> (snipped, unread)
>
> Idiot.
>

Thanks for your post, for it proves that you didn't miss being
dressed-down as follows:

[quote]
Did I say "harness"? Nope.

Sounds like you actually read part of the OSHA regulations, but not all
of them ...

.... or you read the second part I was referring to and realized that I
was right and you are wrong, but your fragile little ego doesn't allow
you to apologize to someone who you hate.

Choose your poison.
[/quote]

As I elaborated elsewhere, this wasn't a combat zone and civilians
(police) are doing it on the job, so OSHA regulations form the baseline
standard.

A summary in plain English:

"If workers are within 6' of the roof edge they must be protected using
a guardrail system, safety net system, travel restraint system, or
personal fall arrest system. No other options are provided by OSHA."

<https://www.memic.com/workplace-safety/safety-net-blog/the-flat-roof-dilemma---when-is-fall-protection-required-in-general-industry>

You'd better stick to being a keyboard jockey warrior .. because you
clearly aren't smart enough to make it in the physical world.

-hh

-hh wrote:

> (snipped, unread)

Do you get vertigo, when you look at this image, -highhorse?

https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8582496,-79.9701354,3a,75y,241.42h,103.86t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sfA5goonaQhB7T3QLqlMuaA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DfA5goonaQhB7T3QLqlMuaA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D241.41683531603843%26pitch%3D-13.856365210885215%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu

If you had any credibility at all, you would apologize to the group,
for your idiocy.

On 2024-07-19 3:37 p.m., chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> (snipped, unread)
>
> Idiot.

Despite having no idea what he wrote, I concur.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged savages

On 2024-07-19 3:37 p.m., chrisv wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> (snipped, unread)
>
> Idiot.

Once again, you are correct, sir.

--
CrudeSausage
Catholic, paleoconservative, Christ is king
Progressives are brain-damaged savages

chrisv <chrisv@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> -hh wrote:
>
>> (snipped, unread)
>
> Do you get vertigo, when you look at this image, -highhorse?
>
> https://www.google.com/maps/@40.8582496,-79.9701354,3a,75y,241.42h,103.86t/data=!3m7!1e1!3m5!1sfA5goonaQhB7T3QLqlMuaA!2e0!6shttps:%2F%2Fstreetviewpixels-pa.googleapis.com%2Fv1%2Fthumbnail%3Fpanoid%3DfA5goonaQhB7T3QLqlMuaA%26cb_client%3Dmaps_sv.share%26w%3D900%26h%3D600%26yaw%3D241.41683531603843%26pitch%3D-13.856365210885215%26thumbfov%3D90!7i16384!8i8192?coh=205410&entry=ttu

It’s not if I get vertigo or not: it is if personnel that I’m responsible
for are following the applicable workplace safety regulations .. because of
they’re not and I’m aware of it, I’m liable if there’s a workplace injury.

> If you had any credibility at all, you would apologize to the group,
> for your idiocy.

Credibility? After yet another of your ridiculous “(snipped, unread)”
tirades?
Nope: thanks for your post, for it proves that you didn't miss being
dressed-down as follows:

[quote]
But this wasn't a combat zone and civilians (police) are doing it on the
job, so OSHA regulations form the baseline standard.

A summary in plain English:

"If workers are within 6' of the roof edge they must be protected using a
guardrail system, safety net system, travel restraint system, or personal
fall arrest system. No other options are provided by OSHA."

<https://www.memic.com/workplace-safety/safety-net-blog/the-flat-roof-dilemma---when-is-fall-protection-required-in-general-industry>

All I'm doing is illustrating to the newsgroup just how UNINFORMED you
loudmouthed fools are on basic commercial industry safety standards.
[/quote]

You'd better stick to being a keyboard jockey warrior .. because you
clearly aren't smart enough to make it in the physical world.

AND you’ve shown us that you’ve never held an applicable supervisory
position at any time in your lame career.

-hh