Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.


Topics - Barney

Pages: [1]
1
Jokes! / The Dog sitter
« on: September 03, 2010, 02:05:39 PM »
    The Dog sitter

A dog lover, whose female dog was "in heat", agreed to house her neighbors' male dog while they were on vacation. She had a large house and believed that she could keep them apart, but as she was drifting off to sleep she heard some loud howling and moaning sounds. She rushed downstairs and found the dogs locked together, in obvious pain and unable to disengage, as often happens when dogs mate.

Unable to separate them and perplexed as to what to do next, even though it was late, she called the vet.

After she explained the problem to the vet he said, "hang up the phone and place it beside the dogs. I'll then call you back and the noise of the ringing will make the male lose his erection and be able to withdraw".
"Do you think that will work?" she asked.
"It just worked for me" he replied.

2
Jokes! / HARLEY DAVIDSON FACES STIFF COMPETITION FROM JOHNSON MARINE
« on: January 11, 2010, 02:23:18 PM »
HARLEY DAVIDSON FACES STIFF COMPETITION FROM JOHNSON MARINE

At a press conference late Monday, the CEO of Johnson Marine, makers of Johnson outboard marine engines and other recreational equipment, unveiled a new line of heavyweight cruiser style motorcycles designed to compete head to head with industry leader Harley-Davidson.

Peter Long, Johnson brands marketing manager said, "We have studied the market and determined that Harley, while highly successful, has narrowly missed the mark when targeting motorcycle buyers". Long added, "We at Johnson are convinced that our product hits the target dead center and promises to draw sales away from Harley-Davidson in a way no other motorcycle has been able to accomplish".

The new line of bikes, marketed under the name Big Johnson Motorcycles, will, according to Long, deliver what Harley has only promised. "Our research show that this, a Big Johnson, is what Harley buyers are really after".

At the unveiling of the new line Monday, several current Harley owners agreed. "When I bought my Harley, what I really needed was a Big Johnson," said one Harley owner." But I see now that riding a Harley is no replacement for having a Big Johnson."

Manager Long also said that his company would follow the lead of Harley-Davidson and cash in on a huge market for non-motorcycle related products. "We realize that not every guy can have a Big Johnson," said Long, "But image is very important to people. If they don't have a Big Johnson, they at least want to project the image of having one."

Asked if he anticipated Big Johnsons showing up in the hands of Harley owners, Long said it was unlikely. "I just don't see the need to have a Harley if you have a Big Johnson," he said. "And I can't imagine someone who spends all their resources to acquire a Harley having a Big Johnson. I think it boils down to this - You either have a Harley, or you have a Big Johnson, but you are not likely to have both." "Given the choice," said Long, "I think most guys will opt for the Big Johnson."

Another force driving sales for the company will come from women. A survey of the wives and girlfriends of nearly 1,000 potential motorcycle buyers indicates less than 5% would approve of their partner spending $15,000 on a Harley Davidson. But, when asked if they would be willing to pay the same amount of money to get their partner a Big Johnson, nearly 4 out 5 thought that would be money well spent.

One female present at the product unveiling was quoted as saying, "There is no way I will let Lonnie drop 15 grand on another one of those Harleys, but 15 grand to get him a Big Johnson? Well, that's something we could both enjoy, and it's something he really needs."

Carla Roundheel, manager of the dealership network now being established, said her motto is simple. "I service what we sell." Big Johnson Motorcycles will be traded on the New York stock exchange under the abbreviation PNSNV.


Jeff Cox
Lockheed Martin Missiles and Fire Control

Research Engineer Stf - Integration & Test

Phone (972) 603-7454

3
Jokes! / WDNR Santa Deer Count!
« on: December 16, 2009, 10:13:01 AM »
WDNR Santa Deer Count!

WDNR Deer Count

4
Jokes! / INVOLUNTARY MUSCULAR CONTRACTIONS
« on: December 12, 2009, 01:41:54 PM »
 *INVOLUNTARY MUSCULAR CONTRACTIONS*

   A professor at the University of Mississippi was giving a lecture
   on 'Involuntary Muscular Contractions' to his first year medical
   students.

   Realizing this was not the most riveting subject, the professor
   decided to lighten the mood slightly.

   He pointed to a young woman in the front row and said,   'Do you
   know what your asshole is doing while you're having an orgasm?'

   She replied, 'Probably deer hunting with his buddies.'

   It took 45 minutes to restore order in the classroom...

5
Whitetail Deer / To bait or not to bait? That is the question
« on: November 11, 2008, 02:19:30 PM »
To bait or not to bait? That is the question

In the coming months the WDNR and state officials will be pushing for banning of baiting  for hunting purposes in Wisconsin. They have put forward a document with several goals in mind to prevent the spread of CWD in Wisconsin. The baiting issue may be the hardest to implement.  You can access the States CWD Management Plan HERE  http://wisconsinoutdoor.com/smf/index.php?topic=2030.0

A little history of baiting in Wisconsin is in order. When I started hunting deer (30 years ago) baiting was not legal in Wisconsin. 30 years ago there were not as many deer but you could hunt just about anywhere there was deer. The posting of land was unusual and frowned upon. We drove deer and stump sitters were few. You could get on a deer track after a fresh snow and track it until you got the deer or just got tired or gave up. If we took those kind tactics today it wood be a short hunt, you would end up in jail or a large fine at a minimum.

You will hear a lot of anti baiting testimony in the coming months; hear are a few on the pro side.

Baiting is an effective and humane way to harvest deer; most counties in Wisconsin have too many deer and in many of the northern counties animals starve during hard winters. There should be no restrictions that would hinder or reduce the annual harvest of deer in Wisconsin. In other words why would you implement a rule that would make it harder to reach the states harvest goals?

The current argument for banning baiting for hunting purposes in Wisconsin is because of the possible spread of CWD and other diseases in the state. This is an argument they say is based on hard science related to CWD. To my knowledge the science is not settled on how the disease is actually spread. If indeed there is a possibility of spreading the disease through close contact, I believe the act of baiting for hunting is a very small part of the problem. Most hunters that hunt over bait do it sparingly. They only bait for just a few days out of the year. 

The feeding of deer for recreational purposes (viewing of wild life) is by far the most prevalent in the state. The feeding of deer is being done on an all year basis throughout the state.

Most bird feeders feed both deer and other wildlife. What will be done with bird feeders?

The average deer hunter today is confined to less than 100 acres. In some cases, hunters are restricted to 20 acres or less. They have one spot to hunt and no other options other than public land. They can't stalk or drive deer for fear of moving deer to there neighbors land. They can hardly move around the property without running deer across the fence and off there land. Their only option is to sit patiently in a blind and hope a deer comes by. Using bait ups the odds considerably. In the old days hunters could move from parcel to parcel with ease. The posting of land was unheard of. Now it is common place, it is unusual for private hunting not to be posted. In many cases hunting on these parcels just is not allowed. And in some other instances it is pay as you go hunts or leases.

Baiting allows hunters to study a deer for minutes at a time. Every shot at a deer is a management decision. Hunters before baiting often had scant seconds to shoot or not shoot as they saw a buck moving through heavy cover. The deer frequently was an immature buck (sometimes with big antlers) that should never have been shot.

Baiting is a very safe method of harvesting deer, baiting puts the deer where the hunter wants it. That includes putting deer close to novice hunters, excitable hunters or poor rifle shots. Close shots at relaxed, broadside, standing game translate to clean kills and fewer wounded animals, and that should be every deer hunter's goal.

Most modern hunters don't have much time to spend afield. By baiting, they can maximize their hunting time.

It's fun to see a lot of game and watch how animals interact. Baiting deer to a blind makes the hunt more entertaining (though admittedly less challenging).

Baiting for hunting purposes is a choice. It should be kept that way.

6
Wisconsin Fishing / Carp by Bow
« on: July 02, 2008, 01:06:40 PM »
A friend of mine had a good night on Dells Pond in Eau Claire. He shot a  nice big Carp with his bow, Dells Pond is part of the Chippewa River located in Eau Claire... 

Big Carp with a Bow!


7
Jokes! / JOB & THE URINE TEST
« on: June 30, 2008, 10:39:26 AM »
JOB & THE URINE
TEST
 
(I sure would like to know who wrote this one!

They deserve a HUGE pat on the back!)

I HAVE TO PASS A URINE TEST FOR MY JOB,
SO. Like a lot of folks in this state, I have a job. I work,
they pay me. I pay my taxes and the government
distributes my taxes as it sees fit. In order to get
that paycheck, I am required to pass a random urine
 test with which I have no problem.

What I do
have a problem with is the distribution of my taxes to
people who don't have to pass a urine test.
 Shouldn't one have to pass a urine test to get a
welfare check because I have to pass one to earn it
for them? Please understand, I have no problem with helping
people get back on their feet. I do, on the other
hand, have a problem with helping someone sitting on their
 ASS, doing drugs, while I work. . . . Can you imagine how much money the
 state would save if people had to pass a urine test to
get a public assistance check? Pass this
along if you agree or simply delete if you don't. Hope
 you all will pass it along, though . . . Something has
to change in this country.

(Anonymous)

8
General Discussion / Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas
« on: June 16, 2008, 07:51:41 AM »
John Coleman's Comments Before the San Diego Chamber of Commerce

Global Warming and the Price of a Gallon of Gas
by John Coleman

You may want to give credit where credit is due to Al Gore and his global warming campaign the next time you fill your car with gasoline, because there is a direct connection between Global Warming and four dollar a gallon gas.  It is shocking, but true, to learn that the entire Global Warming frenzy is based on the environmentalist’s attack on fossil fuels, particularly gasoline.  All this big time science, international meetings, thick research papers, dire threats for the future; all of it, comes down to their claim that the carbon dioxide in the exhaust from your car and in the smoke stacks from our power plants is destroying the climate of planet Earth.  What an amazing fraud; what a scam.

The future of our civilization lies in the balance.

That’s the battle cry of the High Priest of Global Warming Al Gore and his fellow, agenda driven disciples as they predict a calamitous outcome from anthropogenic global warming.  According to Mr. Gore the polar ice caps will collapse and melt and sea levels will rise 20 feet inundating the coastal cities making 100 million of us refugees.  Vice President Gore tells us numerous Pacific islands will be totally submerged and uninhabitable.  He tells us global warming will disrupt the circulation of the ocean waters, dramatically changing climates, throwing the world food supply into chaos. He tells us global warming will turn hurricanes into super storms, produce droughts, wipe out the polar bears and result in bleaching of coral reefs. He tells us tropical diseases will spread to mid latitudes and heat waves will kill tens of thousands.  He preaches to us that we must change our lives and eliminate fossil fuels or face the dire consequences.  The future of our civilization is in the balance.

With a preacher’s zeal, Mr. Gore sets out to strike terror into us and our children and make us feel we are all complicit in the potential demise of the planet.

Here is my rebuttal.

There is no significant man made global warming.  There has not been any in the past, there is none now and there is no reason to fear any in the future. The climate of Earth is changing. It has always changed.  But mankind’s activities have not overwhelmed or significantly modified the natural forces.

Through all history, Earth has shifted between two basic climate regimes: ice ages and what paleoclimatologists call “Interglacial periods”.  For the past 10 thousand years the Earth has been in an interglacial period.  That might well be called nature’s global warming because what happens during an interglacial period is the Earth warms up, the glaciers melt and life flourishes. Clearly from our point of view, an interglacial period is greatly preferred to the deadly rigors of an ice age.  Mr. Gore and his crowd would have us believe that the activities of man have overwhelmed nature during this interglacial period and are producing an unprecedented, out of control warming.

Well, it is simply not happening.  Worldwide there was a significant natural warming trend in the 1980’s and 1990’s as a Solar cycle peaked with lots of sunspots and solar flares.  That ended in 1998 and now the Sun has gone quiet with fewer and fewer Sun spots, and the global temperatures have gone into decline.  Earth has cooled for almost ten straight years.  So, I ask Al Gore, where’s the global warming?

The cooling trend is so strong that recently the head of the United Nation’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change had to acknowledge it.  He speculated that nature has temporarily overwhelmed mankind’s warming and it may be ten years or so before the warming returns.  Oh, really.  We are supposed to be in a panic about man-made global warming and the whole thing takes a ten year break because of the lack of Sun spots.  If this weren’t so serious, it would be laughable.

Now allow me to talk a little about the science behind the global warming frenzy. I have dug through thousands of pages of research papers, including the voluminous documents published by the United Nations Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  I have worked my way through complicated math and complex theories. Here’s the bottom line: the entire global warming scientific case is based on the increase in carbon dioxide in the atmosphere from the use of fossil fuels.  They don’t have any other issue.  Carbon Dioxide, that’s it.

Hello Al Gore; Hello UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.  Your science is flawed; your hypothesis is wrong; your data is manipulated.  And, may I add, your scare tactics are deplorable.  The Earth does not have a fever.  Carbon dioxide does not cause significant global warming.

The focus on atmospheric carbon dioxide grew out a study by Roger Revelle who was an esteemed scientist at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute. He took his research with him when he moved to Harvard and allowed his students to help him process the data for his paper.  One of those students was Al Gore. That is where Gore got caught up in this global warming frenzy.  Revelle’s paper linked the increases in carbon dioxide, CO2, in the atmosphere with warming.  It labeled CO2 as a greenhouse gas.

Charles Keeling, another researcher at the Scripps Oceanographic Institute, set up a system to make continuous CO2 measurements.  His graph of these increases has now become known as the Keeling Curve.  When Charles Keeling died in 2005, his son David, also at Scripps, took over the measurements.  Here is what the Keeling curve shows: an increase in CO2 from 315 parts per million in 1958 to 385 parts per million today, an increase of 70 parts per million or about 20 percent.

All the computer models, all of the other findings, all of the other angles of study, all come back to and are based on CO2 as a significant greenhouse gas. It is not.

Here is the deal about CO2, carbon dioxide.  It is a natural component of our atmosphere.  It has been there since time began.  It is absorbed and emitted by the oceans.  It is used by every living plant to trigger photosynthesis.  Nothing would be green without it.  And we humans; we create it.  Every time we breathe out, we emit carbon dioxide into the atmosphere.  It is not a pollutant. It is not smog.  It is a naturally occurring invisible gas.

Let me illustrate. I estimate that this square in front of my face contains 100,000 molecules of atmosphere.  Of those 100,000 only 38 are CO2; 38 out of a hundred thousand.  That makes it a trace component.  Let me ask a key question: how can this tiny trace upset the entire balance of the climate of Earth?  It can’t.  That’s all there is to it; it can’t.

The UN IPCC has attracted billions of dollars for the research to try to make the case that CO2 is the culprit of run-away, man-made global warming.  The scientists have come up with very complex creative theories and done elaborate calculations and run computer models they say prove those theories. They present us with a concept they call radiative forcing. The research organizations and scientists who are making a career out of this theory, keep cranking out the research papers. Then the IPCC puts on big conferences at exotic places, such as the recent conference in Bali. The scientists endorse each other’s papers, they are summarized and voted on, and viola, we are told global warming is going to kill us all unless we stop burning fossil fuels.

May I stop here for a few historical notes?  First, the internal combustion engine and gasoline were awful polluters when they were first invented.  And, both gasoline and automobile engines continued to leave a layer of smog behind right up through the 1960’s.  Then science and engineering came to the environmental rescue.  Better exhaust and ignition systems, catalytic converters, fuel injectors, better engineering throughout the engine and reformulated gasoline have all contributed to a huge reduction in the exhaust emissions from today’s cars. Their goal then was to only exhaust carbon dioxide and water vapor, two gases widely accepted as natural and totally harmless.  Anyone old enough to remember the pall of smog that used to hang over all our cities knows how much improvement there has been.  So the environmentalists, in their battle against fossil fuels and automobiles had a very good point forty years ago, but now they have to focus almost entirely on the once harmless carbon dioxide.  And, that is the rub.  Carbon dioxide is not an environmental problem; they just want you now to think it is.

Numerous independent research projects have been done about the greenhouse impact from increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide.  These studies have proven to my total satisfaction that CO2 is not creating a major greenhouse effect and is not causing an increase in temperatures.  By the way, before his death, Roger Revelle coauthored a paper cautioning that CO2 and its greenhouse effect did not warrant extreme countermeasures.

So now it has come down to an intense campaign, orchestrated by environmentalists claiming that the burning of fossil fuels dooms the planet to run-away global warming.  Ladies and Gentlemen, that is a myth.

So how has the entire global warming frenzy with all its predictions of dire consequences, become so widely believed, accepted and regarded as a real threat to planet Earth?  That is the most amazing part of the story.

To start with global warming has the backing of the United Nations, a major world force.  Second, it has the backing of a former Vice President and very popular political figure.  Third it has the endorsement of Hollywood, and that’s enough for millions. And, fourth, the environmentalists love global warming.  It is their tool to combat fossil fuels. So with the environmentalists, the UN, Gore and Hollywood touting Global Warming and predictions of doom and gloom, the media has scrambled with excitement to climb aboard.  After all the media loves a crisis.  From YK2 to killer bees the media just loves to tell us our lives are threatened. And the media is biased toward liberal, so it’s pre-programmed to support Al Gore and UN.  CBS, NBC, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, The LA Times, The Washington Post, the Associated Press and here in San Diego The Union Tribune are all constantly promoting the global warming crisis.

So who is going to go against all of that power?  Not the politicians. So now the President of the United States, just about every Governor, most Senators and most Congress people, both of the major current candidates for President, most other elected officials on all levels of government are all riding the Al Gore Global Warming express.  That is one crowded bus.

I suspect you haven’t heard it because the mass media did not report it, but I am not alone on the no man-made warming side of this issue.  On May 20th, a list of the names of over thirty-one thousand scientists who refute global warming was released.  Thirty-one thousand of which 9,000 are Ph.ds.  Think about that.  Thirty-one thousand.  That dwarfs the supposed 2,500 scientists on the UN panel. In the past year, five hundred of scientists have issued public statements challenging global warming.   A few more join the chorus every week.  There are about 100 defectors from the UN IPCC.  There was an International Conference of Climate Change Skeptics in New York in March of this year.  One hundred of us gave presentations.  Attendance was limited to six hundred people.  Every seat was taken. There are a half dozen excellent internet sites that debunk global warming.  And, thank goodness for KUSI and Michael McKinnon, its owner.  He allows me to post my comments on global warming on the website KUSI.com.  Following the publicity of my position form Fox News, Glen Beck on CNN, Rush Limbaugh and a host of other interviews, thousands of people come to the website and read my comments.  I get hundreds of supportive emails from them.  No I am not alone and the debate is not over.

In my remarks in New York I speculated that perhaps we should sue Al Gore for fraud because of his carbon credits trading scheme.  That remark has caused a stir in the fringe media and on the internet.  The concept is that if the media won’t give us a hearing and the other side will not debate us, perhaps we could use a Court of law to present our papers and our research and if the Judge is unbiased and understands science, we win.  The media couldn’t ignore that. That idea has become the basis for legal research by notable attorneys and discussion among global warming debunkers, but it’s a long way from the Court room.

I am very serious about this issue.  I think stamping out the global warming scam is vital to saving our wonderful way of life.

The battle against fossil fuels has controlled policy in this country for decades. It was the environmentalist’s prime force in blocking any drilling for oil in this country and the blocking the building of any new refineries, as well. So now the shortage they created has sent gasoline prices soaring. And, it has lead to the folly of ethanol, which is also partly behind the fuel price increases; that and our restricted oil policy.  The ethanol folly is also creating a food crisis throughput the world – it is behind the food price rises for all the grains, for cereals, bread, everything that relies on corn or soy or wheat, including animals that are fed corn, most processed foods that use corn oil or soybean oil or corn syrup. Food shortages or high costs have led to food riots in some third world countries and made the cost of eating out or at home budget busting for many.

So now the global warming myth actually has lead to the chaos we are now enduring with energy and food prices. We pay for it every time we fill our gas tanks.  Not only is it running up gasoline prices, it has changed government policy impacting our taxes, our utility bills and the entire focus of government funding. And, now the Congress is considering a cap and trade carbon credits policy.  We the citizens will pay for that, too. It all ends up in our taxes and the price of goods and services.

So the Global warming frenzy is, indeed, threatening our civilization.  Not because global warming is real; it is not.  But because of the all the horrible side effects of the global warming scam.

I love this civilization.  I want to do my part to protect it.

If Al Gore and his global warming scare dictates the future policy of our governments, the current economic downturn could indeed become a recession, drift into a depression and our modern civilization could fall into an abyss. And it would largely be a direct result of the global warming frenzy.

My mission, in what is left of a long and exciting lifetime, is to stamp out this Global Warming silliness and let all of us get on with enjoying our lives and loving our planet, Earth.


9
Whitetail Deer / Should Minnesota Stop Party Hunting?
« on: October 29, 2007, 10:11:11 AM »
Save a buck by shooting only one

There are not enough bucks to go around in this state, or any other. Hunters can do their part to restock the state by not party-hunting, that is, sharing their tags with others.

Ask any deer hunter what he or she would like to see Saturday morning, and the answer will be, "A buck."

Then a pause.

Then this: "Make that a big buck."

But there are too few big bucks in Minnesota.

Never mind for the moment the fantasy hunting world portrayed by some outdoors TV shows, in which every deer is a buck, every buck is a monster and every monster buck is cooperative, passing within bow range either immediately before, or immediately after, a commercial break.

Read More .... http://www.startribune.com/anderson/story/1511040.html

10
Bird Hunting / Grouse Population Up!
« on: October 01, 2007, 08:31:29 AM »
Grouse Population Up!

I did get out and hunt for a few hrs. this weekend and had a great outing. I managed to flush at least a half dozen Grouse and four Woodcock in just a couple of hrs. hunting. There seems to be more Grouse this year in northern Chippewa County, at least thats the way it looks this early in the season.  The local Woodcock population looks about the same as last year; looking forward to when the flights come down from the north... should be allot of fun.
I manged to shoot two Woodcock and one Grouse...
 

11
Jokes! / 1986
« on: April 12, 2007, 11:23:44 AM »
In 1986, Mkele Mbembe was on holiday in Kenya after graduating from
Northwestern University.   On a hike through the bush, he came across a
young bull elephant standing with one leg raised in the air.  The
elephant seemed distressed, so Mbembe approached it very carefully. He
got down on one knee and inspected the elephant's foot, and found a
large piece of wood deeply embedded in it.

As carefully and as gently as he could, Mbembe worked the wood out with
his hunting knife, after which the elephant gingerly put down its foot.
The elephant turned to face the man, and with a rather curious look on
its face, stared at him for several tense moments.

Mbembe stood frozen, thinking of nothing else but being trampled.
Eventually the elephant trumpeted loudly, turned, and walked away.
Mbembe never forgot that elephant or the events of that day.

Twenty years later, Mbembe was walking through the Chicago Zoo with his
teenage son. As they approached the elephant enclosure, one of the
creatures turned and walked over to near where Mbembe and his son Tapu
were standing. The large bull elephant stared at Mbembe, lifted its
front foot off the ground, then put it down. The elephant did that
several times then trumpeted loudly, all the while staring at the man.

Remembering the encounter in 1986, Mbembe couldn't help wondering if
this was the same elephant.  Mbembe summoned up his courage, climbed
over the railing and made his way into the enclosure.  He walked right
up to the elephant and stared back in wonder. The elephant trumpeted
again, wrapped its trunk around one of Mbembe's legs and slammed him
against the railing, killing him instantly.

Probably wasn't the same elephant.


12
Whitetail Deer / Do Bucks Mark Territory with their Sheds?
« on: April 11, 2007, 07:34:42 AM »
Do Bucks Mark Territory with their Sheds?
Mike: I am one of the many who is obsessed with shed hunting. I have traveled across central and northern Wisconsin, and also across a portion of Minnesota in search of the perfect set.

Over the past few years a friend and I have documented where we pick up various-sized sheds. We have come to the conclusion that bigger bucks group together and drive smaller-antlered deer out of a certain area.

 This year we have found 2 sets that will score 150+ and another half that will break the 170 to 180 mark. These 5 sheds were found in a straight line from one another heading north to south from a cedar swamp to a ridge/valley habitat. We have looked for days, but there is no sign of smaller bucks in the area.

Also the large sheds are all distinctively similar--they look like grandfather, father, son and so on, with high brow tines and G2s and impressive main beams. This is probably due to genes in the area, but the odd thing is that once we get out of that vicinity, the antler type changes dramatically.
more... http://mikehanback.blogs.com/bigbuckzone/2007/04/do_bucks_mark_t.html

Pages: [1]
Google
Web http://www.wisconsinoutdoor.com