http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Eating fingernails and toenails!!! - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/537609b9e6bc72eb?hl=en
* Click n Clack say, don't buy a new car. - 16 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/787b95b7a56331ff?hl=en
* Need help quick - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4783eea24078e302?hl=en
* U.S. economy not in full stride until 2015,article link - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/c019140ccd1c17a9?hl=en
* Meatballs in Motion - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a8e8bdbb7816b213?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Eating fingernails and toenails!!!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/537609b9e6bc72eb?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 16 2009 8:02 pm
From: Zee
Funny how we all have different opinions about on how to cut our
nails. One thig is for sure, our ancestors doesn't have nail cutters
and they survive and lived normally.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 17 2009 6:16 am
From: "Daniel T."
Zee <zzaldy@gmail.com> wrote:
> Funny how we all have different opinions about on how to cut our
> nails. One thig is for sure, our ancestors doesn't have nail cutters
> and they survive and lived normally.
I also found it interesting how when presented with the topic, some
thought of biting the nails to the point that it was self-destructive
while others considered it as simply another method to maintain good
health.
Some people think I keep my nails a little on the long side for a man,
when/if they find out I bite them, they are quite surprised...
--
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add,
but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Click n Clack say, don't buy a new car.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/787b95b7a56331ff?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 17 2009 12:53 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Daniel T. wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Daniel T. wrote
>>> clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>>>> Low usage drivers (especially <10k) who don't travel far from
>>>> home with mostly daytime driving will likely do best with used
>>>> vehicles. High mileage drivers (perhaps 25k/yr ore more) tend to
>>>> do best with new vehicles, either trading them at perhaps 100k
>>>> or using them as a second car after 100k while driving them into
>>>> the ground..
>>> So you think a person who is driving his car 25K a year
>>> or more, and has a car that has about 100K on it, but
>>> works perfectly, should trade it in for a brand new car?
>> That can make sense if unreliability has substantial real costs in
>> loss of business etc and the cost of the new car isnt that much.
> A very rare case I expect.
More fool you.
> Few people have jobs where they loose $20K+
> because their car was in the shop for a few days,
Plenty do, actually. Most obviously with realtors etc.
> (and I expect such people don't have to worry so much
> about the cost of buying a new car every 3-5 years.)
What I said in different words.
Particularly when the employer would be paying for the
new car, or the cost of the new cars is a tax deduction etc.
== 2 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 17 2009 12:57 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Daniel T. wrote
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
>> Daniel T. wrote
>>> Why did you choose to buy a car, rather than keep the one you had?
>> It was purchased when my wife was single and was too small when
>> child unit #2 arrived. Also, a two door coupe was much more difficult
>> to deal with in terms of putting kids into child car seats.
>> Since we've now had that Camry for 13 years,
>> I don't feel that it was an extravagant purchase.
> So you didn't buy a car because it was cheeper to do so, you bought a car
> because the old one inconvenienced you. Keeping the old car, and putting
> up with the inconvenience would have cost you less than buying another
> car (whether that new car was off the showroom or just new to you.)
Yes, but there is more than just what costs the least.
I kept my previous new car for 35+ years, and when that became uneconomical
to repair because I had been stupid enough to not fix a leaking windscreen until
the floor had rusted thru, I decided that another new one should be the last one
I will need to buy and couldnt care less whether it would have been cheaper to
have bought used cars instead.
== 3 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 17 2009 6:10 am
From: "Daniel T."
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> Daniel T. wrote
> > SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
> > > Daniel T. wrote
> > >
> > > > Why did you choose to buy a car, rather than keep the one you
> > > > had?
> > >
> > > It was purchased when my wife was single and was too small when
> > > child unit #2 arrived. Also, a two door coupe was much more
> > > difficult to deal with in terms of putting kids into child car
> > > seats.
> > >
> > > Since we've now had that Camry for 13 years, I don't feel that
> > > it was an extravagant purchase.
> >
> > So you didn't buy a car because it was cheeper to do so, you
> > bought a car because the old one inconvenienced you. Keeping the
> > old car, and putting up with the inconvenience would have cost you
> > less than buying another car (whether that new car was off the
> > showroom or just new to you.)
>
> Yes, but there is more than just what costs the least.
Of course, as I said before: living like a bum is cheep, but that
doesn't mean I want to live like a bum.
> I kept my previous new car for 35+ years, and when that became
> uneconomical to repair because I had been stupid enough to not fix a
> leaking windscreen until the floor had rusted thru,
Just as a side note, replacing the floor would have cost less than
buying a new car.
> I decided that another new one should be the last one I will need to
> buy and couldnt care less whether it would have been cheaper to have
> bought used cars instead.
I will go further. For someone who isn't a mechanic, and has good credit
or enough cash for a new car, buying used is often a mistake. The way a
car is treated during its first five years does a lot to determine how
long it will last and when you buy used, you likely don't know how well
the car was cared for.
The expense isn't so much in whether you buy new or used, but in how
many cars you buy in your lifetime.
--
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add,
but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
== 4 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 17 2009 8:13 am
From: "JR Weiss"
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote...
>
>> Few people have jobs where they loose $20K+
>> because their car was in the shop for a few days,
>
> Plenty do, actually. Most obviously with realtors etc.
Nope. Anyone with the potential of losing $20K+ is just plain stupid if he
doesn't rent or borrow a car while his is in the shop for a few days. It would
be the stupidity, not the lack of a particular car.
== 5 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 17 2009 12:15 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
JR Weiss wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Few people have jobs where they loose $20K+
>>> because their car was in the shop for a few days,
>> Plenty do, actually. Most obviously with realtors etc.
> Nope.
Yep.
> Anyone with the potential of losing $20K+ is just plain stupid if he doesn't rent or borrow a car while his is in the
> shop for a few days.
There's still the loss of business involved when the car breaks at an
inappropriate moment with the customer waiting for the sales ape to
show up and getting pissed off and going elsewhere when he doesnt.
Most loss of the use of a car isnt predictable.
> It would be the stupidity, not the lack of a particular car.
Soorree, fresh out of crystal balls to anticipate all car failures.
Or any balls at all in your case.
== 6 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 17 2009 12:26 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Daniel T. wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Daniel T. wrote
>>> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
>>>> Daniel T. wrote
>>>>> Why did you choose to buy a car, rather than keep the one you had?
>>>> It was purchased when my wife was single and was too small when
>>>> child unit #2 arrived. Also, a two door coupe was much more
>>>> difficult to deal with in terms of putting kids into child car seats.
>>>> Since we've now had that Camry for 13 years, I don't feel that
>>>> it was an extravagant purchase.
>>> So you didn't buy a car because it was cheeper to do so, you
>>> bought a car because the old one inconvenienced you. Keeping the
>>> old car, and putting up with the inconvenience would have cost you
>>> less than buying another car (whether that new car was off the
>>> showroom or just new to you.)
>> Yes, but there is more than just what costs the least.
> Of course, as I said before: living like a bum is cheep,
> but that doesn't mean I want to live like a bum.
>> I kept my previous new car for 35+ years, and when that became
>> uneconomical to repair because I had been stupid enough to not fix a
>> leaking windscreen until the floor had rusted thru,
> Just as a side note, replacing the floor would have cost less than buying a new car.
Sure, I just couldnt be bothered farting around. That
car didnt have A/C so was an irritation in that regard.
We can get 10 days over 100F and its a tad hot.
>> I decided that another new one should be the last one
>> I will need to buy and couldnt care less whether it would
>> have been cheaper to have bought used cars instead.
> I will go further. For someone who isn't a mechanic, and has good
> credit or enough cash for a new car, buying used is often a mistake.
Dunno about often, sometimes, certainly.
> The way a car is treated during its first five years
> does a lot to determine how long it will last
I've never agree with that. In fact I didnt bother to change the oil in that car that
lasted 35+ years because being an OHC engine, it used enough to not need to bother.
> and when you buy used, you likely don't know how well the car was cared for.
Its certainly true that its more convenient since if something does fail soon
after you buy it, its covered by warranty. That car did need a warranty head
gasket replacement, and then the only important failure was the alternator
regulator and a petrol plastic hose that cost peanuts to replace.
> The expense isn't so much in whether you buy new
> or used, but in how many cars you buy in your lifetime.
Yeah, thats what I meant. The higher cost of the new car is peanuts over 35+ years,
well worth it for the convenience alone. Corse I did take care to buy what I believed
would be much more reliable than average too, and it turned out to be that in spades.
== 7 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 17 2009 1:05 pm
From: clams_casino
JR Weiss wrote:
>"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote...
>
>
>>>Few people have jobs where they loose $20K+
>>>because their car was in the shop for a few days,
>>>
>>>
>>Plenty do, actually. Most obviously with realtors etc.
>>
>>
>
>Nope. Anyone with the potential of losing $20K+ is just plain stupid if he
>doesn't rent or borrow a car while his is in the shop for a few days. It would
>be the stupidity, not the lack of a particular car.
>
>
>
>
If I was looking at homes with a Realtor driving a car at 150k that
broke down, I'd be finding a new realtor - fast.
== 8 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 17 2009 5:29 pm
From: The Real Bev
clams_casino wrote:
> JR Weiss wrote:
>>"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote...
>>
>>>>Few people have jobs where they loose $20K+
>>>>because their car was in the shop for a few days,
>>>>
>>>Plenty do, actually. Most obviously with realtors etc.
>>
>>Nope. Anyone with the potential of losing $20K+ is just plain stupid if he
>>doesn't rent or borrow a car while his is in the shop for a few days. It would
>>be the stupidity, not the lack of a particular car.
>>
> If I was looking at homes with a Realtor driving a car at 150k that
> broke down, I'd be finding a new realtor - fast.
I don't understand that. He's spending YOUR money on his car. Clean, safe and
reliable is important -- anything else is a nuisance to YOU -- but old is not.
--
Cheers,
Bev
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing in the universe can withstand the relentless application
of brute force and ignorance." -- Frd, via Dennis (evil)
== 9 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 17 2009 5:56 pm
From: clams_casino
The Real Bev wrote:
> clams_casino wrote:
>
>> JR Weiss wrote:
>>
>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote...
>>>
>>>>> Few people have jobs where they loose $20K+
>>>>> because their car was in the shop for a few days,
>>>>>
>>>> Plenty do, actually. Most obviously with realtors etc.
>>>
>>>
>>> Nope. Anyone with the potential of losing $20K+ is just plain
>>> stupid if he doesn't rent or borrow a car while his is in the shop
>>> for a few days. It would be the stupidity, not the lack of a
>>> particular car.
>>>
>> If I was looking at homes with a Realtor driving a car at 150k that
>> broke down, I'd be finding a new realtor - fast.
>
>
> I don't understand that. He's spending YOUR money on his car. Clean,
> safe and reliable is important -- anything else is a nuisance to YOU
> -- but old is not.
>
I expect NO breakdowns. A high mileage car by itself would not be a
problem, but using one above 150k can have risk. If the realtor took
that risk & broke down - I'd be gone in a moment. I doubt a smart
realtor would take such chances.
== 10 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 17 2009 6:35 pm
From: "Daniel T."
clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote:
> > clams_casino wrote:
> > > JR Weiss wrote:
> > > > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote...
> > > >
> > > > > > Few people have jobs where they loose $20K+ because their
> > > > > > car was in the shop for a few days,
> > > > >
> > > > > Plenty do, actually. Most obviously with realtors etc.
> > > >
> > > > Nope. Anyone with the potential of losing $20K+ is just plain
> > > > stupid if he doesn't rent or borrow a car while his is in the
> > > > shop for a few days. It would be the stupidity, not the lack
> > > > of a particular car.
> > >
> > > If I was looking at homes with a Realtor driving a car at 150k
> > > that broke down, I'd be finding a new realtor - fast.
> >
> > I don't understand that. He's spending YOUR money on his car.
> > Clean, safe and reliable is important -- anything else is a
> > nuisance to YOU -- but old is not.
>
> I expect NO breakdowns.
Sounds like a nice imaginary world you live in.
> A high mileage car by itself would not be a problem, but using one
> above 150k can have risk. If the realtor took that risk & broke down
> - I'd be gone in a moment. I doubt a smart realtor would take such
> chances.
If his car broke down but it only had 75K miles on it, would you still
be gone in a moment? What if the car had 30K miles on it? Why are you
asking him how many miles he has on his car in the first place? Sounds
pretty snobbish to me.
--
Perfection is achieved, not when there is nothing more to add,
but when there is nothing left to take away.
-- Antoine de Saint-Exupery
== 11 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 17 2009 6:48 pm
From: "Dave"
> > > > If I was looking at homes with a Realtor driving a car at 150k
> > > > that broke down, I'd be finding a new realtor - fast.
> > >
> > > I don't understand that. He's spending YOUR money on his car.
> > > Clean, safe and reliable is important -- anything else is a
> > > nuisance to YOU -- but old is not.
> >
> > I expect NO breakdowns.
>
> Sounds like a nice imaginary world you live in.
>
> > A high mileage car by itself would not be a problem, but using one
> > above 150k can have risk. If the realtor took that risk & broke down
> > - I'd be gone in a moment. I doubt a smart realtor would take such
> > chances.
>
> If his car broke down but it only had 75K miles on it, would you still
> be gone in a moment? What if the car had 30K miles on it? Why are you
> asking him how many miles he has on his car in the first place? Sounds
> pretty snobbish to me.
>
No shit. When we bought our house, we never even rode in our realtor's car.
Not that there was anything wrong with it, that I could see. It was a small
midsize Mazda sedan, 626 maybe? We followed it all over the county in our
new crossover. If our realtor had offered to drive us, I would have
accepted. But if his car had broken down, that doesn't mean I would have
taken my business elsewhere. How silly. He found us a good house in an
excellent location in our price range. I didn't expect him to do any more
than that, and I was happy that he did find us the house we wanted. I
gladly spent my own money on gas following him around while we were checking
many houses out.
I know it's sometimes common practice for a realtor to drive customers
around to look at houses. But really, isn't their real job to sell your
house, or help you find a house to buy? Or maybe both? Why fault a realtor
for having a car that is less than perfect? -Dave
== 12 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 17 2009 7:36 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
The Real Bev wrote
> clams_casino wrote
>> JR Weiss wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Few people have jobs where they loose $20K+
>>>>> because their car was in the shop for a few days,
>>>> Plenty do, actually. Most obviously with realtors etc.
>>> Nope. Anyone with the potential of losing $20K+ is just plain stupid if he doesn't rent or borrow a car while his
>>> is in the shop for a few days. It would be the stupidity, not the lack of a particular car.
>> If I was looking at homes with a Realtor driving a car at 150k that broke down, I'd be finding a new realtor - fast.
> I don't understand that. He's spending YOUR money on his car. Clean, safe and reliable is important -- anything else
> is a nuisance
> to YOU -- but old is not.
He said THAT BROKE DOWN, not JUST old.
And while I dont care myself, the salesfools all do believe that its
important for most of their customers that the car isnt an old bomb etc.
They're likely right with most of their customers.
And you dont get to pay a lower commission on the sale if he's driving a wreck most of the time.
== 13 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 17 2009 7:45 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Daniel T. wrote
> clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote
>> The Real Bev wrote
>>> clams_casino wrote
>>>> JR Weiss wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Few people have jobs where they loose $20K+
>>>>>>> because their car was in the shop for a few days,
>>>>>> Plenty do, actually. Most obviously with realtors etc.
>>>>> Nope. Anyone with the potential of losing $20K+ is just plain
>>>>> stupid if he doesn't rent or borrow a car while his is in the
>>>>> shop for a few days. It would be the stupidity, not the lack
>>>>> of a particular car.
>>>> If I was looking at homes with a Realtor driving a car at
>>>> 150k that broke down, I'd be finding a new realtor - fast.
>>> I don't understand that. He's spending YOUR money on his car.
>>> Clean, safe and reliable is important -- anything else is a
>>> nuisance to YOU -- but old is not.
>> I expect NO breakdowns.
> Sounds like a nice imaginary world you live in.
He's not saying that breakdowns dont happen, JUST that if a realtor
was stupid enough to keep driving an old car AND got a breakdown,
then he'd change realtors. Most would do exactly the same thing.
Plenty would even if it was an impeccibly maintained old Merc or Mustang etc too.
Doesnt matter if some customers didnt care about the breakdown, what
matters is that most would care and would dump that particular realtor.
>> A high mileage car by itself would not be a problem, but using one
>> above 150k can have risk. If the realtor took that risk & broke down
>> - I'd be gone in a moment. I doubt a smart realtor would take such chances.
> If his car broke down but it only had 75K miles on it, would you still be gone in a moment?
Plenty would. In spades in the current very competitive real estate market.
Just because there's no need to fart around with a realtor who is unlucky
enough to end up with a dud car, or stupid enough to not buy a reliable car
in the first place when he's got that sort of a job where reliabiity matters.
> What if the car had 30K miles on it?
Makes no difference for most. Which is why a realtor needs
to minimise the risk of a breakdown, however that is done.
Just because its so easy to change to one of his competitors and because
most arent interested in farting around due to a broken realtor's car.
> Why are you asking him how many miles he has on his
> car in the first place? Sounds pretty snobbish to me.
Its just how the vast bulk of the house purchasers operate and realtors need to allow for that.
Just like they need to keep the car clean, even tho in a logical sense that doesnt matter a damn.
== 14 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 17 2009 7:48 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Dave wrote:
>>>>> If I was looking at homes with a Realtor driving a car at 150k
>>>>> that broke down, I'd be finding a new realtor - fast.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand that. He's spending YOUR money on his car.
>>>> Clean, safe and reliable is important -- anything else is a
>>>> nuisance to YOU -- but old is not.
>>>
>>> I expect NO breakdowns.
>>
>> Sounds like a nice imaginary world you live in.
>>
>>> A high mileage car by itself would not be a problem, but using one
>>> above 150k can have risk. If the realtor took that risk & broke down
>>> - I'd be gone in a moment. I doubt a smart realtor would take such
>>> chances.
>>
>> If his car broke down but it only had 75K miles on it, would you
>> still be gone in a moment? What if the car had 30K miles on it? Why
>> are you asking him how many miles he has on his car in the first
>> place? Sounds pretty snobbish to me.
>>
>
> No shit. When we bought our house, we never even rode in our
> realtor's car. Not that there was anything wrong with it, that I
> could see. It was a small midsize Mazda sedan, 626 maybe? We
> followed it all over the county in our new crossover. If our realtor
> had offered to drive us, I would have accepted. But if his car had
> broken down, that doesn't mean I would have taken my business
> elsewhere. How silly. He found us a good house in an excellent
> location in our price range. I didn't expect him to do any more than
> that, and I was happy that he did find us the house we wanted. I
> gladly spent my own money on gas following him around while we were
> checking many houses out.
>
> I know it's sometimes common practice for a realtor to drive customers
> around to look at houses. But really, isn't their real job to sell
> your house, or help you find a house to buy? Or maybe both?
> Why fault a realtor for having a car that is less than perfect?
Regardless of whether it makes sense or not, its something realtors need
to allow for, because so many of their customers do care and because its
so easy to dump them and get another when the shit hits the fan.
What would you have done if the realtor's car had broken down ?
Towed it to the nearest garage etc or give up on that particular realtor ?
== 15 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 17 2009 10:27 pm
From: Shaun Eli
If you're buying a car and keeping it a long time then the price
difference between new and used is a lot less than if you're buying a
new car and trading it in after three or four years, over and over
again.
The risk in buying a used car is that you really don't know why the
person is selling it-- it may that the seller intended to keep the car
a long time but opted to sell it because it had a lot of problems. Or
if the seller intended to keep it only a few years he/she didn't take
particularly good care of it, knowing it'd soon be someone else's
problem.
My car's 13 years old and has 95,000 miles on it. My problem with
getting rid of it's something different. I'm a stand-up comedian and
the car I drive is central to one of my routines. I'm sure I could
continue to tell the same jokes with a new car, but I like being able
to answer the questions about my car by saying "Yes, it's true, and
it's parked right out front."
Shaun Eli
www.BrainChampagne.com
Brain Champagne: Clever Comedy for Smart Minds (sm)
== 16 of 16 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 17 2009 11:16 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Shaun Eli wrote:
> If you're buying a car and keeping it a long time then the price
> difference between new and used is a lot less than if you're buying a
> new car and trading it in after three or four years, over and over again.
Correct, but even if you do turn them over at something like that
rate, or say every 5 years, there can STILL be some situations
where a new car can be justified. The original claim that there
are NO situtions where that is true is just plain wrong.
There's a reason most rental operations turn their cars over at a decent rate.
> The risk in buying a used car is that you really don't know why the
> person is selling it-- it may that the seller intended to keep the car
> a long time but opted to sell it because it had a lot of problems.
Yes, particularly if its only a year or two old.
Corse its also possible that they just dont like the car and
thats for a reason that you dont have a problem with too.
> Or if the seller intended to keep it only a few years he/she didn't take
> particularly good care of it, knowing it'd soon be someone else's problem.
Yes, but there isnt any real evidence that modern
new cars need to be looked after very carefully.
> My car's 13 years old and has 95,000 miles on it. My problem
> with getting rid of it's something different. I'm a stand-up comedian
> and the car I drive is central to one of my routines. I'm sure I could
> continue to tell the same jokes with a new car, but I like being able
> to answer the questions about my car by saying "Yes, it's true, and
> it's parked right out front."
An unusual consideration.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Need help quick
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4783eea24078e302?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 17 2009 4:22 am
From: "h"
<hchickpea@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:kt82n4p0ccr85os0lbf5ps3nnhfo23v4bb@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 15:18:36 -0500, "h" <tmclone@searchmachine.com>
> wrote:
>
>>
>><hchickpea@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>
>>> I'm thinking the closed cell blue foam sold for mats under sleeping
>>> bags would make great booties for a dog. Just cut n hot glue them to
>>> shape.
>>
>>Ok, you mean hot gluing the foam to the bottom of SOCKS, right? Not the
>>dog's feet?
>>
> Yeah, into socks. Unless you had a blue tack hound. :-)
Phew! I just wanted to clarify since I'm sure there are people stupid enough
to try to hot glue something directly to their poor doggie's feet!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: U.S. economy not in full stride until 2015,article link
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/c019140ccd1c17a9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 17 2009 9:37 am
From: wismel@yahoo.com
On Fri, 16 Jan 2009 07:04:10 -0800 (PST), seeker
<mothman20052002@yahoo.com> wrote:
>http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/Investing/JubaksJournal/us-dilemma-how-to-grow-faster.aspx
No good ecnomic news for America. Very few products to make it in a
global market, a society becoming even more divided from third-world
immigration, legal and illegal. The stock market will remain volitile
for
years.
ted
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Meatballs in Motion
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a8e8bdbb7816b213?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 17 2009 10:51 am
From: phil scott
This guy occasionally writes something i consider brilliant.. I will
be eternally grateful for this one.
Phil scott
FWD
Meatballs in motion...
=======================================
Brains Against the Robots
Astonishing, when you set back a bit and examine it, how much of our
national resource of mind-power is currently being spent arguing with
idiots. Specifically, I mean the effort to coax dull-witted
automatons
to do fancy things by adding layers and layers of dull witted
automaton
instructions on top of one another. Since an automaton, if well
built,
will do exactly what it is told, the illusion is that if you get
extremely clever about telling it what to do, it will perform complex
and subtle tasks.
The idiocy of the Turing test and its descendants is that an infinite
amount of idiocy will add up to an average amount of intelligence.
The
idiocy which this has spawned is the notion that perception and
awareness can be achieved by multiplying non-perception and
unawareness. This is an easy trick, and you can build a whole
philosophy on it and get a lot of arguments going. You can convince
people to spend thousands of hours on analyzing how this can be done.
All you have to do is allow a single assumption that reacting, on a
stimulus response basis, is "the same as" being aware of.
IF this is true, then all else follows: minds are chemicals, thoughts
are electronic, awareness is a mechanism, knowing is an urban myth
based
purely on robotic storage of traces, intuition is a bizarre artifact
of
a mechanical process, and the human spirit is a subset of the human
body, probably an illusory electronic after-image "perceived" by the
same circuit that generated it, with perception itself being just
another loop in a series of numbers and pulses passing through the
network of "wires" and fields.
If awareness is merely a response to a stimulus, then the mind's
functions are accidental byproducts of electro-chemical accidents
multiplied several trillion-fold. You have to add in the very large
numbers to accomodate the quality of the thing, you see, because the
only explanation this model has for quality is complexity.
Thus if stimulus response is the same as perception, then quality
(the
raw nature of experience) is just thinly disguised quantity writ
tera-fold.
The beauty of this line of reasoning, if it can be graced with such a
dignified name, is that it leads to a clean cut-off of life, in which
all systems entropize to the maximum, and a cold silence follows the
burbling confusions of life. What a relief. NOT.
The minds which puruse this country with the intention to demonstrate
this callow logic are minds already beaten, lost in the depths of
their
own miseries to the point where the best they can do is get very,
very
logical. These are the minds of the wounded, fit to be pitied, fit to
be
helped, fit to be hospitalized by the able and cared for until well.
But these are not minds fit to lead our greatest explorations or our
cultural development.
================ http://www.clearing.org ====================
Sat Jan 17 00:06:30 EST 2009
ftp://ftp.lightlink.com/pub/archive/amos/amo0.memo
Send mail to arch...@lightlink.com saying help
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Homer Wilson Smith The paths of lovers Art Matrix - Lightlink
(607) 277-0959 cross in Internet Access, Ithaca
NY
ho...@lightlink.com the line of duty. http://www.lightlink.com
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 17 2009 12:10 pm
From: "fang"
phil scott wrote:
> This guy occasionally writes something i consider brilliant..
More fool you.
> I will be eternally grateful for this one.
You wont be around for eternity, you watch.
<reams of mindless silly shit flushed where it belongs>
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment