http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Smart move: Dutch abandon Afghanistan - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a5c605beddd7b6be?hl=en
* Climate Change - 8 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/644bf640f475d0c1?hl=en
* computer - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/c20f532323c420ce?hl=en
* Simple Hack To Get $2500 To Your PayPal Account. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f4b874e5637435ca?hl=en
* New Zealand College Girls Sex Videos. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/ae5e82471e654f42?hl=en
* WARNING: INBOX.COM SPYWARE BAD EMAIL - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8e4bdc0a471532f1?hl=en
* Why America can have better bicycling than Europe - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/94722d9efbaa6d02?hl=en
* Riding a bike in London is risky business - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e744f8b768901596?hl=en
* Bicycling is only an important piece in the puzzle - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5c45dd286eec5188?hl=en
* Love - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/ef5006a4f6d35244?hl=en
* NY Times article on kids' summer reading - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/6c43437b0803be95?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Smart move: Dutch abandon Afghanistan
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a5c605beddd7b6be?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 5 2010 11:28 pm
From: Derek C
On Aug 5, 3:26 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
Movement of Tantra-Hammock" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 3, 10:42 pm, Derek C <del.copel...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > Nobody in recent history has ever successfully invaded and controlled
> > Afghanistan, even the greatest Superpowers of their day (Russia,
> > British Empire, etc), so why should the Yanks and the modern day Brits
> > do any better? This was a fool's errand dreamed up by that fool George
> > W Bush and his pet poodle crony Tony Blair. If it was intended to
> > suppress terrorism, it has had entirely the opposite effect.
>
> It was meant to INTIMIDATE the world and burn the extra cash lying
> around.- Hide quoted text -
>
Is that why both the US and the UK now have huge National debts?
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 6 2010 7:20 am
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-
Hammock"
On Aug 5, 11:28 pm, Derek C <del.copel...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
> On Aug 5, 3:26 pm, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
> Movement of Tantra-Hammock" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:> On Aug 3, 10:42 pm, Derek C <del.copel...@tiscali.co.uk> wrote:
>
> > > Nobody in recent history has ever successfully invaded and controlled
> > > Afghanistan, even the greatest Superpowers of their day (Russia,
> > > British Empire, etc), so why should the Yanks and the modern day Brits
> > > do any better? This was a fool's errand dreamed up by that fool George
> > > W Bush and his pet poodle crony Tony Blair. If it was intended to
> > > suppress terrorism, it has had entirely the opposite effect.
>
> > It was meant to INTIMIDATE the world and burn the extra cash lying
> > around.- Hide quoted text -
>
> Is that why both the US and the UK now have huge National debts?
I think it is the cause actually. They never said the price of the war
upfront. They could have taxed the gasoline and say it was for the
war. But no, they decided to borrow.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Climate Change
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/644bf640f475d0c1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 6 2010 12:12 am
From: "FarmI"
"David Hare-Scott" <secret@nospam.com> wrote in message
> Even if it turns out that AGW is wrong and we convert to a sustainable
> energy economy prematurely it will not be wasted effort, we have to do it
> soon anyway regardless of climate change.
There's probably even dissent about whether we really need to do that and it
seems there are some who think that peak oil is a myth.
Phillip Adams mentioned in his column in the weekend Oz that he'd met a
small time American oil man who believed that oil was not formed in ancient
times but was produced constantly deep within the earth. He make no comment
about this person other than to report his opinion. I thought that was
admirable restraint.
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 6 2010 12:44 am
From: "David Hare-Scott"
FarmI wrote:
> "David Hare-Scott" <secret@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
>> Even if it turns out that AGW is wrong and we convert to a
>> sustainable energy economy prematurely it will not be wasted effort,
>> we have to do it soon anyway regardless of climate change.
>
> There's probably even dissent about whether we really need to do that
> and it seems there are some who think that peak oil is a myth.
>
> Phillip Adams mentioned in his column in the weekend Oz that he'd met
> a small time American oil man who believed that oil was not formed in
> ancient times but was produced constantly deep within the earth. He
> make no comment about this person other than to report his opinion. I
> thought that was admirable restraint.
This kind of thinking is an excellent example of the appeal to consequences
type of logic. Although this far gone probably qualifies as ostrich
behaviour too.
"The consequences of the world running out of oil are terrible therefore it
isn't happening."
D
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 6 2010 8:25 am
From: Billy
In article <4c5bb5fc$0$15233$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>,
"FarmI" <ask@itshall be given> wrote:
> "David Hare-Scott" <secret@nospam.com> wrote in message
>
> > Even if it turns out that AGW is wrong and we convert to a sustainable
> > energy economy prematurely it will not be wasted effort, we have to do it
> > soon anyway regardless of climate change.
>
> There's probably even dissent about whether we really need to do that and it
> seems there are some who think that peak oil is a myth.
>
> Phillip Adams mentioned in his column in the weekend Oz that he'd met a
> small time American oil man who believed that oil was not formed in ancient
> times but was produced constantly deep within the earth. He make no comment
> about this person other than to report his opinion. I thought that was
> admirable restraint.
College tuitions are going up quickly and funding for primary and
secondary education is falling in the US. Rote memorization of facts is
considered education. I suspect that a well educated constituency is the
bane of politicians.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude
http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/07/201072816515308172.html
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 6 2010 10:24 am
From: "Rod Speed"
David Hare-Scott wrote:
> Jeff Thies wrote:
>> It is claimed by some that there are many scientists who disagree
>> that the earth is warming, and also that it is caused largely by
>> added CO2 in the atmosphere.
>>
>> The one Rush Limbaugh speaks of is Roy Spencer, and I hear his name
>> from other Republicans.
>>
>> http://www.drroyspencer.com/
>>
>> I find this interesting, as when you look at his current site, that
>> it does nothing to refute that CO2 is causing global warming. What I
>> see instead is an assumption that negative feedback might help
>> counteract warming.
>>
>> What I gather from Dr Spencer is that with the passing of La Nina
>> cooling and entering a cycle of PDO warming, it looks like the past
>> decade will be just a cool memory.
>>
>> So, just where are these scientists that don't think we have
>> screwed ourselves?
>>
>> Jeff
>
> I don't think there are very many deniers who are qualified, ie
> climatologists. There are many who represent themselves as "experts"
> but turn out to be like Singer who used to get paid by the tobacco
> industry to deny smoking caused harm or like Monkton who is a
> journalist trained in classics but seems a little mad and in love
> with the spotlight. So much of the propaganda from such experts is
> not a scientific argument anyway but an appeal to consequences "your
> taxes will skyrocket, they want a world government which will take
> all your rights, etc". See:
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences
>
> There was one bloke who used to work for the CSIRO who has some
> professional training in the area (I cannot think of his name sorry)
> but I recall following up on it and he was soundly refuted by the
> majority position. Spencer himself gets quite a drubbing from some
> climatologists, see:
> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in-three-easy-lessons/
>
> That is not to say there is universal agreement, there are bound to be
> differences of opinion on the details and especially the modelling
> but for the main point that humans have caused real climate changes
> due to burning fossil fuel and it will get worse if we don't stop the
> consensus among scientists is real.
>
> I know that science never proves anything to the 100% certainty level
> but it is only those who are looking to freeze the political process
> into inaction that claim that it should. The precautionary principle
> says that as the consequences of inaction get more serious you should
> act to prevent problems even if the matter is not certain. It's like
> insurance, you pay a little to cover the possibility of disaster that
> costs much more. This principle is written into much environmental
> protection legislation so why wouldn't we use it now on a broader
> scale? The failure to resolve this is not from the scientists who
> failed to provide reasonable evidence it is from the politicians who
> have collectively failed to act on it.
> Even if it turns out that AGW is wrong and we convert to a sustainable
> energy economy prematurely it will not be wasted effort, we have to
> do it soon anyway regardless of climate change. The cost of
> converting too soon is trifling compared to the cost of going too
> late. So why dither?
Because it makes a lot more sense to change to nukes for electricity
generation and use the electricity from them to heat our houses if you
want to do something about CO2 levels.
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 6 2010 10:27 am
From: "Rod Speed"
FarmI wrote
> David Hare-Scott <secret@nospam.com> wrote
>> Even if it turns out that AGW is wrong and we convert to a
>> sustainable energy economy prematurely it will not be wasted effort,
>> we have to do it soon anyway regardless of climate change.
> There's probably even dissent about whether we really need to do that and it seems there are some who think that peak
> oil is a myth.
> Phillip Adams mentioned in his column in the weekend Oz that he'd met
> a small time American oil man who believed that oil was not formed in
> ancient times but was produced constantly deep within the earth.
Pity he cant explain where the carbon comes from.
> He make no comment about this person other than to report his opinion. I thought that was admirable restraint.
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 6 2010 12:41 pm
From: Billy
In article <8c2uraF442U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
> David Hare-Scott wrote:
> > Jeff Thies wrote:
> >> It is claimed by some that there are many scientists who disagree
> >> that the earth is warming, and also that it is caused largely by
> >> added CO2 in the atmosphere.
> >>
> >> The one Rush Limbaugh speaks of is Roy Spencer, and I hear his name
> >> from other Republicans.
> >>
> >> http://www.drroyspencer.com/
> >>
> >> I find this interesting, as when you look at his current site, that
> >> it does nothing to refute that CO2 is causing global warming. What I
> >> see instead is an assumption that negative feedback might help
> >> counteract warming.
> >>
> >> What I gather from Dr Spencer is that with the passing of La Nina
> >> cooling and entering a cycle of PDO warming, it looks like the past
> >> decade will be just a cool memory.
> >>
> >> So, just where are these scientists that don't think we have
> >> screwed ourselves?
> >>
> >> Jeff
> >
> > I don't think there are very many deniers who are qualified, ie
> > climatologists. There are many who represent themselves as "experts"
> > but turn out to be like Singer who used to get paid by the tobacco
> > industry to deny smoking caused harm or like Monkton who is a
> > journalist trained in classics but seems a little mad and in love
> > with the spotlight. So much of the propaganda from such experts is
> > not a scientific argument anyway but an appeal to consequences "your
> > taxes will skyrocket, they want a world government which will take
> > all your rights, etc". See:
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences
> >
> > There was one bloke who used to work for the CSIRO who has some
> > professional training in the area (I cannot think of his name sorry)
> > but I recall following up on it and he was soundly refuted by the
> > majority position. Spencer himself gets quite a drubbing from some
> > climatologists, see:
> > http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in
> > -three-easy-lessons/
> >
> > That is not to say there is universal agreement, there are bound to be
> > differences of opinion on the details and especially the modelling
> > but for the main point that humans have caused real climate changes
> > due to burning fossil fuel and it will get worse if we don't stop the
> > consensus among scientists is real.
> >
> > I know that science never proves anything to the 100% certainty level
> > but it is only those who are looking to freeze the political process
> > into inaction that claim that it should. The precautionary principle
> > says that as the consequences of inaction get more serious you should
> > act to prevent problems even if the matter is not certain. It's like
> > insurance, you pay a little to cover the possibility of disaster that
> > costs much more. This principle is written into much environmental
> > protection legislation so why wouldn't we use it now on a broader
> > scale? The failure to resolve this is not from the scientists who
> > failed to provide reasonable evidence it is from the politicians who
> > have collectively failed to act on it.
> > Even if it turns out that AGW is wrong and we convert to a sustainable
> > energy economy prematurely it will not be wasted effort, we have to
> > do it soon anyway regardless of climate change. The cost of
> > converting too soon is trifling compared to the cost of going too
> > late. So why dither?
>
> Because it makes a lot more sense to change to nukes for electricity
> generation and use the electricity from them to heat our houses if you
> want to do something about CO2 levels.
If the nuclear power producer doesn't want to accept liability, that
tells me that they aren't that confident either. There MAY be a place
for nuclear, but not with this pressurized systems that we as using now.
--
- Billy
"Fascism should more properly be called corporatism because it is the
merger of state and corporate power." - Benito Mussolini.
http://www.democracynow.org/2010/7/2/maude
http://english.aljazeera.net/video/middleeast/2010/07/201072816515308172.html
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 6 2010 3:43 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Billy wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> David Hare-Scott wrote
>>> Jeff Thies wrote
>>>> It is claimed by some that there are many scientists who disagree
>>>> that the earth is warming, and also that it is caused largely by
>>>> added CO2 in the atmosphere.
>>>>
>>>> The one Rush Limbaugh speaks of is Roy Spencer, and I hear his
>>>> name from other Republicans.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.drroyspencer.com/
>>>>
>>>> I find this interesting, as when you look at his current site,
>>>> that it does nothing to refute that CO2 is causing global warming.
>>>> What I see instead is an assumption that negative feedback might
>>>> help counteract warming.
>>>>
>>>> What I gather from Dr Spencer is that with the passing of La Nina
>>>> cooling and entering a cycle of PDO warming, it looks like the past
>>>> decade will be just a cool memory.
>>>>
>>>> So, just where are these scientists that don't think we have
>>>> screwed ourselves?
>>>>
>>>> Jeff
>>>
>>> I don't think there are very many deniers who are qualified, ie
>>> climatologists. There are many who represent themselves as
>>> "experts" but turn out to be like Singer who used to get paid by
>>> the tobacco industry to deny smoking caused harm or like Monkton
>>> who is a journalist trained in classics but seems a little mad and
>>> in love with the spotlight. So much of the propaganda from such
>>> experts is not a scientific argument anyway but an appeal to
>>> consequences "your taxes will skyrocket, they want a world
>>> government which will take all your rights, etc". See:
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Appeal_to_consequences
>>>
>>> There was one bloke who used to work for the CSIRO who has some
>>> professional training in the area (I cannot think of his name sorry)
>>> but I recall following up on it and he was soundly refuted by the
>>> majority position. Spencer himself gets quite a drubbing from some
>>> climatologists, see:
>>> http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2008/05/how-to-cook-a-graph-in
>>> -three-easy-lessons/
>>>
>>> That is not to say there is universal agreement, there are bound to
>>> be differences of opinion on the details and especially the
>>> modelling but for the main point that humans have caused real
>>> climate changes due to burning fossil fuel and it will get worse if
>>> we don't stop the consensus among scientists is real.
>>>
>>> I know that science never proves anything to the 100% certainty
>>> level but it is only those who are looking to freeze the political
>>> process into inaction that claim that it should. The precautionary
>>> principle says that as the consequences of inaction get more
>>> serious you should act to prevent problems even if the matter is
>>> not certain. It's like insurance, you pay a little to cover the
>>> possibility of disaster that costs much more. This principle is
>>> written into much environmental protection legislation so why
>>> wouldn't we use it now on a broader scale? The failure to resolve
>>> this is not from the scientists who failed to provide reasonable
>>> evidence it is from the politicians who have collectively failed to
>>> act on it.
>>> Even if it turns out that AGW is wrong and we convert to a
>>> sustainable energy economy prematurely it will not be wasted
>>> effort, we have to do it soon anyway regardless of climate change.
>>> The cost of converting too soon is trifling compared to the cost of
>>> going too late. So why dither?
>>
>> Because it makes a lot more sense to change to nukes for electricity
>> generation and use the electricity from them to heat our houses if
>> you want to do something about CO2 levels.
> If the nuclear power producer doesn't want to accept
> liability, that tells me that they aren't that confident either.
More fool you.
> There MAY be a place for nuclear,
Corse there is, France generates 90% of its electricity that way.
> but not with this pressurized systems that we as using now.
Try telling that the french. Dont be too surprised when they just laugh in your silly little face.
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 6 2010 7:02 pm
From: "h"
"Billy" <wildbilly@withouta.net> wrote in message
news:wildbilly-E700D2.08252306082010@c-
>I suspect that a well educated constituency is the bane of politicians.
Well, duh.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: computer
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/c20f532323c420ce?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 6 2010 1:47 am
From: jansirani270 p
computer http://123maza.com/78/airport
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 6 2010 1:48 am
From: jansirani270 p
computer http://123maza.com/78/airport
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Simple Hack To Get $2500 To Your PayPal Account.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f4b874e5637435ca?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 6 2010 3:11 am
From: paypal cash
Simple Hack To Get $2500 To Your PayPal Account At http://lifeisbeatiful.co.cc
Due to high security risks, i have hidden the PayPal Form link in an
image. in that website On Top Side Above search box , click on image
and enter your PayPal id And Your name.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: New Zealand College Girls Sex Videos.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/ae5e82471e654f42?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 6 2010 4:05 am
From: devi
New Zealand College Girls Sex Videos At http://veryhotguru.co.cc
Due to high sex content, i have hidden the videos in an image.
in that website on Top Side search box Above click on image
and watch videos in all angles.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: WARNING: INBOX.COM SPYWARE BAD EMAIL
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8e4bdc0a471532f1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 6 2010 7:34 am
From: Teredo
On Fri, 06 Aug 2010 01:22:05 +0000, Seth wrote:
> In article <20100805203653.AD5351A7C48@www.ecn.org>, Anonymous
> <cripto@ecn.org> wrote:
>>Before you signup for Inbox.com "free" email services know THIS:
>>
>>1) You will be subjected to a 5-10 second delay before access to you
>>mail box, IF you even get access that is. This is for you to read
>>advertisements and for their spyware to record your session
>
> And why should anybody believe it takes 5-10 seconds for spyware to
> record a session?
>
> Seth
Because there are trillions of users and they each have to wait for
software generated interrupts to trigger some cpu cycles.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why America can have better bicycling than Europe
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/94722d9efbaa6d02?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 6 2010 8:25 am
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-
Hammock"
On Aug 5, 7:53 pm, Kevan Smith <dr.goode...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/5/10 5:57 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
> Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
> > This is about claiming our SPACE, not providing another anonymous
> > victim for the grinding machine.
> Your SPACE is where your body is, and YOUR body isn't riding bike.
Listen, if Osama leads a holy war from a cave, I can lead an unholy
campaign from a hammock, comprende?
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 6 2010 8:25 am
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-
Hammock"
On Aug 5, 7:53 pm, Kevan Smith <dr.goode...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 8/5/10 5:57 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
> Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
> > This is about claiming our SPACE, not providing another anonymous
> > victim for the grinding machine.
> Your SPACE is where your body is, and YOUR body isn't riding bike.
Listen, if Osama leads a holy war from a cave, I can lead an unholy
campaign from a hammock, comprende?
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 6 2010 7:41 pm
From: Jens Müller
Am 03.08.2010 02:39, schrieb His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of
the Movement of Tantra-Hammock:
> Our curse could be our blessing. The sprawl that killed our
> communities may be an opportunity for a different kind of bicycling
> than Europe: FAST BIKING. Our streets are better and wider, so IF WE
> GET A TRAFFIC LANE we really could go places far and away.
Ah, like in Berlin. But what do you mean by "GET A TRAFFIC LANE"? Are
there no traffic lanes in your wide streets?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Riding a bike in London is risky business
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e744f8b768901596?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 6 2010 9:10 am
From: Chris
On 05/08/2010 19:20, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
> On Aug 5, 10:32 am, Chris<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>> On 02/08/2010 22:05, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
>>
>> Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
>>> On Aug 2, 2:52 pm, Chris<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
>>>> On 31/07/2010 21:04, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
>>
>>>> Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
>>>>> On Jul 31, 2:39 pm, "Colin McKenzie"<n...@proof-read.co.uk> wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:11:20 +0100, Tony Raven<tra...@gotadsl.co.uk>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> In London a lot of cyclists have been run down by trucks turning left,
>>>>>>>> equivalent to right turn in the US, as a lot tend to undertake, pass
>>>>>>>> the passenger side of vehicles. The attitude of a lot of cyclists does
>>>>>>>> not help though as a lot run red lights, ride on pavements and go down
>>>>>>>> one way streets the wrong way.
>>
>>>>>>> Not a lot actually. Ten or less a year are hit by trucks which, for 180
>>>>>>> million cycle journeys a year means its pretty rare. And easily avoided
>>>>>>> by giving the big trucks a bit more room and respect.
>>
>>>>>> Quite. And as rather fewer than 10 a year, on average, are killed by other
>>>>>> vehicles, you can halve your already minuscule risk of death simply by
>>>>>> being very careful around lorries:
>>>>>> - don't pass (on either side) unless it can't possibly move in the time it
>>>>>> takes to get past.
>>>>>> - if in front, be where the driver can see you, and make eye contact to
>>>>>> make sure he HAS seen you.
>>>>>> - if to the side with priority, ride in a prominent position but be ready
>>>>>> to stop until you know the driver's seen you.
>>
>>>>>> If you want to halve your chance of injury, do the same with other
>>>>>> vehicles, and ride a door's width from parked cars.
>>
>>>>> My proposal to MANDATE VISIBLE CLOTHING/VEST/LYCRA would help quite a
>>>>> bit. No clothing, no rights.
>>
>>>> So would better cycle education for both cyclists and drivers. Does the
>>>> cycling proficiency test still exist?
>>
>>>> --
>>>> Chris
>>
>>> I don't know, but I know that...
>>
>>> It takes two to tango. I think it can work quite well with mandating
>>> the cars to exit the lane whenever possible and mandating the cyclists
>>> to wear something bright to have full protection.
>>
>>> Notice I'm NOT for mandating helmets or obeying every traffic signal
>>> out there.
>>
>> Bright clothing does not protect but knowing the best way to cycle on
>> the road does as well as obeying traffic signals, fancy being run down
>> by cyclist at pedestrian crossing. Its the same argument about level
>> crossings, drivers still drive around barriers when they are down and
>> are often crushed by the train despite flashing lights, bells and a half
>> barrier to warn them. So do you think bright clothing will make the
>> cyclist cycle better or the driver drive better you just make a better
>> target ;)
>>
>> --
>> Chris
>
> It's not only my opinion but that of the article at the heading. I
> think the most often heard excuse for an accident with a bike is "I
> didn't see him." You can even argue better in court, which is
> important if you survive.
>
> It also shows that you are more serious about it. It's the opposite of
> a jungle where you want to be camouflaged from the predators. But
> often poisonous snakes are bright to advertise the danger too.
Fair enough but I was just making the point that it needs more than HV
clothing to improve safety.
--
Chris
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 6 2010 11:42 am
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-
Hammock"
On Aug 6, 9:10 am, Chris <nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> On 05/08/2010 19:20, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
>
> Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
> > On Aug 5, 10:32 am, Chris<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >> On 02/08/2010 22:05, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
>
> >> Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
> >>> On Aug 2, 2:52 pm, Chris<nos...@nospam.com> wrote:
> >>>> On 31/07/2010 21:04, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
>
> >>>> Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
> >>>>> On Jul 31, 2:39 pm, "Colin McKenzie"<n...@proof-read.co.uk> wrote:
> >>>>>> On Sat, 31 Jul 2010 19:11:20 +0100, Tony Raven<tra...@gotadsl.co.uk>
> >>>>>> wrote:
>
> >>>>>>> Chris wrote:
>
> >>>>>>>> In London a lot of cyclists have been run down by trucks turning left,
> >>>>>>>> equivalent to right turn in the US, as a lot tend to undertake, pass
> >>>>>>>> the passenger side of vehicles. The attitude of a lot of cyclists does
> >>>>>>>> not help though as a lot run red lights, ride on pavements and go down
> >>>>>>>> one way streets the wrong way.
>
> >>>>>>> Not a lot actually. Ten or less a year are hit by trucks which, for 180
> >>>>>>> million cycle journeys a year means its pretty rare. And easily avoided
> >>>>>>> by giving the big trucks a bit more room and respect.
>
> >>>>>> Quite. And as rather fewer than 10 a year, on average, are killed by other
> >>>>>> vehicles, you can halve your already minuscule risk of death simply by
> >>>>>> being very careful around lorries:
> >>>>>> - don't pass (on either side) unless it can't possibly move in the time it
> >>>>>> takes to get past.
> >>>>>> - if in front, be where the driver can see you, and make eye contact to
> >>>>>> make sure he HAS seen you.
> >>>>>> - if to the side with priority, ride in a prominent position but be ready
> >>>>>> to stop until you know the driver's seen you.
>
> >>>>>> If you want to halve your chance of injury, do the same with other
> >>>>>> vehicles, and ride a door's width from parked cars.
>
> >>>>> My proposal to MANDATE VISIBLE CLOTHING/VEST/LYCRA would help quite a
> >>>>> bit. No clothing, no rights.
>
> >>>> So would better cycle education for both cyclists and drivers. Does the
> >>>> cycling proficiency test still exist?
>
> >>>> --
> >>>> Chris
>
> >>> I don't know, but I know that...
>
> >>> It takes two to tango. I think it can work quite well with mandating
> >>> the cars to exit the lane whenever possible and mandating the cyclists
> >>> to wear something bright to have full protection.
>
> >>> Notice I'm NOT for mandating helmets or obeying every traffic signal
> >>> out there.
>
> >> Bright clothing does not protect but knowing the best way to cycle on
> >> the road does as well as obeying traffic signals, fancy being run down
> >> by cyclist at pedestrian crossing. Its the same argument about level
> >> crossings, drivers still drive around barriers when they are down and
> >> are often crushed by the train despite flashing lights, bells and a half
> >> barrier to warn them. So do you think bright clothing will make the
> >> cyclist cycle better or the driver drive better you just make a better
> >> target ;)
>
> >> --
> >> Chris
>
> > It's not only my opinion but that of the article at the heading. I
> > think the most often heard excuse for an accident with a bike is "I
> > didn't see him." You can even argue better in court, which is
> > important if you survive.
>
> > It also shows that you are more serious about it. It's the opposite of
> > a jungle where you want to be camouflaged from the predators. But
> > often poisonous snakes are bright to advertise the danger too.
>
> Fair enough but I was just making the point that it needs more than HV
> clothing to improve safety.
>
> --
> Chris
You gotta do your best and hope it's good enough. Sometimes a cyclist
could become camouflaged in plain sight, like coming from a side
street. Whenever I buy something small I don't want to misplace, I go
bright. Even tools for the bike can "disappear" in your bag when black.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bicycling is only an important piece in the puzzle
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5c45dd286eec5188?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 6 2010 9:29 am
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-
Hammock"
The puzzle has many pieces, and bicycling alone won't solve the
problem. These are also important pieces: COMMUNITY, HOMELESSNESS,
TRAFFIC TAMING, GATED COMMUNITIES, DRUGS...
On Aug 5, 8:16 pm, Day Brown <dayhbr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 08/02/2010 07:52 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of theMovement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
> > I have a campaign also that puts together two important issues: BIKE
> > LOCALLY, BUY LOCALLY. That should be the bottom line, but the sky is
> > the limit.
>
> > We are just waiting for a signal from above. Or is it coming from the
> > bottom?
>
> The elites want to concentrate power, the bottom wants to disperse it.
>
> For instance, I and others have been posting against the war on drugs
> for over 20 years, and only now is the number online large enuf to start
> to break down and expose the group think of corporate mass media that
> profits off the sensationalism because of the way it builds ratings and
> thereby ad revenues.
>
> But I dunno if we have another 20 years to straighten out the mess made
> by the elites in so many other issues such as your point above on the
> per capita carbon footprint of American life.
>
> And as I'm sure you've seen here, you cant educate anyone; they either
> already see what you do, or are in psychological denial designed by the
> group think of mass media.
>
> Dr, Freud noted how neurotic delusion cannot be dispelled by the
> presentation of the facts. He also commented on the innovation neurotics
> have in explaining to themselves why the think as they do despite the
> facts, and closed saying that it takes trauma to wake a neurotic to reality.
>
> And when a neurotic wakes up, he's angry. Which is why revolutions get
> so violent. The question is whether the middle class unemployment,
> housing foreclosure, bankruptcy and/or income rates will fall enuf to
> stabilize the economy, or will TSHTF; and if so, when.
>
> Is your 'bottom line' a base on which to build, or will the greed &
> corruption of the elites cause the system to fall right thru it? inhttp://kunstler.com/blog/2010/08/skidding-toward-fall.htmlKunstler
> says the latter. Course, he's been selling books for years saying so,
> but he only hasta be right once.
>
> Twards the end of Jared Diamond's "Collapse" he outlines the kind of
> communities that recover fastest from the fall of empire. Major metro
> areas depend too much on complex infrastructure support and wont make
> it. Demagogues and streetgangs of multi-ethnic cities will make war.
>
> Bike locally, buy locally, but also grow food and firewood locally. A
> community that can be entirely supported by bikes and draft animals will
> be far more stable and civilized.
>
> So- do you know of any such? And if not, then what?
Funny I just found out about this community, which may be considered a
extreme solution, but which allows no motorized vehicles...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HnHJ50cCIE8
I wouldn't dare to propose such a radical thing, but rethinking the
whole idea of "progress" is in order. Why SUVs outnumber bicycles by
20 to 1 at the local market? Isn't it crazy, stupid and blind? Why our
sprawl keeps eating agricultural land while we import food from Mexico
and China? What will happen when one of those countries goes into
revolution?
I love you choice of "alt.community" in the heading because I have
something to say: WE HAVE KILLED THE COMMUNITY AND CREATED THE GATED
COMMUNITY. All the friendliness of the communities of yesteryear have
been turned into a JUNGLE : BICYCLISTS AND PEDESTRIANS ARE FAIR GAME,
THE HOMELESS HAVE TAKEN OVER OUR BETTER PARKS AND ORNAMENTAL WATER
FOUNTAINS.
And then we wonder why our young turn to drugs. Hey, in this jungle
you better get high above the grinding routine or make money to get
the hell out.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE WISE TIBETAN MONKEY SAYS
"Horse crap is better than muffler crap"
http://webspawner.com/users/BIKEFORPEACE
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Love
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/ef5006a4f6d35244?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 6 2010 11:51 am
From: Rachel Williams
If your tired of playing the dating game and looking for real love and
real commitment. Please, let me give you guidance.Even though true
love is one of our deepest spiritual needs, it seems elusive even
unattainable at times. So, why not get the answers to your questions
right now?
www.psychicandspirtualadvisorrachel.com
Rachel 714-414-9847
==============================================================================
TOPIC: NY Times article on kids' summer reading
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/6c43437b0803be95?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 6 2010 2:13 pm
From: Lenona
Here's comment # 84:
August 3, 2010 10:01 am
As some one who has experienced poverty, I can tell you all from
personal experience that there are many reasons poor people avoid
libraries. One is transportation. The second is fines. I've had kids
lose books for weeks only to find that when we returned them we could
have purchased the paperback copy of the book for the cost of the
fines.
I once checked out two videos from the local library, got sick, and
forgot to return them for several weeks. I was charged $60 in fines. I
could have bought the videos for $10 a piece on Amazon (I checked).
Another time, I thought I had renewed the books online, but the
renewal didn't go through for some reason. That was 15 books (there
are three of us in the household) several weeks late.
Library fines seem small to the middle class, but for people who are
struggling to get by (and more likely to be delayed returning the
book), they can be a big enough burden to discourage library use. We
eventually stopped going.
— drk
(end)
Well, that's something to think about, anyway.
One thing to remember, I think, is that it's Not That Hard to keep
undesirable books COMPLETELY out of the house until the child is about
5 or 6! Preschoolers will happily absorb, say, "Aesop's Fables" as
eagerly as they do trash.
Which is why the following passage puzzles me. It's from the otherwise
very good, no-nonsense book "Reading for the Love of It," written in
1986 by the well-known Canadian journalist Michele Landsberg. Quote:
"....if the child insists on hearing Care Bear stories read aloud,
read them, but follow up with something as vibrant as William Steig."
I mean, how many kids over 6 would WANT to hear anything like a Care
Bears story anyway? Also, what is so hard about saying to a younger
child "no, we are not going to look for that book at the library,
because I've seen it and I don't enjoy it, and it's not nice to ask me
(or anyone else) to read something aloud to you unless we can BOTH
enjoy it."
Plus, in bookstores, kids with their own money should probably be
asked to pay for their own books if the parents don't want to. It
would make them think twice.
Lenona.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 6 2010 3:50 pm
From: The Real Bev
On 08/06/10 14:13, Lenona quoted a NYT article...:
> "...Library fines seem small to the middle class, but for people who are
> struggling to get by (and more likely to be delayed returning the
> book), they can be a big enough burden to discourage library use. We
> eventually stopped going."
It's nice to know that SOMETIMES there are penalties for carelessness
and stupidity. No sympathy at all. I think that was just an excuse,
anyway. It seems insane to pay $20 for a book that you'll only read
once and then either store for a lifetime or contribute to the library
or Goodwill.
Perhaps that's the reason that some people are "struggling"...
--
Cheers, Bev
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing in the universe can withstand the relentless application
of brute force and ignorance." -- Frd, via Dennis (evil)
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 6 2010 7:00 pm
From: "h"
"The Real Bev" <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:i3i3ji$mqa$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 08/06/10 14:13, Lenona quoted a NYT article...:
>
>> "...Library fines seem small to the middle class, but for people who are
>> struggling to get by (and more likely to be delayed returning the
>> book), they can be a big enough burden to discourage library use. We
>> eventually stopped going."
My library lends books for 4 weeks. Can you seriously not get it back there
in time? And the fines are not exactly hefty. I call bullshit. When I was a
kid my mother let me walk the 4 blocks to the bookmobile once a week and
signed a card saying I could take out up to 10 books a week in the summer, 2
during the school year. After I was 7 (deemed old enough to walk to the
bookmobile by myself) she never censored my reading, nor did the bookmobile
staff. I took out whatever I wanted. I suppose the fact that I read
everything and brought it back on time didn't hurt either, especially when I
read Animal Farm, The Jungle Book, Charlotte's Web, The Green Eyes of Bast,
and Slaughterhouse Five (I was in an "animal" phase, clearly) one summer
week when I was 8. I liked Animal Farm best, because it was the most true to
life, at least from an 8 year old's perspective. Adults were "weird". I
still think most of them are. Although, the Egyptian book led me to major in
archeology for my first year of college (switched to history a year later).
==============================================================================
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
