http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* There is no "right" to health care - 17 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e14cb160c2e4a0dd?hl=en
* How to get rid of a roommate? - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a3fd1dedade4e5a6?hl=en
* converting mm measurements to american standard - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/016cd728ee0594ca?hl=en
* How can I keep deer out of garden. - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8932179d88bf6665?hl=en
* remind the stupid selfish conservative/lonneytarians what the founders were
really about:Thomas Paine argued that no-one could produce riches without the
support of society, so anyone who accumulates property owes a part of it back
to society - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/6e9e55cbf4ab00b1?hl=en
* 2012 forcast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror - 1 messages,
1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e6d8859d25e5ef7b?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: There is no "right" to health care
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e14cb160c2e4a0dd?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 1:15 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Michael Coburn, a looter, wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 21:52:27 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
>
>> Michael Coburn, a looter, wrote:
>>> On Sat, 10 Oct 2009 18:22:46 -0700, Wilson Woods wrote:
>>>
>>>> Josh Rosenbluth, a looter, wrote:
>>>>> Wilson Woods wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Josh Rosenbluth, a looter, wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 12:25 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Josh Rosenbluth, a looter, wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> K wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nickname is fuckwit, a looter, wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 9:34 pm, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> missussex wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Oct 9, 10:46 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> big screen
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> don't have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> services, you must
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you'll fare
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> poorly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> No one has the "right" to clean air and water, roads, law
>>>>>>>>>>>>> enforcement,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> and firefighting services either.
>>>>>>>>>>>> That's right.
>>>>>>>>>>> liar.
>>>>>>>>>> No. No one has a right to any good or service.
>>>>>>>>> True, but if the legislature passes laws that grant those good or
>>>>>>>>> services, so be it. That's how majority rule works in a
>>>>>>>>> representative,
>>>>>>>>> constitutional democracy.
>>>>>>>> So if the legislature passes a bill to force you to accept three
>>>>>>>> families of illegal immigrants into your house, that's acceptable?
>>>>>>>> If everyone in your community except you votes to make next
>>>>>>>> Thursday "your day" to be chased through the streets and beaten
>>>>>>>> with iron bars, is that
>>>>>>>> acceptable?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You don't seem to understand the nature of rights. Rights specify
>>>>>>>> things that the government, and your fellow citizens, may not
>>>>>>>> lawfully do to you even if an overwhelming majority want to do it.
>>>>>>> So far, so good. Our system does overlay individual rights on top
>>>>>>> of majority rule.
>>>>>> That's false. The rights come *first*; majority rule is merely a
>>>>>> form of government.
>>>>> OK. Majority rule is overlayed on rights.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Seizing value
>>>>>>>> you've created and earned and giving it away to deadbeats *ought*
>>>>>>>> to be seen as an unacceptable violation of your basic human
>>>>>>>> rights. We don't need a welfare system or food stamps or
>>>>>>>> nationalized health care in order for unfortunate people to be
>>>>>>>> cared for. None of that existed in the 19th century, and no one
>>>>>>>> starved to death. People voluntarily will help those less
>>>>>>>> fortunate; they always have.
>>>>>>> And here, we part ways on both the law (I don't believe you have a
>>>>>>> right to be free from taxation)
>>>>>> You have a right to be free from the seizure of your property merely
>>>>>> to give it to others. Government may tax to achieve the legitimate
>>>>>> functions of government: police, national defense, courts, and
>>>>>> operation of the departments of government. Government may not
>>>>>> legitimately tax you in order to hand the money over to others.
>>>>>> That's called looting.
>>>>> You and I have different views about the legitimate functions of
>>>>> government. I would include health care for all
>>>> You are wrong. That's stealing wealth from people to give it to
>>>> others - not a legitimate function of government.
>>> But you believe that it _IS_ a legitimate function of government.
>> No.
>
> But it is you who believe that economic rent is not appropriated by
> government backed claims to ownership.
You don't even know what "economic rent" means. Stop using terminology
you don't understand.
> It is you who believe that oil
> found under the ranch of the Texas oil man is his property even though he
> has done absolutely nothing to _earn_ it
Irrelevant. Sports superstars don't do anything to "earn" their
incomparable talent, and people with extremely high IQs also don't do
anything to "earn" the immense reward that usually comes to them for
their brilliance. That doesn't change anything: it's theirs, and no
one may rightfully take it from them.
> and even though all naturally
> occurring resources belong equally to all people of the sovereignty.
That last is simply false.
== 2 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 1:46 pm
From: me@privacy.net
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> I expect people like you to pull there weight
>
>I do; you don't. You're a looter.
Its easy for you to be a Nazi in a liberal society
isn't it?
I wonder how you would fare in Somalia
Try to make me, fuckwit - I'll shoot you dead, and laugh about it over a
beer later. Then I'll stub a cigar butt out on your orphan child's head.-Wilson Woods
== 3 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 1:47 pm
From: me@privacy.net
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>You don't even know what "economic rent" means. Stop using terminology
>you don't understand.
how old are you?
Try to make me, fuckwit - I'll shoot you dead, and laugh about it over a
beer later. Then I'll stub a cigar butt out on your orphan child's head.-Wilson Woods
== 4 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 1:52 pm
From: me@privacy.net
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>You intend to try to steal from me, and when you do, I will
>shoot you dead.
You have big keyboard balls don't you
Try to make me, fuckwit - I'll shoot you dead, and laugh about it over a
beer later. Then I'll stub a cigar butt out on your orphan child's head.-Wilson Woods
== 5 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 1:52 pm
From: me@privacy.net
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>You're also a plagiarist.
Try to make me, fuckwit - I'll shoot you dead, and laugh about it over a
beer later. Then I'll stub a cigar butt out on your orphan child's head.-Wilson Woods
== 6 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 2:00 pm
From: Geopinion
On Oct 11, 1:11 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Geopinion, a looter, wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 11:44 am, m...@privacy.net, another looter, wrote:
> >> Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Hmmmm...... I see how you think now
> >>> You don't. You're fundamentally stupid.
> >> Try to make me, fuckwit - I'll shoot you dead, and
> >> laugh about it over a
> >> beer later. Then I'll stub a cigar butt out on your
> >> orphan child's head.
>
> > The last rhetorical "tool" of those who have no substantive response:
>
> I have plenty of substantive response, but you looters are impervious to
> reason. You intend to try to steal from me, and when you do, I will
> shoot you dead.
Adolescent testosterone-fueled hyperbole does not equal a substantive
response. You got any real ideas about fixing America's health care
system so that everyone is covered?
MLW
== 7 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 2:02 pm
From: Wilson Woods
me@privacy.net, a looter, wrote:
> Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>> I expect people like you to pull there weight
>> I do; you don't. You're a looter.
>
> Its easy for you to be a Nazi in a liberal society
> isn't it?
I'm not a Nazi, and increasingly we do not live in a liberal society;
rather we live in a "liberal" or collectivist society. Classical
liberalism lives on only in libertarian philosophy; contemporary
"liberalism" is, of course, completely illiberal and collectivist.
Collectivism is the elevation of the looter mentality to state religion.
== 8 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 2:03 pm
From: Wilson Woods
me@privacy.net, a looter, wrote:
> Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You don't even know what "economic rent" means. Stop using terminology
>> you don't understand.
>
> how old are you?
Older than you, and I *do* know what economic rent means. You don't.
Stop using terminology you don't understand.
== 9 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 2:03 pm
From: Wilson Woods
me@privacy.net, a looter, wrote:
> Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You intend to try to steal from me, and when you do, I will
>> shoot you dead.
>
> You have big keyboard balls
I have big firearms, too, looter. Why don't you drop on by?
== 10 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 2:04 pm
From: Wilson Woods
me@privacy.net, a looter, wrote:
> Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> You're also a plagiarist.
>
> [snip plagiarism]
You shot your load, didn't you, looter?
== 11 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 2:04 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Geopinion, a looter, wrote:
> On Oct 11, 1:11 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Geopinion, a looter, wrote:
>>> On Oct 11, 11:44 am, m...@privacy.net, another looter, wrote:
>>>> Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Hmmmm...... I see how you think now
>>>>> You don't. You're fundamentally stupid.
>>>> Try to make me, fuckwit - I'll shoot you dead, and
>>>> laugh about it over a
>>>> beer later. Then I'll stub a cigar butt out on your
>>>> orphan child's head.
>>> The last rhetorical "tool" of those who have no substantive response:
>> I have plenty of substantive response, but you looters are impervious to
>> reason. You intend to try to steal from me, and when you do, I will
>> shoot you dead.
>
> Adolescent testosterone-fueled hyperbole does not equal a substantive
> response. You got any real ideas about fixing America's health care
> system so that everyone is covered?
Why would I want to do that?
== 12 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 2:06 pm
From: me@privacy.net
me@privacy.net wrote:
>Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>>You don't even know what "economic rent" means. Stop using terminology
>>you don't understand.
>
>how old are you?
You haven't answered my question
=========================================================
Try to make me, fuckwit - I'll shoot you dead, and laugh about it over a
beer later. Then I'll stub a cigar butt out on your orphan child's head.-Wilson Woods
== 13 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 2:09 pm
From: Wilson Woods
me@privacy.net, a looter, wrote:
> me@privacy.net, a looter, wrote:
>
>> Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> You don't even know what "economic rent" means. Stop using terminology
>>> you don't understand.
>> how old are you?
>
>
> You haven't answered my question
You didn't pose one that merits an answer, looter.
Stop using terminology you don't understand. You do *not* understand
"economic rent". You're merely trying to sound smarter than you are.
You are not smart, looter.
== 14 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 2:16 pm
From: Geopinion
On Oct 11, 11:29 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Geopinion, a looter, wrote:
> > On Oct 11, 9:12 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> Geopinion, a looter, wrote:
> >>> On Oct 10, 9:46 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> Geopinion, a looter, wrote:
> >>>>> On Oct 10, 6:26 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Joe wrote:
> >>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2:17 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service. Someone
> >>>>>>>> might choose to provide some goods and services to deadbeats, but that
> >>>>>>>> doesn't imply a right to them; and the provider may subsequently decide
> >>>>>>>> to stop providing them.
> >>>>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big screen
> >>>>>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have a
> >>>>>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you must
> >>>>>>>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
> >>>>>>>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare poorly.
> >>>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
> >>>>>>> I believe health care is a right
> >>>>>> It is not.
> >>>>>>> just as every child has a right to an
> >>>>>>> education.
> >>>>>> That's not a right, either.
> >>>>> We, as a nation, have decided that education is a right. That kind of
> >>>>> decision is allowed under the constitution.
> >>>>> MLW
> >>>>>>> These are not luxuries, but necessities.
> >>>>>> There is no such thing as a "necessity". There are only wants. You
> >>>>>> want a car, a big screen TV, lobster dinners, health care, a house, Air
> >>>>>> Jordan shoes, education - you want lots of things. If you want them,
> >>>>>> make them yourself or earn the money and buy them. You don't have a
> >>>>>> right to any of them.- Hide quoted text -
> >>>>> It is unlikely that we as a nation would decide that everyone had a
> >>>>> right to a big-screen TV.
> >>>> There is as much of a rationale for providing big screen TVs as there is
> >>>> for providing health care, which is to say, *zero* rationale for either.
> >>>> Both are things that people want. There's no rationale for forcing
> >>>> some people to pay for goods and services for other people.
> >>> What a silly comparison; [snip juvenile hysterical shrieking]
> >> You didn't refute it; you merely shrieked a lot of hysterical ad hominem.
>
> >> It is a *fact*: people want goods and services, and there is no more
> >> rationale for looting the productive effort of some people in order to
> >> give certain goods and services to deadbeats than there is for a
> >> different set of goods and services. People don't "need" health care or
> >> big screen TVs; they want them. There is no such thing as a distinction
> >> between "needs" vs. "mere wants"; people *only* have wants, and they do
> >> not have a right to have /any/ of them satisfied at the cost of someone
> >> else's productive effort.
>
> > We already "loot" the productive efforts of working people to pay for
> > highways, airports, wars,
>
> None of those are redistributive.
If course they are. Highways are used by everyone, whether they paid
taxes or not. Clean air and water are enjoyed by everyone, regardless
of the amount of taxes paid. Children, who pay no taxes, benefit from
the protections provided by the military, police and fire departments,
and their education is financially supported by the taxes of the
childless.
There is precedent for redistributive taxes and nothing in the
constitution prevents us from deciding on a health care right and then
using the tax system to secure that right. A strong and productive
country depends on having a well-educated, healthy population, so
establishing a national health care system is certainly in the
interest of the national welfare.
MLW
>
> > And there is a difference between "wants" and "needs."
>
> There is not. There is absolutely no operational difference. People
> have wants, period.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
== 15 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 2:18 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Geopinion, a looter, wrote:
> On Oct 11, 11:29 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Geopinion, a looter, wrote:
>>> On Oct 11, 9:12 am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> Geopinion, a looter, wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 10, 9:46 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> Geopinion, a looter, wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 6:26 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>>> Joe wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 2:17 am, K <Kvisi...@live.con> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> In fact, no one has a "right" to any material good or service. Someone
>>>>>>>>>> might choose to provide some goods and services to deadbeats, but that
>>>>>>>>>> doesn't imply a right to them; and the provider may subsequently decide
>>>>>>>>>> to stop providing them.
>>>>>>>>>> You have no more "right" to health care than you have to a big screen
>>>>>>>>>> TV, Hawaiian holidays, a car, or a lobster dinner. You don't have a
>>>>>>>>>> "right" to goods or services. If you want goods and services, you must
>>>>>>>>>> pay for them, or you must persuade someone to give them to you
>>>>>>>>>> voluntarily. If your powers of persuasion are weak, you'll fare poorly.
>>>>>>>>>> That's simply how it is, and it's good and just.
>>>>>>>>> I believe health care is a right
>>>>>>>> It is not.
>>>>>>>>> just as every child has a right to an
>>>>>>>>> education.
>>>>>>>> That's not a right, either.
>>>>>>> We, as a nation, have decided that education is a right. That kind of
>>>>>>> decision is allowed under the constitution.
>>>>>>> MLW
>>>>>>>>> These are not luxuries, but necessities.
>>>>>>>> There is no such thing as a "necessity". There are only wants. You
>>>>>>>> want a car, a big screen TV, lobster dinners, health care, a house, Air
>>>>>>>> Jordan shoes, education - you want lots of things. If you want them,
>>>>>>>> make them yourself or earn the money and buy them. You don't have a
>>>>>>>> right to any of them.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>>>> It is unlikely that we as a nation would decide that everyone had a
>>>>>>> right to a big-screen TV.
>>>>>> There is as much of a rationale for providing big screen TVs as there is
>>>>>> for providing health care, which is to say, *zero* rationale for either.
>>>>>> Both are things that people want. There's no rationale for forcing
>>>>>> some people to pay for goods and services for other people.
>>>>> What a silly comparison; [snip juvenile hysterical shrieking]
>>>> You didn't refute it; you merely shrieked a lot of hysterical ad hominem.
>>>> It is a *fact*: people want goods and services, and there is no more
>>>> rationale for looting the productive effort of some people in order to
>>>> give certain goods and services to deadbeats than there is for a
>>>> different set of goods and services. People don't "need" health care or
>>>> big screen TVs; they want them. There is no such thing as a distinction
>>>> between "needs" vs. "mere wants"; people *only* have wants, and they do
>>>> not have a right to have /any/ of them satisfied at the cost of someone
>>>> else's productive effort.
>>> We already "loot" the productive efforts of working people to pay for
>>> highways, airports, wars,
>> None of those are redistributive.
>
> If course they are.
They're not.
> Highways are used by everyone, whether they paid
> taxes or not. Clean air and water are enjoyed by everyone, regardless
> of the amount of taxes paid.
That's not what redistribution is. Redistribution is taking from the
people who produce and giving to the people who don't. Looting, in
other words.
== 16 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 2:21 pm
From: me@privacy.net
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>I have big firearms, too, looter. Why don't you drop on by?
Sure what is your address?
=========================================================
Try to make me, fuckwit - I'll shoot you dead, and laugh about it over a
beer later. Then I'll stub a cigar butt out on your orphan child's head.-Wilson Woods
== 17 of 17 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 2:22 pm
From: me@privacy.net
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> how old are you?
>
>Older than you, and I *do* know what economic rent means. You don't.
>Stop using terminology you don't understand.
You don't even know who you are talking to
What is your education?
=========================================================
Try to make me, fuckwit - I'll shoot you dead, and laugh about it over a
beer later. Then I'll stub a cigar butt out on your orphan child's head.-Wilson Woods
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to get rid of a roommate?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a3fd1dedade4e5a6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 1:20 pm
From: Marsha
My milktoast sister does plan on consulting an attorney, finally, but
does anyone know what she might have to go through to get rid of this
former boyfriend? She owns the home outright. He has been there about 5
years and has never paid anywhere near his share of the bills. She has
asked him to leave several times, but he just plain refuses. He's a
verbal abuser and plays mind games, like hiding her jewelry and undoing
a couple small improvements he did to her home. I'm thinking she may
have to give him a formal 30-day notice and then just evict him, with
the help of law enforcement probably.
Marsha
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 1:30 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Marsha wrote:
> My milktoast sister does plan on consulting an attorney finally, but does anyone know what she has to do to get rid of
> a roommate (boyfriend)?
Shotgun, poison, glock, rotweiller.
> She owns the home outright. He's a verbal abuser and plays mind games, like hiding her jewelry and undoing a couple
> small
> improvements he's made to her home. She owns the home outright. He has never paid anywhere near an equal share of
> the bills. I'm
> thinking she may have to formally give him 30 days notice and then
> just evict him, probably with the help of some law enforcement.
Varys with the juridiction. In some you cant get rid of a defacto that easily.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 1:37 pm
From: watcher
On 2009-10-11, Marsha <mas@xeb.net> wrote:
> My milktoast sister does plan on consulting an attorney finally, but
> does anyone know what she has to do to get rid of a roommate
> (boyfriend)? She owns the home outright. He's a verbal abuser and
> plays mind games, like hiding her jewelry and undoing a couple small
> improvements he's made to her home. She owns the home outright. He has
> never paid anywhere near an equal share of the bills. I'm thinking she
> may have to formally give him 30 days notice and then just evict him,
> probably with the help of some law enforcement.
>
> Marsha
One way might be for her(or you, or some agressive friend of hers) to wait
until he has to go out of the house for a while. At that point, she gets the
locks changed and throws all his stuff out into the front yard. At that point,
he might get the message.
W.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: converting mm measurements to american standard
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/016cd728ee0594ca?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 1:21 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
noel888 wrote:
> I went to one of those converter tables to find out the equivilant and
> it did not make any sense to me...ie..i entered 468 mm and it came
> back with 1 feet...the same for 5.5 mm...could someone here with this
> knowledge, inform me the correct conversion for both of those that i
> mentioned?
> 468mm=
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=468mm+in+inches
> 5.5mm=
http://www.google.com.au/search?q=5.5mm+in+inches
http://www.efunda.com/units/fractions.cfm
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 1:53 pm
From: noel888
On Oct 11, 3:43 pm, ghes...@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston) wrote:
> In article <c23d961f-102c-4306-b136-1a9be8603...@k19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> noel888 <harri85...@aol.com> wrote:
> >I went to one of those converter tables to find out the equivilant and
> >it did not make any sense to me...ie..i entered 468 mm and it came
> >back with 1 feet...the same for 5.5 mm...could someone here with this
> >knowledge, inform me the correct conversion for both of those that i
> >mentioned? 468mm= 5.5mm=
>
> 1" = 25.4mm, therefore:
>
> 468mm = 18.4251"
> 5.5mm = 0.2165"
>
> Gary
>
> --
> Gary Heston ghes...@hiwaay.net http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/
> "Where large, expensive pieces of exotic woods are converted to valueless,
> hard to dispose of sawdust, chips and scraps." Charlie B.s' definition of
> woodworking.
sorry and thanks for answering, but this old fool is still
mystified ....468 is 18 inches, but what is 4251? .. and the other
0.2165 is what? if its a fraction, what is it?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How can I keep deer out of garden.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8932179d88bf6665?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 1:23 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
The Real Bev wrote
> g kay wrote
>> the whole yard is pretty secure but some times they break thru the hedge row. They seem to remember the bird shot
>> incidents. We are now trying mirrors at the vulnerable spots.
>> any suggestion on NG/s?
> Big cat poo from your local zoo.
No big cat shit in my local zoo.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: remind the stupid selfish conservative/lonneytarians what the founders
were really about:Thomas Paine argued that no-one could produce riches without
the support of society, so anyone who accumulates property owes a part of it
back to society
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/6e9e55cbf4ab00b1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 1:26 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Vic Smith wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:32:31 -0700 (PDT), phil scott
> <phil@philscott.net> wrote:
>
>> On Oct 11, 10:05?am, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>>> On Oct 11, 11:31?am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>> On Oct 11, 7:36 am, freeisbest <demeter547op...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 10, 8:40 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> lets remind the stupid selfish conservative/lonneytarians> that
>>>>>>> the founders were really about:Thomas Paine argued that no-one
>>>>>>> could produce riches without the support of society,
>>>>>>> so anyone who accumulates property owes a part of it back
>>>>>>> to society for social programs
>>>>>>> http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_dec2000.htm
>>>
>>>>>>> Philosopher of the Month
>>>>>>> December 2000 - Thomas Paine> Robin Harwood
>>>
>>>> Paine was a minor player in the American Revolution. ?He was
>>>> useful for garnering support for independence, but he played no
>>>> role whatever in the formulation of the American republic.
>>>
>>> ?liar.- Hide quoted text -
>>>
>>> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> woods is a troll, of the trasher/ basher/ idiot class... many
>> pseudonyms
>
> Often the case with names like "Wilson Woods."
> Real name is probably Krishna Patel, Miguel Gomez or Victor Smith.
> Not that it matters. Just an observation.
> I would probably use Dandridge Botthamhiggins or something like it if
> I chose to hide my identity when talking nonsense.
> Maybe Botthamridge Higginsbottom III.
I've always preferred Englebert Weaselstrangler.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 1:28 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Rod Speed wrote:
> Vic Smith wrote:
>> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 11:32:31 -0700 (PDT), phil scott
>> <phil@philscott.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 11, 10:05?am, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>>>> On Oct 11, 11:31?am, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Nickname unavailable wrote:
>>>>>> On Oct 11, 7:36 am, freeisbest <demeter547op...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On Oct 10, 8:40 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> lets remind the stupid selfish conservative/lonneytarians> that
>>>>>>>> the founders were really about:Thomas Paine argued that no-one
>>>>>>>> could produce riches without the support of society,
>>>>>>>> so anyone who accumulates property owes a part of it back
>>>>>>>> to society for social programs
>>>>>>>> http://www.philosophers.co.uk/cafe/phil_dec2000.htm
>>>>>>>> Philosopher of the Month
>>>>>>>> December 2000 - Thomas Paine> Robin Harwood
>>>>> Paine was a minor player in the American Revolution. ?He was
>>>>> useful for garnering support for independence, but he played no
>>>>> role whatever in the formulation of the American republic.
>>>> ?liar.- Hide quoted text -
>>>>
>>>> - Show quoted text -
>>> woods is a troll, of the trasher/ basher/ idiot class... many
>>> pseudonyms
>> Often the case with names like "Wilson Woods."
>> Real name is probably Krishna Patel, Miguel Gomez or Victor Smith.
>> Not that it matters. Just an observation.
>> I would probably use Dandridge Botthamhiggins or something like it if
>> I chose to hide my identity when talking nonsense.
>> Maybe Botthamridge Higginsbottom III.
>
> I've always preferred Englebert Weaselstrangler.
I've always preferred to outwit the looters and laugh at their
frustration as they wallow in their self-induced misery.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: 2012 forcast: Food riots, ghost malls, mob rule, riots, terror
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e6d8859d25e5ef7b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Oct 11 2009 1:36 pm
From: Jeff M
me@privacy.net wrote:
> phil scott <phil@philscott.net> wrote:
>
>> I dont think we are looking at armageddon in the faintest.... we are
>> looking at vast changes, and for many individuals it will be nasty to
>> the core, as it is now. but the larger world and national culture
>> will advance.... thinking individuals will be able to dodge most of
>> those bullets, enough at least to have food and shelter.
>
> Agree
Me too.
> These are fundamental changes coming that would come
> regardless of who is in power or how much we wish they
> would NOT change
>
> Agree on brick and mortar being dead.... already do
> most of my shopping online
>
> Agree on housing being ridiculous over capacity!
Yep. I'm waay over-housed.
==============================================================================
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