http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* BETS HOT PHOTOS & VIDEOS - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/480a069f8d6b0071?hl=en
* Misleading things on TV that can nlead to real world injury or death - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/1addd188d752cd41?hl=en
* TV "first aid" that does far more harm than good - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/95d066fcb8be4a38?hl=en
* Republicans and other bastards are trying to slow you down - 15 messages, 8
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d39ef785705ca446?hl=en
* Bicycle Urban Warfare - 6 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/9dc74b0819431b34?hl=en
* very hot - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3ec04068e1fd06a7?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: BETS HOT PHOTOS & VIDEOS
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/480a069f8d6b0071?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 1 2010 10:53 pm
From: RAMYA
TRISHA HOT PHOTOS
http://karomasti9.blogspot.com/2010/11/trisha-hot.html
FOR HOT MASTI
http://karomasti9.blogspot.com/
AMISHAPATEL HOT VIDEOS
http://karomasti9.blogspot.com/search/label/amisha
HANSIKHA HOT SEXY PHOTOS
http://karomasti9.blogspot.com/search/label/HANSIKA
HOT SEXY COLLEGE GIRLS
http://karomasti9.blogspot.com/search/label/hot
BEAUTIFUL LARADATTA
http://karomasti9.blogspot.com/search/label/laradatta
NIKISHA HOT BOOBS
http://karomasti9.blogspot.com/search/label/nikisha
PRIYANKA SPICY LATEST PICS
http://karomasti9.blogspot.com/search/label/priyanka
ONLY FOR YOUTH
http://karomasti9.blogspot.com/search/label/spicy
SRILEKHA UNSEENED PHOTOS
http://karomasti9.blogspot.com/search/label/Srilekha
CHOPRA UNBELIVABLE PHOTOS
http://karomasti9.blogspot.com/search/label/chopra
http://karomasti9.blogspot.com/search/label/bipasa
http://karomasti9.blogspot.com/search/label/thrisha
http://karomasti9.blogspot.com/search/label/srisha
http://karomasti9.blogspot.com/search/label/poonam
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Misleading things on TV that can nlead to real world injury or death
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/1addd188d752cd41?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 2:28 am
From: ultimauw@NOSPAMlive@.com (zeez)
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TelevisionIsTryingToKillUs
Television Is Trying To Kill Us
People will wait to call the EMS because the EMS providers will insist
on interrupting the game to get information. Grandpa will be just fine
for another hour and a half because (and I quote) "those neurosurgeons
can just turn him back on, you know, like in that movie?"
� A medic trying to remain sane
Fiction is not reality. While fiction rarely shows the negative
consequences of a trope, reality is not as forgiving. Every trope here
can have serious if not fatal repercussions in reality if they are
played straight. These may originate as a case of Reality Is
Unrealistic.
Tropes:
* All Animals Are Domesticated: No, your children cannot play with
the bears. (Someone really did ask a park ranger about this � imagine
if they hadn't.)
o You don't have to imagine
* All Natural Snake Oil: "Natural" doesn't mean "good for you".
Lots of poisons are natural � arsenic, hemlock, cyanide. Then there
are the substances that are natural and good for you, unless you get
too much � check out this chart of the effects of too much of the
common vitamins everybody needs.
o Not to mention that relying on snake oil in the first
place means not getting real treatment.
* Almost Lethal Weapons: There's a reason why weapons are weapons
in Real Life. Namely, a weapon is defined by its ability to cause
great harm, especially lethal damage, to another organism (such as,
say, a human being.) Even "nonlethal" weapons such as tasers or
beanbag/paintball/BB guns can kill someone under the right
circumstances and can cause major, permanent injuries to the target
and/or innocent bystanders. Tasers and similar weapons are actually
now referred to as "less-lethal" rather than "non-lethal."
o Blanks can kill under the wrong circumstances. Blanks make
the flash and bang of a real round using the same gunpowder, resulting
in the same explosively expanding hot gases emerging from the barrel.
In other words, blanks count as a melee weapon. Note the case of
Jon-Erik Hexum.
o In 1384, Perrin Le Roux was accidentally killed by a wad
of paper fired from a cannon (used as a prop in a play) which struck
him. The velocity of the projectile, Le Roux standing closer to the
cannon than was allowed, and the fact the projectile hit him in the
eye led to his death a few days later, in spite of the seemingly
innocuous object that struck him.
* British Royal Guards: As that page will clearly tell you,
mocking the guys who are dressed funny carrying assault rifles with
fixed bayonets, will get you in a lot more trouble in real life than
it will in fiction.
* Concealment Equals Cover: Not everything one can possibly be
inside or behind has enough mass to stop bullets. Not even walls,
ceilings, car doors, or tables. Well, regular car doors at least -
police cars are made to withstand bullets, but you're probably not a
cop.
* Cool Clear Water: Just because water is clear doesn't mean it is
safe to drink. Dangerous microorganisms or naturally high levels of
toxins could still be present.
o If the water is perfectly clear then there is probably
some pretty good reason why nothing lives in it.
* Cool Pet: Fictional depictions of heroes (and occasionally, real
life figures) with powerful exotic pets sometimes inspire people to
acquire them in real life. Contrary to such fiction, keeping a pet
bear, tiger, cobra, ape, etc., is often an extreme strain for both
owner and pet. If the owner isn't gnawed on, that is.
* CPR Clean Pretty Reliable: CPR is a demanding, tiring, and
temporary stopgap before advanced medical aid becomes available. Once
you start CPR, you cannot stop until trained help arrives or you are
physically unable to continue-none of the ten pumps and a declaration
of "It's hopeless!" you often see on TV. You're also likely to break
ribs and force air into the stomach (causing the person to vomit at
the first opportunity). Disease transmission is possible because of
the direct mouth-to-mouth contact-there are barriers available at
medical supply stores to prevent this. All these factors make the
people who perform CPR more heroic than portrayed in fiction.
* Electric Slide: Touching a high-tension power line will kill or
severely injure you. Power lines are not ziplines or ropes, and cannot
safely be climbed on, held, or otherwise handled while live, not even
with rubber gloves. People who work with high-voltage power lines use
special techniques to avoid getting killed or hurt. Always assume a
power line is live and treat it accordingly. Unless you're
superhuman/not human, in which case, you're cool.
* Everybody Smokes / Smoking Is Cool / Smoking Is Glamorous: One
or more of these is sometimes the (or one of the) reasons people start
smoking. Tobacco-related cancers, heart attacks, and other health
problems, asthmatic children, and a sizable percentage of fire-related
injuries and deaths are the results. *
At least Anvilicious stories about drugs completely fucking up
the lives of anyone who so much as touches them will probably save the
lives of people who take them seriously. These tropes... well, do
pretty much the exact opposite.
* Every Car Is A Pinto: Rarely does a car go up in a dramatic
fireball, the fact that a car didn't does not mean the crash wasn't
dangerous. Deaths in a car accident tend to be by trauma, particularly
when an unbelted driver or passenger is thrown through the windshield
or out of a window.
* Grievous Bottley Harm: Attempting to break a beer bottle and
wield it as a weapon usually results in a hand full of broken glass
and a number of stitches. Smacking the target with an unbroken bottle,
on the other hand...
* Guns In Church: Open carry laws vary enormously by location, and
so do concealed-carry laws. Assault with a deadly weapon and/or
brandishment laws are far more common. Carrying a firearm or other
weapon in some places may lead to arrest or even being killed by
someone else, and displaying a weapon ready for use/in a threatening
manner is against the law in most places and, in some contexts,
suicidal.
* Hard Head: In television being knocked out cold by a blow to the
head rarely has long term repercussions. In real life brain damage is
often the result. As a matter of fact, if someone has been knocked
unconscious or even dazed by a blow to the head, they should be taken
to a hospital IMMEDIATELY and evaluated for concussion, subdural
hematomas, and other traumatic brain injury.
* Hollywood Heart Attack: Heart attacks don't always display the
same symptoms. Hollywood Heart Attack can lead people to misdiagnose
and downplay a real heart attack. For example, jaw pain and flulike
symptoms is a common combination of heart attack symptoms most people
ignore. Any pain in the jaw or arm, alone or in combination with other
symptoms, should be treated as a suspected heart attack. Same goes for
stroke, which also often presents in less dramatic and sudden ways
than a collapse.
* Jammed Seatbelts: Fear of being trapped in a wrecked car
increases the chances of someone not wearing a seatbelt. Not wearing a
seatbelt increases the chances of being flung head first through a
windshield, which is a far more common cause of death unless you're in
a Pinto. Seatbelts and shoulder belts do jam occasionally (or worse,
melt), but nowhere near as often as they do on TV or in the movies,
where it is only to add some suspense to the situation. There are also
widely available tools that allow for quick-cutting of a seatbelt [and
smashing the car window for a quicker escape].
o That said, there is one valid reason for driving without a
seatbelt - if you're on an ice road or similarly weak water crossing,
and the risk of being submerged is higher than the risk of hitting
anything (as in, there are no other vehicles on the road). Even this,
though, is not due to Jammed Seatbelts. It is due to the need to crawl
out the window/top fast in the event that the road gives way and
undoing a seatbelt would take valuable time.
* Law Of Inverse Recoil: Hold that gun properly, kids! Improper
usage can lead to getting knocked on your ass, quite literally, or
dislocating a shoulder in the worst cases.
* Magical Defibrillator: Defibrillators can only restore rhythm to
an erratically-beating heart: shocking a flatline almost certainly
won't start their heart again. There are other techniques (and
gadgets) to try.
* Magic Plastic Surgery: The results of plastic surgery on Reality
TV as well as in entirely scripted productions are very much stacked
toward successes, whereas plastic surgery in Real Life has a far more
varied range of outcomes. It's surgery: there will be scars. They may
be relatively small, and the surgeon has some degree of control over
where they are, but it bears repeating: there will be scars. Also,
plastic surgery is as serious as any other kind of surgery in Real
Life, so the risks of death and serious injury are present, and
recovery can be just as or more painful and difficult as it is from
other procedures - something not often shown in the TV version of
plastic surgery.
o It's actually worth mentioning that if you don't see
scars, it just means that the plastic surgeon is good at it, and quite
possibly also that the person has very good genes & was careful to
follow the instructions on how to minimize post-op scarring.
* Only A Flesh Wound: Injuries that don't include vital organs can
still result in death from blood loss, infection, or permanent
debilitation. Also, as noted above with plastic surgery, there will be
scarring from just about any mildly serious injury - or even minor
ones. Yes, people have died of extremely minor and embarrassing
wounds.
* Organ Theft: Fictional accounts of innocent victims' organs
being stolen, via force or by corrupt doctors who lie about comatose
patients' odds of recovery, squick some people out so much that they
fear to give consent for legitimate organ harvests that'd save lives.
* O Ring Orifice: The human vagina and anus have their limits, and
just because you've seen it in porn (especially Hentai) does NOT mean
it can be inserted into a human without causing injury or death.
There's a reason sex toys are (usually) smooth, anal sex toys have
flanged or flared bases (this prevents an embarrassing Noodle Incident
at the ER as well as death and injury!), lube is usually a very good
idea, and all sex toys should be properly cleaned before use and
between uses.
* Put Down Your Gun And Step Away: Not a good idea in a real
hostage situation. In fact, as the article mentions, real hostage
negotiators are told in training NEVER to do this.
* Reckless Gun Usage: Many works portray a cavalier handling of
guns that goes completely against safe handling of a firearm. Safe
firearms and explosives handling is NOT something that can be learned
from media portrayals!
* Soft Glass: Nope. Normal glass can be far harder than you'd
think, and breaks with nasty sharp edges besides - if it does break.
Punching, kicking, falling, being thrown, or running through glass, or
having it land on you in a disaster will most likely severely injure
you. Safety glass is designed to break in a manner that leaves no
sharp edges. Still, the impact alone can cause injury.
* Soft Water: A fall into water can hurt just as much as a fall
onto land, at least from some heights. The depth of water can be
deceptive � a fall into shallow water isn't much different than a fall
unto the surface that's under the water (rocks, gravel, sand, mud) The
position you hit the water in makes a difference in the likelihood
you'll survive or not (hint: dive as if you were at attention).
Finally, while you may survive a fall onto water, you may not be in
shape to swim due to injuries or concussion. The safest surface to
fall onto is a padded surface of some sort, next best is soft dirt or
lawn. (Remember to roll.)
* STD Immunity: USE A CONDOM - And don't think they're impervious,
either.
* Steel Eardrums: If you are around a lot of loud noise and don't
use some sort of hearing protection (anything from explosions and
firearms to loud music counts), you will eventually suffer from
hearing loss. Even working in a factory with noises that don't seem
like they are very loud doesn't mean you shouldn't wear ear plugs.
Prolonged exposure (like years of work) can still lead to long term
damage. If a blast is strong enough, it can even rupture the eardrums
on the spot, causing immediate deafness. A more powerful blast can
kill simply due to irreconcilable pressure differences, without
leaving any external signs of injury. And, of course, there's boxing
someone's eardrums.
* Tap On The Head: A blow to the head is more likely to kill or
lead to long term injury than temporary unconsciousness. At best,
you'll get a concussion.
* Suck Out The Poison: Trying to suck the poison out of a
snakebite wound is highly ineffective in almost every case, and will
often increase the victim's risk of infection and the first-aider's
risk of poisoning. Some say it's only to be used as a very last
resort, but most guides suggest you don't do it at all.
o Same goes for tourniquets or trying to bleed the area. In
fact, the human body seems to be pretty fantastic at regulating its
own detoxification, swelling and constricting vessels just the proper
amount to prevent as much spread of poison to other regions as
possible without leaving so much at the source that it kills off all
the tissue. Simply put, if you don't have some anti-venom lying
around, leave the darn thing alone.
* Worst Aid: If all you know about first aid is what you've seen
on TV, you probably aren't the best person to administer it.
* You Can Panic Now: Where Moral Panic goes, sometimes deaths and
injuries follow.
o Kinda like this page.
* You Fail Gun Safety Forever: Don't do what the "experts" on
television do with guns. It will get you shot. It's possible to
"Gunsling" but you'd really not want to try with loaded guns or live
ammunition.
--
## _________________________________________________
###### l l
######## l Do not assume, it makes an ass out of U and me l
######## l________________________________________________l
########## started usenet reader at: 2:24:11.20a _Thu_12-02-2010
# Remove the obvious from my address to e-mail me. sig2.txt
Moco feeds Chris tater tots!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: TV "first aid" that does far more harm than good
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/95d066fcb8be4a38?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 2:30 am
From: ultimauw@NOSPAMlive@.com (zeez)
http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/WorstAid
Worst Aid
Leon: You treated and bandaged the bullet wound to my FUCKING UNIFORM!
Heaven forbid we lose one of the RPD's finest officer uniforms, you
tart.
� thedarkid's Let's Play of Resident Evil 2
Fictional first aid is often applied in ways that would be useless or
outright counterproductive in Real Life. There's the reason of safety,
as during CPR or the Heimlich maneuver organs in the way are
considered to be expendable. There's the practical reason that the
audience might prefer their unconsciousness and revival scene without
it turning into 5 Fun Things To Do With Vomit. There's the dramatic
reason that a character may not actually know first aid, or the work
may be a period piece where medical knowledge is less advanced.
There's the likely reason that people Did Not Do The Research.
Stock mistakes are:
* Moving injured people without stabilizing their head first.
* Removing impaling foreign objects from wounds. Generally they've
smashed all the bits they're going to smash, and are now acting as a
plug on the wound. Barbed weapons might tear more flesh and even if
it's not, you're unlikely to be able to pull it out at the exact angle
it went in.
* Depicting mouth-to-mouth as romantic. Using CPR on that pale,
dying individual in your arms has about a 2% chance of revival on its
own. And everyone knows a 98% chance of death creates the perfect sexy
mood.
o Likewise, mouth-to-mouth after nearly drowning only really
works if you get most of the water out first.
+ In short, they are not life-saving techniques, they
are life prolonging techniques designed to keep someone in some sort
of recoverable state while actual help arrives.
* Depicting professionals doing mouth-to-mouth in modern times.
EMTs and hospital staff will always use a bag valve mask, both for
hygiene (having a patient throw up in your mouth used to be a rite of
passage for paramedics) and because it delivers more oxygen.
* Having a male rescuer get squicked about performing
mouth-to-mouth on another male, and playing it for laughs that they're
placing their macho insecurities above someone's life.
* Disregarding the security of an accident scene or even personal
safety, in violation of the most important rule: Avoid increasing the
number of casualties. Rushing onto the freeway isn't any more safe
because there's an upended car on it. This one's popular in real life.
* Using a shirt or other article of clothing as a makeshift
tourniquet to stop bleeding for a gunshot wound. While this allows for
the male lead to show off his mighty torso, it's a very bad idea in
real life because it deprives the limb in question of the blood it
needs to continue functioning. Without hospital care, this will result
in the limb becoming necrotic and falling off.
o You're actually better advised to stop the bleeding by
putting your hand (or theirs) as pressure on the injury. That way you
won't be using clothing that will probably stick to the drying blood,
causing other problems later when real help arrives.
o You use a tourniquet if all other attempts to stop
excessive bleeding fail. The point of a tourniquet is to cut off blood
flow. As you might expect, the limb you just deprived of oxygen
usually dies. This is preferable to the victim dying of blood loss
however. I believe it is also recommended that lay responders don't
apply tourniquets.
* In Hollywood, if CPR is ineffective it is perfectly fine to
start randomly striking the patient in the chest in an attempt to
restart their heart. In real life, this is called a Precordial Thump.
It is a precisely aimed blow delivered by an expert in an attempt to
interrupt a life-threatening rhythm, in the event that a defibrillator
is not available, and can only be attempted once. Like a
defibrillator, it cannot restore an asystolic heart.
Spotting or MSTing such depictions is good for a lark. Unfortunately,
Reality Is Unrealistic, so they are likely not harmless and it might
be a good idea for a media fiend to take a first aid course. Depending
on your country, any mid-sized or larger city should offer an initial
2-4 day - hey. Hey!
See also CPR Clean Pretty Reliable, Magical Defibrillator, Suck Out
The Poison and You Fail Your Medical Boards Forever; compare Annoying
Arrows.
--
## _________________________________________________
###### l l
######## l Do not assume, it makes an ass out of U and me l
######## l________________________________________________l
########## started usenet reader at: 2:24:11.20a _Thu_12-02-2010
# Remove the obvious from my address to e-mail me. sig2.txt
Moco feeds Chris tater tots!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Republicans and other bastards are trying to slow you down
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d39ef785705ca446?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 15 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 7:23 am
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"
On Dec 1, 10:29 pm, Forrest Hodge <f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/1/2010 5:03 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average
>
>
>
> backyard philosopher wrote:
> > On Dec 1, 4:53 pm, Forrest Hodge<f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> On 12/1/2010 7:28 AM, Opus wrote:
>
> >>> On Nov 30, 8:02 pm, Forrest Hodge<f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>>> snip<
> >>>>>>>> My 400 HP sport/muscle car isn't envious of a folding bicycle.
>
> >>>>>>> Well, some day I invite to a Triathlon where one of the events is to
> >>>>>>> take the vehicle in the subway.
>
> >>>>>> No subways where I live, and even there were, I don't care for public
> >>>>>> transportation. I prefer not being at the mercy of bus/subway schedule.
>
> >>>>> Good, and we're spending a trillion dollars to make sure that the oil
> >>>>> necessary for shitheads like you remains available.
>
> >>>> Shitheads like me? Care to elaborate or is your argument simply limited
> >>>> to name calling?
>
> >>> People that drive vehicles with a decimal order of magnitude more
> >>> power than they need to move their butts with fossil fuels, because
> >>> they haven't learned to use public transportation and refuse to ride a
> >>> bicycle to move their butts using their butts. Is that elaborate
> >>> enough for you?
>
> >>> And just to be precise, the war in Iraq cost a billion dollars a DAY
> >>> for 6 years, do the math. That doesn't even begin to tackle the cost
> >>> of the war in Afghanistan, and both of those wars were "off-budget"
> >>> items during the Bush administration, roughly $3 trillion added to the
> >>> deficit that wasn't even counted until 2008.
>
> >> Because public transportation is everywhere, right. Where I live there
> >> are no buses, no subways, no bike lanes. It would suicidal and
> >> inefficient time-wise to bike to work. So consequently I drive
> >> everywhere, and I might as well enjoy myself when I do it. If you really
> >> want to get into semantics, it could be considered decedent and
> >> unnecessary to ride a bike with 20 in or larger wheels or more than one
> >> gear, because everyone should be able to peddle a fixed gear bike up a
> >> steep hill and if you can't you're a "shithead".
>
> > Hey, there are no sidewalks either in most suburbs made for the SUV
> > so... what do we do, drive an SUV?
>
> > Now one question, HOW CAN YOU ENJOY DRIVING A SPORTS CAR IN AMERICA?
> > So many vigilantes blocking the road and so much predation in speeding
> > tickets that you feel like driving is for dummies.
>
> > I drive a car for dummies, some older Lexus....
>
> > (But Opus is right in pointing that out: the bicycle is the best
> > choice whenever possible)
>
> If you live in suburbs and choose to ride a bike, that's your decision.
> You can move to the city and live in a more bike friendly place. There
> are trade offs to living an any given area.
The city is NOT a more bike friendly place. In the city you find the
monkeys riding on sidewalks... You call that friendly?
>
> How can I drive driving a sports car? Easy, back country roads and a
> police force that concerns itself more with keeping violent offenders
> off the streets more so that it does with the occasional hooning.
Sorry, you can have a Mazda Miata to have fun and save a lot of gas.
== 2 of 15 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 7:38 am
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"
On Dec 1, 11:38 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "Forrest Hodge" <f...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > I'll take your word for it. If I have to be somewhere 125 miles away I'd
> > rather drive there and be there in about 1/3 of the time it takes to bike.
> > That's not to say I dislike the bicycle, I don't and I do bike for
> > exercise (though not for 125 miles). But the majority of the time if you
> > live in the suburbs or a rural area, the car is a much more practical
> > means of conveyance.
>
> Forest Hodge is quite right about the suburbs and rural areas not being
> friendly to cyclists. Large cities and small towns are the best venues for
> cycling whether they have bike paths or not. However, some rural areas, like
> Wisconsin for instance, do have lots of county blacktops which are fine for
> cycling, but here in Minnesota it is mostly gravel roads in the countryside.
> A gravel road will wear you down, especially on a recumbent.
You guys need to get in touch with the urban jungle. There's no place
to ride a bike in America, even less so in the city where people are
forced onto the sidewalks, passing the bucket down to the pedestrian.
You may load you bike on the car and go some place, but that defeats
the purpose of the bicycle as a practical vehicle.
There's simply a MONOPOLY by the automobile and oil industry.
== 3 of 15 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 7:45 am
From: "Edward Dolan"
"His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"
<nolionnoproblem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1c611702-9f50-4d22-8d3d-739c4c700621@o23g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 1, 10:29 pm, Forrest Hodge <f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
[...]
> If you live in suburbs and choose to ride a bike, that's your decision.
> You can move to the city and live in a more bike friendly place. There
> are trade offs to living an any given area.
>> The city is NOT a more bike friendly place. In the city you find the
monkeys riding on sidewalks... You call that friendly?
There are plenty of streets which are suitable for riding a bicycle in any
city in the world, even in fucking Florida.
> How can I drive driving a sports car? Easy, back country roads and a
> police force that concerns itself more with keeping violent offenders
> off the streets more so that [than] it does with the occasional hooning
> [?].
>> Sorry, you can have a Mazda Miata to have fun and save a lot of gas.
No one hates motor vehicles more than I do. TM would have an ally in me if
he would stop proliferating posts and behave responsibly on these
newsgroups.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
== 4 of 15 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 8:19 am
From: Opus
On Dec 1, 3:53 pm, Forrest Hodge <f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>snip<
> Because public transportation is everywhere, right. Where I live there
> are no buses, no subways, no bike lanes. It would suicidal and
> inefficient time-wise to bike to work. So consequently I drive
> everywhere, and I might as well enjoy myself when I do it. If you really
> want to get into semantics, it could be considered decedent and
> unnecessary to ride a bike with 20 in or larger wheels or more than one
> gear, because everyone should be able to peddle a fixed gear bike up a
> steep hill and if you can't you're a "shithead".
Why can't you ride a bike? You already stated that the main problem is
it's "suicidal" to ride a bike which I have to assume is because of
the cars on the roads making it so rather than armed mobs roving the
countryside. And as far as time is concerned I used to ride 120 miles
round trip a day to go do things a few towns up the road from me. I
did have to "freshen up" before I did my thing, and part of my "thing"
was the fact that I showed up on a bicycle from 60 miles away. I was
visiting a nursing home and showing I cared enough to ride a bike
there added to the ability to do my job.
As far as having gears on my bike is concerned, having multiple gears
and the knowledge to use them is what we called a "force multiplier"
when I was in the military. I can do more with less effort because I
have multiple gears on my bike, which makes my bike a better tool for
transportation, not decadent, nor decedant, which is a dead person.
== 5 of 15 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 9:39 am
From: dgk
On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:02:45 -0500, Forrest Hodge <fo19@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On 11/30/2010 10:43 AM, dgk wrote:
>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:44:33 -0500, Forrest Hodge<fo19@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/29/2010 4:27 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average
>>> backyard philosopher wrote:
>>>> On Nov 29, 4:01 pm, Forrest Hodge<f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>> On 11/29/2010 11:20 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> backyard philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 29, 10:17 am, Vince<vpilu...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/29/2010 9:21 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average
>>>>>>> backyard philosopher wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> One solution is to get folding bike.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Can't get a basket on those
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sorry, I missed this comment which is tied up to the sidewalks.
>>>>>
>>>>>> The folding bike not only can take a basket it already comes with
>>>>>> rack! That would be the ONLY bicycle I'd allow on sidewalks. The other
>>>>>> bastards will get their bicycles impounded. I'd wouldn't worry about
>>>>>> tickets.
>>>>>
>>>>>> This is a gem of simplicity and comfort...
>>>>>
>>>>>> http://www.bikesarecool.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=397
>>>>>
>>>>>> Let the Republicans die of envy!
>>>>>
>>>>> My 400 HP sport/muscle car isn't envious of a folding bicycle.
>>>>
>>>> Well, some day I invite to a Triathlon where one of the events is to
>>>> take the vehicle in the subway.
>>>>
>>>
>>> No subways where I live, and even there were, I don't care for public
>>> transportation. I prefer not being at the mercy of bus/subway schedule.
>>
>> Good, and we're spending a trillion dollars to make sure that the oil
>> necessary for shitheads like you remains available.
>
>Shitheads like me? Care to elaborate or is your argument simply limited
>to name calling?
Essentially you came across as a selfish piece of crap to me. Public
transportation is a more environmentally friendly way to run our
planet but that apparently didn't matter to you.
== 6 of 15 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 9:41 am
From: dgk
On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:53:22 -0500, Forrest Hodge <fo19@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>On 12/1/2010 7:28 AM, Opus wrote:
>> On Nov 30, 8:02 pm, Forrest Hodge<f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> snip<
>>>>>>> My 400 HP sport/muscle car isn't envious of a folding bicycle.
>>>
>>>>>> Well, some day I invite to a Triathlon where one of the events is to
>>>>>> take the vehicle in the subway.
>>>
>>>>> No subways where I live, and even there were, I don't care for public
>>>>> transportation. I prefer not being at the mercy of bus/subway schedule.
>>>
>>>> Good, and we're spending a trillion dollars to make sure that the oil
>>>> necessary for shitheads like you remains available.
>>>
>>> Shitheads like me? Care to elaborate or is your argument simply limited
>>> to name calling?
>>
>> People that drive vehicles with a decimal order of magnitude more
>> power than they need to move their butts with fossil fuels, because
>> they haven't learned to use public transportation and refuse to ride a
>> bicycle to move their butts using their butts. Is that elaborate
>> enough for you?
>>
>> And just to be precise, the war in Iraq cost a billion dollars a DAY
>> for 6 years, do the math. That doesn't even begin to tackle the cost
>> of the war in Afghanistan, and both of those wars were "off-budget"
>> items during the Bush administration, roughly $3 trillion added to the
>> deficit that wasn't even counted until 2008.
>
>
>Because public transportation is everywhere, right. Where I live there
>are no buses, no subways, no bike lanes. It would suicidal and
>inefficient time-wise to bike to work. So consequently I drive
>everywhere, and I might as well enjoy myself when I do it. If you really
>want to get into semantics, it could be considered decedent and
>unnecessary to ride a bike with 20 in or larger wheels or more than one
>gear, because everyone should be able to peddle a fixed gear bike up a
>steep hill and if you can't you're a "shithead".
Yes, there are places where public transit sucks, very true. But that
isn't the way you phrased it. If available, you would not use it
because it can never be as convenient as leaving just when you want
to.
== 7 of 15 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 9:59 am
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"
On Dec 2, 12:41 pm, dgk <d...@somewhere.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 01 Dec 2010 16:53:22 -0500, Forrest Hodge <f...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On 12/1/2010 7:28 AM, Opus wrote:
> >> On Nov 30, 8:02 pm, Forrest Hodge<f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >>> snip<
> >>>>>>> My 400 HP sport/muscle car isn't envious of a folding bicycle.
>
> >>>>>> Well, some day I invite to a Triathlon where one of the events is to
> >>>>>> take the vehicle in the subway.
>
> >>>>> No subways where I live, and even there were, I don't care for public
> >>>>> transportation. I prefer not being at the mercy of bus/subway schedule.
>
> >>>> Good, and we're spending a trillion dollars to make sure that the oil
> >>>> necessary for shitheads like you remains available.
>
> >>> Shitheads like me? Care to elaborate or is your argument simply limited
> >>> to name calling?
>
> >> People that drive vehicles with a decimal order of magnitude more
> >> power than they need to move their butts with fossil fuels, because
> >> they haven't learned to use public transportation and refuse to ride a
> >> bicycle to move their butts using their butts. Is that elaborate
> >> enough for you?
>
> >> And just to be precise, the war in Iraq cost a billion dollars a DAY
> >> for 6 years, do the math. That doesn't even begin to tackle the cost
> >> of the war in Afghanistan, and both of those wars were "off-budget"
> >> items during the Bush administration, roughly $3 trillion added to the
> >> deficit that wasn't even counted until 2008.
>
> >Because public transportation is everywhere, right. Where I live there
> >are no buses, no subways, no bike lanes. It would suicidal and
> >inefficient time-wise to bike to work. So consequently I drive
> >everywhere, and I might as well enjoy myself when I do it. If you really
> >want to get into semantics, it could be considered decedent and
> >unnecessary to ride a bike with 20 in or larger wheels or more than one
> >gear, because everyone should be able to peddle a fixed gear bike up a
> >steep hill and if you can't you're a "shithead".
>
> Yes, there are places where public transit sucks, very true. But that
> isn't the way you phrased it. If available, you would not use it
> because it can never be as convenient as leaving just when you want
> to.
I can relate to: "I won't ride a bicycle because is too dangerous!"
Not, "I'm proud to pollute because I can't ride a bike."
You may say out in the boondocks he may have a better chance to
survive than us in the urban warfare.
== 8 of 15 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 10:06 am
From: "Edward Dolan"
"His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"
<nolionnoproblem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:dc7c85e5-05b1-4ad5-935a-d897c4801c1a@e16g2000pri.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 1, 11:38 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "Forrest Hodge" <f...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > I'll take your word for it. If I have to be somewhere 125 miles away I'd
> > rather drive there and be there in about 1/3 of the time it takes to
> > bike.
> > That's not to say I dislike the bicycle, I don't and I do bike for
> > exercise (though not for 125 miles). But the majority of the time if you
> > live in the suburbs or a rural area, the car is a much more practical
> > means of conveyance.
>
> Forest Hodge is quite right about the suburbs and rural areas not being
> friendly to cyclists. Large cities and small towns are the best venues for
> cycling whether they have bike paths or not. However, some rural areas,
> like
> Wisconsin for instance, do have lots of county blacktops which are fine
> for
> cycling, but here in Minnesota it is mostly gravel roads in the
> countryside.
> A gravel road will wear you down, especially on a recumbent.
>> You guys need to get in touch with the urban jungle. There's no place
to ride a bike in America, even less so in the city where people are
forced onto the sidewalks, passing the bucket down to the pedestrian.
>> You may load you bike on the car and go some place, but that defeats
the purpose of the bicycle as a practical vehicle.
>> There's simply a MONOPOLY by the automobile and oil industry.
"There are plenty of streets which are suitable for riding a bicycle in any
city in the world, even in fucking Florida." - Ed Dolan
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
== 9 of 15 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 11:04 am
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"
On Dec 2, 1:06 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "There are plenty of streets which are suitable for riding a bicycle in any
> city in the world, even in fucking Florida." - Ed Dolan
They are out of reach for most people. Where the hell do you live?
Only a few lucky places such as Key West have that privilege. The rest
is a jungle.
Are you living in a home for the old?
== 10 of 15 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 11:08 am
From: "h"
"dgk" <dgk@somewhere.com> wrote in message
news:ufmff6h37rb01lperhqunpg54kec1l980p@4ax.com...
>>Because public transportation is everywhere, right. Where I live there
>>are no buses, no subways, no bike lanes. It would suicidal and
>>inefficient time-wise to bike to work. So consequently I drive
>>everywhere, and I might as well enjoy myself when I do it. If you really
>>want to get into semantics, it could be considered decedent and
>>unnecessary to ride a bike with 20 in or larger wheels or more than one
>>gear, because everyone should be able to peddle a fixed gear bike up a
>>steep hill and if you can't you're a "shithead".
>
> Yes, there are places where public transit sucks, very true. But that
> isn't the way you phrased it. If available, you would not use it
> because it can never be as convenient as leaving just when you want
> to.
Well, in my case, we do have public transportation, but barely. There is a
bus that leaves at 6:05 am (bus stop is 5 miles from my house) and would get
me the 18 miles to my office at 9:30. Yes, it really is over 3 hours to go
18 miles. The last bus in the afternoon leaves my office at 4:45 (so it's
impossible to work a full 8 hours) and it would get me back to the bus stop
5 miles from my house at 9:10. That's over 4 hours for 18 miles. I would
actually be spending more time on the bus than at work. So...public transit
"is available" to me, but I certainly would never consider using it.
== 11 of 15 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 12:17 pm
From: "Edward Dolan"
"His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"
<comandante.banana@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:d46f6301-2265-44d1-975a-21282c05b62c@s5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Dec 2, 1:06 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "There are plenty of streets which are suitable for riding a bicycle in
> any
> city in the world, even in fucking Florida." - Ed Dolan
>> They are out of reach for most people. Where the hell do you live?
Only a few lucky places such as Key West have that privilege. The rest
is a jungle.
Walk your bike on the sidewalk until you reach a safe street. Where the hell
do you live? In a hotel in the heart of the city?
A city like Miami will have hundreds of miles of residential streets which
are safe for cycling. ALL small towns in Minnesota are totally safe for
cycling and so are the Twin Cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul). Exactly where
do you live in Florida?
>> Are you living in a home for the old?
Not yet, but I'm expecting.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
== 12 of 15 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 1:44 pm
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"
On Dec 2, 3:17 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"<comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:d46f6301-2265-44d1-975a-21282c05b62c@s5g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
> On Dec 2, 1:06 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
>
> > "There are plenty of streets which are suitable for riding a bicycle in
> > any
> > city in the world, even in fucking Florida." - Ed Dolan
> >> They are out of reach for most people. Where the hell do you live?
>
> Only a few lucky places such as Key West have that privilege. The rest
> is a jungle.
>
> Walk your bike on the sidewalk until you reach a safe street. Where the hell
> do you live? In a hotel in the heart of the city?
>
> A city like Miami will have hundreds of miles of residential streets which
> are safe for cycling. ALL small towns in Minnesota are totally safe for
> cycling and so are the Twin Cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul). Exactly where
> do you live in Florida?
>
> >> Are you living in a home for the old?
>
> Not yet, but I'm expecting.
I hope they don't give a computer.
== 13 of 15 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 2:23 pm
From: Forrest Hodge
On 12/2/2010 12:39 PM, dgk wrote:
> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:02:45 -0500, Forrest Hodge<fo19@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/30/2010 10:43 AM, dgk wrote:
>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:44:33 -0500, Forrest Hodge<fo19@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 11/29/2010 4:27 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average
>>>> backyard philosopher wrote:
>>>>> On Nov 29, 4:01 pm, Forrest Hodge<f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>> On 11/29/2010 11:20 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> backyard philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>> On Nov 29, 10:17 am, Vince<vpilu...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2010 9:21 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average
>>>>>>>> backyard philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> One solution is to get folding bike.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Can't get a basket on those
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Sorry, I missed this comment which is tied up to the sidewalks.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The folding bike not only can take a basket it already comes with
>>>>>>> rack! That would be the ONLY bicycle I'd allow on sidewalks. The other
>>>>>>> bastards will get their bicycles impounded. I'd wouldn't worry about
>>>>>>> tickets.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> This is a gem of simplicity and comfort...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.bikesarecool.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=397
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Let the Republicans die of envy!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My 400 HP sport/muscle car isn't envious of a folding bicycle.
>>>>>
>>>>> Well, some day I invite to a Triathlon where one of the events is to
>>>>> take the vehicle in the subway.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> No subways where I live, and even there were, I don't care for public
>>>> transportation. I prefer not being at the mercy of bus/subway schedule.
>>>
>>> Good, and we're spending a trillion dollars to make sure that the oil
>>> necessary for shitheads like you remains available.
>>
>> Shitheads like me? Care to elaborate or is your argument simply limited
>> to name calling?
>
> Essentially you came across as a selfish piece of crap to me. Public
> transportation is a more environmentally friendly way to run our
> planet but that apparently didn't matter to you.
You are correct, I'm not an environmentalist. I understand some people
are and they are entitled to their opinions, just as I am entitled to
mine. If you choose to ride a bike and or partake in public transit,
that's fine. I prefer the convenience and freedom the automobile offers.
For reasons I've already explained, in many areas, the bicycle is simply
not practical as the primary mode of transportation, nor are there any
public transportation options either. Hence the car the logical choice.
== 14 of 15 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 2:30 pm
From: Forrest Hodge
On 11/30/2010 9:54 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average
backyard philosopher wrote:
> On Nov 30, 6:47 am, dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>> On 11/30/10 6:23 AM, Steve wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:26:26 -0500, dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>> On 11/29/10 8:56 PM, Steve wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 20:27:12 -0500, dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>>> On 11/29/10 8:07 PM, Steve wrote:
>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 19:28:37 -0500, dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>> On 11/29/10 6:52 PM, Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 18:04:28 -0500, dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/10 8:15 AM, Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 06:43:17 -0500, dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/10 5:25 AM, Steve wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 04:02:21 -0500, Dave Head<rally...@att.net>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 28 Nov 2010 17:14:12 -0800, "5829 Dead, 972 since 1/20/09"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> <dead@dead> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 01:07:09 GMT, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> (Matthew Russotto) wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article<UOOdnVKmpM7V3m_RnZ2dnUVZ_qidn...@giganews.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 11/27/10 10:10 PM, Matthew Russotto wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> In article<HISdnWrnh6pWCnXRnZ2dnUVZ_jSdn...@giganews.com>,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> dr_jeff<u...@msu.edu> wrote:
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Anyway, I don't hope that nuclear energy takes off. It is not 100%
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clean. Nothing is. Unless we can get fusion to work in a big way,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> nuclear should provide a large part of our energy. Unfortunately, we
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> will have to build a new electrical grid backbone.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nothing will ever be 100% clean. Not even if fusion were made practical.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Not even if aneutronic fusion was made practical.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The best way to cut down our use of fossil fuels in the near-term is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> conservation.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Staying in one place, shivering, in the dark. No thanks.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Really? How about just shutting of the electricity to your TV and other
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electronics at night, instead of shutting them "off"? When you shut a TV
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> or other device, it is not truly off. Instead, it still uses
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> electricity. Cutting off the electricity fixes the problem.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Straining at gnats.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It's supposedly about 3% of the total US electrical use. That's quite
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a large "gnat".
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> 3% isn't worth any effort at all, unless you could duplicate it many
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> times. 30% is something to do something for, but that won't be cheap.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Besides, what he describes is nowhere near 3%.. more like 0.3%
>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> It's at least 3%.
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Total bullshit..
>>
>>>>>>>>>>> According to the DOE, all residential color television usage is about
>>>>>>>>>>> 3% of the total US residential electrical usage. That's all color
>>>>>>>>>>> television usage in both the on and the off state.
>>>>>>>>>>> http://www.eia.doe.gov/emeu/recs/recs2001/enduse2001/enduse2001.html
>>
>>>>>>>>>> That was ten years ago.
>>
>>>>>>>>> ...and TVs today use even less standby power.. lots less...
>>
>>>>>>>> Not plasma TVs. They can use around 1500 kWH per year or over $150 worth
>>>>>>>> of electricity.
>>
>>>>>>> The standby power is much less than it was ten years ago.. We are
>>>>>>> talking about this "vampire" standby power, aren't we, Bunky?
>>
>>>>>> Who's 'Bunky'?
>>
>>>>>> Standby power is about 5% of residential use according to DOE
>>>>>> http://standby.lbl.gov/archives/global.html
>>
>>>>> <ROTFLMAO> That isn't the DOE, you pathetic moron, it's a wacko lefty
>>>>> university.
>>
>>>> Berkley is part of the Univ. of California System.
>>
>>> Exactly... and Berkeley Lab is part of that system..
>>
>>>> You would not in the URL that it includes lbl.gov, which indicates that
>>>> it is a government site, not a educational site.
>>
>>> It's not a government site, Dummy. Government sites are labeled as
>>> ".gov" not "xxx.gov."
>>
>> WTF?
>>
>> .gov means the domain name ends in ".gov". As in "whitehouse.gov".
>>
>>>> The Berkley I am talking about is a DOE lab.
>>
>>> Read carefully, you moron. Berkeley Lab is not the DOE.
>>
>> No, it is a national lab owned by the DOE. It is under contract to be
>> run by the University of California. Then why does it say at the very
>> bottom of the page, "A U.S. Department of Energy National Laboratory
>> Operated by the University of California"?
>>
>>> It is part
>>> of the University of California at Berkeley, a wacko lefty university.
>>> It's designation as a national lab under the DOE simply states that it
>>> is under contract with the DOE but it is staffed and run by the
>>> Berkeley University.
>>
>> You got it backwards. It is a DOE lab that is operated by University of
>> California.
>>
>>> It does not speak for the DOE
>>
>> Actually, it does. Because it is a DOE-owned lab.
>>
>> Besides, you yet to show that it has said anything incorrect.
>>
>> Here is another article saying that up to 10% of all residential power
>> use is vampire power:http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL&_udi=B6V2V-517BB5...
>>
>> And here is on in Belgium where they studies actual households: They
>> found 8% is wasted on standby power:http://ieeexplore.ieee.org/xpl/freeabs_all.jsp?arnumber=4424225
>>
>> The lab may be operated by the "wacko, lefty" university, but they came
>> to the correct conclusion.
>>
>> So drop your whining, and show that the results that they are finding
>> are incorrect.
>
> These Republicans don't believe in science and Climate Change. Hey, I
> want you to do a simple test in your lab. Place a Republican in his
> car in a closed garage overnight and leave the car running. If he
> survives carbon gases are harmless. ;)
>
I'm a conservative who is a firm believer in science and doesn't
regularly attend any religious services, what do you make of that? I do
think it's kinda hypocritical that someone who is apparently a firm
believer in science would have such a big problem with SUV vs. Bicycles.
It's Darwinism in action. If the bicyclist cannot adapt, then then
he/she is destined for extinction. Or is there someone unnatural about
the law of the jungle?
== 15 of 15 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 3:03 pm
From: Tºm Shermªn™ °_° <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net">
On 12/2/2010 4:23 PM, Forrest Hodge wrote:
> On 12/2/2010 12:39 PM, dgk wrote:
>> On Tue, 30 Nov 2010 21:02:45 -0500, Forrest Hodge<fo19@hotmail.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/30/2010 10:43 AM, dgk wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 29 Nov 2010 21:44:33 -0500, Forrest Hodge<fo19@hotmail.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 11/29/2010 4:27 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your
>>>>> average
>>>>> backyard philosopher wrote:
>>>>>> On Nov 29, 4:01 pm, Forrest Hodge<f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> On 11/29/2010 11:20 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your
>>>>>>> average
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> backyard philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Nov 29, 10:17 am, Vince<vpilu...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 11/29/2010 9:21 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your
>>>>>>>>> average
>>>>>>>>> backyard philosopher wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> One solution is to get folding bike.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Can't get a basket on those
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Sorry, I missed this comment which is tied up to the sidewalks.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The folding bike not only can take a basket it already comes with
>>>>>>>> rack! That would be the ONLY bicycle I'd allow on sidewalks. The
>>>>>>>> other
>>>>>>>> bastards will get their bicycles impounded. I'd wouldn't worry
>>>>>>>> about
>>>>>>>> tickets.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> This is a gem of simplicity and comfort...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> http://www.bikesarecool.com/index.asp?PageAction=VIEWPROD&ProdID=397
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Let the Republicans die of envy!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> My 400 HP sport/muscle car isn't envious of a folding bicycle.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Well, some day I invite to a Triathlon where one of the events is to
>>>>>> take the vehicle in the subway.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> No subways where I live, and even there were, I don't care for public
>>>>> transportation. I prefer not being at the mercy of bus/subway
>>>>> schedule.
>>>>
>>>> Good, and we're spending a trillion dollars to make sure that the oil
>>>> necessary for shitheads like you remains available.
>>>
>>> Shitheads like me? Care to elaborate or is your argument simply limited
>>> to name calling?
>>
>> Essentially you came across as a selfish piece of crap to me. Public
>> transportation is a more environmentally friendly way to run our
>> planet but that apparently didn't matter to you.
>
>
> You are correct, I'm not an environmentalist. I understand some people
> are and they are entitled to their opinions, just as I am entitled to
> mine. If you choose to ride a bike and or partake in public transit,
> that's fine. I prefer the convenience and freedom the automobile offers.
> For reasons I've already explained, in many areas, the bicycle is simply
> not practical as the primary mode of transportation, nor are there any
> public transportation options either. Hence the car the logical choice.
If your actions harm others, they are more than just "opinions".
--
T�m Sherm�n - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bicycle Urban Warfare
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/9dc74b0819431b34?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 8:31 am
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"
Inspired by the Wisdom of the Jungle...
The battle-lines are drawn along the traffic lines, where you often
fall into "no-man's land" and find yourself fighting for survival.
Many though move up to the sidewalks where the fighting is less
grueling, but no less dangerous. There are no bastards trying to grind
you down. Just be careful --or pray-- you don't hit any innocent
civilians. Hey if you fall off the sidewalk or hit a pole it's your
own fault!
There are many opinions on the subject, but the bottom line is that
you survive while having fun. I survived but didn't have fun. At that
moment in time you know it's time to go and let the younger
generations keep on the urban warfare.
It's really a war for no clear cause --at least they don't have a
clue. You just try to survive and that's it. You know you are right --
pedaling for the environment and exercise-- but they have their own
idea of what life is about. It's a clash of cultures --TV culture vs.
your own culture-- and even of big fish vs. little fish.
Do you know why the sardines stick together? Well, that's my urban
warfare strategy. BEWARE OF THE SHARK!
------------------------------------------------------------
http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
http://webspawner.com/users/FARTFORPEACE ;)
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 9:23 am
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"
On Dec 2, 11:31 am, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average
backyard philosopher" <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> http://webspawner.com/users/FARTFORPEACE;)
'Now you can work on those "animal scents" and "fart to your heart's
content" while riding a bike... Isn't that LIBERATING?'
I bought the first t-shirt above... How about that?
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 10:11 am
From: "Edward Dolan"
"His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"
<comandante.banana@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:7c780583-3fc4-410b-8185-f5cd0c26ca5a@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
> Inspired by the Wisdom of the Jungle...
>
> The battle-lines are drawn along the traffic lines, where you often
> fall into "no-man's land" and find yourself fighting for survival.
> Many though move up to the sidewalks where the fighting is less
> grueling, but no less dangerous. There are no bastards trying to grind
> you down. Just be careful --or pray-- you don't hit any innocent
> civilians. Hey if you fall off the sidewalk or hit a pole it's your
> own fault!
>
> There are many opinions on the subject, but the bottom line is that
> you survive while having fun. I survived but didn't have fun. At that
> moment in time you know it's time to go and let the younger
> generations keep on the urban warfare.
>
> It's really a war for no clear cause --at least they don't have a
> clue. You just try to survive and that's it. You know you are right --
> pedaling for the environment and exercise-- but they have their own
> idea of what life is about. It's a clash of cultures --TV culture vs.
> your own culture-- and even of big fish vs. little fish.
>
> Do you know why the sardines stick together? Well, that's my urban
> warfare strategy. BEWARE OF THE SHARK!
TM is a poor crazy bastard who just posts on his one favorite subject -
hatred of motor vehicles because they interfere with his use of the roads.
His other favorite subject is attacking Christianity. If you respond to this
poor crazy bastard, then you are a poor crazy bastard too.
He likes to reference monkeys and other wild animals normally found only in
zoos because he is most likely a wild beast himself. I think he fornicates
with monkeys, but I can't prove it.
TM should confine himself to just one thread instead of proliferating them
like a poor crazy bastard. He is insane of course. I liken him to the
village idiot of olden times. The difference these days is that no one any
longer recognizes the village idiot because idiocy has become so widespread.
But I will be here to remind one and all of what a poor crazy bastard TM is.
It is a mark of My Greatness that I can still recognize the village idiot
even if the rest of you can't.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 11:00 am
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"
On Dec 2, 1:11 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"<comandante.ban...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>
> news:7c780583-3fc4-410b-8185-f5cd0c26ca5a@d8g2000yqf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > Inspired by the Wisdom of the Jungle...
>
> > The battle-lines are drawn along the traffic lines, where you often
> > fall into "no-man's land" and find yourself fighting for survival.
> > Many though move up to the sidewalks where the fighting is less
> > grueling, but no less dangerous. There are no bastards trying to grind
> > you down. Just be careful --or pray-- you don't hit any innocent
> > civilians. Hey if you fall off the sidewalk or hit a pole it's your
> > own fault!
>
> > There are many opinions on the subject, but the bottom line is that
> > you survive while having fun. I survived but didn't have fun. At that
> > moment in time you know it's time to go and let the younger
> > generations keep on the urban warfare.
>
> > It's really a war for no clear cause --at least they don't have a
> > clue. You just try to survive and that's it. You know you are right --
> > pedaling for the environment and exercise-- but they have their own
> > idea of what life is about. It's a clash of cultures --TV culture vs.
> > your own culture-- and even of big fish vs. little fish.
>
> > Do you know why the sardines stick together? Well, that's my urban
> > warfare strategy. BEWARE OF THE SHARK!
>
> TM is a poor crazy bastard who just posts on his one favorite subject -
> hatred of motor vehicles because they interfere with his use of the roads.
> His other favorite subject is attacking Christianity. If you respond to this
> poor crazy bastard, then you are a poor crazy bastard too.
>
> He likes to reference monkeys and other wild animals normally found only in
> zoos because he is most likely a wild beast himself. I think he fornicates
> with monkeys, but I can't prove it.
>
> TM should confine himself to just one thread instead of proliferating them
> like a poor crazy bastard. He is insane of course. I liken him to the
> village idiot of olden times. The difference these days is that no one any
> longer recognizes the village idiot because idiocy has become so widespread.
>
> But I will be here to remind one and all of what a poor crazy bastard TM is.
> It is a mark of My Greatness that I can still recognize the village idiot
> even if the rest of you can't.
http://www.scaryforkids.com/pics/evil-clown-costume.jpg
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 12:04 pm
From: "Edward Dolan"
"His Highness the TibetanMonkey
[...]
Better to be a funny old man than to have shit for brains.
Fucking Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 1:45 pm
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"
On Dec 2, 3:04 pm, "Edward Dolan" <edo...@iw.net> wrote:
> "His Highness the TibetanMonkey
> [...]
>
> Better to be a funny old man than to have shit for brains.
>
How about an evil old man who wants to nuke everybody?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: very hot
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3ec04068e1fd06a7?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 8:41 am
From: puhuiren
Top secret and famous..very hot
http://tinyurl.com/2bwtsol
==============================================================================
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
