http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Republicans and other bastards are trying to slow you down - 8 messages, 4
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d39ef785705ca446?hl=en
* paypal payment Timberland Sale Cheap Shoes,Boots,Clothing For Mens,Womens -
1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/942d208d708f67f5?hl=en
* Refrigerator Freezer Ice Maker Replacement Guide With Pictures - 1 messages,
1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/633ed7a0eeaab0e1?hl=en
* Misleading things on TV that can nlead to real world injury or death - 2
messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/1addd188d752cd41?hl=en
* Does TM have a brain? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/9dc74b0819431b34?hl=en
* Frugal Treatment For Sex Addiction (Porn & Hookers) - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d82c2e29cbcb1272?hl=en
==============================================================================
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 8 ==
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.
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 3:07 pm
From: Tºm Shermªn™ °_° <""twshermanREMOVE\"@THI$southslope.net">
On 12/2/2010 4:30 PM, Forrest Hodge wrote:
> 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?
The SUV will become extinct, since it can not adapt to a world where
human overpopulation and over-consumption are rapidly depleting natural
resources and damaging the ecosystem.
100 years from now, the human population will almost certainly be
between 0 and 100 million.
--
T�m Sherm�n - 42.435731,-83.985007
I am a vehicular cyclist.
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 3:18 pm
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"
On Dec 2, 5:30 pm, Forrest Hodge <f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
Yeah, you forget the other side of the equation: BIG FISH EATS LITTLE
FISH, but the LITTLE FISH ORGANIZED would lead to a balance or perhaps
to making the predator redundant when we can all live in abundance.
Monkeys always fought lions, and finally beat them.
Otherwise we get these Darwinist roads where you can't even use your
400 hp muscle car that any big SUV can flatten.
But the predator is not very smart, just powerful. You must be content
to admire your own muscle without using it. Go to the Autobahn instead!
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 4:37 pm
From: Forrest Hodge
On 12/2/2010 6:18 PM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average
backyard philosopher wrote:
> On Dec 2, 5:30 pm, Forrest Hodge<f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> 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?
>
> Yeah, you forget the other side of the equation: BIG FISH EATS LITTLE
> FISH, but the LITTLE FISH ORGANIZED would lead to a balance or perhaps
> to making the predator redundant when we can all live in abundance.
>
> Monkeys always fought lions, and finally beat them.
>
> Otherwise we get these Darwinist roads where you can't even use your
> 400 hp muscle car that any big SUV can flatten.
>
> But the predator is not very smart, just powerful. You must be content
> to admire your own muscle without using it. Go to the Autobahn instead!
I tried to make it to drag strip at least once a month. As for the SUV
flattening the muscle car, I suppose it could happen, and indeed in
where I live the SUV and Pickup truck rule, but I don't have any ill
will towards those who choose to use a Tahoe or Excursion as their daily
driver, it's their choice.
In the interest of disclosure, I also have a full sized SUV of my
own. Though I don't drive it much since it has over 250k on the clock,
and the Mustang is much more fun to drive anyway. These days the Bronco
is limited to PWC towing duty, and getting around when it snows. It's an
appliance more or less,. I may end up replacing with with an F-150 at
some point, but it has been quite reliable, the only major repair was a
transmission rebuild, other than that it's served me well, and done
everything I've ever asked of it.
The Autobahn is overrated, traffic is terrible on most parts of it,
you're lucky if you can even briefly hit triple digit speeds.
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 4:39 pm
From: Forrest Hodge
On 12/2/2010 6:03 PM, T�m Sherm�n� �_� > wrote:
> 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".
>
How is my driving of a car harming others exactly?
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 6:23 pm
From: Forrest Hodge
On 12/2/2010 12:41 PM, dgk wrote:
> 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.
Correct. I would chose not to use it even if were available due to the
convenience factor, the fact that isn't available where I live just
makes the decision that much easier. Compared to rest of the western
world public transportation in the U.S. is a joke. If it were as
widespread and efficient as it is in Japan for example, then I might
have a different opinion.
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 6:53 pm
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"
On Dec 2, 9:23 pm, Forrest Hodge <f...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On 12/2/2010 12:41 PM, dgk 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.
>
> Correct. I would chose not to use it even if were available due to the
> convenience factor, the fact that isn't available where I live just
> makes the decision that much easier. Compared to rest of the western
> world public transportation in the U.S. is a joke. If it were as
> widespread and efficient as it is in Japan for example, then I might
> have a different opinion.
I get it. The problem is the lack of choices in America. I agree.
It may get solved in the next 100 years though. Maybe we end the world
before.
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 9:57 pm
From: "Edward Dolan"
"Forrest Hodge" <fo19@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:id9e82$9md$2@news.eternal-september.org...
> On 12/2/2010 6:03 PM, T�m Sherm�n� �_� > wrote:
[...]
Forrest Hodge wrote:
>>> 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".
>>
> How is my driving of a car harming others exactly?
Forrest, when you talk to TM, you are talking to the village simpleton. If
you continue to do it, you will discover that salient fact. He has shit for
brains and has hardly ever said anything that makes any sense. In short, he
is a blithering idiot.
Tom Sherman is a man of few words these days. He mainly likes to poke at
people. He is an elitist and thinks folks like you and me are stupid.
I hate motor vehicles myself, but that is where we are at as a society for
the moment. The future will be far different if things keep going the way
they are going. The US is well on its way to becoming a lot like Europe.
When we become as crowded and have a public transit system like they have,
who wouldn't use it to the fullest. The private motor vehicle will go the
way of the Dodo Bird and it will be good riddance. However, at present what
choice do we have.
Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
==============================================================================
TOPIC: paypal payment Timberland Sale Cheap Shoes,Boots,Clothing For Mens,
Womens
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/942d208d708f67f5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 4:57 pm
From: DG shoes wholeslaer
wholesale ugg boots,wholesale classic ugg boots,discount ugg baily
boots.
http://www.24hours-online.com
UGG For Cheap,buy ugg boots,ugg boots store,ugg cardy,cheap ugg
http://www.24hours-online.com
Cheap Chukka Shoes,timberland mens shoes,timberland chukka shoes
http://www.24hours-online.com
Shoes - Nike shoes, adidas shoes, Timberland boots. Free shipping
http://www.24hours-online.com
cheap jordans,jordans shoes,jordans sneakers,nike shoes,NFL shoes
http://www.24hours-online.com
Timberland Sale Cheap Shoes,Boots,Clothing For Mens,Womens
http://www.24hours-online.com
jordan shoes supra shoes timberland ugg boots nike
http://www.24hours-online.com
MBT Tunisha Shoes,Cheap MBT Tunisha Shoes On Sale,Paypal,Free Shipping
http://www.24hours-online.com
MBT July : MBT shoes sale Discount accepet paypal payment
http://www.24hours-online.com
MBT Imara Sandals,Cheap MBT Imara Sandals sale,Paypal,Free Shipping
http://www.24hours-online.com
Prada Men Sandals, Cheap Prada Men Sandals, Discount Prada Men shoes
http://www.24hours-online.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Refrigerator Freezer Ice Maker Replacement Guide With Pictures
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/633ed7a0eeaab0e1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 5:53 pm
From: Paul Michaels
I just replaced the ice maker machine in the freezer of our GE
Hotpoint refrigerator after it stopped working a few days ago. The
replacement assembly was about $50 on eBay. I took pictures of the
process and created a quick how-to guide to help anyone who might need
to do the same thing.
Here's the guide - http://www.paulstravelpictures.com/Home-Refrigerator-Freezer-Ice-Maker-Replacement-Guide
I hope someone finds it to be useful.
Cheers,
Paul
==============================================================================
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 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 6:47 pm
From: aemeijers
On 12/2/2010 5:28 AM, zeez wrote:
> http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/TelevisionIsTryingToKillUs
>
(snip)
> * 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.
Uh, no. Other than up-armored vehicles for special applications, police
car bodies are no more bullet resistant than what any civilian can buy.
Only armor in a typical police vehicle is the occasional knife-stop
plate added to the back of the driver's seat. Also available in the
first cousin to a police special, the taxi-cab special.
--
aem sends...
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 7:47 pm
From: Kickin' Ass and Takin' Names
On Thu, 02 Dec 2010 10:28:40 GMT, ultimauw@NOSPAMlive@.com (zeez)
wrote:
>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.
>
Other misleading things on TV that can lead to death, serious injury,
or permanent stupidity:
-- Fox
-- Glenn Beck
-- Hannity
-- Sarah Palin's show
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Does TM have a brain?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/9dc74b0819431b34?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 9:16 pm
From: "Edward Dolan"
"His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"
<comandante.banana@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:c65d244d-3095-441c-9a67-b2969b3bc44b@t35g2000yqj.googlegroups.com...
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?
As long as you get nuked!
Fucking Regards,
Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 3 2010 12:03 am
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher"
On Dec 2, 11:22 pm, Father Haskell <fatherhask...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 2, 9:33 pm, "Mike Painter" <md.pain...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>
>
> > His Highness the TibetanMonkey, not your average backyard philosopher
> > wrote:
> > <snip>
>
> > > It's really a war for no clear cause --at least they don't have a
> > > clue.
>
> > "They" being the operative word here. Anyone that drives in a college town
> > has had several near misses as the idiots on bicycles cut across lanes with
> > no warnings, ignore stop signs and lights, move into a lane to avoid a grate
> > while ignoring what may be behind them, or just can't stop.
>
> > My last near miss happened when a cyclist on a bike lane with several bikes
> > stopped in front of him ran out into the lane and came within a foot of
> > hitting the side of my car.
>
> > And of course,at night, it is best to wear dark clothes and drive without
> > lights.
>
> 9/10 of all auto-bike accidents are the cyclist's fault. Almost all
> of those
> could have been prevented by the cyclist operating the bike
> predictably --
> by following the same rules motorists do, the same rules everyone
> learned
> in driver's ed.
Obviously cyclists don't have many rules because the system doesn't
care to educate them. To begin they should be issued tickets for stuff
like RIDING ON SIDEWALKS or RIDING WITHOUT LIGHTS at night.
Actually those monkeys have little to do with cyclists, and more to do
with their cousins in circuses.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Frugal Treatment For Sex Addiction (Porn & Hookers)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d82c2e29cbcb1272?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Dec 2 2010 10:39 pm
From: Millhaven
PLEASE HELP!
(I am asking for a friend).
==============================================================================
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
