Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: John Fields on 12 Nov 2006 19:37 On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 16:45:49 +0000, Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > > >jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >> >Lots of insurance on electrical goods is madness, and you tend to expect >> >that. Cat insurance is also insane - some policies ask for in the region of >> >?10 pcm per cat and wont pay for the first ?50. If you take the money and >> >put it in a savings account you get the best of both worlds, as long as you >> >have the emergency fund for when it needs a ?500 operation... >> > >> > >> You would spend $500 on a cat operation? ($ is merely used to indicate >> money and not type of currency). > >Some ppl might well do. --- I would, and have. Some might not understand, but we love our kitties and they're part of our family, so if it takes some money to fix them when they're broke, so be it. The veterinarians have to eat too, you know... -- JF
From: Eeyore on 12 Nov 2006 19:49 John Fields wrote: > On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 08:17:01 -0800, JoeBloe > <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: > > >On Sat, 11 Nov 2006 15:53:05 GMT, <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> Gave us: > > > >> You may not, but I expect better of my > >>president and of the leader of the free world. > > > > > > All of our current operations are only the start. Yes, it was > >needed, and yes it is going to continue until all of the remaining > >harbingers of hate and destruction are themselves put down. > > --- > Hey, I like that one! Yes Impaler, I was sure you would. Guess how these backward ppl see US troops ? Graham
From: krw on 12 Nov 2006 19:54 In article <b6lbl2t804d13v4moi3i90q1n2hsh25q7u(a)4ax.com>, ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk says... > On Fri, 10 Nov 06 12:04:46 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > >In article <AEG4h.11568$B31.4300(a)newssvr27.news.prodigy.net>, > > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> > >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >>news:eiva46$8qk_005(a)s839.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >>> In article <4550A28F.B40C659F(a)hotmail.com>, > >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>>> > >>>> > >>>>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>> > >>>>> In addition, people burn the wood that is laced with arsenic. > >>>> > >>>>What kind of wood is laced with arsenic ? > >>> > >>> Any wood you want to prevent termintes from eating. > >> > >>Not any more, at least not new wood. > > > >Sigh! People don't burn wood they've just paid $2.59/bd.ft. They > >burn the old wood they've just replaced. > > But according to you, the treated wood never needs replacing. > When exposed to water and sun the lignin can be washed away causing the wood to splinter. Structrally it's still good, but CCA splinters in the feet/hands aren't nice. I've had to replace several boards (and flipped the rest) on my deck because the former owners couldn't be bothered to maintain the deck (nor pretty much anything else). -- Keith
From: krw on 12 Nov 2006 19:54 In article <ej4e9b$8ss_003(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > In article <MPG.1fbe66ec423f59d8989ae3(a)news.individual.net>, > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >In article <G0U4h.2000$6t.1433(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, > >lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > >> > >> "krw" <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote in message > >> news:MPG.1fbdbbbe595b5dcf989adc(a)news.individual.net... > >> > > >> > Properly treated the wood will even live under water. Many piers > >> > are made out of the stuff, and it's a lot better than creosote. > >> > IIRC, it's still allowed for ground contact/underground/underwater > >> > use, but not for homeowners (decks and such). > >> > >> My understanding was that its production was outlawed for any purpose, but > >> you could be right--I only have direct knowledge of home use. > > > >I'm not sure either, but I seem to remember that it's still > >available for marine use. > > > >> > The recycled plastic > >> > products are likly a better idea anyway. > >> > >> Almost certainly, although its use as surface boards on decks has been a > >> problem--it gets really slippery when it's wet. > > > >"Trex", and the like, doesn't look like it would be slippery. > > > Now feel it. Falling down on it, as kids will do, is the > equivalent of falling on bricks. That hurts. Sure, but they learn not to do that! ;-) Falling on CCA treated SYP isn't much fun either. -- Keith
From: krw on 12 Nov 2006 19:54
In article <ej7b7t$8qk_023(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > In article <4em5h.2414$6t.70(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > > > ><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > >news:ej4l1b$8ss_033(a)s977.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > >> In article <4555374F.EF500B95(a)hotmail.com>, > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: > >>> > >>> > >>>krw wrote: > >>> > >>>> rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > >>>> > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >>>> > > >>>> > > Raising the minimum wage is stupid and insane. > >>>> > > >>>> > Why ? > >>>> > >>>> Why should the federal government tell anyone what their worth is? > >>>> > > >>>> > I saw it can be a slow as $5 an hour. > >>>> > >>>> The federal minimum wage is $5.15/hr. Some states are higher > >>>> (Vermont is $7.25 and going up). I'm not sure anyone really works > >>>> for the minimum (MacD's is advertising $9.00/hr.). > >>> > >>>So why the fuss over increasing what would seem to be a notional minimum ? > >>> > >> > >> You should notice that Keith is swearing. That is not is usual > >> style. I guess he's got the same problems I have. > > > >Yes, defending an untenable position against data and logic will cause one > >to do that. > > Actually, the problem is property taxes doubling and then quadrupling > every four or five years. And we in Mass. passed a 2.5% cap. The > governor people just elected has promised to undo it. Our property tax is increasing at about 10% per year. I'm outta here in a couple of months (the day after we sell the joint). > > > > > > > >>AS minimum > >> wage goes skyhigh, > > > >This is disingenuous. Nobody is suggesting it go "sky high". The > >contemplated increase, the first such in something like 20 years, is about > >$2, or about $20. In that time, inflation has gone up nearly 100%. I'd say > >that's a rather modest increase. > > Are you saying that there is no correltation between a minimum > wage increase and living expense increases? > > > I say there is a correlation. Even without a correlation (there is) the federal minimum wage is wrong. -- Keith |