Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: krw on 14 Nov 2006 15:05 In article <ual6h.25067$TV3.18874(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:ejcl5p$8qk_009(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > > In article <MPG.1fc25ed1ed313919989b01(a)news.individual.net>, > > krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > >>In article <ej9j89$8ss_002(a)s785.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com>, > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com says... > >>> In article <MPG.1fc110d0730ee4c8989af1(a)news.individual.net>, > >>> krw <krw(a)att.bizzzz> wrote: > > > > <snip> > > > >>> >Sure, but they learn not to do that! ;-) Falling on CCA treated > >>> >SYP isn't much fun either. > >>> > >>> My feet are shuddering just thinking about walking on that trex > >>> stuff. > >> > >>Trex isn't likely to leave a nasty arsenic coated splinter (I wear > >>shoes when walking on my CCA SYP deck). > > > > Point. I haven't gone barefoot since I lived with my folks. > > Urban places have too much broken glass that never gets > > cleaned up. > > Well, Eeyore, this would belie the assertion that she lives too far from a > population center to get decent DSL. I live in an urban area but too far away to get DSL. Cable is the only high-speed choice (of course I don't have a phone line, so...). -- Keith
From: krw on 14 Nov 2006 15:05 In article <kgl6h.25069$TV3.20095(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net says... > > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > news:4559DA19.3B5B7EC8(a)hotmail.com... > > > > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > > > >> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > >> > >> >And you like to imply things that just aren't true. You weren't living > >> >on > >> >"$2/day". > >> > >> Right. It was $2/month. > > > > And you can also clean a whole house in 15 mins ? > > The thing that she conveniently glosses over is that 1) it was in 1960s > dollars, about a factor of 10 - 100 higher when adjusted for inflation, and > 2) she was also paying tuition, room and board, which probably added at > least $50/month in 1960 dollars, or $1000/month in 2006 dollars. $50 in 1960 would be equivalent to $316 in 2005. > That's a > far cry from talking about $2/month as if it were 2006 dollars, which is > what the discussion was about...living on <$100/month total salary in 2006. -- Keith
From: T Wake on 14 Nov 2006 15:06 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejccrn$8ss_006(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <BN06h.5439$IR4.708(a)newssvr25.news.prodigy.net>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >> >>"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message >>news:45586F70.5FF100EE(a)hotmail.com... >>> >>> >>> jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>> >>>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>>> >>>> >Finding the right thing that's profitable isn't always that easy. >>>> >>>> It is easy. People around here charge $50 for 15 minutes' worth >>>> of housecleaning and they get it. >>> >>> They do ? >>> >>> I'm sure they wouldn't here. >> >> >>It's certainly not the norm in the US. It might be $50, (I've heard >>smaller >>number, in the $30 - $40 range) but it's not for 15 minutes >>work--typically >>it is for cleaning a whole house, which, including vacuuming, mopping, >>cleaning the loo, is probably more like an hour or two. > > I have a 4-room house. If one is healthy, it takes 15 minutes to do > the usual cleaning. Blimey. I am going to cut this out and give it to my wife. I can only suspect your standards of "the usual cleaning" are different to other peoples.
From: T Wake on 14 Nov 2006 15:07 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejci95$8ss_031(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <YcKdnfldpc9B1MrYRVnyig(a)pipex.net>, > "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >> >><jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message >>news:ej7agr$8qk_020(a)s851.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >>> In article <rdqbl2pjilequsoc6s3hq0vm3j31162rtj(a)4ax.com>, >>> Ben Newsam <ben.newsam(a)ukonline.co.uk> wrote: >>>>On Sat, 11 Nov 06 13:20:21 GMT, jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >>>> >>>>>My knowledge about how things works cannot be used. My experience >>>>>cannot be used. >>>> >>>>How can you expect to win an argument when you take the wrong side? >>>><g> >>> >>> I don't expect to win. I do intend to learn. It's been very >>> difficult to glean much from this thread. There are nuggets >>> but it takes an enormous amount of energy to find them. My >>> usual screening procedures cannot be used in this thread. >> >>The difficulty you are having stems more from your refusal to accept >>anything which does not bolster your current thinking. > > <snort> Unbelievable. No, pretty believable. In this thread you have repeatedly shown a reluctance to accept anything which does not agree with your pre-determined position on a matter.
From: T Wake on 14 Nov 2006 15:08
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejcg0c$8ss_016(a)s858.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <45575902.91D89E23(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> In article <b4l5h.2383$6t.568(a)newssvr11.news.prodigy.com>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> > >>> >Your argument that we can't switch to a nationalized health care system >>> >because we have problems with the current system is exactly 180 degrees > out >>> >of phase with reality. We need to switch to a nationalized health care >>> >system precisely becuase we have problems with the current system. >>> >>> The current problems are *caused* by having insuranace as the >>> basis of medical service delivery. Forcing >>> everybody to go the insurance route is flat out stupid. >> >>You would appear to be seeing the light ! > > I see the consequences just fine. Forcing, by law, everyone > to have insurance is the latest idiocy. Now people are trying > to change our state constitution to make having insurance > a right. Please note that these people never say receiving > medical treatments but merely insurance. This is why you are crying out for an NHS. |