From: unsettled on 15 Nov 2006 13:49 krw wrote: > In article <455B23F4.DEBD35D1(a)hotmail.com>, > rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com says... > >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >> >>><lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>Well, Eeyore, this would belie the assertion that she lives too far from a >>>>population center to get decent DSL. >>> >>>I live in a town. There is no DSL line strung. >>>You people are starting to get really annoying. >> >>DSL comes down an ordinary telephone line ! > > > Only if you're within 17K' of the CO. And if you're not on a microwave link.
From: T Wake on 15 Nov 2006 13:51 <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote in message news:iiH6h.25566$TV3.5304(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com... > > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > news:ejf5am$8qk_004(a)s792.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... >> In article <8aCdnbqWfskwvMfYnZ2dnUVZ8sKdnZ2d(a)pipex.net>, >> "T Wake" <usenet.es7at(a)gishpuppy.com> wrote: >>> >>><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. > > Ah, *now* we get the story behind the wild extrapolations. > > >> Perhaps. If you don't have carpeting it takes about two minutes to >> vacuum if you don't move furniture. > > Most people have carpet, and most people have the area under the furniture > cleaned. Next assumption. > > >> There are ways to do cleaning efficiently. The pros have all the >> tricks. Part of the habit of living is be in contant pickup >> mode. Reduces cleaning times by a lot. > > And why would somebody who has someone else clean their house get in this > habit? If they're not doing the cleaning, there's no incentive to. Logic rarely enters into /BAHs assumptions and extrapolations. As a side note,what sort of surface area would a 4 bedroom house in the US have?
From: T Wake on 15 Nov 2006 13:54 "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:455B48C7.F77C6A02(a)hotmail.com... > > > lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net wrote: > >> <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message >> >> > On the positive side it will help a bit with global warming if there is >> > no more cheap Saudi oil to run all those ugly gas guzzling SUVs. >> >> And wouldn't the roads be a far more pleasant place to be, without having >> to >> deal with those damn things. > > I find it especially irritating to be caught behind one as you can't see > past them ( or through them ) to see much of the road ahead. > I don't tend to mind them that much. The main things I get caught behind on the roads are tractors and lorries. Give me a "gas guzzling SUV" any day. (Not to mention the problems with the real gas guzzling sports cars which not only have worse MPG, but carry less people and are normally driven in a more reckless, less economical manner)
From: unsettled on 15 Nov 2006 13:55 krw wrote: > In article <9fbce$455b1e5e$49ecfcb$16796(a)DIALUPUSA.NET>, > unsettled(a)nonsense.com says... > >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>>In article <kgl6h.25069$TV3.20095(a)newssvr21.news.prodigy.com>, >>> <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: >>> >>> >>>>"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 >>> >>> >>>I did not gloss over it. I assumed that you were able to think >>>well enough to fill in those blanks. ARe you really that thinking >>>disabled that I have to specifically spec out all aspects? >>> >>>I said college. It was already established the decade that >>>occurred. I should have known better because you have shown >>>in this thread that you cannot read two sentences and figure >>>out how they relate. >> >> >>I sure hope he's not one of those you're trying >>to learn something from. >> > > One thing she's trying to learn is the reasons behind people's > attitude. One way to learn is to poke the specimen. ;-) That's more a causality sort of thing IMO. "Reasons" are much harder to come by though I agree some superficial level can be achieved even here in usenet.
From: T Wake on 15 Nov 2006 13:56
"Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message news:455B22D4.F5201E8C(a)hotmail.com... > > > jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: > >> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >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 ? >> >> When I was well, I could clean mine in 15 minutes. > > That couldn't have beena very thorough cleaning. Adequate for day-to-day > but not > over an extended period. This 15 mins doesn't include the constant "as you go cleaning" which will have added (say) a minute to everything she did every day. 15 mins is a touch disingenuous in this instance. |