Jihad needs scientists
in [Design]
|
From: Eeyore on 16 Nov 2006 16:30 T Wake wrote: > <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message > > > If 20-year old males can figure out how to pay a $2K > > bill for car insurance, they can figure out how to get > > medical coverage. > > Gender card aside, normally these 20 year old males are living with their > parents. BAH presumes these minimum wage kids have cars too ? She will do*anything* to evade the issue whilst trying to make out that other ppl are simply being irresponsible and therefore 'deserve' their lack of access to medical treatemnt. It's remarkably unChristian for one thing. Graham
From: T Wake on 16 Nov 2006 16:35 <jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:eji1vk$8qk_030(a)s938.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <v1M6h.10666$yl4.242(a)newssvr12.news.prodigy.com>, > <lucasea(a)sbcglobal.net> wrote: > <snip> > >>The usual reason for not wanting luxury extras like the www is that such >>services cost more and have the potential to cause more >>problems....except, >>in her case, they cost less, and they would cause fewer problems > > Definitely not. I would have more problems and I'm not ready to > ramp up w.r.t. learning how to deal with today's worms, virus, > and other bug infestations. > >> than she >>currently has, particularly if she got a (nearly free) upgrade to a used >>Pentium. Fear is a terrible thing. > > You seem to assume fear is always a reason. You are wrong. But then > you've often been wrong in this thread. I'm currently wondering > if your flawed thinking style has been burnt in. Yet you are afraid that if you upgrade you will need to learn new things to combat the new threats. You would be surprised how easy it is. Getting some new kit would actually save you time.
From: Eeyore on 16 Nov 2006 16:39 T Wake wrote: > "Eeyore" <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message > > T Wake wrote: > > > >> Also, as house prices have gone through the roof - so has rent. Some > >> insane > >> examples are a three bedroom flat (apartment) in Knightsbridge which goes > >> for ?7000 per week but in the "real world" a three bedroom semi-detached > >> house will go for around ?900 per month. It amazes me how any one affords > >> their accommodation charges (rent or mortgage) today. > > > > It's quite crazy. > > > > Even a room in a shared house is likely to set you back ~ ?240 p.c.m. > > While I think it is insane and unsustainable, I am a bit pleased as I > currently own two houses which are rented out :-) My neighbour owns 2 flats which effectively pay for themselves by being rented out and they're his at the end of the day. It'll make for a reasonable retirement. I should have done the same. Graham
From: T Wake on 16 Nov 2006 16:43 "JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote in message news:n1hol2h34lg57imeobnd9btu9e4dmabv9f(a)4ax.com... > On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 21:27:00 -0800, Don Bowey <dbowey(a)comcast.net> > Gave us: > >>On 11/15/06 7:28 PM, in article >>limnl2114gmfvlaar0okbtbic645gcbuoc(a)4ax.com, >>"JoeBloe" <joebloe(a)thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote: >> >>> On Wed, 15 Nov 2006 14:28:04 +0000, Eeyore >>> <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> Gave us: >>> >>>> >>>> >>>> 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 ! >>>> >>>> Graham >>> >>> Wrong. >>> >>> ADSL REQUIRES a minimum of an ISDN switched POTS line. >>> That means that the customer's first switch has to be ISDN for his >>> area to be an ASDL capable area. THEN his Plain Old Telephone Service >>> line will do DSL. >> >>Wrong. >> >>An ISDN DSL is only two 64 kbit/s Bearer Channels and the 18 kbit/s Data >>Channel which is used for signaling, etc. An ADSL does not require ISDN. > > What an ISDN switch house provides is the digital part. If there > is no digital switch in the first leg of the system, the area is not > capable of providing ADSL service. As always, you are wrong but continue to insist you are correct.
From: lucasea on 16 Nov 2006 17:06
<jmfbahciv(a)aol.com> wrote in message news:ejhqqi$8qk_004(a)s938.apx1.sbo.ma.dialup.rcn.com... > In article <4559CCFD.54F42FDC(a)hotmail.com>, > Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >> >>jmfbahciv(a)aol.com wrote: >> >>> >>> Eeyore <rabbitsfriendsandrelations(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >>> >>> >In the above you seem to think that poorer ppl *really could* pay say >>> >$300 >>> >p.m. >>> >for drugs. I say they simply don't have the kind of income to afford it >>> >withoutstarving. >>> >>> You are making too many assumptions. EAch sentence assumes different >>> aged people. >> >>I made no asumptions. You did however. >> >> >>> > How about someone on that minimum wage job for example ? >>> >>> Here you seem to assume that all people who work at >>> a minimum wage job will always work for that money, never >>> get salary nor benefit increases, nor work at better-paying jobs. >> >>No. You're trying to dodge the question. >> >>I'm asking " How about someone on that minimum wage job for example ? " as >>in >>.... they're on a minimum wage NOW - not at some hypothetical point in >>the > future >>after their wages have increased. > > You keep ignoring the fact that everybody starts out at a low > wage in their working life. No, not everybody. I didn't. > As they age, they should be getting > life experience that is salable for more money. Yes. > You do keep ignoring that krw was talking about kids who > start working at minimum wage levels; these people do not > have to feed themselves, pay rent and all the other expenses > of living independently. Those are not the only people stuck in minimum wage jobs. Eric Lucas |