DamnAnus wrote:
>"Giusi" > Writes:
>> "Damnanus" > ha scritto nel messaggio
>> posted
>>
>> > You've completely mischaracterized my relationship with my friend, but
>> > I'm> not surprised. Some part of you seems to be angry about my
>> > arrangement.
>>
>> This is why I am absolutely stymied about why people tell so much
>> about themselves here. Whose business was it? Why did you share it?
>> There are a large % of people here who are very willing to give you a
>> load of manure for anything, let alone the picky-picky you seem to
>> like and the rudeness you are more than willing to pass around.
>>
>> I can understand why people are curious about the private lives of
>> others, but not why people share the details of their private lives to
>> a bunch of strangers.
>
>I thought it was about getting to know each other.

Even if you have big tits I really don't want to get to know your
DamnAnus. LOL

Um, this is <rec.food.cooking>... NOT <alt.drphil-tripolar>

DamnAnus wrote:
>Cindy Hamilton writes:
>>Goomba wrote:
>>
>>Why did I have the impression that Damaeus was female???
>>
>>> Damaeus is living with a man. I can't imagine a guy letting another
>>> guy leech off him.
>
>Actually /do/ things for him, anytime he asks.

Bet you DO... DooDooDoo! LOL

George Leppla wrote:
>DamnAnus wrote:
>> Goomba writes:
>>> DamnAnus wrote:
>>>
>>>> I know all that. I still think it's stupid, because the quality of the
>>>> juice can't be as good if they're cooking the everloving snot out of it
>>>> until it's down to a thick goop. But the sheer beauty you see in your
>>>> glorious understanding of it is to be expected in a world that loves money
>>>> more than it loves quality.
>>>
>>> A somewhat simplistic mindset you've got there. Hark back 100 years to
>>> when there was no prepared orange juice to be had and then it was it was
>>> canned, blech! You'd either have been able to afford oranges (and
>>> they're not a year round crop so only during some months) or you went
>>> totally without.
>>
>> Yes, all houses should have a huge green house attached to them that can
>> grow fruits and vegetables year-round. It should be big enough to hold
>> indoor fruit and nut trees, too. It could be climate controlled for the
>> most optimum growing environment. Imagine being able to simply plant a
>> seed every week to grow some salad greens. You'd have the stuff to make
>> your own salad every week and the peak of perfection.
>
>But Damaeus... in your world where everyone has stopped working, there
>are no houses. No one is working to build them. If you want to biuld
>your own, there is no lumber because the mill workers aren't working and
>even if they were, you couldn't get to the store (closed) because you
>don't have any fuel for your car (gas station and refineries are closed).
>
>Face it, in your perfect world where nobody has a job.... you pretty
>much end up sitting under a tree naked, wandering around eating roots
>and berries. Of course, with all that free time you gain by not
>working, you will have conquered that "immortality" thing... so you have
>plenty of time to forage.

Um, he'd find some Sodom who'd pay for his DamnAnus.

brooklyn1 wrote:

> Um, this is <rec.food.cooking>... NOT <alt.drphil-tripolar>

Ok, you made me chortle loudly there Sheldon.

On 2010-04-13 06:34:30 -0700, Giusi said:

> "Damaeus" > ha scritto nel messaggio posted
>
>> You've completely mischaracterized my relationship with my friend, but
>> I'm> not surprised. Some part of you seems to be angry about my
>> arrangement.
>>
>> Damaeus
>
> This is why I am absolutely stymied about why people tell so much about
> themselves here. Whose business was it? Why did you share it? There
> are a large % of people here who are very willing to give you a load of
> manure for anything, let alone the picky-picky you seem to like and the
> rudeness you are more than willing to pass around. I can understand why
> people are curious about the private lives of others, but not why
> people share the details of their private lives to a bunch of strangers.

Many people lead very lonely lives. Pre-internet, perhaps they make
attempts to socialize through the church, school or family. But this
takes labor and dedication. The vulnerable ones have problems there.

Then the net comes along and there are virtual settings constructed as
social groups of a kind. These then can serve the various social needs
people have. Some become *really* involved with them. They are very
real sources of happiness, even joy, anger, anxiety and pain. All quite
personalized.

Me, I generally like to listen to other people's stories. I've come to
understand that most have no interest in other folks lives and
concerns. That's fine for me as I don't have a driving need for
"witness" per se Telling my story and hering "bravo" or "tut-tut"; I
don't care so muchy. Now getting laughs--that's worthwhile to me, but
I don't really need to give up personal information to accomplish that.

Just my view.
--
Thank you and have a nice day.

On 2010-04-13 07:34:56 -0700, Damaeus said:

> I thought it was about getting to know each other. I've always been
> tickled by people who love to suck up and gather all the information they
> can get on others so they can use it to their debating advantage, but they
> never share anything about themselves. Personally, I think if someone
> doesn't care about the personal information of others, they won't use
> those private points to try to make themselves look superior, and make
> themselves the default winner in all the debates or arguments they engage
> in.

As a young man I was eager to give up sensitive material to new
girlfriends and potential blood-brothers. I figured it was good in the
long run if, the first time they were angered, they yelled, "Oh yeah?
Well your dad was a drunk!" It made sense to "give them bullets" early
to use on me, particularly ones of lower emotional power. They could
then confuse them for having substantive power. They could use them up
quick, and I could move on to building other relationships with better
candidates.

Having met a few suspected bottom-feeders, I would actually invented
long winding tales of personal horror. They'd use them two days later
when I wouldn't loan them a buck for candy bar. Amazing! And I was
well-buffered.

I think a lot of people who are quick to divulge significant emotional
tales are eager to feel intimate with others; it's assumed they have no
real intimacy elsewhere in their lives. That's sad. And sometimes
hearing them proffer up these things reminds me of a child who brings
you his favorite truck. It can be difficult even to witness.
--
Thank you and have a nice day.

On Tue, 13 Apr 2010 08:22:50 -0500, Damaeus wrote:

> In news:rec.food.cooking, Cindy Hamilton >
> posted on Tue, 13 Apr 2010 06:14:01 -0700 (PDT) the following:
>
>> On Apr 12, 4:23*pm, Goomba > wrote:
>>> Lin wrote:
>>> > Goomba ... you've got to remember that this is a comment from a jobless
>>> > guy leeching off of his "roomie" and gave the change from his last $5 to
>>> > a homeless guy after a visit to McDonald's. It's not his money, so I
>>> > suppose he can spend it freely.
>>>
>>> > --Lin (KF'd that whackadoodle a long time ago)
>>>
>>> Why did I have the impression that Damaeus was female???
>>> Perhaps a whackadoodle one, LOL
>>
>> Damaeus is living with a man. I can't imagine a guy letting another
>> guy leech off him.
>
> You mischaracterized our relationship. It's not like I just sit around
> the house all day while he waits on me hand and foot. Actually /do/
> things for him, anytime he asks. Sheesh. It's work. I just don't get a
> paycheck for it.
>
>> Of course, maybe he's getting the usual payment and they're ***. None
>> of our business, really.
>
> We do /not/ have sex. Good grief.
>
> Damaeus

too bad.

blake

On Mon, 12 Apr 2010 15:33:57 -0400, Dave Smith wrote:

> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>> On Apr 12, 1:53 pm, "Giusi" > wrote:
>>> "Cindy Hamilton" > ha scritto nel messaggio >
>>>
>>> They wouldn't do it if the cost to concentrate the juice exceeded thesavings
>>> in shipping the concentrate >compared to shipping the juice.
>>>
>>>> Think about it for just a moment, will you?
>>> Ummm, I think the fact that oranges have a season comes into it, too.
>>
>> Yes, of course. But could Damaeus entertain two different thoughts
>> simultaneously? I feared for what's left of her sanity.
>
> I think it has become evident that he has problem with a single idea at
> a time.

<snort>

your pal,
blake

On 4/13/2010 10:45 AM, Damaeus wrote:
> In news:rec.food.cooking, George > posted
> on Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:18:40 -0500 the following:
>
>> On 4/13/2010 8:35 AM, Damaeus wrote:
>>
>>> Yes, all houses should have a huge green house attached to them that
>>> can grow fruits and vegetables year-round. It should be big enough to
>>> hold indoor fruit and nut trees, too. It could be climate controlled
>>> for the most optimum growing environment. Imagine being able to
>>> simply plant a seed every week to grow some salad greens. You'd have
>>> the stuff to make your own salad every week and the peak of
>>> perfection.
>>
>> But Damaeus... in your world where everyone has stopped working, there
>> are no houses. No one is working to build them.
>
> You haven't imagined any kind of world I have imagined. In my version,
> people do the work they enjoy doing, and the rewards for doing that work
> are high enough that one can easily be independent. That's not how it is
> right now. Right now, if I choose a job that I actually enjoy, the
> rewards for doing that work are so low that I really can't afford to live
> comfortably by myself, even though the work I do is in such demand that
> while on the clock, I rarely have a spare moment to even take a break.
> That I worked in a field such as that, and still didn't make enough to
> live by myself in an apartment, then why should I even work if there's
> someone who I can simply live with and do a little work for, while
> enjoying the comforts of a home?
>
>> If you want to biuld your own, there is no lumber because the mill
>> workers aren't working and even if they were, you couldn't get to the
>> store (closed) because you don't have any fuel for your car (gas
>> station and refineries are closed).
>
> In my view of the world, all the manpower devoted to war has been
> converted to building. In my view of "joining the service", people don't
> join the service to train for war, they join the service to perform the
> kind of work people do at saw mills, grocery stores, fast food
> restaurants, etc..., but they're paid well for it, and they don't have to
> live away from home. And if they don't enjoy what they're doing, they're
> free to transfer to another line of work.
>
> Given the kinds of jobs available, if the rewards are the same for all
> kinds of work, there'd be some people who would rather work on oil rigs
> than flip burgers, yet both would offer the same rewards. You'd get the
> same reward for working as a carpenter, a carpenter's helper. One who
> likes building houses would join the service to specialize in building
> houses. Imagine how quickly wandering teens would be enticed by the idea
> of joining "the service" if they knew they wouldn't have to be treated
> like crap for two months at boot camp, wouldn't have to leave their
> friends and family, and there was no chance of being shipped off to war,
> and all while getting really good pay for it?
>
>> Face it, in your perfect world where nobody has a job
>
> Which is nothing at all like the world I envision. I don't know where you
> got the idea that in my world, nobody would have a job. It must be
> something you came up with after a stack of incorrect assumptions formed
> the idea in your mind.

Dameus, read Marx. You aren't proposing anything new. The way it
worked out in the real world was that nobody got paid enough and
everybody was overworked and quality sucked and the whole mess finally
collapsed under its own weight. Of course you'll claim "that was
different".

In article >, dcdraftworks@Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid says...
>
> On Sun, 11 Apr 2010 11:41:35 -0500, Damaeus wrote:
>
> > I read somewhere that high-fructose corn syrup is addictive.
>
> I wonder if we can store buy high-fructose corn syrup, whatever that is.
>
> Presumably it's a syrup that can be poured into carbonated water?
>
> Will need to google and report back!

Yes you can, it's called Karo.

In news:rec.food.cooking, brooklyn1 > posted on
Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:12:38 -0400 the following:

> DamnAnus wrote:
> >Cindy Hamilton writes:
> >>Goomba wrote:
> >>
> >>Why did I have the impression that Damaeus was female???
> >>
> >>> Damaeus is living with a man. I can't imagine a guy letting another
> >>> guy leech off him.
> >
> >Actually /do/ things for him, anytime he asks.
>
> Bet you DO... DooDooDoo! LOL

You act like a little girl on a playground with a Kool-Aid mustache and
****y panties.

Damaeus
--
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
-William Randolph Hearst

In news:rec.food.cooking, George Leppla > posted
on Tue, 13 Apr 2010 09:54:42 -0500 the following:

> No, no, no! What you said was that everyone should quit working, thus
> paying no taxes, thus ending the government.

Ah, yes. That is a form of civil disobedience. The government and
corporations want us working. But if the government is spending tax money
in ways you disapprove of, quitting your job will send a message. The
kind of world I envision takes shape further into the future, perhaps
after such a mass exodus from the workforce, making the government ask why
everyone has stopped working. When we all say, "because the rewards are
too low to make us independent" and "because we can't even get a house or
a decent car to drive without spending 5-20 years of our future income",
then they'll see the big picture, finally, instead of the one they want to
see.

> > Which is nothing at all like the world I envision. I don't know where
> > you got the idea that in my world, nobody would have a job.
>
> Might have been back when you advocated that everyone stop working to
> choke the tax flow to the government.

Yes, that could bring about a significant change and a discussion about
why people are fed up. Of course, the government's response could be to
send armed military personnel out to force everyone to work. But how far
would that go?

Damaeus
--
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
-William Randolph Hearst

In news:rec.food.cooking, "J. Clarke" > posted on
Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:29:30 -0400 the following:

> Dameus, read Marx. You aren't proposing anything new. The way it
> worked out in the real world was that nobody got paid enough and
> everybody was overworked and quality sucked and the whole mess finally
> collapsed under its own weight. Of course you'll claim "that was
> different".

Well, it *was* different. We have records of what went on in those times,
and we simply avoid the mistakes that lead to its collapse, like war. If
you're spending resources on destroying someone else, or building weapons
to defend yourself from being destroyed, you aren't improving life. You're
just surviving.

Damaeus
--
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
-William Randolph Hearst

In news:rec.food.cooking, brooklyn1 > posted on
Tue, 13 Apr 2010 12:18:30 -0400 the following:

> Um, he'd find some Sodom who'd pay for his DamnAnus.

What is it with your obsession with anuses? Do you have a mirror over
your bed, and do you fall asleep at night with your knees against your
shoulders so you can gaze at your own anus while you fall asleep?

Damaeus
--
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
-William Randolph Hearst

On Apr 13, 10:18*pm, Damaeus >
wrote:
> In news:rec.food.cooking, "J. Clarke" > posted on
> Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:29:30 -0400 the following:
>
> > Dameus, read Marx. *You aren't proposing anything new. *The way it
> > worked out in the real world was that nobody got paid enough and
> > everybody was overworked and quality sucked and the whole mess finally
> > collapsed under its own weight. *Of course you'll claim "that was
> > different".
>
> Well, it *was* different. *We have records of what went on in those times,
> and we simply avoid the mistakes that lead to its collapse, like war. *If
> you're spending resources on destroying someone else, or building weapons
> to defend yourself from being destroyed, you aren't improving life. You're
> just surviving.

The mistake was that the most powerful motivator for the vast majority
of
humans is to "get ahead". Now that "getting ahead" is no longer
"having the biggest piece of the mammoth", it's "acquiring money and
stuff". It's just built in. Communism only works on very small
scales,
and only when all participation is voluntary. If people can't get
ahead,
they won't do anything and the entire system collapses.

Oh, and war is built into human beings, too. Much as I'd like to see
it
end, I don't believe that's possible.

Did you ever say how your system would handle the really shitty jobs
that nobody wants to do?

Cindy Hamilton

In news:rec.food.cooking, Cindy Hamilton >
posted on Wed, 14 Apr 2010 06:36:32 -0700 (PDT) the following:

> On Apr 13, 10:18+AKA-pm, Damaeus >
> wrote:
>
> > Well, it *was* different. +AKA-We have records of what went on in those
> > times, and we simply avoid the mistakes that lead to its collapse,
> > like war. +AKA-If you're spending resources on destroying someone else, or
> > building weapons to defend yourself from being destroyed, you aren't
> > improving life. You're just surviving.
>
> The mistake was that the most powerful motivator for the vast majority
> of humans is to "get ahead". Now that "getting ahead" is no longer
> "having the biggest piece of the mammoth", it's "acquiring money and
> stuff".

And people who get ahead the most are the people who have all the money,
while those who only make just enough to survive feel cheated because they
work very hard, yet can't afford even a small fraction of what the
wealthiest enjoy, all of which would be impossible without the lowest-paid
wage earners in the company.

> It's just built in. Communism only works on very small scales, and
> only when all participation is voluntary.

If the communist society has no fear of war, there would be no people
forced to work in factories making weapons. Without war, the choice of
work would all be for peaceful, helpful purposes, and there'd be enough
people to do just about any kind of work, that nobody would have to do
anything they don't want to do.

> If people can't get ahead, they won't do anything and the entire
> system collapses.

You assume people want to get ahead. I really don't want to have a huge
mansion, six cars, a private jet or a yacht. I'm happy with a small
space, because small spaces are easily maintained without help, and I
don't think most people actually want to get ahead. I think most people
just realize that the dollar doesn't stretch very far, so they try to get
what they can to live comfortably now, and their "getting ahead" is
nothing more than accumulating enough that they can retire without feeling
like they're going to go broke before they die.

> Oh, and war is built into human beings, too. Much as I'd like to see
> it end, I don't believe that's possible.

I don't think it's built in. It's just a tradition.

> Did you ever say how your system would handle the really shitty jobs
> that nobody wants to do?

What jobs would those be?

Damaeus
--
"Marihuana influences Negroes to look at white people in the eye, step on
white men's shadows and look at a white woman twice."
-William Randolph Hearst

On Apr 14, 9:50*am, Damaeus > wrote:

> > Did you ever say how your system would handle the really shitty jobs
> > that nobody wants to do?
>
> What jobs would those be?

Practically anything shown on "Dirty Jobs".

Sewer cleaner, garbage collector, dead animal disposal. All those
mucky jobs.

Cindy Hamlton

J. Clarke wrote:

> Dameus, read Marx. You aren't proposing anything new. The way it
> worked out in the real world was that nobody got paid enough and
> everybody was overworked and quality sucked and the whole mess finally
> collapsed under its own weight. Of course you'll claim "that was
> different".

Twentieth Century Motor Company.

Bob, shrugging

On Apr 14, 1:54*pm, "Bob Terwilliger" >
wrote:
> J. Clarke wrote:
> > Dameus, read Marx. *You aren't proposing anything new. *The way it
> > worked out in the real world was that nobody got paid enough and
> > everybody was overworked and quality sucked and the whole mess finally
> > collapsed under its own weight. *Of course you'll claim "that was
> > different".
>
> Twentieth Century Motor Company.
>
> Bob, shrugging

That got a belly laugh from me.

Cindy Hamilton

In news:rec.food.cooking, Cindy Hamilton >
posted on Wed, 14 Apr 2010 10:49:42 -0700 (PDT) the following:

> On Apr 14, 9:50+AKA-am, Damaeus > wrote:
>
> > > Did you ever say how your system would handle the really shitty jobs
> > > that nobody wants to do?
> >
> > What jobs would those be?
>
> Practically anything shown on "Dirty Jobs".
>
> Sewer cleaner, garbage collector, dead animal disposal. All those
> mucky jobs.

I imagine that part of the disgust factor of those jobs comes from the
fact that companies who engage in those occupations are concerned about
expense. Remove the expense factor, give people better tools to do
certain jobs, and they won't be as unpleasant. Still, someone must do
them, at least for now. With teleportation experiments in physics, maybe
it'll become possible to teleport clogs out of sewers so they flow more
freely. Even now, the use of lasers might facilitate that. Shoot the
clogs with lasers to break them up so they'll flow away without having to
send anybody down to clean them out. Yet today, lasers are considered an
expense, and some cities can't afford to install them, and some may feel
it's not necessary since they have people to actually go down and work on
these problems manually.

Garbage collection is something else that can be made more efficient if
the expense of handling it was not a concern. Most new homes are not
really set up with garbage disposal in mind. If they were, they would
come equipped with large areas to conveniently sort different types of
garbage: paper, plastic, metals, and stuff that's not really fit for any
of the other categories of garbage. It would be specifically set up as a
trash disposal ROOM, not just a corner someplace where you'd really rather
have a bookshelf for your cookbooks if not your feeling of social
responsibility that would have led you to sacrifice that space for
recycling instead.

I'm not sure if I'd want an interior incinerator, but since people usually
have to take their trash outside, anyway, we all may as well have our own
mini-incinerators that can burn our non-recyclable trash without needing
an open flame. Of course, what to do with the ashes becomes another
problem, but that may have a solution that would become available once
everyone has their own incinerator. It could be mixed with enough water
to form a small, disposable cube. Industry might have some use for ashes
that we can't make use of at home.

Compaction machines for metals, paper and plastic would work, and homes
could be set up with their recyclables disposals so that they never have
to do any heavy lifting. The cubed materials could be ejected into an
external bin, and your GPS beacon would come on. That way the city would
know that you have some recyclables that need disposing, and the truck
could come by on its weekly route to pick your cubed recyclables up.
Picking up a cube of cans is not going to be as nasty as picking up
someone's old stinky garbage.

Furthermore, in a society like I envision, people who do the jobs like
that could get some kind of bonus or perk for doing them, maybe some kind
of extra luxury, an extra amount of money or something. I envision all
people being pretty much even with regards to income, but in my view, when
someone does a nasty job that nobody else wants to do, they should be the
ones getting the higher pay, not the people who want to rise to CEO just
so they can sit behind a desk, travel the world, eat at fine restaurants,
and also have power, control, and make hundreds of thousands, or millions
of dollars more per year than everyone who works for him.

IMHO,
Damaeus
--
"Marijuana inflames the erotic impulses and leads to revolting sex
crimes"
-Daily Mirror (1924)

On 4/13/2010 10:18 PM, Damaeus wrote:
> In news:rec.food.cooking, "J. > posted on
> Tue, 13 Apr 2010 18:29:30 -0400 the following:
>
>> Dameus, read Marx. You aren't proposing anything new. The way it
>> worked out in the real world was that nobody got paid enough and
>> everybody was overworked and quality sucked and the whole mess finally
>> collapsed under its own weight. Of course you'll claim "that was
>> different".
>
> Well, it *was* different. We have records of what went on in those times,
> and we simply avoid the mistakes that lead to its collapse, like war. If
> you're spending resources on destroying someone else, or building weapons
> to defend yourself from being destroyed, you aren't improving life. You're
> just surviving.

Who wanted to "destroy" any Communist country from 1945 on?