On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 08:41:11 -0400, Gary > wrote:

>Druce wrote:
>>
>> I'm agnostic. I don't understand people who are certain that they own
>> the truth.
>
>I'm with you there, pal. No one knows except for dead people and
>they aren't talking. I keep an open mind with all that.

Seems unlikely at least one of them would not come back to brag about
being right

On 7/15/2018 7:27 AM, Druce wrote:

> But, apart from dsi1, I never hear from religious people here that God
> exists. But I hear all the time from you and Graham that he doesn't.
> I'm agnostic. I don't understand people who are certain that they own
> the truth.
>

There have been enough happening that yes, there could be a power
greater than us. Now you have the question, is it a god to be
worshiped? Or is it just another being to have a beer with?

There is certainly no one on earth that I'd worship and a being from
some other place would be about the same to me, though they may be powerful

dsi1 wrote:

> On Saturday, July 14, 2018 at 5:59:26 PM UTC-10, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
> >
> > In the Twentieth Century, Mao and Stalin won big in killing people.
> > Hitler was a piker. Mao and Stalin demanded that their governance be
> > the god of the people. I know people who wholly believe in government.
> > They just don't realize that they believe in some sort of god. Nearly
> > everybody needs something to believe in. I believe in the morality and
> > principles that my parents instilled in me. Perhaps they were my gods.
> >
> > leo
>
> Hitler was small potatoes? I've never heard it put that way before but I can see your point.
>


The numbers are still not definite - nor will they ever, but Mao was the mass killer of all time; from 1917 to the present, socialism alone is responsible for at least 100 million deaths:

http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/02...stalin-or-mao/

'It is probably fair to say, then, that Mao was responsible for about 1.5 million deaths during the Cultural Revolution, another million for the other campaigns, and between 35 million and 45 million for the Great Leap Famine.. Taking a middle number for the famine, 40 million, thats about 42.5 million deaths...'

Mo

http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2011...o-killed-more/

'Discussion of numbers can blunt our sense of the horrific personal character of each killing and the irreducible tragedy of each death. As anyone who has lost a loved one knows, the difference between zero and one is an infinity. Though we have a harder time grasping this, the same is true for the difference between, say, 780,862 and 780,863€”which happens to be the best estimate of the number of people murdered at Treblinka. Large numbers matter because they are an accumulation of small numbers: that is, precious individual lives. Today, after two decades of access to Eastern European archives, and thanks to the work of German, Russian, Israeli, and other scholars, we can resolve the question of numbers. The total number of noncombatants killed by the Germans€”about 11 million€”is roughly what we had thought. The total number of civilians killed by the Soviets, however, is considerably less than we had believed. We know now that the Germans killed more people than the Soviets did. That said, the issue of quality is more complex than was once thought. Mass murder in the Soviet Union sometimes involved motivations, especially national and ethnic ones, that can be disconcertingly close to Nazi motivations...'

"Gary" wrote in message ...

wrote:
>
> Druce wrote:
> >You and Graham are very preachy about your atheist belief.

True enough. To completely "NOT believe" could be considered a
religion in itself. Neither they nor anyone else knows for sure.
One good thing any religion does is give hope to people that have
a miserable life here on earth. At least they have the HOPE of a
better deal after death as long as they behave themselves here.

> I look at it the other way round, I do nothing until someone tries to
> push something in my face, THEN I strike back.

No need to strike back meanly though. They truly believe they are
helping you.

Just the other day, a JW approached me coming out of the grocery
store holding up one of their weekly magazines. Before he said
anything I said," I'll take that and read it, thank you for it."
He thanked me and walked away.

No need to be rude to these people. They are only doing what they
are required to do and real or not real, they do truly believe
they are just helping you.

I don't argue religion with anyone and no one should. Neither
will change and I don't want to change someone's belief to my
belief. Might turn out someday (that final day) that they were
right and I was wrong.

==

I like your attitude

"Ophelia" wrote in message ...



"Gary" wrote in message ...

wrote:
>
> Druce wrote:
> >You and Graham are very preachy about your atheist belief.

True enough. To completely "NOT believe" could be considered a
religion in itself. Neither they nor anyone else knows for sure.
One good thing any religion does is give hope to people that have
a miserable life here on earth. At least they have the HOPE of a
better deal after death as long as they behave themselves here.

> I look at it the other way round, I do nothing until someone tries to
> push something in my face, THEN I strike back.

No need to strike back meanly though. They truly believe they are
helping you.

Just the other day, a JW approached me coming out of the grocery
store holding up one of their weekly magazines. Before he said
anything I said," I'll take that and read it, thank you for it."
He thanked me and walked away.

No need to be rude to these people. They are only doing what they
are required to do and real or not real, they do truly believe
they are just helping you.

I don't argue religion with anyone and no one should. Neither
will change and I don't want to change someone's belief to my
belief. Might turn out someday (that final day) that they were
right and I was wrong.

==

I like your attitude


==========
Yes, no reason to be rude. I just either take the pamphlet or say no thank you.
Arguing religion is as futile as arguing politics, solves nothing and often
times causes long lasting hard feelings.

Cheri

"Gary" wrote in message ...

Druce wrote:
>
> I'm agnostic. I don't understand people who are certain that they own
> the truth.

I'm with you there, pal. No one knows except for dead people and
they aren't talking. I keep an open mind with all that.

==

Yep

In article >,
says...
>
> On Saturday, July 14, 2018 at 4:15:13 PM UTC-10, Sheldon wrote:
> >
> > You are really quite the shallow thinker if you are even capable of
> > thought. Most animals especially mammals remember their past, haven't
> > you ever heard that an elephant never forgets, well that's true. >
> Animals don't remember the past.

Of course some do; there are numerous examples of horses and elephants
longterm memories, and anyone who has owned a dog knows how long and
strong their memories are (of places, people, things, experiences).

https://www.sciencedirect.com/scienc...49763406001059


Janet UK

On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 1:28:36 AM UTC-10, Janet wrote:
>
> There's no evidence for that idiotic remark either.
>
> There's nothing brave, wonderful or in any way remarkable about using
> the third person about a third party. If she had named Graham, or called
> him he, she would still be referring to him in the third person, just as
> I am referring to her in the third person. It's standard grammar.
>
> https://www.grammarly.com/blog/first...-third-person/
>
> Janet UK

Talking about other people as if they weren't present is what rude little girls like to do. I won't do it because it goes against my sense of fair play.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 07:58:20 -0700 (PDT), GM
> wrote:

>dsi1 wrote:
>
>> On Saturday, July 14, 2018 at 5:59:26 PM UTC-10, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
>> >
>> > In the Twentieth Century, Mao and Stalin won big in killing people.
>> > Hitler was a piker. Mao and Stalin demanded that their governance be
>> > the god of the people. I know people who wholly believe in government.
>> > They just don't realize that they believe in some sort of god. Nearly
>> > everybody needs something to believe in. I believe in the morality and
>> > principles that my parents instilled in me. Perhaps they were my gods.
>> >
>> > leo
>>
>> Hitler was small potatoes? I've never heard it put that way before but I can see your point.
>>
>
>
>The numbers are still not definite - nor will they ever, but Mao was the mass killer of all time; from 1917 to the present, socialism alone is responsible for at least 100 million deaths:

How does Kissinger rank?

On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 06:08:48 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Saturday, July 14, 2018 at 11:29:42 PM UTC-4, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Cindy Hamilton > wrote:
>>
>> > I keep hoping the species will outgrow the desire to believe in
>> > Santa Claus (rewarding good behavior, punishing bad behavior),
>> > but it's an uphill slog.
>>
>> What is the alternative? I can't think of a different philosophy that
>> doesn't embrace anarchy. Anarchy won't work, because you and I won't
>> like or survive it. I'm not religious, but there is good and there is
>> evil.
>> So we will outgrow what? We will believe in what?
>>
>> leo
>
>Atheism. You don't need religion to know that humans are evil,
>self-serving *******s and that government is needed to keep the
>worst of them in line.

And you don't need religion to know that governments are evil,
self-serving *******s and that humans are needed to keep the worst of
them in line.

On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 1:34:17 AM UTC-10, Janet wrote:.
>
> You misused "nihilist view", so you clearly don't understand the word
> nihilism.
>

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVCtkzIXYzQ

On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 1:45:07 AM UTC-10, Janet wrote:
>
> Unless someones character is expressed in their words, actions and
> beliefs, how do you know what their character is?
>
> Janet UK
>
> .

I'm more interested in a person's character, not their beliefs. Their actions, not their words.

On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 08:40:44 -0400, Gary > wrote:

wrote:
>>
>> U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>> >the people you mention leave immediately when told that I am not
>> >interested. The folks trying to get me to switch to another cable
>> >company however do not. And they come again and again and again. They
>> >cruise the streets in cars and hop out en masse to hammer a
>> >neighborhood. Now, that gets me mad.
>>
>> I don't have cable anymore but thankfully they can't get into the
>> building easily.
>
>My darn cable company, Cox Communications, constantly bombards me
>with snail mail at least twice a week trying to get me to upgrade
>all kinds of nonsense. And they always print some great price
>per month but only for a year or two. Never hear what it will
>cost after than, not even in the fine print that you use a
>magnifying glass to read.

They almost always send a postage paid envelope, I stuff it with their
crap and send it to them... I'm immediately removed from their mailing
list.

On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 4:58:24 AM UTC-10, GM wrote:
>
>
> The numbers are still not definite - nor will they ever, but Mao was the mass killer of all time; from 1917 to the present, socialism alone is responsible for at least 100 million deaths:
>
> http://www.nybooks.com/daily/2018/02...stalin-or-mao/
>
> 'It is probably fair to say, then, that Mao was responsible for about 1.5 million deaths during the Cultural Revolution, another million for the other campaigns, and between 35 million and 45 million for the Great Leap Famine. Taking a middle number for the famine, 40 million, thats about 42.5 million deaths...'
>
> Mo
>
> http://www.nybooks.com/articles/2011...o-killed-more/
>
> 'Discussion of numbers can blunt our sense of the horrific personal character of each killing and the irreducible tragedy of each death. As anyone who has lost a loved one knows, the difference between zero and one is an infinity. Though we have a harder time grasping this, the same is true for the difference between, say, 780,862 and 780,863€”which happens to be the best estimate of the number of people murdered at Treblinka. Large numbers matter because they are an accumulation of small numbers: that is, precious individual lives. Today, after two decades of access to Eastern European archives, and thanks to the work of German, Russian, Israeli, and other scholars, we can resolve the question of numbers. The total number of noncombatants killed by the Germans€”about 11 million€”is roughly what we had thought. The total number of civilians killed by the Soviets, however, is considerably less than we had believed. We know now that the Germans killed more people than the Soviets did. That said, the issue of quality is more complex than was once thought. Mass murder in the Soviet Union sometimes involved motivations, especially national and ethnic ones, that can be disconcertingly close to Nazi motivations...'

Whichever numbers you want to use, they're still outside the range of a human's ability to comprehend.

On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 1:38:15 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 1:28:36 AM UTC-10, Janet wrote:
> >
> > There's no evidence for that idiotic remark either.
> >
> > There's nothing brave, wonderful or in any way remarkable about using
> > the third person about a third party. If she had named Graham, or called
> > him he, she would still be referring to him in the third person, just as
> > I am referring to her in the third person. It's standard grammar.
> >
> > https://www.grammarly.com/blog/first...-third-person/
> >
> > Janet UK
>
> Talking about other people as if they weren't present is what rude little girls like to do. I won't do it because it goes against my sense of fair play.

I know that Graham is present. I wanted to limit the amount of quoting
that I did, and I couldn't quite remember who said it. You should know
what a shitty interface Google groups is.

Cindy Hamilton

On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 1:40:48 PM UTC-4, Druce wrote:
> On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 06:08:48 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, July 14, 2018 at 11:29:42 PM UTC-4, Leonard Blaisdell wrote:
> >> In article >,
> >> Cindy Hamilton > wrote:
> >>
> >> > I keep hoping the species will outgrow the desire to believe in
> >> > Santa Claus (rewarding good behavior, punishing bad behavior),
> >> > but it's an uphill slog.
> >>
> >> What is the alternative? I can't think of a different philosophy that
> >> doesn't embrace anarchy. Anarchy won't work, because you and I won't
> >> like or survive it. I'm not religious, but there is good and there is
> >> evil.
> >> So we will outgrow what? We will believe in what?
> >>
> >> leo
> >
> >Atheism. You don't need religion to know that humans are evil,
> >self-serving *******s and that government is needed to keep the
> >worst of them in line.
>
> And you don't need religion to know that governments are evil,
> self-serving *******s and that humans are needed to keep the worst of
> them in line.

Absolutely. Governments are made of people, so it can be proved by
induction that governments are evil, self-serving *******s. The
need to keep them in line makes democracy the best form of government.

Cindy Hamilton

On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 1:43:00 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 1:34:17 AM UTC-10, Janet wrote:.
> >
> > You misused "nihilist view", so you clearly don't understand the word
> > nihilism.
> >
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XVCtkzIXYzQ

You take a work of fiction as proof of what? That The Dude knows
what nihilism is?

Cindy Hamilton

On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 8:30:46 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> I know that Graham is present. I wanted to limit the amount of quoting
> that I did, and I couldn't quite remember who said it. You should know
> what a shitty interface Google groups is.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

Yup, it's not your fault that you can't remember who said what or that your can't learn how to use a simple web-based program.

On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 8:34:04 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> You take a work of fiction as proof of what? That The Dude knows
> what nihilism is?
>
> Cindy Hamilton

What yoose guys don't understand is how insignificant our little planet is in the whole scheme of things. If you understood the awful reality of the vastness and scale of time and space and how we fit into it all, you'd understand that a Godless existence is a nihilistic one.

Beats me if The Dude knows what nihilism is. I certainly do. I'm just tired of having to explain myself to yoose guys when we both know that you don't really care about what I have to say.

On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 3:15:00 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 8:30:46 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >
> > I know that Graham is present. I wanted to limit the amount of quoting
> > that I did, and I couldn't quite remember who said it. You should know
> > what a shitty interface Google groups is.
> >
> > Cindy Hamilton
>
> Yup, it's not your fault that you can't remember who said what or that your can't learn how to use a simple web-based program.

I know how to use it. By the time I realized I wanted to mention Graham by
name, I'd already paged back to your post twice to copy and paste from it,
and I didn't want to do it a third time.

Cindy Hamilton

On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 12:31:49 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >
wrote:

>On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 8:34:04 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>
>> You take a work of fiction as proof of what? That The Dude knows
>> what nihilism is?
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>
>What yoose guys don't understand is how insignificant our little planet is in the whole scheme of things. If you understood the awful reality of the vastness and scale of time and space and how we fit into it all, you'd understand that a Godless existence is a nihilistic one.
>
>Beats me if The Dude knows what nihilism is. I certainly do. I'm just tired of having to explain myself to yoose guys when we both know that you don't really care about what I have to say.

For crying out loud, shut up then.

On 2018-07-15 3:31 PM, dsi1 wrote:
> On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 8:34:04 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>
>> You take a work of fiction as proof of what? That The Dude knows
>> what nihilism is?
>>
>> Cindy Hamilton
>
> What yoose guys don't understand is how insignificant our little
> planet is in the whole scheme of things. If you understood the awful
> reality of the vastness and scale of time and space and how we fit
> into it all, you'd understand that a Godless existence is a
> nihilistic one.

Actually, the rest of the universe is of little concern to me. It's nice
that there are some scientists making a living learning about it, but I
think most of us here on Earth should be more concerned with what it
going on here at home.
>
> Beats me if The Dude knows what nihilism is. I certainly do. I'm just
> tired of having to explain myself to yoose guys when we both know
> that you don't really care about what I have to say.


Bingo.

On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 11:33:49 AM UTC-10, Dave Smith wrote:
>
> Actually, the rest of the universe is of little concern to me. It's nice
> that there are some scientists making a living learning about it, but I
> think most of us here on Earth should be more concerned with what it
> going on here at home.

Comfortably numb? I can dig it.

On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 2:40:35 AM UTC-10, Gary wrote:
>
> My darn cable company, Cox Communications, constantly bombards me
> with snail mail at least twice a week trying to get me to upgrade
> all kinds of nonsense. And they always print some great price
> per month but only for a year or two. Never hear what it will
> cost after than, not even in the fine print that you use a
> magnifying glass to read.

They are all damn cable companies. They should burn in hell forever.

wrote:
>
> I probably watch a little more tv since I cut the cable and now only
> watch what I want, when I want.

I don't understand that comment. You cut out many cable channels
but you watch MORE tv now?

I only watch what I want, when I want, too but cable gives me
quite a few more choices. Most of my choices are the cable-only
channels too. They've got me just where they want me.

I don't have any "pay channels" like HBO, Cinemax, etc. I just
have a good variety of regular ones. About 125 channels and many
I never watch, plus 50 worthless music channel choices that I
never watch. Just paid my monthly bill....$94.99 per month.
That's high but...$3 per day and it IS my main form of
entertainment. I do have it on a lot. I certainly do get my
money's worth.

Without cable, I would get maybe 8 local channels, bad reception,
and ones that I rarely watch.

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> wrote:
>>
>> I probably watch a little more tv since I cut the cable and now only
>> watch what I want, when I want.
>
> I don't understand that comment. You cut out many cable channels
> but you watch MORE tv now?
>
> I only watch what I want, when I want, too but cable gives me
> quite a few more choices. Most of my choices are the cable-only
> channels too. They've got me just where they want me.
>
> I don't have any "pay channels" like HBO, Cinemax, etc. I just
> have a good variety of regular ones. About 125 channels and many
> I never watch, plus 50 worthless music channel choices that I
> never watch. Just paid my monthly bill....$94.99 per month.
> That's high but...$3 per day and it IS my main form of
> entertainment. I do have it on a lot. I certainly do get my
> money's worth.
>
> Without cable, I would get maybe 8 local channels, bad reception,
> and ones that I rarely watch.


Hoping for the day that we will be able to cherry pick the channels we want
for a certain amount each month with the cable providers, they're always
touting all these channels, but so many of them are infomericals, foreign
language etc., which are worthless to me.

Cheri

On 7/16/2018 12:17 PM, Gary wrote:

>
> I don't understand that comment. You cut out many cable channels
> but you watch MORE tv now?
>
> I only watch what I want, when I want, too but cable gives me
> quite a few more choices. Most of my choices are the cable-only
> channels too. They've got me just where they want me.
>
> I don't have any "pay channels" like HBO, Cinemax, etc. I just
> have a good variety of regular ones.

I have a similar setup but also have a DVR. We eat dinner around six
and after watch the recorded 6 o'clock news and the rest of the night FF
the commercials on what we do watch.

"Ed Pawlowski" > wrote in message
...
> On 7/16/2018 12:17 PM, Gary wrote:
>
>>
>> I don't understand that comment. You cut out many cable channels
>> but you watch MORE tv now?
>>
>> I only watch what I want, when I want, too but cable gives me
>> quite a few more choices. Most of my choices are the cable-only
>> channels too. They've got me just where they want me.
>>
>> I don't have any "pay channels" like HBO, Cinemax, etc. I just
>> have a good variety of regular ones.
>
> I have a similar setup but also have a DVR. We eat dinner around six and
> after watch the recorded 6 o'clock news and the rest of the night FF the
> commercials on what we do watch.


Same here, with the DVR, I don't think I could actually sit through
programming without a FF feature for commercials, except for live sports
shows, but OMG the commericals drive me crazy during them. I have taken to
playing Sonic Boom during them on the Fire Tablet.

Cheri

On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 12:17:35 -0400, Gary > wrote:

wrote:
>>
>> I probably watch a little more tv since I cut the cable and now only
>> watch what I want, when I want.
>
>I don't understand that comment. You cut out many cable channels
>but you watch MORE tv now?
>
>I only watch what I want, when I want, too but cable gives me
>quite a few more choices. Most of my choices are the cable-only
>channels too. They've got me just where they want me.
>
>I don't have any "pay channels" like HBO, Cinemax, etc. I just
>have a good variety of regular ones. About 125 channels and many
>I never watch, plus 50 worthless music channel choices that I
>never watch. Just paid my monthly bill....$94.99 per month.
>That's high but...$3 per day and it IS my main form of
>entertainment. I do have it on a lot. I certainly do get my
>money's worth.
>
>Without cable, I would get maybe 8 local channels, bad reception,
>and ones that I rarely watch.

I don't have cable - I have chrome cast and there's always youtube etc
and I also sub to Netflix. So with all that, I pick what I want to
watch and it only cost me 12 bucks a month compared to the 165.00 odd
the cable was costing.

On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 09:29:11 -0700, "Cheri" >
wrote:

>"Gary" > wrote in message ...
>> wrote:
>>>
>>> I probably watch a little more tv since I cut the cable and now only
>>> watch what I want, when I want.
>>
>> I don't understand that comment. You cut out many cable channels
>> but you watch MORE tv now?
>>
>> I only watch what I want, when I want, too but cable gives me
>> quite a few more choices. Most of my choices are the cable-only
>> channels too. They've got me just where they want me.
>>
>> I don't have any "pay channels" like HBO, Cinemax, etc. I just
>> have a good variety of regular ones. About 125 channels and many
>> I never watch, plus 50 worthless music channel choices that I
>> never watch. Just paid my monthly bill....$94.99 per month.
>> That's high but...$3 per day and it IS my main form of
>> entertainment. I do have it on a lot. I certainly do get my
>> money's worth.
>>
>> Without cable, I would get maybe 8 local channels, bad reception,
>> and ones that I rarely watch.
>
>
>Hoping for the day that we will be able to cherry pick the channels we want
>for a certain amount each month with the cable providers, they're always
>touting all these channels, but so many of them are infomericals, foreign
>language etc., which are worthless to me.
>
>Cheri

Don't hang by the neck, they were made to do that in Canada but they
were so crafty about how much they charged for particular channels
that mine would have been far more. When I phoned them to cut the
cable I said to the man that many seniors realise that when a senior
dies, the cost goes up for the rest, well this senior ain't gonna die
to do it, my grandchildren don't have cable and neither shall I.

On 2018-07-16 2:47 PM, wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 09:29:11 -0700, "Cheri" >
Cheri
>
> Don't hang by the neck, they were made to do that in Canada but they
> were so crafty about how much they charged for particular channels
> that mine would have been far more. When I phoned them to cut the
> cable I said to the man that many seniors realise that when a senior
> dies, the cost goes up for the rest, well this senior ain't gonna die
> to do it, my grandchildren don't have cable and neither shall I.


A friend just went through hell with Cogeco. Her father died and she
called to cancel. She was told they needed a death certificate. She
pointed out that the cable was in her name . Okay... bring the equipment
in. She packed it up and took it to the store in the mall and waited
almost two hours but then had to leave because she had appointments with
the lawyer and the funeral home.

Many more trips and phones later she was so ****ed off the rotten
served and the way they were screwing her around that she told them to
cancel her account too.... effective June 28. She already made
arrangements with another provider to be set up on the 28th. That was
phone, internet and cable. The got back at her by cutting her service
before the end of May. She had to use up limited cell phone time being
tied up on hold to find out that they would put her in the queue and
could not be there to re-install until about June 20th.... and you know
they weren't going to bother hooking her up for just one more week.

> wrote in message
...
> On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 09:29:11 -0700, "Cheri" >
> wrote:
>
>>"Gary" > wrote in message
...
>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>> I probably watch a little more tv since I cut the cable and now only
>>>> watch what I want, when I want.
>>>
>>> I don't understand that comment. You cut out many cable channels
>>> but you watch MORE tv now?
>>>
>>> I only watch what I want, when I want, too but cable gives me
>>> quite a few more choices. Most of my choices are the cable-only
>>> channels too. They've got me just where they want me.
>>>
>>> I don't have any "pay channels" like HBO, Cinemax, etc. I just
>>> have a good variety of regular ones. About 125 channels and many
>>> I never watch, plus 50 worthless music channel choices that I
>>> never watch. Just paid my monthly bill....$94.99 per month.
>>> That's high but...$3 per day and it IS my main form of
>>> entertainment. I do have it on a lot. I certainly do get my
>>> money's worth.
>>>
>>> Without cable, I would get maybe 8 local channels, bad reception,
>>> and ones that I rarely watch.
>>
>>
>>Hoping for the day that we will be able to cherry pick the channels we
>>want
>>for a certain amount each month with the cable providers, they're always
>>touting all these channels, but so many of them are infomericals, foreign
>>language etc., which are worthless to me.
>>
>>Cheri
>
> Don't hang by the neck, they were made to do that in Canada but they
> were so crafty about how much they charged for particular channels
> that mine would have been far more. When I phoned them to cut the
> cable I said to the man that many seniors realise that when a senior
> dies, the cost goes up for the rest, well this senior ain't gonna die
> to do it, my grandchildren don't have cable and neither shall I.


I'm really thinking of alternatives these days, simply because I am tired of
all the raising of fees etc., and was completely ****ed when AT&T was
shouting from the rooftops that they gave 200,000 workers $1000.00 bonuses a
few months ago but forgot to mention that they were raising prices $10.00 a
month for their 20 or so million customers with Directv. I'd say it was a
fair return for their bonus publicity. Thieves.

Cheri

On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 18:21:46 -0700, "Cheri" >
wrote:

> wrote in message
.. .
>> On Mon, 16 Jul 2018 09:29:11 -0700, "Cheri" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Gary" > wrote in message
...
>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> I probably watch a little more tv since I cut the cable and now only
>>>>> watch what I want, when I want.
>>>>
>>>> I don't understand that comment. You cut out many cable channels
>>>> but you watch MORE tv now?
>>>>
>>>> I only watch what I want, when I want, too but cable gives me
>>>> quite a few more choices. Most of my choices are the cable-only
>>>> channels too. They've got me just where they want me.
>>>>
>>>> I don't have any "pay channels" like HBO, Cinemax, etc. I just
>>>> have a good variety of regular ones. About 125 channels and many
>>>> I never watch, plus 50 worthless music channel choices that I
>>>> never watch. Just paid my monthly bill....$94.99 per month.
>>>> That's high but...$3 per day and it IS my main form of
>>>> entertainment. I do have it on a lot. I certainly do get my
>>>> money's worth.
>>>>
>>>> Without cable, I would get maybe 8 local channels, bad reception,
>>>> and ones that I rarely watch.
>>>
>>>
>>>Hoping for the day that we will be able to cherry pick the channels we
>>>want
>>>for a certain amount each month with the cable providers, they're always
>>>touting all these channels, but so many of them are infomericals, foreign
>>>language etc., which are worthless to me.
>>>
>>>Cheri
>>
>> Don't hang by the neck, they were made to do that in Canada but they
>> were so crafty about how much they charged for particular channels
>> that mine would have been far more. When I phoned them to cut the
>> cable I said to the man that many seniors realise that when a senior
>> dies, the cost goes up for the rest, well this senior ain't gonna die
>> to do it, my grandchildren don't have cable and neither shall I.
>
>
>I'm really thinking of alternatives these days, simply because I am tired of
>all the raising of fees etc., and was completely ****ed when AT&T was
>shouting from the rooftops that they gave 200,000 workers $1000.00 bonuses a
>few months ago but forgot to mention that they were raising prices $10.00 a
>month for their 20 or so million customers with Directv. I'd say it was a
>fair return for their bonus publicity. Thieves.
>
>Cheri

It also annoyed me that they did this 'little higher every month' when
I had been with them since day one, always with an auto debit so never
once in all that time had there been a problem with payment. That
should be worth something these days!

I just have chromecast (one time $50) firestick (one time $75) Netflix
and I also pay $4.99 a month so I can receive CBC both regular and the
news channel. I tend to live stream most things in the summer as my
condo is in the tree canopy and the leaves moving disrupts the rabbit
ears reception. In winter it's fine and gives me three local
channels.

At the time I cut the cable, I also cut the landline and am now
totally used to only cell phone, actually like it better now. They
were going to charge me $89 per month for internet alone but kids
pointed me towards an internet only carrier and that costs me $50 per
month, a striking difference! I don't think the new service would be
too hot if I wanted to do more online, but since I don't, it's fine
for me. Can you tell I am happy that I told the cable people what they
could do with their service??? lol

> wrote in message
...

> It also annoyed me that they did this 'little higher every month' when
> I had been with them since day one, always with an auto debit so never
> once in all that time had there been a problem with payment. That
> should be worth something these days!
>
> I just have chromecast (one time $50) firestick (one time $75) Netflix
> and I also pay $4.99 a month so I can receive CBC both regular and the
> news channel. I tend to live stream most things in the summer as my
> condo is in the tree canopy and the leaves moving disrupts the rabbit
> ears reception. In winter it's fine and gives me three local
> channels.
>
> At the time I cut the cable, I also cut the landline and am now
> totally used to only cell phone, actually like it better now. They
> were going to charge me $89 per month for internet alone but kids
> pointed me towards an internet only carrier and that costs me $50 per
> month, a striking difference! I don't think the new service would be
> too hot if I wanted to do more online, but since I don't, it's fine
> for me. Can you tell I am happy that I told the cable people what they
> could do with their service??? lol


Yes, and I think as more people "cut the cord" as they say, they might get
the idea that people are tired of it and start to change their practices.

Cheri

On 7/14/2018 10:43 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 7/14/2018 8:02 PM, Druce wrote:
>
>>> I see you have never met a Jehovah's "witness" or a mormon "missionary".
>>>
>>> Some day, they will be knocking on your door, offering salvation.
>>
>> I had Jehova's Witnesses at the door the other day. I had to tell them
>> twice that I wasn't interested, but other than that they were friendly
>> and not annoying. I feel kinda sorry for them that their religion
>> forces them to go door knocking. Some people will be downright nasty
>> to them.
>>
>
> Never see them but they have left literature.Â* My doorbell has not
> worked for 30 years.Â* If you come to the front door you are not a friend
> of mine.Â* They know to come to the side.

Will that still hold true once you move to Florida? The side door, I
mean. My house doesn't have a side door.

Jill

On 7/14/2018 9:38 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
> On Sat, 14 Jul 2018 22:16:08 -0300, wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 15 Jul 2018 10:02:16 +1000, Druce >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2018 18:38:20 -0500, Hank Rogers >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> U.S. Janet B. wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jul 2018 14:39:40 -0300, wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I have similar friends but of course, they would have to be like that,
>>>>>> if they enjoyed preaching, they wouldn't be my friends I also have
>>>>>> Muslim/Buddhist friends, same thing.
>>>>>
>>>>> of the millions of people on this globe with a religious faith of some
>>>>> sort, most don't try to force that belief on anyone else.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I see you have never met a Jehovah's "witness" or a mormon "missionary".
>>>>
>>>> Some day, they will be knocking on your door, offering salvation.
>>>
>>> I had Jehova's Witnesses at the door the other day. I had to tell them
>>> twice that I wasn't interested, but other than that they were friendly
>>> and not annoying. I feel kinda sorry for them that their religion
>>> forces them to go door knocking. Some people will be downright nasty
>>> to them.
>>
>> I heartily resent anyone knocking on my door regarding anything!
>> Unfortunately, by law, the condo building cannot stop politicians from
>> gaining access and knocking on individual doors. However, of whatever
>> stripe they do know I object when they knock at my door
>
> the people you mention leave immediately when told that I am not
> interested. The folks trying to get me to switch to another cable
> company however do not. And they come again and again and again. They
> cruise the streets in cars and hop out en masse to hammer a
> neighborhood. Now, that gets me mad.
>
Another advantage of a gated community! LOL But even before I lived
here I never had cable companies come knocking on my door... that's odd.

Jill

On 7/17/2018 11:21 AM, jmcquown wrote:


>>
>> Never see them but they have left literature.Â* My doorbell has not
>> worked for 30 years.Â* If you come to the front door you are not a
>> friend of mine.Â* They know to come to the side.
>
> Will that still hold true once you move to Florida?Â* The side door, I
> mean.Â* My house doesn't have a side door.
>
> Jill

No, no more side door. It is a gated community but I don't know how
effective it will be. As you know, those of us behind the gates have no
connections with the outside world and are insulated from everything
going on.

On 7/15/2018 4:04 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 3:15:00 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
>> On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 8:30:46 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>
>>> I know that Graham is present. I wanted to limit the amount of quoting
>>> that I did, and I couldn't quite remember who said it. You should know
>>> what a shitty interface Google groups is.
>>>
>>> Cindy Hamilton
>>
>> Yup, it's not your fault that you can't remember who said what or that your can't learn how to use a simple web-based program.
>
> I know how to use it. By the time I realized I wanted to mention Graham by
> name, I'd already paged back to your post twice to copy and paste from it,
> and I didn't want to do it a third time.
>
> Cindy Hamilton
>
And Google Groups truly *is* a lousy interface, despite what he (dsi1)
thinks.

Jill

On 7/17/2018 5:11 PM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 7/17/2018 11:21 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>
>
>>>
>>> Never see them but they have left literature.Â* My doorbell has not
>>> worked for 30 years.Â* If you come to the front door you are not a
>>> friend of mine.Â* They know to come to the side.
>>
>> Will that still hold true once you move to Florida?Â* The side door, I
>> mean.Â* My house doesn't have a side door.
>>
>> Jill
>
> No, no more side door.Â* It is a gated community but I don't know how
> effective it will be. As you know, those of us behind the gates have no
> connections with the outside world and are insulated from everything
> going on.

Yes, I'm afraid you're about to enter a black hole; from there on out
you will be clueless.

Jill

On Wednesday, July 18, 2018 at 1:02:46 PM UTC-4, Jill McQuown wrote:
> On 7/15/2018 4:04 PM, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> > On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 3:15:00 PM UTC-4, dsi1 wrote:
> >> On Sunday, July 15, 2018 at 8:30:46 AM UTC-10, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
> >>>
> >>> I know that Graham is present. I wanted to limit the amount of quoting
> >>> that I did, and I couldn't quite remember who said it. You should know
> >>> what a shitty interface Google groups is.
> >>>
> >>> Cindy Hamilton
> >>
> >> Yup, it's not your fault that you can't remember who said what or that your can't learn how to use a simple web-based program.
> >
> > I know how to use it. By the time I realized I wanted to mention Graham by
> > name, I'd already paged back to your post twice to copy and paste from it,
> > and I didn't want to do it a third time.
> >
> > Cindy Hamilton
> >
> And Google Groups truly *is* a lousy interface, despite what he (dsi1)
> thinks.
>
> Jill

You're not wrong, although I cope well enough with it. I just wish it
had killfiles.

Obviously, though, it doesn't bother me that much, since I haven't taken
any steps to change how I access Usenet.

Cindy Hamilton