Science > Physics > My formal _Answer_ to the eviction summons I was served yesterday.
| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=5F=E2=84=9Eelf?=" |
| Date: |
15 Feb 2006 07:22:35 AM |
| Object: |
My formal _Answer_ to the eviction summons I was served yesterday. |
Hi Folks, What follows is my formal _Answer_ to
the eviction summons that I was served yesterday.
I'm Jeff Relf, who's been renting Room XX for over 5 years now,
located at 5515 55th Ave NE, Seattle, WA 98155, 206.555.5156,
replying this February 15th, 2006 in Answer to the plaintiff's Eviction_Summons.
The plaintiff's being Sharifah Sxxah and Lina Baxxxain,
who's lawer is xxx xxxcan, 1455 E.Thomas Street, Seattle, WA, 98155,
Fax: 206.555.6118.
Ever since September 1st, 2005 I've had a friend vist me off an on,
occationally taking a shower. The friend is Patinha Minha.
Since that time Lina has been trying to evict me... why, I've yet to understand.
She's taken me to court once already and raised my rent 10 percent recently
even though I pay two and even three times what adjacent renters are paying.
Lina is not trying to evict them, even though one guy has a girl there at night
and stores much of his stuff in my only exit, a hallway.
I program for a living, writing games that bankers play.
As of today, Feb 15th, I'm late in delivering code
and stand to lose my job if I don't finish in the coming weeks.
The stress from Lina’s hysteria, her over-involvement in
the day to day details of my once private life
and her Eviction actions have adversely effected my employment status.
As a poor writer, my average annual income is under 5 thousand dollars.
I'm programming day and night, working long hard hours,
and cannot afford to lose both my job and my residence at this time.
I've paid Lina on time ever since the start of 2001 -- Over 5 Years --
up until she refused my rent check at the start of this month.
I've paid her only with checks issued from my U.S. Bank account, 155505195247.
Ninty five percent of that time I had no formal lease, 19 out of 20 months.
I only signed the November 1st 2005 lease in
a vain attempt to placate Lina who continues to be hysterical
and overly involved in the day to day details of my once private life.
I did _Not_ sign the lease with the intent of
leaving at the end of January 2006, trusting that
I'd be protected by Seattle’s Just_Cause eviction laws.
I ask the Judge to award me two thousand dollars from the plaintiffs
to relocate me, along with an additional 12 percent per year,
accruing on the amount that is past due each month.
Signed, Jeff Relf, February 15th, 2006, in Seattle.
.
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: In this sad game of life we're playing, everyone loses in the end. |
24 Feb 2006 07:19:35 PM |
|
|
"Jeff_?elf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Feb_24_am1a@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, I told you:
I'm God's prisoner, and God to my prisoners.
All meaning is local, here and now, the rest is inane.
Have you never heard of Nietzsche's failed attempt
to find God and meaning in life ? Well... I found it.
And you again replied: Whatever. Still pseudo-metaphysical nonsense.
You, more than most, need to understand my truisms.
Actually, I dont. Also they arent true.
They might help you shed your many delusions of grandeur.
What delusions of grandeur do I have?
In this sad game of life we're playing, everyone loses in the end.
No they don't, prove otherwise.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "platopes" |
|
| Title: And Then If I Have Some Beans, I Post That To Sci.Physics, Too |
24 Feb 2006 01:49:24 AM |
|
|
Jeff_=D0=AFelf wrote:
Hi T_Wake, I told you: I'm God's prisoner, and God to my prisoners.
and, at other times: All meaning is local, here and now, the rest is ina=
ne.
and you replied: Pseudo-metaphysical nonsense.
Really ? Haven't you never heard of
Nietzsche's failed attempt to find God and meaning in life ?
=20
Well... I found it.
And then what did you have for dinner?
p
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: I'm God's prisoner, and God to my prisoners. |
22 Feb 2006 11:44:36 AM |
|
|
Jeff_=E2=84=9Eelf wrote:
Hi T_Wake, You asked:
How do you define the difference between use and abuse
when it comes to a substance ?
Is she taking drugs to treat a condition and under medical supervision ?
Controlling one's appetites is a stuggle, of course.
What do your adventures in substance abuse have to do with sci.physics?
But she's been doing real well... so long as she hangs mostly with me.
She neither needs nor takes dotor-prescribed medications... thank God.
***** leave her alone. You are making things worse.
Speaking of God... I'm God's prisoner, and God to my prisoners.
You are crazy. Seek help.
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: True altruism expects nothing in return. |
17 Feb 2006 02:11:38 AM |
|
|
Jeff_=E2=84=9Eelf wrote:
Hi T_Wake, Re: Patinha's minor relapse with meth, You told me:
Report her to the police. Be selfless and suffer her hatred for you to =
do
something better in the long run.
She'd get much, much worse if I did that,
and you, the tax payer, would pay endlessly for that.
Since when are you concerned about taxpayer burden?
Every dime I spend on her is many dollars you won't be paying.
You concluded:
People who are selfless do not suffer in their actions,
they are doing it because they feel it is right
and in turn are made joyful by their ability to serve.
True altruism expects nothing in return, that is my firm belief.
Then quit imposing yourself on others, and write a blog instead of
pointless crap to sci.physics and comp.os.linux.advocacy.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Hexenmeister" |
|
| Title: Re: True altruism expects nothing in return. |
18 Feb 2006 12:52:18 PM |
|
|
"Eric Gisse" <jowr.pi@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1140163897.984555.163300@g47g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
[snip]
Androcles
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Ya gotta pay the price if ya wanna be nice. |
15 Feb 2006 06:01:16 PM |
|
|
Jeff_=E2=84=9Eelf wrote:
Hi T_Wake, You imagined:
...as far as your landlord -- and, I suspect, the legal system --
is concerned your employment is a totally unrelated issue.
I don't know what your world is like... but I doubt that lawmakers,
judges and enforcers are all that hell bent on putting people like me,
-- who work so hard for so little pay -- out of our homes and jobs.
No good dead goes unpunished, as they say.
Ya gotta pay the price if ya wanna be nice.
What does this have to do with either sci.physics or
comp.os.linux.advocacy?
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "tj Frazir" |
|
| Title: Re: It's tit for tat... |
15 Feb 2006 02:04:34 PM |
|
|
tick tick tick.
Doing 1 fucking trade ,,,,
rather then do 1 fucking trade and busting your brain for a month you
waisted another 3 years.
You know what to do if you ever get a grip on your retarted priorities.
I dont allow crack heads on my ship.
And your aparently too stupid or stoned to buy one.
Grow a backboan and buy the 23000 acres for 10 mil dumbass .
use earthview and zoom in and count the trees then post 40,000 tons of
pulp a year on conract via trade leads.
Only a dumbfuck can hear what I said and stay broke and stupid.
The only reason is your fucked up priorities..
its like this ,,,,you cant buy a tropical island with your looks =A1=A1
Its my way or no way because thats the way its been for 500 years.
Get a contract for 1 million cans of paint and you can rebiuld dupont.
You cant buy the factory unless you find trade lead contracts ..
You cant buy a store if you must barrow 80 % but you can if you only
nnead 10 % so you open a mexican store in seattle dumbass !
barrow 10 % of 1 million worth of inventory .
pay 5 % for th inventory in mexico .
You can stay stupid ,,but there is no good reason to stay poor .
You were a few days from makng 20 million and you quit.
restart moron
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: It's tit for tat... |
15 Feb 2006 02:26:16 PM |
|
|
"tj Frazir" <GravityPhysics@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:25239-43F38952-212@storefull-3218.bay.webtv.net...
tick tick tick.
This is the noise you hear in your head as you try to do basic mathematics.
Have you worked out how to multiply yet?
Doing 1 fucking trade ,,,,
Is your life's ambition.
At the moment you are locked too deeply into your fantasy world though.
Do your mother and father know the language you use on the family TV?
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: It's tit for tat... |
15 Feb 2006 12:38:13 PM |
|
|
"Jeff_?elf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Feb_15_8L5C@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake,
Re: My formal _Answer_ to the eviction summons I was served yesterday.
You told me:
Yet another segment in the saga that is your "life"
played out over usenet as if anyone cared.
You cared enough to reply... not that I cared if you cared.
Interesting and possibly the case. I suppose it depends on how you define
"cared."
I dont particularly care if you are living on the streets or in a mansion.
My life is not more fulfiled since you posted your self obsessed diatribe so
I suspect that in a normal definition I dont care what happens to you.
I replied to your post because this is USENET and I had time on my hands. If
that means I care about you, great.
You added:
While you are in an unfortunate situation I dont hold much hope for you.
It may have been better to write your letter in a less "whining" tone.
Never mind. You were telling us how easy it would be for you to move.
It's tit for tat... I wouldn't give a rat's ***** about Lina, my landlord,
if she wasn't dragging me into court.
After over 5 years of on time payments to Lina,
I believe she can't just arbitrarily evict me
just because she doesn't like my homegirl.
It depends a lot on what your tenancy agreement is, what the laws in your
area are and the relationship between you and your landlord.
At the end of the day, who owns the house? What you believe and what is the
case may not be the same thing (and based on your other posts are actually
often not the same things).
You have to ask yourself why you have the right to stay in your landlord's
house if they don't want you to live there. Complaining about the apparently
unfair treatment of your neighbours is not going to get you anywhere.
Surely your landlord can simply refuse to allow you to continue to live
there. Don't they have that right based on the fact they own the house?
As an alternative, you could get a real job, pay into society and buy your
own house.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=5F=E2=84=9Eelf?=" |
|
| Title: I've got everything but money. |
15 Feb 2006 02:14:03 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, Re: My recent eviction summons, You asked:
At the end of the day, who owns the house ?
That's really good question, and not as easy to answer as you might think.
My brother-in-law is a long-time building inspector,
I could, and might, put her out of business.
You added:
What you believe and what is the case may not be the same thing,
and, based on your other posts, are actually often not the same things.
I never said I _Knew_ what the judge will do.
I said I'm going there with my lawyers and making a go at it.
I have options to explore.
You told me:
You have to ask yourself why you have the right to stay in your landlord's
house if they don't want you to live there. Complaining about the apparently
unfair treatment of your neighbours is not going to get you anywhere.
Landlords have to follow the local laws... or they lose it all.
If all she's doing is trying to evict her most tenured tenants
to avoid having to pay Seattle's relocation fees... I'll sniff that out.
you told me:
Surely your landlord can simply refuse to allow you to continue to live
there. Don't they have that right based on the fact they own the house ?
Now naive of you to think that... are you 10 ?
It's up to the judge and the local laws
and how I people might enforce them.
You concluded:
As an alternative, you could get a real job,
pay into society and buy your own house.
I've been working very long hours for very little pay,
but I'm quite happy... I've got everything but money.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: I've got everything but money. |
15 Feb 2006 02:33:02 PM |
|
|
"Jeff_?elf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Feb_15_RNhB@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, Re: My recent eviction summons, You asked:
At the end of the day, who owns the house ?
That's really good question, and not as easy to answer as you might think.
My brother-in-law is a long-time building inspector,
I could, and might, put her out of business.
Do it then.
If the house is unsafe or unsuitable to be rented out she should be
punished.
You added:
What you believe and what is the case may not be the same thing,
and, based on your other posts, are actually often not the same things.
I never said I _Knew_ what the judge will do.
I said I'm going there with my lawyers and making a go at it.
I have options to explore.
I_never_said_you_knew_what_the_judge_would_do. I said your beliefs are often
erroneous.
You told me:
You have to ask yourself why you have the right to stay in your
landlord's
house if they don't want you to live there. Complaining about the
apparently
unfair treatment of your neighbours is not going to get you anywhere.
Landlords have to follow the local laws... or they lose it all.
Yes, I never disagreed with this.
I was talking about "rights" though - often these are not enshrined in law.
I an unsuitable tenant (one who regulary used my property as a doss house
for drug users, prostitutes et al.) tried to rent my property they would be
refused point blank.
If I was ever informed a tenant was behaving in the manner you allude to
here, they would be evicted.
If all she's doing is trying to evict her most tenured tenants
to avoid having to pay Seattle's relocation fees... I'll sniff that out.
Good for you. However if she just no longer wants you as a tenant in her
house, why is that a problem for you?
you told me:
Surely your landlord can simply refuse to allow you to continue to live
there. Don't they have that right based on the fact they own the house ?
Now naive of you to think that... are you 10 ?
Interesing retort. Do you think the owner of the house should have no say in
if you can live there and what you can do to their house?
I know, in the past, I refused to allow tenants in my house to renew. How do
you feel it should be any different?
Do you think that people should buy a house just so you can have somewhere
to live? If you are so up to date with the rent why dont you buy your own
place?
It's up to the judge and the local laws
and how I people might enforce them.
The laws are there to protect as many people as possible. You are abusing a
system you fail to support.
You concluded:
As an alternative, you could get a real job,
pay into society and buy your own house.
I've been working very long hours for very little pay,
but I'm quite happy... I've got everything but money.
What a shame that very soon that could be the one thing you need.
That said, you don't have your own home so its more than just money you are
lacking.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=5F=E2=84=9Eelf?=" |
|
| Title: Money doesn't interest me... live with it. |
15 Feb 2006 04:09:25 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, You told me:
If I had an unsuitable tenant
-- one who regulary used my property as a doss house for drug users,
prostitutes et al. -- who tried to rent my property
they would be refused point blank.
It's not like that, T_Wake.
As I've told you several times... it's _Only_ Patinha who's ever here.
She's only 18 and, basically, a spoiled brat.
She needs sleep, showers, laundry, and advice from time to time.
I can help, I do help, she does have issues... but nothing unresolvable.
I'm also helping her get ID, a job and a place of her own.
I told you that ownerships is not as cut and dried as you make it out to be,
and you replied:
Interesing retort. Do you think the owner of the house should have
no say in if you can live there and what you can do to their house ?
Why ask _Me_ this question ? !
Do you think I have any control over such a vast domain ?
I worry about the local laws, judges and enforcers... that's all.
You essentially ended your retort by telling me to
get a real job and buy a house.
Not everyone has to be a So_Called owner.
I program for a living, I like being near campus.
Even if I owned several houses in Seattle, I might rent the cheapest place.
Money doesn't interest me... live with it.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Money doesn't interest me... live with it. |
15 Feb 2006 04:38:29 PM |
|
|
"Jeff_?elf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Feb_15_Gziu@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, You told me:
If I had an unsuitable tenant
-- one who regulary used my property as a doss house for drug users,
prostitutes et al. -- who tried to rent my property
they would be refused point blank.
It's not like that, T_Wake.
As I've told you several times... it's _Only_ Patinha who's ever here.
She's only 18 and, basically, a spoiled brat.
She is a drug user. From your previous missives on this group I suspect that
she is not the only person who has "stayed over." You have repeated talked
about people having sex on your floor, rooms full of people etc.
If you feel this is no longer true then fine. Tell your landlord not me.
She needs sleep, showers, laundry, and advice from time to time.
Why does this mean your landlord has to tolerate her living in your
landlord's property?
If she is a spoiled brat let her parents bail her out.
I can help, I do help, she does have issues... but nothing unresolvable.
I'm also helping her get ID, a job and a place of her own.
Well, now you can help your self as well. Or get her a place and you doss
with her until she is kicked out. Seems fair to me.
I told you that ownerships is not as cut and dried as you make it out to
be,
and you replied:
Interesing retort. Do you think the owner of the house should have
no say in if you can live there and what you can do to their house ?
Well, Jeff. You have (once more) distorted my comments by your unusual
quoting method.
However, I am used to it now.
Why ask _Me_ this question ? !
Because you posted.
Your post implied that the owner of the house was wrong for wanting control
over who lives there. So I asked why you thought that. You never answered,
just accused me of being 10 years old.
Do you think I have any control over such a vast domain ?
No, and probably never will. Owning a house is a very grown up thing.
I worry about the local laws, judges and enforcers... that's all.
Do the local laws mean the landlord has any rights over who stays and who
doesnt?
You essentially ended your retort by telling me to
get a real job and buy a house.
Did the thought scare you?
Not everyone has to be a So_Called owner.
What does "So_Called" mean?
I agree, not everyone has to own property but if you want to avoid the
vagiaries of the landlords decisions over who can and cant stay then get
your own place.
When I lived in my parents house they had say over who could stay and who
couldnt. As I grew up I realised if I wanted to have say I had to get my own
place.
This is a lesson you could do with learning.
The person who owns the place you are renting has worked to achieve that.
You may like to leech of society but (fortunately) not every one else does.
I program for a living, I like being near campus.
Even if I owned several houses in Seattle, I might rent the cheapest
place.
That is your choice. Either way I wouldnt care. If you rented my house and
violated the agreement you would be out on the street. If I rented a house I
would assume the same.
Money doesn't interest me... live with it.
What? Is this a playground challenge? What do you mean live with it? Why on
Earth would I care what you say one way or another.
Anyway, if money doesn't interest you why are you trying to get the judge to
award you $2000?
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=5F=E2=84=9Eelf?=" |
|
| Title: I'm pushing Lina's buttons, that's all. |
16 Feb 2006 07:10:43 AM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, You asked me:
if money doesn't interest you
why are you trying to get the judge to award you $2000 ?
I don't care about the two thouand, per se,
but Lina, my landlard, is unjustly harassing me and taking me to court,
and she _Really_ cares about money... so I'm pushing her buttons, that's all.
You told me: If she is a spoiled brat let her parents bail her out.
Having no ID, she can't fly on a plane to her mom in Tampa Florida,
it's over three thousand miles from here, Seattle.
Her mom is getting very old and isn't that helpful, in my opinion.
You told me:
Your post implied that the owner of the house was wrong for wanting control
over who lives there. So I asked why you thought that. You never answered,
just accused me of being 10 years old.
No... I most certainly Did answer that.
I said that my opion was _Totally_ irrelavant.
I'm not half as deluded as you, T_Wake, I know I have no say in such things.
You told me:
I agree, not everyone has to own property
but -- if you want to avoid the vagiaries of the landlords decisions
over who can and cant stay -- then get your own place.
When I lived in my parents house they had say over
who could stay and who couldnt. As I grew up
I realised if I wanted to have say I had to get my own place.
This is a lesson you could do with learning.
The person who owns the place you are renting has worked to achieve that.
You may like to leech off society but (fortunately) not every one else does.
How is my working long hours for very little pay _Leeching_ off society ?
Homeowners have the equivalent of intrusive landlords as well,
....neighbors won't let you entertain just anyone you want, however you want.
But you do have a point, my landlord has a lot of say about my residency.
But, for the price, I'll live with that.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: I'm pushing Lina's buttons, that's all. |
16 Feb 2006 01:07:04 PM |
|
|
"Jeff_?elf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Feb_16_HuJF@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, You asked me:
if money doesn't interest you
why are you trying to get the judge to award you $2000 ?
I don't care about the two thouand, per se,
but Lina, my landlard, is unjustly harassing me and taking me to court,
and she _Really_ cares about money... so I'm pushing her buttons, that's
all.
Ok, I hope her lawyers use this post in her defence.
You told me: If she is a spoiled brat let her parents bail her out.
Having no ID, she can't fly on a plane to her mom in Tampa Florida,
it's over three thousand miles from here, Seattle.
Her mom is getting very old and isn't that helpful, in my opinion.
Tell her to hitch a lift. She obviously managed to get to Seattle in the
first place.
You told me:
Your post implied that the owner of the house was wrong for wanting
control
over who lives there. So I asked why you thought that. You never
answered,
just accused me of being 10 years old.
No... I most certainly Did answer that.
You most certainly Did Not answer that.
I said that my opion was _Totally_ irrelavant.
Did I ask if your opinion was relevant?
I'm not half as deluded as you, T_Wake, I know I have no say in such
things.
Well, one of us is certainly more deluded than the other one. It is amusing
to see which way you attribute the delusion.
I never asked if you had any say in the matter. I never asked if your
opinion was important.
Try to read what I post and not what the voices in your head tell you
otherwise you will head down the same road as tj Frazir.
The person who owns the place you are renting has worked to achieve that.
You may like to leech off society but (fortunately) not every one else
does.
How is my working long hours for very little pay _Leeching_ off society ?
You use the services of society and pay little or nothing back. You "choose"
to earn very little pay (based on your previous posts) and I remember a post
last year where you were boasting about how few hours you worked. If you
worked harder and contributed more to society the world would be a better
place.
Do you remember telling tj Frazir how you were "time rich" because you
worked so few hours and had so much free time to yourself?
Homeowners have the equivalent of intrusive landlords as well,
...neighbors won't let you entertain just anyone you want, however you
want.
But they have no say in the matter. I would like to see my neighbours take
me to court over who I have staying in my house.
If illegal activities are taking place (corruption of a minor for example)
then its a different matter.
But you do have a point, my landlord has a lot of say about my residency.
But, for the price, I'll live with that.
Then stop complaining when your landlord asserts their say.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=5F=E2=84=9Eelf?=" |
|
| Title: I'm strategizing, not complaining. |
16 Feb 2006 01:44:40 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, You asked about my free time.
I've had a lot of free time in the past... but not currently, as it turns out.
I should be working right now, I'm way behind schedule
and the Beijing conference isn't going to wait for me.
So why am I not working right now ? !
I don't know, honestly. Maybe it's boring me or something.
At any rate... money is not the measure of what one contributes to society.
I write games that bankers play... all over the world.
Money is what others think of you, not what you're actually worth.
Re: Patinha moving in with her rich parents, You told me:
Tell her to hitch a lift.
She obviously managed to get to Seattle in the first place.
You think adult kids should mooch off their parents like that ? !
She's the youngest of 12 kids, her parents are very, very old.
Speaking of how even home owners have the analogue of a landlord,
you told me:
I would like to see my neighbours take
me to court over who I have staying in my house.
If illegal activities are taking place
-- corruption of a minor for example -- then its a different matter.
Homeowners lack control, just like everyone else.
Truth be known, none has control over his life,
all are the product of physical processes. None wins in the end.
It's only unknowns -- a.k.a. randomness -- that make
life, gravity and photons seem like they're in a casino,
i.e. only winning in the short term -- consuming, glomming on --.
I wrote:
But you do have a point, my landlord has a lot of say about my residency.
But, for the price, I'll live with that.
And you replied: Then stop complaining when your landlord asserts their say.
I'm strategizing, not complaining.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: I'm strategizing, not complaining. |
16 Feb 2006 03:02:23 PM |
|
|
"Jeff_?elf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Feb_16_6lAW@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, You asked about my free time.
I've had a lot of free time in the past... but not currently, as it turns
out.
Say sorry to the mad Frazir then.
Ask for more money. Earn enough to pay a decent amount back to the state and
own your own property.
I should be working right now, I'm way behind schedule
and the Beijing conference isn't going to wait for me.
Something else we agree on. Two things in one day. Scary.
So why am I not working right now ? !
Because you are addicted to USENET.
I don't know, honestly. Maybe it's boring me or something.
Well.......
At any rate... money is not the measure of what one contributes to
society.
Nope. What do you contribute to society? How many roads have you resurfaced?
How many bridges have you built? How many nurses do you support or train?
How many policemen do you clothe? etc.
I write games that bankers play... all over the world.
Great. You are my new hero.
Bankers all over the world are not society.
Money is what others think of you, not what you're actually worth.
No. Money is money. It is what you uise to get food, shelter etc. It has no
worth or meaning no matter how you try to demonize it. You are no different
from people who worship money. (Only in reverse)
Re: Patinha moving in with her rich parents, You told me:
Tell her to hitch a lift.
She obviously managed to get to Seattle in the first place.
You think adult kids should mooch off their parents like that ? !
No. But then you seem to think "adult kids" (Oxymoron?) should mooch off
you. I think she should get lost and get her life together.
Speaking of how even home owners have the analogue of a landlord,
you told me:
I would like to see my neighbours take
me to court over who I have staying in my house.
If illegal activities are taking place
-- corruption of a minor for example -- then its a different matter.
Homeowners lack control, just like everyone else.
You are obsessed with control. There are things we can control and things we
cant. Either learn to live with it or find some way of making the sun rise
at 12pm on the equator.
Truth be known, none has control over his life,
Nonsense.
all are the product of physical processes. None wins in the end.
Nonsense.
It's only unknowns -- a.k.a. randomness -- that make
life, gravity and photons seem like they're in a casino,
i.e. only winning in the short term -- consuming, glomming on --.
Yeah, I have read you saying that three times tonight. It is still crap.
What does "glomming" mean?
I wrote:
But you do have a point, my landlord has a lot of say about my residency.
But, for the price, I'll live with that.
And you replied: Then stop complaining when your landlord asserts their
say.
I'm strategizing, not complaining.
Well, I don't think you will ever produce a book to rival Sun Tzu anytime
soon.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=5F=E2=84=9Eelf?=" |
|
| Title: Propping up rich people's loathsome addictions to crude oil. |
16 Feb 2006 06:32:29 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, You asked me: What does the word Glomming mean ?
Dictionary.COM/search?q=Glomming
v. intr.
To seize upon or latch onto something:
“ The country has glommed onto the spectacle of
a wizard showman turning the tables on his inquisitors ” -- Mary McGrory.
You asked me:
What do you contribute to society ? How many roads have you resurfaced ?
How many bridges have you built ? How many nurses do you support or train ?
How many policemen do you clothe ? etc.
I haven't done any of that... neither have you, I bet.
And, no, your taxes are _Not_ your proxy.
If they were, then you'd have to take responsibility for the bad stuff too,
like killing starving Iraqis while pandering to obese Saudis,
in order to prop up rich people's loathsome addictions to crude oil.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Propping up rich people's loathsome addictions to crude oil. |
16 Feb 2006 07:10:00 PM |
|
|
"Jeff_?elf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Feb_16_Hkqt@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, You asked me: What does the word Glomming mean ?
Dictionary.COM/search?q=Glomming
v. intr.
To seize upon or latch onto something:
" The country has glommed onto the spectacle of
a wizard showman turning the tables on his inquisitors " -- Mary
McGrory.
Thanks.
You asked me:
What do you contribute to society ? How many roads have you resurfaced ?
How many bridges have you built ? How many nurses do you support or
train ?
How many policemen do you clothe ? etc.
I haven't done any of that... neither have you, I bet.
Well, actually I have. I spent 12 years in the Army as a Royal Engineer. I
have built roads, briges and damns for various societies over the globe.
And, no, your taxes are _Not_ your proxy.
Yes they are. That is why you pay them.
If they were, then you'd have to take responsibility for the bad stuff
too,
In a democracy the people do have to take responsibility for the actions of
their governments.
like killing starving Iraqis while pandering to obese Saudis,
As part of my reserve commitment I have served in Iraq.
in order to prop up rich people's loathsome addictions to crude oil.
Without it you wouldn't be in a job or a house. I "posit" your ability to
survive without life's comforts (house, shop bought food, electricity) is
somewhat limited.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=5F=E2=84=9Eelf?=" |
|
| Title: Homeless drug addicts are better than petroleum addicts. |
16 Feb 2006 07:51:42 PM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, You imagined:
In a democracy the people do have to
take responsibility for the actions of their governments.
Yeah, if you're really deluded, that is.
Bill Gates might be able to influence society bit, but not me.
Ballots are placebos for the deluded masses.
I wrote:
If they were, then you'd have to take responsibility for the bad stuff too,
like killing starving Iraqis while pandering to obese Saudis,
in order to prop up rich people's loathsome addictions to crude oil.
And you replied:
Without it you wouldn't be in a job or a house.
I "posit" your ability to survive without life's comforts,
-- house, shop bought food, electricity -- is somewhat limited.
I don't even commute, I can go years without riding in a vehicle of any kind.
I never heat or cool my room and I rarely take showers.
The amount of energy I do Not consume would astound you.
Homeless drug addicts are better than petroleum addicts,
witness how much fewer people they kill on the highways and in Iraq.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Homeless drug addicts are better than petroleum addicts. |
17 Feb 2006 08:30:12 AM |
|
|
"Jeff_?elf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Feb_16_aMhT@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, You imagined:
In a democracy the people do have to
take responsibility for the actions of their governments.
Yeah, if you're really deluded, that is.
As I said, one of us is deluded.
Bill Gates might be able to influence society bit, but not me.
Well, only because you dont feel the need to be an active member of your
society.
Ballots are placebos for the deluded masses.
Fortunately, people who didnt think that suffered to create a place where
you can hold that opinion.
You live in a rich country and work in a high tech industry. Your views are
based on a priveledged life.
I wrote:
If they were, then you'd have to take responsibility for the bad stuff
too,
like killing starving Iraqis while pandering to obese Saudis,
in order to prop up rich people's loathsome addictions to crude oil.
And you replied:
Without it you wouldn't be in a job or a house.
I "posit" your ability to survive without life's comforts,
-- house, shop bought food, electricity -- is somewhat limited.
I don't even commute, I can go years without riding in a vehicle of any
kind.
Did I say anything about a car?
I never heat or cool my room and I rarely take showers.
Now that doesnt surprise me.
The amount of energy I do Not consume would astound you.
Do you have a special computer that uses no electricity? Do you grow your
own food? Where do you think the tobacco for your cigarettes comes from? Or
the paper?
The consummation you are part of would probably astound you.
Homeless drug addicts are better than petroleum addicts,
Again, you assume you must be one or the other. This is not so.
witness how much fewer people they kill on the highways and in Iraq.
Actually, you would be shocked at how many people drug addicts kill on the
highway.
In Afghanistan hundreds are killed or spend their lives suffering to pander
to the needs of rich western drug addicts.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=5F=E2=84=9Eelf?=" |
|
| Title: Re: Homeless drug addicts are better than petroleum addicts. |
17 Feb 2006 11:32:27 AM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, I wrote:
Bill Gates might be able to influence society bit, but not me.
And you replied:
Well, only because you dont feel the need to be
an active member of your society.
I try to help Patinha and not mess-over my housmates or clients,
Isn't that enough ? I obviously have no say in anything bigger than that.
I wrote:
Homeless drug addicts are better than petroleum addicts,
witness how much fewer people they kill on the highways and in Iraq.
You replied:
Actually, you would be shocked at
how many people drug addicts kill on the highway.
The homeless people I know don't own cars... unless they live in them.
I'm making a comparison here... who's doing the most damage.
You concluded:
In Afghanistan hundreds are killed or spend their lives suffering
to pander to the needs of rich western drug addicts.
Afghanis mostly die at the hands of Saudis or other oil addicts,
I've never met a rich drug addict... unless you count the president.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: Homeless drug addicts are better than petroleum addicts. |
17 Feb 2006 01:03:27 PM |
|
|
"Jeff_?elf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Feb_17_7hD8@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, I wrote:
Bill Gates might be able to influence society bit, but not me.
And you replied:
Well, only because you dont feel the need to be
an active member of your society.
I try to help Patinha and not mess-over my housmates or clients,
Isn't that enough ? I obviously have no say in anything bigger than that.
You have a very limited world view. You have say in things much bigger. Get
on a plane to a country in the developing world and really make some
sacrifices.
I wrote:
Homeless drug addicts are better than petroleum addicts,
witness how much fewer people they kill on the highways and in Iraq.
You replied:
Actually, you would be shocked at
how many people drug addicts kill on the highway.
The homeless people I know don't own cars... unless they live in them.
I'm making a comparison here... who's doing the most damage.
Your comparison is based on insane data. You compare the homless people you
know with all the drivers in the world? What percentage of accidents are
caused by people under the influence of drugs or alcohol?
You may also be surprised how many people cause accidents in cars they dont
own.
You may also be surprised how many homeless people commit vehicle theft.
You think if there were more drug addicts there would be less accidents on
the highway? (Thats the only way to take what you said as a comparison) If
you want me to not think you are even more deluded than I previously thought
you will have to give me some data to back this up.
You concluded:
In Afghanistan hundreds are killed or spend their lives suffering
to pander to the needs of rich western drug addicts.
Afghanis mostly die at the hands of Saudis or other oil addicts,
No, they are dying at the hands of other Afghans. Some are being worked in
almost slave labour camps to produce opium, other are killed in "turf wars."
The ones that survive live on a poverty level income so that "right
thinking" westerners can pander to their desire for pot (etc.) There is a
similar situation in other countries where narcotic production has
supplanted "normal" farming.
I've never met a rich drug addict... unless you count the president.
You obviously haven't met many rich people then. The price of your
cigarettes is astronomical compared to the standard of living in (for
example) Afghanistan. Because you smoke, people are using their land to
produce tobacco instead of food crops. The net effect of that becomes people
starving because the countries that are large enough to also produce food
(USA for example) can dominate the market and sell wheat back to the country
at over inflated prices.
I am fully aware that this is simplistic. However it does undermine your
argument that drug addicts are less of a problem than people you call
petroleum addicts.
Also you haven't addressed the issue about there being nothing to compel
people into an either/or choice here....
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Eric Gisse" |
|
| Title: Re: Homeless drug addicts are better than petroleum addicts. |
16 Feb 2006 08:50:33 PM |
|
|
Jeff_=E2=84=9Eelf wrote:
Hi T_Wake, You imagined:
In a democracy the people do have to
take responsibility for the actions of their governments.
Yeah, if you're really deluded, that is.
Bill Gates might be able to influence society bit, but not me.
Yet you use his products. Are you hypocritical or just stupid?
[snip]
I don't even commute, I can go years without riding in a vehicle of any k=
ind.
So you don't work, and contribute nothing to society other than being a
magnet for drug addicts and the mentally troubled.
I never heat or cool my room and I rarely take showers.
What you say just confirms my mental image of you. Do you have a thin
moustache too?
[snip]
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=5F=E2=84=9Eelf?=" |
|
| Title: I work at home and on campus. |
16 Feb 2006 09:28:26 PM |
|
|
Hi Eric_Gisse, You imagined that all workers must commute by vehicle.
I work at home and on campus, campus is a short stroll from where I live.
I also commute by email, so to speak.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: I work at home and on campus. |
17 Feb 2006 08:31:29 AM |
|
|
"Jeff_?elf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Feb_16_c7P8@Cotse.NET...
Hi Eric_Gisse, You imagined that all workers must commute by vehicle.
I work at home and on campus, campus is a short stroll from where I live.
Do you wear shoes or clothes?
I also commute by email, so to speak.
You have a special form of email which uses no electricity and passed
through routers which, in turn, use no electricity and are housed in
buildings which use no electricity.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=5F=E2=84=9Eelf?=" |
|
| Title: The hordes of people who kill and die on highways and in Iraq. |
17 Feb 2006 09:36:06 AM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake,
Can you make the distinction between healthy eating and porking out ?
Even drugs, taken in moderation, can be beneficial.
I consume fuel, yes, but I don't abuse it... I'm not addicted to it.
I'm not part of the hordes of people who kill and die on highways and in Iraq.
P.S. I _Must_ get a lot of work done today, I can't argue a lot.
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The hordes of people who kill and die on highways and in Iraq. |
17 Feb 2006 09:58:46 AM |
|
|
"Jeff_?elf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Feb_17_saNm@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake,
Can you make the distinction between healthy eating and porking out ?
Yes.
Even drugs, taken in moderation, can be beneficial.
Most drugs can be beneficial. Very few on the "market" were designed soley
to be harmful.
I consume fuel, yes, but I don't abuse it... I'm not addicted to it.
You are the only person making a big deal with "addiction to fuel."
I'm not part of the hordes of people who kill and die on highways and in
Iraq.
Well, I am somewhat lost about the similarity between the two however I am
sure you have your own line of tortured reasoning to link them.
You are a person in a democracy and you are able to cast your vote in
elections.
You are part of the "hordes" of humanity, and we all kill in one way or
another.
P.S. I _Must_ get a lot of work done today, I can't argue a lot.
Ok. I can live with that. This is totally off topic for sci.physics anyway
and should be allowed to die.
.
|
|
|
| User: "=?UTF-8?Q?Jeff=5F=E2=84=9Eelf?=" |
|
| Title: Re: The hordes of people who kill and die on highways and in Iraq. |
17 Feb 2006 11:21:37 AM |
|
|
Hi T_Wake, You said I was:
...the only person making a big deal about " addiction to fuel. "
Hardly, see: WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Category:Treaties_on_the_environment
.
|
|
|
| User: "T Wake" |
|
| Title: Re: The hordes of people who kill and die on highways and in Iraq. |
17 Feb 2006 12:54:41 PM |
|
|
"Jeff_?elf" <Me@Privacy.NET> wrote in message
news:Jeff_Relf_2006_Feb_17_dB7j@Cotse.NET...
Hi T_Wake, You said I was:
...the only person making a big deal about " addiction to fuel. "
Hardly, see: WikiPedia.ORG/wiki/Category:Treaties_on_the_environment
Sorry, I never realised WikiPedia had been posting in this thread. I will
have to check my filters.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
Re: Global Warming is So Yesterday
Sucking Black ***** is a Sport for Wiggers, yesterday, it wastes a yogi too heavy in back of her stale hall, Gay Firefighter.
BBC Horizon yesterday
Re: Marxist Yesterday - "Environmentalist" Today!
Re: Pentagon 9/11 Fraud was Re: No Second Engine at the Pentagon was Re: The Ultimate Pentagon 9/11 Question Andy Carol couldn't answer. was Re: Flight 175 WAS a FUEL TANKER, for REAL. This is not a "theory".
Re: Fantastic Flying 757 Engine was Re: The Ultimate Pentagon 9/11 Question Andy Carol couldn't answer. was Re: Flight 175 WAS a FUEL TANKER, for REAL. This is not a "theory".
Please answer my rational question [was Re: AM radio: astronomically-high frequency modulator signal present on an astronomically-low frequency carrier signal]
Re: Pentagon 9/11 Fraud was Re: No Second Engine at the Pentagon was Re: The Ultimate Pentagon 9/11 Question Andy Carol couldn't answer. was Re: Flight 175 WAS a FUEL TANKER, for REAL. This is not a "theory".
| Re: Pentagon 9/11 Fraud was Re: No Second Engine at the Pentagon was Re: The Ultimate Pentagon 9/11 Question Andy Carol couldn't answer. was Re: Flight 175 WAS a FUEL TANKER, for REAL. This is not a "theory".
Re: The Ultimate Pentagon 9/11 Question Andy Carol couldn't answer. was Re: Flight 175 WAS a FUEL TANKER, for REAL. This is not a "theory".
Re: Pentagon 9/11 Fraud was Re: No Second Engine at the Pentagon was Re: The Ultimate Pentagon 9/11 Question Andy Carol couldn't answer. was Re: Flight 175 WAS a FUEL TANKER, for REAL. This is not a "theory".
Please answer my question [was Re: AM radio: astronomically-high frequency modulator signal present on an astronomically-low frequency carrier signal]
The answer is none, and 100 years later there is still "none", in fact it was, and is, a ridiculous idea eh!......................
Re: Here's a 4 part question, but YOU only have to answer 1 part
Why do Relativists suffer from 'Answer-phobia'?
|
|
|
