On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 19:52:06 -0500, jmcquown >
wrote:

> A "verandah" (a rather archaeic spelling) is a covered porch or patio.

I thought it wrapped around at least two sides... my original
understanding of "veranda" was that it wrapped around all four sides
of the house, but I've learned otherwise since then.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 15:27:56 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 09:10:10 -0500, Gary > wrote:
>> >
>> >> sf wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 06:40:06 -0500, Gary > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > You live on a farm. I would be surprised if you and your husband
>> >> > > don't own
>> >> > > at least one firearm. Would you like your government to take that
>> >> > > away from
>> >> > > you? I didn't think so. SF would like to see that happen though.
>> >> >
>> >> > Farm people can have their guns so they can shoot at snakes and if
>> >> > they can't hit the broad side of a barn, at least they won't be
>> >> > shooting anyone just because they're a bad shot.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Nope... don't back off on what you said, Barbara. Once you said that
>> >> your
>> >> ultimate goal was to eliminate ALL guns.
>> >
>> > Personally, I would love to... but that ain't gonna happen.
>> >>
>> >> That said, farm people with guns can also go insane and drive to a
>> >> school
>> >> and shoot little kiddies. Firearms are EVIL, right?
>> >>
>> > Yes.
>>
>> Agreed. Fine for police and military. Not regular folks.
>>
> Thank you. That stupid "defense" of self, family and property excuse
> is pure BS and based on fiction too. It it's true, then was that army
> sniper (160 claimed kills) killed at a gun range surrounded by other
> people with guns?

Using the NRA's logic. there should have been armed guards at the entrance
to the range!!

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 15:27:56 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "sf" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 09:10:10 -0500, Gary > wrote:
>> >
>> >> sf wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 06:40:06 -0500, Gary > wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> > > You live on a farm. I would be surprised if you and your husband
>> >> > > don't own
>> >> > > at least one firearm. Would you like your government to take that
>> >> > > away from
>> >> > > you? I didn't think so. SF would like to see that happen though.
>> >> >
>> >> > Farm people can have their guns so they can shoot at snakes and if
>> >> > they can't hit the broad side of a barn, at least they won't be
>> >> > shooting anyone just because they're a bad shot.
>> >> >
>> >>
>> >> Nope... don't back off on what you said, Barbara. Once you said that
>> >> your
>> >> ultimate goal was to eliminate ALL guns.
>> >
>> > Personally, I would love to... but that ain't gonna happen.
>> >>
>> >> That said, farm people with guns can also go insane and drive to a
>> >> school
>> >> and shoot little kiddies. Firearms are EVIL, right?
>> >>
>> > Yes.
>>
>> Agreed. Fine for police and military. Not regular folks.
>>
> Thank you. That stupid "defense" of self, family and property excuse
> is pure BS and based on fiction too. It it's true, then was that army
> sniper (160 claimed kills) killed at a gun range surrounded by other
> people with guns?

Agreed. I am a little torn on the hunting issue. I dislike the people who
just do it for sport and sadly I do have some of those in my extended family
as does my husband. I guess I am fine with people who want to do it and eat
the meat and/or use the hide for things. But that in and of itself poses an
problem. Because when I was working at K Mart we had a guy buy a rifle for
hunting and then kill his wife with it. So I don't know that there's any
real answer there.

But those folks who claim they need a gun to protect themselves because they
live in an isolated area? My opinion? You chose to live there. That's
your choice. Deal with it. You do have other choices.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 2/3/2013 6:35 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>> On 2/3/2013 3:22 AM, Farm1 wrote:
>>>> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 2/1/2013 4:34 PM, Julie Bove wrote:
>>>>>> My bedroom is not square. One corner is like...cut off. And there
>>>>>> in
>>>>>> that
>>>>>> space is a glass door leading to the back yard. Who puts an exterior
>>>>>> door
>>>>>> in their bedroom? And especially a glass one?
>>>>>
>>>>> Lots of people. I've lived in a couple of places with sliding glass
>>>>> doors
>>>>> leading from my bedroom to the back yard. They both had a metal pin
>>>>> inserted through the frame of the doors where they over-lapped. If
>>>>> someone wanted to break in that way they'd have had to smash the
>>>>> double-paned glass.
>>>>>
>>>>> My neighbor has a single glass door in her bedroom leading onto a
>>>>> patio.
>>>>> It's not uncommon.
>>>>
>>>> We have French Doors opening onto a verandah from our bedroom.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Obviously glass doors from the bedroom leading outside aren't uncommon
>>>
>>
>> Maybe not. Just not common here. Neither is a verandah, whatever is.
>>
>>
> A "verandah" (a rather archaeic spelling) is a covered porch or patio.

Oh. A lot of places don't even have real porches here. Just some steps
leading into the house with the largest one perhaps being a 3 foot square.
That's about what ours is. We do have a deck that is for the most part not
covered. My parents have a covered patio but that is more typical in the
older homes. Lots of the newer ones don't have a patio much less a yard!

"sf" > wrote in message
news
> On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 15:42:01 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> > wrote:
>
>>
>> "Kalmia" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Saturday, February 2, 2013 2:24:49 AM UTC-5, Julie Bove wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Yes. They don't know what I mean. So I have to remember to dumb it
>> >> down.
>> >
>> > Haw haw - Julie has to dumb it down????? Laugh of the week.
>> >
>> >
>> >> Yes. Exactly. People have told me they can always tell when their
>> >> kids
>> >> are
>> >>
>> >> around me because they come home using big words.
>> >
>> > Who's the gal who said she to run to a dictionary when I challenged her
>> > to
>> > 'refute' something in the 'good china' thread?
>> > Julie, if you'd stop tooting your proverbial, you might be more
>> > likable.
>>
>> That's not a big word. Just one that's not commonly used. Not in this
>> country anyway.
>>
> Refute isn't a commonly understood word, really?

Well, I've only heard it used in political conversations and I try to stay
away from those.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
> On 2/2/2013 11:45 AM, Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Feb 2013 10:22:32 -0500, S Viemeister
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/2/2013 10:02 AM, sf wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 04:12:54 -0800, "Julie Bove"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> That's why
>>>>> if I ever can design my own place, I will get a little soaking tub
>>>>> that is
>>>>> easy to get in and out of. Like those ones for seniors with the door
>>>>> on
>>>>> them. Yeah. In my dreams!
>>>>>
>>>> I don't think those are a good idea. Can you imagine having to wait
>>>> until it drains just to be able to get out?
>>>>
>>> My thoughts exactly. Sitting there shivering.
>>
>> wouldn't you be 'standing there drying off' as the tub empties?
>>
>> No experience-- just wondering.
>>
>> Jim
>> [I would guess you need a 50-75 gallon water heater, though. They
>> hold about 40 gallons- so by the time you dump 30 gallons of water in
>> a 40gallon tank, you're getting cool water.]
>>
> Good point, Jim. As long as it drains fast enough so you can be drying
> off without getting the towel wet. No experience here, either. And given
> the size of the tank and the waste of hot water, I won't be having that
> experience. LOL I'd rather just have a walk-in shower and a shower seat.

I must be a klutz or something. MIL had a built in shower seat but you
could fold it up or down. I found that I would slide off of it into the
shower. I don't know how she managed to sit on it! When we got this house,
I bought a free standing one because our shower would accommodate it. I
don't think I did fall off of it but this was before we got the hand held
shower massage and the wall mounted shower that we had never hit the right
spots when I was seated. We wound up using it to store shampoo and stuff.
Then I eventually chucked it when it developed mold underneath it.

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
...
>>
> Absolutely! I'm all for the walk-in shower with a bench. Preferably a
> seat/bench that folds up in case I feel like standing to take my shower.
> Everything within easy reach, whether standing or sitting is a must.

Although I've never tried it, my dad has this special chair for his shower
that is made of PVC pipe. The seat of it has a hole in it like a toilet
seat. Looks handy.

"Kalmia" > wrote in message
...
> On Saturday, February 2, 2013 2:24:49 AM UTC-5, Julie Bove wrote:
>>
>> Yes. They don't know what I mean. So I have to remember to dumb it
>> down.
>
> Haw haw - Julie has to dumb it down????? Laugh of the week.
>
>
>> Yes. Exactly. People have told me they can always tell when their kids
>> are
>>
>> around me because they come home using big words.
>
> Who's the gal who said she to run to a dictionary when I challenged her to
> 'refute' something in the 'good china' thread?
> Julie, if you'd stop tooting your proverbial, you might be more likable.

.... and if you stopped bullying, you might be more likable too.

--
--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

"Kalmia" > wrote in message
...
> Man, you've got a lame excuse for everything.
>
> What are your parameters for a 'big word'? Don't bother to reply, as I've
> wasted enough time reading your inane partial sentences. I guess that's
> just the way. It is. On Planet Bove.

Well I certainly won't be reading anything else from Planet Kalmia!

--
--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

"graham" > wrote in message
...
>
> "Janet" > wrote in message
> T...
>> In article >, says...
>>>
>>> "Janet Bostwick" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>> > On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 12:28:37 -0000, Janet > wrote:
>>> >
>>> > snip
>>> >>
>>> >> Well, funnily enough I think that feeling is less common in high-
>>> >>tourism cities (easy enough to avoid the jampacked big attractions)
>>> >>and
>>> >>more common for those who live in some rural scenic areas of Britain
>>> >>that are marketed to attract mass tourism (like Cornwall, the Lake
>>> >>District, and Loch Lomond). For rural dwellers there it's much harder
>>> >>to
>>> >>escape or ignore the local impact of heavy tourist traffic, economics
>>> >>and employment.
>>> >>Off the beaten track is far more pleasant both to live in and visit
>>> >>IMO.
>>> >>
>>> >> Janet UK
>>> > I think you are lucky to be living so close all the unearthed sites of
>>> > previous habitants and castles, Roman sites etc. If I lived there,
>>> > every weekend would be an excursion.
>>> > Janet US
>>>
>>> After a while, you'd take it for granted as do the inhabitants.
>>> Graham
>>
>> Some do, but there are plenty who do not, who devote a great amount of
>> time and energy (and financial support) to preserving and studying
>> historic remains and artefacts and using them to teach about the past.
>>
> Funnily enough, in my home village, it's the newcomers who are involved
> with that.

That kind of thing was my working life

--
--
http://www.shop.helpforheroes.org.uk/

On Sun, 3 Feb 2013 22:30:14 -0800, "Julie Bove"
> wrote:

> I guess I am fine with people who want to do it and eat
> the meat and/or use the hide for things. But that in and of itself poses an
> problem. Because when I was working at K Mart we had a guy buy a rifle for
> hunting and then kill his wife with it. So I don't know that there's any
> real answer there.
>
Studies show that regardless of storage practice, type of gun, or
number of firearms in the home, having a gun in the home was
associated with an increased risk of firearm homicide and firearm
suicide (aka: gun death) in the home.

<http://www.news-medical.net/news/20100204/Guns-in-homes-can-increase-risk-of-death-and-firearm-related-violence.aspx>

> But those folks who claim they need a gun to protect themselves because they
> live in an isolated area? My opinion? You chose to live there. That's
> your choice. Deal with it. You do have other choices.

http://www.nydailynews.com/amendment...3900?pmSlide=0



--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Saturday, February 2, 2013 12:09:32 PM UTC-6, graham wrote:
> "sf" > wrote in message
>
> ...
>
> > On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 16:52:57 -0000, Janet > wrote:
>
> >
>
> >> In article >,
>
> >> says...
>
> >> >
>
> >> > >
>
> >> > She was talking about her own situation, not yours.
>
> >>
>
> >> No, she was asking about how I clean mine , when told she replied "you
>
> >> obviously don't have a tub as big as mine"
>
> >>
>
> >> Do read before inserting foot in mouth.
>
> >>
>
> >
>
> > You're a halfwit who can't follow anything written in plain English.
>
> >
>
> Janet may not often show evidence of having "wit" but she is certainly NOT a
>
> half-wit.

I remember this math teacher in 6th or 7th grade who said, "Bryan thinks he's a with, and he's about half right." I replied something like, "Did you think that up yourself? Of course not. That'd take originality (or I might have said creativity)." We really disliked each other. I had her in both 6th and 7th grade. In 7th, we too a test to see what math we'd be taking in 8th, and she announced who was taking algebra, and didn't mention me. At the end of class, she stopped me on the way out and after everyone else had left she said she didn't say my name because there were other kids who worked hard and didn't get in, and I almost never even did my homework--which was bullshit because I got an "A" on every single test. I just didn't do busywork.

--Bryan

On Fri, 1 Feb 2013 12:10:24 +1100, "Farm1" >
wrote:

>"Jeßus" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Thu, 31 Jan 2013 14:15:46 +1100, "Farm1" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>"Jeßus" > wrote in message
>>>> Sounds interesting, 80 y/o is pretty old! What is it?
>>>
>>>she's actually older than that and she looks like this
>>>http://www.flickr.com/photos/rosco500/6258640801/
>>
>> Beautiful, love the bodywork.
>
>LOL. And guess which dutiful bag carrier gets to rub it down all the time?

Aren't you lucky?

>>>Or have the interest and ability to fettle the sods. Himself can fettle
>>>quite well whereas I'm not so sure that a QC would be so interested.
>>
>> Indeed, don't think fettling is his thing.
>> Good choice of word there, 'fettle'. Seems very appropriate when
>> talking about old Pommy cars... you can't ever fix 'em but you sure
>> can fettle 'em
>
>'Fettle' is one of those bog stanadard descriptors used on Rallies. The
>cars arrive at a motel for the night and all the men put the bonnets up, the
>overalls on and then they are all amused for hours lookign, fettling and
>nattering.

Janet Bostwick wrote:
>
> Gary wrote:
> >You live on a farm. I would be surprised if you and your husband don't own
> >at least one firearm. Would you like your government to take that away from
> >you? I didn't think so. SF would like to see that happen though.

> Who is taking guns away?
> Janet US

Ok Janet here's my issue. No talk about taking guns away now but very
serious talk about limiting type of guns you can own. No one will ever
propose "make guns illegal." That would never fly.

Our rights can be eroded though. 'Don't make guns illegal, but limit what
kind you can own.' Once "they" get that passed, next year it will be more
restrictions.....and more....and more. This is exactly why the NRA resists
any restrictions. Once the anti-gun ppl get a toe in the door, it will
slowly get worse. Their ultimate goal is no guns. Barbara blew it by
actually saying that. She spouted out the ultimate goal of the anti-gun
crowd.

We have plenty of gun laws now and many are not strictly enforced. What
makes anyone believe that newer gun laws will be enforced. And I say
again.....the bad guys will always get the weapons that they want. The gun
laws only restrict the honest gun owners that aren't a problem anyway.

G.

"George M. Middius" wrote:
>
> Gary wrote:
>
> > You live on a farm. I would be surprised if you and your husband don't own
> > at least one firearm. Would you like your government to take that away from
> > you? I didn't think so. SF would like to see that happen though.
>
> I'd like to see your guns taken away.

heheheh. George, my buddy! If you had been paying attention this past year,
you would know that I do NOT own any guns. I do fully support the right
to own one though.

Americans have owned guns since the start of our country. All this anti-gun
crap really sickens me.
Guns are NOT evil....the problem is the people that use them in evil ways.
Get rid of those people.

G.

On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 15:11:09 -0500, Gary > wrote:

> We have plenty of gun laws now and many are not strictly enforced.

What laws aren't being enforced and where are they not being enforced?

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 15:18:32 -0500, Gary > wrote:

> "George M. Middius" wrote:
> >
> > Gary wrote:
> >
> > > You live on a farm. I would be surprised if you and your husband don't own
> > > at least one firearm. Would you like your government to take that away from
> > > you? I didn't think so. SF would like to see that happen though.
> >
> > I'd like to see your guns taken away.
>
> heheheh. George, my buddy! If you had been paying attention this past year,
> you would know that I do NOT own any guns. I do fully support the right
> to own one though.
>
> Americans have owned guns since the start of our country. All this anti-gun
> crap really sickens me.
> Guns are NOT evil....the problem is the people that use them in evil ways.
> Get rid of those people.
>
At least make them harder for looney tunes to get their hands on
(which won't stop another Newtown) and mandate that guns be registered
in a national database, so we can at least know where the weak links
are and work towards fixing them.

--
Food is an important part of a balanced diet.

On 05/02/2013 3:51 PM, sf wrote:
> On Tue, 05 Feb 2013 15:11:09 -0500, Gary > wrote:
>
>> We have plenty of gun laws now and many are not strictly enforced.
>
> What laws aren't being enforced and where are they not being enforced?
>



Not to stray too far off, but..... I flew from Buffalo to Denver back in
2002. What a hassle we had at the border. They wanted our passports,
where we lived, our occupations, where we were going, the name of the
couple getting married, what hotel we were staying in. We didn't know. A
cousin had offered to put us up in a hotel and we wouldn't know until we
got there. The guy tried trick questions to trip us up.

Such a PITA to get over the border that I did not bother going over
again until two years ago. I needed a part for my reloading equipment. I
could not get it here and cold not order it online, so I figured I could
try a gun shop in Buffalo or Niagara Falls NY.

I showed up at the border on my motorcycle. I showed the officer my
passport. When asked what I was going to do in the US I told her I was
going to a gun shop. She smiled and told me to go ahead and... and to
have a nice day.

On 2013-02-05 20:11:09 +0000, Gary said:

>> Who is taking guns away?
>
> Ok Janet here's my issue. No talk about taking guns away now but very
> serious talk about limiting type of guns you can own. No one will ever
> propose "make guns illegal." That would never fly.

Apparently even limiting assault weapons won't fly. We have a law
making keeping a database of gun purchases illegal so that it takes a
week and 350+ personnel to identify a gun from a decrepit and decaying
paper records--that can't be copied because of these restrictions!

Clearly nothing will "fly".

> Our rights can be eroded though.

We have no inherent right to all weapons.

> 'Don't make guns illegal, but limit what kind you can own.' Once
> "they" get that passed, next year it will be more restrictions...

We have over 250 million guns out there millions of them in the hands
of felons. And felons can buy almost any kind of gun they want: Which
are the laws that we have now that you find problematic?

> ..and more....and more. This is exactly why the NRA resists any restrictions.

The NRA resists any restrictions to keep profits high for
manufacturers: They are lobbiysts for the industry, and they work as
hard on their behalf as the tobacco industries lobbyists.

The limitations are greater now on smokers of addictive and unhealthy
such products--but still no illegalities--and they don't even have a
constitutional amendment!

> Once the anti-gun ppl get a toe in the door, it will slowly get worse.

By worse you mean it might lesson the ~48k deaths each year?

> Their ultimate goal is no guns.

That's what the NRA tells you. Why don't you listen to the people that
don't have a *profit motive* involved with their decision making, is
that just too preposterous?

> We have plenty of gun laws now and many are not strictly enforced.

Not true: Of the almost 60 thousand gun laws, the majority are for
protecting owners from identification, sellers from identification, and
manufacturers from damage to increased sales. And these laws are well
enforced.

Additionally no matter how well we enforce laws, when 40% of the guns
are sold with loopholes BUILT IT to the legislation, what's the point?
Bailing water with a thimble accomplishes nothing. "First we should
bail with a thimble, and then if the ship goes down we should build
better ships." The logic is really bent.

I know it's an NRA mantra "enforce the current laws", so just out of
curiousity, what laws are those that if enforced would cut down on gun
violence? Or rather, which laws does the NRA use to bolster this
hobbled argument.

> What makes anyone believe that newer gun laws will be enforced.

Which laws?

> And I say again.....the bad guys will always get the weapons that they want.

So we should either A) Forget the issue altogether, or B) Make it
easier for them. These are the only two options?

> The gun laws only restrict the honest gun owners that aren't a problem anyway.

The gun laws predominantly protect gun manufacturers profits, and were
written to make guns more readily available everywhere to everybody.

On Sun, 03 Feb 2013 20:01:11 -0500, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 2/2/2013 10:02 AM, sf wrote:
>> On Sat, 2 Feb 2013 04:12:54 -0800, "Julie Bove"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> That's why
>>> if I ever can design my own place, I will get a little soaking tub that is
>>> easy to get in and out of. Like those ones for seniors with the door on
>>> them. Yeah. In my dreams!
>>>
>> I don't think those are a good idea. Can you imagine having to wait
>> until it drains just to be able to get out?
>>
>LOL I never thought about that!
>
>Jill

You would also have to get in it when it is empty and sit in there
nekkid until it fills.

JB