In article >, cshenk
says...
>
> Janet wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
> > In article >, cshenk1
> > @cox.net says...
> >
> > > The animosity, was everyone forgot Gary was in just as much trouble
> >
> >
> > Do give up making a fool of yourself; while you were playing the
> > drama queen everybody else was reading posts from Gary saying he
> > was fine.
> >
> > Janet UK
>
> Get over yourself Janet UK.

That's like asking a bear not to shit in the woods.

Janet wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> In article >, cshenk1
> @cox.net says...
> >
> > Gary wrote in rec.food.cooking:
> >
> > > cshenk wrote:
> > > >
> > >
> > > > Dunno how long Dataw will take. I wish Jill well. I wish Gary
> > > > well as well.
> > > >
> > >
> > > I'll bet Jill wishes she had a generator. Nothing much more boring
> > > than living without electricity for an extended period. sheez!
> > > Hopefully boredom is her only problem.
> > >
> > > Anyway, I'm back and fine. No electricity was no fun. No personal
> > > damage for me though it is a mess everywhere around the beach.
> > > With that storm turning way before it got here, I didn't see all
> > > this mess coming. Oh well.
> > >
> > > :-D
> >
> > Yup! Jill proabably is bored silly but she may have last second
> > evacuated.
>
> If you gave a fusck about Jill you'd have bothered to read her
> posts in the run up to the hurricane, in which she calmly said, she
> had elected to stay, and in any case nobody could get out because
> the only access road to Dataw island had been shut.
>
> If you gave a **** about Gary you'd have seen him posting
> cheerily on the same days you were emoting here about him being
> "missing" and berating other posters for not sharing your grief and
> shock.
>
> Janet UK

Janet, you are understandably geographically challanged. The storm
that hit Jill didnt get to Gary until almost 2 DAYS LATER at the worst
of it.

The entire length of England is about 600 miles. The distance of Jill
to Gary and me is near 500 miles.

OF COURSE Gary was still posting as it hit Jill's area. He stopped the
second it hit HERE and i got worried after 2 days.

He's got power back now, but I fail to see why anyone here would not
worry about others in danger.

Had the storm not turned, and went right up the coast and hit Sheldon,
would you ignore anyone who checked on him too?

Carol



--

Nancy Young wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> She doing fine, Buffy's doing fine, the patio chairs stayed on the
> patio, and she says she'll be back as soon as her cable returns.
>
> nancy

Good! Probably not fun to weather that but glad she is ok.

--

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 09:02:39 -0600, Janet B >
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:38:09 +1100, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 10 Oct 2016 10:00:49 -0400, Brooklyn1
> wrote:
>>
>>>She doesn't have a cell phone, just a land line with a cordless phone
>>>so with no power she probably can't use her cordless very long before
>>>the battery in the handset dies.
>>
>>There's no need not to have a working phone just because a cordless
>>handset might go flat. Just have a normal corded phone on another
>>extention or keep it in the cupboard.
>>
>>You can get a corded hands free answering machine phone (which still
>>works as a basic phone if the power goes out) with a cordless phone
>>anyway.
>
>But if telephone service is out, having a corded phone won't make any
>difference.

If the phone line itself is damaged, then yes.

On 10/12/2016 4:48 PM, Taxed and Spent wrote:
> On 10/12/2016 1:46 PM, wrote:
>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:20:12 -0400, Nancy Young
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> She doing fine, Buffy's doing fine, the patio chairs stayed on the
>>> patio, and she says she'll be back as soon as her cable returns.


>> Thanks for passing it on Nancy, had wondered about those chairs.
>>
>
> I still await word of the Kaiser roll situation.

Sh*T, I knew there was something else ....

nancy

On 10/12/2016 2:57 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:17:03 -0500, cshenk wrote:
>
>> Are you upset that a local person may check on a local person?
>
> There didn't seem to be a lot of concern when you posted:
>
>> I don't have Gary's exact address (nor should I) or phone number (nor
>> should I)
>
> His phone number and address are in the book. It seems your only
> purpose was to chastise us for expressing more concern about Jill than
> Gary and then implying that was because the group hated Gary.
>
> Again: Really Weird.
>
> -sw
>


And what the heck is up with that Gary guy thinking he is more important
than Jill? (ducking!)

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:50:11 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:


>Anyway, ObFood: Chicken thigh Marengo with parmesan garlic monkey
>bread muffins.

I don't know monkey bread is but it sounds good. Tonight I'm going to
cook a scotch fillet according Leonard's directions, with some steamed
veggies. Quick and easy.

On Wednesday, October 12, 2016 at 3:20:22 PM UTC-5, Nancy Young wrote:
>
> She doing fine, Buffy's doing fine, the patio chairs stayed on the
> patio, and she says she'll be back as soon as her cable returns.
>
> nancy
>
>
YAY!! Thanks for the update!

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 13:13:11 -0600, Janet B >
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 14:24:27 -0400, Dave Smith
> wrote:
>
>>On 2016-10-12 11:02 AM, Janet B wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 11:38:09 +1100, Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>>>> You can get a corded hands free answering machine phone (which still
>>>> works as a basic phone if the power goes out) with a cordless phone
>>>> anyway.
>>>
>>> But if telephone service is out, having a corded phone won't make any
>>> difference.
>>
>>That's true, but I think the point is that in most cases where the power
>>goes out the telephone lines still work, so a land line works. Power
>>lines go our when high demand causes equipment failure or something
>>cause lines to short out and blow fuses. Only occasionally are the
>>lines actually severed.
>>
>>I had a case of like that at my place about a month and a half ago. A
>>huge branch fell down across the road and landed on the power lines. The
>>power was off for about four hours. The impact caused the electrical
>>stack on my house to be pulled off and the line connecting me to main
>>line popped apart at the connection. That was quickly repaired. The
>>biggest delay was waiting for the the utility's forestry crew to come
>>out, Those wires were a good six lower than their usually position but
>>when they cut that last branch that was holding it down it snapped right
>>back up again. I was amazed at the amount of weight it held.
>>
>>My telephone line uses the same poles, but it comes from the pole to my
>>house underground. My land line was still working.
>>
>you're right. I forgot about using the cord phone when power is out.
>I was just focused on telephone poles being down.
>Janet US

True but generally when power is out over a wide area from downed
trees due to a large storm somewhere on the grid phone wires are also
down even when locally they are buried. With hurricanes on Lung
Guyland I've had no electrical power and no phone service either.
Where I live now when hurricane Sandy came through I had no electical
power or phone for three days due to fallen trees

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:31:19 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:

>Janet wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>> In article >, cshenk1
>> @cox.net says...
>> >
>> > Gary wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>> >
>> > > cshenk wrote:
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > > Dunno how long Dataw will take. I wish Jill well. I wish Gary
>> > > > well as well.
>> > > >
>> > >
>> > > I'll bet Jill wishes she had a generator. Nothing much more boring
>> > > than living without electricity for an extended period. sheez!
>> > > Hopefully boredom is her only problem.
>> > >
>> > > Anyway, I'm back and fine. No electricity was no fun. No personal
>> > > damage for me though it is a mess everywhere around the beach.
>> > > With that storm turning way before it got here, I didn't see all
>> > > this mess coming. Oh well.
>> > >
>> > > :-D
>> >
>> > Yup! Jill proabably is bored silly but she may have last second
>> > evacuated.
>>
>> If you gave a fusck about Jill you'd have bothered to read her
>> posts in the run up to the hurricane, in which she calmly said, she
>> had elected to stay, and in any case nobody could get out because
>> the only access road to Dataw island had been shut.
>>
>> If you gave a **** about Gary you'd have seen him posting
>> cheerily on the same days you were emoting here about him being
>> "missing" and berating other posters for not sharing your grief and
>> shock.
>>
>> Janet UK
>
>Janet, you are understandably geographically challanged. The storm
>that hit Jill didnt get to Gary until almost 2 DAYS LATER at the worst
>of it.
>
>The entire length of England is about 600 miles. The distance of Jill
>to Gary and me is near 500 miles.
>
>OF COURSE Gary was still posting as it hit Jill's area. He stopped the
>second it hit HERE and i got worried after 2 days.
>
>He's got power back now, but I fail to see why anyone here would not
>worry about others in danger.
>
>Had the storm not turned, and went right up the coast and hit Sheldon,
>would you ignore anyone who checked on him too?
>
> Carol
>
>
Different Janet responding.
You say " The storm
>that hit Jill didnt get to Gary until almost 2 DAYS LATER at the worst
>of it."
That is exactly the point.
The Dataw post that raised your ire was started almost 2 DAYS EARLIER,
before the storm
got to Gary. (before you posted) There was concern at that time about
conditions on Dataw, a barrier island, subject to the possibility of
storm surge, cut off from the mainland by a closed bridge. At time of
posting, the storm had just passed Dataw.
If you had waited a bit I am sure that someone would have asked about
you as well as Gary.
There was no attempt to be mean and ignore you and Gary.
You jumped to conclusions.
Janet US

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:17:03 -0500, "cshenk" > wrote:

>Janet wrote in rec.food.cooking:
>
>> In article >, cshenk1
>> @cox.net says...
>>
>> > The animosity, was everyone forgot Gary was in just as much trouble
>>
>>
>> Do give up making a fool of yourself; while you were playing the
>> drama queen everybody else was reading posts from Gary saying he
>> was fine.
>>
>> Janet UK
>
>Get over yourself Janet UK. His own posts showed he turned out safe but
>a multiple day outage when no one knew if he was ok.
>
>Are you upset that a local person may check on a local person?

You made a mistaken assumption. Just a low key apology would be o.k.
Janet US

In article >, Sqwertz says...
>
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:17:03 -0500, cshenk wrote:
>
> > Are you upset that a local person may check on a local person?
>
> There didn't seem to be a lot of concern when you posted:
>
> > I don't have Gary's exact address (nor should I) or phone number (nor
> > should I)
>
> His phone number and address are in the book. It seems your only
> purpose was to chastise us for expressing more concern about Jill than
> Gary and then implying that was because the group hated Gary.

God, I thought only old women did this. At the hairdresser's.

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 18:47:53 -0500, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 23:32:11 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> I don't see her house in those photos, I was thinking of publishing the
>> site for those of us who have been worried for days now. I don't see
>> a sign of the flooding I feared. I don't want to be too quickly
>> optimistic, but cautiously I wait a note or a phone call.
>
>After this, Jill may re-think her anti-cellphone stance. Not being
>able to contact family, neighbors, authorities, or workmen to fix
>something for 10+ days during an incident like this can be
>frustrating. And I doubt there are any working pay-phones within 5-10
>miles of her house (pay phones are pretty much extinct here).
>
>-sw

Agreed, it doesn't have to be frilly, I use mine just like a regular
phone but it is very useful when out and also I can text my kids at
will without disturbing them, or they, me.

On 10/12/2016 4:16 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 09:33:55 -0700, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/2016 9:05 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 10:46:44 -0400, Gary wrote:
>>>
>>>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:47:44 -0400, Gary wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then the two floors are 4,200 sq ft... divided by 24 apartments if all
>>>>>>> equal size makes them each about the size of a roomy toilet (175 sq
>>>>>>> ft).
>>>>>>
>>>>>> lol. Failed math in high school, I'll bet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> My apartment is 1050 sq ft. Same as my next door neighbor.
>>>>>> Basement is underneath us both. Basement = 2100 sq feet.
>>>>>
>>>>> I don't think you explained it correctly. The basement doesn't extend
>>>>> across the whole building - only under your section. Some of the
>>>>> apartments are at ground level with no basement. Right?
>>>>
>>>> You got it right, Steve. Not all basement, just underneath 4 apartments.
>>>> The other 8 are on ground level.
>>>> I took a couple of pics this morning. I'll show the real deal next time
>>>> I post.
>>>>
>>>> I still don't understand why Sheldon was doing that weird math -
>>>> dividing apartment size by 24. WTH?
>>>
>>> He was right in his calculations - dividing the basement size by 12
>>> (half of the 24 apartments in a 2 story building).
>>>
>>> You're still not explaining it right, though. The basement is only
>>> directly under 2 apartments. That makes all your numbers add up.
>>
>> That was pretty obvious from his initial post.
>
> No, it wasn't obvious at all. He originally said there were 12
> apartments above the basement. And to even get the number 12 one had
> to assume the layout of the bottom floor was just like that of the
> upper floor (which isn't always the case).
>
> The he says later "just underneath 4 apartments". It's not "just
> underneath 4 apartments". It's "just under" 2 apartments (there are
> two apartments just under the other two of four apartments.
>
> Anyway - Sheldon, at least, agrees with me. So that's all the
> confirmation I need :-) <snork>
>
> -sw
>


"Underneath ***my*** bottom floor is the basement." He does not say the
basement runs under the entire building. Given the fact that he states
the basement is 2100 sq. ft. and his building has 24 apartments, it is
obvious what is going on here. Nothing to see here.

On 10/12/2016 4:47 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 23:32:11 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> I don't see her house in those photos, I was thinking of publishing the
>> site for those of us who have been worried for days now. I don't see
>> a sign of the flooding I feared. I don't want to be too quickly
>> optimistic, but cautiously I wait a note or a phone call.
>
> After this, Jill may re-think her anti-cellphone stance. Not being
> able to contact family, neighbors, authorities, or workmen to fix
> something for 10+ days during an incident like this can be
> frustrating. And I doubt there are any working pay-phones within 5-10
> miles of her house (pay phones are pretty much extinct here).
>
> -sw
>


after this, Jill may re-think the attraction to r.f.c.

On 10/12/2016 7:47 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 23:32:11 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> I don't see her house in those photos, I was thinking of publishing the
>> site for those of us who have been worried for days now. I don't see
>> a sign of the flooding I feared. I don't want to be too quickly
>> optimistic, but cautiously I wait a note or a phone call.
>
> After this, Jill may re-think her anti-cellphone stance. Not being
> able to contact family, neighbors, authorities, or workmen to fix
> something for 10+ days during an incident like this can be
> frustrating. And I doubt there are any working pay-phones within 5-10
> miles of her house (pay phones are pretty much extinct here).

I don't have a landline, and the first thing I found was that the
cell phone service was out, too.

Interestingly, you could still text.

nancy

On 2016-10-12 8:11 PM, Nancy Young wrote:

> I don't have a landline, and the first thing I found was that the
> cell phone service was out, too.
>
> Interestingly, you could still text.

You could text.... but did the message actually get sent?
I had a flip phone that could be on standby for 5-6 days and still
have juice. Now I have a smart phone and I am lucky to get a day out of
it without running low.

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 20:11:43 -0400, Nancy Young
> wrote:

>On 10/12/2016 7:47 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 23:32:11 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see her house in those photos, I was thinking of publishing the
>>> site for those of us who have been worried for days now. I don't see
>>> a sign of the flooding I feared. I don't want to be too quickly
>>> optimistic, but cautiously I wait a note or a phone call.
>>
>> After this, Jill may re-think her anti-cellphone stance. Not being
>> able to contact family, neighbors, authorities, or workmen to fix
>> something for 10+ days during an incident like this can be
>> frustrating. And I doubt there are any working pay-phones within 5-10
>> miles of her house (pay phones are pretty much extinct here).
>
>I don't have a landline, and the first thing I found was that the
>cell phone service was out, too.
>
>Interestingly, you could still text.
>
>nancy

I have a cheapo cell phone (True Phone) $5/month, and after more than
two years I still have never used it, it's strictly for emergencies,
in case I have a flat tire. But unlike Jill I don't live alone, my
spouse has a fancy schmancy smart phone that I haven't a clue how to
use, but no matter... if I need help I have the loudest whistle made.
can be heard three miles away, and I have a huge farm bell that can be
heard five miles away.

On 10/12/2016 8:15 PM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2016-10-12 8:11 PM, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> I don't have a landline, and the first thing I found was that the
>> cell phone service was out, too.
>>
>> Interestingly, you could still text.
>
> You could text.... but did the message actually get sent?
> I had a flip phone that could be on standby for 5-6 days and still
> have juice. Now I have a smart phone and I am lucky to get a day out of
> it without running low.

Yeah, I started getting texts from family and was able to respond.

My phones were charged up, it wasn't a problem, and I had chargers
you could use in the car, too.

nancy

On 10/12/2016 9:38 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:20:12 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:
>
>> She doing fine, Buffy's doing fine, the patio chairs stayed on the
>> patio, and she says she'll be back as soon as her cable returns.
>
> Hrmpf. She's probably been reading these threads all along! ;-)

Ha, that would be just like her, watching all these comments and
not saying a word. Heh, as if.

> What about the patio table?

I asked about the chairs, but I didn't ask if the table flew
through the window. Eh, she probably would have mentioned it.

I told her someone from the island had posted pictures of
damaged houses on the website and I was pretty relieved I
didn't see hers, so I wasn't as concerned as I would have
been all these days.

nancy

On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 20:11:43 -0400, Nancy Young
> wrote:

>On 10/12/2016 7:47 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 23:32:11 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:
>>
>>> I don't see her house in those photos, I was thinking of publishing the
>>> site for those of us who have been worried for days now. I don't see
>>> a sign of the flooding I feared. I don't want to be too quickly
>>> optimistic, but cautiously I wait a note or a phone call.
>>
>> After this, Jill may re-think her anti-cellphone stance. Not being
>> able to contact family, neighbors, authorities, or workmen to fix
>> something for 10+ days during an incident like this can be
>> frustrating. And I doubt there are any working pay-phones within 5-10
>> miles of her house (pay phones are pretty much extinct here).
>
>I don't have a landline, and the first thing I found was that the
>cell phone service was out, too.
>
>Interestingly, you could still text.
>
>nancy
In recent years, when you hear emergency management people speaking,
they stress using text only and not trying to telephone.
Janet US

"Bruce" > wrote in message
T...
> In article >, Sqwertz says...
>>
>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:17:03 -0500, cshenk wrote:
>>
>> > Are you upset that a local person may check on a local person?
>>
>> There didn't seem to be a lot of concern when you posted:
>>
>> > I don't have Gary's exact address (nor should I) or phone number (nor
>> > should I)
>>
>> His phone number and address are in the book. It seems your only
>> purpose was to chastise us for expressing more concern about Jill than
>> Gary and then implying that was because the group hated Gary.
>
> God, I thought only old women did this. At the hairdresser's.

No, you're mistaking them for old men at the barbers.

Cheri

In article >, Cheri says...
>
> "Bruce" > wrote in message
> T...
> > In article >, Sqwertz says...
> >>
> >> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:17:03 -0500, cshenk wrote:
> >>
> >> > Are you upset that a local person may check on a local person?
> >>
> >> There didn't seem to be a lot of concern when you posted:
> >>
> >> > I don't have Gary's exact address (nor should I) or phone number (nor
> >> > should I)
> >>
> >> His phone number and address are in the book. It seems your only
> >> purpose was to chastise us for expressing more concern about Jill than
> >> Gary and then implying that was because the group hated Gary.
> >
> > God, I thought only old women did this. At the hairdresser's.
>
> No, you're mistaking them for old men at the barbers.

They only speak in grunt language.

"Bruce" wrote in message
T...

In article >, Sqwertz says...
>
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:17:03 -0500, cshenk wrote:
>
> > Are you upset that a local person may check on a local person?
>
> There didn't seem to be a lot of concern when you posted:
>
> > I don't have Gary's exact address (nor should I) or phone number (nor
> > should I)
>
> His phone number and address are in the book. It seems your only
> purpose was to chastise us for expressing more concern about Jill than
> Gary and then implying that was because the group hated Gary.

God, I thought only old women did this. At the hairdresser's.
========

Whereas I got chastised for not mentioning Jill <g> It might be useful for
some to know, I will not be bullied. If and when I want to mentioned
someone I will do so, or not just as *I*

It is more likely now that I will NOT do so, simply because, as I said, I
refuse to be bullied. I have had too much of it over the years and it no
longer has any effect. In fact it makes me laugh and despise the
perpetrator even more ... if that were possible.


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

Taxed and Spent wrote:
>
> On 10/12/2016 4:47 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> > On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 23:32:11 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:
> >
> >> I don't see her house in those photos, I was thinking of publishing the
> >> site for those of us who have been worried for days now. I don't see
> >> a sign of the flooding I feared. I don't want to be too quickly
> >> optimistic, but cautiously I wait a note or a phone call.
> >
> > After this, Jill may re-think her anti-cellphone stance. Not being
> > able to contact family, neighbors, authorities, or workmen to fix
> > something for 10+ days during an incident like this can be
> > frustrating. And I doubt there are any working pay-phones within 5-10
> > miles of her house (pay phones are pretty much extinct here).
> >
> > -sw
> >
>
> after this, Jill may re-think the attraction to r.f.c.

And now that we know she is ok, is it alright to start picking on her
while she's still not here to defend herself? LOL JK!

Cheri wrote:
>
> FTR, I looked at your street and saw that you were fine. LOL

Was that Google earth satellite thing? Are they updated more often these
days?

Back in the beginning, they could be pretty old photos. Just wondering.

Taxed and Spent wrote:
>
> And what the heck is up with that Gary guy thinking he is more important
> than Jill? (ducking!)

LOL! :-D

Nancy Young wrote:
>
> I don't have a landline, and the first thing I found was that the
> cell phone service was out, too.

Yeah...that can be an issue. Also running out of battery unless you have
a car charger. And that assumes that a tree didn't fall and smash your
car.

I have a landline phone. It's never failed in a storm.
Also my gas (for cooking and heat) has never failed.
Never had water failure (or pollution) either.

My only failures is electricity and sometimes cable.
I lost both in this past hurricane.

Sqwertz wrote:
>
> After this, Jill may re-think her anti-cellphone stance. Not being
> able to contact family, neighbors, authorities, or workmen to fix
> something for 10+ days during an incident like this can be
> frustrating.

Jill did mention that a cell phone doesn't work at her house and
remember, they voted down installing a cell tower in her area (to save
the wildlife type of thing)


> And I doubt there are any working pay-phones within 5-10
> miles of her house (pay phones are pretty much extinct here).

Pretty much extinct here too. I haven't noticed one in years. The last
time I did see one, local calls cost $0.50 and that was about 5 years
ago.

On 10/12/2016 10:00 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:51:08 -0700, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/2016 4:16 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 09:33:55 -0700, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/12/2016 9:05 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 10:46:44 -0400, Gary wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:47:44 -0400, Gary wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then the two floors are 4,200 sq ft... divided by 24 apartments if all
>>>>>>>>> equal size makes them each about the size of a roomy toilet (175 sq
>>>>>>>>> ft).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> lol. Failed math in high school, I'll bet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My apartment is 1050 sq ft. Same as my next door neighbor.
>>>>>>>> Basement is underneath us both. Basement = 2100 sq feet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think you explained it correctly. The basement doesn't extend
>>>>>>> across the whole building - only under your section. Some of the
>>>>>>> apartments are at ground level with no basement. Right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You got it right, Steve. Not all basement, just underneath 4 apartments.
>>>>>> The other 8 are on ground level.
>>>>>> I took a couple of pics this morning. I'll show the real deal next time
>>>>>> I post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still don't understand why Sheldon was doing that weird math -
>>>>>> dividing apartment size by 24. WTH?
>>>>>
>>>>> He was right in his calculations - dividing the basement size by 12
>>>>> (half of the 24 apartments in a 2 story building).
>>>>>
>>>>> You're still not explaining it right, though. The basement is only
>>>>> directly under 2 apartments. That makes all your numbers add up.
>>>>
>>>> That was pretty obvious from his initial post.
>>>
>>> No, it wasn't obvious at all. He originally said there were 12
>>> apartments above the basement. And to even get the number 12 one had
>>> to assume the layout of the bottom floor was just like that of the
>>> upper floor (which isn't always the case).
>>>
>>> The he says later "just underneath 4 apartments". It's not "just
>>> underneath 4 apartments". It's "just under" 2 apartments (there are
>>> two apartments just under the other two of four apartments.
>>>
>>> Anyway - Sheldon, at least, agrees with me. So that's all the
>>> confirmation I need :-) <snork>
>>
>> "Underneath ***my*** bottom floor is the basement." He does not say the
>> basement runs under the entire building. Given the fact that he states
>> the basement is 2100 sq. ft. and his building has 24 apartments, it is
>> obvious what is going on here. Nothing to see here.
>
> There was no way a person would have extrapolated that only one small
> section of building was raised up 6 feet and had a basement while the
> rest of the building sat at ground level from what he originally said.
> You're nuts. That is hardly typical construction. Just under **his**
> bottom floor would only be 1050sq ft - still didn't make sense.
>
> If you really thought that then why didn't you explain to Sheldon his
> faulty math? No, you had to wait for Gary and I to explain it to you.
>
> -sw
>

I understood the basement did not extend to the entire building. Then I
moved on. This is neither rocket science or very meaningful.

On 10/12/2016 10:02 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:53:48 -0700, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/2016 4:47 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>
>>> After this, Jill may re-think her anti-cellphone stance. Not being
>>> able to contact family, neighbors, authorities, or workmen to fix
>>> something for 10+ days during an incident like this can be
>>> frustrating. And I doubt there are any working pay-phones within 5-10
>>> miles of her house (pay phones are pretty much extinct here).
>>
>> after this, Jill may re-think the attraction to r.f.c.
>
> I think by now she's well aware that practically every thread will
> devolve into a big blob of wet shit.
>
> -sw
>

I was referring to the "abstinence" aspect. When you are away from
r.f.c. for a week, do you long for it, or forget about it?

On 10/13/2016 4:26 AM, Gary wrote:
> Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>
>> On 10/12/2016 4:47 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 23:32:11 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't see her house in those photos, I was thinking of publishing the
>>>> site for those of us who have been worried for days now. I don't see
>>>> a sign of the flooding I feared. I don't want to be too quickly
>>>> optimistic, but cautiously I wait a note or a phone call.
>>>
>>> After this, Jill may re-think her anti-cellphone stance. Not being
>>> able to contact family, neighbors, authorities, or workmen to fix
>>> something for 10+ days during an incident like this can be
>>> frustrating. And I doubt there are any working pay-phones within 5-10
>>> miles of her house (pay phones are pretty much extinct here).
>>>
>>> -sw
>>>
>>
>> after this, Jill may re-think the attraction to r.f.c.
>
> And now that we know she is ok, is it alright to start picking on her
> while she's still not here to defend herself? LOL JK!
>

This was not picking on her.

On 10/12/2016 11:06 PM, Janet B wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 20:11:43 -0400, Nancy Young
> > wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/2016 7:47 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 23:32:11 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:
>>>
>>>> I don't see her house in those photos, I was thinking of publishing the
>>>> site for those of us who have been worried for days now. I don't see
>>>> a sign of the flooding I feared. I don't want to be too quickly
>>>> optimistic, but cautiously I wait a note or a phone call.
>>>
>>> After this, Jill may re-think her anti-cellphone stance. Not being
>>> able to contact family, neighbors, authorities, or workmen to fix
>>> something for 10+ days during an incident like this can be
>>> frustrating. And I doubt there are any working pay-phones within 5-10
>>> miles of her house (pay phones are pretty much extinct here).
>>
>> I don't have a landline, and the first thing I found was that the
>> cell phone service was out, too.
>>
>> Interestingly, you could still text.
>>
>> nancy
> In recent years, when you hear emergency management people speaking,
> they stress using text only and not trying to telephone.
> Janet US
>

lower bandwidth per unit of information, and tend to limit the
non-information communication. Just the facts, Ma'am.

Ophelia wrote:

> "Bruce" wrote in message
> T...
>
> In article >, Sqwertz says...
> >
> > On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:17:03 -0500, cshenk wrote:
> >
> > > Are you upset that a local person may check on a local person?
> >
> > There didn't seem to be a lot of concern when you posted:
> >
> > > I don't have Gary's exact address (nor should I) or phone number (nor
> > > should I)
> >
> > His phone number and address are in the book. It seems your only
> > purpose was to chastise us for expressing more concern about Jill than
> > Gary and then implying that was because the group hated Gary.
>
> God, I thought only old women did this. At the hairdresser's.
> ========
>
> Whereas I got chastised for not mentioning Jill <g> It might be useful for
> some to know, I will not be bullied. If and when I want to mentioned
> someone I will do so, or not just as *I*
>
> It is more likely now that I will NOT do so, simply because, as I said, I
> refuse to be bullied. I have had too much of it over the years and it no
> longer has any effect. In fact it makes me laugh and despise the
> perpetrator even more ... if that were possible.


A *most* admirable philosophy, Ms. O....!!!


--
Best
Greg

On Thursday, October 13, 2016 at 8:34:23 AM UTC-4, Gary wrote:
> Nancy Young wrote:
> >
> > I don't have a landline, and the first thing I found was that the
> > cell phone service was out, too.
>
> Yeah...that can be an issue. Also running out of battery unless you have
> a car charger. And that assumes that a tree didn't fall and smash your
> car.
>
> I have a landline phone. It's never failed in a storm.
> Also my gas (for cooking and heat) has never failed.
> Never had water failure (or pollution) either.

You're lucky. In the big blackout of 2003, the pressure in our
water mains dropped (potentially allowing stuff to seep into
the pipes where it's usually kept out by the water pressure),
and we were put under a boil water advisory.

Cindy Hamilton

"The Greatest!" wrote in message
...

Ophelia wrote:

> "Bruce" wrote in message
> T...
>
> In article >, Sqwertz says...
> >
> > On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:17:03 -0500, cshenk wrote:
> >
> > > Are you upset that a local person may check on a local person?
> >
> > There didn't seem to be a lot of concern when you posted:
> >
> > > I don't have Gary's exact address (nor should I) or phone number (nor
> > > should I)
> >
> > His phone number and address are in the book. It seems your only
> > purpose was to chastise us for expressing more concern about Jill than
> > Gary and then implying that was because the group hated Gary.
>
> God, I thought only old women did this. At the hairdresser's.
> ========
>
> Whereas I got chastised for not mentioning Jill <g> It might be useful
> for
> some to know, I will not be bullied. If and when I want to mentioned
> someone I will do so, or not just as *I*
>
> It is more likely now that I will NOT do so, simply because, as I said, I
> refuse to be bullied. I have had too much of it over the years and it no
> longer has any effect. In fact it makes me laugh and despise the
> perpetrator even more ... if that were possible.


A *most* admirable philosophy, Ms. O....!!!

Best
Greg


=======

Thanks, Greg. It doesn't do for bullies to think they are having any
effect. I have been bullied by the nastiest expert bully there is. It
doesn't work any more) He stands no chance LOL

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

"Taxed and Spent" wrote in message ...

On 10/12/2016 10:00 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 16:51:08 -0700, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>
>> On 10/12/2016 4:16 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 09:33:55 -0700, Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 10/12/2016 9:05 AM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>>>> On Wed, 12 Oct 2016 10:46:44 -0400, Gary wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Sqwertz wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2016 11:47:44 -0400, Gary wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Then the two floors are 4,200 sq ft... divided by 24 apartments if
>>>>>>>>> all
>>>>>>>>> equal size makes them each about the size of a roomy toilet (175
>>>>>>>>> sq
>>>>>>>>> ft).
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> lol. Failed math in high school, I'll bet.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> My apartment is 1050 sq ft. Same as my next door neighbor.
>>>>>>>> Basement is underneath us both. Basement = 2100 sq feet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I don't think you explained it correctly. The basement doesn't
>>>>>>> extend
>>>>>>> across the whole building - only under your section. Some of the
>>>>>>> apartments are at ground level with no basement. Right?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You got it right, Steve. Not all basement, just underneath 4
>>>>>> apartments.
>>>>>> The other 8 are on ground level.
>>>>>> I took a couple of pics this morning. I'll show the real deal next
>>>>>> time
>>>>>> I post.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I still don't understand why Sheldon was doing that weird math -
>>>>>> dividing apartment size by 24. WTH?
>>>>>
>>>>> He was right in his calculations - dividing the basement size by 12
>>>>> (half of the 24 apartments in a 2 story building).
>>>>>
>>>>> You're still not explaining it right, though. The basement is only
>>>>> directly under 2 apartments. That makes all your numbers add up.
>>>>
>>>> That was pretty obvious from his initial post.
>>>
>>> No, it wasn't obvious at all. He originally said there were 12
>>> apartments above the basement. And to even get the number 12 one had
>>> to assume the layout of the bottom floor was just like that of the
>>> upper floor (which isn't always the case).
>>>
>>> The he says later "just underneath 4 apartments". It's not "just
>>> underneath 4 apartments". It's "just under" 2 apartments (there are
>>> two apartments just under the other two of four apartments.
>>>
>>> Anyway - Sheldon, at least, agrees with me. So that's all the
>>> confirmation I need :-) <snork>
>>
>> "Underneath ***my*** bottom floor is the basement." He does not say the
>> basement runs under the entire building. Given the fact that he states
>> the basement is 2100 sq. ft. and his building has 24 apartments, it is
>> obvious what is going on here. Nothing to see here.
>
> There was no way a person would have extrapolated that only one small
> section of building was raised up 6 feet and had a basement while the
> rest of the building sat at ground level from what he originally said.
> You're nuts. That is hardly typical construction. Just under **his**
> bottom floor would only be 1050sq ft - still didn't make sense.
>
> If you really thought that then why didn't you explain to Sheldon his
> faulty math? No, you had to wait for Gary and I to explain it to you.
>
> -sw
>

I understood the basement did not extend to the entire building. Then I
moved on. This is neither rocket science or very meaningful.

=================

Nitpickers. Obviously nothing better to do. Either that or they think it
makes them look clever ... LOL


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

Taxed and Spent wrote:
>
> On 10/13/2016 4:26 AM, Gary wrote:
> > Taxed and Spent wrote:
> >>
> >> On 10/12/2016 4:47 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> >>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 23:32:11 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> I don't see her house in those photos, I was thinking of publishing the
> >>>> site for those of us who have been worried for days now. I don't see
> >>>> a sign of the flooding I feared. I don't want to be too quickly
> >>>> optimistic, but cautiously I wait a note or a phone call.
> >>>
> >>> After this, Jill may re-think her anti-cellphone stance. Not being
> >>> able to contact family, neighbors, authorities, or workmen to fix
> >>> something for 10+ days during an incident like this can be
> >>> frustrating. And I doubt there are any working pay-phones within 5-10
> >>> miles of her house (pay phones are pretty much extinct here).
> >>>
> >>> -sw
> >>>
> >>
> >> after this, Jill may re-think the attraction to r.f.c.
> >
> > And now that we know she is ok, is it alright to start picking on her
> > while she's still not here to defend herself? LOL JK!
> >
>
> This was not picking on her.

No. You read me wrong. I'm saying now that she's fine, can we START
picking on her? lol

On 10/13/2016 7:35 AM, Gary wrote:
> Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>
>> On 10/13/2016 4:26 AM, Gary wrote:
>>> Taxed and Spent wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 10/12/2016 4:47 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 9 Oct 2016 23:32:11 -0400, Nancy Young wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> I don't see her house in those photos, I was thinking of publishing the
>>>>>> site for those of us who have been worried for days now. I don't see
>>>>>> a sign of the flooding I feared. I don't want to be too quickly
>>>>>> optimistic, but cautiously I wait a note or a phone call.
>>>>>
>>>>> After this, Jill may re-think her anti-cellphone stance. Not being
>>>>> able to contact family, neighbors, authorities, or workmen to fix
>>>>> something for 10+ days during an incident like this can be
>>>>> frustrating. And I doubt there are any working pay-phones within 5-10
>>>>> miles of her house (pay phones are pretty much extinct here).
>>>>>
>>>>> -sw
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> after this, Jill may re-think the attraction to r.f.c.
>>>
>>> And now that we know she is ok, is it alright to start picking on her
>>> while she's still not here to defend herself? LOL JK!
>>>
>>
>> This was not picking on her.
>
> No. You read me wrong. I'm saying now that she's fine, can we START
> picking on her? lol
>


Why wait?

On 2016-10-13 10:35 AM, Gary wrote:
> Taxed and Spent wrote:

>> This was not picking on her.
>
> No. You read me wrong. I'm saying now that she's fine, can we START
> picking on her? lol
>


She already has one mentally defective stalker. That is more than enough.