On 11/29/2016 11:33 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> Some places won't allow pets *at all*. I would not live in such a place.

You're not fit to live with actual humans, bully bitch.

On 11/29/2016 12:04 PM, Ophelia wrote:
> "Cheri" wrote in message news >
>
> "Sqwertz" > wrote in message
> ...
>>> On 11/29/2016 4:49 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>>> Your problem is that you use a camera to take pictures. Nobody takes
>>>> pictures with a camera anymore.
>>
>> Is she REALLY this ****ing stupid?
>
> Obviously you are, since you can't follow along and know who posted what
> without one of your nasty replies to the wrong person.
>
> Cheri
>
> =====================
>
> <g>
>
> They will do anything to put me down, pity they are too stupid to do it
> without making themselves look ridiculous )))
>
> LOL
>
>
Sad that they don't even care, their need to hate is so strong that
embarrassment of themselves is like water off a duck's back.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:58:14 -0500, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 11/29/2016 4:49 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>> "dsi1" wrote in message news >>
>> On 11/28/2016 9:34 AM, Gary wrote:
>>> Gary wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>> Gary, you need a woman... you'll live better and longer.
>>>>
>>>> Been there, done that. You don't live longer, it just feels like it.
>>>
>>> What I need is a ferret. :-D
>>>
>>
>> Your problem is that you use a camera to take pictures. Nobody takes
>> pictures with a camera anymore. Even a stopid cheese sandwich looks
>> great when you use a phone!
>>
>> https://www.amazon.com/photos/share/...ccWjTIpDpVK2T2
>>
>> =============
>>
>> Mmmmm I could eat that right now))
>>
>>
>My grilled cheese sandwich looked better. Sorry, no pic.
>
>I'll stick with my Panasonic Lumix digital camera. Despite dsi1's
>technological yearnings, lots of people still use actual cameras.
>
>These are the flowers currently blooming on one of several (also
>blooming) azalea bushes in front of my house:
>
>https://s22.postimg.org/kc9pbgipt/azaelas.jpg
>
>Jill

I have a raspberry just for you!!! Some of us are looking at grey
surrounds, no leaves except the dried out ones on the roadways.
janet US

In article >, says...
>
> "notbob" > wrote in message
> ...
> > On 2016-11-29, jmcquown > wrote:
> >
> >> Pet rent was a normal thing in any apartment where I ever lived.
> >
> > Must be an East Coast thing. I've rented most of my life and have
> > never heard of it.
> >
> > Oh sure, always a "security deposit", but that covers more than jes
> > pets. I once had the police break into my home (no charges ever
> > brought) and they broke a window and a door jam. The security deposit
> > covered the damage.
> >
> > nb
>
> No, *pet* deposits as well as security deposits are the norm on the WC in
> most places.

In UK, some hotels and holiday rentals which accept dogs charge a
small amount extra per dog or ask for a returnable pet-damages deposit.

A couple of months ago we took our dog to stay in a lovely "dogs very
welcome" BB which provided a clean dog bed, blanket, towel and dishes,
poobags and a basket of dog treats, and a map of local walks and dog
friendly pubs.

Janet UK

lucretiaborgia wrote:
>Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>Gary wrote:
>>>Gary wrote:
>>>> Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>> > Gary, you need a woman... you'll live better and longer.
>>>>
>>>> Been there, done that. You don't live longer, it just feels like it.
>>>
>>>What I need is a ferret. :-D
>>
>>Quit yer bitchin' and adopt a couple... were you truly a good ferret
>>parent you'd not have gone a week without another, I think you've
>>milked your pity pot way past enough... by now no one believes you
>>care.
>
>Don't ever speak for me! Of course he cares but different people
>grieve their loss differently.

People truly grieving don't announce their grief to the world 24/7
over many months, when they do their grief becomes so diluted that
it's truly fake.

>No surprises really that you would 'replace' a pet right away.

No need, I always have several, however I don't go on and on about it.
In fact I adopted a new pet yesterday, feed and they will come... this
big fella eats like a bird:
http://i67.tinypic.com/2v3j8fb.jpg

On 11/29/2016 12:28 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> lucretiaborgia wrote:
>> Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>> Gary wrote:
>>>> Gary wrote:
>>>>> Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>>> Gary, you need a woman... you'll live better and longer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Been there, done that. You don't live longer, it just feels like it.
>>>>
>>>> What I need is a ferret. :-D
>>>
>>> Quit yer bitchin' and adopt a couple... were you truly a good ferret
>>> parent you'd not have gone a week without another, I think you've
>>> milked your pity pot way past enough... by now no one believes you
>>> care.
>>
>> Don't ever speak for me! Of course he cares but different people
>> grieve their loss differently.
>
> People truly grieving don't announce their grief to the world 24/7
> over many months, when they do their grief becomes so diluted that
> it's truly fake.

This is not an uncommon observation for this medium.

>> No surprises really that you would 'replace' a pet right away.
>
> No need, I always have several, however I don't go on and on about it.
> In fact I adopted a new pet yesterday, feed and they will come... this
> big fella eats like a bird:
> http://i67.tinypic.com/2v3j8fb.jpg
>
Yum-o!

dinner...

On 11/29/2016 12:27 PM, Janet wrote:
> A couple of months ago we took our dog to stay in a lovely "dogs very
> welcome" BB which provided a clean dog bed, blanket, towel and dishes,
> poobags and a basket of dog treats, and a map of local walks and dog
> friendly pubs.
>
> Janet UK

How is it that you hateful vermin treat your pets so well and then
savage your fellow humans here?

In article >, Brooklyn1
says...
>
> No need, I always have several, however I don't go on and on about it.
> In fact I adopted a new pet yesterday, feed and they will come... this
> big fella eats like a bird:
> http://i67.tinypic.com/2v3j8fb.jpg

Someone's probably tagged your picture.

On 11/29/2016 12:40 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> Yeah, we never hear about the animals you support,

**** off you fat woman stalker.

On 11/29/2016 12:44 PM, Bruce wrote:
> Someone's probably tagged your picture.

**** off Auztard.

On 11/29/2016 1:43 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
>> On 11/29/2016 4:49 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>
>>> Your problem is that you use a camera to take pictures. Nobody takes
>>> pictures with a camera anymore.
>
> Is she REALLY this ****ing stupid?
>
>> Even a stopid cheese sandwich ....
>
> Oh, excuse me. 'stopid'.
>
>> I'll stick with my Panasonic Lumix digital camera. Despite dsi1's
>> technological yearnings, lots of people still use actual cameras.
>
> Oh, that was dsi1? Hard to tell since she can't attribute posts
> correctly. It's a tossup to which one of them is stopider.
>
> Yes, I love my Panasonic Lumix FP2. It's optical zoom doesn't rely on
> a telescoping lens which is the major point of failure on most other
> cameras. It just turned 111,000 pictures old last week.
>
> -sw
>
It was dsi1, the guy who wants Google to take over the world.

Jill

On 11/29/2016 1:53 PM, Cheri wrote:
> Yes, I don't really understand when you own your home why that is in the
> first place. I can understand when landlords are worried about damage to
> their house/apt, but I imagine it's a HOA thing with you? I wouldn't
> tell them either.
>
> Cheri

I did NOT say a thing about my HOA. I was only ever charged pet rent
when I lived in apartments.

Jill

"Bruce" wrote in message
T...

In article >, Brooklyn1
says...
>
> No need, I always have several, however I don't go on and on about it.
> In fact I adopted a new pet yesterday, feed and they will come... this
> big fella eats like a bird:
> http://i67.tinypic.com/2v3j8fb.jpg

Someone's probably tagged your picture.

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

Someone seems to tag every picture he posts, but he doesn't care so they are
wasting their time)

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

In article >, Ophelia says...
>
> "Bruce" wrote in message
> T...
>
> In article >, Brooklyn1
> says...
> >
> > No need, I always have several, however I don't go on and on about it.
> > In fact I adopted a new pet yesterday, feed and they will come... this
> > big fella eats like a bird:
> > http://i67.tinypic.com/2v3j8fb.jpg
>
> Someone's probably tagged your picture.
>
> ==============
>
> Someone seems to tag every picture he posts, but he doesn't care so they are
> wasting their time)

Oh, maybe he did it himself

On 11/29/2016 12:51 PM, Sqwertz wrote:
> ObFood: My chuck roast will be done in 28 hours, 48 minutes, and 35
> seconds.
>
> -sw

And not one ****ing asshat here gives a rip.

On 11/29/2016 12:59 PM, jmcquown wrote:
> It was dsi1, the guy who wants Google to take over the world.
>
> Jill

Are you going to try and bully HIM now, whore?

On 11/29/2016 1:02 PM, jmcquown wrote:
> I did NOT say a thing about my HOA.

Shaddup, bully bitch.

On 11/29/2016 1:14 PM, Bruce wrote:
> Oh, maybe he did it himself

Bugger off, Auztard.

On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 1:18:40 PM UTC-7, KC Greaseball wrote:
> On 11/29/2016 1:02 PM, jmcquown wrote:
> > I did NOT say a thing about my HOA.
>
> Shaddup, bully bitch.

Way to go...spreading more hate...its all you do. Bad TROLL...get back under the bridge.
=====

"Bruce" wrote in message
T...

In article >, Ophelia says...
>
> "Bruce" wrote in message
> T...
>
> In article >, Brooklyn1
> says...
> >
> > No need, I always have several, however I don't go on and on about it.
> > In fact I adopted a new pet yesterday, feed and they will come... this
> > big fella eats like a bird:
> > http://i67.tinypic.com/2v3j8fb.jpg
>
> Someone's probably tagged your picture.
>
> ==============
>
> Someone seems to tag every picture he posts, but he doesn't care so they
> are
> wasting their time)

Oh, maybe he did it himself

===

I doubt that



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

On 11/29/2016 1:26 PM, Roy wrote:
> On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 1:18:40 PM UTC-7, KC Greaseball wrote:
>> On 11/29/2016 1:02 PM, jmcquown wrote:
>>> I did NOT say a thing about my HOA.
>>
>> Shaddup, bully bitch.
>
> Way to go...spreading more hate...its all you do. Bad TROLL...get back under the bridge.
> =====
>

That worthless bully bitch is responsible in no small part for Julie
Bove being run out of here.

Just like how Wertz stalked poor Omelet off the net.

How ****ED UP is your head to be supporting that kind of bully behavior?

"jmcquown" > wrote in message
news
> On 11/29/2016 1:53 PM, Cheri wrote:
>> Yes, I don't really understand when you own your home why that is in the
>> first place. I can understand when landlords are worried about damage to
>> their house/apt, but I imagine it's a HOA thing with you? I wouldn't
>> tell them either.
>>
>> Cheri
>
> I did NOT say a thing about my HOA. I was only ever charged pet rent when
> I lived in apartments.
>
> Jill

Oh, I thought you were talking about where you live now.

Cheri

On 11/29/2016 2:20 PM, U.S. Janet B. wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:58:14 -0500, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/29/2016 4:49 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>> "dsi1" wrote in message news >>>
>>> On 11/28/2016 9:34 AM, Gary wrote:
>>>> Gary wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Brooklyn1 wrote:
>>>>>> Gary, you need a woman... you'll live better and longer.
>>>>>
>>>>> Been there, done that. You don't live longer, it just feels like it.
>>>>
>>>> What I need is a ferret. :-D
>>>>
>>>
>>> Your problem is that you use a camera to take pictures. Nobody takes
>>> pictures with a camera anymore. Even a stopid cheese sandwich looks
>>> great when you use a phone!
>>>
>>> https://www.amazon.com/photos/share/...ccWjTIpDpVK2T2
>>>
>>> =============
>>>
>>> Mmmmm I could eat that right now))
>>>
>>>
>> My grilled cheese sandwich looked better. Sorry, no pic.
>>
>> I'll stick with my Panasonic Lumix digital camera. Despite dsi1's
>> technological yearnings, lots of people still use actual cameras.
>>
>> These are the flowers currently blooming on one of several (also
>> blooming) azalea bushes in front of my house:
>>
>> https://s22.postimg.org/kc9pbgipt/azaelas.jpg
>>
>> Jill
>
> I have a raspberry just for you!!! Some of us are looking at grey
> surrounds, no leaves except the dried out ones on the roadways.
> janet US
>
Not my fault I live where it's 81F after Thanksgiving. Trade winds are
blowing across the islands today, bring interesting weather.

Jill

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:04:41 -0500, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 11/29/2016 11:43 AM, Je?us wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:40:18 -0500, jmcquown >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> I got really angry with the apartment manager after my dog Sampson died.
>>> I called to tell her to please take off the extra $15/month "pet
>>> rent". She said cavalierly, "So just get another dog." NO.
>>
>> Grr... nice attitude. I cant believe you have to pay 'pet rent' to
>> begin with.
>>
>I gather the idea of pet rent is unique to the US.

It could be, I haven't heard of it previously.

>The amounts vary and
>they limit the weight of the pets and the number of pets. (Makes sense
>in a fairly small space).

I agree there needs to be some regulation for pets in small
communities such as yours, but why a tax is beyond me. In Australia
there are different arrangements, all hinge on the owner/resident
taking responsibility and of course there are consequences. Usually it
would be the local council taking action (council being the local
government. We have local, state and federal governments here).

>There is usually a pet deposit, too.

AND a deposit??

>Pets
>*can* be destructive. Not that mine ever were.

Hmm, it's one way to manage an issue if it comes up I suppose. IF,
mind you... to me, paying a deposit is unfair until an issue does
arise. It's like paying a deposit just in case you get caught speeding
in your car.

>>> Still, Gary does keep talking about adopting another ferret. It sounds
>>> to me like something he should do.
>>
>> It does.
>>
>Seems to me he's about ready to fill that hole in his heart.

Hopefully he will. It does sound like Gary would be better off finding
a new live-in companion.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:05:16 -0800, "Cheri" >
wrote:

>
>
>> "dsi1" wrote in message news
>
>> Your problem is that you use a camera to take pictures. Nobody takes
>> pictures with a camera anymore. Even a stopid cheese sandwich looks
>> great when you use a phone!
>
>Nobody takes pics with a camera anymore? Really? I doubt that speaks to all
>the cameraphobes who love their cameras.
>
>Cheri

True... even though cell phone cameras have come a long way there's no
way they can come close to competing with a real digicam... they don't
have a viewfinder, there's no flash, and there are many focusing
features a cell phone camera hasn't like adjusting for lighting
conditions, or tele but mostly they don't have a lens arrangement,
they are classified as pinhole cameras. Even an under $100 no frills
digicam is leagues ahead of any cell phone camera.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:08:28 -0800, Taxed and Spent
> wrote:

>On 11/29/2016 10:05 AM, Cheri wrote:
>>
>>
>>> "dsi1" wrote in message news
>>
>>> Your problem is that you use a camera to take pictures. Nobody takes
>>> pictures with a camera anymore. Even a stopid cheese sandwich looks
>>> great when you use a phone!
>>
>> Nobody takes pics with a camera anymore? Really? I doubt that speaks to
>> all the cameraphobes who love their cameras.
>>
>> Cheri
>
>it is impossible to take a picture with a phone, unless that phone
>includes a camera.

No cell phone includes a decent camera.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 17:39:43 -0500, Brooklyn1
> wrote:

>True... even though cell phone cameras have come a long way there's no
>way they can come close to competing with a real digicam... they don't
>have a viewfinder, there's no flash, and there are many focusing
>features a cell phone camera hasn't like adjusting for lighting
>conditions, or tele but mostly they don't have a lens arrangement,
>they are classified as pinhole cameras. Even an under $100 no frills
>digicam is leagues ahead of any cell phone camera.

Most of all they don't have a quality lens, which is arguably the main
difference. I have a decent DSLR, but didn't want to and am glad I
didn't take it on my trip. Too bulky and heavy. The new phone did a
reasonable job for the pics.

On 11/29/2016 4:03 PM, Cheri wrote:
>
> "jmcquown" > wrote in message
> news
>> On 11/29/2016 1:53 PM, Cheri wrote:
>>> Yes, I don't really understand when you own your home why that is in the
>>> first place. I can understand when landlords are worried about damage to
>>> their house/apt, but I imagine it's a HOA thing with you? I wouldn't
>>> tell them either.
>>>
>>> Cheri
>>
>> I did NOT say a thing about my HOA. I was only ever charged pet rent
>> when I lived in apartments.
>>
>> Jill
>
> Oh, I thought you were talking about where you live now.
>
> Cheri

No, I specifically mentioned apartments. Some judicious trimming by
someone upthread left that part out.

Jill

On 11/29/2016 5:30 PM, Je�us wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:04:41 -0500, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> On 11/29/2016 11:43 AM, Je?us wrote:
>>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:40:18 -0500, jmcquown >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> I got really angry with the apartment manager after my dog Sampson died.
>>>> I called to tell her to please take off the extra $15/month "pet
>>>> rent". She said cavalierly, "So just get another dog." NO.
>>>
>>> Grr... nice attitude. I cant believe you have to pay 'pet rent' to
>>> begin with.
>>>
>> I gather the idea of pet rent is unique to the US.
>
> It could be, I haven't heard of it previously.
>
>> The amounts vary and
>> they limit the weight of the pets and the number of pets. (Makes sense
>> in a fairly small space).
>
> I agree there needs to be some regulation for pets in small
> communities such as yours, but why a tax is beyond me.

I'm not talking about where I live now. I could load the house with
cats (or ferrets) if I wanted to. It would take a committee to make me
remove them. LOL

Apartment complexes are different. Short term leases, they need to have
some control over the animals people are bringing in.

> In Australia
> there are different arrangements, all hinge on the owner/resident
> taking responsibility and of course there are consequences. Usually it
> would be the local council taking action (council being the local
> government. We have local, state and federal governments here).
>
>> There is usually a pet deposit, too.
>
> AND a deposit??
>
Pet deposit, monthly pet rent. It depends on the management. Renters
are aware of this up front. You pay a security deposit for your own
possible damages/wear & tear, too.

>> Pets *can* be destructive. Not that mine ever were.
>
> Hmm, it's one way to manage an issue if it comes up I suppose. IF,
> mind you... to me, paying a deposit is unfair until an issue does
> arise. It's like paying a deposit just in case you get caught speeding
> in your car.

Non-sequitor. I pay for car insurance IN CASE I have a car accident, in
advance.

The pet deposit is refundable in most cases. So is the human security
deposit, assuming you and your pets didn't leave the apartment trashed.

>>>> Still, Gary does keep talking about adopting another ferret. It sounds
>>>> to me like something he should do.
>>>
>>> It does.
>>>
>> Seems to me he's about ready to fill that hole in his heart.
>
> Hopefully he will. It does sound like Gary would be better off finding
> a new live-in companion.
>
Sounds like it. He'll get around to it in his own time.

Jill

On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 09:46:51 +1100, Jeßus > wrote:

>On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 17:39:43 -0500, Brooklyn1
> wrote:
>
>>True... even though cell phone cameras have come a long way there's no
>>way they can come close to competing with a real digicam... they don't
>>have a viewfinder, there's no flash, and there are many focusing
>>features a cell phone camera hasn't like adjusting for lighting
>>conditions, or tele but mostly they don't have a lens arrangement,
>>they are classified as pinhole cameras. Even an under $100 no frills
>>digicam is leagues ahead of any cell phone camera.
>
>Most of all they don't have a quality lens, which is arguably the main
>difference. I have a decent DSLR, but didn't want to and am glad I
>didn't take it on my trip. Too bulky and heavy. The new phone did a
>reasonable job for the pics.

So you admit to being lazy and worthless... you're too weak to lift a
camera, maybe it weighs eight ounces. However no one has seen even
one picture from your trip... I don't believe you went on any trip,
you stayed home in your hovel, in your hospital bed tended to by a
caretaker who empties your bedpan and wipes your filthy ass, you
atrophied pretender, sucking down Ensure.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 19:22:18 -0500, Brooklyn1
> wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 09:46:51 +1100, Jeßus > wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 17:39:43 -0500, Brooklyn1
> wrote:
>>
>>>True... even though cell phone cameras have come a long way there's no
>>>way they can come close to competing with a real digicam... they don't
>>>have a viewfinder, there's no flash, and there are many focusing
>>>features a cell phone camera hasn't like adjusting for lighting
>>>conditions, or tele but mostly they don't have a lens arrangement,
>>>they are classified as pinhole cameras. Even an under $100 no frills
>>>digicam is leagues ahead of any cell phone camera.
>>
>>Most of all they don't have a quality lens, which is arguably the main
>>difference. I have a decent DSLR, but didn't want to and am glad I
>>didn't take it on my trip. Too bulky and heavy. The new phone did a
>>reasonable job for the pics.
>
>So you admit to being lazy and worthless... you're too weak to lift a
>camera, maybe it weighs eight ounces.

1lb. 1.8oz. Plus lenses. Plus it's necessary to carry lots of water,
plus food, etc.

>However no one has seen even
>one picture from your trip...

You wouldn't have carried a DSLR across some of the jungle and terrain
I did in 35°C heat and 95% humidity. In fact you wouldn't have even
managed to climb some of the hills at all. People less than half my
age barely managed to do so when I was here near Mondulkiri
http://www.mondulkirisanctuary.org/ . Myself, another guy from
Melbourne the same age as me, plus the guide had to stop to let them
rest several times.

I'm actually thinking about volunteering at the sanctuary for a few
months next year, if I can arrange things here at home to be taken
care of while I'm away (which won't be easy).

Anyway, a few pics for anyone interested:
https://postimg.org/gallery/2qjrsmgu2/


>I don't believe you went on any trip,
>you stayed home in your hovel, in your hospital bed tended to by a
>caretaker who empties your bedpan and wipes your filthy ass, you
>atrophied pretender, sucking down Ensure.

One minute you talk civilly, the next you're in a drunken rant mode.
You really are quite a pathetic old man. Who knows what your wife has
to put up with. Talk about projection, it speaks volumes about you.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 18:48:15 -0500, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 11/29/2016 5:30 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 12:04:41 -0500, jmcquown >
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 11/29/2016 11:43 AM, Je?us wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 11:40:18 -0500, jmcquown >
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> I got really angry with the apartment manager after my dog Sampson died.
>>>>> I called to tell her to please take off the extra $15/month "pet
>>>>> rent". She said cavalierly, "So just get another dog." NO.
>>>>
>>>> Grr... nice attitude. I cant believe you have to pay 'pet rent' to
>>>> begin with.
>>>>
>>> I gather the idea of pet rent is unique to the US.
>>
>> It could be, I haven't heard of it previously.
>>
>>> The amounts vary and
>>> they limit the weight of the pets and the number of pets. (Makes sense
>>> in a fairly small space).
>>
>> I agree there needs to be some regulation for pets in small
>> communities such as yours, but why a tax is beyond me.
>
>I'm not talking about where I live now. I could load the house with
>cats (or ferrets) if I wanted to. It would take a committee to make me
>remove them. LOL

Oh, okay.

>Apartment complexes are different. Short term leases, they need to have
>some control over the animals people are bringing in.

Yes, certainly.

>> In Australia
>> there are different arrangements, all hinge on the owner/resident
>> taking responsibility and of course there are consequences. Usually it
>> would be the local council taking action (council being the local
>> government. We have local, state and federal governments here).
>>
>>> There is usually a pet deposit, too.
>>
>> AND a deposit??
>>
>Pet deposit, monthly pet rent. It depends on the management. Renters
>are aware of this up front. You pay a security deposit for your own
>possible damages/wear & tear, too.
>
>>> Pets *can* be destructive. Not that mine ever were.
>>
>> Hmm, it's one way to manage an issue if it comes up I suppose. IF,
>> mind you... to me, paying a deposit is unfair until an issue does
>> arise. It's like paying a deposit just in case you get caught speeding
>> in your car.
>
>Non-sequitor. I pay for car insurance IN CASE I have a car accident, in
>advance.

IMO *that's* a non-sequitur, but never mind

>The pet deposit is refundable in most cases. So is the human security
>deposit, assuming you and your pets didn't leave the apartment trashed.

That's fair enough, in Aus you have to pay 'bond', which is usually
the equivalent of four weeks rent to cover such things.

On 11/29/2016 9:42 PM, Je�us wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 19:22:18 -0500, Brooklyn1
> > wrote:
>
>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 09:46:51 +1100, Jeßus > wrote:
>>
>>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 17:39:43 -0500, Brooklyn1
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>> True... even though cell phone cameras have come a long way there's no
>>>> way they can come close to competing with a real digicam... they don't
>>>> have a viewfinder, there's no flash, and there are many focusing
>>>> features a cell phone camera hasn't like adjusting for lighting
>>>> conditions, or tele but mostly they don't have a lens arrangement,
>>>> they are classified as pinhole cameras. Even an under $100 no frills
>>>> digicam is leagues ahead of any cell phone camera.
>>>
>>> Most of all they don't have a quality lens, which is arguably the main
>>> difference. I have a decent DSLR, but didn't want to and am glad I
>>> didn't take it on my trip. Too bulky and heavy. The new phone did a
>>> reasonable job for the pics.
>>
>> So you admit to being lazy and worthless... you're too weak to lift a
>> camera, maybe it weighs eight ounces.
>
> 1lb. 1.8oz. Plus lenses. Plus it's necessary to carry lots of water,
> plus food, etc.
>
>> However no one has seen even
>> one picture from your trip...
>
> You wouldn't have carried a DSLR across some of the jungle and terrain
> I did in 35°C heat and 95% humidity. In fact you wouldn't have even
> managed to climb some of the hills at all. People less than half my
> age barely managed to do so when I was here near Mondulkiri
> http://www.mondulkirisanctuary.org/ . Myself, another guy from
> Melbourne the same age as me, plus the guide had to stop to let them
> rest several times.
>
> I'm actually thinking about volunteering at the sanctuary for a few
> months next year, if I can arrange things here at home to be taken
> care of while I'm away (which won't be easy).
>
> Anyway, a few pics for anyone interested:
> https://postimg.org/gallery/2qjrsmgu2/
>

Looks like a great place to visit. I'd be one of the people stopping
for a frequent break thrse days.

On 11/29/2016 7:42 PM, Je�us wrote:
> One minute you talk civilly, the next you're in a drunken rant mode.

I like it when he makes you weep, old man.

On 11/29/2016 9:53 PM, Je�us wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 18:48:15 -0500, jmcquown >
> wrote:
>
>> The pet deposit is refundable in most cases. So is the human security
>> deposit, assuming you and your pets didn't leave the apartment trashed.
>
> That's fair enough, in Aus you have to pay 'bond', which is usually
> the equivalent of four weeks rent to cover such things.
>
The refundable security deposit (what you call 'bond') is usually 2
month's rent. I don't remember the amount of the pet deposit, seems
like it was $200 then the $15/month fee on top of that.

Psssst... I didn't tell them when my cat Persia moved in. I knew she
wasn't going to tear the place apart so why pay the extra pet rent?
What they didn't know didn't hurt them (except in the wallet).

Jill

On Tuesday, November 29, 2016 at 12:39:52 PM UTC-10, Brooklyn1 wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 10:05:16 -0800, "Cheri" >
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >> "dsi1" wrote in message news
> >
> >> Your problem is that you use a camera to take pictures. Nobody takes
> >> pictures with a camera anymore. Even a stopid cheese sandwich looks
> >> great when you use a phone!
> >
> >Nobody takes pics with a camera anymore? Really? I doubt that speaks to all
> >the cameraphobes who love their cameras.
> >
> >Cheri
>
> True... even though cell phone cameras have come a long way there's no
> way they can come close to competing with a real digicam... they don't
> have a viewfinder, there's no flash, and there are many focusing
> features a cell phone camera hasn't like adjusting for lighting
> conditions, or tele but mostly they don't have a lens arrangement,
> they are classified as pinhole cameras. Even an under $100 no frills
> digicam is leagues ahead of any cell phone camera.

My son's cell phone camera is able to focus on objects after the photo is taken. Try doing that with your primitive camera. His phone records image data instead of an image.

Here's my dinner. Garlic shrimp with some pepper chips and stinky takuan for good measure. Holy heartburn!

https://www.amazon.com/photos/share/...bcMxx2PoOvOaUk

In article >, says...
>

> You wouldn't have carried a DSLR across some of the jungle and terrain
> I did in 35°C heat and 95% humidity. In fact you wouldn't have even
> managed to climb some of the hills at all. People less than half my
> age barely managed to do so when I was here near Mondulkiri
> http://www.mondulkirisanctuary.org/ . Myself, another guy from
> Melbourne the same age as me, plus the guide had to stop to let them
> rest several times.
>
> I'm actually thinking about volunteering at the sanctuary for a few
> months next year, if I can arrange things here at home to be taken
> care of while I'm away (which won't be easy).
>
> Anyway, a few pics for anyone interested:
> https://postimg.org/gallery/2qjrsmgu2/
>
Thanks for that

Food looks yummy, did you enjoy it?

Janet UK

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 22:45:32 -0500, Ed Pawlowski > wrote:

>On 11/29/2016 9:42 PM, Je?us wrote:
>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 19:22:18 -0500, Brooklyn1
>> > wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 09:46:51 +1100, Jeßus > wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 17:39:43 -0500, Brooklyn1
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> True... even though cell phone cameras have come a long way there's no
>>>>> way they can come close to competing with a real digicam... they don't
>>>>> have a viewfinder, there's no flash, and there are many focusing
>>>>> features a cell phone camera hasn't like adjusting for lighting
>>>>> conditions, or tele but mostly they don't have a lens arrangement,
>>>>> they are classified as pinhole cameras. Even an under $100 no frills
>>>>> digicam is leagues ahead of any cell phone camera.
>>>>
>>>> Most of all they don't have a quality lens, which is arguably the main
>>>> difference. I have a decent DSLR, but didn't want to and am glad I
>>>> didn't take it on my trip. Too bulky and heavy. The new phone did a
>>>> reasonable job for the pics.
>>>
>>> So you admit to being lazy and worthless... you're too weak to lift a
>>> camera, maybe it weighs eight ounces.
>>
>> 1lb. 1.8oz. Plus lenses. Plus it's necessary to carry lots of water,
>> plus food, etc.
>>
>>> However no one has seen even
>>> one picture from your trip...
>>
>> You wouldn't have carried a DSLR across some of the jungle and terrain
>> I did in 35°C heat and 95% humidity. In fact you wouldn't have even
>> managed to climb some of the hills at all. People less than half my
>> age barely managed to do so when I was here near Mondulkiri
>> http://www.mondulkirisanctuary.org/ . Myself, another guy from
>> Melbourne the same age as me, plus the guide had to stop to let them
>> rest several times.
>>
>> I'm actually thinking about volunteering at the sanctuary for a few
>> months next year, if I can arrange things here at home to be taken
>> care of while I'm away (which won't be easy).
>>
>> Anyway, a few pics for anyone interested:
>> https://postimg.org/gallery/2qjrsmgu2/
>>
>
>Looks like a great place to visit. I'd be one of the people stopping
>for a frequent break thrse days.

It really is a great place to visit Ed, there's so much to see for a
relatively small country. Great food (much of it is perfectly safe to
eat, just be a little discerning). The people are very friendly, happy
and generous, regardless of their income. Never once saw any kind of
aggression, anywhere. At all. It's a laid back and slower paced place
too, even in crowded places such as Phnom Penh.

Very cheap too. Most dinners I had with one drink at fairly fancy
restaurants averaged around USD$10. In Australia I'd be paying at
least quadruple that and still never get the same levels of service
like I did at the hotels and restaurants there.

On Tue, 29 Nov 2016 22:03:14 -0600, Sqwertz >
wrote:

>On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 13:42:09 +1100, Jeßus wrote:
>
>> Anyway, a few pics for anyone interested:
>> https://postimg.org/gallery/2qjrsmgu2/
>
>Nice pictures for an 8MP Moto G (and it has a flash, duh). It looks
>like the convenience far outweighed the DSLR.

Very much so. I rarely stayed more than a night or two in any given
place, so I really didn't want to be weighed down with too much
luggage and have to lug around a DSLR when you're constantly on the
move on foot a lot.

In my earlier days of being more obsessive about photography maybe,
but not now.

On Wed, 30 Nov 2016 18:35:44 -0000, Janet > wrote:

>In article >, says...
>>
>
>> You wouldn't have carried a DSLR across some of the jungle and terrain
>> I did in 35°C heat and 95% humidity. In fact you wouldn't have even
>> managed to climb some of the hills at all. People less than half my
>> age barely managed to do so when I was here near Mondulkiri
>> http://www.mondulkirisanctuary.org/ . Myself, another guy from
>> Melbourne the same age as me, plus the guide had to stop to let them
>> rest several times.
>>
>> I'm actually thinking about volunteering at the sanctuary for a few
>> months next year, if I can arrange things here at home to be taken
>> care of while I'm away (which won't be easy).
>>
>> Anyway, a few pics for anyone interested:
>> https://postimg.org/gallery/2qjrsmgu2/
>>
> Thanks for that
>
> Food looks yummy, did you enjoy it?

Yes, loved the food. I didn't take many photos of food, one pic I
posted was IIRC duck with lemon grass, coconut and lime. Really good.

Another is a pic of a steak with mashed potato and bacon (twice I had
a craving for red meat after living almost exclusively on seafood and
lots of rice

I ate a lot of fresh tropical fruit of all kinds too, its just
available everywhere you go and costs next to nothing.

But the one dish I've fallen in love with is called Amok. OMG.
It usually looked like this: http://tinyurl.com/jfloon9

I was told it is more traditionally just fish based there, but I also
had it with mixed seafood, once just with crab and once with chicken.

"In South-East Asian cuisine, "mok", "amok" or "ho mok" refers to the
process of steam cooking a curry in banana leaves, or to the resulting
dish. Thick coconut cream and galangal are classic ingredients, added
to a wide range of possible kinds of leaves and staple ingredients.
Amok is a major national culinary tradition in Cambodia, and also
popular in Laos and Thailand. The Thai version uses the same Thai
curry paste as red curry.[1][2] Amok is thick soup cooked with fish,
meat, vegetables,eggs and coconut milk. It is a common dish served at
restaurants. The most common types of amok are made with fish, beef,
or chicken as the main proteins. Amok can also be eaten with rice"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amok_(dish)

I have every intention of partially adapting this dish to local fish
and seafood. Asian cuisine is something I have avoided cooking at home
for no particular reason other than because most of the ingredients
are not able to be grown locally. But that's about to change, that's
for sure