On 12/31/2016 12:49 PM, Boron Elgar wrote:

> We've a nest on a reservoir here in northern NJ about a 5 minute walk
> from the house. I got this shot of one of the eagles last winter.j

It's so beautiful there.
>
> http://i66.tinypic.com/22jnm0.jpg

I know it's not near you, but there is an eagle cam at the Duke estate
in Bedminster. It's rather relaxing watching them sit on their nest
of eggs.

nancy

On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 06:02:02 -0800 (PST), Nancy2
> wrote:

>Sometimes bald eagles will use the same nest for 20 years, and other pairs will
>make a new nest every few years. Experts have no idea why, but in this case,
>you are right, they don't nest in dead trees. Other birds do, like Ospreys. In most
>cases, a Dept. of Natural Resources would be consulted before taking down a
>tree with a bald eagle nest in it...always good to be on the safe side.
>
>I love reading about bald eagles. I was the "answer lady" online for a season or
>two for a grade school class watching a nest in the Pacific Northwest, and it was
>a lot of fun, and kept me on my toes. ;-))
>
>N.

When I lived by the sea we had three nesting pairs of ospreys, locally
called fish eagles in the bay - loved sitting on the sun deck watching
them catching fish for the babies.

On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 07:29:43 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
> wrote:

>On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 9:59:49 AM UTC-5, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> On Sun, 1 Jan 2017 05:23:41 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
>> > wrote:
>>
>> >On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 10:15:06 PM UTC-5, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>> >> On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 17:27:20 -0800, "Cheri" >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >> >"Brooklyn1" > wrote in message
>> >> .. .
>> >> >> On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 12:07:03 -0800, "Cheri" >
>> >> >> wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >>>"Brooklyn1" > wrote in message
>> >> ...
>> >> >>>> On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 03:20:12 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
>> >> >>>> > wrote:
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>>>On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 12:28:52 AM UTC-5, sf wrote:
>> >> >>>>>> On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 10:16:30 -0500, Gary > wrote:
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> > If sf and sheldon don't want cooking smells in the rest of
>> >> >>>>>> > their houses, might I suggest they cook better food and the
>> >> >>>>>> > smell won't bother them. ;-D
>> >> >>>>>>
>> >> >>>>>> It's obvious that you don't entertain.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>It's not a party unless everybody is in the kitchen, even if
>> >> >>>>>they're just passing through to get to the beer.
>> >> >>>>>
>> >> >>>>>Cindy Hamilton
>> >> >>>>
>> >> >>>> I don't do those kind of parties, never did. I don't invite guests to
>> >> >>>> rummage through my fridge, cupboards, or through any part of my home.
>> >> >>>> When I serve chilled drinks and ice I put out an an ice chest. I
>> >> >>>> never tell guests to make themselves at home... especially when I've
>> >> >>>> not been to their home.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>LOL, well...there you have it then! Nobody invites you to their home,
>> >> >>>which
>> >> >>>explains a lot.
>> >> >>>
>> >> >>>Cheri
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Some do but some don't, those who live like you and would be too
>> >> >> embarrassed for anyone to see their pigsty. LOL
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Actually I don't do parties anymore, I'll invite up to two couples for
>> >> >> dinner is all. When there are a bunch that wants to get together I
>> >> >> suggest a restaurant, everyone can pay their own tab. Once they
>> >> >> realize they'll be paying their tab they decline... moochers can't
>> >> >> ever be my friends, unless they're wild critters.
>> >> >
>> >> >I was just kidding anyway. I think you have a beautiful set up where you
>> >> >live, and I hope your New Year is good and healthy! BTW, I think the
>> >> >restaurant idea is splendid.
>> >> >
>> >> >Cheri
>> >>
>> >> A restaurant works well when there's a group, no individual is put out
>> >> and has to foot the entire bill. Typically in summer we all gather at
>> >> the local golf course restaurant. Food is excellent, service
>> >> spectacular, very affordable, and views are breathtaking.
>> >> http://www.thunderhartgolf.com/
>> >> In winter we meet at a restaurant in Windham, either at the ski lodge
>> >> or somewhere in town.
>> >> http://www.windhammountain.com/
>> >> http://www.windhammountain.com/dinin...untain-dining/
>> >> I don't care to have a crowd in my home, nor do I want people I barely
>> >> know casing my home.
>> >
>> >Paranoid much? The last big party we had was my husband's co-workers
>> >and their wives. I don't know most of them from Adam's off ox.
>>
>> None of your husband's co-workers with their husbands?
>
>Thanks for reminding me that not all of the engineers at his
>workplace (or at mine) are male. But most of them are. I
>should have written "spouses" rather than "wives".

Where I worked things changed over the years to where the majority of
engineering/scientific staff were women. However in the skilled
trades there were very few women although there was an aggressive
attempt to take on female apprentices, however most dropped out within
the first year, only a small handful remained. Out of about 500
employees in the skilled trades I think no more than six were female.
I have no answer for why they dropped out as they were afforded every
opportunity for success... all I can figure is from how they arrived
dressed for work (like for an office environment) they didn't like
getting dirty, keeping their hair short, and ruining their manicure.
It's really not possible to work as a heavy equipment operator and
look like a cubicle worker, yet they were being trained to work in a
field that paid triple their previous office clerk occupation.
https://www.bnl.gov/about/

>> Seems where your husband works is against employing women... or you
>> don't permit your husband to socialize with female co-workers... talk
>> about paranoia.
>>
>> >> I don't mind a warm weather cook out but then
>> >> everyone stays outdoors.
>> >
>> >My layout has everybody going through the kitchen to get to the
>> >bathroom. We're sufficiently suburban that using the backyard
>> >is not an option.
>>
>> That makes no sense, surburbia is all about backyards.
>
>I thought my meaning was clear from context. We can't use the
>backyard as a bathroom. We have city water and sewerage.
>
>> My last house
>> was in the burbs, all homes on 1/4 acre lots. As for bathrooms all
>> were on cesspools so none could handle a crowd without risking a
>> backup that suddenly ended the party. Some neighbors would rent a
>> portapotty when they had a bunch of guests... I went the restaurant
>> route... I didn't think a portapotty in the driveway was very, um
>> hospitable. Now I live in a farming community, everyone is on septic
>> systems so people are very aware not to over burdon them. Farm people
>> don't think twice about using the woods, and not just guests, if they
>> happen to be outdoors homeowners use the woods too... it's usually a
>> much shorter walk to the trees and bushes than back to the house.
>>
>> And no, I don't want people I barely know traipsing all over my home.
>> Several years ago a co-worker I was friendly with was having a large
>> gathering for Thanksgiving. I volunteered to help with the cooking
>> which was much appreciated. Just as I was about to leave I used their
>> bathroom and there on the vanity was his wife's diamond engagement
>> ring in a small glass bowl. I called them over and apprised them to
>> put it away as the guests would be arriving momentarilly. I was told
>> that they were all good friends and family. I didn't stay as I was
>> only there to help cook. Needless to say the next day I was informed
>> that ring disappeared as did several other valuables from throughout
>> their home. I can recount several other similar events, even I had
>> things taken from my bathroom by guests, stupid items like shaving
>> gear, nail clippers, and nose hair scissors. Often people you think
>> you know very well are closet kleptomaniacs.
>>
>> My advice is when having guests to put all valuables out of sight lest
>> they become an attractive nuisance that will cause honest folk to
>> become a thief.
>
>We don't have valuables, except his guns (which are always locked
>away). I can't see one of our guests making off with the television
>or one of our cars. Apart from the sentimental value, even our
>wedding rings are worth at most a few hundred dollars. Less
>than half a troy ounce of 14-carat gold in both of them.

It's not the monetary value, it's the loss of their intrinsic value...
and people you think you know will definitely swipe your ordinary
rings if left out, same as someone lifted my nail clipper, scissors,
and a package of disposale razors. Had the person asked I would have
given them those things but when stolen it leaves a very bad feeling
and makes one wonder what else is missing.

>I was thinking about the last time we had people over (first
>Sunday in December). It was another couple and a woman
>whose boyfriend couldn't make it that night, so five of us
>for dinner. We prepared individual pizza crusts, and let
>everyone come in the kitchen and put whatever toppings on them
>they liked. A good time was had by all.
>
>Cindy Hamilton

I don't call three guests a party. We have 2-4 guests often, with
more we suggest going out to eat. I enjoy intimate get togethers but
once there are more than six people they tend to pair up in their own
conversation and sometimes arguments ensue. I don't like being a host
to people who ignore me like I was the hired help and that's typically
what occurs once there're more than four. Once people begin to use my
home as though it were a public tavern then it's best we all meet at a
public tavern. Then when I'm being ignored by those I invited I'm not
in the least bit offended, then I'm a free agent with no duty to
entertain the no class clods I arrived with, I can always find someone
else at a public tavern to chat with, usually someone more interesting
and lovely to look at. My wife isn't bothered as we both know I'm
going home with her, and she also knows that young women are attracted
to me same as she was a quarter century ago. And she also enjoys the
company of young women, she had two sons but always wished for a
daughter. My wife doesn't enjoy the company of women her own age, she
says they are catty, envious, and all they do is sit in a chair... at
70 years old she's in better shape than most 40 year old women, she's
an avid skier (down hill & cross country, snowshoeing too), she rarely
takes a cart at the golf course, does distance bicycle riding
regularly, she can pedal 50 miles in a morning and then do gardening
all afternoon, and she engages in other physical activities such as
weight training and she can jump rope with any teenager. When she was
much younger she was a race walker and won many trophys. She knows I
wouldn't trade her in for two 40 year olds and I wouldn't, I'd be a
fool to and I'm no fool.

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 4:17:16 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> I do believe I've seen that in one or two houses - but only many years ago. Most people can't afford that much space in their homes, after all. (As mentioned below, one can use wall space to show off china.)
>
> And I do think that there are typically plenty of clues as to where guests ARE expected to eat, so I don't quite get why they're sitting down at a table with no food nearby.
>
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.024a3b247200
>
>
>
> Q: Dear Miss Manners: I have a shared living room/dining space, and a separate breakfast table off my kitchen. However, my formal dining table is always set, but rarely used.
>
> I was always taught to never seat yourselves at a formally set table if the meal is not being served there. Every Christmas, I elaborately decorate this table with fancy china, glassware and fragile decorations, only to have guests pull out a chair and put down their libations, keys, etc.
>
> Is it proper for guests to sit there?
>
>
> A: Are you under the impression that it is proper to set your table and then sneer at your guests for not realizing that you dont consider them important enough to sit there? What on earth is this display supposed to be for?
>
> Now why they feel it necessary to put their keys on the table is another question. Miss Manners supposes that your inhospitable attitude is sufficiently apparent that they want to be able to make a quick getaway. Merry Christmas.
>
>
>
> Some comments:
>
>
> cococo
> 12/18/2016 7:42 AM EST
> I never heard of keeping your dining room table set all the time.
>
>
> Mr.Belvedere
> 12/18/2016 3:51 PM EST
> Miss Manners mentioned this a few years ago. Apparently there's a subset of trashy bourgeoisie into it. She said if you were at someone's house and saw this, you should say, "Oh, I see you're expecting company, so I'll leave you to it."
>
> Apparently there are still some people doing this still thing, and it was annoying MM enough to mention it, and its silliness, once again.
>
>
> buffyj63
> 12/18/2016 7:47 AM EST
> I've seen it done; some people like to display items instead of keeping them stored away. One of my previous bosses had a collection of glass she kept on the dining room table all the time; they ate their regular meals in the breakfast room.
>
> Rhoanna
> 12/18/2016 10:27 AM EST
> Aren't china cabinets for displaying your dishes (or at least some of them)? It also keeps them protected when not in use, unlike a table setting.
>
>
>
> (end)
>
>
> I was once within 4 or 5 ft of a buzzard.


> Lenona.

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 1:39:48 PM UTC-5, Brooklyn1 wrote:

> Where I worked things changed over the years to where the majority of
> engineering/scientific staff were women. However in the skilled
> trades there were very few women although there was an aggressive
> attempt to take on female apprentices, however most dropped out within
> the first year, only a small handful remained. Out of about 500
> employees in the skilled trades I think no more than six were female.
> I have no answer for why they dropped out as they were afforded every
> opportunity for success... all I can figure is from how they arrived
> dressed for work (like for an office environment) they didn't like
> getting dirty, keeping their hair short, and ruining their manicure.
> It's really not possible to work as a heavy equipment operator and
> look like a cubicle worker, yet they were being trained to work in a
> field that paid triple their previous office clerk occupation.
> https://www.bnl.gov/about/

My company is under 50 people.

We don't have skilled trades employed where I work. We've got
some electronics assemblers, who are mostly women. Electronics
testers are (by sheer coincidence) mostly men. Our COO is a
woman, our CEO is a man. (Our COO used to be our CEO, but
things shifted around a few years ago.)

We don't have much clerical staff; most companies have gotten
rid of their secretaries, as have we. We've got three or four
women in purchasing. All of our hardware engineers (EE, ME) are men;
about 25% of our software and control systems engineers are women.

> >We don't have valuables, except his guns (which are always locked
> >away). I can't see one of our guests making off with the television
> >or one of our cars. Apart from the sentimental value, even our
> >wedding rings are worth at most a few hundred dollars. Less
> >than half a troy ounce of 14-carat gold in both of them.
>
> It's not the monetary value, it's the loss of their intrinsic value...
> and people you think you know will definitely swipe your ordinary
> rings if left out,

Not an issue. I don't wear rings or even a watch. We probably
should keep our wedding rings in the gun safe, since we rarely
wear them. I've got some plastic costume jewelry, which I
rarely wear, either.

> >I was thinking about the last time we had people over (first
> >Sunday in December). It was another couple and a woman
> >whose boyfriend couldn't make it that night, so five of us
> >for dinner. We prepared individual pizza crusts, and let
> >everyone come in the kitchen and put whatever toppings on them
> >they liked. A good time was had by all.
> >
> >Cindy Hamilton
>
> I don't call three guests a party.

I call it a dinner party. It doesn't matter to me how many or
few guests.

Cindy Hamilton

On 1/1/2017 1:39 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:


>> We don't have valuables, except his guns (which are always locked
>> away). I can't see one of our guests making off with the television
>> or one of our cars. Apart from the sentimental value, even our
>> wedding rings are worth at most a few hundred dollars. Less
>> than half a troy ounce of 14-carat gold in both of them.
>
> It's not the monetary value, it's the loss of their intrinsic value...
> and people you think you know will definitely swipe your ordinary
> rings if left out, same as someone lifted my nail clipper, scissors,
> and a package of disposale razors. Had the person asked I would have
> given them those things but when stolen it leaves a very bad feeling
> and makes one wonder what else is missing.

Wow, I'd certainly not call those people friends. We've had many guest,
some overnight, some singles, couples, small groups. Never had anything
taken.

Ed Pawlowski wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 1/1/2017 1:39 PM, Brooklyn1 wrote:
>
>
> > > We don't have valuables, except his guns (which are always locked
> > > away). I can't see one of our guests making off with the
> > > television or one of our cars. Apart from the sentimental value,
> > > even our wedding rings are worth at most a few hundred dollars.
> > > Less than half a troy ounce of 14-carat gold in both of them.
> >
> > It's not the monetary value, it's the loss of their intrinsic
> > value... and people you think you know will definitely swipe your
> > ordinary rings if left out, same as someone lifted my nail clipper,
> > scissors, and a package of disposale razors. Had the person asked
> > I would have given them those things but when stolen it leaves a
> > very bad feeling and makes one wonder what else is missing.
>
> Wow, I'd certainly not call those people friends. We've had many
> guest, some overnight, some singles, couples, small groups. Never
> had anything taken.

Sheldon is waxing lyrical yet again. Pay him no mind. Normal people
aren't like that and you know it.

--

Ed Pawlowski wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 12/31/2016 10:24 PM, cshenk wrote:
>
> >
> > Big controversy was a fellow who bought a house up along Great Neck
> > and had a dead tree that needed to come out before it took out his
> > neighbor's house. There were remnants of a big nest. He had the
> > city check it and they said to take the tree out. He did and some
> > around him went apeshit saying it was a bald eagle nest and they
> > might come back.
> >
> > Um, it was a 7-10 year old nest and the tree was DEAD and bald
> > eagles do not nest in dead trees.
> >
> > I guess 4 breeding couples arent much but we are excited about it!
> >
>
> Sounds like the complainers about the old nest should not be allowed
> to breed.

Agreed but they were just reacting with no sense. They went 'OMG Bald
Eagle Nest!!!!!' and didnt note in a now DEAD TREE.

--

Nancy2 wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> Sometimes bald eagles will use the same nest for 20 years, and other
> pairs will make a new nest every few years. Experts have no idea
> why, but in this case, you are right, they don't nest in dead trees.
> Other birds do, like Ospreys. In most cases, a Dept. of Natural
> Resources would be consulted before taking down a tree with a bald
> eagle nest in it...always good to be on the safe side.
>
> I love reading about bald eagles. I was the "answer lady" online for
> a season or two for a grade school class watching a nest in the
> Pacific Northwest, and it was a lot of fun, and kept me on my toes.
> ;-))
>
> N.

Sounds like fun! Yes, in this case the tree was known DEAD and while
some may nest in such Eagles do not.

--

Dave Smith wrote in rec.food.cooking:

> On 2017-01-01 9:02 AM, Nancy2 wrote:
> > Sometimes bald eagles will use the same nest for 20 years, and
> > other pairs will make a new nest every few years. Experts have no
> > idea why, but in this case, you are right, they don't nest in dead
> > trees.
>
> They tend not to build new nests in dead trees, but if there is an
> existing nest in a dead tree they will use it.

No, they dont unless there is notig else around and there's lots here
around.

--

In article >,
> wrote:

> After people in the US hunting eagles from helicopters nearly wiped
> out the eagle population, you were lucky ours were intact. I remember
> them trucking about 100 bald eagles down to the US from Cape Breton to
> restore numbers. We still have a golden eagle population and many
> fish eagles (osprey) - common birds here aside from the bald eagles.

Would you give me a citation from a neutral source for your paragraph
above? I'd appreciate it. I'm not interested in 100 eagles. "Clean
energy" kills way more than that every year. I'm interested in the
supposition that eagle hunting from helicopters was something done in
the U.S. by anyone other than another stupid, misguided government
attempt to control them that went bad if it happened at all.
For a private citizen to kill either a golden or bald eagle is a
federal crime with severe penalties. Five years in prison. This has
been true since 1940. Ain't google great! I'll be happy to cite.
So I'm dying to know where your post came from.

leo

In article >, notbob
> wrote:

> I was shocked to learn bald eagles are primarily fishing raptors:
>
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bald_eagle
>
> I was hoping they'd take care of our feral cat problem. Looks like I
> might hafta drag out my .22. 8|

You certainly have golden eagles and great horned owls in the Colorado
mountains. The golden eagles snatch cats during the day and the great
horned owls take over at night so relax.

leo

On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 12:12:19 -0500, Gary > wrote:

> 1) yeah, I live alone
> 2) never have anyone over? I sometimes wish that was true.
>
> Don't try to 2nd guess my life, you moron. You sound like
> Sheldon's sister when you write like that.

In that case, it's obvious you don't care. Let the cooking smells
permeate your furniture.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 13:22:18 -0500, Brooklyn1
> wrote:

> On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 03:20:12 -0800 (PST), Cindy Hamilton
> > wrote:
>
> >On Saturday, December 31, 2016 at 12:28:52 AM UTC-5, sf wrote:
> >> On Fri, 30 Dec 2016 10:16:30 -0500, Gary > wrote:
> >>
> >> > If sf and sheldon don't want cooking smells in the rest of
> >> > their houses, might I suggest they cook better food and the
> >> > smell won't bother them. ;-D
> >>
> >> It's obvious that you don't entertain.
> >
> >It's not a party unless everybody is in the kitchen, even if
> >they're just passing through to get to the beer.
> >
> >Cindy Hamilton
>
> I don't do those kind of parties, never did. I don't invite guests to
> rummage through my fridge, cupboards, or through any part of my home.
> When I serve chilled drinks and ice I put out an an ice chest. I
> never tell guests to make themselves at home... especially when I've
> not been to their home.

I don't mind people in my kitchen and they can either talk or help
out, but I don't need it to be an exhibition area in clear view from
other areas. My house is designed for easy (people) circulation
without the need for an open concept and I like it that way. As far
as drinks go, I serve the first one and the refills are up to them.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 17:27:20 -0800, "Cheri" >
wrote:

> BTW, I think the restaurant idea is splendid.

My circle of friends prefer meeting at a restaurant these days. We
meet, we eat, we chat, and there's nothing to clean up afterwards.


--
Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

On Sunday, January 1, 2017 at 9:49:59 PM UTC-10, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 17:27:20 -0800, "Cheri" >
> wrote:
>
> > BTW, I think the restaurant idea is splendid.
>
> My circle of friends prefer meeting at a restaurant these days. We
> meet, we eat, we chat, and there's nothing to clean up afterwards.
>
>
> --
> Avoid cutting yourself when slicing vegetables by getting someone else to hold them.

That's the trend with the kids these days - meeting friends outside the house.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GTXP2FzQS94

On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 19:48:16 -0800, Leonard Blaisdell
> wrote:

>In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> After people in the US hunting eagles from helicopters nearly wiped
>> out the eagle population, you were lucky ours were intact. I remember
>> them trucking about 100 bald eagles down to the US from Cape Breton to
>> restore numbers. We still have a golden eagle population and many
>> fish eagles (osprey) - common birds here aside from the bald eagles.
>
>Would you give me a citation from a neutral source for your paragraph
>above? I'd appreciate it. I'm not interested in 100 eagles. "Clean
>energy" kills way more than that every year. I'm interested in the
>supposition that eagle hunting from helicopters was something done in
>the U.S. by anyone other than another stupid, misguided government
>attempt to control them that went bad if it happened at all.
>For a private citizen to kill either a golden or bald eagle is a
>federal crime with severe penalties. Five years in prison. This has
>been true since 1940. Ain't google great! I'll be happy to cite.
>So I'm dying to know where your post came from.
>
>leo

I saw that on a nature programme but also read about it at the time,
maybe late 1960s. I did google just now but it seems centred on good
'hog hunting by helicopter' in Texas. I agree with you power lines
can be dangerous to eagles (and some other birds) unfortunately the
eagles often build their nests on power poles here.

I am out most of today but will later on see if I can get something
from the nature programme, it is still going strong.

Lucretia, the newest energy threat to migratory and other birds isn't the prevalence
of power company installations, unless you are talking about wind turbines....they
are indeed a great danger. There are environmental movements afoot to keep
wind turbines away from migratory traffic flyways.

N.

dsi1 wrote:
>
> sf wrote:
> > My circle of friends prefer meeting at a restaurant these days. We
> > meet, we eat, we chat, and there's nothing to clean up afterwards.
>
> That's the trend with the kids these days - meeting friends outside the house.

Good thing with that is that you can leave and go home when you
want to and not be stuck with friends that won't leave later on.

heheh ;-D

On 2017-01-02 7:35 AM, wrote:
> On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 19:48:16 -0800, Leonard Blaisdell

> I saw that on a nature programme but also read about it at the time,
> maybe late 1960s. I did google just now but it seems centred on good
> 'hog hunting by helicopter' in Texas. I agree with you power lines
> can be dangerous to eagles (and some other birds) unfortunately the
> eagles often build their nests on power poles here.
>
> I am out most of today but will later on see if I can get something
> from the nature programme, it is still going strong.
>


I called you on that factoid a couple days ago and you still haven't
come up with a source.

sf wrote:
>
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 12:12:19 -0500, Gary > wrote:
>
> > 1) yeah, I live alone
> > 2) never have anyone over? I sometimes wish that was true.
> >
> > Don't try to 2nd guess my life, you moron. You sound like
> > Sheldon's sister when you write like that.
>
> In that case, it's obvious you don't care. Let the cooking smells
> permeate your furniture.

heheh - evidently, you really *are* that bobbleheaded and clueless.
Not to mention rude, as always.

On 1/2/2017 2:49 AM, sf wrote:
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 17:27:20 -0800, "Cheri" >
> wrote:
>
>> BTW, I think the restaurant idea is splendid.
>
> My circle of friends prefer meeting at a restaurant these days. We
> meet, we eat, we chat, and there's nothing to clean up afterwards.
>
>

We do that on occasion, spend and hour or two and done. Depends on the
friends and time. Other friends we will spend the day with, sometimes
cooking, other times ordering out.

If we meet at a restaurant I prefer to do it at "off" times so you can
relax and not hold up a table needed for the people waiting. You
usually get better service too as the staff is not overwhelmed.

On 12/28/2016 8:17 AM, Gary wrote:
> jmcquown wrote:
>>
>> Gary wrote:
>
>>> Hence the name. A living room was meant to be lived in. Now we have
>>> dens, family rooms, great rooms, etc.
>>>
>> You live in an apartment, Gary.
>
> I was referring to houses in general these days, not my apt.
> Most have dens or family rooms and people tend to do every
> day living in them. Latest is the great rooms which have been
> very popular with new building. Many people have remodeled,
> taken out walls and turned old living room, dining room,
> and kitchen into one giant great room. They are nice.
>
>> I've seen a lot of really nice
>> apartments but most of the ones I've seen don't have a separate living
>> room *and* a den.
>
> Good that you said, "most of the ones I've seen."
> There are at least 6 apartment layouts in my neighborhood
> of 400 apartments.
>
> - one bedroom
> - one bedroom with den (I like those but there are only a few)
> - two bedroom
> - two bedroom with family room (this is what I have)
> - two bedroom with 2 baths and small family room
> - three bedroom with family room (the 3rd bedroom is a joke)
>
> I agree with you though. I've painted many apartments and
> most of them are small and closed up feeling. Not mine.
> My living room, dining room, family room and kitchen
> are *almost* like a great room. Very open and spacious.
>
> :-D
>
In my last apartment the kitchen had a pass thru bar from the kitchen to
the dining/living area. Similar to these:

http://tinyurl.com/jsbc8z7

So, the kitchen was sort of open to the dining/living area. I could see
and hear what was going on when entertaining. I used a standing floor
screen to partially separate the dining area from the main living space.
I do prefer some degree of separation rather than a complete open
concept. It doesn't have to be walls.

I surely did love that apartment! I doubt the neighborhood is any great
shakes these days, though. I would have wound up moving eventually.
And yes, it would have been to another apartment.

Fact is, I never really wanted to own a house. The maintenance in
apartments is all taken care of, provided the management company is a
good one (this one was). During my lengthy tenancy whenever anything
broke they'd replace or repair it. When the central air broke they
promptly replaced it. The water heater broke and leaked through to the
carpet in the dining area. They replaced the water heater and the
carpeting in the dining room. There was a wood burning fireplace in the
living room. They sent out a chimney sweep every year! I also never
had to replace the HVAC filters or smoke alarm batteries; they did that.
There was a lovely big fenced patio, too. I spent a lot of time out
there on nice days, sitting on a covered patio swing, curled up with a
book.

Jill

On 1/2/2017 7:35 AM, wrote:

> I saw that on a nature programme but also read about it at the time,
> maybe late 1960s. I did google just now but it seems centred on good
> 'hog hunting by helicopter' in Texas. I agree with you power lines
> can be dangerous to eagles (and some other birds) unfortunately the
> eagles often build their nests on power poles here.

It wouldn't surprise me that there would be a moron hunting eagles
illegally and from a helicopter, no less, but it's quite a leap to
think they were hunted to the brink of extinction that way. The
DDT problem is well known and well publicized, as well.

nancy

On 1/2/2017 10:30 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
> On 1/2/2017 7:35 AM, wrote:
>
>> I saw that on a nature programme but also read about it at the time,
>> maybe late 1960s. I did google just now but it seems centred on good
>> 'hog hunting by helicopter' in Texas. I agree with you power lines
>> can be dangerous to eagles (and some other birds) unfortunately the
>> eagles often build their nests on power poles here.
>
> It wouldn't surprise me that there would be a moron hunting eagles
> illegally and from a helicopter, no less, but it's quite a leap to
> think they were hunted to the brink of extinction that way. The
> DDT problem is well known and well publicized, as well.
>
> nancy
>
>
Yes, it was likely DDT and other long-banned pesticides that endangered
them. At any rate, only a very *rich* moron could afford to hunt from a
helicopter. How many people do you know could afford to rent (much less
own) a helicopter? Then again, there are (or were) some rich nuts who
go on organized hunting retreats on private land so they can kill
imported, endangered trophy animals. Grrrrrrr. Hopefully that's not
still going on.

Jill

On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 3:51:12 AM UTC-10, Gary wrote:
> dsi1 wrote:
> >
> > sf wrote:
> > > My circle of friends prefer meeting at a restaurant these days. We
> > > meet, we eat, we chat, and there's nothing to clean up afterwards.
> >
> > That's the trend with the kids these days - meeting friends outside the house.
>
> Good thing with that is that you can leave and go home when you
> want to and not be stuck with friends that won't leave later on.
>
> heheh ;-D

The kids these days will set up a meeting with friends in a matter of minutes. I like to have 24 hours notice to be comfortable. This is what comes with being in constant contact with other people.

On 2017-01-02 11:06 AM, jmcquown wrote:
> On 1/2/2017 10:30 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>> On 1/2/2017 7:35 AM, wrote:
>>
>>> I saw that on a nature programme but also read about it at the time,
>>> maybe late 1960s. I did google just now but it seems centred on good
>>> 'hog hunting by helicopter' in Texas. I agree with you power lines
>>> can be dangerous to eagles (and some other birds) unfortunately the
>>> eagles often build their nests on power poles here.
>>
>> It wouldn't surprise me that there would be a moron hunting eagles
>> illegally and from a helicopter, no less, but it's quite a leap to
>> think they were hunted to the brink of extinction that way. The
>> DDT problem is well known and well publicized, as well.
>>
>> nancy
>>
>>
> Yes, it was likely DDT and other long-banned pesticides that endangered
> them. At any rate, only a very *rich* moron could afford to hunt from a
> helicopter. How many people do you know could afford to rent (much less
> own) a helicopter?

Bald eagles were a protected species long before the advent of
helicopters. They are indeed very expensive to buy and to operate.
Obviously you cannot fly one and shoot at the same time so you would
have to have someone piloting the helicopter. I cannot imagine there
would be many qualified pilots or helicopter owners who would risk their
licences and their aircraft to poach eagles, and poaching often leads to
seizure of vehicles and equipment used.

Then there are the issues of the shooting dynamics. Shot is only
effective up to about 40 yards. I don't know how one could expect to
get within that range. I don't know how much you would have to
compensate for the prop wash.



>Then again, there are (or were) some rich nuts who
> go on organized hunting retreats on private land so they can kill
> imported, endangered trophy animals. Grrrrrrr. Hopefully that's not
> still going on.

That could be solved with appropriate regulations and enforcement
regarding the importation and keeping of exotic animals.

Perhaps lucretia is confused with the shooting of varmints from
helicopters. There are videos of people shooting wild hogs and coyotes.
That can't happen up here because you cannot carry loaded weapons in a
vehicle or fire from a vehicle.

On 1/2/2017 11:42 AM, Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2017-01-02 11:06 AM, jmcquown wrote:
>> On 1/2/2017 10:30 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>>> On 1/2/2017 7:35 AM, wrote:
>>>
>>>> I saw that on a nature programme but also read about it at the time,
>>>> maybe late 1960s. I did google just now but it seems centred on good
>>>> 'hog hunting by helicopter' in Texas. I agree with you power lines
>>>> can be dangerous to eagles (and some other birds) unfortunately the
>>>> eagles often build their nests on power poles here.
>>>
>>> It wouldn't surprise me that there would be a moron hunting eagles
>>> illegally and from a helicopter, no less, but it's quite a leap to
>>> think they were hunted to the brink of extinction that way. The
>>> DDT problem is well known and well publicized, as well.
>>>
>>> nancy
>>>
>>>
>> Yes, it was likely DDT and other long-banned pesticides that endangered
>> them. At any rate, only a very *rich* moron could afford to hunt from a
>> helicopter. How many people do you know could afford to rent (much less
>> own) a helicopter?
>
> Bald eagles were a protected species long before the advent of
> helicopters. They are indeed very expensive to buy and to operate.
> Obviously you cannot fly one and shoot at the same time so you would
> have to have someone piloting the helicopter. I cannot imagine there
> would be many qualified pilots or helicopter owners who would risk their
> licences and their aircraft to poach eagles, and poaching often leads to
> seizure of vehicles and equipment used.
>
> Then there are the issues of the shooting dynamics. Shot is only
> effective up to about 40 yards. I don't know how one could expect to
> get within that range. I don't know how much you would have to
> compensate for the prop wash.
>
>
>
>> Then again, there are (or were) some rich nuts who
>> go on organized hunting retreats on private land so they can kill
>> imported, endangered trophy animals. Grrrrrrr. Hopefully that's not
>> still going on.
>
> That could be solved with appropriate regulations and enforcement
> regarding the importation and keeping of exotic animals.
>
I'm pretty sure some of that legislation is already in place. The
problem is the ultra rich somehow seem to manage to evade regulations.
And the laws vary by state.

http://www.bornfreeusa.org/b4a2_exot...ls_summary.php

It appears I'm allowed to own a lion if I want to. There is no
regulation in South Carolina against my owning non-domestic cat. Or I
could have a monkey... a gorilla would be doubtful. LOL


"Summary of Law: It is unlawful to possess wolves or coyotes within the
state. It is also unlawful to possess wildlife indigenous to the state
without a permit. Specifically, one can not possess members of the
Cervidae, Suidae, Tayassuidae (peccaries), Bovidae (bison, mountain
goat, mountain sheep), nor can they possess coyotes, bears, turkeys, and
furbearers. However, there are no state laws governing the possession of
non-domesticated felines, primates, reptiles, and other wildlife not
listed above."

It's pretty funny to read since I live in the lowcountry. There are no
bison, sheep or mountain goats around here. But the law is the law
after all.

Scroll through to read all the different state laws.

> Perhaps lucretia is confused with the shooting of varmints from
> helicopters. There are videos of people shooting wild hogs and coyotes.
> That can't happen up here because you cannot carry loaded weapons in a
> vehicle or fire from a vehicle.
>
>
It doesn't make much sense at any rate. As you said, the rotor wash
would make a helicopter difficult to maneuver and to stay on flight
steady to shoot eagles? It really does sound like a tall tale.

Jill

"sf" > wrote in message
...
> On Sat, 31 Dec 2016 17:27:20 -0800, "Cheri" >
> wrote:
>
>> BTW, I think the restaurant idea is splendid.
>
> My circle of friends prefer meeting at a restaurant these days. We
> meet, we eat, we chat, and there's nothing to clean up afterwards.

Works for me. Thankfully, my kids got us several gift cards for
restaurants/stores this year as Christmas presents, instead of warming
throws, footbaths and so on, that are regifted to thrift shops.
Arrrrrrrrrrrrrgh.

Cheri

On Wednesday, December 21, 2016 at 4:17:16 PM UTC-5, wrote:
> I do believe I've seen that in one or two houses - but only many years ago. Most people can't afford that much space in their homes, after all. (As mentioned below, one can use wall space to show off china.)
>
> And I do think that there are typically plenty of clues as to where guests ARE expected to eat, so I don't quite get why they're sitting down at a table with no food nearby.
>
>
> https://www.washingtonpost.com/lifes...=.024a3b247200
>
>
>
> Q: Dear Miss Manners: I have a shared living room/dining space, and a separate breakfast table off my kitchen. However, my formal dining table is always set, but rarely used.
>
> I was always taught to never seat yourselves at a formally set table if the meal is not being served there. Every Christmas, I elaborately decorate this table with fancy china, glassware and fragile decorations, only to have guests pull out a chair and put down their libations, keys, etc.
>
> Is it proper for guests to sit there?
>
>
> A: Are you under the impression that it is proper to set your table and then sneer at your guests for not realizing that you dont consider them important enough to sit there? What on earth is this display supposed to be for?
>
> Now why they feel it necessary to put their keys on the table is another question. Miss Manners supposes that your inhospitable attitude is sufficiently apparent that they want to be able to make a quick getaway. Merry Christmas.
>
>
>
> Some comments:
>
>
> cococo
> 12/18/2016 7:42 AM EST
> I never heard of keeping your dining room table set all the time.
>
>
> Mr.Belvedere
> 12/18/2016 3:51 PM EST
> Miss Manners mentioned this a few years ago. Apparently there's a subset of trashy bourgeoisie into it. She said if you were at someone's house and saw this, you should say, "Oh, I see you're expecting company, so I'll leave you to it."
>
> Apparently there are still some people doing this still thing, and it was annoying MM enough to mention it, and its silliness, once again.
>
>
> buffyj63
> 12/18/2016 7:47 AM EST
> I've seen it done; some people like to display items instead of keeping them stored away. One of my previous bosses had a collection of glass she kept on the dining room table all the time; they ate their regular meals in the breakfast room.
>
> Rhoanna
> 12/18/2016 10:27 AM EST
> Aren't china cabinets for displaying your dishes (or at least some of them)? It also keeps them protected when not in use, unlike a table setting.
>
>
>
> (end)
>
>
>



It's best to hunt wild hogs with a big knife, makes it exciting.

> Lenona.

On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 05:39:45 -0800 (PST), Nancy2
> wrote:

>Lucretia, the newest energy threat to migratory and other birds isn't the prevalence
>of power company installations, unless you are talking about wind turbines....they
>are indeed a great danger. There are environmental movements afoot to keep
>wind turbines away from migratory traffic flyways.
>
>N.

Our lines are mostly above ground (too difficult if buried when the
ground freezes in winter) so we have many power poles and fairly
frequently birds do electrocute themselves Plus the eagles love
to build their nests on them. Often the power company will put up one
next to the power pole and shift the nest on to that platform, they
don't mind and stay there

On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 19:48:16 -0800, Leonard Blaisdell
> wrote:

>In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> After people in the US hunting eagles from helicopters nearly wiped
>> out the eagle population, you were lucky ours were intact. I remember
>> them trucking about 100 bald eagles down to the US from Cape Breton to
>> restore numbers. We still have a golden eagle population and many
>> fish eagles (osprey) - common birds here aside from the bald eagles.
>
>Would you give me a citation from a neutral source for your paragraph
>above? I'd appreciate it. I'm not interested in 100 eagles. "Clean
>energy" kills way more than that every year. I'm interested in the
>supposition that eagle hunting from helicopters was something done in
>the U.S. by anyone other than another stupid, misguided government
>attempt to control them that went bad if it happened at all.
>For a private citizen to kill either a golden or bald eagle is a
>federal crime with severe penalties. Five years in prison. This has
>been true since 1940. Ain't google great! I'll be happy to cite.
>So I'm dying to know where your post came from.
>
>leo
Haven't had much time to search but this shows as late as 1956 they
were hunting birds from the air
https://definitions.uslegal.com/a/airborne-hunting/

I will endeavour to find something else as I know it was not a figment
of my imagination. I was shocked to tell the truth.

On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 11:06:55 -0500, jmcquown >
wrote:

>On 1/2/2017 10:30 AM, Nancy Young wrote:
>> On 1/2/2017 7:35 AM, wrote:
>>
>>> I saw that on a nature programme but also read about it at the time,
>>> maybe late 1960s. I did google just now but it seems centred on good
>>> 'hog hunting by helicopter' in Texas. I agree with you power lines
>>> can be dangerous to eagles (and some other birds) unfortunately the
>>> eagles often build their nests on power poles here.
>>
>> It wouldn't surprise me that there would be a moron hunting eagles
>> illegally and from a helicopter, no less, but it's quite a leap to
>> think they were hunted to the brink of extinction that way. The
>> DDT problem is well known and well publicized, as well.
>>
>> nancy
>>
>>
>Yes, it was likely DDT and other long-banned pesticides that endangered
>them. At any rate, only a very *rich* moron could afford to hunt from a
>helicopter. How many people do you know could afford to rent (much less
>own) a helicopter? Then again, there are (or were) some rich nuts who
>go on organized hunting retreats on private land so they can kill
>imported, endangered trophy animals. Grrrrrrr. Hopefully that's not
>still going on.
>
>Jill

Well it is still going on in Africa -come to think of it apparently
Trump had a sons hunting in Africa pics removed from the net, and they
are still hog hunting by helo in Texas, so go figure. Who was it who
killed a dearly loved lion in Africa a few months ago, a woman I think
and then they took trophy pics.

I didn't suggest DDT didn't do damage and trust me, I am working on
finding evidence of what I said as I recall it well because I was so
shocked at the time that anyone did anything like that and called it
'hunting' -

On 2017-01-02 3:17 PM, wrote:
> On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 11:06:55 -0500, jmcquown >

> I didn't suggest DDT didn't do damage and trust me,

No, I suppose you did not suggest that, though it is a well known fact
that DDT was the major cause of the decline of the eagle population,
along with a lot of other birds of prey. What you said was " After
people in the US hunting eagles from helicopters nearly wiped out the
eagle population, you were lucky ours were intact."

> I am working on
> finding evidence of what I said as I recall it well because I was so
> shocked at the time that anyone did anything like that and called it
> 'hunting' -
>

Well, good luck with that. I don't think that you were anywhere near as
shocked by the idea as I was that you suggested that it was major cause
of the decline of the bald eagle. You didn't just mention it as one of
many factors. You said that Americans hunting eagles from helicopters
nearly wiped them out.

Lucretia, it was a MALE dentist who killed the popular lion in Africa, on a sanctioned,
guided hunt. He had to abandon his dental practice for a period of time because
of the backlash.

N.

On Mon, 2 Jan 2017 15:53:28 -0800 (PST), Nancy2
> wrote:

>Lucretia, it was a MALE dentist who killed the popular lion in Africa, on a sanctioned,
>guided hunt. He had to abandon his dental practice for a period of time because
>of the backlash.
>
>N.

Yes, thanks for jogging my memory. I am happy to hear there was a
backlash, great shame.

On Monday, January 2, 2017 at 5:30:20 AM UTC-10, Nancy Young wrote:
> On 1/2/2017 7:35 AM, wrote:
>
> > I saw that on a nature programme but also read about it at the time,
> > maybe late 1960s. I did google just now but it seems centred on good
> > 'hog hunting by helicopter' in Texas. I agree with you power lines
> > can be dangerous to eagles (and some other birds) unfortunately the
> > eagles often build their nests on power poles here.
>
> It wouldn't surprise me that there would be a moron hunting eagles
> illegally and from a helicopter, no less, but it's quite a leap to
> think they were hunted to the brink of extinction that way. The
> DDT problem is well known and well publicized, as well.
>
> nancy

DDT has saved countless lives since the world has begun using it to control malaria. We're not allowed to use the stuff but for the rest of the world, it's a godsend. The part about DDT and eagle eggs are well known and well publicized. The problem is that there's no proof that there is any truth to what everybody knows. Mostly, it's junk science.

On 2017-01-02 6:53 PM, Nancy2 wrote:
> Lucretia, it was a MALE dentist who killed the popular lion in Africa, on a sanctioned,
> guided hunt. He had to abandon his dental practice for a period of time because
> of the backlash.
>
>

This one?

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VBa4D9D6Gng

On Sun, 01 Jan 2017 19:48:16 -0800, Leonard Blaisdell
> wrote:

>In article >,
> wrote:
>
>> After people in the US hunting eagles from helicopters nearly wiped
>> out the eagle population, you were lucky ours were intact. I remember
>> them trucking about 100 bald eagles down to the US from Cape Breton to
>> restore numbers. We still have a golden eagle population and many
>> fish eagles (osprey) - common birds here aside from the bald eagles.
>
>Would you give me a citation from a neutral source for your paragraph
>above? I'd appreciate it. I'm not interested in 100 eagles. "Clean
>energy" kills way more than that every year. I'm interested in the
>supposition that eagle hunting from helicopters was something done in
>the U.S. by anyone other than another stupid, misguided government
>attempt to control them that went bad if it happened at all.
>For a private citizen to kill either a golden or bald eagle is a
>federal crime with severe penalties. Five years in prison. This has
>been true since 1940. Ain't google great! I'll be happy to cite.
>So I'm dying to know where your post came from.
>
>leo

https://www.animallaw.info/article/d...protection-act

During the 1972 congressional debate, the Department of the Interior
revealed that only 32 federal convictions had been obtained under the
act in the previous five years, with violators averaging a $50 fine
per incident . . . Congress also added civil penalties of $5,000 per
violation for the first time. The Senate also took congressional
notice of the continued killing of eagles by ranchers and farmers, who
sometimes destroyed large numbers by aerial shooting. As a result,
Congress designed a penalty designed to strike fear into the heart of
ranching country: the cancellation of grazing rights.

On 2017-01-02 7:17 PM, wrote:

> During the 1972 congressional debate, the Department of the Interior
> revealed that only 32 federal convictions had been obtained under the
> act in the previous five years, with violators averaging a $50 fine
> per incident . . . Congress also added civil penalties of $5,000 per
> violation for the first time. The Senate also took congressional
> notice of the continued killing of eagles by ranchers and farmers, who
> sometimes destroyed large numbers by aerial shooting. As a result,
> Congress designed a penalty designed to strike fear into the heart of
> ranching country: the cancellation of grazing rights.
>


You have cited something from a university with a backgrounder to
legislation, which looks more like anecdotal and not likely empirical.
They are talking about ranchers and farmers, but the bald eagle is
primarily found near coastal areas because they live on fish. Graphs of
eagle population and mating pairs were pretty well bottomed out in the
early 1960s. Civilian helicopters were still quite rare at that time.

Curiously, it was about the time that helicopters started becoming much
more popular that the eagle population started to increase. It also
coincides with the time that DDT was seen as a major problem for eagles
and other birds of prey.