On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 05:51:47 -0700 (PDT), Bob Villa
> wrote:

:I bought an old Salton (George Foreman spokesperson) peanut butter
:maker at a thrift store that has worked well.
:It makes a small amount at a time though.

Yes, I saw it online yesterday. It looks similar to other ~$40 peanut
butter making machines for sale various places online including ebay.
Most people aren't high on them, but I suppose if you're careful and
don't mind your PB a bit coarse they might work for you. I'm skeptical,
and besides, I don't really want to have a machine dedicated to nut
butter if I can effectively avoid it.

Dan

willshak wrote:
> on 6/26/2009 11:50 PM (ET) Tony Hwang wrote the following:
>> wrote:
>>> I've made nut butters in the kitchen for many years, usually peanut
>>> butter. It's a money saver and you can see with your own eyes exactly
>>> what the ingredients are.
>>>
>>> I roast the nuts in the oven, although I have made raw cashew butter a
>>> time or two. My sometime problem is getting a machine that's up to the
>>> task. I used to work with a Waring blender, and after burning out a few
>>> motors (they were available for user replacement), I bought an Osterizer
>>> 10 speed and it lasted for over 20 years on the original motor. It
>>> finally burned out about two months ago. This old Osterizer was 125
>>> watts only. Besides the glass blender jar I had a $10 plastic accessory
>>> that they called a food processor attachment, which I have only used for
>>> grinding meat on occasion. It's designed very well and does a very nice
>>> job of meat grinding.
>>> So, in looking for a replacement for my old Osterizer I figured I'd get
>>> another Osterizer, naturally, inasmuch as the old one lasted 20+ years
>>> and I still wanted to be able to use the meat-grinding food processor
>>> attachment. I did some homework and found that the current Osterizer
>>> blenders are rated at much higher power -- from 450 watts up to 600
>>> watts or so. About two months ago I picked up a #6694 450 watt 12 speed
>>> Osterizer Blender at Walmart for around $25. However, it burned out this
>>> morning making a new batch of peanut butter. I suppose I can get a
>>> warranty replacement which will work fine for smoothies and such and
>>> grinding meat, but evidently I need something more robust for nut
>>> butters. I had been eyeing the "Beehive" Osterizer, which I can get for
>>> around $55 at Walmart. It's supposed to be 600 watts, supports 2 speeds
>>> and a flash button (the food processor attachment requires flash). I
>>> thought I'd post first to get people's opinions and experience before
>>> shelling out more money, perhaps vainly.
>>>
>>> Dan
>>>
>>> Email: dmusicant at pacbell dot net
>> Hi,
>> Eating too much peanut butter can lower L-Lysine in your body
>> affecting your immune strength. It can cause a cold sore break
>> out.Cold sore is caused by virus related to Herpes.
> Perhaps for some people. Some other people will go into anaphylactic
> shock and could die from nuts in any form.
> I eat nuts in all forms, roasted, salted, peanut butter, and nuts in any
> candy bar, and have for most of my life.
> Just for info purposes, I am 71 years old and have never had the flu, or
> a flu shot.
> I don't have herpes simplex, herpes complex, or herpes duplex. :-P
> You have to be an SNL fan to understand that last one.
>
From what I have read it is almost impossible not to have it. Its just
simply a roll of the dice if it will ever "kick in".

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:00:36 -0700 (PDT), "
> wrote:

:On Jun 26, 8:16 pm, Dan Musicant ) wrote:
:
:> I don't subscribe to the maxim that time is money.
:
:You change your mind pretty quick if I asked you everyday to use your
:"free" time to grind me 40 lbs of peanuts for free, or mow my lawn for
:that matter. You be asking me for money for your time pretty quick.
:
:buying peanut butter is the most frugal, it's cheap, and doesn't
:degrade in taste over time (otherwise you wouldn't be making big
:batches)... I think you make you own because you like doing it, which
:is fine
I won't change my mind. I don't believe in wasting my time, that's not
what I said, I just said that I don't like that old saw "time is money,"
that's BS. I've studied economics, I majored in physics. Time is NOT
money, get a grip. And yes, I have worked as a wage earner.

Yeah, I like making my own peanut butter well enough. I've done a lot of
tougher things.

Dan

Email: dmusicant at pacbell dot net

wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:31:32 -0400, "Lou" > wrote:
>
> :
> :"Dan Musicant" > wrote in message
> .. .
> :> I've made nut butters in the kitchen for many years, usually peanut
> :> butter. It's a money saver and you can see with your own eyes exactly
> :> what the ingredients are.
> :>
> :> I roast the nuts in the oven, although I have made raw cashew butter a
> :> time or two. My sometime problem is getting a machine that's up to the
> :> task. I used to work with a Waring blender, and after burning out a few
> :> motors (they were available for user replacement), I bought an Osterizer
> :> 10 speed and it lasted for over 20 years on the original motor. It
> :> finally burned out about two months ago. This old Osterizer was 125
> :> watts only. Besides the glass blender jar I had a $10 plastic accessory
> :> that they called a food processor attachment, which I have only used for
> :> grinding meat on occasion. It's designed very well and does a very nice
> :> job of meat grinding.
> :>
> :> So, in looking for a replacement for my old Osterizer I figured I'd get
> :> another Osterizer, naturally, inasmuch as the old one lasted 20+ years
> :> and I still wanted to be able to use the meat-grinding food processor
> :> attachment. I did some homework and found that the current Osterizer
> :> blenders are rated at much higher power -- from 450 watts up to 600
> :> watts or so. About two months ago I picked up a #6694 450 watt 12 speed
> :> Osterizer Blender at Walmart for around $25. However, it burned out this
> :> morning making a new batch of peanut butter. I suppose I can get a
> :> warranty replacement which will work fine for smoothies and such and
> :> grinding meat, but evidently I need something more robust for nut
> :> butters. I had been eyeing the "Beehive" Osterizer, which I can get for
> :> around $55 at Walmart. It's supposed to be 600 watts, supports 2 speeds
> :> and a flash button (the food processor attachment requires flash). I
> :> thought I'd post first to get people's opinions and experience before
> :> shelling out more money, perhaps vainly.
> :>
> :
> :Peanut and other nut butters were around long before food processors or
> :blenders, or for that matter electricity, were available. I don't know how
> :much peanut butter you make, but an old fashioned hand mill ought to do the
> :job.
> :
> I'm not familiar with old fashioned hand mills and have no idea
> concerning finding and buying one. Seems like it might be a lot of work,
> and it's yet another thing to store. A blender, at least, serves
> multiple functions as long as it doesn't burn out. I'm ****ed that they
> don't make better motors. I think they're fully aware of the problem and
> just choose to keep making machines that burn out because their net
> profit is better served with that m.o. I will not hesitate to take
> advantage of their warranty when possible.
>
> Dan
Some might suggest that their "MO" is simply to make the cheapest device
they possibly can to meet the big box price point.

There are certainly quality devices made but they aren't going to be on
the shelf at wally for $25.

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 08:48:49 -0400, "h" >
wrote:

:
:"Dan Musicant" > wrote in message
.. .
:
:> :
:> I don't subscribe to the maxim that time is money.
:
:You have GOT to be kidding. And you always seemed so intelligent in your
ther posts. PLONK.

Like I said, I was a physics major, I've studied econ, time is NOT
money. I VALUE my time, I VALUE my money, both a LOT. They are not the
same thing... I hate stupid maxims, I love great ones, I KNOW the
difference.

Dan


Email: dmusicant at pacbell dot net

On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:53:27 -0600, Dave Balderstone
> wrote:

:In article >, wrote:
:
:> I look at them carefully, pull out any impurities, any
:> questionable nuts.
:
:If only I could do that with the people I have to interact with
:daily....

Careful there, the Nazis tried that! I know, you were being funny (and
succeeded).


Email: dmusicant at pacbell dot net

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 06:46:47 -0400, Bob Muncie >
wrote:

wrote:
:> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:58:52 -0400, "h" >
:> wrote:
:>
:> :
:> :"Stepfann King" > wrote in message
:> . 122.115...
:> :> Dan Musicant ) wrote in
:> :> :
:> :>
:> :>> I've made nut butters in the kitchen for many years, usually peanut
:> :>> butter. It's a money saver and you can see with your own eyes exactly
:> :>> what the ingredients are.
:> :>>
:> :>> I roast the nuts in the oven, although I have made raw cashew butter a
:> :>> time or two. My sometime problem is getting a machine that's up to the
:> :>> task. I used to work with a Waring blender, and after burning out a few
:> :>> motors (they were available for user replacement), I bought an Osterizer
:> :>> 10 speed and it lasted for over 20 years on the original motor. It
:> :>> finally burned out about two months ago. This old Osterizer was 125
:> :>> watts only. Besides the glass blender jar I had a $10 plastic accessory
:> :>> that they called a food processor attachment, which I have only used for
:> :>> grinding meat on occasion. It's designed very well and does a very nice
:> :>> job of meat grinding.
:> :>>
:> :>> So, in looking for a replacement for my old Osterizer I figured I'd get
:> :>> another Osterizer, naturally, inasmuch as the old one lasted 20+ years
:> :>> and I still wanted to be able to use the meat-grinding food processor
:> :>> attachment. I did some homework and found that the current Osterizer
:> :>> blenders are rated at much higher power -- from 450 watts up to 600
:> :>> watts or so. About two months ago I picked up a #6694 450 watt 12 speed
:> :>> Osterizer Blender at Walmart for around $25. However, it burned out this
:> :>> morning making a new batch of peanut butter. I suppose I can get a
:> :>> warranty replacement which will work fine for smoothies and such and
:> :>> grinding meat, but evidently I need something more robust for nut
:> :>> butters. I had been eyeing the "Beehive" Osterizer, which I can get for
:> :>> around $55 at Walmart. It's supposed to be 600 watts, supports 2 speeds
:> :>> and a flash button (the food processor attachment requires flash). I
:> :>> thought I'd post first to get people's opinions and experience before
:> :>> shelling out more money, perhaps vainly.
:> :>>
:> :>> Dan
:> :>>
:> :>> Email: dmusicant at pacbell dot net
:> :>>
:> :>
:> :That's a ridiculous amount of effort. Why don't you just go to your local
:> :"health food" store and grind your own? My local hippie store has roasted
:> eanuts (peanuts and salt are the only ingredients) for $1.50/pound and a
:> :self-serve grinder. You dump in however much you want and the machine poops
:> :it out into a plastic container (or you can bring your own). You then weigh
:> :it, pay, and leave. No roasting, no mess. You are working WAAAY too hard.
:> :The amount of money you are wasting in time and messy clean-up is seriously
:> :un-frugal.
:>
:> My local best price market (AFAIK) has the same kind of setup but the
:> cost is way more than $1.50/lb. It's more like $2.50. The nuts don't
:> look anywhere near as sound as the ones I buy, either. On top of that, I
:> cull my nuts. I look at them carefully, pull out any impurities, any
:> questionable nuts. You don't get that kind of control with PB in a jar
:> or at a store's grinder, where you get what's in the hopper, period.
:>
:> Dan
:>
:>
:> Email: dmusicant at pacbell dot net
:
:I disagree on two aspects.
:
:1) The cost does not justify buying a grinder. If it costs $175 for a
:grinder, how many lbs of PB could you have bought? For me, I'd probably
:have to replace/repair the grinder long before I reached a cost value
:vs. buying the PB commercially (name brand and natural in the jar).

I have no intention of dropping $175 on a machine to make PB. My old $25
Osterizer did the job for 20+ years. I'm probably either going to try to
make due with the warranty replacement for my $25 Osterizer (bought in
May), or keep that as a second and get an Osterizer Beehive for ~$60 and
try to baby that effectively.

:
:2) I disagree with the "You get what's in the hopper" if you grind your
wn in the store's that have the grinders. The ones that I have seen
:have a variety of fresh nuts available, and what goes in the hopper is
:your choice. And since the only thing going into the hopper is nuts,
:what impurities would exist? You might as well have said "I don't eat
ut in restaurants ever, because I can't control the cleanliness of
:levels of impurities introduced to the food I ordered". Does not
:compute. Just like anything else you didn't grow yourself, or raise from
:a baby, you will never be able to control "jack" about impurity levels
:for most of what you consume. I don't even want to consider the number
f bug/worm body parts that exist in any "pure" bulk item you purchase
:for your own consumption/processing (like flour for example). Was it
recessed without the use of pesticides from seed? Was it's genomes
:modified? How about that roast you bought? Was it processed from birth
:without growth hormones, or the grain/grass it consumes completely
:without impurities? Assuming that anything you consume short of having
:raised/grew your own is not realistic.
:
:Regards,
:
:Bob

Maybe I can help make this "compute." My local market that I go to 95%
of the time has a nut grinding machine but I'm stuck with what's in the
hopper (quite unsightly "roasted peanuts"). They don't look nearly as
good as what I buy in bulk elsewhere. What impurities? Well, what I'm
getting in bulk has a few, some questionable looking nuts, discolored,
some evidently diseased, etc., and I find bits and pieces of what I'll
call "foreign matter," not peanuts, which I discard. I am unaware of any
place locally where I can choose the nuts that I put in their grinder.

I do eat out in restaurants, but only a fool would assume that
everything you are served in restaurants includes only what you'd prefer
to put in your own cooking. But that's a different thread, and I'll
leave it at that. Yes, I'm aware that there are food quality issues
galore, again pretty much beyond the scope of this thread.

Dan

Email: dmusicant at pacbell dot net

On Fri 26 Jun 2009 08:37:29a, told us...

> I've made nut butters in the kitchen for many years, usually peanut
> butter. It's a money saver and you can see with your own eyes exactly
> what the ingredients are.
>
> I roast the nuts in the oven, although I have made raw cashew butter a
> time or two. My sometime problem is getting a machine that's up to the
> task. I used to work with a Waring blender, and after burning out a few
> motors (they were available for user replacement), I bought an Osterizer
> 10 speed and it lasted for over 20 years on the original motor. It
> finally burned out about two months ago. This old Osterizer was 125
> watts only. Besides the glass blender jar I had a $10 plastic accessory
> that they called a food processor attachment, which I have only used for
> grinding meat on occasion. It's designed very well and does a very nice
> job of meat grinding.
>
> So, in looking for a replacement for my old Osterizer I figured I'd get
> another Osterizer, naturally, inasmuch as the old one lasted 20+ years
> and I still wanted to be able to use the meat-grinding food processor
> attachment. I did some homework and found that the current Osterizer
> blenders are rated at much higher power -- from 450 watts up to 600
> watts or so. About two months ago I picked up a #6694 450 watt 12 speed
> Osterizer Blender at Walmart for around $25. However, it burned out this
> morning making a new batch of peanut butter. I suppose I can get a
> warranty replacement which will work fine for smoothies and such and
> grinding meat, but evidently I need something more robust for nut
> butters. I had been eyeing the "Beehive" Osterizer, which I can get for
> around $55 at Walmart. It's supposed to be 600 watts, supports 2 speeds
> and a flash button (the food processor attachment requires flash). I
> thought I'd post first to get people's opinions and experience before
> shelling out more money, perhaps vainly.
>
> Dan
>
> Email: dmusicant at pacbell dot net
>

I have a vintage 1960s Osterizer with a higher power motor, glass jar,
metal housing, etc., and I've used it occasionally to make peanut butter.

However, if I made peanut butter on a regular basis, I would buy a
dedicated machine like this one. The mechanism is entirely different and
is up to the task of producing multiple batches. You'll probably never buy
another one...

http://www.thegreenhead.com/2008/09/...er-machine.php

--
Wayne Boatwright
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Great restaurants are, of course, nothing but mouth ~brothels.
There is no point in going to them if one intends to keep one's
belt buckled. ~Frederic Raphael

wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 06:46:47 -0400, Bob Muncie >
> wrote:
>
> wrote:
> :> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 19:58:52 -0400, "h" >
> :> wrote:
> :>
> :> :
> :> :"Stepfann King" > wrote in message
> :> . 122.115...
> :> :> Dan Musicant ) wrote in
> :> :> :
> :> :>
> :> :>> I've made nut butters in the kitchen for many years, usually peanut
> :> :>> butter. It's a money saver and you can see with your own eyes exactly
> :> :>> what the ingredients are.
> :> :>>
> :> :>> I roast the nuts in the oven, although I have made raw cashew butter a
> :> :>> time or two. My sometime problem is getting a machine that's up to the
> :> :>> task. I used to work with a Waring blender, and after burning out a few
> :> :>> motors (they were available for user replacement), I bought an Osterizer
> :> :>> 10 speed and it lasted for over 20 years on the original motor. It
> :> :>> finally burned out about two months ago. This old Osterizer was 125
> :> :>> watts only. Besides the glass blender jar I had a $10 plastic accessory
> :> :>> that they called a food processor attachment, which I have only used for
> :> :>> grinding meat on occasion. It's designed very well and does a very nice
> :> :>> job of meat grinding.
> :> :>>
> :> :>> So, in looking for a replacement for my old Osterizer I figured I'd get
> :> :>> another Osterizer, naturally, inasmuch as the old one lasted 20+ years
> :> :>> and I still wanted to be able to use the meat-grinding food processor
> :> :>> attachment. I did some homework and found that the current Osterizer
> :> :>> blenders are rated at much higher power -- from 450 watts up to 600
> :> :>> watts or so. About two months ago I picked up a #6694 450 watt 12 speed
> :> :>> Osterizer Blender at Walmart for around $25. However, it burned out this
> :> :>> morning making a new batch of peanut butter. I suppose I can get a
> :> :>> warranty replacement which will work fine for smoothies and such and
> :> :>> grinding meat, but evidently I need something more robust for nut
> :> :>> butters. I had been eyeing the "Beehive" Osterizer, which I can get for
> :> :>> around $55 at Walmart. It's supposed to be 600 watts, supports 2 speeds
> :> :>> and a flash button (the food processor attachment requires flash). I
> :> :>> thought I'd post first to get people's opinions and experience before
> :> :>> shelling out more money, perhaps vainly.
> :> :>>
> :> :>> Dan
> :> :>>
> :> :>> Email: dmusicant at pacbell dot net
> :> :>>
> :> :>
> :> :That's a ridiculous amount of effort. Why don't you just go to your local
> :> :"health food" store and grind your own? My local hippie store has roasted
> :> eanuts (peanuts and salt are the only ingredients) for $1.50/pound and a
> :> :self-serve grinder. You dump in however much you want and the machine poops
> :> :it out into a plastic container (or you can bring your own). You then weigh
> :> :it, pay, and leave. No roasting, no mess. You are working WAAAY too hard.
> :> :The amount of money you are wasting in time and messy clean-up is seriously
> :> :un-frugal.
> :>
> :> My local best price market (AFAIK) has the same kind of setup but the
> :> cost is way more than $1.50/lb. It's more like $2.50. The nuts don't
> :> look anywhere near as sound as the ones I buy, either. On top of that, I
> :> cull my nuts. I look at them carefully, pull out any impurities, any
> :> questionable nuts. You don't get that kind of control with PB in a jar
> :> or at a store's grinder, where you get what's in the hopper, period.
> :>
> :> Dan
> :>
> :>
> :> Email: dmusicant at pacbell dot net
> :
> :I disagree on two aspects.
> :
> :1) The cost does not justify buying a grinder. If it costs $175 for a
> :grinder, how many lbs of PB could you have bought? For me, I'd probably
> :have to replace/repair the grinder long before I reached a cost value
> :vs. buying the PB commercially (name brand and natural in the jar).
>
> I have no intention of dropping $175 on a machine to make PB. My old $25
> Osterizer did the job for 20+ years. I'm probably either going to try to
> make due with the warranty replacement for my $25 Osterizer (bought in
> May), or keep that as a second and get an Osterizer Beehive for ~$60 and
> try to baby that effectively.
>
> :
> :2) I disagree with the "You get what's in the hopper" if you grind your
> wn in the store's that have the grinders. The ones that I have seen
> :have a variety of fresh nuts available, and what goes in the hopper is
> :your choice. And since the only thing going into the hopper is nuts,
> :what impurities would exist? You might as well have said "I don't eat
> ut in restaurants ever, because I can't control the cleanliness of
> :levels of impurities introduced to the food I ordered". Does not
> :compute. Just like anything else you didn't grow yourself, or raise from
> :a baby, you will never be able to control "jack" about impurity levels
> :for most of what you consume. I don't even want to consider the number
> f bug/worm body parts that exist in any "pure" bulk item you purchase
> :for your own consumption/processing (like flour for example). Was it
> recessed without the use of pesticides from seed? Was it's genomes
> :modified? How about that roast you bought? Was it processed from birth
> :without growth hormones, or the grain/grass it consumes completely
> :without impurities? Assuming that anything you consume short of having
> :raised/grew your own is not realistic.
> :
> :Regards,
> :
> :Bob
>
> Maybe I can help make this "compute." My local market that I go to 95%
> of the time has a nut grinding machine but I'm stuck with what's in the
> hopper (quite unsightly "roasted peanuts"). They don't look nearly as
> good as what I buy in bulk elsewhere. What impurities? Well, what I'm
> getting in bulk has a few, some questionable looking nuts, discolored,
> some evidently diseased, etc., and I find bits and pieces of what I'll
> call "foreign matter," not peanuts, which I discard. I am unaware of any
> place locally where I can choose the nuts that I put in their grinder.
>
> I do eat out in restaurants, but only a fool would assume that
> everything you are served in restaurants includes only what you'd prefer
> to put in your own cooking. But that's a different thread, and I'll
> leave it at that. Yes, I'm aware that there are food quality issues
> galore, again pretty much beyond the scope of this thread.
>
> Dan
>
> Email: dmusicant at pacbell dot net

Dan - I wasn't being facetious with the "does not compute" statement. I
mean't that in, it does not make sense to me. Maybe all the grinders
I've seen in the stores where quite different than the ones you are
familiar with.The ones I've seen, you scoop whatever nuts you want from
open bins into a bag of some type (normally paper), than poor from the
bag into the hooper, place the container beneath a spout near the table
surface, turn on the machine, and it grinds at a level you want (ruff
vs. smooth). So yes, you can do quality control on the nuts.

I just took it one step further with the restaurant scenario because as
an analogy, whatever someone else had ground sometime during the day
earlier would also be introduced into your container. Nothing
more/nothing less. And than I wanted to point out that even generic
none processed ingredients are just as likely to have something none
product related in content.

That's all.

Bob

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 06:13:08 -0700 (PDT), Bob Villa
> wrote:

>On Jun 27, 8:07*am, "brooklyn1" > wrote:
>> "Bob Villa" says:
>>
>> I bought an old Salton *peanut butter
>> maker at a thrift store that has worked well.
>> It makes a small amount at a time though.
>>
>> You ain't Bob Villa.
>>
>> Bob Villa would put his nuts into something like this:http://tinyurl.com/oxosfr
>
>You're thinking of "Tim the Toolman" not me...I never use tools. I'm
>a lawyer.


e-How doesn't show it, but Jelly Belly uses copper "cement mixers" in
one part of making jelly beans. I think it's the final "sugaring"
process.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

On Jun 27, 7:15 am, Dan Musicant ) wrote:
> On Fri, 26 Jun 2009 22:00:36 -0700 (PDT), "
>
> > wrote:
>
> :On Jun 26, 8:16 pm, Dan Musicant ) wrote:
> :
> :> I don't subscribe to the maxim that time is money.
> :
> :You change your mind pretty quick if I asked you everyday to use your
> :"free" time to grind me 40 lbs of peanuts for free, or mow my lawn for
> :that matter. You be asking me for money for your time pretty quick.
> :
> :buying peanut butter is the most frugal, it's cheap, and doesn't
> :degrade in taste over time (otherwise you wouldn't be making big
> :batches)... I think you make you own because you like doing it, which
> :is fine
> I won't change my mind. I don't believe in wasting my time, that's not
> what I said, I just said that I don't like that old saw "time is money,"
> that's BS. I've studied economics, I majored in physics. Time is NOT
> money, get a grip. And yes, I have worked as a wage earner.

well perhaps you need a economics refresher course, it's an extremely
basic concept taught early on, perhaps these web sites can explain it
better then my simple examples, I can't spend any more time explaining
it,( I could be working overtime instead, time is money you know!, but
I guess those overtime checks I get aren't real money according to
you) good luck!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_value_of_money
http://archives.cnn.com/2002/TECH/sc...29/time.money/

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 10:09:55 -0400, George >
wrote:

>From what I have read it is almost impossible not to have it. Its just
>simply a roll of the dice if it will ever "kick in".

I've learned over years of painful experience that a cold sore is my
body's way of warning me that if I don't get more rest, I'll get sick.

--
I love cooking with wine.
Sometimes I even put it in the food.

>
> That's a ridiculous amount of effort. Why don't you just go to your local
> "health food" store and grind your own? My local hippie store has roasted
> peanuts (peanuts and salt are the only ingredients) for $1.50/pound and a
> self-serve grinder. You dump in however much you want and the machine poops
> it out into a plastic container (or you can bring your own). You then weigh
> it, pay, and leave. No roasting, no mess. You are working WAAAY too hard.
> The amount of money you are wasting in time and messy clean-up is seriously
> un-frugal.


Stepfann,
It depends on where you live. I live an hour and 20 minutes from any
health food store which has it's own nut grinder, and I'd bet that is
a dedicated peanut butter machine, not for other nut butters (need to
be cleaned for other butters). Also the OP said he was getting
peanuts for 99 cents a pound, so he's saving at least a dollar for
every jar over your way. Frugal is for each what he/she can and is
willing to do. FWIW, Kitty

On Sat, 27 Jun 2009 12:34:37 -0700 (PDT), Kitty
> wrote:

>>
>> That's a ridiculous amount of effort. Why don't you just go to your local
>> "health food" store and grind your own? My local hippie store has roasted
>> peanuts (peanuts and salt are the only ingredients) for $1.50/pound and a
>> self-serve grinder. You dump in however much you want and the machine poops
>> it out into a plastic container (or you can bring your own). You then weigh
>> it, pay, and leave. No roasting, no mess. You are working WAAAY too hard.
>> The amount of money you are wasting in time and messy clean-up is seriously
>> un-frugal.
>
>
>Stepfann,
>It depends on where you live. I live an hour and 20 minutes from any
>health food store which has it's own nut grinder, and I'd bet that is
>a dedicated peanut butter machine, not for other nut butters (need to
>be cleaned for other butters). Also the OP said he was getting
>peanuts for 99 cents a pound, so he's saving at least a dollar for
>every jar over your way. Frugal is for each what he/she can and is
>willing to do. FWIW, Kitty

Personally, I wouldn't trust store machines. Nasty. Who knows what
crap got in there, how long it's a been a'mouldering, etc.
Salmonella City.
Even store coffee grinders pollute your grind with the leavings of who
knows what other bean.
But that's small stuff compared to peanut butter.
First I even heard that stores do that.
Sort of reminds me of junkies sharing needles.
Damn.

--Vic

"Kitty" > wrote in message
news:e7389617-21f9-4443-Also the OP said he was getting
> peanuts for 99 cents a pound, so he's saving at least a dollar for
> every jar over your way. Frugal is for each what he/she can and is
> willing to do. FWIW, Kitty

Let's see...an hour of time to save $1 per pound. Nope, still not frugal, no
way, no how. The OP seems to have gone off his nut, however, so perhaps it's
frugal to him.

" wrote:
>
> I've made nut butters in the kitchen for many years, usually peanut
> butter. It's a money saver and you can see with your own eyes exactly
> what the ingredients are.
>
> I roast the nuts in the oven, although I have made raw cashew butter a
> time or two. My sometime problem is getting a machine that's up to the
> task. I used to work with a Waring blender, and after burning out a few
> motors (they were available for user replacement), I bought an Osterizer
> 10 speed and it lasted for over 20 years on the original motor. It
> finally burned out about two months ago. This old Osterizer was 125
> watts only. Besides the glass blender jar I had a $10 plastic accessory
> that they called a food processor attachment, which I have only used for
> grinding meat on occasion. It's designed very well and does a very nice
> job of meat grinding.
>
>

We've never used the Osterizer for grinding peanuts into peanut butter.
The Kitchen Aid mixer with a grinder attachment does it perfectly with
no strain. The Osterizer is used for slushy/liquidy things only.

Bob Villa > wrote in message
...
> On Jun 27, 8:07 am, "Penus Mini 01" > wrote:
> > "Bob Villa" says:

> > > I bought an old Salton peanut butter
> > > maker at a thrift store that has worked well.
> > > It makes a small amount at a time though.
> > >
> > You ain't Bob Villa.
> >
> >[snip Sheldumb banality]
> >
> You're thinking of "Tim the Toolman" not me...I never
> use tools. I'm a lawyer.

Congratulations Bob; you've met a Usenet crank. You might've run across him
as in his former iteration.

Shelly's not smart, quick, or particularly inventive. He hopes to be
classified a "k00k" but his limited diatribes only amount to a 2-yo standing
in a store screaming and dancing in place. Shelly is nothing more than a
mosquito buzzing about the ear.

The Ranger

In article >,
h > wrote:

>"Kitty" > wrote in message
>news:e7389617-21f9-4443-Also the OP said he was getting
>> peanuts for 99 cents a pound, so he's saving at least a dollar for
>> every jar over your way. Frugal is for each what he/she can and is
>> willing to do. FWIW, Kitty

>Let's see...an hour of time to save $1 per pound. Nope, still not frugal, no
>way, no how. The OP seems to have gone off his nut, however, so perhaps it's
>frugal to him.

Sounds like a hobby, to me. They don't have cost-benefit ratios like
normal activities.


Gary

--
Gary Heston http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/

"Behind every successful woman there is an astonished man"
General of the Army (four stars) Ann Dunwoody

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:05:31 -0500, (Gary Heston)
wrote:

>In article >,
>h > wrote:
>
>>"Kitty" > wrote in message
>>news:e7389617-21f9-4443-Also the OP said he was getting
>>> peanuts for 99 cents a pound, so he's saving at least a dollar for
>>> every jar over your way. Frugal is for each what he/she can and is
>>> willing to do. FWIW, Kitty
>
>>Let's see...an hour of time to save $1 per pound. Nope, still not frugal, no
>>way, no how. The OP seems to have gone off his nut, however, so perhaps it's
>>frugal to him.
>
>Sounds like a hobby, to me. They don't have cost-benefit ratios like
>normal activities.
>
Yep. I wonder if time spent on the internet saying "time is money"
counts as a waste of money.
Far as I'm concerned "time is money" only counts if you're punching a
time clock.

--Vic

h wrote:
> Let's see...an hour of time to save $1 per pound. Nope, still not frugal, no
> way, no how.

You are assuming:
1) that the purchased PB meets your specifications in every way at
least as well as the homemade;
2) that you would indeed have used that hour to earn cash;
3) that you don't _enjoy_ making PB.
I suppose there are some people for whom accumulating the absolute
maximum amount of money is their prime objective in life, and every
other activity is subordinate to that. They probably shouldn't
attempt to make their own PB, unless they're building a factory to
sell the output.

Me, I don't even _like_ PB*, so I don't have this dilemma.

Dave

____
*Well, maybe occasionally with sweet chile sauce and onions.

"Vic Smith" > wrote in message
...
> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:05:31 -0500, (Gary Heston)
> wrote:
>
> >In article >,
> >h > wrote:
> >
> >>"Kitty" > wrote in message
> >>news:e7389617-21f9-4443-Also the OP said he was getting
> >>> peanuts for 99 cents a pound, so he's saving at least a dollar for
> >>> every jar over your way. Frugal is for each what he/she can and is
> >>> willing to do. FWIW, Kitty
> >
> >>Let's see...an hour of time to save $1 per pound. Nope, still not
frugal, no
> >>way, no how. The OP seems to have gone off his nut, however, so perhaps
it's
> >>frugal to him.
> >
> >Sounds like a hobby, to me. They don't have cost-benefit ratios like
> >normal activities.
> >
> Yep. I wonder if time spent on the internet saying "time is money"
> counts as a waste of money.
> Far as I'm concerned "time is money" only counts if you're punching a
> time clock.
>
Well, yes and no. If there's a number of different ways to do something,
and you choose a particular method because you think it saves money (whether
it actually does or not), then especially if it takes more of your time than
some other method, it makes a certain amount of sense to take a look at how
much money per unit time you're talking about. Most of us have more things
we need to do, plus things we'd like to do, than there is time to do those
things in. Often, we can "buy" time by spending money. Contrast doing
laundry by pounding the clothes between rocks down at the local stream with
tossing them into an automatic washer, for instance. But there's a limit -
money is not an unlimited resource for most people either.

Lou wrote:
> "Vic Smith" > wrote in message
> ...
>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:05:31 -0500, (Gary Heston)
>> wrote:
>>
>>> In article >,
>>> h > wrote:
>>>
>>>> "Kitty" > wrote in message
>>>> news:e7389617-21f9-4443-Also the OP said he was getting
>>>>> peanuts for 99 cents a pound, so he's saving at least a dollar for
>>>>> every jar over your way. Frugal is for each what he/she can and
>>>>> is willing to do. FWIW, Kitty
>>>
>>>> Let's see...an hour of time to save $1 per pound. Nope, still not
>>>> frugal, no way, no how. The OP seems to have gone off his nut,
>>>> however, so perhaps it's frugal to him.
>>>
>>> Sounds like a hobby, to me. They don't have cost-benefit ratios like
>>> normal activities.
>>>
>> Yep. I wonder if time spent on the internet saying "time is money"
>> counts as a waste of money.
>> Far as I'm concerned "time is money" only counts if you're punching a
>> time clock.
>>
> Well, yes and no. If there's a number of different ways to do
> something, and you choose a particular method because you think it
> saves money (whether it actually does or not), then especially if it
> takes more of your time than some other method, it makes a certain
> amount of sense to take a look at how much money per unit time you're
> talking about. Most of us have more things we need to do, plus
> things we'd like to do, than there is time to do those things in.

Thats not really true with something like that sort of hobby stuff.

> Often, we can "buy" time by spending money. Contrast doing laundry
> by pounding the clothes between rocks down at the local stream with
> tossing them into an automatic washer, for instance. But there's a
> limit - money is not an unlimited resource for most people either.

And isnt even relevant if you would otherwise just veg out in front of the TV or on usenet either.

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 20:40:03 -0400, "Lou" > wrote:

>
>"Vic Smith" > wrote in message
.. .
>> On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 17:05:31 -0500, (Gary Heston)

>> >
>> >Sounds like a hobby, to me. They don't have cost-benefit ratios like
>> >normal activities.
>> >
>> Yep. I wonder if time spent on the internet saying "time is money"
>> counts as a waste of money.
>> Far as I'm concerned "time is money" only counts if you're punching a
>> time clock.
>>
>Well, yes and no. If there's a number of different ways to do something,
>and you choose a particular method because you think it saves money (whether
>it actually does or not), then especially if it takes more of your time than
>some other method, it makes a certain amount of sense to take a look at how
>much money per unit time you're talking about. Most of us have more things
>we need to do, plus things we'd like to do, than there is time to do those
>things in. Often, we can "buy" time by spending money. Contrast doing
>laundry by pounding the clothes between rocks down at the local stream with
>tossing them into an automatic washer, for instance. But there's a limit -
>money is not an unlimited resource for most people either.
>
Right. But if you enjoy doing something, and have the time to do it,
the "time is money" saw fails every time.
I'm much more likely to think that "money is time" when it comes to
paying for something I can do but detest doing.
Tuckpointing, for instance.
I can do it, but I always pay somebody else to do it.
Just hate staring at brick walls. I tried. Couldn't handle it.
How I waste the time thus gained is immaterial.
If I put the time to use making money I could claim "time is money."
But I don't, and most people don't.
This guy spending an hour or two in the evening making peanut butter
wouldn't be pulling in money by not making peanut butter.
Most likely he'd be watching TV or taking a nap.
I mentioned being on the time clock because that's the only time
in my working life that the money I made was based on time.
When I was a pieceworker even the jobs were timed and there
was a direct correlation between time and money.
Even then my hours were basically confined unless I could cop some
overtime, and I did mostly frivolous things when not at work.
Never looked at those things as "I'm not making money," but as "Hey,
it's nice to be off work." Even if doing a home project.
But when I was salaried, I got paid the same whether I worked 20 hours
or 60 hours a week.
Aside from the time spent in education and performing well in your
job, "time is money" is pretty meaningless.
There are exceptions. Hustling salesmen types, and those always
thinking about money.
That's not me, or most people. Otherwise the words "vacation" and
"weekend" and TGIF wouldn't be in the lexicon.

--Vic

On Sun, 28 Jun 2009 10:21:16 -0400, "h" >
wrote:

:
:"Kitty" > wrote in message
:news:e7389617-21f9-4443-Also the OP said he was getting
:> peanuts for 99 cents a pound, so he's saving at least a dollar for
:> every jar over your way. Frugal is for each what he/she can and is
:> willing to do. FWIW, Kitty
:
:Let's see...an hour of time to save $1 per pound. Nope, still not frugal, no
:way, no how. The OP seems to have gone off his nut, however, so perhaps it's
:frugal to him.
:

Some respect, please.

Like William Blake said: "The poor man's farthing is worth more than all
the gold on Africa's shore." Can you get to that?

Dan

Email: dmusicant at pacbell dot net

On Jun 29, 12:36*pm, Vic Smith >
wrote:

> But when I was salaried, I got paid the same whether I worked 20 hours
> or 60 hours a week.
> Aside from the time spent in education and performing well in your
> job, "time is money" is pretty meaningless.
> There are exceptions. *Hustling salesmen types, and those always
> thinking about money.
> That's not me, or most people. *Otherwise the words "vacation" and
> "weekend" and TGIF wouldn't be in the lexicon.
>
I'm self-employed and I work at home, so I am ALWAYS at work.I work
about 12-14 hours a day 7 days a week and haven't taken a vacation in
8 years. Couldn't possibly afford it. The crappy economy has pretty
much destroyed what little free time I had, so yes, for me, time IS
money. As long as I am working non-stop, the bills get paid. I am
either working, doing those domestic chores which must be performed
(laundry, litter boxes, cleaning the bathroom, etc.) or sleeping.
****ing away an hour to make peanut butter to save a buck is SO not
going to happen. I'm glad the economy is treating all of you so well
that you actually have free time. I remember free time fondly, like I
remember the economic bounty this country had under Clinton. Come to
think of it, the Clinton Administration was the last time I had free
time. Or money. Or health insurance. Or, well, pretty much anything
besides work.

On the way home from dropping off my dead Oster blender at the warranty
dropoff service center (I'll get a new replacement in about a month), I
saw an Oster Counterforms blender at Costco yesterday for $49.99 and
after mulling it over, took it home. It appears to be similar to the
other Counterforms and the Fusion as well, same controls and features.

Dan

Email: dmusicant at pacbell dot net

On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:04:07 -0700 (PDT), tmclone
> wrote:

>On Jun 29, 12:36Â*pm, Vic Smith >
>wrote:
>
>> But when I was salaried, I got paid the same whether I worked 20 hours
>> or 60 hours a week.
>> Aside from the time spent in education and performing well in your
>> job, "time is money" is pretty meaningless.
>> There are exceptions. Â*Hustling salesmen types, and those always
>> thinking about money.
>> That's not me, or most people. Â*Otherwise the words "vacation" and
>> "weekend" and TGIF wouldn't be in the lexicon.
>>
>I'm self-employed and I work at home, so I am ALWAYS at work.I work
>about 12-14 hours a day 7 days a week and haven't taken a vacation in
>8 years. Couldn't possibly afford it. The crappy economy has pretty
>much destroyed what little free time I had, so yes, for me, time IS
>money. As long as I am working non-stop, the bills get paid. I am
>either working, doing those domestic chores which must be performed
>(laundry, litter boxes, cleaning the bathroom, etc.) or sleeping.
>****ing away an hour to make peanut butter to save a buck is SO not
>going to happen. I'm glad the economy is treating all of you so well
>that you actually have free time. I remember free time fondly, like I
>remember the economic bounty this country had under Clinton. Come to
>think of it, the Clinton Administration was the last time I had free
>time. Or money. Or health insurance. Or, well, pretty much anything
>besides work.

What the hell kind of life is that?
You need to adjust something.
That's no way to live.

--Vic

On Jun 30, 3:56*pm, Vic Smith > wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Jun 2009 21:04:07 -0700 (PDT), tmclone
>
>
>
>
>
> > wrote:
> >On Jun 29, 12:36*pm, Vic Smith >
> >wrote:
>
> >> But when I was salaried, I got paid the same whether I worked 20 hours
> >> or 60 hours a week.
> >> Aside from the time spent in education and performing well in your
> >> job, "time is money" is pretty meaningless.
> >> There are exceptions. *Hustling salesmen types, and those always
> >> thinking about money.
> >> That's not me, or most people. *Otherwise the words "vacation" and
> >> "weekend" and TGIF wouldn't be in the lexicon.
>
> >I'm self-employed and I work at home, so I am ALWAYS at work.I work
> >about 12-14 hours a day 7 days a week and haven't taken a vacation in
> >8 years. Couldn't possibly afford it. The crappy economy has pretty
> >much destroyed what little free time I had, so yes, for me, time IS
> >money. As long as I am working non-stop, the bills get paid. I am
> >either working, doing those domestic chores which must be performed
> >(laundry, litter boxes, cleaning the bathroom, etc.) or sleeping.
> >****ing away an hour to make peanut butter to save a buck is SO not
> >going to happen. I'm glad the economy is treating all of you so well
> >that you actually have free time. I remember free time fondly, like I
> >remember the economic bounty this country had under Clinton. Come to
> >think of it, the Clinton Administration was the last time I had free
> >time. Or money. Or health insurance. Or, well, pretty much anything
> >besides work.
>
> What the hell kind of life is that?
> You need to adjust something.
> That's no way to live.
>

Over the past 4 years of a dismal economy I cut back to the bone.
There is nothing else to adjust. My income is less than 1/4 of what it
was 9 years ago. My bills, however, have gone up, not down. It's not
as if I have a ton of debt, it's just my very small mortgage (tiny
house is nearly paid off) and my obscenely large taxes. After income,
property, and school taxes I have not quite $600 a month to pay the
mortgage, utilities, food, etc.

I just have to keep plugging along and wait for the economy to
rebound. Once my customers have money again my sales will increase. At
least everyone in my professional association is in the same
situation, so it's not just me.

In article >,
tmclone > wrote:
[ ... ]
>I'm self-employed and I work at home, so I am ALWAYS at work.I work
>about 12-14 hours a day 7 days a week and haven't taken a vacation in
>8 years. Couldn't possibly afford it. The crappy economy has pretty
>much destroyed what little free time I had, so yes, for me, time IS
>money. As long as I am working non-stop, the bills get paid. I am
>either working, doing those domestic chores which must be performed
>(laundry, litter boxes, cleaning the bathroom, etc.) or sleeping.

Out of curiosity, what type of work do you do that requires this
workload?

>****ing away an hour to make peanut butter to save a buck is SO not
>going to happen. I'm glad the economy is treating all of you so well
>that you actually have free time. I remember free time fondly, like I
>remember the economic bounty this country had under Clinton. Come to
>think of it, the Clinton Administration was the last time I had free
>time. Or money. Or health insurance. Or, well, pretty much anything
>besides work.

Thank Reagan, he got it going; Clinton just rode the wave, and the interns.


Gary

--
Gary Heston http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/

"Behind every successful woman there is an astonished man"
General of the Army (four stars) Ann Dunwoody

On Tue, 30 Jun 2009 22:24:29 -0500, (Gary Heston)
wrote:

>In article >,
>tmclone > wrote:
> [ ... ]
>>I'm self-employed and I work at home, so I am ALWAYS at work.I work
>>about 12-14 hours a day 7 days a week and haven't taken a vacation in
>>8 years. Couldn't possibly afford it. The crappy economy has pretty
>>much destroyed what little free time I had, so yes, for me, time IS
>>money. As long as I am working non-stop, the bills get paid. I am
>>either working, doing those domestic chores which must be performed
>>(laundry, litter boxes, cleaning the bathroom, etc.) or sleeping.
>
>Out of curiosity, what type of work do you do that requires this
>workload?
>
>>****ing away an hour to make peanut butter to save a buck is SO not
>>going to happen. I'm glad the economy is treating all of you so well
>>that you actually have free time. I remember free time fondly, like I
>>remember the economic bounty this country had under Clinton. Come to
>>think of it, the Clinton Administration was the last time I had free
>>time. Or money. Or health insurance. Or, well, pretty much anything
>>besides work.
>
>Thank Reagan, he got it going; Clinton just rode the wave, and the interns.
>
Reagan was no picnic, but the jobs started flowing offshore with a
vengeance under Clinton and Bush II.
The Reign of Wall Street.
And I don't know yet that Obama is any better. He's a yuppie.
If he actually thinks "green jobs" will equal us making the cars,
refrigerators, washing machines, TV's, tools, etc, etc that once
provided employment for millions, he's nuts.

--Vic

On Jun 30, 11:24*pm, (Gary Heston) wrote:
> In article >,tmclon e > wrote:
>
> * [ ... ]
>
> >I'm self-employed and I work at home, so I am ALWAYS at work.I work
> >about 12-14 hours a day 7 days a week and haven't taken a vacation in
> >8 years. Couldn't possibly afford it. The crappy economy has pretty
> >much destroyed what little free time I had, so yes, for me, time IS
> >money. As long as I am working non-stop, the bills get paid. I am
> >either working, doing those domestic chores which must be performed
> >(laundry, litter boxes, cleaning the bathroom, etc.) or sleeping.
>
> Out of curiosity, what type of work do you do that requires this
> workload?
>
Custom clothing and bridal. In 2003 I was turning away work, now I
have maybe 3 hours of orders a day. The big problem is that there just
aren't as many people with disposable income to place orders. So, my
website is getting huge with all the new designs I've been making out
of existing fabric stock and leftovers. I then sell those prototypes
for pennies. The upside is that I am now an expert with my very
complicated machine embroidery software. The downside is that I'm
making about $4/hour, hence the long hours. But hey, the bills are
getting paid. Bottom line, until people have money to spend on non-
essentials I'll be burning the midnight oil posting to usenet groups
while babysitting my embroidery machine (the thread doesn't change
itself).

Vic Smith wrote
> (Gary Heston) wrote
>> tmclone > wrote: [ ... ]

>>> I'm self-employed and I work at home, so I am ALWAYS at work.I work
>>> about 12-14 hours a day 7 days a week and haven't taken a vacation
>>> in 8 years. Couldn't possibly afford it. The crappy economy has
>>> pretty much destroyed what little free time I had, so yes, for me,
>>> time IS money. As long as I am working non-stop, the bills get
>>> paid. I am either working, doing those domestic chores which must
>>> be performed (laundry, litter boxes, cleaning the bathroom, etc.)
>>> or sleeping.

>> Out of curiosity, what type of work do you do that requires this workload?

>>> ****ing away an hour to make peanut butter to save a buck is SO not
>>> going to happen. I'm glad the economy is treating all of you so well
>>> that you actually have free time. I remember free time fondly, like
>>> I remember the economic bounty this country had under Clinton. Come
>>> to think of it, the Clinton Administration was the last time I had
>>> free time. Or money. Or health insurance. Or, well, pretty much
>>> anything besides work.

>> Thank Reagan, he got it going; Clinton just rode the wave, and the interns.

> Reagan was no picnic, but the jobs started flowing offshore with a
> vengeance under Clinton and Bush II.

Plenty had been doing that long before that, most obviously with japan.

And lets not forget that unemployment bottomed at 4.x% with an
immense legal and illegal immigration rate just before the clowns
completely imploded the entire world financial system, AGAIN.

> The Reign of Wall Street.

Nothing to with Wall St, everything to do with the chinese getting their
act into gear and tossing communism in the bin where it belongs.

> And I don't know yet that Obama is any better. He's a yuppie.
> If he actually thinks "green jobs" will equal us making the cars,
> refrigerators, washing machines, TV's, tools, etc, etc that
> once provided employment for millions, he's nuts.

Modern first world economys havent been about your list for decades now.

"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...

>
> Nothing to with Wall St, everything to do with the chinese getting their
> act into gear and tossing communism in the bin where it belongs.
>


I don't know about that. I just listened to a commentator on a news show
(it was either Buchanan or Brzezinski or someone like that) who said that
communism there is hardly gone.

mk5000

http://www.stanleyhotel.com/

marika wrote
> Rod Speed > wrote
>> Vic Smith wrote
>>> (Gary Heston) wrote
>>>> tmclone > wrote: [ ... ]

>>>>> I'm self-employed and I work at home, so I am ALWAYS at work.I work
>>>>> about 12-14 hours a day 7 days a week and haven't taken a vacation
>>>>> in 8 years. Couldn't possibly afford it. The crappy economy has
>>>>> pretty much destroyed what little free time I had, so yes, for me,
>>>>> time IS money. As long as I am working non-stop, the bills get
>>>>> paid. I am either working, doing those domestic chores which must
>>>>> be performed (laundry, litter boxes, cleaning the bathroom, etc.)
>>>>> or sleeping.

>>>> Out of curiosity, what type of work do you do that requires this workload?

>>>>> ****ing away an hour to make peanut butter to save a buck is SO not
>>>>> going to happen. I'm glad the economy is treating all of you so well
>>>>> that you actually have free time. I remember free time fondly, like
>>>>> I remember the economic bounty this country had under Clinton. Come
>>>>> to think of it, the Clinton Administration was the last time I had
>>>>> free time. Or money. Or health insurance. Or, well, pretty much
>>>>> anything besides work.

>>>> Thank Reagan, he got it going; Clinton just rode the wave, and the interns.

>>> Reagan was no picnic, but the jobs started flowing offshore with a vengeance under Clinton and Bush II.

>> Plenty had been doing that long before that, most obviously with japan.

>> And lets not forget that unemployment bottomed at 4.x% with an
>> immense legal and illegal immigration rate just before the clowns
>> completely imploded the entire world financial system, AGAIN.

>>> The Reign of Wall Street.

>> Nothing to do with Wall St, everything to do with the chinese getting
>> their act into gear and tossing communism in the bin where it belongs.

> I don't know about that. I just listened to a commentator on a news show (it was either Buchanan or Brzezinski or
> someone like that) who said that communism there is hardly gone.

More fool whoever it was.

Its gone completely now, they just have much more of
a command economy/centrally planned economy than
most of the rest of the world now. Thats not communism.

"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...
>
> More fool whoever it was.
>
> Its gone completely now, they just have much more of
> a command economy/centrally planned economy than
> most of the rest of the world now. Thats not communism.
>

awesome, though I'd argue that from the strictest sense it wasn't communism,
but more like a vast national prison system

mk5000

"people said I would have worked for free today"--darnell martin

marika wrote
> Rod Speed > wrote
>> marika wrote
>>> Rod Speed > wrote
>>>> Vic Smith wrote
>>>>> (Gary Heston) wrote
>>>>>> tmclone > wrote: [ ... ]

>>>>>>> I'm self-employed and I work at home, so I am ALWAYS at work.I work
>>>>>>> about 12-14 hours a day 7 days a week and haven't taken a vacation
>>>>>>> in 8 years. Couldn't possibly afford it. The crappy economy has
>>>>>>> pretty much destroyed what little free time I had, so yes, for me,
>>>>>>> time IS money. As long as I am working non-stop, the bills get
>>>>>>> paid. I am either working, doing those domestic chores which must
>>>>>>> be performed (laundry, litter boxes, cleaning the bathroom, etc.)
>>>>>>> or sleeping.

>>>>>> Out of curiosity, what type of work do you do that requires this workload?

>>>>>>> ****ing away an hour to make peanut butter to save a buck is SO not
>>>>>>> going to happen. I'm glad the economy is treating all of you so well
>>>>>>> that you actually have free time. I remember free time fondly, like
>>>>>>> I remember the economic bounty this country had under Clinton. Come
>>>>>>> to think of it, the Clinton Administration was the last time I had
>>>>>>> free time. Or money. Or health insurance. Or, well, pretty much
>>>>>>> anything besides work.

>>>>>> Thank Reagan, he got it going; Clinton just rode the wave, and the interns.

>>>>> Reagan was no picnic, but the jobs started flowing offshore with a vengeance under Clinton and Bush II.

>>>> Plenty had been doing that long before that, most obviously with japan.

>>>> And lets not forget that unemployment bottomed at 4.x% with an
>>>> immense legal and illegal immigration rate just before the clowns
>>>> completely imploded the entire world financial system, AGAIN.

>>>>> The Reign of Wall Street.

>>>> Nothing to do with Wall St, everything to do with the chinese getting
>>>> their act into gear and tossing communism in the bin where it belongs.

>>> I don't know about that. I just listened to a commentator on a news show (it was either Buchanan or Brzezinski or
>>> someone like that) who said that communism there is hardly gone.

>> More fool whoever it was.

>> Its gone completely now, they just have much more of
>> a command economy/centrally planned economy than
>> most of the rest of the world now. Thats not communism.

> awesome, though I'd argue that from the strictest sense it wasn't communism, but more like a vast national prison
> system

Its nothing even remotely resembling anything like a prison system.

They are free to work for whoever they like and there arent any real
restrictions on who can move from rural areas to the citys anymore.

"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...

> Its nothing even remotely resembling anything like a prison system.
>
> They are free to work for whoever they like and there arent any real
> restrictions on who can move from rural areas to the citys anymore.
>

Rod I wasn't talking about now, I was talking about previous decades.
Have you ever read Anchee Min. AFAICT she was describing life in a prison
camp, not a voluntary labor force

mk5000

"But I ain't the only
Honestly I'm fine
I'll take this time to concentrate on me
And I got possibility to keep me company""--I'm alone now, Beyonce

marika wrote
> Rod Speed > wrote

>>>>>>> The Reign of Wall Street.

>>>>>> Nothing to do with Wall St, everything to do with the chinese getting
>>>>>> their act into gear and tossing communism in the bin where it belongs.

>>>>> I don't know about that. I just listened to a commentator on a news show (it was either Buchanan or Brzezinski or
>>>>> someone like that) who said that communism there is hardly gone.

>>>> More fool whoever it was.

>>>> Its gone completely now, they just have much more of
>>>> a command economy/centrally planned economy than
>>>> most of the rest of the world now. Thats not communism.

>>> awesome, though I'd argue that from the strictest sense it wasn't communism, but more like a vast national prison
>>> system

>> Its nothing even remotely resembling anything like a prison system.

>> They are free to work for whoever they like and there arent any real
>> restrictions on who can move from rural areas to the citys anymore.

> Rod I wasn't talking about now, I was talking about previous decades.

It wasnt that then either.

> Have you ever read Anchee Min. AFAICT she was describing life in a prison camp, not a voluntary labor force

The US has FAR more per capita in prison than china has.

"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...
>
>> Rod I wasn't talking about now, I was talking about previous decades.
>
> It wasnt that then either.
>
>> Have you ever read Anchee Min. AFAICT she was describing life in a
>> prison camp, not a voluntary labor force
>
> The US has FAR more per capita in prison than china has.
>

LOL
ok sure, why didn't *I* think of that
then you win Rod

mk5000

"u kno my favorite colors red
i miss rice pudding in bed "--ne-yo, miss u crazy

"Rod Speed" > wrote in message
...
>>
> And isnt even relevant if you would otherwise just veg out in front of the
> TV or on usenet either.
>

why not make your life more efficient and do both simultaneously. I do.
Madmen on TV right now

mk5000

"I'm gonna climb that symphony home and make it mine
Let his resonance light my way
See, all these pessimistic sufferers tend to drag me down
So I could use it to shelter what good I've found""--sweet talk, killers