From: Mxsmanic on 20 Jul 2006 20:00
Dave Frightens Me writes:
> They need education, not air-con.
There isn't any type of education that can replace air conditioning.
Transpose mxsmanic and gmail to reach me by e-mail.
From: Stephen Dailey on 20 Jul 2006 20:35
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 09:21:47 +0100, The Reid <dontuse(a)fell-walker.co.uk>
> Following up to Stephen Dailey
>>> a "hideous suburb"???? I'd much rather live in a suburb than in a city.
>>> I have a house, some land, grass for the kids to play on, streets that
>>> are safe, low crime, low pollution, low noise.
>> Thanks, Tchiowa. I was trying to figure out the meaning of the phrase
>> "hideous suburb." IMHO there's nothing hideous about being able to
>> to live in my own building on my own lot.
> I think you both might be confusing the centre of, say, Detroit
> with the centre of European cities, where it is sometimes
> considered a big advantage to not commute, not need a car on a
> daily basis and be able to gather together in public places like
> the plaza mayor (my experience is of Spain) to interact with the
> community and walk to bars, pubs and restaurants etc
> watching TV in a arid, dull suburb. (Exaggerating to make the
The nearest city is Seattle, whose close-in neighborhoods are highly
desirable. Unfortunately, that puts houses in those neighborhoods out of
my price range. I had a choice between living in a condominium in a
close-in neighborhood or a house in a less close-in neighborhood, and I
chose the latter. I like places that are quiet at night.
> I like to think I have the best of both worlds by being 30
> minutes by train from the centre, but there are many times I
> hanker after being able to walk out into the centre of the city,
> or perhaps more often, walk (stagger) home!
It sounds as though our neighborhoods aren't all that different then. I
can get downtown in about 45 minutes on the bus, and I can walk to
shopping, movie theaters, and taverns.
Shoreline, Washington USA
20 Jul 2006, 1735 PDT
From: Stephen Dailey on 20 Jul 2006 20:39
On Thu, 20 Jul 2006 12:50:08 -0500, erilar
> In article <1153360366.190217.24550(a)m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
> "Tchiowa" <tchiowa2(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Again, simply not true. Workers in the US on the job more than a few
>> years get a month vacation every year just like in Europe.
> Not very many that's true of outside of teaching or very highly-paid
> jobs(which teaching isn't).
Every employer I've worked for has offered 4 weeks of vacation after a
specified period of employment. I've never been with one employer long
enough to earn 4 weeks, though.
Shoreline, Washington USA
20 Jul 2006, 1738 PDT
From: Tchiowa on 20 Jul 2006 20:58
The Reid wrote:
> Following up to Dave Frightens Me
> >>I agree, but I think that's a desirable goal. There isn't any reason
> >>why human population must perpetually increase. And if it does
> >>perpetually increase, eventually everyone will starve under the most
> >>dire conditions, since the resources of the planet are finite.
> >I think we'll have a bit of warning.
> you don't think we are already getting them? Warming, species
> loss,oil and gas supplies....
Global warming has been going on for thousands of years. Species loss
is no greater than any other time in history and is offset by species
gain. Oil reserves will last at least another century by which time we
can easily have alternate energy sources (if the environmental nuts
will allow it, that is).
So where is your warning?
From: Tchiowa on 20 Jul 2006 21:08
The Reid wrote:
> Following up to Tchiowa
> >> >.Part of my quality of life is the ability to travel, to see new countries,
> >> >to meet new people, to learn new cultures. That ain't free. If I get to
> >> >do it more than someone who earns less money then my income provides me
> >> >with a higher quality of life.
> >> it also needs free time, which some of those countries have more of than US.
> >Again, simply not true. Workers in the US on the job more than a few
> >years get a month vacation every year just like in Europe.
> the experience and opinions of many posters here are otherwise.
Standard practice in the US is a year vacation after a year's work, 2
weeks after 2 years, 3 weeks after 5 years, 4 weeks after 10 years.
> IIRC a month is now legal *minimum* in the EU.
And think about that for a minute. That much vacation for a new
employee? That's a high cost. That is one of the reasons that
unemployment is higher in the EU than it is in the US. So while new
workers in the EU get more vacation than new workers in the US, more
workers iin the EU can't get jobs, period. Enforced vacation.
> >And what good does it do to have time off to travel if you can't afford
> >to buy the tickets?
> generaly none, you can of course travel more cheaply if you have
> more time but that wasnt really the point. The point is about
> balancing the pursuit of growth and consumerism against
> sustainability and quality of life. You misrepresent this as
> being "poor but happy".
You seem to be trying to equate "working hard" with "consumerism". That
is a misrepresentation.
> Mike Reid
> Walk-eat-photos UK "http://www.fellwalk.co.uk" <-- you can email us@ this site
> Walk-eat-photos Spain "http://www.fell-walker.co.uk" <-- dontuse@ all, it's a spamtrap