Recycling

Since moving into a recycling community with individual garbage cans (the
last one had a communal dumpster, so I didn't bother), I've been wracking
my brain to come up with ways to circumvent this ridiculous tree-hugger
preoccupation.

Recycling is, in almost all cases, costly and increases pollution. The only
exception is obvious. Aluminum cans are worth recycling. That is why so
many homeless people collect aluminum cans - they are worth cash money. You
don't see the homeless collecting plastic/glass bottles or steel cans
(unless they are nuts.) No money in it.

So that one is easy. They aren't getting my aluminum cans. I installed a
can crusher in the garage directly over a second recycle bin I found. When
they build up enough, I'll take them in and get that money for myself.

Crushing them is no waste of time. It gets out stress, and I would have
been wasting time anyway since the community recycling rules demand they be
rinsed out. Yeah, that's right, waste fresh water washing garbage.

Having just moved, I have piles of boxes to get rid of. Here are the
official community recycling rules on corrugated paper boxes: they must be
cut to a size no greater than 2" x 2", stacked in piles no higher than 10",
and either taped or secured with twine. That's right, buy tape or twine for
the express purpose of throwing it away.

I found a better solution that involves two simple things that I really
love using:

1. A box cutter.

2. A fireplace.

The fireplace, of course, works for all paper. I just emptied the paper
shredder in there tonight. I also burn the boxes that hold the soda, and
all other paper that would be subject to the community recycling rules.

So I am recycling. All that paper is going out the chimney and back to
nature from where it came. I will also be using less gas for the furnace
because of the fireplace. That's conservation! The ash, once cooled, I just
dump in the garbage. Maybe I should put the ash in the recycle bin. With
enough heat and pressure, say up a tree-huggers ass, ash can be recycled
into diamonds. Hey, that's a great idea. After every Earth Day rally, we
can pan the Port-O-Potty's for diamonds.

Burning plastic bottles I think would gunk up the chimney too quickly. It's
only swept every two years. So for now I am tossing the plastic and large
glass bottles in the recycle bin. But I haven't been rinsing them. No
problem yet.

I have watched the garbage pick up process several times now. The recycle
truck and garbage truck are different companies. The garbage truck driver
doesn't give any thought to what he tosses in his truck. I even ran over to
him with two old vacuum cleaners and a mini charcoal grill. He had no
problem with taking them.

So small plastic or glass items just go in the trash. I stick them inside
on something else if handy, and guide them towards the center of the bag so
they don't rattle.

I'll be damned if I'm going to sit around washing garbage and tailoring it
to some environmental wackjobs standards. If they want the shit, they can
dig it out of the trash.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:45:50 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:

>Since moving into a recycling community with individual garbage cans (the
>last one had a communal dumpster, so I didn't bother), I've been wracking
>my brain to come up with ways to circumvent this ridiculous tree-hugger
>preoccupation.
>
>Recycling is, in almost all cases, costly and increases pollution. The only
>exception is obvious. Aluminum cans are worth recycling. That is why so
>many homeless people collect aluminum cans - they are worth cash money. You
>don't see the homeless collecting plastic/glass bottles or steel cans
>(unless they are nuts.) No money in it.
>
>So that one is easy. They aren't getting my aluminum cans. I installed a
>can crusher in the garage directly over a second recycle bin I found. When
>they build up enough, I'll take them in and get that money for myself.
>
>Crushing them is no waste of time. It gets out stress, and I would have
>been wasting time anyway since the community recycling rules demand they be
>rinsed out. Yeah, that's right, waste fresh water washing garbage.
>
>Having just moved, I have piles of boxes to get rid of. Here are the
>official community recycling rules on corrugated paper boxes: they must be
>cut to a size no greater than 2" x 2", stacked in piles no higher than 10",
>and either taped or secured with twine. That's right, buy tape or twine for
>the express purpose of throwing it away.
>
>I found a better solution that involves two simple things that I really
>love using:
>
>1. A box cutter.
>
>2. A fireplace.
>
>The fireplace, of course, works for all paper. I just emptied the paper
>shredder in there tonight. I also burn the boxes that hold the soda, and
>all other paper that would be subject to the community recycling rules.
>
>So I am recycling. All that paper is going out the chimney and back to
>nature from where it came. I will also be using less gas for the furnace
>because of the fireplace. That's conservation! The ash, once cooled, I just
>dump in the garbage. Maybe I should put the ash in the recycle bin. With
>enough heat and pressure, say up a tree-huggers ass, ash can be recycled
>into diamonds. Hey, that's a great idea. After every Earth Day rally, we
>can pan the Port-O-Potty's for diamonds.
>
>Burning plastic bottles I think would gunk up the chimney too quickly. It's
>only swept every two years. So for now I am tossing the plastic and large
>glass bottles in the recycle bin. But I haven't been rinsing them. No
>problem yet.
>
>I have watched the garbage pick up process several times now. The recycle
>truck and garbage truck are different companies. The garbage truck driver
>doesn't give any thought to what he tosses in his truck. I even ran over to
>him with two old vacuum cleaners and a mini charcoal grill. He had no
>problem with taking them.
>
>So small plastic or glass items just go in the trash. I stick them inside
>on something else if handy, and guide them towards the center of the bag so
>they don't rattle.
>
>I'll be damned if I'm going to sit around washing garbage and tailoring it
>to some environmental wackjobs standards. If they want the shit, they can
>dig it out of the trash.


In Oregon crushing cans isn't a good idea, to get some money back it
is required that you put them into a machine one at a time, the
machine must be able to read the bar code. I hate doing that, I feel
like a homeless person standing there plugging the cans it.Here in So.
California one of the main reasons for recycling is to take the burden
off landfills. Even if the recycling effort by itself is a money
loser, the landfill doesn't get filled up so soon.

I burned a bunch of moving boxes in a fireplace once, impressed the
neighbors with the flames coming out the top of the chimney. Cleaned
the fireplace inside really well. cardboard leaves almost no ash,
another good thing.

soooooooo.....did you take some sudafed at bedtime too?

:-P

--
~u2b

+*+*+*+*+*+*+

"Laugh and the world laughs with you... Cry, and the world looks sheepish
and suddenly remembers it had other plans."


"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
news:s89bk2tpg1h43mdqg6eltm041d65prr6av@news.easyn ews.com...
> Since moving into a recycling community with individual garbage cans (the
> last one had a communal dumpster, so I didn't bother), I've been wracking
> my brain to come up with ways to circumvent this ridiculous tree-hugger
> preoccupation.
>
> Recycling is, in almost all cases, costly and increases pollution. The
> only
> exception is obvious. Aluminum cans are worth recycling. That is why so
> many homeless people collect aluminum cans - they are worth cash money.
> You
> don't see the homeless collecting plastic/glass bottles or steel cans
> (unless they are nuts.) No money in it.
>
> So that one is easy. They aren't getting my aluminum cans. I installed a
> can crusher in the garage directly over a second recycle bin I found. When
> they build up enough, I'll take them in and get that money for myself.
>
> Crushing them is no waste of time. It gets out stress, and I would have
> been wasting time anyway since the community recycling rules demand they
> be
> rinsed out. Yeah, that's right, waste fresh water washing garbage.
>
> Having just moved, I have piles of boxes to get rid of. Here are the
> official community recycling rules on corrugated paper boxes: they must be
> cut to a size no greater than 2" x 2", stacked in piles no higher than
> 10",
> and either taped or secured with twine. That's right, buy tape or twine
> for
> the express purpose of throwing it away.
>
> I found a better solution that involves two simple things that I really
> love using:
>
> 1. A box cutter.
>
> 2. A fireplace.
>
> The fireplace, of course, works for all paper. I just emptied the paper
> shredder in there tonight. I also burn the boxes that hold the soda, and
> all other paper that would be subject to the community recycling rules.
>
> So I am recycling. All that paper is going out the chimney and back to
> nature from where it came. I will also be using less gas for the furnace
> because of the fireplace. That's conservation! The ash, once cooled, I
> just
> dump in the garbage. Maybe I should put the ash in the recycle bin. With
> enough heat and pressure, say up a tree-huggers ass, ash can be recycled
> into diamonds. Hey, that's a great idea. After every Earth Day rally, we
> can pan the Port-O-Potty's for diamonds.
>
> Burning plastic bottles I think would gunk up the chimney too quickly.
> It's
> only swept every two years. So for now I am tossing the plastic and large
> glass bottles in the recycle bin. But I haven't been rinsing them. No
> problem yet.
>
> I have watched the garbage pick up process several times now. The recycle
> truck and garbage truck are different companies. The garbage truck driver
> doesn't give any thought to what he tosses in his truck. I even ran over
> to
> him with two old vacuum cleaners and a mini charcoal grill. He had no
> problem with taking them.
>
> So small plastic or glass items just go in the trash. I stick them inside
> on something else if handy, and guide them towards the center of the bag
> so
> they don't rattle.
>
> I'll be damned if I'm going to sit around washing garbage and tailoring it
> to some environmental wackjobs standards. If they want the shit, they can
> dig it out of the trash.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:54:54 GMT, Charles <ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote:

>In Oregon crushing cans isn't a good idea, to get some money back it
>is required that you put them into a machine one at a time, the
>machine must be able to read the bar code. I hate doing that, I feel
>like a homeless person standing there plugging the cans it.Here in So.
>California one of the main reasons for recycling is to take the burden
>off landfills. Even if the recycling effort by itself is a money
>loser, the landfill doesn't get filled up so soon.

Oregon doesn't have any private aluminum recyclers?

As for landfills, someone did some calculations on that. A five square mile
landfill would hold all of the trash for the entire country for the next
1000 years. Seems big, but we have some deserts.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:55:18 GMT, "used2be" <used2be@nowhere.com> wrote:

>soooooooo.....did you take some sudafed at bedtime too?
>
>:-P

Heh, nah. I've been hyper since my mother died. Odd reaction come to think
of it.

"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
news:s8ebk21sc19sj0tu0cq12mq0ap3k1l5p20@news.easyn ews.com...
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:55:18 GMT, "used2be" <used2be@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>soooooooo.....did you take some sudafed at bedtime too?
>>
>>:-P
>
> Heh, nah. I've been hyper since my mother died. Odd reaction come to think
> of it.

i tho't maybe little buddha was teething or something. keepin you up late
again.

i'm sorry that you're sufferin tho, droog. much sympathies.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:34:26 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:54:54 GMT, Charles <ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote:
>
>>In Oregon crushing cans isn't a good idea, to get some money back it
>>is required that you put them into a machine one at a time, the
>>machine must be able to read the bar code. I hate doing that, I feel
>>like a homeless person standing there plugging the cans it.Here in So.
>>California one of the main reasons for recycling is to take the burden
>>off landfills. Even if the recycling effort by itself is a money
>>loser, the landfill doesn't get filled up so soon.
>
>Oregon doesn't have any private aluminum recyclers?
>
>As for landfills, someone did some calculations on that. A five square mile
>landfill would hold all of the trash for the entire country for the next
>1000 years. Seems big, but we have some deserts.


I don't know about private recyclers. I never checked into that.
Here in Calif when we got the mandatory charge for cans, the
redemption value as it's called, the aluminum people won't pay any
more than that for cans, totally destroyed whatever value the metal
had. I don't know why, except that they can get away with it, maybe
that's good enough.

As for landfills, I proposed that New Orleans be declared a national
landfill. Nobody jumped on that bandwagon.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:45:50 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:

>So small plastic or glass items just go in the trash. I stick them inside
>on something else if handy, and guide them towards the center of the bag so
>they don't rattle.

Why hide your efforts. Your arguements are all appropriate. Make
your position official with a letter to the property manager, copy the
local newspaper and the recycling company as well to get their
"official" statement on all this waste.

CyberDroog <CyberDroog@clockworkorange.com> wrote:
> Since moving into a recycling community with individual garbage cans (the
> last one had a communal dumpster, so I didn't bother), I've been wracking
> my brain to come up with ways to circumvent this ridiculous tree-hugger
> preoccupation.


http://journeytoforever.org/edu_cardboard.html
What to do with a cardboard carton - Journey to Forever

I think the discussion in the first link more or less
concedes some of your argument.

Bacon <rbkfour@yahoo.com> did enquire:


[OP's dislike of recycling requirements]

> Why hide your efforts. Your arguements are all appropriate. Make
> your position official with a letter to the property manager, copy the
> local newspaper and the recycling company as well to get their
> "official" statement on all this waste.


Were I the OP, I wouldn't pick this battle.

> I'll be damned if I'm going to sit around washing garbage and tailoring
> to some environmental wackjobs standards.

A discussion on a parallel issue, on which I might at first
have endorsed the proposed restrictions:

Peter Hitchens 4x4s are ugly - but tinpot despots are even uglier

29th October 2006

I loathe the huge 4X4 wagons that have become fashionable on the roads.

They are arrogant and unBritish, and their owners seem to think a law
has been passed which requires everyone else to get out of the way,
and which allows them to park on the pavement.

As someone who has cared for the 'environment' since before the word
came into common use, it seems obvious to me that such vehicles are
wasteful, ugly and greedy for space.

I have no idea if global warming is connected with anything we do, or
a force beyond our control. But national uglification of this kind is
obviously bad, and easily avoided.

People of good sense and good manners simply shouldn't drive these
needlessly enormous cars.

So you might have thought I would support plans to tax these horrid
things out of existence.

But I don't.

I think there is a sinister new movement in government to interfere
with our lives so as to show us who is in charge. It is all based on
the belief of our new masters, that they are so good that everything
they do is right.

This delusion has always been the foundation stone of totalitarian
rule, which is taking shape all round us.

Harmless citizens are smeared with criminal records because they are
accused - without proof - of putting their rubbish in the wrong bag.

We must open our front doors to nosey parkers seeking to catalogue our
homes the better to tax us (and what a wonderful cover this will give
to a new breed of criminals posing as such inspectors).

And local authorities, which load our once-lovely towns and
countryside with hideous buildings and ugly roads, presume to tell
individuals what sort of cars they can own, claiming falsely that they
care for the 'environment'.

Against these nasty forces, I feel I have to stand shoulder to
shoulder with the drivers and owners of Chelsea Tractors.

I despise the thing you drive, but I will defend (though not to the
death) your right to drive it.

I over-wrote the URL, sorry. (And Google refuses to find it
probably not spidered-over yet)

You might take a look at the Sierra Club program (not quite
stated as such) in which they cheerily say "you don't have to
brick it over quite yet." Wood smoke contains "dangerous
chemicals."

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:46:25 GMT, "used2be" <used2be@nowhere.com> wrote:

>"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
>news:s8ebk21sc19sj0tu0cq12mq0ap3k1l5p20@news.easy news.com...
>> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:55:18 GMT, "used2be" <used2be@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>
>>>soooooooo.....did you take some sudafed at bedtime too?
>>>
>>>:-P
>>
>> Heh, nah. I've been hyper since my mother died. Odd reaction come to think
>> of it.
>
>i tho't maybe little buddha was teething or something. keepin you up late
>again.

Buddha is still teething, but it's not too bad. A little Tylenol when it
really hurts, and the frozen teething ring and he's good to go.

I can't believe what a laid back baby he is. It amazes other people as
well. He had his flu shot last week and didn't shed a tear. He never has
for shots. I walked out to the waiting room to a bunch of women looking
stunned and saying "He didn't cry?" I felt bad when one woman turned to her
eight year old daughter who had been bawling since she arrived at the
clinic and said "See, Ashley, a little baby didn't even cry!"

I heard plenty of babies crying that day. Some take it worse than others.
Buddha takes it mellow...

>i'm sorry that you're sufferin tho, droog. much sympathies.

It comes and goes now. The first thing I thought of when I woke up Saturday
was packing up the baby to go see grandma. I suppose it will take a while
to get over those automatic reactions.

But damn, now that I've thought about it, it really hurts bad. I think I'll
get off the computer, sit down at the stereo and play Bright Eyes over and
over. That helps pull the tears out.

Contrarian wrote:
> Bacon <rbkfour@yahoo.com> did enquire:
>
>
> [OP's dislike of recycling requirements]
>
> > Why hide your efforts. Your arguements are all appropriate. Make
> > your position official with a letter to the property manager, copy the
> > local newspaper and the recycling company as well to get their
> > "official" statement on all this waste.
>
>
> Were I the OP, I wouldn't pick this battle.








recycle craze=O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O0O

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:51:14 GMT, Charles <ckraft@SPAMTRAP.west.net> wrote:

>I don't know about private recyclers. I never checked into that.
>Here in Calif when we got the mandatory charge for cans, the
>redemption value as it's called, the aluminum people won't pay any
>more than that for cans, totally destroyed whatever value the metal
>had. I don't know why, except that they can get away with it, maybe
>that's good enough.

That sucks. Maybe. I haven't looked at the redemption value for cans in
California. Maybe it's near, or higher than the scrap value.

>As for landfills, I proposed that New Orleans be declared a national
>landfill. Nobody jumped on that bandwagon.

Great idea. At least make the levee a landfill. Put the garbage to good
use. Build a 50" mound of garbage in the vulnerable areas and no hurricane
known to man will be able to breech it.

It's a no-brainer sale. We need landfills anyway, and that one would
potentially save lives

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 03:16:40 -0600, Bacon <rbkfour@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:45:50 GMT, CyberDroog
><CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
>
>>So small plastic or glass items just go in the trash. I stick them inside
>>on something else if handy, and guide them towards the center of the bag so
>>they don't rattle.
>
>Why hide your efforts. Your arguements are all appropriate. Make
>your position official with a letter to the property manager, copy the
>local newspaper and the recycling company as well to get their
>"official" statement on all this waste.

It's a village program, not just my apartment community. I will make my
voice heard on the issue of recycling being a waste of money as well as
increasing pollution. I did that in the last village I lived in and it was
completely ignored, but I'll try again.

In the meantime there's no sense in risking a citation. Subversives are
supposed to be stealthy.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:56:57 GMT, Contrarian <adrba65@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>CyberDroog <CyberDroog@clockworkorange.com> wrote:
>> Since moving into a recycling community with individual garbage cans (the
>> last one had a communal dumpster, so I didn't bother), I've been wracking
>> my brain to come up with ways to circumvent this ridiculous tree-hugger
>> preoccupation.
>
>
>http://journeytoforever.org/edu_cardboard.html
>What to do with a cardboard carton - Journey to Forever
>
>I think the discussion in the first link more or less
>concedes some of your argument.

That seems to be in agreement. Nothing other than aluminum cans is worth
the effort to recycle, and the economics bear that out since you will
actually receive cash for aluminum cans.

All other recycling is actually a welfare program for the workers who sort
and process the materials, and a gravy train for the companies who actually
process the material into useable forms yet pay only pennies on the dollar
to the city residents who donated it for free.

Did you ever notice that recycled paper, and most every other greenie item,
cost more? Why is that? I thought the idea was that it saves money.

I say stick it all in a landfill. In ten billion years or so the earth will
be engulfed by our sun, which will have grown into a red giant, and all the
stuff will be burned up anyway.

I plan on being there to watch it happen. I think I'll need a good pair of
sunglasses.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:04:37 GMT, Contrarian <adrba65@gmail.com> wrote:

>Bacon <rbkfour@yahoo.com> did enquire:
>
>
>[OP's dislike of recycling requirements]
>
>> Why hide your efforts. Your arguements are all appropriate. Make
>> your position official with a letter to the property manager, copy the
>> local newspaper and the recycling company as well to get their
>> "official" statement on all this waste.
>
>
> Were I the OP, I wouldn't pick this battle.

As I said in another reply, subversives are supposed to be stealthy. I'll
still make my voice heard.

But the last letter to the editor I had published was years ago. It was
about some distorted "facts" in an anti-gun cartoon. I corrected the facts
and was given a smug reply by the editors asking if the number of defensive
uses of guns in America that I quoted included reruns of Charles Bronson
movies.

That was met by a flurry of letters telling the editors that they were sore
losers. Kind of funny really.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:10:35 GMT, Contrarian <adrba65@gmail.com> wrote:

>> I'll be damned if I'm going to sit around washing garbage and tailoring
>> to some environmental wackjobs standards.
>
>A discussion on a parallel issue, on which I might at first
>have endorsed the proposed restrictions:
>
> Peter Hitchens 4x4s are ugly - but tinpot despots are even uglier
>
> 29th October 2006
>
> I loathe the huge 4X4 wagons that have become fashionable on the roads.

I loathe SUV's also. The drivers do seem to share a common misperception of
the size of their vehicles. In the Winter they also seem to share a belief
that the laws of physics don't apply to them.

I spent several Winters in a 1999 Mazda Miata with Blizzak snow tires
gleefully passing SUV's that were in the ditch because their drivers
thought that ABS and AWD meant that they could drive at 60 MPH on icy roads
at 32°. I always hoped they weren't injured, of course, even if they were
morons. But I couldn't help but feel a bit of schadenfreude

But what I hate most about SUV's is parking lots. You come out of a store
to find yourself parked between two SUV's. The only way to back out safely,
without actually having a spotter standing behind you, is to ask for God's
protection whether you're religious or not.

You can't even count on just looking one way since most Americans are blind
to the arrows painted in mall parking lots to direct traffic in one
direction per parking lane.

So you just hold your breath and ease it back. If you hear crunching metal
sounds, you put it into drive and pull back into the spot and wait for the
cop to show up and write a citation for unsafe backing even though there
clearly is no safe way to back up in such circumstances.

Interestingly, the Walmart near my new home has signs directing SUV's to a
designated parking area. It's about time.

But, like Peter Hitchens, I too would never suggest banning SUV's. Our
forefathers fought a revolution for liberty. Liberty means doing whatever
you damn well please, provided you are willing to accept the consequences.
The natural consequences, that is, not the artificial ones that whiny
do-gooders lobby their representatives to pass.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:18:44 GMT, CyberDroog
<CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 09:56:57 GMT, Contrarian <adrba65@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>CyberDroog <CyberDroog@clockworkorange.com> wrote:
>>> Since moving into a recycling community with individual garbage cans (the
>>> last one had a communal dumpster, so I didn't bother), I've been wracking
>>> my brain to come up with ways to circumvent this ridiculous tree-hugger
>>> preoccupation.
>>
>>
>>http://journeytoforever.org/edu_cardboard.html
>>What to do with a cardboard carton - Journey to Forever
>>
>>I think the discussion in the first link more or less
>>concedes some of your argument.
>
>That seems to be in agreement. Nothing other than aluminum cans is worth
>the effort to recycle, and the economics bear that out since you will
>actually receive cash for aluminum cans.
>
>All other recycling is actually a welfare program for the workers who sort
>and process the materials, and a gravy train for the companies who actually
>process the material into useable forms yet pay only pennies on the dollar
>to the city residents who donated it for free.
>
>Did you ever notice that recycled paper, and most every other greenie item,
>cost more? Why is that? I thought the idea was that it saves money.
>
>I say stick it all in a landfill. In ten billion years or so the earth will
>be engulfed by our sun, which will have grown into a red giant, and all the
>stuff will be burned up anyway.
>
>I plan on being there to watch it happen. I think I'll need a good pair of
>sunglasses.

So all recycling is is a form of tax, complete with a dead weight loss
and inefficient use of resources...

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:10:35 GMT, Contrarian <adrba65@gmail.com>
wrote:

>> I'll be damned if I'm going to sit around washing garbage and tailoring
>> to some environmental wackjobs standards.

> I loathe the huge 4X4 wagons that have become fashionable on the roads.

I hate that you can't see around them, and usually there is just one
occupant. They're great for hauling kegs, that's about it. Market
forces will prevail when necessary.

Bacon <rbkfour@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:10:35 GMT, Contrarian <adrba65@gmail.com>
> wrote:

This is Mr. Hitchens, not myself, but I don't like them much either.
>> I loathe the huge 4X4 wagons that have become fashionable on the roads.

> I hate that you can't see around them, and usually there is just one
> occupant. They're great for hauling kegs, that's about it. Market
> forces will prevail when necessary.

His (Peter Hitchens') point was that we do well to be wary of
prohibitory legislation even on items we personally despise; it's
better in the full version.

Bacon <rbkfour@yahoo.com> wrote:

>>>http://journeytoforever.org/edu_cardboard.html
>>>What to do with a cardboard carton - Journey to Forever

> So all recycling is is a form of tax, complete with a dead weight loss
> and inefficient use of resources...

Not quite a tax, but ... I'm not sure. I'm not quite
certain why recycling was done some decades ago (I remember
reading about kids "hauling trash" for pennies) and isn't
now. From what I recall, it was almost all metal.

I can *imagine* end-user recycling of different, better
materials (see the link above about composting cardboard)
but we're not there yet.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:03:08 -0600, Bacon <rbkfour@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:18:44 GMT, CyberDroog
><CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote:
>>
>>I say stick it all in a landfill. In ten billion years or so the earth will
>>be engulfed by our sun, which will have grown into a red giant, and all the
>>stuff will be burned up anyway.
>>
>>I plan on being there to watch it happen. I think I'll need a good pair of
>>sunglasses.
>
>So all recycling is is a form of tax, complete with a dead weight loss
>and inefficient use of resources...

Well yes, it is the government after all...

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:06:35 -0600, Bacon <rbkfour@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 11:10:35 GMT, Contrarian <adrba65@gmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>>> I'll be damned if I'm going to sit around washing garbage and tailoring
>>> to some environmental wackjobs standards.
>
>> I loathe the huge 4X4 wagons that have become fashionable on the roads.
>
>I hate that you can't see around them, and usually there is just one
>occupant. They're great for hauling kegs, that's about it. Market
>forces will prevail when necessary.

I've always found I can borrow an SUV whenever I need to haul something
large.

Although I wouldn't mind a Hummer, and I mean a regular military spec
Hummer, not the H2 or H3, for Wisconsin Winters.

"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
news:depbk2haqsg7941ev1ms16u3vjjq8h9b24@news.easyn ews.com...
> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 08:46:25 GMT, "used2be" <used2be@nowhere.com> wrote:
>
>>"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
>>news:s8ebk21sc19sj0tu0cq12mq0ap3k1l5p20@news.eas ynews.com...
>>> On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 07:55:18 GMT, "used2be" <used2be@nowhere.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>soooooooo.....did you take some sudafed at bedtime too?
>>>>
>>>>:-P
>>>
>>> Heh, nah. I've been hyper since my mother died. Odd reaction come to
>>> think
>>> of it.
>>
>>i tho't maybe little buddha was teething or something. keepin you up late
>>again.
>
> Buddha is still teething, but it's not too bad. A little Tylenol when it
> really hurts, and the frozen teething ring and he's good to go.

a little bourbon does the trick as well. <g>

> I can't believe what a laid back baby he is. It amazes other people as
> well. He had his flu shot last week and didn't shed a tear. He never has
> for shots. I walked out to the waiting room to a bunch of women looking
> stunned and saying "He didn't cry?" I felt bad when one woman turned to
> her
> eight year old daughter who had been bawling since she arrived at the
> clinic and said "See, Ashley, a little baby didn't even cry!"

poor little ashley. my 18 yr old is like that. a few years ago i had to
take her in for a hep B booster shot (required now by schools) and you'd
have thou't we were going to have a part of her body amputated without using
anesthesia! my 15 yr old is totally opposite. she never cries for shots.
when she was 12, i took her to the doc for a routine sports physical and
they said she needed a couple of booster shots but that she could schedule
them later if she wanted to. she didn't even flinch...just said, "bring em
on!"

> I heard plenty of babies crying that day. Some take it worse than others.
> Buddha takes it mellow...

you're lucky.

>>i'm sorry that you're sufferin tho, droog. much sympathies.
>
> It comes and goes now. The first thing I thought of when I woke up
> Saturday
> was packing up the baby to go see grandma. I suppose it will take a while
> to get over those automatic reactions.

awww, that has to be the hardest part! or one of...

> But damn, now that I've thought about it, it really hurts bad. I think
> I'll
> get off the computer, sit down at the stereo and play Bright Eyes over and
> over. That helps pull the tears out.

oh droog, i'm so sorry i brought it back up if you caused you this much
pain.

((((((droog))))))

~cindy

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 17:07:27 GMT, "used2be" <used2be@nowhere.com> wrote:

>"CyberDroog" <CyberDroog@ClockworkOrange.com> wrote in message
>news:depbk2haqsg7941ev1ms16u3vjjq8h9b24@news.easy news.com...
>
>> But damn, now that I've thought about it, it really hurts bad. I think
>> I'll
>> get off the computer, sit down at the stereo and play Bright Eyes over and
>> over. That helps pull the tears out.
>
>oh droog, i'm so sorry i brought it back up if you caused you this much
>pain.

You didn't bring it up, I did.