Weird
-
What if you sold it by the kilo? :rolleyes: :laugh:
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
NOW you're talking. Your inbox is full BTW.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
NOW you're talking. Your inbox is full BTW.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
That's strange, I just received email from someone else... I reckon it's YOU!!
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
That's strange, I just received email from someone else... I reckon it's YOU!!
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
My last two attempts bounced and said full mailbox, so.....
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
We created a program in WPF that vets use to educate clients what is wrong with their animal. I thought it was a stupid idea :-)
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
But the dogs used it to Vet their owners!
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
But the dogs used it to Vet their owners!
------------------------------------ I will never again mention that I was the poster of the One Millionth Lounge Post, nor that it was complete drivel. Dalek Dave
-
We created a program in WPF that vets use to educate clients what is wrong with their animal. I thought it was a stupid idea :-)
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Weird that fat boy had so much vitriol for me, but disappeared as soon as I got up in the morning and started posting in response.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
Christian Graus wrote:
responded
Yeah, that was kind of messed up. Some people don't take other people's success very well. :rolleyes: What was the thing you created and cashed in on?
Opacity, the new Transparency.
RichardM1 wrote:
Yeah, that was kind of messed up.
"the people who worked hard and invested money would lose out, why should they lose out so people who don't make much, ..., can get their stuff ?" Sorry, you think its OK that th elower paid are exclluded from owning a halfg decent house because of the unfettered greed of a few? It is THAT statement of Christians that I attacked, an attack I will defend as valid.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Yeah, that was kind of messed up.
"the people who worked hard and invested money would lose out, why should they lose out so people who don't make much, ..., can get their stuff ?" Sorry, you think its OK that th elower paid are exclluded from owning a halfg decent house because of the unfettered greed of a few? It is THAT statement of Christians that I attacked, an attack I will defend as valid.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
No. Not weird, just too busy at work to respond fully.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Or, indeed, at all. Given the apparent earlier depth of your feelings, I found that odd.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
RichardM1 wrote:
Yeah, that was kind of messed up.
"the people who worked hard and invested money would lose out, why should they lose out so people who don't make much, ..., can get their stuff ?" Sorry, you think its OK that th elower paid are exclluded from owning a halfg decent house because of the unfettered greed of a few? It is THAT statement of Christians that I attacked, an attack I will defend as valid.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
Sorry, you think its OK that th elower paid are exclluded from owning a halfg decent house because of the unfettered greed of a few?
I think back on the house I built, and I would say there were many years of labor put into it, some skilled, some not, and tens of thousands of dollars worth of materials, from lumber to shingles to bricks. If you earn 20k/year, which of those should not be paid for? Who should go hungry so you can have a house? The carpenter, the mason, the guy who makes bricks, or the guy who used to own the land? I don't think ANYONE should be excluded from owning a home, by anything other than their capability to pay for it.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
-
Or, indeed, at all. Given the apparent earlier depth of your feelings, I found that odd.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
OK, maybe I over reacted. But when you railed against governmnet policy to lower house prices you hit a pet cause of mine. I really think it is a good idea to limit the amount of house debt someone can take on. That way they have more cash for consumables, and that will help fatory gate figures globally. Take france. The most you can be in debt is 33% of your net. ie, if you gross 3k you can pay 1k a month max on servicing loans. Get HP on a car, and you can only borrow less for a house. In the UK people are paying 50% of their gross just on servicing their mortgage! And for what? Its not like that wealth stored up in the house is usable untill you die, or are near to it. Why not have the extra cash all your life? I am heavilly in favour of the govt taking housing out of the easy borrow easy spend circuit. While easy credit is good for the economy, locking so much cash up in houses isnt. Oh, and I apologise for overreacting. I hadnt been drinking by the way, that was a plain old hot blodded overreaction.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
-
OK, maybe I over reacted. But when you railed against governmnet policy to lower house prices you hit a pet cause of mine. I really think it is a good idea to limit the amount of house debt someone can take on. That way they have more cash for consumables, and that will help fatory gate figures globally. Take france. The most you can be in debt is 33% of your net. ie, if you gross 3k you can pay 1k a month max on servicing loans. Get HP on a car, and you can only borrow less for a house. In the UK people are paying 50% of their gross just on servicing their mortgage! And for what? Its not like that wealth stored up in the house is usable untill you die, or are near to it. Why not have the extra cash all your life? I am heavilly in favour of the govt taking housing out of the easy borrow easy spend circuit. While easy credit is good for the economy, locking so much cash up in houses isnt. Oh, and I apologise for overreacting. I hadnt been drinking by the way, that was a plain old hot blodded overreaction.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
Fair enough. Like I said below, it seems to me now that what I meant to say, and what you saw, differed because of our differing experience. I agree that deregulation of banks has been a bad thing for everyone but banks and that people should not be able to borrow outside their means.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
OK, maybe I over reacted. But when you railed against governmnet policy to lower house prices you hit a pet cause of mine. I really think it is a good idea to limit the amount of house debt someone can take on. That way they have more cash for consumables, and that will help fatory gate figures globally. Take france. The most you can be in debt is 33% of your net. ie, if you gross 3k you can pay 1k a month max on servicing loans. Get HP on a car, and you can only borrow less for a house. In the UK people are paying 50% of their gross just on servicing their mortgage! And for what? Its not like that wealth stored up in the house is usable untill you die, or are near to it. Why not have the extra cash all your life? I am heavilly in favour of the govt taking housing out of the easy borrow easy spend circuit. While easy credit is good for the economy, locking so much cash up in houses isnt. Oh, and I apologise for overreacting. I hadnt been drinking by the way, that was a plain old hot blodded overreaction.
Morality is indistinguishable from social proscription
fat_boy wrote:
governmnet policy to lower house prices
and
fat_boy wrote:
limit the amount of house debt someone can take on
are two entirely different things. I think the government has no business attempting to manipulate the market to "lower house prices", but I agree that there should be limits on the amount someone can borrow (as there was when I bought my first and second houses). The hoops that needed to be jumped through were many and varied...
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
-
fat_boy wrote:
governmnet policy to lower house prices
and
fat_boy wrote:
limit the amount of house debt someone can take on
are two entirely different things. I think the government has no business attempting to manipulate the market to "lower house prices", but I agree that there should be limits on the amount someone can borrow (as there was when I bought my first and second houses). The hoops that needed to be jumped through were many and varied...
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
_Damian S_ wrote:
I think the government has no business attempting to manipulate the market to "lower house prices",
Yes, that was a point I tried to make. Such attempts must hurt someone ( in fact, everyone who has already struggled to buy in ), and is bound to have unintended consequences.
Christian Graus Driven to the arms of OSX by Vista. Read my blog to find out how I've worked around bugs in Microsoft tools and frameworks.
-
fat_boy wrote:
Sorry, you think its OK that th elower paid are exclluded from owning a halfg decent house because of the unfettered greed of a few?
I think back on the house I built, and I would say there were many years of labor put into it, some skilled, some not, and tens of thousands of dollars worth of materials, from lumber to shingles to bricks. If you earn 20k/year, which of those should not be paid for? Who should go hungry so you can have a house? The carpenter, the mason, the guy who makes bricks, or the guy who used to own the land? I don't think ANYONE should be excluded from owning a home, by anything other than their capability to pay for it.
Opacity, the new Transparency.
You're jumping into an old riff. Over the past few years Christian has exhibited an insensitivity to the idea that not all folk are as well off as he, and he justifies it because he's earned it in one way or another. And while that may be true, fatty has always given him crap for it. While he boasts of his standing and will publicly state his success in detail, he'll also show incredible disdain for poor people, so while professing to be a staunch Christian (not in name only) he seems to miss out on what Mathew 25 is all about. And this is evidenced when talking about single mothers on welfare in his homeland. Kinda like the attitude here in the US in the 80s. This is just another tired old CP saga playing itself out.
This statement is false
-
fat_boy wrote:
governmnet policy to lower house prices
and
fat_boy wrote:
limit the amount of house debt someone can take on
are two entirely different things. I think the government has no business attempting to manipulate the market to "lower house prices", but I agree that there should be limits on the amount someone can borrow (as there was when I bought my first and second houses). The hoops that needed to be jumped through were many and varied...
I don't have ADHD, I have ADOS... Attention Deficit oooh SHINY!! If you like cars, check out the Booger Mobile blog | If you feel generous - make a donation to Camp Quality!!
_Damian S_ wrote:
government has no business attempting to manipulate the market
and
_Damian S_ wrote:
there should be limits on the amount someone can borrow
The market is always going to react in its own short-term interest. It will only limit if not bailed out after a catastrophe. We have a shared interest in mitigating that. That catastrophe that is required to self-correct the market is something we as a society really can't afford. So, how does this limit get imposed if Government has no business to manipulate the market? Now to add some personal context: I agree to limited manipulation. The regulatory type. The root is the bad mortgages. But no-one would have really purchased the securities containing them if they weren't first bundled in a decent rated package. Here's a funny. The guy that created credit-default swaps to help correct the savings and loan debacle in the early 90s approached Greenspan, then Chairman of the Fed, and stated that while they held a benefit and were a powerful tool, they needed to be regulated due to their nature. (Paraphrasing) But Greenspan said No. The market would regulate itself. And it decided no, it wouldn't. Later Greenspan is stating in public record in a Senate hearing that he under-estimated the "human greed factor". So, while it sounds good to say that the government should stay out of the market, I mean that's what's been sold for the last 30 years, I really wonder why.
This statement is false
-
You're jumping into an old riff. Over the past few years Christian has exhibited an insensitivity to the idea that not all folk are as well off as he, and he justifies it because he's earned it in one way or another. And while that may be true, fatty has always given him crap for it. While he boasts of his standing and will publicly state his success in detail, he'll also show incredible disdain for poor people, so while professing to be a staunch Christian (not in name only) he seems to miss out on what Mathew 25 is all about. And this is evidenced when talking about single mothers on welfare in his homeland. Kinda like the attitude here in the US in the 80s. This is just another tired old CP saga playing itself out.
This statement is false