Pet peeves

Ekserb said:
No.

I assume that the street bum was drying his sweaty mop of hair with the inverted nozzle and really hadn't washed his hands at all. He just walked up to the dryer and flipped the port with the same hands he just used to wipe his ass after the roll of toilet paper ejected its last square. There's a colony of E. coli living on that nozzle and I don't want to be anywhere near it.

This is the same reason I first pump the paper towel holder a few times when I enter a public restroom. I want the very last thing I touch to be the only thing that wasn't touched by anyone else. I'll pre-load the dispenser with about four or five jerks of the handle, then do my business and wash up, leaving the water running. I tear off the clean sheets and dry my hands, use the towel to turn off the faucet, then pull the door handle with the dirty towels and toss the ball into the trash as I walk out the door.

Why go to the trouble? Because the last dirty fuck that walked out of that room probably didn't wash his hands and the las thing he touched before his fingers gripped the door handle was his filthy fucking cock or ass.

Actually, the door handle is the cleanest thing in a public bathroom. And I use the air blowers to dry my hair all the time in my gym locker room. Beats having to pack a blow dryer every time I go.
 
monique1971 said:
Aww. <petpet> It's okay. Maybe they will start carrying them by popular demand. Easter is a long way away, so they have time to mend their ways.

I found them at another store today! And I only had to go slightly out of my way. I'm stuffing my mouth with them as I type this. :D
 
Lorali82 said:
Actually, the door handle is the cleanest thing in a public bathroom. And I use the air blowers to dry my hair all the time in my gym locker room. Beats having to pack a blow dryer every time I go.

Cleanest is a relative term and saying it's the cleanest thing in there doesn't mean it's clean. I wouldn't lick that handle if I were you.
 
Ekserb said:
Cleanest is a relative term and saying it's the cleanest thing in there doesn't mean it's clean. I wouldn't lick that handle if I were you.

You have a point.
 
The Ethanol Boodoggle



For every gallon of ethanol, Archer Daniels Midland receives $0.51 from the government of the United States of America (this means
YOU!)

Brazil, which produces prodigious amounts of ethanol, would dearly love to sell ethanol to you and me. There's one small problem, though; the government of the United States of America imposes a $0.54 per gallon tariff on imported ethanol.

Why don't the politicians make this simpler and just tell us to send checks directly to Archer Daniels Midland?


 
trysail said:
For every gallon of ethanol, Archer Daniels Midland receives $0.51 from the government of the United States of America (this means YOU!)

Brazil, which produces prodigious amounts of ethanol, would dearly love to sell ethanol to you and me. There's one small problem, though; the government of the United States of America imposes a $0.54 per gallon tariff on imported ethanol.

Dude, where are you getting these facts? Please cite some references so I can see for myself. I don't believe everything I read on the internet and I certainly don't believe anything written in big green letters.

Does ADM make all of the ethanol produced in this country? There are no other producers at all? Or does ADM get money based on what other companies produce, too?
 
Ethanol subsidy, tariffs, and ADM for Ekserb

Ekserb said:
Dude, where are you getting these facts? Please cite some references so I can see for myself.

Does ADM make all of the ethanol produced in this country? There are no other producers at all? Or does ADM get money based on what other companies produce, too?

http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/trade/2006/0810arresteddevelopment.htm

Just for you, ol' Ekserb. If you want more (believe me, there's plenty), just plug "Ethanol subsidy" into your favorite search engine.

 
trysail said:


For every gallon of ethanol, Archer Daniels Midland receives $0.51 from the government of the United States of America (this means
YOU!)

Brazil, which produces prodigious amounts of ethanol, would dearly love to sell ethanol to you and me. There's one small problem, though; the government of the United States of America imposes a $0.54 per gallon tariff on imported ethanol.

Why don't the politicians make this simpler and just tell us to send checks directly to Archer Daniels Midland?




Who do you think owns our food chain.......
 
trysail said:
http://www.globalpolicy.org/socecon/trade/2006/0810arresteddevelopment.htm

Just for you, ol' Ekserb. If you want more (believe me, there's plenty), just plug "Ethanol subsidy" into your favorite search engine.

(This is why I hate talking politics.)

Guess what? I plugged in "ethanol" and got about 29,000,000 hits, mostly about how great ethanol is and how it's good for the planet.

I'm not saying I agree with you or with the opposite school of thought. What I am saying is that no matter what your position, there are always a zillion different "experts" willing to provide you with the data to back up your claims.

Unless you're driving an electric car charged with electricity generated by a wind farm or a huge solar array or some other clean energy source, you're not really doing anything to solve the problem, if indeed the problem is solvable.

I happen to think that there is global warming or climate change or whatever it's being called this week, but I also believe that the evidence does not exist that it's caused by humans or fixable by humans. The climate of the planet is so unbelievably vast and complex that we'd be mighty arrogant to think that we could screw it up in only a hundred years. There is evidence to suggest that the earth's climate changes in cycles of 20,000, 40,000, and 100,000 years, yet some scientists still seem to think that they can predict what will happen based on data recorded over the last century, and very accurate data only over the past few decades.

This can be argued back and forth all day, but the fact is that talking about it doesn't fix anything. If you truly believe that burning fossil fuels is going to kill the planet's ability to sustain human life (and as far as I'm concerned, that wouldn't be the worst case scenario - we all know people suck) then you'd better sell that gasoline-powered car and get to riding a bicycle to and from work and the grocery store, and cut your lawn with a manual rotary mower. Until then, you're only contributing to the problem you think exists.
 
Ekserb said:
(This is why I hate talking politics.)

Guess what? I plugged in "ethanol" and got about 29,000,000 hits, mostly about how great ethanol is and how it's good for the planet.

I'm not saying I agree with you or with the opposite school of thought. What I am saying is that no matter what your position, there are always a zillion different "experts" willing to provide you with the data to back up your claims.

Unless you're driving an electric car charged with electricity generated by a wind farm or a huge solar array or some other clean energy source, you're not really doing anything to solve the problem, if indeed the problem is solvable.

I happen to think that there is global warming or climate change or whatever it's being called this week, but I also believe that the evidence does not exist that it's caused by humans or fixable by humans. The climate of the planet is so unbelievably vast and complex that we'd be mighty arrogant to think that we could screw it up in only a hundred years. There is evidence to suggest that the earth's climate changes in cycles of 20,000, 40,000, and 100,000 years, yet some scientists still seem to think that they can predict what will happen based on data recorded over the last century, and very accurate data only over the past few decades.

This can be argued back and forth all day, but the fact is that talking about it doesn't fix anything. If you truly believe that burning fossil fuels is going to kill the planet's ability to sustain human life (and as far as I'm concerned, that wouldn't be the worst case scenario - we all know people suck) then you'd better sell that gasoline-powered car and get to riding a bicycle to and from work and the grocery store, and cut your lawn with a manual rotary mower. Until then, you're only contributing to the problem you think exists.

Have you seen Al Gore's movie? It scared the shit out of me. Not enough to change my fossil fuel burning habits, but still.
 
Lorali82 said:
Have you seen Al Gore's movie? It scared the shit out of me. Not enough to change my fossil fuel burning habits, but still.
Wasn't Al Gore the guy who invented the Internet? Oh, wait he just said that. Global warming is a theory that has yet to be proven. One study says yes, another says no. Global temperatures have fluctuated for millions of years, even without man's interference. I am not panicking, just yet. ;)
 
Horus_rules said:
Wasn't Al Gore the guy who invented the Internet? Oh, wait he just said that. Global warming is a theory that has yet to be proven. One study says yes, another says no. Global temperatures have fluctuated for millions of years, even without man's interference. I am not panicking, just yet. ;)

Exactly.

Let's say that global warming is being caused by humans and the world is going to burn like tinder. So what? I'm not having kids and this event isn't going to affect my life one little bit. I couldn't care less about someone else's kids or grandkids. Let them inherit a complete disaster - I won't be here to listen to them complain about it.
 
It ain't a linear world and Ekserb knows it

Originally posted by Ekserb
Global warming is a theory that has yet to be proven. One study says yes, another says no. Global temperatures have fluctuated for millions of years, even without man's interference.........

The climate of the planet is so unbelievably vast and complex that we'd be mighty arrogant to think that we could screw it up in only a hundred years. There is evidence to suggest that the earth's climate changes in cycles of 20,000, 40,000, and 100,000 years, yet some scientists still seem to think that they can predict what will happen based on data recorded over the last century, and very accurate data only over the past few decades.

"Not dumb" people like Micheal Crichton, M.D., and William Gray, Ph.D. (along with many others) agree. Academicians, their computer models, and Al Gore are proficient at extrapolation, which would be incredibly useful if only we lived in a linear world. We don't.
 
Antsy Pants.

When people start getting out of my car before I've turned the engine off.
Again with the people of the world who find it imperative to shave those three damn seconds off. What's with that?
 
People who say "I could care less," when the correct phrase is "I couldn't care less." This really pisses me off.
 
Back
Top