| |
Main
Date: 11 Dec 18:25:05
From: arlo payne
Subject: The root of all world problems.
|
The need for locks.
If we lived in a world where you did not need locks life would be 100000000
times better.
When I was a kid we never locked doors or even took the keys out of our cars.
If we came hone and a truck was missing we knew someone stopped by and needed it
for something and we never even considered it would not be returned. Of course
unless it was my cousin Richard who was so lazy he might just drive it until it
was out of gas then leave it wherever it stopped. LOL
But really the need for locks is the major problem of mankind.
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
|
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 10:38:17
From: MysteriAce
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
On Dec 11 2006 11:25 AM, arlo payne wrote:
> The need for locks.
> If we lived in a world where you did not need locks life would be 100000000
> times better.
>
> When I was a kid we never locked doors or even took the keys out of our
cars.
> If we came hone and a truck was missing we knew someone stopped by and
needed it
> for something and we never even considered it would not be returned. Of
course
> unless it was my cousin Richard who was so lazy he might just drive it until
it
> was out of gas then leave it wherever it stopped. LOL
>
> But really the need for locks is the major problem of mankind.
Of course. Everyone knows there was no crime before 1971. It's a
historical fact.
~ MysteriAce
"Ashes and diamonds
Foe and friend
We were all equal in the end"
________________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 10:58:23
From: Raider Fan
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
On Dec 11 2006 12:38 PM, MysteriAce wrote:
>
> Of course. Everyone knows there was no crime before 1971. It's a
> historical fact.
>
> ~ MysteriAce
Sure there was crime, but there were many areas you could live that didn't
have crime. I also remember sleeping with doors unlocked and windows
open. I also remember NEVER locking the car. I remember being able to
play outside with our friends and not have to have an adult keep an eye on
us.
I think Arlo has this one right. We can't do shit about it, but I agree
with him.
------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Dec 19:11:54
From: Super Steamer
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
On Dec 11 2006 10:58 AM, Raider Fan wrote:
> On Dec 11 2006 12:38 PM, MysteriAce wrote:
>
> >
> > Of course. Everyone knows there was no crime before 1971. It's a
> > historical fact.
> >
> > ~ MysteriAce
>
> Sure there was crime, but there were many areas you could live that didn't
> have crime. I also remember sleeping with doors unlocked and windows
> open. I also remember NEVER locking the car. I remember being able to
> play outside with our friends and not have to have an adult keep an eye on
> us.
>
The kids these days can't even walk a few blocks to school. It's really sad.
> I think Arlo has this one right. We can't do shit about it, but I agree
> with him.
_______________________________________________________________
Your Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 11:03:44
From: MysteriAce
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
On Dec 11 2006 11:58 AM, Raider Fan wrote:
> On Dec 11 2006 12:38 PM, MysteriAce wrote:
>
> >
> > Of course. Everyone knows there was no crime before 1971. It's a
> > historical fact.
> >
> > ~ MysteriAce
>
> Sure there was crime, but there were many areas you could live that didn't
> have crime. I also remember sleeping with doors unlocked and windows
> open. I also remember NEVER locking the car. I remember being able to
> play outside with our friends and not have to have an adult keep an eye on
> us.
>
> I think Arlo has this one right. We can't do shit about it, but I agree
> with him.
So, you agree with Arlo that "the root of all world problems is the need
for locks".
OK.
~ MysteriAce
"Ashes and diamonds
Foe and friend
We were all equal in the end"
--------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 11:11:14
From: Raider Fan
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
On Dec 11 2006 1:03 PM, MysteriAce wrote:
>
> So, you agree with Arlo that "the root of all world problems is the need
> for locks".
>
> OK.
>
No, I agree that the world was a better place without the need for locks.
_______________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 11:20:38
From: MysteriAce
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
On Dec 11 2006 12:11 PM, Raider Fan wrote:
> On Dec 11 2006 1:03 PM, MysteriAce wrote:
>
> >
> > So, you agree with Arlo that "the root of all world problems is the need
> > for locks".
> >
> > OK.
> >
>
> No, I agree that the world was a better place without the need for locks.
Of course, your personal recollection of your childhood is all the
evidence needed to support the claim that "the world was a better place
without the need for locks".
According to the Bureau of Justice Burglary statistics report, burglaries
in the United States have been on a steady decline since 1973, where the
burglary rate was 110 victims per 1000 households and has dropped to 29.5
in 2005.
So, it seems that there is less need (about 3.5 times less) for locks on
your doors now then there were 33 years ago. Hmmmmm...
You and Arlo must be on to something for sure ....
~ MysteriAce
"Ashes and diamonds
Foe and friend
We were all equal in the end"
-------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 12:23:02
From: johnny T
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
MysteriAce wrote:
>
> You and Arlo must be on to something for sure ....
No, it is much older, and amazingly still profound....
"Ignorance is bliss"
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 12:50:16
From: pokerchimp
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
On Dec 11 2006 1:58 PM, Raider Fan wrote:
> On Dec 11 2006 12:38 PM, MysteriAce wrote:
>
> >
> > Of course. Everyone knows there was no crime before 1971. It's a
> > historical fact.
> >
> > ~ MysteriAce
>
> Sure there was crime, but there were many areas you could live that didn't
> have crime. I also remember sleeping with doors unlocked and windows
> open. I also remember NEVER locking the car. I remember being able to
> play outside with our friends and not have to have an adult keep an eye on
> us.
>
> I think Arlo has this one right. We can't do shit about it, but I agree
> with him.
I lived in the suburbs and led a very unrestricted life. It was me, my
bicycle, and the world. I frequently went miles away. When I was 14 I
could take the bus to Port Athority in NYC with friends. No way I would
let 2 or 3 unaccompanied females do that today.
thumbers on stars, dieseldyke on absolute/vegaspoker24/7
_____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 22:33:20
From: Bill Clark
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
"Raider Fan" <raidersgotscrewed1@hotmail.com > wrote in
news:fbm054xfl.ln2@recgroups.com:
> Sure there was crime, but there were many areas you could live
> that didn't have crime. I also remember sleeping with doors
> unlocked and windows open. I also remember NEVER locking the car.
> I remember being able to play outside with our friends and not
> have to have an adult keep an eye on us.
There still are... That's the way we live up here...
--
-bc-
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 20:30:08
From: arlo payne
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
On Dec 11 2006 11:38 AM, MysteriAce wrote:
> On Dec 11 2006 11:25 AM, arlo payne wrote:
>
> > The need for locks.
> > If we lived in a world where you did not need locks life would be 100000000
> > times better.
> >
> > When I was a kid we never locked doors or even took the keys out of our
> cars.
> > If we came hone and a truck was missing we knew someone stopped by and
> needed it
> > for something and we never even considered it would not be returned. Of
> course
> > unless it was my cousin Richard who was so lazy he might just drive it until
> it
> > was out of gas then leave it wherever it stopped. LOL
> >
> > But really the need for locks is the major problem of mankind.
>
> Of course. Everyone knows there was no crime before 1971. It's a
> historical fact.
>
> ~ MysteriAce
Sorry must ask:
What the flip does 1971 have to do with this post?
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 01:56:43
From: ben carr
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
I thought this was going to be another "Little Dicks" thread!
|
| | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 12:40:28
From: MysteriAce
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
On Dec 11 2006 1:30 PM, arlo payne wrote:
> On Dec 11 2006 11:38 AM, MysteriAce wrote:
>
> > On Dec 11 2006 11:25 AM, arlo payne wrote:
> >
> > > The need for locks.
> > > If we lived in a world where you did not need locks life would be
100000000
> > > times better.
> > >
> > > When I was a kid we never locked doors or even took the keys out of our
> > cars.
> > > If we came hone and a truck was missing we knew someone stopped by and
> > needed it
> > > for something and we never even considered it would not be returned. Of
> > course
> > > unless it was my cousin Richard who was so lazy he might just drive it
until
> > it
> > > was out of gas then leave it wherever it stopped. LOL
> > >
> > > But really the need for locks is the major problem of mankind.
> >
> > Of course. Everyone knows there was no crime before 1971. It's a
> > historical fact.
> >
> > ~ MysteriAce
> Sorry must ask:
> What the flip does 1971 have to do with this post?
It was a purely arbitrary date. I was poking fun at your statement that
the world was so much better before people locked their doors.
Burglaries have declined, in fact, 3 fold since 1973. So, back when
"nobody locked their doors" there was three times as much burglary than
there is now.
Maybe you people were just much more naive when you grew up, ever consider
that :)
~ MysteriAce
"Ashes and diamonds
Foe and friend
We were all equal in the end"
____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 22:18:19
From: arlo payne
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
On Dec 11 2006 1:40 PM, MysteriAce wrote:
> On Dec 11 2006 1:30 PM, arlo payne wrote:
>
> > On Dec 11 2006 11:38 AM, MysteriAce wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 11 2006 11:25 AM, arlo payne wrote:
> > >
> > > > The need for locks.
> > > > If we lived in a world where you did not need locks life would be
> 100000000
> > > > times better.
> > > >
> > > > When I was a kid we never locked doors or even took the keys out of our
> > > cars.
> > > > If we came hone and a truck was missing we knew someone stopped by and
> > > needed it
> > > > for something and we never even considered it would not be returned. Of
> > > course
> > > > unless it was my cousin Richard who was so lazy he might just drive it
> until
> > > it
> > > > was out of gas then leave it wherever it stopped. LOL
> > > >
> > > > But really the need for locks is the major problem of mankind.
> > >
> > > Of course. Everyone knows there was no crime before 1971. It's a
> > > historical fact.
> > >
> > > ~ MysteriAce
> > Sorry must ask:
> > What the flip does 1971 have to do with this post?
>
> It was a purely arbitrary date. I was poking fun at your statement that
> the world was so much better before people locked their doors.
>
> Burglaries have declined, in fact, 3 fold since 1973. So, back when
> "nobody locked their doors" there was three times as much burglary than
> there is now.
>
> Maybe you people were just much more naive when you grew up, ever consider
> that :)
>
> ~ MysteriAce
>
I was not talking about the last 30 years or the last 100 years or even the last
1000 years. I was talking about needing locks period. Hell I know they had
locks all the way back before Christ. It is the need for locks period the
mindset of mankind against mindkind.
using a 35 year period is like blaming 100% of gobal warming on man. It just is
not so. If you think it is then you have not looked at the data. As example
explain the 1500s
_______________________________________________________________
New Feature: Mark All As Read! - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| | | | | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 14:26:25
From: MysteriAce
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
On Dec 11 2006 3:18 PM, arlo payne wrote:
> On Dec 11 2006 1:40 PM, MysteriAce wrote:
>
> > On Dec 11 2006 1:30 PM, arlo payne wrote:
> >
> > > On Dec 11 2006 11:38 AM, MysteriAce wrote:
> > >
> > > > On Dec 11 2006 11:25 AM, arlo payne wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > The need for locks.
> > > > > If we lived in a world where you did not need locks life would be
> > 100000000
> > > > > times better.
> > > > >
> > > > > When I was a kid we never locked doors or even took the keys out of
our
> > > > cars.
> > > > > If we came hone and a truck was missing we knew someone stopped by
and
> > > > needed it
> > > > > for something and we never even considered it would not be
returned. Of
> > > > course
> > > > > unless it was my cousin Richard who was so lazy he might just drive
it
> > until
> > > > it
> > > > > was out of gas then leave it wherever it stopped. LOL
> > > > >
> > > > > But really the need for locks is the major problem of mankind.
> > > >
> > > > Of course. Everyone knows there was no crime before 1971. It's a
> > > > historical fact.
> > > >
> > > > ~ MysteriAce
> > > Sorry must ask:
> > > What the flip does 1971 have to do with this post?
> >
> > It was a purely arbitrary date. I was poking fun at your statement that
> > the world was so much better before people locked their doors.
> >
> > Burglaries have declined, in fact, 3 fold since 1973. So, back when
> > "nobody locked their doors" there was three times as much burglary than
> > there is now.
> >
> > Maybe you people were just much more naive when you grew up, ever consider
> > that :)
> >
> > ~ MysteriAce
> >
>
> I was not talking about the last 30 years or the last 100 years or even the
last
> 1000 years. I was talking about needing locks period. Hell I know they had
> locks all the way back before Christ. It is the need for locks period the
> mindset of mankind against mindkind.
> using a 35 year period is like blaming 100% of gobal warming on man. It
just is
> not so. If you think it is then you have not looked at the data. As example
> explain the 1500s
I picked a relevant time frame because you said "When I was a kid we never
locked doors or even took the keys out of our car."
Now you come back and state the problem with locks is something that has
evolved over thousands of years.
How fucking old are you, anyway? :)
~ MysteriAce
"Ashes and diamonds
Foe and friend
We were all equal in the end"
-----
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 16:32:35
From: WuzYoungOnceToo
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
On Dec 11, 6:06 pm, johnny T <Nob...@home.com > wrote:
>
> For me, or the original poster? Do you have a number of times?
I would think for anyone. Do you know anyone for whom being burlarized
is a good - or at least neutral - thing?
> Once ever, daily, weekly. Once per thousand households. Once in a city every
> 5 years. How many times do you think?
That depends on the consequences. Certainly I'd prefer never. If it
cost me the life (or even a serious injury) of one of my family who was
home at the time, then once would be enough to make me regret not
locking the doors at night.
> Then the rest of the questions are merely asking... And you are
> presuming that they are providing answers...
No. I'm presuming the questions have some purpose.
> Does reality add up to the necessary times that adds up to the inability to sleep at night if my
> locks are unlocked?
Could you try that again...but in English this time?
> Do they? For you?
>
> I don't know, I don't lose sleep over it. But I also don't lose sleep
> over many of the dangers of life. Poker would be too hard if I did.
Thank goodness that concerns about the well being of your family don't
infringe on your poker game.
> I do have insurance for my house and cars. But none of my family has life
> insurance.
Including yourself? If so, do you have a wife and/or children you're
responsible for supporting?
> I do have a monitored fire alarm in my house
Why? Do you live with a pyromaniac? Or is the wiring in your house
old and inherently unsafe? Or is it just that the potential
consequences of a fire occuring in your home while everyone is asleep
are just too dire to leave to chance?
> but I don't insure for flood, as I live on a hill.
Do you also live where there are no people? That's the only instance
in which that example has any relevance to this discussion.
> I have umbrella insurance to
> protect from a world of unseen forces against me. But I wouldn't lose
> to much sleep if it lapsed for a single day.
If a catastrophic event that was covered by that policy occured on that
day of lapse I'll guarantee you'd be experience a fair amount of regret
over having allowed it to lapse.
> I am under the impression that there are not a constant barrage of evil
> ones checking to see if I have locked my door. Not nearly enough to
> affect my sleep.
A "constant barrage" is not required in order for the possibility to be
a valid concern...especially when one of the preventative steps
(locking one's doors at night) is such a simple, no-cost one.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 16:59:10
From: johnny T
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
WuzYoungOnceToo wrote:
> On Dec 11, 6:06 pm, johnny T <Nob...@home.com> wrote:
> I would think for anyone. Do you know anyone for whom being burlarized
> is a good - or at least neutral - thing?
I never, ever buy an extended warranty.
>> Once ever, daily, weekly. Once per thousand households. Once in a city every
>> 5 years. How many times do you think?
>
> That depends on the consequences. Certainly I'd prefer never. If it
> cost me the life (or even a serious injury) of one of my family who was
> home at the time, then once would be enough to make me regret not
> locking the doors at night.
I lost a cousin to an accident with household furniture. In retrospect
it seems incredibly unlucky that it happened, but not entirely
unforeseeable that it happened. Even though MILLIONS of households in
the united states have EXACTLY the same conditions, and I am willing to
bet no one is losing sleep over it. And I know others will die from it.
> No. I'm presuming the questions have some purpose.
They did, if you don't know, maybe these questions will help clarify
where you are coming from.
And he did, better do, than not. Ok, I suppose, but losing sleep over
it. Than seems bordering on OCD, if you pay attention to the risks.
but in English this time?
>
>> Do they? For you?
>>
>> I don't know, I don't lose sleep over it. But I also don't lose sleep
>> over many of the dangers of life. Poker would be too hard if I did.
>
> Thank goodness that concerns about the well being of your family don't
> infringe on your poker game.
Meaning that if the monster isn't there most of the time, I can't worry
about it. I cannot certainly, lose sleep over it.
>> I do have insurance for my house and cars. But none of my family has life
>> insurance.
>
> Including yourself? If so, do you have a wife and/or children you're
> responsible for supporting?
There is more than enough savings to provide for survivors. I don't
plan on dying, I do plan on enjoying the alternatives to spending on
insurance.
>> I do have a monitored fire alarm in my house
>
> Why? Do you live with a pyromaniac? Or is the wiring in your house
> old and inherently unsafe? Or is it just that the potential
> consequences of a fire occuring in your home while everyone is asleep
> are just too dire to leave to chance?
And I think more likely than the lock checking boogie men. (And btw, I
lock the door, but to avoid the argument, not because of the risk).
>> but I don't insure for flood, as I live on a hill.
>
> Do you also live where there are no people? That's the only instance
> in which that example has any relevance to this discussion.
No, trying to define my lines for insurance and non-insurance.
>
>> I am under the impression that there are not a constant barrage of evil
>> ones checking to see if I have locked my door. Not nearly enough to
>> affect my sleep.
>
> A "constant barrage" is not required in order for the possibility to be
> a valid concern...especially when one of the preventative steps
> (locking one's doors at night) is such a simple, no-cost one.
By constant, I would mean enough times that I couldn't sleep until the
task were complete. At this point there is a cost. Kept from sleep I
must extricate myself from bed to protect myself from the door checking
evil doers that will cause me and my family harm who are repelled by a
lock door. It is such a narrow set, I am not having trouble sleeping.
|
| | | |
Date: 12 Dec
From: Tanya AKA MissT74
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
On Dec 11 2006 5:59 PM, johnny T wrote:
> WuzYoungOnceToo wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 6:06 pm, johnny T wrote:
>
> > I would think for anyone. Do you know anyone for whom being burlarized
> > is a good - or at least neutral - thing?
>
> I never, ever buy an extended warranty.
>
> >> Once ever, daily, weekly. Once per thousand households. Once in a city
> >> every
> >> 5 years. How many times do you think?
> >
> > That depends on the consequences. Certainly I'd prefer never. If it
> > cost me the life (or even a serious injury) of one of my family who was
> > home at the time, then once would be enough to make me regret not
> > locking the doors at night.
>
> I lost a cousin to an accident with household furniture. In retrospect
> it seems incredibly unlucky that it happened, but not entirely
> unforeseeable that it happened. Even though MILLIONS of households in
> the united states have EXACTLY the same conditions, and I am willing to
> bet no one is losing sleep over it. And I know others will die from it.
>
>
>
> > No. I'm presuming the questions have some purpose.
>
> They did, if you don't know, maybe these questions will help clarify
> where you are coming from.
>
> And he did, better do, than not. Ok, I suppose, but losing sleep over
> it. Than seems bordering on OCD, if you pay attention to the risks.
> but in English this time?
> >
> >> Do they? For you?
> >>
> >> I don't know, I don't lose sleep over it. But I also don't lose sleep
> >> over many of the dangers of life. Poker would be too hard if I did.
> >
> > Thank goodness that concerns about the well being of your family don't
> > infringe on your poker game.
>
> Meaning that if the monster isn't there most of the time, I can't worry
> about it. I cannot certainly, lose sleep over it.
>
> >> I do have insurance for my house and cars. But none of my family has life
> >> insurance.
> >
> > Including yourself? If so, do you have a wife and/or children you're
> > responsible for supporting?
>
> There is more than enough savings to provide for survivors. I don't
> plan on dying, I do plan on enjoying the alternatives to spending on
> insurance.
I figured that if I die young, and while my daughter is young, then by golly,
she's going to get rich off of it. Savings is fine, but I want her entire life
taken care of since I won't be here to help her if and when she ever needed that
help throughout her life. Therefore, life insurance is a must, IMO.
T
>
> >> I do have a monitored fire alarm in my house
> >
> > Why? Do you live with a pyromaniac? Or is the wiring in your house
> > old and inherently unsafe? Or is it just that the potential
> > consequences of a fire occuring in your home while everyone is asleep
> > are just too dire to leave to chance?
>
> And I think more likely than the lock checking boogie men. (And btw, I
> lock the door, but to avoid the argument, not because of the risk).
>
>
> >> but I don't insure for flood, as I live on a hill.
> >
> > Do you also live where there are no people? That's the only instance
> > in which that example has any relevance to this discussion.
>
> No, trying to define my lines for insurance and non-insurance.
>
> >
> >> I am under the impression that there are not a constant barrage of evil
> >> ones checking to see if I have locked my door. Not nearly enough to
> >> affect my sleep.
> >
> > A "constant barrage" is not required in order for the possibility to be
> > a valid concern...especially when one of the preventative steps
> > (locking one's doors at night) is such a simple, no-cost one.
>
> By constant, I would mean enough times that I couldn't sleep until the
> task were complete. At this point there is a cost. Kept from sleep I
> must extricate myself from bed to protect myself from the door checking
> evil doers that will cause me and my family harm who are repelled by a
> lock door. It is such a narrow set, I am not having trouble sleeping.
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 15:52:56
From: ACS
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
The world took a big turn for the worse when OJ Simpson became news, not
tabloid fodder, but actual news. Or perhaps that was just evidence of a
greater societal shortcoming.
Now, were experiencing a different dilemma, as more and more of us become
de-personalized from our peers through the use of technology (computers,
e-mail, text messaging, video games, etc.). There's very little
socialization; it's fast becoming a society with little to no empathy.
On Dec 11 2006 2:25 PM, arlo payne wrote:
> The need for locks.
> If we lived in a world where you did not need locks life would be 100000000
> times better.
>
> When I was a kid we never locked doors or even took the keys out of our
cars.
> If we came hone and a truck was missing we knew someone stopped by and
needed it
> for something and we never even considered it would not be returned. Of
course
> unless it was my cousin Richard who was so lazy he might just drive it until
it
> was out of gas then leave it wherever it stopped. LOL
>
> But really the need for locks is the major problem of mankind.
--------
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 15:32:00
From: FaceDownAcesUp
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
johnny T wrote:
>
> Do you believe that someone is testing for whether or not you have locks
> or that they are being used correctly? Often, each time they can,
> weekly, *EVER*?
>
> Do believe that they keep the lock checking boogey men that are waiting
> to do you, your family, and your stuff harm, if you EVER leave the locks
> unlocked?
>
> Is it in the vain hope that if you are ever attacked, by these otherwise
> desperate men, that they are too stupid to defeat your locks, or better
> yet, use the unlocked door of "those people" rather than your locked one?
>
> You know according to statistics -- Not a single life has ever been
> saved because of the lap belts on an airplane. Not a single one.
It's the whole "better safe than sorry" thing , except I'm preparing
for the worst and assuming the worst too.
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 15:18:05
From: WuzYoungOnceToo
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
On Dec 11, 5:13 pm, johnny T <Nob...@home.com > wrote:
>
> Do you believe that someone is testing for whether or not you have locks
> or that they are being used correctly? Often, each time they can,
> weekly, *EVER*?
>
> Do believe that they keep the lock checking boogey men that are waiting
> to do you, your family, and your stuff harm, if you EVER leave the locks
> unlocked?
How many times would it have to happen for it to be a bad thing?
> Is it in the vain hope that if you are ever attacked, by these otherwise
> desperate men, that they are too stupid to defeat your locks
Or lazy. Are you under the impression that home burglars are an
ambitious bunch of Rhodes Scholars?
> You know according to statistics -- Not a single life has ever been
> saved because of the lap belts on an airplane. Not a single one.
And where would one go to find the official "lives that have been saved
by lap belts on an airplane" statistics?
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 16:06:49
From: johnny T
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
WuzYoungOnceToo wrote:
>
> How many times would it have to happen for it to be a bad thing?
For me, or the original poster? Do you have a number of times? Once
ever, daily, weekly. Once per thousand households. Once in a city every
5 years. How many times do you think?
Then the rest of the questions are merely asking... And you are
presuming that they are providing answers... Does reality add up to the
necessary times that adds up to the inability to sleep at night if my
locks are unlocked?
Do they? For you?
I don't know, I don't lose sleep over it. But I also don't lose sleep
over many of the dangers of life. Poker would be too hard if I did. I
do have insurance for my house and cars. But none of my family has life
insurance. I do have a monitored fire alarm in my house, but I don't
insure for flood, as I live on a hill. I have umbrella insurance to
protect from a world of unseen forces against me. But I wouldn't lose
to much sleep if it lapsed for a single day. Or maybe for awhile. I
never give out my phone number to companies, and jealously guard my SSN.
> Or lazy. Are you under the impression that home burglars are an
> ambitious bunch of Rhodes Scholars?
I am under the impression that there are not a constant barrage of evil
ones checking to see if I have locked my door. Not nearly enough to
affect my sleep.
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 14:34:12
From: FaceDownAcesUp
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
People didn't need locks because there was less shit to steal back in
the day.
I like locks. I'm not sure how anyone could sleep knowing that their
doors and windows unlocked. They're way too optimisitc IMHO.
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 15:13:19
From: johnny T
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
FaceDownAcesUp wrote:
> I like locks. I'm not sure how anyone could sleep knowing that their
> doors and windows unlocked. They're way too optimisitc IMHO.
Do you believe that someone is testing for whether or not you have locks
or that they are being used correctly? Often, each time they can,
weekly, *EVER*?
Do believe that they keep the lock checking boogey men that are waiting
to do you, your family, and your stuff harm, if you EVER leave the locks
unlocked?
Is it in the vain hope that if you are ever attacked, by these otherwise
desperate men, that they are too stupid to defeat your locks, or better
yet, use the unlocked door of "those people" rather than your locked one?
You know according to statistics -- Not a single life has ever been
saved because of the lap belts on an airplane. Not a single one.
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 14:32:33
From: XaQ Morphy
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
The root of all world problems are stupid people.
Morphy
http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com
----
looking for a better newsgroup-reader? - www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 15:17:56
From: johnny T
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
XaQ Morphy wrote:
> The root of all world problems are stupid people.
Actually, I am with the fundamentalists here. It is Evil People.
Though...
Unwitting people are the usual daily fuckwads...
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 14:46:02
From: xyious
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
On Dec 11 2006 11:32 PM, XaQ Morphy wrote:
> The root of all world problems are stupid people.
well said, sir.
>
> Morphy
> http://donkeymanifesto.blogspot.com
-Alexander Knopf
http://www.xyious.com/?links
____________________________________________________________________
* kill-files, watch-lists, favorites, and more.. www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 14:33:04
From: bigtizzle
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
Don't remember exactly who said it but I remember seeing it written
somewhere that locks only keep the honest people out anyway. If someone
wants your shit they'll get your shit, lock or no.
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 14:19:59
From: bjgkaraoke@aol.com
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
arlo payne wrote:
> The need for locks.
> If we lived in a world where you did not need locks life would be 100000000
> times better.
>
> When I was a kid we never locked doors or even took the keys out of our cars.
> If we came hone and a truck was missing we knew someone stopped by and needed it
> for something and we never even considered it would not be returned. Of course
> unless it was my cousin Richard who was so lazy he might just drive it until it
> was out of gas then leave it wherever it stopped. LOL
>
> But really the need for locks is the major problem of mankind.
Last summer when I visited my Son in North Carolina, I noticed he and
his wife left the keys in their vehicles and never locked their house
doors when they left. Their house is located in the Smoky Mountains in
southwest NC. It really surprised me, but made me comfortable with the
idea of eventually settling there myself.
Barbara Gallamore
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 13:51:20
From: WuzYoungOnceToo
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
On Dec 11, 12:25 pm, arlo payne <arlo_pa...@hotmail.com > wrote:
>
> The need for locks.
> If we lived in a world where you did not need locks life would be 100000000
> times better.
So long as there are bagels we will need locks.
Er, wait...I think I spelled that wrong.
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 15:51:59
From: Von Fourche
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
"arlo payne" <arlo_payne@hotmail.com > wrote in message
news:1165861505$919697@recpoker.com...
>
>
> The need for locks.
> If we lived in a world where you did not need locks life would be
> 100000000
> times better.
If men were angels there would be no need for laws or... locks. Men are
most definitely not angels.
|
| | |
Date: 12 Dec
From: comfail
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
On Dec 11 2006 12:51 PM, Von Fourche wrote:
> "arlo payne" wrote in message
> news:1165861505$919697@recpoker.com...
> >
> >
> > The need for locks.
> > If we lived in a world where you did not need locks life would be
> > 100000000
> > times better.
>
>
>
> If men were angels there would be no need for laws or... locks. Men are
> most definitely not angels.
Wasn't Satan and angel?
_______________________________________________________________
Posted using RecPoker.com v2.2 - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 12:34:03
From:
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
arlo payne wrote:
... is religion.
AA
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 12:14:51
From: ChrisBrown
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
On Dec 11 2006 12:25 PM, arlo payne wrote:
> But really the need for locks is the major problem of mankind.
Frank Herbert brought up an interesting point...I don't remember the exact
quote but it was something to the effect of "a thing doesn't need to be
guarded until you begin guarding it." Your house/car/drawer/etc. didn't
need to be locked until you began locking them. I'm sure you could see
that effect in your own neighborhoods...once the first family started
locking their doors others did as well and then a need for locked doors
was created.
When you think about it, an absence of locks indicates an absence of
valuable items or an absence of mistrust in your neighbors. Once you lock
it, it's a sign that either there are valuable items in your home or that
you no longer trust your neighbors. In my experience, I'd say that humans
are extremely curious creatures and tend to live up or down to perceived
expectations. Once you begin locking your doors not only are you setting
off our curiosity, but you're also telling us that you deem us (or our
neighbors) untrustworthy, which will then lead to us being untrustworthy
and create a need for locks/protection.
No idea if that makes sense or not but this thread reminded me of that
quote so i thought i'd share it. Anyway, it's interesting to sit & think
about how & why protecting things can lead lead to a need for protection.
____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| | |
Date: 11 Dec 20:28:02
From: arlo payne
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
On Dec 11 2006 1:14 PM, ChrisBrown wrote:
> On Dec 11 2006 12:25 PM, arlo payne wrote:
>
> > But really the need for locks is the major problem of mankind.
>
> Frank Herbert brought up an interesting point...I don't remember the exact
> quote but it was something to the effect of "a thing doesn't need to be
> guarded until you begin guarding it." Your house/car/drawer/etc. didn't
> need to be locked until you began locking them. I'm sure you could see
> that effect in your own neighborhoods...once the first family started
> locking their doors others did as well and then a need for locked doors
> was created.
>
> When you think about it, an absence of locks indicates an absence of
> valuable items or an absence of mistrust in your neighbors. Once you lock
> it, it's a sign that either there are valuable items in your home or that
> you no longer trust your neighbors. In my experience, I'd say that humans
> are extremely curious creatures and tend to live up or down to perceived
> expectations. Once you begin locking your doors not only are you setting
> off our curiosity, but you're also telling us that you deem us (or our
> neighbors) untrustworthy, which will then lead to us being untrustworthy
> and create a need for locks/protection.
>
> No idea if that makes sense or not but this thread reminded me of that
> quote so i thought i'd share it. Anyway, it's interesting to sit & think
> about how & why protecting things can lead lead to a need for protection.
Boy I really like that.
I hhave seen it in effect with bars on doors and windows in some areas. No bars
the one puts them on then it spreads like fire.
_______________________________________________________________
The Largest Online Poker Community - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 2006 11:38:30
From: Kinnipak
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
On Dec 11 2006 12:25 PM, arlo payne wrote:
> The need for locks.
> If we lived in a world where you did not need locks life would be 100000000
> times better.
>
> When I was a kid we never locked doors or even took the keys out of our
cars.
> If we came hone and a truck was missing we knew someone stopped by and
needed it
> for something and we never even considered it would not be returned. Of
course
> unless it was my cousin Richard who was so lazy he might just drive it until
it
> was out of gas then leave it wherever it stopped. LOL
>
> But really the need for locks is the major problem of mankind.
Actually, and I am by no means anything even closely resembling a religous
person, I seem to remember God saying the worlds problems were caused by
clothes....let me check....oh! Here it is:
"God: The reason I put everyone here naked... I wasn't trying to be cute.
It's just that with clothes there's right away pockets, and pockets, you
gotta put something in 'em."
hard to argue that kind of logic.....
_____________________________________________________________________
RecGroups : the community-oriented newsreader : www.recgroups.com
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 19:26:52
From: Follow
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
On Dec 11 2006 11:25 AM, arlo payne wrote:
> The need for locks.
> If we lived in a world where you did not need locks life would be 100000000
> times better.
>
> When I was a kid we never locked doors or even took the keys out of our cars.
> If we came hone and a truck was missing we knew someone stopped by and needed
> it
> for something and we never even considered it would not be returned. Of
> course
> unless it was my cousin Richard who was so lazy he might just drive it until
> it
> was out of gas then leave it wherever it stopped. LOL
>
> But really the need for locks is the major problem of mankind.
"A good lock ensures honest friends." -Unknown
I live in a really safe neighborhood, and my milk gets stolen from my front
porch (I still have a milkman). I'm still wondering what the legality is of
pepper spraying the fuckwits if they come stealing my milk again. :P
Follow :)
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| |
Date: 11 Dec 19:21:49
From: Moglie
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
Things started going downhill when the awards shows started saying "The award
goes to" instead of "The winner is" in order to not hurt the losers feelings.
ks.
> If we lived in a world where you did not need locks life would be 100000000
> times better.
>
> When I was a kid we never locked doors or even took the keys out of our cars.
> If we came hone and a truck was missing we knew someone stopped by and needed
> it
> for something and we never even considered it would not be returned. Of
> course
> unless it was my cousin Richard who was so lazy he might just drive it until
> it
> was out of gas then leave it wherever it stopped. LOL
>
> But really the need for locks is the major problem of mankind.
>
>
_______________________________________________________________
Watch Lists, Block Lists, Favorites - http://www.recpoker.com
|
| |
Date: 12 Dec 2006 16:26:35
From: WuzYoungOnceToo
Subject: Re: The root of all world problems.
|
Wow. That was the most incoherent bunch of babbling I've seen here in
a long time. I have no idea what the fuck you're trying to say in most
of your response.
On Dec 11, 6:59 pm, johnny T <Nob...@home.com > wrote:
> WuzYoungOnceToo wrote:
> > On Dec 11, 6:06 pm, johnny T <Nob...@home.com> wrote:
> > I would think for anyone. Do you know anyone for whom being burlarized
> > is a good - or at least neutral - thing?I never, ever buy an extended warranty.
>
> >> Once ever, daily, weekly. Once per thousand households. Once in a city every
> >> 5 years. How many times do you think?
>
> > That depends on the consequences. Certainly I'd prefer never. If it
> > cost me the life (or even a serious injury) of one of my family who was
> > home at the time, then once would be enough to make me regret not
> > locking the doors at night.I lost a cousin to an accident with household furniture. In retrospect
> it seems incredibly unlucky that it happened, but not entirely
> unforeseeable that it happened. Even though MILLIONS of households in
> the united states have EXACTLY the same conditions, and I am willing to
> bet no one is losing sleep over it. And I know others will die from it.
>
> > No. I'm presuming the questions have some purpose.They did, if you don't know, maybe these questions will help clarify
> where you are coming from.
>
> And he did, better do, than not. Ok, I suppose, but losing sleep over
> it. Than seems bordering on OCD, if you pay attention to the risks.
> but in English this time?
>
>
>
> >> Do they? For you?
>
> >> I don't know, I don't lose sleep over it. But I also don't lose sleep
> >> over many of the dangers of life. Poker would be too hard if I did.
>
> > Thank goodness that concerns about the well being of your family don't
> > infringe on your poker game.Meaning that if the monster isn't there most of the time, I can't worry
> about it. I cannot certainly, lose sleep over it.
>
> >> I do have insurance for my house and cars. But none of my family has life
> >> insurance.
>
> > Including yourself? If so, do you have a wife and/or children you're
> > responsible for supporting?There is more than enough savings to provide for survivors. I don't
> plan on dying, I do plan on enjoying the alternatives to spending on
> insurance.
>
> >> I do have a monitored fire alarm in my house
>
> > Why? Do you live with a pyromaniac? Or is the wiring in your house
> > old and inherently unsafe? Or is it just that the potential
> > consequences of a fire occuring in your home while everyone is asleep
> > are just too dire to leave to chance?And I think more likely than the lock checking boogie men. (And btw, I
> lock the door, but to avoid the argument, not because of the risk).
>
> >> but I don't insure for flood, as I live on a hill.
>
> > Do you also live where there are no people? That's the only instance
> > in which that example has any relevance to this discussion.No, trying to define my lines for insurance and non-insurance.
>
>
>
> >> I am under the impression that there are not a constant barrage of evil
> >> ones checking to see if I have locked my door. Not nearly enough to
> >> affect my sleep.
>
> > A "constant barrage" is not required in order for the possibility to be
> > a valid concern...especially when one of the preventative steps
> > (locking one's doors at night) is such a simple, no-cost one.By constant, I would mean enough times that I couldn't sleep until the
> task were complete. At this point there is a cost. Kept from sleep I
> must extricate myself from bed to protect myself from the door checking
> evil doers that will cause me and my family harm who are repelled by a
> lock door. It is such a narrow set, I am not having trouble sleeping.
|
|
