|
Home > Archive > Recovery aa > December 2005 > Post Charismatic Stress Syndrome ;-(
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
Post Charismatic Stress Syndrome ;-(
|
|
| Chronocidal Charlie 2005-12-26, 5:50 pm |
| -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
Hash: SHA1
That's what it is!
All this trying to be alluring, appealing, appetizing, attractive,
authoritative, beguiling, bewitching, blandishing, bright, brilliant,
cajoling, captivating, catching, charming, coaxing, come-hither,
consequential, coquettish, effective, effectual, efficacious,
enchanting, engaging, enravishing, enthralling, enticing, entrancing,
estimable, exciting, exotic, fascinating, fetching, flirtatious,
glamorous, glorious, hypnotic, illustrious, important,influential,
interesting, intriguing, inviting, irresistible,
lustrous, magic, magnetic, mesmeric, momentous, mouth-watering,
numinous, personable, persuasive, piquant, potent, powerful,
prepossessing, prestigious, provocative, provoquant, radiant,
ravishing, reputable, resplendent, seducing, seductive, shining,
siren, sirenic, spellbinding, spellful, splendent, splendid,
splendorous, splendrous, strong, suasive, substantial, taking,
tantalizing, teasing, telling, tempting, tickling, titillating,
titillative, weighty, winning, winsome, witching and what have you, not
to even mention being *good* the past month in anticipation of Santa
Claus coming by and stuffing my stocking has got me just plumb damn
stressed to the limits.
I gonna go out fer the rest of the day and get back even with a few
hours of....
*EVIL*
Perfect day fer it.
It's either that or turn the air conditioning back on to cool down.
Weather Report - Temple / Miller Automatic Weather Observing / Reporting
System
Last updated on Monday 26 December 2005 12:35
Clear skies
Wind gusts up to 25 MPH
Temperature:78.8°F
Dew Point:32°F
Air Pressure:29.98" Hg
Rel. Humidity:18.2%
Wind Speed:20 MPH S
Sunrise:07:26
Sunset:17:34
CC
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: GnuPG v1.4.2 (GNU/Linux)
Comment: Using GnuPG with Thunderbird - http://enigmail.mozdev.org
iD8DBQFDsEeOpEuP09K8mtURAn2BAJ9+xWNjJHSKaAswiE+L9WNaHsgbkACglEs1
oZW4qk4xwPTdNLzECOUSCQU=
=/3Vf
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
| |
| Tim and Lisa 2005-12-26, 5:50 pm |
|
"Chronocidal Charlie" <clewis4@hot.rr.com> wrote in message
news:PIXrf.9889$tO4.4975@tornado.texas.rr.com...
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> That's what it is!
>
> All this trying to be alluring, appealing, appetizing, attractive,
> authoritative, beguiling, bewitching, blandishing, bright, brilliant,
> cajoling, captivating, catching, charming, coaxing, come-hither,
> consequential, coquettish, effective, effectual, efficacious,
> enchanting, engaging, enravishing, enthralling, enticing, entrancing,
> estimable, exciting, exotic, fascinating, fetching, flirtatious,
> glamorous, glorious, hypnotic, illustrious, important,influential,
> interesting, intriguing, inviting, irresistible,
> lustrous, magic, magnetic, mesmeric, momentous, mouth-watering,
> numinous, personable, persuasive, piquant, potent, powerful,
> prepossessing, prestigious, provocative, provoquant, radiant,
> ravishing, reputable, resplendent, seducing, seductive, shining,
> siren, sirenic, spellbinding, spellful, splendent, splendid,
> splendorous, splendrous, strong, suasive, substantial, taking,
> tantalizing, teasing, telling, tempting, tickling, titillating,
> titillative, weighty, winning, winsome, witching and what have you, not
> to even mention being *good* the past month in anticipation of Santa
> Claus coming by and stuffing my stocking has got me just plumb damn
> stressed to the limits.
>
> I gonna go out fer the rest of the day and get back even with a few
> hours of....
>
> *EVIL*
>
> Perfect day fer it.
>
>
Ya me too!! ;o)
| |
| Bryce L. Martin 2005-12-26, 5:51 pm |
| On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 19:42:39 GMT, Chronocidal Charlie <clewis4@hot.rr.com>
wrote:
I think just about all folks are a little stressed just after Christmas, don't
feel alone. Did you hear the latest on oil prices? Seems they've gotten so
high that even though they been good, some folks asked Santa for a lump of coal
in their stocking this year.
Have a nice day;
Bryce L. Martin
| |
| Tim and Lisa 2005-12-26, 5:51 pm |
|
"Bryce L. Martin" <nothere@anymore.net> wrote in message
news:rdi0r1lniu9294v2cegoqhim8vpskrrv58@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 19:42:39 GMT, Chronocidal Charlie <clewis4@hot.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> I think just about all folks are a little stressed just after Christmas,
> don't
> feel alone. Did you hear the latest on oil prices? Seems they've gotten
> so
> high that even though they been good, some folks asked Santa for a lump of
> coal
> in their stocking this year.
>
>
> Have a nice day;
>
> Bryce L. Martin
Shit it's down to 2.07 a gal over here in O.C. Calif
| |
| Bryce L. Martin 2005-12-26, 5:51 pm |
| On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 19:56:41 GMT, "Tim and Lisa" <tworkman1@socal.rr.com> wrote:
:|
:|Shit it's down to 2.07 a gal over here in O.C. Calif
:|
You're not an old fogey like me. I can recall a time when most people it was an
outrage when gasoline hit 40 cents a gallon.
Have a nice day;
Bryce L. Martin
| |
| Tim and Lisa 2005-12-26, 5:51 pm |
|
"Bryce L. Martin" <nothere@anymore.net> wrote in message
news:f6l0r1dkupjntialke19cs6td94j7qb4tq@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 19:56:41 GMT, "Tim and Lisa" <tworkman1@socal.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
>
> :|
> :|Shit it's down to 2.07 a gal over here in O.C. Calif
> :|
> You're not an old fogey like me. I can recall a time when most people it
> was an
> outrage when gasoline hit 40 cents a gallon.
>
>
Maybe I'm happy it's down from 2.96 a gallon? ;o)
| |
|
| Tim and Lisa wrote:
> "Bryce L. Martin" <nothere@anymore.net> wrote in message
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> Maybe I'm happy it's down from 2.96 a gallon? ;o)
It's a great lesson in supply side economics. I've kept notes on prices
here since late November:
10/29/05 = 2.66
11/14/05 = 2.46
11/21/05 = 2.40
11/24/05 = 2.34
11/30/05 = 2.28
12/05/05 = 2.24
12/11/05 = 2.16
12/16/05 = 2.10
As you can easily see, there was a much greater supply and much less
demand starting (for some reason) in mid November.
| |
|
| F.H. wrote:
> Tim and Lisa wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
[vbcol=seagreen]
> It's a great lesson in supply side economics. I've kept notes on prices
> here since late November:
> 10/29/05 = 2.66
> 11/14/05 = 2.46
> 11/21/05 = 2.40
> 11/24/05 = 2.34
> 11/30/05 = 2.28
> 12/05/05 = 2.24
> 12/11/05 = 2.16
> 12/16/05 = 2.10
> As you can easily see, there was a much greater supply and much less
> demand starting (for some reason) in mid November.
*This* news item from Nov 9th had nothing at all to do with the price
drop, it is, in the words of one Republican economist, "strictly an
anomaly:"
November 9, 2005
By Chris Isidore, CNN/Money senior writer
Lawmakers spar with execs from Exxon, Chevron over high prices, record
profits.
NEW YORK (CNN/Money) - CEOs from the nation's biggest oil companies
sparred with lawmakers Wednesday at a Senate hearing into this year's
jump in oil prices and record industry profits.
As a result, there have been suggestions in Congress about instituting a
windfall-profits tax.
The industry's third-quarter profits jumped 62 percent to nearly $26
billion as Exxon Mobil, the nation's biggest oil company, posted the
fattest corporate profit in history. Oil company's stocks are up some 40
percent from a year ago, giving big gains to shareholders.
Along with talk of a tax on industry profits, there's been speculation
that the oil companies were guilty of price gouging following Hurricane
Katrina, or of not investing enough in refineries in order to manipulate
the market and increase profits.
Ray Exxon Mobil CEO Lee Raymond, questioned about reports of a one-day
24-cent a gallon increase in the wholesale price of gasoline by Exxon
Mobil after Hurricane Katrina, said he couldn't comment on that instance
but denied the company was price gouging.
Alaska Republican Stevens, head of the Senate Commerce Committee,
rejected calls by some Democrats to have the executives sworn in, saying
the law already required them to tell the truth.
Hawaii's Inouye, the ranking Democrat on the committee, said the CEOs
should want to testify under oath.
"If I were a witness I would prefer to be sworn in so the public knows
what I was about to say is the truth, the whole truth and nothing but
the truth," he said. "If I were a witness I would demand to take the oath."
Predictably, the CEOs appearing at the joint hearing of the Senate
Energy and Commerce committees defended their industry and its profits.
| |
|
| On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 21:20:13 GMT, "F.H." <connectu2@verizon.net>
wrote:
>Tim and Lisa wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>It's a great lesson in supply side economics. I've kept notes on prices
>here since late November:
>
>10/29/05 = 2.66
>11/14/05 = 2.46
>11/21/05 = 2.40
>11/24/05 = 2.34
>11/30/05 = 2.28
>12/05/05 = 2.24
>12/11/05 = 2.16
>12/16/05 = 2.10
>
>As you can easily see, there was a much greater supply and much less
>demand starting (for some reason) in mid November.
Happy a 2 bucks a gallon! They done hooked, landed, and roasted ya!
It's all the XXXXin' taxes they put on the shit that makes it totally
insane. And I was readin' about how they want to put a mileage tax on
top of everything else.
XXXX me! They should take all the taxes off gas and cigs and drop
social security..no more deducting and no paying out monthly checks!
If people can't make it let the churches and Rich help them out. Start
the draft up and no exemptions whatsoever and expand the war or start
more wars and get the hope back into the American Dream. Hire people!
Shoot the XXXXing lawyers...have some public hangings in 90 days or
less for Deathrow inmates...so a few innocent swing...some jerkin',
pants shittin', eye bulgein' will do more than more prisons and
corrupt boys in blue. Make abortion mandatory for those under 25 along
with mandatory gun ownership and carry permits for all. Make Walmarts
illegal.....well that enough for a start.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
| |
|
| Tex wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 21:20:13 GMT, "F.H." <connectu2@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Happy a 2 bucks a gallon! They done hooked, landed, and roasted ya!
> It's all the XXXXin' taxes they put on the shit that makes it totally
> insane. And I was readin' about how they want to put a mileage tax on
> top of everything else.
>
> XXXX me! They should take all the taxes off gas and cigs and drop
> social security..no more deducting and no paying out monthly checks!
> If people can't make it let the churches and Rich help them out. Start
> the draft up and no exemptions whatsoever and expand the war or start
> more wars and get the hope back into the American Dream. Hire people!
> Shoot the XXXXing lawyers...have some public hangings in 90 days or
> less for Deathrow inmates...so a few innocent swing...some jerkin',
> pants shittin', eye bulgein' will do more than more prisons and
> corrupt boys in blue. Make abortion mandatory for those under 25 along
> with mandatory gun ownership and carry permits for all. Make Walmarts
> illegal.....well that enough for a start.
You were on roll till ya got to the Wal-Mart part. I think I'm slowly
turning the corner (in an economic, militaristic, fatalistic sort of
way) and may have to change my voter registration. I mean, who *doesn't
want to go out swinging? I want my epitaph to suggest a man of
conviction and action. I guess the magnitude of this gradual
philosophical morph dawned on me when Santa asked me what I wanted for
Christmas and I blurted out "an AK47." Death to Iran, God save the King
and the CEO of Exon.
| |
|
| On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:29:28 GMT, "F.H." <connectu2@verizon.net>
wrote:
>You were on roll till ya got to the Wal-Mart part.
I shop there and will continue to do so, but I still think they should
be illegal. Along with True-Value hardware stores....the only good
thing about Walmarts locally is they have all but killed the K-Marts.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
| |
|
| Tex wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 22:29:28 GMT, "F.H." <connectu2@verizon.net>
> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
> I shop there and will continue to do so, but I still think they should
> be illegal. Along with True-Value hardware stores....the only good
> thing about Walmarts locally is they have all but killed the K-Marts.
You seem to have an excellent feel for the world around you. They have
killed K-Marts here also. However...., resistance is futile.
Corporatism is here to stay (at least for *our* lifetimes). ;)
Interesting note with regard to hardware stores, we have one nearby that
is a few blocks from a new Lowe's and about a mile (as crows do it) from
Home Depot. I shop there whenever I can. The prices are usually
competitive, the atmosphere and personnel are more like the 50's and the
parking is a snap. A couple of the employee's are semi-retired seniors,
former white collar aero-space workers who just enjoy working and seem
to know a little about everything.
http://www.sandimasnews.com/history/1.html
| |
| stuart 2005-12-27, 12:51 am |
|
Bryce L. Martin <nothere@anymore.net> wrote in message
news:rdi0r1lniu9294v2cegoqhim8vpskrrv58@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 19:42:39 GMT, Chronocidal Charlie <clewis4@hot.rr.com>
> wrote:
>
> I think just about all folks are a little stressed just after Christmas,
don't
> feel alone. Did you hear the latest on oil prices? Seems they've gotten
so
> high that even though they been good, some folks asked Santa for a lump of
coal
> in their stocking this year.
>
>
> Have a nice day;
>
> Bryce L. Martin
Tough Noogies. I live in Alberta. Let them prices skyrocket.
Have a nice day.
| |
| Sharx35 2005-12-27, 12:51 am |
|
"stuart" <fred@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:8s2sf.12712$AP5.10750@edtnps84...
>
> Bryce L. Martin <nothere@anymore.net> wrote in message
> news:rdi0r1lniu9294v2cegoqhim8vpskrrv58@4ax.com...
> don't
> so
> coal
>
> Tough Noogies. I live in Alberta. Let them prices skyrocket.
>
> Have a nice day.
Well, SOME of us Albertans have to PAY for the high gasoline and the sky
high NATURAL gas prices, ourselves. My gross natural gas bill for January
will probably be over FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS. There is NO XXXXING reason why
Alberta, the source of hugh amounts of natural gas, shouldn't have the
LOWEST natural gas prices in North America.
>
>
| |
| Virtualoso 2005-12-27, 12:51 am |
| In article <poZrf.5632$x%2.1430@trnddc06>, F.H. <connectu2@verizon.net>
wrote:
> The industry's third-quarter profits jumped 62 percent to nearly $26
> billion as Exxon Mobil, the nation's biggest oil company, posted the
> fattest corporate profit in history. Oil company's stocks are up some 40
> percent from a year ago, giving big gains to shareholders.
>
> Along with talk of a tax on industry profits, there's been speculation
> that the oil companies were guilty of price gouging following Hurricane
> Katrina, or of not investing enough in refineries in order to manipulate
> the market and increase profits.
>
> Ray Exxon Mobil CEO Lee Raymond, questioned about reports of a one-day
> 24-cent a gallon increase in the wholesale price of gasoline by Exxon
> Mobil after Hurricane Katrina, said he couldn't comment on that instance
> but denied the company was price gouging.
Massive record "profits" (after a quarter of especially high pricing)
but no price gouging. How could that be -- mere "unit volume" spike?
| |
| Virtualoso 2005-12-27, 12:51 am |
| In article <9i0sf.13506$x%2.12074@trnddc06>, F.H.
<connectu2@verizon.net> wrote:
> Tex wrote:
>
>
>
> You seem to have an excellent feel for the world around you. They have
> killed K-Marts here also. However...., resistance is futile.
> Corporatism is here to stay (at least for *our* lifetimes). ;)
>
> Interesting note with regard to hardware stores, we have one nearby that
> is a few blocks from a new Lowe's and about a mile (as crows do it) from
> Home Depot. I shop there whenever I can. The prices are usually
> competitive, the atmosphere and personnel are more like the 50's and the
> parking is a snap. A couple of the employee's are semi-retired seniors,
> former white collar aero-space workers who just enjoy working and seem
> to know a little about everything.
Good for you! Fact is, the ONLY way that Wal-Mart (or any other outfit)
can so dominate things is because too many people slavishly shop there,
all else aside. We can most certainly hold corps accountable for quite
a number of bad and/or dubious things, but not everthing. Not that. If
more people were more aware and responsible for what "power" they DO
have (and it$ mo$tly been reduced to a rather $pecific thing), it could
make a difference.
| |
|
| Virtualoso wrote:
> In article <poZrf.5632$x%2.1430@trnddc06>, F.H. <connectu2@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Massive record "profits" (after a quarter of especially high pricing)
> but no price gouging. How could that be -- mere "unit volume" spike?
We learned from Enron that friends of George are true patriots and would
never subject consumers to price gouging.
| |
|
| On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 21:07:29 -0800, Virtualoso <no@dot.com> wrote:
>Good for you! Fact is, the ONLY way that Wal-Mart (or any other outfit)
>can so dominate things is because too many people slavishly shop there,
>all else aside.
Funny thing is True-Value ate up the real hardwares and now they are
being ate up by the bigger bigger stores. Blaming it on the slavish
people....wow! The lunch thingy with WalMart will be won on appeal
because it will be shown the goofy bastirds (employees) really don't
have enough disposable income to be wasting it on lunch. In fact
WalMart will probably qualify for some sort of gov't funding to allow
them to give the drones a chit to eat a happy meal at the in-store
Ronalds.....Gov't will take 50% or so of the gross income off the top
then turn around and give 20% back to the store to give chits to the
employees who will then turn around and give it back to the store (#'s
will vary in reality) then the gov't will tax the employee purchases
along with the gas used to get to work in the 1st place....it's really
just a 21st Century Company Store world these days...a leaner, meaner,
and fat free Company Store approach at that.
Actually has anyone noticed how the Wendy's hamburger patty has gotten
thinner? Or how the joint with the $6 burger is setting people
up....like you make $6 an hour and net $3 an hour than for two hours
work you can have the real thing....boggles the XXXXing mind, it does!
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
| |
|
| Tex wrote:
> On Mon, 26 Dec 2005 21:07:29 -0800, Virtualoso <no@dot.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Funny thing is True-Value ate up the real hardwares and now they are
> being ate up by the bigger bigger stores. Blaming it on the slavish
> people....wow! The lunch thingy with WalMart will be won on appeal
> because it will be shown the goofy bastirds (employees) really don't
> have enough disposable income to be wasting it on lunch. In fact
> WalMart will probably qualify for some sort of gov't funding to allow
> them to give the drones a chit to eat a happy meal at the in-store
> Ronalds.....Gov't will take 50% or so of the gross income off the top
> then turn around and give 20% back to the store to give chits to the
> employees who will then turn around and give it back to the store (#'s
> will vary in reality) then the gov't will tax the employee purchases
> along with the gas used to get to work in the 1st place....it's really
> just a 21st Century Company Store world these days...a leaner, meaner,
> and fat free Company Store approach at that.
Reminds me of something my accountant said back in the days, "I just got
the new tax simplification manual, it weighs 5 pounds."
> Actually has anyone noticed how the Wendy's hamburger patty has gotten
> thinner? Or how the joint with the $6 burger is setting people
> up....like you make $6 an hour and net $3 an hour than for two hours
> work you can have the real thing....boggles the XXXXing mind, it does!
I just started going to Wendy's a couple months ago. Now I'm gonna feel
cheated.
| |
|
| On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 07:02:31 GMT, "F.H." <connectu2@verizon.net>
wrote:
>I just started going to Wendy's a couple months ago. Now I'm gonna feel
>cheated.
For store (fast food) chili it's still a deal and other items on the
dollar menu make it worth the stop if you are in fact stopping at a FF
joint. The rabbitt food deals are worth the money in comparison to
other FF joints too.
Don't feel cheated! Ever since they all quit making real fries and
adding unhealthy healthy bullshit to the menus and became toy stores
for the kids just figure with your senior discounts opportunities and
the less actual shit per portion it will take longer to clog the lines
....so it all winds up being a wash of sorts.
_______________________________________________________________________________
Posted Via Uncensored-News.Com - Accounts Starting At $6.95 - http://www.uncensored-news.com
<><><><><><><> The Worlds Uncensored News Source <><><><><><><><>
| |
| stuart 2005-12-27, 10:49 am |
|
Sharx35 <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:5z3sf.6738$km.722@edtnps89...
>
> "stuart" <fred@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:8s2sf.12712$AP5.10750@edtnps84...
Christmas,[vbcol=seagreen]
gotten[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> Well, SOME of us Albertans have to PAY for the high gasoline and the sky
> high NATURAL gas prices, ourselves. My gross natural gas bill for January
> will probably be over FOUR HUNDRED DOLLARS. There is NO XXXXING reason why
> Alberta, the source of hugh amounts of natural gas, shouldn't have the
> LOWEST natural gas prices in North America.
We do Dave. Don't forget that 400 dollar prosperity check about covers your
bill eh..-)
>
>
>
>
| |
| Sharx35 2005-12-27, 10:49 am |
|
"stuart" <fred@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:PPbsf.12828$AP5.6625@edtnps84...
>
> Sharx35 <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:5z3sf.6738$km.722@edtnps89...
> Christmas,
> gotten
>
> We do Dave. Don't forget that 400 dollar prosperity check about covers
> your
> bill eh..-)
For ONE month. Normally, we have multi winter months here..as you well now.
Say, when are you going to haul your complacent XXX over to Grace Group?
7:30 p.m. Thursdays, back lane entrance, naturally, Grace Lutheran Church,
just north of 99 Avenue, on 114 Street.
>
>
>
>
| |
| stuart 2005-12-27, 10:49 am |
|
Sharx35 <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:GRcsf.13459$OU5.13294@clgrps13...
>
> "stuart" <fred@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:PPbsf.12828$AP5.6625@edtnps84...
sky[vbcol=seagreen]
January[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> For ONE month. Normally, we have multi winter months here..as you well
now.
> Say, when are you going to haul your complacent XXX over to Grace Group?
> 7:30 p.m. Thursdays, back lane entrance, naturally, Grace Lutheran Church,
> just north of 99 Avenue, on 114 Street.
Wow. I use about a 115 gigajoules per year, and I cook with gas as well.
That's for a 2800 square foot home. You must have a monster house or
something's in need of some insulating up the attic somewhere.
Maybe get to your meeting after the new year. Heading off to Salmon Arm
tomorrow.
best Regards
Stu
>
>
>
>
| |
| Sharx35 2005-12-27, 10:49 am |
|
"stuart" <fred@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:CBdsf.13462$OU5.331@clgrps13...
>
> Sharx35 <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:GRcsf.13459$OU5.13294@clgrps13...
> sky
> January
> now.
>
> Wow. I use about a 115 gigajoules per year, and I cook with gas as well.
> That's for a 2800 square foot home. You must have a monster house or
> something's in need of some insulating up the attic somewhere.
> Maybe get to your meeting after the new year. Heading off to Salmon Arm
> tomorrow.
>
> best Regards
>
> Stu
>
December 6/05 meter reading indicated consumption of 12.97 gigajoules.
Turning to last page of bill, I remembered to add BOTH the Direct Energy
portion at the top of the page (actual ENERGY cost) PLUS the ATCO section at
the BOTTOM of the page (cost of DISTRIBUTION) together. Total cost, ignoring
the government rebate and ignoring the equalization program was $209.36. We
also have a floor space of 2800 square feet, gas hot water heater, gas
clothes dryer and gas insert in the living room fire place. Mid range
efficiency furnace. Don't heat garage.Over the last 12 bills we have used
98.06 gigajoules, TOTAL. NOte that some of the summer bills were as little
as ONE gigajoule!!. Hell, we turn the furnace OFF when we go out or to bed.
OFF, not down. Sometimes in the morning it's only PLUS 10 C in Sharx Manor.
>
>
>
>
| |
| stuart 2005-12-27, 12:49 pm |
|
Sharx35 <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:X4esf.13463$OU5.12166@clgrps13...
>
> "stuart" <fred@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:CBdsf.13462$OU5.331@clgrps13...
they've[vbcol=seagreen]
a[vbcol=seagreen]
reason[vbcol=seagreen]
the[vbcol=seagreen]
covers[vbcol=seagreen]
Group?[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> December 6/05 meter reading indicated consumption of 12.97 gigajoules.
> Turning to last page of bill, I remembered to add BOTH the Direct Energy
> portion at the top of the page (actual ENERGY cost) PLUS the ATCO section
at
> the BOTTOM of the page (cost of DISTRIBUTION) together. Total cost,
ignoring
> the government rebate and ignoring the equalization program was $209.36.
We
> also have a floor space of 2800 square feet, gas hot water heater, gas
> clothes dryer and gas insert in the living room fire place. Mid range
> efficiency furnace. Don't heat garage.Over the last 12 bills we have used
> 98.06 gigajoules, TOTAL. NOte that some of the summer bills were as little
> as ONE gigajoule!!. Hell, we turn the furnace OFF when we go out or to
bed.
> OFF, not down. Sometimes in the morning it's only PLUS 10 C in Sharx
Manor.
You might want to ask an energy expert about that. Sometimes it is more
costly to re-heat a home from say 10 back up to 20 than it is to program the
thermostat to go down to 17 at night. Soon as you go greater than a three
degree spread, you use more. That's what the spouse says and I believe her.
I used 14.87 last Dec (04) and 21 in January, Back to14.9 in Feb, so yes, we
may be looking at close to 400 for Jan, depending on the weather. What would
the rebate be for that bill? Any idea? The gov't website is confusing on
that issue.
If you are using less than 100 Gigajoules, you are doing well, I'd say.
Shiver me timbers:;
Stu
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Sharx35 2005-12-27, 12:49 pm |
|
"stuart" <fred@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%9fsf.11950$6K2.1874@edtnps90...
>
> Sharx35 <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:X4esf.13463$OU5.12166@clgrps13...
> they've
> a
> reason
> the
> covers
> Group?
> at
> ignoring
> We
> bed.
> Manor.
>
> You might want to ask an energy expert about that. Sometimes it is more
> costly to re-heat a home from say 10 back up to 20 than it is to program
> the
> thermostat to go down to 17 at night. Soon as you go greater than a three
> degree spread, you use more. That's what the spouse says and I believe
> her.
And your spouse got her PhD in physics WHERE and WHEN? IT's basic
physics--the closer the INDOOR temp to the outdoor, the less outflow of
heat. Makes absolutely NO difference as to the cost of reheating the
interior.
> I used 14.87 last Dec (04) and 21 in January, Back to14.9 in Feb, so yes,
> we
> may be looking at close to 400 for Jan, depending on the weather. What
> would
> the rebate be for that bill? Any idea? The gov't website is confusing on
> that issue.
> If you are using less than 100 Gigajoules, you are doing well, I'd say.
>
> Shiver me timbers:;
> Stu
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| stuart 2005-12-27, 5:50 pm |
|
Sharx35 <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:KFfsf.11953$6K2.10740@edtnps90...
>
> "stuart" <fred@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%9fsf.11950$6K2.1874@edtnps90...
for[vbcol=seagreen]
have[vbcol=seagreen]
well[vbcol=seagreen]
Arm[vbcol=seagreen]
Energy[vbcol=seagreen]
section[vbcol=seagreen]
$209.36.[vbcol=seagreen]
used[vbcol=seagreen]
three[vbcol=seagreen]
>
> And your spouse got her PhD in physics WHERE and WHEN? IT's basic
> physics--the closer the INDOOR temp to the outdoor, the less outflow of
> heat. Makes absolutely NO difference as to the cost of reheating the
> interior.
>
yes,[vbcol=seagreen]
Well, how it works is like this Dave.When you lower the thermostat, whatever
gas you don't use while the house cools down from say 21 degrees to 10
degrees, you use again to reheat the house back up to 21.You actually use
LESS gas to reheat the house from say 17 degrees back up to 21 degrees, but
the house drop to 17 degrees quicker than it reaches 10, the savings are in
how LONG the lower temperature stabilizes at that lower temperature. My
guess is, that unless you live in a sieve, you house isn't sitting stable at
10 degrees for very long. You see my house takes about three hours to drop
to 17 and
will be sitting at 17 degrees for about 2 hours before the furnace kicks in
for 5-7 minutes to maintain 17. Then in the morning when I call for 21, it
will take about 15 minutes. Your furnace which hasn't been on all night
because the temperature is probably unstable for 6-7 hours, will kick in and
stay on net longer than mine when you ask for 21 degrees in the morning.
Make sense?
The key is in exactly how long your lower temperature is stabilized. I doubt
whether your house hits as low as 10 until just before you get up.
[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
| |
| Sharx35 2005-12-27, 5:50 pm |
|
"stuart" <fred@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:BWgsf.13492$OU5.8700@clgrps13...
>
> Sharx35 <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:KFfsf.11953$6K2.10740@edtnps90...
> for
> have
> well
> Arm
> Energy
> section
> $209.36.
> used
> three
> yes,
>
> Well, how it works is like this Dave.When you lower the thermostat,
> whatever
> gas you don't use while the house cools down from say 21 degrees to 10
> degrees, you use again to reheat the house back up to 21.You actually use
> LESS gas to reheat the house from say 17 degrees back up to 21 degrees,
> but
> the house drop to 17 degrees quicker than it reaches 10, the savings are
> in
> how LONG the lower temperature stabilizes at that lower temperature. My
> guess is, that unless you live in a sieve, you house isn't sitting stable
> at
> 10 degrees for very long. You see my house takes about three hours to drop
> to 17 and
> will be sitting at 17 degrees for about 2 hours before the furnace kicks
> in
> for 5-7 minutes to maintain 17. Then in the morning when I call for 21, it
> will take about 15 minutes. Your furnace which hasn't been on all night
> because the temperature is probably unstable for 6-7 hours, will kick in
> and
> stay on net longer than mine when you ask for 21 degrees in the morning.
> Make sense?
> The key is in exactly how long your lower temperature is stabilized. I
> doubt
> whether your house hits as low as 10 until just before you get up.
This whole thing was debated several years ago in the alt. frugal something
newsgroup. People with advanced degrees in various fields of physics were
involved, along with gasfitters, etc.. They proved, beyond a shadow of a
doubt, that turning a furnace off was the most frugal alternative, NO MATTER
what other factors were involved, e.g. inside temp., outside temp., temp.
differential, how LONG the furnace was off for; how long it took to RESTORE
inside temp., fuel used, efficiency of furnace, R factor of insulation,
cubic feet of space being heated, sunlight. yadda yadda yadda. I suspect
that people who promulgate the opposing view have a personal agenda at
stake, e.g. they like it relatively warm, even when sleeping. BTW, it's only
natural that the LOWEST temp would be reached, after the LONGEST time the
furnace had been off..unless, of course, the outdoor temperature had
increased to a warmer temperature than the interior of the house.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
| |
| Robert McGregor 2005-12-27, 5:50 pm |
|
"Sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Urhsf.11974$6K2.4392@edtnps90...
>
> "stuart" <fred@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:BWgsf.13492$OU5.8700@clgrps13...
>
>
> This whole thing was debated several years ago in the alt. frugal
> something newsgroup. People with advanced degrees in various fields of
> physics were involved, along with gasfitters, etc.. They proved, beyond
> a shadow of a doubt, that turning a furnace off was the most frugal
> alternative, NO MATTER what other factors were involved, e.g. inside
> temp., outside temp., temp. differential, how LONG the furnace was off
> for; how long it took to RESTORE inside temp., fuel used, efficiency of
> furnace, R factor of insulation, cubic feet of space being heated,
> sunlight. yadda yadda yadda. I suspect that people who promulgate the
> opposing view have a personal agenda at stake, e.g. they like it
> relatively warm, even when sleeping. BTW, it's only natural that the
> LOWEST temp would be reached, after the LONGEST time the furnace had
> been off..unless, of course, the outdoor temperature had increased to a
> warmer temperature than the interior of the house.
>
>
Meanwhile, Post Charismatic Stress Syndrome morphs into climatic costing
syndrome, with combatants becoming noticeably cooler with each breath of
hot air.
aircon 24/7 Bob
| |
| Virtualoso 2005-12-27, 5:51 pm |
| In article <Urhsf.11974$6K2.4392@edtnps90>, Sharx35
<sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This whole thing was debated several years ago . . .
There is nothing new under the sun. And referring to old NG debates is
a sure trump card.
| |
| stuart 2005-12-27, 5:51 pm |
|
Sharx35 <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:Urhsf.11974$6K2.4392@edtnps90...
>
use[vbcol=seagreen]
stable[vbcol=seagreen]
drop[vbcol=seagreen]
it[vbcol=seagreen]
>
>
> This whole thing was debated several years ago in the alt. frugal
something
> newsgroup. People with advanced degrees in various fields of physics were
> involved, along with gasfitters, etc.. They proved, beyond a shadow of a
> doubt, that turning a furnace off was the most frugal alternative, NO
MATTER
> what other factors were involved, e.g. inside temp., outside temp., temp.
> differential, how LONG the furnace was off for; how long it took to
RESTORE
> inside temp., fuel used, efficiency of furnace, R factor of insulation,
> cubic feet of space being heated, sunlight. yadda yadda yadda. I suspect
> that people who promulgate the opposing view have a personal agenda at
> stake, e.g. they like it relatively warm, even when sleeping. BTW, it's
only
> natural that the LOWEST temp would be reached, after the LONGEST time the
> furnace had been off..unless, of course, the outdoor temperature had
> increased to a warmer temperature than the interior of the house.
One easy way to find out would be to time the furnace activity in a
particular house in a set time period. I assume the furnace burns at a set
rate/time unit
I could see turning the furnace off to be the most efficient in terms of
fuel savings if it is for extended time periods. My house would probably
never see 10C overnight even in -30C. I think what happens in an older home
like the beautiful ones over in your neighbourhood, the walls start to cool
the inside air further once the inside temp goes down.
If you look at fuel consumption in an aircraft when low on fuel, there are
several factors to consider... Let's say you have less fuel left than you
thought you had..One must look at the situation. What is it that you require
at that point? Time or distance?
If you have been placed in a "hold" location near the airfield, then time is
the constraining factor, and the aircraft power and trim settings need to be
adjusted for the least amount of fuel burn per unit of time, while minimally
maintaining altitude, which in itself can be a factor, depending on aircraft
type. Some jet engines can hold an aircraft more efficiently at 20,000 feet
than 10,000 feet and vice versa. Piston ops are different again.
If, OTOH, you are a distance from the airfield, a different power setting
may be required to stretch the distance, and that may necessitate a higher
fuel burn per unit of time in order to get the best "mileage" over the
ground.
| |
| stuart 2005-12-27, 5:51 pm |
|
Robert McGregor <robert_mcgregor@knickers.yahoo.com.au> wrote in message
news:43b1a701_1@news.iprimus.com.au...
>
> "Sharx35" <sharx35@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:Urhsf.11974$6K2.4392@edtnps90...
>
> Meanwhile, Post Charismatic Stress Syndrome morphs into climatic costing
> syndrome, with combatants becoming noticeably cooler with each breath of
> hot air.
>
> aircon 24/7 Bob
I suppose cool is good where you are Bob. Sure would like to see you go for
a little walk on our side of the world with Sharxx and I when it's -45C
outside when the air is full of ice fog. That'll get your motor turning. Of
course, getting into a car accident at that temperature is a real bummer.
Not cool at all...I meant "not so hot an idea"-)
|
| |
|
|