[eavesdropper]

[quote=ocrenter]If they counted the patio, then I say, they should count the garage as well!

Suddenly, we are looking at nearly 2000 sqft of living space![/quote]

Why not count the whole yard? After all, it’s potential living space.

Is this even legal activity on the part of the listing realtor? (I think we have the topic of “ethical” covered)

I’m surprised that this guy hasn’t doubled the square footage by attempting to include the ceilings. Yeah, I got your “potential” right here.

Just interested: there’s no way here in DC that we could turn that patio into structurally-sound enclosed living space, that would meet code, for $25,000, even in this depressed economy. What are the prospects for that in SoCal?

Thanks for posting, pencilneck. I got a genuine giggle out of this one.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=flu]So…I’m getting sick and tired of getting pricked with a needle…and risk having someone pricking me screw up and risk leaking my infusions, causing the agents to burn surrounding tissue.

So.. A doctor suggested I get an “IV port” [/quote]

If it was your doctor who is supervising your treatment program who suggested it, go for it if the injection thing is getting to you.

If it’s another doctor who is not involved in your care, check with your doc to ensure that it’s appropriate in your case.

At the least, it might help you avoid some of the vein sclerosis that can result from IV chemotherapy.

[quote=flu] …..2)Long shot…Anyone know or heard of the possibility if someone who is proned to developing desmoid tumors from surgery can develop a desmoid from getting an IV port, considering it requires “minor surgery” to do it???[/quote]

Seeing as how there is only a virtual handful of physician/scientists who have significant experience in the behavior of desmoid tumor cells, I’ll stay away from that one.

Go here. All desmoids, all the time:

http://listserv.acor.org/SCRIPTS/WA-ACOR.EXE?A0=DESMOID

Some very well-informed contributors.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=outtamojo]Not sure I agree w/ simple as possible – my sister in law was about to throw out their dryer cause it wouldn’t dry well enough and it gave off a smell of something burning. The thing had a diagnostic mode and told me all I needed to do was clean out the lint and replace a thermostat.[/quote]

Why can’t I have a sister-in-law like that?

Seriously, that was something I noticed when researching yesterday: almost none of the dryers I looked at had the remote diagnostic capabilities, including the really expensive ones. Surprising. It may be because local repair services and appliance retailers started complaining to the manufacturers that the ability of the consumer to diagnose problems was cutting into their business.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=svelte][quote=eavesdropper]
Yeah, but what do I do when the washer goes down in another 18 months??
[/quote] Our w/d usually last a decade or more. Only reason we had to buy 4 years ago is we sold our last w/d pair with the house.[/quote]

That’s the reason I’ve become this conspicuous consumer of major appliances over the last 10 years. I’ve inherited older appliances in two houses I moved into, we built a second home that required outfitting, and we replaced some stuff when getting our house ready for sale 4 years ago.

The current dryer was sold with the house. It’s a 6 yr-old GE, and it’s never gotten seriously heavy use. Knock on wood, we’ve done okay on Whirlpools so far, so leaning in that direction.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=UCGal]I would go with the 4800X.
But I buy appliances for function, maintenance, and cost. Whether a dryer looks good doesn’t matter to me – it’s not in my entertaining space.

And my washer is an old school top loader… Which is super reliable, albeit less efficient with the water.[/quote]

The looks don’t matter to me at all, either (a lot of what I wrote was tongue-in-cheek).

At the same time, the price differential is so enormous that I can’t believe it’s primarily a “taste” issue.

However, what I’m reading here leads me to believe that the dramatic increase in appliance prices doesn’t necessarily correspond to actual innovations in doing laundry (bummer).

But it does explain the Kelly Ripa commercials for Electrolux. If you want people to spend that kind of dough-re-mi, you better make them believe in magic.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Hobie][quote=eavesdropper]
What say ye: should I go with #3 (leaving more $$$ for chocolate, cheap booze, vibrator batteries and other essentials)[/quote]

Like the priorities 😉 Not sure if it has been discussed, but get a natural gas unit. Cheaper to run. [/quote]

I was wondering about that. I’m definitely a natural gas proponent when it comes to cooking stoves and furnaces. But my experience with gas dryers has not been as positive: more expensive and it takes longer to dry the clothes. But it’s been almost 20 years since I’ve had a gas dryer. Have they improved in this regard?

[quote=Hobie] We ‘had’ to have one of the now older feature rich units ( maytag ) and the only function that is ever used is the auto sense dry mode. Works fine and is used daily! [/quote]

Exactly my point. Both of the dryers I use currently are “cheap models” (GE & Whirlpool), and they both have the auto-sense function, as does the $400 model I’m looking at now (in fact, I found it at another retailer for $357 last night). As far as I can tell, in terms of FUNCTION (aside from the steam dry option), these models are on even footing: same number of cycle choices, same temperature choices, same capacities.

And while I think the steam-dry function is nifty, it’s not worth an extra $400 (#2) much less $1100. Nor is the “Cycle Status” button (if I don’t care enough to remove my clothes from the dryer at the end of a cycle, am I really going to care about what’s happening DURING the cycle?) or the ability to choose volume control (“Soft” and “Loud”) on my Cycle Completion Alarm.

I think I’m just finding it difficult to believe that there can be that much of a price differential in the absence of a significant upgrade in function. Hey, I’m willing to pay more, but I want something in return that’s a lot more impressive than “Laundry Apps”.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=briansd1]I would say get the most simple model that matches your washer.

There’s not much technology that goes into a dryer.

A matched pair looks better.[/quote]

Yeah, but what do I do when the washer goes down in another 18 months??

I wouldn’t have this problem if I lived in close proximity to a river with some good-sized smooth rocks near the shore….

[eavesdropper]

[quote=captcha]I got an LG similar to DLG2241W carried by Sears a couple of years ago. It had good reviews and we had no problems with it.

Wait until Black Friday and make sure you check Fry’s. I got mine at about 50% of the original price (which was about the same at Sears and Fry’s) and Sears would not match it.

Fry’s usually publishes their Black Friday ad on Thursday evening. They run 3-day sale Friday-Sunday with different specials every day.[/quote]

Unfortunately, I’m sure I’ll need one this week. And we don’t have Fry’s here in DC. But I’m surprised that Sears wouldn’t match the price….

Also, I have wondered about the reliability of the LG appliances. Here in DC, Lowe’s often advertises them at very good prices. Does your laundry get heavy “family-level” use, or less? In my case, it’s primarily just my husband and I.

However, my teenage daughter is supposed to do her own laundry. Her lack of interest combined with complete laundry-related illiteracy poses a potentially serious threat to our equipment during the 4 times a year she actually breaks down and does her laundry. Like when she tries to stuff 30 pairs of heavy jeans into the washing machine with 3 cups (not “capfuls”) of detergent, and “forgets” to change the water-level from medium to extra-large. Fun for all!!

[eavesdropper]

“Navigating the Net Wisely in a Health Crisis”

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/04/health/04brody.html?_r=2

Andrew Schorr, a specialist in health communications, is convinced that the Internet saved his life. Now, through a book he wrote with Mary Adam Thomas, “The Web-Savvy Patient,” he is trying to help others facing a medical crisis use the Internet to their advantage and avoid its potential pitfalls.

n 1996, at age 45, with two young children and hoping for a third, Mr. Schorr had his life turned upside down by a diagnosis of chronic lymphocytic leukemia, an incurable disease. Cancer doctors in Seattle, near his home in Mercer Island, Wash., told him he needed immediate chemotherapy.

But before he took their advice, he went on the Web and found a community of patients with his disease……..

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] Eaves: You refer to me possibly being the spawn of Barry, Jr., and I’M the dick?!? The best part of Barry, Jr. ran down his mom’s leg at birth! [/quote]

Allan, you are absolutely justified in your piss-offedness, and should challenge me to a duel. I don’t know how I could have possibly erred in so egregious a manner. I’ll go watch the Sarah Palin-Glen Beck “interview” as my penance (but I will have to ingest a pharmacologic aid before I do).

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook] And why would it be a “Big-Ass Mistake”? Now you’re just making it sound dirty! I got all excited there for a moment, until I realized that you would feel sullied and embarrassed by what I’d consider a singularly glorious event. Dick, indeed, Madam! Just so you know, I’m hanging the keys to the Mustang back up. Also, I had a total 1964 skinny tie and those geeky black specs all picked out. Your loss.[/quote]

Actually, I was referring to myself as the Big-Ass Mistake, i.e. the “Goldwater Love-Grandchild” Don’t get all insulted again: this is not a comment on your age. I simply never dreamed that I’d get a chance to make political semi-history in the backseat of the Mustang. And, besides, your wife would kick my ass if she knew.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Jumby]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VtjiOCgwe6I&feature=related

Video proof of Vitamin D attacking and killing a cancer cell @ 4:48.[/quote]

We know this how? What kind of cancer? What’s the mechanism of action here?

I wasn’t favorably impressed by the report. There are two people who do most of the talking. One is a physician whose specialty is psychiatry, but, in reality, apparently believes that he’s an all around medical expert, including cancer research. The other is a self-proclaimed health writer who has his own line of “natural health” books; I’ll exercise some political correctness and restraint, and say only that sick people shouldn’t listen to this guy.

Both were making broad-based claims that were either distorted or downright false. There is nothing in the literature supporting their claims, on either a basic science or clinical application level. The sensational “success” of Vitamin D they, and others, have broadcast is, in reality, based on epidemiological studies. Correlation does not equal causation.

As for the video itself, I could find no corresponding lab studies that provided details of what was taking place on film, or that it was what the CBN reporter claimed. This included a search at Wake Forest University (the label on the film).

Can someone – anyone! – tell me why people are so willing to bash legitimate scientists, but will not even consider questioning what these quacks say? While science has the occasional nut job or criminal pop up, just like any career field, the majority are extremely well-educated, highly disciplined, hard-working, and concerned about their fellow man. What the hell is wrong with Americans who feel free to ridicule their accomplishments, question their motivation, and accuse them of criminal acts in the complete absence of evidence?

Sorry, but this video isn’t proof of anything as far as I can tell. I hope that you never become seriously ill, but should that happen, do yourself a favor and avoid guys like this like the plague. Because that’s what they’re doing: creating a plague of superstition and ignorance.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Allan from Fallbrook][quote=eavesdropper] “That Allan Greenspan is a freakin’ economic genius!”.[/quote]

Eaves: Um, it’s Alan Greenspan, not Allan Greenspan. For obvious reasons, I don’t like to be associated with that clown. I’d prefer to be associated with other clowns, please. Like Comrade Gletkin, Zelig and Barry Goldwater.

I’ve been thinking of changing my handle to “Goldwater’s Love Child” to dispel any misapprehensions as to my true political leanings. Your thoughts?[/quote]

Allan, are you going to insist on being a dick all your life? The guy at the bar pronounced it “Allan”, instead of “Alan”. How was I supposed to know?

It makes me hot when you refer to yourself as “Goldwater’s L.C.”. Qualifier: That’s Goldwater, Senior, and not Barry, Junior, right?

If you’re gonna be Goldwater’s Love Child (ooooh! I can hear it now: “My father left left. He never even married mom…”), can I be “Goldwater’s Love Child’s One-night Stand Big-Ass Mistake”?

C’mon, Allan, can I? Stop saying, “No child of mine’ll be bearin’ the name of shame I been wearin’.”

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Veritas]Here you go eaves- not sure if you like the Huff Post or not…. [/quote]

Not particularly, Veritas. Although this is NOT a criticism of you. HuffPo is, in part, a content aggregating “service”: media outlets (small & large) pay HuffPo money to post their articles/info for the purpose of gaining readers outside their typical demographic. This includes agenda-driven content that outside organizations place on HuffPo to give the impression that it’s unbiased “news”.

However, this particular article was written by one of HP’s “staff writers” – in reality, an uncompensated blogger, Joanna Zelman, who contributes regularly to “Huff Post Green”. You can use your own judgement as to whether Ms. Zelman truly sought to write an unbiased report on the topic, but I can tell you this much: when you depress the designated links that supposedly document the allegations in the article, they lead to either other articles by Ms. Zelman, or outside organizations such as Treehugger.org or the Farm & Ranch Freedom Alliance. And there are sources that she either doesn’t identify or misidentifies. At the bottom of the article, she cites “an article in the Washington Post” that is, in reality, an opinion piece from a Maine organic farmer/freelance writer. Even worse, Ms. Zelman, who should know better, quotes the *Washington Post* as saying, “[GMOs] You can’t recall them the way you can a car or a plastic toy. They’re out there for good. And no one knows what their full impact will be”, when it was actually the opinion of the *author*.

Another interesting point about the source of this information: From what I can see, your concern appears to be about the effects on RRA-fed farm animals, at least as far as this article. What’s very interesting is that one of the article links leads to an organization raising hell about the deregulation of RRA. But they make the statement to the effect that the RRA-treated crops have been proven *completely safe* to humans and animals (a patently false declaration, BTW), but their concern is the contamination of organic afalfa/ non-RRA fields by RRA , and the effect it will have on organic farmers’ ability to sell their alfalfa overseas. So in the HP article about the dangers to RRA-fed cattle, the writer has links to anti-GMC organizations that say GE food is dangerous and that GE food is safe. Talk about confusing to information-seeking consumers.

I don’t begrudge media outlets like HuffPo the right to publish anything they want, but I am seriously concerned by their presentation of blog entries as carefully researched, unbiased news stories. For instance, I often get pissed at people who bitch about the “liberal” WashPo, but if I had taken the “quote” in Ms. Zelman’s piece at face value, I’d be forced to agree. I blame both the WaPo for not clearly identifying the quoted article in their own paper, and the HuffPo for having an editorial policy which is, clearly, to deceive and mislead readers as much as possible.

That being said, the subject matter is intriguing, even if the HuffPo’s presentation isn’t.

[quote=Veritas]……but here is an article on Roundup Ready crops. I wonder if all the food allergies are not to the food, per se, but as a reaction to being poisoned by this chemical cocktail. The article says the the Sec. of Ag. is deregulating RRA. This will be fed to animals and the chemical then will work its way into humans via the animal products we ingest. Here it is:

“Recent research claims that Monsanto’s Roundup Ready genetically modified crops contain an organism, previously unknown to science, that can cause miscarriages in farm animals. This disturbing find comes on the heels of Secretary of Agriculture Tom Vilsack’s decision to deregulate Roundup Ready Alfalfa (RRA). Roundup Ready is designed to survive Roundup, Monsanto’s weed-killing chemical.”

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/02/23/monsanto-roundup-ready-miscarriages_n_827135.html%5B/quote%5D

Veritas, according to what’s been reported (which isn’t a whole lot), a former Perdue faculty researcher/scientist and USDA policy contributor discovered a novel organism, resembling a fungus, upon electron microscopy examination of RoundupReady afalfa. He sent a letter to USDA Secretary Vilsack, which the USDA ignored, choosing instead to deregulate RRA.

Since then, I haven’t been able to find anything on the alleged letter, aside from rumor-type stuff on anti-GMA and organic farming advocacy groups. There apparently was talk that the letter was a hoax, and using the name of Huber was a strategic move based on his long history of research on the direct and collateral effects of glyphosate application, and, more recently, GE glyphosate-resistant crops. Looking at the letter, there were inconsistencies that would not be expected from someone of Huber’s experience and status, and he’s been silent on the topic of the letter and the alleged organism, although not on the topic of Roundup use and RRA. He’s quite vocal against agricultural use of glyphosate, and appears to be able to back that up with research findings.

Please note that I can’t opine on the quality/ validity of Dr. Huber’s findings; while I find this topic very interesting, I am extremely limited on time and can’t do more than a superficial overview of available info on his career and research. But I admit to wondering about the validity of the letter: given that he is currently an on-site full professor at the Univ. of Florida, on influential committees at American Phytopathological Society, and a consultant to the U.S. government re: pathogenic agricultural microorganisms lends credence to the hoax rumor. And is pressure from Monsanto among the reasons Dr. Huber is no longer on Perdue’s faculty? It wouldn’t be a stretch for me to consider that a viable possibility.

The truth is that no one really knows whether or not GE food is safe. The corporations selling GMC seed and corporate farming entities were preparing for this long before the first seeds were planted, and with the tacit agreement and cooperation of the U.S. government, have managed to evade all but the most innocuous of regulations. They’ve kept the literature well supplied with corporation-sponsored research findings that, unsurprisingly, are sympathetic to their position. And they’ve dedicated huge amounts of money and influence to silence those researchers who have tried to warn of potential and existing drawbacks to GMA, or who have simply advised a more moderate course. What’s even worse is that agbiotech claims they can’t permit safety testing because it will endanger the security of their patented GE techniques. In 2005, Dr. David Schubert, head of the Cellular & Neurobiology Laboratory at the Salk Institute, summed it up very well in a response to corporate-sponsored research findings that had been published by Bradford et al in a highly-respected peer-reviewed journal. Though written 6 years ago, Dr. Schubert’s analysis remains pertinent to the ongoing dialogue:

“…The question is, of course, how can one know if a novel and potentially harmful molecule has been created unless the testing has been done? How can one predict the risk in the absence of an assay? Because of the high mutagenicity of the transformation procedures used in GE, the assumptions made by [authors & USDA] about the specificity of plant genetic engineering are incorrect. Nonetheless, it appears that the position of [the authors] and the agbiotech industry, as well as the current US regulatory framework for the labeling and safety testing of transgenic food crops is to maintain the status quo and hope for the best.

“The problem is that there are no mandatory safety testing requirements for unintended effects and that it may take many years before any symptoms of a disease arising from a transgenic product to appear. ……. although GE may enhance world health and food crop production, its full potential may remain unfulfilled unless rigorous prerelease safety testing can provide some assurance to consumers that the products of this technology are safe to eat.” Shubert, D.R. (2005), Nature Biotechnology, (23)7, 786-787

However, the current political atmosphere will only make things worse. A significant percentage of the American people are declaring that less government regulation is needed, and that regulation and oversight are “job-killers”. I, myself, believe that this is a patently ridiculous claim, and I have yet to see anyone in a position of authority present an actual documented case that proves how judicious oversight/regulation caused any well-operated previously successful corporation to go out of business. In fact, the roots of today’s horrendous economy can certainly be traced to a LACK of oversight and enforcement of regulations on the top execs and owners of financial institutions and businesses who intentionally engaged in business practices that posed a high risk to their employees, their customers, and to the nation. The executives, policy wonks, and office holders, who are paid at a much higher rate than the vast majority of American citizens, surely possess the education, intelligence, and skill to come up with a *balanced* plan of regulation that will help to protect these citizens.

Thanks for sending the link, Veritas. It’s a distressing but fascinating topic, and it’s far too easy for me to play hooky from my responsibilities to read up on it. But it’s very upsetting to realize that it is becoming almost impossible to access anything resembling traditional news – the “Just the facts” variety that is supposed to be based on unbiased reporting.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=Nor-LA-SD-GUY2]Speaking of financial geniuses , it still cracks me up that everyone thought Greenspan was a maestro financier extraordinaire. I mean the guy would come in and mumble some incomprehensible cr#p for 30 minutes and everyone would spend the next half day trying to make sense out of what must surely be the most intelligent words ever spoken by a mortal.
Thinking back it makes me double up with laughter, well at least I can laugh about it.

Oh wait you don’t suppose he really knew what he was doing do you ?[/quote]

Why do you think public figures hire public relations firms? Because the vast majority of people want the image, not the reality. With financial information, it’s a particularly easy sell. People don’t want to read, even a little bit, so they’re not even remotely in a position to begin to make a judgement about the qualifications, skill, and intelligence of an economist. But that doesn’t stop them from doing their part to cement the guy’s image as a brilliant financial guru in the public’s consciousness.

Unfortunately, that trait is shared by individuals who are in great positions of power at the top levels of our government. Our esteemed Congress is chock full of members, many of long standing, who don’t have the barest grasp of economic principles. However, they are fortunate: the reporters who are supposed to question them, and their constituents, who should be, are just as clueless. But no one wants to appear that way, so when someone says with seeming authority, “That Allan Greenspan is a freakin’ economic genius!”, the guy on the barstool next to him is not only going to say, “Fuckin’ A, Bubba”, he’s going to mentally file that away (next to the lottery numbers he plays every week) so that he can use it to impress the guys at work the next day.

And there you have it: Greenspan = maestro financier extraordinaire.

If you want to see the technique in action, go to any “political issues discussion” site (make sure they’re the ones that are actually people screwed by their own bad choices, but looking for a way to blame the consequences on the “government”), and listen to the participants bash each other, utilizing their self-perceived rapier-like economic intellect (i.e., whatever they’ve heard from their favorite talk radio host, television pundit, or debate participant – or previous evening’s barroom buddy).

One of my personal faves was MacD, a guy responding to a poster who had opined that the exponential growth of the early 20th century middle class in America was due in very large part to the widespread unionization of labor. MacD, clearly frustrated with what he termed the poster’s “inexcuxeable socalist ignorence (sic)” shot back , “Stupid tool, the reason for the middle class was trickle down economics”.

[eavesdropper]

[quote=svelte][quote=earlyretirement]
From both sides, I think it’s safe to say he has been a huge disappointment. And his popularity numbers reflect that fact.[/quote]

Interesting to hear you say this. Let me open by saying I’m an independent and have voted for both Dems and Reps.

Republicans regularly accuse me of being a Democrat. Democrats regularly accuse me of being a Republican. It finally dawned on me that it is because they are from extreme ends of the spectrum. Anyone not as extreme as they are is seen as being at the opposite end of the spectrum.

To hear both sides thinking I’m the enemy reinforces that I must be sitting in the middle!

This is a long-winded way of getting to my point: The Dems are unhappy with Obama because he hasn’t been as liberal as they want. The Reps are unhappy with Obama because he obviously isn’t a conservative…and I really think there is a race issue there too. They can deny it all they want, but I think it’s true.

I know it isn’t a popular opinion, but I think Obama is more moderate than many give him credit for. Thus he gets blasted by both sides.[/quote]

svelte, you must be my long-lost twin. I get flack all the time for not adhering to someone’s perception that I should be left or right. And they get even more worked up by the idea that I don’t believe in adherence to a party line, and that I consider each situation on its own merit.

I think Obama’s very moderate. And I totally agree with your assessment of why the different factions don’t like him.

As for me, the things that worried me about voting for Obama in 2008 have been borne out. I was very concerned about his inexperience, and I do believe that’s his major problem. The Oval Office is not a place for the fainthearted.

I honestly think if he pulled his big-boy pants on, and decided to just say, “Screw all of you congressmen and senators, and pundits, and political reprters, I’m gonna do what I want and what I think is best”, he might well move way up in the polls again. People want to feel safe and secure, and they want someone who acts like a strong, decisive leader.

[Author]

Posts