The BBC seemed to have a preoccupation with this story - and from what the reporter said only four houses had been burned down in the area, the breaking news was that there was a fifth! (She was in Malibu????)Shock horror - has this made the news here largely because these fires affected the rich?

I was very surprised to hear that Arnie has been visting the location - his acting was so wooden - I'm sure he was in serious risk of catching himself.

Or was it, that a bit of news in Malibu had the BBC jumping on planes at the first opportunity. Does anyone know if they have returned form the Algarve yet - or have recent events prolonged their holiday there too?

I am waiting for the lion kills antelope story on a safari in Africa next.

The BBC seemed to have a preoccupation with this story - and from what the reporter said only four houses had been burned down in the area, the breaking news was that there was a fifth! (She was in Malibu????)Shock horror - has this made the news here largely because these fires affected the rich?

I was very surprised to hear that Arnie has been visting the location - his acting was so wooden - I'm sure he was in serious risk of catching himself.

Or was it, that a bit of news in Malibu had the BBC jumping on planes at the first opportunity. Does anyone know if they have returned form the Algarve yet - or have recent events prolonged their holiday there too?

I am waiting for the lion kills antelope story on a safari in Africa next.

OOH you cynic :p

The fire season happens this time of year every year in Southern California. There are a number of reasons for it.
It generally effects the well-to-do because they build homes in fire areas (kind of like building in a flood plain). Poor folks generally live in built up metropolitan areas where there aren't many trees to catch fire.
I'm glad to hear the BBC has got a new story. When I was in Europe in September all I heard was Nothern Rock over and over and over.

This (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21449247/?gt1=10450) article may help explain things a little more. It says that 1,500 homes have been destroyed, 1,200 of which (at least, the number may go up) are around the San Diego area. Maybe the BBC just cares about the Malibu homes since rich people live there, I don't know. :D

I have a friend I used to work with that was transferred to San Diego. She said the fires got close to her home but were contained in that area before her home was destroyed.

The fires are pretty bad thing to have to deal with, even if you are rich and affluent... not like fame and fortune will stop a natural disaster from occurring...:confused:



...sort of freaks me out though when they interview a victim and they tell stories how it is the second or third time they have had to rebuild after a natural disaster - wouldnt moving be a better option to prevent a next time :mad:

A lot of people in California aren't all that bright. It seems to me though, that if they would let the wildfires started by Mother Nature burn out as they are intended and merely protect the homes and properties as best they can instead of containing the whole thing, a fire of this calibur would not occur. The yearly wildfires in southern Cal and the Northwest do not sweep through and destroy whole forests, they merely burn the undergrowth. Stopping this cycle from happening causes the undergrowth to grow wild. This means that there is more fuel for the fire making it hotter and bigger and does destroy the whole forest and creates a blaze like they are battling in California.

Thats my thought anyway. I've not been there myself but I know a few people who used to live in Utah and that's what they told me. I guess Utah's policy is to let them burn and protect people's property.

When the rains come to Southern California in January and February, all the hillsides that were burned away in the fires will come tumbling down in landslides.

The only thing keeping the top soil in place was the vegitation that burned away.

Tell your buddies at the BBC to make their reservations now.

...sort of freaks me out though when they interview a victim and they tell stories how it is the second or third time they have had to rebuild after a natural disaster - wouldnt moving be a better option to prevent a next time :mad:

You would think that would be the obvious choice eh!

But I guess if you have lived all your life in that area, have bought up generations in that area, I would imagine that it would be hard to leave.

Just happened to be in the area when things ignited... Winds were fierce in the mountains this past Sunday (yet no breeze at all along the shore)...and then that night there were semi-spectacular orange flames appearing in the not-so distant hills. Next morning there was more of the same, as well as tiny ashes falling on our windshield and various smoke plumes darkening the sky as we navigated through stop-and-go traffic. Fifty or so miles east of Los Angeles, along one stretch of road, our car wobbled through big wind bursts and we passed at least a dozen trucks on their sides...

The place just felt wild and unhinged...much like the Watercooler...on occasion.

The place just felt wild and unhinged...much like the Watercooler...on occasion.

Well there's altogether too much emphasis placed on sanity nowadays, being unhinged hasn't done me any harm.. Oh I'll have to go now, God is texting me on my mobile for some advice on meringues....Nurse!

I saw on the news this morning that volunteers were working on the problem, is this something that's relied on in the States?:confused:

I saw on the news this morning that volunteers were working on the problem, is this something that's relied on in the States?:confused:

We tend to have a lot of volunteer fire departments in rural areas, etc. This is the first time I've heard of them working on a problem this big, but maybe they do and I just haven't heard of it. I guess they're just pitching in to help. :confused:

I heard that quite alot of historical buildings were destroyed - some dating back to the 1990's.

The BBC showed footage of helicopters pouring red powder on the fires, then they decided water may be better.

One million dollars worth of damage suffered by Cher - her plastic bits melted.

GWB was quick on the scene, ah yes - no blacks in California, unlike Louisiana.

No really, it's a tragedy (stop laughing) - the interviews of the stars with their burning houses in the background was not really funny.:)

Col

I heard that quite alot of historical buildings were destroyed - some dating back to the 1990's.

The BBC showed footage of helicopters pouring red powder on the fires, then they decided water may be better.

One million dollars worth of damage suffered by Cher - her plastic bits melted.

GWB was quick on the scene, ah yes - no blacks in California, unlike Louisiana.

No really, it's a tragedy (stop laughing) - the interviews of the stars with their burning houses in the background was not really funny.

Col

This is the anti american stuff that I would expect - since you are quoting a man who is British but half Iranian.

Half his upbringing has taught him to despise America and everything American. His Iranian heritage has taught him very similarly.;)

This is the anti american stuff that I would expect - since you are quoting a man who is British but half Iranian.

Half his upbringing has taught him to despise America and everything American. His Iranian heritage has taught him very similarly.;)

It was funny though:) (and Paul and Ian were joining in too)

Col

This is the anti american stuff that I would expect - since you are quoting a man who is British but half Iranian.

Does Mr Djalili provide all of Cols material :confused:

Does Mr Djalili provide all of Cols material :confused:

Not him personally, but the satire programme (Have I got News For You) does. Any chance to lampoon the USA / Americans / anything USA, is taken, no matter what the subject.

It's one of my favourite programmes.

Making fun and laughing at the USA / Americans is very popular on UK TV.

Col

Making fun and laughing at the USA Col

Is something that's natural and easy to do outside of the US:cool:

Is something that's natural and easy to do outside of the US:cool:

It's "World" Series time again - I wonder which country will win?:)

Col

It's "World" Series time again - I wonder which country will win?:)

Col


AGAIN....:rolleyes:

It's the New York World's Series.

AGAIN....:rolleyes:

It's the New York World's Series.

Not according to this.

A recent myth has arisen that the "World" in "World Series" came about because the New York World newspaper sponsored it. There is no evidence at all supporting that hypothesis
ref (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Series)

It says it's

The explanation is that when the term "World's Championship Series" was first used in the 1880s, baseball at a highly-skilled level was almost exclusively confined to North America, especially the United States. Thus it was understood that the winner of the major league championship was the best baseball team in the world. The title of this event was soon shortened to "World's Series" and later to "World Series".
ref (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Series)

So it's actually the USA showing it's the worlds best at baseball without letting any other country (apart from Canada) play. I like the 'highly skilled' bit:rolleyes: - it's only a game of girly rounders our schoolgirls play.

A little onesided I think only having 2 countries. In the UK, the name would be banned under the trade descriptions act as it clearly is a lie. But I suppose it is the USA so it's expected.

Col

I will grant you it is an unfortunate choice of names.
The Sporting News (again another unfortunate choice as they only follow baseball) supports my position.

To your game.

How come nobody ever points out that the entire concept of the Premiership was stolen from the Scottish FA.

Talk about a girlie game. They shoud be in skirts not shorts. Grown men collapsing in a heap when someone brushes them and not able to move until the ref shows them a yellow card for faking. How about a minimum amount of time on the sidelines when they pull this. Say 3 minutes playing with 10.

I will grant you it is an unfortunate choice of names.
The Sporting News (again another unfortunate choice as they only follow baseball) supports my position.

A newspaper that only follows baseball? I bet that's a cracking read - I can see it now

"The man with the ball throws to the man with the bat, he hits it hard causing another man to crash into the fence trying to catch it - meanwhile the batsman runs round in a diamond shape". . . . . . rivetting

To your game.

How come nobody ever points out that the entire concept of the Premiership was stolen from the Scottish FA.

Not stolen - technically, to steal something you have to deprive the original owner of it. They still have their SPL (Scottish Premier League) so it can't have been stolen.
The Premiership was based on the Scottish F.A. system. Just like many governments' legal systems around the world are based on the British judicial system. I'm sure we could find examples in North America where this has happened, but I'm not one for being picky - Ken will do that later.

Talk about a girlie game. They shoud be in skirts not shorts. Grown men collapsing in a heap when someone brushes them and not able to move until the ref shows them a yellow card for faking. How about a minimum amount of time on the sidelines when they pull this. Say 3 minutes playing with 10.

I actually agree, they do fake it to try to gain advantages - not as bad as the I-Ties or the Frogs do though. The "sin-bin" idea is used in Rugby and is a good idea.

Col

How come nobody ever points out that the entire concept of the Premiership was stolen from the Scottish FA.

Eh what - explain - whats the history, which parts of the concept were stolen? -

AS far as I know the EFL was started before the SFL and the EPL was started before the SPL -

(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scottish_Premier_League#Formation_of_the_SPL)

Even if this wasn't the case - The fact we learn't from others success and copied it, seems sensible to me - and such an everyday and normal occurence - that pointing it out - that something was "stolen", would make you look stupid.

A newspaper that only follows baseball? I bet that's a cracking read - I can see it now

"The man with the ball throws to the man with the bat, he hits it hard causing another man to crash into the fence trying to catch it - meanwhile the batsman runs round in a diamond shape". . . . . . rivetting

Col


Different places, different sports, different preferences. I understand in the UK you have a game where everyone dresses in white and they do somthing similar except for the fence and it takes several days to do it.

In Ireland they draw huge crowds for rolling stones down hills.

I'm certain other countries can give similar examples. In Canada we spend an inordinate amount of time following guys skating around a rink trying to put a very small piece of frozen rubber into a very small net with a very large man trying to stop them.

Eh what - explain - whats the history, which parts of the concept were stolen? -




I remember the Scottish FA having a "Premier" division in the 1960's. I can't make any claim as to when it started.

Back on topic - The Fires: I wonder how much foreign aid the US will get in our time of need? :rolleyes:

Back on topic - The Fires: I wonder how much foreign aid the US will get in our time of need? :rolleyes:

Never mind foreign aid, how about tilting the US so that the excess water from the South runs up a bit? Two birds with one stone. :D

I remember the Scottish FA having a "Premier" division in the 1960's. I can't make any claim as to when it started.

Who was in it?:p

I think you may have remembered something differant from how it was - or you are getting your concept of the SFA mixed up - which is why your idea the concept was stolen is bollocks.

In Canada we spend an inordinate amount of time following guys skating around a rink trying to put a very small piece of frozen rubber into a very small net with a very large man trying to stop them.

Yes it's so exciting the game has to be halted every 5mins. for the bloody adverts:mad::rolleyes:

Back on topic - The Fires: I wonder how much foreign aid the US will get in our time of need? :rolleyes:

Since when did the US need or even take anybody elses help?:rolleyes:

Yes it's so exciting the game has to be halted every 5mins. for the bloody adverts:mad::rolleyes:
It does have the advantage of being a far more democratic sport than football, though. I mean, if you're not good enough to tackle someone in a game of football, deliberately knocking them over is seen as unsporting. In ice hockey, it's positively encouraged, thereby ensuring that the game isn't just played by the elite, 'skillful' players.:D

But are they still allowed to punch the crap out of each other?:confused::D

Since when did the US need or even take anybody elses help?:rolleyes:

Is that an offer?

Is that an offer?

We're continuously offering our American cousins free help and advice here, needless to say it's always rejected:eek::p

We don't need advice. Send cash. :)

We don't need advice. Send cash. :)

As a matter of principle I only give to the poor...:p

As a matter of principle I only give to the poor...:p

Then I'll send you my address right away.. :)

Then I'll send you my address right away.. :)

The help you need isn't available, well certainly not from me, try on high:eek:

There was a nasty little question in a post a while back in this thread. The basic question is, why do people still live where they do after xxxxx disaster has struck? Why don't they rebuild elsewhere?

The answer:

There ARE no safe places to build houses. Pollution strikes in many cities. Flooding is not limited to the coastline - witness even some cases in the UK earlier this summer. Tornadoes roam in the central USA. Mudslides occur in many mountainous areas. (Or worse - rockslides.) Hurricanes along many coasts. VOLCANOES in some areas. Blizzards in the northern tier of states.

We build where we build because it is where we found land that someone else hadn't already bought up, a place where it doesn't cost three times the normal cost of building a house because of developer greed. We build where cities provide nearby services. Cities develop because there is some feature that can be exploited.

For N'Awlins, it is the river as a world-class opportunity to build seaports and shipyards. For San Francisco, the bay provided seaports. For other cities, other reasons. (Near as I can tell, Fort Stockton TX was built because it was too far to drive from San Antonio to El Paso in one day...)

We build where our families live. We build where we can find a balance between travel to work, travel to conveniences and facilities, travel to schools, etc. We build where we can afford to build in a world where we do not individually or collectively have infinite resources.

The arrogance of asking why we build someplace so dangerous betrays a total lack of thought. EVERY place has its advantages. EVERY place has its dangers. Each is different. You pick one with the right balance for you and take your chances.

Sorry if I insulted someone... no, on second thought, I'm not sorry. That question hits a sore spot. It assumes that WE are stupid to do what we do. I can assure you that LOTS of soul-searching went into my decision to stay in N'Awlins after getting 2 feet of water in my home. But the alternatives all are deficient in various ways.

Be it ever so humble, or dangerous, or tornado/hurricane/earthquake prone...

THERE'S NO PLACE LIKE HOME.

A certain city, town or village is home because that's where we feel at home.

Well said, statsman!

THERE'S NO PLACE LIKE HOME.

A certain city, town or village is home because that's where we feel at home.

Not if you're Mexican, Eastern European, West Indian jesus, the list is endless:rolleyes:

Home is where the heart is. If you are not at home where you live, you will move. If you ARE at home where you live, moving will be difficult and more than a little bit traumatic. Family ties are stronger than almost anything. (Not guessing - that study has been done as part of an old USA Dept. of Labor or Dept. of Commerce (I forget which) study on population migration habits and reasons.

People move away from families, true. But there are usually VERY strong economic reasons or perhaps family disruption reasons that would lead to such moves. People don't just "up and move" because they are tired of a given place. Unless they have no roots in an area and have trouble establishing same. Only a very small portion of any population is truly migrant for non-labor reasons.

Home is where the heart is. If you are not at home where you live, you will move.
Unless you're not in a position to do so. If we're just talking about those people outside the third world, it's mostly true. Even then, it doesn't apply to everyone.
People don't just "up and move" because they are tired of a given place.
I did. Twice. Once within the country, once to another.
Unless they have no roots in an area and have trouble establishing same.
Sounds a bit like a criticism? If I choose to move, it isn't because I have trouble doing something or other, I like the change of scenery.[/Quote]
Only a very small portion of any population is truly migrant for non-labor reasons.
I'd agree with this point, although the portion is getting larger as relocating becomes easier.

Home is where the heart is.

That's absolute rubbish. It has nothing to do with families - it's about moving where the job and money is. As soon as I got married, we moved out to Oz in 1973 to earn 3 times the UK salary doing the same job. When we got enough for a house, we moved back to the UK, every move around the country since 1976 has been for money and a better job.

Also, if someone lives in a 'danger' area, they stay because they can't get any bugger to buy their house.
Who'd live in New Orleans on purpose? Who'd buy a house thats had 2 foot of water through it? Who'd live in tornado alley? - only the poor sods who have no choice because they can't move. Who'd live in Florida in hurricane land on purpose?

Then to save face - they say they 'choose' to live there:rolleyes: come on Doc, get a grip son, you'd move in a shot if you could.

The poor gits in the Midlands (UK) have no choice, they can't sell their places to move and they can't now get insurance.

Col

That's quite a arrogant attitude even for you Col. How could you possibly know what Doc wants or how he even feels about family?

ken

Just because you only move if there is more money in it doesn't mean everyone else in the world feels the same way. We live in Tornado Alley but probably wouldn't consider moving anywhere else because both our families are here. Also, we both grew up here and enjoy the "small town" feel of the place. For some people, I would hope most people, family is more important than money. Besides, the chances of actually getting hit by a tornado are pretty minute. And, when you really look at it, there are positives and negatives about living anywhere. It's up to each individual to determine if the positives outweigh the negatives for their particular circumstances.

Just because you only move if there is more money in it doesn't mean everyone else in the world feels the same way. We live in Tornado Alley but probably wouldn't consider moving anywhere else because both our families are here. Also, we both grew up here and enjoy the "small town" feel of the place. For some people, I would hope most people, family is more important than money. Besides, the chances of actually getting hit by a tornado are pretty minute. And, when you really look at it, there are positives and negatives about living anywhere. It's up to each individual to determine if the positives outweigh the negatives for their particular circumstances.

I suppose it's possible that family and words like 'home' means little to nothing to some people. Seems it would be quite a empty life :(

Seems it would be quite a empty life :(

Yes it does. :(

By the way, I found this (http://stopgeek.com/southern-california-wildfires.html) website that has some pictures from the fires, although it is mentioned down in the comments that the second picture in the list was actually taken in 2000 in Montana, which is confirmed by this (http://forestry.about.com/library/weekly/aa092400a.htm) website.

Yes it does. :(

By the way, I found this (http://stopgeek.com/southern-california-wildfires.html) website that has some pictures from the fires, although it is mentioned down in the comments that the second picture in the list was actually taken in 2000 in Montana, which is confirmed by this (http://forestry.about.com/library/weekly/aa092400a.htm) website.

That may explain the attitude huh :confused:

Wow. Hard to look at even without Cols remarks...

I did. Twice. Once within the country, once to another.

Alc, you are the exception rather than the rule. Yet in a way you proved my point. You didn't stay in the first place to which you moved - you hadn't set down roots enough to keep you. So you went to a second place.

If you can't move, you can't. Here, I think I meant for the operative word to be more like "Won't" ... as in "could move but will not do so."

When I was working as a group manager for a mid-sized OEM about 20 years ago, we had an EASY time in finding employees from among a pool that was surprising until we read about that old study. The pool is the employees who let the area for a new job but came back because their spouse wasn't happy being so far away from family. It was almost a "captive audience."

Just because you only move if there is more money in it doesn't mean everyone else in the world feels the same way.
I'm amazed, I thought Americans only loved money and guns. The more you can get of both the better. The point is, is that if a house is in a 'danger' area, you've got no hope of selling so you're stuck there like it or not.
We live in Tornado Alley but probably wouldn't consider moving anywhere else because both our families are here.
Why not? The family owes you nothing, it's just sickly sentiment - you have to look after yourself, the big guy and Emily. Nobody will help you, you deal with things yourself, thats how we were brought up. My father told me if I left home then that's it - I left at 17 and never went back.

Besides, the chances of actually getting hit by a tornado are pretty minute. So it's not actually tornado alley then.

I suppose it's possible that family and words like 'home' means little to nothing to some people. Seems it would be quite a empty life
Why? Families are problems. We never give presents at Xmas, all we do is send a card. The worst thing imaginable at Xmas is to be with the 'family'. Occasionally I see my sisters - usually at weddings and funerals.

I have my 'family' here - the wife and the Honda ST1100 - thats it. Occasionally I give her a run out, problem is fuel is $2 per litre ($9 per gallon)

Col

...I have my 'family' here - the wife and the Honda ST1100 - thats it. Occasionally I give her a run out, problem is fuel is $2 per litre ($9 per gallon)

Col

If you're happy then good for you mate, sounds like you're more content than most - :)

9/gal is hard to understand - How's the gov justify a tax like that...

ken

I'm amazed, I thought Americans only loved money and guns. The more you can get of both the better. The point is, is that if a house is in a 'danger' area, you've got no hope of selling so you're stuck there like it or not.Col

I find it difficult to believe that a man who can make the occasional profound and (dare I say it) wise statement would come out with tripe like this.

I find it difficult to believe that a man who can make the occasional profound and (dare I say it) wise statement would come out with tripe like this.

Hang around ;)

I find it difficult to believe that a man who can make the occasional profound and (dare I say it) wise statement would come out with tripe like this.

Yes, like Ken said. I used to find it difficult to believe, but now going on 3-4 years of it, I hardly expect anything else. :D

I'm amazed, I thought Americans only loved money and guns. The more you can get of both the better. The point is, is that if a house is in a 'danger' area, you've got no hope of selling so you're stuck there like it or not.

No point even responding to this. Everyone but you knows it's false.

Why not? The family owes you nothing, it's just sickly sentiment - you have to look after yourself, the big guy and Emily. Nobody will help you, you deal with things yourself, thats how we were brought up. My father told me if I left home then that's it - I left at 17 and never went back.

No, the family doesn't owe us anything. However, unlike some people, we enjoy being around our families. It would be hard for both of us if we moved. And yes, they do help us sometimes. Not usually with money, but with things such as watching the kids among other things. My m-i-l's husband came over and helped my hubby re-tile our kitchen floor. Did they have to do that? No. They did it because they wanted to. And we do things to help them out too. But, we both come from close and loving families. And besides that, I was close to my grandparents and I would like for my kids to experience the same closeness with their grandparents. Kind of hard when you live hundreds of miles away. If someone had a miserable childhood, I can see them wanting to get as far away as possible.

So it's not actually tornado alley then.

Why would you say that? We still have more tornadoes per capita than anywhere else in the world. But when you think about it, even the largest tornadoes are 1/2 to 1 mile wide which, generally speaking, still makes for a pretty narrow path of damage. A horribly destructive and scary path, but narrow.


Why? Families are problems. We never give presents at Xmas, all we do is send a card. The worst thing imaginable at Xmas is to be with the 'family'. Occasionally I see my sisters - usually at weddings and funerals.

Like I said, we enjoy being around our families. We only buy gifts for the kids, not the adults. It's just the point of everyone coming together and seeing each other for the holidays. It's fun. :)

I have my 'family' here - the wife and the Honda ST1100 - thats it. Occasionally I give her a run out, problem is fuel is $2 per litre ($9 per gallon)

Well, whatever makes you happy. Just don't presume that the same things make everyone else happy as well, or that other people hate being around family members. :)

Colin, I try to understand people. You obviously do not.

The world is full of different motivations. I cannot tell you I wouldn't move out of a flood prone area - but the move would not be two or three states away. More like maybe a couple of miles away. The floods were that selective. Besides which, it was double-barreled human error that caused my house to get two feet of water.

The poor implementation (not poor design) of the levees made them weak in spots. The stupid git who was our parish president forced the levee board pump attendants to leave. When the pumps lost prime, there was no one there to re-prime and restart them - so the water didn't get pumped out. I've been through Betsy and Katrina - about 40 years apart. The other hurricanes were livable.

It is all about balance. We lost no family members. The house was a THING. It got rebuilt, and life goes on. But the family that lived near us didn't count as THINGS. If we had lost family members, THAT would have been a true tragedy. We DID lose a few friends. We know a few people who didn't make it. But our family did make it.

In south Louisiana, family life is a big tradition. It is the way we are brought up. Obviously, your ties are weaker than some. At least, that is what I see from your comments. I mourn the fact that your ties are SO weak that you can't understand when someone else has stronger ties. In my view, it makes you a weaker person.

Or is that arrogance on MY part to match the arrogance on YOUR part that you assume I didn't think long and hard - and have lots of talks with my wife - about where we would live? Because you know that attitude is every bit as arrogant as anything you've ever accused in a USA citizen. You DO realize that, don't you? You are telling us that we don't know how to think. I'M telling you that you don't know how to LOVE. More's the pity.

No point even responding to this. Everyone but you knows it's false.



Americans don't like money and guns?:confused:

Ok, lets suppose you did want to move Doc.

Who would buy your house knowing that it is (presumably) below sea level and is prone to flooding. How does that affect insurance? or the house value before and after the flood.

Cindy, actually my childhood was good. I was taught many things and wasn't driven around by insecure parents who were frightened to let me out of their sight. I walked to school in all weathers. Even on my first day aged 5, I walked with my sister to school. (about 2 miles)
In school holidays I went out all day, they never knew where I was.

Kids these days have it too easy - Mum is a taxi service, parents are too overprotective (even in the UK where people arn't carrying a gun)
Childhood used to be being taught how to survive and prepare for adult life - not now, the parents are too scared - I suppose thats progress? Life is too antiseptic and cotton woolen for kids these days.

However, I did realise that there was no way I could afford a house when I got married - hence the move to Oz, purely to get money. Every move since has been for a better job and better house. It took me away from my roots - so what? I'm not hanging around somewhere (like Bristol) just to please 'the family' - if something urgent or serious happens, I can be there in 2 and a half hours.
Why do people sacrifice their life just to keep others happy?
People need to move to gain experience of life and different things, even different cultures or you end up like some Americans with no idea there is a world past the state border.

My sisters and I communicate when it's necessary, I saw them in June at my nieces wedding, it was great.

By the way - from what I hear from 'older' people, Grandparents hate having grandchildren to look after - they did all that years ago. They like to see them every now and then, but not as a free babysitting service. They'll never admit it though.

Col

My sisters and I communicate when it's necessary, I saw them in June at my nieces wedding, it was great.

Col


I think that it would be rarely necessary for me to communicate with my daughters, but we are are in constant contact with them or their partners because we/they want to, just took a call to go and watch Aresenal v Man U with son-in-law no.1.
Our kitchen is gutted at the moment and our only problem is balancing out the meals situation between the 2 girls, Sundays family dinner will be at Daughter number1 instead of ours, and other meals will be spread.:)

Our childhoods appear similar i guess we all were freer in the 40s and 50s, and I don't see much of my brothers, but I enjoy the family orientated lifestyle that I owe to my wife, and it doesn't stop you having friends.

Brian

But what if one of your daughters wants to return home and live with you again bringing the granchildren with her?:eek:

A hyperthetical question, but why wouldn't we accept her if the situation warranted it?

Brian

Yes unless you thought quick and moved into a bungalow;)

Colin:

Why do people sacrifice their life just to keep others happy?

Why do you presume that it is an outright sacrifice and not a case of quid pro quo?

I make sacrifices every day. (One of these days, they'll find the evidence if I ever get sloppy about it...) But not everything I do is based on sacrifices. Very often there is a higher-level emotional transaction involved. A transaction of me finding peace and comfort in a particular situation. Sacrifice? Yes, that is what people do when they love someone and get something back for their efforts. Like anything else in this world, LOVE is worth the effort and the attention required to do the job right.

I make sacrifices every day.

Would you sacrafice the American way of life?:confused:

Colin:



Why do you presume that it is an outright sacrifice and not a case of quid pro quo?

I make sacrifices every day. (One of these days, they'll find the evidence if I ever get sloppy about it...) But not everything I do is based on sacrifices. Very often there is a higher-level emotional transaction involved. A transaction of me finding peace and comfort in a particular situation. Sacrifice? Yes, that is what people do when they love someone and get something back for their efforts. Like anything else in this world, LOVE is worth the effort and the attention required to do the job right.

So you ignored my questions then.. . . . . . . sorry Doc, I thought you were different - but no, just a typical Yank:rolleyes:

As for that 'Love is. . . . . ' - I nearly threw up, it sounded something like Ken churns out every now and then, sickly American sentiment.

Col

I make sacrifices every day.
So did the almost 4,000 US troops killed by Bush's oil war since 2003.

Kinda makes the discussion of living near the family or not a little tame, don't you think. All those wasted lives sent to death on a lie and an ego trip of a dictator.

Col

So you ignored my questions then.. . . . . . . sorry Doc, I thought you were different - but no, just a typical Yank:rolleyes:

As for that 'Love is. . . . . ' - I nearly threw up, it sounded something like Ken churns out every now and then, sickly American sentiment.

Col

I agree with Doc 100%. Just because you don't love anyone that way doesn't make it "sickly American sentiment". :rolleyes:

And also, Why do people sacrifice their life just to keep others happy?
This appears to be a question to me, and Doc answered it. Why do you always ignore people's answers and opinions and beliefs and continue to spout the same old crap? This is the kind of stuff I didn't miss when you were gone for a week. :(

By the way - from what I hear from 'older' people, Grandparents hate having grandchildren to look after - they did all that years ago. They like to see them every now and then, but not as a free babysitting service. They'll never admit it though.

By the way, we've told my m-i-l many times that if she doesn't want to watch the kiddos she doesn't have to. One time we made other arrangements and she was insulted that we weren't going to let her watch the kids. She enjoys being around them and spending time with them. And it's usually just one day a week. Don't forget, my m-i-l is Mexican and she is big on family. And, not everyone in the world is a cynical as you are, thank God.

My parents have told me before that they would like to help also, but my step mom's health is too poor, and I understand that.

Why do you always ignore people's answers and opinions and beliefs

Like the USA does? at least I don't go round destoying other countries on a major ego trip.

Seriously though - all I'm saying is that if you want to hang around in a sheltered family community, using the goodwill of others to the extreme even though their too polite to say otherwise, then that's fine.

That raises the old question, why do parents use their parents as free babysitters? or worse still pay for a stranger to bring up the kid?
Why doesn't the mother of the kid(s) stay at home and do what they're on this earth for - raise the kids properly instead of pushing them from pillar to post so the kid has little idea of who the real parents are?
The answer is money.
Maybe if the mother needs to work, they shouldn't have kids - it should be a straight answer, if parents both have to work then the kid will suffer - no doubt.

Men are here to work and be the breadwinner, women are here to have babies and look after them, they are not on earth to have a 'career'.

Maybe things would be better in the world, if kids were treated to the 'old values' in a stable family environment, safe in the knowlege of who mum is. Not leaving the important childs years to a total stranger, who can brainwash them in many ways. (like the US government does to it's citizens)

Col

.... Not leaving the important childs years to a total stranger, who can brainwash them in many ways. (like the US government does to it's citizens)
Col
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1

I'm not convinced there is such a thing as brain washing...I think it's all in the head...

You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1
You will worship and obey pono1

Yes unless you thought quick and moved into a bungalow;)

Technique 37

"Of course you can come stay with us..."

"Thank you so much..."

"Not at -- excuse me [coughing wildly]."

"Are you all right?"

"Oh, yes, it just a touch of the plague... Surely I told you about the rats..."

Like the USA does?

Sorry, I stopped reading after this line. As soon as you can post something worthwhile, I'd be happy to converse with you again. Until then I'm done. :rolleyes:

Sorry, I stopped reading after this line. As soon as you can post something worthwhile, I'd be happy to converse with you again. Until then I'm done. :rolleyes:

You'll have to read it though to determine that. Maybe if I save any USA comments till last, that will be better for you.

Col

Like the USA does? at least I don't go round destoying other countries on a major ego trip.

Seriously though ...

I watched an episode of 'The Office' the other day [the UK version].

You kinda remind me of David Brent, Col. You keep delivering these crappy one-liners and no-one is laughing. Even though we're not all in the same room in this forum, I actually feel the same awkward social tension that this series so brilliantly portrays.

You, like David Brent, are basically a good guy but you're just not interested in acknowledging that your gags are pissing people off and that maybe it's time to just let it go.

I know you're going to rile back and say something like 'nothing to do with me' but when you start making the likes of Cindy reach for the ignore button then it's just gone too far. :(

I know you're going to rile back and say something like 'nothing to do with me'
Not at all. Ricky Gervais is one of our most successful comics. I'm pleased I can be linked in with him by adopting and creating the same uncomfortable style, it obviously works. It's not easy you know:)

but when you start making the likes of Cindy reach for the ignore button then it's just gone too far. :(

Well I've no plans to go away until well into next year, so I'll be around to encourage you as best I can.

Col

Colin, you asked only two questions in that long post directed at me. I answered one of them directly by denying your presumption. The other question, what does being in a flooded area due to housing values, is worthy of an answer. I'll take a shot, not because I give a rat's ass about "typical Yank." To me, your comment is typical Brit. So there! Nyah! But...

The housing market here actually is better than one might think. Because of the flooding, land opened upa lot as old houses got bulldozed. People tore down houses and raised new ones that were above the posted flood levels. So next time some jerk forgets to prime the drainage pumps, you lose the car but not the house or contents. Where I lived two houses ago was on 3-foot concrete piers and was never flooded. Came close once. But never flooded. It happens that when I got married, wifey's house was not on piers. On the other hand, raising a two-story house is devilishly tricky.

But that was also a flood of a type that has only happened twice in my lifetime, and the technology to protect houses is getting better. Also, some lessons have been learned. Repairs are being made. So... property values? Not really that bad. We lost maybe 10% to 15% of resale value. But since we renovated, our value went up again almost immediately.

You know where you are going wrong, Colin? You are applying logic to supply and demand, forgetting that logic has nothing to do with the "demand" side of the equation. Only to the supply side. And even there, supply - in this cold, callous world of selling anything for cash - will go right back to ground zero in a heartbeat if there is money to be made. All I can tell you is that apparently, there IS money to be made.

You asked about insurance. The verdict is out on that, too. History tells us that the insurance companies leave, but they take SUCH a public relations beating that their business dries up from being perceived (correctly, IMHO) as blook-sucking leeches who bite the butts of property owners. And they should bite MY butt, the way I think of them. You should look at this year's Nobel Prize work in Economics. It shows the way to make insurance work CORRECTLY. It would solve the whole problem down here in N'Awlins, I know that!

Next time you accuse me of not answering questions, let me give you some advice. Don't hide the questions in all sorts of implications. If you've got a question, damn it all ASK it as such. Don't sit back and try to win arguments with phantom questions that fall beneath radar, only to resurface when you imply I didn't answer anything.

Or, I'll turn your own logic on you. Take pity on this poor PhD who can't think clearly enough to understand your subtle questions. Help those less intelligent than yourself and show a little compassion. If you know what that word means, that its...

Another comment that was made, and a question asked: What about the USA military who are dying in Iraq every day? They have a vision and an understanding that when you face up to the scumbags that terrorists really are, they HAVE to back off because they know their arguments are weak. (Why, otherwise, would they resort to killing innocent civilians in crowded markets? Just to gain headlines for a cause they know is too bloody weak to stand on its own merits, that's why!)

The USA has a tradition of sacrifices. We go to help those we see as downtrodden. Sometimes we actually succeed in improving matters. Sometimes we fall flat on our faces. WW I was a success. VietNam was a failure. WW II was a success. The verdict is still out on Iraq, though it is not looking good. Hey, if we were perfect and never made a mistake, you'd hate us even more, now, wouldn't you?

Rich, you asked if I would sacrifice the American way of life.

I honestly cannot answer that until I know "for what" so that I can make the required value judgement. It is always a comparison when you decide to sacrifice something. In general, it is very hard to say I would do so, but you are perhaps confusing "conspicuous consumption" with the American way of life. It means other things besides that. If that was part of your question, please re-frame it.

I can tell you that under no circumstances would I sacrifice the American way of life if it meant disenfranchising those who simply disagreed with me. But I would at the same time insist that they, in a spirit of quid pro quo, agree to not disenfranchise me. In the case of the Islamic extremists AND some Christian extremists in the USA itself, that mutuality is lacking. And THAT is intolerable to the American way of life.

I hope I've answered your question enough for you to understand (unlike Colin) that I really DO look at some of these posts and try to decide on good, reasonable answers.

As to the question of having "built-in babysitters" - we are doing that right now for my wife's son (my step-son) and his youngest. But you make it seem like a chore. Again, there is LOVE among the members of the family. We do what we do to make our children's lives better. In this case, my daughter-in-law is going to college, being a mother and housewife, and a working mom at that. We do what we can for love of family. And because the #2 grandson is such a beautiful child. We do what we do because we want our children to have the chances that we missed.

Back to that word, "sacrifice." My mom and dad sacrificed a lot to provide a house and home for me. I also got a good enough work ethic that I paid my way through college. They provided room and board at home (it was a commuter college) and I paid books, tuition, student fees, lab fees,... almost everything. I think I ended up having to take $40 (USA) one year because of cash flow issues and mom wouldn't let me pay her back when I had the money two weeks later. I also know my dad (God rest him) cried the happiest tears he had ever cried when I walked across that stage for the PhD diploma. (Yeah, I know he claimed he had something in his eye - the big faker!)

We are firm believers in the idea that what goes around comes around. When you treat people with love, you have a darned good chance of getting love in return. When we show love to our #1 and #2 grandsons, we get love back. I get love back from my stepson because he knows I'm not mistreating his children. Even though I'm the mean old step-dad. Wifey's kids accept me because I accept them. Quid pro quo again. It works on the emotional level as well as on monetary levels.

Whereas, with YOU, Col, how much love are YOU feeling on this forum, eh? At the moment I wouldn't give a quid for your quo.

Then, since you have such cynicism, there is also this to consider: You should be very good to your children. They choose your nursing home for you!

It has nothing to do with families - it's about moving where the job and money is.
Not for me, it wasn't. I had a fine job in the UK, but moved to Canada because my (now) wife is Canadian. I'm still earning less than I was back home - after nearly five years - and was making a pittance working for a temp agency for the first year or two.

I really don't think you can generalise, either way. Some people move because of work, some family, some have other reasons.

Not for me, it wasn't. I had a fine job in the UK, but moved to Canada because my (now) wife is Canadian. I'm still earning less than I was back home

So why go then?:confused:What's the attraction?

You must have known pay would have been less. If the sums don't add up, I don't do it.

Col

You know where you are going wrong, Colin? You are applying logic to supply and demand, forgetting that logic has nothing to do with the "demand" side of the equation.

Yes, logic - if the area is unstable for whatever reason, I can see absolutely no reason to stay there - unless I couldn't sell my house, then you've no choice.
Family ties are not an issue, it's look after No.1 (and the wife)

Col

Stop trying to be mr independant tuff guy Col. We all know you're just a big lovable teddy bear at heart or you wouldn't keep throwing in references to 'the wife'. ;)

:)
ken

Col, that is the difference between thee and me.

Just after my dear old Mum (God rest her) became ill, my employer got bought out and the new owners wanted everyone to move to Baltimore from N'Awlins. But Mum wasn't movable without considerable risk. She was in a nursing home. No family members were available within two states to check up on her. No siblings. No other party available to take responsibility. It was me or no one to check up on her to assure that she was neither mistreated nor neglected. I faced that by myself 'cause wifey was still several years in the future at that time.

I had to decline the move as a family hardship situation. Louisiana allows me to refuse a transfer for family reasons, so the company laid me off. (I don't blame them, at that time telecommuting wasn't technically feasible yet.)

This is when I changed jobs from oil industry to something else - so that I could stay close to her and assure her proper care. I took a 25% pay cut to do that - out of love in return for the love she showed me. It was an inconvenience, but my priorities weren't about MONEY. They were about the ability to care for my loved ones DESPITE the monetary implications.

This is who I am. This is why I can look at myself in the mirror and not hang my head in shame for what I did. This is why I go to my family reunion once per year even though it is two states away. Love of family is my priority.

So why go then?:confused:What's the attraction?

You must have known pay would have been less. If the sums don't add up, I don't do it.

Col
Why go? It's not always about the money, like I said. My wife is Canadian so likes Canada, the same as the Brits very often like the UK and the Yanks like the US, etc, etc. She wanted to live here and I (as I mentioned) just fancied a change, so I moved.

I didn't know the pay would be less here as the stuff you're told at emigration fairs and the like, before coming over, is markedly different than the truth once you get here. I knew what I'd be earning if I carried on doing the same thing as back home but I soon found that 'no Canadian experience' is the standard message if they don't want to employ a foreigner. This may be a valid rejection criteria for certain jobs, but not the ones I was going for. I had to start over and learn new skills. Annoying, but so be it.

I was far better off, financially, when I was single and living in the UK, but I'm happier now, thanks all the same. Not everyone uses cash as their primary motivator.

about the parents as babysitters.

me and the missus are due for the second youngling in June and my mom is already saying how she is taking two weeks off work to take care of our #1 youngling. we are both like hey dont we have a say here? and she is like nope I am taking him and that is final

In Col's defence, not that he needs me to defend him, but I think that he has lived his life in the UK south of Watford Gap and therefore is a southerner, they are a wierd crew. :D

Brian

In Col's defence, not that he needs me to defend him, but I think that he has lived his life in the UK south of Watford Gap and therefore is a southerner, they are a wierd crew. :D

Brian

That's true Bri. Although I did go for an interview once in Grimsby! I was offered the job but didn't take it. At interview, they kept on how they hate people south of the Humber - I went to Leicester Royal instead for 5 years, then back to the 'south' (on home turf).

Doc, I understand about your Mum, I feel for you, I know how hard that was, I had a similar situation 4 years ago. I won't bore with the detail.

Alc, ok it was worth a try in Canada, I may have told them to stick it and sued them for discrimination:)

Ken, I refer to the wife because I would be accused of being selfish (which as you know I'm not), all the decisions we've made regarding jobs and money have been joint and in agreement or we wouldn't have done it.

Kalel - you're lucky then. My neighbours do it under sufference, but never admit to their daughter or son that they don't like doing it.

Col

This is why I go to my family reunion once per year even though it is two states away. Love of family is my priority.

So the family is not in NA then? That's exactly my point. I see my sisters once or twice a year. I'm going in December. It's only 180 miles away. We haven't fallen out or anything, they have their lives to lead, we have ours, if anything serious crops up we get together in hours.

Col

...Ken, I refer to the wife because I would be accused of being selfish (which as you know I'm not), all the decisions we've made regarding jobs and money have been joint and in agreement or we wouldn't have done it.
Col

I would have figured as much - You're quite reasonable outside your desires to stir us yanks up... :eek::D:D

Colin, for me it is two USA states away, about 320 miles one way. Solid 5-hour drive plus lunch and potty breaks, gas breaks (both kinds), weather delays, etc.

So why go then?:confused:What's the attraction?

You must have known pay would have been less. If the sums don't add up, I don't do it.

Col

Because the cost of living is lower than here, the food's far better, the service in the shops etc., far superior to here, the people there are far friendlier than here( apart from the French ) the only problem of course is that it's too close to the gun toting mob living underneath them.........;)

your desires to stir us yanks up... :eek::D:D

That's not difficult is it, one just has to mention how unfree American society is, job done:rolleyes:

Colin, for me it is two USA states away, about 320 miles one way. Solid 5-hour drive plus lunch and potty breaks, gas breaks (both kinds), weather delays, etc.

I always thought that states in the US were several days drive across. So when you said two states, I thought at least 4 or 5 days driving.

It always seems that way in the films. They have those straight roads with no habitation, just desert and big high rocks that look like chimneys and Clint Eastwood climbs up them:)

Col

You're quite reasonable outside your desires to stir us yanks up... :eek::D:D

I don't stir, stating the obvious often meets with disbelief, therefore in true US tradition, I'm branded anti-American (which as I have stated many times is totally untrue)

However, we continue to try to bring you the actual facts despite a heavy barrage of condemnation from the US posters here. It's not easy, but we do our best to enlighten you. One day you'll thank us.

Col

...we continue to try to bring you the actual facts ...

Col

Yeah like the chimney rock things. Thanks for telling us we had those. I'll have to look for them next time I drive through the okefenokee... ;)

Yeah like the chimney rock things. Thanks for telling us we had those.

You're welcome. I'm sure you knew that though, they're in all the western films.

Col

I always thought that states in the US were several days drive across. So when you said two states, I thought at least 4 or 5 days driving.

It always seems that way in the films. They have those straight roads with no habitation, just desert and big high rocks that look like chimneys and Clint Eastwood climbs up them:)

Col

When I was in London at uni in 1961, a guy from wimbledon made a comment about the North of England, I responded that we do not all live in streets like those seen in the TV soap Coronation Street, he was astonished, but mainly at the fact that we had TV in the North, this guy had travelled all over Europe but his knowkedge of anywhere north of the Thames came from TV. I gather that that is your knowledge of the USA.

Driving out of the cities in the states is brill, you hit the cruise control at the speed limit and go to sleep for a couple of hours, ok I exaggerate a bit :D, especially in Montana which had no limit when we were there we cruised at 170kph, a Canadian car.

Brian

well i tell you that guys was on the money about the north... ;)

well i tell you that guys was on the money about the north... ;)

:confused:
Anybody care to translate;)

Brian

:confused:
Anybody care to translate;)

Brian

I think it means that he thinks he was correct:eek::D

They have those straight roads with no habitation, just desert and big high rocks that look like chimneys

You mentioned Western movies as the source of your opinion. By any chance, was the prime protagonist on horseback at the time?

Travel across a state by horse DID take several days. With Interstate highways in the USA, most states take a couple of hours if you are crossing the shorter direction. On I-59, I set cruse control at 70 mph and less than 5 hours later (plus gas and potty stops) I'm near the old family territory. BEFORE the interstates, that same trip was more like 8 hours because of US Highway 11 going through literally a hundred small to medium-sized towns along the way. Speed limits made it impossible to make really fast progress.

Now, Texas is another matter. Driving from Houston to El Paso is something like 800 miles because of the irregular outline of the state. That journey goes parallel to the long dimension of Texas. Which, IMHO, is the only reason Fort Stockton TX exists at all. You have to stop there before you die of exhaustion. I spent a week there one night.

I've made the drive from Memphis Tennessee to N'Awlins Lousey Anna in one day, and that is going the long direction (N/S) on I-55. I've made the drive from Talahassee Florida to N'Awlins - four states involved - in one day on I-10. All you need to do is set cruise and keep the car pointed right to eat up a lot of miles. Atlanta to N'Awlins can be done in a long day. N'Awlins to Fort Worth TX is one long day.

But if you are on horseback, make that something like less than 30% of the speed and kill the horse with that run, or less than 10% of the speed and take several days. Just another case where the movies don't explain the whole story.

Why not catch the train and help save the planet, or go back to the horse?:confused: