Hypothetical Itchyass Situation.

That's your choice. I guess you would feel my life is just one big indignity. I'll try to remember that when I'm at Roger Waters Thursday night.

I guess if you've never been in my shoes (wheels), it would seem like the end of the world. It's definitely not something I would choose, but it is what it is. I could wallow away or off myself, I suppose, but it's not like there's no reason to get up in the morning. I choose to play the cards I'm dealt because there is no next hand.

That would be where you and I differ.

Ya know, Tonya Harding is just down I-5 in Vancouver. As I'll be in Portland next month for Camp Wellstone, if WF wanted to pass the plate, I'd be willing to call her up.

Obviously, but it's not like I'm in constant agony or something. And yes, it's different to lose something than to have never had it.

But it does sadden me to see people essentially dismiss my life as not worth living. Because that's how it comes across.

It's the essentially shallow view most people have of life until they are forced to discover a new way of life because something happens to them.

Most people take so much for granted they can't even imagine what a life with limitations is really like and thus imagine things that are worse than reality or they can't even get a handle on it at all.

All the really important things in life are no different for the handicapped and I would go as far as to say that for me, in some ways, life is much better and richer since my physicality went to hell on me. I appreciate and notice so much more than I used to.

Anyone who implies your life isn't worth living, dkehler, is simply displaying their naked ignorance and the lack of depth of their own understanding of life in general. They are to be pitied...don't let them make you feel bad.

I did, and I read your follow-up post.

You're still wrong.

Hell, even most hippie environmentalists call residential recycling a bunch of bullshit.

You may be old enough to remember the days when Coca Cola bottles and the like were made of glass and were refillable. That meant you paid a deposit and returned the bottles intact for a refund so the bottler could clean and reuse them. No more. In a brilliant stroke of marketing and corporate cost-slashing, the companies switched to plastic bottles and passed on all the associated disposal costs to taxpayers.

That's just one example of how recycling is bullshit. You can do the googling yourself, but as a final note I'll just point out that Starbucks -- one of the biggest offenders when it comes to trash production via its millions of coffee cups -- is a gold sponsor of the National Recycling Coalition.

But hey, if recycling makes you feel good, then

And the glass bottles kept the coke cold longer too.

And it tasted better.

I don't think Albert or Black Dove actually mean to do anything other than be honest. I can see where they're coming from, but I'm being honest, too. And it does kind of sting... Probably because I'm not having the best of days already.

I can't say I've had that I've experienced that situation before, but it sounds like you need a little more fiber in your diet (or possibly a little less?). Or else a fiber supplement such as psyllium (similar to metamucil, but less processed). If that doesn't work, it might be a hemorrhoid.

It could also be an anal fissure.

If washing it thoroughly doesn't end the itching though, or it goes on more than a day or two, you probably should consult a doctor.

For the love of god, DO NOT google that.

From part of the wiki article on treatment:

An anal fissure is not anal dilation. Anal dilation can be one of the causes of fissure though.

An anal fissure is a cut inside or just out side the anus. It can be caused by straining a particularly large or hard bowel movement.

Like any cut, it can be irritated by contamination and you can't exactly put a band-aid on that kind of cut so it tends to itch like a bastard and or sting.

Yes... I do know that, the anal dilation was under treatment for the anal fissure. I wish I could un-see the anal fissure pic.

Let me be clear. I speak only for myself and the value I assign my own existence. I am someone who absolutely detests, down to the last fiber at the core of my being, accepting the tinyest bit of help from anyone, ever. Every single time I do it becomes another piece of baggage I drag around with me forever. Which I guess may be why I get irritated at people who do it so casually when they could have gotten by on their own.

I realize other people flourish under those same circumstances. There is plenty to live for if you value your own humanity and can still find something to look forward to. But I'm not doing it. if I'm going to die a bitter old man, I'm at least going to carry in my own fucking groceries. If I can't,

Break it down. Show how recycling in Seattle is a losing endeavor. I have offered plenty of FACTS to back my position up, you have offered nothing but a baseless OPINION and 'go google.'

Feel free to change that and be taken seriously at any time.

Sorry, I don't see any FACTS in your postings but I do see lots of conjecture.

Here are some FACTS from a pro-environment website that explain why plastics recycling is a bunch of bullshit:

http://www.ecologycenter.org/ptf/misconceptions.html

And the problems associated with paper recycling:

http://www.livestrong.com/article/122289-problems-recycling-paper/

But hey, don't let the FACTS get in the way of you patting yourself on the back for being so kind to Mother Earth!

READ.

MY.

FUCKING.

POST.

YOU.

RETARD.

I was able to make it to the second sentence of your link before realizing it had nothing to do with the topic at hand.

"In fact, none of the recovered plastic containers from Berkeley..."

From.

Berkeley.

FROM.

BERKELEY.

Hopefully I am breaking it down enough for you.



You claim recycling in Seattle is more cost than benefit. I have provided EVIDENCE of why your general statements (which btw are over 5 years old, the tech is more efficient and inputs more expensive since then) and you have provided... Links to more general statements.



DON'T CHANGE THE SUBJECT, JUST ANSWER THE FOOKING QUESTION!!!!!!



WILL I GET TO KILL ENGLISHMEN??!?!



NO! I mean, show how recycling IN SEATTLE is a overall negative! Yeah, that's it!






p.s. Costco did a good job of placement. The Kirkland Signature Variety Pack (16.49) between my usual case of Redhook ESB (24.99) and Anne's case of Blue Moon (22.99) was..... undeniable.

IT DRINK PRETTY GOOD DON'T IT?!?!?!?

[yt=WHAT'S WRONG WITH THE BEHR WE GOTS?]2cj5IFdapS8[/yt]

Exaggeration, has to be. Where there're pinecones, there are pine tree branches with lots of pine needles. Those are actually quite soft as long as you always go in the right direction. And only use the green ones. The brown ones... either they'll splinter, or they're used.

Nope, just casual wording. As I said, it was actually spruce cones, but I said "pine cones" because not many people can tell the difference between a fir, a douglas, a spruce, a pine, or quite a few other conifers.

The branches do not tend to fall to the ground as easily as the cones, I didn't feel like using bunches of dried needles, and I wasn't about to climb up in the tree to wipe myself. So cones it was...

In case anyone is wondering this is what a Douglas-Fir looks like:


CASCADIA INDEPENDENCE!!!!!

And in case anyone else is wondering, a douglas is not a fir. A douglas is in the genus "pseudotsuga" and a fir is in the genus "abies." They are fairly easy to tell apart, in fact, even for a non-specialist, because a douglas has cones that hang down like a spruce (though they are different when you look at them closely) while a fir has cones that stick straight up.

Douglasses have been classified at times as firs and spruces, but they are not either one. That's why they are a separate genus.

Note of interest: The second-tallest species of tree in the world is the douglas. After the coast redwoods (significantly taller than the Sierra redwoods), the douglas has the only known specimens in the world that are over 100 meters tall!

[/dendrology-nerd mode -- for now]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Douglas-fir

^ And anyone who uses Wikipedia as a source of "scientific" knowledge just shows their ignorance...

As the article you linked to says, they have been considered a separate genus since 1867!

You need to get up to date, if you're still using information that is 145 years out of date.

And folks call me old!

Do we really need to have a discussion on language here?

If it has been referred to as Douglas-Fir for over a hundred years, and IS referred to as a Douglas-Fir by the vast majority of the people who live in it's range, and Douglas-Fir is an accepted 'common name' of the tree, how is the fucking tree not a Douglas-Fir?

^ The same way most of the "cedars" in America are not cedars at all. (And not even in the same family as cedars!)

For a guy who gets all upset all the time because people don't like you using the special-language acronyms of the military, you sure don't like having someone point out that your use of language is as casual as when I referred to spruce cones as "pinecones"...

Is someone's ego being toyed with here, hmmmm?

Well, unless Seattle uses magical faerie dust to recycle (always a possibility, given the fruitloops and wackaloons that live there) it's the same goddamn process as in the rest of the world.

FACT: Plastics can only be recycled once. Once. And they can never be recycled again. Most of the stuff made from recycled plastic is crap (packaging, padding, etc.) that ends up in landfills anyway.

FACT: Paper recycling uses harmful agents to bleach the paper. In addition, new fibres must always be introduced into the process so you never have 100% recycled material.

Remember the mantra you were taught in grade school?

Reduce. Reuse. Recycle.

Seems to me that most modern-day municipal waste management processes completely ignore the first two steps. Funny how us dummies who grew up in the sixties and seventies actually did a better job back then of reducing and reusing when it came to bottles.

Oh, and...

Seriously, third fucking time. It's not 'the same process' b/c we don't get our energy from the same sources. Plastics recycling is VERY energy intensive, which is why for many places the math doesn't work out ecowise.

FACT: Better one use than none.

FACT: Not all recycled paper products are bleached. And again, even if you have to add new, how is that WORSE than a product made of 100% new material?

You mean stuff like this?

Or this?

A Skipjack Tuna didn't stop being a Skipjack Tuna just b/c it got moved from Thunnus to Katsuwonus.

A Douglas-Fir is a Douglas-Fir.