If I put a lawn ornament out front, what is it that keeps people from stealing it when I'm not here? Same thing that keeps the smart person from taking drugs known to be addictive. Now if there were a legitimate chemical imbalance, as with failure of the pancreas to produce insulin - 'nother matter.
Understand that we're a bit different physiologically, being one of those lacking the enzyme to break down alcohol. So I don't drink. Don't steal, either, even when others aren't watching.
Before anyone spouts the current cant about chemical imbalances and depression, it's a perfect example. Same people show more of the appropriate chemicals when happy, less when sad. Cause or effect? Recent overdose/suicide run showed antidepressants from three separate physicians provided the means. Yep, chemical imbalance. Take two Prozac and call me never....
Oh yes, heroin was created by a German, Heinrich Dreser of Bayer, and the word is Held in German.
One person gets a few shots of Demerol in the hospital after surgery and comes out of it with no problem. Another takes the same shots and ends up addicted to Demerol.
See the problem? If _everybody_ got addicted then it would be one thing, but everybody who experiments with drugs doesn't become addicted and the number one and number two addictive drugs sold in the US are legal for over-the-counter purchase.
You're lucky that you aren't an alcoholic. You don't seem to understand that being addicted isn't a choice--once you're hooked it's hard to get unhooked--you don't just decide one day "I'm not going to be addicted anymore".
Depression isn't "being sad". In fact "sadness" is neither a necessary nor a sufficient diagnostic criterion.
And one should care about this because?
But this has nothing to do with woodworking, other than the wood in your head, so I'm done with it. You may harangue on.
Why should we care about Heroes being Helden? Because it is so much shooting from below the waist, and behind the bellybutton, just as your other assertions.
You are a perfect example of why we should care, and what this thread is all about. Personal restraint, or lack of it, consideration of fact or repetition of bald-faced baloney, refusal to recognize oneself as less than the center of the universe, and denial of the consequences of self-serving pleasure are your nature.
Low price is a recurring, almost dominant theme in this newsgroup. There are all kinds of gloats about getting item N for less to remind us that Wal-Mart has chosen its targets well. We want, we want now, and damn the consequences. How many who have condemned shoddy workmanship in this thread have written "I got it cheaper here" posts, or even worse, "YOU could have gotten it cheaper here?"
Assertions that Wal-Mart is "Guilty" of exploiting its workers to serve the bottom line and the bottom feeders are absurd. If everyone wants to buy low, no one can sell high, regardless the quality, except to the "wealthy," whose ill-gotten gains deserve to be redistributed. Which is what happens in places like Cuba and the old Evil Empire, where prices were so firm they were printed on the goods at the factories, and wages so out of touch with productivity that everybody had money - just nothing to spend it on.
If it's morally wrong to contribute to the elevation of the workers in poor countries by providing jobs, or to the underachievers of the US for whom Wal-Mart is the employer of last resort, drive past it on the way to Nieman-Marcus, shaking you head in self congratulation as if it were a pink plastic flamingo at the edge of a Polack's flower bed. Or are you mentally imbalanced, instead of "chemically," and unable to control your acquisitive nature?
I am especially fond of those in this type of thread who say that all the employees are morons, and then that we could get better out of them by paying them more. Or cure the ignorant, the criminal and addict if we only cared and spent more on them. Not on this planet, not with this creature.
For some pithy, though not crusty observations on workmanship, work, and a lot more of the observations made in this thread, might I suggest
formatting link
Perhaps it will rehabilitate some Wal-Mart shopping criminal.
hehehehe.. 'cept it would be two Helden.... IF my German vacations taught me right...but with the degenerating effects of Hofbrau..I may be wrong.
My doctor presribed me two seconol [sp?] tablets once, to help me sleep on my flight from Honolulu to Sydney. I had to be absolutely rested upon my arrival. I asked him if those pills would do the trick, he just smiled and said that if I was still awake after 45 minutes, to take the second one. Funny, doc.
In a previous life, I was a roady for Niccolo Paganini. Tour of 1828. The groupies used to try to steal his bedpan...but I digress.
So out of all of the illegals, only 10 were actual Wal-mart employees.... yeah, that shows an obvious history of Wal-mart employing illegals.
Not sure what the point of this is... this is neither here nor there.
It doesn't "piss me off" because I am rational. I understand that Wal-mart is a very large corporation, they are worlds largest retailer and the largest private employer in the United States, so I realize that there are going to be isolated cases of misbehavior.
The "illegal aliens" charges don't piss me off because they are bogus, you shouldn't be holding a company responsible for the employees of another company with whom they contract with.
If you have a new roof put on your house and it turns out some of those roofers are illegal, should you be held responsible? Of course not. This is essentially what they are doing to Wal-mart, and many other companies.
You haven't pointed out anything I didn't already know. I was hoping you had something substantial against the great evil Wal-Mart.
I'm a fan of businesses in general.
Where have I defended the "bad things" they have done? Go ahead and quote me.
You have taken it to the opposite extreme of what you have accused me of. You are condemning them as a whole company because of some perceived bad things, and have taken it to the point of out right slandering the company by misrepresenting facts to support your opinion.
I am by no means condemning Walmart in toto. I've already said that. You do remember my writing that Walmart dragged the retail business into the 21st century, don't you? They are industry leaders, they are one of, if not the largest companies/employers in the world. These are amazing things. All of this started by a guy who lived in the same ranch house for 35 years while he was becoming a billionaire, and who said that his favorite food was his wife's meatloaf. Sam Walton was/is an idol of mine. Sam's dead.
There's an old saying - with great power comes great responsibility. There aren't many _countries_ that have as much power as Walmart. They need to step up on the responsibility to accompany that power.
Yes, they do. But those chemical imbalances come from ABUSING DRUGS AND ALCOHOL! If you never use drugs or abuse alcohol, those imbalances will never take place, will they?
It's like those stupid Chris Farley commercials on the radio. "Oh, it wasn't all his fault, drugs cause a biochemical change in the brain." Well sure, but who took the drugs in the first place? Chris did. So who do we blame for the biochemical changes? Chris Farley.
Direct correlation. His own stupidity caused his death. Nuff said.
What part of "hereditary" are you having trouble with? Some people are alcoholics, some aren't. Some alcoholics take a drink or three or ten and get hooked, others never touch the stuff and so never have a problem with it, but it is the genetic propensity that causes them to become addicted. If it was just the alcohol then _everybody_ who got drunk once in his life would be addicted.
Further, "experimenting with drugs" and becoming addicted are different things. I think I tried quite a lot of stuff in the '60s, but the last time I touched anything illegal was to blow a joint with my GF sometime around '83 because she wanted to try the stuff.
If everybody became addicted then that would be a viable solution. Most people do not become addicted and there's no way for any given individual to tell whether he is one of the ones who will unless he tries it and finds out the hard way.
Of course you could just ban alcohol. Woops, tried that.
But most people know if there is a history of alcoholism in their families and can tell if they are a high risk candidate. In the end, it's still personal responsibility and far too few have any interest in taking it.
Drinking's good for your heart. A pathologist friend of mine once told me "You never, EVER see coronary artery disease in alcoholics -- open up a 75-year-old alcholic, and his heart looks like a teenager's. The liver, on the other hand..."
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.