On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 12:55:15 AM UTC-4, Ashton Crusher wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:45:09 -0700 (PDT), trader_4
wrote:

On Monday, August 17, 2015 at 10:57:46 PM UTC-4, ceg wrote:
On Mon, 17 Aug 2015 04:35:41 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

" Data are estimated. Year-to-year comparisons should be made with caution."

Yet here he is, doing exactly that, making year to year comparisons
and refusing to even acknowledge this striking disclaimer.

You have a logic problem if you really believe that your entire premise
is that the answer is hidden inside of "estimation error".


You have a logic problem if you believe that the above statement
means that estimation is the only issue with the data. The disclaimer
does not say that. It points out that the data are estimated and then
it says that year to year comparisons should be made with caution.
We don't know *all* the reasons for the second sentence. But it's
not required. The simple fact that they say it should be used for
year to year comparisons with caution is more than enough. That
is what you're doing and if you choose to do so, to prove something,
then it's up to you to go figure out what all the issues with the
data are and how it effects the data *you* are trying to extract and
use from it.



As usual, you have it ass backwards. CEG isn't trying to "prove"
anything,

Of course he's trying to prove something. He's trying to prove
that there is a paradox with regard to cell phone usage and
raw accident statistics. If he's so interested in it, then it's
up to him to make the case. Good grief.




he saying that there is simply no proof for the wild claims
such as "cell phones caused 25% of all accident last year" and other
similar absurd claims without a shred of data to substantiate them.

And he's doing that not by looking at the proof, but by just
showing up here bitching. Did he or you post one link to an
actual study done on the subject? Did either of you look at
what data they used, the methods, etc and then analyze it like
they did? No, you're both in here just squawking Paradox.




The people obligated to provide proof are those who claim that cell
phone use has impacted accident rates. There isn't a shred of
evidence for the claim.

BS. You haven't even looked at the actual studies done.
SeaNymph (not you, not CEG) just provided some links to
actual studies. SeaNymph shouldn't have to do that, CEG
or you should have done it before claiming there is a paradox.
Yet, here you are, now denying that the studies even exist.



Because there is NO evidence the
chickenlittles have performed a bunch of "studies" almost all of which
are less the worthless in proving their claim.

I see, so now there are studies, which it's obvious you haven't even
looked at, that don't agree with your paradox claim, so they should just
be dismissed. Real scientific.



And as noted, if their
studies and claims were actually correct, the roads ought to be a
bloodbath given the THOUSAND FOLD increase in cell phone use on the
highways. But they aren't a bloodbath, to the contrary the accident
rates change hardly at all and mostly they go down.




And again, several perfectly logical reasons have been offered,
including that drunk driving has been cut by about 50% over
the same time period and that the data set you're using says
it should be used with caution for year to year comparisons.
If you actually read some of the studies, maybe you'd find out
how they accounted for those factors. But, heh, why bother,
it's easier to just say paradox.

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 07:37:37 -0500, SeaNymph wrote:

It didn't take much work.

It will take me a while to go through the links before I
can conclude if we can find out, from those links, where
the missing accidents are in the overall accident rates.

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 05:35:08 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Why is that someone else here had to go find that for you? You're
the one with the fetish over the paradox, you should have found it
before showing up here and bitching. But now that you've found it,
you should do a complete analysis of it. That means we shouldn't
see you here again until 2017.

I apologize, ahead of time, for having to tell you what I say below.

I didn't want to say this, and, I already said I have to go through
the links to conclude anything, but you've now said multiple times
the idiotic statements you made above, which forces me to say this.

Clearly you are of low intellect, which is probably around 90 or
so, because you believe, just by reading the titles of the files,
that they somehow prove your point (when that's impossible, given
just the titles).

Also, given your intellect, it's not surprising that you feel that
the sum total of a bunch of article titles also proves, somehow,
(magically perhaps?) your point.

Bear in mind that almost every title in that list fits your
"scare tactic" mind (i.e., no real data - just pure emotion), which
is why it's clear you're of rather low intellect (and not worth
arguing with - for all the obvious reasons).

Most of those documents don't actually apply to the problem
at hand. That you don't see that is yet another indication of your
intellect, but, by way of example, since I probably have to spell
everything out for you, this article *might* cover the accident
rates before, during, and after cellphones became ubiquitous:
"Longer term effects of New York State's law on drivers
handheld cell phone use"

This one also may apply to the problem at hand:
"Driver Cell Phone Use Rates"

This one should be directly related, if it contains good data:
"Association between cellular telephone calls and motor
vehicle collisions"

Likewise with this one:
"Cellular Phone Use While Driving: Risks and Benefits"

Maybe this one (but looking at the authors, probably not):
"The role of driver distraction in traffic crashes"

And, depending on how comprehensive this is, year to year,
this one may contain related data:
"2010 Motor Vehicle Crashes: Overview"

Those six are the only ones that "might" provide direct
information about the paradox. That you don't see that,
and that you conclude that your case is won, merely by the
list itself, filled with scare-tactic titles, means you
are one puppy I never want to see on a jury or designing
anything that affects people's lives.

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 19:38:58 -0700, Ashton Crusher wrote:

Drunk driving did not go down at a rate of 50% per year at the same
time that Cell phone use was going up for 50% a year.

That's a key part of the paradox.

The only explanations given, other than there is no net effect
on accident rates, is some preposterous alignment of the stars.

On 8/19/2015 8:06 AM, ceg wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 07:37:37 -0500, SeaNymph wrote:

It didn't take much work.

It will take me a while to go through the links before I
can conclude if we can find out, from those links, where
the missing accidents are in the overall accident rates.

There is quite a bit of information out there, using data from
accidents. It's simply a matter of looking for it. It's really a matter
of trying to find exactly what you're looking for, which can be
problematic. Considering how these statistics are presented, sometimes
I find it hard to believe.

On 8/19/2015 1:15 AM, ceg wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 00:23:31 -0500, Muggles wrote:

Except for the point oak or ivy part, it all sounds pretty rough but fun
for the major hiker.

Unfortunately, you can't hike off trail in these mountains without running
into poison oak by the hundreds of yards. It's just part of nature.

Maybe that's why I don't run into anyone texting-while-hiking out here?


So, how do you keep from breaking out in poison oak/ivy rashes all the time?

--
Maggie

On 8/19/2015 7:47 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 12:14:25 AM UTC-4, ceg wrote:

These solutions, while possible, are so highly improbably compared to
the Occam's Razer solution, that four or five of the six solutions
proposed can pretty much be considered frivolous right off the bat.

Of course everything that dispels your "paradox" is frivolous when
you're a troll. BTW, since you're so damned interested in this,
why is it that another poster had to show you the links to some of
the actual studies on cell phone usage and accidents? Studies where
you could learn the data, methods, etc that they used. I know why,
because like a crazed parrot, you'd rather squawk Paradox!


If it bothers you so much, why not just ignore the thread?

--
Maggie

On 8/19/2015 6:51 AM, Stormin Mormon wrote:
On 8/19/2015 1:17 AM, Muggles wrote:

Folks know me by name at our places! (I do a lot of work around the
house)

I've been to Lowes 3 times in the last week and I'm beginning to find
myself ducking and hiding when I see the same worker there more than
once! LOL I'm going back tomorrow to get the rest of the hardware I
need to do the tension rod shelves.

[...]

I had a similar moment years ago, when I was in a
Home Depot. The young male worker insisted on
standing next to me, and reading the shelf tags
to me. I find it hard to think with a kid
interrupting me like that, and I told him so.

hahaha

Of course, I didn't use the wit and charm that
Trader 4 uses on this list.


I'd be surprised if you did!


--
Maggie

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 9:57:03 AM UTC-4, ceg wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 05:35:08 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

Why is that someone else here had to go find that for you? You're
the one with the fetish over the paradox, you should have found it
before showing up here and bitching. But now that you've found it,
you should do a complete analysis of it. That means we shouldn't
see you here again until 2017.

I apologize, ahead of time, for having to tell you what I say below.

I didn't want to say this, and, I already said I have to go through
the links to conclude anything, but you've now said multiple times
the idiotic statements you made above, which forces me to say this.

Clearly you are of low intellect, which is probably around 90 or
so, because you believe, just by reading the titles of the files,
that they somehow prove your point (when that's impossible, given
just the titles).


I didn't say the links prove my point, or any point. I just
observed that for someone so interested in this alleged "paradox"
you should have found those links and read the studies, analyzed them,
figured out what data they used, how the studies were conducted
etc., before coming in here and squawking Paradox! Paradox, over
and over. I suggested looking at actual studies many times.
SeaNymph found some for you, did *your* work for you and she said
it just took a simple Google search.

Also, you apparently agree, because now you say you're finally
going to go look at those studies. So, instead of at least looking
for the studies, then looking at the studies, before discussing
your alleged paradox, here you are, still bitching. Everyone can
determine for themselves who has the low intellect.



Also, given your intellect, it's not surprising that you feel that
the sum total of a bunch of article titles also proves, somehow,
(magically perhaps?) your point.


Again, you're lying. Never said any such thing.

Rest of nonsensical rant based on a strawman lie, deleted.

On 8/18/2015 10:17 PM, Muggles wrote:
On 8/18/2015 9:09 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/18/2015 8:53 AM, Muggles wrote:

None of those stores usually are on my shopping circuit on a regular
basis, but since I've been doing these shelf projects that I've wanted
to do for a long time, all 3 stores have been on my list quite a lot
lately.

Folks know me by name at our places! (I do a lot of work around the house)

I've been to Lowes 3 times in the last week and I'm beginning to find
myself ducking and hiding when I see the same worker there more than
once! LOL I'm going back tomorrow to get the rest of the hardware I
need to do the tension rod shelves.

I welcome the fact that folks know/recognize me. I don't have to "educate"
a "green" salesperson to my level of understanding on a subject; instead,
they know I will have already "checked the obvious" so any problem that
I present will be one that will be a challenge for them.

I'm on a mission that I've chosen to accept (just saw the new Mission
Impossible movie), and now I have to find the right hardware to put my
design together - some shelf clamps like this
(http://www.organizeit.com/images/wire-shelf-clips.jpg), some short
metal screws, and some rubber shelf caps.

Hmmm... I was thinking more along the lines of these shelves:
http://www.kingdametal.com/upload/wire-rack-storage.jpg
The uprights have grooves/rings in them and there is a cylindrical
fitting that grabs these rings to support each shelf. See the
inset in:
http://www.westernsafety.com/products/eagleMHC/eaglepg6-shoerack.jpg
the black band is the cylindrical plastic fitting; the grooves in the
uprights should be barely visible.

This is what I'm making a version of:
http://tomorrows-adventures.com/file...36-630x473.jpg

How about "baskets" hanging via chains?

I can't find fittings that'll work on the tension rods, so I'm adapting
to what I can find. Since I want the shelves to be mounted in between
the rods and accessible from both sides and I can't find shelves like
are in the photo, I'm creating them with what I can find.

The rods appear to be smooth (?) -- unlike the unit I referenced, above,
which has fixed locations where the shelves will engage the uprights.
How do you expect to hold the shelves from *sliding* down the rods?

I bought 2 tension poles, and 2 of these shelves:
http://www.homedepot.com/p/ClosetMai...8022/100146544.
I'm going to cut the tiers into 6 separate shelves, use end caps for
the cuts, put the individual shelves back to back and mount them with
sheet metal screws to the tension rods with the u clips.

But the shelves only "grip" the uprights with a friction fit?

I'll pre-drill
the screw holes to go all the way through to the opposite side and use
shorter screws so I can do the shelves directly opposite each other.
I'll end up with 3 floating shelves that I can access from both sides.
There'll be a small gap between the shelves that I can either leave it

You could wrap wire between the back edge of one shelf and that of
it's mate -- effectively "sew" the two shelves together.

as is or insert a straight rod and bolt it for support between the 2
rods, but I don't know if I'll really need that or not. I was thinking
of using flat composite crown molding, or just put shelf liner there,
but haven't really looked at all my options. That was just an idea from
looking at different materials that might work.

I almost gave up on the project, but after thinking about it some more I
decided to do one last search for the right items that I wanted to use
and finally found them.

I never "give up" -- I just shelve a project until the right idea or
parts become available.

E.g., I am presently looking for a (very) large lens to make a HAL9000
"terminal":
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2013/01/hal-9000-replica.jpg

I will use this in place of my front doorbell!

That's looks space age! lol

It's intended to be "unique". As it suggests, I'll mount a camera
in it (HAL's "eye") and use that to detect folks at the front door
(as well as let me *see* them).

Getting the red glow and mimicking HAL's voice will be the next issues...

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:03:50 -0500, SeaNymph wrote:

There is quite a bit of information out there, using data from
accidents. It's simply a matter of looking for it. It's really a matter
of trying to find exactly what you're looking for, which can be
problematic. Considering how these statistics are presented, sometimes
I find it hard to believe.

I think the biggest problem is that the so-called answers are so simple,
that it's shocking that they don't actually make any logical sense.

For example, most of us *feel* that the accident rate must be going up,
but it's not going up.

It's sort of like the common misconception of cold weather *causing*
the common cold. While cold weather can't possibly affect the causation
of the common cold, people *do* get sicker in the winter (but it's because
they are indoors more - not because the weather is colder).

So, at least, in that example of the common cold, you can *see* a
correlation of sickness (e.g., "flu season") with the weather (even
though it's a second-order effect).

Yet, with the cellphone common conception, we can't see either a first
order nor a second order effect. That's the paradox.

Let's hope the two or three articles in that list that purport to shed
light on the paradox actually do so. They may simply be yet another
of the myriad tear jerker articles that sway dumb****s who have absolutely
no science background (and therefore no basis in pure logic) like
trader4 (who either is uneducated or just plain of low intelligence).

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:24:28 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

I suggested looking at actual studies many times.
SeaNymph found some for you, did *your* work for you and she said
it just took a simple Google search.

I think you consistently fail to comprehend that the *more*
you show *studies* that purport to indicate the dangers of
cellphone driving, the *LARGER* the paradox looms, since there
is no evidence whatsoever in the governments' own statistics,
of an increased rate of accidents in the USA concomitant with
the skyrocketing cellphone ownership rates.

You can't just invalidate the most accurate statistics on the
topic just because you don't like (or understand) the logic.

If all these scare-tactics articles are actually correct, then
the paradox looms larger than ever, because the accident rate
simply has not risen. Period.

So, the *answer* to the conundrum is still open as to why, and
the articles are expected to help answer why - but the articles
can't possibly change the answer on the accident rates (because
that is a fact).

You may as well propose that the sun revolves around the earth,
just because it seems to you that it does.

On 8/19/2015 5:24 AM, (PeteCresswell) wrote:
Per Don Y:
a young woman was run over while walking he
child in a stroller... a young kid busy changing radio stations
instead of watching the road)

If/when somebody challenges me on my bike riding style, my reply is
"Yes, people have written books about bike riding and the books say that
your observations about what I do are 100% correct. The books clearly
say that my behavior is wrong. But I do not believe that any of those
books were written in the context of drivers talking on cell phones,
drivers texting, and drivers doing email while trying to drive."

As I said, we are a "bike friendly" community. Encourage "bicycle
tourism", etc. (we have a large, annual, 40/55/75/104 mile race, here,
that draws about 9,000 cyclists). It is not uncommon to encounter
singleton cyclists and packs of cyclists several times on a commute
into town.

Bicyclists are *so* common that I suspect there will soon be some
sort of legislation requiring licensing and/or carrying insurance
(several hundred "crashes" each year -- though the trend has seemed
to be down in recent years)

Among (car) drivers, there is a sense that bicyclists have adopted a
"we have the right of way, watch out for *us*" attitude; as if
they are entitled to do whatever they choose and traffic must adapt.
Of course, in any "confrontation" with a motor vehicle, the cyclist
loses -- in a big way!

Our neighborhood is effectively a dead end. However, there is a
gated street that connects ours to the neighborhood behind us.
So, on a map, it appears that you can "cut the corner" (a busy
intersection) by riding through our two neighborhoods.

The neighborhood behind ours keeps the gate locked. So, vehicular
traffic is prevented from "cutting the corner". But, bicyclists
don't hesitate to thread their bikes around the locked gate.

The folks behind us have obviously decided that they don't like this
and have incurred considerable expense to erect a chain link fence that
"plugs all the holes" through which cyclists could sneak through.

I'm sure they (cyclists) are annoyed with this development!

OTOH, they never seemed to be polite users of these roadways -- riding
three or four abreast down our residential streets, as if the street
was put there solely for their use. Failing to heed the stop signs,
etc. ("The-rules-don't-apply-to-us" attitude)

So, there's plenty of "blame" to go around!

On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:38:28 -0500, Muggles wrote:

So, how do you keep from breaking out in poison oak/ivy rashes all the time?

I *understand* my enemy. I'm intelligent. And I'm trained as a scientist,
so I apply pure cold scientific logic to the problem.

In fact, I could write an entire book on how to handle poison oak (having
researched Epstein, et al, who are the eminent scientific urushiol experts
in the bay area).

I've probably read every single reference found in the first ten or twenty
pages of Google search results on poison oak, and much of what people say
is pure hogwash.

And, knowing chemistry and biology and physiology, I do a whole host of things,
both preemptive and retroactive, to ameliorate the risk.

As just a sampling, I don't shower before hiking, I sometimes pack on
bentonite driller's clay, I always wear cotton or leather long sleeves
and long gloves, I hose down my tools and boots and wash all my clothes,
I wash with Dawn dish detergent (long hot water showers, despite what people
say about opening the pores), I wipe with rubbing alcohol, tinged with a
drop or three of bleach, and I scrub latent spots with a mix of surfactant
and toothpaste (abrasive) on a toothpaste brush. I don't have a supply of
tiny surfactants such as non-oxyenol-9 (i.e., spermicide), which work even
better than Dawn dish detergent though. And, after I shower up, I don't
go back out into the poison oak fields unless I absolutely have to.

There's more to it, but, I do very well understand the immunology (it's
a type IV cell mediated immunology, so nobody is immune, although some
haven't gotten it yet - and it never gets better - it can only get worse,
since that's how type IV CMI works. Everyone who thinks otherwise doesn't
understand the science involved.

I could go on, but, that should give you an ad-hoc taste of how I approach
things.

On 8/19/2015 10:38 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/18/2015 10:17 PM, Muggles wrote:
[...]
This is what I'm making a version of:
http://tomorrows-adventures.com/file...36-630x473.jpg


How about "baskets" hanging via chains?

I've thought about that, but don't think it would work like I'd like it
to, plus, it needs to be able to hold a plant or two. The rods would
probably be stronger, I'm thinking.

I can't find fittings that'll work on the tension rods, so I'm adapting
to what I can find. Since I want the shelves to be mounted in between
the rods and accessible from both sides and I can't find shelves like
are in the photo, I'm creating them with what I can find.

The rods appear to be smooth (?) -- unlike the unit I referenced, above,
which has fixed locations where the shelves will engage the uprights.
How do you expect to hold the shelves from *sliding* down the rods?

I'll pre-drill holes and use sheet metal screws to attach the shelves
using those U clips, so each shelve will be held into play with screws,
and won't slide up or down the pole.

I bought 2 tension poles, and 2 of these shelves:
http://www.homedepot.com/p/ClosetMai...8022/100146544.

I'm going to cut the tiers into 6 separate shelves, use end caps for
the cuts, put the individual shelves back to back and mount them with
sheet metal screws to the tension rods with the u clips.

But the shelves only "grip" the uprights with a friction fit?

Not the ones I'm making. I'm using screws. The shelves will be on the
top 2/3's of the rods and I was thinking about adding diagonal supports
on the lower portion of the rods to make it more stable if I need to do
that.

I'll pre-drill
the screw holes to go all the way through to the opposite side and use
shorter screws so I can do the shelves directly opposite each other.
I'll end up with 3 floating shelves that I can access from both sides.
There'll be a small gap between the shelves that I can either leave it

You could wrap wire between the back edge of one shelf and that of
it's mate -- effectively "sew" the two shelves together.

I could do that, and I may end up doing that if I don't find something
else that works better.

as is or insert a straight rod and bolt it for support between the 2
rods, but I don't know if I'll really need that or not. I was thinking
of using flat composite crown molding, or just put shelf liner there,
but haven't really looked at all my options. That was just an idea from
looking at different materials that might work.
[...]

E.g., I am presently looking for a (very) large lens to make a HAL9000
"terminal":
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2013/01/hal-9000-replica.jpg


I will use this in place of my front doorbell!

That's looks space age! lol

It's intended to be "unique". As it suggests, I'll mount a camera
in it (HAL's "eye") and use that to detect folks at the front door
(as well as let me *see* them).

Getting the red glow and mimicking HAL's voice will be the next issues...

Sounds nice!


--
Maggie

On 8/19/2015 10:58 AM, ceg wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:38:28 -0500, Muggles wrote:

So, how do you keep from breaking out in poison oak/ivy rashes all the time?

I *understand* my enemy. I'm intelligent. And I'm trained as a scientist,
so I apply pure cold scientific logic to the problem.

In fact, I could write an entire book on how to handle poison oak (having
researched Epstein, et al, who are the eminent scientific urushiol experts
in the bay area).

I've probably read every single reference found in the first ten or twenty
pages of Google search results on poison oak, and much of what people say
is pure hogwash.

And, knowing chemistry and biology and physiology, I do a whole host of things,
both preemptive and retroactive, to ameliorate the risk.

As just a sampling, I don't shower before hiking, I sometimes pack on
bentonite driller's clay, I always wear cotton or leather long sleeves
and long gloves, I hose down my tools and boots and wash all my clothes,
I wash with Dawn dish detergent (long hot water showers, despite what people
say about opening the pores), I wipe with rubbing alcohol, tinged with a
drop or three of bleach, and I scrub latent spots with a mix of surfactant
and toothpaste (abrasive) on a toothpaste brush. I don't have a supply of
tiny surfactants such as non-oxyenol-9 (i.e., spermicide), which work even
better than Dawn dish detergent though. And, after I shower up, I don't
go back out into the poison oak fields unless I absolutely have to.

There's more to it, but, I do very well understand the immunology (it's
a type IV cell mediated immunology, so nobody is immune, although some
haven't gotten it yet - and it never gets better - it can only get worse,
since that's how type IV CMI works. Everyone who thinks otherwise doesn't
understand the science involved.

I could go on, but, that should give you an ad-hoc taste of how I approach
things.


I like your approach to things. If it were me I'd try to research all I
could via google, but would probably be frustrated that everything I
read really didn't work and I'd still end up getting the rash. You have
a really practical approach, which I do appreciate.

--
Maggie

On 8/19/2015 9:01 AM, Muggles wrote:

I can't find fittings that'll work on the tension rods, so I'm adapting
to what I can find. Since I want the shelves to be mounted in between
the rods and accessible from both sides and I can't find shelves like
are in the photo, I'm creating them with what I can find.

The rods appear to be smooth (?) -- unlike the unit I referenced, above,
which has fixed locations where the shelves will engage the uprights.
How do you expect to hold the shelves from *sliding* down the rods?

I'll pre-drill holes and use sheet metal screws to attach the shelves
using those U clips, so each shelve will be held into play with screws,
and won't slide up or down the pole.

Ah, so the shelves aren't "adjustable" -- you are putting a screw through
the clamp *into* the upright; not just fastening the clamp to the
shelf and counting on friction/tight fit to keep the shelf from sliding
down the upright.

I'll pre-drill
the screw holes to go all the way through to the opposite side and use
shorter screws so I can do the shelves directly opposite each other.
I'll end up with 3 floating shelves that I can access from both sides.
There'll be a small gap between the shelves that I can either leave it

You could wrap wire between the back edge of one shelf and that of
it's mate -- effectively "sew" the two shelves together.

I could do that, and I may end up doing that if I don't find something
else that works better.

There may be some sort of (nylon/vinyl) lacing cord. Sort of like
the stuff used to make lanyards on the "playground" in summer
("gymp"?)

E.g., I am presently looking for a (very) large lens to make a HAL9000
"terminal":
http://www.blogcdn.com/www.engadget.com/media/2013/01/hal-9000-replica.jpg

I will use this in place of my front doorbell!

That's looks space age! lol

It's intended to be "unique". As it suggests, I'll mount a camera
in it (HAL's "eye") and use that to detect folks at the front door
(as well as let me *see* them).

Getting the red glow and mimicking HAL's voice will be the next issues...

Sounds nice!

"Different" -- why be "normal"? :

On 8/19/2015 11:28 AM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/19/2015 9:01 AM, Muggles wrote:

I can't find fittings that'll work on the tension rods, so I'm adapting
to what I can find. Since I want the shelves to be mounted in between
the rods and accessible from both sides and I can't find shelves like
are in the photo, I'm creating them with what I can find.

The rods appear to be smooth (?) -- unlike the unit I referenced, above,
which has fixed locations where the shelves will engage the uprights.
How do you expect to hold the shelves from *sliding* down the rods?

I'll pre-drill holes and use sheet metal screws to attach the shelves
using those U clips, so each shelve will be held into play with screws,
and won't slide up or down the pole.

Ah, so the shelves aren't "adjustable" -- you are putting a screw through
the clamp *into* the upright; not just fastening the clamp to the
shelf and counting on friction/tight fit to keep the shelf from sliding
down the upright.

Correct. I didn't like the idea that it could slip, plus, I couldn't
find proper rubber gaskets to put on the outside of the upright so I
could use a common hose clamp. Hose clamps are a bit unattractive anyway.

[...]

You could wrap wire between the back edge of one shelf and that of
it's mate -- effectively "sew" the two shelves together.

I could do that, and I may end up doing that if I don't find something
else that works better.

There may be some sort of (nylon/vinyl) lacing cord. Sort of like
the stuff used to make lanyards on the "playground" in summer
("gymp"?)

I could also use white zip ties and cut them off close, but that may be
a last resort. I'm not sure how distracting they'd be to look at. I like
using zip ties for all sorts of things, but haven't made up my mind yet.

[...]
Getting the red glow and mimicking HAL's voice will be the next
issues...

Sounds nice!

"Different" -- why be "normal"? :


Exactly! I feel the same way.

--
Maggie

On 8/19/2015 10:06 AM, Muggles wrote:

You could wrap wire between the back edge of one shelf and that of
it's mate -- effectively "sew" the two shelves together.

I could do that, and I may end up doing that if I don't find something
else that works better.

There may be some sort of (nylon/vinyl) lacing cord. Sort of like
the stuff used to make lanyards on the "playground" in summer
("gymp"?)

I could also use white zip ties and cut them off close, but that may be
a last resort. I'm not sure how distracting they'd be to look at. I like
using zip ties for all sorts of things, but haven't made up my mind yet.

I think a flat nylon/vinyl "lacing" would be effective and "attractive".
Imagine bringing the back edges of two shelves together so the lower
portions are in contact with each other. Then, spiral wrap a flat
piece of lacing all along that back edge -- so that none of the
wire shelf is visible "under" that wrap. Like the way you would wrap
bicycle handlebars:
http://www.mytenspeeds.com/My_TenSpeeds_1/Bicycles_Table/Canadian_Bicycles/Marinoni_Bicycles/MarinoniQuebec/Marinoni_Quebec_2/Mar_Que2_Handlebars_2.jpg

Getting the red glow and mimicking HAL's voice will be the next
issues...

Sounds nice!

"Different" -- why be "normal"? :

Exactly! I feel the same way.

Well, sometimes I feel that my third eye isn't unique enough...

On 8/19/2015 12:14 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/19/2015 10:06 AM, Muggles wrote:

You could wrap wire between the back edge of one shelf and that of
it's mate -- effectively "sew" the two shelves together.

I could do that, and I may end up doing that if I don't find something
else that works better.

There may be some sort of (nylon/vinyl) lacing cord. Sort of like
the stuff used to make lanyards on the "playground" in summer
("gymp"?)

I could also use white zip ties and cut them off close, but that may be
a last resort. I'm not sure how distracting they'd be to look at. I like
using zip ties for all sorts of things, but haven't made up my mind yet.

I think a flat nylon/vinyl "lacing" would be effective and "attractive".
Imagine bringing the back edges of two shelves together so the lower
portions are in contact with each other. Then, spiral wrap a flat
piece of lacing all along that back edge -- so that none of the
wire shelf is visible "under" that wrap. Like the way you would wrap
bicycle handlebars:
http://www.mytenspeeds.com/My_TenSpeeds_1/Bicycles_Table/Canadian_Bicycles/Marinoni_Bicycles/MarinoniQuebec/Marinoni_Quebec_2/Mar_Que2_Handlebars_2.jpg

hmmm That's a good idea, too. There are lots of materials I could use
like that.

Getting the red glow and mimicking HAL's voice will be the next
issues...

Sounds nice!

"Different" -- why be "normal"? :

Exactly! I feel the same way.

Well, sometimes I feel that my third eye isn't unique enough...


ssssshhhhh Now everyone will want a third eye!

--
Maggie

Muggles wrote:
On 8/19/2015 7:47 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 12:14:25 AM UTC-4, ceg
wrote:

These solutions, while possible, are so highly
improbably compared
to the Occam's Razer solution, that four or five of the
six
solutions proposed can pretty much be considered
frivolous right
off the bat.

Of course everything that dispels your "paradox" is
frivolous when
you're a troll. BTW, since you're so damned interested
in this,
why is it that another poster had to show you the links
to some of
the actual studies on cell phone usage and accidents?
Studies where
you could learn the data, methods, etc that they used. I
know why,
because like a crazed parrot, you'd rather squawk
Paradox!


If it bothers you so much, why not just ignore the thread?

And if t4 bothers you so much, why don't you do the same?
PKB

On 8/19/2015 10:31 AM, Muggles wrote:

I think a flat nylon/vinyl "lacing" would be effective and "attractive".
Imagine bringing the back edges of two shelves together so the lower
portions are in contact with each other. Then, spiral wrap a flat
piece of lacing all along that back edge -- so that none of the
wire shelf is visible "under" that wrap. Like the way you would wrap
bicycle handlebars:
http://www.mytenspeeds.com/My_TenSpeeds_1/Bicycles_Table/Canadian_Bicycles/Marinoni_Bicycles/MarinoniQuebec/Marinoni_Quebec_2/Mar_Que2_Handlebars_2.jpg

hmmm That's a good idea, too. There are lots of materials I could use
like that.

Yes. And, if tightly wrapped, noone would suspect that they were
really two "backless" baskets tied together.

"Different" -- why be "normal"? :

Exactly! I feel the same way.

Well, sometimes I feel that my third eye isn't unique enough...

ssssshhhhh Now everyone will want a third eye!

(sigh) Too late. I got the last one they had in stock. They
may be able to back-order some, though...

On 8/19/2015 1:07 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/19/2015 10:31 AM, Muggles wrote:

I think a flat nylon/vinyl "lacing" would be effective and "attractive".
Imagine bringing the back edges of two shelves together so the lower
portions are in contact with each other. Then, spiral wrap a flat
piece of lacing all along that back edge -- so that none of the
wire shelf is visible "under" that wrap. Like the way you would wrap
bicycle handlebars:
http://www.mytenspeeds.com/My_TenSpeeds_1/Bicycles_Table/Canadian_Bicycles/Marinoni_Bicycles/MarinoniQuebec/Marinoni_Quebec_2/Mar_Que2_Handlebars_2.jpg


hmmm That's a good idea, too. There are lots of materials I could use
like that.

Yes. And, if tightly wrapped, noone would suspect that they were
really two "backless" baskets tied together.

yeah ... great idea. Now, I just have to get the hardware and put it
together, then I can look around for something like that.

"Different" -- why be "normal"? :

Exactly! I feel the same way.

Well, sometimes I feel that my third eye isn't unique enough...

ssssshhhhh Now everyone will want a third eye!

(sigh) Too late. I got the last one they had in stock. They
may be able to back-order some, though...

I could use a third eye, too. Bummer.

--
Maggie

On 8/19/2015 12:36 PM, ChairMan wrote:
Muggles wrote:
On 8/19/2015 7:47 AM, trader_4 wrote:
On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 12:14:25 AM UTC-4, ceg
wrote:

These solutions, while possible, are so highly
improbably compared
to the Occam's Razer solution, that four or five of the
six
solutions proposed can pretty much be considered
frivolous right
off the bat.

Of course everything that dispels your "paradox" is
frivolous when
you're a troll. BTW, since you're so damned interested
in this,
why is it that another poster had to show you the links
to some of
the actual studies on cell phone usage and accidents?
Studies where
you could learn the data, methods, etc that they used. I
know why,
because like a crazed parrot, you'd rather squawk
Paradox!


If it bothers you so much, why not just ignore the thread?

And if t4 bothers you so much, why don't you do the same?
PKB



.... and so on, and so on, and scooby dooby dooby ... ooooooo sha sha ...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3JvkaUvB-ec

--
Maggie

On 8/19/2015 11:09 AM, Muggles wrote:

hmmm That's a good idea, too. There are lots of materials I could use
like that.

Yes. And, if tightly wrapped, noone would suspect that they were
really two "backless" baskets tied together.

yeah ... great idea. Now, I just have to get the hardware and put it
together, then I can look around for something like that.

And, of course, the *time*!

"Different" -- why be "normal"? :

Exactly! I feel the same way.

Well, sometimes I feel that my third eye isn't unique enough...

ssssshhhhh Now everyone will want a third eye!

(sigh) Too late. I got the last one they had in stock. They
may be able to back-order some, though...

I could use a third eye, too. Bummer.

Well, it looked like they had a whole carton of *noses* -- and a
couple of UNMATCHED ears!

Time to move the cheesecake into the freezer.

On 8/19/2015 1:22 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/19/2015 11:09 AM, Muggles wrote:

hmmm That's a good idea, too. There are lots of materials I could use
like that.

Yes. And, if tightly wrapped, noone would suspect that they were
really two "backless" baskets tied together.

yeah ... great idea. Now, I just have to get the hardware and put it
together, then I can look around for something like that.

And, of course, the *time*!

"Different" -- why be "normal"? :

Exactly! I feel the same way.

Well, sometimes I feel that my third eye isn't unique enough...

ssssshhhhh Now everyone will want a third eye!

(sigh) Too late. I got the last one they had in stock. They
may be able to back-order some, though...

I could use a third eye, too. Bummer.

Well, it looked like they had a whole carton of *noses* -- and a
couple of UNMATCHED ears!

Time to move the cheesecake into the freezer.

You mustn't let anyone move your cheese when you're not around, so it's
wise to do it before they do it.

--
Maggie

On 8/19/2015 11:26 AM, Muggles wrote:

Time to move the cheesecake into the freezer.

You mustn't let anyone move your cheese when you're not around, so it's
wise to do it before they do it.

SWMBO has an annual bloodtest coming next week -- so she's on her "best
behavior". In fact, quite annoyed with my choice of "timing" for
these (I have one more to bake tonight) -- as if intentionally chosen
to coincide with her exam! :

On 8/19/2015 1:29 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/19/2015 11:26 AM, Muggles wrote:

Time to move the cheesecake into the freezer.

You mustn't let anyone move your cheese when you're not around, so it's
wise to do it before they do it.

SWMBO has an annual bloodtest coming next week -- so she's on her "best
behavior". In fact, quite annoyed with my choice of "timing" for
these (I have one more to bake tonight) -- as if intentionally chosen
to coincide with her exam! :


I'm guessing a BS test? Those test for the last 3 months, I think, so
what she eats today would only affect her recent bs reading. (I'm type 2
- diet controlled).

--
Maggie

On 8/19/2015 11:31 AM, Muggles wrote:

Time to move the cheesecake into the freezer.

You mustn't let anyone move your cheese when you're not around, so it's
wise to do it before they do it.

SWMBO has an annual bloodtest coming next week -- so she's on her "best
behavior". In fact, quite annoyed with my choice of "timing" for
these (I have one more to bake tonight) -- as if intentionally chosen
to coincide with her exam! :

I'm guessing a BS test? Those test for the last 3 months, I think, so
what she eats today would only affect her recent bs reading. (I'm type 2
- diet controlled).

"BS"?

Afaict, it's just annual checkup. CBC, lipids, etc.

I learned many years ago NOT to schedule *my* physical around the holidays;
with all the baking I do, even just the *taste testing* drives all my tests
crazy! All that sugar and butter in such a short period of time
(esp when it isn't normally in my diet)

Silly to alarm the doctor for a "transient" anomaly. Then, have him
wondering where the "problem" went -- when he ops to retest a month later!

On 8/19/2015 1:36 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/19/2015 11:31 AM, Muggles wrote:

Time to move the cheesecake into the freezer.

You mustn't let anyone move your cheese when you're not around, so it's
wise to do it before they do it.

SWMBO has an annual bloodtest coming next week -- so she's on her "best
behavior". In fact, quite annoyed with my choice of "timing" for
these (I have one more to bake tonight) -- as if intentionally chosen
to coincide with her exam! :

I'm guessing a BS test? Those test for the last 3 months, I think, so
what she eats today would only affect her recent bs reading. (I'm type 2
- diet controlled).

"BS"?

Blood sugar.

Afaict, it's just annual checkup. CBC, lipids, etc.

I think they do the BS and CBC/lipds at the same time, at least they do
when I go in for that checkup.

I learned many years ago NOT to schedule *my* physical around the holidays;
with all the baking I do, even just the *taste testing* drives all my tests
crazy! All that sugar and butter in such a short period of time
(esp when it isn't normally in my diet)

Silly to alarm the doctor for a "transient" anomaly. Then, have him
wondering where the "problem" went -- when he ops to retest a month later!

So, do you make fudge? My mom used to make it a lot, then suddenly her
recipe wouldn't set up solid, so we'd get a spoonful of fudge when that
would happen. mmmmmmmmm! Us kids loved it that way, but she quit making
it after a few tries didn't turn out.

--
Maggie

On 8/19/2015 11:39 AM, Muggles wrote:

"BS"?

Blood sugar.

Ah.

Afaict, it's just annual checkup. CBC, lipids, etc.

I think they do the BS and CBC/lipds at the same time, at least they do
when I go in for that checkup.

Dunno. I think she is most concerned with the lipds. Esp if you're
eating a block of (essentially) solid fat! :-/

I learned many years ago NOT to schedule *my* physical around the holidays;
with all the baking I do, even just the *taste testing* drives all my tests
crazy! All that sugar and butter in such a short period of time
(esp when it isn't normally in my diet)

Silly to alarm the doctor for a "transient" anomaly. Then, have him
wondering where the "problem" went -- when he ops to retest a month later!

So, do you make fudge? My mom used to make it a lot, then suddenly her
recipe wouldn't set up solid, so we'd get a spoonful of fudge when that
would happen. mmmmmmmmm! Us kids loved it that way, but she quit making
it after a few tries didn't turn out.

No. I'm not big on sweets. I primarily bake -- cookies, coffee/cheese
cakes, pizzelles, breads, etc. From time to time, I will make almonds
coated with dark chocolate and rolled in cacao powder (SWMBO is a chocaholic)
but my source of "quality" almonds has gone out of business.

Aside from "chocolate" (as in bar chocolate), I don't think I know many
people who eat "candy". I guess as you get older, your tastes tend towards
other ways of "acquiring sugar". I can't recall the last time I saw
someone eat a "candy bar"...

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 11:44:05 AM UTC-4, ceg wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:03:50 -0500, SeaNymph wrote:

There is quite a bit of information out there, using data from
accidents. It's simply a matter of looking for it. It's really a matter
of trying to find exactly what you're looking for, which can be
problematic. Considering how these statistics are presented, sometimes
I find it hard to believe.

I think the biggest problem is that the so-called answers are so simple,
that it's shocking that they don't actually make any logical sense.

For example, most of us *feel* that the accident rate must be going up,
but it's not going up.


I "feel" that you're an idiot and troll. K, now what? I guess we
have a PARADOX, PARADOX! What moron goes on "feelings" instead of
finding the actual scientific studies that were done?


Let's hope the two or three articles in that list that purport to shed
light on the paradox actually do so. They may simply be yet another
of the myriad tear jerker articles that sway dumb****s who have absolutely
no science background (and therefore no basis in pure logic) like
trader4 (who either is uneducated or just plain of low intelligence).

YOU are the idiot who came in here squawking PARADOX!, PARADOX!
without ever doing a simple google to find the actual studies on
cell phones and accidents. Without ever reading them, seeing what
data they used, how the studies were done, etc you just went with
the PARADOX claim. Finally, SeaNymph did
the simple search for you. That exposes you for the imbecile that
you obviously are, because you haven't even looked at the studies.
And note that YOU are the one so profoundly interested in this,
not the rest of us, yet you're too lazy to read the studies.
Nuff said, you've been exposed for the village idiot you are.

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 11:58:12 AM UTC-4, ceg wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 09:38:28 -0500, Muggles wrote:

So, how do you keep from breaking out in poison oak/ivy rashes all the time?

I *understand* my enemy. I'm intelligent. And I'm trained as a scientist,
so I apply pure cold scientific logic to the problem.


You're obviously an idiot and totally untrained in science. An intelligent
person familiar with science would have immediately gone looking for the
actual studies done on cell phones. Instead you just came in here like
a parrot: PARADOX PARADOX. And it took SeaNymph a couple of minutes to
find some of the studies. So much for you and science. Nuff said.

On 8/19/2015 1:53 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/19/2015 11:39 AM, Muggles wrote:

"BS"?

Blood sugar.

Ah.

Afaict, it's just annual checkup. CBC, lipids, etc.

I think they do the BS and CBC/lipds at the same time, at least they do
when I go in for that checkup.

Dunno. I think she is most concerned with the lipds. Esp if you're
eating a block of (essentially) solid fat! :-/

I learned many years ago NOT to schedule *my* physical around the
holidays;
with all the baking I do, even just the *taste testing* drives all my
tests
crazy! All that sugar and butter in such a short period of time
(esp when it isn't normally in my diet)

Silly to alarm the doctor for a "transient" anomaly. Then, have him
wondering where the "problem" went -- when he ops to retest a month
later!

So, do you make fudge? My mom used to make it a lot, then suddenly her
recipe wouldn't set up solid, so we'd get a spoonful of fudge when that
would happen. mmmmmmmmm! Us kids loved it that way, but she quit making
it after a few tries didn't turn out.

No. I'm not big on sweets. I primarily bake -- cookies, coffee/cheese
cakes, pizzelles, breads, etc. From time to time, I will make almonds
coated with dark chocolate and rolled in cacao powder (SWMBO is a
chocaholic)
but my source of "quality" almonds has gone out of business.

Aside from "chocolate" (as in bar chocolate), I don't think I know many
people who eat "candy". I guess as you get older, your tastes tend towards
other ways of "acquiring sugar". I can't recall the last time I saw
someone eat a "candy bar"...


Occasionally, if I'm out running errands and have a low (bs low) I'll
grab a candy bar that has a mix of nuts, salt, sugar, and fat in it.
It'll level off the bs low and keep me going until I can eat something
more substantial. There's been times when the bs low was to the point I
couldn't communicate. Once I was at a Walmart check out and thought I
had enough time to pay for my stuff and go get something to eat, but it
didn't turn out that way. I looked at the cashier and couldn't really
respond verbally except to say "food". She knew someone with a similar
problem and asked if I was diabetic and all I could do is nod, so she
ran and got me some candy bar with nuts in it, opened it up for me, and
help me take the first couple of bites. About 10 mins. later I was back
to normal, could talk fine, and thanked her for helping me.

I tend to make note of where the candy bars are in all the stores I go
to, but that's usually the only time I'd even eat a candy bar.

--
Maggie

On Wednesday, August 19, 2015 at 11:49:36 AM UTC-4, ceg wrote:
On Wed, 19 Aug 2015 08:24:28 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

I suggested looking at actual studies many times.
SeaNymph found some for you, did *your* work for you and she said
it just took a simple Google search.

I think you consistently fail to comprehend that the *more*
you show *studies* that purport to indicate the dangers of
cellphone driving, the *LARGER* the paradox looms,

The only paradox here is how someone can still be alive and
be so dumb as to come in here claiming Paradox! while you haven't
even read the studies actually done on the subject. It took
SeaNymph just a couple of minutes to find them, and she's obviously
not the one with the hard on about the issue. What does that
say about you?




since there
is no evidence whatsoever in the governments' own statistics,
of an increased rate of accidents in the USA concomitant with
the skyrocketing cellphone ownership rates.

You can't just invalidate the most accurate statistics on the
topic just because you don't like (or understand) the logic.


Idiot, you don't even know what the most accurate source of
data is. You haven't even read the freaking studies to see
what data they used, what they accounted for, the methods, etc.
But feel free to keep digging your hole deeper.



If all these scare-tactics articles are actually correct, then
the paradox looms larger than ever, because the accident rate
simply has not risen. Period.

So, the *answer* to the conundrum is still open as to why, and
the articles are expected to help answer why - but the articles
can't possibly change the answer on the accident rates (because
that is a fact).

You may as well propose that the sun revolves around the earth,
just because it seems to you that it does.

This from the guy who just posted:

For example, most of us *feel* that the accident rate must be going up,
but it's not going up.

What a complete village idiot.

trader_4 wrote:
On Tuesday, August 18, 2015 at 4:23:39 PM UTC-4, SeaNymph wrote:
On 8/18/2015 1:43 PM, ceg wrote:
On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 05:24:29 -0700, trader_4 wrote:

And let's say that cell phone usage has caused
an equal number of deaths and accidents, so that one has just
replaced the other. Does that mean to you that cell phone related
accidents and deaths are not happening in "any meaningful way"?

That might be one answer to the conundrum, that drunk driving
enforcement and cultural changes *exactly* canceled out the
skyrocketing cellphone ownership figures.

However, for it to have exactly canceled the rates, both the timing
of drunk driving changes and the timing of cellphone changes have
to agree, in addition to the rates of each have to exactly cancel
each other out.

I think, while that is possible, it's highly unlikely; but, that is
yet another possible answer to the enigma that the cellphone-caused
accident rate doesn't seem to exist - all the while we *think* that
it should.

Perhaps some of this information might be helpful.

http://www.nsc.org/learn/NSC-Initiat...h-studies.aspx

Nice job at doing the work for the lazy ass CEG. Another sign that
he's a troll. Any reasonable person that was even a fraction as
interested in this topic as he is would have found the actual research
studies before running around squawking Paradox! Paradox! I suggested
it several times, but he's rather just squawk.


Not to mention that it has nothing to do with home repair. : )

On 8/19/2015 12:04 PM, Muggles wrote:

Occasionally, if I'm out running errands and have a low (bs low) I'll
grab a candy bar that has a mix of nuts, salt, sugar, and fat in it.
It'll level off the bs low and keep me going until I can eat something
more substantial. There's been times when the bs low was to the point I
couldn't communicate. Once I was at a Walmart check out and thought I
had enough time to pay for my stuff and go get something to eat, but it
didn't turn out that way. I looked at the cashier and couldn't really
respond verbally except to say "food". She knew someone with a similar
problem and asked if I was diabetic and all I could do is nod, so she
ran and got me some candy bar with nuts in it, opened it up for me, and
help me take the first couple of bites. About 10 mins. later I was back
to normal, could talk fine, and thanked her for helping me.

Yes, I've complained to my MD that, from time to time, I will get
"the shakes" and crave sugar (i.e., walk into a restaurant and
eat a packet of sugar). He explains this as low blood sugar -- brought
on by my "forgetting" to eat (for a day or two -- did I mention I'm
not keen on eating?? : )

His solution: remember to eat a couple of times a day! :

I tend to make note of where the candy bars are in all the stores I go
to, but that's usually the only time I'd even eat a candy bar.

On 8/19/2015 2:52 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/19/2015 12:04 PM, Muggles wrote:

Occasionally, if I'm out running errands and have a low (bs low) I'll
grab a candy bar that has a mix of nuts, salt, sugar, and fat in it.
It'll level off the bs low and keep me going until I can eat something
more substantial. There's been times when the bs low was to the point I
couldn't communicate. Once I was at a Walmart check out and thought I
had enough time to pay for my stuff and go get something to eat, but it
didn't turn out that way. I looked at the cashier and couldn't really
respond verbally except to say "food". She knew someone with a similar
problem and asked if I was diabetic and all I could do is nod, so she
ran and got me some candy bar with nuts in it, opened it up for me, and
help me take the first couple of bites. About 10 mins. later I was back
to normal, could talk fine, and thanked her for helping me.

Yes, I've complained to my MD that, from time to time, I will get
"the shakes" and crave sugar (i.e., walk into a restaurant and
eat a packet of sugar). He explains this as low blood sugar -- brought
on by my "forgetting" to eat (for a day or two -- did I mention I'm
not keen on eating?? : )

His solution: remember to eat a couple of times a day! :


Gotta put some fuel in the tank!


--
Maggie

On 8/19/2015 1:49 PM, Muggles wrote:

His solution: remember to eat a couple of times a day! :

Gotta put some fuel in the tank!

Yes. MD just shakes his head wondering how *anyone* can
FORGET to eat! :

"Priororities"

On 8/19/2015 3:56 PM, Don Y wrote:
On 8/19/2015 1:49 PM, Muggles wrote:

His solution: remember to eat a couple of times a day! :

Gotta put some fuel in the tank!

Yes. MD just shakes his head wondering how *anyone* can
FORGET to eat! :

"Priororities"


funny cuz I've been known to forget to eat when I'm working and then
wonder why I'm feeling "bad" and my stomach is growling.

--
Maggie