Subj : Scotch and water was: TV To : Nancy Backus From : Barry Martin Date : Wed Aug 14 2019 09:11:00 Hi Nancy! NB>> Probably not much point to my adding that line in the message for NB>> the usual 5+ messages in one day.... but it mught be interesting NB>> for when I'm answering a larger amount over the course of a few NB>> days, but not able to upload until later.... :) NB> And, now I've found another use for that sort of notation... NB> answering the large lot you left me just before you left, which NB> I've been answering in smaller sets, spreading it out while NB> awaiting your return... ;) This is the first of the last NB> three... Answering on 2 August, at about 1:40pm... And I'm answering a little over a dozen days later, slowly working away at my mega-QWK. BM> I just reply the best I can -- if outdated will usually current and BM> update, rarely delete. Usually delete only if that portion of the BM> message appears to be ended. NB> I tend to do the same, more or less... And since I'm spreading NB> out the replies, giving my internal date-stamp might help to NB> preserve some of my more current context, in some way.... ;) Though I may have screwed that up by deleting your notations. BM>>> And if one of the guests finds they've gone overboard accidentally BM>>> offer (more like insist!) to pay the tip, the beverages, something to BM>>> balance. NB>>> One would hope for that to happen... BM>> ...Guess who's paying at the end! NB>> I'm thinking it ends up being in the same general category of lending NB>> money or gambling.... one shouldn't be using any funds they can't NB>> afford to lose (or in this case, spend).... BM> Very good rule! Possibly close to the reasoning why I have for not BM> gambling. I have no problems (well, probably some!) with gambling as BM> long as one can afford it. Betting everything and the loosing and BM> having nothing -- Like (TV show examples) of betting the car, BM> betting the house -- no-no-no-no-no. There was a commercial for a BM> perfume with Elizabeth Taylor offering her diamond earring to a gambler BM> - still too much for me but at least loosing a pair of diamond earrings BM> you'll still have a place to live. NB> And she had plenty more where that came from, no doubt.... ;) I NB> have a friend that liked to go to Atlantic City (I think it was NB> once a year, and it was with a group); she'd put aside $20 to use NB> at the casino... when that was gone, that was it... she had the NB> fun without the risk... winnings, if any, went into her pocket... NB> And then there was the owner of our favorite Chinese buffet, who NB> was addicted to gambling, and lost the restaurant in a game.... NB> The closest we come to gambling is lending money to friends in NB> need.... :) While I was in college my parents took my Aunt (the one from Vienna - she was over visiting them) to Las Vegas, mainly to experience and be entertained and part of the entertainment was a bit of light gambling. My Mother was telling me they had $150 and when that was done they were done, though if one was out of money one or both of the other two would give some from their portion and so the third could continue. Eventually did run out of the allocated money and they did have fun. As for loosing the restaurant or anything else of value -- I could sort of imagine how that could happen -- obviously overconfidence -- just my Logical Portion is screaming "No!!!". I'll admit to not knowing how to gamble (so how does _Crazy Eights_ work again?) and the closest I've come to bet-it-all gambling is logical guessing on doing something to repair something electronic: already not working so can't make it much worse. BM>>>>> Not really sure how to phrase; "just don't go overboard" to me is BM>>>>> implied and if I really-really wanted the expensive item I'd be BM>>>>> 'asking permission' plus stating I'd split the cost. NB>>>>> Ah, but you are responsible.... and willing to be reasonable... NB>>>>> and understand the concept of not going overboard.... ;) BM>>>> Yes, that's sometimes a problem because the logic escapes me: it just BM>>>> isn't done! NB>>>> Exactly... you and I would naturally go the considerate (and to us, NB>>>> logical route).... :) BM>>> Which makes it difficult to consider the alternative. NB>>> Yup, we'd have to work at being inconsiderate... make a special NB>>> effort... and since that's work, just isn't going to happen,,, BM>> Right: IMO volunteering to pay $5 for a $25 meal I'm still getting the BM>> better part of the eating deal and doesn't make me look like a BM>> deadbeat moocher. NB>> But some people really don't care if they come across as a deadbeat NB>> moocher... it never even crosses their minds.... BM> Unfortunately true. "Free food?! Yesssss! ..I come off as greedy BM> and taking advantage of the situation? Naaah! No way!" NB> I don't think they'd even get to the possibly greedy part of the NB> thought... I doubt that too! Appears never even remotely occurs to them, while to some of us the thought is how could you not think of it. ¯ ® ¯ Barry_Martin_3@ ® ¯ @Q.COM ® ¯ ® .... One must be careful when make long winded speeches not to run out of reath. --- MultiMail/Win32 v0.47 þ wcECHO 4.2 ÷ ILink: The Safe BBS þ Bettendorf, IA --- QScan/PCB v1.20a / 01-0462 * Origin: ILink: CFBBS | cfbbs.no-ip.com | 856-933-7096 (454:1/1) .