Birdie Pets

Changing the Western Mindset

admin — Wed, 16 Apr 2003 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

> > What if ground transport becomes so fast and efficient that people > mostly give up flying? A 150 mph rail system that palletizes a car

How about something like this? We can construct a raised rail system (say 20 meters above all other traffic, so it is on a "3rd" level – even above the bridges which cross the interstate highways. This rail will have two platforms each going opposite ways at say 200~300 miles per hour all the time. To get on this fast moving platform, "merging" & "exit" ramps (which themselves might be multi-stage moving platforms moving at at 200 miles, then 150 miles, then 100, 50, then the normal road) will have to be developed & built as well. It is similar to how people move on to a "moving sidewalk" which travels at about 5 MPH. Getting on & off is tricky. But once you are on, you turn off the ignition, go to sleep, then wake up at your exit ramp (or 5 minutes before your exit so you are fully awake and ready to perform the "safe landing" or "exit ramping" procedure). The high speed platforms can be powered by electricity produced by nuclear fusion plants (or something that’s much safer than present day fission plants). With all interstate highway traffic switching to this mode, we might be able to reduce liquid fuel consumption (by 30 ~ 50% maybe) since this may also eliminate need for short distance air traffic.

Response:

> > > What if ground transport becomes so fast and efficient that people > > mostly give up flying? A 150 mph rail system that palletizes a car > How about something like this? We can construct a raised rail system > (say 20 meters above all other traffic, so it is on a "3rd" level – > even above the bridges which cross the interstate highways. This rail > will have two platforms each going opposite ways at say 200~300 miles > per hour all the time.

Sounds like you’ve got some kinetic energy on hand there. Can you say "earthquake"? > To get on this fast moving platform, "merging" > & "exit" ramps (which themselves might be multi-stage moving platforms > moving at at 200 miles, then 150 miles, then 100, 50, then the normal > road) will have to be developed & built as well. It is similar to how > people move on to a "moving sidewalk" which travels at about 5 MPH. > Getting on & off is tricky. But once you are on, you turn off the > ignition, go to sleep, then wake up at your exit ramp (or 5 minutes > before your exit so you are fully awake and ready to perform the "safe > landing" or "exit ramping" procedure). The high speed platforms can > be powered by electricity produced by nuclear fusion plants (or > something that’s much safer than present day fission plants).

That may not be true, and is anyway irrelevant, because there is no genuine concern about fission plant safety today. Much more hazardous plants are tolerated. http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/WhoGetsWhat/2001.pdf — Graham Cowan http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html — 100 internal combustion watt-hours in a baby’s fist

Response:

[%X] > #1 and #2 is of course predicated on no new advances in technology or > fuels. If we invent Mr. Fusion and install it in all automobiles, then > the above is obsolete.

I do not think that we will get hot fusion into automobiles as the current estimates of commercial viability for it start at a minimum of 1GW of generation capacity. Commercial hot fusion power generation plants are still at least 25 years distant. All who partake in this newsgroup should, I would think, spend some time imagining what other energy sources we could be using instead of coal and oil. By sharing their findings here we may start to sort out the best means of reducing our dependency on oil. — Forth based HIDECS Consultancy ….. Tel: +44 (0)1235-811095 …. see http://www.feabhas.com for details. Going Forth Safely ….. EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..

Response:

Some of us already have weaned ourselves off the opec tit. http://webconx.green-trust.org/2000/biofuel/biofuel.htm — Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter & Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology: http://www.green-trust.org – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > [%X] > #1 and #2 is of course predicated on no new advances in technology or > fuels. If we invent Mr. Fusion and install it in all automobiles, then > the above is obsolete. > I do not think that we will get hot fusion into automobiles as the > current estimates of commercial viability for it start at a minimum > of 1GW of generation capacity. Commercial hot fusion power generation > plants are still at least 25 years distant. > All who partake in this newsgroup should, I would think, spend some > time imagining what other energy sources we could be using instead > of coal and oil. By sharing their findings here we may start to sort > out the best means of reducing our dependency on oil. > — > Forth based HIDECS Consultancy ….. > Tel: +44 (0)1235-811095 …. see http://www.feabhas.com for details. > Going Forth Safely ….. EBA. www.electric-boat-association.org.uk..

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >For oil, almost all oil is used in transportation, about half on the > >ground and a third for airplanes. Massive improvements in ground > >transportation may be possible, but won’t affect the use for air > >transport. > What if ground transport becomes so fast and efficient that people > mostly give up flying? A 150 mph rail system that palletizes a car >Difficult. My flawed memory seems to recall that international >(trans-ocean) traffic is about 30% of the total, but that might handle >70% of the problem.

Right, it doesn’t work over oceans. Had no idea that 30% of air travel involved that. > and carries it directly to within, say, 20 miles whatever destination > that a traveler wants would beat an airplane, door to door, at > distances up to about 600 miles. It could also be lots cheaper than > an airplane, considering all costs such as car rental at the other > end, if done right. Some people might even ride it all the way across >Maybe. But you forget second-order effects like noise considerations, >right-of-way considerations, train crossings, etc. Also, how >frequently will the train stop, and for how long?

The system I would like to see built would, admittedly, have a noise challenge. Steel wheels on steel rails are going to make a sound of some sort. Right of way could be a problem, too. I think the answer to right-of-way is to pay for it. I have this radical idea that _all_ land acquired under normal public development is not adequately paid for. The public paying for land at "fair market value", which is always contestable in the minds of those losing their property no matter how close they come to the prevailing value of houses and land in the area, does not take into account the disruption to the lives of the owners. I say pay for the properties at 2X the supposed value – pay once for the actual property, and pay again for the inherently unfair act of taking the property when the owner had long term plans for it – maybe retiring in it, maybe selling it in the future at an anticipated large profit when development moves into the area. As for the train stopping, there would be no "train" in the conventional sense of railcars connected together and hauled by a locomotive. This system would run with individual railcars, self-propelled from internal motors running on externally-generated electricity, and stopping only when they reach their destination. This would be effected via the ability of each railcar to enter and leave the main line without disturbing the rate of travel of railcar ahead and behind it. It requires a new kind of switch, which I believe I know how to build. But entering and leaving the main line at 150 mph should not be a problem. >There’s also a lot less flexibility; a plane can go between any two >points that have an airport. A train cannot.

An individually-handled railcar on this system would be able to get on and off the system at many more locations than there are airports. > toward a solution to this problem, since rail can more easily be > constructed to burn something other than petroleum for its primary > power source. >Yup. I even vaguely recall a nuclear-powered-locomotive.

Not a bad idea – they have those nuclear waste containers that can stand to get _hit_ by a locomotive and survive, so they ought to be able to build the locomotive that way, too… > If we convert to nuclear / solar / geothermal / biomass / tidal / > something else, we won’t run out. >Yup. But geothermal, tidal, solar, and biomass can’t, currently, >generate sufficient electricity at current rates.

Right. This is where we have to innovate. Wind is already on track, but there isn’t enough wind existant to do the entire job. Solar is promising, tho – solar-thermal generator in particular. We might be able to power the country from collectors in the desert southwest. We need to work on storage, tho – the sun does go away at night, and we need the electricity then, too. Solar-thermal might solve this by storing the heat. >A wholesale switch >to them would result in an overall energy shock.

If it is not cheaper than what we’re doing now, it would. If it was cheaper, then people will fall all over themselves to build it, and there would be no shock. >In the future this >may change, but its irresponsible to, now, risk my descendents future >on what is effectively (or at least borderline) wishful thinking.

OK, but we have to put our energy into research, I believe, rather than to attempt to conserve our way out of it. Now, _some_ conservation I believe is simply irresponsible _not_ to use. Turbochargers – what happened to turbochargers? I loved my turbos. They made the car go faster and the mileage go up. My Mitsubishi Eclipse would go like stink and get 24 mpg and sometimes more on the open road. If I ever get another performance car, I’ll be getting something with a turbo. Meanwhile, I sure wish my Jeep Cherokee had one. I could even do with a 4 cylinder engine in it if it did. It has a 4 liter 6, doesn’t do bad on mileage anyway, but I’m sure would do better with a turbo 4, and perform the same. > >2. That oil shock will probably occur within the next century; > > switching to ultraefficient ground transportation won’t postpone it > > for more than a couple of centuries at most. > Those couple centuries might actually see the success of atomic fusion > power. After that, the problem is solved forever. >Unless we get a Mr. Fusion which is no larger than a cubic meter and >weights under 500kg and costs less than, say, $10,000. It won’t.

I think we have to make transportation work on externally generated power. Mr Fusion can be a plant on several acres, with electric wires running away from it. >If fusion isn’t that portable, it would be a fixed and relatively >immobile facility, just as fission plants are now. Thus, like nuclear >fission, it won’t deal with the main energy problem we will likely >face in the next century: the oil shock.

If we can make transportation run on externally generated power, it might… >Fission already means that we won’t have an overall energy shock. The >creation of immobile fixed fusion won’t change that equation. > Electric rail transport of palletized automobiles I believe to be > _the_ solution to ground transport. Such a system could be built in >It doesn’t work over oceans.

There’s really tha many people jetting to Europe and Asia? >It requires a high fixed-cost per mile of >track, both in right-of-way, and in installation. Route’s can’t be >changed at the drop of a hat.

At a lower speed, say 100 mph, you could run it down the medians of the interstate highways. This might be an interim option, until you can acquire the land to build straighter rails that could allow 150 mph or higher. The rights-of-way are already there, and the medians are wide enough in lots of places. Rails don’t take up near the width of a highway. >And, airplanes, because they fly several times faster, can fly many >more miles in a day than a train can move. (We may not notice that >fact, but thats because we arrive to the airport an hour early and >have to wait 30 minutes for our luggage to show up; from what I’ve >seen, jets frequently spend less than an hour on the ground at hubs, >but they may sit longer so that arrivals are syncronized; this cuts >down on layover time)

Jet speed is nice, but do we really, really need it? At 150 mph, you can board a rail system after work in the evening, and be all the way from one coast to another by mid-day the next day. If the railcar you drive onto or into has a "sleeper" arrangement, maybe in front of the car, the value of the difference in the speed would be somewhat diminished. Say its a business meeting at 9:00 AM – the traveler would have to get on the system by 1:00 pm the prior day to make it there. With airplanes scheduled like they are, that person would likely have to leave work to drive to the airport, to be there 2 hrs before the plane leaves, fly for 5 hours from NY to LA, and arive at 3:00 PM and retrieve bags, rent a car, find the motel, check in, and then sleep before the meeting. Little practical time is saved over simply sleeping on the rail system as it moves the traveler all the way across the country. Personal travel is even more flexible in accepting this sort of scheduling. One could board the system after work on Friday, arrive at a Colorado ski resort next morning, ski all weekend, get back on the system maybe 6 PM Sunday, be at work Monday morning, anywhere in the Nation. Try that with an airplane. >Perhaps looking at it first from the perspective of diesel >locomotives, then possibly retrofitting it with electric. Its an >interesting idea. I wonder why I’ve not seen it before?

The electric motors are certianly already in there… – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->And it, with efficient, but low performance cars, might stretch oil >for a few more centuries. (Then again, maybe not. Lots of places don’t >have automobiles but may get them over the next century.) > Yep. Science is at the heart of our salvation in this technological > challenge. >*AGREE* > Boeing is said to be experimenting with anti-gravity, and having some > limited success. This is the sort of too-good-to-be-true concept > that, if it bears fruit, would go a long way toward solutions to this > problem. >Maybe. Maybe not. Anti-gravity doesn’t necessarily mean free energy; >it may just mean that no energy is needed to

Response:

> >For oil, almost all oil is used in transportation, about half on the >ground and a third for airplanes. Massive improvements in ground >transportation may be possible, but won’t affect the use for air >transport. > What if ground transport becomes so fast and efficient that people > mostly give up flying? A 150 mph rail system that palletizes a car

Difficult. My flawed memory seems to recall that international (trans-ocean) traffic is about 30% of the total, but that might handle 70% of the problem. > and carries it directly to within, say, 20 miles whatever destination > that a traveler wants would beat an airplane, door to door, at > distances up to about 600 miles. It could also be lots cheaper than > an airplane, considering all costs such as car rental at the other > end, if done right. Some people might even ride it all the way across

Maybe. But you forget second-order effects like noise considerations, right-of-way considerations, train crossings, etc. Also, how frequently will the train stop, and for how long? There’s also a lot less flexibility; a plane can go between any two points that have an airport. A train cannot. > toward a solution to this problem, since rail can more easily be > constructed to burn something other than petroleum for its primary > power source.

Yup. I even vaguely recall a nuclear-powered-locomotive. > If we convert to nuclear / solar / geothermal / biomass / tidal / > something else, we won’t run out.

Yup. But geothermal, tidal, solar, and biomass can’t, currently, generate sufficient electricity at current rates. A wholesale switch to them would result in an overall energy shock. In the future this may change, but its irresponsible to, now, risk my descendents future on what is effectively (or at least borderline) wishful thinking. >2. That oil shock will probably occur within the next century; > switching to ultraefficient ground transportation won’t postpone it > for more than a couple of centuries at most. > Those couple centuries might actually see the success of atomic fusion > power. After that, the problem is solved forever.

Unless we get a Mr. Fusion which is no larger than a cubic meter and weights under 500kg and costs less than, say, $10,000. It won’t. If fusion isn’t that portable, it would be a fixed and relatively immobile facility, just as fission plants are now. Thus, like nuclear fission, it won’t deal with the main energy problem we will likely face in the next century: the oil shock. Fission already means that we won’t have an overall energy shock. The creation of immobile fixed fusion won’t change that equation. > Electric rail transport of palletized automobiles I believe to be > _the_ solution to ground transport. Such a system could be built in

It doesn’t work over oceans. It requires a high fixed-cost per mile of track, both in right-of-way, and in installation. Route’s can’t be changed at the drop of a hat. And, airplanes, because they fly several times faster, can fly many more miles in a day than a train can move. (We may not notice that fact, but thats because we arrive to the airport an hour early and have to wait 30 minutes for our luggage to show up; from what I’ve seen, jets frequently spend less than an hour on the ground at hubs, but they may sit longer so that arrivals are syncronized; this cuts down on layover time) Perhaps looking at it first from the perspective of diesel locomotives, then possibly retrofitting it with electric. Its an interesting idea. I wonder why I’ve not seen it before? And it, with efficient, but low performance cars, might stretch oil for a few more centuries. (Then again, maybe not. Lots of places don’t have automobiles but may get them over the next century.) > Yep. Science is at the heart of our salvation in this technological > challenge.

*AGREE* > Boeing is said to be experimenting with anti-gravity, and having some > limited success. This is the sort of too-good-to-be-true concept > that, if it bears fruit, would go a long way toward solutions to this > problem.

Maybe. Maybe not. Anti-gravity doesn’t necessarily mean free energy; it may just mean that no energy is needed to maintain an object’s height in a fixed gravity field. In the case of air travel, the biggest energy sink is parasitic drag: just shoving the air molecules out of the way. Anyone know how much energy it takes an automobile to shove the air out of its way too? Sure, it’d kick ass, but that doesn’t mean that it would magically solve transportation problems. Scott

Response:

>For oil, almost all oil is used in transportation, about half on the >ground and a third for airplanes. Massive improvements in ground >transportation may be possible, but won’t affect the use for air >transport.

What if ground transport becomes so fast and efficient that people mostly give up flying? A 150 mph rail system that palletizes a car and carries it directly to within, say, 20 miles whatever destination that a traveler wants would beat an airplane, door to door, at distances up to about 600 miles. It could also be lots cheaper than an airplane, considering all costs such as car rental at the other end, if done right. Some people might even ride it all the way across the country – it should only take 20 hours to go 3000 miles at 150 mph, a speed that should be doable if the cars on pallets are streamlined to avoid excessive air resistance. Replacing the interstate highway system with a rail system would go a long way toward a solution to this problem, since rail can more easily be constructed to burn something other than petroleum for its primary power source. >If liquid fuels will be a shortage, then we should redirect our goals, >not toward self-inflicted poverty, but toward efficient conversion of >energy from the plentiful source that lasts millions of years (nuclear >power) toward forms that are scarce, but highly desirable (liquid fuels).

Exactly. Use science to solve thsi problem. >Much good could be done by this. Asking people to voluntarily take a >vow of poverty won’t happen— I suggest giving up on it now. >Switching to schemes that are now pie-in-the-sky is irresponsible; >thats actually betting civilization on whether the scheme becomes >practical in time. Bet your own kids on your wishful thinking; don’t >bet mine. >I will agree on a few things: >1. We will suffer an oil shock when oil runs out. It won’t be > pretty. However, this doesn’t mean that we’ll have an actual energy > shortage.

If we convert to nuclear / solar / geothermal / biomass / tidal / something else, we won’t run out. >2. That oil shock will probably occur within the next century; > switching to ultraefficient ground transportation won’t postpone it > for more than a couple of centuries at most.

Those couple centuries might actually see the success of atomic fusion power. After that, the problem is solved forever. >3. We should retool our civilization to avoid screwing our kids, but > I don’t think we need force them to endure poverty. > If we have a crash-course in building nuclear reactors, we will > have sufficient energy availability to avoid energy shortages. (We > would also cut down coal-use by 90%. We should do this before the > oil shock makes diesel expensive.)

Yes! > Second, figure out ways to minimize the costs of the oil shock. For > instance, research how to use electricity to either solve our > transport applications directly or how to use it to generate liquid > fuels for transport applications. There is also ideas using > biodiesel.

Electric rail transport of palletized automobiles I believe to be _the_ solution to ground transport. Such a system could be built in increments. As soon as the first section was completed, it could be opened and used by any cars going in that direction. This gets them off the road and stops them from burning gasoline for as long as they’re on the rail system. If the rail system doesn’t go all the way to where they are traveling, they can continue their journey just as before, by driving, when they come to where the construction of the rail system has not progressed sufficiently to allow the rail travel to continue. >#1 and #2 is of course predicated on no new advances in technology or >fuels. If we invent Mr. Fusion and install it in all automobiles, then >the above is obsolete.

Yep. Science is at the heart of our salvation in this technological challenge. >#3 is research and still speculative.

Boeing is said to be experimenting with anti-gravity, and having some limited success. This is the sort of too-good-to-be-true concept that, if it bears fruit, would go a long way toward solutions to this problem. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I do thank others, particularily Dale, for convincing me that there is >a potential of an oil shock on the horizon. Fortunately an oil shock >is a far different thing than an outright energy shortage. >Scott

Response:

> Simply that if that is what makes him happy then he is in for a big shock > when it all dissapears over the next 30-60 years (www.dieoff.org). If he > cares about the world, about his children, about the future, then he must > change his unsutainable lifestyle. And doing so does not mean a drop in > quality of life, only a change in life values. Perhaps exchanging the SUV > for an allotment to grow tasty food, or spending some time making his house > more energy efficient, learning to appreciate pleasures that arent so > wasteful.

First law of chemistry: Matter can neither be constructed nor destroyed in any chemical reaction. And a statement: With reprocessing of spent fuel, there exists enough uranium dissolved in earth’s oceans to fuel civilization for a million years. (Over that time period, geologic erosion starts replenishing the supply.) This my friend is at today’s energy prices. These are facts. The first is a rule of chemistry. The second comes from the energy density of uranium, and the amount sitting in the oceans. Thus, there will never be an energy shortage of energy per-se, unless it is self-inflicted. But, there may be shortages of energy stored in particular forms (for instance, liquid fuels.) For coal, >90% of coal is used for electrical generation. Its use can be eliminated with nuclear power. The remaining 10%, I don’t know. A lot I believe is used for making steel; how much of that use would electrical furnaces eliminate? For oil, almost all oil is used in transportation, about half on the ground and a third for airplanes. Massive improvements in ground transportation may be possible, but won’t affect the use for air transport. > Actually I really wouldnt care about the misery these people are headed for, > except that they will inevitably take it out on the rest of the world via > energy wars and aggressive economic policies. Also, if they waste the very

Others here have convinced me that there may be wars fought to obtain energy in particular forms. I now agree that oil extracted from the ground will run out, most likely in my lifetime. But, energy supplies, in general. will not run out for at least millions of years. > last of our energy we may find ourselves in a position where we dont even > have the energy to convert to sustainable energy sources. In that case we > would see a complete reversal of industrialisation and a return to the dark > ages.

If liquid fuels will be a shortage, then we should redirect our goals, not toward self-inflicted poverty, but toward efficient conversion of energy from the plentiful source that lasts millions of years (nuclear power) toward forms that are scarce, but highly desirable (liquid fuels). Much good could be done by this. Asking people to voluntarily take a vow of poverty won’t happen— I suggest giving up on it now. Switching to schemes that are now pie-in-the-sky is irresponsible; thats actually betting civilization on whether the scheme becomes practical in time. Bet your own kids on your wishful thinking; don’t bet mine. I will agree on a few things: 1. We will suffer an oil shock when oil runs out. It won’t be pretty. However, this doesn’t mean that we’ll have an actual energy shortage. 2. That oil shock will probably occur within the next century; switching to ultraefficient ground transportation won’t postpone it for more than a couple of centuries at most. 3. We should retool our civilization to avoid screwing our kids, but I don’t think we need force them to endure poverty. If we have a crash-course in building nuclear reactors, we will have sufficient energy availability to avoid energy shortages. (We would also cut down coal-use by 90%. We should do this before the oil shock makes diesel expensive.) Second, figure out ways to minimize the costs of the oil shock. For instance, research how to use electricity to either solve our transport applications directly or how to use it to generate liquid fuels for transport applications. There is also ideas using biodiesel. #1 and #2 is of course predicated on no new advances in technology or fuels. If we invent Mr. Fusion and install it in all automobiles, then the above is obsolete. #3 is research and still speculative. I do thank others, particularily Dale, for convincing me that there is a potential of an oil shock on the horizon. Fortunately an oil shock is a far different thing than an outright energy shortage. Scott

Response:

>I must agree that happiness deferred is not always wise or mature and surely >does not assure more or better happiness in the by and by.

I feel I’ve put off too many things too long already. >… > Happiness is defined by having one’s desires satisfied. Changing > values means giving up something. There’s no way to double-talk > around it. >An interesting point. Happiness and the desires of the heart. If you get out >more, you will find that there are a lot of folk who think their desires >will make them happy. And then there are those who have had enough of the >empty satisfaction of their childish self centered desires. They find their >happiness in friends,

My best friend is 45 minutes away. If fuel gets impossible to get, I won’t even be able to get over there. >in quiet sunsets,

If I could simply enjoy quiet sunsets, I wouldn’t need the internet, would I? >and pleasant work.

Pleasant work I mostly have. I could have _more_ pleasant work, but I have to move for it and it is a real iffy situation as to whether I could make it make me any money. I will try this when I retire. >If your desires >do not (or could not) make you happy, you would be wise to change your >desires instead of trying to burn more fuel than the next sot and somehow >drag a few more bucks out of the ash heap to fill an endless bucket.

My recreation makes me happy. Right now that is road rallying with the SCCA and ham radio. The road rallying part requires more than average fuel. The radio doesn’t, and I expect to eventually shift more activity that way when I get old enough that driving 1000 miles to get to a rally becomes more of a chore than the joy of running the rally gives back. But for now, the next rally is in Wisconsin in early June, and I will be there with the Jeep (> 20 MPG on the open road, BTW.) >Good to >remember that riches and cash are not even vaguely related.

Well… if I can’t have the riches, I’ll definitely take the cash.

Response:

I must agree that happiness deferred is not always wise or mature and surely does not assure more or better happiness in the by and by.

… > Happiness is defined by having one’s desires satisfied. Changing > values means giving up something. There’s no way to double-talk > around it.

An interesting point. Happiness and the desires of the heart. If you get out more, you will find that there are a lot of folk who think their desires will make them happy. And then there are those who have had enough of the empty satisfaction of their childish self centered desires. They find their happiness in friends, in quiet sunsets, and pleasant work. If your desires do not (or could not) make you happy, you would be wise to change your desires instead of trying to burn more fuel than the next sot and somehow drag a few more bucks out of the ash heap to fill an endless bucket. Good to remember that riches and cash are not even vaguely related.

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Economics will not sort this problem out. What economist looks even 30 years > into the future? We need to plan not just decades but centuries into the > future. A task like complete reconstruction of the transportation, energy > and industrial infrastructure simply cannot be achieved within the > shortsighted timescale of capitalism. > 100,000,000 (and growing fast) cars will have to be melted down and rebuilt > to run on somthing else. It wouldnt surprise me to learn that this task > alone would take a sustantial proportiaon of current energy stocks. What if > we reach a situation where we realise that we dont have that much energy > left? No amount of energy price inflation will bring it back then! > Governments exist to protect the long term interests of a nation. It is time > for those governemnts to do their job. Otherwise it will be too late. > Regards, > -Dohpaz

Actually, you got it backwards. Governments normally follow the people & are supposed to do what the people want to do. Government which goes totally against the popular will of the people gets voted out by the next election (unless it is a dictatorship, then it will eliminate the dissenters rather effectively through various forms of intimidation, imprisonment or outright executions). Enlightenment of the people (thus education, travel, exchange of ideas with other cultures/societies of all parts of the world) will gradually change the people’s view. Look at how smoking is viewed in the USA now. 40 years ago, you were strange if you did not smoke – now the opposite is true. This sea change in perception/attitude/enactment of anti-smoking laws took much time. Can you imagine in 1960, a newly elected President saying "I will ban all smoking in public buildings & offices"? He would have been impeached in no time (or maybe assasinated). Give it time. Learn, educate & try to do the right thing – and after 30 to 40 years, world would be a changed place. Trying to force the people to do things that they are not ready or willing to do will cause a violent reaction which might in fact set whatever good cause back another 20 to 30 years!

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->Simply that if that is what makes him happy then he is in for a big shock >when it all dissapears over the next 30-60 years (www.dieoff.org). > He may be dead by then. If one doesn’t live fully, at the moment, one > ends up deferring happiness until one is dead, anyway. >If he >cares about the world, about his children, about the future, then he must >change his unsutainable lifestyle. > And they probably said something like that about grazing cattle 100 > years ago, or maybe it was overplanting cotton, or corn. It is always > something… If you listen to it, you live lower than you otherwise > could. >And doing so does not mean a drop in >quality of life, only a change in life values. > Happiness is defined by having one’s desires satisfied. Changing > values means giving up something. There’s no way to double-talk > around it. > Perhaps exchanging the SUV >for an allotment to grow tasty food, > I do not wish to spend my time growing anything. Being forced to is > definitely living lower. I have much more interesting things to do > with my time. > I don’t intend to give up my Jeep Cherokee, either, BTW. At least not > until there’s a better way of getting myself around, and hauling > supplies back here from Home Depot, or the deer out of the woods when > there’s 12 inches of snow all over everything. >or spending some time making his house >more energy efficient, > Not a chance. Its as good as its going to get. Make it _pay_, and > that’ll be different. The key to advancement is advancement. That > is, someone will need to invent something to make the desired way also > the cheaper way. >learning to appreciate pleasures that arent so >wasteful. > That’s what the French did with "French Cooking" when food wasn’t > readily available. Yeah, its great stuff, but look at the pain they > had to go thru to get there. >Actually I really wouldnt care about the misery these people are headed for, > I care about the misery the environmental alarmists want to push on us > right now. This is just an example. We do _not_ have a dwindling > energy supply. We have an unlimited energy supply. Wind. Solar. > Tidal. Geothermal. We just have to learn how to use it. Someone who > truly wants to make things better should get a degree in his chosen > scientific field and _invent something_ to make that work. > Conservation will hammer our economy, plunge the American public into > a world of want and deprivation, and still not achieve the desired > end. >except that they will inevitably take it out on the rest of the world via >energy wars and aggressive economic policies. > We are already moving toward the hydrogen economy. This will enhance > our ability to produce energy domestically. Instead of energy wars, > quite the opposite should occur. That is, we can ignore all the Arabs > and their vast sea of oil, because we will have what we need right > here. >Also, if they waste the very >last of our energy we may find ourselves in a position where we dont even >have the energy to convert to sustainable energy sources. > We had better get out the ball and invent something sooner rather then > later, then. >In that case we >would see a complete reversal of industrialisation and a return to the dark >ages. > That is what will happen if we go on a crusade to deprive people of > cars, and sandwich them into tiny apartments stacked to the sky in > geographically tight confines. >Economics will not sort this problem out. > Yes, it will. >What economist looks even 30 years >into the future? > They don’t. Inventors do. The inventor with the solution to the > energy problem will step up and patent the device, we’ll use it, make > him rich, while improving our overall situation as well. This will be > solved by technological innovation, or it won’t be solved at all. > Conservation is a solution only if the item being conserved is not > finite – that is, only if the _rate_ of production is the problem. We > don’t have a rate problem. We don’t even have a supply problem. We > just have a mode problem – the (virtually limitless) energy is in > forms we don’t yet know how to use economically. > For instance – solve the problem of producing power economically from > the earth’s core heat. Problem solved. Forever. Radioactive decay > powers the earth’s core’s heat. There’s nothing we could conceive of > that would drain it. We just have to _invent something_. >We need to plan not just decades but centuries into the >future. > We need to plan to oppose all the not-well-though-out schemes that > would make us economic slaves that could only be rationed enough > energy to drive to work, but not for going on vacation, or to see > grandma if she’s more than 50 miles away, or even to a concert, play, > or movie if one lives in the country and has to drive 20 miles to it. > Come to think of it, one couldn’t live in the country under this > scheme. One would have to live in apartment buidings, probably > hi-rises, so that heat could be maximally conserved. We can then pay > rent forever, never gaining any equity, and further lower ourselves > toward economic disaster in our later years. Only farmers could live > in the country. >A task like complete reconstruction of the transportation, energy >and industrial infrastructure simply cannot be achieved within the >shortsighted timescale of capitalism. > It can, and will. As soon as the right transport is invented, that > _cuts_ the price of moving around instead of raising it, and is _more_ > convenient than a car, we will have seen our last auto roll off the > line in Detroit. They will be busy building the new system. I > suspect it will be some kind of personalized high speed rail, but it > might be a self-piloted jet airplane. NASA is proposing small jets to > replace or enhance (not sure which) the air transport system. 6 – 8 > passengers. Don’t know the details, but if the rocket guys think its > viable, one has to take note. >100,000,000 (and growing fast) cars will have to be melted down and rebuilt >to run on somthing else. > They will be scrapped as a new system replaces them. Someone needs to > invent that system. > It wouldnt surprise me to learn that this task >alone would take a sustantial proportiaon of current energy stocks. > We’ve probably melted 100,000,000 cars over the last 10 years all by > ourselves, via the salvage yard system, so I doubt that there would be > any problem to do it again over the next 10. >What if >we reach a situation where we realise that we dont have that much energy >left? > We have limitless amounts of energy – from the sun – we just have to > learn how to use it. A rail system that uses fixed generators > powering the rails, with "autos" or their replacements being moved by > electric motors on pallets that carry them, would be a start. Build > that first, then power it when we figure out solar. >No amount of energy price inflation will bring it back then! > We’ll use the sun. > BTW, doom and gloom rhetoric designed to scare the ignorant masses is > not likely to work on a scientific newsgroup. >Governments exist to protect the long term interests of a nation. > Funny – I thought ours was invented to secure the blessings of life, > liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. >It is time >for those governemnts to do their job. > And their job is to save us from those that would stampede us to act > to the detriment of our lives, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. No, > wait – we do that ourselves… by ignoring the doom-and-gloomers. >Otherwise it will be too late. > Maybe, but it will be if we don’t get busy and invent something. > Conservation only postpones the inevitable, and is therefore no > solution. The proper application of science is the solution.

‘Dohpaz’ is peddling the notion that fossil fuels must be much more heavily taxed than they are now (http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/WhoGetsWhat/2001.pdf). The mindset change he or she wants is one that will make this acceptable. When asked whether an immediate-equal-redistribution scheme, that did not concentrate the tax revenue in a few hands, would be pointless, he or she said, "Theres no point taking money off people then giving it straight back", as if failing to see how the equality of redistribution meant higher consumers would then be paying money to their lower-consuming neighbours. That’s a very different result from "no point", and also a very different one from more billions per week in civil servants’ hands. It seems likely "Dohpaz" has some difficulty distinguishing "the long term interests of a nation" from the long-term affluence of those of its citizens who live off the public purse. — Graham Cowan http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html — 100 internal combustion watt-hours in a baby’s fist

Response:

>Simply that if that is what makes him happy then he is in for a big shock >when it all dissapears over the next 30-60 years (www.dieoff.org).

He may be dead by then. If one doesn’t live fully, at the moment, one ends up deferring happiness until one is dead, anyway. >If he >cares about the world, about his children, about the future, then he must >change his unsutainable lifestyle.

And they probably said something like that about grazing cattle 100 years ago, or maybe it was overplanting cotton, or corn. It is always something… If you listen to it, you live lower than you otherwise could. >And doing so does not mean a drop in >quality of life, only a change in life values.

Happiness is defined by having one’s desires satisfied. Changing values means giving up something. There’s no way to double-talk around it. > Perhaps exchanging the SUV >for an allotment to grow tasty food,

I do not wish to spend my time growing anything. Being forced to is definitely living lower. I have much more interesting things to do with my time. I don’t intend to give up my Jeep Cherokee, either, BTW. At least not until there’s a better way of getting myself around, and hauling supplies back here from Home Depot, or the deer out of the woods when there’s 12 inches of snow all over everything. >or spending some time making his house >more energy efficient,

Not a chance. Its as good as its going to get. Make it _pay_, and that’ll be different. The key to advancement is advancement. That is, someone will need to invent something to make the desired way also the cheaper way. >learning to appreciate pleasures that arent so >wasteful.

That’s what the French did with "French Cooking" when food wasn’t readily available. Yeah, its great stuff, but look at the pain they had to go thru to get there. >Actually I really wouldnt care about the misery these people are headed for,

I care about the misery the environmental alarmists want to push on us right now. This is just an example. We do _not_ have a dwindling energy supply. We have an unlimited energy supply. Wind. Solar. Tidal. Geothermal. We just have to learn how to use it. Someone who truly wants to make things better should get a degree in his chosen scientific field and _invent something_ to make that work. Conservation will hammer our economy, plunge the American public into a world of want and deprivation, and still not achieve the desired end. >except that they will inevitably take it out on the rest of the world via >energy wars and aggressive economic policies.

We are already moving toward the hydrogen economy. This will enhance our ability to produce energy domestically. Instead of energy wars, quite the opposite should occur. That is, we can ignore all the Arabs and their vast sea of oil, because we will have what we need right here. >Also, if they waste the very >last of our energy we may find ourselves in a position where we dont even >have the energy to convert to sustainable energy sources.

We had better get out the ball and invent something sooner rather then later, then. >In that case we >would see a complete reversal of industrialisation and a return to the dark >ages.

That is what will happen if we go on a crusade to deprive people of cars, and sandwich them into tiny apartments stacked to the sky in geographically tight confines. >Economics will not sort this problem out.

Yes, it will. >What economist looks even 30 years >into the future?

They don’t. Inventors do. The inventor with the solution to the energy problem will step up and patent the device, we’ll use it, make him rich, while improving our overall situation as well. This will be solved by technological innovation, or it won’t be solved at all. Conservation is a solution only if the item being conserved is not finite – that is, only if the _rate_ of production is the problem. We don’t have a rate problem. We don’t even have a supply problem. We just have a mode problem – the (virtually limitless) energy is in forms we don’t yet know how to use economically. For instance – solve the problem of producing power economically from the earth’s core heat. Problem solved. Forever. Radioactive decay powers the earth’s core’s heat. There’s nothing we could conceive of that would drain it. We just have to _invent something_. >We need to plan not just decades but centuries into the >future.

We need to plan to oppose all the not-well-though-out schemes that would make us economic slaves that could only be rationed enough energy to drive to work, but not for going on vacation, or to see grandma if she’s more than 50 miles away, or even to a concert, play, or movie if one lives in the country and has to drive 20 miles to it. Come to think of it, one couldn’t live in the country under this scheme. One would have to live in apartment buidings, probably hi-rises, so that heat could be maximally conserved. We can then pay rent forever, never gaining any equity, and further lower ourselves toward economic disaster in our later years. Only farmers could live in the country. >A task like complete reconstruction of the transportation, energy >and industrial infrastructure simply cannot be achieved within the >shortsighted timescale of capitalism.

It can, and will. As soon as the right transport is invented, that _cuts_ the price of moving around instead of raising it, and is _more_ convenient than a car, we will have seen our last auto roll off the line in Detroit. They will be busy building the new system. I suspect it will be some kind of personalized high speed rail, but it might be a self-piloted jet airplane. NASA is proposing small jets to replace or enhance (not sure which) the air transport system. 6 – 8 passengers. Don’t know the details, but if the rocket guys think its viable, one has to take note. >100,000,000 (and growing fast) cars will have to be melted down and rebuilt >to run on somthing else.

They will be scrapped as a new system replaces them. Someone needs to invent that system. > It wouldnt surprise me to learn that this task >alone would take a sustantial proportiaon of current energy stocks.

We’ve probably melted 100,000,000 cars over the last 10 years all by ourselves, via the salvage yard system, so I doubt that there would be any problem to do it again over the next 10. >What if >we reach a situation where we realise that we dont have that much energy >left?

We have limitless amounts of energy – from the sun – we just have to learn how to use it. A rail system that uses fixed generators powering the rails, with "autos" or their replacements being moved by electric motors on pallets that carry them, would be a start. Build that first, then power it when we figure out solar. >No amount of energy price inflation will bring it back then!

We’ll use the sun. BTW, doom and gloom rhetoric designed to scare the ignorant masses is not likely to work on a scientific newsgroup. >Governments exist to protect the long term interests of a nation.

Funny – I thought ours was invented to secure the blessings of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. >It is time >for those governemnts to do their job.

And their job is to save us from those that would stampede us to act to the detriment of our lives, liberty, and pursuit of happiness. No, wait – we do that ourselves… by ignoring the doom-and-gloomers. >Otherwise it will be too late.

Maybe, but it will be if we don’t get busy and invent something. Conservation only postpones the inevitable, and is therefore no solution. The proper application of science is the solution.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I just came back from a weeklong trip to Seoul, Korea. They have a > much more efficient public transportation – about 300 subway stations > & hundreds of miles of tracks serving millions of residents at about > 50~80 cents per ride. With 15 million people living & working all > within area of about 50 x 50 miles, this web of subway system is the > only way to solve transportation problems in a city like Seoul. > Another interesting thing was proliferation of 15 to 20 story > apartment buildings. Large complexes are like "forests of tall > apartment buildings". A building with 100 families is more energy > efficient compared to single house since heating/cooling can be > centralized and shared. > Therefore, I came back somewhat more hopeful. When a country reaches > critical mass in the size of economy & certain level of income (say > around $10,000 per capita in GDP/GNP), different countries will adopt > (provided that rampant corruption or dictators do not suck all the > national wealth/power for the benefit of the very few) the most energy > efficient transportation/residential/ industrial infrastructure that > makes sense for the local conditions. > It would be foolish to impose a western idea of "high quality living" > on say the Chinese, Indians, Koreans, Mexicans or Kenyans, for that > matter. Living on 20th floor apartment and riding the subway train > can still be "high quality living" for 50% of the world population. > In fact, population density is what will determine the optimum mode of > living space, transportation and the type of business/industry where > they will work. > I know that subway system will not be economical if population density > is not high enough. In the western society (at least in USA), > however, there is a natural tendency to keep the population density > lower – when cities grow with millions of residents, people tend to > move further away from congested areas (thus the proliferation of > suburbia in most large American cities) for two reasons. One is > cultural (Americans tend to favor "lone cowboy" lifestyle with as few > people in the neighborhood as possible) and the other is geography. > Land is still plentiful & cheap – so Americans can afford to move > further away & buy large lots to put their houses in (which ensures > low population density per square mile even in & around large cities). > As to which system is superior, I don’t think anyone has the answer. > If you are a tree-hugging "earth lover", then the Seoul or Tokyo type > system is most > energy efficient (although I doubt that any such environmentalist can > live in Seoul or Tokyo for more than a month – there is no nature > within 50 miles!). > If living in a large single unit house surrounded by acres of trees > (and no neighbor will be able to visit on foot) and driving 50 miles > on an SUV to work is your idea of "quality living", then America is > the place for you (provided that you can generate the kind of income > to be able to afford these "things"). > These two examples might be polar opposite lifestyles (& there are > many styles somewhere in between the two extremes), but judging one > lifestyle as being morally superior is foolish & dangerous. My advice > will be "Choose the lifestyle that makes you feel good and let others > worry about their own lifestyle – and don’t judge others as being > immoral because their lifestyle is so different from yours". If > someone’s lifestyle seems too opulent (and too wasteful of energy), > the economic factors will ensure that they will adjust accordingly > (for example, if one loses a good-paying job, he will have no choice > but to live close to work in a small, energy efficient one-bedroom > apartment). It it not upto others to make that decision for him. If > he can afford it, more power to him. Large houses, cars & big > spending will do wonders to the local economy, anyway, while he is > making the good money! What is so evil about that?

Simply that if that is what makes him happy then he is in for a big shock when it all dissapears over the next 30-60 years (www.dieoff.org). If he cares about the world, about his children, about the future, then he must change his unsutainable lifestyle. And doing so does not mean a drop in quality of life, only a change in life values. Perhaps exchanging the SUV for an allotment to grow tasty food, or spending some time making his house more energy efficient, learning to appreciate pleasures that arent so wasteful. Actually I really wouldnt care about the misery these people are headed for, except that they will inevitably take it out on the rest of the world via energy wars and aggressive economic policies. Also, if they waste the very last of our energy we may find ourselves in a position where we dont even have the energy to convert to sustainable energy sources. In that case we would see a complete reversal of industrialisation and a return to the dark ages. Economics will not sort this problem out. What economist looks even 30 years into the future? We need to plan not just decades but centuries into the future. A task like complete reconstruction of the transportation, energy and industrial infrastructure simply cannot be achieved within the shortsighted timescale of capitalism. 100,000,000 (and growing fast) cars will have to be melted down and rebuilt to run on somthing else. It wouldnt surprise me to learn that this task alone would take a sustantial proportiaon of current energy stocks. What if we reach a situation where we realise that we dont have that much energy left? No amount of energy price inflation will bring it back then! Governments exist to protect the long term interests of a nation. It is time for those governemnts to do their job. Otherwise it will be too late. Regards, -Dohpaz

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I pointed out the most legitimate way > in which such taxation increases might be attempted, > and accordingly the way least likely to get you > tarred and feathered: by ensuring, > and being seen to ensure, > that the money so gathered *will not* > be concentrated in a few hands. > Do you disagree? > Do, you, perhaps, agree, but feel that > there wouldn’t be any *point* then? > Exactly. Theres no point taking money off people then giving it straight > back. Rather, I think the money should be spent on resesearch and > infrastrucural change towards energy frugality. If you accept that, then you > see that it is the mindset of the people that needs to change if they are to > accept the neccesary changes. > So the question you anwered was not the question I was asking.

It seemed like the same one to me. There is point in taking money off people who consume more fossil fuel and giving it straightaway to people who consume less. If we were dealing with an apartment building rather than a country, we could transfer a dollar a day from a resident who leaves his air conditioner set to 18 Celsius all day and night to his neighbour across the hall who doesn’t put it below 22 C and turns it off when going away for a few hours. Or one could take the same dollar a day from each of 40 or 50 residents and give all the money to the superintendent, to compensate him for going around and turning off the A/C in empty apartments, or putting notices in the laundry room urging residents to do so. — Graham Cowan http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html — 100 internal combustion watt-hours in a baby’s fist

Response:

I just came back from a weeklong trip to Seoul, Korea. They have a much more efficient public transportation – about 300 subway stations & hundreds of miles of tracks serving millions of residents at about 50~80 cents per ride. With 15 million people living & working all within area of about 50 x 50 miles, this web of subway system is the only way to solve transportation problems in a city like Seoul. Another interesting thing was proliferation of 15 to 20 story apartment buildings. Large complexes are like "forests of tall apartment buildings". A building with 100 families is more energy efficient compared to single house since heating/cooling can be centralized and shared. Therefore, I came back somewhat more hopeful. When a country reaches critical mass in the size of economy & certain level of income (say around $10,000 per capita in GDP/GNP), different countries will adopt (provided that rampant corruption or dictators do not suck all the national wealth/power for the benefit of the very few) the most energy efficient transportation/residential/ industrial infrastructure that makes sense for the local conditions. It would be foolish to impose a western idea of "high quality living" on say the Chinese, Indians, Koreans, Mexicans or Kenyans, for that matter. Living on 20th floor apartment and riding the subway train can still be "high quality living" for 50% of the world population. In fact, population density is what will determine the optimum mode of living space, transportation and the type of business/industry where they will work. I know that subway system will not be economical if population density is not high enough. In the western society (at least in USA), however, there is a natural tendency to keep the population density lower – when cities grow with millions of residents, people tend to move further away from congested areas (thus the proliferation of suburbia in most large American cities) for two reasons. One is cultural (Americans tend to favor "lone cowboy" lifestyle with as few people in the neighborhood as possible) and the other is geography. Land is still plentiful & cheap – so Americans can afford to move further away & buy large lots to put their houses in (which ensures low population density per square mile even in & around large cities). As to which system is superior, I don’t think anyone has the answer. If you are a tree-hugging "earth lover", then the Seoul or Tokyo type system is most energy efficient (although I doubt that any such environmentalist can live in Seoul or Tokyo for more than a month – there is no nature within 50 miles!). If living in a large single unit house surrounded by acres of trees (and no neighbor will be able to visit on foot) and driving 50 miles on an SUV to work is your idea of "quality living", then America is the place for you (provided that you can generate the kind of income to be able to afford these "things"). These two examples might be polar opposite lifestyles (& there are many styles somewhere in between the two extremes), but judging one lifestyle as being morally superior is foolish & dangerous. My advice will be "Choose the lifestyle that makes you feel good and let others worry about their own lifestyle – and don’t judge others as being immoral because their lifestyle is so different from yours". If someone’s lifestyle seems too opulent (and too wasteful of energy), the economic factors will ensure that they will adjust accordingly (for example, if one loses a good-paying job, he will have no choice but to live close to work in a small, energy efficient one-bedroom apartment). It it not upto others to make that decision for him. If he can afford it, more power to him. Large houses, cars & big spending will do wonders to the local economy, anyway, while he is making the good money! What is so evil about that?

Response:

Sounds like the NYC subway. 468 subway stations, 6 million daily passengers – 1.3 billion annually, 400 miles of track, and $1.50 per ride to anywhere in the 5 boroughs (301 square miles). — Steve Spence Subscribe to the Renewable Energy Newsletter & Discussion Boards. Read about Sustainable Technology: http://www.green-trust.org

Response:

Even if the energy situation is handled perfectly (which its is not being), we in the west will have to accept, over a couple of generations, a significant fall in the availability of luxuries. This is a fact that we must accept and learn to live with. I believe that we can achieve the kind of smart, frugal technologies that will allow us to live a respectable standard of life is the face of declining energy supplies, this is the easy part. The hard part is bringing about a shift in the western mindset that will allow us to accept these changes as progress, rather than the opposite. The fundamental premise of capitalism that more is better must be comprehensively rubbished and replaced with a more sustainable system of morals. Energy must be recognised by all as more valuable than money. When the government raises fuel tax they must be embraced by the people, not voted out. How can this epic task be accomplished?

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Even if the energy situation is handled perfectly (which its is not being), > we in the west will have to accept, over a couple of generations, a > significant fall in the availability of luxuries. This is a fact that we > must accept and learn to live with. > I believe that we can achieve the kind of smart, frugal technologies that > will allow us to live a respectable standard of life is the face of > declining energy supplies, this is the easy part. The hard part is bringing > about a shift in the western mindset that will allow us to accept these > changes as progress, rather than the opposite. The fundamental premise of > capitalism that more is better must be comprehensively rubbished and > replaced with a more sustainable system of morals. Energy must be recognised > by all as more valuable than money. When the government raises fuel tax they > must be embraced by the people, not voted out. > How can this epic task be accomplished?

Instant* redistribution of fuel tax revenues, equally to everyone. That way the people know that in paying those taxes, they are not enriching a privileged class of fossil fuel *rentiers* (those whose hands are red by the convention of http://www.opec.org/NewsInfo/WhoGetsWhat/2001.pdf). — Graham Cowan http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html — 100 internal combustion watt-hours in a baby’s fist * OK, so "instant" is unattainable. Hourly or every ten minutes is not, and IMO would be about as good.

Response:

> Even if the energy situation is handled perfectly (which its is not > being), we in the west will have to accept, over a couple of > generations, a significant fall in the availability of > luxuries. This is a fact that we must accept and learn to live with.

Only over a relatively short term while we retool our infrastructure away from liquid fuels. (Just as we are retooling our civilization around cheap plentiful telecommunications, and retooled our civilization around cheap trucking.) > I believe that we can achieve the kind of smart, frugal technologies > that will allow us to live a respectable standard of life is the > face of declining energy supplies, this is the easy part. The hard

This presupposed that energy supplies are declining. They are not. > part is bringing about a shift in the western mindset that will > allow us to accept these changes as progress, rather than the > opposite. The fundamental premise of capitalism that more is better

They aren’t progress. I have a standard of living that I wish *everyone* had. I won’t let you take that hope away from them. > must be comprehensively rubbished and replaced with a more > sustainable system of morals. Energy must be recognised by all as > more valuable than money.

Thank god for two things: #1: Matter is never destroyed in a chemical reaction. It is only converted. #2: The million year supply of uranium fuel already dissolved in the oceans, and the million year supply of nuclear fuel that will be eroded into the oceans over the next million years, and so on for about another billion years. So no, I’m not worried about energy. I do have some worries about liquid fuels; an economic dislocation to replace a century of infrastructure based around liquid fuels isn’t going to be pleasant, but it won’t destroy civilization. > When the government raises fuel tax they must be embraced by the > people, not voted out.

Scott

Response:

Scott A Crosby included: > Thank god for two things: > #1: Matter is never destroyed in a chemical reaction. It is only converted. > #2: The million year supply of uranium fuel already dissolved in the > oceans, and the million year supply of nuclear fuel that will be > eroded into the oceans over the next million years, and so on for > about another billion years. > So no, I’m not worried about energy. > I do have some worries about liquid fuels; an economic dislocation to > replace a century of infrastructure based around liquid fuels isn’t > going to be pleasant, but it won’t destroy civilization.

I think I know how it could be pleasant, see below. — Graham Cowan http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html — 100 internal combustion watt-hours in a baby’s fist

Response:

> Even if the energy situation is handled perfectly (which its is not being), > we in the west will have to accept, over a couple of generations, a > significant fall in the availability of luxuries. This is a fact that we > must accept and learn to live with.

I have to disagree with your somber assesment, especialy that we must accept a signicantly lower standard of living that is only just respectable. > I believe that we can achieve the kind of smart, frugal technologies that > will allow us to live a respectable standard of life is the face of > declining energy supplies, this is the easy part. > The hard part is bringing > about a shift in the western mindset that will allow us to accept these > changes as progress, rather than the opposite.

Honestly the market will ensure a gentle changeover so long as the price of energy creeps up gently over the next two decades. While oil may be running out we can synthesise petrochemicals and gasoline from natural gas. If oil from $20/barrel to $30-$35 tar sands and coal to oil becomes viable and we have some 350 and 800 years of that respectively. By reducing my cars weight by 20% and its efficency by 20% I’ve Already compensated for that. Toyotas Prius Hybrid has halved that. The US full sized hybirds have acheived 80mpg (3L per 100km) and cars like VW Lupo can mange with littlemore than a variable pitch turbo-diesel. Where this falls down is in the case of externalization of costs where we are using the atmosphere as a CO2 dumb and not paying for it. (I have my doubts about the grrenhouse effect but its prudent to show some care). Also our natural short term thinking where a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush. For instnace the reson that whales were nearly hubnted to extinction rather than culitvated like cows relates to the fact that they take decades to mature and know one would wait that long. They are in effect mined not farmed. However I still say that market will take care of all in that it will be the optimal way. Ultimetly if we need a non CO2 emiting source of power we have nuclear power. An IFR (Integral Fuel Reactor) breeder reactor is fueled only once in its life and breeds more nuclear fuel than it consumes. it recycles its own fuel electrolyticaly and seperates out the long term transuranic elements. The only term transuranic elements are then destryed in the reactors high neutron flux. The IFR was built to minimise weapons proliferation becuase the refining process can not produce very concentrated fissile materials and becuase they never leave the reactor where they are confined in a chamber so radioactve it woild kill in seconds. ZIronicaly Jimmy Carter Cancelled the project for prolifeation reasons. (something fishy there) > The fundamental premise of > capitalism that more is better must be comprehensively rubbished and > replaced with a more sustainable system of morals. Energy must be recognised > by all as more valuable than money. When the government raises fuel tax they > must be embraced by the people, not voted out.

Capitalism works fine in matching SUPPLY with DEMAND at an optimal level; taking into accounthe avialbliuity of raw material however markets must be carefully designed and managed to keep them fair and honest so that the competive mechanism works. Neither socialism, communism or capitalism can establish the values we need to generate a long term future for out children, through capitalism sometimes comes close in that it allows individuals to follow their best interests, not those determined by some clumsy state buerocracy that drifts into autocracy and is actualy quite bad at matching human needs and wants. The only ideology that I feel that cares about the future innately to some extent is localism and nationalism; these are philosophies that are concerned with retaining power for local groups of people and nations whose passions are their future generations their children and offspring. Capitalism is a little to individualistic. The internationalist green movement is driven more by angst, fear and self loathing of western culture than a love of its own future. > How can this epic task be accomplished?

Lobby for alternatve energy reseach programs and dream about them; don’t blame capitalism. the biggest problem we have in the world is people intellectualy and emotionly ill equiped to opperate. This is predominately a matter of genetics. Even that will be righted by a competive market called evolution. In this case I’m not prepared to leave it to the market. Proffesor Richard Lynn in his book "Genetic Detrioration in Modern Populations" has convincingly argued on the basis of widespread research that we are dumbing down (suffering Dysgenisis) due to the low birth rate of intelligent couples in the west. What we nned is not more energy but more brain power. Create a environment where self sufficient couples want to and can have children and this problems solves itself. At this point any middle class woamn is nearly reached menopause by the time she has studied and worked aenough to save from what is left over form paying 40% taxes for the sake of funding the incompetent peoples of the world and various indiotic wars.

Response:

G.R.L Cowan, Scott, The Enlightenment, With respect, you are all examples of what I am talking about. You have diverse and intelligent viewpoints, however your morals are all rooted in one place – the belief that "progress" is defined by constant economic, population and energy consumption growth. This is not a viewpoint held by everyone, or even a majority on this planet. Indeed, it really only started with the industrial revolution and many cultures still hold to the more sustainable ways of life they have been living for millenia. Even if it does turn out to be possible to supply ourselves with ever growing flows of energy, I believe this is not a path we should pursue. No growth is sustainable by definition and growth is not neccesary for physical, emotional and spiritual fulfillment. Moreover, the more dependent we become on energy torrents the further we have to fall if ever the brittle system cracks. I believe that most people on this planet can increase their standard of living while energy supplies decline, but we in the west will have to curb our decadent ways. My point is that this need not be a painful procedure and may, if handled well, be a very rewarding one. On the other hand, If we do not change our mindsets we will become increasingly unhappy as products dissapear from the shops and supemarkets and transportation becomes prohibitively expensive. Governments will respond to increasing public unrest with more and bloodier energy wars (like the one we are seeing now). Chaos will ensue. -Dohpaz

Response:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > G.R.L Cowan, Scott, The Enlightenment, > With respect, you are all examples of what I am talking about. You have > diverse and intelligent viewpoints, however your morals are all rooted in > one place – the belief that "progress" is defined by constant economic, > population and energy consumption growth. This is not a viewpoint held by > everyone, or even a majority on this planet. Indeed, it really only started > with the industrial revolution and many cultures still hold to the more > sustainable ways of life they have been living for millenia. > Even if it does turn out to be possible to supply ourselves with ever > growing flows of energy, I believe this is not a path we should pursue. No > growth is sustainable by definition and growth is not neccesary for > physical, emotional and spiritual fulfillment. Moreover, the more dependent > we become on energy torrents the further we have to fall if ever the brittle > system cracks. > I believe that most people on this planet can increase their standard of > living while energy supplies decline, but we in the west will have to curb > our decadent ways. My point is that this need not be a painful procedure and > may, if handled well, be a very rewarding one.

Perhaps *very* rewarding for some, without their having to do much … your first question, if it was a question, was about how to tax fuel even more than it is taxed today, without getting kicked — deservedly, I would say — out of office. I pointed out the most legitimate way in which such taxation increases might be attempted, and accordingly the way least likely to get you tarred and feathered: by ensuring, and being seen to ensure, that the money so gathered *will not* be concentrated in a few hands. Do you disagree? Do, you, perhaps, agree, but feel that there wouldn’t be any *point* then? — Graham Cowan http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html — 100 internal combustion watt-hours in a baby’s fist

Response:

> I pointed out the most legitimate way > in which such taxation increases might be attempted, > and accordingly the way least likely to get you > tarred and feathered: by ensuring, > and being seen to ensure, > that the money so gathered *will not* > be concentrated in a few hands. > Do you disagree? > Do, you, perhaps, agree, but feel that > there wouldn’t be any *point* then?

Exactly. Theres no point taking money off people then giving it straight back. Rather, I think the money should be spent on resesearch and infrastrucural change towards energy frugality. If you accept that, then you see that it is the mindset of the people that needs to change if they are to accept the neccesary changes. So the question you anwered was not the question I was asking. The question was how do we change the western mindset to one that seeks sustainable goals? Regards, Dohpaz – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> G.R.L Cowan, Scott, The Enlightenment, > With respect, you are all examples of what I am talking about. You have > diverse and intelligent viewpoints, however your morals are all rooted in > one place – the belief that "progress" is defined by constant economic, > population and energy consumption growth. This is not a viewpoint held by > everyone, or even a majority on this planet. Indeed, it really only started > with the industrial revolution and many cultures still hold to the more > sustainable ways of life they have been living for millenia. > Even if it does turn out to be possible to supply ourselves with ever > growing flows of energy, I believe this is not a path we should pursue. No > growth is sustainable by definition and growth is not neccesary for > physical, emotional and spiritual fulfillment. Moreover, the more dependent > we become on energy torrents the further we have to fall if ever the brittle > system cracks. > I believe that most people on this planet can increase their standard of > living while energy supplies decline, but we in the west will have to curb > our decadent ways. My point is that this need not be a painful procedure and > may, if handled well, be a very rewarding one. > Perhaps *very* rewarding for some, > without their having to do much … > your first question, if it was a question, > was about how to tax fuel even more > than it is taxed today, without getting > kicked — deservedly, I would say — > out of office. > I pointed out the most legitimate way > in which such taxation increases might be attempted, > and accordingly the way least likely to get you > tarred and feathered: by ensuring, > and being seen to ensure, > that the money so gathered *will not* > be concentrated in a few hands. > Do you disagree? > Do, you, perhaps, agree, but feel that > there wouldn’t be any *point* then? > — Graham Cowan > http://www.eagle.ca/~gcowan/boron_blast.html — > 100 internal combustion watt-hours in a baby’s fist

Response:

budgies and cat – Can they live together?

admin — Tue, 17 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

I am well aware of that.

>The size difference isn’t significant in this instance. She wanted to know >if it is safe to get a cat while having a bird. I say yes, whether it is a >tiel or budgie, finch or cockatoo. > A cockatiel is almost twice the size of a budgie and ten times more

aggressive.

Response:

You have to watch your pets closely. I have dogs that I have to keep separated, so it has turned out that it is not that difficult to play musical dogs. They ignore my budgies except when they are really loud, then it’s just curious watching behavior for a few seconds, that’s it. However, I would never have them in the same room when the budgies are out. I plan on getting a kitten soon, and the same rule will apply. No matter how good they act, it’s just asking for trouble to have them in the same room at the same time. If the budgies got excited and flew to the floor, I couldn’t trust my dogs with them. Even though they ignore them most of the time.

Response:

>My daughter wants a cat.. We have a very loving budgie now. What are my >chances of the budgie surviving if we get a cat. What sex is better to get? >Any other suggestions. The bird is used to having its freedom out of the >cage. > The bird will be in constant danger with any cat around. Even if you get a cat > which never looks at the bird in your presence, it can and eventually will be > dangerous to the bird.

Am I unique?? I have 6 cats, 6 dogs and a lot of birds. Neither the cats or dogs has ever killed, attacked or anything else, any of my birds. — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

Yes I would. My birds lives are just as important, if not more,important as mine.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> If you are responsible then nothing will happen to the birds. > Would you bet your own life on that? > Jack > — > aka Keet Visit my web page at http://junior.apk.net/~jac/ > * If you post a followup, -DO NOT- email me a copy of it! * > Top-posters are generally ignored

Response:

They can but it takes WORK. Get a young cat so it will grow up knowing the bird is a friend and not food. We have several birds and several cats. The birds used to have the run of the house just like the cats and liked to walk on the floors (wings clipped). I once caught the birds a few times sitting on the cats preening them. The meaner birds would chase the cats and the cats held no complaints under my attentive gaze ("Tiny, the bird is your friend if you so much LOOK at him wrong I swear…"). We have sheep, dogs, chicken, duck, canaries, cockatiels, rabbit, donkey, fish, and cats. Rarely do we have troubles and when we do we WORK with the animals involved to get then over it. Our German Shepherd/ Chow cross used to love to harass the sheep with a fence between them. Well, we scolded him, let him sniff the babies while in our arms. He’s not the brightest dog I’ve ever had. He never learned (from us) to leave them alone until he snuck into their pen one night and got a good beating by the mother ewes. THEN he left them alone. *sighs* Kids. The cats have learned they can get along with the dog as long as they don’t run. he isn’t interested in them if they don’t run. Now a days they’ll go right up to him and rub him legs purring. So, yes. Inter-species animal friendships are very possible.

Response:

> I am afraid that you are too optimistic.

And I am afraid you forgot how to read. My entire post was supporting WHY I thought inter-species relationships were possible using examples from my own family of animals. I ignore you now.

Response:

>And I am afraid you forgot how to read. My entire post was supporting WHY I >thought inter-species relationships were possible using examples from my own >family of animals. I ignore you now.

One of these days, you’re going to find a heap of cat poop with a beak in it. http://www.littletinywit.com/Column_09162002.html http://www.littletinywit.com/News_08052002.html I sit in judgment.

Response:

> There can be a very big difference between how a cat behaves with a tiel and > how a cat behaves with a smaller bird like a budgie.

Back when our birds were allowed to have the run of the house we had both tiels and parakeets. The keets and tiels together would run around in small groups on the floor among the cats and our small silky terrier dog. No problems but we WORKED with all the animals to get them that way. First off it started with discouraging the cats from even staring at the bird cages. Then "introducing" the birds to them out of the cage (in our hands) and discouraging any touching. Etc. etc. Baby steps.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> My daughter wants a cat.. We have a very loving budgie now. What are my > chances of the budgie surviving if we get a cat. What sex is better to > get? > Any other suggestions. The bird is used to having its freedom out of the > cage. > They can but it takes WORK. Get a young cat so it will grow up knowing the > bird is a friend and not food. We have several birds and several cats. The > birds used to have the run of the house just like the cats and liked to walk > on the floors (wings clipped). > I once caught the birds a few times sitting on the cats preening them. The > meaner birds would chase the cats and the cats held no complaints under my > attentive gaze ("Tiny, the bird is your friend if you so much LOOK at him > wrong I swear…"). > > We have sheep, dogs, chicken, duck, canaries, cockatiels, rabbit, donkey, > fish, and cats. Rarely do we have troubles and when we do we WORK with the > animals involved to get then over it. Our German Shepherd/ Chow cross used > to love to harass the sheep with a fence between them. Well, we scolded > him, let him sniff the babies while in our arms. > He’s not the brightest dog I’ve ever had. He never learned (from us) to > leave them alone until he snuck into their pen one night and got a good > beating by the mother ewes. THEN he left them alone. *sighs* Kids. > The cats have learned they can get along with the dog as long as they don’t > run. he isn’t interested in them if they don’t run. Now a days they’ll go > right up to him and rub him legs purring. > So, yes. Inter-species animal friendships are very possible.

I am afraid that you are too optimistic. — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

If you are responsible then nothing will happen to the birds. If a pet bird dies due to a pet cat then it is the fault of the owner, not the cat. FYI my second cat was 4 years old when I got him and it took me and a water bottle all of a month to train him that birds are not to be even looked at. If you take the time then it is possible to have cats and birds live together. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The size difference (90g compared to 35g) and the way the birds > behave/move/fly is very significant. > BTW, you really think because you have had a good experience with your cat > and birds that that means it’s very likely everyone else will too? > Your expereience is the exception, not the norm, yet you advise the woman to > do something which may get her bird killed. Human thought process amazes me. > Dave > The size difference isn’t significant in this instance. She wanted to know > if it is safe to get a cat while having a bird. I say yes, whether it is a > tiel or budgie, finch or cockatoo. > > There can be a very big difference between how a cat behaves with a tiel > and > > how a cat behaves with a smaller bird like a budgie. > > Dave > > > I have 2 cats and they are fine with the birds. I got Symakoe when he > was > > 10 > > > weeks and raised him with the birds. He thinks that they are wonderful > and > > > loves to rub up against them when ever he gets the chance. It is all > in > > how > > > you raise them. I also have 2 dogs and they are fine with them as > well. > > All > > > 8 tiels are still living!! It is people who have never had a cat that > > think > > > that ALL cats are mousers. > > > > My daughter wants a cat.. We have a very loving budgie now. What are > my > > > > chances of the budgie surviving if we get a cat. What sex is better > to > > > get? > > > > Any other suggestions. The bird is used to having its freedom out of > the > > > > cage.

Response:

The size difference (90g compared to 35g) and the way the birds behave/move/fly is very significant. BTW, you really think because you have had a good experience with your cat and birds that that means it’s very likely everyone else will too? Your expereience is the exception, not the norm, yet you advise the woman to do something which may get her bird killed. Human thought process amazes me. Dave

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> The size difference isn’t significant in this instance. She wanted to know > if it is safe to get a cat while having a bird. I say yes, whether it is a > tiel or budgie, finch or cockatoo. > There can be a very big difference between how a cat behaves with a tiel > and > how a cat behaves with a smaller bird like a budgie. > Dave > > I have 2 cats and they are fine with the birds. I got Symakoe when he > was > 10 > > weeks and raised him with the birds. He thinks that they are wonderful > and > > loves to rub up against them when ever he gets the chance. It is all in > how > > you raise them. I also have 2 dogs and they are fine with them as well. > All > > 8 tiels are still living!! It is people who have never had a cat that > think > > that ALL cats are mousers. > > > My daughter wants a cat.. We have a very loving budgie now. What are > my > > > chances of the budgie surviving if we get a cat. What sex is better to > > get? > > > Any other suggestions. The bird is used to having its freedom out of > the > > > cage.

Response:

The size difference isn’t significant in this instance. She wanted to know if it is safe to get a cat while having a bird. I say yes, whether it is a tiel or budgie, finch or cockatoo. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> There can be a very big difference between how a cat behaves with a tiel and > how a cat behaves with a smaller bird like a budgie. > Dave > I have 2 cats and they are fine with the birds. I got Symakoe when he was > 10 > weeks and raised him with the birds. He thinks that they are wonderful and > loves to rub up against them when ever he gets the chance. It is all in > how > you raise them. I also have 2 dogs and they are fine with them as well. > All > 8 tiels are still living!! It is people who have never had a cat that > think > that ALL cats are mousers. > > My daughter wants a cat.. We have a very loving budgie now. What are my > > chances of the budgie surviving if we get a cat. What sex is better to > get? > > Any other suggestions. The bird is used to having its freedom out of the > > cage.

Response:

There can be a very big difference between how a cat behaves with a tiel and how a cat behaves with a smaller bird like a budgie. Dave

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I have 2 cats and they are fine with the birds. I got Symakoe when he was 10 > weeks and raised him with the birds. He thinks that they are wonderful and > loves to rub up against them when ever he gets the chance. It is all in how > you raise them. I also have 2 dogs and they are fine with them as well. All > 8 tiels are still living!! It is people who have never had a cat that think > that ALL cats are mousers. > My daughter wants a cat.. We have a very loving budgie now. What are my > chances of the budgie surviving if we get a cat. What sex is better to > get? > Any other suggestions. The bird is used to having its freedom out of the > cage.

Response:

> Spend a day in the lion’s cage at the zoo. Depend soley on the keeper for > your safety. See how you like it. > Jack

What a suck ass (meaning bad – I’m not offering or requesting anything Jack so calm down) analogy. Especially from someone who scoffs at other peoples analogies. — –Jynx– Do something about ‘yourattitude’ to reply via e-mail

Response:

I have 2 cats and they are fine with the birds. I got Symakoe when he was 10 weeks and raised him with the birds. He thinks that they are wonderful and loves to rub up against them when ever he gets the chance. It is all in how you raise them. I also have 2 dogs and they are fine with them as well. All 8 tiels are still living!! It is people who have never had a cat that think that ALL cats are mousers.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> My daughter wants a cat.. We have a very loving budgie now. What are my > chances of the budgie surviving if we get a cat. What sex is better to get? > Any other suggestions. The bird is used to having its freedom out of the > cage.

Response:

My daughter wants a cat.. We have a very loving budgie now. What are my chances of the budgie surviving if we get a cat. What sex is better to get? Any other suggestions. The bird is used to having its freedom out of the cage.

Response:

Ugh! Nil. But, it sounds like you’ve already made your decision. So, why ask? RIP little budgie. — Sincerely, Joanne If it’s right for you, then it’s right, . . . . . for you!!! Play – http://www.jobird.com Pay for Play – http://www.jobird.com/refund.htm Looking for Love? – http://www.jobird.com/hearts.htm

Response:

If it is your plan, then get a young kitten and teach it to respect the bird. Keep them under your supervision at all times – do not ever leave them alone together. It will require a lot of patience, but you can always combine animals together like this as long as you remain conscious of their behaviour and don’t try to take any easy ways out. They need to be trained to be civil to one another, just as any dogs and cats would. You will need to be very patient and very careful, but it can be done. Many people have dogs, cats, rabbits, mice, etc.. all living under the same roof. All the same, it is not something that can be taken lightly. If you were to get a cat (and not a kitten) I think the training would be immeasurably more difficult and probably not worth risking, unless the cat happens to have come from a home where free-flying birds were the norm. Good luck, Mookie

Response:

rayon

admin — Fri, 06 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

- Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – > Ya know, I’ve seen some pretty tough cotton fibers, too. I think that > its just as possible for this stuff to get wrapped around feet / toes as > the man-made stuff…but less likely to "cut" however. > Prevention is in order….replacing / repairing badly-worn rope / toys > may keep an accident from happening. I have a macaw that "un-weaves" a > rope in a very short time, leaving hundreds of dangling hair-like > threads and fibers that could be a hazard if left in the cage "one day > too long". For a bird like this, I give him lots of wood and sticks to > destroy, rather than rope of any kind. > Doug > 9-11 — Never forget Never forgive Never again

Just a side note about where to find nice cotton rope. I buy cotton leads from a tack shop. We had a wonderful store called Country General and at times these were around $5 each. Each one could be cut into 3 or 4 long pieces which could be knotted at both ends. They were at least 2" in diameter and came in white or colors. Another place to try, but expect to pay plenty, is at a marine supply. Their big fat cotton rope is to snuggle with. And I totally agree with Doug, they all have to be kept clean and free of loose strings. — Sincerely, Joanne If it’s right for you, then it’s right, . . . . . for you!!! Play – http://www.jobird.com Pay for Play – http://www.jobird.com/refund.htm Looking for Love? – http://www.jobird.com/hearts.htm

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Old Molly wrote : > >best stick with hemp or sisal rope > I agree, but isn’t it hard to keep the sisal > lit ? > My god I must be slow tonight. I had to reread the post till I got what you > meant hehe. Sorry to disillusion you mate but I don’t smoke anything at all, > nor drink alcohol, clean living girl that I am so hemp is only used for bird > ropes in this house

but the parrots constantly have a sensation of flying through the air……! — gareth-quote of the day ‘bring me my dinner wife’

Response:

yes, i agree. However, it is made from wood. — Rosy Canine Companion Consultant Matching dogs with people to create an everlasting bond. http://www.smallbreeddogs.org

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> >I would only use natural fibers: cotton, twine, etc. > >Rayon, nylon, etc. can cut like a knife. > Rayon is a natural fiber. > Did you read the article you posted? > Nonsynthetic does not mean natural. Rayon is a man-made fiber, not a > naturally occurring fiber. > — > –Jynx– > Do something about ‘yourattitude’ to reply via e-mail

— Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

rayon is not synthetic. It is made from wood > pulp, How about: Nylon and polyester are not synthetic, they are made from naturally occurring petroleum. Geez, at the risk of more nonsense email trash headed my way, this ‘natural’ crap is – all natural, but annoying. Natural is not the same as safe or good. Cliffs (falls), large bodies of water (drownings), volcanos and earthquakes are all natural. Polio and syphilis are natural. West Nile Virus is likely all natural. That does not make them good. Natural is not well defined except by Madison Avenue which has discovered that it sells trash to fools.

Response:

Old Molly wrote : >best stick with hemp or sisal rope

I agree, but isn’t it hard to keep the sisal lit ? Doug 9-11 — Never forget Never forgive Never again

Response:

> Old Molly wrote : >best stick with hemp or sisal rope > I agree, but isn’t it hard to keep the sisal > lit ?

My god I must be slow tonight. I had to reread the post till I got what you meant hehe. Sorry to disillusion you mate but I don’t smoke anything at all, nor drink alcohol, clean living girl that I am so hemp is only used for bird ropes in this house — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Old Molly wrote : > >best stick with hemp or sisal rope > I agree, but isn’t it hard to keep the sisal > lit ? > My god I must be slow tonight. I had to reread the post till I got > what you meant hehe. Sorry to disillusion you mate but I don’t smoke > anything at all, nor drink alcohol, clean living girl that I am so > hemp is only used for bird ropes in this house > — > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Unfortunately, the US Government has decreed that all forms of hemp, including rope, are considered a "controlled substance". Can’t get any decent rope – just the poly junk or weak sisal. At least the sisal can be used for bird toys.

Response:

Ya know, I’ve seen some pretty tough cotton fibers, too. I think that its just as possible for this stuff to get wrapped around feet / toes as the man-made stuff…but less likely to "cut" however. Prevention is in order….replacing / repairing badly-worn rope / toys may keep an accident from happening. I have a macaw that "un-weaves" a rope in a very short time, leaving hundreds of dangling hair-like threads and fibers that could be a hazard if left in the cage "one day too long". For a bird like this, I give him lots of wood and sticks to destroy, rather than rope of any kind. Doug 9-11 — Never forget Never forgive Never again

Response:

great information. thanks! — Rosy Canine Companion Consultant Matching dogs with people to create an everlasting bond. http://www.smallbreeddogs.org

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->I would only use natural fibers: cotton, twine, etc. >Rayon, nylon, etc. can cut like a knife. > Rayon is a natural fiber. > Ohio State University Extension Fact Sheet > Textiles and Clothing > 1787 Neil Avenue, Columbus, OH 43210-1295 > Rayon – The Multi-Faceted Fiber > HYG-5538-02 > Joyce A. Smith, Ph.D. > Extension Specialist, Apparel and Textiles > Of all the fibers, rayon is probably the most perplexing to consumers. It can be > found in cotton-like end uses, as well as sumptuous > velvets and taffetas. It may function successfully in absorbent hygiene and > incontinence pads and equally well providing strength in > tire cords. What is this fiber that has so many faces? > Rayon was the first manufactured fiber. It was developed in France in the 1890s > and was originally called "artificial silk." In 1924, the > term rayon was officially adopted by the textile industry. Unlike most man-made > fibers, rayon is not synthetic. It is made from wood > pulp, a naturally-occurring, cellulose-based raw material. As a result, rayon’s > properties are more similar to those of natural cellulosic > fibers, such as cotton or linen, than those of thermoplastic, petroleum-based > synthetic fibers such as nylon or polyester. > Although rayon is made from wood pulp, a relatively inexpensive and renewable > resource, processing requires high water and energy > use, and has contributed to air and water pollution. Modernization of > manufacturing plants and processes combined with availability of > raw materials has increased rayon’s competitiveness in the market. > At one time, rayon and cotton competed for similar end uses. Although rayon is a > relatively inexpensive fiber, cotton prices are > considerably lower, giving it a competitive advantage over rayon. Rayon’s > versatility as a fiber and relatively low cost have increased > its use in blending, but also encouraged its use in lower quality fabrics and > garments-the performance of which has sometimes > tarnished the image of rayon. Rayon’s many desirable properties, however, have > made it a choice for some designer and high-end > apparel. > Types of Rayon > There are four major types or modifications of rayon. Understanding each type > should help clarify differences in product performance. > "Regular rayon" has the largest market share. It is typically found in apparel > and home furnishings and identified on labels by the > term "viscose." The distinguishing property of regular rayon is its low wet > strength. As a result, it becomes unstable and may stretch > or shrink when wet. Dry cleaning is usually recommended to preserve the > appearance of fabrics made from this fiber. If machine > washed, untreated regular rayons can shrink as much as 10 percent. > High Wet Modulus (HWM) rayon is a modified viscose that has virtually the same > properties as regular rayon, plus high wet > strength. HWM rayons can be machine washed and tumble dried and perform much > like cotton in similar end uses. HWM rayons can > also be mercerized, like cotton, for increased strength and lustre. The terms > frequently used to describe HWM rayon in apparel include > "polynosic" rayon or the trade name MODALTM. > High Tenacity Rayon is a modification of "regular rayon" to provide exceptional > strength (two times that of HWM rayon). High > tenacity rayon is primarily found in tire cord and industrial end uses. It may > be finished, chemically coated, or rubberized for > protection from moisture and potential loss of dimensional stability and > strength during use. > Cupramonium Rayon is another type with properties similar to those of viscose or > regular rayon. The manufacturing process differs > somewhat from that of regular rayon and is less environmentally friendly. As a > result, cupramonium rayon is no longer produced in the > United States. > Other types of rayon have been developed for specialized end uses. These include > disposable, non-woven markets, and > high-absorption rayon fibers with moisture-holding properties for disposable > diapers, hygiene and incontinence pads, as well as > medical supplies. > Microfibers are not a type of rayon, but rather a very fine fiber that can be > manufactured from either regular or HWM rayons. > Microfibers are generally less than one denier in diameter. A denier is about > one-half the thickness of a fine silk fiber. Most fine rayons > are 1.1 to 1.5 denier. Rayon microfibers have been successfully produced at 0.9 > denier. Fabrics from microfibers are very drapable > and silk-like in hand and appearance. Those made from HWM rayons will be machine > washable, while those made from regular rayons > will require dry cleaning or very gentle hand-washing. > Currently, two major companies manufacture rayon fiber for U.S. markets. > Accordis, a British company, manufactures viscose rayon > in short staple lengths and microfibers. Lenzing, based in Austria, produces > viscose rayon, high wet modulus or polynosic rayon, > microfibers, and long filament fibers which are used in linings and dress > fabrics like taffeta. Lenzing is the only company currently > manufacturing rayon in the United States. Overall, rayon is manufactured > primarily in Europe and Japan. > Characteristics of Rayon > Rayon’s cellulosic base contributes many properties similar to those of cotton > or other natural cellulosic fibers. Rayon is moisture > absorbent (more so than cotton), breathable, comfortable to wear, and easily > dyed in vivid colors. It does not build up static electricity, > nor will it pill unless the fabric is made from short, low-twist yarns. Rayon is > comfortable, soft to the skin, and has moderate dry > strength and abrasion resistance. Like other cellulosic fibers, it is not > resilient, which means that it will wrinkle. Rayon withstands > ironing temperatures slightly less than those of cotton. It may be attacked by > silverfish and termites, but generally resists insect > damage. It will mildew, but that generally is not a problem. > One of rayon’s strengths is its versatility and ability to blend easily with > many fibers-sometimes to reduce cost, other times for lustre, > softness, or absorbency and resulting comfort. HWM rayons readily take finishes > such as mercerization, SanforizationTM (shrink > resistance), and permanent press. > Rayon has moderate resistance to acids and alkalis and generally the fiber > itself is not damaged by bleaches; however, dyes used in the > fabric may experience color change. As a cellulosic fiber, rayon will burn, but > flame retardant finishes can be applied. > Cautions > Consumers should be aware of several cautions in relation to proper use and care > of fabrics made from rayon fiber. Regular or viscose > rayon has low wet strength, resulting in loss of stability or the tendency to > shrink or stretch easily when wet. Although resin-treated > rayons can sometimes be hand or machine washed with success, regular rayon > normally requires dry cleaning to maintain appearance > and shape. > There is a finish that can be applied to make viscose rayon fabrics washable and > limit shrinkage to 3 percent. It is formaldehyde-free > and will not affect the hand, width, or length of treated fabrics. It can be > used on challis, failles, and other fabrics that otherwise > would require dry cleaning to maintain appearance. > Consumers should also note that HWM or polynosic rayon has high wet strength. > Fabrics made from this fiber can usually be machine > washed and tumble dried. Polynosic rayon functions and handles during use and > care similarly to cotton. Unfortunately, it is often > difficult to identify whether a garment is made from polynosic or viscose rayon > unless identified on the label. Read labels, look for > trade names, and follow care recommendations. > In some instances, polynosic or HWM rayons may be "low labeled." This means that > manufacturers have recommended dry cleaning > when hand washing or machine washing would be satisfactory. Sometimes the fabric > may be washable, but trims, linings, or other > aspects of the garment may not be. Unfortunately, consumers take a risk when > they care for a rayon garment in a manner other than > that recommended by the care label. > Moisture-Sensitive Sizing and Dyes-Sizings or starches applied to rayon during > finishing give body, sheen, lustre, shape, and > control relaxation shrinkage. In some instances, they may enhance strength. > Unfortunately, some of the sizings and dyes used on > rayon are sensitive to moisture. When moisture contacts them, the sizing or dye > migrates to the edge of the wet spot, and forms a > "ring" on the fabric. Rain drops, splashes from tap water, as well as > water-based food substances will form dark rings on these > fabrics. The rings may be difficult to remove without submerging the entire > garment in water. This process can cause further damage > to viscose rayons, which have low wet strength. > The migration of dyes and sizings from moisture further complicates stain > removal in dry cleaned garments. Dry cleaning solvents are > designed to remove oil-based stains. Water-based stains such as fruit juice and > beverages, and certain foodstuffs require moisture for > stain removal. While this process removes the stain, it may also cause dye or > sizing migration in the rayon fabrics, leaving a water spot > ring. Also, as a result of the general dry cleaning process, swirls or waves may > occur on the fabric surface. This is caused by a > disturbance in the sizing from moisture in steam pressing, compounded by heat > and

Response:

> I am making toys for Treasure. Is rayon rope ok to use?

Best stick to hemp or sisal rope. — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

> I am making toys for Treasure. Is rayon rope ok to use? > — > Rosy > Canine Companion Consultant > Matching dogs with people to create an everlasting bond. > http://www.smallbreeddogs.org > — > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

I would only use natural fibers: cotton, twine, etc. Rayon, nylon, etc. can cut like a knife. — Sincerely, Joanne If it’s right for you, then it’s right, . . . . . for you!!! Play – http://www.jobird.com Pay for Play – http://www.jobird.com/refund.htm Looking for Love? – http://www.jobird.com/hearts.htm

Response:

crap! I didnt know that. THANKS! — Rosy Canine Companion Consultant Matching dogs with people to create an everlasting bond. http://www.smallbreeddogs.org

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I am making toys for Treasure. Is rayon rope ok to use? > — > Rosy > Canine Companion Consultant > Matching dogs with people to create an everlasting bond. > http://www.smallbreeddogs.org > — > Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. > Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com). > I would only use natural fibers: cotton, twine, etc. > Rayon, nylon, etc. can cut like a knife. > — > Sincerely, > Joanne > If it’s right for you, then it’s right, . . . . . for you!!! > Play – http://www.jobird.com > Pay for Play – http://www.jobird.com/refund.htm > Looking for Love? – http://www.jobird.com/hearts.htm

— Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

>I would only use natural fibers: cotton, twine, etc. >Rayon, nylon, etc. can cut like a knife. > Rayon is a natural fiber.

Did you read the article you posted? Nonsynthetic does not mean natural. Rayon is a man-made fiber, not a naturally occurring fiber. — –Jynx– Do something about ‘yourattitude’ to reply via e-mail

Response:

> >I would only use natural fibers: cotton, twine, etc. >Rayon, nylon, etc. can cut like a knife. > Rayon is a natural fiber.

Thanks for correcting me. I have always believed it to be synthetic. It’s not a fabric I like in clothing because it usually requires dry cleaning. I’ve never seen it used in ropes. My concern for the original poster is that he/she understands the dangers of entanglement in a toy that may trap, cut or strangle a bird. Well maintained natural fibers, I believe, are less of a risk. — Sincerely, Joanne If it’s right for you, then it’s right, . . . . . for you!!! Play – http://www.jobird.com Pay for Play – http://www.jobird.com/refund.htm Looking for Love? – http://www.jobird.com/hearts.htm

Response:

I am making toys for Treasure. Is rayon rope ok to use? — Rosy Canine Companion Consultant Matching dogs with people to create an everlasting bond. http://www.smallbreeddogs.org — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

Cockateil adoption???

admin — Sun, 01 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

A friend of mine has a cockateil that she doesn’t seem to know how to take care of. The little thing doesn’t get vitamins, baths, fresh food or attention. She just sits in her cage all day long, never let out anymore because the last time, which was several months ago, she bit her owner. I could use some advice as to what, if anything, I should do. I’d like to teach her owner how to take care of her properly without being pushy or bossy but I don’t think she will accept the advice very well, I’ve tried several times and had to back down. I have many birds myself and I’ve considered asking if I could buy her from them just so she could be taken care of since this person says she can’t stand the bird and couldn’t care less about her. Can someone tell me how to handle this situation without alienating anyone? Also, can someone give me some basic information about cockateils that might be different from other pet birds just in case I need it? Thanks in advance for any help.

Response:

I have been in this situation on a number of occasions and the best solution is to invite the owners over to actually see how happy birds look, sound and act. Explain in rather large detail how much effort it takes to provide all that birds require for a happy fullfilled life. I the event the owners don’t get it, you may suggest that they may have actually gotten a dud bird that requires extra effort, thereby removing any suggestion of inadequacy in their care, and that perhaps with some hands on treatment by an expert such as yourself the bird could be brought around. If all else fails, perhaps if you make a real fuss about treating the bird to some attention and you just happen to have some premium foods & treats and a few toys, you may at least bring a little joy into the birds life – think of it as visiting day for a life sentenced inmate. Persist and perhaps something will stick. How do I know about this, you ask? My sister is an animal impulse buyer with delusions of clingy love but with often tragic results. Lots of luck. Brian

Response:

How in God’s name can you consider such an asshole to be your friend. Just slap her in the puss, grab the bird and SPLIT!!!

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> A friend of mine has a cockateil that she doesn’t seem to know how to take care > of. The little thing doesn’t get vitamins, baths, fresh food or attention. > She just sits in her cage all day long, never let out anymore because the last > time, which was several months ago, she bit her owner. I could use some advice > as to what, if anything, I should do. I’d like to teach her owner how to take > care of her properly without being pushy or bossy but I don’t think she will > accept the advice very well, I’ve tried several times and had to back down. I > have many birds myself and I’ve considered asking if I could buy her from them > just so she could be taken care of since this person says she can’t stand the > bird and couldn’t care less about her. Can someone tell me how to handle this > situation without alienating anyone? Also, can someone give me some basic > information about cockateils that might be different from other pet birds just > in case I need it? Thanks in advance for any help.

Response:

"Steve A" wrote… > How in God’s name can you consider such an asshole to be your friend. > Just slap her in the puss, grab the bird and SPLIT!!!

Assault, Theft Under $500 and total alienation of protagonist. That’s not very helpful. Brian

Response:

Psst. You forgot Grand Larceny — the defining limit in some states is lower (such as Virginia where it’s only $200). What a totally stupid piece of advice!

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> "Steve A" wrote… > How in God’s name can you consider such an asshole to be your friend. > Just slap her in the puss, grab the bird and SPLIT!!! > Assault, Theft Under $500 and total alienation of protagonist. > That’s not very helpful. > Brian

Response:

Need info on bird history

admin — Sun, 01 Sep 2002 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I’d like to find some books, magazines, or Internet sources which give > information on the history of keeping pet/companion birds. > I have read that the ancient Greeks kept sparrows and magpies as > housepets, and that talking parrots were prized in the days of the Roman > Empire. Ancient Chinese civilizations also maintained "birds of great > beauty" and created wondrous carved, and bamboo, birdcages to display their > pets as early as 300 AD. > In the Dark Ages pet birds primarily entertained people of wealth, but > during the Renaissance exotic avians became available to the working > classes, and their popularity increased as the great trading ships of that > time trafficked in animals and fancy cages. During the 18th and 19th > centuries, European aviculturists were influential members of society, and > the best of them counseled royalty and common people alike on bird husbandry > and health. > From the mid 1800s, and continuing up to the present, the British have > had a love affair with the Budgie, and it’s been said that no parlor in the > UK is truly complete without a cage, stand, and Budgie as the center of > focus. American interest in caged birds began to peak after the civil war, > and by the late 1800s, several cagemakers, most notably Hendryx, were mass > producing attractive and affordable cages. Smaller birds such as parakeets, > canaries, and finches were popular pets during the depression, but > afterwards, larger animals such as Amazons, Mynahs, Macaws, and Australian > psittacines gained favor. Captive breeding programs, which started slowly > during by the 1970s, blossomed in the last decades of the 20th century. > So…..that’s some of the history I’ve been able to pick up by reading this > type of information. Any recommendations would be appreciated. I have kept > birds since I was a kid during the 1950s, and presently have a very friendly > African Grey. Thanks.

I don’t know if these are any use to you. http://www.geocities.com/geoann2/Parrot_History.html http://tms.ecol.net/pets/birdhist.htm — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

I’d like to find some books, magazines, or Internet sources which give information on the history of keeping pet/companion birds. I have read that the ancient Greeks kept sparrows and magpies as housepets, and that talking parrots were prized in the days of the Roman Empire. Ancient Chinese civilizations also maintained "birds of great beauty" and created wondrous carved, and bamboo, birdcages to display their pets as early as 300 AD. In the Dark Ages pet birds primarily entertained people of wealth, but during the Renaissance exotic avians became available to the working classes, and their popularity increased as the great trading ships of that time trafficked in animals and fancy cages. During the 18th and 19th centuries, European aviculturists were influential members of society, and the best of them counseled royalty and common people alike on bird husbandry and health. From the mid 1800s, and continuing up to the present, the British have had a love affair with the Budgie, and it’s been said that no parlor in the UK is truly complete without a cage, stand, and Budgie as the center of focus. American interest in caged birds began to peak after the civil war, and by the late 1800s, several cagemakers, most notably Hendryx, were mass producing attractive and affordable cages. Smaller birds such as parakeets, canaries, and finches were popular pets during the depression, but afterwards, larger animals such as Amazons, Mynahs, Macaws, and Australian psittacines gained favor. Captive breeding programs, which started slowly during by the 1970s, blossomed in the last decades of the 20th century. So…..that’s some of the history I’ve been able to pick up by reading type of information. Any recommendations would be appreciated. I have kept birds since I was a kid during the 1950s, and presently have a very friendly African Grey. Thanks. .

Response:

My 'tiel REALLY loves me….

admin — Mon, 26 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

My "Chip" loves feet! Especially sneakers. If he’s on my shoulder and I put my feet up on the coffee table, he runs to the sneaker and yells "TWeeeeeeT…TWeeeeeeo!" He’s in Love!

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I am a bit disturbed right now…my 2 year old tiel that I adopted in May > has always had a fondness for feet. He sings to them and spends at least > half of his foot visit banging his beak on my foot. Well yesterday, while I > was chatting with my cousin, he decided that courting time was over and > started to have sex with my foot. I was in shock! I never jumped or > anything, I just said "Bernie, you little dirtbag!" and he stopped and did > his little, "ewrt" noise tiel thing. If his little cheeks could turn any > other colour than orange I bet you they’d be red! I guess that brings a > whole new meaning to a foot fetish. Anyone else have this happen to them????

Response:

Ummmm…. Do you mean you’ve gotten more grudge f#&% in your life than Jynx????

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> More than you’ll ever get in your pathetic life. > > I am a bit disturbed right now…my 2 year old tiel that I adopted in > May > > has always had a fondness for feet. He sings to them and spends at least > > half of his foot visit banging his beak on my foot. Well yesterday, > while > I > > was chatting with my cousin, he decided that courting time was over and > > started to with my foot. I was in shock! I never jumped or > > anything, I just said "Bernie, you little dirtbag!" and he stopped and > did > > his little, "ewrt" noise tiel thing. If his little cheeks could turn any > > other colour than orange I bet you they’d be red! I guess that brings a > > whole new meaning to a foot . Anyone else have this happen to > them???? > I doubt he likes you. It was probably just a grudge f#&% > — > –Jynx– > Do something about ‘yourattitude’ to reply via e-mail > .

Response:

More than you’ll ever get in your pathetic life.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I am a bit disturbed right now…my 2 year old tiel that I adopted in May > has always had a fondness for feet. He sings to them and spends at least > half of his foot visit banging his beak on my foot. Well yesterday, while > I > was chatting with my cousin, he decided that courting time was over and > started to have sex with my foot. I was in shock! I never jumped or > anything, I just said "Bernie, you little dirtbag!" and he stopped and did > his little, "ewrt" noise tiel thing. If his little cheeks could turn any > other colour than orange I bet you they’d be red! I guess that brings a > whole new meaning to a foot fetish. Anyone else have this happen to > them???? > I doubt he likes you. It was probably just a grudge f#&% > — > –Jynx– > Do something about ‘yourattitude’ to reply via e-mail > .

Response:

> That’s cute! Well he visited briefly with my feet lastnight and never tried > anything. He is just the cutest little guy in the whole world. I can’t > imagine my like without him.

Lucky is chock-full of personality, and I think the only bad thing about him is his toe fetish. If I leave the room he screams…when I walk back in he looks at me…then down at my feet. I’m with you…I don’t know how I’d get by without my birds! Laurie

Response:

You have our accent all wrong, mate. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I am a bit disturbed right now…my 2 year old tiel that I adopted in May > has always had a fondness for feet. He sings to them and spends at least > half of his foot visit banging his beak on my foot… > Your bird’s grandparents used to whoop it up in the Australian > Outback, greeting each other with "G’day, mite, good on yer" etc. > Then one day they were unceremoniously shanghied and carted off to > your continent without their informed consent. Millions of years of > evolution didn’t prepare them for 21st century high-tech life with > large and (mostly) hairless primates. I really admire the valiant > effort they make to adapt! > Regards, Sean

Response:

> I doubt he likes you. It was probably just a grudge f#&% > — > –Jynx– > Do something about ‘yourattitude’ to reply via e-mail

Dammit Mick! This should have come with a ‘SPEW ALERT’! L

Response:

That’s cute! Well he visited briefly with my feet lastnight and never tried anything. He is just the cutest little guy in the whole world. I can’t imagine my like without him.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I am a bit disturbed right now…my 2 year old tiel that I adopted in May > has always had a fondness for feet. He sings to them and spends at least > half of his foot visit banging his beak on my foot. Well yesterday, while > I > was chatting with my cousin, he decided that courting time was over and > started to have sex with my foot. I was in shock! I never jumped or > anything, I just said "Bernie, you little dirtbag!" and he stopped and did > his little, "ewrt" noise tiel thing. If his little cheeks could turn any > other colour than orange I bet you they’d be red! I guess that brings a > whole new meaning to a foot fetish. Anyone else have this happen to > them???? > My BIL’s bird does that too. I just had Lucky here last week while they > were out of town, and he definately has a foot fetish. He even talks to > your feet, saying "pretty toes, hello pretty bird". The talking part is > funny, but those sharp little claws on the toes really sucks! > Laurie

Response:

> I am a bit disturbed right now…my 2 year old tiel that I adopted in May > has always had a fondness for feet. He sings to them and spends at least > half of his foot visit banging his beak on my foot. Well yesterday, while I > was chatting with my cousin, he decided that courting time was over and > started to have sex with my foot. I was in shock! I never jumped or > anything, I just said "Bernie, you little dirtbag!" and he stopped and did > his little, "ewrt" noise tiel thing. If his little cheeks could turn any > other colour than orange I bet you they’d be red! I guess that brings a > whole new meaning to a foot fetish. Anyone else have this happen to them????

My BIL’s bird does that too. I just had Lucky here last week while they were out of town, and he definately has a foot fetish. He even talks to your feet, saying "pretty toes, hello pretty bird". The talking part is funny, but those sharp little claws on the toes really sucks! Laurie

Response:

I doubt he likes you. It was probably just a grudge f#&% — –Jynx– Do something about ‘yourattitude’ to reply via e-mail .

Response:

Your bird’s grandparents used to whoop it up in the Australian Outback, greeting each other with "G’day, mite, good on yer" etc. Then one day they were unceremoniously shanghied and carted off to your continent without their informed consent. Millions of years of evolution didn’t prepare them for 21st century high-tech life with large and (mostly) hairless primates. I really admire the valiant effort they make to adapt! Regards, Sean

Response:

> The breeder that I got my RSE from has a randy M2 that once tried to have his > way with my wrist.

adds a whole new meaning to the english slang ‘one off the wrist’! — gareth-quote of the day ‘bring me my dinner wife’

Response:

The breeder that I got my RSE from has a randy M2 that once tried to have his way with my wrist. — —Stash "If we don’t succeed, we run the risk of failure." - Dan Quayle

Response:

my budgie was trying to talk the cuttlefish into bed yesterday…… — gareth-quote of the day ‘bring me my dinner wife’

Response:

I’ve heard it is actually quite common for a ‘teil to fall head over heals with toes. Not sure why this is, but probably the fact that an average large toe is approximately the same size as your average tiel head. Bella, my pet cockatiel is in love with "chook chook", who is his pet bird thing on wheels that sits on the bottom of his cage. It’s a toy, quite common here in the land of kangaroos, koalas and great swimmers. Perhaps it isn’t love, perhaps chook chook is Bella’s sex toy. ;) Don’t worry, your birdy isn’t strange, it seems to be common in ‘tiels. Cheers Nikki – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I am a bit disturbed right now…my 2 year old tiel that I adopted in May > has always had a fondness for feet. He sings to them and spends at least > half of his foot visit banging his beak on my foot. Well yesterday, while > I > was chatting with my cousin, he decided that courting time was over and > started to have sex with my foot. I was in shock! I never jumped or > anything, I just said "Bernie, you little dirtbag!" and he stopped and did > his little, "ewrt" noise tiel thing. If his little cheeks could turn any > other colour than orange I bet you they’d be red! I guess that brings a > whole new meaning to a foot fetish. Anyone else have this happen to > them???? > my budgie was trying to talk the cuttlefish into bed yesterday…… > — > gareth-quote of the day > ‘bring me my dinner wife’

Response:

I am a bit disturbed right now…my 2 year old tiel that I adopted in May has always had a fondness for feet. He sings to them and spends at least half of his foot visit banging his beak on my foot. Well yesterday, while I was chatting with my cousin, he decided that courting time was over and started to have sex with my foot. I was in shock! I never jumped or anything, I just said "Bernie, you little dirtbag!" and he stopped and did his little, "ewrt" noise tiel thing. If his little cheeks could turn any other colour than orange I bet you they’d be red! I guess that brings a whole new meaning to a foot fetish. Anyone else have this happen to them????

Response:

new to parrotlets

admin — Sun, 18 Aug 2002 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

this is my first time in a newsgroup of any sort. I was at the pet store today and fell in love with a female parrotlet, about 2 1/2 months old. They said she was a celestial parrotlet, green all over. She loved to get her ears (at least they said they were ears, I couldn’t actually find them!) scratched. I am thinking of purchasing a bird, and she seemed to fit the bill, at least according to what the bird specialist at the shop said – quiet, sociable, won’t fly because her wings had been clipped, and low maintenance. I would love to hear from other owners of this type of bird for suggestions and advice. Thanks.

Response:

> this is my first time in a newsgroup of any sort. I was at the pet store > today and fell in love with a female parrotlet, about 2 1/2 months old. They > said she was a celestial parrotlet, green all over. She loved to get her > ears (at least they said they were ears, I couldn’t actually find them!) > scratched. I am thinking of purchasing a bird, and she seemed to fit the > bill, at least according to what the bird specialist at the shop said – > quiet, sociable, won’t fly because her wings had been clipped, and low > maintenance. I would love to hear from other owners of this type of bird for > suggestions and advice. Thanks.

If you are sure you want to get into pet birds this sounds like a good bird for you. It sounds like the bird has been well socialized since it would let you scratch it’s head. They tend to be much more quite than some of the larger birds so if you live in an apartment they will not be a problem. Get a good size cage, and toys, and enjoy.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> this is my first time in a newsgroup of any sort. I was at the pet store > today and fell in love with a female parrotlet, about 2 1/2 months old. They > said she was a celestial parrotlet, green all over. She loved to get her > ears (at least they said they were ears, I couldn’t actually find them!) > scratched. I am thinking of purchasing a bird, and she seemed to fit the > bill, at least according to what the bird specialist at the shop said – > quiet, sociable, won’t fly because her wings had been clipped, and low > maintenance. I would love to hear from other owners of this type of bird for > suggestions and advice. Thanks.

We purchase a Green- Rump parrolet about 4 weeks ago. Her name is Baby. She is 9 weeks old now and is lovable, playful and the life of the house. I do recomend this birds to anyone. Actually, I got the hint of this birds in this NG. So thanks to the people here we have our Baby.

Response:

>this is my first time in a newsgroup of any sort. I was at the pet store >today and fell in love with a female parrotlet, about 2 1/2 months old. They >said she was a celestial parrotlet, green all over. She loved to get her >ears (at least they said they were ears, I couldn’t actually find them!) >scratched. I am thinking of purchasing a bird, and she seemed to fit the >bill, at least according to what the bird specialist at the shop said – >quiet, sociable, won’t fly because her wings had been clipped, and low >maintenance. I would love to hear from other owners of this type of bird for >suggestions and advice. Thanks.

The phrase "low maintenance," always bothers me. NO bird, no matter what the size, should be considered "low maintenance." They all require a lot of attention, and care. Regards

Response:

That’s what I was thinking. From what I’ve read, yes, they are less work than a big bird like a Cockatoo or Macaw, but they are more work than a Budgie or little bird. And, having said that, budgies and little birds are still quite a bit of work! Don’t forget they need daily attention (emotional), daily food, daily water, daily or so cage cleanings, vet care, grooming care, etc. They are wonderful pets but I would say my cats were easier to take care of in many ways. (But I wouldn’t trade my budgie for anything!) -Jessica

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->this is my first time in a newsgroup of any sort. I was at the pet store >today and fell in love with a female parrotlet, about 2 1/2 months old. They >said she was a celestial parrotlet, green all over. She loved to get her >ears (at least they said they were ears, I couldn’t actually find them!) >scratched. I am thinking of purchasing a bird, and she seemed to fit the >bill, at least according to what the bird specialist at the shop said – >quiet, sociable, won’t fly because her wings had been clipped, and low >maintenance. I would love to hear from other owners of this type of bird for >suggestions and advice. Thanks. > The phrase "low maintenance," always bothers me. NO bird, no matter what the > size, should be considered "low maintenance." They all require a lot of > attention, and care. > Regards

Response:

Definitely a lot of work……back to cleaning cages…..on hour 3……boy I hope they appreciate the clean beds….. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >That’s what I was thinking. From what I’ve read, yes, they are less work >than a big bird like a Cockatoo or Macaw, but they are more work than a >Budgie or little bird. And, having said that, budgies and little birds are >still quite a bit of work! >Don’t forget they need daily attention (emotional), daily food, daily water, >daily or so cage cleanings, vet care, grooming care, etc. They are >wonderful pets but I would say my cats were easier to take care of in many >ways. (But I wouldn’t trade my budgie for anything!) >-Jessica >>this is my first time in a newsgroup of any sort. I was at the pet store >>today and fell in love with a female parrotlet, about 2 1/2 months old. >They >>said she was a celestial parrotlet, green all over. She loved to get her >>ears (at least they said they were ears, I couldn’t actually find them!) >>scratched. I am thinking of purchasing a bird, and she seemed to fit the >>bill, at least according to what the bird specialist at the shop said – >>quiet, sociable, won’t fly because her wings had been clipped, and low >>maintenance. I would love to hear from other owners of this type of bird >for >>suggestions and advice. Thanks. >The phrase "low maintenance," always bothers me. NO bird, no matter what >the >size, should be considered "low maintenance." They all require a lot of >attention, and care. >Regards

Response:

> The phrase "low maintenance," always bothers me. NO bird, no matter what the > size, should be considered "low maintenance." They all require a lot of > attention, and care. > Regards

That is a very large stinkin’ pile of bullcrap. — Jynx Have a nice day.

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> Definitely a lot of work……back to cleaning cages…..on hour > 3……boy I hope they appreciate the clean beds….. >That’s what I was thinking. From what I’ve read, yes, they are less work >than a big bird like a Cockatoo or Macaw, but they are more work than a >Budgie or little bird. And, having said that, budgies and little birds are >still quite a bit of work! >Don’t forget they need daily attention (emotional), daily food, daily water, >daily or so cage cleanings, vet care, grooming care, etc. They are >wonderful pets but I would say my cats were easier to take care of in many >ways. (But I wouldn’t trade my budgie for anything!) >-Jessica >>>this is my first time in a newsgroup of any sort. I was at the pet store >>>today and fell in love with a female parrotlet, about 2 1/2 months old. >They >>>said she was a celestial parrotlet, green all over. She loved to get her >>>ears (at least they said they were ears, I couldn’t actually find them!) >>>scratched. I am thinking of purchasing a bird, and she seemed to fit the >>>bill, at least according to what the bird specialist at the shop said – >>>quiet, sociable, won’t fly because her wings had been clipped, and low >>>maintenance. I would love to hear from other owners of this type of bird >for >>>suggestions and advice. Thanks. >>The phrase "low maintenance," always bothers me. NO bird, no matter what >the >>size, should be considered "low maintenance." They all require a lot of >>attention, and care. >>Regards

"work", "mess", "noise", and "attention" are all kind of relative terms here. Most of us tend to not notice the noise, or really pay attention to how many times we clean the mess, or of course how much attention we pay the birds, since we enjoy them. Many people do get birds that have no business with one, but these people generally should not really have any pets, other than fish maybe. Once you fall in love with birds they are all "low maintenance" I say this as my Macaw is trying to eat the remote, bite the screen on my Laptop, chew a hole in the couch, pull the picture off the wall, and so forth. It’s type a little, reach out and redirect the bird, type a little, you bet he’s "low maintenance". — "You live and you learn, or you don’t live long." Lazarus Long

Response:

I am looking for a canary and went to an exotic bird store today. They had a childrens swimming pool full of parrotlets, about 15 of them I think. I dont remember exactly what the prices were, but I think he said females were $110 and males $140. How much did they cost where you were looking ? Based on the price of food/cage/supplies I know this shop is on the expensive side, but he always has a wide variety of healthy birds in the store. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text – >this is my first time in a newsgroup of any sort. I was at the pet store >today and fell in love with a female parrotlet, about 2 1/2 months old. They >said she was a celestial parrotlet, green all over. She loved to get her >ears (at least they said they were ears, I couldn’t actually find them!) >scratched. I am thinking of purchasing a bird, and she seemed to fit the >bill, at least according to what the bird specialist at the shop said – >quiet, sociable, won’t fly because her wings had been clipped, and low >maintenance. I would love to hear from other owners of this type of bird for >suggestions and advice. Thanks.

Response:

The store I looked at was asking $200 for a male. They said to expect to spend about $400 for start up costs, including cage, food, toys, things to fill up the cage etc… Good luck

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I am looking for a canary and went to an exotic bird store today. They > had a childrens swimming pool full of parrotlets, about 15 of them I think. > I dont remember exactly what the prices were, but I think he said females > were $110 and males $140. How much did they cost where you were looking ? > Based on the price of food/cage/supplies I know this shop is on the expensive > side, but he always has a wide variety of healthy birds in the store. >this is my first time in a newsgroup of any sort. I was at the pet store >today and fell in love with a female parrotlet, about 2 1/2 months old. They >said she was a celestial parrotlet, green all over. She loved to get her >ears (at least they said they were ears, I couldn’t actually find them!) >scratched. I am thinking of purchasing a bird, and she seemed to fit the >bill, at least according to what the bird specialist at the shop said – >quiet, sociable, won’t fly because her wings had been clipped, and low >maintenance. I would love to hear from other owners of this type of bird for >suggestions and advice. Thanks.

Response:

Seems like it would be very easy for the cat to just take a bite out of the bird. Scary thought. – Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> That’s what I was thinking. From what I’ve read, yes, they are less work > than a big bird like a Cockatoo or Macaw, but they are more work than a > Budgie or little bird. And, having said that, budgies and little birds are > still quite a bit of work! > Don’t forget they need daily attention (emotional), daily food, daily water, > daily or so cage cleanings, vet care, grooming care, etc. They are > wonderful pets but I would say my cats were easier to take care of in many > ways. (But I wouldn’t trade my budgie for anything!) > -Jessica > >this is my first time in a newsgroup of any sort. I was at the pet store > >today and fell in love with a female parrotlet, about 2 1/2 months old. > They > >said she was a celestial parrotlet, green all over. She loved to get her > >ears (at least they said they were ears, I couldn’t actually find them!) > >scratched. I am thinking of purchasing a bird, and she seemed to fit the > >bill, at least according to what the bird specialist at the shop said – > >quiet, sociable, won’t fly because her wings had been clipped, and low > >maintenance. I would love to hear from other owners of this type of bird > for > >suggestions and advice. Thanks. > The phrase "low maintenance," always bothers me. NO bird, no matter what > the > size, should be considered "low maintenance." They all require a lot of > attention, and care. > Regards

Response:

Lovebird, my first bird

admin — Tue, 30 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

I pretty much used to consider love birds to be good only for snake food…….but we hand-raised a PFLB this spring, and she has been an amazingly fun and affectionate little character…..lots of personality, and a high-energy little pet. They do have a tendancy to "gnaw" on you a bit, but I now think that this is more playfulness than hostile aggression – people just think their love bird is being "mean"….when it is really just "rough housing". Doug "It’s a flag, not a rag, and we don’t wear it on our head" Charlie Daniels

Response:

I will soon be the owner of a lovebird, my first pet bird. Does anyone have any helpful advice/information about lovebirds? Thanks, Bermudez

Response:

> I will soon be the owner of a lovebird, my first pet bird. Does anyone > have any helpful advice/information about lovebirds? > Thanks, > Bermudez

Stock up on band-aids. — Mama ~^~^~^~ Visit Mamabird’s Nest: -To email me: change nest to net- "It is not only fine feathers that make fine birds." – Aesop

Response:

Congratulations . I have 5 of the little buggers – 4 PF and a masked. 2 of the PF are gentle enough to be handled and play with my 11YO daughter, they are about 3 years old and clutchmates. They both came to us as 2YO previously handfed babies but that hadn’t been handled in quite a while. My daughter clipped their wings and worked with them, within 2 days they were very tame with her. I feed them a good seed mix, fresh sprouts and veggies, the occasional budgie treat stick (less than 1 a month), birdie bread, and various other healthy foods. They really enjoy their toys and are very active, we’re making new toys to provide to them all the time. They all love chewing stuff up so we give them those straw paper plate holders, Jack and Rose (the only 2 that are caged together – not tame) go through one of those in less than a week. I also give them lengths of plastic chain that I hang across the top of the cage with little items hanging from the links, and they like to untie the knots and make the items crash to the bottom of their flight. I think little loveys are really cute, my experience is fairly limited in that I never acquired a hand-raised baby (all mine were taken in when they were either being neglected or previous owners couldn’t keep them anymore) but they really do provide a lot of entertainment and their cheerful sounds delights us every day . I’m sure in your research you’ll see pretty much the same stuff as I’ve read, about handling them daily, etc…so I wouldn’t want to be redundant. I just wanted to share my own experiences with them FWIW. Congratulations on your decision, when will your LB be coming home? — owly http://www.dotphoto.com/Go.asp?l=chiaowl&P=sherry&AID=0&GID=72976&T=1 Dull women have clean houses.

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I will soon be the owner of a lovebird, my first pet bird. Does anyone > have any helpful advice/information about lovebirds? > Thanks, > Bermudez

Response:

> I will soon be the owner of a lovebird, my first pet bird. Does anyone > have any helpful advice/information about lovebirds?

i wonder who chose the name for these birds? they’re a dirty lier whoever they were! hatebirds more like. — gareth-quote of the day ‘bring me my dinner wife’

Response:

> > I will soon be the owner of a lovebird, my first pet bird. Does anyone > have any helpful advice/information about lovebirds? > i wonder who chose the name for these birds? > they’re a dirty lier whoever they were! > hatebirds more like.

I don’t know. When my lot finally go to sleep, and they curl up next to each other they look really cute – aaah! I was surprised that supposed pairs will wife-swap though. All of a sudden one of them decided that he (I think) preferred one half of another pair. Cue lots of raucous squawking for about a week, manic flying around, a few midair collisions that were quite funny in retrospect, one nicked toe, his ex-partner hating him and having to sleep on her own close to the bars so I can talk to her at bedtime. I can quite believe the stories about them killing larger birds given how at times they were lunging at each other. It’s definitely not overcrowding (in case anyone was wondering). I think he just got bored with being bossed around by his ex. He’ll end up bossed around by his new partner if there’s any justice > — > gareth-quote of the day > ‘bring me my dinner wife’

Alan — Alan Williams, Room IT301, Department of Computer Science, University of Manchester, Oxford Road, Manchester, M13 9PL, U.K. Tel: +44 161 275 6270 Fax: +44 161 275 6280

Response:

Quaker parakeet breeder in NYC?

admin — Sun, 28 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

I am looking for a well-handled Quaker parakeet in New York City. My first came from a pet store in Miami. He was kept on an open playpen or on a store employee’s shoulder, and the first time I offered him my fingers he cheerfully stepped on and sat happily. He was a terrific pet from that moment on. I just came back from a pet store where I tried to touch two quakers who had "only" been there for about 2 weeks, and I have some nasty bites. (I couldn’t wash the blood off of my hands, either; their sink was stopped up. Yuck.) I suspect that I could manage to tame one of the little darlings in time, but I would prefer to find one that’s been played with and save myself some band-aids. Can anyone recommend a pet store where the birds are well-handled, or a breeder, in Manhattan? Also, I’m wondering…how is the store ever going to sell the larger birds at $1000+ when they aren’t friendly? -Donna

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I am looking for a well-handled Quaker parakeet in New York City. > My first came from a pet store in Miami. He was kept on an open playpen > or on a store employee’s shoulder, and the first time I offered him my > fingers he cheerfully stepped on and sat happily. He was a terrific pet > from that moment on. > I just came back from a pet store where I tried to touch two quakers who > had "only" been there for about 2 weeks, and I have some nasty bites. (I > couldn’t wash the blood off of my hands, either; their sink was stopped > up. Yuck.) I suspect that I could manage to tame one of the little > darlings in time, but I would prefer to find one that’s been played with > and save myself some band-aids. > Can anyone recommend a pet store where the birds are well-handled, or a > breeder, in Manhattan? > Also, I’m wondering…how is the store ever going to sell the larger > birds at $1000+ when they aren’t friendly? > -Donna

Both my hand reared quakers are a bit nippy, however they will both yell "no beak no beak" after they nail me hehe. Now I know I’m being nosey but, what happened to your last quaker? — Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).

Response:

Uh, aren’t Quaker parrots illegal in NY?

Response:

>Uh, aren’t Quaker parrots illegal in NY?

- Not according to: http://www.quakerville.net/qic/statelaw.asp Just says ‘all’ pet birds must be banded if sold retail or boarded at a pet shop. Bill N. Texas Bird Gallery Album http://home.earthlink.net/~wsumrall/

Response:

Ok. The laws discriminating against the super little birds can be confusing. I’m glad to know they won’t need to go far when they are deported from NJ and Conn. Wayne

Response:

Sorry, I know FS don't belong here.

admin — Wed, 24 Jul 2002 00:00:00 +0000

Question:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > > No, the problem is that people expect others to be supportive at all > > times- > > > even when they are being selfish, using poor judgment, stupid, etc. > > People > > > don’t exist to yes-man you; if that’s what you need you have an > insecurity > > > problem. > > That’s what these ass kissing rpb-ers need to realize. > Don’t think there was much ass kissing, Jynxster. Otherwise, the OP > wouldn’t > be whining about the flaming she got. > — > Mama > Did I say "these ass kissing responders to this thread" or "these ass > kissing rpb-ers"?

I know what you said and I read it as a blanket statement meaning ALL rpb-ers are ass kissers. — Mama ~^~^~^~ Visit Mamabird’s Nest: -To email me: change nest to net- "It is not only fine feathers that make fine birds." – Aesop

Response:

> > No, the problem is that people expect others to be supportive at all > times- > even when they are being selfish, using poor judgment, stupid, etc. > People > don’t exist to yes-man you; if that’s what you need you have an insecurity > problem. > That’s what these ass kissing rpb-ers need to realize.

Don’t think there was much ass kissing, Jynxster. Otherwise, the OP wouldn’t be whining about the flaming she got. — Mama ~^~^~^~ Visit Mamabird’s Nest: -To email me: change nest to net- "It is not only fine feathers that make fine birds." – Aesop

Response:

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> > No, the problem is that people expect others to be supportive at all > times- > > even when they are being selfish, using poor judgment, stupid, etc. > People > > don’t exist to yes-man you; if that’s what you need you have an > insecurity > > problem. > That’s what these ass kissing rpb-ers need to realize. > Don’t think there was much ass kissing, Jynxster. Otherwise, the OP wouldn’t > be whining about the flaming she got. > — > Mama

Did I say "these ass kissing responders to this thread" or "these ass kissing rpb-ers"? — –Jynx– Do something about ‘yourattitude’ to reply via e-mail

Response:

You might be a lot better off finding a bird club in your area. They sometimes have bird adoption programs or you might be able to work out a trade if you are absolutely sure you want to give up the birds you have now. You will hopefully find people who really care about birds there as opposed to just advertising to the public. I’ve taken this route for a friend recently who has to find new homes for two of her birds due to her health problems. Dave

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> But, I need to sell these birds. ~ 5 yr. old male(?) Nanday. Need to sell or > trade. Would sell for $200.00 obo w/cage or 150.00 obo w/out cage. I think he’d > be a better breeder. Bites when on/in cage. Or would like to trade for ????. > ~Also, I have my son’s 8 month old white faced tiel. I don’t have the time for > her. Must sell. $100.00 obo w/nice green & white cage.

Response:

>My OWA was 6 months old when I got him. He’s a year old now. He went through 8 >owners before me. He was a "cage bird." The meanest thing you’d ever see. drew >lots of blood. Well, now, he’s semi-tame. he comes to me, let’s me pet him. >He even wants & likes me to rub his tounge now. He now talks to me instead of >screaming all the time. I’ve worked very hard with my birds. The Nanday, I >think, might just want to breed. I’m not sure. I don’t have my birds for >breeding. They are my pets. Most of my birds are attached to me. My kids >thought they could do the same. Well, without working with them, it won’t >happen.

If you turned your OWA around like that, I’m sure you would be able to work with the Nanday. ALL birds go through harmonal stages where they "want to breed." Amazons are notorious for their harmonal moodiness. I really think you could end up with a fine pet and teach your children a lesson in responsibility and pet ownership if you decide to keep the bird instead of giving/selling/trading it. And as I said eariler, whatever bird you trade for/buy may end up with just as many problems and require just as much interaction, taming, and work as the Nanday, so why not work with the Nanday? You’ve already got him. Save him the stress of moving to a new place, etc. How old are your kids? If they are old enough, make them take a part in training the bird. I know you said they don’t have an interest in the bird anymore, but if they could help turn him around, that may change. At the very least, it will be an important lesson and they won’t get a pet in the future until they are more prepared. I really don’t think selling or trading is the best thing for the bird or your family. Unless there is more that you aren’t telling us, of course. But from what I gather, it just sounds like a) the bird needs to be worked with some more and b) your children could learn a valuable lesson if you keep the birds. Stacy http://www.stacyinthecity.com http://www.frogduck.com

Response:

No, it’s not that I can’t afford the meds. It’s the point of having the bird "drugged up." You are probably the type that would push your kid to Ritalin. That is not the solution! There has to be another way. (without drugs) If he needed an antibiotic or something, that’s a different story. It’s to cure/help the problem.

Response:

> No, the problem is that people expect others to be supportive at all times- > even when they are being selfish, using poor judgment, stupid, etc. People > don’t exist to yes-man you; if that’s what you need you have an insecurity > problem.

That’s what these ass kissing rpb-ers need to realize. > Bottom line- don’t get rid of birds ’cause you are bored with them and don’t > get rid of your children’s pets because they won’t take care of them. Any

Yes!!! It’s much much better to keep and neglect a pet you don’t want than to find it a good home where it could thrive. > parent who expects their child to take full responsibility for a pet is a > fool.

True, but only because such a parent doesn’t want the pet but has been trained by a child to give him/her whatever s/he wants. > The animal shelters are full to bursting with pets who have been > thrown away because kids didn’t accept responsibility for them.

Animals should be put down within minutes of arriving at a shelter. > And what’s wrong w/ birdie prozac?

What’s right about it? > Was it too expensive for you or do you > oppose prozac in general? If it was too expensive what are you going to do > if you get another bird and it has medical problems? Throw that one away > too?

Treating a medical problem medically is quite different than treating an unwanted behavior medically > Oops- sorry. The words are trade or sell. Pets are just property, > right?

That’s right. — –Jynx– Do something about ‘yourattitude’ to reply via e-mail

Response:

>Bottom line- don’t get rid of birds ’cause you are bored with them and don’t >get rid of your children’s pets because they won’t take care of them. Any >parent who expects their child to take full responsibility for a pet is a >fool. The animal shelters are full to bursting with pets who have been >thrown away because kids didn’t accept responsibility for them.

I think you’re missing something here. Instead of dumping the bird off at a shelter he posted it here where someone who is capable of taking care of him may respond. Personally I wouldn’t give up a bird, no matter how many lived here, expect in 3 conditions: 1- I was unable to give him/her some kind of special attention needed (medical condition, for example), in which case I would find a suitable parent who could. 2- It was a found bird and the owner was correctly identified. 3- He/she met someone and just couldn’t be without the person/other bird. This has actually happened to me before, though I was the other person involved. My grandmother had an albino parakeet that took a liking to me and would go nuts every time I went to visit, then would scream for days when I left. Eventually we bought my grandmother a new baby and adopted the albino, who moved in with Bird, our parakeet. Got a few batches of eggs, but, unfortunately, never any babies. The point of all this? First, never let me play on the computer while on painkillers. Second, responsible animal parenting sometimes does mean knowing when to let one go to a new home.

Response:

I did ask the vet for help. She’s an avian vet, by the way. Do you know her suggestion? "Birdie Prozac." Well, after all the responses I’ve got, I now realize why people are afraid to post here. Most of you are out to flame someone instead of help them. Thank you to those who did try to help me out. That’s what’s wrong with this world today. Just too much criticism.

Response:

No, the problem is that people expect others to be supportive at all times- even when they are being selfish, using poor judgment, stupid, etc. People don’t exist to yes-man you; if that’s what you need you have an insecurity problem. Bottom line- don’t get rid of birds ’cause you are bored with them and don’t get rid of your children’s pets because they won’t take care of them. Any parent who expects their child to take full responsibility for a pet is a fool. The animal shelters are full to bursting with pets who have been thrown away because kids didn’t accept responsibility for them. And what’s wrong w/ birdie prozac? Was it too expensive for you or do you oppose prozac in general? If it was too expensive what are you going to do if you get another bird and it has medical problems? Throw that one away too? Oops- sorry. The words are trade or sell. Pets are just property, right?

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text -> I did ask the vet for help. She’s an avian vet, by the way. Do you know her > suggestion? "Birdie Prozac." Well, after all the responses I’ve got, I now > realize why people are afraid to post here. Most of you are out to flame > someone instead of help them. Thank you to those who did try to help me out. > That’s what’s wrong with this world today. Just too much criticism.

Response:

My OWA was 6 months old when I got him. He’s a year old now. He went through 8 owners before me. He was a "cage bird." The meanest thing you’d ever see. drew lots of blood. Well, now, he’s semi-tame. he comes to me, let’s me pet him. He even wants & likes me to rub his tounge now. He now talks to me instead of screaming all the time. I’ve worked very hard with my birds. The Nanday, I think, might just want to breed. I’m not sure. I don’t have my birds for breeding. They are my pets. Most of my birds are attached to me. My kids thought they could do the same. Well, without working with them, it won’t happen.

Response:

But, I need to sell these birds. ~ 5 yr. old male(?) Nanday. Need to sell or trade. Would sell for $200.00 obo w/cage or 150.00 obo w/out cage. I think he’d be a better breeder. Bites when on/in cage. Or would like to trade for ????. ~Also, I have my son’s 8 month old white faced tiel. I don’t have the time for her. Must sell. $100.00 obo w/nice green & white cage.

Response:

>But, I need to sell these birds. ~ 5 yr. old male(?) Nanday. Need to sell or >trade. Would sell for $200.00 obo w/cage or 150.00 obo w/out cage. I think he’d >be a better breeder. Bites when on/in cage. Or would like to trade for ????. >~Also, I have my son’s 8 month old white faced tiel. I don’t have the time for >her. Must sell. $100.00 obo w/nice green & white cage.

What would you trade for? You don’t have time for your current birds, so are you looking for supplies or…? Stacy http://www.stacyinthecity.com http://www.frogduck.com

Response:

> But, I need to sell these birds. ~ 5 yr. old male(?) Nanday. Need to sell or > trade. Would sell for $200.00 obo w/cage or 150.00 obo w/out cage. I think he’d > be a better breeder. Bites when on/in cage. Or would like to trade for ????. > ~Also, I have my son’s 8 month old white faced tiel. I don’t have the time for > her. Must sell. $100.00 obo w/nice green & white cage.

You might have better luck if you mention your city & state. Shipping birds is a hassle and not pleasant for them either. Best of luck selling them. Sounds like they could use a good home. — Lou Boyd

Response:

These two are birds that my kids bought & then lost interest. I know, I know. I shouldn’t have let them get them. The Nanday doesn’t like me. Only likes to bite me. lol. The old saying, "you shouldn’t bite the hand that feeds ya." I love my birds! They get regular vet checks & eat better than I do. They all have extra large cages, and playstands all over my house. I have other Conures & an Orange Wing. Well, I’m in Erie Co., Pa. and I would be willing to trade the Nanday for something friendlier.

Response:

Maybe she’d trade for a stuffed bird, but I’d be willing to bet she’s just bored with the birds she has and wants something different. She apparently doesn’t like the conure and the kid won’t take care of the tiel (as though any kid would.)

– Hide quoted text — Show quoted text ->But, I need to sell these birds. ~ 5 yr. old male(?) Nanday. Need to sell or >trade. Would sell for $200.00 obo w/cage or 150.00 obo w/out cage. I think he’d >be a better breeder. Bites when on/in cage. Or would like to trade for ????. >~Also, I have my son’s 8 month old white faced tiel. I don’t have the time for >her. Must sell. $100.00 obo w/nice green & white cage. > What would you trade for? You don’t have time for your current birds, > so are you looking for supplies or…? > Stacy > http://www.stacyinthecity.com > http://www.frogduck.com

Response:

>These two are birds that my kids bought & then lost interest. I know, I know. I >shouldn’t have let them get them. The Nanday doesn’t like me. Only likes to >bite me. lol. The old saying, "you shouldn’t bite the hand that feeds ya." I >love my birds! They get regular vet checks & eat better than I do. They all >have extra large cages, and playstands all over my house. I have other Conures >& an Orange Wing. Well, I’m in Erie Co., Pa. and I would be willing to trade >the Nanday for something friendlier.

I’m sure with some work, the Nanday will become tame! If you don’t have time to tame him, you probably won’t have time to get another bird. There are lots of great books about parrot behavior and stopping biting, etc. You should look into that before you deem the Nanday a lost cost. You seem to like birds a lot, and that is great, but some birds require a lot of work. There is no promise that whatever new bird you trade the Nanday for won’t go through a bad nipping stage either. Set an example for your kids. You loose interest in a bird? Too bad. When you get an animal, its for that animal’s life. How old are the kids? The kids could probably learn some responsibility, and you setting a wonderful example is the best place to start. BTW, I started my love of birds as a 10 year old. I had 2 budgies. I bought their food and supplies, I cleaned their cage and gave them fresh food and water, I tamed them and played with them. When our family went on vacations, I paid the pet sitter with my own money. It was the best way to learn responsibility. Stacy http://www.stacyinthecity.com http://www.frogduck.com