- I got into an accident with my Leaf yesterday! - 8 Updates
- Desktops - 13 Updates
- OT: Cleaning out the email - 2 Updates
- I had a REALLY GREAT Orgasm - 1 Update
- Saturday Night, July 22, 2023, and Your Dinner . . . - 1 Update
| dsi1 <dsi123@hawaiiantel.net>: Jul 23 01:16PM -0700 On Saturday, July 22, 2023 at 7:18:06 PM UTC-10, Bruce wrote: > >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-eRFW6MlAw0 > I don't know much about Hawaiians, but I watch a lot of Maori stuff. I > like their language, among other things. The Maoris have an interesting culture. In some ways, they're similar to the Hawaiians. The Hawaiians have appropriated the Maori haka. My apologies for that. The odd thing is that the Maori language is quite different from olelo Hawaii. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J3xlX0m2JA |
| Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid>: Jul 24 06:38AM +1000 On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 13:16:50 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >> like their language, among other things. >The Maoris have an interesting culture. In some ways, they're similar to the Hawaiians. The Hawaiians have appropriated the Maori haka. My apologies for that. The odd thing is that the Maori language is quite different from olelo Hawaii. >https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6J3xlX0m2JA I only know Aloha vs. Aroha. And that Hawaii plays a role in Maori history or mythology. But I forgot the details. The various island people seem to have things in common, whereas Australian Aboriginals are completely separate. |
| GM <gregorymorrowchicago07@gmail.com>: Jul 23 01:40PM -0700 dsi1 wrote: > The Maoris have an interesting culture. In some ways, they're similar to the Hawaiians. The Hawaiians have appropriated the Maori haka. My apologies for that. The odd thing is that the Maori language is quite different from olelo Hawaii. Both are "primitive" pidgin dialects - neither were even *written* before White Man Linguists arrived on the scene... Without the White Man Linguists, both "languages" would be stone - dead... as would the mongrel "cultures"... Both Maori and Hawaiian are silly useless relics of a long - vanished Stone Age culture... Now nothing but interesting "curios" for tourists and us educated folks to laugh at... Rather like a 'Pacific' version of "Hee Haw" or "Lil' Abner"... :-D -- GM |
| dsi1 <dsi123@hawaiiantel.net>: Jul 23 02:03PM -0700 On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 10:39:02 AM UTC-10, Bruce wrote: > history or mythology. But I forgot the details. The various island > people seem to have things in common, whereas Australian Aboriginals > are completely separate. The traditional Hawaiian greeting is the same as the Maori's. They touch their foreheads together and inhale together. The Hawaiians call it "Ha", the breath of life. The word "ha" is probably the basis of the word "haole." Some people think that it means that the missionaries were freaked out by the way the Hawaiians greeted each other and refused to share the breath of life. "Ole" means no, not, nothing, or a refusal. Other people think that the Hawaiians were freaked out by the white skin of the missionaries and simply thought they were dead people i.e., no breath of life. They feared the walking dead. OTOH, my guess is that the old Hawaiians thought it would be a real hoot to call white people "dead." https://images.weblogtheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/halawa-valley-hike-molokai-4.jpg |
| Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid>: Jul 24 07:18AM +1000 On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 14:03:03 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >> are completely separate. >The traditional Hawaiian greeting is the same as the Maori's. They touch their foreheads together and inhale together. The Hawaiians call it "Ha", the breath of life. The word "ha" is probably the basis of the word "haole." Some people think that it means that the missionaries were freaked out by the way the Hawaiians greeted each other and refused to share the breath of life. "Ole" means no, not, nothing, or a refusal. Other people think that the Hawaiians were freaked out by the white skin of the missionaries and simply thought they were dead people i.e., no breath of life. They feared the walking dead. OTOH, my guess is that the old Hawaiians thought it would be a real hoot to call white people "dead." >https://images.weblogtheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/halawa-valley-hike-molokai-4.jpg I've watched 118 episodes of a Maori TV show and I've seen them do the breath of life, but always only between men. Maybe that's a Maori difference. |
| GM <gregorymorrowchicago07@gmail.com>: Jul 23 02:33PM -0700 On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 4:03:07 PM UTC-5, dsi1 wrote: > > are completely separate. > The traditional Hawaiian greeting is the same as the Maori's. They touch their foreheads together and inhale together. The Hawaiians call it "Ha", the breath of life. The word "ha" is probably the basis of the word "haole." Some people think that it means that the missionaries were freaked out by the way the Hawaiians greeted each other and refused to share the breath of life. "Ole" means no, not, nothing, or a refusal. Other people think that the Hawaiians were freaked out by the white skin of the missionaries and simply thought they were dead people i.e., no breath of life. They feared the walking dead. OTOH, my guess is that the old Hawaiians thought it would be a real hoot to call white people "dead." > https://images.weblogtheworld.com/wp-content/uploads/halawa-valley-hike-molokai-4.jpg A silly useless Stone Age "ritual", lol.... White Colonialism was the BEST thing that ever happened to the lazy backwards Hawaiian aborigine peeples... -- GM |
| dsi1 <dsi123@hawaiiantel.net>: Jul 23 02:58PM -0700 On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 10:40:59 AM UTC-10, GM wrote: > :-D > -- > GM I think you might be having a psychotic break. Please contact your psychiatric health care professional on Monday. OTOH, you might get better results than from a professional psychic at this point. Where's Miss Cleo when you need her? |
| dsi1 <dsi123@hawaiiantel.net>: Jul 23 02:59PM -0700 On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 11:18:45 AM UTC-10, Bruce wrote: > I've watched 118 episodes of a Maori TV show and I've seen them do the > breath of life, but always only between men. Maybe that's a Maori > difference. That's very strange. |
| Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid>: Jul 24 06:08AM +1000 On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 12:51:03 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >> Oh good. Does that mean you've stopped criticising people who use real >> computers? >I use real computers. You use old computers made for a time when there was no connection to the outside world. That doesn't make you special. I abandoned that way of computing long ago. Ah, so your criticising and chest thumping simply continues. Ok. |
| dsi1 <dsi123@hawaiiantel.net>: Jul 23 01:21PM -0700 On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 10:08:56 AM UTC-10, Bruce wrote: > >> computers? > >I use real computers. You use old computers made for a time when there was no connection to the outside world. That doesn't make you special. I abandoned that way of computing long ago. > Ah, so your criticising and chest thumping simply continues. Ok. You're claiming that you use "real" computers. That's your arrogant term. How about saying that you use Windows computers - that's what you're really using. "Real" ain't got nothing to do with it. |
| Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid>: Jul 24 06:40AM +1000 On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 13:21:24 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >> >I use real computers. You use old computers made for a time when there was no connection to the outside world. That doesn't make you special. I abandoned that way of computing long ago. >> Ah, so your criticising and chest thumping simply continues. Ok. >You're claiming that you use "real" computers. That's your arrogant term. Indeed :) > How about saying that you use Windows computers - that's what you're > really using. "Real" ain't got nothing to do with it. It doesn't have to be Windows. It can also be Mac or Linux. I mean computers that can do the heavier application work. If I only used email, Usenet and a web browser, I wouldn't need a desktop computer or a serious laptop. |
| jmcquown <j_mcquown@comcast.net>: Jul 23 04:54PM -0400 On 7/23/2023 12:14 PM, cshenk wrote: > I read an article. It seems desktops are gaining ground with the under > 30 crowd set. The price is lower and you can go multi screen for > pennies. David is the head cheerleader for Google. Jill |
| dsi1 <dsi123@hawaiiantel.net>: Jul 23 02:09PM -0700 On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 10:41:04 AM UTC-10, Bruce wrote: > computers that can do the heavier application work. If I only used > email, Usenet and a web browser, I wouldn't need a desktop computer or > a serious laptop. Indeed. Everything is proceeding as I have predicted. The most popular OS currently is based on Linux. My phones and computers all use Linux based OSes. Hopefully, we'll have an alternative, non-Linux kernel in existence before I'm no longer in existence. |
| dsi1 <dsi123@hawaiiantel.net>: Jul 23 02:11PM -0700 On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 10:54:27 AM UTC-10, jmcquown wrote: > > pennies. > David is the head cheerleader for Google. > Jill At least dsi1 is not Microsoft's bitch. OTOH, my guess is that you're using Google constantly during the day. That makes you a dirty rotten liar. |
| Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid>: Jul 24 07:26AM +1000 On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 14:11:39 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >> David is the head cheerleader for Google. >> Jill >At least dsi1 is not Microsoft's bitch. OTOH, my guess is that you're using Google constantly during the day. That makes you a dirty rotten liar. Duckduckgo is my default search engine, but there are a few things where Google is better. It depends if you need those things. |
| dsi1 <dsi123@hawaiiantel.net>: Jul 23 02:52PM -0700 On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 11:26:10 AM UTC-10, Bruce wrote: > >At least dsi1 is not Microsoft's bitch. OTOH, my guess is that you're using Google constantly during the day. That makes you a dirty rotten liar. > Duckduckgo is my default search engine, but there are a few things > where Google is better. It depends if you need those things. I have no experience or opinion with/about DDG. ChatGPT is better able to give an overview on the matter: "Google" and "DuckDuckGo" are two popular search engines with different strengths and it really depends on what you value in a search engine to say which one is "better". Google is known for its powerful search capabilities and is often able to deliver very accurate and relevant results. Its search algorithms are extremely sophisticated, which makes it a great tool for finding specific information. Google also personalizes search results based on your browsing history and has more robust integration with other services such as Google Maps, Google Images, and Google Scholar. On the other hand, DuckDuckGo is known for prioritizing user privacy. It doesn't track users or personalize search results, which can be a plus for users who are concerned about privacy. However, this could mean the search results are not as tailored to the individual user as Google's. Also, DuckDuckGo sources its results from over 400 different sources, including its own crawler (DuckDuckBot), crowdsourced websites, and other search engines like Bing. So, if you prioritize privacy and don't want your searches tracked or data collected, DuckDuckGo may be the better choice. But if you want highly personalized, accurate search results and don't mind data collection, then Google might be better. Remember, though, the "best" search engine can vary depending on what you value most in a search tool. You might want to experiment with both to see which one you prefer. |
| Hank Rogers <hank@nospam.invalid>: Jul 23 04:54PM -0500 dsi1 wrote: >>> desktop. Editing photos, letters, banking. >> Don't tell dsi1. He frowns upon that. > dsi1 doesn't really care what other people do. dsi1 is mostly concerned about things he has control over. Except for shit about da mainland. And racial shit. |
| Hank Rogers <hank@nospam.invalid>: Jul 23 04:55PM -0500 dsi1 wrote: >> Oh good. Does that mean you've stopped criticising people who use real >> computers? > I use real computers. You use old computers made for a time when there was no connection to the outside world. That doesn't make you special. I abandoned that way of computing long ago. It shows, Tojo. |
| Hank Rogers <hank@nospam.invalid>: Jul 23 04:56PM -0500 dsi1 wrote: >>> I use real computers. You use old computers made for a time when there was no connection to the outside world. That doesn't make you special. I abandoned that way of computing long ago. >> Ah, so your criticising and chest thumping simply continues. Ok. > You're claiming that you use "real" computers. That's your arrogant term. How about saying that you use Windows computers - that's what you're really using. "Real" ain't got nothing to do with it. Uncle, are yoose about to *give him da last word* ? |
| Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid>: Jul 24 07:57AM +1000 On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 14:52:18 -0700 (PDT), dsi1 >On the other hand, DuckDuckGo is known for prioritizing user privacy. It doesn't track users or personalize search results, which can be a plus for users who are concerned about privacy. However, this could mean the search results are not as tailored to the individual user as Google's. Also, DuckDuckGo sources its results from over 400 different sources, including its own crawler (DuckDuckBot), crowdsourced websites, and other search engines like Bing. >So, if you prioritize privacy and don't want your searches tracked or data collected, DuckDuckGo may be the better choice. But if you want highly personalized, accurate search results and don't mind data collection, then Google might be better. >Remember, though, the "best" search engine can vary depending on what you value most in a search tool. You might want to experiment with both to see which one you prefer. I notice that Google is better if I search by Dutch keywords. DDG tends to search for the English words that most resemble my Dutch keywords, which is not useful. Also, unless I missed it, DDG doesn't tell you how many times it finds something. If I want to know if expression A or B is more commonly used, Google tells me that in the number of hits it found for each expression. But Google is a snoopy Big Brother, whereas DDG respects your privacy, as stated above. |
| Hank Rogers <hank@nospam.invalid>: Jul 23 04:59PM -0500 dsi1 wrote: >> David is the head cheerleader for Google. >> Jill > At least dsi1 is not Microsoft's bitch. OTOH, my guess is that you're using Google constantly during the day. That makes you a dirty rotten liar. C'mon, Uncle. Just let her have da last word. Dat will show that old white woman. |
| Bruce <Bruce@invalid.invalid>: Jul 24 06:10AM +1000 On Sun, 23 Jul 2023 12:55:03 -0700 (PDT), Bryan Simmons >> No one ever emails me anyway. >No one likes you. A lot of folks wouldn't consider >your life worth living. I know this is going to be a blow, but I have to tell you anyway. That's exactly how I feel about you! |
| GM <gregorymorrowchicago07@gmail.com>: Jul 23 01:27PM -0700 John Kuthe wrote: > > --Bryan > Nope, not me. > No one ever emails me anyway. But we CAN "see" your SORRY A$$WIPE self on your FACEBOOK page...!!! https://postlmg.cc/hX8gFwQC LOLZ LOLZ LOLZ 🤣 -- GM |
| GM <gregorymorrowchicago07@gmail.com>: Jul 23 01:22PM -0700 John Kuthe wrote: > and a load of laundry to do. > John Kuthe, RN, BSN Jon - BOI, I found yer FACEBOOK page... What exactly are "AMAZEBALLS"...??? https://postlmg.cc/hX8gFwQC 😎 PS: you look like a real 1st Class A$$WIPE in these Facebook pics...!!! -- GM |
| dsi1 <dsi123@hawaiiantel.net>: Jul 23 01:03PM -0700 On Sunday, July 23, 2023 at 7:14:03 AM UTC-10, Ed P wrote: > The milk tasted odd, the produce was nasty, all the meats were brine > injected. Never saw a reason to go back. This week one opens about 2 > miles from me. I bought some hamburger from Target yesterday. The hamburger was processed and packaged in a place far, far, away. It's in a bright and shiny attractive packaging. It looks like a very clean product. There's no messy processing of meat at the Target, no smell or feel of blood nearby. I saw meat sold like this at the Tesco in the UK over a decade ago. I thought it was the future of selling meat. Now it's in our little town. Everybody is happy there's a Target in town. I suppose it will change things up - perhaps not in a good way. That's okay, I'm ready for some change. |
| You received this digest because you're subscribed to updates for this group. You can change your settings on the group membership page. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it send an email to rec.food.cooking+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com. |
No comments:
Post a Comment