OK, I know I've probably used up my share of questions but...

Does it really count as a vacation if I have to work twice as hard before and after said vacation to get the work done that would have been done had I not been on vacation?

 

Dear fatman66 -

Not at all, there is no limit . . .

NOTE to all, by the way, one at a time would be nice, rather than a laundry list of questions . . .


What? Others don't pick up the slack while you're gone? Is what you do THAT specialized? Are you that indespensible?

TIME FOR A RAISE !!!

That said, sure, the time away is still a vacation, however the week prior and after are known as hell.

Kobi-

 

over 4000 views

and only a little over 200 posts


shame shame




















kobi











are you tired of this yet?

...zap!

 

i was wondering if you were getting tired of this also (i am not, makes for some real entertaining reading)

i have another question. it may be a moral issue, but i am not even sure if it is or not.

i have been removing chipmunks from my back yard for the past couple of years. i have done this due to the fact that they were burrowing under a shed i had built. this shed is on a small hill that was built up with many yards of dirt. i have seen they damage the tunnels can cause in severe cases, and i am not willing to loose my shed to these critters tunneling there. (when i see some of those houses falling into the ocean on your coast, i often suspect that its the work of rogue chipmunks)

in the beginning i was using a have-a-hart trap to capture them, and would then release them in a pretty large wooded area that is unpopulated a couple of miles from home. after noting the high volume of captures, i continued to trap, as well as kill them. i have removed 47 of them from my yard in the past two years so far. (i was getting a little concerned when i started to get upset when i 'missed a kill')

in the past i have gone several years without eating anything that required an animal to be killed, and now i am killing in my own backyard. my reasoning has changed. when not eating meat i felt that i had a mind, i could use it, and i could choose not to kill if i did not want to. then later i thought, perhaps it is mans nature to kill, and that i should wallow in that, and eat the flesh that i craved (i like my burgers to moo when i bite into them). havent really given much thought about eating the chipmunks, but even if i was, i still couldnt use that as a solid justification for what i was doing.

here's the question.

is it mans place to kill, to spread like wildfire, and to eradicate what gets in the way, or should i alter my thinking and try and live in harmony with these burrowing, buck-toothed little suck a$$ shed wreckers?

 

While Kobi isn't getting tired of this, he is beginning to worry about the nature of some of the questions that are coming his way. Be that as it may . . . let's proceed . . .

Lets parse this , because somewhere I lost you . . .

O.K. I'm with you so far and I concur

O.K.

Well, that's kind of a 180 . . . any reason? (No, wait . . . don't go there. Forget I asked).

Although your parenthetical comment doesn't really have anything to do with the preceding sentence, I'm getting a little concerned just reading this. (I can see where this is going).

Uh . . OK, usually, I can follow awkward sentences, but you're starting to lose me here. In the first part, are you trying to say that you haven't eaten anything that you personally have had to kill, or are you saying that you're a vegan? And please, with regard to the last part . . . please tell me that you're only referring to chipmunks. Actually, wait, don't tell me anything. I DON'T WANT TO KNOW.

Besides the facts that a capital letter at the beginning of each sentence is a good thing, this paragraph has completely confused me. Honestly, I tried to figure out what it is that you're telling me, and then decided I DON'T WANT TO KNOW.

Oh . . . look . . . here's your question . . . (sort of) . . .

Aside from the fact that your first question is a generalized philosophical query about the nature of man, and that your second one is specific to your rodent situation, I think I sort of understand what you're getting at. I think. Actually, honestly, I don't know what to think, and I DON'T WANT TO KNOW.

I'm just gonna develop tunnel vision here and just answer whatever looks like a question.

Is it man's place to kill?

I'm assuming here that you're asking if man is the top of the food chain, as in dealing with rank or status. Is man ranked above all other creatures, great and small, and does he have the right/privilege/whatever you want to call it, to kill any and all others . . . well, and you're probably not going to like this answer, it depends. Man certainly has the ability to do that. Under which circumstances and whether or not he should, is entirely up for debate.

(Is it man's place) to spread like wildfire and to eradicate what gets in the way?

No, but that never stopped him before.

Should i alter my thinking?

I'm not sure what that thinking is . . . and . . . I DON'T WANT TO KNOW.

(Should i alter my thinking) . . . and try and live in harmony with these burrowing, buck-toothed little suck a$$ shed wreckers?

Are their numbers still so high that they pose a threat to your welfare and property? If so, can you return to catch and release? If not, do what you gotta do (assuming it isn't against and local, state, or federal ordinances, and no one else, or their property is hurt). However, if it has reached a point that you're just whacking 'em for fun, then you've got an entirely different problem you need to deal with . . . and don't tell me because I DON'T WANT TO KNOW!

OK . . . gotta go now.

Please don't hurt me!

Kobi-

 

kobi,

i was attempted to give some background information to show that i do not enjoy the killing of the animals. i am merely tracking the total number of animals i have removed as a point of interest. i was curious if i just had 1 or 2 in the yard, or 1 or 2 million (so far, i know its more than 1 or 2, and i am sure, more than 47). when i first started trapping them, and caught more than 10 i was suprised, i never would have thought there would be so many of them.

i prefer the catch and release method, but then the volume seemed to support the fact that something else had to be done.

thats what made me start to wonder if i was doing the right thing. part of me feels wrong in taking their lives, but right now, that part is not bigger than the one that wants to see my shed level, right where it should be.

i believe you have answered my question.

thanks


(on a sidenote, as long as you dont tunnel under my shed, we're cool)

 

Dear billycouldride-

In that case then . . . kill them all.

You gotta remember, I've lived on the Left Coast most of my life, in a major city. Chipmunks are not common where I spent the majority of my time here. When you say chipmunks I immediately think of Alvin, Simon, and Theodore:



Wherein you are kinda like Dave, somewhat irritated, but certainly not driven to murder.

Actually, I have seen a real chipmunk, but not very many. Here we mostly have squirrels. When I lived in the more populated areas the range of wildlife was squirrels, rats, actors and actresses, an occasional opossum, and couple of times I saw coyote that had strayed from the hills. In my current location there are squirrels, opossum, skunks, deer, coyote, raccoons, dolphins, seals, whales, actors and actresses (although here they seem to be fairly harmless in these parts. . . except for Barbra Streisdand . . . now there's a rodent that should possibly be exterminated) . . . and rattlesnakes.

Here in LA-LA land, the thought of killing an animal is sacrilegious. Hell, you're not even allowed to kill yourself (don't forget, smoking is essentially illegal . . . everywhere!).

Now, as far as I'm concerned (and I'm not like most folks here), the following animals would fall into the "Go Ahead And Kill, In Fact, Kill With Extreme Prejudice" category . . .

Rats
Rattlesnakes
Radical Muslims
Sea Gulls

When I think Chipmunks, I don't think rodent, and the thought of killing one immediately brings to mind pictures of killing Alvin and Theo and Simon. (shudders at thought). Like squirrels, they are cute, fluffy, adorable. Sure, I understand that they are essentially like rats, but like most here (in Lost Angeles), while any of us would kill a rat without a thought, a cute fluffy squirrel (or chipmunk) is anathema.

However, now that I've had a bit to think about it, and I can detect in your reply that you're not Charles Manson's spawn . . . and that chipmunks are tearing down your house (or shed) . . . I say nuke the *******s.

Never kill a deer though.

Kobi-

 

I think that we need to lay of the questions for master Kobi. He is starting to repeat himself. I'm not a phsycologist but I dont think that it can be a good sign. Grandpa started doing that in the first stages of alzheymers (sp?)...

 

Dear billycoudride-

I just read your reply, and after thinking about it while asleep, I say kill 'em all (chipmunks that is).

You gotta keep in mind I live in Lost Angeles where killing cute fluffy critters is frowned upon.

However, they're messing up your shed.

That's not good.

So take 'em out.

Hope that helps

Kobi-

 

I don't understand what you're talking about . ..

Just the other day I was . . . uh . . . . . . . . . . . .

I forgot what I was going to say . . . .

Oh well,

How ya doin'?

Kobi-

 

Hey I was going to ask you...

Ahh never mind you won't remember anyway...




I feel I can forget anything, it probably isn't that important anyway, as long as I don't forget to wipe.

 

Alright Kobiashi, here it is:

The original purpose of this thread was to share indispensable advice to others, as a direct result of being shirked by your girlfriend after giving her the old "I told you so" routine. My question, sir, is how are things at home? I see 220+ posts leaving not much for the old ball and chain. How is she dealing with that? Has she caved yet? Is she pleading for your wisdom? Just curious...

Oh, and I'm a tea man

 

Dear Kobi,

Hypothetical situation: You are cruising at 45000 feet in a jetliner, headed for New York. Meanwhile, down on Earth, terrorists have somehow managed to bring the end of the world nuclear scenario into full blossom. Any feasible place to land that 737, within range of the remaining fuel, has been obliverated.

Could you stand next to an open door, and when the 737 glides to within 5 – 7 feet of the ground, just jump off and be okay? I know the laws of physics rule against this, yet I have seen this very same scenario played out many, many time on Bugs Bunny. He is some how on the porch of a cabin that is falling, falling back to Earth. Right before impact, he simply steps off the porch. Problem solved.

Could this work?

 

Lets say you can get the 737 or 747 to glide down to 5-7 feet and can get it to slow down to less than 200 MPH. Even over water I am thinking that would be a really hurtful experince for teh average man. Hopefully if you find yourself in that situation then you will be in Bugs Bunnies famous B52 bomber instead. If memory serves me it is indeed the infamous "Southern Belle" that he found himself piloting. Something goes wrong he is in a nosedive at WOT and cannot get the nose to pull up! Things are looking bleak for our furry friend when at about 30 foot he notices a big red lever labeled "AIR BRAKE". He pulls it and the Bombers nose stops 5 foot from the ground where he is able to safely exit the plane. Now I'm not sure if 737's or 747’s are equipped with "AIR BRAKES" or not so you might want to investigate that to find out before boarding. That might just be some handy information to know. If they are not, then I might suggest cashing in your ticket and charter a flight on a B52 instead!
You know, just incase you find yourself in one of these similar situations.

 

Matt....c'mon....a rabbit flying a jet....that is just ridiculous. Right out of the cartoons, or something.