Made ya look! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> wrote:
Share, you replied to the wrong conversation here. Oh yes, you know this don't you? Sharester, in general, as an observation, your attempts to obfuscate are obvious. Check it out! ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: shucks, I thought Dale Evans had joined FFL and was sharing our antics with her hubby Roy (-: On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 10:51 AM, "emilymaenot@..." <emilymaenot@...> wrote: Share: Hint, try explaining what you meant in a way that could be interpreted at face value. This......["Any situation or thing or relationship that takes more energy than it generates is IMO unsustainable and will eventually end", especially for an aging population] makes no sense whatsoever. You made a pretty simple statement; you don't need to try and pretend it was rooted in "scientific" principle. Just explain what you were thinking at face value. Smile. ---In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, <fairfieldlife@yahoogroups.com> wrote: Judy and Ann, I am using the word unsustainable in a very abstract yet applied way. Any situation or thing or relationship that takes more energy than it generates is IMO unsustainable and will eventually end. On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 10:08 AM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote: Share wrote: > Judy, when I say unsustainable I mean something that takes > more energy to continue than it generates. No, sorry, that makes no sense. The "something" that we've been talking about is areas with high housing costs. And remember, with the term "unsustainable," you were making a prediction of some sort. Now, take some time, think it through, and try to choose words that express what you mean rather than just grabbing them at random, throwing them together, and hoping they make sense. Also, try to make an observation that adds to the conversation. We all know it's more expensive to live on the coasts than in the interior; that isn't anything we need to be told. Just as a reminder, here's what you said to start with: "I think of those high rent districts on the east and west coasts as being unsustainable, especially for an aging population." On Tuesday, October 15, 2013 9:21 AM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote: As a "slang term," it refers to expensive neighborhoods, which wasn't what you were talking about. So it was even the wrong slang term. And you ignored my question as to what you meant by "unsustainable." Obviously the usual meaning of that term doesn't work in this context either (and no, the article you linked to doesn't help us here, nor would the one you read "years ago"). So I repeat the question: Please explain what you mean by"unsustainable" in specific terms. What do you expect to happen? Share wrote: > Judy, high rent districts is a slang term and thus not meant to be taken literally. I wrote: > > OK, so it isn't "districts," it's cities; and it isn't "high rent," it's high housing costs in general. > > Now that we've clarified that, please explain what you mean by"unsustainable" in specific terms. What do you expect to happen? Share wrote: > I'll do better than that, Judy. Here's a very cool website that> compares places cost wise. Comparing FF to Annapolis, MD> where my Mom lives, housing is 255% more expensive there.> http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/fairfield-ia/annapolis-md/50000 http://www.bestplaces.net/cost-of-living/fairfield-ia/annapolis-md/50000 On Monday, October 14, 2013 6:11 PM, "authfriend@..." <authfriend@...> wrote: Share wrote: > > > John, I've gotten pretty spoiled living in a fairly inexpensive place like> > > FF. I think of those high rent districts on the east and west coasts as> > > being unsustainable, especially for an aging population.>> What, pray tell, do you mean by "high rent districts"? Give us an East Coast > example, please.
