Notice: Forums will be shutdown by June 2019

To focus on better serving our members, we've decided to shut down the POF forums.

While regular posting is now disabled, you can continue to view all threads until the end of June 2019. Event Hosts can still create and promote events while we work on a new and improved event creation service for you.

Thank you!

          

Show ALL Forums
Posted In Forum:

Home   login   MyForums  
 
 Author Thread: Sarcasm?
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 70 (view)
 
Sarcasm?
Posted: 2/8/2013 1:06:23 PM
Blatant in-your-face sarcasm is often abusive.

The "sarcasm" I appreciate and enjoy is the much more subtle (and non-derogatory) "dry wit" where someone can toss out a line that seems quite reasonable on the surface, but then comes back to knock you off-balance you with an unexpected backhand of absurd dry humour. This kind of humour is quite different from sarcasm, and is effectively the polar opposite of slapstick humour that relies on overt .

That said, some people don't appreciate dry wit humour either.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 2 (view)
 
pets yes or no
Posted: 1/31/2013 5:22:41 AM
It depends on the kind of pet. Are fish pets?

Pet people are different than non-pet people. In most cases it takes a certain amount of selfless care and commitment to keep a pet regardless of type of pet, and that is a quality I like.

I like dogs, own a dog, so a dog owner would work just fine provided the dog wasn't another Cujo.

I'm not so sure about someone who owns a pot-bellied pig, snake, or dragon, but I wouldn't dismiss them out of hand.

On the other hand, cats are a deal breaker. I like them and think they are cute, but am quite allergic to them. If I were to go forward with a cat owner, either the cat would have to die, or I would.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 9 (view)
 
How Honest are you?
Posted: 1/7/2013 8:54:37 PM
I'm about as honest as the next person.

Hmmm, maybe that's not a good thing. ;-)
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 376 (view)
 
Would you date a guy without a car
Posted: 12/29/2012 9:46:49 PM
Well, I can understand why a woman would like a man who can do most of the hard driving. ;-)
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 17 (view)
 
Vegetarian anyone?
Posted: 12/23/2012 4:51:16 PM
I prefer that my meat comes from vegetarian animals.

I tried going vegetarian myself once, but ladybugs in the salad and worms in the corn blew that all to hell for me.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 147 (view)
 
Name the number one thing keeping you single..
Posted: 12/16/2012 11:03:30 AM
Number one thing?

Habit. After a while you get used to being single, and learn that you do not necessarily NEED a partner to be complete.

This is a pretty good thing I think. There is no longer any pressure to find a "replacement" for the partner now long gone, which means that you won't end up simply settling for anyone-anyhow-anywhere just to get back into a relationship.

Instead, things are more relaxed. When you find someone you like and think you can settle down with, it's because of "want" rather than "need".
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Question for all
Posted: 12/7/2012 2:58:34 PM
Purple lipstick and eyeliner.


Just kidding. ;-)

Biggest turnoff for me is lack of self-control, particularly when it comes to substance abuse. A date who is passed out or incoherent may be pliable enough for some, but for me it's just plain pathetic. Once in a while I can understand someone missing their limits, but habitually so just means habitually pathetic for me, and that is not where I want to be.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 88 (view)
 
Would you get married again?
Posted: 11/24/2012 7:18:59 AM
Posted By: justlookingthanks100 on 11/12/2012 330 PM


There is a definite legal disadvantage to getting married it’s called the matrimonial home and even if you paid for it and owned it prior to marriage once you and your legally married spouse move in then it half his/hers. Most people including most lawyers get this one wrong – if there is no matrimony then no matrimonial home so live together for a 100 years your house remains yours – get married and an hour later its only ½ yours.


Living together without getting married still doesn't safeguard your home from the other. The house may be "yours", but that doesn't keep a now-expartner from successfully seeking claim against that property. They can still claim a "constructive interest" in it built up over time if they have helped pay the bills, cut the grass, even just done the dishes or laundry to contribute to the overall well-being and financial enrichment of the couple and the home.

With respect to marriage and "hours later it's only 1/2 yours", that is simplistic and simply not so at least in Ontario. In Ontario the couple shares in any enrichment that occurs from the date of marriage. If you already own a house at time of new marriage, the equity valuation of that home remains yours. Only the gain in equity from that point on is divisible.

The principle that disallows giving the new partner a full 1/2 share in tangible assets that you have built up prior to remarriage is called "unjust enrichment".

Subsequently, if that new relationship dissolves at a later date, your partner is entitled only to 1/2 of any gain in equity of that home from the date of marriage. The argument starts as to what the value of the home was at time of marriage, but a person with property assets considering remarriage would hopefully be savvy enough to get at least two or three property appraisals prior to remarriage.

Your partner will certainly have claim to a share of your home following marriage, but it's not automatically half.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 11 (view)
 
Asian Lover?
Posted: 11/13/2012 9:52:17 PM
I had a friend whose rather lither and pretty Vietnamese girlfriend made quite the impression on him. He used to proudly proclaim that "once you go Asian, you'll never go back to Caucasian."

Then she dumped him. That also made quite the impression on him, and he now has a rather different attitude about Asian women. Maybe in time he'll get over it. Or not. ;-)
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 354 (view)
 
Would you date a guy without a car
Posted: 10/16/2012 3:37:18 PM
I didn't realize that having a car was a prerequisite for dating. No car -> no date? I had no idea.

I actually have a few different cars in my driveway, all my own. Does that allow me to date a different woman for each car?
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Electric Bikes
Posted: 9/12/2012 1:40:41 PM

Pedal cycle-wise as the vehicle you are in control of has no speed indication they cannot give you a ticket or fine.


There is no HTA requirement for cars and trucks to have working speedometers. You can still get a ticket for speeding. The same applies to bicycles.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 8 (view)
 
Electric Bikes
Posted: 9/12/2012 1:38:01 PM

Bike and Ebike riders are subject to the same traffic laws as a car driver... ( you can be charged with driving impaired on a 10 speed for example)


You're off on this one. Impaired driving in both the HTA and the Crimina Code is specific to vessels, trains, or motorized vehicles. A 10-speed bicycle or any strictly human-powered bicycle at all is not a motorized vehicle under Ontario or criminal law. The only charge that would apply to impaired operation of a bicycle would be that of public intoxication under the Liquor License Act of Ontario, and that has all the weight of a parking ticket.

An e-Bike falls into its own unique area when it comes to impaired driving laws. Under provincial law it is considered to be the same as a bicycle so long as the pedals are attached, otherwise it is a motorized vehicle. Under federal law it is a motorized vehicle even if the pedals are attached.

If you are caught driving impaired even with over .08 BAC on an e-Bikle with pedals attached, Ontario's provincial HTA provisions re impaired driving do not apply, so you are not subject to an automatic and immediate 90-day license suspension on being charged, nor are you subject to the automatic on-the-spot 3-day/7-day/30-day administrative suspensions if you are caught with between .05 and .08 BAC . If the pedals are not attached, you are no longer considered to be a bicycle, and the relevant on-the-spot license suspensions would apply.

Regardless, pedals attached or not, e-Bike riders are subject to criminal impaired driving charges if caught operating impaired with over .08 BAC. They are subject to that minimum 1-year driving prohibition if convicted, and because e-Bikes are still considered motor vehicles under federal law, that driving prohibition would apply to e-Bike use with or without pedals attached just as much as it would apply to a car or a truck.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 7 (view)
 
longest relationship question
Posted: 6/4/2012 8:24:34 PM
If they are in their 40's and the longest they have had a relationship is under 10 years., yes it bothers me. Can't commit?
I have a problem with the whole thing. It also, to me means they perhaps haven't grown up and still want to play the field.


So a person puts down that their longest relationship is under 10 years and you (and others) take that as a sign that they can't commit? Why would anyone make that leap of logic based solely on an answer to a singular question?

What if that person did in fact commit, but then later terminated an abusive or even just unsatisfactory relationship? Does that mean that person is unable to commit, or does that mean they got out early before any real damage was done? Should they have waited until the magic "longer than 10 years" lest the judges at POF deem them unworthy of interest?

What if the other party in the relationship terminated the relationship, perhaps for the reason that "they" couldn't commit? Does that mean the person here is unable to commit?

The length of longest relationship means absolutely nothing without context. If a person has a string of serial short-term relationships, then yes, it might mean something.

But as it sits, without the second question of "how many relationships have you had", making any sort of character judgment on the basis of the "how long" question by itself is pointless and I would think unfairly judgmental.

As to whether or not a person in their later years should have had a "longer term" relationship by that stage in their life, even that is contextually dependent on their own personal life situation. Being in a relationship is only one part of life. People eschew close relationships and even just dating over short and long terms for many reasons - education, travel, career or other personal interests, their health, being a caregiver for others such as parents (or even children) in poor health or advanced years, even mourning. "Playing the field" doesn't need to have anything at all to do with it.

There are so many reasons for any given individual's length or relationship or even relationships, yet here you are (and not just you) making character judgements on a simple number that by itself can and often does mean nothing.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 15 (view)
 
Living with your mother/father or both
Posted: 5/31/2012 7:35:07 PM
Some of the replies here miss a growing trend. The trend is not so much adults living with their parents, but adults taking in an elderly parent (often widowed or otherwise alone) into their home rather than shipping them off to twiddle their thumbs in a retirement warehouse, even though it might be a lot easier just to send them off to that warehouse.

From where I sit, that kind of commitment and selfless sacrifice is commendable. It's also the same kind of partner character that can become important to you in a relationship when YOUR looks, health, and mobility wither away, whether by the effects of creeping age or whether by catastrophic accident.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 2 (view)
 
rule # 1 to follow...
Posted: 10/5/2011 11:53:38 PM
Easy enough. Keep your cell phone number to yourself but set up a throw-away email address or twoo with any of the free emails services, hotmail, gmail, yahoo, etc.

The email on this site is ok as far as it goes, but the others provide more flexibility, options, and ease of use.

For voice calls, consider using the freebie Skype calling service. Then you give potential suitors that means of voice call access and even video voice call access if you want to get a more visual means of communication in which to size up that other person. They don't get your real telephone number and you can block them from calling you at any time if things go south with them.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 18 (view)
 
About this Tim Hortons first date thing.
Posted: 9/20/2011 8:25:07 PM
A coffee date does offer an easy minimal-planning way to do an initial meet and greet.
Also, unlike a fancy dinner place, theatre, or other more formal engagement, it's an open-ended thing that can easily end on a moment's notice if there is an obvious lack of mutual attraction or clash of ideals. Try doing that once the dinner cruise boat has already left the dock!

That said, Timmies is probably the last place I'd want to go for a coffee date. They're usually too busy and distractive, and the ambience has all the appeal of a gas station.

If it's going to be a coffee date for that first neet and greet, my choice would be a Second Cup or Starbucks for a quieter and more comfortable setting in which to get to know the person on the other side of the table, or alternately, a nice patio during off-peak hours.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 308 (view)
 
Would you date a guy without a car
Posted: 9/20/2011 7:31:09 PM
I wouldn't date a guy who didn't have a car. No way, no how.

Mind you, I wouldn't date a guy who did have a car either.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 16 (view)
 
are men intimadated by hard of hearing women?
Posted: 5/15/2011 5:06:46 PM
Hi I am wondering if the men are intimated because it seems like we chat for a while and we seem to be compatible, I tell them I am hard of hearing, and all of a sudden they can't meet, or other plans come up... what is up with that?

Well, if you can hear well enough to be able to chat together for a while without it being obvious, one would think there should be no really serious issue to speak of. If the hearing impairment is slight, maybe you should consider not saying anything about being hard of hearing.


Are there any hard of hearing men on here?

Hard of hearing? Sure, hearing impairment isn't that unusual. And guys who just don't listen well out of choice? Many more. ;-)
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 5 (view)
 
Renting a Room
Posted: 3/23/2010 5:42:20 PM
Is this a fully self-contained unit, or will the roomer be sharing washroom and/or kitchen facilities with you? It makes a big difference in how you can deal with an "uncooperative" or non-paying tenant.

A rental situation where the tenant shares a bathroom and/or kitchen facilities is exempt from the provisions of the Residential Tenancies Act. In other words, if your roomer skips on the rent, you can get rid of them with minimal notice and they have no recourse to appeal their eviction to the Landlord and Tenant Board. That's the upside.

The downside comes with how much access the roomer has to the rest of your house, and the effect that will have on your privacy and security of self and possessions. As others have mentioned, getting references and verifying personal information is a must.

Oh yes, be sure and get first and last month's rent in advance.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Legal rights re: engagement rings
Posted: 3/23/2010 9:00:18 AM
Back when I was young long long time ago, I knew this women who "collected" engagement rings. She was a serial engager, would get engaged fast, get a ring in the process, and then keep the ring when the relationship broke apart. When last I distanced myself from her, she had a collection of 6 rings. Fortunately none were from me.

The really tacky thing about her was that she would wear these things all at once and show them off to her friends when she went out on the town at night, as if they were trophies.

Back on topic. In Ontario it could go either way, but I know someone who got an Ontario small claims judge to order the ring returned. The ring was a promise of marriage, promise was broken, implied contract was unfulfilled.

The issue of holding the ring for other belongings he may or may not legally have is something else. These things often turn into a lot of self-serving and marginally-factual he-said/she-said. If those goods have any sort of substantial value, she can always do the small claims court thing. If not, they could merely be a weak excuse on her part to hold onto the glitter. In either case though, he should get the ring back.

In any case, this is the US we're talking about. How about the OP's friend get Judge Judy to hear the case? That way the OP's friend can get an apperance fee from the show, Judge Judy can yell at her to give back the ring and call her a big baby, and everything will be done and settled with.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 12 (view)
 
I know a secret of someone I just broke up with...what to do?
Posted: 3/10/2010 10:05:21 AM

Posted By: Canadian Buoy on 3/10/2010 819 AM

Message: Actually, I ended the relationship because of it....no revenge at all.


In your original post you give no indication that she was a willing before-the-act co-conspirator in the deed.

Now you claim that you ended a relationship with the woman not because of what she did, but because of what her FORMER husband and another accomplice did?

Ok, sure thing. Whatever you say.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 5 (view)
 
I know a secret of someone I just broke up with...what to do?
Posted: 3/7/2010 9:50:59 AM

Message: I have just recently broke up with someone whom I was deeply in love with. My problem is that she told me her families dirty little secret. It has been bothering very deeply ever since she told me about it, and I am not sure what I should do about it. It was about burning down their cottage to collect insurance money. Does this not involve arson and fraud? Her husband died last year, but his accompliss is still alive.


The answer is simple. Include it in your memoirs to be published after your death. That way you can get it off your chest without you being labelled as a rat while you're still alive.

Who knows, someone might even turn it into a made-for-TV docudrama.

As for doing it right now - unless you have physical proof or an eyewitness willing to testify, consider how you will fund you defence to a slander lawsuit for accusing someone of a criminal act without any basis of proof other than something you claim the former wife of one of the alleged arsonists said to you. Then consider how credible you will look when you now come forward with that allegation.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 2 (view)
 
National Anthem
Posted: 3/4/2010 5:33:10 AM
I don't have any issue with the proposed change. The lyrics of a national anthem should be set so all can identify with it.

It's not the first time the words have been changed. Besides, it just looks like they're just going to change the words back to what they were originally. I don't have any issue with that at all.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 4 (view)
 
E-Bike
Posted: 2/25/2010 1:53:26 PM
If you're still considering an ebike, consider getting Gio's 500/800 watt version.
According to the importer it's still legal under Ontario law as its "continuous use" power rating is still only 500 watts and its top speed is still limited to 32 kmph.

Reviews I've read say having that extra 300 watts available is a must for dealing with anything but the most minimal hills.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 32 (view)
 
Insurance Companies
Posted: 2/22/2010 7:43:10 PM
Posted By: My I on 2/22/2010 948 PM

Message: I'm not buying all the arguments about accidents, claims, etc. They are calculated and included in the overall operating/claims budget in the industry, annually.

I think your second statement inadvertently supports the exact same arguments that you claim you don't buy. Those annual calculations, including money in and claims paid out, are what form the basis of the rate structure submitted for government approval in the following year. When insurance company costs go up, there is upward pressure on what we pay for insurance.

Posted By: My I on 2/22/2010 948 PM

Message: I think the credibility of insurance companies diminished when canaduians were told that rate increases were going into affect due to 9/11. then they also claimed hurricane Katrina was an additional factor. Both being catastrophies in another country. The government contributed biillions of dollars thus relieving the insurance copanies and yet, we were not granted any relief whatsoever.

The rate increases attributed to Katrina and other natural disasters had little if any effect on auto insurance rates in Canada. What did go up significantly were the property and business lines of insurance.

Insurance-wise, we're linked a lot closer to disasters far away than you might think. You might believe that what happens outside Canada away shouldn't affect Canadian insurance rates, but many of the bigger insurance companies are multinationals that happen to have branch offices in Canada. In that sense major losses elsewhere have just as much potential to affect our rates as major losses right next door.

On top of that, insurance companies themselves purchase insurance from larger reinsurance companies to cover their losses. A major disaster will hit any given consumer level insurance company with direct claims exposure to the disaster, but it will also hit the reinsurance company insuring the original consumer level insurance company as well. Just as our own home insurance rates will rise in response to claims we submit to an insurer, so too will an insurance company's reinsurance rates rise in response to claims they submit to a reinsurer.

While there are literally hundreds of consumer level insurance companies in Canada and proportional many more than that in the US and abroad, there are but a comparative handful of reinsurers and reinsurer reinsurers in the word. Any given reinsurer could easily be the ultimate financial backstop against insurance catastrophes in India, Louisiana, Japan, and Canada. If so, what happens in Japan can affect what we pay for insurance in Canada.

Reinsurance rates are based on expected frequency of claims due of expected severity and cost. As long as the "expected" happens, rates should remain stable. certain amount a risk planning by a reinsurer should ensure we won't get hit hard with rate increases because of claims "normal" disaster of expected scales. Unfortunately, a series of off-the-scale catastrophes like 9/11 and Katrina can throw those risk calculations way out of wack.

When that happens, we end up paying a certain portion of the unexpected loss. The alternative is that we don't pay any increase with the potential effect of the insurance company not being able to recover from the loss, and said insurance company shuts down operations. After all, no company can operate at a loss for very long.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 28 (view)
 
Insurance Companies
Posted: 2/21/2010 7:59:16 PM
Posted By: paulmag on 2/19/2010 8:09:17 PM

Message: If I am speaking out of gross ignorance then you tell me , and this was explained in my intial post on this topic.Why did my insurance go up both on my Business vehicle and my personal vehicle. I have not had a claim in 8 years.

First, have you ever heard of the saying "a dollar doesn't buy what to used to"? Have you ever heard of simple inflation? That's part of the reason prices tend to go up even in absence of other pressures.

Second, unless you live under a rock, you probably have some idea what has happened to the investment market and investment returns over the past few years. They went down, way down. Insurance companies invest collected premiums. In good investment market years, good investment returns work to either lower your rates or at least lessen rate hikes. In bad investment market years, you lose that rate mitigation effect.

Right now we're about 2 years into a bear market, and that is not helping to lower rates. Compare the financial market performance with insurance rate changes over the past few years. You'll see some correlation. By the way, the rate changes approved in 2004, 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 and 2009 were -10.60%, -2.43%, -1.27%, +0.55%, +5.59% and +8.77%, respectively, for the entire auto insurance market. Do the math - the total average premium increase over the last 6 year period is only 0.61%.

Third, in addition to negative effects of ordinary inflation forces and a recent poor investment climate, insurance companies have also seen their rates of claims payouts go through the roof. Between 2004 and 2007 the number of claims dropped by 3.5%, but the average $ value for each accident benefit payout increased by 39.5% for a total net increase of 34.6% in total accident benefits paid out.

Who do you think ultimately pays for that 34.6% increase in accident benefits payouts over 4 years? That's right. You and I do through our insurance rates, even if we've never actually made a claim ourselves (yet).

Posted By: paulmag on 2/19/2010 8:09:17 PM

Message: Also you obviously missed the point on..Yes the premiums are some what regulated..Wait until you get into an accident..Then tell me what is regulated..

No, you continue to miss the point. Auto insurance rates are not "somewhat" regulated. They are strictly regulated, including the surcharges that you may face if you get exceed the number of tickets allowed by your insurance company or are involved in an at-fault collision.

Posted By: paulmag on 2/19/2010 8:09:17 PM

Message: Oh and my personal vehicle..because of the long hours I work at my own business, my personal vehicle is driven at the Max 4 hours a week..Cry me a river...insurance companies break even on auto insurance..What insurance company do you work for..They are a for profit company..If they dont make a profit, they close the doors..

You can get specialty insurance to cover minimalist vehicle usage. Look up CAA's Autograph insurance plan.

As for your comments about profit vs break-even, the information on claims payouts vs premiums collected is in the public domain and can be found broken down for each individual company. If you spent less time ranting and more time actually looking into things, you might be surprised at the actual profit situation when it comes to a typical insurer's auto insurance line of business.

Posted By: paulmag on 2/19/2010 8:09:17 PM

Message: I think you and a few others on here have a very biased opinion on this Topic as you may lose your jobs if we had goverment insurance. I am Joe public with a gripe with only one thing in mind, a fair shake.

I don't work for an insurance company, nor does anyone I know, so to what bias would you attribute my opinion? I'm just as much Joe Public on this as you. The only difference is that I'm a little better informed on this subject than you. I like a fair shake too - I'm just not seeing you give one to the auto insurers.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 25 (view)
 
Insurance Companies
Posted: 2/15/2010 12:42:50 PM
Posted By: paulmag on 2/13/2010 4:06:36 PM

Message: I do not think any business should be run at a loss..I can assure you that the insurance companies are raking in huge obcene profits..

Insurance companies are making good money, but not on their auto insurance lines. They make money on life insurance, homeowner insurance, business insurance, various non-auto-related casualty insurance, travel insurance, etc.

When it comes to the auto insurance line, they barely break even when you average in the bad years along with the good years over time. Demanding that insurance companies lower rates because their other lines of insurance business are doing well is like demanding that Canadian Tire lower its gas pump prices by half because they're making great money selling tires and auto parts.

Posted By: paulmag on 2/13/2010 4:06:36 PM

Message: The example for goverment run is in 3 other provinces..They are not running at a loss, they are making money...

They're not running at a loss because the governments in those provinces cover shortfalls with tax revenues taken from all consumers whether they be drivers or not. Both Quebec and BC are particularly bad examples if you're trying to portray government-run insurance as a good thing. In Quebec, even after recent hikes in the insurance rates, claims payouts are far in excess of fees collected from drivers.

Posted By: paulmag on 2/13/2010 4:06:36 PM

Message: But the insurance game is a licence to print money because you cant drive with out it..and they know it..so the sky is the limit..

Once again, you're speaking out of gross ignorance on the subject. Insurance companies cannot charge what they like for auto insurance. The government strictly regulates insurance rate increases and even insurance rate decreases with the aim of permitting reasonable profits while at the same time ensuring the financial viability of insurance companies to cover any claims that they may face in the upcoming year.

Auto insurance is effectively a loss leader product for many insurance companies. They sell it at very near break-even rates in hopes of getting your business in their non-regulated lines of insurance - homeowner, business, etc insurance.

Posted By: paulmag on 2/13/2010 4:06:36 PM

Message: What I advocate is I want a choice..If I dont like what Sears or Canadian tire, Zellers, charge for a product. I have a choice .I can shop some place else or go without..This is not the case with insurance..They have you over a barrel...you cant go with out, and you cant shop around because they are all in collusion to price fix..yes it might be 20 dollars here or there savings..Big deal..Its a scam ..

You have a choice. There are over 100 different insurers offering auto insurance for sale in Ontario. They're all in competition with each other which in turn means they all want grow their business faster than their competitors. With a relatively fixed or at best slowly growing population of drivers in Ontario, part of their growth will rely on luring drivers away from their competitors. The basic auto insurance product sold by each of these companies is very similar in large part because the Ontario government dictates what that product and its terms and conditions must be. Think hard now about the effect of widespread competition on the pricing of essentially similar products between companies.

Even though the product is similar, the difference between companies can span a whole lot more than $20 here or there. Some companies will target different segments of the driving public and set their rates to encourage those segments. Rates between different insurance companies can vary by hundreds and even thousands of $ per year depending on your particular driving profile and if you are in the demographic they wish to attract.

If you did any serious attempt at shopping around, you would know that already. Have I already mentioned that you are speaking out of gross ignorance on the subject?
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 19 (view)
 
Insurance Companies
Posted: 2/7/2010 11:54:13 PM
Posted By: paulmag on 2/5/2010 756 PM

Message: This nonsense of passing a law and then turning it over to for profit companies to sell and administer it does not work..It gives the companies the upper hand to charge what ever they like..


You clearly do not have the slightest clue how heavily the auto insurance industry is regulated in Ontario. Auto insurance companies have to file their proposed rate structures for government approval each and every year, and they have to provide reams of income and claims payout information to justify their filings. This applies even if they want to lower their rates. They cannot charge whatever they want - their rates have to be justified and Ontario severely restricts the amount of profit that can be made on the mandatory auto insurance line.

In theory a government-run auto insurance plan could be cheaper as it would ideally be run at a break-even point. Unfortunately it rarely works like that. Private industry is very good at finding business efficiencies. Government-run services are notorious for bloated bureaucracy and costs, and that bloat can quickly exceed any savings from not having to work a profit-margin into the rate structure.

Then there is political interference in setting rates. The Quebec experience with public insurance has seen premiums rise 30% in 30 years. That's an average of less than 1% per year increase, far below the rate of inflation. In the meantime, the % increase in claims has greatly exceeded the cost of inflation over the years. The Quebec system current collects only about 70 cents for every 1 dollar paid out in claims.

Guess where the difference comes from? Higher sales taxes. High gas taxes. Higher provincial income taxes. Quebecers who don't even drive or own a car are subsidizing the insurance of drivers, and British Columbia is no different.

There is no reason to think that we wouldn't experience the same issues in Ontario of we were to go publicly-run auto insurance. In fact, it could get even worse if the government choose to make a government-run insurance plan a profit center to subsidize other government programs.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 18 (view)
 
Insurance Companies
Posted: 2/7/2010 11:26:21 PM
To the OP, it almost sounds like you think insurance companies should be forced to sell auto insurance at a loss.

You're self-employed. How long do you think you would survive in business if you priced your products or services below the $ costs you incur in providing them?
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 7 (view)
 
long term
Posted: 2/7/2010 10:33:45 PM
Posted By: m_church on 2/7/2010 620 PM

There is a great difference between what men say among men and what they say when women are around...
I'd bet that 90% of the men's replies in the forums, are slanted to be a little more politically correct .... or to further an agenda... or create an image...
I've gone out with buddies and asked some of the same questions of them that I've seen asked in POF.... Fascinating how the answers here are far more 'correct' than the ones the guys will answer with after a few beers with no women around....


Did you ever think that those men might actually be tailoring their answers to you to show themselves in a more "correct" guy light? A lot of sexually-oriented jock talk, especially jock talk lubricated by alcohol, is also intended to create an image of conquest and bravado intended to boost one's "jock standing" among the guys.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 5 (view)
 
STD/HPV
Posted: 1/31/2010 5:08:41 PM
Posted By: Bullies.Rule on 1/31/2010 245 PM

quote: What i dont understand is why did i run away all the time.

Easy. Self preservation. Disease is a nasty thing to deal with, and many of them can alter your life for the worst. Personally, I wouldn't date anyone with an STD. Fully cured, okay, but other than that... no way.


Then I think the both of you are in for a life of fear given that for a huge part of the population it is a hidden condition often never discovered.

"Genital human papillomavirus (HPV) is a common virus. Most sexually active people in the United States (U.S.) will have HPV at some time in their lives. There are more than 40 types of HPV that are passed on during sex." - http://www.cdc.gov/std/hpv/STDFact-HPV-and-men.htm

"Genital human papillomavirus (also called HPV) is the most common sexually transmitted infection (STI). There are more than 40 HPV types that can infect the genital areas of males and females. These HPV types can also infect the mouth and throat. Most people who become infected with HPV do not even know they have it." - http://www.cdc.gov/std/HPV/STDFact-HPV.htm
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 2 (view)
 
Must have car - but she doesn't have one.
Posted: 1/29/2010 4:29:43 PM
In many cases it's probably more practical necessity than double standard.

Unless you live within walking or easy transit distance of a potential partner, a car can be a must-have if you want to in get any time together or go out somewhere. If they don't have one for whatever reason, that leaves just one answer - the other person needs to have one.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 23 (view)
 
Babysitting rates- ottawa
Posted: 1/23/2010 8:53:33 PM
First off, under the Day Nurseries Act of Ontario, you do not need licensing, training or inspections if running a day care with 5 or fewer children in addition to your own.

With regards to your casual babysitters, at home they're responsible only for themselves and have complete freedom to do whatever they wish. . When babysitting YOUR children in YOUR home, they are responsible for so much more and as a result are greatly restricted in what they can and can't do during that time.

Bottom line is McDonalds may make you work for your minimum wage, but that income is sustainable income with regular hours if you want them. There is also potential for raises and promotion to higher positions within McDonalds, plus that job is something you can put down in the way of a recognized and verifiable employment reference when looking for a better job.

Casual sitting doesn't have any of those benefits. Hours are often short, sporadic, given on short-notice, and provide little in the way of reliable income.

There will always be those who are desperate enough for money that they will jump for any scraps thrown at them, but that doesn't make exploiting them right.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 21 (view)
 
Babysitting rates- ottawa
Posted: 1/23/2010 8:17:50 PM
You can't compare a communal home day care service with a baby sitter looking exclusively after your child and no others in your home. They are two different animals on so many levels.

You say that your day care is $30 for a full day. Fine, but the story doesn't end there. In Ontario that daycare provider has the opportunity to look after (and charge money for) up to 5 children in addition to her own children before she has to obtain a day care license from the province. That's potentially $150 income for the day, or about $16 per hour for the 9-1/2 hour day.

In many cases, that income is only part of the incentive for the home day care provider. Many have children of their own. Offering day care to others for a fee provides income that also makes it possible for them to stay at home with their children. In staying at home, the day care provider avoids having to seek employment outside of the home, which would also result in bearing day care fees herself for her own children.

A babysitter sitting in a client's home does not have that option to augment income potential by bringing in more children. Even with just one child to look after, the overall effort may be less but the time expenditure is no different.

In the end, when it comes to casual babysitting, you're paying a casual sitter for their personal time spent in your exclusive service. Regardless of what you say, they ARE working. That sitter is tied down in your home and cannot leave, and usually is not permitted to invite friends over. Even after the kids are put away to bed, that sitter is still responsible for keeping watch over the children's well-being, for being alert if they start to cry or get sick, for staying alert if the house should catch fire or other situation threaten the safety of the children.

They are in effect a child care worker while the kids are awake, and a security and fire and watch guard for your children once the children are asleep. Try hiring a watch guard for $5 an hour these days.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 19 (view)
 
Babysitting rates- ottawa
Posted: 1/23/2010 6:15:15 PM
It sounds like you're not so much looking at casual babysitting as you are at full-time daycare in the client's own home. If so, what other duties would you be expected to do?

7:30am to 5:00pm is a 9-1/2 hour day. I'd say you should get at least full-pop minimum wage to start, which is effectively $10.25 per hour given the scheduled provincial increase in March.

I wouldn't feel bad about asking for that amount. After all, they are both most likely employed at jobs that pay much more than that.

If they're expecting you to also perform housekeeping services and cleaning during the day, I'd consider asking for more. Molly Maid would charge them around $300 for a day's worth of cleaning.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 16 (view)
 
Babysitting rates- ottawa
Posted: 1/23/2010 1:56:39 PM
Ontario minimum wage for students under age 18 working part time is currently $8.90 per hour, rising to $9.60 per hour this spring. Age 18 or over it's $9.50 an hour rising to $10.25 this spring.

In my opinion that should be the minimum paid to a babysitter coming into your home to look after your kid, and it should rise somewhat if there are several children involved. Anything less is just exploiting a babysitter.

I've seen reasonably well-off people going out for a very expensive dinner/theater date turn into niggardly misers when it comes to paying for the babysitter that made that date possible. I realize that money may be tight for some parents but even so, a babysitter should be properly paid and should not be expected to subsidize your time out of the house.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 22 (view)
 
Whats the deal with Coldplay?
Posted: 1/19/2010 9:31:14 AM
I can't say that I'm a Coldplay fan per se, but I do tend to appreciate groups that give piano and other keyboards a prominent role in their music. I don't know if "Clocks" was their breakthrough song, but the keyboards, clearly sung lyrics (no screaming aaahhhhh!), and song tempo in it was what first drew me to Coldplay.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 11 (view)
 
Should Helmets Be Mandatory
Posted: 12/26/2009 11:06:47 PM
Perhaps the government should pass laws requiring everyone to wear a helmet whenever they leave the house. After all, falling to the sidewalk, bumping heads in the supermarket, and getting hit by snowballs have all resulted in serious head injuries and even death in the past, and a helmet may have made the difference between life and death.

Should we legislate mandatory helmet use for all activities outside the home? Of course not. Government should not mandate compulsory safety gear unless there is strong evidence that the benefits of expected safety gains will outweigh the economic, convenience and usability costs of the proposed safety gear.

In cars, we know without question that seatbelts save lives and reduce injuries in crashes. With motorcycles and bicycles, the demonstrated mitigation of serious injury and fatalities strongly justifies the mandatory use of helmets.

The same cannot be said for the use of helmets in skiing. The typical operating environment and crash situations are far different.

An article in Ski Canada magazine at http://www.skicanadamag.com/Features/2008/12/05/7646556.html goes onto the subject in detail, but the following quotes stand out in that article:

"In terms of overall fatality rates nationwide in the U.S., there has been no decline (statistically significant or otherwise) even though nearly half the onslope population now wears a helmet. "

"Helmets will probably never have a serious impact on mitigating death due to head injury since the typical fatal scenario has so much kinetic energy that it will overwhelm the protective elements of the helmet. But the good news is that fatal injuries in snowsports are quite rare—less than one in 1.5 million days of activity. "

If helmets will, as the article and US stats suggest, have no serious impact on mitigating death in skiing crashes, it makes no economic or social sense to make them mandatory. At best the helmet would be an ineffective placebo, and at worst it may encourage skiers to take greater risks secure in the mistaken belief that the helmet will save them if something goes wrong. In that sense, the helmet would be more a menace than a help.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 4 (view)
 
losing faith
Posted: 10/15/2009 5:49:17 PM
don't put your eggs into one basket - don't rely too much on the internet, go out and get involve where you can meet people for friendships.


Living in Guelph you have a bit of a bonus situation. Year-round sports, cultural and entertainment facilities in and around the university campus there can offer a tremendous opportunity for meet and greets with single gals in your age bracket, and guys too if you find yourself giving up on the gals out of despair!
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 3 (view)
 
I am an adult
Posted: 10/14/2009 10:28:08 PM
I'll become an adult some time next year.

Of course that assumes that I won't find a reason to put it off again. I may decide to work on my procrastination thing first.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 3 (view)
 
poverty
Posted: 10/14/2009 12:59:41 PM

Posted By: driven2think on 10/14/2009 140 PM

Message: Or they entirely unrealistically expect the full 100 cents on the dollar to go to the children or people in need - so their response upon finding that it does not - is to give nothing! They don't care to understand that charities need logisitics, they need to advertise, they need transportation, and more.


I don't think anyone begrudges the necessary legitimate expenses that go along with running charity and relief organizations. Some charities do incredible work and actually do spend the vast majority of collections directly on their respective causes.

Unfortunately, disillusionment arises when you learn that some professional "charity" fund-raising organizations spend as much or more on luxurious digs and lavish executive perks than they do on the charity cause that they claim to represent. If I donate, I want the largest bulk of my donations to go directly to the cause, not to the firm soliciting the funds on behalf of the cause.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 9 (view)
 
Women, are you intimidated to play poker or just not interested?
Posted: 10/14/2009 12:44:12 PM
All I know is that I've lost my shirt to a poker-faced woman on occasion. ;-)

The others just took my money. ;-(
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 2 (view)
 
Should Helmets Be Mandatory
Posted: 10/12/2009 7:28:21 PM
I don't think we need to mandate the use of helmets on the ski slopes, at least for adults anyways.

An article in Ski Canada http://www.skicanadamag.com/Features/2008/12/05/7646556.html suggests that the number of deaths in snowsports is miniscule at less than one in 1.5 million days of activity. The same article also suggests that the types of crashes resulting fatality usually involve higher speeds that even the use of a crash helmet would not be sufficient to mitigate the high crash forces involved. The implication is that mandatory helmet usage would not make any noticeable impact on total fatalities or severe injuries sustained on the slopes.

Still, let's say we mandate helmet usage on the slopes. Studies in human nature show that people tend to set an personal level of acceptable risk in their activities and will make their choices so as to not exceed that predefined level of acceptable risk of injury or death.

If you mandate helmet use, odds are good that any safety gains offered by improved safety gear will be offset by increased risk-taking as people readjust their choices to maintain that predefined level of acceptable risk. A number of skiers will think "I'm protected now, so I think I'll go a bit faster or try some stunt that wouldn't have before without the helmet".

In effect mandatory helmets would provide an illusory safety net, and we all know that a safety net just encourages risk-taking that we might not otherwise do.

Look up "risk homeostasis" or "target risk" on google to find more info on how people adjust their activities to meet their own personal risk targets.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 6 (view)
 
Women, are you intimidated to play poker or just not interested?
Posted: 10/11/2009 3:15:48 PM
I know a few women who play poker.

Unfortunately, they just want to play for money. Where's the fun in that?
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 14 (view)
 
If accused of workplace harrassment in Ontario -you have no rights.
Posted: 10/10/2009 11:56:12 AM

Posted By: driven2think on 10/10/2009 1218 PM

Message: I also submit that if a woman cannot handle being told she is pretty then the place she needs to visit is not HR but instead a psychiatrist.

Don't women compliment one another when they get a new hair-do or a new outfit at work? Don't they tell them they look great - if they do?? That they love their blouse etcetera? They sure as shootin' do! But if a man does it he's skrewed!

Some may argue that 'you made her feel uncomfortable.'


I suppose this is about as close as you're going to get in confessing that you may indeed have harrassed a woman at work? Generally, dismissal on harrassment grounds usually comes only after persistent unwanted attention over a period of time, and not a single questionable remark. Mind you, it can also come after just one unwanted pinch of the lower cheek as well.

So, just how persistent and demonstrative were you in "complimenting" that woman?


Too damn bad. Grow up! If the most traumatizing thing you had happen in your life today was being told 'you're pretty' then you have no problems! Your boss could ask you questions you don't have the answer to in front of all your colleagues - making you far more uncomfortable; he could make you give an impromptu presentation on something you're entirely unprepared for. Are you then going to run to HR and say: 'He made me uncomfortable!' No, you behave like a respectable, mature & ethical adult and you 'suck it' up or quit.


The difference is that the expectations of the workplace. Being questioned by a manager about business or project issues, in private or in front of others with a business need to know, should be expected as being within the scope of normal employment practices.

On the other hand, being ogled, pursued and otherwise treated like a commodity at the local singles club is not. If you wouldn't consider saying a particular kind of comment to a male coworker, then maybe you should really think hard before you say it to a female coworker.

It's called keeping it professional at work. A bit of discretion, even caution, can avoid so many misunderstandings and discomfort in the workplace. It can also help avoid unwanted firings. I would think that you should be realizing that by now, but your words in your last post make me wonder...
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 16 (view)
 
Why Do We Turn To Internet Dating??
Posted: 10/7/2009 2:25:52 PM
Safety. It's hard to catch an STD or fall victim to an axe murderer while sitting online.

Realistically though - it's just a sign of the times. People lead busier lives these days with a whole lot more options in where they do what. Changes in employment and transportation environments mean that compared to our parents and grandparents, we're less likely to work in the same area where we live, and we're also more likely to spend our leisure time away from the communities in which we live.

So many people have in effect just become fast-passing ships in the night. Sure, you see them out there off in the distance, but....

Internet dating just offers a way to potentially overcome some of today's time and space hurdles. Sort of.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 9 (view)
 
any1 ever bring up the subject of cigarette addiction? if so, was it a fruitful discussion?
Posted: 10/6/2009 5:19:05 PM
when I had my first menthol I knew I would smoke as much as I could for the rest of my life.


I suppose you could put that down to the foolishness of youth.

Of course, given the way you describe your "passion" for this "smoking fetish", I'm not so sure that "the rest of your life" will be long enough for you to outlive that foolishness.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 6 (view)
 
New Cell Phone /PDA's/GPS Laws!
Posted: 10/5/2009 10:55:26 PM
So does this new law cover CB radio's in big rigs?I mean they have been using these radio's for decades and without a whole lot of problems....they can actually be very helpful.....


The law will cover CB radios in commercial vehicles and Ham radios in vehicles operated by licensed Ham operators. However, for these applications the law provides a three year implementation delay in order to give them time to update their equipment to hands-free radio gear.


and what about the police officers that are driving along punching information into their in car computers,are they going to be banned?Or is this going to be another double standard law?


Cops and other emergency services will still be able to use cell phones and two-way radio gear in their vehicles as needed to perform their duties. They will also be permitted to continue using their in-car data display terminals.

There's no double standard here. The nature of their work makes this necessary and unavoidable. Even the general public is allowed to use non-hands-free phone and radio gear to contact help in real emergency situations.

It's just a matter of balancing evils - when you're at the wheel, your hands and eyes really should be engaged in the act of driving over and above everything else. These days though, it seems that many people seem to think that the driving is secondary to their phone calls and other electronic toys. Hopefully this new law helps to change that attitude.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 14 (view)
 
Changes in the working world - is it the area... or is it me?
Posted: 9/21/2009 7:26:11 PM
Ok, here it is...

The Employment Standards Act, 2000 can be found at http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/statutes/english/elaws_statutes_00e41_e.htm

This act governs total daily and weekly working hours, required breaks, and overtime pay.

However, there is a wide range of exceptions to the act, and those exceptions can be found in ONTARIO REGULATION 285/01 - EXEMPTIONS, SPECIAL RULES AND ESTABLISHMENT OF MINIMUM WAGE, source at
http://www.e-laws.gov.on.ca/html/regs/english/elaws_regs_010285_e.htm

It requires a bit of back and forth document cross-referencing, but it's not too hard to follow.
 onefreeguy
Joined: 7/24/2008
Msg: 13 (view)
 
Changes in the working world - is it the area... or is it me?
Posted: 9/21/2009 7:07:00 PM

Could you cite the law that mandates this?... I wasn't aware of this change in legislation...


I vigorously filed the letter from my employer in the round bin after reading it, but I'll see if I can dig up something up on it.
 
Show ALL Forums