"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
Max,

I'm a resident of the Seattle Area and surrounded by more "COFFEE SNOBS"
than you can count; including my Son & Daughter. I still consider
"Coffee" a beverage. A beverage to be consumed in quanity. I still will
drink my 16 to 20 cups a day and enjoy every one. I drink Folgers [snip]

Amen Thom, Folgers Classic. I love it too.
Scout

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
Max;
Since I put the boat up For Sale, My crew has transported an awful lot
of crap off the boat and to my Garage. Some of those Crap items are gems
though.

I'm attaching a photo of one that was immediately put into use at home.
My favorite PERC. I hope you enjoy the picture while you Chew a mouthful
of Coffee Grounds, Mud Flavored Liquid called Gourmet Coffee at a highly
inflated price.

I usually drink my COFFEE Black but as you can see in the photo, there
Cinn. on the left and Grandma Molasses on the right. That is a can of
Folgars 100% Columbian but as Scout already pointed out Classic will do
just fine.

Now if you want to know about 10 different ways to make that Muddy ****
drinkable, Any Seattle Resident can tell the Blends, Additions, Drips,
Presses, Steamers, Etc what you need. It will still lack the
satisfaction of a good cup of old fashion Perc. black coffee; consumed
in the quantities of a true COFFEE DRINKER!

In other words, you're incorrigible. g Far be it from me to attempt to
change your lifestyle, Thom. But I'll drink the "muddy ****" any day over
the stuff from your perc-o-bladder. Prior to being able to obtain really
great coffee, I would drink a little now and then, but mostly just to wake
myself up on weekends. Now I drink a lot of it daily. It's just damned
good stuff when made properly and with quality beans, just ground to a fine
texture, and dripped correctly.

I'm surprised you haven't been ridden out of Seattle on a rail. :-)

Max

"Thom Stewart" wrote in message
...
Max,

When "ARCO" built the Refinery here in Washington in 1969, A group of
old timers from the Phila., Texas, Calif. Chicago, Wyoming and Iowa. We
done our own hiring of local people and trained them . I by the way
transferred from Phila.

Now when we had our Coffee Clubs the saying was; "Don't let the Damn
Philadelphias make the Coffee!" We made it to strong for them.

That was in the early 1970's. Before "Starbucks" started with their
Little Coffee Drive In Houses. That was when Seattle became the Coffee
Capitol. The locals fell in love with custom blends. That includes my
two Kids. I'm still making the same coffee but it went from Strong
Coffee to Weak Coffee.

I still make "Boiler House Coffee" and I love it

P/S I also use Tony's, Millstone and Starbuck's but still prefer "Good
old BOILER HOUSE!" Often with a whole egg in the Perc to hard boil it
for breakfast or lunch.

AND: That's my history lesson for today

Interesting--thanks, Thom. By the way, what is Boiler House Coffee--is that
a brand?

On our dock in the summer, we used to brew up a pot of good, strong coffee,
something like a French roast Tanzanian Peaberry, and put it in an insulated
carafe to offer to others on the dock. It only took one sip and now no one
will touch our coffee. They, like you, like to be able to read a newspaper
through it, apparently. That's fine, actually--it means more for us, or at
least we don't need to brew up quite as much. But I really do like good
strong coffee in the AM. It's just the best way to start the day.

Have you ever had coffee made the way the Egyptians make it? That stuff is
too strong for even moi. You almost do have to chew it.

Max

BOILER HOUSE COFFEE: Not a brand or a grind or a Blend. It is Boiled
Coffee. Perc. Coffee is an off Shoot. In Boiler Rooms it's coffee boiled
in a pot usually set on a Steam Line, with water added and coffee as
needed as the shift wears on. By the end of a shift it take a special
effort to close your eyelids (g). After getting use to Real Coffee like
that over some 38 years, your addiction is pretty strong. COFFEE SNOB
wouldn't be able to handle that kind of coffee but to a COFFEE DRINKER
it is the Nectar of Life.

http://community.webtv.net/tassail/ThomPage

Maxwell House.......good to the last drop.

Folgers is good too.

I hear the most expensive coffee around is cat **** coffee.

Joe

Vito wrote:
The three biggest positive factors that you have going for you a
1. Age
2. Diet
3. Personality type

The one biggest negative factor that you have going for you is:
1. Gender


katy wrote:
Want to borrow some makeup?

And a trowel

DSK

... This country has a whole wave of people planning to enter retirement
while their net worth is in the red. Why bother to start saving now? And
if you start with less than nothing, what difference will it make how long
you'll have to "make it" on your savings?

You neoconservatives obviously know nothing at all about finance.


Maxprop wrote:
Right. But if that's the case how does one explain that I can retire today,
draw greater than my current income and never touch the principle, even if
interest rates plunge?


Easy... ever expanding credit.
Another explanation is that you aren't including investment
returns in your "current income" (which indeed they
shouldn't be under many circumstances).


Get a grip, Doug.

Got two, thanks.

.... Where in my statement (the one you quoted) did I intimate
that investing for one's future is a bad idea?

Maybe I should have said "you neocons have absolutely no
sense of sarcasm."


I only implied that the life expectancies were seriously exaggerated to be
utilized as a sales tool in order to convince someone with a realistic life
expectancy of 78 that he's going to live to be 95 and therefore needs a much
larger nest egg. Obviously the larger the nest egg the better, but to
fallaciously inflate life expectancies in order to sell something is bogus.


Agreed, but obviously it's not working. The U.S. has a
negative savings rate and there's little or no sign it's
going up from here.

OTOH why not retire on credit cards? You can always shuffle
your balance from one card to the next. This modern world of
finance is a freeloader's dream scenario.

DSK

"DSK" wrote in message
...
... This country has a whole wave of people planning to enter retirement
while their net worth is in the red. Why bother to start saving now? And
if you start with less than nothing, what difference will it make how
long you'll have to "make it" on your savings?

You neoconservatives obviously know nothing at all about finance.


Maxprop wrote:
Right. But if that's the case how does one explain that I can retire
today, draw greater than my current income and never touch the principle,
even if interest rates plunge?


Easy... ever expanding credit.

Not in my case. I have no credit debt beyond my home.

Another explanation is that you aren't including investment returns in
your "current income" (which indeed they shouldn't be under many
circumstances).

Just because I'm not including my investment proceeds in my income does not
imply that my income is not substantial. And I guess I should have stated
that we could draw our current combined family income without touching the
principle. The reason we can do that is quite simple: the principle is
also substantial. Don't always attempt to find the red herring in every
situation. Nothing fishy here--just sound investments. Not bad for a
"neocon," eh?

.... Where in my statement (the one you quoted) did I intimate that
investing for one's future is a bad idea?

Maybe I should have said "you neocons have absolutely no sense of
sarcasm."

That may be true--you've cornered the market in it.

I only implied that the life expectancies were seriously exaggerated to
be utilized as a sales tool in order to convince someone with a realistic
life expectancy of 78 that he's going to live to be 95 and therefore
needs a much larger nest egg. Obviously the larger the nest egg the
better, but to fallaciously inflate life expectancies in order to sell
something is bogus.


Agreed, but obviously it's not working. The U.S. has a negative savings
rate and there's little or no sign it's going up from here.

I heard that the day after I posted that. Not good news for the government,
who undoubtedly will be supporting a substantial percentage of the
population on down the road.

OTOH why not retire on credit cards? You can always shuffle your balance
from one card to the next. This modern world of finance is a freeloader's
dream scenario.

I've no doubt someone (other than yourself) has thought of that as a
retirement plan.

Max

Easy... ever expanding credit.


Maxprop wrote:
Not in my case. I have no credit debt beyond my home.


Means nothing. People take cash-out refi's all the time, to
pay for accumulated debt or to splurge on a home
entertainment system. I saw a poster the other day
advertising a bank offer of 125% on your home's appraised value.



Another explanation is that you aren't including investment returns in
your "current income" (which indeed they shouldn't be under many
circumstances).


Just because I'm not including my investment proceeds in my income does not
imply that my income is not substantial.

?

What did I say, exactly? Anything that implied what your
investment income is (or is not)?


... And I guess I should have stated
that we could draw our current combined family income without touching the
principle. The reason we can do that is quite simple: the principle is
also substantial. Don't always attempt to find the red herring in every
situation. Nothing fishy here--just sound investments. Not bad for a
"neocon," eh?


Congratulations.

Did you choose to be a neo-conservative so that you could be
the sole voice of fiscal reason in the group?




... Obviously the larger the nest egg the
better, but to fallaciously inflate life expectancies in order to sell
something is bogus.


Agreed, but obviously it's not working. The U.S. has a negative savings
rate and there's little or no sign it's going up from here.


I heard that the day after I posted that.

It's been in the fiscal news for years that the U.S. savings
rate is dropping from low to nothing. Few if any of the
pundits thought it would actually go negative, or stay that
way for this long.

... Not good news for the government,
who undoubtedly will be supporting a substantial percentage of the
population on down the road.


Why should they? Just because the gov't has taken up the
task of driving the middle class into poverty, and
extinguishing the U.S.'s economic base, doesn't mean that
they're going to take any responsibility for the consequences.

Actually, it's somewhat unfair to say "the gov't" is doing
this, since it's really the fault of the politicians
currently in charge; who are not only executing
short-sighted & selfish policies but also replacing
functioning departments with patronage dependent partisan
lackeys.



OTOH why not retire on credit cards? You can always shuffle your balance
from one card to the next. This modern world of finance is a freeloader's
dream scenario.


I've no doubt someone (other than yourself) has thought of that as a
retirement plan.


It seems to be the basic plan for national fiscal policy.

DSK

No kidding. With a little effort a person with good credit could get
100 credits cards with a 10K limit. Max them all out buying foriegn
currency the go sailing for 7 yrs 1 day min.

Joe