Frugal Living: 17 new messages in 8 topics

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

17 new messages in 8 topics - digest

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Frugal pre-paid funeral expenses?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/ce3b2b4cec57072f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 16 2007 4:01 pm
From: Steve

>>> Hello. I'd like to get some advice about trying to set up something
>>> that will pre-pay my funeral/burial costs. I'm going to be checking
>>> out here at the end of the fall of this year. When my grandmother
>>> died, her expenses ended up being around $9,000 in total for
>>> everything (casket, transport, burial, etc).

If you know someone's dying and they don't have a prepaid plan, need
to act quick. The costs can double or triple depending on whether you
get the thing paid for before or after death. It can literally be a
matter of minutes, checked against the time posted on the death
certificate. I know some folks who found out the hard way...

The government is unresponsive to the needs of the little man.
Under 5'7" it is impossible to get your congressman on the phone.

...Woody Allen

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 16 2007 4:15 pm
From: Zilbandy

On Mon, 16 Jul 2007 13:51:55 -0700, bb90125@yahoo.com wrote:

>I've got around $2,000 right now saved,

You've probably got more than enough for a prepaid cremation plan.

--
Zilbandy

==============================================================================
TOPIC: dimmer switches: power savers?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/e4c4948008d4c7c6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 16 2007 4:10 pm
From: val189

Or do they merely lessen the light output?

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 16 2007 4:18 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

val189 <gwehrenb@bellsouth.net> wrote:

> Or do they merely lessen the light output?

They do both.

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 16 2007 4:30 pm
From: New Leaf

On Jul 16, 4:10 pm, val189 <gwehr...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> Or do they merely lessen the light output?

Val, I think your idea of scheduling bulb cleaning is one of the most
effective ways to save on electricity for lighting. A clean 60W gives
as much light as a dusty 100W, especially if it's in an enclosed light
fixture that you've also cleaned.

Viv

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 16 2007 4:44 pm
From: "Don K"

"New Leaf" <nootka@rogers.com> wrote in message
news:1184628610.620312.62280@i38g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
> On Jul 16, 4:10 pm, val189 <gwehr...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
>> Or do they merely lessen the light output?
>
> Val, I think your idea of scheduling bulb cleaning is one of the most
> effective ways to save on electricity for lighting. A clean 60W gives
> as much light as a dusty 100W, especially if it's in an enclosed light
> fixture that you've also cleaned.
>
> Viv

Is that something you measured or did the 60W/100W relationship come
to you as some sort of revelation?

Will a slightly dusty 75W give off less light as a dusty 100W but
more than a clean 60W?
:)

Don

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 16 2007 4:54 pm
From: "Bob F"

"val189" <gwehrenb@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:1184627459.090616.127090@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> Or do they merely lessen the light output?
>

Using dimmers will result in less light for the power used. A low
wattage bulb is more efficient at producing less light.

Bob

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 16 2007 6:21 pm
From: Logan Shaw

Bob F wrote:
> "val189" <gwehrenb@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
> news:1184627459.090616.127090@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>> Or do they merely lessen the light output?

> Using dimmers will result in less light for the power used. A low
> wattage bulb is more efficient at producing less light.

Hmm, I'd never thought of this before, but I suppose that is
one advantage of 3-way bulbs: 3 different light levels, each
with all filaments involved burning at full power and thus
maximum efficiency.

- Logan

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 16 2007 6:28 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Logan Shaw <lshaw-usenet@austin.rr.com> wrote:
> Bob F wrote:
>> "val189" <gwehrenb@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
>> news:1184627459.090616.127090@q75g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
>>> Or do they merely lessen the light output?
>
>> Using dimmers will result in less light for the power used. A low
>> wattage bulb is more efficient at producing less light.
>
> Hmm, I'd never thought of this before, but I suppose that is
> one advantage of 3-way bulbs: 3 different light levels, each
> with all filaments involved burning at full power and thus
> maximum efficiency.

Yep, except that the full on format isnt as efficient as just one filament of that power.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Maroon 5 - It Won`t Be Soon Before Long Free Download
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/cc99745f91da2097?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 16 2007 5:11 pm
From: Kauser Khan

Download Maroon 5 - It Won`t Be Soon Before Long Full album from
www.super3gp.com in mp3 format. amazing website for Music

Album tracks
If I Never See Your Face Again
Makes Me Wonder
Little of Your Time
Wake Up Call
Won't Go Home Without You
Nothing Lasts Forever
Can't Stop
Goodnight Goodnight
Not Falling Apart
Kiwi
Better That We Break
Back At Your Door

==============================================================================
TOPIC: TracFone 240 min. for $50
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/8fbe6b5c2a6cd7b9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 16 2007 5:29 pm
From: timeOday

Him wrote:
> That comes out to 20.x cents per minute. Virgin Mobil starts their per
> minute price at 18 cents. You can also get a free phone on line and I think
> the service is better, complete online tracking of the account and
> monitoring of use. I switched about 6 months ago.
>

Do you get the phone for free, or do you have to file for a rebate?
I've been after amp'd for my $100 rebate for about 5 months and I now
think I probably will not get it.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why don't the liberal whiners start a health insurance company?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/18cfba458dce8ce2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 16 2007 5:31 pm
From: "SpammersDie"

"jes" <jesmith100@msn.com> wrote in message
news:1184614681.976324.33020@g37g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>> > Tests aren't free, even if some of the work is done at the same time
>> > by the same machine.
>>
>> And the machine that tests for 4 things obviously
>> costs more than a machine that tests for just one.
>
> How do you know they only mfr. machines which run 4 tests?????
> Wouldn't cost any more, would it?

Whether it costs the hospital more isn't the issue. The patient is getting 4
results so he should pay for 4 results.

People carpool in order to save themselves commuting costs too. Is it fraud
if they don't volunteer for a paycut to pass those savings on their
employer?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Woman is content living in 84-sq. ft. tiny dream home.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/911886124117ed11?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 16 2007 5:34 pm
From: "Sylvester Sweetmeat"

"not the moderator" <lavenderlouie@AZGOV.com/us> wrote in message
news:coGmi.282993$Fk2.45107@newsfe08.phx...
> editor@netpath.net wrote:
>> On Jul 15, 5:29 pm, Useful Info <useful_...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> Electricity from solar.
>>> Propane from a small container.
>>> $10k for the entire house.
>>> No mortgage...
>>
>> It's very possible. After all, lots of Americans - especially men
>> - for generations have CHOSEN to live for days at a time in small
>> hunting cabins, fishing cabins, po-up vacation trailers, etc.
>>
>> No $4 to park! No $6 admission!

http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com
>>
> Lots of criminals live in 8x10 ft. cells and survive quite well. They have
> a sink and commode, a nice bed to entertain their "buddy", and have meals
> prepared for them. The cells are climate controlled and they go out to
> eat. The taxpayer picks up the bill. Unfortunately, the cells aren't
> mobile, and they aren't allowed to have campfires or pets.

Man, learn what you be talkin' about before you talk. Every brother got a
ton a roaches all to his self.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 16 2007 5:31 pm
From: miles

Paul Thomas, CPA wrote:
>
> Even sailors on a sub have more total living space (although shared) than 84
> sf.

The 84sf figure is misleading. She has a loft bedroom that does not
take up any of the 84sf except for the ladder. Still, pretty tiny house!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Visa and MC: No Charge Is Too Small
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/09a236ad49955ac8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 16 2007 5:40 pm
From: Jim Prescott

In article <MPG.2104b94fc2e4e9eb989c1a@nntp.aioe.org>,
Usenet2007@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG <Usenet2007@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote:
>In article <f7155h$htn@harn.ceas.rochester.edu>,
>jgp@seas.rochester.edu says...
>> That isn't quite correct. The merchant agreement is between the
>> merchant and the merchant's bank. But you the consumer also have a
>> contract with the bank you got your card from. Ease of use is one of
>> the big features Visa & MC pitch and it is the reason behind many of
>> the acceptance rules merchants would like to ignore. You have a right
>> to complain to your bank about such merchants and to expect them to do
>> something about it.
>...
>Are you suggesting that the Cardholder Agreement includes
>language that obligates customers to refuse to do business with a
>merchant who violates the minimum transaction prohibition? Or to
>report that merchant?

No. I'm suggesting that Visa has spent a great deal of time and money
establishing what a "Visa card" is. When I get a Visa card from my bank
I have an expectation of how it can be used based on Visa's advertising
and the rules they publish. If the reality of the card not only differs
from those expectations, but is outright contrary to them, then I have
reason to complain.

Granted there is no recourse here beyond cancelling the card. But the
banks shouldn't be blowing off consumer complaints on this, they should
be passed up the chain. The banks that are trying to sell Visa cards
have a vested interest in having Visa accurately describe their product,
whether it be by enforcing existing rules or by changing those rules.

>> There is also an aspect of false and misleading advertising here since
>> merchants will typically display the CC logo prominently on the door
>> and in advertising and it's not til you get to the register that you
>> learn that when they said "Visa" they weren't using the word the same
>> way that Visa does (and insists that the merchant must). In this
>> instance you are a party to the violation and would have standing for
>> prosecution.
>...
>The merchant processing contract doesn't say anything about a
>customer/cardholder being held responsible for tolerating
>violations like minimums, surcharges, etc.

I wasn't talking about the merchant contract here, but about potentially
criminal false and misleading advertising. The merchant advertises that
they accept Visa and the consumer takes that into account when choosing
the merchant. After spending time, and possibly incurring a bill, the
consumer finds that the merchant does not in fact accept Visa, at least
not in the way generally understood and promoted by Visa.

The consumer has been directly harmed by the merchant. Whether this
harm rises to the criminal level would depend on the specific laws in
place and the specifics of the event. The merchant agreement isn't
directly relevant although the fact that the merchant had signed a
contract that prohibited certain behavior might be a factor in deciding
whether a "reasonable person" should have anticipated such behavior.
--
Jim Prescott - Computing and Networking Group jgp@seas.rochester.edu
School of Engineering and Applied Sciences, University of Rochester, NY

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 16 2007 6:26 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Jim Prescott <jgp@seas.rochester.edu> wrote
> Usenet2007@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG <Usenet2007@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG> wrote:
>> In article <f7155h$htn@harn.ceas.rochester.edu>,
>> jgp@seas.rochester.edu says...
>>> That isn't quite correct. The merchant agreement is between the
>>> merchant and the merchant's bank. But you the consumer also have a
>>> contract with the bank you got your card from. Ease of use is one
>>> of the big features Visa & MC pitch and it is the reason behind
>>> many of the acceptance rules merchants would like to ignore. You
>>> have a right to complain to your bank about such merchants and to
>>> expect them to do something about it.
>> ...
>> Are you suggesting that the Cardholder Agreement includes
>> language that obligates customers to refuse to do business with a
>> merchant who violates the minimum transaction prohibition? Or to
>> report that merchant?
>
> No. I'm suggesting that Visa has spent a great deal of time and money
> establishing what a "Visa card" is. When I get a Visa card from my
> bank I have an expectation of how it can be used based on Visa's
> advertising and the rules they publish. If the reality of the card
> not only differs from those expectations, but is outright contrary to
> them, then I have reason to complain.
>
> Granted there is no recourse here beyond cancelling the card. But the
> banks shouldn't be blowing off consumer complaints on this, they
> should be passed up the chain. The banks that are trying to sell
> Visa cards have a vested interest in having Visa accurately describe
> their product, whether it be by enforcing existing rules or by
> changing those rules.

Or they have enough of a clue to realise that its never going to be
feasible to enforce the most stupid rules and that the current approach
does bluff the most stupid merchants, so its better than changing them.

>>> There is also an aspect of false and misleading advertising here
>>> since merchants will typically display the CC logo prominently on
>>> the door and in advertising and it's not til you get to the
>>> register that you learn that when they said "Visa" they weren't
>>> using the word the same way that Visa does (and insists that the
>>> merchant must). In this instance you are a party to the violation
>>> and would have standing for prosecution.
>> ...
>> The merchant processing contract doesn't say anything about a
>> customer/cardholder being held responsible for tolerating
>> violations like minimums, surcharges, etc.

> I wasn't talking about the merchant contract here, but
> about potentially criminal false and misleading advertising.

Its nothing like criminal.

> The merchant advertises that they accept Visa and the consumer
> takes that into account when choosing the merchant.

And anyone with a clue realises that some merchants flout the
silliest rules with impunity and that they get to like that or lump it.

> After spending time, and possibly incurring a bill, the consumer
> finds that the merchant does not in fact accept Visa, at least
> not in the way generally understood and promoted by Visa.

Then they get to like that or lump it or not use that merchant again.

> The consumer has been directly harmed by the merchant.

They still get to like that or lump it or not use that merchant again.

> Whether this harm rises to the criminal level would depend
> on the specific laws in place and the specifics of the event.

Nope, its never going to be a criminal offence.

> The merchant agreement isn't directly relevant although the
> fact that the merchant had signed a contract that prohibited
> certain behavior might be a factor in deciding whether a
> "reasonable person" should have anticipated such behavior.

And the reality is that they get to like that or lump it or not use that merchant again.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Instantly Turn your Computer into a Super TV

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/7dda214d6208c036?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Jul 16 2007 6:20 pm
From: George Grapman

The only contact info on the site is an email form. I asked for
minor details such as a physical address and phone number and the
reply was the spam they posted here,word for word.

==============================================================================

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living-unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en

Frugal Living

Blog Archive

Tuesday, July 17, 2007

17 new messages in 8 topics - digest

No comments: