Frugal Living: 25 new messages in 4 topics

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

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* A/C working properly? Cost -> lower temp? - 16 messages, 9 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/6c37471a9403c0a2?hl=en
* Vitamin C useless in combatting colds - 6 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/498d68c0ba1d2e0f?hl=en
* Woman is content living in 84-sq. ft. tiny dream home. - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/911886124117ed11?hl=en
* Does closing off unused bedrooms and vents really save electricity for AC? -
2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/6a18c20c30b12344?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A/C working properly? Cost -> lower temp?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/6c37471a9403c0a2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 20 2007 11:06 am
From:

"Home Enviro Health Specialists" <sales@uvclightpurification.com> wrote in
message news:DK6oi.50$Q81.40@newsfe12.lga...
> kjpro @ usenet.com wrote:
> > "Home Enviro Health Specialists" <sales@uvclightpurification.com> wrote
in
> > message news:7r5oi.28$lj7.2@newsfe12.lga...
> >> kjpro @ usenet.com wrote:
> >>> "Home Enviro Health Specialists" <sales@uvclightpurification.com>
wrote
> > in
> >>> message news:oJ3oi.12$Q81.5@newsfe12.lga...
> >>>> kjpro @ usenet.com wrote:
> >>>>> "Home Enviro Health Specialists" <sales@uvclightpurification.com>
> > wrote
> >>> in
> >>>>> message news:F0Wni.93$Zi.38@newsfe12.lga...
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Hey Jeffy then *pay* and get your own *private* newsgroup, this is
> >>>>>> public, no one here owns it including you and from the language
that
> >>> you
> >>>>>> have in your vocabulary you should be banned from any public group.
> >>>>> You should be banned for being ignorant.
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>> You can't be serious, read the posts. I am the one that is ignorant.
> >>>> You make claims with not having proper knowledge, insult people,
speak
> >>>> to people rudely, think that a public newsgroup is just for you and
who
> >>>> you say is ok to be here, think you know all and don't have the
ability
> >>>> to learn about something you know nothing about, claim others don't
> > know
> >>>> things when you don't have the knowledge to make that determining
> > factor
> >>>> and last but not least, you don't have the ability to learn about
> >>>> advances in your own industry and I am the one that is ignorant?
> >>>
> >>> You have one thing right when you state " I am the one that is
> > ignorant".
> >>> BTW, how's that UV light going to extend the life of a unit?
> >>> I mean after all, you have to cover the evap pan and other plastics.
LOL
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Read and learn about your own industry. The advantages way out the
> >> disadvantages. Plus, not much plastic in the plenum to be exposed
> >> anyway. And we discussed this before it would take an extended period
> >> of time to the UV to effect the plastics, but we do cover them for it
> >> not to be an issue.
> >
> >
> > Do you ever re-read your bullshit?
> >
> > "not much plastic in the plenum" ever looked at an ICP evaporator
assembly?
> > "it would take an extended period of time" what's 18-20 years mean to
you?
> > "but we do cover them for it not to be an issue" that means is *does*
effect
> > them and that it *doesn't* extend the life.
> >
> > Read the above till you can understand what it means...
> >
> >
> >
> You idiot, the amount of plastic is covered so it does not effect them
> and you obviously didn't read how it does extend the life. Please
> enough, don't post anymore BS until you have read about the technology
> and have supporting documentation to back you opinions.

Again, how does your product extend the life of HVAC systems? LOL

== 2 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 20 2007 11:07 am
From: Home Enviro Health Specialists

kjpro @ usenet.com wrote:
> "Home Enviro Health Specialists" <sales@uvclightpurification.com> wrote in
> message news:HQ5oi.32$lj7.3@newsfe12.lga...
>
>> Something just came to mind. I would be willing to bet that you had the
>> same narrow minded opinions when pc's were developed, but now you can't
>> keep your mouth shut on one. Please let me to be the first to know when
>> and where your first purchase of UV-C is.
>
>
> I will NEVER purchase anything from YOU!!!
>
> BTW, why is it again that you care WHERE I make purchases?
> I've told you before, I don't swing your way!! Never WILL!!!
>
> Now that's cleared up... shut the fuck up, you lying retard.
>
>
That's fine with me. It seems that you claim it is BS and does not
work, lies. So I want to know when you purchase because I bet that one
day you will and I would bet that one day you would try to sell it. But
I hope that no one would be stupid enough to purchase a product from you
or sell to you about a product that you have said so many negative
things about.

--
Jim - UV-C Light Purification
e-mail: jsm@uvclightpurification.com
--------------------------
HVAC Coil Irradiation to kill *Mold, *Mildew,
*Viruses and *Bacteria.
*Downstream Air Purification
--------------------------
Proven case studies, EPA Evaluation, Etc.
http://www.uvclightpurification.com

--------------------------
Find an additional source of income to your present HVAC business and
provide a healthier environment for your clients, energy savings, and
extend life of the HVAC.
---------------------------
Please contact me with any questions, suggestions or input that you may
have.

Thank You

== 3 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 20 2007 11:09 am
From: Home Enviro Health Specialists

kjpro @ usenet.com wrote:
> "Home Enviro Health Specialists" <sales@uvclightpurification.com> wrote in
> message news:DK6oi.50$Q81.40@newsfe12.lga...
>> kjpro @ usenet.com wrote:
>>> "Home Enviro Health Specialists" <sales@uvclightpurification.com> wrote
> in
>>> message news:7r5oi.28$lj7.2@newsfe12.lga...
>>>> kjpro @ usenet.com wrote:
>>>>> "Home Enviro Health Specialists" <sales@uvclightpurification.com>
> wrote
>>> in
>>>>> message news:oJ3oi.12$Q81.5@newsfe12.lga...
>>>>>> kjpro @ usenet.com wrote:
>>>>>>> "Home Enviro Health Specialists" <sales@uvclightpurification.com>
>>> wrote
>>>>> in
>>>>>>> message news:F0Wni.93$Zi.38@newsfe12.lga...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Hey Jeffy then *pay* and get your own *private* newsgroup, this is
>>>>>>>> public, no one here owns it including you and from the language
> that
>>>>> you
>>>>>>>> have in your vocabulary you should be banned from any public group.
>>>>>>> You should be banned for being ignorant.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> You can't be serious, read the posts. I am the one that is ignorant.
>>>>>> You make claims with not having proper knowledge, insult people,
> speak
>>>>>> to people rudely, think that a public newsgroup is just for you and
> who
>>>>>> you say is ok to be here, think you know all and don't have the
> ability
>>>>>> to learn about something you know nothing about, claim others don't
>>> know
>>>>>> things when you don't have the knowledge to make that determining
>>> factor
>>>>>> and last but not least, you don't have the ability to learn about
>>>>>> advances in your own industry and I am the one that is ignorant?
>>>>> You have one thing right when you state " I am the one that is
>>> ignorant".
>>>>> BTW, how's that UV light going to extend the life of a unit?
>>>>> I mean after all, you have to cover the evap pan and other plastics.
> LOL
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Read and learn about your own industry. The advantages way out the
>>>> disadvantages. Plus, not much plastic in the plenum to be exposed
>>>> anyway. And we discussed this before it would take an extended period
>>>> of time to the UV to effect the plastics, but we do cover them for it
>>>> not to be an issue.
>>>
>>> Do you ever re-read your bullshit?
>>>
>>> "not much plastic in the plenum" ever looked at an ICP evaporator
> assembly?
>>> "it would take an extended period of time" what's 18-20 years mean to
> you?
>>> "but we do cover them for it not to be an issue" that means is *does*
> effect
>>> them and that it *doesn't* extend the life.
>>>
>>> Read the above till you can understand what it means...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> You idiot, the amount of plastic is covered so it does not effect them
>> and you obviously didn't read how it does extend the life. Please
>> enough, don't post anymore BS until you have read about the technology
>> and have supporting documentation to back you opinions.
>
>
> Again, how does your product extend the life of HVAC systems? LOL
>
>
>
Read the post K I can't just keep typing over and over again the same
old stuff.

Thank You

== 4 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 20 2007 11:18 am
From: Home Enviro Health Specialists

kjpro @ usenet.com wrote:
> "Home Enviro Health Specialists" <sales@uvclightpurification.com> wrote in
> message news:kA6oi.43$Q81.28@newsfe12.lga...
>> kjpro @ usenet.com wrote:
>>> "Home Enviro Health Specialists" <sales@uvclightpurification.com> wrote
> in
>>> message news:TF5oi.31$lj7.14@newsfe12.lga...
>>>> B-Hate-Me wrote:
>>>>> "Home Enviro Health Specialists" <sales@uvclightpurification.com>
> wrote
>>> in
>>>>> message news:Iy3oi.10$Q81.7@newsfe12.lga...
>>>>>>> It appears that you are profoundly stupid.
>>>>>> I was typing a lot and I am not a typist, nor am I looking for
> perfect
>>>>>> grammar. Takes a person like yourself to find fault in other people.
>>> One
>>>>>> would question the person you are or how smart you are. Instead of
>>>>>> speaking about the topic and not my grammar.
>>>>> What topic? UV lights? In the words of Buffy, "Puh-lease".
>>>>>
>>>>> If I am making a presentation, which is essentially what you are doing
>>> here,
>>>>> I check and re-check my spelling, punctuation and grammar. Guess why?
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> I didn't know I was making a presentation. It's conversation.
>>>
>>> Bullshit... you're looking for sales!
>>>
>>>
>> To who you? Or others that don't know about it? Nah slick I just want
>> to be sure that the public has valid, supported, professionals show the
>> benefits of UV-C technology and not allow narrow minded uneducated
>> people like you have the public exposed to unqualified techs. like you
>> to explain UV-C technology.
>
>
> Bullshit.. where's your proof that your product extends the life of HVAC
> systems... LOL
>
>
read above

Thank You

== 5 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 20 2007 11:18 am
From: "Bob F"

"Bill" <notinterested@mail.com> wrote in message
news:46a0e3f9$0$30640$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> In article <E--dnc05nr3UfT3bnZ2dnUVZ_gSdnZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Bob F" <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> "Bill" <notinterested@mail.com> wrote in message
>> news:46a0d368$0$3092$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> > Answer this. Where is the "war on terror" being fought? Where should it
>> > be fought?
>> > I know that requires thinking. Take your time. Ask friends. We will wait.
>>
>> Do you mean Bushes "War to create and train terrorists"? It's been a great
>> success.
>>
>> All the reports coming out of the relevant agencies are showing more
>> terrorism,
>> Al Queda stronger than before 9/11, etc. Bush was Bin Ladens greatest
>> promoter.
>> Everything he has done has played into Bin Ladens hands.
>>
>> It is hard to believe there are still people that think the fiasco in Iraq is
>> making ANYONE safer. They have their heads so far up their A.... they can't
>> see
>> anything.
>>
>> Bob
>
> And your solution is......

My solution was NOT to go into Iraq in the first place. It was so obvious we'd
be in trouble if we did.

I have yet to hear the Bushies state their solution. All they ever want to do is
more of the same - expecting a different result this time. Insanity.

== 6 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 20 2007 11:21 am
From: Home Enviro Health Specialists

Bill wrote:
> In article <0D6oi.45$Q81.2@newsfe12.lga>,
> Home Enviro Health Specialists <sales@uvclightpurification.com> wrote:
>
>> Bill again making the same stupid claims formed by your own uneducated
>> opinion. Read, learn, then speak. How about again show me with valid
>> proof that what you claim is true about UV-C technology.
>
> I'm making no claims or selling any gizmo's. Furnish written proof of
> your claims.
> You can't unless you want sued. lol Putz
>
You made no claims. Read the posts you moron. Bill read the
documentation that form an opinion till then let it be.

Thank You

== 7 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 20 2007 11:37 am
From: Bill

In article <lT6oi.55$Q81.16@newsfe12.lga>,
Home Enviro Health Specialists <sales@uvclightpurification.com> wrote:

> > Again, how does your product extend the life of HVAC systems? LOL
> >
> Read the post K I can't just keep typing over and over again the same
> old stuff.

You could try answering his question instead.

You can't back up your statements and your threats in other newsgroups
aren't intimidating anyone.

Either provide written documentation of your claims or quit posting.

Someone's opinion isn't actionable in court. Your expert's opinion on
your statements is worthless. If it's not in writing, it's bullshit.

Peddle your gizmo's elsewhere. I'm tired of you lying and playing with
the truth.

http://michellemalkin.com/

== 8 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 20 2007 11:52 am
From: Bill

In article <EcqdnUDzDbLnYT3bnZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@comcast.com>,
"Bob F" <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:
> > And your solution is......
>
> My solution was NOT to go into Iraq in the first place. It was so obvious
> we'd
> be in trouble if we did.

So based on available intelligence from many countries and Saddam's
refusal to abide by the ceasefire agreements and in violation of UN
resolutions.
You would have done what?

After the fact we know of duplicity by some security council members in
regard to Iraq.
What say you after factoring that in?

>
> I have yet to hear the Bushies state their solution. All they ever want to do
> is
> more of the same - expecting a different result this time. Insanity.

All I hear from the left is carping and capitulation. Eight years of
Clinton and 6 months of Democrat control this year have yielded what?
Empty threats and statements of defeat and surrender?

In exchange for a complete pullout, would you be in favor of nuking Iraq
and Iran?

Personally I say we embargo Iran. (Newt's suggestion) Cut their gas
supply off so they are reduced to walking. No fuss no muss.
Thoughts?

http://michellemalkin.com/

== 9 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 20 2007 12:22 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Bill <notinterested@mail.com> wrote:
> In article <EcqdnUDzDbLnYT3bnZ2dnUVZ_qOknZ2d@comcast.com>,
> "Bob F" <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> And your solution is......
>>
>> My solution was NOT to go into Iraq in the first place. It was so
>> obvious we'd
>> be in trouble if we did.
>
> So based on available intelligence from many countries and Saddam's
> refusal to abide by the ceasefire agreements and in violation of UN
> resolutions.
> You would have done what?
>
>
>
> After the fact we know of duplicity by some security council members
> in regard to Iraq.
> What say you after factoring that in?
>
>
>
>>
>> I have yet to hear the Bushies state their solution. All they ever
>> want to do is
>> more of the same - expecting a different result this time. Insanity.
>
> All I hear from the left is carping and capitulation. Eight years of
> Clinton and 6 months of Democrat control this year have yielded what?
> Empty threats and statements of defeat and surrender?
>
> In exchange for a complete pullout, would you be in favor of nuking
> Iraq and Iran?

> Personally I say we embargo Iran. (Newt's suggestion) Cut their
> gas supply off so they are reduced to walking. No fuss no muss.
> Thoughts?

Not even possible.

== 10 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 20 2007 12:30 pm
From: "dfr"

clams casino <PeterGriffin@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
> Bill wrote:
>
>> In article <i51oi.208$WP1.49@newsfe19.lga>,
>> clams casino <PeterGriffin@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Some 26% of the US still feel GW is doing a fully satisfactory job.
>>> Essentially the same percentage believe Iraq was behind the 9/11
>>> terrorism.
>>
>> Did that hurt?
>> When you pulled that out of your ass?
>>
>>
>
> Harris poll (July 2007) - 26% percent: - President Bush's approval
> rating according to a new Harris poll, down from a high of 88 percent
> shortly after 9/11.
>
>
> I recalled the second part incorrectly - " Even today, more than four
> years into the war in Iraq, as many as four in 10 Americans (41
> percent) still believe Saddam Hussein's regime was directly involved
> in financing, planning or carrying out the terrorist attacks on 9/11,
> even though no evidence has surfaced to support a connection."
> http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/19390791/site/newsweek/
>
>>
>>
>>> Hmm - just how ignorant are the GW supporters?
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Not near as ignorant as liberals. Hell they can't find the USA on a
>> map much less Iraq.
>>
>>
>>
> Reinforces your ignorance - I've been a registered Republican all my
> life. I just didn't vote for cowboy, baby bush (either time).
>
>
>> Answer this. Where is the "war on terror" being fought? Where should
>> it be fought?
>> I know that requires thinking. Take your time. Ask friends. We will
>> wait.
> Had GW used the military to go after the terrorists after 9/11 rather
> than using it as a convenient way to overthrow Saddam in his pissing
> contest (even Saddam grossly underestimated GW's self-interest cowboy
> instinct), the world would be a whole lot safer today.
>
> Then again, the Cheney / GW agenda has always been to stir up fear
> around the world to enrich their oil-based coffers through higher oil
> pricing. Meanwhile, they continue to cost the US about $10B/mo trying
> to cover their ass in their botched invasion of Iraq (which once
> again - had NOTHING to do with 9/11) - all with borrowed money that
> will have to be paid for well after they leave office.
>
> But then, GW has had a history of similar failures (proceed on shoot
> from the hip, gut feel & get others to bail him out).
>
> For a start - GW needs to go and the US needs to rebuild badly
> shattered diplomacy amongst allies.. His fear mongering,
> stay-the-course, failed strategy has been a failure from day one
> (except to enrich his family / friends coffers).

> Then, a retreat from Iraq is needed

Which is only going to encourage terrorism now.

> with a buildup in Afghanistan using world-wide cooperation is necessary to wipe out the terrorists
> training camps.

Not even possible.

> Unfortunately, the military has been spread way too thin to be effective on the real threats of
> terrorism, as history has proven.

No military has EVER wiped out terrorism, it isnt even possible.

== 11 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 20 2007 12:58 pm
From: clams casino

dfr wrote:

>>Then, a retreat from Iraq is needed
>>
>>
>
>Which is only going to encourage terrorism now.
>
>

You've got that backwards - Staying in Iraq will continue to encourage
terrorism / hatred of the US.

So how long do you propose staying - 50 years? 100 yrs? 1300 years?

Granted, Bush / Cheney created the problem, but our military's presence
will have no effect on building peace in Iraq. Their civil war is
their and their neighboring countries concern, not ours.

>
>
>>with a buildup in Afghanistan using world-wide cooperation is necessary to wipe out the terrorists
>>training camps.
>>
>>
>
>Not even possible.
>
>

New leadership is required. No one trusts Bush & company. No one is
willing to work with him. That will require an indefinite presence,
but they should not be involved with a civil / sectarian war.

>
>
>>Unfortunately, the military has been spread way too thin to be effective on the real threats of
>>terrorism, as history has proven.
>>
>>
>
>No military has EVER wiped out terrorism, it isnt even possible.
>
>
>
>
Terrorism will never be wiped out. Then again, it's nothing new. The
History channel recently had a show that talked about car bombs back in
the 20's which probably were in existence well before that.

The military's purpose should be wiping out terrorist camps - not
playing police in Iraq.

== 12 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 20 2007 1:11 pm
From: Bill

In article
<46a10b7b$0$12826$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au>,
"Rod Speed" <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Personally I say we embargo Iran. (Newt's suggestion) Cut their
> > gas supply off so they are reduced to walking. No fuss no muss.
> > Thoughts?
>
> Not even possible.

Why not? They import almost everything.

http://michellemalkin.com/

== 13 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 20 2007 1:19 pm
From: "dfr"

clams casino <PeterGriffin@drunkin-clam.com> wrote:
> dfr wrote:
>
>>> Then, a retreat from Iraq is needed
>>>
>>>
>>
>> Which is only going to encourage terrorism now.

> You've got that backwards

Nope.

> Staying in Iraq will continue to encourage terrorism / hatred of the US.

Yes, but a retreat would do that even more dramatically given that
the terrorists would decide that they won doing what they did.

> So how long do you propose staying - 50 years? 100 yrs? 1300 years?

Until it becomes clear that those fools cant get their act into gear.

And when that becomes clear, it shouldnt be a retreat, just make it clear
to those fools that they are too hopeless to be worth any more US lives.

> Granted, Bush / Cheney created the problem,

Yes, its become clear that the shrub's dad had enough of a clue
to realise that the invasion of Iraq was never going to be viable.

> but our military's presence will have no effect on building peace in Iraq.

You dont know that.

> Their civil war is their and their neighboring countries concern, not ours.

Wrong when it was produced by the invasion of Iraq.

>>> with a buildup in Afghanistan using world-wide cooperation is necessary to wipe out the
>>> terrorists training camps.

>> Not even possible.

> New leadership is required. No one trusts Bush & company.

No one trusts anyone on the other side either.

> No one is willing to work with him.

The other side has no idea about what to do now either.

> That will require an indefinite presence, but they should not be involved with a civil / sectarian
> war.

It did work in northern ireland. Eventually even the stupid irish came to their senses.

Its arguable whether the stupid ragheads ever will.

These are the fools stupid enough to loot everything that isnt nailed
down when Saddam's jackboot was removed from their throats.

Contrast that with the krauts and the japs at the end of WW2.

>>> Unfortunately, the military has been spread way too thin to be
>>> effective on the real threats of terrorism, as history has proven.

>> No military has EVER wiped out terrorism, it isnt even possible.

> Terrorism will never be wiped out. Then again, it's nothing new. The History channel recently
> had a show that talked about car bombs
> back in the 20's which probably were in existence well before that.

Corse it was. There was quite a bit of terrorism in the century before that.

> The military's purpose should be wiping out terrorist camps

Wont stop the sort of terrorism that has been seen in england and madrid etc.

> - not playing police in Iraq.

It did work in northern ireland, eventually.

Whether its worth the loss of US lives is another matter entirely.

The real problem was the invasion of Iraq in the first place.

There isnt any way to fix that now.

== 14 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 20 2007 2:33 pm
From: "B-Hate-Me"

"Home Enviro Health Specialists" <sales@uvclightpurification.com> wrote in
message news:2B6oi.44$Q81.40@newsfe12.lga...
>>
>> UV lights suck and so do you.
> Learn about advances in your industry and support what you claim. I sure
> can.

Yup...... You sure can suck.

== 15 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 20 2007 1:36 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Bill <notinterested@mail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod_speed@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Bill <notinterested@mail.com> wrote

>>> Personally I say we embargo Iran. (Newt's suggestion) Cut their
>>> gas supply off so they are reduced to walking. No fuss no muss.
>>> Thoughts?

>> Not even possible.

> Why not? They import almost everything.

Not gas they dont.

And the embargo on Cuba didnt reduce them to walking anyway.

== 16 of 16 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 20 2007 1:49 pm
From: clams casino

dfr wrote:

>
>The real problem was the invasion of Iraq in the first place.
>
>There isnt any way to fix that now.
>
>
>
>
Bingo - there is no fix without a worldwide coalition.

That will never happen under Bush (Guiliani, etc).

Staying in Iraq will have no effect on their sectarian violence / hatred.

Retreating from Iraq is NOT retreating from fighting terrorism.

In fact, it can and should be the first step in focusing on fighting the
terrorist cells vs. the side track that was made to invade Iraq..

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Vitamin C useless in combatting colds
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/498d68c0ba1d2e0f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 20 2007 11:07 am
From: "Rod Speed"

Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote
>>> Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote
>>>> Mark K. Bilbo wrote
>>>>> Michael Gray wrote
>>>>>> Wilson <wilson@universal.com> wrote

>>>>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/18/nvit118.xml

>>>>>>> Vitamin C useless in combatting colds

>>>>>>> a.. Taking vitamin C supplements to prevent a cold is a waste
>>>>>>> of time and money, say researchers. A review of 30 studies
>>>>>>> involving more than 11,000 people found that taking the
>>>>>>> tablets had no effect on the average person.

>>>>>> But Echinacia seems to be beneficial...

>>>>> Actually, that one was debunked some time ago...

>>>> What about those zinc tabs like Cold-Eze?

>>> That one is somewhat effective.

>> Nope.

>>> They did controlled tests.

>> Nope.

> According to my box of Cold-Eeze it says,

> "shown to be effective in reducing the severity of symptoms by 42%
> and duration by 3 to 4 days in two double blind placebo controlled
> clinical studies. Cleveland Clinic Mossad et al., Annals of Internal
> Medicien, Vol. 125, No 2 July 15, 1996 and Dartmouth College Godfrey
> et al., Journal of International Medical Research, Vol. 20 No 3, June 1992.

Pity about the other ones that showed no effect.

> http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/125/2/81
> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1397668&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

Pity that says the exact opposite of what you claim on the question of PREVENTING colds, what
was being discussed in the Vitamin C study. It had absolutely NO effect on PREVENTING colds at all.

> And this one reports mixed results.

> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=9475824&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

Same problem, that isnt even discussing what was being discussed, PREVENTING colds.

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 20 2007 11:09 am
From: "Sam Jones"

Michael Gray <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:57:26 +0930, Michael Gray
> <mikegray@newsguy.com> wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:08:57 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
>> <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:04:27 -0400, Geoff wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:22:58 +0930, Michael Gray wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:15:00 -0400, "Wilson"
>>>>>> <wilson@universal.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/18/
>>>>>>> nvit118.xml
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vitamin C useless in combatting colds
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a.. Taking vitamin C supplements to prevent a cold is a
>>>>>>> waste of time
>>>>>>> and money, say researchers. A review of 30 studies involving
>>>>>>> more than 11,000 people found that taking the tablets had no
>>>>>>> effect on the average person.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But Echinacia seems to be beneficial...
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, that one was debunked some time ago...
>>>>
>>>> What about those zinc tabs like Cold-Eze?
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> It's all marketing fluff.
>>
>> Are you going to tell the publishers of "The Lancet"??
>
> (For that is the so-called "shit rag" that the obdurate cretin Mr. Speed was disparaging.)

Lying, as always. I JUST said that about New Scientist.

The Lancet never ever had any article about spontaneous human combustion, fuckwit.

>>> You'd get more benefit from eating your
>>> veggies...

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 20 2007 11:10 am
From: "Rod Speed"

Mark K. Bilbo <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 11:57:26 +0930, Michael Gray wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:08:57 -0500, "Mark K. Bilbo"
>> <gmail@com.mkbilbo> wrote:
>>
>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 09:04:27 -0400, Geoff wrote:
>>>
>>>> Mark K. Bilbo wrote:
>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 18:22:58 +0930, Michael Gray wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Thu, 19 Jul 2007 00:15:00 -0400, "Wilson"
>>>>>> <wilson@universal.com> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/18/
>>>>>>> nvit118.xml
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Vitamin C useless in combatting colds
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> a.. Taking vitamin C supplements to prevent a cold is a
>>>>>>> waste of time
>>>>>>> and money, say researchers. A review of 30 studies involving
>>>>>>> more than 11,000 people found that taking the tablets had no
>>>>>>> effect on the average person.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> But Echinacia seems to be beneficial...
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually, that one was debunked some time ago...
>>>>
>>>> What about those zinc tabs like Cold-Eze?
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> It's all marketing fluff.
>>
>> Are you going to tell the publishers of "The Lancet"??
>
> Zinc may have some effectiveness but I haven't seen a medical expert
> yet that hasn't pointed out that obtaining vitamens via vegetables is
> immensely better than any pill. Further, much of what's on the market
> is dreck. At least in the US, the suppliment market is totally
> unregulated and you can put pretty much anything into a bottle and
> call it anything you want.
>
> The bottom line being your mother was right, eat your veggies...

Pity that doing that hasnt been shown to PREVENT colds.

Vegetarians still get colds.

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 20 2007 11:17 am
From: "Rod Speed"

AllEmailDeletedImmediately <derjda@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 06:24:45 +1000, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> AllEmailDeletedImmediately <derjda@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> "Conspiracy of Doves" <mark_dp73@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>> news:1184864791.227417.287750@d55g2000hsg.googlegroups.com...
>>>>> On Jul 19, 12:15 am, "Wilson" <wil...@universal.com> wrote:
>>>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/18/nvit1...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Vitamin C useless in combatting colds
>>>>>>
>>>>>> a.. Taking vitamin C supplements to prevent a cold is a
>>>>>> waste of time
>>>>>> and money, say researchers. A review of 30 studies involving more
>>>>>> than 11,000 people found that taking the tablets had no effect on
>>>>>> the average person.
>>>>
>>>> not true. wonder what mgs were tested. it used to be that
>>>> when i felt a cold/flu
>>>> coming on, i'd load up on vit c--20 GRAMS or so. knocked it right
>>>> out. no
>>>> nothing. i even tested it once and let myself get to feeling
>>>> sick, just to be sure i
>>>> was going to get sick, and same thing. gone in a day or two.
>>>>
>>>> now i just take garlic and echinacea and i NEVER get sick. neither does dh.
>>>
>>> I dont take a damned thing and never get a cold either.
>
> we used to get colds every year.

So did I.

Bit weird actually, the place I worked used to flog fertilizer sacks of oranges for peanuts to the
employees.

Someone else claimed that that was a good way to avoid getting colds and that he hadnt got
any after he started drinking the juice, so I did get them for a few years and did stop getting
colds. But got sick of juicing the damned oranges, so gave that up, and still didnt get any colds.

Interestingly we were both at about the same age when we stopped getting colds.

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 20 2007 1:13 pm
From: Ben Kaufman

On Sat, 21 Jul 2007 04:07:39 +1000, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote
>>>> Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote
>>>>> Mark K. Bilbo wrote
>>>>>> Michael Gray wrote
>>>>>>> Wilson <wilson@universal.com> wrote
>
>>>>>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/18/nvit118.xml
>
>>>>>>>> Vitamin C useless in combatting colds
>
>>>>>>>> a.. Taking vitamin C supplements to prevent a cold is a waste
>>>>>>>> of time and money, say researchers. A review of 30 studies
>>>>>>>> involving more than 11,000 people found that taking the
>>>>>>>> tablets had no effect on the average person.
>
>>>>>>> But Echinacia seems to be beneficial...
>
>>>>>> Actually, that one was debunked some time ago...
>
>>>>> What about those zinc tabs like Cold-Eze?
>
>>>> That one is somewhat effective.
>
>>> Nope.
>
>>>> They did controlled tests.
>
>>> Nope.
>
>> According to my box of Cold-Eeze it says,
>
>> "shown to be effective in reducing the severity of symptoms by 42%
>> and duration by 3 to 4 days in two double blind placebo controlled
>> clinical studies. Cleveland Clinic Mossad et al., Annals of Internal
>> Medicien, Vol. 125, No 2 July 15, 1996 and Dartmouth College Godfrey
>> et al., Journal of International Medical Research, Vol. 20 No 3, June 1992.
>
>Pity about the other ones that showed no effect.
>
>> http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/125/2/81
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1397668&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum
>
>Pity that says the exact opposite of what you claim on the question of PREVENTING colds, what
>was being discussed in the Vitamin C study. It had absolutely NO effect on PREVENTING colds at all.
>
>> And this one reports mixed results.
>
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=9475824&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus
>
>Same problem, that isnt even discussing what was being discussed, PREVENTING colds.
>

Wrong. Read the last sentence of the original message ".... had NO EFFECT on
the average person." No effect means it would not reducing symptoms and
duration either.

And before you try to say that is the wrong interpretation, read the article
"...For most people, the benefit of taking vitamin C supplements is so slight
when it comes to colds that it is not worth the effort or expense, the authors
say. ..."

Ben

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 20 2007 1:34 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Ben Kaufman <spaXm-mXe-anXd-paXy-5000-dollars@pobox.com> wrote
>>>>> Geoff <gebobs@yahoo.nospam.com> wrote
>>>>>> Mark K. Bilbo wrote
>>>>>>> Michael Gray wrote
>>>>>>>> Wilson <wilson@universal.com> wrote

>>>>>>>>> http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/main.jhtml?xml=/news/2007/07/18/nvit118.xml

>>>>>>>>> Vitamin C useless in combatting colds

>>>>>>>>> a.. Taking vitamin C supplements to prevent a cold is a waste
>>>>>>>>> of time and money, say researchers. A review of 30 studies
>>>>>>>>> involving more than 11,000 people found that taking the
>>>>>>>>> tablets had no effect on the average person.

>>>>>>>> But Echinacia seems to be beneficial...

>>>>>>> Actually, that one was debunked some time ago...

>>>>>> What about those zinc tabs like Cold-Eze?

>>>>> That one is somewhat effective.

>>>> Nope.

>>>>> They did controlled tests.

>>>> Nope.

>>> According to my box of Cold-Eeze it says,

>>> "shown to be effective in reducing the severity of symptoms by 42%
>>> and duration by 3 to 4 days in two double blind placebo controlled
>>> clinical studies. Cleveland Clinic Mossad et al., Annals of Internal
>>> Medicien, Vol. 125, No 2 July 15, 1996 and Dartmouth College Godfrey
>>> et al., Journal of International Medical Research, Vol. 20 No 3, June 1992.

>> Pity about the other ones that showed no effect.

>>> http://www.annals.org/cgi/content/full/125/2/81
>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?db=pubmed&cmd=Retrieve&dopt=AbstractPlus&list_uids=1397668&query_hl=3&itool=pubmed_docsum

>> Pity that says the exact opposite of what you claim on the question
>> of PREVENTING colds, what was being discussed in the Vitamin C
>> study. It had absolutely NO effect on PREVENTING colds at all.

>>> And this one reports mixed results.

>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=9475824&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

>> Same problem, that isnt even discussing what was being discussed,
>> PREVENTING colds.

> Wrong.

Nope.

> Read the last sentence of the original message
> ".... had NO EFFECT on the average person."

Pity about the first sentence which clearly says
"Taking vitamin C supplements TO PREVENT a cold
is a waste of time and money, say researchers."

> No effect means it would not reducing symptoms and duration either.

Wrong when the first sentence which clearly says
"Taking vitamin C supplements TO PREVENT a cold
is a waste of time and money, say researchers"

Its clearly talking about no effect on PREVENTING
a cold, not on the symptoms after you get one.

> And before you try to say that is the wrong interpretation,

Your clearly is just that.

> read the article "...For most people, the benefit of taking
> vitamin C supplements is so slight when it comes to colds
> that it is not worth the effort or expense, the authors say. ..."

Different matter entirely to PREVENTING a cold.

That study you cited actually says very unambiguously
that zinc does NOTHING to PREVENT a cold.

==============================================================================
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 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 20 2007 11:24 am
From: "Rod Speed"

Donna <donna@exitstageleftcroakerwoods.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Donna <donna@exitstageleftcroakerwoods.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Donna <donna@exitstageleftcroakerwoods.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>>>> American Indian TeePee , English settlers first homes?

>>>>>> Not too practical today.

>>>>> As practical as you want to be.

>>>> Nope. No privacy for starters.

>>> Depends on where you build.

>> Nope.

> We'll agree to disagree.

Nope.

> We live in the woods with a small plot of land cleared
> for the house. It wouldn't matter the size of the house,
> the materials we used to build it; we have privacy.

No you dont when say fucking in that teepee with others in that teepee.

Just as true of taking a crap too.

> Of course, there can always be an intruder in the woods who
> is peeking for this or that, but we still consider it very private.

See above.

> I showed those tiny houses to my sister who is building
> here in a few years on our property. She's considering it.

Hell of a lot more practical than a teepee in the cold weather alone.

> P.S. We're doing a sun room and there's no privacy there either,
> but it's our place and we like seeing the outdoors from our home.

A sun ROOM is a different matter to just one room,
a teepee when fucking or taking a crap etc etc etc.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Does closing off unused bedrooms and vents really save electricity for
AC?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/6a18c20c30b12344?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 20 2007 11:54 am
From: Beeblebrox

Zilbandy wrote:
> On Fri, 20 Jul 2007 12:29:53 -0500, Beeblebrox
> <beeblebrox.ag.NOSPAM@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>>Do you shut
>>off the nozzle at the end of the hose, or the faucet at the wall, after
>>all?
>
>
> And if you never plan on using the hose, why not shut it off where
> that hose bib connects to the main water supply? If you decide to use
> a shut off room some day, do you want to climb up to the attic or just
> open the vent? We don't have an attic, and I'm not ready to tear out
> the sheet rock in the ceiling to plug off a duct. The vent will do
> nicely... and effectively. If you really want to shut it off, take the
> vent off and plug up the vent with a piece of sheet metal.
>

well, as teh OP mentioned his attic, the situation is different. Lack of
an attic changes the equation.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jul 20 2007 12:51 pm
From: mikeerdas@yahoo.com

> I'd use another HVAC person if I were you. If you close off a vent,
> MOST of the air that would normally go to that room will be blocked.
> That will result in higher pressure in the ductwork which means more
> air to the other rooms. This should result in the other rooms cooling
> quicker and lower the amount of time the compressor has to run.
> Result? Lower power bills.
> Zilbandy

Read somewhere that closing off vents could result in the higher
pressure you mention, but at risk of damaging the ductwork to the
closed off room(s). Don't know if the risk is real and/or how high;
just relating what I'd read.

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

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

Friday, July 20, 2007

25 new messages in 4 topics - digest

No comments: