Frugal Living: 25 new messages in 10 topics

Thursday, August 16, 2007

25 new messages in 10 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: 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 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 16 2007 2:03 pm
From: CanopyCo

On Aug 12, 6:03?pm, "Paul Thomas" <paulthomas...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> "CanopyCo" <Junk74...@aol.com> wrote
>
> > The idea that a person cannot live in less then 1000 sq. ft is funny
>
> Yeah, especially since she can't take a shower.........
>
> As I remember, there's no running water.......
>
> 'splain that one to your girlfriend's mother over dinner.
>
> And I was under the impression that rednecks lived only in the south.
>
> --
> Paul A. Thomas, CPA
> Athens, Georgia

No running water is not due to the size, it is due to her not putting
it in.

It costs money to install a hauled water system, but not all that
much.
City water from a farm tap that is run to the place threw a hose is
cheeper to install, but has that monthly fee.

After all, most RVs have water tanks, and hooking that to 2 or 3
plastic 55 gallon drums is not all that hard.
Even hauling the water in a 55 gallon drum and pumping it into your
system with a 12 V compressor is pretty easy and cheep.

It does require her to either have a car or a friend with a car or
truck though.
Joining a church will often get you that.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 16 2007 2:05 pm
From: CanopyCo

On Aug 16, 3:20?pm, freeisbest <demeter547op...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 12, 7:03 pm, "Paul Thomas" <paulthomas...@bellsouth.net> wrote:> "CanopyCo" <Junk74...@aol.com> wrote
>
> > > The idea that a person cannot live in less then 1000 sq. ft is funny
>
> > Yeah, especially since she can't take a shower.........
>
> > As I remember, there's no running water.......
>
> > 'splain that one to your girlfriend's mother over dinner.
>
> > And I was under the impression that rednecks lived only in the
> south.
>
> No, they're everywhere. The south just has the ones who are
> *good* at it.
> North Carolina, frinstance.
>
>
>
> > --
> > Paul A. Thomas, CPA
> > Athens, Georgia- Hide quoted text -
>

It's not so much a matter of being a red neck as it is being poor.
Red neck is a sociological choice.
Poor is often not.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 16 2007 2:24 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

CanopyCo <Junk74020@aol.com> wrote
> freeisbest <demeter547op...@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Paul Thomas <paulthomas...@bellsouth.net> wrote
>>> CanopyCo <Junk74...@aol.com> wrote

>>>> The idea that a person cannot live in less then 1000 sq. ft is funny

>>> Yeah, especially since she can't take a shower.........

>>> As I remember, there's no running water.......

>>> 'splain that one to your girlfriend's mother over dinner.

>>> And I was under the impression that rednecks lived only in the south.

>> No, they're everywhere. The south just has the ones who are *good* at it.
>> North Carolina, frinstance.

> It's not so much a matter of being a red neck as it is being poor.
> Red neck is a sociological choice.
> Poor is often not.

Still is when the unemployment rate is 4.x% unless its physically
impossible to work and very few are in that situation.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 16 2007 4:36 pm
From: Shadowland

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...
>
> Wait... no debt? Isn't that un-American? Aren't we all supposed to be
> enslaved to the banks?

And tiny little wages for our labor also.
Yes this is what our "leaders" want for all Americans......itsy
little tiny things.
500 million pions, ready to kill one another for the "privilage" of
working like a dog for scraps....
Oh but don't think your "leaders" will live like
that.....HAHAHAHAHA...no no no.

It's Mexico for EVERYONE !!! REJOICE REJOICE in multiculturalism !!
And brown skin for all....brown like dung (because that's what you
are)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Nesessities Versus Luxuries...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/087b5c644b866e74?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 16 2007 2:05 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

ranck@vt.edu wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> rick++ <rick303@hotmail.com> wrote

>>> Isnt it a luxury f it costs a noticeable amount of money?

>> Nope.

What matters isnt the price, its what the alternatives are.

>>> You can get a serviceable color TV for less than $100,
>>> a microwave for $30.

>> Doesnt mean that either is a necessity.

> It's a false dichotomy.

There is no dichotomy, false or otherwise.

> Some things might be neither a necessity nor a luxury.

Duh.

> A radio or TV is hardly a necessity,

Depends on the circumstances.

And in the ultimate even clothes and houses arent a necessity.

> but they really aren't luxuries if you buy the inexpensive sort.

That depends on the use of that word. Quite a bit of the
time its used as an alternative to the word necessity.
http://onelook.com/?w=luxury

> That is not to imply expensive is the defining character
> of luxury, though it's easy to make that mistake.

It is at times, most obviously with the word luxurious.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 16 2007 3:10 pm
From: hchickpea@hotmail.com

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 05:11:58 -0700, Anthony Matonak
<anthonym40@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:

>Modern appliances often save time. If you are a working stiff
>then time is not something you have to waste. The higher your
>income, the more time means more than money and the more saving
>time becomes a necessity.

Nicely put. We all play the dastardly game of Maslow's Heirarchies.
Once we have water, food, and shelter, then the next item on the list
becomes a necessity. Some folks don't know the level of the game where
"The only way to win this game is not to play it."

Television, for me, is cheap entertainment and infotainment, because
I'm more likely to watch the history programs and obscure stuff than
dreck like "America's Most Bodacious Ta-Tas."

We had an interesting experience when we first moved, where we only
got a few local channels. Our tv watching dropped to one local news
show for the headlines (about 10 minutes), because broadcast tv was so
inane. Now that we have Directv and Tivo back, we are back to maybe
an hour or two of tv a night (although I tivo much more and discard
it). So much of life is about selection.

BTW, thanks Anthony, for plugging away to keep the newsgroup going. I
haven't said it before, but I appreciate the effort.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 16 2007 5:14 pm
From: gordonb.rs0nz@burditt.org (Gordon Burditt)

>Isnt it a luxury f it costs a noticeable amount of money?

No. For example, housing is the largest piece of many families'
budgets, but it's not a luxury. On the other hand, pet rocks are
cheap, but very few people consider them a necessity.

A heart transplant is extremely expensive. Some people have medical
conditions which make a transplant a necessity or they will die,
soon. Many of those people cannot afford one, even WITH insurance.

>You can get a serviceable color TV for less than $100,
>a microwave for $30.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Ask Amy" on hosts who try to shake you down
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/bda94bb107c98041?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 16 2007 2:08 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

freeisbest <demeter547opine@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 16, 4:18 pm, "Winston Smith, American Patriot"
> <FranzKa...@Oceania.WhiteHouse.GOV> wrote:
>> lenona...@yahoo.com wrote in misc.consumers.frugal-living:
>>
>>> Enjoy - for what it's worth.
>>> Lenona.
>>
>>> http://www.newsday.com/news/columnists/chi-0816askamyaug16,0,1353428.co
>>> lumn
>>
>>> Dear Amy: Yesterday we went to the home of a friend for dinner.
>>> There were 25 guests.
>>
>>> My wife and I brought a moderately priced bottle of wine.
>>
>>> Following dinner and before dessert, an announcement was made by the
>>> host that a collection of money was being made to defray the costs.
>>> My wife and I were appalled by this as the host is by no means in
>>> need of money.
>>
>>> We have invited this person to our home several times in the past
>>> and would never think of assessing our guests for anything. Should
>>> we have contributed? How would one politely refuse? We have decided
>>> never to attend any future functions by this host. Your thoughts?
>>
>>> -- Stunned by the Host
>>
>>> Dear Stunned: I would have thought this unbelievable, but a similar
>>> thing happened to me recently. Now I wonder if this is an
>>> unfortunate trend.
>>
>>> I don't think that there is a polite way to refuse to contribute in
>>> this situation, though one could say, "I'm so sorry, I didn't bring
>>> any cash with me; do you take Visa?"
>>
>> It would have been acceptable if an announcement had been made in the
>> invitation that contributions to defray costs would be requested.
>>
>> But to spring it on the guests like that is completely beyond the
>> bounds of even bad etiquette.
>>
>> I just returned to the United States after more than a dozen years
>> abroad, living in a place where there are still Old World manners.
>> Absolutely NO person in his right mind would have asked for a dime
>> from me.
>>
>> In fact, I even invited people to lunch, and when it was time for me
>> to pay, they insisted on paying for the both of us, saying that I
>> was a "guest" because I was a foreigner. I finally convinced them
>> that it was right for me to pay, and largely on the reason that I
>> was no longer a "guest" there after several years of living there,
>> but the generosity of these people are astounding.
>>
>> Now that I am back in the U.S., I am singularly unimpressed with the
>> changes I have seen here. Aside from the complete decline in the
>> quality of products and of customer service of many businesses, I
>> see a kind of rude self-centeredness in this Generation X---or is it
>> Generation W?---- that is certainly appalling. People you thought
>> you knew well turn out to disappoint you deeply. There is a total
>> indifference to personal or professional responsibility, and I
>> wonder if it doesn't reflect a person's decision that if the people
>> who lead this government can be completely unaccountable for their
>> actions and indifferent to their own responsibilities, then why
>> should the common man?

> I'm sorry to have to agree with you. Even a couple of weeks in
> any of the European nations is enough to shows that this country has
> been Walmartized.

You wanna try one of the slums in one of those countrys.

> The mannerless arrogance that is starting to be our most
> noticeable national trait, does suggest that young people think our
> Nuculer president is a strong argument against real work, sobriety,
> willingness to defend this country in time of war, willingness to
> defend the Constitution, and mental effort.

Hasnt got a damned thing to do with the prez.

> As for the people who treated dinner guests as if they were
> customers in a restaurant... the best way to deal with them is to
> simply to tell this story to one other person in that social group.
> Not gossip, or complaint, mind you. Just a simple statement should
> make it clear to other prospective guests what the terms of their
> invitation are likely to be.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How often do you take the family out to dinner?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3a8c926d1dcbd777?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 16 2007 2:20 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

skarkada@gmail.com wrote
> Rod and Winston,

> I agree with both of you that one could eat at home and still eat unhealthy.

And plenty do just that.

> However, I still believe it is hard to influence a
> child into what (s)he should order at a restaurant.

Yeah, that can be a problem, but since its a child, you
can just tell it what its allowed to order in that situation
and you get to choose where to eat out as well.

> Rod, could you please elaborate on your "much cheaper ways?"

If you dont like the amount of work that eating at home involves, the obvious
approach is to get a dishwasher and eat pre prepared food at home and
cook more than you need for a particular meal and freeze an microwave
the extra for other meals. It isnt much effort to cook a decent curry and
its trivial to cook say 5 meals worth, freeze the extra and microwave that.
for the 4 extra meals. That involves very little work for the extra meals
and doesnt even require any washing up when a dishwasher is used.

I do the same thing with a roast leg of lamb. The first time its roasted
the work is marginally higher, but mostly its just waiting for it to roast.
Then I slice off slices and microwave a potato and veg and have the
meat cold on that hot plate with the potato and veg and that minimal work.

I eat quite a bit of chicken as kievs, cordon blue, parmigiana, baugettes etc which
I buy in bulk and freeze and cook in the oven for 30 mins with potatoes and veg in
the microwave. Very little work at all involved, just a minute or so per meal. In fact
much less time that it takes to eat out in fact.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 16 2007 3:36 pm
From: Ward Abbott

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:19:09 -0000, Joe <joe54345@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'm trying to set my budget and I've been taking them out once a week
>and I'm wondering what other frugal families do.

This must be an issue for you. If you can't afford it....you eat at
home. Period.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 16 2007 3:48 pm
From: Bernardo Gui

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 18:19:09 -0000, Joe <joe54345@gmail.com> wrote:

>I'm trying to set my budget and I've been taking them out once a week
>and I'm wondering what other frugal families do. Do you just budget an
>amount per month and see how many dinners/lunches/breakfasts you can
>squeeze in or do you just say 4 or 8 times per month and whatever it
>is it is?

We eat in restaurants only rarely. Our home cooking is better than the
average restaurant, and far healthier and economical. The one key
factor to the effectiveness of our choice is that we enjoy cooking.

Having a short commute to work and keeping stress at bay makes the
evening meal a joy.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 16 2007 4:08 pm
From: Rick

Joe wrote:
>
> I'm trying to set my budget and I've been taking them out once a week
> and I'm wondering what other frugal families do. Do you just budget an
> amount per month and see how many dinners/lunches/breakfasts you can
> squeeze in or do you just say 4 or 8 times per month and whatever it
> is it is?

If you are trying to be frugal about it you have to set a dollar amount
and stick with what your budget allows. Using an "x times a month"
approach makes no allowance at all for costs. McDonald's the first time?
Outback the next? A high end Chinese restaurant next time? The amount
you spend could be all over the place and out of control, depending on
what restaurant(s) you pick any given time.

If you want a rude awakening, keep track of this stuff for one month and
see how much you actually spend. Sure, it's only a buck fifty here and a
buck fifty there for those 5 days a week you get take out coffee at
work. (And that would be the cheap take out coffee at that if you can
still find it anywhere for only a buck fifty a cup.) Oops - get it twice
a day - that's sixty bucks right there. And you haven't even bought any
food yet. Cheap lunch at work every day? - if you can get away with
seven bucks a day - that's another $140.00 a month. 2 coffees a day plus
lunch - you are now up to $200.00 in take out food a month. For only one
working member of the family. And you haven't even taken anyone out to
dinner yet...

If you can afford it - fine. If you need to cut costs do the reality
check on how much you spend on take out food and restaurants and see if
you are happy the figure. It adds up to a lot of money real fast when
you aren't paying attention to it. Personally? I can live without take
out coffee. I can't get beyond the outrageous pricing for the lousy
quality. That's all the budget motivation I need for that one item.

Rick

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Did anyone catch the frugal episode of HGTV's Designstar?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/46fa842405949c82?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 16 2007 2:22 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

freeisbest <demeter547opine@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 15, 2:18 am, The Usual Suspect <ludmillia...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On Aug 13, 5:27 pm, Seerialmom <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> I couldn't wait to see this episode featuring one of my favorite
>>> haunts, "The .99¢ Only Store". All the designers were given $399
>>> and 99 minutes to shop; the room they were decorating had 3 white
>>> walls and a generic Ikea white couch/coffee table. They could also
>>> spend part of the $399 on 2 paint colors of their choice. The room
>>> only had to have the illusion of style; not necessarily the
>>> function.
>>
>>> some of the designers used chili pods and pinto beans to make
>>> "rugs"; others used more traditional items like the candle plates
>>> and bamboo that store has a gazillion of.
>>
>>> Myself...I think some were very creative in "repurposing" the items
>>> but others could have done more; even if only 2 paint colors you
>>> could still buy the following to make colors/dyes:
>>
>>> Beets, teabags, mustard.
>>
>>> Anyway...I'm sure it'll be repeated if you're interested.
>>
>> I loved that episode! It was amazing, the way that those decorators
>> came up with creative ways to use that junk! The winner went way
>> over the top, though! He deserved to win, since they were told not
>> to worry about practicality, but looked like they had slapped him
>> when they told him that he was going to have to start doing some
>> realistic stuff. He's got the mentality of a 12 year old!
>>
>> This season, the contestants are doing some great work!
>>
> > Also, I'm going to dye a stained white outfit with something cheap
> and
> > natural. But I hate to waste my teabags. Would coffee work?
>
> Depends on the brand of coffee, some of the cheap instants
> certainly stain your teeth. But think back to the last food you
> stained your clothes with - if you liked the color to begin with,
> there you are. For instance, if I didn't have a frontloader washer
> and oxygen bleach, I would have a complete spaghetti-sauce-toned
> wardrobe, with blueberry and strawberry accents.

The cheapest dyes would cost a lot less than using any food.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 16 2007 4:31 pm
From: Seerialmom

On Aug 14, 11:18 pm, The Usual Suspect <ludmillia...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Aug 13, 5:27 pm, Seerialmom <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > I couldn't wait to see this episode featuring one of my favorite
> > haunts, "The .99¢ Only Store". All the designers were given $399 and
> > 99 minutes to shop; the room they were decorating had 3 white walls
> > and a generic Ikea white couch/coffee table. They could also spend
> > part of the $399 on 2 paint colors of their choice. The room only had
> > to have the illusion of style; not necessarily the function.
>
> > some of the designers used chili pods and pinto beans to make "rugs";
> > others used more traditional items like the candle plates and bamboo
> > that store has a gazillion of.
>
> > Myself...I think some were very creative in "repurposing" the items
> > but others could have done more; even if only 2 paint colors you could
> > still buy the following to make colors/dyes:
>
> > Beets, teabags, mustard.
>
> > Anyway...I'm sure it'll be repeated if you're interested.
>
> I loved that episode! It was amazing, the way that those decorators
> came up with creative ways to use that junk! The winner went way over
> the top, though! He deserved to win, since they were told not to
> worry about practicality, but looked like they had slapped him when
> they told him that he was going to have to start doing some realistic
> stuff. He's got the mentality of a 12 year old!
>
> This season, the contestants are doing some great work!
>
> Also, I'm going to dye a stained white outfit with something cheap and
> natural. But I hate to waste my teabags. Would coffee work?- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes! Coffee works as a dye, too (ask anyone who has spilled it by
accident on their white pants?). The Hawaii Shirt company sells
"coffee dyed" T-shirts already; I suppose the darker the coffee...the
deeper the brown?

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 16 2007 4:35 pm
From: Seerialmom

On Aug 16, 2:22 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> freeisbest <demeter547op...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Aug 15, 2:18 am, The Usual Suspect <ludmillia...@hotmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >> On Aug 13, 5:27 pm, Seerialmom <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> >>> I couldn't wait to see this episode featuring one of my favorite
> >>> haunts, "The .99¢ Only Store". All the designers were given $399
> >>> and 99 minutes to shop; the room they were decorating had 3 white
> >>> walls and a generic Ikea white couch/coffee table. They could also
> >>> spend part of the $399 on 2 paint colors of their choice. The room
> >>> only had to have the illusion of style; not necessarily the
> >>> function.
>
> >>> some of the designers used chili pods and pinto beans to make
> >>> "rugs"; others used more traditional items like the candle plates
> >>> and bamboo that store has a gazillion of.
>
> >>> Myself...I think some were very creative in "repurposing" the items
> >>> but others could have done more; even if only 2 paint colors you
> >>> could still buy the following to make colors/dyes:
>
> >>> Beets, teabags, mustard.
>
> >>> Anyway...I'm sure it'll be repeated if you're interested.
>
> >> I loved that episode! It was amazing, the way that those decorators
> >> came up with creative ways to use that junk! The winner went way
> >> over the top, though! He deserved to win, since they were told not
> >> to worry about practicality, but looked like they had slapped him
> >> when they told him that he was going to have to start doing some
> >> realistic stuff. He's got the mentality of a 12 year old!
>
> >> This season, the contestants are doing some great work!
>
> > > Also, I'm going to dye a stained white outfit with something cheap
> > and
> > > natural. But I hate to waste my teabags. Would coffee work?
>
> > Depends on the brand of coffee, some of the cheap instants
> > certainly stain your teeth. But think back to the last food you
> > stained your clothes with - if you liked the color to begin with,
> > there you are. For instance, if I didn't have a frontloader washer
> > and oxygen bleach, I would have a complete spaghetti-sauce-toned
> > wardrobe, with blueberry and strawberry accents.
>
> The cheapest dyes would cost a lot less than using any food.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yes...but you see the idea was they had money to buy at the 99¢ Only
Store...and chances are there were no fabric dyes (but they do have
kids watercolors in the stationery area)...but plenty of canned foods/
condiments that would have dyed fabric as well.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 16 2007 4:41 pm
From: Dennis

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 13:46:49 -0700, freeisbest
<demeter547opine@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Depends on the brand of coffee, some of the cheap instants
>certainly stain your teeth. But think back to the last food you
>stained your clothes with - if you liked the color to begin with,
>there you are. For instance, if I didn't have a frontloader washer
>and oxygen bleach, I would have a complete spaghetti-sauce-toned
>wardrobe, with blueberry and strawberry accents.

But you always look good in anything you eat.

Dennis (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 16 2007 5:11 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Seerialmom <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Aug 16, 2:22 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> freeisbest <demeter547op...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> On Aug 15, 2:18 am, The Usual Suspect <ludmillia...@hotmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>> On Aug 13, 5:27 pm, Seerialmom <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> I couldn't wait to see this episode featuring one of my favorite
>>>>> haunts, "The .99¢ Only Store". All the designers were given $399
>>>>> and 99 minutes to shop; the room they were decorating had 3 white
>>>>> walls and a generic Ikea white couch/coffee table. They could
>>>>> also spend part of the $399 on 2 paint colors of their choice.
>>>>> The room only had to have the illusion of style; not necessarily
>>>>> the function.
>>
>>>>> some of the designers used chili pods and pinto beans to make
>>>>> "rugs"; others used more traditional items like the candle plates
>>>>> and bamboo that store has a gazillion of.
>>
>>>>> Myself...I think some were very creative in "repurposing" the
>>>>> items but others could have done more; even if only 2 paint
>>>>> colors you could still buy the following to make colors/dyes:
>>
>>>>> Beets, teabags, mustard.
>>
>>>>> Anyway...I'm sure it'll be repeated if you're interested.
>>
>>>> I loved that episode! It was amazing, the way that those
>>>> decorators came up with creative ways to use that junk! The
>>>> winner went way over the top, though! He deserved to win, since
>>>> they were told not to worry about practicality, but looked like
>>>> they had slapped him when they told him that he was going to have
>>>> to start doing some realistic stuff. He's got the mentality of a
>>>> 12 year old!
>>
>>>> This season, the contestants are doing some great work!
>>
>>> > Also, I'm going to dye a stained white outfit with something
>>> cheap and
>>> > natural. But I hate to waste my teabags. Would coffee work?
>>
>>> Depends on the brand of coffee, some of the cheap instants
>>> certainly stain your teeth. But think back to the last food you
>>> stained your clothes with - if you liked the color to begin with,
>>> there you are. For instance, if I didn't have a frontloader washer
>>> and oxygen bleach, I would have a complete spaghetti-sauce-toned
>>> wardrobe, with blueberry and strawberry accents.

>> The cheapest dyes would cost a lot less than using any food.

> Yes...but you see the idea was they had money to buy at the 99¢ Only Store...

Ours have fabric dyes.

> and chances are there were no fabric dyes (but they do have
> kids watercolors in the stationery area)...but plenty of canned
> foods/ condiments that would have dyed fabric as well.

Dunno, doubt too many of those are much use as permanent dyes.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 13 BILLION to Egypt, 30 BILLION to Israel
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/1430e1216ce44f5a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 16 2007 3:19 pm
From: hchickpea@hotmail.com

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 12:25:04 -0700, Dennis <dgw80@hotmail.com> wrote:

>On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:51:55 -0700, z <gzuckier@snail-mail.net> wrote:
>
>>On Aug 16, 7:51 am, "Bill" <bill190nos...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>> This is OUR money they are giving away folks!
>>>
>>> The U.S. is giving Egypt 13 BILLION dollars and Israel 30 BILLION dollars in
>>> aid!
>>>
>>> And how much more to all the other foreign countries?
>>>
>>> What is the total?
>>>
>>> Why don't we stop giving OUR money away to other countries and use it here
>>> where it is needed?
>>>
>>> Our bridges are falling apart and people are losing their homes. (But "THEY"
>>> apparently do not see this as being very important???)
>>>
>>> Charity begins at HOME!
>>>
>>> Your elected representatives....http://www.usa.gov/Contact/Elected.shtml
>>>
>>> Story...www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3431704,00.html
>>
>>Yeah, the only thing stopping us from living in Heaven on Earth is
>>that we are spending 0.1% of our GDP (http://www.commondreams.org/
>>views/100100-102.htm) on foreign aid, pretty much the lowest
>>percentage of any first world nation. Odd that the countries who give
>>higher percentages than we do still manage not to have bridges
>>falling apart and homeless people on the street, despite having lower
>>GDP per capita to begin with. Couldn't be that that damn socialism of
>>theirs which leads them to value people's lives more than dollars even
>>extends to lives of foreign people, could it?
>
>So please tell me: why does Israel, a modern first world democracy,
>with a reasonably prosperous and diverse economy, and their own modern
>military which includes a cache of nukes, need 30 billion dollars a
>year in US aid?
>
>Dennis (evil)

You clearly have never had a JAP girlfriend...

In 67 Israel was an impressive military power. Last year, they seemed
to have an intelligence just slightly north of Beavis and Butthead.
Friends don't let friends drive drunk, especially when the upcoming
road is full of dirtbags. Cheap insurance.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Who loves ya, Rush?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/50fc4bce846b7dea?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 16 2007 3:23 pm
From: krw

In article <bearclaw-089B82.04412916082007@news.supernews.com>,
bearclaw@cruller.invalid says...
> In article <1187246044.835640.295640@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
> Robert <writer7777@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Not many people hate immigrants.
>
> Right.

Exactly..

> Most just hate the brown and black ones who don't submit.

Spoken like the flaming idiot you are. Color doesn't matter. If
they don't submit to the law (any law), throw their ass out,
unceremoniously.

--
Keith

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 16 2007 3:50 pm
From: "ChairMan"

In news:46c4b05c$0$3811$4c368faf@roadrunner.com,
Anthony Matonak <anthonym40@nothing.like.socal.rr.com>spewed forth:
> ChairMan wrote:
>> bearclaw@cruller.invalid <bearclaw@cruller.invalid>spewed forth:
>>> In article <1187246044.835640.295640@q4g2000prc.googlegroups.com>,
>>> Robert <writer7777@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Not many people hate immigrants.
>>> Right.
>>> Most just hate the brown and black ones who don't submit.
>>
>> NO...just the ones that are ILLEGAL regardless of color
>> A simple concept you obviously don't understand.
>
> To be fair, the people aren't illegal. They are just law breakers
> (criminals) and are in the country illegally.

Which makes them ILLEGAL aliens/immigrants

>
> These days some laws are more socially acceptable to break than
> others. Working in another country illegally is commonly about as
> acceptable as driving drunk or selling drugs. Everyone seems to
> do it and no one seems to care very much.
>

And those attitudes are changing quickly when people realize
how much it's costing them in TAX dollars.
For instance, my grandson can't go to the districts pre K classes unless
English is his second language.
My tax dollars are paying for it, though and if I want my grandson to go to
pre K classes, I have to pay additional tuition fees.
We won't even get into the cost at the county hospital, which amounts to
millions upon millions of dollars.
Based on your reasoning, why have any immigration laws at all, lets just
open the borders cuz nobody really cares anyway.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 16 2007 5:26 pm
From: Anthony Matonak

ChairMan wrote:
> Anthony Matonak <anthonym40@nothing.like.socal.rr.com>spewed forth:
...
>> To be fair, the people aren't illegal. They are just law breakers
>> (criminals) and are in the country illegally.
>
> Which makes them ILLEGAL aliens/immigrants

I prefer criminals to illegal but that's just me.

>> These days some laws are more socially acceptable to break than
>> others. Working in another country illegally is commonly about as
>> acceptable as driving drunk or selling drugs. Everyone seems to
>> do it and no one seems to care very much.
>
> And those attitudes are changing quickly when people realize
> how much it's costing them in TAX dollars.
...
> We won't even get into the cost at the county hospital, which amounts to
> millions upon millions of dollars.

I have heard that some hospitals have had to close because they
are required to treat everyone but do not get enough money from
the government to cover their costs.

> Based on your reasoning, why have any immigration laws at all, lets just
> open the borders cuz nobody really cares anyway.

You may not know this but there was recently a bill put forward
in the United States Congress to pretty much do just that. I don't
think it passed but there are clearly lots of powerful people that
don't want borders or immigration laws.

Anthony

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Keeping dust down on a dusty road.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/393453a87e8cc967?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 16 2007 3:39 pm
From: Ward Abbott

On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:04:02 -0700, A Veteran <georgek@humboldt1.com>
wrote:

>and apply old motor oil.

Oooohhh............that must be great for the fields and streams.
The fish probably love it! Aunt Gracie....that well water is getting
a little cloudy...but its ok...I checked...

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 16 2007 5:01 pm
From: E Z Peaces

Ward Abbott wrote:
> On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 11:04:02 -0700, A Veteran <georgek@humboldt1.com>
> wrote:
>
>> and apply old motor oil.
>
> Oooohhh............that must be great for the fields and streams.
> The fish probably love it! Aunt Gracie....that well water is getting
> a little cloudy...but its ok...I checked...
>
Besides, motor oil can make a road slick when it rains. There are oils
that are not hazardous waste and don't get slick. Calcium chloride is
preferred. It helps the dust hold moisture and lasts longer than oil.
Unfortunately it can promote rust.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: how often do you turn on your basement dehumdifier?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/0be86dbe647ce6b7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 16 2007 4:56 pm
From: E Z Peaces

Bob F wrote:
> "Rick" <rickajho@rcn.com> wrote in message news:46BDF17E.E11A9E45@rcn.com...
>> Logan Shaw wrote:
>>> Joe wrote:
>>>> I have a humid basement - hovers around 80 degrees on it's own - but
>>>> it's not damp. I keep a fan running 24/7 and that keeps any musty
>>>> smells at bay. If I run my dehumdifier for an hour it gets the
>>>> humidity down to around 60. Am I ok running it about 4 times a day for
>>>> an hour each time or should I keep it running continuously? It uses
>>>> about as much energy as an air conditioner so I don't want to run it
>>>> all day unless it's absolutely necessary to keep the moisture at bay.
>>> Hmm, isn't that what a humidistat is for -- running a dehumidifier
>>> (or humidifier) only as much as is necessary to keep a desired
>>> moisture level?
>>>
>>> - Logan
>> Sure, but they are still expensive to run. Dehumidifiers havn't climbed
>> on the "Energy Star bandwagon" yet. Even with tweaking the control on
>> ours all the time to make sure it isn't running more than it needs to,
>> it can still jump our electric bill by about 1/3 during the summer
>> months. I think the point the OP was making was would it still work
>> enough if he only had it turned on four times a day rather than letting
>> it do it's own thing being plugged in 24/7.
>
> If you REALLY need a dehumidifier, would you rather have an air conditioner? Why
> not get cooling as you dehumidify rather than just dumping the heat back into
> the basement.
>
> Bob
>
>
An air conditioner could be self-defeating. The cooler the air, the
less able it is to pick up the water vapor that comes in through the
walls, etc. Ventilation is the traditional and frugal way to keep a
basement dry. A Heat Recovery Ventilator helps you control basement
temperature while ventilating in cold or hot weather.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: hi my frind
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/2ff05dbedabce886?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 16 2007 5:15 pm
From: "Tockk"

Have you tried Scientology? Don't knock it if you haven't tried it.
If not Scientology, then how about Spirulina? Or Spirulina on toast points?
Some people swear by the Koran, others by the Bible, and others swear by
Amway.

Yep, there's lots of stuff out there to try.
As the fellow who was handing out free samples of snuff once quipped to me
and my friend Mabel, "Don't be shy, give it a try!"

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

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

Thursday, August 16, 2007

25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

No comments: