Frugal Living: 25 new messages in 11 topics

Sunday, December 23, 2007

25 new messages in 11 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: Free sample of SPAM
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/4631cbbca4791708?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 8:05 am
From: mja

FreebiesPl.us wrote:

>http://www.freebie
>

Why does my ISP continue block your link / reporting it to be a
suspected scam?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Buying a house with parents
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/cf080f57347816ab?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 8:29 am
From: larry

Banty wrote:
> In article <srhi-7FEC00.10214423122007@newsgroups.comcast.net>, Shawn Hirn
> says...
>
>>In article <MPG.21d84109e9231a0398b317@news.individual.net>,
>>Stan Brown <the_stan_brown@fastmail.fm> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>Sun, 23 Dec 2007 08:15:53 -0500 from Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net>:
>>>
>>>>The question I have, is sharing a house with my parents a good idea from
>>>>an emotional standpoint for the three of us?

I completely agree with everyone else. NO NO NO!

In fact, there should be a rule that parents and grown kids
live 50 miles apart. Too far to visit every day, but
close enough to visit on the weekend. Many good
relationships have been ruined by a little parental
meddling. But a jealous friend can be more dangerous ;-)

Caregiver, unless you are trained for the job, is a real
killer too. I think each year is equal to 10 years of heavy
smoking. You can't predict the future, but you can prepare
for eventualities.

What neighborhood ~isn't~ becoming a ~bad~ neighborhood
these days? Previous post about gang bangers is true. But
a drug infested neighborhood is a real risk, since they
always need drug money and live in a haze far from reality.

Grow to be all you can be and stay the best of friends with
your parents. Remember the ole saying "Green and growing,
or ripe and rotting"

-- larry / dallas

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Natural gas space heaters
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/620118e627721656?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 8:44 am
From: "daestrom"

<nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:fk8iv5$q1e@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
>I just installed a 30K Btu/h natural gas vent-free radiant heater in
> a house near Allentown, PA, where kerosine now costs $3.50/gallon
> and natural gas costs about $1.50/therm (roughly equivalent).
>
> Empire Comfort Systems (Enerco) makes this "Mr. Heater." Tractor Supply
> sells it for $229.99 as sku #2151954. It comes with a thermostat and
> a blower and a digital temperature display. It has an oxygen depletion
> sensor, and it can work without grid power, but there have been some
> problems since installation.
>
> The thermostat only has 5 temp settings, as well as "pilot only." It is
> supposed to make the room about 55 F min, with 5 F steps above that, but
> the temp sensing bulb is on the back near a cold floor under a cold
> single-
> pane window. When the first setting heats most of the room to more than
> 70 F, the owner turns the thermostat back to pilot before the heater
> turns itself off, while the temperature display still only reads 58 F, ie
> the thermostat isn't doing much. The owner says with the knob between
> the lowest and pilot settings, the heater emits interesting flaming blue
> gas footballs instead of the usual red glow. And it makes condensation
> on the indoor window surfaces.
>

Sounds like an installation problem. Why does it have the sensor low to the
floor, and why did you install it in front of a window?

> We might fix the first 2 problems by putting a 25 watt light bulb near
> the temp sensor with a $15 line-voltage thermostat on the wall that
> turns the bulb off when the room is warm enough.
>
> This old house seemed drafty enough to avoid window condensation, but
> it also has a damp basement, with puddles of water after rain. Keeping
> water out of the basement might help a lot. Indoor storm window shrink
> films could also help. Allentown is 31.8 F on an average December day.
> An R1 window with a 1.5 Btu/h-F-ft^2 still airfilm indoor conductance to
> 70 F room air and (70-31.8)1ft^2/R1 = 38.2 Btu/h-ft^2 of heatflow would
> have a glazing temp (dew point) of 70-38.2x1ft^2/1.5 = 44.5 F (504.5 R),
> with indoor RH = 100e^-(9621(530-504.5)/(504.5x530) = 40% at 70 F (530 R).
> Basement puddles at 55 F could condense on window surfaces.
>
> If indoor film makes the windows R2 and raises the film temp to
> 70-19.1/1.5
> 59.4 F (519.4 R), the a max indoor RH = 100e^-(9621(530-519.4)/(519.4x530)
> = 69%, with no condensation from basement puddles.
>
> NREL says Allentown has an average humidity ratio wo = 0.0028 pounds of
> water
> per pound of dry air in December, with Pa = 29.921/(1+0.62198/0.0028)
> = 0.1341 "Hg. Air at 70 F and 100% RH has Psat = e^(17.863-9621/(460+70))
> = 0.748 "Hg, approximately, so merely heating the outdoor air to 70 F
> with no basement puddles would make the indoor RH = 100Pa/Psat = 18%.
>
> The ASHRAE HOF says pure methane (vs a different natural gas mixture) has
> a high heating value (HHV) of 23,875 Btu/lb, when we condense the water
> vapor
> from combustion and a low heating value (LHV) of 21,495 (11% less) when we
> don't, and 1000 Btu can evaporate a pound of water, so a vent-free heater
> that makes 20K Btu/h also makes 0.11x20K/1000 = 2.2 lb/h of water vapor.
> With window films and no basement puddles, we could keep a 50% indoor RH
> (wi= 0.016) by moving in C cfm of fresh air (at 0.075 lb/ft^3), where
> 2.2=60C0.075(wi-wo), so C = 37 cfm, with a heat loss of about 37(70-31.8)
> 1420 Btu/h, which lowers the heater system efficiency to 93%, compared to
> an HHV- 100%.
>

70 degF air at RH 50% is about 25.5 Btu/lbm and 31.8 degF air at RH 100% is
about 11.7 Btu/lbm. So the heat loss from 37 cfm is
37*60*.075*(25.5-11.7)=2298 Btu/hr, more like 88.5% efficiency. Of course
if outside air is lower than 100% humidity (likely, since your NREL wo
=0.0028 @31.8F is an RH of 74.5%), then losses are more. At 74.5% RH and
31.8F, the energy in air is 10.6 Btu/lbm for a loss of
37*60*.075*(25.5-10.6)=2481 Btu/h and efficiency of 87.6%. Of course with
lower outside RH, you won't need quite so much ventilation, but it looks
like your 37 cfm is based on NREL's 74.5% number, so maybe you will still
need 37 cfm.

So with ventilation to control the humidity, you'll get efficiencies
comparable to a conventional gas furnace. It'll be nice and humid in the
house, but with single pane windows you'll have a lot of condensate and mold
growth on the frames.

daestrom
P.S. 2.2 lbm/hr of water vapor at 70F is about 31.8 cfm of H2O being added
to the space.

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 9:55 am
From: hvacrmedic

On Dec 23, 10:44 am, "daestrom" <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com>
wrote:
> <nicksans...@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
>
> news:fk8iv5$q1e@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
>
>
>
>
>
> >I just installed a 30K Btu/h natural gas vent-free radiant heater in
> > a house near Allentown, PA, where kerosine now costs $3.50/gallon
> > and natural gas costs about $1.50/therm (roughly equivalent).
>
> > Empire Comfort Systems (Enerco) makes this "Mr. Heater." Tractor Supply
> > sells it for $229.99 as sku #2151954. It comes with a thermostat and
> > a blower and a digital temperature display. It has an oxygen depletion
> > sensor, and it can work without grid power, but there have been some
> > problems since installation.
>
> > The thermostat only has 5 temp settings, as well as "pilot only." It is
> > supposed to make the room about 55 F min, with 5 F steps above that, but
> > the temp sensing bulb is on the back near a cold floor under a cold
> > single-
> > pane window. When the first setting heats most of the room to more than
> > 70 F, the owner turns the thermostat back to pilot before the heater
> > turns itself off, while the temperature display still only reads 58 F, ie
> > the thermostat isn't doing much. The owner says with the knob between
> > the lowest and pilot settings, the heater emits interesting flaming blue
> > gas footballs instead of the usual red glow. And it makes condensation
> > on the indoor window surfaces.
>
> Sounds like an installation problem. Why does it have the sensor low to the
> floor, and why did you install it in front of a window?
>
>
>
>
>
> > We might fix the first 2 problems by putting a 25 watt light bulb near
> > the temp sensor with a $15 line-voltage thermostat on the wall that
> > turns the bulb off when the room is warm enough.
>
> > This old house seemed drafty enough to avoid window condensation, but
> > it also has a damp basement, with puddles of water after rain. Keeping
> > water out of the basement might help a lot. Indoor storm window shrink
> > films could also help. Allentown is 31.8 F on an average December day.
> > An R1 window with a 1.5 Btu/h-F-ft^2 still airfilm indoor conductance to
> > 70 F room air and (70-31.8)1ft^2/R1 = 38.2 Btu/h-ft^2 of heatflow would
> > have a glazing temp (dew point) of 70-38.2x1ft^2/1.5 = 44.5 F (504.5 R),
> > with indoor RH = 100e^-(9621(530-504.5)/(504.5x530) = 40% at 70 F (530 R).
> > Basement puddles at 55 F could condense on window surfaces.
>
> > If indoor film makes the windows R2 and raises the film temp to
> > 70-19.1/1.5
> > 59.4 F (519.4 R), the a max indoor RH = 100e^-(9621(530-519.4)/(519.4x530)
> > = 69%, with no condensation from basement puddles.
>
> > NREL says Allentown has an average humidity ratio wo = 0.0028 pounds of
> > water
> > per pound of dry air in December, with Pa = 29.921/(1+0.62198/0.0028)
> > = 0.1341 "Hg. Air at 70 F and 100% RH has Psat = e^(17.863-9621/(460+70))
> > = 0.748 "Hg, approximately, so merely heating the outdoor air to 70 F
> > with no basement puddles would make the indoor RH = 100Pa/Psat = 18%.
>
> > The ASHRAE HOF says pure methane (vs a different natural gas mixture) has
> > a high heating value (HHV) of 23,875 Btu/lb, when we condense the water
> > vapor
> > from combustion and a low heating value (LHV) of 21,495 (11% less) when we
> > don't, and 1000 Btu can evaporate a pound of water, so a vent-free heater
> > that makes 20K Btu/h also makes 0.11x20K/1000 = 2.2 lb/h of water vapor.
> > With window films and no basement puddles, we could keep a 50% indoor RH
> > (wi= 0.016) by moving in C cfm of fresh air (at 0.075 lb/ft^3), where
> > 2.2=60C0.075(wi-wo), so C = 37 cfm, with a heat loss of about 37(70-31.8)
> > 1420 Btu/h, which lowers the heater system efficiency to 93%, compared to
> > an HHV- 100%.
>
> 70 degF air at RH 50% is about 25.5 Btu/lbm and 31.8 degF air at RH 100% is
> about 11.7 Btu/lbm. So the heat loss from 37 cfm is
> 37*60*.075*(25.5-11.7)=2298 Btu/hr, more like 88.5% efficiency. Of course
> if outside air is lower than 100% humidity (likely, since your NREL wo
> =0.0028 @31.8F is an RH of 74.5%), then losses are more. At 74.5% RH and
> 31.8F, the energy in air is 10.6 Btu/lbm for a loss of
> 37*60*.075*(25.5-10.6)=2481 Btu/h and efficiency of 87.6%. Of course with
> lower outside RH, you won't need quite so much ventilation, but it looks
> like your 37 cfm is based on NREL's 74.5% number, so maybe you will still
> need 37 cfm.
>
> So with ventilation to control the humidity, you'll get efficiencies
> comparable to a conventional gas furnace. It'll be nice and humid in the
> house, but with single pane windows you'll have a lot of condensate and mold
> growth on the frames.
>
> daestrom
> P.S. 2.2 lbm/hr of water vapor at 70F is about 31.8 cfm of H2O being added
> to the space.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

If it all stayed in the house, then the house would soon explode from
the built up positive pressure. If the house doesn't breath beforhand,
then it certainly will after the windows are blown out.

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 10:14 am
From: nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu

daestrom <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:

>> I just installed a 30K Btu/h natural gas vent-free radiant heater in
>> a house near Allentown, PA, where kerosine now costs $3.50/gallon
>> and natural gas costs about $1.50/therm (roughly equivalent)...
>
>... Why does it have the sensor low to the floor

Dunno.

>... and why did you install it in front of a window?

That was sort of an accident. It might possibly change.

>> 2.2=60C0.075(wi-wo), so C = 37 cfm, with a heat loss of about 37(70-31.8)
>> 1420 Btu/h, which lowers the heater system efficiency to 93%, compared to
>> an HHV-based 100%.
>
>70 degF air at RH 50% is about 25.5 Btu/lbm and 31.8 degF air at RH 100% is
>about 11.7 Btu/lbm. So the heat loss from 37 cfm is
>37*60*.075*(25.5-11.7)=2298 Btu/hr, more like 88.5% efficiency.

Ah yes. I was just thinking about the sensible loss. Then again,
we might build that Coroplast condensing air-air heat exchanger.

>So with ventilation to control the humidity, you'll get efficiencies
>comparable to a conventional gas furnace.

Higher, I'd say, in this drafty house.

>It'll be nice and humid in the house, but with single pane windows you'll
>have a lot of condensate and mold growth on the frames.

The owner seems reluctant to add window films or fix the basement puddles...

Nick

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 10:42 am
From: dances_with_barkadas@yahoo.com

> ASHRAE's standard of 15 cfm per full-time occupant (which
> used to be 5 cfm.)

300% upward revision.... I'm wondering why this spec change
occurred.

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 10:53 am
From: "daestrom"

<nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu> wrote in message
news:fkm8i6$30@acadia.ece.villanova.edu...
> daestrom <daestrom@NO_SPAM_HEREtwcny.rr.com> wrote:
>
>>> I just installed a 30K Btu/h natural gas vent-free radiant heater in
>>> a house near Allentown, PA, where kerosine now costs $3.50/gallon
>>> and natural gas costs about $1.50/therm (roughly equivalent)...
>>
>>... Why does it have the sensor low to the floor
>
> Dunno.
>
>>... and why did you install it in front of a window?
>
> That was sort of an accident. It might possibly change.
>
>>> 2.2=60C0.075(wi-wo), so C = 37 cfm, with a heat loss of about
>>> 37(70-31.8)
>>> 1420 Btu/h, which lowers the heater system efficiency to 93%, compared
>>> to
>>> an HHV-based 100%.
>>
>>70 degF air at RH 50% is about 25.5 Btu/lbm and 31.8 degF air at RH 100%
>>is
>>about 11.7 Btu/lbm. So the heat loss from 37 cfm is
>>37*60*.075*(25.5-11.7)=2298 Btu/hr, more like 88.5% efficiency.
>
> Ah yes. I was just thinking about the sensible loss. Then again,
> we might build that Coroplast condensing air-air heat exchanger.

As long as you stay above freezing to avoid frost I suppose...

>
>>So with ventilation to control the humidity, you'll get efficiencies
>>comparable to a conventional gas furnace.
>
> Higher, I'd say, in this drafty house.
>
>>It'll be nice and humid in the house, but with single pane windows you'll
>>have a lot of condensate and mold growth on the frames.
>
> The owner seems reluctant to add window films or fix the basement
> puddles...
>

Oh well, his loss(es)... (pun intended)

daestrom

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 1:36 pm
From: nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu

<dances_with_barkadas@yahoo.com> wrote:

>> ASHRAE's standard of 15 cfm per full-time occupant
>> (which used to be 5 cfm.)
>
> 300% upward revision.... I'm wondering why this spec change occurred.

The original (19th C?) standard was based on productivity. Somebody noticed
that coal mine workers with less than 5 cfm fell asleep :-)

The newer version is based on odors and other pollutants.

Nick

==============================================================================
TOPIC: yhnetstroe's child
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/7a845b05cf552479?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 8:51 am
From: yhnetstore@gmail.com

www.shoesserver-yhnetsotre.cn is yhnetstroe company's child web,
Nike jordan (1240)
Nike shox(486)
Nike air max (670)
Air force one(398)
Gucci shoes (154)
Prada shoes(43)
Lacoste shoes (45)
Kobe shoes(64)
D&G Shoes (56)
Bape shoes(114)
DSQUARED2 (32)
Adidas shoes(68)
Puma shoes (46)
Dunk shoes(103)
Timberlands (34)
Dior shoes(12)
James shoes (37)
Evisu shoes(8)
Burberry shoes (5)
Diesel shoes(8)
Hogan shoes (28)
Richmond(3)
Women boots (46)

if you buy 12 product ,the shipping cost is free!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Would you like $6000 within 90 days with no out of pocket cost to you?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/478cb9c82679c0f6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 9:31 am
From: "beatybob@gmail.com"

Would you like $6000 within 90 days with no out of pocket cost to you?

I know you are thinking no way is this possible.

Well give me the chance to prove it to you, come to the site below and
take a look.

http://bob1940.weebly.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Chrismas Trees
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/14ff3a2698c21c95?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 10:01 am
From: Dennis

On Sat, 22 Dec 2007 19:24:47 -0500, "Lou"
<lpogodajr292185@comcast.net> wrote:

>My real tree cost $60 this year. Comparable artificial trees seem to be
>$200 and up. Cost-wise, if the figures on average useful life are correct,
>it seems to be pretty much a wash. Where artificial trees win out is on the
>fuss and muss - as I get older every year, the ease of an artificial tree
>gets more attractive.

Just for comparison, I paid US$10 for an 8ft (cut size) nicely shaped
and manicured Douglas fir Christmas tree this year. I did walk out in
the muddy tree lot and cut it myself, but that assured me a fresh
tree. I can certainly imagine a day when I will not want to do that,
but for now it seems like part of the whole holiday tradition.

Dennis (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 10:39 am
From: imascot

"Lou" <lpogodajr292185@comcast.net> wrote in
news:oYWdneHtdqhcN_DanZ2dnUVZ_vumnZ2d@comcast.com:

> My real tree cost $60 this year. Comparable artificial trees seem to
> be $200 and up. Cost-wise, if the figures on average useful life are
> correct, it seems to be pretty much a wash. Where artificial trees
> win out is on the fuss and muss - as I get older every year, the ease
> of an artificial tree gets more attractive.
>
>

We've had our artificial tree for 13 years now, but I think it's more work than a real one. You
have to spread out each individual branch then insert it into the trunk. When you take it down,
you have to re-compact each branch to fit it into the box. I don't know why the average lifespan
of an artificial tree should only be 3 to 4 years, as someone quoted. We expect ours to last many
more years.
It's very realistic-looking, however, it even has little brownish pieces at the tips, and wound along
the branches. Many times people did not realize it was artificial.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Up to 80% off Designer Clothing and Shoes
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/7d3f0ea67492971a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 10:05 am
From: Fashion Nut

Hi I own a designer discount clothing store featuring really low
prices on top designer apparel and shoes at up to 80% discount off
MSRP! Selling designer clothes, shoes, dresses and accessories from
top name brand clothing and shoes such as: St John, Stuart Weiztman,
Escada, Ferragamo, Anne Klein, Claudia Ciuti, L.A.M.B, Marc Jacobs,
Michael Kors, Steve Madden, Tadashi, Laundry, Betsy Johnson, SKY,
Donna Karan, Max Mara, 7 For All Mankind, Juicy, Nicole Miller, Coach,
Kate Spade, and more. Please visit my store at
www.BelowCostDesigners.com

==============================================================================
TOPIC: pants
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/9698cc7c08973820?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 10:41 am
From: bob@coolgroups.com

I was just wondering what the best strategy is for purchasing pants

that fit well. It's hard to tell for sure if the fit is good just

from trying on in the store.

If you want to wear them for a day, you should wash them for hygienic

reasons. However, to wash them, you need to remove the tag, and then

returning is not possible.

So, what can you do? Just hope the store try-on goes well?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 11:37 am
From: "Rod Speed"

bob@coolgroups.com wrote:

> I was just wondering what the best strategy is for purchasing pants that fit
> well. It's hard to tell for sure if the fit is good just from trying on in the store.

> If you want to wear them for a day, you should wash them for hygienic reasons.
> However, to wash them, you need to remove the tag, and then returning is not possible.

> So, what can you do? Just hope the store try-on goes well?

I buy one and see how that goes on the first few days wearing and if
I like it, buy some more while I know that that particular item suits me.

They're so cheap now from china that it doesnt cost much to go that route.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: More Selective reporting from Limbaugh
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/306db91f018962b9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 11:24 am
From: Brawny

On Dec 23, 10:18 am, George Grapman <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> Brawny wrote:
> > On Dec 22, 11:57 am, jl <j...@nowhereszville.biz> wrote:
> >> Limbaugh is a total blithering idiot. He never analyzes an issue
>
> I do not believe the poster claimed a 99 percent accuracy rate.

Who did?

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 11:35 am
From: George Grapman

Brawny wrote:
> On Dec 23, 10:18 am, George Grapman <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>> Brawny wrote:
>>> On Dec 22, 11:57 am, jl <j...@nowhereszville.biz> wrote:
>>>> Limbaugh is a total blithering idiot. He never analyzes an issue
>> I do not believe the poster claimed a 99 percent accuracy rate.
>
> Who did?

Limbaugh, numerous times.

http://www.rushlimbaugh.com/home/daily/site_100407/content/01125112.guest.html

BEGIN TRANSCRIPT
RUSH: Let me get to the audio sound bites because I need to thank some
people, ladies and gentlemen. There are other items in the news, some
stuff I've held over from yesterday that are not related to this -- to
this -- oh! Sullivan Group, opinion audit. That's what it was. In the
last week alone, my opinion auditing firm has shown that I'm up a tenth
of a point again, documented to be almost always right 98.8% of the
time, in the midst of dealing with this smear. It's amazing, I knew
this was going to be the case, and I wanted to pass that on to you.

In fact, the Sullivan Group is Tom Sullivan, a Sacramento talk show
host and a friend of Limbaugh's.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 1:58 pm
From: Brawny

On Dec 23, 2:35 pm, George Grapman <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:
> Brawny wrote:
>
> Limbaugh, numerous times.

Successful people really anger you..... Why?

There is so MUCH to learn from a successful person. They did
something right to maintain/retain their position in life.

Merry Christmas and may you find some sort of peace in your life.
Being envious isn't the answer.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Yet another Best Buy consumer horror story -- woman tasered by cop.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/8fc4714b1a22ea0e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 11:26 am
From: "Rod Speed"

A Texan from Connecticut <ultimauw@hotmail.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> JL <noone@nowheresville.biz> wrote

>>>> If I was a cop, I'd taser every asshole that behaved like this.
>>>> It's probably the safest method of subduing someone.

>>>> http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Headlines/frtHEAD01122007.htm

>>>> Note, this whole story has nothing to do with Best Buy,
>>>> other than the woman was going nuts inside a Best Buy store.

>>> Yeah it's easy to second guess when a cop uses force against someone.
>>> But in the moment, the officer has to protect himself and others.

>> And that is the best way to stop that stupid woman behaving like that.

>>> If she would have cooperated nothing would have happened to her.

>> And if she had behaved herself in the first place, it wouldnt have either.

> So if a cop decides to be an asshole that day, and you mutter something,

She did a lot more than JUST mutter something.

> and the cop says "HUH, PUNK, this will teach you respect my AUTHORITY"
> while you are on the ground getting tazered infront of the whole store, it's
> all your falt, and don't deserve sympathy. After all, a cop is also right.

Nope, just like if you have a minor car accident, and chuck
a tantrum and start screaming abuse at the other party, you
shouldnt be too surprised if you get a reaction you do not care for.

> On a somewhat unrelated note, maybe people should memorise
> the chant "Sieg Heil". It may become the *in* thing very soon.

Nope, some have been claiming that for well over half a century now and it hasnt happened.

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 11:29 am
From: "Rod Speed"

George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Larry Bud wrote:
>> On Dec 22, 2:45 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>>> Joe <useful_in...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>> While my local Best Buy is wonderful, for some reason others are
>>>> not. http://muvy.org/new.php?entity=bestbuy
>>> If you're actually stupid enough to behave like that, you can
>>> expect to get what you deserve.
>>
>> If I was a cop, I'd taser every asshole that behaved like this. It's
>> probably the safest method of subduing someone.
>>
>> http://www.news-journalonline.com/NewsJournalOnline/News/Headlines/frtHEAD01122007.htm
>>
>> Note, this whole story has nothing to do with Best Buy, other than
>> the woman was going nuts inside a Best Buy store.

> The problem with your idea is that someday it can apply to you for whatever reason that might be invoked.

Nope, I dont behave like that woman did, so it wont ever happen to me.

> I may not like what others are doing but I also know that I need to tolerate it because I want to keep my rights of
> free speech etc.

No one stopped her from politely denying that she was involved
in any fraudulent activity. She was tazered because of how she
behaved. Nothing what so ever to do with free speech.

> According to the the article the police officer was not under physical threat.

Irrelevant to whether she got the result she deserved.

> It isn't for a cop to decide to administer punishment.

It wasnt punishment, it was dealing effectively with that sort of outrageous behavior.

It stopped it very effectively indeed.

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 11:49 am
From: davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave Martindale)

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes:

>> It isn't for a cop to decide to administer punishment.

>It wasnt punishment, it was dealing effectively with that sort of
>outrageous behavior.

>It stopped it very effectively indeed.

So would have shooting the suspect. The question is: was the level
of force appropriate to the problem at hand?

On one hand, the company that manufactures Tasers and the police
generally regard it as safe, with no lasting harm, so it's OK to use it
when just about any sort of force is justified. And it's applied from a
distance, so the police officer is less likely to get hit when using a
Taser than a more traditional method like a baton, making it attractive
to police.

On the other hand, people occasionally die after being Tasered, and
nobody quite knows why. So there's a good argument that a Taser should
be treated as a lethal weapon like a gun, and used only in similar
circumstances - when someone is threatening physical harm.

In this case, nobody was physically threatened, and the woman wasn't
trying to run away. Why couldn't the officer have called for backup and
arrested the woman that way?

Dave

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 12:21 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Dave Martindale <davem@cs.ubc.ca> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes

>>> It isn't for a cop to decide to administer punishment.

>> It wasnt punishment, it was dealing effectively
>> with that sort of outrageous behavior.

>> It stopped it very effectively indeed.

> So would have shooting the suspect.

Even you should have noticed the advantages with tazering over shooting.

> The question is: was the level of force appropriate to the problem at hand?

Yes, and the level of force that was used was
entirely appropriate when she behaved like that.

She wont be doing that again.

> On one hand, the company that manufactures Tasers and the
> police generally regard it as safe, with no lasting harm, so it's
> OK to use it when just about any sort of force is justified. And
> it's applied from a distance, so the police officer is less likely
> to get hit when using a Taser than a more traditional method
> like a baton, making it attractive to police.

Yep, its currently the best approach in that situation.

> On the other hand, people occasionally die after being Tasered,

People occasionally die after being physically restrained too.

> and nobody quite knows why. So there's a good argument that a
> Taser should be treated as a lethal weapon like a gun, and used only
> in similar circumstances - when someone is threatening physical harm.

Or the risk of death is so low that it should be treated just like physical
restraint is, used in more situations than just threatening physical harm.

> In this case, nobody was physically threatened, and the
> woman wasn't trying to run away. Why couldn't the officer
> have called for backup and arrested the woman that way?

Because tazering that stupid woman is a much more appropriate way to deal
with her and I bet she wont be stupid enough to try that sort of tantrum again.

Very effective and efficient education of even the most stupid members of the public.

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 12:45 pm
From: Vic Smith

On Sun, 23 Dec 2007 19:49:57 +0000 (UTC), davem@cs.ubc.ca (Dave
Martindale) wrote:

>"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> writes:
>
>>> It isn't for a cop to decide to administer punishment.
>
>>It wasnt punishment, it was dealing effectively with that sort of
>>outrageous behavior.
>
>>It stopped it very effectively indeed.
>
>So would have shooting the suspect. The question is: was the level
>of force appropriate to the problem at hand?
>
>On one hand, the company that manufactures Tasers and the police
>generally regard it as safe, with no lasting harm, so it's OK to use it
>when just about any sort of force is justified. And it's applied from a
>distance, so the police officer is less likely to get hit when using a
>Taser than a more traditional method like a baton, making it attractive
>to police.
>
Should make it more attractive to the recipient when all is said and
done. Another term for "Use baton" is "club the SOB on the head until
he's out."

>On the other hand, people occasionally die after being Tasered, and
>nobody quite knows why. So there's a good argument that a Taser should
>be treated as a lethal weapon like a gun, and used only in similar
>circumstances - when someone is threatening physical harm.
>
"Suspects" were killed and injured by cops with nightsticks, saps and
fists too. Some of the so-called Taser deaths are because stupid cops
are prone to frenzy, and kneel on the Tasered's neck or chest when
he's down and writhing, killing him by asphyxiation.
A Taser is safer than being struck repeatedly in the head with a hard
object.

>In this case, nobody was physically threatened, and the woman wasn't
>trying to run away. Why couldn't the officer have called for backup and
>arrested the woman that way?
>
Agree. Though the woman may have been Tasered anyway, chances
are she could have been "talked down" or just restrained.
Police agencies are revamping and enforcing procedures for using
Tasers, much only due to publicity. Cameras play a large role in
capturing misuse, and I heard of at least one department requiring
camera equipped Tasers.

--Vic

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 2:11 pm
From: max

In article <8pgtm3129kg107c72tm6sl35j7c6qenvob@4ax.com>,
Vic Smith <thismailautodeleted@comcast.net> wrote:
man that way?
> >
> Agree. Though the woman may have been Tasered anyway, chances
> are she could have been "talked down" or just restrained.
> Police agencies are revamping and enforcing procedures for using
> Tasers, much only due to publicity. Cameras play a large role in
> capturing misuse, and I heard of at least one department requiring
> camera equipped Tasers.

I've been thinking about Tasers and cameras since the Police Dept. in my
community of St. Charles, Il, bought 8 of them for $9600.
<http://www.rrstar.com/homepage/x2128346285>

I noticed an interesting thing about the camera-equipped Taser
(Tasercam)...
<http://www.taser.com/pages/VideoDetails.aspx?videoid=40>
<http://www.taser.com/products/military/Pages/TASERCAM.aspx>

The camera is mounted in the base of the handgrip, in the bottom of
what would be a magazine if it were an autoloading pistol. Take a look.
The camera is in the base unit -- that thing up front, under the taser
cartridge, is just an iluminator.

Tasercam only works if you shoot one-handed. No officer, nor any other
serious marksman, shoots one handed except in dire emergency.

It is almost exactly perfectly positioned to be covered by the officer's
left hand during Taser deployment. If you try to use any of several
conventional two-handed grips (which is what pistol marksmen practice
and use the most), you'll wrap your fingers or palm around the camera.

It is my considered opinion that Tasercam is a worthless sop
specifically designed to make hand-wringing, clueless, gun-phobic,
civil libertarians happy by providing them with the _illusion_ of
deployment witnessing, while in fact actually preserving the officer's
ability to deploy a taser without concern of after-action review. In
the timeless words of R. Lee Ermey, it is a reach-around.

I guaren-effing-tee you that the overwhelming majority of Tasercam
footage will be nothing more than extreme closeup pictures of the
officer's supporting hand.

I'm fairly certain i'm the first person to point this little fact out on
the internet. Mark my words, you heard it here first.

Tasercam is a scam.

.max

--
The part of betatron @ earthlink . net was played by a garden gnome

==============================================================================
TOPIC: SEX, SEX, AND SEX
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/470c8252e260762f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Dec 23 2007 1:23 pm
From: LUNESP2451@hotmail.com

Hello friends, if estais looking for a page in which podeis to find
everything relating to the love and the sex, this one is your
site(place).
Here podeis a friend finds, a boinita stable relation, love, a paraja.
If you prop what buscais is to find a relation of sex, (a man, a
woman, or probably buscais present to do a trio, exchange of
pairs(couples), swinger) Probably you look for a bisexual, homosexual
relation (gays and lesbians). Then this one is the suitable
site(place).
If what you look is to find men or women, to support a sexual relation
across a Webcams (cybersex) also he(she) was finding it.
In end(purpose) everything related to the sex and the love, you have
it in an alone click It(He,She) clicks in the link and enjoys:
http://xxxgente.chueca.com/sexocontacto/

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

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

Sunday, December 23, 2007

25 new messages in 11 topics - digest

No comments: