http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Do not purchase a new Big 3 vehicle in 2009. - 18 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8da7acb0e572db51?hl=en
* Are name-brand low-energy fluorescent "Green" bulbs any brighter than store
brand? - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/16514de0eabde21c?hl=en
* Saving Money on Calendars - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/9b326729403ee2be?hl=en
* Selling artwork in a bad market - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d3b0c99328f52aea?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Do not purchase a new Big 3 vehicle in 2009.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8da7acb0e572db51?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 18 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 10:10 am
From: clams_casino
clams_casino wrote:
> Vic Smith wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 13 Dec 2008 12:11:56 -0500, clams_casino
>> <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> Brent wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in
>>>>> price off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without
>>>>> significant maintenance and last typically twice as long, making
>>>>> it half the cost in the long run.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The fact that Honda, Toyota & Nissan produce high quality vehicles
>>> is fact. GM & Ford may have significantly improved quality in
>>> recent years, but the perception is that's probably questionable.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> In other words, what you said about the Malibu costing twice as much
>> as an Accord was just bullshit?
>> Let's try to straighten it out here.
>>
>> --Vic
>>
>>
>>
>>
> Not at all. In other words, there's really no way to know if today's
> Malibus are equal to the quality of today's Accords without waiting 20
> years. History is stacked against the Malibu.
>
> Today's Malibus might be of significantly better quality vs. 10-15
> years ago, but who would be so foolish as to believe / take the chance
> it's different today / similar to today's Accord, even if it was
> possibly true? Unlike the stock market, expected car quality is
> very likely related to past performance.
On second thought, I'll stand corrected. Perception was the wrong
word. I should have said way too many owners have the (well earned)
belief that cars by the domestic three lack the quality of their
competition. Having experienced significantly better vehicles, it will
indeed be difficult for GM, Ford & Chrysler to win them back, even if
they were to produce a similar quality vehicle at a similar price.
Having Honda, Toyota, Nissan, etc vehicle lasting twice as long as their
previous domestic three vehicle is a double whammy. Even if the
domestic three can achieve equal cost / quality, it'll likely be
generations before their slide in market share will be halted, never
mind reversed.
== 2 of 18 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 11:16 am
From: Brent
On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> Not at all. In other words, there's really no way to know if today's
> Malibus are equal to the quality of today's Accords without waiting 20
> years.
Neither car has been made for 20 years.
> History is stacked against the Malibu.
So if someone made a brand new design and called it 'vega' you would
think the name plate would bring rust and oil burning with it from the
past? What if GM partnered with honda and sold rebadged Accords as
vegas?
== 3 of 18 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 11:23 am
From: Brent
On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> Brent wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>>What's to take care of? I have the Honda dealer do a servicing at
>>>30k, 60k and 105k miles, just doing my own oil changes in between.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Exactly. Meanwhile the chevy owner has his car fail on the side of the
>>road at 75K from things your honda dealer took care of. The chevy has
>>it's water pump fail at 75K miles but your honda dealer put in a new one
>>at 60K for you. The chevy is 'crap' and your honda is 'great'.
>>
>>
>
> Read it again. Honda replaced the water pump at 105k, when they
> recommended changing out the timing gear.
Look, you're intentionally trying to miss the friggin point by going
into specifics. Address the point, not the milage numbers. If it bothers
you change it to 105K and 120K respectfully.
>>>So what you are suggesting is that owners of domestic three cars are
>>>just ignorant?
>>Where do you get that? I am suggesting that you might want to look
>>deeper than the surface.
> You suggested the only difference
Strawman. I asked how much is fact and how much is perception.
> between a Honda vs. Chevy owner is
> that the Honda owner is smart enough to have some routine servicing
> vs. the Chevy owner who doesn't realize a small amount of routine
> servicing goes a long ways to extend the life of a relatively expensive
> investment. I'd call that neglect being ignorance, although I'm a
> believer that Honda uses superior parts / workmanship vs. Chevy who uses
> that cost to fund their UAW benefits...
I said nothing about owner's intelligence. I assumed it equal. I stated
that Honda convinced people to actually service their vehicles and feel
good about it while GM hasn't. Let's say there is a combined honda and
chevy dealership. They send out cards to car buyers when it's time for a
milage based service. I'll wager honda owners bring their cars in more
while chevy owners don't. The later thinking it's 'just a dealer profit
center' and the former thinking they need to do it for the long life of
their vehicle.
== 4 of 18 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 11:37 am
From: clams_casino
Brent wrote:
>On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Not at all. In other words, there's really no way to know if today's
>>Malibus are equal to the quality of today's Accords without waiting 20
>>years.
>>
>>
>
>Neither car has been made for 20 years.
>
>
>
>>History is stacked against the Malibu.
>>
>>
>
>So if someone made a brand new design and called it 'vega' you would
>think the name plate would bring rust and oil burning with it from the
>past? What if GM partnered with honda and sold rebadged Accords as
>vegas?
>
>
>
>
It reminds me of the past election. Of the course the economy is in
shambles, the invasion of Iraq was not properly planned and the tax
reduction for the wealthy hasn't helped economy, but this time it'll be
different. Trust me.
== 5 of 18 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 11:39 am
From: SoCalMike
Brent wrote:
> The UAW's agreement with those three automakers is essentially
> irrelevant to a buyer's purchase decisions. What a buyer goes by is what
> the car costs him and what the car is and has.
and whether the company is going to be around to honor their warranty,
especially the 10yr/100k warranties that GM and chrysler were promising.
Cuz the ONLY way id even consider buying from the big3 would be with a
warranty that long.
== 6 of 18 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 11:42 am
From: SoCalMike
clams_casino wrote:
> servicing goes a long ways to extend the life of a relatively expensive
> investment.
cars are NEVER an investment. theyre appliances.
== 7 of 18 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 11:44 am
From: lorad
On Dec 13, 7:20 am, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
> It's time to teach the Big 3 and their UAW co-conspirators* that the
> American public does not need their products or companies as now
> constructed. Buy a used vehicle or repair what you have. (You will
> save a lot of money).
>
> ted
>
> *The Companies and the UAW agreed to these very expensive labor
> agreement when they jointly felt they had the America public 'by the
> balls".
Oooopa...
You must'ave received new anti-america instructions from Beijing,
again..
You're back to trying to destroy what remains of the US's industrial
base.
Bravo, comrade!
PS: For the rest of you foreign agents and economic traitors in this
thread.. american cars are just fine.. they got 2 out of 3 of JD
Powers top quality ratings. So please stop your hallucinigenic
squawking.
The reason that the asian cars are more competetive is that their
governments provide their workers with universal health care (cha-
ching), and allow their manufacturers to engage in monoplistic
coordination ('karetsu') (cha-ching cha-ching)... and to put up
barriers to US auto imports ( cha-ching cha-ching cha-ching)..
Finally they have citizens smart enough to realize that buying foreign
cars is BAD for their own economic well-being.
In other words, they are not FOOLS like you.
== 8 of 18 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 11:44 am
From: SoCalMike
John David Galt wrote:
> wismel@yahoo.com wrote:
>> It's time to teach the Big 3 and their UAW co-conspirators* that the
>> American public does not need their products or companies as now
>> constructed. Buy a used vehicle or repair what you have. (You will
>> save a lot of money).
>
> Unfortunately, the tax man will take our money and give it to them anyway.
from what ive read, theyre asking for "loan guarantees". no one said
jack squat when the bankers flew to DC in THEIR jets and walked away
with $700B. And then when they GOT it, they promptly gave each other
bonuses and vacation retreats for the "job well done".
== 9 of 18 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 11:48 am
From: clams_casino
Brent wrote:
>On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>Not at all. In other words, there's really no way to know if today's
>>Malibus are equal to the quality of today's Accords without waiting 20
>>years.
>>
>>
>
>Neither car has been made for 20 years.
>
>
The intended point was that it will take many years before the true
quality of a car built today will be determined. Meanwhile, should I
invest in a brand that has a 10-20 year track record of being reliable
(Accords and Civics have been produced since at least 1990)? Or one
that has had a history of poor reliability. Hm - It'll be different
this time ... trust me.
== 10 of 18 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 11:54 am
From: Alan Baker
In article <gi0oue$jrh$1@news.motzarella.org>,
Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
> > Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
> > off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
> > maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in
> > the long run.
>
> How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
>
> Honda et al. have been very good at convincing buyers to actually TAKE
> CARE OF THEIR CARS. This makes a huge difference in the long run.
> Equally cared for cars (and the requirements for a Ford or GM product
> aren't significantly different than for Honda or Toyota) is what is
> required to make the comparison.
No. "Honda et al" have been very good at producing cars that don't
*need* much care.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
== 11 of 18 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 11:55 am
From: Alan Baker
In article <gi11n2$d49$1@news.motzarella.org>,
Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
> > Not at all. In other words, there's really no way to know if today's
> > Malibus are equal to the quality of today's Accords without waiting 20
> > years.
>
> Neither car has been made for 20 years.
>
> > History is stacked against the Malibu.
>
> So if someone made a brand new design and called it 'vega' you would
> think the name plate would bring rust and oil burning with it from the
> past? What if GM partnered with honda and sold rebadged Accords as
> vegas?
If GM *built* this new Vega, I'd be very suspicious of its quality.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
== 12 of 18 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 12:03 pm
From: clams_casino
SoCalMike wrote:
> clams_casino wrote:
>
>> servicing goes a long ways to extend the life of a relatively
>> expensive investment.
>
>
> cars are NEVER an investment. theyre appliances.
Agreed. I was using that term loosely. Relatively expensive
"expenditure" would probably have been a better description considering
they are most always a (money) losing "investment".
On the other hand, I recently saw a version of my first car (1962
Plymouth Fury sport convertible which cost me $700 in 1966) listed for
sale at $55k.
== 13 of 18 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 12:23 pm
From: Brent
On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> Brent wrote:
>
>>On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Not at all. In other words, there's really no way to know if today's
>>>Malibus are equal to the quality of today's Accords without waiting 20
>>>years.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Neither car has been made for 20 years.
>>
>>
>>
>>>History is stacked against the Malibu.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>So if someone made a brand new design and called it 'vega' you would
>>think the name plate would bring rust and oil burning with it from the
>>past? What if GM partnered with honda and sold rebadged Accords as
>>vegas?
>>
>>
>>
>>
> It reminds me of the past election. Of the course the economy is in
> shambles, the invasion of Iraq was not properly planned and the tax
> reduction for the wealthy hasn't helped economy, but this time it'll be
> different. Trust me.
So if honda were to build accords but put chevy vega badges on them for
GM it would be perceived as a hunk of crap. That pretty much parallels
actual rebadged cars the big three sold that were designed and built by
japanese manufacturers.
== 14 of 18 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 12:27 pm
From: Eeyore
clams_casino wrote:
> Brent wrote:
> >
> >The UAW's agreement with those three automakers is essentially
> >irrelevant to a buyer's purchase decisions. What a buyer goes by is what
> >the car costs him and what the car is and has. How the automakers deal
> >with their labor issues may change what the car offers and the price,
> >but a buyer isn't concerned about how the price of the car breaks down
> >between labor, materials, shipping, and even taxes, he cares about the
> >final cost to him.
>
> But as you mentioned, their outrageous benefits packages makes their
> cars non competitive. For similar pricing one can purchase competing
> cars with more options & far superior quality.
Which is a positive factor in favour of bankruptcy, since those agreements
will then be null and void and the new owners can re-hire at realistic rates.
Might Daimler purchase the assets of a bankrupt Chrysler for instance without
all the bad things about it ?
Graham
== 15 of 18 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 12:27 pm
From: Brent
On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> Brent wrote:
>
>>On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Not at all. In other words, there's really no way to know if today's
>>>Malibus are equal to the quality of today's Accords without waiting 20
>>>years.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Neither car has been made for 20 years.
>>
>>
>
>
> The intended point was that it will take many years before the true
> quality of a car built today will be determined. Meanwhile, should I
> invest in a brand that has a 10-20 year track record of being reliable
> (Accords and Civics have been produced since at least 1990)? Or one
> that has had a history of poor reliability. Hm - It'll be different
> this time ... trust me.
The point is that the track record of the model is irrelevant because
its been replaced with new designs. The brand is a somewhat different
story and the 'track record' of the brand is often perception rather
than fact. There are still numerous oldsmobiles from GMs darkest time in
the early 80s roaming the roads in the chicago area but I haven't seen a
honda from that era in a very very long time, maybe a decade now.
== 16 of 18 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 12:30 pm
From: Eeyore
Brent wrote:
> On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
> > Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
> > off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
> > maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in
> > the long run.
>
> How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
>
> Honda et al. have been very good at convincing buyers to actually TAKE
> CARE OF THEIR CARS. This makes a huge difference in the long run.
> Equally cared for cars (and the requirements for a Ford or GM product
> aren't significantly different than for Honda or Toyota) is what is
> required to make the comparison.
Plus Europeans are big on synthetic rather than 'dino' oil. The cheapest
engine insurance available.
No, you don't have to change the oil every 3000 miles.
Graham
== 17 of 18 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 12:31 pm
From: Brent
On 2008-12-13, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> In article <gi0oue$jrh$1@news.motzarella.org>,
> Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>> On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>>
>> > Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
>> > off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
>> > maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in
>> > the long run.
>>
>> How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
>>
>> Honda et al. have been very good at convincing buyers to actually TAKE
>> CARE OF THEIR CARS. This makes a huge difference in the long run.
>> Equally cared for cars (and the requirements for a Ford or GM product
>> aren't significantly different than for Honda or Toyota) is what is
>> required to make the comparison.
>
> No. "Honda et al" have been very good at producing cars that don't
> *need* much care.
Who said "much" for either case? It's either it gets done or it doesn't.
== 18 of 18 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 12:37 pm
From: Alan Baker
In article <gi162g$pmt$3@news.motzarella.org>,
Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On 2008-12-13, Alan Baker <alangbaker@telus.net> wrote:
> > In article <gi0oue$jrh$1@news.motzarella.org>,
> > Brent <tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >> On 2008-12-13, clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> >>
> >> > Final cost of a Malibu vs Accord, for example may be similar in price
> >> > off the lot. but the later will typically go 100k without significant
> >> > maintenance and last typically twice as long, making it half the cost in
> >> > the long run.
> >>
> >> How much of that is reality and how much of it is perception?
> >>
> >> Honda et al. have been very good at convincing buyers to actually TAKE
> >> CARE OF THEIR CARS. This makes a huge difference in the long run.
> >> Equally cared for cars (and the requirements for a Ford or GM product
> >> aren't significantly different than for Honda or Toyota) is what is
> >> required to make the comparison.
> >
> > No. "Honda et al" have been very good at producing cars that don't
> > *need* much care.
>
> Who said "much" for either case? It's either it gets done or it doesn't.
And Hondas ("et al") will be better if you treat each one the same.
Ignore the maintenance or do it, the japanese cars will be more reliable
than the american crap.
--
Alan Baker
Vancouver, British Columbia
<http://gallery.me.com/alangbaker/100008/DSCF0162/web.jpg>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Are name-brand low-energy fluorescent "Green" bulbs any brighter than
store brand?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/16514de0eabde21c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 10:12 am
From: "Twice Retired"
"Macuser" <spamisaluncheon@meat.com> wrote in message
news:%UQ0l.1386$c35.321@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>I personally prefer the name brands because they produce light from a
>warmer spectrum, which is closer in appearance to a luminscent bulb.
>Cheapier fluorescents from the dollar store are ok for the night light I
>have in the front window.
>
>
> --
> http://cashcuddler.com
>
> "Thrift is sexy."
Throughout my home I have 72 CFL's of various wattages. Mixed brands, most
are indies. Color temp varies from 2700K to 2900K, equal to incandescent.
Have had 4 failures in 7 years, 2 outdoors and 2 in basement. I think
vibration may have got the outdoor ones as they are post lights. The 2 in
the basement are on 24/7 for general illumination for cats to find food,
water, and litter boxes.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 10:24 am
From: Nate Nagel
Twice Retired wrote:
>
> "Macuser" <spamisaluncheon@meat.com> wrote in message
> news:%UQ0l.1386$c35.321@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>> I personally prefer the name brands because they produce light from a
>> warmer spectrum, which is closer in appearance to a luminscent bulb.
>> Cheapier fluorescents from the dollar store are ok for the night light
>> I have in the front window.
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://cashcuddler.com
>>
>> "Thrift is sexy."
>
> Throughout my home I have 72 CFL's of various wattages. Mixed brands,
> most are indies. Color temp varies from 2700K to 2900K, equal to
> incandescent. Have had 4 failures in 7 years, 2 outdoors and 2 in
> basement. I think vibration may have got the outdoor ones as they are
> post lights. The 2 in the basement are on 24/7 for general illumination
> for cats to find food, water, and litter boxes.
>
I don't think that cats require any more light than a dim glow
(equivalent to moonlight/starlight.) They ARE basically nocturnal
animals, after all.
nate
--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 11:11 am
From: James Sweet
Macuser wrote:
> I personally prefer the name brands because they produce light from a
> warmer spectrum, which is closer in appearance to a luminscent bulb.
> Cheapier fluorescents from the dollar store are ok for the night light I
> have in the front window.
>
>
Even the "name brand" ones are made in China, though some are better
than others. The spectrum is determined by the color temperature, not by
the brand that makes them. 2700K is incandescent lookalike, 3100K is
often referred to as soft white, occasionally you see 3500K which are a
bit cooler, and then 5500K-6000K is referred to as "daylight". A few
companies charge exorbitant prices for daylight fluorescents marketing
them as some sort of magical sunlight substitute, they're no different
than the daylight cfls you can buy at most hardware stores for a few
dollars.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 11:12 am
From: James Sweet
Nate Nagel wrote:
> Twice Retired wrote:
>>
>> "Macuser" <spamisaluncheon@meat.com> wrote in message
>> news:%UQ0l.1386$c35.321@nwrddc02.gnilink.net...
>>> I personally prefer the name brands because they produce light from a
>>> warmer spectrum, which is closer in appearance to a luminscent bulb.
>>> Cheapier fluorescents from the dollar store are ok for the night
>>> light I have in the front window.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> http://cashcuddler.com
>>>
>>> "Thrift is sexy."
>>
>> Throughout my home I have 72 CFL's of various wattages. Mixed brands,
>> most are indies. Color temp varies from 2700K to 2900K, equal to
>> incandescent. Have had 4 failures in 7 years, 2 outdoors and 2 in
>> basement. I think vibration may have got the outdoor ones as they are
>> post lights. The 2 in the basement are on 24/7 for general
>> illumination for cats to find food, water, and litter boxes.
>>
>
> I don't think that cats require any more light than a dim glow
> (equivalent to moonlight/starlight.) They ARE basically nocturnal
> animals, after all.
>
> nate
>
Cats have far more sensitive vision than people, they have poor color
vision, and lower resolution, but excellent nighttime sensitivity. A
single nightlight is more than enough.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Saving Money on Calendars
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/9b326729403ee2be?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 10:50 am
From: The Real Bev
Macuser wrote:
> I get at least 4 calendars every year from charities that want a donation.
> Doesn't everybody? They from groups like the Wildlife Foundation and
> they're beautiful. You can make a donation to a likeminded charity and
> multiple calendars will start pouring in.
Along with untold thousands of begging letters from the charities the
first one sold your name to. When the "forward" on my mom's mail
expired, the post office kindly told all the charities the address to
which her mail had been forwarded, so now I receive all the begging
letters for her at MY address.
The only good part is that I get at least one pre-stamped return
envelope each month, which stamps I cut off and glue to the few pieces
of mail I'm actually forced to send. I think I have a lifetime supply
of postage already.
My mom, who made her contributions once a year at Xmas, was really
pissed that her charities wasted her money on sending her more begging
letters. Accordingly, I'm perfectly happy to let them waste OTHER
people's money on continuing to send her begging letters.
Screw 'em. IF I felt like doing something about it I'd report each and
every on as having sent us obscene material. That ought to make life
interesting for Whatshisname's Boys' Ranch...
--
Cheers, Bev
==============================
All bleeding eventually stops.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 11:36 am
From: SoCalMike
Evelyn Leeper wrote:
> The year 2009 is a non-leap-year starting on a Thursday. The most
> recent identical year was 1998 if you want to recycle an old calendar.
> If not, you can, as you can any year, use May of the previous year for
> January. Then about mid- to late January you can get a new calendar at
> a half or a quarter of what they cost now.
i just buy one at the 99 cent store. works great for me!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Selling artwork in a bad market
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d3b0c99328f52aea?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 13 2008 10:52 am
From: The Real Bev
Macuser wrote:
> Can anybody give me tips on selling original artwork in a bad market?
Yard sale. Don't turn down any offers.
--
Cheers, Bev
==============================
All bleeding eventually stops.
==============================================================================
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
No comments:
Post a Comment