http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Economy Stimulus - Buy! - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/4b029279ea6e8dd0?hl=en
* WE PAY 10% RETURN PER MONTH GUARANTEED - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/7b66264e5203d5c4?hl=en
* Resurgence of telemarketers and telephishers - 17 messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/132159bd102f1747?hl=en
* 4Front Investigations Inc. Nationwide Offices 888-248-4004 - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/bbb62621a897f97d?hl=en
* Cellphone battery life - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/ca4d0c8b9093ec56?hl=en
* Cheap wholesale air max sneakers: max 87,max 90,max95,max97,max2003,max 180,
max 360, max TN,max ltd,max Nz,air max for women and children. - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/b8f0581afe172c02?hl=en
* Why we don't need Mexicans - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/a33d78e3d758123f?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Economy Stimulus - Buy!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/4b029279ea6e8dd0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 18 2008 2:49 pm
From: clams_casino
George Grapman wrote:
> clams_casino wrote:
>
>> Napoleon wrote:
>>
>>> Enlighten me. How is a tax rebate check of the 300 dollars going to
>>> stimulate the economy out of a recession? Since when have Americans no
>>> longer been considered "citizens" and are now just consumers?
>>>
>>> How is it that 300 bucks in the hands of low-income, middle-income and
>>> basically most Americans, is going to translate into jobs that are
>>> not outsourced, universal health care, businesses actually
>>> manufacturing goods, technology actually looking into alternative
>>> fuels, property taxes going down or being eliminated, etc, etc.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> The lower income group will likely spend it immediately, thinking
>> it's a gift which is excellent for stimulating buying / demand.
>>
>> The upper income groups will simply save the money or pay down debt
>> (as a clear majority did with GW's 2001 tax rebate) which has minimal
>> / no effect at improving the economy / increasing demand.
>>
> All of which adds to an already record deficit.
which is why the best approach is to save the money since it will
eventually be recalled, with interest (via higher than would
need-to-be taxes).
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 18 2008 1:09 pm
From: timeOday
clams_casino wrote:
> George Grapman wrote:
>
>> clams_casino wrote:
>>
>>> Napoleon wrote:
>>>
>>>> Enlighten me. How is a tax rebate check of the 300 dollars going to
>>>> stimulate the economy out of a recession? Since when have Americans no
>>>> longer been considered "citizens" and are now just consumers?
>>>>
>>>> How is it that 300 bucks in the hands of low-income, middle-income and
>>>> basically most Americans, is going to translate into jobs that are
>>>> not outsourced, universal health care, businesses actually
>>>> manufacturing goods, technology actually looking into alternative
>>>> fuels, property taxes going down or being eliminated, etc, etc.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> The lower income group will likely spend it immediately, thinking
>>> it's a gift which is excellent for stimulating buying / demand.
>>>
>>> The upper income groups will simply save the money or pay down debt
>>> (as a clear majority did with GW's 2001 tax rebate) which has minimal
>>> / no effect at improving the economy / increasing demand.
>>>
>> All of which adds to an already record deficit.
>
> which is why the best approach is to save the money since it will
> eventually be recalled, with interest (via higher than would
> need-to-be taxes).
My guess is we'll be repaying through inflation rather than taxes, since
people think taxes are evil and govt. services should be free. So
instead we'll just print more and more dollars, forcing the stock market
indices to continue rising (measured of course in dollars of diminishing
value).
<http://www.idahostatesman.com/lotterman/story/163164.html>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: WE PAY 10% RETURN PER MONTH GUARANTEED
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/7b66264e5203d5c4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 18 2008 2:53 pm
From: clams_casino
jmcap wrote:
>
>View our website and read our most recent Media Articles on our
>company, and find how you can participate.
>
>
>
A firm that's obviously going broke making one last desperate attempt to
fleece the public.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 18 2008 3:01 pm
From: George Grapman
Wow, I am impressed:
Posting from a yahoo address
Web site has no contact information/
The "In the media" link is a puff piece written by the spammer.
Anonymous testimonials.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Resurgence of telemarketers and telephishers
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/132159bd102f1747?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 18 2008 2:55 pm
From: George Grapman
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply wrote:
> John Weiss wrote:
>>
>> Also, are you sure that a telemarketer who KNOWINGLY makes calls to
>> DNC list numbers is not responsible?
>
> Many, if not most, telemarketing companies have war dialers so you just
> pick up the phone to talk to the next person. At least, all the ones I
> have heard of do.
>
The law requires the company to obtain the numbers of those on the
list. The person making the calls can assume , until shown otherwise,
that the company is complying.
I work at home. When I upgraded to DSL I decided to keep my modem
line just in case there was a problem with my main phone. The number is
unlisted ,on the Do Not Call list and I never give it out to anyone so
when it rings it is a telemarketers or a wrong number.
Sometimes I pick it up and say ," You are selling but I am not
buying" which is usually met by silence ("damn, how did he know that").
Other times they ask for the head of the household and I say there is no
one here by that name.
By the way the "head of household" opening is a sure sign that they
are simply dialing sequential numbers. It reminds me of the worst
opening when calling a business, "hi, could I speak to the owner or
manager". It is akin to saying ," hi, I am a clueless telemarketer".
== 2 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 18 2008 3:07 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Melinda Meahan <mmeahan@TRASHsonic.net> wrote
> I have known people who were in desperate circumstances and had very few work options
Then they were stupid enough to get into that particular situation in the first place.
> and who were not lazy and/or st&pid.
Corse they were when they were stupid enough to not get qualified
for the jobs that are available when the unemployment rate is 4.x%
> And no, not everybody has the option of leaving their job.
Yes they all do.
> If you were a single parent with several children,
You should have got yourself qualified before you produced those brats.
> you wouldn't want your children to starve
No one starves in the US today.
> or to be kicked out of the apartment that was so difficult to
> acquire because you are a single parent with several children,
You should have got yourself qualified before
you produced those brats and ended up single.
> and so leaving a lousy job would not really be an option.
Corse it is if you have enough of a clue to
get qualified before spawning those brats.
> I mean, sure you could quit, but at the cost of your children suffering?
Anyone with a clue gets qualified before producing the brats
so they can change jobs if that ever becomes necessary.
> If you were a good parent, flat-out quitting would not be an option.
If you have a clue, you'd get qualified before having the brats and
you could then change jobs without being a problem for the brats.
> John Weiss wrote:
>
>>> And if you were smart enough to get out of the telemarketing job,
>>> more power to you. Not everybody has those options.
>>
>> Wrong again! EVERYBODY has the option of leaving their jobs! It
>> may be a difficult decision to leave what is perceived to be the
>> "only" available job because of improprieties or illegalities, but
>> the option still exists. A telemarketer who continues to work under
>> those conditions is as responsible as his employer.
== 3 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 18 2008 3:13 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Melinda Meahan <mmeahan@TRASHsonic.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Melinda Meahan <mmeahan@TRASHsonic.net> wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Melinda Meahan <mmeahan@TRASHsonic.net> wrote
>>>>> sarge137 wrote:
>>>>>> Oh please! It's 2008 - anyone without job skills is stupid and lazy, not worth my sympathy.
>>>>> I guess this is more the problem than the people telemarketing,
>>>>> because your statement is totally untrue. Not that SOME people
>>>>> without job skills might not be, but there are still lots of people
>>>>> around who are handicapped by how and/or where they were raised and aren't fortunate enough to be able to pay for
>>>>> job training, and public schools are doing worse and worse these days.
>>>> You dont have to pay for it, anyone with a clue can
>>>> find a decent job when the unemployment rate is 4.x%
>>> Not in my area.
>> Easy to claim, hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
>> Name the area and lets see if there is general agreement on your claim.
> San Francisco Bay Area, central Contra Costa County, and I speak of the experiences of four children and a number of
> acquaintances.
But you cant explain how those immigrants that you claim get the
jobs fine paid for the training that you claim is the only way to get
jobs there, and how they manage to get recruited before you
when they have a problem with basic english and you clearly dont.
Your claims are completely unbelievable.
There are clearly plenty of non immigrants getting jobs in your area.
== 4 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 18 2008 3:27 pm
From: "John Weiss"
"Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply" <mmeahan@TRASHsonic.net> wrote...
>
>> Wrong again! EVERYBODY has the option of leaving their jobs! It may be a
>> difficult decision to leave what is perceived to be the "only" available job
>> because of improprieties or illegalities, but the option still exists. A
>> telemarketer who continues to work under those conditions is as responsible
>> as his employer.
>I have known people who were in desperate circumstances and had very few work
>options and who were not lazy and/or st&pid. And no, not everybody has the
>option of leaving their job. If you were a single parent with several
>children, you wouldn't want your children to starve or to be kicked out of the
>apartment that was so difficult to acquire because you are a single parent with
>several children, and so leaving a lousy job would not really be an option. I
>mean, sure you could quit, but at the cost of your children suffering? If you
>were a good parent, flat-out quitting would not be an option.
As you admit is the second-last sentence, the option does indeed exist,
difficult as it may be.
There are other options available, especially for children. While some social
service agencies may not act quickly in the case of desperate adults, they are
almost always quick to find relief for desperate children.
There is also the option of the worker reporting the improper/illegal activities
to the appropriate regulatory agency, and possibly getting a whistleblower's
compensation.
== 5 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 18 2008 3:30 pm
From: "John Weiss"
"Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply" <mmeahan@TRASHsonic.net> wrote...
>
>> Also, are you sure that a telemarketer who KNOWINGLY makes calls to DNC list
>> numbers is not responsible?
>
> Many, if not most, telemarketing companies have war dialers so you just pick
> up the phone to talk to the next person. At least, all the ones I have heard
> of do.
That doesn't answer the question. A worker could easily make the appropriate
determination by asking a manager/supervisor if their dialer screens the DNC
lists.
Since you claim that "Many, if not most" telemarketers use wardialers, it is
apparently common knowledge in the industry. That would make it clear to me
that the employee in the industry would share that common knowledge, and should
be responsible enough to ask the easy question. Failure to ask the question is
irresponsible in and of itself!
== 6 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 18 2008 3:33 pm
From: "John Weiss"
"George Grapman" <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote...
>
> The law requires the company to obtain the numbers of those on the list.
> The person making the calls can assume , until shown otherwise, that the
> company is complying.
I disagree. The employee has the responsibility to ensure that he is in
compliance with all laws, to the best of his ability. Since failure to screen
the DNC lists is a common violation, that would include a simple question of the
employer that he is in compliance with the DNC regulations.
== 7 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 18 2008 3:40 pm
From: George Grapman
John Weiss wrote:
> "George Grapman" <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote...
>> The law requires the company to obtain the numbers of those on the list.
>> The person making the calls can assume , until shown otherwise, that the
>> company is complying.
>
> I disagree. The employee has the responsibility to ensure that he is in
> compliance with all laws, to the best of his ability. Since failure to screen
> the DNC lists is a common violation, that would include a simple question of the
> employer that he is in compliance with the DNC regulations.
>
>
Agreed. I already state than anyone getting a few people telling the
caller that they are on the do not call list has to be aware that are
breaking the law.
== 8 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 18 2008 3:58 pm
From: "SpammersDie"
"Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply" <mmeahan@TRASHsonic.net> wrote in
message news:479127df$0$84243$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>I have known people who were in desperate circumstances and had very few
>work options and who were not lazy and/or st&pid. And no, not everybody
>has the option of leaving their job. If you were a single parent with
>several children, you wouldn't want your children to starve or to be kicked
>out of the apartment that was so difficult to acquire because you are a
>single parent with several children, and so leaving a lousy job would not
>really be an option. I mean, sure you could quit, but at the cost of your
>children suffering? If you were a good parent, flat-out quitting would not
>be an option.
They they can quit carping about the entirely justifiable abuse they get.
There are far worse prices parents pay than this to keep their brood alive -
and at least some of those other parents bear the cost of children
themselves instead of engaging in the pre-meditated, for-profit theft of
time, peace and quiet from strangers that did nothing to them.
My hat goes off to those who make lives miserable for telemarketers. I
fantasize for the day this activity is declared a capital offense -
retroactively.
== 9 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 18 2008 5:14 pm
From: Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
Rod Speed wrote:
> Melinda Meahan <mmeahan@TRASHsonic.net> wrote
>
>> I have known people who were in desperate circumstances and had very few work options
>
> Then they were stupid enough to get into that particular situation in the first place.
Well, if you are hateful and have no compassion for other people, there
is no point in trying to explain this to you.
> No one starves in the US today.
Oh, yes, they do.
> You should have got yourself qualified before
> you produced those brats and ended up single.
I was not speaking about myself. I am doing okay.
> Anyone with a clue gets qualified before producing the brats
> so they can change jobs if that ever becomes necessary.
Life happens. Good-paying jobs disappear. People don't always have the
money to sail through college right after high school and end up in
lesser jobs than they really want.
--
Every job is a self-portrait of the person who does it. Autograph your
work with excellence.
== 10 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 18 2008 5:15 pm
From: Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
SpammersDie wrote:
>
> They they can quit carping about the entirely justifiable abuse they get.
In my book, there is NEVER, EVER, a justification for abuse of any
person at all.
--
Every job is a self-portrait of the person who does it. Autograph your
work with excellence.
== 11 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 18 2008 5:18 pm
From: Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
Rod Speed wrote:
>
> But you cant explain how those immigrants that you claim get the
> jobs fine paid for the training that you claim is the only way to get
> jobs there, and how they manage to get recruited before you
> when they have a problem with basic english and you clearly dont.
I never said that these were skilled jobs. I said that they were
STARTER jobs -- fast food, etc.
--
Every job is a self-portrait of the person who does it. Autograph your
work with excellence.
== 12 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 18 2008 5:35 pm
From: Warren Block
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply <mmeahan@TRASHsonic.net> wrote:
> SpammersDie wrote:
>>
>> They they can quit carping about the entirely justifiable abuse they get.
>
> In my book, there is NEVER, EVER, a justification for abuse of any
> person at all.
Odd that you're defending telemarketers, then.
--
Warren Block * Rapid City, South Dakota * USA
== 13 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 18 2008 5:37 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Melinda Meahan <mmeahan@TRASHsonic.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote:
>> Melinda Meahan <mmeahan@TRASHsonic.net> wrote
>>> I have known people who were in desperate circumstances and had very few work options
>> Then they were stupid enough to get into that particular situation in the first place.
> Well, if you are hateful and have no compassion for other people, there is no point in trying to explain this to you.
If you're so stupid that you havent even noticed that its only
the stupid/lazy that ever get into that situation in the US today,
then yes, there is absolutely no point in discussing it with you.
>>> and who were not lazy and/or st&pid.
>> Corse they were when they were stupid enough to not get qualified
>> for the jobs that are available when the unemployment rate is 4.x%
>>> And no, not everybody has the option of leaving their job.
>> Yes they all do.
>>> If you were a single parent with several children,
>> You should have got yourself qualified before you produced those brats.
>>> you wouldn't want your children to starve
>> No one starves in the US today.
> Oh, yes, they do.
Oh no they dont when its kids.
>>> or to be kicked out of the apartment that was so difficult to
>>> acquire because you are a single parent with several children,
>> You should have got yourself qualified before
>> you produced those brats and ended up single.
> I was not speaking about myself. I am doing okay.
I wasnt talking about you personally either, I was talking about
those fools you claimed had no choice but to stay in a job that
involves flagrantly illegal activity and who you stupidly claimed
didnt get into that situation by being stupid or lazy.
>>> I mean, sure you could quit, but at the cost of your children suffering?
>> Anyone with a clue gets qualified before producing the brats
>> so they can change jobs if that ever becomes necessary.
> Life happens.
It does indeed, but even the stupidest cow should have managed to grasp
what produces kids by the time they are in the position to end up with them.
> Good-paying jobs disappear.
Not all good paying jobs disappear at once when the unemployment rate is 4.x%
> People don't always have the money to sail through college right after high school and end up in lesser jobs than they
> really want.
Lesser paying jobs that than they really want is an entirely different
matter to your stupid claim that some individuals who arent stupid
or lazy can end up in the situation where they have no choice but
to keep doing what is clearly flagrantly illegal work wise.
And anyone with a clue who doesnt get to sail through college right
after high school should be able to work out how to get qualified in
the areas that interest them after working for a while in a job which
might well be lesser jobs than they really want. Not a shred of rocket
science whatever required.
== 14 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 18 2008 5:41 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Melinda Meahan <mmeahan@TRASHsonic.net> wrote
> SpammersDie wrote
>> They they can quit carping about the entirely justifiable abuse they get.
> In my book, there is NEVER, EVER, a justification for abuse of any person at all.
More fool you. When a particular individual continues to do what even the
stupidest individual should be able to work out that the absolute vast bulk
of the general public detests, unwanted telemarketing calls, and chooses
not to check whether what they have been told to do is flagrantly illegal
activity after having been told repeatedly by an number of individuals that
they have called that the activity is flagrantly illegal, thats likely the only
way to get it thru their thick skulls short of getting the cops involved.
== 15 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 18 2008 5:44 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Melinda Meahan <mmeahan@TRASHsonic.net> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> But you cant explain how those immigrants that you claim get the
>> jobs fine paid for the training that you claim is the only way to get
>> jobs there, and how they manage to get recruited before you
>> when they have a problem with basic english and you clearly dont.
> I never said that these were skilled jobs.
You did however claim that some cant afford the job training to qualify for the jobs.
Thats just plain wrong with the sort of work you are talking about now.
> I said that they were STARTER jobs -- fast food, etc.
Just the sort of jobs where those with inadequate english start off behind the 8 ball.
If they can get the job anyway, there must be some very fundamental problem
with the attitudes of the non immigrants that find the immigrants get all those jobs.
== 16 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 18 2008 6:06 pm
From: William Souden
Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply wrote:
> Rod Speed wrote:
>>
>> But you cant explain how those immigrants that you claim get the
>> jobs fine paid for the training that you claim is the only way to get
>> jobs there, and how they manage to get recruited before you
>> when they have a problem with basic english and you clearly dont.
>
> I never said that these were skilled jobs. I said that they were
> STARTER jobs -- fast food, etc.
For Rod fast food was a starter and a finisher job. His adult work
career consists of one fast job which fired him before his lunch break.
Ever since then the welfare people have classified him as terminally
unemployable.
== 17 of 17 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 18 2008 6:42 pm
From: sarge137
On Jan 18, 3:28 pm, Melinda Meahan - take out TRASH to reply
<mmea...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote:
> Many, if not most, telemarketing companies have war dialers so you just
> pick up the phone to talk to the next person. At least, all the ones I
> have heard of do.
>
Illegal in almost every state in the union, and the few that don't
prohibit them likely soon will.
These con artists not only ignore local and national DNC registries,
but they also violate state and local laws prohibiting "the use of
automatic telephone dialing devices for the purpose of selling goods
or services."
First you want to blame the education system for their lack of skills
and ambition; then you rant about illegals taking jobs; now you want
to justify their complicity by claiming they're not actually dialing
the number, they're using illegal technology to make the connection.
What's next? Are you somehow going to connect the Bush administration
or the war in Iraq to this?
You're quite the apologist. You're obviously deeply involved with the
telemarketing industry and don't like people messing with your rice
bowl. The simple fact is that the ranks of telemarketers are full of
thieves and liars, who disregard the laws and regulations put in place
to control them. They're intrusive, abusive, and thoughtless. If the
government won't take care of them, the people whose privacy they
violate should.
Sarge
==============================================================================
TOPIC: 4Front Investigations Inc. Nationwide Offices 888-248-4004
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/bbb62621a897f97d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 18 2008 3:48 pm
From: 4Front <4frontinvestigations@gmail.com>
FULL SERVICE NATIONWIDE FIRM!
INFIDELITY EXPERTS! THOUSANDS OF INFIDELITY CASES WORKED !
- COMPREHENSIVE BACKGROUND INVESTIGATIONS
- WE CAN LOCATE HIDDEN ASSETS, BANK ACCOUNTS AND MORE
- GPS DEVICE RENTALS
- SKIP TRACES ( LOCATE A LOST LOVED ONE OR ANYONE )
- CRIMINAL DEFENSE INVESTIGATIONS
- CORPORATE INVESTIGATIONS
- INSURANCE FRAUD INVESTIGATIONS
- EXECUTIVE PROTECTION WORLDWIDE
MULTIPLE OFFICES NATIONWIDE
888-248-4004 (Toll Free)
888-248-4004 (Fax)
EMAIL: 4FrontInvestigations@gmail.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cellphone battery life
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/ca4d0c8b9093ec56?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 18 2008 4:43 pm
From: Terry Terry
On Jan 18, 4:19 pm, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
> Terry Terry wrote:
> > On Jan 17, 5:13 pm, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
> >> Terry Terry wrote:
> >>> On Jan 17, 1:02 pm, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
> >>>> Terry Terry wrote:
> >>>>> On Jan 16, 5:28 pm, Al Bundy <MSfort...@mcpmail.com> wrote:
> >>>>>> Terry Terry wrote:
> >>>>>>> I have a Tracfone. I bought it for emergencies a month ago. The
> >>>>>>> instructions say that the phone will withstand temperatures to -10C
> >>>>>>> and will hold a charge for 10 days.
> >>>>>>> They lie.
> >>>>>>> Because I only use my phone for emergencies, I left my phone in my car
> >>>>>>> for two nights. The temperature came near freezing, but did not drop
> >>>>>>> to freezing.
> >>>>>>> The phone battery died.
> >>>>>>> I took it back. The girl at the counter said that all phones are like
> >>>>>>> that. Don't leave the phone in the car. Is she telling the truth or
> >>>>>>> should I insist on another phone?
> >>>>>> Maybe the battery was bad or not fully charged. Since you only use it
> >>>>>> for emergencies, presumably outgoing calls, why not remove or
> >>>>>> disconnect the battery when not in use. It should keep it's charge for
> >>>>>> weeks or months. I have a couple in a drawer here and I charge them
> >>>>>> every 2-3 months, but they are still plenty live enough to make a call
> >>>>>> even then. I am speaking about lithium-ion batteries. NI-CAD or NMH
> >>>>>> won't hold a charge as long as they have a shorter shelf life.
> >>>>> How would taking out the battery extend its life?
> >>>> At least turn the phone off. But even with the phone off it is still
> >>>> drawing some power, that switch is a software switch not a hardware
> >>>> switch like your home light switches.
> >>>>> I am thinking that the battery is bad and I should be able to exchange
> >>>>> it for another phone. I had that in mind when I returned it to the
> >>>>> store, but the girl at the counter said that was typical operation.
> >>>> I'm thinking you did this awkwardly by starting a complaint about the
> >>>> phone, hence putting the counter girl in confrontation mode.
> >>>> It's always easier if you ask people to help you. Just tell her the
> >>>> phone died and you don't know why, what can we do about it. Don't go
> >>>> into why can't it stand the cold, don't even mention that.
> >>>> I have similar problems when my girlfriend tries to take something
> >>>> back, she complains and they refuse. Now she gets me to do it and there
> >>>> are no problems. People will go out of their way to help if they want
> >>>> to, otherwise you are by the book.
> >>>> Jeff
> >>> I don't think that is what happened. I have started shopping at Radio
> >>> Shack again. I quit for shopping there for a very long time because I
> >>> bought my first IBM compatible machine there. Anyway.....I know the
> >>> salesperson.
> >>> I could have insisted for an exchange and got one. I wasn't
> >>> complaining. I just told her what happened. I also think she told
> >>> the truth to me when she said that if I got another one it would do
> >>> the same thing.
> >> I'm confused. It sounded to me that the battery died and that was it.
> >> Has the battery recharged?
>
> >> All batteries have much less capacity at lower temperatures. It's a
> >> chemical reaction and it's temperature dependant. That's why they rate
> >> car batteries in cold cranking amps.
>
> >> If the battery is dead, dead, dead, get a new one. If it just needed
> >> to be recharged or warmed up, then that's normal.
>
> >> Jeff
>
> >>> I just wanted to hear from other cell phone users that may treat their
> >>> phones the same way. I want to leave my phone in my car when I am
> >>> away from home and not have it in my pocket. I know most people keep
> >>> their phone handy even if they don't plan to get any calls. I know I
> >>> will not be getting any calls, because I haven't given out my phone
> >>> number. I don't consider being out of bread an emergency.
> >>> The only thing I care to spend a dollar a min to call would be 911 or
> >>> a tow truck.
>
> > No it is not dead. It charged backup fine.
>
> > The instructions lead me to believe I could leave the phone in the car
> > for 10 days at 10C.
>
> > I take if from other replies that this is not the intended use for the
> > phone.
>
> Why don't you invest in a car charger or one of those emergency
> cellphone batteries? Nothing wrong with keeping the phone charged up in
> the car. It is possible to let a LiIon battery become so discharged that
> it won't recharge. In general batteries last longer if they are kept up.
>
> Jeff
Yeah, that is a good idea. Even in the worst case scenario I would
think a car battery would have enough charge to make a phone call.
I could let the phone battery die and still be able to use the adapter
in the car to make a phone call.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cheap wholesale air max sneakers: max 87,max 90,max95,max97,max2003,max
180,max 360, max TN,max ltd,max Nz,air max for women and children.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/b8f0581afe172c02?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 18 2008 5:53 pm
From: nikewon@gmail.com
www.nikeshoeswon.com is a professional wholesaler of the Nike sport
shoes in china. Our main products include nike air max: TN/LTD /
87/95/97/2003/180/360, nike shox: R4/R3/R5/NZ/ Turbo, air jordans
1-23,jordan spizikes,jordan admixture, nike dunks and some other
brands of puma,timberland,prada,adidas,gucci.. Etc. we supply great A
quality shoes only .all the shoes from us are high standard quality &
original box. With good service, hard working & reasonable price .we
get a big market in Europe and North America. We thank you for your
attention and wish having business relations with all buyers from all
over the world.Welcome to our website to obtain more information!Thank
you!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Why we don't need Mexicans
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/a33d78e3d758123f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 18 2008 8:03 pm
From: Paul Knudsen
On Wed, 16 Jan 2008 11:20:43 -0800 (PST), Ted <tedorn44@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Does anyone still support the government in Washington, DC?
Yeah. The big agricultural and industrial companies that want cheap
labor.
==============================================================================
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
