Frugal Living: Aug 21, 2008

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

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

* The DSL 12-Month Commitment - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/bb1b6c0797411fac?hl=en
* Frugal hi speed internet? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/47603876a73acdc1?hl=en
* I've 3 Cheap Dial-Ups & Want To Upgrade But... - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/8b63cd812bb931f5?hl=en
* Vote for John McCain.. a mans man...not some pointy nose, smart guy. - 1
messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/4f41a0c9e221cb6f?hl=en
* "Are Teachers Overpaid?" by Mr. Tamim Ansary - 12 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/bc0959f836a427e3?hl=en
* Value pick for the week: BPL - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/336301697917beb9?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The DSL 12-Month Commitment
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/bb1b6c0797411fac?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 21 2008 2:11 pm
From: Gordon

"AllEmailDeletedImmediately" <derjda@hotmail.com> wrote in
news:FQ0rk.371$Ro1.293@trnddc04:

>
> "The Real Bev" <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:rH0rk.1597$Fr1.643@newsfe03.iad...
>> Jack wrote:
>>
>>> On Wed, 20 Aug 2008 23:38:03 +0200 (CEST), Gordon
>>> <gonzo@alltomyself.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> For a while there was a software problem that
>>>>required me to power cycle the modem every few days.
>>>
>>> For those of us who are klutzes, what does this mean?
>>
>> Turn it off. Wait a minute or so. Turn it back on. If it doesn't
>> have a switch, just unplug it. This is the first thing you try
>> before you call the helpdroid, and it fixes the majority of of
>> connection problems.
>
> doing that has never fixed my problems.
>

Yes, but then I was telling about my problems. YMMV.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 21 2008 2:36 pm
From: spam@nospam.org (Messiah Obama)

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 05:48:23 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>Messiah Obama <spam@nospam.org> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> Messiah Obama <spam@nospam.org> wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Messiah Obama <spam@nospam.org> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> Messiah Obama <spam@nospam.org> wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>> Messiah Obama <spam@nospam.org> wrote
>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>> Messiah Obama <spam@nospam.org> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Jack <Windswept@Home> wrote
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Maybe you're one of the few lucky ones.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Unlikely. If they were as bad as you claim,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> you'd have seen class action suits by now.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Forget DSL, we had progressively deteriorating Verizon phone
>>>>>>>>>>>> service for a couple of years, mostly occasional static,
>>>>>>>>>>>> but techs could find nothing wrong. It finally got to the
>>>>>>>>>>>> point that the service would go out completely for several
>>>>>>>>>>>> hours a day and dial-up internet downloaded less than 10
>>>>>>>>>>>> kbps. This lasted
>>>>>>>>>>>> a month before a tech finally diagnosed that their surge
>>>>>>>>>>>> protector was damaged and replaced it.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Veizon credited the bill for that last month but the service
>>>>>>>>>>>> was defective for a coupla yrs.
>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So I can understand the original poster's fears. Wouldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>> want to sign-up for a year's DSL and have it out of order
>>>>>>>>>>>> for a month.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> Using that mindless line, you'd never sign up for anything.
>
>>>>>>>>>> Furthermore, it wasn't until we complained to BBB that
>>>>>>>>>> Verizon finally fixed the problem amd applied the credit.
>
>>>>>>>>> And you could have done that much earlier, when they didnt find any problem the first time.
>
>>>>>>>> Should have, but the problem was "livable" until that last month.
>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you end up with a defective service, you can ALWAYS cancel if you want.
>
>>>>>>>>>> Regarding the DSL service, yeah, you can cancel and lose the
>>>>>>>>>> money as well as have your card charged with early
>>>>>>>>>> termination penalty.
>
>>>>>>>>> You can also use the small claims court if they wont waive
>>>>>>>>> that when they cant provide the service that you paid for.
>
>>>>>>>>>> Most people aren't going to small claims court over something
>>>>>>>>>> like this and Verizon knows it.
>
>>>>>>>>> Most people are irrelevant. What matters is that they also know
>>>>>>>>> what the small claims court will rule and arent stupid enough
>>>>>>>>> to incur the costs involved in a guaranteed loss there.
>
>>>>>>>> Most people are quite relevant.
>
>>>>>>> Nope, completely irrelevant if you dont like the ETP and they
>>>>>>> cant deliver a viable service.
>
>>>>>> Most people are quite relevant.
>
>>>>> Nope, completely irrelevant if you dont like the ETP and they cant
>>>>> deliver a viable service.
>
>>>> Most people are quite relevant and won't fight.
>
>>> Those are completely irrelevant to a particular customer who does
>>> make it clear that he knows what the small claims court is there for.
>
>>>> Verizon knows it.
>
>>> Verizon knows that if it ends up in the small claims court, they will
>>> have to pay a hell of a lot more than the ETP and so will waive the
>>> ETP when they cant deliver what the customer has signed up for.
>
>> Verizon losing the occasional small claims case
>
>They arent stupid enough to let any get to the court except
>where the customer is stupid enough to not make it clear
>that thats where it will end up if they dont get the ETP waived.

The overwhelming majority of people will not expend their time,
effort, and salary or vacation time to fight in small claims court on
this issue. The trade-off is simply not worth it. Moreover, their
chance of success is dubious at best .... given that well-coached
Verizon reps will plead that reasonable, workmanlike support has been
rendered... and that plaintiff should address other possible causes.
Then of course there are the terms of service which are loaded with
disclaimers. And then there are many cases whereupon service has
been restored after aggravating delay and effort and the court would
most likely determine the complaint to be moot.

>> justifies their cutting corners on reliability and support.
>
>Irrelevant to whether they will wave the ETP if they cant deliver what the customer has signed
>up for, when they realise that the customer will use the small claims court if they dont.

>>>> And plays the odds.
>
>>> Yep, they bluff the bluffable and waive the ETP when they cant
>>> deliver what the customer has signed up for when that customer
>>> makes it clear that if they dont, they get to wear what the small
>>> claims court is absolutely guaranteed to award against Verizon.
>
>> Very few will take it to court, given what is at stake for the individual
>> person in terms of time, effort, loss of salary or vacation time.
>
>They dont need to do any of that, just make it clear to Verizon
>that thats where it will end up if they dont waive the ETP when
>Verizon cant deliver what the customer has signed up for.

> >>>>> And the fact is that most people won't fight it legally.
>
>>>>> Just because most people are completely stupid is completely irrelevant.
>
>>>> Most people are quite relevant and won't fight.
>
>>> Those are completely irrelevant to a particular customer who does
>>> make it clear that he knows what the small claims court is there for.
>
>> Very few will take it to court, given what is at stake for the individual
>> person in terms of time, effort, loss of salary or vacation time.

>They dont need to do any of that, just make it clear to Verizon
>that thats where it will end up if they dont waive the ETP when
>Verizon cant deliver what the customer has signed up for.

>>>> Verizon knows it.
>
>>> Verizon knows that if it ends up in the small claims court, they will
>>> have to pay a hell of a lot more than the ETP and so will waive the
>>> ETP when they cant deliver what the customer has signed up for.
>
>> Very few will take it to court, given what is at stake for the individual
>> person in terms of time, effort, loss of salary or vacation time.
>
>They dont need to do any of that, just make it clear to Verizon
>that thats where it will end up if they dont waive the ETP when
>Verizon cant deliver what the customer has signed up for.

>>>>>>>> Whatever Verizon loses in occasional individual cases is more
>>>>>>>> than compensated for
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Irrelevant to what happens when Verizon realises
>>>>>>> that you are prepared to use the small claims court.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Verizon knows that most people won't fight.
>>>>>
>>>>> Irrelevant to what happens when Verizon realises
>>>>> that you are prepared to use the small claims court.
>>>
>>>> Most people are quite relevant and won't fight.
>>>
>>> Those are completely irrelevant to a particular customer who does
>>> make it clear that he knows what the small claims court is there for.

>> Very few will take it to court, given what is at stake for the individual
>> person in terms of time, effort, loss of salary or vacation time.
>
>They dont need to do any of that, just make it clear to Verizon
>that thats where it will end up if they dont waive the ETP when
>Verizon cant deliver what the customer has signed up for.

>>>> Verizon knows it.
>>>
>>> Verizon knows that if it ends up in the small claims court, they will
>>> have to pay a hell of a lot more than the ETP and so will waive the
>>> ETP when they cant deliver what the customer has signed up for.
>
>> Very few will take it to court, given what is at stake for the individual
>> person in terms of time, effort, loss of salary or vacation time.
>
>They dont need to do any of that, just make it clear to Verizon
>that thats where it will end up if they dont waive the ETP when
>Verizon cant deliver what the customer has signed up for.

>>>> And plays the odds.
>>>
>>> Yep, they bluff the bluffable and waive the ETP when they cant
>>> deliver what the customer has signed up for when that customer
>>> makes it clear that if they dont, they get to wear what the small
>>> claims court is absolutely guaranteed to award against Verizon.
>
>> Very few will take it to court, given what is at stake for the individual
>> person in terms of time, effort, loss of salary or vacation time.
>
>They dont need to do any of that, just make it clear to Verizon
>that thats where it will end up if they dont waive the ETP when
>Verizon cant deliver what the customer has signed up for.

>>>>>>>> and Verizon plays the odds against the possibility of a class
>>>>>>>> action.
>>>
>>>>>>> Yes, but they dont when Verizon realises that you are prepared to
>>>>>>> use the small claims court.
>>>
>>>>>> Verizon knows that most people won't fight.
>>>
>>>>> Yes, but they dont when Verizon realises that you are prepared to
>>>>> use the small claims court.
>>>
>>>> Most people are quite relevant and won't fight.
>>
>>
>>
>>> Those are completely irrelevant to a particular customer who does
>>> make it clear that he knows what the small claims court is there for.

>>>> Verizon knows it.
>>>
>>> Verizon knows that if it ends up in the small claims court, they will
>>> have to pay a hell of a lot more than the ETP and so will waive the
>>> ETP when they cant deliver what the customer has signed up for.
>>
>> Very few will take it to court, given what is at stake for the individual
>> person in terms of time, effort, loss of salary or vacation time.
>
>They dont need to do any of that, just make it clear to Verizon
>that thats where it will end up if they dont waive the ETP when
>Verizon cant deliver what the customer has signed up for.

>>>> And plays the odds.
>>>
>>> Yep, they bluff the bluffable and waive the ETP when they cant
>>> deliver what the customer has signed up for when that customer
>>> makes it clear that if they dont, they get to wear what the small
>>> claims court is absolutely guaranteed to award against Verizon.
>>
>> Very few will take it to court, given what is at stake for the individual
>> person in terms of time, effort, loss of salary or vacation time.
>
>They dont need to do any of that, just make it clear to Verizon
>that thats where it will end up if they dont waive the ETP when
>Verizon cant deliver what the customer has signed up for.

>>>>>>>>>> Hell, it would end up costing more than what you would gain
>>>>>>>>>> from any lawsuit.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wrong again. They get to pay those costs when they lose. As
>>>>>>>>> they inevitably would.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Even if that's true,
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Corse its true, and Verizon knows that.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>
>> Nope.
>
>Yep.

Nope.

>>>>>>>> it's just the time, effort, and delays that are inherit with the
>>>>>>>> judicial system make recovery fo $300 or whatever not worth it.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> You dont have to do it, just make it clear to Verizon that if
>>>>>>> they
>>>>>>> dont waive the ETP
>>>>>>> when they cant deliver the service you paid for, that you will
>>>>>>> use
>>>>>>> the small claims court.
>>>>>
>>>>>>> Verizon will realise that you do know your legal rights and will
>>>>>>> waive the ETP rather
>>>>>>> than end up paying a lot more as a result of them losing in the
>>>>>>> small claims court.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> Yep.
>>>>
>>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> Yep.
>>
>> Nope.
>
>Yep.

Nope.

>>>>>> They're nothing in the "terms" that provide for 100% uptime.
>>>
>>>>> Doesnt need to be. The small claims court will rule that you
>>>>> didnt get what you signed up for and Verizon knows that.
>>>
>>>> Chancy.
>>>
>>> Nope, that result is absolutely guaranteed if Verizon cant deliver
>>> what the customer has signed up for.
>>
>> Very few will take it to court, given what is at stake for the individual
>> person in terms of time, effort, loss of salary or vacation time.
>
>They dont need to do any of that, just make it clear to Verizon
>that thats where it will end up if they dont waive the ETP when
>Verizon cant deliver what the customer has signed up for.

>>>> You're rolling the dice.
>>
>> Very few will take it to court, given what is at stake for the individual
>> person in terms of time, effort, loss of salary or vacation time.
>
>They dont need to do any of that, just make it clear to Verizon
>that thats where it will end up if they dont waive the ETP when
>Verizon cant deliver what the customer has signed up for.

>>> Nope, that result is absolutely guaranteed if Verizon cant deliver
>>> what the customer has signed up for.
>>
>> Very few will take it to court, given what is at stake for the individual
>> person in terms of time, effort, loss of salary or vacation time.
>
>They dont need to do any of that, just make it clear to Verizon
>that thats where it will end up if they dont waive the ETP when
>Verizon cant deliver what the customer has signed up for.

>>>> The contract you sign does not guarantee dedicated service.
>>>
>>> Doesnt need to. That result is absolutely guaranteed if Verizon cant
>>> deliver what the customer has signed up for.
>
>> Customer rolls the dice.
>
>Nope.

Yep

>> Ain't worth it.
>
>It is when you get the EPT waived when Verizon cant deliver what the customer signed up for.

>>>> Verizon will argue that you received support, even tho you had to
>>>> wait 45 minutes to talk to a guy in Bombay India and he read a list
>>>> of fixes, none of which worked.
>>>
>>> And since Verizon cant deliver what the customer signed up for,
>>> the small claims court will find in the customer's favour and Verizon
>>> gets to wear FAR more than the ETP and Verizon knows that.
>>
>> Very few will take it to court, given what is at stake for the individual
>> person in terms of time, effort, loss of salary or vacation time.
>
>They dont need to do any of that, just make it clear to Verizon
>that thats where it will end up if they dont waive the ETP when
>Verizon cant deliver what the customer has signed up for.

>>>> Verizon will argue that they fulfilled the contract and
>>>> they'll blame it on phone lines or your house wiring.
>>>
>>> And the small claims court wont buy that, and Verizon knows that.
>>
>> Very few will take it to court, given what is at stake for the individual
>> person in terms of time, effort, loss of salary or vacation time.
>
>They dont need to do any of that, just make it clear to Verizon
>that thats where it will end up if they dont waive the ETP when
>Verizon cant deliver what the customer has signed up for.

>>>> That's what the reports have shown.
>>>
>>> The small claims court wont buy that.
>
>> I know.
>
>You never know anything.

>> They'll side with Verizon.
>
>How odd that they never ever have.

>>>> Roll the dice, baby
>>>
>>> There is no dice, child. The result in the small claims result is
>>> absolutely
>>> guaranteed if Verizon cant deliver what the customer has signed up
>>> for.
>>
>> Very few will take it to court, given what is at stake for the individual
>> person in terms of time, effort, loss of salary or vacation time.
>
>They dont need to do any of that, just make it clear to Verizon
>that thats where it will end up if they dont waive the ETP when
>Verizon cant deliver what the customer has signed up for.

>>>>>> Quite the opposite as I recall.
>>>
>>>>> Doesnt need to be. The small claims court will rule that you
>>>>> didnt get what you signed up for and Verizon knows that.
>>>
>>>> Chancy.
>>>
>>> Nope, the result in the small claims result is absolutely guaranteed
>>> if Verizon cant deliver what the customer has signed up for.
>>
>> Very few will take it to court, given what is at stake for the individual
>> person in terms of time, effort, loss of salary or vacation time.
>
>They dont need to do any of that, just make it clear to Verizon
>that thats where it will end up if they dont waive the ETP when
>Verizon cant deliver what the customer has signed up for.

>>>>>> And a court would have to try to define what is "reasonable"
>>>>>> downtime.
>>>
>>>>> And they would do that and find against Verizon.
>>>
>>>> Chancy.
>>>
>>> Nope, the result in the small claims result is absolutely guaranteed
>>> if Verizon cant deliver what the customer has signed up for.
>>
>> Very few will take it to court, given what is at stake for the individual
>> person in terms of time, effort, loss of salary or vacation time.
>
>They dont need to do any of that, just make it clear to Verizon
>that thats where it will end up if they dont waive the ETP when
>Verizon cant deliver what the customer has signed up for.

>>>>>> Most people won't take that chance.
>>>
>>>>> Most people are completely irrelevant.
>>>
>>>> Most people are quite relevant and won't fight.
>>>
>>> Those are completely irrelevant to a particular customer who does
>>> make it clear that he knows what the small claims court is there for.
>>
>> Very few will take it to court, given what is at stake for the individual
>> person in terms of time, effort, loss of salary or vacation time.
>
>They dont need to do any of that, just make it clear to Verizon
>that thats where it will end up if they dont waive the ETP when
>Verizon cant deliver what the customer has signed up for.

>>>> Verizon knows it.
>>>
>>> Verizon knows that if it ends up in the small claims court, they will
>>> have to pay a hell of a lot more than the ETP and so will waive the
>>> ETP when they cant deliver what the customer has signed up for.
>>
>> Very few will take it to court, given what is at stake for the individual
>> person in terms of time, effort, loss of salary or vacation time.
>
>They dont need to do any of that, just make it clear to Verizon
>that thats where it will end up if they dont waive the ETP when
>Verizon cant deliver what the customer has signed up for.

>>>> And plays the odds.
>>>
>>> Yep, they bluff the bluffable and waive the ETP when they cant
>>> deliver what the customer has signed up for when that customer
>>> makes it clear that if they dont, they get to wear what the small
>>> claims court is absolutely guaranteed to award against Verizon.
>>
>> Very few will take it to court, given what is at stake for the individual
>> person in terms of time, effort, loss of salary or vacation time.
>
>They dont need to do any of that, just make it clear to Verizon
>that thats where it will end up if they dont waive the ETP when
>Verizon cant deliver what the customer has signed up for.

>>>>>>>> The ideal situation would be a modem that could be
>>>>>>>> used for all DSLs and which you would buy and own
>>>>>>>> up front. Then have a month-to-month provider plan.
>>>
>>>>>>> Plenty of operations do it like that. Its got real downsides
>>>>>>> support wise tho.
>>>
>>>>>> Cite "Plenty of operations."
>>>
>>>>> Go and fuck yourself.
>>>
>>>> Translation: None exist.
>>>
>>> How odd that I'm actually using one of them myself, fuckwit.
>
>> What else would a Verizon shill say?
>
>Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

But keep on trying.

And where's that apology, bytch.

For lying.

And being a Verizon shill.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 21 2008 3:22 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
Messiah Obama <spam@nospam.org> wrote the completely superfluous
proof that its never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 21 2008 8:24 pm
From: spam@nospam.org (Messiah Obama)

On Fri, 22 Aug 2008 08:22:34 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>Some gutless fuckwit desperately cowering behind
>Messiah Obama <spam@nospam.org> wrote the completely superfluous
>proof that its never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

Aw no, you ain't getting away that easily, bytch.

Apologize NOW, for lying to us by saying that there are many DSL ISPs
that offer month-to-month.

Namely:

>>>>> The ideal situation would be a modem that could be
>>>>> used for all DSLs and which you would buy and own
>>>>> up front. Then have a month-to-month provider plan.

>>> Plenty of operations do it like that. Its got real downsides support wise tho.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Frugal hi speed internet?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/47603876a73acdc1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 21 2008 2:18 pm
From: Gordon

"JR Weiss" <jrweiss98155remove@remove.comcast.net> wrote in news:5
_CdnUkByaIsITHVnZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@comcast.com:

> "Gordon" <gonzo@alltomyself.com> wrote...
>>
>> Except that that is for the 768K downstream speed. Uptream speeds
>> will be more like 128K.
>
> Depends on whether it's a symmetric or asymmetric system...
>
>
>

Most consumer grade DSL is ADSL. In any case, read the
service discription carefully. It will tell you what it
really is. FWIW Cable Broadband is also asymetric, usually
768K/3M

==============================================================================
TOPIC: I've 3 Cheap Dial-Ups & Want To Upgrade But...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/8b63cd812bb931f5?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 21 2008 2:26 pm
From: Gordon

Relaxin@home.net (Liberal's Worst Nightmare) wrote in
news:48ad805f.13959203@news.datemas.de:

> The cheapest dial-up yields at least one busy signal every third day
> and downloads 24-48 kbps.
>
> Another one rarely has a busy signal, downloads 24-48, and has a nice
> Usenet server.
>
> The third one never has a busy signal but dowload speed never tops 28.
>
> Total monthly cost for all 3 is about the same as one DSL which is now
> available here.
>
> Sure would like to have DSL to see video clips, youtube, etc.
>
> Unfortunately, the reports about DSL product reliability and lousy
> support have scared me off.

Join the 21st Century and get DSL. Plenty of people have DSL
and never experience a problem. If you like Unenet, you may
want to keep the dialup that has the good usenet server. You may
be able to log into the server from your DSL connection. Try it
and see.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 21 2008 2:40 pm
From: Windswept@Home (Jack)

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:26:19 +0200 (CEST), Gordon
<gonzo@alltomyself.com> wrote:

>Relaxin@home.net (Liberal's Worst Nightmare) wrote in
>news:48ad805f.13959203@news.datemas.de:
>
>> The cheapest dial-up yields at least one busy signal every third day
>> and downloads 24-48 kbps.
>>
>> Another one rarely has a busy signal, downloads 24-48, and has a nice
>> Usenet server.
>>
>> The third one never has a busy signal but dowload speed never tops 28.
>>
>> Total monthly cost for all 3 is about the same as one DSL which is now
>> available here.
>>
>> Sure would like to have DSL to see video clips, youtube, etc.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the reports about DSL product reliability and lousy
>> support have scared me off.
>
>Join the 21st Century and get DSL. Plenty of people have DSL
>and never experience a problem. If you like Unenet, you may
>want to keep the dialup that has the good usenet server. You may
>be able to log into the server from your DSL connection. Try it
>and see.

Sure would like to.

Yeah, I understand that you can keep a dial-up for back up but need to
remove the DSL stuff and revert to the dial-up wiring and connection
set-up.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 21 2008 3:19 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Gordon <gonzo@alltomyself.com> wrote:
> Relaxin@home.net (Liberal's Worst Nightmare) wrote in
> news:48ad805f.13959203@news.datemas.de:
>
>> The cheapest dial-up yields at least one busy signal every third day
>> and downloads 24-48 kbps.
>>
>> Another one rarely has a busy signal, downloads 24-48, and has a nice
>> Usenet server.
>>
>> The third one never has a busy signal but dowload speed never tops
>> 28.
>>
>> Total monthly cost for all 3 is about the same as one DSL which is
>> now available here.
>>
>> Sure would like to have DSL to see video clips, youtube, etc.
>>
>> Unfortunately, the reports about DSL product reliability and lousy
>> support have scared me off.

> Join the 21st Century and get DSL. Plenty of people have DSL
> and never experience a problem. If you like Unenet, you may
> want to keep the dialup that has the good usenet server. You may
> be able to log into the server from your DSL connection. Try it and see.

Makes a hell of a lot more sense to use a decent usenet server instead.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 21 2008 3:21 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Jack <Windswept@Home> wrote:
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 23:26:19 +0200 (CEST), Gordon
> <gonzo@alltomyself.com> wrote:
>
>> Relaxin@home.net (Liberal's Worst Nightmare) wrote in
>> news:48ad805f.13959203@news.datemas.de:
>>
>>> The cheapest dial-up yields at least one busy signal every third day
>>> and downloads 24-48 kbps.
>>>
>>> Another one rarely has a busy signal, downloads 24-48, and has a
>>> nice Usenet server.
>>>
>>> The third one never has a busy signal but dowload speed never tops
>>> 28.
>>>
>>> Total monthly cost for all 3 is about the same as one DSL which is
>>> now available here.
>>>
>>> Sure would like to have DSL to see video clips, youtube, etc.
>>>
>>> Unfortunately, the reports about DSL product reliability and lousy
>>> support have scared me off.
>>
>> Join the 21st Century and get DSL. Plenty of people have DSL
>> and never experience a problem. If you like Unenet, you may
>> want to keep the dialup that has the good usenet server. You may
>> be able to log into the server from your DSL connection. Try it
>> and see.

> Sure would like to.

> Yeah, I understand that you can keep a dial-up for back up

Depends on how reliable the DSL is and what reliability you need.

> but need to remove the DSL stuff and revert to the dial-up wiring and connection set-up.

No you dont, it will coexist with the DSL fine.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Vote for John McCain.. a mans man...not some pointy nose, smart guy.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/4f41a0c9e221cb6f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 21 2008 4:02 pm
From: "D&SW"

We conservatives did, and thought it was pretty funny.

"phil scott" <phil@philscott.net> wrote in message
news:632175aa-b287-4f3f-920f-3eabab09f0c0@q5g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 21, 10:22 am, Cindy Hamilton <angelicapagane...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> On Aug 20, 5:52 pm, phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
>
> I haven't watched the video, but why on earth would you want to vote
> for
> a dumb guy?
>
> And nose shape is irrelevant.
>
> Cindy Hamilton

errr... no one seems to have noticed.. it was an Onion vid :)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Are Teachers Overpaid?" by Mr. Tamim Ansary
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/bc0959f836a427e3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 12 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 21 2008 4:57 pm
From: lenona321@yahoo.com

I posted the link for this in 2003, found it again, and thought it
would be fun to rerun it. (I can't find a working link, though.)

Are Teachers Overpaid?

Some people think teachers are overpaid. Some think they are
underpaid.

Who's right? Encarta columnist Tamim Ansary explores the debate.

Are Teachers Overpaid?
by Tamim Ansary

Some people think teachers are overpaid--I get e-mail about it all the
time. Other people think teachers are underpaid. I get a lot of that e-
mail too.

I was going to weigh in with my own opinion when I realized I
couldn't, because I didn't know how much teachers make--or how much
anyone else makes, for that matter, except for a few well-known CEOs
and sports stars.

I said to myself, "Get some facts before shooting your mouth off,
Tamim." (I learned that from a teacher.)

Lucky for me, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) researches
salary issues. I found their Web site, and here's what they report:

The average American public school teacher, kindergarten through high
school, makes $44,367.*

Salaries vary from state to state, with South Dakota coming in last at
$31,383 a year, and California leading the way at $54,348.

Is $44,367 a lot, or a little? I couldn't tell, so I dug up salary
averages for a few other professions. Here's how they stack up:

[table deleted; see link]

I can hear some of you out there saying, "Sure, teachers make less
than doctors, big deal. Isn't that fair?" Underpaid, overpaid, it only
means something in comparison to how much a person should be paid,
right?

But that's a big can of worms. How much "should" anyone be paid? And
how do we judge "should"?

Part II: What teachers deserve
Is any line of work entitled to a particular level of compensation? On
what basis? Are there objective criteria?

I can think of three:

* The amount of training needed for the job
* The all-around difficulty of the work
* The value of the product or service to society

If you use these criteria, doctors deserve tons of money. Their job
requires endless schooling followed by a brutal internship...and they
save lives. What could be more important than that?

Carpet installers, by contrast, don't necessarily need a college
degree, although they do need training and practical experience. If
they're good at what they do, their carpets look smooth and stay put--
an important and necessary skill, but it's not saving lives. No wonder
doctors make more.

I think teachers are more like doctors when it comes to the amount of
training needed for the job. Teachers need four years of college and
at least one more for a teaching certificate, or two more for a
master's degree. Even then, in many states, teachers have to keep
taking summer courses to hold onto their jobs. The requirements vary,
but in California, for example, teachers are required to clock 150
hours of course work over five years --which they take in the summer,
usually, and must pay for themselves.

In fact, teachers need about the same amount of training as
architects, engineers, and accountants.

Part III: Hard work or hardly working?
I think a lot of the "overpaid teachers" talk comes from the notion
that teachers' hours match up with students' hours: Put in six hours a
day, head home around 2 PM, and take summers off. Compared to most
jobs, that's scarcely working, right?

Hello--news flash! Classroom time is only the tip of the pencil for a
teacher. No one just walks into a roomful of kids without a plan and
keeps them fruitfully occupied for six hours at a stretch, day after
day. Lesson plans have to be drawn up. There go your weekends.

Then there's homework. If you have 25 kids in your class, and each one
turns in one page of homework a day, you have 25 pages to read and
mark before tomorrow. There go your evenings.

Furthermore, you have meetings to attend--with other teachers,
curriculum experts, administrators, and parents. Plus, when kids bring
their life problems into the classroom--and they're human, so they do--
who ends up dealing with them? That's right, the teacher. It's not in
the job description, but a teacher's obligations inevitably overlap
with those of social workers, therapists, and even parents.

In his book Small Victories, journalist Samuel Freedman followed New
York City high school teacher Jessica Siegel around for a year to see
what she actually did, and he found that this teacher put in more than
60 hours per week at her job. It's anecdotal evidence, and maybe
Siegal is unusual. But every teacher I talked to felt his or her work
week extended way past 40 hours. Indeed, a national survey conducted
by the Department of Education showed that teachers spend an average
of 45 hours a week doing their jobs.

Want to Learn More?

What makes a great teacher great?

The National Education Association offers information about hot
educational and legislative issues related to teaching.

Saving civilization
Which brings us to our third criterion. How valuable is the
contribution teachers make to humanity?

Never mind Mr. Holland's Opus. Forget individual cases. Let's consider
the teaching profession as a whole. If doctors save lives, what do
teachers do?

Well, let's see. Everything we call civilization has to be passed on
to the next generation. Isn't that what teachers do? Reading, writing,
adding 26 plus 13, calculating the boiling point of water and naming
the vitamins found in carrots, explaining the difference between
Turkey and turkey--none of this stuff is in the genes.

Without teachers, civilization would have to be developed from scratch
every generation, and man, you can't get too far in one generation.
We'd still be listening to eight-track tapes. We wouldn't even have
cars! Well, I guess we'd have our parents' cars, but we wouldn't know
how to drive them!

So yeah, I guess teaching is important work. On a scale from one to
ten, let's give it a nine. (Saving lives has still got to rank
higher.)

One ballplayer equals 100 teachers? According to the latest edition of
Jobs Rated Almanac, the highest-paid professionals in America are NBA
basketball players. They average $4,637,825 a year.

In other words, an NBA player makes about 100 times as much as a
teacher.

If service to humanity counts, why should ballplayers make millions
while teachers scrape by on a few measly tens of thousands? What do
basketball players contribute that's more important than transferring
the contents of civilization to the next generation?

Good question, but only because it illustrates an important truth
about the compensation for any job. Clint Eastwood said it best in his
movie Unforgiven: "Deserve's got nothing to do with it."

Part IV: Why teachers make less than lawyers
The amount of clout is what it's all about.

In America, teachers started out in a hole dating back to the 19th
century. Back then, most schoolteachers were women, and women who
worked professionally outside the home were mostly teachers (or
nurses) because other careers were closed to them.

Those women were offered low wages on the assumption that they were
not breadwinners supporting families. In fact, single teachers were
generally assumed to be clocking time while they waited to get
married. Those who kept working after marriage were thought to be
making "extra income," which justified paying them what amounted to
pin money.

Since their options were limited, they had to accept what they were
offered. Thus, the prevailing wage for teachers started out low.

Meet and submit
In 1948, when the AFT ran its first salary survey, teachers were
making less than $3,000 a year--which is equivalent to maybe $16,000
today.

Unlike plumbers, bus drivers, and truckers, teachers had no right to
engage in collective bargaining. Instead, they went through a process
called "meet and converse," which meant they would meet with their
school board and discuss what they needed. Then they would go away,
and the school board would decide what to give them.

But in 1961, a math teacher named Albert Shanker kick-started massive
changes in educator compensation. As head of a professional
association called the United Federation of Teachers, he called a
controversial teachers' strike in New York City.

The rise of clout
That strike gave birth to one of America's major trade union
movements. Over the next 15 years, teachers won the right to
collective bargaining state by state. As unions took over salary
negotiations, teachers' incomes began to rise rapidly.

Today, 80 percent of teachers belong to one of two large unions, the
National Educational Association and the American Federation of
Teachers, or their local affiliates. If the two unions were to merge,
as has been discussed, they would form the largest trade union in
America.

Today, teachers' unions swing a heavy stick in national politics. They
rank near the top in political contributions, mostly to Democratic
candidates. Clout is no longer the problem for teachers--as a group,
they've got it.

According to Judy Thomas, Director of Research for the California
Teachers Association, teachers go on strike only as a last resort, in
part because strikes are traumatic and tend to divide a faculty for
years.

Slicing the pie
But the last resort has been reached frequently. The nation has seen
hundreds of teacher strikes in the last 25 years. School boards, the
opposing party in a teacher strike, don't necessarily believe teachers
are overpaid. They believe schools are underfunded. The size of the
pie is out of their hands, though: They can only divide up what they
have.

Want to Learn More?

The secret to success in school: A former teacher tells all.

The teacher-student connection: Can it make kids smarter?

About half the budget of a typical school district now goes to
teachers. Other employees get 30 to 35 percent. They include
administrators, but also janitors, secretaries, cafeteria workers,
school nurses, teachers aides, and so on. Well, schools can't run
without those folks either. If teachers get more, the others must get
less. Or else the money must come out of the budget for books,
supplies, maintenance, lights, and water.

A bigger pie
The other alternative would be for schools to get more money.

But where would that come from? Taxes, mostly. Other sources of public
school funding are negligible--always have been, always will be.

In California, about 7 percent of the budget comes from renting out
school property and the like. An even smaller amount comes from the
state lottery, an increasingly common funding device that was
pioneered in California. Today, the lottery provides 2 percent of
school costs in California. But it isn't the answer. The bulk of the
money for schools--91 percent, in fact--comes from state, local, and
federal taxes.

Want to Learn More?

Get online training for a new career at Encarta's Career Training
Center.

Research jobs, salaries, and other work stuff on MSN Careers.

If teachers are to get more money, citizens must pay more taxes.
That's the bottom line. And a powerful current in American political
life has been a demand for lower taxes.

If you start with the premise "taxes are too high," the conclusion
"teachers are overpaid" is virtually automatic. The arguments about
why they're overpaid come after the fact. "You can't fix the schools
by throwing money at them," and its ilk are simply necessary fillers
to bolster the premise that taxes must be lowered.

But it's wishful thinking to suppose that we can have good schools
without paying teachers good salaries. Comparisons to the good old
days ignore the fact that times have changed. Back then, low wages
could secure top talent because half the population was restricted to
just two or three jobs, one of which was teaching. The best still had
to compete to be teachers, and only the best of the best got in.
Today, potential teachers--men or women--have so many other options
that it's the teaching profession that must compete, against other
lines of work, to reel in the top talents. Otherwise, instead of
teaching, those top talents might choose to be...

Well, let's see: police officers, accountants, department store
buyers, architects, computer systems analysts, engineers, attorneys,
professors, or doctors, for example.

Check page one to see what that comes out to in dollars.

(end)

Lenona.

== 2 of 12 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 21 2008 6:05 pm
From: clams_casino

lenona321@yahoo.com wrote:

>I posted the link for this in 2003, found it again, and thought it
>would be fun to rerun it. (I can't find a working link, though.)
>
>
>Are Teachers Overpaid?
>
>Some people think teachers are overpaid. Some think they are
>underpaid.
>
>
>

It depends entirely on where one lives. Length of service is another
critical factor where salaries tend to start low, but increase rapidly
with years experience - much faster than other occupations.

In RI, it's not unusual for teachers to receive over $80k /yr in salary
plus benefits ($60 +/hr) for a 180-190 day work year (averaging 40%
above the average salary in the state) . Teachers do commonly work over
time, but what white collar professional doesn't?

The chemists / engineers / business professionals I know (comparable
educational backgrounds) commonly work 50 hr weeks with just 2-4 weeks
vacation without the fully or essentially fully paid medical benefits
typical for teachers for similar wages..

What white collar professional would not like 10-12 weeks vacation / yr
included in that salary?

http://cspf.awardspace.com/education_partnership_chariho_co.htm

== 3 of 12 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 21 2008 6:23 pm
From: The Real Bev

clams_casino wrote:

> lenona321@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>I posted the link for this in 2003, found it again, and thought it
>>would be fun to rerun it. (I can't find a working link, though.)
>>
>>Are Teachers Overpaid?
>>
>>Some people think teachers are overpaid. Some think they are
>>underpaid.
>
> It depends entirely on where one lives. Length of service is another
> critical factor where salaries tend to start low, but increase rapidly
> with years experience - much faster than other occupations.
>
> In RI, it's not unusual for teachers to receive over $80k /yr in salary
> plus benefits ($60 +/hr) for a 180-190 day work year (averaging 40%
> above the average salary in the state) . Teachers do commonly work over
> time, but what white collar professional doesn't?
>
> The chemists / engineers / business professionals I know (comparable
> educational backgrounds) commonly work 50 hr weeks with just 2-4 weeks
> vacation without the fully or essentially fully paid medical benefits
> typical for teachers for similar wages..
>
> What white collar professional would not like 10-12 weeks vacation / yr
> included in that salary?

Moreover, those people actually produce useful output -- if they don't,
they get fired. Given the state of K-12 education in California, the
only thing most teachers produce is shit. Really expensive shit.

--
Cheers,
Bev
================================================================
"Everything sucks; reverse the wires and everything will blow."
-- Desert Ed

== 4 of 12 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 21 2008 7:04 pm
From: terryc

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:23:45 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:

> Moreover, those people actually produce useful output -- if they don't,
> they get fired. Given the state of K-12 education in California, the
> only thing most teachers produce is shit. Really expensive shit.

Guess that comes back to the school board doesn't it?

== 5 of 12 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 21 2008 7:16 pm
From: "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"

"terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.08.22.02.04.30.645488@woa.com.au...
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:23:45 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>
>
>> Moreover, those people actually produce useful output -- if they don't,
>> they get fired. Given the state of K-12 education in California, the
>> only thing most teachers produce is shit. Really expensive shit.
>
> Guess that comes back to the school board doesn't it?

unions

== 6 of 12 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 21 2008 7:43 pm
From: Marsha

AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
>
> "terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
> news:pan.2008.08.22.02.04.30.645488@woa.com.au...
>
>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:23:45 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>>> Moreover, those people actually produce useful output -- if they don't,
>>> they get fired. Given the state of K-12 education in California, the
>>> only thing most teachers produce is shit. Really expensive shit.
>>
>>
>> Guess that comes back to the school board doesn't it?
>
>
> unions

Ding, ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

Marsha/Ohio

== 7 of 12 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 21 2008 8:06 pm
From: terryc

On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:43:02 -0400, Marsha wrote:

> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
>>
>> "terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
>> news:pan.2008.08.22.02.04.30.645488@woa.com.au...
>>
>>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:23:45 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>> Moreover, those people actually produce useful output -- if they don't,
>>>> they get fired. Given the state of K-12 education in California, the
>>>> only thing most teachers produce is shit. Really expensive shit.
>>>
>>>
>>> Guess that comes back to the school board doesn't it?
>>
>>
>> unions
>
> Ding, ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.

Yep, always trotted out when people screw up as someone else to point the
finger at. correct me where I am wrong, the school board employs the
teachers?, the school board has performance criteria in place, the school
board has review and assessment criteria in place?, the school board can
thus dismiss and under performming teacher?, but the school board doesn't.

Oh and is the school board elected by the parents?

>
> Marsha/Ohio

== 8 of 12 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 21 2008 8:16 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

lenona321@yahoo.com wrote:

> I posted the link for this in 2003, found it again, and thought it
> would be fun to rerun it. (I can't find a working link, though.)

> Are Teachers Overpaid?

> Some people think teachers are overpaid.
> Some think they are underpaid.

True of every field.

> Who's right? Encarta columnist Tamim Ansary explores the debate.
>
> Are Teachers Overpaid?
> by Tamim Ansary
>
> Some people think teachers are overpaid--I get e-mail about it all the
> time. Other people think teachers are underpaid. I get a lot of that
> e- mail too.
>
> I was going to weigh in with my own opinion when I realized I
> couldn't, because I didn't know how much teachers make--or how much
> anyone else makes, for that matter, except for a few well-known CEOs
> and sports stars.
>
> I said to myself, "Get some facts before shooting your mouth off,
> Tamim." (I learned that from a teacher.)
>
> Lucky for me, the American Federation of Teachers (AFT) researches
> salary issues. I found their Web site, and here's what they report:
>
> The average American public school teacher, kindergarten through high
> school, makes $44,367.*
>
> Salaries vary from state to state, with South Dakota coming in last at
> $31,383 a year, and California leading the way at $54,348.
>
> Is $44,367 a lot, or a little? I couldn't tell, so I dug up salary
> averages for a few other professions. Here's how they stack up:
>
> [table deleted; see link]
>
> I can hear some of you out there saying, "Sure, teachers make less
> than doctors, big deal. Isn't that fair?" Underpaid, overpaid, it only
> means something in comparison to how much a person should be paid,
> right?
>
> But that's a big can of worms. How much "should" anyone be paid? And
> how do we judge "should"?
>
> Part II: What teachers deserve
> Is any line of work entitled to a particular level of compensation? On
> what basis? Are there objective criteria?
>
> I can think of three:
>
> * The amount of training needed for the job
> * The all-around difficulty of the work
> * The value of the product or service to society
>
> If you use these criteria, doctors deserve tons of money. Their job
> requires endless schooling followed by a brutal internship...and they
> save lives. What could be more important than that?
>
> Carpet installers, by contrast, don't necessarily need a college
> degree, although they do need training and practical experience. If
> they're good at what they do, their carpets look smooth and stay put--
> an important and necessary skill, but it's not saving lives. No wonder
> doctors make more.
>
> I think teachers are more like doctors when it comes to the amount of
> training needed for the job. Teachers need four years of college and
> at least one more for a teaching certificate, or two more for a
> master's degree. Even then, in many states, teachers have to keep
> taking summer courses to hold onto their jobs. The requirements vary,
> but in California, for example, teachers are required to clock 150
> hours of course work over five years --which they take in the summer,
> usually, and must pay for themselves.
>
> In fact, teachers need about the same amount of training as
> architects, engineers, and accountants.
>
> Part III: Hard work or hardly working?
> I think a lot of the "overpaid teachers" talk comes from the notion
> that teachers' hours match up with students' hours: Put in six hours a
> day, head home around 2 PM, and take summers off. Compared to most
> jobs, that's scarcely working, right?
>
> Hello--news flash! Classroom time is only the tip of the pencil for a
> teacher. No one just walks into a roomful of kids without a plan and
> keeps them fruitfully occupied for six hours at a stretch, day after
> day. Lesson plans have to be drawn up. There go your weekends.
>
> Then there's homework. If you have 25 kids in your class, and each one
> turns in one page of homework a day, you have 25 pages to read and
> mark before tomorrow. There go your evenings.
>
> Furthermore, you have meetings to attend--with other teachers,
> curriculum experts, administrators, and parents. Plus, when kids bring
> their life problems into the classroom--and they're human, so they
> do-- who ends up dealing with them? That's right, the teacher. It's
> not in the job description, but a teacher's obligations inevitably
> overlap with those of social workers, therapists, and even parents.
>
> In his book Small Victories, journalist Samuel Freedman followed New
> York City high school teacher Jessica Siegel around for a year to see
> what she actually did, and he found that this teacher put in more than
> 60 hours per week at her job. It's anecdotal evidence, and maybe
> Siegal is unusual. But every teacher I talked to felt his or her work
> week extended way past 40 hours. Indeed, a national survey conducted
> by the Department of Education showed that teachers spend an average
> of 45 hours a week doing their jobs.
>
>
> Want to Learn More?
>
> What makes a great teacher great?
>
> The National Education Association offers information about hot
> educational and legislative issues related to teaching.
>
> Saving civilization
> Which brings us to our third criterion. How valuable is the
> contribution teachers make to humanity?
>
> Never mind Mr. Holland's Opus. Forget individual cases. Let's consider
> the teaching profession as a whole. If doctors save lives, what do
> teachers do?
>
> Well, let's see. Everything we call civilization has to be passed on
> to the next generation. Isn't that what teachers do? Reading, writing,
> adding 26 plus 13, calculating the boiling point of water and naming
> the vitamins found in carrots, explaining the difference between
> Turkey and turkey--none of this stuff is in the genes.
>
> Without teachers, civilization would have to be developed from scratch
> every generation, and man, you can't get too far in one generation.
> We'd still be listening to eight-track tapes. We wouldn't even have
> cars! Well, I guess we'd have our parents' cars, but we wouldn't know
> how to drive them!
>
> So yeah, I guess teaching is important work. On a scale from one to
> ten, let's give it a nine. (Saving lives has still got to rank
> higher.)
>
> One ballplayer equals 100 teachers? According to the latest edition of
> Jobs Rated Almanac, the highest-paid professionals in America are NBA
> basketball players. They average $4,637,825 a year.
>
> In other words, an NBA player makes about 100 times as much as a
> teacher.
>
> If service to humanity counts, why should ballplayers make millions
> while teachers scrape by on a few measly tens of thousands? What do
> basketball players contribute that's more important than transferring
> the contents of civilization to the next generation?
>
> Good question, but only because it illustrates an important truth
> about the compensation for any job. Clint Eastwood said it best in his
> movie Unforgiven: "Deserve's got nothing to do with it."
>
> Part IV: Why teachers make less than lawyers
> The amount of clout is what it's all about.
>
> In America, teachers started out in a hole dating back to the 19th
> century. Back then, most schoolteachers were women, and women who
> worked professionally outside the home were mostly teachers (or
> nurses) because other careers were closed to them.
>
> Those women were offered low wages on the assumption that they were
> not breadwinners supporting families. In fact, single teachers were
> generally assumed to be clocking time while they waited to get
> married. Those who kept working after marriage were thought to be
> making "extra income," which justified paying them what amounted to
> pin money.
>
> Since their options were limited, they had to accept what they were
> offered. Thus, the prevailing wage for teachers started out low.
>
> Meet and submit
> In 1948, when the AFT ran its first salary survey, teachers were
> making less than $3,000 a year--which is equivalent to maybe $16,000
> today.
>
> Unlike plumbers, bus drivers, and truckers, teachers had no right to
> engage in collective bargaining. Instead, they went through a process
> called "meet and converse," which meant they would meet with their
> school board and discuss what they needed. Then they would go away,
> and the school board would decide what to give them.
>
> But in 1961, a math teacher named Albert Shanker kick-started massive
> changes in educator compensation. As head of a professional
> association called the United Federation of Teachers, he called a
> controversial teachers' strike in New York City.
>
> The rise of clout
> That strike gave birth to one of America's major trade union
> movements. Over the next 15 years, teachers won the right to
> collective bargaining state by state. As unions took over salary
> negotiations, teachers' incomes began to rise rapidly.
>
> Today, 80 percent of teachers belong to one of two large unions, the
> National Educational Association and the American Federation of
> Teachers, or their local affiliates. If the two unions were to merge,
> as has been discussed, they would form the largest trade union in
> America.
>
> Today, teachers' unions swing a heavy stick in national politics. They
> rank near the top in political contributions, mostly to Democratic
> candidates. Clout is no longer the problem for teachers--as a group,
> they've got it.
>
> According to Judy Thomas, Director of Research for the California
> Teachers Association, teachers go on strike only as a last resort, in
> part because strikes are traumatic and tend to divide a faculty for
> years.
>
> Slicing the pie
> But the last resort has been reached frequently. The nation has seen
> hundreds of teacher strikes in the last 25 years. School boards, the
> opposing party in a teacher strike, don't necessarily believe teachers
> are overpaid. They believe schools are underfunded. The size of the
> pie is out of their hands, though: They can only divide up what they
> have.
>
>
> Want to Learn More?
>
> The secret to success in school: A former teacher tells all.
>
> The teacher-student connection: Can it make kids smarter?
>
> About half the budget of a typical school district now goes to
> teachers. Other employees get 30 to 35 percent. They include
> administrators, but also janitors, secretaries, cafeteria workers,
> school nurses, teachers aides, and so on. Well, schools can't run
> without those folks either. If teachers get more, the others must get
> less. Or else the money must come out of the budget for books,
> supplies, maintenance, lights, and water.
>
> A bigger pie
> The other alternative would be for schools to get more money.
>
> But where would that come from? Taxes, mostly. Other sources of public
> school funding are negligible--always have been, always will be.
>
> In California, about 7 percent of the budget comes from renting out
> school property and the like. An even smaller amount comes from the
> state lottery, an increasingly common funding device that was
> pioneered in California. Today, the lottery provides 2 percent of
> school costs in California. But it isn't the answer. The bulk of the
> money for schools--91 percent, in fact--comes from state, local, and
> federal taxes.
>
> Want to Learn More?
>
> Get online training for a new career at Encarta's Career Training
> Center.
>
> Research jobs, salaries, and other work stuff on MSN Careers.
>
> If teachers are to get more money, citizens must pay more taxes.
> That's the bottom line. And a powerful current in American political
> life has been a demand for lower taxes.
>
> If you start with the premise "taxes are too high," the conclusion
> "teachers are overpaid" is virtually automatic. The arguments about
> why they're overpaid come after the fact. "You can't fix the schools
> by throwing money at them," and its ilk are simply necessary fillers
> to bolster the premise that taxes must be lowered.
>
> But it's wishful thinking to suppose that we can have good schools
> without paying teachers good salaries. Comparisons to the good old
> days ignore the fact that times have changed. Back then, low wages
> could secure top talent because half the population was restricted to
> just two or three jobs, one of which was teaching. The best still had
> to compete to be teachers, and only the best of the best got in.
> Today, potential teachers--men or women--have so many other options
> that it's the teaching profession that must compete, against other
> lines of work, to reel in the top talents. Otherwise, instead of
> teaching, those top talents might choose to be...
>
> Well, let's see: police officers, accountants, department store
> buyers, architects, computer systems analysts, engineers, attorneys,
> professors, or doctors, for example.
>
> Check page one to see what that comes out to in dollars.
>
> (end)
>
>
> Lenona.

== 9 of 12 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 21 2008 8:44 pm
From: "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"

"terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
news:pan.2008.08.22.03.06.01.314054@woa.com.au...
> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 22:43:02 -0400, Marsha wrote:
>
>> AllEmailDeletedImmediately wrote:
>>>
>>> "terryc" <newssixspam-spam@woa.com.au> wrote in message
>>> news:pan.2008.08.22.02.04.30.645488@woa.com.au...
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:23:45 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>> Moreover, those people actually produce useful output -- if they
>>>>> don't,
>>>>> they get fired. Given the state of K-12 education in California, the
>>>>> only thing most teachers produce is shit. Really expensive shit.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Guess that comes back to the school board doesn't it?
>>>
>>>
>>> unions
>>
>> Ding, ding, ding, ding. We have a winner.
>
> Yep, always trotted out when people screw up as someone else to point the
> finger at. correct me where I am wrong, the school board employs the
> teachers?, the school board has performance criteria in place, the school
> board has review and assessment criteria in place?, the school board can
> thus dismiss and under performming teacher?, but the school board doesn't.
>
> Oh and is the school board elected by the parents?

the unions hold them hostage with threats of walkouts. and then they walk
out.
has happened all over the country. imo, teachers are overpaid. just look
at
the crap they put out, and then, because of the unions, they can't be fired.
i
remember one case where the union actually fought to keep some sort of
sex offender as a teacher. don't remember the outcome, but it proves the
point.

== 10 of 12 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 21 2008 8:45 pm
From: "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"

== 11 of 12 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 21 2008 8:46 pm
From: "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"

the only way to fix it is to attach the money to the backpack. when it
packs out,
so do the benjamins. but the unions are fighting voucher because they know
that
their crappy teachers will be out of a job and then the union dues will dry
up and
their high and mighty leaders might have to come back and rut in the mud.

== 12 of 12 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 21 2008 9:23 pm
From: The Real Bev

terryc wrote:

> On Thu, 21 Aug 2008 18:23:45 -0700, The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> Moreover, those people actually produce useful output -- if they don't,
>> they get fired. Given the state of K-12 education in California, the
>> only thing most teachers produce is shit. Really expensive shit.
>
> Guess that comes back to the school board doesn't it?

If the school board is responsible for letting them unionize, then yes.
Maybe yes anyway, ours is pretty damn dumb and has been for quite a while.

--
Cheers, Bev
-----------------------------------------
"Not everyone can be above average so why
shouldn't we be the ones to suck?"
--Anonymous School Board Member

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Value pick for the week: BPL
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/336301697917beb9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 21 2008 8:18 pm
From: "OhioGuy"

> Its completely stupid for someone in your financial situation to have all
> your money in just one stock.

About half of our money is in real estate, 36% is in this stock, 4% is in
another stock, and the rest is currently cash, with us trying to decide what
to do with it in the short term. I do agree that it would be rather foolish
for anyone to put EVERYTHING into a single stock.

Then again, there are a lot of folks out there who just don't save much of
anyting up, and waste all their $ on the lottery.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 21 2008 8:52 pm
From: "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"

"OhioGuy" <none@none.net> wrote in message news:g8lb5c$c70$1@aioe.org...
>> Its completely stupid for someone in your financial situation to have all
>> your money in just one stock.
>
> About half of our money is in real estate, 36% is in this stock, 4% is in
> another stock, and the rest is currently cash, with us trying to decide
> what to do with it in the short term. I do agree that it would be rather
> foolish for anyone to put EVERYTHING into a single stock.
>
> Then again, there are a lot of folks out there who just don't save much
> of anyting up, and waste all their $ on the lottery.
need way more diversification. read up as to what type.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 21 2008 9:22 pm
From: The Real Bev

OhioGuy wrote:

>> Its completely stupid for someone in your financial situation to have all
>> your money in just one stock.
>
> About half of our money is in real estate, 36% is in this stock, 4% is in
> another stock, and the rest is currently cash, with us trying to decide what
> to do with it in the short term. I do agree that it would be rather foolish
> for anyone to put EVERYTHING into a single stock.

OTOH, if we'd put every cent we had or could beg, borrow or steal into
Xerox the first time we saw a xerox copy in 1961 we'd be able to hire
Gate$ to clean our keyboards.

--
Cheers, Bev
-----------------------------------------
"Not everyone can be above average so why
shouldn't we be the ones to suck?"
--Anonymous School Board Member

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

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en

Frugal Living

Blog Archive

Thursday, August 21, 2008

25 new messages in 6 topics - digest