http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Opposition to Obama's destruction of the health care sector is not about
race - 11 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/28531844efc1bbfe?hl=en
* less wear on car, save gas, drive 55 - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a0667e7a8ca75811?hl=en
* AT&T Mobility Offers Unlimited Prepaid for $60/month--Compare this with
other Unlimited Prepaid Plans - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/52168902795dda98?hl=en
* Comparison of Unlimited/High Volume Prepaid Wireless Phone Plans Added to
the Prepaid Wireless Web Site - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/77ebc5c910c3322c?hl=en
* There is no "right" to health care - 4 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e14cb160c2e4a0dd?hl=en
* How to get rid of a roommate? - 6 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a3fd1dedade4e5a6?hl=en
* I remember back when... - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/32a108e42a16b497?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Opposition to Obama's destruction of the health care sector is not
about race
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/28531844efc1bbfe?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 8:32 pm
From: Tim Crowley
On Oct 12, 8:28 pm, The Real Bev <bashley...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Wilson Woods wrote:
> > It's about citizens' legitimate fear that they're going to have worse
> > health care, and worse access to what health care they get, after Obama
> > fucks up the health care system.
>
> I agree with everything you say, but I really wish you'd eliminate
> misc.consumers.frugal-living from your newsgroup list. Y
She is insane. She spams usenet with hate cause she needs the
attention. WEventually she looses her internet access and then comes
back with new service and a new collection of aliases.
== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 8:34 pm
From: Nickname unavailable
On Oct 12, 10:30 pm, Tim Crowley <timmyturm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 7:34 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
>
> > On Oct 12, 9:03 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
> > > access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who say
> > > it's about race know they've lost the debate.
>
> > it race and stupidity, which ever comes first.
>
> the OP is insane. For her and most racists the stupidity comes first.
> But make no mistake about it. All the OP about is hate. Hate and
> ignorance. She's a sad, sad case.
and she admitted it was stupidity, now she is trying to back track.
== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 8:34 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Tim Crowley wrote:
> On Oct 12, 7:03 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
>> access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who say
>> it's about race know they've lost the debate.
>
> BUahahahahahahaha.
Grown men don't misappropriate "Dilbert" dialog as Usenet commentary.
== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 8:35 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Nickname is fuckwit, a looter, wrote:
> On Oct 12, 10:30 pm, Tim Crowley, retarded hospital janitor, lied:
>> On Oct 12, 7:34 pm, Nickname is fuckwit, a looter, wrote:
>>
>>> On Oct 12, 9:03 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
>>>> access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who say
>>>> it's about race know they've lost the debate.
>>> it race and stupidity, which ever comes first.
>> the OP is insane. For her and most racists the stupidity comes first.
>> But make no mistake about it. All the OP about is hate. Hate and
>> ignorance. She's a sad, sad case.
>
> and he admitted it
It's about citizens' legitimate fear that they're going to have worse
health care, and worse access to what health care they get, after Obama
fucks up the health care system.
== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 9:28 pm
From: SgtMinor
Wilson Woods wrote:
> It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
> access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who say
> it's about race know they've lost the debate.
It's about the corporate ox being gored. It's about power and money.
Our choice is whether to do this collectively, or continue to live at
the mercy of a system intent on extracting from us our last drop of blood.
The corporate powers can always count on the support of a group of
ignoramuses to fight their battles. Ignoramuses are not known for any
socially progressive positions, and tend to have little or no racial
tolerance.
== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 9:52 pm
From: Tim Crowley
On Oct 12, 7:34 pm, Nickname unavailable <Vide...@tcq.net> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 9:03 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
> > access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who say
> > it's about race know they've lost the debate.
>
> it race and stupidity, which ever comes first.
the OP is insane. For her and most racists the stupidity comes first.
But make no mistake about it. All the OP about is hate. Hate and
ignorance. She's a sad, sad case.
== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 9:52 pm
From: Tim Crowley
On Oct 12, 7:03 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
> access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who say
> it's about race know they've lost the debate.
BUahahahahahahaha.
hint: you're insane.
== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 9:53 pm
From: Tim Crowley
On Oct 12, 8:34 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Tim Crowley wrote:
> > On Oct 12, 7:03 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >> It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
> >> access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who say
> >> it's about race know they've lost the debate.
>
> > BUahahahahahahaha.
>
> Grown men don't misappropriate "Dilbert" dialog as Usenet commentary.
Grown men laugh at you.
Buahahahahahaha.
hint: you're an insane, racist puke. You shall always be treated
thus.
== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 10:07 pm
From: larrylaundry
SgtMinor wrote:
> Wilson Woods wrote:
> > It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
> > access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who say
> > it's about race know they've lost the debate.
>
> It's about the corporate ox being gored. It's about power and money.
> Our choice is whether to do this collectively, or continue to live at
> the mercy of a system intent on extracting from us our last drop of blood.
>
> The corporate powers can always count on the support of a group of
> ignoramuses to fight their battles. Ignoramuses are not known for any
> socially progressive positions, and tend to have little or no racial
> tolerance.
Yea, we saw this coming, the so-called tea parties. Saw it coming,
where they claim that everybody, even Democrats were there. But
obviously it was only designed to get racists and anti-Democratic
liberal haters into a mindless frenzy, to get them to do the corporate
Republican dirty work.
After all, if the legislation for healthcare reform get passes, the
free ride for corporate interests
will be in jepordy, then the tobacco lobby, on down the line.
The lobbying shit is why our consumer protection is so screwed up. Why
buisness as usual is damaging to the entire nation. Why Republicans
only work for themselves and not the people.
== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 10:12 pm
From: Wilson Woods
SgtMinor wrote:
> Wilson Woods wrote:
>> It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
>> access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who
>> say it's about race know they've lost the debate.
>
> [snip class envy bullshit]
It's about preventing government from fucking over the vast majority of
Americans who are happy with their health care and their access to that
care.
== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 10:13 pm
From: Wilson Woods
Tim Crowley wrote:
> On Oct 12, 8:34 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> Tim Crowley wrote:
>>> On Oct 12, 7:03 pm, Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>>> It's about preventing the government from wrecking health care and
>>>> access to it that satisfies most people. Idiot leftist looters who say
>>>> it's about race know they've lost the debate.
>>> BUahahahahahahaha.
>> Grown men don't misappropriate "Dilbert" dialog as Usenet commentary.
>
> Grown men
You don't know anything about grown men, crawley. You're a retarded boy.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: less wear on car, save gas, drive 55
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a0667e7a8ca75811?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 8:53 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)
In article <hb0k6u$lto$1@news.eternal-september.org>, Fhodge wrote:
>bob syr wrote:
>> Why a law? Anybody who wants to can drive 55 on the interstate. I
>> find it more relaxing and the time "wasted" isn't that much of a
>> factor, even on a long trip. On a recent trip from NY to NC, I drove
>> down I81 to W.Va. and had no problems. It was night so as I drove
>> down I95 I didn't have any problems. On the return trip however, I
>> drove up I95 to the Washington-Baltimore beltways during the day.
>> After going through Richmond going north, I experienced people getting
>> annoyed at my slow speed. I got a couple of honks, a few flip-offs,
>> but most important, I felt that my slow 55mph speed might have
>> actually been too dangerous in that high-speed, high-density traffic.
>>
>> I figure that those drivers who are passing me left and right as I go
>> slow should be allowed to go as fast as they want. They paid their
>> own hard earned money for their gas guzzlers and by god those hard-
>> working citizens should be able to drive as fast as they want. ;->
>> WkWkNdgNdg After all it's their money they're burning and as far as
>> I'm concerned they are hastening up depletion of the oil supply, and
>> not a minute too soon as far as I'm concerned, by god!
>>
>> One thing you don't hear about as much is that driving 55 places less
>> wear on the car, especially small ones. Next time I make that trip
>> I'm going to rent a car and then I can move my speed up closer to the
>> average speed others are driving. I won't be wearing out my own car
>> that way.
>>
>> Happy motoring - Bob
>
>Damn skippy. I didn't buy a supercharged Mustang to go 55 MPH. Just keep
> your sloth-like driving in the right lane and everything will be fine.
>But for what it's worth with advent of overdrive gearing and such.
>You're not saving much in the way of wear an tear on you car by going 55
>MPH instead of 75 MPH. What held true 50 years ago isn't necessarily
>true now.
I would agree that wear-and-tear on almost any car on the road now is
not much worse at 75 MPH than at 55 MPH. It appears to me that most
wear-and-tear is related to either number of miles or number of engine
revolutions.
90 or 100 may be a different story with automatic transmissions, with
possibility of the transmission getting hot enough to shorten its life.
And if the automatic transmission lacks a lockup torque converter, then
lots of 80-plus MPH sustained for over 30-40 miles may get the
transmission on the hot side. 75 may be a bit of a problem in this area
if the tranny lacks a lock-up torque converter and the vehicle has high
aerodynamic drag.
The main reason to go slower is to conserve fuel. Fuel economy in
steady speed driving is usually greatest at the slowest speed at which the
vehicle comfortably runs in top gear, unless the vehicle cannot use top
gear comfortably or at all at 60-65 MPH or so - in which case fuel economy
may be maximized at the slowest speed at which the vehicle comfortably
uses the second-highest gear. As speed increases past 50 MPH or so, air
resistance is significant, and energy used per mile to overcome this is
proportional to square of airspeed.
(In urban driving with a stop sign or an unsynchronized traffic
light every block, fuel economy appears to me maximized at the slowest
speed at which much of the accelerations can be done in 2nd gear, with
top speed maybe 25-30 MPH, maybe even less, and accelerate moderately
vigorously once in 2nd to maximize combined efficiency of the engine and
the tranny. The engine is usually most efficient when it is working
moderately hard, and the tranny is usually most efficient when it is
working moderately lightly and in higher gears. Slower top speed means
less energy used to mainly heat up and wear the brakes, by a factor of
proportional to square of speed that one must stop from.)
- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: AT&T Mobility Offers Unlimited Prepaid for $60/month--Compare this with
other Unlimited Prepaid Plans
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/52168902795dda98?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 8:57 pm
From: John Navas
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 14:03:23 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4ad3994e$0$1629$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Mark Crispin wrote:
>> On Mon, 12 Oct 2009, SMS posted:
>>>> What is meant by "Limited GSM" under "roaming" for AT&T?
>>> On AT&T's prepaid GoPhone you don't get roaming as extensive as you
>>> get on their postpaid plans, and there is no way to pay extra to get
>>> that roaming back.
>>
>> AT&T GoPhone can roam in Mexico, but not in Canada.
>>
>> T-Mobile's prepaid can roam in Canada and quite a few other countries.
>> Page Plus can also roam in Canada.
>
>Surprisingly, T-Mobile has not entered the fray of unlimited prepaid.
>With AT&T's new offering, you can get unlimited prepaid on the AT&T GSM
>network, on Verizon's CDMA network, and on both Sprint's CDMA and iDEN
>networks, but not on T-Mobile. T-Mobile has been offering a "secret" $50
>postpaid unlimited voice plan to select customers, but that's a far
>poorer deal than what's available elsewhere.
FlexPay Unlimited is $100 per month.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Comparison of Unlimited/High Volume Prepaid Wireless Phone Plans Added
to the Prepaid Wireless Web Site
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/77ebc5c910c3322c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 9:01 pm
From: John Navas
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 16:59:04 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote in <4ad3c27c$0$1638$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>:
>Boost offers unlimited voice, messaging, and 3G data for $50/month on
>Sprint's CDMA network (plus garbage fees). This isn't the iDEN unlimited
>plan on the horrible Nextel network. The downsides are a) to use a smart
>phone requires some convoluted actions to get it activated and b) there
>is no roaming off of Sprint's limited native network.
Sprint's own network is actually quite good.
--
Best regards,
John <http:/navasgroup.com>
If the iPhone is really so impressive,
why do iFans keep making excuses for it?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: There is no "right" to health care
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e14cb160c2e4a0dd?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 9:39 pm
From: me@privacy.net
Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>That's right. My productive effort *is* mine, to be used and traded as
>I see fit. No one else has any legitimate right to take any of it from
>me. It is mine, mine, mine - don't you fucking looters ever forget that.
Covey coined the term[citation needed] abundance
mentality or abundance mindset, meaning a business
concept in which a person believes there are enough
resources and success to share with others, when
looking at optimistic people.
It is commonly contrasted with the scarcity mindset,
which is founded on the idea that, given a finite
amount of resources, a person must hoard their
belongings and protect them from others. Individuals
with an abundance mentality are supposed to be able to
celebrate the success of others rather than be
threatened by it.[2]
=========================================================
Try to make me, fuckwit - I'll shoot you dead, and laugh about it over a
beer later. Then I'll stub a cigar butt out on your orphan child's head.-Wilson Woods
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 10:09 pm
From: Wilson Woods
me@privacy.net, a looter, wrote:
> Wilson Woods <banmilk@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> That's right. My productive effort *is* mine, to be used and traded as
>> I see fit. No one else has any legitimate right to take any of it from
>> me. It is mine, mine, mine - don't you fucking looters ever forget that.
>
>
> Covey coined the term[remaining bullshit snipped]
My effort, and the value it can bring when I trade it, belong to me.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 10:15 pm
From: never@millions.com
On Mon, 12 Oct 2009 18:51:27 -0400, Beam Me Up Scotty
<Then-Destroy-Everything@Talk-n-dog.com> wrote:
>Wilson Woods wrote:
>> me@privacy.net wrote:
>>> Lisa Lisa <harryharry52@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Here's your crowd:
>>>
>>> All of them fascists
>>
>> No. "Fascist" is just a swearword for leftists; it has no meaning.
>
>
>It's like "Racist"
>
>
>Use it as a blunt instrument to try to beat their opponents over the
>head with.
Remember: When the only tool one has, all problems look like nailes.
DCI
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 10:22 pm
From: Lisa Lisa
On Oct 13, 12:39 am, m...@privacy.net wrote:
> Wilson Woods <banm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >That's right. My productive effort *is* mine, to be used and traded as
> >I see fit. No one else has any legitimate right to take any of it from
> >me. It is mine, mine, mine - don't you fucking looters ever forget that.
>
> Covey coined the term[citation needed] abundance
> mentality or abundance mindset, meaning a business
> concept in which a person believes there are enough
> resources and success to share with others, when
> looking at optimistic people.
Woods would appear to have the abundance mentality.
He likes high premiums coupled with shitty coverage, so he can make
UnitedHealthCare's shareholders and CEO rich.
If that isn't generous, then what is?
Lisa
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to get rid of a roommate?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a3fd1dedade4e5a6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 9:58 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article
<hb0dg7$9pr$2@news.datemas.de>,
Marsha <mas@xeb.net> wrote:
> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> > Not that he's likely to accept it, but
> > offering him a lump sum to leave is
> > often a viable solution. Just get a
> > signed document that clearly states the
> > terms and what the money is for.
> >
> > Then he becomes a trespasser legally
>
> She is considering giving him some money to help move out. I think she
> should just tell him to go to hell and let the law handle it, but she
> says it's worth it to her just to be rid of him.
>
> Marsha
If she just gives him money without some
legal document, he'll never leave or
leave her alone.
Personally, I'd tell her to run her face
into a wall while he's there and then
call the cops
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 9:58 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article
<e647d5d0n30f3av76c912ntmfjap9rmfhp@4ax.
com>,
« Jeem » <not@thebeach.now> wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:16:59 -0700 (PDT), phil scott
> <phil@philscott.net> wrote:
>
> >On Oct 11, 1:14 pm, Marsha <m...@xeb.net> wrote:
> >> My milktoast sister does plan on consulting an attorney finally, but
> >> does anyone know what she has to do to get rid of a roommate
> >> (boyfriend)? She owns the home outright. He's a verbal abuser and
> >> plays mind games, like hiding her jewelry and undoing a couple small
> >> improvements he's made to her home. She owns the home outright. He has
> >> never paid anywhere near an equal share of the bills. I'm thinking she
> >> may have to formally give him 30 days notice and then just evict him,
> >> probably with the help of some law enforcement.
> >>
> >> Marsha
> >
> >unless she as a written lease agreement she can simply change the
> >locks and leave
> >his stuff in plastic sacks on the front law, notify the police of
> >potential issues, and have
> >someone stay with her until the dust settles.
>
> Agreed. If there is no rental agreement or lease, she has no
> obligation to allow the BF to live with her. She is doing this just of
> her own free will. She had a romantic interest in the man and now she
> does not. That does not obligate her to allow him to live in her home.
> If they were renting an apartment or house and both names were on the
> lease, that would be a different story.
Of course if his name is on any of the
utilities...
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 10:00 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article
<e28ff199-0096-49d8-84f0-c0fb4c772e05@g1
g2000pra.googlegroups.com>,
"friesian@zoocrewphoto.com"
<friesian@zoocrewphoto.com> wrote:
> On Oct 12, 1:29 pm, « Jeem » <n...@thebeach.now> wrote:
> > On Sun, 11 Oct 2009 20:16:59 -0700 (PDT), phil scott
> >
> >
> >
> > <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
> > >On Oct 11, 1:14 pm, Marsha <m...@xeb.net> wrote:
> > >> My milktoast sister does plan on consulting an attorney finally, but
> > >> does anyone know what she has to do to get rid of a roommate
> > >> (boyfriend)? She owns the home outright. He's a verbal abuser and
> > >> plays mind games, like hiding her jewelry and undoing a couple small
> > >> improvements he's made to her home. She owns the home outright. He has
> > >> never paid anywhere near an equal share of the bills. I'm thinking she
> > >> may have to formally give him 30 days notice and then just evict him,
> > >> probably with the help of some law enforcement.
> >
> > >> Marsha
> >
> > >unless she as a written lease agreement she can simply change the
> > >locks and leave
> > >his stuff in plastic sacks on the front law, notify the police of
> > >potential issues, and have
> > >someone stay with her until the dust settles.
> >
> > Agreed. If there is no rental agreement or lease, she has no
> > obligation to allow the BF to live with her. She is doing this just of
> > her own free will. She had a romantic interest in the man and now she
> > does not. That does not obligate her to allow him to live in her home.
> > If they were renting an apartment or house and both names were on the
> > lease, that would be a different story.
>
> It can get complicated though if any of the utilities are in his name,
> or if he has proof of payments. And since he has lived there multiple
> years, his ID will have that address on it. So, the police may not be
> able to make a decision that he doesn't have legal right to be there.
> And that means sending it to the court system, which will take time.
>
> We've had renters admit in court that they are more than 6 months
> behind on rent and have no money to pay. Yet they still get 30 days to
> move out while we have to keep the utilities on or risk being sued.
> The system in our state favors the renter and not the homeowner. We
> couldn't even turn off the cable or wireless internet. The guy was
> spending all day playing games on the internet. If we could have
> turned off the internet (which we were paying for), he would have had
> a reason to leave sooner.
Wow, internet access has finally made it
to the list of necessary utilities
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 10:20 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
« Jeem » wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> « Jeem » wrote
>>> Marsha <mas@xeb.net> wrote
>>>> « Jeem » wrote
>>>>> Balvenieman <balvenieman@invalid.net> wrote
>>>>>> Dave C. <noway@nohow.never> wrote
>>>>>>> If you are living with someone long enough,
>>>>>>> he becomes your common law husband.
>>>>>> Strictly speaking that simply is not the case in most, if not
>>>>>> all, jurisdictions in the U.S.A. A narrow set of conditions must
>>>>>> prevail in order for a judge (the only person who can do so) to
>>>>>> declare persons to be "common law" spouses. "Common law"
>>>>>> spouse just as "fiancé" is, in common parlance, simply
>>>>>> PCSpeak for "cohabitant", "live-in" or "shackup".
>>>>>> In my view, OP's most constructive and civilized course
>>>>>> of action is to butt out and let her sister live her own life
>>>>>> in return for the same respect and regard.
>>>>> Only a handful of states recognize Common Law Marriage:
>>>>> http://www.ncsl.org/default.aspx?tabid=4265
>>>>> If the OP's sister resides in the majority of states which do not
>>>>> recognize Common Law Marriage, then she has the right to allow her
>>>>> BF to stay or tell him to leave, if his name is not on the deed to the home.
>>>> According to that website, she doesn't qualify for common law marriage.
>>> Then the BF is just a BF. Nothing more.
>> That is just plain wrong legally
> Then please do tell how that is plain wrong legally.
I already did. Shacking up with someone for years isnt the same thing as a BF.
> The BF is a BF. what else more can he be?
A shackupee
>>> No sense even discussing Common Law Marriage any longer
>>> since they do not reside in a state where it is recognized.
>> Yes, but that does NOT mean he has no legal rights at all.
> What legal rights does he have then?
Read up on palimony.
>>> I do honestly wish the best for your sister. No woman (or person
>>> for that matter) should be subjected to abuse of any form.
>> That is just plain silly, most obviously when she has been abusive herself.
> Was she abusive to him in response to his abuse? (
Irrelevant. I was commenting on your much too sweeping claim there.
> i.e. the book "I, Tina") If you kick a dog and the
> dog bites you, is it the dog which is at fault?
Irrelevant to your much too sweeping claim there.
>>> Because he is probably bipolar does not excuse him for his verbal and emotional abuse.
>> Legally that is just plain wrong too.
> Please provide authoritative criteria to support this statement.
Countless cases where insanity has been argued etc.
>>> She deserves better than him and the sooner
>>> he is out of her life, the better off she will be.
>> If he actually is a schitzophrenic etc, the shit
>> could hit the fan very comprehensively indeed.
> Until he has a psychiatric evaluation, there is no diagnosis
> from any physician stating he is schizophrenic, bipolar, etc.
That is just plain wrong too. If she has not lied about
his behaviour, that is evidence of a mental problem.
> Therefore, his medical history would not indicate he has a mental disorder.
You dont know that either.
> Hypothetically speaking, if he had a psychiatric evaluation, that would
> not mean that the GF has any obligation to keep him in her home.
Never said it did.
> Why would his mental condition make him exempt from being evicted from her home?
Never said that either.
> There are plenty of people here who have mental disorders
In fact the absolute vast bulk of them do.
> and who are homeless and no one has a legal
> obligation to take them or keep them in their homes.
Having fun thrashing that straw man ?
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 10:24 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
« Jeem » wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> He did not pay any rent to her nor did he pay his part of the living
>>> expenses from what I have read. It was through her generosity that
>>> he lived there rent free because she was romantically involved with him.
>> He did however do some stuff that 'Marsha' claims he has undone now.
>>> He lived there rent free which is a privilege, not a right.
>> No one said anything about rights.
>>> I do not see how he can have any rights except for the
>>> aforementioned right to retain his personal possessions.
>> He does anyway in quite a few US jurisdictions.
>>> Perhaps you can elaborate on what other rights the BF may have?
>> Read up on palimony sometime.
> Palimony laws vary state to state.
What I said in different words.
And it aint necessarily black letter law thats relevant anyway.
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 10:30 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
« Jeem » wrote
> Marsha <mas@xeb.net> wrote
>> My milktoast sister does plan on consulting an attorney finally, but
>> does anyone know what she has to do to get rid of a roommate
>> (boyfriend)? She owns the home outright. He's a verbal abuser and
>> plays mind games, like hiding her jewelry and undoing a couple small
>> improvements he's made to her home. She owns the home outright.
>> He has never paid anywhere near an equal share of the bills. I'm
>> thinking she may have to formally give him 30 days notice and then
>> just evict him, probably with the help of some law enforcement.
> You know, Marsha, I think a very effective way of your
> sister getting her BF out of the house is to cheat on him.
He may not give a damn. Plenty of married people dont.
> I mean have a short-term affair and don't even try to hide it.
> Let herself get caught, like letting him "accidentally" see a
> love letter in her email or witness her kissing holding hands
> with another guy. If her infidelity will not get him out of the
> house, I do not know what would.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: I remember back when...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/32a108e42a16b497?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 12 2009 10:01 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article
<hb0ogp$glq$1@news.eternal-september.org
>,
The Real Bev <bashley101+et@gmail.com>
wrote:
> This was a good group. Looks like the recent spate of political crap has
> even discouraged Rod from posting.
So, every cloud does have a silver lining
>
> It's a fucking shame that people are as stupid as they are.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment