Frugal Living: Nov 21, 2009

Saturday, November 21, 2009

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 15 new messages in 9 topics - digest

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

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: National Broadband Plan
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/54777a3787644a5e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 20 2009 2:53 pm
From: Artys

On Nov 20, 2:14 pm, BigDog1 <bigdog...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 10:14 am, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
> > On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, BigDog1 wrote:
> > > And by the way, no one "can't afford" a computer. What that usually
> > > translates to is they don't want to pay for one. Basic laptops can be
> > > had for less than $400.00 and basic desktops for around $250.00 these
> > > days. I recently saw an ad for a refurbished Dell Aspire laptop for
> > > $265.00. Anyone who's truly too poor to afford one, or too stupid to
> > > manage their money so they can buy a basic computer, doesn't need the
> > > internet and doesn't care.
>
> > You're paying too much. There are lots of used computers available for
> > less that are available cheap. Or as a hand me down from someone they
> > know.
>
> No, not really. I was referring to new equipment and should have been
> more specific. I take your point though. But, used is a problem for
> me. In my state used merchandise is sold, by law, "as is, where is."
> What you see is what you get. Great deals can certainly be had, but
> let's face it; anyone who in 2009 is just buying their first computer
> probably isn't savvy enough to properly check out a used one to make
> sure they're getting something serviceable. Yeah, there are civil
> remedies for something that's not useful for it's intended purpose
> (ie: warranty of merchantability), but whose going to jump through
> those hoops over a $100 used computer? Anyone who comes to me for
> advice about buying a computer or major peripheral, gets warned off of
> used stuff.
>
> Hand me downs to/from friends and family members are a different
> matter. But I don't think those happen often enough to be a viable
> source in general terms.
>
> > What would be the limiting factor is internet access. A monthly bill
> > that may be harder to scrape up the money to pay for than to find a decent
> > free or cheap computer.
>
> Very true. But it depends on where you are. My local phone company
> offers an entry level 785Kbps (or there-abouts) DSL service for $19.95
> a month. That's a fixed price, not a low ball introductory offer. By
> broadband standards thats not very fast, but it's way better than dial-
> up, and more than adequate for email, on line banking and bill paying,
> shopping, and general surfing. Most dial up providers in this area
> charge about $15 or more per month. I have no idea why anyone would
> pay that, when for a few dollars more they could have DSL. If they
> can afford one, they can afford the other. And there are tons of free
> hot spots like the libraries and a quite a few local coffee shops.
> Not very convenient, but in my opinion, better than dial up at home.
>
> > Years ago, some people felt internet access was so important that it
> > should be free, hence the freenet or community network movement. Sadly,
> > that's pretty much faded, initially internet access was so unavailable
> > that people who could pay would be getting access via freenets, and they
> > helped support it for those who couldn't pay (well theoretically, it's
> > never been clear if the people who had no money actually got online as a
> > result). But as the commercial ISP rose up, people went to those for
> > the lack of limitations, and freenets faded, often unable to support
> > themselves.
>
> I think internet access is that important! I'm old enough to have
> spent the majority of my adult life without home computers, the
> internet, cell phones, and satellite TV. I enjoy having all of it,
> but I could learn to get along without my cell phone and satellite
> TV. In fact, I think in many ways my life would be better without
> them. But no computer or internet! Perish the thought.
>
> The internet is much more important to our economy, the environment,
> and general quality of life, even if they don't use it, than many
> people realize. From my perspective, we'd all be better off if the
> government spent more of it's time and energy, and my tax dollars,
> getting high speed internet and wifi deployed either free, or
> sufficiently subsidized that it's affordable to everyone, than most of
> the social and environmental engineering programs currently underway.
>
> > Michael

Hello everybody,
You must not have much unemployment in your area. We do. People
are afraid they will be out of their houses and apartments, and that
is why they do not try to get internet access where they live. Food
is important to most people.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 20 2009 3:39 pm
From: BigDog1

On Nov 20, 3:53 pm, Artys <lajo...@GMI.net> wrote:
> On Nov 20, 2:14 pm, BigDog1 <bigdog...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Nov 20, 10:14 am, Michael Black <et...@ncf.ca> wrote:
>
> > > On Thu, 19 Nov 2009, BigDog1 wrote:
> > > > And by the way, no one "can't afford" a computer. What that usually
> > > > translates to is they don't want to pay for one. Basic laptops can be
> > > > had for less than $400.00 and basic desktops for around $250.00 these
> > > > days. I recently saw an ad for a refurbished Dell Aspire laptop for
> > > > $265.00. Anyone who's truly too poor to afford one, or too stupid to
> > > > manage their money so they can buy a basic computer, doesn't need the
> > > > internet and doesn't care.
>
> > > You're paying too much. There are lots of used computers available for
> > > less that are available cheap. Or as a hand me down from someone they
> > > know.
>
> > No, not really. I was referring to new equipment and should have been
> > more specific. I take your point though. But, used is a problem for
> > me. In my state used merchandise is sold, by law, "as is, where is."
> > What you see is what you get. Great deals can certainly be had, but
> > let's face it; anyone who in 2009 is just buying their first computer
> > probably isn't savvy enough to properly check out a used one to make
> > sure they're getting something serviceable. Yeah, there are civil
> > remedies for something that's not useful for it's intended purpose
> > (ie: warranty of merchantability), but whose going to jump through
> > those hoops over a $100 used computer? Anyone who comes to me for
> > advice about buying a computer or major peripheral, gets warned off of
> > used stuff.
>
> > Hand me downs to/from friends and family members are a different
> > matter. But I don't think those happen often enough to be a viable
> > source in general terms.
>
> > > What would be the limiting factor is internet access. A monthly bill
> > > that may be harder to scrape up the money to pay for than to find a decent
> > > free or cheap computer.
>
> > Very true. But it depends on where you are. My local phone company
> > offers an entry level 785Kbps (or there-abouts) DSL service for $19.95
> > a month. That's a fixed price, not a low ball introductory offer. By
> > broadband standards thats not very fast, but it's way better than dial-
> > up, and more than adequate for email, on line banking and bill paying,
> > shopping, and general surfing. Most dial up providers in this area
> > charge about $15 or more per month. I have no idea why anyone would
> > pay that, when for a few dollars more they could have DSL. If they
> > can afford one, they can afford the other. And there are tons of free
> > hot spots like the libraries and a quite a few local coffee shops.
> > Not very convenient, but in my opinion, better than dial up at home.
>
> > > Years ago, some people felt internet access was so important that it
> > > should be free, hence the freenet or community network movement. Sadly,
> > > that's pretty much faded, initially internet access was so unavailable
> > > that people who could pay would be getting access via freenets, and they
> > > helped support it for those who couldn't pay (well theoretically, it's
> > > never been clear if the people who had no money actually got online as a
> > > result). But as the commercial ISP rose up, people went to those for
> > > the lack of limitations, and freenets faded, often unable to support
> > > themselves.
>
> > I think internet access is that important! I'm old enough to have
> > spent the majority of my adult life without home computers, the
> > internet, cell phones, and satellite TV. I enjoy having all of it,
> > but I could learn to get along without my cell phone and satellite
> > TV. In fact, I think in many ways my life would be better without
> > them. But no computer or internet! Perish the thought.
>
> > The internet is much more important to our economy, the environment,
> > and general quality of life, even if they don't use it, than many
> > people realize. From my perspective, we'd all be better off if the
> > government spent more of it's time and energy, and my tax dollars,
> > getting high speed internet and wifi deployed either free, or
> > sufficiently subsidized that it's affordable to everyone, than most of
> > the social and environmental engineering programs currently underway.
>
> > > Michael
>
> Hello everybody,
> You must not have much unemployment in your area. We do. People
> are afraid they will be out of their houses and apartments, and that
> is why they do not try to get internet access where they live. Food
> is important to most people.

That's regrettable, but irrelevant. Your original post said you read
a WSJ article that was "about the FCC trying to force
people onto broadband by a new law."

That's just not true. You either misunderstood what you read, or the
writer had no idea what he was talking about. With the low regard I
have for the news media, I'd be more inclined to believe the latter
than the former.

I'd be interested in the name of the writer, as well as the date the
article was published.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 20 2009 9:43 am
From: Rick Merrill

Artys wrote:
> Hello group,
>
> Here I am on dial-up, and I went to the library and read the Wall
> Street Journal. It had an article about the FCC trying to force
> people onto broadband by a new law. They want to increase taxes on
> telephones, and perhaps other things. Here in my area, so many people
> cannot afford a computer, that the library ones are always crowded. I
> guess the companies like netzero will be forced out of business. I
> have my art website and email, and they are important to me, but I
> cannot afford the higher prices. If you agree with me, call your
> Congressman and tell them that you oppose this plan.

I believe the article on National Broadband Plan misstates the FCC
goals. They want the Broadband companies to make internet accessible TO
EVERYBODY either by wires (cable) or over the air (WIFI).

In other words, the long term goal is to make the internet like the
telephone: not only universally accessible, but eventually to become a
RIGHT. For example, your phone cannot be disconnected for non-payment
without a due-process operation.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Please do not buy a new car.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a8576659714369dc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 20 2009 3:08 pm
From: "Annie Woughman"

"clams_casino" <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
news:aMDNm.36484$Wd1.6599@newsfe15.iad...
> Annie Woughman wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> "Al" <albundy2@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>> news:9826021f-2a04-4f35-b2d9-c7b45ebe0878@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
>>
>>> On Nov 19, 6:09 pm, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:38:55 -0700, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>>> >Product still grossly overpriced. Workers still getting those very
>>>> >high wages. Government will again bail them out but the
>>>> >push for more efficient vehicles will escalate Do what ever
>>>> >repairs are required even if it means a new engine. You'll
>>>> >still be ahead of the game. Make this a thumb-your-nose
>>>> >exercise to those in business and government would got
>>>> >us into this probably terminal condition.
>>>>
>>>> ted
>>>
>>>
>>> So what's your point? You have to drive something usually. Pick
>>> whatever works for you. I used to buy new. In recent years I've gotten
>>> steals on used vehicles. Car companies are aware of your cunning plan.
>>> They have tended to raise the price of repair parts in an effort to
>>> encourage people to dump old iron. Eventually, the Chinese will
>>> dictate price.
>>
>>
>> Actually the subject line is a good one. Buying a NEW car is never
>> frugal.
>
>
> This has been disproven many times. It really depends on one's typical
> mileage. For low mileage drivers and those who value their time making
> repairs at zero, buying used makes much sense. For high mileage drivers,
> new can make sense. The costs of buying a used car every few years soon
> offsets a single car purchase, especially considering new cars rarely
> require any repairs for the first 100K miles.
>
>> The minute you drive it off the lot it depreciates by thousands of
>> dollars.
>
>
> Are you trying to suggest used cars don't depreciate the moment you drive
> off the lot? Too many times, the new car depreciation is considered off
> the list price. Does anyone pay list?
>
>> We always buy am American made mid-sized sedan that is a rental return or
>> a fleet car.
>
>
> Ours have always ben American. Our last three have been by Honda. None
> of those GM / Ford imports for us.
>
>> These cars usually only have about 11,000 miles on them are in mint
>> condition, fully loaded and are less than half the price of a new car. My
>> last "new" to me car is a 2002 Ford Taurus we bought in 2003 for $11,400.
>> It has leather seats, a moon roof, CD player, climate control, etc and
>> 9,275 miles.
>
>
> So how many total miles do you typically get from these fleet cars? Are
> they in as good of condition as the typical rental car? Until we went

I don't know how many miles we will get out of them. They are all still
running fine. When we bought them they had approx 10,000 miles on them.
Hubby has typically turned each car over to one of the kids when it hit
160,000 miles. We are talking a 99, an 02, 03 and an 05. The 99 has at
least 200,000, I'm not sure about the rest but they are driven every day on
commutes, the shortest of which is 7 miles one way.

Can you really say with a straight face that you think it is a better deal
to pay $30,000 to $36,000 for a brand new car than it is to pay $11,000 to
$14,000 for the same car with only 10,000 or 11,000 miles on it a year or
two later?

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 20 2009 4:03 pm
From: clams_casino

Annie Woughman wrote:

>
>
> Can you really say with a straight face that you think it is a better
> deal to pay $30,000 to $36,000 for a brand new car than it is to pay
> $11,000 to $14,000 for the same car with only 10,000 or 11,000 miles
> on it a year or two later?

Depends on the car. Then again, I'd be very suprised to find any $30k
car selling for $10k with 10k miles after one year or even two years.
Can you suggest a model that would meet that qualification?

There are GM, Ford & Chrysler models, for example, that I'd never pay
$10k for no matter what the mileage. On the other hand, I'm sold on
Honda since they rarely seem to require repairs. It would be impossible
to find a Honda product for $12k with only 10k miles. My 2005 Pilot
actually had a higher trade-in allowance after one year vs. my new
purchase price, even with at its 25k miles.

It had a $32k list / $29k cost including sale tax (no trade). At 110k
miles, it currently has an Edmunds estimated trade-in value of $11k
($13.5k retail value). Our 23k 2000 Accord at about 180k currently has
a trade vaue of 3k and a retail price of 3.5k. I fully expect to see
another 100k miles on it.. It continues to run exceptional well with
minimal maintenance / repair costs. I doubt any GM or Ford would
maintain a similar value. Few seem to reach 200k without significant
repair costs.

On the other hand, why would someone dump a $30k car for just $12k after
one year with just 10k miles? Is the potential for repair costs that high?

Then again, I've owned enough GM cars to appreciate how poor in
condition they get within their first 10-20k miles.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 20 2009 4:50 pm
From: VFW

In article <aMDNm.36484$Wd1.6599@newsfe15.iad>,
clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:

> Annie Woughman wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > "Al" <albundy2@mailinator.com> wrote in message
> > news:9826021f-2a04-4f35-b2d9-c7b45ebe0878@e23g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >> On Nov 19, 6:09 pm, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 18:38:55 -0700, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
> >>> >Product still grossly overpriced. Workers still getting those very
> >>> >high wages. Government will again bail them out but the
> >>> >push for more efficient vehicles will escalate Do what ever
> >>> >repairs are required even if it means a new engine. You'll
> >>> >still be ahead of the game. Make this a thumb-your-nose
> >>> >exercise to those in business and government would got
> >>> >us into this probably terminal condition.
> >>>
> >>> ted
> >>
> >>
> >> So what's your point? You have to drive something usually. Pick
> >> whatever works for you. I used to buy new. In recent years I've gotten
> >> steals on used vehicles. Car companies are aware of your cunning plan.
> >> They have tended to raise the price of repair parts in an effort to
> >> encourage people to dump old iron. Eventually, the Chinese will
> >> dictate price.
> >
> >
> > Actually the subject line is a good one. Buying a NEW car is never
> > frugal.
>
>
> This has been disproven many times. It really depends on one's typical
> mileage. For low mileage drivers and those who value their time making
> repairs at zero, buying used makes much sense. For high mileage
> drivers, new can make sense. The costs of buying a used car every few
> years soon offsets a single car purchase, especially considering new
> cars rarely require any repairs for the first 100K miles.
>
> > The minute you drive it off the lot it depreciates by thousands of
> > dollars.
>
>
> Are you trying to suggest used cars don't depreciate the moment you
> drive off the lot? Too many times, the new car depreciation is
> considered off the list price. Does anyone pay list?
>
> > We always buy am American made mid-sized sedan that is a rental return
> > or a fleet car.
>
>
> Ours have always ben American. Our last three have been by Honda.
> None of those GM / Ford imports for us.
>
> > These cars usually only have about 11,000 miles on them are in mint
> > condition, fully loaded and are less than half the price of a new car.
> > My last "new" to me car is a 2002 Ford Taurus we bought in 2003 for
> > $11,400. It has leather seats, a moon roof, CD player, climate
> > control, etc and 9,275 miles.
>
>
> So how many total miles do you typically get from these fleet cars? Are
> they in as good of condition as the typical rental car? Until we went
> Honda, we only averaged about 125 miles per car before excessive repairs
> / maintenance made them too costly to keep. Our 2000 Accord now has
> 180K and runs as well as any low mileage GM that I've rented. My 2005
> Pilot has 110k miles and runs essentially when it was brand new (any GM
> or Ford I've ever owned had about 10K miles before it felt well broken
> in (down?). I went in to replace the tires (original) several weeks
> ago, but the tire dealer said I had at least another 10k-20K miles.
> Its suspension is simply outstanding.

Probably, the best way , certainly the easiest , is to buy an "09 now,
that the ;10's are out. and have no trade-in. you could easily get that
amount off the price. sell your car privately . Dealers give you
nothing for it. they don't want your trade-in.
and shop around. work one dealer off the others. get help if necessary.
and good luck. Oh, yes don't buy a one year car or the first year of a
"new" design.
--
money; what a concept!

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 20 2009 4:57 pm
From: "William Tucker"

"clams_casino" <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
news:q7GNm.6699$cX4.1054@newsfe10.iad...
> Annie Woughman wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Can you really say with a straight face that you think it is a better
>> deal to pay $30,000 to $36,000 for a brand new car than it is to pay
>> $11,000 to $14,000 for the same car with only 10,000 or 11,000 miles on
>> it a year or two later?
>
>
> Depends on the car. Then again, I'd be very suprised to find any $30k
> car selling for $10k with 10k miles after one year or even two years. Can
> you suggest a model that would meet that qualification?
> There are GM, Ford & Chrysler models, for example, that I'd never pay $10k
> for no matter what the mileage. On the other hand, I'm sold on Honda
> since they rarely seem to require repairs. It would be impossible to find
> a Honda product for $12k with only 10k miles. My 2005 Pilot actually
> had a higher trade-in allowance after one year vs. my new purchase price,
> even with at its 25k miles.
>
So, you are married to the brand. A lot of people are, that is why the
prices stay high.

> It had a $32k list / $29k cost including sale tax (no trade). At 110k
> miles, it currently has an Edmunds estimated trade-in value of $11k
> ($13.5k retail value). Our 23k 2000 Accord at about 180k currently has a
> trade vaue of 3k and a retail price of 3.5k. I fully expect to see
> another 100k miles on it.. It continues to run exceptional well with
> minimal maintenance / repair costs. I doubt any GM or Ford would
> maintain a similar value. Few seem to reach 200k without significant
> repair costs.

I find that anyone that knows anything about the workings of a car can
usually judge whether a used car is a clunker or not. For the rest of them
a check over by a competent mechanic is always good.

>
> On the other hand, why would someone dump a $30k car for just $12k after
> one year with just 10k miles? Is the potential for repair costs that
> high?

That's just the way places like Hertz, Enterprise, Budget and large
corporations that provide company cars for their employees do business--buy
in bulk, sell before mileage is too high. Dealerships have car buyers who
travel to the auctions on a regular basis to keep their used car inventory
up.
>
> Then again, I've owned enough GM cars to appreciate how poor in condition
> they get within their first 10-20k miles.

What, you didn't take care of them? I haven't found GM to be any better or
worse than Honda, Toyota, Subaru or Ford.
>
> .

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 20 2009 5:09 pm
From: Vic Smith

On Fri, 20 Nov 2009 19:03:39 -0500, clams_casino
<PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:

>Annie Woughman wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Can you really say with a straight face that you think it is a better
>> deal to pay $30,000 to $36,000 for a brand new car than it is to pay
>> $11,000 to $14,000 for the same car with only 10,000 or 11,000 miles
>> on it a year or two later?
>
>
>Depends on the car. Then again, I'd be very suprised to find any $30k
>car selling for $10k with 10k miles after one year or even two years.
>Can you suggest a model that would meet that qualification?
>
>There are GM, Ford & Chrysler models, for example, that I'd never pay
>$10k for no matter what the mileage. On the other hand, I'm sold on
>Honda since they rarely seem to require repairs. It would be impossible
>to find a Honda product for $12k with only 10k miles. My 2005 Pilot
>actually had a higher trade-in allowance after one year vs. my new
>purchase price, even with at its 25k miles.
>
>It had a $32k list / $29k cost including sale tax (no trade). At 110k
>miles, it currently has an Edmunds estimated trade-in value of $11k
>($13.5k retail value). Our 23k 2000 Accord at about 180k currently has
>a trade vaue of 3k and a retail price of 3.5k. I fully expect to see
>another 100k miles on it.. It continues to run exceptional well with
>minimal maintenance / repair costs. I doubt any GM or Ford would
>maintain a similar value. Few seem to reach 200k without significant
>repair costs.
>
>
>On the other hand, why would someone dump a $30k car for just $12k after
>one year with just 10k miles? Is the potential for repair costs that high?
>
> Then again, I've owned enough GM cars to appreciate how poor in
>condition they get within their first 10-20k miles.
>

Sure. All hondaheads say pretty much the same.
That's saves me a lot of money.

--Vic

==============================================================================
TOPIC: O.T? the Neo-Con try to con Iraq.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/81a0d378d56bae64?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 20 2009 5:36 pm
From: VFW

In article <georgeswk-2C52CE.17003317112009@news.toast.net>,
VFW <georgeswk@toast.net> wrote:

> Iraqi Lawmakers Question Oil-Development Deals
>
> By GINA CHON
>
> BAGHDAD‹A handful of lawmakers from the Iraqi parliament's oil and gas
> committee on Sunday questioned the legality of petroleum-development
> deals signed last week with BP PLC, Exxon Mobil Corp. and other big oil
> companies.
>
> The opposition isn't likely to derail the agreement, but it raises the
> specter of fresh political uncertainty for foreign oil executives, who
> have just recently warmed to the idea of investing in Iraq's vast but
> undertapped oil fields. Last week, the Iraqi oil ministry signed initial
> deals with consortia led by Exxon and Eni SpA, along with a final
> agreement with a consortium headed by BP and China National Petroleum
> Corp.
>
> for the rest of this art. visit the Wall St. Journal;
>
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748703808904574523491165534988
> .html?mod=googlenews_wsj
> --
> money; what a concept!

and;

If you run a country that has resources the Neo-Cons lust over. Hand
them over or you will find the "Marines" at your door.

read all about it.
In this shocking memoir, Confessions of an Economic Hit Man, John
Perkins tells of his own inner journey from willing servant of empire to
impassioned advocate for the rights of oppressed people. Covertly
recruited by the United States National Security Agency and on the
payroll of an international consulting firm, he traveled the world‹to
Indonesia, Panama, Ecuador, Colombia, Saudi Arabia, Iran and other
strategically important countries. His job was to implement policies
that promoted the interests of the U.S. corporatocracy (a coalition of
government, banks, and corporations) while professing to alleviate
poverty‹policies that alienated many nations and ultimately led to
September 11 and growing anti-Americanism. Within a few weeks of its
release , Confessions of an Economic Hit Man landed onThe New York Times
Bestseller List, then 19 other bestseller lists including the Los
Angeles Times, San Francisco Chronicle, USA Today, Wall Street Journal,
and Washington Post. The author has been interviewed repeatedly on
national radio and television shows, including Amy Goodman's Democracy
Now, CSPAN's Book TV, and PBS' Now with David Brancaccio. And now the
book is being published in 9 languages around the world. According to
John Perkins, "It is accomplishing an important objective in inspiring
people to think and talk and to know that we can change the world."

for more;

http://www.economichitman.com/
--
money; what a concept!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Learn More About Where to Look for Real Online Jobs
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/cf99897686855046?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 20 2009 5:48 pm
From: Al

On Nov 19, 11:51 pm, Aitla Bhagya <aitlabha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Have you ever wanted to have a part time job? In case you do; then I
> suggest you read this article. It is possible that you will find the
> part time job that you are looking for. Now I will tell you some thing
> about myself. I am a professional Doctor and I work in a Private
> hospital (a big one). My salary is about $4000 a month but I wanted to
> earn more. So how can I do a part time job when I have to spend almost
> 10 hours in the hospital?
>
>
You must be a witch doctor if you are earning only $4k per month as
that's chump change.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: I need you opinion; help me finish my dissertation
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d3a8ec9220b826f0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 20 2009 7:22 pm
From: ken@nowhere.com (Ken)

On Tue, 17 Nov 2009, jean.jerry@verizon.net wrote:
>If you could take 10 minutes from your busy schedule to complete my
>survey it will help me finish my research. Your opinon and your
>knowledge are important.
>
>http://www.kwiksurveys.com/online-survey.php?surveyID=LNEDH_baa961d3
>
>Many thanks in advance.

I was taking your survey, then stopped. Question 9 makes no sense.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cookware
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/1fbe380ec171a5e2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 20 2009 8:27 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

frater mus wrote:
> The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> I wasn't clear. I meant if abuse HURTS the pot it's not worth the
>> price... Carry on.
>
> I think it was clear enough, although I might disagree with the point.
>
> One has to treat teflon (or calphalon, or those hideous induction
> stovetops, or nice knives) specially to avoid damaging them but this
> is a consumer education issue and a personal choice.
>
> Same with exotic sports cars; you can't drive them 30mph over
> speedbumps but they may still be worth 200k for their intended purpose
> and environment. Mishandling them may cause $$$ damage.
>
> I have used one Cal saute pan in one commercial and liked it. I did
> not like it $80 worth (or whatever) or I would have bought one by now
>
>
>> That's interesting. I've made my own lemon curd, but it had never
>> occurred to me to make marmalade. Why won't aluminum work?

> I suspect it's a reference to the generic problem of reactivity when cooking acids in aluminum. Calphalon gets around
> that problem with anodizing

That doesnt survive a dishwasher.

> (at least until somebody damages the surface, as discussed above).

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The caliber of Verizon Wireless' customer service reps
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/70bfd32f0b697e08?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 20 2009 9:18 pm
From: Larry

someone@somewhere.org wrote in news:UW%Xd.24133$Az.5851@lakeread02:

> In misc.consumers.frugal-living Andrew
> <usenetMYSHOES@bizavemyshoes.com> wrote:
>> In alt.cellular.verizon someone@somewhere.org wrote:
>> : In misc.consumers.frugal-living Andrew
>> : <usenetMYSHOES@bizavemyshoes.com> wrote:
>
>> : > I have never played a game on my phone and I would disable
>> : > "Get-it-Now" if I could.
>
>> : I signed up for Verizon Wireless service on Monday. Called Verizon
>> : customer service and cancelled text messaging, wireless web, and
>> : Get-it-Now access from my account on Tuesday. I think there may
>> : have been a three minute investment in my time to get it disabled.
>
>> Perhaps the CS rep I spoke to lied to me, because when I asked
>> (twice) she told me it could not be disabled on my phone.
>
> You keep saying you can't disable it on your phone, from your phone,
> etc. You are correct. You can not lock out these features from being
> used on your phone. You can however disable this feature on your
> account at Verizon's end so the phone can not retrieve the data and
> you can't get billed for it.
>
>> Since I have heard before that it cannot be disabled on the
>> National Access (which I have), I believe I am stuck with it.
>
> Believe what you like.
>
> I have America's Choice Family Share (a national plan).
> All I did was call CS, and tell them I wanted to remove text
> messaging, wireless web, and Get-it-Now access from my account. It
> took about 30 seconds to take effect. I was told it was disabled for
> both lines before I even get off the phone with them.
>

How long has it been since you set your computer's CLOCK?

Your post says 2005! Are you trying to be a smartass?

--
Larry

==============================================================================
TOPIC: designer prada,chole,lacoste,fendi ,DG handbags,fashion handbags
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/ff1b4fc43c137e2a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 20 2009 9:20 pm
From: lijie111111

www.bagalibaba.com Chanel,LV,Gucci,DB,DG,Fendi,Coach,ED
hardy,Prada,Tous,Juicy,Guess,Christian,Burberry,Jimmy
choo,CA,Hermes,CD,Balengiaga,Versace,AF,Chole,Miumiu,lacoste
offers the class A and top-quality super A imitation designer
handbags for the chic and classy women today. Our bags are perfect
for gifts for
any occasion. The best thing about our designer inspired sunglasses is
that they cost a
fraction of the price compared to their original counterparts. This
goes without
sacrificing high quality and style. All our products are made of the
quality
fabrics and leather, and are made to resemble and be as long-lasting
as the real
thing. Can you imagine how much a real Chanel sunglass would cost? The
may look
totally awesome, but they can take a toll on your fashion budget. so
come on and
visit www.bagalibaba.com You can take your favorite products
home soon.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Surprise! California does something stupid - again.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/48d02eb74da95076?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Nov 20 2009 11:11 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"

In article
<oqCNm.4590$kY2.3585@newsfe01.iad>,
"Annie Woughman"
<anniewoughman@hotmail.com> wrote:

> "Malcom "Mal" Reynolds" <atlas-bugged@invalid.invalid> wrote in message
> news:atlas-bugged-826084.10232820112009@aries.ka.weretis.net...
> > In article
> > <UprNm.32235$Zu5.27484@newsfe24.iad>,
> > "Annie Woughman"
> > <anniewoughman@hotmail.com> wrote:
> >
> >> "Chilly8" <Chilly8@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:he43h9$esl$1@aioe.org...
> >> >
> >> > "Ohioguy" <none@none.net> wrote in message
> >> > news:qFeNm.6320$cX4.472@newsfe10.iad...
> >> >> http://tech.yahoo.com/news/ap/20091118/ap_on_hi_te/us_california_tv_ener
> >> >> gy
> >> >>
> >> >>
> >> >> "Some manufacturers said implementing a power standard will limit
> >> >> consumer choice and harm California retailers because consumers could
> >> >> simply buy TVs out of state or order them online. Industry
> >> >
> >> Californians already come up to Oregon in droves to buy everything from
> >> flat
> >> screen televisions, computers, and any type of luxury items, but it isn't
> >> because they can't buy them in California--it is because of the 10% sales
> >> tax (Oregon has none.) Any day of the week you can drive to our local
> >> Costco and every other car (as well as U-Haul trucks and trailers) in the
> >> lot is from California.
> >
> >
> >
> >> I overheard one guy telling a clerk that it wasn't
> >> only the sales tax, California also charges a luxury tax on items like
> >> big-screen TV's.
> >
> > Can you provide some sort of link about
> > this "luxury tax"
>
> No, I was just sharing what I heard a guy tell the clerk. I was standing
> behind him in the check-out line. I'm sorry if I passed on erroneous
> information.

I know of no "luxury" tax, but wouldn't
be surprised that one is lurking around.
But there is a "use" tax on goods
purchased out-of-state or on the internet

>
> >> Groups of people take turns making the trip filling out
> >> lists for their friends and neighbors. The amount they save in sales and
> >> luxury tax makes it worth the amount spent on gas--especially when they
> >> trade off.
> >>
> >> > That is very true. All one would have to do is draw out enough
> >> > cash from the bank, then go across the state line and buy one.
> >> > By using cash, no credit cards or checks, there is no paper
> >> > trail the state could use to find people using such sets, if they
> >> > were to go the next step and outlaw posession.

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

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

Saturday, November 21, 2009

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 15 new messages in 9 topics - digest