http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Save $$$ Enjoy the Moment - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/07c60d6ee3faa09b?hl=en
* Preposterous lies about Charles Novins retracted by masked, cowardly critics.
- 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a4db837bbc860d40?hl=en
* A couple of things you ought to know about the Healthcare Bill - 8 messages,
3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/57ac59065a6fb0b3?hl=en
* ◇●◇●◇ Cheap price wholesale LV handbag and purse at WEBSITE: www.fjrjtrade.
com 【paypal payment】 - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/84d15c741d15c273?hl=en
* ๑۩๑۩๑free shipping wholesale low price nike shox shoes and ed hardy Jeans
etc (www.ecyaya.com) - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2ae063eb01469c08?hl=en
* Thermostat Set-Back Help - 5 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4d447b6916c93d22?hl=en
* Free credit reports? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/c1436de84e2a65a5?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Save $$$ Enjoy the Moment
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/07c60d6ee3faa09b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 11 2009 11:43 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
VFW wrote:
> there's an excellent chance that the humans will go extinct. Sooner or later.
Nope, no other species even comes close to completely
dominating their environment and every other species.
> after all 99% of all the species that have ever existed are gone.
Yes, but no species that was ever as dominant as humans ever has.
> It' not unusual.
Completely dominating like humans have is.
> So, my advice; Enjoy the Moment
Dont need to bother. Humans certainly wont be going extinct in my lifetime.
> and ; If you are in the moment, you will tap into a space where
> you don't do "needy" A great way to walk lightly on the earth.
Even sillier.
> Good Luck ! People of the Earth.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 9:53 am
From: The Real Bev
Rod Speed wrote:
> VFW wrote:
>
>> there's an excellent chance that the humans will go extinct. Sooner or later.
And the earth will eventually be consumed by the sun.
> Nope, no other species even comes close to completely
> dominating their environment and every other species.
If we're so dominant, how come we still have ants, roaches, rats, viruses and
evil bacteria?
--
Cheers, Bev
================================================================
I didn't break it! It was doing that before I broke it... er...
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 10:24 am
From: "Rod Speed"
The Real Bev wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> VFW wrote:
>>> there's an excellent chance that the humans will go extinct. Sooner or later.
> And the earth will eventually be consumed by the sun.
But humans may have moved on from the earth by then.
>> Nope, no other species even comes close to completely
>> dominating their environment and every other species.
> If we're so dominant, how come we still have ants, roaches, rats, viruses and evil bacteria?
Because we have enough of a clue to realise that it makes no sense to exterminate them all.
We have worked out how to exterminate some from the wild, most obviously with smallpox.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Preposterous lies about Charles Novins retracted by masked, cowardly
critics.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a4db837bbc860d40?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 3:43 am
From: Atlas Bugged
The anonymous posters using falsified identifiers have e-mailed
prominent attorney Charles Novins with apologies, concerned they may
be found out, and jockeying to avoid being sued, as several others
have. The falsified and libelous posts, alleging "drug addiction,"
"rape" and other ridiculous, libelous, and other obviously false
acusations have appeared on Usenet and been republished in various
internet fora.
Atlas Bugged
More info on this here:
http://www.charles-novins-bugged-by-libel.com/
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 8:40 am
From: John McWilliams
Atlas Bugged wrote:
> The anonymous posters using falsified identifiers have e-mailed
> prominent attorney Charles Novins with apologies, concerned they may
> be found out, and jockeying to avoid being sued, as several others
> have. The falsified and libelous posts, alleging "drug addiction,"
> "rape" and other ridiculous, libelous, and other obviously false
> acusations have appeared on Usenet and been republished in various
> internet fora.
>
> Atlas Bugged
>
> More info on this here:
> http://www.charles-novins-bugged-by-libel.com/
rubbish
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 9:57 am
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article
<a3b520f0-5492-4061-9196-c1c5e7984c6a@m2
5g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>,
Atlas Bugged
<atlasbuggedbyspam@gmail.com> wrote:
> The anonymous posters using falsified identifiers have e-mailed
> prominent attorney Charles Novins with apologies, concerned they may
> be found out, and jockeying to avoid being sued, as several others
> have. The falsified and libelous posts, alleging "drug addiction,"
> "rape" and other ridiculous, libelous, and other obviously false
> acusations have appeared on Usenet and been republished in various
> internet fora.
>
> Atlas Bugged
>
> More info on this here:
> http://www.charles-novins-bugged-by-libel.com/
What about your trips to Asia to secure
little boys for your clients ?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: A couple of things you ought to know about the Healthcare Bill
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/57ac59065a6fb0b3?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 5:16 am
From: jeff
3877 wrote:
> jeff wrote:
>> ChairMan wrote:
>>> In news:hfs0qu$vjd$1@news.albasani.net,
>>> jeff <jeff_thies@att.net>spewed forth:
>>>> ChairMan wrote:
>>>>> In news:hfrk11$bk8$1@news.albasani.net,
>>>>> jeff <jeff_thies@att.net>spewed forth:
>>>>>> George wrote:
>>>>>>> On 12/9/2009 15:46, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 3:21 pm, "sr"<solo...@uninets.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>> "Cindy Hamilton"<angelicapagane...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>>>>>>>>
<snip>
>> But there has been this rush to claim that Obama is destroying the
>> US. Did you miss what happened in the 8 years prior? A more than
>> doubling of the Federal Deficit, anemic employment figures
>
> That is a lie. The unemployment rate bottomed ate 4.x%
> with an immense legal and illegal immigration rate.
An absolutely meaningless figure.
132,469K employed on George W Bush's first day, 134,333K on his last.
(from business survey, all other methodologies are similar)
That's less than 2 million added over 8 years. Note that the demand
from population growth is 150 - 200K per month
A pent up disaster.
>
> and an
>> unfunded Medicare Drug Benefit of the same order of cost as the
>> Health Care Bill. All the while allowing the whole house of cards to
>> careen to the worst financial crisis in almost a century.
>
>> There is damn little credibility in this fear mongering, where were
>> the complaints when the country was being sold down the river?
>
> There have always been plenty of those.
Not from the right. The same Tea Partiers that are complaining now
were big W boosters. The simple fact is that they don't mind spending,
they just don't ever want to pay for it. Thats why the Medicare Drug
bill got overwhelming Republican support, because they never had to pay
for it.
Jeff
>
>> The Republicans are doing their best to sabotage everything, so they
>> can get back in power. Then what? The same policies of trickle down
>> economics that have never worked. It's been said that there are only
>> two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and Fools.
>>
>> Jeff
>>
>>> Pay me now and wait.
>>> Why don't they show us FIRST, all the money this is going to save us
>>> in their cost cutting BEFORE sending us the bill?
>
>
== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 6:42 am
From: clams_casino
jeff wrote:
>
>
> 132,469K employed on George W Bush's first day, 134,333K on his last.
> (from business survey, all other methodologies are similar)
>
> That's less than 2 million added over 8 years. Note that the demand
> from population growth is 150 - 200K per month
>
>
Any reference for that data considering the unemployment rate was 4.2%
when he took office and 7.6% (80% increase) when he left (using Jan -
Jan data)?
http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000
"When President Bush took office, the unemployment rate was 4.2 percent
and the ranks of the unemployed stood at just over 6 million. As it
turns out, the nation would never again see unemployment that low during
the entire Bush term. Today, the unemployment rate is 7.2 percent and
there are 11.1 million people unemployed." - 1/9/09 (approximately
85% increase).
http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009010209/another-bush-legacy-84-percent-more-unemployed
== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 8:10 am
From: jeff
clams_casino wrote:
> jeff wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> 132,469K employed on George W Bush's first day, 134,333K on his last.
>> (from business survey, all other methodologies are similar)
>>
>> That's less than 2 million added over 8 years. Note that the demand
>> from population growth is 150 - 200K per month
>>
>>
>
>
> Any reference for that data considering the unemployment rate was 4.2%
> when he took office and 7.6% (80% increase) when he left (using Jan -
> Jan data)?
>
> http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000
>
>
>
> "When President Bush took office, the unemployment rate was 4.2 percent
> and the ranks of the unemployed stood at just over 6 million. As it
> turns out, the nation would never again see unemployment that low during
> the entire Bush term. Today, the unemployment rate is 7.2 percent and
> there are 11.1 million people unemployed." - 1/9/09 (approximately
> 85% increase).
>
> http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009010209/another-bush-legacy-84-percent-more-unemployed
>
And you have a huge group of college students and other youngsters
who never became employed and so could never join the ranks of the
unemployed.
Any way you look at it, George W Bush's legacy is grim.
Jeff
== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 10:14 am
From: "3877" <3877@nospam.com>
jeff wrote:
> 3877 wrote:
>> jeff wrote:
>>> ChairMan wrote:
>>>> In news:hfs0qu$vjd$1@news.albasani.net,
>>>> jeff <jeff_thies@att.net>spewed forth:
>>>>> ChairMan wrote:
>>>>>> In news:hfrk11$bk8$1@news.albasani.net,
>>>>>> jeff <jeff_thies@att.net>spewed forth:
>>>>>>> George wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 12/9/2009 15:46, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 3:21 pm, "sr"<solo...@uninets.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> "Cindy Hamilton"<angelicapagane...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>> message
>
> <snip>
>
>
>>> But there has been this rush to claim that Obama is destroying the
>>> US. Did you miss what happened in the 8 years prior? A more than
>>> doubling of the Federal Deficit, anemic employment figures
>>
>> That is a lie. The unemployment rate bottomed ate 4.x%
>> with an immense legal and illegal immigration rate.
>
> An absolutely meaningless figure.
Nope. Yours is given the complete implosion of the world financial
system that we only see once in roughly a hundred years now.
> 132,469K employed on George W Bush's first day, 134,333K on his last.
Nothing like the official figure.
> (from business survey, all other methodologies are similar)
Like hell they are.
> That's less than 2 million added over 8 years.
What matters is what it peaked at.
> Note that the demand from population growth is 150 - 200K per month
And that was clearly satisified fine to see the unemployment rate bottom at 4.x%
> A pent up disaster.
Nope, just the result of the complete implosion of the world financial system.
>>
>> and an
>>> unfunded Medicare Drug Benefit of the same order of cost as the
>>> Health Care Bill. All the while allowing the whole house of cards to
>>> careen to the worst financial crisis in almost a century.
>>
>>> There is damn little credibility in this fear mongering, where
>>> were the complaints when the country was being sold down the river?
>>
>> There have always been plenty of those.
> Not from the right.
They have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
Those fools produced the complete implosion of the world financial system, AGAIN.
The same Tea Partiers that are complaining now
> were big W boosters. The simple fact is that they don't mind spending,
> they just don't ever want to pay for it. Thats why the Medicare Drug
> bill got overwhelming Republican support, because they never had to
> pay for it.
>
> Jeff
>>
>>> The Republicans are doing their best to sabotage everything, so
>>> they can get back in power. Then what? The same policies of trickle
>>> down economics that have never worked. It's been said that there
>>> are only two kinds of Republicans: Millionaires and Fools.
>>>
>>> Jeff
>>>
>>>> Pay me now and wait.
>>>> Why don't they show us FIRST, all the money this is going to save
>>>> us in their cost cutting BEFORE sending us the bill?
== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 10:19 am
From: "3877" <3877@nospam.com>
jeff wrote:
> clams_casino wrote:
>> jeff wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> 132,469K employed on George W Bush's first day, 134,333K on his
>>> last. (from business survey, all other methodologies are similar)
>>>
>>> That's less than 2 million added over 8 years. Note that the
>>> demand from population growth is 150 - 200K per month
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Any reference for that data considering the unemployment rate was
>> 4.2% when he took office and 7.6% (80% increase) when he left (using
>> Jan - Jan data)?
>>
>> http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000
>>
>>
>>
>> "When President Bush took office, the unemployment rate was 4.2
>> percent and the ranks of the unemployed stood at just over 6
>> million. As it turns out, the nation would never again see
>> unemployment that low during the entire Bush term. Today, the
>> unemployment rate is 7.2 percent and there are 11.1 million people
>> unemployed." - 1/9/09 (approximately 85% increase).
>>
>> http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009010209/another-bush-legacy-84-percent-more-unemployed
>>
> And you have a huge group of college students and other youngsters
> who never became employed and so could never join the ranks of the
> unemployed.
That is not how the unemployed are defined.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
>
> Any way you look at it, George W Bush's legacy is grim.
It is indeed. The only real saving grace is that we have not seen another 9/11 on US soil.
> Jeff
== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 11:37 am
From: clams_casino
3877 wrote:
>jeff wrote:
>
>
>>clams_casino wrote:
>>
>>
>>>jeff wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>132,469K employed on George W Bush's first day, 134,333K on his
>>>>last. (from business survey, all other methodologies are similar)
>>>>
>>>> That's less than 2 million added over 8 years. Note that the
>>>>demand from population growth is 150 - 200K per month
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Any reference for that data considering the unemployment rate was
>>>4.2% when he took office and 7.6% (80% increase) when he left (using
>>>Jan - Jan data)?
>>>
>>>http://data.bls.gov/PDQ/servlet/SurveyOutputServlet?data_tool=latest_numbers&series_id=LNS14000000
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>"When President Bush took office, the unemployment rate was 4.2
>>>percent and the ranks of the unemployed stood at just over 6
>>>million. As it turns out, the nation would never again see
>>>unemployment that low during the entire Bush term. Today, the
>>>unemployment rate is 7.2 percent and there are 11.1 million people
>>>unemployed." - 1/9/09 (approximately 85% increase).
>>>
>>>http://www.ourfuture.org/blog-entry/2009010209/another-bush-legacy-84-percent-more-unemployed
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> And you have a huge group of college students and other youngsters
>>who never became employed and so could never join the ranks of the
>>unemployed.
>>
>>
>
>That is not how the unemployed are defined.
>http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm
>
>
>> Any way you look at it, George W Bush's legacy is grim.
>>
>>
>
>It is indeed. The only real saving grace is that we have not seen another 9/11 on US soil.
>
>
>
>> Jeff
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
which occurred on GW's watch - another notch in his legacy.
== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 12:00 pm
From: jeff
3877 wrote:
> jeff wrote:
>> 3877 wrote:
>>> jeff wrote:
>>>> ChairMan wrote:
>>>>> In news:hfs0qu$vjd$1@news.albasani.net,
>>>>> jeff <jeff_thies@att.net>spewed forth:
>>>>>> ChairMan wrote:
>>>>>>> In news:hfrk11$bk8$1@news.albasani.net,
>>>>>>> jeff <jeff_thies@att.net>spewed forth:
>>>>>>>> George wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 12/9/2009 15:46, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 3:21 pm, "sr"<solo...@uninets.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> "Cindy Hamilton"<angelicapagane...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>> message
>> <snip>
>>
>>
>>>> But there has been this rush to claim that Obama is destroying the
>>>> US. Did you miss what happened in the 8 years prior? A more than
>>>> doubling of the Federal Deficit, anemic employment figures
>>> That is a lie. The unemployment rate bottomed ate 4.x%
>>> with an immense legal and illegal immigration rate.
>> An absolutely meaningless figure.
>
> Nope. Yours is given the complete implosion of the world financial
> system that we only see once in roughly a hundred years now.
As opposed to what you have which is: nothing.
>
>> 132,469K employed on George W Bush's first day, 134,333K on his last.
>
> Nothing like the official figure.
Post up your source.
>
>> (from business survey, all other methodologies are similar)
>
> Like hell they are.
>
>> That's less than 2 million added over 8 years.
>
> What matters is what it peaked at.
Does that sentence not make the least sense to you?
>
>> Note that the demand from population growth is 150 - 200K per month
>
> And that was clearly satisified fine to see the unemployment rate bottom at 4.x%
Unemployment rates never count people who have given up or those who
never entered the workforce. But if you want to use that, look at where
Bush left it, sailing higher by the month.
Jeff
== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 12:30 pm
From: "3877" <3877@nospam.com>
jeff wrote:
> 3877 wrote:
>> jeff wrote:
>>> 3877 wrote:
>>>> jeff wrote:
>>>>> ChairMan wrote:
>>>>>> In news:hfs0qu$vjd$1@news.albasani.net,
>>>>>> jeff <jeff_thies@att.net>spewed forth:
>>>>>>> ChairMan wrote:
>>>>>>>> In news:hfrk11$bk8$1@news.albasani.net,
>>>>>>>> jeff <jeff_thies@att.net>spewed forth:
>>>>>>>>> George wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 12/9/2009 15:46, Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Dec 7, 3:21 pm, "sr"<solo...@uninets.net> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> "Cindy Hamilton"<angelicapagane...@yahoo.com> wrote in
>>>>>>>>>>>> message
>>> <snip>
>>>
>>>
>>>>> But there has been this rush to claim that Obama is destroying
>>>>> the US. Did you miss what happened in the 8 years prior? A more
>>>>> than doubling of the Federal Deficit, anemic employment figures
>>>> That is a lie. The unemployment rate bottomed ate 4.x%
>>>> with an immense legal and illegal immigration rate.
>>> An absolutely meaningless figure.
>>
>> Nope. Yours is given the complete implosion of the world financial
>> system that we only see once in roughly a hundred years now.
>
> As opposed to what you have which is: nothing.
>>
>>> 132,469K employed on George W Bush's first day, 134,333K on his
>>> last.
>>
>> Nothing like the official figure.
>
> Post up your source.
>>
>>> (from business survey, all other methodologies are similar)
>>
>> Like hell they are.
>>
>>> That's less than 2 million added over 8 years.
>>
>> What matters is what it peaked at.
>
> Does that sentence not make the least sense to you?
>>
>>> Note that the demand from population growth is 150 - 200K per month
>>
>> And that was clearly satisified fine to see the unemployment rate
>> bottom at 4.x%
> Unemployment rates never count people who have given up or those who never entered the workforce.
That is a lie.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm#unemployed
But if you want to use that, look at
> where Bush left it, sailing higher by the month.
>
> Jeff
==============================================================================
TOPIC: ◇●◇●◇ Cheap price wholesale LV handbag and purse at WEBSITE: www.
fjrjtrade.com 【paypal payment】
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/84d15c741d15c273?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 6:27 am
From: "www.fjrjtrade.com"
◇●◇●◇ Cheap price wholesale LV handbag and purse at WEBSITE: www.fjrjtrade.com
【paypal payment】
Welcome to visit www.fjrjtrade.com
Cheap wholesale handbag
http://www.fjrjtrade.com/category-1224-b0-Handbags.html
Cheap wholesale purse
http://www.fjrjtrade.com/category-1244-b0-Purse.html
Cheap wholesale LV handbag
http://www.fjrjtrade.com/category-1240-b0-LV-Handbags.html
cheap wholesale LV purse
http://www.fjrjtrade.com/category-1255-b0-LV-Purse.html
Cheap wholesale AAA True Leather handbag and purse
http://www.fjrjtrade.com/category-1201-b0-AAA-True-Leather.html
Cheap wholesale AAA True Leather LV handbag
http://www.fjrjtrade.com/category-1221-b0-LV-Handbags.html
Cheap wholesale AAA True Leather LV purse
http://www.fjrjtrade.com/category-1222-b0-LV-Purse.html
Details at website:
http://www.fjrjtrade.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: ๑۩๑۩๑free shipping wholesale low price nike shox shoes and ed hardy
Jeans etc (www.ecyaya.com)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2ae063eb01469c08?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 7:52 am
From: hero
๑۩๑۩๑free shipping wholesale low price nike shox shoes and ed hardy
Jeans etc (www.ecyaya.com)
Footwear (paypal payment)( www.ecyaya.com )
Paul Smith shoes
Jordan shoes
Bape shoes (paypal payment)( www.ecyaya.com )
Chanel shoes (paypal payment)( www.ecyaya.com )
D&G shoes
Dior shoes (paypal payment)( www.ecyaya.com )
ED hardy shoes
Evisu shoes
Fendi shoes
Gucci shoe (paypal payment)( www.ecyaya.com )
Hogan shoes (paypal payment)( www.ecyaya.com )
Lv shoes
Prada shoes (paypal payment)( www.ecyaya.com )
Timberland shoes
Tous shoes (paypal payment)( www.ecyaya.com )
Ugg shoes
Ice cream shoes (paypal payment)( www.ecyaya.com )
Sebago shoes (paypal payment)( www.ecyaya.com )
Lacoste shoes
Air force one shoes (paypal payment)( www.ecyaya.com )
TODS shoes
AF shoes (paypal payment)( www.ecyaya.com )
cheap EVISU jeans wholesale www.ecyaya.com
cheap ED hardy jeans wholesale
cheap COOGI jeans wholesale www.ecyaya.com
cheap GINO GREEN GLOBAL jeans wholesale
cheap LACOSTE jeans wholesale www.ecyaya.com
cheap G-STAR jeans wholesale www.ecyaya.com
cheap KED ROBOT jeans wholesale
cheap RED MONKEY jeans wholesale www.ecyaya.com
cheap ADIDAS jeans wholesale www.ecyaya.com
cheap BBC jeans wholesale
cheap BOSS jeans wholesale www.ecyaya.com
cheap LRG jeans wholesale
cheap HELEN jeans wholesale www.ecyaya.com
cheap JUICY jeans wholesale
cheap THE CROUN HOLDER jeans wholesale www.ecyaya.com
cheap SMET jeans wholesale www.ecyaya.com
cheap SEVEN jeans wholesale www.ecyaya.com
cheap TRUN NORTH FACE jeans wholesale
cheap children jeans wholesale www.ecyaya.com
cheap ARMANI jeans wholesale www.ecyaya.com
cheap BAPE jeans wholesale
cheap LEVIS jeans wholesale www.ecyaya.com
cheap ANTIK jeans wholesale www.ecyaya.com
cheap true religion jeans wholesale www.ecyaya.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Thermostat Set-Back Help
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4d447b6916c93d22?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 9:32 am
From: sse11791@aim.com
I am trying to save money on my heating costs. I live alone and want
to be able to turn off or set back the thermostat in my apartment when
I am not home so that I can save money on heat.
I have a 1200 sq foot apartment with forced hot air gas heat. I live
in upstate New York.
I work and I am out of the house 10 hours a day and don't like the
idea of heating a vacant apartment. But I am concerned that if I let
the apartment get too cold while I am not home, it will cost just as
much or more to re-heat it to a comfortable temperature.
Is there a rule of thumb for how many degrees set-back will save
money? Can I turn the heat down to 40 degrees during the day and then
back up to room temperature when I get home? Or will that wind up
costing the same as leaving the heat on?
What about if I am going away for the weekend? Is the set-back
different?
Thank you for your suggestions.
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 10:22 am
From: "Rod Speed"
sse11791@aim.com wrote:
> I am trying to save money on my heating costs. I live alone and want
> to be able to turn off or set back the thermostat in my apartment when
> I am not home so that I can save money on heat.
> I have a 1200 sq foot apartment with forced hot air gas heat. I live
> in upstate New York.
> I work and I am out of the house 10 hours a day and don't like the
> idea of heating a vacant apartment. But I am concerned that if I let
> the apartment get too cold while I am not home, it will cost just as
> much or more to re-heat it to a comfortable temperature.
That does not happen with that sort of heating.
> Is there a rule of thumb for how many degrees set-back will save money?
Any will.
> Can I turn the heat down to 40 degrees during the day
> and then back up to room temperature when I get home?
Yes.
> Or will that wind up costing the same as leaving the heat on?
Nope, not with that form of heating.
> What about if I am going away for the weekend? Is the set-back different?
Nope, you only really need to ensure that you dont get pipes freezing etc.
Note that with some other forms of heating, there can be downsides with
the more substantial setbacks, particularly with some heat pump technologys.
> Thank you for your suggestions.
Even a suggestion to shove your head up a dead bear's arse ?
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 11:35 am
From: clams_casino
sse11791@aim.com wrote:
>I am trying to save money on my heating costs. I live alone and want
>to be able to turn off or set back the thermostat in my apartment when
>I am not home so that I can save money on heat.
>
>I have a 1200 sq foot apartment with forced hot air gas heat. I live
>in upstate New York.
>
>I work and I am out of the house 10 hours a day and don't like the
>idea of heating a vacant apartment. But I am concerned that if I let
>the apartment get too cold while I am not home, it will cost just as
>much or more to re-heat it to a comfortable temperature.
>
>
Using a heat pump can cost as much to reheat the home, but that's
because electrical resister heat typically kicks in. With a gas
system, your savings will be most of the time the temperature is cut
back. Simply put, the cost to reheat will be approximately the cost
savings as the temperature drops to the lowest setting where most of the
savings is essentially the time the residence is holding at its lowest
temperature. In actuality, it's a bit more complicated than that, but
that's essentially true for practical purposes.
>Is there a rule of thumb for how many degrees set-back will save
>money?
>
Lower, the better - it costs less to hold your residence at 60 vs. 65
and 50 vs. 55, etc.
>Can I turn the heat down to 40 degrees during the day and then
>back up to room temperature when I get home? Or will that wind up
>costing the same as leaving the heat on?
>
>
You will use less energy by setting it back. The key, however, is your
comfort level and not being too low as to have pipes freeze. When it's
very cold outside, it'll take a lot longer to reheat to a comfortable
level. Furthermore, depending on your insulation, 40F may result in
frozen pipes where the outside wall temperature & area around the pipes
(if pipes are in an outside wall) will be colder than the inside room
temperature when the outside temperature is much below freezing and for
long periods of time..
>What about if I am going away for the weekend? Is the set-back
>different?
>
>
>
Same advantage - you'll save on energy, but keep the temperature high
enough to prevent pipes from freezing when the outside temperature is
below freezing and keeping in mind it may take hours to build the
temperature back to a comfortable setting, depending on the outside
temperature, the volume of your apartment, how well it's insulated,
etc..
>Thank you for your suggestions.
>
>
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 11 2009 10:55 pm
From: "Dave C."
On Sat, 12 Dec 2009 12:32:33 -0500
sse11791@aim.com wrote:
> I am trying to save money on my heating costs. I live alone and want
> to be able to turn off or set back the thermostat in my apartment when
> I am not home so that I can save money on heat.
>
> I have a 1200 sq foot apartment with forced hot air gas heat. I live
> in upstate New York.
>
> I work and I am out of the house 10 hours a day and don't like the
> idea of heating a vacant apartment. But I am concerned that if I let
> the apartment get too cold while I am not home, it will cost just as
> much or more to re-heat it to a comfortable temperature.
>
> Is there a rule of thumb for how many degrees set-back will save
> money? Can I turn the heat down to 40 degrees during the day and then
> back up to room temperature when I get home? Or will that wind up
> costing the same as leaving the heat on?
>
> What about if I am going away for the weekend? Is the set-back
> different?
>
> Thank you for your suggestions.
Generally, you will save 10% for every 3 degrees F that you turn the
heat down. However, if you have any water pipes near exterior walls,
you generally don't want to turn the heat down much lower than 55F, as
the pipes near the exterior walls can freeze.
Oh, and it's a myth that re-heating the house/apartment will use more
energy than if you just left the heat turned up all the time. If you
are typically out of the apartment from say, 7:30 to 5:30, try this on
a set-back thermometer...
7:00AM 55F (start a half hour before you leave, to maximize savings)
5:30PM 71F (just as you get home, it will start warming up...)
8:00PM 68F (this is a perfect sleeping temperature for deep sleep)
For a weekend setting, just change 7:00 AM to 68F
If you go away for the night or weekend, use the "hold" feature to set
the temperature to 55F. Hold will over-ride programming and the temp.
will stay wherever you set it until you take it off hold. -Dave
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Dec 11 2009 11:01 pm
From: "Dave C."
> >
> Same advantage - you'll save on energy, but keep the temperature high
> enough to prevent pipes from freezing when the outside temperature is
> below freezing and keeping in mind it may take hours to build the
> temperature back to a comfortable setting, depending on the outside
> temperature, the volume of your apartment, how well it's insulated,
> etc..
Natural gas forced hot air will heat up a space quick, even if it's not
very well insulated. In a worst case scenario, if the temperature is
about 50F inside when he gets home (lower than that would risk pipes
freezing), he should be comfortable within 10 minutes of turning the
heat back up. Note that the temperature might not level out for 15 or
20 minutes. But within 10 minutes, it should come up 20F, roughly.
Unless the heating system is not properly sized for the space it is
heating. -Dave
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Free credit reports?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/c1436de84e2a65a5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Dec 12 2009 10:51 am
From: info_at_1-script_dot_com@foo.com (spendwize.com)
You are entitled to one free credit report per year from each of the 3
major ratings companies. Two problems: if there is an issue in one of your
reports, you need to pay to get all the information you need to attempt to
resolve it. And when you click on any of the sites which supposedly offer
free reports, they usually automatically sign you up for some type of
service. but if you watch your credit card charges and you call them
within 24 hours or so of the unwanted service, they will remove it.
xxxxo
-------------------------------------
KenK wrote:
> I'm going to try to get at least one of the annual free credit reports
> I'm
> supposed to have available.
> Any tips on what site to go to? What to watch out for? Dangerous
> mistakes I
> could make? A quick
> free credit report
> Google search shows a large number of possibilities. Haven't looked at
> any
> yet. Sounds too good to be true. What's in it for them? I suspect some
> are
> dangerous.
> TIA
##-----------------------------------------------##
Delivered via http://www.spendwize.com http://www.spendwize.com/groups/
Consumer News and Discussions Platform of the Net
Web and RSS access to your favorite newsgroup -
misc.consumers.frugal-living - 38694 messages and counting!
##-----------------------------------------------##
==============================================================================
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
