http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Clogged spray cans ? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/75559410b862a163?hl=en
* Using Bicarbonate Against the Swine Flu & Colds - 6 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2327990b4a832a88?hl=en
* The wasteful Christian way vs. the Tibetan Monkey Way - 5 messages, 3
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/6b0132c6da4f51ce?hl=en
* Frugal - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/896ece759761de90?hl=en
* nof 9 , nof 7 , website designing software , Javascript , nof homepage ,
flash web design , shop bestellen , netobjectsfusion 10 , nof vorlagen ,
beginner website design software , - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/01f20817119a00fe?hl=en
* Join the"Global Information Network"& learn how to make $100K in 90 days! -
1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3467a9a0fb235793?hl=en
* Study: Co-pay hike ups hospital stays - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/839d5aafdb813671?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Clogged spray cans ?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/75559410b862a163?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 29 2010 11:53 am
From: A VFW
In article
<653af0da-baeb-4dc0-aa24-3d1da858586a@k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
Al <albundy2@mailinator.com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 7:01 am, A VFW <georgesp...@toast.net> wrote:
> > If you have a spray paint can that doesn't anymore, maybe you didn't
> > invert the can and spray a bit when last finishing a job.
> > Try another tip that you saved from past dead cans.
> > or if the clog is inside the can make a jig that punctures the bottom of
> > the can and get ready to do some rather uncontrolled painting.
> > Great to keep a wheel barrow rust under control . Or.. fill in the
> > blank.
> > hey, this works for those foam in a can clogs too.
>
> Clogged tips never happen to me because I clean the tip with acetone
> or thinner after use. I keep a small plastic bottle with a tip that
> exactly first over the spray inlet tube to the tip. A brief squirt
> does it. This way no propellant is wasted from the can. I also keep a
> stash of tips, tubes and extensions for reaching into tight places
> such as to lubricate door mechanisms or rustproof inside panels.
> I don't advise anybody to attempt to puncture a spray can. If
> necessary, wait for the pressure to be down some if possible. Secure
> the can in a vice upside down. Place a sharp awl against the center of
> the can with an abundance of rags around the top and the awl. Tap the
> awl sharply and hold on to those rags and wait for the pressure to
> dissipate. Everything is going to get soaked with the contents
> including you and maybe the ceiling. Wear full eye protection and a
> respirator. You can still salvage s modicum of product.
I use a cylinder with a sharp down the bottom.
I load it like a mortar. then I have control and at arms length I can
Paint with the dregs.
Yes, the respirator and eye protection.
but the goal is to aim it downward.
good luck , all.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 29 2010 1:11 pm
From: Al
On Jan 29, 2:53 pm, A VFW <georgesp...@toast.net> wrote:
> In article
> <653af0da-baeb-4dc0-aa24-3d1da8585...@k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
> Al <albun...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 29, 7:01 am, A VFW <georgesp...@toast.net> wrote:
> > > If you have a spray paint can that doesn't anymore, maybe you didn't
> > > invert the can and spray a bit when last finishing a job.
> > > Try another tip that you saved from past dead cans.
> > > or if the clog is inside the can make a jig that punctures the bottom of
> > > the can and get ready to do some rather uncontrolled painting.
> > > Great to keep a wheel barrow rust under control . Or.. fill in the
> > > blank.
> > > hey, this works for those foam in a can clogs too.
>
> > Clogged tips never happen to me because I clean the tip with acetone
> > or thinner after use. I keep a small plastic bottle with a tip that
> > exactly first over the spray inlet tube to the tip. A brief squirt
> > does it. This way no propellant is wasted from the can. I also keep a
> > stash of tips, tubes and extensions for reaching into tight places
> > such as to lubricate door mechanisms or rustproof inside panels.
> > I don't advise anybody to attempt to puncture a spray can. If
> > necessary, wait for the pressure to be down some if possible. Secure
> > the can in a vice upside down. Place a sharp awl against the center of
> > the can with an abundance of rags around the top and the awl. Tap the
> > awl sharply and hold on to those rags and wait for the pressure to
> > dissipate. Everything is going to get soaked with the contents
> > including you and maybe the ceiling. Wear full eye protection and a
> > respirator. You can still salvage s modicum of product.
>
> I use a cylinder with a sharp down the bottom.
> I load it like a mortar. then I have control and at arms length I can
> Paint with the dregs.
> Yes, the respirator and eye protection.
> but the goal is to aim it downward.
> good luck , all.
Spray paint is 96¢ a can at Wal-Mart and it goes a long way. You could
blow more than that in thinner cleaning up the mess you are creating.
Hey, if you get a bad spray can, it is not a direct assault on your
manhood. You do not have to find a way to get over on it.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Using Bicarbonate Against the Swine Flu & Colds
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2327990b4a832a88?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 29 2010 12:28 pm
From: Courtney
On Jan 28, 11:59 pm, Jim Janney <jjan...@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
>
> H1N1 is not your ordinary flu; it plays by its own rules. Don't take
> chances with it. In the post-WW1 outbreak it was the people with the
> strongest immune systems who were most likely to die.
>
Well, here's a prominent physician who "took chances" by treating
folks with bicarbonate in the influenza outbreak you refer to:
"The paragraph below is from a 1924 booklet, published by the Arm &
Hammer Soda Company. On page 12 the company starts off saying, "The
proven value of Arm & Hammer Bicarbonate of Soda as a therapeutic
agent is further evinced by the following evidence of a prominent
physician named Dr. Volney S. Cheney, in a letter to the Church &
Dwight Company:
"In 1918 and 1919 while fighting the 'Flu' with the U. S. Public
Health Service it was brought to my attention that rarely any one who
had been thoroughly alkalinized with bicarbonate of soda contracted
the disease, and those who did contract it, if alkalinized early,
would invariably have mild attacks. I have since that time treated all
cases of 'Cold,' Influenza and LaGripe by first giving generous doses
of Bicarbonate of Soda, and in many, many instances within 36 hours
the symptoms would have entirely abated. Further, within my own
household, before Woman's Clubs and Parent-Teachers' Associations, I
have advocated the use of Bicarbonate of Soda as a preventive for
"Colds," with the result that now many reports are coming in stating
that those who took "Soda" were not affected, while nearly every one
around them had the "Flu.""
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 29 2010 4:50 pm
From: "Lou"
By modern standards, what's quoted below is not "evidence", it's an
anecdote. On average, ill people will report feeling better 30% of the time
if they're given a sugar pill, but that doesn't mean sugar is a remedy for
any illness.
To come to a reliable conclusion as to whether or not a particular treatment
is effective for a particular condition, you need to assemble a group of
people who have or are likely to develop the condition. You randomly assign
some of them to get the treatment you're interested in - the others get a
placebo that's as nearly a look-alike to the treatment being tested as
possible. You arrange things so that the members of the group don't know if
they're getting the placebo or the treatment, and neither do their
doctors/nurses/caregivers. And then you wait, and watch, and record
everything about them that may be relevant - blood pressure, blood and urine
tests, all other drugs they may take and why they're taking them, diagnostic
tests for the condition, standard markers for the severity of the condition
and how long it takes until recovery (or death), etc.
And when it's all over, you compare the two groups - which group had more or
fewer cases of the condition, which group had a quicker recovery time, which
group took longer to die, had more car accidents, had higher blood pressure,
etc.
And then, because your group of people is just a sample drawn from the
population at large and there is statistical variation among samples, you do
it again, several more times.
Once you've done all that, you can come to a reasonably reliable conclusion
as to how effective your proposed treatment is. If anyone's done that for
using bicarbonate to treat flu or colds, I've never heard of it.
"Courtney" <ckinear@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:db04d021-c181-426b-801c-4e1e9012606c@k41g2000yqm.googlegroups.com...
On Jan 28, 11:59 pm, Jim Janney <jjan...@shell.xmission.com> wrote:
Well, here's a prominent physician who "took chances" by treating
folks with bicarbonate in the influenza outbreak you refer to:
"The paragraph below is from a 1924 booklet, published by the Arm &
Hammer Soda Company. On page 12 the company starts off saying, "The
proven value of Arm & Hammer Bicarbonate of Soda as a therapeutic
agent is further evinced by the following evidence of a prominent
physician named Dr. Volney S. Cheney, in a letter to the Church &
Dwight Company:
"In 1918 and 1919 while fighting the 'Flu' with the U. S. Public
Health Service it was brought to my attention that rarely any one who
had been thoroughly alkalinized with bicarbonate of soda contracted
the disease, and those who did contract it, if alkalinized early,
would invariably have mild attacks. I have since that time treated all
cases of 'Cold,' Influenza and LaGripe by first giving generous doses
of Bicarbonate of Soda, and in many, many instances within 36 hours
the symptoms would have entirely abated. Further, within my own
household, before Woman's Clubs and Parent-Teachers' Associations, I
have advocated the use of Bicarbonate of Soda as a preventive for
"Colds," with the result that now many reports are coming in stating
that those who took "Soda" were not affected, while nearly every one
around them had the "Flu.""
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 29 2010 5:37 pm
From: Les Cargill
Rod Speed wrote:
> Jim Janney wrote
<snip>
>
> It isnt actually the strongest immune system that matters,
> its the immune systems that REACT most that killed them.
>
> So those who had got infected in the first phase didnt not get infected in the
> vastly more virulent second phase, even tho they had very stong immune systems.
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
>
>
Something like that. The epidemiology of the1918 flu is
extremely complex. They traced it back to one training
barracks in ... France, I think. Taples? Factors for development
and evolution of that strain were very narrow.
There was an outbreak in Kansas, another training camp, but
it was one smaller, earlier wave. The deadlier one is
expected to have come across the Atlantic to the US.
http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5222069
The distinguishing mark of this flu was "heliotrope cyanosis" -
a bluish coloring caused by anoxia. Death was due to secondary
pneumonia.
--
Les Cargill
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 29 2010 7:48 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Les Cargill wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Jim Janney wrote
>> It isnt actually the strongest immune system that matters,
>> its the immune systems that REACT most that killed them.
>> So those who had got infected in the first phase didnt not get infected in the vastly more virulent second phase,
>> even tho they had very stong immune systems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
> Something like that.
Exactly like that. The reason that flu killed so many fit and healthy
people, as opposed to the usual flu which just kills the very young
and elderly etc, is because of the effect it had on immune systems,
producing a gross reaction of the immune system in those who were
not already immune from the first normal phase. It was the immune
system response that killed so many people in the second phase.
> The epidemiology of the1918 flu is extremely complex. They traced it back to one training barracks in ... France, I
> think. Taples? Factors for development
> and evolution of that strain were very narrow.
Yes, but that was not the reason that that flu killed vastly more
than any other infection ever has, and so many of the fit and
healthy, unlike a normal flu which kills mostly the vulnerable instead.
> There was an outbreak in Kansas, another training camp, but it was one smaller, earlier wave. The deadlier one is
> expected to have come across the Atlantic to the US.
Yes, but that is just where it mutated to the much more virulent and lethal
form that killed vast numbers of people because of that immune system effect.
> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5222069
> The distinguishing mark of this flu was "heliotrope cyanosis" - a bluish coloring caused by anoxia. Death was due to
> secondary pneumonia.
And that was due to the massive over reaction of normal immune systems.
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 29 2010 8:04 pm
From: Les Cargill
Rod Speed wrote:
> Les Cargill wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Jim Janney wrote
>
>>> It isnt actually the strongest immune system that matters,
>>> its the immune systems that REACT most that killed them.
>
>>> So those who had got infected in the first phase didnt not get infected in the vastly more virulent second phase,
>>> even tho they had very stong immune systems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
>
>> Something like that.
>
> Exactly like that. The reason that flu killed so many fit and healthy
> people, as opposed to the usual flu which just kills the very young
> and elderly etc, is because of the effect it had on immune systems,
> producing a gross reaction of the immune system in those who were
> not already immune from the first normal phase. It was the immune
> system response that killed so many people in the second phase.
>
I can only work from memory, but there was this bizarre logistical
twist to *this flu*. Just the right number of people were under
just the right conditions for it to do what it did.
>> The epidemiology of the1918 flu is extremely complex. They traced it back to one training barracks in ... France, I
>> think. Taples?
Etaples.
>> Factors for development
>> and evolution of that strain were very narrow.
>
> Yes, but that was not the reason that that flu killed vastly more
> than any other infection ever has, and so many of the fit and
> healthy, unlike a normal flu which kills mostly the vulnerable instead.
>
I just want to make sure we are understood: epidemiologists do not
have a story on this flu. They have clues, but no real story.
Which is... amazing. Other'n being a Roosky in WWWI, this
mother had a better chance of killing you than all other
things that happened besides.
Some DNA are more equal than others, and enzyme chemistry occurs in
frighteningly narrow conditions. As bleedingly simple as a flu
virus is, the hypothesis that caught my eye is that external
conditions made it so. The same virus release in Arizona would
not have worked.
DNA turns out to be like this - it isn't a simple list, it's a
minefield.
>> There was an outbreak in Kansas, another training camp, but it was one smaller, earlier wave. The deadlier one is
>> expected to have come across the Atlantic to the US.
>
> Yes, but that is just where it mutated to the much more virulent and lethal
> form that killed vast numbers of people because of that immune system effect.
>
But then it died down. There were months where no infections were
reported. That does not mean the Kansas strain is not the Etaples
strain, just that we don't have any information to show a linkage.
And in epidemiological terms, such a virulent strain over those many
months means we simply do not know.
SFAIK, there's no mechanically derived evidence to claim the
Etaples strain was equal to the Kansas strain. We don't know.
>> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5222069
>
>> The distinguishing mark of this flu was "heliotrope cyanosis" - a bluish coloring caused by anoxia. Death was due to
>> secondary pneumonia.
>
> And that was due to the massive over reaction of normal immune systems.
>
>
Was it? The secondary pneumonia was like unto an anaphalactic reaction?
Positive feedback loop?
Explain yourself.
--
Les Cargill
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 29 2010 9:56 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Les Cargill wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Les Cargill wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Jim Janney wrote
>>>> It isnt actually the strongest immune system that matters,
>>>> its the immune systems that REACT most that killed them.
>>>> So those who had got infected in the first phase didnt not get infected in the vastly more virulent second phase,
>>>> even tho they had very stong immune systems.
>>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_flu
>>> Something like that.
>> Exactly like that. The reason that flu killed so many fit and healthy
>> people, as opposed to the usual flu which just kills the very young
>> and elderly etc, is because of the effect it had on immune systems,
>> producing a gross reaction of the immune system in those who were
>> not already immune from the first normal phase. It was the immune
>> system response that killed so many people in the second phase.
> I can only work from memory,
You dont have to use memory, you can look at the facts.
> but there was this bizarre logistical twist to *this flu*.
Nope.
> Just the right number of people were under
> just the right conditions for it to do what it did.
That is just plain wrong. That flu killed a huge percentage of the
population in even very isolated pacific islands and the arctic,
and the reason it did that was because the once it mutated to
the second phase, it produced that gross over reaction in the
immune system of healthy and fit individuals and that is what
killed them. Other flus dont work like that and that didnt
happen in the first phase of that particular flu either.
>>> The epidemiology of the1918 flu is extremely complex. They traced
>>> it back to one training barracks in ... France, I think. Taples?
> Etaples.
That phase was just another flu.
>>> Factors for development
>>> and evolution of that strain were very narrow.
>> Yes, but that was not the reason that that flu killed vastly more
>> than any other infection ever has, and so many of the fit and
>> healthy, unlike a normal flu which kills mostly the vulnerable instead.
> I just want to make sure we are understood: epidemiologists do not have a story on this flu. They have clues, but no
> real story.
They do have the real story on why it was so lethal to fit and healthy people.
> Which is... amazing. Other'n being a Roosky in WWWI, this mother had a better chance of killing you than all other
> things that happened besides.
Yes, it killed a hell of a lot more people than any other infectious disease has ever done.
And killed a hell of a lot more people that ALL of those killed by WW1 too.
> Some DNA are more equal than others, and enzyme chemistry occurs in
> frighteningly narrow conditions. As bleedingly simple as a flu virus is, the hypothesis that caught my eye is that
> external conditions made it so.
No they didnt. If it had been that, it wouldnt have been so utterly widespread.
> The same virus release in Arizona would not have worked.
Wrong again.
> DNA turns out to be like this - it isn't a simple list, it's a minefield.
Its got nothing to do with DNA except in the sense that the virus mutated between
the first and second phase into a much more lethal strain in phase two.
>>> There was an outbreak in Kansas, another training camp, but it was one smaller, earlier wave. The deadlier one is
>>> expected to have come across the Atlantic to the US.
>> Yes, but that is just where it mutated to the much more virulent and lethal form that killed vast numbers of people
>> because of that immune system effect.
> But then it died down. There were months where no infections were reported.
That was BEFORE it mutated into the vastly more lethal
and virulent form that produced the second phase.
> That does not mean the Kansas strain is not the Etaples strain, just that we don't have any information to show a
> linkage.
Yes we do, its completely trivial to check the DNA of the two strains.
> And in epidemiological terms, such a virulent strain over those many months means we simply do not know.
That is just plain wrong. Its well known that it mutated between the first
and second phases and that is completely trivial to prove using the DNA.
> SFAIK, there's no mechanically derived evidence to claim the Etaples strain was equal to the Kansas strain.
Yes there is, the DNA of the two strains.
> We don't know.
Yes we do. Read the wikipedia article.
>>> http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=5222069
>>> The distinguishing mark of this flu was "heliotrope cyanosis" - a bluish coloring caused by anoxia. Death was due to
>>> secondary pneumonia.
>> And that was due to the massive over reaction of normal immune systems.
> Was it?
Yep.
> The secondary pneumonia was like unto an anaphalactic reaction? Positive feedback loop?
Nope, the gross over reaction of the immune system in healthy and fit individuals
was what killed those that the much more virulent and fatal second strain killed
and is why it mostly killed the young fit and healthy, because their immune system
was much more effective than those of say the middle aged and elderly etc.
> Explain yourself.
The wikipedia article spells it out pretty clearly.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: The wasteful Christian way vs. the Tibetan Monkey Way
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/6b0132c6da4f51ce?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 29 2010 1:24 pm
From: Al
On Jan 29, 12:03 pm, TheTibetanMonkey <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> In one of my most celebrated quotes I say, "I can live with peanuts!"
> But the Christians say, "It's my way or the highway!" Well, they don't
> mean they are willing to share their lion's share of the road with my
> humble bike. They just mean, "Get lost of 'my' way."
>
> This young guy, a smart monkey no doubt, tells things like it is. The
> SUV is highly symbolic of the wasteful Christians, who think nothing
> of the consequences of their actions. Jesus is coming soon, right?
> "Stupid sheep are ruining the planet," says the wise Tibetan Monkey.
> And he added, "It ain't easy to survive in their jungle."
>
> So let's hear all about it...
>
> EXCESS ON WHEELS
>
> Common sense would dictate that the finite supply of oil and its
> impending exhaustion would deter people (Americans specifically) from
> using it inefficiently, but unfortunately that is not the case. There
> are a variety of ways in which Americans are wasting oil, but perhaps
> the most conspicuous is through our use of oversized vehicles.
>
> ...
>
> It is worth pondering what makes SUVs appealing to people when they
> are so wasteful. Some psychologists have argued that people drive SUVs
> because they create a sense of superiority and safety due to their
> size and height. SUVs are often even viewed by many as a status
> symbol. On the contrary, these gas-guzzlers are not cool. The only
> people who think SUVs are cool are those who are ignorant about the
> adverse consequences of wasting oil. SUVs are undesirable for a number
> of reasons other than those previously stated. They are on average
> louder than passenger cars, as if to intentionally make the driver
> come off as tough or menacing (or perhaps to run their engine, which
> must make loud sounds to move such a massive object). The size of SUVs
> also works wonders at obscuring other drivers' vision on the road.
> They are also extraordinarily dangerous.
For the most part you sound like a person who can't afford decent four
wheeled transportation or has been prohibited by law from operating
such vehicles. I share your distaste for people driving needlessly
heavy vehicles for no useful purpose (in my mind). My distaste extends
to the manufacturers of those vehicles. Bob Lutz used to say, "It's
our (car companies) job to tell people what they should be driving."
Now he says that is an electric cheese-box for $40K. I personally
drive a big GMC Sierra that has to be big to get some jobs done. I try
not to move it unless the truck is earning it's keep. Otherwise, the
bike is my vehicle of choice down to about 15 degrees.
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 29 2010 2:02 pm
From: TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle
On Jan 29, 4:24 pm, Al <albun...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 12:03 pm, TheTibetanMonkey <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > In one of my most celebrated quotes I say, "I can live with peanuts!"
> > But the Christians say, "It's my way or the highway!" Well, they don't
> > mean they are willing to share their lion's share of the road with my
> > humble bike. They just mean, "Get lost of 'my' way."
>
> > This young guy, a smart monkey no doubt, tells things like it is. The
> > SUV is highly symbolic of the wasteful Christians, who think nothing
> > of the consequences of their actions. Jesus is coming soon, right?
> > "Stupid sheep are ruining the planet," says the wise Tibetan Monkey.
> > And he added, "It ain't easy to survive in their jungle."
>
> > So let's hear all about it...
>
> > EXCESS ON WHEELS
>
> > Common sense would dictate that the finite supply of oil and its
> > impending exhaustion would deter people (Americans specifically) from
> > using it inefficiently, but unfortunately that is not the case. There
> > are a variety of ways in which Americans are wasting oil, but perhaps
> > the most conspicuous is through our use of oversized vehicles.
>
> > ...
>
> > It is worth pondering what makes SUVs appealing to people when they
> > are so wasteful. Some psychologists have argued that people drive SUVs
> > because they create a sense of superiority and safety due to their
> > size and height. SUVs are often even viewed by many as a status
> > symbol. On the contrary, these gas-guzzlers are not cool. The only
> > people who think SUVs are cool are those who are ignorant about the
> > adverse consequences of wasting oil. SUVs are undesirable for a number
> > of reasons other than those previously stated. They are on average
> > louder than passenger cars, as if to intentionally make the driver
> > come off as tough or menacing (or perhaps to run their engine, which
> > must make loud sounds to move such a massive object). The size of SUVs
> > also works wonders at obscuring other drivers' vision on the road.
> > They are also extraordinarily dangerous.
>
> For the most part you sound like a person who can't afford decent four
> wheeled transportation or has been prohibited by law from operating
> such vehicles. I share your distaste for people driving needlessly
> heavy vehicles for no useful purpose (in my mind). My distaste extends
> to the manufacturers of those vehicles. Bob Lutz used to say, "It's
> our (car companies) job to tell people what they should be driving."
> Now he says that is an electric cheese-box for $40K. I personally
> drive a big GMC Sierra that has to be big to get some jobs done. I try
> not to move it unless the truck is earning it's keep. Otherwise, the
> bike is my vehicle of choice down to about 15 degrees.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
My monkey side yearns to ride and ride bike, but it's wise enough not
to do it in the name of survival. Only some humble 4 mile ride to the
supermarket, which is not even the closest one to me. Beyond that
point I'd be at the mercy of every predator out there.
Yet I drive an older yuppies' car, my girlfriend's Lexus, which she
got when she was part of the bourgeoisie. Now that her job was sent to
El Salvador, we enjoy pure capitalist decadence and drive when we have
to until it finally explodes. I think it can be a metaphor on wheels
for the hungry system we live in.
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 29 2010 3:38 pm
From: Al
On Jan 29, 5:02 pm, TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-
in-the-jungle <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 4:24 pm, Al <albun...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Jan 29, 12:03 pm, TheTibetanMonkey <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > In one of my most celebrated quotes I say, "I can live with peanuts!"
> > > But the Christians say, "It's my way or the highway!" Well, they don't
> > > mean they are willing to share their lion's share of the road with my
> > > humble bike. They just mean, "Get lost of 'my' way."
>
> > > This young guy, a smart monkey no doubt, tells things like it is. The
> > > SUV is highly symbolic of the wasteful Christians, who think nothing
> > > of the consequences of their actions. Jesus is coming soon, right?
> > > "Stupid sheep are ruining the planet," says the wise Tibetan Monkey.
> > > And he added, "It ain't easy to survive in their jungle."
>
> > > So let's hear all about it...
>
> > > EXCESS ON WHEELS
>
> > > Common sense would dictate that the finite supply of oil and its
> > > impending exhaustion would deter people (Americans specifically) from
> > > using it inefficiently, but unfortunately that is not the case. There
> > > are a variety of ways in which Americans are wasting oil, but perhaps
> > > the most conspicuous is through our use of oversized vehicles.
>
> > > ...
>
> > > It is worth pondering what makes SUVs appealing to people when they
> > > are so wasteful. Some psychologists have argued that people drive SUVs
> > > because they create a sense of superiority and safety due to their
> > > size and height. SUVs are often even viewed by many as a status
> > > symbol. On the contrary, these gas-guzzlers are not cool. The only
> > > people who think SUVs are cool are those who are ignorant about the
> > > adverse consequences of wasting oil. SUVs are undesirable for a number
> > > of reasons other than those previously stated. They are on average
> > > louder than passenger cars, as if to intentionally make the driver
> > > come off as tough or menacing (or perhaps to run their engine, which
> > > must make loud sounds to move such a massive object). The size of SUVs
> > > also works wonders at obscuring other drivers' vision on the road.
> > > They are also extraordinarily dangerous.
>
> > For the most part you sound like a person who can't afford decent four
> > wheeled transportation or has been prohibited by law from operating
> > such vehicles. I share your distaste for people driving needlessly
> > heavy vehicles for no useful purpose (in my mind). My distaste extends
> > to the manufacturers of those vehicles. Bob Lutz used to say, "It's
> > our (car companies) job to tell people what they should be driving."
> > Now he says that is an electric cheese-box for $40K. I personally
> > drive a big GMC Sierra that has to be big to get some jobs done. I try
> > not to move it unless the truck is earning it's keep. Otherwise, the
> > bike is my vehicle of choice down to about 15 degrees.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> My monkey side yearns to ride and ride bike, but it's wise enough not
> to do it in the name of survival. Only some humble 4 mile ride to the
> supermarket, which is not even the closest one to me. Beyond that
> point I'd be at the mercy of every predator out there.
>
> Yet I drive an older yuppies' car, my girlfriend's Lexus, which she
> got when she was part of the bourgeoisie. Now that her job was sent to
> El Salvador, we enjoy pure capitalist decadence and drive when we have
> to until it finally explodes. I think it can be a metaphor on wheels
> for the hungry system we live in.
Well, that pretty much answers my questions: No money; no job;
probably not insurable either, kicking it with the girlfriend until
she explodes.
Sounds like a plan.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 29 2010 4:12 pm
From: TheTibetanMonkey
On Jan 29, 6:38 pm, Al <albun...@mailinator.com> wrote:
> On Jan 29, 5:02 pm, TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-
>
>
>
>
>
> in-the-jungle <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Jan 29, 4:24 pm, Al <albun...@mailinator.com> wrote:
>
> > > On Jan 29, 12:03 pm, TheTibetanMonkey <comandante.ban...@yahoo.com>
> > > wrote:
>
> > > > In one of my most celebrated quotes I say, "I can live with peanuts!"
> > > > But the Christians say, "It's my way or the highway!" Well, they don't
> > > > mean they are willing to share their lion's share of the road with my
> > > > humble bike. They just mean, "Get lost of 'my' way."
>
> > > > This young guy, a smart monkey no doubt, tells things like it is. The
> > > > SUV is highly symbolic of the wasteful Christians, who think nothing
> > > > of the consequences of their actions. Jesus is coming soon, right?
> > > > "Stupid sheep are ruining the planet," says the wise Tibetan Monkey.
> > > > And he added, "It ain't easy to survive in their jungle."
>
> > > > So let's hear all about it...
>
> > > > EXCESS ON WHEELS
>
> > > > Common sense would dictate that the finite supply of oil and its
> > > > impending exhaustion would deter people (Americans specifically) from
> > > > using it inefficiently, but unfortunately that is not the case. There
> > > > are a variety of ways in which Americans are wasting oil, but perhaps
> > > > the most conspicuous is through our use of oversized vehicles.
>
> > > > ...
>
> > > > It is worth pondering what makes SUVs appealing to people when they
> > > > are so wasteful. Some psychologists have argued that people drive SUVs
> > > > because they create a sense of superiority and safety due to their
> > > > size and height. SUVs are often even viewed by many as a status
> > > > symbol. On the contrary, these gas-guzzlers are not cool. The only
> > > > people who think SUVs are cool are those who are ignorant about the
> > > > adverse consequences of wasting oil. SUVs are undesirable for a number
> > > > of reasons other than those previously stated. They are on average
> > > > louder than passenger cars, as if to intentionally make the driver
> > > > come off as tough or menacing (or perhaps to run their engine, which
> > > > must make loud sounds to move such a massive object). The size of SUVs
> > > > also works wonders at obscuring other drivers' vision on the road.
> > > > They are also extraordinarily dangerous.
>
> > > For the most part you sound like a person who can't afford decent four
> > > wheeled transportation or has been prohibited by law from operating
> > > such vehicles. I share your distaste for people driving needlessly
> > > heavy vehicles for no useful purpose (in my mind). My distaste extends
> > > to the manufacturers of those vehicles. Bob Lutz used to say, "It's
> > > our (car companies) job to tell people what they should be driving."
> > > Now he says that is an electric cheese-box for $40K. I personally
> > > drive a big GMC Sierra that has to be big to get some jobs done. I try
> > > not to move it unless the truck is earning it's keep. Otherwise, the
> > > bike is my vehicle of choice down to about 15 degrees.- Hide quoted text -
>
> > > - Show quoted text -
>
> > My monkey side yearns to ride and ride bike, but it's wise enough not
> > to do it in the name of survival. Only some humble 4 mile ride to the
> > supermarket, which is not even the closest one to me. Beyond that
> > point I'd be at the mercy of every predator out there.
>
> > Yet I drive an older yuppies' car, my girlfriend's Lexus, which she
> > got when she was part of the bourgeoisie. Now that her job was sent to
> > El Salvador, we enjoy pure capitalist decadence and drive when we have
> > to until it finally explodes. I think it can be a metaphor on wheels
> > for the hungry system we live in.
>
> Well, that pretty much answers my questions: No money; no job;
> probably not insurable either, kicking it with the girlfriend until
> she explodes.
> Sounds like a plan.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Maybe the jungle explodes before us. You never know.
Hey, I know how to survive on peanuts, and the lions won't.
THIS CALLS FOR MY CRYSTAL BALL:
On Jan 29, 9:18 am, "Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbea...@nospam.forme> wrote:
> There are THOUSANDS of academics and qualified scientists ( and that
> petition is ONLY IN THE US) who challance ANTHROPOGENIC global warming. What
> I believe is besiude the point. They present their case. Where do you find
> the flaw in their argument?-
Your argument is so stupid that you don't even seem to be a smart ape,
but a lesser monkey.
EVOLUTION is in the past; CLIMATE CHANGE is in the future, and yet the
signs are everywhere and it's predictably real based on science and
common sense.
You want me to bring my crystal ball and tell you the future?
OK, yes we human are the cause of climate change because there are 7
billion of us (counting the illegal immigrants) and because some of us
are acting like hungry lions in the face of climate catastrophe.
This consultation is free, but next one you will pay for it...
-----------------------------------------------------------
The Wise Monkey comes to tell the future:
"Yes, it is true"
http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 29 2010 5:58 pm
From: TheTibetanMonkey
On Jan 29, 7:41 pm, "Mavisbeacon" <Mavisbea...@nospam.forme> wrote:
> But what is the difference between what you claim then and "if you dont
> follow the Bible you will go to Hell"?
It seems like we will all go to hell if we don't listen to science.
But you are quite unique among the thinking species who doesn't
believe in science. Kind of natural for the sheep, but not for a
monkey.
You are either as confused or as sneaky snake as the Christians who
dispute science. You said that thousands of scientists don't believe
in it, and yet the overwhelming majority of them do...
Surveyed scientists agree global warming is real
Human-induced global warming is real, according to a recent U.S.
survey based on the opinions of 3,146 scientists. However there
remains divisions between climatologists and scientists from other
areas of earth sciences as to the extent of human responsibility.
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/americas/01/19/eco.globalwarmingsurvey/index.html
Now, the question is NOT "if," but the "degree" of human participation
in it, obviously much more than it needs to be with the kind
participation of America.
And now I turn again to my crystal ball and it tells me: "It doesn't
look good."
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Frugal
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/896ece759761de90?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 29 2010 1:54 pm
From: Sasha Brian
On Jan 29, 10:41 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Vic Smith wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > Here's something that saved us money.
> > Price kept going up and soon we were spending 10 bucks a week on the stuff.
> > Wife is cook, so she bought a case of the powder mix they use in the
> > corp cafeteria for the non-dairy creamer. Almost the same taste as
> > the liquid Cremora.
> > You mix in hot water, then cold, then refrigerate.
> > She was skeptical about it lasting, but a 1/2 gallon pitcher has never
> > gone bad on us. 1/2 gallon liquid is the result size of the
> > individual packets.
> > Cost is now maybe 2 bucks a week for coffee creamer.
> > That's a +400 a year savings. +$16,000 for 40 years.
> > You might have to ask around to find a source, but it's doable.
> > For 16 grand, it's worth it.
> > Gordon is her cafeteria supplier.
> > I suspect most cafeteria managers will do this for their customers if
> > you sweet talk them and have the cash to keep their books balanced.
> > Just a tick on the order sheet for them.
>
> MUCH more frugal to give up on that crap completely and drink water out of the tap instead.- Hide quoted text
Who gives a shit how MUCH more fugal water is, that's not the point.
It's MUCH more frugal to drink water from a hand dug well instead of
having an indoor tap. It's MUCH more frugal to not have a computer but
that hasn't stopped you for some reason. Take your own fucking advice
and do EVERYTHING the MUCH more frugal way.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 29 2010 2:33 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Sasha Brian wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Vic Smith wrote
>>> Here's something that saved us money.
>>> Price kept going up and soon we were spending 10 bucks a week on
>>> the stuff. Wife is cook, so she bought a case of the powder mix
>>> they use in the
>>> corp cafeteria for the non-dairy creamer. Almost the same taste as
>>> the liquid Cremora.
>>> You mix in hot water, then cold, then refrigerate.
>>> She was skeptical about it lasting, but a 1/2 gallon pitcher has
>>> never gone bad on us. 1/2 gallon liquid is the result size of the
>>> individual packets.
>>> Cost is now maybe 2 bucks a week for coffee creamer.
>>> That's a +400 a year savings. +$16,000 for 40 years.
>>> You might have to ask around to find a source, but it's doable.
>>> For 16 grand, it's worth it.
>>> Gordon is her cafeteria supplier.
>>> I suspect most cafeteria managers will do this for their customers if
>>> you sweet talk them and have the cash to keep their books balanced.
>>> Just a tick on the order sheet for them.
>> MUCH more frugal to give up on that crap completely
>> and drink water out of the tap instead.
> Who gives a shit how MUCH more fugal water is, that's not the point.
Have a look at which newsgroup this is, stupid.
> It's MUCH more frugal to drink water from a hand dug well instead of having an indoor tap.
Wrong, as always. You can dig all you like on my house block, you wont find any water.
Its MUCH more frugal to use the water mains that goes down the street
and you pay for that water even if you never use a drop anyway, stupid.
> It's MUCH more frugal to not have a computer
Wrong again. All the alternative forms of communication are MUCH more expensive, stupid.
> but that hasn't stopped you for some reason.
See above.
> Take your own fucking advice and do EVERYTHING the MUCH more frugal way.
I do thanks. Doesnt cost me a cent to tell fools like you to go and fuck yourselves either.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: nof 9 , nof 7 , website designing software , Javascript , nof homepage ,
flash web design , shop bestellen , netobjectsfusion 10 , nof vorlagen ,
beginner website design software ,
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/01f20817119a00fe?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 29 2010 3:03 pm
From: ernie meier
nof 9 , nof 7 , website designing software , Javascript , nof
homepage , flash web design , shop bestellen , netobjectsfusion 10 ,
nof vorlagen , beginner website design software ,
WEBSITE DESIGN SOFTWARE +++ WEBSEITEN DESIGN SOFTWARE +++ WEBSEITEN
ERSTELLEN
+
+
+
+
+
http://WWW.NETOBJECTSFUSION.NL/
http://WWW.NETOBJECTSFUSION.NL/
http://WWW.NETOBJECTSFUSION.NL/
http://WWW.NETOBJECTSFUSION.NL/
http://WWW.NETOBJECTSFUSION.NL/
http://WWW.NETOBJECTSFUSION.NL/
+
+
+
+
+
nof 8 download nof de
website development shareware software
design house website designing software
netobjects fusion nof komponenten
netobjects fusion preisvergleich kaufen
versand bestellen best website design software
best web design kaufen versand
homepage webseiten website designing
website designers web design services
nof download versandkostenfrei bestellen
beginner website design software nof vista
artikel bestellen
nof komponenten website designer
flash web design website designing
web site development top 10 website design software
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Join the"Global Information Network"& learn how to make $100K in 90
days!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3467a9a0fb235793?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 29 2010 6:38 pm
From: Vastcom Publishing
If you are looking for wealth creation, financial freedom, emotional
well-being, privileged information, information on what is really
going on in the world, or natural health remedies then you have come
to the right place. This is a special invitation for you to join the
Global Information Network (GIN). Visit the main website at
www.globalinformationnetwork.com for more information. There you can
listen to an invitation audio that will describe what GIN is all about
and read how GIN was formed and by whom. I have been a member for
four months now and have seen how GIN has evolved and proven itself to
be all that it claims.
When you go to the main webpage you have the choice of signing up as
an affiliate or a member. Joining as an affiliate is free and has
some good benefits, but is obviously limited. Joining as a member has
infinitely more benefits and costs an initial due of $1,000 and
monthly dues of $150. You will see that this is an amazing bargain
once you gain access to the member's area. It is hard to put a price
on truly changing your life for the better. I have yet to meet a
member who has attended a live event or studied the information that
hasn't been changed in a positive and profound way. Attending a live
event and meeting the high level members is life changing. It is hard
to describe the value of talking one-on-one with multi-millionaires
and billionaires up in their presidential suites in luxurious
settings. How much would you pay to have personal time with some of
the most successful people in the world? I have had this privilege
and would like for you to have this opportunity as well.
So, go to www.globalinformationnetwork.com and sign up today. If you
are tight on cash right now, I would encourage you to join as an
affiliate first. As an affiliate you can participate in the
commission structure, listen to the weekly audio updates, and have
access to the affiliate training (seminars and marketing tools).
Later on you can join as a member and have access to the confidential
information, training events, and greater money making opportunities.
If you are asked for an access code, use 1500251. I look forward to
sharing this exciting experience with you! If you have any questions
or concerns, you can contact me by filling out the form below or by
emailing me at mastercondorcop@aol.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Study: Co-pay hike ups hospital stays
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/839d5aafdb813671?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 29 2010 10:02 pm
From: Ablang
Study: Co-pay hike ups hospital stays
Higher out-of-pocket leads many to defer care
Alicia Chang / Associated Press
Los Angeles -- Higher Medicare co- pays, sometimes just a few dollars
more, led to fewer doctors visits and to more and longer hospital
stays, a large new study reveals.
With health care costs skyrocketing, many public and private insurers
have required patients to pay more out-of-pocket when they seek care.
The new study confirms what many policymakers had feared: cost-
shifting moves can backfire.
"Patients may defer needed care and may wind up with a serious health
event that might put them in the hospital. That's not good for the
patients, not good for society, not good for anybody," said Dr. Tim
Carey, who heads the University of North Carolina's Sheps Center for
Health Services Research.
Advertisement
Carey had no role in the research, published in today's New England
Journal of Medicine.
The study included nearly 900,000 seniors in 36 Medicare managed-care
plans from 2001 to 2006. During that period, half of the plans raised
co-pays for visits to doctors and specialists. Researchers compared
medical use patterns in those plans with use in similar Medicare
managed-care plans that kept co-pays the same. Co-pays for
prescription drugs remained unchanged in all plans.
Among plans that increased patient cost-sharing, the average co-pay
for a doctor visit roughly doubled, from $7.38 to $14.38. The co-pay
to see a specialist jumped from $12.66 to $22.05. By contrast, the
average co-pay for unchanged plans was $8.33 to see a doctor and
$11.38 to see a specialist.
For every 100 people enrolled in plans that raised co-pays, there were
20 fewer doctor visits, two additional hospital admissions and 13 more
days spent in the hospital in the year after the increase compared to
those in plans whose co-pays did not change, researchers found.
The study was funded by grants from Pfizer Inc. and the federal
government.
http://detnews.com/article/20100128/LIFESTYLE03/1280409/Study--Co-pay-hike-ups-hospital-stays
==============================================================================
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
