http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Siding vs. painting the house - 9 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f101ad7af8a7691a?hl=en
* Soup bouillion cubes - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b57b09cbb01b6494?hl=en
* Delivered unsafe item damaged me - 6 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3012e11d0875cc7d?hl=en
* Cutting down the cost of washing machine powder - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3b767149103b33f0?hl=en
* walking boots-- which are good? - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/52b4735386145e8e?hl=en
* States may have to cut Medicaid coverage for those who most need it,article
link - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3598f5c9856e8812?hl=en
* Frugal dentists? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/cf2c5ac32afc2a82?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Siding vs. painting the house
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/f101ad7af8a7691a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 22 2010 8:03 am
From: jeff
aesthete8 wrote:
> Over the long term, isn't siding a better investment?
>
> Won't it eliminate the need to paint the house forever?
Maybe, maybe it will need replacing too, if it fades or you don't
like the color.
Whatever you do, use good products. Paint is so labor intensive, and
good paints these days can last for decades, putting on cheap paint is
not frugal. I know, I've done it. I'd say that if your siding is in good
shape, repaint it. If not, think over the alternatives.
The vinyl siding I see usually covers up something really bad!
Jeff
== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 22 2010 9:56 am
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article
<7uevokFc82U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> > In article
> > <7ue96dF6agU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> aesthete8 wrote:
> >>
> >>> Over the long term, isn't siding a better investment?
> >>
> >> Nope, bricks are even better again.
> >>
> >>> Won't it eliminate the need to paint the house forever?
> >>
> >> Bricks in spades.
>
> > Actually cementacious siding is cheaper, easier to
> > install and much easier to maintain and repair,
>
> Pity about what it does to the value of the house, fuckwit child.
Ah, I see. Because someone adds
something that is cheaper, easier to
install and much easier to maintain and
repair, that somehow in your mind lowers
(I assume you are implying a lowered
value) the value of the house.
So in the name of letting you hang
yourself even further old fella, why not
post some anecdotal evidence that this
is true.
>
> > Hell, even cultured stone or stone veneer would be better, cheaper, etc
> > than bricks.
>
> Pity about what it does to the value of the house, fuckwit child.
Ah, I see. Because someone adds
something that is cheaper, easier to
install and much easier to maintain and
repair, that somehow in your mind lowers
(I assume you are implying a lowered
value) the value of the house.
So in the name of letting you hang
yourself even further old fella, why not
post some anecdotal evidence that this
is true.
== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 22 2010 9:57 am
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article
<7uevlsFblkU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote:
> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> > In article
> > <7ue96dF6agU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> aesthete8 wrote:
> >>
> >>> Over the long term, isn't siding a better investment?
> >>
> >> Nope, bricks are even better again.
> >>
> >>> Won't it eliminate the need to paint the house forever?
> >>
> >> Bricks in spades.
> >
> > So when a person asks "is A better than
> > B" you are too pignorant to answer their
> > question?
>
> I answered their question, fuckwit child.
As your answer didn't include anything
about siding or paint, no you didn't old
fella
== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 22 2010 11:10 am
From: James
On Feb 22, 7:58 am, Vic Smith <thismailautodele...@comcast.net> wrote:
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:44:04 -0800 (PST), aesthete8 <art...@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Over the long term, isn't siding a better investment?
>
> >Won't it eliminate the need to paint the house forever?
>
> You can do the math by getting siding and painting estimates.
> I've never had siding myself, but have dealt with painting wood
> clapboard. Since I painted it myself, it was cheaper to keep it.
> If I had a clapboard house long-term I would probably get it vinyl
> sided.
> Another post mentioned sided vs non-sided home values.
> When I was house-hunting I rejected wood-sided houses out-of-hand,
> because I know the hassle of maintaining them.
> Besides needing painting, wood siding is prone to splitting and
> rotting.
> Aside from "esthetics," there are other issues to consider.
> Aluminum siding can get dinging, requiring repair/replacement
> Vinyl may fade - I don't know that, but I suspect you better get high
> quality vinyl if you want it to work long-term.
> Color. You can change paint color, but that's back to esthetics.
> Some vinyl sidings offer insulation value.
> It's really hard to talk about "long-term investment" value until you
> run the numbers.
> One other thing I might mention is "peace of mind."
> As soon as your house looks like it will need painting, even if it can
> hang on for 3 years. you'll be thinking your house needs painting -
> for 3 years.
> Went through that with my painted house, and with the wood windows in
> my current brick house.
> Their need of painting was nagging me for years. I didn't paint them.
> Bothered me for a few years, then I decided to get thermal, vinyl
> windows put in. The only time I think of window maintenance now is
> when I think how those wood windows were always bothering me.
> Should be somebody posting here with actual vinyl experience.
> If not, try the DIY and home groups. Google.
I grew up in a house with wood siding. As one of 5 boys, we were up
there periodically to repaint a two story house.
What convinced my parents to switch was not the maintenance, but the
fact that when we replaced the wood with vinyl we could easily upgrade
the insulation and weather seal at the same time. It was less work to
put up the vinyl than to put the wood siding back after insulating.
James
== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 22 2010 11:19 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> In article
> <7uevokFc82U1@mid.individual.net>,
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <7ue96dF6agU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> aesthete8 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Over the long term, isn't siding a better investment?
>>>>
>>>> Nope, bricks are even better again.
>>>>
>>>>> Won't it eliminate the need to paint the house forever?
>>>>
>>>> Bricks in spades.
>>
>>> Actually cementacious siding is cheaper, easier to
>>> install and much easier to maintain and repair,
>>
>> Pity about what it does to the value of the house, fuckwit child.
<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
>>> Hell, even cultured stone or stone veneer would be better, cheaper,
>>> etc than bricks.
>>
>> Pity about what it does to the value of the house, fuckwit child.
<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 22 2010 11:19 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> In article
> <7uevlsFblkU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <7ue96dF6agU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> aesthete8 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Over the long term, isn't siding a better investment?
>>>>
>>>> Nope, bricks are even better again.
>>>>
>>>>> Won't it eliminate the need to paint the house forever?
>>>>
>>>> Bricks in spades.
>>>
>>> So when a person asks "is A better than
>>> B" you are too pignorant to answer their
>>> question?
>>
>> I answered their question, fuckwit child.
<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 22 2010 11:25 am
From: "Bob F"
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> In article
> <7uevokFc82U1@mid.individual.net>,
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>>> Hell, even cultured stone or stone veneer would be better, cheaper,
>>> etc than bricks.
>>
>> Pity about what it does to the value of the house, fuckwit child.
>
> Ah, I see. Because someone adds
> something that is cheaper, easier to
> install and much easier to maintain and
> repair, that somehow in your mind lowers
> (I assume you are implying a lowered
> value) the value of the house.
>
> So in the name of letting you hang
> yourself even further old fella, why not
> post some anecdotal evidence that this
> is true.
Speed never contributes anything of use. Just block him like just about everyone
else here does.
== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 22 2010 12:29 pm
From: Gene S. Berkowitz
In article <tbu4o55tphrf6p35kmgiehrcp47pgog3sc@4ax.com>,
thismailautodeleted@comcast.net says...
> On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 15:44:04 -0800 (PST), aesthete8 <artsy6@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Over the long term, isn't siding a better investment?
> >
> >Won't it eliminate the need to paint the house forever?
>
> You can do the math by getting siding and painting estimates.
> I've never had siding myself, but have dealt with painting wood
> clapboard. Since I painted it myself, it was cheaper to keep it.
> If I had a clapboard house long-term I would probably get it vinyl
> sided.
> Another post mentioned sided vs non-sided home values.
> When I was house-hunting I rejected wood-sided houses out-of-hand,
> because I know the hassle of maintaining them.
> Besides needing painting, wood siding is prone to splitting and
> rotting.
> Aside from "esthetics," there are other issues to consider.
> Aluminum siding can get dinging, requiring repair/replacement
> Vinyl may fade - I don't know that, but I suspect you better get high
> quality vinyl if you want it to work long-term.
> Color. You can change paint color, but that's back to esthetics.
> Some vinyl sidings offer insulation value.
> It's really hard to talk about "long-term investment" value until you
> run the numbers.
> One other thing I might mention is "peace of mind."
> As soon as your house looks like it will need painting, even if it can
> hang on for 3 years. you'll be thinking your house needs painting -
> for 3 years.
> Went through that with my painted house, and with the wood windows in
> my current brick house.
> Their need of painting was nagging me for years. I didn't paint them.
> Bothered me for a few years, then I decided to get thermal, vinyl
> windows put in. The only time I think of window maintenance now is
> when I think how those wood windows were always bothering me.
> Should be somebody posting here with actual vinyl experience.
> If not, try the DIY and home groups. Google.
>
> --Vic
In my real estate market, vinyl siding can negatively affect the
price, because the prospective buyer is (reasonably) concerned
about what's underneath.
Vinyl is often applied when the original siding has failed,
either due to age, or lack of maintenance. And often it is
covering shingles containing asbestos, which requires a very
expensive removal procedure.
--Gene
== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 22 2010 1:43 pm
From: Vic Smith
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 15:29:21 -0500, Gene S. Berkowitz
<first.last@verizon.net> wrote:
>
>In my real estate market, vinyl siding can negatively affect the
>price, because the prospective buyer is (reasonably) concerned
>about what's underneath.
>
>Vinyl is often applied when the original siding has failed,
>either due to age, or lack of maintenance. And often it is
>covering shingles containing asbestos, which requires a very
>expensive removal procedure.
>
I never got to the point of having a vinyl clad home inspected, and
never thought of that.
Don't believe it would concern me much, as bound asbestos shingles
usually don't present a disposal problem.
But you do raise a point of concern.
I have seen badly sided homes - waviness, gapped fittings - but I
don't really know how the surface if prepped for vinyl cladding.
As with any expensive work, you have to get some basic knowledge.
Most vinyl siding I've seen looks better than the original wood, maybe
because my experience with wood sees the flaws of multi-layered paint
and splitting, popped nails, etc. I could just be prejudiced.
I really hate seeing anything that spells water/weather intrusion.
My last 2 homes have been brick, and both required tuckpointing, so
there is no panacea. But tuckpointing lasts decades.
The rough brick isn't much more work than a good prepping/painting of
wood is, but I've hired pros to do the face brick.
--Vic
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Soup bouillion cubes
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b57b09cbb01b6494?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 22 2010 9:09 am
From: Balvenieman
JohnDoe@BadISP.org wrote:
>Americans generally ruin a
>whole lot of products with their penchant for sweetness (boosts the
>food industry profits).
>
Oh, it isn't just americans. In "on the street" taste tests among
people with so-called "uneducated" palates, the sweeter version of
otherwise identical products generally is perceived as "better". Go
figure. Pepsi capitalized on that phenomenon in the middle 20th century
with free-word-wide head-to-head taste tests against Coke.
"Foreign" versions of U.S. brands are not widely available in the
U.S. but I don't believe there is likely to be any significant
differences among prepared foods. In another lifetime, in order to
comply with Canada's relatively restrictive advertising laws, I often
had to import into the U.S. quantities of the Canadian versions of a
wide range of food products because of labelling and ingredients
differences between them and their U.S. counterparts. The significant
differences on the ingredients labels were not likely to be the
sweeteners or, indeed, any of the "food" ingredients but most often were
the colorants, conditioners and preservatives. I often have asserted
that the world's manufacturers dispose of their toxic wastes by putting
them into prepared foods ;-)
>
>Of course Americans are so used to the inappropriate use of sweeteners
>they actually like these adulterated products.
Yes; it starts in childhood. Food products intended for consumption
by children are sweeter than the "grownup" or homemade versions.
Manufacturers are not stupid. Unfortunately, the millions of the "Miss
June" and "Mister Rodgers" generations of parents, who feed the slop to
their kids because they "don't have time" actually to prepare a meal
are.
>
> I remember one episode
>of America's Test Kitchen where the dish called for bread. The head
>honcho made a big effort to get non-sweet bread but his assistants
>(women of a certain age) actually said they preferred Wonder bread. I
>suppose it depends on what you had as a child.
In fairness, small-enough quantities of sugar in certain foods is a
flavor-enhancer (but is not noticeably "sweet"); sugar in large-enough
quantities in certain foods is an effective preservative. As it happens,
Wonder Bread consistently wins high marks for nutritional content
(within a foodgroup almost devoid of nutrients -- bread is the "staff of
life" for advertising agencies, not for human beings) because it
contains dairy whey as a dough conditioner. Despite the long-time claims
of "health" food zealots, there is no nutritional superiority to "whole
grain" breads and "whole grain" bread does not "have" to be brown. It's
all about generating perceived differences for merchandising and
pricing.
In 2009, I made it a point to read the ingredients labels of every
variety of manufactured bread available to me in my local supermarket in
an effort to reduce HFCS in my diet. Of the myriad available, only
certain of the "Arnold's"-branded products do not contain HFCS but _all_
of those _do_ contain sugar, which definitely is not an appropriate
ingredient in bread.
My favorite bit of marketing silliness is the yuppie-faddish
supermarket "bakery". All of the fancy turd-shaped loaves therein are
exactly the same bread but with different finishes, determined by how
the products will be labeled. It comes into the store as brown-'n-serve
dough lumps. The stores are exploiting an ignornant and pretentious
element that has no clue about the sensory differences among breads but
whose tastes are determined by the products' labels. However, among
adults, ignorance largely is self-inflicted so, in my view, they get
exactly what they deserve.
--
the Balvenieman
Running on single malt in U.S.A.
USDA zone 9b
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Delivered unsafe item damaged me
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3012e11d0875cc7d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 22 2010 9:11 am
From: krw
On Sun, 21 Feb 2010 19:36:08 +0000, johannes
<johs@sizef726466242434242itter.com> wrote:
>
>
>Doug Miller wrote:
>>
>> In article <8b89a318-0818-4064-985e-06e301e040ca@j27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com>, Toom Tabard <toom@tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>>
>> >The supplier (UK national store) is responsible.
>>
>> Horseshit. The OP is solely responsible. It's not exactly an arcane secret
>> that objects made of sheet metal sometimes have sharp edges. Only a fool would
>> uncrate something by wrapping his fingers around an edge that he couldn't see,
>> and several others have already described how he *should* have uncrated it.
Agree 100%. Any idiot who sues over their stupidity should lose, and
pay the defendants lawyer, *big* time. It's time for Darwin to go to
work.
>I don't agree with you. Sheet metal edges should at least have been smoothed
>out. OP could not have known that the unpacking needed to be done in a
>particular sequence. OP obviously didn't cut his fingers voluntarily.
Perhaps not voluntarily, but being stupid was enough.
>This is a serious issue IMO.
Hogwash. The idiot cut his precious little finners. Too bad.
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 22 2010 10:59 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Toom Tabard wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Toom Tabard wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> Toom Tabard wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Toom Tabard wrote
>>>>>>> If you dispatch something with hidden and unexpected hazards
>>>>>>> which injure someone taking reasonable action as a consumer,
>>>>>>> then you are legally liable for the injuries.
>>>>>> Have fun getting damages in other than the stupid US legal
>>>>>> system. Its been completely off the rails for centurys now.
>>>>>> It makes a hell of a lot more sense to use gloves or open the box
>>>>>> like a flower or just let the entire contents and its packaging
>>>>>> slide out of the box onto the floor gently etc.
>>>>> But a customer can reasonably expect to open a box and remove
>>>>> an item in any way that seems reasonable without being exposed
>>>>> to injury from exposed but not obvious 'razor sharp' edges.
>>>> And anyone with even half a clue realises that metal edges can be
>>>> sharp, particularly when the edges wont be exposed in normal use.
>>>>> My remarks regarding the suppliers liability for injuries are in
>>>>> response
>>>>> to the claim by others that the OP is the author of his own
>>>>> misfortune.
>>>> And as other pointed out, you dont see big warnings on
>>>> razor blades, box cutters and knives that they can cut you.
>>>>> The OP seems to have acted as reasonable person
>>>>> would in unpacking an item and trying not to damage it.
>>>> No reasonable person shoves his hand into some place he cant see
>>>> with a component that is meant be be installed before it is used.
>>>>> His main concern is that similar injuries will happen to others.
>>>> And that mentality sees fools demand big danger signs
>>>> on razor blades, box cutters and knives etc etc etc.
>>>>> That's why I've advised him to report it to
>>>>> Trading Standards and to the suppliers.
>>>> And that wont have any effect what so ever, you watch.
>>>>> Trading Standards have a responsibility if an item is faulty or
>>>>> dangerous.
>>>> It isnt either. A cut finger is not life threatening, which is why
>>>> you
>>>> can buy razor blades, box cutters and knives any time you like.
>>>>> In this case, there is no suggestion that the hob is faulty or
>>>>> dangerous
>>>>> in operation, but it might be hoped they'd also take action where
>>>>> the
>>>>> supply and handling of the item presents a clear and present
>>>>> danger
>>>> Of a minor cut finger at worst.
>>>>> (or refer the OP to whoever has any responsibility).
>>>> Who will file any complaint he makes in the round
>>>> filing cabinet under their desk where it belongs.
>>>>> Similarly, it is important the OP report the problem to the
>>>>> supplier.
>>>> Like hell it is.
>>>>> There is some evidence of negligence (his actual injuries) in the
>>>>> supply of the goods.
>>>> No more than with a razor blade or box cutter or knife that cuts
>>>> someone.
>>>>> It becomes a much clearer issue of negligence and liability if,
>>>>> after having drawn the issue to their attention, they fail to take
>>>>> reasonable and immediate action to prevent injury to others.
>>>> Liability for a cut finger. Wow, talk about the end of
>>>> civilisation as we know it.
>>> The OP asked for advice.
>>
>> And got it.
>>
>>> I've given him advice
>>
>> Which was completely worthless.
>>
>>> and stated how the law normally operates in terms
>>> of negligence and liability in such circumstances.
>>
>> Like hell you ever did.
>>
>>> It's informed and expert consumer and legal advice.
>>
>> Everyone can see for themselves that it is nothing of the kind.-
> I'm, as usual, happy to leave 'everyone' to judge the merits of my contributions
They all did, and pissed on your shit from a great height.
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 22 2010 11:01 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Eric S. Smith: Left-Field Marshal wrote:
> On Feb 21, 2:20 pm, "Existential Angst" <UNfit...@UNoptonline.net>
> wrote:
>
> [100,000 lines of drivel snipped]
>
>> Spare us. goodgawd....
>
> And for the love of said God, everyone, learn to trim your posts.
>
> --Eric Smith
Go and fuck yourself.
And you need to learn how to do a sig.
The -- needs to be on a line by itself.
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 22 2010 1:16 pm
From: soup <1@invalid.com>
DerbyDad03 wrote:
> How would you deal with this situation:
>
> A friend was moving a recliner. As they turned the chair around a
> corner, it "reclined" trapping his hand within the mechanism and
> severely cutting his hand. There was nothing in the paperwork for the
> chair that said to "Secure the chair to prevent reclination while
> moving".
>
> Whose responsible for his injury?
Lets be really silly about it. A woman washes her poodle (stop
sniggering at the back that is not a euphemism) and decides to dry the
poodle in her microwave there was (at that time) no sticker that said
"do not dry poodles in this microwave" the dog died . Who is
responsible for the dogs death?
Especially in America for some reason there are lots of what seem to
be ridiculous warnings on consumer items. CYA in action?
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 22 2010 1:41 pm
From: soup <1@invalid.com>
Rod Speed wrote:
> And you need to learn how to do a sig.
> The -- needs to be on a line by itself.
There should be a space after the --.
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 22 2010 2:04 pm
From: Vic Smith
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 21:16:51 GMT, soup <1@invalid.com> wrote:
>DerbyDad03 wrote:
>
>> How would you deal with this situation:
>>
>> A friend was moving a recliner. As they turned the chair around a
>> corner, it "reclined" trapping his hand within the mechanism and
>> severely cutting his hand. There was nothing in the paperwork for the
>> chair that said to "Secure the chair to prevent reclination while
>> moving".
>>
>> Whose responsible for his injury?
>
>Lets be really silly about it. A woman washes her poodle (stop
>sniggering at the back that is not a euphemism) and decides to dry the
>poodle in her microwave there was (at that time) no sticker that said
>"do not dry poodles in this microwave" the dog died . Who is
>responsible for the dogs death?
> Especially in America for some reason there are lots of what seem to
>be ridiculous warnings on consumer items. CYA in action?
There should be no razor edges on metal appliances.
It's stupid and negligent.
Don't know where this guy grabbed it, but most likely it was a natural
place to put your hands any way.
I've pulled the top off plenty of stoves to get at burner heads or to
clean, and never found sharp edges. Worked on many stamped metal
items and didn't get cut.
Any time I did it was because of junky, negligent manufacturing, and I
cussed them a blue streak.
It is not rocket science to grind off burrs and edges on fabricated
metal products, and it is the norm.
I've worked shears, stamping, pressing and there was always a guy
whose responsibility was to grind off rough, sharp edges.
Guess what he was called?
A GRINDER! Jesus H. Christ.
Whether there is any recourse for the guy cut I don't know.
I've just used some peroxide and a band-aid.
But if this guy can ram that stove top up the ass of the manufacturer,
that's fine with me.
--Vic
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cutting down the cost of washing machine powder
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3b767149103b33f0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 22 2010 9:52 am
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"
In article
<7uevkqFbj6U1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote:
> > Yes, I notice the throngs rushing to support you with "wow, that's exactly
> > what happened to me"
>
> Presumably fuck all of them wear dark blue pure
> cotton T shirts and wash in cold water, fuckwit child.
yes, of course, because in the whole
world (or even this newsgrou), you are
the only person who has access to dark
blue pure cotton T shirts and washed
them in cold water old fella
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 22 2010 11:18 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> In article
> <7uevkqFbj6U1@mid.individual.net>,
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>> Yes, I notice the throngs rushing to support you with "wow, that's
>>> exactly what happened to me"
>>
>> Presumably fuck all of them wear dark blue pure
>> cotton T shirts and wash in cold water, fuckwit child.
<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>
==============================================================================
TOPIC: walking boots-- which are good?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/52b4735386145e8e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 22 2010 10:17 am
From: PeterC
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 13:26:47 +0000, Peter Clinch wrote:
> PeterC wrote:
>
>> They'd have to be expensive wellies, so that they could be adjusted and
>> laced up the leg. I wear wellies v. rarely as the tops slap against my
>> varicous veins and also can cause soreness on the leg.
>>
>> Are the Whernside Wellies still around?
>
> Not familiar with WWs, but if it's a traditional wellie's height that's
> a problem something like Nokian Trimmis (quite a bit lower at the height
> of a high walking boot) might get you by that (I don't know exactly
> where your veins cause you problems). Sadly not a great shape for my feet.
>
> Pete.
The veins are affected almost anywhere on my R leg, so any wellie would
need to be a snug fit.
T'other thing about wellies: not too resistant to glass, metal, barbed wire
etc., whereas boots might suffer some damage but are unlikely to be cut.
--
Peter.
2x4 - thick plank; 4x4 - two of 'em.
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 22 2010 11:12 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Peter Clinch wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Yes, but it does make sense to get a boot that has good reviews
>> on its design detail and THEN make sure it fits well too.
> Up to a point.
Nope, thats always true.
> That point being that the particular application
> has to be the same basic one as yours,
Thats what part of being a good review is about, that its relevant to your circumstances.
> and if the reviewer's idea of a good day out is the Cuillin Ridge
> and yours is a dander round Richmond Park (or vice versa)
> then you may well be looking for different things.
See above.
> Unless you're doing something fairly technical the design
> detail is really down to how it affects wearing comfort,
Nope, particularly with how well it wears and whether its waterproof etc.
> and that's what you'll find by trying it on.
Not even possible with either.
> I've come across experienced boot fitters who've
> been exasperated by magazine reviews.
Sure.
> Folk ignore the preamble about fit and jump straight to the "best in
> test" irrespective of whether it fits or it's right for their application.
Sure, there will always be those who cant work out what is a useful review too.
> And if that's pointed out they're "fobbing off the customer with something they're trying to push".
Yes, there are plenty of conspiracy theorists.
>> Yes, but its is also important that the design is well done too and its well made etc as well.
> But we're at the point where making a pair of
> shoes or boots isn't exactly unknown territory.
It is however one area where some take shortcuts to reduce the price
etc with so many of the consumers rating the price as important.
> A decent pair of walking shoes 20 years ago would
> still be a decent pair of walking shoes today, because
> feet and walking haven't actually changed much.
Yes, but a review can be useful to decide what is and is not decent quality wise.
And things have changed radically in those 20 years with so much being made in china now.
Its desirable to know which operations have managed to get their chinese manufacture done effectively now.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 22 2010 11:13 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Peter Clinch wrote:
> PeterC wrote:
>
>> Well, walking across fields yesterday, after the frost was going,
>> would have been very messy in shoes! In several places the mud was
>> half way up the boots and in others there were about 2 - 3" of icy water.
>> Not too easy to avoid these when on footpaths near farms.
> I'd be wearing what the farmers seem to wear: wellies.
I wouldnt, they are much too long for walking far.
There is a reason the military dont use them anymore.
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 22 2010 12:01 pm
From: soup <1@invalid.com>
PeterC wrote:
> T'other thing about wellies: not too resistant to glass, metal, barbed wire
> etc., whereas boots might suffer some damage but are unlikely to be cut.
Apropos nothing. Son has wellies for his horse work (stabling, he has
boot things for riding)he wears standard Screwfix jobs[1] (£15
region)and they have steel toecaps and a steel shank in the sole so
nothing can penetrate his foot. Agreeing with what Peter Clinch says in
the "what suits your feet stakes", he says they are comfier than any
other boot he has tried including £80 dedicated stable boots[2].
[1] http://tinyurl.com/yjb8geg
[2] http://tinyurl.com/yk5dwht
==============================================================================
TOPIC: States may have to cut Medicaid coverage for those who most need it,
article link
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3598f5c9856e8812?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 22 2010 10:30 am
From: Rick
mark stancil wrote:
> On Feb 22, 7:14 am, seeker<mothman20052...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> http://www.truthout.org/without-more-federal-help-states-might-cut-me...
>
> Hospital after hospital incurring massive debt treating illegal
> aliens. So,
> naturally, American citizens must suffer.
>
> http://www.numbersusa.com/ Numbers USA
I resent that! - wait, aren't they human too?
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 22 2010 11:12 am
From: mark stancil
On Feb 22, 11:30 am, Rick <rick0.merr...@gmail.com.lessspam> wrote:
> mark stancil wrote:
> > On Feb 22, 7:14 am, seeker<mothman20052...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>http://www.truthout.org/without-more-federal-help-states-might-cut-me...
>
> > Hospital after hospital incurring massive debt treating illegal
> > aliens. So,
> > naturally, American citizens must suffer.
>
> >http://www.numbersusa.com/ Numbers USA
>
> I resent that! - wait, aren't they human too?
Perhaps you should start a fund to pay for the medical treatments
given to illegal aliens. Or, start an inititive to levy on American-
held
assest of their homelands. Seems fair.
Hook
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Frugal dentists?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/cf2c5ac32afc2a82?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 22 2010 1:39 pm
From: info_at_1-script_dot_com@foo.com (spendwize.com)
Shoddy work isn't necessarily the reason for root canals. once you get a
filling in a tooth, the tooth is not "immune" from decay. Depending on how
clean you keep your mouth, decay can still come in sooner or later- the
fact is that that tooth has been weakened by decay once already and given
time the area around the filling expands &/or contracts, making it
vulnerable to more decay. If you think finding the right dentist will
eliminate your need for further dental work once you have a tooth filled,
you don't really need a dentist- you need some other professional help!
xxxxo
-------------------------------------
VFW wrote:
> I have had three experiences with 3 dentists that have made me come to
> the conclusion that there is a lot of incompetence in the art.
> And there is the possibility that they are in a profession that exposes
> them to Mercury often.
> and mercury might have addled their brains.
> So, one might choose a mercury free dentist or;;;;
> Hire two dentists , one to give you a second opinion and vice versa.
> I'm sure letting them know that you're getting a second opinion or a
> review of completed treatment might cause them to clean up their act.
> All, I know is if I had this method down years ago, I wouldn't have so
> many root canals, from shoddy work.
##-----------------------------------------------##
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 - 39460 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
