Frugal Living: Aug 13, 2010

Friday, August 13, 2010

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 8 topics - digest

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

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Prada women shoes paypal wholesale on http://www.cntrade09.com/
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/1f394f13bc9d57bc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 12 2010 10:53 pm
From: xiang chen

NIKE man shoes paypal wholesale on http://www.cntrade09.com/
NIKE women shoes paypal wholesale on http://www.cntrade09.com/
NIKE footware shoes paypal wholesale on http://www.cntrade09.com/

Air Force One

AF1 25th man shoes paypal wholesale on http://www.cntrade09.com/
AF1 25th women
AF1 man shoes paypal wholesale on http://www.cntrade09.com/
AF1 women shoes paypal wholesale on http://www.cntrade09.com/

PUMA

PUMA women shoes paypal wholesale on http://www.cntrade09.com/
PUMA man shoes paypal wholesale on http://www.cntrade09.com/

Shox

Shox NZ man shoes paypal wholesale on http://www.cntrade09.com/
Shox NZ women
Shox R4 man shoes paypal wholesale on http://www.cntrade09.com/
Shox R4 women
Shox R3 man shoes paypal wholesale on http://www.cntrade09.com/
Shox R3 women
Shox R5 man shoes paypal wholesale on http://www.cntrade09.com/
Shox TL3 man
Shox TL3 women shoes paypal wholesale on http://www.cntrade09.com/

Prada

Prada High man shoes paypal wholesale on http://www.cntrade09.com/
Prada man
Prada women shoes paypal wholesale on http://www.cntrade09.com/

Timberland

Timberland man shoes paypal wholesale on http://www.cntrade09.com/
Timberland women

converse

converse man shoes paypal wholesale on http://www.cntrade09.com/
converse women

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Spare parts for a filing cabinet?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/fd153d1b6df0e7a9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 13 2010 3:14 am
From: Shawn Hirn

In article
<c9f52c7a-7a13-43f3-92a2-1a3e9256b6c0@i13g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,
Lenona <lenona321@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I have a wooden filing cabinet with two drawers. All the removable
> rods that hold up the hanging files are the same length - about 14
> inches. However, over the years, the wood seems to have worn away a
> bit around the holes on the right hand side. So now the rods won't
> stay up whenever I open or close the drawer. Staples doesn't have
> anything to replace them with. I'm guessing even rods that are 1/8 of
> an inch longer might be OK - but I'm aiming for 1/4 inch, just so I
> can have them trimmed if necessary.
>
> So, where do I look? (No, I don't know the name of the company that
> made the cabinet.)

Any art supply store or store such as Home Depot or a local lumber yard
should have what you need. If you can remove the rods from one of the
drawers, just bring them with you and a sales associate should be able
to find what you need.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 13 2010 8:16 am
From: "Bob F"

Lenona wrote:
> I have a wooden filing cabinet with two drawers. All the removable
> rods that hold up the hanging files are the same length - about 14
> inches. However, over the years, the wood seems to have worn away a
> bit around the holes on the right hand side. So now the rods won't
> stay up whenever I open or close the drawer. Staples doesn't have
> anything to replace them with. I'm guessing even rods that are 1/8 of
> an inch longer might be OK - but I'm aiming for 1/4 inch, just so I
> can have them trimmed if necessary.
>
> So, where do I look? (No, I don't know the name of the company that
> made the cabinet.)

I'd probably just fill the worn space in the wood with epoxy putty or some such
repair product.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: SSN for Job Applications
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/20cfbcd56071ad93?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 13 2010 3:20 am
From: Shawn Hirn

In article <i3va3m$o4a$2@news.datemas.de>, MAS <mas@bbbb.net> wrote:

> On 8/11/2010 9:19 AM, Napoleon wrote:
> > More and more people are asking for your social security number when
> > you fill out a job application. I always decline and write "upon hire"
> > instead.
> >
> > I remember in the 80's and early 90's that the SSN was only given
> > after you were hired to prove that you could work in the USA (of
> > course other forms of ID could be used instead). I believe it's
> > illegal to ask for the SSN on a job application - what use is it? A
> > job application is not a credit check, which supposedly safeguards
> > sensitive info such as SSNs. A job application is just a sheet of
> > paper anyone can get their hands on. I don't trust giving out my SSN
> > to just anyone for no reason.
> >
> > Of course all the jobs where I declined to give my SSN I was not hired
> > for. Could be a coincidence, or not.
>
>
> Some employers are now checking your credit status before they hire.
>
> Marsha

That would be illegal in most situations. The only legal reason to check
a job applicant's credit status would be if he or she was applying for a
job where that information would indicate how well he or she could
perform the job, such as a bank teller.

See http://www.eeoc.gov/laws/practices/inquiries_arrest_conviction.cfm
for details.

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 13 2010 4:39 am
From: Shawn Hirn

In article <i3vh88$gvb$1@news.datemas.de>, MAS <mas@bbbb.net> wrote:

> On 8/11/2010 7:52 PM, Annie Woughman wrote:
> >
> >
> > "MAS" <mas@bbbb.net> wrote in message news:i3va3m$o4a$2@news.datemas.de...
> >> On 8/11/2010 9:19 AM, Napoleon wrote:
> >>> More and more people are asking for your social security number when
> >>> you fill out a job application. I always decline and write "upon hire"
> >>> instead.
> >>>
> >>> I remember in the 80's and early 90's that the SSN was only given
> >>> after you were hired to prove that you could work in the USA (of
> >>> course other forms of ID could be used instead). I believe it's
> >>> illegal to ask for the SSN on a job application - what use is it? A
> >>> job application is not a credit check, which supposedly safeguards
> >>> sensitive info such as SSNs. A job application is just a sheet of
> >>> paper anyone can get their hands on. I don't trust giving out my SSN
> >>> to just anyone for no reason.
> >>>
> >>> Of course all the jobs where I declined to give my SSN I was not hired
> >>> for. Could be a coincidence, or not.
> >>
> >>
> >> Some employers are now checking your credit status before they hire.
> >>
> >> Marsha
> >
> > Employers have been doing credit checks for years. It is just recently
> > that some states are trying to pass laws to make credit checks illegal
> > as a condition of hiring because of the mess the economy is in. Too many
> > people have been caught in the vicious cycle of being downsized because
> > of the bad economy, making it kind of tough to meet one's financial
> > obligations, which in turn can lead to a bad credit rating--making it
> > MORE difficult to get a job in a shrinking market, continuing right into
> > a downward spiral that one might never recover from.
>
> Then these states should also make it illegal to do a credit check by
> insurance companies before they accept you or quote you a premium?

I agree. Many states have banned that practice.

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 13 2010 7:02 am
From: "Bill"

> I was asked to show the management my SS card to add on an
> application to rent an apartment a while back.
>
> They also wanted my drivers license wanted to copy the documents on
> the spot along with my personal check so they could have my bank
> account number too. Needless to say I declined to give them that
> information.
>

Well think about this... The landlord is turning over a property worth
upwards of $100,000.00 to a total stranger! Landlords have been burned BIG
time in the past with thousands of dollars of damage or unpaid rent. They
have to pay their mortgage too...

Most people are OK and landlords did not used to need to do this, but get a
drug lab in a rental and pay for a "toxic waste cleanup" - maybe have to
tear down the house, then as the say... "Once burned, twice shy!"

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 13 2010 9:57 am
From: "Bob F"

Napoleon wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 07:38:46 -0700, "Bill"
> <billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Maybe they are running a credit, criminal, and drivers license check?
>
> No. They can't without your specific consent. There is no specific
> consent on the application.
>
>> Then what people think of others is often a reflection of
>> themselves. If someone is honest, they would tend to think others
>> are honest and trust others. If someone is dishonest, they would
>> tend to think others are dishonest as well. So the way someone
>> responds to the request for their SSN might show if the person is
>> trusting of others or not. Also can the person do what is requested
>> of them, or is the person going to be a trouble maker constantly
>> informing the manager of what his/her "rights" are, etc.?
>
> OMG. I never expected this answer. Oh well, it's a post 911 world. The
> next time you get your identity stolen (as I have), get back to me and
> let me know if you will "comply" with any request to give your SSN.
> As for being a troublemaker, I can't believe how far America has
> fallen to "being a good little German."
>
>> The company is hiring a total stranger. They are best to find out as
>> much as possible about the job applicant before hiring...
>
> Then specifically ask for a credit/background check, which requires
> the applicant to either agree or disagree. Don't ask for an SSN on the
> general application. Sorry, I prefer to hide my SSN from total
> strangers as well.

But don't expect a job from people that disagree with you on this. Not going to
happen.

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 13 2010 10:12 am
From: Cindy Hamilton

On Aug 13, 1:44 am, rvanson <rvan...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> There is a company called Hireright that is a huge datbase for
> informtaion on many individuals.
>
> Once you are on the database your info is almost impossible to have
> removed or altered. Welcome to the Brave New World of the USSA.

However, in this case it's free enterprise compiling the database, so
your reference to the USSA (parallel to USSR, I assume) is
somewhat off the mark.

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 13 2010 10:14 am
From: Cindy Hamilton

On Aug 13, 1:41 am, rvanson <rvan...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 08:19:23 -0500, Napoleon <ana...@666yes.net>
> wrote:
>
> >More and more people are asking for your social security number when
> >you fill out a job application. I always decline and write "upon hire"
> >instead.
>
> >I remember in the 80's and early 90's that the SSN was only given
> >after you were hired to prove that you could work in the USA (of
> >course other forms of ID could be used instead). I believe it's
> >illegal to ask for the SSN on a job application - what use is it? A
> >job application is not a credit check, which supposedly safeguards
> >sensitive info such as SSNs. A job application is just a sheet of
> >paper anyone can get their hands on. I don't trust giving out my SSN
> >to just anyone for no reason.
>
> >Of course all the jobs where I declined to give my SSN I was not hired
> >for. Could be a coincidence, or not.
>
> No, its not coincedence at all.
>
> The USA has been forming into a neo-fascist police state since before
> 9/11. I was asked to show the management my SS card to add on an
> application to rent an apartment a while back.

That does not make the USA a police state. That was a purely
private transaction. You are free to rent from someone who does not
need your social security card.

> They also wanted my drivers license wanted to copy the documents on
> the spot along with my personal check so they could have my bank
> account number too. Needless to say I declined to give them that
> information.

Which proves that there is still quite a lot of freedom here.

> There is little privacy to be had in the US anymore, sadly enough.
>
> Its next to impossible to do anything without all manner of checks.
> Some companies are taking hair samples to drug test before hiring. It
> wont be long till they want DNA samples just like in the sci-fi movie,
> "Gattica" and that was made before 9/11 and the Bush regime.

Which also has nothing to do wiht the government. You can blame
the private sector for all of this.

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 13 2010 12:46 pm
From: George

On 8/13/2010 12:57 PM, Bob F wrote:
> Napoleon wrote:
>> On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 07:38:46 -0700, "Bill"
>> <billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Maybe they are running a credit, criminal, and drivers license check?
>>
>> No. They can't without your specific consent. There is no specific
>> consent on the application.
>>
>>> Then what people think of others is often a reflection of
>>> themselves. If someone is honest, they would tend to think others
>>> are honest and trust others. If someone is dishonest, they would
>>> tend to think others are dishonest as well. So the way someone
>>> responds to the request for their SSN might show if the person is
>>> trusting of others or not. Also can the person do what is requested
>>> of them, or is the person going to be a trouble maker constantly
>>> informing the manager of what his/her "rights" are, etc.?
>>
>> OMG. I never expected this answer. Oh well, it's a post 911 world. The
>> next time you get your identity stolen (as I have), get back to me and
>> let me know if you will "comply" with any request to give your SSN.
>> As for being a troublemaker, I can't believe how far America has
>> fallen to "being a good little German."
>>
>>> The company is hiring a total stranger. They are best to find out as
>>> much as possible about the job applicant before hiring...
>>
>> Then specifically ask for a credit/background check, which requires
>> the applicant to either agree or disagree. Don't ask for an SSN on the
>> general application. Sorry, I prefer to hide my SSN from total
>> strangers as well.
>
> But don't expect a job from people that disagree with you on this. Not going to
> happen.
>
>
Sure, but one of the best jobs I ever had was because the business owner
appreciated the idea of privacy and people who could respect his.

I just don't get the direction we are going in where so many people
don't seem to have a personal identity and feel the need to tell
everyone everything they do.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cycling Copenhagen through American eyes
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/85edac9c2ebe5d06?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 13 2010 5:46 am
From: Peter Cole

Frank Studt wrote:
> Am 12.08.2010 14:22, schrieb Peter Cole:
>> Frank Studt wrote:
>>> Am 11.08.2010 18:36, schrieb TibetanMonkey
>>>
>>>> It's a hopeful video and also sad.
>>>
>>> The sadest thing in the video are the bike lanes and the cycle paths
>>> and the damn fools who believe they make cycling saver and better. Its
>>> a lie. A before-after study for the city of Copenhagen shows that the
>>> building of separated bicycle facilities worsened the safety of
>>> cyclists.
>>>
>>> http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/bicycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes.pdf
>>>
>>> Actually there is no kind of scientific evidence that separated
>>> bicycle facilities have a positive impact on the safety of cyclists.
>>> The opposite is true (the study above is not the first that shows the
>>> negative effects of cyling facilities on riders safety). There isnt
>>> even a prove that more people ride bikes if you built bike lanes.
>>>
>>
>> This is a biased interpretation of that study.
>>
>
> Not at all.
>
>
>> Just from the abstract,
>
> did you even read further?

Yes. I've read this study before.

>
>> "tracks" caused an increase of 10% in crashes
>> and injuries, and a 20% increase in cycling.
>
> Actually the question what has increased the bicycle traffic mileage
> isn't really the question asked in the study.

Apparently it was, explicitly.

The study, according to the author, examined 3 issues: safety, effect on
traffic (motor and bicycle), and cyclist's "perceived risk and
satisfaction". That is stated clearly.

> The author didnt even
> check for different reasons for the increase in cycling. The core
> question of the study asks for the road safety of cyclists before and
> after building bicycle facilities and the answer speaks against
> separation. Road safety has worsened.

Yes, that is clearly stated.

> The data used in the study isnt adequate to check for a causal
> connection between infrastructure and mileage.

So you claim.

> Here some important
> factors you need to consider if you are testing for such hypothesis (and
> the author did not).
> - In other studies it is shown that the building of bicycle lanes
> changed the route choices of cyclists without resulting in more mileage.

???

> - General Trends in choice of Transport have to be considered (he just
> uses data from a sample of roads).

Why the capitalization? Is "GT&T" some sort of recognized discipline?

> - Copenhagen had a big image campaign for cyclist.

What's a "big image campaign"?

> - A lot of safe parking places for bicycles have been built in
> Copenhagen during sample period.

Causality?

> - The removal of parking spaces for cars reduces car use.

That's possible, I suppose, but in this case there's no indication that
the parking changes were other than removal from on-street on those
streets where lanes and tracks had been added. Whether that was enough
to actually discourage driving is speculation.

> Just to name a few.

You seem to have left out the more compelling ones.

>> A significant factor in the
>> increase of crashes was blamed on the removal of on-street parking and
>> the higher volume of turning motorists.
>
> The problem that separated cycle facilities and right turning vehicles
> dont mix, is well known since decades. Read the Wikipedia-Article about
> it and you will find tons of primary research about the topic.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities#Safety_issues

I agree with comments in the "discussion" section. The article reads
like a polemic -- an unfortunate and common occurrence in Wikipedia.

>> On the whole it was felt that
>> the positive effects of increased cycling more than compensated for the
>> safety problems.
>
> To trade off the worsening of road safety with the supposed health
> benefits of cycle lanes (by increasing mileage) should not be the issue
> here.

Why not?

> The author is just speculating and again he has no data to prove
> his speculations.

This issue has been extensively studied in Denmark and elsewhere.

> Im almost exclusively riding my bike in urban areas, why the fuck should
> I care about the supposed health benefits on the collective scale when
> my individual safety is actually worsened.

Perhaps because it's a social cost borne by all of us to some degree.

In any case, it's not a requirement for you to use facilities, except
where mandatory sidepath laws exist. I'm vehemently opposed to those,
myself, but that's a separate issue.

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 13 2010 6:28 am
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-
Hammock"

On Aug 13, 5:46 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
> Frank Studt wrote:
> > Am 12.08.2010 14:22, schrieb Peter Cole:
> >> Frank Studt wrote:
> >>> Am 11.08.2010 18:36, schrieb TibetanMonkey
>
> >>>> It's a hopeful video and also sad.
>
> >>> The sadest thing in the video are the bike lanes and the cycle paths
> >>> and the damn fools who believe they make cycling saver and better. Its
> >>> a lie. A before-after study for the city of Copenhagen shows that the
> >>> building of separated bicycle facilities worsened the safety of
> >>> cyclists.
>
> >>>http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/bicycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes.pdf
>
> >>> Actually there is no kind of scientific evidence that separated
> >>> bicycle facilities have a positive impact on the safety of cyclists.
> >>> The opposite is true (the study above is not the first that shows the
> >>> negative effects of cyling facilities on riders safety). There isnt
> >>> even a prove that more people ride bikes if you built bike lanes.
>
> >> This is a biased interpretation of that study.
>
> > Not at all.
>
> >> Just from the abstract,
>
> > did you even read further?
>
> Yes. I've read this study before.
>
>
>
> >> "tracks" caused an increase of 10% in crashes
> >> and injuries, and a 20% increase in cycling.
>
> > Actually the question what has increased the bicycle traffic mileage
> > isn't really the question asked in the study.
>
> Apparently it was, explicitly.
>
> The study, according to the author, examined 3 issues: safety, effect on
> traffic (motor and bicycle), and cyclist's "perceived risk and
> satisfaction". That is stated clearly.
>
> > The author didnt even
> > check for different reasons for the increase in cycling. The core
> > question of the study asks for the road safety of cyclists before and
> > after building bicycle facilities and the answer speaks against
> > separation. Road safety has worsened.
>
> Yes, that is clearly stated.
>
> > The data used in the study isnt adequate to check for a causal
> > connection between infrastructure and mileage.
>
> So you claim.
>
> > Here some important
> > factors you need to consider if you are testing for such hypothesis (and
> > the author did not).
> > - In other studies it is shown that the building of bicycle lanes
> > changed the route choices of cyclists without resulting in more mileage.
>
> ???
>
> > - General Trends in choice of Transport have to be considered (he just
> > uses data from a sample of roads).
>
> Why the capitalization? Is "GT&T" some sort of recognized discipline?
>
> > - Copenhagen had a big image campaign for cyclist.
>
> What's a "big image campaign"?
>
> > - A lot of safe parking places for bicycles have been built in
> > Copenhagen during sample period.
>
> Causality?
>
> > - The removal of parking spaces for cars reduces car use.
>
> That's possible, I suppose, but in this case there's no indication that
> the parking changes were other than removal from on-street on those
> streets where lanes and tracks had been added. Whether that was enough
> to actually discourage driving is speculation.
>
> > Just to name a few.
>
> You seem to have left out the more compelling ones.
>
> >> A significant factor in the
> >> increase of crashes was blamed on the removal of on-street parking and
> >> the higher volume of turning motorists.
>
> > The problem that separated cycle facilities and right turning vehicles
> > dont mix, is well known since decades. Read the Wikipedia-Article about
> > it and you will find tons of primary research about the topic.
>
> >http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities#Safety_issues
>
> I agree with comments in the "discussion" section. The article reads
> like a polemic -- an unfortunate and common occurrence in Wikipedia.
>
> >> On the whole it was felt that
> >> the positive effects of increased cycling more than compensated for the
> >> safety problems.
>
> > To trade off the worsening of road safety with the supposed health
> > benefits of cycle lanes (by increasing mileage) should not be the issue
> > here.
>
> Why not?
>
> > The author is just speculating and again he has no data to prove
> > his speculations.
>
> This issue has been extensively studied in Denmark and elsewhere.
>
> > Im almost exclusively riding my bike in urban areas, why the fuck should
> > I care about the supposed health benefits on the collective scale when
> > my individual safety is actually worsened.
>
> Perhaps because it's a social cost borne by all of us to some degree.
>
> In any case, it's not a requirement for you to use facilities, except
> where mandatory sidepath laws exist. I'm vehemently opposed to those,
> myself, but that's a separate issue.

I agree with you, but I'd further argue that we should do WHATEVER
GETS THE JOB DONE, ie. gets the riders out.

Obviously the status quo is awful for America and other Western
nations, judging by the people who commute by bicycle. One solution
would be to ban/tax cars to a degree or another going to city centers
and let nature take over the void. London did it, and I think it's
coming together with the Velib program, right?

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 13 2010 8:36 am
From: Peter Cole

His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of
Tantra-Hammock wrote:
> On Aug 13, 5:46 am, Peter Cole <peter_c...@verizon.net> wrote:
>> Frank Studt wrote:
>>> Am 12.08.2010 14:22, schrieb Peter Cole:
>>>> Frank Studt wrote:
>>>>> Am 11.08.2010 18:36, schrieb TibetanMonkey
>>>>>> It's a hopeful video and also sad.
>>>>> The sadest thing in the video are the bike lanes and the cycle paths
>>>>> and the damn fools who believe they make cycling saver and better. Its
>>>>> a lie. A before-after study for the city of Copenhagen shows that the
>>>>> building of separated bicycle facilities worsened the safety of
>>>>> cyclists.
>>>>> http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/bicycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes.pdf
>>>>> Actually there is no kind of scientific evidence that separated
>>>>> bicycle facilities have a positive impact on the safety of cyclists.
>>>>> The opposite is true (the study above is not the first that shows the
>>>>> negative effects of cyling facilities on riders safety). There isnt
>>>>> even a prove that more people ride bikes if you built bike lanes.
>>>> This is a biased interpretation of that study.
>>> Not at all.
>>>> Just from the abstract,
>>> did you even read further?
>> Yes. I've read this study before.
>>
>>
>>
>>>> "tracks" caused an increase of 10% in crashes
>>>> and injuries, and a 20% increase in cycling.
>>> Actually the question what has increased the bicycle traffic mileage
>>> isn't really the question asked in the study.
>> Apparently it was, explicitly.
>>
>> The study, according to the author, examined 3 issues: safety, effect on
>> traffic (motor and bicycle), and cyclist's "perceived risk and
>> satisfaction". That is stated clearly.
>>
>>> The author didnt even
>>> check for different reasons for the increase in cycling. The core
>>> question of the study asks for the road safety of cyclists before and
>>> after building bicycle facilities and the answer speaks against
>>> separation. Road safety has worsened.
>> Yes, that is clearly stated.
>>
>>> The data used in the study isnt adequate to check for a causal
>>> connection between infrastructure and mileage.
>> So you claim.
>>
>>> Here some important
>>> factors you need to consider if you are testing for such hypothesis (and
>>> the author did not).
>>> - In other studies it is shown that the building of bicycle lanes
>>> changed the route choices of cyclists without resulting in more mileage.
>> ???
>>
>>> - General Trends in choice of Transport have to be considered (he just
>>> uses data from a sample of roads).
>> Why the capitalization? Is "GT&T" some sort of recognized discipline?
>>
>>> - Copenhagen had a big image campaign for cyclist.
>> What's a "big image campaign"?
>>
>>> - A lot of safe parking places for bicycles have been built in
>>> Copenhagen during sample period.
>> Causality?
>>
>>> - The removal of parking spaces for cars reduces car use.
>> That's possible, I suppose, but in this case there's no indication that
>> the parking changes were other than removal from on-street on those
>> streets where lanes and tracks had been added. Whether that was enough
>> to actually discourage driving is speculation.
>>
>>> Just to name a few.
>> You seem to have left out the more compelling ones.
>>
>>>> A significant factor in the
>>>> increase of crashes was blamed on the removal of on-street parking and
>>>> the higher volume of turning motorists.
>>> The problem that separated cycle facilities and right turning vehicles
>>> dont mix, is well known since decades. Read the Wikipedia-Article about
>>> it and you will find tons of primary research about the topic.
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities#Safety_issues
>> I agree with comments in the "discussion" section. The article reads
>> like a polemic -- an unfortunate and common occurrence in Wikipedia.
>>
>>>> On the whole it was felt that
>>>> the positive effects of increased cycling more than compensated for the
>>>> safety problems.
>>> To trade off the worsening of road safety with the supposed health
>>> benefits of cycle lanes (by increasing mileage) should not be the issue
>>> here.
>> Why not?
>>
>>> The author is just speculating and again he has no data to prove
>>> his speculations.
>> This issue has been extensively studied in Denmark and elsewhere.
>>
>>> Im almost exclusively riding my bike in urban areas, why the fuck should
>>> I care about the supposed health benefits on the collective scale when
>>> my individual safety is actually worsened.
>> Perhaps because it's a social cost borne by all of us to some degree.
>>
>> In any case, it's not a requirement for you to use facilities, except
>> where mandatory sidepath laws exist. I'm vehemently opposed to those,
>> myself, but that's a separate issue.
>
> I agree with you, but I'd further argue that we should do WHATEVER
> GETS THE JOB DONE, ie. gets the riders out.

Yes, but the issues around that are much more complicated than safety. I
remember the feeling I had 15 or so years ago when I dusted off my old
bike boom Raleigh and started riding on the streets again after a
perhaps 15 year hiatus. My first reaction was: Does anyone do this
anymore? Has it become illegal? On my first outing I found myself
squeezed off the road by my own insecurity and indecision.

It wasn't that I was a stranger to "vehicular cycling", I had ridden
thousands of street miles in the 60's and 70's in urban areas, at time
when facilities weren't even a gleam in an urban planner's eye. I was
used to "negotiating" with traffic, dodging hazards (vehicular and
otherwise) and "taking the lane", I was no gutter rider.

The big factor often left out in these debates over facilities is the
degree of (dis)pleasure that various cycling environments create. A lot
of streets may be (arguably) statistically safe, but subjectively
unpleasant. I don't fear motor traffic for the most part, but loathe it
at my elbow. I can safely negotiate it, but it sets my teeth on edge.

When people cite "safety" as a reason for not cycling, my impression is
that it's an umbrella term that encompasses many things other than
strict statistical safety. There's perceived safety, which facility
opponents blithely dismiss as ignorance, but humans, other than perhaps
dyed-in-the wool vehicularists, aren't particularly natural
statisticians. There's social acceptance -- face it, in this country
utility cyclists are taken as eccentric at best. There's the
socio-economic stigma, too, but that's drifting off the subject a bit.

Safety issues aside, when you ride on a facility, there's a sense of
official/societal sanction, which is important to many when they're in a
minority. Physical separation lowers the physical intrusion of motor
traffic. This is not only the threat of collision, but the spray of
water and slush, the stir of dust and debris, the stink of exhaust, the
sonic assault of broken or deliberately loud mufflers and massive
subwoofers, and the summertime wash of heat from oversize engines and
roaring air conditioners. I prefer to be as far away from all that as
possible, and I think most people share that sentiment.

> Obviously the status quo is awful for America and other Western
> nations, judging by the people who commute by bicycle. One solution
> would be to ban/tax cars to a degree or another going to city centers
> and let nature take over the void. London did it, and I think it's
> coming together with the Velib program, right?

Bicycling in the city is kind of the low hanging fruit. It ameliorates
many vexing traffic and congestion problems at a low cost and has
attendant recognized improvements in quality of life. It's a no-brainer,
which is why it's being taken seriously in most major US cities. I think
it makes sense for the cities to lead by example in the US, and they, in
turn, be led by success stories abroad. The biggest obstacles are the
adherents to the car culture and their cycling comrades. Both groups are
basically still living in the Eisenhower administration.

Motor vehicles are indispensable in remote areas, a practical necessity
in most suburbs, but a general misfit in urban areas. There's a huge
effective subsidy, mostly in externalized economic costs. The older the
city, in general, the worse the automobile works. In my view, perhaps
the most important change that can be made in urban districts is to
lower the speeds of cars and restrict trucks. If our culture weren't so
blinded by autocentricism I think these would be obvious.

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 13 2010 8:41 am
From: Frank Studt

Am 13.08.2010 15:28, schrieb the TibetanMonkey

>
> I agree with you, but I'd further argue that we should do WHATEVER
> GETS THE JOB DONE, ie. gets the riders out.
>

So you think its ok to worsen the Road Safety of cyclists if measures
are taken that get riders out (BTW there isnt any proof that segregated
bicycle facilities do such a thing). In other words if a few cyclists
get killed or mutilated in the process you think its acceptable? Why
dont we just randomly shoot some car drivers every day? A suppose it
will get the job done too, ie. gets riders out.

Frank

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 13 2010 10:28 am
From: Frank Studt

Am 13.08.2010 14:46, schrieb Peter Cole:
> Frank Studt wrote:
>> Am 12.08.2010 14:22, schrieb Peter Cole:
>>> Frank Studt wrote:
>>>> Am 11.08.2010 18:36, schrieb TibetanMonkey
>>>>
>>>>> It's a hopeful video and also sad.
>>>>
>>>> The sadest thing in the video are the bike lanes and the cycle paths
>>>> and the damn fools who believe they make cycling saver and better. Its
>>>> a lie. A before-after study for the city of Copenhagen shows that the
>>>> building of separated bicycle facilities worsened the safety of
>>>> cyclists.
>>>>
>>>> http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/bicycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes.pdf
>>>>
>>>> Actually there is no kind of scientific evidence that separated
>>>> bicycle facilities have a positive impact on the safety of cyclists.
>>>> The opposite is true (the study above is not the first that shows the
>>>> negative effects of cyling facilities on riders safety). There isnt
>>>> even a prove that more people ride bikes if you built bike lanes.
>>>>
>>>
>>> This is a biased interpretation of that study.
>>>
>>
>> Not at all.
>>
>>
>>> Just from the abstract,
>>
>> did you even read further?
>
> Yes. I've read this study before.
>
>>
>>> "tracks" caused an increase of 10% in crashes
>>> and injuries, and a 20% increase in cycling.
>>
>> Actually the question what has increased the bicycle traffic mileage
>> isn't really the question asked in the study.
>
> Apparently it was, explicitly.
>
> The study, according to the author, examined 3 issues: safety, effect on
> traffic (motor and bicycle), and cyclist's "perceived risk and
> satisfaction". That is stated clearly.
>
>

According to the author they just counted cars and bikes ... This is not
appropriate method to explain travel mode choice. Studies that seriously
deal with travel mode choice use relatively complex models. Again he has
no data to proof the hypothesis that the building of facilities
increases bicycle traffic mileage. BTW. I think you are confusing two
papers of the same author (but they a kind of similar). The one I linked
does not deal with "percived risk...". Here a both links:

http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/bicycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes.pdf

http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/cycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes%20in%20chp.pdf

>> The author didnt even check for different reasons for the increase in
>> cycling. The core question of the study asks for the road safety of
>> cyclists before and after building bicycle facilities and the answer
>> speaks against separation. Road safety has worsened.
>
> Yes, that is clearly stated.
>
>> The data used in the study isnt adequate to check for a causal
>> connection between infrastructure and mileage.
>
> So you claim.
>

He doesnt use any kind of explanatory model for travel mode choice he
just crosstabs taffic volumes and before/after building of facilities.
He even writes "A considerable amount of these effects were already
visible during the construction period,.....The effects of cycle lanes
are not statistically significant".

>> Here some important factors you need to consider if you are testing
>> for such hypothesis (and the author did not).
>> - In other studies it is shown that the building of bicycle lanes
>> changed the route choices of cyclists without resulting in more mileage.
>
> ???

You dont believe? You dont understand? Im talking about the relocation
of bicycle traffic and car traffic. Many riders who can choose between
routes with or without facilities will use the one with facilities. But
it has to be said that route choice is not directly connected to travel
mode choice.

>
>> - General Trends in choice of Transport have to be considered (he just
>> uses data from a sample of roads).
>
> Why the capitalization? Is "GT&T" some sort of recognized discipline?

What I meant to say is, if cycling is booming in the hole city of
Copenhagen or Denmark its no surprise if the volume of cyclists
increases in the sample of streets the author examined.

>
>
>> - Copenhagen had a big image campaign for cyclist.
>
> What's a "big image campaign"?
>

They are promoting cycling big time. Just read this idiots blog:

http://www.copenhagenize.com/

and you will find some stuff about promotion of cycling in Copenhagen.

>
>> - A lot of safe parking places for bicycles have been built in
>> Copenhagen during sample period.
>
> Causality?

It just has to be considered as a explanatory factor.

>
>> - The removal of parking spaces for cars reduces car use.
>
> That's possible, I suppose, but in this case there's no indication that
> the parking changes were other than removal from on-street on those
> streets where lanes and tracks had been added. Whether that was enough
> to actually discourage driving is speculation.
>

Reducing spaces for car parking reduces driving. Its just a proposal
what kind of factors should be checked if you want to explain the mode
of travel. Of course you have to look at transport policy at a whole for
possible effects.

>> Just to name a few.
>
> You seem to have left out the more compelling ones.
>

Yes, he didn't even check for weather or oil prices.

>>> A significant factor in the
>>> increase of crashes was blamed on the removal of on-street parking and
>>> the higher volume of turning motorists.
>>
>> The problem that separated cycle facilities and right turning vehicles
>> dont mix, is well known since decades. Read the Wikipedia-Article
>> about it and you will find tons of primary research about the topic.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities#Safety_issues
>
> I agree with comments in the "discussion" section. The article reads
> like a polemic -- an unfortunate and common occurrence in Wikipedia.
>
>

Why dont the people busy commenting about polemic articles come up with
a study which proofs positive safety effects of cycling facilities.
Maybe you can name a few. BTW I did not tell you to read the article, I
said you can find tons of primary research about the topic.
Im from Germany, even the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt),
came to the conclusion that segregation worsens the safety of cyclists.

>>> On the whole it was felt that
>>> the positive effects of increased cycling more than compensated for the
>>> safety problems.
>>
>> To trade off the worsening of road safety with the supposed health
>> benefits of cycle lanes (by increasing mileage) should not be the
>> issue here.
>
> Why not?
>

I think its more than cynical to let people be killed or mutilated for
the sake of more cyclists. And of course there are better ways to get
more people on bikes than killing cyclists. Best way is to make car use
unattractive and built parking places for bikes.

>> The author is just speculating and again he has no data to prove his
>> speculations.
>
> This issue has been extensively studied in Denmark and elsewhere.
>

What issue, that cycling improves health, I dont argue that. But his
data is more then unsuited to make a serious cost-benefit analysis

>> Im almost exclusively riding my bike in urban areas, why the fuck
>> should I care about the supposed health benefits on the collective
>> scale when my individual safety is actually worsened.
>
> Perhaps because it's a social cost borne by all of us to some degree.
>

Sounds very individual cost to me if you lose a leg or get you head
crushed by a right turning lorry cause the driver didn't see you in his
blind spot. And of course there a ways to increase cycling without
worsening road safety. If they want to push cycling they should do it right.

> In any case, it's not a requirement for you to use facilities, except
> where mandatory sidepath laws exist.

That's BS (pardon my french). First of all what kind of choice do you
have with cycle lanes, they are mandadory by principle. BTW cycle lanes,
they reduce the distance of overtaking cars:

http://digitalcommons.bolton.ac.uk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=ce_journalspr

Second, car drivers don't really like it if you dont use the nice cycle
path they paid for with hard earned tax money. They are honking,
yelling, overtaking very close and so on. So Im very much effected by
those facilities. Its gone that far that many people (even cyclists)
think cyclist dont belong on the road they are better of on the footpath.
And last they are not only worsening the safety of cyclists they are
slowing them down aka make cycling unattractive.

Frank

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 13 2010 12:15 pm
From: Jim A

On 08/13/2010 12:37 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
Movement of Tantra-Hammock & the Stationary Bicycle to burn the calories
wrote:
> Sometimes to you can say something in a single paragraph...
>
> "This book opened my eyes and explained that often the safest place
> to ride is in the path of cars simply because you are more visible to
> motorists. At first I didn't believe that it would be safer but having
> tried
> it (and some of the other ideas in the book) I would recommend it."
>
> http://www.cyclecraft.org/book_reviews.html
>
> Beautiful, now HOW DO WE TAKE --AND HOLD-- THE LANE? What kind of
> grinding war are you ready to wage? Where is the organization to hold
> this effort together and not fall apart one cyclist at a time?

I wouldn't recommend /holding/ the lane - just take it for as long as
you need it then give it back for a bit.

--
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 13 2010 1:32 pm
From: Peter Cole

Frank Studt wrote:
> Am 13.08.2010 14:46, schrieb Peter Cole:
>> Frank Studt wrote:
>>> Am 12.08.2010 14:22, schrieb Peter Cole:
>>>> Frank Studt wrote:
>>>>> Am 11.08.2010 18:36, schrieb TibetanMonkey
>>>>>
>>>>>> It's a hopeful video and also sad.
>>>>>
>>>>> The sadest thing in the video are the bike lanes and the cycle paths
>>>>> and the damn fools who believe they make cycling saver and better. Its
>>>>> a lie. A before-after study for the city of Copenhagen shows that the
>>>>> building of separated bicycle facilities worsened the safety of
>>>>> cyclists.
>>>>>
>>>>> http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/bicycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes.pdf
>>>>>
>>>>> Actually there is no kind of scientific evidence that separated
>>>>> bicycle facilities have a positive impact on the safety of cyclists.
>>>>> The opposite is true (the study above is not the first that shows the
>>>>> negative effects of cyling facilities on riders safety). There isnt
>>>>> even a prove that more people ride bikes if you built bike lanes.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> This is a biased interpretation of that study.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not at all.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Just from the abstract,
>>>
>>> did you even read further?
>>
>> Yes. I've read this study before.
>>
>>>
>>>> "tracks" caused an increase of 10% in crashes
>>>> and injuries, and a 20% increase in cycling.
>>>
>>> Actually the question what has increased the bicycle traffic mileage
>>> isn't really the question asked in the study.
>>
>> Apparently it was, explicitly.
>>
>> The study, according to the author, examined 3 issues: safety, effect on
>> traffic (motor and bicycle), and cyclist's "perceived risk and
>> satisfaction". That is stated clearly.
>>
>>
>
> According to the author they just counted cars and bikes ... This is not
> appropriate method to explain travel mode choice. Studies that seriously
> deal with travel mode choice use relatively complex models. Again he has
> no data to proof the hypothesis that the building of facilities
> increases bicycle traffic mileage. BTW. I think you are confusing two
> papers of the same author (but they a kind of similar). The one I linked
> does not deal with "percived risk...". Here a both links:
>
> http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/bicycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes.pdf
>
> http://www.trafitec.dk/pub/cycle%20tracks%20and%20lanes%20in%20chp.pdf
>
>
>>> The author didnt even check for different reasons for the increase in
>>> cycling. The core question of the study asks for the road safety of
>>> cyclists before and after building bicycle facilities and the answer
>>> speaks against separation. Road safety has worsened.
>>
>> Yes, that is clearly stated.
>>
>>> The data used in the study isnt adequate to check for a causal
>>> connection between infrastructure and mileage.
>>
>> So you claim.
>>
>
> He doesnt use any kind of explanatory model for travel mode choice he
> just crosstabs taffic volumes and before/after building of facilities.
> He even writes "A considerable amount of these effects were already
> visible during the construction period,.....The effects of cycle lanes
> are not statistically significant".

He said more than that, you should reread it.
>
>
>>> Here some important factors you need to consider if you are testing
>>> for such hypothesis (and the author did not).
>>> - In other studies it is shown that the building of bicycle lanes
>>> changed the route choices of cyclists without resulting in more mileage.
>>
>> ???
>
> You dont believe? You dont understand? Im talking about the relocation
> of bicycle traffic and car traffic. Many riders who can choose between
> routes with or without facilities will use the one with facilities. But
> it has to be said that route choice is not directly connected to travel
> mode choice.

It doesn't see to be a great leap of faith to suspect that the same
facilities preferred by cyclists would also attract non-cyclists.

>
>
>
>>
>>> - General Trends in choice of Transport have to be considered (he just
>>> uses data from a sample of roads).
>>
>> Why the capitalization? Is "GT&T" some sort of recognized discipline?
>
> What I meant to say is, if cycling is booming in the hole city of
> Copenhagen or Denmark its no surprise if the volume of cyclists
> increases in the sample of streets the author examined.

OK, but a much more direct approach is just to ask the cyclists what
they like.

>>> - Copenhagen had a big image campaign for cyclist.
>>
>> What's a "big image campaign"?
>>
>
> They are promoting cycling big time. Just read this idiots blog:
>
> http://www.copenhagenize.com/
>
> and you will find some stuff about promotion of cycling in Copenhagen.

I subscribe to it. I find it inspiring.

>>> - A lot of safe parking places for bicycles have been built in
>>> Copenhagen during sample period.
>>
>> Causality?
>
>
> It just has to be considered as a explanatory factor.
>
>>
>>> - The removal of parking spaces for cars reduces car use.
>>
>> That's possible, I suppose, but in this case there's no indication that
>> the parking changes were other than removal from on-street on those
>> streets where lanes and tracks had been added. Whether that was enough
>> to actually discourage driving is speculation.
>>
>
> Reducing spaces for car parking reduces driving. Its just a proposal
> what kind of factors should be checked if you want to explain the mode
> of travel. Of course you have to look at transport policy at a whole for
> possible effects.
>
>>> Just to name a few.
>>
>> You seem to have left out the more compelling ones.
>>
>
> Yes, he didn't even check for weather or oil prices.

I think you're reaching. Again, the simple approach is just to ask
people what they like. Personally, I don't think you have to do even
that, just watch what they use.

>
>
>>>> A significant factor in the
>>>> increase of crashes was blamed on the removal of on-street parking and
>>>> the higher volume of turning motorists.
>>>
>>> The problem that separated cycle facilities and right turning vehicles
>>> dont mix, is well known since decades. Read the Wikipedia-Article
>>> about it and you will find tons of primary research about the topic.
>>>
>>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Segregated_cycle_facilities#Safety_issues
>>
>> I agree with comments in the "discussion" section. The article reads
>> like a polemic -- an unfortunate and common occurrence in Wikipedia.
>>
>>
>
> Why dont the people busy commenting about polemic articles come up with
> a study which proofs positive safety effects of cycling facilities.
> Maybe you can name a few.

http://www.ehjournal.net/content/8/1/47#B20

> BTW I did not tell you to read the article, I
> said you can find tons of primary research about the topic.
> Im from Germany, even the Federal Highway Research Institute (BASt),
> came to the conclusion that segregation worsens the safety of cyclists.
>
>
>>>> On the whole it was felt that
>>>> the positive effects of increased cycling more than compensated for the
>>>> safety problems.
>>>
>>> To trade off the worsening of road safety with the supposed health
>>> benefits of cycle lanes (by increasing mileage) should not be the
>>> issue here.
>>
>> Why not?
>>
>
> I think its more than cynical to let people be killed or mutilated for
> the sake of more cyclists. And of course there are better ways to get
> more people on bikes than killing cyclists. Best way is to make car use
> unattractive and built parking places for bikes.
>
>>> The author is just speculating and again he has no data to prove his
>>> speculations.
>>
>> This issue has been extensively studied in Denmark and elsewhere.
>>
>
> What issue, that cycling improves health, I dont argue that. But his
> data is more then unsuited to make a serious cost-benefit analysis

I'm not so sure. If multiple studies show an overwhelming benefit to
cycling from a health POV, including injury & fatalities, then a 10%
increase in injuries and fatalities for a 20% increase in cycling would
be an ethical trade-off. Your insistence on keeping cycling unpopular
and elite is killing people -- if you choose to put it in that light.

>
>>> Im almost exclusively riding my bike in urban areas, why the fuck
>>> should I care about the supposed health benefits on the collective
>>> scale when my individual safety is actually worsened.
>>
>> Perhaps because it's a social cost borne by all of us to some degree.
>>
>
> Sounds very individual cost to me if you lose a leg or get you head
> crushed by a right turning lorry cause the driver didn't see you in his
> blind spot. And of course there a ways to increase cycling without
> worsening road safety. If they want to push cycling they should do it
> right.

And facilities can be improved. The point becomes completely academic
when nobody except a hard core participates.

>> In any case, it's not a requirement for you to use facilities, except
>> where mandatory sidepath laws exist.
>
> That's BS (pardon my french). First of all what kind of choice do you
> have with cycle lanes, they are mandadory by principle. BTW cycle lanes,
> they reduce the distance of overtaking cars:
>
> http://digitalcommons.bolton.ac.uk/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1006&context=ce_journalspr

Not in the wildest dreams of cycling advocates would all streets be
marked with lanes or divided with tracks. There is absolutely no need
for that expense or bother. Simply providing those facilities on routes
is all that's desired. If you don't like the "facilitated" route, choose
another. Why inflict your choice on the rest of the world?

> Second, car drivers don't really like it if you dont use the nice cycle
> path they paid for with hard earned tax money.

Most cyclists are also drivers. Most roads in the US are paid for out of
general revenue, not auto-specific taxes and fees. Even the gas tax and
usage fees only pay about 50% of the highway system.

> They are honking,
> yelling, overtaking very close and so on.

They do that here, where we have no facilities to speak of.

> So Im very much effected by
> those facilities. Its gone that far that many people (even cyclists)
> think cyclist dont belong on the road they are better of on the footpath.
> And last they are not only worsening the safety of cyclists they are
> slowing them down aka make cycling unattractive.

Call me naive but I'm in favor of giving cyclists what they want, and
most want facilities. I'm also against mandating the use of those
facilities so that cyclists who don't like them need not use them. I
don't see what's so complicated.

Since cycling is such a relatively safe activity, I don't understand the
fuss over a possible slight decline in safety to make a large
improvement in the cycling experience. I don't like riding in close
proximity to cars and trucks. It doesn't scare me, it's just unpleasant.
I'm extremely happy to have separate facilities. I frequently choose
slower routes with more dangerous street crossings just to escape the
din and stench of cars and trucks -- many other cyclists do, too.

When I'm in a hurry, I just take to the street and use the most direct
route. I don't bother with traffic rules, because, as I said, I'm in a
hurry, and don't particularly care to adhere to a system that's designed
for motor vehicles. When I'm not in a hurry, I'll stay as far away from
motor vehicles as I possibly can.

You like the idea of "vehicular" cycling. I'm exactly the opposite. When
I'm riding my bike I'm not a vehicle, I'm a cyclist.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: paypal wholesale all brand(BOOTS,SHOES,CLOTHES,HANDBAG,WATCH,JEANS,
JERSEY,T-SHIRT,SHIRTS,HOODY,EYEGLASS,CAP,SHAWL,WALLT) and so on.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d0fbbd7d138d1ec3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 13 2010 7:00 am
From: world-trade

paypal payment wholesale all brand shoes(
http://www.24hours-buy.com/)(NIKE,ADIDAS,LV,GUCCI,CHANEL,PRADA,POLO,UGG
BOOTS,D&G,DIOR )and so on.
paypal payment wholesale all brand clothing(
http://www.24hours-buy.com/)(T-SHIRT,JEANS,JERSEY,HOODIES,JACKETS,HARDY,SWEATER,SHIRTS
)and so on .
( http://www.24hours-buy.com/)
paypal payment all brand
watch(ROLEX,OMEGA,CHANEL,LV,CARTIER,IWC,GUCCI,RADO )and so on.(
http://www.24hours-buy.com/)
paypal payment all brand
handbag(LV,GUCCI,CHANEL,PRADA,POLO,COACH,FENDI,CHLOE,BUBERRY,JUICY)
and so on.( http://www.24hours-buy.com/)
paypal payment brand CAP,SHAWL,BELT,WALLET,UNDER WEAR)and so on.
( http://www.24hours-buy.com/)

More detail land,address: ( http://www.24hours-buy.com/)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: See Hot Sexy Star Aishwarya Nude Bathing Videos In All Angles...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5cae713224b56ca1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 13 2010 9:03 am
From: sukanya

See Hot Sexy Star Aishwarya Nude Bathing Videos In All Angles At
http://simpletoget.co.cc

Due to high sex content, i have hidden the videos in an image. in
that website on Right Side search box Below click on image and watch
videos in all angles.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Multiple Listings on eBay ending 8/17 & 8/19
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/fb1640cca76a4699?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 13 2010 9:46 am
From: ClothesOut

Just listed over 20 items for new and gently-used merchandise. Are you
looking for back to school boys clothing, classic action DVDs or
gifts? Take a look at my offerings at
http://shop.ebay.com/helporgs/m.html?_nkw=&_armrs=1&_from=&_ipg=&_trksid=p3686.
I'm PayPal verified and have a 100% feedback rating. Shop with
confidence. Here's a preview:

- First Alert Security Camera
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300455380715

- Custom Note Pad Gift Set
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300455435261

- Dark Knight Widescreen DVD
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300455422294

- Boys Ecko Unltd Distressed Jeans
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300455449552

- High Sierra Book Bag w/wheels
http://cgi.ebay.com/ws/eBayISAPI.dll?ViewItem&item=300455466197

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Leaking Parker ball pen
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/541de4e96f70cb4f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 13 2010 1:09 pm
From: "john hamilton"

I thought Parker ball pens were not supposed to leak, mine has even though
it's not been stored upside down.

It's very sticky inside. Is there any good way to clean it out? Thanks for
advice.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 13 2010 1:26 pm
From: professorpaul

If there aren't any plastic parts, then lacquer thinner and pipe
cleaners. Otherwise use rubbing alcohol, which won't harm the plastic,
but doesn't dissolve the ink as well.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 13 2010 1:28 pm
From: "Phil L"

john hamilton wrote:
> I thought Parker ball pens were not supposed to leak, mine has even
> though it's not been stored upside down.
>
> It's very sticky inside. Is there any good way to clean it out? Thanks for
> advice.

nail polish remover and pipe cleaners / q-tips / cotton wool

--
Phil L
RSRL Tipster Of The Year 2008

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 13 2010 1:53 pm
From: "michael adams"

"john hamilton" <bluestar95@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:i448pu$qjp$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> I thought Parker ball pens were not supposed to leak, mine has even though
> it's not been stored upside down.
>
> It's very sticky inside. Is there any good way to clean it out? Thanks for
> advice.

Isopropyl alcohol, obtainable from a store chemist but quite expensive.

At current prices vodka from the local Tesco should work out cheaper it
should be equally effective and can be put to other uses.

Methylated spirit would do equally well is it wasn't for the smell
which again is why vodka is so popular.

michael adams

...

>
>

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 13 2010 2:11 pm
From: AZ Nomad

On Fri, 13 Aug 2010 21:09:21 +0100, john hamilton <bluestar95@mail.invalid> wrote:
>I thought Parker ball pens were not supposed to leak, mine has even though
>it's not been stored upside down.

>It's very sticky inside. Is there any good way to clean it out? Thanks for
>advice.

soak it in gasoline
light it

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

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

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 19 new messages in 9 topics - digest

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

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 12 2010 11:51 am
From: "Clincher"

"Annie Woughman" <anniewoughman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FJG8o.13189$1F6.12165@newsfe01.iad...
>
>
> "MAS" <mas@bbbb.net> wrote in message news:i3va3m$o4a$2@news.datemas.de...
>> On 8/11/2010 9:19 AM, Napoleon wrote:
>>> More and more people are asking for your social security number when
>>> you fill out a job application. I always decline and write "upon hire"
>>> instead.
>>>
>>> I remember in the 80's and early 90's that the SSN was only given
>>> after you were hired to prove that you could work in the USA (of
>>> course other forms of ID could be used instead). I believe it's
>>> illegal to ask for the SSN on a job application - what use is it? A
>>> job application is not a credit check, which supposedly safeguards
>>> sensitive info such as SSNs. A job application is just a sheet of
>>> paper anyone can get their hands on. I don't trust giving out my SSN
>>> to just anyone for no reason.
>>>
>>> Of course all the jobs where I declined to give my SSN I was not hired
>>> for. Could be a coincidence, or not.
>>
>>
>> Some employers are now checking your credit status before they hire.
>>
>> Marsha
>
> Employers have been doing credit checks for years. It is just recently
> that some states are trying to pass laws to make credit checks illegal as
> a condition of hiring because of the mess the economy is in. Too many
> people have been caught in the vicious cycle of being downsized because of
> the bad economy, making it kind of tough to meet one's financial
> obligations, which in turn can lead to a bad credit rating--making it MORE
> difficult to get a job in a shrinking market, continuing right into a
> downward spiral that one might never recover from.

The vicious circle can also come about simply because the longer one is
unemployed, the more stale his skills become - especially in areas like tech
where skills obsoletely quickly.

So what's next: a law to prohibit employer discrimination against those who
are unqualified for the job?

Laws like this don't solve the real problem which is that there are more
jobseekers than there are jobs. All they do is to take a job away from
someone who managed their credit well and give it to someone who didn't.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 12 2010 12:02 pm
From: "Clincher"

"Annie Woughman" <anniewoughman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:FYT8o.52523$f_3.23819@newsfe17.iad...

> That would make sense too, however, I haven't heard anything about that in
> the proposed laws. Insurance rates should be based on one's driving
> record, not their credit rating. This is another hardship placed on those
> that through no fault of their own are facing financial disaster--higher
> insurance premiums.

Those who are facing financial difficulties are also the ones most likely to
file claims for small repairs (that a more well-to-do would be able to cover
out of his own pocket.) They're also more likely to live in crime ridden
areas or neglect proper auto and home maintenance whether because they can't
afford or it because they have such pessimistic outlook on life that they
figure why bother?

All of these things increase the likelihood of the policyholder submitting
claims - and fair or not, that's what premiums are supposed to be based on.
Insurance isn't meant to be a social equalizer. It's meant to be a hedge
against catastrophe (for the policyholder) and a means to make money by
betting against you having a loss (for the insurer.)

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 12 2010 10:41 pm
From: rvanson

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 08:19:23 -0500, Napoleon <anarch@666yes.net>
wrote:

>More and more people are asking for your social security number when
>you fill out a job application. I always decline and write "upon hire"
>instead.
>
>I remember in the 80's and early 90's that the SSN was only given
>after you were hired to prove that you could work in the USA (of
>course other forms of ID could be used instead). I believe it's
>illegal to ask for the SSN on a job application - what use is it? A
>job application is not a credit check, which supposedly safeguards
>sensitive info such as SSNs. A job application is just a sheet of
>paper anyone can get their hands on. I don't trust giving out my SSN
>to just anyone for no reason.
>
>Of course all the jobs where I declined to give my SSN I was not hired
>for. Could be a coincidence, or not.

No, its not coincedence at all.

The USA has been forming into a neo-fascist police state since before
9/11. I was asked to show the management my SS card to add on an
application to rent an apartment a while back.

They also wanted my drivers license wanted to copy the documents on
the spot along with my personal check so they could have my bank
account number too. Needless to say I declined to give them that
information.

There is little privacy to be had in the US anymore, sadly enough.

Its next to impossible to do anything without all manner of checks.
Some companies are taking hair samples to drug test before hiring. It
wont be long till they want DNA samples just like in the sci-fi movie,
"Gattica" and that was made before 9/11 and the Bush regime.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 12 2010 10:44 pm
From: rvanson

On Wed, 11 Aug 2010 19:01:09 -0400, MAS <mas@bbbb.net> wrote:

>On 8/11/2010 9:19 AM, Napoleon wrote:
>> More and more people are asking for your social security number when
>> you fill out a job application. I always decline and write "upon hire"
>> instead.
>>
>> I remember in the 80's and early 90's that the SSN was only given
>> after you were hired to prove that you could work in the USA (of
>> course other forms of ID could be used instead). I believe it's
>> illegal to ask for the SSN on a job application - what use is it? A
>> job application is not a credit check, which supposedly safeguards
>> sensitive info such as SSNs. A job application is just a sheet of
>> paper anyone can get their hands on. I don't trust giving out my SSN
>> to just anyone for no reason.
>>
>> Of course all the jobs where I declined to give my SSN I was not hired
>> for. Could be a coincidence, or not.
>
>
>Some employers are now checking your credit status before they hire.
>
>Marsha

They are doing alot more then that.

There is a company called Hireright that is a huge datbase for
informtaion on many individuals.

Once you are on the database your info is almost impossible to have
removed or altered. Welcome to the Brave New World of the USSA.

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 12 2010 1:19 pm
From: Jim A

On 08/12/2010 10:07 AM, Frank Studt wrote:
> Am 11.08.2010 22:50, schrieb Jim A:
>> On 08/11/2010 07:53 PM, Frank Studt wrote:
>
>>>
>>> http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/vcvideo.html
>>>
>>> Or just search for vehicular cycling
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> I like the style of those videos, especially the emphasis on being
>> courteous to other road users. We could do with some similar videos on
>> cycling in the UK (if we don't have some already).
>>
>
> I dont know about videos, but there is a book out by John Franklin about
> vehicular cycling in the UK.
>
> http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/index.html
>
> Although i think the general principles of vehicular cycling are not
> really different, you just have to exchange right for left sometimes.
>
> Here some words by Franklin about Segragation, Vehicular Cycling and
> cycling safety.
>
> http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/vehicular.pdf

You're not wrong. Cyclecraft is an excellent book. A bit of a long
read though.

--
www.slowbicyclemovement.org - enjoy the ride

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 12 2010 4:37 pm
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-
Hammock & the Stationary Bicycle to burn the calories"

On Aug 12, 1:19 pm, Jim A <j...@averyjim.myzen.co.uk> wrote:
> On 08/12/2010 10:07 AM, Frank Studt wrote:
>
>
>
> > Am 11.08.2010 22:50, schrieb Jim A:
> >> On 08/11/2010 07:53 PM, Frank Studt wrote:
>
> >>>http://www.vehicularcyclist.com/vcvideo.html
>
> >>> Or just search for vehicular cycling
>
> >> I like the style of those videos, especially the emphasis on being
> >> courteous to other road users. We could do with some similar videos on
> >> cycling in the UK (if we don't have some already).
>
> > I dont know about videos, but there is a book out by John Franklin about
> > vehicular cycling in the UK.
>
> >http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/index.html
>
> > Although i think the general principles of vehicular cycling are not
> > really different, you just have to exchange right for left sometimes.
>
> > Here some words by Franklin about Segragation, Vehicular Cycling and
> > cycling safety.
>
> >http://www.cyclecraft.co.uk/digest/vehicular.pdf
>
> You're not wrong. Cyclecraft is an excellent book. A bit of a long
> read though.
>
> --www.slowbicyclemovement.org- enjoy the ride

Sometimes to you can say something in a single paragraph...

"This book opened my eyes and explained that often the safest place
to ride is in the path of cars simply because you are more visible to
motorists. At first I didn't believe that it would be safer but having
tried
it (and some of the other ideas in the book) I would recommend it."

http://www.cyclecraft.org/book_reviews.html

Beautiful, now HOW DO WE TAKE --AND HOLD-- THE LANE? What kind of
grinding war are you ready to wage? Where is the organization to hold
this effort together and not fall apart one cyclist at a time?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What is the exact tap & die size for a USA garden hose thread (it's not
NH)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b45307cfc57adb86?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 12 2010 1:28 pm
From: mkirsch1@rochester.rr.com

On Aug 12, 10:53 am, Kat Rabun <katspianostudio...@Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid> wrote:
> What most people do to clean up a garden hose is take an old garden hose
> with good GHT fittings and slice a sharp channel crosswise across the
> threads with a triangular file. This self-tapping channel should be shallow
> at the beginning and as deep as you can get it near the bottom.

No, "most people" certainly do not bother. They will either cut the
hose and install a repair end, or throw the entire hose away.

The garden hoses I see for sale, even the so-called "good" ones, have
stamped brass ends. These are not re-threadable, or repairable in any
way. They must be sliced off and replaced.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 12 2010 1:44 pm
From: "Ed Huntress"

<mkirsch1@rochester.rr.com> wrote in message
news:0883a921-2d15-481f-94b0-f6fb92eb940e@j8g2000yqd.googlegroups.com...
On Aug 12, 10:53 am, Kat Rabun <katspianostudio...@Use-Author-Supplied-
Address.invalid> wrote:
> What most people do to clean up a garden hose is take an old garden hose
> with good GHT fittings and slice a sharp channel crosswise across the
> threads with a triangular file. This self-tapping channel should be
> shallow
> at the beginning and as deep as you can get it near the bottom.

>No, "most people" certainly do not bother. They will either cut the
>hose and install a repair end, or throw the entire hose away.
>
>The garden hoses I see for sale, even the so-called "good" ones, have
>stamped brass ends. These are not re-threadable, or repairable in any
>way. They must be sliced off and replaced.

Ho-ho! You must be in another newsgroup. Here on RCM, we'd machine a female
die from A1 tool steel, calculate a appropriate load of Red Dot powder and
primer, and re-shape the end with explosive forming. As a bonus, it would
really clean out the inside of that hose.

It couldn't take more than four or five hours of work to save us from having
to buy a $3 replacement end. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 12 2010 1:48 pm
From: dpb

Ed Huntress wrote:
...
> Ho-ho! You must be in another newsgroup. Here on RCM, we'd machine a female
> die from A1 tool steel, calculate a appropriate load of Red Dot powder and
> primer, and re-shape the end with explosive forming. As a bonus, it would
> really clean out the inside of that hose.
>
> It couldn't take more than four or five hours of work to save us from having
> to buy a $3 replacement end. d8-)

Chuckle... :)

I've done things like re-round them after crushing, certainly, but not
by explosive forming...

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 12 2010 1:55 pm
From: rangerssuck

On Aug 12, 4:48 pm, dpb <n...@non.net> wrote:
> Ed Huntress wrote:
>
> ...
>
> > Ho-ho! You must be in another newsgroup. Here on RCM, we'd machine a female
> > die from A1 tool steel, calculate a appropriate load of Red Dot powder and
> > primer, and re-shape the end with explosive forming. As a bonus, it would
> > really clean out the inside of that hose.
>
> > It couldn't take more than four or five hours of work to save us from having
> > to buy a $3 replacement end. d8-)
>
> Chuckle... :)
>
> I've done things like re-round them after crushing, certainly, but not
> by explosive forming...
>
> --

Or hand write the G-code to CNC a pattern and then cast a new end. But
first you have to build the machinery and the furnace...

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 12 2010 2:00 pm
From: Gunner Asch

On Thu, 12 Aug 2010 15:48:37 -0500, dpb <none@non.net> wrote:

>Ed Huntress wrote:
>...
>> Ho-ho! You must be in another newsgroup. Here on RCM, we'd machine a female
>> die from A1 tool steel, calculate a appropriate load of Red Dot powder and
>> primer, and re-shape the end with explosive forming. As a bonus, it would
>> really clean out the inside of that hose.
>>
>> It couldn't take more than four or five hours of work to save us from having
>> to buy a $3 replacement end. d8-)
>
>Chuckle... :)
>
>I've done things like re-round them after crushing, certainly, but not
>by explosive forming...

And Bullseye would be better for explosive forming than Red Dot.

"A conservative who doesn't believe? in God simply doesn't pray;
a godless liberal wants no one to pray. A conservative who doesn't
like guns doesn't buy one; a liberal gun-hater wants to disarm us all.
A gay conservative has sex his own way; a gay liberal requires us all
to watch and accept his perversion and have it taught to children.
A conservative who is offended by a radio show changes the station;
an offended liberal wants it banned, prosecuted and persecuted."
Bobby XD9

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 12 2010 3:22 pm
From: Lenona

On Aug 12, 1:46 pm, "Bill" <billnomailnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> Also if you find a handyman type, you might have then cut maybe 4" x 4"
> pieces of wood or plastic or metal to go over the holes where the rods go,
> then screw those to the drawer and drill new holes.

Or, since I have some heavy-duty paper clips and other odds and ends,
and since we're all familiar with those coat hooks that don't need any
adhesive because they just hang over the top of the door, I'll see if
I can't construct something like that! In which case, I won't need
longer rods.

Thanks again to everyone.

Lenona.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hamilton Beach 40886 Stainless Steel Kettle
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/de47cdfa16ce823d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 12 2010 4:56 pm
From: aesthete8

http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&q=hamilton+beach+electric+kettle&um=1&ie=UTF-8&cid=7015077061357453656&ei=_DRjTLaeH4SglAfkhcz5CQ&sa=X&oi=product_catalog_result&ct=result&resnum=5&ved=0CC8Q8wIwBA#

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 12 2010 4:56 pm
From: aesthete8

On Aug 12, 1:56 pm, aesthete8 <art...@gmail.com> wrote:
> http://www.google.com/products/catalog?hl=en&q=hamilton+beach+electri...

If anyone has tried it, would you recommend it?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Do you have a problem with bullies? Castrate them!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/9f3754515e95c8e4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 12 2010 5:39 pm
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-
Hammock & the Stationary Bicycle to burn the calories"

On Aug 12, 4:29 pm, Nate Nagel <njna...@roosters.net> wrote:
> On 08/12/2010 10:03 AM, His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the
>
> Movement of Tantra-Hammock wrote:
>
> Bullis is annoying at times, but really, gpstard and Aunt Judy are way
> worse.
>
> nate
>
> --
> replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.http://members.cox.net/njnagel

So you mean annoying can be worse than bullying? I think so too.

Notice they annoy you when they blow the horn at you for no good
reason.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 12 2010 5:44 pm
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-
Hammock & the Stationary Bicycle to burn the calories"

What do we do with these balls?

http://www.bullsballs.com/suv/accessories.html

==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Is God ever bored" and other tough questions
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3ec442123446a5a6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 12 2010 8:56 pm
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey, Creator of the Movement of Tantra-
Hammock & the Stationary Bicycle to burn the calories"

(This is not precisely what you call "on topic," but here's your
opportunity to ask God questions like "Why don't we have a place for
bikes?")

He's been around since the beginning of time, he's seen it all, and he
doesn't have a sense of humor... C'mon, he must be fucking bored!

Here are other "low ball" questions:

1- Are the Angels part of the bureaucracy, and is there corruption in
heaven?

2- Is God right handed or left handed, and is he right wing or left
wing?

3- Is there a multi-party system up there, and is the Devil part of
the opposition?

Notice I'm not questioning this in my capacity of Wise Tibetan Monkey,
but Curious George.

Your questions are welcomed!

-----------------------------------------------------------------

http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION

http://webspawner.com/users/FARTFORPEACE

http://webspawner.com/users/MASTURBATIONFORPEACE

==============================================================================
TOPIC: nike shox TL3 sports shoes discount paypal (http:// www.brandtrade66.
com )
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/da9500076b497089?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 12 2010 9:31 pm
From: susu

nike shoes,jordan shoes(http://www.brandtrade66.com)
Air Force 1 shoes(http://www.brandtrade66.com)
kids shoes(http://www.brandtrade66.com)
nike air max TN shoes(http://www.brandtrade66.com)
nike MAX LTD shoes (http://www.brandtrade66.com)
nike air MAX 180 sports shoes(http://www.brandtrade66.com)
nike air max 360 basketball shoes discount paypal (http://
www.brandtrade66.com )
nike air max 2003 running shoes discount paypal (http://
www.brandtrade66.com )
nike air max 97 sport shoes discount paypal (http://
www.brandtrade66.com )
nike air max 95 basketball shoes( http://www.brandtrade66.com )
nike air max 90 running shoes discount paypal (http://
www.brandtrade66.com )
nike air max 87 fashion shoes discount paypal (http://
www.brandtrade66.com )
nike Shox TL1 men shoes discount paypal (http://
www.brandtrade66.com )
nike shox TL3 sports shoes discount paypal (http://
www.brandtrade66.com )
nike shox NZ running shoes (http://www.brandtrade66.com)
nike shox OZ basketball shoes discount paypal (http://
www.brandtrade66.com )
nike shox R3 sport shoes discount paypal (http://
www.brandtrade66.com )
nike shox R4 fashion shoes discount paypal (http://
www.brandtrade66.com )
nike shox R5 running shoes discount paypal (http://
www.brandtrade66.com )
puma shoes discount paypal
Get Nike Shoes at Super Cheap Prices
Discount Ed hardy tshirt (http://www.brandtrade66.com)
Discount Ed hardy jean (http://www.brandtrade66.com)
Discount Ed hardy shoes (http://www.brandtrade66.com)
Discount Ed hardy handbag (http://www.brandtrade66.com)
Discount Ed hardy other porduct (http://www.brandtrade66.com)
Discount Nike air jordans (http://www.brandtrade66.com)
Discount Nike Air Max 90 Sneakers (http://www.brandtrade66.com)
Discount Nike Air Max 91 Supplier (http://www.brandtrade66.com)
Discount Nike Air Max 95 Shoes Supplier (http://
www.brandtrade66.com)
Discount Nike Air Max 97 Trainers (http://www.brandtrade66.com)
Discount Nike Air Max 2003 (http://www.brandtrade66.com)
Discount Nike Air Max 2004 Shoes
(http://www.brandtrade66.com)
Discount Nike Air Max 2005 Shop (http://www.brandtrade66.com)
Discount Nike Air Max 2006 Shoes Shop (http://www.brandtrade66.com)
Discount Nike Air Max 360 Catalogs (http://www.brandtrade66.com)
Discount Nike Air Max Ltd Shoes Catalogs (http://
www.brandtrade66.com)
Discount Nike Air Max Tn Men's Shoes (http://www.brandtrade66.com)