Frugal Living: Sep 3, 2010

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: paying $4.95 a month for Internet, but may upgrade
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/208e3f6ed9af19d1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Sep 2 2010 11:29 pm
From: The Real Bev

On 09/02/10 13:15, Ohioguy wrote:

> I'm paying $4.95 a month for dialup Internet. This gives me about 6
> hours of Internet access a day. I've been happy with it in the past,
> but nobody can call in or out when I'm online, so I've been considering
> alternatives.
>
> We also pay about $28 a month for local telephone, and ~$6 a month
> for long distance on calling cards.

Does google provide a google voice local number in your area? Free LD
anywhere in the country and pretty damn cheap for international calls.
Sort of VOIPish, although once you've established your account you can
call your google number with your landline, key in the number you want
to call and there you go. You can forward calls to your google number
(made by other people) to whatever other phone number you happen to be
using at the time, and if people leave voicemail for you google sends
you a text transcript -- which translations are pretty damn funny.
Check it out. In your hat, AT&T!

> That's a grand total of $39 a month
> for local and long distance, plus Internet.
>
> I had been considering DSL, but that would be $25 a month, and
> requires us to have the telephone. My long term goal is actually to
> dump the landline telephone, if possible.
>
> I've been looking at cable Internet - we have Timer Warner in this
> area. I got a flier last week advertising $29.99 a month Internet, but
> that was evidently a "bundle", where you pay them $90 total for
> Internet, telephone and TV. We don't have a TV, and I'm not interested
> in that.
>
> I think I've also seen "specials" where they advertise just the cable
> internet for $35 a month for the first year, then $45 a month after that.

Call them up and say you'll take their cablemodem service if you only
have to pay $29.99. You may have to discuss the problem a bit, but
ultimately they will cave -- possibly requiring you to commit to a year
or so.

When they want to raise the price tell them that you've been thinking of
quitting because you're not sure it's worth what you're paying and
you're thinking of cheaper DSL...

Once they're installed the cable, it's always in their best interest to
keep you as a customer, even if you pay less than others who wouldn't
dream of trying to haggle a better price.

--
Cheers, Bev
------------------------------------------------------------
VISE GRIPS (VYS'-gripz) [n] A tool used to transfer intense
welding heat to the palm of the welder's hand. -- DS

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 3 2010 3:00 am
From: Al

On Sep 2, 9:05 pm, "Bob F" <bobnos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Al wrote:
> > How about FREE?
> >http://www.dialupforfree.com/
> > I've been using then as my backup on two computers for a long time
> > without problem. It's unlimited and the connection is the same as I
> > pay for on my regular ride.
>
> It looks to me like a toll call from anywhere but western Nebraska.

Nope. Plenty of access numbers in EVERY part of continental USA. I
have never paid a fee.
Simply check your local service for your toll free local area and pick
a number. I use AT&T.

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 3 2010 4:16 am
From: George

On 9/3/2010 6:00 AM, Al wrote:
> On Sep 2, 9:05 pm, "Bob F"<bobnos...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Al wrote:
>>> How about FREE?
>>> http://www.dialupforfree.com/
>>> I've been using then as my backup on two computers for a long time
>>> without problem. It's unlimited and the connection is the same as I
>>> pay for on my regular ride.
>>
>> It looks to me like a toll call from anywhere but western Nebraska.
>
> Nope. Plenty of access numbers in EVERY part of continental USA. I
> have never paid a fee.
> Simply check your local service for your toll free local area and pick
> a number. I use AT&T.

They list two Nebraska numbers as the access numbers for PA. Pretty sure
Nebraska isn't in my toll free local area...

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 3 2010 4:16 am
From: George

On 9/2/2010 11:03 PM, Gary Heston wrote:
> In article<265ea5ee-dded-4765-9e68-9a016b2c7789@l20g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> Al<albundy2@mailinator.com> wrote:
> [ ... ]
>> How about FREE?
>> http://www.dialupforfree.com/
>> I've been using then as my backup on two computers for a long time
>> without problem. It's unlimited and the connection is the same as I
>> pay for on my regular ride.
>
> They advertise nationwide availbility, although "toll charges may apply".
>
> If you check the access numbers for Alabama, where I sit, the two provided
> are in area code 308--which is in Nebraska.
>
> That would tend to run up the phone bill.
>
>
> Gary
>
The reason they are in Nebraska is that is one of the "rural" states
used for phone scams (Iowa was/is the other). "Rural" carriers get to
charge much higher rates to the calling carrier to complete a call so
they charge really high rates until the other carriers protest and get
them shut down. You may remember the "free" overseas calling and "free"
conference calling offers from different providers in the past.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 3 2010 2:25 pm
From: Al

On Sep 3, 7:16 am, George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> On 9/3/2010 6:00 AM, Al wrote:
>
> > On Sep 2, 9:05 pm, "Bob F"<bobnos...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Al wrote:
> >>> How about FREE?
> >>>http://www.dialupforfree.com/
> >>> I've been using then as my backup on two computers for a long time
> >>> without problem. It's unlimited and the connection is the same as I
> >>> pay for on my regular ride.
>
> >> It looks to me like a toll call from anywhere but western Nebraska.
>
> > Nope. Plenty of access numbers in EVERY part of continental USA. I
> > have never paid a fee.
> > Simply check your local service for your toll free local area and pick
> > a number. I use AT&T.
>
> They list two Nebraska numbers as the access numbers for PA. Pretty sure
> Nebraska isn't in my toll free local area...

George, obviously you are right about what you saw on the web site. I
was puzzled by the fact that I just used the free service with a local
toll free number. So I proceeded to click through the web site using
available numbers with AT&T and about 75 toll free numbers popped up
including the one I use. I can't get a fee on that number and never
have paid anything. Of course if you don't have AT & T or Verizon, you
are indeed stuck with those other two numbers. Maybe somebody can
benefit from it though.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: In the beginning God created the Chicken that laid the Egg
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/bc04a66ed069c4a2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 3 2010 1:05 am
From: Doug

On 2 Sep, 15:56, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the
Jungle" <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> This would solve the old dilemma of who was first. The Bible says he
> created the animals, and later they found a way to reproduce.
>
> We are assuming though that God didn't make the egg for human
> consumption. Then God served scrambled eggs & grits to Adam & Eve in
> true Southern Style and said, "You can eat anything except from the
> Tree of Knowledge because that would make you smart." And the rest is
> history...
>
There is no God. Chickens and eggs slowly evolved together from a
common ancestor over many millions of years, who may or may not have
laid eggs.

BTW, you post is seriously OT and spammed.

Doug.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 3 2010 6:07 am
From: "h"

"Doug" <jagmad@riseup.net> wrote in message news:f3eaf721-7ffd-42df-9dbf-

> There is no God. Chickens and eggs slowly evolved together from a
> common ancestor over many millions of years, who may or may not have
> laid eggs.
>
> BTW, you post is seriously OT and spammed.
>
> Doug.
>
You're right, of course, but do not feed the troll.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 3 2010 9:21 am
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle"

On Sep 3, 1:05 am, Doug <jag...@riseup.net> wrote:
> On 2 Sep, 15:56, "His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of theJungle" <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > This would solve the old dilemma of who was first. The Bible says he
> > created the animals, and later they found a way to reproduce.
>
> > We are assuming though that God didn't make the egg for human
> > consumption. Then God served scrambled eggs & grits to Adam & Eve in
> > true Southern Style and said, "You can eat anything except from the
> > Tree of Knowledge because that would make you smart." And the rest is
> > history...
>
> There is no God. Chickens and eggs slowly evolved together from a
> common ancestor over many millions of years, who may or may not have
> laid eggs.
>
> BTW, you post is seriously OT and spammed.
>
> Doug.

I have reasons to believe God is behind the opposition to bike
facilities and other topics that are not strictly moral.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 3 2010 2:45 pm
From: "Edward Dolan"

"His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle"
<nolionnoproblem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:b4343ce8-056a-4b85-aad0-d7fd0686bc5b@z28g2000yqh.googlegroups.com...
> This would solve the old dilemma of who was first. The Bible says he
> created the animals, and later they found a way to reproduce.
>
> We are assuming though that God didn't make the egg for human
> consumption. Then God served scrambled eggs & grits to Adam & Eve in
> true Southern Style and said, "You can eat anything except from the
> Tree of Knowledge because that would make you smart." And the rest is
> history...

TM is a poor crazy bastard who just posts on his one favorite subject -
hatred of motor vehicles because they interfere with his use of the roads.
His other favorite subject is attacking Christianity. If you respond to this
poor crazy bastard, then you are a poor crazy bastard too.

He likes to reference monkeys and other wild animals normally found only in
zoos because he is most likely a wild beast himself. I think he fornicates
with monkeys, but I can't prove it.

TM should confine himself to just one thread instead of proliferating them
like a poor crazy bastard. He is insane of course. I liken him to the
village idiot of olden times. The difference these days is that no one any
longer recognizes the village idiot because idiocy has become so widespread.

But I will be here to remind one and all of what a poor crazy bastard TM is.
It is mark of My Greatness that I can still recognize the village idiot even
if the rest of you can't.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Flu Vaccine Scam Rears Its Ugly Head Again in 2010
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/df9bf47b6f220bd6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 3 2010 5:48 am
From: Clams <"Clams"@drunkenclam.com>

h wrote:
> "Rebel1" <Rebel1@optonline.net> wrote in message news:4c801745$0$31277
>
> Oh, doG, NO one need a flu shot. GIVE IT A REST,. All that crap is a Big
> Pharma Scam. Sheesh, everyone knows this....Or, at least all adults with
> working brains know this..
>
>

except the 40K who die from influenza each year in the US and 500k
worldwide. Why bother with a shot, even if fully covered by one's
insurance? What's a few days of inconvenience?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 3 2010 6:44 am
From: Rebel1

Rod Speed wrote:
> Ray K wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>>> (As an aside, Mike Adams, also known as the Health Ranger, makes a good case that nobody dies in the U.S. from flu
>>>> because none of the deaths are confirmed by lab data; fascinating perspective.
>
>>> No he doesnt make a good case, because they either died of the flu or they didnt, doesnt matter whether that has been
>>> confirmed by lab data or not.
>
>> Why doesn't it matter?
>
> Because its obvious that many do die of flu.

Obvious by what criteria? Put a figure on "many."

>> If they didn't die from flu,
>
> They did. That wasnt confirmed with lab tests, thats all.

So how do you know that for a FACT? You have a great problem dealing
with published data, but have no problem making unsubstantiated
broadbased claims. Do you still believe the earth is flat (or maybe a
round disc) and the sun revolves around the earth?

>> why bother with flu vaccinations?
>
> Because heaps get flu.

How do you know that for a FACT? How many are "heaps"?

>> How can you know for sure there are only two alternatives, flu, or no flu?
>
> No one ever said anything like that.

When you said "they either died of the flu or thy didnt..." that's
exactly what you did say.

>> There are no other illness anywhere on the planet with the same symptoms?
>
> Corse there are. There isnt any point in confirming which one they died of with lab tests tho.

If you are using deaths or major complications as the justification for
an expensive mass vaccination program, then the true nature of the
"enemy" must be known.

The so-call AIDS epidemic in Africa isn't based on lab tests. The
diagnosis is based on symptoms shared by many other Africa diseases. And
the definition of AIDS in Africa is not the same as used in the US. It's
considerably broader, to exaggerate the risk and attract funds to
support researcher parasites and enrich drug companies.
http://www.natural-health-information-centre.com/africa.html

>>>> http://www.naturalnews.com/026169.html)
>
>>>> ************************************************************************
>
>>>> Once again the government and its press lackeys are circulating lies
>
>>> And this is where your prejudices stand out like dogs balls.
>
>>>> about the alleged number of annual U.S. flu deaths in an attempt to scare the population into getting flu shots of
>>>> questionable value.
>
>>> Why would they bother?
>
>> The next sentence answers that simple question.
>
> Like hell it does.
>
>>>> Nobody in Congress challenges the number, because Big Pharma makes substantial "contributions" to their reelection
>>>> campaigns.
>
>>> Mindlessly silly.
>
>> Actually your are naive if you assume there are no politics in medicine.
>
> Never assumed anything of the sort.
>
>> I suggest you subscribe to free newsletters from mercola.com and naturalnews.com for the wakeup call you desperately
>> need.
>
> No thanks, I use rigorous science instead.

Be specific: Name the sources of "rigorous science" that you rely on.
Why do you put your blind faith in those particular sources? How you you
KNOW they are objective? How do they get the revenue to pay their
overhead (salaries, publication expenses, etc.)? How do you KNOW that
those revenue sources don't slant the editorial content in their favor?

>>>> FDA decision-makers don't make waves because their silence is often
>>>> rewarded with lucrative jobs at Big Pharma companies after leaving government.
>
>>> Even sillier.
>
>> Obviously, the phrase "revolving door" doesn't mean anything to you.
>> Google on "FDA revolving door" (no quotes) and read for yourself.
>
>> http://www.goodhealthinfo.net/cancer/fda_cozy_relationship.htm
>> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Government-industry_revolving_door
>> http://www.psrast.org/ecologmons.htm
>
> Just because some fool claims something doesnt make it gospel.

That scam works remarkably will for religion and all the people who
believe the nonsense in the holy books of any organized religion.

And just because some fool is in denial about the reality of how people
in power operate, doesn't mean you should bury your head in the sand and
label people who point it out as fools.

>>>> Advertising-supported popular magazines and even medical
>>>> journals dare not expose the truth; just count the number of
>>>> advertising pages for drugs and figure it out yourself.
>
>>> Peer reviewed scientific journals dont have any drug advertising.
>
>> Really?!
>
> Yes, really.
>
>> You are not only naive but in denial.
>
> We'll see...
>
>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16523984
>
>> It says that the advertising-to-editorial ratio in the NEJM is nearly unity, and the the JAMA, about 0.3.
>
> Doesnt say that about DRUG advertising.

Yes, you are right. All those ads in NEJM and JAMA are for Cheerios,
Barbie dolls, Hanna Montana garbage, Nintendo, McDonalds, and the rest.
Ads in ANY magazine are slanted toward the profile of typical readership
it's aimed at. Soccer moms don't read NEJM or JAMA.

Trot down to your library and count the number ads in a typical issue of
NEJM as a percent of total ads. Do the survey two ways, once counting
drug ads by their NUMBER as a percent of the total NUMBER of ads, and
then as the percent by area SIZE (square inches devoted to drug ads vs.
non-drug ads). Post your results here. I'm sure you wouldn't believe my
numbers.

>> But I guess that in your myopic world, NEJM and JAMA are not peer-reviewed journals.
>
> Guess again.

If you accept them as being peer-reviewed, then your own earlier claim
that "Peer reviewed scientific journals dont have any drug advertising"
is false.

>>>> Major news services (AP, Reuters, etc.) don't expose the fraud
>>>> either; perhaps it's the fear of being denied access to key people
>>>> in the government, or perhaps their writers are too lazy to do
>>>> fact-checking.
>
>>> More likely because there is no fraud.
>
>> Wake up!
>
> Go back to sleep!!!
>
>>>> 36,000 DEATHS PER YEAR
>>>> That's the bogus number typically circulated.
>
>>> Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate the claim that its bogus.
>
>> The sources of data in the original post are all from the CDC and cited in the references.
>
> Pity they dont substantiate that particular claim.

If you are you talking about the claim of 36,000, just read any article
in the popular media or presented on TV shows. If you are talking about
the claim of bogus, the CDC's data show the numbers in the 50,000-60,000
range.

>> Obviously, you can't be bothered reading the them.
>
>> Doesn't it strike you odd that the 36,000 figure never changes, year to year?
>
> Thats a lie with the CDC data.

But the CDC data doesn't give that number; its numbers are in the
50,000-60,000 range.

>>>> It's sometimes given as deaths from pneumonia and flu combined.
>>>> Other times it's given as deaths from flu alone. (They can't even
>>>> tell a consistent lie.)
>
>>> Its nothing like as black and white as that.
>
>> According the the CDC data, it is.

Go here, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf, Table
10, page 3 of the five-page pdf file.

It gives deaths for all ages:
Influenza and pneumonia: 52,717
Influenza: 411
Pneumonia: 52,306
>
> You're lying, again.
>
>> Read the references.
>
> Doesnt say anything like that.

You still refuse to actually read the CDC data.

>>>> In either case, the number is wrong.
>
>>> Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate the claim that its bogus.
>
>> The data is take directly from CDC publications.
>
> That claim about the 36K number isnt.

Then where did it come from? And why isn't the CDC actively, publicly
calling for a retraction or correction?

>>>> The true number of flu deaths and pneumonia deaths in all age
>>>> groups, right from the government's Centers for Disease Control
>>>> reports, are as follows:
>
>>>> Deaths from 2003(1) 2004(2) 2005(3) 2006(4) 2007(5)
>>>> Pneumonia & flu 65,163 59,644 63,001 56,326 52,717
>>>> Pneumonia alone 63,371 58,564 61,189 55,477 52,306
>
>>> Thats a flagrantly dishonest misrepresentation of what the CDC reports actually say.
>
>> Please substantiate your claim.
>
> Read the reports.

I did read them. They are in my references. Which ones do you want me to
read? Which tables?

>>>> Flu alone 1,792 1,100 1,812 849 411
>
>>> And that in spades.
>
>> It's simple subtraction.
>
> And that is a flagrantly dishonest misrepresentation of what the CDC actually says.

What does the CDC say? You talk in generalities, but give no references
to support your denials.

>> Take a remedial course in basic arithmetic.
>
> Take Bullshitting 101.
>
>>>> That's right, flu deaths ranged from 1,792 in 2003 to 411 in 2007.
>
>>> The CDC doesnt say that.
>
>> If you do the subtracion,
>
> The CDC isnt stupid enough to do that.

They already did. Their numbers give the combined total as well as the
separate flu and pneumonia numbers.

>> that's exactly what it does say. Read the references.
>
> There is no subtraction done by the CDC.

Yes, there is. See my above comment.

>>>> The five-year average is 1,192 per year!
>
>>> Or that either.
>
>> If you add the five numbers above for flu-alone deaths, they total 5964. Divide that by five, and you get 1192.8 as
>> the five-year average.
>
> Pity the CDC says nothing like that.

It's just a matter of applying basic arithmetic to the numbers that the
CDC does provide.

>> You should have paid attention to basic arithmetic. Maybe you can get a 10-year-old to explain it to you.
>
> Any 2 year old can bullshit better than that pathetic effort.

My data a backed by referenced government data. You offer nothing to
support your claims or denials.

> Get one to help you before posting again, if anyone is actually stupid enough to let you anywhere near one.

What is your basis for saying that I am a threat (of any nature) to a
2-year-old? Just because you don't believe my analysis of published
data? In the dreamworld you live in, that's a rational reason, isn't it?

>>> And you havent even considered how many more would have
>>> died of flu if there had not been any flu vaccinations anyway.
>
>> What is the number?
>
> No one knows. It isnt even possible to know that.

Then why raise the issue? What if the number were only 100?

>> If you read this article from Sept 2,
>> http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_vaccines_junk_science.html,
>> you'll see that the vaccines don't work in 99 out of 100 people.
>
> Pity that is a bare faced lie.
>
> There might just be a reason that smallpox was completely eliminated from
> the wild and polio is now no longer a serious problem in the first world.
>
>> So at best they relieve symptoms in only 1 out of 100.
>
> Another bare faced lie.

Once again, you've shown that you haven't read the source material in
the Cochrane report given here:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001269/frame.html

To make it easy for you, here are the conclusions:

"Authors' conclusions
Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms
and working days lost. There is no evidence that they affect
complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission."

That should be clear enough even for someone like you (a lazy,
closed-minded denialist) to understand.

>
>>> None of the rest of this even more mindless silly shit worth bothering with.
>
>> At least you are admitting that you haven't bothered reading the references
>
> Didnt say that.

Did you check ANY of my numbers with the references I provided, just to
be sure I'm not lying or distorting?

> I JUST said that I didnt bother to comment on the rest of your lies.
>
>> and even if you had, you consider the CDC's data to be shit.
>
> You're lying, again.
>
>> How much does Big Pharma pay you
>
> Not a cent.
>
>> to publicly embarrass yourself with you nonsensical rantings?
>
> Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.
>
>> Besides not understanding basic arithmetic, you don't even understand
>> basic spelling, either. Learn to use an apostrophe in a contraction.
>> (Sorry to use that big three-syllable word.)
>
> Any 2 year old could leave that for dead.

You might also learn to use a hyphen with a compound adjective or noun.
(Adjective? Noun? What the hell are they?)

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 3 2010 9:09 am
From: "Twayne"

TROLL ALERT! THAT POSTcontains nothingi but erroneous information and a huge
amount of misinformation, none of which is verifiable from any reliable
source.

In news:4c7d500b$0$31266$607ed4bc@cv.net,
Rebel1 <Rebel1@optonline.net> typed:
> The Flu Vaccine Scam Rears Its Ugly Head Again in 2010
>
>
> This article is an update of a series of articles with
> similar titles first posted Sept 25, 2008, and most
> recently on May 2, 2009. It has been reformatted using
> fixed-width type so the numbers in the columns properly
> align and it has been updated with newly released data for
> 2007. To prevent the table from getting too wide for a
> 1024x768 display, the 2002 data has been deleted. It was
> originally posted at the sci.med.nutrition, alt.health,
> alt.social-security-disability, alt.politics.usa.congress,
> and misc.consumers.frugal-living newsgroups on August 31,
> 2010, 2:55 pm ET, by Rebel1.
> (As an aside, Mike Adams, also known as the Health Ranger,
> makes a good case that nobody dies in the U.S. from flu
> because none of the deaths are confirmed by lab data;
> fascinating perspective.
> http://www.naturalnews.com/026169.html)
> ************************************************************************
>
> Once again the government and its press lackeys are
> circulating lies about the alleged number of annual U.S.
> flu deaths in an attempt to scare the population into
> getting flu shots of questionable value. Nobody in Congress
> challenges the number, because Big Pharma makes substantial
> contributions to their reelection campaigns. FDA
> decision-makers don t make waves because their silence is
> often rewarded with lucrative jobs at Big Pharma companies
> after leaving government. Advertising-supported popular
> magazines and even medical journals dare not expose the
> truth; just count the number of advertising pages for drugs
> and figure it out yourself. Major news services (AP,
> Reuters, etc.) don t expose the fraud either; perhaps it s
> the fear of being denied access to key people in the
> government, or perhaps their writers are too lazy to do
> fact-checking.
> 36,000 DEATHS PER YEAR
> That s the bogus number typically circulated. It s
> sometimes given as deaths from pneumonia and flu combined.
> Other times it s given as deaths from flu alone. (They
> can t even tell a consistent lie.) In either case, the
> number is wrong. The true number of flu deaths and
> pneumonia deaths in all age groups, right from the
> government s Centers for Disease Control reports, are as
> follows:
> Deaths from 2003(1) 2004(2) 2005(3) 2006(4) 2007(5)
> Pneumonia & flu 65,163 59,644 63,001 56,326 52,717
> Pneumonia alone 63,371 58,564 61,189 55,477 52,306 Flu
> alone 1,792 1,100 1,812 849 411 All
> causes 2,448,288 2,397,615 2,448,017 2,426,264 2,423,712
> That s right, flu deaths ranged from 1,792 in 2003 to 411
> in 2007. The five-year average is 1,192 per year!
>
> SO WHO SHOULD GET THE FLU VACCINE?
> According to this site,
> http://www.medicinenet.com/influenza/page3.htm, groups at
> increased risk of influenza complications include people
> aged 65 years or older. (With all their drug ads, can
> they be impartial?) Let s see just how high that risk is.
> Here are the numbers for people aged 65 and older+ in year
> 2007(5):
> Age Age Age Total Deaths
> from: 65-74 75-84 85&Up 65&Up Pneumonia and flu
> 5,547 14,859 25,535
> 45,941 Pneumonia alone 5,509 14,780 25,396 45,685 Flu
> Alone 38 79 139 256 Total Deaths,
> all causes 389,238 652,682 713,646 1,755,566 Flu Deaths, % of Total
> 0.010 0.012 0.019 0.015 Deaths
>
> So IF vaccine makers correctly GUESSED at the type of virus
> strains that would be a risk 9 months after they started
> making the vaccine, AND IF the vaccine were 100 percent
> effective, only 256 deaths (0.015%) would be delayed out of
> 1,755,566 from all causes.
> Some might credit the drop of flu deaths in the 65 and
> above group (256 in 2007 vs. 689 in 2006) to increased
> vaccination coverage. But the CDC says that coverage of
> 68.0% in this age group was similar to previous seasons.(6)
>
> But they want to vaccinate all 35,000,000 people 65 and
> older(7). At $20 per vaccine, that s $700,000,000
> transferred from the bank accounts of seniors and their
> insurers to the medical mafia (everyone from the local
> doctors up the distribution chain to the manufacturer)
> hoping to delay a mere 256 deaths in an already vulnerable
> group. That s $2,734,375 for each delayed death. Yes, there
> will be some savings due to reduced hospitalizations.
> Nevertheless, this kind of insanity is what s bankrupting
> the system.
> HOW EFFECTIVE IS THE VACCINE?
> An article in the October 4, 2007, issue of the New England
> Journal of Medicine addressed this question.(8) Data were
> pooled from 18 cohorts of community-dwelling elderly
> members of one U.S. health maintenance organization (HMO)
> for 1990 1991 through 1999 2000 and of two other HMOs for
> 1996 1997 through 1999 2000. The study was not designed to
> evaluate levels of vaccine effectiveness among the frailest
> elderly, such as those living in nursing homes, and is
> somewhat biased because all members were part of an HMO.
> The data covered 10 flu seasons, which included eight
> seasons where the vaccine matched the circulating virus.
> Results - Some quotes from the study:
>
> During the 10 influenza seasons, there were 4599
> hospitalizations for pneumonia or influenza and 8796
> deaths. The observed hospitalization rates for unvaccinated
> and for vaccinated participants were, on average, 0.7% and 0.6% per
> season, respectively, with corresponding
> death rates of 1.6% and 1.0% per season.
>
> Influenza vaccination was associated on average with
> substantial reductions in hospitalizations for pneumonia
> and for influenza (vaccine effectiveness, 27%) and in death
> (vaccine effectiveness, 48%). Estimates varied from season
> to season and across the 18 cohorts). In the two seasons
> with a poor match between the vaccine and the virus strain,
> vaccine effectiveness was lower for reducing death (in
> seasons with a poor match, vaccine effectiveness was 37%;
> in seasons with a good match, vaccine effectiveness was
> 52%) but not for reducing hospitalization.
> While these results may appear impressive, the study warns:
>
> How these results might relate to population-level trends
> is unclear. For example, influenza-attributable excess
> mortality rates in the United States have not declined to
> the degree that might be expected in light of increasing
> vaccination rates during the 1980s and the early 1990s.
> However, nation-level data do not include the risk profile
> or vaccination status of those who have died. Critical
> information is therefore lacking, making it difficult to
> estimate what the expected excess mortality rates would be
> if vaccination rates were 0%, what benefits have already
> been realized given current patterns of vaccine use, and
> what additional benefits might be realized with more
> effective vaccine delivery.
> Draw your own conclusions as to the value of a flu vaccine,
> considering the cost of a nationwide program compared to
> the few who will benefit.
> WHAT ABOUT PNEUMONIA?
> True, complications from the flu VIRUS can lead to
> pneumonia. About 50 percent of the pneumonia cases are
> caused by viruses, which produce less severe pneumonia(9).
> The rest are mainly caused by bacteria. Get a pneumonia
> vaccination.
> HOW TO PREVENT THE FLU
> The flu season coincides with shorter days, which means
> less sunlight and less vitamin D generated by our bodies
> from direct (not through glass or sunscreen) sun exposure
> on our skin. Here s the background:
> http://articles.mercola.com/sites/articles/archive/2006/10/03/more-evidence-vitamin-d-beats-the-flu.aspx
>
> (If the above link doesn't take you directly to the
> article, type the link manually in the address box or enter
> in the search box " More Evidence Vitamin D Beats the Flu"
> and click on the first result.)
> 1) Take vitamin D3 supplements or cod liver oil, at daily
> doses of 1000-2000 IU. But read this before starting:
> http://www.mercola.com/2002/feb/23/vitamin_d_deficiency.htm
> 2) Frequently wash hands after being in public
> 3) Get plenty of sleep
> 4) Reduce stress
> 5) Cut sugar consumption, which depresses the immune system.
>
> MORE INFO
> http://tampa.creativeloafing.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A3696
>
> **********************************************************
> REFERENCES:
> (1) Deaths: Final Data for 2003, National Vital Statistics
> Reports, Vol. 54, #13, Apr 19, 2006, Table 10, page 32
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr54/nvsr54_13.pdf
> (2) Deaths: Final Data for 2004, National Vital Statistics
> Reports, Vol. 55, #19, Oct 10, 2007, pages 30, 32 and
> 36
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr55/nvsr55_19.pdf (3)
> Deaths: Final Data for 2005, National Vital Statistics
> Reports, Vol. 56, #10, April 24, 2008, page 33, Table
> 10 http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr56/nvsr56_10.pdf
> (4) Deaths: Final Data for 2006, National Vital
> Statistics Reports, Vol. 57, #14, April 2009, Table 10
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr57/nvsr57_14.pdf. (5)
> Deaths: Final Data for 2007, National Vital Statistics
> Reports, Vol. 58, #19, May 2010, Table 10
> http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf. (6)
> Morbidity and Mortality Weekly Report, April 30, 2010
> http://www.cdc.gov/mmwr/preview/mmwrhtml/mm5916a1.htm (7)
> Information Please Almanac
> http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0905042.html (8)
> Effectiveness of Influenza Vaccine in the
> Community-Dwelling Elderly.
> http://content.nejm.org/cgi/content/full/357/14/1373 (9)
> Pneumonia Fact Sheet, American Lung Association
> http://www.lungusa.org/lung-disease/influenza/in-depth-resources/pneumonia-fact-sheet.html

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 3 2010 12:34 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Rebel1 wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Ray K wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote

>>>>> (As an aside, Mike Adams, also known as the Health Ranger, makes
>>>>> a good case that nobody dies in the U.S. from flu because none of
>>>>> the deaths are confirmed by lab data; fascinating perspective.

>>>> No he doesnt make a good case, because they either died of the flu
>>>> or they didnt, doesnt matter whether that has been confirmed by
>>>> lab data or not.

>>> Why doesn't it matter?

>> Because its obvious that many do die of flu.

> Obvious by what criteria?

What they died of. You dont die of the common cold.

> Put a figure on "many."

250K-500K world wide, millions in pandemic years.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza

>>> If they didn't die from flu,

>> They did. That wasnt confirmed with lab tests, thats all.

> So how do you know that for a FACT?

Because you dont die of the common cold and pneumonia is common with flu.

I've deleted all your puerile attempts at insults any 2 year old could leave for dead.

>>> why bother with flu vaccinations?

>> Because heaps get flu.

> How do you know that for a FACT?

Because flu is widely monitored because it can kill huge numbers in the worst epidemics.

> How many are "heaps"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza

>>> How can you know for sure there are only two alternatives, flu, or no flu?

>> No one ever said anything like that.

> When you said "they either died of the flu or thy didnt..." that's exactly what you did say.

Everyone can see that you are lying, again. Thats saying nothing like that later claim of yours.

>>> There are no other illness anywhere on the planet with the same symptoms?

>> Corse there are. There isnt any point in confirming which one they died of with lab tests tho.

> If you are using deaths or major complications as the justification for an expensive mass vaccination program, then
> the true nature of the "enemy" must be known.

Yes, but it is very well known indeed without confirming what every single individual died of.

> The so-call AIDS epidemic in Africa isn't based on lab tests.

Another pig ignorant lie.

> The diagnosis is based on symptoms shared by many other Africa diseases.

Pity about all the HIV/AIDS outside africa.

> And the definition of AIDS in Africa is not the same as used in the US.

Another pig ignorant lie.

> It's considerably broader, to exaggerate the risk and attract
> funds to support researcher parasites and enrich drug companies.
> http://www.natural-health-information-centre.com/africa.html

Just because some fool claims something, doesnt make it gospel.

>>>>> http://www.naturalnews.com/026169.html)

>>>>> ************************************************************************

>>>>> Once again the government and its press lackeys are circulating lies

>>>> And this is where your prejudices stand out like dogs balls.

>>>>> about the alleged number of annual U.S. flu deaths in an attempt
>>>>> to scare the population into getting flu shots of questionable value.

>>>> Why would they bother?

>>> The next sentence answers that simple question.

>> Like hell it does.

>>>>> Nobody in Congress challenges the number, because Big Pharma
>>>>> makes substantial "contributions" to their reelection campaigns.

>>>> Mindlessly silly.

>>> Actually your are naive if you assume there are no politics in medicine.

>> Never assumed anything of the sort.

>>> I suggest you subscribe to free newsletters from mercola.com and
>>> naturalnews.com for the wakeup call you desperately need.

>> No thanks, I use rigorous science instead.

> Be specific: Name the sources of "rigorous science" that you rely on.

The CDC.

> Why do you put your blind faith in those particular sources?

It isnt blind faith, I know what rigorous science is about.

> How you you KNOW they are objective?

Because its completely trivial to test for influenza.

> How do they get the revenue to pay their overhead (salaries, publication expenses, etc.)?

The CDC is govt funded.

> How do you KNOW that those revenue sources don't slant the editorial content in their favor?

Because I know how the CDC operates and it gets the same results
as the other first world govt funded operations that do that sort of work.

>>>>> FDA decision-makers don't make waves because their silence is often rewarded with lucrative jobs at Big Pharma
>>>>> companies after leaving government.

>>>> Even sillier.

>>> Obviously, the phrase "revolving door" doesn't mean anything to you.
>>> Google on "FDA revolving door" (no quotes) and read for yourself.

>>> http://www.goodhealthinfo.net/cancer/fda_cozy_relationship.htm
>>> http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Government-industry_revolving_door
>>> http://www.psrast.org/ecologmons.htm

>> Just because some fool claims something doesnt make it gospel.

> That scam works remarkably will for religion and all the people who
> believe the nonsense in the holy books of any organized religion.

Irrelevant to whether thats how the CDC works.

I've deleted all your puerile attempts at insults any 2 year old could leave for dead.

>>>>> Advertising-supported popular magazines and even medical
>>>>> journals dare not expose the truth; just count the number of
>>>>> advertising pages for drugs and figure it out yourself.

>>>> Peer reviewed scientific journals dont have any drug advertising.

>>> Really?!

>> Yes, really.

>>> You are not only naive but in denial.

>> We'll see...

>>> http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16523984

>>> It says that the advertising-to-editorial ratio in the NEJM is nearly unity, and the the JAMA, about 0.3.

>> Doesnt say that about DRUG advertising.

I've deleted all your puerile attempts at insults any 2 year old could leave for dead.

>>>>> 36,000 DEATHS PER YEAR
>>>>> That's the bogus number typically circulated.

>>>> Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate the claim that its bogus.

>>> The sources of data in the original post are all from the CDC and cited in the references.

>> Pity they dont substantiate that particular claim.

> If you are you talking about the claim of 36,000, just read any article in the popular media or presented on TV shows.

That aint the CDC, thats stupid journos.

> If you are talking about the claim of bogus, the CDC's data show the numbers in the 50,000-60,000 range.

So much for your previous lies about the 36K figure.

>>> Doesn't it strike you odd that the 36,000 figure never changes, year to year?

>> Thats a lie with the CDC data.

> But the CDC data doesn't give that number; its numbers are in the 50,000-60,000 range.

So much for your previous lies about the 36K figure.

>>>>> It's sometimes given as deaths from pneumonia and flu combined.
>>>>> Other times it's given as deaths from flu alone. (They can't even
>>>>> tell a consistent lie.)

>>>> Its nothing like as black and white as that.

>>> According the the CDC data, it is.

> Go here, http://www.cdc.gov/nchs/data/nvsr/nvsr58/nvsr58_19.pdf, Table
> 10, page 3 of the five-page pdf file.

> It gives deaths for all ages:
> Influenza and pneumonia: 52,717
> Influenza: 411
> Pneumonia: 52,306

All that means is that most who get the flu get pneumonia too.

>> You're lying, again.

>>> Read the references.

>> Doesnt say anything like that.

> You still refuse to actually read the CDC data.

You are lying, again.

>>>>> In either case, the number is wrong.

>>>> Easy to claim. Pity you cant actually substantiate the claim that its bogus.

>>> The data is take directly from CDC publications.

>> That claim about the 36K number isnt.

> Then where did it come from?

It clearly circulates amoungst stupid journos who dont bother to do
any real research and just keep repeating what other journos say.

> And why isn't the CDC actively, publicly calling for a retraction or correction?

They just provide the real numbers.

You get to like that or lump it.

>>>>> The true number of flu deaths and pneumonia deaths in all age
>>>>> groups, right from the government's Centers for Disease Control
>>>>> reports, are as follows:

>>>>> Deaths from 2003(1) 2004(2) 2005(3) 2006(4) 2007(5) Pneumonia & flu 65,163 59,644
>>>>> 63,001 56,326 52,717
>>>>> Pneumonia alone 63,371 58,564 61,189 55,477 52,306

>>>> Thats a flagrantly dishonest misrepresentation of what the CDC reports actually say.

>>> Please substantiate your claim.

>> Read the reports.

> I did read them. They are in my references. Which ones do you want me to read? Which tables?

The ones that include that data.

>>>>> Flu alone 1,792 1,100 1,812 849 411

>>>> And that in spades.

>>> It's simple subtraction.

>> And that is a flagrantly dishonest misrepresentation of what the CDC actually says.

> What does the CDC say?

That most who get flu get pneumonia too.

> You talk in generalities,

Everyone can see you are lying, again.

> but give no references to support your denials.

Everyone can see you are lying, again.

>>>>> That's right, flu deaths ranged from 1,792 in 2003 to 411 in 2007.

>>>> The CDC doesnt say that.

>>> If you do the subtracion,

>> The CDC isnt stupid enough to do that.

> They already did. Their numbers give the combined total as well as the separate flu and pneumonia numbers.

Doesnt mean what you claimed that means.

>>>>> The five-year average is 1,192 per year!

>>>> Or that either.

>>> If you add the five numbers above for flu-alone deaths, they total
>>> 5964. Divide that by five, and you get 1192.8 as the five-year average.

>> Pity the CDC says nothing like that.

> It's just a matter of applying basic arithmetic to the numbers that the CDC does provide.

Its completely pointless to do that, which is why the CDC doesnt do that.

> My data a backed by referenced government data.

That 36K claim isnt.

> You offer nothing to support your claims or denials.

Everyone can see you are lying, again.

I've deleted all your puerile attempts at insults any 2 year old could leave for dead.

>>>> And you havent even considered how many more would have
>>>> died of flu if there had not been any flu vaccinations anyway.

>>> What is the number?

>> No one knows. It isnt even possible to know that.

> Then why raise the issue?

Because its crucial to your stupid claim that influenza vaccination is pointless.

> What if the number were only 100?

It isnt. We know that because MILLIONS died before vaccination was even possible.

>>> If you read this article from Sept 2,
>>> http://www.naturalnews.com/029641_vaccines_junk_science.html,
>>> you'll see that the vaccines don't work in 99 out of 100 people.

>> Pity that is a bare faced lie.

>> There might just be a reason that smallpox was completely eliminated from the wild and polio is now no longer a
>> serious problem in the first world.

>>> So at best they relieve symptoms in only 1 out of 100.

>> Another bare faced lie.

> Once again, you've shown that you haven't read the source material in the Cochrane report given here:
> http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/o/cochrane/clsysrev/articles/CD001269/frame.html

Just because some fool claims something like that doesnt make it gospel.

> To make it easy for you, here are the conclusions:

> "Authors' conclusions
> Influenza vaccines have a modest effect in reducing influenza symptoms and working days lost. There is no evidence
> that they affect complications, such as pneumonia, or transmission."

Just because some fool claims something like that doesnt make it gospel.

I've deleted all your puerile attempts at insults any 2 year old could leave for dead.

>>>> None of the rest of this even more mindless silly shit worth bothering with.

>>> At least you are admitting that you haven't bothered reading the references

>> Didnt say that.

> Did you check ANY of my numbers with the references I provided, just to be sure I'm not lying or distorting?

I already knew what the CDC etc state about influenza.

>> I JUST said that I didnt bother to comment on the rest of your lies.

>>> and even if you had, you consider the CDC's data to be shit.

>> You're lying, again.

>>> How much does Big Pharma pay you

>> Not a cent.

I've deleted all your puerile attempts at insults any 2 year old could leave for dead.

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 3 2010 2:53 pm
From: Rebel1

Twayne wrote:
> TROLL ALERT! THAT POSTcontains nothingi but erroneous information and a huge
> amount of misinformation, none of which is verifiable from any reliable
> source.

Be specific as to which items are "misinformation." I'll let you off
easy: just name five items in the tables, and say why each is not
verifiable.

All the data is referenced, and most comes from CDC data. Are you saying
that CDC data are unreliable?

You sound like a Big Pharma stooge.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How the GDP and CPI spin is used hide the real problem.. cancerous
levels of growth in govt.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/37351c761789a2d1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 3 2010 6:12 am
From: "h"

"phil scott" <phil@philscott.net> wrote in message
news:4845dc74-9b85-45ae-b9c0-36be769f85e4@q21g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> Fortunately those who struggle honestly in this time frame, retain
> their integrity and health seed the following generations with the
> advanced epigenetics required.
>
Nope. The smart, well-educated, hard working, healthy people don't breed.
We've got better things to do.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Substitute for cinder blocks in making temporary bookshelves?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/92981ff9ab48c4ff?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 3 2010 7:32 am
From: "Jean B."

mike wrote:
> I've made temporary bookshelves out of planks of wood using cinder
> blocks to separate the planks. But cinder blocks are too heavy. Any
> recommendations for something lighter to use? The bookshelves will
> contain all paperbacks, so each shelf doesn't need to support a lot of
> weight. Don't care about aesthetics (obviously!). The bookshelves will
> live in a large walk-in closet. Just need visual access to the books
> (vs. sitting in cardboard boxes).
>
> Thanks!

I just put in ca 170 linear feet of shelves, which are supported
by wooden record boxes. Of course, one can use milk crates too.

--
Jean B.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Music CD seller referrals requested
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/dc32a3d11dd9c5d3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 3 2010 8:33 am
From: Derald

I posted a similar request a few years ago but still need relief.

I am soliciting recommendations and referrals to online or direct mail
sellers of used, out-of-print, hard-to-find, or rare ("classical") music CDs.
I am not a dealer or reseller. Quite a number of my music CDs ranging in
age from 20-25 years have become unplayable due to deterioration of the
reflective medium. All are major label; most are "first line". I'm having the
Devil's own time finding replacements. Help.
--
TIA,
Derald

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cheap Nike Air Max LTD Shoes Nike Air Max TN Shoes Nike Air Max97 Shoes
Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/) (PayPal Payment)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/ad46c7c0be4924dd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 3 2010 8:56 am
From: huang

Are you searching for good quality and low price products?our company
want to be you reliable supplier in china,we offer brand
shoes,bags,jeans,clothes,we accept a variety of payment
methods .Convenient for you the more you order the better price for
you! if you interested in our goods,pls don't hestate to contact me
Our website (http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
◥█▄▃▁
...◥█☆█▅▄▃▁▁▁▁▁▁▁▃▄▅︿@︿▅▄▁
〓▇████Ship Wholesaler█████████████▅▄▃▁▁
〓〓〓█████████████
Nike Air Max87 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max88 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max89 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max90 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max91 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max95 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max97 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max2003 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max2009 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max360 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max95 360 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max90 360 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max LTD Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max TN Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max180 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max90 Boot Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)
Nike Air Max2010 Shoes Wholesale(http://www.24hoursneakers.com/)
(PayPal Payment)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sex Images Free Download
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/12337f0d40eb3965?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 3 2010 9:44 am
From: paypal cash

Sex Images Free Download At http://earnmoneyuk.tk

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Democracy is very imperfect (Holland)... that's why God will bring a
perfect tyranny
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/74461a8f9602008e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 3 2010 10:39 am
From: "His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle"

The shortcomings of democracy are evident in Holland among the most
liberal countries: Abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, humanism,
universal healthcare, environmentalism, marijuana, lack of will to
fight in Afghanistan, etc. That's why God have something else in
mind... THE PERFECT TYRANNY. Not only you'll be happy, but you won't
have the will to rebel, or even complain, just in case some angel is
eavesdropping.

It would be something like North Korea, but with an abundance --
Cornucopia-- of time. You will have time for everything, chiefly for
praising the Lord, and you won't have to work. Republicans will
automatically be elected without hassle from evil Liberals, who will
be long dead. Doesn't it sound good?

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

THE WISE TIBETAN MONKEY SAYS

"The Spirits of the Jungle are like the Muses, but with the Wisdom of
the Jungle"

http://webspawner.com/users/BANANAREVOLUTION

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 3 2010 2:40 pm
From: "Edward Dolan"

"His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle"
<nolionnoproblem@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f4c609a1-4287-451c-96d4-0b0d92f888bd@a4g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
> The shortcomings of democracy are evident in Holland among the most
> liberal countries: Abortion, homosexuality, euthanasia, humanism,
> universal healthcare, environmentalism, marijuana, lack of will to
> fight in Afghanistan, etc. That's why God have something else in
> mind... THE PERFECT TYRANNY. Not only you'll be happy, but you won't
> have the will to rebel, or even complain, just in case some angel is
> eavesdropping.
>
> It would be something like North Korea, but with an abundance --
> Cornucopia-- of time. You will have time for everything, chiefly for
> praising the Lord, and you won't have to work. Republicans will
> automatically be elected without hassle from evil Liberals, who will
> be long dead. Doesn't it sound good?

He likes to reference monkeys and other wild animals normally found only in
zoos because he is most likely a wild beast himself. I think he fornicates
with monkeys, but I can't prove it.

But I will be here to remind one and all of what a poor crazy bastard TM is.
It is mark of My Greatness that I can still recognize the village idiot even
if the rest of you can't.

Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Friday the 13th encounter with Big Brother
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/36c81e58c2d118c9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 3 2010 2:14 pm
From: Winston_Smith

On Wed, 01 Sep 2010 08:51:31 -0400, Ohioguy <none@none.net> wrote:

> >Your attitude about traffic laws seems to be that they should only
> >apply to you if you agree with them under the circumstances.
>
> Actually, I just want a person to be writing the ticket, so that:

No you quite clearly want to be exempt from laws you don't agree with.

>||I didn't like it when they started doing this with red light cameras,
>||
>|| because I've always believed
>||
>||if you stop in the middle of the night, there is no traffic or whatever,
>||you should just look both ways and then go, because it is
>||pointless to just sit there, wasting gas for an extended period,
>||just like it is at a stop sign.

We can all break laws if it saves on energy? If it's a dumb law, push
to change it. Clearly you can't even pled ignorance of the law.

>a) there is not a two week delay before I even find out about it
> (hence the chance for a LOAD more tickets before I or my
> wife change behavior)

Just practice good habits from the start instead of waiting until they
catch you and it costs you. Should a serial killer only be prosecuted
for the most recent killing because they hadn't caught him before and
explained he was being naughty?

You are such a victim. You even excused your wife for driving 15 over
the limit because she was late to work. Your actions, your
responsibility. She is lucky they don't pull her licence. But then
you could say it's OK to drive without one because they took it,
right?

>b) if a person is there, they can verify who is driving my car,
> and not just assume it is me (could be my cousin or friend,
> and evidently if they won't assume responsibility for speeding,
> I have to pay for them breaking the law with the cameras)

There is a person who can identify who was driving - YOU. Turn your
wife in like a good citizen.

The way the laws are written, the vehicle get the ticket. It's the
owners responsibility for what his car does. It's exactly the same as
with insurance. You can't expect your premiums wouldn't go up because
you let someone else use your car and they had an accident.

The only way out of it is to prove someone else was driving. Turn
your wife in or claim she stole the car.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 3 2010 2:14 pm
From: Winston_Smith

On Sun, 29 Aug 2010 07:20:06 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>Ohioguy wrote:
>> My point is that I feel that a human should be present to issue any tickets.
>
>Its just not practical.

Anything can be forced on us if the only test is "practical". A flat
out one man police state is "practical". We need the concept of
"justice".

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 3 2010 2:14 pm
From: Winston_Smith

On Thu, 02 Sep 2010 16:23:31 -0400, Ohioguy <none@none.net> wrote:

>> Such "problems" are easily avoided by obeying the laws, to everyones benefit.
>
> You're missing the point. In this country we have a long tradition
>of civil disobedience. You can not wear your seat belt if you want to
>take the chance with your safety, and if you value your personal comfort
>more than possible safety.

And performing civil disobedience implies willingness to accept the
consequences. Protesters sit in an intersection, they expect to be
arrested. Buck up, be a man, accept the consequence of your
disobedience.

> However, the government is becoming a "nanny state", and passing
>loads and loads of new laws. They are also regularly putting up new
>speed limit signs that are lower than they used to be - 35 here where it
>used to be 55. This is despite the fact that it wastes gas, and makes
>people take a lot longer getting home.

Become a political activist instead of whining that you are a victim
and you shouldn't have to obey the same laws the rest of us are
inflicted with.

> Anyway, if the government passes loads and loads of laws to the point
>where just about everything is regulated, then installs cameras
>everywhere, this means that there is a pretty good chance they will get
>you on a regular basis disobeying some law on the books. It also will
>eventually restrict personal freedom in public to the point where
>everybody is essentially a robot.

The state of Aridzona just got rid of it's cameras. The towns are
keeping them but the state dumped them.

They are cash cows. Be prepared for higher taxes to cover the lost
revenue if you do dump them.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Is an SUV a Truck or a Toy?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e3a7ecaae0e767b8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 3 2010 2:57 pm
From: "Edward Dolan"

"His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle"
<comandante.banana@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2928ba13-148c-4204-999f-f3ac53b46eeb@l20g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
On Sep 1, 12:29 am, Kevan Smith <dr.goode...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >Nobody cares --or should even care-- about the jungle out there.
>
> >Those gorillas are really something, ah?
>
> Sorry, I'm not privy to your fantasies..

>> I'm not talking about my erotic fantasies... but the reality of the
world, aka "the jungle."

>> What are you doing with a jungle vehicle in the middle of the city,
just to satisfy your gorilla?

I am fed up with your animal metaphors. How about I liken you to your god
damn fucking monkeys myself? Yea, I think you are really into monkeys. What
is there about them makes you want to fornicate with them? I think the rest
of us would like to know about the depths of your depravity.

And your attacks on Christianity are truly mind boggling. How would an idiot
like you know anything about anything so abstract as religion. You are
strictly a concrete knower, one who knows about monkey asses and penises and
not much else.

If there is a God, let us hope that He will consign you to Hell from whence
you came. Yea, I pray every day that some motorist there in Florida will
take you out of your misery. And the sooner the better!

Fucking Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What will be the next animal to dominate the Earth when we have been
wiped out?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2b1d27da741ba274?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Sep 3 2010 2:59 pm
From: "Edward Dolan"

"His Highness the TibetanMonkey & the Spirits of the Jungle"
<comandante.banana@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:89f53574-0d4e-49fb-b97f-6c0e4297d199@f6g2000yqa.googlegroups.com...
[...]

> Nope. My life would be to ride a bicycle forever until I die. But I
don't want to die too soon.

Fucking Regards,

Ed Dolan the Great - Minnesota
aka
Saint Edward the Great - Order of the Perpetual Sorrows - Minnesota

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

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Frugal Living

Blog Archive

Friday, September 3, 2010

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 26 new messages in 12 topics - digest

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 17 new messages in 8 topics - digest