Thursday, August 25, 2011

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 2 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:

* AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year - 24 messages, 8
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d30df867e6683fac?hl=en
* Telephone answering machine for elderly person - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/fd46c7795ef75afe?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d30df867e6683fac?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 24 ==
Date: Wed, Aug 24 2011 11:45 pm
From: SMS


On 8/24/2011 9:45 PM, The Real Bev wrote:

> Not to be argumentative or anything, but we've done all that already
> using just maps a van and a telephone. The old fashioned kind -- paper
> maps and a wired phone that just made phone calls. And when we wanted a
> motel we just drove until we found one with a vacancy sign.
>
> People can't figure out how to do this any more?

A lot of people just show up at a hotel. It was amazing to me to be
sitting in the lobby of a hotel (Microtel) last month (trying to use the
printer at their guest computer) and listening to the range of prices
that were being offered base on the guest's haggling ability. I'm sure
each guest thought they were getting the best possible price, but they
weren't.

The AAA rate and the AARP rate were not the cheapest. The "Allied
Business Network" (free membership), which I used, had the best advance
reservation rates at Wyndham hotels (Baymont, Days Inn, Hawthorn Suites,
Howard Johnson, Knights Inn, Microtel Inn & Suites, Ramada Inn, Super 8
Motel, Travelodge, Wyndham, Wingate Inn), offering 20% off versus 10%
for AAA and AARP. But there were guests getting the 20% off rate just by
asking for a better rate, since obviously the hotel was anxious to fill
as many rooms as possible at 10:00 at night.


== 2 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 25 2011 3:09 am
From: Vic Smith


On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 11:28:18 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 8/24/2011 9:45 AM, Vic Smith wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 10:01:28 -0500, Paul Miner
>> <pminer@elrancho.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>> In my case, I probably wouldn't notice, and if I did notice, I
>>> probably wouldn't care. Of all the times I've been to 'remote'
>>> National Parks like Yosemite, Zion, Glacier, and Yellowstone, I don't
>>> remember even taking my phone out of my pocket, let alone trying to
>>> make a call. Checking to see if I have coverage there is not something
>>> that I've done, ever.
>>
>> I never checked either, but with Steve around that's taken care of.
>
>And of you've never needed or wanted to make a call while enroute to
>those parks either. It's great that non-urban coverage is of such minor
>importance to you. Most people like having coverage when on road trips
>into rural areas. To each their own.

I forgot who made the point about balancing coverage to your needs,
but it was a good point. Something about 99% coverage.
You have to look at the big picture.
I make road trips to rural areas often, and always have coverage with
T-Mobile, anywhere from Chicago to Florida.
Occasionally there's a dead spot in a valley or such.
That would be important to me if I lived in that valley.
Since you travel in National Parks - during snowstorms no less -
PagePlus is what works for you.
No argument from me.
You've made me aware of coverage in places I probably won't go to,
and that's what I meant above.
Now I see that if I ever go to Glacier, I might check their web site
for cell coverage first. Or maybe not. But you've made me aware.
The only trip west I was considering was Badlands, and it looks like
T-Mobile has coverage for the trip, but no carriers cover the park
well.
I expect I'll just do without coverage. I don't have to talk all the
time.
BTW, if you do backwoods or ocean trekking and are concerned about
rescue, you want an EPIRB, PLB or SPOT device.
Don't depend on cell.

--Vic


== 3 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 25 2011 3:29 am
From: "Rod Speed"


Richard B. Gilbert wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote
>>> Justin wrote
>>>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote
>>>>> Justin wrote
>>>>>> Anonymous wrote
>>>>>>> SMS<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> Anonymous wrote

>>>>>>>>> It's akin to people like Myriam Joire (editor at Engadget) who
>>>>>>>>> will take a phone that is otherwise a 9 out of 10 and grade it
>>>>>>>>> as a 3 out of 10 because it (1) doesn't have 900/1800 UMTS
>>>>>>>>> support [but does have 900/1800 GSM] support and (2) its
>>>>>>>>> camera isn't as good as a Nokia N8.

>>>>>>>> Actually it's totally different than that. Cell phone users
>>>>>>>> have consistently ranked coverage as one of the most important factors in selecting a carrier.

>>>>>>> Right, but I think (no evidence to support this besides just
>>>>>>> talking to friends) that coverage *in the area they are in 99%
>>>>>>> of the time* is what they care about.

>>>>>> I wonder why that would be. I would be OK without coverage in 5 %
>>>>>> of the area I spend 99% of my time in if it were available 100% of the time in areas I don't go to often but
>>>>>> would need to be able
>>>>>> to call if I get lost, break down, etc.

>>>>>> Perhaps they don't know that the T-Mobile service doesn't work
>>>>>> well in an area like Yosemite until they get there

>>>>> It seems to me that a good travel agent should be aware of which
>>>>> carriers provide service in the area(s) that you plan to visit. If he doesn't know, he should certainly know how
>>>>> to find out! It
>>>>> certainly will not hurt to ASK before you go!

>>>> Who uses a travel agent anymore?

>>> I don't know. The last time I traveled by commercial air a travel
>>> agent issued the ticket, scheduled the airport limousine, etc, etc.

>>> If you travel frequently, you may prefer to do some of this stuff for yourself. The infrequent traveler should
>>> probably seek professional help!

>> No need when going to the sort of place being discussed.

> Oh! Right! Just jump in your car and drive a thousand or two miles.
> Hope that you don't get lost.

I know I wont get lost, I have a decent GPS.

> Stay in a motel each night if you can find one with a vacancy.

Never failed to find one yet.

> Or climb aboard some random Airliner and hope you can parachute into Yellowstone Park.

I'm not stupid enough to go there by plane.

> Or maybe you could bite the bullet and consult a travel agent.

Not that stupid.

> Or, if it's something you have done every year for the last ten years, you
> *know* which airline you want to fly, which hotel/motel you want to stay in. . . .

Dont need to do that every year for the last ten years to do that.

> Pick up the phone and arrange hotel rooms as needed.

Or get real radical and use the net.

> Call Hertz to arrange a rental car. . . .

Or get real radical and use the net.

> I think that, in most cases, you will be better off using a good travel agent.

More fool you.


== 4 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 25 2011 3:37 am
From: "Rod Speed"


Richard B. Gilbert wrote
> Paul Miner wrote
>> Richard B. Gilbert <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote
>>> Justin wrote

>>>> Who uses a travel agent anymore?

>>> I don't know. The last time I traveled by commercial air a travel
>>> agent issued the ticket, scheduled the airport limousine, etc, etc.

>> Yes, but what year was that? 1982? :-)

>>> If you travel frequently, you may prefer to do some of this stuff
>>> for yourself. The infrequent traveler should probably seek
>>> professional help!

>> SMS says WiFi is nearly ubiquitous. With all of that Internet access
>> floating around, what excuse would a person use to seek out a travel
>> agent, if they still exist, versus simply arranging their own travel?

> WiFi is not going to help you select a hotel in a strange city.

Wrong, as always.

> If you pick a hotel at random

That isnt the only alternative.

> you may find that it rents rooms by the hour!

Cant say I have ever run into one of those and it would be obvious if I did.

> Wifi is not going to get you to the proper terminal at the airport.

Wrong, as always.

> A travel agent may not be essential to the experienced traveler.

It isnt essential for the inexperienced traveller either.

> For the infrequent traveler such as I, a travel agent is a necessity!

Wrong, as always.


== 5 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 25 2011 3:39 am
From: "Rod Speed"


Richard B. Gilbert wrote
> Paul Miner wrote
>> Richard B. Gilbert <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote

>>> It seems to me that a good travel agent should be aware of which carriers provide service in the area(s) that you
>>> plan to visit. If he doesn't know, he should certainly know how to find out! It certainly will not hurt to ASK
>>> before you go!

>> Travel agent? Do those still exist?

> Have you looked in the Yellow Pages of your phone book?

I'm not such a dinosaur.

> I counted thirty travel agents before I got tired of the game.

Your problem.

> So yes, travel agents still exist!

You quite sure you aint one of those rocket scientist dinosaurs ?


== 6 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 25 2011 3:44 am
From: "Rod Speed"


nospam wrote
> Richard B. Gilbert <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote

>> WiFi is not going to help you select a hotel in a strange city. If you
>> pick a hotel at random you may find that it rents rooms by the hour!

> it most certainly will help and there's absolutely no reason to pick
> anything at random.

> you can easily research what options there are, check for ratings,
> look at maps, etc., or just stick with the well known hotels like
> marriott, sheraton, holiday inn, etc. those are usually a safe bet
> and not in a shit section of town.

> what if the travel agent picks at random or more likely, whatever
> gives the biggest commission?

>> Wifi is not going to get you to the proper terminal at the airport.

> of course it will. airlines usually have all the necessary information
> on their website.

> airport websites also have terminal maps and some of them even have
> virtual walk-throughs. they also usually have extensive info on how to
> get to or from the airport, such as what shuttles, limos, taxis,
> public transportation, etc. serve the airport.

>> A travel agent may not be essential to the experienced traveler. For
>> the infrequent traveler such as I, a travel agent is a necessity!

> i think what you need is a chaperone.

Nope, a nanny/minder/whatever the retarded have/'carer'


== 7 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 25 2011 3:44 am
From: Vic Smith


On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:45:56 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>On 8/24/2011 9:45 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> Not to be argumentative or anything, but we've done all that already
>> using just maps a van and a telephone. The old fashioned kind -- paper
>> maps and a wired phone that just made phone calls. And when we wanted a
>> motel we just drove until we found one with a vacancy sign.
>>
>> People can't figure out how to do this any more?
>
>A lot of people just show up at a hotel. It was amazing to me to be
>sitting in the lobby of a hotel (Microtel) last month (trying to use the
>printer at their guest computer) and listening to the range of prices
>that were being offered base on the guest's haggling ability. I'm sure
>each guest thought they were getting the best possible price, but they
>weren't.
>
>The AAA rate and the AARP rate were not the cheapest. The "Allied
>Business Network" (free membership), which I used, had the best advance
>reservation rates at Wyndham hotels (Baymont, Days Inn, Hawthorn Suites,
>Howard Johnson, Knights Inn, Microtel Inn & Suites, Ramada Inn, Super 8
>Motel, Travelodge, Wyndham, Wingate Inn), offering 20% off versus 10%
>for AAA and AARP. But there were guests getting the 20% off rate just by
>asking for a better rate, since obviously the hotel was anxious to fill
>as many rooms as possible at 10:00 at night.

I never reserve because I don't want a strict schedule on the road.
Just asking for a better rate always worked for me years ago except
once, but it's hard to measure.
Only time I was sure was at a major (maybe Holiday Inn) in Chula
Vista, CA. Two women were at the counter in front of me and just paid
the offered price. I got 2 adjoining rooms for the same price.
I still do a variation of the same opener as when there were 7 of us,
going into the office alone and energetically (like I'm ready to walk
out again) and asking,
"How much for a room for me and my wife?"
I get offered the usual discounts, and that's usually that.
Might have done better per room when I was getting 2 rooms.
What I've noticed in the past 10 years or so is that the clerks don't
have the discretion to go below some fixed point.
Some chains advertise a an already reasonable fixed low price.
Luckily I can afford more now.
Twenty-thirty years ago there were more owner/operators manning the
desks, and they didn't hide their pondering very well.
You could see the wheels turning in their head, figuring their chance
of filling their room and what price would make me walk.
I always stop early because I don't drive in the dark except dawn, and
figure I get a good rate that way. They don't know if they will fill.
The problem with that 10 PM scenario is tired drivers who need to
sleep NOW. I suspect the motel operator knows this.

--Vic

== 8 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 25 2011 5:30 am
From: Paul Miner


On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:14:32 -0400, "Richard B. Gilbert"
<rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 8/24/2011 10:41 PM, Paul Miner wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:13:18 -0400, "Richard B. Gilbert"
>> <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> It seems to me that a good travel agent should be aware of which
>>> carriers provide service in the area(s) that you plan to visit. If he
>>> doesn't know, he should certainly know how to find out! It certainly
>>> will not hurt to ASK before you go!
>>
>> Travel agent? Do those still exist?
>>
>
>Have you looked in the Yellow Pages of your phone book? I counted
>thirty travel agents before I got tired of the game. So yes, travel
>agents still exist!

I don't have a Yellow Pages or any printed phone book. Those go into
the recycling bin moments after they land on my doorstep. I don't
think I've had any kind of printed phone directory in my home since
about 1999 or maybe 2000.

Thanks for confirming, though, that there are still a few around. I
assume their days are numbered.

--
Paul Miner


== 9 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 25 2011 5:58 am
From: Paul Miner


On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 22:14:24 -0600, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:

>At 24 Aug 2011 21:41:03 -0500 Paul Miner wrote:
>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:13:18 -0400, "Richard B. Gilbert"
>> <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>> >It seems to me that a good travel agent should be aware of which
>> >carriers provide service in the area(s) that you plan to visit. If he
>> >doesn't know, he should certainly know how to find out! It certainly
>> >will not hurt to ASK before you go!
>>
>> Travel agent? Do those still exist?
>
>
>Sure, there's one in my neighborhood between the Blacksmith's shop and
>the Cobbler.

Thanks, you've given me an idea of where to look. I'll swing by the
Telegraph office and Livery Stable on my way home from work.

--
Paul Miner


== 10 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 25 2011 6:31 am
From: "Richard B. Gilbert"


On 8/25/2011 12:50 AM, Justin wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote on [Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:04:18 -0400]:
>> On 8/24/2011 10:48 PM, Paul Miner wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 20:38:54 -0400, "Richard B. Gilbert"
>>> <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 8/24/2011 3:32 PM, Justin wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> Who uses a travel agent anymore?
>>>>
>>>> I don't know. The last time I traveled by commercial air a travel agent
>>>> issued the ticket, scheduled the airport limousine, etc, etc.
>>>
>>> Yes, but what year was that? 1982? :-)

1998 give or take a year!

>>>
>>>> If you travel frequently, you may prefer to do some of this stuff for
>>>> yourself. The infrequent traveler should probably seek professional help!
>>>
>>> SMS says WiFi is nearly ubiquitous. With all of that Internet access
>>> floating around, what excuse would a person use to seek out a travel
>>> agent, if they still exist, versus simply arranging their own travel?
>>>
>>
>> WiFi is not going to help you select a hotel in a strange city. If you
>> pick a hotel at random you may find that it rents rooms by the hour!
>
> Yes, because all the Hampton Inns rent rooms by the hour, all the Marriots
> do too

I didn't realize that the big chains such as Marriot were so dependent
on the "quickie" trade!

>
>> Wifi is not going to get you to the proper terminal at the airport.
>
> Neither is a travel agent

The travel agent will tell me that my flight departs from "Terminal 3".
That's enough of a clue.


== 11 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 25 2011 6:38 am
From: "Richard B. Gilbert"


On 8/25/2011 12:54 AM, Justin wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote on [Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:14:32 -0400]:
>> On 8/24/2011 10:41 PM, Paul Miner wrote:
>>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 15:13:18 -0400, "Richard B. Gilbert"
>>> <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> It seems to me that a good travel agent should be aware of which
>>>> carriers provide service in the area(s) that you plan to visit. If he
>>>> doesn't know, he should certainly know how to find out! It certainly
>>>> will not hurt to ASK before you go!
>>>
>>> Travel agent? Do those still exist?
>>>
>>
>> Have you looked in the Yellow Pages of your phone book? I counted
>> thirty travel agents before I got tired of the game. So yes, travel
>> agents still exist!
>
> Phone books? Do they still exist?

Lost in time! Pitiful!!!!


== 12 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 25 2011 7:17 am
From: Justin


Richard B. Gilbert wrote on [Thu, 25 Aug 2011 09:31:47 -0400]:
> On 8/25/2011 12:50 AM, Justin wrote:
>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote on [Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:04:18 -0400]:
>>> On 8/24/2011 10:48 PM, Paul Miner wrote:
>>>> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 20:38:54 -0400, "Richard B. Gilbert"
>>>> <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>>
>>> Wifi is not going to get you to the proper terminal at the airport.
>>
>> Neither is a travel agent
>
> The travel agent will tell me that my flight departs from "Terminal 3".
> That's enough of a clue.

When you get to the airport you find out your flight has been moved.
Happens a lot.


== 13 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 25 2011 9:02 am
From: The Real Bev


On 08/24/2011 11:35 PM, SMS wrote:

> On 8/24/2011 9:57 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> What indeed? Long ago people used travel agents because (1) they
>> couldn't figure out how to do it themselves; or (2) travel agents could
>> do it cheaper and didn't cost anything. I don't think either of those is
>> true any more.
>
> There are still cases, especially for international flights, where a
> travel agent that is a consolidator can be useful, though there are
> finally some on-line consolidators as well, like Vayama.

Perhaps a travel agent would be really useful if you had to make changes
to your flight arrangements during your foreign trip, especially if you
don't speak the language in question.

> There are still some travel agents that do well, especially those that
> sell a lot of cruises. Not everyone is so price sensitive that they want
> to look for discounted cruises on-line.

Not everyone is crazy enough to WANT to go on a cruise :-(

> That said, 'consult a travel agent' is Mr. Gilbert's all purpose
> response, even when the chance that a travel agent would have a useful
> answer is very small.

"Consult your doctor before embarking on a weight loss program." My
husband's doctor asked HIM for advice.

--
Cheers, Bev
----------------------------------------------------------------------
They keep talking about drafting a Constitution for Iraq. Why don't
we just give them ours? It was written by a lot of really smart guys,
it's worked for over 200 years, and we're not using it any more.


== 14 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 25 2011 9:18 am
From: The Real Bev


On 08/25/2011 03:44 AM, Vic Smith wrote:

> On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:45:56 -0700, SMS<scharf.steven@geemail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>On 8/24/2011 9:45 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>>> Not to be argumentative or anything, but we've done all that already
>>> using just maps a van and a telephone. The old fashioned kind -- paper
>>> maps and a wired phone that just made phone calls. And when we wanted a
>>> motel we just drove until we found one with a vacancy sign.
>>>
>>> People can't figure out how to do this any more?
>>
>>A lot of people just show up at a hotel. It was amazing to me to be
>>sitting in the lobby of a hotel (Microtel) last month (trying to use the
>>printer at their guest computer) and listening to the range of prices
>>that were being offered base on the guest's haggling ability. I'm sure
>>each guest thought they were getting the best possible price, but they
>>weren't.
>>
>>The AAA rate and the AARP rate were not the cheapest.

NEVER the cheapest.

>>The "Allied
>>Business Network" (free membership), which I used, had the best advance
>>reservation rates at Wyndham hotels (Baymont, Days Inn, Hawthorn Suites,
>>Howard Johnson, Knights Inn, Microtel Inn& Suites, Ramada Inn, Super 8
>>Motel, Travelodge, Wyndham, Wingate Inn), offering 20% off versus 10%
>>for AAA and AARP. But there were guests getting the 20% off rate just by
>>asking for a better rate, since obviously the hotel was anxious to fill
>>as many rooms as possible at 10:00 at night.

Husband just walked in and asked "Where are the CHEAP hotels?" When I
checked for Yuma motels in April the various travel sites came up with
better rates, as did the chain websites themselves. I discounted the
reviews, figuring that they were all shills of one sort or another and
that people who are really happy don't bother sending flowers.

When we were there before we went to an independent and haggled. Worked
out fine.

--
Cheers, Bev
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker


== 15 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 25 2011 9:24 am
From: The Real Bev


On 08/25/2011 05:30 AM, Paul Miner wrote:

> <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>
>> Have you looked in the Yellow Pages of your phone book? I counted
>> thirty travel agents before I got tired of the game. So yes,
>> travel agents still exist!
>
> I don't have a Yellow Pages or any printed phone book. Those go into
> the recycling bin moments after they land on my doorstep. I don't
> think I've had any kind of printed phone directory in my home since
> about 1999 or maybe 2000.
>
> Thanks for confirming, though, that there are still a few around. I
> assume their days are numbered.

AT&T (our landline carrier, may their name be forever cursed) geve us a
white pages. Verizon (no relationship whatsoever) gave us a yellow
pages, which I assume contains only Verizon customers.

--
Cheers, Bev
xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
"What fresh hell is this?" -- Dorothy Parker


== 16 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 25 2011 12:36 pm
From: "Rod Speed"


Richard B. Gilbert wrote
> Justin wrote
>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote
>>> Paul Miner wrote
>>>> Richard B. Gilbert <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote
>>>>> Justin wrote

>>>>>> Who uses a travel agent anymore?

>>>>> I don't know. The last time I traveled by commercial air a travel agent issued the ticket, scheduled the airport
>>>>> limousine, etc, etc.

>>>> Yes, but what year was that? 1982? :-)

> 1998 give or take a year!

Figures. The real world might just have moved on a tad since then.

>>>>> If you travel frequently, you may prefer to do some of this stuff
>>>>> for yourself. The infrequent traveler should probably seek
>>>>> professional help!

>>>> SMS says WiFi is nearly ubiquitous. With all of that Internet
>>>> access floating around, what excuse would a person use to seek out
>>>> a travel agent, if they still exist, versus simply arranging their own travel?

>>> WiFi is not going to help you select a hotel in a strange city. If you pick a hotel at random you may find that it
>>> rents rooms by the hour!

>> Yes, because all the Hampton Inns rent rooms by the hour, all the Marriots do too

> I didn't realize that the big chains such as Marriot were so dependent on the "quickie" trade!

They are anyway.

>>> Wifi is not going to get you to the proper terminal at the airport.

>> Neither is a travel agent

> The travel agent will tell me that my flight departs from "Terminal 3". That's enough of a clue.

You can get much better than that without using a travel agent.


== 17 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 25 2011 12:43 pm
From: "Richard B. Gilbert"


On 8/25/2011 12:24 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
> On 08/25/2011 05:30 AM, Paul Miner wrote:
>
>> <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>>
>>> Have you looked in the Yellow Pages of your phone book? I counted
>>> thirty travel agents before I got tired of the game. So yes,
>>> travel agents still exist!
>>
>> I don't have a Yellow Pages or any printed phone book. Those go into
>> the recycling bin moments after they land on my doorstep. I don't
>> think I've had any kind of printed phone directory in my home since
>> about 1999 or maybe 2000.
>>
>> Thanks for confirming, though, that there are still a few around. I
>> assume their days are numbered.
>
> AT&T (our landline carrier, may their name be forever cursed) geve us a
> white pages. Verizon (no relationship whatsoever) gave us a yellow
> pages, which I assume contains only Verizon customers.
>

It contains the name, address, and phone number of each Verizon customer
who paid for a listing. Those who pay more get more space in the yellow
pages. AFAIK anyone who pays the price can get a listing.
If you want a plumber, painter, an electrician, or a surgeon; the yellow
pages are one place to look.

You may do better by asking your neighbors to recommend someone!

== 18 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 25 2011 1:01 pm
From: "Richard B. Gilbert"


On 8/25/2011 3:36 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote
>> Justin wrote
>>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote
>>>> Paul Miner wrote
>>>>> Richard B. Gilbert<rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote
>>>>>> Justin wrote
>
>>>>>>> Who uses a travel agent anymore?
>
>>>>>> I don't know. The last time I traveled by commercial air a travel agent issued the ticket, scheduled the airport
>>>>>> limousine, etc, etc.
>
>>>>> Yes, but what year was that? 1982? :-)
>
>> 1998 give or take a year!
>
> Figures. The real world might just have moved on a tad since then.
>
>>>>>> If you travel frequently, you may prefer to do some of this stuff
>>>>>> for yourself. The infrequent traveler should probably seek
>>>>>> professional help!
>
>>>>> SMS says WiFi is nearly ubiquitous. With all of that Internet
>>>>> access floating around, what excuse would a person use to seek out
>>>>> a travel agent, if they still exist, versus simply arranging their own travel?
>
>>>> WiFi is not going to help you select a hotel in a strange city. If you pick a hotel at random you may find that it
>>>> rents rooms by the hour!
>
>>> Yes, because all the Hampton Inns rent rooms by the hour, all the Marriots do too
>
>> I didn't realize that the big chains such as Marriot were so dependent on the "quickie" trade!
>
> They are anyway.
>
>>>> Wifi is not going to get you to the proper terminal at the airport.
>
>>> Neither is a travel agent
>
>> The travel agent will tell me that my flight departs from "Terminal 3". That's enough of a clue.
>
> You can get much better than that without using a travel agent.
>
>

Perhaps I could if I were a more frequent traveler but I'm not and not
about to become one. Most of my traveling has been business related and
paid for by my employer. I'm retired now and the bill comes to me!

== 19 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 25 2011 1:55 pm
From: Justin


Richard B. Gilbert wrote on [Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:43:25 -0400]:
> On 8/25/2011 12:24 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 08/25/2011 05:30 AM, Paul Miner wrote:
>>
>>
>> AT&T (our landline carrier, may their name be forever cursed) geve us a
>> white pages. Verizon (no relationship whatsoever) gave us a yellow
>> pages, which I assume contains only Verizon customers.
>>
>
> It contains the name, address, and phone number of each Verizon customer
> who paid for a listing. Those who pay more get more space in the yellow
> pages. AFAIK anyone who pays the price can get a listing.
> If you want a plumber, painter, an electrician, or a surgeon; the yellow
> pages are one place to look.
>
> You may do better by asking your neighbors to recommend someone!

You can do just that, it's called Angie's list


== 20 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 25 2011 2:33 pm
From: "Rod Speed"


Richard B. Gilbert wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote
>>> Justin wrote
>>>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote
>>>>> Paul Miner wrote
>>>>>> Richard B. Gilbert<rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote
>>>>>>> Justin wrote

>>>>>>>> Who uses a travel agent anymore?

>>>>>>> I don't know. The last time I traveled by commercial air a
>>>>>>> travel agent issued the ticket, scheduled the airport
>>>>>>> limousine, etc, etc.

>>>>>> Yes, but what year was that? 1982? :-)

>>> 1998 give or take a year!

>> Figures. The real world might just have moved on a tad since then.

>>>>>>> If you travel frequently, you may prefer to do some of this stuff for yourself. The infrequent traveler should
>>>>>>> probably seek professional help!

>>>>>> SMS says WiFi is nearly ubiquitous. With all of that Internet
>>>>>> access floating around, what excuse would a person use to seek out a travel agent, if they still exist, versus
>>>>>> simply arranging their own travel?

>>>>> WiFi is not going to help you select a hotel in a strange city. If you pick a hotel at random you may find that it
>>>>> rents rooms by the hour!

>>>> Yes, because all the Hampton Inns rent rooms by the hour, all the Marriots do too

>>> I didn't realize that the big chains such as Marriot were so dependent on the "quickie" trade!

>> They are anyway.

>>>>> Wifi is not going to get you to the proper terminal at the airport.

>>>> Neither is a travel agent

>>> The travel agent will tell me that my flight departs from "Terminal 3". That's enough of a clue.

>> You can get much better than that without using a travel agent.

> Perhaps I could if I were a more frequent traveler

You could even if you werent.

> but I'm not and not about to become one.

You are in fact a dinosaur who still uses travel agents and phone books.

> Most of my traveling has been business related and paid for by my employer. I'm retired now and the bill comes to me!

Then you are stupid if you use a travel agent, because they get paid for doing what they do.


== 21 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 25 2011 3:29 pm
From: Paul Miner


On Thu, 25 Aug 2011 15:43:25 -0400, "Richard B. Gilbert"
<rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:

>On 8/25/2011 12:24 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 08/25/2011 05:30 AM, Paul Miner wrote:
>>
>>> <rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Have you looked in the Yellow Pages of your phone book? I counted
>>>> thirty travel agents before I got tired of the game. So yes,
>>>> travel agents still exist!
>>>
>>> I don't have a Yellow Pages or any printed phone book. Those go into
>>> the recycling bin moments after they land on my doorstep. I don't
>>> think I've had any kind of printed phone directory in my home since
>>> about 1999 or maybe 2000.
>>>
>>> Thanks for confirming, though, that there are still a few around. I
>>> assume their days are numbered.
>>
>> AT&T (our landline carrier, may their name be forever cursed) geve us a
>> white pages. Verizon (no relationship whatsoever) gave us a yellow
>> pages, which I assume contains only Verizon customers.
>>
>
>It contains the name, address, and phone number of each Verizon customer
>who paid for a listing. Those who pay more get more space in the yellow
>pages. AFAIK anyone who pays the price can get a listing.

I think you're confusing the yellow pages with the white pages. The
white pages typically have separate sections for residential,
business, and government. The business listings are just the business
name, perhaps the address, and of course the number. No advertising
allowed there. The yellow pages, OTOH, are strictly business
advertising. There won't be any residential listings in the yellow
pages.

>If you want a plumber, painter, an electrician, or a surgeon; the yellow
>pages are one place to look.

Yep, but that's the absolute last place I would suggest a person
looks. It's a complete crap shoot in there.

>You may do better by asking your neighbors to recommend someone!

Friends, neighbors, and family are all possible sources. Angie's List
is well known and pretty reliable. I've also used Service Magic with
great success. There's no reason to go anywhere near the yellow pages.

--
Paul Miner


== 22 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 25 2011 3:49 pm
From: SMS


On 8/25/2011 3:09 AM, Vic Smith wrote:

> I forgot who made the point about balancing coverage to your needs,
> but it was a good point. Something about 99% coverage.
> You have to look at the big picture.
> I make road trips to rural areas often, and always have coverage with
> T-Mobile, anywhere from Chicago to Florida.

It's more a regional thing. Voicestream built up a decent GSM network in
the eastern part of the country before there was any GSM at all out
west. T-Mobile's western network has always been weak, and the fact that
it's less urban out west did not help them. They were also greatly hurt
by the expiration of roaming agreements with AT&T and Cingular, which
were not renewed. Either the new AT&T wanted too much money, or the new
AT&T simply did not want to help a low-cost competitor equalize coverage.

To me, the "big picture" is looking beyond your home area and evaluating
the areas you're likely to drive through, or to visit. The San Francisco
Bay Area is an interesting case as well, since you have dense urban
areas 10-15 minutes from very sparsely populated rural areas.
Unfortunately, the expiration of roaming agreements had a big negative
effect on T-Mobile coverage in some of these rural areas. It's not cost
effective for T-Mobile (or Sprint for that matter) to put up their own
cells in these areas.


== 23 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 25 2011 4:20 pm
From: AJL <128945nomail@none.com>


On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 23:45:56 -0700, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com>
wrote:

>The AAA rate and the AARP rate were not the cheapest.

Probably depends on the hotel. My most recent experience was a few
weeks ago with the Glorietta Bay Hotel in Coronado CA (across the
street from the Del Coronado if you're familiar with the area). Their
website claims that by booking online you get the best price
available. But they don't mention that they give a AAA discount so by
calling the 800 number I got the discount worth $30 a night off the
online price. I stayed 4 nights so that paid for a few meals... ;)

As a general rule I check the hotel website first and then call to see
if they have any better deals. Sometimes they do and sometimes not,
but it costs nothing to check.


== 24 of 24 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 25 2011 5:03 pm
From: "Richard B. Gilbert"


On 8/25/2011 5:33 PM, Rod Speed wrote:
> Richard B. Gilbert wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote
>>>> Justin wrote
>>>>> Richard B. Gilbert wrote
>>>>>> Paul Miner wrote
>>>>>>> Richard B. Gilbert<rgilbert88@comcast.net> wrote
>>>>>>>> Justin wrote
>
>>>>>>>>> Who uses a travel agent anymore?
>
>>>>>>>> I don't know. The last time I traveled by commercial air a
>>>>>>>> travel agent issued the ticket, scheduled the airport
>>>>>>>> limousine, etc, etc.
>
>>>>>>> Yes, but what year was that? 1982? :-)
>
>>>> 1998 give or take a year!
>
>>> Figures. The real world might just have moved on a tad since then.
>
>>>>>>>> If you travel frequently, you may prefer to do some of this stuff for yourself. The infrequent traveler should
>>>>>>>> probably seek professional help!
>
>>>>>>> SMS says WiFi is nearly ubiquitous. With all of that Internet
>>>>>>> access floating around, what excuse would a person use to seek out a travel agent, if they still exist, versus
>>>>>>> simply arranging their own travel?
>
>>>>>> WiFi is not going to help you select a hotel in a strange city. If you pick a hotel at random you may find that it
>>>>>> rents rooms by the hour!
>
>>>>> Yes, because all the Hampton Inns rent rooms by the hour, all the Marriots do too
>
>>>> I didn't realize that the big chains such as Marriot were so dependent on the "quickie" trade!
>
>>> They are anyway.
>
>>>>>> Wifi is not going to get you to the proper terminal at the airport.
>
>>>>> Neither is a travel agent
>
>>>> The travel agent will tell me that my flight departs from "Terminal 3". That's enough of a clue.
>
>>> You can get much better than that without using a travel agent.
>
>> Perhaps I could if I were a more frequent traveler
>
> You could even if you werent.
>
>> but I'm not and not about to become one.
>
> You are in fact a dinosaur who still uses travel agents and phone books.
>
>> Most of my traveling has been business related and paid for by my employer. I'm retired now and the bill comes to me!
>
> Then you are stupid if you use a travel agent, because they get paid for doing what they do.
>

And people pay them because most people are not travel experts! If I am
more or less clueless it makes sense for me to pay someone with a clue
to do things for me. If I spent a lot of time traveling it would make
sense to learn to do things myself. Since I don't do a lot of traveling
I pay the experts to get it right the first time!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Telephone answering machine for elderly person
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/fd46c7795ef75afe?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Aug 25 2011 1:11 pm
From: hchickpea@hotmail.com


On Wed, 24 Aug 2011 16:50:00 -0700 (PDT), aesthete8 <artsy6@gmail.com>
wrote:

>I am hoping to find one that is durable, easy to set up, and easy to
>use?
>
>Don't need bells and whistles, just basic features.
>
>Any recommendations?

Walmart $15 AT&T digital machine.


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

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

Tuesday, August 23, 2011

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 6 new messages in 2 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:

* Black+white caterpillars are poisonous - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3948414fa5978d43?hl=en
* AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year - 5 messages, 4
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d30df867e6683fac?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Black+white caterpillars are poisonous
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3948414fa5978d43?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 7:21 pm
From: "deja.blues"


On 8/13/2011 2:32 AM, zeez JosephineJoseph rules wrote:
> http://www.snopes.com/horrors/insects/tussock.asp
>
>
> Claim: Black and white caterpillars are venomous.
> TRUE

If you eat caterpillars you deserve to die.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d30df867e6683fac?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 7:59 pm
From: Justin


Paul Miner wrote on [Mon, 22 Aug 2011 20:59:47 -0500]:
> On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 01:48:33 +0000 (UTC), Justin
> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>
>>nospam wrote on [Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:12:02 -0400]:
>>> In article <4e52fced$0$2186$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
>>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> >> And not to pick on Sprint's MVNOs too much, three of those places have
>>>> >> no T-Mobile coverage, and two have no AT&T coverage. The T-Mobile
>>>> >> acquisition would be good for coverage since with a combined network,
>>>> >> only one of those areas would have no coverage at all.
>>>> >
>>>> > those are rural areas where people rarely go, which is why there's not
>>>> > much coverage there.
>>>>
>>>> But lots of people go through rural areas. Lots of people go to
>>>> Yosemite, Kirkwood Ski area, & Glacier National Park, and lots of people
>>>> drive up the coast through far northwestern California. I chose Hamburg,
>>>> MN, only because some friends of mine live there (they are on T-Mobile)
>>>> and they came on a trip up the Pacific Coast with us in July. It was
>>>> very annoying to be calling them and often having the call go to voice
>>>> mail because of the lack of T-Mobile coverage.
>>>
>>> there are 300 million people in the usa. how many go to yosemite or
>>> glacier every year out of those 300 million? it's not enough for at&t
>>> and t-mobile to care.
>>
>>Glacier: 2216109 last year
>>Yosemite: 3.5 million a year
>
> Would it be safe to assume that those are visitor totals?
>
> If so, how many are US citizens? I know when I go to a National Park
> I'm much more likely to hear people speaking languages other than
> English.
>
> Second, of the visitors who live in this country, how many are at&t
> customers, or T-Mo customers, or even Sprint customers? A few
> thousand? A hundred thousand? Not nearly enough for the carriers to
> worry about.

Why do you have to live in the US to have a cell phone?
I know when I travel abroad I buy a burner and a local SIM

EVery time I have been to Glacier, and it's 7 or 8 times as we used to
have close by relatives, the visitors were very white and mostly american.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 8:38 pm
From: Todd Allcock


At 22 Aug 2011 16:14:07 -0700 SMS wrote:

> Platinumtel is indeed a good deal, but the coverage is very poor since
> it's limited solely to the native Sprint network.
>
> Very strange statement on their web site: "Free on-network nationwide
> roaming." If you're on their network, you're not roaming, and in fact
> they do not offer any roaming at all. They are as bad as Virgin Mobile.


It's not that strange.

If you recall, the original definition of "roaming" was simply using your
phone outside your home market. Until (the old) AT&T offered the "One
Rate" plan in the late 90s ushering in the current era of "nationwide
coverage", you paid roaming charges when traveling outside your home area
even in areas covered by your own carrier. T-Mobile and Alltel still
offered low-cost regional plans that charged for in-network roaming up
until just a few years ago. (When I lived in Missouri back at the turn
of the century, I had a $50/month T-Mo plan that included 3000minutes for
calls placed from and to Kansas and Missouri. Roaming outside those two
states cost $0.49/min, and calling outside those states cost $0.10/min
long-distance!)

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 9:17 pm
From: Paul Miner


On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 02:59:18 +0000 (UTC), Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

>Paul Miner wrote on [Mon, 22 Aug 2011 20:59:47 -0500]:
>> On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 01:48:33 +0000 (UTC), Justin
>> <nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:
>>
>>>nospam wrote on [Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:12:02 -0400]:
>>>> In article <4e52fced$0$2186$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
>>>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> >> And not to pick on Sprint's MVNOs too much, three of those places have
>>>>> >> no T-Mobile coverage, and two have no AT&T coverage. The T-Mobile
>>>>> >> acquisition would be good for coverage since with a combined network,
>>>>> >> only one of those areas would have no coverage at all.
>>>>> >
>>>>> > those are rural areas where people rarely go, which is why there's not
>>>>> > much coverage there.
>>>>>
>>>>> But lots of people go through rural areas. Lots of people go to
>>>>> Yosemite, Kirkwood Ski area, & Glacier National Park, and lots of people
>>>>> drive up the coast through far northwestern California. I chose Hamburg,
>>>>> MN, only because some friends of mine live there (they are on T-Mobile)
>>>>> and they came on a trip up the Pacific Coast with us in July. It was
>>>>> very annoying to be calling them and often having the call go to voice
>>>>> mail because of the lack of T-Mobile coverage.
>>>>
>>>> there are 300 million people in the usa. how many go to yosemite or
>>>> glacier every year out of those 300 million? it's not enough for at&t
>>>> and t-mobile to care.
>>>
>>>Glacier: 2216109 last year
>>>Yosemite: 3.5 million a year
>>
>> Would it be safe to assume that those are visitor totals?
>>
>> If so, how many are US citizens? I know when I go to a National Park
>> I'm much more likely to hear people speaking languages other than
>> English.
>>
>> Second, of the visitors who live in this country, how many are at&t
>> customers, or T-Mo customers, or even Sprint customers? A few
>> thousand? A hundred thousand? Not nearly enough for the carriers to
>> worry about.
>
>Why do you have to live in the US to have a cell phone?

I assume you meant to ask, why do you have to live in the US to be a
customer of one of our wireless providers? I suppose the answer is
that it mostly depends on their respective billing policies. Maybe
they want their customers to have a billing address in this country to
make collections easier. *shrug*

>I know when I travel abroad I buy a burner and a local SIM
>
>EVery time I have been to Glacier, and it's 7 or 8 times as we used to
>have close by relatives, the visitors were very white and mostly american.

I visited Glacier about 25-30 times between 1991 and 1997 and I
definitely heard non-English far more than not. I suppose both of our
experiences are valid.

--
Paul Miner


== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 9:26 pm
From: Todd Allcock


At 22 Aug 2011 19:13:29 -0700 SMS wrote:
> On 8/22/2011 6:12 PM, nospam wrote:
>
> > there are 300 million people in the usa. how many go to yosemite or
> > glacier every year out of those 300 million? it's not enough for at&t
> > and t-mobile to care.
>
> In 2010, over 280 million people visited national parks. In 2010, over
> 4 million people visited Yosemite, and 1.6 million visited Glacier
> National Park.
>
> It's clearly enough for AT&T to have put in a cell in Yosemite Valley.
> Verizon and Sprint rely on a roaming partner. T-Mobile has no coverage
> at all (other than 911).


Verizon uses a roaming partner because they have no license to operate in
that area.

There are opposite examples, of course. Large swaths of New Mexico
(including a good chunk of highway between Santa Fe and Roswell) have no
Verizon service but both AT&T and T-Mo have coverage because the sole
carrier there (Plateau Wireless) happens to be GSM rather than CDMA, so
Verizon can't roam on them.

My own neighborhood, a twenty year-old subdivision in suburban Denver had
no Verizon or AT&T service when I moved here in 2003, but had decent
Sprint, T-Mo and Nextel service. Verizon finally had coverage by 2005 or
so, and AT&T a year or so after that. (That situation shook my faith in
the supposed superiority of 800MHz carriers!)


== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 11:16 pm
From: AJL <128945nomail@none.com>


On Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:38:57 -0600, Todd Allcock
<elecconnec@AnoOspamL.com> wrote:

>If you recall, the original definition of "roaming" was simply using your
>phone outside your home market... you paid roaming charges when
> traveling outside your home area even in areas covered
>by your own carrier.

Yep, I'm still on one of those Verizon voice plans. It's called a
Legacy plan because it hasn't been offered to new customers in several
years. If I'm anywhere outside my home metro area I'm charged roaming
for voice calls, even if I'm on a Verizon network. Interestingly, I
also have unlimited data on the same phone and there are no extra data
charges no matter where I am (in the US) or whose network I'm on...


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

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

Monday, August 22, 2011

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 7 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:

* Where are you - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/588daad71d5f2454?hl=en
* The Objective behind Wearing Hijab in Islam - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/1bed537b3ba2c4ba?hl=en
* AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year - 19 messages, 6
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d30df867e6683fac?hl=en
* TAMIL SEXY HOT GIRLS - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/c6be26aefa45a1f7?hl=en
* Replacement Window Tax Credit - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/7d549fe6ad051083?hl=en
* Free classified - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2e4c987fb529b8a7?hl=en
* Black+white caterpillars are poisonous - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3948414fa5978d43?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Where are you
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/588daad71d5f2454?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, Aug 21 2011 4:44 pm
From: "Bob F"


Nicodemus wrote:
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pChzOaIeyxY

Take your political @$&^ to an appropriate group!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: The Objective behind Wearing Hijab in Islam
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/1bed537b3ba2c4ba?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 2:26 am
From: abd alrahman abd allah


hi,

The Objective behind Wearing Hijab in Islam

The objective behind wearing hijab and the Islamic costume is to
protect the Muslim woman from the eyes of the molesters. It is not
that it is man's property or subjected to him as in Christianity. It
is not also a symbol of luxury and social values as in Judaism. The
Noble Qur'an is very clear in this regard. In light of all this, we
can now understand why some Westerners see hijab as a symbol of
subjection; they conceive of hijab from their own Christian or Jewish
perspectives and not from an Islamic perspective. They do not
understand the Islamic objectives behind wearing hijab and the Islamic
costume. This is simply for protection; to be modest is a measure for
the Muslim woman to protect herself lest she should regret. Islam
takes great care to protect both the body and reputation of the woman.
Therefore, the one who dares even to accuse woman of being unchaste is
severely punished. Allah (the Amighty) says in the Noble Qur'an what
can be translated as, "And those who accuse chaste women, and produce
not four witnesses, flog them with eighty stripes, and reject their
testimony forever, they indeed are the Fasiqun (liars, rebellious,
disobedient to Allah)." (Surat An-Noor 4)

However, the attitude of the Old Testament regarding rape is rather
lax:

"If a man happens to meet a virgin who is not pledged to be married
and rapes her and they are discovered, he shall pay the girl's father
fifty shekels of silver. He must marry the girl, for he has violated
her. He can never divorce her as long as he lives."(Deuteronomy
22:28-30)

Islam pays more Attention to the Woman's Psyche

The question here is: who has been punished according to the last
quotation from the Old Testament? Is it the rapist? Or the poor raped
virgin girl who is forced to live with him forever? Which attitude
protects woman better? Is it the Qur'anic attitude that urges her not
to show her charms to protect herself from potential attackers? Or is
it the attitude of the Old Testament hat obliged the victim to spend
her entire life with the criminal?

for more information about Islam and Hijab please visit :

http://www.rasoulallah.net/v2/folder.aspx?lang=en&folder=861

http://sites.google.com/site/islamicsitesaddr/home/eng_version-2

and this blog :

http://islamicreli.blogspot.com/


thank you for you visiting.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d30df867e6683fac?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 7:11 am
From: Anonymous


On Fri, 19 Aug 2011 22:03:41 -0400, Shawn Hirn <srhi@comcast.net>
wrote:

>In article <4e4e7397$0$2152$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> AT&T will be eliminating their popular $10/1000 text plan (for new
>> subscribers) on August 21st. New customers (or existing customers that
>> sign up for a texting plan) will have to pay $20 for unlimited texting
>> or use pay-as-you-go texting at 20� per text.
>
>When I first subscribed to AT&T cell phone service, the unlimited
>texting plan was in the range of $60 per month, this new unlimited
>texting plan is a bargain. Right now, I am paying $15 a month for 1500
>text messages. I have never exceeded that number, even with two teenaged
>girls (my god daughters) who text me frequently. For another $5, I
>gladly upgrade to unlimited texting.

Are you an AT&T shill?

Before you could do this (get unlimited for $20 or stick with $15/1500
SMS/MMS or pay $10 for 1000 SMS/SMSes); now all you got is unlimited @
$20 or nothing. How is removing choice good?


== 2 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 8:30 am
From: SMS


On 8/19/2011 7:03 PM, Shawn Hirn wrote:
> In article<4e4e7397$0$2152$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> AT&T will be eliminating their popular $10/1000 text plan (for new
>> subscribers) on August 21st. New customers (or existing customers that
>> sign up for a texting plan) will have to pay $20 for unlimited texting
>> or use pay-as-you-go texting at 20¢ per text.
>
> When I first subscribed to AT&T cell phone service, the unlimited
> texting plan was in the range of $60 per month, this new unlimited
> texting plan is a bargain.

Yes compared to the texting cost 10-15 years ago, I suppose you're right!

But the point is that AT&T is eliminating _every_ texting plan other
than unlimited. So those people that do a moderate amount of texting
that sign up for AT&T will be paying $20 per month rather than $5 or $10
per month, for unlimited texting, even though they only need a few
hundred texts per month.

AT&T Sprint T-Mobile Verizon
-------------------------------------------------
$5 X 300 X 250
$10 X 1000 Unlimited 500
$20 Unlimited Unlimited X Unlimited


Of course there is more to all of this than just the pricing. Just as
with the end of unlimited data, existing users of the lower cost texting
plans are grandfathered in, so they will be more reluctant to leave for
other carriers and lose their lower cost texting plans.

Of course if you have unlimited data there is really no need to have any
texting plan at all, with all the other options like Beluga, Kik,
PingChat or even Google Voice.


== 3 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 8:49 am
From: Justin


SMS wrote on [Mon, 22 Aug 2011 08:30:06 -0700]:
> On 8/19/2011 7:03 PM, Shawn Hirn wrote:
>> In article<4e4e7397$0$2152$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
>
> Of course if you have unlimited data there is really no need to have any
> texting plan at all, with all the other options like Beluga, Kik,
> PingChat or even Google Voice.

Do any of these offer an email to SMS gateway?
Since a lot of corporate users have moved from a traditional pager
to an email to SMS gateway method.

== 4 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 10:34 am
From: nospam


In article <4e527606$0$2160$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Of course if you have unlimited data there is really no need to have any
> texting plan at all, with all the other options like Beluga, Kik,
> PingChat or even Google Voice.

there's no need for unlimited data to avoid texting plans. text
messages are small. you'd have to send a *lot* of texts for it to
matter.


== 5 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 3:29 pm
From: SMS


On 8/22/2011 10:34 AM, nospam wrote:

<snip>

> there's no need for unlimited data to avoid texting plans. text
> messages are small. you'd have to send a *lot* of texts for it to
> matter.

Yes, that's true. Text messaging costs the carrier so little in network
capacity but they charge so much for it. Well except Pageplus, which
recently lowered their per text charge for pay as you go to 5¢ each
(from 8¢), and increased the number of texts on the TnT 1200 plan from
2000 to 3000.


== 6 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 4:02 pm
From: nospam


In article <4e52d850$0$2182$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> > there's no need for unlimited data to avoid texting plans. text
> > messages are small. you'd have to send a *lot* of texts for it to
> > matter.
>
> Yes, that's true. Text messaging costs the carrier so little in network
> capacity but they charge so much for it.

it's true that text messages are ridiculously overpriced, but that's
not the point.

if you don't send a lot of text messages, you don't need a text
messaging plan at all. get one of the various free text messaging apps
and text for *free). they do use data but since text messages are
small, it will have minimal impact.

> Well except Pageplus, which
> recently lowered their per text charge for pay as you go to 5¢ each
> (from 8¢), and increased the number of texts on the TnT 1200 plan from
> 2000 to 3000.

can't resist your page plus plug can you? other carriers may have as
good or better rates for text messaging. platinumtel charges 2c for all
text messages and t-mobile charges 5c for incoming texts.


== 7 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 4:14 pm
From: SMS


On 8/22/2011 4:02 PM, nospam wrote:

> can't resist your page plus plug can you? other carriers may have as
> good or better rates for text messaging. platinumtel charges 2c for all
> text messages and t-mobile charges 5c for incoming texts.

Platinumtel is indeed a good deal, but the coverage is very poor since
it's limited solely to the native Sprint network.

Very strange statement on their web site: "Free on-network nationwide
roaming." If you're on their network, you're not roaming, and in fact
they do not offer any roaming at all. They are as bad as Virgin Mobile.


== 8 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 4:26 pm
From: nospam


In article <4e52e2c7$0$2170$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> Platinumtel is indeed a good deal, but the coverage is very poor since
> it's limited solely to the native Sprint network.

sprint coverage (and therefore p-tel) is actually quite good.

> Very strange statement on their web site: "Free on-network nationwide
> roaming." If you're on their network, you're not roaming, and in fact
> they do not offer any roaming at all. They are as bad as Virgin Mobile.

on-network roaming is outside your home city but on their towers (in
this case, sprint since it's an mvno). off-network is for other towers.


== 9 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 5:00 pm
From: SMS


On 8/22/2011 4:26 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<4e52e2c7$0$2170$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> Platinumtel is indeed a good deal, but the coverage is very poor since
>> it's limited solely to the native Sprint network.
>
> sprint coverage (and therefore p-tel) is actually quite good.

Not according to Sprint's and Platinumtel's own maps.

Some of my test zips when evaluating carriers are (with Platinumtel
coverage listed):

Crater Lake OR, 97604: None
Hamburg MN, 55339: Fair
Yosemite NP, 95389: None
Glacier NP, 59434: None
Kirkwood, CA, 95646: None
Crescent City, CA, 95531: None

Every one of those locations has coverage on Sprint postpaid because of
included roaming onto Verizon, Golden State Cellular, or U.S. Cellular.
But on Platinumtel or Virgin you can't roam, even at extra cost. That's
always been the issue with Sprint MVNOs, they are okay in urban areas
where Sprint has a network, but useless in most rural areas (other than
for 911 calls), where Sprint coverage is roaming coverage.

Everyone of those locations also has coverage on Pageplus, albeit at
extra cost if it's on U.S. Cellular or Golden State Cellular. I got
dinged on that last month in Oregon, but only for 29¢. I was coming into
Medford on Crater Lake Highway and was roaming onto U.S. Cellular.

Sprint can be a very good deal because of roaming, other than the
problem that the phone won't roam if it detects a Sprint signal too weak
to make or receive calls on. This is a big problem with Sprint in my
area, where they have coverage, but it's marginal in may areas. You can
no longer force the handset to roam onto Verizon.


== 10 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 5:08 pm
From: SMS


On 8/22/2011 5:00 PM, SMS wrote:

> Crater Lake OR, 97604: None
> Hamburg MN, 55339: Fair
> Yosemite NP, 95389: None
> Glacier NP, 59434: None
> Kirkwood, CA, 95646: None
> Crescent City, CA, 95531: None

And not to pick on Sprint's MVNOs too much, three of those places have
no T-Mobile coverage, and two have no AT&T coverage. The T-Mobile
acquisition would be good for coverage since with a combined network,
only one of those areas would have no coverage at all.


== 11 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 5:32 pm
From: nospam


In article <4e52ef9d$0$2165$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> > Crater Lake OR, 97604: None
> > Hamburg MN, 55339: Fair
> > Yosemite NP, 95389: None
> > Glacier NP, 59434: None
> > Kirkwood, CA, 95646: None
> > Crescent City, CA, 95531: None
>
> And not to pick on Sprint's MVNOs too much, three of those places have
> no T-Mobile coverage, and two have no AT&T coverage. The T-Mobile
> acquisition would be good for coverage since with a combined network,
> only one of those areas would have no coverage at all.

those are rural areas where people rarely go, which is why there's not
much coverage there.


== 12 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 6:05 pm
From: SMS


On 8/22/2011 5:32 PM, nospam wrote:
> In article<4e52ef9d$0$2165$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>>> Crater Lake OR, 97604: None
>>> Hamburg MN, 55339: Fair
>>> Yosemite NP, 95389: None
>>> Glacier NP, 59434: None
>>> Kirkwood, CA, 95646: None
>>> Crescent City, CA, 95531: None
>>
>> And not to pick on Sprint's MVNOs too much, three of those places have
>> no T-Mobile coverage, and two have no AT&T coverage. The T-Mobile
>> acquisition would be good for coverage since with a combined network,
>> only one of those areas would have no coverage at all.
>
> those are rural areas where people rarely go, which is why there's not
> much coverage there.

But lots of people go through rural areas. Lots of people go to
Yosemite, Kirkwood Ski area, & Glacier National Park, and lots of people
drive up the coast through far northwestern California. I chose Hamburg,
MN, only because some friends of mine live there (they are on T-Mobile)
and they came on a trip up the Pacific Coast with us in July. It was
very annoying to be calling them and often having the call go to voice
mail because of the lack of T-Mobile coverage.

But yes, if you never leave urban areas, you can get by with a carrier
that has poor rural coverage, and I know there are people that never go
on trips outside cities. A while back I recall one person stating that
because of Cingular's lack of coverage in many parts of northern
California he had to plan his vacation travels around where they had
coverage! Personally I can't imagine doing this sort of thing. Even if I
had a carrier with poor rural coverage for $30 a year I'd keep a phone
active on Pageplus just as a safety net.


== 13 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 6:12 pm
From: nospam


In article <4e52fced$0$2186$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> >> And not to pick on Sprint's MVNOs too much, three of those places have
> >> no T-Mobile coverage, and two have no AT&T coverage. The T-Mobile
> >> acquisition would be good for coverage since with a combined network,
> >> only one of those areas would have no coverage at all.
> >
> > those are rural areas where people rarely go, which is why there's not
> > much coverage there.
>
> But lots of people go through rural areas. Lots of people go to
> Yosemite, Kirkwood Ski area, & Glacier National Park, and lots of people
> drive up the coast through far northwestern California. I chose Hamburg,
> MN, only because some friends of mine live there (they are on T-Mobile)
> and they came on a trip up the Pacific Coast with us in July. It was
> very annoying to be calling them and often having the call go to voice
> mail because of the lack of T-Mobile coverage.

there are 300 million people in the usa. how many go to yosemite or
glacier every year out of those 300 million? it's not enough for at&t
and t-mobile to care.


== 14 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 6:48 pm
From: Justin


nospam wrote on [Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:12:02 -0400]:
> In article <4e52fced$0$2186$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> >> And not to pick on Sprint's MVNOs too much, three of those places have
>> >> no T-Mobile coverage, and two have no AT&T coverage. The T-Mobile
>> >> acquisition would be good for coverage since with a combined network,
>> >> only one of those areas would have no coverage at all.
>> >
>> > those are rural areas where people rarely go, which is why there's not
>> > much coverage there.
>>
>> But lots of people go through rural areas. Lots of people go to
>> Yosemite, Kirkwood Ski area, & Glacier National Park, and lots of people
>> drive up the coast through far northwestern California. I chose Hamburg,
>> MN, only because some friends of mine live there (they are on T-Mobile)
>> and they came on a trip up the Pacific Coast with us in July. It was
>> very annoying to be calling them and often having the call go to voice
>> mail because of the lack of T-Mobile coverage.
>
> there are 300 million people in the usa. how many go to yosemite or
> glacier every year out of those 300 million? it's not enough for at&t
> and t-mobile to care.

Glacier: 2216109 last year
Yosemite: 3.5 million a year

== 15 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 6:54 pm
From: nospam


In article <j2v0th$utf$1@dont-email.me>, Justin <nospam@insightbb.com>
wrote:

> Glacier: 2216109 last year
> Yosemite: 3.5 million a year

so at best, a little more than 1% of the population.


== 16 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 6:55 pm
From: Steve Sobol


In article <4e52ef9d$0$2165$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS says...

> And not to pick on Sprint's MVNOs too much, three of those places have
> no T-Mobile coverage, and two have no AT&T coverage. The T-Mobile
> acquisition would be good for coverage since with a combined network,
> only one of those areas would have no coverage at all.


No, it would *not.*

Yes, some rural areas would be covered under the merged company that
weren't previously covered by one carrier or the other.

The benefit wouldn't be all that great. Certainly not as awesome as AT&T
wants to claim.

--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
sjsobol@JustThe.net


== 17 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 6:57 pm
From: Steve Sobol


In article <j2v0th$utf$1@dont-email.me>, Justin says...

> Glacier: 2216109 last year
> Yosemite: 3.5 million a year

The question is whether PagePlus has hired Mr. Scharf yet. He'd make a
good shill.

Seriously, Steven, we all know you're happy with PagePlus. We're aware
that there are areas covered by Verizon that aren't covered by the other
carriers. But could you do all of us a favor and stop crowing about how
PagePlus is God's gift to the American cellular consumer? Because it
isn't. It's not the perfect solution for everyone.

--
Steve Sobol - Programming/WebDev/IT Support
sjsobol@JustThe.net


== 18 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 6:59 pm
From: Paul Miner


On Tue, 23 Aug 2011 01:48:33 +0000 (UTC), Justin
<nospam@insightbb.com> wrote:

>nospam wrote on [Mon, 22 Aug 2011 21:12:02 -0400]:
>> In article <4e52fced$0$2186$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>, SMS
>> <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> >> And not to pick on Sprint's MVNOs too much, three of those places have
>>> >> no T-Mobile coverage, and two have no AT&T coverage. The T-Mobile
>>> >> acquisition would be good for coverage since with a combined network,
>>> >> only one of those areas would have no coverage at all.
>>> >
>>> > those are rural areas where people rarely go, which is why there's not
>>> > much coverage there.
>>>
>>> But lots of people go through rural areas. Lots of people go to
>>> Yosemite, Kirkwood Ski area, & Glacier National Park, and lots of people
>>> drive up the coast through far northwestern California. I chose Hamburg,
>>> MN, only because some friends of mine live there (they are on T-Mobile)
>>> and they came on a trip up the Pacific Coast with us in July. It was
>>> very annoying to be calling them and often having the call go to voice
>>> mail because of the lack of T-Mobile coverage.
>>
>> there are 300 million people in the usa. how many go to yosemite or
>> glacier every year out of those 300 million? it's not enough for at&t
>> and t-mobile to care.
>
>Glacier: 2216109 last year
>Yosemite: 3.5 million a year

Would it be safe to assume that those are visitor totals?

If so, how many are US citizens? I know when I go to a National Park
I'm much more likely to hear people speaking languages other than
English.

Second, of the visitors who live in this country, how many are at&t
customers, or T-Mo customers, or even Sprint customers? A few
thousand? A hundred thousand? Not nearly enough for the carriers to
worry about.

--
Paul Miner


== 19 of 19 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 7:13 pm
From: SMS


On 8/22/2011 6:12 PM, nospam wrote:

> there are 300 million people in the usa. how many go to yosemite or
> glacier every year out of those 300 million? it's not enough for at&t
> and t-mobile to care.

In 2010, over 280 million people visited national parks. In 2010, over 4
million people visited Yosemite, and 1.6 million visited Glacier
National Park.

It's clearly enough for AT&T to have put in a cell in Yosemite Valley.
Verizon and Sprint rely on a roaming partner. T-Mobile has no coverage
at all (other than 911).

==============================================================================
TOPIC: TAMIL SEXY HOT GIRLS
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/c6be26aefa45a1f7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 10:10 am
From: RAMYA


FOR GOOD JOBS SITES TO YOU
http://goodjobssites.blogspot.com/

FOR HOT PHOTO&VIDEOS
HOT SOUTH ACTRESS IN DIFFERENT DRESSES
http://southactresstou.blogspot.com/2011/08/south-actress.html
KATRINA KAIF RARE PHOTOS
http://southactresstou.blogspot.com/2011/07/katrina-kaif-wallpapers.html
KAJAL LATEST ROMANTIC STILLS
http://southactresstou.blogspot.com/2011/07/kajal-agarwal-in-naperu-shiva.html
TAMANNA HOT PHOTOS & VIDEOS
http://southactresstou.blogspot.com/2011/07/tamanna-wallpapers.html
PRANITHA LATEST BEAUTIFUL PHOTOS
http://southactresstou.blogspot.com/2011/06/about-pranitha-praneetha-is-beautiful.html
KAJAL AGARWAL HOT PHOTOS
http://southactresstou.blogspot.com/2011/05/kajal-agarwal.html
KATRINA KAIF IN BEAUTIFUL RED DRESS
http://southactresstou.blogspot.com/2011/05/katrina-kaif_22.html

FOR ONLY HOT GUYS SEE THIS
KAJAL AGARWAL LATEST HOT
http://hotactress-kalyani.blogspot.com/2011/08/kajal-agarwal-hot-photos.html
LATEST AMISHA PATEL HOT PICS
http://hotactress-kalyani.blogspot.com/2011/08/amisha-patel-hot.html
TAPSEE DIFFERENT STILLS
http://hotactress-kalyani.blogspot.com/2011/08/tapsee-hot.html
PRIYAMANI HOT PHOTOS
http://hotactress-kalyani.blogspot.com/2011/08/priyamani-hot.html

FOR FAST UPDATES IN TELUGU FILM INDUSTRY

PRIYAMANI SPICY PHOTOS IN COW GIRL
http://allyouwants.blogspot.com/2011/02/priyamani-spicy-photo-shoot-cow-girl.html
KAJAL HOT PHOTOS IN SAREE
http://allyouwants.blogspot.com/2011/06/kajal-very-spice-pics.html


==============================================================================
TOPIC: Replacement Window Tax Credit
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/7d549fe6ad051083?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 10:38 am
From: "http://virginia-beach-replacement-windows.com"


New windows will lower utility bills and energy efficient windows
entitle you to a Federal Tax Credit
Save money with lower utility bills and qualify for a federal tax
credit.
For more information visit our website at
http://virginia-beach-replacement-windows.com/index.php/learn/energy-performance.html

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Free classified
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2e4c987fb529b8a7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 3:06 pm
From: Artys


On Aug 18, 2:07 pm, broken mind <broken.min...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Post your ad free, We have Several Category, Choose your category and
> Post an ad here.
>
> More :http://www.multiwayads.com

Thank you, I went to the website and posted an ad.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Black+white caterpillars are poisonous
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3948414fa5978d43?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Aug 22 2011 7:21 pm
From: "deja.blues"


On 8/13/2011 2:32 AM, zeez JosephineJoseph rules wrote:
> http://www.snopes.com/horrors/insects/tussock.asp
>
>
> Claim: Black and white caterpillars are venomous.
> TRUE

If you eat caterpillars you deserve to die.


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

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

Sunday, August 21, 2011

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 3 new messages in 2 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:

* AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year - 2 messages, 2
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d30df867e6683fac?hl=en
* Where are you - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/588daad71d5f2454?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: AT&T Minimum Texting Plan Price Quadruples in One Year
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d30df867e6683fac?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 20 2011 12:04 am
From: "Elmo P. Shagnasty"


In article <4e4e7397$0$2152$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:

> On AT&T, 1200 minutes (assume 900 peak/300 off peak), 200MB of data, and
> 3000 texts would cost you about $101 per month including taxes and fees
> (estimate $6).

Of course, those AT&T minutes roll over.

Just sayin'.


== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 20 2011 9:31 am
From: SMS


On 8/20/2011 12:04 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<4e4e7397$0$2152$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
> SMS<scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
>
>> On AT&T, 1200 minutes (assume 900 peak/300 off peak), 200MB of data, and
>> 3000 texts would cost you about $101 per month including taxes and fees
>> (estimate $6).
>
> Of course, those AT&T minutes roll over.
>
> Just sayin'.

Yes, that's true, so you might get by with the 450 peak minute AT&T plan
for $20 less, bringing the cost down to around $80, which is only twice
as much as it would cost you on PP for something similar.

One other big advantage on PP is if you do go a little over on data, you
buy more MB by the MB, not in 200MB blocks.

Clearly PP is not for someone that uses a lot of data, but with so much
wi-fi around it's relatively easy to control data usage for most people.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Where are you
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/588daad71d5f2454?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Aug 20 2011 12:37 pm
From: Nicodemus


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pChzOaIeyxY


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

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