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
