Frugal Living: 25 new messages in 12 topics

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

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Christ in Islam
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/06c4482e668dd598?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 3 2007 11:19 am
From: "231" <231@alok.com>

George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> Mac Cool wrote:
>> George:
>>
>>> I know atheists like to declare that basic science and rules of
>>> logic are invalid but there is always the possibility that you are
>>> unable to observe something that may be there. You can only make an
>>> assertion that a "giant pink elephant" defined as you know it isn't
>>> there. You can never prove that there isn't a giant pink elephant in
>>> the room.
>>
>> An elephant that cannot be observed or measured by any means known,
>> is not an elephant by definition but something else entirely.
>>
>
> That is like saying since by all current definitions there is no cure
> for cancer so there can never be a cure for cancer.

Nope, nothing like.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 3 2007 5:22 pm
From: Mac Cool

George:

>> An elephant that cannot be observed or measured by any means known,
>> is not an elephant by definition but something else entirely.
>>
>
> That is like saying since by all current definitions there is no cure
> for cancer so there can never be a cure for cancer.

No, it's like saying that if you cannot see a pink elephant in the room,
then there is no pink elephant in the room because by definition, pink
elephants can be seen. Otherwise how would you know it's pink? The same
would be true of an unknown colored elephant because elephants by their
nature can be seen.

--
Mac Cool

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Get US$12 Coupons for Video Games Console and Accessories
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/e42aaffd047d4844?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 3 2007 11:25 am
From: clams casino

Miya wrote:

>It's almost Christmas time! Luckily, give aways is here to help you
>with your gift purchasing endeavours for family, friends or that
>special someone.
>

and if you can't trust a spammer selling electronics from the
Philippines, just who can you trust?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Canned Mackerel
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/f049abff31c44b3a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 3 2007 11:40 am
From: "Rod Speed"

PaPaPeng <PaPaPeng@yahoo.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>> There's a reason that the Chinese will probably take over the world...

>>>> Nope, they've stopped them breeding like rabbits,
>>>> so they wont be taking over anything now.

>>> Uhuh. Notice the increase in Chinese numbers in Ozzieland?

>> Yep, but they wont be taking over here either, those that
>> do end up here have the usual small number of kids, 1.x etc.

> Notice the kids in the Universities and colleges?

Yep, the chinese dont dominate those.

> The proportion of them in the quota faculties
> ie the Professions, hard sciences and technologies?

Those dont take over the world.

> They will be the ones who will wield real power

Nope, they dont have real power here.

> while you regular guys swig beer and surf.

We do a lot more than just that.

And a hell of a lot of the chinese do a lot more than
just the professions, hard sciences and technologies,
hordes of them in retail shop keeping and drug trafficing.

In fact there are bugger all chinese involved in
hard sciences and technologies here and those
who are are never where the real power is either.

> There'll be a lot more of them than there will be jews.

Sure, but we have never had many jews at all with real power.

> And look what <2 per cent of jews did to the US.

And didnt manage to do anywhere else much.

> One difference and a mitigating factor. Chinese
> are not into victimhood and media manipulation.

Sure, but that doesnt give them any real
power at all, let alone take over the world.

They chinese have always had one hell of a capacity for
rubbing the natives up the wrong way and ending up with
a very bad outcome for themselves, most obviously with
Indonesia and Malaysia, and right thruout SE Asia.

Thats one reason why we have a considerable number of chinese
here, the treatment they get in places like Malaysia and Indonesia.

>> The 'problem' is even worse in places like Singapore, a hell of
>> a lot of them there dont have any kids at all, and Lee Quan Yew
>> tried to get them to do something about that and they never did.

> In Singapore, until just 10 years ago, there was
> heavy pressure to have one child per family.

And when Lee Quan Yew eventually came to his sense
on that, he hasnt managed to get people to do anything
much about having more kids now, essentially because
the low number of kids and the failure to marry was due
to economic reasons that are universal right thruout the
modern first world and developed countrys.

> The method was to hit them in the wallet. It was very
> expensive to raise a kid and the second kid invoked
> penalties such as no choice of schools the kid could
> go to. A few weeks ago a father was found guilty of
> fraud by faking residency in a district with the (good
> reputation) school he wanted his daughter to be enrolled in.

Irrelevant to why the number of kids is still low NOW.

And its just as true of HongKong where there never was a one child policy.

> Then the government found they needed local born manpower
> and reversed their policy but only slightly. Those with education
> (eg. university) could have second and third child. By then its kind
> of late to reverse the trend not to have any or to have only one kid.

Its got nothing to do with govt policy as should be obvious from
the HongKong result and the result we get here with our chinese.

> The trendy lifestyle reports from rich western countries had
> stressed small families over poor large ones, feminism, careers,
> etc. such that child bearing and family values are not chic.

Its got nothing to do with chic, everything to do with the very
large numbers of working married women and the difficulty of
having kids when both the parents work full time out of the home.

> A reversal? The generation under 40 are
> now into having more than one kid though.

And its nothing like even an average of more than 2.

> In China the very strict one child per family laws over a 40 year
> span should have realised a reduction in population already.

Nope. Essentially because of the considerable exceptions to those laws.

> Yet the planners are only hopeful that the population will stabilize
> at 1.5 billions by 2035 and maybe see a slow decine thereafter.
> To give an idea of of the problem even at 1 per cent population
> growth today this already results in 13 million new mouths a year
> to feed, house, educate and to create employment for. Don't
> anyone have any illusions about democracy and human rights, the
> encouragement by western liberals to Chinese to have affluent
> lifestyles of the West, override the need for China's to keep her
> population under control. A western consumer lifestyle for the
> Chinese is enough an enviromental disaster for the whole world.

Nope, we survived the west doing it fine.

And whatever some may desire, its going to happen anyway.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 3 2007 12:52 pm
From: PaPaPeng

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 19:06:29 GMT, "news.verizon.net"
<news@verizon.net> wrote:

>
>"PaPaPeng" <PaPaPeng@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>news:ivc5l31hld99qld0r22sn62bmtv9l92kcv@4ax.com...
>>
>>
>> This is neat. I just bought a 115gm can of Mackerel, the flat can with
>> a pull tab to open it. Included inside is a plastic fork so that I
>> can eat from the can without further ado. Its a really brilliant
>> idea. The can is packed inside a cardboard box labelled CanAsia of
>> Thailand. Costs CDN1.59 from the Chinese grocery shop. I rarely
>> snack between meals and canned fish is a snack I like, not too
>> filling, is delicious, nutiritious, easy to digest and no preparation
>> needed.
>
>Yea, what's the sodium content in that?
>
I am on a low salt diet too. It didn't taste salty. The can of fish
in light soy oil I threw away earlier. According to the label for the
fish in tomato sauce

Fat lipids 9 g 114%
Saturated Trans 3.5 g 13%
Cholesterol 20 mg 7%
Sodium 160 mg 7%
Vitamin A 4%
Vitamin C 0%
Carbohydrate 1%
Fiber 0%
Sugar 2 g
Protein 8 g
Calcium 0%
Iron 2%

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 3 2007 1:00 pm
From: PaPaPeng

On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 06:40:27 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:

>
>> They will be the ones who will wield real power
>
>Nope, they dont have real power here.

Take a drive through your new single family housing developments and
observe the ethnic make up. Visit your universities. Also look up
the faculty academic staff list. Form your own conclusions. I won't
say any more on this subject as it will come across as gloating.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 3 2007 1:12 pm
From: Vic Smith

On Mon, 03 Dec 2007 21:00:17 GMT, PaPaPeng <PaPaPeng@yahoo.com> wrote:

>On Tue, 4 Dec 2007 06:40:27 +1100, "Rod Speed"
><rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>
>>> They will be the ones who will wield real power
>>
>>Nope, they dont have real power here.
>
>Take a drive through your new single family housing developments and
>observe the ethnic make up. Visit your universities. Also look up
>the faculty academic staff list. Form your own conclusions. I won't
>say any more on this subject as it will come across as gloating.

Since you've already come across as racist, what's the big deal about
gloating?

--Vic

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 3 2007 1:30 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

PaPaPeng <PaPaPeng@yahoo.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> PaPaPeng <PaPaPeng@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>>>>>> There's a reason that the Chinese will probably take over the world...

>>>>>> Nope, they've stopped them breeding like rabbits,
>>>>>> so they wont be taking over anything now.

>>>>> Uhuh. Notice the increase in Chinese numbers in Ozzieland?

>>>> Yep, but they wont be taking over here either, those that
>>>> do end up here have the usual small number of kids, 1.x etc.

>>> Notice the kids in the Universities and colleges?

>> Yep, the chinese dont dominate those.

>>> The proportion of them in the quota faculties

We dont have quota facultys here.

>>> ie the Professions, hard sciences and technologies?

>> Those dont take over the world.

>>> They will be the ones who will wield real power

>> Nope, they dont have real power here.

> Take a drive through your new single family housing
> developments and observe the ethnic make up.

I've been doing that for over half a century now.
They arent dominated by the chinese here.

> Visit your universities. Also look up the faculty
> academic staff list. Form your own conclusions.

I did, the chinese arent over represented in those places here.

And none of those are where the real power is here.

> I won't say any more on this subject as it will come across as gloating.

Just more of your ignorance of what happens here, actually.

We do have quite a few chinese here who have mostly chosen to leave
the countrys they came from in SE Asia when they have gotten the result
they deserved in the countrys they came from, and hordes from HongKong
who decided that things are much better here than in HongKong, but none
of them are in any position of real power here.

They are much more useful immigrants than many we have been stupid
enough to accept in the past, particularly the dregs of england, and the
absolute dregs from southern europe and places like lebanon, but that
hasnt got them any real power here and they certainly wont be taking
over the world either, essentially because they have one hell of a
capacity for getting right up the noses of the countrys they migrate to.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Living without a credit card
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/1543df3db7e868b6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 3 2007 11:54 am
From: "Evelyn C. Leeper"

Marc wrote:
> On Dec 2, 8:42 am, George Grapman <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>> Get a debit card. You can use it just like a credit card except you
>> can not spend the money if you do not have it.
>
> Unfortunately, this isn't always true; sometimes the transaction will
> be
> accepted and generate an overdraft. Someone who lacks the financial
> self-discipline to only spend what he can afford with a credit card
> may
> find that overdraft fees can be much higher than the interest payments
> used to be.

And again, I don't think you can use them to rent a car.

--
Evelyn C. Leeper
I believe I found the missing link between animal
and civilized man. It is us. -Konrad Lorenz

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 3 2007 12:54 pm
From: Dennis

On Sun, 02 Dec 2007 23:23:34 -0800, Paul Pluzhnikov
<ppluzhnikov-nsp@charter.net> wrote:

>REI has some good stuff; the one-time $15 membership fee more than
>paid for itself in the initial discount I got while buying my fist
>tent and backpack.

Jeez, I hope a fist tent isn't what it sounds like.

Dennis (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 3 2007 4:24 pm
From: George Grapman

Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
> Marc wrote:
>> On Dec 2, 8:42 am, George Grapman <sfgeo...@paccbell.net> wrote:
>>> Get a debit card. You can use it just like a credit card except you
>>> can not spend the money if you do not have it.
>>
>> Unfortunately, this isn't always true; sometimes the transaction will
>> be
>> accepted and generate an overdraft. Someone who lacks the financial
>> self-discipline to only spend what he can afford with a credit card
>> may
>> find that overdraft fees can be much higher than the interest payments
>> used to be.
>
> And again, I don't think you can use them to rent a car.
>
Depends on the company. I have done it several times but you should
always confirm this ahead of time.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 3 2007 4:26 pm
From: George Grapman

Regarding over limit charges on debit cards. I never had the need but
if I exceed the balance on my debit/checking card my credit union will
transfer the needed money from my savings account for $1 per transaction.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Any ATT cell phone users here?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3611a3889da8ef91?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 3 2007 11:54 am
From: me@privacy.net

I currently have an unlocked GSM Nokia phone being used
on another carrier OTHER than ATT

Thinking of going to ATT tho so can I use THIS phone
with the ATT system thereby avoiding the contract
commitment?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 3 2007 4:03 pm
From: Shawn Hirn

In article <qnn8l39ee3t30ras7il02g3vftfpjrge1v@4ax.com>, me@privacy.net
wrote:

> I currently have an unlocked GSM Nokia phone being used
> on another carrier OTHER than ATT
>
> Thinking of going to ATT tho so can I use THIS phone
> with the ATT system thereby avoiding the contract
> commitment?

What's your question? My sister uses AT&T for her cell phone service.
She depends on her cell phone for her business and she's a happy
customer.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: We Want Illegal Aliens Out of NY Out of USA!!!!!!!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/96493c5f219e2cd7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 3 2007 11:56 am
From: Louie

http://www.star-telegram.com/245/story/290662.html

The best-kept secret: Enforcement actually works
By ERNEST ISTOOK
The Heritage Foundation

Once again, the states are rebelling against Washington.

Fed up with dithering in D.C., states are proving that enforcement
works. Enforcement can not only prevent illegal immigration but
actually reverse it.

Illegal immigrants by the tens of thousands are leaving states that
have adopted tough new laws -- Colorado, Georgia, Arizona and now
Oklahoma. Local efforts are being launched too quickly to count,
involving more than 100 communities so far.

When denied jobs or public benefits, many illegals return to Mexico.
Others move within the U.S. to areas with local amnesty policies.

Left-leaning groups are on the move, too, flocking to the courts in
efforts to block state and local enforcement. Only Congress is
standing still -- except for backsliding efforts to push more back-
door amnesty.

The details of the state and local laws vary, but the impact is
consistent. Typically, they deny public benefits to illegal immigrants
and try to make sure that employers don't hire them.

Oklahoma's law kicked in Thursday. Hispanic leaders claim that 25,000
illegal persons departed the Sooner State before the measure went into
effect. Businesses that catered to them say their sales are down 20
percent. They're backing a lawsuit challenging the new crackdown.

But the crackdown is a gain for taxpayers. Estimates show that illegal
immigrants cost Oklahoma taxpayers $200 million a year, mostly for
education and healthcare.

Arizona's new employer sanctions don't start until Jan. 1. A half
million undocumented people supposedly are awaiting the outcome of
court challenges, but The Arizona Republic still reports the
outmigration already tops 100 per day.

Because of Georgia's new law, businesses with an illegal-alien
customer base have seen sales drop as much as 40 percent. And money
wired from Georgia to Mexico and Central America declined. Similar
sales drops are reported elsewhere.

Colorado supplemented its new laws with a special detachment of state
troopers. An Aug. 31 report to the governor said the first month's
results "exceed anyone's expectations," catching 150 illegal
immigrants plus those who smuggle them.

State legislators this year introduced some 1,400 immigrant-related
bills, and 182 became law. Local ordinances were proposed or adopted
in 104 cities and counties.

Bucking the trend is Illinois, which passed a law prohibiting
employers from using a federal database to screen out illegal
immigrants. That's where the litigation trend cuts both ways: The
Department of Homeland Security is suing Illinois to force it to
comply, saying the state can't pick and choose which federal laws to
obey.

Current federal enforcement remains limited, focused on illegals who
have committed violent crimes but not on illegal immigration
generally.

So-called sanctuary/amnesty cities are clearly violating federal law,
as New York City learned from a U.S. Supreme Court ruling in 2000.
It's time for the feds to use that precedent and take other cities and
state scofflaws to court.

The battleground is swiftly shifting into court, where activist judges
are eager to side with border violators. One judge blocked federal
officials from notifying millions of employers that their workers may
be using false Social Security numbers. Hazleton, Pa., had its local
ordinance struck down. More lawsuits are pending. Enforcement works,
but liberals want to stifle it before people realize that.

The big claim is that immigration is solely a federal issue. If
activist judges block state and local enforcement, the public reaction
could rival the anger over decisions about abortion and forced busing.

But there's a difference this time: Those controversial rulings
claimed that the Constitution barred action by any level of
government.

By demonstrating that enforcement works, state and local governments
are clarifying the issues, and tens of thousands of illegal immigrants
are self-deporting. The public outcry that defeated the amnesty bill
this spring has found a new outlet, keeping the heat on Washington all
the way into the 2008 elections.
Ernest Istook is a distinguished fellow at the Heritage Foundation. He
served 14 years as a Republican congressman from Oklahoma.

On Nov 1, 9:43 am, luis.river...@yahoo.com wrote:
> We Want Illegal Aliens Out of NY Out of USA!!!!!!!
>
> Every body I know agree with this thinking.
>
> May be this help we allso make report one by one.
>
> I make report here this Illegal Stripper Uliana Abramova.
>
> Look at this Illegal Uliana!!! She do all crime use any US American
> man take husband brake family try & blackmail allso!!! She stay in USA
> she do what she like all times. She work in strip club allso hooker!!!
> She have face like weseal some bad animal. Yo can see she have no
> soul. She care for no body only self only dream of $$$$ and more $$$$.
> Any body can see she have no heart or soul.
>
> Illegal Stripper Ulianahttp://puertorico.craigslist.org/rnr/458349359.html
>
> Illegal stripper is psycho for sure. How may illgal do more crime
> beside come here illegal? May be every one. I think so.
>
> They take to long to drport to her but some time soon this happen.
> Seguro que si.
>
> Some people think Louie is spammer but all things I put here are true.
> No braking law if every thing yo say is true. People need this info so
> they help to deport to her soon & think to report any criminlal
> illegal. Any body help to her they have trouble allso!!! Mr Sanjay
> talk of law, Give her space to live & job is harboring & helping &
> Illegal allso.
>
> Please every body should report to Illegal Alien where they know there
> is one. Por favor, this is help to every body. Yo not forget they do
> so many extra crime not just come here illegal!!! This makes bigger
> problem. More crmininals in USA!!!
>
> Mr Sanjay put up info & I put up again. Every body knows to her now.
> All of us should do this!!! Report on Illegal that we know, write to
> goverment people. Do all things and may be they listen. Seguro que si.
> We push them they have to listen some time if every body thinking this
> way. So many people in agree with us so this happen for sure.
>
> Louie
> (I am Puerto Rican American)
>
> ...........
>
> Subject: We wants Illegal Stripper Uliana Abramova Out of NY out of
> USA!!!!!!!!!!
>
> Perdon. Picture of Stripper on internet was not working. I think
> before to see it. Run fast where yo see her walk!!!! Protext family
> and self from puta. She take every think from every body when nobody
> stop to her
>
> Illegal Stripper Ulianahttp://puertorico.craigslist.org/rnr/458349359.html
>
> Louie
>
> ............
>
> I see this put on some Google groups by Mr Sanja Karam. Now post is
> taken off & I put back.Very wrong what this illegal did, brake visa,
> brake family, try & blackmail wife, get into university to. She does
> all crimes, brake US immigration laws to. This is illegal and psycho
> also. 1 of 25 people psycho like this stripper, doctrs saying. The
> post disappear so here I put it again. what a sick chica so bad. I see
> her picture to flat tits & no good face. they deport her bak to russia
> soon I hope. No good stripper & bad person to.
>
> Her is info for you to think about so protext self, family job &
> country.
>
> Picture (new one) of ugly stripper, face like animalhttp://puertorico.craigslist.org/rnr/458349359.html
>
> Chat of stripper EXACT PLAN to get into US illegalhttp://www.site2date.com/chat/data/23597_35806.txt
>
> For Report Illegal Alienhttp://www.reportillegals.com/
>
> More criminal like Stripperhttp://blogcritics.org/archives/2005/10/23/080527.php
>
> Louie
> ..............
>
> Post from Mr. Sanjay.
>
> To Whom it May Concern:
>
> Please be advised that Uliana Abramova, recently dismissed from Scores
> NY West Side, is in flagrant violation of her Non-Immigrant J-1 Visa.
> She is presently based in New York City, and it is likely that she
> will at some point seek employment at another New York City Strip
> Club.
>
> It has come to our attention that Abramova has tried to prevent
> widespread knowledge of her illegal status She also attempted to
> coerce several American men into marriage, in order to derive
> immigration benefits. Abramova has in fact made serious threats
> against the wife of one of the men she seduced, the father of a four
> year old child. Her immoral and unethical actions are endangering the
> integrity of this family, and the welfare of this child. Please see
> the original email she sent to this poor woman, directly following
> this posting.
>
> I must state unequivocally that all of the statements contained herein
> are factual and verifiable. It is also true that the removal from the
> USA of Uliana Abramova would not normally be a matter of such urgency,
> except that she is a person who enjoys creating mischief and havoc.
> Abramova is an opportunistic depraved person who acts without
> conscience nor concern for the welfare of any other person. She is
> therefore a liability to anyone who may employ her or come into
> contact with her.
>
> Abramova affects an innocent, naive demeanor but is predatory,
> unpredictable and dangerous. She is a Russian native and speaks with
> an accent, is 5'5" tall and about 105 lbs., with an extremely slight
> build and wispy hair dyed red or blond. She has altered her appearance
> considerably in the past few years (several surgeries to replace a
> bulbous nose), and may continue to do so in the future.
>
> We have documentation which indicates that:
>
> (1) Abramova came to the USA with the definite intention of violating
> the conditions of her temporary, Non- Immigrant, nonrenewable J-1Visa.
>
> In her own words: Abramova planned and implemented a plan to obtain a
> J-1 visa and then a Social Security number, and intented violation of
> this visa once she arrived in the USA. Entry into the USA was granted
> to her under the stipulation that she work as a camp counselor at
> CCUSA from 5/06 until 10/06. Abramova never showed up to work at the
> camp and she also remained in the USA past the term of her temporary
> visa, 10/06. She is therefore both in violation of her visa and in
> overstay.
>
> (2) Before leaving Russia: Abramova had been "trolling" for likely
> American men who might harbor her once she arrived in the USA
> illegally. This was done via at least one Russian dating web site,
> site2date. We have the transcript of a chat between her and a man in
> Tacoma, WA and he has sent us additional emails between himself and
> Abramova.
>
> Rumor has it that Abramova has been admitted to university, possibly
> one of those in the New York CUNY system. She has apparently
> accomplished this by falsifying admission documents.
>
> Abramova is in fact not legally allowed to work or live anywhere in
> the USA. She was recently refused an F-1 (student visa) and therefore
> should not be attending college, either. To quote the words of an ICE
> agent: "She needs to go home."
>
> Contact has been made with ICE and with the Compliance Unit,
> Department of State and Representative Jerrold Nadler of Manhattan
> Congressional District 8. All of the above have been interested in the
> case and have asked for details. We recently have received word of
> its being moved up to the next level. Apparently, the process of
> having her removed from the USA is well under way.
>
> Please be good enough to take this information seriously. It should
> serve as a warning to avoid employing or associating with persons of
> this description. By US Immigration Law, anyone who employs Abramova
> or otherwise acts in any manner to enables her to stay in the USA is
> guilty of "harboring," an offense punishable by 5 years in jail.
>
> Please be good enough to advise your colleagues of this matter
> privately. Thus informed, they can act according to their own best
> judgement.
>
> Sincerely yours,
> Sanjay Karam, Esq.
>
> cc: Immigration and Customs Enforcement (Department of Homeland
> Security)
>
> United States Department of State (Compliance Unit)
>
> ..........................
>
> Illegal Uliana she make threaten on Mrs Lena. No body can do this
> before they not go to jail!!!
>
> - Hide quoted text -
> - Show quoted text - -----Original Message-----
> From: ulechka_2...@yahoo.com
> To: Lena...@aol.com
>
> Cc: Arthur...@aol.com
> Sent: Mon, 23 Jul 2007 4:34 PM
> Subject: ÐžÑ,Ð²ÐµÑ,: Fwd: arthur
>
> L...@aol.com wrote:
>
> Arthur's wife here. I will get you out of the country, you whore. I
> am writing to immigration. You bet, you lost your job because of me.
> Ha-ha.
>
> ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Lena
>
> I was not aware Arthur was married for 4 month , only after 4 month I
> found out he is married and has a son. I tried to brake it off, and he
> was the one calling me and insisting on seeing me all the time,
> although i asked him to break it off. He loves me and if he wants to
> be with me, I cant stop him. The only person who can stop it, is
> Arthur himself.
>
> When i type my first and last name in google, this what comes up:
>
> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=uliana+abramova&btnG=Google+Search
>
> and when I click on the first link that what i see:
>
>

http://www3.stripclublist.com/image?refno=1553170&record=18518
>
> U have much more to loose then i am. U have friends , family, and U go
> to hunter college.
>
> I will post your husbands naked pictures all over the net as well as
> russianny.com. I have naked pictures, videos of him, making love to
> me, etc...
>
> I don't want to hurt your feeling and send u these pictures, unless U
> want me to, but if wont remove the link, I will post it in the
> internet next week. All of them... and I have more then 10. If U don't
> belief me , I send them to U.
>
> Don't go there, its up to him to make a decision. I didn't take him
> away from U, he did it all himself.
>
> Its the softest one.
>
> ........................
>
> Look again yo see ugly weseal face of illegal stripper. Yo can see she
> have no soul. She use all people just dream of American $$$$ and green
> card.
>
> Illegal Stripper Ulianahttp://puertorico.craigslist.org/rnr/458349359.html

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Crucial Criteria for choosing equipment.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/ee8cb2f81c0d6b16?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 3 2007 12:59 pm
From: "super"

"Brian" <blecnospam@tesco.net> wrote in message
news:N2b4j.128$bC3.54@newsfe1-win.ntli.net...
>> Their Scottish helpdesk told me to get lost over a faulty monitor, even
>> though it was only 6 months old and displayed a vertical line with 4
>> different computers (2 new Vista, 2 oldish XP). Monitor had to go in bin,
> as
>> the user couldn't work with it.
>>
>> Caveat Emptor.
>>
>
> Well you should not have given up. If the monitor was not more than 6
> months
> old, the sale of goods act - specifically the "provision of goods and
> services regulations 2002" specifically state that any fault which
> manifests
> itself within the first 6 months is deemd to have been there when supplied
> new, and it is up to the supplier to PROVE that it was not.
>

Its not worth it over £100+VAT. When you subtract the man-hours lost chasing
plus the lost opportunity of dealing with other important issues in the
dept, I'd be a fool to chase this up on work's time. If it were personal,
I'd chase them through small claims or whatever.

My boss agreed to bin it and just not touch Samsung again. Pity, cos I'd
been singing their praises for being cheap and cheerful before that.

You live and learn.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Free insulation
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/23818014c060caae?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 3 2007 1:12 pm
From: Derald

Anthony Matonak <anthonym40@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:

>Feel free to try an experiment.
... but you omitted the, "inhale the fumes" part of the test.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 3 2007 12:48 pm
From: Usenet2007@THE-DOMAIN-IN.SIG

In article <georgek-CE1F51.07481603122007@sn-ip.vsrv-
sjc.supernews.net>, georgek@humboldt1.com says...
> Lots of "Popcorn" is available. you know the styrofoam peanuts that are
> used in packing boxes.
> Use it to fill cavities and voids in your building. Be cautious as it can
> burn.

Not only can it burn, but my understanding is that it can give
off extremely toxic fumes while burning. Sounds like a bad idea.

--
Earn Money With Your Web Site
http://www.WebSponsorZone.Net
Web Site Advertising Directory

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Free Discount Prescription Cards Are Donated Nationwide
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/6f8475bc14161db1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 3 2007 1:13 pm
From: egfryew9

Here is a company called American Consultants Rx that I came across
that is offering free discount prescription cards designed to save up
to 60% off of generic drugs to non
profits,hospitals,clinics,churches,etc. as well as to the general
public in an effort to assist the nations uninsured and seniors.Visit
http://www.freediscountprescriptioncards.com to either download a free
discount prescription card or place an order for your organization.It
really helped our non profit agency to assist our community.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Renting VS Buying Homes
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/37be5c6af5aee907?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 3 2007 1:41 pm
From: Chad

On Dec 3, 12:06 pm, clams casino <PeterGrif...@drunkin-clam.com>
wrote:
> Chad wrote:
> >hi,
>
> >I know this topic has been discussed for a long time and at many
> >places. But when I came to this question recently, I still keep
> >thinking, "is it worth to buy a house now? even the market right now
> >seems nice to buyers." Because every person's financial situation is
> >different. In order to find out the exact answer, I made this web page
> >to do some calculation.
> >The basic idea is to let both renting and buying sides start with the
> >same amount of money, and spend the same amount of money every month.
> >At the end, see which side is richer.
> >There are many factors I did not include in the calculation such as
> >inflation on HOA, insurance which will make it harder and harder to
> >calculate.
> >Here is the link:http://rentingvsbuying.chadstown.com/
> >Do you guys think if the calculation makes sense?
> >Thanks.
>
> Calculations are fine, but IMO, the two significant factors of renting
> vs. buying (from a financial consideration) is whether you would buy vs.
> rent the same home and one's tax bracket. It's a whole different
> consideration if one needs a 3-5 bedroom home or just likes / strongly
> prefers home vs. apartment living.
>
> In most cases, apartments are smaller and tend to be more conveniently
> located to one's place of employment. It's tough to find a decent 1200
> sq2 home in a decent location. Many single and two person households
> are only home at night & weekends. Is a big home really desirable /
> worthwhile for them? There is also usually a greater cost (time and
> dollars) to commute from housing developments vs. apartments. Then, of
> course there is the added cost of utilities, furnishings, taxes,
> interest, etc for a home larger than one really needs / desires.
> Renting a smaller apartment will often times beat out home ownership -
> provided the difference in cost is invested / not spent away.
>
> The second biggest factor is probably tax bracket. Home ownership
> makes much sense for 30+% tax brackets where one typically enjoys long
> form deductions of interest & taxes, but it's much less clear for
> someone in a 15% bracket and/or one who does not (or marginally) qualify
> for such deductions.
>
> A third factor is how long one intends to live at a particular
> location. It can take several years of appreciation to offset selling
> costs.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Yeah, I agree. Financial wise, there is no problem for me to buy a
house, and also, I think I will stick to current work place for at
least couple of more years, maybe even longer. I always think it might
be a better idea to buy a house when I really need it. But since
recently, many people think the house market is turning good to
buyers, and seems like this is a good timing. This makes me to think
this question hard. For the first factor, renting or buy the same
value of apartment or house, I really did not think about this one. I
only thought about the affordability, or how much return it can get.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 3 2007 2:15 pm
From: Chad

On Dec 3, 2:07 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Chad <chadfs...@yahoo.com> wrote
>
> > I know this topic has been discussed for a long time and at
> > many places. But when I came to this question recently, I
> > still keep thinking, "is it worth to buy a house now? even the
> > market right now seems nice to buyers." Because every person's
> > financial situation is different. In order to find out the exact answer,
>
> There never can be an exact answer, particularly when
> the choice is marginal and the future cannot be predicted.

Yeah, I guess this is the problem that I am having right now. There is
no such sure answer to say you should buy or you should rent, which is
why I am trying to do the calculate. It is true that the marginal and
future cannot be predicted, you never know what could happen tomorrow,
but, let's just assume the future will go smoothly, no disaster:).

> > I made this web page to do some calculation.
>
> Trouble is that it can never include the most important numbers, what the market
> will do property value wise in the particular market you will be buying in.

> It cant even really get much of a handle on what interest rates will do in the future either.
>
> > The basic idea is to let both renting and buying sides start
> > with the same amount of money, and spend the same amount
> > of money every month. At the end, see which side is richer.
>
> That is a totally inappropriate way to calculate it.
Why? I don't really mean "richer", but you got to have a way to see
which way is better.

> One of the real advantages of buy over renting is that its a form
> of forced saving. It makes it harder to piss the excess of income
> over outgoings against the wall on short term spending like
> holidays and expensive meals out and entertainment etc etc etc.

"A form of force saving", that is a very good point. I've never
thought about it.

> > There are many factors I did not include in the calculation such as inflation
> > on HOA, insurance which will make it harder and harder to calculate.
>
> So your calculations are useless and it makes more sense to make
> general statements like that if you have a decent income and there
> isnt any evidence that a major sag is about to happen in the market
> you are considering buying a house in, and you dont plan to move
> any year soon, you are generally better off buying rather than renting
> while loan interest rates are as low as they currently are, but that its
> important to only buy what leaves you some slack in your payments,
> so that if you are on a variable rate loan, you can still afford the
> payments when interest rates inevitably go up and you wont have
> to sellup because you cant afford the payments anymore.
>
> > Here is the link:http://rentingvsbuying.chadstown.com/
> > Do you guys think if the calculation makes sense?
>
> No it doesnt, for the reasons I stated above.

I know the "general statement" could help me to make desicion much
much easier. But after I read an article from msn money,
http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/banking/homebuyingguide/whyrenttogetricher.aspx
I get more confused about this topic. Rich people buy big house, which
is obvious, but here, it says rich people should rent...hoho..

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 3 2007 3:17 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Chad <chadfsjob@yahoo.com> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Chad <chadfs...@yahoo.com> wrote

>>> I know this topic has been discussed for a long time and at
>>> many places. But when I came to this question recently, I
>>> still keep thinking, "is it worth to buy a house now? even the
>>> market right now seems nice to buyers." Because every person's
>>> financial situation is different. In order to find out the exact answer,

>> There never can be an exact answer, particularly when
>> the choice is marginal and the future cannot be predicted.

> Yeah, I guess this is the problem that I am having right now. There is
> no such sure answer to say you should buy or you should rent, which
> is why I am trying to do the calculate. It is true that the marginal and
> future cannot be predicted, you never know what could happen tomorrow,
> but, let's just assume the future will go smoothly, no disaster:).

I didnt mean it in the disaster sense. Even if you go for a fixed interest
rate loan when buying the house, and dont care about what happens
to the value of the house in the short term, because you can be confident
of a decent increase in value of most houses over the long haul, it isnt
possible to calculate what will happen to rents over that time, so it isnt
possible to decide how much better off you will be buying over renting.

All you can really do is come to the general conclusion
that you are generally better off buying than renting, just
because with the current low interest rates, you generally
pay less in interest than you will be losing in rent.

Its even more difficult to decide whether its better to rent and save
the same total per month in good quality investments as you would
be paying on mortgage repayments, basically because cant really
quantify how the rents will change over time and what returns you
will get on the investments and cant compare that with the increase
in the value of the house because thats not predictable either.

>>> I made this web page to do some calculation.

>> Trouble is that it can never include the most important numbers, what the market
>> will do property value wise in the particular market you will be buying in.

>> It cant even really get much of a handle on what interest rates will do in the future either.

>>> The basic idea is to let both renting and buying sides start
>>> with the same amount of money, and spend the same amount
>>> of money every month. At the end, see which side is richer.

>> That is a totally inappropriate way to calculate it.

> Why?

Essentially because you would normally be paying more
for the loan than you will be paying in rent most of the time.

And its impossible to put a value on the fact that you would
normally buy better than you would rent, and when you buy
you arent at the whim of the landlord on changes to the rent,
and the landlord deciding to sell the property or use it himself etc.

> I don't really mean "richer",

Sure, I didnt comment on that bit.

> but you got to have a way to see which way is better.

The trouble is that you can never calculate what rents will do over time,
even if you are comparing the rents with a fixed interest rate loan where
you do know that the loan payments wont change over time. But you
cant calculate what property taxes will do over time either.

>> One of the real advantages of buy over renting is that its a form
>> of forced saving. It makes it harder to piss the excess of income
>> over outgoings against the wall on short term spending like
>> holidays and expensive meals out and entertainment etc etc etc.

> "A form of force saving", that is a very good point. I've never thought about it.

Yeah, and its by far the biggest saving that most people have too.

>>> There are many factors I did not include in the calculation such as inflation
>>> on HOA, insurance which will make it harder and harder to calculate.

>> So your calculations are useless and it makes more sense to make
>> general statements like that if you have a decent income and there
>> isnt any evidence that a major sag is about to happen in the market
>> you are considering buying a house in, and you dont plan to move
>> any year soon, you are generally better off buying rather than renting
>> while loan interest rates are as low as they currently are, but that its
>> important to only buy what leaves you some slack in your payments,
>> so that if you are on a variable rate loan, you can still afford the
>> payments when interest rates inevitably go up and you wont have
>> to sellup because you cant afford the payments anymore.

>>> Here is the link:http://rentingvsbuying.chadstown.com/
>>> Do you guys think if the calculation makes sense?

>> No it doesnt, for the reasons I stated above.

> I know the "general statement" could help me to make desicion
> much much easier. But after I read an article from msn money,
> http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/banking/homebuyingguide/whyrenttogetricher.aspx
> I get more confused about this topic.

Yeah, its a lot more complicated than it first looks.

Particularly the situation where you choose to save the difference between
the rent and the loan repayments in investments that produce a decent return.
It isnt that hard to do better than you can in most housing markets if you
know what you are doing investment wise, but the risk is rather higher too.

> Rich people buy big house, which is obvious, but here, it says rich people should rent...hoho..

Yes, you can certainly make a case for renting if you have a very good reliable
income. The main advantage with buying, that its a form of forced saving, doesnt
apply to people like that who dont need a form of forced saving and who may
prefer to spend some of their very good income on lifestyle stuff like holidays etc.

In spades if they move around much, renting is a lot more convenient in that situation.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 3 2007 5:27 pm
From: "Lou"

"Chad" <chadfsjob@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:f0fb1708-a9f5-4b12-a641-4d3fce9b9cef@n20g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
> hi,
>
> I know this topic has been discussed for a long time and at many
> places. But when I came to this question recently, I still keep
> thinking, "is it worth to buy a house now? even the market right now
> seems nice to buyers." Because every person's financial situation is
> different. In order to find out the exact answer, I made this web page
> to do some calculation.
> The basic idea is to let both renting and buying sides start with the
> same amount of money, and spend the same amount of money every month.
> At the end, see which side is richer.

You're assuming that under both the buying and renting scenarios, you'll be
spending the same amount of money each month. If that is indeed the case,
the person who buys the house generally has two things going for him that
the person renting a dwelling does not:

1. A yearly tax deduction
2. A lump sum payment when the house is sold

If you get a fixed rate mortgage, you can add another item to the list - a
major part of your housing expense will never rise, but can go down (you can
refinance if rates drop).

The tax deduction will most likely be bigger than the standard deduction -
maybe not hugely bigger, but every dollar helps. When/if you sell the
house, you get the proceeds, and usually (but not always) that amount is
larger than the outstanding balance on the mortgage - in other words, you
get some of your housing spending back.

But nothing is certain, and there is no way to realistically assess the
risks 30 years out - your neighborhood could become a slum and the place not
worth what you paid for it, your neighborhood could become fashionable and
appreciate far above the general run of prices.

Just off the top of my head, $200/year for insurance and repairs is a wild
underestimate. 5% interest rate on a mortgage is not real realistic either.
In New Jersey, $1,500 a year for property taxes is maybe 25% of the average
residential property tax bill. $2,000 for closing costs also seems very
low. Around here, $800/month rent wouldn't get you much. Some rentals
include utilities, some do not, but a homeowner never has someone else
paying the utility bills, and I don't see an allowance for those under
either scenario. I don't know where you're getting the 30% tax rate on the
sale of a house, but the rollover rule and the one-time lifetime exemption
make that seem very high. A 3% annual house appreciation also seems low
(the average ove the last 20 years or so is on the order of 4%-5%). The 8%
investment income rate is a low as well (the S&P over the last 20 years or
so averages 9%-10%). The investment tax is also probably overstated - you
don't pay taxes on stock gains unless you sell the stock and if you wait
until you retire to sell, you'll possibly be in a lower bracket. A 2%
annual increase in rent also seems low - it's a long time since I was a
renter, but whoever you're renting from is subject to all the price
pressures for taxes, utilities, and cost of paid help that a homeowner
faces, and they want to make a profit. If the Fed holds inflation down to
2% annually over the next 30 years, I'll be surprised. I don't know what
the current requirements for a down payment on a house are, but I bought my
first house with 5% down, so I think that your $40,000 initial investment
fund under the rental scenario compared to the $0 initial fund under the buy
scenario overstates the the case.

Buying a house is not merely, purely, or even mostly about money however
(assuming you have the money to make it possible in the first place). It's
a choice about how you want to live, and I don't mean just your physical
surroundings. I don't know if it's still true, but for instance when I got
out of school, if you were aiming at becoming a partner in a large
accounting firm, you wouldn't have a shot if you didn't own a house.
Historically, most people who buy die with a bigger pile of money than those
who rent, but there are no guarantees.

> There are many factors I did not include in the calculation such as
> inflation on HOA, insurance which will make it harder and harder to
> calculate.
> Here is the link: http://rentingvsbuying.chadstown.com/
> Do you guys think if the calculation makes sense?
> Thanks.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Get Discounts at Major Vational Stores!!!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/1288a86192d1ef8e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 3 2007 4:07 pm
From: steve@aplaceforsavings.com

Set up your own online Shopping Mall in minutes and start saving /
making money immediately.
Save gas, wear and tear on your car and do all your shopping online in
your pajamas!
http://www.aplaceforsavings.com
Enjoy and share!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How much do you really save turning down the thermostat?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/e6b14ffb2d998b9e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Dec 3 2007 4:47 pm
From: Marsha

Don Klipstein wrote:
>>> I would buy the wife some nice hooded sweaters, her choice of nice warm
>>>fuzzy slippers, the cutest pajamas and warm fluffy robes, along these
>>>lines!
>>> - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)
>>
>>Can I be your wife?
>
> Sorry, no - I am already attached! I would be married to my SO if the
> marriage laws where I live were like those nationwide in Canada, Spain,
> South Africa, Holland and Belgium, and like the current marriage law
> status in the US "State" of Massachusetts (which might change soon).
>
> As in I am a man who would want to buy my husband nice warm-and-cozy
> clothes! (Sadly, he has a hangup where he believes that one should not
> have to dress warmly but get nice warm heat - my view is that his mother
> paid his bills too much! Thankfully he likes computer programming and
> electronic project development and some varieties of music to a fair
> extent the way I do, and tolerates me being a mad scientist product
> development engineer parttime, mostly at home and telecommuting, while
> making some of my living as a delivery biker at a sandwich shop because my
> brain burns out if I work fulltime at technical work! At least I get
> paid to exercise and burn calories and cholesterol!)
>
> - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Well, okay, but you could still buy me all those things, with no strings
attached ;-) To be fair, my own SO would also buy those things for me.
He's just so......sensible.

Marsha/Ohio

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Frugal Living

Blog Archive

Monday, December 3, 2007

25 new messages in 12 topics - digest

No comments: