http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Gas Prices - 12 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/0ee1641a39c5a013?hl=en
* Slick Toilet Paper... - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/c2d260db575419cd?hl=en
* Question about nitrogen in tires - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/2132459f8bac24a8?hl=en
* Incandescent that avoids upcoming ban - 5 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/93eae1e9abcb4fb3?hl=en
* FREE E- BOOK - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/f9f894eddcd9d6e1?hl=en
* Emergency Room Bank Buster vs Doctors Office - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/b0b141578884ce91?hl=en
* Discount, ( Prada Chanel Sunglasses ), ( Coach Versace Sandals ), Wholesale -
1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/248ccef76771fcb2?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Gas Prices
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/0ee1641a39c5a013?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, May 4 2008 12:27 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote
> Jim Elbrecht wrote
>> Terri <Terri@micron.net> wrote
>>> Paul M. Eldridge <paul.eldridge@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote
>>>> I believe it has to do with the VISA and MasterCard
>>>> pre-authorizations (I'm not sure if this is still the case, but
>>>> the MasterCard limit per transaction was set at $75.00).
>>> That makes sense. (Even if using a credit card to buy gas doesn't.)
>> Makes more sense than ever. I get 3% off for using the card. 3% of $4 gas is better than 3% of the $1 gas I was
>> getting when I signed up.
> Not really, you (and everyone else who purchases stuff) is paying for your "rewards" because the merchant has to
> charge more.
Nope, the card companys get it from the interest they charge
the fools who dont pay off their cards in full every month.
== 2 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, May 4 2008 12:44 pm
From:
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Chloe" <justsayno@spam.com> wrote in message
news:481e0b75$0$20206$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> "George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Hp-dnWTXFOkqd4DVnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>>> Terri <Terri@micron.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul M. Eldridge <paul.eldridge@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in
>>>> news:fflr14he7qelmkd9940981fmkafhvgbibp@4ax.com:
>>> -snip-
>>>>> I believe it has to do with the VISA and MasterCard pre-authorizations
>>>>> (I'm not sure if this is still the case, but the MasterCard limit per
>>>>> transaction was set at $75.00).
>>>> That makes sense. (Even if using a credit card to buy gas doesn't.)
>>>
>>> Makes more sense than ever. I get 3% off for using the card. 3% of
>>> $4 gas is better than 3% of the $1 gas I was getting when I signed up.
>>>
>>> Jim
>> Not really, you (and everyone else who purchases stuff) is paying for
>> your "rewards" because the merchant has to charge more.
>
> You seem to assume the bank is passing along the entire cost of the
> rebates to the merchants. Do you have any basis for that assumption?
>
As a merchant, I can tell you that they don't. I pay the same 2% I've always
paid per transaction, rewards card or not, which is a LOT less than PayPal's
fees.
== 3 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, May 4 2008 12:42 pm
From: The Etobian
On Sun, 04 May 2008 13:59:22 -0400, George <george@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>You have to mark up your prices to cover the costs of credit cards. And
>either by law in some states and typically always in your merchant
>agreement you can't offer a cash discount so all of your customers are
>paying for their "rewards". Thats one reason why I patronize the cash
>only gas station down the road from me. Better price and the megabanks
>don't get to collect another fee.
In my experience, cash-only gas stations are either the same price or
higher than the ones accepting credit cards.
== 4 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, May 4 2008 12:44 pm
From: The Etobian
On Sun, 04 May 2008 12:56:18 -0400, George <george@nospam.invalid>
wrote:
>Not really, you (and everyone else who purchases stuff) is paying for
>your "rewards" because the merchant has to charge more.
Why is it that if credit cards charge merchants 2%, that credit cards
are thought to cost 2% more than cash?
Since when is handling cash (from customer to bank, and everything in
between) free?
== 5 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, May 4 2008 1:30 pm
From: "Dave"
> Why are the mpg's so horrible even in small cars? I had a 1984 5
> speed stick shift Nissan Sentra wagon that got 49 mpg hiway. Why the
> heck can't they make that car today?
Federal regulations adding mass and WEIGHT. That, and customers expect even
4-banger engines to produce 200HP or somewhere near there. Strip away all
the excess weight, drop the cylinders to TWO OR THREE, and tune the engines
for fuel economy rather than high horsepower and high torque. Then you will
see a Nissan Sentra wagon at close to 80MPG highway. But it'll never
happen. Not in the U.S. anyway. -Dave
== 6 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, May 4 2008 2:24 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Dave <noway@nohow.not> wrote:
>> Why are the mpg's so horrible even in small cars? I had a 1984 5 speed stick shift Nissan Sentra wagon that got 49
>> mpg hiway. Why the heck can't they make that car today?
> Federal regulations adding mass and WEIGHT.
The small consumer diesels add weight and gain better mpg anyway.
> That, and customers expect even 4-banger engines to produce 200HP or somewhere near there.
Nope, the car manufacturers produce them like that.
> Strip away all the excess weight, drop the cylinders to TWO OR THREE, and tune the engines for fuel economy rather
> than high horsepower and high torque. Then you will see a Nissan Sentra wagon at close to 80MPG highway. But it'll
> never happen. Not in the U.S. anyway.
Have fun explaining how come the VW diesels manage to do it fine even now.
== 7 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, May 4 2008 2:53 pm
From: George
caloo calay wrote:
> A lot of folks are "locked in" to high gas consumption because their
> commutes are long. Even with a 35 mpg car, it adds up quick. Of
> course they could "unlock" themselves, but that would be a big pain in
> the a##, involving moving closer to work (and inviting immediate
> firing or layoff), or quitting current job and getting new job closer
> to home (also a pain : new health insurance, possible loss of health
> ins for 6 months, new job might suck, etc etc)
>
> Small cars are less safe than big cars. Get whacked in a small car
> and have a llifetime of pain. No fun.
Not necessarily, go watch any of the numerous videos where a Smart car
(made by Daimler, and now available in the US) passes all of the safety
tests and is shown being survivable driven into walls at speed and all
sorts of side impact situations.
>
> I have a big old guzzler car, and I may just keep it, and get a new
> job closer to home. I have an 80 mile round trip 5 day a week
> commute, which equals $4,000 per year in gas !!!
>
> I get 21 mpg in the big safe guzzler, and a tiny car will get 35 mpg,
> which would bring the $4,000 down to $2,400.
>
> Why are the mpg's so horrible even in small cars? I had a 1984 5
> speed stick shift Nissan Sentra wagon that got 49 mpg hiway. Why the
> heck can't they make that car today? Nowadays the best mpg is 35
> mpg, in a 4 cyl car. Most 4 cyl cars are even worse, down around 30
> mpg.
>
== 8 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, May 4 2008 2:56 pm
From: George
h wrote:
> "George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:s8idnTbng84UZIDVnZ2dnUVZ_ommnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> h wrote:
>>>>>>> I believe it has to do with the VISA and MasterCard
>>>>>>> pre-authorizations
>>>>>>> (I'm not sure if this is still the case, but the MasterCard limit per
>>>>>>> transaction was set at $75.00).
>>>>>> That makes sense. (Even if using a credit card to buy gas doesn't.)
>>>>> Makes more sense than ever. I get 3% off for using the card. 3% of
>>>>> $4 gas is better than 3% of the $1 gas I was getting when I signed up.
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim
>>>> Not really, you (and everyone else who purchases stuff) is paying for
>>>> your "rewards" because the merchant has to charge more.
>>> Umm, the rewards are from the credit card issuer, not the merchant. I'm a
>>> merchant, and I have no idea who uses a rewards card and who doesn't.
>>> Rewards don't affect merchants' costs one bit, unless the merchant is
>>> also the issuer of the card (Sears, etc.)
>> You have to mark up your prices to cover the costs of credit cards. And
>> either by law in some states and typically always in your merchant
>> agreement you can't offer a cash discount so all of your customers are
>> paying for their "rewards". Thats one reason why I patronize the cash only
>> gas station down the road from me. Better price and the megabanks don't
>> get to collect another fee.
>
> I'm internet only, with clients around the world. How could I use anything
> other than credit cards? All my clients pay with cards.
>
>
But the discussion was about buying motor vehicle fuel with credit
cards. In that situation the buyer and seller are usually face to face.
== 9 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, May 4 2008 3:01 pm
From: George
Chloe wrote:
> "George" <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
> news:Hp-dnWTXFOkqd4DVnZ2dnUVZ_hCdnZ2d@comcast.com...
>> Jim Elbrecht wrote:
>>> Terri <Terri@micron.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Paul M. Eldridge <paul.eldridge@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in
>>>> news:fflr14he7qelmkd9940981fmkafhvgbibp@4ax.com:
>>> -snip-
>>>>> I believe it has to do with the VISA and MasterCard pre-authorizations
>>>>> (I'm not sure if this is still the case, but the MasterCard limit per
>>>>> transaction was set at $75.00).
>>>> That makes sense. (Even if using a credit card to buy gas doesn't.)
>>> Makes more sense than ever. I get 3% off for using the card. 3% of
>>> $4 gas is better than 3% of the $1 gas I was getting when I signed up.
>>>
>>> Jim
>> Not really, you (and everyone else who purchases stuff) is paying for your
>> "rewards" because the merchant has to charge more.
>
> You seem to assume the bank is passing along the entire cost of the rebates
> to the merchants. Do you have any basis for that assumption?
>
I am not assuming that. I think they are trying to buy mindshare to
convince everyone what a great idea it is to use a credit card for
*everything* so that it will expedite a cashless economy with them being
involved in every transaction.
Also look at all of the current marketing showing 20 somethings all
happily dancing around buying their coffee, donuts and whatever trivial
purchase with credit cards.
> My RBS Mastercard is now offering a 6% rebate on gas purchases. It's only
> good for two months, but I'll take what I can!
>
>
Sure, but it is only a temporary come on but unfortunately a lot of
people (not saying you are) will claim such things are persistent.
== 10 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, May 4 2008 3:03 pm
From: George
The Etobian wrote:
> On Sun, 04 May 2008 12:56:18 -0400, George <george@nospam.invalid>
> wrote:
>
>> Not really, you (and everyone else who purchases stuff) is paying for
>> your "rewards" because the merchant has to charge more.
>
> Why is it that if credit cards charge merchants 2%, that credit cards
> are thought to cost 2% more than cash?
>
> Since when is handling cash (from customer to bank, and everything in
> between) free?
No one claimed it is but if you are involved in anything where good data
is collected and analyzed you will find that it costs a lot more to
accept plastic.
== 11 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, May 4 2008 4:33 pm
From: William Souden
Rod Speed wrote:
> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote
>> Jim Elbrecht wrote
>>> Terri <Terri@micron.net> wrote
>>>> Paul M. Eldridge <paul.eldridge@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote
>
>>>>> I believe it has to do with the VISA and MasterCard
>>>>> pre-authorizations (I'm not sure if this is still the case, but
>>>>> the MasterCard limit per transaction was set at $75.00).
>
>>>> That makes sense. (Even if using a credit card to buy gas doesn't.)
>
>>> Makes more sense than ever. I get 3% off for using the card. 3% of $4 gas is better than 3% of the $1 gas I was
>>> getting when I signed up.
>
>> Not really, you (and everyone else who purchases stuff) is paying for your "rewards" because the merchant has to
>> charge more.
>
> Nope, the card companys get it from the interest they charge
> the fools who dont pay off their cards in full every month.
>
>
And they get a percentage of each sale from the merchant.
== 12 of 12 ==
Date: Sun, May 4 2008 5:16 pm
From: Terri
Jim Elbrecht <elbrecht@email.com> wrote in
news:oopr14lhh96n3c0ftsaulfislf8up8jlqi@4ax.com:
> Terri <Terri@micron.net> wrote:
>
>>Paul M. Eldridge <paul.eldridge@ns.sympatico.ca> wrote in
>>news:fflr14he7qelmkd9940981fmkafhvgbibp@4ax.com:
> -snip-
>>> I believe it has to do with the VISA and MasterCard pre-authorizations
>>> (I'm not sure if this is still the case, but the MasterCard limit per
>>> transaction was set at $75.00).
>>That makes sense. (Even if using a credit card to buy gas doesn't.)
>
> Makes more sense than ever. I get 3% off for using the card. 3% of
> $4 gas is better than 3% of the $1 gas I was getting when I signed up.
>
> Jim
I guess I still don't get it then. I use cash to buy my gas. The guy
down the road charges two prices for gas. The price for cash paying
customers such as myself is less than those using credit cards.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Slick Toilet Paper...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/c2d260db575419cd?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, May 4 2008 12:42 pm
From: "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"
"larry" <foo@foobar.com> wrote in message
news:D3lTj.2109$3O7.216@newssvr19.news.prodigy.net...
> Bill wrote:
>> Seems to me they intentionally make some toilet paper with a "slick
>> surface" so it will not "wipe" as well and you will therefore use more
>> toilet paper "to get the job done"... (Then they sell more toilet paper.)
>>
>> I have solved this problem. When I have been eating something greasy and
>> it "comes out the other end", I use a sheet of paper towel and this gets
>> most of the job done with a quickness! Paper towels are not slick in the
>> least.
>>
>> I placed a paper towel holder in the bathroom for drying dirty hands
>> (working on car or whatever), but I'm thinking of placing another paper
>> towel holder next to the toilet paper!
>>
> not a good idea, unless you like plumbing bills
>
> nothing should be put down a toilet other than human waste and toilet
> tissue, both break apart quickly in water. paper
not all break apart easily. i've found that the single ply ones do it
best.
some of the double ply ones are stuck together and i've found that my
plumbing doesn't work as well with them. so now it's single ply upstairs
where dh goes and double ply down where i pull it apart first.
> towels will not break apart and end up clinging to any rough surface in
> the pipes that then need to be rootered out.
>
> water soluble is true for all the waste drains. no grease or oil, coffee
> grounds, hair. put this stuff in a paper towel and toss it in the trash.
> our neighbor (plumber) gave us this wisdom 30 years ago, also helped us
> cut down a tree a few feet from our yard line. he sent his kids and some
> grandkids thru college augering drain lines.
>
> -- larry/dallas
>
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, May 4 2008 12:43 pm
From: "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"
"Bill" <billnomailnospamx@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:6861d4F2qeugvU1@mid.individual.net...
> Seems to me they intentionally make some toilet paper with a "slick
> surface" so it will not "wipe" as well and you will therefore use more
> toilet paper "to get the job done"... (Then they sell more toilet paper.)
so whichh brands do you find to be slick?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Question about nitrogen in tires
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/2132459f8bac24a8?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 4 2008 1:24 pm
From: pc
Greetings group..
I've seen a little bit here and there about filling tires with nitrogen.
Any opinions?
What are the costs?
Where did you get it?
If you have a slow leak can you mix regular air into it?
..PC
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 4 2008 1:48 pm
From: Anthony Matonak
pc wrote:
> Greetings group..
>
> I've seen a little bit here and there about filling tires with nitrogen.
> Any opinions?
> What are the costs?
> Where did you get it?
> If you have a slow leak can you mix regular air into it?
I can't help with the costs, or where to get it.
My opinion is that it's completely pointless for ordinary vehicles.
You can mix air into it without any problems. Air is already 78%
nitrogen so you're already putting nitrogen in your tires.
If you want to spend money on car stuff then I would recommend a set
of run-flat tires, radar brakes, in-wheel pressure sensors, automatic
parking, GPS, fire control system and a full sized spare. :)
Anthony
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sun, May 4 2008 3:01 pm
From: "JR Weiss"
"pc" <pc@somewhere.com> wrote...
>
> I've seen a little bit here and there about filling tires with nitrogen.
> Any opinions?
It's a good idea for airplane tires, where prolonged cold-soaking at low temps
makes a dry gas essential, and where N2 is readily available as a byproduct of
O2 distillation.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Incandescent that avoids upcoming ban
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/93eae1e9abcb4fb3?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, May 4 2008 1:15 pm
From: ransley
On May 4, 2:00 pm, terry <tsanf...@nf.sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Apr 30, 12:47 am, "S. Barker" <ichasetra...@coldmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > thanks for the info. sounds hoaky to me though.
>
> > s
>
> > "Don Klipstein" <d...@manx.misty.com> wrote in message
>
> >news:slrng1ac02.shr.don@manx.misty.com...
>
> > > In article <UfadnfG0m7wCgIjVnZ2dnUVZ_vedn...@giganews.com>, S. Barker
> > > wrote:
>
> > >>What's this bs about a ban? I've not kept up with the messages.
>
> > > A recently enacted piece of USA Federal legislation bans manufacture,
> > > sale and importation of certain incandescent lamps, starting in 2012.
>
> > > "General purpose" incandescent lamps of a certain range of light output
> > > and failing to achieve some specific standard of energy efficiency will be
> > > banned in 2012. This will include 100 and 75 watt "regular"
> > > incandescents. In 2014, this will expand to include 60 and 40 watt
> > > "regular" incandescents that fail to meet that level of energy efficiency.
>
> > > The "usual regular" incandescents of 75-100 watts will be banned in 2012
> > > and the "usual regular" incandescents of 40-60 watts will be banned in
> > > 2014.
>
> > > The improved incandescents that Paul Eldridge and I mentioned have
> > > sufficient energy efficiency to not be affected until 2020 according to
> > > this law.
>
> > > GE is planning to put similar ones on the market in 2010.
>
> > > "Specialty" incandescents are largely not affected. Paul Eldridge
> > > posted a list of unaffected ones in the "candlelight thread" in
> > > alt.home.repair on April 20 in article
> > > <40rm04pigqrctrn9g6m0k70bsjts9dd...@4ax.com>.
>
> > > That one can be viewed via Google (along with 24 other articles in the
> > > "candlelight thread" of at least 104 articles) by going to:
>
> > >http://groups.google.com/group/alt.home.repair/browse_thread/thread/
> > > 695cb5879218f939/b9f8c930e2f6a64e?hl=en&
>
> > > That article also mentions availability at Home Depot of incandescents
> > > that have sufficient energy efficiency to not be banned in 2012-2014.
>
> > > - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)- Hide quoted text -
>
> > - Show quoted text -
>
> Apart from possible health problems which frankly seemed far-fetched!
> We keep posting the following: People do not seem to realise that so
> called 'wasted electricity' creates warmth!
> Here we use electricity most months of the year for home heating.
> Especially cool/cold evenings when lights tend to be on anyway.
> Any 'wasted' heat from the use of 'old fashioned' incandescent bulbs,
> which cost about 25 cents each btw, merely helps to warm the house! So
> the electric heaters in the rooms in use don't cut in as often.
> We have a bathroom for example which when in use has six 40 watt
> bulbs, the wasted heat from those 240 watts of non CFL bulbs, means
> that the 500 watt bathroom electric heater rarely cuts in at all!
> Similarly our computer/bedroom is heated almost entirely by two
> computers running almost continuously and one desk lamp at night.
> In other words if one uses electricity for heating anyway, almost
> every month of the year, from October through July it doesn't matter
> how it becomes household warmth!
> Using CFLs outside for lights that are on for lengthy periods where
> the heat would be wasted does make sense. But that seems to be a use
> where CFLs do not perform well in cold climates?
> One big electricity 'waster' is a domestic dryer, which chucks damp
> heated air outside, to avoid mildew/mould and dampness problems.
> Use a clothesline as much as possible when weather allows; even cold
> weather.
> Also CFLs are said to not work a well where they are frequently switch
> on/off such as stairways, cupboards, occasional visits to a shed etc.
> Also they don't work (or don't work well) in outside lights equipped
> with sensors that come on when someone comes close to them!
> All in all not convinced yet that there is an overall saving and in
> view of the ten times cost of CFLs, that they are regarded as
> 'Hazardous waste' by garbage collectors etc. not yet in the mood to
> give up the incandescents. We have a neighbour who is heavily into
> CFLs, three of which are outside and on all night. Since within their
> house they use electrcity for heating there has been effectively no
> decrease in thei elctricity consumption or their power bill!- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You are of a minority group that does not use AC in summer, and has
cheaper electric than NG.
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, May 4 2008 3:15 pm
From: krw
In article <d781eac8-bb27-4d3c-931f-
23991041876b@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com>, Mark_Ransley@yahoo.com
says...
> On May 3, 6:16 pm, krw <k...@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:
> > In article <66Odnb2hLKaDDYTVnZ2dnUVZ_tuon...@earthlink.com>,
> > jeff@spam_me_not.com says...
> >
> > > krw wrote:
> > > > In article <DcidnWE0o86CjYXVnZ2dnUVZ_rKtn...@earthlink.com>,
> > > > jeff@spam_me_not.com says...
> > > >> krw wrote:
> >
> > <snip>
> >
> > > >>> I'm not about to use CFLs anywhere I spend any time.
> > > >> And, why not?
> >
> > > > Primarily because I can't stand the light and they're too slow to
> > > > turn on where I don't care about the light.
> >
> > > >> I'm not about
> > > >>> to replace all my fixtures either.
> > > >> Why would you have to?
> >
> > > > CFLs aren't for many fixtures. They do get hot and the electronics
> > > > doesn't like it. You have a lot to learn, my boy.
> >
> > > Not as much as you.
> >
> > I'm sure IKYABWAI is the best argument you can come up with.
> >
> > > There's other alternatives (at a higher cost) for the heat hell holes
> > > you mention. Personally, I've never liked or used recessed lighting.
> >
> > I do, but I'm not forcing you to have them.
> >
> > > Most of them are big leaks in a homes thermal envelope, but you haven't
> > > impressed me as caring much about conservation, just consumption.
> >
> > Nonsense. How does a thermal leak occur between floors? If idiots,
> > like you, design houses all sorts of stupid things are likely to
> > happen.
> >
> > > >> A case of bulbs here, and a case
> > > >>> there...
> >
> > > >>>> I'd still like to use R12, but the switchover did close the ozone
> > > >>>> hole. Remember that?
> > > >>> Oh, good grief!
> > > >> I suppose you are still questioning evolution? And global warming?
> >
> > > > Don't be an ass.
> >
> > > Don't be a flunky.
> >
> > Hardly a fluky, ass.
> >
> > > >>>> Sometimes you have to do something because it has a far greater benefit.
> > > >>> Someimes you just have to be a good little sheep, eh Komrad?
> > > >> Look whose calling who a sheep?
> >
> > > > You *are* a perfect example of a sheep, who likes it when the man
> > > > from Washington bends you over. I bet you really love those 1.6gal
> > > > toilets.
> >
> > > You've been listening to way too much wingnut radio/tv. Such is right
> > > wing opinion in that it is all opinion and no facts. Just insult anyone
> > > who disagrees. Don't let reality get in the way.
> >
> > Absolutely the truth, which your "argument" falls well short of
> > addressing.
> >
> > > BTW, I have an old fashioned toilet because I live in an old house, but
> > > have no objection to the new design toilets. The new ones work, as
> > > opposed to the first generation.
> >
> > You like to spout government lies. I have a set of "new" ones.
> > They don't.
> >
> > > You'd have thought that congress would have thought up
> > > > something larger, given their needs.
> >
> > > >> Sometimes it pays not to be a sheep and blindly believe all that horse
> > > >> manure W has been dishing out for the last 7 years. I'd say lemming is a
> > > >> more appropriate term.
> >
> > > > Don't be an idiot. I know it's hard work to think, but try it
> > > > anyway.
> >
> > > You seem to think we can just keep living the way we do now. I'm sure
> > > the Mayans felt the same way as they gobbled up all the available resources.
> >
> > There are a *lot* of things we can do and will have to do. Having
> > government (or you) force change for changes sake is asinine.
> > Choice is a good thing. The market will decide the matters soon
> > enough without government screwing up the economy.
> >
> > > >> The tungsten light bulb has been around almost 100 years.
> >
> > > > The planet has been around a tad longer than that and is still
> > > > useful.
> >
> > > >> There's
> > > >> nothing else we use that comes anywhere near being as inefficient.
> >
> > > > Now, don't add lies to your list of sins, junior.
> >
> > > Name a common appliance that is less efficient. The only thing in the
> > > same ballpark is the common loudspeaker, but their drain on the grid is
> > > minor.
> >
> > Define efficient. Televisions. Toasters.
> >
> > > >> The
> > > >> common light bulb rings in at about 5%. It doesn't have great color
> > > >> rendition unless corrected in which case it has a shorter life or is
> > > >> even less efficient, it runs up the heat load in summer, it has a
> > > >> terrible lifespan... The only real advantage it has is that it is cheap.
> > > >> But not cheap when you consider the lifespan or the energy it uses.
> >
> > > > Tungsten lights have far better color rendition than most CFLs.
> >
> > > It's hard to call 2800K, good color rendition.
> >
> > It's hard to call halogens, 2800K.
> >
> > > > Halogens (which I use almost exclusively), even better.
> >
> > > A few hundred degrees hotter.
> >
> > Stupid.
> >
> >
> >
> > > There are excellent color balanced CFLs available, suitable for
> > > viewing and judging color balance in photography. Much better than the
> > > short lived photo floods. Certainly better than the common incandescent
> > > or your halogens.
> >
> > They all suck. I've tried them, and relegated them to the basement
> > (when I had one). I own none now because I hate them.
> >
> > > >> But hey, if you guys love your 100 year old design 100 Watt bulbs. I
> > > >> don't happen to have your emotional attachment.
> >
> > > > If that's your best argument, hang up your spurs, kid.
> >
> > > I don't understand your problem. No one is taking away your specialty
> > > halogen lights. All we are talking about is the old edison based lamps
> > > which should join the trash bin of obsolete technology.
> >
> > They aren't "specialty". They have an Edison screw base, and come
> > in the standard sizes. I have "standard" tungsten in some floor
> > lamps though and closets though. I'll be buying a few hundred over
> > the next couple of years because you leftist loons are forcing your
> > religion on others, again.
> >
> > > >> Jeff
> > > >>>> Jeff
> >
> > > >>>> I have a sneaking suspicion the majority of Americans do
> > > >>>>> too.
> > > >>> Sheep? Evidently...
> >
> > > > obviously
> >
> > Obviously.
> >
> > --
> > Keith
>
> krw check out a review of cfls at Popular Mechanics magazine, the new
Popular Mechanics? You mean that rag that had pictures of ion-
powered helicopters? I haven't picked up that waste of trees since
I was a kid.
> soft white are not what was out a few years ago, even by brand it
> different,
Of course, and you never know what you're buying.
> PM put a HD soft white at Par with incandesant.
Not that I care what PM would ever have to say...
> And putting
> in cans in my kitchen does now allow out alot of air by sidewall loss
> up to the attic.
Huh?
--
Keith
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, May 4 2008 3:15 pm
From: krw
In article <slrng1qhti.jg.don@manx.misty.com>, don@manx.misty.com
says...
> In <MPG.2286141e37608f74989ba6@news.individual.net>, krw wrote in part:
> >In article <66Odnb2hLKaDDYTVnZ2dnUVZ_tuonZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> >jeff@spam_me_not.com says...
> >> krw wrote:
> >> > In article <DcidnWE0o86CjYXVnZ2dnUVZ_rKtnZ2d@earthlink.com>,
> >> > jeff@spam_me_not.com says...
>
> <I, don@misty.com, edit for space>
>
> >> You've been listening to way too much wingnut radio/tv. Such is right
> >> wing opinion in that it is all opinion and no facts. Just insult anyone
> >> who disagrees. Don't let reality get in the way.
> >
> >Absolutely the truth, which your "argument" falls well short of
> >addressing.
> >
> >> BTW, I have an old fashioned toilet because I live in an old house, but
> >> have no objection to the new design toilets. The new ones work, as
> >> opposed to the first generation.
> >
> >You like to spout government lies. I have a set of "new" ones.
> >They don't.
>
> I see so many 1.6 gallon/flush toilets nowadays that work as well as
> toilets ever did.
I have two that need three flushes or they plug first.
> This does have an effect on my consideration as to
> which side I would call a liar!
Of course you say that, without facts. It doesn't fit your narrow
view of the world.
--
Keith
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, May 4 2008 3:32 pm
From: clifto
nospam wrote:
> "clifto" <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in message news:sf51f5-quo.ln1@remote.clifto.com...
>> Jeff wrote:
>> > Can you imagine where we would be if we had not had CAFE standards. If
>> > all the cars had the same fuel efficiency and smog standards that they
>> > had in the 50's and 60's?
>>
>> The Japanese would have taken over the automobile market.
>>
>> Oh, wait...
>
> So the same totalitarianism that gave us half-flushed toilets, half-washed
> clothing, poison mattresses etc etc is now taking aim at our lightbulbs.
Yeah, pretty much.
> This much I'm sure of: as a migraine sufferer CFLs can and often do
> trigger them within just a few minutes. See: http://tinyurl.com/6xqbx5.
Doesn't matter. The motivation of the environazis is to impose their will
on the world, not to do anything reasonable. You will suffer and they will
glory in it.
--
"[I]t's not surprising, then, that they get bitter, they cling to guns or
religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant
sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations."
-- Barack Obama at a meeting with his equals, the elitist bourgeoisie
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Sun, May 4 2008 5:08 pm
From: "nospam"
"clifto" <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in message news:q5q1f5-npm.ln1@remote.clifto.com...
> nospam wrote:
> > "clifto" <clifto@gmail.com> wrote in message news:sf51f5-quo.ln1@remote.clifto.com...
> >> Jeff wrote:
> >> > Can you imagine where we would be if we had not had CAFE standards. If
> >> > all the cars had the same fuel efficiency and smog standards that they
> >> > had in the 50's and 60's?
> >>
> >> The Japanese would have taken over the automobile market.
> >>
> >> Oh, wait...
> >
> > So the same totalitarianism that gave us half-flushed toilets, half-washed
> > clothing, poison mattresses etc etc is now taking aim at our lightbulbs.
>
> Yeah, pretty much.
>
> > This much I'm sure of: as a migraine sufferer CFLs can and often do
> > trigger them within just a few minutes. See: http://tinyurl.com/6xqbx5.
>
> Doesn't matter. The motivation of the environazis is to impose their will
> on the world, not to do anything reasonable. You will suffer and they will
> glory in it.
You make it sound like a tiny group of people are trying to impose
their will on everyone else. Judging from Ron Paul's candidacy for
U.S. president, clearly "the environazis" are people in general, not
some tiny group of wackos. If we have any hope of reversing the
downward plunge into totalitarianism, the first step is to stop with
the finger pointing and name calling, and stop pretending either of
the major U.S. political parties will make any difference.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: FREE E- BOOK
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/f9f894eddcd9d6e1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, May 4 2008 1:30 pm
From: snlgc4zia61lmjppcthv@gmail.com
Before you get into internet marketing you need to get the TRUTH! Get
your free copy of...
It's only easy if you know the TRUTH. It's a must read !
http://www.GRNPortalToWealth.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Emergency Room Bank Buster vs Doctors Office
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/b0b141578884ce91?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, May 4 2008 2:09 pm
From: hubbahubba
Goomba38 <Goomba38@comcast.net> wrote in
news:JKadndKFjJdASYrVnZ2dnUVZ_uudnZ2d@comcast.com:
> Anonymous wrote:
>> Have to have hernia surgery; only have Medicare.
>>
>> My choices are go to emergency room and take pot luck on the surgeon
>> at a hospital not exactly known for it's excellence OR go to doctors
>> office and probably have them ask me for a deposit before they will
>> do anything. My guess is emergency room will result in big
>> overcharges that they will want me to pay only I am judgement
>> proof-they cannot get blood from a turnip, OR go to private surgeon;
>> my guess is he will say, you need to deposit XX dollars before I will
>> do it. Anyone here been in a similar situation that can offer helpful
>> advice or information? Thanks much!
>>
> Emergency rooms are for emergencies. If you're not having bowel
> incarceration (and you'd probably know this and it would be an
> emergency!) you don't belong in an emergency room for this.
> Since you know about it in advance you have time to find a doctor who
> accepts Medicare and can arrange to find one that uses the hospital
> you prefer.
>
Haha, Goomba must be a Cheney disciple, or a relative of the "soup
Nazi"! What an ass! He's in the right group though, extremely CHEAP,
even with his advice.
To O.P. just go to the emergency and fuck them when they send u the
bill.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Discount, ( Prada Chanel Sunglasses ), ( Coach Versace Sandals ),
Wholesale
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/248ccef76771fcb2?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sun, May 4 2008 2:32 pm
From: e13799684969@126.com
-----WWW.CHEAPFORWHOLESALE.COM-----
Discount Coach Sandals, Dior Sandals, Prada Sandals, Chanel Sandals,
Versace Sandals, Crocs Sandals, Women's Sandals Men's Slippers From
China
Discount, Prada Sunglasses, Discount, D&G Sunglasses, Discount, Fendi
Sunglasses,Discount,Burberry Sunglasses Discount, Chanel Sunglasses
Discount, LVSunglasses Discount, Dior Sunglasses Discount, (G U C C
I ) Sunglasses Discount, ArmaniSunglasses Discount, Versace
SunglassesDiscount, A&F Sunglasses Discount, LV Sunglasses
==============================================================================
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
No comments:
Post a Comment