Frugal Living: 25 new messages in 8 topics

Monday, May 5, 2008

25 new messages in 8 topics - digest

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

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Did Netflix raise the price of their plans?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/82508d9d7ee435b3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, May 5 2008 2:00 pm
From: Seerialmom

On May 5, 8:49 am, RogBa...@gmail.com wrote:
> The Redbox thing doesn't seem all that appealing. I don't have one
> near me, only at some Walmarts that are not very convenient. They must
> not have a very good selection if it doesn't have a search engine.

I don't like the idea of giving a credit card to some random machine
in the store. But then again, I understand "why" they take the
payment that way in case you don't return the movie. They have those
in Safeway and Raley's here in Northern Ca.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, May 5 2008 2:01 pm
From: Seerialmom

On May 5, 10:44 am, <h> wrote:
> "Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
> > Well I've watched just about every movie on DVD that hasn't been released
> > recently. Redbox is perfect for recent releases. There's been a couple
> > of movies I've wanted that were OUT at the time I got to the redbox. But
> > for the most part, redbox does have a pretty good selection of the movies
> > that most people really want to rent right now. If you are looking for
> > older titles, you can forget about the redbox. :) -Dave
>
> Agreed. If the movie is more than a year old then it's not going to be
> there, but you can't beat Redbox for $1 movies the day they come out. In
> fact, we often use Redbox instead of On Demand, since that's $3.99.

Plus with On Demand movies you don't get the extras like blooper reels
and outtakes :)

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, May 5 2008 2:27 pm
From: George Grapman

Seerialmom wrote:
> On May 5, 10:44 am, <h> wrote:
>> "Dave" <no...@nohow.not> wrote in message
>>> Well I've watched just about every movie on DVD that hasn't been released
>>> recently. Redbox is perfect for recent releases. There's been a couple
>>> of movies I've wanted that were OUT at the time I got to the redbox. But
>>> for the most part, redbox does have a pretty good selection of the movies
>>> that most people really want to rent right now. If you are looking for
>>> older titles, you can forget about the redbox. :) -Dave
>> Agreed. If the movie is more than a year old then it's not going to be
>> there, but you can't beat Redbox for $1 movies the day they come out. In
>> fact, we often use Redbox instead of On Demand, since that's $3.99.
>
> Plus with On Demand movies you don't get the extras like blooper reels
> and outtakes :)
On the other hand DVDs sometime offer comments from
directors,producers and actors.

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, May 5 2008 3:22 pm
From: "Dave"

The main problem with Redbox is limited selection. I think it only
has about 25-30 movies to choose from in the box, right?

(snip)

I'd have to guess that the number is somewhere between 150 and 200 recent
releases. There are like 15 on a page, and about a dozen pages to scroll
through. -Dave

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Gas Prices
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/0ee1641a39c5a013?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, May 5 2008 2:07 pm
From: SMS

Terri wrote:

> Right, but consider not everyone lives where buying the cheapest gas is
> practical. I'm rural (see misc.rural in x-post) and a good 25 miles from
> the nearest Costco. If I happen to be there getting groceries at the same
> time I need gas, it works out great. It doesn't make much sense for me to
> make a 50 mile round trip ride (and about an hour and a half of my day)for
> the express purpose of getting Costco's cheaper gas. What I would have
> saved is moot if I have to drive those miles to get it.

Remember, the 3-5% back with the Costco Amex card is at _all_ gasoline
stations, not just Costco. At current prices, the cash station would
have to be 19¢ cheaper per gallon in order to save me any money, and of
course I'd have to be sure to have enough cash with me, since the
cash-only stations around here charge a 45¢ fee for the use of debit
cards. Plus it's less convenient to pay with cash, as you have to make
two trips to the cashier for a fill-up (one to prepay, one for change)
though some stations have cash acceptors that eliminate one of the two
trips.

== 2 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, May 5 2008 2:14 pm
From: SMS

The Real Bev wrote:

> Huh? I got mail from Costco in the last month or so announcing their
> increase from 1% to 3% on gas wherever we buy it. You get 5%? You can
> use non-Costco Amex cards at Costco?

When I joined Costco in the 1980's, I had to form a business to join. So
20 years later they offered me the Costco Amex Business Card which
pays 5% rather than 3%.

> Whenever somebody offers significant inducement ($30 credit from Amazon,
> for instance) or 10% off today's purchase (a PVR) at Target, I get the
> card.

After a while it gets annoying having to pay yet another bill, even if
it's only once. The one I took advantage of was a card with a 0%
interest forever on no-fee balance transfers withing six months of the
card being issued. This deal netted me about $1000.

== 3 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, May 5 2008 2:21 pm
From: SMS

The Real Bev wrote:

> Apparently some huge percentage of customers carry significant balances,
> generating enough money to allow us freeloaders to ride along -- at
> least one instance where the thrifty and smart profit from the actions
> of the profligate and stupid. Is there another one?

Still, since the approximately 40% of card holders that don't carry a
balance are easily identified, and since these are also the most likely
people to be smart enough to get rewards cards that pay at least 2%, it
would seem that they could decide to not offer cards to those customers
that get more in rewards than they generate in fees.

== 4 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, May 5 2008 2:57 pm
From: The Real Bev

SMS wrote:

> The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> Apparently some huge percentage of customers carry significant balances,
>> generating enough money to allow us freeloaders to ride along -- at
>> least one instance where the thrifty and smart profit from the actions
>> of the profligate and stupid. Is there another one?
>
> Still, since the approximately 40% of card holders that don't carry a
> balance are easily identified, and since these are also the most likely
> people to be smart enough to get rewards cards that pay at least 2%, it
> would seem that they could decide to not offer cards to those customers
> that get more in rewards than they generate in fees.

You'd think, wouldn't you? Maybe they count on us somehow forgetting a
payment...

--
Cheers,
Bev
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
People are more violently opposed to fur than leather because it's
safer to harass rich women than motorcycle gangs. --Unknown

== 5 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, May 5 2008 3:27 pm
From: Paul M. Eldridge

To get a sense as to why the U.S. oil supply situation may prove even
more problematic going forward, see the broadcast entitled "China vs
US: The Battle For Oil".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6rce3G3MVJU

Cheers,
Paul

== 6 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, May 5 2008 3:25 pm
From: "Tomes"

"The Real Bev" <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:zyuTj.249$yg5.213@newsfe06.lga...
> Terri wrote:
>
>> Jim Elbrecht <elbrecht@email.com> 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.
>>>
>> 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.
>
> Indeed, but the other guy down the road might sell gas for even less
> either way. Around here, double-price stations rarely have the best
> prices.
>

Around here it is a real rarity for a gas station to charge extra for credit
cards. It is an extra charge, not a cash discount.
Tomes

== 7 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, May 5 2008 3:32 pm
From: The Etobian

On Mon, 05 May 2008 08:20:09 -0400, Elmo <ElmoHateSpam@noSpam4U.org>
wrote:

>The matter of refineries is enigmatic. Running a refinery is pretty
>much like owning a money printing press but no one wants to build any
>new refineries. While safety and maintenance should be a very important
>matter (see also BP Houston), it stretches credibility to have them
>running at 85-90% of design capacity most of the time. Reminds me of
>how all of those California electrical generating plants were down for
>maintenance just when the power was needed the most resulting in much
>larger profits for the power brokers (no pun intended) like Enron than
>would have been the case had there been plentiful power at lower cost.

Nobody CAN build refineries because nobody can get them permitted.

Of course, I wouldn't put it past the existing oil companies from
being behind the passing such laws to create an insurmountable barrier
of entry to any venture thinking about jumping in.

== 8 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, May 5 2008 3:38 pm
From: aemeijers

The Real Bev wrote:
> Larry Caldwell wrote:
>
>> In article <bosTj.239$yg5.119@newsfe06.lga>,
>> bashley101+usenet@gmail.com (The Real Bev) says...
>>
>>> Amex has gone back to giving 5% off gas. One more damn card to
>>> carry. My stack is half an inch thick now. No, they're not all
>>> credit cards. There's the library, the laundry, medical stuff, a
>>> couple of gift-certificate cards and more.
>>
>> I have gone to two wallets. One is just essentials - cash, my ATM
>> card, auto insurance card, etc.; stuff I don't want to be without.
>> The other wallet is for everything else. Often times, it stays home.
>> When I carry it, having two wallets evens out the lumps in my pockets.
>
> My handbag weighs 7 pounds; an extra wallet would just add a couple
> more ounces. There are times I've gone out with only keys, a credit
> card, my driver's license and a $20 bill, but it just feels WRONG.
>
> I really like those indestructable nylon wallets with the velcro
> fasteners, although eventually the velcro gives out. What I don't
> understand is why they don't make the flaps longer to allow for stuffing
> that sucker with cards and change.
>
I can't stand sitting on a wallet, so from the age when I first started
needing to carry one, I always kept it the left front pocket, and always
buy 3-folds to get a better pocket fit. Hard to find them with enough
card slots in the leather and a window for the DL/Badge. (I always throw
away the stack of plastic pockets- I hate those.) Money and plastic is
all I carry- no notes or memorabilia. I do have a second large wallet
for long trips, that I almost never use, so I can divide the plastic and
cash, and carry a passport other than loose. But it is buttoned into an
inside jacket pocket, or zipped into a backpack pocket.

--
aem sends...

== 9 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, May 5 2008 4:08 pm
From: "SpammersDie"

"SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
news:2QKTj.1760$ah4.809@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
> The Real Bev wrote:
>
>> Apparently some huge percentage of customers carry significant balances,
>> generating enough money to allow us freeloaders to ride along -- at least
>> one instance where the thrifty and smart profit from the actions of the
>> profligate and stupid. Is there another one?
>
> Still, since the approximately 40% of card holders that don't carry a
> balance are easily identified,

They're not as easy to identify from CR's as has been implied. Freeloaders
will still show non-zero balances on CR's as CR reporting is not synced with
billing cycles. You usually only see a $0 balance on a card that's not being
used at all.

It'd be a lot easier to eliminate grace periods or impose annual fees than
to try to identify freeloaders in advance.

As for why they don't, I suspect competition is part of the reason, another
is a desire not to attract the attention of government busybodies looking to
score political points by slapping down the "evil credit card companies."
(though they've managed to attract that kind of attention anyway...) There's
also the fact that cc issuers usually have many other financial products
that you might buy into and having their brand name in your face every time
you buy something is just good advertising.

== 10 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, May 5 2008 4:13 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

The Real Bev <bashley101+usenet@gmail.com> wrote
> SMS wrote
>> The Real Bev wrote

>>> Apparently some huge percentage of customers carry significant
>>> balances, generating enough money to allow us freeloaders to ride
>>> along -- at least one instance where the thrifty and smart profit
>>> from the actions of the profligate and stupid. Is there another one?

>> Still, since the approximately 40% of card holders that don't carry a
>> balance are easily identified, and since these are also the most
>> likely people to be smart enough to get rewards cards that pay at
>> least 2%, it would seem that they could decide to not offer cards to
>> those customers that get more in rewards than they generate in fees.

> You'd think, wouldn't you? Maybe they count on us somehow forgetting a payment...

Or they realise that plenty who do pay off the card in full every month,
wont necessarily do that forever as their circumstances change.

So while the ones that do pay off the card in full every month are
still profitable because of the merchant charge, that there is always
the potential for making more profit when they dont pay it off in full
for whatever reason.

And they cant necessarily work out who is paying off the card in full every month
on someone else's card anyway, so they dont get to target the offers anyway.

== 11 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, May 5 2008 4:15 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

SpammersDie <xx@xx.xx> wrote:
> "SMS" <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote in message
> news:2QKTj.1760$ah4.809@flpi148.ffdc.sbc.com...
>> The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>>> Apparently some huge percentage of customers carry significant
>>> balances, generating enough money to allow us freeloaders to ride
>>> along -- at least one instance where the thrifty and smart profit
>>> from the actions of the profligate and stupid. Is there another
>>> one?
>>
>> Still, since the approximately 40% of card holders that don't carry a
>> balance are easily identified,
>
> They're not as easy to identify from CR's as has been implied.
> Freeloaders will still show non-zero balances on CR's as CR reporting
> is not synced with billing cycles. You usually only see a $0 balance
> on a card that's not being used at all.
>
> It'd be a lot easier to eliminate grace periods or impose annual fees
> than to try to identify freeloaders in advance.
>
> As for why they don't, I suspect competition is part of the reason,
> another is a desire not to attract the attention of government
> busybodies looking to score political points by slapping down the
> "evil credit card companies." (though they've managed to attract that
> kind of attention anyway...) There's also the fact that cc issuers
> usually have many other financial products that you might buy into
> and having their brand name in your face every time you buy something
> is just good advertising.

And there's no reason to not have the freeloaders
when the merchant fee makes them profitable anyway.

== 12 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, May 5 2008 4:16 pm
From: krw

In article <ZuxTj.1682$nW2.831@nlpi064.nbdc.sbc.com>,
scharf.steven@geemail.com says...
> h wrote:
>
> > 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.)
>
> I noticed that some credit card processors process rewards cards at a
> higher rate than non-rewards cards, so it does cost the merchant extra.
> I.e, "http://www.novainfo.com/costco/index.asp". It may be that the
> processors that charge higher rates for _all_ cards, don't differentiate
> between rewards and non-rewards cards.

My brother (a veterinarian) says that he gets dinged extra for
"rewards" cards. He had to do some digging but there is a code in
his statement that shows which cards were "rewards".

--
Keith

== 13 of 14 ==
Date: Mon, May 5 2008 4:30 pm
From: Paul M. Eldridge

On Mon, 05 May 2008 18:32:54 -0400, The Etobian <pdcorc@myway.com>
wrote:

>Nobody CAN build refineries because nobody can get them permitted.
>
>Of course, I wouldn't put it past the existing oil companies from
>being behind the passing such laws to create an insurmountable barrier
>of entry to any venture thinking about jumping in.

Why would anyone want to spend billions of dollars to build a new oil
refinery and all the related infrastructure (e.g., pipelines, storage
facilities, etc.) when there's already more than enough capacity in
the system to meet demand and when it's cheaper (and easier) to simply
expand existing operations?

Furthermore, refined products are bought and sold on the global market
and relatively cheap supplies of gasoline can be imported from
overseas as the result of an unfavourable product mix; as I noted here
before, there's too much gasoline kicking about and not enough diesel,
but when you crack a barrel of crude you get both whether you want
both or not. That surplus gasoline is being dumped here in North
America, so contrary to what you might think, refiners aren't making
money; in fact, some of the smaller, independent players are running
at a loss and, consequently, cutting back on their production and in
some cases closing up shop altogether.

Lastly, with the recent shift toward smaller, more fuel-efficient
vehicles, increased use of public transportation, the push toward
alternate fuels such as plug-in electric, and reduced consumption in
response to higher prices, refiners are a lot more worried about being
saddled with too much capacity, not too little.

Cheers,
Paul

== 14 of 14 ==
Date: Sun, May 4 2008 5:05 pm
From: "Lou"

"caloo calay" <user132384@aol.com> wrote in message
news:8691d185-3c6b-4662-9f38-43cedfb7dca1@w4g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
>
> 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 !!!

What's a big old guzzler car? I too have a 40 mile each way commute. About
ten miles is on local roads to and from the interstate, the other 30 miles
is on the interstate. I drive an Impala (EPA classes that as a big car, but
it's not in the SUV) class. My mileage varies from a bit over 30 (30.75
last week) to a bit over 34 (34.25 three or four weeks ago). My wife also
drives an Impala - her commute is 120 miles a day (ten-ish miles on local
roads, the rest on the interstate), plus she does local driving like to the
market, postoffice, etc. She normally averages between 30 and 31 miles per
gallon.

In other words, depending on your commute and driving style, you don't have
to drive a small car to get reasonably decent mileage. The 21 mpg you cite
seems unreasonably low to me.

> 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 wondered about this too. Every time it comes time to buy another car, I
look at the smaller cars, and one of the things I pay attention to is the
mileage estimates. It sounds reasonable that a car that weighs half as much
ought to get better mileage than the heavier car - maybe twice a much?
Smaller cars seem to do somewhat better, but not as much as I'd expect. I
wonder why not?

> 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.
>
>
>
>
>
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: MSN article: "High food prices? Here's how to save"
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/b9e63977d717a2cc?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, May 5 2008 2:08 pm
From: Seerialmom

On May 5, 1:50 pm, lenona...@yahoo.com wrote:
> http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/CollegeAndFamily/RaiseKids/HowTo...
>
> It's 3 pages long and includes a link: "How to shop organic on a
> budget"
>
> They also ask for your personal tips on saving!
>
> One thing I hadn't heard of before was how to make powdered milk more
> palatable.
>
> Lenona.

I use my powdered milk for cooking only (like in mashed potatoes); so
the liquid taste isn't an issue. I'm betting most of the readers of
this newsgroup know how to shop organic on a budget already (or they
don't shop, they raise their own stuff).

My own personal tips for saving were born from necessity...see if I
can get the basics at Dollar Tree, 99¢ Only or Big Lots, hit Grocery
Outlet next and scope out the loss leaders from the Wednesday sales
ads (plus the Sunday glossy ads). Once those sources have been used I
fill in using Sam's Club or Costco.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Save Money When You Shop
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/088dc950e4b8244f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, May 5 2008 3:02 pm
From: catlugger

Save Money When You Shop Get the Details Now: www.24hourwebcash.com/lewis5807

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Throw out your old caulk and paint
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/044915b50e696e42?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, May 5 2008 3:17 pm
From: "Tomes"

"Al Bundy" ...
> DIY Person wrote:
>> Last year I discovered a puddle of paint had formed in the garage under
>> the
>> cabinets where cans of paint are stored. Upon inspection I noticed that
>> a
>> can of white latex paint had rusted through the bottom of the can, making
>> a
>> big mess all over. I took all the cans of paint out, cleaned up the
>> mess,
>> and now the cans are in a box outside the cabinet. I looked at several of
>> the cans yesterday and most had rusty bottoms. I'm thinking of just
>> throwing it all away, even though some of the paint are custom colors.
>> I'll write down all the numbers and then toss it, it's just unusable
>> stuff.
>>
>> And then yesterday I sealed the corner joints of my kitchen countertop
>> using a brand new unopened tube of GE's best clear silicone. The tube had
>> a
>> best by 2005 date, but I figured it was never opened so it should be ok.
>> The texture did seem a little granular but otherwise flowed well.
>> Checking
>> the joints this morning I noticed the stuff was still completely wet.
>> According to the tube it should be tacky in 1 hour with a full cure in 24
>> hours. This stuff was still completely wet, no signs of setting at all.
>> I'll have to redo the whole job using a brand new tube of caulk.
>>
>> The moral of the story here is don't use old paint and caulk, even if
>> it's
>> unopened. Throw it out and buy new. And even if you don't use it all,
>> just
>> assume it won't be useable again. Always use fresh products for all your
>> home improvement projects.
>
> Always have extra supplies on hand for when a bad product is
> discovered. Rotate your stock. When something is far out of date, use
> it on a throwaway project. Store paint cans upside down and shake them
> up periodically.
> PS> I have had similar results with some GE silicone that was not out
> of date. It may have been defective from the start. The usual failure
> mode is that it won't come out of the tube.

Another thing one can do is to put the small amounts of leftover paint into
small clear jars and write the information on them with a Sharpie. You want
there to be as little air space in the jar as possible, as it is the air
that causes the paint to harden. Ensure that the jar is sealed up really
well. Using a clear jar also lets you see the color of the paint.
Tomes

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Incandescent that avoids upcoming ban
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/93eae1e9abcb4fb3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, May 5 2008 4:16 pm
From: krw

In article <slrng1t027.raj.don@manx.misty.com>, don@manx.misty.com
says...
> In article <MPG.2287d57fdc8ec011989bb4@news.individual.net>, krw wrote:
> >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.
>
> Facts such as existence of plenty of 1.6 gallon/flush toilets that work
> as well as toilets ever did?

Those "facts" are certainly *NOT* in existence.

> I have seen plenty of those. Maybe you need
> some new toilets!

Perhaps I should tell my landlord.

> Meanwhile, even the lousy ones of the 1.6 GPF toilets still only need
> one flush for a #1 load.

And three or four (and a plunger) for anything else.

--
Keith

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, May 5 2008 5:07 pm
From: max

In article <MPG.2288ae1947361fb9989bc6@news.individual.net>,
krw <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote:

> In article <slrng1t027.raj.don@manx.misty.com>, don@manx.misty.com
> says...
> > In article <MPG.2287d57fdc8ec011989bb4@news.individual.net>, krw wrote:
> > >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.
> >
> > Facts such as existence of plenty of 1.6 gallon/flush toilets that work
> > as well as toilets ever did?
>
> Those "facts" are certainly *NOT* in existence.
>
> > I have seen plenty of those. Maybe you need
> > some new toilets!
>
> Perhaps I should tell my landlord.
>
> > Meanwhile, even the lousy ones of the 1.6 GPF toilets still only need
> > one flush for a #1 load.
>
> And three or four (and a plunger) for anything else.

really, this tells us a lot more about you (than we'd care to know!)
than the toilet...

--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: CHINA (WWW.OVERINSTOCK.NET ) WHOLESALE D&G PRADA HOGAN SNEAKERS AT
FACTORY PRICE
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/c964183f1272f4b6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, May 5 2008 4:35 pm
From: chinagood001@yahoo.cn

------------ WWW.OVERINSTOCK.NET -----
Discount Coach Sandals, Dior Sandals, Prada Sandals, Chanel Sandals,
Versace Sandals, Crocs Sandals, Women's Sandals Men's Slippers From
China
Affliction T-shirts lacoste T-shirts Polo T-shirts Brand ShirtsGGG T-
shirts Designer T-Shirts Helen Coat burberry coat Cheap Jacket Juicy
Couture bbc hoodies bape hoodies Cheap Designer Hoodies NFL NHL NBA
MLB Jersey

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Printer ink refill
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/7ab1fd7d315af9c8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, May 5 2008 4:56 pm
From: Gordon

"aesthete8@hotmail.com" <aesthete8@hotmail.com> wrote in news:bc5e6c7b-
c2ce-4835-b0b2-d83205c5775c@c65g2000hsa.googlegroups.com:

> Where do you go for yours?

Local shop. They do good work and use a good quality ink.
I actualy drive past 3 other shops to get to this one.
A local shop is better than getting a refill on-line.
If somthing goes wrong, you can always go in and bang your
fist on the counter untill you get some satisfaction. but,
I have never had to do that with this shop. They always
take care of me.

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

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, May 5, 2008

25 new messages in 8 topics - digest

No comments: