http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* You have nothing to lose but a pre-built downline. - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/10ecfbe12904eb5f?hl=en
* Does one point EER make a big diff in energy efficiency? - 3 messages, 2
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/bc91eb4ccf208fb9?hl=en
* Earn 25 US$ in just 5 mins . . . - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/70b987dcfd93d287?hl=en
* Discount WaTcHeS, Smet T-shirts, COOGI T-shirts, POLO T-shirts, LRG Jeans,
EDhardy Jeans, Evisu Jeans, etc - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/af359f114598ca38?hl=en
* Range clock - Disconnect it! - 9 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3e2a7ad7ec279de4?hl=en
* Poverty in California... - 7 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/df52112e775185a1?hl=en
* www.buyerwindow.com wholesale cheap mlb jersyes sales wholesale mlb team
jersey bedding mlb jersey new york ny mets mlb baseball dog shirt jersey
discount mlb authentic signed jersey - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/f6c8f8ed25d0069b?hl=en
* wholesale nhl apparel,womens nhl apparel,discount nhl apparel san jose
sharks,nhl hockey apparel,nhl logo apparel,nfl nhl fan apparel souvenirs,order
nhl apparel with paypal - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/f9a4dc87e3580900?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: You have nothing to lose but a pre-built downline.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/10ecfbe12904eb5f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 4 2008 8:27 am
From: cpc1243
There is no cost to be pre-placed and you will be able to check out
our primary company when they launch at NO Cost as well, before ever
making a decision to Join as a member.
You have nothing to lose but a pre-built downline.
You will not be put into a auto responder by locking in a position.
You will receive one email with your log in information and update
emails to keep you informed as to the latest developments which you
can stop at any time.
http://unselfishwealth.com/?id=1847
Thank you
The Unselfish Wealth Team
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 4 2008 8:30 am
From: George Grapman
cpc1243 wrote:
> There is no cost to be pre-placed and you will be able to check out
> our primary company when they launch at NO Cost as well, before ever
> making a decision to Join as a member.
>
> You have nothing to lose but a pre-built downline.
>
> You will not be put into a auto responder by locking in a position.
>
> You will receive one email with your log in information and update
> emails to keep you informed as to the latest developments which you
> can stop at any time.
> http://unselfishwealth.com/?id=1847
> Thank you
>
> The Unselfish Wealth Team
"pre-built" or "pre-launch" means a pyramid scammer who is still
living with mommy and daddy.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Does one point EER make a big diff in energy efficiency?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/bc91eb4ccf208fb9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 4 2008 8:26 am
From: Anthony Matonak
me@privacy.net wrote:
> I'm looking to buy a small window air conditioner
> (5000-6000 BTU) for bedroom use.
>
> Does the drop from 107 eer to 9.7 eer mean a big diff
> in electrical usage?
>
> Does on point make much diff?
http://www.treehugger.com/files/2005/08/roomwindow_ac_e.php
: The EER is a simple ratio of the BTUs of the unit to the amount of
: power it consumes in Watts. Thus an air conditioner with 10,000 BTU
: capacity and an EER of 10 consumes 1000 watts of power
http://www.consumersearch.com/www/house_and_home/air-conditioner-reviews/
: With an efficiency rating of 9.7, the Kenmore window air conditioner
: will cost 10% more to run each year than a similarly sized unit with
: an EER of 10.7.
How much difference it makes is determined by how much you use it.
Comparing two 5000 BTU air conditioners, the 10.7 EER unit would
consume roughly 468 Watts and the 9.7 EER unit 516 Watts or a
difference of about 48 Watts.
If you use this air conditioner some 12 hours a day for 4 months
of the year that amounts to 1440 hours and 69 kWh difference. If
a kWh costs you 14 cents then this is about $9.66 a year.
Say you expect this air conditioner to last 10 years. This difference
between the two units in electricity costs would be $96.60
In short, it makes a difference but since the 9.7 EER units usually
cost about $100 and the 10.7 EER units cost about $200, they both
will cost the same over the long term.
Anthony
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 4 2008 10:21 am
From: me@privacy.net
Anthony Matonak <anthonym40@nothing.like.socal.rr.com>
wrote:
>In short, it makes a difference but since the 9.7 EER units usually
>cost about $100 and the 10.7 EER units cost about $200, they both
>will cost the same over the long term.
I live in north Missouri and would use it for say 3
months a year
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 4 2008 10:22 am
From: me@privacy.net
Anthony Matonak <anthonym40@nothing.like.socal.rr.com>
wrote:
>If you use this air conditioner some 12 hours a day for 4 months
>of the year that amounts to 1440 hours and 69 kWh difference. If
>a kWh costs you 14 cents then this is about $9.66 a year.
Would use probably say 6 hrs daily in July and
August... mainly while sleeping in bedroom only
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Earn 25 US$ in just 5 mins . . .
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/70b987dcfd93d287?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 4 2008 9:34 am
From: hchickpea@hotmail.com
On Wed, 4 Jun 2008 07:35:39 -0700 (PDT), Al Bundy
<MSfortune@mcpmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>Sona wrote:
>> Earn 25 US$ in just 5 mins . . .
>>
>> You can earn 25 US$ in just 5mins from now, please follow the simple
>> steps:
>> It's absolutely free to join.
>>
>> Step 01
>> CLICK HERE
>
>Whew!
>I can't get past step one. Some strange dope wants me to click on an
>unknown link. Not happening.
Sounds like an internet blow job.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Discount WaTcHeS, Smet T-shirts, COOGI T-shirts, POLO T-shirts, LRG
Jeans, EDhardy Jeans, Evisu Jeans, etc
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/af359f114598ca38?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 4 2008 8:34 am
From: yongjunxu.trading@gmail.com
Discount WaTcHeS, Smet T-shirts, COOGI T-shirts, POLO T-shirts, LRG
Jeans,
EDhardy Jeans, Evisu Jeans, etc , China supply
( www.86wa tches.com )
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: Range clock - Disconnect it!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3e2a7ad7ec279de4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 4 2008 8:43 am
From: max
In article <4846adcf$0$31720$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
Anthony Matonak <anthonym40@nothing.like.socal.rr.com> wrote:
> max wrote:
> > In article <wNn1k.6225$mh5.914@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com>,
> > "Edwin Pawlowski" <esp@snet.net> wrote:
> >
> >> Just as the microwave has a clock based timer that counts down and shuts
> >> if
> >> off too. Makes is saver for children and seniours to use over other
> >> cooking
> >> apliances. Why would you want to eliminate that? You could step back 20
> >> years and put in a windup timer but I don't see any real savings there.
> >
> > a 1 watt load == 8769 watts/year
>
> More exactly, there are almost 8766 hours in a year so a
> 1 Watt load would total 8766 Watt-hours/year or 8.766 kWh.
> At my cost (Los Angeles) of about 14 cents per kWh this
> amounts to $1.22.
>
> These things can add up though. A Watt here, a half dozen
> there and soon you're talking several tens of dollars per
> year.
>
> Anthony
sigh...
<http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/00000.html> 106 million
households
that's $1.22/household/year/watt * 106e6 house =
$129,000,000 pissed away nationally for nothing.
And, to reiterate, that's for _one_ watt of power draw.
.max
--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.
== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 4 2008 11:57 am
From: "Rod Speed"
SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote
> Don Klipstein wrote
>> My computer has an Asus A7N8X-E "deluxe" motherboard for the AMD "Athlon XP" processor. That is maybe 5 years old.
>> I got it the
>> same day I got a "3200+" processor. The battery is removable and
>> replaceable. I have that computer on a power strip that I often turn off.
> Asus is a top of the line motherboard, so you'd expect them to have a replaceable battery.
There's very few motherboards from anyone that dont have a replaceable battery now.
> The boards sold for use in name brand computers
> are decontented to save ever penny possible, literally
None of those have soldered in batterys now.
> (I used to work for a very large Taiwanese motherboard company's U.S. office).
But dont have a clue about whats happened since then.
> This includes using a very low capacity back-up battery, and soldering it in.
Bet you cant list even a single example of one of those with current motherboards.
> Remember the large rectangular Tadiran batteries with a wire and a
> connector used on old AT motherboards? They used these because the battery had to power the RTC and CMOS for long
> periods of time because when the power was off there was no +5V to power the RTC.
Nope, they didnt use coin cells because they couldnt
provide enough capacity for the older RTC and CMOS.
> The ATX supply changed all this.
Wrong again. The real change was the current used by the RTC
and use of flashram that takes no battery current for the settings.
ALL modern motherboards get YEARS out of the replaceable battery
even if you unplug the system from the mains when you arent using it.
And it costs peanuts to replace when that is necessary too.
> There were other reasons as well. With the ATX supply, there is power to the PCI slots so you can do remote power-up
> through the network (though with most boards these days the Ethernet chip is on the board, and can be powered directly
> with standby power).
How odd that that wasnt eliminated in the cost cutting too.
You've never had a clue about the basics, which is
presumably why you got the bums rush from that importer.
== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 4 2008 11:59 am
From: "Rod Speed"
salty@dog.com wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> salty@dog.com wrote
>>> don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote
>>>> salty@dog.com wrote
>>>>> ranck@vt.edu wrote
>>>>>> Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote
>>>>>>> ranck@vt.edu wrote
>>>>>>>> I think he is seriously over estimating the power usage of a
>>>>>>>> clock chip and LCD display. 1 Watt would be more like it.
>>>>>>>> 5 Watts would be about right for an old mechanical stove clock.
>>>>>>> You are, of course, neglecting the power supply losses.
>>>>>>> Non switching regulators typically throw away half or
>>>>>>> more of the power. The trend is away from them.
>>>>>> Well, we do seem to be arguing the number of angels dancing on pinheads. ;-)
>>>>> Not really. Transformers draw significant power even when there is
>>>>> no demand upon them. They just turn it into heat rather than work.
>>>>> Plug in a wall wart with no load on it and measure the temperature
>>>>> and current draw after an hour. That's a very tiny transformer.
>>>>> If you remove one tube form a two tube florescent light fixture
>>>>> with an old fashioned transformer, it hardly changes power
>>>>> consumption at all.
>>>> On that last point, I find that the power consumption changes a lot.
>>>> The change is less when the ballast is one of those "pseudoparallel"
>>>> electronic ones rated to power more than one quantity of tubes, and
>>>> the remaining tube(s) get increased power when one tube is removed.
>>>> But the overall power consumption still goes down when one tube is removed.
>>> My point was that the power consumption is not cut in
>>> half by removing one of the tubes. If you turn on a two
>>> tube fixture with NO tubes in it, it will draw power as well.
>> Nope, it doesnt with the traditional ballast that fools like you dont realise isnt a transformer.
> Sorry, Rod, but this discussion is about the laws of physics on
> the planet Earth. We weren't including your planet, whatever it is.
Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
The ballast is in series with the tube, so when there is no tube present, there is no current drawn.
== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 4 2008 12:04 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
salty@dog.com wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> salty@dog.com wrote
>>> don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote
>>>> salty@dog.com wrote
>>>>> ranck@vt.edu wrote
>>>>>> Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote
>>>>>>> ranck@vt.edu wrote
>>>>>>>> I think he is seriously over estimating the power usage of a
>>>>>>>> clock chip and LCD display. 1 Watt would be more like it.
>>>>>>>> 5 Watts would be about right for an old mechanical stove clock.
>>>>>>> You are, of course, neglecting the power supply losses.
>>>>>>> Non switching regulators typically throw away half or
>>>>>>> more of the power. The trend is away from them.
>>>>>> Well, we do seem to be arguing the number of angels dancing on pinheads. ;-)
>>>>> Not really. Transformers draw significant power even when there is
>>>>> no demand upon them. They just turn it into heat rather than work.
>>>>> Plug in a wall wart with no load on it and measure the temperature
>>>>> and current draw after an hour. That's a very tiny transformer.
>>>>> If you remove one tube form a two tube florescent light fixture
>>>>> with an old fashioned transformer, it hardly changes power
>>>>> consumption at all.
>>>> On that last point, I find that the power consumption changes a lot.
>>>> The change is less when the ballast is one of those "pseudoparallel"
>>>> electronic ones rated to power more than one quantity of tubes, and
>>>> the remaining tube(s) get increased power when one tube is removed.
>>>> But the overall power consumption still goes down when one tube is removed.
>>> My point was that the power consumption is not cut in
>>> half by removing one of the tubes. If you turn on a two
>>> tube fixture with NO tubes in it, it will draw power as well.
>> Nope, it doesnt with the traditional ballast that fools like you dont realise isnt a transformer.
> That must be why the full name for the device is "Transformer Ballast", eh?
No it isnt.
How odd that the word transformer doesnt even get a mention in
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballast_%28electrical%29
Keep digging, you'll be out in china any day now.
== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 4 2008 12:08 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
ranck@vt.edu wrote
> Edwin Pawlowski <esp@snet.net> wrote
>> <ranck@vt.edu> wrote
>>> Actually, I wish they would do away with clocks in microwaves and
>>> kitchen appliances in general. I don't need or want extra clocks
>> Just as the microwave has a clock based timer that counts down
>> and shuts if off too. Makes is saver for children and seniours to use
>> over other cooking apliances. Why would you want to eliminate that?
>> You could step back 20 years and put in a windup timer but I don't
>> see any real savings there.
> A countdown timer doesn't require a full-fledged time-of-day clock with
> a display that is on all the time. Indeed, most modern microwaves
> allow you to turn the TOD clock display off by hitting stop/clear
> when it first powers up and the clock isn't set. That's a good feature.
But it doesnt any effect on the current draw with the device idling.
> I did point out that my coffee maker has a clock because
> I like the safety feature of a timed cutoff. But, a simple
> countdown timer could accomplish the safety cutoff.
But doing it that way wont necessarily save any power over
one that just the display off when the timed cutoff completes.
> The TOD clock part is useless to me, though I can
> see how some people can use that for timed starts.
I just use it as a convenient clock in the kitchen.
> Just having the option to turn the TOD clock
> display off would be a good thing, in my opinion.
Only if it actually saves any power.
== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 4 2008 12:11 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
max <betatron@earthlink.net> wrote
> CJT <abujlehc@prodigy.net> wrote
>> max wrote
>>> dpb <none@non.net> wrote
>>>> Consider, for example, the problem of wind generation previously
>>>> mentioned. Since, as mentioned, even in one of the most
>>>> advantageous siting areas for wind, it requires from 2.5X to 4X
>>>> the needed capacity to have 50:50 probability the wind farm will
>>>> provide that much (on a monthly basis, the multipliers get even
>>>> larger as time averaging goes shorter), there has to be that
>>>> backup generation somewhere, somehow to make it up when needed.
>>>> That, unfortunately, means investment in some other generation
>>>> capacity that most often now is gas turbine which drives up demand
>>>> for diminishing natural gas and does add to the CO.
>>> This is the most bullshit pocket-picking analysis i think i've ever seen.
You need to get out more.
>> Huh? I think he makes a valid point -- facilities must
>> be designed for peak demand, not average demand.
> That analysis uses the accounting of debiting peak load
> deficits against a wind generator is intellectually dishonest.
Nope.
> The correct way is to credit a wind generator's output
> against a conventional plant's fuel consumption.
Nope, because conventional plants cant have their load changed quickly.
> One watt-hour provided from wind is one watt-hour not required of coal.
Wrong, because you cant change the coal plant's output that quickly.
> Now, if we really really want to persist in that sort of thinking,
> one might imagine a magical future where somehow the
> impossible happens and we contravene the laws of thermodynamics
> by using our wind energy to excite an energy storing oscillator.
> But that's impossible, unfortunately, so we could never imagine
> B-field storage (apropos of which results were recently published of
> a new apparently b-field-quench resistant (quench-proof?) ceramic
> superconductor) , nor Ke storage, nor hydrogen storage nor water
> resevoir storage schema for load leveling. oh, wait.
> That's why i call it dishonest. Because the limitations of windmill
> technology do not require us to build more fossil fuel plants,
Wrong again.
> and because it's "relatively" trivial to built energy storage systems
> to buffer their output, should we deem it helpful to do so.
Pity about what that does to the economics of wind power thats already hopeless.
== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 4 2008 12:13 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
salty@dog.com wrote
> dpb <none@non.net> wrote
>> salty@dog.com wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> salty@dog.com wrote
>>>>> dpb <none@non.net> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes
>>>>>>> from coal, and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2
>>>>>>> produced by that approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not
>>>>>>> 'various green sources'
>>>>>> Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...
>>>>> <http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/R/ROCKY_FLATS_LAWSUIT?SITE=1010WINS&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT>
>>>> Thats not nuke electricity generation.
>>> That doesn't make a BIT of difference.
>> It makes a HUGE difference.
> No it does not.
Yes it does.
> Storage and handling issues are virtually identical.
Wrong, as always.
> What happened in Rocky Flats could just as easily happen any
> where radioactive nuclear material is present for any purpose.
Wrong. Some countrys have enough of a clue to not allow
that sort of terminal stupidity with their nuke power systems.
== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 4 2008 12:14 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
salty@dog.com wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> salty@dog.com wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> salty@dog.com wrote
>>>>> dpb <none@non.net> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>>>>> The vast bulk of our electricity doesnt come from oil, it comes
>>>>>>> from coal, and even if we stop doing that because of the CO2
>>>>>>> produced by that approach, we'll be using nukes instead, not
>>>>>>> 'various green sources'
>>>>>> Nuclear _is_ a "green" source...
>>>> Thats not nuke electricity generation.
>>> That doesn't make a BIT of difference.
>> Wrong, as always.
> Is that your new sig? It's PERFECT!
Cant even manage its own lines, or even bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag either.
== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 4 2008 12:21 pm
From: salty@dog.com
On Thu, 5 Jun 2008 05:04:06 +1000, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>salty@dog.com wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>>> salty@dog.com wrote
>>>> don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote
>>>>> salty@dog.com wrote
>>>>>> ranck@vt.edu wrote
>>>>>>> Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote
>>>>>>>> ranck@vt.edu wrote
>
>>>>>>>>> I think he is seriously over estimating the power usage of a
>>>>>>>>> clock chip and LCD display. 1 Watt would be more like it.
>>>>>>>>> 5 Watts would be about right for an old mechanical stove clock.
>
>>>>>>>> You are, of course, neglecting the power supply losses.
>>>>>>>> Non switching regulators typically throw away half or
>>>>>>>> more of the power. The trend is away from them.
>
>>>>>>> Well, we do seem to be arguing the number of angels dancing on pinheads. ;-)
>
>>>>>> Not really. Transformers draw significant power even when there is
>>>>>> no demand upon them. They just turn it into heat rather than work.
>
>>>>>> Plug in a wall wart with no load on it and measure the temperature
>>>>>> and current draw after an hour. That's a very tiny transformer.
>
>>>>>> If you remove one tube form a two tube florescent light fixture
>>>>>> with an old fashioned transformer, it hardly changes power
>>>>>> consumption at all.
>
>>>>> On that last point, I find that the power consumption changes a lot.
>
>>>>> The change is less when the ballast is one of those "pseudoparallel"
>>>>> electronic ones rated to power more than one quantity of tubes, and
>>>>> the remaining tube(s) get increased power when one tube is removed.
>>>>> But the overall power consumption still goes down when one tube is removed.
>
>>>> My point was that the power consumption is not cut in
>>>> half by removing one of the tubes. If you turn on a two
>>>> tube fixture with NO tubes in it, it will draw power as well.
>
>>> Nope, it doesnt with the traditional ballast that fools like you dont realise isnt a transformer.
>
>> That must be why the full name for the device is "Transformer Ballast", eh?
>
>No it isnt.
>
>How odd that the word transformer doesnt even get a mention in
>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ballast_%28electrical%29
>
>Keep digging, you'll be out in china any day now.
>
Guess these guys didn't believe an amateur entry in Wikipedia:
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Poverty in California...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/df52112e775185a1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 4 2008 8:49 am
From: The Real Bev
h wrote:
> And don't get me started on fertility treatments. They should be banned. The
> last thing we need is more people, and if you can't reproduce on your own
> then maybe your genes aren't as special as you think they are.
Yours may not be, but my husband's and mine certainly are. Fortunately
we required no assistance, but I think if you can afford the treatments
(as the kid of a friend and his wife had to do) you can certainly afford
to raise the kids.
A serious problem seems to be the proliferation of spawn by the
unqualified and the limitation of spawn by the qualified.
There's probably no solution to that problem.
--
Cheers,
Bev
=============================================
If you are going to try cross-country skiing,
start with a small country.
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 4 2008 9:03 am
From: Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply
Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> Successfully getting a child from conception to adulthood has always
> been the privilege of those with the resources to keep them from
> starving to death or otherwise dying prematurely. That privilege is
> easier to come by nowadays in the First World, but it is still a
> privilege.
Uh, technically speaking, it can only be deemed a privilege if it is
impossible for unprivileged people to accomplish it. Childbearing is
possible to practically all females, and I don't understand how you are
calling it a privilege as though all females were automatically sterile
unless allowed permission to be fertile or something -- that may not be
the most accurate description, but you get the idea of what I am talking
about.
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 4 2008 10:20 am
From: Cindy Hamilton
On Jun 4, 12:03 pm, Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply
<samh...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote:
> Cindy Hamilton wrote:
>
> > Successfully getting a child from conception to adulthood has always
> > been the privilege of those with the resources to keep them from
> > starving to death or otherwise dying prematurely. That privilege is
> > easier to come by nowadays in the First World, but it is still a
> > privilege.
>
> Uh, technically speaking, it can only be deemed a privilege if it is
> impossible for unprivileged people to accomplish it. Childbearing is
> possible to practically all females, and I don't understand how you are
> calling it a privilege as though all females were automatically sterile
> unless allowed permission to be fertile or something -- that may not be
> the most accurate description, but you get the idea of what I am talking
> about.
You are confusing natural law with human law.
It is the case for every animal that they will fail to reproduce if
they
cannot protect and provide for their young until they are grown.
Humans are no different.
Simply bearing a child is not guarantee of reproductive success, as
many
Third World mothers discover.
Reproductive success is the privilege of the strong, the swift, and
the
intelligent. And those whose efforts are taxpayer-subsidized.
Cindy Hamilton
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 4 2008 11:41 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Cindy Hamilton <angelicapaganelli@hotmail.com> wrote
> Samantha Hill <samh...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote
>> Cindy Hamilton wrote
>>> Reproductive freedom has always been the privilege
>>> of those with the resources to reproduce successfully.
>> Well, my experience has been that those people who championed
>> abortion in the name of reproductive freedom sure seem to have
>> backpedalled when it comes to making the door go both ways.
>> Maybe they should have called it nonreproductive freedom instead.
>> And childbearing is not a privilege; it's a fact of life that I
>> don't believe the government has any right to make illegal.
Thats arguable with those with major genetic problems.
>> Discourage it by removing tax benefits; sure. But not make it illegal.
Its the only approach that worked in china.
> Childbearing is not the same as reproduction. Squeezing out
> babies only to have them die within months is not reproduction.
Yes, but that hasnt been reality in the first world for a hell of a long time now.
> Successfully getting a child from conception to adulthood has
> always been the privilege of those with the resources to keep
> them from starving to death or otherwise dying prematurely.
Nope, there's always been plenty of societys that werent that marginal.
> That privilege is easier to come by nowadays in the First World,
In fact its automatic and you have to be hopeless to not be able to manage that now.
> but it is still a privilege.
Nope, its what everyone can expect now, essentially
because modern society has come a hell of a long way
since it was a priviledge now. Mostly due to the invention
of vaccination and very basic stuff like clean drinking water etc.
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 4 2008 11:50 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Cindy Hamilton <angelicapaganelli@hotmail.com> wrote
> Samantha Hill <samh...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote
>> Cindy Hamilton wrote
>>> Successfully getting a child from conception to adulthood has always
>>> been the privilege of those with the resources to keep them from
>>> starving to death or otherwise dying prematurely. That privilege is
>>> easier to come by nowadays in the First World, but it is still a privilege.
>> Uh, technically speaking, it can only be deemed a privilege if it is
>> impossible for unprivileged people to accomplish it. Childbearing is
>> possible to practically all females, and I don't understand how you
>> are calling it a privilege as though all females were automatically
>> sterile unless allowed permission to be fertile or something -- that
>> may not be the most accurate description, but you get the idea of
>> what I am talking about.
> You are confusing natural law with human law.
Nope, it doesnt have a damned thing to do with either.
> It is the case for every animal that they will fail to reproduce if they
> cannot protect and provide for their young until they are grown.
Thats just plain wrong. There are plenty of species that do absolutely
nothing for their young at all, they get to take their chances survival wise.
> Humans are no different.
Humans are very different in the sense that no very young
humans can survive on their own, and modern human society
has developed WAY past the situation where the survival of
the young is at the whim of drought and infectious disease etc,
particularly in societys that arent stupid enough to keep
pumping out far more brats than their situation can support.
Humans are also very different in the sense that we now have
very effective birth control so that fucking can be completely
separated from procreation by those who want to do that.
> Simply bearing a child is not guarantee of reproductive success,
Its very close to that now in the modern first world.
> as many Third World mothers discover.
Sure, but thats not the modern first world thats moved on way past that.
> Reproductive success is the privilege of the strong, the swift, and the intelligent.
Nope, not even in the third world.
> And those whose efforts are taxpayer-subsidized.
Nope, its actually the dregs of the modern first world that are subsidised
to reproduce at a higher rate than the strong, swift and intelligent.
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 4 2008 12:09 pm
From: Cindy Hamilton
On Jun 4, 2:41 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nope, its what everyone can expect now, essentially
> because modern society has come a hell of a long way
> since it was a priviledge now. Mostly due to the invention
> of vaccination and very basic stuff like clean drinking water etc.
I invite you to contemplate the infant mortality rates in First World
cities like Detroit.
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 4 2008 12:41 pm
From: Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply
Rod Speed wrote:
>>> And childbearing is not a privilege; it's a fact of life that I
>>> don't believe the government has any right to make illegal.
>
> Thats arguable with those with major genetic problems.
>
>>> Discourage it by removing tax benefits; sure. But not make it illegal.
>
> Its the only approach that worked in china.
I don't believe that childbearing is something that the government
should have the power to prevent. Discourage, perhaps. But not
prevent. That is a horrendous violation of personal liberty. And if
women want to be free to terminate pregnancies, they should also be free
to choose to become pregnant and to carry them to term. Doesn't mean
the government should subsidize them, just that the government should
not make it illegal.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: www.buyerwindow.com wholesale cheap mlb jersyes sales wholesale mlb
team jersey bedding mlb jersey new york ny mets mlb baseball dog shirt jersey
discount mlb authentic signed jersey
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/f6c8f8ed25d0069b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 4 2008 9:44 am
From: Alex
mlb jersyes sales wholesale mlb team jersey bedding mlb jersey new
york ny mets mlb baseball dog shirt jersey mlb authentic signed
jersey 2006mlb all star jersey mlb all star jersey mlb tagline ii
jersey jersey mlb team logo mlb signed jersey
auto baseball mlb mlb showdown jersey new nwt baseball mlb baseball
mlb st louis cardinals baseball mlb mlb rooke baseball mlb 1963
fleer baseball mlb mlb showdown cards bowman chrome basball mlb mlb
jersey cheap
==============================================================================
TOPIC: wholesale nhl apparel,womens nhl apparel,discount nhl apparel san jose
sharks,nhl hockey apparel,nhl logo apparel,nfl nhl fan apparel souvenirs,order
nhl apparel with paypal
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/f9a4dc87e3580900?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Jun 4 2008 10:08 am
From: Alex
hockey apparel,field hockey apparel,hockey jerseys fan apparel
souvenirs,youth hockey apparel,rbk hockey apparel,blues hockey
apparel,easton hockey apparel,nhl hockey apparel,nhl hockey
apparel,ohio state hockey apparel college hockey apparel
steeler jerseys,pittsburgh steeler jerseys,authentic steeler
jerseys,steeler authentic jerseys,steeler jerseys sports men cards fan
shop,youth steeler jerseys,steeler youth jerseys,kid steeler
jerseys,pink steeler jerseys,women steeler jerseys
jersey new nwt baseball mlb mlb jersey frank thomas jersey baseball
mlb mlb authentic jersey mlb baseball jersey mlb all star jersey
mlb throwback jersey mlb throwback jersey
==============================================================================
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