http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Healthy for whom? Re: The 20 Healthiest Foods for Under $1 - 7 messages, 5
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/e7ad251f9a434d38?hl=en
* Online Liquor Store - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/2cd4659abfda1def?hl=en
* I found natural cures for gout un-frugal - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/5e8bd7f7a0ebe36c?hl=en
* Which inexpensive top loader washer to buy? - 12 messages, 6 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/144a47e00593d20c?hl=en
* Car Depreciation - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/5d4818ede437a0f5?hl=en
* Cooling Cost - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/2332fd61c54eaee9?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Healthy for whom? Re: The 20 Healthiest Foods for Under $1
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/e7ad251f9a434d38?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 22 2008 9:43 am
From: max
In article
<d00b3a34-2ec2-4a90-95a2-d84e874570cc@d77g2000hsb.googlegroups.com>,
James <j0069bond@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Jul 22, 11:35 am, "Evelyn C. Leeper" <elee...@optonline.net> wrote:
> > <http://www.divinecaroline.com/articles/printer_friendly/22145/52070>
> >
> > --
> > Evelyn C. Leeper
> > Just because everything is different doesn't mean
> > anything has changed. -Irene Peter
>
> Several are no no for gout. Egg consumption has to be limited.
> Broccoli intake must be monitored if you're on blood thinner. Peanuts
> are banned on airlines.
oh, do shut up.
.max
--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 22 2008 11:59 am
From: clams_casino
James wrote:
>On Jul 22, 11:35 am, "Evelyn C. Leeper" <elee...@optonline.net> wrote:
>
>
>><http://www.divinecaroline.com/articles/printer_friendly/22145/52070>
>>
>>--
>>Evelyn C. Leeper
>>Just because everything is different doesn't mean
>>anything has changed. -Irene Peter
>>
>>
>
>Several are no no for gout. Egg consumption has to be limited.
>Broccoli intake must be monitored if you're on blood thinner. Peanuts
>are banned on airlines.
>
>
>
What can you expect from a spammer who drops cookies with their spam site?
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 22 2008 12:50 pm
From: max
In article <Z5qhk.1392$JK7.808@newsfe02.iad>,
clams_casino <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> James wrote:
>
> >On Jul 22, 11:35 am, "Evelyn C. Leeper" <elee...@optonline.net> wrote:
> >
> >
> >><http://www.divinecaroline.com/articles/printer_friendly/22145/52070>
> >>
> >>--
> >>Evelyn C. Leeper
> >>Just because everything is different doesn't mean
> >>anything has changed. -Irene Peter
> >>
> >>
> >
> >Several are no no for gout. Egg consumption has to be limited.
> >Broccoli intake must be monitored if you're on blood thinner. Peanuts
> >are banned on airlines.
> >
> >
> >
> What can you expect from a spammer who drops cookies with their spam site?
Evelyn Leeper a spammer? surely you jest!
--
This signature can be appended to your outgoing mesages. Many people include in
their signatures contact information, and perhaps a joke or quotation.
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 22 2008 1:01 pm
From: lisajoe@privacy.net
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:12:34 -0700 (PDT), in misc.consumers.frugal-living James
<j0069bond@hotmail.com> wrote:
>On Jul 22, 11:35 am, "Evelyn C. Leeper" <elee...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> <http://www.divinecaroline.com/articles/printer_friendly/22145/52070>
>>
>> --
>> Evelyn C. Leeper
>> Just because everything is different doesn't mean
>> anything has changed. -Irene Peter
>
>Several are no no for gout. Egg consumption has to be limited.
>Broccoli intake must be monitored if you're on blood thinner. Peanuts
>are banned on airlines.
If you'v GOT gout get GOUT OUT NOW!
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 22 2008 1:52 pm
From: yag
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:12:34 -0700 (PDT), James <j0069bond@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>Several are no no for gout. Egg consumption has to be limited.
>Broccoli intake must be monitored if you're on blood thinner. Peanuts
>are banned on airlines.
Those of us without gout, don't give ashit.
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 22 2008 2:02 pm
From: clams_casino
yag wrote:
>On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:12:34 -0700 (PDT), James <j0069bond@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Several are no no for gout. Egg consumption has to be limited.
>>Broccoli intake must be monitored if you're on blood thinner. Peanuts
>>are banned on airlines.
>>
>>
>
>Those of us without gout, don't give ashit.
>
>
So what do you do for your constipation?
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 22 2008 2:28 pm
From: Al Bundy
On Jul 22, 5:02 pm, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> yag wrote:
> >On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 09:12:34 -0700 (PDT), James <j0069b...@hotmail.com>
> >wrote:
>
> >>Several are no no for gout. Egg consumption has to be limited.
> >>Broccoli intake must be monitored if you're on blood thinner. Peanuts
> >>are banned on airlines.
>
> >Those of us without gout, don't give ashit.
>
> So what do you do for your constipation?
Maybe he proofreads his posts on his laptop, but the glasses and teeth
are on the counter as he waits.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Online Liquor Store
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/2cd4659abfda1def?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 22 2008 10:09 am
From: syxz420nuvbhurlyvgn3m@gmail.com
Boutique Liquors
Premium Liquors, Spirits,Fine Wines, and Champagne from around the
world delivered to your home.
http://www.boutiqueliquors.com/
*****************************************************************************
==============================================================================
TOPIC: I found natural cures for gout un-frugal
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/5e8bd7f7a0ebe36c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 22 2008 10:18 am
From: spope33@speedymail.org (Steve Pope)
Mark Thorson <nospam@sonic.net> wrote:
>I never use any anti-gout drug, because I can control
>my gout through diet.
You got some amazing pain tolerance then.
>I especially would not use
>an anti-gout drug just to allow myself to eat more
>high-risk foods.
I agree that one can be better off addressing such issues with
diet where possible. But it's unclear whether you can
*know* you're fully controlling it, since disease progress
may not be causing overt symptoms.
Steve
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 22 2008 11:20 am
From: Mark Thorson
Steve Pope wrote:
>
> Mark Thorson <nospam@sonic.net> wrote:
>
> >I never use any anti-gout drug, because I can control
> >my gout through diet.
>
> You got some amazing pain tolerance then.
I haven't had any significant pain in 8 years.
I have had the occasional warning sign of soreness
just barely perceptible, which I use as a sign
to go on a strict anti-gout diet. Pretty much
every time that happens, it's because I strayed
from my meat-eating guidelines.
> >I especially would not use
> >an anti-gout drug just to allow myself to eat more
> >high-risk foods.
>
> I agree that one can be better off addressing such issues with
> diet where possible. But it's unclear whether you can
> *know* you're fully controlling it, since disease progress
> may not be causing overt symptoms.
I've never heard of sub-clinical crypto-gout.
I know fairly accurately how much meat I can
eat in a day. It's about 5 ounces of fresh
meat. I eat about 3 ounces. That's one
sausage, half a steak, or a small piece of
fish.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 22 2008 11:26 am
From: spope33@speedymail.org (Steve Pope)
Mark Thorson <nospam@sonic.net> wrote:
>Steve Pope wrote:
>> I agree that one can be better off addressing such issues with
>> diet where possible. But it's unclear whether you can
>> *know* you're fully controlling it, since disease progress
>> may not be causing overt symptoms.
>I've never heard of sub-clinical crypto-gout.
"Joint damage progresses and may continue even between flares.
Clinical research suggests that monosodium urate crystals persist
as long as hyperuricemia persists."
http://www.gout.com/professional/gout_information/gout_progression.aspx
The risk, I think, is osteoarthritis secondary to gout/hyperuricemia.
One could experience a progressive cartilage deficit in a joint or
joints without symptoms for quite some time.
Not trying to be alarmist, and statements like the above quote
may not be truly evidence-based, just pointing to the possible
benefits of uricemia treatment or, at least, monitoring.
Steve
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Which inexpensive top loader washer to buy?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/144a47e00593d20c?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 22 2008 10:28 am
From: Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply
Goomba wrote:
>
> pssssst... a top loading washer *is* a "REGULAR" washing machine.
> Perhaps you're thinking of a front loader? Which are also "REGULAR"
> washers in much of the world, and becoming so in the US also. Love the
> way they use less water and energy.
Hello, BDRU! (brain dead 'R' us) I am having an insane morning at work.
My mom had front-loaders with slanted fronts when I was little. I
remember watching the clothes and the soapsuds going around all the
time. But they are MUCH more expensive than the standard washing
machine that has been sold in the US for ages. So "cheapish" is
something I would really worry about, since many of the newer models
still had bugs that hadn't been worked out.
== 2 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 22 2008 10:43 am
From: Seerialmom
On Jul 22, 9:06 am, Goomba <Goomb...@comcast.net> wrote:
> Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply wrote:
>
> > If you want a cheapish washing machine that is a good value, first,
> > forget the top-loaders because they all are expensive and second, look
> > on Craigslist or in the local newspaper classifieds for someone with
> > year-old model REGULAR washing machines that they are getting rid of
> > because they are remodeling *rolling eyes*, and you should get a good deal.
>
> pssssst... a top loading washer *is* a "REGULAR" washing machine.
> Perhaps you're thinking of a front loader? Which are also "REGULAR"
> washers in much of the world, and becoming so in the US also. Love the
> way they use less water and energy.
> For what its worth-I love my Duet front loader.
I'm finally glad I have a front loader now that the water meters have
been installed on my street. Before this I wasn't seeing all that
much of a difference because I rarely used hot water to wash, so it
didn't help on the electric bill. But the water bill should stay
relatively low.
== 3 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 22 2008 10:45 am
From: Seerialmom
On Jul 22, 10:28 am, Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply
<samh...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote:
> Goomba wrote:
>
> > pssssst... a top loading washer *is* a "REGULAR" washing machine.
> > Perhaps you're thinking of a front loader? Which are also "REGULAR"
> > washers in much of the world, and becoming so in the US also. Love the
> > way they use less water and energy.
>
> Hello, BDRU! (brain dead 'R' us) I am having an insane morning at work.
>
> My mom had front-loaders with slanted fronts when I was little. I
> remember watching the clothes and the soapsuds going around all the
> time. But they are MUCH more expensive than the standard washing
> machine that has been sold in the US for ages. So "cheapish" is
> something I would really worry about, since many of the newer models
> still had bugs that hadn't been worked out.
There are some front loaders that aren't as ridiculously priced.
Granted the capacity is a bit smaller but not that much. It would
depend on cost to run whether to get one or not (water heating, water
usage).
== 4 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 22 2008 10:55 am
From: Goomba
Seerialmom wrote:
> There are some front loaders that aren't as ridiculously priced.
> Granted the capacity is a bit smaller but not that much. It would
> depend on cost to run whether to get one or not (water heating, water
> usage).
Actually, the biggest draw for many is how MUCH clothing can be packed
into some of these newer front loaders. Since the clothes themselves
provide the momentum and don't require a lot of space for agitation and
water.
I could kick myself for not getting one of these years ago when they
first came out and I had more kids laundry to do. I also love being able
to wash my large duvets, etc..
== 5 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 22 2008 1:01 pm
From: lisajoe@privacy.net
In most of Europe they use front loaders and top loaders are considered archaic
and deficient.
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:28:13 -0700, in misc.consumers.frugal-living Samantha
Hill - remove TRASH to reply <samhill@TRASHsonic.net> wrote:
>Goomba wrote:
>>
>> pssssst... a top loading washer *is* a "REGULAR" washing machine.
>> Perhaps you're thinking of a front loader? Which are also "REGULAR"
>> washers in much of the world, and becoming so in the US also. Love the
>> way they use less water and energy.
>
>Hello, BDRU! (brain dead 'R' us) I am having an insane morning at work.
>
>My mom had front-loaders with slanted fronts when I was little. I
>remember watching the clothes and the soapsuds going around all the
>time. But they are MUCH more expensive than the standard washing
>machine that has been sold in the US for ages. So "cheapish" is
>something I would really worry about, since many of the newer models
>still had bugs that hadn't been worked out.
== 6 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 22 2008 1:05 pm
From: Dennis
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:45:29 -0700 (PDT), Seerialmom
<seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>On Jul 22, 10:28 am, Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply
><samh...@TRASHsonic.net> wrote:
>> Goomba wrote:
>>
>> > pssssst... a top loading washer *is* a "REGULAR" washing machine.
>> > Perhaps you're thinking of a front loader? Which are also "REGULAR"
>> > washers in much of the world, and becoming so in the US also. Love the
>> > way they use less water and energy.
>>
>> Hello, BDRU! (brain dead 'R' us) I am having an insane morning at work.
>>
>> My mom had front-loaders with slanted fronts when I was little. I
>> remember watching the clothes and the soapsuds going around all the
>> time. But they are MUCH more expensive than the standard washing
>> machine that has been sold in the US for ages. So "cheapish" is
>> something I would really worry about, since many of the newer models
>> still had bugs that hadn't been worked out.
>
>There are some front loaders that aren't as ridiculously priced.
>Granted the capacity is a bit smaller but not that much. It would
>depend on cost to run whether to get one or not (water heating, water
>usage).
Plus, many energy efficient front-load models are eligible for rebates
and tax credits (your location may vary). After the retailer
discount, utility incentive rebate and state tax credit, our front
loader cost us less than US$300.
Dennis (evil)
--
My output is down, my income is up, I take a short position on the long bond and
my revenue stream has its own cash flow. -George Carlin
== 7 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 22 2008 1:08 pm
From: Dennis
On Tue, 22 Jul 2008 10:43:49 -0700 (PDT), Seerialmom
<seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote:
>I'm finally glad I have a front loader now that the water meters have
>been installed on my street. Before this I wasn't seeing all that
>much of a difference because I rarely used hot water to wash, so it
>didn't help on the electric bill. But the water bill should stay
>relatively low.
If you use clothes dryer (ours is electric), you may see utility bills
drop with a front-loader because it spins more water out of the
clothes = shorter drying time.
Dennis (evil)
--
I'm behind the eight ball, ahead of the curve, riding the wave,
dodging the bullet and pushing the envelope. -George Carlin
== 8 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 22 2008 2:07 pm
From: Cheapo Groovo
The James Washer is really good and sustainable!
See http://www.cheapogroovo.com for more tips
In article <48860239$0$17217$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net>,
samhill@TRASHsonic.net says...
> me@privacy.net wrote:
> > Cost is an issue but need a new washer.
> >
> > What brand/model cheapish top loader would you guys
> > advise that is a decent performer and a good "value"?
>
> None of them are cheap.
>
> If you want a cheapish washing machine that is a good value, first,
> forget the top-loaders because they all are expensive and second, look
> on Craigslist or in the local newspaper classifieds for someone with
> year-old model REGULAR washing machines that they are getting rid of
> because they are remodeling *rolling eyes*, and you should get a good
> deal.
>
== 9 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 22 2008 2:09 pm
From: Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply
Seerialmom wrote:
>
> There are some front loaders that aren't as ridiculously priced.
> Granted the capacity is a bit smaller but not that much. It would
> depend on cost to run whether to get one or not (water heating, water
> usage).
Seriously? Would you know the brand names? I would truly, sincerely
like to know.
== 10 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 22 2008 2:10 pm
From: Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply
lisajoe@privacy.net wrote:
> In most of Europe they use front loaders and top loaders are considered archaic
> and deficient.
And until the last few years, I have considered front loaders to be
archaic and the top loaders to be the best. Funny, huh?
== 11 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 22 2008 2:11 pm
From: Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply
Cheapo Groovo wrote:
> The James Washer is really good and sustainable!
>
> http://tiny.cc/vosKi
YEAH!!!!! I really want one of those. And they are a top-loader, too.
== 12 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 22 2008 2:27 pm
From: Goomba
lisajoe@privacy.net wrote:
> In most of Europe they use front loaders and top loaders are considered archaic
> and deficient.
We liked the front loader washers in Europe that turn into dryers. Talk
about feeling like a jet engine is taking off!! LOL They were smaller
in load capacity but for small homes and families they were ideal solutions.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Car Depreciation
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/5d4818ede437a0f5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 22 2008 11:57 am
From: James
On Jul 22, 11:43 am, George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> nicksans...@ece.villanova.edu wrote:
> > James <jl...@idirect.com> wrote:
>
> >> All cars take a huge hit once they are driven off the lot...
>
> > I just stopped at a Smart Car dealer and noticed the $13-15K new car stickers
> > and asked if they had any used Smart Cars for sale. The salesperson pointed
> > to one on the lot and said it just sold for $21K, after 2 months of use.
> > ("The owner had too many cars.") It was no fancier than the new cars.
> > I asked why the price was higher, and she said Smart Cars APpreciate
> > as they leave the lot.
>
> > Nick
>
> Thats because there is a 14 month waiting list to get one. My buddy got
> his about two months ago after a 1 year wait. He placed the order at a
> traveling show Smart had in Philly. The dealer said they were also
> getting a big premium on new "orphans". They said some people had
> ordered the car a year ago and bought something else in the meantime so
> the dealer can then sell it for whatever they can get.
>
> Like all things this is simply market timing. When we were in Philly
> looking at the Smartcars before they were imported to the US the one
> Daimler guy was a little chatty and he said they were somewhat concerned
> about even bringing them here. The US was the last country to get them
> because back then everyone in the US needed to drive a huge fluffed up
> truck even though they were only transporting themselves and a large
> beverage. In another year other manufacturers will have similar vehicles
> and things will adjust.
You could come up to Canada and take your pick.
I know that bringing cars in from the US can take a week for the
paperwork to process and cost you a thousand or more. But dealers in
Canada have lots, and they are exactly the same models as in the US
(slightly higher MSRP though). I expect the US paperwork would be
similar to Canada's.
When they came to Canada in 2003, they outsold Mercedes expectations.
They do work fine in the snow (with snow tires from dealer) . They are
not desigjned to cruise at 75 MPH all day, but they can drive the
limit everywhere.
They have a well designed safety cage - go to you tube and search for
the footage of a Mercdes E class and a Smart car colliding.
Most of the critics didn't like the transmission.
James
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cooling Cost
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/2332fd61c54eaee9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Jul 22 2008 11:58 am
From: "JR Weiss"
"James" <j0069bond@hotmail.com> wrote...
>
> I had the window fan on for 14 hours consumed 70Kw. Had the AC on 1
> hour for 40 to 50Kw. One hour of AC didn't lower the temperature but
> took moisture out of the air. It was pretty humid overnight and I was
> able to lower the house from 82 to 76 after 14 hours.
?!? I think you need to brush up on your math and electrical terms...
First, KW or KiloWatt is an energy consumption RATE. Electrical consumption is
measured in KWH or kilowatt-hours, which is the product of the consumption rate
and consumption time.
Second, I don't know where you got a window fan that consumes 5000 Watts (70 KWH
/ 14 hours) or 41.7 amps at 120 Volts. I doubt you have a circuit in your house
that can handle that!
You MIGHT have a fan that consumes 500 Watts, which would make for 7 KWH in 14
hours...
Then there's the AC... 45 KW is over 187 amps at 240 volts. I really doubt
that you have that kind of circuit in a house... Like the fan, i suspect you
have to divide by 10 again to get a realistic figure (4-5 KWH)
> The night before I had the AC on instead and that took 240Kw.
> Based on this one observation it seems cheaper to use window fan at
> night to cool my house.
Depends on what you define as "cool"...
You put up with 86+ deg and high humidity with the window fan running all day.
That means you could EASILY put up with 88-90 deg with low humidity by running
the AC. There's no real need to cool the house to 76!
When I lived in south TX, I kept the AC set at 82-84 deg. That was plenty cool
after coming out of the heat!
==============================================================================
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