Frugal Living: 19 new messages in 9 topics

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

19 new messages in 9 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: Walmart Prices: Urban vs Rural?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/85719f2d4728a958?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 26 2008 3:03 pm
From: clams_casino

sarge137 wrote:

>On Aug 26, 11:16 am, "h" <tmcl...@searchmachine.com> wrote:
>
>
>>"David Harmon" <sou...@netcom.com> wrote in message
>>
>>news:kIadnQ_1ANp3vynVnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>>
>>
>>
>>>On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:08:51 -0400 in misc.consumers.frugal-living,
>>>"h" <tmcl...@searchmachine.com> wrote,
>>>
>>>
>>>>stations in my whole life. Funny...not. Now I only pay cash at full-serve
>>>>stations, no matter what the state.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>It's becoming common for the cheapest stations here in So. Cal. to
>>>charge a few cents extra per gallon for credit cards.
>>>
>>>
>>Around here it's $.05 cheaper per gallon for cash, but I get 5% back on gas
>>purchases from my credit card, so it's cheaper to use the card.
>>
>>
>
>Same as above. Lower price for cash is also a violation of their
>merchant agreement.
>
>

But it's not a lower price for cash. Cash costs more than the credit
card.

I typically save 5-15 cents / gallon by using a credit card vs. paying cash.

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 26 2008 3:08 pm
From: sarge137

On Aug 26, 4:03 pm, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> sarge137 wrote:
> >On Aug 26, 11:16 am, "h" <tmcl...@searchmachine.com> wrote:
>
> >>"David Harmon" <sou...@netcom.com> wrote in message
>
> >>news:kIadnQ_1ANp3vynVnZ2dnUVZ_vCdnZ2d@earthlink.com...
>
> >>>On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:08:51 -0400 in misc.consumers.frugal-living,
> >>>"h" <tmcl...@searchmachine.com> wrote,
>
> >>>>stations in my whole life. Funny...not. Now I only pay cash at full-serve
> >>>>stations, no matter what the state.
>
> >>>It's becoming common for the cheapest stations here in So. Cal. to
> >>>charge a few cents extra per gallon for credit cards.
>
> >>Around here it's $.05 cheaper per gallon for cash, but I get 5% back on gas
> >>purchases from my credit card, so it's cheaper to use the card.
>
> >Same as above. Lower price for cash is also a violation of their
> >merchant agreement.
>
> But it's not a lower price for cash. Cash costs more than the credit
> card.
>
> I typically save 5-15 cents / gallon by using a credit card vs. paying cash.

But the poster said "$.05 cheaper per gallon for cash". That means to
me they charge a nickel less per gallon for a customer who pays in
cash than one who wants to use the card reader. They can't do that,
and continue to accept VISA/MC. Doesn't matter that your card gives
you a rebate on the purchase. Cash/credit prices MUST be the same
according to their merchant agreement.

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 26 2008 3:13 pm
From: George

sarge137 wrote:
> On Aug 26, 9:35 am, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:
>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:08:51 -0400 in misc.consumers.frugal-living,
>> "h" <tmcl...@searchmachine.com> wrote,
>>
>>> stations in my whole life. Funny...not. Now I only pay cash at full-serve
>>> stations, no matter what the state.
>> It's becoming common for the cheapest stations here in So. Cal. to
>> charge a few cents extra per gallon for credit cards.
>>
>> .
>
> If they're doing that with their own brand CCs that's their business.
> But it's a violation of their merchant agreement with VISA and MC to
> assess fees for the use of the cards. If people will complain to CC
> companies they'll have to stop the fees,or stop taking the cards.
> Also, the California Attorney General's Office has one of the most
> aggressive consumer protection divisions in the country. They'll get
> involved as well if you file a report.

Actually my complaint is that if I don't want to subsidize cash back or
whatever purchases if I choose to pay cash I should be allowed to do
that. I think disallowing that by contractual obligation borders on
racketeering by the banks.

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 26 2008 3:41 pm
From: sarge137

On Aug 26, 4:13 pm, George <geo...@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> sarge137 wrote:
> > On Aug 26, 9:35 am, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:
> >> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:08:51 -0400 in misc.consumers.frugal-living,
> >> "h" <tmcl...@searchmachine.com> wrote,
>
> >>> stations in my whole life. Funny...not. Now I only pay cash at full-serve
> >>> stations, no matter what the state.
> >> It's becoming common for the cheapest stations here in So. Cal. to
> >> charge a few cents extra per gallon for credit cards.
>
> >> .
>
> > If they're doing that with their own brand CCs that's their business.
> > But it's a violation of their merchant agreement with VISA and MC to
> > assess fees for the use of the cards. If people will complain to CC
> > companies they'll have to stop the fees,or stop taking the cards.
> > Also, the California Attorney General's Office has one of the most
> > aggressive consumer protection divisions in the country. They'll get
> > involved as well if you file a report.
>
> Actually my complaint is that if I don't want to subsidize cash back or
> whatever purchases if I choose to pay cash I should be allowed to do
> that. I think disallowing that by contractual obligation borders on
> racketeering by the banks.

I don't disagree with you George. Those merchant agreements are far
too restrictive. But they are what they are. They've been tested in
court, and found to be enforceable, many times over. So long as a
merchant is displaying those logos to induce people without cash to do
business with them, I'll do everything in my power to ensure they
comply with them. It's my special cause, and I've been 100%
successful in forcing compliance in several cases.

If I had my way, I'd change those agreements to allow merchants to
pass those fees directly to customers who use CCs, at least for small
purchases. I'm old enough to remember when not every merchant took
bank cards (then called BankAmericard and MasterCard didn't exist).
And, almost every cash register had a sign on it that said something
like "minimum purchase $10 for credit cards".

I carry enough cash to handle my small day to day expenses. But I use
a VISA debit card for larger purchases like groceries and gasoline.
Most merchants to don't distinguish between the debit/credit cards,
which is why I won't tolerate different cash/credit pricing if they
take cards.

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 26 2008 4:15 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> sarge137 wrote:
>> On Aug 26, 9:35 am, David Harmon <sou...@netcom.com> wrote:
>>> On Mon, 25 Aug 2008 17:08:51 -0400 in misc.consumers.frugal-living,
>>> "h" <tmcl...@searchmachine.com> wrote,
>>>
>>>> stations in my whole life. Funny...not. Now I only pay cash at
>>>> full-serve stations, no matter what the state.
>>> It's becoming common for the cheapest stations here in So. Cal. to
>>> charge a few cents extra per gallon for credit cards.
>>>
>>> .
>>
>> If they're doing that with their own brand CCs that's their business.
>> But it's a violation of their merchant agreement with VISA and MC to
>> assess fees for the use of the cards. If people will complain to CC
>> companies they'll have to stop the fees,or stop taking the cards.
>> Also, the California Attorney General's Office has one of the most
>> aggressive consumer protection divisions in the country. They'll get
>> involved as well if you file a report.
>
> Actually my complaint is that if I don't want to subsidize cash back
> or whatever purchases if I choose to pay cash I should be allowed to
> do that. I think disallowing that by contractual obligation borders on
> racketeering by the banks.

And is illegal in any country with a clue.

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 26 2008 4:24 pm
From: enigma

sarge137 <rbooth9858@yahoo.com> wrote in
news:9816c0a6-3f5b-4ed4-8ca9-090cbdd665ac@25g2000hsx.googlegro
ups.com:

> I carry enough cash to handle my small day to day expenses.

i would, but i'm allergic to US paper currency (the inks).
somehow most merchants get testy if you pay in coins.
most people who pay for daily transactions with credit cards
are paying some rediculous interest rate to do so (since most
people don't pay them off every month). i don't see how
further penalties for using cards is warranted... and if you
don't think credit card fees aren't built into everything you
purchase already, you're living in dreamland.

lee
--
Last night while sitting in my chair
I pinged a host that wasn't there
It wasn't there again today
The host resolved to NSA.

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 26 2008 4:58 pm
From: "Dave"

>But the poster said "$.05 cheaper per gallon for cash". That means to
>me they charge a nickel less per gallon for a customer who pays in
>cash than one who wants to use the card reader. They can't do that,
>and continue to accept VISA/MC. Doesn't matter that your card gives
>you a rebate on the purchase. Cash/credit prices MUST be the same
>according to their merchant agreement.

No, the cash and credit prices must not be the same.

Actually, the merchant agreement states you can't charge more (above the
regular price) for a customer paying with a credit card. That's why the
various merchants offer discounts for cash purchases. That way, they are
charging "normal" price for credit card purchases (but not extra!) and the
people who pay with cash get a discount (they pay less than normal price).
It's perfectly legit, and does not violate the merchant agreement. Because
it's advertised as a -discount- for a cash purchase.

It's subtle, but significant. If the merchant put up a sign stating
something like "price 5% higher for credit card purchase", THAT would be a
violation of the merchant agreement. But the signs are usually worded "5
cent per gallon cash discount" or wording to that effect. That makes it
legit. They can still accept VISA/MC, as they are charging the credit card
customers REGULAR price. -Dave

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Unusual Problem With DVD+RW Disc
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/4d4160dd09d34750?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 26 2008 3:11 pm
From: "nospam"

"Dave" <noway@nohow.not> wrote in message news:g91t31$te2$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> "Jack" <nospam@nospam.home> wrote in message
> news:48b46957.33518578@nntp.aioe.org...
> > Bought a spindle of Memorex. The Lite-On recorder/player rejected
> > five of them outright but the other 20 have recorded and re-recorded
> > TV shows OK so far .... until last night.
> >
> > The disc read OK so I programmed a show. This morning, the timer
> > screen said that the recording was "done," in other words,
> > successful. But the disc wouldn't play on either the player/recorder
> > downstairs or the Philips player upstairs.
> >
> > In fact, the upstairs player shuts off and says "no disc" and the
> > player/recorder downstairs says "invalid disc." Other discs still
> > work OK.
> >
> > I missed a damn good movie. Have you ever heard of a disc going from
> > acceptable to invalid while it sat in the recorder??
>
> Ok, you've learned a valuable lesson...don't buy memorex brand CDR/W media.
>
> If 5 of 25 were rejected outright, that means that the best of the bunch are
> MARGINALLY compatible with your recorder. Considering that the media has to
> be perfectly compatible with the recorder for you to have any chance of
> playing that recording in another player...
>
> I'd say you had pretty good luck with your incompatible disks, until you
> lost a recording which you REALLY wanted.
>
> I'd suggest you switch to maxell or ritek / ridata brand media, immediately.

Yikes. Out of the fire and into the frying pan.

Maxell, Ritek, Memorex, TDK and a dozen other brands are all the
same media produced by the same company (CMC) in Taiwan.

It's *all the same junk*.

The industry's best media (as claimed by others, but it's also been my
experience) is Taiyo Yuden in Japan. It's sold under several different
brands but it's safest to buy actual TY product:
http://www.supermediastore.com/taiyo-yuden-dvd-r-media.html

It costs more than the crap media, but you'll never get coasters unless
it's your own fault, and unlike the crap brands you'll be able to read
these discs 10+ years from now.

Mitsui (NOT Mitsumi) is also an excellent brand, if you can find it.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 26 2008 4:46 pm
From: "Dave"

>> I'd suggest you switch to maxell or ritek / ridata brand media,
>> immediately.
>
> Yikes. Out of the fire and into the frying pan.
>
> Maxell, Ritek, Memorex, TDK and a dozen other brands are all the
> same media produced by the same company (CMC) in Taiwan.
>
> It's *all the same junk*.

That doesn't tell the whole story though. Many brands are actually
manufactured by someone else. But there are so many different coatings
produced by the same plant, that some disks coming off the line are
guaranteed coasters, while some will actually be good quality. I've used
many different brands of burners. Memorex is crap in all of them. Same
with Sony. If anything, Sony is worse than Memorex. OTOH, I haven't found
a burner (or a player, in a computer or in a standalone player) that wasn't
happy with maxell or ritek / ridata, yet. I've had good luck with TDK also
(as in, zero coasters and no playback problems), though I usually buy
maxell, if I can find them. -Dave

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 26 2008 5:35 pm
From: "nospam"

"Dave" <noway@nohow.not> wrote in message news:g924kv$di6$1@registered.motzarella.org...
>
> >> I'd suggest you switch to maxell or ritek / ridata brand media,
> >> immediately.
> >
> > Yikes. Out of the fire and into the frying pan.
> >
> > Maxell, Ritek, Memorex, TDK and a dozen other brands are all the
> > same media produced by the same company (CMC) in Taiwan.
> >
> > It's *all the same junk*.
>
> That doesn't tell the whole story though. Many brands are actually
> manufactured by someone else. But there are so many different coatings
> produced by the same plant, that some disks coming off the line are
> guaranteed coasters, while some will actually be good quality. I've used
> many different brands of burners. Memorex is crap in all of them. Same
> with Sony. If anything, Sony is worse than Memorex. OTOH, I haven't found
> a burner (or a player, in a computer or in a standalone player) that wasn't
> happy with maxell or ritek / ridata, yet. I've had good luck with TDK also
> (as in, zero coasters and no playback problems), though I usually buy
> maxell, if I can find them. -Dave

Dave, companies like TDK, Maxell and Memorex simply source
the cheapest media they can find (in this case from CMC), and
slap their own brand labels on it. These companies rarely buy
quality, or pay more for media with better dyes or coatings.
They also can switch suppliers any time they choose, so quality
is a complete crapshoot every time you buy a new batch.

A few utilities can read the inner hub of blank media, where a
manufacturer's ID code is stored. This will allow you (in most
cases) to know what you're actually using. See:
http://www.videohelp.com/dvdmediaform.php?dvdinfo=1#dvdinfo

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Questions About Stand Alone DSL
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/a4655242e06b438e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 26 2008 3:20 pm
From: George

Jack wrote:
> Rather than get DSL thru Verizon phone co., I'm thinking of using a
> local ISP whose people speak English and which has a good reputation
> for its dial-up service. The sales guy said that this requires a
> stand alone connection which involves an installation fee.

Actually all Verizon DSL support is provided from someplace I can't
remember in California.

>
> 1) Do they connect the router/modem to the phone box that's located on
> the outside of the house?
>
> 2) If so, is there any need for them to come in the house for any
> hardware or software installation?
>
> 3) If I keep a cheap-dial-up as a back up, would I need to uninstall
> any of the stand alone stuff, either inside or outside, in order to
> connect with the dial-up? Thanks guys.
>
>

You will make yourself a lot more excitement if you do this because
whenever their is a problem the first suggestion will be that it is the
other company. I have no love for Verizon but they actually do a pretty
decent job with DSL.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 26 2008 5:24 pm
From: Bill

I've read your earlier thread with amusement since you remind me
of a guy at work who installs software a year after everyone
else and then acts like he's bleeding edge and calls people to
see what their experience is because he wants to make sure it's
not going to cause him problems.

The fact is that millions of people have Verizon DSL (source:
http://www.ipdemocracy.com/archives/2008/01/28/) and you're
worried about a year commitment because you've read a few
complaints and you obviously think you're going to have
problems. This is not new technology and the VAST majority of
people have no problems with it. Of course they do not post so
you're not going to see their stories posted.

You're now looking to get DSL from a 3rd party. They'll have to
get the service from Verizon. You will pay more and if you have
problems you will have to go through the company you bought from
who will have to work with Verizon and you can enjoy the
finger-pointing when they each say it's the other's problem. The
times I've had to call Verizon Tech Support they've been
surprisingly good. They were up in Canada when I last dealt with
them.

Just order it from Verizon (and take advantage of their current
deal to give you the first 6 months free, be sure to ask for
it). The odds are you won't problems but if you do, you can
cancel. And on the 6 months free deal, the cancellation fee is
only $49 so it pretty much pays for itself in the free months of
service should you decide to cancel.

By the way, someplace like www.dslreports.com is a much better
place to ask your questions, as opposed to consumer-related
newsgroups. I am always amused by people who think that consumer
groups are the perfect place to ask for computer advice.

Bill

Jack wrote:
>
> Rather than get DSL thru Verizon phone co., I'm thinking of using a
> local ISP whose people speak English and which has a good reputation
> for its dial-up service. The sales guy said that this requires a
> stand alone connection which involves an installation fee.
>
> 1) Do they connect the router/modem to the phone box that's located on
> the outside of the house?
>
> 2) If so, is there any need for them to come in the house for any
> hardware or software installation?
>
> 3) If I keep a cheap-dial-up as a back up, would I need to uninstall
> any of the stand alone stuff, either inside or outside, in order to
> connect with the dial-up? Thanks guys.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: RIP Bobbi Sanchez
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/a3ef1cf02aaa72c4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 26 2008 3:55 pm
From: mike@nowhere.com (Mike)

On Tue, 26 Aug 2008, SneakyP <invalid@invalidsneakemail.com> wrote:
>

>> You've become quite good at reading headers since your foray into
>> sockpuppetry was documented.
>>
>
>Links please.

http://tinyurl.com/6l8jf9

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anybody have experience with mortgages?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/a3e6bcce6f05e17d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 26 2008 4:11 pm
From: Samantha Hill - remove TRASH to reply

How is your wife doing? Is she over the morning sickness yet?

OhioGuy wrote:
> We currently owe approx $11K on our double, presently paying $350 a month
> at 5.25% interest, on a 10 year loan. (we live on one side)
>
> We are in a situation where we would like to get moved to another home in
> the next 12 months. In order to do this, we need to free up some $. We had
> originally considered simply refinancing our mortgage to a 30 year, and
> freeing up some equity at the same time - until we saw how much all the fees
> added up to, and the new high interest rate we were offered.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 26 2008 5:21 pm
From: "Lou"

"OhioGuy" <none@none.net> wrote in message news:g91i1m$rck$1@aioe.org...
> We currently owe approx $11K on our double, presently paying $350 a
month
> at 5.25% interest, on a 10 year loan. (we live on one side)
>
> We are in a situation where we would like to get moved to another home
in
> the next 12 months. In order to do this, we need to free up some $. We
had
> originally considered simply refinancing our mortgage to a 30 year, and
> freeing up some equity at the same time - until we saw how much all the
fees
> added up to, and the new high interest rate we were offered.
>
> I've done some calculations, and we need between $15,000 and $20,000 to
> fix up the old furnaces in our double so that this place is in good shape
to
> rent when we're moved out, and so that we have enough cash to make
payments
> on a land contract home for about 15 months - while we make the transition
> from living here to a new place, and get this one paying for itself. (we
> spoke to a loan specialist at our credit union this morning, and she
> suggested that a land contract might work out for us well, especially
given
> the number of houses presently sitting vacant)
>
> Right now, most of our cash is being used up because we opted for a 10
> year mortgage - which makes the move, and saving up any $ difficult.
>
> We DO have about $12,000 in stocks set aside for our eventual auto
costs,
> when our present car wears out. I've been thinking that perhaps we should
> use it to completely pay our house off? Part of me hates doing this to
pay
> off a 5.25% loan though - especially when I've made a 43% return over the
> past 17 months on it. (MVL, BPL, then FNM & FRE) However, that's really
> about the only way we could "retire" the original loan and make it so we
> don't have to pay the $350 a month - at least that I can think of.
(Ideas,
> anyone?)
>
> We could either get a home equity loan now for the $15 to $20K we'd
need,
> or else get a traditional second mortgage for that amount - a 30 year loan
> should get us $15 to $20K for roughly $100 to $140 a month in payments,
> right?
>
> Then we could pay off our primary loan, and only have the $140 a month
to
> worry about on this property. As soon as someone moved in and started
> paying rent, it would be taking care of itself.
>
> Am I missing anything obvious here - another simple solution that might
> work out better for us?

The problem with people trying to end-run or game the system is that they
often end up putting more effort into it than they would if they just
followed the normal way of doing things, and end up with less in the end.

I'd be leery of a land contract arrangement. If the agreement is not
recorded by the seller the buyer may find himself up the well know creek.

When I got my last mortgage, one of the provisions of the mortgage agreement
was that the property was to be my primary residence. If the seller has
that sort of proviso in his mortgage, he'll be tempted to not record the
deal properly in order to prevent the lender from discovering the agreement.
The lender does find out, it could end up demanding payment in full, and if
you can't come up with the money, you'll lose everything you've put into the
property - your contract payments and the time, effort, and money expended
on any improvements you may have made.

If the seller doesn't keep up his mortgage payments/taxes, or there are
other liens on the house, you could end up losing the property if you can't
come up with the money.

My maternal grandfather was a landlord for years. While it did provide him
with an income, it was nothing great, there was endless tenant trouble, and
he spent a great deal of his "free" time taking care of the other people's
problems.

You propose taking on a new property but not being the owner for some
period, at the mercy of some unknown seller. While retaining whatever
maintenance problems come up on the old property an undetermined number of
miles away, plus possible tenant difficulties. Add in a new baby. It isn't
worth it, in my opinion. Sell the present place, buy your new dwelling the
conventional way, and get a 20-30 year mortgage to make the payments
bearable. If you find yourself flush one month, you can always prepay on
the principal (at least you can in New Jersey, check the law where you are)
and if you find that you have need of the money at times, you can fall back
to paying the normal monthly payment.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Faggots, maggots, kikes and dykes, plus jigs galore, whatta assortment
at Dem. convention.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/d7472a2c0380c4e6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 26 2008 4:59 pm
From: RichA

On Aug 26, 3:27 pm, hp...@lycos.com wrote:
> On Aug 26, 9:20 am, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Whew! Won't see many of that bunch at the golf course or tennis club.
> > Did you notice the black ladies singing, clapping hands, and swaying?
> > Looked like a frigging revival! Retired schoolmarms, labor union
> > bohunks, and spics rounded out the spectacle.
>
> > ted
>
> Though a bit rough, the above captures the essence, no pun intended,
> of the event.
>
> Mitch

Does anyone really think the predominantly white elitists running the
thing give a s--- about the lowlife minorities who might have
attended? This is why Republicans are better, they don't try to wear
the outlandish facade of everyman the Democrats pretend to wear.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Another good product/deal GONE!!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/fc8079daae81d3bd?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 26 2008 8:29 pm
From: "Anthony Diodati"

"Al Bundy" <MSfortune@mcpmail.com> wrote in message
news:65afc1b6-baaf-4bb6-a665-a5fc40000fe1@f36g2000hsa.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 24, 5:23 pm, "Anthony Diodati" <mrbreezeet1NO S...@verizon.net>
> wrote:
>> Dollar General brand paper towels, cost $1.00.
>> Used to be a damm good product. Just brought a roll today, they are not
>> worth a DAMM!
>> Knew when they changed the wrapper, then picked it up, seemed lighter.
>> Got it home, they are smaller and thinner. Again, not worth a DAMM!
>> You can't get a good deal on nothing anymore.
>>
>> Ate at Wendy's today, got the jr. cheeseburger. Those things used to be
>> pretty good.
>> Now I swear, they are making the patties thinner. Looks to be about 1/8"
>> thick.
>> Last time I was there, I got a 1/4 pounder single, looked like the
>> patties
>> you USED to get on the jr. cheeseburger.
>> What a world anymore!!
>> Tony
>
> Tony, it's healthier for you to eat less at Wendy's anyway. So that's
> a good thing.

I know it is, I'm just saying.
Seems like ever since the gas went up, everything else went to hell.
Tony
>
> Marketing has always been about trying to get more out of customers
> and providing less. It's our job to be vigilant and seek out the deals
> where they exist. The menu changes all the time. If a store doesn't
> offer enough bargains for me to shop there, I write them off and don't
> go back. Dollar General and Family Dollar are in that category for me.
> Dollar Tree is the best and certain independent dollar stores have
> specialized items. I wrote Meijer off a long time ago too when they
> raised prices and never failed to have scanning errors in their favor.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: "A Quick Message"
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/36191a8f1448ac74?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 26 2008 5:35 pm
From: Robert Brealey

Hello Member,

Recently a friend sent me an email about a free ebook that
makes him good money.

He didn't write it. It is free to read. You don't need to supply
an email address to get access to it.

But if you read it you'll discover something pretty neat.
The book is quite short and very punchy.

To make it work for you here's a very simple idea: put your
link to the book as a signature in your emails.

You can copy the example below if you want.

With best wishes

Robert Brealey

Discover the ultimate online super tip.

http://www.NewUltimateSupertip.com

--------------------------------------------------------
Robert Brealey - -
New Ultimate Supertip
http://www.NewUltimateSupertip.com
--------------------------------------------------------

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Separate hot water heater rather than off the furnace
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/970a1e327b6d9cdb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Aug 26 2008 5:47 pm
From: "Lou"

"clams_casino" <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message
news:rLIsk.9556$_s1.6657@newsfe07.iad...
> Dave wrote:
>
> >
> > "Raff" <raff1717@comcast.net> wrote in message
> > news:1daac085-f048-4c73-93c7-54c984b22e29@56g2000hsm.googlegroups.com...
> >
> >> I have an oil fired steam heat furnace with the hot water off the
> >> furnace. Considering the price of oil is it worth it to switch to
> >> electric hot water rather than the hot water supplied by the furnace?
> >
> >
> > No, unless you are willing to fork out the bucks for a tankless water
> > heater. -Dave
>
>
> Any feel for having a tankless vs. gas heater tank installed? Is one
> significantly cheaper over the long run?

I usually do a first check at the Sears website. You can get a 40 gallon,
natural gas water heater, five star user rating, for $339.99 (doubtless
there are cheaper models) with an annual Energy Guide cost of operation
$309.

Sears apparently doesn't sell tankless heaters (at least, their site search
didn't turn one up) so I went to the Home Depot site. The cheapest natural
gas tankless I found there was $999 (45 degree rise in temperature at 7.4
gpm - note that if the water entering the system is 60 degrees, that means
your "hot" water would be only 105 degrees unless the actual flow rate was
less).

No idea what installation costs are for either type of system, but since you
don't have a conventional heater at present, presumably the plumbing costs
for both water and gas lines would be comparable.

No Energy Guide ticket, so annual operating costs are unknown, but the blurb
says save "up to" 30% on fuel cost compared to a standard gas water heater.
I don't know what "standard" or "up to" mean in this case, but we can play
with some numbers.

30% of $309 is $92.70, let's call it $93 in fuel savings per year. $999 -
$339.99 is $659.01, call it $659 more for the tankless model. So it will
take 659 / 93, or a bit over 7 years for the extra cost of the tankless to
be recouped in fuel savings. Not counting all those other things that
people throw in that muddy the waters - possible rebates on energy efficient
appliances, opportunity costs, loan interest, etc.

Is it worth it? That's a value judgment only you can make. And I'm sure
you can vary these numbers quite a bit by looking at different models of
each type.

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

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

Tuesday, August 26, 2008

19 new messages in 9 topics - digest

No comments: