Frugal Living: 25 new messages in 10 topics

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

25 new messages in 10 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: GOP
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/eef038a8276af111?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 3 2008 12:35 pm
From: "ChairMan"

In news:CtadnTtO3LT1SiPVnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@earthlink.com,
Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com>spewed forth:
> clams_casino wrote:
>> hpope@lycos.com wrote:
>>
>>> On Sep 3, 3:06 am, hp...@lycos.com wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Though the Democrats insist they are intellectuals fact is that
>>>> without the moron negro vote they
>>>> could not carry more than four or five states. (Maine, Vermont, New
>>>> Hampshire, Washington, Oregon) Don't think for a minute that I
>>>> support the GOP on many issues; environment, war in
>>>> Iraq, energy, to name a few. But how can a White person support the
>>>> Dems with their obvious
>>>> pandering to those groups identified in thread's header?
>>>>
>>>> mitch
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Fifth-grade drop out? Or is English not your first language?
>
> More likely, just another member of the Republican faithful. Haven't
> you noticed how low the Republican bar is?
>
> Jeff

Not as low as democrats

What do the top ten cities with the highest poverty rate all have in common?
Democrat leadership. Isn't it amazing that for over 50 yrs now poor people
keep electing Democrats, and they are still poor! I believe it was Einstein
that said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over
again and expecting different results."

Here is the list.

Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor
since 1961;

Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;

Cincinnati, OH (3rd)...since 1984;

Cleveland, OH (4th)...since 1989;

Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican Mayor;

St. Louis, MO (6th)....since 1949;

El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican Mayor;

Milwaukee, WI (8th)...since 1908;

Philadelphia, PA (9th)...since 1952;

Newark, NJ(10th)...since 1907.

It is the disadvantaged who habitually elect Democrats - yet they are still
disadvantaged...hmmm.

Also:

A bunch of hits on a Google search with all kinds of theory and info on why:

http://www.google.com/search?q=What+do+the+top+ten+cities+with+the+highest+poverty+rate+all+have+in+common%3F&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS225US225

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 3 2008 2:36 pm
From: Jeff

ChairMan wrote:
> In news:CtadnTtO3LT1SiPVnZ2dnUVZ_gWdnZ2d@earthlink.com,
> Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com>spewed forth:
>> clams_casino wrote:
>>> hpope@lycos.com wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sep 3, 3:06 am, hp...@lycos.com wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> Though the Democrats insist they are intellectuals fact is that
>>>>> without the moron negro vote they
>>>>> could not carry more than four or five states. (Maine, Vermont, New
>>>>> Hampshire, Washington, Oregon) Don't think for a minute that I
>>>>> support the GOP on many issues; environment, war in
>>>>> Iraq, energy, to name a few. But how can a White person support the
>>>>> Dems with their obvious
>>>>> pandering to those groups identified in thread's header?
>>>>>
>>>>> mitch
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Fifth-grade drop out? Or is English not your first language?
>> More likely, just another member of the Republican faithful. Haven't
>> you noticed how low the Republican bar is?
>>
>> Jeff
>
> Not as low as democrats

Sorry, but you guys take the cake for viciousness, particularly mindless
viciousness.

>
> What do the top ten cities with the highest poverty rate all have in common?
> Democrat leadership. Isn't it amazing that for over 50 yrs now poor people
> keep electing Democrats, and they are still poor! I believe it was Einstein
> that said, "The definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over
> again and expecting different results."

Now, why in the world would a poor urban person vote for a Republican?
Republicans have been skewering their policies toward the wealthiest
that it has become quite obvious as to which party is closest to their
interests. This is just another red herring. A misdirection just the
same as why do something about global warming when you can dither. The
same approach the Tobacco companies used.

A better question is why do Republicans think the economy does better
under Republican leadership. Under any measure the economy fares
better under Democrats:

http://www.boom2bust.com/2007/12/12/is-a-republican-president-really-better-for-the-economy/

I call to your attention a study done in December 2006 by Elliott
Parker, Ph.D., who is a Professor of Economics at the University of
Nevada-Reno. Using data from the U.S. Department of Commerce's Bureau of
Economic Analysis, Dr. Parker first compared the economic performance of
Republican and Democratic presidencies from 1929 through the end of
2005. He found that the Real GDP Growth Rate (annual average) was 1.9%
for Republican administrations and 5.1% for Democratic administrations
during this time. Real GDP Growth Rate Per Capita was .7% for the
Republicans and 3.8% for the Democrats. However, the professor pointed
out that the years comprising the Great Depression and WWII should
probably be excluded from the comparison. So economic performance from
1949 (end of Truman administration) to 2005 was compared, which showed
Real GDP Growth Rate (annual average) under Republican administrations
now stood at 2.9% and Democratic administrations at 4.2%. Real GDP
Growth Rate Per Capita was 1.7% for the Republicans and 2.9% for the
Democrats. These results prompted Dr. Parker to conclude that "the
economy has grown significantly faster under Democratic administrations,
and more than twice as fast in per-capita terms."

The University of Nevada-Reno economics professor also uncovered the
following while conducting the economic comparison between Republican
and Democratic presidential administrations from 1949 to 2005:
• Unemployment Rate- Republicans 6.0%, Democrats 5.2%
• Change In Unemployment Rate- Republicans +0.3%, Democrats -0.4%
• Growth of Multifactor Productivity- Republicans 0.9%, Democrats 1.7%
• Corporate Profits (share of GDP)- Republicans 8.8%, Democrats 10.2%
• Real Value of Dow Jones Index- Republicans 4.3%, Democrats 5.4%
(in logarithmic growth rates)- Republicans 2.8%, Democrats 4.4%
• Real Weekly Earnings- Republicans 0.3%, Democrats 1.0%
• CPI Inflation Rate- Republicans 3.8%, Democrats 3.8%

The whole point of this is that "Trickle Down" in any flavor does not
work and never has. And that *deficits* really do matter.

Now there's no way I will ever convince you of that, and that's
because Republicans are famously myopic and short sighted. The Party of
"I've got mine, screw you" has never realized that fundamentals matter.

Republicans are always so smug that they are superior that they never
stop to see just where they are going. Analysis is not something
Republicans do.

Jeff

>
> Here is the list.
>
>
>
> Detroit, MI (1st on the poverty rate list) hasn't elected a Republican mayor
> since 1961;
>
> Buffalo, NY (2nd) hasn't elected one since 1954;
>
> Cincinnati, OH (3rd)...since 1984;
>
> Cleveland, OH (4th)...since 1989;
>
> Miami, FL (5th) has never had a Republican Mayor;
>
> St. Louis, MO (6th)....since 1949;
>
> El Paso, TX (7th) has never had a Republican Mayor;
>
> Milwaukee, WI (8th)...since 1908;
>
> Philadelphia, PA (9th)...since 1952;
>
> Newark, NJ(10th)...since 1907.
>
> It is the disadvantaged who habitually elect Democrats - yet they are still
> disadvantaged...hmmm.
>
>
>
> Also:
>
> A bunch of hits on a Google search with all kinds of theory and info on why:
>
>
>
> http://www.google.com/search?q=What+do+the+top+ten+cities+with+the+highest+poverty+rate+all+have+in+common%3F&sourceid=navclient-ff&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1B3GGGL_enUS225US225
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: buying old meat from supermarket
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3fa9fe4b1c206b1a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 3 2008 12:54 pm
From: Nancy2

On Sep 3, 2:14 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> Nancy2 <nancy-doo...@uiowa.edu> wrote:
> > On Sep 2, 5:23 pm, "Dimitri" <Dimitr...@prodigy.net> wrote:
> >> "Nancy2" <nancy-doo...@uiowa.edu> wrote in message
>
> >>news:13a6cf88-f209-4677-b9e7-d3e14e04a605@a1g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
> >>> Corse its safe, if it wasnt they wouldnt be selling it. There is a
> >>> significant taste difference
> >>> tho. And there may well be a significant difference in how tender
> >>> the meat is too.
>
> >> I think you give the sellers more credit than they deserve.
> >> Everybody's tolerance is different; I cannot eat beef older than a
> >> couple days; it makes me sick as a dog.
>
> >> I never buy old meat, regardless of the purveyor. OTOH, I don't buy
> >> much red meat anymore, anyway.
>
> >> N.
>
> >> Now the question is " How well do you tolerate an aged steak?"
>
> >> Dimitri
>
> > I don't eat much red meat anymore, like I said.
>
> Then why should anyone take any notice of your comments ?
>
> I get it, you just love the sound of your own voice.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I don't recall anyone inviting you to be nasty and make ugly,
disparaging personal remarks about people you don't know. Take a hike
back to "alt-unpleasant-assholes-r-us," from whence you came.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 3 2008 3:50 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Nancy2 <nancy-dooley@uiowa.edu> wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> Nancy2 <nancy-doo...@uiowa.edu> wrote
>>> Dimitri <Dimitr...@prodigy.net> wrote
>>>> Nancy2 <nancy-doo...@uiowa.edu> wrote

>>>>> Corse its safe, if it wasnt they wouldnt be selling it. There is a significant taste difference
>>>>> tho. And there may well be a significant difference in how tender the meat is too.

>>>> I think you give the sellers more credit than they deserve.
>>>> Everybody's tolerance is different; I cannot eat beef older
>>>> than a couple days; it makes me sick as a dog.

>>>> I never buy old meat, regardless of the purveyor.
>>>> OTOH, I don't buy much red meat anymore, anyway.

>>>> Now the question is " How well do you tolerate an aged steak?"

>>> I don't eat much red meat anymore, like I said.

>> Then why should anyone take any notice of your comments ?

>> I get it, you just love the sound of your own voice.

> I don't recall anyone inviting you to be nasty and make ugly,
> disparaging personal remarks about people you don't know.

I don't recall anyone inviting you to comment on anything at all, ever.

> Take a hike back to "alt-unpleasant-assholes-r-us," from whence you came.

Go and fuck yourself, you stupid pig ignorant silly cow.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 3 2008 4:35 pm
From: b

As an indicator of whether borderline-out of date meat is dodgy or
not, I find that in the case of prepacked meat, if the plastic see-
through top is bulging then the meat is on it's way out. generally
when such meat is opened it stinks too.
-B

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 3 2008 5:15 pm
From: Seerialmom

On Sep 2, 5:21 pm, SoCalMike <mikein562athotm...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Seerialmom wrote:
> > On Sep 2, 4:03 pm, val189 <gwehr...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> >> It has been rumored that supermarkets use chickens past the pull-date
> >> for their rotiss chickens. The price alone steers me away from 'em.
>
> > They sell way too many of those chickens (in general, mind you) to be
> > "old" chickens. I tended to buy mine at Costco, and they go almost as
> > fast as they're put into the warming trays.
>
> The ones Costco uses are quite different from the 2-pack of whole fryers
> they sell. The rotisserie chickens are larger (3lb *after* cooking) and
> are brined in a sugar/salt/seasoning solution.

Mighty tasty, too :) Definitely better than the Sam's Club chickens.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Frugal ideas (on topic)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/b0fb633415061f1d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 3 2008 2:35 pm
From: pc

Gordon wrote:
> chief_thracian@yahoo.com (Chief Thracian) wrote in news:48aa404b.8648886
> @amsterdam.newsgroups-download.com:
>
>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 23:49:34 +0200 (CEST), Gordon
>> <gonzo@alltomyself.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Absolutly agree. Our original justification for the
>>> cell phone was that it would reduce our land line
>>> phone bill by more than the monthly cost of the cell.
>>> Latest analisis shows that it's still true.
>> 'Scuse me, but you can get GREAT deals for long distance, via land
>> line. 2 cents per min. anywhere in the continental US. Really cheap to
>> call most other nations. You prepay online, then call the service's
>> local number, then dial out. Here are two excellent LD bargains:
>>
>> http://www.talkloop.com/
>>
>> http://www.onesuite.com/
>>
>> So using a cell phone to save on LD is not at all necessary. So you
>> don't really need a cell, if your only reason is to save on LD
>> expenses.
>>
>> I dropped my long distance AT&T service years ago, thanks to onesuite.
>> I just pay for their local fees.
>>
>
> In a few days I'll be getting an "all you can eat" LD plan with
> no per minute fees. So now the only reason for the cell phone is
> convinience.

I have heard that most other countries do not charge for incoming calls
on a cellphone.

Any info about this?

If it's true, we, cellphone users, get double slammed for minutes
compared to the rest of the world.

And it should be changed.

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 3 2008 3:32 pm
From: George

pc wrote:

>
> I have heard that most other countries do not charge for incoming calls
> on a cellphone.
>
> Any info about this?

Someone always pays and it is the caller in many other countries. You
can get an idea of how much by looking at calling rates to those
countries. I looked at my VoIP carriers rate for Japan for an example.
$0.0297/min to call a landline and $0.1298/min to call a mobile. Or
calling a Mexican mobile is $0.2530 and a landline is $0.0913 .

>
> If it's true, we, cellphone users, get double slammed for minutes
> compared to the rest of the world.
>
> And it should be changed.
>
> PC

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 3 2008 3:38 pm
From: George

Gordon wrote:

>
> Absolutly agree. Our original justification for the
> cell phone was that it would reduce our land line
> phone bill by more than the monthly cost of the cell.
> Latest analisis shows that it's still true.
>

Same here. Most of our family and friends are on the same carrier and in
network calling is "free" so we pay less overall and have a lot more
utility.

> M to M within the network is free and doesn't use
> minutes from the plan. So double savings when we
> call friends with in the same network.
>
> We are currently looking for a way to get a 2nd
> phone for the few times that we are both out, but
> not together. Lots of options. As is typical,
> I'm crunching the numbers to find the best value.
>

Typically family plans are the less expensive way to do that. I can add
another line on my account that shares the plan minutes for ~
$14/month/total. The shared use of minutes doesn't really impact much at
least in my case because of the free in network calling.

>>> - Use passive solar for heat in the winter (just open
>>> the shades and let the sun shine in.
>>> - Share baby clothes with other moms.
>> Bill Ranck
>> Blacksburg, Va.
>>
>
>

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 3 2008 3:53 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

pc <pc@somewhere.com> wrote:
> Gordon wrote:
>> chief_thracian@yahoo.com (Chief Thracian) wrote in
>> news:48aa404b.8648886 @amsterdam.newsgroups-download.com:
>>
>>> On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 23:49:34 +0200 (CEST), Gordon
>>> <gonzo@alltomyself.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Absolutly agree. Our original justification for the
>>>> cell phone was that it would reduce our land line
>>>> phone bill by more than the monthly cost of the cell.
>>>> Latest analisis shows that it's still true.
>>> 'Scuse me, but you can get GREAT deals for long distance, via land
>>> line. 2 cents per min. anywhere in the continental US. Really cheap
>>> to call most other nations. You prepay online, then call the
>>> service's local number, then dial out. Here are two excellent LD
>>> bargains: http://www.talkloop.com/
>>>
>>> http://www.onesuite.com/
>>>
>>> So using a cell phone to save on LD is not at all necessary. So you
>>> don't really need a cell, if your only reason is to save on LD
>>> expenses.
>>>
>>> I dropped my long distance AT&T service years ago, thanks to
>>> onesuite. I just pay for their local fees.

>> In a few days I'll be getting an "all you can eat" LD plan with
>> no per minute fees. So now the only reason for the cell phone is
>> convinience.

> I have heard that most other countries do not charge for incoming calls on a cellphone.

> Any info about this?

Its true.

> If it's true, we, cellphone users, get double slammed for minutes compared to the rest of the world.

Not when the rate the calls are charged at is split between the caller and the called party.

And those other countrys generally charge more to call cellphones than landlines too.

> And it should be changed.

Trouble is that with the US system, you cant work out before you call whether
you are calling a cellphone or a landline, so you wouldnt be able to work out
how much the call will cost you when you call it if only the caller is charged.

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 3 2008 3:57 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote
> pc wrote

>> I have heard that most other countries do not charge for incoming calls on a cellphone.

>> Any info about this?

> Someone always pays

Not necessarily, many get free calls in the sense that it costs the same whether you make that call or not.

> and it is the caller in many other countries.

And they mostly charge more call a cellphone than to call a landline.

> You can get an idea of how much by looking at calling rates to those countries.

Nope. Quite a bit of the time what you get charged when you call into a
country has nothing to do with what callers within the country get charged.

> I looked at my VoIP carriers rate for Japan for an example.
> $0.0297/min to call a landline and $0.1298/min to call a mobile.

And mine charge 8c flat charge to both, and thats an untimed charge too, thats
the total cost of the call regardless of how long it lasts, even if its for hours.

> Or calling a Mexican mobile is $0.2530 and a landline is $0.0913 .

Those cost me 10c flat charge untimed for both types of calls.

>> If it's true, we, cellphone users, get double slammed for minutes compared to the rest of the world.

>> And it should be changed.

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 3 2008 4:18 pm
From: Tony

If you're into shitting like a baby whole grain is just fine.

Chief Thracian wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 00:33:06 +0200 (CEST), Gordon
> <gonzo@alltomyself.com> wrote:
>
> >- Shopping the Grocery Outlet and Bread Outlet.
>
> Most bread outlets only offer WHITE bread, which is very unhealthy. I
> only eat whole grain...which of course costs more.

--
The Grandmaster of the CyberFROG

Come get your ticket to CyberFROG city

No, I just decided not to play your silly game is all. *Some* of us know
proper manners

Very few. I used to take calls from *rank* noobs,

Hamster isn't a newsreader it's a mistake!

El-Gonzo Jackson FROGS both me and Chuckcar

Using my technical prowess and computer abilities to answer questions
beyond the realm of understandability

Regards Tony... Making usenet better for everyone everyday

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 3 2008 5:16 pm
From: Gordon

George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote in
news:Zqqdnbj3ot5gjCLVnZ2dnUVZ_rDinZ2d@comcast.com:

>> We are currently looking for a way to get a 2nd
>> phone for the few times that we are both out, but
>> not together. Lots of options. As is typical,
>> I'm crunching the numbers to find the best value.
>>
>
> Typically family plans are the less expensive way to do that. I can add
> another line on my account that shares the plan minutes for ~
> $14/month/total. The shared use of minutes doesn't really impact much at
> least in my case because of the free in network calling.
>
>

Not so in My case. Last check was that it would cost about $20.00.
That's a lot of minutes if you compare it to a Pay as you go phone.
THe biggest problem I am up against is the expiration of minuts
on the pay as you go plans. Trac Phone for instane tends to
expire quickly. I think it's 30 days for a $20.00 card. That
makes it pretty comparable to the $20.00 marginal cost of adding
a line to my current plan. 7-11 has a Plan where the minutes
last for up to a year. Even for the lowest cost card. I may go
with that plan.

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 3 2008 7:37 pm
From: The Real Bev

Chief Thracian wrote:

> On Fri, 8 Aug 2008 00:33:06 +0200 (CEST), Gordon
> <gonzo@alltomyself.com> wrote:
>
>>- Shopping the Grocery Outlet and Bread Outlet.
>
> Most bread outlets only offer WHITE bread, which is very unhealthy. I
> only eat whole grain...which of course costs more.

The local Oroweat (etc.) store sells just about everything that that
bakery makes including Honey Wheat Berry bread which really ought to be
classified as a dessert. Roughly half price plus quantity, cumulative
quantity and senior discounts too. Tough luck if you can't find one!

--
Cheers, Bev
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
"Giving money and power to government is like giving whiskey
and car keys to teenage boys." -- P.J. O'Rourke

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Vote for John McCain.. a mans man...not some pointy nose, smart guy.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/4f41a0c9e221cb6f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 3 2008 3:52 pm
From: Dennis

On Fri, 29 Aug 2008 11:09:20 -0700 (PDT), Cindy Hamilton
<angelicapaganelli@hotmail.com> wrote:

>You seem to think that life is fair. It isn't, and never will be.

Actually, life is fair. What many don't get is that sometimes fair
sucks.

Dennis (evil)
--
"There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Individual frugality is no match for population growth
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/ff7513a55a2c0c8e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 3 2008 4:23 pm
From: Tony

Your 210,000 more people each day are welfare puppies to be. The kind of
bastards that add nothing to this world except hardships for the working
class whiteman. The whiteman supports these motherwhores as the world
scales tilt in favor of 3rd world dogshit.

Enough Already wrote:

> How many of you detect a general, growing scarcity as human population
> growth collides with physical limits? Not just any one thing, like the
> price of oil.
>
> Frugality is being overrun by 210,000 more people each day. An
> additional 77 million per year cannot be added to a finite world
> without consequences. There are too many people feeding at the trough
> and fighting for space. There is not "plenty of land" when you look at
> how it's being used already. A global balance of births and deaths is
> vital, and only requires existing drugstore technology.
>
> What is economic growth really, except the endless accommodation of
> more people and the loss of wilderness? Economies of scale for
> manufacturing were achieved decades ago. The market is just getting
> more bloated with consumers. The rich are skimming off the top as
> they've always done, but the ratio of poor to rich is growing. That's
> the thing to watch for.
>
> If you live in a fast-growing area the feeling is palpable. Why must
> all these people be here? What's the point of all these new homes,
> destroying the last remnants of open space, and farmland that was
> supposed to feed the future? Why is it assumed that traffic must keep
> getting worse? Apathy and mindless consumption are driving our
> destiny, not logic.
>
> If every speech-maker replaced the words "economic growth" with
> "population growth," real change might happen. You have to define what
> a thing really is before you can tackle it. But society is stuck on
> "growth" as theoretical concept of self-improvement, ignoring physical
> limits in a finite world. There is an urgent need to discern between
> growth of quantity and _quality_.
>
> E.A.
>
> http://enough_already.tripod.com/
>
> "How crowded can we make this planet?" is not much of a legacy.

--
The Grandmaster of the CyberFROG

Come get your ticket to CyberFROG city

No, I just decided not to play your silly game is all. *Some* of us know
proper manners

Very few. I used to take calls from *rank* noobs,

Hamster isn't a newsreader it's a mistake!

El-Gonzo Jackson FROGS both me and Chuckcar

Using my technical prowess and computer abilities to answer questions
beyond the realm of understandability

Regards Tony... Making usenet better for everyone everyday

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Use home carpet cleaner on auto cloth/carpet?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/95e096ffc216949e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 3 2008 4:48 pm
From: "Walter Cohen"

That is correct. Thanks!
"Lou" <lpogoda@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:kHkvk.347$1a2.269@trnddc04...
>
> "Wally" <w_cohen@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:fa6214c1-f768-42b0-a08f-43457f845508@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>> Just wondering if there's any problem with using an indoor [home]
>> carpet cleaner on an older car's upholstery and/or carpet to clean and
>> remove stains?
>>
>> Are the automotive carpet/upholstery cleaners any different (just more
>> expensive), stronger than home cleaners? Will using a home cleaner
>> damage the cloth upholstery?
>>
> I don't use much in the way of upholstery/carpet cleaning products, but as
> I
> recall, the label generally advises to test in an inconspicuous place to
> see
> if the product in question will adversely affect whatever you plan to use
> it
> on.
>
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Space Heater
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/4c33ca7fbe679d07?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 3 2008 6:04 pm
From: AndyTao <22265737@qq.com>

Find Bargains on Space Heaters and other Home Appliances. Get tax and
shipping information, merchant ratings, and professional product
reviews.
http://www.ogogo123sina.cn

==============================================================================
TOPIC: One-time credit card numbers?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/b77ead67078c8cf2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 3 2008 7:51 pm
From: The Real Bev

Tiziano wrote:

> Well, I had in mind those cases in which one purchases an airline ticket
> online. He then goes to the airport and wants to print out the ticket
> at the airline kiosk in order to avoid standing in line at the airline
> counter. The kiosk will ask to insert the same credit card used to
> purchase the ticket and, if a virtual credit card number was used, will
> refuse to complete the transaction.

Why not print your boarding pass at home? Surely Continental isn't the
only airline to allow you to do that...

> on 9/2/2008 11:33 AM Marc wrote the following:
>> On Aug 29, 8:35 pm, Tiziano <nos...@example.com> wrote:
>>> Please note that in some cases you will not be able to use a virtual
>>> credit card number to purchase something. One example is the purchase
>>> of airline tickets; your real credit card number must be used for
>>> security reasons.
>>
>> Really? I've done it and it worked fine. What possible "security
>> reasons" would those be?

--
Cheers, Bev
========================================================
"We're so far beyond fucked we couldn't even catch a bus
back to fucked." --Scott en Aztlan

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Lower Wages for American Workers
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/41617a060889d131?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 3 2008 7:55 pm
From: The Real Bev

clams_casino wrote:

> Gunner Asch wrote:
>>
>>How many of Clintons jobs were "would you like fries with that?" and
>>government jobs?
>>
>>Care to give us a break down?
>
> Considering wages increased substantially during the Clinton vs. GW
> years, even someone with minimum math skills could conclude there were
> more higher paying jobs than lower paying jobs in the Clinton years.

You mean White House interns got paid? I thought they were just in it
for the glory.

--
Cheers, Bev
========================================================
"We're so far beyond fucked we couldn't even catch a bus
back to fucked." --Scott en Aztlan

==============================================================================
TOPIC: String trimmer won't stay running
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/b7449fbb9d1a732b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 3 2008 8:09 pm
From: Mike Copeland

Ryobi will start and then die. It has fresh gas. I was thinking there
might be an air leak but don't know where to start looking.

Mike

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 3 2008 9:04 pm
From: "Dave"

"Mike Copeland" <mcopelandAT@pobox.comcom> wrote in message
news:FhIvk.21599$kh2.18762@bignews3.bellsouth.net...
> Ryobi will start and then die. It has fresh gas. I was thinking there
> might be an air leak but don't know where to start looking.
>
> Mike

Did you mix the two-cycle oil into the gas?

Actually, the behavior you describe is common. It takes a while for the
trimmer motor to warm up to the point where it will run OK without stalling.
Only thing you can do is keep starting it until it is warm enough not to
stall. Yes, that means string trimmers are a real pain in the ASS.

Don't know if it will help your Ryobi, but on our Craftsman, I have to
squeeze the throttle control SLIGHTLY after starting (immediately, as soon
as it fires once) or it will die, every time. But then, if I squeeze the
lever too hard, I'll kill it. So I have to just hold the lever with gentle
pressure for a minute or so to keep it running. Then I can "floor it", so
to speak, and it's fine.

My best guess, either you forgot to mix in the two-cycle oil (in which case
you'll likely need to have the trimmer serviced by a professional who can
flush the fuel system clean), or there is nothing at all wrong. Again, gas
trimmers are a pain in the ASS. That's the nature of the beast. -Dave

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 3 2008 9:18 pm
From: gheston@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston)

In article <FhIvk.21599$kh2.18762@bignews3.bellsouth.net>,
Mike Copeland <mcopelandREMOVETHIS@ANDTHISpobox.com> wrote:
>Ryobi will start and then die. It has fresh gas. I was thinking there
>might be an air leak but don't know where to start looking.

Changed the plug or filter lately?

Make sure the connection to the plug is clean as well.

Gary
Troy-Bilt 4-stroke; runs great

--
Gary Heston gheston@hiwaay.net http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/

Why is it that these days, the words "What idiot" are so frequently
followed by the words "at Microsoft"?

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 3 2008 9:39 pm
From: Vic Smith

On Wed, 03 Sep 2008 23:09:30 -0400, Mike Copeland
<mcopelandAT@pobox.comcom> wrote:

>Ryobi will start and then die. It has fresh gas. I was thinking there
>might be an air leak but don't know where to start looking.
>
Learn to choke it properly.
On my Craftsman, when first starting, I have it fully choked, gas
lever pressed for about 1/4 of full revs, then as soon as it starts
have to quickly open the choke fully.

--Vic

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Sep 3 2008 10:21 pm
From: "Dave"

> >
> Learn to choke it properly.
> On my Craftsman, when first starting, I have it fully choked, gas
> lever pressed for about 1/4 of full revs, then as soon as it starts
> have to quickly open the choke fully.
>
> --Vic

Sounds like yours is like mine, only mine has an auto-choke which choked
years ago. :) -Dave

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

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

Wednesday, September 3, 2008

25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

No comments: