http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* buying old meat from supermarket - 12 messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3fa9fe4b1c206b1a?hl=en
* Lower Wages for American Workers - 6 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/41617a060889d131?hl=en
* Electricity Rates - wasRe: Home heating oil price? - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/25ab6d7a439ac7f1?hl=en
* Use home carpet cleaner on auto cloth/carpet? - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/95e096ffc216949e?hl=en
* Frugal ideas (on topic) - 2 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/b0fb633415061f1d?hl=en
* Individual frugality is no match for population growth - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/ff7513a55a2c0c8e?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: buying old meat from supermarket
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3fa9fe4b1c206b1a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 3:06 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Palindrome <me9@privacy.net> wrote:
> Dave Smith wrote:
>> Dimitri wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Other members of the family thought this was truly awful. My view
>>>> is that although if you smell it closely, it is different; but
>>>> that it is basically just a bit of *oxizidation* and it does not
>>>> effect the taste. Years ago they used to hang up 'game' outside
>>>> for weeks.
>>>
>>> Then again people used to die at 30 from natural causes Including
>>> parasites.
>>
>> Then again, a lot of people used to live very long lives. My mothers
>> ashes were interred in the cemetery of one of the older local
>> churches and visiting her grave I usually end up walking around
>> looking at the old grave markers. There are lots of infants and
>> young people buried there, but there are a surprising number of
>> people who lived well into their 80s and 90s. My sister in law is
>> quite convinced that people of previous generations lived longer and
>> that the average live expectancy is is skewed by infant mortality,
>> childhood diseases, mothers dying during childbirth, farm or
>> industrial accidents, but that once someone got past childhood and
>> reproductive years they were likely to live a long life.
> I suspect rural rather than city churches. Plenty of "five a day" and
> plenty of muck to build up a pretty good immune system in childhood.
Doesnt help with the infectious diseases the killed them.
> Which is really the answer to the OP's question.
Nope.
> If you have had a childhood eating stuff full of bacteria and toxins,
Pure fantasy. No one in the first world did anything like that,
even in the worst of the urban slums, let alone rural areas.
> a few more of the same aren't even going to be noticed. Even if you do get ill, it is going to be less ill and for
> less time, usually.
Have fun explaining how the infectious diseases killed so many and
now doesnt anymore once we invented and started to use vaccination.
> After a couple of years of living and working in Madagascar, I can probably cope eating anything that isn't trying to
> get off the table, all by itself - as long as it is cooked at high temperature for long enough.
Pity about what killed the colonialists in huge numbers compared with what we see today.
> Salads, overseas, OTOH...
== 2 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 3:23 pm
From: "Dimitri"
"Nancy2" <nancy-dooley@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
== 3 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 3:31 pm
From: Zilbandy
On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 14:05:00 -0400, TFM® <hillbillyboy@tampabay.rr.com>
wrote:
>I just finished eating some questionable ground lamb. First time I've ever
>had it. I'll update tomorrow if I become ill.
LOL. You'll update tomorrow if you upchuck tonight. :)
--
Zilbandy
== 4 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 3:43 pm
From: Seerialmom
On Sep 2, 10:53 am, "john d hamilton" <blues...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> As we know some people have a greater density of taste buds built into their
> tongues. I have less, but my wife and son have more than i do and they can
> detect subtle food flavours that I cannot.
>
> Tescos in North London U.K. sometime do meat in their 'reduced price'
> section. The other day I got some really good beef and lamb which was
> slightly 'darker' coloured from this section at about 1/4 of the normal
> price. I fried it up and enjoyed it and put the rest in the freezer.
>
> Other members of the family thought this was truly awful. My view is that
> although if you smell it closely, it is different; but that it is basically
> just a bit of *oxizidation* and it does not effect the taste. Years ago
> they used to hang up 'game' outside for weeks.
>
> Views on this really seem to divide people. But I cannot believe that a big
> store like Tesco would continue to sell this very slightly off coloured
> meat, if it represented any health risk.
> Any comments on this please, whether one can safetly consume such meat?
Did you tell the "others" about what a good deal you got on this
meat? I suspect that psychology had a lot more to do with how it
tasted than how it actually tasted. Personally I love it when I can
find those marked down for quick sale meats, my freezer is on and
waiting for those.
== 5 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 4:02 pm
From: "Dave"
"Nancy2" <nancy-dooley@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 take it you live on a ranch and slaughter your own beef? Otherwise, it's
probably months old before it gets to the supermarket, where it sits for a
week or longer before it is packaged. -Dave
== 6 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 4:03 pm
From: val189
It has been rumored that supermarkets use chickens past the pull-date
for their rotiss chickens. The price alone steers me away from 'em.
== 7 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 4:08 pm
From: "Dave"
"john d hamilton" <bluestar@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:g9jujd$p1b$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> As we know some people have a greater density of taste buds built into
their
> tongues. I have less, but my wife and son have more than i do and they
can
> detect subtle food flavours that I cannot.
>
> Tescos in North London U.K. sometime do meat in their 'reduced price'
> section. The other day I got some really good beef and lamb which was
> slightly 'darker' coloured from this section at about 1/4 of the normal
> price. I fried it up and enjoyed it and put the rest in the freezer.
>
> Other members of the family thought this was truly awful. My view is that
> although if you smell it closely, it is different; but that it is
basically
> just a bit of *oxizidation* and it does not effect the taste. Years ago
> they used to hang up 'game' outside for weeks.
>
> Views on this really seem to divide people. But I cannot believe that a
big
> store like Tesco would continue to sell this very slightly off coloured
> meat, if it represented any health risk.
> Any comments on this please, whether one can safetly consume such meat?
>
>
Well, the supermarket my wife used to go to a lot, they would often have old
meat tossed into a large bin, kind of like the cheapie dvd bins at wal-mart.
Just random cuts of meat, mostly beef and mostly steaks of various quality.
This bin was marked 4/$20, which was pretty good as some of the packages
were steaks that sold for $10 or more per package. So if you picked meat
out of the bin, you'd save 50% or better. All of the meat in this bin was
within a day or two of the sell by date. (almost expired)
My wife would often take advantage of this sale once or twice a month. We
got some really good meat this way. There is no risk to your health, if the
meat is cooked properly. But that's true, no matter how "old" the meat
s. -Dave
== 8 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 4:16 pm
From: Seerialmom
On Sep 2, 4:03 pm, val189 <gwehr...@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> It has been rumored that supermarkets use chickens past the pull-date
> for their rotiss chickens. The price alone steers me away from 'em.
They sell way too many of those chickens (in general, mind you) to be
"old" chickens. I tended to buy mine at Costco, and they go almost as
fast as they're put into the warming trays.
== 9 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 4:15 pm
From: "Dimitri"
"val189" <gwehrenb@bellsouth.net> wrote in message
news:971f1f28-78a6-4680-9c08-4f9053cf902e@m45g2000hsb.googlegroups.com...
>
>
> It has been rumored that supermarkets use chickens past the pull-date
> for their rotiss chickens. The price alone steers me away from 'em.
The other TRICK was pre-marinating so the meat didn't smell.
Dimitri
== 10 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 5:03 pm
From: "Lou"
"john d hamilton" <bluestar@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:g9jujd$p1b$1@registered.motzarella.org...
> As we know some people have a greater density of taste buds built into
their
> tongues. I have less, but my wife and son have more than i do and they
can
> detect subtle food flavours that I cannot.
>
> Tescos in North London U.K. sometime do meat in their 'reduced price'
> section. The other day I got some really good beef and lamb which was
> slightly 'darker' coloured from this section at about 1/4 of the normal
> price. I fried it up and enjoyed it and put the rest in the freezer.
>
> Other members of the family thought this was truly awful. My view is that
> although if you smell it closely, it is different; but that it is
basically
> just a bit of *oxizidation* and it does not effect the taste. Years ago
> they used to hang up 'game' outside for weeks.
>
> Views on this really seem to divide people. But I cannot believe that a
big
> store like Tesco would continue to sell this very slightly off coloured
> meat, if it represented any health risk.
> Any comments on this please, whether one can safetly consume such meat?
>
>
Empirically, since you ate it and suffered no apparent ill effects, the meat
was safe to consume. Taste, on the other hand, is a highly individual
matter. If your family is put off by the mere idea of eating meat that's
been in the cold case for a few days, I think they need to reconsider their
oh-so-delicate sensibilities - the idea of eating dead animals isn't from
some ethereal plane after all.
== 11 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 5:05 pm
From: "Lou"
"Dimitri" <Dimitri_C@prodigy.net> wrote in message
news:z1jvk.9075$cn7.3454@flpi145.ffdc.sbc.com...
>
> "Nancy2" <nancy-dooley@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.
A couple of days measured how? From the time the animal was killed? How
would you even know?
>
> 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
>
== 12 of 12 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 5:21 pm
From: SoCalMike
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.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Lower Wages for American Workers
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/41617a060889d131?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 3:09 pm
From: hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com
On Sep 2, 1:32 pm, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
> Bob Brock wrote:
> > On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:30:04 -0700, Gunner Asch
> > <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>
> >> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:43:48 -0400, "Joe 'bama" <Sc...@verizon.net>
> >> wrote:
>
> >>> <snip>
>
> >>>>> That is certainly what George W Bush thought. And then he proceeded to:
> >>>>> Create less than 1/4 the number of jobs then under Clinton.
> >>>> this is just flat out false and I am sure the balance of your post is
> >>>> just as ill informed
>
> >>> You are correct. This is flat out false. In fact, according to Bureau of
> >>> Labor Statistics,
>
> >>> (For the period from January 2001 - July 2005)
>
> >>> On average, The Bush's economy has created 393,000 new jobs per year.
>
> >>> On average, Clinton created 2.75 million per year.
>
> >>> That's NOT ¼ less jobs under Bush; That's almost 7 TIMES the number of jobs
> >>> created under Clinton than Bush!
>
> >> How many of Clintons jobs were "would you like fries with that?" and
> >> government jobs?
>
> >> Care to give us a break down?
>
> I don't have a breakdown under Clinton, certainly a lot of high tech
> jobs were added amongst others.
How many jobs were created just to look for those lost Los Alamos hard
drives alone??? And the No Bid contract he gave Haliburton must have
generated lots of jobs, too.
> Certainly wages rose. I do know that
> under W, the public sector job growth has been greater than the private
> sector.
Sure. He activated all those guard troops who might otherwise have
still been on unemployment in the private sector.
> >> Gunner
>
> > Even a fast food job beats no job at all. Well that is unless you are
> > happy on welfare and not paying your hospital bills.
>
> Traditional welfare makes up about 1% of the Fed budget. Few people
> make a "living" off welfare.
Then their deficit must be made up for in the underground economy...
That's why they are always looking over their shoulders.
> Even AFDC single moms tend to be off in a
> couple years. Arguably "corporate" welfare is a far higher percentage of
> the budget.
I have no dispute with that assessment.
> This right wing red meat issue has little impact on the economy.
>
> As you've stated, even a fast food job beats welfare.
I don't know about that. Many are "Jobs that Americans don't want"
because for far less effort they can get about the same from the
gov't.
> Jeff
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 3:17 pm
From: hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com
On Sep 2, 4:37 pm, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> Gunner Asch wrote:
> >On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:12:42 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
> >> you
>
> >>>should check out places like the kos where kooks like you can swap
> >>>idiotic rants like this and not have to deal with facts
>
> >> Here's some stats for you to choke on:
>
> >>http://clintonbushcharts.org/main/vis-imp-wg.html#our_charts
>
> >> Take a gander at the Stock Market Indexes. Look through the
> >>commodoties, check out the national debt and who holds it and you can
> >>finish up with the discretionary spending increases.
>
> >> The figures do not portray a compelling case for Bushonomics.
>
> >Based on the time lines shown..it does indeed reflect that Clinton
> >rode into office in the Reagan economy uplift,
>
> Are you totally nuts? Or just in that Bush denial?
No. Thems are the facts.
> Did you conveniently forget all about the G H W Bush recession that most
> reference as to why he lost to Clinton? The one where unemployment
> surged to nearly 8% - the highest since 1984?
I remember the media whipped up frenzy called "The Worst Economy Ever"
and the DNC slogan, "It's The Economy, Stupid."
It didn't compare to Carter's economy, and even Carter's economy
didn't compare to "The Depression." As a matter of fact, if you were
to return to the graphs, Bush's "Worst Economy Ever" was barely
registered as a blip. A non-event.
> > then left it on a down
> >note with the Clinton Recssion
>
> Huh? the recession started and ended after GW took office when
> investors & business flocked to the side lines (CDs, binds, curtailing
> business expansion, etc) in fear of GW policies.-
So the Republicans really don't kiss the ass of business?
> > and the Dot.Com Implosion
>
> >Bush came into office on the down turn of the Clinton recession,
> >followed by 911 and the financial (housing) bust) and the War on
> >Terror.
>
> The stock market & business rebounded rather quickly after 911.
>
> >Seems that given the handicaps he inherited....he as done pretty well
> >for a war president.
>
> >Gunner
>
> What are you smoking?
I'm going to guess Camel no-filters.
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 3:25 pm
From: clams_casino
hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>So the Republicans really don't kiss the ass of business?
>
>
They may kiss their ass, but when it comes around to investing, they run.
It's a known fact that the stock market has historically provided twice
the return under democrat vs. republican presidents - something like 8
vs. 4% from what I recall.
They cry all the way to the bank under democrat control.
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 3:26 pm
From: clams_casino
hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com wrote:
>
>
>How many jobs were created just to look for those lost Los Alamos hard
>drives alone??? And the No Bid contract he gave Haliburton must have
>generated lots of jobs, too.
>
>
>
That was the whole Bush economic plan.
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 3:35 pm
From: "John R. Carroll"
clams_casino wrote:
> Gunner Asch wrote:
>
>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 15:12:42 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>> you
>>>
>>>
>>>> should check out places like the kos where kooks like you can swap
>>>> idiotic rants like this and not have to deal with facts
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Here's some stats for you to choke on:
>>>
>>> http://clintonbushcharts.org/main/vis-imp-wg.html#our_charts
>>>
>>> Take a gander at the Stock Market Indexes. Look through the
>>> commodoties, check out the national debt and who holds it and you
>>> can finish up with the discretionary spending increases.
>>>
>>> The figures do not portray a compelling case for Bushonomics.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>> Based on the time lines shown..it does indeed reflect that Clinton
>> rode into office in the Reagan economy uplift,
>>
>
> Are you totally nuts?
Worse yet.
He's just an asshole, and an ignorant liar to boot.
--
John R. Carroll
www.machiningsolution.com
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 3:39 pm
From: Jeff
hot-ham-and-cheese@hotmail.com wrote:
> On Sep 2, 1:32 pm, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>> Bob Brock wrote:
>>> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 08:30:04 -0700, Gunner Asch
>>> <gun...@NOSPAMlightspeed.net> wrote:
>>>> On Tue, 2 Sep 2008 08:43:48 -0400, "Joe 'bama" <Sc...@verizon.net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>> <snip>
>>>>>>> That is certainly what George W Bush thought. And then he proceeded to:
>>>>>>> Create less than 1/4 the number of jobs then under Clinton.
>>>>>> this is just flat out false and I am sure the balance of your post is
>>>>>> just as ill informed
>>>>> You are correct. This is flat out false. In fact, according to Bureau of
>>>>> Labor Statistics,
>>>>> (For the period from January 2001 - July 2005)
>>>>> On average, The Bush's economy has created 393,000 new jobs per year.
>>>>> On average, Clinton created 2.75 million per year.
>>>>> That's NOT ¼ less jobs under Bush; That's almost 7 TIMES the number of jobs
>>>>> created under Clinton than Bush!
>>>> How many of Clintons jobs were "would you like fries with that?" and
>>>> government jobs?
>>>> Care to give us a break down?
>> I don't have a breakdown under Clinton, certainly a lot of high tech
>> jobs were added amongst others.
>
> How many jobs were created just to look for those lost Los Alamos hard
> drives alone???
Seems to be an occupation with job security:
http://www.pogo.org/p/homeland/ha-070806-lanl.html
A dozen incidents since Wen Ho Lee.
And the No Bid contract he gave Haliburton must have
> generated lots of jobs, too.
>
>> Certainly wages rose. I do know that
>> under W, the public sector job growth has been greater than the private
>> sector.
>
> Sure. He activated all those guard troops who might otherwise have
> still been on unemployment in the private sector.
Or employed.
I'm sure New Orleans officials were delighted to find most of the
National Guard's High Water Equipment (and most of it's communications
gear) was in Iraq at the time of Katrina.
>
>>>> Gunner
>>> Even a fast food job beats no job at all. Well that is unless you are
>>> happy on welfare and not paying your hospital bills.
>> Traditional welfare makes up about 1% of the Fed budget. Few people
>> make a "living" off welfare.
>
> Then their deficit must be made up for in the underground economy...
> That's why they are always looking over their shoulders.
>
>> Even AFDC single moms tend to be off in a
>> couple years. Arguably "corporate" welfare is a far higher percentage of
>> the budget.
>
> I have no dispute with that assessment.
>
>> This right wing red meat issue has little impact on the economy.
>>
>> As you've stated, even a fast food job beats welfare.
>
> I don't know about that. Many are "Jobs that Americans don't want"
> because for far less effort they can get about the same from the
> gov't.
The trend had been away from welfare, which is a good thing. My
understanding is that food stamp payments are soaring though. Not such a
good thing making bad gasoline (ethanol gets much poorer mileage) out of
food (corn).
I'd like to see this agra business welfare terminated. Won't happen
under this dumb lame duck.
Jeff
>
>> Jeff
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Electricity Rates - wasRe: Home heating oil price?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/25ab6d7a439ac7f1?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 3:17 pm
From: Jeff
Neon John wrote:
> On Mon, 01 Sep 2008 15:43:49 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>
>> Neon John wrote:
>>> On Sun, 31 Aug 2008 22:39:39 -0400, Jeff <jeff@spam_me_not.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> Not as bad here in Atlanta. About .10/kWh averaging in delivery and
>>>> other costs. A surcharge for going over 650kWh in the summer and a
>>>> discount in the winter. Most people heat with natural gas which is a
>>>> good bit cheaper but is subject to wild fluctuations, I've been adding
>>>> solar thermal none the less.
>>> Where are you getting power that cheap? In Cobb County over 15 years ago the
>>> winter rate was higher than that and the summer rate even higher. I'm afraid
>>> to quote a number, it's been so long but 14 cent/kWh is lingering in my mind.
>> Georgia Power. Southern Company.
>>
>> They have the rates hidden, but I pay about $65 for 650 kWhrs. You
>> may have been on Cobb EMC.
>
> I was. I just couldn't remember the name. Do you get your power directly
> from GaP or do you have a local utility?
Direct. I think that is common, at least in Atlanta I think it is the
only choice.
I knew that Cobb EMC was higher than
> other parts of Atlanta but I didn't think that they were that high.
>
> Do you have gas? I left just as they were "deregulating" (sic) gas. I heard
> from friends still in Cobb county that their gas bills doubled. True with
> you?
I used to have gas! Deregulation sent the pricing through the roof (2
- 3 x or so) and added a delivery charge from the old utility. The
delivery charge is a three page calculation and you pay it even if you
use no gas. That pissed me off.
With that said, natural gas is much cheaper than heating oil. About
$1.40/therm + probably another .50/therm in delivery charges and the
usual several dollars in overhead costs. My guess is it's about 1/2 to
2/3 of what oil is.
I'm trending solar with spot heating by space heaters. I'll have a
120 SF of solar water up by winter and I've got 160 SF of air collector
on the south wall.
And, as you know, insulation is your best heating investment. At
least it was mine!
Jeff
>
> John
> --
> John De Armond
> See my website for my current email address
> http://www.neon-john.com
> http://www.johndearmond.com <-- best little blog on the net!
> Tellico Plains, Occupied TN
> Remember, amateurs made the Ark, professionals made the Titanic.
>
==============================================================================
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 3 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 4:15 pm
From: Al Bundy
On Sep 2, 3:40 pm, Wally <w_co...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
>
> Thanks,
> Walter
I believe you will find the automotive interiors are more durable than
inside carpet. You should do well with carpet cleaner. The newer
carpet cleaners are designed for machines with heavy suction to rinse
and pick up the residue. You are probably not using such equipment on
the car so you need to make up for it with more rinsing and drying
with extra towels. Then you had better keep a fan on it until it
dries. Don't go crazy with water either because there are electronics
under and in the seats on many vehicles. Since this is a frugal site,
I will admit that I have used dish soap to do a fair job. My attitude
is not to let the vehicle own me. I do such things the quickest and
cheapest way possible. I would sooner place my cash on the mechanicals
of the ride.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 4:18 pm
From: Seerialmom
On Sep 2, 12:40 pm, Wally <w_co...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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?
>
> Thanks,
> Walter
Probably no major difference. Just packaging and catching people who
think they need different products for different purposes. Reminds me
of a story I read recently (but forgot where) that a pair of scissors
for "human hair" was exactly the same as the 1/4 the price "pet hair"
scissors.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 5:16 pm
From: "Lou"
"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: Frugal ideas (on topic)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/b0fb633415061f1d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 5:02 pm
From: chief_thracian@yahoo.com (Chief Thracian)
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:
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.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 2 2008 5:02 pm
From: chief_thracian@yahoo.com (Chief Thracian)
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.
==============================================================================
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: Tues, Sep 2 2008 5:12 pm
From: "Lou"
"Enough Already" <enough_already@lycos.com> wrote in message
news:b9e492ad-3225-41e2-af4b-7b9c79abebed@s1g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
> 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.
The price of oil, so far anyway, is a political problem, not one of supply.
> 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.
Feel free to step aside at any time in order to make room for someone new.
==============================================================================
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