Frugal Living: 18 new messages in 9 topics

Tuesday, October 7, 2008

18 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: Frugal living may entail remaining smart and productive with age.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/4c3aa74184d732e8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 6 2008 3:08 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Al Bundy <MSfortune@mcpmail.com> wrote:
> On Oct 6, 2:29 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Al Bundy <MSfort...@mcpmail.com> wrote:
>>> On Oct 4, 5:24 pm, phil scott <p...@philscott.net> wrote:
>>>> This is my situation at least, early on I decided to work to the
>>>> bloody end... as over work, or getting involved in pure investments
>>>> (no production) in order to have money were counter productive.
>>
>>>> ***
>>>> It may be this that inhibits working at higher compensation rates
>>>> into old age....
>>
>>>> occurring in just the last half a generation or so in the US and
>>>> much of developed Europe... the practice of industrial beef
>>>> farming, in pens, feeding grains instead of the natural grass feed.
>>
>>>> It seems that free range *grass fed beef produces meat dominated by
>>>> omega 3 fatty acids, those are soluble and do not clogg ones brain
>>>> and ass with huge globbs of fat... that is because the highly acid
>>>> stomach that processes *grain in a cow becomes *acid when fed
>>>> grain, that results in non soluble fat production, and almost a
>>>> total dirth of omega 3 fat production.
>>
>>>> (for fully accurate information you can search this breaking news
>>>> on google).
>>
>>>> Now we have salmon, very high in Omega 3 fatty acids being raised
>>>> in pens, and fed *grain... Eliminating a high percentage of their
>>>> natural Omega 3's. The beef and salmon are also fed hormones so
>>>> they gain weight faster. .. you get those same hormones when you
>>>> eat the meat causing you to gain weight also... that is
>>>> accumulate fat, and much of that occuldes blood flow to the brain
>>>> (varies in individuals for a wide range of reasons)
>>
>>>> This is a superb way to become both fat and stupid at warp speed
>>>> apparently...
>>
>>>> you don't see this combination in china or india... mostly those
>>>> are too poor to afford feed lot cattle... their students noted for
>>>> high accademic performance is no surprise.
>>
>>>> countries like Japan wigh diets high in wild ocean fish also don't
>>>> demonstrate this combination of problems.
>>
>>>> In the US we have concentrated on what makes a person look like
>>>> hell, the big fat ass problem. ... not brain function, we have
>>>> not even seen that as an issue......clogging the larger organs,
>>>> arteries, veins and capilaries that carry blood to the brain,
>>>> depriving the neurons of oxygen at the cellular level...oxygen
>>>> needed to operate.
>>
>>>> fat blubbery asses, and actual stupidity ensue.
>>
>>>> **
>>>> Reversal is attained by eating free range grass fed beef. chicken
>>>> and wild ocean fish, esp salmon... fresh green salads and fruit.
>>>> Hormone free dairy products, and much less grain than usual... and
>>>> working out 30 minutes a day...
>>
>>>> in about 3 months the results will be near miraculous, and after a
>>>> year or two you may notice a marked resurgence of intelligence...
>>
>>>> in my case for instance, I'm an engineer, 40 years in the
>>>> business, designing and building complex controls systems, very
>>>> complex wiring and controls algorithms... this used to be more
>>>> than a complete challenge for me, and I had to painstakingly draw
>>>> out a wiring diagram, worry over it for days, then build it, wire
>>>> for wire..rotely.... because I was unable to keep the entire
>>>> system and logic in my mind and just wire it from that range of
>>>> insights.
>>
>>>> For the last few years, even as I am older ( 67 now) I build these
>>>> systems off of my logic diagrams, drawn in seconds. Then I do all
>>>> the wiring out of my head, no diagrams.. thats not common at any
>>>> age.
>>
>>>> .when its done, I produce a diagram so others can follow if they
>>>> need to trouble shoot or add to it later.... my brain is simply
>>>> not bathed in grease any longer.
>>
>>>> (other issues include an amyloid purge, you can find my articles on
>>>> that by google search .... my name as author, no news group, and
>>>> word in subject 'amyloid'. 'or amyloids'.)
>>
>>>> Phil scott
>>
>>> In my opinion, you are cramming for your finals by spilling your
>>> guts here, not that there's anything wrong with it.
>>
>> Just goes to show what your opinion is worth then doesnt it ?
>>
>> Have a look at this loon's history sometime.
>
> Exactly the point, "history."

Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Apparently 99 cents Only is really a buck now?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/bf36b60ccb6c13ba?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 6 2008 3:26 pm
From: SMS

larry wrote:
> Don Klipstein wrote:
>>
>> So a few or several decades ago we had "5-and-10 stores" that got to
>> be known as "dime stores".
>> And when "dime store merchandise" cost 25 to 49 cents, there were
>> still people calling such retailers "dime stores".
>> Such stores included to a bit of an extent "Woolworth", which was
>> some sort of a hybrid of a "dime store" and a "department store".
>> And after that, K-mart did a bit of beating Woolworth at their own
>> game,
>> and all-too-soon-afterwards Wal-Mart did so further...
>
> G C Murphy, W T Grant, F W Woolworth, S S Kresge, J G McCrory, J C
> Penney, to name a few. Most long gone, but not forgotten by millions of
> kids growing up in the 40s 50 & 60s. About 5 years ago I stumbled upon
> a webpage page with many pictures of abandoned store fronts all over the
> US of just these names. Every small town had at least one.

And now we see the abandoned malls that took the place of many of these
abandoned stores, as Wal-Mart, Target, and Costco become the latest
trend in retailing.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Math on the bailout doesn't add up...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3213ff522966e10e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 6 2008 4:02 pm
From: krw

In article <48e81ad2$0$31802$a8266bb1@news.titannews.com>,
curlysurmudgeon@live.com says...
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 20:44:33 -0400, Bob Brock wrote:
>
> > On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 19:09:20 -0500, Dean Hoffman
> > <""dh0496\"@ine$br#as&ka.com"> wrote:
> >
> >>Michael Coburn wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>> The Republicans were indeed responsible for the Tech Stock bubble and
> >>> the Housing bubble.
> >>>
> >>> The Bubbles:
> >>>
> >>> IN 1997 the Gingrich Congress passed the "Taxpayer Relief Act" as a
> >>> totally veto proof bill. Clinton could no more veto this Republican
> >>> tax cut than he could have turned back the tide. The vote in the House
> >>> was 3xx to < 50 and in the Senate it was 90 to 8 (or close to it). No
> >>> veto of that bill was possible. It was a Republican bill all the way.
> >>> That tax code adjustment allowed people to cash out of their homes (a
> >>> retirement vehicle for most Americans) and to use the TAX FREE capital
> >>> gains for speculative purposes in the highly touted tech stocks and, at
> >>> the sam3e time to use a new home as a speculative vehicle.. And the
> >>> gains from such gambling ("investment") would be taxed at a mere 15%.
> >>> Prior to this speculation enabling bill homeowners could move from one
> >>> home to another with no tax penalty and could then take a one time
> >>> exemption at retirement (empty nest). But the new rules allowed the
> >>> American to use the money from the house to gamble in both real estate
> >>> and in the stock market.
> >>
> >>
> >> The Act was veto proof because a lot of Senate Democrats voted for
> >>it. The election in 1996 ended with the Reps having a 55-45 edge over
> >>the Dems. http://tinyurl.com/4jaoyv
> >> The Republican edge in the House was 228 to 206. There were not
> >>enough Republicans to override a Presidential veto there either.
> >> For the non Americans a veto override requires a 2/3 majority in
> >>both the House and the Senate. Article 1, Section 7.
> >>http://tinyurl.com/nzrc The Senate has 100 members, the House 435.
> >>
> >> Dean
> >>
> >>
> >>----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
> >>News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
> >>>100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---
> > There was no need to worry about overriding a Presidential veto when the
> > Republicans controlled Congress and Bush was President. Bush got
> > everything that he wanted and vetoed nothing.

I guess got his Social Security reforms through, eh?

> I seem to remember a report that said htat Bush has _never_ vetoed a
> single bill sent to him. None. Not a one.

Such stupid statements are too easy to check before making.

--
Keith

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 6 2008 5:36 pm
From: Dean Hoffman <""dh0496\"@ine$br#as&ka.com">

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 20:44:33 -0400, Bob Brock wrote:
>
>> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 19:09:20 -0500, Dean Hoffman
>> <""dh0496\"@ine$br#as&ka.com"> wrote:
>>
>>> Michael Coburn wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> The Republicans were indeed responsible for the Tech Stock bubble and
>>>> the Housing bubble.
>>>>
>>>> The Bubbles:
>>>>
>>>> IN 1997 the Gingrich Congress passed the "Taxpayer Relief Act" as a
>>>> totally veto proof bill. Clinton could no more veto this Republican
>>>> tax cut than he could have turned back the tide. The vote in the House
>>>> was 3xx to < 50 and in the Senate it was 90 to 8 (or close to it). No
>>>> veto of that bill was possible. It was a Republican bill all the way.
>>>> That tax code adjustment allowed people to cash out of their homes (a
>>>> retirement vehicle for most Americans) and to use the TAX FREE capital
>>>> gains for speculative purposes in the highly touted tech stocks and, at
>>>> the sam3e time to use a new home as a speculative vehicle.. And the
>>>> gains from such gambling ("investment") would be taxed at a mere 15%.
>>>> Prior to this speculation enabling bill homeowners could move from one
>>>> home to another with no tax penalty and could then take a one time
>>>> exemption at retirement (empty nest). But the new rules allowed the
>>>> American to use the money from the house to gamble in both real estate
>>>> and in the stock market.
>>>
>>> The Act was veto proof because a lot of Senate Democrats voted for
>>> it. The election in 1996 ended with the Reps having a 55-45 edge over
>>> the Dems. http://tinyurl.com/4jaoyv
>>> The Republican edge in the House was 228 to 206. There were not
>>> enough Republicans to override a Presidential veto there either.
>>> For the non Americans a veto override requires a 2/3 majority in
>>> both the House and the Senate. Article 1, Section 7.
>>> http://tinyurl.com/nzrc The Senate has 100 members, the House 435.
>>>
>
> I seem to remember a report that said htat Bush has _never_ vetoed a
> single bill sent to him. None. Not a one.
>

He didn't veto any until a couple years ago if this is right:
http://tinyurl.com/qffoj
He would've gone about a full term and a half without finding the
veto pen. I bet it was under the sofa cushions.
Our lying weasels didn't learn the lesson. They imposed
requirements on the lending institutions that partially lead to their
collapse. Now they have added requirements on the insurance industry.
http://tinyurl.com/5ysju6
.
Dean

----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet News==----
http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World! >100,000 Newsgroups
---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 6 2008 8:22 pm
From: Jim

Dean Hoffman wrote:
>
[....]
> Our lying weasels didn't learn the lesson. They imposed
> requirements on the lending institutions that partially lead to their
> collapse. Now they have added requirements on the insurance industry.
> http://tinyurl.com/5ysju6
>

in a nation where God is the last place the vast majority
are going to take their problems then there is a great need
for feel good talk talk therapy.

Dean, by bringing this article to our attention were you making
fun of our yankee government or just some of their decisions?

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 6 2008 9:13 pm
From: Curly Surmudgeon

On Mon, 06 Oct 2008 19:36:29 -0500, Dean Hoffman wrote:

> Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
>> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 20:44:33 -0400, Bob Brock wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 03 Oct 2008 19:09:20 -0500, Dean Hoffman
>>> <""dh0496\"@ine$br#as&ka.com"> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael Coburn wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> The Republicans were indeed responsible for the Tech Stock bubble and
>>>>> the Housing bubble.
>>>>>
>>>>> The Bubbles:
>>>>>
>>>>> IN 1997 the Gingrich Congress passed the "Taxpayer Relief Act" as a
>>>>> totally veto proof bill. Clinton could no more veto this Republican
>>>>> tax cut than he could have turned back the tide. The vote in the
>>>>> House was 3xx to < 50 and in the Senate it was 90 to 8 (or close to
>>>>> it). No veto of that bill was possible. It was a Republican bill
>>>>> all the way. That tax code adjustment allowed people to cash out of
>>>>> their homes (a retirement vehicle for most Americans) and to use the
>>>>> TAX FREE capital gains for speculative purposes in the highly touted
>>>>> tech stocks and, at the sam3e time to use a new home as a speculative
>>>>> vehicle.. And the gains from such gambling ("investment") would be
>>>>> taxed at a mere 15%. Prior to this speculation enabling bill
>>>>> homeowners could move from one home to another with no tax penalty
>>>>> and could then take a one time exemption at retirement (empty nest).
>>>>> But the new rules allowed the American to use the money from the
>>>>> house to gamble in both real estate and in the stock market.
>>>>
>>>> The Act was veto proof because a lot of Senate Democrats voted for
>>>> it. The election in 1996 ended with the Reps having a 55-45 edge over
>>>> the Dems. http://tinyurl.com/4jaoyv
>>>> The Republican edge in the House was 228 to 206. There were not
>>>> enough Republicans to override a Presidential veto there either.
>>>> For the non Americans a veto override requires a 2/3 majority in
>>>> both the House and the Senate. Article 1, Section 7.
>>>> http://tinyurl.com/nzrc The Senate has 100 members, the House 435.
>>>>
>>>>
>> I seem to remember a report that said htat Bush has _never_ vetoed a
>> single bill sent to him. None. Not a one.
>>
>>
> He didn't veto any until a couple years ago if this is right:
> http://tinyurl.com/qffoj
> He would've gone about a full term and a half without finding the
> veto pen. I bet it was under the sofa cushions.

According to that link Bush did veto 12 times in 7.7 years. He also has
the highest rate of being overridden.

> Our lying weasels didn't learn the lesson. They imposed
> requirements on the lending institutions that partially lead to their
> collapse. Now they have added requirements on the insurance industry.
> http://tinyurl.com/5ysju6
> .
> Dean
>
>
>
>
> ----== Posted via Pronews.Com - Unlimited-Unrestricted-Secure Usenet
> News==---- http://www.pronews.com The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
>>100,000 Newsgroups ---= - Total Privacy via Encryption =---

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jail to the Chief
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

................................................................
Posted via TITANnews - Uncensored Newsgroups Access
>>>> at http://www.TitanNews.com <<<<
-=Every Newsgroup - Anonymous, UNCENSORED, BROADBAND Downloads=-

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Finally Food Rules: Labels Must Now Give Origin
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/9f4e7b1b98db8948?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 6 2008 4:12 pm
From: whudson1903@gmail.com

On Oct 6, 1:36 pm, r...@iheartbarneyfrank.org wrote:
> (As for me, I ain't eating NOTHIN grown in Mexico and Central America)
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5959494&page=1
>
> Food Rules: Labels Must Now Give Origin
> Stricter Rules for Labeling Follow Series of Contamination Scandals
> By ELIZABETH LEAMY and KRISTEN RED-HORSE
> Oct. 5, 2008
>
> New regulations at U.S. supermarkets are giving consumers the
> knowledge they have been asking for—where the fresh food they buy
> originates.
>
> A sticker shows the country of origin of an avocado in San Rafael,
> California.
>
> Recent food contaminations have made headlines across the globe
> causing deaths, illness and overall unease. Most recently melamine has
> tainted dairy from China, salmonella was found in peppers in Mexico,
> there were cases of E. coli infected spinach from California and beef
> originating in Omaha.
>
> The country of origin labels will now be on beef, pork, lamb, chicken,
> goat meat, perishable agricultural commodities, peanuts, pecans,
> ginseng, and macadamia nuts. The labeling will provide a sense of
> safety and accountability to concerned consumers.
>
> For safety advocates it is a huge step forward. "It's vitally
> important to ensure that products coming in from other countries as
> well as ones growing here are quickly identified in an outbreak," says
> Caroline Smith DeWaal, Director of Food and Safety Center for Science
> in the Public Interest.
>
> But some food safety advocates say country of origin labeling is not
> specific enough. They want to see labels containing bar codes that can
> automatically trace foods all the way back to the farm.
>
> The tomato industry was furious with the Food and Drug Administration
> when their crop was wrongly targeted this past summer in one of the
> nation's largest salmonella outbreaks. Better labeling, and especially
> the use of barcodes in labels, could have streamlined the
> investigation and saved millions of dollars when perfectly good
> tomatoes were left to rot.
>
> The labeling law passed in 2002, but food producers fought it until
> now because of the cost and burden.
>
> "The industry has fought labeling tooth and nail because if you have
> labeling… people could decide whether they wanted to eat this food or
> not," says Michael Pollan, author of "In Defense of Food." There are
> worries that though peppers from Mexico are safe now, as is spinach
> from California, consumers might not be interested in buying these
> foods from these locations.
>
> There are loopholes in this new labeling system. Foods produced in the
> United States but packed in Mexico can still be labeled "product of
> USA." This common practice hindered government investigators when they
> were searching for tainted tomatoes. If a product like hamburger meat
> contains ground beef from the U.S. and another country, both will be
> listed but there won't be specific indication of what percentage comes
> from each country.
>
> Processed foods like bacon need no labeling; nor do foods used as
> ingredients in other products. For instance, lettuce must now be
> labeled, but salad mixes containing lettuce and carrots will not be.
> Raw shrimp requires a label but if the store adds spices, it then
> becomes unnecessary. "We need to go much farther to have a system of
> traceability that consumers can really trust," says DeWaal.
>
> Food producers have up to six months to comply with the new law. After
> that they could face fines up to $1,000.
>
> Besides being a better way to track meats and produce the law could
> make people more aware of their actions. Buying locally grown products
> could infuse the local economy. It also lessens the food's carbon
> imprint since the trip from the farm to the market is shorter

Come now, you must savor diversity including biologicals i.e.
salmonella, etc.

Walter Hudson

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 6 2008 9:06 pm
From: beans@smithfarms.com

On Mon, 6 Oct 2008 16:12:29 -0700 (PDT), whudson1903@gmail.com wrote:

>On Oct 6, 1:36 pm, r...@iheartbarneyfrank.org wrote:
>> (As for me, I ain't eating NOTHIN grown in Mexico and Central America)
>>
>> http://abcnews.go.com/Health/story?id=5959494&page=1
>>
>> Food Rules: Labels Must Now Give Origin
>> Stricter Rules for Labeling Follow Series of Contamination Scandals
>> By ELIZABETH LEAMY and KRISTEN RED-HORSE
>> Oct. 5, 2008
>>
>> New regulations at U.S. supermarkets are giving consumers the
>> knowledge they have been asking for—where the fresh food they buy
>> originates.
>>
face fines up to $1,000.
>>
>> Besides being a better way to track meats and produce the law could
>> make people more aware of their actions. Buying locally grown products
>> could infuse the local economy. It also lessens the food's carbon
>> imprint since the trip from the farm to the market is shorter
>
>Come now, you must savor diversity including biologicals i.e.
>salmonella, etc.
>
>Walter Hudson

And not all foods are listed. Coffee for example that may be a blend
of several sources, does not have to acknowledge all the sources, so
although you'll know in Hawaii that a Kona Blend needs to contain 10%
REAL Kona, it has no bearing elsewhere and of course, we never have to
say EVER what 90% of the bag ever is- in Hawaii. COOL is a good first
step but not THE answer.

aloha,
beans- a coffee grower....
roast beans to kona to email
farmers of Pure Kona

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What cars to consider - with mileage > 40 mpg?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/57768249de21eea6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 6 2008 4:50 pm
From: Lou

John Weiss wrote:
> "Don Klipstein" <don@manx.misty.com> wrote...
>> I thought gasoline engines with higher compression ratios than modern
>> ones that can take 87 octane gas (or 86 or whatever in high altitude areas
>> like Denver) required higher octane gas in order to not knock.
>
> That is true. While the "101 octane" of some of the old leaded gasolines was
> based on a different measurement system than the current, standardized system,
> it would still probably measure 95+ by today's standard...
>
> A couple things contributed to the reduction of compression ratios: elimination
> of lead from gas and EPA NOx emission standards.
>
> Unleaded fuel has lower octane rating than leaded, and the other additives used
> to increase octane these days are more expensive and less effective in raising
> the octane. Hence, there is a limit to the compression ratio that can be used
> without knocking.
>
> Also, higher compression yields higher temperature, which results in increased
> NOx creation even as the engine gets more efficient. So, mfgrs have to engineer
> a balance of power, efficiency, drivability, emissions and after-treatment
> (e.g., catalytic converters) to meet all the standards.
>
>
It would seem to me, in my naiveté, that a relatively easy way to reduce
NOx emissions would be to exclude nitrogen from the combustion chamber.
Why couldn't an oxygen concentrator be used to filter out the nitrogen
and supply oxygen and residual inert gases to the engine?

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 6 2008 5:19 pm
From: "John Weiss"

"Lou" <lpogoda@hotmail.com> wrote...
>
> It would seem to me, in my naiveté, that a relatively easy way to reduce NOx
> emissions would be to exclude nitrogen from the combustion chamber. Why
> couldn't an oxygen concentrator be used to filter out the nitrogen and supply
> oxygen and residual inert gases to the engine?

Would you want to pay for that on your car?

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 6 2008 7:20 pm
From: Jeff

Don Klipstein wrote:
> In article <gc15n0$qg8$1@aioe.org>, Lou wrote in part:
>> OhioGuy wrote:
>>> Ok, I've got to respond to that. Yes, Diesel is often 30 or 40 cents
>>> more than gasoline in the USA. This is mostly artificial, due to higher
>>> taxes that are levied on it - they assume that mostly huge rigs are
>>> using Diesel, and putting most of the wear on the highways.
>> It doesn't matter if the price is "artificial" or not, the differential
>> is still there at the moment.
>>
>>> Anyway, you are talking about maybe a 10% difference in price. Diesel
>>> fuel has about 30% more energy in it per gallon, which is most of what
>>> gives a Diesel more miles per gallon. This greater miles per gallon
>>> more than makes up for the difference in fuel price.
>> According to http://bioenergy.ornl.gov/papers/misc/energy_conv.html a
>> gallon of gas contains 115000 BTU and a gallon of diesel contains 130500
>> BTU. That's a difference of around 12% - the usual figure I've seen
>> quoted is 11%. On the face of it, in terms of energy content, diesel
>> and gas cost pretty much the same, if diesel is 10% more expensive per
>> gallon than gasoline.
>
> Except that diesel engines tend to have higher efficiency of converting
> BTUs to mechanical energy due to typically having a higher compression
> ratio.

I was wondering if anyone was going to mention that and, of course,
Don knew. There's a few tricks for coaching high compression ratios out
of gasoline

Diesel is currently more expensive than gas, and ethanol is a
terrible idea. But I see that Obama has mentioned biodiesel more than
once, and I have to think, smart...

Now, I know what I would I would buy and it wouldn't be diesel. I'd
buy a Honda Civic HX. I suppose the modern equivalent is the FIT.
Variable Valve Timing tuned for efficiency, not power. Built to last...

Jeff

>
> - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Free Calendars. R.U. frugal?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/029c0f2f81b4ee96?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 6 2008 4:57 pm
From: Shawn Hirn

In article
<georgewkspam-C3FBB6.07471906102008@sn-ip.vsrv-sjc.supernews.net>,
A 'Nam Veteran <georgewkspam@humboldt1.com> wrote:

> I used to buy expensive calendars with the pretty pictures .
> Now , I find a hardware store give-away and glue the month part over the
> old month. after all its been awhile since I've seen the art.
> or you can get a 11 or 12 y.o. calendar and the day/dates match.
> anyone that much of a hoarder?

To each his own. I have a very busy schedule so I use a PDA and desktop
software for my calendar. I haven't used a paper calendar for at least
the past five years.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 6 2008 5:01 pm
From: Lou

A 'Nam Veteran wrote:
> I used to buy expensive calendars with the pretty pictures .
> Now , I find a hardware store give-away and glue the month part over the
> old month. after all its been awhile since I've seen the art.
> or you can get a 11 or 12 y.o. calendar and the day/dates match.
> anyone that much of a hoarder?

A year can start on any one of the seven days of the week. If it
weren't for leap years, seven calendars would be all anyone ever needed.
Leap years complicate the pattern however.

For everyday purposes, the cycle repeats every 28 years. However,
century years are not leap years unless they're divisible by 400. The
upshot is that the entire cycle repeats every 400 years. You could have
used your old calendar from 1608 this year. I confess that I don't
hoard quite that much.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Trade company - www.ciciaaa.cn
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/04560289cdbc7fa3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 6 2008 6:27 pm
From: cicitrade01@yahoo.cn

Nike Air Jordan 15 XV Force 1 Jordan Fusion AJF 15 AJF15 AJ15F
www.ciciaaa.cn Jordan 15 fusion
Nike Air Jordan 16 XVI Force 1 Jordan Fusion AJF 16 AJF16 AJ16F
www.ciciaaa.cn Jordan 16 fusion
Nike Air Jordan 17 XVII Force 1 Jordan Fusion AJF 17 AJF17 AJ17F
www.ciciaaa.cn Jordan 17 fusion
Nike Air Jordan 18 XVIII Force 1 Jordan Fusion AJF18 AJF18 AJ18F
www.ciciaaa.cn Jordan 18 fusion
Nike Air Jordan 19 XIX Force 1 Jordan Fusion AJF 19 AJF19 AJ19F
www.ciciaaa.cn Jordan 19 fusion
Nike Air Jordan 20 XX Force 1 Jordan Fusion AJF 20 AJF20 AJ20F
www.ciciaaa.cn Jordan 20 fusion
Nike Air Jordan 21 XXI PE Force 1 Jordan Fusion AJF 21 AJF21 AJ21F
www.ciciaaa.cn Jordan 21 fusion
Nike Air Jordan XXII 22 Force 1 Jordan Fusion AJF 22 AJF22 AJ22F
www.ciciaaa.cn Jordan 22 fusion
Nike Air Jordan XXIII 23 Force 1 Jordan Fusion AJF 23 AJF23 AJ23F
www.ciciaaa.cn Jordan 23 fusion
Jordan 4-11 Fusion www.ciciaaa.cn
Jordan 7-8 Fusion www.ciciaaa.cn
Jordan 10-12 Fusion www.ciciaaa.cn
Jordan 11-13 Fusion www.ciciaaa.cn
Jordan 9-23 Fusion www.ciciaaa.cn
Jordan 13-23 Fusion www.ciciaaa.cn
Jordan 1 jordan 4 jordan 5 jordan 5 fusion jordan 5 jordan 3 fusion
jordan 3 Jordan 23 jordan 11 jordan 12

jordan 7 jordan 8 jordan 6 jordan 6 rings
jordan 13 jordan 14 jordan 15 jordan 2 Jordan 7.5 Jordan 9.5 Jordan
12.5 Jordan 3.5 Jordan 4.5 Jordan

15.5 Jordan 19.5 Jordan 21.5 Jordan 21 Jordan 22
AIR Jordan 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23
shoes on www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 1 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 2 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 3 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 4 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 5 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 6 Rings www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 6 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 7 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 8 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 9 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 10 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 11 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 12 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 13 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 14 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 15 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 16 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 17 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 18 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 19 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 20 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 21 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 22 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 23 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 3.5 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR AIR Jordan 4.5 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 7.5 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 9.5 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 12.5 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 15.5 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 19.5 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan 21.5 www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan Large Size Jordan www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan Size 14 Jordan www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan Size 15 shoes www.ciciaaa.cn
AIR Jordan DMP www.ciciaaa.cn
cicitr...@live.cn
Air max 87 www.ciciaaa.cn
Air max 89 www.ciciaaa.cn
Air max 90 www.ciciaaa.cn
Air max 91 www.ciciaaa.cn
Air max 95 www.ciciaaa.cn
Air max 97 www.ciciaaa.cn
Air max 2003 www.ciciaaa.cn
Air max 2006 www.ciciaaa.cn
Air max tn www.ciciaaa.cn
Air max ltd www.ciciaaa.cn
Air max stab www.ciciaaa.cn
www.ciciaaa.cn
cicitr...@live.cn
Shox R3 www.ciciaaa.cn
Shox R4 www.ciciaaa.cn
Shox R5 www.ciciaaa.cn
Shox R6 www.ciciaaa.cn
Shox OZ www.ciciaaa.cn
Shox NZ www.ciciaaa.cn
Shox Zoom www.ciciaaa.cn
Shox TL3 www.ciciaaa.cn
Shox Monester www.ciciaaa.cn
Nike shox www.ciciaaa.cn
cicitr...@live.cn
Nike air force one, air force 1, air force one low cut, air force one
high cut, air force one release date
Air force one, air foce one 25TH, af 1, af 1 25TH, Nike air force one
new releases, limited version
Air Force One www.ciciaaa.cn
Air Force one 25TH www.ciciaaa.cn
AF 1 www.ciciaaa.cn
AF 1 25TH www.ciciaaa.cn
www.ciciaaa.cn
cicitr...@live.cn
Dunk sb nike sb dunk nike dunk sb dunk sb high dunk sb low dunk sb
woman
Nike sb dunk Nike Dunk High SB nike dunk low premuim sb Nike SB Dunk
High Shimizu
Nike SB Dunk Pro Nike SB Dunk Dunk SB www.ciciaaa.cn
Nike Dunk shoes www.ciciaaa.cn
Dunk shoes for woman www.ciciaaa.cn
Dunk low cut www.ciciaaa.cn
Dunk high cut www.ciciaaa.cn
Timberland Boots - Timberland Shoes - Timberland Footwear
UGG? boots for women, men and kids
UGG Classic Short, Classic Short Boots, Classic Sheepskin Boots

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Should I renew my AIG auto insurance policy or not?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/0b89a5d081044ad3?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 6 2008 8:17 pm
From: "void.no.spam.com@gmail.com"

My auto insurance policy is with AIG, and it is about to expire. The
rate is pretty good, so I want to renew the policy, but I wonder if I
should look for another company, given their problems? Will AIG
disappear, or does their bailout mean they definitely won't disappear?

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 6 2008 8:31 pm
From: "John A. Weeks III"

In article
<fbce85d2-bcab-4e2a-8cd0-700b2ba865f0@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
"void.no.spam.com@gmail.com" <void.no.spam.com@gmail.com> wrote:

> My auto insurance policy is with AIG, and it is about to expire. The
> rate is pretty good, so I want to renew the policy, but I wonder if I
> should look for another company, given their problems? Will AIG
> disappear, or does their bailout mean they definitely won't disappear?

What problems? AIG auto insurance company has not had any problems,
and they are as solid as rock. The company that has problems was
another company, also called AIG, but is in the business of
insuring investment deals and bonds. Each of the various AIG
companies are separate corporations held by a holding company.
One going bust doesn't hurt any of its siblings, and even the
one that had problems didn't go bust since the government helped
it out a bit with a loan.

-john-

--
======================================================================
John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 john@johnweeks.com
Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
======================================================================

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 6 2008 8:44 pm
From: George Grapman

John A. Weeks III wrote:
> In article
> <fbce85d2-bcab-4e2a-8cd0-700b2ba865f0@a70g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>,
> "void.no.spam.com@gmail.com" <void.no.spam.com@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> My auto insurance policy is with AIG, and it is about to expire. The
>> rate is pretty good, so I want to renew the policy, but I wonder if I
>> should look for another company, given their problems? Will AIG
>> disappear, or does their bailout mean they definitely won't disappear?
>
> What problems? AIG auto insurance company has not had any problems,
> and they are as solid as rock. The company that has problems was
> another company, also called AIG, but is in the business of
> insuring investment deals and bonds. Each of the various AIG
> companies are separate corporations held by a holding company.
> One going bust doesn't hurt any of its siblings, and even the
> one that had problems didn't go bust since the government helped
> it out a bit with a loan.
>
> -john-
>

Same thing with Wachovia Bank. I met a rep for Wachovia Securities
the other day. They are still in business under the same name,

==============================================================================
TOPIC: eeeeeeeeeeeeeeasy way to earn money
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/9cf2ac8fc7e6e303?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Mon, Oct 6 2008 9:51 pm
From: vj

click here.........
http://www.homejobis.blogspot.com
http://www.free-animations.co.uk/angels/angel_1.html

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

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, October 7, 2008

18 new messages in 9 topics - digest

No comments: