Frugal Living: 19 new messages in 10 topics

Friday, October 31, 2008

19 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: Cheap isolation against freezing pipes in winter? Have a question, guys.
..
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/ccc7a45c5d21ff98?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 30 2008 11:57 am
From: meow2222@care2.com

On Oct 10, 2:11 pm, GeneCook2...@gmail.com wrote:
> Hi guys,
>
> I checked the prices of foil bag house isolation recently in stores
> and found them rather pricey.
>
> I was thinking of stuffing newspapers in plastic bags and taping it in
> the inside of the house on cold walls in order to isolate my home that
> way. Did anybody of you do that in the past? Did it work? Did you had
> an effective defense against freezing pipes?
>
> How about the toilet tank? Any ideas to protect it from freezing?
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Gene

Cardboard is as cheap as wall insulation gets. More than one layer is
better of course. For greater levels of insulation, empty 2" deep
boxes (eg biscuits, dry catfood etc) can be stuck to the wall and
plasterboarded over to create an insulating cavity.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Frugal protection against burglars
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/df5ac12490b632e7?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 30 2008 2:41 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

phil scott <phil@philscott.net> wrote:
> On Oct 30, 11:37 am, lenona...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> A house on my (normally safe) street just got robbed in broad
>> daylight. The sad thing is, even if I'd been there and seen them
>> doing it, chances are I wouldn't have suspected anything, since I
>> didn't know the owners - or whether they were moving out or selling
>> anything!
>>
>> Please consider telling all your neighbors to call the police if they
>> ever see anything like that at your house, unless you TOLD them all
>> in advance exactly WHEN the movers would be there. Of course, they're
>> more likely to say yes and mean it if you promise to do the same for them.

> this will go epidemic about the time prices rise another 30%
> (over the span of a year to 18 months) and SS and welfare
> checks get no increase or just a few percent...

Just another of your silly little fantasys. Didnt happen during the
great depression and we didnt even have SS and welfare check then.

> When states are forced to cut back on welfare

Wont happen either.

> it will begin to go ballistic...

Just another of your silly little fantasys. Didnt happen during the
great depression and we didnt even have SS and welfare check then.

> and when the states are forced to debloat their supremely bloated
> staffs, and those hit the collapsed job market... it will go ballistic.

Just another of your silly little fantasys. Didnt happen during the
great depression and we didnt even have SS and welfare check then.

> good neighbors with shot guns on hand will be a big help in
> that time frame... if you still have a house and are not living
> in your car...those cant have guns, so wlll be relying on the
> old stand by bolo knife or short machette.. that will be exciting.

Just another of your silly little fantasys. Didnt happen during the
great depression and we didnt even have SS and welfare check then.

== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 30 2008 3:13 pm
From: William Souden

Rod Speed wrote:
> phil scott <phil@philscott.net> wrote:
>> On Oct 30, 11:37 am, lenona...@yahoo.com wrote:
>>> A house on my (normally safe) street just got robbed in broad
>>> daylight. The sad thing is, even if I'd been there and seen them
>>> doing it, chances are I wouldn't have suspected anything, since I
>>> didn't know the owners - or whether they were moving out or selling
>>> anything!
>>>
>>> Please consider telling all your neighbors to call the police if they
>>> ever see anything like that at your house, unless you TOLD them all
>>> in advance exactly WHEN the movers would be there. Of course, they're
>>> more likely to say yes and mean it if you promise to do the same for them.
>
>> this will go epidemic about the time prices rise another 30%
>> (over the span of a year to 18 months) and SS and welfare
>> checks get no increase or just a few percent...
>
> Just another of your silly little fantasys. Didnt happen during the
> great depression and we didnt even have SS and welfare check then.
>
>> When states are forced to cut back on welfare
>
> Wont happen either.
>
>> it will begin to go ballistic...
>
> Just another of your silly little fantasys. Didnt happen during the
> great depression and we didnt even have SS and welfare check then.
>
>> and when the states are forced to debloat their supremely bloated
>> staffs, and those hit the collapsed job market... it will go ballistic.
>
> Just another of your silly little fantasys. Didnt happen during the
> great depression and we didnt even have SS and welfare check then.
>
>> good neighbors with shot guns on hand will be a big help in
>> that time frame... if you still have a house and are not living
>> in your car...those cant have guns, so wlll be relying on the
>> old stand by bolo knife or short machette.. that will be exciting.
>
> Just another of your silly little fantasys. Didnt happen during the
> great depression and we didnt even have SS and welfare check then.

How would you have survived when there was no welfare?
>
>
>

== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 30 2008 6:39 pm
From: Seerialmom

On Oct 30, 11:37 am, lenona...@yahoo.com wrote:
> A house on my (normally safe) street just got robbed in broad
> daylight. The sad thing is, even if I'd been there and seen them doing
> it, chances are I wouldn't have suspected anything, since I didn't
> know the owners - or whether they were moving out or selling
> anything!
>
> Please consider telling all your neighbors to call the police if they
> ever see anything like that at your house, unless you TOLD them all in
> advance exactly WHEN the movers would be there. Of course, they're
> more likely to say yes and mean it if you promise to do the same for
> them.
>
> Lenona.

That might work in "some" neighborhoods, but in others these same
neighbors might be the ones doing the break in.

== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Wed, Oct 29 2008 7:01 pm
From: Jeff

Seerialmom wrote:
> On Oct 30, 11:37 am, lenona...@yahoo.com wrote:
>> A house on my (normally safe) street just got robbed in broad
>> daylight. The sad thing is, even if I'd been there and seen them doing
>> it, chances are I wouldn't have suspected anything, since I didn't
>> know the owners - or whether they were moving out or selling
>> anything!
>>
>> Please consider telling all your neighbors to call the police if they
>> ever see anything like that at your house, unless you TOLD them all in
>> advance exactly WHEN the movers would be there. Of course, they're
>> more likely to say yes and mean it if you promise to do the same for
>> them.
>>
>> Lenona.
>
> That might work in "some" neighborhoods, but in others these same
> neighbors might be the ones doing the break in.

I'm inclined to agree. Burglars usually steal what is easy. Often
it's neighbors kids and they know the neighborhood and it's occupants
habits well.

You'd be surprised at how much goes on that no one ever sees.

Jeff

== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 30 2008 10:13 pm
From: "h"

"Seerialmom" <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:4d8af688-007f-4613-92ea-a0007ba5a4d5@s9g2000prm.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 30, 11:37 am, lenona...@yahoo.com wrote:
> A house on my (normally safe) street just got robbed in broad
> daylight. The sad thing is, even if I'd been there and seen them doing
> it, chances are I wouldn't have suspected anything, since I didn't
> know the owners - or whether they were moving out or selling
> anything!
>
> Please consider telling all your neighbors to call the police if they
> ever see anything like that at your house, unless you TOLD them all in
> advance exactly WHEN the movers would be there. Of course, they're
> more likely to say yes and mean it if you promise to do the same for
> them.
>
> Lenona.

That's assuming you live where you can see your neighbors. I can see parts
(rooflines and the back of a barn) of maybe 5 houses from my property, but I
have no idea who is coming or going. Hell, with the exception of the two
closest neighbors (walking distance), I have no idea who any of those people
are. Of course it's not lot there's a lot of crime in boondockville. We work
at home and rarely leave the house. We'd notice a car driving down our
driveway from the road, and it's not like anyone would get very far on foot.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Skype higher than onesuite.com
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/7af523d960b00177?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 30 2008 3:17 pm
From: DoctorTime

I was fairly impressed with Skype - until I compared their prices with
onesuite.com.
I already have been using onesuite.com and been happy with the service
but people kept telling me how cheap and great skype.com was and I
tried it at someone else's home and it seemed fine, quality wise.

So I went out and bought a headset/microphone for my computer and then
as I was signing up for skype I began to look at the rates.

What I found out is that in almost every case, onesuite.com is cheaper
than skype!

For domestic USA to domestic USA phones (not skype to skype but skype
to phone), skype is .001 cheaper than onesuite.

But for calls to foreign countries, onesuite is cheaper in most or at
least many cases.

So before you get hooked into the skype hype, try onesuite. With
onesuite you don't have to go out and buy a mic/headset.

*I do not work for onesuite and have NO personal gain from posting
this, I do so only as a public service.

I have not investigated other aspects of skype such as their message
service and so forth so maybe with other aspects of their service it
is still as good or better of a deal then onesuite. But for just the
price of calling long distance, it seems to me onesuite wins out.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Warning on unplugging to save money
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/df565ab499ce5661?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 30 2008 5:03 pm
From: larry

meow2222@care2.com wrote:

>> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)
>
> For the most part this talk about the joys of unplugging is just
> greenwash. Most standby appliances eat as good as nothing, and the
> physical act of unpugging and replugging them actually uses more
> energy, physical resources (food) and money.
>
>
> NT

Saving energy has worked well for us, even at a few watts at
a time.

But please keep your vampires plugged in and warm. We need
those energy stock dividends for our retirement. ;-)

We did our best on energy, now we're working on those ever
so greedy government tacked on service and user fees that
have nothing to do with the bill they are on.

-- larry/dallas

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 30 2008 5:26 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)

In <e43adc33-3ef5-4a7f-a540-56f845046861@y29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
meow2222@care2.com wrote, edited for space:

>On Oct 17, 2:55 am, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>>
>> I have one of those Kill-A-Watt meters. My TV draws 11-12 watts when
>> it is off. My computer draws about 4 watts when it is off. My cable box
>> and my printer each draw about 1 watt when they are off. I forget what my
>> monitor draws when it is off, and I am using it now.
>>
>> Modern cellphone chargers appear to me to take less than a watt if
>> pluggen in unused, maybe more like half a watt, but most other wallwarts
>> appear to me to comsume about 3/4-2 watts (mostly 1-1.5 watts) if
>> plugged in and unloaded.
>>
>> I turn my computer speakers off when I don't need audio - but they draw
>> apparently a little under 1 watt when they are on but not receiving a
>> signal.
>>
>> It appears to me that things like these can add up to a minority of
>> electrical power consumption that can be significant.
>
>For the most part this talk about the joys of unplugging is just
>greenwash. Most standby appliances eat as good as nothing, and the
>physical act of unpugging and replugging them actually uses more
>energy, physical resources (food) and money.

How many calories do I burn if I unplug and replug my TV? Jogging 1
mile burns 100 calories, so I am estimating 1, possibly 2 calories.

If I eliminate 11 watts of power consumption for 18 hours, that is 170
"large calories" - what food calories are. Since electric power
generation and distribution combined is about 35% efficient, the fuel
savings is more like 480 large calories.

If I unplug and replug my cellphone charger, I still avert fuel
consumption of 10-20 times the caloric content that I would have to eat to
do so.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 30 2008 5:45 pm
From: Steve Daniels

On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:26:57 +0000 (UTC), against all advice,
something compelled don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein), to say:

> In <e43adc33-3ef5-4a7f-a540-56f845046861@y29g2000hsf.googlegroups.com>,
> meow2222@care2.com wrote, edited for space:
>
> >On Oct 17, 2:55 am, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
> >>
> >> I have one of those Kill-A-Watt meters. My TV draws 11-12 watts when
> >> it is off. My computer draws about 4 watts when it is off. My cable box
> >> and my printer each draw about 1 watt when they are off. I forget what my
> >> monitor draws when it is off, and I am using it now.
> >>
> >> Modern cellphone chargers appear to me to take less than a watt if
> >> pluggen in unused, maybe more like half a watt, but most other wallwarts
> >> appear to me to comsume about 3/4-2 watts (mostly 1-1.5 watts) if
> >> plugged in and unloaded.
> >>
> >> I turn my computer speakers off when I don't need audio - but they draw
> >> apparently a little under 1 watt when they are on but not receiving a
> >> signal.
> >>
> >> It appears to me that things like these can add up to a minority of
> >> electrical power consumption that can be significant.
> >
> >For the most part this talk about the joys of unplugging is just
> >greenwash. Most standby appliances eat as good as nothing, and the
> >physical act of unpugging and replugging them actually uses more
> >energy, physical resources (food) and money.
>
> How many calories do I burn if I unplug and replug my TV? Jogging 1
> mile burns 100 calories, so I am estimating 1, possibly 2 calories.
>
> If I eliminate 11 watts of power consumption for 18 hours, that is 170
> "large calories" - what food calories are. Since electric power
> generation and distribution combined is about 35% efficient, the fuel
> savings is more like 480 large calories.
>
> If I unplug and replug my cellphone charger, I still avert fuel
> consumption of 10-20 times the caloric content that I would have to eat to
> do so.

Wow.

That sounded really smart and all, but I didn't understand any of
it. Are you for unplugging stuff, or against it?
--

"The ABS system can not overcome the laws of physics."

Audi Owner's Manual

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 30 2008 6:01 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)

In article <f6lkg4h2oqb1hceknjnhah1g8g66vi9q57@4ax.com>, Steve Daniels wrote:
>On Fri, 31 Oct 2008 00:26:57 +0000 (UTC), against all advice,
>something compelled don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein), to say:
(What I posted)
>
>
>Wow.
>
>That sounded really smart and all, but I didn't understand any of
>it. Are you for unplugging stuff, or against it?

I am for unplugging stuff. I was responding to someone who claimed
incorrectly that unplugging stuff wastes more energy than it saves.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Wallet Biopsy with a chain saw
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/cca0c4d4c1a9ca4b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 30 2008 4:34 pm
From: Al Bundy

viet nam vet. wrote:
> I ran into a scam at the local chain saw shop.
> You walk in and a woman checks me out with some questions to see if I
> knew a damn thing about chain saws.
> I don't. and I looked too much like a hippie.
> so they sold me a bar for my saw, $35 not the chain just the bar.
> but , I did learn not to go back there.
> Western Chain Saw. Eureka,CA I think they vote republican.
> Fool me once...
> --
> Money; What a concept !

If you don't know a bar from a chain, you should have looked at the
paperwork with the saw or checked on the Internet. The story doesn't
make sense. They hand you a bar and you don't know it from a chain?
Why can't you return it? A chain saw is extremely dangerous. Accidents
happen quickly. I urge you to get some training from a qualified user
(of chainsaws) before continuing.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 30 2008 5:48 pm
From: Steve Daniels

On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 13:12:20 -0800, against all advice, something
compelled "viet nam vet." <georgewkspam@humboldt1.com>, to say:

> I ran into a scam at the local chain saw shop.
> You walk in and a woman checks me out

I walk in and a woman check you out? And your problem with this
is . . . ?

> with some questions to see if I
> knew a damn thing about chain saws.
> I don't. and I looked too much like a hippie.
> so they sold me a bar for my saw, $35 not the chain just the bar.

That seems reasonable. Why do you think you were scammed?
--

"The ABS system can not overcome the laws of physics."

Audi Owner's Manual

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Federal Reserve Cuts Interest Rates, but a 'Floor' Lets Companies Keep
Credit Card Interest High
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/4f81570866a61e97?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 30 2008 4:39 pm
From: "Lou"

"JonquilJan" <ward39@imcnet.net> wrote in message
news:49067616$0$7459$38cefb40@news.westelcom.com...
> Lou <lpogoda@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ge5mfm$gm7$1@aioe.org...
> >
> > "JonquilJan" <ward39@imcnet.net> wrote in message
> > news:4905e877$0$7498$38cefb40@news.westelcom.com...
> > (snipped)
> > > Thanks Ron. Yes that is the information I also received on the
printout
> > > from the financial advisor. I just don't understand why my CC company
> > uses
> > > that instead of Prime Rate. Well maybe I do - LIBOR is usually
higher -
> > and
> > > more volitle - Prime Rate went down - and LIBOR (supposedly) went up.
> >
> > Whatever's been happening recently is highly unusual, and I'd suggest
both
> > not jumping to conclusions and putting the cyncism aside unless there's
a
> > sound reason for it. For instance in January of this year the prime
rate
> > was 6.50%, while the LIBOR 12-month rate was 3.445%. In March, the
> numbers
> > were 5.25% and 2.5133% and again, the prime was the higher of the two.
> >
> > This isn't all that unusal - the prime tends to be 2.5% to 3.5% above
the
> > LIBOR. Of the two, the prime tends to be more volatile - the prime lags
> > decreases in bank cost of capital but immediately reflects increases.
> > Historically, the spread between the two has been increasing, so over
the
> > long term a loan based on the LIBOR will be less expensive than one
based
> on
> > the prime (if the margin - the premium over the index - is the same).
> > (Source: - http://www.finaid.org/loans/prime_libor.phtml )
> >
> > As to why a bank would base it's credit card rates on the LIBOR, my
guess
> is
> > that the LIBOR reflects the market price for money, while the prime
> reflects
> > the Federal Reserve's Federal Funds Target Rate.
> >
> > Concerning volatility, the federal funds target rate is usually reviewed
> > every six weeks, while the LIBOR is published daily. But small jiggles
in
> > the daily rate don't fall into the definition of volatility in my book -
> the
> > price of every commodity fluctuates daily, even hourly, depending on a
> host
> > of factors.
> >
> >
>
> Well I'm totally confused now. The question came up for me when I got my
> last CC statement. I keep track of the APR rates charged and notice that
it
> had gone up from the last statement - not much but up. And I knew Prime
> Rate had dropped. I called the CC company and was then told that APR was
> based on LIBOR and not Prime Rate. From there on I have just been trying
to
> gather information, And am about to throw up my hands about the whole
> thing.

I don't see how it matters. It's common for variable rate loan (which is
what a credit card is, after all) rates to be based on some index plus a
premium. Whatever index is used, it's beyond your control. Generally, it's
beyond the issuer's control as well. Whether the base index is higher or
lower than the prime doesn't much matter either - the cost to the borrower
can end up being the pretty much the same simply because the premium above
the index can be different.

You can't control the interest **rate** on your credit cards beyond
searching out the best deal for you among the plethora of offers out there.
The best you can do is to try and control the interest you actually pay -
the less you borrow, the sooner you pay it back, the less you'll pay in
interest. Normally, I feel that interest is a reasonable expense to pay -
it lets us have the use of whatever it is sooner rather than later. But
that assumes reasonably settled times and reasonable self-restraint on the
part of the borrower. Times are rather unsettled at the moment.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: How big is your entertainment budget?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3c6aa20660c0230b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 30 2008 4:51 pm
From: "Lou"

"Seerialmom" <seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:2716e8f6-0f95-4807-86c7-0b100d8d5902@x1g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
On Oct 29, 8:24 am, OhioGuy <n...@none.net> wrote:
> I actually include the cost of my Internet connection in the
> entertainment category - $3.50 a month for 150 hours of connectivity.
> (since I play a lot of board games online for free on brettspielwelt)
>
> >Anyway why budget yourself it just
> > ruin the meaning of entertainment.
>
> We do it out of necessity. Rather than ruining it, I feel that it
> makes us more creative when it comes to entertainment. Out of habit, I
> usually want to go to the cheap theater with the family. However, that
> really adds up fast unless we can go on Tuesdays. ($8 on Tuesdays, vs
> $14 other days for 4) My wife has been getting me more interested in
> doing crafts and other less expensive things.

>You know you can get discount movie tickets at Costco, right? $7.50
>per ticket; not limited to matinees? I saw "Beverly Hills Chihuahua"
>with one of those and plan to see Zach and Mira Make a Porno on Friday
>with my last one.

There are movie sites all over the web. I don't know if they're legal or
not, but you can stream stuff directly to your computer for no more cost
that your existing broadband connection and the electricity to run your
computer. Quality varies from pretty poor to OK. Some of the stuff is
pretty vintage, some of it is as current as last week. A movie viewed this
way isn't a communal experience (unless you cable the computer to your TV)
but reclined on the couch with a laptop on your lap and a cheap pair of
headphones jacked into the computer, it's almost like reading a book. Some
TV shows are available this way as well, some from the networks' web sites.
Commercials are non-existent to much briefer than you get when watching TV.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Increased Animal Experimentation
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/601e48d05490f059?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 30 2008 5:50 pm
From: Visual Purple

Increased Animal Experimentation

About a year ago, Alex Jones showed a document that criminalizes
certain activities that the government of the US claims "obstructs"
the flow of society and/or business. One of those activities is animal
rights endorsement. At the time it seemed so extreme and far out to me
that I made a mental note of it, but filed it away in my memory as
something not demanding immediate concern.

Now I'm concerned.

I'm nobody's vegan, or even vegetarian, but I do recognize the fact
that animals have rights to life.

I cannot accept animal testing on products.

I went to get my Son some more of his favorite body wash/shampoo for
men. It's an Israeli brand called "Hawaii".

I looked at the label on the back of the squeeze bottle for some
reason, even though I was quite sure that the bunny that shows that
it's not tested on animals is on the label. It wasn't.

I was almost positive that if we embraced the product as a "regular"
that it must not be tested on animals.

I didn't buy the body wash/shampoo. I wanted to double check at home.
Sure enough, when I got home I saw that the squeeze bottle we have
does have a bunny on it and says that the product is not tested on
animals.

I checked other products in the store. Again, products that I am quite
sure had the bunny and said they were not tested on animals now do not
have the bunny on them.

I am not talking about products we import through Unilever, which
never had the bunny on them. I'm talking about the products I once
felt confident were cruelty-free.

This may be a trend in regression to animal experimentation.

Please be very careful about the products you buy, even those you
thought are cruelty-free may not be now.

If you care, please check every product that you buy.

Boycott any products that experiment on animals. Those experiments are
horrific.

Even products for babies can be, and some are, formulated without
testing on animals.

There is simply no excuse for it and nothing justifies a company
reverting back to testing on animals when they know damn well that the
products they formulated were just fine without testing them on
animals.

I am going to send this notification to a number of companies and let
them know that I am broadcasting this all over the net.

Please join with me in both protesting this wanton cruelty and letting
the companies know we will boycott any product that was developed by
torturing a helpless animal.

This is not some kooky cause. This is a very real necessity. Animals
are treated horrendously by people interested in nothing but profits
and that includes many, many industries.

This is a list of products to boycott. They remain recalcitrant in the
face of ongoing boycott. More people are needed to stop buying their
products to break their backs.

None of these products are essential and none do not have cruelty-free
alternative products on the market.

Avon Cosmetics Jeyes
Beiersdorf Johnson & Johnson
The Body Shop/L'Oreal+ Lancome
Chanel Lever Faberge
Christion Dior L'Oreal/Nestle
Clinique Miners Cosmetics
Colgate Palmolive PZ Cussons
Coty Reckitt Benckiser
Ecover* Revlon
Estיe Lauder SC Johnson
FCUK Virgin Vie
Garnier Yardley
Givenchy Yves Rocher
GlaxoSmithKline Yves Saint Laurent
Helena Rubenstein Unilever

Unilever markets widely in Israel. They are a very aggressive company.
Though their site claims that they are committed to phasing out
experiments on animals, they appear on the lists of offending
companies.

None of the products that they market in Israel are indicated that
they do not do testing on animals - not one.

I have written to them complaining about this.

The e-addies are:

feedback.israel at unilever dot com

sherut.israel at unilver dot com

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 30 2008 7:18 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Visual Purple <DoreenDotan@gmail.com> wrote:

> Increased Animal Experimentation
>
> About a year ago, Alex Jones showed a document that criminalizes
> certain activities that the government of the US claims "obstructs"
> the flow of society and/or business. One of those activities is animal
> rights endorsement. At the time it seemed so extreme and far out to me
> that I made a mental note of it, but filed it away in my memory as
> something not demanding immediate concern.

> Now I'm concerned.

> I'm nobody's vegan, or even vegetarian, but I do
> recognize the fact that animals have rights to life.

No they dont when I want to eat them.

And they wouldnt have any life at all if we didnt eat them.

> I cannot accept animal testing on products.

Your problem. No one is holding a gun to your head and
forcing you to buy anything thats been tested on animals.

> I went to get my Son some more of his favorite body wash/
> shampoo for men. It's an Israeli brand called "Hawaii".

Your problem.

> I looked at the label on the back of the squeeze bottle for some
> reason, even though I was quite sure that the bunny that shows
> that it's not tested on animals is on the label. It wasn't.

Your problem.

> I was almost positive that if we embraced the product
> as a "regular" that it must not be tested on animals.

Your problem.

> I didn't buy the body wash/shampoo. I wanted to double check at home.
> Sure enough, when I got home I saw that the squeeze bottle we have
> does have a bunny on it and says that the product is not tested on animals.

Your problem.

> I checked other products in the store. Again, products
> that I am quite sure had the bunny and said they were
> not tested on animals now do not have the bunny on them.

Your problem.

> I am not talking about products we import through Unilever,
> which never had the bunny on them. I'm talking about the
> products I once felt confident were cruelty-free.

Your problem.

> This may be a trend in regression to animal experimentation.

Or may not.

> Please be very careful about the products you buy,

Bugger off.

> even those you thought are cruelty-free may not be now.

I dont care.

> If you care,

I dont.

> please check every product that you buy.

Bugger off. No please, thats an order.

> Boycott any products that experiment on animals.

Bugger off.

> Those experiments are horrific.

You dont even know how they are tested.

> Even products for babies can be, and some
> are, formulated without testing on animals.

More fool the manufacturers.

> There is simply no excuse for it

Wrong, as always.

> and nothing justifies a company reverting back to testing on animals when they know damn
> well that the products they formulated were just fine without testing them on animals.

You dont know that the formulation hasnt changed.

> I am going to send this notification to a number of companies
> and let them know that I am broadcasting this all over the net.

Bet that wil have their suits pouring from their windows like lemmings.

> Please join with me in both protesting this wanton cruelty

Bugger off.

> and letting the companies know we will boycott any product
> that was developed by torturing a helpless animal.

That would be a lie.

> This is not some kooky cause.

You're lying now.

> This is a very real necessity.

You're lying again.

> Animals are treated horrendously by people interested in
> nothing but profits and that includes many, many industries.

And again.

> This is a list of products to boycott.

Bugger off.

> They remain recalcitrant in the face of ongoing boycott.

Your problem.

> More people are needed to stop buying their products to break their backs.

Taint gunna happen. And breaking backs aint cruelty ?

> None of these products are essential

Neither are you. So kill yourself forthwith.

> and none do not have cruelty-free alternative products on the market.

Your problem.

> Avon Cosmetics Jeyes
> Beiersdorf Johnson & Johnson
> The Body Shop/L'Oreal+ Lancome
> Chanel Lever Faberge
> Christion Dior L'Oreal/Nestle
> Clinique Miners Cosmetics
> Colgate Palmolive PZ Cussons
> Coty Reckitt Benckiser
> Ecover* Revlon
> Est?e Lauder SC Johnson
> FCUK Virgin Vie
> Garnier Yardley
> Givenchy Yves Rocher
> GlaxoSmithKline Yves Saint Laurent
> Helena Rubenstein Unilever

> Unilever markets widely in Israel.

Their problem.

> They are a very aggressive company.

Your problem.

> Though their site claims that they are committed to phasing out experiments
> on animals, they appear on the lists of offending companies.

Your problem.

> None of the products that they market in Israel are
> indicated that they do not do testing on animals - not one.

Your problem.

> I have written to them complaining about this.

Bet that wil have their suits pouring from their windows like lemmings.

> The e-addies are:

> feedback.israel at unilever dot com

> sherut.israel at unilver dot com

Where your emails all get flushed where they belong.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: RECALLS: Pirate's gold chocolate coins
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/5aece12681904d70?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 30 2008 6:37 pm
From: Seerialmom

On Oct 30, 12:32 pm, Dennis <dg...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Thu, 30 Oct 2008 04:47:05 -0700 (PDT), Seerialmom
>
>
>
> <seerial...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >On Oct 30, 1:17 am, ultim...@gmail.com wrote:
> >>http://www.snopes.com/food/warnings/coins.asp
>
> >> With Halloween fast approaching comes a warning to parents and kids
> >> regarding Sherwood brand Pirate's Gold milk chocolate coins imported
> >> from China.
>
> >> The Canadian Food Inspection Agency is warning the public not to eat,
> >> distribute or sell the candy.
>
> >> It is sold across Canada by Costco and may also have been sold in bulk
> >> packages or as individual pieces at various dollar and bulk stores.
>
> >> The chocolate contains melamine which is the same chemical responsible
> >> for killing several babies in China, and sickening thousands
> >> more.<MORE INFO ON WEB PAGE>
>
> >Damn it Jim, is there nothing the Chinese won't put melamine in? I
> >wonder if all those years of eating off of Melamine plates in the 60's
> >did any damage? :p
>
> Depends -- when you were done with the food, did you chew on the plate
> for a while? ;-)
> Dennis (evil)
> --
> "There is a fine line between participation and mockery" - Wally

I don't think so but I do recall those rolls of lead solder my dad had
on the work bench. It was neat because it was easy to bite pieces off
of and chew on. Another fun and dangerous thing we did as kids was
play with "quicksilver" aka mercury when a thermometer broke.
Probably ate dinner with unwashed hands right afterwards, too...on
those Melamine plates :-D

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Discount buy ED Hardy apparels
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/329622c6f9aa07a4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Oct 30 2008 9:18 pm
From: izaak0@yahoo.com.cn

Now Our store have many new styles ED Hardy Sunglasses,
ED Hardy Bags, ED Hardy Sweater, Ed Hardy Hat, Ed Hardy Watches,
Ed Hardy Bracelets for supply.
If you want know more,please visit our web please:
www.luxury-fashion.org

You can mix sizes and styles of ED Hardy Men apparels,
Ed Hardy Women apparels and ED Hardy Kids apparels what do you want.
If you have any need,welcome inform us .
We must doing our best for you sure!

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

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

Friday, October 31, 2008

19 new messages in 10 topics - digest

No comments: