Frugal Living: Mar 21, 2008

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: Question about installing a Frigidaire GLCF386DS gas range...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/8de35e7081277dbe?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 21 2008 4:38 pm
From: gheston@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston)

In article <2rHEj.6998$i54.6464@trnddc05>,
Claude Balls <claudeballsjr@REMOVEyahoo.com> wrote:
[ ... ]
> Website sucks - searching for the model number gave nothing.
>However, thru the website, I did find a contact form, filled it out and
>they responded fairly quickly and gave me a link to a webpage on their
>site. I don't see why it didn't come up in the search, but oh well...

>Bad news in this case... the range back cavity is only 2-inches deep and
>15-inches high, so we'll be doing a little pipe work this weekend.

I presume you're licensed as a gas pipe fitter, then? Here (Alabama) gas
pipes can only be worked on by licensed fitters or utility crews. Seems
that mistakes can have serious consequences...

Gary

--
Gary Heston gheston@hiwaay.net

http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/

"The lurking figure of Charles Darwin was observed fleeing the
scene, cursing extravagantly."
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/03/17/belarus_train_squish_escape/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: comments from canandians, pls: canadian health care
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/190b5f62e6acf0e1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 21 2008 5:04 pm
From: clams_casino

krw wrote:

>In article <ljMEj.31224$QC.14156@newsfe20.lga>,
>PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com says...
>
>
>>krw wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>Why don't you look up what the "filthy rich" (whatever your
>>>>>definition) pays in taxes. You'll find it's a lot more than those
>>>>>that aren't so "filthy".
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>Total or percentage of income?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>Yes.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>So you ae clueless.
>>
>>
>>
>Nope, but apparently you're as thick as the left edge of a brick.
>
>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=5324&type=0&sequence=0#table1A
>
>The effective federal income tax rate (2001) for the top 1% was 33%.
>The effective income tax rate for the bottom 20% is was
>-5.4%.
>
>
>
>
Ok - now what about the rest of the taxes? Hint - Federal income
taxes are only about 1/3 of total taxes (on the average).

Another hint - That bottom 20% is paying a whole lot higher percentage
in FICA, excise, sales & likely property taxes vs. the upper 1%.

If you haven't figured it out yet, the sweet spot in the US is at about
100-150k when you factor in all taxes & government subsidies (medical,
housing, etc) .

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 21 2008 5:06 pm
From: clams_casino

clams_casino wrote:

> h wrote:
>
>>
>>
>> Between the Feds, State, Property, and School, it's over 40% of my
>> gross income. It makes buying health insurance impossible, and
>> contributing to my retirement account extremely difficult. If I can
>> deposit $1,000 a year I consider myself fortunate. Good thing I'm
>> frugal!
>>
>>
>>
> Subsidized health care is another significant advantage the higher
> income workers tend to enjoy. It's typically $12-15k / year in tax
> free benefits (essentially welfare for the wealthy) which
> significantly distorts the percent taxes paid by the upper income
> earners..
> Typically the lower income groups must purchase theirs pretax..

Oops - they typically must buy their healthcare using after tax income.

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 21 2008 6:42 pm
From: krw

In article <S1YEj.12826$KJ1.8641@newsfe19.lga>,
PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com says...
> krw wrote:
>
> >In article <ljMEj.31224$QC.14156@newsfe20.lga>,
> >PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com says...
> >
> >
> >>krw wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>Why don't you look up what the "filthy rich" (whatever your
> >>>>>definition) pays in taxes. You'll find it's a lot more than those
> >>>>>that aren't so "filthy".
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>Total or percentage of income?
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>>
> >>>Yes.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>
> >>So you ae clueless.
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >Nope, but apparently you're as thick as the left edge of a brick.
> >
> >http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=5324&type=0&sequence=0#table1A
> >
> >The effective federal income tax rate (2001) for the top 1% was 33%.
> >The effective income tax rate for the bottom 20% is was
> >-5.4%.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> Ok - now what about the rest of the taxes? Hint - Federal income
> taxes are only about 1/3 of total taxes (on the average).
>
> Another hint - That bottom 20% is paying a whole lot higher percentage
> in FICA, excise, sales & likely property taxes vs. the upper 1%.

Property taxes too? Excise? You *do* know what "excise" tax is? I
*highly* doubt it.
>
>
> If you haven't figured it out yet, the sweet spot in the US is at about
> 100-150k when you factor in all taxes & government subsidies (medical,
> housing, etc) .

Is $100K-$150K == "filthy rich"? According to the leftist loons it
is.

--
Keith

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 21 2008 7:13 pm
From: Bill Bowden

On Mar 20, 8:15 pm, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
> In <2dd6071d-a238-48fa-add7-25e6a517e...@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> Bill Bowden wrote:
> >On Mar 20, 5:24 am, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> >> Bill Bowden wrote:
> >> >On Mar 18, 9:16 am, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
>
> >> >>Bill Bowden wrote:
>
> >> >>>Actually, lower income Americans don't pay any taxes
>
> >> >>Hmm - how does one get to avoid FICA, sales, excise & property taxes?
>
> >> >>Neat trick. Care to share?
>
> >> >Sure. First, you avoid FICA tax by not working for wages. Second, you
> >> >avoid sales tax by buying most everything at swap meets and garage
> >> >sales. Third, you avoid property tax by owning (real estate investment
> >> >trusts) REITS in the stock market which has no property tax. And
> >> >fourth, you reduce all taxes by owning an S-corporation that never
> >> >makes a profit, but has lots of expenses.
>
> >> >-Bill
>
> >> All tricks widely used by the "lower income" groups who "pay no taxes"?
>
> >> Never realized the lower income groups were so savvy.
>
> >Doesn't take too many big tax payments to get savvy. There are many
> >low income carpet layers for example that do all work under contract,
> >thus avoiding FICA tax. The profits are all in the inflated materials
> >cost and the labor is a dollar an hour.
>
> I thought people doing that had to file a Schedule C, for self
> employment income (Profit from Business or Profession). The profit goes
> onto a 1040, and then have to file a Schedule SE to pay both employer and
> employee share of FICA tax on the self employment income.
>
> > The down side is the sales tax
> >goes up, but since the sales tax is only half the FICA tax, it makes
> >sense to move all the profits into materials and little in labor. They
> >are not as stupid as you think.
>
> >-Bill
>
> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

They use schedule D (capital gains), not C. They own the corporation
they work for part time at a dollar an hour. All income is investment
income and paid as distributions. Materials and expenses are inflated,
wages and FICA taxes are minimal.

-Bill

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 21 2008 7:42 pm
From: aemeijers

Don Klipstein wrote:
> In <2dd6071d-a238-48fa-add7-25e6a517eb8f@h11g2000prf.googlegroups.com>,
(snip)
>>> Never realized the lower income groups were so savvy.
>> Doesn't take too many big tax payments to get savvy. There are many
>> low income carpet layers for example that do all work under contract,
>> thus avoiding FICA tax. The profits are all in the inflated materials
>> cost and the labor is a dollar an hour.
>
> I thought people doing that had to file a Schedule C, for self
> employment income (Profit from Business or Profession). The profit goes
> onto a 1040, and then have to file a Schedule SE to pay both employer and
> employee share of FICA tax on the self employment income.
>
>> The down side is the sales tax
>> goes up, but since the sales tax is only half the FICA tax, it makes
>> sense to move all the profits into materials and little in labor. They
>> are not as stupid as you think.
>>
>> -Bill
>
> - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

Last carpet layer I hired (to do some patch work) had is own truck and
tools, and did installs for a big-box during the days. My work, he did
after supper, and I paid in cash. He did such a good fast job I had him
back two weeks later to do a bathroom floor revinyl.

--
aem sends...

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 21 2008 8:39 pm
From: mirage_35@msn.com

On 16 Mar, 17:36, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> AllEmailDeletedImmediately <der...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > From: xxxx...@comcast.net (gina)
> > To:
> > Well I'm living in Quebec Province of Canada, and I can assure you that most of what he said is quite true, maybe a little exaggeration here and there but in whole close to reality.
The worst about taxes here in Canada is that we have a provincial tax
that is added over the GST so you pay lets say 5 %, then add to the
original amount and then add another sales tax called QST 6.5 %. So
you cant say you paid 11.5 % tax no in fact you paid more than that,
it would be more around 12 %.
We have to pay around 17% income tax to federal, 20% to provincial,
municipal tax, schools tax, transport tax(paid on car registration
renewed every year), inside your income tax report you will have a few
more taxes attached besides healthcare, there's the poverty found
thing, and we in Quebec pay a surtax(I don't know why we already paid
federal tax),everytime you go to see a event, you will have another
tax to pay over the GST and QST, its supposedly for the government to
help the artist industry. But funny thing is artists, every week one
goes public about the lack of help from our government or the way they
are being treated.
We don't have the choice when it comes to having a family doctor, I
can assure you that they are very hard to find these days, i've been
trying to find one since last year, all general medicine doctors are
filled up.
The surgeons are really limited in the number of operations one can do
in a year, its a fact, we are losing our new formed surgeon to US
hospital because here they are limited to around 200 000 to 350 000 a
year. An American surgeon can earn a lot more than that they have
actually no limit in the number of surgery they can accomplish in a
year, so i figure it could be twice as much what a Canadian surgeon
would get in Canada if not triple.
If you have to go to hospital, bring a pillow, blanket and food cause
you are not getting out the same day, in some Montreal ER hospitals
the waiting time is 36 hours, never goes under 24 hours and can
sometimes go up to 72 hours.
Ive seen in news papers and heard on radio from quite a few ppl dying
b4 they could get the surgery they needed because of the long waiting
lists. Now at least the government, since it went in the media, will
pay for the surgery in US if the surgery cannot be perform in the
proper time. But a lot of people had to die, so this could change.
Your best chance of not waiting too long but it will not be withing
the hour, never unless you pay, right now there is a lot of
questioning going on about a private clinic that hires doctors to
perform surgery for them, most likely doctors that have time on their
hands, because of the limitation.
So all in all, if you look at all the taxes that you pay each day +
the 2 income taxes, municipal and schools taxes, and soon we might
have to pay a road tax, to fix our very bad roads, badly built and
viaducts falling, we will be facing an enormous cost to secure roads,
bridges and highways.
Sometimes I wonder when will they start taxing us to use the sidewalk!

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 21 2008 9:44 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

mirage_35@msn.com wrote:
> On 16 Mar, 17:36, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> AllEmailDeletedImmediately <der...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> From: xxxx...@comcast.net (gina)
>>> To:
>>> Well I'm living in Quebec Province of Canada, and I can assure you
>>> that most of what he said is quite true, maybe a little
>>> exaggeration here and there but in whole close to reality.
> The worst about taxes here in Canada is that we have a provincial tax
> that is added over the GST so you pay lets say 5 %, then add to the
> original amount and then add another sales tax called QST 6.5 %. So
> you cant say you paid 11.5 % tax no in fact you paid more than that,
> it would be more around 12 %.
> We have to pay around 17% income tax to federal, 20% to provincial,
> municipal tax, schools tax, transport tax(paid on car registration
> renewed every year), inside your income tax report you will have a few
> more taxes attached besides healthcare, there's the poverty found
> thing, and we in Quebec pay a surtax(I don't know why we already paid
> federal tax),everytime you go to see a event, you will have another
> tax to pay over the GST and QST, its supposedly for the government to
> help the artist industry. But funny thing is artists, every week one
> goes public about the lack of help from our government or the way they
> are being treated.
> We don't have the choice when it comes to having a family doctor, I
> can assure you that they are very hard to find these days, i've been
> trying to find one since last year, all general medicine doctors are
> filled up.
> The surgeons are really limited in the number of operations one can do
> in a year, its a fact, we are losing our new formed surgeon to US
> hospital because here they are limited to around 200 000 to 350 000 a
> year. An American surgeon can earn a lot more than that they have
> actually no limit in the number of surgery they can accomplish in a
> year, so i figure it could be twice as much what a Canadian surgeon
> would get in Canada if not triple.

> If you have to go to hospital, bring a pillow, blanket and food cause
> you are not getting out the same day, in some Montreal ER hospitals
> the waiting time is 36 hours, never goes under 24 hours and can
> sometimes go up to 72 hours.

Thats a lie if you show up with a life threatening problem
like the symptoms that you are having a heart attack.

> Ive seen in news papers and heard on radio from quite a few ppl dying b4
> they could get the surgery they needed because of the long waiting lists.

That happens in the US system too.

> Now at least the government, since it went in the media, will pay for
> the surgery in US if the surgery cannot be perform in the proper time.

And that isnt available in the US.

> But a lot of people had to die,

Bet thats another lie.

> so this could change.

Yes, they may well do something about more timely surgery.

> Your best chance of not waiting too long but it will
> not be withing the hour, never unless you pay,

Another lie.

> right now there is a lot of questioning going on about a private
> clinic that hires doctors to perform surgery for them, most likely
> doctors that have time on their hands, because of the limitation.

> So all in all, if you look at all the taxes that you pay each day +
> the 2 income taxes, municipal and schools taxes, and soon we might
> have to pay a road tax, to fix our very bad roads, badly built and
> viaducts falling, we will be facing an enormous cost to secure roads,
> bridges and highways.

And Canadians pay less in total for all their taxes and medical costs than USians do.

> Sometimes I wonder when will they start taxing us to use the sidewalk!

More fool you.

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 21 2008 9:46 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)

In article <MPG.224e0b632a1be4759899bf@news.individual.net>, krw wrote:

>http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdoc.cfm?index=5324&type=0&sequence=0#table1A
>
>The effective federal income tax rate (2001) for the top 1% was 33%.

On "ordinary income" such as wages, salaries and tips. The top rate for
long term capital gains and qualified dividends is 15%.

>The effective income tax rate for the bottom 20% is was -5.4%.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Question about car early payoff
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/580d676208ebd736?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 21 2008 6:35 pm
From: "Lou"

"somebody" <some@body.com> wrote in message
news:-bqdnZ7Zhs3Iun7anZ2dnUVZ_hjinZ2d@comcast.com...
> On Wed, 19 Mar 2008 19:32:37 -0500, max wrote:
>
> > maybe it's a gas-guzzling Tahoe and he wants to right-size into a Prius
> > or a Smart Fortwo.
>
>
> Fuel savings is part of the equation.

With gas at record high prices, it's tempting to get rid of the present
buggy and buy something with better mileage. But if what you're trying to
accomplish is spend the least amount of money for your transportation, if
you do the arithmetic most people will find that their best bet is to keep
the present car.

Consider that if your present car averages 20 miles per gallon and you drive
15,000 miles per year, you'll use 750 gallons of gas in a year. At an
average price of $3.00/gallon, that comes to $2,250. Get rid of that car
and buy one that get 30 miles to a gallon, your usage drops to 500 gallons,
and you'll save $750/year on gas. That's what, two or three months worth of
payments? It's a few hundred dollars less than the interest on a $20,000
car loan is likely to be for the first year.

Even if the new car gets 40 miles to the gallon, that's only $1,500/year
savings on gas - maybe six month's worth of payments on a new car, possibly
less. How realistic is that $3.00/gallon price? I don't know - today when
I filled up, it was $2.98. At $4.00/gallon, the annual saving is still only
$1,000. And yes, I know that some cars cost less than $20K - the point is
to plug in your own numbers and do the arithmetic, not let your emotions
make the decision without at least thinking about it.

For a while, it seemed different back in the 1970's - there were gas
shortages, days when you couldn't buy gas because of odd-even rationing, and
days when you couldn't buy gas because you couldn't find any. At least so
far, there hasn't been much if any of that - you can have as much gas as you
want, providing you're willing to pay for it.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Reverse Mortgage? been rejected?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/6a9f141a1db9c94c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 21 2008 6:08 pm
From: "Joe"

> Rule of Thumb: Never, ever, do business with any "financial institution"
> or (fill-in-the-blank) "broker" who solicits.

Okay...

> Rule of Thumb: Never, ever, do business with any "financial institution"
> or (Battleship) "broker" who solicits.

Now what?
--

Joe in Northern, NJ - V#8013-R

Currently Riding The "Mother Ship"
http://yunx.com/valk.htm

Ride a motorcycle in or near NJ?
http://tinyurl.com/hmzj
http://tinyurl.com/5apkg

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 21 2008 9:56 pm
From: Derald

"Joe" <really-faked-but-works@yunx.com> wrote:

>> Rule of Thumb: Never, ever, do business with any "financial institution"
>> or (Battleship) "broker" who solicits.
>
>Now what?
Same,same: Educate yourself a little bit about the battleship
market and seek out reliable sources. Face it, if the guy's coming to
you peddling someone else's boat, well....

==============================================================================
TOPIC: HD-TV converter box rip-off ....
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/4a9061c13abe5727?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 21 2008 6:10 pm
From: A

On Sat, 23 Feb 2008, Rod Speed wrote:

> sarge137 <rbooth9858@yahoo.com> wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> sarge137 <rbooth9...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>> A <arthu...@panix.com> wrote
>
>>>>> Well, the problem is that somewhere I read where there
>>>>> is a maximum amount of money available for the boxes.
>>>>> When the money runs out, no more coupons.
>
>>>> That's right. I don't remember the exact figure, but there's enough
>>>> money to give coupons to about 75% of the estimated households
>>>> that still use antennas for TV reception. When it's gone, the program
>>>> is over. The coupons expire, so while the program is active the
>>>> money from expired coupons goes back into the fund - but it still
>>>> ends when the last of them are issued, even if there are a bunch
>>>> of unexpired and unused coupons still out there.
>
>>>>>> You have until next February, Also, go check out
>>>>>> antennaweb.org to see what kind of antenna you will need.
>
>>>>> I'll tr to keep that in mind. I heard a rumor by the way that
>>>>> in-line amplifiers help HDTV reception and are not limited by
>>>>> internal noise figure; i.e. the guy that told me this said you can
>>>>> add these amplifiers in series and the picture gets better. It
>>>>> doesn't work that way with analog. I'll believe it when I see it,
>>>>> but for us, the 3 TV stations are far away.
>
>>>> I think you're right here too.
>
>>> You say the exact opposite in the next sentance and you're wrong below.
>
>>>> In fact, I don't think you can amplify digital signals at all.
>
>>> Corse you can.
>
>>>> From what I've read, and I've only just started studying this, it's all or nothing.
>
>>> Wrong.
>
>>>> If you're in range, right out to the furthest edge of the transmission,
>>>> the picture and sound lock in crystal clear. If you're out of range
>>>> you're out of luck - cable or satellite are your only options.
>
>>> Wrong when the problem is an inadequate antenna.
>
>>>> There's no "fringe" area like with analog.
>
>>> What you are utterly mangling is that with digital it either works
>>> or it doesnt. You dont get the equivalent of a very snowy picture.
>>> Thats an entirely separate matter to whether it can be amplified or not.
>
>>>> And there's no "skipping" of the signals like with analog.
>
>>> Wrong again. And again, you're confusing ghosts with skip.
>
>>>> Many years ago I lived in a high rise apartment in Washington, DC.
>>>> It had a master antenna mounted on the roof. Sometimes late at
>>>> night, or when there were high clouds in just the right spot I could
>>>> tune in a couple of the Baltimore stations, even though I was way
>>>> outside the normal range. That's going to disappear with digital also.
>
>>> Wrong, that effect will still happen.
>
>> Ok, Rod.
>
>> Like I said I just started reading up on this.
>
>> Instead of being your usual smart-assed argumentative self,
>
> Never ever could bullshit its way out of a wet paper bag.
>
>> how about helping me out here. Can you steer me
>> to some information sources to verify what you say,
>
> Nope, because I've been doing this stuff for decades now and have
> been using digital TV for a few years now, and use an amplifier fine.
>
>> which is 180 degreees opposite of what I've read.
>
> No it isnt. You're just completely mangling what they actually say.
>
> Bet you cant actually cite anything that says that the digital signal cant be amplified,

If you want _me_ to cite something, say so and I'll look it up. All that I
read dealing with any kind of weak signal detection is that the overall
noise figure of the receiver controls the sensitivity for a given
signal/noise ratio. It is more important to have a low noise figure and
low gain than to have high gain and high noise. The only way to beat this
limit is to do signal processing such as integration or content redundancy
or as in computers something like CRC checks.

> or that supports any of the other claims you made above, except the all or nothing
> line which is certainly true of a particular config of antenna,
> amplifier etc.

I am also a ham radio operator with experience at VHF and UHF and can
verify, experimentally, that the low gain low noise preamp, in fact, will
lift weak sinals out of the noise to the point of detectability when high
noise high gain preamps will not. I am also familiar with signal averaging
as another method of detecting signals below the noise floor and there are
other techniques, too.

The other poster politely asked you for references and more help and you
definitely did not give any sources or references that he asked for.

>
>

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 21 2008 6:30 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

A <arthures@panix.com> wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> sarge137 <rbooth9858@yahoo.com> wrote
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> sarge137 <rbooth9...@yahoo.com> wrote
>>>>> A <arthu...@panix.com> wrote

>>>>>> Well, the problem is that somewhere I read where there
>>>>>> is a maximum amount of money available for the boxes.
>>>>>> When the money runs out, no more coupons.

>>>>> That's right. I don't remember the exact figure, but there's enough money to give coupons to about 75% of the
>>>>> estimated households
>>>>> that still use antennas for TV reception. When it's gone, the program is over. The coupons expire, so while the
>>>>> program is active the
>>>>> money from expired coupons goes back into the fund - but it still
>>>>> ends when the last of them are issued, even if there are a bunch
>>>>> of unexpired and unused coupons still out there.

>>>>>>> You have until next February, Also, go check out
>>>>>>> antennaweb.org to see what kind of antenna you will need.

>>>>>> I'll tr to keep that in mind. I heard a rumor by the way that
>>>>>> in-line amplifiers help HDTV reception and are not limited by
>>>>>> internal noise figure; i.e. the guy that told me this said you
>>>>>> can add these amplifiers in series and the picture gets better.
>>>>>> It doesn't work that way with analog. I'll believe it when I see
>>>>>> it, but for us, the 3 TV stations are far away.

>>>>> I think you're right here too.

>>>> You say the exact opposite in the next sentance and you're wrong below.

>>>>> In fact, I don't think you can amplify digital signals at all.

>>>> Corse you can.

>>>>> From what I've read, and I've only just started studying this, it's all or nothing.

>>>> Wrong.

>>>>> If you're in range, right out to the furthest edge of the transmission, the picture and sound lock in crystal
>>>>> clear. If you're out of range you're out of luck - cable or satellite are your only options.

>>>> Wrong when the problem is an inadequate antenna.

>>>>> There's no "fringe" area like with analog.

>>>> What you are utterly mangling is that with digital it either works or it doesnt. You dont get the equivalent of a
>>>> very snowy picture.

>>>> Thats an entirely separate matter to whether it can be amplified or not.

>>>>> And there's no "skipping" of the signals like with analog.

>>>> Wrong again. And again, you're confusing ghosts with skip.

>>>>> Many years ago I lived in a high rise apartment in Washington, DC.
>>>>> It had a master antenna mounted on the roof. Sometimes late at
>>>>> night, or when there were high clouds in just the right spot I could tune in a couple of the Baltimore stations,
>>>>> even though I was way
>>>>> outside the normal range. That's going to disappear with digital also.

>>>> Wrong, that effect will still happen.

>>> Ok, Rod.

>>> Like I said I just started reading up on this.

>>> Instead of being your usual smart-assed argumentative self,

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

>>> how about helping me out here. Can you steer me
>>> to some information sources to verify what you say,

>> Nope, because I've been doing this stuff for decades now and have
>> been using digital TV for a few years now, and use an amplifier fine.

>>> which is 180 degreees opposite of what I've read.

>> No it isnt. You're just completely mangling what they actually say.

>> Bet you cant actually cite anything that says that the digital signal cant be amplified,

> If you want _me_ to cite something, say so and I'll look it up.

I dont want YOU to cite anything, I know that no reputable source
will ever say that the digital signal cant be amplified because I
amplify mine and know that it isnt even possible to broadcast
digital signals without amplification and that amplification of the
received signal works fine, because I amplify mine and it works fine.

> All that I read dealing with any kind of weak signal detection is that
> the overall noise figure of the receiver controls the sensitivity for
> a given signal/noise ratio. It is more important to have a low noise
> figure and low gain than to have high gain and high noise. The only
> way to beat this limit is to do signal processing such as integration
> or content redundancy or as in computers something like CRC checks.

Different matter entirely.

>> or that supports any of the other claims you made above, except the all or nothing line which is certainly true of a
>> particular config of antenna, amplifier etc.

> I am also a ham radio operator with experience at VHF and UHF

Me too.

> and can verify, experimentally, that the low gain low noise preamp, in fact, will lift weak sinals out of the noise to
> the point of detectability when high noise high gain preamps will not.

Irrelevant to whether digital signals can be amplified. Of course they can.

> I am also familiar with signal averaging as another method of detecting signals below the noise floor and there are
> other techniques, too.

> The other poster politely asked you for references and more help and
> you definitely did not give any sources or references that he asked for.

It isnt even possible for me to provide a reference or a source for that stupid claim he
made that digital signals cant be amplified, because they obviously can be and are routinely.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: 401K - administrator holds contributions for 7 days before investing
them
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/888b961bb237d482?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 21 2008 6:59 pm
From: Snowbound

In article <MMqdnQhBht_cAn7anZ2dnUVZ_gudnZ2d@giganews.com>,
Just A User <ken@up-yours-spammer.net> wrote:

> that bear stern deal was a rarity watch any other group of stocks and
> see if they triple their value in just three weeks. ps my portfolio is
> up over 12% so far this year, which is better than most fund can do.

I'm probably wasting my breath, but that is exactly my point: for
investors like you, the BSC deal is a veritable once-in-a-lifetime
chance; a coincidental occurrence as rare as seeing 4 full eclipses in
one week. Such an opportunity will never present itself again, so why
bother looking for it? Better to just let your money disappear for three
weeks. A lo/no risk 12% ROI saves on ulcers.

And of course, you still avoid answering my original question. Do you
even remember what it was? It required a simple yes or no, not a
prolonged thread about personal views of stock market machinations.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 21 2008 7:25 pm
From: goaway@fractious.net

Snowbound <loosebowels@ixnay.invalid> writes:

> And of course, you still avoid answering my original question. Do you
> even remember what it was? It required a simple yes or no, not a
> prolonged thread about personal views of stock market machinations.

The legal answer was posted the same day you asked.
They have up to the 15th business day of the month
following the pay period.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: QualityGenerics.com
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/993d292753f12680?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 21 2008 7:00 pm
From: "cat"

"clams_casino" <PeterGriffin@DrunkinClam.com> wrote in message

>>>Did you know gullible is not found in any major dictionary or
>>>spell-check program?

> No way. Better check again. It won't be there.

Too bad you lifted your joke from a.m.o.e. It'll be there.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: girls wearing short skirts, hardcore anime, hot toons, iwangf, little
kids having sex, milf blowjobs, sexyfur
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/a04df04ee03e7c55?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 21 2008 9:26 pm
From: vsjdhvbsjhvb@gmail.com

http://www.uk.la/u/freemovie08
CLICK HERE TO FREE EXCLUSIVE PORNO...
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
girls wearing short skirts, hardcore anime, hot toons, iwangf, little
kids having sex, milf blowjobs, sexyfur

==============================================================================
TOPIC: bigboobsalert.com, bottle insertion, carmen electra pussy, college fuck
tour, external hard drive, female corporal punishment, final fantasy girls
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/ce7b4c31191f9519?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 21 2008 9:26 pm
From: vsjdhvbsjhvb@gmail.com

http://www.uk.la/u/freemovie08
CLICK HERE TO FREE EXCLUSIVE PORNO...
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
bigboobsalert.com, bottle insertion, carmen electra pussy, college
fuck tour, external hard drive, female corporal punishment, final
fantasy girls

==============================================================================
TOPIC: teachers fucking, teen fisting, uncut guys in shower, vaginal fisting,
911 conspiracy, america fuck yeah, big tits and ass
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/ae17d0ad331695a9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 21 2008 9:26 pm
From: vsjdhvbsjhvb@gmail.com

http://www.uk.la/u/freemovie08
CLICK HERE TO FREE EXCLUSIVE PORNO...
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
***
teachers fucking, teen fisting, uncut guys in shower, vaginal fisting,
911 conspiracy, america fuck yeah, big tits and ass

==============================================================================
TOPIC: discount, cheap, max ,shoes ( paypal accept ) ( www.top-saler.com )
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/727ba2cd7d65c4aa?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Mar 21 2008 9:49 pm
From: gu_good_feel@163.com

discount, cheap, max ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, cheap, af1 ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, cheap, running ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, cheap, adidas ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, cheap, nba ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, cheap, sports ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, cheap, d&g ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, cheap, bape ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, cheap, versace ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, cheap, boss ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, cheap, dior ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, cheap, dsquared ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, cheap, burberry ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, cheap, men's ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, cheap, women's ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, cheap, children ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, cheap, hogan ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, cheap, fendi ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, cheap, armani ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, cheap, chanel ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, cheap, coach ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, at cheap, nike shoes wholesale, cheap, jordan shoes
discount, max ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, af1 ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, running ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, adidas ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, nab ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, sports ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, d&g , ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com

)
discount, bape ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)
discount, versace ,shoes ( paypal accept ) (

www.top-saler.com
)