http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Fowl Math - 7 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3f704369916fd0d6?hl=en
* To juice or not. - 5 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/bb065ec0061ab7cd?hl=en
* PING: Pat Meadows - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/0f25aa435fc02242?hl=en
* Limbaugh omits a detail - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/6fb865f8cedae1e6?hl=en
* new tax on phone cards? - 9 messages, 7 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/8382689e25e1cf11?hl=en
* How do you save money, I started with INK for my printer - 1 messages, 1
author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3b671e616b1da3dd?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Fowl Math
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3f704369916fd0d6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Jul 31 2008 9:19 pm
From: Terri
Marsha <mas@xeb.net> wrote in news:g6tpsl$ckk$1@news.datemas.de:
>
> Sorry to horn in on your conversation,
Not at all! It's a public conversation and you are very welcome to join.
We were thinking about a Dobie or a Boxer next time....maybe not?
I like both but am not partial to potential droolers which is a chance
one takes with a Boxer and/or other bully breeds. I love St. Benards
too but I can't take the ones with ropey slimers hanging from their jowls.
Both are short haired, but Boxers tend to need sweaters while outside
in our winters whereas Dobes don't.
Dobes are a more clingy breed, hence the term "velcro dogs" was made up
for them. Boxers have a very winning personality in the clownish
department though, so they tend to be less serious than Dobes.
I will warn you though-my last next door neighbor had their Boxer die at
just under a year old due to renal failure. Apparently it's becoming more
common in the breed lately, or so I've heard.
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 2:49 am
From: nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu
Terri <Terri@micron.net> wrote:
>nicksanspam@ece.villanova.edu wrote
>>>I paid .99/lb for a chicken and made some broth to freeze
>>>for future use.
>>
>> A P pound chicken?
>You lost me here.
Suppose the chicken weighed 4 pounds, ie P = 4.
>> So the cost of the pure chicken was about $0.99P/1.6lb.
P = 4 makes the 1.6 pounds of pure chicken product cost $2.48 per pound.
>>>Water was done by irrigation water shares and by flood so
>>>no pump electricity was used for watering.
>>
>> How do you start a flood?
>We turn the head gate valve on and open the sliders on the irrigation pipe.
Two businessmen are on the beach in Florida. One asks "How did you get
the money to retire down here?" The other says "I had a warehouse, and
it burned down, and the insurance company paid for it." The first says
"I had a factory, and it was destroyed by a flood." The other asks...
>>>The time on my electric range to cook the chicken down was
>>>a total of 5 hours over the course of two days.
>>
>> Maybe 5 hours x 200 watts = 1 kWh worth about 10 cents.
>>
>>>What would the price per pound of the chicken really be
>>>when all is said and done?
>>
>> About $(0.10+0.99P)/1.6lb.
That raises the price of the pure chicken product to $2.54/lb.
Nick
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 4:17 am
From: Steve IA
hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote in news:vba494pufpmlt08kpv02pln79ueimanmpn@
4ax.com:
> While you may value the taste, economically, it still doesn't make
> sense.
I guess it gets back to the semi-annual "frugal vs. value" discussion.
Plus I don't have your faith in the cleanliness of the poultry industry.
YMMV.
Steve
Southiowa
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 4:20 am
From: Steve IA
Terri <Terri@micron.net> wrote in news:Xns9AEC91998E3687544444@
130.133.1.18:
> Steve IA <new@xnews.netl> wrote in
> news:Xns9AEC8A37EDCB3newxnewsnet@194.177.96.78:
>
>> Our locker charges $1.50/bird, plucked, cleaned, cooled to 40F. We cut
>> em up and package for 2 adults.
>
> That's pretty good. The local place I was looking at charges $3.00/bird:
> http://www.homegrownpoultry.net/
>
Oops! the SO just corrected me. It was $2/bird.
Steve
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 10:45 am
From: hchickpea@hotmail.com
On 1 Aug 2008 04:06:00 GMT, Terri <Terri@micron.net> wrote:
>hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote in
>news:i6u394thmpk3t9knst9orafi1nmkaf2lhh@4ax.com:
>
>I keep returning to this:
>>
>> Next, the price of my last 50 lb bag of grower/finisher feed at
>> Tractor Supply was $15. It took a little over a week for 17 of my 14
>> week old culls to go through that, plus table scraps, plus the wormy
>> corn from the garden. The culls are Cobbs, which have been ruthlessly
>> bred for feed to meat efficiency, so expect even higher feed costs
>> from other breeds.
>
>It's the amount of feed per week that bothers me as it seems
>absolutely enormous over what I remember the grandparents
>feeding their chickens. A 50 lb bag of feed for Carmine
>lasts well over a month and a half around here.
>Is it the breed that requires so much feed?
Possibly. They are voracious feeders.
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 10:08 am
From: Dennis
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:45:57 -0400, Marsha <mas@xeb.net> wrote:
>Dennis wrote:
>> Sorry to hear that. I had to have my Dobie, Kylie, put down in Jan
>> '07. Her heart gave out at 5 years old. I guess it is fairly common
>> with Dobies (and Boxers). Tough couple of months watching her go
>> downhill.
>>
>> I had a shepherd/lab mix when I was a teenager -- the best of both
>> worlds!
>>
>> Dennis (evil)
>
>Sorry to horn in on your conversation, but we have a lab/shepherd and
>she is definitely the best of both worlds. Feisty, compliant, large,
>extremely smart, manipulative, and loyal. She's 12 now, in the winter
>of her life, but still very healthy. She will be hard to replace. We
>were thinking about a Dobie or a Boxer next time....maybe not?
I've had two Dobermans and they were, hands down, the best dogs I've
ever had. Spirited but gentle, smart and obediant, loyal and (almost
too) affectionate. The first one lived to 11 years, then developed
lesions on her spine, began losing control of her back half and had to
be put down. The second developed heart problems at 5 and also had to
be put down. Too much interbreeding with purebreds, I think.
Do some research on "enlarged cardio myopathy" before getting a Dobie
or a Boxer. Apparently as many as 50% of the dogs of those breeds are
affected. I had never heard about it until my second dog was
diagnosed. It is an ugly condition where the dog slowly swells and
drowns in its own fluids.
For our current dog, we intentionally went with a mixed breed from the
pound. No guarantees of course, but at least she doesn't have the
known bad health stats against her that some of the purebreds do.
She's a nice dog (mostly Blue Heeler aka Australian Cattle Dog), but I
still miss my Dobies.
Dennis (evil)
--
What government gives, it must first take away.
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 10:19 am
From: Dennis
On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:04:03 -0600, hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote:
>On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 20:14:36 +0000 (UTC), Dennis <dgw80@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>>One thing we did learn was that we could take our tough old roosters
>>to the local poutry auction and get $8-10 a piece for them. I have no
>>idea why people pay that for a rooster -- maybe just to add genetic
>>diversity to their own flocks? Anyway, it makes an outlet for the
>>excess roosters and pays for the gas to haul them to auction.
>
>Sounds like there might be cock fights around there. Sacrificial
>sparring partners perhaps?
Hmm, certainly possible -- lots of <insert ethnic group with a
tradition of cock fighting> around here in PNW. I didn't go to the
auction myself, so I don't know who was doing the buying.
It is kind of funny to watch them fight in the yard, at least the
initial ritualistic dance part. We try to break them up before anyone
really gets hurt, but there are usually some bloody/scabbed combs.
One rooster is missing an eye. Can't babysit them all the time.
Fricken' feathered lizards...
Dennis (evil)
--
I'm a hands-on, footloose, knee-jerk head case. -George Carlin
==============================================================================
TOPIC: To juice or not.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/bb065ec0061ab7cd?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 4:15 am
From: clams_casino
Marsha wrote:
> clams_casino wrote:
>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>> You are obviously very pleased with the results of Bush leadership.
>
>
> In general, yes, I am pleased.
>
> Marsha/Ohio
>
Glad to hear someone is pleased with GW.
July 31 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. economy may have slipped into a
recession in the last three months of 2007 as consumer spending slowed
more than previously estimated and the housing slump worsened, revised
government figures indicated."
Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. probably lost jobs in July for a seventh
consecutive month and the unemployment rate rose, increasing the risk
the economic slowdown will worsen, economists said before a government
report today. "
Or is this depressing economy all due to Clinton?
and McBush promises more of the same?
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 4:46 pm
From: Marsha
clams_casino wrote:
> Glad to hear someone is pleased with GW.
> July 31 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. economy may have slipped into a
> recession in the last three months of 2007 as consumer spending slowed
> more than previously estimated and the housing slump worsened, revised
> government figures indicated."
>
> Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. probably lost jobs in July for a seventh
> consecutive month and the unemployment rate rose, increasing the risk
> the economic slowdown will worsen, economists said before a government
> report today. "
>
>
> Or is this depressing economy all due to Clinton?
>
> and McBush promises more of the same?
The economy cycles. We can't stay in an upward trend forever, no matter
who's in the oval office. And creating higher taxes for rich people,
who actually earn their money and use it to create jobs, and then giving
it willy nilly to those who won't educate themselves (won't, not can't)
so they can find a job is not the way to go. This is what Obama, or any
Democrat, will try to do if elected. I'm also really tired of the
bandaid approach to the poor, instead of giving them a fishing pole and
a way to get an honest leg up in life. Do you want to hear a sad story?
We have public housing that's being torn down and rebuilt. The local
paper interviewed one of the tenants, a single mom living with her four
kids, two over 21. She bragged that her mother was one of the first
residents. Three generations of people in the same public housing.
What's wrong with this picture?
Marsha/Ohio
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 5:23 pm
From: clams_casino
Marsha wrote:
> clams_casino wrote:
>
>> Glad to hear someone is pleased with GW.
>
>
>> July 31 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. economy may have slipped into a
>> recession in the last three months of 2007 as consumer spending
>> slowed more than previously estimated and the housing slump worsened,
>> revised government figures indicated."
>>
>> Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. probably lost jobs in July for a
>> seventh consecutive month and the unemployment rate rose, increasing
>> the risk the economic slowdown will worsen, economists said before a
>> government report today. "
>>
>>
>> Or is this depressing economy all due to Clinton?
>>
>> and McBush promises more of the same?
>
>
> The economy cycles. We can't stay in an upward trend forever, no
> matter who's in the oval office.
With McBush, it's likely we will stay in the same pathetic economy that
we've had for the past 6 years - an ever sinking dollar, creeping
inflation, more deaths in Iraq, a sagging stock market, etc
> And creating higher taxes for rich people, who actually earn their
> money and use it to create jobs
That's a joke. It was widely shown that GW's initial tax rebates
(which primarily went to the wealthy) ended up primarily for paying down
debt - NOT business expansion / investment..
> , and then giving it willy nilly to those who won't educate themselves
> (won't, not can't) so they can find a job is not the way to go. This
> is what Obama, or any Democrat, will try to do if elected. I'm also
> really tired of the bandaid approach to the poor, instead of giving
> them a fishing pole and a way to get an honest leg up in life. Do you
> want to hear a sad story? We have public housing that's being torn
> down and rebuilt. The local paper interviewed one of the tenants, a
> single mom living with her four kids, two over 21. She bragged that
> her mother was one of the first residents. Three generations of
> people in the same public housing. What's wrong with this picture?
>
> Marsha/Ohio
>
Fully agree - there is little difference between welfare for the poor
and welfare for the rich. However, for every $M you find going to the
poor, there is a $B going to the rich. GW has been all about providing
welfare for the rich - at the expense of the majority. Personally, I
think it's time for the pendulum to reverse.
So the bottom line ends up that if you feel the president has nothing to
do with the economy, they why are you so strongly in favor of McBush?
If nothing else, you really need to consider the upcoming Supreme
Court appointments. Actually, that's really the most critical aspect of
the next election.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 5:24 pm
From: tmclone@searchmachine.com
On Aug 1, 7:46 pm, Marsha <m...@xeb.net> wrote:
> clams_casino wrote:
> > Glad to hear someone is pleased with GW.
> > July 31 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. economy may have slipped into a
> > recession in the last three months of 2007 as consumer spending slowed
> > more than previously estimated and the housing slump worsened, revised
> > government figures indicated."
>
> > Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. probably lost jobs in July for a seventh
> > consecutive month and the unemployment rate rose, increasing the risk
> > the economic slowdown will worsen, economists said before a government
> > report today. "
>
> > Or is this depressing economy all due to Clinton?
>
> > and McBush promises more of the same?
>
> The economy cycles. We can't stay in an upward trend forever, no matter
> who's in the oval office. And creating higher taxes for rich people,
> who actually earn their money and use it to create jobs, and then giving
> it willy nilly to those who won't educate themselves (won't, not can't)
> so they can find a job is not the way to go. This is what Obama, or any
> Democrat, will try to do if elected. I'm also really tired of the
> bandaid approach to the poor, instead of giving them a fishing pole and
> a way to get an honest leg up in life. Do you want to hear a sad story?
> We have public housing that's being torn down and rebuilt. The local
> paper interviewed one of the tenants, a single mom living with her four
> kids, two over 21. She bragged that her mother was one of the first
> residents. Three generations of people in the same public housing.
> What's wrong with this picture?
>
> Marsha/Ohio- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
Funny, I'm a college-educated business owner, and my personal economy
is
ALWAYS better when a democrat is in the Oval Office. I cried the day
Clinton
left and Shrub mentioned the word "recession" in his inaugural
address.
Self-fulfilling prophecy, anyone? Crippling national debt, anyone? The
sooner we throw out the big-gubmint, tax-spend village idiot in
Washington,
the better off we'll all be.
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 5:34 pm
From: Marsha
clams_casino wrote:
> Marsha wrote:
>> clams_casino wrote:
>> July 31 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. economy may have slipped into a
>>> recession in the last three months of 2007 as consumer spending
>>> slowed more than previously estimated and the housing slump worsened,
>>> revised government figures indicated."
>>>
>>> Aug. 1 (Bloomberg) -- "The U.S. probably lost jobs in July for a
>>> seventh consecutive month and the unemployment rate rose, increasing
>>> the risk the economic slowdown will worsen, economists said before a
>>> government report today. "
>>> Or is this depressing economy all due to Clinton?
>>>
>>
>> The economy cycles. We can't stay in an upward trend forever, no
>> matter who's in the oval office.
>
>
> With McBush, it's likely we will stay in the same pathetic economy that
> we've had for the past 6 years - an ever sinking dollar, creeping
> inflation, more deaths in Iraq, a sagging stock market, etc
I don't think so.
>> And creating higher taxes for rich people, who actually earn their
>> money and use it to create jobs
>
> That's a joke. It was widely shown that GW's initial tax rebates
> (which primarily went to the wealthy) ended up primarily for paying down
> debt - NOT business expansion / investment..
>
So how do you feel about Nancy Pelosi jumping on the tax rebate bandwagon?
>
>> , and then giving it willy nilly to those who won't educate themselves
>> (won't, not can't) so they can find a job is not the way to go. This
>> is what Obama, or any Democrat, will try to do if elected. I'm also
>> really tired of the bandaid approach to the poor, instead of giving
>> them a fishing pole and a way to get an honest leg up in life. Do you
>> want to hear a sad story? We have public housing that's being torn
>> down and rebuilt. The local paper interviewed one of the tenants, a
>> single mom living with her four kids, two over 21. She bragged that
>> her mother was one of the first residents. Three generations of
>> people in the same public housing. What's wrong with this picture?
>>
>> Marsha/Ohio
>>
> Fully agree - there is little difference between welfare for the poor
> and welfare for the rich. However, for every $M you find going to the
> poor, there is a $B going to the rich. GW has been all about providing
> welfare for the rich - at the expense of the majority. Personally, I
> think it's time for the pendulum to reverse.
There should be more control and accountability on corporate welfare,
just as there should be more control on welfare for the poor.
>
>
> So the bottom line ends up that if you feel the president has nothing to
> do with the economy, they why are you so strongly in favor of McBush?
I don't think a president has "nothing" to do with the economy, but some
things can be delayed or swayed to turn in the right direction, given
enough time and given a House and Congress who are on board. BTW,
Congress' approval rating is lower than the President's.
>
> If nothing else, you really need to consider the upcoming Supreme
> Court appointments. Actually, that's really the most critical aspect of
> the next election.
A Republican majority can always "Bork" any nominee they don't like,
just like the Dems have done and continue to do. There are so many
nominees for judges still out there that the Dems are holding up, it's
not funny. Games, always games - by both sides.
Marsha/Ohio
==============================================================================
TOPIC: PING: Pat Meadows
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/0f25aa435fc02242?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 7:07 am
From: "nana wilson"
Thanks!!
<hchickpea@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bcv4945suorsrvh4gd6j34ps1el21ufhfn@4ax.com...
> On Thu, 31 Jul 2008 21:20:20 -0400, "nana wilson" <nnaoj5@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>How R U doin'?
>>
> Think you'll need to go into the rural living forum on yahoo to get a
> response. Pat left here years ago.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Limbaugh omits a detail
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/6fb865f8cedae1e6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 9:10 am
From: George Grapman
Plays a tape of Obama being heckled. Forgets a minor detail.
http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/08/01/politics/fromtheroad/entry4313429.shtml
Obama asked the protesters, whom a local reporter said were members of
the state's black panthers legacy group, to "be courteous" and
"respect." The Illinois senator said the men would have their chance to
speak after his opening remarks.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 4:40 pm
From: "D&SW"
It was not the point of the audio to show Obama as discourteous, so Obama's
courtesy to the hecklers was irrelevant. The fact that he was being heckled
by African Americans was the point. Why are you posting this here?
"George Grapman" <sfgeorge@paccbell.net> wrote in message
news:jAGkk.16966$mh5.644@nlpi067.nbdc.sbc.com...
> Plays a tape of Obama being heckled. Forgets a minor detail.
>
>
>
> http://www.cbsnews.com/blogs/2008/08/01/politics/fromtheroad/entry4313429.shtml
>
>
> Obama asked the protesters, whom a local reporter said were members of the
> state's black panthers legacy group, to "be courteous" and "respect." The
> Illinois senator said the men would have their chance to speak after his
> opening remarks.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: new tax on phone cards?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/8382689e25e1cf11?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 11:38 am
From: "OhioGuy"
I live in Ohio, and we've been using an MCI telephone card that we bought
years ago at Wal-Mart, I believe. It started out at 2.5 cents a minute, but
a year or so ago it went up to 2.98 cents a minute. (basically 3c)
When I went to recharge the minutes this time, I heard something extra
that has never been there in the past - it added $3.50 to the $55 that I
authorized, and I guess that is a new tax that wasn't there before.
One of the main reasons I used the calling card was because there was no
tax on it, while there was tax on traditional long distance plans.
While still a decent deal, this means that I'm paying 27% more for every
minute than I was a few years ago.
Are there any ways to get simple long distance outbound service any more
for under 3c a minute, with no taxes?
== 2 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 11:49 am
From: "AllEmailDeletedImmediately"
"OhioGuy" <none@none.net> wrote in message news:g6vl7m$9p2$1@aioe.org...
> I live in Ohio, and we've been using an MCI telephone card that we bought
> years ago at Wal-Mart, I believe. It started out at 2.5 cents a minute,
> but a year or so ago it went up to 2.98 cents a minute. (basically 3c)
>
> When I went to recharge the minutes this time, I heard something extra
> that has never been there in the past - it added $3.50 to the $55 that I
> authorized, and I guess that is a new tax that wasn't there before.
>
> One of the main reasons I used the calling card was because there was no
> tax on it, while there was tax on traditional long distance plans.
>
> While still a decent deal, this means that I'm paying 27% more for every
> minute than I was a few years ago.
>
> Are there any ways to get simple long distance outbound service any more
> for under 3c a minute, with no taxes?
musta been an oversight on ohio's part. everyone else pays taxes and fees
on phone calls so the cards shouldn't be exempt.
== 3 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 12:01 pm
From: clams_casino
OhioGuy wrote:
>
> Are there any ways to get simple long distance outbound service any more
>for under 3c a minute, with no taxes?
>
>
>
>
What does paying taxes matter? The question should be how to pay less
than 3 cents / min including applicable taxes.
== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 2:30 pm
From: George Grapman
clams_casino wrote:
> OhioGuy wrote:
>
>>
>> Are there any ways to get simple long distance outbound service any
>> more for under 3c a minute, with no taxes?
>>
>>
>>
> What does paying taxes matter? The question should be how to pay less
> than 3 cents / min including applicable taxes.
I can not talk about Ohio but,having been in the business I can tell
you this:
There is no federal tax on phone cards as the excise tax in built into
the rate. If you see a poster for a card that says something like "does
not include applicable federal taxes" run the other way.
California does not have a sales tax on phone cards but some merchants
in tourist areas may try to add it to the price.
== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 2:37 pm
From: Mark Anderson
In article none@none.net says...
> Are there any ways to get simple long distance outbound service any more
> for under 3c a minute, with no taxes?
I've been using onesuite.com for many years. It's 2.5 cents per minute
with no BS and no setup call charges. Ironically I use it most making
intraLATA calls from the city of Chicago to the burbs (around 25 miles)
where AT&T charges like 6 cents/minute.
== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 2:47 pm
From: "Evelyn C. Leeper"
Mark Anderson wrote:
> In article none@none.net says...
>> Are there any ways to get simple long distance outbound service any more
>> for under 3c a minute, with no taxes?
>
> I've been using onesuite.com for many years. It's 2.5 cents per minute
> with no BS and no setup call charges. Ironically I use it most making
> intraLATA calls from the city of Chicago to the burbs (around 25 miles)
> where AT&T charges like 6 cents/minute.
Yes, it's worth noting that intra-state calls made through AT&T can end
up costing *way* more per minute than state-to-state calls. That's one
reason we discontinued having a default long-distance carrier. Now when
we dial a number that's three towns away for which we'd be charged 25
cents a minute, instead we get a message saying we need a long-distance
carrier, and we use onesuite instead.
--
Evelyn C. Leeper
Just because everything is different doesn't mean
anything has changed. -Irene Peter
== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 2:56 pm
From: George Grapman
Evelyn C. Leeper wrote:
> Mark Anderson wrote:
>> In article none@none.net says...
>>> Are there any ways to get simple long distance outbound service any
>>> more for under 3c a minute, with no taxes?
>>
>> I've been using onesuite.com for many years. It's 2.5 cents per
>> minute with no BS and no setup call charges. Ironically I use it most
>> making intraLATA calls from the city of Chicago to the burbs (around
>> 25 miles) where AT&T charges like 6 cents/minute.
>
> Yes, it's worth noting that intra-state calls made through AT&T can end
> up costing *way* more per minute than state-to-state calls. That's one
> reason we discontinued having a default long-distance carrier. Now when
> we dial a number that's three towns away for which we'd be charged 25
> cents a minute, instead we get a message saying we need a long-distance
> carrier, and we use onesuite instead.
>
When I upgraded to DSL I decided to keep my modem line since I work
at home and might be helpful to have a back up dial tome for a few
dollars a month.
As it happens, a few months ago there were problems with my main
phone so while they were trouble shooting I used the modem line. That
phone had no LD service so I made local calls. I had to make one out of
state call so I used the MCI dial around code.
When my AT&T bill came is showed something like $21 for an 11 minute
call. The drill went as follows:
Called AT&T which immediately agreed to delete the charge.
AT&T rep told me they would charge it back to MCI and that MCI might
pursue the matter.
Nothing further happened.
== 8 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 2:58 pm
From: George Grapman
Mark Anderson wrote:
> In article none@none.net says...
>> Are there any ways to get simple long distance outbound service any more
>> for under 3c a minute, with no taxes?
>
> I've been using onesuite.com for many years. It's 2.5 cents per minute
> with no BS and no setup call charges. Ironically I use it most making
> intraLATA calls from the city of Chicago to the burbs (around 25 miles)
> where AT&T charges like 6 cents/minute.
>
>
It depends on your call volume and pattern. As a heavy user with a
home office I prefer a land line with unlimited calls, $50 a month
including taxes.
Also, since we sell voice mail and phone systems to businesses I need
a high quality connection on every call.
== 9 of 9 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 4:13 pm
From: Zuke
On Fri, 1 Aug 2008, George Grapman wrote:
> Mark Anderson wrote:
>> In article none@none.net says...
>>> Are there any ways to get simple long distance outbound service any more
>>> for under 3c a minute, with no taxes?
>>
>> I've been using onesuite.com for many years. It's 2.5 cents per minute
>> with no BS and no setup call charges. Ironically I use it most making
>> intraLATA calls from the city of Chicago to the burbs (around 25 miles)
>> where AT&T charges like 6 cents/minute.
>>
>>
> It depends on your call volume and pattern. As a heavy user with a home
> office I prefer a land line with unlimited calls, $50 a month including
> taxes.
What are you trying to do here? Put Ohioguy into the graveyard? He wouldn't
pay that much for a house mortgage or new car loan. And more power to
him as that is how he prefers to live. I enjoy reading of his fiscal
adventures.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How do you save money, I started with INK for my printer
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/browse_thread/thread/3b671e616b1da3dd?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Aug 1 2008 2:30 pm
From: "Dave"
> > Get yourself a cheap laser printer. We bought one roughly 5 years ago.
We
> > haven't replaced the ink cartridge yet. Use it daily. I don't care how
> > cheaply you think you can refill your inkjet cartridges, you are not
going
> > to beat 5 years between refills! -Dave
>
> I challenge your assumptions Dave, at least in my case. A decent color
> laser printer in not cheap. I have half a dozen ink jets that were
> casts offs from friends or curb finds. I bought a huge supply of ink
> at $1/oz that will last me for years. There is a learning curve with
> ink refilling. I have it down to just a few minutes and little mess.
> True, I can't go five years between fills, but I also have the
> reliability of redundant printers. When you absolutely positively have
> to get something done, one printer or one computer is a scary thought
> indeed.
Who said anything about one printer? We've got a Samsung monochrome laser
and an HP inkjet photo-quality color printer. We use the Samsung daily,
hardly ever turn on the HP. The amazing thing is that the HP still has the
original cartridges in it, and that the ink hasn't dried out. Both are 5
years old roughly, we bought the HP just after the Samsung. We wanted the
ability to print in color sometimes, but we hardly ever do. -Dave
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com?hl=en
