Frugal Living: Dec 25, 2008

Thursday, December 25, 2008

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 14 topics - digest

This summary is not available. Please click here to view the post.

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 24 new messages in 9 topics - digest

misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Usenet being phased out
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/88e9e410905fb851?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 4:09 pm
From: "Dave"

"Macuser" <spamisaluncheon@meat.com> wrote in message
news:Noz4l.998$Es4.663@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>A friend would like to read here and contribute, but Comcast, his ISP, has
>discontinued newsgroups. I also noticed that several newsgroups I used to
>read, or want to read, have been discontinued byVerizon, my ISP. This seems
>to me like a conscious effort to rid the world of Usenet, in favor of the
>Internet.
>
> Man, I'm peeved. What can be done?
>

news.motzarella.org

It's not a conscious effort to rid the world of Usenet, in favor of the
Internet (I assume you mean the world wide web).

The stated excuse was to combat the distribution of kiddie porn in binary
groups. I personally think it is an attack on free speech. I mean, to stop
distribution of kiddie porn, you don't need to axe all the TEXT-ONLY
groups!!!

It is oh so ironic that a Internet protocol which should be text only got
killed because of illegal activity in binary groups which shouldn't even
EXIST on usenet in the first place!

Again, a better approach would have been to stop peering all binary groups.
I know most usenet users would never miss the binary groups, nor even NOTICE
that they are gone. -Dave

== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 5:00 pm
From: krw

In article <giuj00$gi9$1@news.motzarella.org>, noway1@nohow2.not
says...
>
> "Macuser" <spamisaluncheon@meat.com> wrote in message
> news:Noz4l.998$Es4.663@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
> >A friend would like to read here and contribute, but Comcast, his ISP, has
> >discontinued newsgroups. I also noticed that several newsgroups I used to
> >read, or want to read, have been discontinued byVerizon, my ISP. This seems
> >to me like a conscious effort to rid the world of Usenet, in favor of the
> >Internet.
> >
> > Man, I'm peeved. What can be done?
> >
>
>
> news.motzarella.org

www.individual.net is about $15/year. Very good but text only.
There are several others, cheap.

> It's not a conscious effort to rid the world of Usenet, in favor of the
> Internet (I assume you mean the world wide web).
>
> The stated excuse was to combat the distribution of kiddie porn in binary
> groups. I personally think it is an attack on free speech. I mean, to stop
> distribution of kiddie porn, you don't need to axe all the TEXT-ONLY
> groups!!!

Nonsense. It's a cost cutting measure. Kiddie porn is a convenient
goat.

> It is oh so ironic that a Internet protocol which should be text only got
> killed because of illegal activity in binary groups which shouldn't even
> EXIST on usenet in the first place!
>
> Again, a better approach would have been to stop peering all binary groups.
> I know most usenet users would never miss the binary groups, nor even NOTICE
> that they are gone. -Dave

That wasn't the "solution" because you have the wrong "problem".

--
Keith

== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 5:06 pm
From: Luke

"Macuser" <spamisaluncheon@meat.com> wrote in
news:Noz4l.998$Es4.663@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:

> A friend would like to read here and contribute, but Comcast,
> his ISP, has discontinued newsgroups. I also noticed that
> several newsgroups I used to read, or want to read, have been
> discontinued byVerizon, my ISP. This seems to me like a
> conscious effort to rid the world of Usenet, in favor of the
> Internet.
>
> Man, I'm peeved. What can be done?

alt.free.newsservers

== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 5:10 pm
From: richgr@panix.com (Rich Greenberg)

In article <Noz4l.998$Es4.663@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
Macuser <spamisaluncheon@meat.com> wrote:
>A friend would like to read here and contribute, but Comcast, his ISP, has
>discontinued newsgroups. I also noticed that several newsgroups I used to
>read, or want to read, have been discontinued byVerizon, my ISP. This seems
>to me like a conscious effort to rid the world of Usenet, in favor of the
>Internet.
>
>Man, I'm peeved. What can be done?

Great news feed and email with optional spam filtering.

You still need your comcast/verizontal/?? account to connect, then air
your newsreader at panix and go. Get email via IMAP. Or even log onto
the shell and do it that way.

www.panix.com

--
Rich Greenberg N Ft Myers, FL, USA richgr atsign panix.com + 1 239 543 1353
Eastern time. N6LRT I speak for myself & my dogs only. VM'er since CP-67
Canines:Val, Red, Shasta & Casey (RIP), Red & Zero, Siberians Owner:Chinook-L
Retired at the beach Asst Owner:Sibernet-L

== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 6:49 pm
From: ultimauw@gmail.com

On Dec 24, 3:15 pm, "Macuser" <spamisalunch...@meat.com> wrote:
> A friend would like to read here and contribute, but Comcast, his ISP, has
> discontinued newsgroups. I also noticed that several newsgroups I used to
> read, or want to read, have been discontinued byVerizon, my ISP. This seems
> to me like a conscious effort to rid the world of Usenet, in favor of the
> Internet.
>

It's kind of strange that they are eliminating Usenet , which was THE
place for discussions on the internet, which is hosted on thousands
upon thousands of mirrored servers for the BALKANIZED world of web
message boards, where the boards may be hosted on just a single
server, which entities like the feds could easily shut down.

== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 7:25 pm
From: "JR Weiss"

<ultimauw@gmail.com> wrote...
>
> It's kind of strange that they are eliminating Usenet , which was THE
> place for discussions on the internet, which is hosted on thousands
> upon thousands of mirrored servers for the BALKANIZED world of web
> message boards, where the boards may be hosted on just a single
> server, which entities like the feds could easily shut down.

Usenet is NOT being eliminated!

Unfortunately, the large ISPs have decided it is not profitable enough to
continue carrying free Usenet servers, so they are forcing their customers to
find INDEPENDENT Usenet servers that are still accessible via the Internet. So,
while the move might inconvenience you a bit, it may actually be a blessing in
disguise!

motzarella.org is a fine FREE Usenet host for non-binary newsgroups.

news.astraweb.com is a fine Usenet host for binaries, with several options for
heavy or light users of the binary newsgroups. Their "pay by download" plan is
great for light users; $25 will likely last 5+ years!

== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 7:27 pm
From: axiom

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 23:15:57 +0000, Macuser wrote:

> A friend would like to read here and contribute, but Comcast, his ISP,
> has discontinued newsgroups. I also noticed that several newsgroups I
> used to read, or want to read, have been discontinued byVerizon, my ISP.
> This seems to me like a conscious effort to rid the world of Usenet, in
> favor of the Internet.
>
> Man, I'm peeved. What can be done?

ISP Usenet services usually suck anyway. If you're a heavy Usenet user,
try a commercial news provider like Supernews for a few weeks and you'll
never go back.

== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 7:43 pm
From: Odd Bob

"JR Weiss" <jrweiss@invalid.invalid> wrote in
news:giuugu$iqe$1@news.motzarella.org:

> <ultimauw@gmail.com> wrote...
>>
>> It's kind of strange that they are eliminating Usenet , which was THE
>> place for discussions on the internet, which is hosted on thousands
>> upon thousands of mirrored servers for the BALKANIZED world of web
>> message boards, where the boards may be hosted on just a single
>> server, which entities like the feds could easily shut down.
>
> Usenet is NOT being eliminated!
>
> Unfortunately, the large ISPs have decided it is not profitable enough
> to continue carrying free Usenet servers, so they are forcing their
> customers to find INDEPENDENT Usenet servers that are still accessible
> via the Internet. So, while the move might inconvenience you a bit,
> it may actually be a blessing in disguise!
>
> motzarella.org is a fine FREE Usenet host for non-binary newsgroups.
>
> news.astraweb.com is a fine Usenet host for binaries, with several
> options for heavy or light users of the binary newsgroups. Their "pay
> by download" plan is great for light users; $25 will likely last 5+
> years!
>
>
>

You can even subscribe to Giganews if you really want to--that's who's been
providing Comcast's free news service for the last few years. It's all
still there, you just have to pay for it, now. Nothing has been
eliminated.

Personally I went with Astraweb. Not as much retention as Giganews but wow
is it faster! And at 110gb for $25 (Now they're offering 120 for that
price) I won't have to worry about paying another monthly bill or have
service cut off if I forget about it. Should take me a couple years at
least before I have to worry about buying more...

-- Bob

== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 7:53 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Macuser wrote:

> A friend would like to read here and contribute, but Comcast, his ISP, has discontinued newsgroups. I also noticed
> that several newsgroups I used to read, or want to read, have been discontinued byVerizon, my ISP. This seems to me
> like a conscious effort to rid the world of Usenet, in favor of the Internet.

> Man, I'm peeved.

No need to be.

> What can be done?

Use a decent commercial news server separate from your ISP.

That can cost peanuts with for example news.individual.net

== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 8:05 pm
From: "Bob F"

"krw" <krw@att.bizzzzzzzzzz> wrote in message
news:MPG.23bc96ef8319fb8998a4c9@news.individual.net...
> In article <giuj00$gi9$1@news.motzarella.org>, noway1@nohow2.not
> says...
>>
>> "Macuser" <spamisaluncheon@meat.com> wrote in message
>> news:Noz4l.998$Es4.663@nwrddc01.gnilink.net...
>> >A friend would like to read here and contribute, but Comcast, his ISP, has
>> >discontinued newsgroups. I also noticed that several newsgroups I used to
>> >read, or want to read, have been discontinued byVerizon, my ISP. This seems
>> >to me like a conscious effort to rid the world of Usenet, in favor of the
>> >Internet.
>> >
>> > Man, I'm peeved. What can be done?
>> >
>>
>>
>> news.motzarella.org
>
> www.individual.net is about $15/year. Very good but text only.
> There are several others, cheap.
>
>> It's not a conscious effort to rid the world of Usenet, in favor of the
>> Internet (I assume you mean the world wide web).
>>
>> The stated excuse was to combat the distribution of kiddie porn in binary
>> groups. I personally think it is an attack on free speech. I mean, to stop
>> distribution of kiddie porn, you don't need to axe all the TEXT-ONLY
>> groups!!!
>
> Nonsense. It's a cost cutting measure. Kiddie porn is a convenient
> goat.
>
>> It is oh so ironic that a Internet protocol which should be text only got
>> killed because of illegal activity in binary groups which shouldn't even
>> EXIST on usenet in the first place!
>>
>> Again, a better approach would have been to stop peering all binary groups.
>> I know most usenet users would never miss the binary groups, nor even NOTICE
>> that they are gone. -Dave
>
> That wasn't the "solution" because you have the wrong "problem".

You've got that right.

== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 10:04 pm
From: The Real Bev

JR Weiss wrote:

> <ultimauw@gmail.com> wrote...
>>
>> It's kind of strange that they are eliminating Usenet , which was THE
>> place for discussions on the internet, which is hosted on thousands
>> upon thousands of mirrored servers for the BALKANIZED world of web
>> message boards, where the boards may be hosted on just a single
>> server, which entities like the feds could easily shut down.
>
> Usenet is NOT being eliminated!
>
> Unfortunately, the large ISPs have decided it is not profitable enough to
> continue carrying free Usenet servers, so they are forcing their customers to
> find INDEPENDENT Usenet servers that are still accessible via the Internet. So,
> while the move might inconvenience you a bit, it may actually be a blessing in
> disguise!
>
> motzarella.org is a fine FREE Usenet host for non-binary newsgroups.

Excellent newsserver. Good speed and retention. Sign up at the website
for a free account and then use your favorite newsreader software. I
use it when I can't connect to my ISP's newsserver or when it's down.

> news.astraweb.com is a fine Usenet host for binaries, with several options for
> heavy or light users of the binary newsgroups. Their "pay by download" plan is
> great for light users; $25 will likely last 5+ years!

--
Cheers,
Bev
ooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
If it ain't broke, fix it 'til it is.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: ready for some afta Xmas bargains?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/402f38fb651a3468?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 5:10 pm
From: "'nam vet."

another reason to give gift cards.
but the stores may be crowded soon.
--
When the Power of Love,replaces the Love of Power.
that's Evolution.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Negro, hispanic crime ripping through America.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/dc68feb795ea956f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 5:29 pm
From: "S'mee"

On Dec 24, 11:09 am, "." <Rhiann...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 24, 9:34 am, The Man From Another Planet <br...@itnz.co.nz>
> wrote:
>
> > C'mon, it's 6.30am Christmas morning....peace and goodwill to all (and
> > all that crap) :)
>
> Christmas morning, in the middle of summer in Godzone, and you have
> nothing better to do than debate foreign politics that don't affect
> you in any way?
>
> Is that *lame*, or what?

Not as lame as a white nigger like you running your trashy mouth
whilst your betters speak. No piss off boy...your betters are busy.
--
Keith

==============================================================================
TOPIC: What minor frugal change did you make this year?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2d2a9d8612f0c718?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 5:34 pm
From: val189

On Dec 24, 6:45 pm, Evelyn Leeper <elee...@optonline.net> wrote:

> Actually, I suspect he meant they could regulate the temperature setting
> remotely--at least that's what's offered here.

Yes - the temporary disconnect of the a/c and water heater is handled
remotely.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 8:15 pm
From: "Nicik Name"

"Daniel T." <daniel_t@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:0d87857e-0664-49ca-993b-ff13b222c31c@z28g2000prd.googlegroups.com...
> "Nicik Name" <orb...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
>>
>> For security reasons NEVER shut down the motor while on a roadway.
>> Hope this helps.........
>
> In my state, and I think in most states, it's illegal to shut off the
> engine while the car is moving, (though I have been known to do that
> on occasion when I'm comming up to a light that I know will be red for
> a long time.)
>
> Nicik is right though, there is a safety concern. With the engine off,
> you don't have your power breaks or power stearing, and of course you
> loose all ability to accelerate.
from a rat with a 9 mil at your driver side door also.......
been there......
>
> For example, I will leave my engine running if nobody is behind me.
> Just in case someone shows up and forgets to break soon enough, I want
> the ability to pull ahead and out of their way so I won't be rear-
> ended.
>
>> Lic driver circa 1968......eh what do i know
>
> I'm over 20 years accident free. I tell my kids there are three kinds
> of drivers, those who get into accidents and it's usually their fault,
> those who get into accidents and it's rarely their fault, and then
> there are those who simply don't get into accidents.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Vinegar & Spam DO NOT MIX
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4f10bcc3fe11d72b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 6:03 pm
From: clams_casino

Macuser wrote:

> You can keep it in the fridge or on the shelf, and it keeps forever.
> No bacteria would want to live in a bottle of vinegar.
>
>
Spamming your site on this newsgroup is not apreciated.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 8:08 pm
From: gheston@hiwaay.net (Gary Heston)

In article <VZy4l.986$Es4.151@nwrddc01.gnilink.net>,
Macuser <spamisaluncheon@meat.com> wrote:
>You can keep it in the fridge or on the shelf, and it keeps forever. No
>bacteria would want to live in a bottle of vinegar.

Incorrect:

http://kitchensavvy.typepad.com/journal/2005/04/mother_of_vineg.html

Gary

--
Gary Heston gheston@hiwaay.net http://www.thebreastcancersite.com/

"Behind every successful woman there is an astonished man"
General of the Army (four stars) Ann Dunwoody

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 8:55 pm
From: Dave Garland

Gary Heston wrote:
> http://kitchensavvy.typepad.com/journal/2005/04/mother_of_vineg.html

"Mother of vinegar" is the culture that made the vinegar in the first
place. You can't really count its actions as "spoilage", they're not
less safe to eat.

Most food products that are produced by the action of microorganisms
are pretty resistant to spoilage. Alcohol. Vinegar. Yoghurt. The
microorganism is essentially filling the product with its own culture
and/or waste products. Not much room left for competition from other
microorganisms.

Dave

==============================================================================
TOPIC: poverty line
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/4eaa805a9a816468?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 7:11 pm
From: Dennis

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:33:53 -0800 (PST), Seerialmom
<seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote:

>One thing those who fail to realize when they grouse about welfare is
>the recipient never "keeps" the money, it goes to landowners, grocers,
>utilities etc. They aren't getting rich. Sure, "some" abuse the
>benefit. For every 1 "welfare queen wearing gold and driving a
>Cadillac" there's 30 more working part time, wearing second hand
>clothes and if she's lucky, has a $300 beater car.

Really? Is that just a guess or is it based on some personal
experience? Because we used to own/manage some apartments that
catered to Section 8 tenants. Our experience with these people was
that about 1 in 4 was a basically honest hard-working type who was
down on their luck and just needed a hand to get on their feet. The
rest were just working the system for whatever they could get.

I would actually be happy to learn that our experience was atypical.

Dennis (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 7:26 pm
From: Dennis

On Wed, 24 Dec 2008 13:24:31 -0800 (PST), Seerialmom
<seerialmom@yahoo.com> wrote:

>I know, how about we turn all the old military bases into "paupers
>farms" and anyone who applies for welfare would have to go there to
>live instead of being allowed the albeit slight, dignity of at least
>trying to take care of their families in their own homes?

Some local entrepreneurs bought and turned the old county "poor farm"
into restaurant/brewpub/winery/hotel/concert venue. My wife and I
went there and, once we got past the irony of the old poor farm now
being a trendy spot where yuppies go to drink $6/glass wine and eat
$25/plate dinners, we took a look around. They had quite a few
pictures of the old place and displays of its history.

The able-bodied residents actually worked the farm. They produced
all their own food, plus surplus that fed the county jails and
hospitals. They also produced their own power. Those who didn't work
the fields did the laundry, cooking, cleaning, child care, etc. I'm
sure it wasn't a luxurious life, but no one starved.

Interesting contrast to today's approach: here's a check and some
foodstamps -- you're on your own.

Here's a link to some info if interested:

http://www.mcmenamins.com/index.php?loc=3&id=56

Dennis (evil)
--
The honest man is the one who realizes that he cannot
consume more, in his lifetime, than he produces.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 9:21 pm
From: Dave Garland

Marsha wrote:
> No disagreement. That's why there were percentages in the original link.

I looked there. But they don't give footnotes about precisely where
the data came from. My problem is, I don't trust "heritage.org".
They're rightwingers with a big ax to grind. I'm not saying that I
think they lie, but I'm saying that I think one needs to examine what
they say with a fine-tooth comb, since "had sex with" can have
different meanings depending on what the definitions are.

> From Thomas Sowell's Random Thoughts today:
>
> "As American incomes have risen over the years, liberals have kept
> changing the definition of "poverty." Otherwise, the dwindling numbers
> of people who could be called "poor" would take away the liberals' main
> claim to influence and power."

Perhaps. And of course, what we call "middle class" nowadays would
have once been called "obscenely wealthy". Standards do change.
Once, living to 50 qualified you as elderly. Presumably, Mr. Sowell
thinks it still should.

>>> Most truly poor people simply can't or don't make good choices.

>> But do you have any evidence do you have for
>> "most"?
>
> No, that's just my experience with people I know. Do you have any that
> says it isn't the case in most situations?

No, other than personal experience. In part it depends on exactly
what "good choices" means. Many people (including President Bush)
obviously make what in retrospect are bad choices. The trick is
having the ability to know ahead of time whether they will be good or bad.

> We all have the opportunity to work hard and earn a
> decent living, unless you are mentally disabled, but it's not a right.

A frail 80-year-old has the opportunity to work hard and earn a decent
living?

Dave

==============================================================================
TOPIC: self-employed, the price?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/25ab6d7a439ac7f1?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 7:22 pm
From: Larry Caldwell

In article <98CdnSjniZ2FEczUnZ2dnUVZ_judnZ2d@posted.visi>,
dave.garland@wizinfo.com (Dave Garland) says...
> George wrote:
>
> > It wouldn't have to if implemented in the same fashion as out state
> > sales tax. Food that you buy to prepare yourself is exempt and so is
> > basic clothing. Medical is exempt. Pretty much everything else is taxable.
>
> Stocks and real estate? Bet there's a big loophole there.

Bonds? CDs?

> Lawyers? Architects, security services, ad agencies? (Around here
> those are all exempt. Though the security services are only exempt if
> they're moonlighting cops.)

Medical and dental? Insurance? Charitable contributions?

And, of course, everything you purchase for resale is exempt, even if
you don't sell it. That's just one more tax advantage of being self-
employed.

The sales tax has huge loopholes. Of course, I would love it, since I
have beaucoup bucks in my 401k and will have to pay income tax on it
when I start withdrawals. Eliminate the income tax!

--
For email, replace firstnamelastinitial
with my first name and last initial.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: .99 store complaint
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/344e32ee920ae3a2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 8:43 pm
From: Jeff

The Real Bev wrote:
> ultimauw@live.com wrote:
>
>> On Dec 21, 2:23 pm, "Macuser" <spamisalunch...@meat.com> wrote:
>>> Does anybody have a .99 or $1.00 store that actually still sells ALL
>>> items
>>> for this amount? There are several near me, and all of them are
>>> trying to
>>> pry more out of the customers by raising prices about that threshold.
>>> Certain items, like cheap little power strips have doubled in price.
>>> I buy
>>> less now than ever. How about you?
>>
>> 99 cent power strips?! ick! I for one would not want to use those fire
>> hazards let alone leave them plugged in unattended. Same with the
>> lights they sell.
>
> So what do you think of their condoms and pregnancy tests?

Years ago I had a friend who gave me a keychain with a condom in a
little box on the end.

I took it for a gag gift.

Sometime later I got a call from him warning me *not* to use it.
Apparently he had, it broke, and there was the unintended unhappy/happy
consequence.

Sometimes thinking is a useful practice.

Jeff
>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Collision insurance
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2850cf9d787416a8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Wed, Dec 24 2008 9:24 pm
From: The Real Bev

Ben wrote:

> "Marsha" <mas@xeb.net> wrote in message news:gitk2q$nps$2@news.datemas.de...
>> If I want to go to a casino, that's my choice. A minimum of liability is
>> required in this state, although, by my insurance company's statistics,
>> 50% of drivers do not have even that. That upsets me. Why should anyone
>> need to pay for uninsured motorist coverage?
>
> You don't need uninsured motorist coverage. You will be covered
> even if you don't have that. Only difference is that you will have to pay
> your regular deductible if an uninsured motorist hits you. OTOH, if you have
> uninsured motorist coverage, you will get the full repair costs without
> a deductible.
>
> I have never had uninsured motorist coverage after I realized this.

Then you obviously carry collision. People who carry only liability
might or might not need UM depending on their medical insurance
situation. At least that's my understanding of the way the California
system works.

--
Cheers,
Bev
-----------------------------------------------------------------
"Nothing in the universe can withstand the relentless application
of brute force and ignorance." -- Frd, via Dennis (evil)

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

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

Thursday, December 25, 2008

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 14 topics - digest

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 24 new messages in 9 topics - digest