Frugal Living: misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 11 topics

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: Medical dilemma - any suggestions?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/df14805001c77364?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 10 2009 1:41 pm
From: "John A. Weeks III"

In article <4968e838$0$31588$6c36adad@news.usenetserver.com>,
info_at_1-script_dot_com@foo.com (spendwize.com) wrote:

> There is a 29 year old adult single female living in Texas. Due to several
> chronic and worsening medical conditions ( including IBS and fibromyalgia)
> this gal has been unable to attain and hold a full-time job.

How about:

1) dump the looser attitude.

2) get a job that has flex hours or is based on piece work. Maybe
this means stringing together a few part-time jobs.

3) dump the bozo.

4) move to where it is cheaper to live.

5) find someone of higher quality to date & get married to.

-john-

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

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Sales Taxes on Web Purchases
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/9ed7426ab3321f7d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 10 2009 1:53 pm
From: The Real Bev

Vic Smith wrote:

> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:23:16 -0600, Dave Garland
>
>>http://www.callingmart.com/ doesn't charge tax (I assume that their
>>physical location is somewhere there isn't a sales tax, or else they
>>eat the tax). And the $10 T-Mobile refill I bought from them a few
>>days ago cost $9.30.
>>
> Thanks for all that info.
> Do T-Mobile refill minutes bought on this site have the same 365 day
> expiration (Gold Rewards) as on the T-Mobile site?

Once you've paid your $100 everything is good for a year from your last refill.
And you get 15% extra minutes, too.

> Seems weird that T-Mobile would sell refills to a reseller.
> To what advantage for them?
> Are these minutes easily added to your T-Mobile account?

I buy a $10 card once a year at Target because I get Target gift certificates
for clicking on ads. I can't remember if they charge sales tax on it or not. A
refill card is a refill card, it doesn't matter where you bought it. You don't
even have to buy a refill card, you can just add minutes with a phone call and a
credit card.

This probably explains why so few people give significant discounts.

--
Cheers,
Bev
================================================================
"Everything sucks; reverse the wires and everything will blow."
-- Desert Ed

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 10 2009 4:37 pm
From: Vic Smith

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:53:15 -0800, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

>Vic Smith wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:23:16 -0600, Dave Garland
>>
>>>http://www.callingmart.com/ doesn't charge tax (I assume that their
>>>physical location is somewhere there isn't a sales tax, or else they
>>>eat the tax). And the $10 T-Mobile refill I bought from them a few
>>>days ago cost $9.30.
>>>
>> Thanks for all that info.
>> Do T-Mobile refill minutes bought on this site have the same 365 day
>> expiration (Gold Rewards) as on the T-Mobile site?
>
>Once you've paid your $100 everything is good for a year from your last refill.
> And you get 15% extra minutes, too.
>
>> Seems weird that T-Mobile would sell refills to a reseller.
>> To what advantage for them?
>> Are these minutes easily added to your T-Mobile account?
>
>I buy a $10 card once a year at Target because I get Target gift certificates
>for clicking on ads. I can't remember if they charge sales tax on it or not. A
>refill card is a refill card, it doesn't matter where you bought it. You don't
>even have to buy a refill card, you can just add minutes with a phone call and a
>credit card.
>
>This probably explains why so few people give significant discounts.

The discounting is what surprised me. Good to know if you use a lot
of T-Mobile prepaid minutes. Until Dave pointed out otherwise, my
mindset was that T-Mobile prepaid was mostly used by those who
didn't use many minutes.
When I did the $10 refill to keep my unused minutes my prior year's
use was.....10 minutes.

--Vic

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 10 2009 6:50 pm
From: The Real Bev

Vic Smith wrote:
> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>>Vic Smith wrote:
>>> Dave Garland wrote:
>>>
>>>>http://www.callingmart.com/ doesn't charge tax (I assume that their
>>>>physical location is somewhere there isn't a sales tax, or else they
>>>>eat the tax). And the $10 T-Mobile refill I bought from them a few
>>>>days ago cost $9.30.
>>>>
>>> Thanks for all that info.
>>> Do T-Mobile refill minutes bought on this site have the same 365 day
>>> expiration (Gold Rewards) as on the T-Mobile site?
>>
>> Once you've paid your $100 everything is good for a year from your last refill.
>> And you get 15% extra minutes, too.
>>
>>> Seems weird that T-Mobile would sell refills to a reseller.
>>> To what advantage for them?
>>> Are these minutes easily added to your T-Mobile account?
>>
>>I buy a $10 card once a year at Target because I get Target gift certificates
>>for clicking on ads. I can't remember if they charge sales tax on it or not. A
>>refill card is a refill card, it doesn't matter where you bought it. You don't
>>even have to buy a refill card, you can just add minutes with a phone call and a
>>credit card.
>>
>>This probably explains why so few people give significant discounts.
>
> The discounting is what surprised me. Good to know if you use a lot
> of T-Mobile prepaid minutes. Until Dave pointed out otherwise, my
> mindset was that T-Mobile prepaid was mostly used by those who
> didn't use many minutes.

That would be me. $10/year keeps me alive. Right now I have 799 minutes and am
about to add 30 more.

> When I did the $10 refill to keep my unused minutes my prior year's
> use was.....10 minutes.

I've used 106 minutes since I refilled last February and 100 minutes the year
before. Real blabbermouth.

--
Cheers, Bev
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
666øF -- the oven temperature for roast beast.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Betsy Hart column: "Staying off the hedonic treadmill"
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/cae437bd156d05e6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 10 2009 1:57 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

lenona321@yahoo.com wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote

>>> Flash forward, and things have changed - for the worse........

>> Silly to claim that things have changed for the worst when we dont get great depressions anymore.

> You don't REALLY think Hart was suggesting that the current recession
> is going to turn into something worse than the Great Depression, do you?

Nope, I was JUST commenting on that mindlessly silly line about things having changed for the worst.

> If you'd bother to read the whole article, you'd know, but I thought
> it was obvious what she was going to start talking about, anyway.

> Here are the next two paragraphs, if you like:

> "Flash forward, and things have changed -- for the worse. For
> starters, today's parents spend five times as much on our kids'
> 'stuff,' on average, as our parents did. And that's in real dollars.

It would be a hell of a lot more surprising if they didnt
when the parents were products of the great depression.

And my parents were products of the great depression and we didnt see that result ourselves.

The only real downside my father got from the great depression was
that he didnt get to attend university after leaving school, because it
was decided that it made more sense to start working instead, and
he had to do the tertiary education after work instead, and later ended
up being part of the tertiary education system in the military after the war.

> But would anyone suggest that today's children
> are more grateful in general than we were as kids?

It would be a hell of a lot more surprising if they were
given the radically different economic circumstances.

> "It seems there is a theory in psychology, the 'hedonic
> treadmill,' that explains why the acquisition of more
> stuff doesn't in and of itself lead to happiness.

Anyone with even half a clue realises that there is a hell of a lot more that matters than 'happiness'

> Supposedly it's the case that when we get more 'stuff,' our
> expectations for more 'stuff' rise in tandem, so while we can
> be satisfied in the short term by a thing, over the long term
> acquiring more things will never make us happy because
> we'll just want more, well, things (i.e., exactly how we
> Americans got into our current economic mess)......"

Absolutely NOTHING do with how the US got into the current economic mess, actually.

> She then talks about her gentle methods for combating the vicious cycle in her own kids.

Unlikely those make any more sense than the mindless shit just above.

> I enjoy her sometimes, but I wish she'd realize that some things she
> does are not cute, such as when she admits to not knowing how to
> pronounce a Greek name. So, I say, look it up! Not that readers want
> or need any patronizing explanation of how to pronounce it when they
> won't be using it in their everyday lives anyway. It's just that
> flaunting one's ignorance is childish - and, again, not cute in men or
> women. And Google makes looking up such things easy enough.

Yeah, she strikes me as being a silly cow, but then I can be a bit jaundiced |-)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT - Survivalism Retail Style
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/da641b3711ca2726?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 10 2009 2:04 pm
From: Curly Surmudgeon

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 04:03:12 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> Curly Surmudgeon wrote
>> EskWIRED wrote
>>> Curly Surmudgeon CurlySurmudgeon@live.com> wrote
>
>>>> Early in Reagan's term we were worried about stagflation, it seem to
>>>> be upon us now.
>
>>> Not nearly. Inflation is not in the double-digits. Indeed, many
>>> folks are worried about deflation instead.
>
>> Only because energy costs have dropped by >50%.
>
> Nope, thats not the reason house prices have dropped very substantially.

"House prices" wasn't in the statement to which I responded nor are they
a component of official inflation figures.

>> Real costs are rising sharply,
>
> Plenty have dropped very sharply, most obviously with houses and cars.

Which doesn't contridict my statement.

>> go grocery shopping
>
> None of those are increasing sharply anymore.

Do you grocery shop?

>> or look at your health care premiums.
>
> For different reasons entirely.

Reason is irrelevant, healthcare costs are rising 10%-15% year over year.

>> Big ticket items, such as cars and homes have disintegrated.
>
> So we arent seeing substantial inflation.

You contridicted too soon, read on...

>> That is moderating the index otherwise the rates would be more
>> indicative of cost of living.
>
> The cost of living hasnt substantially increased.

Wrong: "Since 2001, premiums for family health coverage have increased
78 percent, according to a 2007 report by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
Premiums averaged $12,106, of which workers paid $3,281, according to the
report. "

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/23/
AR2008032301770.html

>> There is a latency, as shown historically, between opening the spigot
>> of Fed printing press, and inflation of 12-18 months.
>
> The Fed isnt currently using the printing press.

Wrong again: "...the Fed pledged to print dollars in unlimited volume..."
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122973431525523215.html

and:

"If the FOMC had set a reserve target, then that would have constrained
the board in terms of authorizing new credit facilities. What's being
done now is that the board's new credit facilities are being financed by
printing money which is completely out of context to what is supposed to
be an FOMC responsibility."

--William Poole, Federal Reserve Board Member, Saint Louis 1/8/2009

>> In other words inflation begins a year or so after the Federal
>> Government begins printing money out of nothingness.
>
> That isnt what the Fed has been doing.

You just contradicted your claim above.

> Its JUST substantially increasing the national debt, a different matter
> entirely.

Nope, study the topic a bit.

>> Those presses went into overdrive about 6 months ago,
>
> Like hell they did.

Yes, they did as shown above. Why do you think Bush eliminated M3?

> The effect of all that money being pissed against
> the wall in Iraq started a hell of a long time before that.

Of course but that doesn't negate that the fed is printing money madly
right now.

>> do the math.
>
> Have fun explaining why we havent seen substantial inflation as a result
> of what was poured down that rat hole, Iraq.

Did that above, read for content.

>> It's hard to determine just how much green is being printed since Bush
>> eliminated M3 statistics a couple of years ago, it can only be inferred
>> and is very inexact.
>
> But we clearly havent seen any real inflation as a result of what was
> poured down that rat hole, Iraq.

It's clear, open your eyes.

> So it may well be that we wont either with the bailouts either.

Bailouts are certain to exacerbate the debt/inflation situation.

--
Regards, Curly
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10 Days More of George Walker Bush Plundering the Economy
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

== 2 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 10 2009 3:28 pm
From: Curly Surmudgeon

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:06:31 +0000, EskWIRED wrote:

> In misc.survivalism Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon@live.com> wrote:
>
>
>> Then the inflating prices of commodities, cost of livign, may finally
>> be seen clearly.
>
> Commodities are droppig in price currently.

That depends on your reference, long term moving average is way up.

Corn has more than doubled since Bush took office, down only in the last
18 months from a peak but up overall.
http://futures.tradingcharts.com/printchart/CN/M

Same with soy and most commodities.

> We've already discussed
> oil. All the rest are subject to worldwide shrink in demand.

Population pressures will drive foodstuffs up as will increasing energy
prices. Gasoline is already rising now that the elections are over.

> A massive
> contraction in production might shift the balance. In the meantime, I
> see more pressure downwards than upwards.

Let's assume that commodities level off at this price. Declining income
will increase the cost of living, no?

== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 10 2009 9:19 pm
From: "Jones"

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 00:32:52 +0000, EskWIRED wrote:
>
>> In misc.survivalism Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon@live.com>
>> wrote:
>>> On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 18:16:26 +0000, EskWIRED wrote:
>>
>>>> Not nearly. Inflation is not in the double-digits. Indeed, many
>>>> folks are worried about deflation instead.
>>
>>> Only because energy costs have dropped by >50%. Real costs are
>>> rising sharply, go grocery shopping or look at your health care
>>> premiums. Big ticket items, such as cars and homes have
>>> disintegrated. That is moderating the index otherwise the rates
>>> would be more indicative of cost of living.

>> All of those items are factored in. They are all a part of "real costs".

> True. And as the property prices level off inflation will become more apparent.

Nope, you watch.

> As people cease buying cars at any price

Wont happen, you watch.

> inflation will be driven up.

Nope, that wouldnt increase inflation even if it happened.

> As the printing presses continue to smoke, inflation will soar.

It hasnt even 'soared' in the first place.

> I see no mitigating indicators in the near term to replace those which will inevitably peter out.

Because you dont have a clue about the basics.

> Then the inflating prices of commodities,

Those have dropped dramatically as the world economy tanks.

> cost of livign, may finally be seen clearly.

Wont happen in your case, you'll have wanked yourself completely blind by then.

== 4 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 10 2009 9:24 pm
From: "Jones"

Curly Surmudgeon wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 18:06:31 +0000, EskWIRED wrote:
>
>> In misc.survivalism Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudgeon@live.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>
>>> Then the inflating prices of commodities, cost of livign, may
>>> finally be seen clearly.
>>
>> Commodities are droppig in price currently.

> That depends on your reference,

No it doesnt.

> long term moving average is way up.

Like hell it is.

> Corn has more than doubled since Bush took office,
> down only in the last 18 months from a peak but up overall.
> http://futures.tradingcharts.com/printchart/CN/M

> Same with soy and most commodities.

Pig ignorant lie, most obviously with the price of oil, iron ore, steel, all metals etc etc etc.

>> We've already discussed oil. All the rest are subject to worldwide shrink in demand.

> Population pressures will drive foodstuffs up

Wrong again. More efficient production has reduced the cost of all of those regardless.

> as will increasing energy prices.

You havent established that will get back to what they peaked at any time soon.

> Gasoline is already rising now that the elections are over.

Nothing to do with the US elections and it hasnt got back to anything
like what it peaked at and wont any time soon either, you watch.

>> A massive contraction in production might shift the balance.
>> In the meantime, I see more pressure downwards than upwards.

> Let's assume that commodities level off at this price.

They'll continue to drop, you watch.

> Declining income will increase the cost of living, no?

Nope. Because most wont see declining income, you watch.

== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 10 2009 9:30 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Ed Huntress wrote:
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:6ss2miF80sr9U1@mid.individual.net...
>> Curly Surmudgeon wrote
>>> EskWIRED wrote
>>>> Curly Surmudgeon CurlySurmudgeon@live.com> wrote
>>
>>>>> Early in Reagan's term we were worried about stagflation, it seem
>>>>> to be upon us now.
>>
>>>> Not nearly. Inflation is not in the double-digits. Indeed, many
>>>> folks are worried about deflation instead.
>>
>>> Only because energy costs have dropped by >50%.
>>
>> Nope, thats not the reason house prices have dropped very
>> substantially.
>>> Real costs are rising sharply,
>>
>> Plenty have dropped very sharply, most obviously with houses and
>> cars.
>>> go grocery shopping
>>
>> None of those are increasing sharply anymore.
>>
>>> or look at your health care premiums.
>>
>> For different reasons entirely.
>>
>>> Big ticket items, such as cars and homes have disintegrated.
>>
>> So we arent seeing substantial inflation.
>>
>>> That is moderating the index otherwise the rates
>>> would be more indicative of cost of living.
>>
>> The cost of living hasnt substantially increased.
>>
>>> There is a latency, as shown historically, between opening
>>> the spigot of Fed printing press, and inflation of 12-18 months.
>>
>> The Fed isnt currently using the printing press.
>>
>>> In other words inflation begins a year or so after the Federal
>>> Government begins printing money out of nothingness.
>>
>> That isnt what the Fed has been doing. Its JUST substantially
>> increasing the national debt, a different matter entirely.
>>
>>> Those presses went into overdrive about 6 months ago,
>>
>> Like hell they did. The effect of all that money being pissed
>> against the wall in Iraq started a hell of a long time before that.
>>
>>> do the math.
>>
>> Have fun explaining why we havent seen substantial inflation
>> as a result of what was poured down that rat hole, Iraq.
>>
>>> It's hard to determine just how much green is being printed since
>>> Bush eliminated
>>> M3 statistics a couple of years ago, it can only be inferred and is
>>> very inexact.
>>
>> But we clearly havent seen any real inflation as a result of what was
>> poured down that rat hole, Iraq.

>> So it may well be that we wont either with the bailouts either.

> Your conclusions about inflation are right, but it is true we've been increasing the money supply at a pretty good
> clip:

> http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/current/

Yes, but not PRINTING it as he pig ignorantly claimed.

> However, velocity is so low that it's not causing inflation.

And wont any time soon either.

> The rates of inflation for food, energy, and everything but food and energy can be seen here (selections you want are
> at the bottom of the list):

> http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/categories/9

> Food has just flattened out.

And will stay that way too.

> "Everything but" flattened early last month. The overall rate of inflation, if you project from the mid-December
> numbers, probably just crossed the zero point within the last week.

> So every major category is now flat -- no inflation, or darned close to it.

So everything he claimed is just plain wrong.

> There is no stagflation, in other words.

And nothing like it either.

> We have recession, and we'll probably soon have overall deflation.

Yep, and it remains to be seen how long the recession will
last for with the massive attempts to do something about that.

> BTW, for whoever was complaining about the lack of M3, that's not what measures currency (although currency is a part
> of M3). Currency is M0. The M1 measure is very close. The lack of M3 data, which is
> pretty useless to almost everyone anyway, doesn't have anything to do
> with what we know about how much money the government is "printing."

He's had that explained to him repeatedly, in one ear and straight out the other.

== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 10 2009 9:43 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Curly Surmudgeon wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Curly Surmudgeon wrote
>>> EskWIRED wrote
>>>> Curly Surmudgeon CurlySurmudgeon@live.com> wrote

>>>>> Early in Reagan's term we were worried about stagflation, it seem to be upon us now.

>>>> Not nearly. Inflation is not in the double-digits.
>>>> Indeed, many folks are worried about deflation instead.

>>> Only because energy costs have dropped by >50%.

>> Nope, thats not the reason house prices have dropped very substantially.

> "House prices" wasn't in the statement to which I responded

Irrelevant, they are by far the biggest cost most have.

> nor are they a component of official inflation figures.

Irrelevant, we're discussing inflation, not official inflation figures.

>>> Real costs are rising sharply,

>> Plenty have dropped very sharply, most obviously with houses and cars.

> Which doesn't contridict my statement.

Wrong, those are real costs and have dropped very sharply with houses.

>>> go grocery shopping

>> None of those are increasing sharply anymore.

> Do you grocery shop?

Yep.

>>> or look at your health care premiums.

>> For different reasons entirely.

> Reason is irrelevant, healthcare costs are rising 10%-15% year over year.

Yes, but since thats for different reasons, the significant
increase in gross obesity and advances in modern
medicine, thats a very different thing to inflation in general.

>>> Big ticket items, such as cars and homes have disintegrated.

>> So we arent seeing substantial inflation.

> You contridicted too soon, read on...

Completely useless.

>>> That is moderating the index otherwise the rates would be more indicative of cost of living.

>> The cost of living hasnt substantially increased.

> Wrong:

Right with the most recent changes since the economy tanked.

> "Since 2001, premiums for family health coverage have increased
> 78 percent, according to a 2007 report by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
> Premiums averaged $12,106, of which workers paid $3,281,
> according to the report. "

> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/23/AR2008032301770.html

Just one real cost.

>>> There is a latency, as shown historically, between opening the
>>> spigot of Fed printing press, and inflation of 12-18 months.

>> The Fed isnt currently using the printing press.

> Wrong again:

Nope.

> "...the Fed pledged to print dollars in unlimited volume..."

Pig ignorant lie.

> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122973431525523215.html

Just because some fool in that shit rag claims something, doesnt make it gospel.

> and:

> "If the FOMC had set a reserve target, then that would have
> constrained the board in terms of authorizing new credit facilities.
> What's being done now is that the board's new credit facilities are
> being financed by printing money which is completely out of context
> to what is supposed to be an FOMC responsibility."

> --William Poole, Federal Reserve Board Member, Saint Louis 1/8/2009

Nothing even remotely resembling anything like printing money.

>>> In other words inflation begins a year or so after the Federal
>>> Government begins printing money out of nothingness.

>> That isnt what the Fed has been doing.

> You just contradicted your claim above.

Like hell I did.

>> Its JUST substantially increasing the national debt, a different matter entirely.

> Nope, study the topic a bit.

Been doing that since before you were born thanks.

>>> Those presses went into overdrive about 6 months ago,

>> Like hell they did.

> Yes, they did as shown above.

You didnt 'show' a damned thing above.

> Why do you think Bush eliminated M3?

Because fools like you dont have a clue what its about.

>> The effect of all that money being pissed against the
>> wall in Iraq started a hell of a long time before that.

> Of course but that doesn't negate that the fed is printing money madly right now.

Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.

>>> do the math.

>> Have fun explaining why we havent seen substantial inflation
>> as a result of what was poured down that rat hole, Iraq.

> Did that above,

Like hell you ever did.

> read for content.

Retake Bullshitting 101.

>>> It's hard to determine just how much green is being printed since
>>> Bush eliminated M3 statistics a couple of years ago, it can only be
>>> inferred and is very inexact.

>> But we clearly havent seen any real inflation as a result of what was poured down that rat hole, Iraq.

> It's clear, open your eyes.

Retake Bullshitting 101, again.

>> So it may well be that we wont either with the bailouts either.

> Bailouts are certain to exacerbate the debt/inflation situation.

We wont see significant inflation, you watch.

== 7 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 10 2009 9:51 pm
From: "ATP*"

"Ed Huntress" <huntres23@optonline.net> wrote in message
news:4967c26a$0$14317$607ed4bc@cv.net...
>
> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:9042e9de-3b9b-40d1-b528-652839d16bd8@40g2000prx.googlegroups.com...
> On Jan 9, 2:54 pm, "Ed Huntress" <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>> "Too_Many_Tools" <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:424d0d45-87a6-46df-8d83-fc9f6fac0cbb@o4g2000pra.googlegroups.com...
>> On Jan 9, 11:55 am, Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> > On Fri, 09 Jan 2009 13:06:05 +0000, EskWIRED wrote:
>> > > In misc.survivalism Ed Huntress <huntre...@optonline.net> wrote:
>>
>> > >> <EskWI...@spamblock.panix.com> wrote in message
>> > >>news:gk2ntk$ih9$2@reader1.panix.com...
>> > >> > In misc.survivalism Curly Surmudgeon <CurlySurmudg...@live.com>
>> > >> > wrote:
>>
>> > >> >> I wonder if it's possible to simultaneously suffer both deflation
>> > >> >> and inflation?
>>
>> > >> > Winston says Yes.
>>
>> > >> Winston be wrong. You can have inflation and a contracting economy
>> > >> (stagflation), or deflation and a contracting economy (recession),
>> > >> but
>> > >> you can't have aggregate inflation and aggregate deflation at the
>> > >> same
>> > >> time.
>>
>> > > Yep. But try to tell him that, and he will change the subject.
>>
>> > Instead of dissing Winston, I'd like to hear more about stagflation.
>>
>> > I'm not participating much in this thread because it's not my area of
>> > expertise and I'm enjoying, deeply, the dialog and seeing things in a
>> > different light than my preconceptions. I suspect many others are
>> > likewise sitting on the sidelines watching the dialog intently. Thanks
>> > for the comments and please do not pull the regular misc.survivalism
>> > tactic of belittling each other. This is educational, let us form our
>> > own opinions among different viewpoints rather than trying to hammer
>> > each
>> > other into your personal opinion.
>>
>> > Early in Reagan's term we were worried about stagflation, it seem to be
>> > upon us now. The death spiral it represents seems to have a snowball
>> > effect where it is self-feeding and therefore difficult to escape once
>> > entered.
>>
>> > Are we not entering a period of "stagflation"?
>>
>> > --
>> > Regards, Curly
>>
>> Sorry, Curly, but I have you blocked and only saw this on the quote. d8-)
>>
>> No, this is not stagflation. The economy is winding down and unemployment
>> is
>> rising, but the trend in general price levels has turned down and the
>> fear
>> now is deflation. When those three things go together, you have
>> recession,
>> not stagflation.
>>
>> Stagflation implies an upward spiral in inflation. Regardless of what
>> source
>> you accept for current price levels, there is no increase; the CPI has
>> been
>> falling sharply since July.
>>
>> That doesn't mean that it can't happen in the future, but it looks
>> unlikely
>> for quite a while to come. We're in a deepening recession, and most
>> people
>> who watch closely expect price levels to fall more before they level off.
>>
>> --
>> Ed Huntress- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>>How about once those hundreds of billions of dollars that are being
>>printed enter the economy?
>
> We'll see. The dollar has been flat or rising against most other
> currencies, so it's unlikely that inflation would take right off with even
> a large increase in money supply. At some point, yes, it will cause
> inflation -- but not before velocity increases (in other words, before
> people start buying stuff).
>
> What will matter is the point from which inflation occurs. Right now it
> appears we've just crossed the zero point into deflation. If it's six
> months before the trend turns up, a little inflation will be a very
> welcome thing.
>
> --
> Ed Huntress
Money is also "created" through fractional reserve banking and other ways
that are "less straightforward". The stimulus money is likely not enough to
offset the contraction in available funds due to more conservative banking
practices and the collapse of questionable assets.

== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 10 2009 11:37 pm
From: Curly Surmudgeon

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:43:58 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:

> Curly Surmudgeon wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>>> Curly Surmudgeon wrote
>>>> EskWIRED wrote
>>>>> Curly Surmudgeon CurlySurmudgeon@live.com> wrote
>
>>>>>> Early in Reagan's term we were worried about stagflation, it seem
>>>>>> to be upon us now.
>
>>>>> Not nearly. Inflation is not in the double-digits. Indeed, many
>>>>> folks are worried about deflation instead.
>
>>>> Only because energy costs have dropped by >50%.
>
>>> Nope, thats not the reason house prices have dropped very
>>> substantially.
>
>> "House prices" wasn't in the statement to which I responded
>
> Irrelevant, they are by far the biggest cost most have.
>
>> nor are they a component of official inflation figures.
>
> Irrelevant, we're discussing inflation, not official inflation figures.
>
>>>> Real costs are rising sharply,
>
>>> Plenty have dropped very sharply, most obviously with houses and cars.
>
>> Which doesn't contridict my statement.
>
> Wrong, those are real costs and have dropped very sharply with houses.
>
>>>> go grocery shopping
>
>>> None of those are increasing sharply anymore.
>
>> Do you grocery shop?
>
> Yep.
>
>>>> or look at your health care premiums.
>
>>> For different reasons entirely.
>
>> Reason is irrelevant, healthcare costs are rising 10%-15% year over
>> year.
>
> Yes, but since thats for different reasons, the significant increase in
> gross obesity and advances in modern medicine, thats a very different
> thing to inflation in general.
>
>>>> Big ticket items, such as cars and homes have disintegrated.
>
>>> So we arent seeing substantial inflation.
>
>> You contridicted too soon, read on...
>
> Completely useless.
>
>>>> That is moderating the index otherwise the rates would be more
>>>> indicative of cost of living.
>
>>> The cost of living hasnt substantially increased.
>
>> Wrong:
>
> Right with the most recent changes since the economy tanked.
>
>> "Since 2001, premiums for family health coverage have increased 78
>> percent, according to a 2007 report by the Kaiser Family Foundation.
>> Premiums averaged $12,106, of which workers paid $3,281, according to
>> the report. "
>
>> http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/23/
AR2008032301770.html
>
> Just one real cost.
>
>>>> There is a latency, as shown historically, between opening the spigot
>>>> of Fed printing press, and inflation of 12-18 months.
>
>>> The Fed isnt currently using the printing press.
>
>> Wrong again:
>
> Nope.
>
>> "...the Fed pledged to print dollars in unlimited volume..."
>
> Pig ignorant lie.
>
>> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB122973431525523215.html
>
> Just because some fool in that shit rag claims something, doesnt make it
> gospel.
>
>> and:
>
>> "If the FOMC had set a reserve target, then that would have constrained
>> the board in terms of authorizing new credit facilities. What's being
>> done now is that the board's new credit facilities are being financed
>> by printing money which is completely out of context to what is
>> supposed to be an FOMC responsibility."
>
>> --William Poole, Federal Reserve Board Member, Saint Louis 1/8/2009
>
> Nothing even remotely resembling anything like printing money.
>
>>>> In other words inflation begins a year or so after the Federal
>>>> Government begins printing money out of nothingness.
>
>>> That isnt what the Fed has been doing.
>
>> You just contradicted your claim above.
>
> Like hell I did.
>
>>> Its JUST substantially increasing the national debt, a different
>>> matter entirely.
>
>> Nope, study the topic a bit.
>
> Been doing that since before you were born thanks.
>
>>>> Those presses went into overdrive about 6 months ago,
>
>>> Like hell they did.
>
>> Yes, they did as shown above.
>
> You didnt 'show' a damned thing above.
>
>> Why do you think Bush eliminated M3?
>
> Because fools like you dont have a clue what its about.
>
>>> The effect of all that money being pissed against the wall in Iraq
>>> started a hell of a long time before that.
>
>> Of course but that doesn't negate that the fed is printing money madly
>> right now.
>
> Easy to claim. Hell of a lot harder to actually substantiate that claim.
>
>>>> do the math.
>
>>> Have fun explaining why we havent seen substantial inflation as a
>>> result of what was poured down that rat hole, Iraq.
>
>> Did that above,
>
> Like hell you ever did.
>
>> read for content.
>
> Retake Bullshitting 101.
>
>>>> It's hard to determine just how much green is being printed since
>>>> Bush eliminated M3 statistics a couple of years ago, it can only be
>>>> inferred and is very inexact.
>
>>> But we clearly havent seen any real inflation as a result of what was
>>> poured down that rat hole, Iraq.
>
>> It's clear, open your eyes.
>
> Retake Bullshitting 101, again.
>
>>> So it may well be that we wont either with the bailouts either.
>
>> Bailouts are certain to exacerbate the debt/inflation situation.
>
> We wont see significant inflation, you watch.

Ok, I understand. Everybody but you is wrong.

Got it. Now go away.

== 9 of 10 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 10 2009 11:39 pm
From: Curly Surmudgeon

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009 16:24:01 +1100, Jones wrote:

---snip---
> Nope. Because most wont see declining income, you watch.

Another nym-shifting troll. Which is it tonight, Rod Speed, Jones or
asshole?

Can I just use the latter?

== 10 of 10 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 11 2009 12:02 am
From: "Ed Huntress"

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:6stefhF831pfU1@mid.individual.net...
> Ed Huntress wrote:

<snip>

>> Your conclusions about inflation are right, but it is true we've been
>> increasing the money supply at a pretty good clip:
>
>> http://www.federalreserve.gov/releases/h6/current/
>
> Yes, but not PRINTING it as he pig ignorantly claimed.

Again, I don't quibble with your conclusions, but in the interest of
understanding this economic mess we're in, printing currency has been going
on at a good clip, too, for some months now. This is *just paper currency
plus coin*, the currency portion of M1:

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/CURRENCY?cid=25

Use some of the interactive options, such as the "change from a year ago"
tab, and you'll see the picture.

>
>> However, velocity is so low that it's not causing inflation.
>
> And wont any time soon either.

That's probably right, since people and banks are sitting on their money. To
start inflation up again would require quite a bit of demand to get velocity
going, as well as plenty of cash to spend. And it has to start from whatever
level of *deflation* we wind up with, when the current deflationary trend
bottoms out.

>
>> The rates of inflation for food, energy, and everything but food and
>> energy can be seen here (selections you want are at the bottom of the
>> list):
>
>> http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/categories/9
>
>> Food has just flattened out.
>
> And will stay that way too.

Food tends to track energy costs, which are a big component of food costs.
But food prices lag energy prices by months. The flattened peak we see on
that graph just identifies where food has recently reacted to the drop in
energy prices; now we can expect a decline in food prices, although it won't
follow oil all the way to the bottom.

Food prices were driven up, too, by corn ethanol production, which has
driven prices for packaged foods and meat 'way up, and by the sudden food
demand over the past couple of years from developing countries that were
doing well until a few months ago. Now that demand for both is down, they,
too, will drag food prices down. Again, it doesn't look likely that the
bottom will drop out of them; they'll just follow general trends in energy
and worldwide food demand.

>
>> "Everything but" flattened early last month. The overall rate of
>> inflation, if you project from the mid-December numbers, probably just
>> crossed the zero point within the last week.
>
>> So every major category is now flat -- no inflation, or darned close to
>> it.
>
> So everything he claimed is just plain wrong.

Pretty much, except that there *is* a lot of new currency being printed. But
most people (including Curly, apparently) make too much of that. The idea
that increases in money supply automatically cause inflation is not correct.
That idea is based on a couple of assumptions that don't always hold. For
example, people just aren't buying stuff like they were, so lack of demand
is keeping prices down. The stagflation we had in the '70s included a
wage-price spiral that is not going on now, and is nowhere in sight. Wages
have hardly moved.

It's not that we couldn't possibly have a round of stagflation right in the
middle of this mess, but it isn't happening now and it doesn't look likely
to happen.

Back in the '70s, before Paul Volcker was put in charge, the Fed was not
confident about monetary controls. Since we got out of that stagflation
they've learned what it takes to clamp inflation down, and they're likely to
put a lid on it again if it starts up again. But if prices turn up very soon
(unlikely, but nothing is impossible), they're going to face a real dilemma,
because raising interest rates to contain inflation could leave any economic
recovery stillborn. They're going to be sitting on pins and needles now for
most of the year, if not for a couple of years.

>
>> There is no stagflation, in other words.
>
> And nothing like it either.
>
>> We have recession, and we'll probably soon have overall deflation.
>
> Yep, and it remains to be seen how long the recession will
> last for with the massive attempts to do something about that.
>
>> BTW, for whoever was complaining about the lack of M3, that's not what
>> measures currency (although currency is a part of M3). Currency is M0.
>> The M1 measure is very close. The lack of M3 data, which is
>> pretty useless to almost everyone anyway, doesn't have anything to do
>> with what we know about how much money the government is "printing."
>
> He's had that explained to him repeatedly, in one ear and straight out the
> other.

Too bad. When you hear someone complain about the lack of M3 data, the first
thing to ask is what they'd do with it if they had it. The second question
is, what do they think M3 data tells us. d8-)

--
Ed Huntress

==============================================================================
TOPIC: incandescent/flourescent light bulbs peacefulspirits
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/fc85c28e5fe822ff?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 10 2009 2:27 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

peacefulspirits wrote:

> Can someone tell me about the overall comparison costing
> of incandescent/fluorescent light bulbs taking into account:

Not really feasible to quantify.

> Component resources used in each. It seems to me
> that a fluorescent light bulb has ten or more times of the
> world's diminishing mineral resources in its manufacture.

To some extent, but in practice that is completely swamped
by plastic packaging used for almost everything today.

> Cost of proper disposal (just added to the rates?)

Peanuts basically.

> Cost of transport of (20 times?) heavier item.

They're nothing like 20 times heavier and you
have to factor in their much longer life anyway.

> Any health issues?

Only theoretical ones if you dont break them.

> It's just that I would like a full comparison rather than a
> comparative cost of only while it is plugged into the light socket

Not feasible, as I said.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: "Homelessness only happens to other people"
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/b10dcae36d1aacb2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 10 2009 2:31 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

The Real Bev wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> ultimauw@gmail.com wrote

>>> and that they are somehow immune from the economy.

>> They dont have to be immune from the economy to not end up 'homeless', fool.

> It's "immune *TO* the economy", stupid.

Wrong, as always, gorgon.

> What, are you ESL people?

Beats being a gorgon.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: USENET USE EXPLODES
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/0064c37729751b0a?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 10 2009 2:50 pm
From: imascot

"catalpa" <catalpa@entertab.org> wrote in
news:3z99l.4660$Es4.892@nwrddc01.gnilink.net:

>
> "Cheapo Groovo" <ccsj@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:MPG.23ce974c62232c3a989a09@news.wowway.com...
>> Story folows
>>
>> Giganews, the largest gateway to Usenet, or the newsgroups, has
>> reported "unprecedented growth" in the last year. The newsgroups are
>> one of the oldest mediums of the Internet, with an existence dating
>> back to the late 1970s. Over time, the newsgroups have evolved from a
>> bulletin board type messaging system to one of the premier avenues
>> for file-sharing. Users of this network will often times argue of its
>> overwhelming supremacy over rival BitTorrent.
>>
> The bottom line is that the complete moron NY AG Andrew Cuomo has done
> nothing about kiddie porn on Usenet, but has screwed over millions of
> regular Usenet users.
>
>
>
I haven't heard this; I live in NY and use my ISP's USENET service. They haven't told me it's to be
disconnected (yet).

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 10 2009 4:15 pm
From: Dave Garland

imascot wrote:

> I haven't heard this; I live in NY and use my ISP's USENET service. They haven't told me it's to be
> disconnected (yet).

And if you have a smaller ISP, you may not. It was (IIRC) Comcast and
Verizon, using it as an excuse to cut service without cutting prices.

Dave

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Refer a friend deals - new website makes it easy to refer friends
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/062a54e25960495d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 10 2009 3:06 pm
From: Matt Lindesay

www.refermehappy.com is an online meeting place where members can
recommend companies to others, and benefit from refer a friend
programmes.

It's only in the UK at the moment but will be expanding very soon.

Lots of companies offer incentives to refer friends. For example Sky
and Virgin both pay you and your friend if you refer someone to them.

I created this website so that it is easier for "referrers" to find
"friends" and vice versa.

Registration is free and you get paid directly by the company that is
offering the deal. The cost of the website is covered by advertising.

Cheers
Matt

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anyone else seeing mystery phone numbers on Embarq long distance bill?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5143a3a3f5a603f2?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 10 2009 3:32 pm
From: s2000hondas2000@gmail.com

On Jan 10, 12:09 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> s2000hondas2...@gmail.com wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> s2000hondas2...@gmail.com wrote
> >>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>> s2000hondas2...@gmail.com wrote
> >>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>>> s2000hondas2...@gmail.com wrote
> >>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >>>>>>>> Only fools/dinosaurs use checks anymore.
> >>>>>>> DOT only takes checks, no cash, no cc.
> >>>>>> Only fools/dinosaurs let them get away with that.
> >>>>>> You elected those who 'run' operations like that, fuckwit.
> >>>>> And? It's not costing me anything.
> >>>> You have always been, and always will be, completely irrelevant, fuckwit.
> >>> And yet you keep replying to my posts,.
> >> To keep rubbing your stupid nose in that basic, fuckwit.
> > Sure you are.
>
> Fraid so.
>
> > I have free checking and last year earned $150 in Target gifts cards, cost to me, zero.
>
> True in spades of a card that has no annual charge and rebates, fuckwit.

Ya think? I thought the CC co's were giving me rebates for shits and
giggles.

> And you get the convenience that no check can ever provide.- Hide quoted text -

No shit, try post something people don't already know, fucktard.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 10 2009 4:46 pm
From: Stray Dog

On Sun, 11 Jan 2009, Rod Speed wrote:

> Date: Sun, 11 Jan 2009 04:09:40 +1100
> From: Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> Newsgroups: misc.consumers, misc.consumers.frugal-living
> Subject: Re: Anyone else seeing mystery phone numbers on Embarq long distance
> bill?
>
> s2000hondas2000@gmail.com wrote
>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>> s2000hondas2...@gmail.com wrote
>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>> s2000hondas2...@gmail.com wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>>>>> s2000hondas2...@gmail.com wrote
>>>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>
>>>>>>>>> Only fools/dinosaurs use checks anymore.
>
>>>>>>>> DOT only takes checks, no cash, no cc.
>
>>>>>>> Only fools/dinosaurs let them get away with that.
>
>>>>>>> You elected those who 'run' operations like that, fuckwit.
>
>>>>>> And? It's not costing me anything.
>
>>>>> You have always been, and always will be, completely irrelevant, fuckwit.
>
>>>> And yet you keep replying to my posts,.
>
>>> To keep rubbing your stupid nose in that basic, fuckwit.
>
>> Sure you are.
>
> Fraid so.
>
>> I have free checking and last year earned $150 in Target gifts cards, cost to me, zero.
>
> True in spades of a card that has no annual charge and rebates, fuckwit.
>
> And you get the convenience that no check can ever provide.
>
>
>
>

The "Rod Speed FAQ" read it below or at the URL for yourself.....
- - - - - - - - -
http://newsgroups.derkeiler.com/Archive/Alt/alt.internet.wireless/2006-07/ms
g00462.html
- - - - - - - - - -

After its recent emergence in the thread "How to calculate increase
of home wireless router range?", readers of this group may find
this useful. [based on a post in comp.sys.ibm.pc.hardware.storage]

Who or What is Rod Speed?

Rod Speed is an entirely modern phenomenon. Essentially, Rod
Speed is an insecure and worthless individual who has discovered
he can enhance his own self-esteem in his own eyes by playing "the
big, hard man" on the InterNet.

Rod is believed to be from Australia.

Rod certainly posts a lot. Why is that?

It relates back to the point about boosting his own self esteem by
what amounts to effectively having a wank in public. Rod's
personality, as exemplified by his posts, means he is practically
unemployable which means he sits around at home all day festering
away and getting worse and worse. This means he posts more and
more try and boost the old failing self esteem. Being unemployed
also means he as a lot of time on his hands to post in he first
place.

But maybe Rod really is a very clever and knowledgable person?

Clever? His posts wouldn't support that theory. As far as being
knowledgable, well, Rod has posted to various aus newsgroups
including invest, comms, and politics. He has posted to all as a
self professed "expert" and flames any and all who disagree with
him. Logically, here's no way any single individual could be
more than a jack of all trades across such a wide spread of
subject matter.

But maybe Rod really is an expert in some areas?

Possibly. However, his "bedside manner" prevents him from being
taken seriously by most normal people. Also, he has damaged his
credibility in areas where he might know what he's on about by
shooting his self in the foot in areas where he does not. For
example, in the case of subject matter such as politics, even a
view held by Albert Einstein cannot be little more than an
opinion and to vociferously denigrate an opposing opinion is
simply small mindedness and bigotry, the kind of which Einstein
himself fought against his whole life.

What is Rod Speed's main modus operandi?

Simple! He shoots off a half brained opinion in response to any
other post and touts that opinion as fact. When challenged, he
responds with vociferous and rabid denigration. He has an
instantly recognisable set of schoolboy put downs limited pretty
much to the following: "Pathetic, Puerile, Little Boy, try
harder, trivial, more lies, gutless wonder, wanker, etc etc".
The fact that Rod has been unable to come up with any new insults
says a lot about his outlook and intelligence.

But why do so many people respond to Rod in turn?

It has to do with effrontery and a lack of logic. Most people
who post have some basis of reason for what they write and when
Rod retorts with his usual denigration and derision they respond
emotionally rather than logically. It's like a teacher in a
class room who has a misbehaving pupil. The teacher challenges
the pupil to explain himself and the student responds with "***
off, Big Nose!" Even thought the teacher has a fairly normal
proboscis, he gets a dent in his self-esteem and might resort to
an emotional repsonse like "yeah? well your *** wouldn't fill a
pop rivet, punk", which merely invites some oneupmanship from the
naughty pupil. Of course, the teacher should not have justified
the initial comment with a response, especially in front of the
class. The correct response was "please report to the
headmaster's office right NOW!"

What is a "RodBot"?

Some respondents in aus.invest built a "virtual Rod" which was
indiscernable from the "real" Rod. Net users could enter an
opinion or even a fact and the RoDBot would tell them they were
pathetic lying schoolboys who should be able to do better or some
equally pithy Rod Speedism.

Are you saying that Rod Speed is a Troll?

You got it!

What is the best way to handle Rod Speed?

KillFile!

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Stamps
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/61b22661916aefaf?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 10 2009 4:53 pm
From: hchickpea@hotmail.com

On Sat, 10 Jan 2009 13:21:04 -0800, The Real Bev
<bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:

>local offices should NOT be allowed to be stupid just because they are.

Uhhhhhhhhhhh......

OK, should there be a bow and arrow season for us to put them out of
their misery?

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 10 2009 6:52 pm
From: The Real Bev

hchickpea@hotmail.com wrote:

> <bashley101@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>>local offices should NOT be allowed to be stupid just because they are.
>
> Uhhhhhhhhhhh......
>
> OK, should there be a bow and arrow season for us to put them out of
> their misery?

Gas. More efficient and certainly cheaper. All you need is some wet towels to
put under the doors and the federal government pays the gas bill. Yeah, it's
our money, but in this case I'm willing to sign the check.

--
Cheers,
Bev
oooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooo
"I read somewhere that 77 per cent of all the mentally ill live in
poverty. Actually, I'm more intrigued by the 23 per cent who are
apparently doing quite well for themselves." -- Emo Philips

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Jakohihna Mazda 323 1,5 familia BA 1996
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/03a78023ef536663?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Sat, Jan 10 2009 4:37 pm
From: Ensio Berg

1/ Muistamme miten aikoinaan asbesti oli tie loistavaan tulevaisuuteen.
Koska kyseessä oli suoranainen Venäjän lahja maailman teollisuudelle. Tämä
aine ratkaisi keksimisensä jälkeen suoranaisen leegion tekniikkaan
pesiytyneitä lukuisia ongelmia. Asbestista haluttiin tehdä jopa lakanoita,
koska näin estettiin palot joita syntyi valtaisasti sängyssä tupakoinneista.
Miljoonat jarrupalat olivan mailman turvan tae, jne.. Asbesti oli
kertakaikkiaan erinomainen ja turvallinen aine vuosikymmenestä toiseen,
kunnes... ..!

2/ Aikoinaan freon vapautti maailman kuivuvista, läikkyvistä, huonosti
toimivista tölkeistä. Tuotti puhdasta ja turvallista elintarviketta
määrättömästi jääkaapeissaan. Freoniin luotti niin eristeteolisuus,
hiuslakkafirmat, kuin henkilökemikaalituotannot naiskaunmeuteen asti,
liuotinmaailmat, kuin sen TARKOIN tiedettyyn turvallisuuteen ja
vaarattomuuteen luotettin jopa lääkinnällisiä sumutteita myöten. 60-luvun
vallankumouksen eräs taattu kulmakivi. Ja ennen kaikkea oli niin
perusteellisin tutkien todettu vaarattomiksi sen kaikki ilmentymät, että
kunnes .. ..!

3/ DDT oli aikansa legenda. Täysin vaarattomana se vapautti sotien
kasvattamista hyönteisinvaasioista. Poisti malariat, punataudit, loiset
kaikialta ja syöpäläiskiusat niin kodista, kuin puutarhoista. Halpaa
huviketta vaikka maailmat täyteen, made by maailman mahtavin USA osasi
kaupata ja suorittaa myynit. Niin oli DDT pelastava koko kurjan maailman.
Kunnes tuotettiin ihan vaan silkkaa ilkeyttä viritelty kirjafiasko.
"Hiljainen kevät!.. ..Paskanmarjat tiedettiin , kukas noita nyt uskoi moisia
huuhakkeita inttämineen. Kun rahaisat insinöörit osasi miljoonasti enemmän..
.!

4/Maailman energiamonopolien kuningasajatuas oli vaikka nyt
nakutuksenestoaine lyijyinen hermomyrkky. Toki jo Rokkefellerin
bensiini-impperiumi tiesi tarkoin, että vaihtoehtoja nakutuksen estoon olisi
vaikka vaarattomampi biopohjainen alkoholi. Ja sitä jonkinaikaa kilpailijat
kauppasi. Mutta kun USA:n hallitus tajusi bensiinin pyörittävän maailmaa ja
oivalsi sen monopoliarvon päätettiin syrjäyttää alkoholin yksityiskäyttäjät
häskisti. Tuttua tapaako? No taatusti! Pian varmistettiin
lyijyhermomyrkkybensiinillä se, että maailma täytetään tulevan vuosisadan
tällä eräälä maailman vaarallisimmmalla supermyrkyllä. Kaikki
bensiiniammattilaiset kyllä sairasteli töissään, mutta kuka uskalsi purnata
työnantajaansa? Mitään painoarvoa vaaran suhteen ei toki testein nähty,
koska JUURI vaarallisuus takasi sen, ettei kukaan nyksityinen voisi
valtiomonopolibisneksiä pilata tiukissa turvamääreissä. Vasta kun
kaupunkilaisnmuorissa 70-luvun energiakriisin alta tavatiin huikeaa 30%
suuruusluokan älykkyysvajetta myrkytyksistä alettiin panikoida. Silloin oli
maapalloa tuhottu mitä lienee 66,6v, kunnes massojen tapposysteemille alkoi
tulla seinä pystöön. No nyt kukaan ei halua edes muistella miksi Antarktista
myöten maailmamme kerrustelee lyijyhermomyrkkyjen takia.. ..!

5/ Vaan kaiken huippu on tietysi no, TAAS kerran täysin virheetön ja mitään
haittavaikutusta tekemätöntä enerkiaansa puurtavaa.. ..ydinvoima. Ja jos nyt
joku Pekka Jauho, mitään tietämätön Albert Einstein, tai vaikka K.V.
Laurikainen jotain aikoinaan koetti vihjaista ydinsäteilyn mitatuista
kasautumisista biotooppeihin kohtalokkaasti ja joku Nobelisti pari kertoili
kirjoissaan Ajzenberginm laboraatiotodisteista säteilyn megatappokyvyistä
kavaluuksineen. Niin ei tällaisin kannata kajota. Mitä lienee
haihattelijoita edelläkerrotut, kun ei juhli pian 66,6vuottaan
miljoonatappokasoillaan riehuvaa ydinvoimaa, niin olkoon väkivoimin
valtiotoimin vaiettu kuoliaaksi! IAEA ei totta tosiaan STUK/SUPO:n kanssa
halua rahantuotolleen realisoijia ja haittaajia! Niin .. kunnes. .. kerran
paljastuu ihmiskunnan maailmalta miltei täysin pyyhkivin seuraamuksin. Jo
pitkään ja kauan varoituksiaan kaikkialle esitellyt. ..no arvatkaas .. .. !

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

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

Sunday, January 11, 2009

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 11 topics - digest

No comments: