Frugal Living: misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 10 topics

Friday, January 23, 2009

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

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

misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com

Today's topics:

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Can you recommend a DVR for over the air recording?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/53f8f3e81d69dc10?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 12:05 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

OhioGuy wrote:
> We recently got one of those digital tuners so that our TV would
> still be able to receive channels after the change next month. It
> works great, and since it has a timer, it will switch to whatever
> channel we want at any time we want. We are able to still use our
> VCR with it.
> However, I think within a few months, for simplicity, we would like
> to switch over to using a DVR. Here is what I'm looking for:
>
> 1) Easy to use menu - works with over the air ATSC
>
> 2) upgradeable - if I want to pop in a larger SATA drive to upgrade
> it, I can
>
> 3) mpeg 4/h.264 compression
>
> 4) USB Port - so I can export recorded files if I want to watch them
> elsewhere
>
> Does anything like this even exist? I've seen some DVD burning
> recorders at the stores, but haven't really seen a good replacement
> for a VCR yet. I won't consider anything that has a subscription fee.
> (that's partly why I avoid cable in the first place, plus most things
> on cable are available free on DVD from the library within a year)

I built one myself using what used to be the main PC at one time.

Much more flexible than anything buyable.

You do have to know what you are doing tho.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 2:57 pm
From: George

Dave Garland wrote:
> OhioGuy wrote:
>
>> Does anything like this even exist?
>
> Google "MythTV". It might have to be a do-it-yourself project,
> though, I don't know if anyone is selling them commercially. (I don't
> own a TV myself, so it's all theoretical to me.)
>
> Dave

I built and have been using one for quite some time. I have also built
additional ones for friends. Works great and has a very active community .

==============================================================================
TOPIC: you don't need any cables or special equipment, Only a Minute for FREE
Backup your Mobile Phone Address Book and SMS Messages Online,
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/69d71e234adaf8b9?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 12:21 pm
From: "www.Queensbridge.us"

On Jan 23, 1:35 am, vinod <vinodkumbha...@gmail.com> wrote:
> you don't need any cables or special equipment, Only a Minute for FREE
> Backup your Mobile Phone Address Book and SMS Messages Online
> <http://www.jdoqocy.com/click-2602755-10589412>

Where can we read reviews about this?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Boston Globe: "10 Ways to Have a Frugal but Fabulous Wedding"
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/9f34e02e29ed6f8c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 1:10 pm
From: lenona321@yahoo.com

Two pages long.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2009/01/18/10_ways_to_have_a_frugal_but_fabulous_wedding/

First five:

1. Ask What Matters
2. Say No to Third Cousins
3. Forgo a Saturday in June
4. Get Thee to a Wedding Planner
5. Dine early, Dine for less.......

There's also a very good comment at the bottom of the first page.

Lenona.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 1:23 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

lenona321@yahoo.com wrote:

> Two pages long.

> http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2009/01/18/10_ways_to_have_a_frugal_but_fabulous_wedding/

> First five:

The first one should be that its a hell of a lot more frugal to not get married at all, just dont bother with a
marraige.

If you have to bother with a formal marriage, its obviously most frugal to not bother with anything event wise.

> 1. Ask What Matters
> 2. Say No to Third Cousins
> 3. Forgo a Saturday in June
> 4. Get Thee to a Wedding Planner
> 5. Dine early, Dine for less.......
>
> There's also a very good comment at the bottom of the first page.
>
> Lenona.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Boston Globe: "Does Money Really Wreck a Marriage?"
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e3b6aef4f0d5e0e0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 1:13 pm
From: lenona321@yahoo.com

Four pages long.

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2009/01/18/does_money_really_wreck_a_marriage/

Excerpt:
"Actually, no. It may cause arguments; it certainly causes tension.
But even in these gloomy financial times, there is no evidence that
money dooms relationships, even when one partner is the financial
opposite of the other......."

(Somehow, that only makes sense if we're talking about a couple that's
willing and able to discuss ALL financial differences well in
advance.)

More wedding/marriage articles (temporary link):

http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/

Lenona.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 1:21 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

lenona321@yahoo.com wrote:

> Four pages long.

> http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/articles/2009/01/18/does_money_really_wreck_a_marriage/

> Excerpt:
> "Actually, no. It may cause arguments; it certainly causes tension.
> But even in these gloomy financial times, there is no evidence that
> money dooms relationships, even when one partner is the financial
> opposite of the other......."

Thats a very silly claim. There is in fact lots of evidence that
particularly with marriages which arent that well based, that
money can well push THOSE over the edge into a fiasco.

> (Somehow, that only makes sense if we're talking about a couple that's
> willing and able to discuss ALL financial differences well in advance.)

Discussion wont necessarily help with something as fundamental as that.

> More wedding/marriage articles (temporary link):

> http://www.boston.com/bostonglobe/magazine/

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Suggested Appliance Replacement Periods
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/7bee609b70584f7b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 1:49 pm
From: ransley

On Jan 23, 11:23 am, Too_Many_Tools <too_many_to...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> FYI...
>
> In reference to the suggested times
>
> Air conditioners: 8 to 15 years
> Dishwashers: 5 to 12 years
> Disposals: 5 to 12 years
> Dryers: 8 to 12 years
> Freezers: 15 to 20 years
> Furnaces: 8 to 12 years
> Heat pumps: 8 to 12 years
> Refrigerators: 15 to 20 years
> Stoves: 15 to 20 years
> Washers: 8 to 12 years
> Water heaters: 8 to 12 years
>
> I find my own experience with the most current appliances has been...
>
> Air conditioners: 15 years
> Dishwashers: 21 years
> Disposals: 31 years
> Dryers: 23 years
> Freezers: 23 years
> Furnaces: 15 years
> Heat pumps: N/A
> Refrigerators: 23 years
> Stoves: 31 years
> Washers: 23 years
> Water heaters: 31 years
>
> As you can see, many of my appliances have lasted beyond the suggested
> replacement periods before needing replacement.
>
> Two comments on this article.
>
> First is when you can save substantial money with improved efficiency,
> I think it is a good idea to replace the appliance. Refrigerators,
> freezers, dryers, furnaces and air conditioners fall under this
> heading. These are appliances that run for a long period of time and
> use considerable amount of energy.
>
> Second when you buy an appliance buy one as generic as possible. The
> more fashion conscious it is, the sooner it will be out of style and
> become an eyesore. There is a reason why white is the most popular
> color of appliances.
>
> Third is always consider these types of articles with a grain of salt.
> With the housing market and the economy in free fall, appliance
> manufacturers are desperate to get the consumer to buy their wares.
> Many industry trade groups will commission a writer to produce
> articles to motivate consumers under the guise of saving money to buy
> their wares. (If you look you will find the car companies are doing
> the same thing.) Before doing any purchase, do the cost analysis to
> determine whether there will be a true saving.
>
> Comments?
>
> TMT
>
> http://abcnews.go.com/Business/Consumer/Story?id=3789039&page=1
>
> Creative Consumer: Time to Fix or Trash Your Appliances?
> Elisabeth Leamy's Tips About What to Do With Your Aging Appliances
> By ELISABETH LEAMY
> ABC NEWS Consumer Correspondent
> Oct. 29 2007 —
>
> I got some new appliances for my kitchen this week. Woo hoo! When we
> bought our house a couple of years ago, one of the less-than-appealing
> aspects was the collection of 1980s-era kitchen appliances. They were
> ugly and didn't work well either. But the darn things just would not
> fail altogether. So I kept wondering, should I take them to the repair
> shop or the junkyard?
>
> I finally got my act together to research a reputable appliance repair
> firm, and when I told the company my address, I got lucky. Turns out
> the previous owner had also used this company and I was able to find
> out that they had worked on the oven multiple times. That was all the
> excuse I needed. And then I needed a dishwasher and microwave to
> match, right?
>
> Whether to fix it or trash it is a tough call. The first step is to
> check your warranty. Many household appliances have long-term
> manufacturer's warranties. Next, get an estimate. If the repair cost
> is 50 percent or more of the price of replacement, you should scrap
> it.
>
> If the repair cost is 50 percent or less, ask yourself some questions.
> What kind of shape is the appliance in? If it's already been fixed
> several times like my oven, it may not be worth another overhaul. Do
> newer models offer vastly improved features? For example, new
> refrigerators use less energy than old ones. You may be able to recoup
> part of the cost of replacement that way.
>
> Consider whether the appliance is unique. If it fits into an odd space
> or it's an unusual color, it may be too expensive and difficult to
> replace. Finally, figure out how old the appliance is. Over the years,
> experts have figured out the average life of most household
> appliances.
>
> Air conditioners: 8 to 15 years
>
> Dishwashers: 5 to 12 years
>
> Disposals: 5 to 12 years
>
> Dryers: 8 to 12 years
>
> Freezers: 15 to 20 years
>
> Furnaces: 8 to 12 years
>
> Heat pumps: 8 to 12 years
>
> Refrigerators: 15 to 20 years
>
> Stoves: 15 to 20 years
>
> Washers: 8 to 12 years
>
> Water heaters: 8 to 12 years
>
> Don't just open up the phone book and get an estimate from the company
> with the biggest ad. Ask friends and family for referrals and check
> out the companies with the better business bureau and your county or
> state consumer protection office. Keep in mind, in some states,
> appliance repair companies have to be licensed. If you don't have a
> solid referral, plan on getting more than one repair estimate on
> expensive appliances.
>
> When you call for an appointment, be ready with the make and model
> number of the appliance. That way you can make sure the company
> services that brand and that the technician is prepared to bring the
> proper tools. Ask whether the company charges for estimates. Most
> companies waive that fee if you go ahead with the repair work. Find
> out the charge for the first half hour of work and see if there's a
> minimum repair charge.
>
> When the technician comes to your home, ask for a written estimate.
> That estimate should list all parts needed, plus labor charges. Some
> states require the technician to get your permission if the price is
> going to rise more than 10 percent above the written estimate. Find
> out if the company offers a warranty and get it in writing. Typically,
> repair companies guarantee their labor for 30 days, parts for 90
> days.
>
> Once you choose a repair company, alert the technician up front that
> you are going to want your old parts back. This is a good test to make
> sure the technician really does replace those parts. Keep in mind, the
> technician cannot give you your old parts if they contain hazardous
> materials or if the manufacturer requires their return in exchange for
> warranty service.
>
> Don't pay big bucks up front. Established companies should not ask you
> for any money at the beginning of the job. Certainly don't pay more
> than ten or twenty percent. When the job is complete, pay by check or
> credit card. It's hard to fight the charges if you pay cash. If the
> company has misdiagnosed your machine, it should send a technician
> back at no charge. However, if the new repair requires different
> parts, you may get some money back or owe some more.
>
> If you take small appliances or electronics to a repair store, get a
> claim check before you leave your belongings behind. And pick your
> items up in a timely manner to avoid storage fees.
>
> Beware of situations where appliance repair companies approach you. An
> air conditioning company called William B. and offered to tune up his
> AC unit for $34.95. Once the technicians got in the door, they claimed
> William's air conditioner needed much more than a tune-up. They
> persuaded him to pay $259 for all sorts of services he probably didn't
> need at all. Unfortunately, upselling like this is common.
>
> Be the hunter, not the hunted. Don't do business with companies that
> come to you out of the blue. Beware of companies that call and claim
> to be subsidiaries or affiliates of the company you usually use. And
> don't panic if one of these companies tells you your appliance is a
> hazard. That's an age-old ploy. Stop using the appliance and get a
> second opinion.
>
> To Be a Savvy Consumer
> Figure out if the appliance is under warranty. If so, contact an
> authorized repair facility and the fix should be free.
>
> Check out appliance repair companies with the BBB and your state and
> county consumer protection agencies. Also check to see if they are
> properly licensed, if applicable.
>
> Get an itemized written estimate and a written warranty.
>
> Apply the 50 percent test to decide whether to repair or replace the
> appliance.
>
> Don't do business with appliance repair companies that contact you
> until you check them out.
>
> Where to Complain
> If you have difficulty with an appliance repair company, contact your
> county and state consumer protection offices plus the Better Business
> Bureau. If the company must be licensed, complain to the state agency
> that licensed that industry.
>
> Copyright © 2009 ABC News Internet Ventures

Nothing is made like it used to be, I have a 80b yr old boiler, new
units fail in 10. Its to much cheapining in major China controls or
overseas parts.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Niggardly?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2258016667553c08?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 2:18 pm
From: im.1.maxaluminum@xoxy.net

On Jan 22, 3:19 pm, Okikuru <georgewks...@humboldt1.com> wrote:
> according to my dictionary'
> a Niggard ; is a stingy person decidedly miserly.
> maybe they mean , thrifty in their use of their intelligence or
> open-mindedness?
> your mileage may vary?
> --
> Now,is the time for all good men to come
> to the aid of their country.

Hey, mine says the same thing.
Then there's the River Niger thing too.
However, in my neighborhood you may be dead before having time to draw
your dictionary.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Do not purchase a new Big 3 vehicle in 2009.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/8da7acb0e572db51?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 2:20 pm
From: SoCalMike

lorad wrote:
> PS: For the rest of you foreign agents and economic traitors in this
> thread.. american cars are just fine.. they got 2 out of 3 of JD
> Powers top quality ratings. So please stop your hallucinigenic
> squawking.
>
> The reason that the asian cars are more competetive is that their
> governments provide their workers with universal health care (cha-
> ching), and allow their manufacturers to engage in monoplistic
> coordination ('karetsu') (cha-ching cha-ching)... and to put up
> barriers to US auto imports ( cha-ching cha-ching cha-ching)..
>
> Finally they have citizens smart enough to realize that buying foreign
> cars is BAD for their own economic well-being.
> In other words, they are not FOOLS like you.

and they come up with interesting designs, and arent afraid to make a
"boutique" line or two that only run for about a year off existing well
engineered platforms. were going to be getting the nissan cube soon, and
im pretty sure its going to take over the niche the original scion xB had.

all it takes is a couple of good platforms and drivetrains. reliable,
economical, durable. take those, and continually improve and fine-tune
them.

== 2 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 2:22 pm
From: SoCalMike

Nate Nagel wrote:
> resemblance to the models made 20 years ago, even under the skin. There
> are some exceptions like VW (basic engine design dates back to 1973) but
> not many.
>
> nate

really? which engines? their inline 5?

== 3 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 2:29 pm
From: SoCalMike

clams_casino wrote:
> The intended point was that it will take many years before the true
> quality of a car built today will be determined. Meanwhile, should I
> invest in a brand that has a 10-20 year track record of being reliable
> (Accords and Civics have been produced since at least 1990)?

early 70s. and yes, the first ones did suck and have headgasket
problems. and burned oil. the CVCC engine wasnt their best idea. But
they learned and improved. my mom had a 1977 accord bought used in the
late 80s that held up pretty well. economical, smooth ride, decent space.

Or one
> that has had a history of poor reliability. Hm - It'll be different
> this time ... trust me.

oh, it is. GM and ford HAVE greatly improved. chrysler is using orphaned
benz platforms, so who knows how long THAT can last. their small cars
still suck, but ford has some good stuff in europe they shouldve been
bringing over here the past 10 years.

== 4 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 2:31 pm
From: SoCalMike

Brent wrote:
> The point is that the track record of the model is irrelevant because
> its been replaced with new designs.

which are usually just improvements on existing platforms/drivetrains,
with a new body on top. honda has been known to use the same
underpinnings for 8 to 12 years at a time. granted, the body and
interior look brand new every generation.

== 5 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 2:37 pm
From: SoCalMike

Brent wrote:
> You've had 3 cars since 2000? Holy crap. I've had the same ford since
> 1996.

and im sure you like it and will buy another.

ive had 3 since 1991, the first being a used VW i kept until 1998- so i
wouldnt count that, but i also wouldnt buy another VW or any other
german car either.

after that it was a civic hatch made in canada that i kept from 1998 to
2006. only problem was an O2 sensor i replaced myself. Sold that for
half what i paid and bought a scion xA since i didnt particularly like
the honda fit, and wanted a 4 door hatch.

== 6 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 2:39 pm
From: SoCalMike

clams_casino wrote:
> pollution testing without extensive engine repair and a 1994 Chrysler
> Lebrun convertible which I still own at 105k that required $2k in
> repairs this past year and $1k in 2007. It's my fun car - used only
> about 4k miles / year in recent years, primarily in the summer.

i think an allante or a TC by maserati would be a fun weekend car.

== 7 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 2:46 pm
From: SoCalMike

The Real Bev wrote:
> My mom's '88 Eldorado has 58,000 miles on it right now. The dealer had
> sold her new belts and hoses and an engine rebuild before it hit 45K.
> The electric doorlock on the passenger side doesn't work. The
> antenna-raising motor burned out. The heater core rotted through. The
> leather seats are cracking. The AC has had serious service a couple of
> times. There were other problems that she had to pay for in addition to
> quarterly "automatic" servicing, I just don't want to look through her
> receipts again -- I nearly cried the first time.
>
> I'd call that piss poor and the blame is probably shared equally between
> the corrupt dealer and the manufacturer. Yet another case of wallet rape.

The only way to travel is cadillac style...

Some people want more...
Not just a little bit!

This is your life...
Youre the only one whos livin it!

Lets go! Lets live! Lets love every mile!
The only way to travel, is cadillac style!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IaZpHSnjprI

(nickel for every white!)

== 8 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 2:48 pm
From: SoCalMike

Brent wrote:
> The car has issues typical of a 20 year old car of *ANY* make. But
> because it's GM, it's a hunk of crap. That's my point. A honda beater
> with with all the same issues is viewed by 'look, this car is 20 years
> old and this all that's wrong with it'.

i dont think youll find many 20 yr old 50k mile accords that needed
complete engine rebuilds, even if they were sitting.

== 9 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 2:52 pm
From: SoCalMike

Brent wrote:
> Some of us have reliablity from 'american crap' that parallels the
> stories of the great hondas.... so I dunno.
>
> And when Honda makes a V8 or inline 6 car with RWD, MT w/clutch I'll
> consider one.

Theres the S2000, but its a 4. And the NSX, but its a mid engine V6. Hm.
Well, toyota has made some along those lines youd probably like.

== 10 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 2:54 pm
From: SoCalMike

Brent wrote:
> yes, I'd consider a I6 supra or an old I6 Zcar.

ive got a weird fascination with the lexus IS300 sportback. i know ill
never own one, i just like em for some weird reason.

== 11 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 2:58 pm
From: SoCalMike

Eeyore wrote:
>
> If GM survives, you'll be able to tell something very similar by comparing the
> reliability of Saturn Auras with the previous model Opel Vectra.

GM and ford build good stuff elsewhere, they just dont know how to
market it here.

== 12 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 3:28 pm
From: Nate Nagel

SoCalMike wrote:
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>> resemblance to the models made 20 years ago, even under the skin.
>> There are some exceptions like VW (basic engine design dates back to
>> 1973) but not many.
>>
>> nate
>
> really? which engines? their inline 5?

No, the inline 4. First introduced in the original Scirocco and evolved
into what it is today. Certainly not many interchangeable parts, but as
much related as, say, a 1971 Chevy small block is to a '55 Chevy small
block (e.g. quite a bit.) Not sure if the 5 is based on the same design
or not, but I suspect that it may be.

nate

--
replace "roosters" with "cox" to reply.
http://members.cox.net/njnagel

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Eating fingernails and toenails!!!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/537609b9e6bc72eb?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 3:31 pm
From: "Daniel T."

Okikuru <georgewkspam@humboldt1.com> wrote:
> ezekielk@goct.net (Zeke Krahlin) wrote:
> > Dave Garland <dave.garl...@wizinfo.com> wrote:
> > > Daniel T. wrote:
> > >
> > > I read a news article once about a scientific study that
> > > showed that people who bite their fingernails tend to have
> > > stronger immune systems.
> >
> > Pick your nose and eat the buggers: it may be gross, but it actually
> > does boost the immune system.
>
> troll? if not where are the recipes I requested.

Much like vegetables, raw is best.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ebay alternative?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/81ad82de073681df?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 4:03 pm
From: Brian Elfert

OhioGuy <none@none.net> writes:

>> Only a guess, but I assume Ebay got sick of people charging inflated
>> shipping to get around final value fees. Things like Buy It Now for $1 on
>> a $15 item, but charging $19.95 for $4 worth of shipping.

>"Get Around?????" I think you meant to say "make more transparent" the
>ever increasing fees Ebay was adding on.

These sellers are/were ripping off Ebay. Ebay was only charging them a
final value fee on the $1 price for the item when the seller should have
been paying the FVF on at least $15. The seller charged a shipping fee of
4 to 5 times the actual shipping fee to get around the FVF fees that
are/were not charged on shipping.

This has nothing to do with fee transparency and everything to do with
ripping off Ebay.

I no longer shop Ebay much because a lot of sellers have left and I can
rarely find what I want to buy unlike the old days of a few years back.
No other site has the enough items and sellers to make it worth the time
to look at.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 5:09 pm
From: clams_casino

OhioGuy wrote:

>> Only a guess, but I assume Ebay got sick of people charging inflated
>> shipping to get around final value fees. Things like Buy It Now for
>> $1 on
>> a $15 item, but charging $19.95 for $4 worth of shipping.
>
>
> "Get Around?????" I think you meant to say "make more transparent"
> the ever increasing fees Ebay was adding on.
>
> In fact, for every auction, I think Ebay should have an itemized list.
> Item cost: $____
>
> shipping cost: $____
>
> Ebay fees: $_____
>
> People could see that, and decide what to bid on

What an item costs a seller makes no difference as to what I'm willing
to pay. In fact, that's true for anything I buy.

Are you willing to pay more for something just because a seller has a
higher cost structure?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Can you believe this guy
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/1976704e8ee40e35?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Jan 23 2009 5:16 pm
From: clams_casino

animal0921@googlemail.com wrote:

>I received an email the other day from a friend......
>
>
>
>

Considering spammers have no friends, how is that possible?

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

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "misc.consumers.frugal-living"
group.

To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en

To unsubscribe from this group, send email to misc.consumers.frugal-living+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com

To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/subscribe?hl=en

To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com

==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en

Frugal Living

Blog Archive

Friday, January 23, 2009

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

No comments: