Frugal Living: misc.consumers.frugal-living - 18 new messages in 5 topics

Friday, February 13, 2009

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 18 new messages in 5 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:

* Monogram Passport Organizer M60135 Collection - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d28c4e1b322f3f8f?hl=en
* Thanksgiving Turkey - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/0479e3429f34a8ed?hl=en
* need a small, inexpensive urban TV antenna - 11 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/22d545ae9e8cb014?hl=en
* * Obama's wife Naked - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/ce2ba6593c45a906?hl=en
* DTV converters - 3 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e46bdc878c0fe848?hl=en

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Monogram Passport Organizer M60135 Collection
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d28c4e1b322f3f8f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 12 2009 7:50 pm
From: bagsbags126@gmail.com

Monogram Passport Organizer M60135 Collection

Handbags Collection Site : http://www.handbags-guide.com/
Monogram Passport Organizer M60135 View Full :
http://www.handbags-guide.com/Monogram-Passport-Organizer-M60135.html

Monogram Passport Organizer M60135 AdditionalInfo :

Brand : Wallet ( http://www.handbags-guide.com/Wallet.html )
Handbags Name : Monogram Passport Organizer M60135
Code : M60135

Designed for traveling,this spacious wallet offers ample space for
ID,bills and credit cards.
 - Monogram canvas,cross-grain leather lining
 - Snapped flap closure
 - Eight credit card slots,three compartments for bills,ID and
other papers
 - One long zipped change pocket
 
 Size: 4.5" L x 4" H
 This Monogram Passport Organizer comes with:
Serial and model numbers,the LV dust bag,care booklet,LV cards,and
copy of the genuine receipt from an official LV store.

The Wallet Watches Collection Series :

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Thanksgiving Turkey
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/0479e3429f34a8ed?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 12 2009 9:23 pm
From: hchickpea@hotmail.com

On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 18:29:41 -0800 (PST), wilma6116@gmail.com wrote:

> Being frugal I bought several of those turkeys they had on special at
>the supermarket (under $4.00 each). Anyone know how long one of these
>is good for? I recently remembered I had one yet to cook.

Depends. Deep frozen, we had one for just shy of a year and it was
fine. OTOH, I've had skinless chicken develop freezer burn in four
months.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 12 2009 9:32 pm
From: Dave Garland

wilma6116@gmail.com wrote:
> Being frugal I bought several of those turkeys they had on special at
> the supermarket (under $4.00 each). Anyone know how long one of these
> is good for? I recently remembered I had one yet to cook.

I've had 'em for years. Especially if your freezer is really cold. I
recently cooked a leg of lamb that was probably 10 years old, and it
was fine. Fish, too, if it was packed in one of those packages with
all the air sucked out.

Stuff that's loose in bags (like chicken parts) freezer burns much
faster. It's still edible (for certain values of edible) but best in
stews etc. where it isn't the principal ingredient.

Hm.. must remember to clean out freezer.

Dave

==============================================================================
TOPIC: need a small, inexpensive urban TV antenna
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/22d545ae9e8cb014?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 12 2009 8:29 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Gordon wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote
>> Gordon wrote

>>> One big problem with DTV is multipath.

>> Nope, that isnt a problem with DTV.

> Yes, it is.

Nope.

> but no body want's to talk about it.

They dont talk about it because it isnt a problem with DTV.

> Digital is supposed to solve all the world's problems.

Wrong again, its just better than analog.

> When you have multipath problems with analoge, you get ghosting,

Yes.

> with digital, the picture breaks up.

Nope.

> Having just had to work through three insatallations with
> severe multipath issues, I can definitly say: It's a problem.

You dont have a clue about what you are doing.

== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 12 2009 8:30 pm
From: Too_Many_Tools

On Feb 11, 7:30 pm, albun...@mailinator.com wrote:
> OhioGuy wrote:
> > We are only located about 4 miles from all of the local TV antennas,
> > but we still have problems now and then with receiving a couple of the
> > channels. (strength levels of between 50 and 60 for them)
>
> > I'm just using a cheap bowtie antenna that I got for 3 bucks from
> > Radio Shack. It works ok most of the time, but it is particularly
> > annoying for my kids, because the PBS station they want to watch has
> > trouble about one day a week.
>
> > Can anyone recommend another small antenna for $10 or less that I can
> > try that might do a slightly better job of pulling in these stations?
> > Thanks!
>
> What you seem to need is an antenna booster, which is an amplified
> antenna. They run about $30. If you have not switched to digital yet,
> you will need this based on what you report. Digital is all or
> nothing. If the signal is not sufficient, you get nothing. If it's
> sufficient, the picture looks perfect.
> Your signal depends on the pattern of radiated power from each
> station. These patterns are changing with the digital too. You will
> not go wrong by spending a few bucks on an amplifier.
> PS. PBS stations often have faulty equipment due to finances. They may
> be getting ready to drop the analog signal and scrap the equipment
> that needs maintenance. So far, about 25% of stations have chosen to
> ignore Obama's wishes and drop analog on the 17th as originally
> schedules.

Or 75% of the stations are smart enough not to be the first ones that
the public will scream to the FCC about screwing up television. ;<)

DTV is a national train wreck about to happen.

TMT

== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 12 2009 8:30 pm
From: Too_Many_Tools

On Feb 11, 7:36 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> John A. Weeks III wrote
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> OhioGuy wrote
> >>> We are only located about 4 miles from all of the local TV antennas,
> >>> but we still have problems now and then with receiving a couple of
> >>> the channels. (strength levels of between 50 and 60 for them)
> >>> I'm just using a cheap bowtie antenna that I got for 3 bucks
> >>> from Radio Shack. It works ok most of the time, but it is
> >>> particularly annoying for my kids, because the PBS station
> >>> they want to watch has trouble about one day a week.
> >>> Can anyone recommend another small antenna for $10 or less that I
> >>> can try that might do a slightly better job of pulling in these stations?
> >> Dont bother, digital TV will fix that without changing the antenna.
> > My experience so far is that it is harder to get the digital signals
> > than the analog signals, at least here in the Twin Cities.
>
> Dont believe it, particularly when the original analog transmitters are reused for digital TV.
>
> His problem of a particular station being variable time wise goes away with digital.
>
> > The antenna I recommend for city usage is the Winegard HD-1080.
> > It can be used indoors, in your attic, in your garage, or outdoors.
> > You can find it at Amazon for under $30. There are similar units
> > available from Antennas Direct.
>
> Bet his current one will be fine with digital TV.

Bet it won't.

His problem will get worse.

TMT

== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 12 2009 8:32 pm
From: Too_Many_Tools

On Feb 11, 7:42 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> albun...@mailinator.com wrote:
> > OhioGuy wrote:
> >> We are only located about 4 miles from all of the local TV antennas,
> >> but we still have problems now and then with receiving a couple of
> >> the channels. (strength levels of between 50 and 60 for them)
>
> >> I'm just using a cheap bowtie antenna that I got for 3 bucks from
> >> Radio Shack. It works ok most of the time, but it is particularly
> >> annoying for my kids, because the PBS station they want to watch has
> >> trouble about one day a week.
>
> >> Can anyone recommend another small antenna for $10 or less that I
> >> can try that might do a slightly better job of pulling in these stations?
> > What you seem to need is an antenna booster, which is an
> > amplified antenna. They run about $30. If you have not switched
> > to digital yet, you will need this based on what you report.
>
> Nope, hordes have found that their less than perfect results
> with analog TV are fixed with the change to digital TV.
>
> > Digital is all or nothing. If the signal is not sufficient, you get nothing.
>
> Thats just plain wrong. You can still get a result that isnt perfect with digital,
> its just that the imperfections are different, dropouts instead of snow and ghosts.
>
> > If it's sufficient, the picture looks perfect.
>
> And if its less that sufficient, you get a perfect result most of the time with a few
> dropouts, usually at times of maximum loss of signal like in an intense thunderstorm etc.
>
> > Your signal depends on the pattern of radiated power from each
> > station. These patterns are changing with the digital too. You will
> > not go wrong by spending a few bucks on an amplifier.
>
> You can actually, you can see a situation where with digital you get interference effects in the amp.
>
> > PS. PBS stations often have faulty equipment due to finances.
>
> No faulty so much as they tend to use lower power transmitters due to finances.
>
>
>
> > They may be getting ready to drop the analog signal and scrap the equipment
> > that needs maintenance. So far, about 25% of stations have chosen to
> > ignore Obama's wishes and drop analog on the 17th as originally schedules.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

More people are having problems with digital than with their current
analog.

Bad voodoo coming.

TMT

== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 12 2009 8:34 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Gordon wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote

>>> Fred Myers (in my part of the world) sells a small Log-periodic
>>> antenna with good directional properties. A friend of mine is using
>>> one to good affect where he prieviously had multipath problems.

>> Not with DTV he doesnt.

> Don't be a prick, Rod. I know that's like telling the sun not to shine, but try.

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

> My friend and I are engineers.

So am I.

> You are an uneducated welfare boy.

You're so stupid that you cant even manage to grasp that I have never ever
got a cent in welfare in my entire life, no matter how often you are told that.

> We were out at his home with a directional antenna and a professional
> RF signal strength meter. We stood there and swung the antenna
> around and could identify all the multi path sources.

Doesnt mean that multipath is a problem with DTV.

> Then, with a cheap dipole antenna, we erected grounded
> metal screens to block the multi paths (just for experimental
> purposes. I'm not suggesting this as a perminent solution)
> The effect was quite noticable. When we installed the
> log-periodic antenna, we could choose the signal path and
> reception was much better. So don't tell me that DTV isn't
> suseptable multipath. I have first hand experience that it is.

And everyone else has the evidence that with a particular
antenna that shows ghosts with analog TV, the DTV is perfect.

You get to like that or lump it or desperately attempt to bullshit your way out of your
predicament with ad hominem and fool absolutely no one at all who knows anything about it.

== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 12 2009 9:02 pm
From: "John A. Weeks III"

In article <Xns9BB09223CCAFBgreederxprtnet@85.214.105.209>,
Gordon <gonzo@alltomyself.com> wrote:

> One big problem with DTV is multipath.

No, digital TV is designed to cure that problem. There are
no ghosts or other signal based artifacts visible on screen.

-john-

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

== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 12 2009 9:03 pm
From: "John A. Weeks III"

In article
<14af3782-ce33-4e6c-aa34-93d3bcf1990f@l1g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
Too_Many_Tools <too_many_tools@yahoo.com> wrote:

> DTV is a national train wreck about to happen.

Glory to the luddites. I suppose you said the same thing
when horse & buggies became obsolete, indoor plumbing was
invented, and when people started putting ice cubes in
their drinks. It is the end of the world as we know it.

-john-

== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 12 2009 9:30 pm
From: Gordon

"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in news:john-
C3029B.23022912022009@news-1.octanews.net:

> In article <Xns9BB09223CCAFBgreederxprtnet@85.214.105.209>,
> Gordon <gonzo@alltomyself.com> wrote:
>
>> One big problem with DTV is multipath.
>
> No, digital TV is designed to cure that problem. There are
> no ghosts or other signal based artifacts visible on screen.
>
> -john-
>

Yes and no.
As I was explaining to Rod, multipath is a problem
with DTV. And althought there are no ghosting or
the usual artifacts of analoge TV, the bit error
rate of the recieved digital signal goes up. That
causes pixelation and artifacts. To a large extent,
DTV can shrug off a certian amount of this. But in
situations where there is bad multipath issues, even
the best DTV has problems. How do I know?
First hand experience. I spent a day up at my friend's
house fighting multipath issues with his DTV setup.

== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 12 2009 9:42 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> On Feb 11, 7:36 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> John A. Weeks III wrote
>>
>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>> OhioGuy wrote
>>>>> We are only located about 4 miles from all of the local TV
>>>>> antennas,
>>>>> but we still have problems now and then with receiving a couple of
>>>>> the channels. (strength levels of between 50 and 60 for them)
>>>>> I'm just using a cheap bowtie antenna that I got for 3 bucks
>>>>> from Radio Shack. It works ok most of the time, but it is
>>>>> particularly annoying for my kids, because the PBS station
>>>>> they want to watch has trouble about one day a week.
>>>>> Can anyone recommend another small antenna for $10 or less that I
>>>>> can try that might do a slightly better job of pulling in these
>>>>> stations?
>>>> Dont bother, digital TV will fix that without changing the antenna.
>>> My experience so far is that it is harder to get the digital signals
>>> than the analog signals, at least here in the Twin Cities.
>>
>> Dont believe it, particularly when the original analog transmitters
>> are reused for digital TV.
>>
>> His problem of a particular station being variable time wise goes
>> away with digital.
>>
>>> The antenna I recommend for city usage is the Winegard HD-1080.
>>> It can be used indoors, in your attic, in your garage, or outdoors.
>>> You can find it at Amazon for under $30. There are similar units
>>> available from Antennas Direct.
>>
>> Bet his current one will be fine with digital TV.
>
> Bet it won't.
>
> His problem will get worse.

Nope, I've had plenty that change to DTV instead of replacing a poor antenna
and get a perfect result with the DTV. Some of them find that ordinary internal
rabbit ears that dont give an acceptible result with analog are fine with DTV too.

== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 12 2009 9:43 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Too_Many_Tools wrote:
> On Feb 11, 7:42 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
>> albun...@mailinator.com wrote:
>>> OhioGuy wrote:
>>>> We are only located about 4 miles from all of the local TV
>>>> antennas,
>>>> but we still have problems now and then with receiving a couple of
>>>> the channels. (strength levels of between 50 and 60 for them)
>>
>>>> I'm just using a cheap bowtie antenna that I got for 3 bucks from
>>>> Radio Shack. It works ok most of the time, but it is particularly
>>>> annoying for my kids, because the PBS station they want to watch
>>>> has trouble about one day a week.
>>
>>>> Can anyone recommend another small antenna for $10 or less that I
>>>> can try that might do a slightly better job of pulling in these
>>>> stations?
>>> What you seem to need is an antenna booster, which is an
>>> amplified antenna. They run about $30. If you have not switched
>>> to digital yet, you will need this based on what you report.
>>
>> Nope, hordes have found that their less than perfect results
>> with analog TV are fixed with the change to digital TV.
>>
>>> Digital is all or nothing. If the signal is not sufficient, you get
>>> nothing.
>>
>> Thats just plain wrong. You can still get a result that isnt perfect
>> with digital,
>> its just that the imperfections are different, dropouts instead of
>> snow and ghosts.
>>
>>> If it's sufficient, the picture looks perfect.
>>
>> And if its less that sufficient, you get a perfect result most of
>> the time with a few
>> dropouts, usually at times of maximum loss of signal like in an
>> intense thunderstorm etc.
>>
>>> Your signal depends on the pattern of radiated power from each
>>> station. These patterns are changing with the digital too. You will
>>> not go wrong by spending a few bucks on an amplifier.
>>
>> You can actually, you can see a situation where with digital you get
>> interference effects in the amp.
>>
>>> PS. PBS stations often have faulty equipment due to finances.
>>
>> No faulty so much as they tend to use lower power transmitters due
>> to finances.
>>
>>
>>
>>> They may be getting ready to drop the analog signal and scrap the
>>> equipment
>>> that needs maintenance. So far, about 25% of stations have chosen to
>>> ignore Obama's wishes and drop analog on the 17th as originally
>>> schedules.- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
> More people are having problems with digital than with their current analog.

Wrong, as always.

> Bad voodoo coming.

Nope, significant improvements in their TV are coming instead.

== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 12 2009 9:48 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Gordon wrote
> John A. Weeks III <john@johnweeks.com> wrote
>> Gordon <gonzo@alltomyself.com> wrote

>>> One big problem with DTV is multipath.

>> No, digital TV is designed to cure that problem. There are
>> no ghosts or other signal based artifacts visible on screen.

> Yes and no.

Yes and yes, actually.

> As I was explaining to Rod, multipath is a problem with DTV.

No it aint. And thats why those who find that internal rabbit ears
that dont give an acceptible result with analog work fine with DTV.

> And althought there are no ghosting or the
> usual artifacts of analoge TV, the bit error
> rate of the recieved digital signal goes up.

Wrong again. You only get that with a very weak signal, not multipath.

> That causes pixelation and artifacts.

You dont necessarily even get that, you may get dropouts with weak signals.

> To a large extent, DTV can shrug off a certian amount of this.

That doesnt even make any logical sense.

> But in situations where there is bad multipath
> issues, even the best DTV has problems.

Wrong, as always.

> How do I know? First hand experience. I spent a day up at
> my friend's house fighting multipath issues with his DTV setup.

You dont have a clue about what you are doing.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: * Obama's wife Naked
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/ce2ba6593c45a906?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 12 2009 8:37 pm
From: Too_Many_Tools

On Feb 11, 2:17 pm, thenth...@gmail.com wrote:
> Get ithttp://imival.blogspot.com/- Photos of Obamas wife naked! We
> will keep this our little secret amazing! archive of private movies
> and all kinds of sexual positions. You must see her with her batman
> utility belt its quite the movie. A must watch. Voted for change and
> thats all I got :(.)

Got any of those Rush nudes?

==============================================================================
TOPIC: DTV converters
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e46bdc878c0fe848?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 12 2009 9:00 pm
From: "John A. Weeks III"

In article <Xns9BB093E0668C6greederxprtnet@85.214.105.209>,
Gordon <gonzo@alltomyself.com> wrote:

> "John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in news:john-
> D71406.07151711022009@news-1.octanews.net:
>
> > If you want to get
> > near-HD quality video or surround sound, you will wabt to
> > get an ATSC tuner rather than a converter, a device that
> > is not covered by the coupons.
> >
>
> Ahh, John.
> the Converters have are an ATSC Tuner. Otherwise they
> would not get the digital broadcasts.

More misinformation. The converters only have SD type
composite video and stereo audio outputs. An ATSC tuner
has HD video out and Dolby Digital 5.1 sound. That is
why the former is called a converter and not a tuner,
and why the latter is far superior device.

-john-

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 12 2009 9:34 pm
From: Gordon

"John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in news:john-
85AA10.23002812022009@news-1.octanews.net:

> In article <Xns9BB093E0668C6greederxprtnet@85.214.105.209>,
> Gordon <gonzo@alltomyself.com> wrote:
>
>> "John A. Weeks III" <john@johnweeks.com> wrote in news:john-
>> D71406.07151711022009@news-1.octanews.net:
>>
>> > If you want to get
>> > near-HD quality video or surround sound, you will wabt to
>> > get an ATSC tuner rather than a converter, a device that
>> > is not covered by the coupons.
>> >
>>
>> Ahh, John.
>> the Converters have are an ATSC Tuner. Otherwise they
>> would not get the digital broadcasts.
>
> More misinformation. The converters only have SD type
> composite video and stereo audio outputs. An ATSC tuner
> has HD video out and Dolby Digital 5.1 sound. That is
> why the former is called a converter and not a tuner,
> and why the latter is far superior device.
>
> -john-
>

OK, I see what you mean. Both a converter and a tuner
can tune in DTV broadcasts. But this thing called a
tuner has more and better outputs.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 12 2009 9:54 pm
From: "John A. Weeks III"

In article <Xns9BB0DB7544EC7greederxprtnet@85.214.105.209>,
Gordon <gonzo@alltomyself.com> wrote:

> OK, I see what you mean. Both a converter and a tuner
> can tune in DTV broadcasts. But this thing called a
> tuner has more and better outputs.

A few years back, a lot of "HD Ready" TVs were sold. They
had HD quality video displays, but only had SD tuners. Adding
a converter allows them to see DTV, but not HDTV. Adding a
true ATSC tuner will give them an HD picture, and allow them
to have surround sound if they have a 5.1 sound system.

-john-

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

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, February 13, 2009

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 18 new messages in 5 topics - digest

No comments: