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

Friday, February 13, 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: Hard boiled eggs.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/032a3102de8f165d?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 13 2009 1:48 pm
From: Nancy2

On Feb 13, 2:59 pm, James <j0069b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> My local Safeway has large eggs on sale this week for 99 cents a
> dozen.
>
> If I cook a bunch of hard boiled eggs would they keep in their shells
> at room temperature? I don't have room in the fridge.

Leave them raw in the shell up to 6 weeks in the fridge only. Cooked
only last about 3 days. Eggs are cheap, anyway, so why bother to
"stock up?"

== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 13 2009 1:50 pm
From: Nancy2

On Feb 13, 3:24 pm, Evelyn Leeper <elee...@optonline.net> wrote:
> James wrote:
> > My local Safeway has large eggs on sale this week for 99 cents a
> > dozen.
>
> > If I cook a bunch of hard boiled eggs would they keep in their shells
> > at room temperature? I don't have room in the fridge.
>
> Bear in mind that if you hard-boil them, then you can pile them all in a
> vertical container that takes a lot less space than an egg carton.
>
> --
> Evelyn C. Leeper
> I know you can't live on hope alone but without hope
> life is not worth living. -Harvey Milk

They won't last as long after they're cooked, than if they were raw,
and any storage should be refrigerated. For that matter, just put a
rubber band (or 2) around a carton of raw eggs, and put them away by
standing them on their ends. If they want to wobble, put a heavy jar
of pickles or something on either side to stabilize.

Honestly, though, so what if eggs are 99 cents? They are cheap at
twice that - don't try to stock up if you don't have room.

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 13 2009 2:17 pm
From: "brooklyn1"

"Evelyn Leeper"
> James wrote:
>> My local Safeway has large eggs on sale this week for 99 cents a
>> dozen.
>>
>> If I cook a bunch of hard boiled eggs would they keep in their shells
>> at room temperature? I don't have room in the fridge.
>
> Bear in mind that if you hard-boil them, then you can pile them all in a
> vertical container that takes a lot less space than an egg carton.
>
>
>
That's just silly... any fridge with enough height between shelves to stack
a dozen eggs would be humongous, would certainly have room to store eggs the
normal way. Six large eggs stacked short side to short side (as in an egg
carton) measure like 10". A dozen eggs would need like a 20" long tube...
gotta remove a shelf, maybe two shelves, to have 20" height. The eggs on
the bottom would very likely break/crush from the weight of the eggs
above... probably have to lay it down horizontilly, so it would occupy as
much shelf area as a normal egg carton... and where does one find such a
tube. Why not just hide each egg individually in different nookies and
crannies of your fridge. I'd just make chopped egg salad, it'd fill a a D
cup tupper-type container. Along with a box of Triscuits (cracked black
pepper & olive oil style is delish), and a six pack you won't need to store
it in the fridge more than two hours. Anyhoo, not for a second do I believe
the OP (clearly a troll) can't make room in the fridge for a dozen eggs...
even a small dorm fridge will have enough room, pop the eggs into the box
wine carton, not enough room, chug more wine till the bladder goes down.
hehe

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 13 2009 2:37 pm
From: "James Silverton"

Nancy2 wrote on Fri, 13 Feb 2009 13:48:14 -0800 (PST):

> On Feb 13, 2:59 pm, James <j0069b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> My local Safeway has large eggs on sale this week for 99
>> cents a dozen.
>>
>> If I cook a bunch of hard boiled eggs would they keep in
>> their shells at room temperature? I don't have room in the
>> fridge.

> Leave them raw in the shell up to 6 weeks in the fridge only.
> Cooked only last about 3 days. Eggs are cheap, anyway, so why
> bother to "stock up?"

What happens if you freeze a hardboiled egg? I've never tried.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

Email, with obvious alterations: not.jim.silverton.at.verizon.not

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 13 2009 2:54 pm
From: Melba's Jammin'

In article
<751b76a5-ac27-493b-9498-3f0d8486440b@e6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,
James <j0069bond@hotmail.com> wrote:

> If I cook a bunch of hard boiled eggs would they keep in their shells
> at room temperature? I don't have room in the fridge.

No, no, no, and no. Check out the American Egg Board site for
information.
--
-Barb, Mother Superior, HOSSSPoJ
http://web.me.com/barbschaller
http://gallery.me.com/barbschaller

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 13 2009 5:04 pm
From: "Lou"

"James" <j0069bond@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:751b76a5-ac27-493b-9498-3f0d8486440b@e6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com...
> My local Safeway has large eggs on sale this week for 99 cents a
> dozen.
>
> If I cook a bunch of hard boiled eggs would they keep in their shells
> at room temperature? I don't have room in the fridge.

How much is a "bunch"? Eggs kept under steady refrigeration (in the carton
on the back of the shelf, not on the door) will keep six months. Back when
I was young(er) I worked in grocery stores. Out in the back, eggs were kept
in an unrefrigerated (though not hot) area - they weren't cooled until they
went out in the display case where people could buy them.

Most sources tend to say that unrefrigerated eggs deteriorate in one day as
much as they would in a week if they were refrigerated. That would imply
that they would probably be OK for around three weeks if kept in a cool
room.

You can freeze fresh eggs in the shell, though the shells tend to crack.
Thaw for a day in the refrigerator. Use frozen eggs for baking - freezing
changes the consistency.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Finally got my free coffee.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2a7422cc85e6a527?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 13 2009 1:50 pm
From: albundy2@mailinator.com

On Feb 12, 2:13 pm, James <j0069b...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This morning I finally drove the 2 miles to McD to get a free ice
> coffee. Well, it's certainly worth the price. Now I'm just sorry I
> didn't do this every day starting on the first. Next month of course
> it would be smarter just to make it at home.

Too bad you couldn't walk there and save altogether.
I recall an ad in the 50's something like "I'd walk a mile for a camel
(CIGARETTE)."
Just because it's free or available, doesn't mean it's good for you.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: It's all falling apart, isn't it?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/aaee75672b67549f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 13 2009 2:37 pm
From: "fang"

Dave wrote

>>> and when those statistics add in discouraged workers?

>> Those aint the unemployed, those are the discouraged. We have different words for a reason, stupid.

> People who want to work but can't find a job. Much of them are called unemployed.

Those who are no longer looking for work for whatever reason, arent unemployed.

> Many more are called discouraged. It is semantics only.

Nope, we have different words for the different groups of people for a reason, stupid.

> The only "stupid" thing about it is that some people claim that they aren't all unemployed.

Next you'll be claiming that those who have retired are unemployed too.

> You've been duped.

Nope.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 13 2009 2:39 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

clams_casino wrote:
> Dave wrote:
>
>>
>>>> and when those statistics add in discouraged workers?
>>>
>>>
>>> Those aint the unemployed, those are the discouraged. We have
>>> different words for a reason, stupid.
>>>
>>
>> People who want to work but can't find a job. Much of them are
>> called unemployed. Many more are called discouraged. It is
>> semantics only. The only "stupid" thing about it is that some people
>> claim that they aren't all unemployed. You've been duped. -Dave

> If I understand it correctly,

You dont.

> those who have exceeded their unemployment comp are no longer included in the unemployment

Thats just plain wrong.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

> (as with spouses that may have quit work, but now want / are in need of work.

And that in spades.

> I believe the 7% only includes those currently collecting unemployment.

You're wrong.
http://www.bls.gov/cps/cps_htgm.htm

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 13 2009 3:36 pm
From: Gordon

"Dave" <noway1@nohow2.not> wrote in
news:gn3u7f$br0$1@reader.motzarella.org:

>
> "William Boyd" <williamboyd@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:49957037$1@news.x-privat.org...
>> Dave wrote:
>>>> When the unemployment rate gets to 10% it should get America's
>>>> attention.
>>>
>>>
>>> The unemployment rate is over 20% right now, in the U.S.A. At last
>>> REPORT
>>> (that I heard anyway) it was near 7%. But the formula was
>>> changed/fudged so
>>> that it no longer included discouraged workers. In other words, if
>>> this was
>>> say, 1968, the REPORTED unemployment level would be about 22%.
>>> -Dave
>>>
>>>
>> OK Chicken Little why don't you use the statistics.
>>
>> http://www.post-gazette.com/pg/09037/947350-100.stm
>>
>> U.S. unemployment rate hits 7.6 percent
>
> and when those statistics add in discouraged workers? The number is
> far greater than 7.6% -Dave
>

It's not just discoraged workers. Eventually they get whatever
job they can find. Instead of making a profesional wage of
50K+ per year they end up making minimum wage or slightly
better. But, hey! They are now employed. So the unemployment
rate goes down. Gee, so why does the economy still suck?

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 13 2009 5:09 pm
From: "Jack G."

On Feb 13, 11:11 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
> > On Thu, 12 Feb 2009 23:45:15 -0500, Test User <T...@NosSpam.net>
> > wrote:
>
> >> It's all falling apart, isn't it?
> >> I've been taking a look at the big picture again lately and forgive
> >> me if I speak the obvious but, it's all falling apart. America. It's
> >> falling apart.
>
> >> We have Ivy League Schools whose graduates are dumber than sand. Need
> >> proof? Look at the financial debacle. These Ivy League Bankers,
> >> Brokers and Money Managers were too friggin stupid to figure out
> >> they were running themselves into bankruptcy!
>
> >> Many of today's American businessmen who aren't outright stupid, are
> >> turning out to be sociopaths; brazenly robbing, defrauding and
> >> scamming anyone they can. Take the head of AIG for example; such a
> >> schemer that he wrecked his company by intentionally doing business
> >> in such a way as to make bigger bonuses for himself. Same thing with
> >> the top guys in Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac.
>
> >> These guys ran their companies right into Bankruptcy just to enrich
> >> themselves.
>
> >> American public school kids are graduating high schools and even
> >> colleges so dumb that most of them cannot find their own home states
> >> on an unlabeled map! A whole slew of them can't do basic calculus
> >> and their ability to spell or think critically is virtually
> >> non-existent.
>
> >> We have a government that is spending so much money there isn't
> >> enough on the entire planet to lend to them, so they have to print
> >> their own just to keep pace. That can't last much longer.
>
> >> We have millions of diseased, uneducated illegal aliens in the
> >> country who have brought with them their filthy, third-world
> >> cultures. These pieces of human filth have caused resurgence in
> >> diseases like polio, long cured from this land!
>
> >> We treat homosexuals like they're some sort of gift instead of a
> >> plague; and in some places, the boards of education are unleashing
> >> these sodomites on young school children to "teach them" about the
> >> so-called "alternative lifestyle."
>
> >> If you dare speak out about this stuff, you're smeared as a 'hater"
> >> or racist, bigot, homophobe or some other such thing.
>
> >> Things are so bad on so many levels that I no longer recognize my own
> >> country. Somethings gotta give. This cannot go on.
>
> > Perhaps when the unemployment rate hits 10% we might get a rise
> > from the general public. It will take a radical rebuild of America
> > whose demographics are declining from a qualitative standpoint.
> > (90% White, 1970, 69% White, 2008)
>
> Thats because fools like you spend too much time with your dick
> in your hand and not enough time with your dick in a woman, stupid.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I 1940 after FDR had been in office for two terms the unemployment
rate was 15%.
If Oabma wants to be like FDR he needs more pork and less jobs.
Chump change for the greedy great unwashed who voted for Obama.
I love change.
Just like the Carter years.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Save money grocery shopping
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/c492f4fbce06146f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 13 2009 3:10 pm
From: SLIRM

On Feb 12, 7:26 am, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> SLIRM wrote:
> >I created a tool for myself
>
> Can I also get lots of spam when I sign up? I like spam.

No signup required. You can sign up making it easier to use the
program, but it's not required and no one gets spammed. But, thanks
for bringing that up.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: America is doomed without industrial restoration
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3ac833194943bee0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 13 2009 3:15 pm
From: Democracy Highlander

On Feb 12, 2:53 pm, clams_casino <PeterGrif...@DrunkinClam.com> wrote:
> Democracy Highlander wrote:
>
> >The previous government pissed away a lot of tax money by giving
> >unworthy tax cuts to useless idle.
>
> Especially the financial bankers & Bank CEOs..

Probably we can make a bit more sense of how and why this recession
has been triggered
if we investigate the inner-workings of businessmen brains:

====================
The businessman brain is build primary of 2 neurons, one for each side
of the nose tuned to the smell of money. Each of those 2 neurons are
cross-wired into the locomotor system right nostril neuron fire left
limbs, left nostril
neuron control right limbs.
The locomotor limbs move at a speed directly proportional with the
signal they get from the neuron.
When there is no smell at all the businessmen stay.
When the smell is sensed equal by both nostrils, the limbs move at an
equal speed, so the businessman move ahead.
When the smell is sensed stronger into a nostril, the opposite
limbs move faster that the other side so the businessman turn to that
direction.
If the smell remain equal in both nostrils but the intensity decrease
in time, the third neuron fire so businessman turn 180 degree.
When whiskers sense touch, the businessman open the mouth and eat.
This reflex is trigger by his fourth and last neuron in businessman
brain.

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 13 2009 3:38 pm
From: residualselfimage1999@gmail.com

On Feb 12, 6:26 am, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
> All the bailouts... and the stimulii...all the hot air....the debt...
> the debt servicing... they DON"T MATTER

>
> In the long run it all comes down to loss of US productivity.. the
> loss of US created wealth. Unless the US can rebuild its
> manufacturing capability it will be a
> long slide into a third world level of subsistence.

China's current economic tumble shows that even
a highly productive economy with a high manufacturing
capacity does not necessarily adequately protect
an economy from a downturn -

>
> The only solution is to withdarw from the WTO and allow US workers -
> and only US workers - the ability to make this country into a
> powerhouse again
> This morning I was reading Sen. Leathy's comments supporting
> immigration "reform". The old degenerate wants more immigrants!

Even if our economy was self-sustaining requiring no imports or
exports AND all immigration was eliminated - - such situation
would still not guarantee economic health. Why? Because
wealth is a man-man artificial abstract concept - what people
peg as worthy or less worthy. Economic wealth is for the most
part not set by physical constructs - but by temporal
social norms and values. A healthy economy is really
a Game or Activity-Event that support social norms and values
of that society. A unhealthy economy is not the breakdown
of production but of the human relationships that are formed
for mutual benefit. When the game is no longer beneficial
people stop playing - e.g. Mayan Civilization.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 13 2009 5:31 pm
From: "Mark M."

residualselfimage1999@gmail.com wrote:
> On Feb 12, 6:26 am, wis...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
>>All the bailouts... and the stimulii...all the hot air....the debt...
>>the debt servicing... they DON"T MATTER
>
>
>
>>In the long run it all comes down to loss of US productivity.. the
>>loss of US created wealth. Unless the US can rebuild its
>>manufacturing capability it will be a
>>long slide into a third world level of subsistence.
>
>
> China's current economic tumble shows that even
> a highly productive economy with a high manufacturing
> capacity does not necessarily adequately protect
> an economy from a downturn -

China could help itself by having Chinese workers consume more of what they produce.

Mark M.

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

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 13 2009 3:25 pm
From: Gordon

"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote in
news:6vkftgFk0munU1@mid.individual.net:

> 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.

And, of course, Rod doesn't believe that DTV can be less than
perfect. So here he is chiming in to tell me that I was
just seeing things. It must have been all a bad dream. He
can't believe that my rabbit ears only gave a signal strength
of 45 at best. That I had to switch to a dual dipole to get
readings in the 80s. That we used a directional antenna and
a profesional field strength meter (does Rod even know what that
is?) to identify 2 sources of multipath. That blocking
the multipath improved the reception. Nope, I just imagined
all that. Yup, Rod is the expert in all things. He wasn't
even here, but he feels qualified to pass judgement on what
I saw and did.

>
> 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.

You just proved to me that you are clueless about RF propagation.
You have obviously never worked in an RF lab. Don't know about
the effects of RF propagation on digital signals. You are an idiot.
I'm wasting my time here. This conversation is ended.

>
>> 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: 2 for 1 Printer Cartridge Refills at Walgreen's
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/dccc4d5dc3dd25c8?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 13 2009 3:29 pm
From: clams_casino

SMS wrote:

> Color, 2/$15.14
> Black, 2/$10.14
>
> I had some refilled yesterday and they seem to work fine. Twice before
> I brought in cartridges that they were unable to refill for whatever
> reason, so I brought those to Cartridge World.

Are the refills (money back) guaranteed to work? I tried that a few
years back and the printer (HP) would not recognize the refilled
cartridge (not at Walgreens).

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 13 2009 3:54 pm
From: SMS

clams_casino wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
>> Color, 2/$15.14
>> Black, 2/$10.14
>>
>> I had some refilled yesterday and they seem to work fine. Twice before
>> I brought in cartridges that they were unable to refill for whatever
>> reason, so I brought those to Cartridge World.
>
>
> Are the refills (money back) guaranteed to work?

Yes. Just be sure to try them right away.

> I tried that a few
> years back and the printer (HP) would not recognize the refilled
> cartridge (not at Walgreens).

There are often some printer settings you can mess with to make the
printer work with the refilled cartridges. The problem is the chip in
some cartridges that sets a flag if the ink level ever goes up, rather
than down. Some places replace that chip.

Actually the deal I posted isn't as good as the deal starting Sunday.

"http://www.walgreens.com/dmi/inkrefill/default.html"

If the refill is successful and works in your printer you're home free.
If it doesn't work there's always Cartridge World which has a better
success rate (actually I'm not sure of their success rate since usually
they just hand you a replacement cartridge when they take yours kind of
like exchanging propane tanks).

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Oil Prices Down but Gas Prices Up !
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e844507e22b0cdc6?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 13 2009 3:40 pm
From: clams_casino

Noveau67@aol.com wrote:

>Well, it was nice to see gas plummet down to $1.57. The "pump and
>dump" folks on Wall Street made their money on the up tick, and also
>on the down tick, via shorting, and knowing in advance when to short
>it, of course.
>
>Now the oil companies are openly admitting they are REDUCING THE
>SUPPLY of gas they are refining, in order to get the price up. There
>was an article in Yahoo Finance about it.
>
>
>They are getting away with it again. They act together to reduce the
>supply. All one big happy greedy family.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Considering the oil companies typically make lousy returns (2009 was an
exception and even that was half the return / net profit of Mcdonalds)
and the gas you buy today was likely made from oil purchased on the
futures market last fall, I'm not sure there is any validity to your
concerns.

If the oil company profits bother you - minimize your use of gasoline
and definitely avoid companies such as Microsoft, McDonalds, Coca Cola,
etc.who typical enjoy 2-4+ times the profit margins of oil companies.

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

== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 13 2009 4:01 pm
From: BigDog1

On Feb 12, 10:54 pm, "John A. Weeks III" <j...@johnweeks.com> wrote:
> In article <Xns9BB0DB7544EC7greederxprt...@85.214.105.209>,
>
> Gordon <go...@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-
>
> --
> ======================================================================
> John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 j...@johnweeks.com
> Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com
> ======================================================================

Yep. Bought one of those about 4 years. A 42" Panasonic HD ready
16:9 format CRT. It doesn't have a ATSC tuner but has both component
and HDMI inputs for HD signal sources. It's been attached to both
Comcast and DirecTV HD DVRs. Bright, tack sharp 1080i picture. Much
better than any LCD I've looked at, even at 1080p. Plasmas are as
good, maybe even a little better, but they're still way out of my
price range.

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 13 2009 4:09 pm
From: BigDog1

On Feb 12, 6:34 pm, "Lou" <lpog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <albun...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4f4e262c-a0ef-4f74-b844-549ac502b5b0@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 8:08 pm, "John A. Weeks III" <j...@johnweeks.com> wrote:
> > > In article <4992f706$0$5057$6c36a...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>
> > > info_at_1-script_dot_...@foo.com (spendwize.com) wrote:
> > > > The problem with buying any of these converters is that you won't
> truly
> > > > know how well they work until the conversion goes into effect! I
> bought
> > > > one when the coupons first came out and now that the conversion date
> has
> > > > been postponed, it'll be well-past the warranty time of a year when it
> > > > will be put to the test!
>
> > > More misinformation. All stations that are going digital have
> > > had their DTV transmitters up and running for quite some time,
> > > in fact, as long as 5 years. You converter should work right
> > > now just as things are. If it don't work now, it isn't going
> > > to work after the cut-over.
>
> > > -john-
>
> > And if the stations are already on digital as almost all are, why not
> > change over sooner rather than later?
>
> Because not everyone has a converter.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 13 2009 5:00 pm
From: "John A. Weeks III"

In article
<34ef36fd-05ff-43fa-8960-b96fb8e9c9c6@n10g2000vbl.googlegroups.com>,
BigDog1 <bigdog811@gmail.com> wrote:

> Yep. Bought one of those about 4 years. A 42" Panasonic HD ready
> 16:9 format CRT.

A large CRT can look stunning. That is about the only way to
get a good black level in a picture without spending a zillion
on a plasma set. The only issue is that they weigh about as
much as an aircraft carrier. I cannot move my Sony 36" CRT
without help.

-john-

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

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 13 2009 5:12 pm
From: "Lou"

"BigDog1" <bigdog811@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:2bf28723-907d-4bf3-b346-98a4037452a1@r29g2000vbp.googlegroups.com...
On Feb 12, 6:34 pm, "Lou" <lpog...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <albun...@mailinator.com> wrote in message
>
> news:4f4e262c-a0ef-4f74-b844-549ac502b5b0@i18g2000prf.googlegroups.com...
>
>
>
> > On Feb 11, 8:08 pm, "John A. Weeks III" <j...@johnweeks.com> wrote:
> > > In article <4992f706$0$5057$6c36a...@news.usenetserver.com>,
>
> > > info_at_1-script_dot_...@foo.com (spendwize.com) wrote:
> > > > The problem with buying any of these converters is that you won't
> truly
> > > > know how well they work until the conversion goes into effect! I
> bought
> > > > one when the coupons first came out and now that the conversion date
> has
> > > > been postponed, it'll be well-past the warranty time of a year when
it
> > > > will be put to the test!
>
> > > More misinformation. All stations that are going digital have
> > > had their DTV transmitters up and running for quite some time,
> > > in fact, as long as 5 years. You converter should work right
> > > now just as things are. If it don't work now, it isn't going
> > > to work after the cut-over.
>
> > > -john-
>
> > And if the stations are already on digital as almost all are, why not
> > change over sooner rather than later?
>
> Because not everyone has a converter.

Why wouldn't someone who needs one, not have it yet? It's not like it
hasn't been two years or more since this change over was announced.
These are the same people who don't know Christmas comes on December
25th every year; or who waited until the night before a term paper was
due to start on it. Anyone who's not ready now, isn't likely to be
ready in June, October or even next year. No reason to delay it for
those of us who take care of our business.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It doesn't delay it for those who have a converter - go ahead and use it.
What it does delay is when broadcasters MUST shut off the traditional analog
signal.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: gas should be 95c a gallon right now
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/84861feee5dbe69b?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 13 2009 4:44 pm
From: "SJF"

<josejarvie@ssnet.net> wrote in message
news:jtj1p4t50bhkh2mc2v17dald1ms9hu44qh@4ax.com...
> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:16:26 -0500, in misc.consumers.frugal-living George
> <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>>OhioGuy wrote:
>>> I was looking at the price of crude oil recently, and did some quick
>>> calculations. Based on the current prices refiners are paying, and
>>> comparing it to what we were paying for gasoline a couple of months back
>>> ($1.39 around here), we should now be paying about 95 cents a gallon for
>>> gas.
>>>
>>> Instead, as the price for crude oil has fallen, and as a surplus of
>>> crude oil builds, the price has actually GONE UP by about 50 cents.
>>>
>>> Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that as the supply
>>> increased, and the demand decreased, that the price also decreased. That
>>> was what they taught us in macro and micro economics, anyway.
>>
>>Economic rules only apply if there is an honest market that isn't
>>influenced by speculators and others who have rigged the game for their
>>own gain.
>>
>>
>>>
>>> So why is the price slowly going up right now?
>
> How long does it take for a barrel of oil to be converted to gas then then
> distrubuted to a gas station half a
> world away from where the oil came from? Regardless of where it is
> refined.

Good point!

Refineries are set up to produce several products from the crude --
gasoline, diesel, lubricants, asphalt, etc. The ratios of each can be
somewhat varied within a limited range The refined products go into
storage. Supply and demand for each of the refined products in storage,
rather than the supply and demand for crude, then dictates the price of the
product. There is a time lag in this process. Common case -- When the
demand for heating oil increases, more crude is refined resulting in excess
production of gasoline putting a downward pressure on its price. The
reverse situation, high relative demand for gasoline can similarly depress
the price of gasoline. These and other effects all have time lags.

SJF

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 13 2009 5:26 pm
From: "SJF"

"SJF" <noone@nowhere.com> wrote in message
news:Ttoll.244956$jv1.25020@en-nntp-09.dc1.easynews.com...
>
> <josejarvie@ssnet.net> wrote in message
> news:jtj1p4t50bhkh2mc2v17dald1ms9hu44qh@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 09 Feb 2009 11:16:26 -0500, in misc.consumers.frugal-living
>> George <george@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>>OhioGuy wrote:
>>>> I was looking at the price of crude oil recently, and did some quick
>>>> calculations. Based on the current prices refiners are paying, and
>>>> comparing it to what we were paying for gasoline a couple of months
>>>> back
>>>> ($1.39 around here), we should now be paying about 95 cents a gallon
>>>> for
>>>> gas.
>>>>
>>>> Instead, as the price for crude oil has fallen, and as a surplus of
>>>> crude oil builds, the price has actually GONE UP by about 50 cents.
>>>>
>>>> Now correct me if I'm wrong, but I always thought that as the supply
>>>> increased, and the demand decreased, that the price also decreased.
>>>> That
>>>> was what they taught us in macro and micro economics, anyway.
>>>
>>>Economic rules only apply if there is an honest market that isn't
>>>influenced by speculators and others who have rigged the game for their
>>>own gain.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So why is the price slowly going up right now?
>>
>> How long does it take for a barrel of oil to be converted to gas then
>> then distrubuted to a gas station half a
>> world away from where the oil came from? Regardless of where it is
>> refined.
>
> Good point!
>
> Refineries are set up to produce several products from the crude --
> gasoline, diesel, lubricants, asphalt, etc. The ratios of each can be
> somewhat varied within a limited range The refined products go into
> storage. Supply and demand for each of the refined products in storage,
> rather than the supply and demand for crude, then dictates the price of
> the product. There is a time lag in this process. Common case -- When
> the demand for heating oil increases, more crude is refined resulting in
> excess production of gasoline putting a downward pressure on its price.
> The reverse situation, high relative demand for gasoline can similarly
> depress the price of gasoline. These and other effects all have time
> lags.
>
> SJF
Correction -- ..high relative demand for gasoline can similarly depress the
price of *heating oil.*

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

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 - 25 new messages in 10 topics - digest

No comments: