Frugal Living: Feb 17, 2010

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: So you say there's no GW, how do you splurge energy?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2985ce62727ceb9f?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Mon, Feb 15 2010 9:59 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)

In <9f0f4b63-9a65-4782-87d7-5e9e57dd4408@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
>On Feb 15, 6:54 pm, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>> In <bfed90df-35e9-41f4-9f04-9a0b9bbeb...@y33g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
>> >On Feb 14, 11:23 pm, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
>> >> In <8908100d-a18c-4880-833c-6f8e7f24a...@a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
>> >> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
>> >> >"Is GW real or are the Polar Bears disappearing into thin air?"
>>
>> >> >Most of you can't ignore that Global Warming and endangered species
>> >> >are related, but not so clearly laid bear.
>>
>> >> >I'm pretty sure we can have good signs of things to come with this...
>>
>> >> >(I quote)
>>
>> >> >Today's polar bears are facing the rapid loss of the sea-ice habitat
>> >> >that they rely on to hunt, breed, and, in some cases, to den. Last
>> >> >summer alone, the melt-off in the Arctic was equal to the size of
>> >> >Alaska, Texas, and the state of Washington combined=97a shrinkage that
>> >> >was not predicted to happen until 2040.
>>
>> >> >...
>>
>> >> >At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group
>> >> >(Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations
>> >> >of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is
>> >> >increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a
>> >> >decision.
>>
>> >> 1/3 of polar bear subpopulations having sufficient data are not declining,
>> >> and 1/12 of the ones having sufficient data are increasing, according to
>> >> the above.
>>
>> >> And watch for the next 20 years showing almost half of the warming in
>> >> the 1975-2005 stretch to be due to a natural cycle (by likely having
>> >> global temperature refusing to rise even half the way it did in 1975-2005
>> >> stretch, if at all).
>> >> Furthermore, a goodly 30% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect
>> >> increase incurred so far is from greenhouse gases other than CO2 and which
>> >> we have largely stopped increasing atmospheric concentration of roughly a
>> >> decade ago (CFC 12 and 11, methane, some others).
>>
>> >> Not that I doubt existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), there
>> >> is geting to be some evidence that it is about half as great as proposed
>> >> by most proponents of AGW's existence.
>>
>> >> I would advise against proofs of existence of AGW to be considered
>> >> strong evidence that the *amount of AGW* that we are in for is the amount
>> >> predicted by proponents of existence of AGW.
>>
>> >> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> >> - Show quoted text -
>>
>> >Then you use your COMMON SENSE and ride a bike or something, huh?
>>
>> If you don't know that ride bikes a goodly twice as much as I drive and
>> drive roughly 1/3 the national average miles per year, you don't know me
>> well!
>>
>> >How about eating plain popcorn instead of so much meat? ;)
>>
>> I do have percentage of calories from meat below national average.
>> You must not have been experiencing m.c.f.l. long if you don't know
>> by now how much I bike, how little I drive, and what I think of the
>> low-carb business.
>>
>> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>> >> Not that I doubt existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), there
>> >> is geting to be some evidence that it is about half as great as proposed
>> >> by most proponents of AGW's existence.
>
>You are saying here that we should doubt the full extent of the
>problem. Say 0 is what the deniers say, and 10 is the max, then you
>say a 5. What you do, nothing? We have reason enough to ride a bike
>and eat plain popcorn, and if you already do... hey, CONGRATULATIONS!
>
>Why aren't the rest of American joining the club? Fear of the road,
>too much junk food around, too many deniers who say it doesn't make a
>difference anyway?

As for scale of how much AGW I expect as a serious ameteur scientist,
I would say 4, maybe 5.

As for rest of America? I say mostly fear of the hard work like that
which Americans did when America was a rising high star. It appears to me
that American ingenuity has been used lately to make work to be someone
else's labor - preferably offshore or by low-pay illegal immigrants.

Also, I sense too many of my fellow Americans like to depend on
American medical innovation to "try to get away with" ulhealthful
lifestyles, mainly exercising too little, eating too much calorie content,
and eating too little of "veggies".

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 16 2010 6:47 am
From: jeff

Don Klipstein wrote:
> In article <hld446$7h5$1@news.albasani.net>, jeff wrote:
>> Don Klipstein wrote:
>
> <With me severely snipping to edit for space>
>
>> When you look beyond decades:
>>
>> http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Instrumental_Temperature_Record.png
>>
>> You see the underlying long term trend which tracks with CO2 levels.
>
> I see that tracking with overall greenhouse gas levels, only about 70%
> of which is CO2, and the other 30% is from methane, organochlorines, and
> nitrous oxide - recently stopped increasing.

I'm not seeing evidence of that (for methane).

http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/25/noaa-methane-levels-2008/
among others

Long term chart:

http://ecen.com/eee55/eee55e/growth_of%20methane_concentration_in_atmosphere.htm
>
> I also see the periodic component, correlating well with AMO.
>
> And, I see a periodic component, largely Atlantic Multidecadal
> Oscillation.
>
> That shows up even better in the most-major other of the surface-based
> three of the "Big 5" indices of global temperature - namely, HadCRUt3,
> which goes back to 1850.

I don't doubt the cyclic components. We'll see if temps are still
rising at the AMO low point, and then the next cycle up will be very
problematic.
>
> In Fact, Wikipedia used HadCRUt3 until only a couple years ago, then
> switched to GISS.
>
> HadCRUT3 global temperature, UK "Met Office" version, is available at:
>
> http://hadobs.metoffice.com/hadcrut3/diagnostics/global/nh+sh/

Nice.
>
>> I don't doubt that the overall warming may be less than predicted.
>> But it seems fairly clear that relatively low temperature changes have
>> profound effects on climate. If it wasn't for the extreme longevity of
>> CO2, I'd be more optimistic. After all we wouldn't be the first
>> civilization to have consumed it's way to collapse.
>>
>> BTW, I've been seeing more and more LED light arrays for "designer"
>> lighting in the $25 or so range. To my eyes the better ones seem to have
>> acceptable color. Wonder how long to a price collapse? Just enquiring
>> because you are the resident lighting expert...
>
> It's going to be gradual. It appears to me that LED technology has
> historically advanced at roughly 40% of the pace that computer technology
> did since the late 1970's.

That seems to imply a $10 price point in about 7 years and widespread
adoption, where CFLs are impractical in about a decade.

Jeff
>
> - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 16 2010 7:28 am
From: TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle

On Feb 15, 9:59 pm, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
> In <9f0f4b63-9a65-4782-87d7-5e9e57dd4...@g19g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
> >On Feb 15, 6:54 pm, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
> >> In <bfed90df-35e9-41f4-9f04-9a0b9bbeb...@y33g2000yqb.googlegroups.com>,
>
> >> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
> >> >On Feb 14, 11:23 pm, d...@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein) wrote:
> >> >> In <8908100d-a18c-4880-833c-6f8e7f24a...@a5g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> >> >> TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle wrote:
> >> >> >"Is GW real or are the Polar Bears disappearing into thin air?"
>
> >> >> >Most of you can't ignore that Global Warming and endangered species
> >> >> >are related, but not so clearly laid bear.
>
> >> >> >I'm pretty sure we can have good signs of things to come with this...
>
> >> >> >(I quote)
>
> >> >> >Today's polar bears are facing the rapid loss of the sea-ice habitat
> >> >> >that they rely on to hunt, breed, and, in some cases, to den. Last
> >> >> >summer alone, the melt-off in the Arctic was equal to the size of
> >> >> >Alaska, Texas, and the state of Washington combined=97a shrinkage that
> >> >> >was not predicted to happen until 2040.
>
> >> >> >...
>
> >> >> >At the most recent meeting of the IUCN Polar Bear Specialist Group
> >> >> >(Copenhagen, 2009), scientists reported that of the 19 subpopulations
> >> >> >of polar bears, eight are declining, three are stable, one is
> >> >> >increasing, and seven have insufficient data on which to base a
> >> >> >decision.
>
> >> >> 1/3 of polar bear subpopulations having sufficient data are not declining,
> >> >> and 1/12 of the ones having sufficient data are increasing, according to
> >> >> the above.
>
> >> >> And watch for the next 20 years showing almost half of the warming in
> >> >> the 1975-2005 stretch to be due to a natural cycle (by likely having
> >> >> global temperature refusing to rise even half the way it did in 1975-2005
> >> >> stretch, if at all).
> >> >> Furthermore, a goodly 30% of anthropogenic greenhouse gas effect
> >> >> increase incurred so far is from greenhouse gases other than CO2 and which
> >> >> we have largely stopped increasing atmospheric concentration of roughly a
> >> >> decade ago (CFC 12 and 11, methane, some others).
>
> >> >> Not that I doubt existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), there
> >> >> is geting to be some evidence that it is about half as great as proposed
> >> >> by most proponents of AGW's existence.
>
> >> >> I would advise against proofs of existence of AGW to be considered
> >> >> strong evidence that the *amount of AGW* that we are in for is the amount
> >> >> predicted by proponents of existence of AGW.
>
> >> >> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >Then you use your COMMON SENSE and ride a bike or something, huh?
>
> >> If you don't know that ride bikes a goodly twice as much as I drive and
> >> drive roughly 1/3 the national average miles per year, you don't know me
> >> well!
>
> >> >How about eating plain popcorn instead of so much meat? ;)
>
> >> I do have percentage of calories from meat below national average.
> >> You must not have been experiencing m.c.f.l. long if you don't know
> >> by now how much I bike, how little I drive, and what I think of the
> >> low-carb business.
>
> >> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >> >> Not that I doubt existence of anthropogenic global warming (AGW), there
> >> >> is geting to be some evidence that it is about half as great as proposed
> >> >> by most proponents of AGW's existence.
>
> >You are saying here that we should doubt the full extent of the
> >problem. Say 0 is what the deniers say, and 10 is the max, then you
> >say a 5. What you do, nothing? We have reason enough to ride a bike
> >and eat plain popcorn, and if you already do... hey, CONGRATULATIONS!
>
> >Why aren't the rest of American joining the club? Fear of the road,
> >too much junk food around, too many deniers who say it doesn't make a
> >difference anyway?
>
> As for scale of how much AGW I expect as a serious ameteur scientist,
> I would say 4, maybe 5.
>
> As for rest of America? I say mostly fear of the hard work like that
> which Americans did when America was a rising high star. It appears to me
> that American ingenuity has been used lately to make work to be someone
> else's labor - preferably offshore or by low-pay illegal immigrants.
>
> Also, I sense too many of my fellow Americans like to depend on
> American medical innovation to "try to get away with" ulhealthful
> lifestyles, mainly exercising too little, eating too much calorie content,
> and eating too little of "veggies".
>
> - Don Klipstein (d...@misty.com)- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

I tend to agree with you but I do think that this laziness and
inclination to junk food is made by design. That's the role the media
and the elites have chosen for us: HAPPY, LAZY CONSUMERS and we
follow.

The few survivors that challenge the status quo around here ride bikes
on sidewalks or walk subject to various dangers. Naturally is better
to be "in the cage" and hop in the car to go to the supermarket.

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 16 2010 10:09 am
From: Cindy Hamilton

On Feb 15, 4:37 pm, TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-
in-the-jungle <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Feb 15, 10:04 am, Cindy Hamilton <angelicapagane...@yahoo.com>
> wrote:
>
> > On Feb 14, 10:27 pm, TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-
>
> > enlightenment-in-the-jungle <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Perhaps you love to go SUVing, or go out in your cigarette boat, or
> > > you have more lights around your house than a top security prison, or
> > > perhaps you go around bullying cyclists or simply you vote for the
> > > candidate that says GW is anti-American propaganda.
>
> > Outdoor hot tub. We keep it warm all year round in Michigan.
>
> > No need to bully cyclists here. Most of them know their place.
>
> Indoor bikes?

Driving cars. Motown has very little tolerance for bicyclists.

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 16 2010 12:38 pm
From: TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-in-the-jungle

On Feb 16, 10:09 am, Cindy Hamilton <angelicapagane...@yahoo.com>
wrote:
> On Feb 15, 4:37 pm, TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-enlightenment-
>
>
>
>
>
> in-the-jungle <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > On Feb 15, 10:04 am, Cindy Hamilton <angelicapagane...@yahoo.com>
> > wrote:
>
> > > On Feb 14, 10:27 pm, TheTibetanMonkey showing-the-path-of-
>
> > > enlightenment-in-the-jungle <nolionnoprob...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Perhaps you love to go SUVing, or go out in your cigarette boat, or
> > > > you have more lights around your house than a top security prison, or
> > > > perhaps you go around bullying cyclists or simply you vote for the
> > > > candidate that says GW is anti-American propaganda.
>
> > > Outdoor hot tub. We keep it warm all year round in Michigan.
>
> > > No need to bully cyclists here. Most of them know their place.
>
> > Indoor bikes?
>
> Driving cars. Motown has very little tolerance for bicyclists.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Competition not allowed in the jungle...

Imagine 10% of people riding bikes, so many people NOT feeding the
system, right?

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 16 2010 6:32 pm
From: don@manx.misty.com (Don Klipstein)

In article <hleb6o$s8i$1@news.albasani.net>, jeff wrote in part:

>Don Klipstein wrote:

>> I see that tracking with overall greenhouse gas levels, only about 70%
>> of which is CO2, and the other 30% is from methane, organochlorines, and
>> nitrous oxide - recently stopped increasing.
>
> I'm not seeing evidence of that (for methane).
>
>http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/25/noaa-methane-levels-2008/
>among others
>
> Long term chart:
>
>http://ecen.com/eee55/eee55e/growth_of%20methane_concentration_in_
>atmosphere.htm

Your short term chart is a bit of news to me, but shows little more than
a decade. Your long term one shows the 20th century increase too
scrunched horizontally to show what happened in the last 10-15 years.

For an inbetween-scale view, unfortunately endingwith 2004, there is:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Major_greenhouse_gas_trends.png

Going up to 1780-1790 in the past year or two is disturning, unless
there is reason for that bump-up to be a short term temporary one.

- Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 16 2010 9:29 pm
From: jeff

Don Klipstein wrote:
> In article <hleb6o$s8i$1@news.albasani.net>, jeff wrote in part:
>
>> Don Klipstein wrote:
>
> <SNIP to here>
>
>>> I see that tracking with overall greenhouse gas levels, only about 70%
>>> of which is CO2, and the other 30% is from methane, organochlorines, and
>>> nitrous oxide - recently stopped increasing.
>> I'm not seeing evidence of that (for methane).
>>
>> http://climateprogress.org/2009/04/25/noaa-methane-levels-2008/
>> among others
>>
>> Long term chart:
>>
>> http://ecen.com/eee55/eee55e/growth_of%20methane_concentration_in_
>> atmosphere.htm
>
> Your short term chart is a bit of news to me, but shows little more than
> a decade. Your long term one shows the 20th century increase too
> scrunched horizontally to show what happened in the last 10-15 years.
>
> For an inbetween-scale view, unfortunately endingwith 2004, there is:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Major_greenhouse_gas_trends.png
>
> Going up to 1780-1790 in the past year or two is disturning, unless
> there is reason for that bump-up to be a short term temporary one.

Apparently, quite a surprise.

http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2009/09/090927151132.htm

However, during the scientists' 2007 measurement of methane for northern
wetland regions, including the Arctic, temperatures for the year were
the warmest on record. This temperature increase coincided with the
large jump in the amount of methane measured in that area.

Lets hope that is not the dominant reason for the increase. There has
been much discussion of whether Global Warming has a negative feedback
component, ie one that mitigates against the increase.

There is a huge amount of methane locked up in hydrates. And that could
be a dangerous positive feedback.

What troubles me is that this is warmer than the globe, and
particularly the arctic has been for some time. This is uncharted
territory, for whatever reasons. The insurance companies, who deal with
pricing risk, are certainly concerned.

I've been reading some of the related stories on Science Daily, I
don't find *anything* there that is comforting. This is not a site I'm
familiar.

Jeff
>
> - Don Klipstein (don@misty.com)

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Pay mortage payment before due date?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3228aec93fd86575?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 16 2010 1:13 am
From: "Rod Speed"

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> In article
> <7tu0fkFcjjU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>> In article
>>> <7tsh3jFlbgU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <7tr7qeFmjiU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> <7tqr37FbenU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>> <7toeqrF8mjU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 16 2010 11:06 am
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"

In article
<7tv5t1FoilU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote:

> >> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <7tsh3jFlbgU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> <7tr7qeFmjiU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> <7tqr37FbenU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>
> >>>>>>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> >>>>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>>>> <7toeqrF8mjU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >>>>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> <reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed
> where it belongs>

why is it that fools like you think
censoring responses makes you seem more
"intelligent" old fella

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 16 2010 1:28 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> In article
> <7tv5t1FoilU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>
>>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <7tsh3jFlbgU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> <7tr7qeFmjiU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>> <7tqr37FbenU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>> <7toeqrF8mjU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>>>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 16 2010 10:20 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"

In article
<7tv5t1FoilU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote:

why is it that fools like you think
censoring responses makes you seem more
"intelligent" old fella

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 16 2010 10:20 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"

In article
<7tu0fkFcjjU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> > In article
> > <7tsh3jFlbgU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <7tr7qeFmjiU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> <7tqr37FbenU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> >>>>>>> In article
> >>>>>>> <7toeqrF8mjU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> >>>>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
> <reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed
> where it belongs>

why is it that fools like you think
censoring responses makes you seem more
"intelligent" old fella

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 16 2010 10:20 pm
From: "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds"

In article
<7tsh3jFlbgU1@mid.individual.net>,
"Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
wrote:

> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> > In article
> > <7tr7qeFmjiU1@mid.individual.net>,
> > "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> > wrote:
> >
> >> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> >>> In article
> >>> <7tqr37FbenU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> >>>>> In article
> >>>>> <7toeqrF8mjU1@mid.individual.net>,
> >>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> >>>>> wrote:
> >>>>>
> >>>>>
> <reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed
> where it belongs>

why is it that fools like you think
censoring responses makes you seem more
"intelligent" old fella

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 16 2010 10:41 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> In article
> <7tv5t1FoilU1@mid.individual.net>,
> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
> wrote:
>
>>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>>>> In article
>>>>> <7tsh3jFlbgU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>> <7tr7qeFmjiU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>> <7tqr37FbenU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> In article
>>>>>>>>>>> <7toeqrF8mjU1@mid.individual.net>,
>>>>>>>>>>> "Rod Speed" <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com>
>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
<reams of your puerile shit any 2 year old could leave for dead flushed where it belongs>

==============================================================================
TOPIC: College Funds- avoid Edifi
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/5481f0c8d5ccd005?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 16 2010 6:10 am
From: Vandy Terre

This front for a means to scam low income families out of money in a supposed
promise of free college money, is a fraud. The fine print on the contract
states they are _not_ going to hunt down scholarship money.

Invitations are sent to low income A students. You then have to travel a great
distance to reach the interview sight. Maybe have to pay for parking. Listen
to a high powered lecture on how you are not smart enough to fill out the
standard government forms fast enough to receive needed grant/ scholarship
money. Then comes the private interview where you are hard sell asked to drop
$1500 on them for this (non) service. Of course if you sign up that day there
is a $500 discount and if your child can find ten more suckers to buy into the
program, then your finial cost is only $99. They claim it is all free, but you
still loose the $99 down payment.

I figure each State has some sort of program that you can use to find these
moneys on your own. You just need to spend the time and make use of the free
available resources. If Edifi wants $1500 for their 'service', then the hours
you spend doing this yourself are fairly valuable.

Be wary.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Consumers
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/0d7cacb0198fa2e0?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 16 2010 1:57 pm
From: Consumer

Most people don't realize that they spend hundreds or even thousands of
dollars a year buying the heavily advertised (HA) brand products in the
grocery and department stores. There is nothing in the grocery store that
is rocket science. Many of the less advertised (LA) brands or store brands
are just as good or better as the HA brands. You are paying for the
brainwashing that many HA brand manufacturers put in their advertising
campaigns. It is not difficult to make shampoos, conditioners, cleaning
products and all those other products that can be found in your local
grocery or department store. Why are you paying 4+ dollars for baby shampoo
when you can buy the less advertised brand for half the money? Do you like
wasting money? If the name brand products are better why would companies be
spending billions of dollars in advertising? The answer is that they are
not better. They are trying to convince you that the high price they are
charging is some how justified by a better product. Many times they are
using terminology that means nothing. Even over the counter drugs like
aspirin can be bought for half the price of the HA brands. This is a
product that has been around for decades. The LA products are under the
same FDA regulations as the HA brands. Save a lot of money and don't buy
the over priced HA brands.

When you pay the higher price for the HA brands you are paying for the
ridiculous high salaries of the CEO's, private jets, golden parachutes and
for the billions spent on advertising.

Every time you go to the store you can save several dollars. Over time this
can amount to a significant amount of money.

In case you're thinking of buying insurance see the following link.

http://law.freeadvice.com/insurance_law/insurers_bad_faith/ten-worst-
insurance-companies.htm

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Usury: A Short History of Banking
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/fc8ad360ec5dfa3e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 16 2010 2:23 pm
From: RickMerrill

Divided by Diversity ☺☻☺ wrote:
> Usury: A Short History of Banking
...
That is not history, and it is not scholarship.

It is simple anti-semitism.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: More bad press on herb/vitamin supplier Puritan's Pride/NBTY,Inc.
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d88e1f284965330e?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 16 2010 3:35 pm
From: Nomen Nescio

In addition to this:

http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers/browse_thread/thread/bad95c4c989e15f6#

we read...

More negative reviews for Puritan's Pride aka NBTY, Inc. Scott Rudolf,
CEO Shows some of the shady tactics of this company. Would you trust
this company to put stuff into your body?
Quoted from a consumer web page:

by: shawn2009
October 10, 2009
BEWARE Puritan's Pride Double Charging Credit Cards 5 Days After the
Intial Order was Placed! Author's Rating:
Customer Service:
On-Time Delivery:

On 10/4 I placed an online order with Puritan's Pride. On 10/6 I saw
that the purchase amount of $91.92 from Puritan's Pride showed up as a
deduction from my checking account account. On 10/9 I received an email
from Puritan's Pride stating that ...
Read More
I would not shop here again

by: rcroxton
March 29, 2009
Puritan's has lost my future business because of poor communication.
Author's Rating:
Customer Service:
On-Time Delivery:

I place an order on March 13, 2009 and received an order confirmation
email. On March 26, I sent a message inquiring if my order had been
shipped since I had not received it yet. Keri in customer service said
the order was never processed due to a problem with my payment. I never
received a message informing me of any problem. If I had not contacted
them I would be waiting longer for nothing. Bad company practice not to
try and contact a customer with a problem. I have since ordered from
another company. Puritans has lost my business.
I would not shop here again

This is to warn people not to order products from Puritan's Pride
Online! This company doesn't value it's customers at all. I ordered
(3) 16oz jars of Coconut Oil on 12/20/08. Puritan's emailed me with
notice of shipping as of ...
Read More
I would not shop here again

by: wrkissel
December 11, 2008
Beware of Unethical Business Practices Author's Rating:
Customer Service:
On-Time Delivery:

Until this year, I had been a loyal customer of Puritan's Pride.

However, this company has begun featuring products at very low prices
without having any intention of selling them at those prices. Their
purpose? When you order these outstanding values, you generally order
other products along with them without being as selective as to whether
the prices are right. Puritan's Pride ships you the products that have
good profit margins and notifies you the rest are on back-order. And
they stay on back-order forever even though they are in stock and
continue to be advertized and sold at higher prices.

As proof, I ordered Product #017895, Glucosamine, 2 for $17.94 on
October 24, 2008. On October 28, I was notified that the product was on
back-order. The last time I was told that the product was still on
back-order was December 6. This same day, I saw that Product #017895
continued being advertized and ordered it again, now at a sale price of
2 for $29.99. It was delivered a few days later on December 11.

Since the practice of advertizing products with no intention of shipping
them at the advertized priced is fraud, I will be contacting the
appropriate agencies.
I would not shop here again

by: Puritan.com Shopper
October 9, 2008
ORDERED ONLINE 16 DAYS AGO AND HAVE HAD... Author's Rating:

ORDERED ONLINE 16 DAYS AGO AND HAVE HAD NO FOLLOWUP OR DELIVERY.
ATTEMPTED TO MAKE A 1-800 CALL YESTERDAY TO CHECK THE STATUS OF ORDER
BUT HUNG UP THE PHONE AFTER WAITING 35 MINUTES FOR ASSISTANCE. I THEN
SENT AN EMAIL AND AS OF NOW HAVE HAD NO REPLY.
I would not shop here again

by: Puritan.com Shopper
June 9, 2008
I haven't received my order. Called... Author's Rating:

I haven't received my order. Called customer service and they have no
idea when I may receive the order. I am very unsatisfied and hoped it
would not end in a credit card dispute.
I would not shop here again

by: Puritan.com Shopper
January 7, 2008
It has been almost 14 days since my... Author's Rating:

It has been almost 14 days since my purchase and there is no system for
tracking my order. I am a bit worry whether I can receive my order or not.

by: shanejensen
April 26, 2007
HORRIBLE!!! Author's Rating:
Customer Service:
On-Time Delivery:

I ordered some product and used a code to get a free product. The
packing slip said "will ship when available" for the free product. The
product never came. So I e-mailed customer service. They are out of the
free product and won't get any in. They told me that I would not receive
a refund or anything in exchange because the product was free. Customer
service keeps telling me what they will not do for me but never has
asked what it would take to make it right. TERRIBLE CUSTOMER SERVICE!!!
They only have the raking they do right now because of high reviews from
4 years ago and later. Horrible reviews lately. DO NOT BUY!!!
I would not shop here again

by: junkyfungus
February 14, 2007
Terrible Customer Service Author's Rating:
Customer Service:
On-Time Delivery:

I've been a customer of Puritan Pride for many years (5+) and have never
experienced such poor customer service as with my last order. I tried
gift certificate and had to call in. Was told no problem 3 days order
would arrive. Called 7 days later. Was told IT issue and "the world
isn't perfect and I'd have to get used to it." Spoke to supervisor said
she would personally fix error for me. Called next day, still not fixed,
but promised it would be here by Friday. Called Wednesday to check why
there was no tracking number. Customer service said it would ship in 48
hours! That means it ships on Friday, not arrives. Called Credit card to
dispute charge, getting full-refund and now after 5+ years I'll never
shop there again.

Very poor service!
I would not shop here again

by: xiaoding
October 25, 2006
Not Good Author's Rating:
Customer Service:
On-Time Delivery:

I have bought from PP for some years now. However, I must agree with
some of the negative reviews, the company is going downhill fast. I am
going to buy from another company in the future.

I can not get an answer to a question I asked in the online contact
form, twice. No answer. I was going to send an e-mail...COULD NOT FIND
ANY. I know I saw one the other day, they have removed all e-mail
addresses from their site. This is the sign of a shady operation, and of
a company that no longer cares to hear from their customers. Has there
been a management change? In any event, buyer beware!
I would not shop here again

by: dfn23
August 10, 2006
Good products and service; price structure is annoying Author's Rating:
Customer Service:
On-Time Delivery:

I have purchased vitamins from this company for more than 20 years. By
and large their service is pretty good, but their pricing structure
drives me crazy. Everything is always priced using a phony "buy one, get
one free" or "buy 2 get 3 free" scheme, which means that you wind up
with zillions of bottles of vitamins to store in your cupboard. Also,
this pricing makes it hard to compare their prices with other vendors
(local stores, Costco, Swanson Online, etc.) - which is what they want,
I think.

Orders generally arrive promptly, but about one order in six has a
missing or incorrect item. Then you have to call them and explain what
went wrong, which is a PITA.

I still order from them occasionally, but less often than I used to. If
they'd adopt a more straightforward pricing structure, I would buy from
them more often.
I would not shop here again

==============================================================================
TOPIC: Save gas going to grocery store...
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/2e0c5d064352e033?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 16 2010 7:40 pm
From: Mrs Irish Mike

On Feb 13, 1:58 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> The Henchman wrote:
> > "Bill" <billnomailnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> >news:7to4hjFc92U1@mid.individual.net...
> >> I have two of everything...
>
> >> So I only need to go to the store once a month.
>
> > That's good if you get your food from a box or a can. Sensible
> > people who wish to save money on long term health care costs eat
> > fresh fruit and veggies every single days, hopefully ten servings. They use the freshest and leanest cuts of meat etc.
> > You can't freeze
> > or cure everything. Preserving uses high amounts of sugar or sodium
> > or hfcs or or or.... Preserving reduces the nutritional value of
> > fresh ingredients even when you blanch at home.
>
> > If you think only purchasing food once a month is saving you money
> > think again. With the cost of health care continually outpacing inflation your personal costs will increase
> > substantially to deal with health care.
>
> Not necessarily in countrys which have decent health care funding systems.
>
> > You are deliberately downgrading the quality of your life if you think saving a few pennies on canned soup is good.
>
> You havent established that home made soup is any healthier.
>
> > This downgrade in your health will cost you exponentially in the future for health care costs.
>
> Easy to claim, have fun actually substantiating that claim.
>
> > Unless you are growing your own fresh food 365 days a year.....
>
> And that is very easy to do. And it does not have to be grown
> 365 days a year either, plenty of it like potatoes etc stores well.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

Mr Rod Speed, I know you haven't left the house in a decade or more,
let alone been to the USA, but pleas allow me to explain a few things
for you.

Nearly evry packaged product in the US is full of high fructose corn
syrup. All packaged grains have been degermed. Nearly every canned
good is full of sodium, that has been proven to cause many unhealthful
comditions. Foods processed to where they barely resemble the food
they came from, nutrition has been cooked out and has to be
reintroduced in the form of synthetic vitamins. The US and many other
countries no suffer alarming rates of obesity because people are so
malnursihed that they eat and eat, but never get the nutrition they
crave. Poor people are fat because they eat cheap food, rich people
seem fit because they need only eat the right food in the right
portions.

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 16 2010 9:01 pm
From: "Rod Speed"

Mrs Irish Mike wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> The Henchman wrote
>>> Bill <billnomailnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote

>>>> I have two of everything...

>>>> So I only need to go to the store once a month.

>>> That's good if you get your food from a box or a can. Sensible
>>> people who wish to save money on long term health care costs eat
>>> fresh fruit and veggies every single days, hopefully ten servings.
>>> They use the freshest and leanest cuts of meat etc. You can't freeze
>>> or cure everything. Preserving uses high amounts of sugar or sodium
>>> or hfcs or or or.... Preserving reduces the nutritional value of
>>> fresh ingredients even when you blanch at home.

>>> If you think only purchasing food once a month is saving you money
>>> think again. With the cost of health care continually outpacing
>>> inflation your personal costs will increase substantially to deal
>>> with health care.

>> Not necessarily in countrys which have decent health care funding systems.

>>> You are deliberately downgrading the quality of your life if you
>>> think saving a few pennies on canned soup is good.

>> You havent established that home made soup is any healthier.

>>> This downgrade in your health will cost you exponentially in the
>>> future for health care costs.

>> Easy to claim, have fun actually substantiating that claim.

>>> Unless you are growing your own fresh food 365 days a year.....

>> And that is very easy to do. And it does not have to be grown
>> 365 days a year either, plenty of it like potatoes etc stores well.-

> Mr Rod Speed, I know you haven't left the house in a decade or more,

Guess which silly little prat has just got egg all over its silly little face, as always ?

> let alone been to the USA,

Guess which silly little prat has just got egg all over its silly little face, as always ?

> but pleas allow me to explain a few things for you.

You didnt actually 'explain' a damned thing, just made a complete prat of yourself, as always.

> Nearly evry packaged product in the US is full of high fructose corn syrup.

It aint rat poison, fuckwit.

> All packaged grains have been degermed.

Hardly the end of civilisation as we know it.

> Nearly every canned good is full of sodium,

Another pig ignorant lie. And plenty dont bother with any canned goods anyway.

> that has been proven to cause many unhealthful comditions.

Just a few in fact.

> Foods processed to where they barely resemble the food they came from,

Not even possible with fresh fruit and veg, fuckwit.

> nutrition has been cooked out

Not even possible with fresh fruit and veg, frozen veg or fresh meat, fuckwit.

> and has to be reintroduced in the form of synthetic vitamins.

Another pig ignorant lie.

> The US and many other countries no suffer alarming rates of obesity

Because fools like you shovel a lot more calories into your stupid mouths than you burn, fuckwit.

> because people are so malnursihed that they eat
> and eat, but never get the nutrition they crave.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

> Poor people are fat because they eat cheap food,

Corse no one but poor people are ever fat, eh ?

> rich people seem fit because they need only eat the right food in the right portions.

Thanks for that completely superfluous proof that you have
never ever had a fucking clue about anything at all, ever.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: A good opprtunity to invesment
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e267e1cd88a26536?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Tues, Feb 16 2010 9:59 pm
From: anitha raj

Social Networking has been effectively used in reaching the goal of
bringing down the prices of costly items through volume shopping. Go
shopping with http://www.shoppingreps.com?SourceId=1243
You can earn online, NO INVESTMENT, NO DEPOSIT, NO MLM and NO JOINING
FEES!!!!! http://www.shoppingreps.com?SourceId=1243 DON'T miss this
opportunity, join today for free, and earn more without paying single
rupees...NO SCAM ALL THE BEST

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

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

Wednesday, February 17, 2010

misc.consumers.frugal-living - 21 new messages in 8 topics - digest