http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Discount Nike Air Max 87,Max 90, Max 2009, Max 180, Max TN (http://www.
vipchinatrade.com) - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/485ac42d6a6250d5?hl=en
* walking boots-- which are good? - 5 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/52b4735386145e8e?hl=en
* Frugal dentists? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/cf2c5ac32afc2a82?hl=en
* Big duh - 5 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e406cd0060cc116b?hl=en
* Cutting down the cost of washing machine powder - 12 messages, 8 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3b767149103b33f0?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Discount Nike Air Max 87,Max 90, Max 2009, Max 180, Max TN (http://www.
vipchinatrade.com)
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/485ac42d6a6250d5?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 7:42 am
From: TRADENOW
Cheap Wholesale Nike Air Max 87 paypal payment
Cheap Wholesale Nike Air Max 89 paypal payment
Cheap Wholesale Nike Air Max 90 paypal payment
Cheap Wholesale Nike Air Max 91 paypal payment
Cheap Wholesale Nike Air Max 92 Man paypal payment
Cheap Wholesale Nike Air Max 93 paypal payment
Cheap Wholesale Nike Air Max 95 paypal payment
Cheap Wholesale Nike Air Max 97 paypal payment
Cheap Wholesale Nike Air Max 180 Man paypal payment
Cheap Wholesale Nike Air Max 2006 paypal payment
Cheap Wholesale Nike Air Max 2009 paypal payment
Cheap Wholesale Nike Air Max Clssic BW paypal payment
Cheap Wholesale Nike Air Max LTD paypal payment
Cheap Wholesale Nike Air Max Skyline paypal payment
Cheap Wholesale Nike Air Max STAB paypal payment
Cheap Wholesale Nike Air Max Tailwind paypal payment
Cheap Wholesale Nike Air Max TN paypal payment
(http://www.vipchinatrade.com)
==============================================================================
TOPIC: walking boots-- which are good?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/52b4735386145e8e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 7:45 am
From: "David"
"john bently" <bluestarx@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:hlluef$k22$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know of a
> good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different walking boots
> available please? Apparently the last consumers association review was
> done way back in april 2006.
>
> Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive) that are
> generally believed by many people to be a good buy? Thanks for any
> advice.
My choice :
Skateboard trainers for dry conditions. (stiffish soles, good grip, no
tread)
Specialized Rockhoppers without SPD cleats for wet and muddy conditions
(very stiff soles, lots of tread, slightly more water resistant)
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 7:56 am
From: Peter Clinch
Vic Smith wrote:
> I found New Balance running shoes best. Can't remember the model, but
> they weren't expensive compared to others and hiking boots.
Again, what works depends on your feet. I like NB in their 2E width
fitting, but again it's down to individual feet. I also like Saucony,
but not Adidas, others have different feet and different preferences.
> Cushion is important when you're pounding your heels down mile after
> mile. I was lucky that a marathoner I knew recommended them.
The particular ground you're on makes a difference. Running on streets
means a hard surface and exaggerated footfalls from running rather than
walking. Also, different folk have a different strike, those with a
heavy heel-plant probably need more cushioning than others. More
cushioning means a higher shoe, which means less control of the foot:
it's notable that fell-running shoes have practically no cushioning,
partly as they're for soft ground where the ground does the cushioning,
and partly to minimise the chances of turning an ankle getting nasty by
providing extra leverage from the extra shoe height.
> Saved me expensive trial and error.
> For putting on miles, it might be good to google what marathoners use.
Trail running shoes, which have more aggressive outsoles than street
shoes and usually tougher uppers, may be a better place to look unless
the OP is planning on walking around streets.
Pete.
--
Peter Clinch Medical Physics IT Officer
Tel 44 1382 660111 ext. 33637 Univ. of Dundee, Ninewells Hospital
Fax 44 1382 640177 Dundee DD1 9SY Scotland UK
net p.j.clinch@dundee.ac.uk http://www.dundee.ac.uk/~pjclinch/
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 8:02 am
From: "Bob Hobden"
"Peter Clinch" wrote...
> Bob Hobden wrote:
>
>> If you are spending £130+ on good leather boots to last most of a
>> lifetime you have to get it right, approach shoes cost about £60 but are
>> not all-weather.
>
> What weather aren't they?
>
Like now when everywhere is inches under water/mud.
Their soles also tend to be not so grippy as the full blown boot as I have
found to my cost traversing a slope in a snow storm!
Of course that may just be the ones I've got.
--
Regards
Bob Hobden
W.of London. UK
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 9:05 am
From: "Barb"
"john bently" <bluestarx@mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:hlluef$k22$1@news.eternal-september.org...
> Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know of a
> good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different walking boots
> available please? Apparently the last consumers association review was
> done way back in april 2006.
>
> Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive) that are
> generally believed by many people to be a good buy? Thanks for any
> advice.
>
I was in the same position about 5 years ago. I went to Milletts and bought
a pair of Peter Storm lightweight walking boots for about £40. I tried on
several, but these immediately felt almost comfortable enough to sleep in!
Don't buy anything which you think will "wear in" - they either feel good
straight away or they don't.
I've had a lot of use out of them, and they are light enough to walk on road
or off road in grotty weather, plus great grips. They gave away a couple of
pairs of socks with them as well, which are still going strong. Decent
socks are important, no ridges and providing a comfortable lining to the
boot.
Just go to somewhere like Millets and see how you get on!
Barb
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 11:05 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Barb wrote:
> "john bently" <bluestarx@mail.invalid> wrote in message
> news:hlluef$k22$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>> Now i have retired I would like to start walking. Would anyone know
>> of a good place to see some *critical* reviews of the different
>> walking boots available please? Apparently the last consumers
>> association review was done way back in april 2006.
>>
>> Or would anyone know of some boots (preferably not too expensive)
>> that are generally believed by many people to be a good buy? Thanks
>> for any advice.
>>
>
> I was in the same position about 5 years ago. I went to Milletts and
> bought a pair of Peter Storm lightweight walking boots for about £40.
> I tried on several, but these immediately felt almost comfortable
> enough to sleep in!
> Don't buy anything which you think will "wear in"
> - they either feel good straight away or they don't.
Thats not right. My current boots were a tad tight over the top of the foot, but
wore in fine and are by far the most comfortable for walking I have ever had.
> I've had a lot of use out of them, and they are light enough to walk
> on road or off road in grotty weather, plus great grips. They gave
> away a couple of pairs of socks with them as well, which are still
> going strong. Decent socks are important, no ridges and providing a
> comfortable lining to the boot.
And its important to avoid pure synthetics too.
> Just go to somewhere like Millets and see how you get on!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Frugal dentists?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/cf2c5ac32afc2a82?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 8:07 am
From: VFW
I have had three experiences with 3 dentists that have made me come to
the conclusion that there is a lot of incompetence in the art.
And there is the possibility that they are in a profession that exposes
them to Mercury often.
and mercury might have addled their brains.
So, one might choose a mercury free dentist or;;;;
Hire two dentists , one to give you a second opinion and vice versa.
I'm sure letting them know that you're getting a second opinion or a
review of completed treatment might cause them to clean up their act.
All, I know is if I had this method down years ago, I wouldn't have so
many root canals, from shoddy work.
--
Hint; Enjoy the moment !
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 2:04 pm
From: Al
VFW wrote:
> I have had three experiences with 3 dentists that have made me come to
> the conclusion that there is a lot of incompetence in the art.
> And there is the possibility that they are in a profession that exposes
> them to Mercury often.
> and mercury might have addled their brains.
> So, one might choose a mercury free dentist or;;;;
> Hire two dentists , one to give you a second opinion and vice versa.
> I'm sure letting them know that you're getting a second opinion or a
> review of completed treatment might cause them to clean up their act.
> All, I know is if I had this method down years ago, I wouldn't have so
> many root canals, from shoddy work.
> --
> Hint; Enjoy the moment !
Better to find a competent dentist to begin with than pay twice every
time and still have no assurance of the ability of the dentist until
after the fact. I have never had shoddy work, but I knew other
customers before I went to the given dentist. Two years ago I saved
$600 by pulling my own tooth, but that's not for everybody either. My
next visit will be to the local dental school outlet.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Big duh
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/e406cd0060cc116b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 8:10 am
From: VFW
In article <j2lfn.977$XI1.701@newsfe04.iad>,
"Camellia Sinensis" <csgreentea@hotmail.com> wrote:
> There was a news story on Northwest News today stating that banks were
> trying to figure out ways to get people to save more money. Do you think
> that maybe if they paid more than .4 percent interest on a regular savings
> account or .8 on a "long term CD" people might be more tempted? I mean, we
> are talking less than ONE PERCENT! Banks have no problem charging their
> customers outrageous fees for everything from using another banks ATM,
> overdraft fees, late fees, over limit fees or up to 29% interest on credit
> cards, but seem surprised that we aren't racing to the bank to pour more
> money into savings accounts. That isn't rocket science. I can remember
> banks paying 4 1/2% interest on a passbook saving account back in the 50's
> and early 60's. If the banks weren't so damned greedy now people might
> think about saving a little money. At today's interest rates you might as
> well stuff it under your mattress.
where is that mattress?
--
Hint; Enjoy the moment !
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 12:09 pm
From: Michael Black
On Thu, 18 Feb 2010, Camellia Sinensis wrote:
> There was a news story on Northwest News today stating that banks were
> trying to figure out ways to get people to save more money. Do you think
> that maybe if they paid more than .4 percent interest on a regular savings
> account or .8 on a "long term CD" people might be more tempted? I mean, we
> are talking less than ONE PERCENT! Banks have no problem charging their
> customers outrageous fees for everything from using another banks ATM,
> overdraft fees, late fees, over limit fees or up to 29% interest on credit
> cards, but seem surprised that we aren't racing to the bank to pour more
> money into savings accounts. That isn't rocket science. I can remember
> banks paying 4 1/2% interest on a passbook saving account back in the 50's
> and early 60's. If the banks weren't so damned greedy now people might think
> about saving a little money. At today's interest rates you might as well
> stuff it under your mattress.
>
Huh?
You're saying it's better to spend money than get little interest. But,
if the point is to have money, you are better off saving it whatever
the interest than spending it.
Lots of people not only are not saving, they are spending more than they
should. They want things, and they want them now, so they buy on credit
and then pay later or go bankrupt to catch up. They aren't doing that
because the banks aren't paying much interest on savings, it's a whole
different matter.
If I put that ten dollars in the bank, I'll have it at some point when I
need it, whether it grows or not. If I spend that ten dollars right now
I won't have it for when I might really need it.
Michael
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 1:02 pm
From: BigDog1
On Feb 18, 5:34 pm, "Camellia Sinensis" <csgreen...@hotmail.com>
wrote:
> There was a news story on Northwest News today stating that banks were
> trying to figure out ways to get people to save more money. Do you think
> that maybe if they paid more than .4 percent interest on a regular savings
> account or .8 on a "long term CD" people might be more tempted? I mean, we
> are talking less than ONE PERCENT! Banks have no problem charging their
> customers outrageous fees for everything from using another banks ATM,
> overdraft fees, late fees, over limit fees or up to 29% interest on credit
> cards, but seem surprised that we aren't racing to the bank to pour more
> money into savings accounts. That isn't rocket science. I can remember
> banks paying 4 1/2% interest on a passbook saving account back in the 50's
> and early 60's. If the banks weren't so damned greedy now people might
> think about saving a little money. At today's interest rates you might as
> well stuff it under your mattress.
Well, your statement that it isn't rocket is correct, but not in your
context. People who have to pay overdraft fees, late fees, and over
limit fees lack discipline and are financially irresponsible. And
anyone who is using a credit card with a 29% interest rate must have a
pretty crumby FICO score.
What's not rocket science is that if you live within your means, pay
your bills on time, and plan your cash needs properly, you won't need
to worry about any of those charges. And, as Michael pointed out, not
saving in light of low interest is about as foolish a theory as I've
ever heard (see my comment above).
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 1:41 pm
From: Vic Smith
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 13:02:13 -0800 (PST), BigDog1
<bigdog811@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 18, 5:34 pm, "Camellia Sinensis" <csgreen...@hotmail.com>
>wrote:
>> There was a news story on Northwest News today stating that banks were
>> trying to figure out ways to get people to save more money. Do you think
>> that maybe if they paid more than .4 percent interest on a regular savings
>> account or .8 on a "long term CD" people might be more tempted? I mean, we
>> are talking less than ONE PERCENT! Banks have no problem charging their
>> customers outrageous fees for everything from using another banks ATM,
>> overdraft fees, late fees, over limit fees or up to 29% interest on credit
>> cards, but seem surprised that we aren't racing to the bank to pour more
>> money into savings accounts. That isn't rocket science. I can remember
>> banks paying 4 1/2% interest on a passbook saving account back in the 50's
>> and early 60's. If the banks weren't so damned greedy now people might
>> think about saving a little money. At today's interest rates you might as
>> well stuff it under your mattress.
>
>Well, your statement that it isn't rocket is correct, but not in your
>context. People who have to pay overdraft fees, late fees, and over
>limit fees lack discipline and are financially irresponsible. And
>anyone who is using a credit card with a 29% interest rate must have a
>pretty crumby FICO score.
>
>What's not rocket science is that if you live within your means, pay
>your bills on time, and plan your cash needs properly, you won't need
>to worry about any of those charges. And, as Michael pointed out, not
>saving in light of low interest is about as foolish a theory as I've
>ever heard (see my comment above).
I doubt he's personally worried about the fees.
His beef is with the low interest rates, which *do* discourage savings
*in a bank.*
If your getting hardly any return for your money there isn't much
difference in keeping it in a bank or under a mattress.
What you're all missing is that Wall Street guys are in charge of
monetary policy and interest rates.
The lower the interest rate in banks, the more likely people are to
gamble their money in the stock market, and keep the stock market
bubble inflated.
Of course they can say they want to keep rates down to avoid the
continuing wave of variable rate home loan foreclosures.
And that argument does hold some water.
The economy is between a rock and a hard place.
Current interest rates are an unnatural joke, and anybody who's been
around a while knows it.
--Vic
--Vic
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 1:46 pm
From: Balvenieman
"Camellia Sinensis" <csgreentea@hotmail.com> wrote:
> If the banks weren't so damned greedy now people might
>think about saving a little money. At today's interest rates you might as
>well stuff it under your mattress.
Be patient. As I type this, the Presidential Liar is researching
ways to put banks out of business.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cutting down the cost of washing machine powder
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3b767149103b33f0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 8:15 am
From: Harry K
On Feb 19, 5:10 am, "john bently" <bluest...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> I remember reading a while ago that it costs the washing machine powder
> manufacturers more to make the carboard box than it does to make the washing
> power inside the box. In all events having to pay between £4.50 and £6.50
> odd for a box weighing 2.4Kg week after week mounts up to a big expenditure.
>
> There is all this endless chat from manufacturers in their adverts about how
> white etc, etc, but do they really know what they are doing? It was not so
> long ago that it was found some of these powders actually cause the clothes
> fabrics to rot.
>
> Since most peoples clothes are not really that dirty as a general rule, is
> there not a simpler less expensive alternative that could be made up to put
> in a washing machine? Thanks for any advice.
As in buying anything, don't go for the advertised stuff, buy teh
house brand. Lately a "Basic" brand showed up. On sale for IIRC
around $8 for 20 lb bucket. That is less than a third the cost of the
major brands.
Harry K
== 2 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 8:18 am
From: "Bob F"
john bently wrote:
> I remember reading a while ago that it costs the washing machine
> powder manufacturers more to make the carboard box than it does to
> make the washing power inside the box. In all events having to pay
> between £4.50 and £6.50 odd for a box weighing 2.4Kg week after week
> mounts up to a big expenditure.
> There is all this endless chat from manufacturers in their adverts
> about how white etc, etc, but do they really know what they are
> doing? It was not so long ago that it was found some of these
> powders actually cause the clothes fabrics to rot.
>
> Since most peoples clothes are not really that dirty as a general
> rule, is there not a simpler less expensive alternative that could be
> made up to put in a washing machine? Thanks for any advice.
Unless your water is unusual, you can probably use way less detergent than the
detergent box says.
== 3 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 9:12 am
From: me@privacy.net
Question for the group....
I've always used liquid detergents but find it messy at
times
Are powders just as good and maybe cheaper?
Also, I use detergents with NO scents, smells, etc!!
Does there exist a powder like that for top loader (or
FL) use?
== 4 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 10:48 am
From: "Rod Speed"
john bently wrote:
> I remember reading a while ago that it costs the washing machine powder manufacturers more to make the carboard box
> than it does to make the washing power inside the box.
Thats a lie. If it did, some would supply them in plastic bags etc.
> In all events having to pay between £4.50 and £6.50 odd for a box weighing 2.4Kg week after week mounts up to a big
> expenditure.
I dont use anything like that much.
> There is all this endless chat from manufacturers in their adverts about how white etc, etc, but do they really know
> what they are doing?
Yes.
> It was not so long ago that it was found some of these
> powders actually cause the clothes fabrics to rot.
No they dont.
> Since most peoples clothes are not really that dirty as a general rule, is there not a simpler less expensive
> alternative that could be made up to put in a washing machine?
Yes, and that is trivially buyable too.
Obviously those that do not advertise will be cheaper,
but there is rather more risk with cheap chinese crap.
> Thanks for any advice.
Even advice to shove you head up a dead bear's arse ?
== 5 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 11:10 am
From: "Rod Speed"
me@privacy.net wrote:
> Question for the group....
> I've always used liquid detergents but find it messy at times
Yeah, they certainly can be.
> Are powders just as good
Not in some situations. I wash in cold water and wear dark blue
T shirts all year round and find that you get a sort of scum with
powders which appears to be due to the soap not dissolving entirely.
You can wipe it away when hanging it on the line, but there can be
too much to bother with and so I use the clear liquid detergents that
dont have that problem.
> and maybe cheaper?
Dunno, havent compared on prices, essentially because I use
so little that its not a major consideration. I have very large
numbers of the commonly worn stuff like T shirts so I can
do a full load and so the cost isnt a significant consideration.
> Also, I use detergents with NO scents, smells, etc!!
Yeah, me too. Same with the shower, I use Pears Transparent,
because its one of the few with no smell at all. I use it for the hair too.
> Does there exist a powder like that for top loader (or FL) use?
Dunno. The liquid detergent I use is has no scents or smells.
== 6 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 11:59 am
From: SMS
john bently wrote:
> Since most peoples clothes are not really that dirty as a general rule, is
> there not a simpler less expensive alternative that could be made up to put
> in a washing machine? Thanks for any advice.
Buy a bucket of laundry soap powder at Costco and it will last you six
months to a year. Use half the amount they recommend. Avoid liquid
laundry detergent which is far more expensive than powder.
== 7 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 12:52 pm
From: "hr(bob) hofmann@att.net"
On Feb 19, 1:59 pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
> john bently wrote:
> > Since most peoples clothes are not really that dirty as a general rule, is
> > there not a simpler less expensive alternative that could be made up to put
> > in a washing machine? Thanks for any advice.
>
> Buy a bucket of laundry soap powder at Costco and it will last you six
> months to a year. Use half the amount they recommend. Avoid liquid
> laundry detergent which is far more expensive than powder.
I don't know if there is a COSTCO in the UK, where the OP seems to be
located. But, if they have the equivalent of Walmart or Sams Club in
the UK, check out their prices. Also, in the US we have "Consumers
Reports" that has done a comparison of many different brands of
clothes washing soap. And, as others have said try using half the
amount the manufacturer recommends and see if that isn't just as
good. The mfgr has no incentive to recommend anything less than the
maximum amount they can get you to use and still have most of it come
out in the rinse.
== 8 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 1:05 pm
From: Jeff The Drunk
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 12:52:07 -0800 (PST), "hr(bob) hofmann@att.net"
<hrhofmann@att.net>wrote:
>On Feb 19, 1:59?pm, SMS <scharf.ste...@geemail.com> wrote:
>> john bently wrote:
>> > Since most peoples clothes are not really that dirty as a general rule, is
>> > there not a simpler less expensive alternative that could be made up to put
>> > in a washing machine? ? ?Thanks for any advice.
>>
>> Buy a bucket of laundry soap powder at Costco and it will last you six
>> months to a year. Use half the amount they recommend. Avoid liquid
>> laundry detergent which is far more expensive than powder.
>
>I don't know if there is a COSTCO in the UK, where the OP seems to be
>located. But, if they have the equivalent of Walmart or Sams Club in
>the UK, check out their prices. Also, in the US we have "Consumers
>Reports" that has done a comparison of many different brands of
>clothes washing soap. And, as others have said try using half the
>amount the manufacturer recommends and see if that isn't just as
>good. The mfgr has no incentive to recommend anything less than the
>maximum amount they can get you to use and still have most of it come
>out in the rinse.
Asda
http://www.asda.co.uk/corp/storelocator_frameset/storelocator_frameset.htm
Tesco
http://www.tesco.com/storeLocator/
== 9 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 1:13 pm
From: "Bob F"
me@privacy.net wrote:
> Question for the group....
>
> I've always used liquid detergents but find it messy at
> times
>
> Are powders just as good and maybe cheaper?
>
> Also, I use detergents with NO scents, smells, etc!!
>
> Does there exist a powder like that for top loader (or
> FL) use?
I've never used liquid detergents, and I never use detergents with scents.
When I've calculated it in the past, powdered detergents are way cheaper where
I've shopped.
== 10 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 2:16 pm
From: myob@inter.net
On Fri, 19 Feb 2010 11:12:51 -0600, me@privacy.net wrote:
>Question for the group....
>
>I've always used liquid detergents but find it messy at
>times
>
>Are powders just as good and maybe cheaper?
>
>Also, I use detergents with NO scents, smells, etc!!
>
>Does there exist a powder like that for top loader (or
>FL) use?
there uses to be a poster on m.c.f-l who always said 'if you can see
the suds, you are using too much detergent.' i get mine for $1.99/gal
and use about half of what they recommend.
it seems to work fine. no scent. i use vinegar for fabric softener.
i'm sure that you can get a comparable deal on powder if that is less
messy for you.
== 11 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 2:35 pm
From: me@privacy.net
"Bob F" <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:
>I've never used liquid detergents, and I never use detergents with scents.
>
>When I've calculated it in the past, powdered detergents are way cheaper where
>I've shopped.
what is the brand you use?
== 12 of 12 ==
Date: Fri, Feb 19 2010 3:09 pm
From: "Bob F"
me@privacy.net wrote:
> "Bob F" <bobnospam@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I've never used liquid detergents, and I never use detergents with
>> scents.
>>
>> When I've calculated it in the past, powdered detergents are way
>> cheaper where I've shopped.
>
> what is the brand you use?
Tide currently.
==============================================================================
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
