http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=en
misc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Delivered unsafe item damaged me - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3012e11d0875cc7d?hl=en
* walking boots-- which are good? - 19 messages, 10 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/52b4735386145e8e?hl=en
* Cheap ED hardy jeans G-STAR jeans True religion jeans wholesale Free
shipping <www.vipchinatrade.com> - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/0bb9be762a478f8d?hl=en
* ❤～❤～❤ 2010 Cheap wholesale True Relig Jeans at website: www.rijing-trade.
com <paypal payment> - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/db86f64cf8211b15?hl=en
* How to Feed Yourself for $15 a Week - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a4bb6b0f54266e52?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Delivered unsafe item damaged me
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3012e11d0875cc7d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 24 2010 10:19 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
krw wrote:
> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:54:32 +1100, "Rod Speed"
> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> Ste wrote
>>> Skippy <cobbl...@invalid.com> wrote
>>>> Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>>>>>> re: "The packaging being complained of is intended for
>>>>>>> opening by professional tradesmen. Not unskilled amateurs."
>>>>>>> Again, I beg to differ. Packaging isn't "intended" to be opened
>>>>>>> by people of a certain occupation. It's intended to protect an
>>>>>>> item during shipping/storage.
>>>>>>> If the item in question should never have been (to use your
>>>>>>> word) "handled" by the consumer, then it should have been a
>>>>>>> "controlled substance" and he shouldn't have been able to buy
>>>>>>> it without a license or proof of training.
>>
>>>>>> Thats wrong too, most obviously with yorkshire fittings.
>>
>>>>>> They arent legal to use by ordinary consumers who arent legally
>>>>>> allowed to do their own plumbing but are sold freely anyway.
>>
>>>>> Are you joking sarcastically, or are you just talking completely
>>>>> out of your arse?
>>
>>>> The fuckwit lives in australia where they are considered
>>>> too stupid to do their own plumbing or electrics
>>
>>> Ah, my apologies to him then. Here in the UK, there are
>>> no restrictions on gas fitting in one's own home, except
>>> that the work must be performed "competently".
>> We arent even allowed to change the tap washer in some
>> states, let alone install the plumbing or do the electrical wiring.
> Bullshit.
Fact.
>> Corse everyone ignores the ban on changing the tap washer.
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 6:22 am
From: DerbyDad03
On Feb 25, 1:18 am, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> DerbyDad03 wrote
>
>
>
>
>
> > Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
> >> DerbyDad03 wrote
> >>> michael adams <mjadam...@onetel.net.uk> wrote
> >>>> DerbyDad03 <teamarr...@eznet.net> wrote
> >>>> michael adams <mjadam...@onetel.net.uk> wrote
> >>>>> Toom Tabard <t...@tabard.freeserve.co.uk> wrote
> >>>>>> Total nonsense - in an item supplied to a consumer,
> >>>>> Regardless of who its supplied to, consumers don't ever get to
> >>>>> handle gas hobs because. they normally give the job to a fitter
> >>>>> or similar professional.
> >>>>> An experienced fitter wouldn't have cut his hand in this way.
> >>>>> But then an experienced fitter would have cost money.
> >>>>> The OP can't have it both ways. Either he's a consumer in which
> >>>>> case he gives the job to someone who can handle it, or he's a
> >>>>> fitter in which case he wouldn't have cut his hand.
> >>>>> Had this been a saucepan being talked about then that would
> >>>>> be an entirely different thing.
> >>>>> re: Either he's a consumer in which case he gives the job to
> >>>>> someone who can handle it, or he's a fitter in which case he
> >>>>> wouldn't have cut his hand."
> >>>>> What?
> >>>> In the UK at least a "fitter" is a name given to professional installers
> >>>> of all sorts of things. Kitchen fitter, motor fitter, electrical fitter etc etc.
> >>>> Not just simply to someone who "fits" things.
> >>>> A professional fitter might reasonably be expected to have the
> >>>> experience to forstall such problems.
> >>>> The packaging being complained of is intended for opening by
> >>>> professional tradesmen. Not unskilled amateurs.
> >>>> "Unskilled" if only in the sense that when they cut their little
> >>>> "handies" as a result of not using a box-cutter, the correct tool
> >>>> for the job, they then start to blub like little children. And
> >>>> start demanding that the "naughty man" should be made to pay money
> >>>> to Charity "cos they hurted demselves"
> >>>> Yeah right! Like that's gonna happen !
> >>>>> You don't truly believe that a "consumer" can't be a "fitter" do
> >>>>> you? I guess I shouldn't have put in my own windows or doors or
> >>>>> bath fixtures or water heater or stove or deck or any of the
> >>>>> other things I've "fitted" into my house.
> >>>>> After all, I'm just a consumer and "can't handle it".
> >>>>> I'm not defending the OP...I'm not even talking about the OP. I'm
> >>>>> only responding to your claim that a consumer can't also be the fitter.
> >>> re: "In the UK at least a "fitter" is a name given to professional
> >>> installers of all sorts of things."
> >>> I know what you meant by a "fitter".
> >>> However, I still don't agree with your point that a consumer should
> >>> never handle a gas hob.
> >>> Using US terminology, I'm not a "contractor" but I bought all
> >>> of my windows and doors from a "contractor's supply house".
> >>> They weren't packaged any differently than the windows
> >>> and doors you'd buy from a "consumer's supply house"
> >> Plenty of other stuff is tho, most obviously with yorkshire fittings for copper plumbing etc.
> > Is that just a casual observation
>
> Nope.
>
> > or were you trying to make a point?
> I succeeded in making a point, even if you are too stupid to have noticed.
Name calling. That's always a good way to draw a listener in and to
have him think that something intelligent might follow.
> The point is that the packaging with stuff from contractors
> supply houses can be very different to the packaging for retail.
No one said that packaging couldn't be different for different items.
Please show me where I said that every item from both sources is
packaged the same. In response to the claim that certain packaging
types were meant to be open by professionals only, I noted that a few
products that can be purchased by a "consumer" (Toom's word) from
"professional sources" - and typically installed by professionals -
were packaged the same as at the borg. Chucking out a random thoughts
on other items is not relevant to the discussion at hand.
>
> >>> I'm not a plumber, but I bought my fixtures at a plumbing
> >>> supply house. They weren't packaged any differently than
> >>> the fixtures at the big box stores, where "consumer's" shop.
> >> Bet the yorkshire fittings were. Mine are loose in bins etc.
> >> Same with taps etc too.
> > Again...Your point?
> See above.
See above.
>
> >>> re: "The packaging being complained of is intended for
> >>> opening by professional tradesmen. Not unskilled amateurs."
> >>> Again, I beg to differ. Packaging isn't "intended" to be opened by
> >>> people of a certain occupation. It's intended to protect an item
> >>> during shipping/storage.
> >>> If the item in question should never have been (to use your word)
> >>> "handled" by the consumer, then it should have been a "controlled
> >>> substance" and he shouldn't have been able to buy it without a
> >>> license or proof of training.
> >> Thats wrong too, most obviously with yorkshire fittings.
> > The word "too" implies that what I said earlier was wrong. It wasn't.
> It was.
Now *that's* a substantial response.
>
> > The products I mentioned earlier were not packed any differently
> > at the contractor/plumbing supply houses than at the borgs.
> Pity about other stuff that is.
Again, why is the "other stuff" relevant to the discussion as to
whether certain packaging is intended to be opened by professionals
only? As an example, you brought up an item that is "loose in bins".
How is that even remotely relevant to a discussion about whether
packaging is intended for "professional opening" vs. "consumer
opening"?
>
> >> They arent legal to use by ordinary consumers who arent legally
> >> allowed to do their own plumbing but are sold freely anyway.
> > I do believe the word I (and Toom) used was "handled".
> Irrelevant to your stupid claim about packaging.
Are you sure you understand what my claim was? It appears not.
>
> > Is there a legal restriction against "handling" the products in question?
> Irrelevant to whether its legal for the consumer to use.
But relevant to the discussion of whether packaging is intended for
"professional opening only" which is the *only* claim I was responding
to.
> >> Same with GPOs etc too, they arent legally usable by the consumer either.
> > *handled* my friend, *handled*.
> Use, no friend of mine, use.
Oh, be nice.
>
> >>> Absent those restrictions, anyone, consumer or
> >>> professional, is allowed to "handle" the product and it's their
> >>> responsibility to take the proper precautions when doing so.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 7:24 am
From: krw
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 17:19:38 +1100, "Rod Speed"
<rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>krw wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 13:54:32 +1100, "Rod Speed"
>> <rod.speed.aaa@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>> Ste wrote
>>>> Skippy <cobbl...@invalid.com> wrote
>>>>> Ste <ste_ro...@hotmail.com> wrote
>>>>>> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>>>
>>>>>>>> re: "The packaging being complained of is intended for
>>>>>>>> opening by professional tradesmen. Not unskilled amateurs."
>>>>>>>> Again, I beg to differ. Packaging isn't "intended" to be opened
>>>>>>>> by people of a certain occupation. It's intended to protect an
>>>>>>>> item during shipping/storage.
>>>>>>>> If the item in question should never have been (to use your
>>>>>>>> word) "handled" by the consumer, then it should have been a
>>>>>>>> "controlled substance" and he shouldn't have been able to buy
>>>>>>>> it without a license or proof of training.
>>>
>>>>>>> Thats wrong too, most obviously with yorkshire fittings.
>>>
>>>>>>> They arent legal to use by ordinary consumers who arent legally
>>>>>>> allowed to do their own plumbing but are sold freely anyway.
>>>
>>>>>> Are you joking sarcastically, or are you just talking completely
>>>>>> out of your arse?
>>>
>>>>> The fuckwit lives in australia where they are considered
>>>>> too stupid to do their own plumbing or electrics
>>>
>>>> Ah, my apologies to him then. Here in the UK, there are
>>>> no restrictions on gas fitting in one's own home, except
>>>> that the work must be performed "competently".
>
>>> We arent even allowed to change the tap washer in some
>>> states, let alone install the plumbing or do the electrical wiring.
>
>> Bullshit.
>
>Fact.
Cite.
>>> Corse everyone ignores the ban on changing the tap washer.
Ronny Reaugh is as full of shit as he normally is.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: walking boots-- which are good?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/52b4735386145e8e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 19 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 12:16 am
From: PeterC
On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 11:22:33 -0800, SMS wrote:
> -Vibram soles for traction (nothing beats Vibram soles for traction)
In that case I'll go for Nothing - lighter, cheaper and won't be more
slippery than the Vibram soles on my Scarpa boots (although might leak a
bit).
I have shoes with no cleats at all, just a smooth sole, that just won't
slip on surfaces where the Vibram slip quite readily, so, except for
macro-mechanical interaction, pattern doesn't help grip. The shoes are, of
course, no good on mud or snow but very good on wet slabs and 'green'
concrete. I haven't tried them on the rocks on Scafell Pike! :-)
--
Peter.
2x4 - thick plank; 4x4 - two of 'em.
== 2 of 19 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 1:30 am
From: Phil Cook
Rod Speed wrote:
>Michael Black wrote
>> Rod Speed wrote
>
>>>> What everybody agrees upon, experts and laymen alike, is that boots
>>>> or shoes that start uncomfortable will never become comfortable.
>
>>> That is just plain wrong. One pair I got was a bit tight across
>>> the top of the foot with one foot, and the wore in fine.
>
>>> The reason I persisted with them was because I got that pair
>>> for free as a warranty claim when the soles split and I got the
>>> exchange by mail in and I didnt get to try them on.
>
>> But that's a different case.
>
>No its not with his silly claim that they will never become comfortable.
I worded it rather poorly. What I should have said was that boots or
shoes that are uncomfortable because of poor fit will never become
comfortable.
--
Phil Cook, last hill: Am Bodach in the Mamores on a sunny day :-)
pictures at http://www.therewaslight.co.uk soonish...
== 3 of 19 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 1:40 am
From: Phil Cook
Rod Speed wrote:
>SMS wrote:
>> Phil Cook wrote:
>>
>>> What everybody agrees upon, experts and laymen alike, is that boots
>>> or shoes that start uncomfortable will never become comfortable.
>>> Fit, fit and fit are the important things, all else is supplementary.
>
>> If the boots are full-grain leather then there can be a break-in period where they become more comfortable.
>
>There can indeed and that does in fact happen routinely.
>
>And it doesnt have to be 'full-grain' leather either.
>
>> But for cheaper boots of nubuck, suede, or fabric, they probably won't become more comfortable than they are at the
>> time of purchase.
>
>Suede does too, its leather with the best of them.
Suede is leather with the best bit thrown away. It is the inner side
of the skin with the outer taken off. Nubuck is the outer that has
been abraded to resemble suede. Full grain leather has the outer
intact. A lot of winter boots intended for rough conditions are made
with the reverse side out to protect the face of the leather from
wear.
--
Phil Cook, last hill: Am Bodach in the Mamores on a sunny day :-)
pictures at http://www.therewaslight.co.uk soonish...
== 4 of 19 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 1:43 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Phil Cook wrote
> Rod Speed wrote
>> Michael Black wrote
>>> Rod Speed wrote
>>>> Phil Cook wrote
>>>>> What everybody agrees upon, experts and laymen alike, is that boots
>>>>> or shoes that start uncomfortable will never become comfortable.
>>>> That is just plain wrong. One pair I got was a bit tight across
>>>> the top of the foot with one foot, and the wore in fine.
>>>> The reason I persisted with them was because I got that pair
>>>> for free as a warranty claim when the soles split and I got the
>>>> exchange by mail in and I didnt get to try them on.
>>> But that's a different case.
>> No its not with his silly claim that they will never become comfortable.
> I worded it rather poorly.
You did indeed.
> What I should have said was that boots or shoes that are
> uncomfortable because of poor fit will never become comfortable.
Still wrong. Those ones of mine were uncomforable because of
a poor fit did become the most comfortable I have ever owned.
Boots and shoes made of real leather can wear in to be comfortable.
== 5 of 19 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 2:11 am
From: Peter Clinch
SMS wrote:
> Christopher Loffredo wrote:
>
>> Though many, including myself, dislike Gore-Tex in a boot.
>
> That's the first time I've _ever_ heard of _anyone_ disliking GoreTex in
> a boot.
Perhaps you're not listening very hard?
Chris Townsend, President of the MCofS, author of numerous acclaimed
books on backpacking and gear editor of The Great Outdoors magazine
doesn't seem particularly keen for one, and I concur. (see, for example,
http://www.tgomagazine.co.uk/gear/footwear/3-season/inov-8-roclite-390-gtx-100-1.1005457
with "Dislikes: W/B lining).
> For good reason. The GoreTex membrane allows the boot to breathe while
> remaining waterproof. The membrane is safely sandwiched inside,
> protecting it, so it doesn't get clogged with dirt or oil.
Goretex doesn't get clogged with dirt or oil because of a PU smear over
the membrane. What a boot lining doesn't stop is small bits of grit
working themselves through over time and rubbing a hole through the
(very thin) membrane. Also, the membrane will be prone to wear over the
flex points around the toe with repeated mechanical stretching.
> The GoreTex lasts the life of the boot. My last pair of boots with a
> GoreTex liner lasted for 25 years without leaking or failing to breathe.
I wouldn't take that as a representative sample!
> You'll only find a lack of a GoreTex membrane on very low end boots,
> which have other limitations as well, such as sub-standard sole, or
> cheaper, non-full grain leather.
Ho ho, so the Scarpa SL and Manta models are "low end"? Despite their
being favourites in wet and muddy UK year after year and their excellent
construction, top-end Vibram soles, first class leather and high price tags?
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/
== 6 of 19 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 2:16 am
From: Peter Clinch
SMS wrote:
> Bottom line is that all the experts agree that you should _never_
> purchase a pair of hiking boots, walking shoes, etc., that do not have a
> GoreTex (or competing product) membrane, if you expect to have them ever
> get wet.
Sorry, that's just plain wrong.
Expert opinion here frequently put non-Goretex boots at the top of their
recommended lists and that's for use in the UK, where it /will/ be wet.
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/
== 7 of 19 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 2:28 am
From: Peter Clinch
SMS wrote:
> When you say "walking" do you mean on trails where ankle support is
> critical so you need actual boots, or on pavement and paths where you
> can get by with lower walking shoes?
Unless you're toting a beastly weight you should get all the ankle
support you need from the bones, muscles and tendons that have evolved
to do the job. Ankle support is only critical when you're going outside
what ankles have evolved to do (which is just about any running and
walking with relatively light loads), so if you're trying to edge skis,
or stand on a crampon point, or stuff like that /then/ ankle support is
critical.
This has been proven by loads of people over thousands of years walking
through very rough terrain without extra ankle support. Man would have
dies out in prehistory if his ankles had been so weak that he needed
boots or special paths to get anywhere.
> -One-piece, full grain leather uppers
The main point of a one-piece upper is reducing stitching which reduces
leakage, but if you've got...
> -Goretex membrane for breathability and water-proofing
then it's considerably less relevant. And has been noted elsewhere you
really don't need Goretex, and if you do want a lining Goretex isn't the
only game in town (consider eVent, for example, which is demonstrably
more breathable).
> -Vibram soles for traction (nothing beats Vibram soles for traction)
So why do fell-runners and orienteers who need the best traction use
something else? Vibram soles are good but they're compromises for
multiple terrains. If you're spending a lot of time in sticky mud then
a studded sole like Innov-8's or Walsh's more aggressive units will give
you better traction. But a Vibram unit is usually a good indication of
quality that will do most jobs well.
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/
== 8 of 19 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 3:53 am
From: SMS
Phil Cook wrote:
> Suede is leather with the best bit thrown away. It is the inner side
> of the skin with the outer taken off. Nubuck is the outer that has
> been abraded to resemble suede.
Why would they bother to abrade full grain leather to create Nubuck? I
suspect that Nubuck is from lower grade leather which doesn't look good
unless it's abraded. Or maybe it's to decrease the weight?
In any case, the bottom line remains the same when buying walking
(hiking) boots. First look for the necessary design elements which are:
1. GORE-TEX� lining (or other breathable waterproof membrane lining) for
breathable waterproofness (nearly all mid to high end boots have this).
NEVER buy hiking boots that lack a breathable waterproof membrane lining.
2. Vibram� outsole for best traction (cheaper boots may have a lower
grade outsole).
3. Stitchdown construction (not just glued) for durability (very rare
except on extreme high end).
4. Full-grain, all-leather upper (not split grain, not "nubuck") for
support and durability.
Once you find all the boots with the necessary design elements you begin
to narrow down your choices based on other factors like fit, aesthetics,
price, etc..
== 9 of 19 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 4:12 am
From: Christopher Loffredo
SMS wrote:
> Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> Suede is leather with the best bit thrown away. It is the inner side
>> of the skin with the outer taken off. Nubuck is the outer that has
>> been abraded to resemble suede.
>
> Why would they bother to abrade full grain leather to create Nubuck? I
> suspect that Nubuck is from lower grade leather which doesn't look good
> unless it's abraded. Or maybe it's to decrease the weight?
>
> In any case, the bottom line remains the same when buying walking
> (hiking) boots. First look for the necessary design elements which are:
>
> 1. GORE-TEX� lining (or other breathable waterproof membrane lining) for
> breathable waterproofness (nearly all mid to high end boots have this).
> NEVER buy hiking boots that lack a breathable waterproof membrane lining.
>
> 2. Vibram� outsole for best traction (cheaper boots may have a lower
> grade outsole).
>
> 3. Stitchdown construction (not just glued) for durability (very rare
> except on extreme high end).
>
> 4. Full-grain, all-leather upper (not split grain, not "nubuck") for
> support and durability.
>
> Once you find all the boots with the necessary design elements you begin
> to narrow down your choices based on other factors like fit, aesthetics,
> price, etc..
But before genuflecting before each of these "necessary" points,
remember that there are other opinions (also based on a fair bit of
experience) on the matter...
While those points may be valid for some users and for some uses, they
are being presented in a *very* dogmatic manner.
== 10 of 19 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 4:50 am
From: hbol
On Feb 19, 11:58 am, "john bently" <bluest...@mail.invalid> wrote:
> 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 sincerely hope, Mr Bently, that you will come back and tells us what
you ended up buying, and why. This thread seems like a lot of
discussion/debate to not see a result.
I think I have read the whole thread, but if you have already posted
that info and I missed it, sorry.
== 11 of 19 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 4:57 am
From: Phil Cook
SMS wrote:
>Phil Cook wrote:
>
>> Suede is leather with the best bit thrown away. It is the inner side
>> of the skin with the outer taken off. Nubuck is the outer that has
>> been abraded to resemble suede.
>
>Why would they bother to abrade full grain leather to create Nubuck? I
>suspect that Nubuck is from lower grade leather which doesn't look good
>unless it's abraded. Or maybe it's to decrease the weight?
Fashion. Suede looks trendy but is as porous as a sponge, hence the
need to add a membrane to boots and shoes made of it if you want water
resistance. Nubuck looks like suede but has some water resistance, not
as good as full grain leather though.
In the name of fashion some people also treat reversed leather with
the proofing treatments designed to preserve the look of suede and
nubuck. Me, I just slap on some wax and to hell with the look of them.
And speaking of fashion and branding:
>1. GORE-TEX�
>2. Vibram�
In the UK JCB make earth moving equipment, but they aren't the only
game in town anymore.
--
Phil Cook, last hill: Am Bodach in the Mamores on a sunny day :-)
pictures at http://www.therewaslight.co.uk soonish...
== 12 of 19 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 5:16 am
From: Peter Clinch
SMS wrote:
> In any case, the bottom line remains the same when buying walking
> (hiking) boots. First look for the necessary design elements which are:
>
> 1. GORE-TEX� lining (or other breathable waterproof membrane lining) for
> breathable waterproofness (nearly all mid to high end boots have this).
> NEVER buy hiking boots that lack a breathable waterproof membrane lining.
SMS is doing what he does best, which is assuming he knws better than
anyone else. It is a simple and verifiable fact that Scarpa SLs and
Mantas (among many, many others) have long been favourites in the
(rather wet) UK, with both expert opinion and public acclaim through use
and sales, and they don't have any such lining.
> 2. Vibram� outsole for best traction (cheaper boots may have a lower
> grade outsole).
Vibram are generally good, but not the only game in town.
> 3. Stitchdown construction (not just glued) for durability (very rare
> except on extreme high end).
This effectively says it is *necessary* to get "extreme high end" boots.
But look what people /actually use/ and you'll find plenty of folk
doing a great deal without "extreme high end" boots.
> 4. Full-grain, all-leather upper (not split grain, not "nubuck") for
> support and durability.
Those will be the most durable, but how durable will you need? For a
lot of applications fabric boots will be more comfortable because
there's far less effort needed to bend them as you walk, plus more
breathable, and if you can buy three pairs for the same money and
wouldn't ever have worn out the leathers anyway, why bother paying all
that money for something which is just harder to walk in? Serious
leather boots have their place, certainly, but for a lot of applications
they're simply overkill.
> Once you find all the boots with the necessary design elements you begin
> to narrow down your choices based on other factors like fit, aesthetics,
> price, etc..
Though "necessary design elements" in typical walking footwear don't
actually include Goretex, Vibram, Stitchdown construction or full grain
leather. How do I know? From doing lots of walking in footwear with
variously only some or absolutely none of those features.
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/
== 13 of 19 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 5:51 am
From: Geoff Berrow
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 12:57:52 +0000, Phil Cook
<phil@p-t-cook.freeserve.co.uk> wrote:
>SMS wrote:
>
>>Phil Cook wrote:
>>
>>> Suede is leather with the best bit thrown away. It is the inner side
>>> of the skin with the outer taken off. Nubuck is the outer that has
>>> been abraded to resemble suede.
>>
>>Why would they bother to abrade full grain leather to create Nubuck? I
>>suspect that Nubuck is from lower grade leather which doesn't look good
>>unless it's abraded. Or maybe it's to decrease the weight?
>
>Fashion. Suede looks trendy but is as porous as a sponge, hence the
>need to add a membrane to boots and shoes made of it if you want water
>resistance. Nubuck looks like suede but has some water resistance, not
>as good as full grain leather though.
>
>In the name of fashion some people also treat reversed leather with
>the proofing treatments designed to preserve the look of suede and
>nubuck. Me, I just slap on some wax and to hell with the look of them.
My first boots were suede and very comfortable. I bought them
thinking that I could just brush the mud off when dry. Despite using
the various sprays though, they did get sodden and eventually cracked
and split along a crease, long before they were worn out. Now
relegated to garden duty. :)
Well-dubbined leather is now my finish of choice.
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker
== 14 of 19 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 7:14 am
From: PeterC
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 20:43:34 +1100, Rod Speed wrote:
>>> No its not with his silly claim that they will never become comfortable.
>
>> I worded it rather poorly.
>
> You did indeed.
>
>> What I should have said was that boots or shoes that are
>> uncomfortable because of poor fit will never become comfortable.
>
> Still wrong. Those ones of mine were uncomforable because of
> a poor fit did become the most comfortable I have ever owned.
>
> Boots and shoes made of real leather can wear in to be comfortable.
They can also be stretched a bit.
I saw a shoe-stretcher that could widen shoes up to width D - for me,
that's narrow. It's easy to get D, so a stretcher needs to go well beyond
that.
--
Peter.
2x4 - thick plank; 4x4 - two of 'em.
== 15 of 19 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 7:18 am
From: PeterC
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 10:28:57 +0000, Peter Clinch wrote:
>> -Goretex membrane for breathability and water-proofing
>
> then it's considerably less relevant. And has been noted elsewhere you
> really don't need Goretex, and if you do want a lining Goretex isn't the
> only game in town (consider eVent, for example, which is demonstrably
> more breathable).
Any opinions yet on Hi-Tec's IonMask proofing? Looks good in print, but
does it work?
--
Peter.
2x4 - thick plank; 4x4 - two of 'em.
== 16 of 19 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 7:19 am
From: Scott Bryce
SMS wrote:
> Bottom line is that all the experts agree that you should _never_
> purchase a pair of hiking boots, walking shoes, etc., that do not
> have a GoreTex (or competing product) membrane, if you expect to have
> them ever get wet.
Have you spoken with every expert? Nearly everybody who successfully
hikes the entire length of the Pacific Crest Trail does so in trail
runners. Is 2650 miles in one season enough to make one an expert?
Scott Williamson, who has hiked at least 40,000 miles, wears running shoes.
Not only would these people not consider GoreTex important, they would
specifically advise against it. The reason is that under some
conditions, your feet will stay drier without it.
The OP didn't even mention hiking. He said walking. Boots of any sort
are overkill for walking.
== 17 of 19 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 8:13 am
From: Roger Chapman
Scott Bryce wrote:
snip
> The OP didn't even mention hiking. He said walking. Boots of any sort
> are overkill for walking.
That depends on which language you speak. Here in the UK (and the OP
would appear to reside here) hiking is not a word in general use to
describe recreational walking. Hill walking is frequently referred to as
walking without the prefix and 'rambling' used to describe walking in
the countryside away from paved surfaces.
Two nations divided by a common language as GBS is alleged to have said.
== 18 of 19 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 8:26 am
From: Geoff Berrow
On Thu, 25 Feb 2010 04:50:26 -0800 (PST), hbol <hbol@hotmail.com>
wrote:
>I sincerely hope, Mr Bently, that you will come back and tells us what
>you ended up buying, and why. This thread seems like a lot of
>discussion/debate to not see a result.
Prolly just turn out to be a troll...
--
Geoff Berrow (Put thecat out to email)
It's only Usenet, no one dies.
My opinions, not the committee's, mine.
Simple RFDs www.4theweb.co.uk/rfdmaker
== 19 of 19 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 8:26 am
From: SMS
Phil Cook wrote:
> SMS wrote:
>
>> Phil Cook wrote:
>>
>>> Suede is leather with the best bit thrown away. It is the inner side
>>> of the skin with the outer taken off. Nubuck is the outer that has
>>> been abraded to resemble suede.
>> Why would they bother to abrade full grain leather to create Nubuck? I
>> suspect that Nubuck is from lower grade leather which doesn't look good
>> unless it's abraded. Or maybe it's to decrease the weight?
>
> Fashion. Suede looks trendy but is as porous as a sponge, hence the
> need to add a membrane to boots and shoes made of it if you want water
> resistance. Nubuck looks like suede but has some water resistance, not
> as good as full grain leather though.
Then Nubuck boots should cost more, not less, than full grain leather
boots. This is not the case (at least in the U.S.) where the most
expensive boots are full grain leather, with GoreTex membrane, and a
Vibram sole. Give up any of those three key features and the price comes
down.
I bought my 11 y.o. son a perfectly good pair of full grain leather
boots at Wal-Mart for $30. No GoreTex, no Vibram, but fine for his easy
boy scout treks. The next boots though will have to be better as the
weight of the packs and the difficulty of the trips increases, and they
don't care about the weather. Boots are required for safety; they won't
allow anyone the backpack trips without boots that have ankle support
and sufficient traction.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Cheap ED hardy jeans G-STAR jeans True religion jeans wholesale Free
shipping <www.vipchinatrade.com>
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/0bb9be762a478f8d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 1:45 am
From: yoyo
Discount Wholesale Affliction Jeans <free shipping paypal payment>
Discount Wholesale AK Jeans ( www.vipchinatrade.com )
Discount Wholesale Armani Jeans
Discount Wholesale Artful Dodger Jeans <free shipping paypal payment>
Discount Wholesale BAPE Jeans
Discount Wholesale BBC Jeans ( www.vipchinatrade.com )
Discount Wholesale Black Label Jeans
Discount Wholesale Cavalli Jeans
Discount Wholesale Christian Audigier Jeans
Discount Wholesale Coogi Jeans
Discount Wholesale Crown Holder Jeans ( www.vipchinatrade.com )
Discount Wholesale D&G Jeans
Discount Wholesale Diesel Jeans
Discount Wholesale ECKO Jeans ( www.vipchinatrade.com )
Discount Wholesale ED Hardy Jeans
Discount Wholesale Evisu Jeans
Discount Wholesale G-STAR Jeans <free shipping paypal payment>
Discount Wholesale GUCCI Jeans
Discount Wholesale Iceberg Jeans
Discount Wholesale Kanji Jeans ( www.vipchinatrade.com )
Discount Wholesale Laguna Beach Jeans
Discount Wholesale Levi s Jeans
Discount Wholesale LRG Jeans <free shipping paypal payment>
Discount Wholesale LV Jeans
Discount Wholesale Prada Jeans ( www.vipchinatrade.com )
Discount Wholesale RMC Jeans
Discount Wholesale Roca Wear Jeans <free shipping paypal payment>
Discount Wholesale Rock&Republic Jeans
Discount Wholesale True Religion Jeans <free shipping paypal payment>
Discount Wholesale Versace Jeans
Discount Wholesale ZEN Jeans ( www.vipchinatrade.com )
==============================================================================
TOPIC: ❤～❤～❤ 2010 Cheap wholesale True Relig Jeans at website: www.rijing-
trade.com <paypal payment>
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/db86f64cf8211b15?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 6:23 am
From: "www.fjrjtrade.com"
❤～❤～❤ 2010 Cheap wholesale True Relig Jeans at website: www.rijing-trade.com
<paypal payment>
Cheap Wholesale Jeans www.rijing-trade.com
Cheap Wholesale True Relig Jeans www.rijing-trade.com
Cheap Wholesale True Relig Jeans www.rijing-trade.com
Cheap Wholesale others Jeans www.rijing-trade.com
╃Men Size 30,32,34,36,38,40 Women Size 26,27,28,29,30,31 Cheap
Wholesale Jean
Wholesale True Relig Jeans (paypal payment)
Wholesale True Relig Men Jeans (paypal payment)
Wholesale True Relig Women Jeans (paypal payment)
Website:
http://www.rijing-trade.com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to Feed Yourself for $15 a Week
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a4bb6b0f54266e52?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 6:54 am
From: Pedro Marques
Although I don't do this now, I once lived on $15 a week for food in
the early 1990s. This was helped by the fact that my workplace fed me
five meals a week, but I was still carrying the weight of sixteen
additional meals (for slightly less than a dollar per meal). This was
not easy or comfortable to do — I did it by necessity — but I believe
it could still be done for $20/week in most parts of the U.S. Also,
while I was satisfied at the time, the fare was probably a bit more
spartan than most would willingly eat.
Here is some of what I did:
1. Never allow leftovers to go bad. I would cook one or two major
meals per week. Sometimes this was a full-sized lasagna, sometimes
fish that was on sale, sometimes a big pot of homemade spaghetti sauce
or soup with lots of fresh vegetables added. It always included a big
salad. This big meal would feed me dinners (and some lunches) for five
or six days, and I could not afford to throw any of it away. I would
eat leftovers almost every day. Every ounce of it was eaten over the
course of the week.
2. Supplement with inexpensive foods. Many will say this is
unhealthy. It would have been if it had been all that I ate, but I
definitely ate a lot of Ramen and macaroni and cheese. These were
bought when on sale: Ramen 7-for-$1 (a deal I've seen as recently as
last week) and Mac & Cheese 3-for-$1. I also could get canned tuna 3-
for-$1 easily, and once or twice a year as a loss leader for 5-for-$1.
Poor man's tuna casserole was a staple and would feed me for two or
three meals: one package of mac & cheese with one can tuna mixed in.
3. Shop in the produce aisle. This sounds counter-intuitive,
because everyone "knows" that produce is expensive. But I would shop
for the inexpensive produce (which tended to be seasonal). Potatoes,
carrots, celery, lettuce, tomatoes (sometimes), oranges (sometimes),
cabbage, etc. These all make great food and provide snacks that
generally don't spike your blood sugar like factory-made snacks do.
Also, this may be obvious, but I would eat fruit in season. For
example, apples were plentiful in the fall: I could get a bag for
about $1 and would get one or two bags for the week. I would have
apples with everything (and for snacks). Again, I could not afford to
throw out a single apple, so I ate them all. And at that time of year,
making an apple pie was in the budget too!
4. Never eat out. I couldn't have bought more than four or five
meals for my $15 weekly food budget, and that's assuming the cheap
breakfast place that had meals for $2.95 a plate. I needed to get at
least 16 meals out of that $15, so there was no room for the luxury of
eating out.
5. Have substantial cereals for breakfast. Oatmeal and Grapenuts
were keys to my success. They both filled me up and kept me filled up
for much of the day. A single container of oatmeal — not the flavored
packages, which are expensive and insubstantial, but the big boxes of
loose Old Fashioned Oatmeal — would last slightly longer than a week,
even if I ate it every day. At the time this cost about $1.99 per
container. You can get it today easily for $2.99 per container.
6. Avoid junk food. Not one candy bar, bag of chips, pre-made
peanut butter cracker, store-bought cookie, "breakfast bar", or pack
of gum could be afforded. This didn't mean I didn't have snacks: a bag
of popcorn cost about $1, and if I had the money available I would get
one. Also, I had flour, sugar, water, eggs (usually), oil, and
oatmeal, so sometimes I would make oatmeal cookies (with raisins if I
was splurging). Sometimes saltines were on sale and I would usually
have peanut butter on the shelf, so I could make peanut butter
crackers if I wanted.
7. Avoid pre-cooked foods. Frozen dinners, deli-made quiche, store-
roasted chicken — all of these cost too much per serving. If I wanted
quiche, I had to make it from scratch. The ingredients were in my
budget and on my shelves. If I wanted chicken, I waited until it was
on sale for $0.39/lb and roasted it myself. I then ate it for 6-8
meals before chucking the bones into a pot to make chicken soup and
having that for another 6-8 meals.
8. Buy a basic paperback cookbook. Because I had to make most
things from scratch, I bought a paperback copy of what is often called
"The Plaid Cookbook": the Better Homes & Gardens New Cookbook. I think
it cost $6 at that time, and was not part of my food budget, but it
paid itself back many times over. (If I wanted to make lasagna, it
told me how. Did I manage to buy a roast beef on sale? The cookbook
told me how to avoid ruining it in the oven. Pumpkin pie? apple pie?
quiche? roast chicken? all was explained, and often within my budget
because I could make it from standard, inexpensive ingredients.
9. Don't buy beverages. There's a reason Coca-Cola and Pepsi Co.
have been good investments and consistent earners across the years:
they are selling you water. During this tough time I did not buy soda,
or water, or coffee, or tea, or any beverage other than milk (which
was reserved for my breakfasts, and only on weeks when I was having
boxed cereal). I think I bought hot cocoa mix during the winter, and
that lasted several weeks. If I needed a sugar drink I used a
tablespoon or two of lemon juice — which I had on hand as a cooking
supply — and a tablespoon or two of sugar in a tall glass of iced
water: instant soft drink for possibly $0.10.
10. Special Bonus Tip. I didn't do this at the time, but I now know
that using dried milk saves at least $1 per gallon. There are two
tricks to using dried milk. First, invest in a glass container. I
don't know why, but dried milk tastes terrible when stored in plastic.
Second, chill it. If you follow these two suggestions, you'll be able
to serve the milk to guests and they will never know. In fact, they
will likely think you buy it from a dairy. (And yes, this is something
that my family does now. We have been drinking almost exclusively
dried milk for the last 7 years.) Dried milk also saves time and gas
money: out of milk? No need to run to the convenience store, just mix
it up. In this case we save almost $2.00 a gallon because milk is so
much more expensive at the convenience store, and since the family
drinks about a gallon a day, we save as much as $7-10 per week just by
drinking dried milk.
There may have been other tricks that I've forgotten, but with only
$15 to spend per week I had to think long and hard about buying
anything that cost more than $1. Was it going to sustain me?
It was much harder when I started this radical budget, because I
started from nothing. But over time, it got easier, in part because
some items lasted longer than a week. For example, pantry items like a
bag of sugar, a bag of flour, a bottle of oil, and a bag of brown
sugar would generally last longer than a week. In the first weeks I
had to buy a lot of these things and they used up a lot of my $15, but
immediately they became the "money in the bank" that allowed me to buy
other staples that might not last that long.
So, yes it is possible to eat without spending a fortune. Again, my
food budget was radical by necessity, but the principles would still
work today. I think $15/wk might not be enough now, but I think $20/wk
would work, and I know that $30/wk would be fairly easy for a single
person. For reference: $15/wk per person = $65/month for one and $260/
month for a family of four. $30/wk per person = $130/month for one and
$520/month for a family of four (which is about what my family spends
on food now, and we don't eat anywhere near the way I did back in the
'90s).
==============================================================================
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
