misc.consumers.frugal-living
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living?hl=enmisc.consumers.frugal-living@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* walking boots-- which are good? - 11 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/52b4735386145e8e?hl=en
* Delivered unsafe item damaged me - 4 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3012e11d0875cc7d?hl=en
* Do you too see the connection b/ wasting energy and terrorism? - 1 messages,
1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/510b0bf3b79b779e?hl=en
* How to Feed Yourself for $15 a Week - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a4bb6b0f54266e52?hl=en
* What's 1 way you enjoy being wasteful? - 5 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d28075f4c0b4eb2f?hl=en
* Hello Everyone! - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/51cd6aaf666ff58e?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: walking boots-- which are good?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/52b4735386145e8e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 11 ==
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.
== 2 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 9:47 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Phil Cook wrote
> 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.
Nope, just leather with the finish that some prefer.
> It is the inner side of the skin with the outer taken off.
Yes. So the same considerations apply with it becoming more comfortable over time.
> Nubuck is the outer that has been abraded to resemble suede.
Yes, which is why said what I said.
> 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.
All irrelevant to what is being discussed, whether some
boots and shoes do become more comfortable over time.
== 3 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 10:00 am
From: "Rod Speed"
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.
I do that last all the time. I just dont need boots with a waterproof lining.
> 2. Vibram® outsole for best traction
I dont need the best traction either. What I actually
need is the best confort and very long wearing instead.
> (cheaper boots may have a lower grade outsole).
I am quite capable of checking the outsole.
> 3. Stitchdown construction (not just glued) for durability (very rare except on extreme high end).
So its stupid to demand that, it restricts your choice far too much.
Makes more sense to accept that they may not be quite as durable,
but much better value and vastly more range to choose from.
> 4. Full-grain, all-leather upper (not split grain, not "nubuck") for support
I dont need support. My ankles have evolved with all the support I need.
> and durability.
Thats very desirable, but not absolutely essential if the price is lower
enough so you can say buy twice as many as the most expensive etc.
> 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..
It makes no sense to do it your way on price most obviously.
Its an important consideration at the same time as considering
the design because it interacts with the design so much.
== 4 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 10:04 am
From: "Rod Speed"
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.
Not necessarily. I used to wear them just because they didnt need to be
cleaned like leather boots do. And I wear them all the time in winter too.
> Suede looks trendy
Not necessarily.
> 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.
Sure, but many dont need that. Not everyone inhabits that soggy little island.
> 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.
I dont even bother with the wax.
> 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.
== 5 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 10:13 am
From: "Rod Speed"
PeterC wrote
> 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.
Yeah, thats the main reason I didnt return them, I decided that it should
be feasible to stretch them if they didnt wear in by themselves. And since
I wear them all day every day in the winter, they likely would wear in.
I dont wear different boots for walking than I wear around the house in winter.
> I saw a shoe-stretcher that could widen shoes up to width D
Not sure how well those work with modern glued construction.
> - for me, that's narrow.
My feet arent anything special width wise, just a bit higher than average at the top of the foot.
> It's easy to get D, so a stretcher needs to go well beyond that.
There's plenty of antique stretchers on ebay and some that appear to be new too.
== 6 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 10:14 am
From: SMS
Roger Chapman wrote:
<snip>
> 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.
Yeah, the whole "walking boots" was a little vague. In the U.S., you
wear "hiking boots" and generally only on hilly or mountainous trails
where there's a lot of scrambling, loose rock, water, etc.. I've never
heard the term "walking boots," and I assumed that he meant hiking. For
just walking on streets, gravel paths, or relatively level trails you'd
call them walking shoes or trail running shoes. For that type of use
you'd get shoes such as:
1. Salomon XA Pro 3D Ultra GTX
2. The North Face Ultra 104 Gore-Tex XCR
3. Salomon XA Comp 4 GTX
4. Salomon XT Wings GTX
5. Vasque Blur SL GTX
6. The North Face Devils Thumb Gore-Tex XCR
7. PUMA Complete Vectana GTX
Again, if you're going to be using them in wet weather you want to be
certain that they have a waterproof breathable membrane, and actually
it's much more important for this type of footwear than for a full grain
leather boot. The sole is less important because traction isn't as much
of an issue where it will be used, and ankle support isn't necessary.
Maybe the original poster needs to spend a year in the U.S. to learn
proper English. One friend from the U.K. was in a Walgreen's here (a
drug store chain) and his wife who had just moved to the U.S. yelled
over to him, "hey Ray, do we have any rubbers in the house." On one
backpacking trip I was on, it was time to wash the dishes, the leader
asked one participant who had just moved from he U.K. to the U.S. if he
had brought along a scrubber to which he replied "I didn't know that it
was permitted."
== 7 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 10:17 am
From: "Rod Speed"
Scott Bryce wrote
> 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.
Nope, I prefer elastic sided boots just for the convenience of putting
them on and off and they are more convenient for grass seeds as well.
I wear them all day every day in winter and they are a lot eaier
to keep looking decent than with modern running shoes etc.
== 8 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 10:22 am
From: "Rod Speed"
SMS wrote
> 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.
Nope, not if they can start with cheaper leather.
> 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.
You cant easily separate that from just what the more expansive manufacturers choose to do tho.
It could even be as basic as whether its made in china etc.
> 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.
They're also fine for many adult's much more extensive use.
> 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.
More fool them.
== 9 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 11:38 am
From: SMS
Scott Bryce wrote:
> 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?
Spoken? No.
> 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?
No.
== 10 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 1:39 pm
From: Christopher Loffredo
SMS wrote:
>
> Yeah, the whole "walking boots" was a little vague. In the U.S., you
> wear "hiking boots" and generally only on hilly or mountainous trails
> where there's a lot of scrambling, loose rock, water, etc.. I've never
> heard the term "walking boots," and I assumed that he meant hiking. For
> just walking on streets, gravel paths, or relatively level trails you'd
> call them walking shoes or trail running shoes. For that type of use
> you'd get shoes such as:
>
> 1. Salomon XA Pro 3D Ultra GTX
> 2. The North Face Ultra 104 Gore-Tex XCR
> 3. Salomon XA Comp 4 GTX
> 4. Salomon XT Wings GTX
> 5. Vasque Blur SL GTX
> 6. The North Face Devils Thumb Gore-Tex XCR
> 7. PUMA Complete Vectana GTX
>
> Again, if you're going to be using them in wet weather you want to be
> certain that they have a waterproof breathable membrane, and actually
> it's much more important for this type of footwear than for a full grain
> leather boot. The sole is less important because traction isn't as much
> of an issue where it will be used, and ankle support isn't necessary.
>
> Maybe the original poster needs to spend a year in the U.S. to learn
> proper English.
"There, but for the grace of God, goes God."
== 11 of 11 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 7:30 pm
From: Chick Tower
On 2010-02-23, SMS <scharf.steven@geemail.com> wrote:
> That's the first time I've _ever_ heard of _anyone_ disliking GoreTex in
> a boot.
We're a quiet bunch.
--
Chick Tower
For e-mail: arh DOT sent DOT towerboy AT xoxy DOT net
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Delivered unsafe item damaged me
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/3012e11d0875cc7d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 8:33 am
From: "Nightjar <\"cpb\"@" <"insertmysurnamehere>
john hamilton wrote:
> Last friday I took delivery at home of pressed steel kitchen gas hob from a
> well known national department store.
>
> After taking the top of the packaging off it, it then had to be lifted out.
> There was nothing to get hold of apart from the gas tap knobs, but I did not
> want to pull it out using these.
>
> So I put my fingers underneath and lifted, but then received three deep cuts
> along the back of three fingers.
>
> Being pressed steel the edges were razor sharp because thats how metal is if
> its been stamped and not finished off along the sheared edge with a file.
If I knew something was made from pressed steel and thought there was a
chance I might be lifting it by an edge, I would put on kevlar gloves,
which I keep in my toolbox against any such risk.
>
> This is annoying because this situation is likely to happen time and time
> again to other people. Because how I lifted it out is probably the way
> everybody else would try to lift it out...
If I take the lid off something that has no obvious way to be lifted out
of the bottom part, I put the lid back on, turn the whole lot upside
down and lift the bottom part off, which has always worked for me.
Colin Bignell
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 9:40 am
From: "Rod Speed"
DerbyDad03 wrote
> 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.
Nope, accurate characterisation.
> That's always a good way to draw a listener in and to
> have him think that something intelligent might follow.
There is never anything intelligent in your shit.
>> 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.
You did stupidly claim that the packaging isnt different with
goods from contractors supply houses. That is just plain wrong.
> 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,
Please show me where I ever said you did.
> 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.
And you fucked that up completely too with door and windows.
> Chucking out a random thoughts
Everyone can see for themselves that they werent anything like random, fool.
> on other items is not relevant to the discussion at hand.
Everyone can see for themselves that that is a lie.
>>>>> 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.
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.
It was elaborated elsewhere, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
>>> 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?
Because it blows your stupid claims completely out of the water, fool.
> 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"?
Its a clear example of where there is no packaging
whatever with stuff intended for professional fitting, fool.
>>>> 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?
Yep.
> It appears not.
Its obvious you never can bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>>> 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"
Plenty of it is.
> which is the *only* claim I was responding to.
By making a complete fool of yourself, as always.
>>>> 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.
Corse you always do that yourself, eh ?
>>>>> 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.-
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 4:18 pm
From: DerbyDad03
On Feb 25, 12:40 pm, "Rod Speed" <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote:
> DerbyDad03 wrote
>
>
>
> > 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.
>
> Nope, accurate characterisation.
>
> > That's always a good way to draw a listener in and to
> > have him think that something intelligent might follow.
>
> There is never anything intelligent in your shit.
>
> >> 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.
> You did stupidly claim that the packaging isnt different with
> goods from contractors supply houses. That is just plain wrong.
Since the rest of the drivel you've spouted in this response isn't
even worth addressing, I'll simply point out the error in the above
statement since it appears to be the crux of your misunderstanding.
It's OK that you've dug yourself into a deep hole...let me help you
get out.
I specifically pointed out that the packaging for my *windows and
doors* was no different than the packaging for the *windows and doors*
at the borgs. Feel free to claim that that "is just plain wrong" all
you want. It won't change the fact that it is 100% true.
I also specifically pointed out that the packaging for my *bathroom
fixtures* was no different than the packaging for the same *bathroom
fixtures* at the borgs. Feel free to claim that that "is just plain
wrong" all you want. It won't change the fact that it is 100% true.
I know what I bought and I know how they were packaged at both
sources. I don't recall you being around at the time of the purchases,
so tell me how you know that they weren't packaged the same.
Wait...no, don't bother...I don't plan to help you understand the
situation any further once I finish this post, so you'd be wasting
your time by responding - unless it will make you feel better. If it
will, then by all means, call me whatever names you'd like, insult my
family, etc. If it's therapeutic to you, go ahead. After all, I'm just
here to help.
It's been nice chatting with you.
>
> > 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,
>
> Please show me where I ever said you did.
>
> > 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.
>
> And you fucked that up completely too with door and windows.
>
> > Chucking out a random thoughts
>
> Everyone can see for themselves that they werent anything like random, fool.
>
> > on other items is not relevant to the discussion at hand.
>
> Everyone can see for themselves that that is a lie.
>
> >>>>> 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.
>
> 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.
>
> It was elaborated elsewhere, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit artist.
>
> >>> 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?
>
> Because it blows your stupid claims completely out of the water, fool.
>
> > 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"?
>
> Its a clear example of where there is no packaging
> whatever with stuff intended for professional fitting, fool.
>
> >>>> 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?
>
> Yep.
>
> > It appears not.
>
> Its obvious you never can bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>
> >>> 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"
>
> Plenty of it is.
>
> > which is the *only* claim I was responding to.
>
> By making a complete fool of yourself, as always.
>
> >>>> 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.
>
> Corse you always do that yourself, eh ?
>
> >>>>> 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.-
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 5:08 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
DerbyDad03 wrote
> Rod Speed <rod.speed....@gmail.com> wrote
>> DerbyDad03 wrote
>>> 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.
>> Nope, accurate characterisation.
>>> That's always a good way to draw a listener in and to
>>> have him think that something intelligent might follow.
>> There is never anything intelligent in your shit.
>>>> 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.
>> You did stupidly claim that the packaging isnt different with
>> goods from contractors supply houses. That is just plain wrong.
> Since the rest of the drivel you've spouted in this response
Corse that wouldnt be you doing any name calling, eh ?
> isn't even worth addressing,
You never ever could bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
> I'll simply point out the error in the above statement
There is no error in the above statement.
> since it appears to be the crux of your misunderstanding.
Then you need to get your appears machinery seen to.
> It's OK that you've dug yourself into a deep hole...
Corse that wouldnt be you doing any name calling, eh ?
> let me help you get out.
You never can.
> I specifically pointed out that the packaging for my *windows and doors* was
> no different than the packaging for the *windows and doors* at the borgs.
Irrelevant to what was actually being discussed, gas hobs.
> Feel free to claim that that "is just plain wrong" all you want.
I know its just plain wrong because I physically built my house from scratch myself.
> It won't change the fact that it is 100% true.
It is in fact a lie.
> I also specifically pointed out that the packaging for
> my *bathroom fixtures* was no different than the
> packaging for the same *bathroom fixtures* at the borgs.
Irrelevant to what was actually being discussed, gas hobs.
> Feel free to claim that that "is just plain wrong" all you want.
I know its just plain wrong because I physically built my house from scratch myself.
> It won't change the fact that it is 100% true.
It is in fact a lie.
> I know what I bought and I know how they were packaged at both sources.
Pity you have always been, and always will be, completely and utterly irrelevant.
What you may or may not have bought in spades.
> I don't recall you being around at the time of the purchases,
> so tell me how you know that they weren't packaged the same.
Because I bought all of that stuff myself.
> Wait...no, don't bother...I don't plan to help you understand the
> situation any further once I finish this post, so you'd be wasting
> your time by responding - unless it will make you feel better.
> If it will, then by all means, call me whatever names you'd
> like, insult my family, etc. If it's therapeutic to you, go ahead.
> After all, I'm just here to help.
> It's been nice chatting with you.
Its been an obscenity reading your desperate attempt to bullshit your way out of your predicament.
Any 2 year old could leave it for dead.
>>> 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,
>>
>> Please show me where I ever said you did.
>>
>>> 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.
>>
>> And you fucked that up completely too with door and windows.
>>
>>> Chucking out a random thoughts
>>
>> Everyone can see for themselves that they werent anything like
>> random, fool.
>>
>>> on other items is not relevant to the discussion at hand.
>>
>> Everyone can see for themselves that that is a lie.
>>
>>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> 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.
>>
>> It was elaborated elsewhere, you pathetic excuse for a bullshit
>> artist.
>>
>>>>> 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?
>>
>> Because it blows your stupid claims completely out of the water,
>> fool.
>>
>>> 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"?
>>
>> Its a clear example of where there is no packaging
>> whatever with stuff intended for professional fitting, fool.
>>
>>>>>> 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?
>>
>> Yep.
>>
>>> It appears not.
>>
>> Its obvious you never can bullshit your way out of a wet paper bag.
>>
>>>>> 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"
>>
>> Plenty of it is.
>>
>>> which is the *only* claim I was responding to.
>>
>> By making a complete fool of yourself, as always.
>>
>>>>>> 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.
>>
>> Corse you always do that yourself, eh ?
>>
>>>>>>> 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.-
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Do you too see the connection b/ wasting energy and terrorism?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/510b0bf3b79b779e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 8:54 am
From: TheTibetanMonkey
On Feb 25, 12:03 am, Tom Sherman °_°
<twshermanREM...@THISsouthslope.net> wrote:
> Ron Wallenfang wrote:
> > Do I see a connection between wasting energy and terrorism?
>
> > Not really. Today's terrorism is mainly a function of radical Islam's
> > drive to dominate the entire world.
>
> Today's terrorism is mainly performed by government forces and
> government backed paramilitaries to back multi-national corporate
> neo-colonialism. The NGO terrorists are mainly those fighting back.
>
> --
> Tom Sherman - 42.435731,-83.985007
>
> "After all, people in the Middle East already know how
> Palestinians have been mistreated for decades; how Washington
> has propped up Arab dictatorships; how Muslims have been locked
> away at Guantanamo without charges; how the U.S. military has
> killed civilians in Iraq, Afghanistan and elsewhere; how U.S.
> mercenaries have escaped punishment for slaughtering innocents."
> - Retired CIA Intelligence Officer Ray McGovern
That's a nice way to put it. We are also protecting the elites of the
world in exchange for unfair trade.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: How to Feed Yourself for $15 a Week
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/a4bb6b0f54266e52?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 9:08 am
From: "Bill"
Very good!
Thank you!
"Pedro Marques" wrote in message
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).
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 3:20 pm
From: Artys
On Feb 25, 11:08 am, "Bill" <billnomailnosp...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Very good!
>
> Thank you!
>
> "Pedro Marques" wrote in message
>
> 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).
I eat a lot of bread and salad dressing.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: What's 1 way you enjoy being wasteful?
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/d28075f4c0b4eb2f?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 1:46 pm
From: Ohioguy
Last year I asked folks here what was one way that you became more
frugal lately. We got lots of great answers, with people making big and
small changes to their lives to be more frugal. (mine was saving plastic
bags from cereal boxes, and plastic bread wrappers to use for lunches,
etc., so I don't have to buy sandwich bags as often)
This time around, I'm wondering what your guilty pleasure is? You
know, something that sort of bothers you because it certainly ISN'T
frugal, like most of your life, but you still want it enough to do it
anyway.
I have two:
A) comic books. I didn't subscribe to any of these as a kid, but I did
get to read yard sale copies a lot at an aunt's house. These days,
cover prices have gone up to about $3 a copy, and I subscribe to about
30 different titles. Of course, I've figured out a way to get them for
about 85 cents each. Never pay full price! Still, we're talking about
a hobby that costs me over $300 a year.
B) restaurant food. Yes, I realize that you end up paying 3-8x as much
eating out. However, I'm a stay at home Dad, and I fix a lot of the
meals, so this gives me a break. Once or twice a week, I eat out,
probably wasting about $100 a month that I could be saving for hard
times. On the plus side, I did turn it into a sort of hobby, by
starting a restaurant review blog, (www.DaytonDining.com) which also
lets me have some fun writing about my experiences.
How about you?
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 3:12 pm
From: "Rod Speed"
Ohioguy wrote
> Last year I asked folks here what was one way that you became more frugal lately. We got lots of great answers, with
> people making big and small changes to their lives to be more frugal. (mine was saving plastic bags from cereal boxes,
> and plastic bread wrappers to use for lunches, etc., so I don't have to buy sandwich bags as often)
> This time around, I'm wondering what your guilty pleasure is?
I dont have any. I do have plenty of pleasures, but no guilt about any of them.
> You know, something that sort of bothers you because it certainly ISN'T frugal,
Nothing like that bothers me at all. I do whatever I feel like doing.
> like most of your life,
Most of my life is frugal. I just prefer to do things like that.
> but you still want it enough to do it anyway.
> I have two:
> A) comic books. I didn't subscribe to any of these as a kid, but I did get to read yard sale copies a lot at an
> aunt's house. These
> days, cover prices have gone up to about $3 a copy, and I subscribe
> to about 30 different titles. Of course, I've figured out a way to
> get them for about 85 cents each. Never pay full price! Still,
> we're talking about a hobby that costs me over $300 a year.
I dont bother with comics, I read lots of real books.
Some I get at yard sales and church fetes etc and Vinnies etc, some
I buy online used, some I buy new, some I read from the library.
> B) restaurant food.
I bother with very little of that. At one time when I was running a course
in computing, the woman who did the office stuff would organise a
decent meal every semester in a restaurant and I did attend all of
those, but dont bother with restaurants much at all otherwise.
I dont buy much fast food either. At one time I did have pizza delivered
quite often, but my house doesnt look much like a house from the street
so it wasnt that convenient to keep a watch out for the pizza delivery ape
and when they jacked their prices up too much, I buy the pizzas
uncooked at the supermarket and cook them myself instead.
I've been meaning to get into making them from
scratch but havent gotten around to doing that yet.
I did get into making marmalade from scratch this year, because the
operation that made the commercial marmalade I liked most stopped
making that marmalade and I didnt like their replacement as much,
so I made my own and end up with as good as they used to make.
> Yes, I realize that you end up paying 3-8x as much eating out. However, I'm a stay at home Dad, and I fix a lot of
> the meals, so this gives me a break.
I dont need a break, I've got the meals down pat and they dont
take much effort at all. I do use some pre prepared uncooked
stuff like chicken filo parcels etc, and only have to cook them.
> Once or twice a week, I eat out, probably wasting about $100 a month that I could be saving for hard times.
We wont be seeing any real hard times, we've recovered from the
clowns completely imploding the entire world financial system again fine.
> On the plus side, I did turn it into a sort of hobby, by starting a restaurant review blog, (www.DaytonDining.com)
> which also lets me have some fun writing about my experiences.
> How about you?
I basically buy whatever I feel like technology wise, have the lights
and heaters etc all fully automated, have replaced the VCRs with
a PVR that I assembled myself and record almost everything I
watch, so I can watch it when I feel like watching it, not when its
broadcast etc and so I can skip the ads etc. I record everything
that I might want to watch and buy currently 1.5TB hard drives
to store that stuff on since I watch less than I record.
I may well get an iphone since there is an app that makes a very
good X10 controller. Bit hard to justify what is essentially a rather
expensive remote control, but I'll likely do it anyway just for the
convenience and because I like technology.
I'll probably change the DSL router for one that includes voip support,
mainly so I will have a completely integrated phone service, even tho
I cant justify the cost. I currently just have two cordless phone bases,
one on the voip service and one on the POTS service. A fully
integrated voip router would just be rather more elegant.
I will completely redo the kitchen. I physically built the house quite
literally, doing almost all the work myself, but never did get around
to having the most comprehensive special purpose made drawers
etc for everything. Cant really justify it in the sense that the current
shelves work fine, but I'm into fancy design and that much more
interesting than say a coffee table etc.
I have previously done plenty of stuff like owning a light plane etc too.
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 4:00 pm
From: "The Henchman"
"Ohioguy" <none@none.net> wrote in message
news:0dChn.7913$jB5.2143@newsfe19.iad...
> How about you?
I collect Scotch. My budget is $100 a month for Scotch. The average price
I pay per bottle is about $80 or $90 so about one a month. Total waste of
money and I really don't drink much of it but over the last decade I have
amassed a very nice collection. I have 5 custom made red oak cabinets built
to display my bottles.
This year we got HDTV from the cable co. It's $18 a month extra and worth
every single penny but I dunno if we'll watch it enuf to justify it. We
have snow on the ground at least 4 months a year so HDTV is worth it for 4
months maybe.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 4:10 pm
From: MAS
On 2/25/2010 4:46 PM, Ohioguy wrote:
> Last year I asked folks here what was one way that you became more
> frugal lately. We got lots of great answers, with people making big and
> small changes to their lives to be more frugal. (mine was saving plastic
> bags from cereal boxes, and plastic bread wrappers to use for lunches,
> etc., so I don't have to buy sandwich bags as often)
>
> This time around, I'm wondering what your guilty pleasure is? You know,
> something that sort of bothers you because it certainly ISN'T frugal,
> like most of your life, but you still want it enough to do it anyway.
>
> I have two:
>
> A) comic books. I didn't subscribe to any of these as a kid, but I did
> get to read yard sale copies a lot at an aunt's house. These days, cover
> prices have gone up to about $3 a copy, and I subscribe to about 30
> different titles. Of course, I've figured out a way to get them for
> about 85 cents each. Never pay full price! Still, we're talking about a
> hobby that costs me over $300 a year.
>
>
> B) restaurant food. Yes, I realize that you end up paying 3-8x as much
> eating out. However, I'm a stay at home Dad, and I fix a lot of the
> meals, so this gives me a break. Once or twice a week, I eat out,
> probably wasting about $100 a month that I could be saving for hard
> times. On the plus side, I did turn it into a sort of hobby, by starting
> a restaurant review blog, (www.DaytonDining.com) which also lets me have
> some fun writing about my experiences.
>
> How about you?
Casino gambling with my best friend - about three times a year. Total
waste of money 97% of the time, but it's a whole day of therapy for us.
Marsha
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 9:11 pm
From: "Annie Woughman"
"MAS" <mas@bbbb.net> wrote in message news:hm73hg$1cc$2@news.datemas.de...
> On 2/25/2010 4:46 PM, Ohioguy wrote:
>> Last year I asked folks here what was one way that you became more
>> frugal lately. We got lots of great answers, with people making big and
>> small changes to their lives to be more frugal. (mine was saving plastic
>> bags from cereal boxes, and plastic bread wrappers to use for lunches,
>> etc., so I don't have to buy sandwich bags as often)
>>
>> This time around, I'm wondering what your guilty pleasure is? You know,
>> something that sort of bothers you because it certainly ISN'T frugal,
>> like most of your life, but you still want it enough to do it anyway.
>>
1. Cable television with the works. We have all the premium channels 2
digital boxes (two flat screen TV's), 10MB high speed internet and oh yeah
the telephone thrown in for $160 a month. Since we don't ever go to the
movies or rent or buy DVD's this is pretty much our entertainment budget.
2. I'm a real sucker for techie gadgets. We keep our computers updated with
the latest hardware and software. We have three desktops--all with 24 in
flat screen monitors and I also have two laptops, a 17in and a 14in, all
running Windows 7 and networked with a wireless Cisco router. I also have
two Ipod Touches, mostly for reading e-books.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Hello Everyone!
http://groups.google.com/group/misc.consumers.frugal-living/t/51cd6aaf666ff58e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 25 2010 1:58 pm
From: Vandy Terre
On Mon, 22 Feb 2010 22:33:41 -0800 (PST), MadMike <valenta.mike@gmail.com>
wrote:
>Just joined this group and thought I should introduce myself. I am
>married to a wonderful lady, and have 4 boys ranging from age 28 to
>10! I NEED to become the poster-child for frugal living!
I am confused by the above. Does this mean you already know the basics or you
need help learning the basics?
==============================================================================
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
