On Apr 22, 10:00�pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> wff_ng_7 wrote:
>
> > At the top of the market, often the rent
> > is paid by an expense account.
>
> Ooh! *That sounds good! *I'll have to add that
> to my list of what the ideal job would be like!

Somebody's sick fantasy... and I always thought the top of the market
was owning ones own abode while the employer tosses in an expense
account, a new mercedes, and picking up the tab on top class hotels.

On Apr 22, 10:19�pm, "Edwin Pawlowski" > wrote:
> "Sheldon" > wrote in message
>
> > * But someone who pays rent
> > religiously for TWENTY friggin' years never missing a payment is
> > certifiably brain dead... they coulda bought that house, THEY DID, for
> > the landlord. *They're pinheaded idiots... even if the rent is below
> > market they're still retards.
>
> Two people at work, (woman and her son in law) live together along with the
> daughter. *Three incomes, no kids. *They have been living in the same rented
> place for over 8 years. *The landlord want to sell some of his properties
> and has at least twice offered to sell to them and even finance it for them.
>
> They can come up with more excuses not to buy. *They bitch about the heating
> bill and no insulation, have the chance to buy, insulate, and lower living
> cost, but no, they still don't. *They bitch about the upstairs tenants but
> won't take control over who lives there by buying. *.
>
> I have to agree about the pinheaded idiots. *This should be a great
> opportunity to build equity. *If the owner does sell, they will probably get
> a big rent increase.

Thank you.

Actually it'a a disease called "Chronic Irresponsibility Syndrome". I
know couples just like that, and worse... I have a relative couple,
he's a big time corporate lawyer paid about 300K. He and his no
account wife who has no job, no kids either, live in a tiny
apartment. With no deductions they pay more to the tax man each year
than the payments on a million dollar home.

Sheldon wrote:
>
> Actually it'a a disease called "Chronic Irresponsibility Syndrome".
> I know couples just like that, and worse... I have a relative
> couple, he's a big time corporate lawyer paid about 300K. He and
> his no account wife who has no job, no kids either, live in a tiny
> apartment. With no deductions they pay more to the tax man each
> year than the payments on a million dollar home.

And either you know they don't read newsgroups,
or you don't care, or both. SW must work for
them. :-)

I find incandescent lighting quite harsh. I much prefer the steady, warm
glow of my gas lamps. The incandescent are too steady, too dead, they do
not flicker and fill the room with varying degrees of brightness. Overall I
find it too sterile, too drab, to dead.

Perhaps you may want to fill your home with prison light. I'm sure it
speaks volumes about you.

There is only one form of lighting and that is gas. If I want to go cheap,
I can always burn my tallow candles which are a good substitute. But you'll
never find those cold, dead, ugly incandescents in my home.

Paul - circa 1898


"Sheldon" > wrote in message
ups.com...
On Apr 21, 12:42?pm, T > wrote:
> In article .com>,
> says...
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Apr 21, 10:46?am, "James Silverton"
> > <not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not> wrote:
> > > I know the bulbs have been discussed here before but I reached a
> > > personal milestone today. All the lamps in my house that can
> > > take them now have coiled fluorescent bulbs apart from those on
> > > a circuit with an in-switch dimmer. I am going to live with it
> > > but having so many to notice has confirmed that most if not all
> > > of the bulbs take several seconds to reach full brightness.
> > > There are several brands, including GE, but I think all the
> > > bulbs were probably made in China.
>
> > I hate those awful lamps. The light they emit is so cold it reminds
> > me of death. And they really do not save electric, because they do
> > not pruduce the same Lumens as what they claim is a corresponding
> > wattage incandescent lamp. The best way to save electric is to use
> > all the light you need when it's needed but to shut off the lamp when
> > not using it... too many people have their homes lit up like a
> > christmas tree... you can only be in one room at a time.
>
> Step into the 21st centry Sheldon, you can get the bulbs in soft-white
> now.

It's flourescent soft white (death white), nothing like incandescent
soft white.

> And I beg to differ - the CFL's here put out PLENTY of light.

What the heck is PLENTY, is that an internationally recognized
scientific electrical lighting term.. that's just your subjectivity.
Those things do have their place, I use them in out of way places like
in my basement, garage door opener, attic, and for some outbuilding
lighting, in areas where lamps are less accessable so I want them to
last longer between replacement and don't really care about the
character of the light emitted. But they absolutely do not produce
the same light in quantity and character as incandescent, and not even
as standard flourescent tube lighting. Those thingies produce harsh
little spots of weak light that can't even be directed with reflectors
so are not much use as indirect, flood, or spot lighting, and the type
of light produced does not penetrate opaque shades/diffusers very
well, much of the available lumens are lost... they pretty much need
to be used bare bulb, and not only is the light they pruduce ugly, the
bulb itself is grotesquely ugli. As I said, they are great for use in
basements... I have a few down there in little fixtures that turn on
and off depending on whether it's day or night like typical night
lights. I find any flourescent lighting quite harsh, and I detest
having my house lit to look like a prison corridor... perhaps such a
setting makes you feel right to home.

Sheldon

Nancy Young wrote:
>
> They don't read my meters every month and it's no big secret.
> That's why the reading will be marked 'estimated' ... they guess
> how much you used from your usage history.
>
> What kind of company would know their bill was way too low
> and put off collecting money. Stupid way to do business.

I just called the electric company. They'll send
someone out to look at the meter on Friday.

I looked at the meter, and it corresponds to my bill.
It reads 9 kilowatt hours. I haven't been billed
for electricity consumption since June, 2005, when
the meter was replaced. Apparently, the new meter
is either defective or incorrectly wired.

I don't know what will happen with the billing.

wff_ng_7 > wrote:

>"Sheldon" > wrote:

>> Anyone who pays rent for twenty years is brain dead.

> There are many valid reasons why people rent, and short
> term is just one of them. Many people don't want the bother of
> maintaining their own property, and that is true from the very
> bottom to the very top of the rental market. At the bottom of
> the market, there is no tax advantage to owning, which makes
> rentals much more attractive.

Also:

(1) Real-estate is not the best-performing investment; over
time the stock market almost always outperforms it

(2) Real-estate ownership exposes you to possible losses;
if you have no reason to take any risks (e.g. your net worth
is around 4 million) then why risk any of it. Just invest
everything in government bonds, and rent indefinitely.

Steve

Mark Thorson > wrote:

>Nancy Young wrote:

>> They don't read my meters every month and it's no big secret.
>> That's why the reading will be marked 'estimated' ... they guess
>> how much you used from your usage history.

>> What kind of company would know their bill was way too low
>> and put off collecting money. Stupid way to do business.

>I just called the electric company. They'll send
>someone out to look at the meter on Friday.

>I looked at the meter, and it corresponds to my bill.
>It reads 9 kilowatt hours. I haven't been billed
>for electricity consumption since June, 2005, when
>the meter was replaced. Apparently, the new meter
>is either defective or incorrectly wired.

Did you have a new service entrance put in, or work done on it
on the hot side? You're supposed to call PG&E to reconnect the meter
after the electrical contractor finishes their work. The contractors
always hotwire around it. The contractors do not have the
special sauce that prevents the tamper-resistance features of
the meter from tripping.

I didn't know this at first either, and let it slide for about
5 weeks.

>I don't know what will happen with the billing.

In the case of 5 weeks, they did not back-bill. Let us know
what happens in your case.

Steve

Steve Pope wrote:

> wff_ng_7 > wrote:
>
> >"Sheldon" > wrote:
>
> >> Anyone who pays rent for twenty years is brain dead.
>
> > There are many valid reasons why people rent, and short
> > term is just one of them. Many people don't want the bother of
> > maintaining their own property, and that is true from the very
> > bottom to the very top of the rental market. At the bottom of
> > the market, there is no tax advantage to owning, which makes
> > rentals much more attractive.
>
> Also:
>
> (1) Real-estate is not the best-performing investment; over
> time the stock market almost always outperforms it

Well, you have to live somewhere. Rent money is gone, whereas money
paid for the real estate will eventually return some fraction of the
amount paid. So unless your ownership costs far exceed renting, then
you do better to own. Naturally, you have to figure the total cost of
ownership, including taxes, upkeep, and insurance. You also fix one
part of your living expenses.

Buying a larger house then you need as an investment doesn't make any
sense, usually.




Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Default User > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> wff_ng_7 > wrote:

>> >"Sheldon" > wrote:

>> >> Anyone who pays rent for twenty years is brain dead.

>> > There are many valid reasons why people rent, and short
>> > term is just one of them. Many people don't want the bother of
>> > maintaining their own property, and that is true from the very
>> > bottom to the very top of the rental market. At the bottom of
>> > the market, there is no tax advantage to owning, which makes
>> > rentals much more attractive.

>> Also:

>> (1) Real-estate is not the best-performing investment; over
>> time the stock market almost always outperforms it

>Well, you have to live somewhere. Rent money is gone,

As is money spent on mortgage interest

> whereas money paid for the real estate will eventually return some
> fraction of the amount paid. So unless your ownership costs far
> exceed renting, then you do better to own.

If your ownership costs slightly exceed renting, and the real
estate market is flat, then renting and investing the balance
in an upward-moving stock market is the win.

The reason owning makes financial sense (ignoring taxes) is that the
ownership costs (including mortgage interest) are usually a bit lower
than rent (but it depends), and that the market is usually not flat
but on average increasing. Really the overwhelming factor is how
the market moves.




Steve

Steve Pope wrote:
>
> Did you have a new service entrance put in, or work done on it
> on the hot side? You're supposed to call PG&E to reconnect
> the meter after the electrical contractor finishes their work.
> The contractors always hotwire around it.
> The contractors do not have the special sauce that prevents
> the tamper-resistance features of the meter from tripping.

Contractors doing other work on the house
smashed the old meter, and PG&E installed the
new one. At considerable expense (paid for by
the contractor).

> I didn't know this at first either, and let it slide
> for about 5 weeks.
>
> >I don't know what will happen with the billing.
>
> In the case of 5 weeks, they did not back-bill.
> Let us know what happens in your case.

I certainly will.

"Steve Pope" > wrote:
> The reason owning makes financial sense (ignoring taxes) is that the
> ownership costs (including mortgage interest) are usually a bit lower
> than rent (but it depends), and that the market is usually not flat
> but on average increasing. Really the overwhelming factor is how
> the market moves.

There was a very interesting article in the New York Times recently
discussing the costs of renting vs. buying. It can be quite surprising how
many years it can take for buying to make more sense. Unfortunately the
article is now archived and requires payment, but the buy/rent comparator
which calculates the breakeven point is still free:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/10/bu...T_GRAPHIC.html

A lot of people get enticed by the prospects of huge appreciation in the
value of real estate. They don't consider that there are also downturns.
Over the last 13 years I have lived in my house, the price declined by about
25% from the purchase price, climbed to 300% of the purchase price, and then
moved back to about 250% of the purchase price (the current slump).
Depending where you bought and sold, you could make a huge profit, lose your
down payment, or even owe money beyond your down payment. Anyone that bought
in my neighborhood 2 years ago would have their down payment wiped out and
would owe money if they had to sell now. It might take a decade before they
can break even beyond what they would have made by renting and investing
their down payment.

The complete article (for a fee) is available at:

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstra...0894DF4044 82


--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

Steve Pope wrote:

> Default User > wrote:
>
> > Steve Pope wrote:
>
> >> wff_ng_7 > wrote:
>
> >> >"Sheldon" > wrote:
>
> >> >> Anyone who pays rent for twenty years is brain dead.
>
> >> > There are many valid reasons why people rent, and short
> >> > term is just one of them. Many people don't want the bother of
> >> > maintaining their own property, and that is true from the very
> >> > bottom to the very top of the rental market. At the bottom of
> >> > the market, there is no tax advantage to owning, which makes
> >> > rentals much more attractive.
>
> >> Also:
>
> >> (1) Real-estate is not the best-performing investment; over
> >> time the stock market almost always outperforms it
>
> > Well, you have to live somewhere. Rent money is gone,
>
> As is money spent on mortgage interest

With some rebate via tax deduction.

> > whereas money paid for the real estate will eventually return some
> > fraction of the amount paid. So unless your ownership costs far
> > exceed renting, then you do better to own.
>
> If your ownership costs slightly exceed renting, and the real
> estate market is flat, then renting and investing the balance
> in an upward-moving stock market is the win.

But your cost of owning likely won't be less. Remember, if you're
renting let's say a single-family house, somebody else owns that. That
person is paying a mortgage (most likely), paying insurance, paying
maintenance, AND making a profit of your rent. You're covering the
expenses plus.

Also, the relative cost of ownership with a fixed rate mortgage drops
as time goes by. Taxes and insurance will go up, but the P&I won't. So
even if there's a small differential initially, in a few years that
will disappear.



Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

"Default User" > wrote:
> But your cost of owning likely won't be less. Remember, if you're
> renting let's say a single-family house, somebody else owns that. That
> person is paying a mortgage (most likely), paying insurance, paying
> maintenance, AND making a profit of your rent. You're covering the
> expenses plus.

You're assuming a lot there. Many people renting out their house feel lucky
if their mortgage payment is covered. They often drastically underestimate
the costs of maintenance, which tends to come in infrequent but large
amounts (like a roof, furnace or a/c). The wear and tear aspect is also
often forgotten in things like carpeting or flooring. Often the position
many who rent their houses find themselves is where they want to return to
the property some day, or can't sell in the current market. This presents
many opportunities for renters at costs below what the owner is incurring.

Of course it is different in a large apartment building vs. a house. Most
apartment building owners have a good handle on their expenses. But there
also might not be comparable units for sale for a person to even make the
choice between buying or renting.

> Also, the relative cost of ownership with a fixed rate mortgage drops
> as time goes by. Taxes and insurance will go up, but the P&I won't. So
> even if there's a small differential initially, in a few years that
> will disappear.

One thing to consider is the tax benefit of a mortgage declines with time.
It's a big advantage at the beginning when the mortgage payment is 90%
interest and 10% principal. It's another thing entirely when the numbers are
reversed.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

wff_ng_7 wrote:

> "Default User" > wrote:
> > But your cost of owning likely won't be less. Remember, if you're
> > renting let's say a single-family house, somebody else owns that.
> > That person is paying a mortgage (most likely), paying insurance,
> > paying maintenance, AND making a profit of your rent. You're
> > covering the expenses plus.
>
> You're assuming a lot there. Many people renting out their house feel
> lucky if their mortgage payment is covered.

I don't believe that's accurate. Why would they rent them if losing
money? I'm not saying that it doesn't happen, but not in general. Most
rentals are owned by investors, who are turning a profit.

> One thing to consider is the tax benefit of a mortgage declines with
> time. It's a big advantage at the beginning when the mortgage payment
> is 90% interest and 10% principal. It's another thing entirely when
> the numbers are reversed.

Yes, but at that point you're building equity, which you get back
(hopefully).


Let's put it this way, do you lease or buy a car?



Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Default User > wrote:

>Steve Pope wrote:

>> If your ownership costs slightly exceed renting, and the real
>> estate market is flat, then renting and investing the balance
>> in an upward-moving stock market is the win.

>But your cost of owning likely won't be less. Remember, if you're
>renting let's say a single-family house, somebody else owns that. That
>person is paying a mortgage (most likely), paying insurance, paying
>maintenance, AND making a profit of your rent. You're covering the
>expenses plus.

No, not in all or even nearly all cases. Often, the rental
owner is taking a loss on cashflow, backing on both the investment
value of the property and the tax gain from having the loss.

>Also, the relative cost of ownership with a fixed rate mortgage drops
>as time goes by. Taxes and insurance will go up, but the P&I won't. So
>even if there's a small differential initially, in a few years that
>will disappear.

That's another way of saying inflation will bail out your investment,
but the same is true of the stock market -- it inflates.

I've done pretty well on my house, which has inflated 5X since
we bought it in 1985. But I would have done even better buying
a more expensive house then, or buying nothing and putting it
instead into the stock market. Of course either of those would have
been riskier.

Steve

"Default User" > wrote

> wff_ng_7 wrote:

>> One thing to consider is the tax benefit of a mortgage declines with
>> time. It's a big advantage at the beginning when the mortgage payment
>> is 90% interest and 10% principal. It's another thing entirely when
>> the numbers are reversed.
>
> Yes, but at that point you're building equity, which you get back
> (hopefully).

The tax benefit of having a mortgage is nice, essentially a government
subsidy to help you purchase a house. Still, you only get back, say,
$250 for every $1000 you spend in mortgage interest. You don't get
a mortgage so you have a deduction on your taxes.

> Let's put it this way, do you lease or buy a car?

Exactly. At the end of the day, so to speak, do you have something
to show for all that money besides a hole in your pocket? As
someone said, you have to live somewhere. I'd rather live in a place
I own. Of course, people would make more money on their property
if they'd buy when rates are high and prices are depressed. But, no,
when the rates fall and prices soar, people run out and pay too much.

nancy

On Apr 21, 9:46 am, "James Silverton"
<not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not> wrote:
> I know the bulbs have been discussed here before but I reached a
> personal milestone today. All the lamps in my house that can
> take them now have coiled fluorescent bulbs apart from those on
> a circuit with an in-switch dimmer. I am going to live with it
> but having so many to notice has confirmed that most if not all
> of the bulbs take several seconds to reach full brightness.
> There are several brands, including GE, but I think all the
> bulbs were probably made in China.
>
> James Silverton
> Potomac, Maryland
>
> E-mail, with obvious alterations:
> not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not


I have a problem with the light brightness and color - really "off"
for me, for reading. Also, they don't fit the harps on my table
lamps, which is most of my lighting in the living room and bedrooms,
and if I get taller harps, then the "fixings" of the lamp show below
the shade. It is just one thing that so far, I can't comply with.
Sorry.

N.

On Apr 21, 4:58 pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
>
> > On Apr 21, 5:03?pm, Mark Thorson > wrote:
> > > Sheldon wrote:
>
> > > > $4.44 is a pretty puny electric bill... my minimum charge for no usage
> > > > is $15/mo. My typical electric bill is $175-$200/mo., and I don't
>
> > > Now that you mention it, I think there may be something
> > > wrong with my electric bill. $4.44 _is_ the minimum charge.
>
> > > I've heard that sometimes the utility company workers
> > > will skip reading the meter for a month or more, and
> > > then the customer can get hit with a real whopper
> > > of a bill. That might be the case here. Just what
> > > I need. :-(
>
> > The customer can choose to pay an actual reading or an
> > averaged electric bill. But regardless, nowhere on the
> > planet does anyone receive a $4.44 monthly electic bill.
>
> My meter is supposed to be read every month. I've
> heard that sometimes the meter readers get lazy and
> don't actually read the meter. Now that I think
> about it, I usually notice when the meter reader
> comes by, and I can't remember the last time that
> happened.
>
> However, $4.44 is indeed the minimum charge, and
> that is what I was billed. At some point, I may
> have a stupendous bill coming my way. I should
> read that meter myself, and take pictures. This
> could develop into a very unpleasant situation.


Here, we have electronic "readers" - the meter guy just aims his
little gizmo at the meter, and the gizmo reads it and records it. Oh,
wait, that's my water meter. Electric/gas is still to be converted.

I had a double-size electric/gas bill last winter, and it turned out
the reader read the meter wrong. Easy proof (power company foreman
lives next door, and read it himself) and easy revised bill.

N.

On Apr 21, 5:50 pm, rosie > wrote:
> On Apr 21, 5:37?pm, "Nancy Young" > wrote:
>
>
>
> > "Mark Thorson" > wrote
>
> > > My meter is supposed to be read every month. ?I've
> > > heard that sometimes the meter readers get lazy and
> > > don't actually read the meter. ?Now that I think
> > > about it, I usually notice when the meter reader
> > > comes by, and I can't remember the last time that
> > > happened.
>
> > They don't read my meters every month and it's no big secret.
> > That's why the reading will be marked 'estimated' ... they guess
> > how much you used from your usage history.
>
> > What kind of company would know their bill was way too low
> > and put off collecting money. ?Stupid way to do business.
>
> > Anyway, my bill is some 80 bucks a month, and not much of
> > that is lightbulb generated.
>
> > > However, $4.44 is indeed the minimum charge, and
> > > that is what I was billed. ?At some point, I may
> > > have a stupendous bill coming my way. ?I should
> > > read that meter myself, and take pictures. ?This
> > > could develop into a very unpleasant situation.
>
> > You should just set aside the amount you should have been
> > charged so it's not such a shock.
>
> > nancy
>
> IN THE WINTER MONTHS, MY BILL MAY BE AROUND 120. IN THE SUMMER WITH
> THE AC ON, MY BILLS ARE GENERALLY CLOSE TO 200. I DO NOT LIVE IN A
> BIG HOUSE OR USE EXCESSIVE AMOUNTS OF ELECTRICITY. THE HOUSE IS ALL
> ELECTRIC TOO.
> WHEN I WAS LIVING IN HOUSTON, THE BILLS WERE MUCH MUCH HIGHER, THINK
> THESE ALL REFLECT THE ELECTRIC COMPANY YOU HAVE IN YOUR AREA.
> ROSIE


Why are you yelling?

N.

On Apr 22, 8:25 am, "kilikini" > wrote:
> Edwin Pawlowski wrote:
> > "Sheldon" > wrote in message
>
> > $4.44 is a pretty puny electric bill... my minimum charge for no usage
> > is $15/mo. My typical electric bill is $175-$200/mo., and I don't
> > skimp on any of the nicities; central air is on constantly, set at 68F
> > (yeah, I know- brrrr), I run two fridges, I have my PC on about 18
> > hours a day, my TV is on 24/7, I use whatever lighting I need
> > including outside floods all night, and even use an electric
> > toothbrush... I really don't skimp, I just don't leave room lights on
> > unnecessarily, I have this fetish about leaving lights on when no one
> > is in the room.
>
> > What, no electric blanket?
>
> Jeez, we live in an 800 square foot house, no washer or dryer, no
> dishwasher, 2 computers, 2 TV's and our bill runs at $100 per month in
> spring and fall and goes up to $300 in winter and summer. We can't afford
> the A/C this summer, so we're going to do without to try to maintain the
> $100 bill. It's going to be rough since we're in Central Florida where
> there is no breeze to speak of. It's already been up to 92 degrees inside
> the house and it's only April. August is really going to be miserable, but
> what can you do? Our rent went from $500 to $750 in January so we have to
> cut corners somewhere. We've already changed out all of our lightbulbs to
> flourescents and that made absolutely no impact on our electric bill. We're
> just going to have to suffer and eat lots of salad-type dishes this summer.
> :~)
>
> kili


Around here, rent for a house that size would be at least double what
you're paying.

My electric/gas bill - about $70 when no heat/cool - $120 highest in
summer with A/C (kept at about 66-68) and about $150 in winter (kept
at about 65). (I'm usually hot enough.) The bill below is due May
10. It represents about a week or two of low-use furnace; no A/C.

I have a new furnace; central A/C is 15 years old.

ELECTRIC CHARGES
Rate: 10 Residential Winter 03/22/07 to 04/18/07 27 billing days 90.0%
Prorate
Company Reading 04/18/07 19384
Company Reading 03/22/07 19140
Total kWh 244

Meter No:xxxxx Basic Service Charge 5.40
Energy Charge 244 x 0.08634 21.07
Total $26.47

GAS CHARGES
Rate: 60 Residential 03/22/07 to 04/18/07 27 billing days 90.0%
Prorate
Total ccf
Company Reading 04/18/07 602
Company Reading 03/22/07 558
44
44 ccf x 0.988 pressure x 1.020 BTU factor = 44 therms
Meter No:xxxxx Basic Service Charge 9.00
Delivery Charge 44 x 0.20041 8.82
Gas Supply Charge 44 x 0.86999 38.28
Total $56.10

N.

Nancy2 wrote on 24 Apr 2007 08:35:33 -0700:

N> On Apr 21, 9:46 am, "James Silverton"
N> <not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not> wrote:
??>> I know the bulbs have been discussed here before but I
??>> reached a personal milestone today. All the lamps in my
??>> house that can take them now have coiled fluorescent bulbs

N> I have a problem with the light brightness and color -
N> really "off" for me, for reading. Also, they don't fit the
N> harps on my table lamps, which is most of my lighting in the
N> living room and bedrooms, and if I get taller harps, then
N> the "fixings" of the lamp show below the shade. It is just
N> one thing that so far, I can't comply with. Sorry.

I guess my table lamps must have bigger shades than yours since
I have not run into a size problem. I have quite a large number
of lights in white glass globes and have had no problem with 24w
(100w equivalent) bulbs. There is another advantage, for those
it may concern, in that the white glass globes produce a warmer
light than the bare bulb.

James Silverton
Potomac, Maryland

E-mail, with obvious alterations:
not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not

Steve Pope wrote:

> Default User > wrote:
>
> > Steve Pope wrote:
>
> >> If your ownership costs slightly exceed renting, and the real
> >> estate market is flat, then renting and investing the balance
> >> in an upward-moving stock market is the win.
>
> > But your cost of owning likely won't be less. Remember, if you're
> > renting let's say a single-family house, somebody else owns that.
> > That person is paying a mortgage (most likely), paying insurance,
> > paying maintenance, AND making a profit of your rent. You're
> > covering the expenses plus.
>
> No, not in all or even nearly all cases. Often, the rental
> owner is taking a loss on cashflow, backing on both the investment
> value of the property and the tax gain from having the loss.

That's not what I see when I compare the rental and sales markets
locally. I really don't believe that there are very many people taking
a loss. The tax advantage of a loss only reduces it.

If someone were really only renting at a level to cover P&I, they'd be
losing (even after the tax break), 5-10% every month. That'd require
one hell of a capital appreciation in the base investment to cover that.

These sorts of micro-analyses of rental versus buying vary some much
market to market and year to year that it's difficult to say for
certain at any particular point. But that only covers the tangibles.
Homeowning has a number of intangibles as well

Naturally, there are "power investors" who can play the system and come
out ahead with a rent and invest, but by and large home-owning is a
sound way for most people. I have the advantage of being in the
midwest, where the living is cheap, so the house doesn't suck up enough
of the money to be much of a concern.

Anyway, I think I'm talked out on the subject, wildly off-topic (but
what's new around here?). If anyone has further thoughts I'll read them
with great interest but won't be adding any more.






Brian

--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

Nancy2 wrote:


> I have a problem with the light brightness and color - really "off"
> for me, for reading.

The ones I got seemed normal color. If the brightness isn't sufficient,
bump a bit.

> Also, they don't fit the harps on my table
> lamps, which is most of my lighting in the living room and bedrooms,
> and if I get taller harps, then the "fixings" of the lamp show below
> the shade. It is just one thing that so far, I can't comply with.
> Sorry.

Did you get the "mini-twist" ones? They're significantly smaller.




Brian


--
If televison's a babysitter, the Internet is a drunk librarian who
won't shut up.
-- Dorothy Gambrell (http://catandgirl.com)

"Default User" > wrote:
> Let's put it this way, do you lease or buy a car?

I've never leased a car, and the last car I bought was 14 years ago, with
cash. That doesn't prove anything though.

Depending on what one's needs are, leasing can be a very cost effective way
to have a car. On top of that, several years ago some lease deals were so
extremely attractive that it wouldn't make sense to buy. This was
particularly true on American brands, where the the manufacturers forecast
overly optimistic residual values to bring the monthly payments down. They
did this to make sales, but in the end they got bitten when the cars came
off lease and weren't worth what was predicted.

A similar problem with overly optimistic residuals happened in the heavy
truck market, where manufacturers pushed leases to get the costs down. Those
deals came back to bite the manufacturers also.

Eli Lustgarten, a market analyst made the following observation about the
problem:

--
"God bless Freightliner and guaranteed residuals. Wonderful market, but the
other side of it is a disaster. What's the estimate of excess trucks in the
used market? Most say 100,000 trucks sitting there called "used trucks
looking for a home." Freightliner is trying to walk away from guaranteed
residuals. They're still in the market, but they're not at 40% - they're at
20%. If you bought an $80,000 truck and had a guaranteed residual of $40,000
over three years, at 400,000 miles, that's 10 cents a mile. Today, they'll
only guarantee you $20,000 residual. So now it's $60,000 it'll cost you over
three years at 400,000 miles, but it'll be 15 cents a mile. How do you make
10 cents a mile? Keep the truck another year longer."
--

Getting back to the issue, whether owning or renting (leasing) is more cost
effective depends on the situation. There is no blanket rule saying one is
better than the other.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

"James Silverton" <not.jim.silverton.at.comcast.not> wrote:
> Nancy2 wrote on 24 Apr 2007 08:35:33 -0700:
> N> I have a problem with the light brightness and color -
> N> really "off" for me, for reading. Also, they don't fit the
> N> harps on my table lamps, which is most of my lighting in the
> N> living room and bedrooms, and if I get taller harps, then
> N> the "fixings" of the lamp show below the shade. It is just
> N> one thing that so far, I can't comply with. Sorry.
>
> I guess my table lamps must have bigger shades than yours since I have not
> run into a size problem. I have quite a large number of lights in white
> glass globes and have had no problem with 24w (100w equivalent) bulbs.
> There is another advantage, for those it may concern, in that the white
> glass globes produce a warmer light than the bare bulb.

The size and shapes of CFL bulbs has changed quite a bit over the years, so
perhaps it depends on when Nancy tried it. I know I have a couple of lamps
where I originally had to use a harp expander, but with newer bulbs I was
able to go back to the original configuration. None of my CFL bulbs are the
newer compact spiral type, all are either the older quad tube or double U
tube types. I even have two of the very early double tube models that have
replaceable bulbs on the ballast. At least a couple of my quad tube type
bulbs are also of the replaceable type, but I've never replaced the bulb on
one of those yet.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

In article >, says...
> Mark Thorson > wrote:
>
> >Nancy Young wrote:
>
> >> They don't read my meters every month and it's no big secret.
> >> That's why the reading will be marked 'estimated' ... they guess
> >> how much you used from your usage history.
>
> >> What kind of company would know their bill was way too low
> >> and put off collecting money. Stupid way to do business.
>
> >I just called the electric company. They'll send
> >someone out to look at the meter on Friday.
>
> >I looked at the meter, and it corresponds to my bill.
> >It reads 9 kilowatt hours. I haven't been billed
> >for electricity consumption since June, 2005, when
> >the meter was replaced. Apparently, the new meter
> >is either defective or incorrectly wired.
>
> Did you have a new service entrance put in, or work done on it
> on the hot side? You're supposed to call PG&E to reconnect the meter
> after the electrical contractor finishes their work. The contractors
> always hotwire around it. The contractors do not have the
> special sauce that prevents the tamper-resistance features of
> the meter from tripping.
>
> I didn't know this at first either, and let it slide for about
> 5 weeks.
>
> >I don't know what will happen with the billing.
>
> In the case of 5 weeks, they did not back-bill. Let us know
> what happens in your case.

That tamper resist is a particular type of lock and seal on all meters
in this area. That said, I once lived in a house that unbeknown to me
had a bypass switch on the incoming line that would jumper around the
meter.

The meter was in the basement so no outside access was available.

The first month I get a bill for a few cents. Huh? I know I used more
than that. I go downstairs with a flashlight and find the bypass. Called
the electric company, they didn't seem to care about it, didn't even
want to send someone out. This went on for a couple years, me calling,
them saying nothing was wrong. Oh well.

So I left it the way it was. Lived there for two years and probably paid
about $3 in electric charges. Granted I could have switched off the
bypass but I'm no electrician.

Sort of how I once had a phone line from Nynex that never billed. Yet
the service kept on working. I'd call them and explain and they'd tell
me there was no record of the number.

After about a year and a half I finally got someone at Nynex to believe
me. Paid the local charges that for a year and a half was $150 but my
toll charges couldn't be determined. Not only that I contiued to make
toll and long distance calls and they'd never show up on my bill.

From what I can put together, someone made a typo. My number was 273-
0716. The VA Hospital in the city has the block 273-71xx. Yep, my LD was
probably billing to VA and they were dutifully paying it. Try telling
them they have a problem - the red tape is amazing. I finally gave up.

"Paul M. Kook" wrote:
> I find incandescent lighting quite harsh. *I much prefer the steady, warm
> glow of my gas lamps. *The incandescent are too steady, too dead, they do
> not flicker and fill the room with varying degrees of brightness. *Overall I
> find it too sterile, too drab, to dead.

All manner of incandescent lamps are readily available, even fancy
candelabra lamps that look and flicker like real candles... I use them
in outdoor entryway coach light fixtures. And gas lighting does not
flicker, kerosene/oil lamps flicker but not gas, so quit yer
bullshitting.

Sheldon

"Sheldon" > wrote:
"Paul M. Kook" wrote:
>> I find incandescent lighting quite harsh. �I much prefer the steady, warm
>> glow of my gas lamps. �The incandescent are too steady, too dead, they do
>> not flicker and fill the room with varying degrees of brightness.
>> �Overall I
>> find it too sterile, too drab, to dead.
>
> All manner of incandescent lamps are readily available, even fancy
> candelabra lamps that look and flicker like real candles... I use them
> in outdoor entryway coach light fixtures. And gas lighting does not
> flicker, kerosene/oil lamps flicker but not gas, so quit yer
> bullshitting.

I guess you haven't seen the original gas lamps. The original gas lamps did
not have mantels, and they most definitely flickered. Mantels were a much
later development. The period gas street lamps in some areas of Philadelphia
and other cities definitely do not have mantels, do not give off as much
light, and flicker quite a bit with their open flame.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net

On Apr 25, 8:26�pm, "wff_ng_7" > wrote:
> "Sheldon" > wrote:
> "Paul M. Kook" wrote:
> >> I find incandescent lighting quite harsh. ?I much prefer the steady, warm
> >> glow of my gas lamps. ?The incandescent are too steady, too dead, they do
> >> not flicker and fill the room with varying degrees of brightness.
> >> ?Overall I
> >> find it too sterile, too drab, to dead.
>
> > All manner of incandescent lamps are readily available, even fancy
> > candelabra lamps that look and flicker like real candles... I use them
> > in outdoor entryway coach light fixtures. *And gas lighting does not
> > flicker, kerosene/oil lamps flicker but not gas, so quit yer
> > bullshitting.
>
> I guess you haven't seen the original gas lamps.

So assuming... the house I grew up in still had the old gas lighting
pipes and the original fixtures on the walls, but were and still are
illegal to use.

The original gas lamps did
> not have mantels, and they most definitely flickered. Mantels were a much
> later development. The period gas street lamps in some areas of Philadelphia
> and other cities definitely do not have mantels, do not give off as much
> light, and flicker quite a bit with their open flame.

What a stupid response... who cares what used to be a hundred years
ago, the discussion is about what's used now, open gas lights are
tantamont to candles. You're so simple you can be a GEICO caveman

Mark Thorazine wrote:
> Sheldon wrote:
>
> > Ordinary incondescent bulbs contain nothing but tungston, the
> > very same element contained in most kitchen cutlery alloys.
>
> Most? *Any? *I've never seen a tungsten anything
> in kitchenware.
>
> It seems unlikely that FDA would find it acceptable
> in food-contact applications.

Thorazine, you are truly brain damaged.

http://www.saca.co.za/cgi-bin/saca/s...%20of%20knives

http://www.knifeart.com/tabofdifstee.html

Sheldon wrote:

>
> I don't believe anything on the public level gets recycled, it all
> gets hauled to the nearest landfill...
> do you really think those
> shredded plastic deposit bottles actualy get recycled, it's all a sham
> and an exercise in futility...

Is this to rationalize not participating?

In my state there are regional recycling centers that are typically
shared by 2 counties. All of the stuff that gets collected by the
various recycling methods gets taken to those centers. The interesting
part is that they use mostly prisoners to staff the facility for tasks
like sorting colored glass.

In the case of recycled plastic it is sold to manufacturers. Common
items that are made from totally recycled materials are fence posts and
decking. Other processes use lesser amounts.

Most of the paper from our local center goes to a local tissue/towel
plant which uses 100% recycled paper. The plant also process items like
paper milk cartons by running them through a process which extracts the
plastic which is then sold to other companies that use plastic. They use
the pulp for making tissue.

those nickles are in fact a tax on the
> bottlers, gets passed on to the consumer in higher prices, so is the
> cost of those shedding machines and the wages of the guy who maintains
> them, and lots of other associated costs (bagging, storage, etc.)....
> there's no way a 2 liter bottle of flavored carbonated water should
> cost more than a nickle yet you pay well over a dollar. What happens
> to all the billions (probably trillions) of AA batterys folks use, I
> bet not even one person separates them, and where do they go??? In
> their trash can is where. Today it's all a farce. Years ago when
> deposit bottles were glass they really were recycled... then
> everything was recycled, every neighborhood had a privately owned
> "junk" yard (not a place to deal drugs), people scoured the streets
> for all manner of metals, cardbord, building materials, old
> appliances, old clothes, even newspaper... often it was young kids
> hauling stuff to the junk yard for the few pennies it'd bring. I did
> it, collected old newspaper, got a penny a hundred pounds, I'd collect
> more than a ton on a Saturday morning... lots of kids did, each had
> their own turf.
>
> No way will anyone ever recycle light bulbs, anyone who seriously
> entertains the concept is psychotic... anyone starts stashing burned
> out light bulbs in their basement needs to be institutionalized.
>

"Sheldon" > wrote:
>>On Apr 25, 8:26�pm, "wff_ng_7" > wrote:
>>> "Sheldon" > wrote:
> "Paul M. Kook" wrote:
> >> I find incandescent lighting quite harsh. ?I much prefer the steady,
> >> warm
> >> glow of my gas lamps. ?The incandescent are too steady, too dead, they
> >> do
> >> not flicker and fill the room with varying degrees of brightness.
> >> ?Overall I
> >> find it too sterile, too drab, to dead.
>
> > All manner of incandescent lamps are readily available, even fancy
> > candelabra lamps that look and flicker like real candles... I use them
> > in outdoor entryway coach light fixtures. �And gas lighting does not
> > flicker, kerosene/oil lamps flicker but not gas, so quit yer
> > bullshitting.
>
>> The original gas lamps did
>> not have mantels, and they most definitely flickered. Mantels were a much
>> later development. The period gas street lamps in some areas of
>> Philadelphia
>> and other cities definitely do not have mantels, do not give off as much
>> light, and flicker quite a bit with their open flame.

> What a stupid response... who cares what used to be a hundred years
> ago, the discussion is about what's used now, open gas lights are
> tantamont to candles. You're so simple you can be a GEICO caveman

It was entirely appropriate in the context that the original comment on gas
lighting was made, and that you responded to. That poster was talking about
100 years ago.

I'm sorry that with your feeble old mind, you couldn't follow the
conversation.

--
wff_ng_7 (at) verizon (dot) net