Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2016-01-07 9:53 AM, Janet wrote:
>> In article >,
>> says...
>>>
>>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 19:04:03 -0000, "Ophelia" >
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> > wrote in message
>>>> news >>>>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:22:31 -0500, jmcquown >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 1/6/2016 8:34 AM, Janet wrote:
>>>>>>>> All my money is happy money! I can't remember the last time I
>>>>>>>> went out
>>>>>>>>> without Himself and he carries money.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> OMG
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Janet UK
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I sure hope "Himself" doesn't die before she does. Whatever would
>>>>>> she
>>>>>> do?!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Jill
>>>>>
>>>>> Huh? I don't get what you mean, what difference would it make,
>>>>> imagine they have a joint account as did we.
>>>>
>>>> ??? Everything we have is joint! All our pensions, savings et al!
>>>>
>>>> I wonder if she has a joint account with her 'SO' ... and what
>>>> difference it
>>>> would make if 'SO' dies before she does.
>>>>
>>>> If not, whatever would she do?!
>>>>
>>>> And No, I don't care!
>>>
>>> Well if she had, she wouldn't have wondered how you would manage. When
>>> David died nothing changed for me other than that I no longer had him
>>> No worries as to money etc. Three little words 'All to wife' -
>>
>> Though that doesn't apply in Scotland if the deceased has children. In
>> Scottish inheritance law, even adult children retain permanent
>> inheritance rights over part of their parents' estates.
>
> When my father died my brother expected to inherit my parent's house.For
> some reason, he expected it to go to the eldest son. He got a rude
> surprise. My other brothers and I were not at all surprised that he had
> left everything to our mother. That was what we had expected and what we
> thought would be proper.
>
>
>
>
>
Why do you out your family's dirty laundry here?

That's so unevolved of you.

graham wrote:
>> He wasn't popular but it saved our bacon when
>> the crash came and clearly has been in our (the little peoples) favour
>> ever since
>>
> Yet Harper, who had been all for deregulation, boasted that it was due
> to him!

It was, cope.

On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 10:22:48 AM UTC-6, John Kuthe wrote:
> On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 10:12:13 AM UTC-6, Janet wrote:
> ...
> > I pay exactly the same price as cash. I pay no charges whatever for
> > the use of my DD or credit cards. This is not the USA.
> >
> > Janet UK
>
> I DO live in the U.S. and I pay no charges on my CC because I pay off the balanace every month! I'm what creditors call a "deadbeat"!
>
>
>
> John Kuthe...

Here's the PBS Frontline program I was looking for. About 13 or 14 mins in, Ben Stein is describing how he uses his ctedit cards (pays them off in full every month) and a credit card employee told him "We hate you guys, we call you deadbeats!"

http://www.pbs.org/video/1340904268/

John Kuthe...

Janet wrote:
> In article >, says...
>>
>> On 7/01/2016 10:34 AM, Bruce wrote:
>>> On 7/1/2016 10:06 sf wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 17:04:36 -0500, Dave Smith
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> If the cost of using the debit card service is 20 cents
>>>>
>>>> I NEVER use a debit card.
>>>
>>> I NEVER use a credit card.
>>>
>> I use both! ;-)
>
> You devil you :-)
>
> Satan UK
>
Got your handle right.

Dave Smith wrote:
> On 2016-01-07 10:22 AM, Janet wrote:
>
>>>> According to lawyers, all to wife is the strongest will that can be
>>>> made and really cannot be fought unless you want to pay lawyers and
>>>> lose
>>>
>>> Of course!
>>
>> That simply isnt true in Scotland.
>
>
> I am not sure of the current laws, but when my grandfather died in 1968
> or thereabouts, he did not have a will, so everything went to my mother
> and her two sisters. They did the right thing and signed it back over
> to my grandmother. Apparently there was an agreement of some type that
> when my grandmother died it would go back to the three sisters equally.
> Unfortunately, my mother's older sister was a bit of a sleaze and
> tried to get the whole thing. One sister had died and my grandmother
> changed her will to include my mother and, for some reason, the wicked
> aunt's son for a three way split. My late aunt's family were screwed
> out of things completely.
>

You are such an unpleasant old washerwoman, constantly airing your sick
family's dirty laundry in public.

On 07/01/2016 9:11 AM, Janet wrote:
> In article >,
> says...
>>
>> On 1/6/2016 8:46 AM, Janet wrote:
>>> In article >,
>>> says...
>>>>
>>>> On Tue, 5 Jan 2016 20:30:47 -0000, Janet > wrote:
>>>>
>>>> snip
>>>>>
>>>>> But not evenly. I am a bank customer who pays no banking costs or
>>>>> charges of any kind for the services I use.
>>>>>
>>>>> Other customers do, the ones who pay interest on bank loans and over
>>>>> drafts, and run up huge CC debts at awful interest rates. They are
>>>>> subsidising me.
>>>>>
>>>>> Janet UK
>>>>
>>>> Generally that privilege is offered to customers who maintain a
>>>> certain balance with the bank. Your payment for services is
>>>> essentially lending the bank your money, interest free.
>>>
>>> Er, no. The bank pays interest to ME :-)
>>>
>>>
>>> Janet UK
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> Sure they do, but after they take a cut of it.
>
> However, I AM still earning interest; I don't lend the bank my money
> interest free, as claimed by the previous poster.
>
>
> They give you interest
>> to entice you to let them use your money. Simple how it works. You
>> deposit $100. They take your money and lend it to someone else and take
>> back in $105. The give you one and keep four.
>
> Wrong. I already posted the 5% interest available on UK current
> accounts and either, you can't read or you can't take it in. Just one
> example:
>
> http://www.moneysupermarket.com/curr...interest-bank-
> accounts/
>
I must contact Nationwide. They have about 100 quid of my money and pay
me pennies in interest! The *******s!
Graham

sf wrote:
>
> Bruce wrote:
>
> > sf wrote:
> > > Debit card? <shudder>
> >
> > What's wrong with that? I like to pay on the spot.
>
> You enjoy paying the bank for every transaction? Pay with cash if
> you're all about paying on the spot.

I always pay with a debit card. My bank does NOT charge me for using
it. Maybe your bank does charge per transaction but I suspect it
doesn't. You just assume it does. I suspect your husband handles all
that end of the month payment stuff and you have no clue.

Bruce wrote:
>
> sf wrote:
> > You enjoy paying the bank for every transaction? Pay with cash if
> > you're all about paying on the spot.
>
> But I pay the same amount, whether I pay cash or by debit card.

Don't waste your time arguing with her, Bruce. She evidently has no
clue as to how things work.

In article >,
says...
>
> On 1/6/2016 9:38 AM, Ophelia wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > We are retired now and enjoy each others' company. In the past his work
> > often took him away from home and eventually I retired a bit early to
> > travel with him. Now we are both retired we appreciate the time we
> > have together and we make the most of it Oh and just so you know, our
> > money (pensions, savings et al) we have combined. We have no 'his and
> > hers' money! We have 'our' money!!!


> Good for you. My wife has not worked for years, but it has always been
> "our" money. She now has Social Security income but does not bother
> with it as she prefers not to have to worry about it. She has a little
> cash and her own credit card. When we go out, she pays for nothing. She
> is happy and wants for nothing.

Try not to die first, ED.

Janet UK.

Ophelia wrote:
>
> +1 sf simply doesn't understand how our debit cards work.

That's evidently true. She seems to think that you pay a transaction
fee every time you use a debit card. It's not true at all.

On Wednesday, January 6, 2016 at 11:13:51 PM UTC-10, Ophelia wrote:
> "dsi1" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > Fast food joints over here will typically sell laulau on Fridays. I have
> > eaten them but never have I made it like in the video. You eat the taro
> > leaves which tastes similar to spinach - well that's what they say anyway.
> > You don't eat the ti leaves that line the cooker. That stuff is like
> > Hawaiian parchment paper. Laulaus prepared in a slow cooker would probably
> > be great. The only thing I'd do different is add a small piece of salt cod
> > to the bundle. That's pretty traditional.
>
> She did mention that. I thought she was using Shoyu <?> instead?

I don't see any reason why one couldn't do both. In fact, that's exactly what I did. Those laulaus are in the cooker at this moment. They've been on for about 8 hours but I have to leave for work in an hour so it's going to be in there for another 10 hours or so. I used about 4 pounds of pork butt and a pound of luau leaves.

I stuck some pieces of saba - mackerel in the bundles. I'm betting that any oily fish will work - hope I didn't ruin it. I even laid a saba on top of the bundles for extra goodness. Maybe I'll fry that up and have it for breakfast. That could be good - or not.

>
>
> >> Was that 'Nanny, Nanny Boo boo' an expression of ecstasy??? ;-)
> >
> > It's Hawaiian for "have a happy new year!"
>
> Is that right? Well Nanny, Nanny Boo, Boo to you ;-)
>
> <g>
>
> >> How long have you been saying you are going to dig out your slow cooker??
> >> Hmmmm????? Will it actually happen this time??
> >>
> >
> > Things are coming to a head these days - I'll probably be breaking that
> > out soon... real soon...
>
> *Folds arms, taps foot ... and waits ...*
>

All thing will come to pass - or at the very least, pass.

>
> --
> http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Ophelia wrote:
>>
>> +1 sf simply doesn't understand how our debit cards work.
>
> That's evidently true. She seems to think that you pay a transaction
> fee every time you use a debit card. It's not true at all.

Ahh ok. I was beginning to believe yours worked differently which is why I
said she doesn't understand how OUR debit cards work!

So, yours work the same as ours then so that mystery is solved)




--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

In article >, lid says...
>
> On 7/1/2016 20:21 Ophelia wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > "Bruce" > wrote in message
> > ...
> >> On 7/1/2016 11:01 wrote:
> >>
> >>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 23:32:56 -0000 (UTC), Bruce >
> >>> wrote:
> >>>
> >>>>On 7/1/2016 09:20 Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >>>>
> >>>>> On 1/6/2016 9:38 AM, Ophelia wrote:
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>
> >>>>>>
> >>>>>> We are retired now and enjoy each others' company. In the past his
> >>>>>> work
> >>>>>> often took him away from home and eventually I retired a bit early to
> >>>>>> travel with him. Now we are both retired we appreciate the time we
> >>>>>> have together and we make the most of it Oh and just so you know,
> >>>>>> our
> >>>>>> money (pensions, savings et al) we have combined. We have no 'his
> >>>>>> and
> >>>>>> hers' money! We have 'our' money!!!
> >>>>>
> >>>>> Good for you. My wife has not worked for years, but it has always been
> >>>>> "our" money. She now has Social Security income but does not bother
> >>>>> with it as she prefers not to have to worry about it. She has a little
> >>>>> cash and her own credit card. When we go out, she pays for nothing.
> >>>>> She
> >>>>> is happy and wants for nothing.
> >>>>
> >>>>The perfect pet.
> >>>
> >>> Not at all, I see it as two couples who are happily living together
> >>> the way in which they want. Whats the matter, not working for you?
> >>
> >> With all your women's lib, you still have one foot firmly planted in
> >> the 50s.
> >
> > If you are talking about me again, I will copy again what I copied to
> > Sheldon after his nasty assumptions:
>
> Huh, when did I ever talk about you before?
>
> >> We are retired now and enjoy each others' company. In the past his work
> >> often took him away from home and eventually I retired a bit early to
> >> travel with him. Now we are both retired we appreciate the time we
> >> have together and we make the most of it Oh and just so you know, our
> >> money (pensions, savings et al) we have combined. We have no 'his and
> >> hers' money! We have 'our' money!!!
>
> That sounds great, why would there be anything wrong with that?

Well, taxation reasons spring to mind, except when both partners
incomes are below the threshold for paying any tax.


Janet UK

"Janet" > wrote in message
.. .
> In article >, lid says...
>>
>> On 7/1/2016 20:21 Ophelia wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > "Bruce" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> On 7/1/2016 11:01 wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 23:32:56 -0000 (UTC), Bruce >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>On 7/1/2016 09:20 Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On 1/6/2016 9:38 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> We are retired now and enjoy each others' company. In the past
>> >>>>>> his
>> >>>>>> work
>> >>>>>> often took him away from home and eventually I retired a bit early
>> >>>>>> to
>> >>>>>> travel with him. Now we are both retired we appreciate the time
>> >>>>>> we
>> >>>>>> have together and we make the most of it Oh and just so you
>> >>>>>> know,
>> >>>>>> our
>> >>>>>> money (pensions, savings et al) we have combined. We have no
>> >>>>>> 'his
>> >>>>>> and
>> >>>>>> hers' money! We have 'our' money!!!
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Good for you. My wife has not worked for years, but it has always
>> >>>>> been
>> >>>>> "our" money. She now has Social Security income but does not
>> >>>>> bother
>> >>>>> with it as she prefers not to have to worry about it. She has a
>> >>>>> little
>> >>>>> cash and her own credit card. When we go out, she pays for
>> >>>>> nothing.
>> >>>>> She
>> >>>>> is happy and wants for nothing.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>The perfect pet.
>> >>>
>> >>> Not at all, I see it as two couples who are happily living together
>> >>> the way in which they want. Whats the matter, not working for you?
>> >>
>> >> With all your women's lib, you still have one foot firmly planted in
>> >> the 50s.
>> >
>> > If you are talking about me again, I will copy again what I copied to
>> > Sheldon after his nasty assumptions:
>>
>> Huh, when did I ever talk about you before?
>>
>> >> We are retired now and enjoy each others' company. In the past his
>> >> work
>> >> often took him away from home and eventually I retired a bit early to
>> >> travel with him. Now we are both retired we appreciate the time we
>> >> have together and we make the most of it Oh and just so you know,
>> >> our
>> >> money (pensions, savings et al) we have combined. We have no 'his
>> >> and
>> >> hers' money! We have 'our' money!!!
>>
>> That sounds great, why would there be anything wrong with that?
>
> Well, taxation reasons spring to mind, except when both partners
> incomes are below the threshold for paying any tax.

Why would you think we don't pay tax???? Show me where I said we don't pay
tax?? Show me where tax was mentioned at all??

Do you just dream stuff like this up??


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

"dsi1" > wrote in message
...

>> >> How long have you been saying you are going to dig out your slow
>> >> cooker??
>> >> Hmmmm????? Will it actually happen this time??
>> >>
>> >
>> > Things are coming to a head these days - I'll probably be breaking that
>> > out soon... real soon...
>>
>> *Folds arms, taps foot ... and waits ...*
>>
>
> All thing will come to pass - or at the very least, pass.
>

Maybe ...


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "dsi1" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>> >> How long have you been saying you are going to dig out your slow
>>> >> cooker??
>>> >> Hmmmm????? Will it actually happen this time??
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > Things are coming to a head these days - I'll probably be breaking
>>> that
>>> > out soon... real soon...
>>>
>>> *Folds arms, taps foot ... and waits ...*
>>>
>>
>> All thing will come to pass - or at the very least, pass.
>>
>
> Maybe ...
>
>
Kidney stones?

"Ophelia" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> "Janet" > wrote in message
> .. .
>> In article >, lid says...
>>>
>>> On 7/1/2016 20:21 Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > "Bruce" > wrote in message
>>> > ...
>>> >> On 7/1/2016 11:01 wrote:
>>> >>
>>> >>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 23:32:56 -0000 (UTC), Bruce >
>>> >>> wrote:
>>> >>>
>>> >>>>On 7/1/2016 09:20 Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>> On 1/6/2016 9:38 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>>>
>>> >>>>>> We are retired now and enjoy each others' company. In the past
>>> >>>>>> his
>>> >>>>>> work
>>> >>>>>> often took him away from home and eventually I retired a bit
>>> >>>>>> early
>>> >>>>>> to
>>> >>>>>> travel with him. Now we are both retired we appreciate the time
>>> >>>>>> we
>>> >>>>>> have together and we make the most of it Oh and just so you
>>> >>>>>> know,
>>> >>>>>> our
>>> >>>>>> money (pensions, savings et al) we have combined. We have no
>>> >>>>>> 'his
>>> >>>>>> and
>>> >>>>>> hers' money! We have 'our' money!!!
>>> >>>>>
>>> >>>>> Good for you. My wife has not worked for years, but it has always
>>> >>>>> been
>>> >>>>> "our" money. She now has Social Security income but does not
>>> >>>>> bother
>>> >>>>> with it as she prefers not to have to worry about it. She has a
>>> >>>>> little
>>> >>>>> cash and her own credit card. When we go out, she pays for
>>> >>>>> nothing.
>>> >>>>> She
>>> >>>>> is happy and wants for nothing.
>>> >>>>
>>> >>>>The perfect pet.
>>> >>>
>>> >>> Not at all, I see it as two couples who are happily living together
>>> >>> the way in which they want. Whats the matter, not working for you?
>>> >>
>>> >> With all your women's lib, you still have one foot firmly planted in
>>> >> the 50s.
>>> >
>>> > If you are talking about me again, I will copy again what I copied to
>>> > Sheldon after his nasty assumptions:
>>>
>>> Huh, when did I ever talk about you before?
>>>
>>> >> We are retired now and enjoy each others' company. In the past his
>>> >> work
>>> >> often took him away from home and eventually I retired a bit early to
>>> >> travel with him. Now we are both retired we appreciate the time we
>>> >> have together and we make the most of it Oh and just so you know,
>>> >> our
>>> >> money (pensions, savings et al) we have combined. We have no 'his
>>> >> and
>>> >> hers' money! We have 'our' money!!!
>>>
>>> That sounds great, why would there be anything wrong with that?
>>
>> Well, taxation reasons spring to mind, except when both partners
>> incomes are below the threshold for paying any tax.
>
> Why would you think we don't pay tax???? Show me where I said we don't
> pay tax?? Show me where tax was mentioned at all??
>
> Do you just dream stuff like this up??

Ahh I am beginning to understand ... You don't pay tax because YOUR income
is too low and you suppose we are the same!! Well for the avoidance of
doubt, we play plenty of damned income tax! Satisfied??

--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

Ophelia wrote:
>
> "Gary" > wrote in message ...
> > Ophelia wrote:
> >>
> >> +1 sf simply doesn't understand how our debit cards work.
> >
> > That's evidently true. She seems to think that you pay a transaction
> > fee every time you use a debit card. It's not true at all.
>
> Ahh ok. I was beginning to believe yours worked differently which is why I
> said she doesn't understand how OUR debit cards work!
>
> So, yours work the same as ours then so that mystery is solved)

Yep. sf is just a clueless dumbass ASSuming things. Evidently her
beloved hubby is handling all the end of month bills.

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Ophelia wrote:
>>
>> "Gary" > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > Ophelia wrote:
>> >>
>> >> +1 sf simply doesn't understand how our debit cards work.
>> >
>> > That's evidently true. She seems to think that you pay a transaction
>> > fee every time you use a debit card. It's not true at all.
>>
>> Ahh ok. I was beginning to believe yours worked differently which is
>> why I
>> said she doesn't understand how OUR debit cards work!
>>
>> So, yours work the same as ours then so that mystery is solved)
>
> Yep. sf is just a clueless dumbass ASSuming things. Evidently her
> beloved hubby is handling all the end of month bills.

Well so does mine but I still know what is happening and how it works.



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

Ophelia wrote:
>
> Ahh I am beginning to understand ... You don't pay tax because YOUR income
> is too low and you suppose we are the same!! Well for the avoidance of
> doubt, we play plenty of damned income tax! Satisfied??

Ignore Janet UK...she's just the anti-ophy! We all see that. :-D

"Gary" > wrote in message ...
> Ophelia wrote:
>>
>> Ahh I am beginning to understand ... You don't pay tax because YOUR
>> income
>> is too low and you suppose we are the same!! Well for the avoidance of
>> doubt, we play plenty of damned income tax! Satisfied??
>
> Ignore Janet UK...she's just the anti-ophy! We all see that. :-D

LOL ya think???


--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

Ophelia wrote:
>
>
> "Gary" > wrote in message
> ...
>> Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>> Ahh I am beginning to understand ... You don't pay tax because YOUR
>>> income
>>> is too low and you suppose we are the same!! Well for the avoidance of
>>> doubt, we play plenty of damned income tax! Satisfied??
>>
>> Ignore Janet UK...she's just the anti-ophy! We all see that. :-D
>
> LOL ya think???
>
>

Amazing how something years in is still a Revelation...for some...

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 08:40:45 -0800 (PST), John Kuthe
> wrote:

> On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 10:22:48 AM UTC-6, John Kuthe wrote:
> > On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 10:12:13 AM UTC-6, Janet wrote:
> > ...
> > > I pay exactly the same price as cash. I pay no charges whatever for
> > > the use of my DD or credit cards. This is not the USA.
> > >
> > > Janet UK
> >
> > I DO live in the U.S. and I pay no charges on my CC because I pay off the balanace every month! I'm what creditors call a "deadbeat"!
> >
> >
> >
> > John Kuthe...
>
> Here's the PBS Frontline program I was looking for. About 13 or 14 mins in, Ben Stein is describing how he uses his ctedit cards (pays them off in full every month) and a credit card employee told him "We hate you guys, we call you deadbeats!"
>
> http://www.pbs.org/video/1340904268/

I doubt debit card users will ever understand the concept.

--

sf

In article >,
says...
>
> On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 23:32:56 -0000 (UTC), Bruce >
> wrote:
>
> >On 7/1/2016 09:20 Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> >
> >> On 1/6/2016 9:38 AM, Ophelia wrote:
> >>>
> >>
> >>>
> >>> We are retired now and enjoy each others' company. In the past his work
> >>> often took him away from home and eventually I retired a bit early to
> >>> travel with him. Now we are both retired we appreciate the time we
> >>> have together and we make the most of it Oh and just so you know, our
> >>> money (pensions, savings et al) we have combined. We have no 'his and
> >>> hers' money! We have 'our' money!!!
> >>
> >> Good for you. My wife has not worked for years, but it has always been
> >> "our" money. She now has Social Security income but does not bother
> >> with it as she prefers not to have to worry about it. She has a little
> >> cash and her own credit card. When we go out, she pays for nothing. She
> >> is happy and wants for nothing.
> >
> >The perfect pet.
>
> Not at all, I see it as two couples who are happily living together
> the way in which they want. Whats the matter, not working for you?

I have seen the wretched consequences faced by totally dependent
spouses, when the one who managed/ran everything dies first, leaving the
other not just grieving, but facing the extra burden of unfamiliar
responsibilities and tasks they've never done for themselves.


Janet UK

On 1/7/2016 12:09 PM, Gary wrote:
> Ophelia wrote:
>>
>> +1 sf simply doesn't understand how our debit cards work.
>
> That's evidently true. She seems to think that you pay a transaction
> fee every time you use a debit card. It's not true at all.
>

Correct, the merchant pays a fee. You just pay higher prices for
everything as the merchant has it build into the selling price.

On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 2:13:53 AM UTC-7, Ophelia wrote:
> "Brooklyn1" > wrote in message
> ...
>
> > You sure make it sound like Himself's only value is to be your sugar
> > daddy... I think that's sad. So what you're saying is you're a user
> > and Himself is a total loser... now nice. Please attempt to redeem
> > yourself. And yoose don't even have any children together, other than
> > a marga dog. You must have the finast pussy on this planet (which I
> > don't believe) or Himself is an ignorant brain damaged Schmuck (which
> > I do believe).
>
> I copy this especially for you, and I expect an apology!
>
> We are retired now and enjoy each others' company. In the past his work
> > often took him away from home and eventually I retired a bit early to
> > travel with him. Now we are both retired we appreciate the time we
> > have together and we make the most of it Oh and just so you know, our
> > money (pensions, savings et al) we have combined. We have no 'his and
> > hers' money! We have 'our' money!!!
>
>
> --
> http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

Ha!!! You expect an apology from Brooky Baby? Doubtful that will happen. He luvs to offend...no doubt with glee. He probably has a few redeeming qualities but you really have to search for them.

On 1/7/2016 7:32 AM, wrote:

>>
>> Debit card? <shudder>
>
> Can't imagine why! I use my debit card for most things locally - the
> money comes straight from my bank account and by the time I am home
> there is a notification that it was used and for what amount. It has
> simply become my plastic cash, without the inconvenience of having to
> visit the bank to access it. I rarely even go to an ATM these days.
>

Years ago the debit card did not have the same protection that the
credit cards have. Today they do. In the US, by law they don't have to
offer the same deal, but banks do so to be competitive and give
assurance to the customer that the card is safe.

"Roy" > wrote in message
...
> On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 2:13:53 AM UTC-7, Ophelia wrote:
>> "Brooklyn1" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>> > You sure make it sound like Himself's only value is to be your sugar
>> > daddy... I think that's sad. So what you're saying is you're a user
>> > and Himself is a total loser... now nice. Please attempt to redeem
>> > yourself. And yoose don't even have any children together, other than
>> > a marga dog. You must have the finast pussy on this planet (which I
>> > don't believe) or Himself is an ignorant brain damaged Schmuck (which
>> > I do believe).
>>
>> I copy this especially for you, and I expect an apology!
>>
>> We are retired now and enjoy each others' company. In the past his work
>> > often took him away from home and eventually I retired a bit early to
>> > travel with him. Now we are both retired we appreciate the time we
>> > have together and we make the most of it Oh and just so you know,
>> > our
>> > money (pensions, savings et al) we have combined. We have no 'his and
>> > hers' money! We have 'our' money!!!
>>
>>
>> --
>> http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/
>
> Ha!!! You expect an apology from Brooky Baby? Doubtful that will happen.
> He luvs to offend...no doubt with glee. He probably has a few redeeming
> qualities but you really have to search for them.

Not really, but he needs to think about what he says about people. I will
not sit back and be abused by *anyone* any more!!!



--
http://www.helpforheroes.org.uk/shop/

Roy wrote:
> Ha!!! You expect an apology from Brooky Baby? Doubtful that will happen. He luvs to offend...no doubt with glee. He probably has a few redeeming qualities but you really have to search for them.

C'mon.

He's witty (in a titty way), can still cook for the entire fleet, and
keeps a spotless home and land.

On 7/1/2016 23:37 wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 09:35:11 -0000 (UTC), Bruce >
> wrote:
>
>>On 7/1/2016 20:21 Ophelia wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Bruce" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 7/1/2016 11:01 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 23:32:56 -0000 (UTC), Bruce >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>On 7/1/2016 09:20 Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 1/6/2016 9:38 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> We are retired now and enjoy each others' company. In the past his
>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>> often took him away from home and eventually I retired a bit early to
>>>>>>>> travel with him. Now we are both retired we appreciate the time we
>>>>>>>> have together and we make the most of it Oh and just so you know,
>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>> money (pensions, savings et al) we have combined. We have no 'his
>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>> hers' money! We have 'our' money!!!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Good for you. My wife has not worked for years, but it has always been
>>>>>>> "our" money. She now has Social Security income but does not bother
>>>>>>> with it as she prefers not to have to worry about it. She has a little
>>>>>>> cash and her own credit card. When we go out, she pays for nothing.
>>>>>>> She
>>>>>>> is happy and wants for nothing.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>The perfect pet.
>>>>>
>>>>> Not at all, I see it as two couples who are happily living together
>>>>> the way in which they want. Whats the matter, not working for you?
>>>>
>>>> With all your women's lib, you still have one foot firmly planted in
>>>> the 50s.
>>>
>>> If you are talking about me again, I will copy again what I copied to
>>> Sheldon after his nasty assumptions:
>>
>>Huh, when did I ever talk about you before?
>>
>>>> We are retired now and enjoy each others' company. In the past his work
>>>> often took him away from home and eventually I retired a bit early to
>>>> travel with him. Now we are both retired we appreciate the time we
>>>> have together and we make the most of it Oh and just so you know, our
>>>> money (pensions, savings et al) we have combined. We have no 'his and
>>>> hers' money! We have 'our' money!!!
>>
>>That sounds great, why would there be anything wrong with that?
>
> YOU were the one suggesting there was!!

I was referring to the way Ed talked about his wife. As if she's not a
100% in the brain and can't be confused by complicated things such as
money. I found that tone offensive, unless she's really
mentally challenged of course. It's a repeat of that restaurant
discussion, where you also followed the 50s patronising point of
view that us men shouldn't complicate our poor little ladies' lives with
ugly matters such as money. "I'll talk to the bank manager, you go make
cupcakes."

--
Bruce

On 7/1/2016 23:40 wrote:

> On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 10:19:46 -0000, "Ophelia" >
> wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>"Bruce" > wrote in message
...
>>> On 7/1/2016 20:21 Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> "Bruce" > wrote in message
>>>> ...
>>>>> On 7/1/2016 11:01 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 23:32:56 -0000 (UTC), Bruce >
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>On 7/1/2016 09:20 Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2016 9:38 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> We are retired now and enjoy each others' company. In the past his
>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>> often took him away from home and eventually I retired a bit early
>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>> travel with him. Now we are both retired we appreciate the time we
>>>>>>>>> have together and we make the most of it Oh and just so you know,
>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>> money (pensions, savings et al) we have combined. We have no 'his
>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>> hers' money! We have 'our' money!!!
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Good for you. My wife has not worked for years, but it has always
>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>> "our" money. She now has Social Security income but does not bother
>>>>>>>> with it as she prefers not to have to worry about it. She has a
>>>>>>>> little
>>>>>>>> cash and her own credit card. When we go out, she pays for nothing.
>>>>>>>> She
>>>>>>>> is happy and wants for nothing.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>The perfect pet.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not at all, I see it as two couples who are happily living together
>>>>>> the way in which they want. Whats the matter, not working for you?
>>>>>
>>>>> With all your women's lib, you still have one foot firmly planted in
>>>>> the 50s.
>>>>
>>>> If you are talking about me again, I will copy again what I copied to
>>>> Sheldon after his nasty assumptions:
>>>
>>> Huh, when did I ever talk about you before?
>>
>>No, you haven't.
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>> We are retired now and enjoy each others' company. In the past his work
>>>>> often took him away from home and eventually I retired a bit early to
>>>>> travel with him. Now we are both retired we appreciate the time we
>>>>> have together and we make the most of it Oh and just so you know, our
>>>>> money (pensions, savings et al) we have combined. We have no 'his and
>>>>> hers' money! We have 'our' money!!!
>>>
>>> That sounds great, why would there be anything wrong with that?
>>>
>>
>>Ahh maybe I misattributed a post. Apologies.
>
> No as usual he was trying to pick on me - he is so adamantly set
> against womens rights I suspect he is hen pecked.

I must have expressed myself badly. I was picking on Ed. I'm very much
for equality between men and women. Much more than you. That leg that
you keep in the 50s, holds you back.

--
Bruce

On 8/1/2016 04:32 Janet wrote:

> In article >, lid says...
>>
>> On 7/1/2016 20:21 Ophelia wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > "Bruce" > wrote in message
>> > ...
>> >> On 7/1/2016 11:01 wrote:
>> >>
>> >>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 23:32:56 -0000 (UTC), Bruce >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>On 7/1/2016 09:20 Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>> >>>>
>> >>>>> On 1/6/2016 9:38 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>> We are retired now and enjoy each others' company. In the past his
>> >>>>>> work
>> >>>>>> often took him away from home and eventually I retired a bit early to
>> >>>>>> travel with him. Now we are both retired we appreciate the time we
>> >>>>>> have together and we make the most of it Oh and just so you know,
>> >>>>>> our
>> >>>>>> money (pensions, savings et al) we have combined. We have no 'his
>> >>>>>> and
>> >>>>>> hers' money! We have 'our' money!!!
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Good for you. My wife has not worked for years, but it has always been
>> >>>>> "our" money. She now has Social Security income but does not bother
>> >>>>> with it as she prefers not to have to worry about it. She has a little
>> >>>>> cash and her own credit card. When we go out, she pays for nothing.
>> >>>>> She
>> >>>>> is happy and wants for nothing.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>The perfect pet.
>> >>>
>> >>> Not at all, I see it as two couples who are happily living together
>> >>> the way in which they want. Whats the matter, not working for you?
>> >>
>> >> With all your women's lib, you still have one foot firmly planted in
>> >> the 50s.
>> >
>> > If you are talking about me again, I will copy again what I copied to
>> > Sheldon after his nasty assumptions:
>>
>> Huh, when did I ever talk about you before?
>>
>> >> We are retired now and enjoy each others' company. In the past his work
>> >> often took him away from home and eventually I retired a bit early to
>> >> travel with him. Now we are both retired we appreciate the time we
>> >> have together and we make the most of it Oh and just so you know, our
>> >> money (pensions, savings et al) we have combined. We have no 'his and
>> >> hers' money! We have 'our' money!!!
>>
>> That sounds great, why would there be anything wrong with that?
>
> Well, taxation reasons spring to mind, except when both partners
> incomes are below the threshold for paying any tax.

That's too technical for me. I'll go make cupcakes.

--
Bruce

On Thursday, January 7, 2016 at 8:44:00 AM UTC-10, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 1/7/2016 12:09 PM, Gary wrote:
> > Ophelia wrote:
> >>
> >> +1 sf simply doesn't understand how our debit cards work.
> >
> > That's evidently true. She seems to think that you pay a transaction
> > fee every time you use a debit card. It's not true at all.
> >
>
> Correct, the merchant pays a fee. You just pay higher prices for
> everything as the merchant has it build into the selling price.

I also pay a PCI fee - it's around $125. The PCI is an organization that recommend standards for the payment processors. My guess is that the payment is something cooked up by the bank so they can get more dough from us poor merchants. I doubt that that money is going anywhere except the bank's pockets.

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 09:29:45 -0500, Dave Smith
> wrote:

>On 2016-01-07 7:35 AM, wrote:
>
>>> You enjoy paying the bank for every transaction? Pay with cash if
>>> you're all about paying on the spot.
>>
>> I don't pay anything for using my debit card - I suppose I would if
>> the money was not in my account but that has never happened. I can't
>> imagine going to an ATM, getting cash and paying on the spot that way.
>> With a debit card it's as if my whole chequing account is right with
>> me.
>>
>
>No. You don't pay anything .. directly. The merchant pays a transaction
>fee. Knowing that a lot of people are going to pay by debit card or
>credit card, the tack a little extra on their prices to cover it. Then
>we all end up paying extra for goods. That is why some places are
>willing to give a discount for cash. When someone pays cash without a
>discount the merchant makes a little extra profit... the money that
>would have gone to pay the card fees.
>
I'm going to be paying it anyway, so cash won't help. When I go to
small businesses I use my debit card because that hurts them less.

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 14:53:04 -0000, Janet > wrote:

>In article >,
says...
>>
>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 19:04:03 -0000, "Ophelia" >
>> wrote:
>>
>> >
>> >
>> > wrote in message
>> >news >> >> On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:22:31 -0500, jmcquown >
>> >> wrote:
>> >>
>> >>>On 1/6/2016 8:34 AM, Janet wrote:
>> >>>>> All my money is happy money! I can't remember the last time I went out
>> >>>>> >without Himself and he carries money.
>> >>>>
>> >>>> OMG
>> >>>>
>> >>>> Janet UK
>> >>>
>> >>>I sure hope "Himself" doesn't die before she does. Whatever would she
>> >>>do?!
>> >>>
>> >>>Jill
>> >>
>> >> Huh? I don't get what you mean, what difference would it make,
>> >> imagine they have a joint account as did we.
>> >
>> >??? Everything we have is joint! All our pensions, savings et al!
>> >
>> >I wonder if she has a joint account with her 'SO' ... and what difference it
>> >would make if 'SO' dies before she does.
>> >
>> >If not, whatever would she do?!
>> >
>> >And No, I don't care!
>>
>> Well if she had, she wouldn't have wondered how you would manage. When
>> David died nothing changed for me other than that I no longer had him
>> No worries as to money etc. Three little words 'All to wife' -
>
> Though that doesn't apply in Scotland if the deceased has children. In
>Scottish inheritance law, even adult children retain permanent
>inheritance rights over part of their parents' estates.
>
>
> Janet UK

I realise that, but I am in New Scotland and although our laws merge
with Scottish ones should I die intestate, that's not going to happen.
We made wills for the first time here when David heard if he died
intestate his father would have been entitled to a share and knowing
him, we knew he would justify it by saying 'it's only right' so we
made wills even though we were young.

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 08:10:53 -0700, graham > wrote:

>On 07/01/2016 5:40 AM, wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 10:19:46 -0000, "Ophelia" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> "Bruce" > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On 7/1/2016 20:21 Ophelia wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> "Bruce" > wrote in message
>>>>> ...
>>>>>> On 7/1/2016 11:01 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 23:32:56 -0000 (UTC), Bruce >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2016 09:20 Ed Pawlowski wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On 1/6/2016 9:38 AM, Ophelia wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> We are retired now and enjoy each others' company. In the past his
>>>>>>>>>> work
>>>>>>>>>> often took him away from home and eventually I retired a bit early
>>>>>>>>>> to
>>>>>>>>>> travel with him. Now we are both retired we appreciate the time we
>>>>>>>>>> have together and we make the most of it Oh and just so you know,
>>>>>>>>>> our
>>>>>>>>>> money (pensions, savings et al) we have combined. We have no 'his
>>>>>>>>>> and
>>>>>>>>>> hers' money! We have 'our' money!!!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Good for you. My wife has not worked for years, but it has always
>>>>>>>>> been
>>>>>>>>> "our" money. She now has Social Security income but does not bother
>>>>>>>>> with it as she prefers not to have to worry about it. She has a
>>>>>>>>> little
>>>>>>>>> cash and her own credit card. When we go out, she pays for nothing.
>>>>>>>>> She
>>>>>>>>> is happy and wants for nothing.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The perfect pet.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not at all, I see it as two couples who are happily living together
>>>>>>> the way in which they want. Whats the matter, not working for you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> With all your women's lib, you still have one foot firmly planted in
>>>>>> the 50s.
>>>>>
>>>>> If you are talking about me again, I will copy again what I copied to
>>>>> Sheldon after his nasty assumptions:
>>>>
>>>> Huh, when did I ever talk about you before?
>>>
>>> No, you haven't.
>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>>> We are retired now and enjoy each others' company. In the past his work
>>>>>> often took him away from home and eventually I retired a bit early to
>>>>>> travel with him. Now we are both retired we appreciate the time we
>>>>>> have together and we make the most of it Oh and just so you know, our
>>>>>> money (pensions, savings et al) we have combined. We have no 'his and
>>>>>> hers' money! We have 'our' money!!!
>>>>
>>>> That sounds great, why would there be anything wrong with that?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Ahh maybe I misattributed a post. Apologies.
>>
>> No as usual he was trying to pick on me - he is so adamantly set
>> against womens rights I suspect he is hen pecked.
>>
>You mean he has an abusive wife!
>:-)

Seems like doesn't it ? Maybe he's cowed

On 07/01/2016 11:44 AM, Ed Pawlowski wrote:
> On 1/7/2016 12:09 PM, Gary wrote:
>> Ophelia wrote:
>>>
>>> +1 sf simply doesn't understand how our debit cards work.
>>
>> That's evidently true. She seems to think that you pay a transaction
>> fee every time you use a debit card. It's not true at all.
>>
>
> Correct, the merchant pays a fee. You just pay higher prices for
> everything as the merchant has it build into the selling price.

During a visit to the US some years ago I was astonished to find gas
stations offering a discount for cash but full price for credit cards.
That practice is not allowed in Alberta. If a merchant tries that, the
companies come down on him like a ton of bricks, The same used to apply
when merchants tried to apply minimum purchase amounts. I've seen people
using plastic to pay for a $2 coffee, which is ridiculous, even allowing
for the high profit margin on that drink.
Graham

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 08:14:14 -0700, graham > wrote:

>On 07/01/2016 6:53 AM, wrote:
>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 13:16:08 -0000, "Ophelia" >
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> > wrote in message
>>> ...
>>>> On Wed, 06 Jan 2016 22:21:38 -0800, sf > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 00:05:28 -0000 (UTC), Bruce >
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 7/1/2016 10:50 sf wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 23:34:04 -0000 (UTC), Bruce >
>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 7/1/2016 10:06 sf wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 17:04:36 -0500, Dave Smith
>>>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If the cost of using the debit card service is 20 cents
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I NEVER use a debit card.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I NEVER use a credit card.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're all cash? That's crazy. Use the bank's money for 30 days and
>>>>>>> pay it off.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> All debit card. I also pay invoices the day I receive them, rather than
>>>>>> wait until the due date.
>>>>>
>>>>> Debit card? <shudder>
>>>>
>>>> Can't imagine why! I use my debit card for most things locally - the
>>>> money comes straight from my bank account and by the time I am home
>>>> there is a notification that it was used and for what amount. It has
>>>> simply become my plastic cash, without the inconvenience of having to
>>>> visit the bank to access it. I rarely even go to an ATM these days.
>>>
>>> That is exactly how it works for us.
>>
>> About fifteen years ago our banks were shreiking to be 'de-regulated'
>> all same the US banks. Thank god our Finance Minister of the time
>> Paul Martin said no! He wasn't popular but it saved our bacon when
>> the crash came and clearly has been in our (the little peoples) favour
>> ever since
>>
>Yet Harper, who had been all for deregulation, boasted that it was due
>to him!

That used to incense me, but now he's gone on his way

wrote:
>> You mean he has an abusive wife!
>> >:-)
> Seems like doesn't it ? Maybe he's cowed

Yer a real ****ing BIOTCH!

On Thu, 7 Jan 2016 15:22:46 -0000, Janet > wrote:

>In article >,
>says...
>>
>> > wrote in message
>> ...
>> > On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 20:32:11 -0000, "Ophelia" >
>> > wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >>
>> > wrote in message
>> . ..
>> >>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 19:04:03 -0000, "Ophelia" >
>> >>> wrote:
>> >>>
>> >>>>
>> >>>>
>> > wrote in message
>> >>>>news >> >>>>> On Wed, 6 Jan 2016 11:22:31 -0500, jmcquown >
>> >>>>> wrote:
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>>>On 1/6/2016 8:34 AM, Janet wrote:
>> >>>>>>>> All my money is happy money! I can't remember the last time I went
>> >>>>>>>> out
>> >>>>>>>> >without Himself and he carries money.
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> OMG
>> >>>>>>>
>> >>>>>>> Janet UK
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>I sure hope "Himself" doesn't die before she does. Whatever would she
>> >>>>>>do?!
>> >>>>>>
>> >>>>>>Jill
>> >>>>>
>> >>>>> Huh? I don't get what you mean, what difference would it make,
>> >>>>> imagine they have a joint account as did we.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>??? Everything we have is joint! All our pensions, savings et al!
>> >>>>
>> >>>>I wonder if she has a joint account with her 'SO' ... and what
>> >>>>difference
>> >>>>it
>> >>>>would make if 'SO' dies before she does.
>> >>>>
>> >>>>If not, whatever would she do?!
>> >>>>
>> >>>>And No, I don't care!
>> >>>
>> >>> Well if she had, she wouldn't have wondered how you would manage. When
>> >>> David died nothing changed for me other than that I no longer had him
>> >>> No worries as to money etc. Three little words 'All to wife' -
>> >>
>> >>Of course! Or partner and children?
>
>
>> > I suppose partner would open the will to contest by blood relatives
>> > and while child might work, children might produce difficulties.
>> >
>> > According to lawyers, all to wife is the strongest will that can be
>> > made and really cannot be fought unless you want to pay lawyers and
>> > lose
>>
>> Of course!
>
> That simply isnt true in Scotland.
>
> Janet UK

So in Scotland they can automatically overrule a persons will without
legal challenge ?