(N2EY) wrote in message ...
In article , "Kim W5TIT"
writes:


Ewww, I have never liked
those cars--they are my number one pick of yuckos, right behind Studebaker
which is the number one uglymobile... Most of us "chicks" in my hometown
felt the same way about those two makes of vehicles.

Perhaps Hans is mistaken. Perhaps it wasn't the *car* that the chicks dug at
all.....

73 de Jim, N2EY

Cudda been that swave and deboner future masterchief...

"JJ" wrote in message
...
KØHB wrote:
"Kim W5TIT" wrote


A Corvair?!!??!! And you say chicks dug it??!!?? Ewww, I have never

liked

those cars--they are my number one pick of yuckos, right behind
Studebaker
which is the number one uglymobile... Most of us "chicks" in my
hometown
felt the same way about those two makes of vehicles.


Red 1962 Corvair Spyder convertible, white top, white interior! It was
a
chick magnet, but paled alongside my cousins Studebaker Avanti!
Discerning
chicks flocked all over that beauty!

Chicks in your hometown musta been kinda automotively backwards.....
maybe
they liked Nash tanks in which the seats relined all the way to
horizontal?

73, de Hans, K0HB

In Kim's local, if it isn't/wasn't a pickup with some vulgar kicker
sticker on the back window, they weren't interested.


Still bitter, eh, JJ?

Kim W5TIT

Kim W5TIT wrote:



Still bitter, eh, JJ?

Kim W5TIT


About what? Not having someone who has such low class and taste to
choose a call sign like yours follow me around? Not hardly.

In article , "Ryan, KC8PMX"
writes:

But in regards to the math..... compare a 10,000 dollar mortgage versus the
10,000 car loan with applicable rates.

That's the point explained below. In some cases, it may make more financial
sense to pay cash for the car and have a bigger mortgage.

Nowhere did I say that one should
use refinancing money to pay off other debts.

Sure - but it's often a better deal to do just that.

The other debts themselves to
be paid off quicker if at a higher interest rate is what I said, even if I
didn't make that painfully clear.

The point I'm making is that you have to actually do the numbers to get the
clear picture.

In fact it often makes a lot of sense to consolidate high interest indebtedness
into a mortgage (first or second). Here's an example:

Suppose someone has gotten themselves into the following situation:

Mortgage: 6.5%, $100,000 unpaid principal, 25 years left on a 30 year loan.
Monthly P&I payment: $675.21

Credit cards: 15%, $25,000 total. 4 year payoff requires monthly payment of
$658.35

Car loan: 7%, $10,000 unpaid principal, 4 year payoff requires monthly payment
of $239.46

(note - the above is not an exaggeration - some people are in worse holes than
this!)

Left alone, the person will have to pay $1573.02 per month for the next four
years to pay off the car and credit cards, then they'll be on the hook for
$675.21 per month for the following 21 years to pay off the house. Total
payments of $245657.88 over the next quarter century, with $75,504.96 due in
the next 48 months.

Calculation of deductible vs. nondeductible interest is left as an exercise for
the reader.

Now suppose the person can get a 15 year refi at 5%. And suppose they refi the
whole mess, paying off the high interest nonmortgage loans immediately. Total
mortgage of $135,000. Monthly payment of $1067.57 for the next 15 years. Total
payments of $192,162.60 over the next 15 years.

That means an immeidate reduction in monthly payments of over $500, total
payout reduced by over $53,000 and total ownership of the house 10 years
earlier.

Again, calculation of deductible vs. nondeductible interest is left as an
exercise for the reader.

Now some folks might say that it's not a good idea to fold short-term items
like cars and credit cards into longterm stuff like mortgages. OK, fine - then
watch this:

Suppose we get a new 25 year mortgage of $100,000 at 5.5%. Monthly payment is
$567.79 That saves over $100 per month right off.

And suppose we also get a 15 year mortgage/consolidation loan for $35,000 at
5.5%. Monthly payment $285.98. But we pay off this loan at the rate of $813.98
per month - which will result in it being paid off in four years.

Under this plan, total monthly payment is $1381.77 - a monthly saving of almost
$200 per month and a long-term monthly saving of over $100 per month. And *all*
of the interest is tax deductible.

Of course the *best* deal is not to get into such a hole in the first place.
And the people who do dig themselves such holes will often have a hard time
being financially disciplined enough to pay off their loans ahead of time
rather than spending the difference.

And people say math is boring....

73 de Jim, N2EY

"JJ" wrote in message
...
Kim W5TIT wrote:



Still bitter, eh, JJ?

Kim W5TIT


About what? Not having someone who has such low class and taste to
choose a call sign like yours follow me around? Not hardly.


Good. So you admit to liking being followed around. That's all I
figured...

Kim W5TIT

In article .net, "Dwight
Stewart" writes:

"N2EY" wrote:

Perhaps something really bad would have
happened, but the spell prevented it.
Who can ever say?

The specific spell requested could only have resulted in something bad.

OK, fine.

Then possibly something really good was going to happen to you, but the spell
prevented it.

Point is, proving cause and effect or lack thereof is more difficult than
"nothing happened".

Who determines what is a "legitimate" religion
and what isn't? Who *can* determine such a
thing (other than God?)

You just love to ask the "who determines" question, don't you?

It's a very important question.

Especially
when the answer is bloody obvious - like with most other things, people do.
People either decide it's a legitimate religion or not.

Which people?

There have been times and places where religions like Christianity and Judaism
were not "legitimate religions" because "people" said they weren't.

Are the spiritual beliefs of Native Americans "not legitimate"?

A small, fringe,
group of supposed believers don't make a religion legitimate (Hale-Bop's
Heaven's Gate cult, for example), especially when the vast majority believe
it's a load of crap (and I do suspect the vast majority don't really believe
wiccas can actually cast spells, charms, and so on).

I disagree! Popularity is not a basis for such decisions. Ask Galileo about the
validity of the "vast majority"..

Couldn't the same be said of almost all religions
now in existence? Most are based on a book or
series of books written hundreds or thousands
of years ago. (snip)

However, the practices of today's wiccas seem mostly made up from images
and stories in FICTIONAL movies, television, and books, not religious
material and literature written by those who practice that religion. In
other words, since so little is known of the old pagan religions, wiccas
simply 'borrowed' things like black robes, symbols, supposed spells, and so
on, from relatively modern day fiction.

So? Can anyone *prove* that the old books upon whioch many "legitimate"
religions are based are not fictional - or at least partly fictional? Yet
millions believe they are literally true.

There are plenty of people who will argue with you that the earth, sun , solar
system and everything else are no more than a bit over 6000 years old, because
they interpret their Book that way. Is their religion not legitimate?

Would you say the same thing about the power
of prayer, miracles, transubstantiation, and other
central beliefs of modern Christianity?

It is one thing to pray for assistance from a God and quite another to
actually claim to have personal powers to cast spells, charms, and so on.

How are they different?

I
would ask for similar proof from anyone, in any religion, who claimed to
have such powers (any powers).

And what if they can't demonstrate them? Prayers aren't always answered the way
we want, yet the faith of the people praying is not diminished because God's
responses aren't 100% in line with human desires. Does this mean religions that
involve prayer-for-divine-intervention aren't legitimate?

Fine - but then why discriminate between "legitimate"
and "illegitimate" religions?

Words alone do not discriminate, Jim. Nobody has been deprived of anything
by my words.

Sure they have. You divide religions into two groups according to your
judgement.

Would you want your religion, or lack thereof, labeled "not legitimate"?

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

N2EY wrote:

In article , Mike Coslo
writes:

some snippage

If you look at the total dollars spent, you can still pay less money on
some of the higher interest lower cost loans than lower interest higher
priced loans. (although I'd never suggest doing that) It's just the
sheer amount of dollars.


Yep. That's why you have to calculate the options.


So the best bet is to pay all the loans off as
quickly as possible.


Not always.

Suppose you're in a situation where money is tight but you can expect big
increases some time in the future. (example: kids are small and one parent
is
home with them, but when the youngest reaches school age both parents will
be
working full time). In a case like that, having a lower monthly payment may
be
the best alternative even if it requires a longer loan term.

Well, a qualified yes. I've found people, including myself, sometimes
too optimistic when dealing with "future" things, like earnings and
expenditures.

Too true! Again, the ppeople who can do all this stuff realistically usually
don;t get themselves in a hole in the first place.

While what you sat is true, I'll take the tack of either
paying the thing off ASAP, or go without. Maybe even save for what I
want. (Modern Heresy Alert!)

Works for me!

73 de Jim, N2EY

In article .net, "KØHB"
writes:

"Dwight Stewart" wrote

A small, fringe, group of supposed believers don't make
a religion legitimate, especially when the vast majority believe
it's a load of crap.

Since no single religion in the world enjoys a "vast majority" of the
population as "supposed believers", then it follows that the "vast majority"
of the worlds population on average believes that Judaism, Islam,
Christianity, Hinduism, Shintoism, Scientism, Buddhism, etc. are each
individually a "load of crap" also, and not really legitimate.

Thank you, Hans, for explaining it so clearly and concisely.

73 de Jim, N2EY

"N2EY" wrote:

OK, fine.

Then possibly something really good was
going to happen to you, but the spell
prevented it.


I'm very surprised you would argue this. Do you really believe these
people have the power to cast spells? Witches, spells, charms, and other
such nonsense, are superstitions, not religions.


Which people?

There have been times and places where
religions like Christianity and Judaism
were not "legitimate religions" because
"people" said they weren't.


In those places and those times, perhaps Christianity and Judaism were not
legitimate religions for those people. Religions are people, Jim. One cannot
exist without the other. Therefore, people are the only ones who can
possibly decide what is and what is not a legitimate religion. If that is
not going to be the case, if people cannot decide for themselves which is
and which isn't a ligitimate religion, exactly who or what would you suggest
should - an empty courtroom without people?

Or, to get back to your specific question, if the people of those times
and places didn't believe in, or accept, Christianity or Judaism, why should
they be judged negatively for that? They have just as much right to believe
in, or not believe in, what they want as Christians or Jews do.


Are the spiritual beliefs of Native Americans
"not legitimate"?


Not for me. Those beliefs might be legitimate for someone else. But,
beyond their right to practice those beliefs, why should I have any interest
whatsoever? None of it becomes an issue for me until it is advocated towards
me and others. At that point, I have a right to participate in the
discussion - including a right to say it is hogwash.


I disagree! Popularity is not a basis for such
decisions. Ask Galileo about the validity of
the "vast majority"..


So, again, what is the basis for such decisions? If people cannot do so,
exactly who or what should decide?


So? Can anyone *prove* that the old books
upon whioch many "legitimate" religions are
based are not fictional - or at least partly
fictional? Yet millions believe they are literally
true.


Religious material and literature written by those who practice a religion
are certainly more far more legitimate than images and stories from
fictional movies, television, and books. I'm not saying mainstream religious
material and literature is accurate or truthful, just far more legitimate as
far as religion is concerned. When a religion's material and literature can
only be traced back to cult figures (using fictional movies, television, and
books as a basis, such as with the wiccas), it does lack credibility as far
as I'm concerned.


How are they different?


I've already answered that - people from most ligitimate religions don't
claim to have personal powers, especially powers they can't prove when asked
to do so. As I've said before, I would ask for similar proof from anyone, in
any religion, who claimed to have such powers (any powers).


Sure they have. You divide religions into
two groups according to your judgement.


According to the dictionary, discrimination is the "unfair treatment of a
person or group on the basis of prejudice." Since no "treatment of a person
or group" is involved, words cannot discriminate in this sense. Prejudice is
also not involved. Instead, I've researched a subject and formed an opinion.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/

"N2EY" wrote:
"KØHB" writes:
Since no single religion in the world enjoys
a "vast majority" of the population as
"supposed believers", then it follows that
the "vast majority" of the worlds population
on average believes that Judaism, Islam,
Christianity, Hinduism, Shintoism, Scientism,
Buddhism, etc. are each individually a "load
of crap" also, and not really legitimate.

Thank you, Hans, for explaining it so clearly
and concisely.


Hans didn't explain it at all. Instead, he side-stepped the issue of
personal opinion with nonsense about the world's population. I don't have
the power to judge the ligitimacy of a religion as far as the world's
population is concerned, nor have I ever claimed to be trying to do so.
Instead, I've offered my personal opinion based on my research into this
subject. Hans has said nothing whatsoever to change that.


Dwight Stewart (W5NET)

http://www.qsl.net/w5net/