Luxury Items ?

Does she post here?

BTW, my cleaning lady, who probably makes <$20k a year has an iphone Originally Posted by atlcomedy

Does she post here? Originally Posted by pjorourke

I'm assuming that was a reference to the above...

Gosh I hope not. She's a good Christian woman not so easy on the eyes that is in her 60s...

Much as I like a good "maid fantasy" I've found over the years it is much better to have a plain cleaner that knows how to really clean vs. someone a little easier on the eye that doesn't do much cleanin'

I'm seeing ads for $50 iphones & over the holidays Best Buy was giving them away for free. The monthly plans are the same as for other phones.

I know plenty of people that can afford an iphone but don't get one because they don't want one. The just want a simple phone that they can make calls on.

They don't cite an iphone as a luxury on a thread about things they would like to have.

Now when they first came out and were $400, sure I can see someone saying I can afford it but can't justify it.

BTW, my cleaning lady, who probably makes <$20k a year has an iphone Originally Posted by atlcomedy

It's simply a matter of personal preference....Charlie can have his iphone, and post too!

And they keep coming out with those bloody iphones anyways, and whenever they do they aren't cheap...

I'm seeing ads for $50 iphones & over the holidays Best Buy was giving them away for free. The monthly plans are the same as for other phones.

I know plenty of people that can afford an iphone but don't get one because they don't want one. The just want a simple phone that they can make calls on.

They don't cite an iphone as a luxury on a thread about things they would like to have.

Now when they first came out and were $400, sure I can see someone saying I can afford it but can't justify it.

BTW, my cleaning lady, who probably makes <$20k a year has an iphone Originally Posted by atlcomedy

OK, just to be clear, it's not the cost of the phones...it's the monthly plan. And I don't need a monthly data/voice/text plan that's $75 a month. I got what I need and it's about $45 per month less than the iphone plan. That's $540 per year I'm saving, enough for one hour with some of the ladies here (not that you really SAVE money this way; you just don't spend as much as you would have).

Now, if I actually used the phone a lot, that would be another story. But I don't. I talk maybe 60 minutes a month, almost never text, and almost never surf. Add up your minutes, and see how you compare to me. Really don't need anything more.

Would I like to have it? Sure. It's a toy. But I'm too practical to do that.

OK, just to be clear, it's not the cost of the phones...it's the monthly plan. And I don't need a monthly data/voice/text plan that's $75 a month. I got what I need and it's about $45 per month less than the iphone plan. That's $540 per year I'm saving, enough for one hour with some of the ladies here (not that you really SAVE money this way; you just don't spend as much as you would have).

Now, if I actually used the phone a lot, that would be another story. But I don't. I talk maybe 60 minutes a month, almost never text, and almost never surf. Add up your minutes, and see how you compare to me. Really don't need anything more.

Would I like to have it? Sure. It's a toy. But I'm too practical to do that. Originally Posted by charlestudor2005

my point (& I think PJ's) is that nobody is questioning your choices or value judgements, but don't call it a luxury or something you desire when only $45/month is setting you apart from it...if you really wanted it you could budget to fit it in.

So maybe it would be better to call the iphone what you did: a toy you are too practical to purchase

Blue Bell Butter Pecan

My piano

My piano Originally Posted by Natalie

It must be hard to travel with.

I will say my tanning bed as well. I am far too addicted to pay for a membership in a salon, that requires me to actually get dressed and drive over.

It must be hard to travel with. Originally Posted by pjorourke

Naw: http://usa.yamaha.com/products/music...product_lineup

Natalie, may I be your "roadie?"

I will say my tanning bed as well. I am far too addicted to pay for a membership in a salon, that requires me to actually get dressed and drive over. Originally Posted by London Rayne

Sorry London, as someone going into health care, I'm sure you know this, but I would be remiss if I didn't point it out:

WHO: Tanning Beds Cause Cancer Indoor Tanning Causes Melanoma, Report Shows
By Salynn Boyles
WebMD Health News
Reviewed by Brunilda Nazario, MD


July 28, 2009 - A leading global cancer research group is declaring tanning bed use a significant cancer hazard.

The World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC) announced today that it has moved UV tanning beds to its highest cancer risk category -- "carcinogenic to humans."

Prior to the move, the group had classified sun lamp and tanning bed use as "probably carcinogenic to humans."

In an interview with WebMD, the IARC’s Vincent Cogliano, PhD, called the scientific evidence linking indoor tanning to the deadly skin cancer melanoma “sufficient and compelling.”

A dramatic rise in melanoma, especially among young women, has been seen in recent years.

Cogliano said studies conducted over the past decade provide an “an abundance of evidence” that tanning bed use has played a role in this rise, along with direct sun exposure.

“People mistakenly see a tan as a sign of health when it is actually a sign of damage to the skin,” he says.

UVA and UVB Cause Cancer

Cogliano says the IARC group met last month to review the research on tanning beds and the role ultraviolet light exposure plays in skin cancer.
The studies found that ultraviolet A (UVA), ultraviolet B (UVB) and ultraviolet C (UVC) radiation all cause cancer in animal models, he says.
This is significant because the indoor tanning industry has often claimed that tanning beds are safe because the bulbs have more UVA radiation than UVB, says American Cancer Society Deputy Chief Medical Officer Len Lichtenfeld, MD.

“This report puts to rest the argument that tanning with UVA light is safe,” Lichtenfeld said in a statement. “As noted by the IARC report, UVA light is also a class I carcinogen and should be avoided.”

The report cited the group’s own research analysis published in 2006, finding the use of tanning beds before age 30 to be associated with a 75% increase in melanoma risk.

A separate study reported last July by researchers from the National Institutes of Health found that melanoma rates among young women in the United States almost tripled between 1973 and 2004.

Beginning in the early 1990s, a particularly dramatic increase was seen in thicker and more lethal melanoma lesions, leading the researchers to conclude that tanning has probably played a significant role in this increase.

Early this year, researchers from the Northern California Cancer Center reported that melanoma cases doubled in the U.S. between the mid 1990s and 2004. The researchers concluded that the increase could not be explained by better screening and earlier detection of the cancer.

About 62,000 new cases of melanoma were diagnosed in the U.S. and about 8,000 people died of the disease in 2008, according to the ACS.
“We were not able to examine possible causes for this increase, but there is a lot of evidence that it is related to tanning,” Clarke tells WebMD.
Study co-author Eleni Linos, MD, DrPh, of Stanford University, points to studies showing increases in outdoor and indoor tanning in recent years, especially among young women.

“One of the established risk factors for melanoma is UV light, so both exposure to sun and exposure to tanning beds are probably risk factors.”

Tanning Industry Responds


Last September, International Tanning Association (ITA) Executive Director John Overstreet told WebMD that a report by leading researchers in the fields of melanoma research, dermatology, and cell biology calling for greater regulation of indoor tanning included “irresponsible assertions without providing any concrete link between indoor tanning and melanoma.”

In the spring of 2008, the ITA launched a nationwide campaign questioning this link.

In a news release issued at the time, ITA spokeswoman Sarah Longwell said, “Both the sun and tanning beds have been unnecessarily demonized by special interests using junk science and scare tactics.”

But in a news release issued today, ITA President Dan Humiston acknowledged that UV exposure from tanning beds is not discernibly different from UV exposure from the sun.

“The fact that the IARC has put tanning bed use in the same category as sunlight is hardly newsworthy,” he noted. “The UV light from a tanning bed is equivalent to UV light from the sun, which has had a (carcinogenic) classification since 1992. Some other items in this category are red wine, beer, and salted fish. The ITA has always emphasized the importance of moderation when it comes to UV light from either the sun or a tanning bed.”

Psst...Charles, I smoke too lol. I cover my face and have seriously cut down, but I doubt I will ever quit tanning completely.

Every time I travel in scrubs I always get that "look" when smoking. Like, "Uhh she is a nurse over there puffing away."

Psst...Charles, I smoke too lol. Originally Posted by London Rayne

If I was you, I'd turn the setting on that tanning bed WAY the hell down.

Psst...Charles, I smoke too lol. Originally Posted by London Rayne

Even when you don't have a cigarette in your hand, I'd bet.

You boys sure are funny ha ha. I heard about this girl in Fla. who actually cooked her insides in one. She went for like 2 hours and baked to death. What a moron. You would think burning flesh would have been her first clue lol.