In message , at 23:37:39 on
Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Gawnsoft
remarked:
Most people going to dixons to buy a new TV aren't going to want to
take it home on the bus.

True. Luckily many such shops have delivery vans. It's certainly how
I get lots of my purchases to my home from the shops.

So instead of getting the whatever that you carefully picked out in
the shop, at home and useful that afternoon; you get to take a day off
work, and wait in all of next Thursday, in the hope that the one they
deliver from the warehouse doesn't have a big scratch on the side.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 23:37:39
on Tue, 10 Aug 2004, Gawnsoft
remarked:
Most people going to dixons to buy a new TV aren't going to want to
take it home on the bus.

True. Luckily many such shops have delivery vans. It's certainly
how I get lots of my purchases to my home from the shops.

So instead of getting the whatever that you carefully picked out in
the shop, at home and useful that afternoon; you get to take a day off
work, and wait in all of next Thursday, in the hope that the one they
deliver from the warehouse doesn't have a big scratch on the side.

So you pay out the costs of owning a car so that you can go a buy a new TV
and carry it home yourself every few years? An interesting slant on
cost/benefit analysis.

In message , at 10:17:02 on Wed, 11
Aug 2004, Brimstone remarked:
So you pay out the costs of owning a car so that you can go a buy a new TV
and carry it home yourself every few years? An interesting slant on
cost/benefit analysis.

Only on Usenet do you find propositions like this taken to such
ridiculous extremes.

What's actually happening is that over the period of ownership of the
car, people find *enough* times they need to transport something large,
or go somewhere inconvenient for public transport, or travel at hours
that public transport doesn't work, or on routes that PT fail to
support.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
In message , at 10:17:02 on Wed,
11 Aug 2004, Brimstone remarked:
So you pay out the costs of owning a car so that you can go a buy a
new TV and carry it home yourself every few years? An interesting
slant on cost/benefit analysis.

Only on Usenet do you find propositions like this taken to such
ridiculous extremes.

Oh I dunno, I've heard people pick up on a minor point or put a different
slant on a comment in lots of other places quite apart from Usenet. A little
of it intended seriously, much of it not.


What's actually happening is that over the period of ownership of the
car, people find *enough* times they need to transport something
large,
or go somewhere inconvenient for public transport, or travel at hours
that public transport doesn't work, or on routes that PT fail to
support.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 at 11:31:59, Roland Perry
wrote:

What's actually happening is that over the period of ownership of the
car, people find *enough* times they need to transport something large,
or go somewhere inconvenient for public transport, or travel at hours
that public transport doesn't work, or on routes that PT fail to support.

Oh, I dunno - our car spends most of its life in the garage; we really
only keep it because we tend to take motoring holidays. And it gets
used on Sundays and one Wednesday a month. Other than that, in a normal
month, it lives in the garage.
--
Annabel Smyth
http://www.amsmyth.demon.co.uk/index.html
Website updated 7 August 2004 - for a limited time, be bored by my holiday
snaps!

In message , at 12:38:45 on Wed,
11 Aug 2004, Annabel Smyth remarked:
What's actually happening is that over the period of ownership of the
car, people find *enough* times they need to transport something large,
or go somewhere inconvenient for public transport, or travel at hours
that public transport doesn't work, or on routes that PT fail to support.

Oh, I dunno - our car spends most of its life in the garage; we really
only keep it because we tend to take motoring holidays. And it gets
used on Sundays and one Wednesday a month. Other than that, in a normal
month, it lives in the garage.

Well, that's obviously *enough* usage for you, then. Odd how it varies
from person to person. PT's big drawback is assuming one size fits all.
--
Roland Perry

Roland Perry wrote:
Oh, I dunno - our car spends most of its life in the garage; we really
only keep it because we tend to take motoring holidays. And it gets
used on Sundays and one Wednesday a month. Other than that, in a normal
month, it lives in the garage.

Well, that's obviously *enough* usage for you, then. Odd how
it varies from person to person. PT's big drawback is assuming
one size fits all.

Er. Buses, buses with winding routes, buses on express routes,
trains, the underground, all that. Is that one-size? If so,
the worlds most fabulously comprehensive public transport system
could be sniped at by saying "it assumes one size fits all".
Perahps you mean PT's big drawback is not providing people with
their own car?

#Paul

Roland Perry wrote in message o.uk...
What's actually happening is that over the period of ownership of the
car, people find *enough* times they need to transport something large,
or go somewhere inconvenient for public transport, or travel at hours
that public transport doesn't work, or on routes that PT fail to
support.

Bingo. And of course once you own, tax and insure that car for the
above reasons, the incremental cost of journeys where public transport
is an alternative is lower then that of the PT.

On Wed, 11 Aug 2004 10:17:02 +0000 (UTC), "Brimstone"
wrote:

So you pay out the costs of owning a car so that you can go a buy a new TV
and carry it home yourself every few years? An interesting slant on
cost/benefit analysis.

Not everything in this world is down to cost. Seen objectively, the
ownership of a car makes no financial sense to me whatsoever, given
that it gets used only a couple of times a week (I commute by bike).
However, it was a lifestyle decision, and one I do not regret at all.

Indeed, I'd go so far to say that the world is a far worse place for
the obsession with cost that seems so prevolent at the moment.

Neil

--
Neil Williams in Milton Keynes, UK
To e-mail use neil at the above domain

Neil Williams wrote:

Indeed, I'd go so far to say that the world is a far worse place for
the obsession with cost that seems so prevolent at the moment.


Very true. The concept of "value for money" seems to have got lost.