Sylvia Else

http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...001028,00.html

""I know some people turn their nose down a bit at the prospect that
people could save $10 or so, on a tank of petrol, but we don't," he told
ABC TV."

He must be talking about a huge tank, or have a bizarre notion about how
much room the suppliers have when it comes to pricing. It would require
a 17 cent price reduction to save me $10 on filling my Subaru's tank.

Sylvia.

Bernd Felsche

Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address> wrote:

>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...001028,00.html

>""I know some people turn their nose down a bit at the prospect
>that people could save $10 or so, on a tank of petrol, but we
>don't," he told ABC TV."

>He must be talking about a huge tank, or have a bizarre notion
>about how much room the suppliers have when it comes to pricing. It
>would require a 17 cent price reduction to save me $10 on filling
>my Subaru's tank.

FuelWatch replicates what private industry already does at no
additional cost to the public. e.g. http://motormouth.com.au/

FuelWatch restricts free market practices to prohibit discounts
throughout the day.

Those who have to refuel at an expensive station because they've
been caught short, don't have to FILL the tank. Just put in 10
litres or so to get you to a cheap one (and pay with Amex or
Diners). Such is probably beyond the intelligence horizon of
politics.
--
/"\ Bernd Felsche - Innovative Reckoning, Perth, Western Australia
\ / ASCII ribbon campaign | Science is the belief in
X against HTML mail | the ignorance of the experts.
/ \ and postings | -- Richard Feynman

who where

On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:17:10 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
wrote:

>http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...001028,00.html
>
>""I know some people turn their nose down a bit at the prospect that
>people could save $10 or so, on a tank of petrol, but we don't," he told
>ABC TV."
>
>He must be talking about a huge tank, or have a bizarre notion about how
>much room the suppliers have when it comes to pricing. It would require
>a 17 cent price reduction to save me $10 on filling my Subaru's tank.

You do need to keep up. Try logging on to the WA site and check the difference
between highest and lowest in an area. 17c isn't all that wild.

One of the definite benefits of the scheme in WA has been the fact that the
price is fixed throughout the day. So if you are tootling to work in the a.m.
and see a good price, you know that when returning home later in the day that
same outlet will have that same price - unlike yesteryear when price hikes
during the day were the rule rather than the exception.

Yes, as BF points out, it does stifle competition. But in reality the oilco's
ARE in a cartel - you only need to watch the prices in lockstep to appreciate
that. Retailers don't have any room to manoeuvre, so the notion of competition
in that environment is laughable.

Sylvia Else

who where wrote:
> On Sun, 17 Aug 2008 19:17:10 +1000, Sylvia Else <sylvia@not.at.this.address>
> wrote:
>
>> http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...001028,00.html
>>
>> ""I know some people turn their nose down a bit at the prospect that
>> people could save $10 or so, on a tank of petrol, but we don't," he told
>> ABC TV."
>>
>> He must be talking about a huge tank, or have a bizarre notion about how
>> much room the suppliers have when it comes to pricing. It would require
>> a 17 cent price reduction to save me $10 on filling my Subaru's tank.
>
> You do need to keep up. Try logging on to the WA site and check the difference
> between highest and lowest in an area. 17c isn't all that wild.

It's a stretch to suggest that that means that the scheme saves that
much, though I suppose a pollie might be happy to use that argument.

A more realistic perspective is that the scheme would allow a person to
determine, if they wanted to, how much extra they could have paid.

Sylvia.

nofarkenway@gmail.com

On Aug 17, 7:17 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...195374-5001028,...
>
> ""I know some people turn their nose down a bit at the prospect that
> people could save $10 or so, on a tank of petrol, but we don't," he told
> ABC TV."
>
> He must be talking about a huge tank, or have a bizarre notion about how
> much room the suppliers have when it comes to pricing. It would require
> a 17 cent price reduction to save me $10 on filling my Subaru's tank.
>
> Sylvia.

Have you reaed the CSIRO report that says petrol "COULD be AS HIGH AS
$8.00 per litre?" Now there are too bloody big "IFS' in that lot, same
as this fuel watch wank which hilariously says "COULD save as much
as ..." Nothing there says fuel watch WILL save $10 per tank, it just
says "maybe it might." For me I won't be holding my breath waiting
for that much of a price reduction, unless there is a serious
reduction in the price of crude oil.

Fran

On Aug 17, 7:17*pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
> http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...195374-5001028,...
>
> ""I know some people turn their nose down a bit at the prospect that
> people could save $10 or so, on a tank of petrol, but we don't," he told
> ABC TV."
>
> He must be talking about a huge tank, or have a bizarre notion about how
> much room the suppliers have when it comes to pricing. It would require
> a 17 cent price reduction to save me $10 on filling my Subaru's tank.
>
> Sylvia.

True enough, but fuel watch is defencible on other grounds.

Fran

sylviaggl@cryogenic.net

On Aug 19, 1:44 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Aug 17, 7:17 pm, Sylvia Else <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
> >http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...195374-5001028,...
>
> > ""I know some people turn their nose down a bit at the prospect that
> > people could save $10 or so, on a tank of petrol, but we don't," he told
> > ABC TV."
>
> > He must be talking about a huge tank, or have a bizarre notion about how
> > much room the suppliers have when it comes to pricing. It would require
> > a 17 cent price reduction to save me $10 on filling my Subaru's tank.
>
> > Sylvia.
>
> True enough, but fuel watch is defencible on other grounds.
>
> Fran

Yes. I have no objection to it. I just wish politicians wouldn't say
things that make them look like total idiots. Well, not unless they
actually are total idiots, of course, which may indeed be the case
here.

Sylvia.

Fran

On Aug 19, 1:52*pm, sylvia...@cryogenic.net wrote:
> On Aug 19, 1:44 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Aug 17, 7:17 pm,SylviaElse <syl...@not.at.this.address> wrote:
>
> > >http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegrap...195374-5001028,....
>
> > > ""I know some people turn their nose down a bit at the prospect that
> > > people could save $10 or so, on a tank of petrol, but we don't," he told
> > > ABC TV."
>
> > > He must be talking about a huge tank, or have a bizarre notion about how
> > > much room the suppliers have when it comes to pricing. It would require
> > > a 17 cent price reduction to save me $10 on filling my Subaru's tank.
>
> > >Sylvia.
>
> > True enough, but fuel watch is defencible on other grounds.
>
> > Fran
>
> Yes. I have no objection to it. I just wish politicians wouldn't say
> things that make them look like total idiots.

I agree, though I could live with that as long as there wasn't an
inference that the remarks were chosen on the strength of the belief
that the people listening were total idiots.


> Well, not unless they
> actually are total idiots, of course, which may indeed be the case
> here.
>


I doubt it. Very few people get to the top while being total idiots.
Mostly they have something which means they are only partial idiots,
which may turn out to be worse than having a total idiot in charge.

I'm not totally sure that one should use the term 'idiot' as a term of
abuse (rather than as a category to describe intellectual attainment
-- and even here I think the term is no longer used, probably because
of its use outside cognitive development)

While most cultures associate ethical worth with intellect and
unsurprisingly abuse people by asserting their want of intellectual
attainment when they really mean to call attention to some ethical
failure, this is probably unfair to those with a genuine disability,
who may well be "total idiots" through no ethical failing.

Fran

sylviaggl@cryogenic.net

On Aug 19, 2:15 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:

> I'm not totally sure that one should use the term 'idiot' as a term of
> abuse (rather than as a category to describe intellectual attainment
> -- and even here I think the term is no longer used, probably because
> of its use outside cognitive development)

It gets used as I've used it because we lack a term that aptly
describes a kind of culpable stupidity. Indeed, the concept is
problematic - if a person is genuinely stupid to some degree, then to
that extent, they're not culpable. The real accusation I suppose I'm
laying on our treasurer is either that he's said something knowing
that it's not true, or that it will be construed in a way that makes
it untrue, or that he's wilfully avoided applying his intellect to the
matter in order to be able to have a kind of plausible deniability.

But it's much easier to call him an idiot, and those unfortunates in
the world who suffer from the intellectual disability properly
described by the term are not going to be able to understand the
nature of the insult that other people think the disabled person has
been subject to.

Sylvia.

Fran

On Aug 19, 2:47*pm, sylvia...@cryogenic.net wrote:
> On Aug 19, 2:15 pm, Fran <Fran.B...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > I'm not totally sure that one should use the term 'idiot' as a term of
> > abuse (rather than as a category to describe intellectual attainment
> > -- and even here I think the term is no longer used, probably because
> > of its use outside cognitive development)
>
> It gets used as I've used it because we lack a term that aptly
> describes a kind of culpable stupidity.

The Americans use "moron" for that, but I'm not sure that that is
really any better than idiot, for much the same reasons.

> Indeed, the concept is
> problematic - if a person is genuinely stupid to some degree, then to
> that extent, they're not culpable.

Of course. The less 'mens' you have the less mens culpa you can have.

> The real accusation I suppose I'm
> laying on our treasurer is either that he's said something knowing
> that it's not true, or that it will be construed in a way that makes
> it untrue,

So he is a self-serving dissembler ...

> or that he's wilfully avoided applying his intellect to the
> matter in order to be able to have a kind of plausible deniability.
>

Ah ... a Tony Blair doing his cognitive dissonance routine ... a
variant of three wise monkeys.

> But it's much easier to call him an idiot,

It is easy, but somewhat less precise.

> and those unfortunates in
> the world who suffer from the intellectual disability properly
> described by the term are not going to be able to understand the
> nature of the insult that other people think the disabled person has
> been subject to.
>

That's true, but I wonder what impact this has on those of us in the
world who can appreciate the nature of the insult, in our dealings
with those of marginal intellectual accomplishment.

From time to time, I've found myself reaching for the term
(occasionally using it), or something similar, and then paused and
reflected on why that was and whether it was consistent with the
broader ethical framework I espouse or even adequately descriptive.

I suspect it fails both tests.

Fran