rsjg80 Posted February 1, 2008 Author Share Posted February 1, 2008 Do you think this should be moved to Villa Talk now then?! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BOF Posted February 1, 2008 Moderator Share Posted February 1, 2008 Sorry rsjg80, if you're not responsible for what's in your fuel tank then who else is ? It is completely your fault I'm afraid - and the poll bears that out ! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bazdavies79 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 My first car was an old banger and the petrol gage did not work. I usually kept a pretty good guess of how much I had in the tank and filled up accordingly, but one time I forgot to fill up and the engine died. I was about 1-2 miles from home, which was luckily all downhill and I managed to roll all the way back to my house without an engine. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 1, 2008 Moderator Share Posted February 1, 2008 Analogy is completely invalid imo Petrol in this country is generally all the same, the only differnce is the odd splash of detergent (thats it folks you are paying premium prices for for fairy liquid) and "bad" fuel is generally something that has been contaminated. Supermarket fuel is no different to main company fuel in fact its the likes of shell that supply the supermarkets Football players however come in all shapes and sizes, different positions, thee are many variables to consider in each purchase Petrol is almost ubiquitous in its supply levels, you can buy the stuf almost anywhere and at anytime Football players you can only buy for one month mid season So whilst one is a simple decision that is easily taken, the other is not. Therefore Not a valid argument imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The_Rev Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Analogy is completely invalid imo Petrol in this country is generally all the same, the only differnce is the odd splash of detergent (thats it folks you are paying premium prices for for fairy liquid) and "bad" fuel is generally something that has been contaminated. Supermarket fuel is no different to main company fuel in fact its the likes of shell that supply the supermarkets Football players however come in all shapes and sizes, different positions, thee are many variables to consider in each purchase Petrol is almost ubiquitous in its supply levels, you can buy the stuf almost anywhere and at anytime Football players you can only buy for one month mid season So whilst one is a simple decision that is easily taken, the other is not. Therefore Not a valid argument imo Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b23avfc Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 The point is: You can't drive Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marks61 Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Absolutely your fault No sympathy here i'm afraid Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Analogy is completely invalid imo Petrol in this country is generally all the same, the only differnce is the odd splash of detergent (thats it folks you are paying premium prices for for fairy liquid) and "bad" fuel is generally something that has been contaminated. Supermarket fuel is no different to main company fuel in fact its the likes of shell that supply the supermarkets Football players however come in all shapes and sizes, different positions, thee are many variables to consider in each purchase Petrol is almost ubiquitous in its supply levels, you can buy the stuf almost anywhere and at anytime Football players you can only buy for one month mid season So whilst one is a simple decision that is easily taken, the other is not. Therefore Not a valid argument imo Surely that would make it worse? As far as rsjg's analogy goes, he did say : 'By this time I'd passed all the petrol stations and then the inevitable happened. I ran out of fuel.' Implying that he did take into account the limited time period in which to 'fill up'. The prob with the analogy might be the suggestion that the 'petrol' of whatever source or grade was readily available within the limited area. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 1, 2008 Moderator Share Posted February 1, 2008 Analogy is completely invalid imo Petrol in this country is generally all the same, the only differnce is the odd splash of detergent (thats it folks you are paying premium prices for for fairy liquid) and "bad" fuel is generally something that has been contaminated. Supermarket fuel is no different to main company fuel in fact its the likes of shell that supply the supermarkets Football players however come in all shapes and sizes, different positions, thee are many variables to consider in each purchase Petrol is almost ubiquitous in its supply levels, you can buy the stuf almost anywhere and at anytime Football players you can only buy for one month mid season So whilst one is a simple decision that is easily taken, the other is not. Therefore Not a valid argument imo Surely that would make it worse? As far as rsjg's analogy goes, he did say : 'By this time I'd passed all the petrol stations and then the inevitable happened. I ran out of fuel.' Implying that he did take into account the limited time period in which to 'fill up'. The prob with the analogy might be the suggestion that the 'petrol' of whatever source or grade was readily available within the limited area. I think you're missing the point His fundamental basis for the analogy isn't valid imo, from thereon in anything else mentioned isn't really relevant Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
snowychap Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 I think you're missing the point His fundamental basis for the analogy isn't valid imo, from thereon in anything else mentioned isn't really relevant The most apposite part of the analogy was the part about ignoring one's own warnings (or worries) about potential future problems and where the fault would lie if those problems actually came about after one had consciously decided not to attempt to address them. The standard (or otherwise) of the analogy that he used as the vehicle to put across the fundamental question does not impinge upon the validity of that question and that is the fundamental basis for the analogy regardless of the similarities (or not) of the ribbons used to dress that analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bickster Posted February 1, 2008 Moderator Share Posted February 1, 2008 I think you're missing the point His fundamental basis for the analogy isn't valid imo, from thereon in anything else mentioned isn't really relevant The most apposite part of the analogy was the part about ignoring one's own warnings (or worries) about potential future problems and where the fault would lie if those problems actually came about after one had consciously decided not to attempt to address them. The standard (or otherwise) of the analogy that he used as the vehicle to put across the fundamental question does not impinge upon the validity of that question and that is the fundamental basis for the analogy regardless of the similarities (or not) of the ribbons used to dress that analogy. I disagree, In the analogy he had many opportunities to heed his own warnings and had little choice in which prduct he purchased In the real situation, there was a small window of opportunity, a scarcity of supply and an unwillingness to sell the customer a product In the analogy there was ample opportunity to heed ones own warnings, it the real world the situation is nowhere near as simple as the analogy paints So an invalid analogy. You can only heed your warnings if its possible to stop the car and replace your petrol. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
saturdaygig Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 Lets look at this way. Do you think he'll run out of petrol this way again. No. So fault all with the driver then. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Juju Posted February 1, 2008 Share Posted February 1, 2008 So your saying if petrol is in the ground, at a petrol station, then by offering twice the going rate, it will change its mind about wanting to fill your car? And in fairness, you talk about filling the tank. Why would you have worried, as it was clear your passenger was paying for the fuel, and more to the point, even forked out for a top shelf girlie mag at a recent fill up, as well as paying for your mars bar and ginsters pasty last week, which cost him £5m and he didnt even get any air miles. Rubbish analagy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b23avfc Posted February 2, 2008 Share Posted February 2, 2008 What if your car ran diesel or super unleaded and all you could see was 4 star? huh huh.. ad nauseum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts