'more betterer'?
Bangernomic theory is something I've practised for a long time (my
SUV is a 1985 Pajero/Montero/Shogun) but I'm surprised that it would
work in the UK. There's a good supply of cheap and not too old cars i
noted but that's because it gets expensive to get them through the
MOT every year, surely? Here no check is required unless you sell/buy
and you can bang along for years with bits hanging off and lumps
gouged out.
And given the price of fuel in the UK, how can anyone afford to run a
Dodge anything?
AndrewF
On 11/12/2005, at 12:50 AM, Walt Wayman wrote:
> Not to put too fine a point on it, but "WAY MORE CHEAPER" would be
> the pluperfect form. :-)
>
> Walt, striving to make English more better
>
> --
> "Anything more than 500 yards from
> the car just isn't photogenic." --
> Edward Weston
>
> -------------- Original message ----------------------
> From: Chuck Norcutt <chucknorcutt@xxxxxxxxxxx>
>
>> It has finally happened. Chris has been converted to "Walt speak".
>>
>> Chuck Norcutt
>>
>> Chris Barker wrote:
>>
>>
>>> There are some who think that 100k miles is just run-in. This
>>> theory
>>> comes in the general doctrine of "Bangernomics". The basic tenet of
>>> Bangernomics is that it is WAY CHEAPER to buy a well looked-after,
>>> secondhand car and drive it until it suffers a critical failure than
>>> it is to change a new car every 2 or 3 years.
>>>
>>> It is also much better for the environment -- unless it is one of
>>> those pretty ugly looking DODGE RAM THINGIES which are starting to
>>> fill up our roads (and believe me, just one of them fills up the
>>> roads around here ;-)).
>>>
>>
>>
> ==============================================
> List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
> List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
> ==============================================
>
>
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|