Re: Typical inefficiency
- From: MM <kylix_is@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 21 Jun 2011 17:46:05 +0100
On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 15:05:29 +0100, "Partac" <petemac@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
"MM" <kylix_is@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
I ordered new car brochures online to posted (snail mail) to me. I
just received a very thin A4 envelope from Suzuiki re the Alto, and
the single sheet simply says apologies blah blah blah, but we don't
have any brochures in stock for the Alto but one will be sent shortly.
How come any car manufacturer today can allow stock get so low in this
severe economic climate, when, depending on what happens in Greece
this evening may presage a total banking crisis?
Straightaway, Suzuki has plummeted on my list of possibles.
The other thing is, they could have saved money by not using an A4
envelope just to send me a single letter. They could have saved on
paper and postage, but no, no one *thinks* nowadays.
I also went to the Vauxhall dealer with a new Corsa in mind. The
salesman told me that all manufacturers now ONLY build to order. If I
ordered a new car today, it could take 5 months to delivery! However,
the Corsa is a fabulous little car, and looks the business in glacier
white, luverly! Costs over 9 grand, though... That's for the 1.0 litre
totally basic model.
I am thinking constantly of new ways to save money. Here's my latest:
I buy a 12-pack of loo rolls from Lidl for around £1.39. Recently, I
noticed that the two plies are quite "loose" on the rolls, making it
easy to separate one ply from the other.
Single plies are often enough to do the business, so I've set up a
home-brew machine to wind the two plies onto separate rolls, so that I
have effectively 24 rolls for £1.39!
You'll find that false econony - you'll lose time scrubbing shit off your
fingers when they burst through the single ply and stick up your arse.
Like I said, you use as much or as little as you need. Finer "dosage"
is possible with single-ply sheets.
- Prev by Date: Re: Typical inefficiency
- Next by Date: Re: Typical inefficiency
- Previous by thread: Re: Typical inefficiency
- Next by thread: Re: Typical inefficiency