OR POLITICS 17 RE OREGON GAS
From: "Dave Thompson" (dav13795@no-spam)
Subject: Re: Oregon Gas
Date: Sun, 29 Jun 2003 16:39:41 -0700


"Heck's Kitchen" <upstart23@no-spam> wrote in message news:3eff41db.171518659@no-spam > "Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote:
>
> >When was the last time it was put to a public vote?
>
> During the Eighties, before simple pay-at-the-pump was implemented.

Well, that's interesting.

Some of the posters are kinda making it sound like it was very recent. I wonder why they would do that?

Maybe they're a bit reluctant to have it come up for a vote now that pay-at-the-pump is here. It certainly adds another item to the list of fallacies constructed to support mini-serve.







From: Russell Senior (seniorr@no-spam)
Subject: Re: Oregon Gas
Date: 29 Jun 2003 20:19:10 -0700

>>>>> "Joni" == Joni Rathbun <jrathbun@no-spam> writes:

>> Maybe they're a bit reluctant to have it come up for a vote now >> that pay-at-the-pump is here. It certainly adds another item to the >> list of fallacies constructed to support mini-serve.

Joni> Not that my "vote" gets to count anymore but yeah, I'd like to Joni> how the vote would turn out today.

I doubt pay-at-the-pump would make the slightest difference, since it speeds up _both_ self-serve and traditional service.
The only thing the pro self-serve folks can hope for is that enough out-of-stater brainwashees have registered to vote here. Personally,
I am not that worried.

-- Russell Senior ``shtal latta wos ba padre u prett tu nashtonfi seniorr@no-spam mrlosh'' -- Bashgali Kafir for ``If you have had diarrhoea many days you will surely die.''


From: "Dave Thompson" (dav13795@no-spam)
Subject: Re: Oregon Gas
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 13:17:58 -0700

<clw@no-spam> wrote in message news:clw-2FAA34.12165230062003@no-spam > In article <vg11qo17m7tr87@no-spam>,
> "Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote:
>
>
> > Then why do we keep seeing people in this group whine that it would take > > longer for self-serve because you would have to go inside to pay? I believe > > someone in this thread was complaining that employees would be too busy > > making burritos to take their money.
>
> Not the employees, but the guy parked at the pump (and keeping you away > from the pump) who has disappeared into the store to get his snack.
> Have had that happen to me.

How would this be any different with self-serve?


From: Russell Senior (seniorr@no-spam)
Subject: Re: Oregon Gas
Date: 30 Jun 2003 16:36:36 -0700

>>>>> "clw" == clw <clw@no-spam> writes:

clw> Fine as long as there is not a price differential for either clw> technique.

In theory, but I suspect not in practice.
As soon as you create ambiguity about whether the attendant pumps or not, you create an incentive for the station to withhold service,
maybe gradually at first, but I think probably inexorably. The more inconvenient the station makes it for a driver to get service, the more likely the driver is going to "give up" and pump it themselves.
It will become a case of "competitive neglect".
The only way to hold drivers harmless under the new regime, would be to hire a large enforcement brigade, which is just silly.

That is _not_ a problem now, where stations compete partly on how good their service is. They don't have the flexibility to eliminate service, just delay it, which doesn't save them any money.

The current model works for just about everyone, except a group of vocal malcontents. Of all the things to get upset about, they choose this. Incredible!

-- Russell Senior ``shtal latta wos ba padre u prett tu nashtonfi seniorr@no-spam mrlosh'' -- Bashgali Kafir for ``If you have had diarrhoea many days you will surely die.''


From: "Dave Thompson" (dav13795@no-spam)
Subject: Re: Oregon Gas
Date: Mon, 30 Jun 2003 22:23:24 -0700

"Bill Shatzer" <bshatzer@no-spam> wrote in message news:Pine.LNX.4.44.0306301522010.17846-100000@no-spam >
>
>
>
> On Mon, 30 Jun 2003, Dave Thompson wrote:
>
> -snips-
>
> > Then why do we keep seeing people in this group whine that it would take > > longer for self-serve because you would have to go inside to pay? I believe > > someone in this thread was complaining that employees would be too busy > > making burritos to take their money. I can't say what Benny was responding > > to but I do know it's grating to read the same fallacious arguments used > > against self-serve that have been debunked long ago.
>
> Like Freddie Kruger returning for yet another Halloween movie, this > self-service gas issue re-appears periodically to much Sturm und > Drang and little light.
>
> The best argument against self-serve is that the majority of Oregonians > don't want it and are uninterested in trying it.

Of course you don't know this. It's been over fifteen years since it's been to a vote. Plenty of the technology has changed and more enlightened people from other states have moved here. I think this spells disaster to the mini-serve people and you don't like it one bit.

They simply see nothing > at all "in it" for them and no particular reason to change and many > reasons to stick with what they've got.
>
> At such time as the majority of Oregonians are of a different opinion,
> self-service will almost certainly be permitted.
>
> 'Til then, the self-serve advocates are mostly farting into > the wind. To about the same effect.

Speaking of flatulence - yours certainly is obvious.


From: Russell Senior (seniorr@no-spam)
Subject: Re: Oregon Gas
Date: 30 Jun 2003 23:00:05 -0700

>>>>> "Dave" == Dave Thompson <dav13795@no-spam> writes:

Dave> [...] Only there isn't a wait and there is no tip.

I really don't understand why you keep going to these lousy gas stations. At the station I usually go to, I get frequently get my windows washed and oil checked _and_ I don't wait for more than about 10 seconds for the attendant to walk over and put away the nozzle.

And I have _never_ in my life paid an attendant a tip. Where do you get these ideas?

-- Russell Senior ``shtal latta wos ba padre u prett tu nashtonfi seniorr@no-spam mrlosh'' -- Bashgali Kafir for ``If you have had diarrhoea many days you will surely die.''


From: "Baxter" (lbax01.spaminator@no-spam)
Subject: Re: Oregon Gas
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 07:38:14 -0700

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Paul Johnson" <baloo@no-spam> wrote in message news:8tgdt-ekb.ln1@no-spam > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> The Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:53:32 -0700, Baxter <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam>
wrote:
> >> Which one is it?
> >>
> > Why should I tell *you*, asshole?
>
> Which one is it? Your credability is hurting. Here's a chance to > keep it from getting worse.
>
You want to know? I'll answer. But not to Dave and Gatt.

Actually you've already got your answer.


From: "Dave Thompson" (dav13795@no-spam)
Subject: Re: Oregon Gas
Date: Thu, 3 Jul 2003 12:09:53 -0700

"Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message news:vg8fuo54vkl19d@no-spam > --
> -------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com > -------------------------------------------------------------------------
>
>
> "Paul Johnson" <baloo@no-spam> wrote in message > news:8tgdt-ekb.ln1@no-spam > > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> > Hash: SHA1
> >
> > The Wed, 2 Jul 2003 16:53:32 -0700, Baxter <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam>
> wrote:
> > >> Which one is it?
> > >>
> > > Why should I tell *you*, asshole?
> >
> > Which one is it? Your credability is hurting. Here's a chance to > > keep it from getting worse.
> >
> You want to know? I'll answer. But not to Dave and Gatt.

And what makes you think we won't read it? Sheesh you are one stupid idiot.

>
> Actually you've already got your answer.
>
>


From: "Baxter" (lbax01.spaminator@no-spam)
Subject: Re: Oregon Gas
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 08:42:34 -0700

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in message news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307040323050.28297@no-spam >
> Charlie wrote:
>
>
> > Fine, Dave, but what was the price differential between > > full and self serve? That is the usual reason people > > will struggle with self serve. Om Pasadena, CA it is > > about 50 cents per gallon.
>
>
> So much for curtis' claim that having a guy > pump it for you is "free".

Doesn't disprove curtis' claim at all. Just because the gas station charges 50 cents per gallon to pump it doesn't mean it cost that much to provide that service.


From: "Baxter" (lbax01.spaminator@no-spam)
Subject: Re: Oregon Gas
Date: Fri, 4 Jul 2003 13:24:25 -0700

--
-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Free software - Baxter Codeworks www.baxcode.com -------------------------------------------------------------------------

"Dave Thompson" <dav13795@no-spam> wrote in message news:vgbg5ffqkrrh39@no-spam >
> "Baxter" <lbax01.spaminator@no-spam> wrote in message > news:vgb83bicklk52d@no-spam > > --
> >
> > "Bob Tiernan" <zulu.pacifier.com@no-spam> wrote in message > > news:Pine.GSO.4.53MAILDIR.0307040323050.28297@no-spam > > >
> > > Charlie wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > > Fine, Dave, but what was the price differential between > > > > full and self serve? That is the usual reason people > > > > will struggle with self serve. Om Pasadena, CA it is > > > > about 50 cents per gallon.
> > >
> > >
> > > So much for curtis' claim that having a guy > > > pump it for you is "free".
> >
> > Doesn't disprove curtis' claim at all. Just because the gas station > charges > > 50 cents per gallon to pump it doesn't mean it cost that much to provide > > that service.
>
> It's called "profit". Do you work for free?
>
So, basically you're undermining your own argument about how self-serve would be cheaper.