Petrol
Terry
touch with a few things.
Such as, how much is the cost of a Gallon/Litre of unleaded these
days?. Over here, it's $1.35, roughly .85p a gallon.
Off topic, what's the cost of, say, 20 Embassy King size cigarettes?
TIA
Terry
Simon Worby
a gallon. LRP is about 3.78 a gallon.
No idea about the "high street" price of fags. In the boat they cost 2 quid
a packet.
Hope this helps.
Simon Worby
Mudge
>Terry <terr...@uswest.net> wrote:
>> Hi, As a Brit who's now lived in the States for over a year, I've lost
>> touch with a few things.
>> Such as, how much is the cost of a Gallon/Litre of unleaded these
>> days?. Over here, it's $1.35, roughly .85p a gallon.
>>
>> Off topic, what's the cost of, say, 20 Embassy King size cigarettes?
>
Simon Worby wrote in message
<954062326.4240.0...@news.demon.co.uk>...
>Unleaded is around 80p / litre, that's about 3.65 GBP. Leaded is about 4.40
>a gallon. LRP is about 3.78 a gallon.
>
>No idea about the "high street" price of fags. In the boat they cost 2 quid
>a packet.
>
A packet of top brand fags on the high street is now after the latest tax
rise around £4.15. Hardly surprising that 25% of fags smoked in the country
are bootlegged - rising to 50% in poorer areas - and the tax take from
tobacco duty has fallen by 25% despite higher rates of duty. 80% of
hand-rolling tobacco is bootlegged.
Pity you can't smuggle petrol so easily.
Mudge (a non smoker)
"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing"
...Edmund Burke
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
http://members.tripod.co.uk/Curmudgeon/
Simon Worby
You can buy leaded from a number of outlets. See
http://www.bayfordthrust.co.uk. (I have no link at all with this company.)
We can get it at a station just down the road.
Simon Worby
John Wright <jo...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> Ahem.... you can't actually buy leaded petrol from most filling
> stations any more. Are you thinking of super unleaded?
Simon Worby
Simon Worby
John Wright <jo...@nospam.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> You missed the word "most". And please learn to post the right way up.
Simon Worby
> You're supposed to put your response below the bit you are quoting.
>
> Dave
Dave,
My reply was more along the lines of "Who the hell do you think you are?"
rather than a lack of understanding.
Personally I find up-side down replies easier because then I don't need to
scroll down to read them. I'm unlikely to remember to reply this way up,
especially as I've only had one complaint so far.
Surely it's what you do, not how you do it? What really is rude in my book
is posting aggressive replies with an unproven assumption that someone
didn't read a former post.
I was just shocked by John's response. No, I didn't make a mistake (since
when does Super Unleaded costs 4.40?) as he thought, so he decided to have a
go at me on something else. An interestig approach, but not one I favour.
Simon Worby
Ade Vickers
+0100 in uk.transport:
> Dave {Reply Address in.sig} <no...@llondel.demon.co.uk> wrote:
> > You're supposed to put your response below the bit you are quoting.
> >
> > Dave
>
> Dave,
>
> My reply was more along the lines of "Who the hell do you think you are?"
> rather than a lack of understanding.
OK. I'll be polite. 3 polite responses must be something of a record for
uk.transport...
>
> Personally I find up-side down replies easier because then I don't need to
> scroll down to read them. I'm unlikely to remember to reply this way up,
> especially as I've only had one complaint so far.
Consider this the 3rd. The best feature of replying *underneath* the
quoted text is context: You can reply to each portion of a post
individually. Which makes it easier for the person you reply to to read
your response in context with what they wrote. And it allows someone to
jump in and only reply to a part of the post, retaining all of the
context.
Also, it looks better.
And it's an established Usenet standard.
> Surely it's what you do, not how you do it? What really is rude in my book
> is posting aggressive replies with an unproven assumption that someone
> didn't read a former post.
Rude? Consider yourself lucky you weren't flamed from here to kingdom
come.
> I was just shocked by John's response. No, I didn't make a mistake (since
> when does Super Unleaded costs 4.40?) as he thought, so he decided to have a
> go at me on something else. An interestig approach, but not one I favour.
Super was more expensive than 4* before 4* was largely discontinued.
89.9pence/litre was the most recent price I saw it at (i.e. about
GBP4.04/gal), and that was several months ago - at least one budget, and
possibly two.
I also recall a recent thread in this group about petrol at
100pence/litre (about GBP4.50/gal); although I don't know what mix that
was.
--
Cheers,
Ade.
If at first you fail, cheat. Repeat until caught, then lie.
Simon Worby
> I thought I was being fairly polite - wait till you get properly
> flamed and you might appreciate how polite I am, especially on this ng
> which has a reputation for being, err... slightly robust. (I am only
> intentionally rude to Duhg). My first response did say "most places"
> since I know you can get 4* in specialist places. I wasn't having a go
> at you, unless it was about posting at the top.
Whatever pleases you. I was just surprised at the response.
Any I'm fairly robust, too. Others may have just chickened out completely.
As for being flamed. Have you seem how many people post "upside down". I
hope you've got at least 25 hours in the day so you can flame all of them...
Simon Worby
Simon Worby
> OK. I'll be polite. 3 polite responses must be something of a record for
> uk.transport...
Actually most of the time it is polite. I, for one, won't indulge in
personal criticism.
> Consider this the 3rd. The best feature of replying *underneath* the
> quoted text is context: You can reply to each portion of a post
> individually. Which makes it easier for the person you reply to to read
> your response in context with what they wrote. And it allows someone to
> jump in and only reply to a part of the post, retaining all of the
> context.
I do a mixture, just to make things difficult.
> Also, it looks better.
Red trousers are better than purple.
> And it's an established Usenet standard.
Fine, drowning witches was acceptable in the UK in the middle ages. Time
changes everything.
> Rude? Consider yourself lucky you weren't flamed from here to kingdom
> come.
I hope you've got enough time to flame everyone that posts "upside down". I
haven't.
> Super was more expensive than 4* before 4* was largely discontinued.
> 89.9pence/litre was the most recent price I saw it at (i.e. about
> GBP4.04/gal), and that was several months ago - at least one budget, and
> possibly two.
Correct, but we were asked about prices *now*.
Regards,
Simon Worby
Ade Vickers
+0100 in uk.transport:
> Ade Vickers <nos...@toolsbase.com> wrote:
> > OK. I'll be polite. 3 polite responses must be something of a record for
> > uk.transport...
>
> Actually most of the time it is polite. I, for one, won't indulge in
> personal criticism.
That rather depends on who's posting, it must be said. I try to keep
level headed, but Duhg sometimes wrecks that...
> > Also, it looks better.
>
> Red trousers are better than purple.
That may be true, but blue trousers are better than both.
>
> > And it's an established Usenet standard.
>
> Fine, drowning witches was acceptable in the UK in the middle ages. Time
> changes everything.
Yeah. I doubt Nutscrape and Internet Exploder have the power to topple
the *n*x empire, however.
>
> > Rude? Consider yourself lucky you weren't flamed from here to kingdom
> > come.
>
> I hope you've got enough time to flame everyone that posts "upside down". I
> haven't.
No, generally not. Generally, I don't bother. Sometimes, however, it
seems to be worthwhile.
> > Super was more expensive than 4* before 4* was largely discontinued.
> > 89.9pence/litre was the most recent price I saw it at (i.e. about
> > GBP4.04/gal), and that was several months ago - at least one budget, and
> > possibly two.
>
>Correct, but we were asked about prices *now*.
Well, what are they then? I haven't looked at the price of UL (so called
"Premium") or SUL, or even LRP for a few weeks. Has it gone up much since
early Feb?
John Turton
>> And it's an established Usenet standard.
>
>Fine, drowning witches was acceptable in the UK in the middle ages. Time
>changes everything.
Yes but hopefully not for the worse.
Upside down posters are virtually always Microsofters and/or
newbies. Try not to tar yourself.
--
John Turton <john.sh...@btinternet.com> PGP Key available
CB450 (Battle scarred) | CB600Hornet (Speedy Banana)
Vs lbh'er ernqvat guvf, lbh ernyyl bhtug gb trg bhg zber
KingsX4970
nos...@toolsbase.com (Ade Vickers) wrote:
>>Correct, but we were asked about prices *now*.
>
>Well, what are they then? I haven't looked at the price of UL
(so called
>"Premium") or SUL, or even LRP for a few weeks. Has it gone up
much since
>early Feb?
>
>
Are you kidding? I found unleaded at 77.9 in Sheffield last
week, a whole 3 or 4p a litre cheaper than in London. In
February, 77.9 was motoway ripoff prices....
IanB
* Sent from RemarQ http://www.remarq.com The Internet's Discussion Network *
The fastest and easiest way to search and participate in Usenet - Free!