this guy is a net troll, he's using at least (6) other usernames,
killfile him ASAP, below is his posting history

http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?enc_author=aLo_UhMAAACqeZKH24Ly4UNtt449SfjF WMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww


see the link above, he is using
at least (10) other usernames on Usenet, they include


MARCO R
ROBERT J. KOLKER
ROBERT MORIEN
NEWPS
ASK A DIFFERENT
ROBERT KOLKER
EARL KIOSTERUD
therefore, he has no credibility- merely another net troll

Actually I figured it out. When I bought my computer and set it up I
pulled right out of my ass. No doubt others have too.



wrote:

> this guy is a net troll, he's using at least (6) other usernames,
> killfile him ASAP, below is his posting history
>
> http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?enc_author=aLo_UhMAAACqeZKH24Ly4UNtt449SfjF WMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww
>
>
> see the link above, he is using
> at least (10) other usernames on Usenet, they include
>
>
> MARCO R
> ROBERT J. KOLKER
> ROBERT MORIEN
> NEWPS
> ASK A DIFFERENT
> ROBERT KOLKER
> EARL KIOSTERUD
> therefore, he has no credibility- merely another net troll
>

wrote:
> this guy is a net troll, he's using at least (6) other usernames,
> killfile him ASAP, below is his posting history
>
>
http://groups-beta.google.com/groups?enc_author=aLo_UhMAAACqeZKH24Ly4UNtt449SfjF WMj6vob75xS36mXc24h6ww
>
>
> see the link above, he is using
> at least (10) other usernames on Usenet, they include
>
>
> MARCO R
> ROBERT J. KOLKER
> ROBERT MORIEN
> NEWPS
> ASK A DIFFERENT
> ROBERT KOLKER
> EARL KIOSTERUD
> therefore, he has no credibility- merely another net troll

Two comments.

1. The poster you replied to is NEWPS. He's not a troll and is
pretty well known here on the rec.aviation groups. He uses the fake
return address of to avoid spam, as do many other
people. Google assumes that everyone using that return address is the
same person. You appear to have jumped to the wrong conclusion in this
case.

2. The post that you replied to was posted on June 10th, 2003. The
thread has been dead since Jun 12, 2003. Why are you ranting about a
poster's credibility on a thread that is over 1 1/2 yrs. old?

I see that you've posted this same goofy crap all over usenet. You
seriously need to buy a clue.

John Galban=====>N4BQ (PA28-180)

Mitch wrote:
> Kevin, Newps, Cory:
> Thank you for your help.
>
> I've been to FBO's that sell autogas. It seems to cost more than the

> local gas station, and should be getting state road tax back. I
imagine
> the fuel concession is marking it up considerably. I've also been
> concerned about the gas getting old as most FBOs don't seem to
turn-over
> their cargas very fast.

Of course it would cost more. The gas station down the street would go
out of business pretty quick if they sold the amount of gas the FBO
does.

"Robert M. Gary" > wrote in message
oups.com...

> Of course it would cost more. The gas station down the street would go
> out of business pretty quick if they sold the amount of gas the FBO
> does.

Actually most gas stations these days don't make their money selling gas,
they make it selling cigarettes, lottery tickets, and twinkies. That's where
the margin is- gas is often sold quite close to cost.

Movie theaters aren't much different. A friend of a friend owns a theater,
and he says that popcorn and soda is where his profits come from. Ticket
sales just barely cover the costs of showing the movie.

-cwk.

Colin W Kingsbury wrote:
>
> Actually most gas stations these days don't make their money selling gas,
> they make it selling cigarettes, lottery tickets, and twinkies. That's where
> the margin is- gas is often sold quite close to cost.

This was also the case back in the 60s, only they made their money from
maintenance work back then. I worked for a few years at an Esso station. The
owner took the prize several years in a row for the most gas sold, yet he told
me that he barely broke even on gas sales.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

Colin W Kingsbury wrote:
> Actually most gas stations these days don't make their money selling
> gas, they make it selling cigarettes, lottery tickets, and twinkies.
> That's where the margin is- gas is often sold quite close to cost.
>

> -cwk.

That's a story I keep hearing but if it were true why have 99.9% of gas
stations gone to the pay-at-the-pump? Seems to me if you have to go inside
to pay for your gas you are much more likely to pick up a snack or soda
while you are in there.

Allen

Allen > wrote:
> Colin W Kingsbury wrote:
> > Actually most gas stations these days don't make their money selling
> > gas, they make it selling cigarettes, lottery tickets, and twinkies.
> > That's where the margin is- gas is often sold quite close to cost.
> >

> > -cwk.

> That's a story I keep hearing but if it were true why have 99.9% of gas
> stations gone to the pay-at-the-pump? Seems to me if you have to go inside
> to pay for your gas you are much more likely to pick up a snack or soda
> while you are in there.

> Allen

Labor cost for gas goes to zero, lots of people still go in to grab
something while the tank fills.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

wrote:


>
>
> Labor cost for gas goes to zero,

Labor cost has been zero since the late 70's.



lots of people still go in to grab
> something while the tank fills.
>

But there's less of them because of the pay at the pump.

Newps wrote:
>
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> > Labor cost for gas goes to zero,
>
> Labor cost has been zero since the late 70's.

They still have to pay the checkout people, and if you have to pay inside, they
have to have more cashiers and registers.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

"Newps" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> >
> > Labor cost for gas goes to zero,
>
> Labor cost has been zero since the late 70's.
>
>
>
> lots of people still go in to grab
> > something while the tank fills.
> >
>
> But there's less of them because of the pay at the pump.

I guess he means for the guy behind the counter to swipe your card and tear
apart the receipts ;) . The last time I had my gas pumped for me was in the
late 70's in Idaho at a farmers Co-Op. Around here (central Texas) it is
highly frowned upon to be filling your tank while you are in the store
buying snacks, as he suggests.

Allen

Newps > wrote:


> wrote:


> >
> >
> > Labor cost for gas goes to zero,

> Labor cost has been zero since the late 70's.

Not if someone has to take the credit card/money; you only get to zero
labor with pay at the pump.

> lots of people still go in to grab
> > something while the tank fills.
> >

> But there's less of them because of the pay at the pump.

Probably. Everything in life is a tradeoff.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

G.R. Patterson III wrote:

>
> Newps wrote:
>
wrote:
>>
>>
>>>
>>>Labor cost for gas goes to zero,
>>
>>Labor cost has been zero since the late 70's.
>
>
> They still have to pay the checkout people, and if you have to pay inside, they
> have to have more cashiers and registers.

He was talking about people pumping gas. Except for a couple of moronic
states that don't allow self serv fuel I see the same number of workers
inside as I always have.

Newps > wrote:


> G.R. Patterson III wrote:

> >
> > Newps wrote:
> >
> wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>>
> >>>Labor cost for gas goes to zero,
> >>
> >>Labor cost has been zero since the late 70's.
> >
> >
> > They still have to pay the checkout people, and if you have to pay inside, they
> > have to have more cashiers and registers.

> He was talking about people pumping gas. Except for a couple of moronic
> states that don't allow self serv fuel I see the same number of workers
> inside as I always have.

No, I was talking about the extra cashier(s) you have to have if the
station doesn't have pay at the pump.

Around here the traditional 3-6 pump stations are fading away and being
replaced with mini-marts that have 6-15 automated pumps. When the pay at
the pump stuff fails, they become chaotic because they don't have enough
staff.

--
Jim Pennino

Remove -spam-sux to reply.

Newps wrote:
>
> He was talking about people pumping gas.

I certainly didn't take it that way.

> Except for a couple of moronic
> states that don't allow self serv fuel I see the same number of workers
> inside as I always have.

I live in one of those States, but I'm originally from Tennessee and return for
visits. When I travel south, I tend to stop at the same places for gas every
trip. In those stations, over half of the registers have been replaced with
counter displays since the pay-at-the-pump schemes came in.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Newps wrote:
> >
> > He was talking about people pumping gas.
>
> I certainly didn't take it that way.
>
> > Except for a couple of moronic
> > states that don't allow self serv fuel I see the same number of workers
> > inside as I always have.
>
> I live in one of those States, but I'm originally from Tennessee and
return for
> visits. When I travel south, I tend to stop at the same places for gas
every
> trip. In those stations, over half of the registers have been replaced
with
> counter displays since the pay-at-the-pump schemes came in.


Which just goes to prove that not as many people go inside to buy snacks. I
always thought the pay-at-the-pump stores were shooting themselves in the
foot!

Allen

Allen wrote:
>
> Which just goes to prove that not as many people go inside to buy snacks.

No, it just shows that not as many people go inside. They may be selling just as
many snacks as ever, as far as I know.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

"G.R. Patterson III" > wrote in message
...
>
>
> Allen wrote:
> >
> > Which just goes to prove that not as many people go inside to buy
snacks.
>
> No, it just shows that not as many people go inside. They may be selling
just as
> many snacks as ever, as far as I know.
>

I guess that may answer the obese American syndrome, the same amount of
snacks being eaten by fewer customers :) .

Allen

Allen wrote:
>
> I guess that may answer the obese American syndrome, the same amount of
> snacks being eaten by fewer customers :) .

You still don't get it. There could be just as many snacks customers as there
were before the on-pump readers were installed. Many of the people who used to
buy gas and pay for it inside aren't going inside anymore.

Personally, I would agree that they *probably* don't sell as much. I don't
happen to be an "impulse buyer" myself, so they aren't selling fewer snacks
because *I* shop outside, but I've read that many Americans are. I just disagree
that the decrease in registers is proof that this is the case.

George Patterson
The desire for safety stands against every great and noble enterprise.

wrote:


>
>
> No, I was talking about the extra cashier(s) you have to have if the
> station doesn't have pay at the pump.
>
> Around here the traditional 3-6 pump stations are fading away and being
> replaced with mini-marts that have 6-15 automated pumps. When the pay at
> the pump stuff fails, they become chaotic because they don't have enough
> staff.

I live in a relatively small town(100,000). All the gas stations here
simply added the pay at the pump onto the existing pumps. They didn't
add pumps or change the rest of the gas station in any way. Nobody is
building the big mini marts that are common in big cities. There's
still the same number of cash registers at each station, usually two.