Fuel quality control standards for aircraft rental/fuel sales...

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...5xS36mXc24h6ww


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...5xS36mXc24h6ww


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...5xS36mXc24h6ww


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.