On Jun 23, 10:46 am, "DFS" <nospam@xxxxxxxx> wrote:
> wispygalaxy wrote:
> >
> > So you think that paying more for something guarantees better
> > quality?
>
> You're already a cola idiot,
Lol, I'm honored.
> putting words in my mouth.
I'm not putting anything in your mouth...
> > So, why did my little sister's Old Navy flip-flops last much
> > longer than her Abercrombie and Fitch flip-flops? She's not even
> > rough or careless with her shoes. She paid $35 for the A&F shoes and
> > only $2.50 for her Old Navy ones. The A&F flip flops broke two weeks
> > after she got them, and the strap snapped off. And her Old Navy flip
> > flops, which she bought a couple of years ago, are still sitting on
> > the shoe rack to this day.
>
> > I know I'm using shoes as an example, but you get the idea.
>
> The idea is you think your sample of one is meaningful. It's not.
It's just a story I had to show that you don't necessarily get what
you pay for. I have plenty more stories (from experience) about this
topic. As a result, the sample will grow. :) But, I don't feel like
boring you.
|
|
