--- Paul Wakfer <paul@...> wrote:
> Erich Brueschke wrote:
>
> >> [Finally, I have been searching for years for a blender that will
> >> live up to its sales literature and will both blend my 4 days worth
> >> of very thick smoothie, with an end volume of about 7 cups or 1700 ml,
> >> without needing to have the smoothie divided into two parts for the
> >> final blend and without burning out the motor within two years. I
> >> have often thought that my smoothie should be used by all blender
> >> manufacturers as the ultimate test of their blenders. --Paul]
> >
> >
> > I know you go for the cheapest,
>
> Erich,
>
> Not trying to be contentious I would really like to know how you got
> the impression that I "go for the cheapest", because while it depends
> a lot on the purpose of what I am purchasing, this is actually not
> generally the case at all. Early in my youth, I learned the value of
> saving my money and purchasing quality products that would be highly
> functional while lasting many years. This was clearly the most
> rational choice since the cost per year of usage would be the same or
> less than a lower quality product and during all those years one would
> have a more functional product.
Sorry Paul, I meant no offense. A poor choice of words on my part. I should
have said "you go for the least expensive that gets the jobs done for you."
>
> At the age of 12 in 1950, I spent $110 (a huge sum in those days) of
> money that I had saved from a variety of after school and weekend work
> to purchase a very high quality self-winding watch that I wore daily for
> the next 40+ years, by which time is was too worn to self-wind and parts
> to fix it were no longer available. I still have that watch among my
> keepsakes and it will still keep time well if I wind it. I have always
> taken the same approach to cars, car batteries and tires and most other
> functional purchases.
>
> It is only for products that go out of fashion quickly, have appearance
> as a major part of their price or are quickly superceeded by
> functionally better ones (much electronic equipment) that I do not buy
> the higher priced ones.
>
> > but I have used for sometime (more
> > than 5 years) the following blender with excellent results:
> > http://www.blendtec.com/productDetails.aspx?id=27. It this very
> > powerful and can handle anything. Turns anything edible into a smooth
> > mixture in very short order. -Erich
>
>
> It certainly looks like it would do the job. However, it costs over 8
> times as much as the blenders that I have been using so far. Since my
> blenders last at least two years, this means that I currently spend that
> much on blenders only over a minimum of a 16 year period. So unless the
> difference in time/hasssle saving is substantial (which I don't think
> it would be) it simply is not worth that much money. This is particularly
> the case since I would need to have 2 such blenders, one for each of
> my current 6 month locations. Because it would be more time convenient
> (causing less hassle/more happiness, and enabling me to have more time
> for activities engendering more overall happiness), I would buy such a
> blender if I had more assets and income. However, as I have described
> before, with our current assets, meager income and little opportunity
> for more unless we sacrifice our time spent on more overall important
> activities (as we evaluate them), I and Kitty simply cannot afford such
> things. When I was making a lot more money in the computer business
> (during the 80's) and previously in my life, then I did purchase several
> things with higher functional and enjoyment quality because of the
> quality of life they provided, but since 1991 my income has been very
> low and my assets drained/spent on lost causes, so I can no longer
> take this approach.
>
> --Paul
>
________________________________________________________________________________\
____
Be a better Globetrotter. Get better travel answers from someone who knows.
Yahoo! Answers - Check it out.
http://answers.yahoo.com/dir/?link=list&sid=396545469