Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Hersbird
Brevity is the soul of wit.
|
Never claimed to be witty ... Brevity has never been a strength of mine.
If you think around ~430 words (about ~half a page in a book) to explain a concept .. is 'long winded' ...
... Than you and I ... have VERY different experiences and PoVs.
I don't know if you'd have made it through some of my long winded Professors at all
... I had one professor spend six 1 hour lectures going over just one of the pieces of the concept I described above.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile
There are only three possible explanations.
|
I'll add a 4th.
No bribe .. but the way the Australian laws , tax structure, etc ... were put together in Australia ... for the Australian Market ... it created a situation that caused the I1 to be thus penalized... Laws and law makers are not Omniscient .. they are not always able to foresee the consequences , loopholes, etc ... that result from the complicated system they produce.
Quote:
Originally Posted by oldtamiyaphile
Both cars were subject to the same taxes, duties etc.
|
Do you have proof of that?
Not just conjecture ... wishful thinking etc ... but actual evidence that there was no part of the Australian system ... not just taxes , but any law, etc... that effected the I1 more.
I'm personally applying Oakum's Razor ... Numerous other non-Austalian Markets did not see the I1 priced like it was in Australia ... this is true .. the one variable changed was taking the vehicle to sell in Australia .. without evidence to the contrary .. the simplest explanation is that it is Australia (the thing that changed) that is the cause (intentional or not) in the price difference.
- - - - - -
FYI ... I don't mind continuing to discuss it ... but .. I also don't mind just agreeing to dis-agree either... I don't expect everyone to share my PoV.