"Pete C" wrote in message
...
On Fri, 27 Aug 2004 17:54:18 +0100, "Mary Fisher"
wrote:


"Ian Stirling" wrote in message
...
Mary Fisher wrote:

Buying on lowest price alone is not generally a good idea - but neither
is buying solely on highest price.

Agreed. I didn't say that it was - I said that food was the last thing to
economise on.

Quality is more important than price no matter what.

We - the Fishers - will economise on clothes, car, leisure activities and
almost anything you can think of - but not food and drink. Eating and
drinkiing well is far more important to us than anything else, we spend a
lot of time on it and it is, after all, what makes us.

Hi,

You probably don't economise on food because you can afford not to.

Our income is far less than the national average.

I'd rather eat cheaper food than shiver in the winter because the
heating is too low,

You can put on more clothing, as we do.

I'd even eat cheaper food than have poor bedding

?

and seating and end up with permanent back pain.

We only sit at the table, at mealtimes - and at the computer. Our other
chairs are redundant except for family occasions.

As for quality getting the last 5% of quality available can be quite
expensive and not always necessary.

Not if you grow/make your own and buy direct rather than making more profits
for the already rich.

Mary