4 ms·

For the sake of simplicity, let's assume the ticket is exactly $2500. It was earlier given that he has enough to buy it. But if he buys the $40 smartphone first

by 9rx 6mo ago

For the sake of simplicity, let's assume the ticket is exactly $2500. It was earlier given that he has enough to buy it. But if he buys the $40 smartphone first, then he only has $2460, which is less than $2500. Now he no longer has enough to buy the ticket. He can afford the ticket, or the smartphone, but not both. If not debt, where do you imagine the shortfall is going to be made up in order to buy both? Theft? Donation from you?

raw_anon_1111 6mo ago
And do you think he would not buy the season ticket if it were $40 more? When it goes up by $40 next year?
- 9rx 6mo ago
  > And do you think he would not buy the season ticket if it were $40 more? That is the implication in the link: That he will not be able to buy season tickets this year due to them costing $40 more than he anticipated. But if you are trying to suggest that he has bought the tickets already, then what on earth are we talking about?
  - raw_anon_1111 6mo ago
    The link has no such implication. It just says he doesn’t have a smart phone. Even if he survives solely off of social security, his COLA adjustment will be more than $40 a year
    - 9rx 6mo ago
      It says he cannot get tickets because, as we established, he needs to spend $40 more over the price of the ticket in order to facilitate the transaction. So, either: 1. He cannot get tickets because the cost of the ticket plus $40 exceeds his budget. 2. He can get tickets because $40 more is no big deal. The link asserting that he cannot get tickets implies #1. If he can get tickets then what are we even talking about?
      - raw_anon_1111 6mo ago
        We have established no such thing. The link in no way implies that he can’t afford a $40 smart phone, it just says he won’t get one. He’s been a season ticket holder for 50 years. What are the chances that he would stop if it costs $40 more?
        9rx 6mo ago
        > it just says he won’t get one. Right, because the cost blows his budget. If money was no object his personal assistant would already have the tickets purchased and would be busy putting the game schedule in his calendar. The only hurdle is cost, as always. > What are the chances that he would stop if it costs $40 more? Huh. There's that figure again. If is not established, why do we keep seeing this meaningless and baseless figure appear out of nowhere? Of course, it isn't meaningless or baseless. Contrary to your insistence all of a sudden, it was clearly established in a number of earlier comments as how much it would cost to be able to purchase the season tickets. And so the answer is the chances appear to be nil. Best I can tell, he chose to opt out of getting tickets over that $40. If it was all a ruse and he actually bought the tickets all along, then what are we even talking about?
        raw_anon_1111 6mo ago
        This is the sum total of what the article says > This 81 year old man is a lifelong Dodgers fan & has been a season pass holder for over 50 years & was just told that he would no longer be allowed to get printed tickets only digital from now on & he’s barely able to navigate a computer & phone.Dodgers aren’t replying to anyone. At no point did it say he couldn’t afford season tickets for the first time in 50 years because he couldn’t afford a cell phone. But now you are saying he can afford season tickets and a “personal assistant”, but a cell phone is a bridge too far? If the price of the season tickers had been x+$40 this year do you think he would have broken his 50 year streak? He opted out of getting tickets over learning how to “navigate a computer & phone”
        9rx 6mo ago

by 9rx 6mo ago

raw_anon_1111 6mo ago

And do you think he would not buy the season ticket if it were $40 more? When it goes up by $40 next year?

9rx 6mo ago
> And do you think he would not buy the season ticket if it were $40 more? That is the implication in the link: That he will not be able to buy season tickets this year due to them costing $40 more than he anticipated. But if you are trying to suggest that he has bought the tickets already, then what on earth are we talking about?
- raw_anon_1111 6mo ago
  The link has no such implication. It just says he doesn’t have a smart phone. Even if he survives solely off of social security, his COLA adjustment will be more than $40 a year
  - 9rx 6mo ago
    It says he cannot get tickets because, as we established, he needs to spend $40 more over the price of the ticket in order to facilitate the transaction. So, either: 1. He cannot get tickets because the cost of the ticket plus $40 exceeds his budget. 2. He can get tickets because $40 more is no big deal. The link asserting that he cannot get tickets implies #1. If he can get tickets then what are we even talking about?
    - raw_anon_1111 6mo ago
      We have established no such thing. The link in no way implies that he can’t afford a $40 smart phone, it just says he won’t get one. He’s been a season ticket holder for 50 years. What are the chances that he would stop if it costs $40 more?
      - 9rx 6mo ago
        > it just says he won’t get one. Right, because the cost blows his budget. If money was no object his personal assistant would already have the tickets purchased and would be busy putting the game schedule in his calendar. The only hurdle is cost, as always. > What are the chances that he would stop if it costs $40 more? Huh. There's that figure again. If is not established, why do we keep seeing this meaningless and baseless figure appear out of nowhere? Of course, it isn't meaningless or baseless. Contrary to your insistence all of a sudden, it was clearly established in a number of earlier comments as how much it would cost to be able to purchase the season tickets. And so the answer is the chances appear to be nil. Best I can tell, he chose to opt out of getting tickets over that $40. If it was all a ruse and he actually bought the tickets all along, then what are we even talking about?
        raw_anon_1111 6mo ago
        This is the sum total of what the article says > This 81 year old man is a lifelong Dodgers fan & has been a season pass holder for over 50 years & was just told that he would no longer be allowed to get printed tickets only digital from now on & he’s barely able to navigate a computer & phone.Dodgers aren’t replying to anyone. At no point did it say he couldn’t afford season tickets for the first time in 50 years because he couldn’t afford a cell phone. But now you are saying he can afford season tickets and a “personal assistant”, but a cell phone is a bridge too far? If the price of the season tickers had been x+$40 this year do you think he would have broken his 50 year streak? He opted out of getting tickets over learning how to “navigate a computer & phone”
        9rx 6mo ago