From: "EXT" 
Newsgroups: 24hoursupport.helpdesk alt.home.cleaning aus.consumers misc.consumers.house
Subject: Re: Best vacuum without Dyson "claims"
Date: Wed, 31 Aug 2005 11:47:02 -0400


"Old Gringo"  wrote in message
news:jqiRe.1600$Kk1.1200@newssvr19.news.prodigy.com...
> Graham Saad wrote:
> > I've recently moved house into a place with hard timber floors. It's a
big
> > difference from my previous sprawling shag-pile covered place which had
> > compelled me to splash out on a new Dyson.
> >
> > Problem is, in the new environment, I just don't need it. It was a
fantastic
> > cleaner and picks up so much dirt and dust (and carpet fluff!), but it
> > scuffs my new floors when I'm not careful and seems like overkill given
the
> > task at hand. Accordingly, I'm planning on giving it to my mother (it'll
> > stop her from coming round to borrow it once a month) and downgrading to
> > something more suited to the task at hand.
> >
> > Can anyone recommend a decent mid-range vacuum cleaner? Only provisos
are
> > that it should be bagless (I'm a convert) and have decent performance on
&
> > not scuff, hard timber floors. All suggestions appreciated.
> >
> >
> Don't let advertising and price fool you, as a $59.00 Eureka will do
> exactly what a $500.00 Dyson does.  Good Luck in your search.

DYSON -- isn't that the one that uses 100,000 the force of gravity! That
means that the centrifugal force will make one gram of dirt weigh the
equivalent of 100,000 times heavier or 100 kilograms or 220 pounds -- an
excellent example of gross exaggeration in advertising. If I cannot believe
this statement what makes them think that I will believe an other statements
they make.