MORE than expensive - outrageous!
#151
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
You just continue to amuse me.
You'd rather invent major conspiracy theories rather than accept reality.
You made choices, and now you are pretending it was all decided for you and
you are a poor victim. You enjoy that, being a "victim". I can understand
that, you need someone to blame.
You have choices. You did not have to buy the part,you did, you could have
taken it to another mechanic, you did not, you could have just not repaired
it and got rid of the car, you did not, you could have done many things, but
you did not, you CHOSE to buy the part, you CHOSE to "not to tick off the
mechanic", because to you it was WORTH IT to you to have your car fixed
there and then. This is how economy works and you just JUSTIFIED the cost of
the part buy BUYING it. You can say anything you want, but that WAS YOUR
CHOICE and you took it. If it was too expensive, you would have chosen
otherwise. You are not a baby, take some responsibility for your actions.
Your only justification for the this "outragious" cost was an "analysis"
(your word, not mine) that was so absurd, I had to forward it to my friends
to share the laugh. And now you keep blatantly ignoring your own facts and
keep clinging to this "victimhood" It's your business, but it sounds like a
crappy way to live your life.
Now you say that the part is not available any cheaper - well ask yourself
why? Think hard. If someone can really make it for $27, as you claim, why
aren't they? Why not start a business and sell them for $60 and make a 50%+
profit??? Hell, you can sell it for $100 and still be at 1/2 the price of
the dealer? Maybe you won't have to drive a 22 year old car anymore?
And that "companies just write that off"??? What exactly does "writing it
off" means? Just because you "write it off" does not mean money magically
re-appears in your pocket. You still need to keep a margin high enough to
stay in business and recoup the costs of operation??
You still refuse to see that had it be any other maker, it would have been
just the same (except much less likeley that it would have made it to 22
years in the first place, but that is irrelevant)
In short:
Your analysis of the cost - bullshit
You say you had no choice - bullshit
You say honda ripped you off - bullshit
You say age of a component does not affect it's probability of failure -
well that's basic probability they teach in school - again bullshit.
You say you just do not accept what anyone else say, well that's bullshit of
a whole new veriety. You have no credibility for anything you say and
whether you accept it or not, it won't change the facts
Believe what you will. Whatever delusion makes you happy.
-M
"expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
news:310720031150519186%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
>
> Max:
>
> You're right, I don't have towing coverage. I drive an old car and I
> know that I will have to be towed every now and again, maybe once every
> decade. I keep $100 in a strategic place in the car just for that
> purpose. But, remember, I have the work done that needs to be done.
> The car is in perfect mechanical condition, at last as perfect as it
> can be for it's mileage. My insurance is to tell the mechanic at oil
> change time to sniff out anything that detracts from safety and
> reliability. This time, I remember sitting in the car waiting for the
> tow truck thinking that this was the first time that this car had been
> on the hook, so my strategy works.
>
> Your statement that "things are worth what people are willing to pay
> for them" is good for discretionary purchases. But an igniter is not a
> discretionary purchase. The car doesn't work without it and I needed
> one now, not after trying to beat my mechanic's price and ticking him
> off. It's a bit like the television ad where the tow truck drives up
> and the stranded motorist asks the tow truck driver for his
> competitor's rates. It just doesn't happen.
>
> For your information, after the car was repaired, I drove to an auto
> parts store and asked their price. $266. The dealer part actually had
> a lower price! Go figure. My mechanic said that the same part for
> later models was half or less than the one I hadda have.
>
> I reject the notion that "You are just bitter you had something break
> on you, even though it happened after 22 years of use (and all things
> considered, did not cost that much.)." As I said before, it has
> 110,000 miles on it, not 22 years. If a car is used every few days and
> is maintained properly, then time is irrelevant except for paint and
> upholstery and other things that succumb to UV degradation and rust.
>
> You say that "the cost of that part is not the just the cost of the
> materials and manufacturing - it's the millions of dollars that went
> into the design." Sorry, I don't agree with you. Companies write off
> the expenses you refer to in the year of manufacture. The subsequent
> cost of parts for replacement purposes is more in line with the actual
> cost of producing the part and putting it through the distribution
> chain.
>
> If there is any residual cost like the one to which you refer, then it
> is the "designing" (meaning scheming) costs of management trying to
> figure out how to take advantage of their customers who break down and
> have to get the part. This is not a part that the dealer mechanic
> looks at during routine maintenance and tells you that it looks worn
> out or is in jeopardy of failing and needs to be replaced. It ain't
> that kinda animal. The only reason anyone needs the $193 (for a $27)
> part is because of a breakdown. They have their customers over a
> barrel on this one. And they really stick it to them. There IS no $60
> aftermarket part.
>
> -
>
> In article <yg2Wa.6852$dk4.317025@typhoon.sonic.net>, Max
> <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > > I reject your analysis. It's a derivative of my comparison, which
> > > doubles any error. As a matter of fact, the part has a steel plate on
> > > the bottom, steel sleeves, and several metal electrodes and
connectors,
> > > not to mention having been filled/sealed with some sort of resin. My
> > > comparison is just fine, thank you. Even a 50% error still makes the
> > > part outrageously expensive.
> >
> > LOL. You REALLY missed the point. Sense of humor and sarcasm are clearly
too
> > expensive for your taste as well. :-)
> >
> > > Apple computers are great. A lot of people who work with IBM
> > > compatibles go home to Macs. Very few people who work with Macs go
> > > home to an IBM compatible. I like 'em. I've never used an IBM
> > > compatible, mainly because I see my friends struggle with them. No
> > > thanks.
> >
> > So it is ok for Apple to "rip you off" because you like them? How
> > hypocritical of you.
> >
> > Look, in all seriousness, things are worth what people are willing to
pay
> > for them. You are willing to pay $2400 for a computer even though a
> > comprable machine can be bought for half the cost, because you like it
> > better. It has nothing to do with size or weight. My company produces
> > software that weighs nothing (ok, you can count weight of the CD we
could
> > theoretically put it on) and we sell it for millions of dollars - and we
> > have buyers because they believe it is worth it. If $200 part was not
worth
> > it to you, you should have bought the $60 aftermarket part and installed
it
> > yourself. You had a choice, but you paid for it, which means it was
worth it
> > to you at the time. Do not kid yourself, this has NOTHING to do with
Honda
> > or any other car maker. You are just bitter you had something break on
you,
> > even though it happened after 22 years of use (and all things
considered,
> > did not cost that much.) You are bitter you did not have towing
coverage.
> > But get over yourself, cuz happens. The bottom line is that if your
car
> > was of any other make, it would have been a similar price. This has
nothing
> > to do with Honda. I am sure Honda's prices are not any different that
any
> > other maker. And yes, the dealer parts will always cost more than
> > aftermarket parts, because for them the cost of that part is not the
just
> > the cost of the materials and manufacturing - it's the millions of
dollars
> > that went into the design. Grow up and take some responsibility.
> >
> > -M
You'd rather invent major conspiracy theories rather than accept reality.
You made choices, and now you are pretending it was all decided for you and
you are a poor victim. You enjoy that, being a "victim". I can understand
that, you need someone to blame.
You have choices. You did not have to buy the part,you did, you could have
taken it to another mechanic, you did not, you could have just not repaired
it and got rid of the car, you did not, you could have done many things, but
you did not, you CHOSE to buy the part, you CHOSE to "not to tick off the
mechanic", because to you it was WORTH IT to you to have your car fixed
there and then. This is how economy works and you just JUSTIFIED the cost of
the part buy BUYING it. You can say anything you want, but that WAS YOUR
CHOICE and you took it. If it was too expensive, you would have chosen
otherwise. You are not a baby, take some responsibility for your actions.
Your only justification for the this "outragious" cost was an "analysis"
(your word, not mine) that was so absurd, I had to forward it to my friends
to share the laugh. And now you keep blatantly ignoring your own facts and
keep clinging to this "victimhood" It's your business, but it sounds like a
crappy way to live your life.
Now you say that the part is not available any cheaper - well ask yourself
why? Think hard. If someone can really make it for $27, as you claim, why
aren't they? Why not start a business and sell them for $60 and make a 50%+
profit??? Hell, you can sell it for $100 and still be at 1/2 the price of
the dealer? Maybe you won't have to drive a 22 year old car anymore?
And that "companies just write that off"??? What exactly does "writing it
off" means? Just because you "write it off" does not mean money magically
re-appears in your pocket. You still need to keep a margin high enough to
stay in business and recoup the costs of operation??
You still refuse to see that had it be any other maker, it would have been
just the same (except much less likeley that it would have made it to 22
years in the first place, but that is irrelevant)
In short:
Your analysis of the cost - bullshit
You say you had no choice - bullshit
You say honda ripped you off - bullshit
You say age of a component does not affect it's probability of failure -
well that's basic probability they teach in school - again bullshit.
You say you just do not accept what anyone else say, well that's bullshit of
a whole new veriety. You have no credibility for anything you say and
whether you accept it or not, it won't change the facts
Believe what you will. Whatever delusion makes you happy.
-M
"expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
news:310720031150519186%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
>
> Max:
>
> You're right, I don't have towing coverage. I drive an old car and I
> know that I will have to be towed every now and again, maybe once every
> decade. I keep $100 in a strategic place in the car just for that
> purpose. But, remember, I have the work done that needs to be done.
> The car is in perfect mechanical condition, at last as perfect as it
> can be for it's mileage. My insurance is to tell the mechanic at oil
> change time to sniff out anything that detracts from safety and
> reliability. This time, I remember sitting in the car waiting for the
> tow truck thinking that this was the first time that this car had been
> on the hook, so my strategy works.
>
> Your statement that "things are worth what people are willing to pay
> for them" is good for discretionary purchases. But an igniter is not a
> discretionary purchase. The car doesn't work without it and I needed
> one now, not after trying to beat my mechanic's price and ticking him
> off. It's a bit like the television ad where the tow truck drives up
> and the stranded motorist asks the tow truck driver for his
> competitor's rates. It just doesn't happen.
>
> For your information, after the car was repaired, I drove to an auto
> parts store and asked their price. $266. The dealer part actually had
> a lower price! Go figure. My mechanic said that the same part for
> later models was half or less than the one I hadda have.
>
> I reject the notion that "You are just bitter you had something break
> on you, even though it happened after 22 years of use (and all things
> considered, did not cost that much.)." As I said before, it has
> 110,000 miles on it, not 22 years. If a car is used every few days and
> is maintained properly, then time is irrelevant except for paint and
> upholstery and other things that succumb to UV degradation and rust.
>
> You say that "the cost of that part is not the just the cost of the
> materials and manufacturing - it's the millions of dollars that went
> into the design." Sorry, I don't agree with you. Companies write off
> the expenses you refer to in the year of manufacture. The subsequent
> cost of parts for replacement purposes is more in line with the actual
> cost of producing the part and putting it through the distribution
> chain.
>
> If there is any residual cost like the one to which you refer, then it
> is the "designing" (meaning scheming) costs of management trying to
> figure out how to take advantage of their customers who break down and
> have to get the part. This is not a part that the dealer mechanic
> looks at during routine maintenance and tells you that it looks worn
> out or is in jeopardy of failing and needs to be replaced. It ain't
> that kinda animal. The only reason anyone needs the $193 (for a $27)
> part is because of a breakdown. They have their customers over a
> barrel on this one. And they really stick it to them. There IS no $60
> aftermarket part.
>
> -
>
> In article <yg2Wa.6852$dk4.317025@typhoon.sonic.net>, Max
> <nospam@nospam.com> wrote:
>
> > > I reject your analysis. It's a derivative of my comparison, which
> > > doubles any error. As a matter of fact, the part has a steel plate on
> > > the bottom, steel sleeves, and several metal electrodes and
connectors,
> > > not to mention having been filled/sealed with some sort of resin. My
> > > comparison is just fine, thank you. Even a 50% error still makes the
> > > part outrageously expensive.
> >
> > LOL. You REALLY missed the point. Sense of humor and sarcasm are clearly
too
> > expensive for your taste as well. :-)
> >
> > > Apple computers are great. A lot of people who work with IBM
> > > compatibles go home to Macs. Very few people who work with Macs go
> > > home to an IBM compatible. I like 'em. I've never used an IBM
> > > compatible, mainly because I see my friends struggle with them. No
> > > thanks.
> >
> > So it is ok for Apple to "rip you off" because you like them? How
> > hypocritical of you.
> >
> > Look, in all seriousness, things are worth what people are willing to
pay
> > for them. You are willing to pay $2400 for a computer even though a
> > comprable machine can be bought for half the cost, because you like it
> > better. It has nothing to do with size or weight. My company produces
> > software that weighs nothing (ok, you can count weight of the CD we
could
> > theoretically put it on) and we sell it for millions of dollars - and we
> > have buyers because they believe it is worth it. If $200 part was not
worth
> > it to you, you should have bought the $60 aftermarket part and installed
it
> > yourself. You had a choice, but you paid for it, which means it was
worth it
> > to you at the time. Do not kid yourself, this has NOTHING to do with
Honda
> > or any other car maker. You are just bitter you had something break on
you,
> > even though it happened after 22 years of use (and all things
considered,
> > did not cost that much.) You are bitter you did not have towing
coverage.
> > But get over yourself, cuz happens. The bottom line is that if your
car
> > was of any other make, it would have been a similar price. This has
nothing
> > to do with Honda. I am sure Honda's prices are not any different that
any
> > other maker. And yes, the dealer parts will always cost more than
> > aftermarket parts, because for them the cost of that part is not the
just
> > the cost of the materials and manufacturing - it's the millions of
dollars
> > that went into the design. Grow up and take some responsibility.
> >
> > -M
#152
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
"expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
news:310720032113470124%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
> In article <gEkWa.15114$Vx2.7497551@newssvr28.news.prodigy.co m>,
> EdRuscha <samsamjeh@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 1) I just bought a 2003 Ford and now I am thinking I should have bought
a
> > Honda, considering yours lasted 22 years and you are whining about
$193!!!
> > If anything, your intended aim (to convince prospective buyers not to
choose
> > Honda) has only made me realize that the cliche that Hondas are
reliable,
> > is, in fact, pretty darn true.
>
> Oh, geeze, my strategy backfired. I hope your dealer sends me a
> bird-dog fee when he sells you the car.
> But, you know, you have it boiled down to the positive of having lasted
> 22 years and the negative of having to pay $193. Looks good on paper,
> but it ain't that simple. This is not something I had planned for.
> Once it happened a series of events took place and one of them was
> being jacked up for $193 for what appeared to be a part that should
> have been priced far less, IMO. I was faced with paying the $193 or
> walking away from a car that I needed. naturally, I did the only thing
> I could given the fact that I live alone - I paid their extortion, but
> not without deciding to give them some bad PR.
You were faced with purchasing an expensive part from a dealership, or
suffering through the inconvience and expense of not having a car while you
search for more economical options for fixing your car. For a 22-year old
car and a part that usually does not require repair, have you once
considered the thought that you could be a very *lucky* person that this
part is still manufactured for your car! And that you were fortunate enough
to have the *option* to purchase this same part?
> > 2) If you told the salesperson that you were outraged to have to pay
$193
> > for a "$27 part,"
>
> No, I just beefed about the $193. I hadn't by then worked up any
> elaborate beef. $27 came along later on after some analysis.
>
> > I can see how he might have thought that was humorous,
> > although nonetheless it was rude for him to laugh at you. He should
have
> > saved it for his buddies. The part is not $27 or $19.30. The price is
> > dictated by the market.
>
> I doubt if market forces have much to do with the price of this part.
> If that were the case, then they would have realized that someone like
> me would come along and try to cost them customers over time. The part
> is there on my dashboard waiting to be the center of a Honda-bashing
> discussion. The price does not take that into consideration.
> Otherwise it would be priced far less than it is, perhaps something
> closer to manufacturing costs and reasonable markups.
Perhaps you may "cost" Honda customers. Personally, I doubt it. From
reading the responses your post has generated, it appears that a majority of
responders feel that $193 is a reasonable "unforeseen" expense over the
22-year lifetime of a vehicle (and for a new part for a car that is 22 years
old). Your conversation-piece igniter certainly makes for a funny story,
partially at your indignant yet very earnest expense, but more suited for
the no-longer extant tv comedy Seinfeld than as a smear campaign against
Honda. In fact, this post could single-handedly achieve a monumental
marketing campaign for the longevity of Honda cars (similar to the
popularity of Junior Mints after their exposure in the afore-mentioned
sitcom).
> >
> The notebook was purchased for a job. When the job ended, I kept it
> for personal use. All on the up-and-up because it was my dot-com we're
> talking about. Otherwise, I would likely still be using an older Mac
> since I'm not really a power user for email and news. With all of the
> problems I've seen my friends have who use stuff from the Evil Empire,
> I would stop computing before buying of it. I could give up computing
> same as I gave up the telephone.
>
Regardless of how, when, where, or why, nonetheless you purchased the
extremely expensive name-brand computer (and then bafflingly felt the need
to use it as a paradigm of cost-effectiveness vis a vis your Honda part!).
>
> I have thought of this extensively. My analysis tells me that I can
> live for less without a car while using public transportation. Right
> now,because of where I live, the Honda makes sense. I just hope that I
> can get into a situation where I don't need a car before the Honda
> needs to be replaced.
I sincerely hope that you are in such a position that you will no longer
need an automobile (or even a scooter, for that matter) in your retirement
years. Considering your extremely high expectations for your vehicles, I
cannot think of a car manufacturer that will be able to meet them. I highly
doubt that you will be able to eke another 22 years out of a car other than
a Honda, without having to replace the entire car in parts by that time, but
I certainly wish you the best of luck in trying.
#153
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
"expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
news:310720032113470124%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
> In article <gEkWa.15114$Vx2.7497551@newssvr28.news.prodigy.co m>,
> EdRuscha <samsamjeh@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > 1) I just bought a 2003 Ford and now I am thinking I should have bought
a
> > Honda, considering yours lasted 22 years and you are whining about
$193!!!
> > If anything, your intended aim (to convince prospective buyers not to
choose
> > Honda) has only made me realize that the cliche that Hondas are
reliable,
> > is, in fact, pretty darn true.
>
> Oh, geeze, my strategy backfired. I hope your dealer sends me a
> bird-dog fee when he sells you the car.
> But, you know, you have it boiled down to the positive of having lasted
> 22 years and the negative of having to pay $193. Looks good on paper,
> but it ain't that simple. This is not something I had planned for.
> Once it happened a series of events took place and one of them was
> being jacked up for $193 for what appeared to be a part that should
> have been priced far less, IMO. I was faced with paying the $193 or
> walking away from a car that I needed. naturally, I did the only thing
> I could given the fact that I live alone - I paid their extortion, but
> not without deciding to give them some bad PR.
You were faced with purchasing an expensive part from a dealership, or
suffering through the inconvience and expense of not having a car while you
search for more economical options for fixing your car. For a 22-year old
car and a part that usually does not require repair, have you once
considered the thought that you could be a very *lucky* person that this
part is still manufactured for your car! And that you were fortunate enough
to have the *option* to purchase this same part?
> > 2) If you told the salesperson that you were outraged to have to pay
$193
> > for a "$27 part,"
>
> No, I just beefed about the $193. I hadn't by then worked up any
> elaborate beef. $27 came along later on after some analysis.
>
> > I can see how he might have thought that was humorous,
> > although nonetheless it was rude for him to laugh at you. He should
have
> > saved it for his buddies. The part is not $27 or $19.30. The price is
> > dictated by the market.
>
> I doubt if market forces have much to do with the price of this part.
> If that were the case, then they would have realized that someone like
> me would come along and try to cost them customers over time. The part
> is there on my dashboard waiting to be the center of a Honda-bashing
> discussion. The price does not take that into consideration.
> Otherwise it would be priced far less than it is, perhaps something
> closer to manufacturing costs and reasonable markups.
Perhaps you may "cost" Honda customers. Personally, I doubt it. From
reading the responses your post has generated, it appears that a majority of
responders feel that $193 is a reasonable "unforeseen" expense over the
22-year lifetime of a vehicle (and for a new part for a car that is 22 years
old). Your conversation-piece igniter certainly makes for a funny story,
partially at your indignant yet very earnest expense, but more suited for
the no-longer extant tv comedy Seinfeld than as a smear campaign against
Honda. In fact, this post could single-handedly achieve a monumental
marketing campaign for the longevity of Honda cars (similar to the
popularity of Junior Mints after their exposure in the afore-mentioned
sitcom).
> >
> The notebook was purchased for a job. When the job ended, I kept it
> for personal use. All on the up-and-up because it was my dot-com we're
> talking about. Otherwise, I would likely still be using an older Mac
> since I'm not really a power user for email and news. With all of the
> problems I've seen my friends have who use stuff from the Evil Empire,
> I would stop computing before buying of it. I could give up computing
> same as I gave up the telephone.
>
Regardless of how, when, where, or why, nonetheless you purchased the
extremely expensive name-brand computer (and then bafflingly felt the need
to use it as a paradigm of cost-effectiveness vis a vis your Honda part!).
>
> I have thought of this extensively. My analysis tells me that I can
> live for less without a car while using public transportation. Right
> now,because of where I live, the Honda makes sense. I just hope that I
> can get into a situation where I don't need a car before the Honda
> needs to be replaced.
I sincerely hope that you are in such a position that you will no longer
need an automobile (or even a scooter, for that matter) in your retirement
years. Considering your extremely high expectations for your vehicles, I
cannot think of a car manufacturer that will be able to meet them. I highly
doubt that you will be able to eke another 22 years out of a car other than
a Honda, without having to replace the entire car in parts by that time, but
I certainly wish you the best of luck in trying.
#154
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
You must never lived down here on the border!
They steal ANYTHING here, and my car's had several attempts on it...I
ran the last people off with my shotgun when I heard the alarm go off.
They got away before I could kill them. No, I'm not kidding.
Shots are fired down here way too often, usually by the Mexicans at
our US Border Patrol, by the Mexican Army at the Border Patrol, but
sometimes by the Mexican gangs crossing over and robbing American
trains...when, that is, they aren't beating-up/robbing Americans who
have the misfortune of having their cars break down near the river,
steal their cars at local malls (especially around Christmas time when
they have presents inside), or bandits assault/rob people on the
annual pilgrimage/procession every Easter up Mount Cristo Rey. Yes, it
still happens. The local C of C, of course, doesn't want that stuff
told to tourists, they'd rather they be victims and just spend their
money here.
No, an old car is no guarantee down HERE it won't be stolen, not with
our sorry in "Old Mexico" just a short drive over the bridge...or
across the river. 500 cars a month go south...even the police over
there -- local and federales -- proudly drive stolen American cars.
So much for our "good neighbors to the south, eh?"
John D.
expensive <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message news:<310720031445030351%common_sense@emodgnik.com >...
> In article <e821bab6.0307311254.7d4a794d@posting.google.com >, John D.
> <jcdech@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course, the Datsun is all beat-up looking on the outside...sort of
> > in character with my chronic "cash flow" problem. In fact, the car
> > looks quite at home here in El Paso, TX, on the Mexican border, since
> > people think it's one of the many junker car visiting from
> > Mexico...except mine doesn't smoke!
> >
> > And when I am driving slow -- like 42.5 mph on freeway access/frontage
> > roads listening to my really nice sound system with beverage
> > refreshments -- cops don't pay any attention to me since my car looks
> > like it couldn't GO any faster anyway. ;-)
> >
> > John D.
>
> And isn't it nice that it's less likely to be stolen than most cars?
> That's a real plus to owning an older car.
They steal ANYTHING here, and my car's had several attempts on it...I
ran the last people off with my shotgun when I heard the alarm go off.
They got away before I could kill them. No, I'm not kidding.
Shots are fired down here way too often, usually by the Mexicans at
our US Border Patrol, by the Mexican Army at the Border Patrol, but
sometimes by the Mexican gangs crossing over and robbing American
trains...when, that is, they aren't beating-up/robbing Americans who
have the misfortune of having their cars break down near the river,
steal their cars at local malls (especially around Christmas time when
they have presents inside), or bandits assault/rob people on the
annual pilgrimage/procession every Easter up Mount Cristo Rey. Yes, it
still happens. The local C of C, of course, doesn't want that stuff
told to tourists, they'd rather they be victims and just spend their
money here.
No, an old car is no guarantee down HERE it won't be stolen, not with
our sorry in "Old Mexico" just a short drive over the bridge...or
across the river. 500 cars a month go south...even the police over
there -- local and federales -- proudly drive stolen American cars.
So much for our "good neighbors to the south, eh?"
John D.
expensive <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message news:<310720031445030351%common_sense@emodgnik.com >...
> In article <e821bab6.0307311254.7d4a794d@posting.google.com >, John D.
> <jcdech@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course, the Datsun is all beat-up looking on the outside...sort of
> > in character with my chronic "cash flow" problem. In fact, the car
> > looks quite at home here in El Paso, TX, on the Mexican border, since
> > people think it's one of the many junker car visiting from
> > Mexico...except mine doesn't smoke!
> >
> > And when I am driving slow -- like 42.5 mph on freeway access/frontage
> > roads listening to my really nice sound system with beverage
> > refreshments -- cops don't pay any attention to me since my car looks
> > like it couldn't GO any faster anyway. ;-)
> >
> > John D.
>
> And isn't it nice that it's less likely to be stolen than most cars?
> That's a real plus to owning an older car.
#155
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
You must never lived down here on the border!
They steal ANYTHING here, and my car's had several attempts on it...I
ran the last people off with my shotgun when I heard the alarm go off.
They got away before I could kill them. No, I'm not kidding.
Shots are fired down here way too often, usually by the Mexicans at
our US Border Patrol, by the Mexican Army at the Border Patrol, but
sometimes by the Mexican gangs crossing over and robbing American
trains...when, that is, they aren't beating-up/robbing Americans who
have the misfortune of having their cars break down near the river,
steal their cars at local malls (especially around Christmas time when
they have presents inside), or bandits assault/rob people on the
annual pilgrimage/procession every Easter up Mount Cristo Rey. Yes, it
still happens. The local C of C, of course, doesn't want that stuff
told to tourists, they'd rather they be victims and just spend their
money here.
No, an old car is no guarantee down HERE it won't be stolen, not with
our sorry in "Old Mexico" just a short drive over the bridge...or
across the river. 500 cars a month go south...even the police over
there -- local and federales -- proudly drive stolen American cars.
So much for our "good neighbors to the south, eh?"
John D.
expensive <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message news:<310720031445030351%common_sense@emodgnik.com >...
> In article <e821bab6.0307311254.7d4a794d@posting.google.com >, John D.
> <jcdech@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course, the Datsun is all beat-up looking on the outside...sort of
> > in character with my chronic "cash flow" problem. In fact, the car
> > looks quite at home here in El Paso, TX, on the Mexican border, since
> > people think it's one of the many junker car visiting from
> > Mexico...except mine doesn't smoke!
> >
> > And when I am driving slow -- like 42.5 mph on freeway access/frontage
> > roads listening to my really nice sound system with beverage
> > refreshments -- cops don't pay any attention to me since my car looks
> > like it couldn't GO any faster anyway. ;-)
> >
> > John D.
>
> And isn't it nice that it's less likely to be stolen than most cars?
> That's a real plus to owning an older car.
They steal ANYTHING here, and my car's had several attempts on it...I
ran the last people off with my shotgun when I heard the alarm go off.
They got away before I could kill them. No, I'm not kidding.
Shots are fired down here way too often, usually by the Mexicans at
our US Border Patrol, by the Mexican Army at the Border Patrol, but
sometimes by the Mexican gangs crossing over and robbing American
trains...when, that is, they aren't beating-up/robbing Americans who
have the misfortune of having their cars break down near the river,
steal their cars at local malls (especially around Christmas time when
they have presents inside), or bandits assault/rob people on the
annual pilgrimage/procession every Easter up Mount Cristo Rey. Yes, it
still happens. The local C of C, of course, doesn't want that stuff
told to tourists, they'd rather they be victims and just spend their
money here.
No, an old car is no guarantee down HERE it won't be stolen, not with
our sorry in "Old Mexico" just a short drive over the bridge...or
across the river. 500 cars a month go south...even the police over
there -- local and federales -- proudly drive stolen American cars.
So much for our "good neighbors to the south, eh?"
John D.
expensive <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message news:<310720031445030351%common_sense@emodgnik.com >...
> In article <e821bab6.0307311254.7d4a794d@posting.google.com >, John D.
> <jcdech@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > Of course, the Datsun is all beat-up looking on the outside...sort of
> > in character with my chronic "cash flow" problem. In fact, the car
> > looks quite at home here in El Paso, TX, on the Mexican border, since
> > people think it's one of the many junker car visiting from
> > Mexico...except mine doesn't smoke!
> >
> > And when I am driving slow -- like 42.5 mph on freeway access/frontage
> > roads listening to my really nice sound system with beverage
> > refreshments -- cops don't pay any attention to me since my car looks
> > like it couldn't GO any faster anyway. ;-)
> >
> > John D.
>
> And isn't it nice that it's less likely to be stolen than most cars?
> That's a real plus to owning an older car.
#156
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
Yes, all I need is a "few good cars" and I'll be set for life!
When my ex and I got the car, we noticed "Nissan" clearly marked on
two of the the windows but I didn't really know the connection at that
time.
Later on over the years, as I worked on the car, I found a few other
parts marked Nissan, then the name change happened.
John D.
expensive <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message news:<310720031356133501%common_sense@emodgnik.com >...
> In article <e821bab6.0307310845.3b2fe5e8@posting.google.com >, John D.
> <jcdech@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Somehow I get the impression that folks here do not consider $193 to be
> > > a burdensome expense.
> >
> > Well, I sure do! It IS a rip-off!
> >
> > As for finding an 1981 car in an auto salvage yard after all these
> > years, I have the SAME problem but a whole lot worse: Try finding a
> > 1973 Datsun 1200!
> >
> > Fortunately, though, it's got no igniters, ECU, CEL or sensors to
> > speak of...just a simple carbuerator, points, condensor, plugs...and
> > an oil filter that not only is mounted vertically (instead of
> > horizontally), but is quite easily accessible.
> >
> > But as for parts, I haven't seen one of these cars in a junkyard for
> > years. Eventually I may have to give it up just for that reason...I
> > guess that sometimes happens if you keep a car long enough.
> >
> > John D.
>
> We should have acreage with maybe half a dozen '81 Hondas or '73
> Datsuns parked in the weeds. Then there'd be no problem with parts
> departments or scrap yards.
>
> Did you ever hear the story about why Datsuns were called Datsuns and
> not Nissans? Nissan was not convinced that their cars would be
> suitable for US consumers or successful in the marketplace. They
> called the early cars "Datsun" so that a failure in the marketplace
> would not reflect negatively on the Nissan brand name.
When my ex and I got the car, we noticed "Nissan" clearly marked on
two of the the windows but I didn't really know the connection at that
time.
Later on over the years, as I worked on the car, I found a few other
parts marked Nissan, then the name change happened.
John D.
expensive <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message news:<310720031356133501%common_sense@emodgnik.com >...
> In article <e821bab6.0307310845.3b2fe5e8@posting.google.com >, John D.
> <jcdech@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Somehow I get the impression that folks here do not consider $193 to be
> > > a burdensome expense.
> >
> > Well, I sure do! It IS a rip-off!
> >
> > As for finding an 1981 car in an auto salvage yard after all these
> > years, I have the SAME problem but a whole lot worse: Try finding a
> > 1973 Datsun 1200!
> >
> > Fortunately, though, it's got no igniters, ECU, CEL or sensors to
> > speak of...just a simple carbuerator, points, condensor, plugs...and
> > an oil filter that not only is mounted vertically (instead of
> > horizontally), but is quite easily accessible.
> >
> > But as for parts, I haven't seen one of these cars in a junkyard for
> > years. Eventually I may have to give it up just for that reason...I
> > guess that sometimes happens if you keep a car long enough.
> >
> > John D.
>
> We should have acreage with maybe half a dozen '81 Hondas or '73
> Datsuns parked in the weeds. Then there'd be no problem with parts
> departments or scrap yards.
>
> Did you ever hear the story about why Datsuns were called Datsuns and
> not Nissans? Nissan was not convinced that their cars would be
> suitable for US consumers or successful in the marketplace. They
> called the early cars "Datsun" so that a failure in the marketplace
> would not reflect negatively on the Nissan brand name.
#157
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
Yes, all I need is a "few good cars" and I'll be set for life!
When my ex and I got the car, we noticed "Nissan" clearly marked on
two of the the windows but I didn't really know the connection at that
time.
Later on over the years, as I worked on the car, I found a few other
parts marked Nissan, then the name change happened.
John D.
expensive <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message news:<310720031356133501%common_sense@emodgnik.com >...
> In article <e821bab6.0307310845.3b2fe5e8@posting.google.com >, John D.
> <jcdech@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Somehow I get the impression that folks here do not consider $193 to be
> > > a burdensome expense.
> >
> > Well, I sure do! It IS a rip-off!
> >
> > As for finding an 1981 car in an auto salvage yard after all these
> > years, I have the SAME problem but a whole lot worse: Try finding a
> > 1973 Datsun 1200!
> >
> > Fortunately, though, it's got no igniters, ECU, CEL or sensors to
> > speak of...just a simple carbuerator, points, condensor, plugs...and
> > an oil filter that not only is mounted vertically (instead of
> > horizontally), but is quite easily accessible.
> >
> > But as for parts, I haven't seen one of these cars in a junkyard for
> > years. Eventually I may have to give it up just for that reason...I
> > guess that sometimes happens if you keep a car long enough.
> >
> > John D.
>
> We should have acreage with maybe half a dozen '81 Hondas or '73
> Datsuns parked in the weeds. Then there'd be no problem with parts
> departments or scrap yards.
>
> Did you ever hear the story about why Datsuns were called Datsuns and
> not Nissans? Nissan was not convinced that their cars would be
> suitable for US consumers or successful in the marketplace. They
> called the early cars "Datsun" so that a failure in the marketplace
> would not reflect negatively on the Nissan brand name.
When my ex and I got the car, we noticed "Nissan" clearly marked on
two of the the windows but I didn't really know the connection at that
time.
Later on over the years, as I worked on the car, I found a few other
parts marked Nissan, then the name change happened.
John D.
expensive <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message news:<310720031356133501%common_sense@emodgnik.com >...
> In article <e821bab6.0307310845.3b2fe5e8@posting.google.com >, John D.
> <jcdech@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > Somehow I get the impression that folks here do not consider $193 to be
> > > a burdensome expense.
> >
> > Well, I sure do! It IS a rip-off!
> >
> > As for finding an 1981 car in an auto salvage yard after all these
> > years, I have the SAME problem but a whole lot worse: Try finding a
> > 1973 Datsun 1200!
> >
> > Fortunately, though, it's got no igniters, ECU, CEL or sensors to
> > speak of...just a simple carbuerator, points, condensor, plugs...and
> > an oil filter that not only is mounted vertically (instead of
> > horizontally), but is quite easily accessible.
> >
> > But as for parts, I haven't seen one of these cars in a junkyard for
> > years. Eventually I may have to give it up just for that reason...I
> > guess that sometimes happens if you keep a car long enough.
> >
> > John D.
>
> We should have acreage with maybe half a dozen '81 Hondas or '73
> Datsuns parked in the weeds. Then there'd be no problem with parts
> departments or scrap yards.
>
> Did you ever hear the story about why Datsuns were called Datsuns and
> not Nissans? Nissan was not convinced that their cars would be
> suitable for US consumers or successful in the marketplace. They
> called the early cars "Datsun" so that a failure in the marketplace
> would not reflect negatively on the Nissan brand name.
#158
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <remWa.15142$Vx2.7521161@newssvr28.news.prodigy.co m>,
EdRuscha <samsamjeh@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You were faced with purchasing an expensive part from a dealership, or
> suffering through the inconvience and expense of not having a car while you
> search for more economical options for fixing your car. For a 22-year old
> car and a part that usually does not require repair, have you once
> considered the thought that you could be a very *lucky* person that this
> part is still manufactured for your car! And that you were fortunate enough
> to have the *option* to purchase this same part?
Oh, I suppose, but not at the time. At the time I was shocked and
angry that my pockets were being emptied by virtue of what looked to me
to be a simple and inexpensive part. And the sales manager's reaction
prompted a dark feeling in me that made me decide to retaliate by
telling my story to others. The case where the part is no longer
available is speculative and outside the bounds of my consideration.
Had that been the only case, then the mechanic would have had a
solution for me. I might not have liked it either, but it didn't
happen so it's a moot point.
> Perhaps you may "cost" Honda customers. Personally, I doubt it. From
> reading the responses your post has generated, it appears that a majority of
> responders feel that $193 is a reasonable "unforeseen" expense over the
> 22-year lifetime of a vehicle (and for a new part for a car that is 22 years
> old). Your conversation-piece igniter certainly makes for a funny story,
> partially at your indignant yet very earnest expense, but more suited for
> the no-longer extant tv comedy Seinfeld than as a smear campaign against
> Honda. In fact, this post could single-handedly achieve a monumental
> marketing campaign for the longevity of Honda cars (similar to the
> popularity of Junior Mints after their exposure in the afore-mentioned
> sitcom).
If I cost the local dealer any sales or not is really up in the air.
One future sale for sure it's cost them is mine. Anything beyond that
is gravy. I wouldn't know about Seinfeld since it's not a program I
watch. Same with Friends and a lot of other trash television.
> Regardless of how, when, where, or why, nonetheless you purchased the
> extremely expensive name-brand computer (and then bafflingly felt the need
> to use it as a paradigm of cost-effectiveness vis a vis your Honda part!).
It was a neat paradigm. And I'm very pleased with my Mac and have been
with the others I've had. I understand that it's politically correct
to slam Mac's in this world of PC/Windows trash where the Evil Empire
rules, but it rolls off me like water off a duck's back because it's
just bad hype invented by Evil Empire types who have to justify the use
of inferior equipment and an OS that's just a bad copy of an older
version of the Mac OS.
> I sincerely hope that you are in such a position that you will no longer
> need an automobile (or even a scooter, for that matter) in your retirement
> years.
Thank you. I appreciate your empathy for me.
> Considering your extremely high expectations for your vehicles, I
> cannot think of a car manufacturer that will be able to meet them. I highly
> doubt that you will be able to eke another 22 years out of a car other than
> a Honda, without having to replace the entire car in parts by that time, but
> I certainly wish you the best of luck in trying.
Do you really think so? I think I can make most cars go 20 years if I
only drive it 100,000 miles in that time and keep it up maintenance
wise. So, why not get together with others on this list and chip in to
buy me one so I can test your theory for you? :-)
EdRuscha <samsamjeh@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You were faced with purchasing an expensive part from a dealership, or
> suffering through the inconvience and expense of not having a car while you
> search for more economical options for fixing your car. For a 22-year old
> car and a part that usually does not require repair, have you once
> considered the thought that you could be a very *lucky* person that this
> part is still manufactured for your car! And that you were fortunate enough
> to have the *option* to purchase this same part?
Oh, I suppose, but not at the time. At the time I was shocked and
angry that my pockets were being emptied by virtue of what looked to me
to be a simple and inexpensive part. And the sales manager's reaction
prompted a dark feeling in me that made me decide to retaliate by
telling my story to others. The case where the part is no longer
available is speculative and outside the bounds of my consideration.
Had that been the only case, then the mechanic would have had a
solution for me. I might not have liked it either, but it didn't
happen so it's a moot point.
> Perhaps you may "cost" Honda customers. Personally, I doubt it. From
> reading the responses your post has generated, it appears that a majority of
> responders feel that $193 is a reasonable "unforeseen" expense over the
> 22-year lifetime of a vehicle (and for a new part for a car that is 22 years
> old). Your conversation-piece igniter certainly makes for a funny story,
> partially at your indignant yet very earnest expense, but more suited for
> the no-longer extant tv comedy Seinfeld than as a smear campaign against
> Honda. In fact, this post could single-handedly achieve a monumental
> marketing campaign for the longevity of Honda cars (similar to the
> popularity of Junior Mints after their exposure in the afore-mentioned
> sitcom).
If I cost the local dealer any sales or not is really up in the air.
One future sale for sure it's cost them is mine. Anything beyond that
is gravy. I wouldn't know about Seinfeld since it's not a program I
watch. Same with Friends and a lot of other trash television.
> Regardless of how, when, where, or why, nonetheless you purchased the
> extremely expensive name-brand computer (and then bafflingly felt the need
> to use it as a paradigm of cost-effectiveness vis a vis your Honda part!).
It was a neat paradigm. And I'm very pleased with my Mac and have been
with the others I've had. I understand that it's politically correct
to slam Mac's in this world of PC/Windows trash where the Evil Empire
rules, but it rolls off me like water off a duck's back because it's
just bad hype invented by Evil Empire types who have to justify the use
of inferior equipment and an OS that's just a bad copy of an older
version of the Mac OS.
> I sincerely hope that you are in such a position that you will no longer
> need an automobile (or even a scooter, for that matter) in your retirement
> years.
Thank you. I appreciate your empathy for me.
> Considering your extremely high expectations for your vehicles, I
> cannot think of a car manufacturer that will be able to meet them. I highly
> doubt that you will be able to eke another 22 years out of a car other than
> a Honda, without having to replace the entire car in parts by that time, but
> I certainly wish you the best of luck in trying.
Do you really think so? I think I can make most cars go 20 years if I
only drive it 100,000 miles in that time and keep it up maintenance
wise. So, why not get together with others on this list and chip in to
buy me one so I can test your theory for you? :-)
#159
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <remWa.15142$Vx2.7521161@newssvr28.news.prodigy.co m>,
EdRuscha <samsamjeh@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You were faced with purchasing an expensive part from a dealership, or
> suffering through the inconvience and expense of not having a car while you
> search for more economical options for fixing your car. For a 22-year old
> car and a part that usually does not require repair, have you once
> considered the thought that you could be a very *lucky* person that this
> part is still manufactured for your car! And that you were fortunate enough
> to have the *option* to purchase this same part?
Oh, I suppose, but not at the time. At the time I was shocked and
angry that my pockets were being emptied by virtue of what looked to me
to be a simple and inexpensive part. And the sales manager's reaction
prompted a dark feeling in me that made me decide to retaliate by
telling my story to others. The case where the part is no longer
available is speculative and outside the bounds of my consideration.
Had that been the only case, then the mechanic would have had a
solution for me. I might not have liked it either, but it didn't
happen so it's a moot point.
> Perhaps you may "cost" Honda customers. Personally, I doubt it. From
> reading the responses your post has generated, it appears that a majority of
> responders feel that $193 is a reasonable "unforeseen" expense over the
> 22-year lifetime of a vehicle (and for a new part for a car that is 22 years
> old). Your conversation-piece igniter certainly makes for a funny story,
> partially at your indignant yet very earnest expense, but more suited for
> the no-longer extant tv comedy Seinfeld than as a smear campaign against
> Honda. In fact, this post could single-handedly achieve a monumental
> marketing campaign for the longevity of Honda cars (similar to the
> popularity of Junior Mints after their exposure in the afore-mentioned
> sitcom).
If I cost the local dealer any sales or not is really up in the air.
One future sale for sure it's cost them is mine. Anything beyond that
is gravy. I wouldn't know about Seinfeld since it's not a program I
watch. Same with Friends and a lot of other trash television.
> Regardless of how, when, where, or why, nonetheless you purchased the
> extremely expensive name-brand computer (and then bafflingly felt the need
> to use it as a paradigm of cost-effectiveness vis a vis your Honda part!).
It was a neat paradigm. And I'm very pleased with my Mac and have been
with the others I've had. I understand that it's politically correct
to slam Mac's in this world of PC/Windows trash where the Evil Empire
rules, but it rolls off me like water off a duck's back because it's
just bad hype invented by Evil Empire types who have to justify the use
of inferior equipment and an OS that's just a bad copy of an older
version of the Mac OS.
> I sincerely hope that you are in such a position that you will no longer
> need an automobile (or even a scooter, for that matter) in your retirement
> years.
Thank you. I appreciate your empathy for me.
> Considering your extremely high expectations for your vehicles, I
> cannot think of a car manufacturer that will be able to meet them. I highly
> doubt that you will be able to eke another 22 years out of a car other than
> a Honda, without having to replace the entire car in parts by that time, but
> I certainly wish you the best of luck in trying.
Do you really think so? I think I can make most cars go 20 years if I
only drive it 100,000 miles in that time and keep it up maintenance
wise. So, why not get together with others on this list and chip in to
buy me one so I can test your theory for you? :-)
EdRuscha <samsamjeh@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You were faced with purchasing an expensive part from a dealership, or
> suffering through the inconvience and expense of not having a car while you
> search for more economical options for fixing your car. For a 22-year old
> car and a part that usually does not require repair, have you once
> considered the thought that you could be a very *lucky* person that this
> part is still manufactured for your car! And that you were fortunate enough
> to have the *option* to purchase this same part?
Oh, I suppose, but not at the time. At the time I was shocked and
angry that my pockets were being emptied by virtue of what looked to me
to be a simple and inexpensive part. And the sales manager's reaction
prompted a dark feeling in me that made me decide to retaliate by
telling my story to others. The case where the part is no longer
available is speculative and outside the bounds of my consideration.
Had that been the only case, then the mechanic would have had a
solution for me. I might not have liked it either, but it didn't
happen so it's a moot point.
> Perhaps you may "cost" Honda customers. Personally, I doubt it. From
> reading the responses your post has generated, it appears that a majority of
> responders feel that $193 is a reasonable "unforeseen" expense over the
> 22-year lifetime of a vehicle (and for a new part for a car that is 22 years
> old). Your conversation-piece igniter certainly makes for a funny story,
> partially at your indignant yet very earnest expense, but more suited for
> the no-longer extant tv comedy Seinfeld than as a smear campaign against
> Honda. In fact, this post could single-handedly achieve a monumental
> marketing campaign for the longevity of Honda cars (similar to the
> popularity of Junior Mints after their exposure in the afore-mentioned
> sitcom).
If I cost the local dealer any sales or not is really up in the air.
One future sale for sure it's cost them is mine. Anything beyond that
is gravy. I wouldn't know about Seinfeld since it's not a program I
watch. Same with Friends and a lot of other trash television.
> Regardless of how, when, where, or why, nonetheless you purchased the
> extremely expensive name-brand computer (and then bafflingly felt the need
> to use it as a paradigm of cost-effectiveness vis a vis your Honda part!).
It was a neat paradigm. And I'm very pleased with my Mac and have been
with the others I've had. I understand that it's politically correct
to slam Mac's in this world of PC/Windows trash where the Evil Empire
rules, but it rolls off me like water off a duck's back because it's
just bad hype invented by Evil Empire types who have to justify the use
of inferior equipment and an OS that's just a bad copy of an older
version of the Mac OS.
> I sincerely hope that you are in such a position that you will no longer
> need an automobile (or even a scooter, for that matter) in your retirement
> years.
Thank you. I appreciate your empathy for me.
> Considering your extremely high expectations for your vehicles, I
> cannot think of a car manufacturer that will be able to meet them. I highly
> doubt that you will be able to eke another 22 years out of a car other than
> a Honda, without having to replace the entire car in parts by that time, but
> I certainly wish you the best of luck in trying.
Do you really think so? I think I can make most cars go 20 years if I
only drive it 100,000 miles in that time and keep it up maintenance
wise. So, why not get together with others on this list and chip in to
buy me one so I can test your theory for you? :-)
#160
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
I served three tours in The Nam. The locals weren't too friendly
there, either. You can move northward a state or two and escape that
hell you describe down there. Just don't go too far north becaus of
the Canadians, eh. I can say that Western Washington and Oregon are
very livable, and the Canadians, eh, are only a danger to you on I-5 as
they dash back and forth to California.
In article <e821bab6.0307312101.47a8a934@posting.google.com >, John D.
<jcdech@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You must never lived down here on the border!
>
> They steal ANYTHING here, and my car's had several attempts on it...I
> ran the last people off with my shotgun when I heard the alarm go off.
> They got away before I could kill them. No, I'm not kidding.
>
> Shots are fired down here way too often, usually by the Mexicans at
> our US Border Patrol, by the Mexican Army at the Border Patrol, but
> sometimes by the Mexican gangs crossing over and robbing American
> trains...when, that is, they aren't beating-up/robbing Americans who
> have the misfortune of having their cars break down near the river,
> steal their cars at local malls (especially around Christmas time when
> they have presents inside), or bandits assault/rob people on the
> annual pilgrimage/procession every Easter up Mount Cristo Rey. Yes, it
> still happens. The local C of C, of course, doesn't want that stuff
> told to tourists, they'd rather they be victims and just spend their
> money here.
>
> No, an old car is no guarantee down HERE it won't be stolen, not with
> our sorry in "Old Mexico" just a short drive over the bridge...or
> across the river. 500 cars a month go south...even the police over
> there -- local and federales -- proudly drive stolen American cars.
>
> So much for our "good neighbors to the south, eh?"
>
> John D.
#161
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
I served three tours in The Nam. The locals weren't too friendly
there, either. You can move northward a state or two and escape that
hell you describe down there. Just don't go too far north becaus of
the Canadians, eh. I can say that Western Washington and Oregon are
very livable, and the Canadians, eh, are only a danger to you on I-5 as
they dash back and forth to California.
In article <e821bab6.0307312101.47a8a934@posting.google.com >, John D.
<jcdech@hotmail.com> wrote:
> You must never lived down here on the border!
>
> They steal ANYTHING here, and my car's had several attempts on it...I
> ran the last people off with my shotgun when I heard the alarm go off.
> They got away before I could kill them. No, I'm not kidding.
>
> Shots are fired down here way too often, usually by the Mexicans at
> our US Border Patrol, by the Mexican Army at the Border Patrol, but
> sometimes by the Mexican gangs crossing over and robbing American
> trains...when, that is, they aren't beating-up/robbing Americans who
> have the misfortune of having their cars break down near the river,
> steal their cars at local malls (especially around Christmas time when
> they have presents inside), or bandits assault/rob people on the
> annual pilgrimage/procession every Easter up Mount Cristo Rey. Yes, it
> still happens. The local C of C, of course, doesn't want that stuff
> told to tourists, they'd rather they be victims and just spend their
> money here.
>
> No, an old car is no guarantee down HERE it won't be stolen, not with
> our sorry in "Old Mexico" just a short drive over the bridge...or
> across the river. 500 cars a month go south...even the police over
> there -- local and federales -- proudly drive stolen American cars.
>
> So much for our "good neighbors to the south, eh?"
>
> John D.
#162
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
Falling asleep through expensive's post...
> - gizmo_a.jpg (1/1) pictures for alt.autos.honda
I don't get binaries BUT, I do know what ignitors look like, I just
placed a whole set in a RX-7
--
"If you can't change a tire, you're not allowed to have a beard. It's the
most basic part of a car: If you don't know that much about a car, you
really shouldn't be driving, should you?" - Jimmy Kimmel
Dan**** (10:38:51 PM): I have more respect for you than ever before
> - gizmo_a.jpg (1/1) pictures for alt.autos.honda
I don't get binaries BUT, I do know what ignitors look like, I just
placed a whole set in a RX-7
--
"If you can't change a tire, you're not allowed to have a beard. It's the
most basic part of a car: If you don't know that much about a car, you
really shouldn't be driving, should you?" - Jimmy Kimmel
Dan**** (10:38:51 PM): I have more respect for you than ever before
#163
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
Falling asleep through expensive's post...
> - gizmo_a.jpg (1/1) pictures for alt.autos.honda
I don't get binaries BUT, I do know what ignitors look like, I just
placed a whole set in a RX-7
--
"If you can't change a tire, you're not allowed to have a beard. It's the
most basic part of a car: If you don't know that much about a car, you
really shouldn't be driving, should you?" - Jimmy Kimmel
Dan**** (10:38:51 PM): I have more respect for you than ever before
> - gizmo_a.jpg (1/1) pictures for alt.autos.honda
I don't get binaries BUT, I do know what ignitors look like, I just
placed a whole set in a RX-7
--
"If you can't change a tire, you're not allowed to have a beard. It's the
most basic part of a car: If you don't know that much about a car, you
really shouldn't be driving, should you?" - Jimmy Kimmel
Dan**** (10:38:51 PM): I have more respect for you than ever before
#164
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
expensive wrote:
> In article <4031f12e.0307311248.52fa8c7b@posting.google.com >, Mike S
> <audi4sale2k@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Apple computers are great. A lot of people who work with IBM
> > > compatibles go home to Macs. Very few people who work with Macs go
> > > home to an IBM compatible. I like 'em. I've never used an IBM
> > > compatible, mainly because I see my friends struggle with them. No
> > > thanks.
> >
> > What the HELL is an IBM Compatible? I believe the correct term these
> > days is "PC" or "Windows Machine" IBM doesn't set the standards for
> > other PC manufacturers to follow anymore.
>
> You'd never know by me. I guess Windows machine is better and I will
> try to use it henceforth. Thank you.
>
> > Back to the post about the electronics cost comparison - that's the
> > most ridiculous comparison I've ever seen. A 1 gram microprocessor
> > costs a hell of a lot more than a 1 gram nand-gate array, and the 1
> > gram microprocessor needed MANY more engineers and many more hours to
> > develop than the nand array. Weight is a **** poor factor to use when
> > comparing electronics
>
> It's not ridiculous. I'd rather think of it as interesting. C'mon,
> loosen up a little bit. Any other analysis would be technical, and I
> don't have the figures or the know-how. It should be obvious to all
> who read my cost analysis that it's tongue in cheek. I only did it
> because it was the closest thing I had that had the same components -
> electronics and plastic. Maybe the television/VCR remote control. But
> I have no specific cost figures to go by, and then there's always...
> with or without batteries.
>
> If I was off by 50%, then it's a factor of 45 instead of 90. That
> would be an $8,500 computer (by weight of electronics and plastics).
> Still way too expensive. Or $2,400 divided by 45 = $53 for the part.
> I would have paid $53 without a second thought.
Just for reference, most electronic components have an expected lifespan
of 12-15 years. Furthermore some electronic components fail without use,
due to chemical instability, plasticiser exhausting, electrolytic drying
etc.
As an example you dont see many 22 year old tv's functioning, heck even;
all solder connections fail after some time due to thermal expansion and
contraction due to heat/humidity changes.
all in all its still an expensive part, but if you figure it this way,
5-7 dollars per year its not to bad.
> In article <4031f12e.0307311248.52fa8c7b@posting.google.com >, Mike S
> <audi4sale2k@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Apple computers are great. A lot of people who work with IBM
> > > compatibles go home to Macs. Very few people who work with Macs go
> > > home to an IBM compatible. I like 'em. I've never used an IBM
> > > compatible, mainly because I see my friends struggle with them. No
> > > thanks.
> >
> > What the HELL is an IBM Compatible? I believe the correct term these
> > days is "PC" or "Windows Machine" IBM doesn't set the standards for
> > other PC manufacturers to follow anymore.
>
> You'd never know by me. I guess Windows machine is better and I will
> try to use it henceforth. Thank you.
>
> > Back to the post about the electronics cost comparison - that's the
> > most ridiculous comparison I've ever seen. A 1 gram microprocessor
> > costs a hell of a lot more than a 1 gram nand-gate array, and the 1
> > gram microprocessor needed MANY more engineers and many more hours to
> > develop than the nand array. Weight is a **** poor factor to use when
> > comparing electronics
>
> It's not ridiculous. I'd rather think of it as interesting. C'mon,
> loosen up a little bit. Any other analysis would be technical, and I
> don't have the figures or the know-how. It should be obvious to all
> who read my cost analysis that it's tongue in cheek. I only did it
> because it was the closest thing I had that had the same components -
> electronics and plastic. Maybe the television/VCR remote control. But
> I have no specific cost figures to go by, and then there's always...
> with or without batteries.
>
> If I was off by 50%, then it's a factor of 45 instead of 90. That
> would be an $8,500 computer (by weight of electronics and plastics).
> Still way too expensive. Or $2,400 divided by 45 = $53 for the part.
> I would have paid $53 without a second thought.
Just for reference, most electronic components have an expected lifespan
of 12-15 years. Furthermore some electronic components fail without use,
due to chemical instability, plasticiser exhausting, electrolytic drying
etc.
As an example you dont see many 22 year old tv's functioning, heck even;
all solder connections fail after some time due to thermal expansion and
contraction due to heat/humidity changes.
all in all its still an expensive part, but if you figure it this way,
5-7 dollars per year its not to bad.
#165
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
expensive wrote:
> In article <4031f12e.0307311248.52fa8c7b@posting.google.com >, Mike S
> <audi4sale2k@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Apple computers are great. A lot of people who work with IBM
> > > compatibles go home to Macs. Very few people who work with Macs go
> > > home to an IBM compatible. I like 'em. I've never used an IBM
> > > compatible, mainly because I see my friends struggle with them. No
> > > thanks.
> >
> > What the HELL is an IBM Compatible? I believe the correct term these
> > days is "PC" or "Windows Machine" IBM doesn't set the standards for
> > other PC manufacturers to follow anymore.
>
> You'd never know by me. I guess Windows machine is better and I will
> try to use it henceforth. Thank you.
>
> > Back to the post about the electronics cost comparison - that's the
> > most ridiculous comparison I've ever seen. A 1 gram microprocessor
> > costs a hell of a lot more than a 1 gram nand-gate array, and the 1
> > gram microprocessor needed MANY more engineers and many more hours to
> > develop than the nand array. Weight is a **** poor factor to use when
> > comparing electronics
>
> It's not ridiculous. I'd rather think of it as interesting. C'mon,
> loosen up a little bit. Any other analysis would be technical, and I
> don't have the figures or the know-how. It should be obvious to all
> who read my cost analysis that it's tongue in cheek. I only did it
> because it was the closest thing I had that had the same components -
> electronics and plastic. Maybe the television/VCR remote control. But
> I have no specific cost figures to go by, and then there's always...
> with or without batteries.
>
> If I was off by 50%, then it's a factor of 45 instead of 90. That
> would be an $8,500 computer (by weight of electronics and plastics).
> Still way too expensive. Or $2,400 divided by 45 = $53 for the part.
> I would have paid $53 without a second thought.
Just for reference, most electronic components have an expected lifespan
of 12-15 years. Furthermore some electronic components fail without use,
due to chemical instability, plasticiser exhausting, electrolytic drying
etc.
As an example you dont see many 22 year old tv's functioning, heck even;
all solder connections fail after some time due to thermal expansion and
contraction due to heat/humidity changes.
all in all its still an expensive part, but if you figure it this way,
5-7 dollars per year its not to bad.
> In article <4031f12e.0307311248.52fa8c7b@posting.google.com >, Mike S
> <audi4sale2k@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Apple computers are great. A lot of people who work with IBM
> > > compatibles go home to Macs. Very few people who work with Macs go
> > > home to an IBM compatible. I like 'em. I've never used an IBM
> > > compatible, mainly because I see my friends struggle with them. No
> > > thanks.
> >
> > What the HELL is an IBM Compatible? I believe the correct term these
> > days is "PC" or "Windows Machine" IBM doesn't set the standards for
> > other PC manufacturers to follow anymore.
>
> You'd never know by me. I guess Windows machine is better and I will
> try to use it henceforth. Thank you.
>
> > Back to the post about the electronics cost comparison - that's the
> > most ridiculous comparison I've ever seen. A 1 gram microprocessor
> > costs a hell of a lot more than a 1 gram nand-gate array, and the 1
> > gram microprocessor needed MANY more engineers and many more hours to
> > develop than the nand array. Weight is a **** poor factor to use when
> > comparing electronics
>
> It's not ridiculous. I'd rather think of it as interesting. C'mon,
> loosen up a little bit. Any other analysis would be technical, and I
> don't have the figures or the know-how. It should be obvious to all
> who read my cost analysis that it's tongue in cheek. I only did it
> because it was the closest thing I had that had the same components -
> electronics and plastic. Maybe the television/VCR remote control. But
> I have no specific cost figures to go by, and then there's always...
> with or without batteries.
>
> If I was off by 50%, then it's a factor of 45 instead of 90. That
> would be an $8,500 computer (by weight of electronics and plastics).
> Still way too expensive. Or $2,400 divided by 45 = $53 for the part.
> I would have paid $53 without a second thought.
Just for reference, most electronic components have an expected lifespan
of 12-15 years. Furthermore some electronic components fail without use,
due to chemical instability, plasticiser exhausting, electrolytic drying
etc.
As an example you dont see many 22 year old tv's functioning, heck even;
all solder connections fail after some time due to thermal expansion and
contraction due to heat/humidity changes.
all in all its still an expensive part, but if you figure it this way,
5-7 dollars per year its not to bad.