MORE than expensive - outrageous!
#166
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <RdrWa.14716$BY2.3375@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com>, Dave Kelsen
<kelsen@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On 8/1/2003 12:42 AM expensive spake these words of knowledge:
>
> <snip>
>
> > It's a delusion you've made up for me and hung around my neck. Except
> > that I throw it down. I don't appreciate the profanity and I won't
> > stoop to that level. I find that profanity is typically used by people
> > who have run out of ideas. You have a strange way of twisting things
> > around, y'know it? and I can put up with it... but the profanity isn't
> > necessary because it shows that you have reached the bottom of your
> > well where it's bone dry.
>
>
> FWIW, I think you have some good points - albeit in the final analysis I
> disagree with your conclusion with respect to Honda's culpability.
The point has been made here on several occasions that this same thing
might have happened to me at the hands of any dealer of any make. I
have to agree with that. But, Honda was the one that did it to me, so
I'm not blaming the others. It's the way the chips fell.
We've also heard that the dealer just follows the manufacturer's
dictates as far as pricing goes, and also that the part is priced
differently in various places. So, go figure. If the dealer hadn't
enjoyed my anguish so much, if they'd shown one iota of empathy for me
in my predicament, the I might not be SOOOO put off.
This whole business seems emblematic of an "Amurikin Attitude" you see
and hear during good times. Basically, it's "If you don't like it,
then go buy it someplace else." Apparently, the Honda dealer in my
town is not shy any customers, although I have to say that I saw no
customers in the showroom when I ran across the sales manager. Perhaps
my igniter failed a year too soon.
> On the other hand, I find that people who limit their use of the
> language artificially usually have no idea of the richness of ideas
> which can be expressed in it. But I tend to hold out hope that they
> will mature in time.
Well said. Thank you.
<kelsen@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On 8/1/2003 12:42 AM expensive spake these words of knowledge:
>
> <snip>
>
> > It's a delusion you've made up for me and hung around my neck. Except
> > that I throw it down. I don't appreciate the profanity and I won't
> > stoop to that level. I find that profanity is typically used by people
> > who have run out of ideas. You have a strange way of twisting things
> > around, y'know it? and I can put up with it... but the profanity isn't
> > necessary because it shows that you have reached the bottom of your
> > well where it's bone dry.
>
>
> FWIW, I think you have some good points - albeit in the final analysis I
> disagree with your conclusion with respect to Honda's culpability.
The point has been made here on several occasions that this same thing
might have happened to me at the hands of any dealer of any make. I
have to agree with that. But, Honda was the one that did it to me, so
I'm not blaming the others. It's the way the chips fell.
We've also heard that the dealer just follows the manufacturer's
dictates as far as pricing goes, and also that the part is priced
differently in various places. So, go figure. If the dealer hadn't
enjoyed my anguish so much, if they'd shown one iota of empathy for me
in my predicament, the I might not be SOOOO put off.
This whole business seems emblematic of an "Amurikin Attitude" you see
and hear during good times. Basically, it's "If you don't like it,
then go buy it someplace else." Apparently, the Honda dealer in my
town is not shy any customers, although I have to say that I saw no
customers in the showroom when I ran across the sales manager. Perhaps
my igniter failed a year too soon.
> On the other hand, I find that people who limit their use of the
> language artificially usually have no idea of the richness of ideas
> which can be expressed in it. But I tend to hold out hope that they
> will mature in time.
Well said. Thank you.
#167
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <RdrWa.14716$BY2.3375@fe02.atl2.webusenet.com>, Dave Kelsen
<kelsen@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On 8/1/2003 12:42 AM expensive spake these words of knowledge:
>
> <snip>
>
> > It's a delusion you've made up for me and hung around my neck. Except
> > that I throw it down. I don't appreciate the profanity and I won't
> > stoop to that level. I find that profanity is typically used by people
> > who have run out of ideas. You have a strange way of twisting things
> > around, y'know it? and I can put up with it... but the profanity isn't
> > necessary because it shows that you have reached the bottom of your
> > well where it's bone dry.
>
>
> FWIW, I think you have some good points - albeit in the final analysis I
> disagree with your conclusion with respect to Honda's culpability.
The point has been made here on several occasions that this same thing
might have happened to me at the hands of any dealer of any make. I
have to agree with that. But, Honda was the one that did it to me, so
I'm not blaming the others. It's the way the chips fell.
We've also heard that the dealer just follows the manufacturer's
dictates as far as pricing goes, and also that the part is priced
differently in various places. So, go figure. If the dealer hadn't
enjoyed my anguish so much, if they'd shown one iota of empathy for me
in my predicament, the I might not be SOOOO put off.
This whole business seems emblematic of an "Amurikin Attitude" you see
and hear during good times. Basically, it's "If you don't like it,
then go buy it someplace else." Apparently, the Honda dealer in my
town is not shy any customers, although I have to say that I saw no
customers in the showroom when I ran across the sales manager. Perhaps
my igniter failed a year too soon.
> On the other hand, I find that people who limit their use of the
> language artificially usually have no idea of the richness of ideas
> which can be expressed in it. But I tend to hold out hope that they
> will mature in time.
Well said. Thank you.
<kelsen@bellsouth.net> wrote:
> On 8/1/2003 12:42 AM expensive spake these words of knowledge:
>
> <snip>
>
> > It's a delusion you've made up for me and hung around my neck. Except
> > that I throw it down. I don't appreciate the profanity and I won't
> > stoop to that level. I find that profanity is typically used by people
> > who have run out of ideas. You have a strange way of twisting things
> > around, y'know it? and I can put up with it... but the profanity isn't
> > necessary because it shows that you have reached the bottom of your
> > well where it's bone dry.
>
>
> FWIW, I think you have some good points - albeit in the final analysis I
> disagree with your conclusion with respect to Honda's culpability.
The point has been made here on several occasions that this same thing
might have happened to me at the hands of any dealer of any make. I
have to agree with that. But, Honda was the one that did it to me, so
I'm not blaming the others. It's the way the chips fell.
We've also heard that the dealer just follows the manufacturer's
dictates as far as pricing goes, and also that the part is priced
differently in various places. So, go figure. If the dealer hadn't
enjoyed my anguish so much, if they'd shown one iota of empathy for me
in my predicament, the I might not be SOOOO put off.
This whole business seems emblematic of an "Amurikin Attitude" you see
and hear during good times. Basically, it's "If you don't like it,
then go buy it someplace else." Apparently, the Honda dealer in my
town is not shy any customers, although I have to say that I saw no
customers in the showroom when I ran across the sales manager. Perhaps
my igniter failed a year too soon.
> On the other hand, I find that people who limit their use of the
> language artificially usually have no idea of the richness of ideas
> which can be expressed in it. But I tend to hold out hope that they
> will mature in time.
Well said. Thank you.
#168
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <3F2A81B8.5C231479@hotmail.com>, Mitchell A. Bogh;
bems=137185 <guest@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
The mechanic said that the part rarely fails. But, obviously, it
failed for me and I suppose the reason for it has something to do with
what you say.
> 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.
Yeah! Like the fillings in my teeth. Geezo peezo. What a scourge on
mankind are those silver amalgam fillings.
> all in all its still an expensive part, but if you figure it this way,
> 5-7 dollars per year its not to bad.
I see what you're saying, but I don't entirely agree with your
conclusion that $5-$7 ($8.77, actually; oh, plus tax) is a small price
to pay for such an overpriced part, not to mention the abuse heaped on
me by the dealer.
All of this simply boils down to something fairly simple. I felt that
I was overcharged and abused. And I have decided to use the instrument
of that abuse (the igniter) as a conversation piece with the intent to
cause the local dealer some business. There is a price for arrogance
and usurious pricing, and I intend to show what the limits of it is at
the hands of one individual with a little jawboning. I don't know how
many sales, if any, that I will cause this dealer, but I know of one...
my own.
Now it looks as though I'm going to have to throw away my TV set after
20 years in order to avoid getting ticked off at Sears! Okay, that was
a joke.
Thanks.
bems=137185 <guest@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
The mechanic said that the part rarely fails. But, obviously, it
failed for me and I suppose the reason for it has something to do with
what you say.
> 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.
Yeah! Like the fillings in my teeth. Geezo peezo. What a scourge on
mankind are those silver amalgam fillings.
> all in all its still an expensive part, but if you figure it this way,
> 5-7 dollars per year its not to bad.
I see what you're saying, but I don't entirely agree with your
conclusion that $5-$7 ($8.77, actually; oh, plus tax) is a small price
to pay for such an overpriced part, not to mention the abuse heaped on
me by the dealer.
All of this simply boils down to something fairly simple. I felt that
I was overcharged and abused. And I have decided to use the instrument
of that abuse (the igniter) as a conversation piece with the intent to
cause the local dealer some business. There is a price for arrogance
and usurious pricing, and I intend to show what the limits of it is at
the hands of one individual with a little jawboning. I don't know how
many sales, if any, that I will cause this dealer, but I know of one...
my own.
Now it looks as though I'm going to have to throw away my TV set after
20 years in order to avoid getting ticked off at Sears! Okay, that was
a joke.
Thanks.
#169
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <3F2A81B8.5C231479@hotmail.com>, Mitchell A. Bogh;
bems=137185 <guest@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
The mechanic said that the part rarely fails. But, obviously, it
failed for me and I suppose the reason for it has something to do with
what you say.
> 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.
Yeah! Like the fillings in my teeth. Geezo peezo. What a scourge on
mankind are those silver amalgam fillings.
> all in all its still an expensive part, but if you figure it this way,
> 5-7 dollars per year its not to bad.
I see what you're saying, but I don't entirely agree with your
conclusion that $5-$7 ($8.77, actually; oh, plus tax) is a small price
to pay for such an overpriced part, not to mention the abuse heaped on
me by the dealer.
All of this simply boils down to something fairly simple. I felt that
I was overcharged and abused. And I have decided to use the instrument
of that abuse (the igniter) as a conversation piece with the intent to
cause the local dealer some business. There is a price for arrogance
and usurious pricing, and I intend to show what the limits of it is at
the hands of one individual with a little jawboning. I don't know how
many sales, if any, that I will cause this dealer, but I know of one...
my own.
Now it looks as though I'm going to have to throw away my TV set after
20 years in order to avoid getting ticked off at Sears! Okay, that was
a joke.
Thanks.
bems=137185 <guest@hotmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
The mechanic said that the part rarely fails. But, obviously, it
failed for me and I suppose the reason for it has something to do with
what you say.
> 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.
Yeah! Like the fillings in my teeth. Geezo peezo. What a scourge on
mankind are those silver amalgam fillings.
> all in all its still an expensive part, but if you figure it this way,
> 5-7 dollars per year its not to bad.
I see what you're saying, but I don't entirely agree with your
conclusion that $5-$7 ($8.77, actually; oh, plus tax) is a small price
to pay for such an overpriced part, not to mention the abuse heaped on
me by the dealer.
All of this simply boils down to something fairly simple. I felt that
I was overcharged and abused. And I have decided to use the instrument
of that abuse (the igniter) as a conversation piece with the intent to
cause the local dealer some business. There is a price for arrogance
and usurious pricing, and I intend to show what the limits of it is at
the hands of one individual with a little jawboning. I don't know how
many sales, if any, that I will cause this dealer, but I know of one...
my own.
Now it looks as though I'm going to have to throw away my TV set after
20 years in order to avoid getting ticked off at Sears! Okay, that was
a joke.
Thanks.
#170
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
"expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
news:310720032305562853%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
> In article <remWa.15142$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.
The case that the part would not be available for such an elderly car is not
completely speculative, and less so than your mathematic gymnastics with
respect to finding a nonsensical price for your cart part by comparing it to
the weight of your computer. In terms of not offending your mechanic by
searching for a better-priced part, I'm not sure what your mechanic has to
do with the part, other than install it. He should be happy for you to find
the cheapest part possible. And if he is such a great person, perhaps he
could even assist you in your pursuit of the cheapest part.
> > 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.
I did not/do not watch these shows either, but l try to be apprised of
current news and popular culture events. The comparison was to the comedy
of your "conversation-piece igniter" and its intended aims, not as an
incitement to watch any television programs, "trash" or otherwise. (And as
a corollary how could you determine either to be "trash" if you do not watch
them?)
> > 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'm not sure which "Evil Empire" it is to which you refer. I have worked on
both Mac/PC OS, and each has its advantages and disadvantages. But, for
someone who is currently complaining about a $193 part, Mac is decidedly not
the cost-effective computer to own, "Evil Empire" or not. I really do not
know what is or is not "politically correct" with respect to choosing
computer platforms, or where politics come into play with electronics
purchases; I make my decisions with price/productivity in mind. I respect
your right to use your computer platform as some sort of voting platform,
although again, I wonder at the efficacy of your methods. Again this use of
"trash": is this a scientific use of the word, or rather a foray into verbal
gymnastics, akin to your mathematical manipulation? Seems to me that there
is little distinction in your usage of "trash" and Max's usage of profanity,
other than the pithy wit of his statements.
For me, the price/productivity ratio means that Mac is over-priced for what
they offer, and I can find a PC for a very good price that serves my needs.
I have no problem with you being overcharged for your computer. In a market
economy, a product is worth what consumers will pay for it. And if you are
not a fan of Windows, the Wal-mart computers run Lindows. I purchased my
used notebook computer from Tigerdirect.com for $400 this year (much more in
my budget than $2400 for a computer!) and I am probably as thrilled with
mine as you are with yours (or moreso). While on the subject of computers,
my 1997 Micron notebook recently stopped working (necessitating the purchase
of a new computer); I wanted to upgrade its memory, but it turned out that
the memory-type was so old it would cost me approx. $300 and was nearly
impossible even to find this memory, because new computers had adopted a
newer memory technology. Whereas I could upgrade a relatively new computer's
memory for oh about $19.95 for a stick double the speed of the older
computer. Needless to say, I did not buy the memory, because I felt it was
prohibitively expensive. However I am not bashing Micron for not keeping
updated memory sticks cheap so that I could decide in 2003 that I wanted to
upgrade my memory 6 years later for the same price as it would have cost in
1997. I realize that as new technologies are introduced, it becomes more
expensive to maintain older systems, and to stock older components,
especially in a society that is more and more willing to purchase new
products more frequently (and is more and more able to do so with
installment plans, credit cards, and 2nd mortgages.)
>
> > 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? :-)
I think that you are proverbially shooting yourself in the foot by ditching
Honda over this igniter part (although since you are claiming Honda has cost
you an arm and a leg, perhaps this foot-shooting is minor in comparison.
And, may I add, mighty cheap limbs for a combined total of $193!)
Maybe you will have luck with a Toyota Corolla; they are allegedly also very
reliable. I am not even a current Honda owner, and have never been
particularly impressed by their cars, but I know that you rarely see cars
from 1981 of any make on the road, and generally if you do, they likely have
had major restorative work to keep them running. I know that a lot of this
is lack of desire, rather than lack of ability to maintain these cars, but
generally they become prohibitively expensive to maintain as they age. Take
my 1997 Hyundai. In 6 years: clutch, O2 sensors, camshaft position sensor
all needed to be replaced, among other required "unforeseen" maintenance.
The car was otherwise well-maintained and had $56,000 miles when I traded it
in. It simply was not built for longevity (which Hyundai has since
compensated for by offering a 100,000 miles/10 year warranty--nb. they did
not *choose* to build longer-lasting cars, but to cover their limited
reliability through a warranty system). I think you will be hard-pressed to
find a car where the worst "unforeseen" thing that happens in 22 years of
life is that the $193 igniter fails! Can you think of a current automobile
manufacturer that could meet your expectations? I am interested in hearing
your suggestions.
On another note, you mentioned that you had previously worked on airplanes,
and then later mentioned that you have chosen not to fly. Your implication
(please correct me if my inference is wrong) is that airplane maintenance
and overall quality do not meet your standards. If airplanes are not built
to last by your standards, (when there are fewer airplanes built and in
active duty than automobiles) then why would you assume that cars would be
any more reliable, better built, or even that your dutiful maintenance would
have an effect in preserving the gross longevity of your car, when your own
work on maintaining airplanes leaves you grounded?
What type of Honda do you have?
#171
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
"expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
news:310720032305562853%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
> In article <remWa.15142$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.
The case that the part would not be available for such an elderly car is not
completely speculative, and less so than your mathematic gymnastics with
respect to finding a nonsensical price for your cart part by comparing it to
the weight of your computer. In terms of not offending your mechanic by
searching for a better-priced part, I'm not sure what your mechanic has to
do with the part, other than install it. He should be happy for you to find
the cheapest part possible. And if he is such a great person, perhaps he
could even assist you in your pursuit of the cheapest part.
> > 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.
I did not/do not watch these shows either, but l try to be apprised of
current news and popular culture events. The comparison was to the comedy
of your "conversation-piece igniter" and its intended aims, not as an
incitement to watch any television programs, "trash" or otherwise. (And as
a corollary how could you determine either to be "trash" if you do not watch
them?)
> > 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'm not sure which "Evil Empire" it is to which you refer. I have worked on
both Mac/PC OS, and each has its advantages and disadvantages. But, for
someone who is currently complaining about a $193 part, Mac is decidedly not
the cost-effective computer to own, "Evil Empire" or not. I really do not
know what is or is not "politically correct" with respect to choosing
computer platforms, or where politics come into play with electronics
purchases; I make my decisions with price/productivity in mind. I respect
your right to use your computer platform as some sort of voting platform,
although again, I wonder at the efficacy of your methods. Again this use of
"trash": is this a scientific use of the word, or rather a foray into verbal
gymnastics, akin to your mathematical manipulation? Seems to me that there
is little distinction in your usage of "trash" and Max's usage of profanity,
other than the pithy wit of his statements.
For me, the price/productivity ratio means that Mac is over-priced for what
they offer, and I can find a PC for a very good price that serves my needs.
I have no problem with you being overcharged for your computer. In a market
economy, a product is worth what consumers will pay for it. And if you are
not a fan of Windows, the Wal-mart computers run Lindows. I purchased my
used notebook computer from Tigerdirect.com for $400 this year (much more in
my budget than $2400 for a computer!) and I am probably as thrilled with
mine as you are with yours (or moreso). While on the subject of computers,
my 1997 Micron notebook recently stopped working (necessitating the purchase
of a new computer); I wanted to upgrade its memory, but it turned out that
the memory-type was so old it would cost me approx. $300 and was nearly
impossible even to find this memory, because new computers had adopted a
newer memory technology. Whereas I could upgrade a relatively new computer's
memory for oh about $19.95 for a stick double the speed of the older
computer. Needless to say, I did not buy the memory, because I felt it was
prohibitively expensive. However I am not bashing Micron for not keeping
updated memory sticks cheap so that I could decide in 2003 that I wanted to
upgrade my memory 6 years later for the same price as it would have cost in
1997. I realize that as new technologies are introduced, it becomes more
expensive to maintain older systems, and to stock older components,
especially in a society that is more and more willing to purchase new
products more frequently (and is more and more able to do so with
installment plans, credit cards, and 2nd mortgages.)
>
> > 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? :-)
I think that you are proverbially shooting yourself in the foot by ditching
Honda over this igniter part (although since you are claiming Honda has cost
you an arm and a leg, perhaps this foot-shooting is minor in comparison.
And, may I add, mighty cheap limbs for a combined total of $193!)
Maybe you will have luck with a Toyota Corolla; they are allegedly also very
reliable. I am not even a current Honda owner, and have never been
particularly impressed by their cars, but I know that you rarely see cars
from 1981 of any make on the road, and generally if you do, they likely have
had major restorative work to keep them running. I know that a lot of this
is lack of desire, rather than lack of ability to maintain these cars, but
generally they become prohibitively expensive to maintain as they age. Take
my 1997 Hyundai. In 6 years: clutch, O2 sensors, camshaft position sensor
all needed to be replaced, among other required "unforeseen" maintenance.
The car was otherwise well-maintained and had $56,000 miles when I traded it
in. It simply was not built for longevity (which Hyundai has since
compensated for by offering a 100,000 miles/10 year warranty--nb. they did
not *choose* to build longer-lasting cars, but to cover their limited
reliability through a warranty system). I think you will be hard-pressed to
find a car where the worst "unforeseen" thing that happens in 22 years of
life is that the $193 igniter fails! Can you think of a current automobile
manufacturer that could meet your expectations? I am interested in hearing
your suggestions.
On another note, you mentioned that you had previously worked on airplanes,
and then later mentioned that you have chosen not to fly. Your implication
(please correct me if my inference is wrong) is that airplane maintenance
and overall quality do not meet your standards. If airplanes are not built
to last by your standards, (when there are fewer airplanes built and in
active duty than automobiles) then why would you assume that cars would be
any more reliable, better built, or even that your dutiful maintenance would
have an effect in preserving the gross longevity of your car, when your own
work on maintaining airplanes leaves you grounded?
What type of Honda do you have?
#172
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
"expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
news:010820031257372523%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
> > The case that the part would not be available for such an elderly
> > car is not completely speculative,
>
> Of course it is.
No, it is not. Be glad you're trying (and succeeding) to find parts for a 22
year old Honda, and not something else.
> The
> price of the igniter is controlled by the dealership, and so is the
> attitude of their personnel.
Oh.
So what is their cost, as delivered to you on the parts counter?
And what price do you think they should charge you?
#173
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
"expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
news:010820031257372523%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
> > The case that the part would not be available for such an elderly
> > car is not completely speculative,
>
> Of course it is.
No, it is not. Be glad you're trying (and succeeding) to find parts for a 22
year old Honda, and not something else.
> The
> price of the igniter is controlled by the dealership, and so is the
> attitude of their personnel.
Oh.
So what is their cost, as delivered to you on the parts counter?
And what price do you think they should charge you?
#174
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <010820031257372523%common_sense@emodgnik.com>,
expensive <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote:
> > What type of Honda do you have?
>
> It's a blue '81 Accord/hatchback.
Wow, an '81?
I heard that the igniters fail on those after 40 years. If I were you,
I'd sue Honda because the part malfunctioned and didn't last as long as
it should. I'd also ask the guy from the honda dealer who sold it to
you to check the recalled parts list from 1981 and insist that they
should have done the repair at no charge, and that you should get a
refund, and an apology.
Steve
Fantasyland, USA
expensive <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote:
> > What type of Honda do you have?
>
> It's a blue '81 Accord/hatchback.
Wow, an '81?
I heard that the igniters fail on those after 40 years. If I were you,
I'd sue Honda because the part malfunctioned and didn't last as long as
it should. I'd also ask the guy from the honda dealer who sold it to
you to check the recalled parts list from 1981 and insist that they
should have done the repair at no charge, and that you should get a
refund, and an apology.
Steve
Fantasyland, USA
#175
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
In article <010820031257372523%common_sense@emodgnik.com>,
expensive <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote:
> > What type of Honda do you have?
>
> It's a blue '81 Accord/hatchback.
Wow, an '81?
I heard that the igniters fail on those after 40 years. If I were you,
I'd sue Honda because the part malfunctioned and didn't last as long as
it should. I'd also ask the guy from the honda dealer who sold it to
you to check the recalled parts list from 1981 and insist that they
should have done the repair at no charge, and that you should get a
refund, and an apology.
Steve
Fantasyland, USA
expensive <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote:
> > What type of Honda do you have?
>
> It's a blue '81 Accord/hatchback.
Wow, an '81?
I heard that the igniters fail on those after 40 years. If I were you,
I'd sue Honda because the part malfunctioned and didn't last as long as
it should. I'd also ask the guy from the honda dealer who sold it to
you to check the recalled parts list from 1981 and insist that they
should have done the repair at no charge, and that you should get a
refund, and an apology.
Steve
Fantasyland, USA
#178
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:53:02 GMT, expensive
<common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote:
>The part alone is $193 at the Honda dealer's parts counter.
OK, I'll play the part of troll. In my opinion this part is
underpriced. After all, it is a critical element in making the car
run. What's it worth to you? I'll bet you would have paid $300 for it.
You would have complained, of course, but you'd have paid it.
Therefore I think the price is below market value.
<common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote:
>The part alone is $193 at the Honda dealer's parts counter.
OK, I'll play the part of troll. In my opinion this part is
underpriced. After all, it is a critical element in making the car
run. What's it worth to you? I'll bet you would have paid $300 for it.
You would have complained, of course, but you'd have paid it.
Therefore I think the price is below market value.
#179
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
On Fri, 01 Aug 2003 00:53:02 GMT, expensive
<common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote:
>The part alone is $193 at the Honda dealer's parts counter.
OK, I'll play the part of troll. In my opinion this part is
underpriced. After all, it is a critical element in making the car
run. What's it worth to you? I'll bet you would have paid $300 for it.
You would have complained, of course, but you'd have paid it.
Therefore I think the price is below market value.
<common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote:
>The part alone is $193 at the Honda dealer's parts counter.
OK, I'll play the part of troll. In my opinion this part is
underpriced. After all, it is a critical element in making the car
run. What's it worth to you? I'll bet you would have paid $300 for it.
You would have complained, of course, but you'd have paid it.
Therefore I think the price is below market value.
#180
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: MORE than expensive - outrageous!
"expensive" <common_sense@emodgnik.com> wrote in message
news:010820031257372523%common_sense@emodgnik.com. ..
>
>
> Mathematic gymnastics, maybe, but disclaimed many times as being
> tongue-in-cheek. I think that most people who read these messages
> know that I don't seriously consider that a comparison of a laptop
> and an igniter is anything more than coincidental due to the
> appearance of the two items, and anecdotal/rhetorical. You really
> should stop flaying me with this as it has become a red herring,
> i.e. a substitute for the discussion of what is really a matter of
> consumer relations.
Maybe you disclaimed your bizarre calculations as being tongue-in-cheek,
yes, but perhaps your tongue is permanently lodged in your cheek? Because
in your subsequent messages, you continued to refer to the part as a "$27
part." If readers of your messages are not to take your mathematical
manipulations seriously, then neither should you.
>
> My mechanic has my best interests at heart. He doesn't use
> aftermarket parts unless nothing else is available. My instructions
> to him are to give me a safe and reliable car. The pricing of the
> part is not his fault and I hold him harmless in all of this. The
> price of the igniter is controlled by the dealership, and so is the
> attitude of their personnel.
> > Maybe you will have luck with a Toyota Corolla
>
> I hear that they rank right up there in quality.
Yes, but doubtful that they will meet your 22-year litmus test! The
reputation of an automobile is based on overall customer satisfaction and
overall reliability, which is largely determined by other people's accounts
and reasonable standards for durability, longevity, and fewest number of
major problems. Your standards, as evidenced by your recent "outrage," are
not nearly so reasonable. The Toyota is "right up there" with Honda in
quality, but if Honda quality has dissatisfied you, then being "right up
there" is not far enough!
> I don't expect that a
> breakdown or a worn-out part will result in such an assault on
> my wallet or on my sensitivities. These are my feelings and
> don't require any justification. Somebody at Honda or the
> dealership must have held up that part and speculated about
> what the market would bear. Well, I'm here to say that
> they've miscalculated.
You said it: "I don't expect..." With a 22-year-old car, you should expect
a lot more repairs than a dinky $193 igniter! I'd rather be Prometheus than
Epimetheus.
Also, as others have suggested, your particular Honda dealership is not
generating these prices at random, contrary to what you believe or have
convinced yourself to believe (as in the misguided notion you have developed
that your part "looks like it should be worth $27"; since when does your
subjective evaluation based on appearance dictate market value?).
You must feel badly now that you didn't put in the time, energy, and
inconvenience that other people invest in trying to find a reasonable price
for a car part, or at least to determine based on other suppliers that the
$193 cost was warranted by the current market situation. You paid up at the
time, and then complain later about it. The Honda dealership obviously did
not "miscalculate" because you purchased the part at their exact asking
price!
No, your feelings do not require justification, as you have already shown us
with your initial statement that you were very angry and then the added
qualifier "And rightly so." (!!!)