"RCE" wrote in message
...

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
. ..

"RCE" wrote in message
...

" JimH" jimh_osudad@yahooDOT comREMOVETHIS wrote in message
...

"basskisser" wrote in message
ups.com...

My Jeep is a go anywhere, do anything type of vehicle. I still like
driving it. I've kept in in good shape, runs like a clock, is very low
maintenence. I'll bet I'm a lot better off than a lot of people who
think they need to be seen in an expensive new-every-year car because
of their lack of manhood.

I think you just insulted Richly Rich RCE.



Nope. In addition to new, I also drive a 60 year old car regularly.
Must make me very secure in my manhood.
Now, you, on the other hand ....

RCE


I am sure you dropped it off immediately to Chip Foose to do a full frame
up restoration. After all, one must maintain standards in the Richly
Rich household.........eh? ;-)


I maintain certain standards, but none that would be of interest to you.

RCE


Agreed. ;-)

Dan Krueger wrote:
basskisser wrote:

Dan Krueger wrote:

SamJenson wrote:


"basskisser" wrote in message
groups.com...



I have changed the rear brakes on my Jeep three (3) times. I bought it
with 57 miles on it. I know how they were and still are. Next time I'll
take a picture to prove to you. I am not talking about anybody else's
vehicle, I'm talking about mine. Care to wager?


Because the brakes on *your* Jeep are on backwards proves nothing. Either
you, or the factory installed them backwards.

Yes, I will wager that your brakes are installed incorrectly and we will use
the manufacturers service manual as the final word.
Once you agree to the bet, we can both post our supporting documentation.

The loser sends $500 to JohnH to be donated to the Race for the cure in care
in his daughter's name.



$500 might be a stretch for someone who is complaining about brakes on
an 11 year old vehicle.

Dan


Dan, where was I "complaining about brakes" on my Jeep. I choose to
keep my vehicle. I love it. You should try a Jeep sometime. I've got a
friend who has a '76 CJ he might part with.


I've owned two. A '94 Jeep GC Laredo (6 cyl) and a '98 Jeep CG Limited
(8 cyl). They were both good vehicles but I prefer my current and last
SUV's over both of them.

I would rather pay to drive a new vehicle than keep an older car that is
far more likely to break down without warning with an expired warranty.

I've put a quarter million miles on my Cherokee, and outside of routine
maintenance, the only thing I've done is I put a new radiator in it
(theold one cracked at the flange), while I had it apart, I went ahead
and put a water pump in it. I've owned it for 11 years, so thats
$150.00 that I've spent outside of routine maintenance. It's a simple
vehicle, and not much to "break down". On the other hand, you drive a
new vehicle off the lot, you lose approx. 20% in depreciation right
there, or for a $30,000 vehicle, approx. $6000.
Tell me again how that math is sound?
You still haven't told me where I was "complaining about brakes" on
myJeep.

Dan Krueger wrote:
basskisser wrote:

Black Dog wrote:

basskisser wrote:

Dan Krueger wrote:


SamJenson wrote:



"basskisser" wrote in message
legroups.com...




I have changed the rear brakes on my Jeep three (3) times. I bought it
with 57 miles on it. I know how they were and still are. Next time I'll
take a picture to prove to you. I am not talking about anybody else's
vehicle, I'm talking about mine. Care to wager?


Because the brakes on *your* Jeep are on backwards proves nothing. Either
you, or the factory installed them backwards.

Yes, I will wager that your brakes are installed incorrectly and we will use
the manufacturers service manual as the final word.
Once you agree to the bet, we can both post our supporting documentation.

The loser sends $500 to JohnH to be donated to the Race for the cure in care
in his daughter's name.



$500 might be a stretch for someone who is complaining about brakes on
an 11 year old vehicle.

Dan


I personally don't need a vehicle as a symbol of my manhood.


Me neither!

Stella


And I'm glad you don't!!!!

Spoken (written) like a true child.

Yes, you are a child. Again, you are JUST like JimH. When you are
losing a debate the first thing you do is start insulting, and then you
call me Kevin, when if you had HALF a brain, you'd know I'm not him.
But, alas, I understand that you aren't bright enough.

On Mon, 15 May 2006 13:49:10 GMT, Don White wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:
basskisser wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers wrote:

You have no interest in the "cause",you have done everything to
discourage JohnH and others from contributing to the "cause", you only
have an interest in belittling JohnH for his efforts.

You are a little person and you prove this with every one of your posts
concerning this matter.

Fair enough?

Now can we move on?


Jim can not understand how his claims are flawed. I don't understand
why he can't it's so damned simple. If he'd just factor time into his
idiotic conclusions, he'd find that John has done exactly as he said he
would, AFTER he made statements.



Someone has to say it, in order to raise the level of this conversation:

George W. Bush sucks. Big time.

Lets get back to the usual things we scrap about.
What's with the hockey fans in California booing the Canadian National
Anthem? Didn't we go through this exercise a few years ago when some
French fans in Montreal booed the US anthem & tit for tat episodes
followed. Always thought Californians were more progressive.
(must have been Colic Bill & his two friends causing trouble)

A very few American hockey fans are assholes. Please don't take it
personally. Don't judge all Americans by some looney Californians.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

basskisser wrote:
Dan Krueger wrote:

basskisser wrote:


Dan Krueger wrote:


SamJenson wrote:



"basskisser" wrote in message
legroups.com...




I have changed the rear brakes on my Jeep three (3) times. I bought it
with 57 miles on it. I know how they were and still are. Next time I'll
take a picture to prove to you. I am not talking about anybody else's
vehicle, I'm talking about mine. Care to wager?


Because the brakes on *your* Jeep are on backwards proves nothing. Either
you, or the factory installed them backwards.

Yes, I will wager that your brakes are installed incorrectly and we will use
the manufacturers service manual as the final word.
Once you agree to the bet, we can both post our supporting documentation.

The loser sends $500 to JohnH to be donated to the Race for the cure in care
in his daughter's name.



$500 might be a stretch for someone who is complaining about brakes on
an 11 year old vehicle.

Dan


Dan, where was I "complaining about brakes" on my Jeep. I choose to
keep my vehicle. I love it. You should try a Jeep sometime. I've got a
friend who has a '76 CJ he might part with.


I've owned two. A '94 Jeep GC Laredo (6 cyl) and a '98 Jeep CG Limited
(8 cyl). They were both good vehicles but I prefer my current and last
SUV's over both of them.

I would rather pay to drive a new vehicle than keep an older car that is
far more likely to break down without warning with an expired warranty.


I've put a quarter million miles on my Cherokee, and outside of routine
maintenance, the only thing I've done is I put a new radiator in it
(theold one cracked at the flange), while I had it apart, I went ahead
and put a water pump in it. I've owned it for 11 years, so thats
$150.00 that I've spent outside of routine maintenance. It's a simple
vehicle, and not much to "break down". On the other hand, you drive a
new vehicle off the lot, you lose approx. 20% in depreciation right
there, or for a $30,000 vehicle, approx. $6000.
Tell me again how that math is sound?
You still haven't told me where I was "complaining about brakes" on
myJeep.


There are no flaws in your math and I have no idea what you want me to
tell you "again". Some people choose to forego the problems associated
with older cars and buy, or lease, new vehicles more often. If we
didn't do this there would be far fewer affordable cars for people with
less to spend. My point is that our loss is their gain. The benefit
for us is the reliability of a new car.

I just bought my first used car in almost 20 years. It was a birthday
present for the wife. The car she wanted was no longer in production so
I found a low mileage car in excellent condition. The lease was up on
our other car so the timing was right.

If that wasn't you who said "I have changed the rear brakes on my Jeep
three (3) times." then I was wrong. Someone edited this post so I can't
tell who said what.

On Topic: I doubt I would ever purchase a used boat. Initial
depreciation aside, there are so many things a boat owner can neglect
that I wouldn't want to deal with it - with, or without a survey.

Dan

basskisser wrote:

Dan Krueger wrote:

basskisser wrote:


Black Dog wrote:


basskisser wrote:


Dan Krueger wrote:



SamJenson wrote:




"basskisser" wrote in message
oglegroups.com...





I have changed the rear brakes on my Jeep three (3) times. I bought it
with 57 miles on it. I know how they were and still are. Next time I'll
take a picture to prove to you. I am not talking about anybody else's
vehicle, I'm talking about mine. Care to wager?


Because the brakes on *your* Jeep are on backwards proves nothing. Either
you, or the factory installed them backwards.

Yes, I will wager that your brakes are installed incorrectly and we will use
the manufacturers service manual as the final word.
Once you agree to the bet, we can both post our supporting documentation.

The loser sends $500 to JohnH to be donated to the Race for the cure in care
in his daughter's name.



$500 might be a stretch for someone who is complaining about brakes on
an 11 year old vehicle.

Dan


I personally don't need a vehicle as a symbol of my manhood.


Me neither!

Stella


And I'm glad you don't!!!!


Spoken (written) like a true child.


Yes, you are a child. Again, you are JUST like JimH. When you are
losing a debate the first thing you do is start insulting, and then you
call me Kevin, when if you had HALF a brain, you'd know I'm not him.
But, alas, I understand that you aren't bright enough.


"Alas"? Wow. Weird stuff. Read the post again. My response was
directed at yours. Here it is again:

"And I'm glad you don't!!!!"

Read your reply now.

Good grief!

OMG.

Next I expect to see "my dad can kick your dad's ass"................

"JohnH" wrote in message
...
On Mon, 15 May 2006 13:49:10 GMT, Don White
wrote:

Harry Krause wrote:
basskisser wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers wrote:

You have no interest in the "cause",you have done everything to
discourage JohnH and others from contributing to the "cause", you only
have an interest in belittling JohnH for his efforts.

You are a little person and you prove this with every one of your
posts
concerning this matter.

Fair enough?

Now can we move on?


Jim can not understand how his claims are flawed. I don't understand
why he can't it's so damned simple. If he'd just factor time into his
idiotic conclusions, he'd find that John has done exactly as he said he
would, AFTER he made statements.



Someone has to say it, in order to raise the level of this conversation:

George W. Bush sucks. Big time.

Lets get back to the usual things we scrap about.
What's with the hockey fans in California booing the Canadian National
Anthem? Didn't we go through this exercise a few years ago when some
French fans in Montreal booed the US anthem & tit for tat episodes
followed. Always thought Californians were more progressive.
(must have been Colic Bill & his two friends causing trouble)

A very few American hockey fans are assholes. Please don't take it
personally. Don't judge all Americans by some looney Californians.
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

I have not been even looking at this thread for days, and now I find that
Harry is still being an ASSHOLE!

No, john, when ever I type that into the browser window, it takes me to
a menue of alt. groups provided by google.

could you post a link that will work for me?



JohnH wrote:
Hey Schnautzer, were you ever able to get 'over there' and check out the
pics?




On 14 May 2006 12:56:35 -0700, wrote:

Pardon me, bt, "where" is "over there" and how do you get, "there"???



JohnH wrote:
On 14 May 2006 06:42:13 -0700, "
wrote:


JohnH wrote:
In an earlier post, Jim, you stated, "John does have a history of reneging
on promises."

That accusation was a lie.

You've not shown one promise on which I've reneged, and your stupid
accusations/mathematical wizardry failed to account for the fact that, as
Don White said, many people made their donations *before* my offer
was put on the table.

You, in a cowardly fashion, decided to cut and run from the thread in which
you made the accusations. Was it because you realized you'd opened your
mouth once too often?

I see you're now puppy-dogging Harry around the group. I'm sure he'll
provide you some motherly support.
--
'Til next time,

John H

Why don't you guys take it to email?
"So and So is a Such and Such" threads are always bad medicine.

It's over. If you get a chance, check out the 'runners and donors' picture
over there, especially the top name in the fourth column from the left.

Thanks!
--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************

--
'Til next time,

John H

******************************************
***** Have a Spectacular Day! *****
******************************************