On 19 May 2006 22:01:20 -0700, "Tim" wrote:

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.


I have no idea how to get there using a web browser. I use Forte Agent, a
newsreader, which makes life amongst the news groups pretty easy.

Perhaps we can enlist the aid of one of the more knowledgeable members, but
I'm stumped.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

Google does not include any binary NG's and I while therer are many web
sites that include NG posts, I am not aware of any web sites that
include binary.

Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
Google does not include any binary NG's and I while therer are many web
sites that include NG posts, I am not aware of any web sites that
include binary.

Thanks Guys:

I'll check out Forte Agent and see what happens.


Tim

Dan Krueger wrote:
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.

what does that have to do with anything? Brakes wear out, it's a
maintenence item. Do you trade for a new car before your brakes wear
out???

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.

Fortunatly, and I thank my lucky stars when I see people's bills for
repairs, I grew up knowing how to fix almost anything, and still do. I
grew up in a rural area, and if something broke on the farm, you fixed
it. I still do all my own work. My used boat works flawlessly. I looked
it all over, did compression checks, etc. and bought it knowing that it
needed some work. I got it for a song, and fixed what needed fixing.

Dan

Dan Krueger wrote:
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.

Uh, what is childish about that statement?
I AM glad that *SHE* don't need a symbol of HER manhood.

Looks like this whole thread has wandered off into chatroom, personal
correspondence territory.

Would it be OK to use a different header?

Threads based on name calling and personal attack are never a helpful
thing, and once the focus has shifted from the alleged personality
traits of the unfortunate target there isn't a single reason to
continue dragging his name through the mud.

My 2 cents worth, keep the change. :-)

wrote:
Looks like this whole thread has wandered off into chatroom, personal
correspondence territory.

Would it be OK to use a different header?

Threads based on name calling and personal attack are never a helpful
thing, and once the focus has shifted from the alleged personality
traits of the unfortunate target there isn't a single reason to
continue dragging his name through the mud.

My 2 cents worth, keep the change. :-)

On 20 May 2006 11:38:29 -0700, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:


wrote:
Looks like this whole thread has wandered off into chatroom, personal
correspondence territory.

Would it be OK to use a different header?

Threads based on name calling and personal attack are never a helpful
thing, and once the focus has shifted from the alleged personality
traits of the unfortunate target there isn't a single reason to
continue dragging his name through the mud.

My 2 cents worth, keep the change. :-)

Reggie, you spoke too softly. I couldn't hear what you said.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

On 20 May 2006 09:38:27 -0700, "
wrote:


Looks like this whole thread has wandered off into chatroom, personal
correspondence territory.

Would it be OK to use a different header?

Threads based on name calling and personal attack are never a helpful
thing, and once the focus has shifted from the alleged personality
traits of the unfortunate target there isn't a single reason to
continue dragging his name through the mud.

My 2 cents worth, keep the change. :-)

So if a post shows up under this header it should be disregarded because of
the header? What's wrong with the header? It's an honest, succinct header
that states a fact, not an allegation.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

On Sat, 20 May 2006 16:31:42 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On 20 May 2006 09:38:27 -0700, "
wrote:

Looks like this whole thread has wandered off into chatroom, personal
correspondence territory.

Would it be OK to use a different header?

Threads based on name calling and personal attack are never a helpful
thing, and once the focus has shifted from the alleged personality
traits of the unfortunate target there isn't a single reason to
continue dragging his name through the mud.

My 2 cents worth, keep the change. :-)

So if a post shows up under this header it should be disregarded because of
the header? What's wrong with the header? It's an honest, succinct header
that states a fact, not an allegation.
--
'Til next time,

John H


You're quite the piece of work.

Thanks, Harry. Is the Parker in the water yet?
--
'Til next time,

John H

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