wrote in message
ups.com...

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. :-)


I agree. It was a juvenile nanananabooboo thread anyway.

He started a similar one sometime last year, that time involving Harry and
filled with the "F" word.

basskisser wrote:

Dan Krueger wrote:

basskisser wrote:

Dan Krueger 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


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???



I haven't paid a dime for a brake job in years. Fortunately the
vehicles I own have included maintenance coverage for the term of the lease.

Whoever was complaining about three brake repairs should either find a
different shop or get a new car.

Dan

basskisser wrote:

Dan Krueger wrote:

basskisser wrote:


Dan Krueger wrote:


basskisser wrote:



Black Dog wrote:



basskisser wrote:



Dan Krueger wrote:




SamJenson wrote:





"basskisser" wrote in message
news:1147880896.549035.76410@y43g2000cwc. googlegroups.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.


Nice try. Read your response to me. Better yet:

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.

But, alas, you seem to define yourself...

JohnH,
Chuck was not commenting one way or the other about the veracity of
this or any header based upon name calling or personal attacks, he was
commenting on the damage to the NG by perpetuating name calling and
personal attacks, especially when it highlighted by using a header
where the subject is a personal battle.

On 20 May 2006 20:31:35 -0700, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

JohnH,
Chuck was not commenting one way or the other about the veracity of
this or any header based upon name calling or personal attacks, he was
commenting on the damage to the NG by perpetuating name calling and
personal attacks, especially when it highlighted by using a header
where the subject is a personal battle.

I wonder which is more damaging, the header or the acts themselves. In any
case, I don't care if the header goes the way of all good, honest headers.
Think on it, you and Chuck have kept it alive for two or three more days!
It would not be polite of me to disregard messages addressed at me.

BTW, the donations are still coming in:

http://www.active.com/donate/varace4cure/RacingforRenee

--
'Til next time,

John H

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

JimH wrote:
wrote in message
ups.com...

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. :-)


I agree. It was a juvenile nanananabooboo thread anyway.

He started a similar one sometime last year, that time involving Harry and
filled with the "F" word.

Oh, for God's sake, Jim grow up!

"I did brakes and such for a long time professionally. I looked it up in
my
Wagner book to confirm, just incase I'm getting foggy.1995 Jeep Cherokee
rear brake shoes, short shoe to the front, long shoe in the rear.This is
a
rule of thumb with Cherokees, there are exceptions with some
vehicles.Your
best bet is to do your vehicle correctly, and let the idiot foul his
up.Keep
your rear brakes properly adjusted."

Funny, from this so-called expert, when in fact the Jeep was NEW when I
got it. Are you saying that the brakes were put in by the factory
incorrectly?


I'm saying you're wrong- and they didn't come that way. I suppose all the
service manuals, experts, and the manufacturer are all wrong and you're
right?

Then how do you account for the fact that the parking
brake hardware is in fact hooked up correctly?

Because they're designed that way. The same backing plates are used for each
side. The mounting patterns, holes, etc are identical on the primary and
secondary shoes so that they will fit on each side of the vehicle. The size
and composition of the friction surface is the only difference.


Lets look at some of the other responses from the experts-

"You are correct. The longer secondary shoe holds the parking brake
hardware."

Never said that the longer shoe DIDN'T hold the parking brake hardware.

See above- the parking brake hardware will fit on either shoe.


"There is a clear diagram in the Haynes Manual that labels the shoes and
shows the shorter lining on the front or primary shoe.
I could take a digital photo of the page and email it to you if you would
like."

Okay. And (now THINK for a second) remember "there are exceptions."
These exeptions being different rear ends, etc.

Not on your vehicle there's not. The only exceptions to the smaller primary
to the front rule I've been able to find are on vehicles that have multiple
wheel cylinders per axel, or some vehicles that have the wheel cylinder on
the bottom, neither of which was ever available on the Cherokee.


I can also take a digital picture of the damned brakes on mine, which
makes me correct in any and all of my statements.

A picture proves nothing. As stated- the shoes can be installed backwards as
easily as they can be installed correctly.
Can you provide *any* other source to back up your statements?
Why not move this thread over to the jeep forum? You can tell everyone how
they're all wrong.

Are you ready to put your money where your mouth is?

Yes Kevin, how dare I try to change the topic in a boating NG to a
boating related one and ask to see a picture of his boat. The shame!

His name's not Kevin. This I know.
--
'Til next time,

John H

John-

You can help basskisser prove his Professional Engineer status without
disclosing his name!
Go to https://secure.sos.state.ga.us/myverification/ and put his name into
the search fields. If he indeed has the license it must come up in the
search.

I see he has said in the past he would prove it if he could, but he didn't
want to post his identity. Here's his chance.

I'll donate $100 to the Race for the cure if he is :-)

SamJenson wrote:
"I did brakes and such for a long time professionally. I looked it up in
my
Wagner book to confirm, just incase I'm getting foggy.1995 Jeep Cherokee
rear brake shoes, short shoe to the front, long shoe in the rear.This is
a
rule of thumb with Cherokees, there are exceptions with some
vehicles.Your
best bet is to do your vehicle correctly, and let the idiot foul his
up.Keep
your rear brakes properly adjusted."

Funny, from this so-called expert, when in fact the Jeep was NEW when I
got it. Are you saying that the brakes were put in by the factory
incorrectly?


I'm saying you're wrong- and they didn't come that way. I suppose all the
service manuals, experts, and the manufacturer are all wrong and you're
right?

Then how do you account for the fact that the parking
brake hardware is in fact hooked up correctly?

Because they're designed that way. The same backing plates are used for each
side. The mounting patterns, holes, etc are identical on the primary and
secondary shoes so that they will fit on each side of the vehicle. The size
and composition of the friction surface is the only difference.


Lets look at some of the other responses from the experts-

"You are correct. The longer secondary shoe holds the parking brake
hardware."

Never said that the longer shoe DIDN'T hold the parking brake hardware.

See above- the parking brake hardware will fit on either shoe.


"There is a clear diagram in the Haynes Manual that labels the shoes and
shows the shorter lining on the front or primary shoe.
I could take a digital photo of the page and email it to you if you would
like."

Okay. And (now THINK for a second) remember "there are exceptions."
These exeptions being different rear ends, etc.

Not on your vehicle there's not. The only exceptions to the smaller primary
to the front rule I've been able to find are on vehicles that have multiple
wheel cylinders per axel, or some vehicles that have the wheel cylinder on
the bottom, neither of which was ever available on the Cherokee.


I can also take a digital picture of the damned brakes on mine, which
makes me correct in any and all of my statements.

A picture proves nothing. As stated- the shoes can be installed backwards as
easily as they can be installed correctly.
Can you provide *any* other source to back up your statements?
Why not move this thread over to the jeep forum? You can tell everyone how
they're all wrong.

Are you ready to put your money where your mouth is?

Again, now learn to read. I bought the Jeep BRAND NEW.......
I CHANGED THE SHOES THE FIRST TIME
THEY CAN'T BE BACKWARDS BECAUSE OF THE WAY THE PARKING BRAKE CABLE
ENTERS FROM THE BACKING PLATE.(unless someone at the factory or the
dealership thought it would be cool to switch backing plates and went
to that trouble!)

Now again please learn to read. Where have I said that "everyone" is
wrong?
I said and I STILL say, my jeep's brakes are just as I've described and
ALWAYS HAVE BEEN. Again, the ONLY WAY they can be wrong is if someone
switched backing plates on the axle. Think that happened? So, sure,
I'll put my money where my mouth is. I know how they've ALWAYS been.
And again, I can take a picture showing you how they can't possibly be
installed wrong unless the axle is backwards (which of course isn't the
case) or the backing plates were changed (which of course isn't the
case). Go for it.

SamJenson wrote:
Yes Kevin, how dare I try to change the topic in a boating NG to a
boating related one and ask to see a picture of his boat. The shame!

His name's not Kevin. This I know.
--
'Til next time,

John H

John-

You can help basskisser prove his Professional Engineer status without
disclosing his name!
Go to https://secure.sos.state.ga.us/myverification/ and put his name into
the search fields. If he indeed has the license it must come up in the
search.

I see he has said in the past he would prove it if he could, but he didn't
want to post his identity. Here's his chance.

I'll donate $100 to the Race for the cure if he is :-)

How about making it worth my revealing my identity? $5000???