Jim Hertvic - a liar...
 

On Tue, 16 May 2006 15:23:02 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On 15 May 2006 16:52:24 -0700, "Reginald P. Smithers"
wrote:

JimH,
My comments makes sense, and you have supported this from JohnH's first
post when you tried to "pressu" him not to promote his "team" Race
for the Cure. Wasn't that you who told him "enough already", you have
already gotten $3000 give it up already?

That sounds like someone whose only objective is to harass JohnH, and
really doesn't care about the cause.

I can't understand why JimH would say that I didn't match any rec.boats
contributions when he, himself, received a forwarded message confirming my
donation for *his* contribution. I even confirmed with him that he got it!

I can't understand why he's making his posts, unless he thinks it will
garner him some friends. I noticed he didn't argue with Don or Harry. Maybe
that's where he thinks his 'glory' will lie.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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



Why don't you two take this incredibly stupid and boring discussion to
a.stupid&boring.usenet.d'oh where it belings.

'You two'? It seems as though there are many more folks, including you,
who've been making comments in this thread.

I'm not answering Jim's messages. I killfiled him yesterday.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

Jim Hertvic - a liar...
 

On Tue, 16 May 2006 15:34:37 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

JohnH wrote:
On Tue, 16 May 2006 08:30:36 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:

Reginald P. Smithers wrote:
What I think is so funny is JimH was all upset when JohnH made a few
comments about Race for Renee, but look at the number of comments JimH
has made concerning the "Scandal behind the Race for Renee".

I think he might want to forward this to the NYT or the Washington Post
for a more detailed follow up concerning Reneegate.


Do you have some ulterior motive for sustaining this?

Harry, did JimH have some ulterior motive for *starting* this? As you know,
you were the only person whose donation I offered to triple, yet JimH has
implied otherwise. Is there some reason you've not corrected him?
--
'Til next time,

John H

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



I've posted this before, and I'll post it again. I skip a lot of posts
here these days. My interest is sporadic. I do, though, see these damned
idiotic headers and I wonder why you just don't let this die. It
deserves to.

Good idea. The silly crap should not have been started in the first place.
Why, though, do you accuse only *me* of not letting it lie, but say nothing
to the one making the false accusations? Today I got home from work and
found about 25 posts in this thread, none of which had been made by me.

I'd be interested in knowing.
--
'Til next time,

John H

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

Jim Hertvic - a liar...
 

"JohnH" wrote in message
...


If the loser loses, and has to donate the money, I'll (that's a
contraction
for 'I will', i.e., future tense) match it!

Hell, maybe the Racing for Renee Team can become the number one
fundraising
team!

That would be great John but this is where basskisser tries to wiggle out,
or ignores the thread completely.

Jim Hertvic - a liar...
 

John wrote:

"I can't understand why JimH would say that I didn't match any
rec.boats
contributions when he, himself, received a forwarded message confirming
my
donation for *his* contribution. I even confirmed with him that he got
it! "

And I responded:

I never said you didn't match *any* rec.boats contributions John. I
said you did not match the ones you promised to.

Can you let this die already and move on?

Jim Hertvic - a liar...
 

SamJenson wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...


If the loser loses, and has to donate the money, I'll (that's a
contraction
for 'I will', i.e., future tense) match it!

Hell, maybe the Racing for Renee Team can become the number one
fundraising
team!

That would be great John but this is where basskisser tries to wiggle out,
or ignores the thread completely.

What in the hell are you talking about dummy?

Jim Hertvic - a liar...
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

SamJenson wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...


If the loser loses, and has to donate the money, I'll (that's a
contraction
for 'I will', i.e., future tense) match it!

Hell, maybe the Racing for Renee Team can become the number one
fundraising
team!

That would be great John but this is where basskisser tries to wiggle
out,
or ignores the thread completely.

What in the hell are you talking about dummy?


Petty and childish name calling does nothing for your credibility

Jim Hertvic - a liar...
 

SamJenson wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

SamJenson wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...


If the loser loses, and has to donate the money, I'll (that's a
contraction
for 'I will', i.e., future tense) match it!

Hell, maybe the Racing for Renee Team can become the number one
fundraising
team!

That would be great John but this is where basskisser tries to wiggle
out,
or ignores the thread completely.

What in the hell are you talking about dummy?


Petty and childish name calling does nothing for your credibility

Simply calling a spade a spade.

Jim Hertvic - a liar...
 

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

SamJenson wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...


Really? I know damned well how my brakes on my vehicles are configured.

Me too, backwards.

Uh, no.....


Care to wager?
How about $500.00? The loser will donate the money to Racing For The Cure in
care of JohnH.

The bet is very simple.-

I say on your 1995 Jeep Cherokee that the shorter rear brake shoe is the
primary and is located towards the front of the vehicle, and the longer
secondary shoe is located towards the rear of the vehicle.

You say the shorter primary brake shoe is located towards the rear of the
vehicle and the secondary longer brake shoe is located towards the front of
the vehicle.

The service manual for this vehicle will be the source that determines the
correct configuration.

Put your money where your mouth is.

Sam

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?

Jim Hertvic - a liar...
 

SamJenson wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

SamJenson wrote:
"JohnH" wrote in message
...


If the loser loses, and has to donate the money, I'll (that's a
contraction
for 'I will', i.e., future tense) match it!

Hell, maybe the Racing for Renee Team can become the number one
fundraising
team!

That would be great John but this is where basskisser tries to wiggle
out,
or ignores the thread completely.

What in the hell are you talking about dummy?


Petty and childish name calling does nothing for your credibility

Remember what one of the experts that you were trying to dig up told
you? Here it is:

This is a rule of thumb with Cherokees, there are exceptions with some
vehicles.

Jim Hertvic - a liar...
 

"basskisser" wrote in message
oups.com...

Remember what one of the experts that you were trying to dig up told
you? Here it is:

This is a rule of thumb with Cherokees, there are exceptions with some
vehicles.

And you call me a dummy? Why didn't you post the "experts" complete post?
Here's the full text-

"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."

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

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

"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."

"The Haynes manual is a half decent book to have around, if only for things
like that and the torque specs. It is in the twenty dollar
range. Most auto parts stores sell them. If you had the book which shows
photos of the shoes as well as the diagram, that would fix his wagon.
Meanwhile I was bored so I got a couple blurry shots from the book and
posted them on alt.binaries.pictures.autos.4x4. They are soo blurry there is
no way you could be accused of photoshopping them. LOL!"

"Short shoe to the front."

"If you think about this for a long time, you might convince yourself that
there is a reason for it. I tried, but I just didn't get it. I did notice
that when people put them on backwards, the short shoe wears out way too
fast."

Have any proof that you're right and *everyone* else is wrong?