|
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
"Harry Krause" wrote in message ... Reginald P. Smithers wrote: Harry, I really do have an ulterior motive for sustaining this. JohnH did a great job supporting a cause he believed in. Someone continues to make false allegations about his efforts, and I don't believe those allegations should go unaswered. If you review these posts, it is JimH who is sustaining this. All the entire thing proved to me was that it was (and is) possible to be far more obnoxious in non-political threads than in political threads. I'm afraid you've completely misconstrued the actual point, and have bent it into something that suits you. The actual point has nothing to do with the nature of political or non-political threads. It has everything to do with the nature of certain participants in any thread. The lesson simply illustrates that assholes will always be assholes, wherever they tread. Hardly profound or shocking. |
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
"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 |
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
You must have missed the part where I mentioned "the entire thing." Emphasis on entire. Either you're being cryptic or I'm being dense. Either way, I don't follow your point, which wouldn't be the first time. |
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
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! ***** ****************************************** |
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
On 16 May 2006 08:19:37 -0700, "JimH" 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 ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
On 16 May 2006 05:27:14 -0700, "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. LOL! Don't be giving him *more* ideas! -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
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! ***** ****************************************** |
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
On Tue, 16 May 2006 17:36:00 GMT, "SamJenson" wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message oups.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 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! -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
"JohnH" wrote in message ... 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! ***** ****************************************** For your information John it was *you* who started this nananana booboo Jim is a liar thread. |
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
"JohnH" wrote in message ... On Tue, 16 May 2006 17:36:00 GMT, "SamJenson" wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message roups.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 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! -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** Enough already John. Start a donation NG if you want as I (as I am sure many others) am getting tired of your constant plea for donations. This is not the place for it.....folks don't come here to be bugged constantly for donations. Please drop it already. |
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? |
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
"basskisser" wrote in message ups.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. |
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
SamJenson wrote: "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." 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? Then how do you account for the fact that the parking brake hardware is in fact hooked up correctly? 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. "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. I can also take a digital picture of the damned brakes on mine, which makes me correct in any and all of my statements. "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." Not on mine, again since brand new! "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." They aren't on "backwards. Came from the factory like that. THIS is what you are losing sight of. Have any proof that you're right and *everyone* else is wrong? sure, again, I can take a picture. Now, do you REALLY want to wager enough for me to take the hub off and take a picture of them? I'm willing, but not for peanuts. Let me know. |
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
SamJenson wrote:
"basskisser" wrote in message ups.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 |
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. Uh, Harry? Where'd you go? -- 'Til next time, John H ****************************************** ***** Have a Spectacular Day! ***** ****************************************** |
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
|
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
Dan Krueger wrote: SamJenson wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message ups.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. |
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
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 I personally don't need a vehicle as a symbol of my manhood. That's right. I'm keeping my 11 year old mini-van a few more years. I don't worry as much that my son will ding it as I do with my new Ranger pickup. |
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
Don White 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 I personally don't need a vehicle as a symbol of my manhood. That's right. I'm keeping my 11 year old mini-van a few more years. I don't worry as much that my son will ding it as I do with my new Ranger pickup. 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. Buying new vehicles and/or trading perfectly good vehicles in are poor economical decisions. |
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
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 I personally don't need a vehicle as a symbol of my manhood. Me neither! Stella |
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
Black Dog 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 I personally don't need a vehicle as a symbol of my manhood. Me neither! Stella And I'm glad you don't!!!! |
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
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. |
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
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 I personally don't need a vehicle as a symbol of my manhood. Two unrelated replies to the same post? Why do you feel like you need to defend yourself, Kevin? My point was relevant. |
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
basskisser wrote:
Don White 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. That's right. I'm keeping my 11 year old mini-van a few more years. I don't worry as much that my son will ding it as I do with my new Ranger pickup. 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. Buying new vehicles and/or trading perfectly good vehicles in are poor economical decisions. There's that "manhood" statement again. You can justify your vehicle purchases any way you want but that isn't going to help you when you lean on that BS. Do you pass judgement on everyone who is driving a newer car than you, Kevin? What do you mean by "I'll bet I'm a lot better off"? That sounds like someone defining their "manhood" in a different way. As far as economics, there are two factors that you should consider: (1) Some people can afford new cars more frequently than others. (2) Others are business owners who can depreciate a vehicle over a short period of time and buy new card more often. Dan |
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
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. |
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
"basskisser" wrote in message ups.com... Don White 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 I personally don't need a vehicle as a symbol of my manhood. That's right. I'm keeping my 11 year old mini-van a few more years. I don't worry as much that my son will ding it as I do with my new Ranger pickup. 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. |
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
"Dan Krueger" wrote in message nk.net... basskisser wrote: Don White wrote: basskisser wrote: Dan Krueger wrote: SamJenson wrote: "basskisser" wrote in message glegroups.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. That's right. I'm keeping my 11 year old mini-van a few more years. I don't worry as much that my son will ding it as I do with my new Ranger pickup. 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. Buying new vehicles and/or trading perfectly good vehicles in are poor economical decisions. There's that "manhood" statement again. You can justify your vehicle purchases any way you want but that isn't going to help you when you lean on that BS. Do you pass judgement on everyone who is driving a newer car than you, Kevin? It is called jealousy.....kevin displays that a lot. What do you mean by "I'll bet I'm a lot better off"? That sounds like someone defining their "manhood" in a different way. As far as economics, there are two factors that you should consider: (1) Some people can afford new cars more frequently than others. (2) Others are business owners who can depreciate a vehicle over a short period of time and buy new card more often. Kevin is as cluless as ever. There are all kinds of factors that play into the cost of owning / operating a car. Age and mileage play large factors in car value. Depending on how you accrue mileage over time determines the proper economic decision. Dan |
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
" 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 |
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
"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? ;-) |
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
"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 JimH is trying to pull you down to his level. Don't let him. |
Jim Hertvic - a liar...
" 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 |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:26 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com