 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Cars / January 2006Toyota, GM, and Ford differences
I'm cross-posting this in alt.autos.gm with the hope that GM will improve its quality of manufacturing and avoid bankruptcy. The latter half of the following Detroit News excerpt is especially helpful to GM. From the Detroit News: Toyota officials say the key to their system is that it taps the knowledge and insights of their team members. They also give them a lot of training and responsibility. At Georgetown, or any Toyota plant, any team member has the power to stop the line by pulling what is called an "andon" cord. The term "andon" is derived from the Japanese word for paper lantern. Once a worker pulls the cord, if the problem is not resolved before the car reaches the next stage of assembly, the line stops. "It may hurt productivity, but it improves quality," said Brian Walters, J.D. Power research director. Toyota encourages employees to pull the cord, despite the line stoppages, to expose problems and address them quickly. In Georgetown, workers reach for their cords 2,500 times a shift, and stoppages amount to 6-8 minutes per shift. But, plant manager Convis said, "at Toyota, it's a problem if you run (the line) at 100 percent. Something isn't adding up, because life isn't (perfect) like that." For the past year and a half, andon cords have hung along the assembly lines at GM's Oshawa plant. But the concept can get muddled in translation. "We used to get 17 andon pulls per day," said Rod McVeigh, a supervisor in the assembly plant. "We're now targeting six a day." But that might encourage workers to look out less for glitches. Dennis Pawley, Chrysler's former manufacturing chief and now a consultant teaching Japanese manufacturing methods, says of the Big Three: "They don't understand that they don't understand." Toyota could never put GM out of business. There are too many proud americans that buy GMs in some form.. > I'm cross-posting this in alt.autos.gm with the hope that GM will > improve its quality of manufacturing and avoid bankruptcy. [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > teaching Japanese manufacturing methods, says of the > Big Three: "They don't understand that they don't understand." > Toyota could never put GM out of business. There are too many proud > americans that buy GMs in some form.. Never say Never. Lots of proud Americans are buying Japanese. Especially when they find out their Japanese trucks are made in the U.S., while their American ones are actually made in Canada or Mexico. The only Toyota truck made in the US is their small truck that is assembled in the GM/Toyota plant in California. GM, Ford and Dodge make the vast majority of the trucks they sell in the US, in the US of American parts. mike hunt >> Toyota could never put GM out of business. There are too many proud >> americans that buy GMs in some form.. > > Never say Never. Lots of proud Americans are buying Japanese. Especially > when they find out their Japanese trucks are made in the U.S., while their > American ones are actually made in Canada or Mexico. > The only Toyota truck made in the US is their small truck that is > assembled in the GM/Toyota plant in California. GM, Ford and Dodge make > the vast majority of the trucks they sell in the US, in the US of American > parts. > > mike hunt tundras are made in texas.... Perhaps where you live the may come from the new plant, but I didn't know that plant was in production yet. The ones I see on the east coast are assemble in Indiana and show a '5.' mike hunt >> The only Toyota truck made in the US is their small truck that is >> assembled in the GM/Toyota plant in California. GM, Ford and Dodge make [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > tundras are made in texas.... Hum Bullshit! Currently Daimler Chrysler assembles all of their Dodge RAM trucks in Mexico. The so called new "Hemi" engine is also assembled in Mexico... Would you care to check your facts and maybe restate your position? > The only Toyota truck made in the US is their small truck that is > assembled in the GM/Toyota plant in California. GM, Ford and Dodge make [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> when they find out their Japanese trucks are made in the U.S., while >> their American ones are actually made in Canada or Mexico. > Toyota could never put GM out of business. There are too many proud > americans that buy GMs in some form.. True. It will be GM that puts GM out of business. Merritt >> Toyota could never put GM out of business. There are too many proud >> americans that buy GMs in some form.. > >True. It will be GM that puts GM out of business. > >Merritt you guys ever been to Thailand and saw the amount of toyotas and stuff there in Asia.? The Japaneese car industry outflanks the Americans buy milesa and miles Thers 65,ooo,ooo people in thailand alone and they dont buy fords there or gm hahah >>> Toyota could never put GM out of business. There are too many proud >>> americans that buy GMs in some form.. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >miles Thers 65,ooo,ooo people in thailand alone and they dont buy fords there >or gm hahah Is this thread still going? Sheesh. Let's just acknowledge that Deming's principles of Total Quality Management have worked well for Toyota and Honda. Let's also acknowledge that a small engineering budget will affect a business that is heavily reliant upon continuous engineering improvement (Mercedes is presently coming to terms with this). Yes Toyoyo's are the best vehicles ever, all American vehicles are crap. Are we happy now? Let this thread die already................ >Toyota could never put GM out of business. But GM could. >There are too many proud Americans that buy GMs in some form.. Why? GM has no pride in America or Americans and hasn't created even one new net job in the U.S. in 20-30 years. Adam wrote: > Toyota could never put GM out of business. There are too many proud > americans that buy GMs in some form.. I agree, Adam. Only GM could put GM out of business--more specifically GM management. And as a proud American, let me say that GM management is coming awfully close with a Total Debt to Equity ratio of a whopping 12 to 1. The way for GM Management to cut down the company's huge, huge 278 billion dollars of debt is to improve quality. Whaddya say we make tomorrow "Andon Pulling Day!" Everybody at Oshawa, pull that Andon tomorrow and teach Management they need to pay attention to quality, not just give it lip service. >Adam wrote: >> Toyota could never put GM out of business. There are too many proud >> americans that buy GMs in some form.. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >Oshawa, pull that Andon tomorrow and teach Management they need to pay >attention to quality, not just give it lip service. Our family Owns GM cars and trucks (as well as several Toyotas) so I don't want to see GM go under - it's bad for parts availability. But they're trying to set a lower target for Quality related line stops? What madness is this? GM is going to put GM out of business all by themselves, simply through pure Dumbth. The troubles that Delphi is going through right now should be recognized as GM's "Canary in a Coal Mine", their 'Clue Phone' ringing. If there's a problem with a car, you stop the line and try to fix it on the line, before giving up and flagging it for an expensive trip to the rework shop. And then you have to analyze what went wrong, and devise a solution to keep it from happening again. They're about to go under if from no other reason than the sweetheart contracts the UAW has squeezed out of them. Maintenance workers "Job Banked" and sitting around half the year, only working when the lines go down for change-overs or emergencies. Find them something useful to do the rest of the time, like the regular maintenance work at the offices and factories. Form a contracting division, and hire them out locally. Or schedule your line change-overs better - schedule the work staggered through the year, and have a traveling crew rotate between the plants. Hotel rooms per-diem and transportation for the workers has to be cheaper than "Job Bank". I predict the only way for GM to remain viable is to go Bankrupt and destroy a bunch of investors and retirees who thought that GM stock was a bedrock. Default on all the under-funded pensions and toss them to the Federal Benefit Guarantee insurance which will destroy all the GM retirees, toss the other retiree benefits like Medical. Rework the current labor contracts to reflect reality. And slash their offerings in the marketplace (toss a nameplate or two overboard) which will destroy a bunch of dealerships. There's no clean way to do this. And if they don't really get the idea on Quality, and fast, even that won't save them. The Domestic makers - GM, Ford and Daimler Chrysler - have gotten far better at building solid cars in the last 10 to 15 years, but they simply can't hold a candle to Toyota or the other Asian marques, where Quality is not just a buzzword. If you don't build cars that people want to buy, it's not the buyers' fault. The SSR and some newer offerings look interesting, but they might be too little, too late. If you lose money on every car, you can't "make it up on volume". And they were trying to make it all by building lots of high-margin SUV's and Trucks - till gas prices spiked and that market died. --<< Bruce >>-- Posted from a.a.Toyota  SignatureBruce L. Bergman, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles) CA - Desktop Electrician for Westend Electric - CA726700 5737 Kanan Rd. #359, Agoura CA 91301 (818) 889-9545 Spamtrapped address: Remove the python and the invalid, and use a net. Another idiot that thinks Jap scrap is better quality. For your info they are no better than anyone else in quality. I was a mechanic at a jap dealer and they line up for repairs just as much as a domestic dealer. > >Adam wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > --<< Bruce >>-- > Posted from a.a.Toyota In alt.autos.toyota razz <razz@mts.net> wrote: > Another idiot that thinks Jap scrap is better quality. For your > info they are no better than anyone else in quality. I was a > mechanic at a jap dealer and they line up for repairs just as much > as a domestic dealer. Why would anyone take the word of a top-poster? Learn how to post properly and people will give you more respect. cordially, as always, rm I really don't think it's the quality difference that's hurting them as much as their crappy car lineup and union agreements. > I really don't think it's the quality difference that's hurting them as > much as their crappy car lineup and union agreements. The data I have seen would indicate Toyota and Honda to have in the order of a half percent problems, Volkswagen about twice that, and some GM models in between. Doesn't seem like much, but they also don't tell much about how these data were obtained and how well the problems were resolved by the manufacturer. The dissatisfaction with GM and Ford seems to go deeper than just this statistic. But I'll agree that the car lineup has not endeared itself to many in the USA, and the union agreements (a parameter related to poor management practices as well) seem to drain the lifeforce from these companies. >> I really don't think it's the quality difference that's hurting them as >> much as their crappy car lineup and union agreements. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >USA, and the union agreements (a parameter related to poor management >practices as well) seem to drain the lifeforce from these companies. At the moment GM & Ford's lineups suck. They are trying to make something that isn't American. Economy cars are something that the Japanese do extremely well (good for poor people). Europeans make cars that are wonderfully built for narrow substandard roads (but if you think American cars are unreliable as they age you should look at BMW electronics and auto transmissions as they age......). GM & Ford do fairly well with their cars produced in Canada (Gov't health care lightens the retirement millstone around their neck). Ford and GM for some reason continue avoiding building what Americans want and love. Big, Powerful, Safe & Reliable cars. Instead we're relegated to buying trucks to get what we want. Most amazing of all the "never say die" Bankruptcy king Chrysler is leading the way. 300, Magnum, Charger, etc. One would think that with Ford's success in the new Mustang they could see what needs to be done but..... Don't count the Big 3 out, just recall how Ford turned around in the 1990's. PS When the Police and Cabbies start driving Toyota's and Suzuki's I'll begin to accept that Japanese quality extends beyond "initial quality". Several years ago the NYC Taxi Commission permitted a three year test to judge FWD cars and minivans for suitability as taxis in the city. Taxi companies bought domestic and foreign brands for use as taxis, hoping to same money. Within three months they were showing up in repair shops. Within two years nearly 90% had been taken out of service. At the end of the test only RWD vehicles were allowed to be use as Taxis in NYC.. The average NYC CV Taxi has on 300,000,000 miles on the clock and some are run up to a million miles before being replaced. Many actually start out as former police vehicles..When I still owned my fleet service business Ford had around 80% of the corporate fleet business on the east cost. Our meticulous maintenance records over many years showed that Ford vehicles were the most cost effect to own, long term, based on the cost of acquisition, insurance, maintenance, repair, parts and vehicle replacement costs. No other manufacture even came close in that regard. I was that experience that led me to switch for Lexus V8s I had been buying to the Lincoln LS V8 in 1999. The kicker was I saved nearly enough money switching that I was able to buy my first in a series of Mustang GT convertibles ;) mike hunt > Don't count the Big 3 out, just recall how Ford turned around in the > 1990's. > > PS When the Police and Cabbies start driving Toyota's and Suzuki's > I'll begin to accept that Japanese quality extends beyond "initial > quality". Hi Mike, The problem is that most of us don't care if a car can go a million miles if you keep on replacing parts. Most of us just want cars that will go 100,000 miles without replacing any parts. That is why the imports are winning. > Several years ago the NYC Taxi Commission permitted a three year test to > judge FWD cars and minivans for suitability as taxis in the city. Taxi [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> I'll begin to accept that Japanese quality extends beyond "initial >> quality". The point was those CV hold up better than ANY of the FWD vehicles tested for use in sever Taxi service, foreign or domestic. Any vehicle on the market today can easily run to 200K trouble free, given minimal maintenance. I own a half dozen old cars that are in great condition with anywhere for 110K to 300K on the clock. mike hunt > Hi Mike, > [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> >> mike hunt >I really don't think it's the quality difference that's hurting them as >much as their crappy car lineup and union agreements. I agree. They intentionally pursued the low-cost, mediocre-car strategy, ceding the "best of class" status to cars like the Accord. >Why would anyone take the word of a top-poster? Hehe. >Learn how to post >properly and people will give you more respect. Snap! Razz, I guess I'm another one of those idiots because I know for a fact that Toyota's don't experience the major problems US cars do. It's the only one I've not had trouble with. I have a friend who owns a transmission business and I've asked him just how many Toyota transmissions he works on. His answer---none, but plenty of Fords, GM's, etc. Facts are Facts and the foreign cars are built better, but then again, I'm just one of those american idiots, but a proud one !!!! > Another idiot that thinks Jap scrap is better quality. For your info they > are no better than anyone else in quality. I was a mechanic at a jap dealer [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] >> --<< Bruce >>-- >>Posted from a.a.Toyota That may be your opinion but certainly not what we saw in my former fleet service business. We serviced thousands of vehicles monthly in our shops locate in six eastern states. No particular brand stands out from the others in dependability. We serviced nearly every brand of vehicle. Corporate fleets generally keep the vehicles they use, as tools in their business, for five years or 300K WOF because of federal corporate tax deprecation laws. We saw little difference among brands in terms of longevity when the vehicles were given the proper maintenance such as we provided. The only real difference among brands is style and the price of accusation, insurance, maintenance and parts. Any vehicle one buys today, domestic or foreign, well easily last to 200K or more is given decent maintenance. As a consumer who keeps their vehicle till it dies, one should be more concerned about the price of the car and its parts than the need for them, since they all need to be repaired at some point. As to the chance of your friend seeing more of particular brand, is like asking someone in the Bronx Zoo if they see more pigeons or penguins. One must remember GM has five times as many vehicles on the road and Ford four times as many as any other brand. Since Toyota arrived in the US in 1958, the past few years is the only time it has sold more than 1,000,000 vehicles annually, while GM and Ford sold more than half of ALL of the up to 19,000,000 vehicles sold annually in the US over the same period. Even today GM and Ford sell more trucks alone than does Toyota, Lexus, and Scion sells cars and trucks combined today. mike hunt > Razz, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and the foreign cars are built better, but then again, I'm just one of > those american idiots, but a proud one !!!! >That may be your opinion Every consider using paragraphs, "Mike". I for one never read those verbose messes you leave. Of course, I know it's all bullshit anyway, coming from you. >That may be your opinion but certainly not what we saw in my former fleet >service business. We serviced thousands of vehicles monthly in our shops >locate in six eastern states. No particular brand stands out from the >others in dependability. We serviced nearly every brand of vehicle. <Big SniP> Just a note of warning to you folks in the GM and Ford groups, and to the new people at alt.autos.toyota : Mike Hunt <Beavis> "Heh heh heh, he said My c.nt!" </Beavis> is our resident nym-shifting Troll. Take everything he says with a pound or two of salt, a pinch simply won't do. In his eyes the Domestic auto makers can do no wrong, but for some unknown reason he hangs out in a Toyota newsgroup haranguing all the Toyota owners... And every single time he tries to trot out "facts" about his background or experience in the car biz, or "facts" about how wonderful domestic cars are, they have been systematically proven to be bigger whoppers than Jon Lovitz and his "liar" sketches on Saturday Night Live. "Yeah, yeah, that's it! That's the ticket..." He's owned "The Biggest Ford Dealer in the state... or "The Biggest Dodge Dealer in..." but he won't give us any real names to verify who he really is. And even the people here who are in the car business in that neck of the country have never heard of him, or anyone with an experience set approaching the one he's pawned off on us. His "facts" shift wildly between each telling because he forgot which lies he told last month. I've given up trying to keep up with them all myself, but someone here was keeping a list. He even tries to invent BS for his multiple screen names, like he's using one of "the many computers in his palatial mansion", or "one of the employee computers" at his sprawling office complex after hours, all set up with different user names, or he's "posting from his Vacation House in Key West Florida", but everything comes from the same Windows home computer running Outlook Express, and a Penn Teledata ptd.net dial-up modem pool connection in Pennsylvania. One time he teased us with a street address (the hundreds block only) for his alleged vacation house in Key West, but someone checked - the street existed, but if there was a house at that hundred-block address it would be about 1/2 mile offshore... Reader Beware. --<< Bruce >>-- SignatureBruce L. Bergman, Woodland Hills (Los Angeles) CA - Desktop Electrician for Westend Electric - CA726700 5737 Kanan Rd. #359, Agoura CA 91301 (818) 889-9545 Spamtrapped address: Remove the python and the invalid, and use a net. I defy you to prove where I ever said I owned any business other than my former fleet service business. I never said I owned a dealership, let alone a Dodge of Ford dealership, that I ever gave the address of my home in Key West, that I ever said domestic can do not wrong, or that Toyota did not make good vehicles, or any of the other fantasies in your post. Every statistical fact I post can be verified by anybody willing to do the search. Only a fool would post their actual address on the web as do you. What will you post next your SS number? Your are weird LOL mike hunt >>That may be your opinion but certainly not what we saw in my former fleet service business. We serviced thousands of vehicles monthly in our shops locate in six eastern states. No particular brand stands out from the others in dependability. We serviced nearly every brand of vehicle. Corporate fleets generally keep the vehicles they use, as tools in their business, for five years or 300K WOF because of federal corporate tax deprecation laws. We saw little difference among brands in terms of longevity when the vehicles were given the proper maintenance such as we provided. The only real difference among brands is style and the price of accusation, insurance, maintenance and parts. Any vehicle one buys today, domestic or foreign, well easily last to 200K or more is given decent maintenance. As a consumer who keeps their vehicle till it dies, one should be more concerned about the price of the car and its parts than the need for them, since they all need to be repaired at some point. As to the chance of your friend seeing more of particular brand, is like asking someone in the Bronx Zoo if they see more pigeons or penguins. One must remember GM has five times as many vehicles on the road and Ford four times as many as any other brand. Since Toyota arrived in the US in 1958, the past few years is the only time it has sold more than 1,000,000 vehicles annually, while GM and Ford sold more than half of ALL of the up to 19,000,000 vehicles sold annually in the US over the same period. Even today GM and Ford sell more trucks alone than does Toyota, Lexus, and Scion sells cars and trucks combined today. mike hunt > Just a note of warning to you folks in the GM and Ford groups, and > to the new people at alt.autos.toyota : [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > > --<< Bruce >>-- I do not think it is as much a problem of real quality "deficit" but more the rampant *perception* of bad quality from the buying public, along with GM management, union contract, etc... No, wait, my venture is going back to the dealership yet again tomorrow for another problem with the ABS. It is GM bad quality after all! I quess you never heard of Hondas ongoing brake problems have you ;) mike hunt >I do not think it is as much a problem of real quality "deficit" but more >the rampant *perception* of bad quality from the buying public, along with >GM management, union contract, etc... > > No, wait, my venture is going back to the dealership yet again tomorrow > for another problem with the ABS. It is GM bad quality after all! >I quess you never heard of Hondas ongoing brake problems have you ;) > > mike hunt Or the tranny problems with the Honda Pilot/Acura MDX that cost over $7K to fix.... Lets face it many buyers believe the brand they buy is the best, and the rest are junk, that is why they buy what they buy and more buyers by GM vehicles than any other. Ford and Chrysler follow and Toyota and Honda are forth and firth. Toyota owners in particular love to disparage other brands for some reason, perhaps they want to justify to themselves why they paid so much more to buy a vehicle that is nor better or worse than the others. LOL mike hunt >>I quess you never heard of Hondas ongoing brake problems have you ;) >> >> mike hunt > > Or the tranny problems with the Honda Pilot/Acura MDX that cost over $7K > to fix.... >Lets face it many buyers believe the brand they buy is the best, Almost no one does that, actually. Most settle for the best compromise that they can afford. >and the rest are junk, Idiot. That's not even close to being true. "Not the best choice for me" does not equal "junk". >that is why they buy what they buy and more buyers by GM >vehicles than any other. You can't build a logical argument on such obviously false premises as you embarrassed yourself with above, cretin. GM still sells a lot because of their large "old" customer base and their broad range of products. >Ford and Chrysler follow and Toyota and Honda are >forth and firth. Toyota owners in particular love to disparage other brands >for some reason, Says the proven liar. In my experience, all brands have their fanatics. Toyota owners are certainly no worse than others, especially in this foreign (to Toyota) country. >perhaps they want to justify to themselves why they paid so >much more to buy a vehicle that is nor better or worse than the others. The facts say otherwise, "Mike", and you get that "so much more" back when you resell. LOL! >Lets face it many buyers believe the brand they buy is the best, and the >rest are junk, >Toyota owners in particular love to disparage other brands Actually GM, Ford, and Chrysler ("Chrysler is American!") owners are more likely to insult Toyotas, calling them "rice burners" and thinking Japan is still a Third World country. This is particularly common in areas where a high percentage of Pontiacs are on blocks in the front yard. Go into the various NG and you will discover my observation is right on. Toyota owners are always bashing other brands, particularly domestics. You seldom hear that in other NG. I think Toyota owners are trying to justify to themselves why they paid way to much for a vehicle that in reality no better than any other. LOL mike hunt >>Lets face it many buyers believe the brand they buy is the best, and the >>rest are junk, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > areas where a high percentage of Pontiacs are on blocks in the front > yard. >Go into the various NG and you will discover my observation is right on. If only you weren't a proven idiot and liar, your words might carry some weight, "Mike". Perhaps in you small world but not in the real world. Just look at what is cross posted in the GM and Ford NG from the Toyota NG. No questions about Ford or GM products just anti GM and Ford BS from screwballs like you. . ; ) mike hunt >>Go into the various NG and you will discover my observation is right on. Toyota owners are always bashing other brands, particularly domestics. You seldom hear that in other NG. I think Toyota owners are trying to justify to themselves why they paid way to much for a vehicle that in reality no better than any other. LOL > If only you weren't a proven idiot and liar, your words might carry > some weight, "Mike". >>Actually GM, Ford, and Chrysler ("Chrysler is American!") owners are >>more likely to insult Toyotas, calling them "rice burners" and thinking >>Japan is still a Third World country. This is particularly common in >>areas where a high percentage of Pontiacs are on blocks in the front >>yard. >Go into the various NG and you will discover my observation is right on. I have, and you haven't. Maybe you think too much of yourself, just as you think too much of GM. > I think Toyota owners are trying to justify to themselves why they paid > way to much for a vehicle that in reality no better than any other. LOL Do you really LOL that often? You also can't explain why Toyota owners liked their cars even back when they were cheaper than domestics. Back when they sold even fewer? I owned some of those Toyotas and I got rid of them because they were starting to rust. Get real mike hunt >>>Actually GM, Ford, and Chrysler ("Chrysler is American!") owners are >>>more likely to insult Toyotas, calling them "rice burners" and thinking [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > You also can't explain why Toyota owners liked their cars even back > when they were cheaper than domestics. In alt.autos.toyota Mike Hunter <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: > Back when they sold even fewer? I owned some of those Toyotas and > I got rid of them because they were starting to rust. Get real Oh, I see. You're a troll. You _like_ to annoy people. It makes you somehow significant to be somebody's pain in the a.s, right? PLONK cordially, as always, rm > You also can't explain why Toyota owners liked their cars even back > when they were cheaper than domestics. Perhaps because they were much cheaper at a time when most people had much less disposable income. Same reason the air cooled VW Beetle gained popularity so fast. > I think Toyota owners are trying to justify > to themselves why they paid way to much for a vehicle that in reality no > better than any other. My recent look at Toyotas indicate similar prices for similar cars. > I quess you never heard of Hondas ongoing brake problems have you ;) > > mike hunt As a matter of fact, I have not heard of the ongoing brake problems with Honda. My son has owned several Hondas since his first in 1990, and I asked him about the issue. He says he has never had a problem with them. What are you referring to? The tendency for many Hondas to overheat front rotors, that eat up linings and rotors. Nest time you walk down a busy city street take note of all the Hondas that you see parked that have wheels, particularly aluminum wheels, that are brown or blacked with brake and rotor dust. ;) mike hunt >> I quess you never heard of Hondas ongoing brake problems have you ;) >> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > What are you referring to? > The tendency for many Hondas to overheat front rotors, that eat up linings > and rotors. Nest time you walk down a busy city street take note of all the > Hondas that you see parked that have wheels, particularly aluminum wheels, > that are brown or blacked with brake and rotor dust. ;) > > mike hunt So, what was the deal with the front rotors and pads on the Malibu?... and the three trips to the garage to get the gas guage problem fixed?...and the four trips within a five week period to get the temperature guage problem fixed?.. all in less than 35000 km. Sammy >>>I quess you never heard of Hondas ongoing brake problems have you ;) >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] >> >>What are you referring to? Surely you don't think your vehicle is the only one to has problems? The point is no manufacture makes a perfect vehicle, they all make some that are not up to par, that is why they all offer a warranty. Every manufacture statically makes between 1% to just over 2% that are problematic. Buying a particular brand hopping you will not get on of the 2% is an effort in futility. The odds are far greater one will get one of the 98% that are great vehicles, not matter whose brand in on the hood. mike hunt . >> The tendency for many Hondas to overheat front rotors, that eat up >> linings and rotors. Nest time you walk down a busy city street take note [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] >>> >>>What are you referring to? > Surely you don't think your vehicle is the only one to has problems? The > point is no manufacture makes a perfect vehicle, they all make some that are [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > mike hunt I'll take the 1% choice, thank you. That will be half the likelihood of difficulties compared to the 2% choice. In addition, when you get that 1% or 2% failure, what does the manufacturer do about it? I don't have any sludging problem with my Toyota 3.0L V6 engine. However, about a year after I'd gotten the vehicle, I received a letter from Toyota warning me that people had reported problems with this. The letter said not to worry about it, maintain the engine normally, show a good-faith effort to keep it up and Toyota would fix any engine problems that came along. A marked contrast to my Ford experience with 3 transmission failures. From Ford, I got a phone call that said "too bad." Not that I believe your figures, anyway. > >> The tendency for many Hondas to overheat front rotors, that eat up > >> linings and rotors. Nest time you walk down a busy city street take note [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > >>> > >>>What are you referring to? Like we believe your stories > > Surely you don't think your vehicle is the only one to has problems? The > > point is no manufacture makes a perfect vehicle, they all make some that [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > > >>> > > >>>What are you referring to? Can we assume you are not a math major or even a gambler? LOL PS. Both Toyota and Ford as well as other manufacture had bad experiences with head gaskets after the government instituted a ban on asbestos. Ford replace bad head gaskets for up to eight years or 100K. Toyota would not do so past 60K 5yrs for their customers mike hunt >> Surely you don't think your vehicle is the only one to has problems? The >> point is no manufacture makes a perfect vehicle, they all make some that [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Not that I believe your figures, anyway. >Every manufacture statically makes between 1% to just over 2% that >are problematic. Buying a particular brand hopping you will not get on >of the 2% is an effort in futility. The odds are far greater one will get >one of the 98% that are great vehicles, not matter whose brand in on >the hood. "Statically"? The average number of initial quality defects is around 1-4, and in the first year roughly 10-30% of the cars will have a problem that the owner feels requires attention, with the best rate being about 5%. I don't know what you mean by "problematic" or how you get the 1-2% rate, unless you're referring to outright lemons with gross or high numbers of defects. >The tendency for many Hondas to overheat front rotors, that eat up linings >and rotors. Nest time you walk down a busy city street take note of all the >Hondas that you see parked that have wheels, particularly aluminum wheels, >that are brown or blacked with brake and rotor dust. ;) Idiot. Brake dust on the wheels is NOT a sign of over-heated or inadequate brakes. Many cars use softer pads for better performance and feel - look at any BMW that hasn't had it's wheels recently cleaned. > >The tendency for many Hondas to overheat front rotors, that eat up linings > >and rotors. Nest time you walk down a busy city street take note of all the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > and feel - look at any BMW that hasn't had it's wheels recently > cleaned. True. Look at Volvos as well. My the crap that comes out here in an attempt to be negative about "so called" imports. Really? I never said it was a problem exclusive to Honda or imports. Why then does this condition only occur on the front wheels of certain vehicles, like those mentioned, and why only on the front wheels on vehicles with four wheel discs? LOL mike hunt >> >The tendency for many Hondas to overheat front rotors, that eat up >> >linings [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > My the crap that comes out here > in an attempt to be negative about "so called" imports. >Really? I never said it was a problem exclusive to Honda or imports. Why >then does this condition only occur on the front wheels of certain vehicles, >like those mentioned, and why only on the front wheels on vehicles with four >wheel discs? Stupid troll. I can't believe that even a top-posting retard like yourself is unaware that the front brakes do the vast majority of the work, especially on a FWD car. No kidding genius! Any fool even your should know that is why SOME cars are having problems with front brakes, because the rears are not doing what they were designed to do, and eating up pads and rotors while other are not have that problem. . mike hunt >>Really? I never said it was a problem exclusive to Honda or imports. Why >>then does this condition only occur on the front wheels of certain >>vehicles, >>like those mentioned, and why only on the front wheels on vehicles with >>four >>wheel discs? Bottom posting DZZY, idot, moron, stupid or whatever he is calling himself today wrote > Stupid troll. I can't believe that even a top-posting retard like > yourself is unaware that the front brakes do the vast majority of the > work, especially on a FWD car. > SOME cars are > having problems with front brakes, because the rears are not doing what they > were designed to do, and eating up pads and rotors while other are not have > that problem. . Toyotas Hybrids do not have any brake problems When you want to brake the power is used to generate electricity It is noce of you to points this out Why? You cust did ;) mike hunt >> SOME cars are >> having problems with front brakes, because the rears are not doing what [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > It is noce of you to points this out (top posting corrected) >>>Really? I never said it was a problem exclusive to Honda or imports. Why >>>then does this condition only occur on the front wheels of certain [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >were designed to do, and eating up pads and rotors while other are not have >that problem. . Read what I wrote again. Dust on the front wheels does not indicate a "problem". Different companies use different types of pads; some are dustier than others. > Really? I never said it was a problem exclusive to Honda or imports. Why > then does this condition only occur on the front wheels of certain vehicles, > like those mentioned, and why only on the front wheels on vehicles with four > wheel discs? LOL To educate you Mike it depends on the design of the brake pads and wheel covers. My 4 wheel disk brake Concord leaves only a modest amount of visible pad dust. My wife's 4 wheel disk Sebring leaves much more visible pad dust. One obvious difference in these cars is the much more open wheels on the Sebring which improves cooling of the brakes. >Another idiot that thinks Jap scrap is better quality. For your info they >are no better than anyone else in quality. I was a mechanic at a jap dealer >and they line up for repairs just as much as a domestic dealer. That's not what internal GM documents from the early 1990s said, the newest ones I know about. Honda, Toyota, and maybe Subaru have made the overall Japanese quality tally better than Ford's or GM's, while Suzuki, Isuzu, and maybe Nissan have been nothing special. Sorry , that's just not what I see at the Toyota dealer near me . Service department is ALWAYS dead . > Another idiot that thinks Jap scrap is better quality. For your info they > are no better than anyone else in quality. I was a mechanic at a jap [quoted text clipped - 72 lines] >> --<< Bruce >>-- >> Posted from a.a.Toyota So is your brain. Like I said, I worked at one and the bays were just as full as anyone else. > Sorry , that's just not what I see at the Toyota dealer near me . Service > department is ALWAYS dead . [quoted text clipped - 75 lines] > >> --<< Bruce >>-- > >> Posted from a.a.Toyota > So is your brain. Like I said, I worked at one and the bays were just as > full as anyone else. Hmmm, the average Toyota dealer in the US sells three times as many vehicles as does the average GM dealer, so your observations don't really mean a whole lot. John The is factually incorrect. Perhaps you meant to say the average dealer, that sells Toyota BRAND vehicles sells more vehicles per dealership? Since there are far fewer Toyota brand dealership, than say the average Chevrolet dealer or Buick dealer which would be factually correct. The ratios is nowhere near three times as many however. In the US an average GM dealership sells far more vehicles than an average Toyota MOTOR Company dealerships sell Toyotas, Lexus and Scion vehicles. FMC and Chrysler Motors dealers sell more vehicles, on average, the Toyota Motors dealers, as well. One needs to peruse Toyotas press releases and ads carefully. Toyota missives have a tendency to confuse buyers. The only vehicle that Toyota Motor Company sell in the US, in a comparably high volume is the Camry that sells at a rate over 600K, and some what the Corolla. Nearly all of their other models sell in volumes less the 300K. Toyota for example gives the impression they sell more cars than any other manufacture in the US, which in not factually correct. The sell more cars with the same brand name on the hood but not more cars with more than one brand name on the hood. GM and Ford sell more cars. In addition GM, Ford, and Chrysler to a lesser extent, sell trucks alone in numbers two to three times greater than any cars Toyota sells . mike hunt >> So is your brain. Like I said, I worked at one and the bays were just as >> full as anyone else. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > John What makes you believe that? GM sells far more cars than Toyota, somebody must like the cars they sell. Same with trucks and SUVs. GM sells more of those in two months than Toyota sells in a year. Toyota make good vehicles but apparently a lot of buyer prefer something other than a Toyota since the only sell around 10% of all the vehicles sold in the US ;) mike hunt . > If you don't build cars that people want to buy, it's not the > buyers' fault. The SSR and some newer offerings look interesting, but > they might be too little, too late. > > --<< Bruce >>-- > Posted from a.a.Toyota >What makes you believe that? GM sells far more cars than Toyota, Wrong, idiot, and since yo know it's wrong, that makes you a liar as well. >somebody must like the cars they sell. Some Americans, too stubborn and/or stupid to even consider the foreign competition, yes. Also those for whom mediocrity suits them fine. Please enlighten us. Post the total cars sales for GM and total car sales for Toyota for 2005 so we can see which statement is correct. LOL mike hunt >>What makes you believe that? GM sells far more cars than Toyota, > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > foreign competition, yes. Also those for whom mediocrity suits them > fine. >>>What makes you believe that? GM sells far more cars than Toyota, >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >Please enlighten us. Post the total cars sales for GM and total car sales >for Toyota for 2005 so we can see which statement is correct. Toyota and GM are pretty much neck-and-neck in total vehecle sales, as many news accounts state. I was fustrated by an inability to find a news source that does not play fast and loose with the terms "cars" (excluding trucks) and "vehicles" (including trucks), but obviously GM's sales are a higher percentage of trucks, making Toyota the maker of the most cars. > >>>What makes you believe that? GM sells far more cars than Toyota, > >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > GM's sales are a higher percentage of trucks, making Toyota the maker > of the most cars. In other words, you couldn't find anyone that agrees with you. Dave Think about what you are writing. There is nothing wrong with setting a goal of fewer quality lapse incidents. It is a good thing. When someone pulls the cord, it means that the system has failed and needs to be fixed. The trick is that you don't want to punish anyone for pulling the cord. Way you do that is you track customer com plaints back to a plant and shift and if the complaint was related to something that could have been spotted make sure it does not happen again. A balancing act. Now, I owned a 2000 Yukon XL for 5 years. It was mostly a good truck, but it did have several failures it should not have in 30,000 miles; two outside mirror failures, electric fuel pump failure, rear winder defogger tab fell off, seat heater control button failure, abs sensor failure. None of these would have been caught in an assembly plant. All but one were component failures caused by (probably) supplier parts that were poorly designed/made. I think GM is just squeezing their suppliers too hard and they are cutting corners. At least in my case. >>Adam wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > --<< Bruce >>-- > Posted from a.a.Toyota Come to think of it, there was one more failure (DOA rear power window). Wow, that's quite a few failures in 5 years. >>Adam wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > --<< Bruce >>-- > Posted from a.a.Toyota > Come to think of it, there was one more failure (DOA rear power window). > Wow, that's quite a few failures in 5 years. Are you happy with it? Do you feel you got a good enough deal, or otherwise got enough value out of it, to justify having it sidelined to fix these problems? If the answer's "yes," then GM should make another sale to you, presuming they build a vehicle that fits your identified needs. If the answer's "no," GM's got a problem to address. > >>Adam wrote: > > [quoted text clipped - 68 lines] > > --<< Bruce >>-- > > Posted from a.a.Toyota >Adam wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >Oshawa, pull that Andon tomorrow and teach Management they need to pay >attention to quality, not just give it lip service. quality is everywhere in cars its the price and servisce that sells cars .you people really think gm is asleep at the wheel? give me a break please .cars are cars they break so you fix it or not whatever. > I'm cross-posting this in alt.autos.gm with the hope that GM will > improve its quality of manufacturing and avoid bankruptcy. > > The latter half of the following Detroit News excerpt is especially > helpful to GM. People want quality, but not at any price. Every company seems to be quick to brag about their quality control, ISO certifications, and so forth, but not every one makes it work. Quality programs often lead to better REPRODUCIBILITY, but you can continue to manufacture the same level of product. Most programs have a statement calling for continuous improvement of quality too, but it sometimes gets lost in the haze. People may not be willing to pay for quality, but neither are they happy to accept shoddy goods. GM and Ford would probably both be better off by declaring bankruptcy, and starting with fresh faces and ideas. What makes you think that? GM and Ford still sell for more than any other manufacture and more than all of the import brands combined. ;) mike hunt > GM and Ford would probably both be better off by declaring bankruptcy, > and starting with fresh faces and ideas. (top posting corrected) >> GM and Ford would probably both be better off by declaring bankruptcy, >> and starting with fresh faces and ideas. > >What makes you think that? Because it's probably true. If for nothing else, they'll probably declare bankruptcy to get out of their union deals, just like the airlines have had to do. >GM and Ford still sell for more than any other >manufacture and more than all of the import brands combined. ;) Idiot liar. No, they do not. Also, what's the trend of Ford and GM's market share, "Mike"? The tend has been down.but GM and Ford still sell more vehicles than all of Japanese brands combined. The three domestics sell more the 57% of all the vehicle sold in the US, whether you believe that or not makes no difference in that fact. mike hunt > (top posting corrected) > >>GM and Ford still sell for more than any other >>manufacture > > Also, what's the trend of Ford and GM's market share, "Mike"? (top posting corrected) >> (top posting corrected) >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] >vehicle sold in the US, whether you believe that or not makes no difference >in that fact. Idiot. You're changing your story to "in the US" and also to include "the three domestics". Smoking that loco weed again eh? LOL mike hunt > (top posting corrected) > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > Idiot. You're changing your story to "in the US" and also to include > "the three domestics". > Smoking that loco weed again eh? LOL > [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >> Idiot. You're changing your story to "in the US" and also to include >> "the three domestics". OK. Most of us don't have a lot of time for our cars to be in the shop any more. That's why I own a Toyota. Sure I could own a GM, but by the time I had 50,000 miles on my old S-10 it was already nickel-and-diming me on repairs, and seemed to be in the shop as much as it was out. Charles of Kankakee You had problem with your GM vehicle therefore all GM vehicles are bad, right? LOL mike hunt >> Smoking that loco weed again eh? LOL >> [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > > Charles of Kankakee >OK. Most of us don't have a lot of time for our cars to be in the shop any >more. That's why I own a Toyota. Sure I could own a GM, but by the time I >had 50,000 miles on my old S-10 it was already nickel-and-diming me on >repairs, and seemed to be in the shop as much as it was out. A freind of mine had a GMC Jimmy, and it was a total POS. It was rusting within a couple years. GM's the worst, from what I've seen. >>OK. Most of us don't have a lot of time for our cars to be in the shop any >>more. That's why I own a Toyota. Sure I could own a GM, but by the time I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >A freind of mine had a GMC Jimmy, and it was a total POS. It was >rusting within a couple years. GM's the worst, from what I've seen. And how many Toyotas that were built in the 1980's and early 90's do you see still on the road compared to domestic brands? Personally I think that all manufacturers design and build cars to last no longer than 10 years now before they fall apart. I had a 79' Datsun B-210 that the steering box rotted away from the chassis somewhere around 1988 or so. I was going down the road at the time of failure. I've been skeptical about the build and design of Asian built cars ever since. I do own at present a 97' Hyundai Tiburon with approximately 195,000 miles on it that hasn't given very much trouble, but when there is a problem I have found that it takes a long time to get parts and they are very expensive compared to domestic parts. ...Ron -- 68'RS Camaro 88'Formula 00'GT Mustang >>>OK. Most of us don't have a lot of time for our cars to be in the shop any >>>more. That's why I own a Toyota. Sure I could own a GM, but by the time I [quoted text clipped - 22 lines] >88'Formula >00'GT Mustang dear people maintenance and rustproof your cars dont wait until the steering box falls off look at the hood by god it has hinges on it wow look under it and take care of the freakin piece of metal and parts they work better keep looking under the hood. Dont drive till it dies then ask WHY OH WHY ME!!! > The tend has been down.but GM and Ford still sell more vehicles than all of > Japanese brands combined. The three domestics sell more the 57% of all the > vehicle sold in the US, whether you believe that or not makes no difference > in that fact. > > mike hunt So, with all those sales, how's Ford doing? http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/06/business/06ford.html Ford's Debt Is Lowered Two More Steps By MICHELINE MAYNARD Published: January 6, 2006 DEARBORN, Mich., Jan. 5 - Even before Ford Motor introduces the turnaround plan it is calling The Way Forward, Standard & Poor's clearly thinks that it may not be. S.& P. put Ford's debt rating two notches further into junk on Thursday, less than a month after a similar move at General Motors. I'll leave GM's prospects to your imagination. > > (top posting corrected) > > > >>GM and Ford still sell for more than any other > >>manufacture > > > > Also, what's the trend of Ford and GM's market share, "Mike"? >> The tend has been down.but GM and Ford still sell more vehicles than all of >> Japanese brands combined. The three domestics sell more the 57% of all the [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >> > >> > Also, what's the trend of Ford and GM's market share, "Mike"? yeah we'll leave a multi billion dollar buisness to you right ... > The three domestics sell more the 57% of all the vehicle sold in the US, > mike hunt Uhh, Hey Mikey, there are actually only 2 domestic automobile manufactures left in the US, Daimler Chrysler is a German company... Doh! >> The three domestics sell more the 57% of all the vehicle sold in the US, >> mike hunt > >Uhh, Hey Mikey, there are actually only 2 domestic automobile manufactures >left in the US, Daimler Chrysler is a German company... Doh! dah Canada has no domestic cars yet we call american cars domestic hahaha ... that means even gm and ford and the damiler c are all foriegn cars right ..? > The tend has been down.but GM and Ford still sell more vehicles than all of > Japanese brands combined. The three domestics sell more the 57% of all the > vehicle sold in the US, whether you believe that or not makes no difference > in that fact. Thank is true but their share is shrinking every year. A long time ago there was a salesman sent from Japan to USA to investigate if they could sell them a car they were making in Japan The telephone connections were not very good The salesman went to USA and showed some people pictures of the car then he went on the phone to headquarters and told them to send one car over and he thought it would be best to put a brandname on the car he had heard people talk about when he showed the picture "Toy auto" After the car came over the car sold immediately and the salesguy phoned back to order another one and the reply at headquarters was "Dat soon?" > What makes you think that? GM and Ford still sell for more than any other > manufacture and more than all of the import brands combined. ;) [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > GM and Ford would probably both be better off by declaring bankruptcy, > > and starting with fresh faces and ideas. Doesn't make a damn what they sell, Mike. They are approaching bankruptcy. If they lose money on every car, it is hard to make up the difference on volume. Financial gurus, banks, etc all predict that bankruptcy is the most likely outcome for GM and Ford, and perhaps is their salvation. Lots of 'ifs' your post. The naysayers had Chrysler going out of business in the seventies and Ford in the eighties but they are both still here. LOL mike hunt >> What makes you think that? GM and Ford still sell for more than any > other [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > outcome > for GM and Ford, and perhaps is their salvation. > Lots of 'ifs' your post. The naysayers had Chrysler going out of business in > the seventies and Ford in the eighties but they are both still here. LOL The only reason Chrysler is still around is because the Germans bought them. If Hyundai buys out GM sometime in the next 10 years (not that I expect it to happen, but simply as a thought experiment) will you consider that to mean that GM is "still here"? As businesses GM and Ford are both in trouble right now. Do you remember when Sears was the 800 lb. Gorilla of US retailing? It was not very long ago, and today Sears continues to wander in the wilderness of great businesses. Sears long time nemesis Montgomery Ward is completely gone ... even oil company money couldn't save 'em. John >> Lots of 'ifs' your post. The naysayers had Chrysler going out of business >> in the seventies and Ford in the eighties but they are both still here. [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > John You do realize Kmart bought Sears, right? Or did Sears buy K-Mart? Or did a 3rd party buy both? >>> Lots of 'ifs' your post. The naysayers had Chrysler going out of business >>> in the seventies and Ford in the eighties but they are both still here. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >You do realize Kmart bought Sears, right? > Or did Sears buy K-Mart? Or did a 3rd party buy both? > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] >> >>You do realize Kmart bought Sears, right? Nope, K-Mart bought Sears. Sort of surreal isn't it. > Or did Sears buy K-Mart? Or did a 3rd party buy both? Well, a third party bought K-Mart out of bankrupcy and then bought Sears. Then he renamed the whole thing Sears, just to keep it confusing. John “If you can’t be happy where you are, it’s a cinch you won’t be happy where you ain’t.” | >> Lots of 'ifs' your post. The naysayers had Chrysler going out of business | >> in the seventies and Ford in the eighties but they are both still here. [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] | | You do realize Kmart bought Sears, right? Actually, I believe that it was classified as *a merger* with KMart pulling Sears out of the doldrums. Whatever, they are a couple now...And, I thought that Chrysler went into the DC merger in great cash flow shape, and the Germans drained the $$$ in a hurry. SignaturePcolaPhil To <Reply> Remove -SPAMNOT- >>Do you remember when Sears was the 800 lb. Gorilla of US retailing? It >>was not very long ago, and today Sears continues to wander in the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > You do realize Kmart bought Sears, right? Yes I do, and both combined continue to wander in the business wilderness. What really happened is that a real estate speculator bought K-mart out of bankrupcy and then bought Sears. Then he renamed the combined company Sears. 20 years ago Sears was #1 and K-mart was #2, much like GM and Ford. Now Sears-Kmart is one company and together is still a basket case. John >The naysayers had Chrysler going out of business in the seventies >and Ford in the eighties but they are both still here. LOL Chrysler was saved by a federal loan guarantee and the minivan. Iacocca wanted to build the FWD minivan while at Ford, but the board refused to fund a FWD chassis, something Chrysler already had in development (K-car) by the time Iacocca joined the company. Minivans gave Chrysler a profit of $1500 per vehicle from the beginning, and currently each one nets $5000-7000. Ford greatly improved in the 1980s mostly because of a very good chairman, Donald Petersen, the decision to copy the Audio 5000 FWD sedan, and by not overly increasing production capacity. Ford was also helped by GM's stumbles. I spent over thirty years of my life as a automotive design engineer, retiring in 1986 at age 60. Your recollection is a bit foggy. FWD cars cost more for manufactures to build than the larger RWD vehicles they replaced. Chrysler had to sell their new smaller 4 cy FWD cars for at least 20% more than the larger V8 and 6 cy RWD cars they replaced, to earn a profit. The economies of scale of using one chassis to make ten variation of the same basic vehicle chassis was what enabled Chrysler to afford the billons to convert their assembly plants to FWD. mike hunt >Chrysler was saved by a federal loan guarantee and the minivan. >Iacocca wanted to build the FWD minivan while at Ford, but the board >refused to fund a FWD chassis, something Chrysler already had in >development (K-car) by the time Iacocca joined the company. Minivans >gave Chrysler a profit of $1500 per vehicle from the beginning, and >currently each one nets $5000-7000 5 >>The naysayers had Chrysler going out of business in the seventies >>and Ford in the eighties but they are both still here. LOL [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > sedan, and by not overly increasing production capacity. Ford was also > helped by GM's stumbles. In alt.autos.toyota Mike Hunter <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: [top-posting deleted, unread] Mike, why do you top-post? Top-posting violates usenet netiquette policy, makes it hard to understand your who or what post your post is referring to. And several people have told you that it is very annoying. Why would you continue to do it? Do you want to annoy people or are you a newbie who doesn't know any better? If you are the latter, you should lurk for awhile, to see how the rest of the posters do it. cordially, as always, rm When one post at the bottom it requires everyone to scroll all the way to the bottom to read the latest of a zillion posts, at times. By posting at the top one can quickly read the latest post. If not familiar with the thread, can then scroll to the bottom is they choose. I don't stay in a NG long enough to do all that. I read the post that interest me and reply to those where I have something to add to the discussion. Most post that have long lost the intent of the original poster to which I have replied and they are no longer are of interest to me. If you find my method of replying a problem, just skip my posts WBMA. ;) mike hunt > In alt.autos.toyota Mike Hunter <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > rm In alt.autos.toyota Mike Hunter <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: > When one post at the bottom it requires everyone to scroll all the way to > the bottom to read the latest of a zillion posts, at times. Sort your postings by date, not by thread. > By posting at > the top one can quickly read the latest post. If you sort your postings by date, there is no "top one." All the postings are the top posting. That's how most of us sort the postings after we have been around awhile. > If not familiar with the thread, can then scroll to the bottom is > they choose. I don't stay in a NG long enough to do all that. I [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > are no longer are of interest to me. If you find my method of > replying a problem, just skip my posts WBMA. ;) You should cut away that part of the post that you are not interested in replying to. (it only takes a half a second) Then you just enter your prose underneath the text that you are referring to. This is especially important in larger postings. Again, I point out to you, that you are either a newbie or you are trying to annoy the long time posters on usenet. It was long ago determined that bottom posting is the policy. You should really adopt it yourself and you will see how much better it is if you give it a chance. cordially, as always, rm cordially, as always, rm I'll try mike hunt > In alt.autos.toyota Mike Hunter <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: >> When one post at the bottom it requires everyone to scroll all the way to [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > rm >Again, I point out to you, that you are either a newbie or you are >trying to annoy the long time posters on usenet. It was long ago >determined that bottom posting is the policy. You should really >adopt it yourself and you will see how much better it is if you give >it a chance. The troll won't listen. Like most all top posters, he's a lazy, selfish, idiot, and if top posting makes his life easier, he's going to do it, even if it makes it worse for everyone who reads his top-posted idiocy. I top post. I'm not lazy. It is more efficient to the readers. I can easily configure my news reader to start my replies at the top or the bottom so it's no less or more effort in my posting process. The lazy ones are those who keep requiting everything without culling out the uneeded parts. Think what you want. >The troll won't listen. Like most all top posters, he's a lazy, >selfish, idiot, and if top posting makes his life easier, he's going >to do it, even if it makes it worse for everyone who reads his >top-posted idiocy. >I top post. I'm not lazy. It is more efficient to the readers. I > can easily configure my news reader to start my replies at the top or [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>to do it, even if it makes it worse for everyone who reads his >>top-posted idiocy. Do you also drive on what ever side of the road you feel like regardless of normal convention? Top-posting makes your message incomprehensible to many of your readers. In normal conversation, after all, you don't answer to something that has not yet been said. For your edification, widely observed Usenet etiquette dictates that top posting is absolutely INAPPROPRIATE! When you quote, you're doing it to provide context. Requiring your readers to scroll down and then back, repeatedly (as they attempt to figure out what the heck you're talking about), is a rather difficult way for you to make the context available. Providing the context up-front will get you better results. There's no way to build a threaded discussion with top-posting. Top-posting severely inhibits others from understanding the conversation, because the context of the conversation is out of order, as in broken. Replying at the top confuses your readers, making any point you're trying to get across very unclear without them scrolling down and back repeatedly, searching to re-integrate context. That extra, wholly unnecessary work leads to reader irritation, or worse, to readers just not bothering with your words at all. Since your object is to get your message across, help your readers follow by placing your words in context, not prior to the context. Doing otherwise, forcing your readers to go to extra work unnecessarily, is often irritating, sometimes interpreted as insulting, or in severe cases taken as attempt by you to show your "power". Any way you cut that, delivering your words in an hard to read manner doesn't help your case. Instead, post in-line to preserve context and respect your readers. http://www.river.com/users/share/etiquette/ Top-posting means replying to a message above the original message. This may be a message in an Internet forum, an e-mail message or a Usenet post. Top-posting is considered improper by many definitions of Internet etiquette since it breaks down the flow of the thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_posting Top-posting vs bottom-posting Some people like to put reply after the quoted text, some like it the other way around, and still some prefer interspersed style. Debates about which posting style is better have lead to many flame wars in the forums. To keep forum discussion friendly, please follow the general preference, which is bottom-posting http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting By A. Smit and H.W. de Haan Below you can find our arguments why bottom-posting is better than top-posting. http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html >>I top post. I'm not lazy. It is more efficient to the readers. I >> can easily configure my news reader to start my replies at the top or [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Do you also drive on what ever side of the road you feel like regardless of >normal convention? There are laws proscribed for driving on public roadways. Individual preference is the rule here. Is that the best you can do? It's pretty lame. >Top-posting makes your message incomprehensible to many of your readers. In >normal conversation, after all, you don't answer to something that has not >yet been said. I disagree. I think it is very comprehensible for most people most of the time, and in the times it isn't, the option is there to quick scroll down to check the context. That's my comment on the subjective point. Objectively you also are factually wrong about the not having yet been said. It HAS been said. That's how it was able to be quoted in the 1st place you doof! It's as if you have this mental barrier that you just can't get past, that each posting stands alone. And as such, each posting must start off with (at the top) all previous parts of the discussion. Then the reader needs to read a complete history of all postings on the subject before reading a bit of new material. Then, when the reader goes to the next message in the thread (immediately after they read this one) they should do it all over again in the next message, because hey, after all, each message has to stand all alone right? NOT! In usenet, postings are part of a thread. I'll give you a big hint to help your problem. Stop doing primary sorting by date, and start organizing by thread 1st. It's the smart way to do it, regardless what posting styles are being used. >For your edification, widely observed Usenet etiquette dictates that top >posting is absolutely INAPPROPRIATE! You can adopt the sheep mentality if you like. I think for myself. I wish you could "observe" my middle finger about now. >When you quote, you're doing it to provide context. Requiring your readers >to scroll down and then back, repeatedly (as they attempt to figure out what >the heck you're talking about), is a rather difficult way for you to make Funny, I hardly ever have a problem with that. You really need to primarily start organizing your reading by thread, not date. >the context available. Providing the context up-front will get you better >results. Opinion. One I disagree with. You don't seem to have too much trouble responding to my posts. Honestly now, are you claiming it is too hard to scroll down to scan the context if needed, but it isn't a big deal to have to do the scrolling to get to the fresh material each and every time? If so that is soooo illogical. >There's no way to build a threaded discussion with top-posting. Top-posting Sure there is. Maybe you should better learn how to use a news reader to advantage. >severely inhibits others from understanding the conversation, because the >context of the conversation is out of order, as in broken. It's right below new material! If you consider that a hard nut to crack, then I guess I'm starting to realize what I'm dealing with here. >http://www.river.com/users/share/etiquette/ > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >top-posting. >http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html Sigh. Can you say "bahh"? There is plenty of support for top posting too. I prefer to debate my stance on my own. There once was a man named Copernicus who suggested it was wise to understand that the earth and other planets revolved around the sun. Convention said that no, everything rotated around the earth. Oh the great ones that were quoted, even the great Aristotle and others. And yet even so, Calumnious was right; convention was wrong. (top posting corrected) >>The troll won't listen. Like most all top posters, he's a lazy, >>selfish, idiot, and if top posting makes his life easier, he's going >>to do it, even if it makes it worse for everyone who reads his >>top-posted idiocy. > >I top post. I'm not lazy. It is more efficient to the readers. Nope. It not only prevents quality, point-by-point discussion, but if often multiplies the effort of reading and understanding a post, because one must scroll-down into the post to see what is being responded to, and then back up to the top to read the response. >I can easily configure my news reader to start my replies at the top >the bottom so it's no less or more effort in my posting process. It's obviously less effort than properly formatting and trimming your response as I am doing. This is not really "top vs. bottom" so much as "right vs. wrong". There's no way a top post can match the quality of communication of an interleaved post like this one. >The lazy ones are those who keep requiting everything without culling out >the uneeded parts. Think what you want. Those who don't properly trim are indeed lazy, as you say. However, they are not "the lazy ones" - they are only a subset of the lazy ones. >Those who don't properly trim are indeed lazy, as you say. However, >they are not "the lazy ones" - they are only a subset of the lazy >ones. So you claim that top posters are the lazy ones, then claim that those who do not cull their quoted material are lazy but only as a subset of the true lazy ones. That means you are saying that bottom posters never fail to properly cull their quoted material, or it means you are saying that if they do fail we shouldn't label them lazy. Are you daft sir? Is not there mountains of evidence of bottom posting full quoting idiots even here in this very newsgroup? >>Those who don't properly trim are indeed lazy, as you say. However, >>they are not "the lazy ones" - they are only a subset of the lazy [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the true lazy ones. That means you are saying that bottom posters >never fail to properly cull their quoted material, I've said or implied nothing of the kind. Suffering from reading comprehension problems? >or it means you are >saying that if they do fail we shouldn't label them lazy. Non sequitur. >Are you daft sir? How ironic, coming from a logically-handicapped top-poster. >Is not there mountains of evidence of bottom posting full >quoting idiots even here in this very newsgroup? It happens, sure. > When one post at the bottom it requires everyone to scroll all the way to > the bottom to read the latest of a zillion posts, at times. By posting at [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] >> >> rm Do you also drive on what ever side of the road you feel like regardless of normal convention? Top-posting makes your message incomprehensible to many of your readers. In normal conversation, after all, you don't answer to something that has not yet been said. For your edification, widely observed Usenet etiquette dictates that top posting is absolutely INAPPROPRIATE! When you quote, you're doing it to provide context. Requiring your readers to scroll down and then back, repeatedly (as they attempt to figure out what the heck you're talking about), is a rather difficult way for you to make the context available. Providing the context up-front will get you better results. There's no way to build a threaded discussion with top-posting. Top-posting severely inhibits others from understanding the conversation, because the context of the conversation is out of order, as in broken. Replying at the top confuses your readers, making any point you're trying to get across very unclear without them scrolling down and back repeatedly, searching to re-integrate context. That extra, wholly unnecessary work leads to reader irritation, or worse, to readers just not bothering with your words at all. Since your object is to get your message across, help your readers follow by placing your words in context, not prior to the context. Doing otherwise, forcing your readers to go to extra work unnecessarily, is often irritating, sometimes interpreted as insulting, or in severe cases taken as attempt by you to show your "power". Any way you cut that, delivering your words in an hard to read manner doesn't help your case. Instead, post in-line to preserve context and respect your readers. http://www.river.com/users/share/etiquette/ Top-posting means replying to a message above the original message. This may be a message in an Internet forum, an e-mail message or a Usenet post. Top-posting is considered improper by many definitions of Internet etiquette since it breaks down the flow of the thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_posting Top-posting vs bottom-posting Some people like to put reply after the quoted text, some like it the other way around, and still some prefer interspersed style. Debates about which posting style is better have lead to many flame wars in the forums. To keep forum discussion friendly, please follow the general preference, which is bottom-posting http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting By A. Smit and H.W. de Haan Below you can find our arguments why bottom-posting is better than top-posting. http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html >In alt.autos.toyota Mike Hunter <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >you should lurk for awhile, to see how the rest of the posters do >it. Mikey is not a newbie. Once again, from a user in the group he regularly pollutes (and we can't get him to go away, either)... Please Don't Feed The Troll. --<< Bruce >>-- Regarding top posting, it violates nothing of the sort. Just because some self important jack-a.s wrote a document and claimed it to be proper netiquette doesn't make it so. You need the context, you scroll down. If it's not the kind of message that requires context or you already got the context from the just previous message you read, then you don't need to scroll. Long before usenet there were the BBSs. In that era, the ratio of hard core skilled computer people using such services was much higher than today. Message bases were almost exclusively top posted because it was all but universally recognized as the obvious way to go. Then comes the popularity of the internet. Some lame a.s Johnny come friggin lately, who needs his dick held while he re-reads every stinking bit of a thread right before a new bit, decides to write down preferences and label them as if they were handed down from on high like the ten commandments or something. Then desciples like you preach the gospel as if it were holy writ. It isn't. Never was. Never will be. I'm someone who's been doing this crap since like 1982 on my own 300bps (also baud at that time) modem. I say this not to imply any kind of superiority in knowing what is best here, but to point out that I know how these cheese whiz w.nkers came along later and thought they would pretend to show all the new netzeins the "enlightened" ways. You've been led by false prophets. Believe it or not believe it it's up to you. It's time people open their eyes. >In alt.autos.toyota Mike Hunter <mikehunt2@mailcity.com> wrote: > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > >rm Amen brother. I'll stop top posting when the other morons on the i-net quit including EVERY iteration of the conversation ad-infinitiuum. Honestly, if someone wants to post a reply at the bottom, I certainly respect their option to do so... However, please at least be curtious enough to cut out the chaff so I don't have page upon page to scroll through to get to somebody's 1-line response. THAT is what makes it hard to understand the context. JP secretspam@ihatespam.net (SgtSilicon) wrote in news:43c9dfdb.3322578 @nntp.charter.net: > Regarding top posting, it violates nothing of the sort. Just because > some self important jack-a.s wrote a document and claimed it to be [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >> >>rm >Amen brother. >I'll stop top posting when the other morons on the i-net quit including >EVERY iteration of the conversation ad-infinitiuum. So if someone else is a lazy, selfish idiot, that gives you the right to be one as well? Sound rationale has been provided. You respond by insults like idiot then here's one for you.... go f*ck yourself. >>Amen brother. >>I'll stop top posting when the other morons on the i-net quit including >>EVERY iteration of the conversation ad-infinitiuum. > >So if someone else is a lazy, selfish idiot, that gives you the right >to be one as well? >Sound rationale has been provided. No, only illogical nonsense has been provided - the same wrong-headed nonsense I've read a hundred times from lazy, stupid, selfish, top-posting idiots trying to defend their lazy, stupid, selfish ways. "It's easier for me, f.ck everyone else." You are genuinely stupid. >>Sound rationale has been provided. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >"It's easier for me, f.ck everyone else." >>Amen brother. >>I'll stop top posting when the other morons on the i-net quit including >>EVERY iteration of the conversation ad-infinitiuum. > > So if someone else is a lazy, selfish idiot, that gives you the right > to be one as well? It does give me the right to put my post at the top, where people can read it quickly and move on. You can insult as much as you want, but I've been online for many years, and I've never thought the 'bottom post' was a better way of doing it. J >It does give me the right to put my post at the top, >where people can read it quickly and move on. Except that's not how it works. People have to read down below your response to see what the hell you're talking about. >You can insult as much as you want, but I've been online for many years, >and I've never thought the 'bottom post' was a better way of doing it. Then you are an idiot. Dizzy, you are truly stupid. >>It does give me the right to put my post at the top, >>where people can read it quickly and move on. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Then you are an idiot. I don't know anything about you, beyond this thread, but it is absolutely amazing to me that you come across like a 15-year old who read somewhere that botttom-posting is the only acceptable way to do it, and you're going to carry your banner all over the usenet. Honestly, you don't like what I say because I re: on top.... killfile me. It's a stupid argument, where you feel your way is the only. J >>It does give me the right to put my post at the top, >>where people can read it quickly and move on. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Then you are an idiot. >I don't know anything about you, You don't know anything about who, top poster? Oh, I see, you want us all to read down into the post to see who are are talking about, and then go back to the top to try and make sense of your post. >beyond this thread, but it is >absolutely amazing to me that you come across like a 15-year old How ironic, coming from the person too lazy and selfish to properly format his post to maximize the quality of discussion. How VERY ironic, from the person who just wants to rant-away at the top, while ignoring all the points of the previous poster. >who read somewhere that botttom-posting is the only acceptable way to do it, Wrong again, top-poster. It was immediately obvious to me that "quote and reply" is the ONLY way to have a quality discussion, and that only lazy, selfish idiots think that top-posting is superior. "Oh dear, I don't want to scroll down." Umm... That's why proper trimming is performed. Just because some "bottom posters" are too lazy to trim does not mean that we should all abandon any hope of quality, point-by-point discussions and start ranting-away at the top. >and you're going to carry your banner all over the usenet. >Honestly, you don't like what I say because I re: on top.... killfile >me. The fact that you top-post is strong evidence that you have nothing of value lend to the discussion, no doubt. >It's a stupid argument, where you feel your way is the only. It is the only correct way. Only idiots think that top-posting is the superior way. I didn't have to scroll down to figure out who he's referring to. If you are following the thread, (which I figure you're to stupid to do), you don't need to scroll down to figure out the progression of the thread. > >I don't know anything about you, > [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > It is the only correct way. Only idiots think that top-posting is the > superior way. Exactly. This Dizzy guy has some apparent real intelligence problems. >I didn't have to scroll down to figure out who he's referring to. If you are >following the thread, (which I figure you're to stupid to do), you don't [quoted text clipped - 37 lines] >> It is the only correct way. Only idiots think that top-posting is the >> superior way. >Exactly. Exactly what, top poster? >This Dizzy guy has some apparent real intelligence problems. Only idiots think that top posting is superior. You are an idiot, and are unqualified to pass judgement on those of use with brains. >>I didn't have to scroll down to figure out who he's referring to. If you are >>following the thread, (which I figure you're to stupid to do), you don't >>need to scroll down to figure out the progression of the thread. Top posting is inferior for a number of reasons as I have already provided. Learn how to read, you top-posting moron. P.S. At least leave a blank line between your post and the one that (unfortunately) follows, cretin. Dizzy, if it weren't for your vileness, I might actually pity you. >>Exactly. > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >P.S. At least leave a blank line between your post and the one that >(unfortunately) follows, cretin. I agree with DIZZY as well. I think everyone should bottom post mike hunt >>Exactly. > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > P.S. At least leave a blank line between your post and the one that > (unfortunately) follows, cretin. > I agree with DIZZY as well. I think everyone should bottom post > > Only idiots think that top posting is superior. I think it is best to toppost You are entitled to your own opinion, but I still think it is better to bottom post ;) mike hunt >> I agree with DIZZY as well. I think everyone should bottom post > >> > Only idiots think that top posting is superior. > > I think it is best to toppost >I don't know anything about you, beyond this thread, but it is > absolutely amazing to me that you come across like a 15-year old who [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > J It has nothing to do with his way. You should look in the mirror, you look like the stupid teenager who thinks walking in the lane of traffic is cool and he will make the cars swerve to avoid him all 130 pounds of him against a 8000 pounds of pickup... Like these disruptive immature kids, you are trying to defy normal convention. Who do you really think "comes across like a 15-year old"? Top-posting makes your message incomprehensible to many of your readers. In normal conversation, after all, you don't answer to something that has not yet been said. For your edification, widely observed Usenet etiquette dictates that top posting is absolutely INAPPROPRIATE! Top posting is not incomprehensible because the content was often recently read in a previous message. The only people it might be tough for are those who do NOT FOLLOW THREADS. If you are one of those people, I suggest you start following posts by thread 1st and not by time stamp 1st. >>I don't know anything about you, beyond this thread, but it is >> absolutely amazing to me that you come across like a 15-year old who [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >For your edification, widely observed Usenet etiquette dictates that top >posting is absolutely INAPPROPRIATE! > pounds of him against a 8000 pounds of pickup... Like these > disruptive immature kids, you are trying to defy normal convention. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > readers. In normal conversation, after all, you don't answer to > something that has not yet been said. I think I see at least part of the problem here, displayed more obviously by ditszy than your post. I understand and certainly respect your desire to post at the bottom... I still contend it's more labor intensive and wasteful and I choose to not do it that way. I believe my way is better. :) However, it's not an all or nothing proposition. when the topic is complex enough and there are multiple things to address, I will clip out and insert text after the relevant discussion (just like this). However, self-richeous bottom posters who repost days and days worth of quoted text only to provide 1 thought at the bottom is my specific beef with the topic. > For your edification, widely observed Usenet etiquette dictates that > top posting is absolutely INAPPROPRIATE! Big deal. Net etiquette can and does change daily as companies change and modify their approach and attempt to make their 'mark' on the internet. my preference to top post single replies is choice. Besides, to quote carlos mencia "i didn't get the f****** memo." with the nettiquette rules I had to follow! ;) I am not a Usenet historian but I wonder if bottom posting had something to do with relative primitive editing and low bandwidth issues early on in the game. I for one prefer to read top posting in almost every case since I have usually been following the thread and don't want to scroll down pages of comment I have already read. Just imagine how long a single post on this thread would be with everyone bottom posting. And if you are going to heavily edit previous comments you might as well top post and let the reader go back in the thread as needed. I do appreciate specific comments inserted, where appropriate, in a reply. Since this has become a formatting thread I do have a question. Many of my posts have weird line breaks when they show up on usenet. I am using Outlook express, plain text, Western European (ISO) Thank You Howard > I am not a Usenet historian but I wonder if bottom posting had something > to do with relative primitive editing and low bandwidth issues early on in [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Thank You > Howard Bottom posting is actually the correct form for usenet posting. See RFC 1855. Section 3.1.1 http://www.dtcc.edu/cs/rfc1855.html "3.1.1 General Guidelines for mailing lists and NetNews" "If you are sending a reply to a message or a posting be sure you summarize the original at the top of the message, or include just enough text of the original to give a context. This will make sure readers understand when they start to read your response. Since NetNews, especially, is proliferated by distributing the postings from one host to another, it is possible to see a response to a message before seeing the original. Giving context helps everyone. But do not include the entire original!" Top posting was "innovated" by Microsoft when they ignored this (among many other) internet standards. Posting should follow normal written text (top to bottom) this makes searching the answer to a question possible. You may be searching for something years later and find a thread and need to have it readable. >I am not a Usenet historian but I wonder if bottom posting had something to >do with relative primitive editing and low bandwidth issues early on in the >game. No. Top-posting is an inferior way to format a post. Bandwidth is not relevant. >I for one prefer to read top posting in almost every case since I have >usually been following the thread and don't want to scroll down pages of >comment I have already read. Just imagine how long a single post on this >thread would be with everyone bottom posting. That is why posts should be trimmed of the parts no longer being actively discussed. There usually should NOT be any large amount of scrolling to get to the meat of the discussion. Check any of my posts, for examples. >>I am not a Usenet historian but I wonder if bottom posting had something to >>do with relative primitive editing and low bandwidth issues early on in the >>game. > >No. Top-posting is an inferior way to format a post. Bandwidth is >not relevant. Top posting is SUPERIOR. Bandwidth IS relevant, and so is the idiocy of not trimming quotes. I have a simple questions for you and other bottom post supporters. 1. Do you agree that reading quoted material is not always needled as it might have just been recently read in its original post? 2. Do you agree that bottom posting will force a reader to scroll past the quoted EACH and EVERY time in order to just be able to read the new material? Barring of course situations where all is visible one screen. 3. Do you agree that IF, the reader does not find it necessary to re-read the quoted material, then having to navigate past it in a bottom posting environment is wasteful? 4. In a top posting environment, If the reader DOES find it necessary to reference the quoted material, do you agree that the effort to do so is similar to the efforts described in #3 above? 5. Since most posts do not fit in a single viewing pane, isn't it obvious that bottom posting will require the reader to scroll on almost every message, whereas top postings only require it when context is not already understood? 6. Is not a system which requires less effort to achieve the goal the more efficient system? >>I for one prefer to read top posting in almost every case since I have >>usually been following the thread and don't want to scroll down pages of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >scrolling to get to the meat of the discussion. Check any of my >posts, for examples. >Top posting is SUPERIOR. Only idiots think that. >Bandwidth IS relevant, No, it is not, in regards to the the best way to format a post. >and so is the idiocy of not trimming quotes. Not trimming can be bad, too. >I have a simple questions for you and other bottom post supporters. > >1. Do you agree that reading quoted material is not always needled as >it might have just been recently read in its original post? Your use of "not always needed" shows the dishonesty and illogic of your argument. Of course it's "not always needed". But it IS almost always better. >2. Do you agree that bottom posting "Interleaved" posting, like this, is the correct way. >will force a reader to scroll past >the quoted EACH and EVERY time in order to just be able to read the >new material? Barring of course situations where all is visible one >screen. A properly-trimmed post will not have you "scrolling" to get to the new material. >3. Do you agree that IF, the reader does not find it necessary to >re-read the quoted material, then having to navigate past it in a >bottom posting environment is wasteful? Why do you keep saying "bottom posting", as if the alternative to posting everything on top is posting everything on the bottom? In any case, no. Keeping some context is a GOOD THING, so can hardly be called "wasteful". What's "wasteful" is how top posters almost NEVER trim their posts. >4. In a top posting environment, If the reader DOES find it necessary >to reference the quoted material, do you agree that the effort to do >so is similar to the efforts described in #3 above? Not even close. A properly formatted post, like this one, is of vastly higher-quality, and is more easily understood, compared to successive blocks of text as are left by stupid top-posters. >5. Since most posts do not fit in a single viewing pane, isn't it >obvious that bottom posting will require the reader to scroll on >almost every message, Are you mentally retarded? This has already been explained (see the very last paragraph of this post). >whereas top postings only require it when >context is not already understood? Making it a REAL pain, jumping down and up to try to comprehend a top post. >6. Is not a system which requires less effort to achieve the goal the >more efficient system? The most efficient system is that where the poster properly formats and trims his response to maximize quality of communication. The extra effort by the one person then benefits the MANY who will read the post. >>>I for one prefer to read top posting in almost every case since I have >>>usually been following the thread and don't want to scroll down pages of [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >>scrolling to get to the meat of the discussion. Check any of my >>posts, for examples. >>Top posting is SUPERIOR. > [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] >>>scrolling to get to the meat of the discussion. Check any of my >>>posts, for examples. >>Top posting is SUPERIOR. > [quoted text clipped - 247 lines] >>>scrolling to get to the meat of the discussion. Check any of my >>>posts, for examples. I think DIZZY is correct it is not that hard to read all of the other posts, when they are posted often enough but then again if I had posted on the top you would most likely be reading the next message by now mike hunt > I think DIZZY is correct it is not that hard to read all of the other posts, > when they are posted often enough > but then again if I had posted on the top you would most likely be reading > the next message by now Mike I believe you are being deliberately obtuse, since I know you're not really that stupid. Too bad I can't say the same for SgtSillycon. Dave I am NOT overweight ;) mike hunt > Mike > I believe you are being deliberately obtuse > Dave Hi Hairy Dave. I'd be glad to go head to head with you in a contest of wits if you think you are so much smarter. If you care to offer some intelligent counter points to my points that's fine. If you want imply I'm stupid then you should try to back it up. >> I think DIZZY is correct it is not that hard to read all of the other >posts, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >Dave >Hi Hairy Dave. I'd be glad to go head to head with you in a contest >of wits if you think you are so much smarter. If you care to offer >some intelligent counter points to my points that's fine. If you want >imply I'm stupid then you should try to back it up. You're a top poster. That's proof positive of your stupidity. No, it isn't. Your lack of ability to counter points is though. >>Hi Hairy Dave. I'd be glad to go head to head with you in a contest >>of wits if you think you are so much smarter. If you care to offer >>some intelligent counter points to my points that's fine. If you want >>imply I'm stupid then you should try to back it up. > >You're a top poster. That's proof positive of your stupidity. >No, it isn't. Your lack of ability to counter points is though. I see that you are a liar as well as a top poster. What a surprise. >>>Hi Hairy Dave. I'd be glad to go head to head with you in a contest >>>of wits if you think you are so much smarter. If you care to offer >>>some intelligent counter points to my points that's fine. If you want >>>imply I'm stupid then you should try to back it up. >> >>You're a top poster. That's proof positive of your stupidity. We're all still waiting for you to show us how sharp you are. Must be you can't. Now, that's a surprise! LOL. >>No, it isn't. Your lack of ability to counter points is though. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>> >>>You're a top poster. That's proof positive of your stupidity. I agree with DIZZY, everybody should post on the bottom. mike hunt >>No, it isn't. Your lack of ability to counter points is though. > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >>> >>>You're a top poster. That's proof positive of your stupidity. >>Hi Hairy Dave. I'd be glad to go head to head with you in a contest >>of wits if you think you are so much smarter. If you care to offer >>some intelligent counter points to my points that's fine. If you want >>imply I'm stupid then you should try to back it up. > > You're a top poster. That's proof positive of your stupidity. Dizzy is a "bottom" who resents ANYTHING or anyone on top. > Hi Hairy Dave. I'd be glad to go head to head with you in a contest > of wits if you think you are so much smarter. If you care to offer > some intelligent counter points to my points that's fine. If you want > imply I'm stupid then you should try to back it up. Others have already offered you intelligent counterpoints. A smart person would have picked up on them. What's the opposite of "smart"? Dave "idiot" is not an intelligent counterpoint. The best argument anyone has made for bottom posting so far is that an assumption is made that the quoted material will need to be read each and every time, and that going below the new material to get to it is too confusing. I and others have shown that those assumptions are not always true, and in fact OFTEN aren't. Just because someone at Intel wrote a memo and it was posted on a university node as a guide, is not a reason to start bottom posting. I'm someone who deals in the practicality of it and that to me, is that one often (even mostly) doesn't need to re-read quoted material, and that on those times it is needed, it is NOT too confusing to do so. So if it has come down to an argument of quantifying how often the quoted material needs to be read or to extent it is confusing to look below the new material to see it if it is needed, then we could argue all day. Since I usually have ALREADY read the posts in the thread that are being quoted, I RARELY need to read them over and over again. Also, when I do need to, I don't find it confusing in the least to look below for it. I supposed people's mileage may vary depending on their memory sharpness and reading comprehension skills. Now tell us how smart you are again. >> Hi Hairy Dave. I'd be glad to go head to head with you in a contest >> of wits if you think you are so much smarter. If you care to offer [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Dave > "idiot" is not an intelligent counterpoint. That depends on the veracity of the statement. In this case, I think it was more of an observation than a counterpoint. The best argument anyone > has made for bottom posting so far is that an assumption is made that > the quoted material will need to be read each and every time, and that > going below the new material to get to it is too confusing. I don't remember anyone saying "each and every time", but I think most times would be accurate. > I and others have shown that those assumptions are not always true, > and in fact OFTEN aren't. The only thing that you have shown is that you are too lazy to trim and quote properly. Just because someone at Intel wrote a memo > and it was posted on a university node as a guide, is not a reason to > start bottom posting. It has nothing to do with who "wrote a memo", though you seem to be hung up on that point. Whazza matter, they forget to run it by you, first? I'm someone who deals in the practicality of it > and that to me, is that one often (even mostly) doesn't need to > re-read quoted material, and that on those times it is needed, it is > NOT too confusing to do so. Yes, it's all about YOU, isn't it. Whatever is easiest for YOU. To hell with everyone else. (especially since YOU didn't write the memo) > So if it has come down to an argument of quantifying how often the > quoted material needs to be read or to extent it is confusing to look > below the new material to see it if it is needed, then we could argue > all day. Since I usually have ALREADY read the posts in the thread > that are being quoted, them over and over again. > Also, when I do need to, I don't find it confusing in the least to > look below for it. I supposed people's mileage may vary depending on > their memory sharpness and reading comprehension skills. "Since I usually have ALREADY read" "I RARELY need to read" "when I do need to, I don't find it" "I supposed" See what I mean? It's all about YOU. No consideration for anyone else. I participate in ten different NG's, and read several others. It's not obvious who the new posts are replying to, let alone what the context of the message is, especially in long threads like this one. It is almost always helpful to have a bit of quoted text before the reply to refresh the memory. Otherwise I have to scroll down to get the context and in your case, you often don't trim the quoted material below which makes it even worse. > Now tell us how smart you are again. No point in restating the obvious to a deaf person. Dave Hey dipshit, it's not all about me. I'm merely using my experiences as an example of not just what I, but many others also share. It would have been more proper to say "we" to include others who agree, but I normally don't like to be in the habit of speaking for others. And you damn sure don't get to speak for me. >> "idiot" is not an intelligent counterpoint. > [quoted text clipped - 61 lines] > >Dave I think everybody should bottom post. ;) mike hunt > Hey dipshit, it's not all about me. I'm merely using my experiences > as an example of not just what I, but many others also share. It [quoted text clipped - 73 lines] >> >>Dave That's nice. >I think everybody should bottom post. ;) > [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] >>> >>>Dave > Hey dipshit, it's not all about me. Sure it is. I'm merely using my experiences > as an example of not just what I, but many others also share. I gave you an example of the problems your posting style causes and you completely ignored it. Like I said, it's all about you.....no consideration for others. It > would have been more proper to say "we" to include others who agree, > but I normally don't like to be in the habit of speaking for others. Yet, here you are, speaking for others. > And you damn sure don't get to speak for me. In order to speak for you, I'd have to get down to your level, which I refuse to do. Dave > I gave you an example of the problems your posting style causes and > you completely ignored it. Like I said, it's all about you.....no > consideration for others. Similar to you -- refusing to listen to the logic, reasons, and preferences of people who top post? "hey pot, I'm the kettle". JP I just had to hit page down 28 times before I say the start of your new material Mike. It was bottom posted, not interspersed posted. All the material I scrolled past I have ALREADY read in other messages. You and Dizzy must be morons if you can't get it. >>>Top posting is SUPERIOR. >> [quoted text clipped - 339 lines] > >mike hunt >I just had to hit page down 28 times before I say the start of your >new material Mike. It was bottom posted, not interspersed posted. > >All the material I scrolled past I have ALREADY read in other >messages. You and Dizzy must be morons if you can't get it. "Mike" is a troll. Examples of what DIZZY? mike hunt >>Top posting is SUPERIOR. > > Only idiots think that. . Check any of my >>>posts, for examples. Dizzy my mentally challenged fellow.... I criticized bottom posting, and you answered the criticisms leveled by defending interspersed posting. I wasn't attacking that. Interspersed quoting/replying is an excellent method (and I've used it to advantage on many occasion), but it only lends itself appropriate in certain cases. In the remaining cases, top or bottom posting is used. The debate here, is the relative merits of top and bottom posting. You keep demonstrating your lack of intelligence almost daily. >>Top posting is SUPERIOR. > [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] >>>scrolling to get to the meat of the discussion. Check any of my >>>posts, for examples. >Dizzy my mentally challenged fellow.... I criticized bottom posting, >and you answered the criticisms leveled by defending interspersed [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >the relative merits of top and bottom posting. You keep demonstrating >your lack of intelligence almost daily. Idiot. Same to you. >>Dizzy my mentally challenged fellow.... I criticized bottom posting, >>and you answered the criticisms leveled by defending interspersed [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > >Idiot. Our friend DIZZY has done it AGAIN, signed one of his post with one of his aliases and forgot to post anything ;) mike hunt >>Dizzy my mentally challenged fellow.... I criticized bottom posting, >>and you answered the criticisms leveled by defending interspersed [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Idiot. > Our friend DIZZY has done it AGAIN, signed one of his post with one of his > aliases and forgot to post anything ;) > > mike hunt *LOL* You called that one right Mike! <snip> okay, 15yearold high school troll. you've been plonked. I'm not wasting any more time on your drivel. J >okay, 15yearold high school troll. How ironic, coming frm the person too lazy and selfish to properly format his posts. >you've been plonked. I'm not wasting any more time on your drivel. Wow. Plonked by a stupid top-poster. How will I ever live this down? You and I see it exactly the same way. Also, they probably wouldn't know a good newsreader if it jumped out and bit them in the a.s. >Amen brother. >I'll stop top posting when the other morons on the i-net quit including [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] >>> >>>rm Which one do you use, just out of curiousity? I'm not exactly a newsgroup connoisseur, and I've been using xnews for absolute years. Honestly, haven't compared it to much of anything other than that crappy outlook express feature. secretspam@ihatespam.net (SgtSilicon) wrote in news:43cb1a22.83778500 @nntp.charter.net: > You and I see it exactly the same way. Also, they probably wouldn't > know a good newsreader if it jumped out and bit them in the a.s. >Which one do you use, just out of curiousity? Which one of what does he use, top poster? Oh, I see, we're supposed to read down into the message to see what the HELL you're talking about, and then go back to the top to read your response and try to make some sense of it. So much better! >I'm not exactly a newsgroup connoisseur, and I've been using xnews for >absolute years. Honestly, haven't compared it to much of anything other than [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] >> You and I see it exactly the same way. Also, they probably wouldn't >> know a good newsreader if it jumped out and bit them in the a.s. Dizzy, you demonstrate your lack of intelligence each time you post. >>Which one do you use, just out of curiousity? > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] >>> You and I see it exactly the same way. Also, they probably wouldn't >>> know a good newsreader if it jumped out and bit them in the a.s. Hi Jon. I use Forte' Agent. The free version is called, Free Agent. >Which one do you use, just out of curiousity? >I'm not exactly a newsgroup connoisseur, and I've been using xnews for [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >> You and I see it exactly the same way. Also, they probably wouldn't >> know a good newsreader if it jumped out and bit them in the a.s. thanks. I tried it several years ago, and I seem to remember hating how it handled binaries. I switched to xnews and haven't tried much new since then. J > Hi Jon. I use Forte' Agent. The free version is called, Free Agent. >thanks. I tried it several years ago, You tried what several years ago, top poster? >and I seem to remember hating how it >handled binaries. Sure wish I knew what "it" was... Oh, that's right - the answer is down below somewhere. >I switched to xnews and haven't tried much new since then. >J > >> Hi Jon. I use Forte' Agent. The free version is called, Free Agent. > >thanks. I tried it several years ago, > > You tried what several years ago, top poster? Dizzy, I think I see the problem here. This post of yours says it all. You have a short attention span! You can't remember the last post you read in the string. *LOL* > >and I seem to remember hating how it > >handled binaries. > > Sure wish I knew what "it" was... Oh, that's right - the answer is > down below somewhere. There's evidence of that short attention span again! *LOL* Dizzy, I am a bottom poster, largely because for some strange reason it is accepted as the norm for news groups. Having said that, I find top posting to be eminently more logical and easier to follow. But this requires that you follow a thread sequence in chronological order (And why wouldn't you?) and have a normal memory and attention span. If I am interested in a thread, it makes absolutely no difference to me whether a contributor bottom posts or top posts. It is the message that is important. So stop your self-righteous flaming and start contributing some value to the group or buzz off! You're being a pest. >I am a bottom poster, largely because for some strange reason it is >accepted as the norm for news groups. Having said that, I find top >posting to be eminently more logical and easier to follow. Then you are an idiot, because top-posting is obviously inferior. At least it seems you may not be as lazy as most top-posting morons. Like I'm going to take a high school moron seriously. > >I am a bottom poster, largely because for some strange reason it is > >accepted as the norm for news groups. Having said that, I find top > >posting to be eminently more logical and easier to follow. > > Then you are an idiot, because top-posting is obviously inferior. At > least it seems you may not be as lazy as most top-posting morons. angry dizzy NNTP-Posting-Host: 12.207.41.72 AT&T WorldNet Services, 200 S. LAUREL AVE., NJ 07748 OrgAbusePhone: +1-919-319-8130 X-Complaints-To: abuse@mchsi.com OrgAbuseEmail: abuse@att.net wrote: > Then you are an idiot, because top-posting is obviously inferior. dizzy, the world is rife with followers like yourself, who do what they are told and who are afraid to try something new. You needn't be afraid of change dizzy. Change is good and is most often for the better. Your words are fraught with anger dizzy. Let go of the past. Stop following dizzy. Be a leader. You can do it. Be an agent of change, not someone stuck in the past "because that's the way we've always done it". If you're not part of the solution, you're part of the problem dizzy. Be strong little dizzy. > At > least it seems you may not be as lazy as most top-posting morons. And it seems that you are just another moron troll. dizzy, that last comment of yours could almost be a compliment if it had been said by someone with an IQ bigger than his shoe size. dizzy, rise past your low IQ and join society. It can't be fun always breathing through your mouth. Dizzy, my new name for you is "Bottom Poster Bottom Feeder." BTW, you shouldn't need to re-read for context. Even your small brain should be able to get the drift without it. Hi. I don't have problems with binaries, but if you don't mind i'm interested in whart short falls with binaries the xnews program solved for you? >thanks. I tried it several years ago, and I seem to remember hating how it >handled binaries. >I switched to xnews and haven't tried much new since then. >J > >> Hi Jon. I use Forte' Agent. The free version is called, Free Agent. OH MY GHOD!! YOU POSTED AT THE TOP AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU"RE TALKING ABOUT AND TO WHO! I MUST SCROLL DOWN! WOE IS ME!!! (sarcasm off now!:)) Well, SgtSilicon, it's been many years since I tried other newsreaders, but as I recall the previous one I used (may have been forte) I could never get it to properly open and display images ... OR it may have been frustration with how it handled multi-part binaries. It was one of those two items, though. J > Hi. I don't have problems with binaries, but if you don't mind i'm > interested in whart short falls with binaries the xnews program solved > for you? Thanks. I never had problems with binaries before and I don't do much with them anymore anyway. My ISP out sourced their news server and now there are some throttles on transfer rates etc. All still works, just makes getting anything of any size not worth it. >OH MY GHOD!! YOU POSTED AT THE TOP AND I HAVE NO IDEA WHAT YOU"RE TALKING >ABOUT AND TO WHO! I MUST SCROLL DOWN! WOE IS ME!!! [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > >It was one of those two items, though. >>Chrysler was saved by a federal loan guarantee and the minivan. >>Iacocca wanted to build the FWD minivan while at Ford, but the board >>refused to fund a FWD chassis, something Chrysler already had in >>development (K-car) by the time Iacocca joined the company. Minivans >>gave Chrysler a profit of $1500 per vehicle from the beginning, and >>currently each one nets $5000-7000. >I spent over thirty years of my life as a automotive design engineer, >retiring in 1986 at age 60. Your recollection is a bit foggy. FWD cars [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >of the same basic vehicle chassis was what enabled Chrysler to afford the >billons to convert their assembly plants to FWD. So I guess you know more than Chrysler chairman Lee Iacocca (master's in engineering), who's recollection disagrees with yours. Please explain why all mainstream minivans are now built on FWD platforms, even by companies that have suitable RWD chassis. I can't believe Chrysler's K-car FWD vehicles cost 20% more simply because they were FWD. The development of the 2.2L engine had to do something with this. Next time I speak to my friend Lido I'll ask him ;) mike hunt >>>Chrysler was saved by a federal loan guarantee and the minivan. >>>Iacocca wanted to build the FWD minivan while at Ford, but the board [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > because they were FWD. The development of the 2.2L engine had to do > something with this. > I spent over thirty years of my life as a automotive design engineer, > retiring in 1986 at age 60. Your recollection is a bit foggy. FWD cars [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > of the same basic vehicle chassis was what enabled Chrysler to afford the > billons to convert their assembly plants to FWD. Just bull Mike. I've had Chrysler FWD 4 & 6 cyl vehicles from '79 to '01. They were all price competitive with similar RWD vehicles. Recent Chrysler 300 vehicles are much more expensive than the mid sized cars they replaced. Economies of scale and similar cars on the same platform has always been with us, as even GM, Ford and Chrysler well know. >>GM and Ford would probably both be better off by declaring bankruptcy, >>and starting with fresh faces and ideas. >What makes you think that? GM and Ford still sell for more than any other >manufacture and more than all of the import brands combined. ;) And in 1985, Kmart was much larger than Wal-mart, while today it's 80% smaller. What reason does GM have to exist? In other words, what can GM do better than anybody else, other than lobby the U.S. government for a bailout? Quality is good but not the best. Costs are high (even excluding health care and pension costs). Hours to produce each vehicle are high. Car designs are bad (but trucks are good). Corporate leadership is poor and clueless. >>>GM and Ford would probably both be better off by declaring bankruptcy, >>>and starting with fresh faces and ideas. [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > excluding health care and pension costs). Hours to produce each > vehicle are high. Car designs are bad (but trucks are good). Trucks are sh.t too. We see 4-year old chevys and GMCs rusted through around here. Ever see a Canyon up close? Plain, ugly, crude. > Corporate leadership is poor and clueless. >>>>GM and Ford would probably both be better off by declaring bankruptcy, >>>>and starting with fresh faces and ideas. [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] > >> Corporate leadership is poor and clueless. I owned a 95 S-10. It started rusting on the GAS TANK before I'd had it a year. Hinge pin on the driver's door, too. Charles You forgot to say in my opinion, since the millions of the folks buying those millions of GM vehicles today disagree with your assesment. ;) mike hunt >>>GM and Ford would probably both be better off by declaring bankruptcy, >>>and starting with fresh faces and ideas. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > vehicle are high. Car designs are bad (but trucks are good). > Corporate leadership is poor and clueless. >>What reason does GM have to exist? In other words, what can GM do >>better than anybody else, other than lobby the U.S. government for a >>bailout? Quality is good but not the best. Costs are high (even >>excluding health care and pension costs). Hours to produce each >>vehicle are high. Car designs are bad (but trucks are good). >>Corporate leadership is poor and clueless. > You forgot to say in my opinion, since the millions of the folks buying > those millions of GM vehicles today disagree with your assesment. ;) I assume adults know how to distinguish fact (i.e., defect rates, hours needed to produce each vehicle) from opinion (i.e., GM designs and executives are bad), and the popularity of any brand of vehicles doesn't change opnions about it to facts or vice-versa. Is that the reason you believe Toyota is in fourth place behind GM, Ford and Chrysler in the US? Based on the many Toyotas I have owned I believe Toyota makes great vehicles, but I have found that they are generally over priced, under powered and no better than any other brand. The reason Toyota sells the number of vehicles in the US that it does is because buyer buy the vehicle they believe to be the best for them and their money. Obviously you buy the brand you buy for the same reason. The fact is more buyer choose GM over Ford, Ford over Chrysler, Chrysler over Toyota and Toyota over Honda. Whether you agree with the reasoning of those buyers, or not, that is only your opinion. mike hunt >>>What reason does GM have to exist? In other words, what can GM do >>>better than anybody else, other than lobby the U.S. government for a [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > executives are bad), and the popularity of any brand of vehicles > doesn't change opnions about it to facts or vice-versa. >You forgot to say in my opinion, since the millions of the folks buying >those millions of GM vehicles today disagree with your assesment. ;) >>I assume adults know how to distinguish fact (i.e., defect rates, hours >>needed to produce each vehicle) from opinion (i.e., GM designs and >>executives are bad), and the popularity of any brand of vehicles >>doesn't change opnions about it to facts or vice-versa. >Is that the reason you believe Toyota is in fourth place behind GM, Ford and >Chrysler in the US? I didn't give a reason just then but just an explanation of fact vs. opinion and also stated some facts that indicate how GM is inferior. >Based on the many Toyotas I have owned I believe Toyota makes great >vehicles, but I have found that they are generally over priced, under >powered and no better than any other brand. The reason Toyota >sells the number of vehicles in the US that it does is because buyer buy the >vehicle they believe to be the best for them and their money. You said Toyotas are overpriced but that other people feel they're the best value for the money. Why do you and the other people differ on this criterion? Is it because the other people feel Toyotas are superior enough in other respects to make them better values despite higher price? I actually agree with you that Toyotas cost more than comparable GM and Ford vehicles. >The fact is more buyer choose GM over Ford, Ford over Chrysler, >Chrysler over Toyota and Toyota over Honda. Whether you agree >with the reasoning of those buyers, or not, that is only your opinion. Defect rates and the hours per vehicle are not opinions but facts, and GM, Ford, and Chrysler are inferior to Toyota, Honda, and Nissan in hours and inferior to Toyota and Honda in defect rates. On the other hand, GM cars being ugly or beautiful or the Honda Civic deserving or not deserving a "Car of the Year" award are opinions. So are Ford's, GM's, and Chrysler's beliefs that Toyota and Honda are the best car makers. GM has about 15% of the world market, and some time in 2006 so will Toyota. Show me where GM or Ford is gaining on Toyota, either worldwide or in North America alone. > The reason Toyota > sells the number of vehicles in the US that it does is because buyer buy the > vehicle they believe to be the best for them and their money. Totally agree They buy Toyota because it is best value for money, best customer care, best quality That is what I said, but far more buyers buy GM, Ford, and Chrysler vehicles because THEY obviously believe the brand THEY buy is the best value for money, best customer care, and best quality ;) mike hunt >> The reason Toyota >> sells the number of vehicles in the US that it does is because buyer buy [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > They buy Toyota because it is best value for money, best customer care, > best quality > That is what I said It is good that we are in agreement I have sometime misunderstood your posts > >> The reason Toyota > >> sells the number of vehicles in the US that it does is because buyer buy [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > They buy Toyota because it is best value for money, best customer care, > > best quality I'm glad we can agree that more buyers buy GM, Ford, and Chrysler vehicles than Toyota because THEY obviously believe the brand THEY buy is the best value for money, best customer care, and best quality mike hunt >> That is what I said, but far more buyers buy GM, Ford, and Chrysler >> vehicles because THEY obviously believe the brand THEY buy is the best value for money, best customer care, and best quality ;) > It is good that we are in agreement > > I have sometime misunderstood your posts "Sales at Chrysler, GM and Ford are falling as buyers defect to Toyota, the worlds second-biggest automaker, and other Asian rivals." ------------------------- GM, Ford December U.S. Auto Sales Fall; Toyota Gains Jan. 4 (Bloomberg) -- General Motors Corp., Ford Motor Co. and DaimlerChrysler AG reported lower U.S. auto sales for a third straight month as Asian automakers led by Toyota Motor Corp. likely gained market share. GM, the worlds largest automaker, said today its U.S. December sales fell 10 percent to 392,041 cars and trucks. Ford, the second-biggest U.S. carmaker, said its sales dropped 9 percent to 267,881, while DaimlerChrysler, No. 3 in the U.S., said Chrysler and Mercedes-Benz vehicle sales fell 2 percent to 220,641. Toyotas sales rose 8.2 percent to 203,279. Cars and light trucks in the U.S. sold at an annual rate of 16.9 million units last month, down from 17.9 million a year earlier, according to a Bloomberg survey of analysts and economists. Sales in 2005 probably matched the 16.9 million of a year earlier. The domestics have been suffering and the imports have been gaining, said Jeremy Anwyl, president of automotive data service Edmunds.com. The real question is: Whats going to happen in 2006? Sales at Chrysler, GM and Ford are falling as buyers defect to Toyota, the worlds second-biggest automaker, and other Asian rivals. The declines are a reversal of gains in June and July, when U.S. carmakers offered employee discounts for all buyers. GM hasnt had a sales increase since July, and Ford reported lower U.S. sales each month since August. Toyotas U.S. sales for all of 2005 rose 10 percent to 2.26 million vehicles, the biggest unit increase among all automakers. General Motors GMs December car sales fell 19 percent to 131,687 as models such as the Chevrolet Impala fell 22 percent and the Chevy Monte Carlo declined 36 percent. Light-truck sales declined 4.7 percent as Chevrolet Suburban sport-utility vehicles fell 36 percent and the Chevy Tahoe dipped 12 percent. Sales of large pickups such as the Chevy Silverado rose 1.7 percent. For the year, GM reported a 4 percent decline to 4.52 million vehicles. Chrysler sales dropped 5 percent to 189,449 in December, the Stuttgart, Germany-based company said in a statement. The U.S. unit still posted its second straight annual U.S. sales gain. Mercedes-Benz sales in December increased 17 percent to 31,192, bringing them to a record for the year. Chrysler started offering a debit card with $2,400 toward gasoline purchases along with free maintenance for two years and extended warranties on most 2005 and 2006 models after October sales fell 3.1 percent. Chrysler today extended the program until Jan. 9, when it will announce new incentives, spokesman Kevin McCormick said. Ford Sales of Dearborn, Michigan-based Fords F-Series pickup trucks, the best-selling line of vehicles in the U.S., fell 6.2 percent to 89,491. The company sold 901,463 F-Series in 2005, a 4 percent decline, while still hitting its target of selling at least 900,000 of the vehicles. Nissan Motor Co., Japans No. 2 carmaker, sold 91,253 cars and trucks last month, down 1.1 percent from a year earlier, Jed Connelly, the automakers head of U.S. sales, said in an interview. For all of 2005, Tokyo-based Nissan sold 1.076 million vehicles to U.S. drivers, up 9.1 percent from 2004 and the first time the company has exceeded 1 million units in a calendar year, Connelly said by phone from Nissans Canton, Mississippi, assembly plant. Honda Honda Motor Co.s U.S. December sales fell 3.3 percent to 132,800 cars and trucks. Cars posted a 16 percent decline, led by a 31 percent drop in Accord sedans, while light-truck sales rose 14.1 percent on an 18 percent gain in Pilot SUV sales and the addition of its Ridgeline pickup. The Asians continue to stay the course, said David Lucas, an analyst with Autodata Corp. A rise in gasoline prices to records last year helped cars regain market share against pickup trucks and SUVs for the first time in 25 years, benefiting Asian companies that sell smaller, more fuel-efficient vehicles, said John Murphy, an analyst with Merrill Lynch & Co. GMs 2006 earnings per share forecast was cut by JPMorgan Chase & Co. today to 70 cents from $2.35 because planned cuts in manufacturing capacity and health-care costs wont have a significant effect on results until 2007. Sales at Detroit-based GM, which along with Ford has depended on trucks and SUVs to boost profit, declined 3.8 percent through November, while Fords fell 4.3 percent. Chevrolet GMs Chevrolet ended 2005 as the biggest-selling nameplate in the U.S., with a total of 2.67 million vehicles sold. It was the first time since 1986 that Chevrolet reached No. 1, beating out Fords namesake Ford division with 2.65 million. Chevrolets TrailBlazer also took over from Fords Explorer as the top- selling SUV. GMs total market share through November was down 1.3 percentage points from a year earlier to 26.2 percent. Ford dropped 1.2 percentage points to 18.6 percent. Septembers hurricanes and $3 a gallon gasoline served as a turning point in consumer preference, Murphy wrote in a Dec. 22 research report. If this trend continues in 06, the Big Three, which rely heavily on light trucks for the majority of their sales, could experience accelerated market share losses. Dubious General Motors, which lost $4.8 billion in North America in the first nine months of 2005, had its credit rating reduced to below investment grade, or junk, last year as sales declined. Standard & Poors, in lowering GMs rating a fourth time in 2005, last month said falling sales of large SUVs made it dubious that the carmaker can restore North American profit with new models in 2006. GM Chief Executive Officer Rick Wagoner said on Dec. 15 that even if the large SUV market doesnt recover in 2006, GM has a huge ownership base that will buy its next-generation models. GM will get a profit and sales boost by mid-2006 when redesigned vehicles are on the market, said Joseph Amaturo, an analyst with Calyon Securities in New York. Global Insights Lindland said GMs market share will fall to 25.2 percent in 2006, and Fords will drop to 17.6 percent. Toyotas share will climb to 13.9 percent, allowing it to surpass Chrysler as third-biggest in U.S. sales. The market share for domestic automakers will end 2005 at 58 percent, down from 58.7 percent in 2004, and may decline to 56 percent in 2006, Lindland said. Falling Sales Robert Barry, an analyst with Goldman, Sachs & Co., estimated automakers can sell 16.8 million cars and trucks to U.S. consumers in 2006 as long as they lower prices aggressively. While December was likely the biggest month since July, when GM, Ford and Chrysler offered employee prices to consumers, year-end incentives werent enough to push sales above year-ago levels. Manufacturers incentives through Dec. 15 fell 8 percent from a year earlier, while dealer incentives rose 13 percent, according to Art Spinella, president of CNW Marketing Research in Bandon, Oregon. Auto sales are expressed on an annualized basis to reflect seasonal shifts in buying patterns. Last years monthly seasonally adjusted rates ranged from 14.7 million in October to 20.9 million in July, according to Bloomberg data. Automakers have sold an average of 17 million vehicles annually in the U.S. this decade. Indeed GM and Ford are down and Toyota is up. But both GM and Ford as well as Chrysler are still out selling Toyota in big number in the US. The three top selling vehicle in the US are Ford, GM and Chrysler trucks. On the other hand Toytota trucks are just a blip of total vehicls sales. The number one selling vehicle, the F150, sold at a rate more than twice that of the number four selling vehicle, the Toyota Camry, albeit the nubmer one selling car. When it comes to cars contrary to what Toyota and our friend in the Toyota NG would have us believe both GM and Ford sold, not only more vehicles, but more cars as well. Just not in the same brand name and/or model. The fact is the Chevrolet Divison of GM alone sold more than all of Toyota, Lexus and Sion combined to take the number one brand spot for Ford after 19 years. GM sold far more than Toyota Motors, as did Ford Motor Company and Chrysler Corp. mike hunt > "Sales at Chrysler, GM and Ford are falling > as buyers defect to Toyota, [quoted text clipped - 187 lines] > according to Bloomberg data. Automakers have sold an average of 17 > million vehicles annually in the U.S. this decade. Mike, you've gone past your "rule of six". > Indeed GM and Ford are down and Toyota is up. But both GM and Ford as well as > Chrysler are still out selling Toyota in big number in the US. The three top [quoted text clipped - 202 lines] >> according to Bloomberg data. Automakers have sold an average of 17 >> million vehicles annually in the U.S. this decade. I know, but I wasted a half dozen in another futile effort to enlighten our fried DIZZY ;) mike hunt > Mike, you've gone past your "rule of six". >> Indeed GM and Ford are down and Toyota is up. But both GM and Ford as [quoted text clipped - 204 lines] >>> according to Bloomberg data. Automakers have sold an average of 17 >>> million vehicles annually in the U.S. this decade. >I'm glad we can agree that more buyers buy GM, Ford, and Chrysler vehicles >than Toyota because THEY obviously believe the brand THEY buy is the best >value for money, best customer care, and best quality 1) Are you trying to gang three companies up against one, top-poster? 2) As usual, you are wrong. It's much more complex than that. For example, GM has a much broader range of products than does Toyota. This means their product is "just right" for more people. This is a separate issue from "value, care, and quality". Also, it's a well-known fact that millions of Americans will only buy American, irrespective of of which manufacturer offers the best "value, care, and quality" package. Don't you tire of being wrong, troll? I'll not waste time on your stupid logic, reread the post it is self explanatory. Buyer buy more of every completive model of GM and Ford vehicles rather than the one sold by Toyota with the exception of the Camry and they do so in big numbers. mike hunt >>I'm glad we can agree that more buyers buy GM, Ford, and Chrysler vehicles >>than Toyota because THEY obviously believe the brand THEY buy is the best [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Don't you tire of being wrong, troll? >I'll not waste time on your stupid logic, reread the post it is self >explanatory. And wrong, as I explained. >Buyer buy more of every completive model of GM and Ford >vehicles rather than the one sold by Toyota with the exception of the Camry >and they do so in big numbers. Not true, globally, nitwit. >> 2) As usual, you are wrong. It's much more complex than that. For >> example, GM has a much broader range of products than does Toyota. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> irrespective of of which manufacturer offers the best "value, care, >> and quality" package. GM has a much broader range of products than does Toyota. > This means their product is "just right" for more people. Very good summation. Glad you finally got it. >> GM has a much broader range of products than does Toyota. >> This means their product is "just right" for more people. > >Very good summation. Glad you finally got it. Understand that the decline of the US car companies gives me no pleasure. They largely did it to themselves, though, with their crappy quality (which gave the Japanese their opening to invade), to their embracing of mediocrity, the most glaring example of which was the wholesale switch-over to FWD. It was really sad to see once-proud Cadillac producing nothing but garbage with V8 engines hanging-out in front of the front wheels... Top posting is actually the superior method. Having to continually scroll down to the end of the message, every message, is wasteful. It is wasteful because the context of the quoted text is often not actually necessary, due to a high probability that the message containing it was just or recently read by the viewer. It is most especially gay, for those who additionally re-quote practically the entire thread thus far in every stinking message rather than just the more relevant bits necessary for context. Not only does it waste storage and bandwidth, it amplifies the tragedy of the bottom posting method as pointed out above. If one wants to see the all messages in the thread, it is but a relatively simple matter to browse through the posts and replies in the thread with their news reader, or web news reader like Google or what have you. If that is too much of a challenge, then who are the real idiots? In the cases that the context is needed, the viewer can scroll down to obtain it. But only when they need to. Efficiency. Beauty. LOGICAL. I'm not usually one to make an issue out of people's posting style. I like top posting for the reasons given, but recognize that others may place higher value on other aspects of trade offs. But I do not like when someone gets on their top posting is bad high horse like you have been doing. And even though you were directing your comments directly to someone else, the fact that I often top post caused me to feel insulted. Thus I felt compelled to weigh in on it. And by the way, relating to the primary issue at hand here; if you think that being able to buy a vehicle that is close or closer to "just right" is not a factor in value, then to put it bluntly you are playing a fool. It is generally common understanding that value equals what you get, weighed against the cost. The "just right" concept is most definitely an important issue in the what you get part of the equation. >>I'm glad we can agree that more buyers buy GM, Ford, and Chrysler vehicles >>than Toyota because THEY obviously believe the brand THEY buy is the best [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > >Don't you tire of being wrong, troll? > Top posting is actually the superior method. Having to continually > scroll down to the end of the message, every message, is wasteful. It [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > concept is most definitely an important issue in the what you get part > of the equation. Top-posting makes your message incomprehensible to many of your readers. In normal conversation, after all, you don't answer to something that has not yet been said. When you quote, you're doing it to provide context. Requiring your readers to scroll down and then back, repeatedly (as they attempt to figure out what the heck you're talking about), is a rather difficult way for you to make the context available. Providing the context up-front will get you better results. There's no way to build a threaded discussion with top-posting. Top-posting severely inhibits others from understanding the conversation, because the context of the conversation is out of order, as in broken. Replying at the top confuses your readers, making any point you're trying to get across very unclear without them scrolling down and back repeatedly, searching to re-integrate context. That extra, wholly unnecessary work leads to reader irritation, or worse, to readers just not bothering with your words at all. Since your object is to get your message across, help your readers follow by placing your words in context, not prior to the context. Doing otherwise, forcing your readers to go to extra work unnecessarily, is often irritating, sometimes interpreted as insulting, or in severe cases taken as attempt by you to show your "power". Any way you cut that, delivering your words in an hard to read manner doesn't help your case. Instead, post in-line to preserve context and respect your readers. http://www.river.com/users/share/etiquette/ Top-posting means replying to a message above the original message. This may be a message in an Internet forum, an e-mail message or a Usenet post. Top-posting is considered improper by many definitions of Internet etiquette since it breaks down the flow of the thread: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Top_posting Top-posting vs bottom-posting Some people like to put reply after the quoted text, some like it the other way around, and still some prefer interspersed style. Debates about which posting style is better have lead to many flame wars in the forums. To keep forum discussion friendly, please follow the general preference, which is bottom-posting http://www.mozilla.org/community/etiquette.html Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting By A. Smit and H.W. de Haan Below you can find our arguments why bottom-posting is better than top-posting. http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html > > Top posting is actually the superior method. > Top-posting makes your message incomprehensible to many of your readers. ~text that I'm sure SgtSillycon didn't read, snipped~ Some people just won't let facts, convention or common sense get in the way of doing things *their* way. If the posters that follow convention would ignore or KF those that refuse to, they might see the error of their ways. I agree with another poster that people that don't trim their posts are just as bad as top posters. FWIW Dave The first thing I did when I read your follow up was to scroll down past all the quoted stuff because I ALREADY AM FOLLOWING THE THREAD. If, and ONLY if, It's not making sense, then I will quick check the quoted. Most of the time, probably 90%+, I just recently finished reading the quoted material in its original posting and I do not need to read any of it. I do not need to re-read it every time someone throws in 2 cents. See another posting I have made regarding so called self appointed preachers of what is netiquette. >> Top posting is actually the superior method. Having to continually >> scroll down to the end of the message, every message, is wasteful. It [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] >top-posting. >http://www.caliburn.nl/topposting.html >(snip top-posted rant, ignoring all the previous poster's points, as top-posting cretins tend to do.) Idiot. Dizzy, once again you signed one of your aliases to a post. Why do you do that all the time, we know its you LOL >>(snip top-posted rant, ignoring all the previous poster's points, as >>top-posting cretins tend to do.) > > Idiot. >Top posting is actually the superior method. Wrong, obviously. Only idiots think that top-posting is superior. Sorry. I think bottom posters are idiots, because the quoted text is not always needed to the reader. It is not needed when it was just read in a previous message. I do not think of people as having so incredibly poor reading comprehension skills that they completely forget the messages they just read in the few minutes previously. For those that do for get one, it is then an easy matter to scroll down. I do check the quoted when I need to. Most of the time I have already recently read it. I notice you have no comment about re-quoting EVERYTHING rather than just the bits needed for context. You don't see any problem with that? Anything lazy with it? Anything wasteful with it? >>Top posting is actually the superior method. > >Wrong, obviously. Only idiots think that top-posting is superior. >Sorry. > I think bottom posters are idiots, because the quoted text is not > always needed to the reader. It is not needed when it was just read [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > see any problem with that? Anything lazy with it? Anything wasteful > with it? Good thing there are standards then. Imagine if you thought people driving on the right side of the road instead of the left were idiots. Read RFC 1855. (top posting corrected) >>>Top posting is actually the superior method. >> >>Wrong, obviously. Only idiots think that top-posting is superior. >>Sorry. > >I think bottom posters are idiots, (snip idiotic garbage) Only idiots think that top-posting is superior. Sorry. THAT from our friend who calls himself DIZZY ;) mike hunt >>Top posting is actually the superior method. > > Wrong, obviously. Only idiots think that top-posting is superior. > Sorry. > That is what I said, but far more buyers buy GM, Ford, and Chrysler vehicles > because THEY obviously believe the brand THEY buy is the best value for > money, yes. >best customer care, and best quality ;) Not necessarily. I assume mental midgets do not know how to or care to distinguish fact (i.e., country of ownership, balance of payments for debtor nation (US) versus non debtor nation (Japan), manufacturer country of origin, real estate property tax abatement for non domestic manufacturers, rice steel versus real steel, rice glass versus real glass, when will the Japanese call in our debt) from opinion (i.e., GM, Ford and Chrysler designs and executives are bad), and the popularity of any brand of vehicles doesn't change opinions about it to facts or vice-versa. > I assume mental midgets do not know how to or care to distinguish fact > (i.e., country of ownership, balance of payments for debtor nation (US) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > designs and executives are bad), and the popularity of any brand of > vehicles doesn't change opinions about it to facts or vice-versa. ???? -- Spike 1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok; Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound audio-video... See my ride at.... Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/davescar_7_11_05_002.jpg Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/Engine_rebuild_006.jpg > I assume mental midgets do not know how to or care to distinguish fact > (i.e., country of ownership, balance of payments for debtor nation (US) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > designs and executives are bad), and the popularity of any brand of > vehicles doesn't change opinions about it to facts or vice-versa. Correction; it's now when will China call in their debt. China has been supporting the USA deficit for some time by buying USA treasury bills. Several hundred billion and counting. >> I assume mental midgets do not know how to or care to distinguish fact >> (i.e., country of ownership, balance of payments for debtor nation (US) [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > China has been supporting the USA deficit for some time by buying USA > treasury bills. Several hundred billion and counting. MAJOR FOREIGN HOLDERS OF TREASURY SECURITIES (in billions of dollars) 2005 Jan Mainland China 223.5 http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt > >> I assume mental midgets do not know how to or care to distinguish fact > >> (i.e., country of ownership, balance of payments for debtor nation (US) [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > http://www.treas.gov/tic/mfh.txt Why isn't Treasury's own site more up-to-date? Since January, estimates are that we're giving the Chinese an extra $30 billion per month. Not all of that will be in t-bills, of course. This is in the Washington Post: The Washington Post http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/01/09/AR2006010901042_ pf.html China Set to Reduce Exposure to Dollar Move Would Probably Push Currency Down By Peter S. Goodman Washington Post Foreign Service SHANGHAI, Jan. 9 -- China has resolved to shift some of its foreign exchange reserves -- now in excess of $800 billion -- away from the U.S. dollar and into other world currencies in a move likely to push down the value of the greenback, a high-level state economist who advises the nation's economic policymakers said in an interview Monday. Why do all the Bush haters always see what they perceive to be the negative side of every issue? Chinas purpose is to reinforce its controlled currency which is over inflated, by slowing the GROWTH.of the dollar. ;) mike hunt >> >> I assume mental midgets do not know how to or care to distinguish > fact [quoted text clipped - 44 lines] > greenback, a high-level state economist who advises the nation's economic > policymakers said in an interview Monday. >Why do all the Bush haters always see what they perceive to be the negative >side of every issue? Why do lying, top-posting idiots see attacks on Bush where there is none? Why do bottom posting nuts like you post political stuff in automobile NG? mike hunt >>Why do all the Bush haters always see what they perceive to be the >>negative side of every issue? Chinas purpose is to reinforce its controlled currency which is over inflated, by slowing the GROWTH.of the dollar. ;) Bottom post DizZy wrote > Why do lying, top-posting idiots see attacks on Bush where there is > none? > >Why do all the Bush haters always see what they perceive to be the negative > >side of every issue? > > Why do lying, top-posting idiots see attacks on Bush where there is > none? Why are losers always the first one's to resort to name calling and insults? My statement concerns the aggregate sum total of economic issues from the past to the present. > In article <1uDwf.15068$%D1.6872@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>, > "Charge" <someone@columbus.rr.com> wrote: > >> I assume mental midgets do not know how to or care to distinguish fact >> (i.e., country of ownership, balance of payments for debtor nation (US) >> versus non debtor nation (Japan), manufacturer country of origin, >> real estate property tax abatement for non domestic manufacturers, >> rice steel versus real steel, rice glass versus real glass, when will the >> Japanese call in our debt) from opinion (i.e., GM, Ford and Chrysler >> designs and executives are bad), and the popularity of any brand of >> vehicles doesn't change opinions about it to facts or vice-versa. > Correction; it's now when will China call in their debt. > China has been supporting the USA deficit for some time by buying USA > treasury bills. Several hundred billion and counting. What correction? The US may be be able to solve many problems by simply export Wally World The Big Box Store to China! > > My statement concerns the aggregate sum total of economic issues > from the past to the present. > > > > "Spam Hater" <iHate@spam.net> wrote in message > news:iHate-92AF3E.21530509012006@news.telus.net... > > In article <1uDwf.15068$%D1.6872@tornado.ohiordc.rr.com>, > > > >> I assume mental midgets do not know how to or care to distinguish > fact > >> (i.e., country of ownership, balance of payments for debtor nation > (US) > >> versus non debtor nation (Japan), manufacturer country of origin, > >> real estate property tax abatement for non domestic manufacturers, > >> rice steel versus real steel, rice glass versus real glass, when will > the > >> Japanese call in our debt) from opinion (i.e., GM, Ford and Chrysler > >> designs and executives are bad), and the popularity of any brand of > >> vehicles doesn't change opinions about it to facts or vice-versa. > > Correction; it's now when will China call in their debt. > > China has been supporting the USA deficit for some time by buying USA > > treasury bills. Several hundred billion and counting. > > > I assume mental midgets do not know how to or care to distinguish fact > (i.e., country of ownership, balance of payments for debtor nation (US) [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > designs and executives are bad), and the popularity of any brand of > vehicles doesn't change opinions about it to facts or vice-versa. Neither Japan, China, etc, are likely to call in the total or even a major portion of debt holdings because the domino effect would reverberate worldwide, and the results may be a global economic meltdown leading to armed conflict. The last thing someone like China needs is for the Russians; weakened as they may be, they still hold a nuclear advantage over china; to launch a campaign to accumulate wealth. Look back at the history of armed conflict and you see that economic strife is the base cause. Japan's need for raw resources of which it had been deprived leading into WW2. Germany, where people carried baskets filled with Deutsche marks just to buy a loaf of bread. China is not stupid. Neither is Japan, which needs the US might to help protect them from China. You should be more worried about some third world country who had nothing, and nothing to lose and everything to gain, by throwing a nuke... even if it's the only one they possess. -- Spike 1965 Ford Mustang Fastback 2+2, Vintage Burgundy w/Black Std Interior, A Code 289 C4 Trac-Lok; Vintage 40 16" rims w/225/50ZR16 KDWS BF Goodrich gForce Radial T/As, Cobra drop; surround sound audio-video... See my ride at.... Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/003_May_21_3004.jpg Feb 2004- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/005_May_21_2004.jpg Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/davescar_7_11_05_002.jpg Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/Engine_rebuild_006.jpg Investors from other countries invest for the same reason anyone else invests, a good return on their investment. The reason people from other countries invest in the US, be it their funds or capital in new facilities like the foreign manufactures, is the same reason Americans invest in America, the largest, best, most dynamic, secure, ever growing economy in the world, period. The US economy ALWAYS leads the other economies one the way UP and it is the last to follow other economies on the way DOWN. Regardless of what some would like us to believe the US economy is strong and growing exponentially today. Faster and better than any other in the world, by far. ;) mike hunt . >> I assume mental midgets do not know how to or care to distinguish fact >> (i.e., country of ownership, balance of payments for debtor nation (US) [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/davescar_7_11_05_002.jpg > Jul 2005- http://207.36.208.198/albums/86810/Engine_rebuild_006.jpg >>What reason does GM have to exist? In other words, what can GM do >>better than anybody else, other than lobby the U.S. government for a >>bailout? Quality is good but not the best. Costs are high (even >>excluding health care and pension costs). Hours to produce each >>vehicle are high. Car designs are bad (but trucks are good). >>Corporate leadership is poor and clueless. >You forgot to say in my opinion, since the millions of the folks buying >those millions of GM vehicles today disagree with your assesment. ;) I assume people know how to distinguish between fact (failure rates, costs, labor hours) and opinion (design and leadership are bad), and the popularity of a brand of vehicles doesn't change facts about it to opinions or vice-versa.. Maybe the ones who should go bankruptcy is toyota after making such ugly cars > I'm cross-posting this in alt.autos.gm with the hope that GM will > improve its quality of manufacturing and avoid bankruptcy. Who cares? I haven't owned a GM for 25 years, and it was clear to me after I dumped THAT piece of crap, that I would never own another one. Heck, I even like my Chryslers better than those hunks of junk! > The latter half of the following Detroit News excerpt is especially > helpful to GM. [quoted text clipped - 39 lines] > teaching Japanese manufacturing methods, says of the > Big Three: "They don't understand that they don't understand." Both GM and Ford assembly workers have quality group meetings and have for years. In addition they can stop the line as well by simply hitting the stop button, located at each station. ;) mike hunt >> From the Detroit News: >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >> Once a worker pulls the cord, if the problem is not resolved before the >> car reaches the next stage of assembly, the line stops. > Both GM and Ford assembly workers have quality group meetings and have for > years. That's only so they can sit and talk about what they absolutely need to do. Think bare minimum. >>Both GM and Ford assembly workers have quality group meetings and have for >>years. > > That's only so they can sit and talk about what they absolutely need to > do. Think bare minimum. and how many have you sat in on? > Both GM and Ford assembly workers have quality group meetings and have for > years. In addition they can stop the line as well by simply hitting the > stop button, located at each station. ;) It is a freaking shame that someone didn't push the button on plastic plenums, then. Or shitteaux gaskets.. Or crappola transmissions... Or substandard body integrity... Having a quality meeting doesnt mean anything. Producing quality, a foreign concept to GM and Ford, does. You forgot to say in my opinion, since both GM and Ford sell millions more of their vehicles annually in the US than any foreign manufacture. You are entitled to your opinion, but obviously your opinion is that of a minority. mike hunt >> Both GM and Ford assembly workers have quality group meetings and have >> for [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > foreign > concept to GM and Ford, does. > You forgot to say in my opinion, since both GM and Ford sell millions more > of their vehicles annually in the US than any foreign manufacture. You are > entitled to your opinion, but obviously your opinion is that of a minority. > > mike hunt No, apparently it isn't a minority. The complaints are massive. Nobody gives a sh.t how many vehicles GM and Ford sell, Mike. Americans even bought the Yugo. >You are >entitled to your opinion, but obviously your opinion is that of a minority. You are lying again, "Mike". Check out Consumer reports, and see where all the black dots are. LOL! Dear Mike, I do not know what dream world you live but let me share some real world experience with you. In my life I have owned, Mustang, F150, Taurus, Contour, Impala, Silverado, 280ZX, 240SX, Caprice, and now a Sebring. can say without a doubt that not only are the foreign made cars better quality but they hold their value.... Look at what has happened to Mercedes since the merger... gone to hell... same thing with Volvo and Ford. Current car 2002 Sebring Convertible LXi is a total piece of sh.t.... within 3 years it has developed some serious issues including the AC/Heat blower motor refusing to operate no matter the mechanics do. If it were not a lease it would have been back in the dealers show room, whether or not he opened the doors!!!! Oh and by the why if Chrysler thinks they make such good vehicle why do they not stand behind them. The rotors warped on the Sebring in less than 15,000 miles, dealer said tough luck.... Even Ford warranties their stuff better..not much. So come down off your "American made" high horse, its just not true... I am a red blooded American too....but I can see the truth.... Look at the consumer reports reliability ratings,,,, hell even look at the the predicted reliabilty ratings..... I think there might be one American made car on the list.... My next car will either be a Lexus or Toyota of some kind If you believe CR, than your more of an idiot than I thought. > Dear Mike, > I do not know what dream world you live but let me share some real [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > > My next car will either be a Lexus or Toyota of some kind > > Current car 2002 Sebring Convertible LXi is a total piece of sh.t.... > > within 3 years it has developed some serious issues including the [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > The rotors warped on the Sebring in less than 15,000 miles, dealer said > > tough luck.... Even Ford warranties their stuff better..not much. We must be lucky. My wife's 2001 Sebring sedan has had ZERO problems. Runs like a charm. However there are a few small things I don't like about the design, one being the very limited forward foot room for tall front seat passengers. You are free to spend your money wherever you wish. However my real world experience with several Lexus V8s is quite the opposite. I have not had a bad vehicle, foreign or domestic in longer than I can remember. I stopped buying Lexus V8s in 1999. The domestics I have purchased since that time have proven to be just as good and just as dependable. The only difference I have seen between them is the domestic brand costs me a LOT less money to acquire and replace than did any of my Lexus' mike hunt > Dear Mike, > I do not know what dream world you live but let me share some real > world experience with you. In my life I have owned, Mustang, F150, > Taurus, Contour, Impala, Silverado, 280ZX, 240SX, Caprice, and now a > Sebring. can say without a doubt that not only are the foreign made > cars better quality but they hold their value.... <snip>> > My next car will either be a Lexus or Toyota of some kind >You are free to spend your money wherever you wish. However my real world >experience with several Lexus V8s is quite the opposite. I have not had a >bad vehicle, foreign or domestic in longer than I can remember. You keep your cars for like a year, right? That's not enough time to see how good their quality is. How well they hold up over time is the key. DIZZY, as usual you have chosen to comment on something of which you have no knowledge. I keep my vehicles for two years then pass them on to my grandchildren or sell them to my children or friends. Some of them are held for many years as a result. My one son had my 2000 Lincoln LS, my first, which he gave to my grand daughter. It currently has over 90,000 trouble free miles on the clock. On the other hand my one son in law recently replaced the power steering pump on my last Lexus, a 1997 with 85,000 on the clock. The pump cost him $1,500. He replaced it himself since the Lexus dealers shop rate of $105 an hour was a bit more than he willing to spend ;) mike hunt >>You are free to spend your money wherever you wish. However my real world >>experience with several Lexus V8s is quite the opposite. I have not had a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > see how good their quality is. How well they hold up over time is the > key. >>You are free to spend your money wherever you wish. However my real >>world experience with several Lexus V8s is quite the opposite. I have [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > see how good their quality is. How well they hold up over time is the > key. 1994 Accord, 138,000 miles, and I tromp it daily, runs like *NEW*! Signature1984 RZ350 Wrong, I have four domestics cars with anywhere from 100K to 300K on the clock. I drive my cars for two years then sell them to friends or neighbors, or give them to relatives. I see them run to high mileages and none of them have been problematic, foreign or domestic. Every manufacture is building good dependable vehicles today, there is no need to spend the extra bucks to buy foreign cars to get a good car. mike hunt >>>You are free to spend your money wherever you wish. However my real >>>world experience with several Lexus V8s is quite the opposite. I have [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > 1994 Accord, 138,000 miles, and I tromp it daily, runs like *NEW*! > So come down off your "American made" high horse, its just not true... > I am a red blooded American too....but I can see the truth.... [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > My next car will either be a Lexus or Toyota of some kind I concur my brother! I currently own a 2002 Monte carlo SS, and a 1994 Accord. Guess wich one I rely on? Signature1984 RZ350 >> So come down off your "American made" high horse, its just not true... >> I am a red blooded American too....but I can see the truth.... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > I currently own a 2002 Monte carlo SS, and a 1994 Accord. Guess wich one I > rely on? Neither. The Monte Carlo is junk and the Accords are usually driven by ricer gang members. >Both GM and Ford assembly workers have quality group meetings and have for >years. In addition they can stop the line as well by simply hitting the >stop button, located at each station. ;) But there's a difference between being able to stop the line and being able to stop the line. Companies like Toyota and the old IBM (I don't know about them now) would have infinite tolerance it, but most imply there's a limit to it. With the latter my company tries to fool management with elaborate nonsense that essentially tells them to slow down production. Ford and GM won't become like Toyota or Honda until most of the executives have worked on the production line. > I'm cross-posting this in alt.autos.gm with the hope that GM will > improve its quality of manufacturing and avoid bankruptcy. So...you're saying you think GM's exec's in Detroit are more likely to read this here, in this NG, than in their own paper? Face it. You're just another dirt bag trying to stir up sh.t in a GM group. Dave >> I'm cross-posting this in alt.autos.gm with the hope that GM will >> improve its quality of manufacturing and avoid bankruptcy. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Dave so like you people who love toyota and those types well its all gm.. or the others ..stolen technologies.Why you think the Asian cars camme up so strong anyway? STOLE ALL THE TECHNOLOGY FROM TH USA>>> They did not steal anything from US car companies you idiot. The manufacturing process was offered to all American auto makers but they refused because it would cost to must to implement. Look at http://www.isixsigma.com/ 351CJ wrote to John Horner: > You do realize Kmart bought Sears, right? Not to be a fuddy duddy, but I believe Sears bought Kmart. Kmart, unfortunately, went bankrupt. The new combined Sears-Kmart stock is called Sears Holdings. The old Kmart in Columbia, Missouri, is now a "Best Buy," located right down the street from Circuit City and Walmart. It gets kinda confusing. Sears Holdings now uses "SHLD" as its stock symbol. The old "S" that Sears used to use is now used by Sprint, whose old ticker symbol was "FON" -- Sprint-Nextel. But don't be a chump and start trading individual stocks--even the stock trading professionals are right no more than 50 to 60 percent of the time in their stock-making calls, if even that high. Of course, they'd like you to believe otherwise. Best thing to do if you have 30 or 40 years until retirement is dollar cost average every month into index mutual funds or index ETFs like an S&P 500 index fund (Vanguard's, for instance, "VFINX") or the ETF equivalent "SPY." Tom Adkins wrote: > ...K-Mart bought Sears. Thanks for clearing that up, Tom. Yep, after emerging from bankruptcy, Kmart bought Sears for 11 billion dollars. The new company is called Sears Holdings with stock symbol "SHLD." (Kmart's symbol is history--gone.) The combined company is now based at Sears headquarters outside Chicago. The new Sears Holdings operates both Sears and old Kmart stores. Hundreds of Kmarts were converted to Sears. (Info from CNN money.) > Tom Adkins wrote: >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Kmart stores. Hundreds of Kmarts were converted to > Sears. (Info from CNN money.) Isn't that what I first posted? |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2009 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.