>Richburg wrote:
>It is not a "high horse" that I am sitting. It is my TR.
>I will rate you last message "R" for "Rat's Ass"
>I am humbilly ??? impressed by your many (or lack there of) brains.
>Should I schedule you for surgery.
>I don't care how denigrate you and your friends feel. When you show
>respect, you get it in return. Stop being an "Rat's Ass and put your
>"knowledgeable" into constructive comments about the subject matter.
>To get back to the question.
>Are you interested, just shopping, asking for more.
>Greetings
Look, you don't just walk into someone's house and slag 'em off(UK speak), Now
PISS OFF, please!!!
Cheerio
>len drake wrote:
>>
>> Hey doc - I think the point I tried to make to you somehow flew on
>> by. Hostile you are. As someone earlier pointed out, you may have
>> mega bucks, must have a few brains too, but how did you pass grade
>> eight English? The point that you missed was that nobody on this
>> list gives a rat's ass how many dollars you make and when you have
>> to denigrate someone by letting them know that you make more than
>> he does, it doesn't help prove anything. I've got a couple of nice
>> cars too, but it doesn't make me any better, more knowledgeable,
>> or more credible. Take two humbility pills with water and get off
>> your high horse carefully.
>>
>> Cheers,
>>
>> Len Drake
>>
>> >Richburg wrote:
>> >
>> >Maybe you should communicate to you friends the need to have respect for
>> >someone who has posted some information. It works both ways. If there
>> >is something to say. Try communicating in a more constructive way.
>> >then maybe the members of the list will get non-hostile responses.
>> >
>> >Sincerely,
>> >Craig
>> >len drake wrote:
>> >>
>> >> Hey Doc - lighten up. I don't think it's necessary for us to get
>> >> into a mud slinging thread about how much money people on the list
>> >> make. This list caters to all of us, whether it's a rusted out
>> >> TR7 or the finest Triumph that money can buy, or restore.
>> >>
>> >> Cheers,
>> >>
>> >> Len Drake
>> >> Kelowna, B.C.
>> >>
>> >> >Dr. Richburg wrote:
>> >> >
>> >> >Hello Chris,
>> >> >
>> >> >It must be in the coffee. What type is that, maybe I'll talk my
>> >> >patients into some.
>> >> >
>> >> >You appear to not know much about what you drive. There is nothing
>> >> >"lame" about my 65 TR4. There is probably $18,000 worth of work in this
>> >> >car. More money then you probably made last year. If you are really a
>> >> >Triumph lover, your response would be on the car, not the marketing of
>> >> >it. I guess you are in the news business instead of the "Triumph Car
>> >> >Driving Business" and it would be more interesting to report on the
>> >> >marketing of a rare classic car vs. the car itself.
>> >> >
>> >> >You know, there's a big difference in cars produced on Dec. 31 and Jan.
>> >> >2. That difference is 1964 vs. 1965. In 1965 only 250 were made, 3
>> >> >left in England, there remainder were exported to other countries. This
>> >> >fact is an added value to collectors of fine automobiles like my 65 TR4.
>> >> >Remember, this is not the theoretical world of education, but rather the
>> >> >business world of reality.
>> >> >
>> >> >For your information, the commission number is CT40287. If you are
>> >> >interested, come over and inspect the car and maybe we could talk about
>> >> >what's in the news.
>> >> >
>> >> >Craig Richburg
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >Chris Lillja wrote:
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Dr. Richburg --
>> >> >>
>> >> >> The point is -- that lame attempts to "market" what is probably a
>> >> >> perfectly nice TR4, to people who love Triumphs anyway -- make it
>> >> >> look suspect in the eyes of the very people who might buy it.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So my history book sez the final TR4 was built on Jan 6, 1965 and
>> >> >> had the commission number CT40304. With 250 made in calender year
>> >> >> 1965, that would make the first "1965" TR4 CT40054. Yes -- they
>> >> >> should be in sequence and there are no gaps reported in this
>> >> >> period...
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Now the question at hand is does the commission number of this
>> >> >> car fall in this sequence CT40054 - CT40304? If not it is merely a
>> >> >> 1964 (or earlier) that wasn't bought and titled until 1965.
>> >> >>
>> >> >> So what's that Comm. # doc?
>> >> >>
>> >> >> It's pretty academic considering there should be no difference
>> >> >> between a car produced on Dec. 31 (say CT40053) and Jan. 2....
>> >> >>
>> >> >> "Still ride in triumph over all mischance..." - Shakespeare
>> >> >>
>> >> >> Chris Lillja
>> >> >> TR4A
>> >> >> Norton Commando
>> >> >> Spit MKIV
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >> >
>> >
>> >
>> >
|