Cessna buyers in So. Cal. beware !

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:24:00 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:


"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 23 Jun 2004 18:55:45 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:


"Greg Copeland" wrote in message
news On Tue, 22 Jun 2004 05:04:14 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:


If I really need a specific tub liner, and your's is all I have, it
might be worth $900.

Not when you can go to the store and get one for 1/10 the price.

With comprehension skills like that, I can see why you need someone to
hold
your hand.

Just lost complete respect for you.


Don't **** down my back and tell me it's raining. You're completely full of
**** and ignorant to boot. Your understanding of law and economics in
virtually nil. Then you stick your foot in your mouth to back a point.


Brillant! You **** down your own back, declare it's raining, and then
blame me because I told you what you're doing. That's sad.

Again, you simply insult and avoid answering the questions. That speaks
clear and loud. Especially since this thread started out rather light
hearted. Yet, according to you, I don't know anything because I'm not
willing to get ripped off. Well supported argument.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:28:01 -0700, Tom Sixkiller wrote:


In article ,
Greg Copeland wrote:

According to the people, that *I* read and saw on TV, any hammer would
of
met the specs.

Well that explains it. When you learn a bit about hammers that have to be
made of special metals, then you can shoot your n=mouth off instead on
constinually indicting your scholboy ignorance and naivete.


Likewise, the tub liner there was nothing special. And
you're right, therein lies the rub of why Congress was so ****ed off.
As
I recall, it was a scam because they under bid a contract (or something
like that) and this was used to steal from peter to pay paul. AFAIR,
specs had nothing to do with it. It was a simple scam put forth to get
extra money. IIRC, toilet seats were also a line item which we were
being
scammed on. Yes, that's right, normal, regular toilet seats. Plastic
seats at that.

Yet, according to Tom, we got the best value for our dollar from that
scam. Never mind that after the scandel broke, prices went back to what
they were before the scam started, which were all inline with what you
would find at any hardware store. Yet, Tom got his best value.

Yup, they changed the specs back to a ferrous metal (which one exactly I
don't recall)...which is material that the airlines can't use.

Keep shoving your foot in deeper, punk.

PLONK

Wow. What a jackass! I noticed, yet again, you completed dodged
answering any of the questions. I love how you stand proudly and show
your true character. Believe me, we're all happy to nudge and wink at
each other and let you stand there.

Oh wait. One has to have a PhD in economics to figure out if they are
getting a bad deal. Nope, sure wouldn't want to talk about it. Nope,
it's much easier to yell, insult, and stress what kind of jackass you are,
without even being provoked. In second thought, I'm sure you're right. I'm
sure you always get what you pay for. Please, let me know where you are
able to shop, such that you're not buying from humans. Please. I'm ready
to get my best deals on everything too.

You just got to love the egotistical stroking and posturing that is Mr.
Sixkiller. After all, we all know the human condition doesn't exist.
It's a myth after all.

I bow to your greatness.

On Thu, 24 Jun 2004 08:37:25 -0600, Legrande Harris wrote:

In article ,
Greg Copeland wrote:

According to the people, that *I* read and saw on TV, any hammer would of
met the specs. Likewise, the tub liner there was nothing special. And
you're right, therein lies the rub of why Congress was so ****ed off. As
I recall, it was a scam because they under bid a contract (or something
like that) and this was used to steal from peter to pay paul. AFAIR,
specs had nothing to do with it. It was a simple scam put forth to get
extra money. IIRC, toilet seats were also a line item which we were being
scammed on. Yes, that's right, normal, regular toilet seats. Plastic
seats at that.

Yet, according to Tom, we got the best value for our dollar from that
scam. Never mind that after the scandel broke, prices went back to what
they were before the scam started, which were all inline with what you
would find at any hardware store. Yet, Tom got his best value.

Seriously, you don't have to look that hard to see that Tom gets screwed
in just about every deal he makes.

The problem with this discussion is that it is on specific items. The
entire bid has to be considered to get the $900 hammer in perspective.
Often there will be thousands of items in the bid, many of which will be
in the hundreds of thousands if not millions per item. Weeks will be
spent getting the price down on the more expensive items and then the
cheaper items will be used to tweak the total bid.

The price of small items pale into insignificance when the total bids
are compared.

LG

The real problem with this is that it's really a tangent to the topic
at hand. The details are really not what's important. The reason I felt
it was germane to the topic is that it highlighted that you don't always
get what you paid for and quality and price often have little to do with
each other. Worse, his credo completely ignores the human
condition, as I originally pointed out. Which, both contradict Mr.
Sixkiller's position. In otherwords, you don't have to look far to find
that his credo of, "you get what you pay for" (or whatever it was), does
not even make for a good rule of thumb, let alone always true.

But, he'd rather start ad homin (lol...punk....lol) attacks and push out
his chest than support his view point. Clearly, in his mind, no one has
the right to question him. After all, he knows more than anyone here, and
his ego isn't about to let him forget that. Of course, there is that
little pesky thing known as reality that I guess the rest of us live in,
but that sure is not going to get past his ego.

Summary of What We Learned:
I'm a punk and he always gets the best by paying top dollar.

Nuff said. I think we all understand were each stands.

Tom Sixkiller wrote:

"Jim Carter" wrote in message
...

George,
These disclosures are also required by law here in Arkansas. We just
sold our home and moved across town so my experience is very recent.

Things

like death events, mold abatement actions, and myriad other similar issues
have to be disclosed on the buyers declaration form now.



What if the seller is the one who died?


Then the fact that the seller is an estate instead of a person is
usually a tipoff.

"Tom Sixkiller" wrote in
:

That's a part of the maintenance record.

Tell you what, I'll ask you a simple point-blank question: do you think
that not disclosing important information about the history of an aircraft
to a potential buyer is an ethical thing to do? Do you engage in this type
of behaviour when you sell aircraft, cars, or anything else that might
remotely fall under this category?

Over here, I am selling a BD-5J Microjet. Not only do I disclose the
history of the aircraft, which includes an in-transit damage issue that was
repaired by the original builder, I even post pictures of it on my website
for everyone to see. Just in case you're thinking about turning the
question around to me.

Juan Jimenez wrote:

Tell you what, I'll ask you a simple point-blank question: do you think
that not disclosing important information about the history of an aircraft
to a potential buyer is an ethical thing to do?

No, but I regard letting a prospective buyer read the logbooks as disclosure.

George Patterson
None of us is as dumb as all of us.

I think I understand where both of you are coming from, and

NEITHER ONE OF YOU KNOW HOW TO GODDAMN SNIP.


Jim
Jim Weir (A&P/IA, CFI, & other good alphabet soup)
VP Eng RST Pres. Cyberchapter EAA Tech. Counselor
http://www.rst-engr.com

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


Juan Jimenez wrote:

Tell you what, I'll ask you a simple point-blank question: do you think
that not disclosing important information about the history of an
aircraft
to a potential buyer is an ethical thing to do?

No, but I regard letting a prospective buyer read the logbooks as
disclosure.

Anything else is just your "opinion" regarding something being wrong.

"Jim Weir" wrote in message
...

snip
NEITHER ONE OF YOU KNOW HOW TO GODDAMN SNIP.

Says who?

"G.R. Patterson III" wrote in message
...


... do you think
that not disclosing important information about the history of an
aircraft
to a potential buyer is an ethical thing to do?

No, but I regard letting a prospective buyer read the logbooks as
disclosure.


Kind of takes caveat emptor to a whole new level doesn't it?

--
Jim Carter