Discontinued Chrysler models

Oh Boo-Hoo. BTW, most companies (as in companies doing business in the real business world, not schools in the world of education where reality seems to disappear after time) have electronic mail and internet policies discouraging - and sometimes banning - their computer system for personal use.

I think a more pertinent question is who are YOU? Your handle is the new one in town.

Oh, so you were dumb enough to argue with that bitch, huh? Figures.

You know, you can keep yourself busy reliving those glory days arguing with Ms. Flake over there on the Toyota NG. Whydontcha pop on over there for awhile. .

--Geoff

And the pot calls the kettle black!

I posted:

...and then realized the limey may not understand what I meant. Oh well!

This just strikes me as a weird reason to be on the fence about buying a car, excluding worrying about the whole company going under. Ok maybe also worrying about buying a Plymouth and then they kill off the whole make. But the stinking model?

I remember the Motor Trend test referred to it as the "Hurst 300-H" and I believe that's what the badge on the hood read (with "Hurst" spelled out inside the H).

What was interesting was when the 300M came out and C/D tested it, they posted acceleration times of all the letter series. The 300M was faster to 60 than all but one and faster in the 1/4 mile than all but one.

Which proves what? That two monkeys can fling poo at each other?

That shouldn't even be a concern. What to look for in a car is quality and a good reputation; which usually goes together.

I own a 2002 300M and love it with the exception of the stereo or speakers. Can't figure out which is the problem.

I don't care if the name is dropped. I would gladly purchase another '70 Dodge SuperBee if it looked and had the same horsepower that it once had.

Oh, the memories :-)

Ken

...and the third one cannot resist trying to be cute???? Why don't you use a real term, like sh*t or cr*p (the stuff you are full of)?????

From: RPhillips47 ( snipped-for-privacy@aol.com)

That's right, I hadn't -- and it still hasn't made it to my server. I only found it when I took a look on Google to see why I provoked such a hostile response. For that matter, I only found the post I'm responding to now when I noticed Steve's response to it, and went googling.

Of course in my opinion. Anything anybody says about styling is their opinion, and doesn't need to be flagged as such.

Geez, man, get a grip! I use the same .sig for everything, and anybody who thinks my degree and field (or the state where I live) establishes my credentials for anything I say that isn't directly related to computers is confused, at best.

And yes, in my opinion (happy now?) for you to complain about somebody using "we" in stating their opinion is indeed silly.

As for the singular "they," all I have to say is "God send everyone their heart's desire," (Much Ado About Nothing, Act III, Scene 4). If it's good enough for Shakespeare, it's good enough for me. For a bit of history, take a look at

I do not use my company email for things other than company business. You would be wise to do the same.

and continued:

Why does it not surprise me that you would quote Shakespeare?????

Remember Steve, this newsgroup is all about RPhillips47. The original charter called for a newsgroup entitled rec.autos.makers.RPhillips'_opinion. Some bureaucratic mix-up caused it to be named r.a.m.c.

That would depend on how you define "long". A basic search yields hundreds, if not thousands, of clear, concise, useful, technical posts from Steve dating back to at least 1994. Your bleating began in 2000. Perhaps you used Mommy's AOL account prior to that?

So you're the one. I always wondered who it was that posted all those replies to her. We're all very proud of you! (It's "arguments", BTW. I realize how important it is for you to correct people's grammar and spelling, Mr. Helper. You're welcome.)

I presume you meant to type a proper sentence utilizing the word "follow", sans the Spell Check function (which, incidentally, is very easy to use). Why do you apologize for not keeping track of Lloyd's posts? Are you supposed to? Are you the arbiter of All Things Lloyd?

Comma.

One "and" will suffice.

Please take the time to look up unfamiliar terms before posting. Purchase a dictionary. You may learn that pontificate is defined as expressing opinions in a pompous or dogmatic manner. Joe did no such thing. The fact that you are threatened by the educational levels that Joe and Lloyd have achieved does not in any way invalidate their opinions. Corrections of fact or logic, formal or informal, are encouraged in a public forum. But lashing out to compensate for your own inadequacies is not. This is not your personal newsgroup. If others have opinions that differ from your opinions, learn to live with these differences or go elsewhere.

A foot in his cheek or a foot in his ass? Dispense with the strained metaphors and say your goddamned pronouns!

That's what you get using your employers server.

and continued:

Of course - you are from the education sector, one that rarely has a grip on the real world.

followed with:

What??? Some humility on your part???

So, you say you've been posting since '92. Under what other names?

I remember SOME other fool who had this same burr up his butt about anyone who worked at a university, but I can't remember a username. Not that I don't partially understand where it comes from- after all Lloyd the rrhoid is (allegedly) a university professor. But it doesn't make much sense to paint with such a broad brush and assume all university-employed PhDs are as lame as the rrhoid.Especially when one has never posted anything but reasonable, rational material like Joe has (heck, I can't even say that about myself, being as I'm hotheaded enough to mix it up with idiots from time to time.) Are all businessmen as accomplished liars as the Enron execs? Are all presidents as scummy as Clinton? Are all basketball players criminals now that David Robinson retired? (oops, never mind that one...)

Anyway, now that you have made it clear that you simply have "issues" with educated people, I say

Refresh my memory -- who is it who has been trying to correct other people's English?

Not "people's", just a comment I made about YOURS as you found it so necessary to "dress me down" in your reply. This whole commentary only has gone this far because of the way I interpretted your response which was followed by your ".sig" including the Ph.D. It is apparent from you, and your multitude of followers, that I was wrong to react in the manner I did.... but I reacted as I did from the way I interpretted your response.

I learned a lesson a long, long time ago that the manner in which something is written rarely is interpretted the same way by the person doing the reading. Such seems to be the case here, and for that I can only say I am sorry for reading what you wrote the way I did and, obviously, interpretting it in a way completely different from what you meant. But, because of the fact it was interpretted the way it was suggests that maybe you could have worded it a bit differently??? Merely a question, not intended to find fault, but I am sure there will be those who read this that will!

"RPhillips47" wrote

You have a perfect right to your preferences, but the fact is that for a given size, weight and cost FWD vehicles are more stable in most situations (particularly crosswinds), have better traction, much more interior space, and (in general) are safer in a crash because the crosswise engine acts as a crash barrier, and the rear end is easier to design as a crumple zone.

RWD works best when a) you carry a heavy load b) you pull a heavy trailer c) you are looking for all-out racetrack performance under good pavement conditions. Myself, I almost never fall into any of these categories.

I bought my first FWD in 1966 (a Mini) and have had both types many times since. My two current vehicles are FWD and I expect that will be the case until I get too old to drive.

But whatever you choose for yourself, happy motoring :

Or the manufactures stop building them, except as an econobox, as appears to be the trend.. By the way FWD cars cost more to build than RWD, not less as is commonly assumed.

mike hunt

Dave Gower wrote: