How to save Harley Davidison
in [Motorcycles]
|
Prev: Proper oil for cruisers
Next: 9-11 was an inside job.
From: The Older Gentleman on 17 Jul 2010 15:17 don (Calgary) <hd.flhr(a)telus.net> wrote: > On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:23:26 +0100, totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk > (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > > >don (Calgary) <hd.flhr(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > >> Unbelievable > > > >Almost as unbelievable as your changing quoted text in a subsequent post > >(and leaving the original quoted text where everyone could see it). > > Please point that out for me. I always try to leave the original text > to avoid losing the context of my reply. If I misrepresented something > I would like to know and I will correct it. I pointed it out to you at the time, and you ignored it, as ever. I simply can't be arsed to trawl through reams of your imbecilities in search of a particular one. But I'll cut you come slack and take it as corrected now, because I'm kind like that. -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes! Try Googling before asking a damn silly question. chateau dot murray at idnet dot com
From: don (Calgary) on 17 Jul 2010 15:36 On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:22:30 +0100, totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > >> Continued childish behaviour. Unbelievable! > >Really? Well, it is one of your stock of very few responses to when your >lack of intelligence has been pointed out. Unfortunately it is just an accurate description of how you are acting. When you get like this there is no discussing anything with you.
From: don (Calgary) on 17 Jul 2010 15:38 On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 20:17:08 +0100, totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older Gentleman) wrote: >don (Calgary) <hd.flhr(a)telus.net> wrote: > >> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:23:26 +0100, totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk >> (The Older Gentleman) wrote: >> >> >don (Calgary) <hd.flhr(a)telus.net> wrote: >> > >> >> Unbelievable >> > >> >Almost as unbelievable as your changing quoted text in a subsequent post >> >(and leaving the original quoted text where everyone could see it). >> >> Please point that out for me. I always try to leave the original text >> to avoid losing the context of my reply. If I misrepresented something >> I would like to know and I will correct it. > >I pointed it out to you at the time, and you ignored it, as ever. I >simply can't be arsed to trawl through reams of your imbecilities in >search of a particular one. > >But I'll cut you come slack and take it as corrected now, because I'm >kind like that. And I will just chalk it up to one of the many unsupported accusations you have made.
From: High Plains Thumper on 17 Jul 2010 18:10 The Older Gentleman wrote: > tomorrow wrote: > >> The consumer then has the PERCEPTION of quality and desirability >> REINFORCED by the fact that the prices hold up, and that echos >> through the market, reinforcing RESALE values as well, making >> current owners happier with their purchase, whether it was bought >> in fat times or lean. > > I'll agree that Harley's resale value is excellent. And it's true > that they don't discount, which does what you say. Except that it seems a good number of used Harleys continue advertising at their exceptionally high price without moving, which tells me that more often than not there is a lot of speculation by sellers, wanting to sell for more than what the market will bear. I'm not saying that they should not command a higher resale (at least here is US, where they are more plentiful than elsewhere). People have an inflated image on what "their Harley" is worth. At the right price, anything sells reasonably quickly. -- HPT
From: The Older Gentleman on 18 Jul 2010 03:08
don (Calgary) <hd.flhr(a)telus.net> wrote: > On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 20:17:08 +0100, totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk > (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > > >don (Calgary) <hd.flhr(a)telus.net> wrote: > > > >> On Sat, 17 Jul 2010 19:23:26 +0100, totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk > >> (The Older Gentleman) wrote: > >> > >> >don (Calgary) <hd.flhr(a)telus.net> wrote: > >> > > >> >> Unbelievable > >> > > >> >Almost as unbelievable as your changing quoted text in a subsequent post > >> >(and leaving the original quoted text where everyone could see it). > >> > >> Please point that out for me. I always try to leave the original text > >> to avoid losing the context of my reply. If I misrepresented something > >> I would like to know and I will correct it. > > > >I pointed it out to you at the time, and you ignored it, as ever. I > >simply can't be arsed to trawl through reams of your imbecilities in > >search of a particular one. > > > >But I'll cut you come slack and take it as corrected now, because I'm > >kind like that. > > And I will just chalk it up to one of the many unsupported accusations > you have made. Every time you've decided to pick an argument you've been embarrassed, so count yourself lucky this time :-)) Don: "Real news means agencies like Reuters and AP! Twitter isn't a valid news source!" TOG: "The agencies you cite use Twitter." Don: (Silence) Don: "That isn't a motorcycle shop. It's a car shop. I have deduced that from the web page. It's a car shop with a training school." TOG: "Click the banner on the web page. Lo! It's a motorcycle shop." Don: (Silence) TOG: "This is a Harley touring bike." Don: "No, it isn't! No it isn't!" TOG: "Harley specifically extols its touring capabilities in its own promotional material." Don: (Silence) (And other too numerous to mention) I'm doing you a favour this time. Really. You can whine and squeal and stamp your little foot about an unsupported accusation without being made to look silly again. -- BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes! Try Googling before asking a damn silly question. chateau dot murray at idnet dot com |