How to save Harley Davidison [Motorcycles]

Prev: Proper oil for cruisers
Next: 9-11 was an inside job.

From: don (Calgary) on 18 Jul 2010 10:11

On Sun, 18 Jul 2010 08:08:42 +0100, totallydeadmailbox(a)yahoo.co.uk
(The Older Gentleman) wrote:

>
>Don: (Silence)

Neil more often than not my silence is due to my amazement at how you
obsess over usenet arguments. Here you go again, using misquotes and
misrepresentation, in a desperate attempt to perpetuate old arguments.

When you are incapable of even quoting correctly, probably by intent,
it's not worth my time to first correct the quotes and then provide a
response.

On other occasions my silence is due to the fact the topic has been
exhausted, something others have told us on many occasions, and should
be left in the archives, yet you continue to try to resurrect them.

And on other occasions, your comments are just plain ridiculous and I
have other things to do that are more important than you, such as
rearranging the wires to my stereo.

Bottom line you are moving rapidly to netloon status and posts such as
this last one from you speed up the decent.

From: The Older Gentleman on 18 Jul 2010 10:31

don (Calgary) <hd.flhr(a)telus.net> wrote:

> And on other occasions, your comments are just plain ridiculous and I
> have other things to do that are more important than you, such as
> rearranging the wires to my stereo.

Jolly good. Run along, then:-)
>
> Bottom line you are moving rapidly to netloon status and posts such as
> this last one from you speed up the decent.

Wow. and this from an acknowledged obsessive....

Just give up your self-professed (and that *was* a silly thing to do in
a public forum) intention of continuing your little vendetta for as long
as it pleases you and all will be sweetness and light.

But the longer you carry it on, the stupider and more obsessive you
look.

_____________________

There's that line 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

From: tomorrow on 19 Jul 2010 08:14

On Jul 17, 1:11 pm, "J. Clarke" <jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> On 7/17/2010 10:35 AM, tomor...(a)erols.com wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
> > On Jul 17, 8:11 am, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> >> On 7/16/2010 8:45 PM, tomor...(a)erols.com wrote:
>
> >>> On Jul 16, 7:40 pm, "J. Clarke"<jclarke.use...(a)cox.net> wrote:
> >>>> On 7/16/2010 2:35 PM, tomor...(a)erols.com wrote:
>
> >>>>> On Jul 16, 2:18 pm, totallydeadmail...(a)yahoo.co.uk (The Older
> >>>>> Gentleman) wrote:
> >>>>>> tomor...(a)erols.com<tomorrowaterolsdot...(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
> >>>>>>>> HD *is* a small volume producer, really, and yes, BMW, Ducati and
> >>>>>>>> Triumph are even smaller. Moto Guzzi smaller still It's impossible to
> >>>>>>>> argue otherwise.
>
> >>>>>>> How do you define "small volume producer," then?
>
> >>>>>>> Anyone who doesn't produce millions of scooters and mopeds?
>
> >>>>>> I think anything over half a million units counts as volume in today's
> >>>>>> world, but ultimately it's pointless trying to establish a yardstick.
>
> >>>>>> Millions of scooters and mopeds certainly count - why shouldn't they?
>
> >>>>> Because in general, when motorcycle enthusists think about
> >>>>> motorcycles, they don't think about mopeds and scooters. And thus
> >>>>> Harley, with 40+% of the current total U.S. streetbike market,
>
> >>>> Not even Harley claims 40 percent.
>
> >>> Doesn't mean it isn't true. Are you claiming it isn't true? Then
> >>> which of the sales numbers that I have cited from Harley, BMW, and the
> >>> Motorcycle Industry Council (which all agree, btw) is incorrect?
>
> >> Please provide a link to the post, I haven't seen it.
>
> > Yesterday:
>
> > "Total U.S. on-highway motorcycle sales for 2009 were 357,691 as
> > reported by the Motorcycle Industry Council, and Harley sold 144,464
> > bikes in the U.S., for a total of 40.4% of on-highway motorcycles,
> > _including_ lightweight (50cc and up) bikes."
>
> The MIC reports scooters and dual-sports separately. When you figure
> them in then Harley has 34 percent.- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -

From: tomorrow on 19 Jul 2010 08:17

From: tomorrow on 19 Jul 2010 08:20

On Jul 17, 6:10 pm, High Plains Thumper <h...(a)invalid.invalid> wrote:
> 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.

No argument. However, it is demonstrable fact that Harleys retain a
higher percentage of their original retail price than do their
competition; although of course there are always individual models of
bikes that do rather more well.

First | Prev | Next | Last
Pages: 38 39 40 41 42 43 44 45 46 47 48 49 50
Prev: Proper oil for cruisers
Next: 9-11 was an inside job.