Chrysler “Thank You America” Blog Blows Up in Their Face

In article >,
Steve > wrote:

> Toyota is circling the drain too- first financial loss in 70 years,
> quality problems everywhere for the past 7-8 years finally getting
> through the thick skulls of the Gen-Xers who bought into the myth of
> superior quality.
>
> Its hardly a "Detroit" problem. People finally just realized they don't
> NEED a fancy new car every 2 years. Once every 10 years is plenty. The
> company that can cut production and SHRINK to fit the demand best while
> remaining profitable will win, NOT the company that tries to continue
> following the "grow or die" model.

Agreed. I'm an 8 to 10 yr buyer, but still have my '95 Concorde because
nothing I desire at Chrysler. So now I'm a 14 yr owner and the old horse
still runs beautifully. Great quality in this NA car, but a failure to
build a follow on product. At least my Chrysler dealer still makes money
from their maintenance business.
Companies like Toyota do have a great product line, covering many
desires.

Some O wrote:
> In article >,
> Steve > wrote:
>
>> Toyota is circling the drain too- first financial loss in 70 years,
>> quality problems everywhere for the past 7-8 years finally getting
>> through the thick skulls of the Gen-Xers who bought into the myth of
>> superior quality.
>>
>> Its hardly a "Detroit" problem. People finally just realized they don't
>> NEED a fancy new car every 2 years. Once every 10 years is plenty. The
>> company that can cut production and SHRINK to fit the demand best while
>> remaining profitable will win, NOT the company that tries to continue
>> following the "grow or die" model.
>
> Agreed. I'm an 8 to 10 yr buyer, but still have my '95 Concorde because
> nothing I desire at Chrysler. So now I'm a 14 yr owner and the old horse
> still runs beautifully. Great quality in this NA car, but a failure to
> build a follow on product. At least my Chrysler dealer still makes money
> from their maintenance business.
> Companies like Toyota do have a great product line, covering many
> desires.


Toyota has no rear-drives, so that means they'd have to make something
REALLY nifty (like a PT Cruiser) to attract me. Just as a lineup with
no front-drives is a non-starter for you. No, I don't want to spend a
fortune for a Lexus-branded POS just for rear-drive.

Well, that and the fact that Toyota sucks. ;-)

Steve wrote:
> Some O wrote:
>> In article >,
>> Steve > wrote:
>>
>>> Toyota is circling the drain too- first financial loss in 70 years,
>>> quality problems everywhere for the past 7-8 years finally getting
>>> through the thick skulls of the Gen-Xers who bought into the myth of
>>> superior quality.
>>>
>>> Its hardly a "Detroit" problem. People finally just realized they
>>> don't NEED a fancy new car every 2 years. Once every 10 years is
>>> plenty. The company that can cut production and SHRINK to fit the
>>> demand best while remaining profitable will win, NOT the company that
>>> tries to continue following the "grow or die" model.
>>
>> Agreed. I'm an 8 to 10 yr buyer, but still have my '95 Concorde
>> because nothing I desire at Chrysler. So now I'm a 14 yr owner and the
>> old horse still runs beautifully. Great quality in this NA car, but a
>> failure to build a follow on product. At least my Chrysler dealer
>> still makes money from their maintenance business.
>> Companies like Toyota do have a great product line, covering many
>> desires.
>
>
> Toyota has no rear-drives, so that means they'd have to make something
> REALLY nifty (like a PT Cruiser) to attract me. Just as a lineup with
> no front-drives is a non-starter for you. No, I don't want to spend a
> fortune for a Lexus-branded POS just for rear-drive.
>
> Well, that and the fact that Toyota sucks. ;-)

Rational human beings want a <shudder> PT Cruiser?

--
Civis Romanus Sum

In article >,
"Dori A Schmetterling" > wrote:

> My understanding is that "they" etc is ok if the noun acts as a 'collective'
> noun. Therefore, "Chrysler are" is fine because it refers to a collection
> of people. "The corporation is" is also ok because the corporation is a
> single entity. The use of "it" does not have definite overtones of
> 'inanimatedness'. It just means no gender, so the corporation can have its
> acccounts audited.
>
> I think the key is to decide on one mode in a paragraph or article and stick
> with it.
>
> Where "they" for singular has crept in through usage -- at least in the
> UK -- is the 'politically correct' way of dealing with a person of
> undetermined gender. This is a way of avoiding "he" when it could be he or
> she. In other languages this may be unnecessary since the word "person"
> itself has gender. In German for example it is feminine. So in a German
> sentence one would speak of a person who has money in her pocket, whether it
> is a woman or a man.

Ja, mein Lehrer.
Jetzt haben alle diese irgendetwas.
Hell no!

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:

> ...In German for example it is feminine. So in a German
> sentence one would speak of a person who has money in her pocket, whether it
> is a woman or a man.

Is that where the phrase "girly man" came from? It did start on
Saturday Night Live in a German context.

--
Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
address with the letter 'x')

Pass...

Good theory as any...

:-)
DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---
"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
[...]
>
> Is that where the phrase "girly man" came from? It did start on Saturday
> Night Live in a German context.
>
> --
> Bill Putney
> (To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my address
> with the letter 'x')