Timing Belt Pics at 16 years and 128,000 miles

miker wrote:
> You haven't got it quite right. "Not kill people at random" unless you have
> enough money or government connections to beat the rap, or if the government
> says it's ok. (Or did you just mean US citizens, other countries citizens
> not counting?)(Ref: OJ, LBJ, Iraq, etc) "Not steal or destroy other peoples
> property" unless you're the government, or doing it in the name of a cause
> the government decrees is good. (Ref: inflation, debasement of currency,
> central banks, eminent domain being used to take title of property for
> commerical/taxable purposes, etc)
>
> "Not drive your Miata at 100mph down a residential street" What if the
> residents are all serving in an invasion of Iran, or all the owners have
> been evicted so the area can be used for an unneeded megamall to generate
> local taxes, or everyone is in a "quarantine camp" dying of bird flu? What
> if it's in New Orleans? Then there's no logical purpose. (Contrived, yes,
> but every one with precedent.)
>
> Legal requirements are usually flexible depending on how well connected a
> person is and whether it serves government ends or not. For example, the
> legal debt limit ceiling on the US government has not only turned out to be
> flexible, the media isn't even mentioning exceeding it. Laws may sound
> logical, but that's so the legislature don't have the populace stringing
> them up.
>
> miker

You be preaching to the choir here. I agree with you nearly 100%,
especially the first paragraph.

Feel free to e-mail me or take it to talk.politics, this is getting too
politicial here for a thread that started out about miata timing belts. :-)

Pat

> Feel free to e-mail me or take it to talk.politics, this is getting too
> politicial here for a thread that started out about miata timing belts.
:-)

There's a few politicians I'd give a belt to, whatever the timing.

miker

pws > wrote:

>Leon van Dommelen wrote:
>
>> You think that legal requirements satisfy logical purposes? How long
>> have you had this problem?
>>
>> Leon
>
>Weird,
>for some reason I think that the legal requirements that you do not kill
>people at random, not steal or destroy other people's property, not
>drive your miata at 100 mph down a residential street, along with many
>other legal requirements actually do have a logical purpose.
>
>I guess I have had this "problem" for as long as I could reason.
>I would think that a rocket scientist would have at least the same
>reasoning capabilities as I did when I was 5 years old.

5 years old, huh? I guess my question should have been "Until how
long are you going to keep this problem?"

Leon
--
Leon van Dommelen Bozo, the White 96 Sebring Miata .)
http://www.dommelen.net/miata
EXIT THE INTERSTATES (Jamie Jensen)

Leon van Dommelen wrote:

> 5 years old, huh? I guess my question should have been "Until how
> long are you going to keep this problem?"
>
> Leon

Does this mean that we won't be seeing each other any more? I had this
great Valentine's Day gift picked out for you.
Please don't be mad at me, Loverboy.......

Pat

Natman wrote:
>pws wrote:
> >Natman wrote:
> >
> >> Yes it is, but Mazda was forced to use that interval by
California
> >> law. If you read the fine print, you have to take the
car in at 60 and
> >> 90K for an "inspection", meaning you get 3 bills from
the dealer
> >> rather than one.
> >
> >I have never understood this.
> >
> >If you do take your car in for the 30K & 90K
"inspection", and the belt
> >breaks between 90,001 and 99,999 miles, is Mazda required
by law to
> >replace it for free on California cars at that point?
>
> I don't know. I changed my belt at 75K (I bought the car
with 68k), so
> I don't intend to find out.
> >
> >If not, then what purpose does this California legal
requirement serve?
>
> It gave the California legislature the illusion that they
were doing
> something useful that day.

Ya know, that's the absolutely most appropriate way I've
ever heard that explained. <g>

Iva & Belle
'90B Classic Red
#3 winkin' Miata