new Honda CR-V break in

On 01/02/2010 09:36 AM, Brian Smith wrote:
> On 1/2/2010 1:27 PM, Guy wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for giving me the best word to describe what I think of your
>> opinion now... "garbage". People disagree but when some people carry
>> on the way you do, they have something wrong. Why not make yourself
>> happy and PLONK me so I don't have to see your "garbage" posts any
>> longer.
>
> You have to "plonk" him to avoid seeing his posts.

he's not that smart. especially since he couldn't figure it out from my
"killfile" post several messages back.

On 01/02/2010 10:06 AM, Guy wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 13:36:32 -0400, Brian Smith
> > wrote:
>
>> On 1/2/2010 1:27 PM, Guy wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for giving me the best word to describe what I think of your
>>> opinion now... "garbage". People disagree but when some people carry
>>> on the way you do, they have something wrong. Why not make yourself
>>> happy and PLONK me so I don't have to see your "garbage" posts any
>>> longer.
>>
>> You have to "plonk" him to avoid seeing his posts.
>
>
> You're right. Still hope he PLONKS me first.

why? because your retardation is /my/ fault?

Brian Smith wrote:
> On 1/2/2010 1:27 PM, Guy wrote:
>>
>> Thanks for giving me the best word to describe what I think of your
>> opinion now... "garbage". People disagree but when some people carry
>> on the way you do, they have something wrong. Why not make yourself
>> happy and PLONK me so I don't have to see your "garbage" posts any
>> longer.
>
> You have to "plonk" him to avoid seeing his posts.

That is what I did, but I still see his postings when other people reply
to him.
It cuts the number down, however, as nobody can respond to all of his
postings. Most people have this thing called a life.

"Guy", you are correct, there is something wrong with a person like him
who spends this much time online with the primary purpose of abusing
people through his very high number of postings.

I am guessing that he does not talk to people like that face-to-face, as
he would have been taken out long ago, or he would have at least
received a beating of sufficient ferocity to change his attitude.

Get ready for a failed attempt at a witty and abusive response to this
from Jim Beam. I have no idea how many responses he sent into my
killfile to never be seen, but I have to admit, I hope that they were
numerous and even longer than this posting.

Pat

On 01/01/2010 08:32 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
> In article<GISdnc2cbrfHi6PWnZ2dnUVZ_sIAAAAA@speakeasy .net>,
> jim > wrote:
>
>>> Have fun with your shiny new $25,000 toy.
>>
>> this is the piece of psychology that always completely blows my mind -
>> the bit where people can spend a bunch of dough, then completely
>> disregard what they put it into. if they had a suitcase with $25,000 in
>> hundreds, would they toss it out of a moving car with the lid open and
>> watch the notes get blown away in the wind? of course not.
>
> Some would, and then you'd see a blog entry on The Consumerist about how
> Samsonite bags suck and they wouldn't even take the owner's phone call
> about how Samsonite owes him $25,000 because his bag didn't prevent the
> bills from leaving the opened suitcase.

doubtless, others would respond agreeing. especially if someone had the
temerity to point out that our blogger was in fact at fault, because we
should all stand about and hug and endorse stupidity, not actually try
to learn something.

jim beam wrote:
> On 01/01/2010 08:32 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>> In article<GISdnc2cbrfHi6PWnZ2dnUVZ_sIAAAAA@speakeasy .net>,
>> jim > wrote:
>>
>>>> Have fun with your shiny new $25,000 toy.
>>>
>>> this is the piece of psychology that always completely blows my mind -
>>> the bit where people can spend a bunch of dough, then completely
>>> disregard what they put it into. if they had a suitcase with $25,000 in
>>> hundreds, would they toss it out of a moving car with the lid open and
>>> watch the notes get blown away in the wind? of course not.
>>
>> Some would, and then you'd see a blog entry on The Consumerist about how
>> Samsonite bags suck and they wouldn't even take the owner's phone call
>> about how Samsonite owes him $25,000 because his bag didn't prevent the
>> bills from leaving the opened suitcase.
>
> doubtless, others would respond agreeing. especially if someone had the
> temerity to point out that our blogger was in fact at fault, because we
> should all stand about and hug and endorse stupidity, not actually try
> to learn something.
>
>


Try this on for size:
<http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=105876>

On 01/02/2010 10:45 AM, News wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>> On 01/01/2010 08:32 AM, Elmo P. Shagnasty wrote:
>>> In article<GISdnc2cbrfHi6PWnZ2dnUVZ_sIAAAAA@speakeasy .net>,
>>> jim > wrote:
>>>
>>>>> Have fun with your shiny new $25,000 toy.
>>>>
>>>> this is the piece of psychology that always completely blows my mind -
>>>> the bit where people can spend a bunch of dough, then completely
>>>> disregard what they put it into. if they had a suitcase with $25,000 in
>>>> hundreds, would they toss it out of a moving car with the lid open and
>>>> watch the notes get blown away in the wind? of course not.
>>>
>>> Some would, and then you'd see a blog entry on The Consumerist about how
>>> Samsonite bags suck and they wouldn't even take the owner's phone call
>>> about how Samsonite owes him $25,000 because his bag didn't prevent the
>>> bills from leaving the opened suitcase.
>>
>> doubtless, others would respond agreeing. especially if someone had
>> the temerity to point out that our blogger was in fact at fault,
>> because we should all stand about and hug and endorse stupidity, not
>> actually try to learn something.
>>
>>
>
>
> Try this on for size:
> <http://forums.appleinsider.com/showthread.php?t=105876>

yup, just like that.

my current amusement is people trying to sell cars on craigslist, cheap,
"no title". one guy i spoke with didn't have title because he'd gotten
a loan on the vehicle and had handed over title as security. so
legally, it wasn't his to sell, it was the loan company's!!!

i'm sure he found some dumbass willing to give him money. let's wait
and see what kind of victim bull**** /that/ will produce on consumerist.

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 12:29:50 -0600, pws >
wrote:

>Brian Smith wrote:
>> On 1/2/2010 1:27 PM, Guy wrote:
>>>
>>> Thanks for giving me the best word to describe what I think of your
>>> opinion now... "garbage". People disagree but when some people carry
>>> on the way you do, they have something wrong. Why not make yourself
>>> happy and PLONK me so I don't have to see your "garbage" posts any
>>> longer.
>>
>> You have to "plonk" him to avoid seeing his posts.
>
>That is what I did, but I still see his postings when other people reply
>to him.
>It cuts the number down, however, as nobody can respond to all of his
>postings. Most people have this thing called a life.
>
>"Guy", you are correct, there is something wrong with a person like him
>who spends this much time online with the primary purpose of abusing
>people through his very high number of postings.
>
>I am guessing that he does not talk to people like that face-to-face, as
>he would have been taken out long ago, or he would have at least
>received a beating of sufficient ferocity to change his attitude.
>
>Get ready for a failed attempt at a witty and abusive response to this
>from Jim Beam. I have no idea how many responses he sent into my
>killfile to never be seen, but I have to admit, I hope that they were
>numerous and even longer than this posting.
>
>Pat


Thanks Pat. It's reassuring.
You know the sad thing is we're just talking about a car. Can you
imagine if we were talking about religion or politics ?

On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 10:09:49 -0800, jim beam > wrote:

>On 01/02/2010 09:27 AM, Guy wrote:
>> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 08:11:21 -0800, jim > wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/01/2010 09:35 PM, Guy wrote:
>>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 18:36:52 -0800, jim > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 01/01/2010 06:23 PM, Guy wrote:
>>>>>> On Fri, 01 Jan 2010 17:14:37 -0800, jim > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 01/01/2010 04:54 PM, JRE wrote:
>>>>>>>> Tegger wrote:
>>>>>>>>> jim > wrote in
>>>>>>>>> t:
>>>>>>>>>> On 01/01/2010 12:38 PM, Joe wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> It makes sense to be informed. Talk to the technician doing the work
>>>>>>>>>>> before and after. Make sure they're not cutting corners...
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> while the dealer is the safest long term bet, i have to say, they're
>>>>>>>>>> not infallible.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Ain't that the truth.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> My own dealer got three years out of the original oil pan. Then they
>>>>>>>>> managed to strip the plug. The monkeys were severely overtightening
>>>>>>>>> the plug, probably by using a combo wrench and tightening it by
>>>>>>>>> hanging from it, as monkeys do.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I'm still running with the replacement pan, sixteen years later. The
>>>>>>>>> plug is not stripped.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The faithfully torqued (with a torque wrench, to spec, every time,
>>>>>>>> without exception, since the car was new) drain plug in my '91 Accord
>>>>>>>> stripped about a year and a half ago. Pretty annoying...and very
>>>>>>>> unusual. But that's why they make self-tapping replacements, I suppose.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> (Note: I recently got a new torque wrench and checked it against the old
>>>>>>>> one. They're within a foot-pound of each other.)
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> [much to the delight of "crv guy" no doubt] i actually disregard factory
>>>>>>> oil pan plug torque. 45N.m is very high for something with a soft
>>>>>>> aluminum crush washer under it. i use ~30N.m and have never had a
>>>>>>> thread strip, nor a plug loosen or leak. replicate at your own risk.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Thanks Jim for your honesty<smile>. At least we can agree here.
>>>>>
>>>>> so /you/ did the math too??? somehow, i find that hard to believe.
>>>>
>>>> Wow, you admit the factory might be wrong but you can't.
>>>> I find that NOT hard to believe.
>>>
>>> "you admit the factory might be wrong but you can't"???
>>>
>>> on the basis that you're evidencing an english language "garbage out"
>>> problem, there must also be english language "garbage in" problem with
>>> you too. which explains everything!
>>
>>
>> Thanks for giving me the best word to describe what I think of your
>> opinion now... "garbage". People disagree but when some people carry
>> on the way you do, they have something wrong. Why not make yourself
>> happy and PLONK me so I don't have to see your "garbage" posts any
>> longer.
>
>i have a better solution: you stop flaunting your willful ignorance,
>then see what kind a reaction you get. think about it. if you can.

Wow. Do you feel better when you talk like this?

On Thu, 31 Dec 2009 19:41:07 -0600, "Guy" > wrote:

>I got a new 2010 CR-V and wife asked me how to break it in properly.
>What is the proper way?
>
>I don't care what the manual says. What do you guys feel is the best
>mileage to do the first oil change? I normally change my oil and
>filter around 3500 miles on my other cars with no synthetic.

Follow the manual and the minder.

They say no restrictions on driving from day one, and you'll probably
go about a normal oil change distance, about 6k miles depending on
your driving habits, before the minder says hello.

That's what Honda wants to honor the warranty, seems good to me.

Engineering, materials, manufacturing are all really, really different
now than thirty years ago, I haven't heard anyone accusing the minder
of being too conservative about oil changes, maybe a little the other
way in fact, recommending changes a little sooner than really needed.
Plus, you might get paranoid when it says 15% left and change it then,
when you really can run it to zero, usually another 1,000 miles. Not
like the car grinds to a halt at that point!

J.

On 01/02/2010 10:59 AM, Guy wrote:
> On Sat, 02 Jan 2010 12:29:50 -0600, >
> wrote:
>
>> Brian Smith wrote:
>>> On 1/2/2010 1:27 PM, Guy wrote:
>>>>
>>>> Thanks for giving me the best word to describe what I think of your
>>>> opinion now... "garbage". People disagree but when some people carry
>>>> on the way you do, they have something wrong. Why not make yourself
>>>> happy and PLONK me so I don't have to see your "garbage" posts any
>>>> longer.
>>>
>>> You have to "plonk" him to avoid seeing his posts.
>>
>> That is what I did, but I still see his postings when other people reply
>> to him.
>> It cuts the number down, however, as nobody can respond to all of his
>> postings. Most people have this thing called a life.
>>
>> "Guy", you are correct, there is something wrong with a person like him
>> who spends this much time online with the primary purpose of abusing
>> people through his very high number of postings.
>>
>> I am guessing that he does not talk to people like that face-to-face, as
>> he would have been taken out long ago, or he would have at least
>> received a beating of sufficient ferocity to change his attitude.
>>
>> Get ready for a failed attempt at a witty and abusive response to this
>>from Jim Beam. I have no idea how many responses he sent into my
>> killfile to never be seen, but I have to admit, I hope that they were
>> numerous and even longer than this posting.
>>
>> Pat
>
>
> Thanks Pat. It's reassuring.
> You know the sad thing is we're just talking about a car. Can you
> imagine if we were talking about religion or politics ?

"just a car", and not the $25,000 you just paid for it!

tell us guy - is there a financial threshold for stupidity? is it ok to
be willfully ignorant for stuff below $25,001, but not above it?

how about if someone else is willfully ignorant with your $25k for you?
what if someone put sugar in your gas tank? that could cost about the
same to fix as willful ignorance of the owners manual. or is there a
difference between someone else doing something dumb and you doing
something dumb?