Mark Henry wrote:

Indeed it was, and it was the only price displayed. It was $43K
and change.

I considered that, but I doubt I could find a judge to agree
with it. They'd probably say something about MSRP not being an
advertised sale price.



--


http://911research.wtc7.net
http://www.st911.org

The others won the dabate long ago. You are just too dense to realise it.

In article <4qnu5aFo66s1U1 (AT) individual (DOT) net>, Hairy wrote:
How's that? with irrelevant tangents with made up views they assigned
me? Because not one has shown that ideal free market competition existing
between retailers. In fact if you pay attention each one conceeded that
allotment eliminates the competition between retailers and then went to
some irrelevant tangent such as ford having a right to do it and about
dealers having a right to maximize profit and whole host of other
tangents that well I never disagreed with them on despite their attempt
to make it seem that way.

Thing is, if you paid attention you would have noticed I never argued
that ford and the dealers didn't have a right to do it, only stated they
did it. So try to pay attention and don't fall for such nonsense next time.

In article <noydnSGrMcWTR9vYnZ2dnUVZ_oadnZ2d (AT) giganews (DOT) com>, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

You try again to say I am wrong by expanding the scope and then deciding
what my view on that expanded scope is. Oddly you continually choose a
view for me that you can easily knock down.

All best buy stores are owned by best buy. Meanwhile no ford dealer is
owned by ford. Ford dealers are independent businesses, but the allotment
schemes means that they don't compete with each other in the sense of a
free market on the model with small allotments.

You keep agreeing with that, as you did on this post I am replying to,
but then you tack on some tangent where you make up a view for me and
then knock it down. I never stated anything even close to what you made
up above. So, I'll repeat it again.

My point is simple, the independently owned dealerships are not competing
with each other in an ideal free market manner because of the allotment
scheme. As you stated in your post, you can get 15 different prices from
15 different ford dealers and pit one off on the other on an F150 because
they are competing with each other for your business. But with the GT500
are they competing for it? Or is it, pay our price or go f yourself?

Brent, I have come to one conclusion. You are a bitter person and a
complete idiot on this matter. I feel sorry for people that have to
work with you or for you based on the attitude you show here. Respond
if you wish but I'm done with you in this thread. Good day.

In article <u5udnZaVEOzKbdvYnZ2dnUVZ_rCdnZ2d (AT) giganews (DOT) com>, Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
So now you again resort to being insulting. I think I've showed a great
amount of patience considering you and others have been rather insulting
and continually made false claims that I was arguing absurd things about
ford not having a right to do allotments.

Your last post was fine except for the last paragraph. Again you showed
that we were in agreement that (small) allotments destroy the dealer to
dealer competition and is not an ideal free market type situation where
retailers compete. I agreed with it up to the last paragraph where you
had to toss in that crapola. Then once again, I had to repeat myself
and make it clear what I have stated. You might want to examine why you
need to be insulting and make up things so you have something to knock
down.

I've come to a conclusion about you. You understand my point, you accept
it and agree with it because you've repeated it back to me with different
words multiple times. But you need to 'win' the thread. To 'win' the
thread you make some arguement up for me and then knock it down. Then
you throw in some insults as icing.

I'm sorry I just didn't roll over and let you get away with that crap. My
only error here was thinking that it was misunderstanding and that if I
just restated myself you'd see the agreement.

In article <juiek25s3jq2a274r5hp5dose6m29esme6 (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, ZombyWoof wrote:

Did I fling something back at you? Awww... poor baby.

In article <21jek2pfvjt3oh6vtr6c5dmr7d4jm34bic (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, ZombyWoof wrote:

Fully explain in 250 words or less how the aliens known as the greys
control all US corporations and the US government in an effort to
transform the atmosphere of planet earth to better suit their form of life.

You can make up arguments for me, I'll make them up for you.

<rest snipped, unread, since it's likely more of the same>

Let me count the number of arguments you made up for me in this post
alone:

In article <21jek2pfvjt3oh6vtr6c5dmr7d4jm34bic (AT) 4ax (DOT) com>, ZombyWoof wrote:

Never argued they didn't have such a right. One.

That's the scope of the thread. You did it with your first post in the
thread.
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...e=source&hl=en

"You have to remember that it isn't Ford that is setting the
market price, it is the market itself. If that dealer is able to move
the one it has at $70k it will try to move the next one it gets at
$70k."

Seems you were using broad terms for one specific speciality model.

The only bouncing has been from the constant insertion of irrelevant
tangents, which haven't come from me.

You set that precident, sir. That was what you did in the post I entered
the thread by responding to. You used the term 'free market' to describe
the sale of "one specific product model out of entire product line, a
specialty model at that".

never argued it was illegal. 2)

You set that in motion, sir. Why don't you scroll back up through the thread?

Where in the thread did I state that? nowhere. three.

Never said anything of the sort. Four.

Where did I say I didn't like them? Nowhere. Five. (yes, I think they are
idiots, but that doesn't mean anything with regard to like or dislike)

Want me to dig it up where you did?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.a...e=source&hl=en

"So they have one specific item that they are pretty much
able to set their own price on. BFD, horray for the dealers one
instance where the consumer doesn't have them over a barrel."

I never said they were doing anything illegal. Six.

You complain about bouncing, but you make up not 1, not 2, but SIX
spurrious arguments and assign them to me. This is pretty much how every
post has gone. One made up argument after another assigned to me to cloud
the issue. Why do you feel the need to do that? Make up these things
assign them to me and then knock them down? Your idea of usenet fun? Do
you get off on generating responses?

If you actually think that I argued for any of them, all my posts in this
thread are in the google archive. Feel free to quote them and include the
message ID or URL to the archive for the entire post. However, I remember
what I wrote, but I cannot control what you read, nor what tactics you'll
use. I notice you block archiving of your posts so google will delete
them after a few days.

On Mon, 30 Oct 2006 12:48:09 -0600, tetraethylleadREMOVETHIS (AT) yahoo (DOT) com
(Brent P) wrote:

Your point is irrelevant because we aren't dealing with a market
(specialty vehicles) that was EVER intended to be "free". You want
"free market" then go argue over the price of a rental fleet Taurus.
Otherwise you are living in a dream world that just doesn't, and never
did, exist.