Sorry Josh...no throwing parts at customer vehicles here. It's fixed the
first time.
Back to the grind now....
- Bernd
-----Original Message-----
From: owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net
[mailto:owner-dakota-truck@bent.twistedbits.net] On Behalf Of Josh Battles
Sent: Wednesday, September 01, 2004 9:11 AM
To: dakota-truck-moderator@bent.twistedbits.net
Subject: Re: DML: RE: Re: RE: sputter on start-up
""Bernd D. Ratsch"" <fasstdak@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>
> We can debate this all day if needed. There's theory, and then
> there's
real
> world. You'd be surprised at some of the strange electrical issues we
> see on these vehicles.
>
> - Bernd
<rant>
I'm not sure if you *read* Jon's post, most of that text is indeed fact (not
"fact") with the experimental (bench tested) data to back it up for his
application - which is the same as Jay's application, not the '05 you so
happily refer to in your post. At this point it's common sense, admit
you're wrong/don't know and get on with your life. Whenever someone
disproves your"facts" with REAL facts, this is the type of response given.
Do you have a form letter for these?
The problem I have with this is that you present yourself as the "all
knowing" and then support your opinions with "facts" that you've made up to
support your opinions. While this may be all well and good when you're
spending Chrysler's money for warranty work, you can't throw parts at a
paying customer's vehicle until the problem is magically solved, or
recommend (and then stand by) this technique to a fellow lister. That's
just bad business, IMO.
But don't worry, I'm not taking this too seriously.
</rant>
-- - Josh Lowered 2000 Dakota CC 3.9L All facts have been omitted from this post. www.omg-stfu.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Oct 01 2004 - 11:38:58 EDT