*This message was transferred with a trial version of CommuniGate(tm) Pro*
>Okay, I've been flamed.
No, you have been responded to by a person who has a different viewpoint than
your own. I find it strange that you needed to send it to me and then
separately send it to the list, that will also forward it to me. Are you
worried about not being heard? I'll take this off list any time but since
you have responded to the list, so will I.
>If you want me to be more civil while I express my disenchantment with
>this policy, that's your problem.
Yes, you made it my problem when it arrived in my e-mail box and said some
things that I find offensive and clearly incorrect.
>When corporate culture takes a turn toward
>making public policy which aims at protecting their market, but also
>intrudes upon my 'merican right to cheap army surplus, I am a little piqued.
Right! Right? NO ONE HAS A RIGHT to these vehicles EXCEPT the person who
signed the contract for them! You, like many others confuse "right" with
privilege. For instance, I have the "privilege" to have a drivers license, co
ncealed weapons permit and ex-military vehicles, NOT the "right" to have
them. Our "rights" are not entirely unique to the US, our privileges are,
however, more encompassing than any other country that I'm aware of.
>While it may be applauded as good protection from liability by you, it
>seems more wasteful to me when a vehicle is manufactured, utilized in a
limited
>fashion, then destroyed in the name of shielding a corporation from
>liability. Why not offer to re-acquire the vehicles from the military
>andbring them to DOT standard? Ohh, not creative enough- they've already
>sold the tooling to a Pacific Rim country to exploit the cheap labor.
Personally, I find the policy offensive but I feel compelled to see their
(AMG's) view as well, and by that measure, their policy is warranted. They
DO reacquire the vehicles and remanufacture them for resale to foreign
governments.
>As for the hurt feelings of the peon, tough. First, I've been a peon and
>know one when I see one. Second, he picked the high paced, glamorous,
>heroic profession of public information. I really feel bad for him and
>all the harrying he gets from us close minded individuals who want toys which
>were really intended to be used by those peon soldiers to whom his company
>sold them (Gee, Bob, why can't they go out and buy a nice used one for
>$25,000?).
Since the likelihood of the person involved reading your e-mail is quite
small, the only person offended by your remarks MAY be me. If there are
others, so be it. If I'm the only one, it really doesn't matter because I
find your whining and name calling truly offensive, especially since the
person involved will not have the opportunity to respond themselves. You and
I have the ability to respond to the other's comments and name calling . . .
>As for wanting one, no thanks. They were fun to drive around when I had
>the chance, but I prefer my M151A1. What I want is a better solution to use
>of American Labor than build it, lay 'em off, scrap it, then re-design
>something much more expensive, mostly made in China. I think we can make
>better use of our resources. I think we owe it to the long-term
>preservation of at least a CORE of our defense industry.
If you don't want one, all the better for you. I think I addressed the
remarking of them sufficiently above. It is my understanding that the ones
that come up as scrap for sale are the ones that AMG must have passed on
because of their condition.
The recent release of HMMWVs were a TRADE between the Marine Corps and one of
their suppliers. I doubt that this will occur again but since it has, you
should be thankful that some of these vehicles were allowed to get to the
civilian market. Heaven forbid that these vehicles can't be preserved for
posterity. Since my Hummer's serial number is 1309XX, and they have been
making them since mine in late '92, there is a real worry that there will be
none left to preserve. What rubbish! It's like calling a W.W.II Jeep
something rare! They made over half a million of the darn things and if they
were rare they would be an expensive commodity unlike their relatively cheap
price they command, for such an old vehicle.
>In the French Army, during Napoleon's time, a Buff leather belt was supposed
>to have a service life of 57 years. Now if technology hasn't advanced
>to the point where a vehicle platform can't be designed to be improved upon
>and used by military and civilian consumers for longer than the ten year
service
>life of the Hummer, there is something wrong. What's wrong with designing
>a vehicle which can have useful service life after the military?
It wasn't originally designed for the civilian market, can't you get that
through your obviously thick skull? They were designed for a 12 year service
life in the hands of typical teenagers! Since they have some life left after
that punishing stint, it is a credit to their robustness and AMG is taking
advantage of that by remarking them.
>Ominous- you bet. I don't like being even mildly equated to the ultra
>right wing militias as I feel I was by that PEON's statement. He probably
didn't
>even give me or my hobby a thought when he made that statement, or was
>ordered to make that statement. And that is why it is ominous, because
>our hobby is invisible and extremely vulnerable to a shift of corporate
culture
>which "officially" condemns the private ownership of former military
>equipment.
Why should he even consider YOUR hobby? Why do you feel you are so important
that he must consider YOU or YOUR hobby when he is repeating his company's
policy? And I thought that Dennis Miller got of on some tangents while on
his "rant!" I think you hung yourself above. By your own measure, Boeing
should consider the civilian uses of it's new F-22 Raptor, let alone it's
older and aging F-15 Eagle . . . what a load of s@#t!
>Our corporations are the "entities" who pay huge contributions
>to our election candidates, who are the ones to propose or support the
>laws, which are the things responsible for either efficiently utilizing our
>national resources or wasting them in short sighted bungling. (oops, my
>liberal colors showed through)
Oh, please . . .
>Liability exposure? Big problem. I don't think lawsuit caps are the right
>response, nor do I think that corporate payouts are the answer. I don't
>know the solution. But it is definitely not to accuse some one of
>WHIMPERING when they bring up a point of order in the Industry vs. Society
>struggle. I don't like the exile of corporations from the US because of
>the liability issue and defense issue, but I don't think the problem is going
>to be managed creatively by the "entities" which manage it now
You ARE NOT addressing the industry you IDIOT! You are preaching to the
choir, a group of individuals that ENJOY the ownership of ex-military
vehicles. You will effect no public, corporate or other policies by
preaching to us! On the most part, I'd imagine, we all agree with you,
INCLUDING me.
>THE INSURANCE INDUSTRY...
>But that is another issue entirely.
Yes, but they, like AMG, need to make a profit too.
If we need to continue this, don't you think it wise that we take this
argument off list? I know Richard Notton loves reading such things but we
need not involve anyone else unless you think it is a proper and healthy to
air such feelings in public. I do respect your opinions on a great many
things but I just don't share your opinions in this matter.
Stuart
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Tue Apr 04 2000 - 21:57:11 PDT