2000 Concorde LXi Tranmission

On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, John Gregory wrote:

> Your "pearls" will be right there swirling among all the other
> grammatical errors, Daniel.
>
> "The manual has claimed "No fluid change is necessary" for decades now.
> It was OK to follow this suggestion in the days of the overengineered,
> bulletproof Torqueflite transmissions. With the electronic
> transmissions, it's difficult to change the fluid often enough."

Alright, I'll bite. What grammatical errors do you think you see?

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, John Gregory wrote:

> That's exactly what I plan to do unless I get an answer form Chrysler
> engineering telling me it isn't necessary.

You really like to do things the hard way, eh?

Aw, Daniel. You don't REALLY wanna' do this do ya'? Alright. Here's a taste:



1) ".manual has claimed.." Manuals claim nothing; people and
institutions represented as "legal entities" claim things. Manuals are
inanimate objects.

2) " .for decades now." Which is it "decades" . or "now"? "Now" not
needed; adds nothing.

3) "..this suggestion". The manual is not a compilation of "suggestions".
A manual is a set of instructions.

4) ".change the fluid often enough". Awkward. "Enough"? There's
something called "too much" and "too little"? By what standard? You? The
manual? Not clear. Or did you mean something to the effect that "it's
difficult to know just when to change the fluid."?



That's enough. I quite. You're fine. J


"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
.umich.edu...
> On Thu, 10 Mar 2005, John Gregory wrote:
>
>> Your "pearls" will be right there swirling among all the other
>> grammatical errors, Daniel.
>>
>> "The manual has claimed "No fluid change is necessary" for decades now.
>> It was OK to follow this suggestion in the days of the overengineered,
>> bulletproof Torqueflite transmissions. With the electronic
>> transmissions, it's difficult to change the fluid often enough."
>
> Alright, I'll bite. What grammatical errors do you think you see?

I don't relish the thought, but often do find myself pushing on a rope.


"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
.umich.edu...
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, John Gregory wrote:
>
>> That's exactly what I plan to do unless I get an answer form Chrysler
>> engineering telling me it isn't necessary.
>
> You really like to do things the hard way, eh?

"aarcuda69062" > wrote in message
...
> In article >,
> "maxpower" > wrote:
>
> > LOL
> > "aarcuda69062" > wrote in message
> > ...
> > > In article >,
> > > "maxpower" > wrote:
> > >
> > > > I wonder if you read the word normally in this statement?
> > >
> > > Yes I did. Your use of the word "normally" suggests that on one
> > > day the page in the labor guide says one thing and on another
> > > day, it says something else.
>
> Well, does it or doesn't it?

Once again, My humble apologies, I forget that you have no common sense and
I have to spell things out., I will go out and find the stick... But may I
ask you this? where can I find one of the magical books!!!!

TNKEV wrote:
> "maxpower" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>"Bill Putney" > wrote in message
...
>>
>>
>>>Well good. So why do you perform and charge for a diagnosis when the
>>>customer already told you the work he wanted done and the diagnosis
>>>won't affect the outcome? That's like going to a doctor with a cut on
>>>your finger, and he won't sew it up until he takes photos of the cut and
>>>sends it off to a specialist to verify that it is indeed cut and that it
>>>needs to be sewn up. For goodness sake - sew it up and quit gouging the
>>>customer with bogus charges.
>>>
>>>Bill Putney
>
>
> if a person comes to my dealership and says "my output speed sensor is bad"
> my reply is if you would like for me to replace the sensor and not do any
> diagnosis, I would be proud to perform the repair BUT I cannot guarantee
> that will fix your issue without proper diagnosis.

And that would be an acceptable answer.

Bill Putney
(To reply by e-mail, replace the last letter of the alphabet in my
adddress with the letter 'x')

In article >,
"maxpower" > wrote:

> > > > Yes I did. Your use of the word "normally" suggests that on one
> > > > day the page in the labor guide says one thing and on another
> > > > day, it says something else.
> >
> > Well, does it or doesn't it?
>
> Once again, My humble apologies, I forget that you have no common sense and
> I have to spell things out., I will go out and find the stick... But may I
> ask you this? where can I find one of the magical books!!!!

Still, you haven't answered the question.
-DO- the procedures change from day to day?
If so, your work habits are inconsistent and undisciplined.
If not, then you are merely BSing your way through this.
The stick is up your ass where you left it.

The "magical" book is available from Mitchell;

http://buymitchell1.com/Merchant2/me...n=PROD&Product
_Code=MLE05&Category_Code=ESTMAN

Or, you can buy one from Real Time;

http://www.laborguide.net/

And there is always Chilton's;

http://www.chiltonsonline.com/

Notice that Chilton's also shows a Timing Belt manual, it
probably only shows how to replace them, not how to diagnose when
one has jumped the sprockets, so it won't help you much.

On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, John Gregory wrote:

> Aw, Daniel. You don't REALLY wanna' do this do ya'? Alright. Here's a taste:

> 1) ".manual has claimed.." Manuals claim nothing; people and
> institutions represented as "legal entities" claim things. Manuals are
> inanimate objects.

That's not a grammatical error, it's sophistry on your part. No points.

> 2) " .for decades now." Which is it "decades" . or "now"? "Now" not
> needed; adds nothing.

The "now" does border on being redundant, but "For decades now", "for
years now", etc. is perfectly acceptable usage. Zero points.

> 3) "..this suggestion". The manual is not a compilation of
> "suggestions". A manual is a set of instructions.

Sophistry. Zero points.

> 4) ".change the fluid often enough". Awkward.

"It is difficult to change the fluid often enough" is perfectly clear and
not at all awkward. Zero points.

> That's enough. I quite.

You *what*, now?

Chilton's isn't that great.

Larry
Behold Beware Believe

"aarcuda69062" > wrote in message
...
| In article >,
| "maxpower" > wrote:
|
| > > > > Yes I did. Your use of the word "normally" suggests that on one
| > > > > day the page in the labor guide says one thing and on another
| > > > > day, it says something else.
| > >
| > > Well, does it or doesn't it?
| >
| > Once again, My humble apologies, I forget that you have no common sense
and
| > I have to spell things out., I will go out and find the stick... But may
I
| > ask you this? where can I find one of the magical books!!!!
|
| Still, you haven't answered the question.
| -DO- the procedures change from day to day?
| If so, your work habits are inconsistent and undisciplined.
| If not, then you are merely BSing your way through this.
| The stick is up your ass where you left it.
|
| The "magical" book is available from Mitchell;
|
| http://buymitchell1.com/Merchant2/me...n=PROD&Product
| _Code=MLE05&Category_Code=ESTMAN
|
| Or, you can buy one from Real Time;
|
| http://www.laborguide.net/
|
| And there is always Chilton's;
|
| http://www.chiltonsonline.com/
|
| Notice that Chilton's also shows a Timing Belt manual, it
| probably only shows how to replace them, not how to diagnose when
| one has jumped the sprockets, so it won't help you much.

Hardly sophistry... and you know it with such a weak defense.
But definitely a Sisyphean exercise to make you see otherwise. I saw it
coming. That's why I said "I quite".
Grammar AND syntax errors, Daniel. Your "Pearls." Lets get back to
mechanics. Your no English teacher... and that's OK.


"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Fri, 11 Mar 2005, John Gregory wrote:
>
>> Aw, Daniel. You don't REALLY wanna' do this do ya'? Alright. Here's a
>> taste:
>
>> 1) ".manual has claimed.." Manuals claim nothing; people and
>> institutions represented as "legal entities" claim things. Manuals are
>> inanimate objects.
>
> That's not a grammatical error, it's sophistry on your part. No points.
>
>> 2) " .for decades now." Which is it "decades" . or "now"? "Now" not
>> needed; adds nothing.
>
> The "now" does border on being redundant, but "For decades now", "for
> years now", etc. is perfectly acceptable usage. Zero points.
>
>> 3) "..this suggestion". The manual is not a compilation of
>> "suggestions". A manual is a set of instructions.
>
> Sophistry. Zero points.
>
>> 4) ".change the fluid often enough". Awkward.
>
> "It is difficult to change the fluid often enough" is perfectly clear and
> not at all awkward. Zero points.
>
>> That's enough. I quite.
>
> You *what*, now?
>