Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]
Groups > comp.mobile.android > #73523 > unrolled thread
| Started by | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| First post | 2021-01-13 10:54 -0800 |
| Last post | 2021-01-20 07:19 -0500 |
| Articles | 20 on this page of 114 — 16 participants |
Back to article view | Back to comp.mobile.android
OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-13 10:54 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-13 11:09 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-13 12:08 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-13 15:19 -0500
Re: OT: Key duplication Chris <ithinkiam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-14 13:40 +0000
Re: OT: Key duplication Frank Slootweg <this@ddress.is.invalid> - 2021-01-14 15:43 +0000
Re: OT: Key duplication nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-14 10:59 -0500
Re: OT: Key duplication "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-13 22:58 +0100
Re: OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-13 15:56 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> - 2021-01-14 07:33 +0700
Re: OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-13 21:27 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2021-01-13 23:28 -0700
Re: OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-14 23:07 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> - 2021-01-15 15:58 +0700
Re: OT: Key duplication AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2021-01-15 09:34 -0700
Re: OT: Key duplication "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-15 15:30 +0100
Re: OT: Key duplication nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-15 18:13 -0500
Re: OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-15 18:47 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-16 04:17 +0100
Re: OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-16 09:14 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-17 02:31 +0100
Re: OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-16 22:08 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-18 23:08 +0100
Re: OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-18 14:22 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-19 13:50 +0100
Re: OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-19 10:56 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication AJL <noemail@none.com> - 2021-01-19 12:34 -0700
Re: OT: Key duplication "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-19 22:35 +0100
Re: OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-19 15:55 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-20 01:42 +0100
Re: OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-19 19:54 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-19 21:02 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-01-20 08:38 -0700
Re: OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-20 10:01 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-01-20 12:37 -0700
Re: OT: Key duplication "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-20 23:14 +0100
Re: OT: Key duplication Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2021-01-20 23:34 +0000
Re: OT: Key duplication "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-21 14:56 +0100
Re: OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 09:59 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-21 22:09 +0100
Re: OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 14:06 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-22 04:08 +0100
Re: OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 19:35 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-22 12:45 +0100
Re: OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 09:37 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-22 23:21 +0100
Re: OT: Key duplication Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-23 19:59 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-21 19:48 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-01-22 07:31 -0700
Re: OT: Key duplication Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> - 2021-01-21 22:22 +0000
Re: OT: Key duplication "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-22 04:16 +0100
Re: OT: Key duplication Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-01-22 07:42 -0700
Re: OT: Key duplication sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-21 15:16 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 07:46 +0700
Re: OT: Key duplication "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-22 04:25 +0100
Re: OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-20 19:49 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-20 21:01 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-20 22:47 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 05:16 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 09:55 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-23 20:05 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-21 14:49 +0100
Re: OT: Key duplication sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-21 06:46 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 10:09 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 09:56 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-20 13:04 +0100
Re: OT: Key duplication Boris <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2021-01-22 02:02 +0000
Re: OT: Key duplication John B. <slocombjb@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 09:30 +0700
Re: OT: Key duplication "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-22 04:36 +0100
Re: OT: Key duplication Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-18 12:37 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-18 14:07 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-18 14:41 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-18 15:03 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication David Higton <dave@davehigton.me.uk> - 2021-01-19 16:02 +0000
Re: OT: Key duplication Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-19 20:48 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-19 20:43 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2021-01-20 09:08 -0500
Re: OT: Key duplication "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-20 23:08 +0100
Re: OT: Key duplication micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2021-01-20 09:08 -0500
Re: OT: Key duplication sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-20 07:42 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2021-01-20 08:25 -0500
Re: OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-20 09:37 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2021-01-20 08:16 -0500
Re: OT: Key duplication Arlen Holder <arlen_holder@newmachines.com> - 2021-01-14 00:37 +0000
Re: OT: Key duplication "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2021-01-20 09:03 -0500
Re: OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-20 09:53 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-20 20:20 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2021-01-21 08:00 -0500
Re: OT: Key duplication Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-21 05:31 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-21 07:14 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2021-01-21 12:28 -0500
Re: OT: Key duplication sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-21 11:18 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-21 22:15 +0100
Re: OT: Key duplication "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2021-01-21 17:50 -0500
Re: OT: Key duplication "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-22 04:43 +0100
Re: OT: Key duplication "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2021-01-22 08:43 -0500
Re: OT: Key duplication Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-01-22 07:27 -0700
Re: OT: Key duplication "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2021-01-22 12:46 -0500
Re: OT: Key duplication "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2021-01-22 12:50 -0500
Re: OT: Key duplication "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-22 23:29 +0100
Re: OT: Key duplication - Wine "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-22 23:36 +0100
Re: OT: Key duplication "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-22 23:42 +0100
Re: OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-22 16:05 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-01-23 09:11 -0700
Re: OT: Key duplication The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> - 2021-01-23 10:37 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-23 17:23 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> - 2021-01-23 09:07 -0700
Re: OT: Key duplication "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2021-01-23 13:42 -0500
Re: OT: Key duplication sms <scharf.steven@geemail.com> - 2021-01-22 14:48 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-23 05:02 +0100
Re: OT: Key duplication "Mayayana" <mayayana@invalid.nospam> - 2021-01-23 08:47 -0500
Re: OT: Key duplication "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> - 2021-01-23 00:20 +0100
Re: OT: Key duplication Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> - 2021-01-18 12:29 -0800
Re: OT: Key duplication micky <NONONOmisc07@fmguy.com> - 2021-01-20 07:19 -0500
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-17 02:31 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <mjgcdh-o3r.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #73692 |
On 16/01/2021 18.14, The Real Bev wrote: > On 01/15/2021 07:17 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 16/01/2021 03.47, The Real Bev wrote: >>> On 01/15/2021 06:30 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> >>>>> I'd still like to be able to use a plain old key. It's ridiculous to >>>>> pay $149 extra for a minimal improvement in convenience. >>>> >>>> Not convenience, but security + convenience. >>>> >>>> The claim is that you can not start a car without the metal key plus >>>> the >>>> electronics inside the key. That is extra security. If actually true. >>> >>> Turns out the dealer was lying. Local locksmith would have charged $150 >>> for the transponder key, but I chose two ordinary keys for the same >>> price -- the guy did something to the car to enable it to accept >>> non-transponder keys. I'm sure there's more to the key (worth $74 more, >>> clearly!) than just metal, but the problem is solved now. >> >> Maybe he disabled the transponder in the car, which renders the car less >> secure. >> >> It is like have a house door with two keys and removing one. > > There are always tradeoffs. I'm satisfied. > >>> I'm shocked that the dealer was such a shithead. I expected more of >>> Toyota people. > > If the guy had told me this was an option it would be OK if they charged > ridiculous amounts of money for their services, but he didn't. > I'm sure the brand doesn't allow it. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-16 22:08 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ru0k99$rnn$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73703 |
On 01/16/2021 05:31 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 16/01/2021 18.14, The Real Bev wrote: >> On 01/15/2021 07:17 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 16/01/2021 03.47, The Real Bev wrote: >>>> On 01/15/2021 06:30 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> >>>>>> I'd still like to be able to use a plain old key. It's ridiculous to >>>>>> pay $149 extra for a minimal improvement in convenience. >>>>> >>>>> Not convenience, but security + convenience. >>>>> >>>>> The claim is that you can not start a car without the metal key plus >>>>> the >>>>> electronics inside the key. That is extra security. If actually true. >>>> >>>> Turns out the dealer was lying. Local locksmith would have charged $150 >>>> for the transponder key, but I chose two ordinary keys for the same >>>> price -- the guy did something to the car to enable it to accept >>>> non-transponder keys. I'm sure there's more to the key (worth $74 more, >>>> clearly!) than just metal, but the problem is solved now. >>> >>> Maybe he disabled the transponder in the car, which renders the car less >>> secure. >>> >>> It is like have a house door with two keys and removing one. >> >> There are always tradeoffs. I'm satisfied. >> >>>> I'm shocked that the dealer was such a shithead. I expected more of >>>> Toyota people. >> >> If the guy had told me this was an option it would be OK if they charged >> ridiculous amounts of money for their services, but he didn't. > > I'm sure the brand doesn't allow it. "Professionals" are supposed to give you options and let you choose. Shitheads just tell you about the most expensive option. -- Cheers, Bev Always carry a length of fiber-optic cable in your pocket. Should you be shipwrecked and find yourself stranded on a desert island, bury the cable in the sand. A few hours later, a guy driving a backhoe will be along to dig it up. Ask him to rescue you.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-18 23:08 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <afdhdh-v5u.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #73708 |
On 17/01/2021 07.08, The Real Bev wrote: > On 01/16/2021 05:31 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 16/01/2021 18.14, The Real Bev wrote: >>> On 01/15/2021 07:17 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> On 16/01/2021 03.47, The Real Bev wrote: >>>>> On 01/15/2021 06:30 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> >>>>>>> I'd still like to be able to use a plain old key. It's >>>>>>> ridiculous to pay $149 extra for a minimal improvement in >>>>>>> convenience. >>>>>> >>>>>> Not convenience, but security + convenience. >>>>>> >>>>>> The claim is that you can not start a car without the metal >>>>>> key plus the electronics inside the key. That is extra >>>>>> security. If actually true. >>>>> >>>>> Turns out the dealer was lying. Local locksmith would have >>>>> charged $150 for the transponder key, but I chose two >>>>> ordinary keys for the same price -- the guy did something to >>>>> the car to enable it to accept non-transponder keys. I'm >>>>> sure there's more to the key (worth $74 more, clearly!) than >>>>> just metal, but the problem is solved now. >>>> >>>> Maybe he disabled the transponder in the car, which renders the >>>> car less secure. >>>> >>>> It is like have a house door with two keys and removing one. >>> >>> There are always tradeoffs. I'm satisfied. >>> >>>>> I'm shocked that the dealer was such a shithead. I expected >>>>> more of Toyota people. >>> >>> If the guy had told me this was an option it would be OK if they >>> charged ridiculous amounts of money for their services, but he >>> didn't. >> >> I'm sure the brand doesn't allow it. > > "Professionals" are supposed to give you options and let you choose. > Shitheads just tell you about the most expensive option. Professionals working for a brand are not at liberty. They can not give you a professional advice that goes against the brand rules. Example. The plastic piece of a car fan where a screw or bolt fixates the fan to the car body broke. The official dealer would replace the entire fan. I glued the thing with a fibre glass composite cement, which lasted years till I scrapped the car. I commented my repair with the mechanic. Sure, that will do, but we are not allowed to do it, simply because we can not vouch the mandatory warranty period on it, nor that it will not cause any damage. It is not a professional repair. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-18 14:22 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ru51o2$1cu$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73767 |
On 01/18/2021 02:08 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 17/01/2021 07.08, The Real Bev wrote: >> On 01/16/2021 05:31 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 16/01/2021 18.14, The Real Bev wrote: >>>> On 01/15/2021 07:17 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>> On 16/01/2021 03.47, The Real Bev wrote: >>>>>> On 01/15/2021 06:30 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>> >>>>>>>> I'd still like to be able to use a plain old key. It's >>>>>>>> ridiculous to pay $149 extra for a minimal improvement in >>>>>>>> convenience. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Not convenience, but security + convenience. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> The claim is that you can not start a car without the metal >>>>>>> key plus the electronics inside the key. That is extra >>>>>>> security. If actually true. >>>>>> >>>>>> Turns out the dealer was lying. Local locksmith would have >>>>>> charged $150 for the transponder key, but I chose two >>>>>> ordinary keys for the same price -- the guy did something to >>>>>> the car to enable it to accept non-transponder keys. I'm >>>>>> sure there's more to the key (worth $74 more, clearly!) than >>>>>> just metal, but the problem is solved now. >>>>> >>>>> Maybe he disabled the transponder in the car, which renders the >>>>> car less secure. >>>>> >>>>> It is like have a house door with two keys and removing one. >>>> >>>> There are always tradeoffs. I'm satisfied. >>>> >>>>>> I'm shocked that the dealer was such a shithead. I expected >>>>>> more of Toyota people. >>>> >>>> If the guy had told me this was an option it would be OK if they >>>> charged ridiculous amounts of money for their services, but he >>>> didn't. >>> >>> I'm sure the brand doesn't allow it. >> >> "Professionals" are supposed to give you options and let you choose. >> Shitheads just tell you about the most expensive option. > > Professionals working for a brand are not at liberty. They can not give > you a professional advice that goes against the brand rules. > > Example. > > The plastic piece of a car fan where a screw or bolt fixates the fan to > the car body broke. The official dealer would replace the entire fan. I > glued the thing with a fibre glass composite cement, which lasted years > till I scrapped the car. I commented my repair with the mechanic. Sure, > that will do, but we are not allowed to do it, simply because we can not > vouch the mandatory warranty period on it, nor that it will not cause > any damage. It is not a professional repair. That's clearly different. Dealers aren't allowed to kluge. But the key-thing is just an option that customers should be given -- "Do you want the cheap or expensive variant? We have both." -- Cheers, Bev VISE GRIPS (VYS'-gripz) [n] A tool used to transfer intense welding heat to the palm of the welder's hand. -- DS
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-19 13:50 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <s51jdh-63t.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #73775 |
On 18/01/2021 23.22, The Real Bev wrote: > On 01/18/2021 02:08 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 17/01/2021 07.08, The Real Bev wrote: >>> On 01/16/2021 05:31 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> On 16/01/2021 18.14, The Real Bev wrote: >>>>> On 01/15/2021 07:17 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>> On 16/01/2021 03.47, The Real Bev wrote: >>>>>>> On 01/15/2021 06:30 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'd still like to be able to use a plain old key. It's >>>>>>>>> ridiculous to pay $149 extra for a minimal improvement in >>>>>>>>> convenience. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Not convenience, but security + convenience. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> The claim is that you can not start a car without the metal >>>>>>>> key plus the electronics inside the key. That is extra >>>>>>>> security. If actually true. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Turns out the dealer was lying. Local locksmith would have >>>>>>> charged $150 for the transponder key, but I chose two >>>>>>> ordinary keys for the same price -- the guy did something to >>>>>>> the car to enable it to accept non-transponder keys. I'm >>>>>>> sure there's more to the key (worth $74 more, clearly!) than >>>>>>> just metal, but the problem is solved now. >>>>>> >>>>>> Maybe he disabled the transponder in the car, which renders the >>>>>> car less secure. >>>>>> >>>>>> It is like have a house door with two keys and removing one. >>>>> >>>>> There are always tradeoffs. I'm satisfied. >>>>> >>>>>>> I'm shocked that the dealer was such a shithead. I expected >>>>>>> more of Toyota people. >>>>> >>>>> If the guy had told me this was an option it would be OK if they >>>>> charged ridiculous amounts of money for their services, but he >>>>> didn't. >>>> >>>> I'm sure the brand doesn't allow it. >>> >>> "Professionals" are supposed to give you options and let you choose. >>> Shitheads just tell you about the most expensive option. >> >> Professionals working for a brand are not at liberty. They can not give >> you a professional advice that goes against the brand rules. >> >> Example. >> >> The plastic piece of a car fan where a screw or bolt fixates the fan to >> the car body broke. The official dealer would replace the entire fan. I >> glued the thing with a fibre glass composite cement, which lasted years >> till I scrapped the car. I commented my repair with the mechanic. Sure, >> that will do, but we are not allowed to do it, simply because we can not >> vouch the mandatory warranty period on it, nor that it will not cause >> any damage. It is not a professional repair. > > That's clearly different. Dealers aren't allowed to kluge. But the > key-thing is just an option that customers should be given -- "Do you > want the cheap or expensive variant? We have both." But they don't have both. A proper repair has to repair both the metal and the electronics in the key, period. Doing otherwise is not professional. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-19 10:56 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ru7a0k$97r$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73803 |
On 01/19/2021 04:50 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: > On 18/01/2021 23.22, The Real Bev wrote: >> On 01/18/2021 02:08 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 17/01/2021 07.08, The Real Bev wrote: >>>> On 01/16/2021 05:31 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>> On 16/01/2021 18.14, The Real Bev wrote: >>>>>> On 01/15/2021 07:17 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>>> On 16/01/2021 03.47, The Real Bev wrote: >>>>>>>> On 01/15/2021 06:30 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> I'd still like to be able to use a plain old key. >>>>>>>>>> It's ridiculous to pay $149 extra for a minimal >>>>>>>>>> improvement in convenience. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Not convenience, but security + convenience. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> The claim is that you can not start a car without the >>>>>>>>> metal key plus the electronics inside the key. That >>>>>>>>> is extra security. If actually true. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Turns out the dealer was lying. Local locksmith would >>>>>>>> have charged $150 for the transponder key, but I chose >>>>>>>> two ordinary keys for the same price -- the guy did >>>>>>>> something to the car to enable it to accept >>>>>>>> non-transponder keys. I'm sure there's more to the key >>>>>>>> (worth $74 more, clearly!) than just metal, but the >>>>>>>> problem is solved now. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> Maybe he disabled the transponder in the car, which >>>>>>> renders the car less secure. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> It is like have a house door with two keys and removing >>>>>>> one. >>>>>> >>>>>> There are always tradeoffs. I'm satisfied. >>>>>> >>>>>>>> I'm shocked that the dealer was such a shithead. I >>>>>>>> expected more of Toyota people. >>>>>> >>>>>> If the guy had told me this was an option it would be OK if >>>>>> they charged ridiculous amounts of money for their >>>>>> services, but he didn't. >>>>> >>>>> I'm sure the brand doesn't allow it. >>>> >>>> "Professionals" are supposed to give you options and let you >>>> choose. Shitheads just tell you about the most expensive >>>> option. >>> >>> Professionals working for a brand are not at liberty. They can >>> not give you a professional advice that goes against the brand >>> rules. >>> >>> Example. >>> >>> The plastic piece of a car fan where a screw or bolt fixates the >>> fan to the car body broke. The official dealer would replace the >>> entire fan. I glued the thing with a fibre glass composite >>> cement, which lasted years till I scrapped the car. I commented >>> my repair with the mechanic. Sure, that will do, but we are not >>> allowed to do it, simply because we can not vouch the mandatory >>> warranty period on it, nor that it will not cause any damage. It >>> is not a professional repair. >> >> That's clearly different. Dealers aren't allowed to kluge. But >> the key-thing is just an option that customers should be given -- >> "Do you want the cheap or expensive variant? We have both." > > But they don't have both. A proper repair has to repair both the > metal and the electronics in the key, period. Doing otherwise is not > professional. A "proper repair" can be a lot of things. You can get a "proper" paint job for $hundreds or $thousands depending on what you want. You can have a "proper" toilet for under $100 or $thousands (it has its own IP address). If I want a SIMPLE key rather than a complex remote-control device why (aside from profit, of course) should the dealer not provide this service? My BIL bought an older used car with a high-end alarm system. The problem was that it came on automatically and whenever he turned it off it honked the horn and flashed the headlights. The residents of the apartment houses for which he acted as handyman were NOT happy. Fortunately a repairman figured out how to disable the system. BIL figured his 2002 Corolla was unlikely to be stolen. -- Cheers, Bev Life's journey is not to arrive at the grave safely and in a well preserved body, but to skid in sideways, totally worn out, and shouting HOLY SHIT, WHAT A RIDE!!!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | AJL <noemail@none.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-19 12:34 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <ru7c7b$kka$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73809 |
On 1/19/2021 11:56 AM, The Real Bev wrote: > My BIL bought an older used car with a high-end alarm system. The > problem was that it came on automatically and whenever he turned it > off it honked the horn and flashed the headlights. The residents of > the apartment houses for which he acted as handyman were NOT happy. > Fortunately a repairman figured out how to disable the system. BIL > figured his 2002 Corolla was unlikely to be stolen. I've always put fake alarm stickers on both my car and house. So far either they've worked or I've been lucky. Either way I'm happy.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-19 22:35 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <kuvjdh-tcj.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #73809 |
On 19/01/2021 19.56, The Real Bev wrote: > On 01/19/2021 04:50 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 18/01/2021 23.22, The Real Bev wrote: >>> On 01/18/2021 02:08 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> On 17/01/2021 07.08, The Real Bev wrote: >>>>> On 01/16/2021 05:31 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>> On 16/01/2021 18.14, The Real Bev wrote: >>>>>>> On 01/15/2021 07:17 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>>>> On 16/01/2021 03.47, The Real Bev wrote: >>>>>>>>> On 01/15/2021 06:30 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>>> I'd still like to be able to use a plain old key. >>>>>>>>>>> It's ridiculous to pay $149 extra for a minimal >>>>>>>>>>> improvement in convenience. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> Not convenience, but security + convenience. >>>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>>> The claim is that you can not start a car without the >>>>>>>>>> metal key plus the electronics inside the key. That >>>>>>>>>> is extra security. If actually true. >>>>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> Turns out the dealer was lying. Local locksmith would >>>>>>>>> have charged $150 for the transponder key, but I chose >>>>>>>>> two ordinary keys for the same price -- the guy did >>>>>>>>> something to the car to enable it to accept >>>>>>>>> non-transponder keys. I'm sure there's more to the key >>>>>>>>> (worth $74 more, clearly!) than just metal, but the >>>>>>>>> problem is solved now. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> Maybe he disabled the transponder in the car, which >>>>>>>> renders the car less secure. >>>>>>>> >>>>>>>> It is like have a house door with two keys and removing >>>>>>>> one. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> There are always tradeoffs. I'm satisfied. >>>>>>> >>>>>>>>> I'm shocked that the dealer was such a shithead. I >>>>>>>>> expected more of Toyota people. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> If the guy had told me this was an option it would be OK if >>>>>>> they charged ridiculous amounts of money for their >>>>>>> services, but he didn't. >>>>>> >>>>>> I'm sure the brand doesn't allow it. >>>>> >>>>> "Professionals" are supposed to give you options and let you >>>>> choose. Shitheads just tell you about the most expensive >>>>> option. >>>> >>>> Professionals working for a brand are not at liberty. They can >>>> not give you a professional advice that goes against the brand >>>> rules. >>>> >>>> Example. >>>> >>>> The plastic piece of a car fan where a screw or bolt fixates the >>>> fan to the car body broke. The official dealer would replace the >>>> entire fan. I glued the thing with a fibre glass composite >>>> cement, which lasted years till I scrapped the car. I commented >>>> my repair with the mechanic. Sure, that will do, but we are not >>>> allowed to do it, simply because we can not vouch the mandatory >>>> warranty period on it, nor that it will not cause any damage. It >>>> is not a professional repair. >>> >>> That's clearly different. Dealers aren't allowed to kluge. But >>> the key-thing is just an option that customers should be given -- >>> "Do you want the cheap or expensive variant? We have both." >> >> But they don't have both. A proper repair has to repair both the >> metal and the electronics in the key, period. Doing otherwise is not >> professional. > > A "proper repair" can be a lot of things. You can get a "proper" paint > job for $hundreds or $thousands depending on what you want. You can > have a "proper" toilet for under $100 or $thousands (it has its own IP > address). If I want a SIMPLE key rather than a complex remote-control > device why (aside from profit, of course) should the dealer not provide > this service? NO! > My BIL bought an older used car with a high-end alarm system. The > problem was that it came on automatically and whenever he turned it off > it honked the horn and flashed the headlights. The residents of the > apartment houses for which he acted as handyman were NOT happy. > Fortunately a repairman figured out how to disable the system. BIL > figured his 2002 Corolla was unlikely to be stolen. > -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-19 15:55 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ru7rh9$vj0$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73811 |
On 01/19/2021 01:35 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 19/01/2021 19.56, The Real Bev wrote:
>>
>> A "proper repair" can be a lot of things. You can get a "proper" paint
>> job for $hundreds or $thousands depending on what you want. You can
>> have a "proper" toilet for under $100 or $thousands (it has its own IP
>> address). If I want a SIMPLE key rather than a complex remote-control
>> device why (aside from profit, of course) should the dealer not provide
>> this service?
>
> NO!
I think our disagreement is grounded in our differing levels of
risk-aversion. I'm a skier and dirtrider (well, I used to be and I
guess I still could if I had to) and generally drive in the fast lane.
You aren't/don't.
--
Cheers, Bev
While you can't fool all the people all the time, you can fool
enough of them most of the time to make the rest impotent.
-- Anonymous Democrat
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-20 01:42 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <prakdh-dpr.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #73812 |
On 20/01/2021 00.55, The Real Bev wrote: > On 01/19/2021 01:35 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 19/01/2021 19.56, The Real Bev wrote: >>> >>> A "proper repair" can be a lot of things. You can get a "proper" paint >>> job for $hundreds or $thousands depending on what you want. You can >>> have a "proper" toilet for under $100 or $thousands (it has its own IP >>> address). If I want a SIMPLE key rather than a complex remote-control >>> device why (aside from profit, of course) should the dealer not provide >>> this service? >> >> NO! > > I think our disagreement is grounded in our differing levels of > risk-aversion. I'm a skier and dirtrider (well, I used to be and I > guess I still could if I had to) and generally drive in the fast lane. > You aren't/don't. No, it is not that. A professional of a brand can not do such a "repair" because it is not professional and goes against the house rules, period. Someone that is working on his own, can. Maybe. -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-19 19:54 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ru89h0$ouf$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73815 |
On 01/19/2021 04:42 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 20/01/2021 00.55, The Real Bev wrote:
>> On 01/19/2021 01:35 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
>>> On 19/01/2021 19.56, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>>
>>>> A "proper repair" can be a lot of things. You can get a "proper" paint
>>>> job for $hundreds or $thousands depending on what you want. You can
>>>> have a "proper" toilet for under $100 or $thousands (it has its own IP
>>>> address). If I want a SIMPLE key rather than a complex remote-control
>>>> device why (aside from profit, of course) should the dealer not provide
>>>> this service?
>>>
>>> NO!
>>
>> I think our disagreement is grounded in our differing levels of
>> risk-aversion. I'm a skier and dirtrider (well, I used to be and I
>> guess I still could if I had to) and generally drive in the fast lane.
>> You aren't/don't.
>
> No, it is not that.
>
> A professional of a brand can not do such a "repair" because it is not
> professional and goes against the house rules, period.
>
> Someone that is working on his own, can. Maybe.
Perhaps, but not the way it SHOULD be! Suppose you went to a restaurant
that refused to serve you unbuttered toast?
--
Cheers, Bev
If voting could really change things, it would be illegal.
--Revolution Books, New York, New York
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Bob F <bobnospam@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-19 21:02 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ru8dh0$c3f$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73816 |
On 1/19/2021 7:54 PM, The Real Bev wrote: > On 01/19/2021 04:42 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 20/01/2021 00.55, The Real Bev wrote: >>> On 01/19/2021 01:35 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> On 19/01/2021 19.56, The Real Bev wrote: >>>>> >>>>> A "proper repair" can be a lot of things. You can get a "proper" >>>>> paint >>>>> job for $hundreds or $thousands depending on what you want. You can >>>>> have a "proper" toilet for under $100 or $thousands (it has its own IP >>>>> address). If I want a SIMPLE key rather than a complex remote-control >>>>> device why (aside from profit, of course) should the dealer not >>>>> provide >>>>> this service? >>>> >>>> NO! >>> >>> I think our disagreement is grounded in our differing levels of >>> risk-aversion. I'm a skier and dirtrider (well, I used to be and I >>> guess I still could if I had to) and generally drive in the fast lane. >>> You aren't/don't. >> >> No, it is not that. >> >> A professional of a brand can not do such a "repair" because it is not >> professional and goes against the house rules, period. >> >> Someone that is working on his own, can. Maybe. > > Perhaps, but not the way it SHOULD be! Suppose you went to a restaurant > that refused to serve you unbuttered toast? > Proving again that doing your own maintenance is the way to go.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-20 08:38 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <i6r14jFfv11U1@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #73819 |
On 1/19/2021 10:02 PM, Bob F wrote: > On 1/19/2021 7:54 PM, The Real Bev wrote: >> On 01/19/2021 04:42 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>> On 20/01/2021 00.55, The Real Bev wrote: >>>> On 01/19/2021 01:35 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>> On 19/01/2021 19.56, The Real Bev wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> A "proper repair" can be a lot of things. You can get a "proper" >>>>>> paint >>>>>> job for $hundreds or $thousands depending on what you want. You can >>>>>> have a "proper" toilet for under $100 or $thousands (it has its own IP >>>>>> address). If I want a SIMPLE key rather than a complex remote-control >>>>>> device why (aside from profit, of course) should the dealer not >>>>>> provide >>>>>> this service? >>>>> >>>>> NO! >>>> >>>> I think our disagreement is grounded in our differing levels of >>>> risk-aversion. I'm a skier and dirtrider (well, I used to be and I >>>> guess I still could if I had to) and generally drive in the fast lane. >>>> You aren't/don't. >>> >>> No, it is not that. >>> >>> A professional of a brand can not do such a "repair" because it is not >>> professional and goes against the house rules, period. >>> >>> Someone that is working on his own, can. Maybe. >> >> Perhaps, but not the way it SHOULD be! Suppose you went to a restaurant >> that refused to serve you unbuttered toast? >> > > Proving again that doing your own maintenance is the way to go. Many years ago in Paris, I ordered a sandwich avec jambon e fromage. I got a prompt answer "NO! Jambon OU fromage." So I changed my order to "deux sandwich. Une avec jambon e une avec fromage, combined the two when they arrived, and threw away the extra bread. -- Ken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-20 10:01 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <ru9r4v$n2b$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73830 |
On 01/20/2021 07:38 AM, Ken Blake wrote:
> On 1/19/2021 10:02 PM, Bob F wrote:
>> On 1/19/2021 7:54 PM, The Real Bev wrote:
>>>
>>> Perhaps, but not the way it SHOULD be! Suppose you went to a restaurant
>>> that refused to serve you unbuttered toast?
>>
>> Proving again that doing your own maintenance is the way to go.
Yes. BTDT and REALLY don't want to do it again. I considered doing the
brakes myself and then decided to let the shop I like do it. Then son
volunteered to do it...
> Many years ago in Paris, I ordered a sandwich avec jambon e fromage. I
> got a prompt answer "NO! Jambon OU fromage."
>
> So I changed my order to "deux sandwich. Une avec jambon e une avec
> fromage, combined the two when they arrived, and threw away the extra bread.
...having paid double for less. Way to go, guy!
When we were there we were too busy touring to stop and eat. I bought
bread, cheese and pate at the markets and we ate in our room and fell
asleep. The children woke up early and ate all the croissants left out
in the hallway.
--
Cheers, Bev
"I can't stand this proliferation of paperwork. It's useless to
fight the forms. You've got to kill the people producing them."
-- Vladimir Kabaidze
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Ken Blake <ken@invalidemail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-20 12:37 -0700 |
| Message-ID | <i6rf2tFie1dU2@mid.individual.net> |
| In reply to | #73837 |
On 1/20/2021 11:01 AM, The Real Bev wrote: > On 01/20/2021 07:38 AM, Ken Blake wrote: >> On 1/19/2021 10:02 PM, Bob F wrote: >>> On 1/19/2021 7:54 PM, The Real Bev wrote: >>>> >>>> Perhaps, but not the way it SHOULD be! Suppose you went to a restaurant >>>> that refused to serve you unbuttered toast? >>> >>> Proving again that doing your own maintenance is the way to go. > > Yes. BTDT and REALLY don't want to do it again. I considered doing the > brakes myself and then decided to let the shop I like do it. Then son > volunteered to do it... > >> Many years ago in Paris, I ordered a sandwich avec jambon e fromage. I >> got a prompt answer "NO! Jambon OU fromage." >> >> So I changed my order to "deux sandwich. Une avec jambon e une avec >> fromage, combined the two when they arrived, and threw away the extra bread. > > ...having paid double for less. Way to go, guy! Yes, I paid extra, but I was happy to get what what I wanted. The only thing I threw away was the extra bread, and that certainly didn't contribute a lot to the cost. -- Ken
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-20 23:14 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <gimmdh-v7b.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #73830 |
On 20/01/2021 16.38, Ken Blake wrote: > On 1/19/2021 10:02 PM, Bob F wrote: >> On 1/19/2021 7:54 PM, The Real Bev wrote: >>> On 01/19/2021 04:42 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>> On 20/01/2021 00.55, The Real Bev wrote: >>>>> On 01/19/2021 01:35 PM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >>>>>> On 19/01/2021 19.56, The Real Bev wrote: >>>>>>> >>>>>>> A "proper repair" can be a lot of things. You can get a "proper" >>>>>>> paint >>>>>>> job for $hundreds or $thousands depending on what you want. You can >>>>>>> have a "proper" toilet for under $100 or $thousands (it has its >>>>>>> own IP >>>>>>> address). If I want a SIMPLE key rather than a complex >>>>>>> remote-control >>>>>>> device why (aside from profit, of course) should the dealer not >>>>>>> provide >>>>>>> this service? >>>>>> >>>>>> NO! >>>>> >>>>> I think our disagreement is grounded in our differing levels of >>>>> risk-aversion. I'm a skier and dirtrider (well, I used to be and I >>>>> guess I still could if I had to) and generally drive in the fast lane. >>>>> You aren't/don't. >>>> >>>> No, it is not that. >>>> >>>> A professional of a brand can not do such a "repair" because it is not >>>> professional and goes against the house rules, period. >>>> >>>> Someone that is working on his own, can. Maybe. >>> >>> Perhaps, but not the way it SHOULD be! Suppose you went to a >>> restaurant that refused to serve you unbuttered toast? >>> >> >> Proving again that doing your own maintenance is the way to go. > > Many years ago in Paris, I ordered a sandwich avec jambon e fromage. I > got a prompt answer "NO! Jambon OU fromage." Some religions prohibit that combination. > > So I changed my order to "deux sandwich. Une avec jambon e une avec > fromage, combined the two when they arrived, and threw away the extra > bread. > > -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | Eli the Bearded <*@eli.users.panix.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-20 23:34 +0000 |
| Message-ID | <eli$2101201834@qaz.wtf> |
| In reply to | #73860 |
In comp.mobile.android, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: > On 20/01/2021 16.38, Ken Blake wrote: >> Many years ago in Paris, I ordered a sandwich avec jambon e fromage. I >> got a prompt answer "NO! Jambon OU fromage." > Some religions prohibit that combination. Is there a religion that permits jambon but not jambon ou fromage? >> So I changed my order to "deux sandwich. Une avec jambon e une avec >> fromage, combined the two when they arrived, and threw away the extra >> bread. Ever see _Five Easy Pieces_? https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065724/quotes?item=qt0274366 Elijah ------ try watching _Five Easy Pieces_ and then _About Schmidt_
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-21 14:56 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <1pdodh-q62.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #73864 |
On 21/01/2021 00.34, Eli the Bearded wrote: > In comp.mobile.android, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >> On 20/01/2021 16.38, Ken Blake wrote: >>> Many years ago in Paris, I ordered a sandwich avec jambon e fromage. I >>> got a prompt answer "NO! Jambon OU fromage." >> Some religions prohibit that combination. > > Is there a religion that permits jambon but not jambon ou fromage? It may be jamón de pavo :-p > >>> So I changed my order to "deux sandwich. Une avec jambon e une avec >>> fromage, combined the two when they arrived, and threw away the extra >>> bread. > > Ever see _Five Easy Pieces_? Perhaps, but not by that name. > > https://www.imdb.com/title/tt0065724/quotes?item=qt0274366 > > Elijah > ------ > try watching _Five Easy Pieces_ and then _About Schmidt_ > -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | The Real Bev <bashley101@gmail.com> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-21 09:59 -0800 |
| Message-ID | <rucfeq$ni5$1@dont-email.me> |
| In reply to | #73925 |
On 01/21/2021 05:56 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote:
> On 21/01/2021 00.34, Eli the Bearded wrote:
>> In comp.mobile.android, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote:
>>> On 20/01/2021 16.38, Ken Blake wrote:
>>>> Many years ago in Paris, I ordered a sandwich avec jambon e fromage. I
>>>> got a prompt answer "NO! Jambon OU fromage."
>>> Some religions prohibit that combination.
>>
>> Is there a religion that permits jambon but not jambon ou fromage?
>
> It may be jamón de pavo :-p
:-) I asked a Jewish friend if it would be OK to use a microwave oven
that someone had just used to cook bacon. He said it would be OK, but
that the lingering odor would be a little disgusting. I assumed he was
telling the truth, but it's hard to see how he could have been exposed
to the WONDERFUL odor of frying bacon so frequently that he developed a
revulsion.
--
Cheers, Bev
Linux -- the ultimate freebie!
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
| From | "Carlos E.R." <robin_listas@es.invalid> |
|---|---|
| Date | 2021-01-21 22:09 +0100 |
| Message-ID | <p57pdh-5hk.ln1@Telcontar.valinor> |
| In reply to | #73938 |
On 21/01/2021 18.59, The Real Bev wrote: > On 01/21/2021 05:56 AM, Carlos E.R. wrote: >> On 21/01/2021 00.34, Eli the Bearded wrote: >>> In comp.mobile.android, Carlos E.R. <robin_listas@es.invalid> wrote: >>>> On 20/01/2021 16.38, Ken Blake wrote: >>>>> Many years ago in Paris, I ordered a sandwich avec jambon e fromage. I >>>>> got a prompt answer "NO! Jambon OU fromage." >>>> Some religions prohibit that combination. >>> >>> Is there a religion that permits jambon but not jambon ou fromage? >> >> It may be jamón de pavo :-p > > :-) I asked a Jewish friend if it would be OK to use a microwave oven > that someone had just used to cook bacon. He said it would be OK, but > that the lingering odor would be a little disgusting. I assumed he was > telling the truth, but it's hard to see how he could have been exposed > to the WONDERFUL odor of frying bacon so frequently that he developed a > revulsion. No, I don't think it happens that way. The revulsion is embedded since the earliest infancy. The first time they smell it and learn what it is, the revulsion is instant and permanent. They are not the only religion that prohibits pig: I know at least one christian folk that do. Of course, that place in Paris might simply want to charge twice :-p Ham and cheese sandwich is very common here; we have a lot of experience with tourism, thus I'm sure most places would happily make the sandwich to your liking - except those that belong to a brand and have to follow the brand regulations even if absurd. Many of those are USA brands, say Starbucks, Burguer King, MacDonalds, etc :-p I know a local brand here that specializes in sandwiches. But all are already made, they just pick them from the cold storage. No making on the spot. Probably they are brought in truck loads. Now, can we get back to Android? ;-) -- Cheers, Carlos.
[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]
Page 2 of 6 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4 5 6 Next page →
Back to top | Article view | comp.mobile.android
csiph-web