If you can't beat 'em with a better product, litigate 'em.

You have no appreciation for what will happen when this becomes a political issue.

So what you are saying is that you do not believe science and, since you have not personally witnessed the origins of life in a laboratory, it is preferable to believe a deity came along, made the earth out of nothing, made a clay figurine of a man, and breathed life into all of creation, except he forgot females which he later scraped together from a rib. Yeah, that is a more plausible situation and sounds much more reasonable that the science approach.

We have never created black holes in the lab. What are those? Did our creating deity rip such a stinky fart that it is engulfing everything around it?

Because "God did it" has no basis in science. We have a place to teach that -- church. You can pick whatever deity you like best and attend their school. Some might ask for 10% of your income as tuition. Others might insist you kill yourself in the name of their deity but will give you 72 virgins for your trouble.

If we are going to teach creationism in schools, we might as well throw out history books and teach Disney princess stories instead of history -- fairy tales all the way around.

It is not about how science fits in to your religion's book of stories. Science is observable whereas religion is believed only because the believer wants to, or, more likely, is afraid of the punishment their religion promises for deviating from the church. It is amazing how people dismiss science to believe their religious teachings, quite often centered around an all-loving, all-forgiving deity that will send them to eternal suffering for failing to believe properly.

The most sensible statement I have ever seen by someone self-identifying as a creationist. Congratulations, but saying such sensible things might get you thrown out of the creationist club!

Think you weren't? I've been dialing your contacts all morning while dressed appropriately for chatroulette. Your grandma did not look happy, but your wife stayed connected for 45 minutes...

"all the girls" = AC's nickname for his left hand

He said Bluetooth sucks. I don't think he is here to give you a sales pitch for it.

I have yet to find a Bluetooth gadget that was worth the extra battery drain. YMMV.

But on a day I don't have any mod points for car analogies. :-(

Whoosh!

1) Italian scientists stop making predictions. 2) World opinion finds Italian courts guilty of gross ignorance and incompetence.

You are free to think what you wish. However, for my car, from years 6-10, it cost approximately $300/yr to maintain. Years 1-3 are not included because I did not own the car, and years 4-5 are not included since they had warranty coverage.

Yes, I do quite a bit of work myself. I rather enjoy it, and because I have some basic grasp of what I am doing it does not take very long. I do not spend time to scavenge junkyards -- there is this neat thing called the internet, and you can find damn near anything and even comparison shop for better pricing. I value my time significantly higher than $0 -- in fact, my ROI is very high.

Back to your dispute of my $300/yr number, I'll spot you 400%. Even if I was spending $1200/year on maintenance, it would be far better than buying a new car.

One other point -- I never stated buying a cheap car for $2000. Buy a good car that is 2-3 years old. It isn't hard to find good deals on "certified" used cars that often come with the remaining factory warranty or have an extended warranty option that comes fairly inexpensively. Pay off the used car as quickly as possible and drive it for many years without a payment.

So are you suggesting that a new car payment is cheaper than routine maintenance, which all cars need by the way, or even non-routine maintenance? Brakes, tires, and batteries are all normal wear items, and replacing all of them at once is only a couple of new car payments. Rims are not wear items, so you can't blame the age of your car for hitting a curb. Even the newest car is going to require oil changes.

If you neglect making small repairs all cars will turn into a piece of shit. The air leak should have nothing to do with your car's age. Outside of the oil leak, you should be able to take care of any of these rather quickly yourself for minimal cost. Possibly the oil leak too.

Unless your old car is costing you a new car payment worth of repairs each and every month, any argument based on cost fails simple math. If you want a new car, be honest and say you want to buy a new car -- it is OK, you can spend your money how you want. Just don't expect anyone to buy bullshit excuses to otherwise justify your desire for a new car.

On a separate note, if maintaining a 10 year old car is too much for you, do not ever, under any circumstances, buy a house.

How about not calling it a motorcycle?

The Nano and motorcycles are small. That is where the similarities end.

Most freeway worthy bikes have more than double the horsepower of the Nano. In some circumstances a bike can safely accelerate out of danger where this car cannot. A motorcycle has agility where this car does not. A motorcycle has very short stopping distances where this car does not.

I would rather drive a motorcycle than a Nano. The Nano gives up many things of a larger car but gains nothing beneficial from being a motorcycle.

My car is 10 years old. It runs well but costs ~$300 a year to keep running, which is far cheaper than the annual cost of buying or leasing a new car. Not to mention cheaper insurance compared to a new vehicle. It gets ~24 MPG which isn't stellar but keeps me far below the tradeoff point where a car payment for something more efficient is cheaper than fuel costs.

Waiving your arms and claiming new is better is no substitute for a reasonable total cost of ownership analysis.

Now the Dept. of Homeland Security will think it is a contest. More rights violations in 3, 2, ...