Google| Subject | Re: As with our trolls, the problem wasn't the Mac Pro itself... It's the problem with the morons wh |
| From | -hh |
| Date | 02/19/2014 02:02 (02/18/2014 17:02) |
| Message-ID | <7a22fedb-53cf-46b4-8e1c-3e1e2f7aa9cb@googlegroups.com> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | comp.sys.mac.advocacy |
| Follows | ed |
| Followups | ed (28m) |
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 7:50:12 PM UTC-5, ed wrote:
edYMMV. Perhaps when one of the examples cited has been parked in your driveway within the past five years, does that adequately meet a criteria of 'recent'?
On Tuesday, February 18, 2014 4:27:56 PM UTC-8, -hh wrote:-hhed
Here's one citation example: <http://www.mensjournal.com/expert-advice/six-classic-cars-that-will-grow-in-value-20131030>
you have a very liberal definition of "recent vintage" if you're using that article as an example!
In any case, my personal YMMV is that when I see production years recent enough such that even I've personally spent time behind the wheel, I'm willing to consider these to be sufficiently 'recent', as opposed to vehicles from before I was born.
...Oh, and this would be the part which you snipped which said:
"IIRC, a recent issue of AutoWeek stated that the '80s vehicles are starting to bump up..."
So if the 1980s isn't 'recent' enough for you ed, then what pray tell is? Be specific.
-hh
02/07/2014-
-
-
-
