Prev: Screenwash may save your life
Next: Is there some way of findng the best route from a to e together with the distance?
From: GT on 15 Jun 2010 10:48
"Adrian" <toomany2cvs(a)gmail.com> wrote in message
> "GT" <a(a)b.c> gurgled happily, sounding much like they were saying:
>>>> Well then you are wrong then as we have documentation for every
>>>> service carried out on the vehicle so the service history is a full
>>>> one, not a partial service history, but a full complete record. There
>>>> would have to be something missing for the history not to be full.
>>> There is. The services the car didn't get.
>> We are going round in circles and we both intelligent enough to realise
>> it, but stubborn enough to keep running. I think the word 'full' refers
>> to the fact that the documentation is a full history. You think the word
>> full implies that the documentation should show that the car has been
>> serviced according to guidelines. My interpretation follows the standard
>> definition of a 'full history' of something, your intepretation follows
>> the "salesman's interpretation" that the servicing for the vehicle is
>> fully complient with guidelines. We are both right and we are both
>> That a fair summary?
> I would have said that, in the specific context of a record of the
> maintenance a used car has had, my interpretation followed the standard
> definition in use by damn near everybody for decades.
'everybody' being the people who sell cars, which is actually what I said
>> Oh, and my advert would read...
>> "2002 Alfa Romeo 2.0JTS. One careful owner. FSH.
> Which doesn't distinguish your car which has had every recommended
> service from one that might only have seen the inside of a workshop once
> from new.
It is a short advert lacking lots of information. You are right to point out
that while the advert says FSH it indeed does *not* state whether the car
has been serviced regularly servicing in compliance with Alfa's guidelines.
You didn't mention that the advert also does *not* state whether the car has
new tyres, a replacement radio, new bushes in the front suspension, or a new
battery either - all of this service-related information can be gleened when
the buyer reads the full service history!
> You might also like to say what model of Alfa it is...
If you are going to be that pedantic about it, then you should know that the
2.0JTS engine was only used in one Alfa model in 2002 so there was no need
to state the model in this advert as it states the year. More important
ommisions for some people would be the mileage and colour, but you missed
that - don't forget its not really for sale!!
From: boltar2003 on 15 Jun 2010 11:02
On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:26:31 +0100
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>> And I can only think you're getting so annoyed about this is the fact that
>> you must have had a job with "fitter" somewhere in the title. Probably
>> with Kwikfit at the front.
>You really do have a vivid imagination. It's just a shame that with each
>post you move further away from what was said and into a world of fantasy
>fuelled by your own lack of understanding.
So no answers, just more ad hominem. Never saw that coming, oh no, not from
From: Brimstone on 15 Jun 2010 11:57
<boltar2003(a)boltar.world> wrote in message
> On Tue, 15 Jun 2010 15:26:31 +0100
> "Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote:
>>> And I can only think you're getting so annoyed about this is the fact
>>> you must have had a job with "fitter" somewhere in the title. Probably
>>> with Kwikfit at the front.
>>You really do have a vivid imagination. It's just a shame that with each
>>post you move further away from what was said and into a world of fantasy
>>fuelled by your own lack of understanding.
> So no answers, just more ad hominem. Never saw that coming, oh no, not
What is "And I can only think you're getting so annoyed about this is the
fact that you must have had a job with "fitter" somewhere in the title.
Probably with Kwikfit at the front." if not an ad hominem?
If you want an answer try asking a question rather than trying to make out
that you know everything and everyone else is wrong.
From: Mortimer on 15 Jun 2010 12:24
"GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
> Just because the car hasn't been serviced according to some time or
> mileage guidelines doesn't make it not a *full* set of records, AKA a Full
> Service History.
No, we're not talking about a full (complete) set of records, though that is
a Good Thing. We're talking about whether the car has been "fully" serviced,
ie at the manufacturer's recommended intervals of time/distance, and whether
there are records to prove that.
In an ideal world, there would be a centralised record of services that have
been carried out on a vehicle (as there is for MOT tests and the defects
found - if any), to which all servicing bodies would be required to submit
proof. But in the absence of that, and in the absence of a way of proving
that a competent private individual has carried out a service, we're left
From: Mortimer on 15 Jun 2010 12:31
"Brimstone" <brimstone(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
> "GT" <a(a)b.c> wrote in message
>> Another war of words! That link does indeed demonstrate that "mechanical
>> fitters" in some areas do make parts for machinery, but AIUI we're
>> talking about garage 'fitters', not mechanical fitters.
> Garage fitters don't exist anymore. Cars aren't designed for parts to be
> repaired, only for parts to be changed.
I've never heard the word "fitter" to mean a person who *makes* parts, only
to mean a person who fits them ("fitter - one who fits") - a "garage fitter"
in the sense that GT meant it.
I can see where the confusion lies: "fitter" for a person who makes (eg
machines) parts is a misnomer.