On 18 Jan 2006 09:29:41 -0800, wrote:

Winchester Rifle plant closing. Another American icon departing. 200+
jobs gone.
http://www.nbc30.com/news/6185429/detail.html

It appears that Gunner is not buying enough.

The funny thing is that after the news report on Winchester, they
issued a "good" news story on how Walgreens drug store is opening up a
distribution center on CT and will be adding jobs to the local economy
in 2008. Skilled vs unskilled jobs?

gary

Gunner needs to see this ....
--
Cliff

Please, I live in CT.
"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On 18 Jan 2006 09:29:41 -0800, wrote:

Winchester Rifle plant closing. Another American icon departing. 200+
jobs gone.
http://www.nbc30.com/news/6185429/detail.html

It appears that Gunner is not buying enough.

The funny thing is that after the news report on Winchester, they
issued a "good" news story on how Walgreens drug store is opening up a
distribution center on CT and will be adding jobs to the local economy
in 2008. Skilled vs unskilled jobs?

gary

Gunner needs to see this ....
--
Cliff

"wayne mak" wrote in message
...
Please, I live in CT.
"Cliff" wrote in message
...
On 18 Jan 2006 09:29:41 -0800, wrote:

Winchester Rifle plant closing. Another American icon departing. 200+
jobs gone.
http://www.nbc30.com/news/6185429/detail.html

It appears that Gunner is not buying enough.

The funny thing is that after the news report on Winchester, they
issued a "good" news story on how Walgreens drug store is opening up a
distribution center on CT and will be adding jobs to the local economy
in 2008. Skilled vs unskilled jobs?

gary

Gunner needs to see this ....
--
Cliff



I'm just finished section 1 of "THE WORLD IS FLAT" by Freidman, (sppelling
errors are mine). Very interesting so far, can't wait to get to the part
that shows how we are going to recover from globalization.

"Mike DeBerry" wrote in message
m...

I'm just finished section 1 of "THE WORLD IS FLAT" by Freidman, (sppelling
errors are mine). Very interesting so far, can't wait to get to the part
that shows how we are going to recover from globalization.

Don't hold your breath. I read it over Christmas vacation. We can compare
notes when you're done.

--
Ed Huntress

What else did anyone expect? Fabrique Nationale would have been
stupid to keep on both Winchester and Browning as subsidiaries to
compete for the hunting-rifle/shotgun market in America in the
saturated gun market! So - like General Motors eventually deciding to
no longer have Olds compete with Buick - one had to go. You could have
seen this coming long ago.

No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com

I'm just finished section 1 of "THE WORLD IS
FLAT" by Freidman, (sppelling
errors are mine). Very interesting so far, can't
wait to get to the part
that shows how we are going to recover from
globalization.


There is a certain poetic justice,in that, the
great advocator of globalisation, is starting to
find that it isn't all in their favour.

On 18 Jan 2006 18:47:43 -0800, "
wrote:

What else did anyone expect? Fabrique Nationale would have been
stupid to keep on both Winchester and Browning as subsidiaries to
compete for the hunting-rifle/shotgun market in America in the
saturated gun market! So - like General Motors eventually deciding to
no longer have Olds compete with Buick - one had to go. You could have
seen this coming long ago.

Other than the loss of the iconic brand name, what is there
to lament? It's not as if we are going to be short of
quality firearms to buy. Even in the classic .30-30 lever
action rifle category, the Winchester is inferior to the
Marlin. Besides, I'd be surprised if no one buys the rights
to the name -- perhaps Uberti/Beretta.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

Last weekend a guy was in my shop and we were talking about firearms for
investment purposes. After we discussed full-auto stuff he asked me what
guns might be good ones to collect. I told him Model 70 Winchesters have
been good investments in the past and may be good choises now. Oddball
calibers bring premium prices. I must be phycic.

--
Tom Wait
Barton Rifle Shop
1805 Barton Ave Suite #9
West Bend, Wisconsin 53090
(262) 306-RIFL (7435)

"Robert Sturgeon" wrote in message
...
On 18 Jan 2006 18:47:43 -0800, "
wrote:

What else did anyone expect? Fabrique Nationale would have been
stupid to keep on both Winchester and Browning as subsidiaries to
compete for the hunting-rifle/shotgun market in America in the
saturated gun market! So - like General Motors eventually deciding to
no longer have Olds compete with Buick - one had to go. You could have
seen this coming long ago.

Other than the loss of the iconic brand name, what is there
to lament? It's not as if we are going to be short of
quality firearms to buy. Even in the classic .30-30 lever
action rifle category, the Winchester is inferior to the
Marlin. Besides, I'd be surprised if no one buys the rights
to the name -- perhaps Uberti/Beretta.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

Tom wrote:
I told him Model 70 Winchesters have
been good investments in the past and
may be good choises now.

Only if pre-1964. The rest are like telephones; does the fact that
the old wooden wall ones with a crank are collectors' items today even
hint that the phone on your desk now ever will be a collectible?

No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com

wrote:
What else did anyone expect? Fabrique Nationale would have been
stupid to keep on both Winchester and Browning as subsidiaries to
compete for the hunting-rifle/shotgun market in America in the
saturated gun market! So - like General Motors eventually deciding to
no longer have Olds compete with Buick - one had to go. You could have
seen this coming long ago.


In my opinion, as far as guns in the United States, they made a mistake
and kept the afterbirth and threw out the baby.

dennis
in nca

Robert Sturgeon offers his opinion:

Other than the loss of the iconic brand name, what is there
to lament? It's not as if we are going to be short of
quality firearms to buy. Even in the classic .30-30 lever
action rifle category, the Winchester is inferior to the
Marlin. Besides, I'd be surprised if no one buys the rights
to the name -- perhaps Uberti/Beretta.

Your opinion, your money, your choice. Others may not and do not
agree.

Thanks to FN our future generations won't have the choices we had.

Don't you think that's important? I do.

Still think it's that great an idea? I think it stinks.

dennis
in nca

In article .com,
says...

Only if pre-1964. The rest are like telephones; does the fact that
the old wooden wall ones with a crank are collectors' items today even
hint that the phone on your desk now ever will be a collectible?

Depends on the phone on your desk. It might already *be* one...

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

rigger wrote:
Robert Sturgeon offers his opinion:

Other than the loss of the iconic brand name, what is there
to lament? It's not as if we are going to be short of
quality firearms to buy. Even in the classic .30-30 lever
action rifle category, the Winchester is inferior to the
Marlin. Besides, I'd be surprised if no one buys the rights
to the name -- perhaps Uberti/Beretta.

Your opinion, your money, your choice. Others may not and do not
agree.

Thanks to FN our future generations won't have the choices we had.



We can buy more **** than ever before. Our problem isn't lack of
choice. If anything, we have too many choices and are able to consume
too much - certainly much more than we really "need".

Our country consumes 20% of the world's resources. Look at how much
garbage each and every one of us generates every week.


Winchester out of business? Good riddance. Gun consumers were clearly
opting for better products from more modern producers.



thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Well I for one won't miss Winchester......The last great or good
firearm was the pre 64 models, and a few others for awhile thereafter,
but most of the junk has a piityfull finish and lots of stamped parts
being sold at the prices of a handcrafted weapon. I do have 2 pre 64
rifles, a few old 30/30's and 32 win specials, that were made way
back, and of course my 5 model 12 shotguns....as well as a brand new
in the box barreled action never taken out of the box or fit to a
stock in 3006 caliber. I am eventually going to change it over to the
35 cal Wylen (SP?) cartidge. Winchesters model 1200 and their
reintroduced model 12 was just junk with a high price tag.......I
would rather shoot a mossberg or MAverick shotgun.
--
\\\|///
( @ @ )
-----------oOOo(_)oOOo---------------


oooO
---------( )----Oooo----------------
\ ( ( )
\_) ) /
(_/
The original frugal ponder! Koi-ahoi mates....

kurgan wrote:
rigger wrote:
Robert Sturgeon offers his opinion:

Other than the loss of the iconic brand name, what is there
to lament? It's not as if we are going to be short of
quality firearms to buy. Even in the classic .30-30 lever
action rifle category, the Winchester is inferior to the
Marlin. Besides, I'd be surprised if no one buys the rights
to the name -- perhaps Uberti/Beretta.

Your opinion, your money, your choice. Others may not and do not
agree.

Thanks to FN our future generations won't have the choices we had.



We can buy more **** than ever before. Our problem isn't lack of
choice. If anything, we have too many choices and are able to consume
too much - certainly much more than we really "need".

Our country consumes 20% of the world's resources. Look at how much
garbage each and every one of us generates every week.


Winchester out of business? Good riddance. Gun consumers were clearly
opting for better products from more modern producers.

Again, your dime/your opinion.

On the other hand many Winchester owners will disagree.

Bet you're glad you didn't loose YOUR job or suffer some
other financial loss because of the closing.
What would you say if it had been YOUR favorite maker?

What does all this have to do with garbage? Are you trying to
say Winchester rifles are garbage? If so: How rude!

dennis
in nca

rigger wrote:
We can buy more **** than ever before. Our problem isn't lack of
choice. If anything, we have too many choices and are able to consume
too much - certainly much more than we really "need".

Our country consumes 20% of the world's resources. Look at how much
garbage each and every one of us generates every week.


Winchester out of business? Good riddance. Gun consumers were clearly
opting for better products from more modern producers.

Again, your dime/your opinion.

On the other hand many Winchester owners will disagree.

Bet you're glad you didn't loose YOUR job or suffer some
other financial loss because of the closing.
What would you say if it had been YOUR favorite maker?

What does all this have to do with garbage? Are you trying to
say Winchester rifles are garbage? If so: How rude!



I said/meant that whatever Winchester was producing didn't match the
value (price to performance) of the products produced by Winchester's
competitors.

I'm right. If they were competitive, they wouldn't be going out of
business.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

Robert Sturgeon wrote:
On 18 Jan 2006 18:47:43 -0800, "
wrote:

What else did anyone expect? Fabrique Nationale would have been
stupid to keep on both Winchester and Browning as subsidiaries to
compete for the hunting-rifle/shotgun market in America in the
saturated gun market! So - like General Motors eventually deciding to
no longer have Olds compete with Buick - one had to go. You could have
seen this coming long ago.

Other than the loss of the iconic brand name, what is there
to lament? It's not as if we are going to be short of
quality firearms to buy. Even in the classic .30-30 lever
action rifle category, the Winchester is inferior to the
Marlin. Besides, I'd be surprised if no one buys the rights
to the name -- perhaps Uberti/Beretta.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

Some Malaysian TV manufacturer will probably slap "Winchester" on their
products.

wrote:

Some Malaysian TV manufacturer will probably slap "Winchester" on their
products.



If the brandname "Winchester" isn't owned by anyone for consumer
electronics, it wouldn't be illegal. There are a slew of categories for
any copyrighted brand name and if two identical brands in different
categories don't overlap, there's nothing one can do about the other.

For instance, there's nothing Ford Motor Company can do about these
guys:

http://www.fordgroup.com/

because Ford makes cars and Ford Group does human resource consulting.


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On 19 Jan 2006 13:07:36 -0800, "kurgan" wrote:

We can buy more **** than ever before.

I may smell a problem.
--
Cliff

"kurgan" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:

Some Malaysian TV manufacturer will probably slap "Winchester" on their
products.



If the brandname "Winchester" isn't owned by anyone for consumer
electronics, it wouldn't be illegal. There are a slew of categories for
any copyrighted brand name and if two identical brands in different
categories don't overlap, there's nothing one can do about the other.

For instance, there's nothing Ford Motor Company can do about these
guys:

http://www.fordgroup.com/

because Ford makes cars and Ford Group does human resource consulting.

another is the ford talent agency


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

On 19 Jan 2006 15:25:31 -0800, "kurgan" wrote:

If the brandname "Winchester" isn't owned by anyone for consumer
electronics, it wouldn't be illegal.

The early sealed hard drives were Winchesters.
http://www.littletechshoppe.com/ns1625/cromemco0025.jpg
(BTW, I used to know someone at Cromemco G.)

"[1973] With 60 MBytes of storage, IBM introduces the model 3340 Winchester
sealed hard disk drive, the predecessor of all current hard disk drives."
http://www.wbglinks.net/pages/history/

Prior to the Winchester drives all drives were removable media
(http://www.advanced-av.com/disctop.gif) IIRC.
"The term Winchester comes from an early type of disk drive developed by IBM
that had 30MB of fixed storage and 30MB of removable storage; so its inventors
called it a Winchester in honor of its 30/30 rifle."
http://www.webopedia.com/TERM/W/Winc...isk_drive.html
--
Cliff

wrote:
Robert Sturgeon wrote:

On 18 Jan 2006 18:47:43 -0800, "
wrote:


What else did anyone expect? Fabrique Nationale would have been
stupid to keep on both Winchester and Browning as subsidiaries to
compete for the hunting-rifle/shotgun market in America in the
saturated gun market! So - like General Motors eventually deciding to
no longer have Olds compete with Buick - one had to go. You could have
seen this coming long ago.

Other than the loss of the iconic brand name, what is there
to lament? It's not as if we are going to be short of
quality firearms to buy. Even in the classic .30-30 lever
action rifle category, the Winchester is inferior to the
Marlin. Besides, I'd be surprised if no one buys the rights
to the name -- perhaps Uberti/Beretta.

Some Malaysian TV manufacturer will probably slap "Winchester" on their
products.


As long as they're selling electronics, it's no big deal. Until USRAC
decides they want to unload the trademark to the Winchester name for
firearms, which they may but probably won't, it'll be around. Someone
will buy it or, more likely, FN will renew its lease on the TM for
firearms and we'll see Winchester branded rifles being produced
alongside Browning products in the same factories.

If one or the other of the brands brings back the "high wall"
single-shots, I'll be a happy camper regardless of the name on the
receiver.

TK

--
Cogito ergo bibo

On 19 Jan 2006 10:22:10 -0800, "rigger"
wrote:

Robert Sturgeon offers his opinion:

Other than the loss of the iconic brand name, what is there
to lament? It's not as if we are going to be short of
quality firearms to buy. Even in the classic .30-30 lever
action rifle category, the Winchester is inferior to the
Marlin. Besides, I'd be surprised if no one buys the rights
to the name -- perhaps Uberti/Beretta.

Your opinion, your money, your choice. Others may not and do not
agree.

Thanks to FN our future generations won't have the choices we had.

Businesses have to sell product to STAY in business. That
factory obviously wasn't selling enough product, or making a
profit. Apparently the choice to buy a Winchester firearm
wasn't a popular choice. Or do you think you have the right
to buy a Winchester firearm even if the factory isn't making
a profit?

Don't you think that's important? I do.

No, I don't think it's important to be able to buy a
Winchester firearm -- not when I can buy a Browning, or a
Ruger, or a Remington, or a Savage, or a Marlin, or a...

Still think it's that great an idea? I think it stinks.

Then you and a group of fellow investors should buy that
factory, buy the Winchester name, and see how well you do
making Winchester firearms. The Belgians aren't happy with
their results, and there's no reason for them to continue if
they aren't making any money.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

On 19 Jan 2006 10:14:36 -0800, "rigger"
wrote:


wrote:
What else did anyone expect? Fabrique Nationale would have been
stupid to keep on both Winchester and Browning as subsidiaries to
compete for the hunting-rifle/shotgun market in America in the
saturated gun market! So - like General Motors eventually deciding to
no longer have Olds compete with Buick - one had to go. You could have
seen this coming long ago.


In my opinion, as far as guns in the United States, they made a mistake
and kept the afterbirth and threw out the baby.

Well, sometimes that happens in business. So? If I want an
accurate, reliable bolt action rifle, am I soon to be unable
to buy one? If I want a reliable, sturdy, compact lever
action rifle, am I soon to be unable to buy one? If I want
to buy a good pump action or semi-auto shotgun, am I soon to
be unable to buy one? No on all counts. I may not be able
to buy a WINCHESTER firearm, but otherwise the choices
available to me will still be quite enough.

I am also a little sad to see the possible end of the
Winchester line of firearms, but there are a LOT of brands
of firearms still for sale, and a LOT that have ceased
production. That's the way business goes. Perhaps we
should preserve old brands and prevent new brands, so we can
all be comfortable with the brands we buy. No Rugers, no
Thompson/Centers, no... No, I don't think so.

--
Robert Sturgeon
Summum ius summa inuria.
http://www.vistech.net/users/rsturge/

Robert Sturgeon wrote:


Thanks to FN our future generations won't have the choices we had.

Businesses have to sell product to STAY in business. That
factory obviously wasn't selling enough product, or making a
profit. Apparently the choice to buy a Winchester firearm
wasn't a popular choice. Or do you think you have the right
to buy a Winchester firearm even if the factory isn't making
a profit?



lol!

Well put.



thanks,

K. Gringioni.

If one or the other of the brands brings back the "high wall"
single-shots, I'll be a happy camper regardless of the name on the
receiver.

http://www.csharpsarms.com/bossgun.htm

Scroll down to the bottom....

-jc-

John Chase wrote:
If one or the other of the brands brings back the "high wall"
single-shots, I'll be a happy camper regardless of the name on the
receiver.


http://www.csharpsarms.com/bossgun.htm

Scroll down to the bottom....

-jc-




Bookmarked. Maybe next Christmas. Thank you!

TK

--
Cogito ergo bibo

SNIP
Bet you're glad you didn't loose YOUR job or suffer some
other financial loss because of the closing.
What would you say if it had been YOUR favorite maker?
SNIP
An even more important factor -- what do we do when "the ship
hits the sand" again [and it always does sooner or later] and we
need a large number of rifles in a hurry? The existing M-16s
were largely worn out even before Iraq. While we still have
boutique firearms manufacturers second to none, the need will be
for quantity and in a hurry. It is by no means certain that our
overseas suppliers will sell to us [as they may be the source of
the problem] and if they do, it will not be at a bargain rate. I
don't know where I would rank an adequate domestic source of
firearms and ammunition, among other areas such as
pharmacuticals, food, shelter, clothing, etc. but experence
shows that sooner-or-later it ranks pretty high.

Uncle George

Uncle George

Seems like an increasingly common US problem. Product or service
is "value analyzed" to reduce the cost while the price stays the
same, customer notices and sales volume drops, more value
analysis, more loss of market share. Guns, cars, planes,
clothes....

Uncle George


On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 17:26:59 -0800, Robert Sturgeon
wrote:

On 19 Jan 2006 10:22:10 -0800, "rigger"
wrote:

Robert Sturgeon offers his opinion:

Other than the loss of the iconic brand name, what is there
to lament? It's not as if we are going to be short of
quality firearms to buy. Even in the classic .30-30 lever
action rifle category, the Winchester is inferior to the
Marlin. Besides, I'd be surprised if no one buys the rights
to the name -- perhaps Uberti/Beretta.

Your opinion, your money, your choice. Others may not and do not
agree.

Thanks to FN our future generations won't have the choices we had.

Businesses have to sell product to STAY in business. That
factory obviously wasn't selling enough product, or making a
profit. Apparently the choice to buy a Winchester firearm
wasn't a popular choice. Or do you think you have the right
to buy a Winchester firearm even if the factory isn't making
a profit?

Don't you think that's important? I do.

No, I don't think it's important to be able to buy a
Winchester firearm -- not when I can buy a Browning, or a
Ruger, or a Remington, or a Savage, or a Marlin, or a...

Still think it's that great an idea? I think it stinks.

Then you and a group of fellow investors should buy that
factory, buy the Winchester name, and see how well you do
making Winchester firearms. The Belgians aren't happy with
their results, and there's no reason for them to continue if
they aren't making any money.

Robert wrote:
I am also a little sad to see the possible end of the
Winchester line of firearms, but there are a LOT of brands
of firearms still for sale, and a LOT that have ceased
production. That's the way business goes.

It sure long has been so for many other major consumer-product
industries in America! Try buying a new American Motors or Packard
anything now. But the fact that former big car brands have come and
gone hasn't changed the fact that seemingly every American over age 16
drives - and it will be similar with guns.

No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com

Roy said:

Roy
Jan 19, 1:40 pm show options

Newsgroups: rec.crafts.metalworking
From: (Roy) - Find messages by this author
Date: Thu, 19 Jan 2006 21:40:20 GMT
Local: Thurs, Jan 19 2006 1:40 pm
Subject: Winchester Rifle
Reply | Reply to Author | Forward | Print | Individual Message | Show
original | Report Abuse

Well I for one won't miss Winchester......The last great or good
firearm was the pre 64 models, and a few others for awhile thereafter,
but most of the junk has a piityfull finish and lots of stamped parts
being sold at the prices of a handcrafted weapon. I do have 2 pre 64
rifles, a few old 30/30's and 32 win specials, that were made way
back, and of course my 5 model 12 shotguns....as well as a brand new
in the box barreled action never taken out of the box or fit to a
stock in 3006 caliber. I am eventually going to change it over to the
35 cal Wylen (SP?) cartidge. Winchesters model 1200 and their
reintroduced model 12 was just junk with a high price tag.......I
would rather shoot a mossberg or MAverick shotgun.

I bought a 9422 in .22 Mag and have yet to find any lacks or defects. I
imagine YMMV

dennis
in nca.

Charles Spitzer wrote:
"kurgan" wrote in message
ups.com...

wrote:

Some Malaysian TV manufacturer will probably slap "Winchester" on their
products.



If the brandname "Winchester" isn't owned by anyone for consumer
electronics, it wouldn't be illegal. There are a slew of categories for
any copyrighted brand name and if two identical brands in different
categories don't overlap, there's nothing one can do about the other.

For instance, there's nothing Ford Motor Company can do about these
guys:

Another is the Ford museum.

dennis
in nca
http://www.fordgroup.com/

because Ford makes cars and Ford Group does human resource consulting.

another is the ford talent agency


thanks,

K. Gringioni.

"Tom Miller" wrote in message
...

I'm just finished section 1 of "THE WORLD IS
FLAT" by Freidman, (sppelling
errors are mine). Very interesting so far, can't
wait to get to the part
that shows how we are going to recover from
globalization.


There is a certain poetic justice,in that, the
great advocator of globalisation, is starting to
find that it isn't all in their favour.


Isn't in who's favor? What you have to understand is that globalization is a
strong plus to many American corporations, especially the big ones that do
lots of overseas business. For them there isn't any down side to
globalization. For them, being able to go anywhere in the world to buy or
manufacture goods they can sell for a healthy profit in the US market is a
positive development.

Now, for American workers and citizens globalization is a disaster. Making
Americans with the highest living standard in the world compete head to head
with workers in third world countries only causes them to have a marked
decline in living standards. The bottom line to globalization is that for
corporations it's a boon and for American citizens it's a bane. But then,
the government has known that all along, and since we know who matters to
the government you can guess how it will turn out. Globalization benefits on
a huge scale for the corporations and globalization penalties for the
American worker. Companies win workers lose. That's how it always is
whenever a Republican administration gets in power. Sorry for all you
workers out there because it's only going to get worse.

Hawke

"kurgan" wrote in message
oups.com...

rigger wrote:
Robert Sturgeon offers his opinion:

Other than the loss of the iconic brand name, what is there
to lament? It's not as if we are going to be short of
quality firearms to buy. Even in the classic .30-30 lever
action rifle category, the Winchester is inferior to the
Marlin. Besides, I'd be surprised if no one buys the rights
to the name -- perhaps Uberti/Beretta.

Your opinion, your money, your choice. Others may not and do not
agree.

Thanks to FN our future generations won't have the choices we had.



We can buy more **** than ever before. Our problem isn't lack of
choice. If anything, we have too many choices and are able to consume
too much - certainly much more than we really "need".

Our country consumes 20% of the world's resources. Look at how much
garbage each and every one of us generates every week.


Winchester out of business? Good riddance. Gun consumers were clearly
opting for better products from more modern producers.


Say, anyone here a free market advocate? If you are one of them then you
can't lament the end of Winchester. People were not buying the product so it
was not able to compete in the free market and succeed. That means bye, bye.
For those who care about he company for nostalgic or other personal reasons
I can see why you would be sorry to see it go. But not for those free
marketeers. Winchester couldn't make it in the market so they deserve to go
out of business. Tough luck, no crying about it.

Hawke

In article , Hawke says...

Say, anyone here a free market advocate? If you are one of them then you
can't lament the end of Winchester. People were not buying the product so it
was not able to compete in the free market and succeed. That means bye, bye.
For those who care about he company for nostalgic or other personal reasons
I can see why you would be sorry to see it go. But not for those free
marketeers. Winchester couldn't make it in the market so they deserve to go
out of business. Tough luck, no crying about it.

How come that same rule doesn't apply to all those friggin' airline
companies that keep going into and out of chapter 11, all the while
sucking up public money bail-outs?

And all the management keeps getting 'retention bonuses' at the
same time while the workers keep giving back, and back, and back?

Time for a few airlines to go the same way as Winchester I think.
GM is on that road too.

Jim


--
==================================================
please reply to:
JRR(zero) at pkmfgvm4 (dot) vnet (dot) ibm (dot) com
==================================================

On 19 Jan 2006 21:24:53 -0800, with neither quill nor qualm,
" quickly quoth:

Robert wrote:
I am also a little sad to see the possible end of the
Winchester line of firearms, but there are a LOT of brands
of firearms still for sale, and a LOT that have ceased
production. That's the way business goes.

It sure long has been so for many other major consumer-product
industries in America! Try buying a new American Motors or Packard
anything now. But the fact that former big car brands have come and
gone hasn't changed the fact that seemingly every American over age 16
drives - and it will be similar with guns.

No $4 to park! No $6 admission! http://www.INTERNET-GUN-SHOW.com

Great, your "gun" show has everything BUT guns and ammo due to eBay
regulations. Feh!

-
DANCING: The vertical frustration of a horizontal desire.
---------------------------------------------------------
http://diversify.com Full Service Web Programming

snip
Now, for American workers and citizens globalization is a disaster. Making
Americans with the highest living standard in the world compete head to head
with workers in third world countries only causes them to have a marked
decline in living standards. The bottom line to globalization is that for
corporations it's a boon and for American citizens it's a bane. But then,
the government has known that all along, and since we know who matters to
the government you can guess how it will turn out. Globalization benefits on
a huge scale for the corporations and globalization penalties for the
American worker. Companies win workers lose. That's how it always is
whenever a Republican administration gets in power. Sorry for all you
workers out there because it's only going to get worse.
snip
We operationally no longer have a two party system in the US,
i.e. parties presenting policy alternatives. What we have are
two loose groups that have hijacked the names "Democratic" and
"Republican." Remember that it was a bipartisan effort under
Clinton with the help of Bob Dole that pushed NAFTA through.

If you want to change things pass term limits and TABOR.
Otherwise you are simply replacing "their" set of bums and
lowlifes with "your" set of bums and lowlifes.

Remember the wisdom of the ages:"If you don't get what you want,
then you get what you deserve."

Uncle George

Hawke wrote:

Now, for American workers and citizens globalization is a disaster. Making
Americans with the highest living standard in the world compete head to head
with workers in third world countries only causes them to have a marked
decline in living standards. The bottom line to globalization is that for
corporations it's a boon and for American citizens it's a bane.


snip



That depends upon a "worker's" skill level.

If one's skills isn't easily duplicated by a person from the Third
World, then that person, under globalization, becomes even more
valuable to his/her employers.

In engineering, the mediocre guys are screwed. Their jobs are going
overseas. On the flip side, the consulting fees for the good ones are
going ever higher. There aren't enough of them and there is an ever
bigger market out there for the various corps. to feed.

Conclusion: for the very smart and very motivated, globalization is
wonderful. For everyone else (in this country), no.

Just make yourself smarter and more motivated and you won't have to
worry about it.

thanks,

K. Gringioni.

F. George McDuffee wrote:
snip
If you want to change things pass term limits and TABOR.
Otherwise you are simply replacing "their" set of bums and
lowlifes with "your" set of bums and lowlifes.

Uncle George

sigh

We passed both here in CO. Supremes threw out term limits and the
hand-wringers whined convincingly enough to gut and effectively repeal
TABOR.

Some days it just ain't worth the hassle to chew through the straps.

TK

--
Cogito ergo bibo

On 20 Jan 2006 11:55:10 -0800, "kurgan"
wrote:
snip
Conclusion: for the very smart and very motivated, globalization is
wonderful. For everyone else (in this country), no.
snip
And the greatest good for the greatest number is?

Globalization and "crack cocaine" have a lot in common. A
momentary high/rush and then rehab (if available and you can
afford it) after hitting bottom.

This translates to "Hurray for me and to hell with you," which
has always been a sure recipe for social/political upheaval.

This country was created to "provide for the common defense",
"general well fare" and "to insure domestic tranquility."

Uncle George