On Wed, 30 Nov 2005 05:15:02 GMT, with neither quill nor qualm, Lew
Hodgett quickly quoth:

Mike Berger wrote:

Jaguar's mechanical quality has gone up since Ford bought 'em.


SFWIW, when FoMoCo bought Jag, it took 35 mqn hours to assemble one vs
less than 1 hour for most FoMoCo units.

Reducing direct labor and getting rid of the "Prince of Darkness"
electrical system were great starts to improve the reliability of the Jag.

Personally, I wouldn't have one.

Nothing personal, just not my type of vehicle.

Hell no. It wouldn't pull a sloop, but might handle a SunFish.


---
- Sarcasm is just one more service we offer. -
http://diversify.com Web Applications

"Never Enough Money" wrote in
oups.com:

I would jump to the conclusion that just because B&D owns PC, that PC
qulaity will go down. It might even go up if they get more R&D
funding....

The odds are against that. B&D is a big company, run by Harvard
MBAs who've been taught all about business, but have little clue
about whatever product they make. Sooner or later, one of them
will have the inspiration to "improve margins" by "cost engineering"
the product, and the quality will decline.

Examples: Ford bought Volvo and as far as I know, Volvo hasn't become
worse.

A difficult example. Today's Volvo is better than the 1990's
Volvo, before Ford bought them. But in the 1990's, Volvo was in
a financial crunch, and couldn't afford to invest in design &
production at a competitive level, so the 1990's Volvos (the 700
and 850 series) were pretty much crap. The 1980's Volvos (the
240 series) were substantially better built cars.

John

"Charlie Self" wrote in
ups.com:

I thought lack of proofreading was a
trendy, today sort of thing,

You're definately right about proofreading in modern publications.
Editors today figure all that's needed is to run it thru the
spell-checker, click on "accept changes" a couple of times, and
it's perfect. Meanwhile the text is actually a morass of
homonyms, lacunae, and mangled grammar. It sucks.

John

"John McCoy" wrote in message
"Charlie Self" wrote in

I thought lack of proofreading was a
trendy, today sort of thing,

You're definately right about proofreading in modern publications.
Editors today figure all that's needed is to run it thru the
spell-checker, click on "accept changes" a couple of times, and
it's perfect. Meanwhile the text is actually a morass of
homonyms, lacunae, and mangled grammar. It sucks.

John

Owed To A Spell Checker

I have a spelling checker
It came with my PC
It plane lee marks four my revue
Miss steaks aye can knot sea
Eye ran this poem threw it
You should be glad two no
It's very polished in it's weigh
My checker tolled me sew
A checker is a bless sing
It freeze yew lodes of thyme
It helps me right all stiles of verse
And aides me when aye rime
To rite with care is quite a feet
Of witch won should be prowed
And wee mussed dew the best wee can
Miss stakes are knot aloud
And now bee cause my spelling
Is checked with such grate care
There are know flaws within my site
Of nun eye am a wear
Each frays come posed up on my screen
Eye trussed to be a joule
The checker pours o'er every word
To cheque some spelling rule
That's why aye brake in two averse
My righting wants too pleas
Sow now eye sea why aye dew prays
Such soft wear for pea seas

Anonymous.

"John McCoy" wrote in message
0...
"Charlie Self" wrote in
ups.com:

I thought lack of proofreading was a
trendy, today sort of thing,

You're definately right about proofreading in modern publications.
Editors today figure all that's needed is to run it thru the
spell-checker, click on "accept changes" a couple of times, and
it's perfect. Meanwhile the text is actually a morass of
homonyms, lacunae, and mangled grammar. It sucks.

John

Definitely. Though I keep the grammar check on in Word.