> Bryan
> 62 88
> 71 109 <<<< covering both the front yard and the back yard ;-P
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Faure, Marin [mailto:Marin.Faure@PSS.Boeing.com]
> Sent: Tuesday, April 10, 2001 12:06 PM
> To: 'Land Rover Mail Group'
> Subject: LRO: Re: Marin Faure
>
>
> Date: Tue, 10 Apr 2001 08:14:52 -0500
> From: "cde3" <cde3@mindspring.com>
> Subject: LRO: RE: Marin Faure
>
> >If you are bored (as I am) or offended by Marin Faure's e-mails, do what
I
> do. Have all of them directly deposited into their own folder which goes
> directly into the recycle bin.
>
> Sounds like a good solution. I'm sorry if I've offended anyone on the
> list as that wasn't my intention. But the subject of what's a Land Rover
> and what isn't escalated to the point where it became more an exercise
> in semantics than a useful discussion, and I'm certainly largely to blame
> for that. The stuff on youth was an entertaining (but not to everyone,
> I guess) sideline, but that, too, got out of hand, for which I, again,
> was largely responsible. So I'm sorry for getting people wrapped around
> the axle on what didn't seem to me to be very big deals.
>
> When I started participating in this list a few years ago, it seemed to
> be largely made up of people who were interested in keeping their Series
> Land Rovers running more or less in original form. As this is what I am
> interested in, too, and is what I've been doing for almost three decades
> now, I found the list a useful exchange of information. The list has
> changed
> dramatically over the last year or so, to the point where it now seems to
be
> made up
> mostly of people who are interested in modifying their Land Rovers to suit
> their
> purposes. That's okay, of course. But with a dwindling interest in the
> marque
> as built, I suppose it's natural for someone who is interested in the
> vehicles as
> they were designed to express some frustration. Judging by the reaction
of
> the
> "new" list membership, I guess I went too far in expressing that
> frustration. So
> I'm sorry for upsetting so many of you.
>
> Those of us in the US who bought Land Rovers back in the "old days" of the
> '60s and '70s got used to being almost totally self-reliant outside of
> finding a
> parts source. There was no internet, no mailing list, and pretty much no
> communication between people who had Land Rovers unless you happened
> to live near someone who had one. For help, you called the few people who
> were selling parts back then or a Land Rover representative. Of course
the
> Land Rover reps were gone after 1974. Those of us who ran Land Rovers
> back then (and there were a fair amount of folks who did; I'm certainly
not
> some
> sort of rare breed in that respect) learned a lot about the vehicles in
the
> course of
> keeping them going day after day. That's useful information to someone
with
> a
> stock Land Rover, but that knowledge is of dwindling value today, at least
> in the
> US.
>
> I understand the Toyota FJ40 folks are undergoing the same shift, from
> driving and maintaining the vehicles as built to heavily modifying them to
> suit the owners' needs or desires. I'm sorry to see the same thing
> happening
> to Land Rovers, but I guess it's inevitable as parts become harder to get
> and
> people try to make a forty-year old design cope with today's traffic
> conditions.
> I can certainly understand the frustration of trying to drive a stock Land
> Rover
> in traffic today, as I am in that boat myself.
>
> I will continue to maintain my Series as-built, and if I see a question on
> the list
> that I think I can help answer, I'll do so. I'm not reversing my opinion
on
> what's
> a Land Rover and what's a hybrid, but it's certainly not productive to
argue
> a
> point that has no meaning or importance anymore for most Land Rover
owners.
> ___________________________
> C. Marin Faure
> (original owner)
> 1973 Land Rover Series III-88
> 1991 Range Rover Vogue SE
> Seattle
>
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b30 : Tue Apr 10 2001 - 17:33:27 EDT