RE: [DML] Number 147; looking for parts; efren hicks <marty_mcflyJr@yahoo

["Gus Schlachter" <gus@xxxx>]

Vic,

I am not at all offended by the term "dirt cheap" although I will admit to
having trouble getting offended. Either that, or I've gotten used to it.

The term "dirt cheap" is used all the time and is relative. A dirt-cheap
castle is still pretty expensive. So someone seeking an inexpensive jewel
is seeking a jewel nonetheless and I would only be offended if the the
"cheap" term was directed at DMC owners or the line of cars as a whole.

As I've said before, I have no interest in the Delorean automobile becoming
generally desirable or valuable. Since I already have my car, any increase
in value at this point only raises my insurance rates and parts costs.

I'm sure the moderators have many concerns, but their stated goal is to
filter the spam and keep us on the subject of the Car, the Company, and the
Man. Any additional editorial deletion of reader submissions would truly be
offensive.

Gus Schlachter
Austin, TX
VIN# 4695



> -----Original Message-----
> From: surfcity45@xxxx [mailto:surfcity45@xxxx]
> Sent: Sunday, July 30, 2000 12:50 PM
> Subject: Re: [DML] Number 147; looking for parts
>
> As long as the terminology "dirt cheap" is used in association with
DeLorean
> by reference to parts, the car and things related to them . . . they will
> never rise to the prominence of a sought after, valuable, collectible
> treasure and investment.
>
> Everyone is looking for a bargain or a "good deal" however, I find the
term
> "dirt cheap" offensive.
>
> This is the second time that I have spoken up to this forum regarding a
> situation in reference to "cheap" when speaking or referring of these
> automobiles.
>
> Am I the only one bothered by this? Are the moderators not concerned?
>
> Maybe this person should just have gotten a "Chevy." Those 20 year old
cars
> and parts are in fact . . . "dirt cheap."
>
> Vic Stewart
> # 00568