Harry P.

You sound like the type who takes his cart loaded with a month's worth of groceries into the 15 items or less checkout...

It's not mandatory... but sitting behind a clueless driver who's waiting for the green before they make their right turn, even if there is no traffic or pedestrians to get in their way, is a bit annoying.

I don't eat their food, so I have no idea. But once a few years back I was the art director on a photo shoot for a print ad for a muffin mix. The ad was going to feature a photo of a basket of their blueberry muffins. We got there at the appointed time the morning of the shoot, we all had coffee, etc... the client came to the shoot with a very large box full of muffins. First they spent an hour or so picking out the nice looking muffins, until they had it down to the "stars" that were good enough, in their opinion, to be used in the photo. Then the "food stylist" literally picked at the sugar crystals and the blueberries on the muffins with tweezers... rearranging the individual grains of sugar, removing some, moving others around, "styling" the blueberries, etc. This took several hours. By the time the client and the stylist had done their thing and arranged the muffins in the basket for the shot, it was late afternoon! And all that was just for a basket of freakin' muffins! Edit: we did get to eat any of the "rejects" we wanted... they were good!

What if it's a seafood place and the special is the catch of the day?

Similar to supermarkets that post one price on the shelf, but the item rings up at a different price whrn the cashier scans it. It used to happen to me all the time at this one particular store, as I'm one of those customers who actually pays attention. The store policy was that if an item ever rang up at a price that was different from the price on the shelf, you get that item for free. I got a lot of free stuff there. It got so bad that one day I asked to talk to the store manager, and I pointed out to her the price that had come up on my receipt, then I walked her over to the aisle where the item was and showed her the shelf price. Her explanation is that with thousands of items to price, errors are inevitable. I told her that in my experience, in every case where there had been a discrepancy between shelf price and scanned price, the scanned price was always higher, never lower. If it was truly "human error," then logic tells you that sometimes the scanned price would be lower than the shelf price. I firmly believe that they do it on purpose, relying on the fact that 99% of shoppers simply don't pay any attention as their stuff is scanned at the checkout–and the handful of people (like me) who actually do pay attention, call them on it, and get that item for free, are so few and far between that they can easily afford the freebies to the eagle-eyed!

Today I saw a dead skunk in the middle of the road. Seriously. I drove right over the body. Must have been a fresh one... he wasn't even flat yet!

Wow. Now that's hot, "dry heat" or no. 74 and sunny here today.

Uh...Rob? What exactly are we looking at here? I think that's probably the case with me too. Saw them without even realizing it.

I saw another Tesla yesterday in the McDonald's parking lot. I had never seen one in real life before, now I've seen two in the past week or so. Hey... maybe they're catching on!

Dan, you raise a lot of good points. But this is where I get stuck: The garage found the Whites via DMV records. Since all they supposedly had to go by is the car itself, I assume they tracked down the owner via the car's VIN... which suggests the VIN had not been tampered with, sice the VIN on the car led directly to the Whites. So it seems (and I'm no lawyer)... but it seems that since the VIN on the car matches the VIN on the White's title, and the Whites actually have the physical paper title, and they have a copy of the stolen vehicle report they filed, and the "current possessor" has offered nothing to prove he is the legitimate owner... it seems to me to be pretty clear who the rightful owners are. You're right that if the car had been insured and the Whites had received compensation from their insurance company for their loss, then yes, legal ownership of the car would transfer to the insurance company and even if found, the Whites would no longer "own" the car... but there's no mention of that in the story. It seems like a pretty basic question for the reporter to have asked them... "was the car insured against theft and did you receive compensation from the insurance company after it was stolen?" Quite a twisted little tale...

Grandeur Motor Car Corporation 1405 SW 8th Street Pompano Beach, FL The Opera Coupe featured a stretched hood and a shortened rear body. Dual simulated side-mounted spare tires were mounted forward of the doors. Apparently there were several of these "chop shops" that specialized in creating shortened Cadillacs. If your friend says there are only 20 like it in the world, he's lying. One of the companies I looked up made about 250 of them... and that's just one of the companies that did this.

http://milanroadster.weebly.com/seville.html

http://autofug.blogspot.com/2005/07/cadillac-seville-opera-coupe-part-1.html

These guys? Global Coach & Armor Mfg. Inc., 3527 Forsythe Rd, Orlando, Florida. Global specialized in creating convertibles out of Cadillac and Chrysler Corporation coupes. For 1981 they offered both standard and short-wheelbase Eldorado and Seville convertibles as well as Chrysler Imperial, Cordoba and Dodge Mirada convertibles. One assumes that they made limousines as well as they have the word "armor" in the firm's title. For reasons unknown, Global also marketed their cars using a different corporate name, Insbrook Mfg. & Marketing Inc

Of course there is. Partying!

A lot of kits came with that disclaimer. I can see how a person would buy a kit based on the photo of the "actual model" on the box, then be less than thrilled with what is found inside.

You bring up an interesting point. WHO brought the car to the storage garage in the first place? If the garage staff had a record of who brought it there, they would have contacted that person about the overdue bill. But they contacted the Whites via DMV records... which suggests that the garage had no record of who actually brought them the car and didn't know who the owner is. But if that's the case, why did the garage accept the car without taking the name and number of the person who brought it there? And how did the "current possessor" know where the car is and to go to the garage and pay the bill before the Whites had a chance to respond to the letter the garage sent to them? Seems like the "current possessor" himself either dropped off the car there in the first place... or he knew whoever did. But who brought the car to the storage garage is irrelevant as far as proof of ownership. As far as I can see, the Whites have proof of ownership, the "current possessor" does not.

Oregon law says you have to title a car within 30 days of purchase. The "current possessor" never did. He has no title, so he has no proof of legal ownership. The Whites have the original title, they have copies of the stolen car report they filed, they even have the keys to the car. Watch the video at the link I posted... it explains the case very well, even an interview with a Portland cop and his explanation of why the cops can't retrieve the car.

On each of those models with a "brass" radiator shell, it's the brass-plated kit part. For the rest of the brass, like lights, horns, and all the various other brass details: Rustoleum "Metallics" spray paint (color is Brass), then a wash of acrylic black craft paint and Future to bring out the detail in the "nooks and crannies.". The thin lines, like the edges on some of the running boards, and the pinstriping on the fire truck, are Gold BMF. I don't think they make a "brass" BMF, but their gold foil is pretty close to brass.

The story says the storage company contacted the original owner (the Whites) of the car by letter, and that they used DMV records to find the Whites. But by the time the letter arrived and the Whites contacted the storage company about getting their car back, the storage company told them that a man (the "current possessor") had paid the storage/repair bills due on the car and had the car delivered to his house. This "current possessor" has a bill of sale that proves he bought the car, but has no title, which would prove he owns the car. The people who do have the title are the Whites. But the cop's side of the story is that since the statute of limitations on the original theft of the car has expired, they have no way to now issue a warrant and retrieve the car from the "current possessor." I'm no lawyer, but this seems like a total no-brainer to me. The Whites can prove they are the legitimate owners of the car (they have the title). The "current possessor" is obviously in possession of stolen property, even if he "bought" the car not knowing it was stolen. The "current possessor" has no title to the car, therefore he has no legal ownership. A "bill of sale" proves nothing. I can make up and send you a "bill of sale" for my neighbor's car... but that "bill of sale" doesn't prove that you own it! I don't get why this isn't clear to the Oregon authorities.

But the "current possessor" doesn't have the title. He bought the car in an unlawful transaction, because title to the car was never transferred to him–because the car he bought was stolen! He is in possession of stolen property. The fact that he "bought" it is irrelevant. He can't produce the title, because the original owner has it! So how is it possible that the original owner, who has the title and is on record as being the owner of the car, is being denied the return of his property? The "current possessor" has a bill of sale, but a bill of sale doesn't prove ownership of the car. The title does.

The "rest of the story"... http://www.katu.com/news/problemsolver/Man-finds-stolen-car-13-years-later-cant-get-it-back-267685051.html?tab=video&c=y

The story says that the original owner of the car still has the title. So how is it that he can't get his own car back when he has proof that he's the legitimate owner?

http://www.foxnews.com/leisure/2014/07/24/170-plymouth-cuda-stolen-in-2001-found-but-owner-cant-get-it/?intcmp=features

I wish I owned a McD franchise! I'd be $et for life..