I know I am pissing up a rope here, and its only real intent is providing catharsis for me, but its laughable to claim this is simply terminology semantics.
You know I disclosed completely to you that I had it both here on MUD and craigslist. You also know craigslist only allows so many photos. I also referred craigslist folks here and vice versa. There is NOTHING to hide about this car, the care it received / receives, etc. I went out of my way to tell you as much about the history of the car as I could, as deeply into the weeds as I could get, as I had done my research on the original owner and knew what kind of driving it got. You seemed appreciative.
For whatever reason, 1 week later you felt like you wanted to poke the bear. Why you didn't do that in our 30 min call is beyond me. You were as cordial and conversational as I was, and we enjoyed our common bond related to Land Cruisers. That was the time to say something to me regarding your concern about one little word.
If the original owner went slightly over 10K one time on an oil change interval, then shame on them, but holy crap, even that's not really a big deal considering the type of driving suburban St Louis affords. Not to mention, you really have no idea if there was an oil change in between there. I know my Toyota specialist here doesn't record his repairs and service in a manner they show up on carfax reports. I have no idea why that is, either. I also know there are things I take my vehicles to the Toyota dealer for, and things I take them to the independent specialist, and occasionally an oil change is in there too if the timing falls that way.
Hilariously and Ironically enough, your consistency regarding terminological accuracy seems to be lacking! You attempted to frame the fully disclosed repair to the drivers seat a 'tear' with the implication it still existed even though I told you it was there before I purchased, obviously had been professionally repaired, had held up well, and that I stayed on top of it and the leather seats with the color matched dye that I have on hand, but felt it was important to disclose. You seemed appreciative of all that info at the time.
Look, you're free to disagree w anyone on here, just as I am free and enthusiastic about disagreeing w you right now, but the notion of going out of your way to try to do harm to someone's reputation or potential for sale is beyond the pale unless you have proof, direct evidence, etc. And if it is indeed over the semantics of one single word, then that makes it even s***tier of you considering you haven't been within 1000 miles of this car to assess whether 'immaculate' or 'mint' or 'near mint' or whatever is indeed correct.
I hate this kind of public airing of disagreements. its embarrassing for all involved, but you are attempting to impact my honesty and integrity over one word and I gotta defend myself. It's completely ridiculous.
My hope is that the classified threads here aim to be objective as possible. Nice, beautiful, excellent condition, well taken of, priced right, etc., are not synonyms for immaculate. In most cases, immaculate vehicles bring higher prices. Oil change intervals are debatable and the carfax shows intervals that went beyond 10K. From what I've read and heard, that's not ideal. The driver's seat has had a tear, which was missing in the Craigslist ad description. IMO, that's not immaculate. It's nothing personal.
