Subject	Umm, still stupid, 5k to buy a running tt, and in the
Posted by	HighPsi (NorCal) on April 08, 2010 at 3:04 PM
	This message has been viewed 88 times.
In Reply To	no problem posted by idrivefast on April 08, 2010 at 02:41 PM
Message	condition that dosen't require interior and/or exterior work is doubtful. Like I said, underinsuring an asset is purely retarded. Would you insure your million dollar house for $50k, then using that same scenerio on a car that could easily be in the $20-100+k range including parts, time, labor, etc.....that you are gonna get paid $10k back on. Why not just go buy a pile of coke and a bunch of hookers instead?
Follow Ups	Additional insurance coverage>>> - dusthis 11:47:04 04/08/10 Re: Additional insurance coverage>>> - ouikikazz 12:41:43 04/08/10 I always hate it when people say search - idrivefast 13:06:08 04/08/10 You should share your thoughts less. (n/m) - Z_Cherub 13:13:50 04/08/10 LoL (n/m) - Spongerider :) 13:18:42 04/08/10 Its all been said and done... - dpjax 13:16:42 04/08/10 Jennylicious, please go share your opipions with - HighPsi (NorCal) 14:00:57 04/08/10 no problem - idrivefast 14:41:53 04/08/10 "Its not that hard" - Z_Cherub 14:49:56 04/08/10 Umm, still stupid, 5k to buy a running tt, and in the - HighPsi (NorCal) 15:04:24 04/08/10 Technically, calling a car an "asset" is "purely retarded" - Z_Cherub 15:29:39 04/08/10 Actually, technically an Asset is defined as - HighPsi (NorCal) 15:55:32 04/08/10 You're correct. I chose my words poorly. - Z_Cherub 16:09:05 04/08/10 do me a favor, post all you want, just dont vote this nov (n/m) - LJZTT 15:37:56 04/08/10 Thanks! Looks like the key search word is 'stated value' ;) (n/m) - dusthis 13:57:52 04/08/10 good tt.netter :) (n/m) - Adam (NoVA) 14:03:31 04/08/10
Post a Followup	You cannot reply to this message because you are not logged in.