In article
<b20ebab3-753b-4865-91f9-fbde0afad878@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Lloyd
wrote:
> On Jan 9, 2:33 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Brent P) wrote:
>> In article
<4f6f77da-4a12-42be-92ce-57332cd71...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Lloyd
wrote:
>> > On Jan 8, 3:25 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Brent P)
wrote:
>> >> In article
<487e5cfb-3f51-4e98-bd9d-a34236ca1...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Lloyd
wrote:
>> >> > On Jan 7, 10:44 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
(Brent P)
>> >> > wrote:
>> >> >> In article <9s2dnSYCC7PC2R_anZ2dnUVZ_v6rn...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>, Steve
wrote:
>> >> >> > Lloyd wrote:
>>
>> >> >> >>>Of course, but the magazine goobers don't know a good vehicle
from their
>> >> >> >>>own backside.
>>
>> >> >> >> Oh give it a rest. When the leading auto enthusiast magazine
and the
>> >> >> >> leading consumer magazine both pan Chrysler products, consider
they're
>> >> >> >> right and you are blind.
>>
>> >> >> > When my direct experience on repeated occasions validates my
opinion, I
>> >> >> > don't believe I'm blind.
>>
>> >> >> >> Yada, yada, yada. Grow up. Your blind, chauvanistic
cheerleading for
>> >> >> >> Chrysler is tiring and childish.
>>
>> >> >> > And your quasi-religious faith in what professional WRITERS
(not
>> >> >> > scientists or engineers) repeatedly churn out is abhorrent to
me. Even
>> >> >> > they are now being forced by sheer numbers of dissatisfied
customers to
>> >> >> > point out that Toyota screws up just as much as anyone else,
but they do
>> >> >> > so grudgingly.
>>
>> >> >> This brings back usenet memories.... Parker still wor****ps
Consumer
>> >> >> re****ts and to a lesser extent the car mags... at the same time
on other
>> >> >> subjects will bash people for not citing scientific journals. Of
course
>> >> >> he won't pick up an engineering journal or even read the short
verisons
>> >> >> in SAE's magazine.
>>
>> >> > I must have missed where they ranked cars for reliability, fun to
>> >> > drive, etc. If you can tell me which issue that's in...
>>
>> >> You wouldn't even accept engineering journals on ABS and stability
system
>> >> design prefering consumer re****ts and car and driver.
>>
>> >> But hey, you could use a similiar argument you just made for getting
>> >> 'science' from the NYTimes, popular science, and national review.
The
>> >> scientific journals lacking the consumer, everyman, type things. But
you
>> >> bash people for that, you deserve it back when you get your ideas of
ABS
>> >> system design from consumer re****ts.
>>
>> > No, because I'm not talking about how to engineer a car, but whether
>> > it's reliable, whether it handles well, etc. Those you get from the
>> > people testing them and the owners re****ting on them.
>>
>> 1) you neglect the term 'brings back memories'
>> 2) where do you thing good handling and reliability come from?
>>
>> > Science you get from scientists.
>>
>> But you won't get your engineering from engineers.
>>
>
> I'm not asking for engineering. I'm asking for quality, for
> reliability, for fun to drive. Tell me which of these are in the
> realm of engineers.
All of it and more. At some companies the engineers are the industrial
designers too.
>> > I'm sorry if our educational system has left you unable to see the
>> > distinction.
>>
>> That's the old Lloyd I remember.... So, have you learned that
correlation
>> is not causation yet? lol...
>
> Haven't you learned that if you want to know how something holds up,
> you ask the people using it, not the SAE?
CR doesn't give an accurate picture of that. It's such a little club it's
about asking Obama sup****ters what they think Gravel.
Anyway, your double standard comes into play here because just like
people who aren't chemistry professors aren't interested in reading
entire chemistry papers in a journal but just want the jist of it in a
simple article, you want the jist of reliability in a simple article. You
don't want to read engineering journal articles on the topics, so you'll
never know why your favorite publication for the m***** is flawed.
I deal with reliability issues frequently and self-sup****ting is the
worst way to get data. minor insigificant problems seem huge while huge
problems seem minor or worse, unknown!
|
