In article
<32b8ed43-acb7-4b8f-915b-169bab28256a@[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'
>
> Huh?
Old age getting to you Dr. Parker?
>> 2) where do you thing good handling and reliability come from?
>>
> Oh, and you think every engineer is going to be honest "Well, we
> didn't design good handling into this car?"
> And reliability ONLY comes about from usage, not from talking to the
> engineers. Jeez, are you really this dense?
*laugh* dishonest as always Parker. Did I say anything about talking to
an engineer? No. Although most engineers I've known who were worth
anything would tell people straight up if the product they worked on was
crap. It was funny to see some of the consumer mag reviews of stuff I was
very familiar with...
>> > Science you get from scientists.
>> But you won't get your engineering from engineers.
> I'm not asking for engineering! I'm asking for information only
> people USING the product can provide.
> Tell me, do you trust Microsoft about its products or do you listen to
> what users say?
I see the point has gone right over your head. Remeber the great ABS
threads? You argued engineering as it was presented to you by mass media
publications. In other threads you chastised people for getting science
from mass media publications. That's the memory your recent comments
brought back.
>> > 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...
The double replies to the same posts too... where have you been? really
it would be much more fun for you to be back and displace gpsman and his
gender-nonspecific buddy in CO.
|
