Re: Mercedes still may profit from Chrysler

Lloyd wrote:
> On Jan 11, 1:17 pm, Steve <n...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
> 
>>>>>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?
>>
>>You just proved our side of this discussion.
>>
>>If we listed to what USERS said, well.... MOST computer users do use
>>Microsoft products.
>>
>>But the fact is, I listen to what KNOWLEDGEABLE users say, and most of
>>them try to avoid MS products when there are alternatives.
>>
> 
> 
> But you should be asking the Microsoft engineers, from what you've
> been saying in this thread.
> 

Uh.... where did I ever imply that we should be asking (only) the 
car-company engineers (for which the MS engineers would be a metaphor in 
the foregoeing example. *I* said that I give more credence to what 
engineering-knowledgable drivers and reviewers (magazines other than CR, 
Car and Driver, Motor Trend, etc) have to say.

> 
>>All car "users" are not created equal, but all car "users" get an equal
>>voice in CR.
> 
> 
> Gee, I didn't realize some owners were worth more than others.  Tell
> me, which owners know if their steering has a problem after a year and
> which ones don't?
> 

People who know no better than to list the "engine" as unreliable when 
they have a problem with the alternator are indeed worth far less (as 
useful reviewers, not as human beings) than people who know the 
difference, and know that the alternator is made by Nippondenso and not 
by Chrysler anyway.



> 
> And this affects Chryslers differently from Hondas how?

It affects every damn thing CR reviews, which is why the magazine is 
worthless even for buying a toaster.