View Single Post
  #10  
Old July 8th 05, 07:18 AM
C.H.
external usenet poster
 
Posts: n/a
Default

On Fri, 08 Jul 2005 00:27:02 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:

[a lot of nonsense concerning 'references']

>> No point in telling without lengthy research. Unfortunately you are not
>> paying me for this research so I suggest you do it yourself if you want
>> to make a point.

>
> If you don't want search for the truth, no problem in my book.


That you are incapable of referencing relevant information fortunately is
not my problem. You don't pay me to search 'studies' for you, so I don't
see why I should.

Btw, I hear SCO has an opening for a chief obfuscator and imaginary stolen
Linux code specialist, you would fit in splendidly with SCO's 'we know
there must be some stolen code in Linux, we just can't find it.', James
'I know there must be some DRL studies on www.nhtsa.gov' Reeves.

>> otherwise you would have posted direct links to your 'sources' long
>> ago.

>
> I have posted the URL link. Since you seem to mis quite a bit in your
> reading comprehension, here it is again. http://dms.dot.gov/ Did you
> get it this time?


The docket management system of the DOT? Interesting but not relevant to
the discussion. If you seriously see DRL data on this page, you need new
glasses and a lesson in reading comprehension.

>>> I don't agree or disagree with what is on file with the NHTSA. I only
>>> state what is on file.

>>
>> No, you claim that these things are on file but at the same time are
>> unable to provide a reference to them. IOW, you either just _think_
>> they are on file or you are outright lying.

>
> Oh boy! Well, lets just leave it for those that are lurking (and
> laughing at us) to decide if they want to seek facts in the matter or
> not. They can follow the links I have provided (or not).


If they do they will arrive in places that have nothing to do with DRLs.
Of course they could start digging but the probability that they do is
just about zero, simply because it is the job of the claimant to provide
proper references, not the job of the reader.

>> Again, you may want to upgrade to a more modern car.

>
> I did! I now own a 2004 Chrysler product. No DRLs. No Auto light
> systems. No ABS. Everything works perfectly and as expected now! ;-)


Then let's hope you are not as bad at driving as you are at producing
evidence for your wild claims, otherwise the non-ABS non-DRL car might get
you killed.

>>> The vehicle I had was a 2003 GM product. I doubt that a 95 Cavalier
>>> model even had auto light control, actually. Curious why the
>>> reference specifically to a Cavalier of that year?

>>
>> I was just making fun of you. You need to have your humor module
>> recalibrated.

>
> Apparently so...I still don't understand the reference.


That doesn't surprise me at all.

>> Btw, if your 2003 GM product doesn't have reliable auto-headlights, I
>> suggest you inform your nearest stealer and have the sensor fixed under
>> warranty. My 2000 GM product has remarkably realiable auto headlights.

>
> And so thought several people at work when I've informed them that they
> pulled into the parking lot with their GM vehicles on foggy mornings
> with their lights off.


Unlike you I am quite capable of determining whether my lights _are_ on
and _should_be_ on, so I don't pull into parking lots on foggy mornings
with my lights off. Maybe your bozo coworkers just need some driving
lessons?

> They had no idea their lights were off (so thay claimed). "They're
> automatic", they claim. They thought it was "reliable" too.


It is not very difficult to see, whether the lights are on or not, neither
on non-automatic-headlight cars nor on automatic-headlight cars. (Hint:
The instrument panel lighting is only on when the headlights are on)

> thay hadn't a clue!


They seem not to be the only ones there...

> For which I've replied..obviously NOT! Same thing with
> my neighbor's daughter who owns a Aztek...and her dad that owns a
> Impala. Both has left for work on bright but foggy mornings as I watch
> out of the window, tail lights dark as thay go down the street.
> Unbelieveable! Apparently there a lot of people that need to have
> their GM auto light control systems serviced under warranty...yes?


Most GM cars don't need their light control systems serviced. The system
doesn't provide for every eventuality but is quite a bit more reliable
than the average driver). I prefer a few bozos without taillights in fog
to the same bozos without DRLs _and_ taillights in fog.

[Daniel Stern adoration snipped]

If DS has a gripe with me he should gather his courage and confront me
instead of sending his sidekick to defend him.

Chris
Ads