If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#361
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:14:42 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
> > "C.H." > wrote in message > news >> On the contrary, I find it highly hilarious how you are trying to keep >> your little world of prejudices, misinformation and hatred when it is >> prodded from different directions. > > Only in your mind Chris. Most of it is made up in your head (but I'm sure > you still believe it...which is fine). Amusing, how you try to wiggle out of what you said yourself. >> No, it is not. Whether or not you have a bias against sausages for >> breakfast indeed is not relevant for this discussion which is why I am >> not talking about that. But an extreme bias against US-manufacturers >> and/or specifically GM is quite relevant in this discussion. >> > How so when that is already clear to everyone else reading through the > thread that people are commenting from the position of their > preferences, likes, dislikes, biases. There isn't a need to discuss it. If everything, that is stated twice was redundant, 98% of your postings would be redundant. Chris |
Ads |
#362
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:06:55 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote:
> > "C.H." > wrote in message > news >> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:04:54 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote: >> >>> How so? I stated that a 41% jump in June was a anomoly (created by the >>> campaign) and how it brought their numbers up close to the previous >>> year a.d that alone doesn't make a trend. The future sales numbers is >>> anybody's guess. >> >> How do you know it is an anomaly then? > > A sales number for June that is far outside of trend or forcast is a > textbook example of the meaning of the word. It IS a anomoly until and > unless future sales numbers show otherwise. No, it just is a good marketing campaign. It's not uncommon that a good marketing campaign boosts sales numbers drastically. >>> I agree. However, you're the one that used the word "fault". Success >>> and failure both rest with GM management. >> >> I am the one, who said that _you_ see it as a _fault_ of GM that they >> came up with good marketing and sold a lot of cars lately. > > No, I clearly said I saw it a genious (or ingenious). How can one > possibly intrepret that as my seeing it as a "fault"? You were complaining about GM's campaign and success. That clearly shows that you think they are at fault. Which is not surprising, because your pretty theory that people don't buy GM because of DRLs was blasted out the window by this very campaign. >> I never claimed it was. On the contrary. This supports my view that the >> old 'haggle or you are gonna get fleeced' method of selling cars was >> actually driving customers away, not your hated DRLs. > > DRLs have nothing at all to do with this. DRL's are a constant factor > in the before and after numbers (they existed before the jump in sales > and they existed after...so DRL's offer no influence positive or > negative since nothing changed with them). Surely you realize that the > only factor in the sales jump was the ad campaign (all else being > equal). Of course DRLs have to do with this. You claimed that people are not buying GM because of DRLs any more. As preposterous as the claim is for a company that has almost 30% of the car market in the US, it was proven even more wrong when without removal the sales numbers shot up just because people were freed from the haggle/hassle issues. Face it, no one cares about DRLs enough to make a buying decision because of them or the lack of them (except you of course, but that you are not very good at selecting criteria for buying cars is nothing new). Plus DRLs improve visibility and reduce accidents, as shown by the document I posted a reference to. IOW, your idea that people hate DRLs and thus don't buy GM is out the window. Chris |
#363
|
|||
|
|||
C.H. wrote: > On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 07:29:42 -0700, N8N wrote: > > > > > > > C.H. wrote: > >> On Tue, 12 Jul 2005 03:44:23 -0700, N8N wrote: > >> > >> > >> > > >> > C.H. wrote: > >> >> On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 22:45:25 -0400, Nate Nagel wrote: > >> >> > >> >> > Depends on the car. In some vehicles, I'm CERTAIN that I could > >> >> > "beat" the ABS. > >> >> > >> >> In certain vehicles in a non-emergency situation with about equal > >> >> friction on all wheels in a straight line I think you may be right. > >> >> Otherwise you are very likely wrong. > >> > > >> > No, ESPECIALLY when there's unequal friction. > >> > >> Explain. > > > > No. > > Because you can't, not because you are afraid I won > > > You won't get it and will just come up with more bull****, and then > > accuse me of being "rude." > > You just called me dumbass for not sharing your opinion in another > posting, that _is_ rude, which is why me calling you rude is not an > accusation but the truth. Because you're acting like a dumbass. If the foo ****s... > > Quite frankly, if you don't understand the > > statement I posted, you won't understand my explanation either. If that's > > "rude" then so be it. > > OK, as you are incapable of explaining why supposedly your view is true I > will explain to you why it is wrong: > > As long as there is equal friction on all four wheels and you are > braking in a straight line you can brake close to the traction limit of > your tires, possibly closer than ABS can. > > As soon as the traction becomes unequal between tires you have to reduce > your brake force so far that the tire with the weakest friction does not > break loose, especially if you are not braking in a straight line. ABS on > the other hand does not have this restriction and brakes every wheel to > _its_ traction limit, which produces significantly shorter stopping > distances, especially when you have to brake in a curve, where the lateral > forces on your wheels are unequal to begin with. > > IOW under ideal conditions you may be able to outbrake ABS, in real world > conditions you are not. > > Chris Wrong, wrong, wrong. I really hate to have to play the "qualifications" card, but I used to work with this stuff every day and I think I have a little better understanding of how it works than you do. nate |
#364
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 04:33:33 -0700, N8N wrote:
> > > C.H. wrote: >> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 07:29:42 -0700, N8N wrote: >> >> > You won't get it and will just come up with more bull****, and then >> > accuse me of being "rude." >> >> You just called me dumbass for not sharing your opinion in another >> posting, that _is_ rude, which is why me calling you rude is not an >> accusation but the truth. > > Because you're acting like a dumbass. If the foo ****s... No, I merely am stating my view, and you merely happen not to like it. And instead of just stating your view like a grown-up person you think that calling your opponent names is going to make you look better. Fortunately that's not true, so I suggest you go find your manners and return when you are prepared to behave like an adult. >> As soon as the traction becomes unequal between tires you have to reduce >> your brake force so far that the tire with the weakest friction does not >> break loose, especially if you are not braking in a straight line. ABS >> on the other hand does not have this restriction and brakes every wheel >> to _its_ traction limit, which produces significantly shorter stopping >> distances, especially when you have to brake in a curve, where the >> lateral forces on your wheels are unequal to begin with. >> >> IOW under ideal conditions you may be able to outbrake ABS, in real >> world conditions you are not. >> > Wrong, wrong, wrong. I really hate to have to play the "qualifications" > card, but I used to work with this stuff every day and I think I have a > little better understanding of how it works than you do. Obviously not or you would already have explained it. Given your boorish behavior and your incapability of 'setting things straight' (spare me the 'you won't believe me anyway' lament) it is highly unlikely that you have anything useful to contribute. Go ahead, prove me wrong - by explaining your view of things, not by dipping into your endless supply of insults. Chris |
#365
|
|||
|
|||
C.H. wrote: > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 04:33:33 -0700, N8N wrote: > > > > > > > C.H. wrote: > >> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 07:29:42 -0700, N8N wrote: > >> > >> > You won't get it and will just come up with more bull****, and then > >> > accuse me of being "rude." > >> > >> You just called me dumbass for not sharing your opinion in another > >> posting, that _is_ rude, which is why me calling you rude is not an > >> accusation but the truth. > > > > Because you're acting like a dumbass. If the foo ****s... > > No, I merely am stating my view, and you merely happen not to like it. Because it doesn't make sense. > And > instead of just stating your view like a grown-up person you think that > calling your opponent names is going to make you look better. Fortunately > that's not true, so I suggest you go find your manners and return when you > are prepared to behave like an adult. Whatever. When you start thinking like an adult maybe people will start relating to you like an adult. > > >> As soon as the traction becomes unequal between tires you have to reduce > >> your brake force so far that the tire with the weakest friction does not > >> break loose, especially if you are not braking in a straight line. ABS > >> on the other hand does not have this restriction and brakes every wheel > >> to _its_ traction limit, which produces significantly shorter stopping > >> distances, especially when you have to brake in a curve, where the > >> lateral forces on your wheels are unequal to begin with. > >> > >> IOW under ideal conditions you may be able to outbrake ABS, in real > >> world conditions you are not. > >> > > Wrong, wrong, wrong. I really hate to have to play the "qualifications" > > card, but I used to work with this stuff every day and I think I have a > > little better understanding of how it works than you do. > > Obviously not or you would already have explained it. Given your boorish > behavior and your incapability of 'setting things straight' (spare me the > 'you won't believe me anyway' lament) it is highly unlikely that you have > anything useful to contribute. > > Go ahead, prove me wrong - by explaining your view of things, not by > dipping into your endless supply of insults. > > Chris I suppose personal experience in instrumented test vehicles with the ABS enabled and disabled - in the same vehicle on the same test surfaces - isn't good enough for you? Too bad. nate |
#366
|
|||
|
|||
On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 05:27:16 -0700, N8N wrote:
> > > C.H. wrote: >> On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 04:33:33 -0700, N8N wrote: >> >> > Because you're acting like a dumbass. If the foo ****s... >> >> No, I merely am stating my view, and you merely happen not to like it. > > Because it doesn't make sense. You just claim it doesn't and don't even back your claim up. But even if it didn't it would merely be a wrong view and no justification at all for childish namecalling. >> And >> instead of just stating your view like a grown-up person you think that >> calling your opponent names is going to make you look better. >> Fortunately that's not true, so I suggest you go find your manners and >> return when you are prepared to behave like an adult. > > Whatever. When you start thinking like an adult maybe people will start > relating to you like an adult. I already think like an adult, which is why I don't call you any number of names that you deserve much more than I deserve the names you are calling me just because you happen not to like my opinion. >> > Wrong, wrong, wrong. I really hate to have to play the >> > "qualifications" card, but I used to work with this stuff every day >> > and I think I have a little better understanding of how it works than >> > you do. >> >> Obviously not or you would already have explained it. Given your boorish >> behavior and your incapability of 'setting things straight' (spare me >> the 'you won't believe me anyway' lament) it is highly unlikely that you >> have anything useful to contribute. >> >> Go ahead, prove me wrong - by explaining your view of things, not by >> dipping into your endless supply of insults. >> > I suppose personal experience in instrumented test vehicles with the ABS > enabled and disabled - in the same vehicle on the same test surfaces - > isn't good enough for you? Too bad. It might be good enough, but your mere claim that you have said experience is not. Also, even if you had the experience I would still want to see an explanation, why this is so, which - if you actually were a test engineer at an auto manufacturer - you would have a good explanation for. As things are you claim you are an 'insider' like any number of usenet denizens and are unable to back it up. Now go ahead and corroborate your claim. Models of the cars, what happened, explanation. Can't wait... Chris |
#367
|
|||
|
|||
C.H. wrote: > > A cramped seating position destroys any fun a car provides and is > dangerous to boot. I suspect that I would probably do better with the GTO > on the track than I would with the Evo simply because not being able to > sit right and feel the car properly destroys any handling benefit the car > may have. > >From the owner of a convertible Camaro, this is a hilarious comment. E.P. |
#368
|
|||
|
|||
"C.H." > wrote in message news > On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:06:55 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote: > >> >> "C.H." > wrote in message >> news >>> On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 13:04:54 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote: >>> >>>> How so? I stated that a 41% jump in June was a anomoly (created by the >>>> campaign) and how it brought their numbers up close to the previous >>>> year a.d that alone doesn't make a trend. The future sales numbers is >>>> anybody's guess. >>> >>> How do you know it is an anomaly then? >> >> A sales number for June that is far outside of trend or forcast is a >> textbook example of the meaning of the word. It IS a anomoly until and >> unless future sales numbers show otherwise. > > No, it just is a good marketing campaign. It's not uncommon that a good > marketing campaign boosts sales numbers drastically. Of course it is a good campaign...I've agreed with that premise from the start. And repeated it three times now (at least). Did you miss it every time? Something typically causes a anomoly to occur (which can include a marketing campaign. Nevertheless, it's still a anamoly by definition Not sure why you're arguing a point that can't be any clearer. It will be interesting to see what happens now that Chrysler upped the ante. Chrysler is also offering the employee discount. BUT, Chrysler is adding $599-$3500 more discount on top of that! <whew!> Not sure how they can afford it...I guess we'll see. >>>> I agree. However, you're the one that used the word "fault". Success >>>> and failure both rest with GM management. >>> >>> I am the one, who said that _you_ see it as a _fault_ of GM that they >>> came up with good marketing and sold a lot of cars lately. >> >> No, I clearly said I saw it a genious (or ingenious). How can one >> possibly intrepret that as my seeing it as a "fault"? > > You were complaining about GM's campaign and success. That clearly shows > that you think they are at fault. Which is not surprising, because your > pretty theory that people don't buy GM because of DRLs was blasted out the > window by this very campaign. How was a statement of praise that indicated a ingenious marketing move, compared to the other sales numbers of the year, even come close to qualifying as a complaint? Exactly what are you reading here in this forum? >>> I never claimed it was. On the contrary. This supports my view that the >>> old 'haggle or you are gonna get fleeced' method of selling cars was >>> actually driving customers away, not your hated DRLs. >> >> DRLs have nothing at all to do with this. DRL's are a constant factor >> in the before and after numbers (they existed before the jump in sales >> and they existed after...so DRL's offer no influence positive or >> negative since nothing changed with them). Surely you realize that the >> only factor in the sales jump was the ad campaign (all else being >> equal). > > Of course DRLs have to do with this. You claimed that people are not > buying GM because of DRLs any more. No, I claimed that a certain segment of the market won't buy GM because of DRL's. The debate can only be what percentage that segment of the market is. Is it 1%, 2%, 10%....who knows? Until someone does know, a accurate assessment of impact to the monthly sales number cannot be known with any certanty (only that there is *some* impact of a unknown amount) > As preposterous as the claim is for a > company that has almost 30% of the car > market in the US, it was proven > even more wrong when without removal the > sales numbers shot up just > because people were freed from > the haggle/hassle issues. Surely you can understand the simple concept that if 1% of the market won't buy DRL equipped vehicles, then the market share mumber would be 31% if DRLs weren't forced on them (given your market share number of 30% with DRLs and assuming that 1 out 100 people won't buy for that reason). If it's 10 of that market, then market share would have been 40%. > Face it, no one cares about DRLs enough to make a buying decision because > of them or the lack of them (except you of course, but that you are not > very good at selecting criteria for buying cars is nothing new). And you apparently choose to ignoring those thousands of people that have stated the same in the public comment dockets at the NHTSA, and those that have stated same in numerious forums, newsgroups, etc. Why? Those are real people that buy cars. Most of them on the NHTSA site state that they are current GM owners that won't buy another GM for that reason. Of course that may be why GM is pushing so hard, for the past 10+ years, to make DRLs mandatory. Doing so would remove the marketing disadvantage GM has if buyers couldn't go elsewhere to avoid them. But that is speculation on my part...but sure does smell fishy. > Plus DRLs improve visibility If you had read the report, you would know that it increases conspicuity, not visability. Unless DRLs also wash your windows and clean your glasses too! ;-) > and reduce accidents, as shown by the document I posted > a reference to. And you've yet to answer my earlier question that if this was so cut and dried (no down sides to DRLs to work through yet), why didn't the NHTSA make them mandatory 10 years ago? Hint: You'll find the answer if you keep reading beyond your one document out of thousands on file. > IOW, your idea that people hate DRLs and thus don't buy GM > is out the window. Curious question. How do you "explain-away" those comments posted at the NHTSA if some percentage of the public doesn't hate them? How do you "explain-away" all the hate DRL sites and postings of how to disable them, etc. Or are you making stuff up in your head again? Also check the wording of your sentence. I've clearly stated (a half dozen times now, at least), that this applies to a *segment* of the market...not generally to "people" Also: I didn't ever say that "people hate DRLs and thus won't buy GM.." I said that "...a segment of the public hate DRLs and (that segment) won't buy GM..." There is a distinct difference between the two statements. Not sure why you change the context...repeatedly. |
#369
|
|||
|
|||
"C.H." > wrote in message news > On Sun, 17 Jul 2005 22:14:42 -0400, James C. Reeves wrote: > >> >> "C.H." > wrote in message >> news > >>> On the contrary, I find it highly hilarious how you are trying to keep >>> your little world of prejudices, misinformation and hatred when it is >>> prodded from different directions. >> >> Only in your mind Chris. Most of it is made up in your head (but I'm >> sure >> you still believe it...which is fine). > > Amusing, how you try to wiggle out of what you said yourself. Only in your head Chris. There must be voices up there is all I can say. The things you come back with aren't even remotely close to what was said most of the time...you constantly add in incorrect "agendas", "motovations", "contexts" that completely change the meaning (to you but to no one else). Why do you do that? >>> No, it is not. Whether or not you have a bias against sausages for >>> breakfast indeed is not relevant for this discussion which is why I am >>> not talking about that. But an extreme bias against US-manufacturers >>> and/or specifically GM is quite relevant in this discussion. >>> >> How so when that is already clear to everyone else reading through the >> thread that people are commenting from the position of their >> preferences, likes, dislikes, biases. There isn't a need to discuss it. > > If everything, that is stated twice was redundant, 98% of your postings > would be redundant. Well if you would get it the 1st time (without adding stuff that isn't there)..or even the second, or the third times, then it wouldn't be necessary, now would it? ;-) |
#370
|
|||
|
|||
"C.H." > wrote in message news > On Mon, 18 Jul 2005 05:27:16 -0700, N8N wrote: > > I already think like an adult, which is why I don't call you any number of > names that you deserve much more than I deserve the names you are calling > me just because you happen not to like my opinion. Chris, you really can't go there and be serious about this statement, can you? |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Enable Caravan Daytime Running Lights (DRL's) Option | ls_dot1 | Chrysler | 11 | May 26th 05 01:49 AM |
Disable DRL'S on 2002 S-10 | Pete | Technology | 41 | May 24th 05 04:19 AM |
Disable DRL'S on 2002 S-10 | Daniel J. Stern | Driving | 3 | May 24th 05 04:19 AM |
Why no rear lights with DRLs? | Don Stauffer | Technology | 26 | April 26th 05 04:16 AM |
Chevy Tahoe DRls? | BE | Driving | 0 | March 28th 05 03:45 PM |