You need to understand Jim Bean. He thinks anyone who doesn'tagree with him is either an idiot or a paid shill. He attacks me and claimsI am a paid shill becRe: Toyota Recalls Defective Engines in Lexus GS350,GS450h, GS460, IS350, LS460, LS600h, LS6
in [Toyota Camry]
|
Prev: You need to understand Jim Bean. He thinks anyone who doesn'tagree with him is either an idiot or a paid shill. He attacks me and claimsI am a paid shill becRe: Toyota Recalls Defective Engines in Lexus GS350,GS450h, GS460, IS350, LS460, LS600h, LS60
Next: Fuse location
From: jim beam on 8 Jul 2010 13:42 On 07/08/2010 09:47 AM, C. E. White wrote: > "jim beam"<me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message > news:tqCdnfEap5F2bKjRnZ2dnUVZ_uadnZ2d(a)speakeasy.net... >> On 07/08/2010 07:56 AM, C. E. White wrote: >>> "Larry Pollard"<lpol(a)gbustmail.com> wrote in message >>> news:t9jb36h6oi7714vtcigsqohtpjv0fq08d5(a)4ax.com... >>> >>>> No doubt. Even our legal system encourages payola for "expert >>>> witnesses". There is nothing that prevents or even deters a legal >>>> team from hiring someone with good paper credentials to "find" this or >>>> that. >>>> >>>> But is this guy really a good enough writer to do this professionally? >>>> I doubt it. And also since the audience of Usenet has diminished >>>> greatly over the years, it wouldn't really be an efficient use of time >>>> or money for someone to pay him to troll here. >>> >>> You need to understand Jim Bean. He thinks anyone who doesn't agree with >>> him >>> is either an idiot or a paid shill. He attacks me and claims I am a paid >>> shill because I don't go along with his "party line" regarding the >>> supposed >>> awesome quality of Japanese cars. >>> >>> >>> >>> The truth is I am just an ordinary citizen >> >> sure you are ed. that's why you blindly and steadfastly regurgitate the >> party line, even when it it is blatantly and patently bullshit. >> >> >>> who has owned all sorts of cars >>> from most manufacturers, or at least had close family members that did. I >>> have never believed all the BS about how great Toyota are. I owned one >>> years >>> ago and it was a turd. Others in my family have owned them and currently >>> there are 5 Toyotas in my close family group. All of them have so far >>> been >>> reliable. I particularly like my Mother's Highlander (I should, I >>> recommended it to her) and particularly dislike the 3 RAV4 owned by the >>> group ( POS ergonomics being my main gripe - but the actual owners are >>> very >>> happy). My experience has been that Toyota builds vehicles with quality >>> and >>> longevity comparable to vehicles from other major manufacturers. Some >>> Toyotas are good and some are bad. I do think tht in the past Toyota has >>> routinely misled Customers and worked very hard to cover up significant >>> defects. The sudden acceleration "issue" finally exposed some of these >>> practices. I think it is ironic that this isn't even close to the most >>> blatant customer dis-service issue. On a percentage of vehicles sold, >>> rusted >>> truck frames, defective ball joints, rollover prone 4Runners, and others >>> were all much more significant cases of Toyota quality and design >>> problems >>> but they never generated the sort of firestorm related to the UA issue. >>> And >>> even the origin of the UA firestorm (the match that lit the fire so to >>> speak) was not Toyota's fault in any meaningful way (the Lexus out of >>> control in California). But now that the cat is out of the bag, Toyota >>> is >>> getting the sort of scrutiny that was absent in the past. It is well >>> deserved. >> >> so ed, apart from being full of it, where is your "scrutiny" of your >> employers failing to, ahem, "notice" that the billions of taxpayer dollars >> used to keep them afloat are in fact being used to support chinese jobs, >> not american? because that's where g.m. gets its componentry. unlike >> toyota that not only assembles its vehicle here, but does so with >> AMERICAN-SOURCED COMPONENTRY. > > My employer is not involved in the car industry (at least not directly - I > am sure they all buy some of our stuff - including Toyota). "your employer"??? but you masquerade as an ordinary farmer ed! and "not directly involved" means what exactly? you mean the p.r. and lobbying industries don't actually manufacture cars??? > I don't actually > think you believe I am a paid shill. I think you just use that as an excuse > to justify some of your more ridiculous attacks. don't put false words in my mouth ed - i most definitely do believe you're a paid shill. no rational educated individual could possibly have the bullshit "opinions" you have without some kind of prostitution. > As far as motives are > concerned, it seems to me you have never come clean about yours. You > repeatedly attack GM and praise Toyota. This leads me to believe you have an > axe to grind with GM and that you feel the need to kiss Toyota's a*&%. wrong. don't put false words in my mouth. > I can > almost understand the anti-GM stuff, but given your seemingly pro-American > rhetoric, I don't understand you praise for a foreign owned / foreign > government supported company that has caused the loss of tens of thousands > of American jobs (some of which they have "graciously" replaced with lower > paying jobs). dodge and weave. why are you condoning the [mis]use of american taxpayers dollars being used to support jobs in china ed? because you're paid to! > > >> oh, wait, am i not supposed to point out the facts??? [rhetorical] > > > > It is easy enough to find comparison of domestic content for the various > makes and models of automobiles. I posted links to this sort of information > many times. Take a look at: > > > > http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2009/07/domestic-parts-content-and-automakers.html you've cited that "article" before ed, but it doesn't state its sources. god forbid they should ever make a "mistake" or skew the numbers in any way. > > http://www.nhtsa.gov/Laws+&+Regulations/ci.Part+583+American+Automobile+Labeling+Act+(AALA)+Reports.print you apparently can't read. "country of origin" is carefully defined as country of assembly, not the country from which the components were actually produced. all the componentry i cited is made in china, carefully not included in that list, and automatically redefined by "assembly" here in the u.s. > > > > As for Toyota not buying parts in China - you are an idiot. The Toyota brand > floor mats I ordered for my Mother's Highlander came in a Toyota logo box > with a made in china label. floor mats ed. not engine computers, instruments, brakes, glass, seats, wiring harnesses, drive-shafts, all of which are made in china and used by g.m. none of which are used by toyota in the manufacture of their american vehicles, made with american componentry. > Toyota does business in China just like almost > every other company foreign and domestic. We might not like the practice (I > don't like it either), but singling out GM for buying parts from the Chinese > is not fair. why do american taxpayers need to support chinese jobs ed? toyota started manufacturing here due to tax pressure. it's utterly ridiculous and completely indefensible to not ensure that american taxpayer bailout dollars given to g.m. have no "must use american components" strings attached. > If you want to attack manufacturers for buying from the > Chinese, attack them all (at least all the ones in the US - I am not sure > about the European manufacturers).\ but i do ed. and if you're "not sure" ed, that's because you're not paid to be "sure". > > > > Ed > > > > > -- nomina rutrum rutrum
From: jim on 9 Jul 2010 08:08
jim beam wrote: > > > > I don't actually > > think you believe I am a paid shill. I think you just use that as an excuse > > to justify some of your more ridiculous attacks. > > don't put false words in my mouth ed - i most definitely do believe > you're a paid shill. no rational educated individual could possibly > have the bullshit "opinions" you have without some kind of prostitution. This statement gives a glimpse inside a mind completely sucked in to its own delusional fantasy. Any one who doesn't agree with the illustrious magnificent Mr. Bean is obviously not just an ordinary individual with ordinary opinions. No. No it is absolutely certain that could not be possible. It is indisputably evident that the only reason Mr. Bean is losing this argument is because he is arguing with an entire legion of highly paid researchers and writers that is just posing as an ordinary person with ordinary ideas. |