More stuff about Toyotas that go faster than you might like.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

That you can have.


That you can't have. Obligatory wail link.

Bollocks - that Wail link is all about a Ford Explorer problem - unlike you (who tried to say it was a Galaxy) I accept that occurred.

But it makes no mention of your wanky allegations about the Ford cost-benefit analysis and an email - because;

a)Those allegations were about the Ford Pinto.
b)They are bollocks anyway.

[suityou01]

Bollocks - that Wail link is all about a Ford Explorer problem - unlike you (who tried to say it was a Galaxy) I accept that occurred.

But it makes no mention of your wanky allegations about the Ford cost-benefit analysis and an email - because;

a)Those allegations were about the Ford Pinto.
b)They are bollocks anyway.

You really should do your research before taking me on.

This is too easy. Cutting you a slice of pie now.

Game set and match

Ford Motor Co. (F) was sued on behalf of customers in 14 states over claims that its vehicles are subject to unintentionally accelerating and lack fail-safe measures to prevent crashes.

Ford is accused of knowing of the alleged defect and concealing it from consumers.

The models named in the complaint include the 2005 through 2010 Ford Mustang, 2002 through 2005 Mercury Cougar and 2004 through 2010 Ford Explorer.

No way back from this.

Can I hear your pedals going into reverse already?

[Peoplesoft bloke]

You really should do your research before taking me on.

This is too easy. Cutting you a slice of pie now.

Game set and match







No way back from this.

Can I hear your pedals going into reverse already?

And the reference to the Ford Cost Benefit analysis and the damning e-mail is where exactly?

[suityou01]

And the reference to the Ford Cost Benefit analysis and the damning e-mail is where exactly?

You've got google, right?

Read between the lines?

Ford is accused of knowing of the alleged defect and concealing it from consumers.

“Ford could have and should have prevented the dangers presented by these foreseeable incidents by including” a brake override system or other fail-safe measures in its vehicles, according to the complaint. “Ford affirmatively concealed from plaintiffs and the other class members the defect.”

HTH BIKIW

[Peoplesoft bloke]

You've got google, right?

Read between the lines?



HTH BIKIW

So you accept there is no e-mail and no cost benefit analysis - or at least you can provide no direct evidence that there is. You didn't do any research did you?

What you have linked to is a new report of a lawsuit which makes allegations - but interestingly, doesn't talk about the e-mail or the cost benefit analysis - don't you think it's odd that these weren't mentioned if they existed? Or could it just because, as I said, you had got confused with the urban myth about the Ford Pinto -

One more Winnebago thought: the Ford Pinto lawsuit urban legend - Overlawyered

For example, how about the myth that the Ford Pinto was unusually dangerous and the related myth that Ford valued a human life at $200,000 in deciding not to make a design change? It’s a thirty-year-old tale, trumpeted by Mother Jones magazine and the mainstream media, repeated endlessly (including by Ralph Nader and in a talk I heard by Jonathan Turley, quoted in the LA Times story), used in law school textbooks—but it’s utterly false.

and

The myth of the Pinto case - Overlawyered

No discussion of the modern litigation system seems to be complete without a reference to the Ford Pinto and the supposed “smoking-gun” memo found in the automaker’s files. As Newmark’s Door observes (Jul. 11), the myth was long ago refuted, but it lives on endlessly in public discussion anyway, perhaps because many fans of expansive product liability find it too good to check.


The comments in that article you linked to were quite interesting, some pointing to some factual errors and others observing that it's vexatious litigation.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your "man in the pub" "knowledge".

[suityou01]

So you accept there is no e-mail and no cost benefit analysis - or at least you can provide no direct evidence that there is. You didn't do any research did you?

What you have linked to is a new report of a lawsuit which makes allegations - but interestingly, doesn't talk about the e-mail or the cost benefit analysis - don't you think it's odd that these weren't mentioned if they existed? Or could it just because, as I said, you had got confused with the urban myth about the Ford Pinto -

One more Winnebago thought: the Ford Pinto lawsuit urban legend - Overlawyered

For example, how about the myth that the Ford Pinto was unusually dangerous and the related myth that Ford valued a human life at $200,000 in deciding not to make a design change? It’s a thirty-year-old tale, trumpeted by Mother Jones magazine and the mainstream media, repeated endlessly (including by Ralph Nader and in a talk I heard by Jonathan Turley, quoted in the LA Times story), used in law school textbooks—but it’s utterly false.

and

The myth of the Pinto case - Overlawyered

No discussion of the modern litigation system seems to be complete without a reference to the Ford Pinto and the supposed “smoking-gun” memo found in the automaker’s files. As Newmark’s Door observes (Jul. 11), the myth was long ago refuted, but it lives on endlessly in public discussion anyway, perhaps because many fans of expansive product liability find it too good to check.


The comments in that article you linked to were quite interesting, some pointing to some factual errors and others observing that it's vexatious litigation.

But don't let the facts get in the way of your "man in the pub" "knowledge".

Still too easy fcknuckles. Lookey here

The company defended itself on the grounds that it used the accepted risk/benefit analysis to determine if the monetary costs of making the change were greater than the societal benefit. Based on the numbers Ford used, the cost would have been $137 million versus the $49.5 million price tag put on the deaths, injuries, and car damages, and thus Ford felt justified not implementing the design change.

Choke down my pole, biatch.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Still too easy fcknuckles. Lookey here



Choke down my pole, biatch.

So, in summary -

1. You accept you were talking about the Pinto - as I said.
2. You accept there is no cost-benefit analysis or e-mail evidence in relation to the Explorer- as I said.
3. You know how to make up "insults" like an ignorant redneck from the USA.

[suityou01]

So, in summary -

1. You accept you were talking about the Pinto - as I said.
2. You accept there is no cost-benefit analysis or e-mail evidence in relation to the Explorer- as I said.
3. You know how to make up "insults" like an ignorant redneck from the USA.

1. No. The explorer has the rapid accel problems. See thread title. There of course will be memo, but seeing as it's currently going to court it's unlikely to be spread across the internet now is it? The Pinto example shows how Ford did cost benefit analysis in the past, and hid things. It wouldn't surprise me if they did the same with the explorer.

2. See 1.

3. Cheers bud.

Now, open wide there's a big, fat sweaty hairy pole coming.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

1. No. The explorer has the rapid accel problems. See thread title. There of course will be memo, but seeing as it's currently going to court it's unlikely to be spread across the internet now is it? The Pinto example shows how Ford did cost benefit analysis in the past, and hid things. It wouldn't surprise me if they did the same with the explorer.

2. See 1.

3. Cheers bud.

Now, open wide there's a big, fat sweaty hairy pole coming.

You expect me to accept your "it wouldn't surprise me" as "evidence"? What a pillock.

As you've chosen to shift to the Pinto (whilst trying to conflate it to the much later Explorer), you're showing your ignorance (or possibly just inability to grasp written English) again. Even in the Article you linked to, it is clear that Ford didn't compare the costs of redesign vs litigation, but you're so full of redneck insults, you didn't bother to read (or couldn't understand) that bit.

It's a shame you can't accept it, but I've called you on all the daft claims you made, and all you can do is answer as if you're appearing on Jerry Springer.

[suityou01]

You expect me to accept your "it wouldn't surprise me" as "evidence"? What a pillock.

As you've chosen to shift to the Pinto (whilst trying to conflate it to the much later Explorer), you're showing your ignorance (or possibly just inability to grasp written English) again. Even in the Article you linked to, it is clear that Ford didn't compare the costs of redesign vs litigation, but you're so full of redneck insults, you didn't bother to read (or couldn't understand) that bit.

It's a shame you can't accept it, but I've called you on all the daft claims you made, and all you can do is answer as if you're appearing on Jerry Springer.

You're starting to bluster. <titter>