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

[suityou01]

Not least of which is the neanderthal habitually behind the wheel!!

Yip, and I get a go on Wilma every night!

[shaunbhoy]

My car has no cruise control, in many ways it's more like Fred Flintstone's car.

Not least of which is the neanderthal habitually behind the wheel!!

[suityou01]

Bollocks - I've just given up trying to have a reasoned debate in the face of illogicality and stupidity. However he can have the last word.......

Oh dear Owly

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Looks like Suity has won the argument hands down!

Bollocks - I've just given up trying to have a reasoned debate in the face of illogicality and stupidity. However he can have the last word.......

[suityou01]

Looks like Suity has won the argument hands down!

I know, it's been a funny week hasn't it?

[OwlHoot]

Looks like Suity has won the argument hands down!

[suityou01]

Yeah, whatever.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

Yeah, whatever.

[suityou01]

Suit yourself.

[Peoplesoft bloke]

You're starting to bluster. <titter>

Suit yourself.

[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>

[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]

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]

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 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.