 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / General Car Topics / March 2008Beware of high tech running amok
Beware of high tech running amok Some features are nutty, unnecessary or maybe both Frank Aukofer Automotive News February 25, 2008 - 12:01 am ET COMMENTARY Volvo has a high-tech feature called BLIS. But it's anything but blissful. It's mostly annoying. And it's unnecessary, just like many of the other high-tech, high-cost and mostly useless features being foisted on gullible buyers as manufacturers think up ways to sell vehicles with faddish technology for technology's sake. Among them: -- Rain-sensing windshield wipers: They usually don't work, and besides, what's wrong with setting the interval yourself? -- Auto-dimming mirrors: You can't see anything but headlights at night. -- Keyless push-button ignition systems: How about inserting a key and twisting it? -- Radar cruise control: It slows you so the guy next to you can jump in the lane in front of you. -- Air-conditioned and heated seats: They're not needed if you sit on good-quality cloth instead of trendy leather. -- Surround-view cameras: What's wrong with looking around? -- Proximity warning systems: You can't tell whether it's picking up something in back or near the front fender. By now everyone has heard about the BMW iDrive, a hopelessly complicated system to do simple things, and Comand, which got Mercedes-Benz into a lot of quality trouble. Lexus has a self-parking system that needs about five times as much parking space as the average driver uses. Some of the stuff has marginal value, like rear cameras on SUVs that can keep some rutabaga brain from backing over a child. And Lexus has a face recognition system that sounds a warning and applies the brakes for the idiot who is drunk or nods off. Infiniti has a lane departure system that sounds a chime and gently applies the brakes to bring the car back in line. There are some extremely worthwhile high-tech inventions, including stability and traction control, antilock brakes and tire-pressure monitoring. But some are off-the-charts silly, like BLIS and similar systems. This is BLIS? BLIS stands for "blind spot information system." Cameras are mounted under the outside mirrors; they pick up cars approaching on both sides from the rear. When a car shows up in a supposed blind spot, a light inside on one A-pillar or the other illuminates to tell the driver something he should already know. It's not exclusive to Volvo. Mazda has one, and other manufacturers and suppliers have or are working on similar devices. They are costly and pointless. They don't always work as advertised, either, often providing false warnings. Virtually all automobiles and trucks these days have large outside mirrors with broad ranges of adjustments. Anyone can adjust the outside mirrors so that blind spots do not exist. All you have to do is adjust the left outside mirror so its right side lines up with the left side of the inside mirror. And adjust the right mirror so its left side aligns with the right side of the inside mirror. I am continually amazed at how many engineers, designers and even some automotive journalists believe in blind spots. They either don't know or refuse to learn how to adjust their outside mirrors properly. Or maybe they've been brainwashed by somebody's marketing department. In Europe, they've even institutionalized the fallacy by installing those ridiculous split reduction mirrors, which are supposed to eliminate blind spots but are mostly confusing and fortunately not legal in the United States. I think the blind-spot myth was propagated by generations of driver education instructors who told students to adjust outside mirrors so they could see the sides of the car - a "reference point." The problem is that if you adjust them that way, you get the same picture in all three mirrors - and blind spots. Then what? So, with Volvo's $695 BLIS, a light goes on when a car approaches. What are you supposed to do then? Guess where it is? Glance over your shoulder? All of that is distracting, and distractions are the No. 1 cause of accidents. The Mazda system, called BSM, has a page and a half of small italic type in the owner's manual with warnings about how the thing might not work, similar to those prescription drug advertisements on TV that warn of possible disablement or death if you use the product. The best part is that it says in boldface type: "Do not rely completely on the BSM system and be sure to look over your shoulder before changing lanes." Better yet, eliminate those expensive, complicated and unnecessary technology-spawned systems. Reduce the price of the car and spend the money on something useful, like a tush massager. > BLIS stands for "blind spot information system." Cameras are mounted under > the outside mirrors; they pick up cars approaching on both sides from the > rear. [ ... ] > Virtually all automobiles and trucks these days have large outside mirrors > with broad ranges of adjustments. Anyone can adjust the outside mirrors so > that blind spots do not exist. I'm surprised that someone who doesn't post to this newsgroup actually knows that. In any case, I wonder how expensive the following system would be: Using the position of the driver's seat, automatically adjust the mirrors such that there are no blind spots. Perhaps it could incorporate the height of the headrest as well to calculate vertical adjustment. If the driver adjust them inward, automatically revert to the correct adjustment. It shouldn't take much to implement a system like that :) > > BLIS stands for "blind spot information system." Cameras are mounted under > > the outside mirrors; they pick up cars approaching on both sides from the [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > > It shouldn't take much to implement a system like that :) And how exactly is a side-view mirror going to help expand the view directly behind the car? > > BLIS stands for "blind spot information system." Cameras are mounted under > > the outside mirrors; they pick up cars approaching on both sides from the [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > adjustment. If the driver adjust them inward, automatically revert to > the correct adjustment. Hmm. there are systems around that can detect where your pupil is, so it shouldn't be hard to have a camera back on the c pillar looking into the mirror and adjusting it until it sees your pupil. my problem is that the damn door mirrors aren't convenient for glancing at; i prefer then way out front on the fenders, like they used to be on english and japanese cars. >And it's unnecessary, just like many of the other high-tech, high-cost and >mostly useless features being foisted on gullible buyers as manufacturers [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >-- Proximity warning systems: You can't tell whether it's picking up >something in back or near the front fender. <sarcasm> Gee, no remote control for the radio? Oh, the humanity!!! ;) </sarcasm> V ery I rritating A ddition T o O nline L andtravel O pinion G roups I ncluding S ome T trolling > Some features are nutty, unnecessary or maybe both > -- Rain-sensing windshield wipers: They usually don't work, and besides, > what's wrong with setting the interval yourself? Why have at toilet when you can just c*** on the kitchen floor? > -- Auto-dimming mirrors: You can't see anything but headlights at night. If that is what happens when you drive at night, perhaps your eyes are not up to the quality required to safely operate a motor vehicle. Time to give up the drivers license. You can take a horse and buggy, after all. > -- Keyless push-button ignition systems: How about inserting a key and > twisting it? I challenge you to find one person in America that would give up keyless door locks and trade in the clicker for a key. I bet you cannot find anyone, at least no one who isn't taking lots of meds. > -- Radar cruise control: It slows you so the guy next to you can jump in the > lane in front of you. Oh, so you are the jerk who rides on my tail so close that you can smell it every time I fart. Quit making funny faces when I pass the gas and back off a little. Or get radar cruise to do it for you. > -- Air-conditioned and heated seats: They're not needed if you sit on > good-quality cloth instead of trendy leather. Apparently this guy has never been to Atlanta in the summer or Minneapolis in the winter. Must be nice. > -- Surround-view cameras: What's wrong with looking around? So you have have never heard of someone running over their little kid because they didn't see them? I think everyone would welcome an extra set of eyes. > -- Proximity warning systems: You can't tell whether it's picking up > something in back or near the front fender. I thought you said that you were looking around? Did you miss something, didja? Maybe this guy should change to writing business stories. I hear that buggy whip factory stocks are hot right now. -john-  Signature====================================================================== John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 john@johnweeks.com Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com ====================================================================== >> -- Auto-dimming mirrors: You can't see anything but headlights at night. > If that is what happens when you drive at night, perhaps your eyes are > not up to the quality required to safely operate a motor vehicle. > Time to give up the drivers license. You can take a horse and buggy, > after all. Huh? I don't use the 'night' setting on my rearview mirror for the same reason, all the detail is gone. I have excellent night vision and the loss of detail annoys me. >> -- Keyless push-button ignition systems: How about inserting a key and >> twisting it? > I challenge you to find one person in America that would give up > keyless door locks and trade in the clicker for a key. I bet you > cannot find anyone, at least no one who isn't taking lots of meds. I've never had keyless entry. I don't really have a desire for it either. > >> -- Keyless push-button ignition systems: How about inserting a key and > >> twisting it? [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I've never had keyless entry. I don't really have a desire for it either. Replace the word "keyless" entry with "sex", and see how foolish that logic sounds when you say it out loud. Just because you haven't tried something doesn't mean that you will not enjoy it once you have had it, and thus, you desire it again in the future. -john- Signature====================================================================== John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 john@johnweeks.com Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com ====================================================================== >> >> -- Keyless push-button ignition systems: How about inserting a key and >> >> twisting it? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >haven't tried something doesn't mean that you will not enjoy it >once you have had it, and thus, you desire it again in the future. I have keyless entry. It's called "not locking my door". Never needs batteries either. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. >I have keyless entry. It's called "not locking my door". Never needs >batteries either. What do you use for your engine immobilizer? SignaturePlease don't give financial rewards to trolls - DO NOT CLICK on any URLs containing "calrog.com" > On Mon, 25 Feb 2008 22:48:19 -0600, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Please don't give financial rewards to trolls - > DO NOT CLICK on any URLs containing "calrog.com" Running out of fuel? :) >>I have keyless entry. It's called "not locking my door". Never needs >>batteries either. > >What do you use for your engine immobilizer? I have two. One is the old fashioned "ignition key". The second is the clutch-starter interlock, which will stop a stupid (read: average) car thief. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > I have keyless entry. It's called "not locking my door". Never needs > batteries either. Bad idea. Not only is it illegal in most places, it also invalidates your insurance if it was relevant to a claim. And think of the consequences if some neighborhood kids figure this out, take the car, and end up in a horrible accident. Do you want to carry that around for the rest of your life. -john- Signature====================================================================== John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 john@johnweeks.com Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com ====================================================================== >> I have keyless entry. It's called "not locking my door". Never needs >> batteries either. > >Bad idea. Not only is it illegal in most places, it also invalidates >your insurance if it was relevant to a claim. Wrong on both counts; I've read my policy. The law often forbides leaving the car running unattended, but I've never heard of a law requiring the doors to be locked. >And think of the >consequences if some neighborhood kids figure this out, take the >car, and end up in a horrible accident. Do you want to carry that >around for the rest of your life. I have keyless ENTRY, not keyless IGNITION. SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. > In article <LOCdndwGhpv6F17anZ2dnUVZ_sPin...@comcast.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > haven't tried something doesn't mean that you will not enjoy it > once you have had it, and thus, you desire it again in the future. I've got a couple of those items. Keyless entry really isn't on *my* must have list, but a few things I've been spoiled by and now miss when my car doesn't have them... 1) central locks. I don't mind using a key, but it is nice when both doors and the hatch unlock with only one action. 2) Inside trunk release. That way I'm not fumbling with my keys in an unfamiliar parking lot, and God forbid I drop them and they roll under the car. 3) Heated rear view mirrors. Sure, the rear window defroster is nice, but that's only 1/3 of my rear vision. Gotta have the mirrors too. Esp. if they're iced over and I'm scared to scrape them for fear of busting the power adjuster. 4) Remote mirror adjusters. Almost too common to mention, but how else do you adjust the pass. side mirror without a helper? PITA if you share the car with someone much shorter or taller than you. 5) Heated leather seats. Leather because I'm a slob and will destroy cloth; heated because, well, have you ever sat your butt on 15 degree leather? 6) Automatic temperature control. I thought this one was really wussified until I bought my 944; now I love it. I'm always comfortable in the car. My entire interaction with the HVAC system is selecting "defrost" or "not defrost" and "air conditioning" or "not air conditioning." No setting it to "hot" when you get in the car, then fiddling with it after the car warms up so you're not *too* hot, etc... 7) Good headlights. Sadly this makes the list simply because most car headlights SUCK. The 944 now wears E-codes and a relay harness; I am truly spoiled now. 8) rear wiper/washer. I have owned a lot of hatchbacks and all have had the rear wiper/washer EXCEPT the 944, and now I miss it... got most of the parts scrounged to add the rear wiper but sadly Porsche didn't have a rear washer option. Am thinking of trying to rig something with VW parts if I keep the car long enough. well, there's my list anyway... nate > > In article <LOCdndwGhpv6F17anZ2dnUVZ_sPin...@comcast.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > must have list, but a few things I've been spoiled by and now miss > when my car doesn't have them... <snip> > 2) Inside trunk release. That way I'm not fumbling with my keys in an > unfamiliar parking lot, and God forbid I drop them and they roll under > the car. <snip> Try a new feature on my 2005 Ford 500. A great step backward. Has the inside trunk release _and no key unlock_ at the trunk. The inside release won't work and you have to push down on the trunk lid (releases lock pressure) before the keyless thing will work. And that is AFTER I took it back to the dealer twice. I suppose it could be argued that not having a key hole in the trunk lid is an antitheft measure but I consider it a very weak point. Harry K > > > In article <LOCdndwGhpv6F17anZ2dnUVZ_sPin...@comcast.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Harry K That's almost as bad as what I've seen on a lot of street rods; the builder will shave the trunk handle for a "clean" look, use an electric actuator to pop the trunk, and then relocate the battery from the engine compartment to above the rear axle for better weight distribution... nate >1) central locks. I don't mind using a key, but it is nice when both >doors and the hatch unlock with only one action. [quoted text clipped - 24 lines] >had the rear wiper/washer EXCEPT the 944, and now I miss it... got >most of the parts scrounged to add the rear wiper but sadly Porsche >didn't have a rear washer option. Am thinking of trying to rig >something with VW parts if I keep the car long enough. > >well, there's my list anyway... > >nate All good - I'll add a couple must haves for me: I'll second the good headlights - every one of my 5 cars has e-code headlights installed. It's dark here more than 16 hours a day in the Winter, and I want a sporting chance of seeing that random Moose before I hit it and kill him and myself. 9. Headlight wash/wipe - absolutely critical in a sloppy Maine snowstorm - both of my daily drivers and one of my convertibles are so equiped. The other two cars never play in the snow. You can't NOT take a Saab Convertible out in the snow occasionally - they get snippy. :-) 10. Snowtires - so very necessary on the daily drivers. All season tires suck. 11. A hatch - I don't get sedans, they are so impractical. Give me either a Wagon or at least a hatchback. Though I do make exception for my '86 535i. :-) Personally I would rather have top quality German plastic substances on my seats than leather. The seats in my Mercedes are 20 years old and absolutely look like new. And are no more or less comfortable than the leather in the other cars. Zero maintenance too. Kevin Rhodes 95 Saab 900SET 3dr -perfect winter car? I have no use for AWD. '92 Saab 900T Convertible - summer and winter fun '88 Mercedes Benz 300TE - perfect load lugger, possibly the high point of car evolution, just does everything well. '86 BMW 535i 5spd - just because it is a classic, sleeps through the winter '74 Triumph Spitfire - ye olde Britishe crocke, sleeping next to the BMW, waiting for warm summer evenings > Personally I would rather have top quality German plastic substances on my > seats than leather. The seats in my Mercedes are 20 years old and absolutely > look like new. And are no more or less comfortable than the leather in the > other cars. Zero maintenance too. Could you maybe get D-B's materials guy to talk to Porsche's materials guy? the phrase "top quality German plastic" makes me snort coffee out my nose. The dash pad of the 944 looks like a map of the surface of Mars, and it'll probably stay that way due to the PITA factor of replacing it and the fact that Just Dashes wants something on the order of magnitude of the value of the car to recover it. nate >> >> -- Keyless push-button ignition systems: How about inserting a key and >> >> twisting it? [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > haven't tried something doesn't mean that you will not enjoy it > once you have had it, and thus, you desire it again in the future. Why do I want more crap to carry around, another thing to break, another thing that needs a battery... For what advantage? Not putting a key into a lock? Then I'd never really trust the security of it. If it had a door lock as a backup it couldn't be more secure, if it didn't when the battery fails or the remote breaks one would be SOL. > >> >> -- Keyless push-button ignition systems: How about inserting a key and > >> >> twisting it? [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > lock as a backup it couldn't be more secure, if it didn't when the > battery fails or the remote breaks one would be SOL. Then why have electric start? After all, it is just one more key to carry around, the starter is another thing to break, and another thing that needs a battery...for what advantage? Not having to get out in the rain and cold to crank the car by hand? What if the batter fails...one would be SOL. -john- Signature====================================================================== John A. Weeks III 612-720-2854 john@johnweeks.com Newave Communications http://www.johnweeks.com ====================================================================== >> >> >> -- Keyless push-button ignition systems: How about inserting a key and >> >> >> twisting it? [quoted text clipped - 21 lines] > out in the rain and cold to crank the car by hand? What if the > batter fails...one would be SOL. If turning a key requires so much physical effort to you that you compare it with a hand crank well, you need to put more attention to your health than to usenet. Turning a key or pressing a button is the same amount of effort. It's not like a TV remote that removes the need to walk up to the television... you still need to walk up to the car and get in it. There is no big labor savings. None. Zero. Zilich. On the downside you have carry another thing around with you or an even bigger key and have yet another battery added to your life to deal with. >Why do I want more crap to carry around Huh? You already carry a key on a chain with a fob. Where is this "extra crap" of which you speak? >another thing that needs a battery... My first battery lasted almost 3 years and cost $3 to replace. BFD. >For what advantage? Not putting a key into a lock? The primary reason people lock their keys in their cars is because the key is constantly leaving their pocket or purse. With KSE (Keyless Start and Entry) the key can stay in your pocket at all times. The car can detect whether the key is inside the car or not; if you try to start the car and the key is not inside, the car will not start. If you leave the car and they key is still inside, the car will not lock, and will warn you by blipping the horn that you left your keys inside. My car can be programmed with up to 4 keys. Each key has all sorts of personalized settings associated with it, such as seat, steering wheel, and mirror positions, climate control settings, radio presets, even the name displayed on the dashboard. One day when you get married and you're constantly adjusting seats and mirrors after your wife has driven your car, you'll appreciate things like these. :) Another thing you might appreciate on occasion: my car has no lock cylinders in the doors to get frozen up in the winter. :) SignaturePlease don't give financial rewards to trolls - DO NOT CLICK on any URLs containing "calrog.com" >>Why do I want more crap to carry around > > Huh? You already carry a key on a chain with a fob. Where is this > "extra crap" of which you speak? I have no 'fob'. >>another thing that needs a battery... > My first battery lasted almost 3 years and cost $3 to replace. BFD. It's not the cost, it's the annoyance. >>For what advantage? Not putting a key into a lock? > The primary reason people lock their keys in their cars is because the > key is constantly leaving their pocket or purse. With KSE (Keyless > Start and Entry) the key can stay in your pocket at all times. Um... you're mixing things here. if you're keeping it in your pocket it's RFID which is something entirely different. > The car > can detect whether the key is inside the car or not; if you try to > start the car and the key is not inside, the car will not start. If > you leave the car and they key is still inside, the car will not lock, > and will warn you by blipping the horn that you left your keys inside. And makes your car easy to steal by some RFID interceptor. Easy low tech solution: Spare key in wallet duh. > My car can be programmed with up to 4 keys. Each key has all sorts of > personalized settings associated with it, such as seat, steering > wheel, and mirror positions, climate control settings, radio presets, > even the name displayed on the dashboard. One day when you get married > and you're constantly adjusting seats and mirrors after your wife has > driven your car, you'll appreciate things like these. :) Only I drive my car. > Another thing you might appreciate on occasion: my car has no lock > cylinders in the doors to get frozen up in the winter. :) It's called graphite lock lube. I've had to do it ONCE in 11 years. And what do you do when the gizmo fails? Break a window? >>>Why do I want more crap to carry around >> >> Huh? You already carry a key on a chain with a fob. Where is this >> "extra crap" of which you speak? > >I have no 'fob'. Most people do. You're just weird. Especially if you consider a key fob weighing an ounce or two to be some sort of an unbearable burden. >>>another thing that needs a battery... > >> My first battery lasted almost 3 years and cost $3 to replace. BFD. > >It's not the cost, it's the annoyance. Keys are more annoying than fobs - especially when the weather gets cold and icy. >>>For what advantage? Not putting a key into a lock? > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >Um... you're mixing things here. if you're keeping it in your pocket it's >RFID which is something entirely different. Not entirely. It's exactly the same 315MHz technology with the addition of a 125kHz LF component for the passive portion of the system. >> The car >> can detect whether the key is inside the car or not; if you try to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >And makes your car easy to steal by some RFID interceptor. Kindly link to a report of a Corvette, an IS-350, a Mercedes, or any other vehicle that was soltne in this manner. I'll wait. >Easy low tech solution: Spare key in wallet duh. Luddite. Do you keep a bottle of lock de-icer in your wallet too? >Only I drive my car. And you're never getting married or even having an SO. >> Another thing you might appreciate on occasion: my car has no lock >> cylinders in the doors to get frozen up in the winter. :) > >It's called graphite lock lube. I've had to do it ONCE in 11 years. Amazing. You tell us that your brakes fail constantly, and yet you've never had your locks freeze up on you? When I lived in IL, I had it happen at least once a year. >And what do you do when the gizmo fails? Break a window? I pop the trunk using the backup key cylinder and pull the emergency door release handle. SignaturePlease don't give financial rewards to trolls - DO NOT CLICK on any URLs containing "calrog.com" >>>>Why do I want more crap to carry around >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Most people do. You're just weird. Especially if you consider a key > fob weighing an ounce or two to be some sort of an unbearable burden. I thought I was clear I consider it an annoyance. >>>>another thing that needs a battery... >> >>> My first battery lasted almost 3 years and cost $3 to replace. BFD. >> >>It's not the cost, it's the annoyance. > Keys are more annoying than fobs - especially when the weather gets > cold and icy. Except for the torqueless wonder car I haven't had that problem in about 14 years. >>And makes your car easy to steal by some RFID interceptor. > Kindly link to a report of a Corvette, an IS-350, a Mercedes, or any > other vehicle that was soltne in this manner. I'll wait. I understand thieves eventually defeated the ford PATS system too... >>Easy low tech solution: Spare key in wallet duh. > Luddite. No. Keep it Simple, Stupid. > Do you keep a bottle of lock de-icer in your wallet too? Why would I need that? >>Only I drive my car. > And you're never getting married or even having an SO. Find me a woman under 35 years old that can drive three on the tree and then I'll be concerned about it. >>> Another thing you might appreciate on occasion: my car has no lock >>> cylinders in the doors to get frozen up in the winter. :) >>It's called graphite lock lube. I've had to do it ONCE in 11 years. > Amazing. You tell us that your brakes fail constantly, and yet you've > never had your locks freeze up on you? When I lived in IL, I had it > happen at least once a year. Strawman. I've had brake lines fail in hidden unservicable uninspectable locations on cars over 15 years old. It's called road salt spray. Door locks however give signals that they are in need of lube and preventing them from icing over isn't a big deal. Now my '73 and '75 mavericks when I did drive them daily over 11 years ago, would have the *latches* freeze up but not the lock cylinders. Of course your key fob thinggy doesn't take the latch out of the system. > Find me a woman under 35 years old that can drive three on the tree > and > then I'll be concerned about it. You have a car with three on the tree? I don't know when they stopped offering that, but it had to be sometime in the 70's. I think our last vehicle with three on the tree was a 1972 Ford F100. However, if you can drive a stick shift, three on the tree is pretty easy. I am sure I could teach anyone who regularly drives a manual how to handle three on the three in just a few minutes. Ed >> Find me a woman under 35 years old that can drive three on the tree >> and [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > could teach anyone who regularly drives a manual how to handle three > on the three in just a few minutes. My older car is three on the tree. it's a '73. And for emissions testing when they would send over the person who could drive an MT they were just baffled... explaining where R 1 2 3 wouldn't register. >> Find me a woman under 35 years old that can drive three on the tree >> and >> then I'll be concerned about it. > >You have a car with three on the tree? Since he drives a mid-90s Mustang, I'd say that's extremely doubtful. The thing about Brent is, when he's in an argumentative mood, he'll say *anything* just so he can disagree with you. But we love him anyway. :) SignaturePlease don't give financial rewards to trolls - DO NOT CLICK on any URLs containing "calrog.com" >>> Find me a woman under 35 years old that can drive three on the tree >>> and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Since he drives a mid-90s Mustang, I'd say that's extremely doubtful. > The thing about Brent is, when he's in an argumentative mood, he'll > say *anything* just so he can disagree with you. > > But we love him anyway. :) Now my '73 maverick is a 'lie' too? I'll take a picture of the shifter for you tonight scott. >>>> Find me a woman under 35 years old that can drive three on the >>>> tree [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > shifter > for you tonight scott. Hey, I drove one of those...had to be one of the last cars with 3 on the tree. Ed >> Find me a woman under 35 years old that can drive three on the tree and >> then I'll be concerned about it. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Ed my wife turned 35 last December. Learned to drive on a 3/4 ton farm truck. She's co-owner of a 2001 Trans Am six speed and bought me nitrous for an anniversary present. And no, you can't have her. :) Ray >>>I have no 'fob'. >> >> Most people do. You're just weird. Especially if you consider a key >> fob weighing an ounce or two to be some sort of an unbearable burden. > >I thought I was clear I consider it an annoyance. Do you really? Or are you just saying that so you can argue with me? >> Keys are more annoying than fobs - especially when the weather gets >> cold and icy. > >Except for the torqueless wonder car I haven't had that problem in about >14 years. But you have had that problem. QED. >I understand thieves eventually defeated the ford PATS system too... Cite? >>>Easy low tech solution: Spare key in wallet duh. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Why would I need that? Don't be disingenuous. >>>Only I drive my car. > >> And you're never getting married or even having an SO. > >Find me a woman under 35 years old that can drive three on the tree and >then I'll be concerned about it. Maybe that's your REAL problem: you aren't getting laid enough, and you take out your frustrations by getting into silly arguments on USENET? :) >Now my '73 and '75 mavericks when I did >drive them daily over 11 years ago, would have the *latches* freeze up >but not the lock cylinders. Of course your key fob thinggy doesn't take >the latch out of the system. The door latches in my C6 are controlled by solenoids. Since no part of the mechanism is exposed to water they cannot freeze up. You'd have to encase the entire car in a block of ice to keep me from getting into it. SignaturePlease don't give financial rewards to trolls - DO NOT CLICK on any URLs containing "calrog.com" >>>>I have no 'fob'. >>> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > > But you have had that problem. QED. Well, ya see it took me a bit to get into shape and the problem was half mechanical. It was bad in the summer, worse in the winter. Only disassembly and greasing took care of it. The linkage is still there with the remote gizmo and it was the problem, not the lock cylinders themselves. >>I understand thieves eventually defeated the ford PATS system too... > > Cite? It's funny how I'm the person who is expected to keep cites for every damn thing I've read in the last 20 years around here. How many times have I made something up out of the blue scott? ZERO. Ya think there would be just a little respect. >>>>Easy low tech solution: Spare key in wallet duh. >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Don't be disingenuous. I've never needed it. It's not my fault you drove beaters when you lived around here. >>>>Only I drive my car. >> >>> And you're never getting married or even having an SO. >> >>Find me a woman under 35 years old that can drive three on the tree and >>then I'll be concerned about it. > Maybe that's your REAL problem: you aren't getting laid enough, and > you take out your frustrations by getting into silly arguments on > USENET? :) You're the one pushing the silly argument trying to convince me I need your favorite gizmo. Note I haven't said you should give up your gizmo only that I don't need or want it. Think about that for a moment. Why is it so important that you convince me I need keyless entry? >>Now my '73 and '75 mavericks when I did >>drive them daily over 11 years ago, would have the *latches* freeze up >>but not the lock cylinders. Of course your key fob thinggy doesn't take >>the latch out of the system. > The door latches in my C6 are controlled by solenoids. Since no part > of the mechanism is exposed to water they cannot freeze up. You'd have > to encase the entire car in a block of ice to keep me from getting > into it. The latches are just as exposed in your vette as any other car. Although the old ford bear-hug latches did leave more mechanism out in the open than more modern designs. But that's neither here nor there because keyless entry does not eliminate nor does it better protect latches. Keyless entry merely controls the latches. The electric solenoid is the same one that is there for power locks. The electronic control replaces the lock cylinder and only the lock cylinder, the rest of the mechanism is there just as it would have always been. On Feb 27, 7:02 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <rbsas356ecr4p71ih7jcn8j061bhkfc...@4ax.com>, Scott in SoCal wrote: > How many times > have I made something up out of the blue scott? ZERO. Ya think there > would be just a little respect. LOL. That's reason you don't get respect. If the conclusions you reached made sense from the data you presented, you *would* get respect. Have you ever pondered for a moment why you get "BS!" called on you so often? As far as never making anything up - ROTFLMAO. E.P. > On Feb 27, 7:02 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >> have I made something up out of the blue scott? ZERO. Ya think there >> would be just a little respect. > LOL. That's reason you don't get respect. If the conclusions you > reached made sense from the data you presented, you *would* get > respect. You mean like the 85th percentile speed limit and other well supported contrarian to the general population items that the majority of the regulars of r.a.d. know to be true? The problem isn't my conclusions, rather its that certain people, namely you Ed, refuse to have the same open mind to the facts as they do with the 85th percentile speed limit. After all, conventional thought is slow is safe, speed kills. You might consider that if you've been fed lies in one area you might want to check the underlying facts in other areas to see if you've been lied to there as well. But nahh.... that's kooky... best for you to stick your head in the sand and believe what the TV tells you.... Just insult me and it will go away. Anyway, what's my claim here, that cars even with these passive anti-theft systems can be stolen vs. scott's claim that that the cars are theft proof and it's my conclusion that is suspect? lol. Like all anti-theft systems it just makes it different or take longer. > Have you ever pondered for a moment why you get "BS!" called on you so > often? And then I dish out the cites and then either silence or insults follow. If you had an open mind and bothered to expand your horizons a bit you'd see that the 'speed kills' idiotcy is just one grain of sand on the beach of similiar common thought that is just plain wrong. > As far as never making anything up - ROTFLMAO. Prove it. Last time I heard a peep out of you Ed you were telling me I just 'made up' administrative courts. I dished off a bunch of cites and you crawled back under your bridge. BTW, here ya go, a little googling and I found the article: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.08/carkey.html "Like the Pass Key, the new RFID technology was extremely effective for a few years. Thefts of the 1997 Ford Mustang, one of the first US cars with a transponder, dropped 70 percent from 1995 levels. (The rest were attributed to tow-aways and stolen keys.) Insurance firms were elated. .There was -pretty much a God-given belief that if a car with a transponder was stolen, the owner was sunk,. says Larry Burzynski, a senior special agent with the National Insurance Crime Bureau. .The perception was that the theft had to be owner involvement.. Insurers pressed auto-makers to deploy the technology, and even now the most frequently stolen cars in the US were built before the transponder era . like the .95 Civic and the .89 Camry. Newer models make the list only when manu-facturers forgo transponders. TO car thieves, smart keys became little more than the latest challenge. By 2000, forensic locksmiths like Painter were demonstrating for juries how crooks were getting past the transponders in Fords: Pop the hood and pull a certain fuse from the power relay center in the upper left corner. Zap, you.re in. Meanwhile, transponder-equipped cars were being resold to new owners, and keys were disappearing behind couch cushions. Auto-repair supply and locksmithing companies started selling devices like the Code-Seeker and the T-Code, which allow anyone to create a new set of keys for a fixed-code transponder-equipped car. The Jet Smart Clone (catchphrase: .Clone the uncloneable!.) duplicates any fixed-code RFID chip by reading its code and imprinting it onto the blank chip of a new key with the same mechanical cut." Now go crawl back under your bridge. On Feb 27, 4:05 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <34b87ba9-c84f-4a0d-a38e-856539135...@i7g2000prf.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > On Feb 27, 7:02 am, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > You mean like...[snipped argumentative crap] Yeah, just like that. Or whatever. Obviously you never have thought about it much. The fact that you happen to hit on a few true facts every now and then isn't surprising. Hell, anyone with as much free time as you seem to have might find some nuggets of truth. Just from the sheer volume of crap you spew out, some good must come. Sorta like fertilizer, I guess. Instead of knee-jerk defensive sermonizing, why not examine the why of why you seem to get so little respect. Even when you do actually present true facts. E.P. > On Feb 27, 4:05 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Yeah, just like that. Or whatever. Obviously you never have thought > about it much. > The fact that you happen to hit on a few true facts every now and then > isn't surprising. Hell, anyone with as much free time as you seem to > have might find some nuggets of truth. Just from the sheer volume of > crap you spew out, some good must come. Sorta like fertilizer, I > guess. > Instead of knee-jerk defensive sermonizing, why not examine the why of > why you seem to get so little respect. Even when you do actually > present true facts. That was predictable.... Like always I produce the cite and like always you spew insults back. Maybe one of these days you'll learn that no matter how much you want to believe I'm a kook, no matter how much you try to repeat the lies as you do above, and no matter how you try to change what I say into something else so you can pretend all is well and not have your view of the world challenged it won't change a thing. Once again, read it and weep Ed: http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/14.08/carkey.html Maybe you should try to understand why you have such a compulsion to try to paint me as you do. If I were just the sex starved basement dwelling kook that looked like a fat troll with no rational basis for his conclusions you want to paint me as, you wouldn't need to respond at all, afterall, nobody would believe or respect what I have to say, but yet you do need to reply and tell everyone I'm a kook. Why is that Ed? It's quite obviously more than mere amusement. You don't strike me as the school yard bully type, you're apparently far too educated for that. It's much deeper. You react like someone who wants to hold on to the view of the world he has and doesn't want it disturbed. Anyway, transponder keyed cars can be stolen, administrative courts do exist, and so do whole host of other things you just want to hide from. On Feb 27, 4:28 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <0c038c8f-35aa-4b9a-894d-d5badf71d...@p43g2000hsc.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > On Feb 27, 4:05 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 26 lines] > That was predictable.... Like always I produce the cite and like always > you spew insults back. Maybe it's because of your shitty, paranoid attitude? Maybe it's because of the natural tendency of folks to disbelieve someone who obviously has a bigger agenda? Or maybe it's because you are generally abrasive, holier-than-thou and incredibly defensive, all at the same time? The reason you have so much free time is abundantly clear. E.P. > On Feb 27, 4:28 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > > E.P. I disagree with your conclusions. I think a lot of Brent's "attitude" comes from year after year, people (both in RAD in the general public as a whole) disregarding facts, studies, and even common sense and displaying a noted lack of critical thinking skills about a variety of issues, traffic law and enforcement being an obvious, notable example. Once you get past Brent's delivery, which I generally interpret as exasperation after years of bringing up the same points again and again, I find myself agreeing with him quite a bit. Well, except for the bit about driving Fords. You can have the Fabulous BeaterPorsche when you pry the shift knob and steering wheel from my cold, dead hands. (I do have one Ford, for the record. It's an appliance-slash-support vehicle for my real cars.) I don't even bring up driving related issues outside of this forum anymore. Most people are so completely ignorant of the way things *should* be that they just swallow whatever pap they saw on a television ad somewhere. People having lived overseas being a notable exception. The older I get, the less faith I have in humanity. The "general public" seems to be just about dead wrong (or at least enough of the public is that what ought to be a non-issue with a clear course of action turns into a contentious debate) on pretty much any issue you care to bring up. I've accepted that the best I can do is act in a manner that I would have others act around me, and if others act like morons/kill themselves/vote for someone who has a known agenda to shred the constitution/whatever, oh well, I'll be dead in 70 years if not sooner and it'll be someone else's problem. If I let myself care too much about just about any issue, I'd be standing on a street corner screaming at everyone that they were fuckin' stupid. Hopefully the people in the nice white coats would at least hook me up with the good drugs. What's really sad is, once upon a time, as you state, the majority (or at least a significant and prolific minority) of RAD posters were knowledgable about driving, traffic law, etc. Now, if a n00b stumbled in, half the posts he'd see would be some spew from Aunt Judy or gpstard and the few regulars left posting something like "hey, fuckwit, die in a fire" and the poor n00b would think he'd stumbled into an unholy cross between an insane asylum and the kind of bar you wouldn't want to drink at. I think there are still quite a few people here who could provide accurate, meaningful answers to a real question from a sincere but ignorant poster. Unfortunately, if it ever happens it'll get lost in the noise... nate >> > On Feb 27, 4:28 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 48 lines] > issues, traffic law and enforcement being an obvious, notable > example. I think all those things are valid points, but they *can* be delivered in way different sort of way. You and I can certainly have a discussion about the merits (or lack thereof) of many different aspects of the vehicle code, the application, and the enforcement thereof. You may actually agree with Brent a lot, but I would never consider you paranoid or delusional about much of anything. Maybe about the merits of watercooled, front- engined Porsches, but that's a discussion over beer, LOL. > Once you get past Brent's delivery, which I generally > interpret as exasperation after years of bringing up the same points [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > cold, dead hands. (I do have one Ford, for the record. It's an > appliance-slash-support vehicle for my real cars.) Exasperation is one thing. I think we all have that, to some extent. There are so many more people out there like GPStroll, for example, than Arif or yourself. Folks you just can't talk to. But the delusional "black helicopter" thing is ludicrous in the extreme. > I don't even bring up driving related issues outside of this forum > anymore. Most people are so completely ignorant of the way things > *should* be that they just swallow whatever pap they saw on a > television ad somewhere. People having lived overseas being a notable > exception. Hey, never stop pushing. I finally got my mom, 65 years old, to stop cruising in the middle lane. "KREPT, Mom." I got my wife to stop cruising in the fast lane at the speed limit. Every little bit helps. > The older I get, the less faith I have in humanity. The "general > public" seems to be just about dead wrong (or at least enough of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > shred the constitution/whatever, oh well, I'll be dead in 70 years if > not sooner and it'll be someone else's problem. P.T. Barnum was right, ayup. But that DOES NOT give to be sanctimonius. Less is more - if folks don't wish to believe traffic studies that support a specific course of action, there is no way to stop them. Being an a.shole in usenet to everyone who raises an eyebrow surely doesn't make disciples of them, now does it? :) > If I let myself care too much about just about any issue, I'd be > standing on a street corner screaming at everyone that they were > fuckin' stupid. Hopefully the people in the nice white coats would at > least hook me up with the good drugs. As in every other aspect of life, you have to pick your battles. You can't win them all, so don't fight them all. I save my energy for trying to raise my kids to be respectful of others. If I can at least do that, I figure the rest will be gravy. > What's really sad is, once upon a time, as you state, the majority (or > at least a significant and prolific minority) of RAD posters were [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > from a sincere but ignorant poster. Unfortunately, if it ever happens > it'll get lost in the noise... Unfortunately, you are correct. One of the big reasons I went away from usenet is because the signal:noise got so low. Brent's bloviating on any particular OT tangent doesn't help that ratio at all - again, less is more. I remember Ken Cruddup, who would insist above all else that driving one-handed was safer than two-handed. It was funny, because he got some ribbing for that. But otherwise, he was a good dude. Any nuggets of real information that Brent may put out gets lost in the vast amount of unsupported and utter bullshit that accompanies it. It devalues the real information to the point where folks can just dismiss it. One could also make the argument that usenet is dying. There are a lot better places on the internet to spend time, places where Brent's OT stuff would just be either deleted outright, or moved to a more- appropriate forum. Those kind of forums have a much higher signal:noise, and have more value for the time spent. Sorta like the rennsport forums for you Porsche dicks. Uhhh, guys! :) Topically, I do like my heated seats here in the cold. I also like my AC when it's warm. EFI is nice on a turbo car, because I can get better performance out of the gear I have. I like my GPS, even though I'm a die-hard paper map guy. Not all whizzy tech is bad, and not all whizzy tech is good. While the UrS6 is a big step up from my Scirocco, it's much larger amount of tech doesn't make the car that much more pleasurable to drive. But I sure as hell wouldn't have wanted to hand-crank the Scirocco to a start! :) E.P. > But the delusional "black helicopter" thing is ludicrous in the > extreme. It's so kooky you have a need to make sure it's pointed out and labeled in neon as such. One would think you wouldn't need to do that. If it were so over the top kooky as you claim, hell if it were a fraction as kooky as you claim, you'd need not reply at all. It would be on its face nutball kookiness that would fail on its own without any help from you. Just think of all the OT tangents that could be avoided if you had the confidence that my kookiness was so off the wall that it would fail on its own without you. > Any nuggets of real information that Brent may put out gets lost in > the vast amount of unsupported and utter bullshit that accompanies > it. It devalues the real information to the point where folks can > just dismiss it. What exactly is unsupported? You call for support, I support it, you ignore the support and go off with insults or slience as you crawl back under your bridge. Rinse and repeat thread after thread after thread. > One could also make the argument that usenet is dying. There are a > lot better places on the internet to spend time, places where Brent's > OT stuff would just be either deleted outright, or moved to a more- > appropriate forum. Those kind of forums have a much higher > signal:noise, and have more value for the time spent. Sorta like the > rennsport forums for you Porsche dicks. Uhhh, guys! :) Funny how most of the OT you blame me for is a direct result of you stepping in and pushing things OT because of one tangential statement you didn't like. It takes two to play Ed, if you didn't want to go off topic, if you wanted to avoid noise, ignore it. Or are you affraid that someone might take me seriously? If I am half the kook you say I am, you wouldn't need to object you could just let it go and everyone would just dismiss it as obvious kookiness and ignore me, right? Instead you object to some little side statement and demand support and give me an opening to introduce articles and facts etc. Maybe you want that information spread but just don't have the guts to risk being called a kook yourself? Afterall, it seems you do listen to Alex Jones. Without you how could I work in so many OT articles? I may drift OT, but you enable it Ed. On Feb 27, 7:31 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <64e05a21-6d54-46db-ad6c-9ec649af1...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > But the delusional "black helicopter" thing is ludicrous in the > > extreme. > > It's so kooky you have a need to make sure it's pointed out and labeled > in neon as such. Actually, I ignore 95+% of it. I guess there's another theory of yours, blasted to bits by just the slightest application of thought. But sure, "I made you do it." LOL. E.P. > On Feb 27, 7:31 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> It's so kooky you have a need to make sure it's pointed out and labeled >> in neon as such. > Actually, I ignore 95+% of it. lol.... > I guess there's another theory of yours, blasted to bits by just the > slightest application of thought. you didn't apply any. > But sure, "I made you do it." > > LOL. You enable and participate in the very noise you complain about. On Feb 27, 7:54 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <1c27d0ee-baea-429b-b288-a99814986...@s19g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > But sure, "I made you do it." > > > LOL. > > You enable and participate in the very noise you complain about. "Enable?" Yeah, I made you post each and every time. ROFTL! E.P. >But the delusional "black helicopter" thing is ludicrous in the >extreme. So you're of the opinion that it is not possible to paint a rotary-wing aircraft in a dark neutral color? SignatureThere's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. On Feb 28, 3:11 pm, russo...@grace.speakeasy.net (Matthew T. Russotto) wrote: > In article <64e05a21-6d54-46db-ad6c-9ec649af1...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > So you're of the opinion that it is not possible to paint a > rotary-wing aircraft in a dark neutral color? A straw man that is humorous. Very nice! :) E.P. >> On Feb 27, 4:28 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) >> wrote: [quoted text clipped - 50 lines] > interpret as exasperation after years of bringing up the same points > again and again, That's entirely true. I've given up on most groups I used to follow. > I find myself agreeing with him quite a bit. Well, > except for the bit about driving Fords. You can have the Fabulous > BeaterPorsche when you pry the shift knob and steering wheel from my > cold, dead hands. (I do have one Ford, for the record. It's an > appliance-slash-support vehicle for my real cars.) HEy! :) anyway... I've seen a number of Porsches for sale in the 3-6 grand range and I keep talking myself out of them... mostly because I don't want to fix them ;) There are a lot of them around here. Given the way the dollar is going maybe I should get one just for giggles. Can't be worse than money in the bank :) > I don't even bring up driving related issues outside of this forum > anymore. Most people are so completely ignorant of the way things > *should* be that they just swallow whatever pap they saw on a > television ad somewhere. People having lived overseas being a notable > exception. Pretty much the same here... I explain the other night why I moved back right out of the passing lane even though I was going to need to pass a nother driver a half mile up the road.... arg.... passenger was implying I was driving wrong... > The older I get, the less faith I have in humanity. The "general > public" seems to be just about dead wrong (or at least enough of the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > shred the constitution/whatever, oh well, I'll be dead in 70 years if > not sooner and it'll be someone else's problem. same here. > If I let myself care too much about just about any issue, I'd be > standing on a street corner screaming at everyone that they were > fuckin' stupid. Hopefully the people in the nice white coats would at > least hook me up with the good drugs. lol > What's really sad is, once upon a time, as you state, the majority (or > at least a significant and prolific minority) of RAD posters were [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > from a sincere but ignorant poster. Unfortunately, if it ever happens > it'll get lost in the noise... I think the snow tire guy got more info than he wanted ;) > I think a lot of Brent's "attitude" > comes from year after year, people (both in RAD in the general public > as a whole) disregarding facts, studies, and even common sense and > displaying a noted lack of critical thinking skills about a variety of > issues, traffic law and enforcement being an obvious, notable > example. Heh... like Brent being ignorant of the law WRT to turn signals...? > Once you get past Brent's delivery, which I generally > interpret as exasperation after years of bringing up the same points > again and again, I find myself agreeing with him quite a bit. He's an obvious paranoid idiot, can't drive for sh.t, reports a perfectly unbelievable number of encounters with LE, tickets, and being involved in numerous "incidents"... so this doesn't seem to be the revelation of a genius, to me. > Most people are so completely ignorant of the way things > *should* be <> Lol. Most people aren't so ignorant that they think the world should conform to the way they think "things" "should be"... > What's really sad is, once upon a time, as you state, the majority (or > at least a significant and prolific minority) of RAD posters were > knowledgable about driving<> How the f.ck do you think you would know that...?! What you mean is- "they agree with you". And you all have roughly the same driver education, little or effectively none, which you have admittedly ignored and/or failed to commit to memory, and you all get roughly the same driving experience, about 10-12 hours per week, if you're lucky. f.ck, you've reported your gauges are a "distraction", and you lack the skill to steer and monitor your speedometer. And, you are ignorant enough to believe you and they are "knowledgeable"...?! ----- - gpsman > > I think a lot of Brent's "attitude" > > comes from year after year, people (both in RAD in the general public [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Heh... like Brent being ignorant of the law WRT to turn signals...? unsupported assertion. > > Once you get past Brent's delivery, which I generally > > interpret as exasperation after years of bringing up the same points > > again and again, I find myself agreeing with him quite a bit. > > He's an obvious paranoid idiot, unsupported assertion > can't drive for sh.t, unsupported assertion > reports a > perfectly unbelievable number of encounters with LE, tickets, and > being involved in numerous "incidents"... so this doesn't seem to be > the revelation of a genius, to me. unsupported assertion > > Most people are so completely ignorant of the way things > > *should* be <> > > Lol. Most people aren't so ignorant that they think the world should > conform to the way they think "things" "should be"... Most people *are* ignorant. You being a perfect example. > > What's really sad is, once upon a time, as you state, the majority (or > > at least a significant and prolific minority) of RAD posters were > > knowledgable about driving<> > > How the f.ck do you think you would know that...?! Because I consider myself one of those people. Probably not the most experienced or practiced in the finer points of car control, but I know enough that I can tell when someone is full of it and when someone is actually offering good advice. > What you mean is- "they agree with you". What I mean is that they offer intelligent, correct advice. It's possible to have a difference of opinion with someone who has a valid point. On the flip side, it's also possible to have a difference of opinion with someone who's flat wrong, which seems to be more common here (RAD) lately. > And you all have roughly the same driver education, little or > effectively none, unsupported assertion > which you have admittedly ignored and/or failed to > commit to memory, unsupported assertion > and you all get roughly the same driving experience, > about 10-12 hours per week, if you're lucky. unsupported assertion, and in my case flat wrong. > f.ck, you've reported your gauges are a "distraction", and you lack > the skill to steer and monitor your speedometer. unsupported assertion > And, you are ignorant enough to believe you and they are > "knowledgeable"...?! wow, you've outdone yourself. That's more stupid than I thought even you could cram into one post. Anyone notice the irony in gpstard using the same tactic that he likes to "call" other people on? nate > > > I think a lot of Brent's "attitude" > > > comes from year after year, people (both in RAD in the general public [quoted text clipped - 79 lines] > wow, you've outdone yourself. That's more stupid than I thought even > you could cram into one post. Said the genius who needs support to recall what he himself has written... I guess you don't remember citing completing an "introductory class" as an advanced driving "course" either. > Anyone notice the irony in gpstard using the same tactic that he likes > to "call" other people on? Lol. Calling for help...? From those "who agree with you."...? Figgers. You're not only stupid, you're a pussy. And, you forgot to call me a "troll". BUHWAHAhahaha...! ----- - gpsman > On Feb 27, 4:28 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] >> That was predictable.... Like always I produce the cite and like always >> you spew insults back. > Maybe it's because of your shitty, paranoid attitude? Such projection. I mean really, why are you so concerned about a kook (if that's what I am) that you react in such a vile, paranoid (that someone might take me seriously) manner? > Maybe it's because of the natural tendency of folks to disbelieve > someone who obviously has a bigger agenda? What would that 'agenda' be? > Or maybe it's because you are generally abrasive, holier-than-thou and > incredibly defensive, all at the same time? Abrasive? From the guy who spews insults as a habbit? Holier than thou? From the guy who gives logic lessons in belittling tones frequently? Defensive? From the guy who likes to go on the personal insult attack when he can't argue the subject any longer? That's some good projection there Ed. I tend to mirror the person I'm dealing with. Had that pointed out by recruiter once who was evaluating my interviewing skills. I've since realized it was correct. You're abrasive, holier-than-thou, and defensive to me so you get it right back. > The reason you have so much free time is abundantly clear. lol.... The problem is actually quite the opposite a lack of free time that has me stuck at a computer. On Feb 27, 5:33 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <8299cb5c-4240-4fc4-bfb8-527a5c115...@s12g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > On Feb 27, 4:28 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) [quoted text clipped - 32 lines] > > Such projection. You're a psychologist? I thought you said you were an engineer? Which is it? E.P. >> Such projection. > > You're a psychologist? I thought you said you were an engineer? > Which is it? I thought you were some sort of chemist or something in that field, it doesn't seem to stop you. On Feb 27, 7:04 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <7458b50a-a17a-4859-b1b4-f6535bff7...@k2g2000hse.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > >> Such projection. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > I thought you were some sort of chemist or something in that field, it > doesn't seem to stop you. Stop me...what? Stop me from making claims of knowledge of psychology? I don't think I've ever claimed that, anywhere. It does stop me from making claims that I'm somehow a reflection of who I'm talking to - even if I've been acting that way prior to that other person even showing up! LOL. "It's not my fault - you MAKE me act like an a.shole!" That's the best one yet. Your sh.t is literally LOL-funny. But seriously. I mean, really - I'm giving the straight dope on why you seem to get so little respect, even from long-timers. Even Nate admits that you have a certain attitude. I suppose that once you grow up and stop blaming others for your shortcomings, you may actually be able to address how folks who should nominally be your allies reject your spewing a significant fraction of the time. I doubt you'll think too long about it. But hey - I only know you from what you post here. And while I think that knocking back a couple of brews and talking cars with most of these other folks would be fun, every second spent with you would be a chore. And likewise, I'm sure, huh? LOL. E.P. > But seriously. I mean, really - I'm giving the straight dope on why > you seem to get so little respect, even from long-timers. Even Nate > admits that you have a certain attitude. > I suppose that once you grow up and stop blaming others for your > shortcomings, you may actually be able to address how folks who should > nominally be your allies reject your spewing a significant fraction of > the time. I'm not blaming anyone else Ed. Just telling you like it is. You act like an a.shole towards me I'm going to act like one back at you. Just the way it is. If it's a short coming so be it. > I doubt you'll think too long about it. But hey - I only know you > from what you post here. And while I think that knocking back a > couple of brews and talking cars with most of these other folks would > be fun, every second spent with you would be a chore. > And likewise, I'm sure, huh? LOL. Both would depend if you were an a.shole towards me or not. On Feb 27, 7:46 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) wrote: > In article <85e5c17b-6bc0-4ebb-a354-18ef3419a...@s37g2000prg.googlegroups.com>, Ed Pirrero wrote: > > But seriously. I mean, really - I'm giving the straight dope on why [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > I'm not blaming anyone else Ed. Sure you are. You said I was "enabling" it - here's a newsflash, smart guy - *you* are the guy in control of what you post. Your long OT diatribes are your responsibility, 100%. Only a little kid blames others for his/her own choices. Grow up, Brent. > > I doubt you'll think too long about it. But hey - I only know you > > from what you post here. And while I think that knocking back a [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Both would depend if you were an a.shole towards me or not. I wouldn't be able to stand even two minutes of your stupid crap, if you are even remotely like the jackass you are on the internet. Even so, listening to your black helicopter stuff is not something I'd willingly choose to do. Talk about car stuff? OK. All that other k00ky krap? No. If you started talking about that krap, I'd sure as tell you to shut up. I don't care about your paranoia, I only care about cars and driving (from your perspective, at least.) You want to drag all that other crap into a personal conversation, then it is YOU who is the a.shole, not the poor slob who doesn't want to hear it. E.P. > On Feb 27, 7:46 pm, tetraethylleadREMOVET...@yahoo.com (Brent P) > wrote: [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > OT diatribes are your responsibility, 100%. Only a little kid blames > others for his/her own choices. Grow up, Brent. I didn't say I wasn't in control of what I post. However, I don't complain about the 'noise' either. That's the difference Ed. You are contributing to the noise and then complaining about it. And in enabling the noise you enable me to go on about the 'crap' you also complain about. If you don't like it, don't participate in it. You're in control of what you post ya know. The more you complain about it, the more I enjoy posting articles about stuff you claim can't happen. >> Both would depend if you were an a.shole towards me or not. > I wouldn't be able to stand even two minutes of your stupid crap, if > you are even remotely like the jackass you are on the internet. right back at ya bright eyes. > Even > so, listening to your black helicopter stuff is not something I'd > willingly choose to do. You apparently listen to Alex Jones though. > Talk about car stuff? OK. All that other > k00ky krap? No. If you started talking about that krap, I'd sure as > tell you to shut up. I don't care about your paranoia, I only care > about cars and driving (from your perspective, at least.) You want to > drag all that other crap into a personal conversation, then it is YOU > who is the a.shole, not the poor slob who doesn't want to hear it. You are choosing to 'hear it' right now. I choose not to 'hear' judy, you can do the same to me any time you want. As far as what you call 'crap', well I suppose maybe it's not important where you live, but some of us live in locations where these adminstrative courts and property seizures have taken hold. But to you it's just paranoia that maybe the cops will end the restriction of using these sort of laws against the 'bad' groups of people they are supposed to and start using them against the public at large.... shouldn't worry about that all I suppose. Those laws are for those bad people.... Until there was tow sticker slapped on a perfectly functional and cosmetically good car in my driveway for the made up crime of not driving it. |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message