Re: Consumer Reports 2007 Auto Survey

My "rabid response"--ROFL! If you can't beat them with reason, attack them personally, is that it? Who's the rabid one here? I ask for some evidence backing up your claim and that's a "rabid response"--wow. I'd hate to see what happened if I actually got emotional with you about this.

I believe what the evidence shows, not what someone on the internet says is true, especially when they start hiding behind insults when politely asked to provide evidence supporting their claims. You expect someone to just accept your claims without any evidence? If so, maybe you should examine that expectation, because I've found that most people won't accept any claim that goes against what they believe even with a mountain of evidence. You're in for an enormous amount of frustration.

Personally, I'm not emotionally invested in CR, so I can look at your claims objectively. C. E. White is making similar claims, and through evidence and solid reasoning, he's convinced me that CR's reliability data is misleading and not particularly helpful. I'm not convinced it's completely worthless, but I would no longer change by car-buying decision (all other things being equal) for a percent difference of at least sixty to eighty percentage points, and I wouldn't expect the frequency of repairs on two compared models to be substantially different unless the spread was more than a hundred twenty to a hundred forty points. Before, I had considered anything over five to ten points significant--because I didn't know as much about the testing methods and display methods. I think that speaks to whether or not I'm a CR fanatic. I'm not one to go making wild claims and then when politely requested to supply evidence supporting those claims respond with senseless insults. That's one mark of a fanatic.

The statement "I could care less" means you care. I'm going to assume you meant "I couldn't care less" which means you don't care. If that's what you're trying to say, it couldn't be more obviously untrue. You've spent a great deal of time criticizing them online. If you didn't care, you wouldn't be trying so hard to shoot them down.

And what does that prove?

"Testy"? "lash out"? ROFL!!! That's enough, you're obviously delusional. There's nothing in the preceeding two paragraphs that would remotely be considered "testy" or "lashing out" by any stretch of the imagination. I hope you get better soon. Bye.

Reply to
That Guy
Loading thread data ...

Let's see you call me an anti-CR zealot and I say your response is rabid. Think about that for a moment. Now who's making the personal attack? That would be you.

Your post consisted of quite a bit more, but you trimmed it from the quoted material. I am in no mood for these childish usenet games.

Let's see, you opened up with insulting me, calling me an anti-CR zealot, etc and so forth. Pot-kettle-black.

I don't expect anything. I could go through an issue of CR and say how their tests aren't correlated to the real world,etc and so forth and it would be a pointless excerise because you'd just go to the next level of denial... I've done this dance before and don't care enough about CR to spend the time *AGAIN* on it. Yes, this is an old topic, and in years past I went through the detail as did others.

At least you admit you're a religous CR zealot. So, that means you haven't been insulted in any way.

The way you lashed out at me indicates otherwise.

I am sure the lloyd parker CR threads of the mid-late 1990s are in the google archive if you want to do the research and get up to speed. With each passing day, usenet re-runs become less and less interesting.

Buh-bye.

Reply to
Brent P

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.