From: C. E. White on 26 Feb 2010 00:43
"jim beam" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message
>> There may or may not be an actual problem with the Toyota electronics.
>> But an "expert" that creates shorts to "prove" there is a problem is
>> not the sort of expert I trust.
> that's because you're a paid shill ed, and you have no technical
> expertise. seriously, if you could actually /do/ anything of societal
> value, you'd be doing it rather than poisoning the interweb with bullshit
> for money.
So you htink what the guy is doing is legitimate ? Do you buy his suggestion
that the Toyota UA complaints might be casued by a faulty electronic
throttle control design? I thought you were of the opinion that anyone that
said anythiog bad about Toyotas was a paid shill.
From: jim beam on 26 Feb 2010 00:56
On 02/25/2010 09:40 PM, C. E. White wrote:
> "JoeSpareBedroom" <newstrash(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message
>> "jim beam" <me(a)privacy.net> wrote in message
>>> On 02/25/2010 06:56 AM, C. E. White wrote:
>>>> "john"<johngdole(a)hotmail.com> wrote in message
>>>>> The floor mats and sticking pedal accounts for only 30% of the
>>>>> problems. The true cause of sudden acceleration is still not known
>>>>> no real solution is possible. IMO it's the electronics.
>>>>> "In earlier testimony, David Gilbert, a Southern Illinois University
>>>>> professor, tells the panel he was able to produce in a lab
>>>>> a sudden-acceleration incident using a Toyota vehicle, in essence by
>>>>> introducing a short between two circuits.
>>>> Consider who is paying for this research....Trail Lawyers!
>>> "trail" lawyers? com on ed, when you regurgitate the copy your
>>> minions draft for you, you really should proof read it before you put
>>> your name to it.
>>> besides, since when was a lawyer's ability to subpoena factual
>>> evidence the lawyer's fault? if frod hadn't done the math on cost of
>>> payouts to the families of the bereaved vs. profits on a vehicle they
>>> knew to be flawed, neither i nor any "trail" lawyer would be able to
>>> confront you with reality.
>>>> This is eerily like the Audi 5000 frenzy. When 60 minutes did their
>>>> hatchet job on the 5000, they produced an "expert" who "proved" that
>>>> the 5000's automatic transmission could force a kick down of the
>>>> accelerator pedal, resulting in sudden acceleration. Good old Ed
>>>> Bradly presented this as some sort of scientific proof. Only later did
>>>> we learn (and not from CBS) that the expert added an extra hydraulic
>>>> pump and external piping to demonstarte this "failure" mode.
>>>> There may or may not be an actual problem with the Toyota electronics.
>>>> But an "expert" that creates shorts to "prove" there is a problem is
>>>> not the sort of expert I trust.
>>> that's because you're a paid shill ed, and you have no technical
>>> expertise. seriously, if you could actually /do/ anything of societal
>>> value, you'd be doing it rather than poisoning the interweb with
>>> bullshit for money.
>> Who are his minions anyway? I haven't seen his dossier.
> I wish I had minions. I wish I got paid for this.
astroturfer. shill. bullshitter.
nomina rutrum rutrum
From: Toyota on 26 Feb 2010 01:45
On Feb 25, 6:15 am, jim beam <m...(a)privacy.net> wrote:
> On 02/24/2010 09:19 PM, Uncle_vito wrote:
> > Made in Japan only applies to the accelerator fix. If it is a software
> > problem, all bets are off. Could be in cars no matter where made since they
> > do noit know the cause. How can they say which cars are not affected?
> dude, it it were a software problem, /all/ their vehicles would be
> exhibiting the exact same problem all the time. that may be a hard
> concept for a paid congressional "witness" to grasp, but it's a logical
> test you can apply and understand easily.
> > Vito
> > "Mr Ed"<eca...(a)earthlink.net> wrote in message
> >> Years ago I had a Chrysler product that developed a engine problem that
> >> created a code. After that the car would only max out at 20mph. Just
> >> enough to limp into the dealer to fix or re-set the code. 20 years ago
> >> before I retired, I tested eletronic products for Test House approvals
> >> (UL, ETL, CSA, etc). Our purpose was to assure that no matter what
> >> internal device failed, it didn't create a deadly problem. Why can't
> >> Toyota prove that no matter what component failed, short or open, that the
> >> car will not exceed a safe speed? I don't believe they did their homework
> >> properly. Removing my floor mat in my Prius is a joke. There is no way it
> >> can jam the pedal that my foot on the mat couldn't move it away from the
> >> pedal within seconds. The only reason I removed it (per the recall) is so
> >> if my car becomes a run away missile at least my heirs can become
> >> Millionaires. That doesn't comfort me. Re-designing the pedal is only a
> >> band-aide to the real problem. Since my car was made in Japan, I'm not
> >> included.
> >> Mr Ed
> >> "JoeSpareBedroom"<newstr...(a)frontiernet.net> wrote in message
> >>> "Hachiroku ????"<Tru...(a)e86.GTS> wrote in message
> >>>> On Wed, 24 Feb 2010 06:55:23 -0500, JoeSpareBedroom wrote:
> >>>>> "jim beam"<m...(a)privacy.net> wrote in message
> >>>>>> On 02/23/2010 05:47 PM, john wrote:
> >>>>>>> The floor mats and sticking pedal accounts for only 30% of the
> >>>>>>> problems. The true cause of sudden acceleration is still not known so
> >>>>>>> no real solution is possible. IMO it's the electronics.
> >>>>>> "in your opinion"? are you a software engineer? are you an
> >>>>>> electrical
> >>>>>> engineer? are you /any/ form of engineer?
> >>>>> He can swap a hard drive while blindfolded, and he knows some
> >>>>> geologists.
> >>>> Look again. You're talking about the wrong person.
> >>>> Gee, you've NEVER been wrong before!!!
> >>> Oops.
> nomina rutrum rutrum
here are some good technical videos
From: Tegger on 26 Feb 2010 07:37
bob <nottooslow42(a)yahoo.com> wrote in
> In article <Xns9D2ACD6CCA8C7tegger(a)220.127.116.11>, invalid(a)invalid.inv
>> But it is officially classed by the federal government as a "light
>> truck", so my terminology is accurate as far as the legal definitions
>> are concerned.
> OK. Perhaps were should call it a compact cross-over SUV:-) At least
> that's what most of the auto rags call it.
"Compact cross-over SUV" (or "CUV") it is, then. Amend my original reply to
say that instead of "truck".
From: Tegger on 26 Feb 2010 09:28
"C. E. White" <cewhite3remove(a)mindspring.com> wrote in
> So I still content that if you are going to rant and rave
> about how dangerous Explorers were, then you need to rant and rave
> about 4Runners as well (and other also - like 2WD S10 Blazer).
And be willing to admit that any tall vehicle is, by its very nature, more
likely to roll over than any short vehicle, regardless of who made it.
It is not possible to drive a 6.5'-tall SUV like you would a 4.5'-tall
coupe, and expect to be able to keep the shiny side up all the time.