Thursday, March 27, 2014

Toy Trolls find some opposition

Here's a little back-and-forth with a troll today:
No, it doesn't. Those "experts" you cite are frauds payed for by shyster attorneys trying to sue for money. I'll trust the engineers way before the lawyers. The electronics have nothing to do with it. Driver error is the cause as has been repeatedly proven by multiple independent engineering organizations. The same thing happened with Audi in the 80's. Funny how you don't hear claims of unintended acceleration once the settlement money starts flowing...
Here's a much better article that includes actual facts:
http://m.us.wsj.com/articles/S...


    • Avatar

      Betsy Benjaminson  disqus_R5AHDsvIQx  2 hours ago

      Disqus Qx, what's your name? I think you are a Toyota troll, but let’s set that aside for now. Can we get down to details? Can you agree not to make broad generalizations that
      attempt to discredit Toyota critics as motivated by financial interests? These statements are inherently illogical when Toyota proponents are certainly motivated by financial
      interests. Now, to be specific, among the experts who have found the engineering processes to be substandard are, first of all, Toyota's own R&D chief (now retired from that position),Mr. Masatami Takimoto, who wrote quite specifically in several documents that are on my computer here now, that Toyota allowed incompletely developed cars onto
      the market. In other words, the way these cars were engineered was below HIS OWN standards for safety and
      quality. Second, among those I had in mind when I wrote "experts," there is one expert who has worked for plaintiffs attorneys, his name is Michael Barr, and he said the engineering processes are substandard. His opinion is authoritative and neutral, as shown by the widespread respect for his views among his peers, as he is shortly going to be giving the keynote speech at the top conference of embedded systems engineers, sponsored by EE Times. Toyota had no defense against him in court, and did not rebut him. Other experts who have given their opinions on Toyota’s engineering practices include two university professors, one retired aircraft safety systems engineer, and five independent world-class engineers in various fields, by and large people who do not work for plaintiffs counsel.
      Disqus Qx, can you prove your claims “the
      electronics have nothing to do with it.” and “Driver
      error is the cause as has been repeatedly proven by multiple independent engineering organizations.” I challenge you to prove these claims are actually true. I think they are completely false.
      Your statement “the same thing happened with the Audi” also lacks proof. Consumers were angry then, and consumers are angry now, and scared of out-of-control cars. I suppose I concede your point if that is what you meant.
      Your statement “Funny how you don't hear claims of
      unintended acceleration once the settlement money starts flowing...” is absurd in the extreme, in that you must know as well as the rest of us know that all settlements require silence by plaintiffs.
      As for the WSJ article you cited as being more factual, if you would look at the upper left corner, you will see that this
      article is clearly noted as “opinion.” Delving into it a little further, you will see that the author works for a think tank called Cato Institute, where his bio proudly proclaims him thus: The Washington Post has dubbed him the “intellectual guru of tort reform.” According to the Washington Post also, “Cato is one of the largest think tanks in Washington, with a $39 million budget in 2011, according to its tax form. It espouses an ideology of limited government and free-market economics. The Koch brothers, owners of the privately-held energy company Koch Industries...are founders.” So, Disqus Qx, talk about agendas! Certainly there is some agenda in the WSJ opinion piece that you mislabel. The Cato Institute has 64 "Policy Scholars." Among them there is not a single face of color. One of their blogs is "Overlawyered." How neutral are they? How representative are they of the interests of ordinary US citizens? It seems to me that the hegemony they represent is nicely cloaked in a veil of libertarianism. Can you agree? It is not objective. If I misread you, please explain your position.
      Have a nice day. Betsy

    at