🚀 go-pugleaf

John F. Haugh II writes
> In article <1992May14.184433.8161@pencom.com> gad@pencom.com writes:
> >I see at this point that you wish to degrade this discussion to an emotional
> >arguement. Have fun John, I have not the time or the desire to participate 
> >in such a useless waste of time.
> 
> Huh?  You claim that you have no agenda or whatever but your tone against
> American cars is completely negative.  I point out factual information that
> disagrees with your perception, and then you accuse me of degrading this
> discussion to an emotional one.

I take great offense at seeing a discussion about auto quality and the current  
trends in the worldwide marketplace transform into a racial discussion.
First you claim that I'm somehow prejudiced based on my citations of
actual personal experience with various specific models, and then you
liken me to a racist for saying I trusted the manufacturer and bought
their product. The logic used to make that connection escapes me.

> >Ps. Go back and read your own articles. You'll find that in this case,
> >your articles are full of the same inconsitencies that you want to 
> >point out (but in my humble opinion have failed to) in mine.
> 
> My arguments have been consistently factual.  I've pointed out that cars
> built in the US but with Japanese labels are perceived worse, despite
> being identical.  I've pointed out that the same thing has happened in
> Europe.  I've pointed out that your Mazda Navajo is a perfect example of
> this phenomon.  I've cited sources for all of my arguments and challenged
> you to refute them.  The only thing "inconsistent" that I've done is
> point out the American manufacturers that are (IMHO) low quality and the
> Japanese ones that are high quality.  

Look, I pointed out actual experiences with specific products, both American
and Japanese. You pointed out specific awards, studies, and some personal
experiences. My premise thru all of this has been that I (me, George Durden)
apply greater precedance to my own personal experiences than to the
cited studies and awards. You may claim, possibly rightfully so, that my
experiences are not representative of the average. Regardless, that doesn't
make my expereinces any last real, actual, or factual. I feel that most
consumers are like me in this regard. When they develop their attitudes
about specific products/Manufacturers, they rely mainly on their own
personal experiences with the product/manufacturer first, the opinions
of people they trust second, consumer info next, and marketing hype last.
I consider awards like "Truck of the Year" et al as marketing hype. I
have been reading car and motorcycle magazines long enough to realize
the bias that those magazines display in favor of their best advertisers.
I respect Consumer Reports, the Florida attorney general, and the Malcolm
Baldridge Quality Awards selection committee, but I have to give highest
precedance to my own personal experience. That is my premise. If you
agree with me, great. If not, then let us agree to disagree and leave it
at that.
> Car quality isn't a binary "good"/
> "bad" thing - certainly you understand that.
> -- 
> John F. Haugh II                   | Vida en La Republica de Tejas:
> Ma Bell: (512) 251-2151            |  Gov. Ann Richards after shooting her
> UUCP: ...!cs.utexas.edu!rpp386!jfh |  first wild turkey of the season on
> Domain: jfh@rpp386.cactus.org      |  hunting deer: "[It's] as boring as  
dirt."

--
		      George A. Durden			
		  	.5K EX Pilot
		       Unix Mercenary
DoD #0039	     "No Risk, No Rush"		CMRA #106