http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...=Google+Search
I'm not intending to imply insult or judgment here but I am curious
to know in order to be able to respond to your posts in an appropriate
manner, so please forgive what appears to be, but in fact is not
intended as, an insulting question: Are you stupid?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

"F. Robert Falbo" wrote:
>
> Damn,... and I was looking for that VAC review, 'cause the last one was
> back in July. I guess that blows that "almost monthy" crap all to hell.
>
> You mean like those magazines that have 6-page ads in the issue where
> the Company's car is reviewed. Naw... there's no 6-digit pressure to put
> out a "favorable" review there, eh?
>
> While some of their print comes across as a bit shallow, it's
> understandable considering the limited amount of space alloted to some
> items. I'd venture that they probably collect as much information on the
> vehicles they test as many car magazines, but distilling it down to a page
> of sniplets leaves lots to be desired.
>
> You have proof of this? If so, how about sharing it with the world.
> Better yet, how about a website proclaiming it with your "proof."
>
> That's what happens when you look at the pictures but don't read. They
> state that some sections of their reliability reports are weighed more
> than others in factoring for a reccomendation.
>
> --
>
> -bob-
> _______________________
> SuSE LINUX 9.2

 

http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...=Google+Search
I'm not intending to imply insult or judgment here but I am curious
to know in order to be able to respond to your posts in an appropriate
manner, so please forgive what appears to be, but in fact is not
intended as, an insulting question: Are you stupid?
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/

"F. Robert Falbo" wrote:
>
> Damn,... and I was looking for that VAC review, 'cause the last one was
> back in July. I guess that blows that "almost monthy" crap all to hell.
>
> You mean like those magazines that have 6-page ads in the issue where
> the Company's car is reviewed. Naw... there's no 6-digit pressure to put
> out a "favorable" review there, eh?
>
> While some of their print comes across as a bit shallow, it's
> understandable considering the limited amount of space alloted to some
> items. I'd venture that they probably collect as much information on the
> vehicles they test as many car magazines, but distilling it down to a page
> of sniplets leaves lots to be desired.
>
> You have proof of this? If so, how about sharing it with the world.
> Better yet, how about a website proclaiming it with your "proof."
>
> That's what happens when you look at the pictures but don't read. They
> state that some sections of their reliability reports are weighed more
> than others in factoring for a reccomendation.
>
> --
>
> -bob-
> _______________________
> SuSE LINUX 9.2

 

The briefest look at his posting domain would quickly confirm that he
would have to spend years in schooling to move upwards to "utterly
stupid" status.

L.W.(ßill) ------ III proclaimed:

> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...=Google+Search
> I'm not intending to imply insult or judgment here but I am curious
> to know in order to be able to respond to your posts in an appropriate
> manner, so please forgive what appears to be, but in fact is not
> intended as, an insulting question: Are you stupid?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> "F. Robert Falbo" wrote:
>
>>Damn,... and I was looking for that VAC review, 'cause the last one was
>>back in July. I guess that blows that "almost monthy" crap all to hell.
>>
>>You mean like those magazines that have 6-page ads in the issue where
>>the Company's car is reviewed. Naw... there's no 6-digit pressure to put
>>out a "favorable" review there, eh?
>>
>>While some of their print comes across as a bit shallow, it's
>>understandable considering the limited amount of space alloted to some
>>items. I'd venture that they probably collect as much information on the
>>vehicles they test as many car magazines, but distilling it down to a page
>>of sniplets leaves lots to be desired.
>>
>>You have proof of this? If so, how about sharing it with the world.
>>Better yet, how about a website proclaiming it with your "proof."
>>
>>That's what happens when you look at the pictures but don't read. They
>>state that some sections of their reliability reports are weighed more
>>than others in factoring for a reccomendation.
>>
>>--
>>
>>-bob-
>>_______________________
>>SuSE LINUX 9.2

 

The briefest look at his posting domain would quickly confirm that he
would have to spend years in schooling to move upwards to "utterly
stupid" status.

L.W.(ßill) ------ III proclaimed:

> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...=Google+Search
> I'm not intending to imply insult or judgment here but I am curious
> to know in order to be able to respond to your posts in an appropriate
> manner, so please forgive what appears to be, but in fact is not
> intended as, an insulting question: Are you stupid?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> "F. Robert Falbo" wrote:
>
>>Damn,... and I was looking for that VAC review, 'cause the last one was
>>back in July. I guess that blows that "almost monthy" crap all to hell.
>>
>>You mean like those magazines that have 6-page ads in the issue where
>>the Company's car is reviewed. Naw... there's no 6-digit pressure to put
>>out a "favorable" review there, eh?
>>
>>While some of their print comes across as a bit shallow, it's
>>understandable considering the limited amount of space alloted to some
>>items. I'd venture that they probably collect as much information on the
>>vehicles they test as many car magazines, but distilling it down to a page
>>of sniplets leaves lots to be desired.
>>
>>You have proof of this? If so, how about sharing it with the world.
>>Better yet, how about a website proclaiming it with your "proof."
>>
>>That's what happens when you look at the pictures but don't read. They
>>state that some sections of their reliability reports are weighed more
>>than others in factoring for a reccomendation.
>>
>>--
>>
>>-bob-
>>_______________________
>>SuSE LINUX 9.2

 

The briefest look at his posting domain would quickly confirm that he
would have to spend years in schooling to move upwards to "utterly
stupid" status.

L.W.(ßill) ------ III proclaimed:

> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...=Google+Search
> I'm not intending to imply insult or judgment here but I am curious
> to know in order to be able to respond to your posts in an appropriate
> manner, so please forgive what appears to be, but in fact is not
> intended as, an insulting question: Are you stupid?
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> "F. Robert Falbo" wrote:
>
>>Damn,... and I was looking for that VAC review, 'cause the last one was
>>back in July. I guess that blows that "almost monthy" crap all to hell.
>>
>>You mean like those magazines that have 6-page ads in the issue where
>>the Company's car is reviewed. Naw... there's no 6-digit pressure to put
>>out a "favorable" review there, eh?
>>
>>While some of their print comes across as a bit shallow, it's
>>understandable considering the limited amount of space alloted to some
>>items. I'd venture that they probably collect as much information on the
>>vehicles they test as many car magazines, but distilling it down to a page
>>of sniplets leaves lots to be desired.
>>
>>You have proof of this? If so, how about sharing it with the world.
>>Better yet, how about a website proclaiming it with your "proof."
>>
>>That's what happens when you look at the pictures but don't read. They
>>state that some sections of their reliability reports are weighed more
>>than others in factoring for a reccomendation.
>>
>>--
>>
>>-bob-
>>_______________________
>>SuSE LINUX 9.2

 

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 16:45:01 -0800, L.W.------ wrote:

> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...=Google+Search
> I'm not intending to imply insult or judgment here but I am curious
> to know in order to be able to respond to your posts in an appropriate
> manner, so please forgive what appears to be, but in fact is not
> intended as, an insulting question: Are you stupid?

Let's just cut to the chase. Since it appears that you didn't even bother
to view the site, let me give you a snipplet which I'm sure they would
approve of...

<start quote>
Consumer Reports® and ConsumerReports.org® are published by Consumers
Union, an expert, independent nonprofit organization whose mission is to
work for a fair, just, and safe marketplace for all consumers and to
empower consumers to protect themselves. To achieve this mission, we test,
inform, and protect. To maintain our independence and impartiality, CU
accepts no outside advertising, no free test samples, and has no agenda
other than the interests of consumers. CU supports itself through the sale
of our information products and services, individual contributions, and a
few noncommercial grants. Consumers Union is governed by a board of 18
directors, who are elected by CU members and meet three times a year. CU's
President, James Guest, oversees a staff of more than 450.
<end quote>

Would you like someone to explain the above to you?

--

-bob-
_______________________
SuSE LINUX 9.2

 

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 16:45:01 -0800, L.W.------ wrote:

> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...=Google+Search
> I'm not intending to imply insult or judgment here but I am curious
> to know in order to be able to respond to your posts in an appropriate
> manner, so please forgive what appears to be, but in fact is not
> intended as, an insulting question: Are you stupid?

Let's just cut to the chase. Since it appears that you didn't even bother
to view the site, let me give you a snipplet which I'm sure they would
approve of...

<start quote>
Consumer Reports® and ConsumerReports.org® are published by Consumers
Union, an expert, independent nonprofit organization whose mission is to
work for a fair, just, and safe marketplace for all consumers and to
empower consumers to protect themselves. To achieve this mission, we test,
inform, and protect. To maintain our independence and impartiality, CU
accepts no outside advertising, no free test samples, and has no agenda
other than the interests of consumers. CU supports itself through the sale
of our information products and services, individual contributions, and a
few noncommercial grants. Consumers Union is governed by a board of 18
directors, who are elected by CU members and meet three times a year. CU's
President, James Guest, oversees a staff of more than 450.
<end quote>

Would you like someone to explain the above to you?

--

-bob-
_______________________
SuSE LINUX 9.2

 

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 16:45:01 -0800, L.W.------ wrote:

> http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&i...=Google+Search
> I'm not intending to imply insult or judgment here but I am curious
> to know in order to be able to respond to your posts in an appropriate
> manner, so please forgive what appears to be, but in fact is not
> intended as, an insulting question: Are you stupid?

Let's just cut to the chase. Since it appears that you didn't even bother
to view the site, let me give you a snipplet which I'm sure they would
approve of...

<start quote>
Consumer Reports® and ConsumerReports.org® are published by Consumers
Union, an expert, independent nonprofit organization whose mission is to
work for a fair, just, and safe marketplace for all consumers and to
empower consumers to protect themselves. To achieve this mission, we test,
inform, and protect. To maintain our independence and impartiality, CU
accepts no outside advertising, no free test samples, and has no agenda
other than the interests of consumers. CU supports itself through the sale
of our information products and services, individual contributions, and a
few noncommercial grants. Consumers Union is governed by a board of 18
directors, who are elected by CU members and meet three times a year. CU's
President, James Guest, oversees a staff of more than 450.
<end quote>

Would you like someone to explain the above to you?

--

-bob-
_______________________
SuSE LINUX 9.2

 

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 18:57:28 -0800, Lon wrote:

> The briefest look at his posting domain would quickly confirm that he
> would have to spend years in schooling to move upwards to "utterly
> stupid" status.

Well Lon, I'm certainly thankful I didn't get the same "education" you did.

--

-bob-
_______________________
SuSE LINUX 9.2

 

On Mon, 03 Jan 2005 18:57:28 -0800, Lon wrote:

> The briefest look at his posting domain would quickly confirm that he
> would have to spend years in schooling to move upwards to "utterly
> stupid" status.

Well Lon, I'm certainly thankful I didn't get the same "education" you did.

--

-bob-
_______________________
SuSE LINUX 9.2