Personal Responsibility....or the lack thereof

[pamchenko]

<< Do you enjoy being the board idiot? Honestly, you will never be taken seriously the way you constantly attack well liked members of this board. >>

I'm not the board idiot...most of my replies make a lot of sense, its just that many of them aren't read (read my &quot;what people make like so much about ATOT thread).
regarding attacking well liked members of the board, what does being well-liked have to do with the issues at hand? I attacked GF because I thk she was oversympathizing the issue and paying too close attn to the type of victim. Regardless, though my tone could have been improved, I think people should be reading posts and not looking at the names before coming to their own conclusions...I mean, it kinda forms a bias doesn't it? what ever happened to having your own opinion?

 

[Thorn]

<< Why aren't you guys bitchin about McDonalds and all the other irresponsible corporations? I assume you care about corporate responsibility, as much as you care about personal responsibility. >>


No, I just don't frequent places that I don't like. My protest is that they don't get my $, I'll go elsewhere. That way the system takes care of itself, no courts, no hassle.

 

[Optimus]

pamchenko - maybe I shouldn't use the term idiot (everyone knows thats Aryll) - but you are a confusing poster to say the least.
Half the time you present rational arguments and debate in a calm manner, and other times you post things like the slam on Zippy (well liked) and you pick fights with GF (very well liked). Its not that you disagree or have your own opinion - Hell we all certainly do. In thsi thread alone others are disagreeing with GF and everyone else (chess9/Ornery, etc). When you do post in your rational mode, you can be an interesting opinion to read... but it gets hard to take you seriously or lend weight to your posts when your &quot;other&quot; side shows through.

 

[DaLeroy]

pamchenko, attacking people gets you no where. By all means, 'attack' their opinion, but not the person. There is a big difference. Friendly discussion/arguing is much nicer than personal insults...

 

[pamchenko]

thank you for stating the painfully obvious daleroy...i'm enlightened by your wisdom

 

[Moonbeam]

I could be wide of the mark by a mile here, but a cursory reading of your post, pamchenko, &quot;thank you for stating the painfully obvious daleroy...i'm enlightened by your wisdom&quot; sounds less to me like you were enlighteded and more like you just personally attacked him.

 

[HaVoC]

<< This little political agenda of you right wingers is obviously intended to keep the little guy from getting what he justly deserves and preserve the hegemony of the big corporations and their &quot;right&quot; to give us trashy products >>

Did I ever suggest that I would want corporations to give us trashy products? Typical knee-jerk liberal response to common sense tort reform. I think sensible tort reform can/will bring the number of &quot;lottery&quot; lawsuits down to the same rate as other major industrialized nations. This need not necessarily harm your precious &quot;little guy&quot;

Also, you conveniently frame the tort reform issue as &quot;little guy vs. mega corporation&quot; What about &quot;greedy plaintiff vs. small business owner?&quot;

Ask most small business owners what one of their greatest fears is and they will tell you it is a bogus lawsuit and subsequent plaintiff victory that bankrupts them. My mother owned a daycare/preschool for several years and she finally sold it. The risk of lawsuits and the excessive state regulation was just not worth it.

 

[ArkAoss]

wow, I don't know how the heck this thread slipped my notice till today, but Shinerburke, you've hit the nail on the head.
True man, so true, gtg...

 

[Ornery]

Good points, HaVoC. &quot;What about &quot;greedy plaintiff vs. small business owner?&quot; What about &quot;greedy plaintiff&quot; vs. BIG business owner? What's the difference? If they aren't at fault, they aren't at fault! It sucks that you have to pay just to avoid litigation, no matter who has to play that game.

I'd like to add that people aren't &quot;given&quot; products, trashy or not. It's the consumer's choice what they buy or don't. And after they've made their purchase it should be their responsibility to use the product correctly. If you fall off a ladder, it ain't the fault of the manufacturer. Climbing ladders is inherently risky. Might as well go after the deep pockets though, because in this country, it's the norm.

&quot;Ask most small business owners what one of their greatest fears is...&quot; Look at how many obstetricians are bailing out because of malpractice insurance rates. America... what a country!

 

[Zenmervolt]

<<And there's another point about Firestone. People don't die because of blowouts. They die because they don't wear their seatbelts when their top heavy SUVs roll. Talk about Personal Responsibility. They chose to buy an SUV and chose to not wear a seatbelt. A blowout can happen to anybody at any time.>>

Great point. An automotive magazine writer took an Explorer and set up a road course such that random tires would blow out when he was traveling at highway speeds. The writer experienced no trouble with directional instability whatsoever, regardless of which tire blew. I personally have had tires blow out twice in my two years of driving, and never so much as moved outside my lane markers. The first blowout (right rear) was at 75 mph and other than a muffled pop and slight thumping sound there was no real perceptible change in the car's behavior. The second blowout (right front) occured while I was taking a corner (90 degree) at about 35 mph. Other than a slightly greater understeer tendancy than normal, the car again displayed no real change in behavior. My dad had two explorers and four sets of those recalled Firestones. Each set went over 80,000 miles with no problems. The percentage of failed tires was actually less than one fortieth of one percent of the recalled tires. Bottom line, it was not a problem with the tires, it was a problem of idiot drivers of SUV's whose (incorrect) reaction was to jerk the steering wheel violently, causing the vehicle to swerve.

Zenmervolt

 

[Pacfanweb]

Since I work at a very large Ford dealership in the service dept, I obviously had many occasions to see recalled Firestone tires. I can say that of all the tires we replaced, not a single one had any evidence of tread starting to separate.
Several people brought blown tires to us claiming the tread separated, but in every single case, the sidewalls were blown out, and there were nails or other objects that had punctured the tread. The sidewalls had blown out simply from being run low on air.
The main problem with Firestone tires, in my opinion, is from being run low on air. The accidents probably due to driver error after the tire blew. Any competent driver should be able to handle a blowout at highway speeds with no trouble.
This harkens back to the original title of this thread: Personal Responsibility. YOU are responsible to make sure your car is safe to drive. Remember your driver's ed courses you took? Didn't they say to walk around and check your car every time you drive it? Do you?
They also say check all fluid levels and tire pressure every time you refuel. Do you?
If you say yes, then the majority of you are lying.
Ford and Firestone are not totally blameless, but I can guarantee both companies have and will in the future settle some questionable cases that they probably aren't to blame for, simply due to the media mis-portrayal/public perception of the recall.