Close enough; can you think of any cars they haven't had at least something negative to say about? Or do you not watch the show regularly (which would explain your not understanding the fact that Top Gear is an entertainment show, not a news program)?
Seriously, Jeremy will bitch about the stitching on the seats of a brand new Maserati Quattroporte if he can't find anything else to complain about, not to mention the fact he openly admits that he thinks environmentalism is a scam. Anyone dumb enough to take that guy seriously deserves to get taken.
I'm sure all the manufacturers would hope if they give a vehicle a fair hearing.
Then why hasn't Vauxhall sued the show for the cracks about Astras blowing up? Why doesn't Ford sue when James makes fun of the Mondeo? Why hasn't Chevrolet sued over... well, just about every comment they've ever made about a Chevy?
The answer is, of course, that real auto manufacturers (i.e., those not owned by some snot-nosed, narcissistic internet 'entrepreneur') realize and understand that TOP GEAR IS AN ENTERTAINMENT PROGRAM, NOT A NEWS SHOW
As for being an apologist, no I'm not
Never said you were. Learn to read, not infer.
OK, so I may have implied it...
But it doesn't mean I can't see a phony review when I see one.
Not saying you can't; what I am saying is, apparently you're having trouble distinguishing between fake news (which is legitimate to complain about) and real satire.
FYI, Top Gear is the latter.
As for the logs, the simple way to demonstrate they exist is to note the NYT not screeching and shouting about their non existence.
Aah, yes, I call that the "Glenn Beck Method" - that which is not fervently denied, is fact.
Of course, every human capable of cogent thought knows that type of circular logic is, in fact, utter bullshit.
I'm sure they've seen them...
Real scientific thought process you have there, Chief./sarc
I deal with IVR's day-in and day-out at my current 9-5.
By "deal with," I of course mean "try and find the workaround to get to a real person as quickly as possible, before the goddamn automated system causes me to drive this handset through the wall, repeatedly."
No, I don't think we have to worry about automated systems threatening human interaction anytime soon.
I think you'd throw your toys out of the pram too if your billion dollar investment was unfairly dragged through the mud and harmed for the sake of a review with "colour".
I'll tell you one thing - if I was going to have my product showcased on a television program, I'd for damn sure watch an episode or two beforehand, so I knew what kind of program it was.
Seriously, has nobody at Tesla Motors ever watched an episode of Top Gear? Or did they think, 'oh, they make fun of every single other car they review, but they totally won't do that with ours!' Please.
Between the Cool Wall, constant jokes about Hammond's teeth, and the comical nature of the 'challenges,' it's plainly obvious that anyone who takes Top Gear seriously should not be taken seriously themselves.
I suppose the only silver lining for Tesla was they learned not to trust journos to tell the truth and enabled logging.
That's something I don't get about these fanatical Tesla Motors apologists: where is the evidence that Elon Musk is being any less dishonest than the journalists (or, in the case of Top Gear, "journalists") he's accusing? We haven't seen the actual logs, you know, but rather pictures that Musk claims are the logs.
Say anything negative about them, and they may sue!
I drive a Volt and I've had LEAF people walk up to me in parking lots, unsolicited, to tell me that my car isn't really an electric car or to gloat about their "all electric" car. I'm embarrassed to be part of the "electric car" community.
Nah, some of the responses are well thought-out. Generally, these are ones that respond to actual issues, instead of, for example, "LET SECEDE FROM THE UNION" or "HAVE BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA RESIGN." And yes, they get a lot of these. Pissed off hicks with access to computers are, surprisingly, a nontrivial demographic.
Isn't it interesting how quickly these "majority rules" types change their opinions the second the majority in question is one they don't agree with?
To be fair, a lot of successful petitions also lack what could be called "well thought out" qualities.
To be truly fair, you'd have to go read all the petitions that received answers; a large number of them, including every single one about marijuana legalization, received the standard, boilerplate B.S. response, regardless of how "well thought out" they may have been. I tend to agree with other posters, who point out that this is likely an attempt by the Obama Administration to trick the public into thinking that they take our grievances seriously.
Not to mention the outright jokes that the site is used for. We use one of the constitutionally protected tools for fixing our government to ask them to build a death star.
The lack of proper response to serious petitions came long before the whole 'build a death star' thing, you know. One follows the other, not the other way around.
Also, I've seen several cases where simple oversight was handled well through a petition, like the use of apes as chemical weapons test subjects on bases(for learning treatment and protection, not increasing the deadliness of weapons, it's not quite as barbaric as it sounds).
Ah, I see, so they respond to issues the general public generally doesn't give a rat's ass about, whilst ignoring the petitions that affect and are followed by the public at large. Good plan.
My overall opinion was that this site was one of Obama's better ideas when he was running for office.
Well, sure it was! It's never a bad idea to make the peasants think they actually have a say in how the government is run, they're far less likely to realize the gravity of the true situation and revolt that way!
Slashdot Mirror
There is when it's a bunch of crap.
So... this is your way of signing off Slashdot?
She should have pled the Fifth.
Can't incriminate anyone if you refuse to speak at all...
Hey, man, nothing wrong with increasing awareness.
Just because you love someone, doesn't mean you shouldn't turn them in if they do something wrong and criminal.
You do realize those two things are not mutually inclusive, right?
"Anything you say can and will be used against you..."
And, apparently, your friends and family as well.
Some of us don't need to be taught that lesson: don't commit crimes.
If you think you've never committed a crime, you've never read the US Revised Statutes.
Here's a resource, Now please STFU and educate yourself.
...watch a lawyer and sheriff explain why.
- Install Teamviewer so you can fix stuff remotely
- Install Chrome
- Drag and drop her AOL favorites from the browser directly into Chrome's bookmark manager
- Remove AOL from the system with extreme prejudice
- Go have a Mai Tai, you've earned it.
But what advice do you have for those of us who don't hate our mums?
Top Gear doesn't slag every car...
Close enough; can you think of any cars they haven't had at least something negative to say about? Or do you not watch the show regularly (which would explain your not understanding the fact that Top Gear is an entertainment show, not a news program)?
Seriously, Jeremy will bitch about the stitching on the seats of a brand new Maserati Quattroporte if he can't find anything else to complain about, not to mention the fact he openly admits that he thinks environmentalism is a scam. Anyone dumb enough to take that guy seriously deserves to get taken.
I'm sure all the manufacturers would hope if they give a vehicle a fair hearing.
Then why hasn't Vauxhall sued the show for the cracks about Astras blowing up? Why doesn't Ford sue when James makes fun of the Mondeo? Why hasn't Chevrolet sued over... well, just about every comment they've ever made about a Chevy?
The answer is, of course, that real auto manufacturers (i.e., those not owned by some snot-nosed, narcissistic internet 'entrepreneur') realize and understand that TOP GEAR IS AN ENTERTAINMENT PROGRAM, NOT A NEWS SHOW
As for being an apologist, no I'm not
Never said you were. Learn to read, not infer.
OK, so I may have implied it...
But it doesn't mean I can't see a phony review when I see one.
Not saying you can't; what I am saying is, apparently you're having trouble distinguishing between fake news (which is legitimate to complain about) and real satire.
FYI, Top Gear is the latter.
As for the logs, the simple way to demonstrate they exist is to note the NYT not screeching and shouting about their non existence.
Aah, yes, I call that the "Glenn Beck Method" - that which is not fervently denied, is fact.
Of course, every human capable of cogent thought knows that type of circular logic is, in fact, utter bullshit.
I'm sure they've seen them...
Real scientific thought process you have there, Chief. /sarc
I deal with IVR's day-in and day-out at my current 9-5.
By "deal with," I of course mean "try and find the workaround to get to a real person as quickly as possible, before the goddamn automated system causes me to drive this handset through the wall, repeatedly."
No, I don't think we have to worry about automated systems threatening human interaction anytime soon.
Smartphones, on the other hand...
^
FYI, the above post is a helluva lot more fun to read if you imagine it in the voice of Toki Wartooth.
I know! Let's ask Elon Musk, I'm certain he'll give us a straight answer.
Apple today announced plans to sue Blendtec's Tom Dickson, for unfair portrayals of their products during his review.
Film @ 11.
I think you'd throw your toys out of the pram too if your billion dollar investment was unfairly dragged through the mud and harmed for the sake of a review with "colour".
I'll tell you one thing - if I was going to have my product showcased on a television program, I'd for damn sure watch an episode or two beforehand, so I knew what kind of program it was.
Seriously, has nobody at Tesla Motors ever watched an episode of Top Gear? Or did they think, 'oh, they make fun of every single other car they review, but they totally won't do that with ours!' Please.
Between the Cool Wall, constant jokes about Hammond's teeth, and the comical nature of the 'challenges,' it's plainly obvious that anyone who takes Top Gear seriously should not be taken seriously themselves.
I suppose the only silver lining for Tesla was they learned not to trust journos to tell the truth and enabled logging.
That's something I don't get about these fanatical Tesla Motors apologists: where is the evidence that Elon Musk is being any less dishonest than the journalists (or, in the case of Top Gear, "journalists") he's accusing? We haven't seen the actual logs, you know, but rather pictures that Musk claims are the logs.
That article has been completely debunked
And you can cite a source for said debunking, right?
Or am I supposed to take your word for it?
Use "girls" as a pejorative? Really?
Really. Get over it.
She can't. Feminazis do not just "Get over" things.
FTFY.
Wouldn't want to lump all women in with the psycho-feminists, otherwise you'd be proving their madness right.
Who drives a thing balls to the wall around a track though?
Top Gear presenters.
Say anything negative about them, and they may sue!
I drive a Volt and I've had LEAF people walk up to me in parking lots, unsolicited, to tell me that my car isn't really an electric car or to gloat about their "all electric" car. I'm embarrassed to be part of the "electric car" community.
Point out 2 things -
Manufacturing electric cars creates twice the pollution as manufacturing similar, conventional autos
and
the "fuel" from their vehicles most likely comes from pollution-belching coal and gas fired power plants.
That should shut them up.
I wish the U.S. President and U.S. Congress would use the same tactics so they and everybody else would see how much they are all hated.
The problem: There's a world of difference between not knowing what people think of you, and not giving a rat's ass.
But that does not always happen. They just gave a flippant response to the one I signed, "We are not in the business of blowing up planets".
To which I would respond, 'your terrestrial policies indicate otherwise.'
... like I needed another reason to switch to CrunchBang...
I dunno, man... I think I almost prefer Bush's 'not-even-pretending-he's-listening' approach.
No false sense of hope.
Nah, some of the responses are well thought-out. Generally, these are ones that respond to actual issues, instead of, for example, "LET SECEDE FROM THE UNION" or "HAVE BARACK HUSSEIN OBAMA RESIGN." And yes, they get a lot of these. Pissed off hicks with access to computers are, surprisingly, a nontrivial demographic.
Isn't it interesting how quickly these "majority rules" types change their opinions the second the majority in question is one they don't agree with?
And yes, I mean that as a 2-way dig.
To be fair, a lot of successful petitions also lack what could be called "well thought out" qualities.
To be truly fair, you'd have to go read all the petitions that received answers; a large number of them, including every single one about marijuana legalization, received the standard, boilerplate B.S. response, regardless of how "well thought out" they may have been. I tend to agree with other posters, who point out that this is likely an attempt by the Obama Administration to trick the public into thinking that they take our grievances seriously.
Not to mention the outright jokes that the site is used for. We use one of the constitutionally protected tools for fixing our government to ask them to build a death star.
The lack of proper response to serious petitions came long before the whole 'build a death star' thing, you know. One follows the other, not the other way around.
Also, I've seen several cases where simple oversight was handled well through a petition, like the use of apes as chemical weapons test subjects on bases(for learning treatment and protection, not increasing the deadliness of weapons, it's not quite as barbaric as it sounds).
Ah, I see, so they respond to issues the general public generally doesn't give a rat's ass about, whilst ignoring the petitions that affect and are followed by the public at large. Good plan.
My overall opinion was that this site was one of Obama's better ideas when he was running for office.
Well, sure it was! It's never a bad idea to make the peasants think they actually have a say in how the government is run, they're far less likely to realize the gravity of the true situation and revolt that way!