Who IS this guy?!

'Niceguy' Eddie

Political Talk Show Host and Internet Radio Personality. My show, In My Humble Opinion, aired on RainbowRadio from 2015-2017.

Feel free to contact me at niceguy9418@usa.com. You can also friend me on Facebook, follow me on Twitter, and Tumblr, and support my Patreon. Also, if you don't mind the stench, you can find my unofficial "fan club" over HERE. ;)


Tuesday, March 13, 2012

A Good Point...

A few posts back, I mentioned that I wanted to touch on a good point that William had made in one of his comments.  Because I think it's important when someone is wrong 99% of the time, to celebrate those times when they aren't talking completely out of their ass. (And I do sincerely hope that he takes my abuse of him here with a certain level of pride. After all, every time I've been attacked by a Conservative I've usually taken it with similar pride: I mean... anybody THAT stupid, I wouldn't WANT to agree with! So I do hope he's sees all of this in the same light.)

And BTW... It's not the first time we've agreed on something! He was dead-on-balls right about the electric car, AND... this may be the first time I've gone against Conchobhar, but y'all might want to re-think his advice to invest in Tesla Motors. They just had one of their road testers turn into an $80,000 BRICK during a recent trial run. And UNLIKE the fires in the Volt, which are a matter of complete irrelevance, this failure speaks directly to fundamental flaws in the design of their batteries.  I'm sure they'll come around, but please consider any investment in the to be risky in the short term. I'm telling you: WE WORK WITH THEM. And they don't know the first fucking thing about building a car. And GM DOES. (I do still like much of their design, and hope that they work out the kinks, but believe me: The Volt is far closer to being market-ready and defect-free than anything Tesla is offering.)

Anyway enough of that.  I want to talk for a minute about JOE PATERNO.

In my *ahem* obituary for that Right Wing Cocksucker Andrew Breitbart, I made a statement to the effect that DEATH does not magically turn Joe Paterno back from a PEDOPHILE ENABLER into a FOOTBALL LEGEND.  (And nor should it redeem a worthless bottom-feeder like Brietbart.)  And while William was wrong in saying that Paterno didn't enable anyone (because HE CLEARLY DID) I want to give a concession here and admit that in a broader sense, I did (also) have a lot of problems with the way the Penn State story was handled by the media, in particular with their myopic focus on Paterno.

See... I was travelling on Business the the week that story broke, with two of my engineering colleagues, our boss and his boss.  And EVERYONE - and I do mean EVERYONE was calling for Paterno's blood.... Except me.  Now... I wasn't defending him. There is no doubt in my mind that he did not do enough, and by his inaction much harm was subsequently done.  But my point then, as William correctly stated in his comment, was that Paterno did EXACTLY what he was required to do under the law at the time and under exsisting University Policy.  He REPORTED it. And there was then no shortage of people who passed the buck and/or dropped the ball.  The Dean of Athletics, the University President, the Campus Police, and at least a dozen others.  Who? Well, I haven't the slightest fucking idea, because the STORY ended up being all about Paterno!  And to me, that does a great disservice to the victims, by letting an awful lot of people who were equally responsible off the hook!

I mean... FINE.  So this story grew legs because of Paterno's celebrity and his celebrated Football Program.  And if you doubt this would have been a story WITHOUT Paterno's involvement, you might recall that SYRACUSE also had reports of Pedophilic activity going on within it's athletic programs.  On th eother hand, you might NOT. Because lacking a celebrated figurehead that anyone had actually HEARD OF, the story had no legs, and thus got a fraction of the coverage that the Penn State story got.  And how much have you heard about it in the weeks since Paterno's death? I haven't heard a PEEP. Anyone arrested? Anyone charged?  What's going on with Sandusky? I haven't the slightest clue. Lose the celebrity angle, and the public loses interest in the story. Without the Paterno angle? No one wants to cover it anymore! And that sucks enough in it's own right, but I've never shaken the feeling that Paterno and, to a lesser extent McQuerrie (sp?), were being made to take the fall for a awful lot of faceless paper-pushers who, at a minimum, should all lose their jobs and face media and public scrutiny as well. After all... how does anyone else who was around at the time, and was part of that great cavalcade of failure, justify firing Paterno, and not resigning themselves as well?!

Now... Once they all got their emotions out, and we actually debated it, there were some good points brought up. Our director, himself a mentor to all of us and a soccer coach to young people as well, described, in his mind, what it REALLY MEANS to be a "coach." And he expressed a lot of idealism about mentoring and watching out for people, and keeping them out of trouble... all great stuff, and all stuff that I think we all agree coaches SHOULD do.  But let's get real for a moment: Joe Paterno was NOT hired to do ANY of that. Beyond keeping HIS PLAYERS eligible, all he was hired to do was WIN FOOTBALL GAMES. That's it. Let's not dress up the role of a COLLEGE FOOTBALL COACH in any more idealistic verbal diarrhea than that. Because that's just a failure recognize the difference between what IS what ought to be.

Bottom line: The failure here was one of the SYSTEM, and hardly Paterno's and/or McQueerie's alone.  They played a role, yes, UNDENIABLY, but no more than so many others - including the CAMPUS POLICE, who if I'm not much mistaken, ARE in fact tasked with investigating crimes and expected to turn over to the ACTUAL POLICE any cases they can't handle. But where was their mass headcount reduction?

Now... Later on, I was discussing this with another co-worker, and he brought up a point that I really couldn't argue.  There IS a reason that Joe Paterno's failure here is more substantial than anyone else's, and that is because, far more than anyone else involved, including even the University President, whatever Joe said? His will would be done. That's it. Period. Paterno OWNED that School. He was royalty. If he goes in, slams his hand down on the President's desk and says "GOD DAMN IT, I WANT THIS SHIT DEALT WITH!" Well, shit... you better believe it would have been fucking dealth with! If Paterno had used his monumental celebrity, and the pull that comes with it, to the benefit of anything off of the football field... like, say... oh I don't know... shutting down a volunteer program for troubled youths that was being run by a fucking peodphile?!  There is no reason to believe that EVERYONE would have gotten on board with that, 100%. At Penn State, when Joe spoke? People ACTED. From that POV, I have to admit that Paterno had the greatest ability of any single person to see that is was handled properly, and he failed to do that.  No quetsion about it.

All the same?  There is not a single person in that entire chain of command that couldn't have done more than they did - which is to say, more than passing the buck and/or ignoring it - and who thus shares equally in the responsibiliy of what they collectively enabled.  Yes: ENABLED, every bit as much as every pedophilic Catholic Priest was enabled by an archdiocese that did nothing more than relocate them. Which is all that was done to Sandusky in the wake of these allogations: He was asked to leave the Campus.  OMFG, how could the be so cruel?

So while I don't take back my condemnation of Paterno (or Breitbart) I will happily agree with William that there were MANY OTHER people who dropped the ball there, and reitereate the dismay that I feel at the fact that we need a celebrity angle for a story like this to become front page news.  It does truly speak to a misplacement of our cultural priorites. (Last time I checked thought, it wasn't Liberals who elevated College Football to this status of nigh sanctity.)


I do want to add a little bit about McQueerie though.  See... He didn't have any authority to act, at the time, but he did say - at one point before his story changed multiple times - that he witness Sandsuky anal-raping a ten year old boy in the showers, and reported it. Um... wait a sec... REPORTED IT? How about... STOPPED IT?! How about INTERVENED?! How about KICKED THE SHIT OUT OF SANDUSKY?!  He initailly said at the time, that he was scared and that it was a youthful misjudgement not to have done more. But see... I don't really buy that. I can't. The poor judgment of youth? In this case? Would have been an excuse for OVER reacting. Like say... KICKING THE SHIT OUT OF SANDUSKY!  It doens't exaplin WALKING THE FUCK AWAY.  McQuerrie, if his first story is to be believed, is a coward. And if it isn't? Then he's a liar.

Now I said all of that, becuase I'd like to answer one question William asked me that I haven't answered. (Despite his protestations to the contrary, I HAVE in fact answered all of his others as far as I am aware.)  He asked me if I consdiered myself a GOOD PERSON.

Now... I think this is a question that most people, if asked, would immediately answer, "Yes," to. Becuase in all honesty I don't think anyone truly believes themselvs to be a bad person.  But in all fairness, I'd like to point to a few things that I think might actually JUSTIFY this opinion.

1) I hate to see people being victimized. I cant abide the weak getting bullied by the strong.
2) I believe that people should live together in peace, and that peaceful coexsistance is worth striving for.
3) I ALSO believe that evil truly does flourish when good people do nothing.

There's more to my ideology, of course, but I'd say that anyone who can claim these things, and has the common sense to reconcile when (3) is more important than (2), has the right to consider themselves a good person.  Strive to do GOOD, and in your actions or inaction do no harm.  I think that's a reasonablly "good" ideal to have. And, among other less relevant principles, I do hold that ideal. I don't always live up to it. But then... any man who never fails to live up to at least some of his ideals from time to time, has set the bar WAY TOO LOW for himself.  I expect a lot of myself. And I AM willing to take risks and make sacrifices in accordance with that.

So... What does this have to do with McQueerie? Well... During that business trip, I was more agressive in my judgement of McQueerie than Paterno, and to my suprise, my co-workers were more forgiving of him.  And they asked me: How can I really know what I would have done in that situation?

Well... One time I was almost run over by a car. And after narrowly missing me and a co-worker, that car went off the road, over the sidewalk, accross the field in front of our office, into some nearby woods, down a ravine and into a creek. Turns out the the driver was pregnant, with gestational diabetes and blacked out behind the wheel. I learned this becuase I was running after that car, at top speed, cell-phone in hand, calling 9-1-1. I was the first on the scene, and I helped carry one of the passengers - a child - up the sliperry embankment to safety and waited with him for the paramedics (the REAL heores) to arrive. (We didn't dare try to move the driver - that would have been incredibly reckless. The kid was FINE. Just shaken up a little.)

On several other occasions (at least three, that I can recall right now) I've stopped what I was doing - usually driving somewhere - to pick up a stray dog, check for a collar, and see them returned to their owners.

One night, after working out, I saw a scene in the parking lot that gave me a bad feeling - between a woman outside her parked car and a homeless guy that used to hang around that area. I just didn't like the body language - he was too close, her hands were raised... it just felt all wrong. So I got out of my car, and walked over to a spot under a lampost about ten, fifteen yards away. Easily close enough for me to cross the disatnce in just a few seconds if anything happened.  She could see me, and I made sure that HE knew I was there. I didn't know for sure if any more intervention was needed, I couldn't hear what they were saying, but someting didn't feel right and I stood by until she had safely driven way. There was NO FUCKING WAY I was leaving that parking lot before she did.

I've saved my own mother's life - now a sixty-five year old diabetic herself - more times than I can even count, and I've saved my own son from drowning.

And the only time I've ever been hit in the face? (Outside of sparring practice?) I hit back, and knocked the other dude's ass to the floor.

Why am I saying all of this? Just to point out that, unlike McQuerrie, when I've been called on to act at various times in my life, I'VE ACTED. Decisively. No excuses. No thoughts of myself. No fear. No complaining. No griping. No whining. And no CONSIDERATION, even for a second, of NOT acting.

I am a man of action and I do not fuck around.

And, of course, there are countless, less dramatic, examples of me simply going out of my way to HELP SOMEONE WHO NEEDED IT. And no: I'm sorry to say that I have not served in our military, nor have I ever volunteered at a soup kitchen. I will add the latter to my bucket list.  But I've halued dirt for the old guy accross the street, I've walked for autism, I've donated toys to homeless shelters, I've pitched in around the neigborhood and at work when people have needed help, and I'm never too busy to listen to someone when they need someone to talk to.

Now... I don't know if all that makes me a good person? But when I've had to go out of my way to do what I think is right? I can HONESTLY say that I have never failed to do exactly that. What ideals I possess? I've ACTED upon, when called to do so.

And it is with that sentiment in mind that I say that McQuerrie is nothing but a gutless coward.


  1. "but y'all might want to re-think his advice to invest in Tesla Motors. They just had one of their road testers turn into an $80,000 BRICK during a recent trial run."

    The originator of that story must be a liberal. He provided NO proof of his claims, only stated it and now considers it factual. It would be an anomaly for a Tesla to turn into a "brick". The owner would have to do it on purpose for the batteries to go that dead. In which case, I would not blame the manufacturer for a failure on the owners part. But, I'm not a liberal and don't seek out others to blame for failures on my own part.

    Of the 2200 Roadsters sold, the blogger mentions 5 cases of battery discharge.
    1st one: owner left his car unplugged on purpose
    2nd one: the owner used improper charging methods
    3rd one: the owner purchased a $100K car and let it sit in his garage unused.
    4th one: owner can't read instructions
    5th one: NO DATA


    So, of the 5 cars that the blogger claimed to be "bricked", none are shown to be manufacturer failures. That's much better success rate than ANY US manufacturer'd car/truck. I know, I work on them all day, every day.

  2. "And UNLIKE the fires in the Volt, which are a matter of complete irrelevance, this failure speaks directly to fundamental flaws in the design of their batteries."

    Which fundamental flaw is that? The flaw that the owner needs to maintain his/her vehicle as directed?
    And it is good to hear that fires caused by a design failure are considered completely irrelevant in GM cars. GM added structural reinforcement to each Volt sold and unsold to prevent future fires, BTW. That means GM has a design failure which is considered 'completely irrelevant', but an unproven/unknown "fundamental flaw" is reason enough to dump Tesla.
    How does that work?

    Anyone know of any fires caused by leaking coolant in Tesla cars? I guess a life is worth $40K to you? Because you complain about Tesla cars "bricking" and say it is a very bad thing. But if someone should die in a Volt fire because of the KNOWN design failure, it would be considered "complete irrelevance".
    How does THAT work?

  3. William,

    I am not going to comment on the Volt's fires, becuase I already have, other than to say that following a 35 mph crash, you are as likely to die of thirst and/or hunger if you are stuck in car long enough for the potential coolant leak to catch fire. GM's actions were a robustnest meausre and as much for litigation and PR purposes as for performance ones.

    As for the Tesla... You got me. I have not sepcific information about the test in question. I was just passing on some infomrtaion that I heard from one of our Tesla folks. It was a throw-away line, and I would hope that none of my readers would be stupid enough to invest or divest in a company over a single line on a blog. (ANY blog.) I would have thought it was obvious that my advice was no more than to do your research before investing, and this remains sound advice regardless of the product or company.

    With that in mind, I don't know where you get the idea that I hate Tesla. I think they're a great comapny doing great work. HOWEVER...

    Looking over your explanations of the battery failures so far... You seem to think that it is acceptable for a Car to be left idle for a couple of weeks and then NEVER WORK AGAIN? Becuase the "brick" I was refering to can no longer be recharged. It's DEAD. It's a true BRICK. And assuming that the five you are referring to are in the same condition? Well... Those may not be due to "manufactrures defects" but if you think that these failures don't represent POOR DESIGN? Well, I guess that's why you're a mechanic and I'm an engineer. CARS SHOULDN'T WORK THAT WAY. IT'S A POOR DESIGN. (And no, I'm not bashing mechanics in general here - I've got a phenomonal one, who recognizes a DESIGN FLAW (as opposed to a QUALITY PROBLEM) when she sees one.)

    But I don't know what there are more of in the world: People who want their car to be renedered permamnently unusable just because they hadn't driven it in a couple of weeks (or left it unplugged for a couple days) or people who would die in a car fire THREE WEEKS in the making, following a 35 mph crash.

    Oh, and uh... BTW, in case anyone is confused... the topic we're discussing here, OBVIOUSLY, is Jerry Sandusy, Joe Paterno and Mike McQuarrie, what role each played in the Penn State Sex scandal, and how we feel about these individuals and what they did, or didn't do, relative to the scandal.

  4. "Oh, and uh... BTW, in case anyone is confused... the topic we're discussing here"

    Yes, but you added the bit about Tesla and the Volt.

    There have been thousands of fires in gasoline powered vehicles, yet the 'fear factor' has never been brought into it. The Volt caught fire with the chemicals on-board. I'm not saying every Volt if a fire danger (like the Pinto), but with the potential being there, so is the danger.
    Tesla batteries ... like ALL batteries ... when left to go dead will probably not work anymore. If that is a design "flaw", then perhaps the world should stop trying to create an alternative to gasoline powered car until all "flaws" are reduced to the same possibilities as in a gas powered car. That should fly well for all the 'global warming' whiners: "let's keep using gas as much as possible until sometime in the future when batteries don't go dead". I mean, be real, the car isn't designed to be bought them parked unplugged or unattended for weeks at a time. It does what it is designed to do. If you can't or won't maintain it, then you get what you pay for. And, perhaps, if you're the type who would buy one and let it sit for those time frames, maybe you shouldn't buy one. I'm sure the ones who do buy them are planning on using them.

    We'll find out the true facts as more electric cars are released.
    BTW, I heard a new one, the Coda, was released last week from near my area. It gets up to 125 miles per charge and top speed of 85 (electrically limited). It sells for around $38K, but with tax incentives the cost drops to under $30K (in California). It is made in China without powertrain assy, then fitted with electronics in America.

  5. "If that is a design "flaw", then perhaps the world should stop trying to create an alternative to gasoline powered car until all "flaws" are reduced to the same possibilities as in a gas powered car."

    An absurdistly luddite conclusion. I don't know how you get that from what I've written. But that's just like a Conservtaive: Black and white. Up or down. Nothing in between, no shade of gray. The design must either be PERFECT or it's CRAP. But, um... NO. In the REAL WORLD, nothing is perfect and very little is truly crap. So we'll just keep moving forward, TYVM.but there's nothing wrong with POINTING OUT THE ISSUES along the way. That's the only way to MAKE PROGRESS, and it's kind of what Liberals DO, BTW. And the typical response is usually some nonsensical garbage like... well, like what you just postred there.

    I never said they shouldn't sell them, and I never said that we shouldn't buy them. My point was that people should be careful where they INVEST there money. And again - I hardly think that should be a partisan point of contention.

    Now that CODA? Sounds pretty good. I'll have to check it out. I don't genrally trust Chinese-made cars (I've seen too many of their crash test videos) but if it passes FMVSS (which it would HAVE too to be sold here) it could be a pretty good deal.

    Hey... Just out of curiosity... ANYTHING at all to say about Paterno or McQuarrie? Or does this more detailed explanation of how I felt about the whole mess pretty much put us on the same page? I'm assuming we pretty much agree, as you're not too shy about telling me when we don't, but I WAS hoping to get some of your thoughts on this. (Patenro and McQuarrie, I mean. We all already know how you feel about Sandusky.)

  6. Tell me, Eddie, what is the difference between a "design flaw" and "issues"? You called Tesla battery packs as having "design flaws". That (in this conservatives mind) is a long way from being an "issue". What part of "black and white" or "up and down" fits in between your opinion that those batteries are garbage or slightly undercharged? Personally, I don't really care whether you support EV's or not. Because I think it is a wonderful issue to show the hypocrisy of liberals when it comes to the concern over global warming/climate change.

    BTW, I really don't want to get into that story again. I've stated my piece. Paterno is no God and McQuarrie gets off scott-free while people like you worry about Paterno being THE child molester enabler. Your priorities are a little skewed.

    That's why I jumped all over the knock on electric cars that you are starting to exhibit. Perhaps if you separate these two issues and move our comments over to the article on electric car battery "design flaws". But, it's your blog, you can discuss any way you want.

  7. Product Engineering 101: There are two TYPES OF ISSUES: DESIGN ISSUES are when a product, built correctly, fails to meet a specified level of performance or benchmark. QUALITY ISSUES (aka "manufacturer's defects") are due to poorly made or poorly assembled parts. Here's a quick test: If, upon becoming aware of an "issue," if the engineer says, "that's NOT supposed to work this way, and here's the part that's out of spec?" THAT'S a quality issue. If the engineer says (like YOU said) "But it's SUPPOSED to work that way!" THAT'S a DESIGN ISSUE. Or, you could argue, as I sometimes do, that it's just an idiotic customer. Which is what you seem to be claiming. But my CELL PHONE (for examples) has built-in eneergy management software that prevents it from ever becoming a permanent paperweight. That's a $200 Cell phone. SO a $40,0000+ CAR should endevour to be equally robust BY DESIGN.

    And BTW... when did I say "these batteries are garbage?" I never said that. That you would interpret my comments that way shows exactly what I'M SAYING about YOUR WAY of thinking: That you people are the ones who can only deal with BLACK and WHITE. PERFECT or CRAP. I point out AN ISSUE (something that I do for both a living, as an engineer, and a hobby, as a Liberal) and you throw up your hands like a petulant child and start crying about how "I must just think it's total crap then!" Again... um... NO, as I said before, and hope I don't have to say again: NOTHING IN LIFE IS PERFECT, AND VERY LITTLE IS TOTAL CRAP. Try reading my comments next time before replying to them. Becuase I SPECIFICALLY SAID the EXACT OPPOSITE of what YOU JUST CLAIMED my opinion to be. I went through the trouble of WRITING IT OUT to save you the trouble of having to GUESS AT IT. Please do me the courtesy of READING THE DAMN THING and NOT going out of your way to MISREPRESENT my opinion.

    "Personally, I don't really care whether you support EV's or not..."

    Ok, STOP RIGHT THERE. If you're responding to ME, and attacking MY POSITION, then you'd BETTER fucking care, because you don't get to decide what MY position is!

    "...Because I think it is a wonderful issue to show the hypocrisy of liberals when it comes to the concern over global warming/climate change."

    How? Why? Becuase we drive cars? William, that doesn't make any sense at all. Liberals (generally) accept the AGW Climate Model, and support legislation and alternate energy initiates to combat it. So where's the hyposricy? We support EV's! (And pointing out ONE FLAW in ONE VEHICLE is not "bashing EV's" IN GENERAL, Doofus!) And we support a clean electrical grid. In the meantime, we still have to get around and operate in the real world. I mean, between the likes of Ann Coulter telling lies, saying that the Greens/Gore crowd what us all to live in caves, and YOU claiming that our ACTUAL, far more MODERATE position is "hypocritical," I'd love to know what you think is required to be "principled" here! Because I'd gladly spend $40K on a electric car, assuming IT MET MY NEEDS (I have a 25 mile commute and nowhere to plug it in during the day) and that I HAD $40K (or $30K, or $20K) to spend on a car. I don't. And neither do most people. I still don't see how supporting legislation that suppoert EV and Green Energy is hypocritical just because I don't spend money I don't have on something that might not meet my actual needs. You'er basically saying that were Hypocrites becuase we're not idiots, and pursue practical solutions - including the support of EV's. (DUH!)So, please, enlighten us: Where's the hypocrisy? What do YOU think an "enlightened position" looks like?

    (This ought to be good / I'm probably going to regret asking that)

  8. "Paterno is no God and McQuarrie gets off scott-free while people like you worry about Paterno being THE child molester enabler. Your priorities are a little skewed."

    Huh? Again this makes no sense. Did you even READ the my post here? Because it seems to me that I spent several pages lamenting that VERY THING. And, no, you haven't said your piece, becuase this comment seems to contradict it. Before, you defended Paterno, saying how "Liberals" were blaming him for the whole thing. Well, first of all, it wasn't just "liberals" and second of all, I've now made it clear that I DON'T think he was as much as fault as THE MEDIA made the story suggest and then you say I'm worried "about Paterno being THE child molester enabler." I just said THE EXACT OPPOSITE! Especially considering your emphasis on the "THE." I said he was "AN" enabler, and was among MANY, and that the SYSTEM needed to be fixed and that MANY PEOPLE were to blame... INCLUDING MCQUARRIE! (WHo YOU seem to lament getting off scott-fee!) How does that show MY "skewed priorities?" It seems to me we're saying the same thing!

    Putting aside your continued misrepresentation of my positions and opinions, your posts here don't even make any sense. If you want to engage in "random liberal bashing" you can do it on your own blog. (And I'll feel just as free to come by to call "bullshit.") And again, you're always welcome to comment here, but I don't think it's asking too much that if you're going to talk about "my position" that you have the slightest fucking idea what it ACTUALLY IS.

    And, BTW... if it's unclear: ASK. My recent business aside, I'm generally fairly good about answering direct questions. A lack of clarity on my part is not liscense for you to fill in the blanks however you choose and then run to the ends of the earth with it, assuming your strawman is right and ignoring any future clarifications to the contrary. You're entitled to disagree with my position, you're not entitled to define it.

  9. " I've now made it clear that I DON'T think he was as much as fault as THE MEDIA made the story suggest and then you say I'm worried "about Paterno being THE child molester enabler."

    Which explains this next statement in what way?

    "There IS a reason that Joe Paterno's failure here is more substantial than anyone else's, and that is because, far more than anyone else involved, including even the University President, whatever Joe said? His will would be done. That's it. Period. Paterno OWNED that School."

    In your article you say "Joe OWNED that School". Then you deny saying Joe was THE enabler when you infer only he could have allowed such a travesty?

    "when did I say "these batteries are garbage?" I never said that"

    Are you really going to take that route? You said they had "fundamental flaws in the design of their batteries" then went on to say the batteries are 'defective'. Unless you were talking about another aspect of the Tesla that you haven't mentioned any other time. How is there a "design flaw" when all batteries of that type (with the technology we have now) are made generally the same way and all have the same concern?
    Just what exactly are you trying to say when you call Tesla batteries defective, designed flawed products?

    Either way, don't complain that I'm calling you on your use of a made up story by some blogger in an effort to show Tesla "don't know the first fucking thing about building a car".

    1. *sigh*

      RE Paterno? It's a complicate issue, and I try to see ALL SIDES of it. That's more of a Liberal trait than a Conservative one, I know, but try it sometime. That second statement? AS I SAID, came from a co-worker, doofus, not me. I was merely acknowledging that it was a GOOD POINT, despite that fact that it contradicted my own. (See? Not everyone has to agree with me to make a good point!) I seek neither to defend Paterno, nor to bury him. But even though you and I both had the same complaint about how the media handled the story, I guess you're more interested in taking pot shots at me than looking for common ground, or doing a deeper exploration of a COMPLEX ISSUE. And the FACT is that (1) He DID OWN THAT SCHOOL, and (2) He WAS NOT "THE" ENABLER. These two statements are not mutually exclusive, and I never implied that they were. But that does make for a more COMPLEX issue that the media (or your average conservative blogger) can typically handle. So I'm not surprised you're confused.

      As for Tesla... For fuck's sake, what I wrote was both factually accurate and sufficiently clear. If you'd rather play the contrarian, knock yourself out. Taking a few quotes out of context (either deliberately or as a result of stupidity) does not change my position on EV's in general, which I have never criticized. And for this nonsense about how "all batteries work this way" I dealt with that too. And asking the question - AGAIN - doesn't erase the answer that I already gave. As for it being a "a made up story by some blogger?" Sorry. As I said (and how many times do I have to answer your comments by saying "as I already said?!") we WORK with Tesla. We also work with everyone else. And Tesla knows less that everyone else about building cars. My information here is that of an INSIDER. That being said? I wish them well, and they've got some damned good ideas and some good products. GREAT potential, if they get through these initial bumps in the road. Always happy to see a company challenge the status quo - another inherently Liberal trait. I'm sorry that I don't treat them as the sacred cow that you would have me do, but, again, for the fuckteenth time: NOTHING IN THIS WORLD IS PERFECT, AND VERY LITTLE IS TOTAL CRAP. I am NOT required to either absolutely LOVE something or absolutely HATE it. That's simply idiotic. At some point you may wrap your head around this concept, but I'm not optimistic. In the meantime, enjoy your black and white world. I prefer color.

    2. "And Tesla knows less that everyone else about building cars."

      Which is just a 'tad' different than: "And they don't know the first fucking thing about building a car."

      Is THAT the "out of context" statement you're talking about?

      "AS I SAID, came from a co-worker, doofus, not me."

      Ok, I can admit that most of the quote that I used was from the co-worker. However, when you said "Period" that was the end of what your co-worker had said. YOU then stated that "Paterno OWNED that School. He was royalty.". YOUR inference was that Paterno allowed (enabled) it to happen because he "owned" that school. Tell me again how you seperate the two in your "color" world?

  10. What quote was taken out of context?
    And, you've been criticizing EV's for the past month. Do you even read what you write?