[Author Prev][Author Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Author Index][Thread Index]
Re: all the news that's fit(?)
> Reply to: all the news that's fit(?) to print...
> oh, no, here we go again.
> Date: 1/31/95 11:11 AM
> To: Peter Fraser
> From: firstname.lastname@example.org
> On Tue, 31 Jan 1995 email@example.com wrote:
> > My first paragraph comes from _Gut_Fahrt_. Which had an article
> > comparing the Audi V-6 to the VR6. It was more acurate than Eliot's
> > "why VR6 is the best engine in the world", and explained the differant
> > purposes of these engines.
> so _Gut_Fahrt_ is right because it says what you want to hear and i'm
> wrong because i say what you don't want to hear. very persuasive.
No, _Gut_Fahrt_ is a VW/Audi mag that has no bias wrt VW vs. Audi. In
fact they favor VW (since they have a greater product line for one).
And I didn't say Eliot was wrong, I questioned "accuracy". G/F
provided side-by-side comparison of the VR6 vs. Audi V-6 with
lab and test track results and manufacturers (VAG) design intent.
FWIW the article didn't state that the VR6 sucks, or that the Audi
V-6 beats_it. To be "very persuasive" I should say "I can beat
that ____ into the weeds with my ____". C'mon eliot you can do better
> i guess you don't understand the concept that different
> people/publications have different criteria for liking and disliking
I do, after all if VW were to buy me dinner, let me drive their Corrado
for free. I could write some wonderful things about the car. I
personally read a large range of automobile magazines and it is easy
to see bias. I have found lack of specific information as a means of
hiding deficiences. I find it important to remember that any car
magazine has normaly one data point and the manufacturer at their beckon
call (an unrealistic benchmark). After all it is just their SHO (somewhat
I go for facts not opinion.