TonyWilliams said:
Yanquetino said:
Oh... and thanks, once again, for attacking and insulting the messenger when you do not like the message. Sorry to have to tell you this, Tony, but people skills are not exactly your forté.
Gosh, I think I'm merely responding to you in a "like" manner and by my measure, deserved manner.
Okay, Tony, now that you have also leveled this very same "like manner" accusation at me over at
PlugInCars, I am taking the gloves off. There comes a time when attempts to placate, avoid, even ignore such tactics reach the breaking point, and one has no choice but to stand up to the playground bully. Will I now get the holy **** beat out of me? Yeah, most probably. But I'm fed up with being punched without swinging back.
Your claim that I originally "attacked" and threw "spears"
in like manner is false. Whether or not you see it, there is indeed a difference between objecting to, decrying, finding fault with, refuting, criticizing a
message... and belittling, demeaning, and insulting the
messenger.
Yes, I strongly objected to —and still do, more than ever— the
messages those AZ owners broadcast over the KPHO airwaves, which made me groan and wince ("Ouch!").
I also expressed disappoint, many times, in the
non-message that Nissan has repeatedly conveyed with its lack of open communcations with its customers.
I was critical of your
message that "Nissan appears to be in complete denial at the highest levels."
I especially found fault with your
message that its technicians had committed "outright fraud."
I expressed the criticism that, in my opinion, the
message your team concluded from the test data was fudged, skewed, and exaggerated.
And yes, I decried your
message that Andy Palmer "was wrong about the batteries. It was
sheer stupidity to tell this group of owners that the batteries are ok."
As I said, "Those are fighting
words." That is, I tried to focus on the
words, the
messages --
not the
messenger, the
person who uttered them. In point of fact, as you well know, I purposely avoided naming names at first so that the conflict of opinions was on the surface in my analysis --and
not the individuals behind the contrary views.
Conversely,
what I explicitly did not do was state... that
YOU show "continual ignorance," and "can only focus on a kernel of information," and thus what you have to say is "garbage," "your spewage is just that," for such is your "trash piece," written by a "blow hard" who "doesn't even get the basic facts right," because "you've done a great job of making clear your shortcomings in the LEAF knowledge area," but have "no shortcomings in BS," with all the "BS in your piece," you're among "the most obtuse" who "attacked and ridiculed those suffering" and "did nothing to help," but rather "actually worked to interfere with these positive outcomes," and thus... "you know who you are, and so do we."
Yes, Tony, those quotes are
your spears, hurled at
people --and particularly at me. Your penchant for attacking the
messenger is the very reason I hestitated to even post my alternative conclusions.
You did a truly admirable job orchestrating the AZ owners' tests and gathering the data, at great personal sacrifice, no question. But if you cannot recognize that there is a difference between your tit and my tat, I don't know what to tell you.
Maybe I am the only kid in this playground who sees it that way. Could be. But regardless of the numerous mistakes I continue to make in life, I spent far too many years questioning if there was something "wrong" with me, and I refuse to lie down and let a bully kick me in my self-esteem anymore.
