This claim that you “follow their track record” isn’t evidence. You have as long as I can remember never once cited a source for your (false) claims. Want to tell us how 183 australians started the wildfires again? LOL Agent you’re always good for a laugh when you show how gullible you are for right-wing propaganda
No one is interested in your opinion of what constitutes ‘evidence’ because you would deny it is such, regardless of what was presented.
January 22, 2020 at 10:53 am
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
7
1
Would I? I’ve actually admitted to being wrong before, Craig proved me wrong about a single point in his environmental argument once. That’s one more time than you’ve ever admitted to being wrong, Polar. You’ve literally whined about my source of evidence being socialist, and then used an article from that website to try and prove your point in the same month. You are a troll, and you know exactly what you’re doing: spreading misinformation.
Hey Polar, how many of Trump’s cronies have been indicted while he was in office?
How many of Obama’s officials were indicted while he was in office?
That’s what I thought. Cowardice and hypocrisy are your bread and butter pal, not mine.
January 22, 2020 at 6:55 am
PolarBeaRepeal says:
Like or Dislike:
3
7
Prior crashes of Teslas is prima facia evidence. CS may have used hyperbole by use of the words (e)very time, but the facts are the facts.
That’s a very specious argument. Just because a car crashes doesn’t prove what was the actual proximate cause of the loss. Any licensed auto adjuster would know that.
Source: Insurance Journal.
Specific location: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/01/21/555356.htm
Excerpt from specific source:
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said it would review the petition and released a redacted version that said “Tesla vehicles experience unintended acceleration at rates far exceeding other cars on the roads.”
I read the article, but doesn’t the fact that the person driving this (pun intended) is currently shorting Tesla stock? Doesn’t that seem fishy? So Tesla says they told the NHTSA all the claims were bogus. Tesla claims the person bringing this up has an ulterior motive of making money if their stock does bad, that guy won’t comment on the situation, and NHTSA is now saying “we’ll review the data again.”
You should read the article without your silly bias, it might help. In addition to reading the article, you could be like these fine people below and above who found out about the overall person who is making the claim and what they are doing (short selling stock).
Funny thing is, the short-seller of Tesla’s stock driving this issue WAS referenced in the article
January 22, 2020 at 11:54 am
Todd R. Lockwood says:
Like or Dislike:
8
0
I read the 69-page petition. It appears to have been prepared by a lawyer. You have to wonder why someone would go to so much trouble and considerable expense if they don’t own a Tesla or work for a competitor. Well, the answer is that the guy who filed the petition is short-selling Tesla’s stock. He’s hoping that NHTSA will open an investigation and initiate a recall, causing Tesla’s stock price to fall.
Tesla and NHTSA have already investigated many of these Sudden Unintended Acceleration complaints, and in every case the vehicle was not at fault. This is relatively easy to determine because Teslas store data the same way a commercial airliner does. All driver control input is recorded.
Much appreciated, Todd! Thanks for the additional information and your theory on why these cases are back in the ‘mainstream’ – the whole “NHTSA has already investigated these claims and the guy pushing for the re-investigation is short-selling Tesla stock” thought process is one with which I agree.
Every time they deny something is wrong with their car, it proves to be true.
I presume you have ZERO evidence to prove that and you’re just spouting unsubstantiated nonsense, correct?
I follow their track record. You should do the same.
This claim that you “follow their track record” isn’t evidence. You have as long as I can remember never once cited a source for your (false) claims. Want to tell us how 183 australians started the wildfires again? LOL Agent you’re always good for a laugh when you show how gullible you are for right-wing propaganda
No one is interested in your opinion of what constitutes ‘evidence’ because you would deny it is such, regardless of what was presented.
Would I? I’ve actually admitted to being wrong before, Craig proved me wrong about a single point in his environmental argument once. That’s one more time than you’ve ever admitted to being wrong, Polar. You’ve literally whined about my source of evidence being socialist, and then used an article from that website to try and prove your point in the same month. You are a troll, and you know exactly what you’re doing: spreading misinformation.
Hey Polar, how many of Trump’s cronies have been indicted while he was in office?
How many of Obama’s officials were indicted while he was in office?
That’s what I thought. Cowardice and hypocrisy are your bread and butter pal, not mine.
Prior crashes of Teslas is prima facia evidence. CS may have used hyperbole by use of the words (e)very time, but the facts are the facts.
That’s a very specious argument. Just because a car crashes doesn’t prove what was the actual proximate cause of the loss. Any licensed auto adjuster would know that.
Cite a source…
Source: Insurance Journal.
Specific location: https://www.insurancejournal.com/news/national/2020/01/21/555356.htm
Excerpt from specific source:
On Friday, the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) said it would review the petition and released a redacted version that said “Tesla vehicles experience unintended acceleration at rates far exceeding other cars on the roads.”
key phrase ‘far exceeding’.
I read the article, but doesn’t the fact that the person driving this (pun intended) is currently shorting Tesla stock? Doesn’t that seem fishy? So Tesla says they told the NHTSA all the claims were bogus. Tesla claims the person bringing this up has an ulterior motive of making money if their stock does bad, that guy won’t comment on the situation, and NHTSA is now saying “we’ll review the data again.”
Yup. It’s all about the money.
You should read the article’s text instead of reading titles and comments by Conservatives.
You should read the article without your silly bias, it might help. In addition to reading the article, you could be like these fine people below and above who found out about the overall person who is making the claim and what they are doing (short selling stock).
Funny thing is, the short-seller of Tesla’s stock driving this issue WAS referenced in the article
I read the 69-page petition. It appears to have been prepared by a lawyer. You have to wonder why someone would go to so much trouble and considerable expense if they don’t own a Tesla or work for a competitor. Well, the answer is that the guy who filed the petition is short-selling Tesla’s stock. He’s hoping that NHTSA will open an investigation and initiate a recall, causing Tesla’s stock price to fall.
Tesla and NHTSA have already investigated many of these Sudden Unintended Acceleration complaints, and in every case the vehicle was not at fault. This is relatively easy to determine because Teslas store data the same way a commercial airliner does. All driver control input is recorded.
Much appreciated, Todd! Thanks for the additional information and your theory on why these cases are back in the ‘mainstream’ – the whole “NHTSA has already investigated these claims and the guy pushing for the re-investigation is short-selling Tesla stock” thought process is one with which I agree.
You da man, Todd.
Thanks for the cogent input, Todd. Always welcome.