"Andy Hall" wrote in message
news
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 17:01:55 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

"Andy Hall" wrote in message
.. .
On Wed, 20 Jul 2005 16:14:31 +0100, "Doctor Drivel"
wrote:

Objective comments I would.

How do you know that it isn't objective?

read on...

But!!! Any test that say the Prius does 23mpg,
and not worth reading and the mag gets thrown
in the bin . never to be bought again.

It isn't reasonable to assess this
on the number of publications that
say one thing vs. the other.

Just do a Google never mind the numerous Prius user groups and forums,
and
no one gets remotely near 23mpg. All are around 50-65mpg.
The mag is clearly wrong and misleading. The mag is also full of
advertorials and patronise their advertisers.

That's bogus. As soon as I see a big discrepancy like that (2:1)
then clearly something is wrong.

On the one side you have the manufacturer and the sheep that espouse
the product because they bough the hype. On the other, you have the
nay-sayers who didn't but possibly have another axe to grind or
screwed up with their analysis or whatever.

If a mage was saying the mpg was 10% less than what the makers say, then you
take note. But when they say its only fraction, then the mag is called into
question, especially when independent mags and uses get near 3 times as
much.

I wouldn't make a decision on who
I believed based on shear weight of
numbers either way, but would weigh
up the information and look for
disinterested sources.

When only one say something ridiculous, it is the one which is at fault.

In that sense, Graham can be discounted because he is a purchaser of
the product but without any independent measurement resources.

Once one throws away the noise of
interested parties and the
incompetent and looks for the
competent and disinterested, it becomse
very easy to find the truth.

And a quite look around the web gives you it. And all they had to do was
ask me.

or didn't toe the party line?

Come again? You have Maggie on the brain.

Well..... I am not a fan of Maggie
any more than any other politician.

Don't porkie tell.

I would be a fan to the extent
that one could be clear on where she
stood on everything and in agreement
with more things than not, but I
don't follow slavishly.

You do.

However, whether you agreed with
her or not, there was never any doubt
about wher eshe stood on most issues.

Yep. The wrong stance.

From your perspective, not from mine.

From the mass poverty, 1000s living on the streets, which disgusted Mother
Theresa, the disappearance of British industry (the new Queen Mary had to be
built in France), etc.

This is no longer true for any
politician that I can see of any party,

Thank God.

That is actually a shame. There are
none now who have a clear stance.

If a clear stance means: mass poverty, 1000s living on the streets, which
disgusted Mother Theresa, the disappearance of British industry (the new
Queen Mary had to be built in France), etc, then we don't need clear
stances. Hitler had a clear stance.

and Herr Blurr is worse than
most in terms of telling you what you want to hear.

Best MP we have had in living memory.
Best government we have had in living
memory. That is obvious.

Not according to my definition.

But you are in Little Middle England. That is sad.