anything missing in these statements? Very few if any discuss their embedded systems with a detailed explanation of the end to end testing and the test results. These disclosures apparently comply with the requirements but it0 is in reality a "Don't Ask Don't tell" approach. Where have we heard that before? The news reporters are too stupid to ask about this or they are instructed to put a good face on the problem and it does not occur to Joe six pack or to the regulators that these statements are deceptive or downright lies. (Does the car run good for my trip tomorrow? Yes but no mention is made that 3 tires are flat) How can the company claim they have tested the system when they did not or could not test the part that is most likely to fail. This is like telling Curly to test the new computer. He turns it on, the screen lights up and fills up with words and numbers and he tells me it works great. No one asked him to run a production program.

-- Moe (Moe@3stooges.gom), September 24, 1999

Answers

I guess companies think that most Americans are as dumb as the Three Stooges, and guess what? They are right!!!

-- Joe Six Pack (noway@nottelling.com), September 24, 1999.

Moe:

How do you know these statements are all lies? Do you have any hard evidence to back up your religious assumptions? They say they have tested their embeddeds and you *claim* that they could not or did not. How do you know this?

And what IS missing in these statements? Do you want a massive printout of their test plan and test results? If you got one, would you just assume it was fabricated to fool you or what? If these statements really are deceptive, surely you have *something* to back this up?

Right now, you sound like Johnny saying everyone else in the whole marching band is out of step but you, including the leader and the drummers! And every single damn one of them is too stupid to realize it! What a fascinating delusion.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 24, 1999.

Good answer, Joe!

Hey Moe, you're always mentioning Curly. What about Larry? I wanna know what he thinks. He always seemed to be the "level-headed" one! And what about the "fifth Beatle", um, I mean, "Fourth Stooge," Shemp?

(Oh, and for FWIW - we're going to be PRBS'd to death. Literally.)

-- (dot@dot.dot), September 24, 1999.

Flint, you anti-religious bigot:

Where in his writing did you see a reference to religion? Why don't you read his writing instead of imposing your own religion-hating attitude? Tell me where he mentions or alludes to religion.

-- killer bunny (KillerBunny@henhouse.com), September 24, 1999.

killer bunny:

I'm not talking about any particular religion, I'm talking about his taking this lying business purely on faith. It is "received wisdom" from on high, taken for granted and NOT to be questioned.

Now, this leads him through some strange territory. If they're all lying, why doesn't anyone else notice? How can we explain away these tests? What makes the media so stupid? It just doesn't make any sense, unless you question your assumption that all is lies. But Moe cannot do that, his assumption is carved in stone. It's religious.

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 24, 1999.

Flint:

Ok. I see now. Like almost everything in life, the truth lies in that vast divide between extremes. Regards.

-- Killer Bunny (KillerBunny@henhouse.com), September 25, 1999.

Flint's religion is to be a pain in the ass.

-- Me (noone@noway.com), September 25, 1999.

I can't help but notice that most of the criticism my opinions receive, comes in the form of empty attacks from anonymous posters. I wonder why? If you believe what you're saying, why not stand behind it? If you disagree with me, why not take issue with specific points? Is your cause that bankrupt?

-- Flint (flintc@mindspring.com), September 25, 1999.