|
|
|
Comment |
Sorted by
Date Written |
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: uncalled for (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh,  in Cars & Motorsports
I don't see the poor judgment call, much less anything that places my integrity in question.
It is a fact that Renault owns 44% of Nissan, and that the French government owns more than a quarter of Renault (and more than 30% of its voting shares, a controlling interest). It is a fact that this percentage of ownership generally conveys control. It is a fact that directly (dividends) or indirectly (capital gains) corporate profits gets divided up according to stock ownership. I don't see any opinion here.
It is another fact that some consumers would like to know about this.
I did not present arguments one way or another concerning the French government in my review. I happen to have a number of issues with the French government (attempts to subvert American influence, arms and nuclear reactor sale policies, blind eye to domestic anti-semitism, increasingly nationalistic tendencies), but a car review wasn't the place to discuss these.
I did not tell people not to buy this car because of these ownership ties--it was "not recommended" even before I added this information. I continue to recommend other Nissan products.
If in the market for a car, I might buy a Nissan product myself. The French government interest would slightly bias me against a Nissan product, but if it was superior to others for the money I'd probably still buy it. Like most Americans, I'm a wimp this way.
But other people might feel more strongly, and I feel they have a right to know.
Yes, that I have presented these facts at all involves a value judgment that these facts are relevant, but I'm well short of a polemic here.
You are making a far larger judgment call in a much more heated fashion than I am, arguing that I had no business even informing people of these controlling ownership ties. Your argument is not about how I have presented these facts, but that I have presented them at all.
Frankly, it always raises a red flag for me when someone is arguing that certain information should not be offered. Clearly you feel superior to others in your ability to weigh the value of and apply information, such that they like children must be protected from certain information lest they use it wrongly (as judged by you). It must be hard living in a democracy. Sadly, there is no better alternative. Plato's republic still hasn't made its way to reality.
I'd forgotten about the similar statement in my profile. As it is now redundant given the statement in this and a few other of my reviews, I've deleted it.
|
Jun 13 '03
11:20 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: Re: uncalled for (Reply to this comment)
by ybouc
I'll try to put an end to this discussion now, seeing as how it goes far beyond the simple framework of a car review, but I have the following points that could be interesting food for thought for you or anyone else reading these comments :
-True journalistic objectivity is a rare quality. In fact, some even argue that it is almost impossible to achieve, simply because it is impossible to report all the angles there can be to a story. The problem is, some journalists present themselves as being objective, when in fact, they are promoting a self-interested agenda in what they are passing off as objective reporting. Such actions can be very dangerous, as they simply bend the truth without any warning.
-It is already difficult enough to find truly objective reports, that we shouldn't have to go through those who obviously aren't. I cannot help but realize that your highlighting the French government's tie with Nissan, now seeing how you are defending your opinion on it, was a poor judgment call passed off as journalistic integrity.
-If you truly advocate not supporting products that profit the French government, I would try to have a very solid rebuttal. It's not like the French government supports child labor, communism, disrespects human rights conventions or so on. As for other (VERY questionable)allegations made by the US authorities, there haven't been any proof of those yet, and I doubt there will ever be, as it is highly unlikely in my opinion.
You're entitled to your political opinions, of course. I just have a problem when opinions are (subtely or not) passed off as facts. I think that was the case in your review. No hard feelings.
|
Jun 12 '03
11:02 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: Re: uncalled for (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh, in Cars & Motorsports
You use quotes around "simply objective information," but I don't see that I've used that phrase anywhere.
I do believe that I have phrased this information in a relatively objective manner, one that leaves the reader's response quite open. If they disagree with me, fine. But people who might like to know this information should have it available.
You draw an analogy to guns. This suggests that refusing to buy a product because it financially supports the French government is on the same plane as killing someone. Clearly this is not the case. There are many good reasons for not wanting to financially support the French government.
I do consider Chrysler a substantially German company. After all, every year brings another German to its top executive ranks and more Mercedes content to its cars. Many things affect the nationality of a product: where it's designed and engineered, where its parts are made, where it's assembled, the nationality of its employees, the nationality of its top executives, and the nationality of its stockholders.
But this isn't a matter of Nissan being French in the sense that DCX is German. A large percentage of DCX shares are not owned by the German government. In constrast, the French government has an indirect controlling interest in Nissan. It has enough shares in Renault (over 30% of its voting shares; Nissan's shares in Renault are non-voting), which has enough shares in Nissan (44%), for the French government to control Nissan. This is well beyond a company simply being located in a country.
My initial point was that anyone not buying French products should be even more concerned about buying a Nissan, assuming their quarrel was not with the French people but with French government policy.
As for my pros and cons, this at all times are only significant if the reader cares about the items in question. If I put "handling" under cons, and the reader could not care less about handling, then that information is of no consequence. I do not expect everyone to weight everything as I do.
|
Jun 11 '03
4:20 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: uncalled for (Reply to this comment)
by ybouc
Funny that I found this on your personal page : (of course you could probably delete it by now)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
Nissan-French link:
Some people might be interested to know that Nissan is 44% owned by Renault, which is 26% owned by the French government. As a result, about 11% of the profits from any Nissan or Infiniti go to the French government. People talk about not buying French wine, but those much smaller purchases don't directly benefit the government of France and the vineyard owners might actually be pro-US.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
And you will now have the nerve to tell me this comment about France was "simply objective information" ?? Especially considering "supports french government" was listed in the cars's _CONS_ ?? PLEASE. I rest my case, you have absolutely no credibility as far as I'm concerned.
|
Jun 10 '03
7:54 am PDT
|
|
Re: Re: uncalled for (Reply to this comment)
by ybouc
The design of this Maxima, as well as most of it's manufacturing (2003) was made in Japan. That's Japanese enough for me, at least, as much as it can be. You wouldn't call a Chrysler a German car, would you? That's where I rest my case.
Nobody would feel the need to specify that point as you did in your review, and I have never read any other reviewer do that, for good reason. If you felt it was necessary to point it, I do believe that's because you're very aware of what it means, and what it could mean to some people. It's easy to hide behind the principle of free speech! It's the same idea as "guns don't kill people, people kill people". If you're giving away that information knowing what it could mean, I wouldn't call that objectivity, just as much as I wouldn't call NOT giving it objectivity either.
The problem is that you're disguising it as objectivity, and knowing the potential importance of it, I think that is fairly irresponsible.
|
Jun 10 '03
7:43 am PDT
|
|
Re: uncalled for (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh, in Cars & Motorsports
I believe this information did belong in a car review for the simple reason that some people would want to know it. I did not state what people should do with this information, for in a free society that is up to them.
You would rather that these facts not be known because people might use them in a way you personally feel is incorrect. This is not in the spirit of a free society.
One last thing: there is no such thing as an entirely Japanese car.
|
Jun 10 '03
5:17 am PDT
|
|
uncalled for (Reply to this comment)
by ybouc
>>France
Some people might want to be aware that Nissan is 44% owned by Renault, which is 26% owned by the government of France. As a result, 11% of the profits from this car go to the French government.
>>>
Not only does this comment exhibit some seriously questionable fuzzy logic (it's REALLY not THAT simple an equation !!), but I think it's also an indirect attack to France, which Americans seem to think are now their direct enemies. I don't think a diplay of a nation's paranoia should have any place in a car review, especially in America, which prides itself on it's open market. It may also be a good idea that this is, first and foremost, a totally JAPANESE car.
|
Jun 09 '03
7:02 pm PDT
|
|
Great review! (Reply to this comment)
by nad_masters
Very well written!
|
Dec 03 '02
7:28 am PST
|
|
Re: Congrats (Reply to this comment)
by mkaresh, in Cars & Motorsports
Currently, both the Maxima and Altima are 191.5" long, which is about the upper limit for a sedan to handle with agility. If they do increase the length of the Maxima even six inches, much less the seven or eight the dealer suggested, it will be a large car.
|
Oct 03 '02
4:15 am PDT
|
|
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder!! (Reply to this comment)
by cujimmy
"Though fixes appeared halfway through its run, this was never a pretty car."
Beauty is in the eye of the beholder, and I *LIKE* the Maxima's sleek lines far more than some of its "in your face" German competitors.
I just bought my second Maxima, a 1996 2-Litre SE. (Manual)
My previous car was a 1990 3-Litre (Automatic)
So I've experienced both the old and new suspension system. Both had their advantages. The older suspension gave a softer ride, but you tended to roll around a bit when cornering hard.
With the new firmer suspension this problem has been overcome, but at a little cost to the overall ride quality.
Good review.
Ken (the mad cabbie from Dublin)
|
Oct 02 '02
2:46 pm PDT
|
|
Congrats (Reply to this comment)
by shoplmart,  in Cars & Motorsports
On yet another awesome review! The dealer told me when I test drove the Maxima that the 2004s will be based on the Altimas' platform and have a similar design, I hope not, as I would like to see the Maxima have its own character. As it stands the Maxima is a relatively large car, It would be interesting to see a full sized Nissan.
xoxoxo
Liz
|
Oct 02 '02
12:33 pm PDT
|
|
|
|
© 1999-2009 Shopping.com, Inc.