Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

On Mon, 26 Jul 2004 08:33:21 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


You're arguing with a junk-yard dog here, Tom. She's not worth the trouble.

I'm always willing to give anyone their shots - I just demand a
certain level of civility and common sense. If it's a 20% failure
rate, then I want to know (1) how the data was developed (2) was it
all related to FICHT or were there other mechanical/electrical
problems (3) what evidence is there available that E-TEC is just FICHT
under a different guise? In short, prove it.


My recollection is that there is no such data. The number came about as
a result of an off the cuff remark by a an executive of a company that
formerly owned OMC (Evinrude and Johnson) manufacturing, and it applied
to a particular model in a particular model year. In other words, it was
a quick, unqualified statement by someone who might have known, but
never released any data one way or the other. Ms. Smith took this
statement as a mantra, and has regurgitated it about a million times
since. She has no data, she has never even seen the insides of any of
these engines.

For some time, Ms. Smith claimed to be "the manufacturer" of a diesel
outboard motor line. That's bull****. All she manufactures is innuendo.



I have a lot of money sunk into boats and I spendt a lot of time
researching potential power sources for my repower. The problems with
OMC are not relevant to Bombardier and E-TEC - if Karen has evidence
contrary to that, then I want to see it. It's is certainly contrary
to what I have learned about the technology.

Just trying to be a gentleman about it. :)

If you get down with Karen Smith, she'll cover you with manure, or at
least try to do so.



Later,

Tom


--
A vote for Nader is a vote for Bush;
A vote for Bush is a vote for Apocalypse.