Re: Answers to Questions

From: Jerry Jackson (jacksonj@cyberramp.net)
Date: Mon Apr 13 1998 - 00:38:16 EDT


--------------187000A2346B6DC6640FD848
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

     Don't believe Russ had his on for 8 months - 10 weeks I think. Your
     memory of my prediction was essentially correct (said a couple of
     hours). However my comment about him being the problem was a
     facetious comment. Indeed, almost every response suggested that
     Russ, as installer (and, I don't remember him saying he installed it,
     although his feedback later suggested so), was the problem. The
     apparent "going in thinking" of some was that Russ had done something
     wrong in installing the deflector. Maybe, maybe not; I was willing
     to give him the benefit of the doubt. And, I was willing to share my
     particular experience with these devices. The suggestion I gave to
     solve the problem was a proven long term solution, if adaptable to
     his truck and the particular brand of shield he had.

     Do we not think such a response is better than one that automatically
     assumes he didn't have a problem, just did the installation wrong? I
     have faithfully read the DML for a couple of months now, and have
     seen the type of responses given to questions. To keep peace on the
     DML, I will not characterize some of them as they truly are. Suffice
     it to say however, many responses are not worthy of the sender, nor
     are they helpful in many cases. It is truly easy to accurately
     predict responses based on that experience. My comment to Russ was a
     sarcastic warning (as I have done in a couple of other cases) because
     I believed he was setting himself up as a target with his question.
     My apologies if it was not understood to be in that context.

     IMHO, an "engineering" solution that uses double sided tape to mount
     hardware to a vehicle (especially to the exterior) resides right
     along with bubble gum and bailing wire as appropriate solutions. In
     my practical experience, IRRESPECTIVE of the qualities of the
     workmanship, given time the installation has a high probability of
     failure. I have seen failures where this type of mounting was used
     for lights on motor homes, all kinds of trailers, weather stripping,
     license plate brackets, and bug deflectors, just to name those that
     readily come to mind. Even on factory installations the stuff fails
     with regularity (where you would assume training, proper equipment,
     etc.).

     In response to your question, which I cannot decipher, it is not
     clear as to what problem you are referring. Let's just say I prefer
     to initially view the person as not at fault in any product related
     problem (after all, isn't that the way we prefer to be treated when
     we go to the dealership?). If your question is, at what point does
     the apparent success of an installation validate the installer's work
     - well just pluck one because any answer is as good as another.
     Really, where is the normalized and universally validated success
     criteria? Is it 8 months? My judgment (and that is all it is, no
     hard science involved) says no, nor do I think one installation that
     has endured but a few months qualifies the expertise of its installer
     to vouch for the method and materials involved. If any such person
     involved does however believe otherwise, then the strength of that
     conviction should preclude them from feeling compelled to rationalize
     that belief in any forum.

     The point is, the fact that an installation fails, whether it be 8
     minutes, 8 hours, 8 days, 8 weeks, 8 months, or 8 years later, does
     not automatically confirm that the installer is, or is not at fault.
     An informed, hands-on critical analysis might, but in reality such an
     effort can also be non deterministic. Anything else probably
     qualifies only as conjecture.

Mike Crumley wrote:

> >Russ didn't I predict this is the kind of response? You see, you are the
> >problem, not the product!
>
> Although I have already trashed yesterday's posts, I thought your
> prediction was about people who only had their bug shields on for a couple
> of days and the wrote in bragging about durability. That's a far cry from
> the 8 months that Russ has had his on. How long does one have to have a bug
> shield on before he ceases to be the problem?

--------------187000A2346B6DC6640FD848
Content-Type: text/html; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

<HTML>

<BLOCKQUOTE>Don't believe Russ had his on for 8 months - 10 weeks I think.
Your memory of my prediction was essentially correct (said a couple of
hours). However my comment about him being the problem was a facetious
comment. Indeed, almost every response suggested that Russ, as installer
(and, I don't remember him saying he installed it, although his feedback
later suggested so), was the problem. The apparent "going in thinking"
of some was that Russ had done something wrong in installing the deflector.
Maybe, maybe not; I was willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.
And, I was willing to share my particular experience with these devices.
The suggestion I gave to solve the problem was a proven long term solution,
if adaptable to his truck and the particular brand of shield he had.

Do we not think such a response is better than one that automatically
assumes he didn't have a problem, just did the installation wrong?
I have faithfully read the DML for a couple of months now, and have seen
the type of responses given to questions. To keep peace on the DML,
I will not characterize some of them as they truly are. Suffice it
to say however, many responses are not worthy of the sender, nor are they
helpful in many cases. It is truly easy to accurately predict responses
based on that experience. My comment to Russ was a sarcastic warning
(as I have done in a couple of other cases) because I believed he was setting
himself up as a target with his question. My apologies if it was
not understood to be in that context.

IMHO, an "engineering" solution that uses double sided tape to mount
hardware to a vehicle (especially to the exterior) resides right along
with bubble gum and bailing wire as appropriate solutions. In my
practical experience, IRRESPECTIVE of the qualities of the workmanship,
given time the installation has a high probability of failure. I
have seen failures where this type of mounting was used for lights on motor
homes, all kinds of trailers, weather stripping, license plate brackets,
and bug deflectors, just to name those that readily come to mind.
Even on factory installations the stuff fails with regularity (where you
would assume training, proper equipment, etc.).

In response to your question, which I cannot decipher, it is not clear
as to what problem you are referring. Let's just say I prefer to
initially view the person as not at fault in any product related problem
(after all, isn't that the way we prefer to be treated when we go to the
dealership?). If your question is, at what point does the apparent
success of an installation validate the installer's work - well just pluck
one because any answer is as good as another. Really, where is the
normalized and universally validated success criteria? Is it 8 months?
My judgment (and that is all it is, no hard science involved) says no,
nor do I think one installation that has endured but a few months qualifies
the expertise of its installer to vouch for the method and materials involved.
If any such person involved does however believe otherwise, then the strength
of that conviction should preclude them from feeling compelled to rationalize
that belief in any forum.

The point is, the fact that an installation fails, whether it be 8 minutes,
8 hours, 8 days, 8 weeks, 8 months, or 8 years later, does not automatically
confirm that the installer is, or is not at fault. An informed, hands-on
critical analysis might, but in reality such an effort can also be non
deterministic. Anything else probably qualifies only as conjecture.</BLOCKQUOTE>
Mike Crumley wrote:
<BLOCKQUOTE TYPE=CITE>>Russ didn't I predict this is the kind of response?
You see, you are the
>problem, not the product!

Although I have already trashed yesterday's posts, I thought your
prediction was about people who only had their bug shields on for a
couple
of days and the wrote in bragging about durability. That's a far cry
from
the 8 months that Russ has had his on. How long does one have to have
a bug
hield on before he ceases to be the problem?</BLOCKQUOTE>
</HTML>

--------------187000A2346B6DC6640FD848--



This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Jun 20 2003 - 12:08:37 EDT