usehand

I guess they also failed to explode it

Thankfully you only have to do those once, not every time you drive.

I never said mirrors should be replaced.

Also, this conversation is about backing up and parking (read what I said). When backing up you are mostly looking backwards only, so the focal length adjustment point is moot. Even if you have to switch to looking forwards, this is at low speeds / standing still, so it doesn't make a difference.

I'll restate my point with emphasis because you seem to not have read it: Cameras are infinitely more useful for backing up and parking.

Modern cameras give a way better view of what's behind and to the side of the car than you can ever achieve through mirrors. There's really no comparison. Yes, if you're comparing to older, inferior camera systems mirrors might be better, but not the modern ones.

I say this as someone who learned to drive and drove for a long time with no cameras. People saying this are just usually just used to mirrors and never bothered to take the time to learn to switch to the cameras for backwards maneuvering, or their cars just are not equiped with the latest tech.

Sometimes you want to be cooler sometimes the other way? Sometimes you want cool wind blowing in your face, sometimes you don't? Is it really that hard to grasp? lol

Also different people use the same car at different times, etc.

Cameras are infinitely more useful for backing up and parking. Not being able to use them is actually a skill issue.

And that's the reason I won't. You can see yourself how insanely easy it is to find this info (you replied with one you probably found pretty quickly yourself), and yet these people who are full of quickly-formed opinions are constantly trying to offload the work onto others.

Besides the overall lack of information in these, they were also found to be lying in them

Uncritically posting lies from the accused party

He's not doing any favors to a case that was essentially lost and dead by bringing tons of attention to it to the point where there's a chance it might actually see a positive outcome, plus a good amount of cash via GoFundMe? Sure...

Quantum physics guarantees us anything is a possibility. The question is, is it a likely one at all? And the overwhelmingly likely reasons are obvious to anyone with half a brain, given all the surrounding context here.

Well, yes, if someone doesn't care to look for the full story then there will be holes almost by definition.

The common accepted meaning of "holes in a story" is not "I don't know the facts", but "the story itself is misleading or incomplete".

So they chose to lose a case on merits related to the other case instead of making statements that would help (if they are in the right)?

Yep, I meant rational in the purely self-interested sense

> False. I said that a 3rd party traveling across the country to serve papers himself and then sitting in front of the house while police are called 4 times is needless YouTube drama.

Notice how you ignore the second quote? Anyone can literally search these comments see what you said.

I guess there's not much you can do to try to argue that you're not defending the company, when you're claiming the people exposing them are just creating "drama" and are not trustworthy, so you default to just pretending you didn't say it.

This is not pancakes and waffles. This is someone putting out a video saying a corporation is poisoning pancakes, and you at the same time say "the video is not trustworthy" while trying to claim you are not defending the corporation.

> You are awfully obsessed with stalking my comment history and then misquoting what I said.

I'm not stalking your "comment history", I'm just replying to comments in this post. Again, are you incapable of factual accuracy?

There aren't obvious holes. Most or all of what's been claimed as holes have just been straight up lies from B&M

Nah, the whole Guinness thing was obviously just a bit for the video. Clearly the franchise would not fall for that, when you can easily check that you were summoned to small claims (and they also probably get some form of direct communication from the court I would guess).

Legal costs for a small claims suit is tiny, and would be easily doable for them if they could win it. Again, there is a reason they lost those cases.

So why are you lying to defend them?

They havent seen any of that! It is so hard to find... No one has time for that when large corp must be defended.

Sure, it's possible the serving was not done correctly. Even in that case, this does not imply, as you have claimed, that this is "just needless YouTube drama" (emphasis mine). There is clearly a lot going on beyond the obvious flashy setting which is chosen for the presentation.

Arguably, no attention would have come to this matter if not for such presentation, and the perpetrators would have just gotten away with it easily, so it is in fact understandable that things were done in such a way.

Yet you choose to ignore the way more significant issues from B&M's side and focus only on the choices of dramatization of the events, which, if a problem at all, are only marginal in comparison. While further trying to use that a way to try to in fact discredit the more relevant issue.

You go around claiming the accusations are "just needless YouTube drama" and that you "wouldn't really trust the YouTube influencers for the whole story". If you think this is not defending the company, then you have some basic communications difficulties.

Again, if this is your knowledge after looking it up, then refrain from commenting, as your intelectual limitations will inevitably lead you to make false claims.

> I'm not defending the company at all. My comment was about the YouTuber who got involved as a 3rd party for content production.

You have claimed the story is "just needless YouTube drama" and that you "wouldn't really trust the YouTube influencers for the whole story".

Unless you are completely incapable of understanding basic human communication, this obviously amounts to defending the company.

In this thread you have admitted to not knowing basic facts about this case. Yet here you are pontificating on the merits. Are you affiliated with B&M? Maybe an employee or franchisee? Why do you feel so strongly you need to defend them?

Watch part two and you will understand the claims of "the police are in on it". I agree it sounded like a joke in part 1, but after you see the rest of the story it makes sense.

I don't know what point you're trying to make. But also please watch the video, they submitted multiple separate claims via different aggrieved parties, this totaled $100k, despite the low individual small claims maxima.

A default judgement is still a loss. Why would not they not fight back small claims cases, which would be trivially easy for someone with their resources, if they could win?

The likely explanation is not that they are stupid, but that they are actually being rational and they can do this often and get away with it.

You seem to be all over this thread trying to defend the company LOL Are you B&M corporate? If they have such a solid case, why did they lose the small claims lawsuits?

If that's the case why did they lose the small claims cases?

According to the former franchise owner this is a lie from corporate and they were indeed allowed to sign consignment agreements. They showed a contract that says as much as evidence.