pcsario Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 BTW the 427 had SIX bars on its front end. So using your logic Richard, then we OWE Toyota the "3 bar look". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 BTW the 427 had SIX bars on its front end. Is an airdam a grille? There are three horizontal bars with minimal spacing in that grille. Again, it is quite clear to me that you have never been taught to provide a valid basis for every assertion you make. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 (edited) Note the following logical fallacies in PC's arguments: http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/a...o-ridicule.html So Toyota designed the concept in 3 weeks or less, uh-uh. An appeal to ridicule. Rather than responding to the assertion, he selects a tiny section of it and mocks it (instead of replying to it). http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/red-herring.html using the same logic, then the Edge "ripped off" the FT-SX's headlights since Toyota introduced them "first". This is a red herring argument, as the discussion concerns Toyota, not Ford. http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/straw-man.html BTW the 427 had SIX bars on its front end. The discussion concerned the GRILLE, but PC has attempted to morph it into a discussion of the vehicle's FRONT END. This is arguably an instance of 'straw man' arguing. Edited June 7, 2008 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 It is merely 'quick' in comparison to the Camaro launch. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 (edited) A bunch of chinese concepts had those grilles, so did concepts from Giugario or Bertone IIRC. Does anyone else besides you consider the idea original? Why did no one praise the 427 for that concept? Because the concept of a solid chunk of metal divided by thin gaps for a grille isn't new. It doesn't matter if someone had never limited it to "just 3 bars". Where's Ford's lawsuit against Suzuki btw? I mean, by your logic they would've a solid case since Ford came up with the concept and all, like the Jeep Vs. Hummer lawsuit. Edited June 7, 2008 by pcsario Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 (edited) A bunch of chinese concepts had those grilles, so did concepts from Giugario or Bertone IIRC. No evidence supplied Does anyone else besides you consider the idea original? Red herring Why did no one praise the 427 for that concept? Red herring Because the concept of a solid chunk of metal divided by thin gaps for a grille isn't new. Red herring. It doesn't matter if someone had never limited it to "just 3 bars". Red herring. Where's Ford's lawsuit against Suzuki btw? I mean, by your logic they would've a solid case since Ford came up with the concept and all, like the Jeep Vs. Hummer lawsuit. Red herring Edited June 7, 2008 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 (edited) That's not how it works, you were the one who said the 427 introduced that look. So where's your proof? Did Ford even claim that themselves? - No lawsuits from Ford to anyone. - Concepts and production cars from others keep featuring that look. - We've to believe the look was created by Ford "because RJ said so". You were the one who stated the whole concept was a Ford creation RJ, not me. Edited June 7, 2008 by pcsario Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 you were the one who said the 427 introduced that look. straw man. I said the 427 came first (which it did). I said that Ford executives called this the new face of Ford before the reveal of the FT-SX (which they did). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 Like I said, PC, you need to ALWAYS have substantiation for what you say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 - We've to believe the look was created by Ford "because RJ said so". And again, appeal to ridicule/ad hominem. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 (edited) Saying "the 427 introduced it first" implies Ford did such a thing "first"... that it was a Ford creation. I disagreed, you asked me to prove it, when you --the one who claimed Ford "did that grille first"-- haven't proved it. No lawsuits from Ford to anyone, not a single claim of originality by Ford themselves, and it's still a generic & fancy touch used in concepts as it always has, and since Toyota never used it for any production car, it doesn't even matter if they were copying Ford, the chinese, or whoever, so your entire case of "ripping off an original idea" is pointless since not even Ford considers the 3 bar grille original. Distinctive maybe, but hardly original, and Ford lawyers agree... I would guess they're a little smarter than a guy who expects 11k Fiestas and 14k Foci in 2010+. Edited June 7, 2008 by pcsario Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Michael Reynolds Posted June 7, 2008 Author Share Posted June 7, 2008 Again who said it was an original idea? Anyone? I didn't. So what are you talking about? Besides your missing the point, in 2009 Ford will have sat on a design that is nearly identical on various instances for approx. two years. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 Saying "the 427 introduced it first" implies Ford did it "first". Straw man. I said the FT-SX came AFTER the 427. Not once have I said what you assert that I said. That it was a Ford creation. I disagreed, you asked me to prove it, when you --the one who claimed Ford "did that grille first"-- hasn't proved it. Straw man See above No lawsuits from Ford to anyone, not a single claim of originality by Ford themselves, Red herring. and it's still a generic & fancy touch used in concepts as it always has no evidence supplied and since Toyota never used it for any production car, it doesn't even matter if they were copying Ford, the chinese, or whatever, red herring so your entire case of "ripping off an original idea" is pointless. red herring AND straw man. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 (edited) Again who said it was an original idea? Anyone? I didn't. If I said Apple copied Windows because my first experience with an OS was with a PC, I would be wrong. Richard's argument is flawed since he can't claim "Ford was first". First Vs. Toyota only. If he had left it at "Ford did it before Toyota" that would be fine, but he went further and challenged the notion others had done the whole "solid grille with minimal gaps" thing before. He asked me to prove it when he can't even prove it was an original creation because "Ford did it first". Edited June 7, 2008 by pcsario Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 (edited) Richard's argument is flawed since he can't claim "Ford was first" Straw man. I never said that. Edited June 7, 2008 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 (edited) http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index...st&p=360874 Topping it all off with an appeal to ridicule, eh? Edited June 7, 2008 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 You challenged the idea others had done it before Ford, you've yet to prove "Ford did it first". That was your claim, not mine. To me it's just a generic idea that Ford took to production first, that's their merit, nothing more. Seems Ford's lawyers agree with me Richard, sorry. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 You challenged the idea others had done it before Ford Actually, I never asserted originality. YOU asserted that Toyota could have copied ANY NUMBER of other concept cars. That is an 'affirmative defense' and it shifts the burden of proof to YOU. , you've yet to prove "Ford did it first". Straw man Since that is not an aspect of my claim, I do not have to prove it. That was your claim, not mine. straw man. To me it's just a generic idea that Ford took to production first, that's their merit, nothing more. irrelevant. Seems Ford's lawyers agree with me Richard, sorry. Confusing Cause and Effect Assumes that absence of a lawsuit 'proves' that Toyota did not copy design. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 Oh yeah, and appeal to ridicule by your replacement of my words with an emoticon. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 (edited) You asserted lack of originality. You've no way to prove Toyota copied Ford on purpose, or that Ford could be the only source Toyota could've used for inspiration for a solid grille with minimal gaps. Edited June 7, 2008 by pcsario Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 (edited) You asserted lack of originality. True. As evidence I pointed to the following: 1) The earlier reveal of the 427 2) The public statements that the 427 was the new 'face' of Ford 3) The strong likelihood that Toyota designers read Automotive News and other automotive media where they would have read these statements. Based on the veracity of 1 & 2, along with the likelihood of 3, it can be reasonably inferred (but not outright demonstrated) that Toyota designers were aware that Ford was intending on making a very similar grille a signature element. You've no way to prove Toyota copied Ford on purpose Straw man. I openly acknowledge that there is NO PROOF but overwhelming indications that Toyota designers 'knew or should have known' of Ford's intentions regarding the grille in question. that the idea behind the grille for the 427 was original to begin with Straw man. It was never my assertion that the 427 grille was 'an original design'. or that Ford could be the only source Toyota could've used for inspiration for a solid grille with minimal gaps. It is, in fact, YOUR assertion that Toyota could have copied another concept. Therefore YOU have the burden of proof here. This is the 'burden of proof' fallacy, where one party attempts to shift burden of proof for an assertion to another party. Edited June 7, 2008 by RichardJensen Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 True. As evidence I pointed to the following:1) The earlier reveal of the 427 2) The public statements that the 427 was the new 'face' of Ford 3) The strong likelihood that Toyota designers read Automotive News and other automotive media where they would have read these statements. By arguing that "the 427 was first" you consider the 427 original, this is in direct contradiction to your later statement when you recognize the idea behind its grille is not original. And as stated by the above post, it is in fact YOU who is claiming Toyota copied Ford. It is YOU who is declaring Toyota copied Ford "for strategic reasons", you've yet to prove what those were or why, or that they explicitly copied Ford. Given the fact you recognize the 427's grille was hardly original, your argument where IT was the target sounds even dumber. Inferred = Assumed. You assumed the 427's grille was original (no matter how much you backpedal on this, that's your -contradictory?- position) You assumed Toyota designed the FT-SX crossover around the grille of a low & wide sedan. You assumed Toyota's designers work around internet articles from sites you've dismissed in the past. You know what's funny? Somehow you assume the 3 bar grille is a recipe for success, and as shown by the Taurus, Taurus-X, Fusion, etc. that's just --clearly-- not the case. It's funny because you somehow imagined Toyota saw Ford's brilliance... when that "brilliance" has only worked for the Edge so far. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 By arguing that "the 427 was first" you consider the 427 original, this is in direct contradiction to your later statement when you recognize the idea behind its grille is not original. And as stated by the above post, it is in fact YOU who is claiming Toyota copied Ford. Straw man. I did not say that the 427 was first. It is YOU who is declaring Toyota copied Ford "for strategic reasons", Straw man. I never said this. you've yet to prove what those were or why, Red herring. The elements to be established were 1) precedence of the 427 and 2) public statements from Ford regarding the 'face' of the 427. From those premises, 3) Toyota designers awareness of Ford's intentions can be reasonably inferred. Please note that not once have I introduced a theory about 'why' Toyota did this. Hence this assertion falls under the 'red herring' heading, as you are attempting to shift the subject. or that they explicitly copied Ford. Given the fact you recognize the 427's grille was hardly original, your argument where IT was the target sounds even dumber. 1) Your defense of Toyota's actions contained the 'they could've copied anyone' assertion. This is known as an affirmative defense and requires you to provide substantiation. Substantiation which remains absent. 2) Acknowledging that the 427 grille was not 100% original is not tantamount to 'proof' that Toyota could've copied anyone else. This is, again, "confusing cause and effect." Inferred = Assumed. reasonably accurate. You assumed the 427's grille was original (no matter how much you backpedal on this, that's your -contradictory?- position)You assumed Toyota designed the FT-SX crossover around the grille of a low & wide sedan. You assumed Toyota's designers work around internet articles from sites you've dismissed in the past. 1) Straw man--I said clearly that the 427 preceded the FT-SX, and repeated that statement. 2) Red herring. The question at hand is the grilles of these vehicles, not an assertion that the 'FT-SX was designed around the 427 grille'. 3) Two flaws here: a: Poisoning the well: 'sites you've dismissed in the past' is no indicator that Toyota designers would not visit them. b: straw man: 'internet articles' limits the range of sources that Toyota designers considered. I state 'automotive media', you state 'internet articles'. This is clear 'straw man' reasoning. You know what's funny? Somehow you assume the 3 bar grille is a recipe for success, and as shown by the Taurus, Taurus-X, Fusion, etc. that's just --clearly-- not the case. Red herring AND straw man It's funny because you somehow imagined Toyota saw Ford's brilliance... when that "brilliance" has only worked for the Edge so far. Red herring AND straw man Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pcsario Posted June 7, 2008 Share Posted June 7, 2008 (edited) I did not say that the 427 was first. By declaring the FT-SX was not original, and then pointing to the 427 as its "influence", yes you did. By saying something is not original, and then providing an opposite example, means you think the 427 is "original", or THE original for such grilles. You've yet to prove either. Why would a company like Toyota base their entire future around one of the biggest losers in 2005, with a strategy that didin't even work past the Edge? Because, yeah... deflect it all you want, Dave only worked on the Edge, therefore rendering your whole "Toyota saw Ford's brilliance" assumption irrelevant. Didn't work on the Taurus, didn't work on the Fusion, or the X. You indeed have no way to prove Toyota's actions were to copy Ford, and Ford exclusively, you just assumed that was the case. Gotta love the "Toyota copied Ford, Ford was not original either" contradictory reasoning. Red herring AND straw manRed herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man Red herring AND straw man There, saved you the work for 99% of your next deflection. Just copy & paste. Edited June 7, 2008 by pcsario Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.