usehand

6 ms·

1.
by usehand 2mo ago
I guess they also failed to explode it
2.
by usehand 4mo ago
Thankfully you only have to do those once, not every time you drive.
3.
by usehand 4mo ago
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 sw
4.
by usehand 4mo ago
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 mig
5.
by usehand 4mo ago
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.
6.
by usehand 4mo ago
Cameras are infinitely more useful for backing up and parking. Not being able to use them is actually a skill issue.
7.
by usehand 4mo ago
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 cons
8.
by usehand 4mo ago
Besides the overall lack of information in these, they were also found to be lying in them
9.
by usehand 4mo ago
Uncritically posting lies from the accused party
10.
by usehand 4mo ago
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
11.
by usehand 4mo ago
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.
12.
by usehand 4mo ago
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 stor
13.
by usehand 4mo ago
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)?
14.
by usehand 4mo ago
Yep, I meant rational in the purely self-interested sense
15.
by usehand 4mo ago
> 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 li
16.
by usehand 4mo ago
There aren't obvious holes. Most or all of what's been claimed as holes have just been straight up lies from B&M
17.
by usehand 4mo ago
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 communicat
18.
by usehand 4mo ago
So why are you lying to defend them?
19.
by usehand 4mo ago
They havent seen any of that! It is so hard to find... No one has time for that when large corp must be defended.
20.
by usehand 4mo ago
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 obv
21.
by usehand 4mo ago
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 hav
22.
by usehand 4mo ago
> 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
23.
by usehand 4mo ago
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
24.
by usehand 4mo ago
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.
25.
by usehand 4mo ago
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.
26.
by usehand 4mo ago
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?
27.
by usehand 4mo ago
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.
28.
by usehand 4mo ago
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?
29.
by usehand 4mo ago
If that's the case why did they lose the small claims cases?
30.
by usehand 4mo ago
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.

More ›