http://www.businessweek.com/lifestyl...111_567099.htm

 

Okay this article sucks. I'm not even done reading it yet, but so far I've found the following:

1. Starting prices are incorrect.
2. Writer says the back seats don't fold down. Ummm hello, yes they do!!!
3. The Mercedes C350 does NOT have 368 hp!!!

I can't believe this actually got published...so many errors!

 

I haven't even read yet but if what you say is true, I am never subscribing to businessweek. It would be a waste of "money". Thanks.

 

Thanks for the summary!

 

^^Agree, one less thing I need to read. THANKS!!

 

lol, and to think i almost clicked on it

 

sorry guys..i just skimmed it.

 

It's really not that bad a review. Overall, it's positive and should spur interest in the G with readers otherwise unfamiliar with the car.

 

1. Starting prices include delivery cost.
3. Correct, but this is a typo. The C350 Sport has 268 hp, not the 368 published.

A little quick to complain when your post also contains a factual error. Just a quick question; if it is okay for you to rag on the magazine for making a typo and not knowing the rear seat folds down, is it also okay for people to rag on you for not being able to add the delivery to the base price to arrive at the article's prices?

 

Nothing to apologize for. Actually, the summary is pretty good. It says Infiniti is the first car maker to give BMW a run for its money. And, with pricing $10K less than the comparable 335i, the Infiniti is quite the buy.

 

okay. forgive me if nissan, infiniti, and the majority of magazines don't factor delivery cost into what they define as the starting price. why not, i'll even apologize for the writer's negligence while i'm at it. flame on me all you want, my simple point was and is that the article contains a few errors. and yes, you're right, a person may think "oh, this writer accidentally typed 368hp instead of 268hp" since he/she knows specs on the C350. but who's to say an average person wouldn't take that in as a fact? same for the fold down seats.

it's not that i disagree with everything the article states. i do like how they point out the positive aspects of the G and how it competes well against the 3 series. i actually agree with mostly everything the writer says. but it doesn't change the fact that some of the facts presented are incorrect, that's all.

anyway, i'll let it slide. after all, it's businessweek writing an article about a car.

 

The writer may not have made a typo. The proofreader may have changed it. Or, most likely, the typesetter made a mistake and no one caught it in the final review. This may very well be one you can not blame on the writer.

Actually, only one fact was incorrect. That being the fold down rear seat. Again, whether that was the writer's fault or not, we do not know. The writer may have written that the rear seats do not split like most others. Someone may have cut out the details to get the article to fit an alloted space. And, even if it was the writer's fault, is that such a huge error to chuck the entire article? Don't other magazines make mistakes?

You may have been having a bad day, or you may just have wanted to jump all over BusinessWeek. But, from my point of view, missing the fold down rear seats doesn't really detract from the overall review.

 

Why do you feel like you are obligated to go out of your way to rag on people who make mistakes?

 

Is that a personal attack on me? If so, aren't staff/moderators supposed to NOT personally attack posters.

Now, not that I feel I need to explain myself or that this is the correct place, but here's what he originally posted:

"Okay this article sucks. I'm not even done reading it yet, but so far I've found the following:

1. Starting prices are incorrect.
2. Writer says the back seats don't fold down. Ummm hello, yes they do!!!
3. The Mercedes C350 does NOT have 368 hp!!!

I can't believe this actually got published...so many errors!"

He says the "article sucks" because he found three errors. Well, #1 is not an error. The poster made an error. #2 is an error. And, #3 is most likely a typo. So, the poster erred in his post. Somehow it apparently is okay to attack people who do not belong to this forum for making mistakes. My question was whether is was okay to allow posters to make mistakes in their own posts which incorrectly attack others. If it is okay to attack others because we misread their writings, then is it just as okay to attack our own members for also making mistakes? Is what is good for the goose also good for the gander?

You ask if I go out of my way to rag on people who make mistakes. It seems that's exactly what the original poster did; go out of his way to rag on the writer. Only, the writer didn't really make "real" mistakes. The original poster made mistakes when reading the article.

Please tell me where the line is drawn. Also, please tell me why you feel a need to jump on me. Are you saying we should support errors, mistakes and jumping to conclusions while attacking others on this board? The original post, which was designed and intended to make the Business Week writer look bad and stupid, contained a number or errors and mistakes on its own.

All I did was ask if it was okay to rag on posters who ragged on others for making mistakes when the ragging poster was making mistakes. I only want to know if we allow our own to perpetuate mistakes and to attack others while doing so.

And now, I hope someone locks this thread.

 

Don't worry bro, I'm not trying to jump on you, just noticed you like to make it a point to prove to others they make MISTAKES.

I'm putting a call into Business Week tomorrow so we can get this straightend out! Next issue will include an addendum with the correct numbers.