I think it goes something like "Those who would give up essential Liberty, to purchase a little temporary Safety, deserve neither Liberty nor Safety”. (Can swap out Safety with Security, and Liberty with Freedom of Choice.)
And @Jim6820 , I like you a lot here, but you literally proved my point from my previous post, but got it completely backwards.
It is YOUR responsibility to make sure the cover isn't on before you remote start it up.
However, the removal of a feature is an abdication, and an intentional shifting of that very responsibility onto the MASSES, and thus having them become accountable in the end.
i.e. (ALL Hypothetical) Just because one person didn't check the COVER on their grill, and it started a fire, and a child died, WHILE VERY TRAGIC - DOES NOT JUSTIFY REMOVING A FEATURE FOR THE OTHER 99% OF THE USERS, DUE TO 1 PERSONS STUPIDITY.
It is not EVERYONE ELSE's FAULT (or their responsibility), that person forgot to be responsible and check to make sure there was no cover on the grill before remote starting it.
PERIOD
@Pete 396 your example is Apples to Oranges. GM disabled a function because it wasn't working properly. The remote Start on the grills works just FINE.. they disabled it because they fear possible litigation from people who are irresponsible, even though it would equate to maybe less than .1% of the users of these grills. The rest of us know better than to remote start a grill without checking things first. (PS nice USS danger-Ranger pic
)
Anyone arguing the counter to that, or rolling over and accepting that, is the reason we have this ever growing nonsense in the world around us.
And @Jim6820 , I like you a lot here, but you literally proved my point from my previous post, but got it completely backwards.
It is YOUR responsibility to make sure the cover isn't on before you remote start it up.
However, the removal of a feature is an abdication, and an intentional shifting of that very responsibility onto the MASSES, and thus having them become accountable in the end.
i.e. (ALL Hypothetical) Just because one person didn't check the COVER on their grill, and it started a fire, and a child died, WHILE VERY TRAGIC - DOES NOT JUSTIFY REMOVING A FEATURE FOR THE OTHER 99% OF THE USERS, DUE TO 1 PERSONS STUPIDITY.
It is not EVERYONE ELSE's FAULT (or their responsibility), that person forgot to be responsible and check to make sure there was no cover on the grill before remote starting it.
PERIOD
@Pete 396 your example is Apples to Oranges. GM disabled a function because it wasn't working properly. The remote Start on the grills works just FINE.. they disabled it because they fear possible litigation from people who are irresponsible, even though it would equate to maybe less than .1% of the users of these grills. The rest of us know better than to remote start a grill without checking things first. (PS nice USS danger-Ranger pic
)Anyone arguing the counter to that, or rolling over and accepting that, is the reason we have this ever growing nonsense in the world around us.
Last edited:
