Sunrider position pointless?

[Rahneld]

So, I must apologize to you for one thing, Ron. I thought your reference to use of a double negative referred to my use of nor, which is an either-or, neither-nor situation, and perfectly correct. That said, you are still wrong in asserting I used a double negative. I double negative involves the use apocalypse a noun and negation of the verb, which I didn’t do. The noun in my statement was “manual”. The use of “to not drive” is a split infinitive in the negative. In that sentence, does not and not to drive do NOT cancel each other out. Think I’m wrong, then why don’t your drive your Jeep, windows in, of course, over to Hahvad (see what I did there?? ) and ask someone in the English department.

"Double negative" your not only wrong but you miss the point, not insult fact.

I'm not the grammar police--for the 3rd time. My interest is in understanding you, that's it.

It is absolutely beyond belief that you argue this point even if you were right, which you're not.

Here is one of many examples so you can learn.

https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-double-negatives.html

Make yourself all the double negatives you want. If they're reasonably understood I'm good.

Sponsored

 

[Rahneld]

LOL, you just can't help it can you? A last word kind of guy I guess. No need to continue to write novels explaining the he she said. I've been reading this since the beginning, one post at a time all the way to here. Ultimately it's pretty clear that you like to hear yourself speak, sometimes it reminds me of Everett in "O Brother where art thou".
To be honest, up to this point, I haven't had one thought about your wife. But.... if you post up a picture I'll take my best stab at it.

I'll assume you mean a "he said, she said." And that's when each person tells a different version of the story where there's no telling exactly where the truth can be found.

I recall the written word: no he said she said.

There's an important point her @digitalbliss, and like @Firemadz's double negatives it has nothing to do with splitting hairs with people about grammar. I couldn't give a hoot that you wrote above "he she said," missing a "said." I'm pretty sure I know what you meant and that's all the matters here. We're not, myself included nobel laureates in literature.

That point is that if your going to accuse people with fiction they've got a right to defend themselves, and that it's not opinion (your he said, she said) what was said here.

But don't forget the supplement card the folks have been getting (posted in this thread) that clearly states to skip the window removal steps when going sunrider only mode.

​

​

If you've been reading this since the beginning then you know that posts ago https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/forum/threads/sunrider-position-pointless.30957/page-3#post-715423 this card, by design, has you refer to the owner's manual for complete details. I cannot believe you rehash this and claim you've read.

I don't know what your point is, but mine's about potential legal claims against FCA. That little disclaimer at the bottom of the card is, I assure you based on case law, FCA's "get out of jail free card" as it regards being held accountable for any damages that occur from following that card's directions.

Just think, if you came to thread with facts you wouldn't have to resort to offering opinions on my spouse. I'll continue to take the high road and offer none about any spouse you may have. I have facts, I don't need to go off topic and be rude.

Please--another one @digitalbliss. Their like lobbed strikes over the plate. I'll give it right back at you: you just can't help trying to defend a bad position can you?

What is it here that people can't admit their wrong? I made a mistake at the top of this post. It was pointed out to me, I apologized, we moved on.

I'm sorry you and @Firemadz are so freakin' insecure.

 

[OldGuyNewJeep]

Here’

"Double negative" your not only wrong but you miss the point, not insult fact.

I'm not the grammar police--for the 3rd time. My interest is in understanding you, that's it.

It is absolutely beyond belief that you argue this point even if you were right, which you're not.

Here is one of many examples so you can learn.

https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-double-negatives.html

Make yourself all the double negatives you want. If they're reasonably understood I'm good.

you’re

 

[Firemadz]

"Double negative" your not only wrong but you miss the point, not insult fact.

I'm not the grammar police--for the 3rd time. My interest is in understanding you, that's it.

It is absolutely beyond belief that you argue this point even if you were right, which you're not.

Here is one of many examples so you can learn.

https://examples.yourdictionary.com/examples-of-double-negatives.html

Make yourself all the double negatives you want. If they're reasonably understood I'm good.

Unbelievable how dumb you are. Sorry you don’t understand the English language. Anyway, I’m done, because I’ll obviously never be able to fix stupid. You just can’t accept your wrong. Still isn’t a double negative, no matter how many times you try to argue it.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/140377/negating-to-infinitive-in-negative-clause

 

[digitalbliss]

I'll assume you mean a "he said, she said." And that's when each person tells a different version of the story where there's no telling exactly where the truth can be found.

I recall the written word: no he said she said

There's an important point her @digitalbliss, and like @Firemadz's double negatives it has nothing to do with splitting hairs with people about grammar. I couldn't give a hoot that you wrote above "he she said," missing a "said." I'm pretty sure I know what you meant and that's all the matters here. We're not, myself included nobel laureates in literature.

That point is that if your going to accuse people with fiction they've got a right to defend themselves, and that it's not opinion (your he said, she said) what was said here.

​

If you've been reading this since the beginning then you know that posts ago https://www.jlwranglerforums.com/forum/threads/sunrider-position-pointless.30957/page-3#post-715423 this card, by design, has you refer to the owner's manual for complete details. I cannot believe you rehash this and claim you've read.

I don't know what your point is, but mine's about potential legal claims against FCA. That little disclaimer at the bottom of the card is, I assure you based on case law, FCA's "get out of jail free card" as it regards being held accountable for any damages that occur from following that card's directions.

Just think, if you came to thread with facts you wouldn't have to resort to offering opinions on my spouse. I'll continue to take the high road and offer none about any spouse you may have. I have facts, I don't need to go off topic and be rude.

Please--another one @digitalbliss. Their like lobbed strikes over the plate. I'll give it right back at you: you just can't help trying to defend a bad position can you?

What is it here that people can't admit their wrong? I made a mistake at the top of this post. It was pointed out to me, I apologized, we moved on.

I'm sorry you and @Firemadz are so freakin' insecure.

Would you agree that the supplemental guide mentioned above was provided by Jeep?

 

[Firemadz]

Would you agree that the supplemental guide mentioned above was provided by Jeep?

Ronnie boy won’t agree to anything. He’s obviously too pigheaded to admit when he’s wrong.

 

[digitalbliss]

Ronnie boy won’t agree to anything. He’s obviously too pigheaded to admit when he’s wrong.

Maybe since two pieces of official literature contradict each other, they cancel each other out. Kinda like double negatives. You ever heard of those?

 

[Rahneld]

Ronnie boy won’t agree to anything. He’s obviously too pigheaded to admit when he’s wrong.

That's funny, I made a mistake at the top of this post.

I pointed that out twice: that I made a mistake at the top of this post.

I apologized, and everyone was fine. I simply read a post wrong and responded with an extraneous answer--wasn't debating anyone.

And this is your come back @Firemadz? It's sad. You accuse me of not properly identifying the grammatical reason where you made yourself hard to follow, rather than debate that you weren't hard to follow: the far more important point.

Every other material fact on the subject here you remain curiously quiet about now but for "What is, grammatically speaking, a 'double negative.' I don't think there's a discussion here that could possible be more extraneous to the forum.

But worse, and probably the least concerning, you're wrong about that too.

Look, if you want to really talk about double negatives, really and truly...I mean really and truly, and not about JLs,--and I don't know why--then do me this just one favor:

You've told me I'm wrong based on your opinions. Go cite your claims from reliable internet sources like I did (only when twice you wouldn't stop about being wrong about this but insist you're right). They don't even have to say I'm wrong, just that you're right, and we can agree to the fact that I wasn't wrong, and maybe, just maybe, you weren't either.

Or find sources that say I'm wrong.

Ok buttercup...because that's more important than the point: understanding your thoughts.

Let me spell this out for you. You're mad your wrong. You're insecure to admit it. I'm wrong occasionally too, and I own up to it.

 

[Rahneld]

Would you agree that the supplemental guide mentioned above was provided by Jeep?

Yes. It's to the eyes of the law legally irrelevant, but yes.

For a guy who claims to have read, at the very least I've never claimed otherwise about the, as you call it, supplemental guide..the glovebox insert if you will, and I expressly recognize it as FCA materials based on what people are telling me..happy? I've never seen if but here, and I am fine to take people's word.

..as sure as I claim that this same FCA guide has language on it to refer to the owner's manual for complete details...or do I have to rehash why it says that again, or that I've said this before, several times?

(One could question if your trolling or merely skimmed this thread.)

Maybe since two pieces of official literature contradict each other, they cancel each other out. Kinda like double negatives. You ever heard of those?

Recognizing this for the humor it's intended as, if you've read here, as you claim, you've come to realize that your satire is, no joke, precisely why the reference to the owner's manual for complete details exists on the supplement.

And that is so precisely the situation you joke about can't become legal fodder for a plaintiff in a court of law. The language covers FCA from the supplement overriding or contradicting/negating the owner's manual, itself void of references to other manuals regarding, at least, owner operation, if not service.

 

[digitalbliss]

So... Since you agree that it is an official piece of Jeep supplied literature, please tell me what it's intended purpose would be?

 

[Rahneld]

Unbelievable how dumb you are. Sorry you don’t understand the English language. Anyway, I’m done, because I’ll obviously never be able to fix stupid. You just can’t accept your wrong. Still isn’t a double negative, no matter how many times you try to argue it.

https://english.stackexchange.com/questions/140377/negating-to-infinitive-in-negative-clause

Your citing something that doesn't have to do with the !@#$%^ double negatives I accused you of using and so wanted to drop talking about.

Isn't it curious how my link includes examples of double negatives and yours doesn't?

That can happen you know when you google, "what is a double negative?" something I didn't want or need to do for myself, but you wouldn't drop this and I thought citing an outsource source would get you to stop. I'll make it simpler.

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=what+is+a+double+negative

A double negative involves a statement and your "in the weeds" looking up clauses, parts of sentences. Even I know the difference, because I'm so "edumacated" you know.

Look, you need to hear me say I did something wrong, so maybe if I do you'll stop. Please don't quote the following sentence out of context with the others.

"You are correct @Firemadz. I was wrong. Wrong, wrong, wrong. And you were right, right, right!!"

Happy? Will you stop now? The alternative is to metaphorically continue lobbing Hail Mary passes for me to intercept and run to the other goal post with.

If you must argue, let's argue something tangible. Do you think you made your self clear here?

"As I posted before, the manual does NOT explicitly say to not drive in sunrider with rear windows installed. "

Do you think it correct as the word "manual" alone, by anybody's default understanding, is the owner's manual, which expressly says the opposite?

Can you understand how, since this is factually wrong, it could leave the reader trying to guess what it was you were saying, which I think, I'm not sure, is this:

"The glovebox supplement explicity says to drive in sunrider with rear windows installed."

That's a factual statment @Firemadz . A legally unenforceable one to hold FCA accountable to, but true on your part just the same.

 

[Rahneld]

Attention one and all. Should I not respond to further inquiries please do not construe it to be my acceptance that someone has proven me right or wrong. : - )

 

[digitalbliss]

Attention one and all. Should I not respond to further inquiries please do not construe it to be my acceptance that someone has proven me right or wrong. : - )

Oh please let this be true!!!

 

[Rahneld]

So... Since you agree that it is an official piece of Jeep supplied literature, please tell me what it's intended purpose would be?

In my opinion, it's intended purpose is to aid the motorist in the proper removing of the JL Wrangler soft top, 2 or 4 door, basic or premium soft top, from a closed position to Sunrider, completely open, or removed position.

Put another way I believe FCA's heart was in the right place, they weren't trying to deceive the user, they just contradicted themselves.....

but...

and here's the important part,

for the 10th time,

it does so incorrectly and harmlessly to FCA as a defendant in a case, by both the eyes of the law's having the owner's manual overriding it, as evidenced by it having the reader refer to an owner's manual, that itself is the de facto standard because it itself has no reference to other manuals for owner operation, and because case law has not only supported this as a perfect defense for auto makers, but been the motivation in the past, where judgements were paid out, to include this language.

To the court, if not a disenfranchised owner, intent is irrelevant here unless you have evidence showing that FCA had deliberate attempt to confuse customers in guides with dissimilar information.

 

[Rahneld]

Oh please let this be true!!!

So...you ask me direct questions, and wish I don't answer them @digitalbliss.?

Sponsored