Disable DRL'S on 2002 S-10

On Mon, 23 May 2005, James C. Reeves wrote:

> So you must have confused me with the person with the S-10 that started
> this thread. Or the private investigator with the Impala a few months
> back, or the person with the Buick Regal, or the person that just wanted
> to run his AC at the drive in movie (but couldn't since he couldn't turn
> his DRLs off), or the person that wants to enter camp sites at night
> with only parkers (as a courtesy to the other campers) but can't, or any
> one of dozens of other people that have posted here wanting/needing to
> disable their DRLs (or auto headlamps) for one legitimate reason or
> another. Of course, if GM understood how people actually used their
> cars, perhaps they would design the lighting controls correctly to meet
> the requirements.

If GM understood how people actually used their cars, perhaps they
wouldn't be swirling in a toilet bowl full of red ink.

"Daniel J. Stern" > wrote in message
n.umich.edu...
> On Mon, 23 May 2005, James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>> So you must have confused me with the person with the S-10 that started
>> this thread. Or the private investigator with the Impala a few months
>> back, or the person with the Buick Regal, or the person that just wanted
>> to run his AC at the drive in movie (but couldn't since he couldn't turn
>> his DRLs off), or the person that wants to enter camp sites at night
>> with only parkers (as a courtesy to the other campers) but can't, or any
>> one of dozens of other people that have posted here wanting/needing to
>> disable their DRLs (or auto headlamps) for one legitimate reason or
>> another. Of course, if GM understood how people actually used their
>> cars, perhaps they would design the lighting controls correctly to meet
>> the requirements.
>
> If GM understood how people actually used their cars, perhaps they
> wouldn't be swirling in a toilet bowl full of red ink.
>

One would think that they would understand the business they are in. :-(
But Lutz's comments a while back about forcing things on the customer is
apparently coming home to roost. Maybe GM is starting to listen with the
recent management shakeup. One can only hope.

On Mon, 23 May 2005, James C. Reeves wrote:

> >> Of course, if GM understood how people actually used their cars,
> >> perhaps they would design the lighting controls correctly to meet the
> >> requirements.

> > If GM understood how people actually used their cars, perhaps they
> > wouldn't be swirling in a toilet bowl full of red ink.

> One would think that they would understand the business they are in. :-(
> But Lutz's comments a while back about forcing things on the customer is
> apparently coming home to roost.

Oh, I didn't see those. Got a link or at least some elaboration?

James C. Reeves wrote:
>>> If GM understood how people actually used their cars, perhaps they
>> wouldn't be swirling in a toilet bowl full of red ink.
>>
>
> One would think that they would understand the business they are in. :-(
> But Lutz's comments a while back about forcing things on the
> customer is apparently coming home to roost. Maybe GM is starting to
> listen with the recent management shakeup. One can only hope.

Nope; I saw a dumbass onstar ad just tonight. They're hosed.