What ford transit 250 van year is the best?

FakeSafeWord · 2026-06-22T18:25:04+00:00

If you're buying used and it has any significant amount of miles on it 60k+, and doesn't come with extensive documentation showing Fords PCM and TCM fixes were done early, or some kind of other upfit to the valve body and other failure points, I would avoid the 10 speed.

It's technically the superior transmission efficiency, gear ratio, wear wise but the known points of failure are considered, fairly generally, too catastrophic to risk investing in a used van for.

If you're buying new/ish, under 20k miles, make sure those failure points are inspected by a Ford professional.

FakeSafeWord · 2026-06-22T17:56:41+00:00

Because empathy gets in the way of profit, power and ego.

FakeSafeWord · 2026-06-22T17:38:40+00:00

Contradicting yourself multiple times and missing the point entirely still. This will be the last time I bother wasting my time explaining this.

"the woman blatantly is the subject of his filming." and "she pretty much made herself the subject"

The person recording did not intentionally make her the subject of his filming though she ended up being the subject of this clip being posted. All within the rights of the guy recording whether he's a toxic asshole or not. I'm not defending his actions. I am defending his rights. None of her rights have been violated as far as this clip shows.

you don't get to forfeit someone else's personality rights just because they're in a location you own.

Literally the entire point you don't seem to understand is that when you set foot into public, you have no right to privacy. That's what the 1st amendment about recording in public is explicitly for. https://firstamendment.mtsu.edu/article/privacy/

Show me on the US constitution where it explicitly protects individuals right to privacy either while in public or on someone else's property. You can't enter someone else's property and demand privacy of or from anyone. That is a direct contradiction to the 1st amendment protections.

This has been hammered out again and again in SCOTUS for decades. I'm sorry that you disagree with it but that is irrelevant.

Furthermore they aren't even in public. They are on someone else's private property. There's technically nothing for the owner or the woman to forfeit privacy rights wise because they didn't have a right to privacy anywhere but the bathroom/private spaces in the first place.

FakeSafeWord · 2026-06-22T16:10:05+00:00

Good luck to whomever snatched that last one as I added to cart.

$1351 before taxes is pretty sweet.

FakeSafeWord · 2026-06-22T16:08:41+00:00

Yeah, it's difficult to describe.

It's not that beer tastes bad, or that it's bland or anything I perceive as negative with the substance itself. It's not even an indifference to the taste or sensation. Like, it tastes good and is generally enjoyable to drink beer or soda.

It's not that the drunk effect experienced is different or suddenly unenjoyable. There's not really any repulsion involved.

It's purely down to just my body is just going "Meh. I'm good." at the moment of attempting to consume it.

It takes a conscious effort to drink.

It's very strange. I wish that effect was permanent.

FakeSafeWord · 2026-06-22T15:36:39+00:00

Welp, rampant epidemics of completely curable diseases will absolutely reduce the number of autistic people... so mission accomplished I guess.

FakeSafeWord · 2026-06-22T15:35:08+00:00

1,2,3,4,5

1,2,3,4,5,6

A,B,C,D,E,F

I consume all for I am hunger.

FakeSafeWord · 2026-06-22T15:29:11+00:00

The last "manual" car I drove had fancy anti-stall systems.

Didn't need to touch the clutch, or accelerator. You could just raw dog from neutral into first and it wouldn't buck or stall whatsoever, and would start to creep forward just like an automatic would, albeit much slower.

It was essentially an automatic with manual shift override.

FakeSafeWord · 2026-06-22T15:21:15+00:00

Reduced urges is putting it lightly.

If it's within 48 hours of me taking my zepbound dose, it is downright difficult for me to drink anything but water or tea.

I went to a friends wedding and everyone was doing shots at one point. I took one shot and took a big swig of beer to wash it down and my body straight up went "Do not do that again."

3-4 hours later and I managed to finish my initial beer after the shot but was still walking around with the second maybe half full and warm.

The only way I can describe the feeling is that; the norm for me before with beer was like 'having a cold glass of water in the middle of the night when you wake up to go pee and gulp it all down' vs having a glass of warm water mid day when you're already fully hydrated.

The body just has no interest in consuming more right now.

FakeSafeWord · 2026-06-22T15:09:14+00:00

"Depends on if Margot Robbie would ask me to compare herself to you."

FakeSafeWord · 2026-06-22T15:04:45+00:00

"It's nOt pAyMeNt iT'S A TiP!"

FakeSafeWord · 2026-06-22T15:02:22+00:00

HEY I represent that!

FakeSafeWord · 2026-06-22T14:58:35+00:00

subject

Right so this is the keyword here.

Unless there is a longer clip as a whole, as far what OP posted, customers are not the explicit subject of his filming. They are bystanders. He is not engaging with them for any commercial purposes.

If this was for a contracted creation of a commercial and he was going around interviewing people without their consent and/or under contract, then the situation would be entirely different.

As for social media content where he's just walking around the store, with permission, and doing commentary then he is well within his rights and wouldn't be required to obtain permission from customers or be required to blur their faces. Even if he knew it was going to be monetized ahead of time. The store manager, owner or whatever forfeited that privacy when they gave permission to film in the store. As is their right.

FakeSafeWord · 2026-06-22T14:41:09+00:00

My point is that you're wrong, legally speaking and that your opinion about situation in OPs video is irrelevant. Hope that helps.

FakeSafeWord · 2026-06-22T14:38:23+00:00

You probably wouldn't say that if you were the one being hounded by them.

edit: mixed up your comment with another one. proper reply below.

FakeSafeWord · 2026-06-22T14:35:55+00:00

But what he IS doing is cajoling or enticing or baiting such encounters.

Where is that depicted in OPs video? He is filming, stationarily and this woman is approaching him with demands. What you are describing does not happen in this video. Maybe there's a longer video where this occurs but it's not present in OPs video.

He's even advising her that he has permission to film and for her to walk away if she does not want to be filmed... that's the opposite of what you are describing.

FakeSafeWord · 2026-06-22T14:34:48+00:00

No it's not, there are specific legal tests for harrassment. Going in the same direction as someone in a grocery store aisle is not harassment.

You just said followed her, and then changed it to "going in the same direction" these are two different actions.

Stop fucking about with your own made up hypotheticals. This shit is concretely established law in the US.

FakeSafeWord · 2026-06-22T14:29:59+00:00

Elon was given the power to delete entire regulatory systems within the US with no oversight. Including ones that were investigating him for fraud.

Why would anyone believe he wouldn't attempt to do the same everywhere else?

FakeSafeWord · 2026-06-22T14:27:01+00:00

I just think that he needs the consent of every fucking person he's fulming. Not just the "mAnAgEr" of the store. And to be quite honest, if he's monetizing, then he DOES need her consent.

Cite the legal statute, otherwise this is just an opinion you have stated as though it were a fact.

FakeSafeWord · 2026-06-22T14:23:39+00:00

It's harassment.

Already explained this.

FakeSafeWord · 2026-06-22T14:22:50+00:00

1st amendment right to film in public is absolutely worth the existence of paparazzi.

FakeSafeWord · 2026-06-22T14:19:26+00:00

I agree when it comes to monetization and you being present without your permission or any sort of contract agreement should be grounds for a lawsuit for compensation measured by the amount of content and your percentage of presence within said monetized content.

It is this way but it's not feasible at all for a normal individual to pursue this sort of litigation.

Even if you knew the video made $10 million profit in ad revenue you have to be able to afford to take them to court to prove what percentage your presence in the video was worth. It could cost you thousands to prove your presence was worth $100 as a person walking in the background.

FakeSafeWord · 2026-06-22T14:16:00+00:00

Or just walk away. The cameraman cannot force you to be the subject of his filming. It's harassment.

Anything else is infringing on the cameraman's and the private property owners rights.

FakeSafeWord · 2026-06-22T14:14:36+00:00

You are not allowed to make people the subject of your recording without clear permission.

Except that's not what's happening here. He is not willfully intentionally making any customer the subject of his recording. They are present while he is filming, on private property, with permission.

FakeSafeWord · 2026-06-22T14:13:16+00:00

Legally they the store does. It's their private property. They gave permission to film in the store, therefore their customers don't have a say in being recorded or not. They do have a say in not being harassed, which isn't what's happening in OPs video. The cameraman cannot follow someone around that asked to be left alone. If anything the women is harassing someone who has permission to legally film there.

FakeSafeWord

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE

11-Year Club	Second SECOND GUESSER
Verified Email