Chromed Murcielago...!

[ferrari_chris]

... In the eyes of the law, accelerating to the legal limit in the blink of an eye is preferable to traveling at 75mph in a 70 zone. ...

... I'd like to quote a copper acquaintance of mine here:

"Balls-out acceleration? Well, as long as it's within the speed limit and you don't break traction... fill your boots.

We're not so lucky in this country...

To counter these actions by 'boy-racers' with their noisy exhausts, we get lumped with an 'Excessive display of acceleration'. A law put in place to stop just this sort of thing - accelerating hard in first and second gear, but not actually breaking the speed limit.

The NZ Police would probably find something wrong with fiddy's Chrome Lambo though and order it off the road too - so they're not all bad then.

 

[Vonie]

I get goosebumps when people argue with Famine.

 

[Flerbizky]

I get goosebumps when people argue with Famine.

I usually open a beer and get me some popcorn !... It's good entertainment !..

 

[GT4_Rule]

I get goosebumps when people argue with Famine.

I agree.

He seems he has to pick on everyone. I was going to reply to some stupid sounding comments but then it floated out of my mind...I can't remember it now. Why would someone not survive if he crashed from 155mph instead of 162mph in an Enzo? Its 7mph slower! And where did you get the Audi TT from by the way? I don't rememeber mentioning a TT anytime.

Surely if you're arguing that it's safer to travel at 155mph than 175mph you must also accept that it's safer still to travel at 70mph. Or 40mph. Or not moving at all.

Yeah. Don't move. Then we'll all know why automobiles were invented. And an automobile related blog like GTPlanet will make lots of sense.

Please, no stupidity. Not moving at all? Great answer. Cars were made not to move, kids, just to eat up fuel and take up space, kids! So don't drive a car, because you may cause an accident!

Funnily, I've never had a Ferrari try to race me off the lights. Even more funnily, it's usually 15 year old shopping hatchback crapwagons.

Someone old enough to have an expensive fast car appreciates what it is to have an expensive fast car and is wise enough not to have to get everywhere first. A 17 year old in a car worth both halves of jack **** and more testosterone than intelligence doesn't.

Yeah, when I saw bunch of MB CLK55 AMGs being driven by Vietnamese guys not older than 25, and a 18 year old looking guy driving a lowered Prelude VTEC with neons, subs that shook the whole world, 18inch rims, and other stuff eh. When I see (literally) hundreds of MB, BMW and other suped-up cars being driven by guys and girls not older than 25, (and their parents finance that by the way) makes me wonder if what you said was true to all around the world or just in your area.

I'm not going to reply to all the posts, no matter how silly, because I simply don't have time now. Another week started, schoolworks, other things, I'm too busy to argue here all the time. So I'll end it here for now.

 

[Flerbizky]

I agree.

He seems he has to pick on everyone.

Only those who don't know any better....

 

[Famine]

I agree.

He seems he has to pick on everyone. I was going to reply to some stupid sounding comments but then it floated out of my mind...I can't remember it now. Why would someone not survive if he crashed from 155mph instead of 162mph in an Enzo? Its 7mph slower! And where did you get the Audi TT from by the way? I don't rememeber mentioning a TT anytime.

Simple. You said that:

all cars will have 155mph speed limiter in my world

Because earlier you decided that 155mph was safe, though 156mph wasn't.

A 3.2 V6 Audi TT is capable of reaching 155mph. Crash in that car at that speed and you will die. Not so safe, suddenly.

But in an "excessive" "pointless" supercar, capable of 215mph, you can crash at that speed and survive. Apparently more than 155mph isn't always unsafe...


You see, you've drawn a line in the sand. YOU feel that 155mph is a safe maximum because crashes at 175mph are worse. Yet you're unwilling to see the possibility that crashes at 130mph are not as severe as those at 155mph, so 130mph would be a better safe maximum. And crashes at 100mph are less severe still, so 100mph would be a better one. And crashes at 40mph are less severe even that those, so 40mph would be a better one...

There is no logic to your decision - only feeling. You feel that you want to restrict ALL cars to 155mph because... You do. You cannot make a sane, rational argument for ALL cars being restricted to 155mph, because there isn't one - but yet you make the decision anyway.

Yeah. Don't move. Then we'll all know why automobiles were invented. And an automobile related blog like GTPlanet will make lots of sense.

Please, no stupidity. Not moving at all? Great answer. Cars were made not to move, kids, just to eat up fuel and take up space, kids! So don't drive a car, because you may cause an accident!

And the Bugatti Veyron was made to move at 250mph, kids, not just to get to the GT4_Rule Safe 155mph Limiter quicker than anything else.

Fact is, these cars were built for well in excess of these speeds. They require very special construction to remain stable and it's bad publicity if owners start dropping like flies because they fancy a top speed run. This is why you can survive the unsurvivable in an Enzo. You can hit 162mph in a Vauxhall/Holden Monaro too. You'd stand a 1 in 2000 chance of living in the resulting crash though.


I don't quite understand why you want to stop progress in car and engine design. Perhaps you could explain it to me.

Yeah, when I saw bunch of MB CLK55 AMGs being driven by Vietnamese guys not older than 25, and a 18 year old looking guy driving a lowered Prelude VTEC with neons, subs that shook the whole world, 18inch rims, and other stuff eh. When I see (literally) hundreds of MB, BMW and other suped-up cars being driven by guys and girls not older than 25, (and their parents finance that by the way) makes me wonder if what you said was true to all around the world or just in your area.

And yet you're unwilling to contemplate the notion that your viewpoint is true all around the world, or just in your area. Interesting.

So what, some kids have expensive cars. Great. Some old people have appallingly cheap cars. Does that make a trend? Nope. They are exceptions to the rule. I've been raced off the lights by fast and expensive cars too - but most of the time it's some acned jerkoff in a Corsa. Of course, that means that they've been raced off the lights by a faster and more expensive car, because I like upsetting them in front of their pubescent hoes.


Out of interest, how expensive do you think Preludes are? I could buy three for just a Snickers bar.

 

[GT4_Rule]

Only those who don't know any better....

pick on everybody that disagrees with him, I meant.

 

[xcsti]

Famine, I love the fact that most people who argue with you end up completely missing your points to the point of contradicting themselves or just flat out ignores the ones that they can get.

Not to diss on you GT4_Rule I just think you started argueing against yourself when you said...

Why would someone not survive if he crashed from 155mph instead of 162mph in an Enzo?

 

[GT4_Rule]

Simple. You said that:



Because earlier you decided that 155mph was safe, though 156mph wasn't.

A 3.2 V6 Audi TT is capable of reaching 155mph. Crash in that car at that speed and you will die. Not so safe, suddenly.

But in an "excessive" "pointless" supercar, capable of 215mph, you can crash at that speed and survive. Apparently more than 155mph isn't always unsafe...


You see, you've drawn a line in the sand. YOU feel that 155mph is a safe maximum because crashes at 175mph are worse. Yet you're unwilling to see the possibility that crashes at 130mph are not as severe as those at 155mph, so 130mph would be a better safe maximum. And crashes at 100mph are less severe still, so 100mph would be a better one. And crashes at 40mph are less severe even that those, so 40mph would be a better one...

There is no logic to your decision - only feeling. You feel that you want to restrict ALL cars to 155mph because... You do. You cannot make a sane, rational argument for ALL cars being restricted to 155mph, because there isn't one - but yet you make the decision anyway.



And the Bugatti Veyron was made to move at 250mph, kids, not just to get to the GT4_Rule Safe 155mph Limiter quicker than anything else.

Fact is, these cars were built for well in excess of these speeds. They require very special construction to remain stable and it's bad publicity if owners start dropping like flies because they fancy a top speed run. This is why you can survive the unsurvivable in an Enzo. You can hit 162mph in a Vauxhall/Holden Monaro too. You'd stand a 1 in 2000 chance of living in the resulting crash though.


I don't quite understand why you want to stop progress in car and engine design. Perhaps you could explain it to me.



And yet you're unwilling to contemplate the notion that your viewpoint is true all around the world, or just in your area. Interesting.

So what, some kids have expensive cars. Great. Some old people have appallingly cheap cars. Does that make a trend? Nope. They are exceptions to the rule. I've been raced off the lights by fast and expensive cars too - but most of the time it's some acned jerkoff in a Corsa. Of course, that means that they've been raced off the lights by a faster and more expensive car, because I like upsetting them in front of their pubescent hoes.


Out of interest, how expensive do you think Preludes are? I could buy three for just a Snickers bar.

sigh....

no one in the world is more blind to arguments than you, Famine...

I don't even feel like argueing now, you took away all the energy I had left...

yeah, how expensive are Preludes? Maybe 2001 model? Maybe with Tiptronic? Maybe with those suped up bodykits and other stuff???? read what it says! SUPED UP STUFF!!! Now bow much do you think it costs to supe up a car that much? Do you want to know the list of things that Prelude I saw had?
- underbody neons
- cabin neons
- world-shaking subs
- loud-ass stereos
- full body kits
- xenon lights
- carbon fiber hoods
- hood scoops
- 18in rims
- hugeass import spoiler
- frosted taillights
- dual exhausts with 3.5" opening
- pearlescent paint
- lowered to 1" ground clearance
- brembo brakes at all four corners

Now is that good enough? It costs around $50 just for a neon in where I live, now you figure out the costs. A used 2001 Prelude with Tiptronic costs around $25,000 or more. Now you calculate it yourself. Kids, they are expensive. Basic logical thinking.

And you know what? Do you expect me to kowtow in front of you, beaten by your onslaught of information? No. And you know what? I said "I won't argue with you on that one" on many replies you had, because simply I gave up arguing with you on that point. Now what? You keep going, arguing with me as if I did not say "I won't argue with you on that one"!! Give your mouth a break, OK? It needs it. I'm tired of listening to your lame remarks, arguing every single point I make, no matter how sensible. Give me a break. You'll make everyone happy.

Now, lets go back to our original discussion. What do you think of chromed lambo? (that question was for outsiders who haven't visted our forums yet, not Famine.)

 

[Famine]

no one in the world is more blind to arguments than you, Famine...

Despite the fact that you've ignored every request to justify your desire to restrict every car in the world to 155mph in the name of safety ? Mmm. Knew it'd be my fault somewhere along the line.

Hint - look at Flerbizky and xcsti's comments above.

yeah, how expensive are Preludes? Maybe 2001 model? Maybe with Tiptronic? Maybe with those suped up bodykits and other stuff???? read what it says! SUPED UP STUFF!!! Now bow much do you think it costs to supe up a car that much? Do you want to know the list of things that Prelude I saw had?
- underbody neons
- cabin neons
- world-shaking subs
- loud-ass stereos
- full body kits
- xenon lights
- carbon fiber hoods
- hood scoops
- 18in rims
- hugeass import spoiler
- frosted taillights
- dual exhausts with 3.5" opening
- pearlescent paint
- lowered to 1" ground clearance
- brembo brakes at all four corners

Now is that good enough? It costs around $50 just for a neon in where I live, now you figure out the costs. A used 2001 Prelude with Tiptronic costs around $25,000 or more. Now you calculate it yourself. Kids, they are expensive. Basic logical thinking.

Car on credit.

Neons - $200
Stereo - Poor quality $100 head unit, poor quality $100 sub. Noise, not sound.
Full body kit - $1,000 off the shelf.
Xenon lights - $10 blue coloured bulbs.
Carbon fibre "hood" - $10 CF-lookalike film roll.
"Hood" scoop - $10 preformed plastic.
18" "rims" - $400
Spoiler - Part of the body kit, surely?
Lexus-style lights - $40
Dual-exit exhaust - $40 back box
Paint - $2,000
Lowered to 1" - $1 hacksaw blade.
Brembo brakes - $4 for red paint and Brembo stickers.

Look past the facade.

But what was the point of this again? Do ALL teenagers drive $25,000 cars, Preludes or otherwise (incidentally, the list price on your 2001 Tiptronic Prelude is £6,300 in notoriously-expensive-Britain, or about $11,000. Only a factor of two out)? Nope.

Did I address this in the last post? Yep.

And you know what? Do you expect me to kowtow in front of you, beaten by your onslaught of information? No. And you know what? I said "I won't argue with you on that one" on many replies you had, because simply I gave up arguing with you on that point.

Here's the thing. You have NO LOGICAL REASON to restrict everyone on Earth to 155mph. You've yet to acknowledge this - it's just personal desire.

Why do you want to restrict automotive design and engineering so much?

Now what? You keep going, arguing with me as if I did not say "I won't argue with you on that one"!! Give your mouth a break, OK? It needs it.

Not really. I'm using a keyboard, not a Speak'n'Spell.

I'm tired of listening to your lame remarks, arguing every single point I make, no matter how sensible.

You've yet to make a sensible point. Let's summarise, shall we?

You complained at people saying the chrome Murcielago was horrible. You don't seem to recognise that it's our prerogative to say whether or not we think it's horrible every bit as much as it's Fiddy Sen's to do that to his car. Though you hate the Lime Green ones, so everyone else must. Apparently.

All supercars are gaz-guzzling monsters. I showed you clear evidence that only ONE - the Veyron - is worse than a Hummer H2, and said Hummer sells more units per year than every supercar's production run ever put together. You response was "yes yes".

0-62mph in 3.3 seconds is "excessive", though you can't think of any reason why.

All cars on Earth should be limited to 155mph, even though you've no sound reason to suppose that 155mph is safer in a crash than 156mph, even to the point of admitting that a guy crashed his Enzo and both he and his passenger survived at 162mph - where a "lesser" car would have shattered into a zillion pieces, occupants included. Clear evidence that not only are speeds this high not fundamentally deadly, but that the innovation provided by supercars directly prevent road deaths. Your response was that you're too tired and have school.

And then lectured me on "basic logical thinking" when you've shown absolutely none so far.

Give me a break. You'll make everyone happy.

I'll make YOU happy - you won't be faced with difficult questions you cannot answer.

Again, read Flerbizky and xcsti's posts. Or look at the green box under my avatar - which you can only get when other members of the site rate your posts to be of a suitably high quality. Currently I'm the only non-staff member with one. Why? Because people generally like my posts.

Now, lets go back to our original discussion. What do you think of chromed lambo? (that question was for outsiders who haven't visted our forums yet, not Famine.)

Ah yes! The original discussion, where you told everyone who didn't like the chrome Lamborghini that they were wrong.

 

[GT4_Rule]

Despite the fact that you've ignored every request to justify your desire to restrict every car in the world to 155mph in the name of safety ? Mmm. Knew it'd be my fault somewhere along the line.

Yes, you are at fault partially...arguements don't happen because of only one side's fault.

Hint - look at Flerbizky and xcsti's comments above.

Sure.

Car on credit.

Neons - $200
Stereo - Poor quality $100 head unit, poor quality $100 sub. Noise, not sound.
Full body kit - $1,000 off the shelf.
Xenon lights - $10 blue coloured bulbs.
Carbon fibre "hood" - $10 CF-lookalike film roll.
"Hood" scoop - $10 preformed plastic.
18" "rims" - $400
Spoiler - Part of the body kit, surely?
Lexus-style lights - $40
Dual-exit exhaust - $40 back box
Paint - $2,000
Lowered to 1" - $1 hacksaw blade.
Brembo brakes - $4 for red paint and Brembo stickers.

Look past the facade.

Ha, ha, its really funny. When you consider that the stereo was NOT a poor sounding one, rather with the DVD screen. Yes, $10 colored bulbs. Yeah, I saw that hemispherical bump that looked like a lens. Strange. That's a colored bulb....eh. Yeah, $10 film for CF. How nice. With pins to hold it down. And $10 fake hood scoops. Really. Its fake when it lead down to the engine compartment. Very true. Spoiler. Part of the kit? Wow. Then I can afford one, too, and there will be no point of buying individual spoilers. Lexus style lights - $40? Maybe a fake one. But its not $40, I assure you. $40 for dual exhaust with the mufflers? WOW!! I can afford all those upgrades on my car too then! $1 hack saw blade for 1" clearance? Then what was the job of the bilstein shocks that must be in there? There was a sticker of it at the rear quarter panel...$4 for red paint and brembo stickers...yeah, when cross-drilled rotors were there. Great. Maybe the rotors are plastic. I'd like to see you buy all those with a snickers bar. Go try.

My point: they are expensive.

But what was the point of this again? Do ALL teenagers drive $25,000 cars, Preludes or otherwise (incidentally, the list price on your 2001 Tiptronic Prelude is £6,300 in notoriously-expensive-Britain, or about $11,000. Only a factor of two out)? Nope.[/quote]

Yeah, do you notice that prices in GB and Canada is different according to different demands? Or markets? And the currency? Surely you have included these factor in your calculation?

Here's the thing. You have NO LOGICAL REASON to restrict everyone on Earth to 155mph. You've yet to acknowledge this - it's just personal desire.

Hello, wasn't it you who asked me to tell you my ideal speed limit?

Why do you want to restrict automotive design and engineering so much?

Hmm, when did I say that? Oh, I remember! You made that up without me saying the actual thing! You put that quote when you replied, and asked me why do I want to restrict design and engineering so much. Therefore I did not say that, and therefore it does not count as my quote. Period. End of discussion.

Not really. I'm using a keyboard, not a Speak'n'Spell.

Well, then give your fingers a rest.

You've yet to make a sensible point. Let's summarise, shall we?

You complained at people saying the chrome Murcielago was horrible. You don't seem to recognise that it's our prerogative to say whether or not we think it's horrible every bit as much as it's Fiddy Sen's to do that to his car. Though you hate the Lime Green ones, so everyone else must. Apparently.

All supercars are gaz-guzzling monsters. I showed you clear evidence that only ONE - the Veyron - is worse than a Hummer H2, and said Hummer sells more units per year than every supercar's production run ever put together. You response was "yes yes".

0-62mph in 3.3 seconds is "excessive", though you can't think of any reason why.

All cars on Earth should be limited to 155mph, even though you've no sound reason to suppose that 155mph is safer in a crash than 156mph, even to the point of admitting that a guy crashed his Enzo and both he and his passenger survived at 162mph - where a "lesser" car would have shattered into a zillion pieces, occupants included. Clear evidence that not only are speeds this high not fundamentally deadly, but that the innovation provided by supercars directly prevent road deaths. Your response was that you're too tired and have school.

Yes yes....am I listening? Not really. Reading some odd lines, thats it.

You know, you don't think I made any sensible points so far, but the same is for you too. I don't think you made any sensible point so far yet either, and thats human nature. So therefore I ask you to please stop arguing with everyone that disagrees with you and everyone that goes on your nerves. The world does not operate in a fashion that favors you. You have to put up with some people, and not start a lenghty argument that spans half a page. I ask you to stop criticizing people for what they believe in. Thank you. Whether if you listen or not is up to you. But I have no intention to keep this "pointless" arguement going. This is pointless because in this argument, nothing, and I mean nothing, has been proved yet that the other accepted. We don't back off from each other, and we deny everything that other person says. So I'm tired. No point. Just same-old same-old again and again and again.

And then lectured me on "basic logical thinking" when you've shown absolutely none so far.

You know, surprises me how many illogical people are out there. Only know how to criticize people with different viewpoints. When I've shown I have absolutely none so far? Great. Thanks, I figured that out now because of you. If that's all you know how to say, I wonder how you got all thse Quality Posts; all you did here was try to convince other person in a forceful way, and when they disagreed and brought out points when asked by you (think speed limit of 155mph) you started insulting them and calling them many names, and branding them with "no intelligence" or "no basic logical thinking" or "no basic math skills" Thank you for your arguments, but highly unlikely that I'll change my views.

I'll make YOU happy - you won't be faced with difficult questions you cannot answer.

The only way you will make me happy is to stop blabbing about the facts and put your argument back on the original post.

Again, read Flerbizky and xcsti's posts.

Sure. Maybe you should too.

Ah yes! The original discussion, where you told everyone who didn't like the chrome Lamborghini that they were wrong.

Hmm...now lets see, did I say that? I don't remember! Why? Because I never said it! You are a good inventer, go invent some crazy stuff for us, but don't invent phrases that people didn't actually say. That's common sense. When did I say that people that believe chromed Lambo was bad was totally wrong? Hello? May I have the answer? No, you can't give me an answer, because I didn't frekkin say it. All I said was that its his money, its his paint, its his car, why continue to complain about it?

I also mentioned that..."why are you guys picking on the chromed Lambo, and not other chromed (or close enoughly colored) cars like the MB in their recent calendar, or the Audi's polished aluminum? And someone said that aluminum is different from chrome, I said that they basically do the same thing: reflect sunlight. They're also similar in color also, so it doesn't really matter if there's heritage to the aluminum or not. The point is that the color is all same, and if this Lambo was ordered by, for instance, Bill Gates, not 50, then not as many people would complain about this. I'm thinking that its the prejudice against 50 by some people is the reason why so many people are turning their thumbs down.

Some others believed that it was alright, notably Poverty, Boombexus, and a6m5. Why don't you argue against them as well? Or are they your friends so you don't argue with them? I'm thinking that's the reason why.

Anyways, I will keep this argument to a minimum and put my priorities elsewhere, and even when I do argue your points I will (try to) keep my temper that was risen because of you insulting me. Yeah, call me a person with no basic logic thinking, or whatever you feel like. I'll keep my temper in check so that the admins do not kick me out of the forum; I'm trying to be civil here, not just insulting people whenever I can. I hope you co-operate too, but if you don't then I guess I have no other choice but to ignore.

 

[xcsti]

He's not picking on you because your view differs from his but because you aren't backing your opinion well enough.

The point of his listing the prelude stuff was to demonstrate that one COULD have a "tuned" prelude for a low amount, not that the one you were specifically speaking of or that all happen to be set up that way.

Yeah, do you notice that prices in GB and Canada is different according to different demands? Or markets? And the currency? Surely you have included these factor in your calculation?

He says that britain (where his figures are sourced) is notoriously expensive for autos, which is a valid point. He could have even picked an older year or even generation prelude to demonstrate his point in a more extreme fashion.

The only way you will make me happy is to stop blabbing about the facts and put your argument back on the original post.

So you admit you are facing valid facts yet still persist?

He's not insulting you, merely questioning the your line of thought. Isn't that what a discussion is all about?

Oh and sorry for seeming to take over your arguements fam-ster, just trying to see if I can make things clearer.

 

[GT4_Rule]

So you admit you are facing valid facts yet still persist?

No

I'm just tired of the same-old same-old arguments.

 

[McLaren]

Jeez....

Guys, get over it....

Chrome Lambo = same as Lime Lambo Diablo

Lime Lambo Diablo =

Why don't you guys start criticizing the Lime Lambo and Lime NSX and Lime S2000 (check out Honda showroom in GT4 if you don't believe me)

Chrome isn't all that bad, alright. If you can buy a car with chrome bumper, why can't you tolerate chrome paint? How about pearlescent paint? How about neons and those ultra-bright HID lights? They hurt your eyes more than a chrome lambo -.-

Because Lamborghini is one of the few companies to pull off the Lime color. Though on a Diablo, it is a little strange, it perfectly suits the Gallardo and Murcielago.

I don't mind this car other than the fact its 50's doing.
If this car was given to me, sure, I'd take it. It's a Lamborghini.

As long as the wheels stay stock, I think it'll look ok.

 

[DeLoreanBrown]

it's 50-Cent's Car, if he wants to uglify it by chroming it, he's welcome to it.

I don't give a hoot.

I'd put on a huge rear wing and front splitters, gut the thing's interior, add a rollcage and Lambo sponsor decals, and go racing. but that's me. And if people don't like the fact that it's no longer street legal, fine by me. I'm sure Mr. Cent feels the same way about his car.

Only FC's modification will weigh a bushel more at the same time as resembling a stainless pissoir trough, killing the spirit of the barge stone dead 👎 'nuff said.

And the Bugatti Veyron was made to move at 250mph, kids, not just to get to the GT4_Rule Safe 155mph Limiter quicker than anything else.

Fact is, these cars were built for well in excess of these speeds. They require very special construction to remain stable and it's bad publicity if owners start dropping like flies because they fancy a top speed run. This is why you can survive the unsurvivable in an Enzo. You can hit 162mph in a Vauxhall/Holden Monaro too. You'd stand a 1 in 2000 chance of living in the resulting crash though.

Mr Famine, do you possess actuarial crash stats for vehicles such as the Monaro? the Enzo's particular subframe construction? a Mate in the . . . or a Database of some kind?
Its hard to retreive these sorts of values when trying to assay vehicles for a Hunt or Survey

The

is an exotic from a design house / engineering team that has perfection as one of it's chartered aims & as

All-in-all a supercar will generate much more wealth and revenue for so many more people in its life time, not just because of its higher initial price or the amount of tax generated from fuel costs.

underlines these engineering values = a modal animal of endangered tastes and needs, & what to happen to exotic creatures? they needs protection = trust, this is why Clarkson sur les autoroutes en veyron = insurance clearance, i.e we do not want any new special enclosures in wreckedexoticsdotcom.

2003 Hummer H2 -/10

The Hummer has an imploding Urban cycle?

 

[Famine]

Hello, wasn't it you who asked me to tell you my ideal speed limit?

No - I asked you what speed you considered to be safe. I then asked you to back this up.

Hmm, when did I say that? Oh, I remember! You made that up without me saying the actual thing! You put that quote when you replied, and asked me why do I want to restrict design and engineering so much. Therefore I did not say that, and therefore it does not count as my quote. Period. End of discussion.

No - it's a question I asked you which you never answered. It was unrelated to road speed limits - a 155mph limit would see a doubling in nearly every country on Earth - and you made absolutely no distinction for track vehicles either, a point I brought up and you missed.

You see, as vehicle speed increases, so does vehicle safety, engine efficiency, fuel efficiency, crash safety, safety assists, vehicle dynamics, tyre technology, suspension technology, brake technology - and so on and so forth. In the 40 years it's taken us to go from 150mph to 250mph - a 66% increase in speed - we've increased cornering ability by nigh-on 100%, braking ability by well over 100% and crash safety by an almost incalculable amount - 40 years ago you couldn't even go 155mph, unless you were an F1 driver, never mind survive a crash from it, even IF you were an F1 driver.

Necessity is the mother of invention. As we get faster, we MUST get safer. Restrict every car on Earth to just 155mph and we lose that.

So again I ask, WHY do you want to do this?

I ask you to stop criticizing people for what they believe in.

I have criticised no-one. YOU have. And continue to do so.

It's what is known as "ad hominem" - attacking the person rather than the point. I am asking you to back up your point of view - one which restricts the civil liberties of every person on Earth - with evidence and rationality and you are responding by calling me names.

If you think I have insulted you, report the relevant post.

you started insulting them and calling them many names, and branding them with "no intelligence" or "no basic logical thinking" or "no basic math skills"

Find ANY evidence of this.

You will find them in YOUR posts addressed to ME.

I will (try to) keep my temper that was risen because of you insulting me. Yeah, call me a person with no basic logic thinking, or whatever you feel like.

I have not referred to you as such - though you have referred to me as precisely that.

I'm trying to be civil here, not just insulting people whenever I can.

That's precisely the opposite of what you've done. I have asked you questions that are really rather easy to answer. You've decided that you don't want to answer them because they challenge your viewpoint. You've skirted the questions and hoped that no-one would notice, then called my intelligence into question. Pity.

 

[Gen.]

I don't know why you're arguing with a person that thinks a Mac advertisement is offensive Famine...

 

[GT4_Rule]

I don't know why you're arguing with a person that thinks a Mac advertisement is offensive Famine...

Then don't post here if you are not going to add to the argument. Thanks for that remark

You know, Famine, a deep breath and a sigh and does not explain what I think of you. I'm literally shaking my head; you continue blabbing on about how I was the one that ignored the question or advice, etc, and the way you put the blame on me for starting this whole thing is just amazing. Truly amazing. You seem to misunderstand at least one of my comments in every reply I make. There are too many to list, so I won't and I want to keep this short. I've practically raised a white flag, not because I lost to your onslaught of your information and arguments, but because I feel that arguing with someone like you is just a waste of time, and you will not change your views no matter what. Again, I do not understand how you obtained your Quality Posts title. If I was you, I would never have expected to attain that title, and I would not expect others to add to the reputation. All you are doing around here is offending people by your "simple" questions, making up quotes that they didn't even say, and being reduced to name calling. Because of you, I do not feel compelled to argue anymore. Therefore I am leaving this thread. I need some quiet and peace. Thank you very much, Famine, for making me do this. But that's probably what you just wanted; you achieved your goal to make me feel unwelcome in this thread.

You do not have to post in my threads in the future; if you actually do, put aside past conflicts and think straight, and don't prejudice. I will do what I mentioned above to your threads in the future.

Don't take this as I lost - I can keep backing my argument. I need some peace and quiet, and some break from all these arguments.

 

[Famine]

Again you accuse me of insulting people. Find them. You keep saying I'm insulting you but I cannot find any instances of me insulting you, only several instances of you insulting me.

You're doing a rotten job of ignoring me, by the way.

And the only person I'm offending is, apparently, you. Three people have addressed the debate - though you see it as an argument, which explains a lot - all of whom have pointed out to you just how fragile your position is and how poor a job you are doing of explaining it. You have yet to back up your position with facts, never mind "keep backing" it.

All I asked of you were simple questions, and you've not addressed a single one of them. I'll restate them for you, in the vain hope you'll try and answer them one day.

• Why is 155mph "safe" in your mind, when it clearly isn't for most cars that can get there and speeds above it are not necessarily unsafe for cars which can exceed it (case in point: Enzo).
• Why would you want to restrict ALL cars to 155mph when there is no benefit to safety from this and it would curtail vehicle development (and civil liberties)?
• Why do you consider 0-62mph in 3.3s to be "excessive"? You've stated this but not actually explained why it is.
• Why is disliking all-over chrome wrong, but disliking lime green right?
• What does disliking all-over chrome have to do with the owner of the car?

As an addendum, you say that "you will not change your views no matter what". Interestingly, I've not expressed ANY views on the pointlessness of supercars, or high speeds or acceleration. I've merely asked you to back up your desire to implement legislation with some reasoning. The only thing I do not understand is your absolute reticence to do this - unless you are aware that you cannot do this.


If my posts in any way offend or upset you, feel free to use the "Report" button in the lower right of the offending post.

You know, Famine, a deep breath and a sigh and does not explain what I think of you.

Does this matter?

All you had to do was say why you want to stunt human invention and trample on civil liberties by restricting every car on Earth to 155mph. What you think of me has no bearing on this.

It would help if you could distinguish "debate" from "argument". Arguments involve an highly aggressive stance, restating points vigourously and insulting your opponent, like you are doing. Debates involve addressing and questioning the issues and reasoning, rather than the people behind them, like I am doing.

You stated a position. It is beholden on you to support that position with fact or logic, if only to yourself. The simple truth that you refuse to even do this speaks volumes for your position - it is based on feeling, not rationality, and you refuse any attempt to question it.

 

[xcsti]

Again, I do not understand how you obtained your Quality Posts title. If I was you, I would never have expected to attain that title, and I would not expect others to add to the reputation. All you are doing around here is offending people by your "simple" questions, making up quotes that they didn't even say, and being reduced to name calling.

His simple questions only offend the easily offended.

Just because you disagree with him does not mean that everyone should. Famine is a respected member, not because he is always right, but because he works to assemble a complete backing before taking a stance.


edit: or in this case trying to stand objectively.

 

[Duke]

pick on everybody that disagrees with him, I meant.

He doesn't pick on people who disagree with him.

He picks on people who can't back up their arguments with clear, logical thinking. So do I. So does danoff, among others. So does anybody worth their keyboard.

So if you don't like getting picked on, then learn how to think your points through rationally and logically.

 

[cardude2004]

It looks bad, they need to shine the poor sucker up!

 

[James2097]

The Lambo looks bad (IMO). If Bill Gates or anyone else owned it, it would still look precisely as bad. How hard is it to understand this point?

Btw, the last few pages were exceptionally entertaining. There were truly some 'quality posts' of the indigo variety.