I really, really enjoy arguing. I don't even need to be right to enjoy it
When you've been wrong about
all but one thing you've stated over the course of the entire thread, I suppose it really
would help to be that positive about your real reason for posting.
Wow. Someone really does have trouble reading, or so it would appear since once again I didn't say anything whatsoever about "having the last word"...do pay attention dear. If you read my actual comment, it is very clear that I said that I didn't care about the specifications of the car
Actually, no. What you said wasn't really "very clear". Let's examine the actual comment:
And it's blatantly obvious that this is true since you spouted back this lengthy and unnecessary comment to someone who clearly couldn't care less, since I didn't even look up the specs the first time.
Since you're giving free grammar lessons you surely know that what that bit at the end of that sentence did was simply add on to the beginning of the sentence which otherwise would be able to standalone as a complete thought (an "independent clause") rather than act as a direct extension of it. As the bit at the end
also would have been able to stand on its own, what you formed was called a "compound sentence." The word "since" and the comma were then being used as the conjunction and punctuation to link the two separate thoughts.
So what your sentence is
actually seems to be saying with the way that you structured it is that you're somebody who couldn't care less about this
conversation I was having with you about the car's real specs, with the addendum to prove how little you cared about the conversation being that to that point you hadn't bothered looking up the specs. On top of that you can add the fact that everything preceding that sentence (and that sentence as well, for that matter) was about how I was acting in the conversation rather than what I was saying, which provides further context that you were discussing the conversation itself rather than the specific contents.
Had you structured the sentence in a way that caused it to be one thought (like "to someone who couldn't care less about a car's specs I didn't even look up" or something similar) it would have been obvious what your intended message was. It certainly
could be interpreted as you are saying it always meant, but it is hardly the ironclad truth you are presenting it as. In any case, if you don't care about discussing the car's specs in a conversation started over a correction about the car's specs... um... well, I'll get to this in a bit.
What a selfish view. Still, can't say I'm surprised since it's coming from the person who takes pride in being a "smart"ass...so far seems like just an ass...
That's one way of trying to twist someone having a positive self-image. Seems to me that you're just annoyed that your attempt to make me feel bad about something you took issue with backfired when I owned up to it completely. The particularly amusing part of this whole reply is that you admitted to the exact same behavior at the start of this post... except you also made it known that you don't even care if you know what you're talking about when you decide to be "just an ass."
...except I haven't edited any of my comments in this conversation, so that point is, well...irrelevant.
Good thing I never said you were, then. This is part of that "sentence structure" thing from above. Being part of the same clause in the sentence merely makes it a second example of how this is a forum that it is harder to claim something other than what your original post stated. I've seen other forums that freely let members edit their posts with no timestamp or record, for example. There was a two week or so period of time where
this forum was like that.
You keep telling yourself that, because as you just pointed out above, everyone can see the wording and attitude of your original comment...
So saying an engine was a "mildly enlarged and supercharged Mustang SVT Cobra engine"...
wasn't a simple correction? In 7 words I said that you were incorrect and what the engine actually was. Should I have provided pictures comparing a 4.6 Modular block to the Koenigsegg block? Spelled things phonetically? The question mark seriously bothered you so much that immediately escalating things beyond the point of hypocrisy was the solution?
Such as? I stated that the CC8S had 655 bhp, which it does.
Yes it does. And if we were going by the "I said one thing about a talking point that was true so I
might as well have been correct" system, you'd be the big winner!
I stated that the Bugatti's record had been stripped, which it had.
Nope. This goes also along with you retroactively claiming what you "really" meant. What
you stated was that the Veyron's record had not been reinstated:
By the time this post was written, Guinness had already restored the Super Sport's record over a year prior.
Umm, nope. The Veyron SS holds no record regardless of the Venom...
This is a consequence of quoting me, saying I was wrong, then repeating the thing I was claiming to be incorrect as a retort to the counter claim I made. Both sentences of your post are important to understand what you were saying, as is the post you quoted to respond to. It's a fundamental constant in how all debates work, not just forum ones. As someone who "really, really enjoy(s) arguing," it's odd that you've never been made aware of that until now.
GranTurismo guy was the one who said that the Veyron no longer held the record as it was stripped over the speed limiter mess. You were the one who was saying that the Veyron no longer held the record because the record had not been
restored. Now, the base concept was similar (the Veyron didn't have the record), but the context of the entire discussion is the important part. He said it regarding the record originally being stripped in response to Hennessey Venom. You said it as a rebuttal to my claim that they got it back ("Umm, nope").
In either case, it wasn't true. It wasn't true when he posted it, though he at least had the justification of not knowing about the restoration of the record. It wasn't true when you objected with no basis to my correction of his post. It hasn't been true since April of last year. It seems that you don't even care to read your own posts as closely as you're claiming needs to be done by others.
And the points that I made about it being naturally aspirated and powered by a NASCAR engine were, to my knowing, correct. Yet you take that and turn it into "making things up"
That's because stating things without any knowledge to whether they are correct
or any care if they are correct is... making things up. As is directly challenging a statement of fact even though the fact in question was so easily researched (
if you type "Veyron record" into Google it is the third result) that you're clearly simply going through the motions of trying to
look authoritative.
The question then becomes this: If you don't care about the specifications of a car you were talking about, and you don't care if some other car that the Hennessey Venom the thread is actually about still holds the world record the Venom was designed to challenge, what exactly do you care about? Certainly not forwarding any
relevant points, since you can't spend 3 seconds to type 2 words into Google before taking issue with something someone is saying. Could it be that... you're just posting to try to get the last word in as your contribution? Or do the "hours/days of annoying, awkward and sarcastic replies" (which, it should be said, are also highly amusing) actually amount to something after a while?
On that topic:
...you're starting to look pretty stupid now to be honest...
It's certainly quite a shame that you've never read the AUP either. I think you'll find your propensity to argue for argument's sake rather than to actually say anything of value will probably allow you to skirt around the AUP even if you are spouting off complete nonsense; since without proof of prior knowledge there's (as I said before) nothing necessarily problematic with being blatantly wrong about things. Even implied insults generally are given the benefit of the doubt.
Being openly abusive, though, doesn't usually lead to a long membership. Food for thought, perhaps; though you increasingly seem like more of a BSE kind of guy instead.
), but there is definitely an element of sarcasm in allot of your little rallies. and that is exactly what started this little argument isn't it?
