wrote:
> Wound Up wrote:
>
> What's going on here, big guy? Did I get myself a Usenet puppy?

No, I found myself a punching bag for a few days.

>
> Anyway, my comment on the origins of the name "Grand Am" series was
> what we call a "joke," subcategory "snide remarks." Annoying, most
> likely yes, but intended to be taken seriously, definitely no.

I don't believe you. I believe it was more meaningless conjecture.
You're a ****ing liar. You were trying to pass off your bull**** as
fact, like usual.

> Sorry if I was off by .6
> ci.

Well, try harder next time.

>
>>>With a 110 cubic inch advantage it would be pretty
>>>embarassing if the Mustangs could not "rocket" past the M3's at the
>>
> top
>
>>>end of a big straightaway.
>>
>>That comparison isn't terribly meaningful, considering nothing else
>
> is
>
>>held equal. Road racing is not antiseptic numerical analysis anyway.
>
>
> So now a 110 ci advantage is not "terribly meaningful."

Your comparison is not terribly meaningful, in that it only compared two
factors in an equation with many more. Who's got the reading
comprehension problem?

Look, moron,
> it was just a throwaway line, OK? The only "antiseptic numerical
> analysis" was the observation that if you have two production-based
> race cars and one has a 56% larger engine than the other, then the guys
> running the big engine car should be embarassed if they were not in the
> lead at the end of a Daytona Speedway straightaway.
>
>
>>Did you read these sections?
>
>
> I'll give you one guess. What do your quotes have to do with what I
> wrote, anyway? You're such a fool.

They further showed that your comparisons based purely on displacement
were meaningless. Try a little harder to keep up.


--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65