HEMI's HOT

James C. Reeves wrote:

> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
> ...
>
>>James C. Reeves wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>May I suggest that you misintrepreted. I probably wouldn't (but don't
>>>really know) have any problem with driving the 300C. I only referenced
>>>people of "average" driving skills (about 50% or more of the people on
>>>the road...and that is being generious!) will likely have at least some
>>>level of difficulty with control. I thought I was clear in that,
>>>hopefully this is further clarification.
>>>
>>
>>you may be right there...
>>
>>
>>>Now, I believe it's irresponsible to market overly powerful (0-60 in
>>>under 5 second) cars to the "average" market. It is clearly a car whose
>>>performance specification should be left for those drivers that can truly
>>>handle it.
>>>
>>
>>And how, exactly, is that going to be determined?
>
>
> A good restatement of my point. Even most average drivers don't usually
> know their personal driving skill limitations, until it's too late (spun out
> on a wet curve on a back road). Marketing these cars to the average driver
> is irresponsible (in my view). Most other performance car makers tend to
> target the appropriate segments better.
>
> Average drivers are used to driving FWD average powered cars with
> understeer. Give them a RWD drive performance car with relative oversteer
> and they WILL hit the accellerator that first time on a wet curve on a back
> country road and they will be in a field of cows (hopefully caws and not one
> of us) before they can finish soiling their pants. Well, we will know in a
> couple of years when insurance loss data is available if my prediction turns
> out to be correct.
>
>
>>I personally think that "overly powerful" cars being readily available is
>>a Good Thing.
>
>
> Marketed correctly, no problem here. We all know I've owned performance
> cars at times and like them generally for the right people. So no
> arguement.
>
>
>>It would be even better if they were dirt cheap, but whaddaya gonna do
>
>
> Well, the new Mustang isn't too expensive and I would think that it might
> even satisify Chris' taste (I could be wrong) in performance.
>

See, I don't think it's as much of a problem as you'd think. (warning!
warning! rectal statistics ahead!) Look at the Corvette - the vast
majority of those cars are purchased by non-enthusiasts - look at the
percentage of 'vettes sold with an automatic vs. stickshift if you don't
believe me (that's NOT a rectal number. Last I checked it was something
like 70%.) And yet it doesn't seem that there's any significant number
of 'vette owners offing themselves due to overexuberance behind the
wheel - quite the opposite; even though the car might be generally
mild-mannered, a lot of 'vette drivers seem to drive like my
grandmother, as if their car were a Viper or something that was likely
to engulf them in a terrifying wreck culminating in a horrible fireball
if they looked at it funny.

Not that that's a *bad* thing, mind you. I don't mind if people are
overly conservative with their vehicles, especially when they're sharing
the road with me.

nate

--
replace "fly" with "com" to reply.
http://home.comcast.net/~njnagel

C.H. wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:55:40 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:
>
> > P.S. Notice how C.H. always gets completely away from the subject
of
> > driving and cars, and delves deeply into his inability to
communicate
> > effectively with others. Sort of sad, in a way. A funny, in a
> > slapstick sort of way...
>
> Of course, being the so experienced usenetter that you are, you know
that
> badmouthing someone out of context is among the 7 deadly usenet sins.

Out of context? You are hardly talking about cars or driving, and much
more about personality. That's just cold fact. It's not badmouthing,
it's called "observation."

Tops on the list of usenet sins is engaging in off-topic banter.
Remove the log from your own eye, Brother...

Regards,

E.P.

C.H. wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:55:40 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:
>
> > P.S. Notice how C.H. always gets completely away from the subject
of
> > driving and cars, and delves deeply into his inability to
communicate
> > effectively with others. Sort of sad, in a way. A funny, in a
> > slapstick sort of way...
>
> Of course, being the so experienced usenetter that you are, you know
that
> badmouthing someone out of context is among the 7 deadly usenet sins.

Out of context? You are hardly talking about cars or driving, and much
more about personality. That's just cold fact. It's not badmouthing,
it's called "observation."

Tops on the list of usenet sins is engaging in off-topic banter.
Remove the log from your own eye, Brother...

Regards,

E.P.

C.H. wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:51:36 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:
>
> > Which readers, besides yourself, do you presume to represent?
>
> Some of my friends, for example.

Who would they be? Until you can provide some sort of evidence that
you actually speak for anyone but yourself, I am going to have to
assume your use of the plural was merely self-importance.

> >
> > It was a salutation of kindness.
>
> If you say so. I still pass on that.

It's no less sad.

> > I suppose that if you interact with people in real life as you do
here,
> > you don't hear too many polite salutations.
>
> I interact with people in real life the way they interact with me.

Exactly. Face to face, you have to be polite and respectful, otherwise
you'll end up with no one to talk to. On usenet, there are always
folks to talk to, no matter how rude you are.

I am 100% sure that when you disagree with someone's opinion in real
life, no matter *how* vehemently they state it, you are polite and
respectful (overtly.) In usenet you don't have to obey that social
convention, so you don't. None of your bluster and hogwash about being
the same here as there flies with me, because I simply don't believe
it.

You are rude in usenet because you can get away with it, and that's all
there is to it.

HAND,

E.P.

C.H. wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 19:51:36 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:
>
> > Which readers, besides yourself, do you presume to represent?
>
> Some of my friends, for example.

Who would they be? Until you can provide some sort of evidence that
you actually speak for anyone but yourself, I am going to have to
assume your use of the plural was merely self-importance.

> >
> > It was a salutation of kindness.
>
> If you say so. I still pass on that.

It's no less sad.

> > I suppose that if you interact with people in real life as you do
here,
> > you don't hear too many polite salutations.
>
> I interact with people in real life the way they interact with me.

Exactly. Face to face, you have to be polite and respectful, otherwise
you'll end up with no one to talk to. On usenet, there are always
folks to talk to, no matter how rude you are.

I am 100% sure that when you disagree with someone's opinion in real
life, no matter *how* vehemently they state it, you are polite and
respectful (overtly.) In usenet you don't have to obey that social
convention, so you don't. None of your bluster and hogwash about being
the same here as there flies with me, because I simply don't believe
it.

You are rude in usenet because you can get away with it, and that's all
there is to it.

HAND,

E.P.

C.H. wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 21:38:34 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:
>
> >
> > C.H. wrote:
>
> >> > I really don't think they are. After all, I have read (and
> >> > understood) what you have written.
> >>
> >> Fortunately what you think is not relevant to what I think.
> >
> > What does that have to do with anything?
>
> You said you don't think your speculations are wrong, but as I said,
> fortunately what you think have no real life relevance to me.

>From your volume of posting toward me, I think we can just dismiss that
as "wishful thinking on your part."

> >> There is no adequate number of hp. A 100hp Caterham S7
outaccelerates
> >> a 200hp Chrysler Sebring with ease due to less weight and a
shorter
> >> transmission plus less drivetrain loss.
> >
> > Ahh, now we can see that maybe you were just disagreeing to be
> > disagreeable. Progress...
>
> No, I was disagreeing because you wrote total nonsense. Judging a car
by
> how many hp it has is like judging it by its color.

Indeed. In fact 100HP might be sufficient. But only if the vehicle is
red.

(That's a little color joke - don't get mad.)

> >> If you think you can draw a line somewhere and point to that and
say
> >> 'this is inadequate' you are sadly mistaken.
> >
> > Actually, I think I've been pointing out the differing levels of
> > "adequate." But if you wish to pretend otherwise, fine by me.
>
> We are not talking about different levels of adequate (like James did
with
> his '0-60 in xx seconds = adequate' ... did). The power of an engine
> simply is not even close to sufficient to determine a car's
qualities, and
> I think even you should know that.

I do know that, and my first post in this thread (to James,) pointed
out differing levels of adequate. So maybe *you* aren't talking about
that (instead engaging in personality discussions,) but I was.

> >> Again you miss the point. I was not referring to the words
dangerous
> >> and unsafe but to your omission of the 'a 4500lb car' from my
> >> statement. A Caterham Superlight R400 is extremely fast with less
> >> than 200hp, but a Ford 3500 with a 200hp engine would be slow as
> >> molasses.
> >
> > But not necessarily unsafe, or dangerous.
>
> In a quite a few situations it is both.

Name ten such situations. Make sure they occuring everyday driving,
because that's the constraint James put out. "Quite a few" should give
you, well, quite a few to pick from.

I'll start: the sloth on-ramper who feels the need to stop at the end.
In my years of driving in the I5 corridor, I have never once had a
problem getting away from these folks. Even in my 75HP Scirocco.

> > My 4000lb/174HP Audi does things just fine. It's no racer, but no
> > traffic has ever been held up by it's lack of "adequate"
acceleration.
>
> Last time your Audi had 265hp, you definitely need a better cover
story.

For a person who wails incessantly about reading comprehension, you
have some suspect skill. Re-read what I have previously written, and
you might understand...

BTW, since you are such a mannerly person, then you won't mind
apologizing for your "cover story" quip when you find the error you've
made. Somehow, I think you'll avoid even admitting you were mistaken -
you seem like that sort of fellow.

> > 200/4500 is a slightly better power/weight ratio, if I calculate
> > correctly.
>
> It still is not adequate in some situations.

Sure. Drag racing, road racing, dragging a 10k-pound trailer across
the Rockies, etc, etc.

For everyday driving, commuting, around-town, on the highway, on rural
roads, it's plenty good enough.

Since the car was used in Germany with even more anemic engine choices,
and used on the Autobahn, I will have to assume the German engineers
had some idea of what they were doing.

> >> No, like pretending I said any 200hp car is underpowered, which is

> >> either a lie (if you did read my postings properly and
intentionally
> >> stated the untruth) or a result of sloppy reading on your part.
> >
> > Except I never said anything of the kind. Are you sure you
understand
> > the difference between "fact" and "fiction?"
>
> Yes, I do, but apparently you have a little problem with this
difference.

Then you will have no problem finding where I claimed you wrote
"underpowered."

> > If you can quote where I said you claimed "any" 200HP car is
> > underpowered, please do so.
>
> From . com>, written
by
> you: "After all, you have said that anything under 200HP is unsafe."

Well, there it is! Of course, it doesn't actually say "underpowered."

Relish that feeling of triumph for having caught me not remembering
exactly what I wrote.

> >> My statement referred to your assertion that a Hemi would be
overkill
> >> for your driving situations, not to your statement that you find
165hp
> >> adequate.
> >
> > How do you separate the two? 165 < 400. 165 is adequate. 2.5
times
> > that is overkill for the kind of driving I do. Not "maybe", not
"maybe
> > not."
>
> No, you _claim_ it is overkill

For my driving, it _is_. Period. I don't claim it, I know it. BTDT.
I know better than you, because I live it. It is my reality, and no
amount of specualtion on your part will change that. The implication
of your writing is that you think that you know better than I do what
is best for my situation. That's takes a lot of guts.

> you have proven several times that you have big problems in gauging
car
> performance and performance requirements.

Your opinion is not proof of anything. Why are you trying to force
your opinion on me?

> >> > Did you have trouble reading what I wrote?
> >>
> >> No, I merely referred to the sentence preceding my statement
instead
> >> of (like you seem to think) a sentence farther up. I merely quoted
the
> >> other sentence to retain the context.
> >
> > Since they are not independent, taking one without the other
ignores
> > context.
>
> Of course they are independent.

It only suits your argument to make that claim. Since I wrote it, and
I know what I meant when I wrote it, interpretive claims on your part
is just plain peevish argumentation.

> >> > I'm sure you'll be able to point out any lies that I've written.
> >>
> >> One lie was your claim that I supposedly said a 200hp car is
> > underpowered,
> >
> > Except that I never claimed you said that...
>
> See the quote above.

The word "underpowered" appears nowhere. See the quote above for
definitive proof. Is that feeling of triumph dissapating a bit?

Keep in mind, however, that I still own using the word "anything", so
you can still feel smug and superior. See, now you feel so much
better!

> >> another is your claim that I said that you do not find 165hp
adequate.
> >> Do you need more?
> >
> > ...and I never claimed that, either.
>
> Correction: You claimed that I said that 'maybe or maybe not you
think
> your 165hp are adequate'.

I actually didn't claim *that*, either. Fact stands diecrtly in the
way of your attempts at fiction...

No, hold on to that "anything" - it's all you have. Cherish it.

> > Maybe you don't quite understand the text to which you are
replying.
> > That would explain a great deal.
>
> Oh, our oh-so-polite-and-civil chemist becomes agressive again :-)

In comparison to what you're shovelling, that's downright Milquetoast!

Look up the word "Maybe" in context - it's a qualifier.

> >> > I'll be glad to be shown exactly where I deliberately misled
anyone,
> >> > with anything I've written.
> >>
> >> Done.
> >
> > Not really. Your so-called quotes really weren't. They were, at
best,
> > very liberal interpretations of what you think I meant.
>
> As proven above, your claim, that I said '200hp are underpowered' was

> wrong, and see above for your whining about the 165hp quote.

Even if you were 100% correct about your interpretations, your quotes
(obviously not,) and your surmises about my intent, you'd still be a
long way from finding deliberate misleads. But hey, this isn't the
first time you've gotten into one of these kinds of discussions. You
have a long history of name-calling, mischaracterization, misquoting,
and general other usenet unpleasantness. A history of which I'm sure
you're very proud. I'll bet you can't wait to show off what a tough
usenet customer you are to all your friends and relatives.

> > Of course, upon rational examination, anyone can see that your
> > interpretations are specious.
>
> You mean 'true', not 'specious'.

I wrote what I meant.

> > Just because you pretend that I don't "see" what you are saying
doesn't
> > actually mean much in reality. You didn't make a connection, you
just
> > made an insult. If you can make a connection, then go right ahead,
and
> > I'll forgive your insult.
>
> That you don't see the connection is your problem, not mine.

No, the real problem is that there is actually no connection. You
attempt to fabricate one because your argument doesn't hold any water.


> >> > Again, go ahead and point them out.
> >>
> >> See above.
> >
> > As I have shown (with alarming ease), I have not lied at all.
>
> You mean you have claimed, that you haven't lied.

Again, your opinion is not proof. I haven't lied, but I did use the
word "anything."

> See above for proof that
> you have, including message ID.

If that's the sum of your proof, I'd say your case was non-existent.

> > Whether or not you consider my writing untruthful is of small
import.
>
> Do you really think your assertions, inventions, lies and pantasies
have
> any meaning in real life?

All of those things, imagined or not, obviously have a great deal of
meaning for you. I wouldn't call that "real life," since your version
of things is somewhat fantastic. Sort of a weird place where
everything revolves around whatever volatile emotion you are feeling at
any given time.

> > I would have to conclude that you are
> > properly repectful to those whom you face in person.
>
> You have a very skewed idea of what reality is and thus you _think_
your
> diatribes are 'kind' and 'well mannered' and 'nice' and my reactions
to
> the nonsense you post are 'uncivil' and 'ill mannered' just because
in
> your mind it can't be that you are at fault.

I don't think I've used any of those words to describe my writing.
"Polite", but with qualifiers attached.

Well, when so many other people have the same reaction to your usenet
postings, I have to assume that I am somewhat rational in my reaction.
Like I said, the whole world is crazy, and you're the sane one.

> > But in usenet, you can be any kind of person you want to be, and
you
> > choose to be ill-mannered and disagreeable. Simple logic.
>
> I chose unlike you to be truthful but I don't put up with unfiltered
> nonsense like the one you like to post, just as I don't put up with
> unfiltered nonsense in RL.

Like claiming I wrote something that I did not? If that's what passes
for truthful in your world, then we absolutely will never be able to
communicate.

> >> If you think I am scared of you, you are mistaken.
> >
> > Why would I think that?
>
> Because you assert that I would be nicer to you in RL because 'I
would
> have to fear retaliation'. Well, I don't fear retaliation, neither
here
> nor in RL, so you are mistaken.

Of course you do. "Retaliation" is not only physical confrontation,
but also reduction in social contacts. Nobody invites rude, arrogant
people to parties, over to dinner, to movies, to play golf, cards,
watch TV, etc.

That's why one chews with their mouth closed, doesn't pass gas at the
table, and in general acts kindly in almost all situations.

> > I have been quite civil,
>
> No, you have been quite rude, agressive and downright insulting and
that
> in each and every one of your postings.

Your opinion is hardly an objective measure.

> > if not always completely polite (although, mostly I'm polite as
well.)
> > Why would anyone take offense?
>
> Because your idea of what 'civil' and 'polite' is obviously is
completely
> off the track and even different for what you do and what I do. If I
> posted exactly what you post you would be wailing even louder than
you
> already are, because you would all of sudden see, how rude your
comments
> really are.

The finest example of projection I have ever encountered. Bravo.

> > Anyway, as I have said, when one hides behind the security of a
CRT, one
> > need not fear any reprisal. You are proof of that.
>
> I don't fear reprisal, neither in RL nor here. Why should I? What
would
> you do? Key my car in the middle of the night like a good little
coward or
> boldly swing your fists and snarl at me that you would push my teeth
in?

Worse. I would ignore you. Arrogant, ill-mannered folks are a trial
in everyones' life. But that'll never come to pass, becasue in person,
you would be polite, even in the face of a different opinion.

> You are an amusing little man, do you know that?

A phrase you would never say anything like to anyone in real life.
QED.

> >> You may assume that I know how to take care of myself, even though
I
> >> dislike violence.
> >
> > False bravado does not impress me in the least. Plenty of folks
with
> > usenet courage dislike violence.
>
> I could tell you the reason why I dislike violence but the way you
are
> behaving you don't deserve an explanation.

Oh, you've used that line before on other posters. It's still a good
one.

"I can't make up anything plausible right now, so I'll do something
else."

Usenet courage makes everyone into a Marine.

> > After all, they would come out on the losing end if it ever came to
> > real-life interaction.
>
> I know a whole bunch of people from Usenet and several other online
> communities in real life.

I'm sure you do. And they'll be willing to come into r.a.d. and tell
everyone that you are exactly the same in real life as in r.a.d.

OK, go ahead, I'd love to hear about that.

> > From your tone, I'm guessing you are relatively young, unmarried,
and
> > have no children.
>
> I leave you quite some leeway but you are not entitled to receive any
> information about my family.

If you had one, then there'd be some information to give. Can't give
information about a wife and children that don't exist in objective
reality, right?

Have a great day,

E.P.

C.H. wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 21:38:34 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:
>
> >
> > C.H. wrote:
>
> >> > I really don't think they are. After all, I have read (and
> >> > understood) what you have written.
> >>
> >> Fortunately what you think is not relevant to what I think.
> >
> > What does that have to do with anything?
>
> You said you don't think your speculations are wrong, but as I said,
> fortunately what you think have no real life relevance to me.

>From your volume of posting toward me, I think we can just dismiss that
as "wishful thinking on your part."

> >> There is no adequate number of hp. A 100hp Caterham S7
outaccelerates
> >> a 200hp Chrysler Sebring with ease due to less weight and a
shorter
> >> transmission plus less drivetrain loss.
> >
> > Ahh, now we can see that maybe you were just disagreeing to be
> > disagreeable. Progress...
>
> No, I was disagreeing because you wrote total nonsense. Judging a car
by
> how many hp it has is like judging it by its color.

Indeed. In fact 100HP might be sufficient. But only if the vehicle is
red.

(That's a little color joke - don't get mad.)

> >> If you think you can draw a line somewhere and point to that and
say
> >> 'this is inadequate' you are sadly mistaken.
> >
> > Actually, I think I've been pointing out the differing levels of
> > "adequate." But if you wish to pretend otherwise, fine by me.
>
> We are not talking about different levels of adequate (like James did
with
> his '0-60 in xx seconds = adequate' ... did). The power of an engine
> simply is not even close to sufficient to determine a car's
qualities, and
> I think even you should know that.

I do know that, and my first post in this thread (to James,) pointed
out differing levels of adequate. So maybe *you* aren't talking about
that (instead engaging in personality discussions,) but I was.

> >> Again you miss the point. I was not referring to the words
dangerous
> >> and unsafe but to your omission of the 'a 4500lb car' from my
> >> statement. A Caterham Superlight R400 is extremely fast with less
> >> than 200hp, but a Ford 3500 with a 200hp engine would be slow as
> >> molasses.
> >
> > But not necessarily unsafe, or dangerous.
>
> In a quite a few situations it is both.

Name ten such situations. Make sure they occuring everyday driving,
because that's the constraint James put out. "Quite a few" should give
you, well, quite a few to pick from.

I'll start: the sloth on-ramper who feels the need to stop at the end.
In my years of driving in the I5 corridor, I have never once had a
problem getting away from these folks. Even in my 75HP Scirocco.

> > My 4000lb/174HP Audi does things just fine. It's no racer, but no
> > traffic has ever been held up by it's lack of "adequate"
acceleration.
>
> Last time your Audi had 265hp, you definitely need a better cover
story.

For a person who wails incessantly about reading comprehension, you
have some suspect skill. Re-read what I have previously written, and
you might understand...

BTW, since you are such a mannerly person, then you won't mind
apologizing for your "cover story" quip when you find the error you've
made. Somehow, I think you'll avoid even admitting you were mistaken -
you seem like that sort of fellow.

> > 200/4500 is a slightly better power/weight ratio, if I calculate
> > correctly.
>
> It still is not adequate in some situations.

Sure. Drag racing, road racing, dragging a 10k-pound trailer across
the Rockies, etc, etc.

For everyday driving, commuting, around-town, on the highway, on rural
roads, it's plenty good enough.

Since the car was used in Germany with even more anemic engine choices,
and used on the Autobahn, I will have to assume the German engineers
had some idea of what they were doing.

> >> No, like pretending I said any 200hp car is underpowered, which is

> >> either a lie (if you did read my postings properly and
intentionally
> >> stated the untruth) or a result of sloppy reading on your part.
> >
> > Except I never said anything of the kind. Are you sure you
understand
> > the difference between "fact" and "fiction?"
>
> Yes, I do, but apparently you have a little problem with this
difference.

Then you will have no problem finding where I claimed you wrote
"underpowered."

> > If you can quote where I said you claimed "any" 200HP car is
> > underpowered, please do so.
>
> From . com>, written
by
> you: "After all, you have said that anything under 200HP is unsafe."

Well, there it is! Of course, it doesn't actually say "underpowered."

Relish that feeling of triumph for having caught me not remembering
exactly what I wrote.

> >> My statement referred to your assertion that a Hemi would be
overkill
> >> for your driving situations, not to your statement that you find
165hp
> >> adequate.
> >
> > How do you separate the two? 165 < 400. 165 is adequate. 2.5
times
> > that is overkill for the kind of driving I do. Not "maybe", not
"maybe
> > not."
>
> No, you _claim_ it is overkill

For my driving, it _is_. Period. I don't claim it, I know it. BTDT.
I know better than you, because I live it. It is my reality, and no
amount of specualtion on your part will change that. The implication
of your writing is that you think that you know better than I do what
is best for my situation. That's takes a lot of guts.

> you have proven several times that you have big problems in gauging
car
> performance and performance requirements.

Your opinion is not proof of anything. Why are you trying to force
your opinion on me?

> >> > Did you have trouble reading what I wrote?
> >>
> >> No, I merely referred to the sentence preceding my statement
instead
> >> of (like you seem to think) a sentence farther up. I merely quoted
the
> >> other sentence to retain the context.
> >
> > Since they are not independent, taking one without the other
ignores
> > context.
>
> Of course they are independent.

It only suits your argument to make that claim. Since I wrote it, and
I know what I meant when I wrote it, interpretive claims on your part
is just plain peevish argumentation.

> >> > I'm sure you'll be able to point out any lies that I've written.
> >>
> >> One lie was your claim that I supposedly said a 200hp car is
> > underpowered,
> >
> > Except that I never claimed you said that...
>
> See the quote above.

The word "underpowered" appears nowhere. See the quote above for
definitive proof. Is that feeling of triumph dissapating a bit?

Keep in mind, however, that I still own using the word "anything", so
you can still feel smug and superior. See, now you feel so much
better!

> >> another is your claim that I said that you do not find 165hp
adequate.
> >> Do you need more?
> >
> > ...and I never claimed that, either.
>
> Correction: You claimed that I said that 'maybe or maybe not you
think
> your 165hp are adequate'.

I actually didn't claim *that*, either. Fact stands diecrtly in the
way of your attempts at fiction...

No, hold on to that "anything" - it's all you have. Cherish it.

> > Maybe you don't quite understand the text to which you are
replying.
> > That would explain a great deal.
>
> Oh, our oh-so-polite-and-civil chemist becomes agressive again :-)

In comparison to what you're shovelling, that's downright Milquetoast!

Look up the word "Maybe" in context - it's a qualifier.

> >> > I'll be glad to be shown exactly where I deliberately misled
anyone,
> >> > with anything I've written.
> >>
> >> Done.
> >
> > Not really. Your so-called quotes really weren't. They were, at
best,
> > very liberal interpretations of what you think I meant.
>
> As proven above, your claim, that I said '200hp are underpowered' was

> wrong, and see above for your whining about the 165hp quote.

Even if you were 100% correct about your interpretations, your quotes
(obviously not,) and your surmises about my intent, you'd still be a
long way from finding deliberate misleads. But hey, this isn't the
first time you've gotten into one of these kinds of discussions. You
have a long history of name-calling, mischaracterization, misquoting,
and general other usenet unpleasantness. A history of which I'm sure
you're very proud. I'll bet you can't wait to show off what a tough
usenet customer you are to all your friends and relatives.

> > Of course, upon rational examination, anyone can see that your
> > interpretations are specious.
>
> You mean 'true', not 'specious'.

I wrote what I meant.

> > Just because you pretend that I don't "see" what you are saying
doesn't
> > actually mean much in reality. You didn't make a connection, you
just
> > made an insult. If you can make a connection, then go right ahead,
and
> > I'll forgive your insult.
>
> That you don't see the connection is your problem, not mine.

No, the real problem is that there is actually no connection. You
attempt to fabricate one because your argument doesn't hold any water.


> >> > Again, go ahead and point them out.
> >>
> >> See above.
> >
> > As I have shown (with alarming ease), I have not lied at all.
>
> You mean you have claimed, that you haven't lied.

Again, your opinion is not proof. I haven't lied, but I did use the
word "anything."

> See above for proof that
> you have, including message ID.

If that's the sum of your proof, I'd say your case was non-existent.

> > Whether or not you consider my writing untruthful is of small
import.
>
> Do you really think your assertions, inventions, lies and pantasies
have
> any meaning in real life?

All of those things, imagined or not, obviously have a great deal of
meaning for you. I wouldn't call that "real life," since your version
of things is somewhat fantastic. Sort of a weird place where
everything revolves around whatever volatile emotion you are feeling at
any given time.

> > I would have to conclude that you are
> > properly repectful to those whom you face in person.
>
> You have a very skewed idea of what reality is and thus you _think_
your
> diatribes are 'kind' and 'well mannered' and 'nice' and my reactions
to
> the nonsense you post are 'uncivil' and 'ill mannered' just because
in
> your mind it can't be that you are at fault.

I don't think I've used any of those words to describe my writing.
"Polite", but with qualifiers attached.

Well, when so many other people have the same reaction to your usenet
postings, I have to assume that I am somewhat rational in my reaction.
Like I said, the whole world is crazy, and you're the sane one.

> > But in usenet, you can be any kind of person you want to be, and
you
> > choose to be ill-mannered and disagreeable. Simple logic.
>
> I chose unlike you to be truthful but I don't put up with unfiltered
> nonsense like the one you like to post, just as I don't put up with
> unfiltered nonsense in RL.

Like claiming I wrote something that I did not? If that's what passes
for truthful in your world, then we absolutely will never be able to
communicate.

> >> If you think I am scared of you, you are mistaken.
> >
> > Why would I think that?
>
> Because you assert that I would be nicer to you in RL because 'I
would
> have to fear retaliation'. Well, I don't fear retaliation, neither
here
> nor in RL, so you are mistaken.

Of course you do. "Retaliation" is not only physical confrontation,
but also reduction in social contacts. Nobody invites rude, arrogant
people to parties, over to dinner, to movies, to play golf, cards,
watch TV, etc.

That's why one chews with their mouth closed, doesn't pass gas at the
table, and in general acts kindly in almost all situations.

> > I have been quite civil,
>
> No, you have been quite rude, agressive and downright insulting and
that
> in each and every one of your postings.

Your opinion is hardly an objective measure.

> > if not always completely polite (although, mostly I'm polite as
well.)
> > Why would anyone take offense?
>
> Because your idea of what 'civil' and 'polite' is obviously is
completely
> off the track and even different for what you do and what I do. If I
> posted exactly what you post you would be wailing even louder than
you
> already are, because you would all of sudden see, how rude your
comments
> really are.

The finest example of projection I have ever encountered. Bravo.

> > Anyway, as I have said, when one hides behind the security of a
CRT, one
> > need not fear any reprisal. You are proof of that.
>
> I don't fear reprisal, neither in RL nor here. Why should I? What
would
> you do? Key my car in the middle of the night like a good little
coward or
> boldly swing your fists and snarl at me that you would push my teeth
in?

Worse. I would ignore you. Arrogant, ill-mannered folks are a trial
in everyones' life. But that'll never come to pass, becasue in person,
you would be polite, even in the face of a different opinion.

> You are an amusing little man, do you know that?

A phrase you would never say anything like to anyone in real life.
QED.

> >> You may assume that I know how to take care of myself, even though
I
> >> dislike violence.
> >
> > False bravado does not impress me in the least. Plenty of folks
with
> > usenet courage dislike violence.
>
> I could tell you the reason why I dislike violence but the way you
are
> behaving you don't deserve an explanation.

Oh, you've used that line before on other posters. It's still a good
one.

"I can't make up anything plausible right now, so I'll do something
else."

Usenet courage makes everyone into a Marine.

> > After all, they would come out on the losing end if it ever came to
> > real-life interaction.
>
> I know a whole bunch of people from Usenet and several other online
> communities in real life.

I'm sure you do. And they'll be willing to come into r.a.d. and tell
everyone that you are exactly the same in real life as in r.a.d.

OK, go ahead, I'd love to hear about that.

> > From your tone, I'm guessing you are relatively young, unmarried,
and
> > have no children.
>
> I leave you quite some leeway but you are not entitled to receive any
> information about my family.

If you had one, then there'd be some information to give. Can't give
information about a wife and children that don't exist in objective
reality, right?

Have a great day,

E.P.

C.H. wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 21:38:34 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:
>
> >
> > C.H. wrote:
>
> >> > I really don't think they are. After all, I have read (and
> >> > understood) what you have written.
> >>
> >> Fortunately what you think is not relevant to what I think.
> >
> > What does that have to do with anything?
>
> You said you don't think your speculations are wrong, but as I said,
> fortunately what you think have no real life relevance to me.

>From your volume of posting toward me, I think we can just dismiss that
as "wishful thinking on your part."

> >> There is no adequate number of hp. A 100hp Caterham S7
outaccelerates
> >> a 200hp Chrysler Sebring with ease due to less weight and a
shorter
> >> transmission plus less drivetrain loss.
> >
> > Ahh, now we can see that maybe you were just disagreeing to be
> > disagreeable. Progress...
>
> No, I was disagreeing because you wrote total nonsense. Judging a car
by
> how many hp it has is like judging it by its color.

Indeed. In fact 100HP might be sufficient. But only if the vehicle is
red.

(That's a little color joke - don't get mad.)

> >> If you think you can draw a line somewhere and point to that and
say
> >> 'this is inadequate' you are sadly mistaken.
> >
> > Actually, I think I've been pointing out the differing levels of
> > "adequate." But if you wish to pretend otherwise, fine by me.
>
> We are not talking about different levels of adequate (like James did
with
> his '0-60 in xx seconds = adequate' ... did). The power of an engine
> simply is not even close to sufficient to determine a car's
qualities, and
> I think even you should know that.

I do know that, and my first post in this thread (to James,) pointed
out differing levels of adequate. So maybe *you* aren't talking about
that (instead engaging in personality discussions,) but I was.

> >> Again you miss the point. I was not referring to the words
dangerous
> >> and unsafe but to your omission of the 'a 4500lb car' from my
> >> statement. A Caterham Superlight R400 is extremely fast with less
> >> than 200hp, but a Ford 3500 with a 200hp engine would be slow as
> >> molasses.
> >
> > But not necessarily unsafe, or dangerous.
>
> In a quite a few situations it is both.

Name ten such situations. Make sure they occuring everyday driving,
because that's the constraint James put out. "Quite a few" should give
you, well, quite a few to pick from.

I'll start: the sloth on-ramper who feels the need to stop at the end.
In my years of driving in the I5 corridor, I have never once had a
problem getting away from these folks. Even in my 75HP Scirocco.

> > My 4000lb/174HP Audi does things just fine. It's no racer, but no
> > traffic has ever been held up by it's lack of "adequate"
acceleration.
>
> Last time your Audi had 265hp, you definitely need a better cover
story.

For a person who wails incessantly about reading comprehension, you
have some suspect skill. Re-read what I have previously written, and
you might understand...

BTW, since you are such a mannerly person, then you won't mind
apologizing for your "cover story" quip when you find the error you've
made. Somehow, I think you'll avoid even admitting you were mistaken -
you seem like that sort of fellow.

> > 200/4500 is a slightly better power/weight ratio, if I calculate
> > correctly.
>
> It still is not adequate in some situations.

Sure. Drag racing, road racing, dragging a 10k-pound trailer across
the Rockies, etc, etc.

For everyday driving, commuting, around-town, on the highway, on rural
roads, it's plenty good enough.

Since the car was used in Germany with even more anemic engine choices,
and used on the Autobahn, I will have to assume the German engineers
had some idea of what they were doing.

> >> No, like pretending I said any 200hp car is underpowered, which is

> >> either a lie (if you did read my postings properly and
intentionally
> >> stated the untruth) or a result of sloppy reading on your part.
> >
> > Except I never said anything of the kind. Are you sure you
understand
> > the difference between "fact" and "fiction?"
>
> Yes, I do, but apparently you have a little problem with this
difference.

Then you will have no problem finding where I claimed you wrote
"underpowered."

> > If you can quote where I said you claimed "any" 200HP car is
> > underpowered, please do so.
>
> From . com>, written
by
> you: "After all, you have said that anything under 200HP is unsafe."

Well, there it is! Of course, it doesn't actually say "underpowered."

Relish that feeling of triumph for having caught me not remembering
exactly what I wrote.

> >> My statement referred to your assertion that a Hemi would be
overkill
> >> for your driving situations, not to your statement that you find
165hp
> >> adequate.
> >
> > How do you separate the two? 165 < 400. 165 is adequate. 2.5
times
> > that is overkill for the kind of driving I do. Not "maybe", not
"maybe
> > not."
>
> No, you _claim_ it is overkill

For my driving, it _is_. Period. I don't claim it, I know it. BTDT.
I know better than you, because I live it. It is my reality, and no
amount of specualtion on your part will change that. The implication
of your writing is that you think that you know better than I do what
is best for my situation. That's takes a lot of guts.

> you have proven several times that you have big problems in gauging
car
> performance and performance requirements.

Your opinion is not proof of anything. Why are you trying to force
your opinion on me?

> >> > Did you have trouble reading what I wrote?
> >>
> >> No, I merely referred to the sentence preceding my statement
instead
> >> of (like you seem to think) a sentence farther up. I merely quoted
the
> >> other sentence to retain the context.
> >
> > Since they are not independent, taking one without the other
ignores
> > context.
>
> Of course they are independent.

It only suits your argument to make that claim. Since I wrote it, and
I know what I meant when I wrote it, interpretive claims on your part
is just plain peevish argumentation.

> >> > I'm sure you'll be able to point out any lies that I've written.
> >>
> >> One lie was your claim that I supposedly said a 200hp car is
> > underpowered,
> >
> > Except that I never claimed you said that...
>
> See the quote above.

The word "underpowered" appears nowhere. See the quote above for
definitive proof. Is that feeling of triumph dissapating a bit?

Keep in mind, however, that I still own using the word "anything", so
you can still feel smug and superior. See, now you feel so much
better!

> >> another is your claim that I said that you do not find 165hp
adequate.
> >> Do you need more?
> >
> > ...and I never claimed that, either.
>
> Correction: You claimed that I said that 'maybe or maybe not you
think
> your 165hp are adequate'.

I actually didn't claim *that*, either. Fact stands diecrtly in the
way of your attempts at fiction...

No, hold on to that "anything" - it's all you have. Cherish it.

> > Maybe you don't quite understand the text to which you are
replying.
> > That would explain a great deal.
>
> Oh, our oh-so-polite-and-civil chemist becomes agressive again :-)

In comparison to what you're shovelling, that's downright Milquetoast!

Look up the word "Maybe" in context - it's a qualifier.

> >> > I'll be glad to be shown exactly where I deliberately misled
anyone,
> >> > with anything I've written.
> >>
> >> Done.
> >
> > Not really. Your so-called quotes really weren't. They were, at
best,
> > very liberal interpretations of what you think I meant.
>
> As proven above, your claim, that I said '200hp are underpowered' was

> wrong, and see above for your whining about the 165hp quote.

Even if you were 100% correct about your interpretations, your quotes
(obviously not,) and your surmises about my intent, you'd still be a
long way from finding deliberate misleads. But hey, this isn't the
first time you've gotten into one of these kinds of discussions. You
have a long history of name-calling, mischaracterization, misquoting,
and general other usenet unpleasantness. A history of which I'm sure
you're very proud. I'll bet you can't wait to show off what a tough
usenet customer you are to all your friends and relatives.

> > Of course, upon rational examination, anyone can see that your
> > interpretations are specious.
>
> You mean 'true', not 'specious'.

I wrote what I meant.

> > Just because you pretend that I don't "see" what you are saying
doesn't
> > actually mean much in reality. You didn't make a connection, you
just
> > made an insult. If you can make a connection, then go right ahead,
and
> > I'll forgive your insult.
>
> That you don't see the connection is your problem, not mine.

No, the real problem is that there is actually no connection. You
attempt to fabricate one because your argument doesn't hold any water.


> >> > Again, go ahead and point them out.
> >>
> >> See above.
> >
> > As I have shown (with alarming ease), I have not lied at all.
>
> You mean you have claimed, that you haven't lied.

Again, your opinion is not proof. I haven't lied, but I did use the
word "anything."

> See above for proof that
> you have, including message ID.

If that's the sum of your proof, I'd say your case was non-existent.

> > Whether or not you consider my writing untruthful is of small
import.
>
> Do you really think your assertions, inventions, lies and pantasies
have
> any meaning in real life?

All of those things, imagined or not, obviously have a great deal of
meaning for you. I wouldn't call that "real life," since your version
of things is somewhat fantastic. Sort of a weird place where
everything revolves around whatever volatile emotion you are feeling at
any given time.

> > I would have to conclude that you are
> > properly repectful to those whom you face in person.
>
> You have a very skewed idea of what reality is and thus you _think_
your
> diatribes are 'kind' and 'well mannered' and 'nice' and my reactions
to
> the nonsense you post are 'uncivil' and 'ill mannered' just because
in
> your mind it can't be that you are at fault.

I don't think I've used any of those words to describe my writing.
"Polite", but with qualifiers attached.

Well, when so many other people have the same reaction to your usenet
postings, I have to assume that I am somewhat rational in my reaction.
Like I said, the whole world is crazy, and you're the sane one.

> > But in usenet, you can be any kind of person you want to be, and
you
> > choose to be ill-mannered and disagreeable. Simple logic.
>
> I chose unlike you to be truthful but I don't put up with unfiltered
> nonsense like the one you like to post, just as I don't put up with
> unfiltered nonsense in RL.

Like claiming I wrote something that I did not? If that's what passes
for truthful in your world, then we absolutely will never be able to
communicate.

> >> If you think I am scared of you, you are mistaken.
> >
> > Why would I think that?
>
> Because you assert that I would be nicer to you in RL because 'I
would
> have to fear retaliation'. Well, I don't fear retaliation, neither
here
> nor in RL, so you are mistaken.

Of course you do. "Retaliation" is not only physical confrontation,
but also reduction in social contacts. Nobody invites rude, arrogant
people to parties, over to dinner, to movies, to play golf, cards,
watch TV, etc.

That's why one chews with their mouth closed, doesn't pass gas at the
table, and in general acts kindly in almost all situations.

> > I have been quite civil,
>
> No, you have been quite rude, agressive and downright insulting and
that
> in each and every one of your postings.

Your opinion is hardly an objective measure.

> > if not always completely polite (although, mostly I'm polite as
well.)
> > Why would anyone take offense?
>
> Because your idea of what 'civil' and 'polite' is obviously is
completely
> off the track and even different for what you do and what I do. If I
> posted exactly what you post you would be wailing even louder than
you
> already are, because you would all of sudden see, how rude your
comments
> really are.

The finest example of projection I have ever encountered. Bravo.

> > Anyway, as I have said, when one hides behind the security of a
CRT, one
> > need not fear any reprisal. You are proof of that.
>
> I don't fear reprisal, neither in RL nor here. Why should I? What
would
> you do? Key my car in the middle of the night like a good little
coward or
> boldly swing your fists and snarl at me that you would push my teeth
in?

Worse. I would ignore you. Arrogant, ill-mannered folks are a trial
in everyones' life. But that'll never come to pass, becasue in person,
you would be polite, even in the face of a different opinion.

> You are an amusing little man, do you know that?

A phrase you would never say anything like to anyone in real life.
QED.

> >> You may assume that I know how to take care of myself, even though
I
> >> dislike violence.
> >
> > False bravado does not impress me in the least. Plenty of folks
with
> > usenet courage dislike violence.
>
> I could tell you the reason why I dislike violence but the way you
are
> behaving you don't deserve an explanation.

Oh, you've used that line before on other posters. It's still a good
one.

"I can't make up anything plausible right now, so I'll do something
else."

Usenet courage makes everyone into a Marine.

> > After all, they would come out on the losing end if it ever came to
> > real-life interaction.
>
> I know a whole bunch of people from Usenet and several other online
> communities in real life.

I'm sure you do. And they'll be willing to come into r.a.d. and tell
everyone that you are exactly the same in real life as in r.a.d.

OK, go ahead, I'd love to hear about that.

> > From your tone, I'm guessing you are relatively young, unmarried,
and
> > have no children.
>
> I leave you quite some leeway but you are not entitled to receive any
> information about my family.

If you had one, then there'd be some information to give. Can't give
information about a wife and children that don't exist in objective
reality, right?

Have a great day,

E.P.

C.H. wrote:
> On Fri, 17 Dec 2004 21:38:34 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:
>
> >
> > C.H. wrote:
>
> >> > I really don't think they are. After all, I have read (and
> >> > understood) what you have written.
> >>
> >> Fortunately what you think is not relevant to what I think.
> >
> > What does that have to do with anything?
>
> You said you don't think your speculations are wrong, but as I said,
> fortunately what you think have no real life relevance to me.

>From your volume of posting toward me, I think we can just dismiss that
as "wishful thinking on your part."

> >> There is no adequate number of hp. A 100hp Caterham S7
outaccelerates
> >> a 200hp Chrysler Sebring with ease due to less weight and a
shorter
> >> transmission plus less drivetrain loss.
> >
> > Ahh, now we can see that maybe you were just disagreeing to be
> > disagreeable. Progress...
>
> No, I was disagreeing because you wrote total nonsense. Judging a car
by
> how many hp it has is like judging it by its color.

Indeed. In fact 100HP might be sufficient. But only if the vehicle is
red.

(That's a little color joke - don't get mad.)

> >> If you think you can draw a line somewhere and point to that and
say
> >> 'this is inadequate' you are sadly mistaken.
> >
> > Actually, I think I've been pointing out the differing levels of
> > "adequate." But if you wish to pretend otherwise, fine by me.
>
> We are not talking about different levels of adequate (like James did
with
> his '0-60 in xx seconds = adequate' ... did). The power of an engine
> simply is not even close to sufficient to determine a car's
qualities, and
> I think even you should know that.

I do know that, and my first post in this thread (to James,) pointed
out differing levels of adequate. So maybe *you* aren't talking about
that (instead engaging in personality discussions,) but I was.

> >> Again you miss the point. I was not referring to the words
dangerous
> >> and unsafe but to your omission of the 'a 4500lb car' from my
> >> statement. A Caterham Superlight R400 is extremely fast with less
> >> than 200hp, but a Ford 3500 with a 200hp engine would be slow as
> >> molasses.
> >
> > But not necessarily unsafe, or dangerous.
>
> In a quite a few situations it is both.

Name ten such situations. Make sure they occuring everyday driving,
because that's the constraint James put out. "Quite a few" should give
you, well, quite a few to pick from.

I'll start: the sloth on-ramper who feels the need to stop at the end.
In my years of driving in the I5 corridor, I have never once had a
problem getting away from these folks. Even in my 75HP Scirocco.

> > My 4000lb/174HP Audi does things just fine. It's no racer, but no
> > traffic has ever been held up by it's lack of "adequate"
acceleration.
>
> Last time your Audi had 265hp, you definitely need a better cover
story.

For a person who wails incessantly about reading comprehension, you
have some suspect skill. Re-read what I have previously written, and
you might understand...

BTW, since you are such a mannerly person, then you won't mind
apologizing for your "cover story" quip when you find the error you've
made. Somehow, I think you'll avoid even admitting you were mistaken -
you seem like that sort of fellow.

> > 200/4500 is a slightly better power/weight ratio, if I calculate
> > correctly.
>
> It still is not adequate in some situations.

Sure. Drag racing, road racing, dragging a 10k-pound trailer across
the Rockies, etc, etc.

For everyday driving, commuting, around-town, on the highway, on rural
roads, it's plenty good enough.

Since the car was used in Germany with even more anemic engine choices,
and used on the Autobahn, I will have to assume the German engineers
had some idea of what they were doing.

> >> No, like pretending I said any 200hp car is underpowered, which is

> >> either a lie (if you did read my postings properly and
intentionally
> >> stated the untruth) or a result of sloppy reading on your part.
> >
> > Except I never said anything of the kind. Are you sure you
understand
> > the difference between "fact" and "fiction?"
>
> Yes, I do, but apparently you have a little problem with this
difference.

Then you will have no problem finding where I claimed you wrote
"underpowered."

> > If you can quote where I said you claimed "any" 200HP car is
> > underpowered, please do so.
>
> From . com>, written
by
> you: "After all, you have said that anything under 200HP is unsafe."

Well, there it is! Of course, it doesn't actually say "underpowered."

Relish that feeling of triumph for having caught me not remembering
exactly what I wrote.

> >> My statement referred to your assertion that a Hemi would be
overkill
> >> for your driving situations, not to your statement that you find
165hp
> >> adequate.
> >
> > How do you separate the two? 165 < 400. 165 is adequate. 2.5
times
> > that is overkill for the kind of driving I do. Not "maybe", not
"maybe
> > not."
>
> No, you _claim_ it is overkill

For my driving, it _is_. Period. I don't claim it, I know it. BTDT.
I know better than you, because I live it. It is my reality, and no
amount of specualtion on your part will change that. The implication
of your writing is that you think that you know better than I do what
is best for my situation. That's takes a lot of guts.

> you have proven several times that you have big problems in gauging
car
> performance and performance requirements.

Your opinion is not proof of anything. Why are you trying to force
your opinion on me?

> >> > Did you have trouble reading what I wrote?
> >>
> >> No, I merely referred to the sentence preceding my statement
instead
> >> of (like you seem to think) a sentence farther up. I merely quoted
the
> >> other sentence to retain the context.
> >
> > Since they are not independent, taking one without the other
ignores
> > context.
>
> Of course they are independent.

It only suits your argument to make that claim. Since I wrote it, and
I know what I meant when I wrote it, interpretive claims on your part
is just plain peevish argumentation.

> >> > I'm sure you'll be able to point out any lies that I've written.
> >>
> >> One lie was your claim that I supposedly said a 200hp car is
> > underpowered,
> >
> > Except that I never claimed you said that...
>
> See the quote above.

The word "underpowered" appears nowhere. See the quote above for
definitive proof. Is that feeling of triumph dissapating a bit?

Keep in mind, however, that I still own using the word "anything", so
you can still feel smug and superior. See, now you feel so much
better!

> >> another is your claim that I said that you do not find 165hp
adequate.
> >> Do you need more?
> >
> > ...and I never claimed that, either.
>
> Correction: You claimed that I said that 'maybe or maybe not you
think
> your 165hp are adequate'.

I actually didn't claim *that*, either. Fact stands diecrtly in the
way of your attempts at fiction...

No, hold on to that "anything" - it's all you have. Cherish it.

> > Maybe you don't quite understand the text to which you are
replying.
> > That would explain a great deal.
>
> Oh, our oh-so-polite-and-civil chemist becomes agressive again :-)

In comparison to what you're shovelling, that's downright Milquetoast!

Look up the word "Maybe" in context - it's a qualifier.

> >> > I'll be glad to be shown exactly where I deliberately misled
anyone,
> >> > with anything I've written.
> >>
> >> Done.
> >
> > Not really. Your so-called quotes really weren't. They were, at
best,
> > very liberal interpretations of what you think I meant.
>
> As proven above, your claim, that I said '200hp are underpowered' was

> wrong, and see above for your whining about the 165hp quote.

Even if you were 100% correct about your interpretations, your quotes
(obviously not,) and your surmises about my intent, you'd still be a
long way from finding deliberate misleads. But hey, this isn't the
first time you've gotten into one of these kinds of discussions. You
have a long history of name-calling, mischaracterization, misquoting,
and general other usenet unpleasantness. A history of which I'm sure
you're very proud. I'll bet you can't wait to show off what a tough
usenet customer you are to all your friends and relatives.

> > Of course, upon rational examination, anyone can see that your
> > interpretations are specious.
>
> You mean 'true', not 'specious'.

I wrote what I meant.

> > Just because you pretend that I don't "see" what you are saying
doesn't
> > actually mean much in reality. You didn't make a connection, you
just
> > made an insult. If you can make a connection, then go right ahead,
and
> > I'll forgive your insult.
>
> That you don't see the connection is your problem, not mine.

No, the real problem is that there is actually no connection. You
attempt to fabricate one because your argument doesn't hold any water.


> >> > Again, go ahead and point them out.
> >>
> >> See above.
> >
> > As I have shown (with alarming ease), I have not lied at all.
>
> You mean you have claimed, that you haven't lied.

Again, your opinion is not proof. I haven't lied, but I did use the
word "anything."

> See above for proof that
> you have, including message ID.

If that's the sum of your proof, I'd say your case was non-existent.

> > Whether or not you consider my writing untruthful is of small
import.
>
> Do you really think your assertions, inventions, lies and pantasies
have
> any meaning in real life?

All of those things, imagined or not, obviously have a great deal of
meaning for you. I wouldn't call that "real life," since your version
of things is somewhat fantastic. Sort of a weird place where
everything revolves around whatever volatile emotion you are feeling at
any given time.

> > I would have to conclude that you are
> > properly repectful to those whom you face in person.
>
> You have a very skewed idea of what reality is and thus you _think_
your
> diatribes are 'kind' and 'well mannered' and 'nice' and my reactions
to
> the nonsense you post are 'uncivil' and 'ill mannered' just because
in
> your mind it can't be that you are at fault.

I don't think I've used any of those words to describe my writing.
"Polite", but with qualifiers attached.

Well, when so many other people have the same reaction to your usenet
postings, I have to assume that I am somewhat rational in my reaction.
Like I said, the whole world is crazy, and you're the sane one.

> > But in usenet, you can be any kind of person you want to be, and
you
> > choose to be ill-mannered and disagreeable. Simple logic.
>
> I chose unlike you to be truthful but I don't put up with unfiltered
> nonsense like the one you like to post, just as I don't put up with
> unfiltered nonsense in RL.

Like claiming I wrote something that I did not? If that's what passes
for truthful in your world, then we absolutely will never be able to
communicate.

> >> If you think I am scared of you, you are mistaken.
> >
> > Why would I think that?
>
> Because you assert that I would be nicer to you in RL because 'I
would
> have to fear retaliation'. Well, I don't fear retaliation, neither
here
> nor in RL, so you are mistaken.

Of course you do. "Retaliation" is not only physical confrontation,
but also reduction in social contacts. Nobody invites rude, arrogant
people to parties, over to dinner, to movies, to play golf, cards,
watch TV, etc.

That's why one chews with their mouth closed, doesn't pass gas at the
table, and in general acts kindly in almost all situations.

> > I have been quite civil,
>
> No, you have been quite rude, agressive and downright insulting and
that
> in each and every one of your postings.

Your opinion is hardly an objective measure.

> > if not always completely polite (although, mostly I'm polite as
well.)
> > Why would anyone take offense?
>
> Because your idea of what 'civil' and 'polite' is obviously is
completely
> off the track and even different for what you do and what I do. If I
> posted exactly what you post you would be wailing even louder than
you
> already are, because you would all of sudden see, how rude your
comments
> really are.

The finest example of projection I have ever encountered. Bravo.

> > Anyway, as I have said, when one hides behind the security of a
CRT, one
> > need not fear any reprisal. You are proof of that.
>
> I don't fear reprisal, neither in RL nor here. Why should I? What
would
> you do? Key my car in the middle of the night like a good little
coward or
> boldly swing your fists and snarl at me that you would push my teeth
in?

Worse. I would ignore you. Arrogant, ill-mannered folks are a trial
in everyones' life. But that'll never come to pass, becasue in person,
you would be polite, even in the face of a different opinion.

> You are an amusing little man, do you know that?

A phrase you would never say anything like to anyone in real life.
QED.

> >> You may assume that I know how to take care of myself, even though
I
> >> dislike violence.
> >
> > False bravado does not impress me in the least. Plenty of folks
with
> > usenet courage dislike violence.
>
> I could tell you the reason why I dislike violence but the way you
are
> behaving you don't deserve an explanation.

Oh, you've used that line before on other posters. It's still a good
one.

"I can't make up anything plausible right now, so I'll do something
else."

Usenet courage makes everyone into a Marine.

> > After all, they would come out on the losing end if it ever came to
> > real-life interaction.
>
> I know a whole bunch of people from Usenet and several other online
> communities in real life.

I'm sure you do. And they'll be willing to come into r.a.d. and tell
everyone that you are exactly the same in real life as in r.a.d.

OK, go ahead, I'd love to hear about that.

> > From your tone, I'm guessing you are relatively young, unmarried,
and
> > have no children.
>
> I leave you quite some leeway but you are not entitled to receive any
> information about my family.

If you had one, then there'd be some information to give. Can't give
information about a wife and children that don't exist in objective
reality, right?

Have a great day,

E.P.

C.H. wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:15:18 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:
>
> [lots of whining and personal attack]

Yup. And then there was the stuff I wrote...

Relax, I knew what you meant. It was what we folks in the real world
call "a joke."

> Initially your helpless whining and your superiority complex were fun
to
> toy with but it becomes a bit repetitive, so I am leaving you to your
own
> devices. If you have to contribute anything to the topic, let me
know.

ROFL. You accusing me of whining and superiority. More classic usenet
flailing.

I guess when you don't have anywhere to go, give up. Congratulations,
you have just learned the First Rule of Holes.

My contributions are in there along with all the silly personality
stuff you felt was necessary to engage in. Dig it out, and reply, if
you mean what you say (which I seriously doubt.)

HAND,

E.P.