If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#31
|
|||
|
|||
I fuhj33r j00r l33t t0k k1dd13 h4x0r
-M1k3 -- A happy kid behind the wheel of a 98 Mustang GT Cold air intake FRPP 3.73 gears Steeda Tri-Ax Shifter Flowmaster 40 Series mufflers (self-installed woohoo) Hi-speed fan switch 255/60R-15 rear tires Subframe connectors Aluminum adjustable clutch quadrant "Hucklebuck" > wrote in message . com... > ok... take a moment... gather some courage... now climb down off your > pedestal. Another ASSumption. y0u 0bv10sly r43lly n33d t0 g3t l41d... > but if you're anything like I picture you, I can understand why it's not > happening. > > What would Jesus do? (for a Klondike Bar) > > Laurie S. wrote: > > "Hucklebuck" > wrote in message > > . com... > > > >>Okay, I'm not going to get into a ****ing contest. I already know I can > >>**** farther. > >>How do I know it was obviously a typo... try this out for me. Open your > >>best most expensive word processing program. Type in there "concours". > >>Now hit the SPELL CHECK button. Tell me what happens. If the guy had > >>half a brain and decided to spell check his web page before he posted it > >>so that a simple mistake like tihs didn't end up in his page, he > >>probably unknowingly correct the word "concours" for "concourse" [sic] > >><-- how do ya like that one > >>Sorry I didn't know what [sic] means, I'm a soldier, I'm paid to kill, > >>not to learn how to write like a journalist. > > > > > > > > ROTFLMAO!!! You rely on Spell Check? One of the most worthless programs > > there is, second only to any grammar checking software. > > > > > > Laurie S. > > Thunder Snake #7 > > > > |
Ads |
#32
|
|||
|
|||
In article > ,
Hucklebuck > wrote: > ok... take a moment... gather some courage... now climb down off your > pedestal. Another ASSumption. y0u 0bv10sly r43lly n33d t0 g3t l41d... > but if you're anything like I picture you, I can understand why it's not > happening. Yo, Bucka****. If you're anything like *I* picture you, masturbating to Soldier of Fortune before you join your boyfriends at Porky's Paintball Park does not make for a bad-ass mercenary. Someone really in that occupation sure wouldn't start bragging about it from the git go, much less spew childish **** at an MCA judge. You're nothing but another meat puppet twister playing with his first Xmas 'puter. > > What would Jesus do? (for a Klondike Bar) He'd jam a stick up your sphinct and twirl your pathetic carcass over a fire, Twinkie. > > Laurie S. wrote: > > "Hucklebuck" > wrote in message > > . com... > > > >>Okay, I'm not going to get into a ****ing contest. I already know I can > >>**** farther. > >>How do I know it was obviously a typo... try this out for me. Open your > >>best most expensive word processing program. Type in there "concours". > >>Now hit the SPELL CHECK button. Tell me what happens. If the guy had > >>half a brain and decided to spell check his web page before he posted it > >>so that a simple mistake like tihs didn't end up in his page, he > >>probably unknowingly correct the word "concours" for "concourse" [sic] > >><-- how do ya like that one > >>Sorry I didn't know what [sic] means, I'm a soldier, I'm paid to kill, > >>not to learn how to write like a journalist. > > > > > > > > ROTFLMAO!!! You rely on Spell Check? One of the most worthless programs > > there is, second only to any grammar checking software. > > > > > > Laurie S. > > Thunder Snake #7 > > > > -- CobraJet Thunder Snake #1 |
#33
|
|||
|
|||
I need to change underwear... that one made me laugh too hard..
-Mike -- A happy kid behind the wheel of a 98 Mustang GT Cold air intake FRPP 3.73 gears Steeda Tri-Ax Shifter Flowmaster 40 Series mufflers (self-installed woohoo) Hi-speed fan switch 255/60R-15 rear tires Subframe connectors Aluminum adjustable clutch quadrant "CobraJet" > wrote in message ... > In article > , > Hucklebuck > wrote: > > > ok... take a moment... gather some courage... now climb down off your > > pedestal. Another ASSumption. y0u 0bv10sly r43lly n33d t0 g3t l41d... > > but if you're anything like I picture you, I can understand why it's not > > happening. > > Yo, Bucka****. If you're anything like *I* picture you, masturbating > to Soldier of Fortune before you join your boyfriends at Porky's > Paintball Park does not make for a bad-ass mercenary. Someone really in > that occupation sure wouldn't start bragging about it from the git go, > much less spew childish **** at an MCA judge. You're nothing but > another meat puppet twister playing with his first Xmas 'puter. > > > > > What would Jesus do? (for a Klondike Bar) > > He'd jam a stick up your sphinct and twirl your pathetic carcass > over a fire, Twinkie. > > > > > Laurie S. wrote: > > > "Hucklebuck" > wrote in message > > > . com... > > > > > >>Okay, I'm not going to get into a ****ing contest. I already know I can > > >>**** farther. > > >>How do I know it was obviously a typo... try this out for me. Open your > > >>best most expensive word processing program. Type in there "concours". > > >>Now hit the SPELL CHECK button. Tell me what happens. If the guy had > > >>half a brain and decided to spell check his web page before he posted it > > >>so that a simple mistake like tihs didn't end up in his page, he > > >>probably unknowingly correct the word "concours" for "concourse" [sic] > > >><-- how do ya like that one > > >>Sorry I didn't know what [sic] means, I'm a soldier, I'm paid to kill, > > >>not to learn how to write like a journalist. > > > > > > > > > > > > ROTFLMAO!!! You rely on Spell Check? One of the most worthless programs > > > there is, second only to any grammar checking software. > > > > > > > > > Laurie S. > > > Thunder Snake #7 > > > > > > > > -- > CobraJet > Thunder Snake #1 |
#34
|
|||
|
|||
|
#35
|
|||
|
|||
>>Dan wrote:
>> >>>"Wound Up" > wrote in message ... >>> >>> >>>>Man oh man... >>>> >>>>It would have creases in the top >>>>And a little dirt on the paint >>>>And my forever ****-eating grin behind its wheel >>>> >>>>(Wipes drool from bottom lip) >>>> >>>>http://www.cars-on-line.com/17262.html >>>> >>>>-- >>>>Wound Up >>>> >>>>1967 Mustang Coupe, restored & modified >>>> >>>>"A pessimist is just a well-informed optimist." - Anonymous >>>> >>>> >>> >>>How about a '69 Mach I R code? >>>http://www.volocars.com/showroom/sho...g/T-Bird&show= >>> >>>Oh, my head. I wish I had the money. If you're ever in the area, this is >>>a great place to visit. Wear a bib. >> >>That's simply gorgeous. What a ride! >> >>Yes, on our next trip to Chicago, I will have to check that place out. >>Baseball games are fine, but there are priorities! >> > > > Volo is just a short ride from my house. I could live there. I don't have a > Mustang anymore but I've had the Jones pretty bad lately. I can't decide if > I want a late 60's Mach I or wait for the '06 Cobra. That would be an easy decision for me, at least... Every now and then I > think about a late '80's - early 90's 5.0 project car. They all have their > plusses and minuses. The '06 SVT Cobra has the advantage of being the > perfect car since it hasn't been built yet. Hmm... I know what you mean, but I would prefer to wait a year or two and see what happens with any new model. Of course, there are things like the R models (like the 95 351R), but even if I were going to drop that on a new Cobra I'd want to see some independent review. The vintage 'stangs to me are > the best looking, prolly cause of my age. But they can't hold a candle to > the new cars performance wise. Again, we differ in opinion here. Performance to me doesn't -just- mean road test numbers. And I'm quite sure an R-code, 4-speed Mach would run that Cobra in the 1/4 quite handily. My carbureted, pushrod small block can edge stock pre-05 GTs. And it wasn't $25,000 with the taxes and the insurance and all that. Much more fun IMO. With the five-speed, I dared 130 once, but it got floaty so I shut it down. Then I did it in the other direction to verify New Mustangs are very watered down in terms of visceral experience. I like the wail of 4 barrels on WOT. I like the ability to fling the ass end out in a cloud of tire smoke when I want to. I don't like tires at $250 each. I like the feel, the smell, the sound, the stance and the presence of my '67. I like to tune it, improve it, and to know it stem-to-stern from having worked on it... it's just my preference, I'm not saying there's a right and wrong. There's a lot to be said for simplicity IMO. The Fox body 5.0's are kinda ugly, but I know > the car inside out, and I regret selling my '88 5.0 LX notchback. I paid > $11,700.00 for it and with a few cheapo mods, it was a lot of bang for the > buck. Decisions, decisions. I'm going to wait until I see the SVT. I figure > word will be out by mid summer. 79-93 Foxes... I like 'em, but not enough to lust for one. I went to Bondurant in 91 and wrung the snot out of them for four days, so I do have an appreciation. And yeah, they were definitely a lot of bang for the buck. I wish there were cars priced and equipped like that now. Unfortunately auto prices have outpaced inflation for far too long now. It's a damned shame. Everything got overbundled and complicated. The 5.0LX was one of the last "basic car with the good engine" models you could get, anywhere. And they do have potential. > So you play baseball or watch? Just watch. Cards fan. Aching to forget last season. Played as a kid, but beer-league softball is all now. > > Dan > > -- Wound Up 1967 Mustang Coupe, restored & modified "A pessimist is just a well-informed optimist." - Anonymous |
#36
|
|||
|
|||
"Wound Up" > wrote in message
... >>>Dan wrote: <snip> >> Volo is just a short ride from my house. I could live there. I don't have >> a Mustang anymore but I've had the Jones pretty bad lately. I can't >> decide if I want a late 60's Mach I or wait for the '06 Cobra. > > That would be an easy decision for me, at least... > > Every now and then I >> think about a late '80's - early 90's 5.0 project car. They all have >> their plusses and minuses. The '06 SVT Cobra has the advantage of being >> the perfect car since it hasn't been built yet. > > Hmm... I know what you mean, but I would prefer to wait a year or two and > see what happens with any new model. Of course, there are things like the > R models (like the 95 351R), but even if I were going to drop that on a > new Cobra I'd want to see some independent review. I remember standing at the dealer with my wife looking at the 351R and she's saying let's buy it. We had just sold the '88 and we both missed it. I don't know WTF, I was thinking that day. Actually, I was thinking it was too much money for what you were getting. It looks like a great deal today. > > The vintage 'stangs to me are >> the best looking, prolly cause of my age. But they can't hold a candle to >> the new cars performance wise. > > Again, we differ in opinion here. Performance to me doesn't -just- mean > road test numbers. And I'm quite sure an R-code, 4-speed Mach would run > that Cobra in the 1/4 quite handily. My carbureted, pushrod small block > can edge stock pre-05 GTs. And it wasn't $25,000 with the taxes and the > insurance and all that. Much more fun IMO. With the five-speed, I dared > 130 once, but it got floaty so I shut it down. Then I did it in the other > direction to verify New Mustangs are very watered down in terms of > visceral experience. I like the wail of 4 barrels on WOT. I like the > ability to fling the ass end out in a cloud of tire smoke when I want to. > I don't like tires at $250 each. I like the feel, the smell, the sound, > the stance and the presence of my '67. I like to tune it, improve it, and > to know it stem-to-stern from having worked on it... it's just my > preference, I'm not saying there's a right and wrong. There's a lot to be > said for simplicity IMO. No doubt. And there's no substitute for a big block. But, the old cars don't handle like a new one. But the new ones don't bring back any memories. Every time I see a '67 Fastback, I think about a buddy of mine that got killed on a bike. We spent a fair amount of time wrenching on that '67 in his driveway, and he loved that car. I came really close to buying a 69 R code at Volo. It wasn't all original, had some performance mods, numbers didn't match, and had a few small cosmetic issues, so in other words, I could afford it. I thought about it for a couple of days and it was gone. That's the other advantage of new I suppose, you can get what you want. > > The Fox body 5.0's are kinda ugly, but I know >> the car inside out, and I regret selling my '88 5.0 LX notchback. I paid >> $11,700.00 for it and with a few cheapo mods, it was a lot of bang for >> the buck. Decisions, decisions. I'm going to wait until I see the SVT. I >> figure word will be out by mid summer. > > 79-93 Foxes... I like 'em, but not enough to lust for one. I went to > Bondurant in 91 and wrung the snot out of them for four days, so I do have > an appreciation. And yeah, they were definitely a lot of bang for the > buck. I wish there were cars priced and equipped like that now. > Unfortunately auto prices have outpaced inflation for far too long now. > It's a damned shame. Everything got overbundled and complicated. The > 5.0LX was one of the last "basic car with the good engine" models you > could get, anywhere. And they do have potential. I agree. Who ever would have thought that a $25,000.00 car would be considered "bang for the buck". Plus all of this extra stuff adds weight. > >> So you play baseball or watch? > > Just watch. Cards fan. Aching to forget last season. Played as a kid, > but beer-league softball is all now. I'm originally from out east. I'm a Yankee fan and the wife is a Red Sox fan. You don't know nothing about aching to forget last season. Payback is a bitch. Dan |
#37
|
|||
|
|||
"Dan" > wrote in :
> "Wound Up" > wrote in message > ... >> Man oh man... >> >> It would have creases in the top >> And a little dirt on the paint >> And my forever ****-eating grin behind its wheel >> >> (Wipes drool from bottom lip) >> >> http://www.cars-on-line.com/17262.html >> >> -- >> Wound Up >> >> 1967 Mustang Coupe, restored & modified >> >> "A pessimist is just a well-informed optimist." - Anonymous >> >> > > How about a '69 Mach I R code? > http://www.volocars.com/showroom/sho...nhs=0&make=mus > tang/T-Bird&show= > > Oh, my head. I wish I had the money. If you're ever in the area, this > is a great place to visit. Wear a bib. > > Dan > > Oh....drooooool..... Man....my dream car, sitting right there (except for the white interior). |
#38
|
|||
|
|||
>>>>Dan wrote:
>>> > <snip> > >>>Volo is just a short ride from my house. I could live there. I don't have >>>a Mustang anymore but I've had the Jones pretty bad lately. I can't >>>decide if I want a late 60's Mach I or wait for the '06 Cobra. >> >>That would be an easy decision for me, at least... >> >>Every now and then I >> >>>think about a late '80's - early 90's 5.0 project car. They all have >>>their plusses and minuses. The '06 SVT Cobra has the advantage of being >>>the perfect car since it hasn't been built yet. >> >>Hmm... I know what you mean, but I would prefer to wait a year or two and >>see what happens with any new model. Of course, there are things like the >>R models (like the 95 351R), but even if I were going to drop that on a >>new Cobra I'd want to see some independent review. > > > I remember standing at the dealer with my wife looking at the 351R and she's > saying let's buy it. We had just sold the '88 and we both missed it. I don't > know WTF, I was thinking that day. Actually, I was thinking it was too much > money for what you were getting. It looks like a great deal today. > Ooh... well, you can still find one!! > >>The vintage 'stangs to me are >> >>>the best looking, prolly cause of my age. But they can't hold a candle to >>>the new cars performance wise. >> >>Again, we differ in opinion here. Performance to me doesn't -just- mean >>road test numbers. And I'm quite sure an R-code, 4-speed Mach would run >>that Cobra in the 1/4 quite handily. My carbureted, pushrod small block >>can edge stock pre-05 GTs. And it wasn't $25,000 with the taxes and the >>insurance and all that. Much more fun IMO. With the five-speed, I dared >>130 once, but it got floaty so I shut it down. Then I did it in the other >>direction to verify New Mustangs are very watered down in terms of >>visceral experience. I like the wail of 4 barrels on WOT. I like the >>ability to fling the ass end out in a cloud of tire smoke when I want to. >>I don't like tires at $250 each. I like the feel, the smell, the sound, >>the stance and the presence of my '67. I like to tune it, improve it, and >>to know it stem-to-stern from having worked on it... it's just my >>preference, I'm not saying there's a right and wrong. There's a lot to be >>said for simplicity IMO. > > > No doubt. And there's no substitute for a big block. But, the old cars don't > handle like a new one. Without a doubt. You can fling a new one around very irresponsibly compared to the deliberate, skilled hands needed to muscle around an early one. I enjoy that, because you're more involved with the driving it seems. Driving them is an event anyway. But the old front ends were crap, let's just be honest about it. Structural integrity of the cars is questionable in several places, they bump-steer horribly, and have other bad manners as well. I have taken mine tear-assing down a twisty rural highway I know well, with the leaves gone, so I could see through corners, and yeah it would -do- what I wanted, but it was work. It gave me a shot of adrenalyine a couple times with its skittishness. The smoking, uphill, 3rd-gear back-and-forth was fun, but you'd better set up correctly, and dare not think of lifting the gas while leaning on it. I got a reminder of that with a not-so-fun slide. Better not overcorrect, either. Here I am, physically wrestling this car along, and meanwhile, bro-in-law is one-handing is ahead of me in his SS Camaro (sorry, that sounded bad). Manual steering is both better and worse in the old ones. But the new ones don't bring back any memories. Every > time I see a '67 Fastback, I think about a buddy of mine that got killed on > a bike. We spent a fair amount of time wrenching on that '67 in his > driveway, and he loved that car. I came really close to buying a 69 R code > at Volo. It wasn't all original, had some performance mods, numbers didn't > match, and had a few small cosmetic issues, so in other words, I could > afford it. I thought about it for a couple of days and it was gone. That's > the other advantage of new I suppose, you can get what you want. True... and sometimes I do long for the turn-key EFI easiness. I know I'd get bored with it. Wish I could have both. Hell, I'd have one of each era (except 74-78) if I had enough $$ > >>The Fox body 5.0's are kinda ugly, but I know >> >>>the car inside out, and I regret selling my '88 5.0 LX notchback. I paid >>>$11,700.00 for it and with a few cheapo mods, it was a lot of bang for >>>the buck. Decisions, decisions. I'm going to wait until I see the SVT. I >>>figure word will be out by mid summer. >> >>79-93 Foxes... I like 'em, but not enough to lust for one. I went to >>Bondurant in 91 and wrung the snot out of them for four days, so I do have >>an appreciation. And yeah, they were definitely a lot of bang for the >>buck. I wish there were cars priced and equipped like that now. >>Unfortunately auto prices have outpaced inflation for far too long now. >>It's a damned shame. Everything got overbundled and complicated. The >>5.0LX was one of the last "basic car with the good engine" models you >>could get, anywhere. And they do have potential. > > I agree. Who ever would have thought that a $25,000.00 car would be > considered "bang for the buck". Plus all of this extra stuff adds weight. Marketing guys in Dearborn, I imagine. >>>So you play baseball or watch? >> >>Just watch. Cards fan. Aching to forget last season. Played as a kid, >>but beer-league softball is all now. > > > I'm originally from out east. I'm a Yankee fan and the wife is a Red Sox > fan. You don't know nothing about aching to forget last season. Payback is a > bitch. True enough. I have no idea. I'm an expatriated tri-state-area guy, formerly a Yanks fan. Dissing the Sox is sort of automatic to me. I wish they hadn't lured Renteria away. And the Yanks got Womack. The Sox had to win sometime, just WHY against the Cards, in our best season in years and years? RUN, SUPPAN, RUN!!! Dammit. J > Dan > > |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Trailer Tow Prep Package for Grand Caravan? | Jeff Wieland | Chrysler | 6 | January 18th 05 07:07 PM |
Who made my 1947 utility trailer? | Lee Ayrton | Jeep | 1 | January 2nd 05 08:09 PM |
Who made my 1947 utility trailer? | Lee Ayrton | Antique cars | 0 | December 28th 04 05:57 PM |
found Jeep Trailer CND M101 1/4 ton | hrncir | Jeep | 0 | December 1st 04 07:20 PM |