View Single Post
      12-21-2007, 01:10 PM   #170
ruff
Conspicuous consumption
 
ruff's Avatar
 
Drives: 987 S .2, Lemond Zurich
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: The mountains of Utah

Posts: 1,184
iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
Keep on posting ruff, it is getting really old. You have nothing new nor convincing to say and that is pretty clear. This Edmunds article is already old news and a repost at that. The performance numbers released by Edmunds don't either particulary confirm nor deny anything about the possible under-rating by Nissan. They only prove that one magazine (with "protocols" that according to Art are a bit sketchy/uncertain) have obtained some amazing performance numbers from the car. The article did get me thinking and doubting myself a bit but that's perfectly OK. DCT helps the car get some good numbers and its advanced traction control system probably contributes to it's phenomenal 0-60 time. The technology evidence goes a bit against the under-rating theory but the times themselves actually continue to support the theory. Come on a trap of 120+ with more weight and more drivetrain loss than the 997TT?

If you think there is no evidence whatsoever for an under-rating you have a complete lack of healthy skepticism. The same is true if you call me completely and certainly wrong (which is seems you are doing, over and over and over...). Since you are a man of such impeccible reason and lack of bias you should clearly have the sense to call it like it is, THE JURY IS STILL OUT. If you feel otherwise post your clear argument with some bloody evidence and time as well will be the judge of your argument. If you are unwilling to do so, I'd politely say simply get the h#$$ off my back. You are not contributing with this style and lack of content. It is just like an annoying little youngster continually poking someone with their finger, while keeping completely silent.

When and if I have to admit I am wrong, no matter when it happens, I will do it in in big bold letters, as its own topic, right here on the forum for all to see. Then you can revel in that as long as you like. PLEASE re-read the Sagan quote about scientists changing their minds. Truth >> ego.

Note my edit above of your selective quotation which takes my ultimate stance completely out of context. Nice....not.
Swamp,
Look at your famous quote below, is this evidence I can read your posts? Oh ya, I forgot, you could car less about other people's so called evidence, unless of course it fits into your M3 fantasy world and bolsters your case. So why should anyone even attempt to show you any facts that counter this fantasy world, when it is crystal clear that your position will never change no matter what the evidence shows?

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
As far as admitting I was wrong I simply won't do it. .
You believing you are never ever wrong and thus the the final say on automotive performance numbers, that in many cases do not even exist yet, is what is really getting old, Swamp. You should take Sagans advice that truth >> than ego because you are clearly it's antithesis:

Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2 View Post
As far as admitting I was wrong I simply won't do it. .
ruff is offline  
0
Reply With Quote