[regular guy]

Originally Posted by nthretourNAFTW

Your post brought nothing more to my brief analysis, neither did it invalidate anything. You started by a calumny attempt (that's classy), followed by taking a wild and completely unrealistic guess of only 1.25% (0.25 * 0.05) out of all occurrences having been reported on this forum.

I notice you like to accuse lots of people of being liars and slanderer's (that's classy). But I've also noticed you never give any examples for anything you say.

Some people, like yourself started with the false assumption that there is 100% M3 owner forum membership. But when you actually dive deeper into the numbers of active members, remove the inactive members, remove the people who have since sold their m3, and remove all E30, E36, E46, and Fxx M3 owners, the actual number of E92 M3 owners is much closer to 5% than your assumption of 100%. As a guy who's been here since 2007 and followed this issue so closely, I'm sure you remember this discussion many months ago.

On your allegation that i was unfairly representing scare tactic exaggerations in this forum. I'll respond to that. Finally you think rather arrogantly that you can take a condescending approach on me. You simply do not have the depth and analytical skills (as shown in your RB thread) for me to take you seriously any further.

I thought you said you were going to respond to it. Instead, what you did was a standard Saul Alinsky tactic of accusing somebody else to cover up your own tactics. Are you an acolyte of Saul Alinsky's and his Rules for Radicals? These tactics are making it painfully obvious your presence here isn't by accident: you make it rather obvious you were sent here to misinform.

My RB thread has been up for more than a year. If you think you've found a flaw in any of the measurements or way it's been presented, then I don't see what's stopping you from pointing it out. So far, you haven't provided any substantial contributions to the forum or the understanding of this problem. And what little you have produced has been flawed as already pointed out by multiple people. So if you've got examples of the flaws in my work, then feel free to go over there and point them out. I can't wait.

"In your version, you assume that everybody who owns an m3 is on the forum. That's obviously a false assumption."
Absolutely not, I didn't make that assumption at all, much the contrary. Which goes to show you understood nothing of a simple and brief analysis.

Show me where your first table of estimated failure rate takes anything less than 100% m3 owner forum membership into account. Your columns are: 1) reported % on m3forum (sic, it's m3post, not m3forum); 2) m3forum (sic) reported cases; 3) extrapolated total number of cases; 4) extrapolated % of total m3's. You missed: Total % of E9x m3 owners on the forum. Without that missing piece, your calculations are fatally flawed to assume 100%. It's simple math.

Search this thread, you'll find one of those scare propagating guys saying an engine fail is reported daily on the forum. 89 months since m3 release = 2670 days. Let's first take your ridiculous 1.25% guess of reported percentage to normalize his scare number. 2670 / 0.0125 = 213,600 cars failed (LOL, there should be zero m3 left). Ok then use my more realistic guess number of 24% reported percentage. 2670 / 0.24 = 11,125 cars which would be 1 out of 5 cars produced.

I see what you're doing. You're assuming his comment (which I disagree with) goes back to the beginning of m3 production, instead of starting at some point in time and going forward. I'll take you at your word that you're smarter than all of us and knew this without me pointing it out. That would mean you're intentionally and dishonestly manipulating the data to prove your point.

Forgive me if i will not take further comments from you seriously, as it's mostly a waste of time.

Do you always give up this easily? If you have something to prove, then prove it instead of running away. Let's start with your posts a few weeks ago. Where's your data for that? So far I haven't seen any data from you that isn't either flawed or intentionally manipulated. Nobody's going to take you seriously unless you can back it up with data, instead of rhetoric and vitriol.