I like the school-bus yellow, but this green... not so much.
Patrick
Yep, love the yellow, not so much the green. The yellow is that much of a new color, is it?
Such a crappy green.
This is a green:
Yeah the other one looks like it should be called "Constipated Mint."
Full agreement!
A dark green, or Bullitt green, is a color I could get if I didn't opt for black.
How's the new GT treating you?
Patrick
e:
lol
Patrick
That green is awfully close to the color of a Pinto I unfortunately owned.
Oh yeah, that whirled peas green.
Maybe it's for the Fire Chief.
I recall some unmarked patrol cars in Syracuse NY that were green. Kind of a washed out/faded pea soup green. With hub caps, whip antennas and government plates. The NY Staties had some ungodly combination as well in a two tone. Guess it was a NY thing.
Worked with some federal government cops who drove similar colored vehicles. Bet they got a great deal on 'em.
Seems odd they would use such a "unique" color for unmarked patrol cars. With that strange of a color, they might as well be marked -- not like you're going to not see that color coming.
Patrick
I would have really prefered a dark green for this car because of the black trim.
Closing in on 1K miles. Seems to be as it should be. Wish the shifting was always absolutely smooth. When it feels like my other cars it's really glaring.
we know but the government is known for getting "deals".
of course, the best deal i recall was the CHP 5.0 Mustangs which California bought for 7K each. Ford got a zillion miles of advertising out of that sale.
I really like dark green metallic for my cars. I had my first car painted that early 1970s dark green metallic because of the green interior.
I've only got a little over 900 miles on it. So far so good. Just some ratger minor things here and there.
Newsgroups: chi.general From: Brent Subject: Re: W> Bruce Esquibel wrote:
Your idea of costs is pretty screwy. A $15 car wash every week? You're going to go from not owning a car to driving a 1980 corvette enough to use 15 gallons of gasoline a week? $200 of insurance a month for a 30+ year old car? Absurd. I realize you probably can't get antique/classic insurance with just one car (they tend to want proof of having another car to use for daily rountine) but really you should be looking at like $200 every SIX months on a vette that old that's clearly not going to be daily commuting transportation rain or shine.
But one thing that might cause you to get screwed on car insurance is that you haven't had car insurance.... I've heard that being a disaster for people.
Newsgroups: chi.general From: Brent Subject: Re: W> Bruce Esquibel wrote:
Your idea of costs is pretty screwy. A $15 car wash every week? You're going to go from not owning a car to driving a 1980 corvette enough to use 15 gallons of gasoline a week? $200 of insurance a month for a 30+ year old car? Absurd. I realize you probably can't get antique/classic insurance with just one car (they tend to want proof of having another car to use for daily rountine) but really you should be looking at $200 every SIX months or less on a vette that old that's clearly not going to be daily commuting transportation rain or shine.
But one thing that might cause you to get screwed on car insurance is that you haven't had car insurance.... I've heard that being a disaster for people.
Newsgroups: misc.educati> >
Still not a point or argument made. So let me ask you old man, are you a chickenhawk like Dick Cheney who gets off sending other people out to murder for him, a chickenhawk like Obama that has people operate drones to murder people or are you someone who did the murdering for people like that and now has a need to maintain the status quo or else come to grips with the fact he saw his co-workers die and murdered people for no good reason? Which one is it Gunny? Oh wait... I forgot one, it could be you just like sitting back with beer watching people in far off lands be murdered on TV.
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driv> >
This link is irrelevant to what I wrote. gpstroll's link is on people not paying RLC tickets. It has nothing to do with the fact that red light cameras don't make money if the old fashioned methods are applied to fix a real red light running issue.
Here:
he's a troll. that's why he posts irrelevant links and uses insulting language and so forth.
Newsgroups: chi.general From: Brent Subject: Re: Sec> As I was doing small mailings for organizations, I was noticing South Suburban
The postal service has no reason to be run in a rational for profit economical manner. They have their reasons I'm sure.
Newsgroups: rec.autos.tech From: Brent Subject: Re: the mass shoot>> >>>>
I really don't have much faith in slate, so I didn't read it. However it does not matter how many studies they cited, in the end you are left with the idea that there have been no such events after 1996 and it's correlated with the gun ban. Now what constitutes a similar event is a big part of it too.
Now let us look at your own cite, where it states suicides by gun dropped, well so that's to be expected. Duh. Does not say others didn't increase. The study itself regarding a decrease in murders is behind a pay wall and sourced unread by the slate author from "Wonkblog".
Furthermore your own cite states there have been studies showing that the gun ban had no effect on the homicide rate as it was just a continuation of previously existing trends. Of course it deomonizes the study as being done by people who are 'pro-gun', while of course 'anti-gun' folks are completely unbiased. This is the kind of thing that makes me not really trust stuff in Slate. Anyway they use the term 'gun related'. Well of course, if alcohol were banned again there would be less drunk driving, right? Make it harder enough to get, you get less of it. But the thing is, what do you get instead?
Ultimately your cite of Slate concludes that correlation is all there is. After all the studies it cites second hand were done to show a correlation. So after all your blathering, all you ultimately have if everything turns out to be on the up and up from the pro-ban studies cited by Slate, is correlation.
You should stop projecting. Your own cite states that it is correlation based and then you decided to take the line that correlation is not causation. True. However by doing so you invalidated your own argument and your cite. Congradulations.
You throughly destroyed your own argument. Therefore you lost. It's over. Since correlation is not causation your cite which relies on summaries of studies trying to show a (strong)correlation is now irrelevant by standard of proof you set.
Furthermore your producing this article against the argument that drugs cause these violent acts in some people is nonsensical. The gun-grabbers can get their dream in the USA and then these people who become demented on these drugs use axes or kitchen knives. Do you really think a class room of toddlers can fight off a fully grown man armed with a sword? No. Masscares of defenseless people happened long before firearms were invented. You would have to show that Australians are using these very same drugs in high enough numbers to see the outlier side effects but don't.
Newsgroups: chi.general From: Brent Subject: Re: A big o> >
ooh I the 'it' didn't get typed. Can count on you to use a typo to bail out with.
Newsgroups: rec.autos.driv> >
IMO Distracted driving is a symptom of dumbing down driving and absurdly low speeds. Nothing like 55mph on a an interstate to bore one to death.
Newsgroups: chi.general\ From: Brent Subject: xerox system shows short RLC yellow signals Organization: Blah Reply-To: Followup-To: Keywords: Summary:
(...)
Fagel believes Xerox's technology is accurately documenting the intersection . which he has been doing on his own for years.
------------------
Chicago's RLC program hasn't been an exception afterall....
please ignore this mess... posted a scratch file by error.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.