Re: V8 Conversion Question

Nope....I think that you got the last word. ;)

--=20 Jack

JK> Shomuni wrote:

Wrong again.

Here's a Usenet definition, if that helps you understand yourself better.

Quote: "troll v.,n. 1. [From the Usenet group alt.folklore.urban] To utter a posting on Usenet designed to attract predictable responses or flames;...

1. An individual who chronically trolls in sense 1; regularly posts specious arguments, flames or personal attacks to a newsgroup, discussion list, or in email for no other purpose than to annoy someone or disrupt a discussion. Trolls are recognizable by the fact that the have no real interest in learning about the topic at hand - they simply want to utter flame bait. Like the ugly creatures they are named after, they exhibit no redeeming characteristics, and as such, they are recognized as a lower form of life on the net,..."

-------------

I think you meet most all of these characteristics. A very poor Troll, there is no doubt. I hope you've enjoyed your "predictable responses". To the group: Please review the comments included below which were snipped from just a few of Shomuni's posts .

Do any of the Porschephiles in this group disagree with this assessment?

If anyone, as a Porshephile, agrees feel free to weigh in. A single word response, such as "Troll" will be sufficient.

BTW, Shomuni: You misspelled "ad hominem", perhaps a dictionary might benefit *you*. Good luck.

------------- Abridged Shomuni trollage for a.a.p review:

That's because it's impossible to argue with an idiot and had I realized he was one I wouldn't have wasted the effort on a Poser who uses Magazines to race with.

Sure take evcerything out of context it certainly helps your case that way. You have not really seen a troll. If you had you would not be putting that title on me. However if you really want me to troll believe me I will be happy to oblige just to show you what a troll is. You can cut and paste pretty well but that proves nothing.

Oh Oh a spelling error oh how fritening. I are to making spelling misstakes. Yes be thankful you have a spell checker with your newreader. I don't pretend to be a perfect typist. More proof that you have to drag up these lame ass spelling errors and pull statements out of context to make yoursel feel like a bigshot. Kee an eye out for those evil spelling errors. I find quite a few of them in Road & Trash. What's their excuse?

You mean taken completely out of context to try and prove you poser viewpoint. Otherwise why would YOU need to cut out the excerpts. Yes you are a rats ass, not that I care.

Agreed, Shomuni waddles like a troll and he quacks like a troll. He's probably a troll. As long as people are willing to feed the troll, he'll continue to troll.

Huh, bang for the buck. Now, there's a new and exciting discussion.

Neither side of this arguement will convince the other to concede defeat. Enough of this "My car is better than your car" crap. A true automotive enthusiast approaches the proud owner of a 911 or a Corvette and says,"Hey, nice car!" and the owner replies, "Thank you." The rest is pointless.

Jim Keenan wrote: : Shomuni wrote: :> On Mon, 08 Sep 2003 05:54:59 -0700, Jim Keenan wrote: :>

:> Yes even when that data is not reflected by other magazines who using :> the same cars come up with entirely different data. So naturally you :> would pick the data that is most favorable to your car. Whereas R&T :> hates the Corvette and rates it very poorly. Once you leave that one :> magazine it's a different ballgame. R&T seem to be only capable of :> squeezing a Z06 to 60mph in 4.8 secs. When everyone else is doing it :> in 4 secs. That is a huge discrepancy.

: I cited my source. Time for you to do the same. Prove R&T "hates the : Corvette". Who is the "everyone else" that gets 4.0 out of a Z06. : Haven't seen that in Car And Driver, Motor Trend or R&T. Of course they : all hate the Corvette also..........

Here's a link for you;

Seems the Vette has made the list of the 4 deadliest cars...

In fact, if you read the article you'll find one sentence that mentions the Pinto, the Corvair and the Vette... course because the Pinto and Corvair were only in production for about 10 years each, they didn't make the list of the 4 most deadly cars.

Also, the second page mentions that BMW's and Porsches don't have the high death rate that Corvettes have, crediting the drivers.

Interesting how you left out.

"People drive the Corvette differently than they would drive a Volvo and it tends to be a different type of driver," says Daniel Pund, of Car and Driver magazine. "There's nothing inherently unsafe about the Corvette."

The entire section about the Corvair was bunk created by Ralph Nader himself. Amazing how the Corvair always spun out right in front of the camera. The Corvair and the Porsche 911 did share similar swap end characteristics. But there were a lot fewer Porsches on US roads.

The article is pure sensationalism designed to elicit a knee jerk response. So typical of an Insurance company today.

Also creditng many other factors you left out. Fact is theer were just notthat many BMW's and Porsches on the roads in the 1970's especially when compared with Cheap Muscle cars of the day. They also swap between 1970 and today as tho there is no difference. This article is full of flaws and of the worst sort.

Then what do you think about the Boxter?

I guess you didn't pay attention in math class. The Corvette looses more of a percentage in each case than the 911.

Mike

Yeah. Let's look at the 1984 Corvette. That piece of shit might sell for $5,000-$6,000 but the 911 can bring close to $18,000. No one wants an 1984 Corvette but the '84 911 is highly sought after now.

Mike

Race teams buy stippers all the time. It keeps their costs down and they are just going to rip out the interior anyway. Now that you can buy a GT3 most teams go that way.

Mike