FWD vs. RWD

Greg, he *did* incorporate them.

If you want to look up the article where he posted the links, use groups.google.com. Works great. :)

-- Jonesy

No, now I want to be the lazy one. Google them up and read them.

If he wrote them here, then I've already refuted them, making the reading of the articles a waste of my time. If you're referring to arguments along the lines of "_FWD Car Quarterly_ writes that FWD is superior to RWD" then I'm not going to bother refuting them, because they're not arguments, they're opinions.

Perhaps we should clarify exactly what I mean when I use the word "argument." MS Bookshelf 2000 has several definitions for the word.

The first two are as follows:

1. a. A discussion in which disagreement is expressed; a debate. b. A quarrel; a dispute. c. Archaic. A reason or matter for dispute or contention: "sheath'd their swords for lack of argument" (Shakespeare).

1. a. A course of reasoning aimed at demonstrating truth or falsehood: /presented a careful argument for extraterrestrial life./ b. A fact or statement put forth as proof or evidence; a reason: /The current low mortgage rates are an argument for buying a house now./

I'm using the second definition.

- Greg Reed

-----= Posted via Newsfeed.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----

- The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!-----== 100,000 Groups! - 19 Servers! - Unlimited Download! =-----

Restating your opinion is not sufficient to claim refutation. An authoritative source to back up your claims is also needed. Unless you are claiming authority (a logical fallacy anyway.)

He's providing links to other sources to back up his claims. Just because you don't want to bother looking at them does not in any way give your opinion validity (other than being your opinion, that is.)

And if all you have is opinion, then you're on equal ground.

[snip definition]

We are both using the same definition of the word "argument." Now, Google up those links he provided, and you're golden.

And now for the real question: why are we discussing drivetrain layouts not found in very many North American Audis? (alt.autos.audi)

-- Jonesy

For an article on the FWD RWD from a police use perspective can be found at:

Implying alt.autos.audi is primarily for the use of North American Audi drivers? I've just refreshed my newsgroup list, which now contains well over 30,000 newsgroups (probably a fair few more - I can't see a total now) and this seems to be the only newsgroup with audi in the title, so surely it's relevant to audi drivers (or people with an interest in audis) all over the world?

Ok, I don't think there are any RWD Audis being produced at the moment (unless you count the Quattros, but some of the earlier Audis were, AFAIK.

Peter

Good God, how do you keep track of threads in 30,000 Newsgroups? I participate on and off in disucssions in about 20 of them and I often get tired of running through all the posts.

Heh! Maybe I should have made that clearer - I updated the newsgroup list from my news server,which contains around 30,000 newsgroups - I only read about 15-20 of them, and only 5 or so very regularly.

Peter

Phew! I thought you were the bionic man for a second there.