Speeding teen kills self and friend - Described as an " incredibly outgoing, beautiful person"

On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 21:37:57 +0000, Pooh Bear
> wrote:

>> Dear clueless liberal media,
>>
>> Subaru does not make sports cars.
>
>Dear clueless Scott.
>
>You obviously aren't familiar with the car in question.

Sports cars, by definition, have TWO seats.

How many seats does a Subaru WRX have?

I rest my case.

> But then you guys don't do rallying.

And neither does the punk in the story.

The "liberal media" don't have a damned thing to do with this story.

However, for perhaps the only time in my life, I will agree with laura
Bush Vehicular homicide on this one.

The kid who was such a "beautiful person" turned out to be a ****ing
idiot. If he hadn't been a ****ing idiot, he'd still be alive today.

He got what he deserved.

Hi!

[cross-posting removed]

Brent P wrote:
> In article >, David Jensen wrote:
> > What is the strict definition? It's hard to fit the Spyder, MG, and
> > Boxter, among others, into one easy definition that excludes all
> > Subarus.
>
> The strict definition as I last heard it was a 1 or 2 seat open car.

Nowadays, I would not insist on "open". How would a Porsche
Boxster be more of a sports car than a Porsche Cayman?
Also, 2+2 seats don't disqualify a car either IMHO. My
definition would be, "a car that was designed with going fast
in mind, rather than with carrying stuff or saving money."

This counts out four-seaters, wagons, econoboxen, pick-up
trucks, and SUVs, regardless of their 0-60 times, and still
it does include cars like the Porsche 356A, despite its
ferocious 1300cc, 44 bhp engine.

Yours,
Erik.
--
"Actually, I think Ford has made some fine vehicles,
I just can't think of any right now."
-- Dave Brower in r.a.m.v.a.

On 28 Nov 2005 22:25:55 -0800, "john fernbach"
> wrote:

>The "liberal media" don't have a damned thing to do with this story.

Of course they do. WTF do you think wrote it?

On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:24:10 +0100, Erik Meltzer
> wrote:

>> > What is the strict definition? It's hard to fit the Spyder, MG, and
>> > Boxter, among others, into one easy definition that excludes all
>> > Subarus.
>>
>> The strict definition as I last heard it was a 1 or 2 seat open car.
>
>Nowadays, I would not insist on "open". How would a Porsche
>Boxster be more of a sports car than a Porsche Cayman?
>Also, 2+2 seats don't disqualify a car either IMHO. My
>definition would be, "a car that was designed with going fast
>in mind, rather than with carrying stuff or saving money."

You know what my definition of "loser" is? Someone who has to make up
new definitions for words ikn order to "win" a USENET debate.

In article >, Erik Meltzer wrote:

> Nowadays, I would not insist on "open". How would a Porsche
> Boxster be more of a sports car than a Porsche Cayman?

I didn't claim that was a great working definition, nor will I defend it,
but that is the strict definition last I heard it.

Hi!

"Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Nov 2005 12:24:10 +0100, Erik Meltzer
> >My
> >definition would be, "a car that was designed with going fast
> >in mind, rather than with carrying stuff or saving money."
>
> You know what my definition of "loser" is? Someone who has to make up
> new definitions for words ikn order to "win" a USENET debate.

Trouble is, I didn't debate anything previously in this
thread. And what, incidentally, would you call someone
who resorts to name-calling without any observable reason?
Sure doesn't sound like a winner to me.

Yours,
Erik.
--
"They've got to buy them before they can burn them."
-- George Harrison about Beatles album burnings, 1966

Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On 28 Nov 2005 22:25:55 -0800, "john fernbach"
> > wrote:
>
> >The "liberal media" don't have a damned thing to do with this story.
>
> Of course they do. WTF do you think wrote it?

FIrst PROVE there is such a thing as a liberal media.
After you wade through the O'Reilly's and Hannity and Colmes ad nauseum
perhaps you will figure out there AINT NO SUCH ANIMAL.

john fernbach, > was motivated to say this in
rec.autos.driving on 28 Nov 2005 22:25:55 -0800:
> If he hadn't been a ****ing idiot, he'd still be alive today.
>

In otherwords, the principles of Darwinism work just fine. What we don't
need is idiot laws to preserve idiots like the driver in the OP.

Brent P wrote:

> In article >, David Jensen wrote:
> > On Mon, 28 Nov 2005 15:55:31 -0600, in misc.transport.road
> > (Brent P) wrote in
> >:
> >>In article >, Pooh Bear wrote:
> >>>
> >>>
> >>> "Scott en Aztlán" wrote:
> >>>> Subaru does not make sports cars.
>
> >>> You obviously aren't familiar with the car in question. But then you guys don't do rallying.
> >>>
> >>> http://www.swrt.com/836306.html
> >>
> >>Racing it doesn't mean it meets the strict definition of "sports car"
> >
> > What is the strict definition? It's hard to fit the Spyder, MG, and
> > Boxter, among others, into one easy definition that excludes all
> > Subarus.
>
> The strict definition as I last heard it was a 1 or 2 seat open car.
>
> Last I heard, the suburus not only had 4 seats, but a roof.

So a Porsche 911 isn't a sports car ?

Graham