HEMI's HOT

C.H. wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 10:15:18 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:
>
> [lots of whining and personal attack]

Yup. And then there was the stuff I wrote...

Relax, I knew what you meant. It was what we folks in the real world
call "a joke."

> Initially your helpless whining and your superiority complex were fun
to
> toy with but it becomes a bit repetitive, so I am leaving you to your
own
> devices. If you have to contribute anything to the topic, let me
know.

ROFL. You accusing me of whining and superiority. More classic usenet
flailing.

I guess when you don't have anywhere to go, give up. Congratulations,
you have just learned the First Rule of Holes.

My contributions are in there along with all the silly personality
stuff you felt was necessary to engage in. Dig it out, and reply, if
you mean what you say (which I seriously doubt.)

HAND,

E.P.

C.H. wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 09:09:30 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:
>
> > Out of context? You are hardly talking about cars or driving, and
much
> > more about personality. That's just cold fact. It's not
badmouthing,
> > it's called "observation."
>
> 'Out of context' as in 'in a posting that is not an answer to a
> posting of the person you are gossipping about'.

That's not what "out of context" means.

> > Tops on the list of usenet sins is engaging in off-topic banter.
>
> You are guilty of that too, so double shame on you.

I'm not whining about usenet protocol, however. The one who complains
should avoid the thing he complains about, lest he look like a
hypocrite.

In this case, "usenet sins." When you clean up your act, please feel
free to stick your nose into my business. Until that time, you may
want to just keep quiet about other people's posting habits or style.
Just another helpful hint.

Have a great weekend,

E.P.

C.H. wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 09:09:30 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:
>
> > Out of context? You are hardly talking about cars or driving, and
much
> > more about personality. That's just cold fact. It's not
badmouthing,
> > it's called "observation."
>
> 'Out of context' as in 'in a posting that is not an answer to a
> posting of the person you are gossipping about'.

That's not what "out of context" means.

> > Tops on the list of usenet sins is engaging in off-topic banter.
>
> You are guilty of that too, so double shame on you.

I'm not whining about usenet protocol, however. The one who complains
should avoid the thing he complains about, lest he look like a
hypocrite.

In this case, "usenet sins." When you clean up your act, please feel
free to stick your nose into my business. Until that time, you may
want to just keep quiet about other people's posting habits or style.
Just another helpful hint.

Have a great weekend,

E.P.

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
> James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>James C. Reeves wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>May I suggest that you misintrepreted. I probably wouldn't (but don't
>>>>really know) have any problem with driving the 300C. I only referenced
>>>>people of "average" driving skills (about 50% or more of the people on
>>>>the road...and that is being generious!) will likely have at least some
>>>>level of difficulty with control. I thought I was clear in that,
>>>>hopefully this is further clarification.
>>>>
>>>
>>>you may be right there...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Now, I believe it's irresponsible to market overly powerful (0-60 in
>>>>under 5 second) cars to the "average" market. It is clearly a car whose
>>>>performance specification should be left for those drivers that can
>>>>truly handle it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And how, exactly, is that going to be determined?
>>
>>
>> A good restatement of my point. Even most average drivers don't usually
>> know their personal driving skill limitations, until it's too late (spun
>> out on a wet curve on a back road). Marketing these cars to the average
>> driver is irresponsible (in my view). Most other performance car makers
>> tend to target the appropriate segments better.
>>
>> Average drivers are used to driving FWD average powered cars with
>> understeer. Give them a RWD drive performance car with relative
>> oversteer and they WILL hit the accellerator that first time on a wet
>> curve on a back country road and they will be in a field of cows
>> (hopefully caws and not one of us) before they can finish soiling their
>> pants. Well, we will know in a couple of years when insurance loss data
>> is available if my prediction turns out to be correct.
>>
>>
>>>I personally think that "overly powerful" cars being readily available is
>>>a Good Thing.
>>
>>
>> Marketed correctly, no problem here. We all know I've owned performance
>> cars at times and like them generally for the right people. So no
>> arguement.
>>
>>
>>>It would be even better if they were dirt cheap, but whaddaya gonna do
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, the new Mustang isn't too expensive and I would think that it might
>> even satisify Chris' taste (I could be wrong) in performance.
>>
>
> See, I don't think it's as much of a problem as you'd think. (warning!
> warning! rectal statistics ahead!) Look at the Corvette - the vast
> majority of those cars are purchased by non-enthusiasts - look at the
> percentage of 'vettes sold with an automatic vs. stickshift if you don't
> believe me (that's NOT a rectal number. Last I checked it was something
> like 70%.) And yet it doesn't seem that there's any significant number of
> 'vette owners offing themselves due to overexuberance behind the wheel -
> quite the opposite; even though the car might be generally mild-mannered,
> a lot of 'vette drivers seem to drive like my grandmother, as if their car
> were a Viper or something that was likely to engulf them in a terrifying
> wreck culminating in a horrible fireball if they looked at it funny.
>
> Not that that's a *bad* thing, mind you. I don't mind if people are
> overly conservative with their vehicles, especially when they're sharing
> the road with me.
>
> nate
>

People seem to garage Corvettes...take them out once a week on Sundays.
There probably isn't enough of them on the road to make a good statistic.

"Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
...
> James C. Reeves wrote:
>
>> "Nate Nagel" > wrote in message
>> ...
>>
>>>James C. Reeves wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>>May I suggest that you misintrepreted. I probably wouldn't (but don't
>>>>really know) have any problem with driving the 300C. I only referenced
>>>>people of "average" driving skills (about 50% or more of the people on
>>>>the road...and that is being generious!) will likely have at least some
>>>>level of difficulty with control. I thought I was clear in that,
>>>>hopefully this is further clarification.
>>>>
>>>
>>>you may be right there...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Now, I believe it's irresponsible to market overly powerful (0-60 in
>>>>under 5 second) cars to the "average" market. It is clearly a car whose
>>>>performance specification should be left for those drivers that can
>>>>truly handle it.
>>>>
>>>
>>>And how, exactly, is that going to be determined?
>>
>>
>> A good restatement of my point. Even most average drivers don't usually
>> know their personal driving skill limitations, until it's too late (spun
>> out on a wet curve on a back road). Marketing these cars to the average
>> driver is irresponsible (in my view). Most other performance car makers
>> tend to target the appropriate segments better.
>>
>> Average drivers are used to driving FWD average powered cars with
>> understeer. Give them a RWD drive performance car with relative
>> oversteer and they WILL hit the accellerator that first time on a wet
>> curve on a back country road and they will be in a field of cows
>> (hopefully caws and not one of us) before they can finish soiling their
>> pants. Well, we will know in a couple of years when insurance loss data
>> is available if my prediction turns out to be correct.
>>
>>
>>>I personally think that "overly powerful" cars being readily available is
>>>a Good Thing.
>>
>>
>> Marketed correctly, no problem here. We all know I've owned performance
>> cars at times and like them generally for the right people. So no
>> arguement.
>>
>>
>>>It would be even better if they were dirt cheap, but whaddaya gonna do
>>>
>>
>>
>> Well, the new Mustang isn't too expensive and I would think that it might
>> even satisify Chris' taste (I could be wrong) in performance.
>>
>
> See, I don't think it's as much of a problem as you'd think. (warning!
> warning! rectal statistics ahead!) Look at the Corvette - the vast
> majority of those cars are purchased by non-enthusiasts - look at the
> percentage of 'vettes sold with an automatic vs. stickshift if you don't
> believe me (that's NOT a rectal number. Last I checked it was something
> like 70%.) And yet it doesn't seem that there's any significant number of
> 'vette owners offing themselves due to overexuberance behind the wheel -
> quite the opposite; even though the car might be generally mild-mannered,
> a lot of 'vette drivers seem to drive like my grandmother, as if their car
> were a Viper or something that was likely to engulf them in a terrifying
> wreck culminating in a horrible fireball if they looked at it funny.
>
> Not that that's a *bad* thing, mind you. I don't mind if people are
> overly conservative with their vehicles, especially when they're sharing
> the road with me.
>
> nate
>

People seem to garage Corvettes...take them out once a week on Sundays.
There probably isn't enough of them on the road to make a good statistic.

C.H. wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 12:30:25 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:
>
> >
> > C.H. wrote:
>
> >> 'Out of context' as in 'in a posting that is not an answer to a
> >> posting of the person you are gossipping about'.
> >
> > That's not what "out of context" means.
>
> Then replace 'out of context' by 'in a posting that is not an answer
to
> posting of the person you are gossipping about', if that makes you
feel
> better.

You'll have to show me where *that* rule is written. Sorry that the
truth hurts so much.

> [whining snipped]

Correction: Whining above (written by you), rational commentary
snipped (written by me.)

HTH.

HAND,

E.P.

C.H. wrote:
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 12:30:25 -0800, gcmschemist wrote:
>
> >
> > C.H. wrote:
>
> >> 'Out of context' as in 'in a posting that is not an answer to a
> >> posting of the person you are gossipping about'.
> >
> > That's not what "out of context" means.
>
> Then replace 'out of context' by 'in a posting that is not an answer
to
> posting of the person you are gossipping about', if that makes you
feel
> better.

You'll have to show me where *that* rule is written. Sorry that the
truth hurts so much.

> [whining snipped]

Correction: Whining above (written by you), rational commentary
snipped (written by me.)

HTH.

HAND,

E.P.

"C.H." > wrote in message
news
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:06:08 -0500, James C. Reeves wrote:
>
> James, please crop your postings a bit.
> A fullquote for a one-liner is not
> useful and makes your postings very
> hard to read.

I will (and do) snip when time permits. Sometimes, the time element takes
priority though. If my posts are too hard for you to read when that
happens, just skip them. I'm sure others do sometimes as well.

> Around here a lot of Corvettes are driven daily. And they are not any less
> safe than most cars on the road and a lot safer than for example SUVs.

Haven't seen one in months (at least not that I remember). Those that I
know that own them almost never take them out...they stay in the garage
and/or under a cover. Must be a regional thing.

> SUVs have mediocre brakes at best, horrible ones at worst, high center of
> gravity and usually huge blindspots, especially when driven by short
> persons and even more so if driven by dumb idiots babbling away on their
> cellphones while juggling coffee and their makeup kit.
>
> Interestingly I don't hear you rant about these SUVs...

Simple reason. SUV's aren't the topic of this thread and no one (until now)
has brought them up. Even looking at the general discussion context of
"performance sedans", who is thinking about discussing SUV's?. Now there
are a couple of SUV's that have the HEMI engine option (Durango and 2005
Cherokee), I suppose that those specific models can be loosely tied into
this discussion thread like was done with the 300C. But, without getting
into this OT discussion further, I will just agree in general principal with
much of what you said nonetheless.

The comment subject of driver behavior of babbling on the phone, juggling
coffee or doing makup and how that somehow contributes to worse brakes,
increases the center of gravity or adds to larger blind spots didn't make a
lick of sense to me though. Those are unsafe driver behavior items that are
totally unrelated specifically to the SUV, the HEMI or performance sedans.
But, without getting into this "nested" OT any further, I will just agree
in general principal that it isn't suitable to be doing any of those things
while operating any vehicle (including HEMI equipped SUVs).

Both of these are topics worthy of their own thread...if they hadn't been
beated to death 100 times already. :-)

"C.H." > wrote in message
news
> On Sat, 18 Dec 2004 17:06:08 -0500, James C. Reeves wrote:
>
> James, please crop your postings a bit.
> A fullquote for a one-liner is not
> useful and makes your postings very
> hard to read.

I will (and do) snip when time permits. Sometimes, the time element takes
priority though. If my posts are too hard for you to read when that
happens, just skip them. I'm sure others do sometimes as well.

> Around here a lot of Corvettes are driven daily. And they are not any less
> safe than most cars on the road and a lot safer than for example SUVs.

Haven't seen one in months (at least not that I remember). Those that I
know that own them almost never take them out...they stay in the garage
and/or under a cover. Must be a regional thing.

> SUVs have mediocre brakes at best, horrible ones at worst, high center of
> gravity and usually huge blindspots, especially when driven by short
> persons and even more so if driven by dumb idiots babbling away on their
> cellphones while juggling coffee and their makeup kit.
>
> Interestingly I don't hear you rant about these SUVs...

Simple reason. SUV's aren't the topic of this thread and no one (until now)
has brought them up. Even looking at the general discussion context of
"performance sedans", who is thinking about discussing SUV's?. Now there
are a couple of SUV's that have the HEMI engine option (Durango and 2005
Cherokee), I suppose that those specific models can be loosely tied into
this discussion thread like was done with the 300C. But, without getting
into this OT discussion further, I will just agree in general principal with
much of what you said nonetheless.

The comment subject of driver behavior of babbling on the phone, juggling
coffee or doing makup and how that somehow contributes to worse brakes,
increases the center of gravity or adds to larger blind spots didn't make a
lick of sense to me though. Those are unsafe driver behavior items that are
totally unrelated specifically to the SUV, the HEMI or performance sedans.
But, without getting into this "nested" OT any further, I will just agree
in general principal that it isn't suitable to be doing any of those things
while operating any vehicle (including HEMI equipped SUVs).

Both of these are topics worthy of their own thread...if they hadn't been
beated to death 100 times already. :-)