UK iPad Mini FRENZY

[7]

bbgruff wrote:

>
> UK iPad Mini FRENZY: Queues stretch SEVERAL FEET from till
>
> Reader tells of minutes-long ordeal amid sparse mob
>
> Astonishing queues at times reached as far as several feet from the tills
> in Glasgow's Apple store, as the Wi-Fi version of the iPad mini launched
> in the UK.
>
> Reader Joseph Heenan reported walking in to the Apple Store, buying the
> device and walking out "within a couple of minutes".
>
> Heenan added that "there were staff standing around with nothing to do".
> He told the El Reg:
>
> I asked the [Apple store] guy if they were expecting to be busier, and
> he muttered something fairly non-commital like "we were busier earlier" or
> something - this was just after 9AM.
>
> Globally, reactions to the launch were muted with hype significantly down
> on the houha that surrounded the launch of the iPhone 5 in September.
>
> Photograph of the bedlam at:-
> http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/02/ipad_mini_queue/


Global uber patet troll Appil stocks plummet to 540 billion. Thats 15
billion in value lost in a day or so.

That means that is the value of the stock from now on and more like
fall below that as there is nothing supporting the patent troll's stock
valuation other than fast disappearing appil fanoboyees buying into
second hand technology.

Nobody in Far East wants to license their shiny new technology
to Appil in case they get sued and patent trolled by greedy
appile executives. Instead they gift it all to Android and Linux
because they can make more money more quickly with less hassle
if they choose Android and Linux.

[Hadron]

OK, who's pretending to be fraud? Not even *he* is so stupid to post
that.


--
A certain COLA "advocate" faking his user-agent in order to pretend to be a Linux
user: User-Agent: Outlook 5.5 (WinNT 5.0), User-Agent: slrn/0.9.8.0
(Linux), Message-ID: <wPGdnd3NnOM...@comcast.com>

[7]

Are you an ONLINE TROLL and a LIAR Hadron?



Trolling is an Industry in USA
------------------------------

Hiring online trolls is ignorant.

Those hiring online trolls are too afraid to make a statement
in person in case their bollocks got cut off and sold
on ebay for 2 cents.

Most US politicians and businesses
are so corrupt and reliant to the point of addiction
on trolls and trolling and so they fund it all illegally
through charities because
funding through charities is untraceable
through loopholes in US law.

The US politicians, embassy staff and anyone else falling for it like
Spanish government should know that the US trolls
ordering embassies to this kind of work
have no mandate for these kinds of activities.

Just rich companies that have bank rolled teams of asstroturfers
to create fake support and certainly no mandate.
Companies like Eedleman also run fake survey companies
and delete everything except outlying data to fake their reports
to add legitimacy to their trolling campaigns.

There is NO MANDATE when fake asstroturfers are driving
the agenda.

The situation is so bad, it has spread into the military.
No one now knows who drives what agenda because
there is no traceability.

The fscking military, politicians, enviro nuts, music mafia,
using asstroturfing technology need the riot act read to them.

The situation is so incomprehensible that
the US has been declared falsely that it is the most charitable nation in
the world when at the same time 3 million US families
are living in shelter, and most of that charity money is fake
money being diverted from corporations into the coffers of asstroturfing
and PR companies. What would you do if you were
forced into a shelter and all your charity
money was stolen from your charity?
You are down and they still want to steal YOUR CHARITY MONEY?!??
Thats right you would tell them NEVER and tell
them fsck off in no uncertain terms and get the law changed
to make it a criminal offense to steal charity money
or spend it on anything other than 100% certified peer reviewed charity
without kickbacks, without creative accounting and
without morally unjust criminal behavior within
the charity system.

Most of the money funneled through
charities never make it to charitable causes in the USA.
It is stolen by politicians and pressure groups to cover
up their fake funding routes for asstroturfing.
They are used to it so we got to get over it?

No thanks!!!!

Not a single politician, embassy staff or military has a
mandate for one single political agenda because no one
knows who is funding who and who's agenda is real
and whose agenda is fake. Every signature collected
is one more fake signature for a mandate written out by
asstroturfers.

Asstroturfing through charities undermines society,
and all the nations dealing with US
and it must stop because no one in US has any legitimate
mandates for any of this activity any more.

If they have it, then should display their mandate
with pride, and show where the support had come from
and if any of it is through charities, then the
whole mandate is faked because charity status is being
abused to hide funding routes for corporate asstroturfing.



Asstroturfer offerings
----------------------


I've just read the contents of the fbo.gov solicitation RTB220610

The US government wants asstroturfers and with it sophisticated
asstroturfing technology to drown out democratic free speech,
and then hide from those whom it seeks to victimize.

It was point no.3 that caught my eye:
0003- Static IP Address Management

What that means is the same as what I've been saying for a while about
doofi, flatcake and clog are true.

They are not individuals but a whole asstroturfing team
behind each sock puppet.

There isn't enough memory between the sock operators to know
or remember what had been said earlier so you know the
conversations are being typed out by multiple individuals
impersonating each other.
It was notable gaffs by the goofy doofy sock that first gave it away.

The asstroturfing teams had already gone into government and offered them
consulting services about what technology and asstroturfing
practices were out there for fbo.gov to decide what they will
purchase in solicitation RTB220610. Burson-Marstelar
won the contract performing all the activities
required in the solicitation with fantastic usenet software
tools for targeting individuals and trolling 24/7
and all built in outsourced India.


:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D



https://www.fbo.gov/index?s=opportunity&mode=form&id=d88e9d660336be91552fe8c1a51bacb2&tab=core&_cview=1

Solicitation Number: RTB220610
Notice Type: Sources Sought
Synopsis: Added: 2010-06-22 13:42:52Jun 22, 2010 1:42 pm
Modified: 2010-06-22 14:07:11Jun 22, 2010 2:07 pmTrack Changes

0001- Online Persona Management Service.

50 User Licenses, 10 Personas per user. Software will
allow 10 personas per user, replete with background,
history, supporting details, and cyber presences
that are technically, culturally and geographically
consistent. Individual applications will enable an
operator to exercise a number of different online
persons from the same workstation and without fear
of being discovered by sophisticated adversaries.
Personas must be able to appear to originate in
nearly any part of the world and can interact through
conventional online services and social media platforms.
The service includes a user friendly application
environment to maximize the user's situational
awareness by displaying real-time local information.


0002- Secure Virtual Private Network (VPN).

1 each VPN provides the ability for users to
daily and automatically obtain
randomly selected IP addresses through
which they can access the internet. The daily
rotation of the user s IP address prevents compromise
during observation of likely or targeted web sites
or services, while hiding the existence of the
operation. In addition, may provide traffic mixing,
blending the user s traffic with traffic from multitudes
of users from outside the organization. This traffic
blending provides excellent cover and powerful deniability.
Anonymizer Enterprise Chameleon or equal


0003- Static IP Address Management.


:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D


50 each Licence protects the identity of government
agencies and enterprise organizations. Enables organizations
to manage their persistent online personas by assigning
static IP addresses to each persona. Individuals
can perform static impersonations, which allow
them to look like the same person over time. Also allows
organizations that frequent same site/service often to
easily switch IP addresses to look like ordinary
users as opposed to one organization.
Anonymizer IP Mapper License or equal

:-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D :-D


0004- Virtual Private Servers,

CONUS. 1 each Provides CONUS or OCONUS points of
presence locations that are setup for each customer
based on the geographic area of operations the
customer is operating within and which allow a
customer?s online persona(s) to appear to originate
from. Ability to provide virtual private servers that
are procured using commercial hosting centers around
the world and which are established anonymously. Once
procured, the geosite is incorporated into the network
and integrated within the customers environment and
ready for use by the customer. Unless specifically
designated as shared, locations are dedicated for use
by each customer and never shared among other customers.
Anonymizer Annual Dedicated CONUS Light Geosite or equal


0005- Virtual Private Servers, OCONUS.

8 Each Provides CONUS or OCONUS points of presence
locations that are setup for each customer based on
the geographic area of operations the customer is
operating within and which allow a customer?s
online persona(s) to appear to
originate from. Ability to provide virtual private
servers that are procured using commercial hosting
centers around the world and which are established
anonymously. Once procured, the geosite is incorporated
into the network and integrated within the customers
environment and ready for use by the customer. Unless
specifically designated as shared, locations are dedicated
for use by each customer and never shared among other
customers. Anonymizer Annual Dedicated OCONUS Light
Geosite or equal


0006- Remote Access Secure Virtual Private Network.

1 each Secure Operating Environment provides a reliable
and protected computing environment from which to stage
and conduct operations. Every session uses a clean
Virtual Machine (VM) image. The solution is accessed
through sets of Virtual Private Network (VPN) devices
located at each Customer facility. The fully-managed
VDI (Virtual Desktop Infrastructure) is an environment
that allows users remote access from their desktop into
a VM. Upon session termination, the VM is deleted and
any virus, worm, or malicious software that the user
inadvertently downloaded is destroyed. Anonymizer
Virtual Desktop Infrastructure (VDI) Solution or equal.


Contracting Office Address:
2606 Brown Pelican Ave.
MacDill AFB, Florida 33621-5000
United States
Place of Performance:
Performance will be at MacDIll AFB, Kabul, Afghanistan and Baghdad, Iraq.
MacDill AFB , Florida 33679
United States

Primary Point of Contact.:
Russell Beasley,
Contracting Officer
russell.b...@macdill.af.mil
Phone: (813) 828-4729
Fax: (813) 828-5111

[Jon]

On 02/11/2012 9:17 pm, 7 wrote:
> bbgruff wrote:
>
>>
>> UK iPad Mini FRENZY: Queues stretch SEVERAL FEET from till
>>

Why in this day and age would anyone "stand in line" for anything!

You can buy them "online" and get them "delivered" to your home FFS!!

[7]

Jon wrote:


>>> UK iPad Mini FRENZY: Queues stretch SEVERAL FEET from till
>>>
>
> Why in this day and age would anyone "stand in line" for anything!
>
> You can buy them "online" and get them "delivered" to your home FFS!!

Giggle! Trolls dressed up as Appile fanoboyees will queue for a fee
hoping to draw in suckers.
They can however be turned into normal Samsung S2 / S3 buyers
if you wave one in front of them.

Look!

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GWnunavN4bQ

[Jon]

On 03/11/2012 1:07 pm, 7 wrote:

> They can however be turned into normal Samsung S2 / S3 buyers

What's "normal" about buying Sammy Stung?

[-hh]

On Nov 2, 5:17 pm, 7

<email_at_www_at_enemygadgets_dot_...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:
> bbgruff wrote:
>
> > UK iPad Mini FRENZY: Queues stretch SEVERAL FEET from till
>
> > Reader tells of minutes-long ordeal amid sparse mob
>
> > Astonishing queues at times reached as far as several feet from the tills
> > in Glasgow's Apple store, as the Wi-Fi version of the iPad mini launched
> > in the UK.
>
> > Reader Joseph Heenan reported walking in to the Apple Store, buying the
> > device and walking out "within a couple of minutes".
>
> > Heenan added that "there were staff standing around with nothing to do".
> > He told the El Reg:
>
> >     I asked the [Apple store] guy if they were expecting to be busier, and
> > he muttered something fairly non-commital like "we were busier earlier" or
> > something - this was just after 9AM.
>
> > Globally, reactions to the launch were muted with hype significantly down
> > on the houha that surrounded the launch of the iPhone 5 in September.
>
> > Photograph of the bedlam at:-
> >http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/02/ipad_mini_queue/
>
> Global uber patet troll Appil stocks plummet to 540 billion. Thats 15
> billion in value lost in a day or so.
>

> That means that ...

... that Apple's short term stock price variation exceeds all of the
net profits made by every single Android supplier Worldwide
combined?


> Nobody in Far East wants to license their shiny new technology to Appil...

Actually, they do, but they are trying to do so in means which are
illegal as per FRAND.



-hh

[Snit]

On 11/3/12 3:03 AM, in article LZ5ls.126238$vW7....@fx19.am4, "7"
<email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:

> Snit wrote:

No, I did not.

You are *again* caught lying.


--
"Linux desktop is why I got into Linux in the first place. I mean, I
have never, ever cared about really anything but the Linux desktop."
-- Linus Torvalds

[7]

You are a LYING TROLL hh.

Even Foxcon has decided to abandon Appile and make more profit
by making Android.

All the large factories in Far East have formed into an alliance to see off
Ubuer Patent Troll Appil from every avenue of that may allow
appile their paws on technology in case any of their members
got sued. They gift it all to Android running on Linux
because they can make more money more quickly than by dealing
with appil and its patent trolling greedy executives
who between them have no spine to stand up to patent trolls within
their own company.

[Snit]

On 11/3/12 8:28 AM, in article oKals.140706$Tf3.1...@fx12.am4, "7"

<email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:

> You are a LYING TROLL

The best you can do is name call.

How sad.


--
"90% of computers use Microsoft's Windows ... Macs account for 9% of the
market while the open source system Linux accounts for 0.8%."
-- Linus Torvalds

[Snit]

On 11/3/12 8:28 AM, in article oKals.140706$Tf3.1...@fx12.am4, "7"
<email_at_www_at_en...@enemygadgets.com> wrote:

> Even Foxcon has decided to abandon Appile and make more profit
> by making Android.

What a bizarre and unsupported claim!


--
"In fact, the main goal of Linux might be called usability... the most
important thing is that it works well and people ... want to use it."
-- Linus Torvalds

[7]

Snit wrote:

>> Even Foxcon has decided to abandon Appile and make more profit
>> by making Android.
>
> What a bizarre and unsupported claim!

Are you an ONLINE LYING TROLL Snit?

You said yourself you have limited hardware (one computer?)
and from nursing this one computer you post all your
trolls and extrapolate your limited knowledge with lies and more lies
and more trolls to cover those lies.

[GreyCloud]

And you didn't join in?

[-hh]

On Nov 3, 11:28 am, 7

You know, "7", you really should at least *try* to do a little
homework before you get your head kicked in.

For example, here's an article from September discussing SAMSUNG
specifically for FRAND violations:

http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/09/korean-regulator-investigates-apples.html

And here's a report that the USA's FTC is going after Google for FRAND
violations:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/ftc-staff-said-to-formally-recommend-google-patent-suit.html

Plus there's at least the Motorola/Apple FRAND lawsuit which is
scheduled to restart next week, Microsoft's lawsuit against Motorola
for FRAND violations and an EU investigation for FRAND violations...

> Even Foxcon has decided to abandon Appile and make more profit
> by making Android.

I haven't seen anything specific to that; got a citation? In any
case, I can see Foxcon considering a move away from Apple, but because
they've been forced to increase employee pay and working conditions on
the Apple production lines. Of course, for those of us who actually
read the business news, we know that employee abuses existon the
Android production lines and haven't yet been improved ... oh, and
this specifically includes factories directly managed by Samsung too.
Figured I'd mention this since 7 cross-posted his troll to CSMA and
the trolls there will try make the Anti-Apple "SLAVE LABOR" rant
without fuller context.

> All the large factories in Far East have formed into an alliance to see off
> Ubuer Patent Troll Appil from every avenue of that may allow
> appile their paws on technology in case any of their members
> got sued.

Cite? Also be sure how to explain how this isn't a monopoly action
which is illegal in the USA & EU.


> They gift it all to Android running on Linux...

Oh, it is a 'gift' alright: right into Google coffers, since they're
where most of the limited Android profits go. Of course, you've still
not provided any actual net profit numbers to show who in Android-land
has actually made any real profit.


-hh

[Snit]

On 11/3/12 1:59 PM, in article
e3e30b6c-65cc-47b1...@s12g2000vbw.googlegroups.com, "-hh"

You are showing more and more evidence in your comments. Excellent to see.


--
"But I have never, ever even run a Linux server and I don't even want
to; it's not what I'm interested in. I'm more of a desktop guy."
-- Linus Torvalds

[FDK]

"-hh" wrote in message
news:e3e30b6c-65cc-47b1...@s12g2000vbw.googlegroups.com...

He PWNED you. Without even trying hard. Are you this slow, Punjab?

[-hh]

> >http://www.fosspatents.com/2012/09/korean-regulator-investigates-appl...

> >And here's a report that the USA's FTC is going after Google for
> >FRAND
> >violations:

> >http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2012-11-01/ftc-staff-said-to-formally-r...

Egads, I've been 'pwned' by someone whose debate skills are limited to
namecalling.

Oh, just like you. No wonder you believe that "7" is a model of
success! :-)


BTW, has your "loser brother" returned that $1K loan which you claimed
wiped out your personal finances?


-hh

[FDK]

"-hh" wrote in message
news:7292bab7-1412-4693...@ez26g2000vbb.googlegroups.com...

Is it drugs? No one name called you.

>Oh, just like you. No wonder you believe that "7" is a model of
>success! :-)

More successful than you.

>BTW, has your "loser brother" returned that $1K loan which you
>claimed
>wiped out your personal finances?

Either you're a bald faced liar, or plain stupid.

I know what I posted, and I never claimed to have loaned my bro
money.

If you can show a post where I said I loaned my bro $1000, I will send
you $1000.

If you can't, you send me the thousand.

Golly! - now what?? - maybe the Alan Baker soft shoe shuffle?

Your call, Punjab. When you count out my cake, make sure you wash
your hands. That is if you can even scrape up 1K.

[-hh]

On Nov 4, 11:17 am, sockpuppet de jour "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:
> "-hh"  wrote:

>
> >Oh, just like you.  No wonder you believe that "7" is a model of
> >success!  :-)
>
> More successful than you.

Since you obsess on money, 7's metric there is that his claimed income
is $50K/year.

> >BTW, has your "loser brother" returned that $1K loan which you
> >claimed wiped out your personal finances?
>
> Either you're a bald faced liar, or plain stupid.

Oops, look like "FDK" took the bait :-)

> I know what I posted, and I never  claimed to have loaned my bro
> money.

Ohhhhh right: it was an entirely **different** sockpuppet that had
that pissing contest with Alan! Even though he has the same broken
quotation software and the same ethnic slurs as "you" :-)



-hh

[FDK]

"-hh" wrote in message
news:1a7c4cc0-1ac8-4a2f...@a6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 4, 11:17 am, sockpuppet de jour "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:
> "-hh" wrote:
>
> >Oh, just like you. No wonder you believe that "7" is a model of
> >success! :-)
>
> More successful than you.

>Since you obsess on money, 7's metric there is that his claimed
>income
>is $50K/year.

Your jealousy is noted. What does that come out to; 80% more than
your welfare checks?

> >BTW, has your "loser brother" returned that $1K loan which you
> >claimed wiped out your personal finances?
>
> Either you're a bald faced liar, or plain stupid.

>Oops, look like "FDK" took the bait :-)

Correcting a lie is now labeled "taking the bait"? Wishful thinking
on your part.

> I know what I posted, and I never claimed to have loaned my bro
> money.

>Ohhhhh right: it was an entirely **different** sockpuppet that had
>that pissing contest with Alan! Even though he has the same broken
>quotation software and the same ethnic slurs as "you" :-)

Don't take that to court, counselor. Even a not so smart, self
proclaimed attorney like you, should know that.


OK. Show where "he" said it. Same money, same terms.

Reposted what you snipped:

"If you can show a post where I said I loaned my bro $1000, I will
send you $1000.

If you can't, you send me the thousand."

When you count out my cake, make sure you wash
your hands. That is if you can even scrape up 1K."

See? - snipping doesn't change a thing, Loser.

Now either put up or fuck off, Punjab.

[-hh]

On Nov 4, 2:54 pm, "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:
> "-hh"  wrote in message
>
> news:1a7c4cc0-1ac8-4a2f...@a6g2000vbl.googlegroups.com...
>
> On Nov 4, 11:17 am, sockpuppet de jour "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > "-hh"  wrote:
>
> > >Oh, just like you.  No wonder you believe that "7" is a model of
> > >success!  :-)
>
> > More successful than you.
> >Since you obsess on money, 7's metric there is that his claimed
> >income is $50K/year.
>
> Your jealousy is noted.  What does that come out to;  80% more than
> your welfare checks?

Since you're the expert on welfare checks...

> > >BTW, has your "loser brother" returned that $1K loan which you
> > >claimed wiped out your personal finances?
>
> > Either you're a bald faced liar, or plain stupid.
> >Oops, look like "FDK" took the bait :-)
>
> Correcting a lie is now labeled "taking the bait"?  Wishful thinking
> on your part.
>
> > I know what I posted, and I never  claimed to have loaned my bro
> > money.
> >Ohhhhh right:  it was an entirely **different** sockpuppet that had
> >that pissing contest with Alan!  Even though he has the same broken
> >quotation software and the same ethnic slurs as "you" :-)
>
> Don't take that to court, counselor.  Even a not so smart, self
> proclaimed attorney like you, should know that.
>
> OK. Show where "he" said it.  Same money, same terms.

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/52209501eb0e860e

> Reposted what you snipped:
>
> "If you can show a post where I said I loaned my bro $1000, I will
> send you $1000.

The exact amount you allegedly loaned wasn't mentioned, but it was the
excuse you used for saying why you couldn't afford to meet Alan at
Laguna in a $1300 Skip Barber class.

If you want to send $1300 instead of $1000, that's your
prerogative. :-)

> Now either put up or fuck off, Punjab.

Golly, your jealous disenfranchised life continues to seep out of your
Balmer-esque sweaty pores:

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/52209501eb0e860e

...but since you've since had a couple of months to raise the money,
perhaps you can go crawling back to your knees to Alan to make good on
that 'race' challenge, instead of running away yet again.


-hh

[Alan Baker]

In article
<a9d7b046-698d-4a70...@x21g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,

While Michael was making excuses, I was down in Laguna Seca again last
Monday-Tuesday for the 2-day advanced course...

...and raised my top speed on the main straight to nearly 110.

:-)

--
"The iPhone doesn't have...
...well, since Edwin seems to have finally crawled away for good,
I guess I'll let him off the hook

[FDK]

"-hh" wrote in message
news:a9d7b046-698d-4a70...@x21g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...

You're skating now, Loser.

I said"If you can show a post where I said I loaned my bro $1000, I
will
send you $1000."

Now show where I loaned my bro money, Loser.

Your link says:

"He tried to hit my
brother up but he still owes him for the last three "loans". My
brother said; "write it off, you'll never see it"."

>If you want to send $1300 instead of $1000, that's your
>prerogative. :-)

Why don't you send the thou? Loser.

> Now either put up or fuck off, Punjab.

>Golly, your jealous disenfranchised life continues to seep out of
>your
>Balmer-esque sweaty pores:

>http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/52209501eb0e860e

>...but since you've since had a couple of months to raise the money,
>perhaps you can go crawling back to your knees to Alan to make good
>on
>that 'race' challenge, instead of running away yet again.

Alan doesn't want a "real" race. He is guaranteed to get hurt. But
maybe you want a go with your shitbox Porsche?

[Alan Baker]

LOL

You don't want a real race, Michael

Real races take place on a race track in race cars. You want to make
threats about hurting me to avoiding have to actually compete in a real
race.

[FDK]

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
news:alangbaker-119A5...@news.shawcable.net...

Anytime, Kiddy Diddler.

The Taconic State Parkway between Rt 84 & Rt 6. A real race.

Name a date and number.

And here is where your going to fuck up.

http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=41.406165,-73.792261&z=14&t=h&hl=en

>...and raised my top speed on the main straight to nearly 110.

WOW!!!! I know soccer moms who do more than that daily in their
SUV's.

Time to put on those dancing shoes. Loser.

[Alan Baker]

> Anytime.

>
> The Taconic State Parkway between Rt 84 & Rt 6. A real race.

Nope. Real races take place on real race tracks.

>
> Name a date and number.
>
> And here is where your going to fuck up.
>
> http://maps.google.com/maps?ll=41.406165,-73.792261&z=14&t=h&hl=en

Really? Why?

>
>
> >...and raised my top speed on the main straight to nearly 110.
>
>
> WOW!!!! I know soccer moms who do more than that daily in their
> SUV's.

The instructors were maybe getting 1mph more, because that's simple all
there is available on the front straight at Laguna.

If you really could race, you'd understand things like this.

>
> Time to put on those dancing shoes. Loser.

LOL

[-hh]

Back for more, sock puppet "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:
> "-hh"  wrote in message
> On Nov 4, 2:54 pm, "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:

Oh look! His attribution software is *still* broken! :-)

> > > Your jealousy is noted.  What does that come out to;  80% more than
> > > your welfare checks?

> >Since you're the expert on welfare checks...




> > > >BTW, has your "loser brother" returned that $1K loan which you
> > > >claimed wiped out your personal finances?
>
> > > Either you're a bald faced liar, or plain stupid.
> > >Oops, look like "FDK" took the bait :-)
>
> > Correcting a lie is now labeled "taking the bait"?  Wishful thinking
> > on your part.
>
> > > I know what I posted, and I never  claimed to have loaned my bro
> > > money.
> > >Ohhhhh right:  it was an entirely **different** sockpuppet that had
> > >that pissing contest with Alan!  Even though he has the same broken
> > >quotation software and the same ethnic slurs as "you" :-)
>
> > Don't take that to court, counselor.  Even a not so smart, self
> > proclaimed attorney like you, should know that.
>
> > OK. Show where "he" said it.  Same money, same terms.
>

> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/52209501eb0e...

>
> > Reposted what you snipped:
>
> > "If you can show a post where I said I loaned my bro $1000, I will
> > send you $1000.
> >The exact amount you allegedly loaned wasn't mentioned, but it was
> >the
> >excuse you used for saying why you couldn't afford to meet Alan at
> >Laguna in a $1300 Skip Barber class.
>
> You're skating now, Loser.
>
> I said"If you can show a post where I said I loaned my bro $1000, I
> will
> send you $1000."
>
> Now show where I loaned my bro money, Loser.
>
> Your link says:
>
> "He tried to hit my
> brother up but he still owes him for the last three "loans".  My
> brother said; "write it off, you'll never see it"."

Golly, what a _clever_ editing attempt, because before the above, you
first said:

"Sorry, my budget won't permit Laguna Seca. Last week yes, but a
worthless family member...hit me up."

> >If you want to send $1300 instead of $1000, that's your
> >prerogative.  :-)
>
> Why don't you send the thou?  Loser.

Then you'd be identical to your "worthless" family member; how poetic.

> >...but since you've since had a couple of months to raise the money,
> >perhaps you can go crawling back to your knees to Alan to make good
> >on that 'race' challenge, instead of running away yet again.
>
> Alan doesn't want a "real" race.  He is guaranteed to get hurt.

Sorry, too late: he done gone last week ... and survived it.
Again.

But cheer up! There's sure to be other events that you could get
invited to that you similarly can't afford. Until then, enjoy your
"expensive" bottle of Ripple.



-hh

[ed]

On Sunday, November 4, 2012 1:21:14 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
...

> While Michael was making excuses, I was down in Laguna Seca again last
>
> Monday-Tuesday for the 2-day advanced course...
>
> ...and raised my top speed on the main straight to nearly 110.

interesting. remember when i questioned the comment from you that "maximum possible top speed on the main straight at Laguna Seca in those cars is 107mph," wondering where that number can from because it sounded slow, and you got all insulted and said that was game playing on my part?

yeah, does that 107mph sound too slow for max top speed with those cars at laguna to you yet? :P


so how's the rf89? get it up and running?

[Alan Baker]

In article <a8ba8a39-e761-42dc...@googlegroups.com>,

ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, November 4, 2012 1:21:14 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> ...
> > While Michael was making excuses, I was down in Laguna Seca again last
> >
> > Monday-Tuesday for the 2-day advanced course...
> >
> > ...and raised my top speed on the main straight to nearly 110.
>
> interesting. remember when i questioned the comment from you that "maximum
> possible top speed on the main straight at Laguna Seca in those cars is
> 107mph," wondering where that number can from because it sounded slow, and
> you got all insulted and said that was game playing on my part?

It's what I was told at the time. Perhaps it's related to the fact that
it was cooler this trip, so the motors were probably making a bit more
horsepower.

>
> yeah, does that 107mph sound too slow for max top speed with those cars at
> laguna to you yet? :P

More importantly, do you still sound like a dick?

Yes!

<snip>

[ed]

On Sunday, November 4, 2012 3:13:47 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <a8ba8a39-e761-42dc...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> > On Sunday, November 4, 2012 1:21:14 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
>
> > ...
>
> > > While Michael was making excuses, I was down in Laguna Seca again last
>
> > >
>
> > > Monday-Tuesday for the 2-day advanced course...
>
> > >
>
> > > ...and raised my top speed on the main straight to nearly 110.
>
> >
>
> > interesting. remember when i questioned the comment from you that "maximum
>
> > possible top speed on the main straight at Laguna Seca in those cars is
>
> > 107mph," wondering where that number can from because it sounded slow, and
>
> > you got all insulted and said that was game playing on my part?
>
>
>
> It's what I was told at the time. Perhaps it's related to the fact that
>
> it was cooler this trip, so the motors were probably making a bit more
>
> horsepower.
>
>
>
> >
>
> > yeah, does that 107mph sound too slow for max top speed with those cars at
>
> > laguna to you yet? :P
>
>
>
> More importantly, do you still sound like a dick?
>
>
>
> Yes!

Wow, touchy. I'm not ragging on you, just pointing that, hey, see, it really did sound slower than max top speed, and see, it was a real conversation with real points I was making, so maybe don't assume everything is just an argument in the making, eh? Jeebus.


> <snip>

Seriously, how's the car coming? Still sounds super fun to me. :-)

[Alan Baker]

In article <6267664f-8e2d-4ca4...@googlegroups.com>,

ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:

> On Sunday, November 4, 2012 3:13:47 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <a8ba8a39-e761-42dc...@googlegroups.com>,
> >
> > ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > > On Sunday, November 4, 2012 1:21:14 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> >
> > > ...
> >
> > > > While Michael was making excuses, I was down in Laguna Seca again last
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > Monday-Tuesday for the 2-day advanced course...
> >
> > > >
> >
> > > > ...and raised my top speed on the main straight to nearly 110.
> >
> > >
> >
> > > interesting. remember when i questioned the comment from you that
> > > "maximum
> >
> > > possible top speed on the main straight at Laguna Seca in those cars is
> >
> > > 107mph," wondering where that number can from because it sounded slow,
> > > and
> >
> > > you got all insulted and said that was game playing on my part?
> >
> >
> >
> > It's what I was told at the time. Perhaps it's related to the fact that
> >
> > it was cooler this trip, so the motors were probably making a bit more
> >
> > horsepower.

Cat suddenly got your tongue?

> >
> >
> >
> > >
> >
> > > yeah, does that 107mph sound too slow for max top speed with those cars
> > > at
> >
> > > laguna to you yet? :P
> >
> >
> >
> > More importantly, do you still sound like a dick?
> >
> >
> >
> > Yes!
>
> Wow, touchy. I'm not ragging on you, just pointing that, hey, see, it really
> did sound slower than max top speed, and see, it was a real conversation with
> real points I was making, so maybe don't assume everything is just an
> argument in the making, eh? Jeebus.

You're making a snide little dig and implying that you are so clever
that you can estimate to within a couple of percentage points what the
appropriate top speed is at a race track in a car with which you have no
experience.

107 sounds "too slow" but suddenly 3-4 mph sounds just right?

Please.

>
>
> > <snip>
>
> Seriously, how's the car coming? Still sounds super fun to me. :-)

Seriously: I don't give a damn how it sounds to you.

[FDK]

"ed" wrote in message
news:6267664f-8e2d-4ca4...@googlegroups.com...

I don't think it's running. Notice how quiet he was on that question
but answered all the rest? Maybe he'll chime in now with a lie.

[Alan Baker]

Nope. I leave lying to the likes of you.

:-)

[FDK]

"Alan Baker" wrote in message

news:alangbaker-F5213...@news.shawcable.net...

I won't buy a Formula Ford to prove a point to a nothing like you.
It's a total waste to me. But I will go matched cars with you. We
can both rent matching Vettes, and do it. Or matching, hehehe, Dodge
BWAHHHAHHHH Challenger srT8's, if you would like. I wouldn't be
surprised if it killed me. We can go from 84 to 6, swap cars and go
back the same way. If you don't get hurt or kill yourself, then you
can pay me my money. If you die I expect your estate to settle with
me.

I honestly wouldn't hurt you. I don't have to, you'll hurt yourself,
or lose, and that will hurt also. You are your own worst enemy. A
natural born Loser. Don't blame yourself, It's your parents fault.

[FDK]

"-hh" wrote in message
news:d5c332ad-6bd7-4a74...@q4g2000vbg.googlegroups.com...

So?

This is your problem, Punjab:

"If you can show a post where I said I loaned my bro $1000, I will
send you $1000.

If you can't, you send me the thousand." PERIOD.

Any extra non-essential phrases about who, what, where, when and who
knows who, are meaningless strawmen. We both know that.

> >If you want to send $1300 instead of $1000, that's your
> >prerogative. :-)
>
> Why don't you send the thou? Loser.

>Then you'd be identical to your "worthless" family member; how
>poetic.

So - you lost, and now you refuse to pay? You really are Scumbag to
the core.

> >...but since you've since had a couple of months to raise the
> >money,
> >perhaps you can go crawling back to your knees to Alan to make good
> >on that 'race' challenge, instead of running away yet again.
>
> Alan doesn't want a "real" race. He is guaranteed to get hurt.

> Sorry, too late: he done gone last week ... and survived it.
>Again.

!!!??? WOW, yes I heard, and he posted a faster time than the expert.
The "expert" did 107 and Alan did 110!!!
Were you in the stands cheering him on?

>But cheer up! There's sure to be other events that you could get
>invited to that you similarly can't afford. Until then, enjoy your
>"expensive" bottle of Ripple.

It looks like you couldn't afford our little bet. And we did make a
bet. When you started to post "strawmen" as poof of your claim, was
the point you were in.

Pay up - or STFU and go crawl away in the weeds. Fucking sop. I've
written off a lot more than that.

Ping me when you have my cake, we're done here.

[Alan Baker]

And yet another excuse...

> It's a total waste to me. But I will go matched cars with you. We
> can both rent matching Vettes, and do it. Or matching, hehehe, Dodge
> BWAHHHAHHHH Challenger srT8's, if you would like. I wouldn't be
> surprised if it killed me. We can go from 84 to 6, swap cars and go
> back the same way. If you don't get hurt or kill yourself, then you
> can pay me my money. If you die I expect your estate to settle with
> me.
>
> I honestly wouldn't hurt you. I don't have to, you'll hurt yourself,
> or lose, and that will hurt also. You are your own worst enemy. A
> natural born Loser. Don't blame yourself, It's your parents fault.

So you'll keep making excuses.

Real races take place on race tracks.

[Alan Baker]

In article <k7759e$a8r$1...@dont-email.me>, "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:

> > >...but since you've since had a couple of months to raise the
> > >money,
> > >perhaps you can go crawling back to your knees to Alan to make good
> > >on that 'race' challenge, instead of running away yet again.
> >
> > Alan doesn't want a "real" race. He is guaranteed to get hurt.
>
> > Sorry, too late: he done gone last week ... and survived it.
> >Again.
>
>
> !!!??? WOW, yes I heard, and he posted a faster time than the expert.
> The "expert" did 107 and Alan did 110!!!
> Were you in the stands cheering him on?

Nope. The instructors were doing about the same.

Simple fact, Michael: if you both get the same drive off the slow speed
corner, then you're both going to end up at pretty much the same speed
on a long straight...

...because top speed there is mostly determined by top end power and
aerodynamic drag.

You could learn all about this for yourself...

...if only you could afford it.

[FDK]

"Alan Baker" wrote in message

news:alangbaker-921CB...@news.shawcable.net...

No? I didn't think so.

Bye for now.

[FDK]

"Alan Baker" wrote in message

news:alangbaker-89D26...@news.shawcable.net...

I had a feeling you were taken. I don't care either way.

Bye for now.

[FDK]

"Alan Baker" wrote in message

news:alangbaker-7EEC3...@news.shawcable.net...

In article <k7759e$a8r$1...@dont-email.me>, "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:

> > >...but since you've since had a couple of months to raise the
> > >money,
> > >perhaps you can go crawling back to your knees to Alan to make
> > >good
> > >on that 'race' challenge, instead of running away yet again.
> >
> > Alan doesn't want a "real" race. He is guaranteed to get hurt.
>
> > Sorry, too late: he done gone last week ... and survived it.
> >Again.
>
>
> !!!??? WOW, yes I heard, and he posted a faster time than the
> expert.
> The "expert" did 107 and Alan did 110!!!
> Were you in the stands cheering him on?

>Nope. The instructors were doing about the same.

>Simple fact, Michael: if you both get the same drive off the slow
>speed
>corner, then you're both going to end up at pretty much the same
>speed
>on a long straight...

>...because top speed there is mostly determined by top end power and
>aerodynamic drag.

>You could learn all about this for yourself...

>...if only you could afford it.

yaawwwwnnnnn. I feel fatigued.

Thanks for the "driving tips" hehehehe.

[Alan Baker]

In article <k7778v$jk2$1...@dont-email.me>, "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:

> > >You don't want a real race, Michael
> >
> > >Real races take place on a race track in race cars. You want to
> > >make
> > >threats about hurting me to avoiding have to actually compete in a
> > >real
> > >race.
> >
> > I won't buy a Formula Ford to prove a point to a nothing like you.
>
> >And yet another excuse...
>
> > It's a total waste to me. But I will go matched cars with you. We
> > can both rent matching Vettes, and do it. Or matching, hehehe, Dodge
> > BWAHHHAHHHH Challenger srT8's, if you would like. I wouldn't be
> > surprised if it killed me. We can go from 84 to 6, swap cars and go
> > back the same way. If you don't get hurt or kill yourself, then you
> > can pay me my money. If you die I expect your estate to settle with
> > me.
> >
> > I honestly wouldn't hurt you. I don't have to, you'll hurt
> > yourself,
> > or lose, and that will hurt also. You are your own worst enemy. A
> > natural born Loser. Don't blame yourself, It's your parents fault.
>
> >So you'll keep making excuses.
>
> >Real races take place on race tracks.
>
> No? I didn't think so.
>
> Bye for now.

I'll race you, Michael.

Any time you can scratch up enough money to come and do it out on a
track. It's not 100% certain yet, but I'm probably going to be at
Sebring for another 2-day on November 15-16. So if you're as qualified
as you claim, sign up.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

LOL

Sure.

I'll have a good laugh about that with Bob the next time I'm down at the
garage.

[Alan Baker]

I'm sure any kind of new idea trying to penetrate your skull would
result in that.

>
> Thanks for the "driving tips" hehehehe.

Come on out to Sebring and play on the 15-16 of the month. I'll let you
know if it pans out that I'm going, and you can let me know if Skip
Barber would let you anywhere near their cars.

:-)

[-hh]

Desperate for a bit of cash, sockpuppet "FDK" <f...@aol.com> grovels:
> "-hh"  wrote in message:

> Back for more, sock puppet "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:

Golly Gee!  His attribution software is *still* done broken!  :-)

So you admitted that $1300 tapped you out for three months (and
terrified to lose your home too).

> This is your problem, Punjab:
> "If you can show a post where I said I loaned my bro $1000, I will
> send you $1000.
> If you can't, you send me the thousand."   PERIOD.

Just because you didn't specify doesn't mean that it wasn't your
'bro'. You've already said "he", so just who's your family leach?
Your deadbeat son? Dear old drunkard Daddy?

> Any extra non-essential phrases about who, what, where, when and who
> knows who, are meaningless strawmen.  We both know that.

As well as how you've moved the goalposts. Indeed, the minutia really
doesn't matter beyond what you've said, which was that while on the
subject of a $1300 driving school, you made a 'loan' that resulted in
you being tapped out for months on end.

> > >If you want to send $1300 instead of $1000, that's your
> > >prerogative.  :-)
>
> > Why don't you send the thou?  Loser.
> >Then you'd be identical to your "worthless" family member; how
> >poetic.
>
> So - you lost, and now you refuse to pay?

'This is your problem, Punjab:
"If you can show a post where I said 'I accept your bet'..."'

> It looks like you couldn't afford our little bet.  And we did make a
> bet.

'This is your problem, Punjab:
"If you can show a post where I said 'I accept your bet'..."'

> Pay up - or STFU and go crawl away in the weeds.

'This is your problem, Punjab:
"If you can show a post where I said 'I accept your bet'..."'

> I've written off a lot more than that.

Considering just how hard you're trying to work to collect: "LOL".


> Ping me when you have my cake, ...

'This is your problem, Punjab:
"If you can show a post where I said 'I accept your bet'..."'


> ...we're done here.

Running away again?

Sorry, but you're not supposed to merely just go away: you're
supposed to go away angry and festering.


-hh

[FDK]

"-hh" wrote in message
news:319635c6-2cc8-40e3...@l18g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

Desperate for a bit of cash, sockpuppet "FDK" <f...@aol.com> grovels:
> "-hh" wrote in message:
> Back for more, sock puppet "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:

Golly Gee! He made a bet he couldn't afford to lose and now he finds
a myriad amount of excuses to welch out.

What a "Class A" Loser.

You made my day, Loser.

[-hh]

Back for more, "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:
> "-hh"  wrote:

>> Desperate for a bit of cash, sockpuppet "FDK" <f...@aol.com> grovels:
> > > "-hh"  wrote in message:
> > > > Back for more, sock puppet "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> Golly Gee!

Look at the size of that unacknowledged "snip" by the same troll that
just whined about editing. Reposting what you snipped:

"Just because you didn't specify doesn't mean that it wasn't your
'bro'. You've already said "he", so just who's your family leach?
Your deadbeat son? Dear old drunkard Daddy?"

> He made a bet he couldn't afford to lose and now he finds
> a myriad amount of excuses to welch out.

Reposting what you snipped:

'This is your problem, Punjab:
"If you can show a post where I said 'I accept your bet'..."

As I've said several times before...

http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/528aead0714e5d71?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/6f7e6b15242925ec?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/5a05c0a7e96b8795?hl=en
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.sys.mac.advocacy/msg/d6b644b68cce3cd7?hl=en

..., any wager that I'd even consider accepting with known welchers
like you would require clear, ironclad terms and for a trusted third
party to hold the collateral upfront.

> What a "Class A" Loser.
>
> You made my day, Loser.

Reposting what you snipped:

" ...we're done here."

Yer yet another 'proud' example of the Edwin Memorial Welcher
Run! :-)



-hh

[FDK]

"-hh" wrote in message
news:2efbcd1d-84a5-4e40...@v3g2000yqb.googlegroups.com...

After all that empty rhetoric, goal post dragging and the introduction
of several straw men - you still lost the bet. One you couldn't afford
to lose.

The only thing you think you got left in your bag ( and we know it
ain't cash) is role reversal. Pathetic Loser.

[-hh]

On Nov 5, 10:23 am, "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:
> "-hh"  wrote:
> Back for more, "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:

{and still with broken attribution software}

Reposting what you snipped:
"Just because you didn't specify doesn't mean that it wasn't your
'bro'.  You've already said "he", so just who's your family leach?
Your deadbeat son?  Dear old drunkard Daddy?"

> After all that empty rhetoric, goal post dragging and the introduction
> of several straw men - you still lost the bet. One you couldn't afford
> to lose.

Reposting what you snipped:
'This is your problem, Punjab:
"If you can show a post where I said 'I accept your bet'..."

Sock has come up empty...again!

> The only thing you think you got left in your bag ( and we know it
> ain't cash) is role reversal. Pathetic Loser.

"Run Edwin Run!" :-)

[FDK]

"-hh" wrote in message
news:18913df9-f892-46d9...@g14g2000yqp.googlegroups.com...

On Nov 5, 10:23 am, "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:
> "-hh" wrote:
> Back for more, "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:

Yaawwwwnnnnnnnn.................

And you think I'm Edwin? HOOOTTT!!!!

[ed]

On Sunday, November 4, 2012 4:14:05 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <6267664f-8e2d-4ca4...@googlegroups.com>,
> ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > On Sunday, November 4, 2012 3:13:47 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> > > In article <a8ba8a39-e761-42dc...@googlegroups.com>,
>
> > > ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > > > On Sunday, November 4, 2012 1:21:14 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > > While Michael was making excuses, I was down in Laguna Seca again last
> > > > > Monday-Tuesday for the 2-day advanced course...
> > > > > ...and raised my top speed on the main straight to nearly 110.
> > > > interesting. remember when i questioned the comment from you that
> > > > "maximum
> > > > possible top speed on the main straight at Laguna Seca in those cars is
> > > > 107mph," wondering where that number can from because it sounded slow,
> > > > and
> > > > you got all insulted and said that was game playing on my part?
>
> > > It's what I was told at the time. Perhaps it's related to the fact that
> > > it was cooler this trip, so the motors were probably making a bit more
> > > horsepower.
>
> Cat suddenly got your tongue?

uh, no, it read like a rhetorical. but if you insist, do you really want me to believe that you think the statement "maximum possible top speed" is recalibrated on a day to day basis depending on weather? that's a whack position.

>
> > > > yeah, does that 107mph sound too slow for max top speed with those cars
> > > > at
> > > > laguna to you yet? :P
> > > More importantly, do you still sound like a dick?
> > > Yes!
>
> > Wow, touchy. I'm not ragging on you, just pointing that, hey, see, it really
> > did sound slower than max top speed, and see, it was a real conversation with
> > real points I was making, so maybe don't assume everything is just an
> > argument in the making, eh? Jeebus.
>
> You're making a snide little dig

i wasn't. for snide, see the comment above regarding the "maximum possible top speed". :P

> and implying that you are so clever
> that you can estimate to within a couple of percentage points what the
> appropriate top speed is at a race track in a car with which you have no
> experience.
>
> 107 sounds "too slow" but suddenly 3-4 mph sounds just right?

nope. didn't say 110 or 11 sounded just right, just that the 107 was- correctly- too slow.

> Please.

you might have been in your rights to be skeptical in our previous conversation, and we could have had a nice discussion about it. instead, you had a little fit, even though i turn out to be correct. NOW is not the time to be skeptical however, given that you've proven me correct! :P

> > > <snip>
>
> > Seriously, how's the car coming? Still sounds super fun to me. :-)
>
> Seriously: I don't give a damn how it sounds to you.

of course you care how it sounds to us, collectively. otherwise you wouldn't start threads about it.

[ed]

On Sunday, November 4, 2012 5:37:57 PM UTC-8, FDK wrote:
> "-hh" wrote in message

...

> !!!??? WOW, yes I heard, and he posted a faster time than the expert.
> The "expert" did 107 and Alan did 110!!!

to be fair, alan didn't say he ran faster than the instructors. just faster than the speed he had said was the "maximum possible top speed." :P

...

[FDK]

"ed" wrote in message
news:0da32df8-5670-4ceb...@googlegroups.com...

He claimed, that the previous time he was there a couple of months
ago, when he claimed to do 104, an "accomplished", pro, known driver
could only do 107 as the best time on that course.

And now he has bested a pro!!!! God - what talents doesn't he
possess?

Notice how quiet he is about his car - the one he bought without
starting! Who in their right mind would do a thing like that?

He doesn't want to speak with you, because you know more about what
he's doing than he does.

[Alan Baker]

In article <644fadb4-fc80-422f...@googlegroups.com>,

"Recalibrated"... ...well in effect, yes.

They use these same cars both for racing schools and for racing
weekends, and they test them so that they are within 1mph at the top end.

So, yes, I believe that one of the things they would know is how the
cars check out with regard to atmospheric conditions.

>
> >
> > > > > yeah, does that 107mph sound too slow for max top speed with those
> > > > > cars
> > > > > at
> > > > > laguna to you yet? :P
> > > > More importantly, do you still sound like a dick?
> > > > Yes!
> >
> > > Wow, touchy. I'm not ragging on you, just pointing that, hey, see, it
> > > really
> > > did sound slower than max top speed, and see, it was a real conversation
> > > with
> > > real points I was making, so maybe don't assume everything is just an
> > > argument in the making, eh? Jeebus.
> >
> > You're making a snide little dig
>
> i wasn't. for snide, see the comment above regarding the "maximum possible
> top speed". :P
>
> > and implying that you are so clever
> > that you can estimate to within a couple of percentage points what the
> > appropriate top speed is at a race track in a car with which you have no
> > experience.
> >
> > 107 sounds "too slow" but suddenly 3-4 mph sounds just right?
>
> nope. didn't say 110 or 11 sounded just right, just that the 107 was-
> correctly- too slow.

Really? Explain why in some rational manner.

>
> > Please.
>
> you might have been in your rights to be skeptical in our previous
> conversation, and we could have had a nice discussion about it. instead, you
> had a little fit, even though i turn out to be correct. NOW is not the time
> to be skeptical however, given that you've proven me correct! :P

You've proven yourself a dick many more times than I've "proven you
correct".

>
> > > > <snip>
> >
> > > Seriously, how's the car coming? Still sounds super fun to me. :-)
> >
> > Seriously: I don't give a damn how it sounds to you.
>
> of course you care how it sounds to us, collectively. otherwise you wouldn't
> start threads about it.

Nope.

I don't care...

...how it sounds...

...to YOU, Ed.

[ed]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 9:48:42 AM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <644fadb4-fc80-422f...@googlegroups.com>,
...

> > > 107 sounds "too slow" but suddenly 3-4 mph sounds just right?
> > nope. didn't say 110 or 11 sounded just right, just that the 107 was-
> > correctly- too slow.
>
> Really? Explain why in some rational manner.

as i've previously said, it appears a formula ford can do a quarter mile drag at about 110mph, in the 11s; the long straight at laguna is a bit shorter (about 300m), but you're at a flying start, and iirc, the skip barber cars have a more hp. that adds up to sounding like a max possible top speed above 107mph there.
...

[Alan Baker]

In article <aa78c77c-0eea-4812...@googlegroups.com>,

They also have wings and a hanford device on the rear wing, hence
significantly more drag. They make perhaps 15% more horsepower than a
good Formula Ford, and weigh nearly proportionally as much more.

Oh, and a quarter mile is 440 yards, so 300m shorter (328 yards) is not
"a bit shorter", but rather only 75% of the length of a drag strip.

Next, you don't get to accelerate for the entire straight. Sure: you get
a running start, but what you've neglected to recall is that you also
have to use a good portion of the straight to brake down to about the
same speed you entered the straight: around 40-45 mph.

So you're analysis was hardly what you'd call thorough, was it?

[ed]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 10:23:24 AM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <aa78c77c-0eea-4812...@googlegroups.com>,
> ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, November 5, 2012 9:48:42 AM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> > > In article <644fadb4-fc80-422f...@googlegroups.com>,
> > ...
> > > > > 107 sounds "too slow" but suddenly 3-4 mph sounds just right?
> > > > nope. didn't say 110 or 11 sounded just right, just that the 107 was-
> > > > correctly- too slow.
>
> > > Really? Explain why in some rational manner.
> > as i've previously said, it appears a formula ford can do a quarter mile drag
> > at about 110mph, in the 11s; the long straight at laguna is a bit shorter
> > (about 300m), but you're at a flying start, and iirc, the skip barber cars
> > have a more hp. that adds up to sounding like a max possible top speed above
>
> > 107mph there.
> > ...
>
>
>
> They also have wings and a hanford device on the rear wing, hence
> significantly more drag. They make perhaps 15% more horsepower than a
> good Formula Ford, and weigh nearly proportionally as much more.
>
> Oh, and a quarter mile is 440 yards, so 300m shorter (328 yards) is not
> "a bit shorter", but rather only 75% of the length of a drag strip.
>
> Next, you don't get to accelerate for the entire straight.

and the 'straight' at 300m is just the part that's just *straight*. the mostly super straight stretch is over 500m, so the a bit shorter piece and the running start makes it reasonable to compare to a quarter mile.

> Sure: you get
> a running start, but what you've neglected to recall is that you also
> have to use a good portion of the straight to brake down to about the
> same speed you entered the straight: around 40-45 mph.
>
> So you're analysis was hardly what you'd call thorough, was it?

it was clearly thorough enough to come to the correct conclusion, eh? :P

and oh yeah, and a mx-5 cup car from skip barber can hit at least 96mph on the track with almost 40% power-weight deficit and taking 42% longer to get from 0-100. all in all, yeah, that 107mph max possible didn't look right.
http://www.modified.com/features/0709_sccp_mazda_miata_mx5_barber_driving_school/viewall.html
http://www.skipbarber.com/vehiclespecs.asp

[ed]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 10:41:06 AM UTC-8, ed wrote:
> On Monday, November 5, 2012 10:23:24 AM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:

...

> > Oh, and a quarter mile is 440 yards, so 300m shorter (328 yards) is not
> > "a bit shorter", but rather only 75% of the length of a drag strip.
>
> > Next, you don't get to accelerate for the entire straight.
>
> and the 'straight' at 300m is just the part that's just *straight*. the mostly super straight stretch is over 500m, so the a bit shorter piece and the running start makes it reasonable to compare to a quarter mile.
>
> > Sure: you get
> > a running start, but what you've neglected to recall is that you also
> > have to use a good portion of the straight to brake down to about the
> > same speed you entered the straight: around 40-45 mph.
> > So you're analysis was hardly what you'd call thorough, was it?

just did some measuring on google maps to confirm the distances- the 300m quoted straight is from turn 11 to the start/finish line. to turn 1 is around 500m, but if you're talking about breaking to 40-45mph, you're talking turn 2 / andretti hairpin, it is 700m!

...

[Alan Baker]

In article <eca549dc-bd86-42e3...@googlegroups.com>,

Whatever, dick.

Either come out to the track and show us all (including the
instructors!) how to get this magical top speed you think exists out of
the cars, or shut the hell up.

[Alan Baker]

In article <9d8650fd-b691-4d9b...@googlegroups.com>,

You didn't come to a conclusion: you threw out a typical snide remark.

And since you're now insisting that 110-111 doesn't sound right, either,
you're really avoiding coming to a conclusion.

>
> and oh yeah, and a mx-5 cup car from skip barber can hit at least 96mph on
> the track with almost 40% power-weight deficit and taking 42% longer to get
> from 0-100. all in all, yeah, that 107mph max possible didn't look right.
> http://www.modified.com/features/0709_sccp_mazda_miata_mx5_barber_driving_scho
> ol/viewall.html
> http://www.skipbarber.com/vehiclespecs.asp

Did you ever consider that weight listed for the Skip Barber Formula Car
might be its empty weight?


You know what: you're a dick. Why bother with any of this.

[ed]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 10:54:27 AM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <eca549dc-bd86-42e3...@googlegroups.com>,
> ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, November 5, 2012 10:41:06 AM UTC-8, ed wrote:
> > > On Monday, November 5, 2012 10:23:24 AM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> > ...
> > > > Oh, and a quarter mile is 440 yards, so 300m shorter (328 yards) is not
> > > > "a bit shorter", but rather only 75% of the length of a drag strip.
> > > > Next, you don't get to accelerate for the entire straight.
> > > and the 'straight' at 300m is just the part that's just *straight*. the
> > > mostly super straight stretch is over 500m, so the a bit shorter piece and
> > > the running start makes it reasonable to compare to a quarter mile.
> > > > Sure: you get
> > > > a running start, but what you've neglected to recall is that you also
> > > > have to use a good portion of the straight to brake down to about the
> > > > same speed you entered the straight: around 40-45 mph.
> > > > So you're analysis was hardly what you'd call thorough, was it?
>
> > just did some measuring on google maps to confirm the distances- the 300m
> > quoted straight is from turn 11 to the start/finish line. to turn 1 is
> > around 500m, but if you're talking about breaking to 40-45mph, you're talking
> > turn 2 / andretti hairpin, it is 700m!
> > ...
>
> Whatever, dick.

real nice alan. the facts really get you worked up, eh?

> Either come out to the track and show us all (including the
> instructors!) how to get this magical top speed you think exists out of
> the cars, or shut the hell up.

you already did, so why would that be necessary?

[ed]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 10:58:41 AM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
...

> > it was clearly thorough enough to come to the correct conclusion, eh? :P
>
> You didn't come to a conclusion: you threw out a typical snide remark.

saying that i think the107mph sounds low for a top speed isn't a conclusion to you?

> And since you're now insisting that 110-111 doesn't sound right, either,

i didn't say the 110-111 was too slow, never mind insist on it; i only said that i didn't say the 110-111 was the correct number. i.e. i didn't say anything about the 110-111 other than that it was obviously higher than the 107. :P

...

> Did you ever consider that weight listed for the Skip Barber Formula Car
> might be its empty weight?

the data for both are from skip barber's site. if you have anything better, feel free to show it.

> You know what: you're a dick.

you're a peach. ;D

> Why bother with any of this.

i bother because i like talking cars, just about any kind and just about any aspect of it. if you don't, i don't know why you post about it, the school, your times, or your car.

[Alan Baker]

In article <fbb8ef4e-d183-455f...@googlegroups.com>,

The facts seem to have no effect on you, dick. The facts are that the
cars top out about where I said they top out, and atmospheric conditions
can easily account for the difference between the two weekends.

>
> > Either come out to the track and show us all (including the
> > instructors!) how to get this magical top speed you think exists out of
> > the cars, or shut the hell up.
>
> you already did, so why would that be necessary?

Because you're the one implying--out and out declaring--that you know
they must be capable of some significant amount more, dick.

[Alan Baker]

In article <4e3a0122-505d-4576...@googlegroups.com>,

ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:

> On Monday, November 5, 2012 10:58:41 AM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> ...
> > > it was clearly thorough enough to come to the correct conclusion, eh? :P
> >
> > You didn't come to a conclusion: you threw out a typical snide remark.
>
> saying that i think the107mph sounds low for a top speed isn't a conclusion
> to you?

Nope.

>
> > And since you're now insisting that 110-111 doesn't sound right, either,
>
> i didn't say the 110-111 was too slow, never mind insist on it; i only said
> that i didn't say the 110-111 was the correct number. i.e. i didn't say
> anything about the 110-111 other than that it was obviously higher than the
> 107. :P

So if it isn't the correct number--and assuming you're at least bright
enough to understand that if the number was reached, it can be too
high...

...doesn't that leave too slow as the only remaining option, dick?

>
> ...
> > Did you ever consider that weight listed for the Skip Barber Formula Car
> > might be its empty weight?
>
> the data for both are from skip barber's site. if you have anything better,
> feel free to show it.

Feel free to show that they are empty weights. A formula ford weighs
1100lbs WITH DRIVER, dick.

>
> > You know what: you're a dick.
>
> you're a peach. ;D
>
> > Why bother with any of this.
>
> i bother because i like talking cars, just about any kind and just about any
> aspect of it. if you don't, i don't know why you post about it, the school,
> your times, or your car.

You like making snide remarks, dick.

If you really wanted to talk cars, you'd be examining the WHY of the top
speed that these cars demonstrably get and not crowing about your
alleged "correctness" in saying 107mph was too slow, but 110 (less than
3% different) was...

...well we're in a quandary there, aren't we, dick? You say you're not
claiming that its too slow, but you're also not saying it's correct, but
it can't be too fast because we know the cars were actually going that
speed.

Right... ...dick?

[ed]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 11:29:25 AM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <fbb8ef4e-d183-455f...@googlegroups.com>,
...

> > > Either come out to the track and show us all (including the
> > > instructors!) how to get this magical top speed you think exists out of
> > > the cars, or shut the hell up.
> > you already did, so why would that be necessary?
>
> Because you're the one implying--out and out declaring--that you know
> they must be capable of some significant amount more, dick.

what are you imagining i'm "out and out declaring," exactly?

[Alan Baker]

In article <3e75aa9e-192c-47f7...@googlegroups.com>,

Hmmm... ...let's see:

You've said you don't agree the speed is correct...

...and we know from actual performance that the 110mph speed is
possible...

...so that means that you can't be declaring it to high a speed to be
possible...

...so what possibility does that leave...


...dick?

[ed]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 11:38:57 AM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <4e3a0122-505d-4576...@googlegroups.com>,
> ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, November 5, 2012 10:58:41 AM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > it was clearly thorough enough to come to the correct conclusion, eh? :P
> > > You didn't come to a conclusion: you threw out a typical snide remark.
>
> > saying that i think the107mph sounds low for a top speed isn't a conclusion
> > to you?
>
> Nope.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/conclusion

> > > And since you're now insisting that 110-111 doesn't sound right, either,
> > i didn't say the 110-111 was too slow, never mind insist on it; i only said
> > that i didn't say the 110-111 was the correct number. i.e. i didn't say
> > anything about the 110-111 other than that it was obviously higher than the
> > 107. :P
>
> So if it isn't the correct number

i didn't say that either.

> --and assuming you're at least bright
> enough to understand that if the number was reached, it can be too
> high...
>
> ...doesn't that leave too slow as the only remaining option, dick?

nope- there's the CORRECT option, which i already told you- i said nothing about the 110-111 other than it was higher than 107. i didn't say the 110-110 was or was not the correct max speed number.

> > > Did you ever consider that weight listed for the Skip Barber Formula Car
> > > might be its empty weight?
>
> > the data for both are from skip barber's site. if you have anything better,
> > feel free to show it.
>
> Feel free to show that they are empty weights. A formula ford weighs
> 1100lbs WITH DRIVER, dick.

perhaps you missed it, but at this point, i was comparing the relative performance of the formula skip barber with the mx-5 cup car they have, using the numbers they have posted. the formula ford is irrelevant to that comparison.

> > > You know what: you're a dick.
>
> > you're a peach. ;D
> > > Why bother with any of this.
>
> > i bother because i like talking cars, just about any kind and just about any
>
> > aspect of it. if you don't, i don't know why you post about it, the school,
> > your times, or your car.
>
> You like making snide remarks, dick.

yeah, i'm the one that likes that. ;D

> If you really wanted to talk cars, you'd be examining the WHY of the top
> speed that these cars demonstrably get and not crowing about your
> alleged "correctness" in saying 107mph was too slow, but 110 (less than
> 3% different) was...

...faster, and shows that the 107 was too slow.

> ...well we're in a quandary there, aren't we, dick? You say you're not
> claiming that its too slow, but you're also not saying it's correct, but
> it can't be too fast because we know the cars were actually going that
> speed.
>
> Right... ...dick?

no quandry. it shows what i said.

[Alan Baker]

In article <8e7c83fe-7dbb-4d18...@googlegroups.com>,

"didn't say 110 or 11 sounded just right, just that the 107 was-
correctly- too slow."

So what are you saying, dick?

>
> > > > Did you ever consider that weight listed for the Skip Barber Formula
> > > > Car
> > > > might be its empty weight?
> >
> > > the data for both are from skip barber's site. if you have anything
> > > better,
> > > feel free to show it.
> >
> > Feel free to show that they are empty weights. A formula ford weighs
> > 1100lbs WITH DRIVER, dick.
>
> perhaps you missed it, but at this point, i was comparing the relative
> performance of the formula skip barber with the mx-5 cup car they have, using
> the numbers they have posted. the formula ford is irrelevant to that
> comparison.

Yes. And if you consider empty weight plus driver weight, driver weight
plays a much larger role...

...in a car that weighs have as much, dick.

Plus, the aerodynamic drag of an open wheel car with wings (capable, for
scale, of pulling 1.3g on street rubber; think about that if such is
possible for you) is likely to be proportionally much more (with respect
to power-to-drag) than the aerodynamic drag of a closed wheel car with a
generally rounded form such as a Mazda MX-5, dick

>
> > > > You know what: you're a dick.
> >
> > > you're a peach. ;D
> > > > Why bother with any of this.
> >
> > > i bother because i like talking cars, just about any kind and just about
> > > any
> >
> > > aspect of it. if you don't, i don't know why you post about it, the
> > > school,
> > > your times, or your car.
> >
> > You like making snide remarks, dick.
>
> yeah, i'm the one that likes that. ;D

Yup. When I want to insult someone by calling them a dick (for
instance), I just call them a dick.

You're a dick.

>
> > If you really wanted to talk cars, you'd be examining the WHY of the top
> > speed that these cars demonstrably get and not crowing about your
> > alleged "correctness" in saying 107mph was too slow, but 110 (less than
> > 3% different) was...
>
> ...faster, and shows that the 107 was too slow.

Nope. It shows that the car was slightly faster on a different day. Not
inconceivable for them to know when you consider they tune the cars to
operate against each other to within 1mph of top speed, dick.

>
> > ...well we're in a quandary there, aren't we, dick? You say you're not
> > claiming that its too slow, but you're also not saying it's correct, but
> > it can't be too fast because we know the cars were actually going that
> > speed.
> >
> > Right... ...dick?
>
> no quandry. it shows what i said.

And what is that you've said, dick? You've now both claimed that 110 is
correct for top speed and that you've not said whether it is correct.

[ed]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 1:37:11 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
...

> > no quandry. it shows what i said.
>
> And what is that you've said, dick? You've now both claimed that 110 is
> correct for top speed and that you've not said whether it is correct.

nope, read again.

[FDK]

"Alan Baker" wrote in message
news:alangbaker-24FC2...@news.shawcable.net...

My, my. He keeps touching that nerve.

BTW: Why did they hang the nick "Kiddy Diddler" on you? Cat got your
tongue?

[Alan Baker]

In article <9105847f-2f16-4b41...@googlegroups.com>,

Yup. I read fine.

You're now twisting.

There are only three options:

1. 110 is correct. You claim you haven't claimed it is, but let's return
to this.

2. 110 is faster than one can go. Well that one must be out as a tenable
dodge even for you.

3. 110 is slower than one can go. This one you don't seem to want to
state.

So just what are you saying?

[FDK]

"Alan Baker" wrote in message

news:alangbaker-1A8D3...@news.shawcable.net...

In article <8e7c83fe-7dbb-4d18...@googlegroups.com>,
ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:

My goodness, all that ranting and raving and babbling. You sound
demented, Loser. I think you need to relax. Take out your little red
Miata and check out some kiddies. Maybe you'll "get lucky".

[ed]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 1:49:25 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
...

> > nope, read again.
>
> Yup. I read fine.

nope.


> You're now twisting.

nope.

> There are only three options:
>
> 1. 110 is correct. You claim you haven't claimed it is, but let's return to this.

please do. i haven't claimed this.

> 2. 110 is faster than one can go. Well that one must be out as a tenable dodge even for you.

haven't claimed this either.

> 3. 110 is slower than one can go. This one you don't seem to want to state.

also haven't claimed this.

i haven't claimed any of them.

> So just what are you saying?

i am saying:
1- 110mph, what you stated you just did last week, is faster than the 107mph that you previously claimed was the max speed possible at laguna seca with a formula skip barber car.
2- i previously communicated that the 107mph you stated as the max speed possible sounded slow for the max speed possible for said car
3- you've now supported my previous statement with your 110mph claim.

[Alan Baker]

In article <4a193925-cdc9-49e5...@googlegroups.com>,

ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:

> On Monday, November 5, 2012 1:49:25 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> ...
> > > nope, read again.
> >
> > Yup. I read fine.
>
> nope.
>
>
> > You're now twisting.
>
> nope.
>
> > There are only three options:
> >
> > 1. 110 is correct. You claim you haven't claimed it is, but let's return to
> > this.
>
> please do. i haven't claimed this.
>
> > 2. 110 is faster than one can go. Well that one must be out as a tenable
> > dodge even for you.
>
> haven't claimed this either.
>
> > 3. 110 is slower than one can go. This one you don't seem to want to state.
>
> also haven't claimed this.
>
> i haven't claimed any of them.
>
> > So just what are you saying?
>
> i am saying:
> 1- 110mph, what you stated you just did last week, is faster than the 107mph
> that you previously claimed was the max speed possible at laguna seca with a
> formula skip barber car.

For a different weekend with different conditions, yes.

> 2- i previously communicated that the 107mph you stated as the max speed
> possible sounded slow for the max speed possible for said car
> 3- you've now supported my previous statement with your 110mph claim.

Which brings us right back to you either believing you're so clever that
you can tell that 107 is slow when 110 is just right, or that you must
be claiming that 110 is slow as well...

...but you simply won't pin yourself down to one of those, will you,
dick?

[ed]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 2:17:16 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <4a193925-cdc9-49e5...@googlegroups.com>,
> ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, November 5, 2012 1:49:25 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> > ...
> > > > nope, read again.
> > > Yup. I read fine.
> > nope.
> > > You're now twisting.
> > nope.
>
> > > There are only three options:
>
> > > 1. 110 is correct. You claim you haven't claimed it is, but let's return to
> > > this.
>
> > please do. i haven't claimed this.

i thought you were coming back to this?

>
> > > 2. 110 is faster than one can go. Well that one must be out as a tenable
> > > dodge even for you.
>
> > haven't claimed this either.
>
> > > 3. 110 is slower than one can go. This one you don't seem to want to state.
>
> > also haven't claimed this.
>
> > i haven't claimed any of them.
>
> > > So just what are you saying?
>
> > i am saying:
> > 1- 110mph, what you stated you just did last week, is faster than the 107mph
> > that you previously claimed was the max speed possible at laguna seca with a
> > formula skip barber car.
>
> For a different weekend with different conditions, yes.
>
> > 2- i previously communicated that the 107mph you stated as the max speed
> > possible sounded slow for the max speed possible for said car
> > 3- you've now supported my previous statement with your 110mph claim.
>
> Which brings us right back to you either believing you're so clever that
> you can tell that 107 is slow when 110 is just right, or that you must
> be claiming that 110 is slow as well...

nope. i can tell one thing is too slow without knowing whether something else is just right.

for example, if i saw someone like dwight howard on the street, and someone said he was 6'6" tall, i would know that seemed too short. if they then said he was at 6'10" tall, well, i may not know if that was just right or it was still too short. but i would know that they now agreed with me that 6'6" was too short. ;D and i would also know that trying to get me to say whether he was exactly 6'10" or if he was taller than that would be irrelevant to me being initially correct that 6'6" was too short. and it would also be peevish, btw. ;D

> ...but you simply won't pin yourself down to one of those, will you, dick?

it's irrelevant to the topic.

now, if you want to make it relevant and make a wager, i might be willing to put another $100 on the 110mph number... ;D we'd have to find an acceptable way of figuring out winning criteria on that though...

[Alan Baker]

In article <2da5083b-8690-428f...@googlegroups.com>,

That makes no sense at all. Again, you either have to be saying that 110
is too slow or that it is just right. Those are the only two options.

>
> for example, if i saw someone like dwight howard on the street, and someone
> said he was 6'6" tall, i would know that seemed too short. if they then said
> he was at 6'10" tall, well, i may not know if that was just right or it was
> still too short. but i would know that they now agreed with me that 6'6" was
> too short. ;D and i would also know that trying to get me to say whether he
> was exactly 6'10" or if he was taller than that would be irrelevant to me
> being initially correct that 6'6" was too short. and it would also be
> peevish, btw. ;D

But there is an implication in your ability to know his height correctly
and to what level of certainty. 6'6" is nearly 5% shorter than 6'10",
and by your choice of analogy you show a knowledge of basketball that
implies that you've had the heights of many players communicated to you
over the years and thus even if you don't know Howard's height, you have
a good basis for comparison by his proximity on the floor to players
around him.

All you have to go on is how fast a couple of different cars (quite
different) go and yet you claim to be able to extrapolate to less than
3%, or you're claiming that 110 is too slow.

>
> > ...but you simply won't pin yourself down to one of those, will you, dick?
>
> it's irrelevant to the topic.

It is completely relevant to your snide and dickish behaviour, dick.

>
> now, if you want to make it relevant and make a wager, i might be willing to
> put another $100 on the 110mph number... ;D we'd have to find an acceptable
> way of figuring out winning criteria on that though...

[ed]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 2:57:32 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <2da5083b-8690-428f...@googlegroups.com>,
...

> That makes no sense at all. Again, you either have to be saying that 110
> is too slow or that it is just right. Those are the only two options.

nope, sorry, there are more option- i can know that one number is too slow without knowing whether another number is just right.

> > for example, if i saw someone like dwight howard on the street, and someone
> > said he was 6'6" tall, i would know that seemed too short. if they then said
> > he was at 6'10" tall, well, i may not know if that was just right or it was
> > still too short. but i would know that they now agreed with me that 6'6" was
> > too short. ;D and i would also know that trying to get me to say whether he
> > was exactly 6'10" or if he was taller than that would be irrelevant to me
> > being initially correct that 6'6" was too short. and it would also be
> > peevish, btw. ;D
>
> But there is an implication in your ability to know his height correctly
> and to what level of certainty. 6'6" is nearly 5% shorter than 6'10",
> and by your choice of analogy you show a knowledge of basketball that
> implies that you've had the heights of many players communicated to you
> over the years and thus even if you don't know Howard's height, you have
> a good basis for comparison by his proximity on the floor to players
> around him.
>
> All you have to go on is how fast a couple of different cars (quite
> different) go and yet you claim to be able to extrapolate to less than
> 3%, or you're claiming that 110 is too slow.

so i have a couple cars to compare the formula skip to, and i successfully guessed the max top speed stated was too low; similarly, i would only need one point of reference (not many heights of players communicated to me over the years), of not even a person (talk about different) to know that dwight howard was taller than 6'6". weird.

> > > ...but you simply won't pin yourself down to one of those, will you, dick?
>
> > it's irrelevant to the topic.
>
> It is completely relevant to your snide and dickish behaviour, dick.

i disagree it's relevant to anything. and i think you're comments clearly show more about you than me, but we're obviously not going to agree, so we should probably let it drop. ;D

[Alan Baker]

In article <7e704b3c-ca6a-47fa...@googlegroups.com>,

ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:

> On Monday, November 5, 2012 2:57:32 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <2da5083b-8690-428f...@googlegroups.com>,
> ...
> > That makes no sense at all. Again, you either have to be saying that 110
> > is too slow or that it is just right. Those are the only two options.
>
> nope, sorry, there are more option- i can know that one number is too slow
> without knowing whether another number is just right.

No, you can't. To know that something is "too" anything else, one must
make a comparison. If you said that 5 mph was too slow, yes, you
wouldn't have to know the point of comparison's accuracy with much
precision, because the order of magnitude of the gap allows your
knowledge of what is correct to be less precise.

To claim that a number less than 3% greater proves that you were doing
anything other than making a snide comment implies that your conclusion
was reasoned. For a reasoned conclusion to be valid, you either have to
have concluded your point of comparison to a much greater degree of
precision.

You want to claim a great "Ha-ha! I got you!" moment for a 3%
difference, while ignoring that this was on different days and in
different atmospheric conditions easily sufficient to cover the spread.

Yes: "guessed" being the operative word. Your implication was that it
was a reasoned conclusion when it was just a guess. You once heard that
a Formula Ford could do a 110mph in the quarter and made a guess that
ignored the reality that aerodynamics play a huge role in top speed and
without even knowing whether the power to weight ratios of the car in
question was really much different than that of a Formula Ford.

Guess what? If I guess that a die will next roll a 5 and it does, that
doesn't make me very "right".

>
> > > > ...but you simply won't pin yourself down to one of those, will you,
> > > > dick?
> >
> > > it's irrelevant to the topic.
> >
> > It is completely relevant to your snide and dickish behaviour, dick.
>
> i disagree it's relevant to anything. and i think you're comments clearly
> show more about you than me, but we're obviously not going to agree, so we
> should probably let it drop. ;D

Fine.

Drop it, dick.

[FDK]

>"Alan Baker" wrote in message

>news:alangbaker-119A5...@news.shawcable.net...

>In article
><a9d7b046-698d-4a70...@x21g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
> -hh <recscub...@huntzinger.com> wrote:

> On Nov 4, 2:54 pm, "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:
> > "-hh" wrote in message

>While Michael was making excuses, I was down in Laguna Seca again
>last
>Monday-Tuesday for the 2-day advanced course...

>...and raised my top speed on the main straight to nearly 110.

"Nearly"!!!! HOOT!!!!! BWAHAAAHAAAHAAAHAAAAAAAAAAAA - "I 'nearly'
won". MOOHOOHOOHAAHAAHAAHARRRRRRRRRRRR.

[ed]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 4:28:47 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <7e704b3c-ca6a-47fa...@googlegroups.com>,
> ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
>
> > On Monday, November 5, 2012 2:57:32 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> > > In article <2da5083b-8690-428f...@googlegroups.com>,
> > ...
> > > That makes no sense at all. Again, you either have to be saying that 110
> > > is too slow or that it is just right. Those are the only two options.
>
> > nope, sorry, there are more option- i can know that one number is too slow
> > without knowing whether another number is just right.
>
> No, you can't.

OF COURSE you can. let's take an extreme example- if someone saw a fighter jet blowing by them at max speed, they'd know it was faster than 100mph. beyond that... well, a lot of people- maybe most- would have no freakin' clue...

> To know that something is "too" anything else, one must
> make a comparison. If you said that 5 mph was too slow, yes, you
> wouldn't have to know the point of comparison's accuracy with much
> precision, because the order of magnitude of the gap allows your
> knowledge of what is correct to be less precise.
>
> To claim that a number less than 3% greater proves that you were doing
> anything other than making a snide comment implies that your conclusion
> was reasoned. For a reasoned conclusion to be valid, you either have to
> have concluded your point of comparison to a much greater degree of
> precision.

nope, it shows my estimate was correct.

> You want to claim a great "Ha-ha! I got you!" moment for a 3%
> difference, while ignoring that this was on different days and in
> different atmospheric conditions easily sufficient to cover the spread.

seems like "max speed possible" would cover normal differences in conditions. ;D

...

> Yes: "guessed" being the operative word. Your implication was that it
> was a reasoned conclusion when it was just a guess. You once heard that
> a Formula Ford could do a 110mph in the quarter and made a guess that
> ignored the reality that aerodynamics play a huge role in top speed and
> without even knowing whether the power to weight ratios of the car in
> question was really much different than that of a Formula Ford.
> Guess what? If I guess that a die will next roll a 5 and it does, that
> doesn't make me very "right".
>

> > i disagree it's relevant to anything. and i think you're comments clearly
> > show more about you than me, but we're obviously not going to agree, so we
> > should probably let it drop. ;D
>
> Fine.
>
>
>
> Drop it, dick.

you're still saying more about yourself than me there alan. ;D

[FDK]

>"Alan Baker" wrote in message

>news:alangbaker-3D2C6...@news.shawcable.net...

>In article <k7778v$jk2$1...@dont-email.me>, "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:

>I'll race you, Michael.

>Any time you can scratch up enough money to come and do it out on a
>track. It's not 100% certain yet, but I'm probably going to be at
>Sebring for another 2-day on November 15-16. So if you're as
>qualified
>as you claim, sign up.


There is no "Alan Baker" signed up at Sebring for anything on November
15 - 16.

So who am I supposed to race, your "Alter Ego" or your "understudy" ?

[Alan Baker]

In article <ec81bc69-8429-4bbc...@googlegroups.com>,

ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:

> On Monday, November 5, 2012 4:28:47 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <7e704b3c-ca6a-47fa...@googlegroups.com>,
> > ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> >
> > > On Monday, November 5, 2012 2:57:32 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> > > > In article <2da5083b-8690-428f...@googlegroups.com>,
> > > ...
> > > > That makes no sense at all. Again, you either have to be saying that
> > > > 110
> > > > is too slow or that it is just right. Those are the only two options.
> >
> > > nope, sorry, there are more option- i can know that one number is too
> > > slow
> > > without knowing whether another number is just right.
> >
> > No, you can't.
>
> OF COURSE you can. let's take an extreme example- if someone saw a fighter
> jet blowing by them at max speed, they'd know it was faster than 100mph.
> beyond that... well, a lot of people- maybe most- would have no freakin'
> clue...

All of which I addressed in my next paragraph.

>
> > To know that something is "too" anything else, one must
> > make a comparison. If you said that 5 mph was too slow, yes, you
> > wouldn't have to know the point of comparison's accuracy with much
> > precision, because the order of magnitude of the gap allows your
> > knowledge of what is correct to be less precise.
> >
> > To claim that a number less than 3% greater proves that you were doing
> > anything other than making a snide comment implies that your conclusion
> > was reasoned. For a reasoned conclusion to be valid, you either have to
> > have concluded your point of comparison to a much greater degree of
> > precision.
>
> nope, it shows my estimate was correct.

Nope. It (and what is about to follow) shows you made a guess, dick.

>
> > You want to claim a great "Ha-ha! I got you!" moment for a 3%
> > difference, while ignoring that this was on different days and in
> > different atmospheric conditions easily sufficient to cover the spread.
>
> seems like "max speed possible" would cover normal differences in conditions.
> ;D

How could it? If they can't speed test every car on the same day, and
they want to get them to within 1mph of each other, how can they not
have to compensate for differences in conditions, dick?

>
> ...
> > Yes: "guessed" being the operative word. Your implication was that it
> > was a reasoned conclusion when it was just a guess. You once heard that
> > a Formula Ford could do a 110mph in the quarter and made a guess that
> > ignored the reality that aerodynamics play a huge role in top speed and
> > without even knowing whether the power to weight ratios of the car in
> > question was really much different than that of a Formula Ford.
> > Guess what? If I guess that a die will next roll a 5 and it does, that
> > doesn't make me very "right".

Cat got your tongue on this one?

BTW, a Formula Skip Barber with driver has a power to weight ratio of
LESS than a Formula Ford: 10.6lbs/hp vs 9.6lbs/hp.

So your whole argument based on the alleged speed of a Formula Ford you
read somewhere...

...is bullshit, dick.

> >
> > > i disagree it's relevant to anything. and i think you're comments
> > > clearly
> > > show more about you than me, but we're obviously not going to agree, so
> > > we
> > > should probably let it drop. ;D
> >
> > Fine.
> >
> >
> >
> > Drop it, dick.
>
> you're still saying more about yourself than me there alan. ;D

Sure, dick. Whatever you need to believe.

But I note you didn't drop it.

Why is that, dick.

[Alan Baker]

Yup. Specifically, the highest speed I saw on the GPS-enable video was
109mph.

Which is exactly 1mph slower than an open wheel championship-winning
driver/instructor did in the same car one month earlier...

...as you're now aware, sucker.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

In article <k79mkg$pje$1...@dont-email.me>, "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:

> >"Alan Baker" wrote in message
> >news:alangbaker-3D2C6...@news.shawcable.net...
>
> >In article <k7778v$jk2$1...@dont-email.me>, "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >I'll race you, Michael.
>
> >Any time you can scratch up enough money to come and do it out on a
> >track. It's not 100% certain yet, but I'm probably going to be at
> >Sebring for another 2-day on November 15-16. So if you're as
> >qualified
> >as you claim, sign up.
>
>
> There is no "Alan Baker" signed up at Sebring for anything on November
> 15 - 16.

That's correct, Michael. You'll notice I said: "It's not 100% certain
yet). As of this moment, I'm still booked elsewhere for the end of the
month.

>
> So who am I supposed to race, your "Alter Ego" or your "understudy" ?

[ed]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 4:47:20 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <ec81bc69-8429-4bbc...@googlegroups.com>,
...

> BTW, a Formula Skip Barber with driver has a power to weight ratio of
> LESS than a Formula Ford: 10.6lbs/hp vs 9.6lbs/hp.
>
> So your whole argument based on the alleged speed of a Formula Ford you
> read somewhere...
>
> ...is bullshit, dick.

nope, even then, it's a good reference point, as you have a flying start, which i pointed out from the start. we've subsequently learned that that there's also a lot more track than a quarter mile, especially if you're using the straight up to turn 2 as your reference (which you clearly were if you're talking about braking down to 40-45mph); even at turn one, you're at 500m.

...

> > you're still saying more about yourself than me there alan. ;D
>
> Sure, dick. Whatever you need to believe.
>
> But I note you didn't drop it.
>
> Why is that, dick.

i said 'we' should probably drop it. you clearly don't want to. if you want to keep showing yourself in such a negative light, who am i to stop you. ;D

[Alan Baker]

In article <430f28ec-b026-4eb8...@googlegroups.com>,

ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:

> On Monday, November 5, 2012 4:47:20 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <ec81bc69-8429-4bbc...@googlegroups.com>,
> ...
> > BTW, a Formula Skip Barber with driver has a power to weight ratio of
> > LESS than a Formula Ford: 10.6lbs/hp vs 9.6lbs/hp.
> >
> > So your whole argument based on the alleged speed of a Formula Ford you
> > read somewhere...
> >
> > ...is bullshit, dick.
>
> nope, even then, it's a good reference point, as you have a flying start,
> which i pointed out from the start. we've subsequently learned that that
> there's also a lot more track than a quarter mile, especially if you're using
> the straight up to turn 2 as your reference (which you clearly were if you're
> talking about braking down to 40-45mph); even at turn one, you're at 500m.

And you still haven't figured out that aerodynamic drag is the much more
important factor in top speeds, dick.

>
> ...
> > > you're still saying more about yourself than me there alan. ;D
> >
> > Sure, dick. Whatever you need to believe.
> >
> > But I note you didn't drop it.
> >
> > Why is that, dick.
>
> i said 'we' should probably drop it. you clearly don't want to. if you want
> to keep showing yourself in such a negative light, who am i to stop you. ;D

It doesn't take a "we" to drop it, dick.

If you want to drop it, then drop it.

[ed]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 4:57:50 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <430f28ec-b026-4eb8...@googlegroups.com>,
...

> > nope, even then, it's a good reference point, as you have a flying start,
> > which i pointed out from the start. we've subsequently learned that that
> > there's also a lot more track than a quarter mile, especially if you're using
> > the straight up to turn 2 as your reference (which you clearly were if you're
> > talking about braking down to 40-45mph); even at turn one, you're at 500m.
>
> And you still haven't figured out that aerodynamic drag is the much more
> important factor in top speeds, dick.

how do you come to that conclusion? you'd think i'd had been wrong about that car being able to run faster with the way you're talking. ;D

> > ...
> > > > you're still saying more about yourself than me there alan. ;D
> > > Sure, dick. Whatever you need to believe.
> > > But I note you didn't drop it.
> > > Why is that, dick.
> > i said 'we' should probably drop it. you clearly don't want to. if you want
> > to keep showing yourself in such a negative light, who am i to stop you. ;D
>
> It doesn't take a "we" to drop it, dick.
>
> If you want to drop it, then drop it.

i said nothing about wanting to- if you want to keep going, i'm willing. ;D

[Alan Baker]

In article <a2742ed7-1b2d-4237...@googlegroups.com>,

ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:

> On Monday, November 5, 2012 4:57:50 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> > In article <430f28ec-b026-4eb8...@googlegroups.com>,
> ...
> > > nope, even then, it's a good reference point, as you have a flying start,
> > > which i pointed out from the start. we've subsequently learned that that
> > > there's also a lot more track than a quarter mile, especially if you're
> > > using
> > > the straight up to turn 2 as your reference (which you clearly were if
> > > you're
> > > talking about braking down to 40-45mph); even at turn one, you're at
> > > 500m.
> >
> > And you still haven't figured out that aerodynamic drag is the much more
> > important factor in top speeds, dick.
>
> how do you come to that conclusion? you'd think i'd had been wrong about
> that car being able to run faster with the way you're talking. ;D

I think you were right in the same way that any guess is "right".

>
> > > ...
> > > > > you're still saying more about yourself than me there alan. ;D
> > > > Sure, dick. Whatever you need to believe.
> > > > But I note you didn't drop it.
> > > > Why is that, dick.
> > > i said 'we' should probably drop it. you clearly don't want to. if you
> > > want
> > > to keep showing yourself in such a negative light, who am i to stop you.
> > > ;D
> >
> > It doesn't take a "we" to drop it, dick.
> >
> > If you want to drop it, then drop it.
>
> i said nothing about wanting to- if you want to keep going, i'm willing. ;D

Riiiight.

That's why you brought it up, dick.

[ed]

On Monday, November 5, 2012 5:06:07 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> In article <a2742ed7-1b2d-4237...@googlegroups.com>,
> ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:
> > On Monday, November 5, 2012 4:57:50 PM UTC-8, Alan Baker wrote:
> > > In article <430f28ec-b026-4eb8...@googlegroups.com>,

> > > > nope, even then, it's a good reference point, as you have a flying start,
> > > > which i pointed out from the start. we've subsequently learned that that
> > > > there's also a lot more track than a quarter mile, especially if you're
> > > > using
> > > > the straight up to turn 2 as your reference (which you clearly were if
> > > > you're
> > > > talking about braking down to 40-45mph); even at turn one, you're at
> > > > 500m.
> > > And you still haven't figured out that aerodynamic drag is the much more
> > > important factor in top speeds, dick.
> > how do you come to that conclusion? you'd think i'd had been wrong about
> > that car being able to run faster with the way you're talking. ;D
>
> I think you were right in the same way that any guess is "right".

your prerogative to think whatever you want, of course. ;D

> > > > ...
> > > > > > you're still saying more about yourself than me there alan. ;D
>
> > > > > Sure, dick. Whatever you need to believe.
> > > > > But I note you didn't drop it.
> > > > > Why is that, dick.
> > > > i said 'we' should probably drop it. you clearly don't want to. if you
> > > > want
> > > > to keep showing yourself in such a negative light, who am i to stop you.
> > > > ;D
> > > It doesn't take a "we" to drop it, dick.
> > > If you want to drop it, then drop it.
> > i said nothing about wanting to- if you want to keep going, i'm willing. ;D
>
> Riiiight.

right.

> That's why you brought it up, dick.

yup, it does make sense to drop- this clearly isn't going anywhere after all- but if you want to keep going, i'm willing to play along. i've been off the clock for quite a while, and i'm just lounging around for another half hour until basketball, so if you want to keep showing everyone how pleasant you are, i'm willing to let you. :P

[Alan Baker]

In article <bdaacfba-1883-4172...@googlegroups.com>,

My prerogative based on......

..your assumption that a Skip Barber car would be faster in the quarter
mile being wrong...



...you're obvious inability to understand what aerodynamic drag does to
top speed, and what wings (with a hanford device no less; do you even
know what that is, dick who "likes to talk cars"?) do to aero drag.

>
> > > > > ...
> > > > > > > you're still saying more about yourself than me there alan. ;D
> >
> > > > > > Sure, dick. Whatever you need to believe.
> > > > > > But I note you didn't drop it.
> > > > > > Why is that, dick.
> > > > > i said 'we' should probably drop it. you clearly don't want to. if
> > > > > you
> > > > > want
> > > > > to keep showing yourself in such a negative light, who am i to stop
> > > > > you.
> > > > > ;D
> > > > It doesn't take a "we" to drop it, dick.
> > > > If you want to drop it, then drop it.
> > > i said nothing about wanting to- if you want to keep going, i'm willing.
> > > ;D
> >
> > Riiiight.
>
> right.
>
> > That's why you brought it up, dick.
>
> yup, it does make sense to drop- this clearly isn't going anywhere after all-
> but if you want to keep going, i'm willing to play along. i've been off the
> clock for quite a while, and i'm just lounging around for another half hour
> until basketball, so if you want to keep showing everyone how pleasant you
> are, i'm willing to let you. :P

And if you want to go on showing people you're a dick, I'm willing to
let you...

[ed]

no, i didn't think i actually assumed that- didn't give quarter mile times too much thought iirc- i know that a formula ford typically has a faster 0-60 time, but given that they're relatively close, the skip has more hp, and you're coming out of a flying start, it's a good starting point to get an understanding of whether the time sounded slow or not.

> ...you're obvious inability to understand what aerodynamic drag does to
> top speed, and what wings (with a hanford device no less; do you even
> know what that is, dick who "likes to talk cars"?) do to aero drag.

ha! not understand aerodynamic forces and its effect on top speed. maybe we can open up a discussion on aeronautical topics in general - maybe you can try and explain to me that a wing box has to be an enclosed cube again. oh, the fun memories from that one!

...

> > > > > > > Sure, dick. Whatever you need to believe.
> > > > > > > But I note you didn't drop it.
> > > > > > > Why is that, dick.
> > > > > > i said 'we' should probably drop it. you clearly don't want to. if
> > > > > > you
> > > > > > want
> > > > > > to keep showing yourself in such a negative light, who am i to stop
> > > > > > you.
> > > > > > ;D
>
> > > > > It doesn't take a "we" to drop it, dick.
> > > > > If you want to drop it, then drop it.
> > > > i said nothing about wanting to- if you want to keep going, i'm willing.
> > > > ;D
> > > Riiiight.
> > right.
>
> > > That's why you brought it up, dick.
>
> > yup, it does make sense to drop- this clearly isn't going anywhere after all-
> > but if you want to keep going, i'm willing to play along. i've been off the
> > clock for quite a while, and i'm just lounging around for another half hour
> > until basketball, so if you want to keep showing everyone how pleasant you
> > are, i'm willing to let you. :P
>
> And if you want to go on showing people you're a dick, I'm willing to
> let you...

real original. ;D

[Alan Baker]

In article <b327e6a4-2194-4a9a...@googlegroups.com>,

Really? You "didn't give quarter mile times too much thought", huh?

"as i've previously said, it appears a formula ford can do a quarter
mile drag at about 110mph, in the 11s;"

So by your own admission, that is at least the second time you
specifically mentioned quarter mile times as an important part of your
thinking, dick.

>
> > ...you're obvious inability to understand what aerodynamic drag does to
> > top speed, and what wings (with a hanford device no less; do you even
> > know what that is, dick who "likes to talk cars"?) do to aero drag.
>
> ha! not understand aerodynamic forces and its effect on top speed. maybe we
> can open up a discussion on aeronautical topics in general - maybe you can
> try and explain to me that a wing box has to be an enclosed cube again. oh,
> the fun memories from that one!

I never said any such thing, dick.

> > > > That's why you brought it up, dick.
> >
> > > yup, it does make sense to drop- this clearly isn't going anywhere after
> > > all-
> > > but if you want to keep going, i'm willing to play along. i've been off
> > > the
> > > clock for quite a while, and i'm just lounging around for another half
> > > hour
> > > until basketball, so if you want to keep showing everyone how pleasant
> > > you
> > > are, i'm willing to let you. :P
> >
> > And if you want to go on showing people you're a dick, I'm willing to
> > let you...
>
> real original. ;D

Too each as they deserve, dick.

[FDK]

"Alan Baker" wrote in message

news:alangbaker-534E5...@news.shawcable.net...

In article <k79mkg$pje$1...@dont-email.me>, "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:

> >"Alan Baker" wrote in message
> >news:alangbaker-3D2C6...@news.shawcable.net...
>
> >In article <k7778v$jk2$1...@dont-email.me>, "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> >I'll race you, Michael.
>
> >Any time you can scratch up enough money to come and do it out on a
> >track. It's not 100% certain yet, but I'm probably going to be at
> >Sebring for another 2-day on November 15-16. So if you're as
> >qualified
> >as you claim, sign up.
>
>
> There is no "Alan Baker" signed up at Sebring for anything on
> November
> 15 - 16.

>That's correct, Michael. You'll notice I said: "It's not 100% certain
>yet). As of this moment, I'm still booked elsewhere for the end of
>the
>month.

No - you said "I'm probably going to be at

Sebring for another 2-day on November 15-16. So if you're as qualified
as you claim, sign up."

So if you were not "100% absolutely certain yet", why did you instruct
me to sign up? Some kind of joke?

You're all hat, Loser.

[FDK]

"Alan Baker" wrote in message

news:alangbaker-A6248...@news.shawcable.net...

Seriously, Dude; you didn't do too well - he PWNED you royally. You
should have quit when you were behind. He kept tossing bait - you
kept woofing it down. Your only saving grace is being the buffoon.

[Alan Baker]

In article <k79unt$cj$1...@dont-email.me>, "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:

> "Alan Baker" wrote in message
> news:alangbaker-534E5...@news.shawcable.net...
>
> In article <k79mkg$pje$1...@dont-email.me>, "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> > >"Alan Baker" wrote in message
> > >news:alangbaker-3D2C6...@news.shawcable.net...
> >
> > >In article <k7778v$jk2$1...@dont-email.me>, "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:
> >
> > >I'll race you, Michael.
> >
> > >Any time you can scratch up enough money to come and do it out on a
> > >track. It's not 100% certain yet, but I'm probably going to be at
> > >Sebring for another 2-day on November 15-16. So if you're as
> > >qualified
> > >as you claim, sign up.
> >
> >
> > There is no "Alan Baker" signed up at Sebring for anything on
> > November
> > 15 - 16.
>
> >That's correct, Michael. You'll notice I said: "It's not 100% certain
> >yet). As of this moment, I'm still booked elsewhere for the end of
> >the
> >month.
>
> No - you said "I'm probably going to be at
> Sebring for another 2-day on November 15-16. So if you're as qualified
> as you claim, sign up."

No, Michael. The complete sentence was, as still quoted above:

"It's not 100% certain yet, but I'm probably going to be at Sebring for
another 2-day on November 15-16."

So I made it immediately clear that it was not yet certain (and still is
not today as I've not heard back from Skip Barber yet).

>
> So if you were not "100% absolutely certain yet", why did you instruct
> me to sign up? Some kind of joke?

Did I lie to you, Michael? Did I conceal my situation?

No.

However, if you stated your intention to sign up, it might influence my
decision about whether or not to switch my course.

That chance to laugh at you would be nigh on irresistible.

>
> You're all hat, Loser.

I'll let you know when it is certain and then I'm sure you'll find a new
excuse.

:-)

[Alan Baker]

In article <k79vd4$3d7$1...@dont-email.me>, "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:

> > > And if you want to go on showing people you're a dick, I'm willing
> > > to
> > > let you...
> >
> > real original. ;D
>
> >Too each as they deserve, dick.
>
>
> Seriously, Dude; you didn't do too well - he PWNED you royally. You
> should have quit when you were behind. He kept tossing bait - you
> kept woofing it down. Your only saving grace is being the buffoon.

Not as "PWNED" as you calling a lap by an experience racing driver and
instructor "horrible" and showing that he was "scared of the car".

Now THAT was priceless!

:-)

[Sandman]

In article <430f28ec-b026-4eb8...@googlegroups.com>,
ed <ne...@atwistedweb.com> wrote:

> > Why is that, dick.
>
> i said 'we' should probably drop it. you clearly don't want to. if you want
> to keep showing yourself in such a negative light, who am i to stop you.

Surely you're not fooling yourself and thinking these little semantic
games of yours show yourself in a positive light? Not even you could
be that stupid.


--
Sandman[.net]

[Sandman]

In article <k79vd4$3d7$1...@dont-email.me>, "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:

> Seriously, Dude; you didn't do too well - he PWNED you royally. You
> should have quit when you were behind. He kept tossing bait - you
> kept woofing it down. Your only saving grace is being the buffoon.

As per usual, ed should really start worrying when he has Michael
Patelmo rooting for him. Why doesn't ever any sensible people chime in
and agree with him? Go figure...



--
Sandman[.net]

[FDK]

"Alan Baker" wrote in message

news:alangbaker-C45A6...@news.shawcable.net...

In article <k79vd4$3d7$1...@dont-email.me>, "FDK" <f...@aol.com> wrote:

> > > And if you want to go on showing people you're a dick, I'm
> > > willing
> > > to
> > > let you...
> >
> > real original. ;D
>
> >Too each as they deserve, dick.
>
>
> Seriously, Dude; you didn't do too well - he PWNED you royally.
> You
> should have quit when you were behind. He kept tossing bait - you
> kept woofing it down. Your only saving grace is being the buffoon.

>Not as "PWNED" as you calling a lap by an experience racing driver
>and
>instructor "horrible" and showing that he was "scared of the car".

>Now THAT was priceless!

Funny thing - no one here said how good you looked. Dick.

[FDK]

"Sandman" wrote in message
news:mr-455990.07...@News.Individual.NET...

How cute - he heard his masters voice and tripped over himself running
to his defense.

http://s1225.beta.photobucket.com/user/Jaybirdsong/media/his-voice.gif.html?sort=3&o=1#/user/Jaybirdsong/media/his-voice.gif.html?sort=3&o=1&_suid=135220649320906933669210457158


HERE BOY- COMON - HERE BOY - LAY DOWN -LAY DOWN - ROLL OVER - ROLL
OVER - PLAY DEAD - BEG, BEG, BEG, GIMMIE YOUR PAW - GOOOD MUTT.

[FDK]

"Sandman" wrote in message
news:mr-9601DB.07...@News.Individual.NET...

Awwwwww- Widdle Sandbag is upset - why are you upset widdle baby? Is
it because your hero has been made to look like the loser he is? If
anyone here is a Dick, you and Alan tie for first place. It's about
the only thing either of you can ever hope to win.

Go boating lately - in that big, heavy POS Dodge? Do you need two
anchors to park? Maybe you can bring it to Laguna Seca and, HAR.
HAR - race with Alan.