To be fair, he did present a fact that the Beetle has a lousy Cd and is unstable at high speeds. What does his s2ki-age has to do with his knowledge of cars? He may be newer to this site than you but he had presented a fact.

 

thank you purple sky.

 

i've made it abundantly clear that the "highway speed" thing was a typo. i have made that clear.

the reason for my bad attitude is because you being the ****head bandwagoner that you are, thought that you would attack my factual statement by saying that im a fanboi.

seriously. explain to me why you seem to think im a fanboi. and to what particular brand im i so loyal? huh?

and alos the whole newb thing is a bit beneath you isnt it? i mean come on. the fact that i recently signed up deosnt mean that my factual statement is inaccurate.

now what i think you are doing here is you thought that you would get a laugh at my expense and then it backfired on you, so you are now putting all your chips on getting me to admit that the car is in fact safe at highway speeds (duh mother****er, i think we've all seen beetles on the highway).

so the million dollar question is:

are you saying that my facts about the beetle and the amount of lift that it generates are innacurate, or are you still arguing with me about my poor choice or wording in which i typed in highway instead of high?

so which is it?

if you are still arguing against the poor choice in wording then i cant help you. i've explained that part to you ad nauseum.

but if you are saying that i am wrong about the 742lbs of lift at 124 mph, i just want to hear you say the word, because as i said i can in fact prove the info.

so yeah, i guess i do have a lot to learn, but lets recap what i have learned so far.

if you post factual information and even go so far as to provide a disclaimer stating that you may not remeber the exact numbers because it has been a good while since you read said facts, that you should be prepared to be flamed by someone. and when you verify your facts and then find out that what you said is even more valid than you thought it was(referring to how i oirginally claimed that it was only 600lbs of lift and it was actually 700+ and at a lower speed no less) you can fully expect the person to find some semantic horeshit to argue about and then they will insult you based on the date that you signed up.

yeah this has been a great learning experience, thanks ever so much. you're a great teacher. you make me want to stand on my desk and shout "oh captain, my captain"

seriously dude, which is it?

 

haha...the blind leading the blind.

Where are these "facts" that both of you speak of. A fact is a verifiable observation. All I've read is a bunch of insults and opinions.

Why don't you just post these "facts" that you claim are in your posession? All it takes is a URL to a reputable car magazine or government organization that has performed tests on the New Beetle.

For the record, I called you a newb because you haven't yet realized that if you post a bunch of bull on Car Talk, someone will call you on it and put you in your place...

 

hahahaha, i am so glad that you are the predictable tool that i suspected you were. you just couldnt let it go but instead you let me lead you right into it. i had the ability to prove it all along i just chose to give you the opportunity to make an even bigger ass out of yourself. and you did. seriously, thank you.

im even such a nice guy that i volunteered to drop the whole thing if you would just shut up about it, but no. even though you had no proof that i was lying, even though you obviously dont know shit about aerodynamics, and even though i ****ING TOLD YOU THAT I COULD PROVE MY CLAIM, you pressed onward. that is just plain stupid.

as i mentioned i read the information a long time ago. i read it in a magazine. the magazine got the info from volkswagen themselves, which in case you dont know, volkswagen has what is arguabley the one of the best automobile windtunnels in existence, and probably THE best wind tunnel that is not owned by a race research body of some sort. since i dont have the magazine, so here are a couple of links where they qoute the same data:

http://www.aprperformance.com/techarticles_why.php

http://www.mulsannescorner.com/aerod...wbeetle00.html

i could pribably find plenty more but those were the first two that popped up on google, and i think that proves my point plenty.


really. take two steps back from your computer and reevaluate this situation.

i made a remark and you chose to make fun of me for no reason at all, except for the fact that you may have thought you had me all figured out. you tell me im a fanboi, even though i wasnt saying anything about brands at all. you even go so far as to bring up the s2000 which clearly illustrates that you ASSumed that i was comparing the s2000 to the beetle or hondas to volkswagens or some such horse shit. i gave you no reason to think that. you made the assumption.

i was minding my own business contributing facts to this discussion. you felt like being a dick.

the part that really gets me is how you act all ****ing butt hurt that i "insulted" you. Thats how the world works asshole. if you're minding you own business and some douche bag comes out of nowhere and starts talking shit to you, especially when you are right, you get defensive about it. YOU chose to be a dick for no appearent reason and i got pissed off because i knew i was right.

so really step back and reevaluate and realize that you dont have a ****ing leg to stand on.

nope asshole, i posted facts, you posted bullshit, and according to the rule that you just said, i guess i get to call you a newb.

so in conclusion:



and just for the record, you asked if i can find a government source for the information. why in the fvck would the government test the amount of aerodynamic lift or downforce on all of the cars sold in america? seriosuly, explain to me how that makes sense. especially when the car manufacturers usually do a pretty good job of collecting thier own information. hey that was some more bullshit that you just said? does this mean i get to call you a newb again?

now, if you choose to do so, i think you should be a man about it and admit that maybe you jumped to conclusions about me and my FACTS.

but i suspect that you will say some dumb shit about how those sources are wrong or that volkswagen is wrong or some other variety of stupidity. it would be nice if you prove those suspicions wrong. im not asking for an appology, im only asking that you admit what the rest of us can allready see. just admit that you thought you'd get a cheap laugh by insulting someone who actually did know what they were talking about.

just admit that you were mistaken.

are you going to let it go now, or are you going to cook up some more bullshit?

 

I'm not going to read this inane thread, but man, regardless of who's right, you're totally going on my ignore list.

 

Are we really arguing about the beetle?

 

you're breaking my heart

i find it odd that you want to ignore me for defedning myself because some asshat chose to insult me and call me a liar.

i proved him wrong. you would do the same thing if you were in my shoes.

i really hope that the two of you are chummy with one another and that you are "siding" with him because of that, because otherwise i am kind of confused about your position on the matter. what would you have me do, say that i was wrong when i wasnt?

in my years of internet forum participation i have never told someone that they were lying about something when i had no indication to beleive that. if i did, i would really hope that someone would put me in my place for being an asshole.

if you think my methods are a bit brash, well thats only because i am a bit brash. i cant make you like my personality, nor to i intend to, but i hope that you can see why i would be offended by someone telling me i am wrong.

and this isnt even a subjective matter, such as "i think a beetle is a bad car". i said nothing of the sort. i simply stated some factual information to add to the topic of whether or not the 192 top speed is realistic.

 

to be more specific, we were all talking about whether or not the claimed 192 mph was realistic and i mentioned that the car would be unsafe at that speed since it makes a substantial amount of lift.

and that asshole decided to insult me and tell me i was lying.

i told him i was in fact correct and that i know what im talking about, but he insisted i was wrong so i provided the proof that he requested.

 

I don't think I've EVER seen anyone make such an ass of himself on this forum before. I'd put you on my ignore list (and no I'm not chummy with anyone in this thread) except I'd hate to miss another of your totally unwarranted explosions.

You made a dubious claim, didn't back it up, asked us to take your word for it, and then got mad when we said it wasn't good enough? Ok, we'll just believe everything everyone says from now on without questioning it ever! Especially if they say, "I know what I'm talking about!"

Yes, slicksilver jumped to a conclusion. You could have provided your cite, called him an ass and been done with it. Lighten up.