stop/start

topdaddy_2

F1F93 wrote: »

Well, I waited so long for a response, I was kinda hoping that it would at least be half decent. Suppose you can't have everything.



Again, you're arguing the wrong thing. You correctly stated your source as google, however when I looked it up, the definition you put was incorrect. What you put was actually a synonym. Not exactly major, I'll give you that, but you were still wrong and it's exactly the sort of thing that, if the positions were reversed, you'd argue about.

However, the bit about shooting yourself in the foot was not even about that. If you recall, you shot yourself in the foot when you sarcastically said "google is your only source for this argument" when, in fact, I was quoting your post about the google definition. So not even my source.


I have made this point so many times, yet you are still missing it. Try just re-reading my posts from before, maybe in a few weeks you'll understand.

Perfect =/= incomplete.

So you are saying that perfect cannot be incomplete? Changed you tune about time. And remind me, where did i say google was your source? I said it was mine. If i recall you said the oxford english dictionary was yours? Although i confess i do get very drowsy reading your posts so I may be mistaken

topdaddy_2

motorguy wrote: »

Based on every other post you've put - including this one - no i dont think they are.

Then we agree to disagree. Maybe consistant should be one of them as eveidenced by you quoting stuff weeks ago and me stating the same now.

topdaddy_2

motorguy wrote: »

Whats hard to understand about that?

A car with a different spec configuration or a bigger engine, does not necessarily make it better.

No, not always but a base model isnt as good as the top of the range model regardless of marques or model. Its better right? Or "more good" if you prefer?

topdaddy_2

motorguy wrote: »

Its really clutching at straws when you have to edit peoples posts and remove words just to make a feeble joke. Its like something a small child would do in a playground.

(and you managed to even !!!! that up)

:rotfl:

Really? Many kids you know on motoring forums?

motorguy

topdaddy wrote: »

Then we agree to disagree. Maybe consistant should be one of them as eveidenced by you quoting stuff weeks ago and me stating the same now.

:think:

I'll mark that up as "deluded" then.

motorguy

topdaddy wrote: »

Really? Many kids you know on motoring forums?

Just the one, apparently.

topdaddy_2

DUTR wrote: »

Yes for clarity, I am saying cars are not better than walking, you know that is fact too, you walk to the car, you walk away from the car.

The nice chappies who make the car or the nice marketeers? A Maybach or Bugatti Veyron can both be considered to be nice cars both can be considered to be expensive, however compared to the say humble Ford Focus 1.4 then that could be deemed better for purchase cost, running costs , spares, practiciality etc.

Ahhh I see. I was wrong when i said communist, your more of a socialist. Thats fair enough.





but a focus is better than a veyron?:huh:

topdaddy_2

motorguy wrote: »

Just the one, apparently.

And who would that be?

topdaddy_2

motorguy wrote: »

:think:

I'll mark that up as "deluded" then.

In what way? I said it then, ive said it now(prior to you remind us what was said) indicating its consistant.

motorguy

topdaddy wrote: »

No, not always but a base model isnt as good as the top of the range model regardless of marques or model. Its better right? Or "more good" if you prefer?

And again, therein lies the problem with your definition of "better". You dont put it in the perspective of an individuals requirements.

"Better" is a subjective thing.

A top of the range 550i 5 series is not necessarily a better car than a 520d, if you're requirements are fuel economy, low running costs, residual value and ease of resale.

Therefore linking that back the the X6, an X5 is only a "better" car than it if your subjective requirements include high levels of practicality.