"Early A" doesn't cut it

-
Status
Not open for further replies.
toolmanmike said:
It sounds like more of a demand to me. Your post above ( now below) is why I moved it to a discussion forum.
Click to expand...
Taken a bit out of context The nomenclature used is inaccurate, my suggestion implied is fix it. :thumbsup:
Thanks for asking.

I usually let my lawyer make my demands, so as not allow for any confusion here, and just to be very clear.

For something so many have claimed to not care about, nothing to see, how horribly wrong my suggestion is, quoted mopar history, all the unshared magic proof of how wrong my suggestion is, the moderator who moved my original posting now returning suddenly after declaring very early he was "done", false claims about banning, the contribution of a member who has forgotten more then any of us will ever know, etc, etc, that a simple moved suggestion has so many riled up and feathers ruffled because it has no merit? Really? Don't make me laugh.
kiwigtx said:
Probably. Coming here to stir up trouble no doubt. Likely misses being called names by others. You just called me a "noob"? What name should I call you?
Click to expand...

If you are truly afraid of me, and be honest, ban me.
I'd like to repeat a famous quote from an "An Officer and a Gentleman"
 
Last edited:
barbee6043 said:
I respectfully offer the OP an invitation to join in our N & P section!!
Click to expand...
I assume that is a sincere invitation, so thank you.
But based on my experience, they ultimately figuratively turn into rock throwing soap boxes where nobody is really listening or interested in another's perspective on any matter, and the primary objective is to rant and change everyone else's position but not yours. I am listening very close, and why I often use quotes to keep a discussion focused, but ultimately N&P does not seem to be a great format to widen one's understanding, but mainly a good place to blow off steam, and some need that and I am glad it exists for those that need and enjoy that. This one maybe different, but I do not currently desire to find out.
IMO the elevation of the similar forum 24/7 on Moparts correlates rather well to its slow decline sadly. As much as I willingly participated, I also suggested it be restricted to only certain times as the divisiveness was starting to run members off. That Moparts forum, is now the most active it appears as Moparts winds down.
 
Last edited:
slantsixdan said:
A funny thing about arguments: the lower the stakes, the harder some people wanna quarrel.



Careful what you wish for; my consulting rates might make you develop sharp pains in the wallet.
Click to expand...

You know how those Chess geniuses that play against 6 opponents simultaneously, I feel I'm playing checkers against two tag teams of 12 members each.

And you can't get blood out of a rock. :lol:
 
Last edited:
slantsixdan said:
Okeh, here y'go, the left hand giveth: You're right. The '60-'62 cars are different in a lot of ways to the '63-'66 cars, which in turn are different in a lot of ways to the cars made after '66. There; y'been heard. Feel better now?

Good. Hang onto that, because now the right hand taketh away: You're also wrong. The '62 cars have a bunch of one-year-only differences to the '60-'61 cars; the '63 cars have a bunch of one-year-only differences versus '64-'66; the '67 cars have a bunch of one-year-only differences versus '68 and later, the '73 cars have a sturdy batch of differences from the '74-'76 cars, and the '73-'76 cars are different in a bunch of ways to the '68-'72 cars. So either you'd have to argue that the discussions should be split up as '60-'61; '62; '63; '64-'66; '67; '68-'72; '73; '74-'76 (which is even more of a losing argument than the one you're pursuing) or you'd have to admit that you're just arbitrarily rattlin' yer keyboard (pretty sturdy case to be made).

And guess what: practically, it don't make no nevermind on here, nohow. You might have a point worth chasing if there were enough traffic in the Early A-Body subforum to make it difficult for people to keep up or cause individual posts to get drowned out, but there isn't; never has been. And there's a history of drawing the A-body discussion dividing line between '66 and '67, going back long before this board existed, back to the early-1980s start of the Slant-6 Club of America. It doesn't need messing with; it works fine, and…yer just gonna hafta cope, dude.

Speaking as a Usenet veteran with decades of experience arguing on the internet: sometimes it is best to just stop growling, drop the stick, walk away, and console yourself with your certainty that you're right and everybody else in the whole wide world is wrong (hover your mouse over the panel for the second caption or you'll miss half the fun).
Click to expand...

I think you're on the right track Dan, in fact, I'm not sure you've gone far enough!

We've totally glossed over that each model needs its own forum- Valiant, Barracuda, Dart, Duster, Demon, Dart Sport, and Scamp. I mean, the wheelbases on those cars aren't all even the same, there's a whole host of parts that don't interchange from one to another. Just Barracuda's by themselves interchange almost no major exterior body or interior components with the other models. Then the model forums will need to have sub categories for each year, and then sometimes mid-year changes.

This should guarantee that no one can ever find anything useful on here at all, and the mods spend every waking minute moving threads into their correct forum and category, never to be seen again.
 
J-c-c said:
The fact a moderator at the beginning moved this thread to a general forum, has likely helped it go off the rails.
Not my loss.
Click to expand...
You are correct. It was to your benefit.
If you had some experience and knowledge here you would know the fate of threads in the Suggestions subforum.
So your topic has been saved. You've engaged many members here, which in turn helps ad revenue and search engine results. Not that it matters much to most of us - at least in the short term.
kiwigtx said:
How so?
Click to expand...
My take,

stirthepot-gif.gif

Not that you were asking me.
laugh2-gif.gif

J-c-c said:
Your highness, I only concede it was moved.
Click to expand...
Would that be considered an ad hominem attack on someone with a lot of expertise in the subject?
J-c-c said:
The nomenclature used is inaccurate, my suggestion implied is fix it. :thumbsup:
Thanks for asking.
Click to expand...
Seems you have missed the point. For the purposes of forum organization, based on long standing practice, the sub-forum title has worked fine.
There is no evidence that any of the users have voiced complaint.
 
Last edited:
slantsixdan said:
the '73 cars have a sturdy batch of differences from the '74-'76 cars, and the '73-'76 cars are different in a bunch of ways to the '68-'72 cars.
Click to expand...
Well, see, if we get into the mechanical and electrical systems, I would say the next big divider after 67 would be '70 and insome ways '75 and particularly '76 are one offs. On the other hand not many '76 A-bodies made, so maybe we banish them to For F Bodies Only forum.
laugh2-gif.gif
 
J-c-c said:
nobody is really listening or interested in another's perspective on any matter, and the primary objective is to rant and change everyone else's position but not yours.
Click to expand...
Boy, that's the pot calling the kettle black.
 
Mattax said:
Well, see, if we get into the mechanical and electrical systems, I would say the next big divider after 67 would be '70 and insome ways '75 and particularly '76 are one offs. On the other hand not many '76 A-bodies made, so maybe we banish them to For F Bodies Only forum.

View attachment 1716201566
Click to expand...
"In argumentation and informal logic, reductio ad absurdum (RAA) is a method of refuting a claim by extending the logic of the opponent's argument to a point of absurdity. Also known as the reductio argument and argumentum ad absurdum."
 
J-c-c said:
"In argumentation and informal logic, reductio ad absurdum (RAA) is a method of refuting a claim by extending the logic of the opponent's argument to a point of absurdity. Also known as the reductio argument and argumentum ad absurdum."
Click to expand...
In this case, its just humour.
I'm just having fun with Dan. He's quite familiar with the differences.
 
toolmanmike said:
Boy, that's the pot calling the kettle black.
Click to expand...
Really, because I have read EVERY single reply here, and those (a Lot) that I have disagreed with, I voiced that disagreement. I have clearly stated my case at nearly every raised contention, and asked for an explanation often for those contentions that are unclear. It does not matter how many times I repeat it seems, I only made a suggestion, I demanded nothing, I however expected a fair shot at making my case, and have learned we likely have a difference of opinion on what's fair.
I would guess one outcome here sadly might be, nobody without great fortitude will ever offer a suggestion again to benefit this site, unless spite is their motivator.
Be careful, that might be subtle reverse psychology. :lol:
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
-

Back
Top