clearance
- the distance between two objects; an amount of clear space: The bridge allowed a clearance of 37 feet at mean high water.
Nobody brought up clearance except you, Ol’ 'John. Nobody’s arguing “clearance” except you. So why do you bring up clearance? Because you have no other means of winning an argument. You’re an insecure little shit who needs to feel good about himself, so you come up with this crap to try to confuse the argument.
Listen, you sack of fermenting semen, the point of this discussion is whether or not SUV drivers are more assholic than non-SUV drivers. The conclusion? They’re not. Deal with it.
Now, that got dealt with a long time ago. The thread got hijacked since then. That’s fine, it happens all the time. It turned into a matter of “SUV safety”. So far, all you’ve managed to bring up are “they roll over more”. And nobody’s denied that. However, there are more dangers to an automobile than rolling over. That was pointed out to you, so now you need to find some other point to grasp onto and suckle like a starving baby with a fresh teat.
To wit (a commodity I’m quickly discovering you’re short on), you’ve come up with this crap about “some people make them drive low”. Whoopty-fucking-doo. And then, for some reason, you come up with this bullshit about the original Jeep’s clearance. You DO realize that that’s not a valid point, right? That it proves nothing?
Okay, I’ll play your silly little game, you mung bait. All right, the original Jeep had a clearance of 61/4 inches. The original Army specs also insisted that it weigh no more than 1300 pounds and be large enough to carry four men and low enough to dodge enemy fire (hence the “no more than 3 feet high”). The company that drew up the original plans was American Bantam of Butler, Pennsylvania. However, Bantam was too small, so the army passed out Bantam’s blueprints to engineers at Ford and Willys-Overland… but only W-O made a model, so they got the Army contract.
All right, so now we’re done with Jeeps (unless you want to start a dispute about how many cupholders it has, you dimwitted rectal drip). What does all this prove? Well, absolutely NOTHING, which is why I’m curous as to why you started this trivia game to begin with.
So, Ol’ 'John, what have we learned today? Well, A: you shouldn’t use a satire-based site as a reference (read “A Modest Proposal” sometime), and B: SUV’s aren’t going to bring about the end of the world. Are some people idiots with their cars? Yes. I believe I (and several others) have pointed that out, numerous times. Perhaps you need to overcome your selective-illiteracy problem, idiot.
Not to quibble, but…
Willys-Overland designed a scout car, but had some problems with the weight. The army said that if it could be moved out of a ditch by one man (or something similar to that – sorry, I’ve packed away my references), then the weight would be satisfactory. IIRC, a large NCO moved the jeep out of a ditch (or whatever) and the Willys passed the army trials. But there was a war coming. The army didn’t believe that W-O had the capacity to make all of the “1/4-ton trucks” the army needed. So the contract was given to Ford. Ford, by the way, was given full access to the Willys design – much to W-O’s chagrin – during the competition/trials. Willys-Overland got a “consolation prize”. They were awarded a contract to build trailers for the jeeps. Willys-Overland finally did get recognized as the creator of the jeep, but by then it was too late for the lucrative government contract. Ford made a fortune on the jeep. Willys did, however, manage to register the Jeep name. After the war they introduced the CJ2A, which was virtually identical to the MB (the military jeep). The CJ had a tailgate and a different grille. (The MB had inset headlights that could be pivoted to change the lamp.) The MB also had “dents” in the side to accommodate a shovel and an axe. I think there may have been some CJ models that had these. (I saw a CJ3A Saturday with them on the passenger side instead of the driver’s side, but I don’t know if it was an original or after-market body.) The bow for the convertible top was different too.
So while willys “lost out” on the wartime contract, they were able to sell many units to the post-war civilian market.
As for the rest of the story, Willys-Overland was eventually sold to Kaiser. Jeeps then went to AMC. When AMC was in financial trouble, they were bought by Chrysler – some say specifically so that Chrysler could get the lucrative Jeep line. Chrysler ostensibly merged with Daimler. Daimler has been criticized recently for this “merger”, which now seems like a hostile takeover. Will Daimler ignore the history of the Jeep? Will they turn a good offroad line into luxo-busses for urban dwellers at the expense of the Jeep’s fine heritage?
Okay, enough of my referenceless history chatter. Fatherjohn seems like one of those people who always wants to get the last word in, and when other people decide not to play, the reckons he wins because he got the last word in. He hasn’t clue one what he’s talking about. So to him I say:
“It’s a Jeep thing. You wouldn’t understand.”
My reference said that Willys got the contract initially, but demand quickly outstripped production, so Ford got in on the act, too.
Ah, well, I wasn’t hoping to get a comprehensive history of the Jeep in, just wanted to point out to Ol’ 'John that just because he knows a few irrelevant facts, it don’t make him right.
A note on “irrelevant facts”. He makes much noise about rollovers. I’ve seen a Jeep roll over myself. He was off-road and couldn’t make it up a hill. So he tried to turn around on a hill that was too steep for him to climb. Right over on its side.
There was a great deal of talk about the Suzuki Samurai’s tendency to roll over. It seems people were trying to take corners too fast. That’s not the Samurai’s fault. It was designed for a specific set of parameters. Fast cornering was not one of them. It’s the drivers who caused the rollover; not the vehicle.
But when do vehicles roll over most often? Probably when the driver brakes hard and tries to swerve. What would cause such a reaction? Often, it’s the people in lowered Hondas that are changing lanes suddenly. Sometimes they change lanes suddenly, then throw on the brakes. So if SUVs roll over, maybe they’re actually caused by non-SUV drivers!
Um … you might want to actually check the stats from the site you mention before spouting off. Take a look at the table and accompanying information displayed on this page of the very Web site you cited:
http://www.hwysafety.org/safety_facts/fatality_facts/passveh.htm
In case the graphics are too tough for you, here’s a direct quote from that site:
“However, pickups and utility vehicles generally are heavier than cars, so occupant deaths are less likely to occur in multiple-vehicle crashes.”
Ergo, your statement above was wrong, false, erroneous, and just plain stupid.
Heh…Jeeps are the ultimate vehicle. Check the sig.
BTW, my Vette gets maybe 10 miles to the gallon, if i drive fast. My jeep gets 18…go figure. And for the record, i only dive like an asshole in the Vette.
This is the closest I’ve seen anyone on this board come to admitting he is in the wrong in a while.
In any event, readers will note that he did not advance the “relevancy” argument until AFTER his original argument was demolished.
fatherjohn, there have only been two things that have been “demolished” – first is your credibility, and the second is the chance that anyone on this board is not going to associate your name with “jackass”.
You’re just embarrasing yourself. Really.
And where, pray tell, has anybody been wrong? Find me the quote (of mine) and the quote (of yours) that shows me to be wrong. You can’t do it, you brainfart incarnate, because you haven’t brought anything to the table.
And what was my original argument? That SUV drivers are not assholes. What was my secondary argument? That SUV’s are not inherently unsafe.
Please show the audience where you refute those two arguments.
Jesus Chris in Tinland, does your last name rhyme with “Berlin” or something?
fatherjohn, you ignorant twit.
Go back and read the post by SPOOFE Bo Diddly, where you began twisting his words. He stated explicitly that the PROFILE of the Jeep requested by the Army was less than three feet high. That means the Jeep, seen from the side, would measure less than three feet from the bottom of the tires to the top of the frame. He even gave you additional information, so that you couldn’t possibly mistake his meaning, adding parenthetically “with the windshield folded down.” Now even a moron would be able to figure out what he meant by the “profile” of the Jeep.
But, alas, that was too difficult for you to comprehend. Instead, you went off on some outlandish tangent, talking about the Jeep’s ground clearance. That was NOT WHAT SPOOFE WAS TALKING ABOUT, and I think even a planarian worm would be able to understand that.
Did you honestly think that the position of the windshield affected the ground clearance of the Jeep? Are you that stupid?
Good Lord, man, I shudder to think what would have happened if you’d worked on the old Alfred Hitchcock show. A caricature of AH’s PROFILE would appear on the screen, then AH would walk from the side of the TV screen and match his profile caricature. I can just imagine a technician telling you to get ready for AH’s profile shot, and you run out and measure the distance from the ground to the man’s crotch.
I suspect you actually knew what was being discussed, and decided to skew the argument for your own purpose. Although, honestly, I can’t decide which is worse – either you barely have the intelligence to punch the little buttons on your keyboard, or you intentionally twist words when you realize your position is untenable. End the suspense, please. Tell me which one it is.
pot? kettle? whatever.
:rolleyes:
It’s hard to believe that anyone could seriously claim that the jeeps pictured on this page – http://poseur.4x4.org/poseurs.html –
are comparable to “military” jeeps.
Oh well, I suppose it’s a “jeep” thing.
:rolleyes:
fatherjohn
Care to comment on how you were wrong? Or are you just going to ignore that…
In case you forget, here is a little reminder - profile <> clearance
fatherjohn;
Words fail me.
SPOOFE posted (bolding mine):
You responded, hoping to prove yourself as a hero of the internet (bolding mine):
I pointed out the mistake of your post, albeit in a crude manner.
You stuck to your wet cap guns with a cite defining the word clearance again.
Sauron, demonstrating more patience for you than I have, pointed out your missing of the point.
You responded with a highly original mention of pots and kettles which really doesn’t fit into the conversation…
I asked if you noticed your miss in logic on this matter. You responded, for reasons only known to you, about my using “smoke and mirrors” :rolleyes:
All the while, you hyperlink to the same web page for at least the third time. Hey, Google lists 1,326,900,000 web pages as searchable. Find something new will ya?
I guess I should learn… DNFTT…
Sorry for wasting everyone’s bandwidth dealing with this a-hole…
OK…I am going to rule on this one. Why? Does anyone give a shit about what I think? No, of course not. Then why am I here? I don’t know.
OK, Let’s break this down step-by-step:
- Innermost quote from fatherjohn:
OK…he does use the term “low-riders”, which to me implies he is speaking about clearance. However, he also refers to “like the one in the picture”, where the jeeps in the picture are low in both profile and clearance.
- Next-level quote from SPOOFE:
OK…now, my good friend SPOOFE does bring up “profile”, specifically. But does not address the clearance aspect of the “low-rider” directly. When I think “low-rider”, I do think clearance, not profile. Even though they often have both set pretty low.
- Outermost quote from fatherjohn:
OK…Here he returns to quote clearance specs.
Overall Judgement: A tough call. Much was implied in the exchange, but although it breaks my heart, I fear I must be impartial and say it seems fatherjohn is the most correct in this one exchange.
Not that anyone gives a shit what I think here. But it’s kinda fun to play Madam Chief Justice. 
I ignored his derision of SUV’s by using the “lowrider” angle. A “lowrider” is not something that is unique to SUVs. It is a universal “fashion” (I use the term loosely) among all automobiles.
In other words, Ol’ 'John trying to use “lowriders” as a way of concluding that SUVs are inferior vehicles is about as smart as shouting “Go Bush!” at the DNC.
Aside from the fact that his line of questioning was inherently idiotic, sure. But like I said, he was trying to argue the deficiencies of an SUV with the following logic… “I see picture of low-rider Jeep -> original Jeeps weren’t low-riders -> ergo, Jeeps, and all SUVs, are inferior vehicles”.
Ol’ 'John, if I’m wrong, feel free to clarify. Although I’m not holding my breath… you’ve been unable to clarify ever since you began posting in this thread.
Yeah, SPOOFE, I see where you are coming from. There is much implied that is perfectly correct by you. And I think the points made my fatherjohn et al on SUV safety (or lack thereof) appear mostly invalid, and thus award you the upper hand overall. However, in the one limited exchange so many are arguing over, my ruling is that the actual text as posted gives fatherjohn the upper hand.
Not that anyone should care. It’s late, and I’m bored.
Well, yeah, he was right about original Jeep clearance. But I can also come in and say “The Earth is the 3rd planet from the Sun” and prance around saying “I’m right, I’m right, wah-ha! SUV’s ARE the evil deathtraps that I say they are!”
Facts are one thing, relevant facts are another. Ol’ 'John seems to be short on the latter.
You know, fatherjohn, I admire you. I really do. You have managed to use a satirical Web site to hijack an argument from its beginnings (SUV drivers are assholes) to something completely different (the Jeep used in WWII wasn’t a low-rider). Congratulations.
Sadly, it is time for the fun to end. I’ve quoted the original post you made referencing the “poseur” Web site, so we can examine your reasons for doing so. (Incidentally, the word “site,” when used to describe a Web page, is spelled with an “s.” Not a “c.” Just thought you should know.)
Now, I don’t know how much of the thread you had read before jumping in. Perhaps you weren’t clear on the original rant, and the subsequent discussion. But since you continue to use the “poseur” Web site as a bulwark of your argument, I think it’s time you understood a few salient points.
First, this site (and those pictures) exist because the vehicles they lampoon are out of the ordinary. SUVs themselves are not out of the ordinary, you understand – the specific SUVs that are pictured on the page are unusual. You DO understand this, right? These are NOT typical SUVs.
Second, the people who convert SUVs (or any other type of vehicle) into low-riders are not a fair representation of the entire universe of SUV drivers (or the drivers of any other type of vehicle).
Finally, I can understand not liking a vehicle based on its styling, its design, its safety record, etc. The first two are matters of taste; the last has been sufficiently refuted as it applies to SUVs, and really shouldn’t be a matter of discussion any longer. But to arbitrarily paint all drivers of a vehicle with your prejudices against that vehicle is ridiculous and asinine. And to suggest that all drivers of SUVs have the same values and motives as a small group which converts SUVs into low-riders is ignorance of the highest order.