Jesus, fatherjohn. Your idiocy can not be contained by only one thread, so you have 2 going. Have you posted to any other thread besides the SUV related ones? I’m curious to see what else your little fingers can type out…
Spoken like a true freaking moron. You really told me. Look, I’ts already been pointed out to that there are all kinds of uses for SUV’s, Yet, you still keep spewing forth nonsense thinking that maybe that if you say it enough, maybe it will become true. Guess what? IT’S NOT WORKING! No matter how much you embarrass yourself on this board, you will never prove your point because you are too freaking dense to realize that you don’t have one. Do really enjoy the abuse that much? Do you have some kind of sick need to humiliate yourself in public?
:rolleyes:
Look, I’m sorry if I embarrassed you, but, to paraphrase Harry Truman, if you can’t stand being made to look like a fool, then stay out of the pit.
You insist on post quotes from this rediculous satire site, so here
is a site that has absolutely as much credibility as yours does, and will refute all your claims.
:rolleyes:
Look, I’m sorry if we’re making you look like a fool, but, to paraphrase everyone, if you’re going to be an annoying twit, stay the hell off the boards.
Are you honestly that much of an idiot that you thought that you made some sort of point and embarrassed me? Just because you have a talent for embarrasing your self, and apparently not even realizing it, doesn’t mean that that talent will work towards other people.
Run, Forest, Run…
Am I going insane, or did this fucking retard actually post this?
Oh, the humanity. I sincerely hope this fool doesn’t get banned, because it’s truly amazing to watch someone not get it as repeatedly as this guy doesn’t. Talking about this is almost like talking about time-travel, wherein all the paradox makes syntax difficult.
“SUV’s generally get 100% better gas milage than any other car”
2002 Ford Explorer XLT 4WD 4dr SUV (4.0L 6Cyl 5A):
15 mpg (city) / 20 mpg (highway);
Source: http://www.edmunds.com/vehicles/2002/ford/explorer/xlt4wd4drsuv40l6cyl5a.html
2001 Honda Accord DX 4dr Sedan (2.3L 4Cyl 5M):
25 mpg (city) / 32 mpg (highway).
Source: http://www.edmunds.com/vehicles/2001/honda/accord/dx4drsedan23l4cyl5m.html
falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus
My point exactly…it has absolutely as much credibility as yours…none…execpt for the part that says father john is an idiot. you have proven that one once again.
John, John, is that you?
Cyberian 54, Hellooooooooooo
YMMV
:rolleyes:
Mr. Pot I presume?
:rolleyes:
Yeah, and Oceania’s always been at war with Eurasia, right?
Spare us your desperate spin-doctoring, ok?
First off, I’d like to point out that “little give” is desired when you’ve got 3000 pounds of metal coming at you. If there was a LOT of give, the impact wouldn’t jar the occupants so much… but the car that hit them would smash them to pieces. Sort of a deceptive quote, Ol’ John… bravo.
Now, then, onto TRUE safety statistics…
(Note: I started all my searches through http://www.fedstats.gov)
How interesting. I decided to go find a better source. Y’know, I’m educating myself… something Ol’ John couldn’t do if he was butt-raped with a teacher’s manual. Rather than quote a dubious source, I’ll simply provide everyone with a link straight to the horse’s mouth.
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - results of safety studies of 2001 model year SUV’s
Here’s a general layout… the larger SUV’s received much better safety records. The Ford Expedition and Lincoln Navigator both received five-star awards for driver- and passenger-front-end collisions (although they have no tests planned for side-impact collisions, with no explanation why). The safest mid-sized cars seem to be the Chevy Impala and the Volkswagen Passat. There are more mid-sized cars with less than 4 stars than SUVs… and NO SUV with less than 3 stars.
However, not satisfied with these results (they are, after all, simply a Buyer’s Guide), I continued hunting… and I found this little gem:
National Highway Traffic Safety Administration - Size and Safety Comparisons
The gist of the study is thus: It’s better to be in a heavier car, worse to be in a lighter car. The only safety concerns about heavier cars are that they’ll be dangerous to smaller, lighter cars… which is just common sense, and which is exactly what I (and several others) have been saying all along.
In other words, Ol’ John, you’re wrong. Your shitty little “Poseur” site is wrong. See all I’ve written up there? Them’s facts. You can’t argue with facts. Sure, you can ignore them, but you can’t argue with them. I suggest that, unless you want to cease looking more the fool, that you quit making references to that worthless site of yours and find some REAL information to use.
Careful there Spoofe, or John might accuse you of ad hominem attacks. :rolleyes:
“According to IIHS statistics, the only time an SUV will come out ahead in an accident is if it collides with a smaller vehicle. Even then, the only advantages you get with an SUV are at the expense of those driving smaller cars, which are designed to absorb impacts. SUVs just plain don’t make sense safety-wise!”
Source: http://poseur.4x4.org/reasons2.html#Safe
Braking Distance
"Everyone knows that the most important part of a vehicle is its brakes, and almost all SUVs fall short. In panic stop situations, every foot counts. The stopping distances of these porkers are lengthened by their excessive weight and primitive brakes. The poor lemmings can’t stop fast enough to avoid falling off cliffs!
Compare the braking distances from 60 mph to 0 in the following illustration. In a common accident scenario, imagine you’ve encountered a stopped semi truck while going around a blind curve. The semi is 142 feet in front of you. Which is the safest vehicle to be in?
Porsche Boxster: 120 feet…Yawn.
Oldsmobile Intrigue: 131 feet…Arrgh.
Dodge Caravan SE: 135 feet…Whew.
Pontiac Transport: 141 feet…WHEW!
Isuzu Rodeo: 148 feet…BANG!!
Ford Explorer: 150 feet…SMASH!!!
Chevrolet Blazer: 154 feet…SLAM!!!
Chevrolet Suburban: 155 feet…CRUNCH!!!
. . . ."
And you needed a fucking WEBSITE to tell you this?!? This is COMMON-EFFING-SENSE!
SUV’s are big. Bigger than most other cars. Ergo, most of the time, an SUV will come out ahead. Your own shit-site says as such.
How often do you find a semi stopped in the middle of a blind curve? C’mon, Ol’ John, you have to try harder than this… in the amount of time it takes a car to hit the brakes and begin slowing, the semi will move at least another thirty feet.
In other words, a Suburban requires 30% more braking room than a Porsceh Boxster. A Suburban is also MORE than 30% larger than a Boxster. Seems like the Suburban has better braking systems.
But I’ll humor your small-minded self… again, how often is your above situation encountered (that is, a completely motionless semi on a blind curve?). Why the number of “142 feet”? Why not “180 feet”? Or “50 feet”? You’re getting desperate, Ol’ John, to make yourself look like a big shot… and it’s showing.
I continue to note that you’re still citing your shitty “Poseur” site. You really aren’t learning anything, are you?
“Your “poseur”’ site is biased and inaccurate. It can easily be refuted by official safety analysis sites. Its information is not useful for debate.”
“The Poseur site says SUVs suck!”
“We just told you the information on that site is easily refuted by government documents and studies. Citing “poseur” makes you look like an idiot.”
“The Poseur site says SUVs suck! You’re stupid.”
“The “poseur” site cannot be taken as fact. It admits it is a satirical site. “Satire” means it’s a joke. You’re making yourself look like an ass.”
“The Poseur site says SUVs suck! Don’t you get it? Are you too stupid to see that SUVs suck? The Poseur site says so!”
“How many times do we have to ask you to get some real information? Look: Here’s what the U.S. government has to say. Here’s what the Buyer’s Guide has to say. Oh, and here’s a nice little paper that was brought up at the recent Engineering Convention. What do you have? And don’t refer to the “poseur” site!”
“The Poseur site says SUVs suck! You’re an idiot!”
Am I the only one here who suspects that fatherjohn might be mentally weak? He seems incapable of a rational arguement. His attention span is so short that he can’t refrain from referring to his bogus site in the post following the one where he was asked not to refer to it!
[hijack]
On a totally unrelated matter, I think we were told that we should refrain from calling people “trolls”. The mods would prefer to be notified of trollish behaviour by e-mail so that they can deal with the person privately. Therefore, I am refraining from calling anyone a troll, and I want you all to know that.
[/hijack]
Oops. There is a paragraph and a hijack. I wonder if fatherjohn has forgotten what my point was (if he ever grasped it)? Here it is. Plainly.
STOP REFERRING TO THE FUCKING POSEUR SITE.
A) It smacks of spamming.
B) It is satire.
C) Satire is not to be taken seriously.
D) Referring to that site makes you look like an ass.
and
E) STOP REFERRING TO THE FUCKING POSEUR SITE.
Once again, you still miss the whole point.
I’ll try and spell it out for you:
**
[ul]
[li]you keep referencing a site that is a satire site, designed as a joke, that has zero credibility[/li][li]after this is repeatedly pointed out to you that this site doesn’t mean anything, and nobody here gives it any credibility, you continue to use it[/li][li]I create a site, to demonstrate that any one with an axe to grind can put up a website and quote stats that they just make up, and that doesn’t make them correct[/li][li]you miss the point entirely, and try to disprove the made up statistics.[/li][li]You at least don’t try to disprove the statement on the site that I made up that you are an idiot[/li][/ul]
**
Since even a poor troll wouldn’t act that dumb, you must be an idiot.
And what am supposedly desperately spindoctoring?
Your really slipping man. You are making even less sense than normal…I thought that impossible.
Ten bucks says he simply responds to all that with YET ANOTHER reference to his shit-site. Hey, Ol’ John, I got a quote for you…
Bolding and italiccs mine.
Ol’ John, I suggest that you take a look at Swift’s A Modest Proposal. Then take a look at a baseball bat… a close look… over and over and over.