On 2022-02-20 6:31 p.m., texas gate wrote:
> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 5:21:20 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
>
>> 320hp
>
> big fucking deal
> you pussy

Tell us what you drive, big boy.

On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 7:39:58 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-02-20 6:31 p.m., texas gate wrote:
> > On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 5:21:20 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
> >
> >> 320hp
> >
> > big fucking deal
> > you pussy
> Tell us what you drive, big boy.

M5 500hp

On 2022-02-20 6:46 p.m., texas gate wrote:
> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 7:39:58 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
>> On 2022-02-20 6:31 p.m., texas gate wrote:
>>> On Sunday, February 20, 2022 at 5:21:20 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> 320hp
>>>
>>> big fucking deal
>>> you pussy
>> Tell us what you drive, big boy.
>
> M5 500hp

Sure.

Sure you do.

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-20 5:50 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > Having seen Alan LeHun's post I thought I'd deal with this stupid
> > comment of yours.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Perhaps you chose to ignore that because you are still ducking
> > > > the question about your claims that the tyres look like "high
> > > > performance tyres"... when my point was that they don't even
> > > > look like low profile road tyres at all.
> > >
> > > Really?
> > >
> > > Do you know what the rear tires of my BMW 135i are?
> > >
> > > 245/35R18
> > >
> > > That really isn't that far off the real F1 numbers of 405/32R18,
> > > now is it?
> >
> > Those are numbers.
>
> Yes. Very good.
>
> Those... ...ARE numbers.
>

Feigning ignorance or truly ignorant?

> >
> > Are you STILL claiming your tyres look like F1 tyres?
> >
> > You think a sidewall of 8.5cm on a low profile road tyre looks
> > similar to the 13cm sidewall on an F1 tyre?
>
> Yup. Because what makes thing LOOK similar is PROPORTION.
>

A delightful non-sequitur. You are claiming two things which are
clearly disproportional look
proportional.

Be honest, Baker, you haven't a clue what you are talking about have
you.

> >
> > Like I said before, and you ducked, the proportions have more in
> > common with the tyres on a van than a "high performance". You are
> > just too ignorant to appreciate it and/or admit it, aren't you?
> >
> > YES or NO?
>
> Sorry, but you precede from a false premise.
>
> Just because the absolute number is similar to what you might find on
> a van has almost nothing to do with whether they resemble a high
> performance car's tires. That comes down to the PROPORTIONS.
>
> Allow me to whip you up a quick example.
>

No need. I gave examples early on. Ones that prove what a donkey you
are.

Go and check those; since you clearly were not up to comprehending the
point a week ago... maybe it is slowly dawning on you.

Also try to get your head around your stupid assertions and recheck
what I wrote above.

You look truly stupid trying to say that 13cm sidewall on an 18" rim
looks exactly like an 8.5cm sidewall on an 18" rim...

....but such an assertion just about sums up the intransigent ignorance
demonstrated by you in this thread.

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-20 5:13 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-19 3:56 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2022-02-18 3:59 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2022-02-18 2:21 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-16 3:52 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-16 3:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m.,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m.,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-07 1:47
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Never mind the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unambiguous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > truth that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you can't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have actually
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > known what my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > knowledge in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > this area was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when you made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > statements...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you KNEW you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > couldn't have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > actually know.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, never mind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pertinent facts
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when lies come
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so easily to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What "pertinent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > facts", hmmm?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What "lies"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I knew what tire
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > profile was...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...you were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clueless.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Demonstrating your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ignorance yet again.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I clearly knew what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a profile was I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > simply have never
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > had reason to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > calculate it an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overlooked
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something; algebra
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > not ignorance.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You didn't "do the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > math wrong".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you did one thing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correctly you identified
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > where my mathematics
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was at fault.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. I identified where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your idea of what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "profile" meant in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of tires was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stop proving how stupid you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > are. We already have a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pretty good idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I read that the profile is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the ratio of width to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sidewall and miscalculated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > because I calculated the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tyre width less the rim
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > width.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. You misunderstood what you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > read and calculated profile
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > based on subtracting rim
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DIAMETER from overall
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diameter and failed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand that since profile
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > IS the ratio of sidewall
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > height to overall tire
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > section width that you would
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > need to allow for the fact
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that there are two instances
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > of the sidewall height in
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overall diameter.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lol, you claim to know what I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > did better than I do.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do because it's true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You've lost your stupid little mind.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would you like to see the math?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The maths that proves you know what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did better than I do? It's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > alright I'll leave your fantasies
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to you.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is conceit and there is
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sheer stupidity.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want, I'll take your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > erroneous figures and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstrate your ignorance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for you in more rigorous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > terms.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can't, you have only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confirmed your own. I told you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what I did and you lied like
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the lying cunt you are.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. You got it wrong what you got
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Listen to yourself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're too stupid for words.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you want me to prove it to you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mathematically?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can't.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I know exactly what I did.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your conceit and dishonesty are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > amusing but in a tiresome, bored of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > watching the puppy eat it's own
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > shit, kind of way.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or how about I simply point out
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that there was no "rim width"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > provided, so you couldn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > possibly have based any of your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > calculations on a figure you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > didn't even have?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The rim diameter you stupid twat.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you calculated "tire width less rim
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diameter" now?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You really are making an ass of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yourself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is literally what you just said.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You said (earlier):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "because I calculated the tyre width less
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the rim width."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And when I pointed out that rim width was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > included in any figures we were given you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > said:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "The rim diameter"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So if that was what imply you meant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > instead of "rim width", then your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > statement becomes:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "because I calculated the tyre width less
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > the rim diameter."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > No those are your words, fuckwit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Those were YOUR words with "rim width"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > replaced with "rim diameter" as YOU stated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > you had actually meant to do.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I never stated that.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You're being infantile.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To make such an inane suggestion after
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "correcting" my original numbers calls
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > into question your claimed
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understanding of the whole subject.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, actually.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It calls into question your ability to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > simply admit you didn't really understand
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in the first place.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Didn't understand what, fuckwit?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Didn't really understand what a tire's profile
> > > > > > > > > > > > > was a measure of.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > If you had, you'd have done the math
> > > > > > > > > > > > > correctly.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > What an ignorant non-sequitur.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I see where you went wrong. You are claiming
> > > > > > > > > > > > to be too stupid to believe what I told you I
> > > > > > > > > > > > did and what my calculations bear out.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Instead you have made a convoluted explanation
> > > > > > > > > > > > in order to support a litany of falsehoods,
> > > > > > > > > > > > lies and misrepresentations.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You really are looking like an habitually
> > > > > > > > > > > > dishonest person... to the core.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > As I told you. I found what the profile ratio
> > > > > > > > > > > > represents then calculated that number but used
> > > > > > > > > > > > the diameter instead of the radius.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Your only reason to claim otherwise is to
> > > > > > > > > > > > support your dishonest representations.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > You thought you were being clever in trying to
> > > > > > > > > > > > belittle me for a simple error but all you have
> > > > > > > > > > > > done is prove what a dishonest little twat you
> > > > > > > > > > > > are.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Dude... ...give it a rest.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You got it wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to
> > > > > > > > > > imply I have claimed otherwise.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual
> > > > > > > > > analysis.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is nothing there that has not been discussed
> > > > > > > > and/or refuted, rebutted or shown to be misleading or
> > > > > > > > false representation.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > A lie told many times is still a lie.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > What lie did I tell in the text you snipped?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Stop farting about. You are a mealy mouthed little cunt
> > > > > > who's been fabricating and misrepresenting the facts since
> > > > > > your first interject ion.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You snipped my text and then claim it was lies...
> > > >
> > > > Liar.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > You're a pussy.
> > > >
> > > > You're a dishonest cunt... and you know it.
> > >
> > > Dude: if you have any balls at all, put back the text you snipped
> > > and explain how ANY OF IT is a lie.
> >
> > Another dishonest misrepresentation.
>
> Is it dishonest to say you snipped my text?
>

In article <suultt$vhm$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
> If the family is small...sure!
>
> 2-door performance coupe.
>
> 320hp
>

It's just that I don't really know of any other racing drivers who
choose a beemer as their personal road car. Mercs, Astons, VW's, Fiats
even a few Japanese cars plus the expected supercars of course. But
Beemers? Can't think of any, and it does seem an odd choice for a racing
driver.

--
Alan LeHun

On 2022-02-21 12:41 p.m., Alan LeHun wrote:
> In article <suultt$vhm$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>> If the family is small...sure!
>>
>> 2-door performance coupe.
>>
>> 320hp
>>
>
> It's just that I don't really know of any other racing drivers who
> choose a beemer as their personal road car. Mercs, Astons, VW's, Fiats
> even a few Japanese cars plus the expected supercars of course. But
> Beemers? Can't think of any, and it does seem an odd choice for a racing
> driver.

Why?

It's my daily driving road car, and I'm not a PAID racing driver.

It is a superb performance coupe for the road. Practical enough for
transporting up to 4 normal size human beings with trunk big enough to
swallow my golf clubs or my hockey bag.

<https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2011-bmw-135i-coupe-first-drive/>

As the review points out, it's not a great track car, but that's
perfectly alright. I already have one of the best track cars there is:

A 1998 Van Diemen RF98-2 Honda.

:-)

On Monday, February 21, 2022 at 3:52:46 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> Practical enough for transporting up to 4 normal size human beings

In your case that would be 1 subhuman and zero passengers ever.
As you have no fucking friends.

> with trunk big enough to swallow my golf clubs or my hockey bag.

Swallow? You are fucked in the head.

In article <sv153s$4fm$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
> >
> > It's just that I don't really know of any other racing drivers who
> > choose a beemer as their personal road car. Mercs, Astons, VW's, Fiats
> > even a few Japanese cars plus the expected supercars of course. But
> > Beemers? Can't think of any, and it does seem an odd choice for a racing
> > driver.
>
> Why?
>

Well bmw's are a little disconnected for skilled drivers. The emphasis
on ride handling, ride quality and ease of driving is delivered at the
expense of driver input.

All modern cars are nannied. By law. But bmw have made been doing it for
years and although the results for the average driver are phenomenal,
they do retract from the skilled driver at the high end.

> It's my daily driving road car, and I'm not a PAID racing driver.
>
> It is a superb performance coupe for the road. Practical enough for
> transporting up to 4 normal size human beings with trunk big enough to
> swallow my golf clubs or my hockey bag.
>

It is, yes, but I would postulate it is only a superb performance coupe
for those who have not yet acquired the skill set to drive or who do not
intend to. Boy racers and the executive types. As I said earlier,
skilled drivers seem to avoid beemers. Even the true M-class ones.

I'm not roasting you on your choice. I just imagine that it would be a
little frustrating to drive for anyone who likes to drive and who has
the required skill set to get close to the edge with it.

This was the reason I asked if it was a family car. I may not have been
clear but by that I was asking if it was also driven by others.

> <https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2011-bmw-135i-coupe-first-drive/>
>

--
Alan LeHun

On 2022-02-22 12:10 p.m., Alan LeHun wrote:
> In article <sv153s$4fm$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>>
>>> It's just that I don't really know of any other racing drivers who
>>> choose a beemer as their personal road car. Mercs, Astons, VW's, Fiats
>>> even a few Japanese cars plus the expected supercars of course. But
>>> Beemers? Can't think of any, and it does seem an odd choice for a racing
>>> driver.
>>
>> Why?
>>
>
> Well bmw's are a little disconnected for skilled drivers. The emphasis
> on ride handling, ride quality and ease of driving is delivered at the
> expense of driver input.

Before I even bother addressing any of this, tell me what your personal
level of experience with any of this is.

>
> All modern cars are nannied. By law. But bmw have made been doing it for
> years and although the results for the average driver are phenomenal,
> they do retract from the skilled driver at the high end.
>
>> It's my daily driving road car, and I'm not a PAID racing driver.
>>
>> It is a superb performance coupe for the road. Practical enough for
>> transporting up to 4 normal size human beings with trunk big enough to
>> swallow my golf clubs or my hockey bag.
>>
>
> It is, yes, but I would postulate it is only a superb performance coupe
> for those who have not yet acquired the skill set to drive or who do not
> intend to. Boy racers and the executive types. As I said earlier,
> skilled drivers seem to avoid beemers. Even the true M-class ones.
>
> I'm not roasting you on your choice. I just imagine that it would be a
> little frustrating to drive for anyone who likes to drive and who has
> the required skill set to get close to the edge with it.
>
> This was the reason I asked if it was a family car. I may not have been
> clear but by that I was asking if it was also driven by others.
>
>> <https://www.motortrend.com/reviews/2011-bmw-135i-coupe-first-drive/>
>>
>
>
>

On 2022-02-21 3:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-20 5:50 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>> Having seen Alan LeHun's post I thought I'd deal with this stupid
>>> comment of yours.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Perhaps you chose to ignore that because you are still ducking
>>>>> the question about your claims that the tyres look like "high
>>>>> performance tyres"... when my point was that they don't even
>>>>> look like low profile road tyres at all.
>>>>
>>>> Really?
>>>>
>>>> Do you know what the rear tires of my BMW 135i are?
>>>>
>>>> 245/35R18
>>>>
>>>> That really isn't that far off the real F1 numbers of 405/32R18,
>>>> now is it?
>>>
>>> Those are numbers.
>>
>> Yes. Very good.
>>
>> Those... ...ARE numbers.
>>
>
> Feigning ignorance or truly ignorant?
>
>
>>>
>>> Are you STILL claiming your tyres look like F1 tyres?
>>>
>>> You think a sidewall of 8.5cm on a low profile road tyre looks
>>> similar to the 13cm sidewall on an F1 tyre?
>>
>> Yup. Because what makes thing LOOK similar is PROPORTION.
>>
>
> A delightful non-sequitur. You are claiming two things which are
> clearly disproportional look
> proportional.
>
> Be honest, Baker, you haven't a clue what you are talking about have
> you.
>
>>>
>>> Like I said before, and you ducked, the proportions have more in
>>> common with the tyres on a van than a "high performance". You are
>>> just too ignorant to appreciate it and/or admit it, aren't you?
>>>
>>> YES or NO?
>>
>> Sorry, but you precede from a false premise.
>>
>> Just because the absolute number is similar to what you might find on
>> a van has almost nothing to do with whether they resemble a high
>> performance car's tires. That comes down to the PROPORTIONS.
>>
>> Allow me to whip you up a quick example.
>>
>
> No need. I gave examples early on. Ones that prove what a donkey you
> are.
>
> Go and check those; since you clearly were not up to comprehending the
> point a week ago... maybe it is slowly dawning on you.
>
> Also try to get your head around your stupid assertions and recheck
> what I wrote above.
>
> You look truly stupid trying to say that 13cm sidewall on an 18" rim
> looks exactly like an 8.5cm sidewall on an 18" rim...
>
> ...but such an assertion just about sums up the intransigent ignorance
> demonstrated by you in this thread.

I never said they look exactly the same...

....but you ignore width when you claim that because the sidewall height
is similar a van wheel and tire looks exactly like an F1 wheel and tire.

On 2022-02-21 3:51 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-20 5:13 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-19 3:56 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-02-18 3:59 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-18 2:21 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-16 3:52 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-16 3:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m.,
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-07 1:47
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Never mind the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> unambiguous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> truth that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have actually
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> known what my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> this area was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when you made
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...and that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you KNEW you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> couldn't have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, never mind
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pertinent facts
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> when lies come
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> so easily to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What "pertinent
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> facts", hmmm?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What "lies"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I knew what tire
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> profile was...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...you were
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> clueless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Demonstrating your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ignorance yet again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I clearly knew what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> a profile was I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply have never
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> had reason to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculate it an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overlooked
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> something; algebra
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> not ignorance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't "do the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> math wrong".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you did one thing
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly you identified
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> where my mathematics
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was at fault.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. I identified where
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> your idea of what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "profile" meant in the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> context of tires was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Stop proving how stupid you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> are. We already have a
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> pretty good idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I read that the profile is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the ratio of width to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sidewall and miscalculated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> because I calculated the
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> tyre width less the rim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> width.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. You misunderstood what you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> read and calculated profile
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> based on subtracting rim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> DIAMETER from overall
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diameter and failed to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understand that since profile
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> IS the ratio of sidewall
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> height to overall tire
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> section width that you would
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> need to allow for the fact
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that there are two instances
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> of the sidewall height in
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overall diameter.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Lol, you claim to know what I
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> did better than I do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I do because it's true.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You've lost your stupid little mind.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Would you like to see the math?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The maths that proves you know what
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I did better than I do? It's
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> alright I'll leave your fantasies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> There is conceit and there is
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> sheer stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you want, I'll take your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> erroneous figures and
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate your ignorance
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> for you in more rigorous
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> terms.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't, you have only
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> confirmed your own. I told you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> what I did and you lied like
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the lying cunt you are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No. You got it wrong what you got
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Listen to yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're too stupid for words.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Do you want me to prove it to you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> mathematically?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You can't.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I know exactly what I did.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your conceit and dishonesty are
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> amusing but in a tiresome, bored of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> watching the puppy eat it's own
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> shit, kind of way.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Or how about I simply point out
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> that there was no "rim width"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> provided, so you couldn't
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> possibly have based any of your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> calculations on a figure you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> didn't even have?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> The rim diameter you stupid twat.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So you calculated "tire width less rim
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> diameter" now?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really are making an ass of
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> yourself.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> That is literally what you just said.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You said (earlier):
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "because I calculated the tyre width less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rim width."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> And when I pointed out that rim width was
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> included in any figures we were given you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> said:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "The rim diameter"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> So if that was what imply you meant
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> instead of "rim width", then your
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement becomes:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "because I calculated the tyre width less
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> the rim diameter."
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No those are your words, fuckwit.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Those were YOUR words with "rim width"
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> replaced with "rim diameter" as YOU stated
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you had actually meant to do.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I never stated that.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You're being infantile.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> To make such an inane suggestion after
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> "correcting" my original numbers calls
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> into question your claimed
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> understanding of the whole subject.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> No, actually.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> It calls into question your ability to
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> simply admit you didn't really understand
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in the first place.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Didn't understand what, fuckwit?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Didn't really understand what a tire's profile
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> was a measure of.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you had, you'd have done the math
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> correctly.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> What an ignorant non-sequitur.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I see where you went wrong. You are claiming
>>>>>>>>>>>>> to be too stupid to believe what I told you I
>>>>>>>>>>>>> did and what my calculations bear out.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Instead you have made a convoluted explanation
>>>>>>>>>>>>> in order to support a litany of falsehoods,
>>>>>>>>>>>>> lies and misrepresentations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You really are looking like an habitually
>>>>>>>>>>>>> dishonest person... to the core.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> As I told you. I found what the profile ratio
>>>>>>>>>>>>> represents then calculated that number but used
>>>>>>>>>>>>> the diameter instead of the radius.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Your only reason to claim otherwise is to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> support your dishonest representations.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> You thought you were being clever in trying to
>>>>>>>>>>>>> belittle me for a simple error but all you have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> done is prove what a dishonest little twat you
>>>>>>>>>>>>> are.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Dude... ...give it a rest.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You got it wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to
>>>>>>>>>>> imply I have claimed otherwise.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual
>>>>>>>>>> analysis.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is nothing there that has not been discussed
>>>>>>>>> and/or refuted, rebutted or shown to be misleading or
>>>>>>>>> false representation.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> A lie told many times is still a lie.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What lie did I tell in the text you snipped?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stop farting about. You are a mealy mouthed little cunt
>>>>>>> who's been fabricating and misrepresenting the facts since
>>>>>>> your first interject ion.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You snipped my text and then claim it was lies...
>>>>>
>>>>> Liar.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You're a pussy.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're a dishonest cunt... and you know it.
>>>>
>>>> Dude: if you have any balls at all, put back the text you snipped
>>>> and explain how ANY OF IT is a lie.
>>>
>>> Another dishonest misrepresentation.
>>
>> Is it dishonest to say you snipped my text?
>>
>
> It's dishonest to suggest I haven't already indicated your falsehoods
> and dealt with them.

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 2:01:04 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> Before I even bother addressing any of this, tell me what your personal
> level of experience with any of this is.

fuck off cock sucker

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 2:01:04 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> Before I even bother addressing any of this,

you fucking piece of shit

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 2:01:04 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> Before I even bother addressing any of this, tell me what your personal
> level of experience with any of this is.

lol. Alice Baker has his panties in a knot
because he drives a girly car.

In article <sv3iue$erl$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
> > Well bmw's are a little disconnected for skilled drivers. The emphasis
> > on ride handling, ride quality and ease of driving is delivered at the
> > expense of driver input.
>
> Before I even bother addressing any of this, tell me what your personal
> level of experience with any of this is.
>

Well not much. But I have driven a few 3 series over the years and had a
535 for a couple of months but that was about 5 year ago or so.

I liked them all. The 320d is an utterly excellent family saloon.

I sense from the attitude of your response however that you are going to
go full on with your 'I know everything better than you and all the
other racing drivers too' routine, but this isn't about me, just the
other racing drivers. I was just curious as to why you drive a beemer
when other high skill drivers seem to pass over them with barely any
exception.

Personally, I have no objection to your choice of car.

--
Alan LeHun

On 2022-02-22 9:27 p.m., Alan LeHun wrote:
> In article <sv3iue$erl$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>> Well bmw's are a little disconnected for skilled drivers. The emphasis
>>> on ride handling, ride quality and ease of driving is delivered at the
>>> expense of driver input.
>>
>> Before I even bother addressing any of this, tell me what your personal
>> level of experience with any of this is.
>>
>
> Well not much. But I have driven a few 3 series over the years and had a
> 535 for a couple of months but that was about 5 year ago or so.

So you have no actual experience of any car that you claim is beyond a
BMW in driving experience.

Got it.

>
> I liked them all. The 320d is an utterly excellent family saloon.
>
> I sense from the attitude of your response however that you are going to
> go full on with your 'I know everything better than you and all the
> other racing drivers too' routine, but this isn't about me, just the
> other racing drivers. I was just curious as to why you drive a beemer
> when other high skill drivers seem to pass over them with barely any
> exception.

No. I just have more actual experience than you do with the full range
of what driver's want out of cars.

Which other "highly skilled drivers" do you you actually KNOW, as
opposed to just having heard about?

>
> Personally, I have no objection to your choice of car.
>

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-21 3:51 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-20 5:13 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2022-02-19 3:56 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2022-02-18 3:59 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-18 2:21 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-16 3:52 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-16 3:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m.,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m.,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-08 1:29
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-07 1:47
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > a.m., Bigbird
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Never
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mind the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > unambiguou
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > s truth
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > known
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > knowledge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > in this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > area was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > statements
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > KNEW you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > couldn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > actually
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > know.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, never
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mind
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > pertinent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > facts when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lies come
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > so easily
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to you.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "pertinent
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > facts", hmmm?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What "lies"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I knew what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > tire profile
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...you were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > clueless.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Demonstrating
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your ignorance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yet again.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I clearly knew
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what a profile
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was I simply
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have never had
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > reason to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > calculate it an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overlooked
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > something;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > algebra not
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ignorance.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You didn't "do the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > math wrong".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you did one thing
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correctly you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > identified where my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mathematics was at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fault.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. I identified where
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your idea of what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "profile" meant in the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > context of tires was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Stop proving how stupid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you are. We already
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have a pretty good idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I read that the profile
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is the ratio of width to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sidewall and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > miscalculated because I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > calculated the tyre
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > width less the rim
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > width.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. You misunderstood
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what you read and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > calculated profile based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > on subtracting rim
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > DIAMETER from overall
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diameter and failed to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand that since
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > profile IS the ratio of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > sidewall height to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > overall tire section
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > width that you would need
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > to allow for the fact
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that there are two
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > instances of the sidewall
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > height in overall
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > diameter.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Lol, you claim to know what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did better than I do.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I do because it's true.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You've lost your stupid little
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > mind.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Would you like to see the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > math?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The maths that proves you know
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > what I did better than I do?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It's alright I'll leave your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > fantasies to you.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > There is conceit and there
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > is sheer stupidity.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you want, I'll take
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > your erroneous figures and
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > demonstrate your ignorance
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > for you in more rigorous
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > terms.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can't, you have only
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > confirmed your own. I told
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you what I did and you lied
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > like the lying cunt you are.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No. You got it wrong what you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > got wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Listen to yourself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're too stupid for words.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Do you want me to prove it to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you mathematically?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You can't.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I know exactly what I did.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your conceit and dishonesty are
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > amusing but in a tiresome,
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > bored of watching the puppy eat
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > it's own shit, kind of way.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Or how about I simply point
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > out that there was no "rim
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > width" provided, so you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > couldn't possibly have based
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > any of your calculations on a
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > figure you didn't even have?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > The rim diameter you stupid
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > twat.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So you calculated "tire width
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > less rim diameter" now?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You really are making an ass of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > yourself.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > That is literally what you just said.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You said (earlier):
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "because I calculated the tyre width
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > less the rim width."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And when I pointed out that rim width
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > was included in any figures we were
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > given you said:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "The rim diameter"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > So if that was what imply you meant
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > instead of "rim width", then your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > statement becomes:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > "because I calculated the tyre width
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > less the rim diameter."
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No those are your words, fuckwit.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Those were YOUR words with "rim width"
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > replaced with "rim diameter" as YOU stated
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you had actually meant to do.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I never stated that.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You're being infantile.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > To make such an inane suggestion
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > after "correcting" my original
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > numbers calls into question your
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > claimed understanding of the whole
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > subject.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > No, actually.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > It calls into question your ability to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > simply admit you didn't really
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > understand in the first place.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Didn't understand what, fuckwit?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Didn't really understand what a tire's
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > profile was a measure of.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you had, you'd have done the math
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > correctly.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > What an ignorant non-sequitur.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I see where you went wrong. You are claiming
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to be too stupid to believe what I told you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I did and what my calculations bear out.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Instead you have made a convoluted
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > explanation in order to support a litany of
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > falsehoods, lies and misrepresentations.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You really are looking like an habitually
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > dishonest person... to the core.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > As I told you. I found what the profile
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > ratio represents then calculated that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > number but used the diameter instead of the
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > radius.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Your only reason to claim otherwise is to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > support your dishonest representations.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > You thought you were being clever in trying
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > to belittle me for a simple error but all
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > you have done is prove what a dishonest
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > little twat you are.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Dude... ...give it a rest.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You got it wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Again your habitual dishonesty has you
> > > > > > > > > > > > attempting to imply I have claimed otherwise.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I can't help noticing you've snipped all the
> > > > > > > > > > > factual analysis.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > There is nothing there that has not been discussed
> > > > > > > > > > and/or refuted, rebutted or shown to be misleading
> > > > > > > > > > or false representation.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > A lie told many times is still a lie.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What lie did I tell in the text you snipped?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Stop farting about. You are a mealy mouthed little cunt
> > > > > > > > who's been fabricating and misrepresenting the facts
> > > > > > > > since your first interject ion.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You snipped my text and then claim it was lies...
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Liar.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You're a pussy.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're a dishonest cunt... and you know it.
> > > > >
> > > > > Dude: if you have any balls at all, put back the text you
> > > > > snipped and explain how ANY OF IT is a lie.
> > > >
> > > > Another dishonest misrepresentation.
> > >
> > > Is it dishonest to say you snipped my text?
> > >
> >
> > It's dishonest to suggest I haven't already indicated your
> > falsehoods and dealt with them.
>
> It isn't dishonest, because you haven't and you haven't.
>

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-21 3:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-20 5:50 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Having seen Alan LeHun's post I thought I'd deal with this
> > > > stupid comment of yours.
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Perhaps you chose to ignore that because you are still
> > > > > > ducking the question about your claims that the tyres look
> > > > > > like "high performance tyres"... when my point was that
> > > > > > they don't even look like low profile road tyres at all.
> > > > >
> > > > > Really?
> > > > >
> > > > > Do you know what the rear tires of my BMW 135i are?
> > > > >
> > > > > 245/35R18
> > > > >
> > > > > That really isn't that far off the real F1 numbers of
> > > > > 405/32R18, now is it?
> > > >
> > > > Those are numbers.
> > >
> > > Yes. Very good.
> > >
> > > Those... ...ARE numbers.
> > >
> >
> > Feigning ignorance or truly ignorant?
> >
> >
> > > >
> > > > Are you STILL claiming your tyres look like F1 tyres?
> > > >
> > > > You think a sidewall of 8.5cm on a low profile road tyre looks
> > > > similar to the 13cm sidewall on an F1 tyre?
> > >
> > > Yup. Because what makes thing LOOK similar is PROPORTION.
> > >
> >
> > A delightful non-sequitur. You are claiming two things which are
> > clearly disproportional look
> > proportional.
> >
> > Be honest, Baker, you haven't a clue what you are talking about have
> > you.
> >
> > > >
> > > > Like I said before, and you ducked, the proportions have more in
> > > > common with the tyres on a van than a "high performance". You
> > > > are just too ignorant to appreciate it and/or admit it, aren't
> > > > you?
> > > >
> > > > YES or NO?
> > >
> > > Sorry, but you precede from a false premise.
> > >
> > > Just because the absolute number is similar to what you might
> > > find on a van has almost nothing to do with whether they resemble
> > > a high performance car's tires. That comes down to the
> > > PROPORTIONS.
> > >
> > > Allow me to whip you up a quick example.
> > >
> >
> > No need. I gave examples early on. Ones that prove what a donkey you
> > are.
> >
> > Go and check those; since you clearly were not up to comprehending
> > the point a week ago... maybe it is slowly dawning on you.
> >
> > Also try to get your head around your stupid assertions and recheck
> > what I wrote above.
> >
> > You look truly stupid trying to say that 13cm sidewall on an 18" rim
> > looks exactly like an 8.5cm sidewall on an 18" rim...
> >
> > ...but such an assertion just about sums up the intransigent
> > ignorance demonstrated by you in this thread.
>
> I never said they look exactly the same...
>
> ...but you ignore width when you claim that because the sidewall
> height is similar a van wheel and tire looks exactly like an F1 wheel
> and tire.

WOW! Just fucking WOW!

Are you really being that slow? This whole tread was about the
perception of a "low-profile" tyre.

I am not even going to deal with your additional falsehoods and
misrepresentations above but just repost what I said before your
tedious litany of falsehoods

"It's not until I thought about what is being calculated that I realised
that the width of the tyre on an F1 car means that for a similar
profile the sidewall is proportionally larger.

That is why these do not look like low profile road tyres but more like
the tyres on van the I use for the dogs. 215/55 R16

If you scale down 720 R18 to the vans tyre diameter you get a 16" rim
so pretty much dead on analogy.

To have a 720mm wheel that looked like a low profile road car tyre (say
a 225/45R18) you'd have to have a 19.6"rim or to look like a 225/40 R19
the rims would have to be another inch bigger than that.

So while they look more like road tyres from the side they do not
resemble "fashionable" low profile road tyres at all."

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

In article <sv4hbc$ugj$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>
> Which other "highly skilled drivers" do you you actually KNOW, as
> opposed to just having heard about?
>

Why are you being deliberately evasive? If it's another playground
tussle you're after, Bird will happily entertain you. I try to stay out
of such incessant handbag chucking threads.

I was simply curious as to why you chose a beemer when it appears to be
a brand that other high-skill drivers seem to pass over.

I'll leave it there.

--
Alan LeHun

On Tuesday, February 22, 2022 at 10:39:59 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> So you have no actual experience of any car that you claim is beyond a
> BMW in driving experience.
>
> Got it.

> No. I just have more actual experience than you do with the full range
> of what driver's want out of cars.
>
> Which other "highly skilled drivers" do you you actually KNOW, as
> opposed to just having heard about?

Wholy chip on shoulder.
Just enjoy your girly car, pussy.

On 2022-02-23 6:15 a.m., Alan LeHun wrote:
> In article <sv4hbc$ugj$2@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>>
>> Which other "highly skilled drivers" do you you actually KNOW, as
>> opposed to just having heard about?
>>
>
> Why are you being deliberately evasive? If it's another playground
> tussle you're after, Bird will happily entertain you. I try to stay out
> of such incessant handbag chucking threads.

I'm not being evasive at all.

You've made claims and now we know they aren't from your personal
experience, so I'd like to know what the basis for your claims is.

>
> I was simply curious as to why you chose a beemer when it appears to be
> a brand that other high-skill drivers seem to pass over.

And I'm simply curious where you get the notion that high-skill drivers
pass over BMWs...

....because my guess is that you read it once somewhere and that's all.

>
> I'll leave it there.
>

On 2022-02-23 4:20 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>>>>>> Dude: if you have any balls at all, put back the text you
>>>>>> snipped and explain how ANY OF IT is a lie.
>>>>>
>>>>> Another dishonest misrepresentation.
>>>>
>>>> Is it dishonest to say you snipped my text?
>>>>
>>>
>>> It's dishonest to suggest I haven't already indicated your
>>> falsehoods and dealt with them.
>>
>> It isn't dishonest, because you haven't and you haven't.
>>
>
> LIAR.
>
> What a really stupid lie.
>

You know what would really have shown me up?

Posting a quote and a link where you actually did what you claim.

On Wednesday, February 23, 2022 at 9:47:58 AM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> You've made claims and now we know they aren't from your personal
> experience

Who is 'we'?

> ...because my guess is that you read it once somewhere and that's all.

Keep on guessing asshole.

In article <sv5ofr$54p$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>
> ...because my guess is that you read it once somewhere and that's all.
>

Well possibly. More likely I've read it many times from many where's, or
to more accurate, never read it at all.

It's simple to look up on t'interweb, what the personal cars of many
drivers are. We know Leclerc is a big Alpha fan. Kimi has a Fiat. Lewis
will most likely be seen in a Smart Brabus. You can find personal cars
for most of the top drivers of most disciplines.

Beemers are conspicuous by their absence. I would say total absence but
I am only working from a small sample of drivers, and none of them
appear to have a bmw.

So lets forget about your personal choice. Personal cars are usually,
above all, a tool rather than a toy and focusing on driving
characteristics generally requires compromise elsewhere. So lets just
concentrate on why it is that the beemer is not a favoured car amongst
people with very high driving skill sets.

I would like to know. However, having driven BMW's and the much looser
mercs, I have formed personal ideas as to why that might be and I have
alluded to such. The popular mercedes and Italian brands are far less
restrictive to driver style. oc, icbw and I happily admit that.

--
Alan LeHun