CL W215 Picture Thread
04-18-2008, 12:55 AM
#154
Baby ///M3,
Thank you for your polite response, even though it is flawed in both argument and fact.
Tom called you a poser. You expressed resentment at his calling you a poser, going so far as to "pretend you didn't hear it," then launching into a non-sequitious diatribe on your right to express yourself. And a frank exchange of opinion followed between the two of you.
Then Jay called you a poser. Once again, you expressed resentment, following which you insinuated collusion between Tom and Jay.
Then I called you a poser, making it crystal clear that it was a statement of fact and not meant as an insult in any way - a position I steadfastly maintain. And in your error-burdened response to me, you assert that you were never in debate as to whether you were (are, in fact) posing or not. If that were truly the case, you would have simply taken no offense at Tom's initial proclamation of same and simply moved on. You did no such thing.
But, and again respectfully, that was not even the first of the many errors in your response to me.
In order, they are:
1. You assert my initial response to be one of opinion rather than fact
While I appreciate the demeaning rhetoric in this tactic, it is wasted on me. My initial response was purely factual.
2. You assume that effort equals success
Try as you might to advance a flawed argument, you should not assume success in doing so. In this case you cite your own analogies, and I welcome the offer to do the same in the following point.
3. Your analogies are faulty
Equating up-badging your car to one's wearing a Harvard Law pullover would only be accurate IFF one were to attempt to sit in on a function reserved for matriculated students at Harvard Law. You are performing the purpose for which the vehicle you represent yours to be was in fact designed for, i.e. driving. Those wearing Harvard Law pullovers make no inherent claim to attend Harvard Law, just as those who wear Yankees baseball caps claim to be Yankees. I, for one, have neither ever taken a law class at Harvard or elsewhere, nor have I played for the Yankees.
4. You state that you were not in debate as to whether or not you were posing
As addressed earlier, you are not only in the debate, but you also began the debate.
5. You insinuate that Tom possesses ill will toward you
This is your opinion, but please take your own advice and re-read the thread. At no point do I interpret any ill will. Contrarily, I see good will in his encouraging you to be proud of the fine vehicle you own for what it is, rather than what it is not. I concur with his sentiments in that regard and in doing so, for the first time share an opinion directly with you.
6. You assign causality between comprehension and agreement where there is none
While thoughtful agreement requires comprehension, comprehension does not always result in thoughtful agreement. So, while I appreciate your offering, or "urging" as it were, for me to re-read your posts, I object to your insinuations that because I don't agree that either I didn't comprehend them the first time I read them, or that simply reading them again would reveal to me the error of my thinking, or both. The fact is that I did both read and comprehend fully, flawed as they are, your responses and in fact, my doing so is in part what compelled me to reply.
7. You equate de-badging with up- and down-badging
Again, faulty logic here. De-badging merely obfuscates the car's nature, neither moving it up-market nor down-market. Up-badging positions the car as superior to what it truly is, and down-badging does the opposite. Regardless of intent, whether it be to appear more affluent, or to lure unsuspecting rivals into a race they can't win, respectively, it is posing. This point is both valid and factual, despite your attempt to turn a blind eye to the differences between them. Words have meanings, regardless of whether they are rendered here in an online forum or a law class - at Harvard or otherwise. This will be addressed in a subsequent point.
8. You ask to be excused for something you believe is not wrong or otherwise offensive
Despite your explicit assertion to the contrary, it is in fact customary to ask to be excused only when doing something others might find objectionable, such as burping at a meal, interrupting a conversation, or leaving a law class before being dismissed, for example. Unless there is some linguistic or customary obstacle between us, which I suspect is not the case, then your asking to be excused is tantamount to your recognizing that you are doing something others may find objectionable, and asking for the pardoning of same by those very people.
9. You claim that you did not use your signature to mitigate your misrepresentation of your vehicle
This is grossly inaccurate. In your post dated 4-11-2008 at 3:13pm ET you state, and I quote: "As a matter of fact I've clearly put in my sig since day one that I have a CL500; nothing more, nothing less." Again, these are your words, although I admit I did take you up on your encouragement to re-read your posts to find them, and I reciprocate the offer.
10. You ignore the meaning of words to suit your argument
Words have meanings, and you can not capriciously usurp or disregard altogether those meanings in order to advance your point, despite your attempts to do so. Such efforts are beneath the educated individual I believe you to be. With that, accept that there is a clear and distinguishing differentiation between misrepresentation and non-disclosure and you will not fail to see that the former is posing and the later is not.
11. You claim I acknowledge that non-disclosure is posing
Again, grossly inaccurate. I made no such claim ever.
12. You use false claims to argue your point
This is evidenced by the preceding point, combined with several other factual inaccuracies. Such erroneous arguments are invalid and not only do they not advance your position, but they also diminish it.
Aside from the opinion shared in point 5, every statement in this email is a fact. Jon, I hope as before that these facts are met by you with the same good-natured intent with which they were written.
Best,
-V
Thank you for your polite response, even though it is flawed in both argument and fact.
Tom called you a poser. You expressed resentment at his calling you a poser, going so far as to "pretend you didn't hear it," then launching into a non-sequitious diatribe on your right to express yourself. And a frank exchange of opinion followed between the two of you.
Then Jay called you a poser. Once again, you expressed resentment, following which you insinuated collusion between Tom and Jay.
Then I called you a poser, making it crystal clear that it was a statement of fact and not meant as an insult in any way - a position I steadfastly maintain. And in your error-burdened response to me, you assert that you were never in debate as to whether you were (are, in fact) posing or not. If that were truly the case, you would have simply taken no offense at Tom's initial proclamation of same and simply moved on. You did no such thing.
But, and again respectfully, that was not even the first of the many errors in your response to me.
In order, they are:
1. You assert my initial response to be one of opinion rather than fact
While I appreciate the demeaning rhetoric in this tactic, it is wasted on me. My initial response was purely factual.
2. You assume that effort equals success
Try as you might to advance a flawed argument, you should not assume success in doing so. In this case you cite your own analogies, and I welcome the offer to do the same in the following point.
3. Your analogies are faulty
Equating up-badging your car to one's wearing a Harvard Law pullover would only be accurate IFF one were to attempt to sit in on a function reserved for matriculated students at Harvard Law. You are performing the purpose for which the vehicle you represent yours to be was in fact designed for, i.e. driving. Those wearing Harvard Law pullovers make no inherent claim to attend Harvard Law, just as those who wear Yankees baseball caps claim to be Yankees. I, for one, have neither ever taken a law class at Harvard or elsewhere, nor have I played for the Yankees.
4. You state that you were not in debate as to whether or not you were posing
As addressed earlier, you are not only in the debate, but you also began the debate.
5. You insinuate that Tom possesses ill will toward you
This is your opinion, but please take your own advice and re-read the thread. At no point do I interpret any ill will. Contrarily, I see good will in his encouraging you to be proud of the fine vehicle you own for what it is, rather than what it is not. I concur with his sentiments in that regard and in doing so, for the first time share an opinion directly with you.
6. You assign causality between comprehension and agreement where there is none
While thoughtful agreement requires comprehension, comprehension does not always result in thoughtful agreement. So, while I appreciate your offering, or "urging" as it were, for me to re-read your posts, I object to your insinuations that because I don't agree that either I didn't comprehend them the first time I read them, or that simply reading them again would reveal to me the error of my thinking, or both. The fact is that I did both read and comprehend fully, flawed as they are, your responses and in fact, my doing so is in part what compelled me to reply.
7. You equate de-badging with up- and down-badging
Again, faulty logic here. De-badging merely obfuscates the car's nature, neither moving it up-market nor down-market. Up-badging positions the car as superior to what it truly is, and down-badging does the opposite. Regardless of intent, whether it be to appear more affluent, or to lure unsuspecting rivals into a race they can't win, respectively, it is posing. This point is both valid and factual, despite your attempt to turn a blind eye to the differences between them. Words have meanings, regardless of whether they are rendered here in an online forum or a law class - at Harvard or otherwise. This will be addressed in a subsequent point.
8. You ask to be excused for something you believe is not wrong or otherwise offensive
Despite your explicit assertion to the contrary, it is in fact customary to ask to be excused only when doing something others might find objectionable, such as burping at a meal, interrupting a conversation, or leaving a law class before being dismissed, for example. Unless there is some linguistic or customary obstacle between us, which I suspect is not the case, then your asking to be excused is tantamount to your recognizing that you are doing something others may find objectionable, and asking for the pardoning of same by those very people.
9. You claim that you did not use your signature to mitigate your misrepresentation of your vehicle
This is grossly inaccurate. In your post dated 4-11-2008 at 3:13pm ET you state, and I quote: "As a matter of fact I've clearly put in my sig since day one that I have a CL500; nothing more, nothing less." Again, these are your words, although I admit I did take you up on your encouragement to re-read your posts to find them, and I reciprocate the offer.
10. You ignore the meaning of words to suit your argument
Words have meanings, and you can not capriciously usurp or disregard altogether those meanings in order to advance your point, despite your attempts to do so. Such efforts are beneath the educated individual I believe you to be. With that, accept that there is a clear and distinguishing differentiation between misrepresentation and non-disclosure and you will not fail to see that the former is posing and the later is not.
11. You claim I acknowledge that non-disclosure is posing
Again, grossly inaccurate. I made no such claim ever.
12. You use false claims to argue your point
This is evidenced by the preceding point, combined with several other factual inaccuracies. Such erroneous arguments are invalid and not only do they not advance your position, but they also diminish it.
Aside from the opinion shared in point 5, every statement in this email is a fact. Jon, I hope as before that these facts are met by you with the same good-natured intent with which they were written.
Best,
-V
04-18-2008, 12:59 AM
#155
Hillarious! Nerdy! Better than Cats! Better than E.T.!
I sooooohoho wish I could see the faces of certain people as they read these posts.
Hope you're all havin' fun like I am!
Stay
,
-V
I sooooohoho wish I could see the faces of certain people as they read these posts.
Hope you're all havin' fun like I am!
Stay
,-V
04-18-2008, 01:48 AM
#156
Vendetta,
You're obviously a very well learned man. I respect that very much.
As I stated before, everyone has the freedom to voice his opinion here in this forum. However, given the fact that this thread was not meant to be a debating thread, I'll make my response concise and short.
You may slice, re-word and re-interpret what I wrote all you want. I spent years in law school and later as a practitioner dissecting the Su. Ct. justice's and different judges' opinions. And frankly, if these highly intelligent gentlemen on the bench can't even agree with each other all the time, neither do we.
The bottom line is, in all of your responses in this thread, you have failed to provide a rational explanation as to why I have been constantly poked upon by others. You attempted to justify their comments as facts. Mind you, if Tom had called another person's wife a poser because of her plastic surgery, would that be a fact to you as well? And if so, how would you justify his intent in that instance?
You stated that I have been resentful. And yet it was Tom who clearly stated that my car "offended him". As a normal human being, it's only natural for me to tell others that I have the right to expression. I don't see how you managed to read my emotion through my words and yet, you found Tom and others' words to be soothing.
It's also clear that you did not have to make a huge rhetorical analysis in your response and yet, you chose to do so. While I can't really interpret your intent, I can only assume that you share the same displeasure as others for my display of my own property.
Just as your would in a rhetoric class, why not take this entire thread and substitute the subject "mis-badged car" with another guy's "wife with plastic surgery"? Perhaps your seemingly wondering dissection of words would not appear to be so pleasing, after all.
Let's give this subject another twist. Despite the fact that we're in disagreement, even if I were to take your argument that the act of non-disclosure is distinguishable from posing, so what? Should those who called me a poser invent another vocabulary to describe the debadgers and call them forthwith? And if they do invent such word, should it also be used to call these debadgers as a fact as you've alleged?
Finally, you not only missed my points, you missed my most important point in this thread. I have already stated to Tom that if it makes him feel better to call me a poser as an AMG owner, then I'd rather be a "poser" than someone in his position. I suppose you certainly did not miss that sentence intentionally.
Therefore, the question is. Does anyone even have the decency or courage to admit that given his prejudice, he cares to comment and call out someone with a less expensive mis-badged car a poser but on the other hand, he embraces those who de-badges his/her cars. That my friend, is called prejudice. And unfortunately, it exists in many more places in this country other than just car forums.
With that, I'll politely excuse myself and end my response to you.
Jon
You're obviously a very well learned man. I respect that very much.
As I stated before, everyone has the freedom to voice his opinion here in this forum. However, given the fact that this thread was not meant to be a debating thread, I'll make my response concise and short.
You may slice, re-word and re-interpret what I wrote all you want. I spent years in law school and later as a practitioner dissecting the Su. Ct. justice's and different judges' opinions. And frankly, if these highly intelligent gentlemen on the bench can't even agree with each other all the time, neither do we.
The bottom line is, in all of your responses in this thread, you have failed to provide a rational explanation as to why I have been constantly poked upon by others. You attempted to justify their comments as facts. Mind you, if Tom had called another person's wife a poser because of her plastic surgery, would that be a fact to you as well? And if so, how would you justify his intent in that instance?
You stated that I have been resentful. And yet it was Tom who clearly stated that my car "offended him". As a normal human being, it's only natural for me to tell others that I have the right to expression. I don't see how you managed to read my emotion through my words and yet, you found Tom and others' words to be soothing.
It's also clear that you did not have to make a huge rhetorical analysis in your response and yet, you chose to do so. While I can't really interpret your intent, I can only assume that you share the same displeasure as others for my display of my own property.
Just as your would in a rhetoric class, why not take this entire thread and substitute the subject "mis-badged car" with another guy's "wife with plastic surgery"? Perhaps your seemingly wondering dissection of words would not appear to be so pleasing, after all.
Let's give this subject another twist. Despite the fact that we're in disagreement, even if I were to take your argument that the act of non-disclosure is distinguishable from posing, so what? Should those who called me a poser invent another vocabulary to describe the debadgers and call them forthwith? And if they do invent such word, should it also be used to call these debadgers as a fact as you've alleged?
Finally, you not only missed my points, you missed my most important point in this thread. I have already stated to Tom that if it makes him feel better to call me a poser as an AMG owner, then I'd rather be a "poser" than someone in his position. I suppose you certainly did not miss that sentence intentionally.
Therefore, the question is. Does anyone even have the decency or courage to admit that given his prejudice, he cares to comment and call out someone with a less expensive mis-badged car a poser but on the other hand, he embraces those who de-badges his/her cars. That my friend, is called prejudice. And unfortunately, it exists in many more places in this country other than just car forums.
With that, I'll politely excuse myself and end my response to you.
Jon
04-18-2008, 02:24 AM
#157
In the interest of getting this thread back on track, I'll reply briefly and in simple English...
[SimpleEnglish]
Thanks for the compliment, but....
Dude! Are you for real? Jeez, no wonder our legal system is a wreck!
The rational explaination is that you're being deceitful! Plain and simple. It's got nothing to do with prejudice, or class-warfare. Positioning yourself or belongings as other than they are is disingenuous and frowned upon in nearly every facet of life, as demonstrated by the scorn showered upon those when they're exposed. Just look at what happened to my ex-Governor Elliot "Client 9" Spitzer - ***** that he is.
And again with the faulty analogies? If a gal gets implants, then she's not doing any false advertising, they're just aftermarket! If that's the best you can do, then all you're doing is admitting that you have to go get the engine to earn the badge, and leave the fact that it was installed aftermarket to the preference of the beholder.
I don't need to say any more than that, despite the opportunity. So c'mon man, get off this prejudice nonsense and victim mentality, ditch the falsehoods and just enjoy that awesome car you've got - a car like which most people will never even sit it, never mind own.
-V
[/SimpleEnglish]
[SimpleEnglish]
Thanks for the compliment, but....
Dude! Are you for real? Jeez, no wonder our legal system is a wreck!
The rational explaination is that you're being deceitful! Plain and simple. It's got nothing to do with prejudice, or class-warfare. Positioning yourself or belongings as other than they are is disingenuous and frowned upon in nearly every facet of life, as demonstrated by the scorn showered upon those when they're exposed. Just look at what happened to my ex-Governor Elliot "Client 9" Spitzer - ***** that he is.And again with the faulty analogies? If a gal gets implants, then she's not doing any false advertising, they're just aftermarket! If that's the best you can do, then all you're doing is admitting that you have to go get the engine to earn the badge, and leave the fact that it was installed aftermarket to the preference of the beholder.
I don't need to say any more than that, despite the opportunity. So c'mon man, get off this prejudice nonsense and victim mentality, ditch the falsehoods and just enjoy that awesome car you've got - a car like which most people will never even sit it, never mind own.
-V
[/SimpleEnglish]
Last edited by Vendetta; 04-18-2008 at 02:34 AM.
04-18-2008, 10:19 AM
#158
Vendetta,
Now you're beginning to sound like Tom. After everything that you've previously said, are you sure you want to come back and blame our legal system for it?
Why am I being deceitful? Did I try to sell my car and advertise it as a CL55? If you call what I did deceitful, then I suppose we all live in a nation full of deceits.
Are you sure you want to compare a perfectly legal act of expression (i.e. badging a car) with what that ex-governor did?
And are you sure that you want to advance your position that an implant job is just aftermarket? What if your wife did that without telling anyone that it isn't her natural body. She posts her picture online and someone calls her out by slapping a "faker" connotation on her? Will you tell her to calm down simply because it's true?
Frankly speaking, I can't really change the way you or Tom feels about this matter other than pointing out our differences. I have manned up to what I believe in, have you?
As for what's factually true or not, 100 years ago it would've been perfectly legal and perhaps even factual (as you would have called it) to call my ancestors ****** or those of African American ancestry a word that begins with an N. But I hope given your wisdom, you understand what progression means. Depending on the level of our respect for one another, what's socially acceptable today may not be years later, and vice versa.
I am enjoying my car and have been enjoying my car. If your conclusion of this discussion is truly what you've just stated, then I think I've already made it clear that I would rather be a poser than someone in your position and mentality.
Jon
Now you're beginning to sound like Tom. After everything that you've previously said, are you sure you want to come back and blame our legal system for it?
Why am I being deceitful? Did I try to sell my car and advertise it as a CL55? If you call what I did deceitful, then I suppose we all live in a nation full of deceits.
Are you sure you want to compare a perfectly legal act of expression (i.e. badging a car) with what that ex-governor did?
And are you sure that you want to advance your position that an implant job is just aftermarket? What if your wife did that without telling anyone that it isn't her natural body. She posts her picture online and someone calls her out by slapping a "faker" connotation on her? Will you tell her to calm down simply because it's true?
Frankly speaking, I can't really change the way you or Tom feels about this matter other than pointing out our differences. I have manned up to what I believe in, have you?
As for what's factually true or not, 100 years ago it would've been perfectly legal and perhaps even factual (as you would have called it) to call my ancestors ****** or those of African American ancestry a word that begins with an N. But I hope given your wisdom, you understand what progression means. Depending on the level of our respect for one another, what's socially acceptable today may not be years later, and vice versa.
I am enjoying my car and have been enjoying my car. If your conclusion of this discussion is truly what you've just stated, then I think I've already made it clear that I would rather be a poser than someone in your position and mentality.
Jon
In the interest of getting this thread back on track, I'll reply briefly and in simple English...
[SimpleEnglish]
Thanks for the compliment, but....
Dude! Are you for real? Jeez, no wonder our legal system is a wreck! The rational explaination is that you're being deceitful! Plain and simple. It's got nothing to do with prejudice, or class-warfare. Positioning yourself or belongings as other than they are is disingenuous and frowned upon in nearly every facet of life, as demonstrated by the scorn showered upon those when they're exposed. Just look at what happened to my ex-Governor Elliot "Client 9" Spitzer - ***** that he is.
And again with the faulty analogies? If a gal gets implants, then she's not doing any false advertising, they're just aftermarket! If that's the best you can do, then all you're doing is admitting that you have to go get the engine to earn the badge, and leave the fact that it was installed aftermarket to the preference of the beholder.
I don't need to say any more than that, despite the opportunity. So c'mon man, get off this prejudice nonsense and victim mentality, ditch the falsehoods and just enjoy that awesome car you've got - a car like which most people will never even sit it, never mind own.
-V
[/SimpleEnglish]
[SimpleEnglish]
Thanks for the compliment, but....
Dude! Are you for real? Jeez, no wonder our legal system is a wreck!
The rational explaination is that you're being deceitful! Plain and simple. It's got nothing to do with prejudice, or class-warfare. Positioning yourself or belongings as other than they are is disingenuous and frowned upon in nearly every facet of life, as demonstrated by the scorn showered upon those when they're exposed. Just look at what happened to my ex-Governor Elliot "Client 9" Spitzer - ***** that he is.And again with the faulty analogies? If a gal gets implants, then she's not doing any false advertising, they're just aftermarket! If that's the best you can do, then all you're doing is admitting that you have to go get the engine to earn the badge, and leave the fact that it was installed aftermarket to the preference of the beholder.
I don't need to say any more than that, despite the opportunity. So c'mon man, get off this prejudice nonsense and victim mentality, ditch the falsehoods and just enjoy that awesome car you've got - a car like which most people will never even sit it, never mind own.
-V
[/SimpleEnglish]
04-18-2008, 10:28 AM
#159
MBWorld Fanatic!
Jon....Jon...Jon....all those years of law school and law practice and you try to impune my arguments by pointing to my post counts and # of concentration on you? You really are making me question your intelligence.
For the record (for those who are being entertained by this thread) I bought my CL65 on March 1, 2008. Prior to March 1st, I was a member of this board because ...amazingly enough...I have always loved AMG products and MB's in general (growing up parents had two Mercedes). I would post periodically on this board even though during that 2002-2008 period I owned other high performance vehicles (BMW M5, Audi RS6 and Jeep GC SRT8). If you notice, those cars all sport a badge from each respective manufacturer's specialty high perfomance group. There are posers out there sporting badges of each that are not "earned". I found it egregious in each circumstance when an act of posing took place.
I am not going to go back and look at my post count and try to work the statistics to show that your assertions/inferences are completely absurd. I think the readers of this thread will draw their own conclusions.
Vendetta:
There is no sense arguing with (or trying to rehabilitate) someone who is so entrenched in their position. His whole fraudulent world might collapse if he were to come to terms with his posing. Who knows to what extent his posing has pervaded his life.
Tom
For the record (for those who are being entertained by this thread) I bought my CL65 on March 1, 2008. Prior to March 1st, I was a member of this board because ...amazingly enough...I have always loved AMG products and MB's in general (growing up parents had two Mercedes). I would post periodically on this board even though during that 2002-2008 period I owned other high performance vehicles (BMW M5, Audi RS6 and Jeep GC SRT8). If you notice, those cars all sport a badge from each respective manufacturer's specialty high perfomance group. There are posers out there sporting badges of each that are not "earned". I found it egregious in each circumstance when an act of posing took place.
I am not going to go back and look at my post count and try to work the statistics to show that your assertions/inferences are completely absurd. I think the readers of this thread will draw their own conclusions.
Vendetta:
There is no sense arguing with (or trying to rehabilitate) someone who is so entrenched in their position. His whole fraudulent world might collapse if he were to come to terms with his posing. Who knows to what extent his posing has pervaded his life.
Tom
04-18-2008, 10:32 AM
#160
MBWorld Fanatic!
Vendetta,
Now you're beginning to sound like Tom. After everything that you've previously said, are you sure you want to come back and blame our legal system for it?
Why am I being deceitful? Did I try to sell my car and advertise it as a CL55? If you call what I did deceitful, then I suppose we all live in a nation full of deceits.
Are you sure you want to compare a perfectly legal act of expression (i.e. badging a car) with what that ex-governor did?
And are you sure that you want to advance your position that an implant job is just aftermarket? What if your wife did that without telling anyone that it isn't her natural body. She posts her picture online and someone calls her out by slapping a "faker" connotation on her? Will you tell her to calm down simply because it's true?
Frankly speaking, I can't really change the way you or Tom feels about this matter other than pointing out our differences. I have manned up to what I believe in, have you?
As for what's factually true or not, 100 years ago it would've been perfectly legal and perhaps even factual (as you would have called it) to call my ancestors ****** or those of African American ancestry a word that begins with an N. But I hope given your wisdom, you understand what progression means. Depending on the level of our respect for one another, what's socially acceptable today may not be years later, and vice versa.
I am enjoying my car and have been enjoying my car. If your conclusion of this discussion is truly what you've just stated, then I think I've already made it clear that I would rather be a poser than someone in your position and mentality.
Jon
Now you're beginning to sound like Tom. After everything that you've previously said, are you sure you want to come back and blame our legal system for it?
Why am I being deceitful? Did I try to sell my car and advertise it as a CL55? If you call what I did deceitful, then I suppose we all live in a nation full of deceits.
Are you sure you want to compare a perfectly legal act of expression (i.e. badging a car) with what that ex-governor did?
And are you sure that you want to advance your position that an implant job is just aftermarket? What if your wife did that without telling anyone that it isn't her natural body. She posts her picture online and someone calls her out by slapping a "faker" connotation on her? Will you tell her to calm down simply because it's true?
Frankly speaking, I can't really change the way you or Tom feels about this matter other than pointing out our differences. I have manned up to what I believe in, have you?
As for what's factually true or not, 100 years ago it would've been perfectly legal and perhaps even factual (as you would have called it) to call my ancestors ****** or those of African American ancestry a word that begins with an N. But I hope given your wisdom, you understand what progression means. Depending on the level of our respect for one another, what's socially acceptable today may not be years later, and vice versa.
I am enjoying my car and have been enjoying my car. If your conclusion of this discussion is truly what you've just stated, then I think I've already made it clear that I would rather be a poser than someone in your position and mentality.
Jon
Your analogies have now exposed that you lack basic logic. Thank you and have a good day.
Tom
04-18-2008, 10:41 AM
#162
Is that the best you can do? Are you now trying to get someone on your side as you have done before?
Should I insult your intelligence for spending your hard earned money on these other expensive cars you own when in fact, you should have saved and put them in your retirement saving accounts like I did?
Jon
Should I insult your intelligence for spending your hard earned money on these other expensive cars you own when in fact, you should have saved and put them in your retirement saving accounts like I did?
Jon
For the record (for those who are being entertained by this thread) I bought my CL65 on March 1, 2008. Prior to March 1st, I was a member of this board because ...amazingly enough...I have always loved AMG products and MB's in general (growing up parents had two Mercedes). I would post periodically on this board even though during that 2002-2008 period I owned other high performance vehicles (BMW M5, Audi RS6 and Jeep GC SRT8). If you notice, those cars all sport a badge from each respective manufacturer's specialty high perfomance group. There are posers out there sporting badges of each that are not "earned". I found it egregious in each circumstance when an act of posing took place.
Vendetta:
There is no sense arguing with (or trying to rehabilitate) someone who is so entrenched in their position. His whole fraudulent world might collapse if he were to come to terms with his posing. Who knows to what extent his posing has pervaded his life.
Your analogies have now exposed that you lack basic logic. Thank you and have a good day.
Tom
Vendetta:
There is no sense arguing with (or trying to rehabilitate) someone who is so entrenched in their position. His whole fraudulent world might collapse if he were to come to terms with his posing. Who knows to what extent his posing has pervaded his life.
Your analogies have now exposed that you lack basic logic. Thank you and have a good day.
Tom
Last edited by Baby ///M3; 04-18-2008 at 10:48 AM.
04-18-2008, 11:08 AM
#164
Seriously, Jon? YOU practiced LAW? Really and truly? You're not making that up? I have to ask 'cause one, you make like zero sense, and two, you know, it's not like you're above positioning something as something it's not. Either way, it's a frightful thought.
-V
04-18-2008, 12:45 PM
#166
Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 78
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
03 cl500,04 range rover, 04 cayenne turbo, 08 yukon denali
Vendetta....
Thank you for such and eloquent use of the english language....Will you be my attorney please!?~
Ha ha...
Great thread..
Thank you for such and eloquent use of the english language....Will you be my attorney please!?~
Ha ha...
Great thread..
04-18-2008, 02:49 PM
#167
MBWorld Fanatic!
Please consider these observations: a.) you requested we excuse you for the badging in your initial post, and b.) you present your signature as a mitigating factor. The first indicates that you know you have done or are doing something offensive and in need of pardon. You have a right to ask for it, just not a right to it; those whom you ask have the right to withold it. The second indicates that you prefer to be honest with us here on the forum, yet simultaneously betrays your intent to deceive the public outside the forum. So unless you've attached a streamer - like the ones you see trailing from planes over crowded beaches - bearing the true model of your car, you are posing and therefore a poser.
Might I suggest instead to have an electronic license plate frame constantly scrolling with the message "I'm proud of my Mercedes-Benz vehicle, though not a true AMG by any standard measure, a close facsilimile thereof, denoted by the /////AMG badge."
Last edited by Chappy; 04-18-2008 at 03:41 PM.
04-18-2008, 03:18 PM
#168
MBWorld Fanatic!
Chappy:
I like the idea...maybe the electronic plate should say:
"Disclaimer: The AMG and Kompressor badging are for display only and are not representative of this actual vehicle. I am not a POSER"
Tom
I like the idea...maybe the electronic plate should say:
"Disclaimer: The AMG and Kompressor badging are for display only and are not representative of this actual vehicle. I am not a POSER"
Tom
04-18-2008, 04:36 PM
#171
That's really quite a compliment, thanks! But I can only take partial credit, the rest goes to being right! The words just seem to write themselves for me when it's so obvious.
So, sure I'll be your attorney - if you're right! Otherwise I'll have to start makin' s#it up! But you did read that I never took a law class, right?
Stay cool,
-V
04-18-2008, 07:50 PM
#172
Alright,
I rest my case.
If mocking me due to your lack of literacy is the resolution to this whole matter. Then you are not worthy of my time to waste my breath on.
And what's the matter with personal attacks? Just because you have little buddies laughing together with you, it doesn't mean that you're any more righteous than anybody.
How about this? Stop being a poser lawyer and posting analogies that didn't even logically make sense. I initially had the decency not to point out that you have no English analogical thinking skills at all. I guess I was wrong.
Go pass the bar and we'll talk. I'd love to crucify you in court instead and make you look like an idiot without your little AMG buddies backing you up.
On second thought, don't even bother with it. Just successfully complete one semester of law school with a barely passing grade before I'll ever bother to reply anything you say.
Jon
I rest my case.
If mocking me due to your lack of literacy is the resolution to this whole matter. Then you are not worthy of my time to waste my breath on.
And what's the matter with personal attacks? Just because you have little buddies laughing together with you, it doesn't mean that you're any more righteous than anybody.
How about this? Stop being a poser lawyer and posting analogies that didn't even logically make sense. I initially had the decency not to point out that you have no English analogical thinking skills at all. I guess I was wrong.
Go pass the bar and we'll talk. I'd love to crucify you in court instead and make you look like an idiot without your little AMG buddies backing you up.
On second thought, don't even bother with it. Just successfully complete one semester of law school with a barely passing grade before I'll ever bother to reply anything you say.
Jon
04-18-2008, 08:59 PM
#174
I don't know. Ask the guy upstairs.
I badge what I want. You feel me?
Who are you or anyone here to say what I should do with my car?
Have I ever commented on anyone else on this forum or your tree business?
Jon
I badge what I want. You feel me?
Who are you or anyone here to say what I should do with my car?
Have I ever commented on anyone else on this forum or your tree business?
Jon
04-18-2008, 09:09 PM
#175
MBWorld Fanatic!
Alright,
I rest my case.
If mocking me due to your lack of literacy is the resolution to this whole matter. Then you are not worthy of my time to waste my breath on.
And what's the matter with personal attacks? Just because you have little buddies laughing together with you, it doesn't mean that you're any more righteous than anybody.
How about this? Stop being a poser lawyer and posting analogies that didn't even logically make sense. I initially had the decency not to point out that you have no English analogical thinking skills at all. I guess I was wrong.
Go pass the bar and we'll talk. I'd love to crucify you in court instead and make you look like an idiot without your little AMG buddies backing you up.
On second thought, don't even bother with it. Just successfully complete one semester of law school with a barely passing grade before I'll ever bother to reply anything you say.
Jon
I rest my case.
If mocking me due to your lack of literacy is the resolution to this whole matter. Then you are not worthy of my time to waste my breath on.
And what's the matter with personal attacks? Just because you have little buddies laughing together with you, it doesn't mean that you're any more righteous than anybody.
How about this? Stop being a poser lawyer and posting analogies that didn't even logically make sense. I initially had the decency not to point out that you have no English analogical thinking skills at all. I guess I was wrong.
Go pass the bar and we'll talk. I'd love to crucify you in court instead and make you look like an idiot without your little AMG buddies backing you up.
On second thought, don't even bother with it. Just successfully complete one semester of law school with a barely passing grade before I'll ever bother to reply anything you say.
Jon
First of all...what law school would graduate someone like you? A law degree means absolutely nothing...the bar exam is a joke in most states. The passing rates are extremely high. Try passing the CPA exam (less than 33% passing rate) which I did on the first try. I have a Masters degree in Taxation and have read my share of Supreme Court, Tax Court, and Appellate cases. Unlike you, I will not presume to have read more than you...because hey you may have. The only difference is that I actually understood the cases....
Secondly, you are the one with the flawed logic and psuedo-intellectual attitude...as any reasonable person reading this (yes the reasonable person standard) could see... bringing my post count into the discussion was pure theatre of the bizarre. As an attorney, you should know that you never throw a question out in the courtroom or debate, unless you know the answer and it bolsters your argument (I know should go without saying the latter part...but he is a little slow).
Thirdly, you have a superiority complex predicated on you being a lawyer and going through law school. How do you balance that with your posing? Would you be bothered if someone put a law degree (with their name on it) on their wall for all to see (mind you ...not saying they are a practicing attorney)...when in fact they didn't even go to law school? Would you be okay with that posing?
Tom
