S65 vs. Gallardo
09-25-2006, 01:07 PM
#126
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: Sep 2002
Posts: 3,679
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
CLS55 AMG
Again, no, I don't get offended by you. Yes, I do disagree with you on points and that’s fine, everyone is allowed an opinion. It seems that you take disagreeing with you as a personal attack.. It also seems that when someone presents you with data they found surfing the web, you also take that as a disagreement and a personal attack. So maybe the issue is on your end.
So it's kind of disengenuous for you to act innocent when in the last three posts you made, you called me names and made attacks right up until it became obvious that you were on the verge of getting shut down.
So if someone starts insulting me *first*, I'll take some shots, but I already demonstrated that in this thread, YOU insulted me first. If you have any instance in this thread of my attacking you prior to the post of yours I cited above, let's see it.
So please, stop with the crocodile tears.
And I didn't get "offended and began insulting me when I corrected your false claim that "every website out there" shows that the S65 is 4.4 seconds 0-60; in fact, none do, not even Mercedes. But you can't handle being shown to be wrong, and so launched personal attacks, which continue even now" I didn't understand why when you were presented with data from multiple sources "debating" your stance, you refuted it calling it false and non-accurate, but when you post some data it has to be gospel.
1) one unreferenced quote of 0-100 km/h and 200 km/h for both cars;
2) one gif image showing 0-100-0 times for a slew of cars.
3) a claim that "every website in the world" states the S65 is 4.4 seconds from 0-100 km/h. It was also in this post that you began the attacks, attacking Car & Driver as a "rag".
In response, I produced data from three German tests of the SL65, Ben Treynor's video/thread, and a Motor Trend test of a CL65. You responded by attacking me. People can read the thread from the beginning and see this, and so can you. What are you trying to accomplish here, a history rewrite? The posts are there, ldangeli, starting here:
You said it yourself below,
" I know you have a problem with my presenting actual test data of actual cars which doesn't support what you'd like to believe. Sorry, but all I'm doing is quoting magazine tests, showing videos, and time slips. The only issue you have is not the facts themselves, but that they don't back you up."
But when I present similar data, you contradict what you yourself say, as all I am doing is presenting you with similar data from similar sources.
" I know you have a problem with my presenting actual test data of actual cars which doesn't support what you'd like to believe. Sorry, but all I'm doing is quoting magazine tests, showing videos, and time slips. The only issue you have is not the facts themselves, but that they don't back you up."
But when I present similar data, you contradict what you yourself say, as all I am doing is presenting you with similar data from similar sources.
In response, I issued no insults or attacks; I simply provided data. I did not attack the data you provided at this point. I simply produced road tests. And I provided links to the posts themselves. Nowhere did I attack you, *or* any referenced data you provided; I only corrected you when you made claims which were incorrect, such as the "every website in the world" lists the S65 at 4.4 0-60, which you yourself disproved when you later posted Mercedes' own claims for the car, 4.2.
So were you attacking yourself??
No, I don't call that an attack. I call these attacks:
Originally Posted by ldangeli
I find it hard to fathom that if every other german and us mag rag (yes car and driver is a rag) says over 4.0 then only car and driver could be right?
So what did you do in response? Attack me:
Originally Posted by ldangeli
You're right, I am quoting 100kmh or 0-62, which every german rag quotes, in which every case, the lambo won. I am not doubting anything about about the "SL65", but in this forum we are talking about a "S65" and the above "video". That is what I was doubting. But apparently that was over looked. But then again, this is an MB forum, you are IPROVIZ and this discussion would and could continue to go round and round. In anycase, IMHO I much prefer the Lambo over the Merc. Two reasons, Italian, and not sharing parts with Chrysler. Oh right, its not a chrysler and it's not sharing parts. Just like the Lambo isn't sharing parts with the Audi. a.k.a. Platform sharing. In anycase, I personally wouldn't spend 3k a month on a MERC, and I've spent more on other cars. and
Originally Posted by ldangeli
I unfortunately do not have the time you apparently do, to troll the net looking to disprove, argue and refute anything anyone says that does not conform to your beliefs provided by said data.
Again: you're not going to spin your way out of this one. I issued no insulte or attacks against you. I did exactly the same thing you were doing, except I referenced my sources, provided links, and proved you wrong in a few instances, which you took very personally and after which you began attacking me.
The record is clear.
09-25-2006, 01:20 PM
#127
MBWorld Fanatic!
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Hell
Posts: 1,030
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
EFF YOU JACKIE
HAHA.. Two words. Muchas gracias.. I am not trying to spin out of anything. I thought I heard you almost whimper in that last post. "Your attacking me. waaaaah... waaaah... " Honesly, I could give two *****s about what you write anymore. You are worst than my wife with getting in the last word. Seriously.
LAST WORD
LAST WORD.
LAST WORD
LAST WORD.
I already showed who it was in this thread who began the attacks. It was you. I quoted it above.
A wise man once said "denial is a powerful thing". Look up: there, in black in white, I have documented that it was you who attacked me first in this thread. You continued to attack me and make personal insults until the mod intervened, not once, not twice, but three times.
So it's kind of disengenuous for you to act innocent when in the last three posts you made, you called me names and made attacks right up until it became obvious that you were on the verge of getting shut down.
No, but the instance you cited, of me calling someone a liar, was what I did in response to someone lying. And this was after he'd already made numerous personal attacks against me, including as I said repeatedly claiming that I can't afford this car or that car, something which he could not possibly know.
So if someone starts insulting me *first*, I'll take some shots, but I already demonstrated that in this thread, YOU insulted me first. If you have any instance in this thread of my attacking you prior to the post of yours I cited above, let's see it.
Again: I posted the sequence a few moments ago, and will post it again below. You posted data, I posted data. Then you attacked Car & Driver as a "rag" because their data didn't support what you wanted to believe. I posted data from three German mag tests, one Motor Trend test, and runs from Ben Treynor in in his stock SL65 showing that their data was inline with Car & Driver's. At which point YOU began ATTACKING me.
So please, stop with the crocodile tears.
You had not presented data from multiple sources at the time you began launching personal attacks against me. You had presented the following:
1) one unreferenced quote of 0-100 km/h and 200 km/h for both cars;
2) one gif image showing 0-100-0 times for a slew of cars.
3) a claim that "every website in the world" states the S65 is 4.4 seconds from 0-100 km/h. It was also in this post that you began the attacks, attacking Car & Driver as a "rag".
In response, I produced data from three German tests of the SL65, Ben Treynor's video/thread, and a Motor Trend test of a CL65. You responded by attacking me. People can read the thread from the beginning and see this, and so can you. What are you trying to accomplish here, a history rewrite? The posts are there, ldangeli, starting here:
As I showed above, you presented only one data point which was referenced, 0-100 and 0-200 times for both cars with no reference and which were not (for the Gallardo) inline with *any* published road test for the car, and an image showing 0-100-0 times for several car, and an incorrect claim for the 0-60 time for the S65.
In response, I issued no insults or attacks; I simply provided data. I did not attack the data you provided at this point. I simply produced road tests. And I provided links to the posts themselves. Nowhere did I attack you, *or* any referenced data you provided; I only corrected you when you made claims which were incorrect, such as the "every website in the world" lists the S65 at 4.4 0-60, which you yourself disproved when you later posted Mercedes' own claims for the car, 4.2.
So were you attacking yourself??
No, I don't call that an attack. I call these attacks:
That's an attack on Car & Driver. It is also wrong: I provided four tests from German magazines in my follow-up showing that their acceleration numbers, far from being "over 4.0" and hence way off from Car & Driver's, were actually in line with it. I also produced a thread from this site showing Ben Treynor's run of 11.7 @ 126 in a bone stock SL65. I also produced a test from Motor Trend showing an 3.7 sec. 0-60 run and an 11.8 1/4 mile run in a CL65. This is a total of seven data points, five mag tests and one run from an actual owner of one, which supported my argument.
So what did you do in response? Attack me:
Shall I count up the number of links you've posted in this thread so far? At least twelve, including two new ones within the last hour.
Again: you're not going to spin your way out of this one. I issued no insulte or attacks against you. I did exactly the same thing you were doing, except I referenced my sources, provided links, and proved you wrong in a few instances, which you took very personally and after which you began attacking me.
The record is clear.
A wise man once said "denial is a powerful thing". Look up: there, in black in white, I have documented that it was you who attacked me first in this thread. You continued to attack me and make personal insults until the mod intervened, not once, not twice, but three times.
So it's kind of disengenuous for you to act innocent when in the last three posts you made, you called me names and made attacks right up until it became obvious that you were on the verge of getting shut down.
No, but the instance you cited, of me calling someone a liar, was what I did in response to someone lying. And this was after he'd already made numerous personal attacks against me, including as I said repeatedly claiming that I can't afford this car or that car, something which he could not possibly know.
So if someone starts insulting me *first*, I'll take some shots, but I already demonstrated that in this thread, YOU insulted me first. If you have any instance in this thread of my attacking you prior to the post of yours I cited above, let's see it.
Again: I posted the sequence a few moments ago, and will post it again below. You posted data, I posted data. Then you attacked Car & Driver as a "rag" because their data didn't support what you wanted to believe. I posted data from three German mag tests, one Motor Trend test, and runs from Ben Treynor in in his stock SL65 showing that their data was inline with Car & Driver's. At which point YOU began ATTACKING me.
So please, stop with the crocodile tears.
You had not presented data from multiple sources at the time you began launching personal attacks against me. You had presented the following:
1) one unreferenced quote of 0-100 km/h and 200 km/h for both cars;
2) one gif image showing 0-100-0 times for a slew of cars.
3) a claim that "every website in the world" states the S65 is 4.4 seconds from 0-100 km/h. It was also in this post that you began the attacks, attacking Car & Driver as a "rag".
In response, I produced data from three German tests of the SL65, Ben Treynor's video/thread, and a Motor Trend test of a CL65. You responded by attacking me. People can read the thread from the beginning and see this, and so can you. What are you trying to accomplish here, a history rewrite? The posts are there, ldangeli, starting here:
As I showed above, you presented only one data point which was referenced, 0-100 and 0-200 times for both cars with no reference and which were not (for the Gallardo) inline with *any* published road test for the car, and an image showing 0-100-0 times for several car, and an incorrect claim for the 0-60 time for the S65.
In response, I issued no insults or attacks; I simply provided data. I did not attack the data you provided at this point. I simply produced road tests. And I provided links to the posts themselves. Nowhere did I attack you, *or* any referenced data you provided; I only corrected you when you made claims which were incorrect, such as the "every website in the world" lists the S65 at 4.4 0-60, which you yourself disproved when you later posted Mercedes' own claims for the car, 4.2.
So were you attacking yourself??
No, I don't call that an attack. I call these attacks:
That's an attack on Car & Driver. It is also wrong: I provided four tests from German magazines in my follow-up showing that their acceleration numbers, far from being "over 4.0" and hence way off from Car & Driver's, were actually in line with it. I also produced a thread from this site showing Ben Treynor's run of 11.7 @ 126 in a bone stock SL65. I also produced a test from Motor Trend showing an 3.7 sec. 0-60 run and an 11.8 1/4 mile run in a CL65. This is a total of seven data points, five mag tests and one run from an actual owner of one, which supported my argument.
So what did you do in response? Attack me:
Shall I count up the number of links you've posted in this thread so far? At least twelve, including two new ones within the last hour.
Again: you're not going to spin your way out of this one. I issued no insulte or attacks against you. I did exactly the same thing you were doing, except I referenced my sources, provided links, and proved you wrong in a few instances, which you took very personally and after which you began attacking me.
The record is clear.
