SVreX wrote:DILYSI Dave wrote: ... And they all know there's a guy in Braselton who has an open door, an open fridge, and is ready to help out or hang out the moment they need either.I REALLY need to stop in Braselton one of these days!
The Mitty would be a perfect excuse!
John Brown wrote:16vCorey wrote: Now if I could just figure out how to get paid for jerking off to internet pR0n.Have you considered public service?
Dang. I never considered that as a way of getting paid for it. You, sir, are a genius.
plance1, be careful: you don't want to wind up in Margie's new patio. 
Marjorie Suddard wrote: This is classic troll behavior, plance--change up your positions frequently to keep the argument going, and most important focus on the personal and then try to keep that aspect of the "discussion" in play despite numerous attempts by others to argue the matter rationally and politely. This isn't your first swing at this topic: How Real is the $2005 Challenge? Let it go. Or just go. Your choice. Margie
From Newstados Unidos
Wow, if this fool, odd one out, bitter, bitch, not just a douche but also a total douche, clueless dude, who doesn't get it, that is nuts, that doesn't understand, that won't succeed as a human being in our society for very long, that's out of his mind, that doesn't have the drive and creativity, that's a ridiculous, lazy troll that hates BMW's and constantly whines, decides to enter a car. It might motivate me to build a new car this year. I need some motivation since the rest of you are a bunch of bench racer pansies! 
I won't resort to name calling. It can be fun to do with friends, but now that I know you are sensitive to it I won't. Your idea is good, but not for the GRM Challenge.
Honestly, the point of the Challenge is a reason to buy a cheap car and spend a lot of time working on it to get it running and looking great. It is not about putting a value on labor. My best friend and I built a BMW (do you have a problem with BMWs?) for the $2006 and $2007 Challenge. It was a blast! Yes, I have complained about "super" teams bringing much better cars, but reflecting on that makes me realize it doesn't matter what place I come in. I had just as much fun coming in 33rd as I did coming in 8th. If I won, cool, it would be a great story to tell, but you don't win anything other than that.
The Challenge is ABOUT the time spent. It is ABOUT turning a $500 piece of metal into a $2,000 piece of metal using only your own FREE time instead of just buying it that way. It is a hobby, not a job. Bring a car this year and I think you'll get that.
MrJoshua wrote: So plance-I reread the first 2 pages to find out if we really are the jerks we are being made out to be. So far I found Angry telling you you don't get it, SvRex telling you you are nuts for telling Angry he didn't get it, and Wheels telling you you dont get it. In the meantime you said the magazine poorly photographs and describes the event, we have our heads in the sand, we dont get it, you get it better than we do, etc... You combined that with a bunch of "oooh I gotcha!" type of statements. Later you attacked the guy with the BMW by characterizing him as a spoiled rich guy who buys his labor. So basically what I see is an internet argument where you are getting your feelings hurt because we strongly disagree with you, and you dishing out about as much as you get. There's my revisionist history for you. I will say what has been said again and again. PLEASE build a car and come. Stay in the host hotel and hang out with the idiots BSing until the wee hours of the morning. Talk to them about any and all opinions you have on the contest. Tell them your craziest build ideas and watch them get excited. We are all actually pretty nice in person. If you do come I will be the first to offer you a beer.
Look, websites are for the thick skinned, no hard feelings, I take it all in stride, and no amount of asking from me is going to get you to consider anything than the established point of view. I did and that is what prompted my initial challenge. Every attempt I made to explain my position was assumed to mean I didn't understand yours. That is your assumption which is wrong. If you cut through the bs and the insults to me the whole topic could be looked at in two different ways, really there is merit in the opposite point of view but my challenge to you was to look at another way of being creative. I went back and reread the posts from others and some of the comments are just despicable and rude, from attacking my credability, to assuming I didnt understand because I tried to explain my position, to the name calling, the mocking, and now I notice people such as yourself are inferring that I made "gotcha statements, that I attacked a guy with a BMW" there is just no reason for it from a guys supposedly all about having fun and who all have a common bond, our love for cheap, fast, well-engineered costs. With regards to these low-blows, I ask a legitimate question, what does our Moderator do about these kind of comments? Not a thing so there is not a whole lot of moderating going on here, maybe Per should be called "Board Observer???"
And now I notice you are outright lying or just mistaken (which is it?) when you now claim that I critized the magazine for "poor photograhs and lack of descriptions". Fact is the EXACT OPPOSITE IS TRUE. THE EXACT OPPOSITE which means you are now just making things up. Everything I said is in black and white, no need to infer meaning or make crap up about what I meant or what I said.
I said in one of my posts that I would take the high road and I did and I complimented the magazine, the craftsmanship, etc on multiple occassions even after receiving numerous insults. In reference to the BMW guy and these supposed attacks I made, I did get a little annoyed after taking the barage of insults and after reading from the umpteenth person who tried to explain how hard it is to calculate their labor rate, which proved they weren't reading anything I had to say or we're even willing to be flexible with their thinking, which I tried to do and then got accused of changing my position. The BMW guy was annoying because he admitted he paid others to work on his cars (yes, I know he didn't pay to work on any of his challenge cars, I got that the first time) but its a little ironic to take badmouthing from a guy joins the chorus of criticism towards me for trying to put a value on the time we spend working on cars only to hear him then admit his time is limited and he cant do all of his own work. Face it, by that point people like yourself dug in and at that point the situation for rational dialogue is just gone. It all then degenerated into a contest on Plance1 bashing. And listen, Im sure you, just like everyone else are much nicer in person (after all its much easier for guys like you to be rude when you hide behind the internet) and I thank you for the invite but even though I do think the contest is great, I won't attend.
Moderation shouldn't be needed among ADULTS... and that's why i think the staff stays out of it until it gets completely ridiculous.
I think there's still quite a few of us that haven't been able to piece together exactly what you've been trying to propose, either.
Even though you "Think the contest is great, you still won't attend?"
Then why are you proposing a change for a contest that you will never take part in? The current rules affect you in no way.
John Brown wrote:Marjorie Suddard wrote: This is classic troll behavior, plance--change up your positions frequently to keep the argument going, and most important focus on the personal and then try to keep that aspect of the "discussion" in play despite numerous attempts by others to argue the matter rationally and politely. This isn't your first swing at this topic: How Real is the $2005 Challenge? Let it go. Or just go. Your choice. Margie
Holy Crap! Thanks for the blast from the past, I will go back and reread to see if the tone of that discussion was any more polite. I don't remember posting this but yes I did bring it up before. I now know, thanks to you and others, you 1) can't discuss anything if you have discussed it before, even if it was several years ago and 2) you can't comment on an event, situation, or even car if you have never been to the event or have driven a car that we read about in the magazine. Thanks for researching me, a little creepy, but glad you are interested!
miatame2 wrote: I won't resort to name calling. It can be fun to do with friends, but now that I know you are sensitive to it I won't. Your idea is good, but not for the GRM Challenge. Honestly, the point of the Challenge is a reason to buy a cheap car and spend a lot of time working on it to get it running and looking great. It is not about putting a value on labor. My best friend and I built a BMW (do you have a problem with BMWs?) for the $2006 and $2007 Challenge. It was a blast! Yes, I have complained about "super" teams bringing much better cars, but reflecting on that makes me realize it doesn't matter what place I come in. I had just as much fun coming in 33rd as I did coming in 8th. If I won, cool, it would be a great story to tell, but you don't win anything other than that. The Challenge is ABOUT the time spent. It is ABOUT turning a $500 piece of metal into a $2,000 piece of metal using only your own FREE time instead of just buying it that way. It is a hobby, not a job. Bring a car this year and I think you'll get that.
Except for the crack about sensitivity, I appreciate your comments.
but these crazy fins have a claimer rule.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy8LJx71_9o
as illustrated by james may..
edit: forgot to illustrate that james may also says.. "Stop taking it so seriously"
plance1 wrote:John Brown wrote:Holy Crap! Thanks for the blast from the past, I will go back and reread to see if the tone of that discussion was any more polite. I don't remember posting this but yes I did bring it up before. I now know, thanks to you and others, you 1) can't discuss anything if you have discussed it before, even if it was several years ago and 2) you can't comment on an event, situation, or even car if you have never been to the event or have driven a car that we read about in the magazine. Thanks for researching me, a little creepy, but glad you are interested!Marjorie Suddard wrote: This is classic troll behavior, plance--change up your positions frequently to keep the argument going, and most important focus on the personal and then try to keep that aspect of the "discussion" in play despite numerous attempts by others to argue the matter rationally and politely. This isn't your first swing at this topic: How Real is the $2005 Challenge? Let it go. Or just go. Your choice. Margie
Deducing 1) and 2) from that post (assuming you're being serious in any way, shape, form) is something i would expect from my 7 year old cousin.
I'm quite sure he is proposing that we all spend 7 pages arguing about something that ABSOLUTELY NONE OF US care ONE BIT about with no possibility whatsoever that he will listen to ANYTHING we say.
SVreX wrote: I'm quite sure he is proposing that we all spend 7 pages arguing about something that ABSOLUTELY NONE OF US care ONE BIT about with no possibility whatsoever that he will listen to ANYTHING we say.
I might find it within myself to care, if only we could figure out exactly what he's proposing. If it skews the results at all, i don't care for that to change.
If it's simply applying a subjective "Real World Value" to the challenge cars in the magazine, that could be very interesting to me as a trivia bit. Because i like numbers, and attaching numbers to things. I'm a bit wonky about that.
Since I'm the guy who allegedly "called you nuts", it might be worth noting that Mr. Joshua was correct. I didn't call you nuts, I said your opinion that Angry "didn't get it" was nuts.
I also,in the same post, rather politely invited you to join us.
SVreX wrote: Please come to the Challenge so you can understand.
I even said please!
Just thought I'd feed the troll a bit.
93celicaGT2 wrote:SVreX wrote: I'm quite sure he is proposing that we all spend 7 pages arguing about something that ABSOLUTELY NONE OF US care ONE BIT about with no possibility whatsoever that he will listen to ANYTHING we say.I might find it within myself to care, if only we could figure out exactly what he's proposing. If it skews the results at all, i don't care for that to change. If it's simply applying a subjective "Real World Value" to the challenge cars in the magazine, that could be very interesting to me as a trivia bit. Because i like numbers, and attaching numbers to things. I'm a bit wonky about that.
So, your suggestion is that we judge them the same way we have been with no changes to the rules whatsoever, then perhaps have something like an appraisal done, so the cars could also have a dollar value attached to them in teh magazine, just for the fun of it, right?
I'm OK with that.
SVreX wrote:93celicaGT2 wrote:So, your suggestion is that we judge them the same way we have been with no changes to the rules whatsoever, then perhaps have something like an appraisal done, so the cars could also have a dollar value attached to them in teh magazine, just for the fun of it, right? I'm OK with that.SVreX wrote: I'm quite sure he is proposing that we all spend 7 pages arguing about something that ABSOLUTELY NONE OF US care ONE BIT about with no possibility whatsoever that he will listen to ANYTHING we say.I might find it within myself to care, if only we could figure out exactly what he's proposing. If it skews the results at all, i don't care for that to change. If it's simply applying a subjective "Real World Value" to the challenge cars in the magazine, that could be very interesting to me as a trivia bit. Because i like numbers, and attaching numbers to things. I'm a bit wonky about that.
I'm not really suggesting it, i personally think there isn't anything wrong with the current rules/coverage. But i wouldn't be against that idea either, i think it would be pretty nifty. But as long as it doesn't skew overall results in any way, and as long as people can keep from statements such as "Well his car was appraised at $12,683.27, and mine was appraised at $1294.38, OF COURSE he beat me blah de berkeleying blah."
I think it might be cool to assign a monetary value to the things we have created out of piles of crap.
That would be pretty interesting. I'd love to know what some of the past Challenge cars have sold for in the "real world," just for the sake of being proud for the guys and gals that turned $200x into something much more valuable (and amusement for those that created $200x turds worth half that amount )
Is is possible that 93celicaGT2 has distilled 7 pages of confusing drivel into one concise post?
If this is what you're proposing, plance1, then hats off to you for a good idea. And I'm sorry for calling you a douche. That was wrong. I should have just said that you were acting in a douchey way. (This is an important distinction that I have learned in my 7 years or so of marriage).
I certainly hope you've never told your wife, "You're acting in a douchey way).
Nah- you wouldn't have been married 7 years.
SVreX wrote: I certainly hope you've never told your wife, "You're acting in a douchey way). Nah- you wouldn't have been married 7 years.
More along the lines of "you're being unreasonable" rather than "you are unreasonable." 
Always phrase negative commentary to criticize the action, not the person. That's what I've learned.
93celicaGT2 wrote: I'm not really suggesting it, i personally think there isn't anything wrong with the current rules/coverage. But i wouldn't be against that idea either, i think it would be pretty nifty. But as long as it doesn't skew overall results in any way, and as long as people can keep from statements such as "Well his car was appraised at $12,683.27, and mine was appraised at $1294.38, OF COURSE he beat me blah de berkeleying blah." I think it might be cool to assign a monetary value to the things we have created out of piles of crap.
Not trying to douche it up, but other than the unit of measure, how would this be different from the concourse score? What sort of frame of reference could the judges use to assign a monetary value? W.A.G.?
Tom Heath wrote:93celicaGT2 wrote: I'm not really suggesting it, i personally think there isn't anything wrong with the current rules/coverage. But i wouldn't be against that idea either, i think it would be pretty nifty. But as long as it doesn't skew overall results in any way, and as long as people can keep from statements such as "Well his car was appraised at $12,683.27, and mine was appraised at $1294.38, OF COURSE he beat me blah de berkeleying blah." I think it might be cool to assign a monetary value to the things we have created out of piles of crap.Not trying to douche it up, but other than the unit of measure, how would this be different from the concourse score? What sort of frame of reference could the judges use to assign a monetary value? W.A.G.?
Much like the concourse score, it would be purely subjective. Have each judge assign a value that they would be willing to purchase the car for if they had unlimited funds, and average the results.
I agree that it's not needed, that's why there's a concourse score.
BUT, just to play devils advocate...
Concourse score is based purely on looks, how clean it is, etc... I don't care how clean it is, i wouldnt pay $3k for a Metro. I WOULD however, be willing to pay $10,000 for a ratty Metro that runs 9s through some ridiculous piece of engineering. Get my drift?
But like i said before, i don't think there's anything that needs to be improved in the Challenge to the point that i WANT it changed. Just that this would not be an unwelcome tidbit of "info."
Tom Heath wrote: Not trying to douche it up, but other than the unit of measure, how would this be different from the concourse score? What sort of frame of reference could the judges use to assign a monetary value? W.A.G.?
I think that it would be a mistake to try and assign a $ value during the event. The event itself has everything it needs -- concourse, autocross, and drag. The concourse scoring fits the bill perfectly as-is. Unless I'm wrong, engineering feats factor heavily into the concourse score.
I envision this an article/large sidebar detailing a the selling prices of noteable and not-so-notable past Challengers after the fact. At least, that's what I would find interesting.
ignorant wrote: but these crazy fins have a claimer rule.. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fy8LJx71_9o as illustrated by james may.. edit: forgot to illustrate that james may also says.. "Stop taking it so seriously"
whatever dude I already posted about that on page one
Winston wrote:Tom Heath wrote: Not trying to douche it up, but other than the unit of measure, how would this be different from the concourse score? What sort of frame of reference could the judges use to assign a monetary value? W.A.G.?I think that it would be a mistake to try and assign a $ value during the event. The event itself has everything it needs -- concourse, autocross, and drag. The concourse scoring fits the bill perfectly as-is. Unless I'm wrong, engineering feats factor heavily into the concourse score. I envision this an article/large sidebar detailing a the selling prices of noteable and not-so-notable past Challengers *after* the fact. At least, that's what I would find interesting.
This would probably be a better idea.
You'll need to log in to post.
