Lotus C-01

[PhilB]

I was under the impression that lotus was under the for umbrella like jag and land rover.
appears gm is the right answer there. I thought i remembered lotus using cosworth engines in F1. Sorry. Get over it.

What decade are you living in?

GM owned Lotus briefly a long time ago. They sold it, and have since sold Hummer; killed Oldsmobile, Pontiac, and Geo; and destroyed Saab and Saturn.
Ford has sold off Jaguar, Land Rover, Volvo, and Aston Martin; and killed Mercury.
Chrysler sold Maserati, divorced Mercedes-Benz, killed Plymouth, bought AMC and killed everything from it except Jeep, created Ram and R/T, and married FIAT.
International Harvester quit making road vehicles.
Checker went out of business.

That should get you more-or-less up to date on the last 40 years of American car manufacturer history.

PhilB

[Degsy]

Bush had a great idea to lend money to the us car industry. Obama implemented it. Republicans said it was a huge mistake. The public made a ton of money in interest. Republicans then accepted it was a triumphant move and it was indeed bush's idea.

There's the last 4 years wrapped up.

[PhilB]

Bush had a great idea to lend money to the us car industry. Obama implemented it. Republicans said it was a huge mistake. The public made a ton of money in interest. Republicans then accepted it was a triumphant move and it was indeed bush's idea.

There's the last 4 years wrapped up.

PhilB

[Degsy]

Thats the way i understood it.
Not right?

[PhilB]

Thats the way i understood it.
Not right?

I'm not going to fully hijack this thread into a political discussion. But no, not right, on several counts.

PhilB

[SVRACER01]

Wirelessly posted (GS3)

Proton own lotus. Toyota own lexus.

Ya I said the lexus/toyota thing

[SVRACER01]

Wirelessly posted (GS3)

I was under the impression that lotus was under the for umbrella like jag and land rover.
appears gm is the right answer there. I thought i remembered lotus using cosworth engines in F1. Sorry. Get over it.

What decade are you living in?

GM owned Lotus briefly a long time ago. They sold it, and have since sold Hummer; killed Oldsmobile, Pontiac, and Geo; and destroyed Saab and Saturn.
Ford has sold off Jaguar, Land Rover, Volvo, and Aston Martin; and killed Mercury.
Chrysler sold Maserati, divorced Mercedes-Benz, killed Plymouth, bought AMC and killed everything from it except Jeep, created Ram and R/T, and married FIAT.
International Harvester quit making road vehicles.
Checker went out of business.

That should get you more-or-less up to date on the last 40 years of American car manufacturer history.

PhilB

Im apologize that im not up to date on all the car manufacturers and how they spend their money. You obviously have nothing better to do. So snug up that tin foil hat and keep going.

So to summarize. ..who cares? The bike is still stupid

[PhilB]

Im apologize that im not up to date on all the car manufacturers and how they spend their money. You obviously have nothing better to do. So snug up that tin foil hat and keep going.

So to summarize. ..who cares? The bike is still stupid

I have a general interest in cars as well. That's a dozen or so major events in the industry in the last 40 years; anyone with any interest and a few brain cells can notice stuff like that without devoting his life to it and "having nothing better to do".

Meanwhile, it's good practice not to post really stupid shit that you know nothing about.

I understand you are embarrassed at your failure, and are lashing out to try (unsuccessfully) to save face.
It's sad that this is a frequent necessity for you, but I guess everyone needs a hobby.

I'm not wild about the bike either, and have not defended it.
I just entered the thread because I was astounded at the irrationality of your post.

PhilB

[SVRACER01]

Wirelessly posted (GS3)

Im not embarrassed, or trying to save face, or lashing out and none of that is something of any frequency for me.
I get it, I was wrong. Its happened before and it will happen again. I posted on the fly without checking my info first which is usually uncommon for me.
you decided to be a pretentious prick and show everyone how smart you are when a simple "youre wrong and this is why" wouldve sufficed. You seem to make a habit out of trying to make other people look stupid when they say something incorrect.
degsy told me I was wrong and a quick search showed me that. I read the first line that said gm owned them and moved on. I didnt read the anthology of lotus nor did I know who they have ever been owner by for 3 major reasons. 1.I dont care. 2.I not really a fan of anything lotus makes, so refer to 1. And 3. I cant afford one no matter who owns them regardless of 1 and 2.

[PhilB]

Wirelessly posted (GS3)

Im not embarrassed, or trying to save face, or lashing out and none of that is something of any frequency for me.
I get it, I was wrong. Its happened before and it will happen again. I posted on the fly without checking my info first which is usually uncommon for me.
you decided to be a pretentious prick and show everyone how smart you are when a simple "youre wrong and this is why" wouldve sufficed. You seem to make a habit out of trying to make other people look stupid when they say something incorrect.
degsy told me I was wrong and a quick search showed me that. I read the first line that said gm owned them and moved on. I didnt read the anthology of lotus nor did I know who they have ever been owner by for 3 major reasons. 1.I dont care. 2.I not really a fan of anything lotus makes, so refer to 1. And 3. I cant afford one no matter who owns them regardless of 1 and 2.

First you were nonsensical, and I basically said "what?".
Then you looked into it and were still wrong, and I brought you up to date, with a little added flippancy, but no insults.
Then you were a jerk about it, and I responded in kind.
And now you're crying about it. yay.

PhilB

[SVRACER01]

Wirelessly posted (GS3)

Now youre wrong.
I posted uninformed info
you made a snide remark as did degsy (I can handle that)
I posted something else that was apparently incorrect.
degsy corrected me
then you posted some know-it-all reponse that came off as you being...well...a know-it-all.
I responded to you know-it-all post by indirectly telling you that youre coming across as a prick
to which you responded with an even more prickish response
Then I was more direct in my telling you that youre a prick

That should just about get you caught up with the past 60 hours or so
I hate people that think everyone is dumber than them. Youre a fucking know-it-all. I deal with that at work enough. I know that you dont care, but youre very close to becoming only the 2nd active member on this board to make it to my ignore list. You and doc should get vests.

[PhilB]

Now youre wrong.
I posted uninformed info
you made a snide remark as did degsy (I can handle that)
I posted something else that was apparently incorrect.
degsy corrected me
then you posted some know-it-all reponse that came off as you being...well...a know-it-all.
I responded to you know-it-all post by indirectly telling you that youre coming across as a prick
to which you responded with an even more prickish response
Then I was more direct in my telling you that youre a prick

That should just about get you caught up with the past 60 hours or so
I hate people that think everyone is dumber than them. Youre a fucking know-it-all. I deal with that at work enough. I know that you dont care, but youre very close to becoming only the 2nd active member on this board to make it to my ignore list. You and doc should get vests.

Ah. Providing actual correct information is being a "know-it-all", in your book. That in itself is incorrect. A "know-it-all" is someone who frequently spouts *incorrect* information, thinking he knows it all but being wrong about that. If someone actually knows stuff and shares it, that's called a "being a useful resource".

Regardless, I hear that you would rather make successive incorrect statements as if you knew what you were talking about (hmmm--irony there?) than be corrected, so I will try to refrain from offering you corrective information in the future.

PhilB

P.S. Even if Ford had ever owned Lotus, your analogy would have been wrong, on several counts.

[SVRACER01]

Wirelessly posted (GS3)

No, I took you being a know-it-all because even though degsy had already given me the correct info you decided that you needed to over elaborate on. Totally comes across as "look at all the useless information ive retained. Im better than you because you posted something that was wrong and now I have to correct you because im the internet police and I have to do so in the most demeaning and condescending manner as possible."
And thats my problem, your posts directed at me are dripping with condescension and that really irritates me. I dont mind being corrected. Id much rather be corrected in way that isnt aimed at trying to belittle me.

PS: actually, (if I WAS right) you and degs interpreted it wrong. The post was meant to say that they were under the same name. I wasnt implying that lexus owned toyota.

[PhilB]

No, I took you being a know-it-all because even though degsy had already given me the correct info you decided that you needed to over elaborate on. Totally comes across as "look at all the useless information ive retained. Im better than you because you posted something that was wrong and now I have to correct you because im the internet police and I have to do so in the most demeaning and condescending manner as possible."
And thats my problem, your posts directed at me are dripping with condescension and that really irritates me. I dont mind being corrected. Id much rather be corrected in way that isnt aimed at trying to belittle me.

PS: actually, (if I WAS right) you and degs interpreted it wrong. The post was meant to say that they were under the same name. I wasnt implying that lexus owned toyota.

That's not how analogies work.

PhilB

[SVRACER01]

Wirelessly posted (GS3)

F150 is to sable as is300 is to Camry

The analogy there is that they are the same company. Is that wrong?

[-Dutch-]

1. No one cares.

2. The bike looks like a shart.

[PhilB]

F150 is to sable as is300 is to Camry
The analogy there is that they are the same company. Is that wrong?

Yes, that's wrong. The analogy is incomplete. For the analogy to be valid, there must be some aspect specific to the relationship between the parts of the first pair that is parallel to some aspect specific to the relationship between the parts of the second pair.

To take your first attempt -- Lexus is the luxury branch of Toyota, and had no existence before being created by Toyota for this. A correct analogy for this would be: Lincoln is to Ford as Lexus is to Toyota.
Lotus, OTOH, even if had ever been owned by Ford, was not created to be a luxury or upscale branch of Ford. And your statement was that "Ford is to lotus that lexus is to Toyota", which would be claiming that Lotus owned Ford and created Ford to be a luxury or upscale branch of Lotus. Which I don't think is what you thought you were claiming.

PhilB

[SVRACER01]

Wirelessly posted (GS3)

No I wasnt. And I feel thats looking far too deep into the analogy.
The sable is made by mercury which is part of the ford motor company just as lexus is part of the toyota motor company.
This is all moot at this point since weve strayed so far from the original topic lol

[PhilB]

No I wasnt. And I feel thats looking far too deep into the analogy.
The sable is made by mercury which is part of the ford motor company just as lexus is part of the toyota motor company.
This is all moot at this point since weve strayed so far from the original topic lol

That's not "looking too deep" into anyting; what I described is the way an analogy is structured. It is a form of logical discourse, with a meaning to the way it is arranged. If you don't use that arrangement, it isn't a valid analogy, and you wind up saying something that you didn't mean to say.

Again, your attempted analogy "F150 is to sable as is300 is to Camry" does not say "The sable is made by mercury which is part of the ford motor company just as lexus is part of the toyota motor company". What your analogy says is that the F150 is a fancier version of the Sable, made by Ford which is the luxury division of Mercury. All of which is wrong. You're probably better off not using analogies. Just say the thing you want to say directly.

PhilB