Dodge and weave, John. Good job.

I simply asked you to back up your point about how INSTANTANEOUS the info was to get, and you reply with the above. Somehow, finding info about the purses for the race seasons, and how much it cost to race, and how much drivers relied on the 500 to pay the bills was a simple and quick task. One you felt compelled to get insulting about, it was SO easy to find. I give you a much simpler example to prove your point, and I get the above.

Strangely, I expected a BETTER. You just dipped below my expectations for you. Well done.

PLN_ Fan - 21 November 2009 12:10 AM

Dodge and weave, John. Good job.

I simply asked you to back up your point about how INSTANTANEOUS the info was to get...

You are absurd and the point that the internet is instantaneous doesn't need any backing up. Its fact. Again, as if I have to prove the capabilities of internet.

By the way, your not knowing the capabilities of researching subjects using the internet is not something I expected or didn't expect out of you, but I will say that I am not surprised.

Spin and deflect, spin and deflect.

Random info is very quick and easy to find. Specific info often is not, especially stuff from decades ago. You know it and I know it. The issue is not if the internet doesn't RESPOND to queries very fast, it's how long it would take to find specific info about racing history many decades ago. You just can't admit that your previous remarks about how easy and INSTANTANEOUS it was to find were wrong. So, you get insulting, rather than prove your point.

No spin and no deflect, I am not going to do what you ask me to do and, again, I don't have to prove the internet. As for information instantaneously, I got my info on the "old days" in less than a second, however, it was only to review what I already knew. Not to be insulting, but maybe if you knew how to use the internet for research then you might not come off as such a know it all rube. You can think all day, but if you don't know the facts to appraise in your mind then what good is it? In your case not knowing about the subject wasn't useful and you became argumentative over something that you assumed to be true, but wasn't.

By the way, the internet provides instant communication and information. Any college freshman who doesn't know how to use a "card catalog" or, for that matter, knows what a card catalog is will tell you that and say it with authority. I can help you no further with this subject, but maybe your friends can give you a heads up.

That's rich !

I expected no less from you !

This "debate" , between you and I, centered around the time it would take to learn all the info you SAY I need to make a statement in this thread. I said it would take hours and hours and that I didn't think it was important enough to make that effort. You scoffed at that and said the internet was instantaneous. Now, it's another story. You are spouting that I must not know HOW to research anything and must need friends to do it for me. You have become quite the moving target.

Don Rickles made a career as an insult comic. I suggest you don't quit your day job.

Finding the information on the internet INSTANEOUSLY, PLN, to talk with an informative opinion on this thread. Here is your "admitted" trouble:

I don't think I need to spend hours typing in every possible version of " drivers stories from the early days of auto racing " to find the stuff that is condensed into one or two books.

See? You don't know how to efficiently use the internet when those documented FACTS are available instantaneously (what strikes me as odd is that someone who would claim a passion for the sport wouldn't enjoy finding out about it's history and marveling about it). Of course, we know that you don't run on proper information. It's what you think. Of course.

One more point, by no means did I ever insinuate that you would learn the information instantaneously. I think it would take YOU, PLN. quiet a while to read over what you come up with. I say that because you have also admitted that you aren't going to spend what you believe to be a long time over a subject that you had rather authoritatively spout off about with only your assumptions, however, you get the source immediately and for those.

By the way, it's not insulting by calling your idea wrong r obtuse nor is pointing out your lack of research skills and presenting assumptions as fact. Remember, I didn't call you a name or point or suggest anything other than what you presented. I will admit that it probably hurt your feelings, but such is life and you should have know what you are talking about when you present it as fact.Also, Don Rickles is one of the all-time best!

"I didn't call you a name or point or suggest anything other than what you presented. "

Really ? Shall we review ?

"When you read this post that means that you are on the internet! Try using it for something other than posting on message boards and playing games. rolleyes
"

"A most obtuse statement and, as usual, you don't have a clue what you are talking about.....I know now that when you ask for a link it's because you lack the ability to find the information for yourself"

"As for the hours upon hours of looking something up on the internet, well, maybe one of your friends can explain that one to you because it's obvious that I can't,
"

"You are absurd"

"maybe if you knew how to use the internet for research then you might not come off as such a know it all rube."


Perhaps you need to recall what you say, even in a single thread a little better.

You also had things to say about the "instantaneous" internet, for those " who know how to use it ". Of course, you never provided a single search query to show how this info was to be found, nor did you prove you knew how to use it by finding a simple set of data, from only 1988. Instead, you tossed the remarks I have quoted above.

Finally, you keep stating I was wrong about the topic I and Novi were discussing. He said the 500 was needed to fund the rest of the season. I said it wasn't. You then went on to state that most of the drivers raced out of their pockets and were well off enough to do it. Novi then stated that it didn't cost that much to run a race car back then.

So, was the 500 necessary to fund the rest of the season ? Apparently not ! So, I was right. Your just being antagonistic because I figured that out, without knowing ALL the financial situations of the drivers and you want to take me to task for not having the details at my elbow.

Big deal. I'm discussing things in an internet forum, not writing a thesis on US Auto racing in the middle of the 20th century. It is perfectly ACCEPTABLE to speculate on discussion forums. That's mostly what goes on in them. If that bothers you, I suggest you refrain from reading the threads.

The last part about "hurting my feelings" is classic YOU and not even close to reality. But that's what I have learned to expect from your posts.

Again, no name calling. I merely pointed out that your posts were obtuse, explaining that you were on the internet (rolling eyes is NOT calling you a name, it's just pointing out that I feel that you should know better ), obviously I can't explain to you how the internet works so I suggested that some of your friends help you and I didn't call you a "rube" I merely pointed out that if you knew how to use the inetrnet you would come off as one. I didn't say you were one. Big difference.

As for participating in your little test, that's your problem not mine. I don't have to defend the internet.

One more thing:

Big deal. I'm discussing things in an internet forum, not writing a thesis on US Auto racing in the middle of the 20th century. It is perfectly ACCEPTABLE to speculate on discussion forums. That's mostly what goes on in them. If that bothers you, I suggest you refrain from reading the threads.

It is wrong when you present it as fact and argue that it is so. You do that all the time.

Also, I am sorry that I hurt your feelings, but as I pointed out, I didn't call you any names. However, in a helpful way, I pointed out that you need to research and that when you post something as fact then it better be. At that, I will agree that the internet boards are full of posers who present speculation as fact and argue that their point is correct, but it doesn't make it any less ridiculous.

PLN, enjoy your day and post away, but I am through with this thread and had rather talk to the wall.

"It is wrong when you present it as fact and argue that it is so."

And you NEVER do that ? Please. You argue just about every post you make, with no links or proof what so ever. Besides, if you READ this thread, you will not see anywhere that I said this was fact. It was all my opinion or my belief. Which is more than you can say.

If you had read my posts, you would understand rather clearly, that I KNOW how the internet works, and probably much better than you do, but I did NOT consider this topic worth the effort.

And yes, you are almost always, insulting and posted what you did with that intent. You almost always post with condescending remarks, which the "hurt your feelings" stuff is intended to do. If you think you're being subtle , you're not.

I am glad you are done with this thread, because that means DISCUSSION of the topic could continue. Wouldn't that be nice ?