[quote:5300740360="CamelToe"]I apologize, dear reader. I apologize that sometimes you seem to not understand the point of a post I make. I apologize if sometimes you seem unsure of the topic at hand.

BUT, you see, I often rely on various rhetorical devices. Things like satire, irony, metaphor, and simile. Many readers understand such things and even use them themselves. You see I have an ulterior motive in many of my posts. No, not a political one, but rather an intellectual one. I demand that my reader think and reason; I demand that they engage their mind and make some attempt to engage mine. Unfortunately there are those unequipped to meet such demands. They seem to lack basic cognitive skills, reasoning powers, even reading comprehension. These people are often called "ideologues." Sometimes they are called "sheeple." However, for you poor souls who are unable to respond to my posts in a useful, meaningful manner; for those who are unable or unwilling to engage minds with me, I have a suggestion. If you don't know the subject of the discussion it is usually best to not offer any conversational gambits, so as not to reveal your mental abilities.

But, I must apologize to my readers. I ask too much of them. I ask that they think about a particular thing sometimes, when they are much more interested in conveying the party line, not in arriving at some mutual discussion of topics of interest to the nation, and the individual.

I apologize to my readers for asking you to stretch your minds.[/quote:5300740360]

Apology? No, it is more trolling rhetoric, sarcastic in its tone. Sarcasm must be included in your list of rhetorical devices - high school English. I have been having fun on these message boards for three weeks - first time ever on any message board. I still haven't quite developed the ability to resist "engaging minds" with those members of Mensa who pose topics here that [u:5300740360]demand[/u:5300740360] intellectual intercourse or wish to simply ridicule others. I will soon tire of doing so and just enjoy the threads about racing and racers.

I will trade barbs with you if you wish - just for fun, although it will not really be a fair fight - I have a gun and you are unarmed.

Your topic poses a rhetorical question. Your initial offering postulates two scenarios which occur involving four NASCAR CUP races. Two beverage companies, three automobile manufacturers, several business that own race teams, track owners and Nascar are at loggerheads over commercial issues. Your use of irony is implicit. Lawsuits will be awaiting is puzzling to me. They would be forthcoming (future tense). It is superfluous to add a BTW to announce that Nextel currently has exclusive contractual rights regarding advertising on race cars. Even the most recently shorn sheeple (sic) among us are aware of that fact. Facts have no place in irony. In conclusion, you state that Nascar are a bunch of fricking idiots. That is not a sanguine comment, nor do I understand your use of the vernacular.

Your second post asks slbenter if she is a blond after she said she was not sure what your point was. Many people pondering a response to your rhetorical question were immediately aware of who and what you actually are and returned to the forum mainpage. Many others had already done so, disgusted by your username.

Your third post congratulates zebmonkey. He agrees that Nascar would be in sad shape [u:5300740360]if[/u:5300740360] your ironical scenario became fact. You go on to explain that readers [u:5300740360]must[/u:5300740360] read beyond your sarcasm in order to comprehend the actual political state of NASCAR. There is no sarcasm in your opening post until the reader arrives at the last sentence. As previously stated above, your use of irony is implicit. Your use of the term political is incorrect here. You are writing about commercial and ensuing legal issues.

Awaiting the intercourse you [u:5300740360]demanded[/u:5300740360] and unable to find it in the postings that ensued, you made your most recent contribution to the dialogue in your thread (quoted above).

If I were your teacher or your professor and you were my student (the only imaginable intellectually-based relationship we could possibly have) I would grade your effort here very badly. Your grammar, syntax, incorrect use of capitalization and punctuation errors are all over the page.
The issue you wished to raise is irrelevant or only mildly interesting in the view of most people in this forum. Insulting them was not necessary, only mean-spirited.

Letter Grade ..... F
Recommendations ... Remedial English. Counselling and workshops in the areas of anger management and social interaction and group dynamics.

If we were in the real world your act was in the same room with me, I would size you up and if I thought I could do it, I would give you a trimming. If I thought I could not, I would get one of my buddies to do it for me as a personal favor.

When Sheeple were first being contemplated, your gene pool was not considered for material for the human contribution. Not because you are far too intellectually superior, but rather because your pool is too shallow.
The technician wanted to get wet.

Please repost and repost. I am now able to ignore you. :mrgreen:

NASCAR agreed to it.
They signed the contract and took the money.
Same with Sunoco and Goodyear etc.

If Coke or Pepsi want an exclusive deal just draw up the contract bring the check book and hope NASCAR signs it.

Race sponsors have nothing to do with this. They sponsor and event and cannot dictate who is allowed to run in it. That is NASCARs area.

I also remember you could not purchase anything but Winston at the tracks but the sponsors were allowed because the contract didnt forbid it back then. If this was the Budweiser Cup series coors and miller would most likely be allowed as grandfather status, but I doubt that if Corona or Heinekin bought out Miller they would not be allowed to Run the Corona label on the 2 car.