car tv video - for TOTAL 911 MAGAZINE
08-25-2005, 11:31 AM
#17
Technical Specialist
Rennlist
Lifetime Member
Rennlist
Lifetime Member
Ladies, puhleeze......The original article comment was discussed by one of the magazines owners, and appears that the Queen's English may not translate exactly to Yankee English. The 928 was designed to replace the 911, and market demand didn't let that happen. However, that doesn't take away that Porsche designed a great vehicle in the 928, which added to the Porsche product line and presence in the marketplace. The 911 and 928 are both strong lines in their own right.
So, if I may, I'm locking this thread, and asking that we move along to other discussions. Thanks.
So, if I may, I'm locking this thread, and asking that we move along to other discussions. Thanks.
08-25-2005, 12:13 PM
#18
Banned
This is just forkin’ stupid…..
First of all – no one ever called the 928 “"big fat lazy". In fact, how many of you have read the full article?? Can you tell me what the article was about? Can you further tell me the context of the quote???
I thought not…..
So let me tell you folks a few things – those that need to play the “burn me in hell Porsche 928 Martyr”...
First – The passage was a critique of the new Caymen. You know – Porsche’s newest product entry – the one where they added a hardtop to the Boxster, added some power, redesigned the body shell a bit - it’s even MID-ENGINED. BUT – OMG and counter to conventional “I read it on the Internet, so it MUST be true”, the article wasn’t even about 928s! In his comparison, Phil could have just as well have penned that it (the Cayman S) is enhanced version of an anemic original 914-4 – which they were - but he didn’t. Rather, he compared it to the 911, 997, Boxster – and OMG! – a 928!
Read the whole article and see for yourself….
Second – ready for this? It was an “EDITORIAL”. You know, that space in the first few pages that an “Editor” writes random notes. And sure as cow dung steams in the early winter mornings – his Editorial column was not about 928s. Now – seeing as how all you understand that it was an “Editorial” few paragraphs, perhaps how some of you could explain how you feel the need to suppress Phil’s comments and his publication’s Sponsorship on Rennlist? Haven’t all of you who have participated on this thread – and many others – DONE EXACTLY THE SAME THING??? You have, indeed – freely editorialized YOUR comments in this media called Rennlist. Certainly the audience is larger than Total911 syndication – so to be fair, should I censor you, your comments and your opinion?
Your choice – but you can’t censor one without censoring both sides. Interesting conundrum, eh?
Third – this is simply – plainly – stupid. Never in the nine year history of Rennlist – have so many gotten their “undies in a bundle” over a quote that was – and continues to be – purposely lifted out of context, misquoted and flogged in what appears to be a simple plan to incite “the 928 masses”.
Personally – I’m more than ashamed. Frankly – I am ripping. And I’m angry for a number of reasons, not just those above…
I’ll end this little rant by also saying that I will continue to support Total911 magazine and should they decide to re-commence their Sponsorship, I will gladly put them back up on the 964 Forum. They launched their publication in no small way through Rennlist – and continue to be dedicated to the Porsche Marque – and yes, that even includes 928 owners and enthusiasts – regardless of what you have been falsely lead to believe through misquotes and thread rants.
Further and finally – I apologize to the editors and publishers of Total 911 magazine. I removed your 964 Forum banner before I, too, had the full context of Phil’s editorial. When I received it yesterday, I was personally embarrassed and disappointed that I acted in haste on information that I considered to be correct, unbiased and without a broader scheme to incite masses without cause.
For that, too – I apologize.
Now – I have to leave for work – so I can pay for these Forums. It appears this month, I have one less Sponsor contributing to the cost of Rennlist, this site – and your ability to post incorrect flames in this site.
Thank you very much.
John D.
First of all – no one ever called the 928 “"big fat lazy". In fact, how many of you have read the full article?? Can you tell me what the article was about? Can you further tell me the context of the quote???
I thought not…..
So let me tell you folks a few things – those that need to play the “burn me in hell Porsche 928 Martyr”...
First – The passage was a critique of the new Caymen. You know – Porsche’s newest product entry – the one where they added a hardtop to the Boxster, added some power, redesigned the body shell a bit - it’s even MID-ENGINED. BUT – OMG and counter to conventional “I read it on the Internet, so it MUST be true”, the article wasn’t even about 928s! In his comparison, Phil could have just as well have penned that it (the Cayman S) is enhanced version of an anemic original 914-4 – which they were - but he didn’t. Rather, he compared it to the 911, 997, Boxster – and OMG! – a 928!
Read the whole article and see for yourself….
Second – ready for this? It was an “EDITORIAL”. You know, that space in the first few pages that an “Editor” writes random notes. And sure as cow dung steams in the early winter mornings – his Editorial column was not about 928s. Now – seeing as how all you understand that it was an “Editorial” few paragraphs, perhaps how some of you could explain how you feel the need to suppress Phil’s comments and his publication’s Sponsorship on Rennlist? Haven’t all of you who have participated on this thread – and many others – DONE EXACTLY THE SAME THING??? You have, indeed – freely editorialized YOUR comments in this media called Rennlist. Certainly the audience is larger than Total911 syndication – so to be fair, should I censor you, your comments and your opinion?
Your choice – but you can’t censor one without censoring both sides. Interesting conundrum, eh?
Third – this is simply – plainly – stupid. Never in the nine year history of Rennlist – have so many gotten their “undies in a bundle” over a quote that was – and continues to be – purposely lifted out of context, misquoted and flogged in what appears to be a simple plan to incite “the 928 masses”.
Personally – I’m more than ashamed. Frankly – I am ripping. And I’m angry for a number of reasons, not just those above…
I’ll end this little rant by also saying that I will continue to support Total911 magazine and should they decide to re-commence their Sponsorship, I will gladly put them back up on the 964 Forum. They launched their publication in no small way through Rennlist – and continue to be dedicated to the Porsche Marque – and yes, that even includes 928 owners and enthusiasts – regardless of what you have been falsely lead to believe through misquotes and thread rants.
Further and finally – I apologize to the editors and publishers of Total 911 magazine. I removed your 964 Forum banner before I, too, had the full context of Phil’s editorial. When I received it yesterday, I was personally embarrassed and disappointed that I acted in haste on information that I considered to be correct, unbiased and without a broader scheme to incite masses without cause.
For that, too – I apologize.
Now – I have to leave for work – so I can pay for these Forums. It appears this month, I have one less Sponsor contributing to the cost of Rennlist, this site – and your ability to post incorrect flames in this site.
Thank you very much.
John D.