>>I have no trouble sleeping. ?And be very careful with the rest of
>
> that.
>
> "Sleeping" and "passing out" are not the same thing.
They are, in any case, but I've been doing a lot less of the latter
lately, not that I have to explain myself to you to begin with.
>>?I don't see many accurate facts in what you write, with
>>the surprising exception of the response to that PS inquiry.
>
>
> That's probably because of your severe reading comprehension problem.
I speak three languages fluently, also went to grad school, and have
scored well above the 90th percentile on every standardized test and
entrance exam I've ever taken. I don't think I have any problems with
reading comprehension.
> I don't see you responding to much of what I write without reading into
> it a bunch of stuff that just isn't there. The problem is in that
> muddled mess between your ears, not in what I type on this here
> keyboard
It amuses me to toy with you from time to time.
>
>>The Camaro came out before the Firebird. ?That's my whole point.
>
>
> Liar. You had one point, and it was this: "The Firebird has always
> been the 're-bodied Camaro.'"
Because it came out before the Camaro. Hence, the Firebird was based on
the existing Camaro. This is getting very old. How does that makes me
a liar? Because it was phrased differently? Unacceptable.
I responded that they were the same car,
> developed at the same time, and that there was no "existing F body of
> the Chevrolet Camaro" prior to the devopment of the Firebird. I will
> give you credit for knowing that the Camaro was released 134 days prior
> to the Firebird. I guess I had heard that before, but I had forgotten.
I guess so.
> I have copied and pasted at the end of this post a paragraph from a
> first gen Firebird fan site, with the particulars. It includes the
> fact that Firebird development commenced in March 1966, and that at
> that point the Camaro was so far along that it was just 60 days from
> the start of production.
>
> So this exchange boils down to semantics: was a
> 60-days-from-production Camaro an "existing F body . . . Camaro," such
> that it would be accurate to call the Firebird a "re-bodied Camaro"?
> Did a production Camaro exist at the time that the Firebird project
> kicked off in March 1966? No.
Why not? The car existed, it just hadn't hit showrooms yet. Your
interpretation is, as usual, limited to what you wish to believe.
Did everything about the Firebird --
> other than things like styling details, interiors, engines, and
> suspension tuning -- derive from the Camaro project, as the Camaro
> moved from 60 days short of production to a September 29, 1966,
> roll-out? Yes. Does anybody other than a certain unemployed alcoholic
> welfare queen care? No ****ing way.
Nice attempt at flaming me, but I'm not going to bite.
>
>
>>>All GM styling emanated from a central studio, so it ?would be
>>>inaccurate to ?credit ?either division with the styling. ?
>>
>
>>Blah blah, tell me something I don't know
>
>
> Ouch! Scorched again. Careful where you point that witty
> flamethrower of yours, Wound Up. You might hurt somebody.
I type very quickly, like I think, and this is just a mildly
entertaining diversion to me whilst I job-search, poke around the web
and whatnot. Frustrating you by poking holes in your arguments and
assertions has been just a break from reading endless ads and emails
>
>>It just galls you to be factually contradicted, doesn't it,
>>Purveyor of Inaccurate Information?
>
>
> Not even slightly, Wound Up. Try this: do an advanced Google Groups
> search on author "180" or "Philly" and search for "thank" (as in "thank
> you for the correction") or "thanks" and see how many hits you get.
> There should be many. If anything could "gall" me it would be your
> lying, repeatedly stating that I am rarely correct.
I'll take your word for it, because I don't want to waste my time. Your
posts are rarely as factually robust as you would have others believe.
Contradiction is not lying, unless the person you are contradicting
believes he speaks the unequivocal truth all the time. Hmm... we may
have something there. Try not to be so literal.
But you're so
> morally weak, stupid, and dishonest, and so persistent at revealing
> these things in these groups, that it doesn't really bother me anymore.
> Mostly you're just a creepy Usenet stalker. You really need to burn
> that computer before it gets any worse.
Oh, 180, you're going to make me cry. An arrogant lawyer calling into
question my morals. Calling me stupid when it is so obviously not the
truth. Dishonest? Why, because I dare contradict you? I just don't
understand how you ascribe dishonesty to me.
>
> 180 Out
>
> P.S. Here's the quote, from
> http://tachrev.com/Web_Pages/1st_Gen_TA.html :
>
> Using the same floor pan, cowl & sub frame as the Camaro and Chevy II,
> the first Firebirds were known as '67 1/2's having been introduced late
> in the model year. Pontiac started the F-body program in March of 1966,
> forced by GM management to use the 60 day from production Camaro
> engineering. Required to retain the Camaro front fenders and doors, the
> Pontiac design and engineering staff, headed by John DeLorean,
> transformed the F-body platform into a bonafide Pontiac. They added
> Pontiac's own engine & drive trains, hood, tail panel, side marker
> lights, and a one piece solid chrome combination bumper & grill "Bird
> Beak". And that is how "Firebird One!" came to first arrive in dealer
> show rooms on February 23, 1967. 134 days after Camaro, and 133 days
> after Mercurys' new Cougar.
Slightly different than what I had previously read, but essentially similar.
--
Wound Up
ThunderSnake #65
