Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dean
Scott, do you even bother to click links, or go back in the thread to see who said what?
|
Nope. Why would I go back to click links that I originally posted? ...I've been there already.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dean
If you go look at the bloody second bullet on the second bloody picture titled 'STREET-SPORT ROLL BAR' it says "Bolt-in harness mount tube for easy installation of safety harnesses."
It does not say...
|
Never were we talking about the "Street-Sport Roll Bar". Always were we talking about the "Race Roll Bar", where it absolutely says: "All Race roll bars have a diagonal cross brace and most have a harness mount tube." Who cares what the for-looks-only bars have on them?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dean
And If I said the upper bar was a seat bracket, please provide the quote. IT WAS AARON!!!
|
Here you go:
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by dean
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sperry
A seat bracket needs to be adjustable fore/aft, unless you never plan on being able to adjust the seat's location.
|
Real race seats are not adjustable unles you consider the removal of many bolts and possible drilling of holes as adjustment. 2nd drivers either suffer, or have alternate padding or molded foam inserts.
I remember one race, Boris Said was filling in at the last minute for somebody driving with his knees basically around his arms with his helmet hitting the roof... |
So yes, Aaron suggested the bar was for a seat brace. Then *you* argued with me. If Aaron says "A is true", and I say "no A is false", and you say "scott is wrong with regards to A", you are in fact also saying that "A is true". Elementary school logic.
If Aaron called me a drooling incoherent retard, and I said "no I'm not"... shouldn't I be offended if you say "yes you are"? Sure, you never
explicitly called me a retard, but you sure implied it.
God, what a waste of time this thread has become. Maybe it's the 6 courses in logic and argumentation I took in college, coupled with the 15 odd years of computer programming... but I don't see why people have such a hard time with following along with a sequence of events. I guess it's my fault for over simplifying my summary back in post #43. I will agree, you didn't explicitly say the bar was far a seat brace. But you certainly did argue that's what it was for.
Anyway, I'm going to go home now... this thread has been another Scott v Dean semantic nightmare thread. One day I'll stop caring when others can't follow an argument, and resort to plain old personal attacks instead of attempting to clarify and re-clarify what's already plainly laid out in the thread. Arguing about arguing is easily the stupidest and most useless thing I've done this year.