Geeto67

That light blue color is called Celeste metallic. It shares a name with the same color as bianchi bicycles but the bianchi color is slightly more turquoise and has no metallic. The reason I bring it up is because it was actually a popular color for Ferrari from 1959 to about 1968 (although Ferrari has used the color sporadically right up to today) and a lot of different models offered it like the swb and lwb 250 GT, the 330 America, etc... I have no doubt you saw a Celeste 1960s Ferrari, the question is which one. Considering that a production run of 1000 units is considered high volume for a 60's Ferrari model no doubt anything you saw was rare. The lusso's signature look comes from the rear window and the full width grille, otherwise it's shape could be any 4 seat Ferrari from that era.

man hugs for everybody!!!!! shit, what am I doing on this forum I'm on staycation. I'll see you guys tomorrow when I check in to count how may replies there are.

I'm not the only one, I'm just the only one willing to climb into the monkey cage and throw the feces back. why? probably because it's fun. it will stop being fun at some point, and then you guys can get back to not having your world views challenged. and it isn't so much me being right (which I do happen to be in this case) it's just to see how many times you guys are going to keep responding. this thread goes on for 5 pages and really the only thing of value we get from it are how many people don't know who a supreme court justice is or what he/she does, how little they understand about their own government and judicial system, and how far despite these limitations the lengths they are willing to go to tell me I'm wrong. It's fascinating.

what I actually said was...wow you didn't even understand "Good Will Hunting" and you are just as much a know it all as I am. But I did it in a polite way. tell you what....When I start telling you how to interpret people's dreams about them wanting to fuck their mothers feel free to use your "actual" knowledge to prove me wrong.

I just can't compete with the fantasy world some of the members here live in, so they are always going to win. Why let intelligence or facts get in the way of a feel good fiction.

That character in the movie was meant to represent elite-ism of ivy league schools and how it values routine over true knowledge...If you really think about it Will is actually the embodiment of the "know it all" of that movie but because he is the main character he is "likeable". by someone's standards everyone is a douchebag in that film and If you want to discuss the themes of good will hunting I'm open to that. It is a hell of a lot more interesting than reading people's own fictional versions of how they think the judicial system works in this country. If I am the pony tail wearing dude, then by assumption you think of yourself as will hunting. Well if you remember Robin Williams conversation with will about his "intelligence", Will was all book learnin' and no real experience. IE on any given subject he was not sharing true intelligence just regurgitating what he read. If that is who you want to be represented as, someone basically talking out of their ass with no real life experience, I don't object.

I got rid of an old GTO body that was too far gone to save by using a sawzall to cut it into very small chunks and then several trips to the metal recycler with the pieces in the trunk of my car, and then taking a butane torch to the vin and title once everything had been disposed of.

really? are we going to do this? fine. Bench trials don't just magically happen, there are certain requirements that must be met. There are a few courts that use them as the default like probate, traffic, and family law but none of those would hear a criminal case. In yenner's misplaced example there are too many unknown variables to say whether a bench trail would be possible or not, and even then it would require consent, stipulations, and court approval. so about as likely as a lion escaping from the zoo, coming to my house, and licking my nuts. But all that is moot because the argument is itself is literally just gibberish. He has a "prosecuting" atty making an argument for the defense in a civil case where the defendant would have been the making the statements. So no it would not be possible for that person to make that argument to a judge because the person making the argument is an irrational construct of flawed logic and would not exist in any real world scenario based on our actual legal system. And by the way, yes a defendant in a criminal case would make the argument that based on the totality of the situation that the threats were not serious and it would be the burden of the prosecutor in a criminal case to prove that they were.

sigh. This is an absurd scenario. No attorney would take a civil suit based on online death threats. Death threats are a criminal manner, which means police intervention and criminal charges. This example fails because of your lack of understanding in the difference between criminal and civil law. Assuming a criminal trial where the prosecuting attorney (by the way a Criminal law term not a civil law term - the litigant bringing a civil suit is the plaintiff), who would be making these statements to a jury not a judge, would have the burden of proving the likelihood of of threat. Typically single incidents, whether they are mail, email, skywriter, etc...are not considered credible on their own and would require examination of the totality of the circumstances. There is actually a shit ton of legal jurisprudence regarding this and probably several threshold tests. I can't even give you a C- for effort on this, literally television gets more right about our legal system than you do and CSI single handedly undermined our current justice system. that is oversimplifying it quite a bit. Sure internet threats are illegal, but good fucking luck getting any police force (federal, state, or local) to do anything about it. Again, threats on their own are a criminal matter. maybe you. At best it's a shard. No I am a dick in real life too, I am just way more charismatic in real life. I am a pretty open minded person - am I judgmental about statements sure, but I am pretty good about separating people from their stupid comments. If you notice I don't usually resort to name calling or cheap tricks, but I have no problem telling you your argument is stupid when it is. doesn't mean you are stupid, just misinformed and led to a faulty conclusion. But then again I am a professional at this and you aren't, if I wasn't able to separate the person from their point of view I don't think I could get any work done. you are married to your opinion, I am not. it's an easy thing to find out, show up have a chat.

Hey Christian, I'll take the grill if you don't mind. I'll txt you to set up a time this week

why not just try to find a recaro made seat before airbags? E30 BMWs used recaro 7 way manual adjustable seats - they aren't super expensive (because everyone wants vaders now) and new covers are readily available. I think MK2 Jettas also had recaros. Side torso airbags I don't think were a requirement prior to 2012, so some modern cars don't have them (ahem...chevy cobalt), they just may not also have an interesting looking seat. volvo's have had them since 1995 because Sweden. later C4 corvette seats are not recaros, but I think are comfy and some even have self inflating air bladders in them for lumbar support. I hear some of the more modern recaro seats (like those in the RS4) are going up in price (someone said to me RS4 seats are now $2K a seat for used junkyard seats) so don't assume junkyards are cheaper. or you could just find a seat you find comfortable and use that, I mean it isn't like you need side bolsters to keep your PS4 from pushing you sideways across the room.

I don't shop for my friends or family on the internet. You learn so little about a person. I prefer the in real life interaction. I go to events and I talk to people and generally have a good time. I am willing to say about half of the people who have said nasty things to me here in the last two weeks or so have had great conversation with me at things like CC&C and probably don't even know who I am. This is a conversation medium and I seek to have conversation. conversation is sometimes opposing viewpoints. I read plenty of offensive shit on here ya know what? sometimes I want to say something. It's not dick measuring - it's letting someone know that within there community their viewpoint is offensive to someone else and they shouldn't be comfortable with that. Whether they care or not I have no control over and honestly do not care to have control over it - verbal jousting is fun for me, whether its fun for others is of no real consequence to my outlook. If you are going to put your opinion into the world be prepared to back it up, there are plenty here just can't do that and they certainly whine that I am being a dick. It's the internet, its such a small slice of who a person is that to use it for anything other than entertainment is selling yourself and others short. but hey...that's just like my opinion man.

And kudos to you for that, but then again you have the advantage of your argument crafting skills, wit, and cleverness are far above par for this place. I actually wish we didn't agree on a lot of things, as I look forward to the challenge.

nice jeep! good luck with it.

you got it Tim.

If I went into a dinner party and if my initial conversation was met with Shut up you are fat and stupid, it would turn into a completely different kind of dinner party conversation and be entertaining for a variety of reasons. length and tenor when they have a choice to opt out? theirs. Subject matter - ah there in lies the meat of the conversation and the exchange of ideas. People whine about these things as a distraction from the subject matter have no more weight and consideration than television static. Clay, you are obviously bothered by this more than I thought and out of respect for you I'll stop. Whether I care about other people's feelings here? well, you can't let feelings get in the way of a good argument.... oh wait...I have another scalia quote for this that is only mildly offensive: " some very good people have some very bad ideas. And if you can’t separate the two, you gotta get another day job." #wrappedupinanicebow.

because conversation is entertaining I stop when I stop being entertained. I really wish you could see the smile on my face sometimes when I read things here. to keep me entertained. It's the internet, the same box where you can read 1000s of volumes of the world's collective knowledge and watch a chick fuck a horse indiscriminately. How can you take anything like that seriously? If you had an opinion about this topic you wished to express it would be about that topic and not a personal attack. As such it would be met with respect and civility in recognition of both your intellect and your willingness to share. You would also be literally one of the very few who would have actually had an opinion that was relevant to the subject. I wanted to start a dialog of how the legacy of anti-civil rights jurisprudence may be coming to an end and the funny conspiracy theories that surrounded it. Instead I got called a fat narcissistic asshole by the majority. This is not a discussion board so much as it is a WCW cage match looking for a heel. I don't mind being that heel, and I don't mind the insults, I just wish they were clever or witty so as to at least make the banter entertaining.

I don't, nor do I care. I made a good faith effort. The rest us up to you. Don't really care what everyone likes and I'll leave you with one of the very few quotes from our relevant subject that I don't find offensive: "A man who has made no enemies is probably not a very good man" I don't know what sucks more - the fact that so many seek to abridge my writing to fit the diminished attention span of the collective, or that deviation from inspires the kind of nasty comments usually reserved for traffic altercations and encounters with prostitutes. I've never met a group that understood the concept of "if it's too much for you to handle don't read it" less. I will commend you - you haven't called me fat or stupid yet so at least you are exceeding the general(ly low) expectations of this place. Kudos to you for keeping it at least civil.

12 month financing!!!! so full of win.

you expressed a misunderstanding of something I said, I elaborated. we are clear now, unless there are other things you don't understand.

you should listen to all opinions, and draw your own conclusions. however, if you decide his opinion is right and civil rights are a passing fad and discrimination should totally be a thing, be prepared for the ramifications of expressing that opinion. but I didn't need to tell you that, did I?

I don't mean to sound like a dick here but...are you surprised that a girl you met on tinder is banging other dudes? look forward to update. #marrieddudeslivingvicariously

I'm with jones on this....laugh. I laughed that that was what you gleaned out of it. Remember something about supreme court justices - they aren't always the "greatest" legal minds in the country, but they are the jurists that play the political game better than others. The old joke among lawyers is "the judge isn't always right, but he/she is always final". Like anybody in law or politics - their decisions are not beyond criticism. If you are asking "who are you to be criticizing a supreme court judge" you are asking the wrong question - that is your right as an American to question the things you don't understand or agree with. For better or worse they are civil servants (not to be taken as pejorative), their role in government exists to serve the needs of the people en masse. That's you, me, everyone. One of the larger criticisms of Scalia was that he had forgotten this - choosing to "protect" the institution he served from the needs of the people through the doctrine of "originalism". A doctrine, I might add he was inconsistent about enforcing, when it suited some greater political strategy. Scalia sought to be another Judge Rehnquist, one of the more controversial judges in SCOTUS history and the chief judge when Scalia first took his appointment, but he fell very short of that mark. Rehnquist's legacy, although itself controversial, was thoughtful, well reasoned, and elegantly communicated, where as scalia was often brutish, bullying, and half baked. Neither will have any great legacy for advancing civil rights in this country and that's a fact (Rehnquist stated several times publicly that segregation should be re-affirmed and fought efforts to desegregate). And this is kind of the point really - at the end of the day, regardless as to how you think I sound in being critical of Scalia's legacy do you really want to defend the "honor" of someone who attempted to advance discrimination by accusing the country of "inventing" new classes of individuals just so they could be guaranteed the same rights of others because you don't like my "tone"? By the way, Scalia said many times that he had no intention to retire unless he became completely incapable of doing the job or died. The fact that he happened to die while still mentally able to perform his court functions is great for his legacy, and the fact that it was seemingly peaceful and not tragic and violent was also good for him. However if you tie your reign to your mortality, it is going to look like people are celebrating your death when they are welcoming the end of your reign. Since 1954 only three judges have passed away while in office, including Scalia, so it is also a rare thing. Not that I expect the majority of people here to know this. TL;DR: If all someone has to bring to this conversation is "you are bad person for celebrating someone's death" the import of this discussion is sailing over your head like so many "chemtrails".

classy.

I have dual airbrush setups if you want to give it a go. I even have a mini flake buster if you want to do metal flake. The only thing I don't have is a warm place to spray as my garage is unheated. you can get good results with a rattle can though. I did this a while back with a testors green over bare black plastic (1993 kit). http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f102/Geeto67/Models/F9730489-A47E-4EEE-96B0-DA0B8162B141_zpsyvrh7kl1.jpg http://i46.photobucket.com/albums/f102/Geeto67/Models/1C1F450B-84AD-477D-8977-27B9F920E910_zpsxgwm6fe8.jpg Sure it has junk in the paint, but I didn't wetsand before or after. With new kits, esp the molded in white ones, you have to do a little sanding because some of the new mold release agents will lift paint. But back to the OP, all these kits for sale are excellent and if I didn't have the 1971 charger or duster in my queue already they are good kits....