RAK's recurrent ruminations on cars, chicks and courtship

#11

even if it's a "subtle" change from a 3 series bmw to an m-series body. the
overall concept is Still Cheap.

appreciate it for what it is. don't morph it into something it isn't.

"RichAsianKid" <richasiankid (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

Lawrence Lugar wrote:

Quote:

that's one way to give it a spin.
i don't like car conversions - like that nsx to a ferrari body conversion,
(nice photos by the way).
for me at least, the overall concept is tacky and cheezy, and a dare say
superficial. and all bark, and no bite.
i'm a guy with substance, or atleast consider myself to be, so driving
that
"ferrari" NSX would just get to me too much.

Absolutely agree there - I'd never do a nsx to ferrari body conversion
either. It's basically pretending to be something that you're not. But
then again if that's what women want then.....it's like the equivalent
of men's makeup.

Interestingly by extension one wonders if people who purchase the
lowest ranked car of a class may be guilty of the same to a smaller
degree... e.g. BMW 525i vs someone who gets a M3, or someone who gets a
S350 vs someone who gets a E55, E280 (in Europe?) vs C55 etc.

One friend of mine actually is a very practical guy and said that the
good thing about the M3 is that it's so understated...wolf in sheep's
clothing.

Quote:

regarding the biological thingy hypothesis...i got lost somewhere in the
translation but,

bottom line: guys(generally) are dogs. they're shallow, so they seek
shallow
things - hence the fast cars..and even faster women(dumb ditzes).

ps. that's the only reason why they make those conversion ferrari kits
for.
guys who want alot of flash, but cannot afford it. lol

Yes, agree there! The new modern minimalist 'in' thing to do is to
unpimp yer ride....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgEvy...wagen%20unpimp
Stupid commercial

Quote:

"RichAsianKid" <richasiankid (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:1153101706.657886.8620 (AT) b28g2000cwb (DOT) googlegroups.com...
I was cruising around in my Bimmer coupe this morning and thinking
about sex.

It's unhealthy. I was thinking of a subject from recent postings on
newsgroups - which means that newsgroups are spilling into 'real
life'. I really have to stop. But still the point is a very
interesting one.

After an energetic exchange with helenuhm at soc.culture.korean, and
inspired by Drydem's post at soc.culture.china on how to upgrade the
NSX to a fake Ferrari in Japan, I was left with a question of why men,
especially younger guys, love cars, and why women *pretend* not to get
it.

I was also struck by why some older people of both sexes only see
cars as utility vehicles used for getting from point A to point B. And
why I personally think of it more as a drifting toy (and less of a drag
toy......as the 330Ci doesn't go fast enough.......shucks) and much
less as
a status symbol.......until some university friends helpfully oriented
me to reality.

But why? RichAsianKid's not-so-original hypothesis: Sexual selection.

What are the most important things or "vectors" in life? In
biological terms, it's fitness and fecundity. Fitness is Darwianian
survival; fecundity is the ability to mate and multiply fruitfully.

See this very readable Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection

"Another, more recently developed theory, the Handicap principle due
to Amotz Zahavi, Russell Lande and W.D. Hamilton, holds that the fact
that the male of the species is able to survive until and through the
age of reproduction with such a seemingly maladaptive trait is
effectively considered by the female to be a testament to his overall
fitness. In literature, as in the 1925 novel gentlemen prefer blondes,
the blonde protagonist Lorelei Lee forced suitors to spend vast amounts
of money on her, to show how much they really had. It's the handicap
principle: people who cannot afford it will not be able to show it,
thus the good itself becomes a useful index of a guy's wealth. The
principle of costly display, i.e. some kind of financial handicap, is
in fact imposed by women, who for his men to show how much they have
and this review of themselves. A less costly display would be of less
discrimination value, and be prone to cheating."

In fact, even the human brain may be considered as such - not because
of historical survival value in the Pleistocene, but perhaps because of
so-called runaway selection and the above Handicap Principle. This is
also addressed in the Wikipedia entry above. A girlfriend of mine
reiterated the clichéd adage that the sexiest organ is the brain.

Then, in the field of economics, there is this idea of conspicuous
consumption, as promulgated by Veblen's Theory of the Leisure class
in 1899. In modern urban societies, where strangers come and go, people
increasingly advertise their wealth by ornamenting themselves with
costly luxuries to demonstrate their status and for show.

And if they can get away with it: perhaps to fake it: like upgrading
from an Acura NSX to a Ferrari, as drydem indicated.
http://www.6park.com/enter7/messages/gvk21098.html

So why are females choosier? Well, biologically, women do most of the
work in terms of childbearing. Think about this:

Men only need a few minutes of recreational sex and 2 ounces of
semen
Women need nine months of procreational sex and 2 gallons of
breast milk

Some sort of paternal investment may be called for to balance out the
biological equation! So women get to choose. But there needs to be a
sieve with sufficient discriminatory ability to weed out real the men
vs boyz........getting a suit from Brooks Brothers vs a pleated tee
from Walmart is not of much discriminatory power. Ask men how much they
have, and they lie. Diamonds, until recently, however, don't lie.

And this explains why cars are so important for young guys. Like
antlers of deer and the peacock's tail, it is a conspicuous - and until
now, difficult to fake - display of a male's financial health, and
status, and hence marketability and perhaps innate biological quality.

(By the way, there is *nothing* to be ashamed of the Acura NSX. I'd
drive it gladly...though the chassis is too 1990s, and yes it's
overpriced [even *I* say that]. But since cars are now possible to
fake,
then this additional noise factor will need to be factored in the
future....)

The two male-female worldviews are simply different, and feminists
will be soooo very delighted I'm sure: men shoot (no pun there) for
quantity,
and women shoot for quality.

Not surprisingly cars are less meaningful in North America - they are
cheaper and practically everyone can afford a car, and thus the
discriminatory ability and hence their utility as an index of measure
of the financial fitness of a male is correspondingly less. In upper
middle class circles and near-rich circles cars have lost their
discriminatory value as ornaments: *everyone* can afford a "luxury"
car, and differences reflect utility value and personal tastes, like
whether one prefers blue to green, not financial capability. Guys who
love driving and drifting may get a, say, BMW, and those who love
offroad utility may get a Hummer.

And that explains why women don't buy flashy cars - men don't dig
rich but post-menopausal old women. They are of little reproductive
value. Men's efforts may well be directed at additional matings with
younger, poorer but fertile women.

And that's why older people (of both sexes) don't need or want flashy
cars either. They're past their age of reproduction, and are not driven
by the same biological imperative.

I now love my bimmer even more. In selected circles of course. I never
thought of this topic so explicitly in evolutionary terms before, but I
now realize that cars are more than just toys.

Think of cars as courtship in motion. Or if you prefer, mating gear.

That is, the love of cars is firmly grounded in biological reality.

And that's just common sense.

#12

Lawrence Lugar wrote:

Quote:

even if it's a "subtle" change from a 3 series bmw to an m-series body. the
overall concept is Still Cheap.

appreciate it for what it is. don't morph it into something it isn't.

3-series to M-series is relatively ok, seriously believe me. At least,
it's not like some guy who took out the 0 from his cheap cheap C240 and
then stuck a fake AMG onto the right side of his trunk! Mercedes
drivers are the worst! Hahaha!

Quote:

"RichAsianKid" <richasiankid (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:1153225980.252261.208040 (AT) m73g2000cwd (DOT) googlegroups.com...

Lawrence Lugar wrote:

that's one way to give it a spin.
i don't like car conversions - like that nsx to a ferrari body conversion,
(nice photos by the way).
for me at least, the overall concept is tacky and cheezy, and a dare say
superficial. and all bark, and no bite.
i'm a guy with substance, or atleast consider myself to be, so driving
that
"ferrari" NSX would just get to me too much.

Absolutely agree there - I'd never do a nsx to ferrari body conversion
either. It's basically pretending to be something that you're not. But
then again if that's what women want then.....it's like the equivalent
of men's makeup.

Interestingly by extension one wonders if people who purchase the
lowest ranked car of a class may be guilty of the same to a smaller
degree... e.g. BMW 525i vs someone who gets a M3, or someone who gets a
S350 vs someone who gets a E55, E280 (in Europe?) vs C55 etc.

One friend of mine actually is a very practical guy and said that the
good thing about the M3 is that it's so understated...wolf in sheep's
clothing.

regarding the biological thingy hypothesis...i got lost somewhere in the
translation but,

bottom line: guys(generally) are dogs. they're shallow, so they seek
shallow
things - hence the fast cars..and even faster women(dumb ditzes).

ps. that's the only reason why they make those conversion ferrari kits
for.
guys who want alot of flash, but cannot afford it. lol

Yes, agree there! The new modern minimalist 'in' thing to do is to
unpimp yer ride....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgEvy...wagen%20unpimp
Stupid commercial

"RichAsianKid" <richasiankid (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:1153101706.657886.8620 (AT) b28g2000cwb (DOT) googlegroups.com...
I was cruising around in my Bimmer coupe this morning and thinking
about sex.

It's unhealthy. I was thinking of a subject from recent postings on
newsgroups - which means that newsgroups are spilling into 'real
life'. I really have to stop. But still the point is a very
interesting one.

After an energetic exchange with helenuhm at soc.culture.korean, and
inspired by Drydem's post at soc.culture.china on how to upgrade the
NSX to a fake Ferrari in Japan, I was left with a question of why men,
especially younger guys, love cars, and why women *pretend* not to get
it.

I was also struck by why some older people of both sexes only see
cars as utility vehicles used for getting from point A to point B. And
why I personally think of it more as a drifting toy (and less of a drag
toy......as the 330Ci doesn't go fast enough.......shucks) and much
less as
a status symbol.......until some university friends helpfully oriented
me to reality.

But why? RichAsianKid's not-so-original hypothesis: Sexual selection.

What are the most important things or "vectors" in life? In
biological terms, it's fitness and fecundity. Fitness is Darwianian
survival; fecundity is the ability to mate and multiply fruitfully.

See this very readable Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection

"Another, more recently developed theory, the Handicap principle due
to Amotz Zahavi, Russell Lande and W.D. Hamilton, holds that the fact
that the male of the species is able to survive until and through the
age of reproduction with such a seemingly maladaptive trait is
effectively considered by the female to be a testament to his overall
fitness. In literature, as in the 1925 novel gentlemen prefer blondes,
the blonde protagonist Lorelei Lee forced suitors to spend vast amounts
of money on her, to show how much they really had. It's the handicap
principle: people who cannot afford it will not be able to show it,
thus the good itself becomes a useful index of a guy's wealth. The
principle of costly display, i.e. some kind of financial handicap, is
in fact imposed by women, who for his men to show how much they have
and this review of themselves. A less costly display would be of less
discrimination value, and be prone to cheating."

In fact, even the human brain may be considered as such - not because
of historical survival value in the Pleistocene, but perhaps because of
so-called runaway selection and the above Handicap Principle. This is
also addressed in the Wikipedia entry above. A girlfriend of mine
reiterated the clichéd adage that the sexiest organ is the brain.

Then, in the field of economics, there is this idea of conspicuous
consumption, as promulgated by Veblen's Theory of the Leisure class
in 1899. In modern urban societies, where strangers come and go, people
increasingly advertise their wealth by ornamenting themselves with
costly luxuries to demonstrate their status and for show.

And if they can get away with it: perhaps to fake it: like upgrading
from an Acura NSX to a Ferrari, as drydem indicated.
http://www.6park.com/enter7/messages/gvk21098.html

So why are females choosier? Well, biologically, women do most of the
work in terms of childbearing. Think about this:

Men only need a few minutes of recreational sex and 2 ounces of
semen
Women need nine months of procreational sex and 2 gallons of
breast milk

Some sort of paternal investment may be called for to balance out the
biological equation! So women get to choose. But there needs to be a
sieve with sufficient discriminatory ability to weed out real the men
vs boyz........getting a suit from Brooks Brothers vs a pleated tee
from Walmart is not of much discriminatory power. Ask men how much they
have, and they lie. Diamonds, until recently, however, don't lie.

And this explains why cars are so important for young guys. Like
antlers of deer and the peacock's tail, it is a conspicuous - and until
now, difficult to fake - display of a male's financial health, and
status, and hence marketability and perhaps innate biological quality.

(By the way, there is *nothing* to be ashamed of the Acura NSX. I'd
drive it gladly...though the chassis is too 1990s, and yes it's
overpriced [even *I* say that]. But since cars are now possible to
fake,
then this additional noise factor will need to be factored in the
future....)

The two male-female worldviews are simply different, and feminists
will be soooo very delighted I'm sure: men shoot (no pun there) for
quantity,
and women shoot for quality.

Not surprisingly cars are less meaningful in North America - they are
cheaper and practically everyone can afford a car, and thus the
discriminatory ability and hence their utility as an index of measure
of the financial fitness of a male is correspondingly less. In upper
middle class circles and near-rich circles cars have lost their
discriminatory value as ornaments: *everyone* can afford a "luxury"
car, and differences reflect utility value and personal tastes, like
whether one prefers blue to green, not financial capability. Guys who
love driving and drifting may get a, say, BMW, and those who love
offroad utility may get a Hummer.

And that explains why women don't buy flashy cars - men don't dig
rich but post-menopausal old women. They are of little reproductive
value. Men's efforts may well be directed at additional matings with
younger, poorer but fertile women.

And that's why older people (of both sexes) don't need or want flashy
cars either. They're past their age of reproduction, and are not driven
by the same biological imperative.

I now love my bimmer even more. In selected circles of course. I never
thought of this topic so explicitly in evolutionary terms before, but I
now realize that cars are more than just toys.

Think of cars as courtship in motion. Or if you prefer, mating gear.

That is, the love of cars is firmly grounded in biological reality.

And that's just common sense.

#13

lol.

i just shake my head at those clowns who 'upgrade' their cars w/ those tacky
conversion kits.

"RichAsianKid" <richasiankid (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

Lawrence Lugar wrote:

Quote:

even if it's a "subtle" change from a 3 series bmw to an m-series body.
the
overall concept is Still Cheap.

appreciate it for what it is. don't morph it into something it isn't.

3-series to M-series is relatively ok, seriously believe me. At least,
it's not like some guy who took out the 0 from his cheap cheap C240 and
then stuck a fake AMG onto the right side of his trunk! Mercedes
drivers are the worst! Hahaha!

Quote:

"RichAsianKid" <richasiankid (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:1153225980.252261.208040 (AT) m73g2000cwd (DOT) googlegroups.com...

Lawrence Lugar wrote:

that's one way to give it a spin.
i don't like car conversions - like that nsx to a ferrari body
conversion,
(nice photos by the way).
for me at least, the overall concept is tacky and cheezy, and a dare say
superficial. and all bark, and no bite.
i'm a guy with substance, or atleast consider myself to be, so driving
that
"ferrari" NSX would just get to me too much.

Absolutely agree there - I'd never do a nsx to ferrari body conversion
either. It's basically pretending to be something that you're not. But
then again if that's what women want then.....it's like the equivalent
of men's makeup.

Interestingly by extension one wonders if people who purchase the
lowest ranked car of a class may be guilty of the same to a smaller
degree... e.g. BMW 525i vs someone who gets a M3, or someone who gets a
S350 vs someone who gets a E55, E280 (in Europe?) vs C55 etc.

One friend of mine actually is a very practical guy and said that the
good thing about the M3 is that it's so understated...wolf in sheep's
clothing.

regarding the biological thingy hypothesis...i got lost somewhere in
the
translation but,

bottom line: guys(generally) are dogs. they're shallow, so they seek
shallow
things - hence the fast cars..and even faster women(dumb ditzes).

ps. that's the only reason why they make those conversion ferrari kits
for.
guys who want alot of flash, but cannot afford it. lol

Yes, agree there! The new modern minimalist 'in' thing to do is to
unpimp yer ride....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qgEvy...wagen%20unpimp
Stupid commercial

"RichAsianKid" <richasiankid (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:1153101706.657886.8620 (AT) b28g2000cwb (DOT) googlegroups.com...
I was cruising around in my Bimmer coupe this morning and thinking
about sex.

It's unhealthy. I was thinking of a subject from recent postings on
newsgroups - which means that newsgroups are spilling into 'real
life'. I really have to stop. But still the point is a very
interesting one.

After an energetic exchange with helenuhm at soc.culture.korean, and
inspired by Drydem's post at soc.culture.china on how to upgrade the
NSX to a fake Ferrari in Japan, I was left with a question of why men,
especially younger guys, love cars, and why women *pretend* not to get
it.

I was also struck by why some older people of both sexes only see
cars as utility vehicles used for getting from point A to point B. And
why I personally think of it more as a drifting toy (and less of a drag
toy......as the 330Ci doesn't go fast enough.......shucks) and much
less as
a status symbol.......until some university friends helpfully oriented
me to reality.

But why? RichAsianKid's not-so-original hypothesis: Sexual selection.

What are the most important things or "vectors" in life? In
biological terms, it's fitness and fecundity. Fitness is Darwianian
survival; fecundity is the ability to mate and multiply fruitfully.

See this very readable Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_selection

"Another, more recently developed theory, the Handicap principle due
to Amotz Zahavi, Russell Lande and W.D. Hamilton, holds that the fact
that the male of the species is able to survive until and through the
age of reproduction with such a seemingly maladaptive trait is
effectively considered by the female to be a testament to his overall
fitness. In literature, as in the 1925 novel gentlemen prefer blondes,
the blonde protagonist Lorelei Lee forced suitors to spend vast amounts
of money on her, to show how much they really had. It's the handicap
principle: people who cannot afford it will not be able to show it,
thus the good itself becomes a useful index of a guy's wealth. The
principle of costly display, i.e. some kind of financial handicap, is
in fact imposed by women, who for his men to show how much they have
and this review of themselves. A less costly display would be of less
discrimination value, and be prone to cheating."

In fact, even the human brain may be considered as such - not because
of historical survival value in the Pleistocene, but perhaps because of
so-called runaway selection and the above Handicap Principle. This is
also addressed in the Wikipedia entry above. A girlfriend of mine
reiterated the clichéd adage that the sexiest organ is the brain.

Then, in the field of economics, there is this idea of conspicuous
consumption, as promulgated by Veblen's Theory of the Leisure class
in 1899. In modern urban societies, where strangers come and go, people
increasingly advertise their wealth by ornamenting themselves with
costly luxuries to demonstrate their status and for show.

And if they can get away with it: perhaps to fake it: like upgrading
from an Acura NSX to a Ferrari, as drydem indicated.
http://www.6park.com/enter7/messages/gvk21098.html

So why are females choosier? Well, biologically, women do most of the
work in terms of childbearing. Think about this:

Men only need a few minutes of recreational sex and 2 ounces of
semen
Women need nine months of procreational sex and 2 gallons of
breast milk

Some sort of paternal investment may be called for to balance out the
biological equation! So women get to choose. But there needs to be a
sieve with sufficient discriminatory ability to weed out real the men
vs boyz........getting a suit from Brooks Brothers vs a pleated tee
from Walmart is not of much discriminatory power. Ask men how much they
have, and they lie. Diamonds, until recently, however, don't lie.

And this explains why cars are so important for young guys. Like
antlers of deer and the peacock's tail, it is a conspicuous - and until
now, difficult to fake - display of a male's financial health, and
status, and hence marketability and perhaps innate biological quality.

(By the way, there is *nothing* to be ashamed of the Acura NSX. I'd
drive it gladly...though the chassis is too 1990s, and yes it's
overpriced [even *I* say that]. But since cars are now possible to
fake,
then this additional noise factor will need to be factored in the
future....)

The two male-female worldviews are simply different, and feminists
will be soooo very delighted I'm sure: men shoot (no pun there) for
quantity,
and women shoot for quality.

Not surprisingly cars are less meaningful in North America - they are
cheaper and practically everyone can afford a car, and thus the
discriminatory ability and hence their utility as an index of measure
of the financial fitness of a male is correspondingly less. In upper
middle class circles and near-rich circles cars have lost their
discriminatory value as ornaments: *everyone* can afford a "luxury"
car, and differences reflect utility value and personal tastes, like
whether one prefers blue to green, not financial capability. Guys who
love driving and drifting may get a, say, BMW, and those who love
offroad utility may get a Hummer.

And that explains why women don't buy flashy cars - men don't dig
rich but post-menopausal old women. They are of little reproductive
value. Men's efforts may well be directed at additional matings with
younger, poorer but fertile women.

And that's why older people (of both sexes) don't need or want flashy
cars either. They're past their age of reproduction, and are not driven
by the same biological imperative.

I now love my bimmer even more. In selected circles of course. I never
thought of this topic so explicitly in evolutionary terms before, but I
now realize that cars are more than just toys.

Think of cars as courtship in motion. Or if you prefer, mating gear.

That is, the love of cars is firmly grounded in biological reality.

And that's just common sense.

#14

I did not give you the correct Merc NG address in order for you to fire
cheap and stupid shots at its readers.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"RichAsianKid" <richasiankid (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

[...]

3-series to M-series is relatively ok, seriously believe me. At least,
it's not like some guy who took out the 0 from his cheap cheap C240 and
then stuck a fake AMG onto the right side of his trunk! Mercedes
drivers are the worst! Hahaha!
[...]

#15

Yes, we're being a bit of an ass... especially as you immediately use the
correct information to make asinine generalisations about the readers of
that NG.

By all means ruminate, but don't be rude, even if it's unregulated usenet.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"RichAsianKid" <richasiankid (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote

[...]
I just assumed....

[..]

#16

cars, chicks and courtship

1 get a Sprinter - car
2 get a girl - chicks
3 half way through the pub crawl court her ship in the Sprinter -
courtship

plus you can carry all sorts of stuff in the SPRINTER like bikes, atvs,
coolers, JBL SRX728 speakers, miscellaneous party supplies and you have
some elbow room instead of a claustrophobic little teeny car.

or you could go with the boringly conformist little car.

( Please do not get offended if you have a small 2 seat car -
I find anything with less than several hundred cubic feet
claustrophobic. I like big and that is my right
as an American - queue the music and flag waving )

..

#17

Is it just me, or is this guy always posting long, blabbering, annoying
garbage?

#18

this guy is so annoying

#19

You'll realize that I did not use the correct Mercedes NG address in
all these messages so they didn't get it. Hmm, maybe I should have!
Thanks for the info!

You should also check out some of BMW boards and Mercedes boards with
all the flamming wars - what I wrote was NOTHING!

And it's true - BMW and porsche drivers share something in common, e.g.
passion in driving, but many Mercedes drivers are (1) older bald men at
the door of retirement homes or (2) middle aged women with Halloween
style makeup driving at 20 mph below the speed limit, can't do a
3-point turn, and who likes to show off their cars at their
golf/country clubs when their husbands are at work (3) the angry
insecure young 20-30s type - wearing pimped up clothing, and I've had a
few challenging me to drag race - including a 40s guy with a bumper
sticker "I got new cash". The pattern is there if you observe it - and
overall Mercedes drivers are more concerned with show and status than
anything else - not even reliability now after the Chrysler merge
perhaps, and not luxury as why not get a Lexus? (I've observed that
people who drive the Nissan Z350 are friendlier too.. a few gave me the
nod at gas stations or even driving and I returned compliments - but
Mercedes? Ha! Never! (with some exceptions allowed for vintage and AMG
model owners of course)

Dori A Schmetterling wrote:

Quote:

I did not give you the correct Merc NG address in order for you to fire
cheap and stupid shots at its readers.

DAS

For direct contact replace nospam with schmetterling
---

"RichAsianKid" <richasiankid (AT) hotmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:1153283977.403883.154240 (AT) i42g2000cwa (DOT) googlegroups.com...

[...]

3-series to M-series is relatively ok, seriously believe me. At least,
it's not like some guy who took out the 0 from his cheap cheap C240 and
then stuck a fake AMG onto the right side of his trunk! Mercedes
drivers are the worst! Hahaha!
[...]

#20

Is it big enough to drive my S Klass into? Are the chairs - er - driver
seats - large and comfortable? Could I put the boyz in tha bak into tha
bak of this sprinter comfortably? Wuld their be room fer them beverages
an what nots laik tubs wif ice ta keep them ole silvery beverage
containers cool? Hmmm ... maybe i need ta wait for it ta come hear.

mcbrue largely under the bridge in the trailer down by the river

96 S420 (steering moanlessly)

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

RAK's recurrent ruminations on cars, chicks and courtship

Porsche Discussions About Porsche Automobiles (alt.autos.porsche)

Re: RAK's recurrent ruminations on cars, chicks and courtship - 07-18-2006 , 11:25 PM

Re: RAK's recurrent ruminations on cars, chicks and courtship - 07-18-2006 , 11:39 PM

Re: RAK's recurrent ruminations on cars, chicks and courtship - 07-19-2006 , 01:15 AM

Re: RAK's recurrent ruminations on cars, chicks and courtship - 07-19-2006 , 05:45 AM

Re: RAK's recurrent ruminations on cars, chicks and courtship - 07-19-2006 , 06:10 AM

RAK needs cars, chicks and courtship - 07-19-2006 , 10:54 AM

Re: RAK's recurrent ruminations on cars, chicks and courtship - 07-19-2006 , 02:41 PM

Re: RAK's recurrent ruminations on cars, chicks and courtship - 07-19-2006 , 02:45 PM

Re: RAK's recurrent ruminations on cars, chicks and courtship - 07-19-2006 , 02:47 PM

So what is this sprinter thing? - 07-19-2006 , 05:50 PM