Talk Elections

What's your opinion of stick-shifts?

What a random question.

Exactly. But I'm interested in seeing what the Bible says about shifting gears. Or if he's capable of answering a question without quoting the Bible.

Eh, Jesus hung out with 12 other guys nonstop.  I'm sure he drove stick.

Most middle easterners are situationally homosexual to this day.  As for stick shifts, well, they're unamerican.

not everything he answered had a Bible quote(though it does seem to be a minority of the posts), quit trying to bait him Red.

Well it does no good to conduct an experiment if you give away the point to the subject beforehand :P

jmcfst is doing an effective job of trolling you, BRTD (and a lot of others at this forum).  I can see that you are falling for it (much like some fell for opebo's game).

The main difference that I can see between them is that jmfcst's trolling requires a great deal of effort and religious knowledge.  Whereas opebo's character's posts are usually about a single paragraph of pure piffle, jmfcst rattles off a bunch of Bible quotes that he would have had to know in advance.

I thought you were a conservative Democrat (with an Indy avatar)?

I thought he was a Republican, myself, given his signature statement.

Look at the name under "Poster Child".

I stopped at this.

pooperpet must be into scat.

Not a lot of fundies into that sh**t, pardon the pun.

I have never played any game.  You don't think jmfcst is really so dumb?

Of course you're playing a game; you've been playing it for at least a year now, maybe longer.

Jmfcst is quite smart.  One of the reasons why I know this is because he's from an area close to where I grew up and everyone I'm ever met from this part of town is quite intelligent, rarely in a "book-smart" kind of way, but in a "common-sense" kind of way.  It's anecdotal, but good enough for me.

The most effective Internet trolls typically fall into two categories and are occasionally a mix of both.  You, opebo, encapsulate both of these categories, so you are a prime example of the "both" category:

1. The troll who says "stupid" things over and over again which then get copied and bandied about the forum by other members to where it almost becomes a lexiconography of its own.
(e.g. opebo's "poors", "intolerants", etc., etc.)

2. The troll who says such "outrageous" things over and over again so that everyone in the forum drops their reasoned conversation merely to discuss what crazy thing the troll has said next.
(e.g. too many opebo examples for me to list here, along with BRTD's homosexual obsession in opebo)

There are variants on these two types (e.g. the troll who invades the forum after everyone tries to stop him with IP bans usually fits the second category, since no one can stop talking about the troll when he appears), but all in all these two categories are essentially the main ones.

Sam, I have to disagree with you when you say that JMF is a troll.

It is absolutely no different from the game I play in real life...


No, I meant dumb as in religious.


"Stupid"?  Not at all, Spade.  Those are the most brilliant utterances upon this forum.


I have never said anything 'outrageous' - all my analysis is obvious common sense.  If anything is outrageous it is the fact that so many of you are so deluded you can't think critically.


Neither of these types fits me, Spade.  Are you suggesting that certain political points of view are inherently 'trollish'?  If so, my how convenient for you - simply eliminate the opposition rather than go to the trouble of argumentation.

My guess is that you are presuming troll=bad.  I enjoy many trolls for their abilities in forum posting.

"Troll" doesn't mean a poster you don't like, for like the billionth time.  :P

the only reason why my 2000 Excursion isn't manual is because they didn't make a manual Excursion.

My 97 Corolla is a stick, as was every other new car I have ever bought (89 Probe, 91 Mustang, 93 Civic Del Sol, 94 Isuzu Pickup)...except for the Excursion.

Manuals are cheaper to buy, get better gas mileage, and are cheaper to repair.

besides, I hate how automatics roll forward whenever you left off the brake.

So you are capable of answering a question without quoting the Bible after all!

I prefer manual transmissions as well, for the reasons jmfcst cited. Better gas mileage, better acceleration, simpler. Plus, less chance of your car being stolen, as I assume there must be at least some car thieves who can't drive a stick (given the high percentage of Americans as as whole who can't).

quit being an ass, plz.

Well, I generally agree with you, jmfcst, about transmissions, but I really don't see the point of a stick in a large vehicle with a torquey V-8.  I think something like a Civic is pretty much ruined by an automatic, while something like a Lincoln would be rather silly with a stick. 

Basically if the car's engine displacement is under 3.0 liters, stick, over, auto.  Of course if it is a pushrod engine (how I miss those!), it is even better with an automatic.  I really hate the newer excessively complex motors.

This brings back memories - back in the 90's I was tooling around in a big old 80's Chevy Caprice with a five litre V-8 and I stopped to test drive a VW Golf.  My god what a peice of sh**t!  I climbed back aboard the comfy old cruiser thinking to myself - 'who can stand to drive those things?'  Meaning high-revving stick shift cars.

Err...my japanese car has a 3.0 litre V6. Its an automatic.

So wait...automatics stay in lower gears longer than the typical stick shift driver?

I'm sure it is fine, bullmoose.. I'm just saying that in general stick shifts are more of an advantage with smaller displacement engines.


Not really.. if anything the opposite.  But the main point is they do sap power, particularly torque.  The classic automatic is a 3 or 4 speed paired with a big pushrod v-8, for relaxed motoring.  Such engines tend to have so much torque there is little need for downshifting to rev the motor.  There's nothing like loafing along with a big, understressed, quiet, low-vibration motor.