Garage Menace

Maybe he could clear up the confusion re the DATE OF MANUFACTURE as I am 99% sure 2001 models are ineligible under RAWS. Mate (seller), When was this vehicle imported and do you have the import paperwork? What was the auction grade? Do you have service history / log books PROVING the kms are genuine? Has the car EVER been in any kind of accident? Cheers and you get a free bump...

Hi mate. Where is the airbag wheel? Has the car EVER been in an accident? Cheers and a free bump.

Oooo, I got your attention? I feel honoured to attract the attention of such a highly paid jet-setter. Also, I am not up in arms, or passionate about this issue. You are the only one who seems to be passionate about someone you don't know (but wish you could taste)... Also, make sure I get my facts straight? What facts have I quoted? Did you even read my post before throwing your toys out of the cot in your haste to make it to the tissue box? I offered an opinion of the move based on years of racing experience. Mock it if you want. I have BTDT. Have you? You were boring me with your whining before, and are even more boring now in your attempts to pull me into line. They, and you, are laughable. PS. I actually stated the result of the penalty did not fit the crime, but there was a crime nonetheless. You totally ignored my actual argument and focussed on bullshite political rantings. Don't do the crime if you can't do the time, biartch... I'll start trembling in a minute about the barrage I am sure I'll cop for this one... Break out the popcorn lads...

I go back to my previous post, I have a life. Maybe you should get one... Most sensible thing you have said all thread. I admit, and it might be coz I'm slow in the uptake, but how is this relevant to the debate? Well, you conveniently ignored mine:

Nah thanks mate. I have a life. Maybe you should get one... After reading pages and pages and effing pages of this back and forth arguing, I cannot resist ripping off the bandaid. Simple fix. Bring back the gravel traps. That will sort the men from the boys. Anyone can make a do or die passing attempt if there are no consequences to outbraking yourself... There should be reward for staying on THE TRACK, and penalties for running off it. That being said, the penalty, or the result, did not quite fit the crime, and I say that as a Louise hater, but the crime was there nonetheless. Put that in your pipe and smoke it you Louise loving crybabies. PS. I made my living racing for over 5 years so am more than qualified to have an opinion.

You call this a fight? It has not even started (and will not as it is pointless). OK. You win. The definition of the real deal depends on if you ask the greens, the labor party, or the coalition... Had enough. I won't let the door hit me on the way out.

Nice try. Were in the Navy? No. Am in the Army. His first post fair enough appears to be a piss take. That is why I asked. His reply, he can be a big fish in a little pond if he wants. I won't lose any sleep over a forum member questioning my fortitude when I deal with real fights, and real men, as part of my daily life... Yes I am. I don't fight on the internet. I save it for the real deal. Not quite sure where you are going with that... Pity a contribution about a political topic has turned into this shite. My time is better spent elsewhere. Flame away as I am sure some of you will. I'll try to contain my tears. Out.

Another keyboard warrior. No worries tough guy. You know how hard I am and what I need. Thanks for the advice. Make you feel big did it? ***Edit*** I cannot completely let that go. I'll cop being called "princess" from a fellow soldier (which will receive the appropriate retailiatory strike), but not from some internet forum muppet. Do some service before you advise others to harden up.

I'm not up with internet lingo. I don't understand half what I read these days... I know the Aussie way. I am surrounded by other Diggers who when not working, spend every spare minute either drinking, banging, fighting, or taking the piss.

WTF does that mean? Did I ever claim to be the author? Do you disagree with the point? Have I misinerpreted your post by getting pissed off by it?

Slightly off-topic but this interesting little anecdote sums up the direction Australia is headed under a monopoly of farken Labor governments... The squirrel and the grasshopper REST OF THE WORLD VERSION The squirrel works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building and improving his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the squirrel is warm and well fed. The shivering grasshopper has no food or shelter, so he dies out in the cold. THE END THE AUSTRALIAN VERSION The squirrel works hard in the withering heat all summer long, building his house and laying up supplies for the winter. The grasshopper thinks he's a fool, and laughs and dances and plays the summer away. Come winter, the squirrel is warm and well fed. A social worker finds the shivering grasshopper, calls a press conference and demands to know why the squirrel should be allowed to be warm and well fed while others less fortunate, like the grasshopper, are cold and starving. The ABC shows up to provide live coverage of the shivering grasshopper; with cuts to a video of the squirrel in his comfortable warm home with a table laden with food. The Australian press informs people that they should be ashamed that in a country of such wealth, this poor grasshopper is allowed to suffer so while others have plenty. The Labour Party, Greenpeace, Animal Rights and The Grasshopper Housing Commission of Australia demonstrate in front of the squirrel's house. The ABC, interrupting a cultural festival special from St Kilda with breaking news, broadcasts a multi cultural choir singing "We Shall Overcome". Bill Shorten rants in an interview with Laurie Oakes that the squirrel got rich off the backs of grasshoppers, and calls for an immediate tax hike on the squirrel to make him pay his "fair share" and increases the charge for squirrels to enter Melbourne city centre. In response to pressure from the media, the Government drafts the Economic Equity and Grasshopper Anti Discrimination Act, retroactive to the beginning of the summer. The squirrel's taxes are reassessed. He is taken to court and fined for failing to hire grasshoppers as builders, for the work he was doing on his home and an additional fine for contempt when he told the court the grasshopper did not want to work. The grasshopper is provided with a Housing Commission house, financial aid to furnish it and an account with a local taxi firm to ensure he can be socially mobile. The squirrel's food is seized and re-distributed to the more needy members of society - in this case the grasshopper. Without enough money to buy more food, to pay the fine and his newly imposed retroactive taxes, the squirrel has to downsize and start building a new home. The local authority takes over his old home and utilises it as a temporary home for asylum seeking cats who had hijacked a plane to get to Australia as they had to share their country of origin with mice. On arrival they tried to blow up the airport because of Australians' apparent love of dogs. The cats had been arrested for the international offence of hijacking and attempted bombing but were immediately released because the police fed them pilchards instead of salmon whilst in custody. Initial moves to make then return them to their own country were abandoned because it was feared they would face death by the mice. The cats devise and start a scam to obtain money from people's credit cards. A 60 Minutes special shows the grasshopper finishing up the last of the squirrel's food, though spring is still months away, while the Housing Commission house he is in, crumbles around him because he hasn't bothered to maintain it. He is shown to be taking drugs. Inadequate government funding is blamed for the grasshopper's drug "Illness". The cats seek recompense in the Australian courts for their treatment since arrival in Australia. The grasshopper gets arrested for stabbing an old dog during a burglary to get money for his drugs habit. He is imprisoned but released immediately because he has been in custody for a few weeks. He is placed in the care of the probation service to monitor and supervise him. Within a few weeks he has killed a guinea pig in a botched robbery. A commission of enquiry, that will eventually cost $10 million and state the obvious, is set up. Additional money is put into funding a drug rehabilitation scheme for grasshoppers. Legal aid for lawyers representing asylum seekers is increased. The asylum seeking cats are praised by the government for enriching Australia's multicultural diversity and dogs are criticised by the government for failing to befriend the cats. The grasshopper dies of a drug overdose. The usual sections of the press blame it on the obvious failure of government to address the root causes of despair arising from social inequity and his traumatic experience of prison. They call for the resignation of a minister. The cats are paid $1 million each because their rights were infringed when the government failed to inform them there were mice in Australia. The squirrel, the dogs and the victims of the hijacking, the bombing, the burglaries and robberies have to pay an additional percentage on their credit cards to cover losses, their taxes are increased to pay for law and order, and they are told that they will have to work beyond 65 because of a shortfall in government funds. THE END

Mate, You are penny wise, pound foolish. Just wait until you make a claim and they subsequently find out about your undisclosed history. BOHICA!!!

Unfortunately, in a democracy, you get the government you deserve...

I think it has been pretty civilised with some spirited debate from both sides and is an interesting argument that still has a ways to run until someone wins, provided people can stick to the issues at hand. I for one, when I read this thread, which I had stayed out of until yesterday, am interested in debates like this rather than reading through 100 or more posts on how to get streaming sorted, or what is the best brand of beer etc (that is not a go at anyone). I trudge through the crap for discussions like this, however got sick of sitting on the sidelines. That being said, I see your point and don't want to flog a dead horse but welcome M3GTR's, DEZZ's, Roy's and everyone else's comments in response. Cheers.

I have no animosity to anyone on this thread and am a firm believer in everyone is entitled to their opinion. However, my argument is this is not an opinion incident. It is a question of fact. My case is thus: In order for a pass to be made, a driver must pass another vehicle within the bounds of the track / circuit, and complete the next corner legally. Trying is not good enough. Lewis did not legally make the following corner. I will also add, the only reason he managed to get in front of Vettel in the first place is he out-braked himself. He did not out-brake Vettel, who had the line and was dilligently braking for the next corner. End of story. Side issues of broken exhausts, Monaco rear-enders and team bias are irrelevant and have no business in this specific discussion. I made my hatred for Hamilton clear from the outset so as to negate any arguments of bias. As a driver, he is awesome. As a racer, he is average. As a person, he is a farken wanker. I for one, cannot overlook personality when it comes to who I support to win. I recognise Mundine is an awesome fighter, but I even find myself sometimes hoping he loses to a foreigner, which is saying something, as I am fiercely patriotic having pulled on a uniform for this country. Hamilton had the nerve to call back-markers "numpties" after only a few GPs. I would have more respect for his opinion if he had been one of those back markers and had excelled in sub-standard equipment earning himself a promotion to a top tier team. Instead, he started in the best car, has not done the F1 hard yards the rest have and is in no position to have such an attitude until he has had to wring the neck out of one of the lesser cars without getting a result. I have NEVER in my time of watching sport observed a more arrogant, and every other descriptive expletive I can think of, person with a higher sense of entitlement. He, and his team, have beem penalised numerous times lately as they have broken the rules. I don't think McLaren are being treated harshly. Ferrari seem to be having an easier time of it but that is for another discussion. Just coz the prancing horse is slipping through the net is no reason to be arguing against the merits of a specific illegal pass. Also, I have been a McLaren fan since I first started watching F1 as a kid. They are my favourite team but I cannot stomach their lead driver. His attitude to the pitlane crash he caused 2 GPs ago was worse than disgraceful, but that is a whole other story...