bashing 2F2F and other such things

[awalbert88 10+ year member]

I never said anything about the fastest cars. Oh yea, domestics **** my ***.
460-hp Viper GTS ACR is closer to 12.6 my friend(car and driver tested)

and that Saleen is slow 14.3.

Oh yea, that slow *** "blackbird"(if that means anything to you) does 11.4

Uhm. FYI, MM&FF tested the Saleen and got low 12's in movie trim. With drag radials, it ran mid 11's.

Car & Driver should be named Car & Granny. They can't drive for crap. Go check out some of the Viper forums and see what people are running stock.

SCC tested the imports and the Yenko Camaro, and if I recall correctly, the Skyline ran a 14-something.

 

[geolemon 10+ year member]

I did like the little clip at the first race where they showed the motorized amp rack (trap-door style) motoring it's doors up...

That's some cool stuff.

 

[geolemon 10+ year member]

Uhm. FYI, MM&FF tested the Saleen and got low 12's in movie trim. With drag radials, it ran mid 11's.
Car & Driver should be named Car & Granny. They can't drive for crap. Go check out some of the Viper forums and see what people are running stock.

SCC tested the imports and the Yenko Camaro, and if I recall correctly, the Skyline ran a 14-something.

Wow, you believe what people say on forums like that?Do you happen to be a fisherman also? Wonder what those forums are like... :hilarious

And I always enjoy arguments like "Well, those numbers weren't what I liked... so they must be wrong!"

You'd make a great executive someday... after all, it truly is perception, not reality, that matters.

Just keep asking for a second opinion until you get numbers that you like... :thumbs_up

I see that you've got a problem with "context"...

As in... knowing 'in' as opposed to 'out of'... //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/uhoh.gif.c07307dd22ee7e63e22fc8e9c614d1fd.gif

There were some key, very important comments made in the SCC comparison, that were absolutely key to the performance of each car.

I don't remember which comments were made in the scope of which car... I'd have to locate the magazine again.. but I do recall the article, particularly because those points were enlightening!

Particularly, there were two comments that popped up for most of the cars:

The lesser important comment of the two was that most of the cars being evaluated were modified show vehicles, not modified race vehicles... although obviously most of the parts are to the same end - but in the scope particularly of things like suspension, you can see how the two would potentially branch in different directions, and in reality, the higher priority is what looks good, for the show guys.

The more important of the two comments was that most of the cars had quite a few years and miles on them, and many of the cars felt like they'd had a long, hard life... been "driven hard and put away wet".

Since you mention it, the Lancer Evo was a fine example of that second comment..

They said that the wear on the car was so bad at that point, even in modified [for performance] form, that particular modified show Evo put down lower numbers all around than a bone-stock Evo of the same year.

So you think that's representative of all Evo's performance numbers?

Here's the clue that you completely missed on that article (which had words too, not just pretty pictures and a stats box on the side)...

SCC did that article to show that the main qualification for those movie cars was, in fact, their show-worthiness, as opposed to the individual example's actual performance merits, though performance cars they were.

There was no race of any type to qualify for the movie... simply on-screen looks.

 

[Radar 10+ year member]

Yah that amp rack was tight, I just wish they had shown some better companys though. The only semi-good company I saw was RF. At least show some JL, as much as i dislike Jl they still have better products than alot of RF.

 

[Aurorav8 10+ year member]

Uhm. FYI, MM&FF tested the Saleen and got low 12's in movie trim. With drag radials, it ran mid 11's.
Car & Driver should be named Car & Granny. They can't drive for crap. Go check out some of the Viper forums and see what people are running stock.

SCC tested the imports and the Yenko Camaro, and if I recall correctly, the Skyline ran a 14-something.

Only way to know what a car will run is if you test it yourself, your ignorant if you believe otherwise.

To prove my point I did some searching on the net about my car...in STOCK form it ran high 15's in the quarter mile, the lowest time being low 15's. Out of curiosity I decided to take mine to the track. Ran a 13.6 @ 99.xx mildly modded...That's a far, far cry from 15's. I have the timeslip in case there are some disbelievers.

The Skyline was running quicker than 14's I can guarantee it.

 

[awalbert88 10+ year member]

Wow, you believe what people say on forums like that?Do you happen to be a fisherman also? Wonder what those forums are like... :hilarious

And I always enjoy arguments like "Well, those numbers weren't what I liked... so they must be wrong!"

You'd make a great executive someday... after all, it truly is perception, not reality, that matters.

Just keep asking for a second opinion until you get numbers that you like... :thumbs_up

I see that you've got a problem with "context"...

As in... knowing 'in' as opposed to 'out of'... //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/uhoh.gif.c07307dd22ee7e63e22fc8e9c614d1fd.gif

There were some key, very important comments made in the SCC comparison, that were absolutely key to the performance of each car.

I don't remember which comments were made in the scope of which car... I'd have to locate the magazine again.. but I do recall the article, particularly because those points were enlightening!

Particularly, there were two comments that popped up for most of the cars:

The lesser important comment of the two was that most of the cars being evaluated were modified show vehicles, not modified race vehicles... although obviously most of the parts are to the same end - but in the scope particularly of things like suspension, you can see how the two would potentially branch in different directions, and in reality, the higher priority is what looks good, for the show guys.

The more important of the two comments was that most of the cars had quite a few years and miles on them, and many of the cars felt like they'd had a long, hard life... been "driven hard and put away wet".

Since you mention it, the Lancer Evo was a fine example of that second comment..

They said that the wear on the car was so bad at that point, even in modified [for performance] form, that particular modified show Evo put down lower numbers all around than a bone-stock Evo of the same year.

So you think that's representative of all Evo's performance numbers?

Here's the clue that you completely missed on that article (which had words too, not just pretty pictures and a stats box on the side)...

SCC did that article to show that the main qualification for those movie cars was, in fact, their show-worthiness, as opposed to the individual example's actual performance merits, though performance cars they were.

There was no race of any type to qualify for the movie... simply on-screen looks.

I read the article. However, you mentioned 1/4 mile numbers. I don't give a hoot why a car runs a 14 second time vs. a 12 second time (aside from the driver, which is a hopeless variable). If it can't run faster than 14 seconds with the best driver in the world, then it's still not fast.

At no time did I say that the show cars used in the movie were representative of what properly done cars in real life can do. However, the Viper and Saleen Mustang were barely modified over stock (if you can really call a Saleen stock). They didn't have super heavy body kits, or useless wings. They didn't have a billion stickers on them. They didn't have heavy chrome wheels on them. They had horsepower, and, above all - torque.

As for your comment about not believing what the owners of cars say they run -- if they post a timeslip or have a video, and countless owners do -- I'm going to believe them.

See, the problem with the f&f movies is that they took show cars and pretended they were fast. That's why I have such a big problem with the majority of those cars. Yeah, they may look cool to some people (I think most of them looked like crap), but they're not fast, so don't pretend they are. For show cars, they're great. They just shouldn't pretend to be race cars at the same time.

Oh, one other quick thing about believing what you read on forums -- should I assume you know nothing of how subwoofers work because you're on a forum? On the contrary, I very much respect your knowledge of this field, and generally assume you're not leading us all astray. Why? Because others back up what you say. I do seek second opinions. Not until I find something I "like", but until I find a consensus or some definative proof.

I don't appreciate the character attacks, but since I respect you, I'm not going to do the same.

 

[geolemon 10+ year member]

See, the problem with the f&f movies is that they took show cars and pretended they were fast...
I don't appreciate the character attacks, but since I respect you, I'm not going to do the same.

I'm not trying to attack your personality...What I read of your post was "I'm quoting numbers from some forum on how fast a car goes, because I believe what those anonymous cyber-residents say over more official sources...

I believe

And now you are saying what.. the 2F2F movie bothers you because it wasn't realistic?

I'll recommend something for you NOT

 

[geolemon 10+ year member]

See, the problem with the f&f movies is that they took show cars and pretended they were fast...
I don't appreciate the character attacks, but since I respect you, I'm not going to do the same.

I'm not trying to attack your personality...What I read of your post was "I'm quoting numbers from some [sounds like a biased] forum on how fast a car goes, because I believe what those anonymous cyber-residents say over more official sources..." //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/uhoh.gif.c07307dd22ee7e63e22fc8e9c614d1fd.gif

And now you are saying what.. the 2F2F movie bothers you because it wasn't realistic? It's so beyond realistic, I don't know how it could bother you.

It's so beyond realistic, it's simply not even worth a mention...

Don't risk being perceived as the sort who thinks "may, I almost believed that movie, except for..." //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

No. There's simply nothing automotive that was realistic in that movie, not worth even a mention. It's a given. It's understood. By everyone. Even my wife. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

I'll recommend something for you NOT to watch if you are a "car guy"... 2F2F. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

(personally, I liked the first movie, thought this one's plot wasn't even good.. but hey)

I'll recommend something for you to watch, if you are a "car guy" looking for a good realistic movie:

Tekademics Mischief 3000. Real life coverage you won't believe of a high-dollar cross-country rally called the Gumball 3000. Real life "cannonball run", but more exotic. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/cool.gif.3bcaf8f141236c00f8044d07150e34f7.gif

 

[infrabass 10+ year member]

yo, anyone know how to make a killer motorized amp thing like that guy has in 2f2f

 

[LuNaTiC 10+ year member]

for every1 arguing about what the "show" cars ran or watever. you know that they had atleast 3 of each main car in the movie. 1 for show 1 for close ups and 1 for a little bit of speed. none of the cars used were very "modified". so maybe the same car could have ran 3 different numbers, as there were 3 different cars to run.

 

[tommyk90 5,000+ posts]

I'll recommend something for you to watch, if you are a "car guy" looking for a good realistic movie:Tekademics Mischief 3000. Real life coverage you won't believe of a high-dollar cross-country rally called the Gumball 3000. Real life "cannonball run", but more exotic. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/cool.gif.3bcaf8f141236c00f8044d07150e34f7.gif

I've seen part of the Gumball 3000 stuff on Jackass. Some of those people are insane. Most everyone has Ferraris and shit, i remember seeing a guy that wrapped a 360 Modena(i believe) around a guard rail, totally shredding it.

Another great car movie: Bullit

 

[awalbert88 10+ year member]

I'm not trying to attack your personality...What I read of your post was "I'm quoting numbers from some [sounds like a biased] forum on how fast a car goes, because I believe what those anonymous cyber-residents say over more official sources..." //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/uhoh.gif.c07307dd22ee7e63e22fc8e9c614d1fd.gif

And now you are saying what.. the 2F2F movie bothers you because it wasn't realistic? It's so beyond realistic, I don't know how it could bother you.

It's so beyond realistic, it's simply not even worth a mention...

Don't risk being perceived as the sort who thinks "may, I almost believed that movie, except for..." //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

No. There's simply nothing automotive that was realistic in that movie, not worth even a mention. It's a given. It's understood. By everyone. Even my wife. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

I'll recommend something for you NOT to watch if you are a "car guy"... 2F2F. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

(personally, I liked the first movie, thought this one's plot wasn't even good.. but hey)

I'll recommend something for you to watch, if you are a "car guy" looking for a good realistic movie:

Tekademics Mischief 3000. Real life coverage you won't believe of a high-dollar cross-country rally called the Gumball 3000. Real life "cannonball run", but more exotic. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/cool.gif.3bcaf8f141236c00f8044d07150e34f7.gif

I think you missed my point. I only started debating with you on this because you claimed that the show Saleen ran a 14.3, when in a test by MM&FF, it ran low 12's in the same trim as the show vehicle for the movie, making it faster than the show Skyline. Is MM&FF not a reputable enough source? And when many Viper owners have posted time slips and videos of their cars running 11's from the factory, should I continue to believe them to be liars? I certainly don't assume everything I read is true, but when enough people say it and have proof of it, the odds are in favor of it's validity.

Anyway, I think this topic has been pretty much beaten to death.

 

[geolemon 10+ year member]

I think you missed my point. I only started debating with you on this because you claimed that the show Saleen ran a 14.3, when in a test by MM&FF, it ran low 12's in the same trim as the show vehicle for the movie, making it faster than the show Skyline. Is MM&FF not a reputable enough source? And when many Viper owners have posted time slips and videos of their cars running 11's from the factory, should I continue to believe them to be liars? I certainly don't assume everything I read is true, but when enough people say it and have proof of it, the odds are in favor of it's validity.
Anyway, I think this topic has been pretty much beaten to death.

I think you've missed my point...I'd never take a car that's so intentionally and inherently "something other than stock", and make references about the entire line of that model of car, based on that one... like you have done here.

It's obvious that these show/movie cars are simply not stock, their performance is not only not representative of that model of car, but the very magazine you referenced yourself commented (as they never have before) that some of the cars had virtually been beaten to death, "driven hard, and put away wet".

Given some unknown amount of abnormal wear and tear on these cars - which could be anywhere from "none" to "a lot" - how do you consider it valid at all that the show Saleen ran a 12 or a 14 and that was faster than whatever a show Skyline did?

You think both cars were in equal condition?

You think the Saleen was exactly as "beaten on" as the Skyline, or vice versa?

It's inherently not comparable. Statistically irrelevant. The magazine article you quoted these numbers from even stated as much. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

And I don't know what mag you are referring to... MM&FF?? so I couldn't comment on whether it is a valid source or not... It's of no consequence to my point, anyway.

Simply, all I'm saying now, is what I've said before:

I don't feel uncomfortable at all remarking that the forum you mention - videos, timeslips, or otherwise - is simply a very poor choice of places to use as a "reference" for vehicle's performance.

By nature, car-specific forums are biased toward that car - this one is no exception.

Consider...

All the reasons that magazine reviews have integrity (beginning with journalistic integrity), all the checks and balances, all the standards, are simply missing.

Sure, they might have a timeslip, for a car that they "claim" to be stock (or.. for a car they claim to be their model).

Sure, they might have a video clip.. of the best day of their life, or of a timing gate malfunction, or of beating somone.. (a friend?) in another model car... //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

That's a far, far, far cry from an information source that has integrity behind it.

How do you know there weren't any "tricks" going on... they told you so?

If you believe them all, that's fine.. that's your call. If you only believe some of them, that's trust that you had to develop... What's it based on? Nothing that we can use as credibility, if you are using that as "reference stats". Gotcha? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

In fact, to prove those people's numbers as even close to appropriate, you'd need to demonstrate them against a reference standarard, a publication known for journalistic integrity.

And that's exactly why "C&D drive like grandmothers, their car stats aren't accurate" doesn't hold any water... what's the professional driver that your forum boys used?

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/cool.gif.3bcaf8f141236c00f8044d07150e34f7.gif

 

[awalbert88 10+ year member]

I think you've missed my point...I'd never take a car that's so intentionally and inherently "something other than stock", and make references about the entire line of that model of car, based on that one... like you have done here.

It's obvious that these show/movie cars are simply not stock, their performance is not only not representative of that model of car, but the very magazine you referenced yourself commented (as they never have before) that some of the cars had virtually been beaten to death, "driven hard, and put away wet".

At no time did I say all Skylines are slow, all Evo's are slow, etc. My issue is with show cars being presented as being fast. My issue is with the specific cars in the movie, not the ones they are supposed to represent.

Given some unknown amount of abnormal wear and tear on these cars - which could be anywhere from "none" to "a lot" - how do you consider it valid at all that the show Saleen ran a 12 or a 14 and that was faster than whatever a show Skyline did?

You think both cars were in equal condition?

You think the Saleen was exactly as "beaten on" as the Skyline, or vice versa?

It's inherently not comparable. Statistically irrelevant. The magazine article you quoted these numbers from even stated as much. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

What happened to the saying, "run what ya brung"? If I lost a drag race to a faster car, I wouldn't complain that my car was beaten on or in bad shape. I've never heard anyone use that excuse before after losing a race, because it's not important. No two cars are equal. Is it necessary for a Mustang and a Camaro to be in equal condition before they race? Is it unfair if a 390hp factory Cobra beats a 320hp factory Z28 because the Z28 has been beaten to within an inch of its life? There's no such thing as a "fair" race unless you pit two identical cars against each other with the same driver in both. The point of a drag race is to say which car is faster. Sure, it's nice to know why a car lost or won, but at the end of the day, the point remains - one car lost and the other car won.

And I don't know what mag you are referring to... MM&FF?? so I couldn't comment on whether it is a valid source or not... It's of no consequence to my point, anyway.

Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords

Oh, wait, you're going to tell me that it's a biased publication because it's about Mustangs. Wouldn't that contradict your notion of "journalistic integrity"?

Simply, all I'm saying now, is what I've said before:

I don't feel uncomfortable at all remarking that the forum you mention - videos, timeslips, or otherwise - is simply a very poor choice of places to use as a "reference" for vehicle's performance.

By nature, car-specific forums are biased toward that car - this one is no exception.

Consider...

All the reasons that magazine reviews have integrity (beginning with journalistic integrity), all the checks and balances, all the standards, are simply missing.

Sure, they might have a timeslip, for a car that they "claim" to be stock (or.. for a car they claim to be their model).

Sure, they might have a video clip.. of the best day of their life, or of a timing gate malfunction, or of beating somone.. (a friend?) in another model car... //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

That's a far, far, far cry from an information source that has integrity behind it.

How do you know there weren't any "tricks" going on... they told you so?

Simple - when enough people present timeslips and videos, it's fairly safe to assume they are not all rigged somehow. Yes, there are people who might fake a timeslip or setup a video like that. But they are the exception -- not the rule. I urge you to visit http://www.viperclub.org and review the contents of the site a bit before you make a blanket judgement about its users.

If you believe them all, that's fine.. that's your call. If you only believe some of them, that's trust that you had to develop... What's it based on? Nothing that we can use as credibility, if you are using that as "reference stats". Gotcha? //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

In fact, to prove those people's numbers as even close to appropriate, you'd need to demonstrate them against a reference standarard, a publication known for journalistic integrity.

And that's exactly why "C&D drive like grandmothers, their car stats aren't accurate" doesn't hold any water... what's the professional driver that your forum boys used?

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/cool.gif.3bcaf8f141236c00f8044d07150e34f7.gif

When enough owners are getting better times than the C&D driver(s) did, I think it's fair to say that the C&D driver(s) ****.

 

[geolemon 10+ year member]

At no time did I say all Skylines are slow, all Evo's are slow, etc. My issue is with show cars being presented as being fast.

With the movie cars???Well, pardon my misinterpretation...

It's a movie... THE purpose of a fictional movie is to make you believe something that isn't true... that's by nature, that's "fiction". //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

That's the very opposite of a "documentary"... holy crow.

You have a problem with the creators of a fictional movie (apparently doing a good job) of making some cars seem fast? lol... //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/laugh.gif.48439b2acf2cfca21620f01e7f77d1e4.gif

Maybe you also have a problem with George Lucas "presenting some little plastic models as being really large spaceships" in "Star Wars"

or you have a problem with "actors who didn't really die, being presented as having been killed" in horror movies...

//content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/crazy.gif.c13912c32de98515d3142759a824dae7.gif

The cars themselves are actors, comprende?

Who cares what their real quarter mile times are... as long as they look fast, who cares? They just need to look convincing on the screen.

What happened to the saying, "run what ya brung"? If I lost a drag race to a faster car, I wouldn't complain that my car was beaten on or in bad shape. I've never heard anyone use that excuse before after losing a race....The point of a drag race is to say which car is faster.

Well, for one, because you ain't "brung" anything! //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif
Again, pardon my misinterpretation...

But my previous points still stand at 100% (more now than ever, now that I see where you are coming from).

None of these cars make any claim to being fast. Or maybe some of them do.

Maybe some are race prepped cars. Maybe some of the cars are 100% prepped for the show circuit. We don't know, and it's irrelevant, because they are movie roles... the only thing that matters to the movie producer is how they look.

There's no correlation to how they look, and how fast they are.

There's no prerequisite of being fast, for being in the movie.

There's not even a prerequisite for looking fast, for being in the movie.

So how have you made the stretch into thinking that the people who own these cars intended these to be race cars?

And how do you find it anything other than "mildly interesting", that one of these cars might have beaten another one?

No... rather... what's the relevance? Why do you make the point, if you weren't making a general statement about these types of cars?

Do you own one of these cars? What's the relevance here?

THAT is where you got me confused...

Muscle Mustangs & Fast Fords
Oh, wait, you're going to tell me that it's a biased publication because it's about Mustangs. Wouldn't that contradict your notion of "journalistic integrity"?

Not at all... reread what I said about "journalistic integrity", what is behind it. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

What is true about single-model type publications like these is that they have no point of reference, they are a microscope, or a bubble-world if you will.

Everything is relative... but within these types of magazines, the regular point of reference is to other instances of the same model of car, save for the odd comparison to another competitor here and there...

And enthusiast magazines will be more biased, inherently. They themselves would admit that (and have). They are a community of people who CARE more about a particular model of car. That's inherent, that's bias. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/wink.gif.608e3ea05f1a9f98611af0861652f8fb.gif

Likewise, a successful publication publishes what it's readership community wants to read. There's nothing technically wrong with publishing one story showing a victory, and not publishing any number of stories showing defeats, and that has nothing to do with journalistic integrity.. that has everything to do with appealing to a readership.

If you want to avoid that kind of bias, simply avoid the single-model publications in favor of general enthusiast magazines. It's simple.

...it's fairly safe to assume......When enough owners are getting better times than the C&D driver(s) did, I think it's fair to say that the C&D driver(s) ****.[/

It really isn't, unfortunately. To ASSUME is to make an *** of U and ME.

Assumptions will very often lead you to trouble.

This was my very tie-in to journalistic integrity...

Magazines have a vested interest in not lying, in maintaining integrity, in establishing standards, in hiring experts, etc.

Without integrity, the magazine goes out of business before the 2nd issue hits... buyers stop buying, advertisers stop advertising. Simple.

The harder they try to get away with lying, the more damaging it becomes when caught.

The opposite is true with individuals (particularly anonymous ones online) who have really nothing to lose. The harder they try to get away with lying, the more likely to be successful they are.

Come on now... car guys, testosterone, money spent, ego...

combined with computers, internet, editors, and forums. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/rolleyes.gif.c1fef805e9d1464d377451cd5bc18bfb.gif

You draw your own conclusion, I suppose.

...review the contents of the site a bit before you make a blanket judgement about its users.

I'm not making any blanket judgements about any site.

I don't need to visit any individual site to make confirm statements I made... I constrained them to points that are generalizations, not criticisms of particular sites.

I'm simply telling you that I wouldn't ever go into any inherently-biased sites like that with any degree of nievety... if there was a "timeslip" forum contained within, I'd be unlikely to even browse for amusement.

That's all I'm saying. //content.invisioncic.com/y282845/emoticons/cool.gif.3bcaf8f141236c00f8044d07150e34f7.gif