mscriv
Apr 6, 12:49 PM
Worth quoting, given the back-and-forth that's gone on since this was originally posted.
Thank you sir. I'm glad you enjoyed the post and appreciate the compliment. :)
No woman was ever raped because of the kind of clothes she was wearing. Women are raped because people (almost exclusively men) choose to rape them.
While it is true that people can put themselves at a higher risk through certain activities, for a politician to blame a young girl for her own rape is absolutely disgusting. It's also nauseating and ignorant for politicians to suggest modest dress as a way to prevent rape. Such thinking is completely backward.
I agree with the notion that people should try to take steps to avoid risk, and that people can greatly reduce personal risk by making safer choices.
But this nugget of wisdom does not really touch on the substance of the issue arising in the OP, to wit - how much responsiblity does a rape victim carry? Or, to turn the question around, how much of the rape is not the rapist's fault?
Here's the thing. A woman's choice in dress or action does not mean she is to "blame" for being victimized, but we can not deny that her choice in dress or behavior can be a factor in her chances of being targeted.
As far as the politician's comments, let's not forget that multiple articles have been written about her quote and she claims to have been misquoted. Regardless of our own personal political views, we must admit that people do get misquoted. Additionally, none of us are above making a error in judgement with our words. Sometimes things don't come out as we intend them or they sound different when they come out of our mouths as opposed to how it sounded in our heads.
She responded to an email written to her by a blogger (http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20110318/tanja-cilia/unjust-justice)with this:
Thank you for your e-mail. You may want to read the article that appeared in the New York Times. When I read the article my heart went out to the little girl and I was angry that she was brutally assaulted. I was angry that nobody protected her and that she was even allowed to leave with an older boy. In my opinion an 11 year old girl is still a child and as such shouldn't be expected to understand that certain actions or attire are not appropriate for her. I did not indicate that she was raped because she was wearing inappropriate attire. What I did say (which was not reported) was that if her parents don't protect her then all that's left is the school.
Additionally, the writer who wrote the story quoted by the OP has written two follow up stories on the matter. In the most recent one he states (http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/juice/2011/03/11_year_olds_dressed_like_pros.php#):
But, look -- no matter where Kathleen Passidomo exists on the feminist spectrum, whether she's a closet burqa-wearer or the secret owner of a lucrative chain of abortion clinics -- the fact is, Kathleen Passidomo probably doesn't think this 11-year-old deserved to be gang-raped. How do we know? Because Kathleen Passidomo is a human being, and human beings do not generally feel that justice has been served when children are tortured and brutalized. However regrettable her phrasing, what Passidomo was trying to express is an obvious if unpopular truth: that although a child has every right to safety in any environment she chooses to enter, that right will not be equally protected by all individuals in all environments.
* bold emphasis mine
It's also, by the way, fallacious to assume that only young, attractive and/or scantily-clad women are raped.
Great point. My post was intended to speak on the connection between personal responsibility and possible victimization. There is often a correlation between these variables. My comments in that post and in this one are not directed solely at this one sad case, but towards all types of victimization. If we focus on the topic of rape specifically there are a variety of types of rapes each carrying their own specific factors.
If your interested my thoughts on post 50 is that it fundamentally misses the point.
Everyone understands that we live in a world which contains certain dangers which can be mitigated by changing our behaviors.
That isn't the point of this conversation, were all talking about BLAMING the victim in this case. Just because a victim makes a bad decision does not remove their reasonable expectation of safety.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think your view is very short sighted and continues to be rooted in a morality vacuum as opposed to reality. Sure, we can all agree that the ideal is every person, everywhere, regardless of circumstances should be safe, but the fact of the matter is that we aren't.
No one is arguing that victims deserve what happens to them or that perpetrators should be any less to blame for the actions they take. However, we must learn to accept that a variety of factors are involved and that even victims can bear a measure of responsibility in putting themselves in situations where they are more likely to be victimized.
Like I said above there are a variety of types of rape. Let's take the broad category of date rape as an example. The female that chooses to dress and carry herself in a suggestive manner might be sending signals that she does not intend to send and in doing so is making herself more of a target. Add alcohol to the mix and risks go way up. Does this mean the predator who chooses to take advantage in this situation is any less culpable, of course not, but to ignore the risk factors is like burying your head in the sand. Young women need to be taught about risk factors and learn how certain choices can either increase or minimize risk.
As I have suggested, we cannot really know the answers to these questions without first interviewing (or obtaining transcripts of interviews of) rapists. Most of us on this forum are not rapists (I hope), so making broad inferences on what goes through such a monster's mind is rather pointless.
Another great point. Guess what, in my experience as a therapist I've worked with rapists and abusers directly. I've done the interviews and talked with these indivduals about "what goes through [their] mind".
Continuing the line of reasoning I started in my answer to AP_piano295, one young man who had "date raped" more than one female explained to me that at college parties he would target the girls who dressed and acted provocatively in addition to drinking heavily. In his words, "you know, the party girls" His reasoning was that these girls were easy marks and in most cases were less likely to report anything because they would rationalize the experience, if they remembered it, as "having gotten a little out of control or having drank too much" as opposed to having been victimized or raped.
You see, rape is not always about power. Sometimes it is, but at other times it's about abuse, pain, fear, rage, or just plain sexual desire/conquest.
One young male offender I worked with was in the system for sexually molesting his younger brother. He was a victim of abuse himself and his motivation for abusing his brother was jealously and anger. He felt his parents loved the younger brother more because he wasn't "damaged" and thus he acted out so his brother would be "just like him".
I agree, but there's a vast difference between trying to 'minimize risk' and the post below:
...If a man sees a woman with a low top, lots of cleavage showing, high skirts and heels, then he will view her as trash.....
Which acts as a kind of justification.
Yes and no. While based on my own personal morals/ethics I agree with you that such a line of thinking is ridiculous, I must keep in mind that there are people that do think this way. And, they will use whatever rationalization it takes to both motivate and justify their judgements or actions. In the case of a predator the kind of thinking above could be the initial thought that starts a chain of events which ultimately results in an attack of some kind.
In this specific gang rape case the victim is a child and thus there is limited capacity for personal responsibility. However, there are a variety of potential factors that ultimately contributed to what occurred: lack of parental supervision, negative peer involvement, possible previous sexually inappropriate behavior, socioeconomic conditions, etc. etc. I don't know the specifics and thus these are just generalizations, but regardless, the perpetrators are solely responsible for their actions and should be held responsible to the fullest extent of the law.
Please understand, I'm not talking about morals, ideals, and values here (what I've previously referred to as the morality vacuum). I'm talking about understanding the link between personal responsibility and potential victimization. Simply put, while our choices do not make us responsible for any victimization that may befall us, we must recognize that our actions can contribute to the chances of us being targeted for victimization.
I apologize for the long post, but I wanted to touch on the many comments that had been made and attempt to better explain my position. :)
Thank you sir. I'm glad you enjoyed the post and appreciate the compliment. :)
No woman was ever raped because of the kind of clothes she was wearing. Women are raped because people (almost exclusively men) choose to rape them.
While it is true that people can put themselves at a higher risk through certain activities, for a politician to blame a young girl for her own rape is absolutely disgusting. It's also nauseating and ignorant for politicians to suggest modest dress as a way to prevent rape. Such thinking is completely backward.
I agree with the notion that people should try to take steps to avoid risk, and that people can greatly reduce personal risk by making safer choices.
But this nugget of wisdom does not really touch on the substance of the issue arising in the OP, to wit - how much responsiblity does a rape victim carry? Or, to turn the question around, how much of the rape is not the rapist's fault?
Here's the thing. A woman's choice in dress or action does not mean she is to "blame" for being victimized, but we can not deny that her choice in dress or behavior can be a factor in her chances of being targeted.
As far as the politician's comments, let's not forget that multiple articles have been written about her quote and she claims to have been misquoted. Regardless of our own personal political views, we must admit that people do get misquoted. Additionally, none of us are above making a error in judgement with our words. Sometimes things don't come out as we intend them or they sound different when they come out of our mouths as opposed to how it sounded in our heads.
She responded to an email written to her by a blogger (http://www.timesofmalta.com/blogs/view/20110318/tanja-cilia/unjust-justice)with this:
Thank you for your e-mail. You may want to read the article that appeared in the New York Times. When I read the article my heart went out to the little girl and I was angry that she was brutally assaulted. I was angry that nobody protected her and that she was even allowed to leave with an older boy. In my opinion an 11 year old girl is still a child and as such shouldn't be expected to understand that certain actions or attire are not appropriate for her. I did not indicate that she was raped because she was wearing inappropriate attire. What I did say (which was not reported) was that if her parents don't protect her then all that's left is the school.
Additionally, the writer who wrote the story quoted by the OP has written two follow up stories on the matter. In the most recent one he states (http://blogs.browardpalmbeach.com/juice/2011/03/11_year_olds_dressed_like_pros.php#):
But, look -- no matter where Kathleen Passidomo exists on the feminist spectrum, whether she's a closet burqa-wearer or the secret owner of a lucrative chain of abortion clinics -- the fact is, Kathleen Passidomo probably doesn't think this 11-year-old deserved to be gang-raped. How do we know? Because Kathleen Passidomo is a human being, and human beings do not generally feel that justice has been served when children are tortured and brutalized. However regrettable her phrasing, what Passidomo was trying to express is an obvious if unpopular truth: that although a child has every right to safety in any environment she chooses to enter, that right will not be equally protected by all individuals in all environments.
* bold emphasis mine
It's also, by the way, fallacious to assume that only young, attractive and/or scantily-clad women are raped.
Great point. My post was intended to speak on the connection between personal responsibility and possible victimization. There is often a correlation between these variables. My comments in that post and in this one are not directed solely at this one sad case, but towards all types of victimization. If we focus on the topic of rape specifically there are a variety of types of rapes each carrying their own specific factors.
If your interested my thoughts on post 50 is that it fundamentally misses the point.
Everyone understands that we live in a world which contains certain dangers which can be mitigated by changing our behaviors.
That isn't the point of this conversation, were all talking about BLAMING the victim in this case. Just because a victim makes a bad decision does not remove their reasonable expectation of safety.
I guess we'll just have to agree to disagree. I think your view is very short sighted and continues to be rooted in a morality vacuum as opposed to reality. Sure, we can all agree that the ideal is every person, everywhere, regardless of circumstances should be safe, but the fact of the matter is that we aren't.
No one is arguing that victims deserve what happens to them or that perpetrators should be any less to blame for the actions they take. However, we must learn to accept that a variety of factors are involved and that even victims can bear a measure of responsibility in putting themselves in situations where they are more likely to be victimized.
Like I said above there are a variety of types of rape. Let's take the broad category of date rape as an example. The female that chooses to dress and carry herself in a suggestive manner might be sending signals that she does not intend to send and in doing so is making herself more of a target. Add alcohol to the mix and risks go way up. Does this mean the predator who chooses to take advantage in this situation is any less culpable, of course not, but to ignore the risk factors is like burying your head in the sand. Young women need to be taught about risk factors and learn how certain choices can either increase or minimize risk.
As I have suggested, we cannot really know the answers to these questions without first interviewing (or obtaining transcripts of interviews of) rapists. Most of us on this forum are not rapists (I hope), so making broad inferences on what goes through such a monster's mind is rather pointless.
Another great point. Guess what, in my experience as a therapist I've worked with rapists and abusers directly. I've done the interviews and talked with these indivduals about "what goes through [their] mind".
Continuing the line of reasoning I started in my answer to AP_piano295, one young man who had "date raped" more than one female explained to me that at college parties he would target the girls who dressed and acted provocatively in addition to drinking heavily. In his words, "you know, the party girls" His reasoning was that these girls were easy marks and in most cases were less likely to report anything because they would rationalize the experience, if they remembered it, as "having gotten a little out of control or having drank too much" as opposed to having been victimized or raped.
You see, rape is not always about power. Sometimes it is, but at other times it's about abuse, pain, fear, rage, or just plain sexual desire/conquest.
One young male offender I worked with was in the system for sexually molesting his younger brother. He was a victim of abuse himself and his motivation for abusing his brother was jealously and anger. He felt his parents loved the younger brother more because he wasn't "damaged" and thus he acted out so his brother would be "just like him".
I agree, but there's a vast difference between trying to 'minimize risk' and the post below:
...If a man sees a woman with a low top, lots of cleavage showing, high skirts and heels, then he will view her as trash.....
Which acts as a kind of justification.
Yes and no. While based on my own personal morals/ethics I agree with you that such a line of thinking is ridiculous, I must keep in mind that there are people that do think this way. And, they will use whatever rationalization it takes to both motivate and justify their judgements or actions. In the case of a predator the kind of thinking above could be the initial thought that starts a chain of events which ultimately results in an attack of some kind.
In this specific gang rape case the victim is a child and thus there is limited capacity for personal responsibility. However, there are a variety of potential factors that ultimately contributed to what occurred: lack of parental supervision, negative peer involvement, possible previous sexually inappropriate behavior, socioeconomic conditions, etc. etc. I don't know the specifics and thus these are just generalizations, but regardless, the perpetrators are solely responsible for their actions and should be held responsible to the fullest extent of the law.
Please understand, I'm not talking about morals, ideals, and values here (what I've previously referred to as the morality vacuum). I'm talking about understanding the link between personal responsibility and potential victimization. Simply put, while our choices do not make us responsible for any victimization that may befall us, we must recognize that our actions can contribute to the chances of us being targeted for victimization.
I apologize for the long post, but I wanted to touch on the many comments that had been made and attempt to better explain my position. :)
vong
Dec 4, 09:56 AM
http://i53.tinypic.com/vgpog1.jpg
ajohnson253
Apr 21, 05:34 AM
The ****
iLikeMyiMac
Aug 18, 04:17 PM
Thanks.
mad jew
Dec 23, 01:32 AM
Ooohhh, interesting. Can we have it in red? :cool:
Or at least something a little more dour?
Or at least something a little more dour?
killemall4130
Dec 16, 10:07 PM
system preferences crashes when i hit sound, and also when i hit mouse a keyboard pref... this is a real problem for me, (problem opening sound preferences).
ive been huntin for over a week now a cant seen to find a solution???
i also a sent a report to apple. i would be very greatful if any1 could shed som light!!!!! please
ive been huntin for over a week now a cant seen to find a solution???
i also a sent a report to apple. i would be very greatful if any1 could shed som light!!!!! please
BornAgainMac
Apr 7, 06:48 AM
To get that much storage you would need 1,000,000,000,000 Mac Mini Servers which costed at full retail is 70x the US national debt.
Apple's 500,000 sq ft data centre usuing Doctor Q's 10 fot of usuable vertical space could hold 104,088,861 not accounting for heat dissapation cabling storage racks etc. Therefore you would need 9,607 data centres of the size of apple's current (which was rumored to cost $1billion). However that is a storage facility literally filled with no walking space between the racks or anything like that so a sensible suggestion would be to double that.
The total size of this project would be 9,607,000,000 sq ft or 344 sq miles. Turks and Caicos Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_and_Caicos_Islands) happens to 366 sq miles, although to allow for expansion, shipping port/airport and power plants and other ancilallry buildings such as worker housing, supermarket and such I would suggest that Hong Kong with an area of 426 sq miles is a good place to start. Although given the high population of Hong Kong it isn't an ideal place to build such a facility, therefore the Faroe Islands with a size of 538 miles might be the first sensible place to wipe out. Alternatively you could just dump it in Texas/Alaska as they have plenty of land spare. Alaska would give you natural cooling which would be a bonus over Texas although can you image the series of Ice Road truckers, "In this haul is 100,000 Mac Minis."
All in all to go for something like large with some as inappropriate as a Mac Mini is a costly and ultimately bonkers idea.
Fingers crossed that the sums are correct.
But on the plus side, Apple would have 99% of the Global Market share in Personal Computers for the first time.
Apple's 500,000 sq ft data centre usuing Doctor Q's 10 fot of usuable vertical space could hold 104,088,861 not accounting for heat dissapation cabling storage racks etc. Therefore you would need 9,607 data centres of the size of apple's current (which was rumored to cost $1billion). However that is a storage facility literally filled with no walking space between the racks or anything like that so a sensible suggestion would be to double that.
The total size of this project would be 9,607,000,000 sq ft or 344 sq miles. Turks and Caicos Islands (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turks_and_Caicos_Islands) happens to 366 sq miles, although to allow for expansion, shipping port/airport and power plants and other ancilallry buildings such as worker housing, supermarket and such I would suggest that Hong Kong with an area of 426 sq miles is a good place to start. Although given the high population of Hong Kong it isn't an ideal place to build such a facility, therefore the Faroe Islands with a size of 538 miles might be the first sensible place to wipe out. Alternatively you could just dump it in Texas/Alaska as they have plenty of land spare. Alaska would give you natural cooling which would be a bonus over Texas although can you image the series of Ice Road truckers, "In this haul is 100,000 Mac Minis."
All in all to go for something like large with some as inappropriate as a Mac Mini is a costly and ultimately bonkers idea.
Fingers crossed that the sums are correct.
But on the plus side, Apple would have 99% of the Global Market share in Personal Computers for the first time.
Doctor Q
Apr 21, 11:44 AM
We are aware of a problem with the Private Message system. You may get an error message when you try to read a PM that you've received.
Please be patient while we work on the problem. Our apologies for the inconvenience.
Please be patient while we work on the problem. Our apologies for the inconvenience.
Mr.Noisy
Sep 8, 04:49 PM
Decided to change it, something easy on the eye this time :)
Source of Original (http://konachan.com/post/show?md5=b4b9a3bc966a88340c57cdecd4b044eb)
Source of Original (http://konachan.com/post/show?md5=b4b9a3bc966a88340c57cdecd4b044eb)
-BigMac-
May 4, 05:48 AM
Hi guys,
I bought myself 2x4Gb Corsair RAM modules.
My MP 2.8 Quad had 3Gb by stock. How do i organise the RAM modules inside the MP for maximum performance? Does placement matter?
I heard its important to have the RAM in multiples of 3. Does that mean i would be better off with 9gb (4, 4, 1) config. rather than a 10gb (4, 4, 1, 1)?
P.s I realise i will have to get rid of 1 of the modules :)
Thank you :)
I bought myself 2x4Gb Corsair RAM modules.
My MP 2.8 Quad had 3Gb by stock. How do i organise the RAM modules inside the MP for maximum performance? Does placement matter?
I heard its important to have the RAM in multiples of 3. Does that mean i would be better off with 9gb (4, 4, 1) config. rather than a 10gb (4, 4, 1, 1)?
P.s I realise i will have to get rid of 1 of the modules :)
Thank you :)
Rodimus Prime
Apr 27, 05:14 PM
As someone who has to track down things like this constantly, I'm pretty unimpressed at the (lack of) speed of their code checking. This was not an obscure bug or complicated. It was just a too-large buffer definition and an execution path that always downloaded info.
And people think Apple can check binary app store submissions for bugs or trojans in just a few minutes, when they can't even find their own bugs in a few days with commented source code.
I think that is more proof of the fact that it was never a bug. Apple was doing it that way on purpose and the only reason they are claiming it was a "bug" is because they got caught big time.
The lie is the fact that it is a bug. It was done on propose and right now Apple is just doing CYA.
And people think Apple can check binary app store submissions for bugs or trojans in just a few minutes, when they can't even find their own bugs in a few days with commented source code.
I think that is more proof of the fact that it was never a bug. Apple was doing it that way on purpose and the only reason they are claiming it was a "bug" is because they got caught big time.
The lie is the fact that it is a bug. It was done on propose and right now Apple is just doing CYA.
DirtySocks85
Apr 7, 10:54 AM
Negative votes on this? Seriously? So what if they're breaking the jailbreak, they're allowed to do so.
And we're allowed to vote negative if we don't like this. Generally speaking in terms of iOS "security fixes" also means "closing holes used for jailbreak exploits". I'm all for closing holes like the ones that allowed the jailbreakme.com jailbreaks via Safari, but most of the holes used by JBers require the user to do some very specific things (like putting the phone into DFU mode). These aren't a threat to the average user.
I have a 10gig weekly download limit at school and having to download a 600mb update every week for my iPod is annoying.
No one is making you update.
And we're allowed to vote negative if we don't like this. Generally speaking in terms of iOS "security fixes" also means "closing holes used for jailbreak exploits". I'm all for closing holes like the ones that allowed the jailbreakme.com jailbreaks via Safari, but most of the holes used by JBers require the user to do some very specific things (like putting the phone into DFU mode). These aren't a threat to the average user.
I have a 10gig weekly download limit at school and having to download a 600mb update every week for my iPod is annoying.
No one is making you update.
istud
Feb 9, 03:08 PM
God damn...I can't wait to change my Fam 2100 mins to 700mins since majority of calls are m2am.
cherry su
Jul 15, 02:14 PM
sooooooooooo are you gonna get that Apple ][? ;)
Funkymonk
Apr 29, 12:26 PM
check wiki.
samsung electronics (not the samsung group just electronics) is 2x or 3x times bigger in revenue than apple.
samsung is #2 patents holdings in USA. apple barely broke into top 5 recently.
$$ and patents holdings tell me it won't be so easy for apple.
don't bother. as far as some members here are concerned Apple is an untouchable divine entity
samsung electronics (not the samsung group just electronics) is 2x or 3x times bigger in revenue than apple.
samsung is #2 patents holdings in USA. apple barely broke into top 5 recently.
$$ and patents holdings tell me it won't be so easy for apple.
don't bother. as far as some members here are concerned Apple is an untouchable divine entity
manu chao
Apr 4, 05:42 PM
Until the FT reverses route, the ONLY rational response is to either not buy the FT at all (there are competitors out there) or buy it at a news stand.
Where has been the outcry during the last 50 years during newspapers have used this for their subscribers?
So, the moment somebody offers a newspaper subscription that asks the user via a non-modal interface whether to share its data, you decide which newspaper you prefer on this basis. And if somebody had offered a newspaper which by default does not use your data (ie, requires you to check a box instead of unchecking) in the past you would have immediately switched to that newspaper?
Except that you naturally didn't do any of that (despite also naturally there being newspapers which by default do not use your data, eg, currently the The Economist).
All this grandstanding, just at the opportunity to use some strong words.
Where has been the outcry during the last 50 years during newspapers have used this for their subscribers?
So, the moment somebody offers a newspaper subscription that asks the user via a non-modal interface whether to share its data, you decide which newspaper you prefer on this basis. And if somebody had offered a newspaper which by default does not use your data (ie, requires you to check a box instead of unchecking) in the past you would have immediately switched to that newspaper?
Except that you naturally didn't do any of that (despite also naturally there being newspapers which by default do not use your data, eg, currently the The Economist).
All this grandstanding, just at the opportunity to use some strong words.
King Cobra
Aug 16, 08:49 PM
Somehow I get the feeling that poking that thing with a pin won't have the same effect as poking a regular frog with one.
Deadpulse
Apr 22, 08:54 PM
My iphone 3g is stuck on the apple logo, i was able to turn it off about about a hour ago and get it into DFU mode. I then tried to restore and got the error 2002. And now it back to the continuous loop with the apple logo + spinning wheel, but this time i can't turn it off no what i try.
Any ideas?
I'm on windows 7.
Any ideas?
I'm on windows 7.
ViviUO
Apr 18, 07:40 PM
Sticking with the default Lion one.
281969
I really hope they use something else for the final build ...
281969
I really hope they use something else for the final build ...
AP_piano295
May 6, 03:56 PM
No offence, but if you have two simultaneous positions which are in conflict, you need to make a choice. :)
Again I have one position my position is that voluntarily using violence if another option is available (and they're is almost always another option available) is wrong. Always.
I just get annoyed that American's are willing to define other nations military engagements as "illegal". But everything we do is legal just bla bla bla etc.
Claiming that torture is ok because a few terrorist killed 3000 American's must by logical extension mean that it's ok to torture Americans since we have since killed hundreds of thousands of others (most of them quite innocent of any crime) :rolleyes:.
I'm tired of double standards.
Again I have one position my position is that voluntarily using violence if another option is available (and they're is almost always another option available) is wrong. Always.
I just get annoyed that American's are willing to define other nations military engagements as "illegal". But everything we do is legal just bla bla bla etc.
Claiming that torture is ok because a few terrorist killed 3000 American's must by logical extension mean that it's ok to torture Americans since we have since killed hundreds of thousands of others (most of them quite innocent of any crime) :rolleyes:.
I'm tired of double standards.
173080
Jan 23, 10:20 PM
It's the people who are lead footed that don't see the full potential of the car.
I'd say it's the other way around, it really depends on your perspective.
It's the hypermilers that don't see the full potential of their car. ;)
If you don't redline your car at least once a day, you're doing it wrong.:D
I'd say it's the other way around, it really depends on your perspective.
It's the hypermilers that don't see the full potential of their car. ;)
If you don't redline your car at least once a day, you're doing it wrong.:D
troop231
Mar 31, 10:02 AM
Pretty cool! :)
Intell
Feb 23, 08:52 PM
132Mb
WildCowboy
Sep 16, 03:32 PM
No.
Please do a search before posting...
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=148119
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=147945
Please do a search before posting...
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=148119
http://forums.macrumors.com/showthread.php?t=147945
0 comments:
Post a Comment