|
Author
|
Topic: 429 Boss vs. 429 SCJ
|
robcleo1
Journeyman Posts: 9
From: Lanham, Md
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 03-17-2006 07:34 PM
 
My buddy and I are having a debate over the baddest motor ford ever put in stang. I said that the 429 Boss motor was the king kong and he claims that the 429 SCJ would take the crown. Is there is anyone who can break down the two motors for me? help me understand the difference between the motors and why one is better or not as stong as the other. THANX------------------
|
Bob429
Gearhead Posts: 545
From: Watervliet,MI,USA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-17-2006 08:56 PM
The 429 SCJ had a 375 Advertised HP, 4 bolt main Solid lift cam (Same spec as used in the Boss 9) Forged pistons. It had Screw in studs on the heads with Pushrod guide plates. Carb was a 780 CFM Holley. The Boss 9 had hemispherical heads, 4 bolt main, Forged pistons and rods, forged crank, Solid lifters. One of the main differences was the heads and intakes. Track tests on a fullly tuned 429 SCJ stated in the magazines was 13.4-13.90 in the 1/4. Not sure of the Boss 9 Maybe someone else will chime in. I think the Boss 9 was faster. I wouldn't turn down either engine. The Boss 9 was used in the 69 and 70 Model year. The 429 SCJ In 71. The Boss I believe was Lighter.
------------------
Bob
Member#39
71 J code
429 SCJ-R Sportsroof
C6 4:11 [email protected] on street tires (I'll do better next year)
http://www.my429scj.50megs.com
http://www.mustangsandmore.50megs.com/MembersPics/Bob429.html
2004 Pure stock muscle car Drags pics now on my page. [This message has been edited by Bob429 (edited 03-17-2006).] [This message has been edited by Bob429 (edited 03-17-2006).]
|
Fastback68
Gearhead Posts: 4511
From: Sucat, Paranaque, Philippines
Registered: Jul 99
|
posted 03-17-2006 09:52 PM
Welcome robcleo! My reference has the Boss 429 Stang also rated at 375 hp, and it says that at best it could keep pace with a 428CJ. But maybe you're not aware that the Boss engine put in the Stangs was a seriously detuned version of the racing motor it was intended to be. From memory, that was rated at 650+ hp.
|
PONYMAN
Gearhead Posts: 421
From: Ardmore, Ok. USA
Registered: Jul 99
|
posted 03-18-2006 07:49 AM
Baddest motor Ford ever put into a Stang. In that case, don't forget to consider the Boss 351.
|
robcleo1
Journeyman Posts: 9
From: Lanham, Md
Registered: Mar 2006
|
posted 03-18-2006 07:39 PM
With all-do-respect... the 351 Boss motor was a very nice piece for the small blocks, but we're talking about king kong vs godzilla. Does anyone out there have any stock 1/4 mile times for either of these cars, let me hear what u got.------------------
|
427Fastback
Gearhead Posts: 530
From: N.Vancouver.B.C
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 03-18-2006 08:29 PM
The baddest pure stock big block Mustang made is actually a 68 1/2 428CJ.------------------
68 Fastback 427MR 4 spd.Deluxe interior,8000 tach,140 speedo,am/fm,tilt.
|
bob6364
Gearhead Posts: 447
From: griswold,ct usa MCA#59447
Registered: Dec 2004
|
posted 03-18-2006 09:18 PM
quote:
Originally posted by 427Fastback:
The baddest pure stock big block Mustang made is actually a 68 1/2 428CJ.
I tend to agree...well documented too..magazines tested the 68 1/2 428cj against everything they could find and it always won. ------------------
Bob
69 R Code Mach 1
71 coupe 302
73 Vert -project
99 F-250 Super Duty
2002 Exploder :)
http://community.webshots.com/album/214154666mXNhcr
|
Bob429
Gearhead Posts: 545
From: Watervliet,MI,USA
Registered: Jun 99
|
posted 03-18-2006 09:40 PM
quote:
Originally posted by robcleo1:
With all-do-respect... the 351 Boss motor was a very nice piece for the small blocks, but we're talking about king kong vs godzilla. Does anyone out there have any stock 1/4 mile times for either of these cars, let me hear what u got.
I just happen to have a time slip handy
60 ft 2.095
330 ft 5.959
1/8 [email protected] MPH
1000ft 11.899
1/4 [email protected]
This is a .030 overbore with everything else stock on street tires with a C6 transmission. No adjustment to timing. I was having traction problems and am working out the bugs. I'm hoping for 13.90 or better next season. ------------------
Bob
Member#39
71 J code
429 SCJ-R Sportsroof
C6 4:11 [email protected] on street tires (I'll do better next year)
http://www.my429scj.50megs.com
http://www.mustangsandmore.50megs.com/MembersPics/Bob429.html
2004 Pure stock muscle car Drags pics now on my page. [This message has been edited by Bob429 (edited 03-18-2006).]
|
cobravenom71
Gearhead Posts: 1349
From: Poinciana, Fl USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 03-21-2006 06:55 AM
'Baddest' can have many meanings. The BOSS 429 undoubtably had the most potential, although unrealized as delivered by Ford to the street driver.
The 429 CJ/SCJ certainly was the the most up-to-date, clean-running and user friendly of the bunch, and was pretty optimized as delivered.
The 428 CJ/SCJ was a powerhouse for sure, and in the lighter bodies was lightning quick. Emissions-wise, a pretty dirty motor though. Comparing the 428 to the 429 is unfair for most compare the 69-70 Mustang with the 428 to the 71 with the 429, and the 71 body is a bit heavier.
Put one of each engine in the same body, and I am sure the 429 will be the victor.For small blocks, I would have to say the BOSS 351 was a pretty amazing little motor, and the very similar 351 HO from '72 is a severely underated performer.
Most of the other Clevelands were kinda ho-hum. Seems that the heads was where Ford usually dropped the ball on it's engines. The best motors came to life with a great set of heads.
|
machlover
Journeyman Posts: 39
From: Hedgesville WV America
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 05-04-2006 12:07 AM
Did anybody ever watch the muscle car shoot out on speed channel.It could of been BS cause you know some of the things on tv is.But they had a boss 9 and a bunch of the other baddest makes that the other manufacters made.They did a quarter mile run and braking, and tests like that.But the quarter mile,the boss 9 beat every one of the other cars in the quarter mile.They had it on today I think.But then again like I sayed this could of been BS.But I taped it about a 2 years ago when it came on and the 1/4 was like 13 seconds.But man that would be a bad run if you ever would see a boss 9 go up against 429SCJ.You all sayed that SCJ was 13 second car to, that would be bad.------------------
1969 390 mach 1 and 1971 351 cleveland
|
Dreamcometrue
Gearhead Posts: 903
From: New-Brunswick,Canada
Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted 05-04-2006 07:48 AM
First, welcome robcleo1 and machlover.
I have watched that show many times. As they say, they have the same tires on the cars as when they were new. So with slicks and tighter suspensions, the cars would have done much better.
But I was impressed by the Boss 429.------------------
'69 coupe 302 with a C-4 3:00-1 gears
Edelbrock Performer RPM intake, Holley 600cfm carb, K&N air filter
Dual exhaust with Ravin z-55 mufflers Pertronix II
Member#3729 http://mustangsandmore.50megs.com/MembersPics/Dreamcometrue.html
June 2005 Ford Product of the Month
|
cobravenom71
Gearhead Posts: 1349
From: Poinciana, Fl USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 05-04-2006 12:05 PM
That was a great show, and I am glad the Mustang did so well.
However, I don't put a lot of stock in the results of these kinds of shows. As we all know, there are MANY MANY things that can be done to a vehicle while still keeping it in the supposed realm of 'stock' to dramatically improve its performance. And each individual owner of these cars has surely done whatever the maximum limits his money and knowledge have allowed him to acheive.
I don't feel these cars are truly indicative of how thet were delivered from the manufacturers many years ago.
But hey!...The Mustang looked good for an old girl, yeah?
|
JRG-'69MACH1
Journeyman Posts: 42
From: Henniker, N.H. USA
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 05-04-2006 11:57 PM
Comparing these two engines is like comparing apples and oranges. The Boss 429, with its huge ports, was designed for NASCAR type racing.High RPM horsepower for high speeds was its strength, not drag racing from a dead stop. The 429 SCJ with its smaller ports had inceased air flow speeds at lower RPMs which increased low end torque making it more suitable for drag style racing. Back in the '70s my 351W always beat the 351Cs at the strip. Even though they would run a higher MPH, showing more HP, I would get to the lights first. This is a very similar comparison.
|
machlover
Journeyman Posts: 39
From: Hedgesville WV America
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 05-05-2006 12:58 AM
Thanks for the welcome dream.I wondered if the LS6 if it was a stick if it would of been able to beat the boss.When I watched it again when it came on speed again yesterday.The 1/4 times was like 13.and 7 mila seconds for the boss and the LS6 was like 13.and 9 mila seconds.The LS6, I wonder if that thing was a stick and had a lower set of gears in it if it would of got a quicker time than the boss.Cause they said that it was a automatic with high gears.Then the hemi challenger they said that the clutch was kind of wore out in it.So if it was grabing better it probably would of gave it a better run too.I don't want to start a flame war I was just wondering what I thought.JRG I understand what you are saying I have always heard that a windsor would eat a cleveland at the start and then when a cleveland would get up there it would take it over,this is just what I heard.I have also heard that if you have a cleveland it is better to have 2v heads with a 4v intake because 4v heads don't really start to come alive until around 5'000 to 6'000 RPMS.This is just what I heard to,I got 2 cleveland's one has 4V heads and I got one that has 2v heads.They are tore down now, but everybody tells me that I should go with the 2v heads and the 4v intake when I go to put them together again.Because 4v heads are better for racing.I know when I did drive them they would take a littel to wined them up because the ports were so big.------------------
1969 390 mach 1 and 1971 351 cleveland mach 1
|
JRG-'69MACH1
Journeyman Posts: 42
From: Henniker, N.H. USA
Registered: Mar 2005
|
posted 05-05-2006 09:54 AM
Machlover, you're right. If the race was a little longer the 351C would have caught and passed me. Torque is what gets you moving, and more torque usually wins in drag racing.
|
Ryan Wilke
Gearhead Posts: 3237
From: Stanton, Michigan, zip 48888
Registered: Oct 2000
|
posted 05-05-2006 09:57 AM
quote:
Originally posted by machlover:
....I got 2 cleveland's one has 4V heads and I got one that has 2v heads.....everybody tells me that I should go with the 2v heads.....Because 4v heads are better for racing. I know when I did drive them they would take a littel to wined them up because the ports were so big.
Maybe you should consider bolting the 4V heads & intake together then just install some rearend gears to get into the upper rpms quicker...like some 4.11s or 4.30s! If it's just your "neck-snapping get-your-speed-fix-here toy", who cares about about it being able to do freeway trips or gas mileage...    Ryan  [This message has been edited by Ryan Wilke (edited 05-05-2006).]
|
machlover
Journeyman Posts: 39
From: Hedgesville WV America
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 05-06-2006 02:33 AM
Ya I have always heard that torque wins drag races JRG, I should make one torquey big cubic inch small block. I guess that is why big blocks is so mean.If I would use a littel common sense that would be a good idea,ryan lol, with the low end gears.If it is fun with the low end gears, don't worry about it lol.Thanks Dave------------------
1969 390 mach 1 and 1971 351 cleveland mach 1
|
63Kcode
Gearhead Posts: 281
From: Anna Tx
Registered: Dec 2004
|
posted 05-06-2006 11:03 AM
quote:
Originally posted by 427Fastback:
The baddest pure stock big block Mustang made is actually a 68 1/2 428CJ.
Yea, but you couldn't get a SCJ in 68. How about a 428 SCJ W/4spd in a 69 mustang coupe. Not as good looking as a Boss 9 but a blast to drive.
|
427Fastback
Gearhead Posts: 530
From: N.Vancouver.B.C
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 05-06-2006 12:57 PM
Aside from the standard gear ratio there is no performance gain from a 428CJ to a 428SCJ.The SCJ is actually heavier and probably revs slower due to the weight of the le-mans rodsMy buddys 69 428SCJ Mach I runs 13.4 in the quarter with average rear tires (15's) and 3.5s in the rear.(stock 3.91s)The car is set up for road racing ,not the track. Cory
------------------
68 Fastback 427MR 4 spd.Deluxe interior,8000 tach,140 speedo,am/fm,tilt.
|
63Kcode
Gearhead Posts: 281
From: Anna Tx
Registered: Dec 2004
|
posted 05-06-2006 06:29 PM
Mine revs pretty quick. not that it matters, with 14" tires and 3.91 gears, all I get is tire spin. Future plans call for 15" wheels and some soft street tires. Then maybe a trip to the track.
|
Moneymaker
Administrator Posts: 29200
From: Lyons, IL, USA
Registered: May 99
|
posted 05-06-2006 07:33 PM
quote:
Originally posted by 63Kcode:
Yea, but you couldn't get a SCJ in 68. How about a 428 SCJ W/4spd in a 69 mustang coupe. Not as good looking as a Boss 9 but a blast to drive.
Actually you could.
In Canada only.
------------------
Alex Denysenko
Co-Administrator and Moderator NHRA/SRA member and licensed Superstock driver
NHRA and IHRA SS/LA & SS/MA National Record Holder '00,'01,'02,'03,'04 &'05
First NHRA & IHRA 289 automatic Superstock Mustang in the TENS 06-99
First SS/MA in the TENS 04-03
IHRA division 5 Superstock Champion
Fleet of FoMoCo products including 88 ASC McLaren Mustang #28 The Barry of BarrysGrrl Quote #1: "I never met a magazine mechanic I liked."
Quote #2: "Make sure brain is in gear before engaging mouth!"
Quote #3: "If you can't run with the big dogs, stay on the porch!"
www.moneymakerracing.com
|
machlover
Journeyman Posts: 39
From: Hedgesville WV America
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 05-07-2006 02:00 AM
I always wonder how the 427 did in the 67 or 68 fastbacks.The one's that came from the factory that had like 390 hp and 480 pounds of torque. I always thought they would be bad because I heard that 427's was evil.I always wanted to know how they did with that engine in such a light car.Would they eat a 68 1/2 428 car up.I tryed to read up on these cars but never could find nothing.That one that you have 427fastback,was that one that you have is it a factory original 427.If it is, is it a side oiler.The one's that I am talking about that came in them 67 or 68's.I always wonder how they did cause I heard them 427's would push them 63 or 64 heavy galaxies and mercury marauders to 13 second car.So if it would do that to a car that big I could only imagine what it would do in a fastback mustang.Thanks Dave------------------
1969 390 mach 1 and 1971 351 cleveland mach 1
|
427Fastback
Gearhead Posts: 530
From: N.Vancouver.B.C
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 05-07-2006 04:24 AM
I have driven a 427GTE and with its small valves,hyd cam and GT390 exhaust manifolds its not all that impressive if you have driven other big blocks.My friends 428SCJ is very similar in power to my 427 but i have way more usable RPM than a 428.I can easily pull a 1000 more RPM than a 428.. And I only mean similar...they are indeed different engines with different traits.. ------------------
68 Fastback 427MR 4 spd.Deluxe interior,8000 tach,140 speedo,am/fm,tilt.
|
cobravenom71
Gearhead Posts: 1349
From: Poinciana, Fl USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 05-07-2006 07:30 AM
A 427 'cammer' is cool, but grammar is our friend...
|
machlover
Journeyman Posts: 39
From: Hedgesville WV America
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 05-08-2006 01:10 AM
I thought it would be a big difference from anything else.Cause all the stuff I read about the 427's.Like about the thunderbolt and gt 40's and carrol shelby AC Cobra's and stuff like that.What does grammar have anything to do with this topic?------------------
1969 390 mach 1 and 1971 351 cleveland mach 1
|
427Fastback
Gearhead Posts: 530
From: N.Vancouver.B.C
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 05-08-2006 01:50 AM
427's are very different engines and there are many variations of it.With the right parts they can easily turn 7500 rpm.I built mine for torque,not for horsepower.My block is only .017 over and still has std rods and mains.I can't replace it so I dont punish it.I shift at 6400.Even un-tapped as it is it has still cracked my windshield pillar,cracked my drip-rail and busted numerous spotwelds on the left side. Like 351C 4Vs they love big intakes,big valves and almost impossible to over carb when they start winding up.. ------------------
68 Fastback 427MR 4 spd.Deluxe interior,8000 tach,140 speedo,am/fm,tilt.
|
machlover
Journeyman Posts: 39
From: Hedgesville WV America
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 05-08-2006 02:42 AM
I was thinking about geting them bar things that you put under your car.For cars that have high horsepower and torque where it won't crack your windshield and stuff like you where talking about.Because I was thinking about going the edelbrock package the one with the heads,and cam, and such.The 418 horsepower package for 390's and like 450 for torque.I was wondering with that kind of power like that if I would need something like that.But that is probably just like the cobra jets power and they didn't need them.My clevelands when I get them back together I am going to put a 750 holley or larger on it so it can give me like 40 extra horses to me.But I understand the 427's are like them now,I see why they can go to such RPM'S .But I have heard there where different 427's.Like some was top oilers like most all the other FE blocks.Then you had side oiler that had undestuctable bottom end.Then you had the meanest of all, your cammer.But thanks for telling me some more about it.Dave------------------
1969 390 mach 1 and 1971 351 cleveland mach 1
|
427Fastback
Gearhead Posts: 530
From: N.Vancouver.B.C
Registered: Jan 2005
|
posted 05-08-2006 03:43 AM
Them bar things are called frame connectors and are worth every penny.I have a set on my car and actually have built and sold about 30 sets of them.Its the combo of the big block and the 4spd that is doing the damage.I am sure many people here have had there glove box pop open on them and scare the crap out of the passenger.Not sure if it happens on 69 and up as the dash is bolted in, not welded in as the early cars are. ------------------
68 Fastback 427MR 4 spd.Deluxe interior,8000 tach,140 speedo,am/fm,tilt.
|
cobravenom71
Gearhead Posts: 1349
From: Poinciana, Fl USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 05-08-2006 08:00 AM
quote:
Originally posted by machlover:
...What does grammar have anything to do with this topic?
It just makes the posts easier to read.
|
machlover
Journeyman Posts: 39
From: Hedgesville WV America
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 05-09-2006 12:45 AM
I was'nt for sure what they were called,the (frame connecters}.I was thinking about making my car a 4 speed,I should.With a big block you can never go wrong with that combination.Cobravenom71 I know my grammar is bad, but you should not try and mean that torward me.When you got problems with it your self.{THEY}is spelled like that,not like {THET} read your post a littel at the top.------------------
1969 390 mach 1 and 1971 351 cleveland mach 1
|
cobravenom71
Gearhead Posts: 1349
From: Poinciana, Fl USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 05-09-2006 09:14 AM
I supose thets fayr enuf.
|
machlover
Journeyman Posts: 39
From: Hedgesville WV America
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 05-09-2006 10:22 PM
Yur rite btter then bing Hipocrtical.------------------
1969 390 mach 1 and 1971 351 cleveland mach 1
|
cobravenom71
Gearhead Posts: 1349
From: Poinciana, Fl USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 05-10-2006 09:58 PM
There is quite a difference between an occasional 'typo' and a complete disregard for traditional grammar when composing something to be read by others.
Don't be offended, I was just commenting that what may sound perfectly normal and quite comprehensive when spoken often is very difficult to easily read when written.
|
machlover
Journeyman Posts: 39
From: Hedgesville WV America
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 05-10-2006 11:47 PM
Gee that is funny, you are the only one on here that has said anything about it and has a problem.I guess every site that is like this will have your typical grammar cop such as your self.People like you surf the internet and try to act like you got a badge or something.Being grammar cop to every body that isn't good at it.If you can read it then it is not a problem is it?.But people like you will wine and pesture people about pety stuff,how old are you 10?You need to grow up.I don't see what is so hard about it,I mean you made out that I was talking about a BOSS 429 car that ran on speed channel and a 427 engine so my grammar can't be that hard to read,now can it?At first you must of liked the way I talked and write,because you responded to what I was talking about with the boss 429 post on speed.You didn't have a problem then.------------------
1969 390 mach 1 and 1971 351 cleveland mach 1 [This message has been edited by machlover (edited 05-11-2006).] [This message has been edited by machlover (edited 05-11-2006).]
|
cobravenom71
Gearhead Posts: 1349
From: Poinciana, Fl USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 05-11-2006 07:44 AM
Geez, relax a little, will ya, you cry-baby? I wasn't making any negative comments about you or your choice of subject matter. Your reaction shows that you are a little sensitive to critique, so I guess you must be used to being overly defensive about this kind of thing.
As far as grammar and such, there is certainly nothing wrong with taking the time and effort to try and do something as correctly as possible, especially when it doesn't take any extra time than it does to do it the wrong way.
Unless of course you don't know how to do it the correct way and then of course it would take a much longer time and much more effort to do it correctly.
And this of course just shows a perfect example of the major overiding problem with our society in general; The total and complete acceptance of mediocrity as a viable level of performance.
Worse, some (like you maybe?) vehemently defend thier 'right' to suck at something and thier supposed 'right' to force others to view it as acceptable, when in fact it is unacceptable to anyone with a reasonable set of standards.
There's nothing wrong with being too lazy or too stupid to learn to do something correctly, but that doesn't mean that just because you've settled and decided that your poor level is 'good enough' for you that others have to live by your personal low standards.
Who in thier right mind would defend the right to be mediocre?
Have some pride, man! Be better than the next guy and be proud of it! [This message has been edited by cobravenom71 (edited 05-11-2006).]
|
Fastback68
Gearhead Posts: 4511
From: Sucat, Paranaque, Philippines
Registered: Jul 99
|
posted 05-11-2006 08:13 AM
Guys, the proverbial mole hill is becoming a mountain  Shake hands!
|
Dreamcometrue
Gearhead Posts: 903
From: New-Brunswick,Canada
Registered: Apr 2004
|
posted 05-11-2006 12:03 PM
quote:
Originally posted by Fastback68:
Guys, the proverbial mole hill is becoming a mountain Shake hands!
I'll second that, Simon. Everybody should be allowed to make mistakes and not being judged for it. 
Rino
|
cobravenom71
Gearhead Posts: 1349
From: Poinciana, Fl USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 05-11-2006 07:38 PM
You two are, or course, correct; I have been making much ado about nothing. I apologize for my opinions and hope that 'Machlover' and others take no permanent offense.
|
machlover
Journeyman Posts: 39
From: Hedgesville WV America
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 05-11-2006 10:41 PM
You know what every time you write a post you make yourself hypocritcal every time,like the latest.Because you act like you don't have a problem with grammar yourself.(Thier)it is spelled like (their).I am not crying about grammar now am I?I am not crying about anything I am just defending my self.People like me is not what is wrong with society, because we do not try and act like we are perfect with grammar and then we have problems with it are self.People like you who are hypocritical, self rightous who don't do know wrong, is what is wrong with society.Are you just lazy or stupid too, like you are trying to call me, with words such as(thet)and (thier).But don't get me wrong you don't do know wrong write?I could care less what you think about my standards and before you go like if (you didn't care you would'nt be argueing with me).If I really cared I would be doing what you wanted me to do like straitening up my grammar.If I am write steve is the one that owns this whole web site and when I was signing on to become a member.I didn't see nothing about your grammar having to be perfect.So who are you to tell me how to type on this website?I don't see nothing that says cobravenom71 All Rights Reserved.I don't want to be friends with you so there probably will be offense with me.Cause I don't like somebody with wise remarks,and hypocritical people with a bunch of slures.I apologize to everybody else that I have offended or if I do offend.------------------
1969 390 mach 1 and 1971 351 cleveland mach 1 [This message has been edited by machlover (edited 05-11-2006).] [This message has been edited by machlover (edited 05-11-2006).]
|
machlover
Journeyman Posts: 39
From: Hedgesville WV America
Registered: May 2006
|
posted 05-11-2006 10:44 PM
I am thru with argueing with you so you can say all that you want.------------------
1969 390 mach 1 and 1971 351 cleveland mach 1
|
cobravenom71
Gearhead Posts: 1349
From: Poinciana, Fl USA
Registered: Aug 2002
|
posted 05-12-2006 07:41 AM
Hmm...
You make a post that I take notice to, and make a unwarranted comment about.
You respond to my judgemental post with a defensive and insultive (and still hard to read!)diatribe about my supposed smugness.
I also take a defensive stand and post back with an explanantion that I was commenting on society's (and yours) lack of pride in written communication skills, not a personal attack on you.
You, understandably respond again with something insultive and defensive.
Two others not involved in the 'fray' make gentle comments about the two of us flinging invectives over nothing so trivial.
I read thier posts calling for a 'truce' as it were, and decide that they (and you) are correct: I have been tossing around my opinion when no one asked for it or really wants or needs it.
So, trying to be as gentlemanly as reasonable, I apologize DIRECTLY to you, and generally to the others.
The expected response from you was something similar; Maybe an 'apology accepted' kind of thing.
Suprisingly, you come back with even MORE insults and and an even higher level of personal vitriol towards me.
Who's being unreasonable now? Of course, I would never sink so low as to say that your unflagging defensiveness about your lack of pride and communication skills is surely indicative of your similarly low level of intelligence. That would just be silly, wouldn't it?
I mean, why would I want to post something so imflammatory after you gave such an eloquently written rebuttal?
Oh, I know why!...
Because your'e a jerk that doesn't know how to take an apology!
So, carry on (I suppose)...
|
SteveLaRiviere
Administrator Posts: 48752
From: Saco, Maine
Registered: May 99
|
posted 05-13-2006 07:58 PM
|
