Saw 2 Camaros....
Saw 2 Camaros....
and a Challenger today out in front of the Ford dealer. Surely they must have been traded for a Mustang. That is telling.....
Guess where I got the last statement from!
Guess where I got the last statement from!
Well why not, the Camaro has horrible driver ergonomics, horrid visibility, and is slower than the Mustang, while the Challenger's are heavy, sluggish, and offer worse braking and handling than the Mustang.
Do you post anything on this board that isn't some snark remark towards a person you have it out for? If you were to check, you'd also find that, while you continue to post these remarks, he hasn't posted here in well over a month.
Please, tell me how you are helping this community?
As far as I'm concerned, your as bad as the aforementioned person you're attacking.
Please, tell me how you are helping this community?
As far as I'm concerned, your as bad as the aforementioned person you're attacking.
Do you post anything on this board that isn't some snark remark towards a person you have it out for? If you were to check, you'd also find that, while you continue to post these remarks, he hasn't posted here in well over a month.
Please, tell me how you are helping this community?
As far as I'm concerned, your as bad as the aforementioned person you're attacking.
Please, tell me how you are helping this community?
As far as I'm concerned, your as bad as the aforementioned person you're attacking.
Originally Posted by Glenn
to whom are you refering to? 

He was referring to the OP's little jab at Jmatero, the "That is telling..." part I suppose.
I think I get it. They are talking about he we do not name.
He says that there are far more used 2011-2012 Mustangs on used lots because the MT-82 sucks and the used cars are evidence of that.
Clearly post hoc ergo proctor hoc reasoning. But that I believe is the reference that the OP was poking at.
He says that there are far more used 2011-2012 Mustangs on used lots because the MT-82 sucks and the used cars are evidence of that.
Clearly post hoc ergo proctor hoc reasoning. But that I believe is the reference that the OP was poking at.



