Redline vs. V1 vs. DSR 2X vs. Reaction Time

[dslrip32]

Wow... that was some pretty negative stereo-typing of southerners!

Easy, lol.. It's just some good 'ole fun is all, nothing personal, as some wrongly take it....

I know my post wasn't clear and I apologize for that. I was actually referring to the inbred remark, not yours.

I didn't take it personally - I'm not inbred. I do, however, think it wasn't very funny. Sort of like walking into a Synagogue and telling Jewish jokes. I have to wonder who would find the same inbred remark funny if it was said about an ethic or racial group?

I actually understand what you mean. This is just basic joking around here, so do not take it personal. It isn't anything bad, and not any worse than you would see at the local cinemark. If people ears are that easily offended, they need to avoid as much public contact as possible. You here much worse in the local grocery store, Best buy, Walmart, etc... I can only imagine what a person hears in the average local trailer park, as I see on channel 204, reality tv channel.... Anybody get offended watching "Cops"? lol..... Exactly.... Change the channel!

[v1user]

Wow... that was some pretty negative stereo-typing of southerners!

Easy, lol.. It's just some good 'ole fun is all, nothing personal, as some wrongly take it....

I know my post wasn't clear and I apologize for that. I was actually referring to the inbred remark, not yours.

I didn't take it personally - I'm not inbred. I think it wasn't funny though. Sort of like walking into a Synagogue and telling Jewish jokes. I have to wonder who would find the same inbred remark funny if it was said about a racial group? Just food for thought! Peace.

My goal was to stop the arguing. I guess I stopped one and started another. :hijack:
My background is mainly from 1 country in Europe so I frequently get called a dego when I eat a lot and take anything free. I just have to laugh at it.

[Monte1]

Holy crap! Now that would have offended Monte1, lol... But not me as I am a bit more mature in a mature environment. No, not any imbreading here, lol. I am going to go ahead then and start posting some, but it will be in the morning. It has been a long day.

I thought this was over...no more baiting and trolling between us, but ya just had to do it. TROLLING is against one of the rules of this forum and so is BASHING products, RULE #5 of Forum Rules which you do ongoing and constantly with Escort.
Then you turn around and try to soften it by saying how you'd like to own an Escort product again. Be happy with the V1 and let it go already.

Earlier, you wrote a post of CONTRITION about being SORRY if you've offended anyone, yada, yada, yada...and start right back in with bashing Escort and how it can't pick up DSR 2X JUST FOR YOU AND YOUR SPEEDING HABITS and still want
nine_C1 to post videos while operating a radar gun and two stop watches at the same time JUST FOR YOU. Not to speak of bringing MY NAME back into this crap.

As I said earlier, I DO NOT get offended at that kind of stuff. Fact is, it's right up my alley. Now, I'm not going to stoop to your low levels of class...and I'm NOT going to call you names as you did earlier with me and now making other backhanded innuendos...but just in case I felt like rolling around in the mud with you for fun and giggles, would you get offended if I called you a sniping, bashing, moron who has nothing better to do than make a name for himself by being the most negative a person could be toward a company and product that has ever been on a forum of any kind? (if moron is too offensive it could be changed to maroon instead)

Don't take that the WRONG WAY and MODS, also don't take it as such. I AM NOT CALLING HIM NAMES! I'm just trying to find out what may or may not be OFFENSIVE and I certainly DON'T want to break forum rules by doing that if disallowed even though it was already done by dslrip and overlooked.

I am NOT looking to get banned as dslrip did over at Escort for name calling.
I DO want this to stop, but it takes TWO.

Rules #5 and #6 in forum rules:

5. Keep the discussion constructive. We welcome your constructive comments, suggestions, opinions, and reviews of all radar detectors and countermeasure products. However, unsubstantiated comments and/or innuendos will not be tolerated. If you think a product sucks, substantiate that with facts. But just saying “XYZ sucks” is not constructive, and we ask that you refrain from doing so.

6. No trolling. This means no posting just to start trouble or controversy, or to bait others into argument or dispute. Obvious attempts to inflame passions or stir up trouble will get you banned.

[Monte1]

My only request would've been that you use the "quote" function correctly - to make it easier to reply to.

Allen, I've stated this before and I'll do it again. I'm real close to being computer illiterate. I know just enough to get around in a prehistoric fashion and that's about it. Tell me HOW to use the "quote" function correctly and I'll do it...under ONE CONDITION...you start using the Reader's Digest condensed version correctly to make it easier to read and not get overwhelmed like standing at the base of Mt. Everest and looking up to the top before climbing.

"Strong" and "weak," as I'm using them, simply refers to the ratio of hits-versus-misses, at all currently believed parameters of "Q/T."

I haven't seen any ratios. What are they? And WHAT are all the currently believed parameters of "Q/T." If you're bringing up RATIOS and PARAMETERS, that's QUANTIFYING and you know it. "Strong" and "weak" doesn't fit. Provide the NUMBERS for RATIOS AND PARAMETERS and THEN assign "Strong" and "Weak" to fit it.

if Escort would have just come out and said, when Q/T was first brought up as a concern that they're simply not interested in the capture of such fleeting signals, given that their end-goal is better filtering and a higher "signal-to-noise" ratio with alerts, then I would not see things the way that I do, now.

Alright, so they DIDN'T say it, but YOU figured it out on your OWN as a REASON TO PURCHASE...which is EXACTLY WHY YOU BOUGHT IT. So why be so perturbed about it?

Each company has its own goals, and that's - as a shopper with my own unique wants and needs - is something which I can truly appreciate (as you'll see, below).

But that's not what Escort said, now, is it?

I guess if you were the employee at Escort instead of the one who currently is doing the PR for the product it would have been done. But, apparently he doesn't see eye to eye with you.

This IS what they said most recently: "This is going to sound like typical marketing speech but it is the truth:

We are constantly looking into ways to improve our products. We are very aware of the QT controversy so this is definitely something that is on our product development team's mind."

Instead Escort gave us the two excuses which I discussed at-length in my prior post....the logic of which, of course, still, no-one has been able to properly answer/address/defeat.

Maybe it's not worth racking one's brain over. Go directly to the source and call Escort for the quick version. Personally, I find only so much energy in one day to do all of the inane things I get involved with as it is, and I do a lot of it very well.


OK, I'll probably take a lot of flak for what I'm about to say, but it's just my belief about this Q/T "CONCERN". I could be wrong...I can't say and neither can you...but I HONESTLY DON'T THINK I have ever been Q/T'ed!! I know for a FACT I've most likely been I/O'ed by the duration of the signal and PLENTY of C/O hits, and I don't exactly lead a sheltered life since my wife and I do A LOT of vacation traveling and have for decades in almost 3/4 of the states in the US.

To me, there is no true need to quantify

I agree, but there IS for the sake of debating and arguing on forums regarding the merits and weaknesses of one detector vs. another and having something concrete to go on instead of vague terminology. Let's face it...we take things to the nth degree and then into infinity to "win" a point. LOL

First of all, like I said above, in this thread - which is what I've asked for, all along - all I want is for the Escorts to "measure-up," to be as good as their competitors, in terms of Q/T protection.

Nine_C1 came up with some fairly impressive numbers in his experiment. From .6 - 1 second the Redline captured 100% OF THE TRIGGERS Do the LEO's hold it LESS than .6? I have no idea...do YOU? Apparently so, IF AND WHEN Q/T is used and a ticket is issued. But WE DON'T KNOW THAT EITHER BECAUSE THEY DON'T SAY THEY USED Q/T. He's also going to be doing some tests when the new radar gun come in with various settings OFF on the Redline to see if the response time is quicker.

Praising Nine_c1 for his work, in trying to quantify where the Q/T "temporal cut-off point" will be does not contradict this aim, nor does it contradict my personal belief that such quantification is not truly necessary (again, due to the many uncertainties involved in the typical Q/T encounter).

Does that data interest me? Certainly.

Do I think that a further understanding of the technical Q/T limitations of the device, based on such quantitative measures, will be beneficial? Again, certainly.

But is the data necessary, in order to see that the RedLine (and/or other Escort offerings) has or has not achieved a level of Q/T capability "par" with its competition?

No, I don't think that's necessary - instead, I think that this level of proof can be found at the level of the "shoot and observe" criteria, as is typical of what we've seen documented by Cbr and ELVATO, of the various Escort (and others') products.

Well, here's where we disagree. I think for Escort to be more on "par" with competition is to determine where the successes are in quantitatively measuring the times and where the percentages start dropping off in comparison to others as Nine_C1 is doing on his own. The "shoot and observe" criteria will then take care of itself.

My goal in seeking the RedLine has been, since day one, to use it as a highway-only/road-trip only detector. I've always realized that the V1 could very well fit that role, but I was unwilling to pursue its use since I lack intimate familiarity with that device, and I firmly believe in "train as you fight, fight as you train."

I believe that if you're fighting and stand a chance of LOSING and getting your butt throttled...LEARN SOME NEW DEFENSIVE AND OFFENSIVE TECHNIQUES that go beyond what you have. How could a man of your intelligence NOT be able to learn the differences of a simple RD unit in less than a day or two, not only from the manual and playing around, but everything written here on the forum.

I've never contradicted myself.

Don't be so modest. You know you've NEVER been wrong...made a mistake...misevaluated...well, I'll let you finish the rest.
(don't forget now...Reader's Digest version.

EDIT: NEWS FLASH...Nine_C1 did MORE TESTS with a NEW RADAR GUN and various settings ON or OFF. Go check it out IF any of this interests you besides "SHOOT AND OBSERVE".

[TSi+WRX]

There probably is something to agree with TSi+WRX. Could you indicate what book...chapter...page...paragraph...and sentence you're referring to in this thread.

^ Hey, that hurts!

As far as the excerpts go, I'm not looking through all of that again.

^ Like I said above.....

[dslrip32]

6. No trolling. This means no posting just to start trouble or controversy, or to bait others into argument or dispute. Obvious attempts to inflame passions or stir up trouble will get you banned.

Above is what your are guilty of. So lets stop now, before WE both get banned. Cool?? Hand shake?

[Monte1]

6. No trolling. This means no posting just to start trouble or controversy, or to bait others into argument or dispute. Obvious attempts to inflame passions or stir up trouble will get you banned.

Above is what your are guilty of. So lets stop now, before WE both get banned. Cool?? Hand shake?

It's what BOTH OF US are guilty of. Yes, we need to stop or get banned.
Will you still be OK with a hand shake after I drilled you with a right cross?

(just kidding...we probably should use the PM's if need be...agreed?)

[TSi+WRX]

My only request would've been that you use the "quote" function correctly - to make it easier to reply to.

Allen, I've stated this before and I'll do it again. I'm real close to being computer illiterate. I know just enough to get around in a prehistoric fashion and that's about it. Tell me HOW to use the "quote" function correctly and I'll do it...under ONE CONDITION...you start using the Reader's Digest condensed version correctly to make it easier to read and not get overwhelmed like standing at the base of Mt. Everest and looking up to the top before climbing.

No deal on the Reader's Digest condensing. I can't write like that, even if I tried.

Too many years of writing long scientific stuff.....

The "quote" function is rather simple, if you're just replying to one set of statements, but to multi-quote like I do gets a bit more complex.

To do the single quotes, simply hit the "Quote" radio-button at the bottom of the post which you would like to reply to in a quoted fashion. You'll then be taken to a reply screen that'll start out with something like:

[ quote = XXXXXX ]
Body text of XXXXX's post here
[ / quote ]

The parameters within the [] are what enables the quotes to begin, and the [ / ], the quote to end.

"Strong" and "weak," as I'm using them, simply refers to the ratio of hits-versus-misses, at all currently believed parameters of "Q/T."

I haven't seen any ratios. What are they? And WHAT are all the currently believed parameters of "Q/T." If you're bringing up RATIOS and PARAMETERS, that's QUANTIFYING and you know it. "Strong" and "weak" doesn't fit. Provide the NUMBERS for RATIOS AND PARAMETERS and THEN assign "Strong" and "Weak" to fit it.

Typical ratio of registered-hit alerts to "misses," as typified by the original RedLine Q/T testing by Cbr and ELVATO.

Part of the problem of trying to truly quantify Q/T is that the parameters of Q/T are not truly well-defined, as opposed to the quantifiable parameters of POP. Q/T is something that's manipulated by the end-user, and depending on the skills of the individual, the hardware used, as well as even ambient conditions (Nine_c1, on an Escort Radar Forums thread, detailed much of what ambient conditions can do, to influence the effectiveness of Q/T) can all play a factor in what *any* detector can do in terms of the responsiveness ratio.

Quantifying the exact amount of time a "quick trigger" event needs to be present for a detector to respond to the signal is important - don't get me wrong.

However, I do not believe that will impact the real-world Q/T scenario nearly as much as it *should*, given that even the person triggering off the Q/T burst will be hard-put to be able to repeatedly, in an exacting manner, control their usage of the device in such a manner. [ An analogy can be drawn here - the debate of "what's faster" in a drag-race, two similar vehicles, one stickshift/manual, the other an automatic...this recently played-out with two highly but nearly-identically modified SG-Subaru Foresters, even their to-the-wheels horsepower/torque curves would suggest a dead-heat: the result? if the stickshift driver gets in a perfect run, that vehicle is faster, but over the course of repeated runs, the automatic, in being consistent as a rock, takes the win-ratio. This is equivalent, in a way, to a comparison of Q/T versus POP, in that the former is, exclusive of other determinants, also dependent highly on the operator, whereas the latter is an automated function. Even in Cbr/ELVATO's initial videos, it can clearly be seen that slightly different durations of Q/T transmission, can cause a difference in the odds-ratio of alert versus none. Since this factor cannot be controlled for in the real-world setting of Q/T usage, what I feel is more important is that, overall, one detector captures Q/T usage, in the hands of one set of testers, in a similar ratio as another detector. While the actual quantitative measure of time-of-signal-transmission is important, I believe that should be a separate category of examination in and of itself, and that first-line "acceptable real-world performance" should be well-capable of being derived simply from observations made by a set of fair, experienced, and technique-stable testers. ]

if Escort would have just come out and said, when Q/T was first brought up as a concern that they're simply not interested in the capture of such fleeting signals, given that their end-goal is better filtering and a higher "signal-to-noise" ratio with alerts, then I would not see things the way that I do, now.

Alright, so they DIDN'T say it, but YOU figured it out on your OWN as a REASON TO PURCHASE...which is EXACTLY WHY YOU BOUGHT IT. So why be so perturbed about it?

Because they used illogical reasons to try to deflect the issue.

To me, that's simply unacceptable.

First, it's unacceptable in simple principle.

Second, it's also unacceptable as it serves to confuse the true matter to newcomers to our community.

Each company has its own goals, and that's - as a shopper with my own unique wants and needs - is something which I can truly appreciate (as you'll see, below).

But that's not what Escort said, now, is it?

I guess if you were the employee at Escort instead of the one who currently is doing the PR for the product it would have been done. But, apparently he doesn't see eye to eye with you.

This IS what they said most recently: "This is going to sound like typical marketing speech but it is the truth:

We are constantly looking into ways to improve our products. We are very aware of the QT controversy so this is definitely something that is on our product development team's mind."

And that would have been a perfectly acceptable thing to say, from the outset.

Don't misunderstand - I'm not blaming the man behind the keyboard. I'm not blaming Escort Radar for saying what he said.

He's just a cog in the machine, and his fingers are forced. He can only say what his superiors have deemed proper, as he is an official representative of the company.

Who I blame is Escort - the corporate entity.

Instead of simply saying that they either are not concerned about Q/T as a valid threat or saying that we are aware of the controversy, and are looking in to ways to improve the product, they chose to deflect the issue with those unacceptable, illogical, nonsensical excuses.

A newcomer to the community may not understand those excuses to be what they are, but we, as hobbyists/enthusiasts, should be obligated to point out the folly - to make sure that such statements cannot be allowed to stand, for EVERYONE's benefit.

Instead Escort gave us the two excuses which I discussed at-length in my prior post....the logic of which, of course, still, no-one has been able to properly answer/address/defeat.

Maybe it's not worth racking one's brain over. Go directly to the source and call Escort for the quick version. Personally, I find only so much energy in one day to do all of the inane things I get involved with as it is, and I do a lot of it very well.

That would be nice, wouldn't it.

But there's an inherent problem in just picking up the phone, and calling Escort, and getting the actual story, too:

http://www.radardetector.net/forums/...re-update.html

^ Look at the confusion that's caused.

OK, I'll probably take a lot of flak for what I'm about to say, but it's just my belief about this Q/T "CONCERN". I could be wrong...I can't say and neither can you...but I HONESTLY DON'T THINK I have ever been Q/T'ed!! I know for a FACT I've most likely been I/O'ed by the duration of the signal and PLENTY of C/O hits, and I don't exactly lead a sheltered life since my wife and I do A LOT of vacation traveling and have for decades in almost 3/4 of the states in the US.

You won't catch any flack from me.

I truly do believe that Q/T is as "rare" as Escort and other hobbyists have reported that it is.

I truly do see Q/T as something that's very much like rear-LIDAR enforcement, in terms of usage practices.

And that, of course, is a part of my argument against Escort's reasoning that, to paraphrase: "you don't need protection for Q/T, because it's rare."

Explain, then, why we're given rear-LIDAR protection in the manner of the ZR3/4.

Not logical, right?

To me, there is no true need to quantify

I agree, but there IS for the sake of debating and arguing on forums regarding the merits and weaknesses of one detector vs. another and having something concrete to go on instead of vague terminology. Let's face it...we take things to the nth degree and then into infinity to "win" a point. LOL

For the sake of "bench racing," certainly, and also, like I said above, such measures will undoubtedly be important as we try to dissect just what makes one detector superior to another, when it comes to this particular threat.

We test LASER-jammers to the point of failure, and I'm sure that we, as a community, will pursue this particular aspect of our RADAR detector's performance, too.

Indeed, no doubt at all.

First of all, like I said above, in this thread - which is what I've asked for, all along - all I want is for the Escorts to "measure-up," to be as good as their competitors, in terms of Q/T protection.

Nine_C1 came up with some fairly impressive numbers in his experiment. From .6 - 1 second the Redline captured 100% OF THE TRIGGERS Do the LEO's hold it LESS than .6? I have no idea...do YOU? Apparently so, IF AND WHEN Q/T is used and a ticket is issued. But WE DON'T KNOW THAT EITHER BECAUSE THEY DON'T SAY THEY USED Q/T. He's also going to be doing some tests when the new radar gun come in with various settings OFF on the Redline to see if the response time is quicker.

From simply only what Cbr and ELVATO posted of their videos, we can already see a difference in the actual trigger-time of the Q/T practice. Not only is it possible for most detectors to reliably pick up relatively longer Q/T bursts, but also, as the Q/T burst-time decreases, it becomes harder for the enforcer to get a speed reading (which itself also plays double favor to the detectors responsive enough to capture such fleeting transmissions).

Trigger time on Q/T is simply an uncontrollable factor.

Yes, we can (and should) quantify - to see what the true limitations of one device versus another happens to be - but I feel that's for another argument, altogether.

[ Aside: the actual transmission time of what constitutes Q/T is also something for which there's no true agreement. Depending on who you talk to, their criteria for the duration of transmission will vary. Some of the earliest posts regarding Q/T, on the Escort Radar Forums, demonstrates this well, with people like Mike B and VEIL Guy having weighed-in on their own personal interpretations. ]

Me, personally?

I know of at least one local enforcer who triggers Q/T extremely fast - of course, I don't know of his success-rate, in actually getting a speed reading of the targeted vehicle, but I've watched him practice his craft, and on my S7 x50, which should be faster than my 9500i, in terms of capturing Q/T - something that CJR and others schooled me about - I'm missing alerts.

Praising Nine_c1 for his work, in trying to quantify where the Q/T "temporal cut-off point" will be does not contradict this aim, nor does it contradict my personal belief that such quantification is not truly necessary (again, due to the many uncertainties involved in the typical Q/T encounter).

Does that data interest me? Certainly.

Do I think that a further understanding of the technical Q/T limitations of the device, based on such quantitative measures, will be beneficial? Again, certainly.

But is the data necessary, in order to see that the RedLine (and/or other Escort offerings) has or has not achieved a level of Q/T capability "par" with its competition?

No, I don't think that's necessary - instead, I think that this level of proof can be found at the level of the "shoot and observe" criteria, as is typical of what we've seen documented by Cbr and ELVATO, of the various Escort (and others') products.

Well, here's where we disagree. I think for Escort to be more on "par" with competition is to determine where the successes are in quantitatively measuring the times and where the percentages start dropping off in comparison to others as Nine_C1 is doing on his own. The "shoot and observe" criteria will then take care of itself.

I understand your point of disagreement, and I can see your logic. That is a good point, and valid.

My goal in seeking the RedLine has been, since day one, to use it as a highway-only/road-trip only detector. I've always realized that the V1 could very well fit that role, but I was unwilling to pursue its use since I lack intimate familiarity with that device, and I firmly believe in "train as you fight, fight as you train."

I believe that if you're fighting and stand a chance of LOSING and getting your butt throttled...LEARN SOME NEW DEFENSIVE AND OFFENSIVE TECHNIQUES that go beyond what you have. How could a man of your intelligence NOT be able to learn the differences of a simple RD unit in less than a day or two, not only from the manual and playing around, but everything written here on the forum.

You think I'm smarter than I am. Trust me, just talk to my wife and kid. They know the truth!

The problem, truly, is that I won't have repeated, long-term, "intimate" knowledge of the secondary detector.

While this will also be true of a switch-over to the RedLine, at least I am going to be more familiar with the general facets of interface and usage - whereas with the V1, for how little I will be using this secondary, but for-specific-purpose detector, that's going to be yet another area where I will have put myself at a disadvantage.

It took me well over 3 months of everyday interaction with my 9500i, before I truly got to the comfort level that I had with my outgoing x50. I truly feel that intimate knowledge of the device is an important part of making best use of it, and I've actually written about this on the various automotive-enthusiast communities that I frequent. It's truly among my core beliefs.

I've never contradicted myself.

Don't be so modest. You know you've NEVER been wrong...made a mistake...misevaluated...well, I'll let you finish the rest.
(don't forget now...Reader's Digest version.

^

I'll give you your preferred version: hey, I'm always wrong - my wife tells me so, every day!

But no, seriously, in terms of this particular issue with the RedLine, I've honestly never contradicted myself...

At least I don't think so!

Since day one of learning of the then-still-in-the-pipe RedLine, I've said that I would not be among the first to purchase the device, that I would await others' tests and reviews - that I hoped that the claimed effective range would truly pan-out, and that I also hoped that they would address the Q/T concerns typical of modern Escort devices.

They've met my first purchase criteria...but the latter is still, currently, up in the air.

EDIT: NEWS FLASH...Nine_C1 did MORE TESTS with a NEW RADAR GUN and various settings ON or OFF. Go check it out IF any of this interests you besides "SHOOT AND OBSERVE".

I'm having trouble accessing the Escort Radar Forums website from my home ISP - I don't know why, but it just keeps the computer "thinking." I know that I can access it from work just fine. I'll try again later today, but if not, then definitely tomorrow!

Great, now I'm left in-suspense!



---

TSi+WRX, I understand what you are saying, and I wished others did understand what I say, before jumping to conclusions about me. I never ever intend any wrong doing towards anyone at all. That is not my intentions. I am only in this to share my experiences and help out the best I can. Some people take what I say wrong at times, and fail to ask me to explain exactly what I mean by what I say, rather than to start immediately assuming things, and bashing/accusing. Anyone out there that I offended, I apologize! Also I am not dis-crediting anything about nine_c1 and his findings. I have had great convo with him. Nothing bad at all. What I meant in my post may have been worded wrong, and I apologize for this. I meant to say where is video proof, as I like to see things like this and so would the rest of us. I applaud him taking his time to do what he did as far as Redline testing, as this takes time, money, and dedication. I mean with all that time involved, why not have great video of it also? I mean that was quite a bit of testing to not take the time to video it. Maybe he does not have the means to do this, I don't know. I just personally wished he did is all. If what he says he did find in the tests, I have no reason to not believe it. He may have a good one, unlike the one I had. Also I have been hard on Escort, because I want them to fix this. I would like to own another one of their products. I have just been so disappointed with the products, and especially the Redline because of it's inability to pick up this Stalker DSR 2X reliably. This is the main threat here in my area, and it is ridiculous to own a $500+ device and it be totally quiet to this threat, and Escort and it's employees, mods, etc. deny the facts. I have witnessed this many times. Again, everyone out there that takes the time to test these devices for the masses, I applaud you all and respect you all, no matter what brand/manufacturer of the device. It is true dedication to the hobby. I am trying to do my part to contribute as well. Also I have some great "High-Def" video of Q/T LEO's that I took the time to video for the forum here, but I have not found any software yet to edit out my Redneck sounding commentary. OOPS.. I called myself a name this time, is that allowed? Anyone offended? Now that would be a good one to get banned for calling myself a name, now wouldn't it....[replacer_img][replacer_img][replacer_img]LOL Have a great weekend everyone....

^ Hey, I'm a first-generation Taiwanese immigrant of Chinese descent, and yet, I still consider myself a Redneck - a true Southern Boy.

Trust me, it's funny when, cruising around in the more urban areas of my neighborhood, I've got country music blaring out of my RiceBoy turbo 4-banger, with my mixed (my better half is Jewish - Caucasian, of Eastern European ancestry) daughter in the back seat, both of us singin' along at the tops of our voice.

[dslrip32]

6. No trolling. This means no posting just to start trouble or controversy, or to bait others into argument or dispute. Obvious attempts to inflame passions or stir up trouble will get you banned.

Above is what your are guilty of. So lets stop now, before WE both get banned. Cool?? Hand shake?

It's what BOTH OF US are guilty of. Yes, we need to stop or get banned.
Will you still be OK with a hand shake after I drilled you with a right cross?

(just kidding...we probably should use the PM's if need be...agreed?)

No problem...

[thx1138]

So, what is the conclusion from this thread??