Re: little q content

[QSHIPQ <QSHIPQ@aol.com>]

In a message dated 98-03-22 05:39:57 EST, you write:
> only came to the conclusion about audi that i did by the way that i 
>stated above...i appologize for sounding so matter of fact...i was not 
>stating things objectively, ad let my subjective love for the cars get in 
>the way.  If a chevy were to end up number one, i wouldnt like it, but i 
>would admit it...And i will get the form out to you as soon as i can.

Hey Mr. Williams, no big deal.  I believe all my post did was point out some
obvious differences between subjective and objective.  You use the latter to
make Porsche numero uno, and one "assumes" you to use that same criteria for
your "most definitely, objectively" claim regarding audis.  I see now that you
combined the two.  Maybe my mistake, not yours.

<< I am not bringing subjective performance into this at all as that is just 
> that, subjective.  Subjectively, anything from a Yugo to a Viper to a 
> Porsche can be number 1, it is nothing that can be proven, so the scope 
> of my statements is soley in the objective...
  >>

Lost me again.  I reread these two paragraphs and the latter contradicts the
former and former statements.  Me, I subjectively rate cars all the time (and
it's easy to let the rags "objectively" do it).  And can most "objectively"
present my "subjective" arguments.  Do it all the time.  Unfortunately, for
all the "subjective" performance, there is a competition that the particular
vehicle plays in.  Apples to Apples, the 90's has 'proven' that to be the
toughest objective for the boys in Ingolstat. 

Scott Justusson
subjectively choosing to drive the following:
'87 5ktqwRS2
'86 5ktqw
'84 Urq