wow a novalosi engine?
02-08-2010, 06:00 PM
#31
what the F*** is up your ass? anything in an opinion you retard unless it can be proven, anything i have stated is An OPINION because i cant prove it, as stated before yes crappy was a bad choice of words, nova makes awesome engines, and who said a +4 is my beloved engine? just because i use it? its been stated that this engine seems like its a +4, so in my OPINION i think it will be a lower performing engine then the +4, like a tuned grp and a non tuned grp. you can disagree with me all you want, that what makes America so great everyone has an opinion, but you might wanna go back to english class before you start calling what i stated facts
Fact
/fækt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fakt] Show IPA
–noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth
o⋅pin⋅ion
/əˈpɪnyən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
Fact
/fækt/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [fakt] Show IPA
–noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth
o⋅pin⋅ion
/əˈpɪnyən/ Show Spelled Pronunciation [uh-pin-yuhn] Show IPA
–noun
1. a belief or judgment that rests on grounds insufficient to produce complete certainty.
2. a personal view, attitude, or appraisal.
3. the formal expression of a professional judgment: to ask for a second medical opinion.
02-08-2010, 06:11 PM
#34
They have no problem at all with seeing a drop in +4 sales if they sell 10x as many through Horizon. It worked very well for GRP.
02-08-2010, 06:22 PM
#36
You must now know Novarossi engine's history very well. They done exactly what you're saying for years. Ever heard of a Crono RS5? How about Rex? how about Top? Max Power? Every single one is a Novarossi P5, maybe a small change here or there but all the same quality/power.
They have no problem at all with seeing a drop in +4 sales if they sell 10x as many through Horizon. It worked very well for GRP.
They have no problem at all with seeing a drop in +4 sales if they sell 10x as many through Horizon. It worked very well for GRP.
02-08-2010, 06:23 PM
#37
Tech Fanatic
iTrader: (2)
You must now know Novarossi engine's history very well. They done exactly what you're saying for years. Ever heard of a Crono RS5? How about Rex? how about Top? Max Power? Every single one is a Novarossi P5, maybe a small change here or there but all the same quality/power.
They have no problem at all with seeing a drop in +4 sales if they sell 10x as many through Horizon. It worked very well for GRP.
They have no problem at all with seeing a drop in +4 sales if they sell 10x as many through Horizon. It worked very well for GRP.
02-08-2010, 06:27 PM
#38
Super Moderator
iTrader: (63)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: a very small town in wisconsin that is in the middle of absolutely no where
Posts: 5,155
Trader Rating: 63 (100%+)
..
02-08-2010, 06:49 PM
#41
Super Moderator
iTrader: (63)
Join Date: May 2005
Location: a very small town in wisconsin that is in the middle of absolutely no where
Posts: 5,155
Trader Rating: 63 (100%+)
man your killing me. im tryin to get this new 1/8 scale build tonight. 1/2 way done... only 3-4 more hours to go. looks like a long week for me... the only nice thing is work is letting me break my engine in while i work
... ha top that one... oh wait you will. later marcos
... ha top that one... oh wait you will. later marcos
02-08-2010, 08:55 PM
#42
Losi Racer, you don't know me and I don't know you. It's not personal and I'm not here to pick a fight but to defend the people that, in this case, probably worked pretty hard with Novarossi to introduce a product that they think is best suited to their market and their customer. Whether they got it right or if it's better or worse than your engine isn't the issue. I know these people and, perhaps as a result, I might be a little overzealous about defending them because I have to think they would be insulted by your careless comments. I call Jim Hottinger a friend, as I did Ron Paris, Mario Rossi, and even his father and uncle. So, if I was as simple minded and one-dimensional as you're being, I would probably be forming illogical arguments for the "Novarossi" brand as well. There's simply no reason for what you posted. But instead of showing an ounce of contrition and simply admitting that maybe you went a little overboard with your STATEMENTS OF FACT (not opinions) and admit that at least you could have chosen better words, you get belligerent and immature in defense of the indefensible.
I fully expected your response, so just to set the record straight, I have a college education in the English language, and I spent quite a few years as an Editor and author. It doesn't mean that my grasp of the subject is perfect – I'm far from it. But, for the sake of this discussion, let's just assume that I have a pretty big advantage in the comprehension department as it relates to our "disagreement."
When you say "That's all that engine is, it's a crappy version of the +4," you are stating fact. When you assert that someone or something "is," you imply fact. When you state that something "might" or "may be" you're stating opinion. None of your statements ever allowed an alternate scenario, which makes them statements of fact. Thank you for your little definition – it proves my point that you can't make statements of fact in the absence of the subject of your statement. So, if you say, "that engine is just a crappy version of…" and "i promise you its not the same as the +4, timing will be different," etc., the engine in question must exist, and you must have evaluated it in order to make your absolute statements. Get it?...
You were also incorrect in your statement that "its been stated that this engine seems like it's a +4 (which is an opinion by including the word "seems"), but nobody posted anything even vaguely resembling the aforementioned. You just jumped right in and started flinging poo as though you're the authority on these matters.
None of the above really matters, other than to point out the inconsistencies of your statements. The real substance of my observation is that you (lets recap):
1) Said that a product IS "crappy"
2) "it's definitely not the same as the +4, timing will be different"
3) "Novarossi ISN'T going to make"… blah, blah, blah
4) "I wasn't saying the motor was crap" (see item #1)
5) "It's going to be a dumbed down version"
6) "it's been stated that this engine seems like it's a +4…" only the OP was before your statement, and it had no reference to any engine, no less a +4 (neither did A-Main in their description – I followed the link).
7) I'm the bad guy for pointing out that items 1 thru 5 are erroneous statements based on pure conjecture, #6 is complete fabrication, and finally that you could benefit from a better grasp of the English language to better express yourself without insulting others? I just want to be clear on which parts make me the bad guy…
The aforementioned is rhetorical and sarcastic to make the point – the time to think it through is before you post. Choosing words like "I don't think it will run as well as my +4 but we'll see" is still a little presumptuous, but not nearly as inflammatory. If not for me, but out of respect for the people that you insulted, maybe you can just let it go at "it was a poor choice of words" or some tortured form of an apology.
I won't have any more to say on the subject regardless.
I fully expected your response, so just to set the record straight, I have a college education in the English language, and I spent quite a few years as an Editor and author. It doesn't mean that my grasp of the subject is perfect – I'm far from it. But, for the sake of this discussion, let's just assume that I have a pretty big advantage in the comprehension department as it relates to our "disagreement."
When you say "That's all that engine is, it's a crappy version of the +4," you are stating fact. When you assert that someone or something "is," you imply fact. When you state that something "might" or "may be" you're stating opinion. None of your statements ever allowed an alternate scenario, which makes them statements of fact. Thank you for your little definition – it proves my point that you can't make statements of fact in the absence of the subject of your statement. So, if you say, "that engine is just a crappy version of…" and "i promise you its not the same as the +4, timing will be different," etc., the engine in question must exist, and you must have evaluated it in order to make your absolute statements. Get it?...
You were also incorrect in your statement that "its been stated that this engine seems like it's a +4 (which is an opinion by including the word "seems"), but nobody posted anything even vaguely resembling the aforementioned. You just jumped right in and started flinging poo as though you're the authority on these matters.
None of the above really matters, other than to point out the inconsistencies of your statements. The real substance of my observation is that you (lets recap):
1) Said that a product IS "crappy"
2) "it's definitely not the same as the +4, timing will be different"
3) "Novarossi ISN'T going to make"… blah, blah, blah
4) "I wasn't saying the motor was crap" (see item #1)
5) "It's going to be a dumbed down version"
6) "it's been stated that this engine seems like it's a +4…" only the OP was before your statement, and it had no reference to any engine, no less a +4 (neither did A-Main in their description – I followed the link).
7) I'm the bad guy for pointing out that items 1 thru 5 are erroneous statements based on pure conjecture, #6 is complete fabrication, and finally that you could benefit from a better grasp of the English language to better express yourself without insulting others? I just want to be clear on which parts make me the bad guy…
The aforementioned is rhetorical and sarcastic to make the point – the time to think it through is before you post. Choosing words like "I don't think it will run as well as my +4 but we'll see" is still a little presumptuous, but not nearly as inflammatory. If not for me, but out of respect for the people that you insulted, maybe you can just let it go at "it was a poor choice of words" or some tortured form of an apology.
I won't have any more to say on the subject regardless.
02-08-2010, 09:08 PM
#43
Losi Racer, you don't know me and I don't know you. It's not personal and I'm not here to pick a fight but to defend the people that, in this case, probably worked pretty hard with Novarossi to introduce a product that they think is best suited to their market and their customer. Whether they got it right or if it's better or worse than your engine isn't the issue. I know these people and, perhaps as a result, I might be a little overzealous about defending them because I have to think they would be insulted by your careless comments. I call Jim Hottinger a friend, as I did Ron Paris, Mario Rossi, and even his father and uncle. So, if I was as simple minded and one-dimensional as you're being, I would probably be forming illogical arguments for the "Novarossi" brand as well. There's simply no reason for what you posted. But instead of showing an ounce of contrition and simply admitting that maybe you went a little overboard with your STATEMENTS OF FACT (not opinions) and admit that at least you could have chosen better words, you get belligerent and immature in defense of the indefensible.
I fully expected your response, so just to set the record straight, I have a college education in the English language, and I spent quite a few years as an Editor and author. It doesn't mean that my grasp of the subject is perfect – I'm far from it. But, for the sake of this discussion, let's just assume that I have a pretty big advantage in the comprehension department as it relates to our "disagreement."
When you say "That's all that engine is, it's a crappy version of the +4," you are stating fact. When you assert that someone or something "is," you imply fact. When you state that something "might" or "may be" you're stating opinion. None of your statements ever allowed an alternate scenario, which makes them statements of fact. Thank you for your little definition – it proves my point that you can't make statements of fact in the absence of the subject of your statement. So, if you say, "that engine is just a crappy version of…" and "i promise you its not the same as the +4, timing will be different," etc., the engine in question must exist, and you must have evaluated it in order to make your absolute statements. Get it?...
You were also incorrect in your statement that "its been stated that this engine seems like it's a +4 (which is an opinion by including the word "seems"), but nobody posted anything even vaguely resembling the aforementioned. You just jumped right in and started flinging poo as though you're the authority on these matters.
None of the above really matters, other than to point out the inconsistencies of your statements. The real substance of my observation is that you (lets recap):
1) Said that a product IS "crappy"
2) "it's definitely not the same as the +4, timing will be different"
3) "Novarossi ISN'T going to make"… blah, blah, blah
4) "I wasn't saying the motor was crap" (see item #1)
5) "It's going to be a dumbed down version"
6) "it's been stated that this engine seems like it's a +4…" only the OP was before your statement, and it had no reference to any engine, no less a +4 (neither did A-Main in their description – I followed the link).
7) I'm the bad guy for pointing out that items 1 thru 5 are erroneous statements based on pure conjecture, #6 is complete fabrication, and finally that you could benefit from a better grasp of the English language to better express yourself without insulting others? I just want to be clear on which parts make me the bad guy…
The aforementioned is rhetorical and sarcastic to make the point – the time to think it through is before you post. Choosing words like "I don't think it will run as well as my +4 but we'll see" is still a little presumptuous, but not nearly as inflammatory. If not for me, but out of respect for the people that you insulted, maybe you can just let it go at "it was a poor choice of words" or some tortured form of an apology.
I won't have any more to say on the subject regardless.
I fully expected your response, so just to set the record straight, I have a college education in the English language, and I spent quite a few years as an Editor and author. It doesn't mean that my grasp of the subject is perfect – I'm far from it. But, for the sake of this discussion, let's just assume that I have a pretty big advantage in the comprehension department as it relates to our "disagreement."
When you say "That's all that engine is, it's a crappy version of the +4," you are stating fact. When you assert that someone or something "is," you imply fact. When you state that something "might" or "may be" you're stating opinion. None of your statements ever allowed an alternate scenario, which makes them statements of fact. Thank you for your little definition – it proves my point that you can't make statements of fact in the absence of the subject of your statement. So, if you say, "that engine is just a crappy version of…" and "i promise you its not the same as the +4, timing will be different," etc., the engine in question must exist, and you must have evaluated it in order to make your absolute statements. Get it?...
You were also incorrect in your statement that "its been stated that this engine seems like it's a +4 (which is an opinion by including the word "seems"), but nobody posted anything even vaguely resembling the aforementioned. You just jumped right in and started flinging poo as though you're the authority on these matters.
None of the above really matters, other than to point out the inconsistencies of your statements. The real substance of my observation is that you (lets recap):
1) Said that a product IS "crappy"
2) "it's definitely not the same as the +4, timing will be different"
3) "Novarossi ISN'T going to make"… blah, blah, blah
4) "I wasn't saying the motor was crap" (see item #1)
5) "It's going to be a dumbed down version"
6) "it's been stated that this engine seems like it's a +4…" only the OP was before your statement, and it had no reference to any engine, no less a +4 (neither did A-Main in their description – I followed the link).
7) I'm the bad guy for pointing out that items 1 thru 5 are erroneous statements based on pure conjecture, #6 is complete fabrication, and finally that you could benefit from a better grasp of the English language to better express yourself without insulting others? I just want to be clear on which parts make me the bad guy…
The aforementioned is rhetorical and sarcastic to make the point – the time to think it through is before you post. Choosing words like "I don't think it will run as well as my +4 but we'll see" is still a little presumptuous, but not nearly as inflammatory. If not for me, but out of respect for the people that you insulted, maybe you can just let it go at "it was a poor choice of words" or some tortured form of an apology.
I won't have any more to say on the subject regardless.
wow, you read WAY to much into what people write. glad you wasted 30 min of you day to write a bunch of bs.
02-08-2010, 09:41 PM
#45
coming from someone that has seen this motor in action it is practicly an exact replica of my novarossi plus 4 but with losi's name on it