Quote:
Originally Posted by Captain Snooze
Your post is so full of fallacious holes it's not funny.
1/ Either all the cars mags were paid off to like to car last year (meaning it deserved NONE of the awards it received) or after spending time with the car...."
This is an example of the either/or, black or white fallacy. You post 2 different examples as if these were the only possibilities available. That is, there is no possibility that some reviewers were paid off and some short comings were noted after a time.
2/ "Either all the cars mags were paid off". This reads like an emotive statement with out content. Do you have any evidence to support this? Stating "They won an award because they were paid off" is not evidence.
3/ " and it didn't make multiple cuts (including Top Gear mag ect)". That's funny because " FR-S / BRZ Makes Top Gear’s 50 Greatest Cars of Past 20 Years List" http://www.ft86club.com/?p=3017, http://www.topgear.com/uk/photos/20y...cars-mag-promo |
Its HILARIOUS that you take the idea that the major car mags are paid off as serious, yet unironically want to debate an obviously satiric response with a few tools cribbed from a Cracked article on logic.
This forum is the best sometimes. . .
