Cooder, there is gotta be something wrong with you. I mean, what the hell.

I just reread Ike's comments from the first few pages. I don't understand where you get this whole "RX-8 must sell or die" thing. I agree with everything he says: the 8 would sell better if it weren't for the 350Z, the average consumer doesn't understand the 8 (low torque and bad gas mileage), the sales for the 8 are dropping (I have exact numbers if you want em), the car is regularly bashed by many other car enthusiasts because of its weirdness/uniqueness, the RX-8 isn't a halo car (the MNAO president said so), and I (as well as just about everyone else) would love for the RX-8 to stay around and get some more power.

There's nothing wrong or attacking about what he's saying. Before he'd even made a second post, you'd thrown down the word "Zeitgeist" -- you didn't deserve even one nice response to that kinda BS. I understand what Ike is saying. You ramble on about things that are so obvious that everyone already knows -- yes, automobile economics are multi-faceted and complicated.

Nissan has found a way to tap into that market with the rebirth of their Japanese muscle car, the Z. It has a long history and old people have lots of money to throw away. They've sold 1.5 MILLION of these things. Mazda has to find a way to make money no matter what. They're not going to do it with their current iteration of the 8 even if they sell it for 20 more years.

There's one more thing that I'll agree with Ike on:

This isn't a debate. This is an exercise in futility.

 

Cooder, would it take you 8 paragraphs to tell us all to f*ck off?


If so, please do so and end all our misery. You've made this thread a pile of ****...oops, let me translate for you "feces".

 

The Evo and STi are fast but too ugly. The RX-8 is sexy but too slow. The S2000 is a hot little car and somewhat quick, but too impractical for many. The 350Z/G35 simply managed to hit squarely in the middle of what the average consumer wanted.

With only the Evo, STi, and RX-8 there might be low sales...because these cars are not exactly what people are looking for. Not because a 350Z wasn't there to cast a glow on the whole segment. Somehow I can't imagine this scenario:

(average guy shopping for cars)

2001: You know, sports cars in general are not desireable or sexy. It's not that no one's building a good, cheap sports car, oh no--I think the sports car segment is simply uninteresting. I think I will be looking at sedans.

2006: You know, that sexy little 350Z didn't just change my mind about Nissans. Now I can see that sports cars are desireable after all.

 

I had a hard time getting through your whole post so I skipped to the end, I didn't bother with the one above much either. I'm fully aware how it will look, they will rejoice because I'm going to spare them the boredom. I won't waste any more of my time on you, I've made strong arguments throughout this post. You can continue to be the genius you know you are and thinking you won some debate when you barely even made an argument. See, we're all happy!

 

Din , Ike and Saturn re- consider your participation in this thread.

 

I already have, see my post above.

 

Seems like the thread has run its course anyway.

 

i thought it was a thesis not a thread. ...

j/k, understood zoom.

 

I just saved lots of money on my car insurance by switching to geico

 

Now this is fair. You say somehow you can't believe that the Nissans would cast a glow on the entire market segment. Similarly, when I bring up the intriguing idea and ask the question "COULD the Nissans really cast a glow on the entire segment?", it doesn't mean it's a fact. It's simply an intriguing idea and has led to further discussion. I have come up with several examples of supporting (although not proving) observations. Incredibly, I have even tried to show that some peoples' responses in opposition can actually be seen as consistent (without putting them down personally). Some people have agreed. Others have disagreed. Where is the controversy? I'm simply trying very hard to promote a good discussion.

Where is the challenge and the arrogance? Where is the poor thinking? I haven't proven anything and others haven't proven anything (even the many whose arguments are basically in agreement). I've tried very hard to come up with points. Some others have also. If their thinking is not poor, neither is mine. Those criticisms are ludicrous and are really coming from a limited number of individuals who have their own agendas. A couple of others I believe are serious, mature professionals who may have gotten suckered in a little by the pernicious agenda of one defeated individual.

The whole first page is all it takes to vindicate me. Even if the initial posts were wordy, they were not confusing. They are not designed to confuse people but in fact the opposite, to reduce confusion. They are not written in super concise scientific format but rather in an easy conversational style. In my opinion, as I review and review them, they are very digestible. Remember, I'm the one who came up with this multifacted idea, and so I'm the one who had to try to illustrate it to a bunch of people the best I can. It's not an easy task. There are a few lines of reasoning (some connected, others not really) and even though it's a limited number, it isn't easy for ANY reader to absorb and organize the entire thing. It would have been difficult for both sides regardless. Why attack me? Just try to figure it out the best you can or even ask me questions to clarify. Doesn't that make good sense? When I pick up someone else's research article to review, it's never super easy to understand. I have to put a lot of effort and reread and reread and try to pick up what they REALLY intended to say. Reviewers make a ton of suggestions but I've never felt compelled to say a lab's work and ideas are stupid. I think any profesional here can relate to that in their own arenas.

 

Thanks. I was just about to ask a moderator to put a stop to those exact three people, plus to a lesser extent playdoh. There's no justification for what they were doing.

 

Zoom must have had a premonition or gut feeling. Or maybe he's psychic like you are.

 

I don't think you quite understood the purpose of Zoom's post.

 

Psychic people should always get straight As, I would think.

 

careful with your language Cooder. No need to respond to them any more since they have left the thread. keep to the point.

 

Well I wish you would put that post back up (along with some edits of words like bonehead and mouseketeers) because it shows that two of the people who keep attacking me are doing so based on inaccurate facts where they didn't even get straight who said what.

 

Dear Cooder,

I think the rx8 will do well so long as rotary development continues, which is the most important factor in driving its future.

okay sweet, now that i got that out I can continue:

I did actually respond (page 2 or something) actually to offer my opinion on the sucess of the car. I only responded to you after your posts seemed arrogant
claiming worthy of PHD status.

Don't be so upset. no one here really is. I'm not. I was giving you a tip in my first post to you, to say, you don't need fancy words to prove a point. I ended that post with the PEACE smiley in which you proceeded to attack me with more. Don't be that cheesy guy at the 'dinner party'. That was all my advice was.

LYLAS, have a great summer, hope we can be friends and have more classes together next year.
DinhX8

 

Doc, my point is that the vast majority of human beings look to place blame outside of themselves. Early on in college, I came to reverse the viewing lens, that it is my responsibility to get everything out of those courses and textbooks.
Doesn't matter how bad, boring, wordy, or pretentious the professor is. Doesn't matter how poorly written (I think) the textbook is. If there are notes to be taken and books to be read, I'll take care of my end. So many poor students with the basic ubiquitous personality flaws would come to me and complain about everyone and everything but themselves and then ask me what my secret was. I told them go to every class and read every page and then reread every page until you understood everything. Look at yourself. Don't worry about the professor or the book. It is up to you to not let yourself down. No shortcut secrets.

In any class in which you didn't get an A, was it your fault or was it the professor's or the book's? At one point in here, with that group of haters, this fitting analogy occurred to me.

 

Your post, coming from a person who can truly relate, heartens me.

 

A. that's enough from you. if you cannot dicuss his views without personal attacks you do not belong in the thread. thats a warning.

Second - be careful what you say. Dont be so sure about who's "writing skills" are better. of the 2 "scores" im attaching your's is the lesser

Cooder- once more- do not respond to the personal attacks. it only prolongs the arguement and obfuscates the discussion

 

2nd warning playdoh- stay on topic

 

oh well, looks like funs over back on topic

 

yikes.
somehow i read through this whole thread. i must be bored.

i have to say i agree with cooder a bit about the rx-8 surviving as long as other cars continue to carry it. it does seem to me that mazda isnt too worried about the rx-8's sales, but likes to use it as more of a novelty figurehead. although, they might try advertising and a little more public exposure if thats true.

anyway, now that im here at the end of the thread i forgot what i was really going to say. but, im sure it wasnt important or interesting.

 

Thanks for showing up, Mercury, and supporting my basic premise like so many have.

It's really not very confusing or controversial, as 3 or 4 boneheads on their own agendas have tried to make it. One person wanted so much to knock me off my "pedestal" that he was driven to push the ridiculously narrow and stupid idea that the ONLY factor Mazda considers is if the RX8 sells and if it doesn't it's gone! In REAL intellectual life, human beings need to learn to focus on the substance and topic, not on personal competition or jealousies. The latter will only cause you to come up with lines of "reasoning" that defy common sense, thus making you look stupid.

 

Actually the less you type, the more it is open to interpretation. The difference is in the reader. The less you type, both dummies and smart people can come up with different interpretations of the same language. The more you type, only the dummies will tend to misinterpret and the smart ones will self-adjust in a process basically known as concept formation. Don't dummies try to read textbooks and still get bad grades? I guess it's the author of the textbook's fault.