dammit.. Monday just snuck up on me again
Troll
iTrader: (6)
Joined: Jan 2006
Posts: 15,877
From: In SoggyNoodles Low Rise Pants
Car Info: 2008 Legacy Spec-B
VIP Member
iTrader: (17)
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 22,776
From: Sunnyvale, CA
Car Info: '13 BRZ Limited / '02 WRX
so I guess option #1 was right.....Double Phister, dz, GT35 STI, midnitewrx02, and ryball win
VIP Member
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,632
From: Yokosuka, Japan
Car Info: 2008 EVO X/1991 Nissan Skyline GT-R32
my front left coilover is now lower than the right one and it is what is making my car sound funny. need to perform car surgery tonight. happy birthday to me.
VIP Member
iTrader: (17)
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 22,776
From: Sunnyvale, CA
Car Info: '13 BRZ Limited / '02 WRX
yeah, thats different from what my problem was. I just have noisey struts which is a common problem with the 04 STi struts. The washer fix that Marcel was talking about was supposedly to fix the noisey STi struts.....and I know nothing about coilovers. PM Moike
VIP Member
iTrader: (4)
Joined: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,632
From: Yokosuka, Japan
Car Info: 2008 EVO X/1991 Nissan Skyline GT-R32
i did. he would have to see it and I dont want to drive that far, plus work kind of interupts that. Tonight I will see if I can fix it myself, if not Moore performance said they can put it up on a lift and check it out. The guy said it sounds like the piece you loosen to raise and lower them came lose.
VIP Member
iTrader: (17)
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 22,776
From: Sunnyvale, CA
Car Info: '13 BRZ Limited / '02 WRX
i did. he would have to see it and I dont want to drive that far, plus work kind of interupts that. Tonight I will see if I can fix it myself, if not Moore performance said they can put it up on a lift and check it out. The guy said it sounds like the piece you loosen to raise and lower them came lose.
off to work
Last edited by VRT MBasile; Apr 23, 2007 at 01:41 PM.
plays well with others
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Aug 2006
Posts: 9,923
From: Sac
Car Info: your mother crazy
how to aggravate a judge, by irrationalX
Begin your defense by questioning the officer. use questions like:
"you stated there are allot of visual obstructions on this strech of roadway that obscured my view and made my speed dangerous. If i was traveling in a low visibility area how were you able to visually approximate my speed from over a quarter of a mile away?"
judge: "what are you trying to get at?"
me: "i was attempting to ascertain how exactly the officer was able to approximate my speed without seeing me"
judge: "why dont you try another question"
me: "Officer, in your statement you said that you initiated the stop and then approached my vehicle. Dont you think that me pulling into where you were parked and asking 'where would you like me to park?' would be considered me initiating a surrender? No pursuit was initiated and to my knowledge you never turned your lights on.
Furthermore, isnt it logical to assume that since i completed a very safe maneuver after identifying that i was being targeted that my speed was safe and reasonable? i would argue that if my speed was unsafe for conditions i would have been unable to execute such a maneuver would you agree?"
Judge: "try that again without all the argumentative parts..."
me: "im sorry your honor, i was under the impression that the courts in our country are an adversarial system which would require me to be argumentative in order to mount an adequate defense."
judge: ****unhappy face****
Begin your defense by questioning the officer. use questions like:
"you stated there are allot of visual obstructions on this strech of roadway that obscured my view and made my speed dangerous. If i was traveling in a low visibility area how were you able to visually approximate my speed from over a quarter of a mile away?"
judge: "what are you trying to get at?"
me: "i was attempting to ascertain how exactly the officer was able to approximate my speed without seeing me"
judge: "why dont you try another question"
me: "Officer, in your statement you said that you initiated the stop and then approached my vehicle. Dont you think that me pulling into where you were parked and asking 'where would you like me to park?' would be considered me initiating a surrender? No pursuit was initiated and to my knowledge you never turned your lights on.
Furthermore, isnt it logical to assume that since i completed a very safe maneuver after identifying that i was being targeted that my speed was safe and reasonable? i would argue that if my speed was unsafe for conditions i would have been unable to execute such a maneuver would you agree?"
Judge: "try that again without all the argumentative parts..."
me: "im sorry your honor, i was under the impression that the courts in our country are an adversarial system which would require me to be argumentative in order to mount an adequate defense."
judge: ****unhappy face****
how to aggravate a judge, by irrationalX
Begin your defense by questioning the officer. use questions like:
"you stated there are allot of visual obstructions on this strech of roadway that obscured my view and made my speed dangerous. If i was traveling in a low visibility area how were you able to visually approximate my speed from over a quarter of a mile away?"
judge: "what are you trying to get at?"
me: "i was attempting to ascertain how exactly the officer was able to approximate my speed without seeing me"
judge: "why dont you try another question"
me: "Officer, in your statement you said that you initiated the stop and then approached my vehicle. Dont you think that me pulling into where you were parked and asking 'where would you like me to park?' would be considered me initiating a surrender? No pursuit was initiated and to my knowledge you never turned your lights on.
Furthermore, isnt it logical to assume that since i completed a very safe maneuver after identifying that i was being targeted that my speed was safe and reasonable? i would argue that if my speed was unsafe for conditions i would have been unable to execute such a maneuver would you agree?"
Judge: "try that again without all the argumentative parts..."
me: "im sorry your honor, i was under the impression that the courts in our country are an adversarial system which would require me to be argumentative in order to mount an adequate defense."
judge: ****unhappy face****
Begin your defense by questioning the officer. use questions like:
"you stated there are allot of visual obstructions on this strech of roadway that obscured my view and made my speed dangerous. If i was traveling in a low visibility area how were you able to visually approximate my speed from over a quarter of a mile away?"
judge: "what are you trying to get at?"
me: "i was attempting to ascertain how exactly the officer was able to approximate my speed without seeing me"
judge: "why dont you try another question"
me: "Officer, in your statement you said that you initiated the stop and then approached my vehicle. Dont you think that me pulling into where you were parked and asking 'where would you like me to park?' would be considered me initiating a surrender? No pursuit was initiated and to my knowledge you never turned your lights on.
Furthermore, isnt it logical to assume that since i completed a very safe maneuver after identifying that i was being targeted that my speed was safe and reasonable? i would argue that if my speed was unsafe for conditions i would have been unable to execute such a maneuver would you agree?"
Judge: "try that again without all the argumentative parts..."
me: "im sorry your honor, i was under the impression that the courts in our country are an adversarial system which would require me to be argumentative in order to mount an adequate defense."
judge: ****unhappy face****
VIP Member
iTrader: (7)
Joined: Jun 2003
Posts: 25,095
From: Funtown
Car Info: A limousine with a chauffer
how to aggravate a judge, by irrationalX
Begin your defense by questioning the officer. use questions like:
"you stated there are allot of visual obstructions on this strech of roadway that obscured my view and made my speed dangerous. If i was traveling in a low visibility area how were you able to visually approximate my speed from over a quarter of a mile away?"
judge: "what are you trying to get at?"
me: "i was attempting to ascertain how exactly the officer was able to approximate my speed without seeing me"
judge: "why dont you try another question"
me: "Officer, in your statement you said that you initiated the stop and then approached my vehicle. Dont you think that me pulling into where you were parked and asking 'where would you like me to park?' would be considered me initiating a surrender? No pursuit was initiated and to my knowledge you never turned your lights on.
Furthermore, isnt it logical to assume that since i completed a very safe maneuver after identifying that i was being targeted that my speed was safe and reasonable? i would argue that if my speed was unsafe for conditions i would have been unable to execute such a maneuver would you agree?"
Judge: "try that again without all the argumentative parts..."
me: "im sorry your honor, i was under the impression that the courts in our country are an adversarial system which would require me to be argumentative in order to mount an adequate defense."
judge: ****unhappy face****
Begin your defense by questioning the officer. use questions like:
"you stated there are allot of visual obstructions on this strech of roadway that obscured my view and made my speed dangerous. If i was traveling in a low visibility area how were you able to visually approximate my speed from over a quarter of a mile away?"
judge: "what are you trying to get at?"
me: "i was attempting to ascertain how exactly the officer was able to approximate my speed without seeing me"
judge: "why dont you try another question"
me: "Officer, in your statement you said that you initiated the stop and then approached my vehicle. Dont you think that me pulling into where you were parked and asking 'where would you like me to park?' would be considered me initiating a surrender? No pursuit was initiated and to my knowledge you never turned your lights on.
Furthermore, isnt it logical to assume that since i completed a very safe maneuver after identifying that i was being targeted that my speed was safe and reasonable? i would argue that if my speed was unsafe for conditions i would have been unable to execute such a maneuver would you agree?"
Judge: "try that again without all the argumentative parts..."
me: "im sorry your honor, i was under the impression that the courts in our country are an adversarial system which would require me to be argumentative in order to mount an adequate defense."
judge: ****unhappy face****
