You don't have to concede to being something to BE it. Also, I don't have to explain my preference because I wasn't asking whether I should get an auto or manual. The whole premise on which the lot of you are operating on is flawed and you don't get it. Get with the program, jackholes. All I need to say is I want an AT. Period. I have several reasons, and 1 MPG was the least important of them.
It always has something to do with talking, posting, or writing to people. Now you are saying you're the victim??? HAHAHA
You still don't get it. I wasn't saying it would happen EVER. I said it's a hypothetical. Key word: hypothesis. Go google some more, moron. And go back to English class while you're at it because you have conflated disparate concepts.
I'm saying if everything on a certain car is built superior to the rest, and the AT is flawed, then I could be bothered to drive that car with a MT. Go back to school and learn to read. You think this is the only forum I've done research on? LOL
LMFAO you're an abusive little piece of work!
As far as your hypothetical sitution, I suggest you read up on what a strawman is, because your hypothesis is exactly that. It's a nonsense hypothesis that bears no relation to the issue or matter at hand, mainly because it is entirely stupid and entirely unrealistic, and distracts from your original argument that a manual that had been run at slightly higher average revs than an auto would have any meaningful difference in engine-life expectancy (for all practical intents and purposes, it won't).
Anyway, let's examine one statement you have made, and we'll see who is having problems with his English comprehension:
I could be bothered with a manual if the overall car was more worthwhile in regards to reliability and safety and value.
What you have said there is pretty simple: I would go the manual option if it provided greater reliability and safety and value.
Obviously a 'flawed' auto would immediately meet that requirement and you'd go the manual. Now watch carefully, this is where it gets tricky for anyone focusing on using big words in internet forums to make himself sound like a bigshot.
If neither the manual nor the auto are flawed, but by virtue of being a manual gearbox it provides reliability, safety and value benefits, then your statement suggests you 'could be bothered with a manual'. So, for example, a manual might mean that resale values are lower due to a general preference for autos, thus helping you get more vehicle for the same amount of money compared to an auto.
What it doesn't mean is what you have claimed:
I'm saying if everything on a certain car is built superior to the rest, and the AT is flawed, then I could be bothered to drive that car with a MT.
You have introduced a new and limiting factor, namely that the auto must be flawed, and that's the only reason you'd prefer it to the manual. It's a continuation of the internet troll technique you're demonstrating so masterfully here: post something and when you're corrected claim you meant something else and send up a cloud of childish abuse
It's clear you're the one struggling with his comprehension here
Nobody cares whether you get an auto or a manual, as you've said, it's your money, and I've repeatedly said that I consider it to be a perfectly valid reason that you just do. All we've done is pointed out that the justifications you provided for doing so were complete nonsense. You first dismissed people as idiots when they pointed this out to you, then claimed you never meant those things and it didn't matter anyway (does this sound like familiar behaviour?), and explode in a cloud of childish insults.
If you went into the video forum and said you wanted advice on an ATI 5850 graphics card, and mentioned that you didn't want an Nvidia card because they ran hotter (heat kills graphics cards!) and crashed all the time, then I can guarantee you that posters there would correct you on both those points. It's nothing sinister or unhelpful, just correcting some incorrect notions you hold. It would have been less 'helpful' to have left you believing that autos get better fuel economy and that slightly higher average revs would have some meaningful or noticeable impact on the lifetime of your engine.
Anyway, thank you for the casual abuse and poorly constructed arguments, it's been fun. Over & out
Facebook
Twitter