george_seamons

I was just going by what she had said on facebook, I've not said any more than that...

According to the log book it is

I was more on about what Lou said! Would be cool if you had it though.

...but you haven't, according to Facebook

f**king hell dude. God forbid you ever have kids...

You make it sound like there's millions

You don't get comission on it?! Come on man, get real. Of course you do, that's how your job works!

You're an arrogant fanny Jardo.

...none of which are particuarly age related, its more due to the power/economy downgrade.

So the whole gay shoebox thing is going ahead then... And as for a "better example"...didn't you guys say it needed shit loads of work done to it?

Unless its real hair, and not just bum fluff, don't bother, you'll just look like a scruffy tramp! ...or you could just respect her while you're living under her roof and make yourself look presentable?!

You use that picture of me FAR too much, you have issues.

So is the beemer going then?

Its OAP green and it has minging upholstery The Cupra you linked to the other day?

Can we pick yours to pieces instead?

It all depends on how it is written. I will either win the lottery or I won't, according to the way this question is worded. Hence it being 50%. The "answers" have NOTHING to do with the question. It is crapply worded, I think that's the whole point

Well...I (and several other people!) went totally the other way, and took the question more literally. A lot of people mistake the answers for being part of the question...I don't think they are. It says "If you choose AN ANSWER at random, what is your probability of being correct?". An answer to what? It doesn't actually give a question. No matter what the question; you can only be correct, or incorrect. ...Thus 50%

Following a question I saw on Facebook, I decided to bring it to the attention of Trials Forum. I found it very interesting to see different peoples' reactions to a fairly simple question. It goes as follows; If you choose an answer at random, what is your probability of being correct? A: 25% B: 50% C: 60% D: 25% So....what do the people of T-F think?

Nobody is talking crap. The news was told as facts, end of. There was a discussion about safety to prevent this kind of thing happening again, which is surely a good thing?! One more reply with bad attitude and you're gone. You're adding nothing to the forum, other than causing aggro in a thread which was meant to be informing people/ a place to show respect to your "mate". I put mate in speech marks, because I wouldn't class somebody that acted like you have, as a mate of mine. Now...try again.

...or you could have a bit of respect for the guy and not come on here acting like a twat. Not a very good way to introduce yourself, or give a first impression to people. The only one "shouting your mouth" is you. Drop the attitude or don't bother coming back. This isn't the thread to be acting a dick in...

You're such a broken record...

You could have killed us on ANY of the corners dude! Think the problem there is; its such a short lap, the quick cars soon end up lapping the slower cars at the back of the pack, who then panic, and its all goes to shit!

Having done my fair share of track days, I was appauled at the marshalling on Saturday. Very very bad track ettiquete by countless drivers, and little to no Marshall intervention. At many points, much much slower cars were released from the pit lane into on coming full speed cars on track. During the busy sessions, there were neigh on 40 cars on track...far far too many judging by the standards of driving! Still, it was a good day out (even though it took me forever to get home!). The Fiat driver entered Camp far too quickly (newbie driver!), and just understeered catastrophically! It WAS his car though, according to the YouTube comments anyway!

Orange is the new red

Why not read the thread Simon, then you won't miss it