Revving the Rice Rockets
Thread Starter
|
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Wow, I'm amazed at how much attention this post has drawn.
I am also amazed at how many unintelligent people there are on this board - it's a little disappointing. As NUTS01808 so deftly and subtly pointed out, the definition for rice is as a food. There is no formal definition of the term ricer. We are not using the term rice properly with regards to its definition when applying it to cars or automotive workers. To keep things simple for everyone, when we say rice or ricer with regards to cars, we are using slang. As such, there is no formally correct way of using the term. This means that my personal "definition" of rice/ricer is just as good as anyone else's personal "definition." I have kept my definition of rice/ricer consistent throughout this post. To say that there is a correct and an incorrect way to apply rice/ricer to cars and auto-workers is an unfounded and foolish statement based on an illogical thought process.
I have also kept a high ground by not pointing out the logical phallacies and inconsistencies of others on this board. I have also not pointed out the base stupidity of certain members throughout this post. I have given certain members the benefit of the doubt with regard to syntax and verbiage, thinking that English may not be a first language for several people who are using inappropriate terms with regards to meaning and context.
I am truly disappointed by the overall intelligence of several of the members here.
I am also amazed at how many unintelligent people there are on this board - it's a little disappointing. As NUTS01808 so deftly and subtly pointed out, the definition for rice is as a food. There is no formal definition of the term ricer. We are not using the term rice properly with regards to its definition when applying it to cars or automotive workers. To keep things simple for everyone, when we say rice or ricer with regards to cars, we are using slang. As such, there is no formally correct way of using the term. This means that my personal "definition" of rice/ricer is just as good as anyone else's personal "definition." I have kept my definition of rice/ricer consistent throughout this post. To say that there is a correct and an incorrect way to apply rice/ricer to cars and auto-workers is an unfounded and foolish statement based on an illogical thought process.
I have also kept a high ground by not pointing out the logical phallacies and inconsistencies of others on this board. I have also not pointed out the base stupidity of certain members throughout this post. I have given certain members the benefit of the doubt with regard to syntax and verbiage, thinking that English may not be a first language for several people who are using inappropriate terms with regards to meaning and context.
I am truly disappointed by the overall intelligence of several of the members here.
Last edited by aerisolphaln; May 26, 2005 at 10:29 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,921
Likes: 3
From: OC
Originally Posted by aerisolphaln
Wow, I'm amazed at how much attention this post has drawn.
I am also amazed at how many unintelligent people there are on this board - it's a little disappointing. As NUTS01808 so deftly and subtly pointed out, the definition for rice is as a food. There is no formal definition of the term ricer. We are not using the term rice properly with regards to it's definition when applying it to cars or automotive workers. To keep things simple for everyone, when we say rice or ricer with regards to cars, we are using slang. As such, there is no formally correct way of using the term. This means that my personal "definition" of rice/ricer is just as good as anyone else's personal "definition." I have kept my definition of rice/ricer consistent throughout this post. To say that there is a correct and an incorrect way to apply rice/ricer to cars and auto-workers is an unfounded and foolish statement based on an illogical thought process.
I have also kept a high ground by not pointing out the logical phallacies and inconsistencies of others on this board. I have also not pointed out the base stupidity of certain members throughout this post. I have given certain members the benefit of the doubt with regard to syntax and verbage, thinking that English may not be a first language for several people who are using inappropriate terms with regards to meaning and context.
I am truly disappointed by the overall intelligence of several of the members here.
I am also amazed at how many unintelligent people there are on this board - it's a little disappointing. As NUTS01808 so deftly and subtly pointed out, the definition for rice is as a food. There is no formal definition of the term ricer. We are not using the term rice properly with regards to it's definition when applying it to cars or automotive workers. To keep things simple for everyone, when we say rice or ricer with regards to cars, we are using slang. As such, there is no formally correct way of using the term. This means that my personal "definition" of rice/ricer is just as good as anyone else's personal "definition." I have kept my definition of rice/ricer consistent throughout this post. To say that there is a correct and an incorrect way to apply rice/ricer to cars and auto-workers is an unfounded and foolish statement based on an illogical thought process.
I have also kept a high ground by not pointing out the logical phallacies and inconsistencies of others on this board. I have also not pointed out the base stupidity of certain members throughout this post. I have given certain members the benefit of the doubt with regard to syntax and verbage, thinking that English may not be a first language for several people who are using inappropriate terms with regards to meaning and context.
I am truly disappointed by the overall intelligence of several of the members here.
hahahaah this tool is trying to talk his way out of it now. haahahahahahaha
nobody cares if your definition for ricer is right or not. bottom line is you obviously implied that you are "better" than "cheap" japanese cars.. and that your car is superior and that you are too good for people who buy "hondas and eclipses"... nobody needs that **** around here.. go take that **** back to your rich elite social circles where you wipe your a$$ with money a holier than thou attitude and keep it out of here you d!ck.
So if you really think you're a tool because of your definition of ricer, then you're the only one lacking in intelligence around here.
hey, i'll give you an A for effort man.
Last edited by mc2; May 26, 2005 at 10:39 AM.
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,921
Likes: 3
From: OC
Originally Posted by aerisolphaln
^^^^You should read my old posts throughout this thread^^^^
And you are not a smart person.
And you are not a smart person.
... Oh wait. you had posts??? I had no idea, i thought i was just flaming you for my own personal entertainment. I had no idea that you actually posted stuff before. I bet get started on reading those before i say anymore!!
Last edited by mc2; May 26, 2005 at 10:40 AM.
well from my experience with other people is that a ricer is someone who invests in looks and makes their car seem like it's really fast but lacks the performance to backup the looks of the car...
i could be completely wrong but i still have respect for kids who take the time and effort to learn their cars and know what to do to make them faster.
i could be completely wrong but i still have respect for kids who take the time and effort to learn their cars and know what to do to make them faster.
Banned
Joined: Jan 2005
Posts: 3,505
Likes: 0
From: Delaware
Some of you guys are stupid. He never said the car was RICE becuase of the BOV or possibly having a TURBO. If you read his description about the cracked bodykit lookin like **** and other descriptions makes rice.
Someone else siad they had an older car that was really clean ran 12-13's and would eat cars alive. That is not rice that is a classy modified car. Everyone is jumping to conclusions. However the original poster fif call making a g35 a skyline badged car rice which can be true......
Someone else siad they had an older car that was really clean ran 12-13's and would eat cars alive. That is not rice that is a classy modified car. Everyone is jumping to conclusions. However the original poster fif call making a g35 a skyline badged car rice which can be true......
Registered User
Joined: Mar 2005
Posts: 1,921
Likes: 3
From: OC
Originally Posted by bassholic
Some of you guys are stupid. He never said the car was RICE becuase of the BOV or possibly having a TURBO. If you read his description about the cracked bodykit lookin like **** and other descriptions makes rice.
Someone else siad they had an older car that was really clean ran 12-13's and would eat cars alive. That is not rice that is a classy modified car. Everyone is jumping to conclusions. However the original poster fif call making a g35 a skyline badged car rice which can be true......
Someone else siad they had an older car that was really clean ran 12-13's and would eat cars alive. That is not rice that is a classy modified car. Everyone is jumping to conclusions. However the original poster fif call making a g35 a skyline badged car rice which can be true......
Registered User
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 19
Likes: 0
From: PA
Originally Posted by aerisolphaln
Really? I'd have to say my definition of rice is someone who modifies cheap Japanese cars, regardless of what they put into it or get out of it.
And people who call the Infiniti G35 a Nissan Skyline 350GT or any variation thereof in North America hehehehehe.........
And people who call the Infiniti G35 a Nissan Skyline 350GT or any variation thereof in North America hehehehehe.........
I think this comment is what people are getting upset over.
If you read it carefully, the logical conclusion is that the writer believes that:
A. Someone who modifies "cheap" japanese cars must be "rice" regardless of the amount of effort or money or result.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by Turbomatic240sx
I think this comment is what people are getting upset over.
If you read it carefully, the logical conclusion is that the writer believes that:
A. Someone who modifies "cheap" japanese cars must be "rice" regardless of the amount of effort or money or result.
If you read it carefully, the logical conclusion is that the writer believes that:
A. Someone who modifies "cheap" japanese cars must be "rice" regardless of the amount of effort or money or result.
Registered User
Joined: Apr 2005
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by aerisolphaln
Wow, I'm amazed at how much attention this post has drawn.
I am also amazed at how many unintelligent people there are on this board - it's a little disappointing. As NUTS01808 so deftly and subtly pointed out, the definition for rice is as a food. There is no formal definition of the term ricer. We are not using the term rice properly with regards to its definition when applying it to cars or automotive workers. To keep things simple for everyone, when we say rice or ricer with regards to cars, we are using slang. As such, there is no formally correct way of using the term. This means that my personal "definition" of rice/ricer is just as good as anyone else's personal "definition." I have kept my definition of rice/ricer consistent throughout this post. To say that there is a correct and an incorrect way to apply rice/ricer to cars and auto-workers is an unfounded and foolish statement based on an illogical thought process.
I have also kept a high ground by not pointing out the logical phallacies and inconsistencies of others on this board. I have also not pointed out the base stupidity of certain members throughout this post. I have given certain members the benefit of the doubt with regard to syntax and verbiage, thinking that English may not be a first language for several people who are using inappropriate terms with regards to meaning and context.
I am truly disappointed by the overall intelligence of several of the members here.
I am also amazed at how many unintelligent people there are on this board - it's a little disappointing. As NUTS01808 so deftly and subtly pointed out, the definition for rice is as a food. There is no formal definition of the term ricer. We are not using the term rice properly with regards to its definition when applying it to cars or automotive workers. To keep things simple for everyone, when we say rice or ricer with regards to cars, we are using slang. As such, there is no formally correct way of using the term. This means that my personal "definition" of rice/ricer is just as good as anyone else's personal "definition." I have kept my definition of rice/ricer consistent throughout this post. To say that there is a correct and an incorrect way to apply rice/ricer to cars and auto-workers is an unfounded and foolish statement based on an illogical thought process.
I have also kept a high ground by not pointing out the logical phallacies and inconsistencies of others on this board. I have also not pointed out the base stupidity of certain members throughout this post. I have given certain members the benefit of the doubt with regard to syntax and verbiage, thinking that English may not be a first language for several people who are using inappropriate terms with regards to meaning and context.
I am truly disappointed by the overall intelligence of several of the members here.
You know, you may try to distort it all you want.... but the truth of the matter is... until you deflate that overinflated ego of yours, you will never see the light my friend.
Gangster Member
Joined: Feb 2005
Posts: 1,321
Likes: 0
Originally Posted by aerisolphaln
Wow, I'm amazed at how much attention this post has drawn.
I am also amazed at how many unintelligent people there are on this board - it's a little disappointing. As NUTS01808 so deftly and subtly pointed out, the definition for rice is as a food. There is no formal definition of the term ricer. We are not using the term rice properly with regards to its definition when applying it to cars or automotive workers. To keep things simple for everyone, when we say rice or ricer with regards to cars, we are using slang. As such, there is no formally correct way of using the term. This means that my personal "definition" of rice/ricer is just as good as anyone else's personal "definition." I have kept my definition of rice/ricer consistent throughout this post. To say that there is a correct and an incorrect way to apply rice/ricer to cars and auto-workers is an unfounded and foolish statement based on an illogical thought process.
I have also kept a high ground by not pointing out the logical phallacies and inconsistencies of others on this board. I have also not pointed out the base stupidity of certain members throughout this post. I have given certain members the benefit of the doubt with regard to syntax and verbiage, thinking that English may not be a first language for several people who are using inappropriate terms with regards to meaning and context.
I am truly disappointed by the overall intelligence of several of the members here.
I am also amazed at how many unintelligent people there are on this board - it's a little disappointing. As NUTS01808 so deftly and subtly pointed out, the definition for rice is as a food. There is no formal definition of the term ricer. We are not using the term rice properly with regards to its definition when applying it to cars or automotive workers. To keep things simple for everyone, when we say rice or ricer with regards to cars, we are using slang. As such, there is no formally correct way of using the term. This means that my personal "definition" of rice/ricer is just as good as anyone else's personal "definition." I have kept my definition of rice/ricer consistent throughout this post. To say that there is a correct and an incorrect way to apply rice/ricer to cars and auto-workers is an unfounded and foolish statement based on an illogical thought process.
I have also kept a high ground by not pointing out the logical phallacies and inconsistencies of others on this board. I have also not pointed out the base stupidity of certain members throughout this post. I have given certain members the benefit of the doubt with regard to syntax and verbiage, thinking that English may not be a first language for several people who are using inappropriate terms with regards to meaning and context.
I am truly disappointed by the overall intelligence of several of the members here.
hahahah dont make laugh, exactly as somebody said trying to get of it, listen you know fvcked up you know that right
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
esotericrider
V36 General Tech Questions
7
Mar 4, 2019 07:53 PM
Roblee22
G35 Coupe V35 2003 - 07
5
Jul 30, 2015 12:11 PM
