Indy's gone to the dogs...

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Bobzilla: No, your comment was ridiculous because you can't possibly know that your dogs are as important to you as my kids are to me. I have both, and as much as I love my dogs, they are insignificant in comparison to my kids. Because you don't have kids, you can't possibly make any comparison of dogs and kids. It was a ridiculous statement, and if you think it wasn't, then you are the one with the closed mind, my friend.

There's nothing to add to that hate filled bullE36 M3. I think you did it all for me.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Bobzilla: No, your comment was ridiculous because you can't possibly know that your dogs are as important to you as my kids are to me. I have both, and as much as I love my dogs, they are insignificant in comparison to my kids. Because you don't have kids, you can't possibly make any comparison of dogs and kids. It was a ridiculous statement, and if you think it wasn't, then you are the one with the closed mind, my friend.

Oh come on, can't you two morons find something better to argue about?

On the flip side, you can't possibly know that your kids are as important to you as Bob's dogs are important to him. Surprise! You both have different lives and you see it differently! SHOCKER.

He considers his dogs his kids. Simple as that. If you want to sit here and dissect it for the purpose of finding something to complain about, that's your problem.

Osterkraut wrote:

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Bobzilla: No, your comment was ridiculous because you can't possibly know that your dogs are as important to you as my kids are to me. I have both, and as much as I love my dogs, they are insignificant in comparison to my kids. Because you don't have kids, you can't possibly make any comparison of dogs and kids. It was a ridiculous statement, and if you think it wasn't, then you are the one with the closed mind, my friend.

I just spit yogurt on my computer screen. It doesn't look very "work-appropriate."

Bobzilla wrote:

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Bobzilla: No, your comment was ridiculous because you can't possibly know that your dogs are as important to you as my kids are to me. I have both, and as much as I love my dogs, they are insignificant in comparison to my kids. Because you don't have kids, you can't possibly make any comparison of dogs and kids. It was a ridiculous statement, and if you think it wasn't, then you are the one with the closed mind, my friend.

There's nothing to add to that hate filled bullE36 M3. I think you did it all for me.

Hate? Where do you come up with this stuff? All I did is point out the fact that you made a comment about something you can't possibly know about. No hate, just facts.

bravenrace wrote:

Bobzilla wrote:

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Bobzilla: No, your comment was ridiculous because you can't possibly know that your dogs are as important to you as my kids are to me. I have both, and as much as I love my dogs, they are insignificant in comparison to my kids. Because you don't have kids, you can't possibly make any comparison of dogs and kids. It was a ridiculous statement, and if you think it wasn't, then you are the one with the closed mind, my friend.

There's nothing to add to that hate filled bullE36 M3. I think you did it all for me.

Hate? Where do you come up with this stuff? All I did is point out the fact that you made a comment about something you can't possibly know about. No hate, just facts.

It seems that in these days when ever some one disagrees with some one else, the disagree'er automatically become a hater.

92CelicaHalfTrac wrote: Oh come on, can't you two morons find something better to argue about? On the flip side, you can't possibly know that your kids are as important to you as Bob's dogs are important to him. Surprise! You both have different lives and you see it differently! SHOCKER. He considers his dogs his kids. Simple as that. If you want to sit here and dissect it for the purpose of finding something to complain about, that's your problem.

"Morons" - Great technique for diffusing a situation, CelicaHalfWit.
All I said was that his statement was ridiculous because he couldn't know that. I stand by that statement. Your point above (the second one, not the "moron" one) is taken, but I don't think I ever said that his dogs weren't as important to him as my kids are to me. If I did, then I take that back.

novaderrik wrote:

plance1 wrote: You "suspect" wrongly. I suspect the average racing fan can't name a single one of her movies...

it might get some of her fanbase to watch a race or two.. it's doubtful, but it could happen.. i have no problem with a wife being in pics, regardless of who she is- but the dogs? seriously? kids i could understand.. but dogs? and they're not even real dogs.. a couple of 100+ pound German Sherpherds could make even the new Indycars look badass if they were posed right, but those- ?dogs?- make it look like an RC car or something..

I'll bet that AJ Foyt had some pretty badass shop dogs at his place, and they were well fed.

plance1 wrote: You "suspect" wrongly. I suspect the average racing fan can't name a single one of her movies...

actually I didn't know what she was "famous" for ... .....

wbjones wrote:

plance1 wrote: You "suspect" wrongly. I suspect the average racing fan can't name a single one of her movies...

actually I didn't know what she was "famous" for ... .....

Ashley Judd is famous because she can sing and has a few hit records to prove it. The movies and reality shows came later. Can ANYONE explain to me why Paris Hilton and the Kardashians are famous. The only movies any of them were famous for were the ones you don't want your kids to find on the internet.

In reply to Snowdoggie:

I thought the singers in the family were her sister and mother. She was actually in a TV show back when she was a teen, so I'm thinking maybe you're confused???

Snowdoggie wrote: Ashley Judd is famous because she can sing and has a few hit records to prove it. The movies and reality shows came later. Can ANYONE explain to me why Paris Hilton and the Kardashians are famous. The only movies any of them were famous for were the ones you don't want your kids to find on the internet.

I don't want my kids to ever see their movies. Not because its porn but because its really bad porn and no one should be subjected to really bad porn like that. What if they watch that and think thats how its done? I couldn't live with my self knowing my kids wouldn't be able to perform.

This is unbelieveable.

bravenrace wrote: In reply to Snowdoggie: I thought the singers in the family were her sister and mother. She was actually in a TV show back when she was a teen, so I'm thinking maybe you're confused???

Well. You are the expert. I don't read People Magazine and don't watch Entertainment Tonight. All dem Judds look the same to me.

In reply to Snowdoggie: Really wow, Wynona lookes like a man. Naomi was kind of cute for an old lady and Ashley is the hotness. More pics of her are always fine by me. Plus she is a very good actress. I liked her in the movies I've seen her in.

nicksta43 wrote: In reply to Snowdoggie: Really wow, Wynona lookes like a man. Naomi was kind of cute for an old lady and Ashley is the hotness. More pics of her are always fine by me. Plus she is a very good actress. I liked her in the movies I've seen her in.

Count me in for "no idea who the hell any of these people are"

Country singers from the late 70's and early 80's. Most popular around 85' or so. Ashley is is the youngest and is an actress. You people need to watch more T.V. I don't really have the time to culture you

WHO WATCHED BELLE ISLE? That was awesome, I'm pretty sure I saw Ashley on the wall while Franchitti slept during that red flag, man those restarts were exciting....