JCC ~~** OFFICIAL **~~ WACKY NEWS DEPOSITORY THREAD. TOS MINDED. MOD APPROVED. PROBABLY

2 pints of blood removed from a man's penis

 

Oh look, a Bugatti. It's the world's most expensive production car. I think I'll spray paint a penis on the hood

 

Paging Ender Sai

 

I know it's juvenile and all that, but the person who did this is my hero of the day.

 

On don't know why that's 'saw the state off worthy' I mean, the man was an idiot for going off toward the Bermuda Triangle in a bubble.

 

Why do you idolise jealous and petty individuals?

 

fight the good fight E S. You're winning the war on the war on status symbols.

 

How do you lead a chase while riding a forklift?

 

You know, it's actually not jealousy. I wouldn't own a 2.5 million dollar car if you gave it to me. The person who spray-painted that penis probably wouldn't either. Sell it, spend the money on something else. I think the main message is that no car should cost 2.5 million dollars. How many people could you house with only half that amount of money? And what could possibly make a car worth that much money? There are only so many improvements to the basic model.

And anyway, it's actually a trenchant comment, that penis. The car is clearly a symbol, just like the penis is a symbol. The car is a symbol for "I'm richer than you;" the penis is a symbol for, "And you're also a dick."

And if you are going to own such a ludicrous status symbol, you lose all sympathy from me when you are brainless enough to actually drive it on a public street.

 

Oh right, so because someone can make an arbitrary judgement about the value of something, it should never happen and it's their own fault.

Since "modern art" is nothing more than an excuse for otherwise unemployable social outcasts to throw paint at a canvas, I should be rewarded for vandalising it because it has no value and shouldn't be sold to private collectors? I should also lobby extensively to cut off public funding for any modern 'art' as it's not art; it's degenerate losers appealing to the pretentious. Right?

Or maybe sweeping generalisations that are equal parts stupid and ignorant shouldn't be made. //pointed stare

You say no car should cost that much, but the ignorance behind the statement rogue is boundless in the breadth and depth of its ignorance. Poets and philosophers would struggle to describe it. In years to come, the elderly will remember where they were when such a ****ing inane statement was made; and inevitably, the youth will assume that the stories are laced with hyperbole because of course, nobody could be that stupid.

Part of the reason the Veyron has the cost it does it because of the cost of production. I know economics doesn't matter to an artist like you, Rogue, because it inconveniently constrains freewheeling irresponsibility with grounded ration. The cars are hand built. They contain a bespoke W16, quad turbo charged engine.

The dual-clutch sports automatic gearbox is bespoke and can shift gears in 150miliseconds. This transmission alone costs $150,000, and that's not factoring in that the shift paddles, behind the steering wheel, are made of magnesium.

The tyres are specialised Michelin run flats, which cost $12,500 each. At its 400km/h top speed (Or in miles, >250mph) those tyres will blow out in just 15 minutes - which is a little bit longer than it would take to suck the fuel tank dry.

The use of composites in the chassis and interior leave the monster engine with a power-to-weight ratio of 523bhp per ton.

To get to that aforementioned top speed, the hydraulic chassis must be prepped into sport mode and the car lowers from 12cm ground clearance to 6cm, giving a ridiculously low drag coefficient of Cd=0.36. As Ramza to explain that to you, if you want.

The car is a miracle of modern engineering, a hypercar like nothing else. And guess what? Volkswagen, who bought French marque Bugatti in the 1990s, loses around US$6mil per car.

So they're actually not able to sell these for cost recovery; the price tag is under-valued.

http://jalopnik.com/volkswagen-loses-a-staggering-6-25-million-on-each-bug-1426504241

It's a work of art in every sense, and some random, I-genuinely-hope-he-gets-cancer retard comes along and vandalises it because he's upset he will never, ever amount to anything. Good role model there Rogue, you pillar of the community you.

 

This is a CAR. It takes you from point A to point B. It is not a work of art. It offers no insights into the human condition; it makes no great philosophical statement.

Why does any of that matter to anyone? Why are any of those things worth paying extra for? Again, it's a car.

So, they lose money on every car they make and I'm the one who doesn't understand economics.

It's a work of art in no sense. It's a mode of transportation. And you're kind of proving my point by asserting that the way you can tell who has amounted to anything is based solely on the car they drive. Bugatti = success; no Bugatti = failure. Right.

I'd also like to point out that your apparent role model has spent more on one car than I'll earn in my entire working life. Real pillar of the community there too.

Also, did you really just genuinely hope someone would get cancer?

 

Yes, but let me revise it - it would be better if the vandal's kids do, so we have faith that karma works.

Rogue, when some idiot throws a few dobs of paint on a canvas and says it represents inner turmoil, it's just that they're a convincing liar and someone with more money than sense bought their fraud. Right? It's not actually art, not in the way a Turner or a Monet is.

Right? It's just paint on a canvas and frankly the artist will probably spend the money from the sale on heroin. Right?

 

Yes, a lot of modern art is fraudulent. Sure.

Though this brings up an interesting thought experiment. If you're arguing that the car is in fact a work of art, then let me ask you this: Say someone bought some incredibly expensive painting . . . say a Van Gogh or something. Say that person then carried that painting out onto a public street and left it propped up on the corner while he went into a coffee shop or something of that nature. If that painting was damaged or vandalized or even stolen, I think we'd both agree that the guy was an idiot and sort of deserved to have his painting ruined.

Now, upon further reflection, I am prepared to say I suppose I don't consider the vandal a hero. I think I recognize the vandalism as an act of social protest and as such I admire to some degree. But whether the car should exist or should cost as much as it does, I will admit that the owner of the car did buy the car and did own it and so the vandal did not have the right to do what he or she did. Whether the owned object is moral, immoral or amoral, it is still an owned object, so, yeah, I'll back down on that.

 

arguably the penis adds immeasurably to the value of the car. The car is now a celebrity, a collector's item with a unique history unlike that of any other run of the mill $2.5 million money losing production car. If I were the owner, I would sell t shirts. Make that my own personal merchandising logo. The sky's the limit.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-australia-29655458

Ender how many times do I have to tell you not in the e-mails!

 

Well, this is the first time I've ever heard the phrase "whimsical linguistics" trotted out as a defense for racial slurs.

 

Parisians fail to get into Christmas spirit despite huge Christmas tree sculpture.




http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...sive-sex-toy-artist-insists-s-meant-tree.html

vin

 

Nice plug.

harpua

 

It got deflated already.

 

That's amazing.

 

in the end, some people just couldn't take it.