Subject	I don't agree with your supposition that all advertisments
Posted by	robo (sebring1970) on December 28, 2005 at 1:42 AM
	This message has been viewed 24 times.
In Reply To	So let me see if I get this straight. You're telling me posted by 300zxquire on December 28, 2005 at 01:00 AM
Message	have an air of plausibility. You wouldn't question "Stealth technology in a can!?" if you thought their argument was specious. That is the opposite of specious, which is why I made the "snake oil" reference. But go ahead and use the word the way you want, 99.9% of folks won't know the difference. Peace out.
Follow Ups	Has anyone here used this on your Z? - Piranha(Omaha) 21:40:16 12/27/05 No. It sounds specious to me. Stealth technology in a can!? (n/m) - 300zxquire 22:41:46 12/27/05 not specious, sounds fake, looks fake, prob is fake (n/m) - robo (sebring1970) 23:09:01 12/27/05 Yes "specious". - 300zxquire 23:38:19 12/27/05 nah, I don't need to look it up. Specious means a deceptive - robo (sebring1970) 00:07:05 12/28/05 So let me see if I get this straight. You're telling me - 300zxquire 01:00:37 12/28/05 I don't agree with your supposition that all advertisments - robo (sebring1970) 01:42:40 12/28/05 I still want to know how you can support your argument - 300zxquire 01:59:52 12/28/05 that's not my argument. My point is that if you're going - robo (sebring1970) 04:06:24 12/28/05 You two are making baby Jesus cry. (n/m) - turtleboy 04:35:07 12/28/05 lol, in my case that would be the cosmic muffin (n/m) - robo (sebring1970) 05:06:38 12/28/05 Don't cry baby Jesus. We were just playing. We'll play nice! (n/m) - 300zxquire 10:07:06 12/28/05 looking back, after a break, I think I can see more of your - robo (sebring1970) 05:15:57 12/28/05 Bingo! Somebody finally understands me! sniff, sniff.. 8^) (n/m) - 300zxquire 10:03:55 12/28/05 This semantic melodrama brought to you by Coke, Laserveil, - Technomancer 10:36:35 12/28/05 lol. Good one! Have a Coke and a smile and STFU. Perfect! (n/m) - 300zxquire 10:55:59 12/28/05 and yet, here you are (n/m) - robo (sebring1970) 15:09:54 12/28/05 nope...just by a valentine one or passport x50-thats - sethkins88 22:43:23 12/27/05 Radartest.com doesn't speak that highly of it - FastFrankie 22:49:58 12/27/05 Passport is useless against laser unless you can - Piranha(Omaha) 23:39:32 12/27/05 Passport is not an effective defense against laser, true - FastFrankie 01:39:23 12/28/05 I wouldn't put this stuff on my headlights, it darkens the - WildBillZx 00:28:15 12/28/05 the only thing that can possibly absorb radar is the - E=mz² 07:43:21 12/28/05 Veilside (n/m) - zboost(tx) 08:17:51 12/28/05 aaaaaaahahahahah... - Zfreak(Dallas) 15:41:41 12/28/05
Post a Followup	You cannot reply to this message because you are not logged in.