Subject	I say biased because when it sated about the looks of the Z
Posted by	WAGGZ on January 29, 2006 at 5:04 PM
	This message has been viewed 30 times.
In Reply To	The author was clearly biased or seriously misinformed. (n/m) posted by 300zxquire on January 29, 2006 at 05:01 PM
Message	That is an opinion type of thing.
Follow Ups	Bad publicity for the Z. - WAGGZ 16:54:37 01/29/06 Shows you can't believe everything that you read. (n/m) - AbsolutZ (OH) 16:58:23 01/29/06 The author was clearly biased or seriously misinformed. (n/m) - 300zxquire 17:01:20 01/29/06 I say biased because when it sated about the looks of the Z - WAGGZ 17:04:40 01/29/06 perhaps they mistook the z32 for the z31 i mean they.... - Zerosum 17:13:09 01/29/06 every year in production I believe... - WAGGZ 17:16:57 01/29/06 Re: every year in production I believe... - sorka 18:20:05 01/29/06 Clearly the guy was looking at a totally different car. - TT XTZ 17:14:25 01/29/06 "Opposite Day" good one. (n/m) - 300zxquire 17:21:52 01/29/06 hahah I remember those "opposite days" lol (n/m) - Shawn300zTT GT28R MD 20:03:43 01/29/06 I thought she was kidding! You really had an "opposite day"? (n/m) - 300zxquire 20:47:10 01/29/06 Not officially - - TT XTZ 09:35:44 01/30/06 Re: Bad publicity for the Z. - 2eZee 17:41:55 01/29/06 Ouch.... - ben_96_slicktop (nova) 19:25:24 01/29/06 I find it hilarious that people actually care about that. (n/m) - Spee 20:26:57 01/29/06 2nd (n/m) - BradZ (FL) 21:36:43 01/29/06 Obviously the editor mixed up the Z32 with a Poopra :) (n/m) - Crim 21:00:10 01/29/06 wow, I couldn't have written a more ignorant analysis - pallen 21:05:28 01/29/06 Yes, they were talking about the Mk III supra, the model - WAGGZ 22:13:12 01/29/06 oh, the MKIII, thats even better - pallen 06:55:24 01/30/06 not sure on the weight but I know that that model - WAGGZ 14:03:58 01/30/06 That's why it ended in the clearance shelf. (n/m) - Arturo C. 06:10:09 01/30/06 My guess is that he's talking about the Z31. :-) (n/m) - YugoBernie (NoVA) 08:30:37 01/30/06 1989-1996.......nope. (n/m) - WAGGZ 14:01:50 01/30/06
Post a Followup	You cannot reply to this message because you are not logged in.