"Something tells me however that the vast majority of new Ferrari buyers have other vehicles that garner the predominate accumulation of their driving miles."

I don't like new Ferraris, myself, but that's just a taste thing - I have some. That said, the older ones genuinely aren't practical as daily drivers in the way a new one is. Do you have any idea what stop-start traffic, speed bumps, and so-on do to a Ferrari 250? Sure, it's great if your commute is a fifty mile blast…

Have you any idea how many V6 Mustangs you could get for that money?

Or perhaps you're too much of an idiot to realise that 'rich' in that context is relative. It wasn't the most unaggressively made point, but in general it's correct - Apple and Ferrari make products that people pay extra for because they like the image, making them poor value for money on a pragmatic basis. They're…

Depends where you're starting from. Spend $1k upgrading a $500 rust-bucket, or trade-in for a $1500 car?

I'm more worried about it being a moral gray area. If it's removing harmful emissions from the air, isn't a cat a good thing to have? How is taking it off any different to taking off a silencer/muffler?

"I will point out, however, that 3 percent of all the electricity used in the State of California every year (5 billion kWh/yr, just for water) pumps water from the wet north to the dry south. Pumping water over mountains is thirsty work."

Dear Jalopnik,

I already did. See my first comment on the subject. Irrational prejudice based on appearance is the same whatever the appearance you base it on.

You need to say how or why they're not the same. In a substantive, relevant sense, I mean, which means explaining why your reason is relevant. Obviously they're different prejudices.

OK. Now would you like to go on and explain a link between that and what we were talking about?

So explain the difference then. Not that there is one.

Blind moronic prejudice? What's the difference?

In my opinion if a cyclist is on a road and gets hit, that's always their fault - and I say that as a cyclist. You simply can't rely on drivers not doing something stupid, so you have to make sure you never give them the chance. Your mindset should always be to think of what any nearby driver might do if he was…

We're always hearing that the biggest costs in a new car are the design and tooling, yet this new Accord doesn't offer all that much a late eighties/early nineties one didn't, in a practical sense - it's a transport appliance to get you from a to b. I surely can't be alone in thinking that if I could get a brand new…

And this one hasn't failed yet, but surely it's only a matter of time. Hope not, though - apparently a showcase for a new composite tech rather than a car company in its own right, so might survive. Either way, batshit crazy:

Someone already posted Cizeta, but another good call from a similar time is Bugatti of the EB110 period.

Marine problem - the Corps should sort it out. He ought to be under military jurisdiction, for starters.

No, you seem to have come to the wrong impression. I spent a long time researching it and came up with lots of circumstantial evidence, lots of little pointers, and lots of dead ends needing off-line research. There was nothing conclusive I could find online. I was just providing some links to suggest places anyone…

Eh? None of that makes any sense. You compare insanity to intelligence, then go on to ask a series of weird questions. Do you think you're the first person to ask questions like that? Do a bit of reading, for [deity]'s sake. Most of those things are indeed exceptions in the eyes of the law, as is being insane.