Roof Rack + Snorkel = Overland?

Vulpine

New member
Apologies if that was taken as insult. I watch you mod those rigs so much that I can't imagine all 3 as dailys.

I still want to know how overloading one to an extreme like the "overland" trucks affects its performance. That's why the challenge to you. I'm asking for a semi-scientific test rather than a "go as you are" run.
 

wayoflife

Administrator
Staff member
Apologies if that was taken as insult. I watch you mod those rigs so much that I can't imagine all 3 as dailys.

insult? :thinking: no, no insult but, you clearly haven't been watching very carefully or for very long. if you had been following us over the last 5 years, you would have seen our jeep get built up and wheeled in a variety of stages from stock to what you see now. you may not be able to imagine our JK's as being daily drivers but, that might have something to do with the fact that you having absolutely no experience with something like them. i suspect, if you or other overland types had, you might just be able to see things a little differently.

I still want to know how overloading one to an extreme like the "overland" trucks affects its performance. That's why the challenge to you. I'm asking for a semi-scientific test rather than a "go as you are" run.

too much weight will throw your center of gravity way off and will put a lot more strain on drive train components such as axle shafts, drive shafts and ring & pinions. more weight will also force you to work a lot harder even on easier obstacles and will only aggravate the problem. in spite of what you seem to think, we haven't always run pro rock 60's and only do so now thanks to learning the hard way just how much or, should i say, how little factory drive train componets can handle.
 

Vulpine

New member
insult? :thinking: no, no insult but, you clearly haven't been watching very carefully or for very long. if you had been following us over the last 5 years, you would have seen our jeep get built up and wheeled in a variety of stages from stock to what you see now. you may not be able to imagine our JK's as being daily drivers but, that might have something to do with the fact that you having absolutely no experience with something like them. i suspect, if you or other overland types had, you might just be able to see things a little differently.

Well, I can't argue any of that, but at least part of the issue is that I don't get the opportunity to go out on trails as much as you. The east is simply too crowded and you're mostly limited to organized off-road parks unless you personally know somebody with a lot of varied land. Rousch Creek is a lot of fun for what I've done there, but it's not the same as doing a point-to-point run as you guys tend to do out west.



too much weight will throw your center of gravity way off and will put a lot more strain on drive train components such as axle shafts, drive shafts and ring & pinions. more weight will also force you to work a lot harder even on easier obstacles and will only aggravate the problem. in spite of what you seem to think, we haven't always run pro rock 60's and only do so now thanks to learning the hard way just how much or, should i say, how little factory drive train componets can handle.

I'll accept and agree with everything you say, but it still doesn't answer the question of why the people who do "overland" driving choose to overload a basically stock vehicle or answer your own questions about why they feel an overloaded 'stock' vehicle is more important that a well-loaded if admittedly modified one. I've never argued that modifying a rig can't improve its ability to get through, but does overloading that modded suspension actually make it worse than a stock rig? You may think you had a simple question when you started, but once you start looking into the "whys and wherefores", the question quickly gets complicated.
 

GCM 2

New member
Ok, obviously you were using pickups and HMMVs for those "overland" runs and in your case they were through desert terrain which does make it a little easier.

Okay, this is exactly what this thread is about what constitutes an "overland type rig". My definition= There is no such thing, its just a fancy name to make some mundane task of traveling from point A to point B more "mysterious" or "romantic". You either have a vehicle that can make it thru the terrain you have chosen to drive or you don't. You are really showing that you "don't know what you don't know". I am really starting to think by everything you are writing that you have no actual first hand experience with any of what we are discussing here, but only what you may have read and/or fantasize it being about. Time and time again, Wayoflife and I have provided proof of our experience on the subject, and all though neither of us know it all, we have a pretty realistic grasp of the subject of offroading. Personally, I have been into "overlanding"/offroading/wheeling/4x4'ing/off highway vehicle driving/long distance special reconnaissance for 35 years (I am 45, started driving offroad at 10 y/o), and for 27 of those years its been part of my proffesion. I am still learning everytime I hit the trail. The photos I provided are only two of literally thousands that I have from trips from around the world in some of the most austere locations imaginable. By the way, simply being in "desert terrain" does not make it any easier, in fact crossing through two weeks worth of desert is MUCH harder than any other type of terrain. There is a reason the Saharah is not populated with cities or people. People die in the vast expanses of desert, because if their vehicle fails and they are forced to walk out they don' make it.

Oh, and one more point to increase the level of difficulty since you seem to think that it may not have been hard enough during this overlanding venture.....All this travel is done in the hours of darkness, while wearing AN-PVS6 night vision, using zero white light or infrared light sources.

You do also verify my point that those pickups weren't very heavily modified--if at all

No where did I write that the vehicles in the two pictures were stock. I would not expect you to know that in Special Operations, there is no such thing as stock, we moddify everything because the missions require the best equipment for the hardest job. The Tacoma actually had a FabTech 2" lift kit, and much wider than stock tires, along with lots of other items to make it better suited for offroad work. The HMMWVs, the list of upgrades on those is too long to list, but lets just say the suspension, half shafts, tires and front and rear winches were a start. The Toyota Hi-Lux's, well for starters there were the roof racks :cheesy: the axles, lockers, winches,


..Now, if you want to push the modified Jeeps, then the challenge I offer.....

Okay, now your are just starting to sound ridiculous. These challenges are being offered for what reason? If we keep passing the test, are you going to keep increasing the level of difficulty with a new challenge until we fail miserably at providing proof of how a modified jeep can't do it? :thinking: Come on man, lets keep this realistic.
 
Last edited:

wayoflife

Administrator
Staff member
I'll accept and agree with everything you say, but it still doesn't answer the question of why the people who do "overland" driving choose to overload a basically stock vehicle or answer your own questions about why they feel an overloaded 'stock' vehicle is more important that a well-loaded if admittedly modified one.

and i agree, it makes no sense to me how people can purposefully choose to overload a basically stock vehicle, give a cool name like "overland" style and actually believe it to be a better or, should i say, a more intellegent way to go. they talk about how much weight they can carry how they can find spare parts more easily but, most can't even tell me what parts they expect to break or why they would break.

I've never argued that modifying a rig can't improve its ability to get through, but does overloading that modded suspension actually make it worse than a stock rig? You may think you had a simple question when you started, but once you start looking into the "whys and wherefores", the question quickly gets complicated.

no. a good portion of a well modified vehicle's weight comes from things like drive train modifications and tires/wheels. this weight is all "unsprung" weight and will actually help keep all four on the floor and by virtue of it, provide better traction and stability.
 

Vulpine

New member
Who's the one being a troll?

Okay, this is exactly what this thread is about what constitutes an "overland type rig". My definition= There is no such thing, its just a fancy name to make some mundane task of traveling from point A to point B more "mysterious" or "romantic". You either have a vehicle that can make it thru the terrain you have chosen to drive or you don't. You are really showing that you "don't know what you don't know". I am really starting to think by everything you are writing that you have no actual first hand experience with any of what we are discussing here, but only what you may have read and/or fantasize it being about. Time and time again, Wayoflife and I have provided proof of our experience on the subject, and all though neither of us know it all, we have a pretty grasp of the subject of offroading. Personally, I have been into "overlanding"/offroading/wheeling/4x4'ing/off highway vehicle driving/long distance special reconnaissance for 35 years (I am 45, started driving offroad at 10 y/o), and for 27 of those years its been part of my proffesion. I am still learning everytime I hit the trail. The photos I provided are only two of literally thousands that I have from trips from around the world in some of the most austere locations imaginable. By the way, simply being in "desert terrain" does not make it any easier, in fact crossing through two weeks worth of desert is MUCH harder than any other type of terrain. There is a reason the Saharah is not populated with cities or people. People die in the vast expanses of desert, because if their vehicle fails and they are forced to walk out they don' make it.

Oh, and one more point to increase the level of difficulty since you seem to think that it may not have been hard enough during this overlanding venture.....All this travel is done in the hours of darkness, while wearing AN-PVS6 night vision, using zero white light or infrared light sources.



No where did not say the vehicles in the two pictures were stock. I would not expect you to know that in Special Operations, there is no such thing as stock, we moddify everything because the missions require the best equipment for the hardest job. The Tacoma actually had a FabTech 2" lift kit, and much wider than stock tires, along with lots of other items to make it better suited for offroad work. The HMMWVs, the list of upgrades on those is too long to list, but lets just say the suspension, half shafts, tires and front and rear winches were a start. The Toyota Hi-Lux's, well for starters there were the roof racks :cheesy: the axles, lockers, winches,




Okay, now your are just starting to sound ridiculous. These challenges are being offered for what reason? If we keep passing the test, are you going to keep increasing the level of difficulty with a new challenge until we fail miserably at providing proof of how a modified jeep can't do it?

Please don't be a troll.

Start looking at and paying attention to my statements. You, sir, were a specialist doing a military mission, not a scientist doing ordinary research. There is, whether you want to believe it or not, a difference. I'm certainly not going to argue that military and security services modify their vehicles--that's really a given. However, do you think all those Toyotas the other guys are using are as modified as your own? Where's your tactical advantage if they are? Again I say you are far too close to the question.

What test do you think you're passing? I haven't seen any measurable proof from either of you that the typical, non-military "overlander" has any real advantage, or disadvantage by being modified. I'm asking for measurable documentation. WayofLife enjoys recording his mods and videoing them; why not take it a step farther and honestly document the fact that modded is an advantage? I'm not asking you to do "Top Gear" type of stupidity for entertainment, I'm asking for visible proof that mods make a difference but that there may be such a thing as taking those mods overboard when going from point A to point B over highly variable terrain. Desert terrain alone (and I do include those mountains of yours out in California, etc.) does not offer the same kinds of challenge as a marsh (Piney Woods, NJ?) or forest. I haven't argued that you've done or not done what you claim--obviously you have since you have photographic proof of some of your mission vehicles. Please note however that the Toyotas you photographed are NOT Jeeps and at least don't appear to have any notable mods (which is the way the US military tends to like it.)

I might also note that one of the most interesting military 4x4s I ever drove was a 1964 Chevrolet Step Van (yes, something like the current UPS or FedEx delivery trucks) that remained in service far longer than some one-year-old 1978 Ford 4x4 pickups operating at the same base at the same time. More than one of those Fords was sold as surplus because they burned through their allotted maintenance funding within 2 years. Strangely, the US military dropped Jeeps in favor of those HMMWVs which while they are superior off-road vehicles, they're also far more expensive to maintain by every reference I've seen so far. The J-8 pickup such as those used by the Saudi military (and others) seems the more economical vehicle even if it isn't armored to the gills and soft as tissue paper. Sometimes--just sometimes--agility is more important than power.

Please try to settle down and realize I'm trying to hold a peaceful discussion based on the differences in how a vehicle is chosen for a specific type of use and not necessarily which one is really better for that use.
 

Vulpine

New member
and i agree, it makes no sense to me how people can purposefully choose to overload a basically stock vehicle, give a cool name like "overland" style and actually believe it to be a better or, should i say, a more intellegent way to go. they talk about how much weight they can carry how they can find spare parts more easily but, most can't even tell me what parts they expect to break or why they would break.

Forgive me for clipping the second part of your response because I can agree with it fully. I can and will agree with your first part as well, but for the sake of this debate I'm being the Devil's Advocate (which GCM 2 is taking as trolling) and trying to put forth the arguments these people would use. When you consider what has been used in many of these countries over the years, quite obviously simplicity is paramount. Most of these explorers have been using Land Rovers (and by extension the Toyota versions) for so long that parts are readily available and they're simple enough to repair with baling wire and chewing gum (a simile that in some cases were quite factual as well.) Tires, too, are readily available in the event one or more gets cut down or destroyed. GCM did mention that some of these places he went through had the ability to at least patch a puncture, but could they rebuild a ripped sidewall? It seems out there the old tube still offers an advantage over tubeless, though some newer tires no longer even need to be aired up to get you through at least for a few miles. Obviously, bead-locker wheels will keep that otherwise flat tire from spinning off the rims.

You see, I do understand the advantages of modding, but I can also see some of the advantages of using a different kind of vehicle altogether--though I personally believe the modded Jeep overwhelms the simplicity of the old, stock Land Rover. Times have changed and technology has re-written the rules. What worked well 50 years ago or even 20 years ago may no longer work for those "overlanders" today. If it were me trying to make such a trip, I'd probably choose a Jeep Wagonneer or Gladiator with suspension mods over even one of the JKs today because our computer-controlled engines aren't as easy to work on without specialized tools. If I had to choose a modern vehicle, however, I'd probably choose a JK-based rig.

What I really want is a JK-based pickup, whether it be the FC or the JK-8 shown out at Moab this year.
 

wayoflife

Administrator
Staff member
When you consider what has been used in many of these countries over the years, quite obviously simplicity is paramount. Most of these explorers have been using Land Rovers (and by extension the Toyota versions) for so long that parts are readily available and they're simple enough to repair with baling wire and chewing gum (a simile that in some cases were quite factual as well.) Tires, too, are readily available in the event one or more gets cut down or destroyed. GCM did mention that some of these places he went through had the ability to at least patch a puncture, but could they rebuild a ripped sidewall? It seems out there the old tube still offers an advantage over tubeless, though some newer tires no longer even need to be aired up to get you through at least for a few miles. Obviously, bead-locker wheels will keep that otherwise flat tire from spinning off the rims.

honestly, i don't know if i would agree with any of this and think it can be argued that these explorers you speak of have just been using what was available to them. i have a hard time believing any of them would choose to run substandard equipment that is prone to breaks and failures on purpose. as far as tires go, if durability is paramount, why not just run a solid tire? i have friends that work at the los angeles county vector control and that's what they use on their jeeps as all they do all day long is drive around in riverbeds strewn with tire chewing mangled shopping carts and wrecked cars. if a little bit of comfort is what you're looking for then yeah, you'd have to go with a tire that holds air but again, i'd have to think that it would make more sense to run a tire that is durable from the get go. if you only knew how many tires i've tested out and how many sidewalls i've destroyed, you would know why i now run toyo mt's. for all the hell i've been able to throw at them, they have NEVER failed me.

just as a reminder, i drive my jeeps everywhere including trails that are so far away that just getting to the trailhead eats up half of your gas. in remote places like these, suffering a breakdown or flat can be a real problem even in a place like america and, that's why i have built up my jeeps the way they are - i need them to be reliable as possible. while factory replacement parts or stock tires may be easier to come by, you still need to get back off the trail to find them. me, i would just prefer not to break down in the first place but, that's just me.

You see, I do understand the advantages of modding, but I can also see some of the advantages of using a different kind of vehicle altogether--though I personally believe the modded Jeep overwhelms the simplicity of the old, stock Land Rover. Times have changed and technology has re-written the rules. What worked well 50 years ago or even 20 years ago may no longer work for those "overlanders" today. If it were me trying to make such a trip, I'd probably choose a Jeep Wagonneer or Gladiator with suspension mods over even one of the JKs today because our computer-controlled engines aren't as easy to work on without specialized tools. If I had to choose a modern vehicle, however, I'd probably choose a JK-based rig.

What I really want is a JK-based pickup, whether it be the FC or the JK-8 shown out at Moab this year.

again with "simplicity" somehow being better. exactly what do you base your personal belief that a modded jeep overwhelms it and in what way? what scenario are you invisioning that would make an old stock land rover a better way to go?
 

GCM 2

New member
Start looking at and paying attention to my statements. You, sir, were a specialist doing a military mission, not a scientist doing ordinary research. There is, whether you want to believe it or not, a difference.

Absolutley there is a difference between the two, but we are talking vehicles and driving here. Driving across/thru/over/under obstacles and terrain are done the same way no matter what you carry for the mission. The basic offroad and on road driving principles do not change, whether it is stock or modified only allows you to tackle a tougher obstacle or make tackling it easier.


What test do you think you're passing? I haven't seen any measurable proof from either of you

The test is the challenge you issued in your previous post with modified jeeps and the specified #'s. Below from Wayoflife, that is a lot of weight and it seems to be proof enough when you watch any of his video, most specifically any from the "Keep it Tight" series

wayoflife
ummmm, i don't own any "play" rigs. ALL my jeeps are daily drivers. as far as weight goes, a stock JK comes in at just under 5,000 lbs. my white JK weighs in at about 6,500 lbs. unloaded. with gear, it's more like 7,000 lbs. or more.



Please try to settle down and realize I'm trying to hold a peaceful discussion based on the differences in how a vehicle is chosen for a specific type of use and not necessarily which one is really better for that use.

My apologies if I came across as being upset or irritated, but this is the internet and not TV, thats why I use the emoticons available for choosing on the left when posting, so you can gauge my disposition :thumb: No hurt feelings here. But I do think you are showing a huge lack of understanding on the topic of offroading in general. My position still stands that it is all the same, you can church it up or make it more mysterious with special words, but "overlanding" and "overlanding rigs" are simply feel good words and definitions of something that did not need a new classification.

Cheers and heres to civility :beer:

G
 
Last edited:

Vulpine

New member
again with "simplicity" somehow being better. exactly what do you base your personal belief that a modded jeep overwhelms it and in what way? what scenario are you invisioning that would make an old stock land rover a better way to go?

Looking at modern engines, they are all controlled by computers one way or another. A broken wire may be fixed easily, but what about a broken circuit board? Would you even know where to look? Extreme conditions can be very harsh on computer electronics and even a mere cold solder joint could leave you stuck out in the boonies with no way back. That's the sort of simplicity that the old Jeeps and Land Rovers carried--as well as most other cars before the '70s. Fix a wire? Easy. Fix a carb? Still relatively easy. What about those computer-driven injectors? What about the electronic ignition as compared to the old physical distributer? Simplicity of repair is just as important in the event of breakdown as the overall reliability of the vehicle where you can't expect a tow truck (or a helicopter) to recover you. That still doesn't make the older rig the best choice, just the easiest choice when options are limited. Again, I'm offering the kind of argument said "overlander" would use, not my own personal opinions.
 

Vulpine

New member
Absolutley there is a difference between the two, but we are talking vehicles and driving here. Driving across/thru/over/under obstacles and terrain are done the same way no matter what you carry for the mission. The basic offroad and on road driving principles do not change, whether it is stock or modified only allows you to tackle a tougher obstacle or make tackling it easier.




The test is the challenge you issued in your previous post with modified jeeps and the specified #'s. Below from Wayoflife, that is a lot of weight and it seems to be proof enough when you watch any of his video, most specifically any from the "Keep it Tight" series

wayoflife
ummmm, i don't own any "play" rigs. ALL my jeeps are daily drivers. as far as weight goes, a stock JK comes in at just under 5,000 lbs. my white JK weighs in at about 6,500 lbs. unloaded. with gear, it's more like 7,000 lbs. or more.





My apologies if I came across as being upset or irritated, but this is the internet and not TV, thats why I use the emoticons available for choosing on the left when posting, so you can gauge my disposition :thumb: No hurt feelings here. But I do think you are showing a huge lack of understanding on the topic of offroading in general. My position still stands that it is all the same, you can church it up or make it more mysterious with special words, but "overlanding" and "overlanding rigs" are simply feel good words and definitions of something that did not need a new classification.

Cheers and heres to civility :beer:

G

What I'm trying to offer is the mind-set of these "overlanders", not whether they are right or not. I do understand the topic of offroading in general and I'll also admit to seeing a lot of idiots who think power will get you through anything when I've personally seen even stock Jeeps with a good driver succeed where that gearhead type failed. If you want to see upset, just watch one of those "superJeep" guys turn red when a near-stock Jeep or other 4x4 gets them out of a bind. I might point out that most of the type I'm trying to portray have almost no understanding of off-roading other than it's not on paved highways. To them, a dirt driveway or logging trail could be extreme off-roading. Based on some of the documentaries I watch, that type would even get stuck on what other countries call a highway.

At the same time, some of these "reality TV" programs put some people through those same situations just for the entertainment value of it to non-off-roaders. Ice Road Truckers is a prime example, especially when they do their off-season shows like "IRT-World's Most Dangerous Highways." When you consider what some of those drivers do for a living, maybe taking on dirt-road trucking might seem a lark, but the roads and conditions they have to overcome are also far different from their normal drives. I watched as several of those drivers gave up on IRT-MDH even though they were some of the toughest, self-confident and able drivers when it came to snow and ice. Again, it's all in the mind-set of the one choosing the vehicle for the task and their subsequent experience in making those runs.

I won't deny some of what you guys do regularly would scare me to death--at least until I'd succeeded at least once myself. There's a difference between skill and idiocy and while I may not have the skills, I certainly don't want to look like an idiot when push comes to shove.
 
Last edited:

wayoflife

Administrator
Staff member
Looking at modern engines, they are all controlled by computers one way or another. A broken wire may be fixed easily, but what about a broken circuit board? Would you even know where to look? Extreme conditions can be very harsh on computer electronics and even a mere cold solder joint could leave you stuck out in the boonies with no way back. That's the sort of simplicity that the old Jeeps and Land Rovers carried--as well as most other cars before the '70s. Fix a wire? Easy. Fix a carb? Still relatively easy. What about those computer-driven injectors? What about the electronic ignition as compared to the old physical distributer? Simplicity of repair is just as important in the event of breakdown as the overall reliability of the vehicle where you can't expect a tow truck (or a helicopter) to recover you. That still doesn't make the older rig the best choice, just the easiest choice when options are limited. Again, I'm offering the kind of argument said "overlander" would use, not my own personal opinions.

eh, sorry, i'm still not buying it. i've owned old, simply built, carburated jeeps that were easy to work on but, it always needed to be worked on. i have about 100,000 miles on my big white jk and, being that i work from home, virtually ALL of those miles are from driving out to far away destinations, putting them to the test and then driving it back home again. i have taken my jeep through extreme cold, extreme heat, extreme dust and what i consider to be extreme deep water. to this day, i haven't had a single problem with the engine or any of the computer systems that would have prevented me from getting there and back. while old technology may have been simple and easy to work on, new technology has proven itself to me to be reliable and without need of being constantly worked on.

of course, this is all a moot point for the purposes of this thread which was intended to be JK specific.
 

MTG

Caught the Bug
Exercise in futility?

But wait, what about this....and what about that....and did you consider X multiplied by Y....blah blah blah.

I have enjoyed this thread, and will likely enjoy reading it further, but some of the recent posts are just getting ridiculous. :crazyeyes:

Vulpine does not seem like he will be satisfied until there is a double-blind controlled experiment performed by a group of engineers with the results published in the esteemed "Journal of Overlanding and Rockcrawling Quarterly" and even then will question the methodology and statistical validity. :cheesy:

So far, GCM has characterized it best: "This I know as a fact; my JK can go everywhere an 'overland rig' can go, but an 'overland rig' cannot go everywhere my rig can go." I'm going to put my money on the people who actually build their rigs and have put them to the test, particularly those that use the same rig to both "overland" (or "camp" as the case may be) AND crawl over rocks. Anything else is simply a discussion of minutia.

Nevertheless, please carry on. I need something to break up my day. :yup:
 

Vulpine

New member
There is that.

eh, sorry, i'm still not buying it. i've owned old, simply built, carburated jeeps that were easy to work on but, it always needed to be worked on. i have about 100,000 miles on my big white jk and, being that i work from home, virtually ALL of those miles are from driving out to far away destinations, putting them to the test and then driving it back home again. i have taken my jeep through extreme cold, extreme heat, extreme dust and what i consider to be extreme deep water. to this day, i haven't had a single problem with the engine or any of the computer systems that would have prevented me from getting there and back. while old technology may have been simple and easy to work on, new technology has proven itself to me to be reliable and without need of being constantly worked on.

of course, this is all a moot point for the purposes of this thread which was intended to be JK specific.

But then, I've had to repair some of those computers on other cars for myself (hate the high price so many shops charge to fix things.) I will grant you that today's cars tend to function far longer than their predecessors, but it seems Jeep is the only brand that has gotten it right. Of course, that's also one of the reasons I own a Jeep. The one brand I really liked for its reliability no longer exists. Still, not even a JK can do everything--unless you know an inexpensive modder that can turn it into a Gladiator?

Yes, I'm going off topic now and I'm going to stay there.
 

Vulpine

New member
You said it, not me

But wait, what about this....and what about that....and did you consider X multiplied by Y....blah blah blah.

I have enjoyed this thread, and will likely enjoy reading it further, but some of the recent posts are just getting ridiculous. :crazyeyes:

Vulpine does not seem like he will be satisfied until there is a double-blind controlled experiment performed by a group of engineers with the results published in the esteemed "Journal of Overlanding and Rockcrawling Quarterly" and even then will question the methodology and statistical validity. :cheesy:

So far, GCM has characterized it best: "This I know as a fact; my JK can go everywhere an 'overland rig' can go, but an 'overland rig' cannot go everywhere my rig can go." I'm going to put my money on the people who actually build their rigs and have put them to the test, particularly those that use the same rig to both "overland" (or "camp" as the case may be) AND crawl over rocks. Anything else is simply a discussion of minutia.

Nevertheless, please carry on. I need something to break up my day. :yup:

Besides, you haven't noticed that I quit the discussion. I tried to tell you all along that the arguments I was expressing were not my own but rather trying to bring up an outsider's point of view. I, personally, don't disagree with you, but you didn't want to realize I was taking a third-person viewpoint for the sake of debate.
 

Hightower

Member
Chris, is it still cold up there....if so, then I am not going to visit you with my fuel cans.
Greg
It's always cold in Canada, but Palm Sping on the other had is a cool 95 today with a slight breeze. :rock::brows:
You are welcome anytime time brother.:drinks:
 

Hightower

Member
Besides, you haven't noticed that I quit the discussion. I tried to tell you all along that the arguments I was expressing were not my own but rather trying to bring up an outsider's point of view. I, personally, don't disagree with you, but you didn't want to realize I was taking a third-person viewpoint for the sake of debate.
Whether you are arguing for the sake of a good debate or not GMC2 hit the nail on the head, I'll take Moby or GMC2 rig any where anytime and the best thing I'll get to come home too. :cheesy::cheesy:
 
Top Bottom