Sunway car mod experts says......
- Thread starter devious17
- Start date
- Replies 171
- Views 20K
-
See what others are reading now! Try Forums > Current Activity
- Joined
- Nov 18, 2003
- Messages
- 879
- Points
- 3,063
simonchangwaimun said:
so u are trying to say that those real evo and slk drivers can drive recklessly lar
=P
i used to drive a wira 1.3 with every damn thing stock till its rotten steel rims
yes, i drive recklessly sometimes when it is 3a.m and no one else is on the road ( this one i normally confirm first before flooring the pedal cause if i die also i die alone, dun wanna bring others with me )
but gone are those days as i am still driving that car but with better handling installed
hahaha... jz one day, so many people taruh so many 2 cents in this thread adi.... bagus bagus...
actually they (the 2 so-called expert modders) have their point... upgrading engine performance must go along with brakes and suspension upgrades... suitable lighting and bulbs are important... swapping normal bulbs with colorful bulbs will distract other motorist and thus cause accident...
but "lower income bracket" people also do proper mods based on their budget... isnt everyone from lower income bracket going for bling bling colorful neons... even some people driving souped up sports car with 'ahbeng mind' also install colorful neons...
thus, these so-called experts should give proper advices for customers beginning to venture into car modding based on their requirements and budget... pls dont look down on those lower income bracket people if they cant afford BREMBO brakes and so on... u still can give alternatives such as vr4 brake sets and so on....
actually they (the 2 so-called expert modders) have their point... upgrading engine performance must go along with brakes and suspension upgrades... suitable lighting and bulbs are important... swapping normal bulbs with colorful bulbs will distract other motorist and thus cause accident...
but "lower income bracket" people also do proper mods based on their budget... isnt everyone from lower income bracket going for bling bling colorful neons... even some people driving souped up sports car with 'ahbeng mind' also install colorful neons...
thus, these so-called experts should give proper advices for customers beginning to venture into car modding based on their requirements and budget... pls dont look down on those lower income bracket people if they cant afford BREMBO brakes and so on... u still can give alternatives such as vr4 brake sets and so on....
Last edited:
i snese a lot of anger in this forum
of course lah when something like tat is said
it just makes me feel like the days of modding cars are limited, and feels like more JPJ operation kopi 'o' kao are going to start
did u guys notice the date of those regulations? its so damn old already, still sticking to old things, its high time they change the rules, hopefully for the best for us la
if the try to suffocate the industry they will be putting alot of people out of work, import export bla bla bla
i might as well come out with my invention to stop using petrol, lead acid batteries, and put TNB and all those battery manufacturers out of work lah!
of course lah when something like tat is said
it just makes me feel like the days of modding cars are limited, and feels like more JPJ operation kopi 'o' kao are going to start
did u guys notice the date of those regulations? its so damn old already, still sticking to old things, its high time they change the rules, hopefully for the best for us la
if the try to suffocate the industry they will be putting alot of people out of work, import export bla bla bla
i might as well come out with my invention to stop using petrol, lead acid batteries, and put TNB and all those battery manufacturers out of work lah!
well.. just voicing our displeasure
but it's all good. that's what the forums are for :)
JPJ will never amend the regulations to suit us, that's a fact 'cos there are alot of factors to it.. be it political or social
we can only bend the rules all so much at the 'grey' areas.
just got to make do with what we have and hope some subsequent amendments (if any) would work to your advantage.
but it's all good. that's what the forums are for :)
JPJ will never amend the regulations to suit us, that's a fact 'cos there are alot of factors to it.. be it political or social
we can only bend the rules all so much at the 'grey' areas.
just got to make do with what we have and hope some subsequent amendments (if any) would work to your advantage.
hmm... lazy to read thru the postings... who is that 2 fellas that gave the "speech"?
want ppl to burn down their shop ar?
want ppl to burn down their shop ar?
i would disagree wid most of the latest posts lor ...
Dont u think tat wat was said on THE STAR newspaper , about the DO's n DONT's n What is Legal, and What Is Illegal , printed out so big on the page , is a good start to lead us out of the 'grey' area?
now at least we hav proof there, cud even cut it out from the newspaper n keep it in ur car... at least those guys who kena stop everytime last time about their bodykits, now they can fight back with the police or jpj if they wanna kacau, coz its stated that bodykits DONT NEED approval to mod...
last time we all bomb kau THE STAR's editor with out letters of protest against one idiot who wrote so many bad points about modifications, now the star is at last doing sumthin for us here... so why r we still not satisfied n showing so much displeasure? :emoticon_U:
n i would hope some 'certain ppl' who want to comment on this thread without even reading everything fully, to not even comment anything... becoz u dun even noe wats really going on.
Dont u think tat wat was said on THE STAR newspaper , about the DO's n DONT's n What is Legal, and What Is Illegal , printed out so big on the page , is a good start to lead us out of the 'grey' area?
now at least we hav proof there, cud even cut it out from the newspaper n keep it in ur car... at least those guys who kena stop everytime last time about their bodykits, now they can fight back with the police or jpj if they wanna kacau, coz its stated that bodykits DONT NEED approval to mod...
last time we all bomb kau THE STAR's editor with out letters of protest against one idiot who wrote so many bad points about modifications, now the star is at last doing sumthin for us here... so why r we still not satisfied n showing so much displeasure? :emoticon_U:
n i would hope some 'certain ppl' who want to comment on this thread without even reading everything fully, to not even comment anything... becoz u dun even noe wats really going on.
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2004
- Messages
- 221
- Points
- 3,016
I am curious. The government itself was the one who categorized the public into high-income, moderate-income and low-income brackets, and when discussing many issues the mention of a specific income group is often mentioned. Why, when mentioned here, it causes so much distress?
The two person said nothing wrong. Perhaps you guys are too "sensitive" or perhaps ashamed to be associated with the low-income group that you seeks to justify your incapability of understanding the real meaning behind those words by twisting their original intent?
The sentence, word for word is:
He was just giving a general statistical statement regarding the lower-income group. How else should he portray the fact? If you're him, how will you say? Come on, keep it real. These things are cheap and people tend to buy them because they are cheap. And the most people who buy them, according to Goh, are the people who are categorized in the lower-income group. There is no discrimination here, he is merely stating his observation.
How if I am a police officer, and when interviewed I say most criminals come from the lower-income group. Now what? You're gonna sue me for discriminating the lower-income group? I was merely stating a fact, from my own observation and my statistic, yet you intepret it as a blanket statement to refer to all lower-income group people as criminals. Who's discriminating who now?
Car modifications is to get noticed. Some do that for the wow factor, the bling blings. Please do not deny that there ARE people who modify their cars for the wow factor. And he is right when he said that since people in the lower-income group cannot afford the expensive mods, they go for cheaper mods to get attention. Again I ask, did he refer to all modders who are in the lower-income group? He did not, he was referring to the people he mentioned earlier - the ones who mod their car for attention and so happens to belong to the lower-income group. And its fact that these people seek cheaper mods because they simply do not have the money for more expensive ones. Common sense. Why are you guys twisting his words to gross misintepretations? Did he refer to you? No! He refered to the people, who are in the low income group, who want their cars to grab attention, and do not have the money to go for higher-end mods. Are you one of them?
I do not feel offended in any way, even as I am categorized in the low-income group, and am a car modder too. Although I do not buy those cheap ass stuff, I think the hostility towards the people in the article is uncalled-for, and unjustified.
The two person said nothing wrong. Perhaps you guys are too "sensitive" or perhaps ashamed to be associated with the low-income group that you seeks to justify your incapability of understanding the real meaning behind those words by twisting their original intent?
The sentence, word for word is:
He was just giving a general statistical statement regarding the lower-income group. How else should he portray the fact? If you're him, how will you say? Come on, keep it real. These things are cheap and people tend to buy them because they are cheap. And the most people who buy them, according to Goh, are the people who are categorized in the lower-income group. There is no discrimination here, he is merely stating his observation.
How if I am a police officer, and when interviewed I say most criminals come from the lower-income group. Now what? You're gonna sue me for discriminating the lower-income group? I was merely stating a fact, from my own observation and my statistic, yet you intepret it as a blanket statement to refer to all lower-income group people as criminals. Who's discriminating who now?
Car modifications is to get noticed. Some do that for the wow factor, the bling blings. Please do not deny that there ARE people who modify their cars for the wow factor. And he is right when he said that since people in the lower-income group cannot afford the expensive mods, they go for cheaper mods to get attention. Again I ask, did he refer to all modders who are in the lower-income group? He did not, he was referring to the people he mentioned earlier - the ones who mod their car for attention and so happens to belong to the lower-income group. And its fact that these people seek cheaper mods because they simply do not have the money for more expensive ones. Common sense. Why are you guys twisting his words to gross misintepretations? Did he refer to you? No! He refered to the people, who are in the low income group, who want their cars to grab attention, and do not have the money to go for higher-end mods. Are you one of them?
I do not feel offended in any way, even as I am categorized in the low-income group, and am a car modder too. Although I do not buy those cheap ass stuff, I think the hostility towards the people in the article is uncalled-for, and unjustified.
nitrus said:
well , you missed the trees for the forest there. We are not debating about the rules or the regulations,we are all law abiding citizens arent we?
This thread is about the comment made by two individuals pertaining to the lower income group. Who did not comprehend the whole thread now? Stick to the point
last time we all bomb kau THE STAR's editor with out letters of protest against one idiot who wrote so many bad points about modifications, now the star is at last doing sumthin for us here... so why r we still not satisfied n showing so much displeasure?
Wow! you you all "bomb kau" The Star? I am impressed! You think the press gives a hoot?
n i would hope some 'certain ppl' who want to comment on this thread without even reading everything fully, to not even comment anything... becoz u dun even noe wats really going on
I too am hoping 'certain people' would read and UNDERSTAND (reading without understanding is junk) before commenting.
Again, lets keep this debate civil and not act like form 3 dropouts shall we?
Thanks Tom for unlocking this thread. He will lock it again if it gets out of hands.
Soggie, the diplomatic way of tabling their observation would be to omit the sentence "lower income group" and replacing it with
" there are certain consumers who resort to cheap way out in attracting attention"
With that approach it does not imply anything to any group be it high middle or the lower income catagory but on the other hand it hits the nail smack in the head for all el'cheapo wannabes no matter what catagory they are from, dont you agree?
It is how you word it to have the maximum effect.
I am not saying they are wrong in stating their observation that lower income group are the wannabes,cant blame them either. I agree to their observation just that the way it was delivered in the media was not refined thus it may have severe negative repercussion to them and their business if the lower income group(the majority of consumers) decides to retaliate.
I am happy we can keep this real!
Oh! yeah, one thing , common sense is not at all common, funny isnt it english?
I am happy that you are not buying cheap items and yet you are in the lower income group, bravo! BUT not many can achieve your feat though.
" there are certain consumers who resort to cheap way out in attracting attention"
With that approach it does not imply anything to any group be it high middle or the lower income catagory but on the other hand it hits the nail smack in the head for all el'cheapo wannabes no matter what catagory they are from, dont you agree?
It is how you word it to have the maximum effect.
I am not saying they are wrong in stating their observation that lower income group are the wannabes,cant blame them either. I agree to their observation just that the way it was delivered in the media was not refined thus it may have severe negative repercussion to them and their business if the lower income group(the majority of consumers) decides to retaliate.
I am happy we can keep this real!
Oh! yeah, one thing , common sense is not at all common, funny isnt it english?
I am happy that you are not buying cheap items and yet you are in the lower income group, bravo! BUT not many can achieve your feat though.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Oct 26, 2004
- Messages
- 221
- Points
- 3,016
Ah well, you can't predict everything when you write something and publish it to the media. The guys who are interviewed most probably don't even know this either, and you can't expect them to give 100% political correct presentation of the same fact in real time, without preparations and so on.
Chill people. We have better enemies to fight.
Chill people. We have better enemies to fight.
edit: was typing this out before the subsequent post from the others.. so i might not addressed everything as i've not taken into account the other ppl's viewpoints.
say, it looks like 'somebody' has opened up this thread again.
first of all.. i've got to say that kudos to soggie for taking time to share his views in a pretty detail manner. dang, it took so much time to read it tho..hehe! as you know, my viewpoint takes a slightly narrow perspective emphasing on the gist of their comment compared to a general view of what you said.. think that's where some of my views with yours conflict.
well.. the following only applies to what i've said so far (only the part of the low-income earners group) 'cos i've got agree that some of the post that ppl have made here were rather shallow in nature, so if you have read my replies so far, you'd know where i'm standing on the interpretation of the article. as i've typed it all down in detail (if anybody wants to read it) please do 'cos i'm not gonna type it again.
just some comments i would like to make to soggie's statement from my stand. first of all, i think we should interprete things on a piece meal basis, i'd say we don't get in what the government has been saying about the income ranges because it encompass a lot of factors and much not relevant to this discussion. let's compare apples to apples, alrite?
ok, to me.. i don't think being associated with the "lower income bracket" is the issue, i see no issue here. to me, i might not be banking in on the big bucks yet, but i don't feel in any way threatened or oppressed if somebody said i was "lower income" 'cos i'm making good and clean money. anybody who feels ashamed being categorised in this should serve this as a wake up call and strive to better themselves, but this is another story then.
well.. the way how i interprete your points, you assume that their facts are based on a general statistical statement.. yes, you might be correct and i won't argue with you on that. but i feel a statement's never free from any bias unless you're staying in some sort of utopian environment. yes, according to him.. he might be correct that this group make up a big portion by buying these cheaper stuff.. but doing so he has exposed himself to critics (like some of us) on how he judges the "lower income group". you know, it's always does sound better to pinpoint a group for your best interest, if you can interprete what i mean. fine, i might be overcritical on his comments.. but i think that his comments do no justice to the stigma already shrouding the group.
at the end of the day, i reiterate that everybody's views are somewhat different from where they stand and how they interprete this statement.. thus conflicting views, only way to find out truly what they have said is by going back to the source..which i think is a waste of time..they'd prolly ask you to buy some stuff from them while you interview them..hehe
well.. that's what i've got to say right now
might be a bit fuzzy here and there 'cos i actually just woke up, so if there are some contradiction issues here..do let me know and i'll try to clear it up.
cheers.
say, it looks like 'somebody' has opened up this thread again.
first of all.. i've got to say that kudos to soggie for taking time to share his views in a pretty detail manner. dang, it took so much time to read it tho..hehe! as you know, my viewpoint takes a slightly narrow perspective emphasing on the gist of their comment compared to a general view of what you said.. think that's where some of my views with yours conflict.
well.. the following only applies to what i've said so far (only the part of the low-income earners group) 'cos i've got agree that some of the post that ppl have made here were rather shallow in nature, so if you have read my replies so far, you'd know where i'm standing on the interpretation of the article. as i've typed it all down in detail (if anybody wants to read it) please do 'cos i'm not gonna type it again.
just some comments i would like to make to soggie's statement from my stand. first of all, i think we should interprete things on a piece meal basis, i'd say we don't get in what the government has been saying about the income ranges because it encompass a lot of factors and much not relevant to this discussion. let's compare apples to apples, alrite?
ok, to me.. i don't think being associated with the "lower income bracket" is the issue, i see no issue here. to me, i might not be banking in on the big bucks yet, but i don't feel in any way threatened or oppressed if somebody said i was "lower income" 'cos i'm making good and clean money. anybody who feels ashamed being categorised in this should serve this as a wake up call and strive to better themselves, but this is another story then.
well.. the way how i interprete your points, you assume that their facts are based on a general statistical statement.. yes, you might be correct and i won't argue with you on that. but i feel a statement's never free from any bias unless you're staying in some sort of utopian environment. yes, according to him.. he might be correct that this group make up a big portion by buying these cheaper stuff.. but doing so he has exposed himself to critics (like some of us) on how he judges the "lower income group". you know, it's always does sound better to pinpoint a group for your best interest, if you can interprete what i mean. fine, i might be overcritical on his comments.. but i think that his comments do no justice to the stigma already shrouding the group.
at the end of the day, i reiterate that everybody's views are somewhat different from where they stand and how they interprete this statement.. thus conflicting views, only way to find out truly what they have said is by going back to the source..which i think is a waste of time..they'd prolly ask you to buy some stuff from them while you interview them..hehe
well.. that's what i've got to say right now
might be a bit fuzzy here and there 'cos i actually just woke up, so if there are some contradiction issues here..do let me know and i'll try to clear it up.
cheers.
Last edited:
soggie said:
i can't agree with you more.
also i feel some of the facts might have been skewed a bit by the interviewer just to get a more controvesial story to write.. it's nice to stir up the hornet's nest once in a while, don't you think?
Similar threads
The Marketplace Latest
Recent Posts
-
Upping Wira 1.5 MMC performance
- Started by Nyfka
- Car Modification
Search
Enjoying Zerotohundred?
Log-in for an ad-less experience