Chuck Kourouklis

Y'know, it occurs to me - there might just be a future variation with Rudge wheels and some other odds and ends. Tamiya's done stuff like that before...

Very true. Now if you have kids to protect, that's one thing. But anyone else engaging in the little "tisk tisk" drive-bys - if they can't quite muster the personal willpower to skip the chaff - can also go up to their consoles at the top right and enable the "Manage Ignore Prefs" function. Not in my nature to ignore, personally, but I done heard tell you load up the appropriate users, and it can clean up a thread right nice for you.

yeah, sure.

Yup. Even though I've now demonstrated how people can put their money where their effin' MOUTH IS with a premise that wasn't even mine, you're still more likely to find geopolitics in this thread than you are any of this purported castigation of Revell executives and personnel. People can hoist those rational pinatas and whip 'em all they like, and if that's the best they can do for staying on topic, we might as well go right back to the Gaza Strip...

I thought we might be done with the Latin by now, but if ever there were a case of res ipsa loquitur...

Ain't that the truth. As if commenting on the drama accomplishes ANYTHING other than contributing to it, especially after drumming up a bunch of drama on your own. Guilty as charged here - difference is, I make no pretense about being above it all. You can say that again.

Yes, actually. It could certainly use a good cleaning up, to such an extent that I've decided to cut my own most divergent post. But the model's not even out yet, and people will want to talk about it when it arrives, at which point either this conversation can continue or a new thread about it can start, in which case the cycle will start again: People will like the Del Rio and be on topic. People will describe the Del Rio, maybe take pictures, and be on topic. People will likely find problems as they examine the kit and be on topic. People will take offense to the problems pointed out, attack those who find those problems, and start driving the conversation off topic. And from there, the door's wide open for yes, even geopolitics. Personally, I have a hard time seeing why anybody would even comment on an unworthy thread. There are plenty 'round here that don't float my boat, so I do this crazy thing: I don't participate in them.

**post deleted by author for non-topicality** http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=95522&p=1399347

**post deleted by author for non-topicality** http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=95522&p=1399347

**post deleted by author for non-topicality** http://www.modelcarsmag.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=95522&p=1399347

**EDIT** The original post made an observation of what a shame it is that keyser's goodwill message should be rebuffed with misattributions out of context. That point stands; all further related posts deleted by this author for going off topic.

"But there's nooo suuuch thiiiing as a perfect hooorse..."

Very funny that sentiment should come up, though - between the pious apologists and the carping critics I referenced earlier, it's very clear just who first tried wearing down the other, to anyone with grasp of reality unwarped by personal ideology. I mean, anyone wants to know my motivation, you couldn't say it better than that phrase, macaronic or not. But I gotta thank Monty W for the true gem: CASTIGAT RIDENDO MORES - laughing corrects morals, the basis for all great satire. The best way to change the rules is to point out how absurd they are, as Monty put it. Yessir, I like that one very much.

Ellway Ayedplay. Well, the Taurus is the first one comes to mind. MIght be others...

HAH. Hat's off. Mine's rougher, I promise: Omnis constructio de miniaturae est divisus in castra duo: pii defensores et calumniatores. (…with all apologies to Gaius Julius.)

My pleasure Charlie - though I do have to point out it was Joe who set it off...

Wa-a-a-aay too chicken here. I'd be screaming, "NOOO, I THINK! I THINK! I THINK!" soon as the fading started.

So Descartes walks into a bar. Tender sez, "Know what you're gonna have?" Descartes sez, "I think not." And disappears.

Well no, there's not much difference in definition between "builder" and "assembler", but there's been an apparently inadvertent shift in semantics here; the classic cliche specifically is "MODELERS vs kit assemblers", and the superiority of the former approach has long been strongly implied at a minimum and spelled right out in more extreme cases. To repeat myself, I can't really see how it matters so much if your self-esteem doesn't hinge on your hobbies, but what the hey... And while we're on definitions, there IS a pretty clear distinction between speculation on an imminent release - TOPICAL speculation supported by hard data in preview photos and a comprehensive history of gremlins MAKING IT TO PRODUCTION (for what, the 4th time in this discussion? 5th?) - and an out-and-out review. Just look at the kinds of distortion necessary to make these non-points.

Gotta say, I'm liking the panel gaps. Looks like all that's needed for dead-flush in the roof is some light tweaking of the upper door panels.

That'd be a nod to keyser for parsing things down with a certain catchy, irrefutable economy - even those of us who prefer to fight fire with napalm can appreciate that. And no, there ain't nothin' wrong with painting and assembling at all, in itself. It's the insistence that people point out problems ONLY because they're "kit assemblers" that's the kind of nonsense so obvious it should have been retired long ago. If somebody likes a problematic kit, nobody tells him how act or think about it. Nobody hints he's somehow lacking as a modeler, nobody tells him he shouldn't be appreciative, nobody tells him not to buy it (ironically, he's more likely to be the one hollering at a critic not to buy it instead). But in this thread, it goes even deeper than that; most anybody who's noticed an issue with the Del Rio wagon is still looking forward to the kit, still intending to buy one or several. And STILL we get the lectures about production process, or how grateful we should be for new kits, or even that ancient poppycock about how Revell will just blow its own toes off and deny itself the revenue from a new kit simply because we don't fawn over it enough.

Between this and "defensible to do it wrong, offensive to point it out", I'd like to nominate a new poet laureate for the thread. That IS what the drama all boils down to in the end - the inability of some of you to deal with the fact that people point out flaws in kits. It's YOU ALL who start the name-calling and the snideness and the fur-flying because people who criticize kits do not behave the way you think they ought to. And Art, with all due respect, "food for thought" - ? How about grist for vaporization, years gone now? I'll "just wait for the kit" when I start seeing meaningful corrections between previews and what's on the shelf after more than a decade otherwise, thanks (#4 - again - at the blog linked below). And as long as that patently false "Builder vs Kit Assembler" dichotomy keeps coming up, I'll keep pointing out that I gave that sad little canard its richly deserved vivisection long ago, at #2 in the link below... and then that I undertook a project to prove the irrelevance of that angle by meeting its baseless challenge ANYWAY: never mind the Steve Bouttes and the John Goschkes and Bill Gearys and Bob Downies and countless others before me who've long shown even more conclusively that pointing out problems doesn't immediately impugn your qualifications as a builder. DEMONSTRATING a point is also something you guys don't do very well - because you need to have a valid point in order to demonstrate it.

Right as rain, Bruvva.

I'd like to take a moment now to note a distinction, possibly due just a L-I-I-I-TTLE more respect 'round here: Maybe it doesn't really boil down to intelligence OR the sharpness of your eyes; maybe sensitivity to proportion is just more a matter of habit or self-training. And there IS a difference between affably pointing out you don't see a given problem... (^^) and continuing to be so uselessly snide about the observation - or insisting that people need micrometers and other "engineering tools" to pick nits - out of your own inability to see that problem.

Yeah, and Roger had a pretty good take on John's basic point back on p 8, post 150, too. Can't say for sure, but it does look like they've made the rear wheel arch line a bit less of a linear gouge and a bit more of a concave feature. Rear quarter crease still looks like it could stand to reach back a bit further, though.