180 Sport Auto - Sport mode - Sprintex - Page 2

GreyGhost · 3rd January 2007, 12:34

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete

Darn it - I did a reply that took ages to write up and I got kicked out!

Quick couple of things:

The owner of the URL you referred to Raistlin has a bit of history on the subject. He's being a bit one-sided on the story and has been for some time I'm afraid - which you did point out in part too.

George at RSM did a Sprintex-modified ZT-T which I have been in and personally I loved it. Damned good install from what I could see and hear, both at full-chat as well as at idle. I think George has moved away from doing MGR modified cars now however.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete

Rincewind has in the past cautioned against the K-Series supercharging route from his time at MGR. (If I'm wrong here Rincewind please tell me and I will remove this point)

This point is absolutely correct.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete

Moving to the V8 Dreadnought monster, I've also been in this and it's simply the ultimate iteration of the R40, demonstrating the basic excellence of the chassis and the hard work everyone at MGR put into developing the 75s and ZTs we all know and love.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete

Lastly, this subject has apeared on other forums and has attracted some personal attacks on people involved in this arena. Be aware that if I see any appear on here the writer will lose their privileges damned fast.

Just to back this up, the clubs directors and moderators have already taken an executive decision not to allow on this forum any issues relating to disputes between our members or those known to our members and any garage / repairer / installer. Where said protagonists are named in public.
Any posts of that type will be deleted immediately and without explanation.

Raistlin · 3rd January 2007, 16:10

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete

The owner of the URL you referred to Raistlin has a bit of history on the subject. He's being a bit one-sided on the story and has been for some time I'm afraid - which you did point out in part too.

Pete

I have reconsidered what you have done and to be perfectly frank, I think we are all old enough to be aware that there are 2 sides to every story.

I didn't, as you will recall, mention the name of the (then) UK supplier, however, you have seen fit to delete my link which shows the negative side and then insert the name of the (then) UK supplier in a positive light.

Isn't this all just a little bit one-sided?

Surely we don't all go round with rose tinted spectacles as it were?

Quote:

Just to back this up, the clubs directors and moderators have already taken an executive decision not to allow on this forum any issues relating to disputes between our members or those known to our members and any garage / repairer / installer. Where said protagonists are named in public.
Any posts of that type will be deleted immediately and without explanation.

This, gentlemen, is grossly unfair.

You have now painted me as a "protagonist"

As my post has been edited, there is nothing to show that I made no mention of any names whatsoever.

I merely posted a link to something which I felt was relevant for any member of the forum considering buying an item and by your draconian and I might say precipitate action, you have made me out to be some sort of troublemaker.

Firstly, I made no mention of any name

Secondly, the link I posted was something I found as a result of research regarding the product mentioned.

Finally, I do not take kindly to being left in a position of embarassment where I have been made to appear something which I most certainly am not.

I await your further comments, either publicly or privately.

Paul

GreyGhost · 3rd January 2007, 16:34

Paul
There was no intention to embarrass you in any way.
The link you posted was to a site whereon one of the owners of the Sprintex company was described as a cowby and a crook. Not by you but by the owner of the site. Said owner was in dispute and "probably" rightly so with the UK installer of Sprintex equipment. As stated by Pete there are always 2 sides to any story.
Each and every time the subject regarding the UK installer has been brought up on any site it has turned into a slanging match between those that agree and those that disagree with issues arising from those installations and other matters.
We do not want that to occur here and that is why the link was removed initially by me and then followed up by Pete and then again by myself to make it absolutely clear where we stand.
Once again there was no intention to to embarrass you in any way, and I apologise publicly on behalf of myself, Pete and the club if we have caused you to feel so.

Raistlin · 3rd January 2007, 16:38

Thank you GG.

My intentions are perfectly clear to everyone now - I appreciate your prompt action.

Paul

GreyGhost · 3rd January 2007, 16:40

Quote:

Originally Posted by raistlin295

Thank you GG.

Perfectly clear to everyone now - I appreciate your prompt action.

Paul

No problem Paul, it is never my intention to upset anyone but these things can happen and I will always be first to make it right if I can.

Pete · 3rd January 2007, 16:59

Paul,

I will only add to GG's post a couple of bits:

Absolutely no way was my post intended to patronise or embarrass you. I was attempting to state that you had provided the link but I did think your comment afterwards was a balance and I stated as such. Please accept my apologies if I did not not put across very well, or if it just sound like rubbish, which it probably was if I wrote it.

To perhaps explain some background on this, some while back I was in a position whereby I made a comment about the Sprintex superchargers somewhere else and my personal findings on them. For this I was slated by other posters who had issues with a firm who became involved in some reparations to the vehicle whose owner also also owns the URL you referred to, and were using for their own agenda the complaints published by that person. I was extremely angry about being slighted at the time (I still am frankly) and seeing as I remember the way in which some people jumped on the bandwagon I made the comments at the end in order to make it plain that such behaviour wouldn't be tolerated on here. However, that little episode did not include you Paul and I did not think for a moment you were indulging in any mendacious behaviour on here either.

Raistlin · 3rd January 2007, 17:05

Crikey guys.

I feel like I have made the proverbial mountain out of a molehill now.

I know that there was never any ill-will intended. Please be assured of that.

I really do appreciate the lengths gone to by you both.

Pete · 3rd January 2007, 17:07

Not at all Paul.

Besides, I remembered that we've met. And you're bigger than me.........

GreyGhost · 3rd January 2007, 17:09

Quote:

Originally Posted by Pete

Not at all Paul.

Besides, I remembered that we've met. And you're bigger than me.........

Pussy....

Pete · 3rd January 2007, 17:11

You know, I just can't get that yellow streak removed from my back.

3rd January 2007, 16:38	#14
Raistlin Banned 75 CDT Connoisseur SE Auto Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Wolverhampton Posts: 8,450 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts	Thank you GG. My intentions are perfectly clear to everyone now - I appreciate your prompt action. Paul Last edited by Raistlin; 3rd January 2007 at 16:41..

3rd January 2007, 16:59	#16
Pete Owners Club Director Rover 75 Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Sherfield-on-Loddon Posts: 4,876 Thanks: 137 Thanked 996 Times in 444 Posts	Paul, I will only add to GG's post a couple of bits: Absolutely no way was my post intended to patronise or embarrass you. I was attempting to state that you had provided the link but I did think your comment afterwards was a balance and I stated as such. Please accept my apologies if I did not not put across very well, or if it just sound like rubbish, which it probably was if I wrote it. To perhaps explain some background on this, some while back I was in a position whereby I made a comment about the Sprintex superchargers somewhere else and my personal findings on them. For this I was slated by other posters who had issues with a firm who became involved in some reparations to the vehicle whose owner also also owns the URL you referred to, and were using for their own agenda the complaints published by that person. I was extremely angry about being slighted at the time (I still am frankly) and seeing as I remember the way in which some people jumped on the bandwagon I made the comments at the end in order to make it plain that such behaviour wouldn't be tolerated on here. However, that little episode did not include you Paul and I did not think for a moment you were indulging in any mendacious behaviour on here either. __________________ Follow The Club On Twitter

3rd January 2007, 17:07	#18
Pete Owners Club Director Rover 75 Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Sherfield-on-Loddon Posts: 4,876 Thanks: 137 Thanked 996 Times in 444 Posts	Not at all Paul. Besides, I remembered that we've met. And you're bigger than me......... __________________ Follow The Club On Twitter

3rd January 2007, 17:11	#20
Pete Owners Club Director Rover 75 Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Sherfield-on-Loddon Posts: 4,876 Thanks: 137 Thanked 996 Times in 444 Posts	You know, I just can't get that yellow streak removed from my back. __________________ Follow The Club On Twitter

3rd January 2007, 16:34	#13
GreyGhost Banned 180+ Sport Auto Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: Bedford Middle Level Posts: 17,787 Thanks: 0 Thanked 18 Times in 5 Posts	Paul There was no intention to embarrass you in any way. The link you posted was to a site whereon one of the owners of the Sprintex company was described as a cowby and a crook. Not by you but by the owner of the site. Said owner was in dispute and "probably" rightly so with the UK installer of Sprintex equipment. As stated by Pete there are always 2 sides to any story. Each and every time the subject regarding the UK installer has been brought up on any site it has turned into a slanging match between those that agree and those that disagree with issues arising from those installations and other matters. We do not want that to occur here and that is why the link was removed initially by me and then followed up by Pete and then again by myself to make it absolutely clear where we stand. Once again there was no intention to to embarrass you in any way, and I apologise publicly on behalf of myself, Pete and the club if we have caused you to feel so.

3rd January 2007, 17:05	#17
Raistlin Banned 75 CDT Connoisseur SE Auto Join Date: Nov 2006 Location: Wolverhampton Posts: 8,450 Thanks: 0 Thanked 3 Times in 3 Posts	Crikey guys. I feel like I have made the proverbial mountain out of a molehill now. I know that there was never any ill-will intended. Please be assured of that. I really do appreciate the lengths gone to by you both.