My cars up to now (loads and loads and loads of pictures)

[astirling]

Like I said - I wasn't trying to pick on anyone, I wasn't trying to cause any offence. Certainly wasn't having a go at you OP.

[stuttgartmetal]

Nice story.
Top quality bangering Fella.
But dont do XJ, do S Type.

[astirling]

stuttgartmetal said:

Nice story.
Top quality bangering Fella.
But dont do XJ, do S Type.

Oooh good idea. S-type R!

[mwstewart]

I really enjoyed reading this, especially as it made me remember all the car based adventures I had in my teens and early twenties. Well done.

[Scoticus]

astirling said:

stuttgartmetal said:

Nice story.
Top quality bangering Fella.
But dont do XJ, do S Type.

Oooh good idea. S-type R!

Iv looked at these, and i do like them, the only problem i have is that they are £600 a year more to insure then the XJR..

Plus, i really love the XJRs, especially the x350.
I know they arent to everyones taste, but im not one for following other people and their opinions, as you can tell by my car history.

On the jag subject though, can i ask why you recommend the s-type over the xjr?

[Boshly]

astirling said:

Boshly said:

Since when does 'well written' cover spelling and grammar only?

Facetious comment indeed.

I'm not saying that if a post has good spelling and grammar, it is, by default, 'well written'.

What I'm saying is I believe that something with poor spelling and grammar cannot be well written. It can be informative, enjoyable, entertaining, yes. The OP's post was all of those and I liked reading it. But with poor spelling and grammar, I don't see how you can call it well written.

I don't agree; but there is no law (yet) that says we must agree on everything.

astirling said:

Look, I didn't mean to cause offence. I apologise, I'm just being a pedant.

Let's leave it and let the thread get back on topic and enjoy the cars.

Fair enough, no offence caused, it was just a disagreement.