February's GT Purely Porsche

[gmk666]

Regular readers of this forum might be interested in this month's issue. Topics in there mirrored by topics on here include:

Choosing options
Buying a GT3
Cayman v 996

Oh, and the GT3RS as described by its owners. As contacted through pistonheads.com.

Suddenly it all makes sense.

[DanH]

gmk666 said:

Regular readers of this forum might be interested in this month's issue. Topics in there mirrored by topics on here include: Choosing options Buying a GT3 Cayman v 996 Oh, and the GT3RS as described by its owners. As contacted through pistonheads.com. Suddenly it all makes sense.

Awful article on the GT3 RS

[tertius]

DanH said:

Awful article on the GT3 RS

The problem as I see it is that if you (as a reader) have any serious knowledge about the subject, you soon realise that you probably know more than whoever is writing the article, and all the errors (big or small) really start to piss you off. Obviously not the case where the article is written by a real expert, but I guess most magazines use the staff they have and they in turn need to "gen" up on whatever the topic of the day is.

To be clear I'm not knocking the writers or the magazines, sympathising really. Personally I do rather like GTPP.

I'd also add that I'm not an expert by any means on the GT3 (or any Porsche come to that) so I can just relax and enjoy the article.

Similar situation with films of course. I still remember that Stallone film Cliffhanger, about climbing (something which I do know a bit about) - and whilst the film itself was truly awful in its own right, they also knew absolutely bu**er all about climbing.

What really worries me is that if this applies universally then all those times I've read an article/seen a film and then thought, "cool now I know a bit about armadillo farming" (or whatever) are probably total tosh.

Friday ramble over.

[johnfm]

Darn it..I've just bought a GT3. I probably could have done with reading that article....oh well.

[mikeg996]

The articles are pretty flakey, but I buy it for the pretty pictures of Porsches they put in. The pages are very shiny and have a deep lustre. Well worth £4.25.

[paultje]

Trouble is, everything that you read is probably factually incorrect somewhere along the line...the only way you realise this is when they start writing about something that you know about. Some of the articles/reports on aviation that I have read are positively, frighteningly wrong ( perhaps deliberately!), so what about the subjects on which I know very little? (and there are a lot of those!)....large pinches of salt required methinks...

[tr7v8]

One of the reasons that I don't buy Practical Classics & the other classic
mags in that vein. The errors are so glaring that it irks me, generally down
to lack of research.