Cayman R Chat

[guyvert1]

Don't see the issue, there's enough old mutt's being touted around , why not a few felines !

[ChrisW.]

Old Trout said:

The fact it is on a bus stop in Holland does not make it any less misogynistic.

Surely there will be many different points of view, and everybody should have the right to be offended.

The fact that it was accepted by a public authority with a direct responsibility to their public surely indicates that the democratic view rendered it quite acceptable ...

If few offended individuals could legitimately obscure the freedoms of many others, what would we be left with ?

I was wondering why so many of the recent pictures of dogs were waving their bks around ?

[MrVert]

FFS...the worlds gone mad...

Snowflakes everywhere...

[jimmy p]

It's fashionable to be offended now, it's all boll$cks, a sense of humour is also frowned at, sad times

[swanny71]

julian987R said:

They were deemed sexist, offensive, misogynistic and irresponsible by the Advertising Standards.

No, they were not.

Someone complained about one of their slightly risqué adverts printed in a couple of Porsche magazines. The advert was deemed to have broken some rules, so the ASA gave them a gentle slap on the wrist.

https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/strasse--uk--ltd-a1...

If you are going to post something potentially harmful to a business then be accurate or at least take a minute to think before posting.

Note: I’ve absolutely no affiliation to the company, have never used them and likely never will since they are 300 miles away from me.

[swanny71]

ChrisW. said:

A picture of a woman and her ginger pussy

Careful, you’ll get reported to the mods (along with me I fear )

[ChrisW.]

Purely illustrative ....

[WayOutWest]

julian987R said:

georgefreeman918 said:

Can this thread be for an aspiring R owner, but without the funds and looking for the next best thing?

Is a 2012 987 Cayman likely to be a money pit? Like this example -

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/403987196097?hash=item5...

This ...
https://www.pistonheads.com/buy/listing/14475319

....is likely closer to an R than the one you linked to, as it has been upgraded officially with a R suspension.

or this one

https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/204227829921

with factory R Aero kit and PSE.

Edited by julian987R on Sunday 29th January 15:31

That red S is a great shout as the next best thing.

[julian987R]

Well well well, its got it all

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202301273...

[Nurburgsingh]

julian987R said:

Well well well, its got it all

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202301273...

This was for sale privately before? PCCB's replaced by Giro's ?

[julian987R]

ajondyh said:

Another one less in the world https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/275653833587?_trkparms=...

All the R parts available from it

https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_dkr=1&iconV...

[julian987R]

swanny71 said:

julian987R said:

They were deemed sexist, offensive, misogynistic and irresponsible by the Advertising Standards.

No, they were not.

Someone complained about one of their slightly risqué adverts printed in a couple of Porsche magazines. The advert was deemed to have broken some rules, so the ASA gave them a gentle slap on the wrist.

https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/strasse--uk--ltd-a1...

If you are going to post something potentially harmful to a business then be accurate or at least take a minute to think before posting.

Note: I’ve absolutely no affiliation to the company, have never used them and likely never will since they are 300 miles away from me.

In its ruling the regulator added: “We considered the phrase ‘attractive servicing’ would be understood to be a double entendre, implying the woman featured in the ad was the ‘attractive’ part of the servicing, and considered this was likely to be viewed as demeaning towards women. We considered that although the image was only mildly sexual in nature, when combined with the [strapline] it had the effect of objectifying women by using a woman’s physical features to draw attention to the ad.”

“We concluded the ad was not sexually explicit, but by using a suggestive image that bore no relevance to the advertised product, the ad objectified women and was likely to cause serious offence to some people.”

Seems quite clear cut to me. demeaning, sexist, objectifying, offensive. They said it, not me! though I would never use a company that signed off on an advert of that nature.
Unsure what has got your back up.

Note: I too have absolutely no affiliation to the company, have never used them and likely never will since they are 300 miles away from me.

Edited by julian987R on Monday 30th January 21:33

Edited by julian987R on Monday 30th January 21:34

[MrVert]

I wouldn’t buy from them…

Back in 1538, one of the Directors 8 x Grandfather’s brother was charged with tickling a wench in an inappropriate fashion…

I’m oot….










Also..PDK and no A/C

[julian987R]

Nurburgsingh said:

julian987R said:

Well well well, its got it all

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202301273...

This was for sale privately before? PCCB's replaced by Giro's ?

Oh it’s that one! I keep forgetting to check if the AC button is there in listings of late that I have posted.
Maybe it’s not all that then, well fully loaded that is, it is a nice one though all said and done.

[swanny71]

julian987R said:

swanny71 said:

julian987R said:

They were deemed sexist, offensive, misogynistic and irresponsible by the Advertising Standards.

No, they were not.

Someone complained about one of their slightly risqué adverts printed in a couple of Porsche magazines. The advert was deemed to have broken some rules, so the ASA gave them a gentle slap on the wrist.

https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/strasse--uk--ltd-a1...

If you are going to post something potentially harmful to a business then be accurate or at least take a minute to think before posting.

Note: I’ve absolutely no affiliation to the company, have never used them and likely never will since they are 300 miles away from me.

In its ruling the regulator added: “We considered the phrase ‘attractive servicing’ would be understood to be a double entendre, implying the woman featured in the ad was the ‘attractive’ part of the servicing, and considered this was likely to be viewed as demeaning towards women. We considered that although the image was only mildly sexual in nature, when combined with the [strapline] it had the effect of objectifying women by using a woman’s physical features to draw attention to the [b/ad[/b]”

“We concluded the ad was not sexually explicit, but by using a suggestive image that bore no relevance to the advertised product, the ad objectified women and was likely to cause serious offence to some people.”

Seems quite clear cut to me. demeaning, sexist, objectifying, Unsure whats got your back up.

Note: I too have absolutely no affiliation to the company, have never used them and likely never will since they are 300 miles away from me.

The advert, was found to be in breach of Non-broadcast Advertising code rules by the Advertising Standards Agency.

THE ADVERT!

You seemed to imply “they” (the business) were sexist, offensive and irresponsible.
Even if you misunderstood the ruling, you also threw in “misogynistic” for good measure which isn't mentioned anywhere in the ASA ruling.

[swanny71]

MrVert said:

I wouldn’t buy from them…

Back in 1538, one of the Directors 8 x Grandfather’s brother was charged with tickling a wench in an inappropriate fashion…

I’m oot….



Also..PDK and no A/C

[julian987R]

swanny71 said:

julian987R said:

swanny71 said:

julian987R said:

They were deemed sexist, offensive, misogynistic and irresponsible by the Advertising Standards.

No, they were not.

Someone complained about one of their slightly risqué adverts printed in a couple of Porsche magazines. The advert was deemed to have broken some rules, so the ASA gave them a gentle slap on the wrist.

https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/strasse--uk--ltd-a1...

If you are going to post something potentially harmful to a business then be accurate or at least take a minute to think before posting.

Note: I’ve absolutely no affiliation to the company, have never used them and likely never will since they are 300 miles away from me.

In its ruling the regulator added: “We considered the phrase ‘attractive servicing’ would be understood to be a double entendre, implying the woman featured in the ad was the ‘attractive’ part of the servicing, and considered this was likely to be viewed as demeaning towards women. We considered that although the image was only mildly sexual in nature, when combined with the [strapline] it had the effect of objectifying women by using a woman’s physical features to draw attention to the [b/ad[/b]”

“We concluded the ad was not sexually explicit, but by using a suggestive image that bore no relevance to the advertised product, the ad objectified women and was likely to cause serious offence to some people.”

Seems quite clear cut to me. demeaning, sexist, objectifying, Unsure whats got your back up.

Note: I too have absolutely no affiliation to the company, have never used them and likely never will since they are 300 miles away from me.

The advert, was found to be in breach of Non-broadcast Advertising code rules by the Advertising Standards Agency.

THE ADVERT!

You seemed to imply “they” (the business) were sexist, offensive and irresponsible.
Even if you misunderstood the ruling, you also threw in “misogynistic” for good measure which isn't mentioned anywhere in the ASA ruling.

Who irresponsibly signed off on it then?
I once ordered a tea in a cafe, milk no sugar, but it came with sugar stirred in. It wasn’t the teabags fault, nor the cup and saucers fault, it was whomever made it and deemed it correct to serve.

Edited by julian987R on Monday 30th January 22:39

[Nurburgsingh]

julian987R said:

Nurburgsingh said:

julian987R said:

Well well well, its got it all

https://www.autotrader.co.uk/car-details/202301273...

This was for sale privately before? PCCB's replaced by Giro's ?

Oh it’s that one! I keep forgetting to check if the AC button is there in listings of late that I have posted.
Maybe it’s not all that then, well fully loaded that is, it is a nice one though all said and done.

It’s a one owner car with low miles and no mention of the original discs - which leads me to conclude that the owner managed to trash them on a trackday.
Replacement set of ceramics costs..? I think even if you go ST and not OE you’re into the wrong side of £5k so it’s not a £49k caf.

[PaulD86]

julian987R said:

All the R parts available from it

https://www.ebay.co.uk/sch/i.html?_dkr=1&iconV...

I suspect they would be a tad expensive when you ship them from Austrailia. Interseting to note that many are being sold at prices higher than you'd be for a brand new part from at your local Porsche dealer in the UK.

Edited by PaulD86 on Tuesday 31st January 09:02

[PaulD86]

julian987R said:

swanny71 said:

julian987R said:

swanny71 said:

julian987R said:

They were deemed sexist, offensive, misogynistic and irresponsible by the Advertising Standards.

No, they were not.

Someone complained about one of their slightly risqué adverts printed in a couple of Porsche magazines. The advert was deemed to have broken some rules, so the ASA gave them a gentle slap on the wrist.

https://www.asa.org.uk/rulings/strasse--uk--ltd-a1...

If you are going to post something potentially harmful to a business then be accurate or at least take a minute to think before posting.

Note: I’ve absolutely no affiliation to the company, have never used them and likely never will since they are 300 miles away from me.

In its ruling the regulator added: “We considered the phrase ‘attractive servicing’ would be understood to be a double entendre, implying the woman featured in the ad was the ‘attractive’ part of the servicing, and considered this was likely to be viewed as demeaning towards women. We considered that although the image was only mildly sexual in nature, when combined with the [strapline] it had the effect of objectifying women by using a woman’s physical features to draw attention to the [b/ad[/b]”

“We concluded the ad was not sexually explicit, but by using a suggestive image that bore no relevance to the advertised product, the ad objectified women and was likely to cause serious offence to some people.”

Seems quite clear cut to me. demeaning, sexist, objectifying, Unsure whats got your back up.

Note: I too have absolutely no affiliation to the company, have never used them and likely never will since they are 300 miles away from me.

The advert, was found to be in breach of Non-broadcast Advertising code rules by the Advertising Standards Agency.

THE ADVERT!

You seemed to imply “they” (the business) were sexist, offensive and irresponsible.
Even if you misunderstood the ruling, you also threw in “misogynistic” for good measure which isn't mentioned anywhere in the ASA ruling.

Who irresponsibly signed off on it then?
I once ordered a tea in a cafe, milk no sugar, but it came with sugar stirred in. It wasn’t the teabags fault, nor the cup and saucers fault, it was whomever made it and deemed it correct to serve.

Is this a serious response, or a joke? I'm unsure. I would assume that your primary concern when selecting someone to work on your vehicle would be their compotence to work on said vehicle, however from your response with slightly bizarre analogy it sounds like you're suggesting that if the person responsible for advertising made an error or judgement, you wouldn't wish to do business with company as a whole. This doesn't sound particularly logical.