(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
basskisser wrote:
(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message

Nah, Steve, you stupid old man. You see, I get tired of drawn up
pieces of crap like you and Joe, hiding behind newsgroups. You name
call, etc. real well, when hiding behind a newsgroup, like hiding
behind mommy's skirt. But it's a different story when asked to do so
in person, huh? But, alas, you shouldn't be afraid, you've got Karate
training, right? Where did you take that training? Rank? Dojo?
Lineage? Oh, you don't know, right?

Nah, DimDummy, you stupid old man. What you get tired of is being
proven a dumb idiot with every post you make. That's why you won't
answer any more direct questions, because you now realize you're just a
stupid fool who doesn't know squat about anything. Here's a short list
of the things you've been wrong about in just this single thread that so
beautifully demonstrates your stupidity. I'm probably missing a few
things because there's so much you were wrong about, but here goes:


Yeah, sure, the same old, same old. I just love how you think you know
everything, and no one else knows anything! How did anyone ever teach
you anything? It must be hell going through life so damned important.
Did your extensive karate training teach you that? What WAS that
training, anyway?

There you go again proving you don't know how to read or understand what
you've read.

You're wrong when you said an engine normally burns NO oil. Your
ineptness in defending that indefensible position led you to be wrong
about a whole host of things, including:

I have given many examples fortifying my case, you've just either not
read them, or not understood them. Just like you, to not take any
other written material as important, other than material that YOU have
dredged up.

The only examples you've given have undermined your case.

When a wiper wipes a viscous liquid off a surface, you claimed that the
speed of the wiper does not affect how much liquid is left on the
surface. That's wrong.

Glad to see you agree you were wrong.

When a wiper wipes a viscous liquid off a surface, you claimed that the
temperature of the liquid directly affects how much liquid is left on
the surface. That's wrong. The viscosity does, not the temperature.
The temp may or may not affect the viscosity.


In this case, it DOES, which makes YOU wrong when you say that temp.
doesn't affect the outcome.

Thanks for providing even more proof that you don't know how to read. I
didn't say that temp doesn't affect the outcome. I said it doesn't
directly affect the outcome, which it doesn't.

It doesn't directly affect the outcome?? Are you SERIOUS? What a
blind, dumb rat!!

You're wrong when you claim that there must be visible blue smoke if an
engine is burning any oil, even minute amounts.


Never said that. You claimed that there doesn't have to BE SMOKE.
There does. Just because you can't see it, doesn't mean it doesn't
exist.

The above just proved that you don't know what the term VISIBLE means.
You're really on a roll today. You must really be a glutton for
punishment to show you're stupidity in such a flagrant manner.

You effing IDIOT, in the original post, I NEVER said the smoke had to
be visible. You added that!!! What a blind dumb rat....again!

When oil gets through the exhaust valve stem of a running engine, it
ends up being burned. You're wrong when you claimed it doesn't.

No.....it is simply pushed out of the chamber on the exhaust stroke.
If it is bad enough, with enough cylinders leaking through valve stem
seal, then you can actually SEE oil residue on the tailpipe. Ever seen
it? If not, it's those blinders in the way again.

And now you're showing you're too stupid to learn something new since
Toyota explicitly says that oil escaping the exhaust valve stem is
BURNED, their word ... not mine.

It CAN be, and it is possible to NOT be.

You're wrong when you claim that saying something was "consumed in the
combustion process" is not the same thing as saying it "burned".


I said this: Consumed is NOT the same as burned. PERIOD. Do you
believe that it IS?

WRONG!!! Here is an EXACT quote of my question to you and your answer
to me:

I said:
Now, do you or do you NOT contend that "burned" and "consumed in the
combustion process" DO mean the same thing?

You replied:
correct, I do NOT contend that "burned" and "consumed in the
combustion process" mean the same thing.

Okay, I know it is impossible to teach somebody something who is so
narrow minded, but I'll try. (Man, you must have been hell on teachers
trying to open up that pea brain to get something into it) Burned
means what it says. Burned. "Consumed in the combustion process" is
all together different. It COULD be burned, but doesn't have to be.
The key word is PROCESS. The sentence doesn't say that it was indeed,
without burned at the moment of combustion. The PROCESS consists of
several incidences other than the actual combustion. The process
constists of things you may have heard of, but being closed minded,
didn't sink home, like compression, intake, exhaust, and power
strokes.

Now we know why you're afraid to answer direct questions... because it
makes you look like a stupid moron. And now you have to deny your
stupid remarks from before. Too bad they're archived.

You were wrong when you said the GM reference never says that an engine
looses oil on the cylinder wall. It does, and the reference does say
that.


No, it doesn't.

Here's an EXACT quote of the GM reference which says an engine looses
oil on the cylinder wall. Quoted from GM Bulletin No.: 76-60-04A:
When a piston moves down its cylinder, a thin film of oil is left on
the cylinder wall. During the power stroke, part of this oil layer is
consumed in the combustion process.

See above, vacuum brain.

Once again, proving you were wrong when you said the GM reference never
says that an engine looses oil on the cylinder wall. You're soooo easy
today.

You're wrong in thinking that the oil pressure gauge is reading the
force of the oil against the wiper ring.


Where DID I say that??

Right he
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com
when you ask "SO, just how many times 100 psi should my oil pressure
gauge show? Should it be 500 psi? 600psi" when we were talking about the
force of the oil against the downward moving wiper ring. Actually, that
post above is a good one because it shows just how confused you are on
many technical details.


Where does that say that the "gauge is reading the *FORCE* of the oil
against the wiper ring????? Do you know and understand what FORCE is??


You're wrong when you say that the pressure against the walls of the
crankcase is constant everywhere when the engine is running. Turbulence
causes that not to be true.


The flow is laminar. Your Reynold's equation says as much.

You actually believe the currents inside a running crankcase produce
laminar flow against the walls of the crankcase? If so, think some
more.

Reynold's equation that YOU posted as gossiple.

You're wrong when you claim that the pressure against the top of the
piston in a running normal air compressor is the same as the pressure in
the tank.


Guess you've never taking an elementary physics class, huh? How could
the pressure (per square inch) be different?

You need to move on past elementary physics to understand how the
pressure could be different. If I explain to you how the pressure could
be different you won't learn it anyway.

Wrong. Physics doesn't change. It is a constant.

You're wrong when you claim that the force against the top of the rings
is the same as the force everywhere else in the cylinder.


Again, elementary physics says you are wrong.

And more advanced physics as well as reality says you are wrong.

Liar.

You're wrong when you claimed that I was the first person to start
calling names. You were.


No, sorry. Do some research. YOU are.

I did the research and showed you the result. You have not refuted it
yet. If you can, go right ahead. Find a post in the Usage of motoroil
thread where I called you a name earlier than the first post where you
called me a name. Here it is:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com

You're wrong when you claimed that I was first person to call someone a
little school girl. You did


again, you are wrong.

And again, I gave you the post showing the first time you called me a
little school girl. Here it is again:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com

You have not yet provided an earlier one showing me calling you one. So
obviously either you're just stupid or a liar or both.

You're wrong when you claimed that you never called on your daughter to
defend you.


You're wrong when you claimed that I screwed some woman out of her child
support.


When did I "claim" that?

You posted it several times. Here's one of them:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com
Here's the exact quote:
Basskisser said:
Again, go see if you can screw some woman out of her child
support...again.

Is that a "claim"? Then you've claimed many many things that weren't
true.!!

You're wrong when you claimed that karate does not teach etiquette.


It doesn't. Please provide your Karate experience. I'll then provide
mine.
It teaches history, it teaches it's particular philosophy, it teaches
discipline. Etiquette? Nah....This weekend, I went through all of my
books, including Ed Parker, who is the father of American Kenpo
Karate. To my knowledge, he never mentions "etiquette". Of course, you
think you know more than I do on the subject, so please show where he
mentions it. Or Lee Wedlake.

I already gave you proof that it teaches etiquette. Now it's up to you
to prove I'm wrong with more than just an "I say so."

From a fluff website!!!!!!! Wow, what a *expert* you are...dolt.

You're wrong when you claimed that karate does not teach not to panic
and to remain calm when confronted.


Never said it does not teach you "not to panic". It doesn't however,
teach you to remain "calm". Quite the contrary. When confronted, the
three principles are, in order, speed, power and intensity.

I already gave you proof that it teaches one to remain calm when
confronted. Now it's up to you to prove I'm wrong with more than just
an "I say so."

I've told you. I don't care what some fluff website told you. Ask a
REAL person...

You're wrong when you claim that under the principles of karate, it's ok
to physically attack your opponent first if you think you need to defend
your honor.


Attack or be attacked. Your choice. I know which one I, or any other
KNOWLEDGABLE martial artist will take. You?

The most absolute proof you've given so far that you know nothing about
the principles of karate if you think it's ok to attack someone
physically to defend your honor. Thanks for proving yourself so inept
without me having to even try.

Prove me wrong. Where did you get your vast Karate knowledge,
grasshopper?? BWAAAAHAAA!!!

And all that is just what I quickly found from one thread. I'm sure
there's a lot more things you were wrong about. Sad thing is, there's
nothing you were right about.


Only in YOUR eyes. It must be pure hell thinking you are the greatest!

That's better than your hell, knowing you're a bumbling idiot.

Steve

Again, narrow mindedness makes someone impossible to teach. That makes
you, well, stupid, Steve.