On 19 Aug 2003 04:30:49 -0700,
(basskisser) wrote:
(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!!
Yes, I'm serious. Temperature does not directly affect the outcome and
does not need to be included in any equations describing the process as
long as viscosity is included, which I did. Viscosity directly affects
the outcome. Temperature does not. However, temperature may or may not
affect viscosity. If you truly are an engineer, you'd understand why
you're wrong. You must not be a very good engineer.
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!
Then why did you post this:
http://groups.google.com/groups?selm...g .google.com
in defense of your failed argument that an engine should normally burn
NO oil? Or is it now your contention that "blue smoke clouds around
the transom" are not visible?
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.
WOWWWWW, stop the presses!!! Here's the first glimmer of a shift in
your position. Up until just now, you've never said it was even
possible that the oil from the exhaust valve stem was burned. Just look
2 quotes above when you said "No.....it is simply pushed out of the
chamber on the exhaust stroke." That's been your position up until this
post. Are you finally realizing that you've been wrong all along?
If you want to continue the trend, why not say yes or no to whether you
think NONE of the oil that makes it's way back into the intake via the
PCV valve or crankcase breather gets burned?
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.
This is good. You're going further down the rabbit hole of ineptness
trying to prove a patentently wrong position, and in doing so you're
making even more wrong statements that read like a bunch of crap.
"moment of combustion", "several incidences other than the actual
combustion." Meaningless drivel. The ONLY thing that distinguishes
whether you are "in the combustion process" or not is if something is
BURNING. Everything else are precursors or successors to the combustion
process.
The combustion process is the process by which combustible materials are
chemically transformed into other less combustible materials + energy by
burning them. You've just proven that you don't even understand this
simple statement.
You are NOT in the combustion process during the intake stroke. If you
are, you'll get a carb fart. However, the combustion process may extend
over several strokes. For a 4 cycle engine, the combustion process in a
cylinder starts during the end of the compression stroke, continues
during the power stroke and may or may not continue into the exhaust
stroke. It may even continue in the exhaust manifold. If it continues
too far into the exhaust stroke or too much in the manifold, you get a
backfire.
But, let's just assume for a glimmer of an instant that you're right
about one thing in your life and that "in the combustion process" means
everything from digging up the oil, refining it to gas, pumping it into
your car, all the strokes of cylinder, leaving the tailpipe and having
the exhaust breathed by the mouse on the side of the road. Even if all
that were the combustion process, as you would have us believe, the GM
quote limits it to the combustion process DURING THE POWER STROKE when
the engine looses oil on the cylinder wall.
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.
I just did and the above proves you were wrong. I.e., you said the GM
reference says an engine does not lose oil on the cylinder wall. The GM
reference explicitly says it does. What part of "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." do you not understand? It really is 2 plain and
simple english sentences. Why are you having such a hard time with
them? Is it because they prove you're wrong?
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??
Would it make you happier if I rephrase it to "You're wrong in thinking
that the oil pressure gauge is reading the pressure of the oil against
the wiper ring."? You're obviously too dumb to realize that saying
"*force* against the wiper ring" and "*pressure* against the wiper ring"
mean the same thing in this context because the area of the wiper ring
is known and is the same in both statements. Knowing the area in square
inches, we can easily convert force in pounds to pressure in pounds per
square inch.
So, if you truly believed that the oil pressure gauge is reading the
*pressure* of the oil against the wiper ring (which is what you said and
is plainly wrong) then you'd also have to believe that the oil pressure
gauge is reading the *force* of the oil against the wiper ring, and that
you can get the reading in pounds of force if you only multiply reading
of the gauge by the area of the applied force in square inches.
If we didn't know the area of the wiper ring, then force and pressure
would mean two different things since pressure depends on the force and
the amount of area which the force is applied.
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.
Once more, you have no idea of what you're talking about or how to read
plain english or interpret simple equations. Please provide a post
where I said the pressure against the walls of the crankcase of a
running engine is the same everywhere. Hint: you won't be able to ...
because you're wrong, again.
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.
Yet another stupid statement by a stupid idiot. You don't even
understand the difference in studying a static vs. dynamic situation.
You're trying to apply statics to a dynamic situation and it just won't
work. Remember, we were talking about a running compressor where a tank
is being filled.
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.
Lol!! A one word defense to your incorrect application of statics to a
dynamic situation? You're really sinking deep now. Are you getting
frustrated being proven wrong all the time?
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
Thanks for admitting you're wrong by omission.
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.
Thanks for admitting you're wrong by omission.
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.!!
Of course that's a "claim"! Is your understanding of english really
that deficient? When you tell someone to go do something AGAIN, you're
claiming they've done it before.
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.
More proof that you were wrong if you can't even find a website that
says it does not teach etiquette, like you claimed. Considering your
track record on being wrong with everything you post, there's no way
anyone is going to just take your word for something without a credible
cite.
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...
We all know you don't care what a website tells you. You also don't
care what GM, Toyota and Detroit Diesel tells you when it comes to
engines if it goes against your pre-conceived and wrong notions. You
obviously can't learn anything.
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!!!
I already did. Now it's up to you to prove yourself correct in your
assertion that Karate teaches that it's ok to physically attack someone
first to defend your honor or that Karate teaches that it's ok to strike
someone just because you got frustrated, as you've threatened to do.
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.
Again, narrow mindedness makes someone impossible to teach. That makes
you, well, stupid, Steve.
As they say, the proof is in the pudding, or in this case, in the posts.
Since you're always wrong about everything you post, it makes me feel
great that you're calling me stupid. Thank you for the compliment.
Steve