|
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/3/2012 6:39 PM, X ` Man wrote:
On 8/3/12 5:51 PM, JustWait wrote: On 8/3/2012 4:47 PM, BAR wrote: In article , lid says... David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote: John Doe wrote: I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". Per Merriam-Webster... stroke: the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of such movement cycle: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point "2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine About 3,270,000 results "2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds) Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides being less popular, it's semantical nonsense. I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct than either 4-stroke or 4-cycle. It takes 4 strokes to make a cycle. I'm not talking about technical correctness, I'm referring to a significant semantical blunder. What matters is the number of strokes per cycle. The number of cycles is irrelevant. At least you aren't calling them motors. "like" Motor is an acceptable synonym for engine. WTF? Another frekin' name shift? |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/3/12 7:23 PM, JustWait wrote:
On 8/3/2012 6:39 PM, X ` Man wrote: On 8/3/12 5:51 PM, JustWait wrote: On 8/3/2012 4:47 PM, BAR wrote: In article , lid says... David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote: John Doe wrote: I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". Per Merriam-Webster... stroke: the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of such movement cycle: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point "2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine About 3,270,000 results "2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds) Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides being less popular, it's semantical nonsense. I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct than either 4-stroke or 4-cycle. It takes 4 strokes to make a cycle. I'm not talking about technical correctness, I'm referring to a significant semantical blunder. What matters is the number of strokes per cycle. The number of cycles is irrelevant. At least you aren't calling them motors. "like" Motor is an acceptable synonym for engine. WTF? Another frekin' name shift? Still X ` Man, less than **** for brains. -- I'm a liberal because the militant fundamentalist ignorant science-denying religious xenophobic corporate oligarchy of modern Republican conservatism just doesn't work for me or my country. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
X ` Man wrote:
On 8/3/12 5:51 PM, JustWait wrote: On 8/3/2012 4:47 PM, BAR wrote: In article , lid says... David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote: John Doe wrote: I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". Per Merriam-Webster... stroke: the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of such movement cycle: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point "2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine About 3,270,000 results "2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds) Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides being less popular, it's semantical nonsense. I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct than either 4-stroke or 4-cycle. It takes 4 strokes to make a cycle. I'm not talking about technical correctness, I'm referring to a significant semantical blunder. What matters is the number of strokes per cycle. The number of cycles is irrelevant. At least you aren't calling them motors. "like" Motor is an acceptable synonym for engine. Do you have one or two diesel motors in your imaginary boat? |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/3/2012 12:29 AM, John Doe wrote:
I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". [...] My solution is to call them "2-smokes" and "Otto cycle", respectively. -- Tºm Shermªn - 42.435731°N, 83.985007°W Post Free or Die! |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
"X ` Man" wrote in message ... On 8/3/12 5:51 PM, JustWait wrote: On 8/3/2012 4:47 PM, BAR wrote: In article , lid says... David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote: John Doe wrote: I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". Per Merriam-Webster... stroke: the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of such movement cycle: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point "2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine About 3,270,000 results "2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds) Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides being less popular, it's semantical nonsense. I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct than either 4-stroke or 4-cycle. It takes 4 strokes to make a cycle. I'm not talking about technical correctness, I'm referring to a significant semantical blunder. What matters is the number of strokes per cycle. The number of cycles is irrelevant. At least you aren't calling them motors. "like" Motor is an acceptable synonym for engine. -------------------------------------------- "Happy Motoring" |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/3/2012 10:09 PM, Eisboch wrote:
"X ` Man" wrote in message ... On 8/3/12 5:51 PM, JustWait wrote: On 8/3/2012 4:47 PM, BAR wrote: In article , lid says... David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote: John Doe wrote: I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". Per Merriam-Webster... stroke: the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of such movement cycle: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point "2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine About 3,270,000 results "2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds) Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides being less popular, it's semantical nonsense. I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct than either 4-stroke or 4-cycle. It takes 4 strokes to make a cycle. I'm not talking about technical correctness, I'm referring to a significant semantical blunder. What matters is the number of strokes per cycle. The number of cycles is irrelevant. At least you aren't calling them motors. "like" Motor is an acceptable synonym for engine. -------------------------------------------- "Happy Motoring" Indianapolis MOTOR Speedway:) Hummm, didn't know they ran electric cars the) |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
Congratulations, it's a troll...
BAR screw you.com wrote: Path: eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!border3.nntp.dca.giga news.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.gig anews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.gigane ws.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 15:47:54 -0500 From: BAR screw you.com Newsgroups: rec.boats,rec.motorcycles,rec.motorcycles.dirt Subject: OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke" Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 16:47:20 -0400 Message-ID: MPG.2a8602e6d8e97036ed5 news.giganews.com References: jvfnkl$n92$1 dont-email.me 5g4o189ive74k0c8lf1bck738sek04n50v 4ax.com jvh7bb$vfs$1 dont-email.me MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.4 Lines: 50 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-CGl+q0o050vuNscYgphEEfuvUz8aqP06/uNTs6GsfxjoeXKa97ad8pR5Gv6cq5FCKY1i8T/SL5DHfQp!eOW6hmfuEqRykiscZVQIMgpEOn8Ie4ksN4cNucDot BGe2TLHTaiYXEFVEp4yoXbL3Lt+ X-Complaints-To: abuse giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 X-Original-Bytes: 2675 Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org rec.boats:210015 rec.motorcycles:99518 rec.motorcycles.dirt:18767 In article jvh7bb$vfs$1 dont-email.me, jdoe usenetlove.invalid says... David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote: John Doe jdoe usenetlove.invalid wrote: I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". Per Merriam-Webster... stroke: the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of such movement cycle: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point "2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine About 3,270,000 results "2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds) Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides being less popular, it's semantical nonsense. I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct than either 4-stroke or 4-cycle. It takes 4 strokes to make a cycle. I'm not talking about technical correctness, I'm referring to a significant semantical blunder. What matters is the number of strokes per cycle. The number of cycles is irrelevant. At least you aren't calling them motors. |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
On 8/3/2012 11:52 PM, John Doe wrote:
Congratulations, it's a troll... BAR screw you.com wrote: Path: eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!border3.nntp.dca.giga news.com!Xl.tags.giganews.com!border1.nntp.dca.gig anews.com!nntp.giganews.com!local2.nntp.dca.gigane ws.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Fri, 03 Aug 2012 15:47:54 -0500 From: BAR screw you.com Newsgroups: rec.boats,rec.motorcycles,rec.motorcycles.dirt Subject: OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke" Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2012 16:47:20 -0400 Message-ID: MPG.2a8602e6d8e97036ed5 news.giganews.com References: jvfnkl$n92$1 dont-email.me 5g4o189ive74k0c8lf1bck738sek04n50v 4ax.com jvh7bb$vfs$1 dont-email.me MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit User-Agent: MicroPlanet-Gravity/3.0.4 Lines: 50 X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com X-Trace: sv3-CGl+q0o050vuNscYgphEEfuvUz8aqP06/uNTs6GsfxjoeXKa97ad8pR5Gv6cq5FCKY1i8T/SL5DHfQp!eOW6hmfuEqRykiscZVQIMgpEOn8Ie4ksN4cNucDot BGe2TLHTaiYXEFVEp4yoXbL3Lt+ X-Complaints-To: abuse giganews.com X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 X-Original-Bytes: 2675 Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org rec.boats:210015 rec.motorcycles:99518 rec.motorcycles.dirt:18767 In article jvh7bb$vfs$1 dont-email.me, jdoe usenetlove.invalid says... David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote: John Doe jdoe usenetlove.invalid wrote: I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". Per Merriam-Webster... stroke: the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of such movement cycle: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point "2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine About 3,270,000 results "2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds) Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides being less popular, it's semantical nonsense. I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct than either 4-stroke or 4-cycle. It takes 4 strokes to make a cycle. I'm not talking about technical correctness, I'm referring to a significant semantical blunder. What matters is the number of strokes per cycle. The number of cycles is irrelevant. At least you aren't calling them motors. Yeah, finally saw that. He must be ****ed that nobody is listening to him rant on...:) |
OT Semantics of "2-cycle" versus "2-stroke"
JustWait wrote in :
On 8/3/2012 10:09 PM, Eisboch wrote: "X ` Man" wrote in message ... On 8/3/12 5:51 PM, JustWait wrote: On 8/3/2012 4:47 PM, BAR wrote: In article , lid says... David T. Ashley dashley gmail.com wrote: John Doe wrote: I'm looking at gas/petrol stabilizers, Sea Foam and STA-BIL. On their FAQ page, both of them refer to a "2-stroke" engine as a "2-cycle" engine. Uhg. It's only semantics, but you would think that those manufacturers would know the difference between a "stroke" and a "cycle". Per Merriam-Webster... stroke: the movement in either direction of a mechanical part (as a piston) having a reciprocating motion; also : the distance of such movement cycle: a course or series of events or operations that recur regularly and usually lead back to the starting point "2-stroke" "4-stroke" engine About 3,270,000 results "2-cycle" "4-cycle" engine About 427,000 results (0.48 seconds) Using "cycle" is not a big deal for casual speakers, but besides being less popular, it's semantical nonsense. I believe that using "4-stroke cycle" is more correct than either 4-stroke or 4-cycle. It takes 4 strokes to make a cycle. I'm not talking about technical correctness, I'm referring to a significant semantical blunder. What matters is the number of strokes per cycle. The number of cycles is irrelevant. At least you aren't calling them motors. "like" Motor is an acceptable synonym for engine. -------------------------------------------- "Happy Motoring" Indianapolis MOTOR Speedway:) Hummm, didn't know they ran electric cars the) http://americansolarchallenge.org/about/fsgp/fsgp-2011/ |
| All times are GMT +1. The time now is 06:19 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Copyright ©2000 - 2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004 - 2014 BoatBanter.com