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 realize this might rub some Sea Foam or STA-BIL fan boys the
wrong way, but oh well.

On 8/3/2012 1:29 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".

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.






In bikes we refer to 2t and 4t....

On 8/3/2012 7:05 AM, JustWait wrote:
On 8/3/2012 1:29 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".

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.






In bikes we refer to 2t and 4t....

Ooops, thought I was still in the other group.. This is the bikes, oooops...

On Fri, 3 Aug 2012 05:29:58 +0000 (UTC), 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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four-stroke_cycle

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.

Until you get to Wankel engines, in which case I don't think there is
anything stroking.

DTA

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.

--














Until you get to Wankel engines, in which case I don't think
there is anything stroking.

DTA

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.

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"

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.

--
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.

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.

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...