| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
#132
|
|||
|
|||
Usage of motoroil
|
|
#133
|
|||
|
|||
|
Usage of motoroil
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? 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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? 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. 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?? 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'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'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. 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. You're wrong when you claimed that I was first person to call someone a little school girl. You did again, you are wrong. 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'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. 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. 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? More PROOF you know nothing about Karate if you think it's ok to physically attack someone to defend your honor when they have not attacked you first. You really need to brush up on those lessons. But you're such an idiot lessons probably can't help you. 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! You're the one saying I'm the greatest, not me. I'm saying that you don't know squat about anything you've posted on. That fact is self evident. Steve |
|
#134
|
|||
|
|||
|
Usage of motoroil
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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. If I could screw some woman out of her child support ... again, you're claiming I've done it a first time. With that claim, you're a lying idiot. 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." 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." 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. 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 |
|
#135
|
|||
|
|||
|
Usage of motoroil
(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. |
|
#136
|
|||
|
|||
|
Usage of motoroil
On 19 Aug 2003 04:17:09 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:
(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ... On Mon, 18 Aug 2003 23:52:31 GMT, (Steven Shelikoff) wrote: basskisser wrote: (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message 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. P.S., You really seem to be getting frustrated at being proven wrong all the time. Are you gonna threaten to come snap my pencil neck again? You see, in order for a person to be teachable, they need to be able to take in data WITH AN OPEN MIND. You don't have one. Now, please, tell us where you've received such vast knowledge of Karate. I think, by what you CLAIM that you know, you've been watching too many of those sappy movies, grasshopper. I don't have a vast knowledge of karate. But I do know enough to be about to point out that you are wrong on a number of major points concerning karate, including the biggest one which is you think it's ok to go on the offensive and attack someone first. Steve |
|
#137
|
|||
|
|||
|
Usage of motoroil
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 |
|
#138
|
|||
|
|||
|
Usage of motoroil
|
|
#139
|
|||
|
|||
|
Usage of motoroil
|
|
#140
|
|||
|
|||
|
Usage of motoroil
On 22 Aug 2003 04:08:30 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:
(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ... On 21 Aug 2003 10:09:06 -0700, (basskisser) wrote: (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ... On 20 Aug 2003 11:13:00 -0700, (basskisser) wrote: (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message going? Last night I was given my Asst. Instructor's package. I start this evening, with a 6p.m. gold I and gold II class. Good for you. Bad for them. Steve No, good for everyone involved, asshole. You see, I use the Karate thread as proof of your idiotic you-know-everything attitude. You don't know jack **** about the subject, NEVER had mentioned Karate in ANY newsgroup, but then, when I mention it, all of a sudden you're an expert!!!! Quite a coincedence, huh? And you're wrong yet again. I never claimed to be an expert ... you did. And since you claimed to be an expert, one would think you wouldn't be so wrong about the few simple things I did say about Karate. But you are. No, you see, it's simple. You don't know squat about Karate. I do. Period. The end. The only simple things that you know are what you've If you really know so much about karate, then you'd know you were wrong when you said that there's no etiquette in karate and that karate does not teach one to be calm when confronted. You'd also know that under the principles of karate, it's not ok to just go around attacking people just because you feel frustrated. Please give any reference from Ed Parker, or Lee Wedlake (the grand masters of Kenpo) where they state anything about "calmness" or "etiquette". There IS traditions, but sorry, no etiquette. Do you If you're such an expert, you should be able to find something, somewhere where they disagree with the cites I gave you saying that karate does teach one to be calm when confronted and that there is etiquette, especially in practice and matches. You can't find anything to back your position and so you want me to do your research for you? You're a moron, plain and simple. Would you like to talk about Karate, and see which of us knows more about it? I've even cited the father of AKK, Ed Parker, and his understudy, Lee Wedlake, and you act like you know more than THEY Please point out one post where I've said or acted like I know more than THEY do. You're a stupid moron who projects his frustrations on everyone else. I've said several times that I don't know more than they do. However, as evidenced from your posts here, I just know more than YOU do. No, you are a dolt. You don't know a damned thing about it. Again, some stupid website that wants your money said something about calm. You are DEAD wrong. Again, look at the masters of Kenpo Karate. Read what they've written. Then show me where in the HELL it says anything about being calm. Placidity is foolish in ANY defensive martial art. Being calm under pressure is not the same thing as placidity, and I never said it teaches placidity. And I already provided you with all the evidence you need to see you were wrong. Just because you can't provide me with anything that the masters of Kenpo Karate have said which proves shows you were right isn't my fault. Calmness will get you killed. You must be ON your toes, wary of your surroundings. They grind this into you daily. Speed, Power, Intensity. Quite the opposite of "calm". Again see, you don't know ****. But as usual, you seem to think you do. And you apparently haven't even read your own cites. One of them said "It should be easy to spot a black belt in a crowd, s/he should walk like a Marine on roller skates". Haahaaahaa!!! You don't even UNDERSTAND the quote....too funny!!!! You're laughing like an idiot again. I suppose in your case, ignorance in more then blissful, it's euphoric. Also, with all your cites, you've proved nothing more than that you can cut and paste. You didn't find a single quote from them that shoots down what I said. You are a moron, and a glutton for punishment. Bull****, you just refuse to see that. How about Ed Parker? HE is the father of akk, and in his words SPEED, POWER, INTENSITY..... Please show where ANY of his, or Lee Wedlakes writings EVER mention being CALM when under attack. There's your stupidity shining through again. You can't argue against the point I made so you make up your own to argue against. I never said they teach you to remain calm when under attack. They teach you to remain calm when in danger of being attacked, therefore calmness is a factor in Karate and you were wrong when you said it wasn't. Again, quite the opposite is true. You are like a cat, waiting to pounce. Ever fiber in your body is at the ready. Eyes scanning, mind VERY focused (the opposite of calm). And like a cat waiting to pounce, you remain calm until the time is right. do!!!! So, let's talk Karate, and find out what you know. You know NOTHING, you are a lying jackass. You can't give your ranking, your dojo, your lineage. Why? Because you don't have any, do you? Here is a direct question: What training in Karate do you have? It really frustrates you that I won't answer that direct question, doesn't it.  Because you are a lying idiot, who doesn't know **** about AKK. Period. There's your frustrating shining through again. Frustrated and stupid seems to be all you can muster. You don't know **** about karate, and never will steve. You are a liar. You can easily give verifiable information on your training, if you have any, without "revealing" any more about yourself than everybody in this newsgroup already knows. But, alas, you can't because you don't have that training. More frustration on your part because I won't play your stupid little game? If I were to tell you my training, you'd just say I was bragging about it, and that's not something karate teaches... and you'd be right for once in your life. Keep stewing it over. You're a proven stalker, and especially now that you're doing research on me as evidenced by the palm pilot thing, there's no way I'm answering your personal questions. Especially when you won't even answer a direct on-topic question that has nothing to do with your personal life. Please show who I've stalked, and when I stalked them. What was the outcome? Stalking? By simply searching google newsgroups, as YOU have done with me?? You've stalked me. It's still ongoing. You search for personal information about me and even posted some of what you found just to let me know you were looking for it. You've threatened to snap my neck, you've asked for personal meetings to do just that. I've never searched google newsgroups or anything else for personal information on you, mainly because I couldn't care any less about a mental midget like yourself. But you apparently have this fascination with me. Because you don't HAVE any. You have ZERO Karate training. NONE. If you did, you would never make a statement like you should be calm when under attack. YOU said that, not me. And the only reason you did say that was because you know you're wrong when you said karate does not teach one to remain calm when in danger. I can see you now in a room full of people... you'll be the one jumping up and kicking the air every time someone sneezes, the exact opposite of a marine on roller skates. What an idiot!! I'll be the one who is AWARE of things, as opposed to sitting calmly and NOT in the ready. No, you'll be the one in a frantic panic lashing out at anything that frustrates you instead of remaining calm and letting the situation develop to see if you really are in any danger. Let's talk Karate theory. I was having a little trouble with the extension for Raking Mace. My cover foot keeps wanting to turn toward 2 o'clock. Seeing how you are an expert, how did the Black Belt help me correct this problem? You should be working on your many other problems, none of which a Black Belt can help you with. See, you don't know ****.....never did, never will. Frustrated at being proven wrong all the time? You really need to let it go. You're acting like a little crying baby who keeps getting picked on at recess. Is that why you took up karate? Because people kept picking on you due to your obvious stupidity? Heehee!! What a dolt you are.... You don't know me, nor no of my intelligence, schooling, life's goals. Yet again, you think you are able to analyse someone. Are you trained in any profession at all? You've already told us enough about you, and the rest is self evident. In real life, you're a cretinous nebbish who was picked on all his life for subnormal intelligence. So you have to come onto a nrewsgroup full of bluster to compensate for your real life failings. But you have a problem in that you can't hide your subnormal intelligence here either. It's plainly obvious for all to see. So you become frustrated and lash out by stalking your antagonist and making it known to him that you're doing so in hopes of scaring him off. But like everything else in your unrewarding life, it didn't work. So you have to make up an imaginary friend to buttress your feeble attemps at debate, Walt. But that was such an idiotic ploy and was so easy to discover what you were doing that the only thing it accomplished was to confirm your stupidity as one who can't even make up an imaginary supporter effectively. You are truly a lost cause. You keep forgetting, also, that I'm a structural engineer. What do YOU know about structural engineering? (I know, you're an EXPERT, right? Know more than I do about it, right?) BWAAAHAAA!!!! You're a **** poor engineer, as evidenced by the fact that you don't even know why you're wrong about the temperature/viscosity topic as well as many other very simple engineering concepts that you have no idea about. No, I'm a very good engineer. Well trained, with an inherently keen engineering sense. You on the other hand, are just an ignorant blow Now THAT is the most hilarious thing you've ever posted!!! YOU have an inherently keen engineering sense? OMFG! Everything you've posted in this thread contradicts that. Stupid, stupid man. Please tell all what you know about engineering. Where did you get YOUR engineering degree? Undergrad? In what discipline? GPA? I've got a very successful consulting business, do you? I turn down work daily, even with the economy in the toilet, do you? There's your inferiority complex shining through again. At least subconsciously you realize you're a moron. hard, TRYING to make people think you are quite special. You are, quite special at lying... Since you're always wrong, I'll take that as a compliment. Especially because you can't find a single instance of my lying in this thread or the other one I'm making you look like a blithering fool in. Then tell us what you're karate training is? No. Does that frustrate you, idiot? Of course it does. If it didn't then you wouldn't keep asking. I also am a home brewer. I've taken a couple of classes in it also. Now, I would suppose you are an expert in THAT all of a sudden, too, right? You really are going off the deep end. This would be a lot of fun to watch your mental breakdown if it wasn't so sad. I'm having a breakdown because I homebrew??? TOO much!!!!! There's that strawman argument again. What a moron you are. It's your third sentence that points to you having a breakdown, not the first two. All in all, it must be pure hell to be so insecure. But, I am rather flattered that anything I mention that I do for fun, for work, etc., that you are so enamored that you want people to think that you, too, know about those things. The only person who's proven to be insecure is you. This post is a classic example. Really? In what way are you trained to analyse people's psyche? Your insecurity is obvious to anyone with a minimal amount of psyche training, which I had in college. One doesn't have to be a psychologist to see that you plainly suffer from an inferiority complex, and one that is duly deserved in your case. Just look at your statement: "No, I'm a very good engineer. Well trained, with an inherently keen engineering sense." Heeheeh!!!!! Here we go AGAIN!!!! Now he's a damned psychologist!!!!!! Oh, this is great!!!!! WHat a laugh!!!!!!! The maniacal laughter of a simpleminded lunatic. That's obviously not true and is the typical empty boast of someone with an inferiority complex. If you didn't have an inferiority complex and were truly a very good engineer, your inherently keen engineering sense would be self evident and you wouln't have to boast about it. It's not! And you are an ignorant oaf, who once again, is trying to act like an expert in something he knows NOTHING about!!! Denial won't help you. Steve |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Linear Mode
