| Home |
| Search |
| Today's Posts |
|
|
|
#2
|
|||
|
|||
Usage of motoroil
|
|
#3
|
|||
|
|||
|
Usage of motoroil
|
|
#4
|
|||
|
|||
|
Usage of motoroil
|
|
#5
|
|||
|
|||
|
Usage of motoroil
(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 15 Aug 2003 03:56:23 -0700, (basskisser) wrote: (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ... On 14 Aug 2003 04:10:05 -0700, (basskisser) wrote: (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message Now you're acting just like skipper, with your snipping of the relevant facts that prove you're a moron. Or, do you just get everything you've ever known from websites? Newsflash, there, idiot. MOST websites dealing with martial arts tell you that stuff. To a SMALL extent, it's true. Ever watch blackbelts train? Calm? Not in the LEAST! Why are you afraid to answer the simple question that is on topic to this thread and reveals nothing about your personal life. Do you think NONE of the oil vapor that makes it's way back to the intake manifold via the PCV valve gets burned? Why? Because YOU, Steve, have written in this thread that I don't know about Karate. Also, YOU have implied, through this thread, that YOU DO I have no idea what you know about karate. I do know that you claim to be a student of karate and yet you do not follow it's principles and don't even know what those principles are. Please provide where you've gotten your training. You must be trained in Karate to be able to say that somebody who HAS trained in the art for quite a period of time, don't know anything about it.! Why do you care where I've gotten my training? I'm not claiming you don't have training in karate. But it is self evident that you don't follow the principles, either because you don't follow the training you've gotten or you just don't know what those principles are. I've already given examples of where your actions deviate from any training you might have received in karate. know about Karate. Now, because of this implication, I'd like to see just what you really do know about Karate. In particular American Kenpo Karate, Ed Parker system?? I know that you don't practice the principles of karate when you are stalking people on the internet threatening them with violence. Uh, I'm the one being stalked, idiot. Maybe in your own mind you're being stalked. But on this newsgroup, you are the one stalking others by asking them to meet you and threatening them with physical violence, breaking necks, etc. Now that I've answered your questions again, can you answer my question: Do you think NNE of the oil vapor that makes it's way back to the intake manifold va the PCV valve gets burned? Steve 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? |
|
#6
|
|||
|
|||
|
Usage of motoroil
On 18 Aug 2003 04:08:19 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:
(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ... On 15 Aug 2003 03:56:23 -0700, (basskisser) wrote: (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ... On 14 Aug 2003 04:10:05 -0700, (basskisser) wrote: (Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message Now you're acting just like skipper, with your snipping of the relevant facts that prove you're a moron. Or, do you just get everything you've ever known from websites? Newsflash, there, idiot. MOST websites dealing with martial arts tell you that stuff. To a SMALL extent, it's true. Ever watch blackbelts train? Calm? Not in the LEAST! Why are you afraid to answer the simple question that is on topic to this thread and reveals nothing about your personal life. Do you think NONE of the oil vapor that makes it's way back to the intake manifold via the PCV valve gets burned? Why? Because YOU, Steve, have written in this thread that I don't know about Karate. Also, YOU have implied, through this thread, that YOU DO I have no idea what you know about karate. I do know that you claim to be a student of karate and yet you do not follow it's principles and don't even know what those principles are. Please provide where you've gotten your training. You must be trained in Karate to be able to say that somebody who HAS trained in the art for quite a period of time, don't know anything about it.! Why do you care where I've gotten my training? I'm not claiming you don't have training in karate. But it is self evident that you don't follow the principles, either because you don't follow the training you've gotten or you just don't know what those principles are. I've already given examples of where your actions deviate from any training you might have received in karate. know about Karate. Now, because of this implication, I'd like to see just what you really do know about Karate. In particular American Kenpo Karate, Ed Parker system?? I know that you don't practice the principles of karate when you are stalking people on the internet threatening them with violence. Uh, I'm the one being stalked, idiot. Maybe in your own mind you're being stalked. But on this newsgroup, you are the one stalking others by asking them to meet you and threatening them with physical violence, breaking necks, etc. Now that I've answered your questions again, can you answer my question: Do you think NNE of the oil vapor that makes it's way back to the intake manifold va the PCV valve gets burned? 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: 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: 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. You're wrong when you claim that there must be visible blue smoke if an engine is burning any oil, even minute amounts. 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. You're wrong when you claim that saying something was "consumed in the combustion process" is not the same thing as saying it "burned". 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. You're wrong in thinking that the oil pressure gauge is reading the force of the oil against the wiper ring. 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. 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. 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. You're wrong when you claimed that I was the first person to start calling names. You were. You're wrong when you claimed that I was first person to call someone a little school girl. You did 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. You're wrong when you claimed that karate does not teach etiquette. You're wrong when you claimed that karate does not teach not to panic and to remain calm when confronted. 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. 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. Steve |
|
#7
|
|||
|
|||
|
Usage of motoroil
|
|
#8
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#9
|
|||
|
|||
|
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 |
|
#10
|
|||
|
|||
|
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. |
| Reply |
| Thread Tools | Search this Thread |
| Display Modes | |
|
|
Hybrid Mode
