BoatBanter.com - Can Tow from Florida to Northeast for $$

On 20 Aug 2003 10:54:41 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 20 Aug 2003 04:33:07 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message ...
On 19 Aug 2003 05:24:03 -0700, (basskisser) wrote:

(Steven Shelikoff) wrote in message
There you go again. Were you too stupid to understand me the first,
second and third time I told you I wasn't going to give a stalker like
you any info? You really need to work on remedial english, or ESL.

Steve

I know, it's because you really don't know a damned thing about
Karate, only what you've learned from some fluff websites wanting you
to sign up. Here are quotes, many from the master and father of AKK,
Ed Parker. I know that you will say you know more about the subject
than he, even though he brought the art form to the U.S.:

[...]

All in all, you see, Steve, you don't know anything more than you've
cut from various websites full of fluff.

I've read them all and not a single one disagrees with anything I've
said. So obviously, I'm not going to say I know more than any of the
people you quoted.

Not a single one explicitly says that calmness is NOT a factor in
Karate, so you have still not proven yourself correct when you claim
it's not.

Not a single one explicitly says that there is no etiquette in Karate,
so you have still not proven yourself correct when you claim it's not.

Not a single one says that it's ok to physically attack someone who is
posing no threat to you just because you got frustrated. So when you
threaten to do that, you obviously show that you either don't follow the
principles of karate or just don't know what they are.

Keep trying! But try not to get to frustrated. I wouldn't want you to
take it out on anyone close to you.

Steve

I'll tell you why it is frustrating, because you are too friggin'
stupid to understand. Now you are saying that YOU need to have a
document "explicitly say" something in order for you to believe it??

Hey, that's what YOU required from me and I provided to you in the oil
thread. You didn't believe GM meant their engines burn oil when they
said that part of the thin film of oil on the cylinder wall gets lost
during the power stroke in the combustion process. So I had to go find
one from Toyota that explicitly says engines normally BURN (exact word)
oil. Just because you're so stupid that you still think engines should
normally burn NO oil isn't my fault. I've done all anyone can to
educate you and you've proven to be unteachable.

Okay, then, let's start he
Show me where ANY of the crap from websites (as that is your ONLY
research resource) that says, "explicitly" that a normal engine "BURNS
OIL". Explicitly now, because what's good for the goose, is good for
the gander. I didn't say ANYTHING about CONSUMING *in the combustion
process, I said BURNS OIL, as you have stated.

Ok, since you must have missed it the first, second and third times,
from the Supra handbook at
http://www.brandwood.net/supra/handbook/2/oil.html

"Oil is used to lubricate pistons, piston rings and cylinders. A thin
film of oil is left on the cylinder wall when a piston moves downwards
in the cylinder. High negative pressure generated when the vehicle is
decelerating sucks some of this oil into the combustion chamber. This
oil as well as some part of the oil film left on the cylinder wall is
burned by the high temperature combustion gasses during the combustion
process."

"Oil is also used to lubricate the stems of the intake valves. Some of
this oil is sucked into the combustion chamber together with the intake
air and is burned along with the fuel. High temperature exhaust gases
also burn the oil used to lubricate the exhaust valve stems."

Here, Toyota is giving several ways that engines normally BURN (their
exact word) oil. They didn't even list all of them, but what they did
list is sufficient to prove you wrong. Toyota is explicitly saying that
engines normally BURN oil. Are you happy now? Probably not.:)

Steve

P.S., notice that they use the term "combustion process" in the same way
as the GM cite, except in this case they explicitly say the oil is
BURNED during the combustion process.

JESUS, Steve, how MANY friggin' times do I have to REPEAT this to get
it through that ignorant head of yours? It says COMBUSTION PROCESS.
What a dip**** you are!!

You are soooo funny, and soooo predictable. Why do you think I added my
P.S. above. Because I knew that you don't know how to read, and were
going to hook on the term combustion process. Of course, you totally
ignored all the places where it says engines normally BURN oil, and
listed a few ways that they do BURN oil.

Now, read the quote again and tell me how you can interpret it as saying
that engines should normally not burn any oil. Here it is again for
you:
"Oil is used to lubricate pistons, piston rings and cylinders. A thin
film of oil is left on the cylinder wall when a piston moves downwards
in the cylinder. High negative pressure generated when the vehicle is
decelerating sucks some of this oil into the combustion chamber. This
oil as well as some part of the oil film left on the cylinder wall is
burned by the high temperature combustion gasses during the combustion
process."

Do you understand what that's saying? It's saying that oil is burned
whenever an engine is running.

"Oil is also used to lubricate the stems of the intake valves. Some of
this oil is sucked into the combustion chamber together with the intake
air and is burned along with the fuel. High temperature exhaust gases
also burn the oil used to lubricate the exhaust valve stems."

Do you understand what that's saying? It's saying that oil is burned
whenever an engine is running. Oh, and notice that this paragraph makes
no reference to the COMBUSTION PROCESS that has you soooo confused. It
simply says that oil is sucked into the combustion chamber and burned
along with the fuel. That's it, that's enough to prove you wrong.

Steve