 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Driving, Maintenance, Tuning / Maintenance and Repair / November 2006I hate my 92 F150
I hate my 92 F150... so much. Here's the problem I'm most concerned with: My clutch engages right off the floor. Causes me to stall quite a bit when pulling out. Quite annoying. What do you folks think the problem might be, and is it anything I could do anything about myself? I'm quite broke and quite in debt, so anything I can try myself would be best. All those other problems I'm having, for your amusement (or if you feel like taking a stab at any): Heater doesn't work (not fun in north central Pennsylvania) Front fuel pump no worky Rear fuel tank quite leaky - not dripping, but always wet, and I also saw it stringing down to the unoccupied spare holder the other day. Not to sound harsh, but you need a new truck. Fuel leaks are not something to let go. You are asking for a problem if you continue to drive it. As far as the clutch, it sounds like you need a new slave cylinder which means pulling the trans out. > I hate my 92 F150... so much. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Rear fuel tank quite leaky - not dripping, but always wet, and I also > saw it stringing down to the unoccupied spare holder the other day. You can try bleeding the hydraulic clutch system. It uses brake fluid. Unfortunately, the slave cylinder is *inside* the transmission so replacing it is a big deal. This is just one reason why I hate your truck. Anyhoo, if you have a slow leak you may be able to get by temporarily by getting the air out of the clutch hydraulic lines and adding brake fluid to the reservoir. Toyota MDT in MO >You can try bleeding the hydraulic clutch system. It uses brake fluid. > Unfortunately, the slave cylinder is *inside* the transmission so [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Toyota MDT in MO I was talking to a guy that lives upstairs, who apparently knows a thing or two, and he recommended bleeding, as well as the possibility that it may be low on fluid. However, apart from checking the oil, changing tires, and jumpstarts, I'm completely retarded when it comes to cars. He also claimed that there is no reservoir... whatever. Lack of an owners manual doesn't help, I know that. Oh, and jfrancis, not to sound poor, but given my current financial situation, this is what I'm stuck with :-P Getting a new truck isn't an option, this thing needs to last me preferably through the rest of college. Thanks Jake The POS you all know and hate: http://blog.4lancer.net/photography/vehicles/1992-ford-f150/ > You can try bleeding the hydraulic clutch system. It uses brake fluid. > Unfortunately, the slave cylinder is *inside* the transmission so [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Toyota MDT in MO If it is anything like the ranger, bleeding the system is a major PITA that requires you to put fluid into the system from the slave cylinder. I'm not certain about the F150, but on the ranger, the master cylinder for the clutch is oriented in such a way that you cannot get the air trapped inside of it out unless you either remove it(PITA because of the way the pushrod is designed to be permanently installed), or push fluid up from the bottom. I'm not a big fan of that release system they started using that cannot be repaired without pulling the transmission. The castings I've seen have still had provisions for an external release cylinder/fork. I guess doing it this way saved them a buck or two. Typical ford logic I guess (TFI modules on the distributor anyone???) Chris > > You can try bleeding the hydraulic clutch system. It uses brake fluid. > > Unfortunately, the slave cylinder is *inside* the transmission so [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > Chris The Ranger style system is notoriously difficult to bleed, but I don't remember having difficulty with the F150 -- but it's been a really long time. For sanity's sake I like to forget as much as possible about any Ford repair encounters. Toyota MDT in MO > All those other problems I'm having, for your amusement (or if you feel > like taking a stab at any): > Heater doesn't work (not fun in north central Pennsylvania) Look at the heater core; one of the easest to remove BTW- Had on in the shop that would get a blast of warm air, then cool, the core was restricted (under 50$) > Front fuel pump no worky Most likely bad fuel pump > Rear fuel tank quite leaky - not dripping, but always wet, and I also > saw it stringing down to the unoccupied spare holder the other day. My spare tire caused it to rust out. Trace the fuel to the source- perhaps the fuel pump access point. If the leak goes away as the tank goes down, then that's not it-- trace it to the leak  SignatureStephen W. Hansen ASE Certified Master Automobile Technician ASE Automobile Advanced Engine Performance ASE Undercar Specialist http://autorepair.about.com/cs/troubleshooting/l/bl_obd_main.htm http://www.troublecodes.net/technical/ http://www.familycar.com/Alignment.htm > Trace the fuel to the source- perhaps > the fuel pump access point. If the leak goes away as the tank goes down, > then that's not it-- trace it to the leak Can't find the leak. However, my tank is very low, and it's a lot less wet under there than it was before. On top of all that, as I was driving around town today, the clutch pedal was hesitating to come back up. A few times, I had to pull it up with my foot. It's also now getting tough to shift, and we're grinding into reverse. I was absolutely amazed at the amount of rust under my truck, though. I really don't think it should have passed inspection, and probably wouldn't have, if it weren't for the fact that my mechanic is the one that sold it to me. Even the rear bumper behind the license plate is rusted through. About the only thing not rusted to hell is the muffler and exaust. I was just poking around under the hood, and saw something that looked quite odd next to the transmission. I got underneath, and sure enough, it's a hose that goes nowhere. As I was inspecting this hose-to-nowhere, I noticed the transmission is leaking, front and back. Yummy brown stuff, I'm assuming transmission fluid, unless of course the slave cylinder actually is leaking and it's brake fluid. Back is wet, front had a small wet spot (size of a quarter, we'll say) on the stone underneath, and a half a drop waiting to build up enough for gravity to take over. I despise this truck. Jake >> Trace the fuel to the source- perhaps >> the fuel pump access point. If the leak goes away as the tank goes down, [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > Jake you really must have checked it over good before buying it huh??? You apparently didn`t even look at it at all. so quit your bitching. you only have yourself to blame. KB SignatureThunder Snake #9 "Protect" your rights or "lose" them. > you really must have checked it over good before buying it huh??? You > apparently didn`t even look at it at all. so quit your bitching. you only > have yourself to blame. KB Gee Kevin, thanks for your oh-so-productive insight. Kind of hard for me to check it over when I don't know a goddamn thing about cars. Not everybody is a mechanic, dipshit, and given the situation I was in at the time this was absolutely the only choice I had. Excuse me for trusting the mechanic my family's been with for longer than I can remember. > get a new mechanic. I plan to. > did he give you a _really_ and > I stress __really__ good price. $1300, if I recall correctly. > 1) Try adjusting the clutch. Tried pulling, etc, no go. Have yet to find where to bleed it, too. > 2) What's wrong with the heater? Blows cold air... well, depending on the temp outside, of course. Other than that, beats me. > 3) Check to see if front and rear fuel pumps are the same. Swap them. Get > another rear tank and a fuel pump from the self serve junk yard and swap > them in. > Not only is a self serve yard cheap, you learn how to do the job on junk > car and make the mistakes there. Smart thinking. At the very least, swap the pumps and use the front tank. When I get home for Thanksgiving break, I'll have ramps to put it up on, as well as the mechanically inclined guy living in my basement. We'll see. Actually, now that I think of it, I believe the fuel pumps are internal... least that's what I was told by a mechanic trying to help me out on the road when I oh-so-rudely found out the front didn't work. Jake >> you really must have checked it over good before buying it huh??? >> You apparently didn`t even look at it at all. so quit your bitching. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > trusting the mechanic my family's been with for longer than I can > remember. But yet after you have a problem you can look under it and see some problems???????? Its not that you don`t know sh.t about cars, it appears you have no common since either. If you have known this guy that long I would go back and try to get some compensation back, as he should have been able to see it as a pile in the first place. if you don`t know crap about cars you don`t get a old pile and then bitch when it breaks, that is what old crap does. Asking for help is one thing, bitching about your poor judgemnet is another. KB >> get a new mechanic. > [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] > > Jake SignatureThunder Snake #9 "Protect" your rights or "lose" them. Unrelated to truck mechanical issues, get a new mechanic. If he is willing to sell you that type of vehicle can't imagine the shortcuts this guy is willing to take elsewhere OR did he give you a _really_ and I stress __really__ good price. > I hate my 92 F150... so much. > Here's the problem I'm most concerned with: My clutch engages right off > the floor. Causes me to stall quite a bit when pulling out. Quite > annoying. What do you folks think the problem might be, and is it > anything I could do anything about myself? I'm quite broke and quite in > debt, so anything I can try myself would be best. > All those other problems I'm having, for your amusement (or if you feel > like taking a stab at any): > Heater doesn't work (not fun in north central Pennsylvania) > Front fuel pump no worky > Rear fuel tank quite leaky - not dripping, but always wet, and I also > saw it stringing down to the unoccupied spare holder the other day. 1) Try adjusting the clutch. It will either be the ford pull up on the clutch pedal and push down affair like the mustang or there will be a cable or linkage to adjust. About all you can do short of pulling off the trans to see in there. 2) What's wrong with the heater? Blower motor? Resistor block? Check and see which and replace. Should be cheap at a self serve junk yard. 3) Check to see if front and rear fuel pumps are the same. Swap them. Get another rear tank and a fuel pump from the self serve junk yard and swap them in. Not only is a self serve yard cheap, you learn how to do the job on junk car and make the mistakes there. > 1) Try adjusting the clutch. It will either be the ford pull up on the > clutch pedal and push down affair like the mustang or there will be a > cable or linkage to adjust. About all you can do short of pulling off the > trans to see in there. No adjustments on a Ford clutch - Sounds like the pressure plate ie weak > 3) Check to see if front and rear fuel pumps are the same. Swap them. Get > another rear tank and a fuel pump from the self serve junk yard and swap > them in. Personally, I'd check the power to to ft pump, if good put a new pump in it--- not cheap, but the tank is a PITA to remove. I'd hate to do it for no reason. SignatureStephen W. Hansen ASE Certified Master Automobile Technician ASE Automobile Advanced Engine Performance ASE Undercar Specialist http://autorepair.about.com/cs/troubleshooting/l/bl_obd_main.htm http://www.troublecodes.net/technical/ http://www.familycar.com/Alignment.htm >> 1) Try adjusting the clutch. It will either be the ford pull up on the >> clutch pedal and push down affair like the mustang or there will be a >> cable or linkage to adjust. About all you can do short of pulling off the >> trans to see in there. > No adjustments on a Ford clutch - Sounds like the pressure plate ie weak Are you playing some sort of semantic game? Of course a cable/linkage can be adjusted. If it's a hydraulic clutch, then one needs to check the clutch master cylinder and slave clyinder. I would start with the slave. >> No adjustments on a Ford clutch - Sounds like the pressure plate ie weak > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > If it's a hydraulic clutch, then one needs to check the clutch master > cylinder and slave clyinder. I would start with the slave. OK. Your Learning. A Ford Clutch is Hydraulic. There Is no adjustments from the pedal to the Slave. Now get the clues. What causes the pedal to return? the pressure plate. Ok now for more trivia. Where is the slave cylinder located? Around the input shaft to the transmission. To replace it YOU HAVE TO REMOVE THE TRANSMISSION! So at this point you think you might as well replace the clutch, pressure plate, slave cylinder and throw out bearing. Also, the hydraulic line is very difficult to remove and can be a b*tch to bleed; in some cases the best option is prior to installing a hydraulic system is to let it hang overnight MC up. I've done two clutches on my own F-250 and several on other rigs. Class dismissed. SignatureStephen W. Hansen ASE Certified Master Automobile Technician ASE Automobile Advanced Engine Performance ASE Undercar Specialist http://autorepair.about.com/cs/troubleshooting/l/bl_obd_main.htm http://www.troublecodes.net/technical/ http://www.familycar.com/Alignment.htm I will correct myself, A Ford Truck is hydrolic as the posters is. SignatureStephen W. Hansen ASE Certified Master Automobile Technician ASE Automobile Advanced Engine Performance ASE Undercar Specialist http://autorepair.about.com/cs/troubleshooting/l/bl_obd_main.htm http://www.troublecodes.net/technical/ http://www.familycar.com/Alignment.htm >>> No adjustments on a Ford clutch - Sounds like the pressure plate ie weak >> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > OK. Your Learning. A Ford Clutch is Hydraulic. There Is no adjustments from > the pedal to the Slave. Now get the clues. Thanks for reminding me why I left this group. a.sholes like you. Since you want to play exacting games like this, there are ford clutches operated by cable and linkages, as are the two fords I own. > What causes the pedal to return? the pressure plate. Why don't you read the OP again... it's not a pedal return problem, but an engagement location problem. Why don't you grow a f.cking clue. > Ok now for more trivia. Where is the slave cylinder > located? Around the input shaft to the transmission. To replace it YOU HAVE > TO REMOVE THE TRANSMISSION! So at this point you think you might as well > replace the clutch, pressure plate, slave cylinder and throw out bearing. Maybe on _THAT_ vehicle. I've replaced a slave cylinder that was external. I gave some general guidelines and you have to jump down my throat about it. Why not just answer his post in more detailed manner instead of being a f.cking a.shole? > Also, the hydraulic line is very difficult to remove and can be a b*tch to > bleed; in some cases the best option is prior to installing a hydraulic > system is to let it hang overnight MC up. > I've done two clutches on my own F-250 and several on other rigs. > Class dismissed. Gee.... heaven forbid I give the guy some ideas with general knowledge. f.ck this froup. Bunch of f.cking a.sholes in here still. > Thanks for reminding me why I left this group. a.sholes like you. Since > you want to play exacting games like this, there are ford clutches > operated by cable and linkages, as are the two fords I own. Is either of your vehicles a 1992 F150? > > What causes the pedal to return? the pressure plate. > > Why don't you read the OP again... it's not a pedal return problem, but > an engagement location problem. Why don't you grow a f.cking clue. OK, here's a quote from one of the OP's posts... On top of all that, as I was driving around town today, the clutch pedal was hesitating to come back up. A few times, I had to pull it up with my foot. It's also now getting tough to shift, and we're grinding into reverse. > Maybe on _THAT_ vehicle. I've replaced a slave cylinder that was > external. I gave some general guidelines and you have to jump down my > throat about it. Why not just answer his post in more detailed manner > instead of being a f.cking a.shole? He *didn't* do a bad job of explaining it to the OP. > > Also, the hydraulic line is very difficult to remove and can be a b*tch to > > bleed; in some cases the best option is prior to installing a hydraulic > > system is to let it hang overnight MC up. > > I've done two clutches on my own F-250 and several on other rigs. > > Class dismissed. More truth from Stephen H. Unnecessary sass noted. > Gee.... heaven forbid I give the guy some ideas with general knowledge. > f.ck this froup. Bunch of f.cking a.sholes in here still. If you were to replace every one of your profanities here with a small byte of automotive knowledge, I think you would get Stephen H's point, regardless of the tact he used. Toyota MDT in MO > More truth from Stephen H. Unnecessary sass noted. > > Toyota MDT in MO I do apologies for the unnecessary sass; his reply appeared not 7 minutes after I posted the original reply and his opening sentence was "Are you playing some sort of semantic game? Of course a cable/linkage can be adjusted. If it's a hydraulic clutch, then one needs to check the clutch master cylinder and slave cylinder. I would start with the slave." He was way off base and challenged my knowledge of Ford trucks- I was a bit insulted. Anyway I appreciate your tact in the reply. I subscribe to these newsgroups to help others. I feel we can always learn something. I do appreciate your knowledge of cars and whenever I see your name I know there is a logical reply behind it. Take Care Steve > He was way off base and challenged my knowledge of Ford trucks- I was a bit > insulted. I never challenged your knowledge of Ford trucks. I didn't reply to you. I replied to the guy who had no money with some ideas. You replied to me in a rather rude manner. All you had to say was 'it has a hydraulic clutch'. But no.... you couldn't just do that... So it was pretty clear you were playing some sort of game, so I asked. Then you came back assholishly clearly playing some sort of pissing contest. > I do apologies for the unnecessary sass; his reply appeared not 7 minutes > after I posted the original reply and his opening sentence was [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Steve Thanks for the kind words. Don't worry about BrentP, he seems to want to complain from the safety of his computer instead of learn something new. He doesn't realize what a vast difference there are between mechanical systems used, sometimes even on the same make or model. His offering generic advice is somewhere between dangerous and a nuissance to the OP. You can ignore him or jump in and try and help. There's no clearcut win in either event, but atleast the OP has a chance to see what is right if he reads through the entire thread. Toyota MDT in MO > Thanks for the kind words. Don't worry about BrentP, he seems to want > to complain from the safety of his computer instead of learn something > new. > He doesn't realize what a vast difference there are between > mechanical systems used, sometimes even on the same make or model. I damn well know there can be. > His > offering generic advice is somewhere between dangerous and a nuissance > to the OP. If someone is so stupid that when they open the hood they can't tell the difference between a hydraulic, cable, and linkage systems then they should seriously reconsider taking a wrench to their vehicle. > You can ignore him or jump in and try and help. There's no > clearcut win in either event, but atleast the OP has a chance to see > what is right if he reads through the entire thread. Like I stated, he could have just posted 'that model has a hydraulic clutch'. But noooooo..... > > Thanks for the kind words. Don't worry about BrentP, he seems to want > > to complain from the safety of his computer instead of learn something [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I damn well know there can be. Not if you read the subject line. > > His > > offering generic advice is somewhere between dangerous and a nuissance [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > difference between a hydraulic, cable, and linkage systems then they > should seriously reconsider taking a wrench to their vehicle. The OP didn't express any confusion about what type of clutch actuation his truck is equipped with. -That- confusion started with you. > > You can ignore him or jump in and try and help. There's no > > clearcut win in either event, but atleast the OP has a chance to see > > what is right if he reads through the entire thread. > > Like I stated, he could have just posted 'that model has a hydraulic > clutch'. But noooooo..... You could have just as well asked. Instead, you stated as a matter of fact that it would be either a cable or a rod linkage (paraphrased), something that Ford hasn't done on the F series truck in 20+ years. > The OP didn't express any confusion about what type of clutch > actuation his truck is equipped with. -That- confusion started > with you. I didn't say he did. I was clearly speaking in general terms. And in fact, if you read the OP's reply to me, he clearly understood what I was getting at conceptually and stated he had already done what he could with the hyraudlic clutch given what he had access to. So, I communicated in an effective manner to the person I was trying to help. That's what matters. Not your boasting on who knows the most details about the most models. >> > You can ignore him or jump in and try and help. There's no >> > clearcut win in either event, but atleast the OP has a chance to see >> > what is right if he reads through the entire thread. >> Like I stated, he could have just posted 'that model has a hydraulic >> clutch'. But noooooo..... > You could have just as well asked. > Instead, you stated as a matter of fact that it would be either a > cable or a rod linkage (paraphrased), something that Ford hasn't > done on the F series truck in 20+ years. Well f.ck me.... I tried to help someone and I forgot about the third possible way it might work. Gee... such a tragic mistake. Instead of being a.sholes about it, one could just mention 'that truck has a hydraulic clutch' and be done with it. Instead, someone decides to be a belittling smart a.s about it and you all jump in and defend that behavior. That's what has been wrong with this group for years now. So why don't you not worry about me and go back to your little pissing and dick measuring contests, since that seems to be what you all want to do? > > The OP didn't express any confusion about what type of clutch > > actuation his truck is equipped with. -That- confusion started > > with you. > > I didn't say he did. You didn't write this?: > > If someone is so stupid that when they open the hood they can't tell the > > difference between a hydraulic, cable, and linkage systems then they > > should seriously reconsider taking a wrench to their vehicle. > I was clearly speaking in general terms. And in > fact, if you read the OP's reply to me, he clearly understood what I was > getting at conceptually and stated he had already done what he could with > the hyraudlic clutch given what he had access to. So, I communicated in > an effective manner to the person I was trying to help. That's what > matters. The above appears to be well practiced. > Not your boasting on who knows the most details about the most > models. "Boasting?" To coin a phrase, "well f.ck me" for knowing my job. (applies equally to all others involved) > >> > You can ignore him or jump in and try and help. There's no > >> > clearcut win in either event, but atleast the OP has a chance to see [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Well f.ck me.... I tried to help someone and I forgot about the third > possible way it might work. Not the 'third possible way." Since 1992 Ford F series trucks only came with hydraulic clutches, the -only- possible way. > Gee... such a tragic mistake. Instead of > being a.sholes about it, one could just mention 'that truck has a > hydraulic clutch' and be done with it. Instead, someone decides to be a > belittling smart a.s about it and you all jump in and defend that > behavior. That's what has been wrong with this group for years now. And over those years, you never noticed that the group name is rec.autos.tech, not, rec.autos.amateur.guesses? > So why don't you not worry about me Trust me, no one is worried about you. > and go back to your little pissing > and dick measuring contests, since that seems to be what you all want to > do? If that's what it is, it's because you chose it to be so. >> > The OP didn't express any confusion about what type of clutch >> > actuation his truck is equipped with. -That- confusion started >> > with you. >> >> I didn't say he did. > You didn't write this?: >> > If someone is so stupid that when they open the hood they can't tell the >> > difference between a hydraulic, cable, and linkage systems then they >> > should seriously reconsider taking a wrench to their vehicle. Obviously you have a problem with the english language. Look up the words 'If' and 'someone'. The someone != OP and he wasn't that stupid. >> I was clearly speaking in general terms. And in >> fact, if you read the OP's reply to me, he clearly understood what I was >> getting at conceptually and stated he had already done what he could with >> the hyraudlic clutch given what he had access to. So, I communicated in >> an effective manner to the person I was trying to help. That's what >> matters. > The above appears to be well practiced. Yes, I got the concept across. >> Not your boasting on who knows the most details about the most >> models. > "Boasting?" To coin a phrase, "well f.ck me" for knowing my job. > (applies equally to all others involved) Obviously that's what this is to you and others. >> >> > You can ignore him or jump in and try and help. There's no >> >> > clearcut win in either event, but atleast the OP has a chance to see >> >> > what is right if he reads through the entire thread. >> >> Like I stated, he could have just posted 'that model has a hydraulic >> >> clutch'. But noooooo..... >> > You could have just as well asked. >> > Instead, you stated as a matter of fact that it would be either a >> > cable or a rod linkage (paraphrased), something that Ford hasn't >> > done on the F series truck in 20+ years. >> Well f.ck me.... I tried to help someone and I forgot about the third >> possible way it might work. > Not the 'third possible way." Since 1992 Ford F series trucks > only came with hydraulic clutches, the -only- possible way. In general motor vehicle terms... grow a clue. >> Gee... such a tragic mistake. Instead of >> being a.sholes about it, one could just mention 'that truck has a >> hydraulic clutch' and be done with it. Instead, someone decides to be a >> belittling smart a.s about it and you all jump in and defend that >> behavior. That's what has been wrong with this group for years now. > And over those years, you never noticed that the group name is > rec.autos.tech, not, rec.autos.amateur.guesses? tech, as in technical. Not as in automotive techs as you folks redefined it. >> So why don't you not worry about me > Trust me, no one is worried about you. You keep posting regarding me... >> and go back to your little pissing >> and dick measuring contests, since that seems to be what you all want to >> do? > If that's what it is, it's because you chose it to be so. Um the thread branch clearly indicates who came in with the belittling and condensending tone and that wouldn't be me. >> And over those years, you never noticed that the group name is >> rec.autos.tech, not, rec.autos.amateur.guesses? > > tech, as in technical. Not as in automotive techs as you folks redefined it. And since one of you is going to want a cite, here: http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos/msg/153aca6aafe69690?hl=en& "The existing group rec.autos will be used for discussions about cars and trucks themselves, except for technical issues, which are discussion in rec.autos.tech. Discussions about autosport are held in rec.autos.sport. " A list of newsgroups not long after rec.autos.tech split from rec.autos: http://groups.google.com/group/news.admin/msg/266dfab15e25dbb2?hl=en& "Wed, Jun 1 1988" rec.autos.tech Technical aspects of automobiles, et. al. Oh, and do you know rec stands for? recreation. So, it's technical discusions of autos in a recreational sense, ie do it yourselfers and those who do so for recreation. Not professional discussions for automotive techs. Sorry, I follow the original concept for the NG, not the defacto version imposed by a bunch of smug automotive techs. So yes, that includes conceptional discussions to help someone along without some smug tech being a a.s. > >> And over those years, you never noticed that the group name is > >> rec.autos.tech, not, rec.autos.amateur.guesses? > > > > tech, as in technical. Not as in automotive techs as you folks redefined it. > > And since one of you is going to want a cite, here: Well, umm, no. No one has asked for a cite so far. > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos/msg/153aca6aafe69690?hl=en& > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > rec.autos.tech Technical aspects of automobiles, et. al. So glad you brought this up. Apparently the meaning of the word "technical" escapes you. Here ya go: 1 a : having special and usually practical knowledge especially of a mechanical or scientific subject <a technical consultant> b : marked by or characteristic of specialization <technical language> 2 a : of or relating to a particular subject b : of or relating to a practical subject organized on scientific principles <a technical school> c : TECHNOLOGICAL 1 3 a : based on or marked by a strict or legal interpretation I don't see the word "general" used anywhere in there, do you? Sorry that you managed to somehow think that anyone here thought that the "tech" in rec.autos.tech meant 'technicians,' but I guess that could happen the same way that someone might think that a discussion about a clutch in a truck meant the same thing as the clutch in a Maverick or a Mustang. > Oh, and do you know rec stands for? recreation. Indeed it does. So why does the thought that a group of auto mechanics would participate in a newsgroup that involves their chosen profession for recreational purposes not tabulate for you? > So, it's technical discusions of autos in a recreational sense, ie do it > yourselfers and those who do so for recreation. Not professional > discussions for automotive techs. No one said it was for the purpose of discussions for automotive technicians. But that doesn't mean that automotive technicians can't participate for recreational purposes. > Sorry, I follow the original concept for the NG, No you don't. You objected quite strongly to having a technical error corrected. If in fact you follow as you say, you'd have embraced the learning experience instead of wetting your pants. > not the defacto version > imposed by a bunch of smug automotive techs. So yes, that includes > conceptional discussions to help someone along without some smug tech > being a a.s. Discuss conceptual all you want, but in all fairness to someone such as the OP, label your words as such lest they go off on a wild goose chase (looking for cables and/or rods to adjust that aren't there). > Well, umm, no. No one has asked for a cite so far. It's called getting ahead of the game smart a.s. >> rec.autos.tech Technical aspects of automobiles, et. al. > So glad you brought this up. Apparently the meaning of the word > "technical" escapes you. [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > I don't see the word "general" used anywhere in there, do you? OOhh... another smart a.s comment. > Sorry that you managed to somehow think that anyone here thought > that the "tech" in rec.autos.tech meant 'technicians,' That's what you smart a.s 'techs' have stated before and it appeared you were heading down that road again.... So I nipped it in the bud. > but I > guess that could happen the same way that someone might think > that a discussion about a clutch in a truck meant the same thing > as the clutch in a Maverick or a Mustang. Been searching google haven't you... Maybe you missed the posts I made on the slave cylinder on an MX6 clutch... go find those... >> Oh, and do you know rec stands for? recreation. > Indeed it does. So why does the thought that a group of auto > mechanics would participate in a newsgroup that involves their > chosen profession for recreational purposes not tabulate for you? OOOhhh... another cheap usenet tactic... So why does the thought that a group of space aliens would participate in a newsgroup that involves cattle mutliations not tabulate for you? >> So, it's technical discusions of autos in a recreational sense, ie do it >> yourselfers and those who do so for recreation. Not professional >> discussions for automotive techs. > No one said it was for the purpose of discussions for automotive > technicians. It's been said more than once. Usually when some 'tech' highlights tech in the group name. > But that doesn't mean that automotive technicians > can't participate for recreational purposes. Strawman. >> Sorry, I follow the original concept for the NG, > No you don't. You objected quite strongly to having a technical > error corrected. No. I objected to the belittling arrogant condensending tone. > If in fact you follow as you say, you'd have > embraced the learning experience instead of wetting your pants. I already knew about such clutch mechanisms thank you very much. >> not the defacto version >> imposed by a bunch of smug automotive techs. So yes, that includes >> conceptional discussions to help someone along without some smug tech >> being a a.s. > Discuss conceptual all you want, but in all fairness to someone > such as the OP, label your words as such lest they go off on a > wild goose chase (looking for cables and/or rods to adjust that > aren't there). The OP understood what I was getting at. The OP responded in such a way that proved he knew what I was getting at. So, you shouldn't have any problem. Of course handling something in a civil manner is just beyond you apparently. > > Well, umm, no. No one has asked for a cite so far. > > It's called getting ahead of the game smart a.s. Is this an example of "civil?" (re: the final paragraph of this post) > >> rec.autos.tech Technical aspects of automobiles, et. al. > [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > > OOhh... another smart a.s comment. Is this another example of "civil?" (re: the final paragraph of this post) > > Sorry that you managed to somehow think that anyone here thought > > that the "tech" in rec.autos.tech meant 'technicians,' > > That's what you smart a.s 'techs' have stated before and it appeared you > were heading down that road again.... Cite? > So I nipped it in the bud. In your mind. To the rest of us, it looks like an ape sh.t. > > but I > > guess that could happen the same way that someone might think > > that a discussion about a clutch in a truck meant the same thing > > as the clutch in a Maverick or a Mustang. > > Been searching google haven't you... Nope, no google search. I happen to subscribe to some of the same newsgroups that you do, I also have a functioning memory. Remember a while back in the chi* newsgroups where you were crying over losing your job at Motorola? > Maybe you missed the posts I made on > the slave cylinder on an MX6 clutch... go find those... Why, can't you? > >> Oh, and do you know rec stands for? recreation. > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > OOOhhh... another cheap usenet tactic... What cheap usenet tactic would that be? > So why does the thought that a > group of space aliens would participate in a newsgroup that involves > cattle mutliations not tabulate for you? Because the aliens only exist in your mind, same as the other paranoid delusions you've ranted here. > >> So, it's technical discusions of autos in a recreational sense, ie do it > >> yourselfers and those who do so for recreation. Not professional [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > It's been said more than once. Cite where that has been authored by myself, Steve H. Comboverfish or anyone else that may have participated in this thread. > Usually when some 'tech' highlights tech > in the group name. Cite the highlight. > > But that doesn't mean that automotive technicians > > can't participate for recreational purposes. > > Strawman. Weak. > >> Sorry, I follow the original concept for the NG, > > > No you don't. You objected quite strongly to having a technical > > error corrected. > > No. I objected to the belittling arrogant condensending tone. Again, Steve Hs reply to your first post: > No adjustments on a Ford clutch - Sounds like the pressure plate ie weak And your reply to that post: >Are you playing some sort of semantic game? Of course a >cable/linkage can be adjusted. His reply was quite reasonable and polite, your reply to him was where the belittling and condescending began. It's all there for anyone capable of opening the thread, and if they do, they'll find in the third post of this thread where Comboverfish had already identified it as being a hydraulic clutch long before your "adjust it' post. A lot goes over your head, doesn't it Brent? > > If in fact you follow as you say, you'd have > > embraced the learning experience instead of wetting your pants. > > I already knew about such clutch mechanisms thank you very much. Indeed you did, but for some reason, when it was pointed out to you that that is how this truck is equipped, you got bRent out of shape. > >> not the defacto version > >> imposed by a bunch of smug automotive techs. So yes, that includes [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > The OP understood what I was getting at. The OP responded in such a way > that proved he knew what I was getting at. Funny, I can't find a single instance of the OP replying to one of your posts. Maybe my news server is fubared... > So, you shouldn't have any > problem. Of course handling something in a civil manner is just beyond > you apparently. Ah, I get it. We're not being civil unless we're calling each other "a.shole" or "smart a.s." > Is this an example of "civil?" You guys through that out from the get go. It's amazing the double standard you have. >> That's what you smart a.s 'techs' have stated before and it appeared you >> were heading down that road again.... > Cite? Now you want cites? >> So I nipped it in the bud. > In your mind. To the rest of us, it looks like an ape sh.t. http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.tech/msg/e220fd992dd18b08?hl=en& I remember other instances, but that's the one google turned up right away. >> Been searching google haven't you... > Nope, no google search. I happen to subscribe to some of the > same newsgroups that you do, I also have a functioning memory. > Remember a while back in the chi* newsgroups where you were > crying over losing your job at Motorola? I don't recall mentioning where I've worked by name in chi.*, not that a half-wit couldn't figure it out by header info. Nor have I cried over being downsized, as well, it was worth getting out of that particular place. So it appears you're usenet stalker... Now I get it, you're just another bitter person who got his a.s handed to him so he follows me through the newsgroups looking for any chance to strike back. And this was your chance... And you pounced on it. >> Maybe you missed the posts I made on >> the slave cylinder on an MX6 clutch... go find those... > Why, can't you? Why should I bother? >> OOOhhh... another cheap usenet tactic... > What cheap usenet tactic would that be? See humorous version below: >> So why does the thought that a >> group of space aliens would participate in a newsgroup that involves >> cattle mutliations not tabulate for you? > Because the aliens only exist in your mind, same as the other > paranoid delusions you've ranted here. *yawn* .000000000001 on the troll meter. > Cite where that has been authored by myself, Steve H. > Comboverfish or anyone else that may have participated in this > thread. Why should I defend a claim I didn't make? >> Usually when some 'tech' highlights tech >> in the group name. > Cite the highlight. Now he's interested in cites. See the one I already made. >> > But that doesn't mean that automotive technicians >> > can't participate for recreational purposes. >> >> Strawman. > > Weak. Exactly, strawmen are weak, that's why you built one. >> >> Sorry, I follow the original concept for the NG, >> > No you don't. You objected quite strongly to having a technical >> > error corrected. >> No. I objected to the belittling arrogant condensending tone. > >> Again, Steve Hs reply to your first post: >> No adjustments on a Ford clutch - Sounds like the pressure plate ie weak > And your reply to that post: >>Are you playing some sort of semantic game? Of course a >>cable/linkage can be adjusted. > His reply was quite reasonable and polite, your reply to him was > where the belittling and condescending began. How is asking if he is playing a game with words belittling and condescending ? This should be amusing. Maybe you need to look up some more words. Given his technically inexact statement regarding 'ford' clutches, rather than ford f150 clutches, it was a reasonable question to ask. Now why aren't you holding him to your exacting standards? His next post was where the belittling and condescending began. > It's all there for anyone capable of opening the thread, and if > they do, they'll find in the third post of this thread where > Comboverfish had already identified it as being a hydraulic > clutch long before your "adjust it' post. > A lot goes over your head, doesn't it Brent? Oh, I'm sorry... I didn't read the whole thread. Oh boy you got me again. Does this make you feel better for whenever I handed you your a.s in the distant past? Because it's obvious now you have a bug up your a.s for me personally. What name did you used to post under? Unlike some people, I don't hide or change names. Oddly, your current posting name doesn't go back beyond 2005 as far as google shows. >> > If in fact you follow as you say, you'd have >> > embraced the learning experience instead of wetting your pants. >> I already knew about such clutch mechanisms thank you very much. > Indeed you did, but for some reason, when it was pointed out to > you that that is how this truck is equipped, you got bRent out of > shape. So you admit to lying. It wasn't pointed out that way. Try reading the opening of 'now you're learning' it just continues like that.... Gee wonder why someone would find that belittling? >> The OP understood what I was getting at. The OP responded in such a way >> that proved he knew what I was getting at. > Funny, I can't find a single instance of the OP replying to one > of your posts. Maybe my news server is fubared... I saw it go by. <1163225525.220404.220860@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> >> So, you shouldn't have any >> problem. Of course handling something in a civil manner is just beyond >> you apparently. > Ah, I get it. We're not being civil unless we're calling each > other "a.shole" or "smart a.s." Oh, yes, that's right, I have to be perfect no matter what is sent my way. > > Is this an example of "civil?" > > You guys through that out from the get go. > > It's amazing the double standard you have. it's amazing what a hypocrite you are. > >> That's what you smart a.s 'techs' have stated before and it appeared you > >> were heading down that road again.... [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > http://groups.google.com/group/rec.autos.tech/msg/e220fd992dd18b08?hl=en& An 9 year old post where the author states that that was his belief based upon what AOL had said the purpose of the group was. That's about as lame and weak as it gets Brent. > I remember other instances, but that's the one google turned up right > away. The brush you're painting with is as wide as your a.s. > >> Been searching google haven't you... > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I don't recall mentioning where I've worked by name in chi.*, We've already established that your memory falls flat before two days time. > not that a > half-wit couldn't figure it out by header info. Nor have I cried over > being downsized, as well, it was worth getting out of that > particular place. Well, you say that now, but ISTR it a bit different back than. > So it appears you're usenet stalker... No, just a good memory for pompous, self absorbed dick heads. > Now I get it, you're > just another bitter person who got his a.s handed to him Where and when did this a.s handing happen? I'm here, have been here the whole time, you by your own admission fled. > so he follows me > through the newsgroups looking for any chance to strike back. And this > was your chance... And you pounced on it. Yup, I forced you to post here in rec.autos.tech <sheesh> Aren't I evil and cunning... > >> Maybe you missed the posts I made on > >> the slave cylinder on an MX6 clutch... go find those... > > > Why, can't you? > > Why should I bother? You brought it up. > >> OOOhhh... another cheap usenet tactic... > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > *yawn* .000000000001 on the troll meter. Maybe I'll give you 4 days to figure it out, apparently, two isn't enough. > > > Cite where that has been authored by myself, Steve H. > > Comboverfish or anyone else that may have participated in this > > thread. > > Why should I defend a claim I didn't make? So, who wrote; >> That's what you smart a.s 'techs' have stated before and it >> appeared you were heading down that road again.... I take it "you" means us, not some one hit wonder from 9 years ago. > >> Usually when some 'tech' highlights tech > >> in the group name. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > See the one I already made. I did. I didn't prove anything other than that AOL has misdirected the charter for this newsgroup. (you didn't bother to read it, did you?) > >> > But that doesn't mean that automotive technicians > >> > can't participate for recreational purposes. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Exactly, strawmen are weak, that's why you built one. According to the guy who can't keep up, needs 2+ days to get to speed and still expects everyone to back up. > >> >> Sorry, I follow the original concept for the NG, > [quoted text clipped - 17 lines] > condescending ? This should be amusing. Maybe you need to look up some > more words. Because it had been gone over and established two days prior. > Given his technically inexact statement regarding 'ford' clutches, rather > than ford f150 clutches, it was a reasonable question to ask. Now why > aren't you holding him to your exacting standards? Because it was old news. Had been stated and discussed two days prior, not to mention being in the subject line. > His next post was where the belittling and condescending began. Deluded. It's a cold hard world, tough sh.t if you can't keep up. > > It's all there for anyone capable of opening the thread, and if > > they do, they'll find in the third post of this thread where [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Oh, I'm sorry... I didn't read the whole thread. Obviously. > Oh boy you got me again. Naah, you did it to yourself. > Does this make you feel better for whenever I handed you your a.s in the > distant past? As if... > Because it's obvious now you have a bug up your a.s for me > personally. No bug, nothing personal. You just stink, that's all. > What name did you used to post under? Same one as now. Same one I was born with, > Unlike some people, I > don't hide or change names. Oddly, your current posting name doesn't go > back beyond 2005 as far as google shows. Your inabilities are not my problem. > >> > If in fact you follow as you say, you'd have > >> > embraced the learning experience instead of wetting your pants. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > So you admit to lying. It wasn't pointed out that way. It was pointed out two f.cking days before your first post, nitwit. > Try reading the > opening of 'now you're learning' it just continues like that.... Gee > wonder why someone would find that belittling? Or why someone -wouldn't - find it belittling since the type of clutch actuation had been discussed two days prior to the beginning of your snit. > >> The OP understood what I was getting at. The OP responded in such a way > >> that proved he knew what I was getting at. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I saw it go by. <1163225525.220404.220860@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> So, which one are you, Jake or Kevin Bottoroff? Yeah, you saw it go by, you loon. > >> So, you shouldn't have any > >> problem. Of course handling something in a civil manner is just beyond [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Oh, yes, that's right, I have to be perfect no matter what is sent my > way. Again, the horse you're riding was dead and buried two days before you posted. Quit blaming anyone else because you fell two steps behind. > An 9 year old post where the author states that that was his > belief based upon what AOL had said the purpose of the group was > That's about as lame and weak as it gets Brent. My claim was years ago.... >> I remember other instances, but that's the one google turned up right >> away. > The brush you're painting with is as wide as your a.s. Awww... you build a strawman and knock it down. >> I don't recall mentioning where I've worked by name in chi.*, > > We've already established that your memory falls flat before two > days time. How could I forget something I didn't read? You grow tiresome. You're nothing but a bitter troll now. Acting out on some bizzare 4 year old grudge. >> not that a >> half-wit couldn't figure it out by header info. Nor have I cried over >> being downsized, as well, it was worth getting out of that >> particular place. > Well, you say that now, but ISTR it a bit different back than. Your memory is quite flawed. >> So it appears you're usenet stalker... > No, just a good memory for pompous, self absorbed dick heads. So, you're just a garden variety troll then? I think not. See, if it were just that, you wouldn't be composing hundreds of lines over this triviality. You clearly feel wronged and are out for revenge. >> Now I get it, you're >> just another bitter person who got his a.s handed to him > Where and when did this a.s handing happen? Hell if I know.. you're just acting like it. > I'm here, have been here the whole time, you by your own > admission fled. Second rate hack with the semantics... fled... funny. > You brought it up. No, you accused me of not knowing of such a system, hence you brought it up. How I choose to respond to your accusation is my choice. I see no reason to dig it up. Given your fine memory and all. >> > Cite where that has been authored by myself, Steve H. >> > Comboverfish or anyone else that may have participated in this >> > thread. >> Why should I defend a claim I didn't make? > So, who wrote; >>> That's what you smart a.s 'techs' have stated before and it >>> appeared you were heading down that road again.... > I take it "you" means us, not some one hit wonder from 9 years > ago. I love how you selectively interpet 'you' as the broad brush and then selective people in such a way that best suits the moment for your trollism. It's the broad brush here.... Of course you already knew that. You're just playing one dishonest troll game after the next. > I did. I didn't prove anything other than that AOL has > misdirected the charter for this newsgroup. > (you didn't bother to read it, did you?) Ok, see... you purposely keep forgeting things.... > Because it had been gone over and established two days prior. I said ya got me... I didn't know the thread was that old.... Or perhaps it was in another thread entirely by the same guy. But see, here you are you keep harping on it... must be over a dozen times now. You're obviously bitter about something. >> Because it's obvious now you have a bug up your a.s for me >> personally. > No bug, nothing personal. You just stink, that's all. Ya know what... I think I'll stick around. >> What name did you used to post under? > Same one as now. Same one I was born with, Your birth certificate reads: aarcuda69062 ? > It was pointed out two f.cking days before your first post, > nitwit. You're confusing subjects dumbfuck. >> Try reading the >> opening of 'now you're learning' it just continues like that.... Gee >> wonder why someone would find that belittling? > Or why someone -wouldn't - find it belittling since the type of > clutch actuation had been discussed two days prior to the > beginning of your snit. You're really harping on this.... you want a come down to chicago and beat me up? See this is why you're a bunch of a.sholes. I admitted two errors and you a.sholes spend the next several days pounding on it and then some. You can't just let it be. The older this gets, the more you prove my rant correct. You just can't make a civil corrective comment, you have to belittle, demean and be condensending and draw it out. You're now writing hundreds of new lines every post to do it. You demonstrate the behavior I complained about. You even go as far to attempt to justify it. >> I saw it go by. <1163225525.220404.220860@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> > So, which one are you, Jake or Kevin Bottoroff? > Yeah, you saw it go by, you loon. So you don't even know which text in there was mine. So much for that fine memory of yours. He mishmashed a few posts together. Looked it up again, just to be sure. Message-ID: <1163225525.220404.220860@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> Don't know why you're having such trouble given your fine memory and all. >> Is this an example of "civil?" > [quoted text clipped - 34 lines] > through the newsgroups looking for any chance to strike back. And this > was your chance... And you pounced on it. Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha,Ha................ I knew it would happen if you didn't take your meds, you went over the edge, didn't you ? aarcuda has posted here for years and it only makes you look like a bigger idiot ( if that is possible ) when you make claims like the above. If any thing, it looks like you may be following him. >>> Maybe you missed the posts I made on >>> the slave cylinder on an MX6 clutch... go find those... [quoted text clipped - 113 lines] > Oh, yes, that's right, I have to be perfect no matter what is sent my > way. > >> > The OP didn't express any confusion about what type of clutch > >> > actuation his truck is equipped with. -That- confusion started [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Obviously you have a problem with the english language. Look up the words > 'If' and 'someone'. The someone != OP and he wasn't that stupid. Now who's playing "some sort of semantic game?" > >> I was clearly speaking in general terms. And in > >> fact, if you read the OP's reply to me, he clearly understood what I was [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Yes, I got the concept across. Uh, no. You didn't -get- the concept. > >> Not your boasting on who knows the most details about the most > >> models. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Obviously that's what this is to you and others. Yup, it's part of our job, not something where we're considered the resident expert at the cubicle farm. > >> >> > You can ignore him or jump in and try and help. There's no > >> >> > clearcut win in either event, but atleast the OP has a chance to see [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > > In general motor vehicle terms... grow a clue. Since the OP referenced a specific vehicle, "general motor vehicles" really doesn't apply. > >> Gee... such a tragic mistake. Instead of > >> being a.sholes about it, one could just mention 'that truck has a [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > tech, as in technical. Not as in automotive techs as you folks redefined it. Indeed, technical, not "general automotive terms." > >> So why don't you not worry about me > > > Trust me, no one is worried about you. > > You keep posting regarding me... No, you just think it regards you. probably because you think everything is about you, you, you. > >> and go back to your little pissing > >> and dick measuring contests, since that seems to be what you all want to [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Um the thread branch clearly indicates who came in with the belittling > and condensending tone and that wouldn't be me. Actually, it would, re: >>> No adjustments on a Ford clutch - Sounds like the pressure >>> plate ie weak >> Are you playing some sort of semantic game? Of course a >> cable/linkage can be adjusted. Go play water cooler expert somewhere else. Obviously, you are much too thin skinned and your ego too fragile to participate here. >> > You didn't write this?: >> >> > If someone is so stupid that when they open the hood they can't tell the [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Now who's playing "some sort of semantic game?" Obviously you were until confronted with the meanings of the language. > Uh, no. You didn't -get- the concept. Quite obviously I did to the person I was replying to. It just irritated some smug, arrogant 'techs'. > Yup, it's part of our job, not something where we're considered > the resident expert at the cubicle farm. Then how about you form a professional newsgroup where you can compete with each other and be arrogant a.sholes to people who don't turn a wrench for living instead of being arrogant a.ses in a recreational group. That's what the rec stands for. > Since the OP referenced a specific vehicle, "general motor > vehicles" really doesn't apply. Spoken like a non-thinking low level laborer. No conceptual thought, everything is a specific procedure or one shouldn't say or do a peep without it. >> > And over those years, you never noticed that the group name is >> > rec.autos.tech, not, rec.autos.amateur.guesses? >> tech, as in technical. Not as in automotive techs as you folks redefined it. > Indeed, technical, not "general automotive terms." You're not grasping it tech, see other post. >> You keep posting regarding me... > No, you just think it regards you. probably because you think > everything is about you, you, you. It would appear that you are replying to me. Upset with me.. what is it about then? Trying to bully all the people who don't turn a wrench for a living from ever speaking? What's the purpose then? >> Um the thread branch clearly indicates who came in with the belittling >> and condensending tone and that wouldn't be me. > Actually, it would, re: >>>> No adjustments on a Ford clutch - Sounds like the pressure >>>> plate ie weak >>> Are you playing some sort of semantic game? Of course a >>> cable/linkage can be adjusted. I think you need to look up the meaning of a few more words. > Go play water cooler expert somewhere else. You mean in a recreation group? Like REC.autos.tech. > Obviously, you are much too thin skinned and your ego too fragile > to participate here. And with that, you confirm exactly what I stated. The group ceased to be about helping people and each other to one where a bunch of a.sholes have pissing contests and enjoy boasting about their 'knowledge'. The only thin skin around here is that of the 'techs' who think that they were insulted by a discussion that didn't involve them. > >> Obviously you have a problem with the english language. That's rich, given that you rarely complete a sentence without spelling or grammatical errors. > > Since the OP referenced a specific vehicle, "general motor > > vehicles" really doesn't apply. > > Spoken like a non-thinking low level laborer. No conceptual > thought, everything is a specific procedure or one shouldn't say or do a > peep without it. Odd, Neil seems much more eloquent and helpful than you. I suppose you're right, though. He's proven time and again that he cannot think outside of the box on a daily basis -- by nailing posters' diagnoses from a remote computer screen for well over a decade. > And with that, you confirm exactly what I stated. The group ceased to be > about helping people and each other to one where a bunch of a.sholes have > pissing contests and enjoy boasting about their 'knowledge'. As pissy as you're acting, I bet you would dominate any li'l ol' pissing contest we had here at R.A.T. Toyota MDT in MO (a snooty mechanic type) >> >> Obviously you have a problem with the english language. > That's rich, given that you rarely complete a sentence without spelling > or grammatical errors. Going to reduce this to spelling flames eh? >> > Since the OP referenced a specific vehicle, "general motor >> > vehicles" really doesn't apply. >> Spoken like a non-thinking low level laborer. No conceptual >> thought, everything is a specific procedure or one shouldn't say or do a >> peep without it. > Odd, Neil seems much more eloquent and helpful than you. Yet, his like your thin skin was disturbed.... > I suppose > you're right, though. He's proven time and again that he cannot think > outside of the box on a daily basis -- by nailing posters' diagnoses > from a remote computer screen for well over a decade. Another pissing contest. I've done it for over a decade too... and it's rare to know if one 'nailed it' because people don't often come back to say if it did or did not turn out to be what one said it probably was. But some folks do, or send email. And hell, a decade ago I had already been around usenet for over half a decade. used google to get an idea of when my earliest post to this newsgroup was.... roughly dec 1991. >> And with that, you confirm exactly what I stated. The group ceased to be >> about helping people and each other to one where a bunch of a.sholes have >> pissing contests and enjoy boasting about their 'knowledge'. > As pissy as you're acting, I bet you would dominate any li'l ol' > pissing contest we had here at R.A.T. Nice projection. > >> >> Obviously you have a problem with the english language. > [quoted text clipped - 36 lines] > > Nice projection. Your "I'm rubber, you're glue" turnaround routine is rubbing a bit thin. I took the initiative to pen your next responses: "No youre Im rubber your glue rooteen, is rubbing a bite thin" and "just anuther pissing contests". They're crafted in the manner that you typically type, so you can simply cut/paste them into a reply for convenience. You're welcome, Toyota MDT in MO < ... more sputtered profanity and name-calling ...> ___________________________________________ C'mon, guys. This is too easy. Quit tossing Brent's bookbag back and forth among yourselves. Give it back to him and let him go home. Rodan. <------ Dropping out. > C'mon, guys. This is too easy. Quit tossing Brent's > bookbag back and forth among yourselves. Give it > back to him and let him go home. You're close on the analogy... you boys do operate at jr. high mentality. > > C'mon, guys. This is too easy. Quit tossing Brent's > > bookbag back and forth among yourselves. Give it > > back to him and let him go home. > > You're close on the analogy... you boys do operate at jr. high mentality. So, how is it that the jr. high schoolers know more about a clutch than an engineer for (which sex toy company do you work for now) does? go on... you know you're just itching to call us all grease monkeys, so just do it and put us all in our place(s). >> > C'mon, guys. This is too easy. Quit tossing Brent's >> > bookbag back and forth among yourselves. Give it [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > clutch than an engineer for (which sex toy company do you work > for now) does? You don't. Why don't you dig up the posts where I talk about hydraulic clutch systems.... you seem to have been spending all this time digging through the archives. You must have come across it... it was several years ago, but it should be there somewhere. Believe it came up when someone had a similiar issue and I was helping them. But hey, this is usenet where a bunch of a.sholes see a small memory slip as a chance to get their rocks off. As far as the sex toy company crack goes... You just prove my point about what you're here for. > go on... you know you're just itching to call us all grease > monkeys, so just do it and put us all in our place(s). Here we see your basic inferiority complex that causes the behavior where you feel the need to rip anyone you can. It's a Jr. High mentality, some people never grow out of it. > >> > C'mon, guys. This is too easy. Quit tossing Brent's > >> > bookbag back and forth among yourselves. Give it [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > You don't. We don't? We knew that there was no linkage or cable to adjust. > Why don't you dig up the posts where I talk about hydraulic > clutch systems.... you seem to have been spending all this time digging > through the archives. Actually, I've spent that time working. A job. Know what that is? You know what it was. > You must have come across it... it was several > years ago, but it should be there somewhere. Believe it came up when > someone had a similiar issue and I was helping them. I'll take your word for it. > But hey, this is > usenet where a bunch of a.sholes see a small memory slip as a chance to > get their rocks off. When you say memory slip, are you referring to the time between your first post to this thread on Nov 10th and when you "helped someone" as you describe above, or are you talking about the time between your first post on Nov. 10th and when Comboverfish identified the clutch as being hydraulic more than two days earlier on Nov. 8th? > As far as the sex toy company crack goes... You just prove my point about > what you're here for. Thaaaaat's right... the jig is up. I confess. <hangs head> I'm here to crack jokes. > > go on... you know you're just itching to call us all grease > > monkeys, so just do it and put us all in our place(s). > > Here we see your basic inferiority complex that causes the behavior where > you feel the need to rip anyone you can. It's a Jr. High mentality, some > people never grow out of it. No, this is just my version of you claiming that all of us "techs" claim this newsgroup to only be for discussion amongst ourselves. I got a wide paintbrush too. > Actually, I've spent that time working. > A job. > Know what that is? > You know what it was. It's pretty clear this is some personal thing with you that goes much further back than this little thread. How about you fess up... who are you? Some bitter little man who got his a.s handed to him and now has finally gotten his chance for revenge? Yes, that has to be it. Nobody else would bother going to these lengths. > When you say memory slip, are you referring to the time between > your first post to this thread on Nov 10th and when you "helped > someone" as you describe above, or are you talking about the time > between your first post on Nov. 10th and when Comboverfish > identified the clutch as being hydraulic more than two days > earlier on Nov. 8th? Guess it didn't occur to you that I started -reading- this group again on Nov. 10th? Yes, I posted a few days before, a question of my own that no 'tech' was bright enough to even offer a clue on... Don't worry, I solved it myself. But after that was done I decided, oh what the hell, I'll start following rec.autos.tech again... >> > go on... you know you're just itching to call us all grease >> > monkeys, so just do it and put us all in our place(s). >> Here we see your basic inferiority complex that causes the behavior where >> you feel the need to rip anyone you can. It's a Jr. High mentality, some >> people never grow out of it. > No, this is just my version of you claiming that all of us > "techs" claim this newsgroup to only be for discussion amongst > ourselves. I got a wide paintbrush too. Strawman. I never claimed 'all', just that it has been claimed. And it has. But nice try and trying to back peddle there. It's pretty clear this is some personal vendetta of yours. > > Actually, I've spent that time working. > > A job. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > It's pretty clear this is some personal thing with you that goes much > further back than this little thread. Nope, it's all about someone who's two steps behind in this discussion, apparently always has been two steps behind from the time he showed up and now expects everyone to back up and re-explain things to him. > How about you fess up... who are > you? Some bitter little man who got his a.s handed to him and now has > finally gotten his chance for revenge? Right. How did I force you into this group again? Magic? VooDoo? Bluetooth? > Yes, that has to be it. Nobody else would bother going to these lengths. No, I do it for sport when some self absorbed two steps behind nin-com-poop swaggers in. You, the casshole, altovoz, charlene blake, that chick with the neon that wanted chrysler to buy her a brand new laptop, snoman, dean dardwin. The list is quite long actually. Like you said, it's a *rec* newsgroup. 'course, those who don't act like self absorbed asswipes get help with their automotive problems. > > When you say memory slip, are you referring to the time between > > your first post to this thread on Nov 10th and when you "helped [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Guess it didn't occur to you that I started -reading- this group again on > Nov. 10th? And that should matter because? > Yes, I posted a few days before, a question of my own that no > 'tech' was bright enough to even offer a clue on... maybe your post wasn't coherent? & |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message