 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Dodge / Dodge Trucks / July 2005T-Bonehead, the math whiz
"TBone" <t-bonenospam@nc.rr.com> wrote in message news:VA2ue.63$BN3.33093@twister.southeast.rr.com... > How about 3% / 2% = 1.5% > > How about 3% / 2% = 1.5% Yep, 100% correct. :-)  SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > > How about 3% / 2% = 1.5% > > Yep, 100% correct. :-) SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > > > How about 3% / 2% = 1.5% > > > > Yep, 100% correct. :-) > > > > > How about 3% / 2% = 1.5% > > > > > > Yep, 100% correct. :-) nope if you ask real nice, I'll give you a hint to where you wnt wrong otherwise, I'll carry out my promise of last week, to just keep pointing out your errors for all to see > > > > > > How about 3% / 2% = 1.5% > > > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > if you ask real nice, I'll give you a hint to where you wnt wrong Fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy math, any way you try and spin it. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > > > > > > How about 3% / 2% = 1.5% > > > > > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, > fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, > fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, > fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, > fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, > fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, > fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, > fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, > fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, > fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, > fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, > fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, > fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, > fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, > fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, > fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, > fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, > fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, > fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, > fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, > fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, > fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, > fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, > fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, > fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, > fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, > fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, > fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy, fuzzy math, any way you try > and spin it. Sorry Trans....but if you go down to Staples...I'm sure they'd be more than happy to sell you a calculator. Signature_________________________ Laszlo Almasi Carolina Watercraft Works, Inc. "In the battle between money and love, money will always triumph" I may have to change my signature......on second thought, I was right the first time. > >> > > > > > > How about 3% / 2% = 1.5% [quoted text clipped - 62 lines] > try >> and spin it. > Sorry Trans....but if you go down to Staples...I'm sure they'd be > more than happy to sell you a calculator. The calculator would prove Gary correct. 3/2 = 1.5 BUT 3% (.03) / 2% (.02) = 150% (1.5) Some people need to realize that percentages are expressed differently when written as decimals. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > Sorry Trans....but if you go down to Staples...I'm sure they'd be > more than happy to sell you a calculator. [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] >> try >>> and spin it. >>Sorry Trans....but if you go down to Staples...I'm sure they'd be >>more than happy to sell you a calculator. [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Some people need to realize that percentages are expressed differently when > written as decimals. No they don't. The .03 and .02 are not a percentage of different whole portion or denominator. You can change a percentage to a decimal. You can divide, add or multiply a decimal by a decimal but you cannot divide a percentage into a percentage. DECIMAL ........ A linear array of digits that represents a real number, every decimal place indicating a multiple of a negative power of 10. For example, the decimal 0.1 = 1/10, 0.12 = 12/100, 0.003 = 3/1000. Also called decimal fraction. PERCENTAGE ...... A fraction or ratio with 100 understood as the denominator; for example, 0.98 equals a percentage of 98. So when you change the 3% and 2% to a fraction/decimal with both from the same denominator you have created two new whole/denominators. Gary is full of sh.t................. Jerry > >>Sorry Trans....but if you go down to Staples...I'm sure they'd be > >>more than happy to sell you a calculator. [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > can divide, add or multiply a decimal by a decimal but you cannot divide > a percentage into a percentage. HOO BOY ! this takes the f-ing cake > DECIMAL ........ A linear array of digits that represents a real number, > every decimal place indicating a multiple of a negative power of 10. For > example, the decimal 0.1 = 1/10, 0.12 = 12/100, 0.003 = 3/1000. Also > called decimal fraction. and this is relevant exactly why ? > PERCENTAGE ...... A fraction or ratio with 100 understood as the > denominator; for example, 0.98 equals a percentage of 98. no sh.t, Sherlock > So when you change the 3% and 2% to a fraction/decimal with both from > the same denominator you have created two new whole/denominators. WTF are you babbling about here ? 'from both with the same denominator' ??? to what ? > Gary is full of sh.t................. and the obligatory personal attack >> Gary is full of sh.t................. > > and the obligatory personal attack Of course. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> >>Sorry Trans....but if you go down to Staples...I'm sure they'd be >> >>more than happy to sell you a calculator. [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] > > and the obligatory personal attack > > nope > > if you ask real nice, I'll give you a hint to where you wnt wrong > > otherwise, I'll carry out my promise of last week, to just keep pointing out > your errors for all to see Damn Tbone ............... just because I don't visit here very much lately doesn't mean you have to take my place in getting shade tree to cry and throw his tantrums for everyone. Poor little fellow must have lost his pacifier again......... Jerry why don't you two go get a room ? > > > > nope [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > Jerry > why don't you two go get a room ? Bwahahahahahaha! Doc ///////////////////////////////////////////////////// >> > >> > nope [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] >> >> Jerry > > > > nope [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > cry and throw his tantrums for everyone. Poor little fellow must have > lost his pacifier again......... LOL, the sad thing it really just doesn't take much to get him going but it takes more than I have to get him to shut up. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> > How about 3% / 2% = 1.5% > > Yep, 100% correct. :-) Okay... I think this hole is deep enough.... Tom - what's .03 divided by .02? Hint: it ain't .015. It's 1.5 Signature_________________________ Laszlo Almasi Carolina Watercraft Works, Inc. "In the battle between money and love, money will always triumph" I may have to change my signature......on second thought, I was right the first time. >>> > How about 3% / 2% = 1.5% >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Tom - what's .03 divided by .02? Hint: it ain't .015. > >> > How about 3% / 2% = 1.5% > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Tom - what's .03 divided by .02? Hint: it ain't .015. No sh.t Tom, like I said a million times, it's 1.5. I understand what he is saying and was trying to prove a point, one that I believe I clearly did. When he thinks he is right, regardless of what I say, he fights on and here he is doing exactly that. As Harry Potter would say, Mischief Managed. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > No sh.t Tom, like I said a million times, it's 1.5. Yup, expressed as a percentage thats 150% SOOOOOO 3% / 2% = 150% OR 50% more than the original amount. SOOOOO If the original amount was 2% of the whole, and we now let 3% of the whole, its 50% MORE. The only thing fuzzy here is T-bones ability to look at whats being measured. We aren't measuring the amount of dirt that DID NOT get through, we are measuring what DID get through. But he still won't get it, because he's busy looking at the surface of the filter, not the crap inside the throttle body. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> >> > How about 3% / 2% = 1.5% >> > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > here > he is doing exactly that. As Harry Potter would say, Mischief Managed. > > No sh.t Tom, like I said a million times, it's 1.5. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > 50% more than the original amount. Which is a fairly small number. > SOOOOO > > If the original amount was 2% of the whole, and we now let 3% of the whole, > > its 50% MORE. No, its 1% more or 50% more than the other filter. Here we go with that fuzzy math again. > The only thing fuzzy here is T-bones ability to look at whats being > measured. We aren't measuring the amount of dirt that DID NOT get through, > we are measuring what DID get through. That is correct so the only thing that really matters is the 3% that gets through the K&N, not the misleading 50% more than the paper filter. > But he still won't get it, because he's busy looking at the surface of the > filter, not the crap inside the throttle body. What does the surfacer of the filter have to do with anything? What I'm looking at is the total dirt each individual filter lets through, not some misleading comparison of the difference between two filters. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> 50% more than the original amount. > > Which is a fairly small number. We've been over this, the number is far from small. > No, its 1% more or 50% more than the other filter. Here we go with that > fuzzy math again. Nothing fuzzy about it. Its an accurate representation of how much more gets through a K&N. Even you admit the numbers are dead on. > That is correct so the only thing that really matters is the 3% that gets > through the K&N, not the misleading 50% more than the paper filter. No, the 50% matters, because its what you can do something about by changing to a paper filter. > What does the surfacer of the filter have to do with anything? What I'm > looking at is the total dirt each individual filter lets through, not some > misleading comparison of the difference between two filters. But the 50% figure doesn't compare the filters, it compares the amount of dirt getting through. I told you that you were stuck on the filter, not the dirt getting through, and you've proven it. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> > No sh.t Tom, like I said a million times, it's 1.5. >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > looking at is the total dirt each individual filter lets through, not some > misleading comparison of the difference between two filters. > >> 50% more than the original amount. > > > > Which is a fairly small number. > > We've been over this, the number is far from small. Until you can back up your numbers, they mean nothing. > > No, its 1% more or 50% more than the other filter. Here we go with that > > fuzzy math again. > > Nothing fuzzy about it. Its an accurate representation of how much more gets > through a K&N. Even you admit the numbers are dead on. It is a representation of how much more gets through over a paper filter but who cares. My only concern is does the filter (any filter) block enough dirt to protect the engine while not being overly restrictive. > > That is correct so the only thing that really matters is the 3% that gets > > through the K&N, not the misleading 50% more than the paper filter. > > No, the 50% matters, because its what you can do something about by changing > to a paper filter. Now that would depend on many things such as air-flow, replacement costs, ect.. > > What does the surfacer of the filter have to do with anything? What I'm > > looking at is the total dirt each individual filter lets through, not some > > misleading comparison of the difference between two filters. > > But the 50% figure doesn't compare the filters, It most certainly does. > it compares the amount of dirt getting through. No it doesn't. The total amount of dirt getting through is 3% for the K&N or 1 % more than with the paper filter. > I told you that you were stuck on the filter, not the > dirt getting through, and you've proven it. Actually Max, that would be you who is stuck on the filter with your 50% crap. The only numbers that matter are the 2% and 3%.that the filters actually let into the engine. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> We've been over this, the number is far from small. > > Until you can back up your numbers, they mean nothing. Already have. I've told you that the numbers are equal to every bit of dust you can see in the world. The numbers I refer to are the ones that make you wash your car so it looks better, dust and vacuum the house, and sweep the deck. >> Nothing fuzzy about it. Its an accurate representation of how much more > gets [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > who cares. My only concern is does the filter (any filter) block enough > dirt to protect the engine while not being overly restrictive. You've changed your concern because you know you lost the initial claim. >> No, the 50% matters, because its what you can do something about by > changing >> to a paper filter. > > Now that would depend on many things such as air-flow, replacement costs, > ect.. No, it depends on the micron rating of the filter, nothing more, nothing less. >> But the 50% figure doesn't compare the filters, > > It most certainly does. See, you can't figure it out, can you? You are so worried about the filter, you forgot that you are protecting the engine from dirt, not trying to find a nifty airfilter. The 50% increase does not refer to the filter, it refers to the amount of stuff getting through the filter. >> it compares the amount of dirt getting through. > > No it doesn't. The total amount of dirt getting through is 3% for the K&N > or 1 % more than with the paper filter. WRONG. I knew you were not gonna get it. You can't do percentages, there's no way you shoulda been able to pass algebra, explaining how the math works is lost on you. Do I have to show you the math AGAIN? .03 / .02 = 1.5 or 150% not 1%, but 50% more dirt. The K&N filters 1% less dirt than the paper filter, which is an increase of 50% in the amount of dirt NOT filtered. >> I told you that you were stuck on the filter, not the >> dirt getting through, and you've proven it. > > Actually Max, that would be you who is stuck on the filter with your 50% > crap. The only numbers that matter are the 2% and 3%.that the filters > actually let into the engine. Yup, I knew you were a waste of time, but I got you to make a fool of yourself again, several times over. I'd say its a 50% increase over what Gary was able to do before I subbed for him. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> >> 50% more than the original amount. >> > [quoted text clipped - 49 lines] > crap. The only numbers that matter are the 2% and 3%.that the filters > actually let into the engine. The fallacy in MD's statements are the numbers he begin with. K&N's efficiencies are between 97-98% with some as high as 99%. He conveniently chose the low end for his math. Paper filters are all over the board. Even though you can't see any holes, some of them are as bad as 93%. I'm not sure where the 98% number for paper comes from unless it relates to a specific brand of paper filter that has been tested or one of the best paper filters that has been tested. You can't just buy any paper filter and feel that you are filtering better than a K&N. Most of MD's statements are a fallacy and if you hang around here long enough you will see that. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > The fallacy in MD's statements are the numbers he begin with. K&N's > efficiencies are between 97-98% with some as high as 99%. He [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > can't just buy any paper filter and feel that you are filtering > better than a K&N. if there is a 'fallacy', it is in the original numbers posted: that 'an OEM filter' removes 98 percent of dirt, and that a K$N removes 97 percent all else followed frome those figures if you have better figures, verified by real-world testing, with URL to fact-check, please, trot 'em out otherwise, your statement of 'fallacies' is so much phlogiston > The fallacy in MD's statements are the numbers he begin with. K&N's > efficiencies are between 97-98% with some as high as 99%. He [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > can't just buy any paper filter and feel that you are filtering > better than a K&N. > I'm not sure where the 98% number for paper comes > from unless it relates to a specific brand of paper filter that has > been tested or one of the best paper filters that has been tested. You > can't just buy any paper filter and feel that you are filtering > better than a K&N. The 98% figure for paper, and the 97% figure for K&N came from K&N's website and are from testing they claim to have run. If you'd like to dispute those two figures, you'll have to find a place that did an objective test on the K&N. However, having looked for such testing in the past, you'll likely find what I did, and that is that K&N does not filter as well as a good paper filter. I know a Mustang site did a very comprehensive flow/filtration test on a number of different filters of two basic styles, cannister and flat element. They found the K&N to be mid pack on both styles, and worse than a couple of the well known brands. Good luck in your search. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > The fallacy in MD's statements are the numbers he begin with. K&N's > efficiencies are between 97-98% with some as high as 99%. He [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > can't just buy any paper filter and feel that you are filtering > better than a K&N. Can you provide the URL from K&N's website? I didn't really need luck in my search. At http://www.knfilters.com/facts.htm you can find: "To ensure our air filters provide a high level of dirt protection, we regularly test our air filter designs using the testing procedure described above. Those tests demonstrate K&N air filters generally achieve overall filtration efficiency in the range of 97% - 98%, while some of our air filter designs have achieved levels as high as 99%." .... "We encourage customers to do their homework and be aware of the filtration capabilities of an air filter before they buy. Our own testing has revealed wide differences in filtering capabilities. We were surprised to see some disposable paper air filters with an overall filtration efficiency as low as 93%." It appears you selected the worst case for K&N and the best case for paper. You can't assume paper filters are 98%. Unless you specify a brand that has been tested that is a mis-leading statement. I don't care what filter you like but your numbers seem to be slanted rather that stating the story as it is. If your only concern is getting a filter with the highest efficiency possible then you should probably find out which paper filters filter the best and use them but you can't just select any paper filter and think you are filtering better than a K&N. Also someone mentioned that there is only so much air an engine can inhale. It is true that an engine has a fixed volume for air intake, however, a more restrictive filter creates a larger vaccuum (causing thinner air) which results in less oxygen to the engine even though the cylinder has a fixed volume. Do you disagree with that? Thanks. > > I'm not sure where the 98% number for paper comes > > from unless it relates to a specific brand of paper filter that has [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > > can't just buy any paper filter and feel that you are filtering > > better than a K&N. > Can you provide the URL from K&N's website? I didn't really need luck > in my search. At http://www.knfilters.com/facts.htm you can find: 1) You have the URL from K&N's site. 2) You found K&N's own info, not an objective testing of filters. For that, you will need a bit of luck. 3) But since you asked.... http://www.audiworld.com/tech/eng18.shtml A gentleman uses his Audi to test two filters via info from the MAF seonsor. http://www.getdieselpower.com/my04dodge_files/Spicer%20Filter%20Testing/Spicer_F ilter_Testing.html A rather extensive test on a bunch of filters. http://www.durangoclub.com/faq/Performance.html A repost of a test run by a Corvette club. http://www.bobistheoilguy.com/airfilter/airtest1.htm A not so scientific test, but informative. There is a start for you. Search parameters: "K&N filter testing" (no quotes) SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. > Can you provide the URL from K&N's website? I didn't really need luck > in my search. At http://www.knfilters.com/facts.htm you can find: [quoted text clipped - 64 lines] >> > can't just buy any paper filter and feel that you are filtering >> > better than a K&N. >> Can you provide the URL from K&N's website? I didn't really need luck >> in my search. At http://www.knfilters.com/facts.htm you can find: [quoted text clipped - 94 lines] >>> > can't just buy any paper filter and feel that you are filtering >>> > better than a K&N. Or you can try this URL http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm >>Mike > Or you can try this URL http://home.usadatanet.net/~jbplock/ISO5011/SPICER.htm Wow, forget that 50% more, its like 1700% more in one case.... SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >>> Can you provide the URL from K&N's website? I didn't really need luck >>> in my search. At http://www.knfilters.com/facts.htm you can find: [quoted text clipped - 102 lines] >>>> > >>>Mike > Wow, forget that 50% more, its like 1700% more in one case.... So wait... now 3%/2%=1700%? :^) >> Wow, forget that 50% more, its like 1700% more in one case.... > > So wait... now 3%/2%=1700%? figures in the link... K&N appears worse than even Tbone could imagine. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> Wow, forget that 50% more, its like 1700% more in one case.... > > So wait... now 3%/2%=1700%? > > :^) > >> Wow, forget that 50% more, its like 1700% more in one case.... > > > > So wait... now 3%/2%=1700%? > > figures in the link... K&N appears worse than even Tbone could imagine. Paranoia will destroy ya. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving you flunked 'percentages and fractions' in 4th grade, didn't you ? > > >> 50% more than the original amount. > > > [quoted text clipped - 46 lines] > crap. The only numbers that matter are the 2% and 3%.that the filters > actually let into the engine. It was a simple math error Gary, get over it and crack those books on the true definition on the conservation of energy. The TC produces torque and consumes HP in the form of RPM to do it. No laws were violated, there is no magic here. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > you flunked 'percentages and fractions' in 4th grade, didn't you ? > [quoted text clipped - 51 lines] > > crap. The only numbers that matter are the 2% and 3%.that the filters > > actually let into the engine. > It was a simple math error Gary, get over it and crack those books on the > true definition on the conservation of energy. The TC produces torque and > consumes HP in the form of RPM to do it. No laws were violated, there is no > magic here. no, idiot, it CONVERTS hi-rpm / low torque HP to low-rpm / high-torque HP it 'produces' nothing in fact, it loses about 4-8% as heat > > It was a simple math error Gary, get over it and crack those books on the > > true definition on the conservation of energy. The TC produces torque and [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > no, idiot, it CONVERTS hi-rpm / low torque HP to low-rpm / high-torque HP A conversion produces one thing from something else. > it 'produces' nothing Wrong. > in fact, it loses about 4-8% as heat Yep, something else that the TC and trans can produce. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > in fact, it loses about 4-8% as heat > > Yep, something else that the TC and trans can produce. so..........your latest claim is that a converter/transmission combo re-creates the lost energy out of nothing ? you really are a tool > > > in fact, it loses about 4-8% as heat > > > > Yep, something else that the TC and trans can produce. > > so..........your latest claim is that a converter/transmission combo > re-creates the lost energy out of nothing ? Where do you come up with these complete garbage. The converter / transmission combo does not lose anything, so there is nothing to re-create. It converts 4 - 8% of the energy it receives into heat. We call it a loss because that is not what we want done with the energy but your attempt at spin (and I really hope that it is spin) did little to change the subject. The fact is that it does produce heat as well as torque from the energy being put into it and you have yet to prove anything different. But keep trying, it is most entertaining. > you really are a tool And you really are a fool. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Where do you come up with these complete garbage. The converter / > transmission combo does not lose anything, so there is nothing to > re-create. If thats correct, then you are wrong about it producing anything as well. Hang on, I think its a left turn right about ....... HERE! (this line will be replaced by more Tbone gibberish/spin, just wait and see) Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> > > in fact, it loses about 4-8% as heat >> > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > And you really are a fool. > > Where do you come up with these complete garbage. The converter / > > transmission combo does not lose anything, so there is nothing to > > re-create. > > If thats correct, then you are wrong about it producing anything as well. Why? It doesn't lose anything but it can and does waste some of the input power overcomming internal friction which results in it PRODUCING heat as well. Now what were you saying???? > Hang on, I think its a left turn right about ....... HERE! (this line will > be replaced by more Tbone gibberish/spin, just wait and see) Another sign that your argument is without merit and that should be what, about 100 points for me. Not that I need them with the huge boost Gary has been giving me. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > > Where do you come up with these complete garbage. The converter / > > > transmission combo does not lose anything, so there is nothing to [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > power overcomming internal friction which results in it PRODUCING heat as > well. Now what were you saying???? 'internal friction' ?????? what, exactly is 'frictioning' 50 points to you if you can answer correctly, 100 bonus points for explaining the path of the fluid > > > > Where do you come up with these complete garbage. The converter / > > > > transmission combo does not lose anything, so there is nothing to [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > > what, exactly is 'frictioning' How about the fluid both itself as well as its contact with the TC internals. > 50 points to you if you can answer correctly, 100 bonus points for > explaining the path of the fluid Path of the fluid, LOL, now who is trying to change the subject to spin away from error. I'll just add that 50 points to the thousands you have already gave me. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> 'internal friction' ?????? >> >> what, exactly is 'frictioning' > > How about the fluid both itself as well as its contact with the TC > internals. You've got to be kidding me. >> 50 points to you if you can answer correctly, 100 bonus points for >> explaining the path of the fluid [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > already > gave me. Looks like you can't answer either question. Hint: the fluid starts in the pan, he he he. Doc > >> 'internal friction' ?????? > >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > Looks like you can't answer either question. Hint: the fluid starts in the > pan, he he he. Looks like you don't know WTF you are talking about. As for the friction part, please explain how the converter gets hot when under load, here is a tip, fluid viscosity. As far as the fluid flow, he is asking about the flow path inside of the converter such as from the impeller to the turbine, thru the stator and back to the impeller.. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > >> 'internal friction' ?????? > > >> [quoted text clipped - 23 lines] > path inside of the converter such as from the impeller to the turbine, thru > the stator and back to the impeller.. Wrong again, Braniac from impeller, thru stator, to turbine, then repeat you just can't help yourself, can you ? > > > >> 'internal friction' ?????? > > > >> [quoted text clipped - 30 lines] > > from impeller, thru stator, to turbine, then repeat Hahahahahahahaha, you got it backwards, sh.t for brains. You claim to know about this stuff and even an admitted complete amateur (me) knows more than you do, how sad. You do know that the stator has a one way bearing, right. If the fluid went into the stator first, why would it need one and come to think of it why would the trans need the stator? Then come to think of it, how would it amplify low end torque if it received the fluid ahead of the turbine? It looks like you don't even know what the purpose of the stator is, some transmission expert. Were you the guy in the AAMCO commercial many year back with the garden hose that claimed to rebuild the same transmission 17 times? > you just can't help yourself, can you ? Not when you make it this easy. Face it Gary, you blew it. Despite all your spinning and modified header changes, when it comes down to actual knowledge, you really don't know sh.t. Now lets see if Maxi is dumb enough to try and back you up on this. http://auto.howstuffworks.com/torque-converter.htm/printable Perhaps this link may help you out. After you learn how a converter actually works, we can talk again but until then, YOU LOSE, Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > You do know that the stator has a one way bearing, right. One-way bearing? Bearing??? LOL, yea, my spelling sucks As hard as it would be for anyone here to believe, I'm not perfect :-) SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > You do know that the stator has a one way bearing, right. > > One-way bearing? Bearing??? > LOL, yea, my spelling sucks It wasn't a spelling thing... I just don't see how "bearing" and "clutch" are synonymous... > > LOL, yea, my spelling sucks > > It wasn't a spelling thing... I just don't see how "bearing" and "clutch" > are synonymous... It's called a one way bearing Tom. They spin free in one direction but lock solid when turned the other way IOW, act like a one way clutch. We use them all of the time in nitro powered RC cars and trucks for the on-board electric start and roto-starters and in multi-speed and reversing transmissions. I remember reading somewhere where they said the stator was mounted to its shaft with a one way bearing and then later called it a clutch which is in a way, an accurate description of what they do so that is what I called it. I guess that I could have been more clear and just said one way clutch but as you said to me a few times, a minutes worth of research... http://www.stieber.net/ SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > all of the time in nitro powered RC cars and trucks for the on-board > electric start and roto-starters and in multi-speed and reversing So NOW we see where all this "hands-on" transmission experience comes from... :) > > all of the time in nitro powered RC cars and trucks for the on-board > > electric start and roto-starters and in multi-speed and reversing > > So NOW we see where all this "hands-on" transmission experience comes > from... :) You don't have to have "hands on" experience with something to understand how it works AND I have said many times that I am NOT an automotive transmission expert but that is exactly what makes this so funny. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > You don't have to have "hands on" experience with something to understand > how it works AND I have said many times that I am NOT an automotive > transmission expert but that is exactly what makes this so funny. Great. Good to know you have all this expertise without hands on experience. Now, tell me whats wrong with the E250 that won't go into reverse. If you understand it, then explain it. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> > all of the time in nitro powered RC cars and trucks for the on-board >> > electric start and roto-starters and in multi-speed and reversing [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > how it works AND I have said many times that I am NOT an automotive > transmission expert but that is exactly what makes this so funny. > > You don't have to have "hands on" experience with something to understand > > how it works AND I have said many times that I am NOT an automotive [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Now, tell me whats wrong with the E250 that won't go into reverse. If you > understand it, then explain it. LOL, what's the matter Max, the problem got you stumped? SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > LOL, what's the matter Max, the problem got you stumped? Yup, because unlike you, I don't know everything. I just figured since you know better than everyone else, you probably knew this answer too. Real mechanics and technicians encounter real problems that need real solutions, not bullshit slingers such as yourself..... unless of course, you have the answer, instead of a notsosmartass question to ask in return. So, have you got the answer I asked for? Or just more running off at the mouth? SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> > You don't have to have "hands on" experience with something to > understand [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > LOL, what's the matter Max, the problem got you stumped? > > LOL, what's the matter Max, the problem got you stumped? > > Yup, because unlike you, I don't know everything. I just figured since you > know better than everyone else, you probably knew this answer too. I never said that I know everything and unlike you, I can and do admit to error. Even if I were the transmission expert that you claim to be, how would I know the answer to that without even seeing it? Sorry Max, but your question and example are as usual, pointless. > Real mechanics and technicians encounter real problems that need real > solutions, not bullshit slingers such as yourself..... unless of course, you > have the answer, instead of a notsosmartass question to ask in return. Nice spin but no dice. This is not a question about "real mechanics" and their skills. This is about people (you and Gary) who think that they know everything and then try to hide when they get something wrong. And of all the people to talk about slinging bull, hell, you are a self admitted troll (even in this thread) and that is the primary function of a troll, to sling bull. Now how exactly do you get a linear force out of a lever? > So, have you got the answer I asked for? Or just more running off at the > mouth? Yep, I have no idea why it is acting that way, just like you. However, unlike your buddy, I do know how a TC works. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > I never said that I know everything and unlike you, I can and do admit to > error. No, you don't hence the long thread trying to get you to figure out math when using precentages, segueing back into why K&N filters aren't the good idea they look like, and going further back to... well almost anything you talk about, the latest example being O2 sensors. Most people will go back and look at facts, you whine till someone proves it to you. Unfortunately, unlike the legal system, being honest means finding the proof yourself. > Even if I were the transmission expert that you claim to be, Never claimed to be a trans expert. Thats a title people (including yourself) have labelled me with. > how > would I know the answer to that without even seeing it? Sadly, you often give answers based on not seeing the problem. > Sorry Max, but your > question and example are as usual, pointless. Thats only because you command of the language and the art of conversation are so lacking that you are the only one missing the point. >> Real mechanics and technicians encounter real problems that need real >> solutions, not bullshit slingers such as yourself..... unless of course, [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > know > everything and then try to hide when they get something wrong. If it were about that, do you really think I would have posted in an open forum that I'm having a difficult problem with a Ford trans? The evidence against your claim is the very post you are replying to. But that also proves my assertion that you lack a command and understanding of the language. > And of all > the people to talk about slinging bull, hell, you are a self admitted > troll > (even in this thread) and that is the primary function of a troll, to > sling > bull. Yes, in this thread that is exactly what I'm doing. And its working VERY well. > Now how exactly do you get a linear force out of a lever? Well, a lever puts out the same type of force that is put into it, the rest should be easy to figure out. (Hint: location of the fulcrum is everything.) >> So, have you got the answer I asked for? Or just more running off at the >> mouth? > > Yep, I have no idea why it is acting that way, just like you. However, > unlike your buddy, I do know how a TC works. See, I knew you couldn't answer the question without a lame bullshit line. You do so well at looking up other stuff, I figured you could look up my problem as well. Care to try again? SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> > LOL, what's the matter Max, the problem got you stumped? >> [quoted text clipped - 28 lines] > Yep, I have no idea why it is acting that way, just like you. However, > unlike your buddy, I do know how a TC works. > > I never said that I know everything and unlike you, I can and do admit to > > error. > > No, you don't hence the long thread trying to get you to figure out math > when using precentages, Long, lol, perhaps you should read and comprehend the twisted path you and your butt buddy made out of the thread. While the thread was long, my input as far as the math itself goes was short. > segueing back into why K&N filters aren't the good > idea they look like, and going further back to... That was not me again, this time it was you. I simply said that you and Gary use the percentages in a misleading manor and the only thing that really matters is what each filter lets in relative to the total volume of dirt and if it is within specifications of the engine, not to each other. I never said if the K&N was either good or bad. > well almost anything you > talk about, the latest example being O2 sensors. Once again, continuing to distort the facts to suit your needs. > Most people will go back > and look at facts, you whine till someone proves it to you. While this may be true, both you and Gary continue to whine and spin even when someone does prove it. > Unfortunately, unlike the legal system, being honest means finding the proof yourself. Bullshit, what it really means is that you never intend to back up any of your bull. > > Even if I were the transmission expert that you claim to be, > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Sadly, you often give answers based on not seeing the problem. As do you! > > Sorry Max, but your > > question and example are as usual, pointless. > > Thats only because you command of the language and the art of conversation > are so lacking that you are the only one missing the point. Only in your tiny little troll mind. > >> Real mechanics and technicians encounter real problems that need real > >> solutions, not bullshit slingers such as yourself..... unless of course, [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > If it were about that, do you really think I would have posted in an open > forum that I'm having a difficult problem with a Ford trans? Sure you would, even experts get stumped and saying that you can't figure something out is not admitting to error. > The evidence against your claim is the very post you are replying to. LOL, not even close. > > And of all > > the people to talk about slinging bull, hell, you are a self admitted [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Yes, in this thread that is exactly what I'm doing. And its working VERY > well. This and just about every other thread you post to but it not working as well as you think or at least, not in the way that you think. > > Now how exactly do you get a linear force out of a lever? > > Well, a lever puts out the same type of force that is put into it, the rest > should be easy to figure out. (Hint: location of the fulcrum is everything.) Hint, you still don't know WTF you are talking about and the fact that it has a fulcrum proves it can't so once again, you lose!. > >> So, have you got the answer I asked for? Or just more running off at the > >> mouth? [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > See, I knew you couldn't answer the question without a lame bullshit line. It is not a BS line, it is a fact. > You do so well at looking up other stuff, I figured you could look up my > problem as well. I probably could but so can you. Stop being so damn lazy and look it up yourself. > Care to try again? Sure, making you look like an idiot and watching you dance for me is always fun. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > Long, lol, perhaps you should read and comprehend the twisted path you and > your butt buddy made out of the thread. While the thread was long, my > input > as far as the math itself goes was short. LOL, "Short"... must be code talk for "WRONG" I see ya achieved another goal I had for you, the sexaul deviation remark. >> well almost anything you >> talk about, the latest example being O2 sensors. > > Once again, continuing to distort the facts to suit your needs. No distortion, you called someone some names before at least two people called your little game off. >> Most people will go back >> and look at facts, you whine till someone proves it to you. > > While this may be true, both you and Gary continue to whine and spin even > when someone does prove it. LOL, So you admit it, but its ok, because you think other people do it. Hell, you oughta jump off a cliff, cause hell, "other people do it". Funny thing is, at least five different people proved you wrong in that thread alone, but you kept on going. >> Unfortunately, unlike the legal system, being honest means finding the > proof yourself. > > Bullshit, what it really means is that you never intend to back up any of > your bull. I've backed every bit of it. You on the other hand...... LOL >> Never claimed to be a trans expert. Thats a title people (including >> yourself) have labelled me with. >> >> > how >> > would I know the answer to that without even seeing it? Answer to what? You seem to have snipped the question. >> Sadly, you often give answers based on not seeing the problem. > > As do you! Nope. I give possibilities in order to find the solution. OTOH, you think you've got the solution, and when someone challenges your "proven facts", you scurry for the spin cycle. > Sure you would, even experts get stumped and saying that you can't figure > something out is not admitting to error. Ok, Mr Politically Correct, then why did you try to spin it like it was a problem when you initially read the post? > This and just about every other thread you post to but it not working as > well as you think or at least, not in the way that you think. I've got you calling names, using sexual innuendo, back pedalling, and generally replying to nothing, and you think I'm the one on the hook? >> Well, a lever puts out the same type of force that is put into it, the > rest [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > Hint, you still don't know WTF you are talking about and the fact that it > has a fulcrum proves it can't so once again, you lose!. An engine crane is a lever. Does the engine crane lift an engine, or spin it around in circles? Just because it has a fulcrum, doesn't mean the input and output are rotational. > It is not a BS line, it is a fact. Its a bullshit line. I asked a question about a transmission, you chose to throw bullshit, rather than just answer the question. I predicted you would try to stab at someone rather than just answer the question, and you did exactly what I figured you would. > I probably could but so can you. Stop being so damn lazy and look it up > yourself. I have. But with your superior skills in finding the answers to the questions, I figured you'd be able to do better than me. I guess not. >> Care to try again? > > Sure, making you look like an idiot and watching you dance for me is > always > fun. Careful...... LOL SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> > I never said that I know everything and unlike you, I can and do admit > to [quoted text clipped - 124 lines] > always > fun. > > Long, lol, perhaps you should read and comprehend the twisted path you and > > your butt buddy made out of the thread. While the thread was long, my [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > I see ya achieved another goal I had for you, the sexaul deviation remark. Sure you did. Pretty much like someone saying "I knew that would happen" after it does, LOL. > >> well almost anything you > >> talk about, the latest example being O2 sensors. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > No distortion, you called someone some names before at least two people > called your little game off. Really, try going back and reading it again. I believe that your little buddy started it off calling me an asshat. > >> Most people will go back > >> and look at facts, you whine till someone proves it to you. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > LOL, So you admit it, but its ok, because you think other people do it. No, what I said was that you and Gary are worse. Talk about not understanding the language. > Hell, you oughta jump off a cliff, cause hell, "other people do it". Funny > thing is, at least five different people proved you wrong in that thread > alone, but you kept on going. What thread are you talking about now? > >> Unfortunately, unlike the legal system, being honest means finding the > > proof yourself. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > I've backed every bit of it. You on the other hand...... LOL You have backed up nothing, as usual. Sorry Maxi, but you word backs up nothing. > >> Never claimed to be a trans expert. Thats a title people (including > >> yourself) have labelled me with. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Answer to what? You seem to have snipped the question. Sorry Max, but that is from a few posts back and most of the editing if not all of it is done by you, including this. > >> Sadly, you often give answers based on not seeing the problem. > > > > As do you! > > Nope. I give possibilities in order to find the solution. Semantics. > OTOH, you think you've got the solution, and when someone challenges your "proven facts", > you scurry for the spin cycle. Again, that is you. Now exactly what "proven facts" are you referring to? > > Sure you would, even experts get stumped and saying that you can't figure > > something out is not admitting to error. > > Ok, Mr Politically Correct, then why did you try to spin it like it was a > problem when you initially read the post? I spun nothing. I simply asked a question and since when does a problem become an error or an admission of such? You have yet to ever admit to being wrong on anything and I doubt that you ever will. The thing is that nobody really cares one way or the other. > > This and just about every other thread you post to but it not working as > > well as you think or at least, not in the way that you think. > > I've got you calling names, using sexual innuendo, back pedalling, and > generally replying to nothing, and you think I'm the one on the hook? Pretty much exactly what you are doing now although your sexual innuendo is a bit of a stretch and LOL, yes, you are. > >> Well, a lever puts out the same type of force that is put into it, the > > rest [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > around in circles? Just because it has a fulcrum, doesn't mean the input > and output are rotational. Yes, it is a lever and lifts the engine in an arc which by definition, is a circular (rotational) motion, not a straight line. Sorry Max, you still lose. And as for the lift piston, it swings in an arc as well as it moves with the boom so once again, you are still wrong. Damn you make this easy. > > It is not a BS line, it is a fact. > > Its a bullshit line. I asked a question about a transmission, you chose to > throw bullshit, rather than just answer the question. No, you challenged my abilities to answer a question as if only a mechanic can give the right answers on mechanical questions and my response proved that wrong as well. > I predicted you would try to stab at someone rather than just answer the > question, and you did exactly what I figured you would. LOL, yea, sure. I bet you have a 100% correct prediction rate on the lottery shortly after seeing the drawing on TV as well :-) As for stabbing someone in the back, what goes around, comes around and your little buddy is far from innocent on that level. > > I probably could but so can you. Stop being so damn lazy and look it up > > yourself. > > I have. But with your superior skills in finding the answers to the > questions, I figured you'd be able to do better than me. I guess not. You would be correct here. Your experience should help you to know where to look and if not, perhaps you might want to look at another career. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving >> I see ya achieved another goal I had for you, the sexaul deviation >> remark. > > Sure you did. Pretty much like someone saying "I knew that would happen" > after it does, LOL. Sorry, did I have to notify you what you would be doing? > Really, try going back and reading it again. I believe that your little > buddy started it off calling me an asshat. I don't care what he calls you, really. I'm amused by YOUR tactics in TRYING to be right, not anyone elses in BEING right. Whats amusing here is that you try to justify being less than polite (and THAT is being polite) by saying that someone else did it. SO what? Take a bit of personal responsibility. Besides, my "little buddy" might be right, maybe you are an "asshat". You conduct yourself in a reprehensible manner, you argue about anything, you whine about proof (unless confronted with someone who proivides it, then you DENY the proof.), in short, you act like a seventh grader who just got caught with his dick hanging out in the locker room while looking over the wall into the girls side. It makes for a good movie script, and its just about as musing here. >> > While this may be true, both you and Gary continue to whine and spin > even [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > No, what I said was that you and Gary are worse. Talk about not > understanding the language. Yes, lets. See, if you meant we were worse, you need to include that word in your sentence. Or you might try using a phrase that indicates that we are worse. However, you merely noted that you believe Gary and I do exactly as you do. Again, your command of the language is lacking. Or is it just your attempt at spin. I had tried to give you the benefit of the doubt, and allow for a lack of knowledge, but if you know it all, it must be a deliberate attempt to deceive by claiming you said something you most certainly did not. >> Hell, you oughta jump off a cliff, cause hell, "other people do it". >> Funny >> thing is, at least five different people proved you wrong in that thread >> alone, but you kept on going. > > What thread are you talking about now? Whatever it was, its the birth of this one. Mike Simmons, Tom Lawrence, Gary, Denny, and I all proved you wrong on at least one isssue apiece. Although I'll grant that Tom's kicking your a.s pretty well right now, so he may be in the lead on number of topics, but Gary has it covered on number of times on one topic. >> >> Sadly, you often give answers based on not seeing the problem. >> > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Semantics. No, its a matter of I express an idea of what I think is wrong, and allow for other differing views. You, OTOH, seem to think that only your way could be correct. > Yes, it is a lever and lifts the engine in an arc which by definition, is > a > circular (rotational) motion, not a straight line. Sorry Max, you still > lose. And as for the lift piston, it swings in an arc as well as it moves > with the boom so once again, you are still wrong. Damn you make this > easy. Interesting. All the lift cylinders I have work in a straight line. Do you have a curved hydraulic cylinder? >> Its a bullshit line. I asked a question about a transmission, you chose >> to [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > can give the right answers on mechanical questions and my response proved > that wrong as well. Nope, I challenged your ability to answer the question at all in a factual and informed manner. You failed to do so. > LOL, yea, sure. I bet you have a 100% correct prediction rate on the > lottery shortly after seeing the drawing on TV as well :-) As for > stabbing > someone in the back, what goes around, comes around and your little buddy > is > far from innocent on that level. No, see..... the lottery is a random event. You, well you are pretty predictable. As in, its predictable that you would pass off your actions as being ok because you think someone else does it. You've done it a least three times today. >> I have. But with your superior skills in finding the answers to the >> questions, I figured you'd be able to do better than me. I guess not. > > You would be correct here. Your experience should help you to know where > to > look and if not, perhaps you might want to look at another career. Career? Why would you mention career? I said nothing about it........ another attempt by you to change the subject? Who knows. Amuse me some more, do reply as soon as possible. I'll be headed off to dinner shortly, so I'll get back to your amazing stories later tonight. SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >> > Long, lol, perhaps you should read and comprehend the twisted path you > and [quoted text clipped - 152 lines] > to > look and if not, perhaps you might want to look at another career. > Amuse me some more, do reply as soon as possible. I'll be headed off to > dinner shortly, so I'll get back to your amazing stories later tonight. Wonderful what a little reverse psychology can do...... works well on adolescents too. Coincidence? SignatureMax Give a man a match, and he is warm for a short while. Light him on fire, and he is warm for the rest of his life. >>> I see ya achieved another goal I had for you, the sexaul deviation >>> remark. [quoted text clipped - 278 lines] >> to >> look and if not, perhaps you might want to look at another career. LOL, keep dreaming Maxi. Unlike you, I have a life and don't always have the time to respond to your childish blabbering. You will just have to wait by your PC like a good little puppy until I have the time or the desire to be bothered replying to your crap. SignatureIf at first you don't succeed, you're not cut out for skydiving > > Amuse me some more, do reply as soon as possible. I'll be headed off to > > dinner shortly, so I'll get back to your amazing stories later tonight. [quoted text clipped - 284 lines] > >> to > >> look and if not, perhaps you might want to look at another career. > >> I see ya achieved another goal I had for you, the sexaul deviation > >> remark. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Sorry, did I have to notify you what you would be doing? Yep, because otherwise, we all know that you are full of it. > > Really, try going back and reading it again. I believe that your little > > buddy started it off calling me an asshat. > > I don't care what he calls you, really. When why do you care what I call him or anyone else for that matter? > I'm amused by YOUR tactics in TRYING > to be right, not anyone elses in BEING right. Which is exactly what you and Gary are doing. Is this another Maxworld double standard? > Whats amusing here is that you > try to justify being less than polite (and THAT is being polite) by saying > that someone else did it. SO what? No, I believe that you should treat people as they treat you. I am not justifying what I do by saying someone else does it, but I will respond in kind. > Take a bit of personal responsibility. And this comming from the admitted troll, LOL. > Besides, my "little buddy" might be right, maybe you are an "asshat". You > conduct yourself in a reprehensible manner, you argue about anything, you [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > wall into the girls side. It makes for a good movie script, and its just > about as musing here. The funny thing is that you have described yourself and Gary every bit as much as you think you have described me. > >> > While this may be true, both you and Gary continue to whine and spin > > even [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Yes, lets. See, if you meant we were worse, you need to include that word in > your sentence. I guess comprehension is not a strong point with you. > >> Hell, you oughta jump off a cliff, cause hell, "other people do it". > >> Funny [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Whatever it was, LOL, caught in your own spin. I find it comical that even you don't know what you are talking about. > Although I'll grant that Tom's kicking your a.s pretty well right now, Kicking my a.s or just being an a.s. It is sadly getting hard to tell anymore. so he > may be in the lead on number of topics, but Gary has it covered on number of > times on one topic. Too bad more times than not, Gary, like you, has been wrong. > >> >> Sadly, you often give answers based on not seeing the problem. > >> > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > for other differing views. You, OTOH, seem to think that only your way could > be correct. LOL, only in Maxworld > > Yes, it is a lever and lifts the engine in an arc which by definition, is > > a [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > Interesting. All the lift cylinders I have work in a straight line. Do you > have a curved hydraulic cylinder? Yes, the lift cylinder is a linear device however it is connected to the lift by T W O pivot points. Can you figure out why? > >> Its a bullshit line. I asked a question about a transmission, you chose > >> to [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > Nope, I challenged your ability to answer the question a |
Enable EMail Alerts
Start New Thread
Reply to this Message