Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

On 01/23/2010 04:54 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>
>> /what/ iron in exhaust valves? you evidently didn't bother to read the
>> exhaust valve alloy cite i gave you. you still carefully snipped it though.
>
>
> I didn't see anything on that web page that would suggest your valves
> are not mostly made of iron. you can google all you want, but the main
> constituent of your valve is still iron.

"you can google all you want, but the main constituent of your valve is
still iron"

translation: "you don't agree with facts, so you're just going to ignore
them". way to go dude.


>
>
>>
>>> with oxygen is every bit as
>>> exothermic as the iron in mild steel.
>>
>> what is the ignition temperature of Fe vs. Ni, Co, Cr, etc.? how are
>> you going to get your exothermic reaction sustained if you can't
>> actually /start/ it?
>>
>
> Well you don't need to ignite the protective layer which is mostly
> composed of Cr. All you need to do is change it so that the air can get
> to the iron.

/what/ ing iron, dipshit?


>
>> and what is going to happen if you start this reaction and keep
>> supplying oxygen to it? how much valve do you think you're going to
>> have left at the end?
>
> Yes if there is more air it will eat a lot farther. I've seen that.

no, you've seen the result of a valve that's been eroded for longer, not
one that has exothermally ignited.


>
>>
>>> The alloys used in valves are
>>> designed so that type of reaction normally can't happen,
>>
>> that is indeed true!!! and, of course, it directly contradicts your
>> drivel above.
>
> that only means there is evidence that an abnormal condition where it
> can happen was met.

yeah, so "abnormal", it contradicts all your other bullshit!


>
>
>>
>>> but your valve
>>> is evidence that it does happen.
>>
>> gas erosion != oxidation!
>
> The metal was molten and it got quite a bit hotter than any of the
> gasses present.

bullshit!!! when you change state, you hit an isothermal. and you're
in a jet stream. how the are you going to heat any metal beyond
liquidus when it's getting blown away? and let's simply ignore the fact
that we're looking at more refractory metals here.

[i /know/ you don't know what "refractory" means:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Refractory_metals]


> You may be able to find some slag.

do you even know what "slag" is? [rhetorical]


> A slow erosion of
> the valve would look different.

"would" look different? so you're just guessing!

of course, if you were experienced, knew what you were talking about and
had evidence, you'd take pics of the ones you have that are different,
and post them. free pic hosting at flickr, picasa, tinypic, etc..


> Another way a valve can lose a lot a
> metal is if chunk breaks off. But that also is going to look obviously
> different.

how big is "a chunk"? 1 micron? 10? 1000? "just enough so that gas
erosion can take hold"?


>
>>
>>> Your valve can be easily cut with a
>>> torch. Ask a welder to show you how.
>>
>> no, /you/ need to see it. or rather, /not/ see it. you're simply
>> guessing and hoping i don't know any better.
>
> Guessing? at what?

"cut with a torch" is just guessing, and guessing wrong. valves are not
soft iron, they are refractory alloys. you can't just cut them like you
do soft iron. you'd know this if you were actually speaking from
experience or had even bothered to read the cites i keep giving you and
were not simply guessing. idiot.


>
>
>> you should actually try
>> this stuff yourself if you don't want to get it wrong and make yourself
>> look like such a horse's ass.

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

On 1/23/10 5:22 PM, in article slrnhln16g.rgl.joe@barada.griffincs.local,
"Joe" <joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com> wrote:

> On 2010-01-23, E. Meyer <e.p.meyer@verizon.net> wrote:
>> On 1/21/10 12:31 AM, in article 2vS5n.2479$CM7.1688@newsfe04.iad, "Greg"
>> <nospam@null.net> wrote:
>>
>>> A CR-V will not require anything super dooper. When buying, look for an
>>> "Oil Change Special" (oil + filter) at the local parts store and call it
>>> good!
>>>
>>
>> A US Market CR-V requires 5W20 weight oil per the mfr. You're not likely to
>> find that at any "oil change special" unless its the Honda dealer. If you
>> run anything else in it, they could invalidate the warranty if there are any
>> oil related engine problems.
>>
>
> The Oil Change specials at every place I have been to cover 5w20.

OK & that is the point - make sure the "special" actually covers what your
car requires.

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 14:52:26 -0600, "E. Meyer" <e.p.meyer@verizon.net>
wrote:

>
>
>
>On 1/23/10 8:57 AM, in article uh3ml5tl90f3auv2t3nklcjh2pjrvjppov@4ax.com,
>"Guy" <void@void.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:36:03 -0600, "E. Meyer" <e.p.meyer@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/21/10 12:31 AM, in article 2vS5n.2479$CM7.1688@newsfe04.iad, "Greg"
>>> <nospam@null.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A CR-V will not require anything super dooper. When buying, look for an
>>>> "Oil Change Special" (oil + filter) at the local parts store and call it
>>>> good!
>>>>
>>>
>>> A US Market CR-V requires 5W20 weight oil per the mfr. You're not likely to
>>> find that at any "oil change special" unless its the Honda dealer. If you
>>> run anything else in it, they could invalidate the warranty if there are any
>>> oil related engine problems.
>>
>>
>> Pardon me for asking a dumb question but does Mobil1 come in different
>> viscosities like 5W20, etc... ?
>
>Mobil 1 does come in 5W20. That's what I run in my CRV. For a long time
>that was the only choice for that weight. Its starting to appear in other
>brands now also.


Sounds good. Thanks.

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

jim beam wrote:
>
> On 01/23/2010 04:54 PM, jim wrote:
> >
> >
> > jim beam wrote:
> >
> >>
> >> /what/ iron in exhaust valves? you evidently didn't bother to read the
> >> exhaust valve alloy cite i gave you. you still carefully snipped it though.
> >
> >
> > I didn't see anything on that web page that would suggest your valves
> > are not mostly made of iron. you can google all you want, but the main
> > constituent of your valve is still iron.
>
> "you can google all you want, but the main constituent of your valve is
> still iron"
>
> translation: "you don't agree with facts, so you're just going to ignore
> them". way to go dude.
>

I didn't ignore anything. The page contained a listing of different
types of steels used in valves.

Can't you read the first sentence:

"Valve Steels - Various steels are available, these include the
following:"

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

>>>> A CR-V will not require anything super dooper. When buying, look for an
>>>> "Oil Change Special" (oil + filter) at the local parts store and call it
>>>> good!
>>>>
>>> A US Market CR-V requires 5W20 weight oil per the mfr. You're not likely to
>>> find that at any "oil change special" unless its the Honda dealer. If you
>>> run anything else in it, they could invalidate the warranty if there are any
>>> oil related engine problems.
>>>
>> The Oil Change specials at every place I have been to cover 5w20.
>
> OK & that is the point - make sure the "special" actually covers what your
> car requires.

Yea.... Buying the appropriate viscosity oil was sorta implied! :)

I had places like Auto Zone and Kragen in mind; not the guy on the
corner, selling who-knows-what out the back of his pickup!

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 07:11:56 -0800, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>On 01/23/2010 06:57 AM, Guy wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 08:36:03 -0600, "E. Meyer"<e.p.meyer@verizon.net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/21/10 12:31 AM, in article 2vS5n.2479$CM7.1688@newsfe04.iad, "Greg"
>>> <nospam@null.net> wrote:
>>>
>>>> A CR-V will not require anything super dooper. When buying, look for an
>>>> "Oil Change Special" (oil + filter) at the local parts store and call it
>>>> good!
>>>>
>>>
>>> A US Market CR-V requires 5W20 weight oil per the mfr. You're not likely to
>>> find that at any "oil change special" unless its the Honda dealer. If you
>>> run anything else in it, they could invalidate the warranty if there are any
>>> oil related engine problems.
>>
>>
>> Pardon me for asking a dumb question but does Mobil1 come in different
>> viscosities like 5W20, etc... ?
>
>how about this for a dumb:
>
>"is your browser broken? can't you get mobil1.com"?
>
>ridiculous attention-seeking.


Boy it must be great being you. Just be sure to take your meds.

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:28:49 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
wrote:

>
>
>jim beam wrote:
>>
>> On 01/23/2010 04:54 PM, jim wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > jim beam wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> /what/ iron in exhaust valves? you evidently didn't bother to read the
>> >> exhaust valve alloy cite i gave you. you still carefully snipped it though.
>> >
>> >
>> > I didn't see anything on that web page that would suggest your valves
>> > are not mostly made of iron. you can google all you want, but the main
>> > constituent of your valve is still iron.
>>
>> "you can google all you want, but the main constituent of your valve is
>> still iron"
>>
>> translation: "you don't agree with facts, so you're just going to ignore
>> them". way to go dude.
>>
>
>I didn't ignore anything. The page contained a listing of different
>types of steels used in valves.
>
>Can't you read the first sentence:
>
>"Valve Steels - Various steels are available, these include the
>following:"


Jim, you're just too nice dealing with that dipshit (to use his own
words). You know I don't recall with all his name calling, you ever
called him back a name. You"re one helluva polite guy <g> !!!!

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:57:18 -0600, "Guy" <void@void.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:28:49 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/23/2010 04:54 PM, jim wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > jim beam wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> /what/ iron in exhaust valves? you evidently didn't bother to read the
>>> >> exhaust valve alloy cite i gave you. you still carefully snipped it though.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I didn't see anything on that web page that would suggest your valves
>>> > are not mostly made of iron. you can google all you want, but the main
>>> > constituent of your valve is still iron.
>>>
>>> "you can google all you want, but the main constituent of your valve is
>>> still iron"
>>>
>>> translation: "you don't agree with facts, so you're just going to ignore
>>> them". way to go dude.
>>>
>>
>>I didn't ignore anything. The page contained a listing of different
>>types of steels used in valves.
>>
>>Can't you read the first sentence:
>>
>>"Valve Steels - Various steels are available, these include the
>>following:"
>
>
>Jim, you're just too nice dealing with that dipshit (to use his own
>words). You know I don't recall with all his name calling, you ever
>called him back a name. You"re one helluva polite guy <g> !!!!


My bad wrong Jim... Jim Beam you are the dipshit.

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:28:49 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
wrote:

>
>
>jim beam wrote:
>>
>> On 01/23/2010 04:54 PM, jim wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > jim beam wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> /what/ iron in exhaust valves? you evidently didn't bother to read the
>> >> exhaust valve alloy cite i gave you. you still carefully snipped it though.
>> >
>> >
>> > I didn't see anything on that web page that would suggest your valves
>> > are not mostly made of iron. you can google all you want, but the main
>> > constituent of your valve is still iron.
>>
>> "you can google all you want, but the main constituent of your valve is
>> still iron"
>>
>> translation: "you don't agree with facts, so you're just going to ignore
>> them". way to go dude.
>>
>
>I didn't ignore anything. The page contained a listing of different
>types of steels used in valves.
>
>Can't you read the first sentence:
>
>"Valve Steels - Various steels are available, these include the
>following:"


Now to try to correct my earlier mistake of posting this to the wrong
Jim.........

Jim, you're just too nice dealing with that dipshit (to use his own
words). You know I don't recall with all his name calling, you ever
called him back a name. You"re one helluva polite guy <g> !!!!

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:28:49 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
wrote:

>
>
>jim beam wrote:
>>
>> On 01/23/2010 04:54 PM, jim wrote:
>> >
>> >
>> > jim beam wrote:
>> >
>> >>
>> >> /what/ iron in exhaust valves? you evidently didn't bother to read the
>> >> exhaust valve alloy cite i gave you. you still carefully snipped it though.
>> >
>> >
>> > I didn't see anything on that web page that would suggest your valves
>> > are not mostly made of iron. you can google all you want, but the main
>> > constituent of your valve is still iron.
>>
>> "you can google all you want, but the main constituent of your valve is
>> still iron"
>>
>> translation: "you don't agree with facts, so you're just going to ignore
>> them". way to go dude.
>>
>
>I didn't ignore anything. The page contained a listing of different
>types of steels used in valves.
>
>Can't you read the first sentence:
>
>"Valve Steels - Various steels are available, these include the
>following:"




Either I'm sleepy or my newsreader is messing up so I'll give this one
more try to post to the correct person.....

Jim, you're just too nice dealing with that dipshit (to use his own
words). You know I don't recall with all his name calling, you ever
called him back a name. You"re one helluva polite guy <g> !!!!

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:39:39 -0600, "Guy" <void@void.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:28:49 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/23/2010 04:54 PM, jim wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > jim beam wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> /what/ iron in exhaust valves? you evidently didn't bother to read the
>>> >> exhaust valve alloy cite i gave you. you still carefully snipped it though.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I didn't see anything on that web page that would suggest your valves
>>> > are not mostly made of iron. you can google all you want, but the main
>>> > constituent of your valve is still iron.
>>>
>>> "you can google all you want, but the main constituent of your valve is
>>> still iron"
>>>
>>> translation: "you don't agree with facts, so you're just going to ignore
>>> them". way to go dude.
>>>
>>
>>I didn't ignore anything. The page contained a listing of different
>>types of steels used in valves.
>>
>>Can't you read the first sentence:
>>
>>"Valve Steels - Various steels are available, these include the
>>following:"
>
>
>
>
>Either I'm sleepy or my newsreader is messing up so I'll give this one
>more try to post to the correct person.....
>
>Jim, you're just too nice dealing with that dipshit (to use his own
>words). You know I don't recall with all his name calling, you ever
>called him back a name. You"re one helluva polite guy <g> !!!!


Looks to me like my newsreader is bad so I'm going to post this under
my name now......I'll figure what is wrong tomorrow morning.

Bottom line is Jim is just too nice and Jim Beam is a dipshit (using
his own words).

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

On 01/23/2010 07:28 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>>
>> On 01/23/2010 04:54 PM, jim wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>> /what/ iron in exhaust valves? you evidently didn't bother to read the
>>>> exhaust valve alloy cite i gave you. you still carefully snipped it though.
>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't see anything on that web page that would suggest your valves
>>> are not mostly made of iron. you can google all you want, but the main
>>> constituent of your valve is still iron.
>>
>> "you can google all you want, but the main constituent of your valve is
>> still iron"
>>
>> translation: "you don't agree with facts, so you're just going to ignore
>> them". way to go dude.
>>
>
> I didn't ignore anything. The page contained a listing of different
> types of steels used in valves.
>
> Can't you read the first sentence:
>
> "Valve Steels - Various steels are available, these include the
> following:"

nimonics aren't steels, dipshit.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nimonic

and for the steels, three of those listed aren't used any more! but for
the ones that are, read the alloy numbers, look them up and note their
alloying proportions. a massively dumbed down analogy for you [sic]: if
you mix charcoal with sand, how well does it burn? [rhetorical]

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

On 01/23/2010 09:45 PM, Guy wrote:
> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:39:39 -0600, "Guy"<void@void.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:28:49 -0600, jim<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 01/23/2010 04:54 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> /what/ iron in exhaust valves? you evidently didn't bother to read the
>>>>>> exhaust valve alloy cite i gave you. you still carefully snipped it though.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't see anything on that web page that would suggest your valves
>>>>> are not mostly made of iron. you can google all you want, but the main
>>>>> constituent of your valve is still iron.
>>>>
>>>> "you can google all you want, but the main constituent of your valve is
>>>> still iron"
>>>>
>>>> translation: "you don't agree with facts, so you're just going to ignore
>>>> them". way to go dude.
>>>>
>>>
>>> I didn't ignore anything. The page contained a listing of different
>>> types of steels used in valves.
>>>
>>> Can't you read the first sentence:
>>>
>>> "Valve Steels - Various steels are available, these include the
>>> following:"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>> Either I'm sleepy or my newsreader is messing up so I'll give this one
>> more try to post to the correct person.....
>>
>> Jim, you're just too nice dealing with that dipshit (to use his own
>> words). You know I don't recall with all his name calling, you ever
>> called him back a name. You"re one helluva polite guy<g> !!!!
>
>
> Looks to me like my newsreader is bad so I'm going to post this under
> my name now......I'll figure what is wrong tomorrow morning.
>
> Bottom line is Jim is just too nice and Jim Beam is a dipshit (using
> his own words).

five posts to up each and every time??? idiot drunken retard.

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

As I said before. There is nothing on that page that even vaguely suggests your
valves are not made from mostly iron . Eaton corp. makes the valves for North
American Hondas. and they say their automotive valves are steel (typically around 75%
iron). They do make some exotic alloys that are used for motorcycle valves but not
automobiles.



jim beam wrote: nothing meaningful

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

On 01/24/2010 08:25 AM, jim wrote:
> As I said before. There is nothing on that page that even vaguely suggests your
> valves are not made from mostly iron .

yes there is - look up the compositions for the alloy numbers!!!! and
having had this repeated to you multiple times, aren't you starting to
have the slightest suspicion that once alloyed, a material's properties
might change? otherwise, wouldn't we all be using pure elementals?


> Eaton corp. makes the valves for North
> American Hondas. and they say their automotive valves are steel (typically around 75%
> iron). They do make some exotic alloys that are used for motorcycle valves but not
> automobiles.

red herring. it doesn't matter /who/ makes them or /what/ you say they
say. fact is, these alloys comply with spec - as outlined in the cites
i gave you.


> jim beam wrote: nothing meaningful

dude, even a single-celled organism is more receptive to learning
than you. you consistently snip and avoid everything that directly
contradicts you, and just keep on repeating the same ignorant bullshit.
why? [rhetorical] you may be bent because you don't like being shown
to be a retard, but there's no excuse for continuing to piss in the
knowledge pool with stuff that is just plain wrong.

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

I'll take the OEMs' word for it over your contorted and twisted logic as to how that web
page (plus some additional unspecified googling) tells you anything about Honda exhaust
valves.

jim beam once again wrote:

nothing meaningful.

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

On 01/24/2010 09:31 AM, jim wrote:
> I'll take the OEMs' word for it over your contorted and twisted logic as to how that web
> page (plus some additional unspecified googling) tells you anything about Honda exhaust
> valves.

dude, read the ing cites. exhaust valve alloys are chosen because
of heat and burn resistance. end of story. stop your denial.


>
> jim beam once again wrote:
>
> nothing meaningful.

idiot.

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 22:57:18 -0600, "Guy" <void@void.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:28:49 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
>wrote:
>
>>
>>
>>jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/23/2010 04:54 PM, jim wrote:
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > jim beam wrote:
>>> >
>>> >>
>>> >> /what/ iron in exhaust valves? you evidently didn't bother to read the
>>> >> exhaust valve alloy cite i gave you. you still carefully snipped it though.
>>> >
>>> >
>>> > I didn't see anything on that web page that would suggest your valves
>>> > are not mostly made of iron. you can google all you want, but the main
>>> > constituent of your valve is still iron.
>>>
>>> "you can google all you want, but the main constituent of your valve is
>>> still iron"
>>>
>>> translation: "you don't agree with facts, so you're just going to ignore
>>> them". way to go dude.
>>>
>>
>>I didn't ignore anything. The page contained a listing of different
>>types of steels used in valves.
>>
>>Can't you read the first sentence:
>>
>>"Valve Steels - Various steels are available, these include the
>>following:"
>
>
>Jim, you're just too nice dealing with that dipshit (to use his own
>words). You know I don't recall with all his name calling, you ever
>called him back a name. You"re one helluva polite guy <g> !!!!


test

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:45:49 -0600, "Guy" <void@void.com> wrote:

>On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:39:39 -0600, "Guy" <void@void.com> wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:28:49 -0600, jim <"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>jim beam wrote:
>>>>
>>>> On 01/23/2010 04:54 PM, jim wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > jim beam wrote:
>>>> >
>>>> >>
>>>> >> /what/ iron in exhaust valves? you evidently didn't bother to read the
>>>> >> exhaust valve alloy cite i gave you. you still carefully snipped it though.
>>>> >
>>>> >
>>>> > I didn't see anything on that web page that would suggest your valves
>>>> > are not mostly made of iron. you can google all you want, but the main
>>>> > constituent of your valve is still iron.
>>>>
>>>> "you can google all you want, but the main constituent of your valve is
>>>> still iron"
>>>>
>>>> translation: "you don't agree with facts, so you're just going to ignore
>>>> them". way to go dude.
>>>>
>>>
>>>I didn't ignore anything. The page contained a listing of different
>>>types of steels used in valves.
>>>
>>>Can't you read the first sentence:
>>>
>>>"Valve Steels - Various steels are available, these include the
>>>following:"
>>
>>
>>
>>
>>Either I'm sleepy or my newsreader is messing up so I'll give this one
>>more try to post to the correct person.....
>>
>>Jim, you're just too nice dealing with that dipshit (to use his own
>>words). You know I don't recall with all his name calling, you ever
>>called him back a name. You"re one helluva polite guy <g> !!!!
>
>
>Looks to me like my newsreader is bad so I'm going to post this under
>my name now......I'll figure what is wrong tomorrow morning.
>
>Bottom line is Jim is just too nice and Jim Beam is a dipshit (using
>his own words).


test

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:57:12 -0800, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>On 01/23/2010 09:45 PM, Guy wrote:
>> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:39:39 -0600, "Guy"<void@void.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:28:49 -0600, jim<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> On 01/23/2010 04:54 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> /what/ iron in exhaust valves? you evidently didn't bother to read the
>>>>>>> exhaust valve alloy cite i gave you. you still carefully snipped it though.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't see anything on that web page that would suggest your valves
>>>>>> are not mostly made of iron. you can google all you want, but the main
>>>>>> constituent of your valve is still iron.
>>>>>
>>>>> "you can google all you want, but the main constituent of your valve is
>>>>> still iron"
>>>>>
>>>>> translation: "you don't agree with facts, so you're just going to ignore
>>>>> them". way to go dude.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I didn't ignore anything. The page contained a listing of different
>>>> types of steels used in valves.
>>>>
>>>> Can't you read the first sentence:
>>>>
>>>> "Valve Steels - Various steels are available, these include the
>>>> following:"
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> Either I'm sleepy or my newsreader is messing up so I'll give this one
>>> more try to post to the correct person.....
>>>
>>> Jim, you're just too nice dealing with that dipshit (to use his own
>>> words). You know I don't recall with all his name calling, you ever
>>> called him back a name. You"re one helluva polite guy<g> !!!!
>>
>>
>> Looks to me like my newsreader is bad so I'm going to post this under
>> my name now......I'll figure what is wrong tomorrow morning.
>>
>> Bottom line is Jim is just too nice and Jim Beam is a dipshit (using
>> his own words).
>
>five posts to up each and every time??? idiot drunken retard.

No that's you.
The problem is the software but I have yet to find the setting unless
it's built in. I doubt this will show correctly at my end after this
post is posted. Maybe it will show correctly at your end.

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

On 01/24/2010 09:57 AM, Guy wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:57:12 -0800, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 01/23/2010 09:45 PM, Guy wrote:
>>> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:39:39 -0600, "Guy"<void@void.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:28:49 -0600, jim<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> On 01/23/2010 04:54 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> /what/ iron in exhaust valves? you evidently didn't bother to read the
>>>>>>>> exhaust valve alloy cite i gave you. you still carefully snipped it though.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I didn't see anything on that web page that would suggest your valves
>>>>>>> are not mostly made of iron. you can google all you want, but the main
>>>>>>> constituent of your valve is still iron.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "you can google all you want, but the main constituent of your valve is
>>>>>> still iron"
>>>>>>
>>>>>> translation: "you don't agree with facts, so you're just going to ignore
>>>>>> them". way to go dude.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I didn't ignore anything. The page contained a listing of different
>>>>> types of steels used in valves.
>>>>>
>>>>> Can't you read the first sentence:
>>>>>
>>>>> "Valve Steels - Various steels are available, these include the
>>>>> following:"
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Either I'm sleepy or my newsreader is messing up so I'll give this one
>>>> more try to post to the correct person.....
>>>>
>>>> Jim, you're just too nice dealing with that dipshit (to use his own
>>>> words). You know I don't recall with all his name calling, you ever
>>>> called him back a name. You"re one helluva polite guy<g> !!!!
>>>
>>>
>>> Looks to me like my newsreader is bad so I'm going to post this under
>>> my name now......I'll figure what is wrong tomorrow morning.
>>>
>>> Bottom line is Jim is just too nice and Jim Beam is a dipshit (using
>>> his own words).
>>
>> five posts to up each and every time??? idiot drunken retard.
>
> No that's you.
> The problem is the software but I have yet to find the setting unless
> it's built in. I doubt this will show correctly at my end after this
> post is posted. Maybe it will show correctly at your end.

/nothing/ you post shows correctly at my end - it's always looks like
retarded drivel of an attention-seeking idiot that can't wipe his own ass.

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 10:02:16 -0800, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>On 01/24/2010 09:57 AM, Guy wrote:
>> On Sun, 24 Jan 2010 07:57:12 -0800, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 01/23/2010 09:45 PM, Guy wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 23:39:39 -0600, "Guy"<void@void.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Sat, 23 Jan 2010 21:28:49 -0600, jim<"sjedgingN0Sp"@m@mwt,net>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 01/23/2010 04:54 PM, jim wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> /what/ iron in exhaust valves? you evidently didn't bother to read the
>>>>>>>>> exhaust valve alloy cite i gave you. you still carefully snipped it though.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I didn't see anything on that web page that would suggest your valves
>>>>>>>> are not mostly made of iron. you can google all you want, but the main
>>>>>>>> constituent of your valve is still iron.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> "you can google all you want, but the main constituent of your valve is
>>>>>>> still iron"
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> translation: "you don't agree with facts, so you're just going to ignore
>>>>>>> them". way to go dude.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I didn't ignore anything. The page contained a listing of different
>>>>>> types of steels used in valves.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Can't you read the first sentence:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> "Valve Steels - Various steels are available, these include the
>>>>>> following:"
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Either I'm sleepy or my newsreader is messing up so I'll give this one
>>>>> more try to post to the correct person.....
>>>>>
>>>>> Jim, you're just too nice dealing with that dipshit (to use his own
>>>>> words). You know I don't recall with all his name calling, you ever
>>>>> called him back a name. You"re one helluva polite guy<g> !!!!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Looks to me like my newsreader is bad so I'm going to post this under
>>>> my name now......I'll figure what is wrong tomorrow morning.
>>>>
>>>> Bottom line is Jim is just too nice and Jim Beam is a dipshit (using
>>>> his own words).
>>>
>>> five posts to up each and every time??? idiot drunken retard.
>>
>> No that's you.
>> The problem is the software but I have yet to find the setting unless
>> it's built in. I doubt this will show correctly at my end after this
>> post is posted. Maybe it will show correctly at your end.
>
>/nothing/ you post shows correctly at my end - it's always looks like
>retarded drivel of an attention-seeking idiot that can't wipe his own ass.
>

You sound like you talk outa your ass.

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

jim beam wrote:

> On 01/24/2010 09:31 AM, jim wrote:
> > I'll take the OEMs' word for it over your contorted and twisted logic as to how that web
> > page (plus some additional unspecified googling) tells you anything about Honda exhaust
> > valves.
>
> dude, read the ing cites. exhaust valve alloys are chosen because
> of heat and burn resistance. end of story. stop your denial.
>

You would have to say something first before I could deny it. You have said nothing.

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

On 1/23/10 9:45 PM, in article LmP6n.5178$kQ5.2790@newsfe08.iad, "Greg"
<nospam@null.net> wrote:

>
>>>>> A CR-V will not require anything super dooper. When buying, look for an
>>>>> "Oil Change Special" (oil + filter) at the local parts store and call it
>>>>> good!
>>>>>
>>>> A US Market CR-V requires 5W20 weight oil per the mfr. You're not likely
>>>> to
>>>> find that at any "oil change special" unless its the Honda dealer. If you
>>>> run anything else in it, they could invalidate the warranty if there are
>>>> any
>>>> oil related engine problems.
>>>>
>>> The Oil Change specials at every place I have been to cover 5w20.
>>
>> OK & that is the point - make sure the "special" actually covers what your
>> car requires.
>
> Yea.... Buying the appropriate viscosity oil was sorta implied! :)
>
> I had places like Auto Zone and Kragen in mind; not the guy on the
> corner, selling who-knows-what out the back of his pickup!

I misread your intent. I was thinking the "$29.95 special" at quicky-lube
or similar where you don't have any idea what they're doing or using most of
the time.

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

On 01/24/2010 11:43 AM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote:
>
>> On 01/24/2010 09:31 AM, jim wrote:
>>> I'll take the OEMs' word for it over your contorted and twisted logic as to how that web
>>> page (plus some additional unspecified googling) tells you anything about Honda exhaust
>>> valves.
>>
>> dude, read the ing cites. exhaust valve alloys are chosen because
>> of heat and burn resistance. end of story. stop your denial.
>>
>
> You would have to say something first before I could deny it. You have said nothing.
>

wow, denial /and/ delusion!!!

idiot.

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

jim beam wrote: nothing as usual

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 18:21:49 -0800, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:

>On 01/16/2010 10:54 AM, jim wrote:
>>
>>
>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>> On 01/16/2010 07:41 AM, jim wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What good is a source that you can verify?
>>>>>
>>>>> wow, what a classic! hey, books are no good if you can actually read them!!
>>>>
>>>> It does no good to give you something to read. What good does it do to
>>>> provide you with a source for a technical bulletin from Cummins?
>>>> Literature such as that is completely wasted on someone like you.
>>>
>>> because i can point out that you don't understand what you're looking at
>>> and quoting out of context?
>>
>> No you can't or at least you never have. You have yet to point anything
>> at all. You claim what i say is wrong but you have yet to explain the
>> basis for saying that.
>
>false statement. i have done so repeatedly. and at this point, you
>continuing to say that is just pure dishonesty.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> clearly you've never done analysis or been in a chemistry lab. to say
>>> you can't determine the composition is ridiculous.
>>
>> Who said "you can't determine the composition"? Where did that come
>> from?
>
>er, from the cite you've apparently not bothered to read properly?
>
>
>>
>>> to say you can't
>>> measure organics with metal spectroscopy would be true, but they're not
>>> saying that, they're making a ridiculous blanket statement that is
>>> incorrect. and you wouldn't be straw clutching if you had a clue.
>>
>> You could explain what statement that I made is incorrect? And (more
>> important) why is it incorrect? Try that for once in your life.
>
>rtfc, then read my post one more time, dipshit. your reading
>comprehension is failing badly.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Low wear
>>>>>> metal levels in used oil samples can reflect high oil consumption rates
>>>>>> and dilution with new oil added to replace that consumed. Low wear metal
>>>>>> levels in used oil samples can also reflect additional contamination and
>>>>>> wear debris. Engine oil operated beyond this saturation point often
>>>>>> drops contamination and wear debris out as sludge. This results in
>>>>>> declining wear metal levels at increasing kilometers [miles] or hours on
>>>>>> the oil. This does not mean that wear rates are decreasing and oil
>>>>>> condition is improving. It means that oil analysis becomes meaningless
>>>>>> after the engine oil is excessively contaminated.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> [END QUOTE]
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Notice the last sentence in that quote.
>>>>>
>>>>> er, you're failing to comprehend basic context.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What's the problem? Is "meaningless" too big a word for you?
>>>
>>> i know what "saturation" means. you clearly don't.
>>
>>
>> But of course like always you can't explain a single thing. Cummins
>> used the word "saturation" to mean the point at which oil will start to
>> lose some of the suspended wear particles. They were making the point
>> that if the wear metal ends up somewhere else then it does not get
>> accounted for in oil analysis. So what is your point about the word
>> saturation?
>
>you are dishonestly and wrongly saying that oil loses its ability to
>maintain suspension before saturation. that's completely incorrect. and
>you're dishonestly fudging about where saturation point is.
>
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The study from SWRI indicates that oil starts to become saturated with
>>>>>> contaminants at 20 hours of operation.
>>>>>
>>>>> wow dude, you truly have a serious reading comprehension problem.
>>>>> "saturation" does not come anywhere /near/ 20 hours - that's when it
>>>>> /starts/ to become /measurable/.
>>>>
>>>> Yes at 20 hours of use is when SWRI said their experiment showed
>>>> evidence that clean new oil starts to no longer hold 100% of the wear
>>>> particles in suspension.
>>>
>>> ok, two things:
>>>
>>> 1. don't snip the stuff that's inconvenient. you've consistently cut
>>> context throughout this thread. that means you're either too dim to
>>> follow the argument or you're not honest enough to argue the facts.
>>
>> You have never said anything.
>
>false statement.
>
>
>> You have nothing but miles and miles of
>> empty rhetoric. All you can say is "Bullshit" and "see above". You have
>> never said one thing that has any substance. And now your whining that
>> some of your empty blathering got snipped?
>
>you're dishonestly snipping the cites that contradict you. that makes
>you a bullshitter - you can't man up and face the facts.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>> 2. the exact quote is:
>>> "radiotracer wear data showed that filtration had no noticeable affect
>>> on wear particle removal until approximately 20 hours into the
>>> oil-conditioning test run". that does /not/ mean the oil is starting to
>>> fail after 20 hours. it means there is insufficient contamination onto
>>> which radiotracer can adsorb. [a-D-s-o-r-b - look it up.]
>>
>> I didn't say the oil was starting to fail. I said It was evidence that
>> the oil could no longer hold 100% of the wear particles in suspension at
>> 20 hours (I think I must have said that about 20 times now).
>
>and you're still 20x wrong!
>
>
>> That leads
>> to the obvious conclusions that if the oil is not holding all the
>> particles in suspension
>
>it's not an "obvious conclusion" because you're wrong! and you can't
>read. and you're too ing stoooopid to learn.
>
>
>> then A) they must be ending up somewhere else
>> and B) measuring the wear particles in the oil will not detect those
>> missing particles.
>
>a. wrong.
>
>b. right, but a false conclusion because a. is wrong.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> And yes that does not mean the oil is fully
>>>> saturated with dirt. The oil at that point is capable of gaining new
>>>> particles, but the oil is also capable of losing some particles.
>>>
>>> but that is normal each time you turn an engine off dipshit! jeepers.
>>
>> What is it that you are saying is normal? Try for once to say a single
>> statement clearly. Can you?
>
>how about this for a clear single statement: "you are an ignorant
>bullshitter."
>
>
>>
>>
>> The drop out of wear particles from the oil after 20 hours occurs even
>> when the engine is running.
>
>wrong.
>
>
>> The evidence that wear particles end up in
>> the filter means the particles are starting to stick to things.
>
>wow, amazingly wrong! filtration works by adhesion??? that's a classic!
>
>
>> The
>> purpose of the additives are to keep the very small wear particle (and
>> other types of particles, too) in the oil from sticking to things.
>
>/which/ additives, dipshit? the seal conditioners? they're not in to
>prevent "sticking". the anti-foaming agents? they're not there to
>prevent "sticking". the anti-oxidants? they're not there to prevent
>"sticking". the acidity controllers? they're not there to prevent
>"sticking". the e.p. additives? they're not there to prevent
>"sticking". what about the detergents? they're there to keep wear and
>combustion product in suspension so the filter can do its job. but
>that's not anything to do with "sticking" either.
>
>> When
>> you start to see evidence that particles are becoming sticky that means
>> the additives that are supposed to prevent that from happening are
>> becoming less effective.
>
>you can see "sticky" particles <10 microns??? wow dude, you should work
>for nasa!
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> This is
>>>> because the wear particles that are held in the oil start to get sticky
>>>> because the additives that are designed to keep the small particles from
>>>> being sticky are starting to lose their effectiveness.
>>>
>>> no! the oil loses effectiveness once it is saturated, it's base breaks
>>> down, or it loses basicity. this is why you do analysis - to determine
>>> the point at which those things occur in your application!
>>>
>> Please try to stay on topic. We are not talking about whether the oil
>> loses effectiveness. We are examining your claim that dirty oil protects
>> an engine from wear better than clean oil does.
>
>wow dude, effectiveness is unimportant??? that's a classic! any more
>of my words you want to mis-state???.
>
>
>>
>> Your claim is false. The only reason anyone thinks it is true is
>> because they have relied on inaccurate methods for measuring actual
>> engine wear.
>
>nope, wrong. you can't read.
>
>
>> This is simply a case of bad accounting. the reason you
>> think there is less wear with dirty oil is because there are less wear
>> particles present in the oil. But that is only because you have failed
>> to account for the wear particles that dropped out of the oil.
>
>because the oil has "failed" after only 20 hours???!!! utter bullshit.
>
>
>> Cummins explanation of the pitfalls of oil analysis is much better than
>> mine:
>>
>> "declining wear metal levels.....
>> does not mean that wear rates are
>> decreasing and oil condition is
>> improving."
>
>you're deliberately quoting out of context - you dishonestly snipped the
>part about "beyond saturation".
>
>
>>
>>
>> They are directly addressing the falacy of your position. Your position
>> is not something new. You are not alone in your mistaken opinion.
>> Automotive engineers are quite aware that some people believe that lower
>> rates of wear metals in dirty oil leads some people to the erroneous
>> conclusion that dirty oil causes less wear than clean oil.
>
>false statement, see above.
>
>
>>
>>
>>> and this is why it's used on countless billions of dollars of machinery,
>>> globally, from industry to military to aerospace. but not one
>>> closed-minded wrench stuck working night shift. duh.
>>
>> Neither I nor Cummins ever said oil analysis has no use. If you read
>> that entire service bulletin Cummins gives a long list of scenarios
>> where oil analysis is useful and helpful.
>>
>> All I have said is your claim that old dirty oil causes less wear than
>> fresh oil is absolutely false. Your reliance the SWRI study to bolster
>> your claim fails to do that.
>
>deliberately false statement - you keep trying to use "beyond
>saturation" statements as if they apply to "pre saturation". they
>don't. and to say they do is either retarded or dishonest.
>
>
>>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> And those
>>>> particles that drop out of the oil either end up in the oil filter or in
>>>> other places like sticking to the walls of the crankcase.
>>>
>>> except that they don't! the wrench that doesn't bother to look at his
>>> own engines!
>>
>>
>> All anyone needs to do is wipe a finger on the inside of a valve cover
>> to make a determination of whether dirt particles are dropping out of
>> the oil and sticking to things inside the engine. The simple fact is
>> that most engines do have some dirt deposited on the inside of the
>> engine and therefore you will end up with some dirt on your finger. This
>> is generally regarded as normal and there is no good evidence that it
>> will shorten the life of an engine.
>
>relentless with the bullshit, aren't you.
>
>no, "dirt" on your finger comes from either the combustion/wear product
>properly held in suspension by the oil, which properly coats the
>surfaces. or it comes from deposition. but deposition ONLY occurs
>after the oil has started to fail. if you use analysis correctly, you
>determine what that failure point is, and thus avoid deposition! duh.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> The experiment showed that at 20 hours is the point where you can
>>>> expect some of the wear particles to start to disappear from the oil.
>>>
>>> no. see above. you can't read.
>>
>> Oh we're back to "see above". And once again there is nothing at all
>> above to see.
>
>you missed a bit - let me correct it for you:
>
>"And once again there is nothing at all above to see after i've snipped
>what i don't like and can't man up to addressing".
>
>there you go.
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> And as the quote from Cummins says "declining wear metal levels.....
>>>> does not mean that wear rates are decreasing and oil condition is
>>>> improving." As you can see Cummins is precisely addressing the fallacy
>>>> in SWRI's reasoning.
>>>
>>> quoted out of context. that is true beyond saturation, not before, and
>>> that's not what cummins are saying. and oil is not saturated at 20 hours!!!
>>
>> No body said that it was.
>
>er, when you say that oil starts to deposit wear/combustion product
>after only 20 hours, that's exactly what you /are/ saying.
>
>
>> The experiment demonstrated that wear
>> particles start to become sticky
>
>no it doesn't!
>
>
>> and start to stick to things after 20
>> hours of operation. The article said:
>>
>> "radiotracer wear data showed that filtration
>> had no noticeable affect on wear particle removal
>> until approximately 20 hours into the
>> oil-conditioning test run"
>>
>> What that means is that before 20 hours the additives were 100%
>> effective at keeping wear particles in suspension in the oil. After 20
>> hours the additive package was no longer 100% effective at keeping the
>> particles from sticking to things.
>
>wow dude. how do you do it? i mean, draw utterly nonsense unrelated
>conclusions from such a simple statement of fact?
>
>
>> That means that some of the particles
>> stick to each other in clumps and start to show up in the oil filter.
>
>no, it means that only 20 hours in - that's approximately 600 miles in,
>there is no noticeable wear product created to measure!
>
>
>> But there is no accounting for particles that end up elsewhere.
>
>because they only exist in your fantasy!
>
>
>> As the
>> Cummins bulletin also stated one place the wear particles can disappear
>> to is inside the combustion chamber.
>
>of course, the black hole!
>
>
>> And The SWRI report never stated
>> how much less wear particles they found in the old dirty oil so we can
>> only guess what that number might be.
>
>but you can guess all kinds of wrong conclusions!
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> That is the point where they
>>>>>> found evidence that the wear particles started to clump together and the
>>>>>> oil was no longer capable of holding all the radioactive wear particles
>>>>>> in suspension.
>>>>>
>>>>> beyond saturation! jeepers - the simple obvious stuff /really/ has you
>>>>> in knots!
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> It is apparently not so simple and obvious for you.
>>>
>>> don't put false words in my mouth bullshitter. you don't know what
>>> saturation is - it's real simple and obvious.
>>>
>>
>> What is this sudden infatuation with the word "saturation". Cummins
>> used that word in there service bulletin and now you are spinning in
>> circles around this word.
>
>i need to keep repeating it because you don't acknowledge or understand it!
>
>
>>
>> The SWRI study never used this word saturation, but they did give an
>> adequate description so that the reader can tell at what point the oil
>> was no longer able to hold 100% of the wear particles in suspension.
>
>to anyone interested in this topic, "saturation" is an obvious concept
>and taken for granted. just like they don't bother to define "engine"
>or "filter" or "oil" either.
>
>did you ever do high school chemistry? [rhetorical]
>
>
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The factual evidence this study presents appear to be genuine. The
>>>>>> conclusion they reached from those facts is what is flawed.
>>>>>
>>>>> er, actually, it's your, ahem, "understanding" that is flawed.
>>>>
>>>> But of course once again you are completely incapable of expressing what
>>>> the flaw is. If the reasoning is flawed then explain why it is flawed.
>>>
>>> "saturation"! look it up!
>>
>> What if I do look it up?
>
>you look up something that you conveniently don't want to acknowledge
>because it contradicts your fantasies and bullshit!
>
>
>> I ask for an explanation of what you think is
>> the flaw in my logic and you respond with ""saturation"! look it up!".
>> I didn't even use that word neither did SWRI.
>
>that's because it's freakin' obvious, dipshit! do you need to look up
>"stoooopid" too?
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> Many
>>>>>> automotive engineers have over the last 10 years pointed out this flaw
>>>>>> in SWRI's reasoning. There is no one with any amount of intelligence
>>>>>> that accepts the fact that this study proves that dirty oil causes less
>>>>>> wear. The only thing the study proves is that dirty hold can hold less
>>>>>> wear particles than clean oil can. That is a simple fact that only fools
>>>>>> dispute. And this experiment is very long round about way to figure out
>>>>>> a simple fact that had already been known for 60 years.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> awesome pretzel logic dude! our state of engineering knowledge
>>>>> regresses over time - the more time passes and more research we do, the
>>>>> dumber and more ignorant we get! ing awesome - i'm nominating you
>>>>> for the review committee of "Journal of Tribology"!
>>>>
>>>> But you still can't explain anything Can you?
>>>
>>> false words bullshitter - i have, repeatedly. you just don't understand
>>> plain english!
>>
>> HA HA HA You have offered no explanation. You think ""saturation"! look
>> it up!" is an explanation? What is that explaining?
>
>that you're stoooopid!
>
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>> I mean, not one single
>>>> little thing. All you can do in response to any statement that refutes
>>>> your claims is to make disparaging remarks. You claim to be
>>>> knowledgeable but you have demonstrated with every single reply that you
>>>> cant answer single question or respond intelligently to a single
>>>> statement that runs contrary to your claims. The only strategy you seem
>>>> to be able to muster for responding is your feeble and ineffective
>>>> attempts to belittle others.
>>>
>>> "feeble and ineffective"? oooh, did i hit a raw nerve? remedial
>>> english classes might help you with that.
>>
>> OK here's another whole long dreary post from you where can't state a
>> single thing that is substantive or meaningful.
>
>here's something substantive and meaningful for you:
>
>1. learn to read.
>
>2. try to learn.
>
>3. try to use logic.
>
>4. don't be dishonest.
>
>then you won't be pissing in the knowledge pool with your fantasy
>underinformed ignorant bullshit.




test

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

On 01/24/2010 12:23 PM, jim wrote:
>
>
> jim beam wrote: nothing as usual

here, you snipped this:

"denial /and/ delusion!!!"

that makes you an idiot.

Re: new Honda CR-V break in
 

Is this better:

jim beam wrote:

>
> "denial /and/ delusion!!!"
>
>