Website

wrote in message
...
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:45:10 -0400, daytripper
wrote:
Juvenile? Nah...why in the world would you think that two guys over the
age of, oh, say, fraternity pledges, arguing about who paid for some gas
and beer sounds juvenile? Are you sure y'all aren't both senile and
actually remembering two different trips down to Lauderdal...
..oh...wait...had Florida been discovered when you two last had a
"spring break?" And come to think of it, there's that gas thing...are
you sure y'all shouldn't be arguing over "ethyl" and "lucy" or whatever
they put into Model Ts...and speaking of which, maybe you two oughta
just settle back with a coupla nice big glasses of Vitameatavegamin and
prune juice before Fred and Ricky make y'all do some 'splainin and
cancel the trip to Hollywood...oh, yeah...maybe have some canned
pumpkin, too...

that was well enough put, I quote it in entirety. Neither Dave flatters
himself by carrying on to this extent!!
If it helps, will both of you come down to the Penn's clave next year?....in
separate vehicles, please. You both buy your own ****ing gas, and the beers
are on me. I will find rooms for you both, gratis, if either of you is
actually as cheap as the other claims(I've met one of you, and suspect both
of you are heavily full of **** at this distant juncture from the Fall
Clave).
Tom

"JR" wrote in message
...




with these headers popping up in a quote, you know the
thread has potential.......

I wonder if I am the only roffian dreading the day when this
thread ends and there is nothing left to live for....

g
I know we've had a few minor moments at the Penn's thing, but from certain
snippets, that Fall Ball should have
been videotaped, in it's entirety.......I'm shocked that gunplay didn't
erupt.g

Tom

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:20:29 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:


wrote in message
.. .
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 18:45:10 -0400, daytripper
wrote:
Juvenile? Nah...why in the world would you think that two guys over the
age of, oh, say, fraternity pledges, arguing about who paid for some gas
and beer sounds juvenile? Are you sure y'all aren't both senile and
actually remembering two different trips down to Lauderdal...
..oh...wait...had Florida been discovered when you two last had a
"spring break?" And come to think of it, there's that gas thing...are
you sure y'all shouldn't be arguing over "ethyl" and "lucy" or whatever
they put into Model Ts...and speaking of which, maybe you two oughta
just settle back with a coupla nice big glasses of Vitameatavegamin and
prune juice before Fred and Ricky make y'all do some 'splainin and
cancel the trip to Hollywood...oh, yeah...maybe have some canned
pumpkin, too...

that was well enough put, I quote it in entirety. Neither Dave flatters
himself by carrying on to this extent!!
If it helps, will both of you come down to the Penn's clave next year?....in
separate vehicles, please. You both buy your own ****ing gas, and the beers
are on me. I will find rooms for you both, gratis, if either of you is
actually as cheap as the other claims(I've met one of you, and suspect both
of you are heavily full of **** at this distant juncture from the Fall
Clave).
Tom


Um.....thanks?

Hopefully you'll never find yourself the target of a raging hater who spends
nine years harboring an insane grudge while trying to drag you down in public
with a litany of patently obvious lies...

/daytripper

"daytripper" wrote in message
...

Hopefully you'll never find yourself the target of a raging hater who
spends
nine years harboring an insane grudge while trying to drag you down in
public
with a litany of patently obvious lies...

/daytripper

I sympathise with that thought, but do you think this sort
of ****ing match changed any opinions of where the truth
lies?? I suspect not, and frankly, after hearing this much about it, can but
feel for the other clave attendees.
Tom

On Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:59:49 GMT, "Tom Littleton" wrote:


"daytripper" wrote in message
.. .

Hopefully you'll never find yourself the target of a raging hater who
spends
nine years harboring an insane grudge while trying to drag you down in
public
with a litany of patently obvious lies...

/daytripper

I sympathise with that thought, but do you think this sort
of ****ing match changed any opinions of where the truth
lies?? I suspect not, and frankly, after hearing this much about it, can but
feel for the other clave attendees.
Tom


Well, yes, I think it's pretty clear that many lies have died today. If you
don't agree, with all due respect you couldn't have been following along.

Which is ok with me.

This has been a most distasteful exercise, one that I had suppressed for nine
long damn years, but was finally driven by yet another new lie being passed
here by my erstwhile antagonist.

And, after all, I didn't pick the venue, did I?

I didn't expect everyone to follow, nor do I expect everyone to agree. I
didn't expect those who knew better to provide any aid or comfort, but I am
thankful to those who did, and hold no grudge against those who still choose
not to. They have their reasons, no doubt.

But all things, save the universe itself, have limits.
Simply put, I reached my limit, and I said what I had to say, if only to
maintain my self-respect.

So if you still cannot understand all this, that's ok, too.

All is not lost, life will go on...

/daytripper

By the way, aside from the oft-mentioned meltdown, I doubt that anyone was
aware of anything untoward going on, before, during or after.

After all, almost nothing of what was claimed ever actually happened.
That's why they are called "lies"...

/daytripper

"daytripper" wrote in message
...

Well, yes, I think it's pretty clear that many lies have died today. If
you
don't agree, with all due respect you couldn't have been following along.

my point is that I viewed the original claims as suspect, at best
exaggerations. Nothing has changed for me today,
except that you come off as a bit less dignified than before.
Tom

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 19:50:07 -0700, rw
wrote:

wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:43:41 -0700, rw
wrote:


wrote:

If the car in question runs without combustion issues on "regular," the
only thing one ____might____ get from using a slightly higher octane
rating is marginally quicker acceleration of the car and a
proportionally higher acceleration of cash outflow...

Fuel mileage will be different.

I can run my Subaru Turbo Outback just fine on regular (premium is
recommended), but the mileage (miles/gal) is less. As close as I can
tell, it's just about as economical to run it with premium, but if a
rider thoughtfully filled it with regular I wouldn't mind one bit.


Good lord - an Outback has a turbo'ed V8?!?! Either I'm wrong about
what I think the Outback is, size-wise, or the pistons must be the size
of US half-dollars. But IAC, you shouldn't see a noticeable MPG
difference, all other factors equal

So who am I going to believe? You or my own eyes? Especially considering
that you're nearly always wrong about everything.

I really don't care what you believe, but if you believe that the
"octane rating" is a measure of "power," you're wrong. The octane
rating, as used in connection with gasoline engines, has do to with the
potential to explode under compression (without the sparkplug firing)
resulting in improper combustion or "knocking." The potential
releasable "energy" (BTUs, joules, or whatever you wish to use) in a
particular formula of gasoline (or any other engine fuel) is not
related to its octane rating. Look to the effective octane ratings of
E85 and LPG, which are in the range of AvGas (100) vs. the MPG and the
BTUs (or whatever) and then compare the effective octane rating of
diesel/kerosene/Jet-A - something about like that of a weak whisky and
water, about 15 or so, IIRC vs. its BTUs. Heck, lead is an "octane
booster" (now only in AvGas in most places) and I'd hope we'd agree that
the lead didn't add any "power."

I asked legit questions, and you snipped them. I strongly suspect that
what you observed was a result of misinformation, and if you simply wish
to spend more on "premium," that's your business.

HTH (seriously),
R

On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 20:12:29 -0700, rw
wrote:

Tom Littleton wrote:
"daytripper" wrote in message
...


Well, yes, I think it's pretty clear that many lies have died today. If
you
don't agree, with all due respect you couldn't have been following along.


my point is that I viewed the original claims as suspect, at best
exaggerations. Nothing has changed for me today,
except that you come off as a bit less dignified than before.
Tom

I suspect that if someone repeatedly posted lies about you being a
cheapskate you might feel differently.

I've seen LaCourse do this **** time and again over the years, both in
ROFF and in person, and not just to Daytripper.

Uh-huh...so if someone constantly posted that you were actually a
standard poodle called "Consuelo," you'd feel the need to correct that
misinformation, lest someone you actually know attempt to feed you
canned pumpkin to stop you rubbing your poopchute on the carpets?

wrote:
On Thu, 30 Aug 2007 14:43:41 -0700, rw
wrote:


wrote:

If the car in question runs without combustion issues on "regular," the
only thing one ____might____ get from using a slightly higher octane
rating is marginally quicker acceleration of the car and a
proportionally higher acceleration of cash outflow...

Fuel mileage will be different.

I can run my Subaru Turbo Outback just fine on regular (premium is
recommended), but the mileage (miles/gal) is less. As close as I can
tell, it's just about as economical to run it with premium, but if a
rider thoughtfully filled it with regular I wouldn't mind one bit.


Good lord - an Outback has a turbo'ed V8?!?! Either I'm wrong about
what I think the Outback is, size-wise, or the pistons must be the size
of US half-dollars. But IAC, you shouldn't see a noticeable MPG
difference, all other factors equal

So who am I going to believe? You or my own eyes? Especially considering
that you're nearly always wrong about everything.

--
Cut "to the chase" for my email address.