AutosTalk Forums  

Octane ratings.....what's the truth?

Saab Saab Automobiles Discussions (alt.autos.saab)


Discuss Octane ratings.....what's the truth? in the Saab forum.



Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
  #71  
Old   
Dave Hinz
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: Octane ratings.....what's the truth? - 04-25-2007 , 08:33 PM






On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 00:51:45 GMT, still me <wheeledBob (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote:
Quote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:45:27 +0200, "Richard" <root@localhost> wrote:


Dave,
yes...
but you sometimes tend to do the same...

No $hit. Also, he's never satisfied with the way anyone "reads" what
he writes - it looks like English but apparently it's some mysterious
alter-version where only Dave knows the true meaning.

Yeah, almost like I want people to back up with evidence when it's clear
when they're speaking out of their ass or something.



Reply With Quote
  #72  
Old   
Richard
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: Octane ratings.....what's the truth? - 04-25-2007 , 09:38 PM







"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:45:27 +0200, Richard <root@localhost> wrote:

"Dave Hinz" <DaveHinz (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote in message
news:59a9qjF2jruojU1 (AT) mid (DOT) individual.net...
On Thu, 26 Apr 2007 02:09:32 +0200, Richard <root@localhost> wrote:

Gary,

first of all:
You completely mis-interpret my words, and take them to mean something
they
do not say.

You noticed that too, did you?


Dave,
yes...
but you sometimes tend to do the same...

At least I don't nym-shift. What's YOUR excuse there, sparky?
Dave,
what is nym-shift and who is Sparky?

Richard.




Reply With Quote
  #73  
Old   
Gary Fritz
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: Octane ratings.....what's the truth? - 04-26-2007 , 11:50 AM



"Richard" <root@localhost> wrote:
Quote:
first of all:
You completely mis-interpret my words, and take them to mean something
they do not say.
I apologize. That's a weakness of written communication, and I'll freely
admit I might have responded a bit defensively.

You raise some excellent points. I don't really have any argument with
anything you said. It's possible that e.g. the storm measurement criteria
changed at various points in time, but I think it is equally possible that
the trends indicated by the data are still valid. If you look only at the
data since 1944, the data (for everything but named storms) does not look
as dramatically out of norm as the named-storm chart I referenced.

I think a number of sources indicate a very likely problem in many areas --
not absolute certainty of course, but a likely and disturbing trend. I
also think the kinds of responses that we should take IF those trends are
true (reducing wasteful energy usage, reducing pollution, etc), are
sensible responses to other issues (scarce energy sources, overpopulation,
ecological problems, etc). So it mystifies me why some people are so
resistant to even considering the possibility that there is a threat of
major climate change.

Quote:
I have put the numbers from that page in a spreadsheet and made some
nice graph of it.
I want you to see it.
Thanks, but I built my own spreadsheet, so I've probably already seen
basically the same graph.

Thanks for your sensible and reasoned comments!
Gary


Reply With Quote
  #74  
Old   
John
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: Octane ratings.....what's the truth? - 05-02-2007 , 12:11 AM




"still me" <wheeledBob (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:
On 20 Apr 2007 02:44:14 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinz (AT) gmail (DOT) com> wrote:

I was hoping for unbiased sources. Obviously you are incapable of
providing same.

Wrong conclusion. Once again, I invite you to do your own research.

At least you're nearing self-awareness. Let me guess - I've plonked you
before and you've nym-shifted yet again, right?

Aside from the fact that "plonking" is a habit of the truly lame,
you're even lamer - because you claim to plonk people and never do.

Let me repeat: what happened in the 70's is irrelevant. What is today,
is.

Riiiiight. So. One last try there sparky. Why should I believe this
batch of idiots more than the batch of idiots 20 years ago? They both
seem to have the same basic ideas, but with opposite results. What's
the real deal, and why? Hint: if you respond with abuse, that weakens
your credibility. Just so you know.

Let me try one more time: what people said 20 years ago has no bearing
on the scientific realities today. Continually claiming that it does
really makes you look very foolish.



Exposed: The Climate of Fear - Wednesday, May 2nd
The Other Side of the Global Warming Debate
CNN Headline News Channel
http://www.glennbeck.com/tv/index.shtml




Reply With Quote
  #75  
Old   
John
 
Posts: n/a

Default Re: Octane ratings.....what's the truth? - 05-02-2007 , 08:54 PM




"still me" <wheeledBob (AT) yahoo (DOT) com> wrote

Quote:
On Wed, 2 May 2007 01:11:40 -0400, "John" <john (AT) myhmg (DOT) org> wrote:


Exposed: The Climate of Fear - Wednesday, May 2nd
The Other Side of the Global Warming Debate
CNN Headline News Channel
http://www.glennbeck.com/tv/index.shtml

Now there's an unbiased source.
More?:

A book titled "Trashing the Planet" by Dixy Lee Ray




Reply With Quote
Reply




Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off



Powered by vBulletin Version 3.5.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2008, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.