Date: 20 Apr 2007 21:00:40 GMT From: Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospaml.com> Subject: Re: Octane ratings.....what's the truth?
On Fri, 20 Apr 2007 20:35:45 GMT, still me <wheeledBobnospamo.com> wrote: > On 20 Apr 2007 02:44:14 GMT, Dave Hinz <DaveHinznospaml.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. Yawn. I was hoping that you had something factual to back up your rantings. Apparentely you do not. If I wanted algore's crap, that, I could find easy enough. Was looking for actual science, you see, and since you seem to pretend you have same, asked you for it. >>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. Show me one example, in the last dozen years, of me saying <plonk> to somoene and then responding to posts from the same address. Hint: you can't. >>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. I never "claimed" anything, I'm asking for evidence to show me I should believe this batch of idiots rather than the previous batch. It's obvious you have nothing to add to this conversation.
 |
 |
 |
 |
 |
