Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2
It was intended to point out the absurdity in being proud of being right for the wrong reason. That is it.
|
I noticed you left out my explanation why I made light of the situation.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by footie
I just found it funny that will getting it wrong I still proved to be correct in the end.
|
It was not absurd to look at it the way I did, in fact I think most would view it as humorous and OK, I accept your position but I was only explaining how it felt being called said remark.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2
Yup we all get it wrong sometimes and I FREELY admit when I do. I can point out a couple of occasions when it has happened. Then the progression is being wrong, being honest, admitting it, thanking the person who was right and moving on. That is my style.
If you are happy with the massively limited evidence on the surge issue that is fine (for you) but I say the jury is still out, as would anyone with a reasonable threshold of evidence. You can call this a fact if you like but I absolutely do not accept it. I clearly pointed out how the existing evidence is either flawed, not apples to apples or simply inconclusive, but you simply want to and do accept it. Differing standards of evidence for sure.
|
I would conclude that with three independent cars all showing the exact same difference between S1 and S5 as pretty conclusive. I am also interested how the evidence is not apples vs apples and how it is flawed,
three independent tests showing the same results, hack even the land speed record only calls for two.
Quote:
Originally Posted by swamp2
You really can't read can you? I never said LC will not reduce clutch life, period. I simply pointed out the atrocious error in saying each use decreases the life by 1/3rd of its original lifespan. If anyone says, implies or thinks otherwise compated to both of my points they are completely devoid of common sense.
|
I think you are miss reading thing here, I was in total agreement with you.
Stop being so paranoid.