Subject	is this your way of admitting you're wrong?
Posted by	Technomancer on September 09, 2005 at 9:22 AM
	This message has been viewed 45 times.
In Reply To	You write so eloquently for someone of such high education. posted by Z-Jay (Edmonton, AB) on September 08, 2005 at 11:52 PM
Message	My eloquence results from an inability to take you seriously. That effect occured several posts ago, as you might have noticed. That's all I'm really doing right now is toying with you; you know that, right? Here's a fish for you: [ http://www.gtatech.com/news_au_articl.html ] Most of their tested octane boosters are Australian, so we can't find them in the US, but there is a nice writeup on how the octane test is performed. If you look at your claim above about not "following a scientific method all the way through" you can see how laughable it is. As if some kind of DNA cross-contamination could invalidate the test. It's a big crude machine! You were just talking out of your ass, just like you have from the beginning with your claim of 87.1 to 87.2. In science by the way, when you have a published result, you give it much more weight than some assclown guessing on the internet. When you have two published results, that's called "confirmation", so you really need important contradictory results before you disbelieve. So it's just another way to dismiss you. So let's take it from the top. Your claim, 87.1 to 87.2 WRONG WRONG WRONG. Your second claim, same post, you write off octane boosters because (you imply) they need impossibly high octane WRONG WRONG WRONG. The rest of these posts are you being an ass and me pointing it out. You had the article the entire time and you still said the things you did? For the sake of charity, I should probably have more patience with ignorant people but I don't. I guess I'm not very charitable. Ask yourself, wouldn't it have been less embarassing for you to just admit you were wrong earlier? Or maybe not replied to my post at all? - John
Follow Ups	Octane question? In a 15 gallon tank of 87 octane how>> - BrianTT(TPA,FL) 14:04:35 09/07/05 It's pretty simple really - chenc544 14:10:25 09/07/05 Might want to try Toulene it's 114 octane - chenc544 14:16:05 09/07/05 Octane booster in a bottle is a waste of money - outkaZTT 14:11:02 09/07/05 2nd! "raises octane by 1-2 points" really means 87.1-87.2 - Z-Jay (Edmonton, AB) 14:32:50 09/07/05 They do in fact raise the octane 2 points. - Technomancer 15:39:30 09/07/05 Do some simple math yourself and try to figure out what kind - Z-Jay (Edmonton, AB) 16:53:49 09/07/05 Is that your way of saying lab is wrong and Z-Jay is right? - Technomancer 08:47:51 09/08/05 Just because it was an "independant" test doesn't mean they - Z-Jay (Edmonton, AB) 10:13:59 09/08/05 the purpose being what? - Technomancer 15:01:11 09/08/05 You write so eloquently for someone of such high education. - Z-Jay (Edmonton, AB) 23:52:05 09/08/05 is this your way of admitting you're wrong? - Technomancer 09:22:35 09/09/05 First, thank you for providing the link you just gave. - Z-Jay (Edmonton, AB) 13:18:10 09/09/05 Yawn. - Technomancer 16:53:49 09/09/05 More than is feasible. If the bottle says 15points - twinturbineZ 14:12:43 09/07/05 You might want to look into formulas that include toluene - boileralum 14:21:05 09/07/05 Read July 2005 issue of Sport Compact Car - Technomancer 14:41:49 09/07/05 the NOS formula is not strret legal and costs $10 for 12oz.. (n/m) - 300zxshawn 21:33:33 09/07/05 just buy a cheap car( $500 ) and fill it with that gas - sethkins88 14:44:41 09/07/05 Not likly.... - Crim 15:17:01 09/07/05 You have neglected insurance cost savings - Technomancer 15:37:57 09/07/05 You are right...but I didn't figure insurance costs into it - Crim 16:22:13 09/07/05 may be better for the areas that are temporarily out of - mousersix (San Antonio) 16:17:54 09/07/05
Post a Followup	You cannot reply to this message because you are not logged in.