Advice on replacing 94-97 Accord muffler? Dealing with rubberhangers?
 

Tegger wrote:
> jim beam > wrote in
> t:
>
>> On 12/27/2009 01:29 PM, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>>> In the 1970's, I was involved in a research/documentary project where
>>> one of the issues was the destruction of the tropical corral reefs by
>>> the Acanthaster planci. There are still some who are alarmed by its
>>> continued existence. A lot of resources were devoted to remedial action
>>> but in the end, it just turned out to be a cyclical event. After that
>>> experience, I vowed then never to be misled by bad science.
>> that story would be more believable [and thus more credible] if you
>> spelled it "coral", not corral.
>>
>
>
>
> If a man who smokes tells you not to smoke because it's bad for your
> health, is his message invalid because he himself smokes? Ignore the
> (stupidly trivial) spelling mistake and pay attention to Grumpy's point.

As I just explained in a just posted reply, the "corral" instead of
coral is probably due to my habit of stuffing myself at the Golden
Corral on a weekly basis. Irony would have it that an individual who
criticizes spelling while himself cannot find a "shift" key is... well,
ironic..



> And in these days of Google, failure to do your own believability tests is
> inexcusably argumentative.
>
> I find it faintly distasteful how many Usenet/Web-board denizens demand
> cites and proofs on points that they dislike. That demand can be translated
> essentially as, "I hate what you're saying but I can't refute it (or don't
> feel like doing so), so I'll put the onus on you by making a ridiculous
> demand".
> And then there are the attempts at deflection from the core issue, like
> pointing out spelling mistakes, or ad hominem attacks.
>
> I did some digging for you. Here,
> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown-of-Thorns_Starfish>
> Grumpy just might be correct.

I should be. I was there in person.


> He is certainly correct to beware of bad science. "Climate change"
> activists absolutely depend upon execrably bad science; their contentions
> do not hold up under /any/ sort of scrutiny.

Prior to the recent revelations of numbers cooking, they almost had the
masses convinced. Thankfully, it's all unraveling hopefully just like
the ol' Watergate event.

Advice on replacing 94-97 Accord muffler? Dealing with rubberhangers?
 

On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:54:52 -0600, Grumpy AuContraire > wrote:
>Tegger wrote:
>> jim beam > wrote in
>> t:
>>
>>> On 12/27/2009 01:29 PM, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>
>>>> In the 1970's, I was involved in a research/documentary project where
>>>> one of the issues was the destruction of the tropical corral reefs by
>>>> the Acanthaster planci. There are still some who are alarmed by its
>>>> continued existence. A lot of resources were devoted to remedial action
>>>> but in the end, it just turned out to be a cyclical event. After that
>>>> experience, I vowed then never to be misled by bad science.
>>> that story would be more believable [and thus more credible] if you
>>> spelled it "coral", not corral.
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> If a man who smokes tells you not to smoke because it's bad for your
>> health, is his message invalid because he himself smokes? Ignore the
>> (stupidly trivial) spelling mistake and pay attention to Grumpy's point.

>As I just explained in a just posted reply, the "corral" instead of
>coral is probably due to my habit of stuffing myself at the Golden
>Corral on a weekly basis. Irony would have it that an individual who
>criticizes spelling while himself cannot find a "shift" key is... well,
>ironic..



>> And in these days of Google, failure to do your own believability tests is
>> inexcusably argumentative.
>>
>> I find it faintly distasteful how many Usenet/Web-board denizens demand
>> cites and proofs on points that they dislike. That demand can be translated
>> essentially as, "I hate what you're saying but I can't refute it (or don't
>> feel like doing so), so I'll put the onus on you by making a ridiculous
>> demand".
>> And then there are the attempts at deflection from the core issue, like
>> pointing out spelling mistakes, or ad hominem attacks.
>>
>> I did some digging for you. Here,
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown-of-Thorns_Starfish>
>> Grumpy just might be correct.

>I should be. I was there in person.


>> He is certainly correct to beware of bad science. "Climate change"
>> activists absolutely depend upon execrably bad science; their contentions
>> do not hold up under /any/ sort of scrutiny.

>Prior to the recent revelations of numbers cooking, they almost had the
>masses convinced. Thankfully, it's all unraveling hopefully just like
>the ol' Watergate event.

Co2 levels are rising. It is a fact. Get over it.

Advice on replacing 94-97 Accord muffler? Dealing with rubberhangers?
 

On 2009-12-29, AZ Nomad > wrote:
>
> Co2 levels are rising. It is a fact. Get over it.

Thanks. Now that the issue is resolved...

--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around ****ed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X

Advice on replacing 94-97 Accord muffler? Dealing with rubber hangers?
 

AZ Nomad > wrote in
:

> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:54:52 -0600, Grumpy AuContraire
> > wrote:
>>Tegger wrote:

>>> He is certainly correct to beware of bad science. "Climate change"
>>> activists absolutely depend upon execrably bad science; their
>>> contentions do not hold up under /any/ sort of scrutiny.
>
>>Prior to the recent revelations of numbers cooking, they almost had
>>the masses convinced. Thankfully, it's all unraveling hopefully just
>>like the ol' Watergate event.
>
> Co2 levels are rising. It is a fact. Get over it.
>



Sure are. And that's a GOOD thing.

<http://network.nationalpost.com/np/blogs/fpcomment/archive/2009/12/12/lawrence-solomon-the-gas-of-life.aspx>


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

Advice on replacing 94-97 Accord muffler? Dealing with rubberhangers?
 

AZ Nomad wrote:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:54:52 -0600, Grumpy AuContraire > wrote:
>> Tegger wrote:
>>> jim beam > wrote in
>>> t:
>>>
>>>> On 12/27/2009 01:29 PM, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>>>> In the 1970's, I was involved in a research/documentary project where
>>>>> one of the issues was the destruction of the tropical corral reefs by
>>>>> the Acanthaster planci. There are still some who are alarmed by its
>>>>> continued existence. A lot of resources were devoted to remedial action
>>>>> but in the end, it just turned out to be a cyclical event. After that
>>>>> experience, I vowed then never to be misled by bad science.
>>>> that story would be more believable [and thus more credible] if you
>>>> spelled it "coral", not corral.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If a man who smokes tells you not to smoke because it's bad for your
>>> health, is his message invalid because he himself smokes? Ignore the
>>> (stupidly trivial) spelling mistake and pay attention to Grumpy's point.
>
>> As I just explained in a just posted reply, the "corral" instead of
>> coral is probably due to my habit of stuffing myself at the Golden
>> Corral on a weekly basis. Irony would have it that an individual who
>> criticizes spelling while himself cannot find a "shift" key is... well,
>> ironic..
>
>
>
>>> And in these days of Google, failure to do your own believability tests is
>>> inexcusably argumentative.
>>>
>>> I find it faintly distasteful how many Usenet/Web-board denizens demand
>>> cites and proofs on points that they dislike. That demand can be translated
>>> essentially as, "I hate what you're saying but I can't refute it (or don't
>>> feel like doing so), so I'll put the onus on you by making a ridiculous
>>> demand".
>>> And then there are the attempts at deflection from the core issue, like
>>> pointing out spelling mistakes, or ad hominem attacks.
>>>
>>> I did some digging for you. Here,
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown-of-Thorns_Starfish>
>>> Grumpy just might be correct.
>
>> I should be. I was there in person.
>
>
>>> He is certainly correct to beware of bad science. "Climate change"
>>> activists absolutely depend upon execrably bad science; their contentions
>>> do not hold up under /any/ sort of scrutiny.
>
>> Prior to the recent revelations of numbers cooking, they almost had the
>> masses convinced. Thankfully, it's all unraveling hopefully just like
>> the ol' Watergate event.
>
> Co2 levels are rising. It is a fact. Get over it.


Enjoy the kool aid...

JT

Advice on replacing 94-97 Accord muffler? Dealing with rubber hangers?
 

AZ Nomad ) writes:
> On Mon, 28 Dec 2009 18:54:52 -0600, Grumpy AuContraire > wrote:
>>Tegger wrote:
>>> jim beam > wrote in
>>> t:
>>>
>>>> On 12/27/2009 01:29 PM, Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>>>
>>>>> In the 1970's, I was involved in a research/documentary project where
>>>>> one of the issues was the destruction of the tropical corral reefs by
>>>>> the Acanthaster planci. There are still some who are alarmed by its
>>>>> continued existence. A lot of resources were devoted to remedial action
>>>>> but in the end, it just turned out to be a cyclical event. After that
>>>>> experience, I vowed then never to be misled by bad science.
>>>> that story would be more believable [and thus more credible] if you
>>>> spelled it "coral", not corral.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> If a man who smokes tells you not to smoke because it's bad for your
>>> health, is his message invalid because he himself smokes? Ignore the
>>> (stupidly trivial) spelling mistake and pay attention to Grumpy's point.
>
>>As I just explained in a just posted reply, the "corral" instead of
>>coral is probably due to my habit of stuffing myself at the Golden
>>Corral on a weekly basis. Irony would have it that an individual who
>>criticizes spelling while himself cannot find a "shift" key is... well,
>>ironic..
>
>
>
>>> And in these days of Google, failure to do your own believability tests is
>>> inexcusably argumentative.
>>>
>>> I find it faintly distasteful how many Usenet/Web-board denizens demand
>>> cites and proofs on points that they dislike. That demand can be translated
>>> essentially as, "I hate what you're saying but I can't refute it (or don't
>>> feel like doing so), so I'll put the onus on you by making a ridiculous
>>> demand".
>>> And then there are the attempts at deflection from the core issue, like
>>> pointing out spelling mistakes, or ad hominem attacks.
>>>
>>> I did some digging for you. Here,
>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crown-of-Thorns_Starfish>
>>> Grumpy just might be correct.
>
>>I should be. I was there in person.


Is 'wiki/Crown-of-Thorns_Starfish' correct?


>
>
>>> He is certainly correct to beware of bad science. "Climate change"
>>> activists absolutely depend upon execrably bad science; their contentions
>>> do not hold up under /any/ sort of scrutiny.
>
>>Prior to the recent revelations of numbers cooking, they almost had the
>>masses convinced. Thankfully, it's all unraveling hopefully just like
>>the ol' Watergate event.
>
> Co2 levels are rising. It is a fact. Get over it.


Molecular cobalt (Co) levels are rising???