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.