Re: Accepting your "exceptions" - conclusion?

[BRUCE <BRUCE@mannlawfirm.com>]

>>>find it frustrating trying to get you to understand a concept that seems to have eluded Randall and you to date.  Again you are defending the "exception."<<<<<

Hmmmm.  Two questions come to mind:  (1) What fuc*ing exception are you constantly referring to---that I am supposedly defending?  (2) Can I withdraw my defense of the unknown exception and enter a plea of you are right, I am wrong?  If so, I would like to do that now.   

>>>> Have you seen the engine bay pix of the Trans Am cars?<<<<< 
Answer:  Yes, but no one saw me see it, so, the corrected answer would be no.    
  
>>>>You are looking for "exceptions" without thinking it thru<<<<<

I'm not right now, but I was last night around closing time.    

>>>>MATH any of your "exceptions" to prove me wrong, don't just toss them onto the fire<<<<<

Since I haven't a clue what you are referring to when you refer to exceptions, I can't do the math.  Probably couldn't even if I knew what you are referring to, sorry.

>>>> Did you or Randall actually see Eric's boost guage GO to 85Hg, the maximum of it's read?<<<<<

Answer:  I don't know what Randall saw, or whether he can see at all.  More importantly, Randall is a dentist and dentists frighten me.  As for me, no I did not see the boost guage GO to 85Hg.  In fact, I did not see the boost guage go anywhere.  If you have ever ridden with Eric on the streets of St. Louis, I think you know why.       

>>>> That is what he is claiming, you and Randall
are defending<<<<<

Answer is:  Whatever you say.  

>>>> Who saw it other than the claimant<<<<

Relax man.  Who cares?            

>>>>>  A lot of us here are saying NO ONE, based on the claim vs math<<<<<

Ah, correction:  You are saying it a lot of times, which makes it sound like a lot of people are are saying it--whatever it may be.  All I  asked was several dumb questions about the egt's.        

  

>>>>Scott Justusson, RS2 wannabe<<<<

Bruce Aukerman, wannabe a cowboy