Re: Shooting the messenger out of 'r'eason

[BRUCE <BRUCE@mannlawfirm.com>]

>>> <QSHIPQ@aol.com> 11/23/97 10:49PM >>>

>>>Bruce: I will ask only once for you to ease up some.  Given what has been posted
here in the last month, I smile at most of the attacks on me, since usually
we still move forward in spirit, despite my cynicism.<<<

My post referenced those who sell on the list, which would include you but certainly not be limited to you, so, taking it as a "personal attack" is a little over the hill on the drama, since the comment was neither directed at you nor an attack.  Ask me only once?  HAHA you are a funny guy.      

>>>I don't take kindly to the spam tone at this point.  If not for my
"interference" or "conflict" of interest on this list, we would now have no
baseline understanding for the operation of a stock bypass valve, no baseline
for understanding of a failing PT, no baseline understanding of the "value"
of EGT, an unclear baseline understanding of engine and turbocharger theory.<<<

You have sold openly on this list for some time now. Some have a problem with it, I don't, so long as the list does not become cluttered with ads.  You called it spam, not me.  I said selling, because that is what it is.  Also, I hear your trumpet, and, frankly, I think there are many on this list that have added to the topics you list.  You want all the credit?  Okay, I give you all the credit. 

>>>All to establish here, a BASELINE.  The blaring
question to YOU is what does IC efficiency do to a larger turbo.  The blaring
question to me is HOW did Spearco do their testing.  Not important to you?  I
argue BS.  What do the numbers mean unless they are repeatable?  Right now,
they aren't, so documented by SAE and Scott M vs. "the Spearco test".  WHAT
do you believe?<<<

I believe all your talk about not having a baseline is nothing but confusing chatter.  Read Eric's post again.  Isn't the baseline there?  If knowing Spearco's testing method is so important to you, pick up the phone.  They seem like decent folks.          

>>> AT what point do you look to the SOURCE of claims, instead of the one who questions them?<<<

I have looked to the source rather than attack whatever the source puts up as a post.  That is one difference between us.  I mean geez, what is more illogical, posting up numbers an industry leader has reported [Spearco], or attacking those numbers and inferring the numbers are wrong because YOU don't know what kind of test they ran---and you haven't called to see how they test?  IF you don't see the baseline, and you believe you need the baseline to prove the numbers correct, wouldn't the converse also be true, ie., that you need the baseline [which you say you don't have] to prove the numbers wrong?  
   
>>>So, it makes me think there might
be more in this for you than meets the keyboard.<<<

No law against thinking, no matter how recklessly it is done.   

>>>Regarding my "selling aftermarket turbos and making no secret about it"...
 Find me one .sig line that does that in my 4 years here.  OR an ad.<<<

You made this statement personal to you, not me.  Read my post again.  But, in answer to the question, see 9/20/95; 3/3/97. 



Bruce