Arch on the off chance of offending you, do you always have this problem
misinterpreting my posts, and looking for problems that are not there?
The remark 'to try and compile scientific data on non scientific occurences
is worthless" is an OBSERVATION and not a condemnation of anyones work.
Surely you understand the difference? I am a professional engineer and know
a little bit about compiling and analyzing data having done so for over 35
years.
The point is that there is tons of data on the weak points of the oldsmobile
455 engine( the fact is there are not many for our use). Joe Mondello has
done over 30 years research on the olds 455 (you can buy it all for about
$25)and TH425 transmission. What do you hope to contribute beyond what is
already known? And what would you do if you had the data available?
We already have the combined experience and expertise on this net to trouble
shoot and fix any part of the GMC motorhome. What other objective do you have?
You cannot even agree with me on using E rated all steel tires for the GMC
when all of the ENGINEERING data substantiates it, but now you apparently
want someone to spend time compiling data that will have such a variance
that it will yield at best inconclusive data. Arch the bottom line is that
even if you had the data what would you do with it? You are a contrarian.
Fess up!
Arch the bottom line is if you want to play Don Quixote(sp) be my guest. And
please lets not try and say that just because someone disagrees with you
they are not dreamers. And Arch, I will leave you alone to, ,although I do
not understand what your comment means?
>In a message dated 8/21/99 9:46:58 PM Central Daylight Time, warner
>writes:
>
>> to try and compile scientific data on non scientific occurences is
>worthless.
>>
>> It is close to attempting to solve a algebraic equation of the 5 unknowns
>> and 2 equations problem.
>>
>Tom
>
>Why do you have to do this? I just really dont understand. In many ways
>I agree with you. It is going to be hard to get solid research out of this.
>But if Chuck wants to try why call the work "worthless"? Everything is
>not predictable. I have learned that in over 30 years at the university.
>You take on projects that looks like they could never produce good
>information. Some dont but several I have been involved in took an
>unexpected turn when one little piece of info showed up across the
>board. All of a sudden we had one less variable. That made several
>other things possible. Tom Please dont tell us something is
>worthless-----impossible----unachievable----cant happen----dumb.
>Some of us still think big----i.e. grandiose. We like it that way. We
>like taking on the impossible. Dealing with the possible is boring
>for some of us. If you will just stop putting down the dreamers here
>I will leave you alone----I promise.
>
>Take Care
>Arch
>
>
misinterpreting my posts, and looking for problems that are not there?
The remark 'to try and compile scientific data on non scientific occurences
is worthless" is an OBSERVATION and not a condemnation of anyones work.
Surely you understand the difference? I am a professional engineer and know
a little bit about compiling and analyzing data having done so for over 35
years.
The point is that there is tons of data on the weak points of the oldsmobile
455 engine( the fact is there are not many for our use). Joe Mondello has
done over 30 years research on the olds 455 (you can buy it all for about
$25)and TH425 transmission. What do you hope to contribute beyond what is
already known? And what would you do if you had the data available?
We already have the combined experience and expertise on this net to trouble
shoot and fix any part of the GMC motorhome. What other objective do you have?
You cannot even agree with me on using E rated all steel tires for the GMC
when all of the ENGINEERING data substantiates it, but now you apparently
want someone to spend time compiling data that will have such a variance
that it will yield at best inconclusive data. Arch the bottom line is that
even if you had the data what would you do with it? You are a contrarian.
Fess up!
Arch the bottom line is if you want to play Don Quixote(sp) be my guest. And
please lets not try and say that just because someone disagrees with you
they are not dreamers. And Arch, I will leave you alone to, ,although I do
not understand what your comment means?
>In a message dated 8/21/99 9:46:58 PM Central Daylight Time, warner
>writes:
>
>> to try and compile scientific data on non scientific occurences is
>worthless.
>>
>> It is close to attempting to solve a algebraic equation of the 5 unknowns
>> and 2 equations problem.
>>
>Tom
>
>Why do you have to do this? I just really dont understand. In many ways
>I agree with you. It is going to be hard to get solid research out of this.
>But if Chuck wants to try why call the work "worthless"? Everything is
>not predictable. I have learned that in over 30 years at the university.
>You take on projects that looks like they could never produce good
>information. Some dont but several I have been involved in took an
>unexpected turn when one little piece of info showed up across the
>board. All of a sudden we had one less variable. That made several
>other things possible. Tom Please dont tell us something is
>worthless-----impossible----unachievable----cant happen----dumb.
>Some of us still think big----i.e. grandiose. We like it that way. We
>like taking on the impossible. Dealing with the possible is boring
>for some of us. If you will just stop putting down the dreamers here
>I will leave you alone----I promise.
>
>Take Care
>Arch
>
>
