In article <qeOdnXTb6v03MCHVnZ2dnUVZ_qfinZ2d@speakeasy.net> ,
jim beam <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

> Brian Smith > wrote:
> > M.M. wrote:
> >>
> >> Really?
> >
> > Yes, really.
> >
> >> Have you looked?
> >
> > I don't need to look at the manual for everyday normal things that I
> > have been doing for decades.
>
> tire rotation is a legacy of solid axle wheel dynamics. and you don't
> have any on that vehicle.

don't worry, he's been doing this since 1950, he knows how cars work.
03 NSX, '50 Rambler--it's all the same. Don't try to tell him different.

 

jim beam wrote:
>
>> if they aren't directionals. Corner to corner or front to back. The
>> key is to rotate them and keep the proper air pressure in them all the
>> time. It's all about preventative maintenance and tire longevity.

You people can do it your way. I'll continue to do it the way I have
found works for me over the years. I am quite happy with having a set of
tires give me over 50000 miles on my vehicles.

 

In article <8L7vk.11322$nu6.10033@edtnps83>,
Brian Smith <""Halifax\"@ NovaScotia.Canada"> wrote:

> jim beam wrote:
> >
> >> if they aren't directionals. Corner to corner or front to back. The
> >> key is to rotate them and keep the proper air pressure in them all the
> >> time. It's all about preventative maintenance and tire longevity.
>
> You people can do it your way. I'll continue to do it the way I have
> found works for me over the years. I am quite happy with having a set of
> tires give me over 50000 miles on my vehicles.

That's all you get?

Jesus, you are a dinosaur.

 

Brian Smith > wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>>
>>> if they aren't directionals. Corner to corner or front to back. The
>>> key is to rotate them and keep the proper air pressure in them all
>>> the time. It's all about preventative maintenance and tire longevity.
>
> You people can do it your way. I'll continue to do it the way I have
> found works for me over the years. I am quite happy with having a set of
> tires give me over 50000 miles on my vehicles.

tire wear trumps road safety? that's a bizarre concept!

and brian, don't snip the relevant stuff - here let me re-insert it for you:

"you can easily lose 20% of tire surface contact with a rotation until
the rubber blocks have worn to a new rotation sense. that means 20% less
braking and 20% less cornering and 20% less safety. many modern higher
performance cars don't have tire rotations at all for precisely this
reason."

there you go.

 

jim beam wrote:
>
> tire wear trumps road safety? that's a bizarre concept!

You have a weird concept of what was said as opposed to what wasn't
said, Jim. Maybe you should stick to reading the printed word and give
up reading between the lines.

> and brian, don't snip the relevant stuff - here let me re-insert it for
> you:

There was no need to leave the irrelevant stuff in my response.

 

Brian Smith > wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>>
>> tire wear trumps road safety? that's a bizarre concept!
>
> You have a weird concept of what was said as opposed to what wasn't
> said, Jim. Maybe you should stick to reading the printed word and give
> up reading between the lines.
>
>> and brian, don't snip the relevant stuff - here let me re-insert it
>> for you:
>
> There was no need to leave the irrelevant stuff in my response.


with respect brian, what i said was factual and relevant. the problem
is that you don't seem to want to deal with anything that doesn't agree
with your outdated and underinformed preconceptions. the question then
is, what on earth are you doing here???

and usenet etiquette /still/ requires that you don't snip stuff just
because it doesn't agree with you...

 

jim beam wrote:

>
> with respect brian, what i said was factual and relevant.

I wasn't responding to your figures, so it wasn't included in my response.

> the problem is that you don't seem to want to deal with anything that doesn't agree
> with your outdated and underinformed preconceptions.

That's not true, but you're entitled to your opinion, no matter how
incorrect you and it are, Jim (by the way, notice the correct use of
Upper Case letters when spelling a person's or entity's name).

> the question then is, what on earth are you doing here???

For my enjoyment and the opportunity to learn something that I don't
know from the more knowledgeable people here.

> and usenet etiquette /still/ requires that you don't snip stuff just
> because it doesn't agree with you...

But, editing a reply to a post is still the accepted way to save those
little seldom appreciated electrons from a premature death, when
responding to a partical point. Including the entire post in a reply is
a waste of time when only one or two sentences are in the response.

 

Brian Smith > wrote:
> jim beam wrote:
>
>>
>> with respect brian, what i said was factual and relevant.
>
> I wasn't responding to your figures, so it wasn't included in my
> response.
>
>> the problem is that you don't seem to want to deal with anything that
>> doesn't agree with your outdated and underinformed preconceptions.
>
> That's not true, but you're entitled to your opinion, no matter how
> incorrect you and it are, Jim (by the way, notice the correct use of
> Upper Case letters when spelling a person's or entity's name).
>
>> the question then is, what on earth are you doing here???
>
> For my enjoyment and the opportunity to learn something that I don't
> know from the more knowledgeable people here.


bullshit!!!


>
>> and usenet etiquette /still/ requires that you don't snip stuff just
>> because it doesn't agree with you...
>
> But, editing a reply to a post is still the accepted way to save
> those little seldom appreciated electrons from a premature death, when
> responding to a partical point. Including the entire post in a reply is
> a waste of time when only one or two sentences are in the response.

 

On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 06:25:35 -0700, jim beam
<spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:

>Brian Smith > wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>>
>>> tire wear trumps road safety? that's a bizarre concept!
>>
>> You have a weird concept of what was said as opposed to what wasn't
>> said, Jim. Maybe you should stick to reading the printed word and give
>> up reading between the lines.
>>
>>> and brian, don't snip the relevant stuff - here let me re-insert it
>>> for you:
>>
>> There was no need to leave the irrelevant stuff in my response.
>
>
>with respect brian, what i said was factual and relevant. the problem
>is that you don't seem to want to deal with anything that doesn't agree
>with your outdated and underinformed preconceptions. the question then
>is, what on earth are you doing here???
>
>and usenet etiquette /still/ requires that you don't snip stuff just
>because it doesn't agree with you...


I would like to go on record and say we are not all idiots here in
Halifax.

 

Jim wrote:
> On Tue, 02 Sep 2008 06:25:35 -0700, jim beam
> <spamvortex@bad.example.net> wrote:
>
>> Brian Smith > wrote:
>>> jim beam wrote:
>>>> tire wear trumps road safety? that's a bizarre concept!
>>> You have a weird concept of what was said as opposed to what wasn't
>>> said, Jim. Maybe you should stick to reading the printed word and give
>>> up reading between the lines.
>>>
>>>> and brian, don't snip the relevant stuff - here let me re-insert it
>>>> for you:
>>> There was no need to leave the irrelevant stuff in my response.
>>
>> with respect brian, what i said was factual and relevant. the problem
>> is that you don't seem to want to deal with anything that doesn't agree
>> with your outdated and underinformed preconceptions. the question then
>> is, what on earth are you doing here???
>>
>> and usenet etiquette /still/ requires that you don't snip stuff just
>> because it doesn't agree with you...
>
>
> I would like to go on record and say we are not all idiots here in
> Halifax.

Same!

a