rtriplett@bjservices.com wrote:
>
> >From: "Mark Gendron" <>
> >As I followed this thread, I began to envision a group of Lucas engineers
> >sitting in a pub, each arguing a radically different understanding of the
> >fundamental theory behind their ignition systems. Hmm. . .
>
> Reminds me of the old fable about a group of blind men trying to describe an
> elephant. Each was feeling a different part of the animal and thus
>describing a
> different creature (I feel sorry for the one by the tail!). At any rate, it
>has
> been 20 years since I worked with LCR circuits, and I probably missed some
> techincal points (for which I SHOULD be corrected), but my statement still
> stands: The capacitor in your ignition system is designed primarily to
>provide
> a hot spark. Improving the life of the points is definitely important, but is
> "icing on the cake".
By repeating yourself repeatedly, do you hope that will somehow make
what you say true?
> It's amazing how aggressive some people get when they feel
> a point is missed, kinda like cyber road rage.
This is an excellent example of one of your posts, which usually have
some form of contradiction in them. Let me point it out if it isn't
obvious, first you say you should be corrected when you miss a point,
then you assign a character flaw to anyone who does. Then you are
complaining about agressiveness while being passive-agressive yourself.
Hope this helps.
|