chsu74

Not really! I am just not sitting where your are.

mkaresh

Trade seats?

chsu74

No thanks. I like my day job.

mkaresh

Contradictory reasoning is one thing. Criticizing me for doing something, which I would actually argue I did not do, and then doing it yourself is pretty much a textbook case. I tried to take this as constructive feedback, and change the word in the initial post, but cannot think of a viable substitute. I can say that I was certainly not seeking to insult you, only to point out that you were doing the very thing you told me not to do.

Oddly, you haven't denied the charge, but have only asserted that I should not have made it for other reasons.

Help the cause? I told Bob two days ago that this thread was already doomed. But owners keep signing up, so perhaps I was wrong about that. Regardless, I didn't think Bob deserved to be taking hits for me for trying to help.

At the very least we're serving to entertain chsu74.

mkaresh

It can be a night job as well. I'm usually up till at least 2 AM.

BruceP

You are unbelievable.

I have to say, your dialectical style doesn't do much to authenticate the integrity of your research.

Apologies to the forum. I've gone about two posts too far with this man. I'll tap out now.

ziiz996

Are we discussing the 3.4L Engines here?

911FM

+1.

[Flamesuit on]: We should have a poll/survey on the reliability of the survey... Just adding a bit of oil on the fire.

Seriously guys, cool off on the personal stuff or take your argument to the track...

FM

mkaresh

Only two?

I'll grant that I'm lucky that the integrity of the survey relies in no way on my style of speaking.

mkaresh

I'm not focusing on them. Others might be.

mkaresh

But how will we verify that those responding have actually studied the methodology?

What brand of oil?

chsu74

Much better.

mkaresh

My wife might assert that your dialectical style doesn't do much to authenticate the integrity of our marriage.

BruceP

Folks with technical concerns about the methodology might want to contribute their perspectives to Michael's Wikipedia entry rather than debate them further here.

mkaresh

I neither wrote the wikipedia entry nor do I see how it's written like an advertisement with the possible exception of the "Participation" section. I hadn't really read through it closely before now. If someone with access can delete that section, I'd have no problem with that.

Note that it requests a "neutral point of view." Anyone here still have one?