Originally Posted by
Stavros
It doesnt happen as you are under the impression your never wrong and will post over and over and over till someone gives up and gets bored and the threads fucked. This ones well on the way.
Thats a nonsense, on the very infrequent occasion Im wrong about something, Im quite happy to admit and learn from it, like this example here:
http://www.migweb.co.uk/forums/engin...ml#post3765555
Where someone corrected me on a typo I had made that was quite misleading, so I thanked them for correcting me, I didnt argue about it like you are implying I would.
The reality is simply that you just arent very good at reading things accurately, so often misinterpret them, and its your interpretation of what I have said that is wrong, not what I actually said.
For example I said:
Yb's from the people I know well will have a MUCH higher standard deviation from the norm than on those graphs I reckon.
But maybe you are right that the scene as a whole will have a lower standard deviation.
Then you have just claimed:
You tried to say that the YB tuning was way more varied than the 302s
I havent said that at all.
The closest I came was:
The figures on that graph go from over 400 to 1200 bhp.
I wouldnt say that is more variation than from the 204 to 800 that we have on here over a similar variation of boost.
In fact, quite clearly it isnt.
I think the YB tuning game is more varied than you give it credit for
Ie, I commented that the people with YB's that I know, have more variation in power output than are on that graph, I only mentioned those subsets of each scene, I didnt say ANYTHING about the scene as a whole for 302s, you are making that bit up completely.
Originally Posted by
Stavros
I proved you was wrong with factual infomation
No you didnt, you proved wrong some things that I never said in the first place, but that you claimed I said, which is a VERY common theme with you, you read something Ive read, you then think it says something different, and then you argue with the something different, I point out that wasnt what I said at all, and you go round and round in circles keep making up things that you claim Ive said when I havent, and I keep correcting you.
You said all YB's follow the same route, I pointed out they dont.
I said that the YB's im familiar with, the likes of Rods, would show a larger standard deviation than on the graph.