Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
They take great pride in leaving their buildings all shoot up as
the were in W.W. II.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> Typo on my part, I meant GDP. And I stand corrected, Luxembourg has a higher
> per capita GDP by $63 per year in 2002, with a smaller population than
> Little Rock, Arkansas. Wonder what the pollution is like in Luxembourg.
>
> http://www.mrdowling.com/800gdppercapita.html
>
> I'm all for being skeptical at what you find on the net...the CIA oil
> rankings are obviously typos. Doesn't mean it's all wrong.
the were in W.W. II.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> Typo on my part, I meant GDP. And I stand corrected, Luxembourg has a higher
> per capita GDP by $63 per year in 2002, with a smaller population than
> Little Rock, Arkansas. Wonder what the pollution is like in Luxembourg.
>
> http://www.mrdowling.com/800gdppercapita.html
>
> I'm all for being skeptical at what you find on the net...the CIA oil
> rankings are obviously typos. Doesn't mean it's all wrong.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
>I'm all for being skeptical at what you find on the net...
As we all should be.. Unfortunately to many people are not..
>the CIA oil rankings are obviously typos. Doesn't mean it's all wrong.
There are many other errors that can be found on that site,
some using the site itself to disprove itself, and other errors can
be disproven very easily by checking other reliable sources of
information.. It is however none the less a site that is not very
frequently update and riddled with inaccuracies and errors. Some
are typos, some are just plain incorrect.
As we all should be.. Unfortunately to many people are not..
>the CIA oil rankings are obviously typos. Doesn't mean it's all wrong.
There are many other errors that can be found on that site,
some using the site itself to disprove itself, and other errors can
be disproven very easily by checking other reliable sources of
information.. It is however none the less a site that is not very
frequently update and riddled with inaccuracies and errors. Some
are typos, some are just plain incorrect.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
>I'm all for being skeptical at what you find on the net...
As we all should be.. Unfortunately to many people are not..
>the CIA oil rankings are obviously typos. Doesn't mean it's all wrong.
There are many other errors that can be found on that site,
some using the site itself to disprove itself, and other errors can
be disproven very easily by checking other reliable sources of
information.. It is however none the less a site that is not very
frequently update and riddled with inaccuracies and errors. Some
are typos, some are just plain incorrect.
As we all should be.. Unfortunately to many people are not..
>the CIA oil rankings are obviously typos. Doesn't mean it's all wrong.
There are many other errors that can be found on that site,
some using the site itself to disprove itself, and other errors can
be disproven very easily by checking other reliable sources of
information.. It is however none the less a site that is not very
frequently update and riddled with inaccuracies and errors. Some
are typos, some are just plain incorrect.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
>I'm all for being skeptical at what you find on the net...
As we all should be.. Unfortunately to many people are not..
>the CIA oil rankings are obviously typos. Doesn't mean it's all wrong.
There are many other errors that can be found on that site,
some using the site itself to disprove itself, and other errors can
be disproven very easily by checking other reliable sources of
information.. It is however none the less a site that is not very
frequently update and riddled with inaccuracies and errors. Some
are typos, some are just plain incorrect.
As we all should be.. Unfortunately to many people are not..
>the CIA oil rankings are obviously typos. Doesn't mean it's all wrong.
There are many other errors that can be found on that site,
some using the site itself to disprove itself, and other errors can
be disproven very easily by checking other reliable sources of
information.. It is however none the less a site that is not very
frequently update and riddled with inaccuracies and errors. Some
are typos, some are just plain incorrect.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
>I'm all for being skeptical at what you find on the net...
As we all should be.. Unfortunately to many people are not..
>the CIA oil rankings are obviously typos. Doesn't mean it's all wrong.
There are many other errors that can be found on that site,
some using the site itself to disprove itself, and other errors can
be disproven very easily by checking other reliable sources of
information.. It is however none the less a site that is not very
frequently update and riddled with inaccuracies and errors. Some
are typos, some are just plain incorrect.
As we all should be.. Unfortunately to many people are not..
>the CIA oil rankings are obviously typos. Doesn't mean it's all wrong.
There are many other errors that can be found on that site,
some using the site itself to disprove itself, and other errors can
be disproven very easily by checking other reliable sources of
information.. It is however none the less a site that is not very
frequently update and riddled with inaccuracies and errors. Some
are typos, some are just plain incorrect.
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
Let's take one example... Didn't they have something like 1,000 liters
of anthrax? That would wipe out how many people. Hiding or destroying
1,000 liters of the crap is not that hard. Plus, they have had at least
two incidents where chemical weapons were used or found in the last 2
months (remember the chemical warhead that went off with I think sarin
in it? Or the chemical weapons the polish found a few weeks ago?)
"And No I'm not a liberal.."
Your views on this group say differently... be proud of what you are,
not ashamed...
Jerry wrote:
>>"hen again, did the CIA not also claim that Iraq has WMD"
>>and I suppose you beleive that they did not have them... and you claim
>>you are not a liberal???
>
>
> ... And where are they since they said they knew where they were? ...
> ... Not "WHEN" they were..
>
> And No I'm not a liberal.. No one is %100 liberal or %100
> conservative.. On some issues I'm conservative, on some issues I'm
> liberal, on other issues I don't agree with either view point.. Those
> who claim to be one or the other are just ignorant..
>
> Unless of course you can prove anything I've said thus far in this
> group to be wrong..
of anthrax? That would wipe out how many people. Hiding or destroying
1,000 liters of the crap is not that hard. Plus, they have had at least
two incidents where chemical weapons were used or found in the last 2
months (remember the chemical warhead that went off with I think sarin
in it? Or the chemical weapons the polish found a few weeks ago?)
"And No I'm not a liberal.."
Your views on this group say differently... be proud of what you are,
not ashamed...
Jerry wrote:
>>"hen again, did the CIA not also claim that Iraq has WMD"
>>and I suppose you beleive that they did not have them... and you claim
>>you are not a liberal???
>
>
> ... And where are they since they said they knew where they were? ...
> ... Not "WHEN" they were..
>
> And No I'm not a liberal.. No one is %100 liberal or %100
> conservative.. On some issues I'm conservative, on some issues I'm
> liberal, on other issues I don't agree with either view point.. Those
> who claim to be one or the other are just ignorant..
>
> Unless of course you can prove anything I've said thus far in this
> group to be wrong..
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
Let's take one example... Didn't they have something like 1,000 liters
of anthrax? That would wipe out how many people. Hiding or destroying
1,000 liters of the crap is not that hard. Plus, they have had at least
two incidents where chemical weapons were used or found in the last 2
months (remember the chemical warhead that went off with I think sarin
in it? Or the chemical weapons the polish found a few weeks ago?)
"And No I'm not a liberal.."
Your views on this group say differently... be proud of what you are,
not ashamed...
Jerry wrote:
>>"hen again, did the CIA not also claim that Iraq has WMD"
>>and I suppose you beleive that they did not have them... and you claim
>>you are not a liberal???
>
>
> ... And where are they since they said they knew where they were? ...
> ... Not "WHEN" they were..
>
> And No I'm not a liberal.. No one is %100 liberal or %100
> conservative.. On some issues I'm conservative, on some issues I'm
> liberal, on other issues I don't agree with either view point.. Those
> who claim to be one or the other are just ignorant..
>
> Unless of course you can prove anything I've said thus far in this
> group to be wrong..
of anthrax? That would wipe out how many people. Hiding or destroying
1,000 liters of the crap is not that hard. Plus, they have had at least
two incidents where chemical weapons were used or found in the last 2
months (remember the chemical warhead that went off with I think sarin
in it? Or the chemical weapons the polish found a few weeks ago?)
"And No I'm not a liberal.."
Your views on this group say differently... be proud of what you are,
not ashamed...
Jerry wrote:
>>"hen again, did the CIA not also claim that Iraq has WMD"
>>and I suppose you beleive that they did not have them... and you claim
>>you are not a liberal???
>
>
> ... And where are they since they said they knew where they were? ...
> ... Not "WHEN" they were..
>
> And No I'm not a liberal.. No one is %100 liberal or %100
> conservative.. On some issues I'm conservative, on some issues I'm
> liberal, on other issues I don't agree with either view point.. Those
> who claim to be one or the other are just ignorant..
>
> Unless of course you can prove anything I've said thus far in this
> group to be wrong..
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
Let's take one example... Didn't they have something like 1,000 liters
of anthrax? That would wipe out how many people. Hiding or destroying
1,000 liters of the crap is not that hard. Plus, they have had at least
two incidents where chemical weapons were used or found in the last 2
months (remember the chemical warhead that went off with I think sarin
in it? Or the chemical weapons the polish found a few weeks ago?)
"And No I'm not a liberal.."
Your views on this group say differently... be proud of what you are,
not ashamed...
Jerry wrote:
>>"hen again, did the CIA not also claim that Iraq has WMD"
>>and I suppose you beleive that they did not have them... and you claim
>>you are not a liberal???
>
>
> ... And where are they since they said they knew where they were? ...
> ... Not "WHEN" they were..
>
> And No I'm not a liberal.. No one is %100 liberal or %100
> conservative.. On some issues I'm conservative, on some issues I'm
> liberal, on other issues I don't agree with either view point.. Those
> who claim to be one or the other are just ignorant..
>
> Unless of course you can prove anything I've said thus far in this
> group to be wrong..
of anthrax? That would wipe out how many people. Hiding or destroying
1,000 liters of the crap is not that hard. Plus, they have had at least
two incidents where chemical weapons were used or found in the last 2
months (remember the chemical warhead that went off with I think sarin
in it? Or the chemical weapons the polish found a few weeks ago?)
"And No I'm not a liberal.."
Your views on this group say differently... be proud of what you are,
not ashamed...
Jerry wrote:
>>"hen again, did the CIA not also claim that Iraq has WMD"
>>and I suppose you beleive that they did not have them... and you claim
>>you are not a liberal???
>
>
> ... And where are they since they said they knew where they were? ...
> ... Not "WHEN" they were..
>
> And No I'm not a liberal.. No one is %100 liberal or %100
> conservative.. On some issues I'm conservative, on some issues I'm
> liberal, on other issues I don't agree with either view point.. Those
> who claim to be one or the other are just ignorant..
>
> Unless of course you can prove anything I've said thus far in this
> group to be wrong..
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
Let's take one example... Didn't they have something like 1,000 liters
of anthrax? That would wipe out how many people. Hiding or destroying
1,000 liters of the crap is not that hard. Plus, they have had at least
two incidents where chemical weapons were used or found in the last 2
months (remember the chemical warhead that went off with I think sarin
in it? Or the chemical weapons the polish found a few weeks ago?)
"And No I'm not a liberal.."
Your views on this group say differently... be proud of what you are,
not ashamed...
Jerry wrote:
>>"hen again, did the CIA not also claim that Iraq has WMD"
>>and I suppose you beleive that they did not have them... and you claim
>>you are not a liberal???
>
>
> ... And where are they since they said they knew where they were? ...
> ... Not "WHEN" they were..
>
> And No I'm not a liberal.. No one is %100 liberal or %100
> conservative.. On some issues I'm conservative, on some issues I'm
> liberal, on other issues I don't agree with either view point.. Those
> who claim to be one or the other are just ignorant..
>
> Unless of course you can prove anything I've said thus far in this
> group to be wrong..
of anthrax? That would wipe out how many people. Hiding or destroying
1,000 liters of the crap is not that hard. Plus, they have had at least
two incidents where chemical weapons were used or found in the last 2
months (remember the chemical warhead that went off with I think sarin
in it? Or the chemical weapons the polish found a few weeks ago?)
"And No I'm not a liberal.."
Your views on this group say differently... be proud of what you are,
not ashamed...
Jerry wrote:
>>"hen again, did the CIA not also claim that Iraq has WMD"
>>and I suppose you beleive that they did not have them... and you claim
>>you are not a liberal???
>
>
> ... And where are they since they said they knew where they were? ...
> ... Not "WHEN" they were..
>
> And No I'm not a liberal.. No one is %100 liberal or %100
> conservative.. On some issues I'm conservative, on some issues I'm
> liberal, on other issues I don't agree with either view point.. Those
> who claim to be one or the other are just ignorant..
>
> Unless of course you can prove anything I've said thus far in this
> group to be wrong..
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Diesel engines: better low-end torque?
You remind me of an old dog sitting on a tack, too lazy to get up,
just howling.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jerry wrote:
>
<snip>
just howling.
God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
Jerry wrote:
>
<snip>
