I'm sorry, should I have started a new thread? Just found it interesting
that after a week or more the thread goes off topic, Mike pulls out the
charter whine...

Talk about calling the kettle black...

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:41490B5C.D70643EE@***.net...
> And as usual your post have nothing to with the thread and are just
> designed to incite. Let those whom want to help, help.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> >
> > Mike, it's getting increasingly difficult to distinguish your postings
from
> > Bill H.'s The tipoff is usually yours have fewer mispellings and
typos...

 

I'm sorry, should I have started a new thread? Just found it interesting
that after a week or more the thread goes off topic, Mike pulls out the
charter whine...

Talk about calling the kettle black...

"L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
news:41490B5C.D70643EE@***.net...
> And as usual your post have nothing to with the thread and are just
> designed to incite. Let those whom want to help, help.
> God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
>
> Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> >
> > Mike, it's getting increasingly difficult to distinguish your postings
from
> > Bill H.'s The tipoff is usually yours have fewer mispellings and
typos...

 

Hey, the jerk replied to my post with off topic bull ----.

So just where is this pot, -------?

'I' didn't post a bunch of off topic BS in that thread and I left the
folks alone. Buddy decides to call me wrong or something with only off
topic bull ---- to back him up and well, I call them like I see them.

'He' obviously has no clue in the world what I am talking about and just
wanted to post his usual bull ---- to stir things.

Just like 'you' are doing!

Mike

Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, should I have started a new thread? Just found it interesting
> that after a week or more the thread goes off topic, Mike pulls out the
> charter whine...
>
> Talk about calling the kettle black...
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:41490B5C.D70643EE@***.net...
> > And as usual your post have nothing to with the thread and are just
> > designed to incite. Let those whom want to help, help.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> > >
> > > Mike, it's getting increasingly difficult to distinguish your postings
> from
> > > Bill H.'s The tipoff is usually yours have fewer mispellings and
> typos...

 

Hey, the jerk replied to my post with off topic bull ----.

So just where is this pot, -------?

'I' didn't post a bunch of off topic BS in that thread and I left the
folks alone. Buddy decides to call me wrong or something with only off
topic bull ---- to back him up and well, I call them like I see them.

'He' obviously has no clue in the world what I am talking about and just
wanted to post his usual bull ---- to stir things.

Just like 'you' are doing!

Mike

Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, should I have started a new thread? Just found it interesting
> that after a week or more the thread goes off topic, Mike pulls out the
> charter whine...
>
> Talk about calling the kettle black...
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:41490B5C.D70643EE@***.net...
> > And as usual your post have nothing to with the thread and are just
> > designed to incite. Let those whom want to help, help.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> > >
> > > Mike, it's getting increasingly difficult to distinguish your postings
> from
> > > Bill H.'s The tipoff is usually yours have fewer mispellings and
> typos...

 

Hey, the jerk replied to my post with off topic bull ----.

So just where is this pot, -------?

'I' didn't post a bunch of off topic BS in that thread and I left the
folks alone. Buddy decides to call me wrong or something with only off
topic bull ---- to back him up and well, I call them like I see them.

'He' obviously has no clue in the world what I am talking about and just
wanted to post his usual bull ---- to stir things.

Just like 'you' are doing!

Mike

Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> I'm sorry, should I have started a new thread? Just found it interesting
> that after a week or more the thread goes off topic, Mike pulls out the
> charter whine...
>
> Talk about calling the kettle black...
>
> "L.W. (ßill) ------ III" <----------@***.net> wrote in message
> news:41490B5C.D70643EE@***.net...
> > And as usual your post have nothing to with the thread and are just
> > designed to incite. Let those whom want to help, help.
> > God Bless America, ßill O|||||||O
> > mailto:-------------------- http://www.----------.com/
> >
> > Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
> > >
> > > Mike, it's getting increasingly difficult to distinguish your postings
> from
> > > Bill H.'s The tipoff is usually yours have fewer mispellings and
> typos...

 

So looking back over your posts leads me to believe 'you' have serious
issues with this newsgroup's Charter.

'You' seem to want to jump me when I mention it.

Is this because 'You' are the one starting and continuing a lot of these
off topic bull ---- posts so figure if you can put me down or get folks
to not take the Charter seriously, 'you' can still get away with posting
your political and off topic BS???

That is how you come across from this end.

And 'you' have the nerve to call a pot and kettle on 'me' in 'this'
thread.

Mike

Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> Mike, it's getting increasingly difficult to distinguish your postings from
> Bill H.'s The tipoff is usually yours have fewer mispellings and typos...
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:4148ECC0.8BA3E083@sympatico.ca...
> > WTF are you talking about?
> >
> > We drive Jeeps here. The GM alternators are some of the better ones out
> > there.
> >
> > All you want to do is talk off topic bull ----. Who gives a crap what
> > an airplane needs or some airplane bozo thinks it doesn't need? This
> > group does have a Charter you know and you sure don't seem to fit here.
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> > Ted Azito wrote:
> > >
> > > One wire alternators, for those who haven't figured it out, are Bad
> > > News.
> > >
> > > "Contact" magazine, a publication for experimental aircraft people
> > > who want to Experiment and not build cookie cutter airplanes with
> > > overpriced junk Lycomings,explains this in a recent excellent article.
> > > They would not appreciate me scanning it and posting it but it
> > > essentially says that one wire alternators have a failure mode,
> > > voltage runaway, that is the most damaging possible thing.
> > >
> > > The auto companies don't build one wire alternators even though it
> > > would be easier and cheaper. They would save on wire, connectors, et
> > > al.
> > >
> > > A really professional electrical system install would have both BAT
> > > and ALT master switches, just like Cessnas and Pipers that use auto
> > > alternators (with the FAA's blessing like Hot Dogs at Friday night
> > > church carnivals in the minnow muncher days, and as necessary...) and
> > > a crowbar circuit on the buses for engine and body ECMs, and the
> > > radio.

 

So looking back over your posts leads me to believe 'you' have serious
issues with this newsgroup's Charter.

'You' seem to want to jump me when I mention it.

Is this because 'You' are the one starting and continuing a lot of these
off topic bull ---- posts so figure if you can put me down or get folks
to not take the Charter seriously, 'you' can still get away with posting
your political and off topic BS???

That is how you come across from this end.

And 'you' have the nerve to call a pot and kettle on 'me' in 'this'
thread.

Mike

Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> Mike, it's getting increasingly difficult to distinguish your postings from
> Bill H.'s The tipoff is usually yours have fewer mispellings and typos...
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:4148ECC0.8BA3E083@sympatico.ca...
> > WTF are you talking about?
> >
> > We drive Jeeps here. The GM alternators are some of the better ones out
> > there.
> >
> > All you want to do is talk off topic bull ----. Who gives a crap what
> > an airplane needs or some airplane bozo thinks it doesn't need? This
> > group does have a Charter you know and you sure don't seem to fit here.
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> > Ted Azito wrote:
> > >
> > > One wire alternators, for those who haven't figured it out, are Bad
> > > News.
> > >
> > > "Contact" magazine, a publication for experimental aircraft people
> > > who want to Experiment and not build cookie cutter airplanes with
> > > overpriced junk Lycomings,explains this in a recent excellent article.
> > > They would not appreciate me scanning it and posting it but it
> > > essentially says that one wire alternators have a failure mode,
> > > voltage runaway, that is the most damaging possible thing.
> > >
> > > The auto companies don't build one wire alternators even though it
> > > would be easier and cheaper. They would save on wire, connectors, et
> > > al.
> > >
> > > A really professional electrical system install would have both BAT
> > > and ALT master switches, just like Cessnas and Pipers that use auto
> > > alternators (with the FAA's blessing like Hot Dogs at Friday night
> > > church carnivals in the minnow muncher days, and as necessary...) and
> > > a crowbar circuit on the buses for engine and body ECMs, and the
> > > radio.

 

So looking back over your posts leads me to believe 'you' have serious
issues with this newsgroup's Charter.

'You' seem to want to jump me when I mention it.

Is this because 'You' are the one starting and continuing a lot of these
off topic bull ---- posts so figure if you can put me down or get folks
to not take the Charter seriously, 'you' can still get away with posting
your political and off topic BS???

That is how you come across from this end.

And 'you' have the nerve to call a pot and kettle on 'me' in 'this'
thread.

Mike

Matt Macchiarolo wrote:
>
> Mike, it's getting increasingly difficult to distinguish your postings from
> Bill H.'s The tipoff is usually yours have fewer mispellings and typos...
>
> "Mike Romain" <romainm@sympatico.ca> wrote in message
> news:4148ECC0.8BA3E083@sympatico.ca...
> > WTF are you talking about?
> >
> > We drive Jeeps here. The GM alternators are some of the better ones out
> > there.
> >
> > All you want to do is talk off topic bull ----. Who gives a crap what
> > an airplane needs or some airplane bozo thinks it doesn't need? This
> > group does have a Charter you know and you sure don't seem to fit here.
> >
> > Mike
> > 86/00 CJ7 Laredo, 33x9.5 BFG Muds, 'glass nose to tail in '00
> > 88 Cherokee 235 BFG AT's
> >
> > Ted Azito wrote:
> > >
> > > One wire alternators, for those who haven't figured it out, are Bad
> > > News.
> > >
> > > "Contact" magazine, a publication for experimental aircraft people
> > > who want to Experiment and not build cookie cutter airplanes with
> > > overpriced junk Lycomings,explains this in a recent excellent article.
> > > They would not appreciate me scanning it and posting it but it
> > > essentially says that one wire alternators have a failure mode,
> > > voltage runaway, that is the most damaging possible thing.
> > >
> > > The auto companies don't build one wire alternators even though it
> > > would be easier and cheaper. They would save on wire, connectors, et
> > > al.
> > >
> > > A really professional electrical system install would have both BAT
> > > and ALT master switches, just like Cessnas and Pipers that use auto
> > > alternators (with the FAA's blessing like Hot Dogs at Friday night
> > > church carnivals in the minnow muncher days, and as necessary...) and
> > > a crowbar circuit on the buses for engine and body ECMs, and the
> > > radio.

 

You are blowing charter manure out your hindquarters because no
factory Jeep/******/AMC/AM General ever had a single wire alternator.
No production vehicle does.

The laws of physics don't change if it's a car, truck, boat,
airplane, or blimp. Someone outside your holy fraternity/circle jerk
has pointed out a fact.

I happened to see the reporting of that fact.

And, expecting not gratitude but smartass peckerwood remarks from a
couple of hick dumbshits, did it anyway.

You want to ignore what seems like pretty good advice, it's your
right as an American (for those of you in the US) and probably in any
other country too.

But when the single wire aftermarket alternator has a full field mode
failure and cooks your ECM, body computer, and all your stereo and
antitheft equipment, remember, I told you it could happen.

I said could, not would. It might never do that. And if you put in
effective crowbar protection, it would be even less likely. But as for
me, I'm sticking with the conventional regulators. I figure the
combined wisdom of all the OEMS might be worth following.

So either stick to the pros and cons of the technical issue or be
quiet.

 

You are blowing charter manure out your hindquarters because no
factory Jeep/******/AMC/AM General ever had a single wire alternator.
No production vehicle does.

The laws of physics don't change if it's a car, truck, boat,
airplane, or blimp. Someone outside your holy fraternity/circle jerk
has pointed out a fact.

I happened to see the reporting of that fact.

And, expecting not gratitude but smartass peckerwood remarks from a
couple of hick dumbshits, did it anyway.

You want to ignore what seems like pretty good advice, it's your
right as an American (for those of you in the US) and probably in any
other country too.

But when the single wire aftermarket alternator has a full field mode
failure and cooks your ECM, body computer, and all your stereo and
antitheft equipment, remember, I told you it could happen.

I said could, not would. It might never do that. And if you put in
effective crowbar protection, it would be even less likely. But as for
me, I'm sticking with the conventional regulators. I figure the
combined wisdom of all the OEMS might be worth following.

So either stick to the pros and cons of the technical issue or be
quiet.