Restarting an Unused HO Engine

On 8/19/2009 11:35 PM Ray Haddad spake thus:

The only argumentation technique you're using now is repetition. Saying the same thing over and over again doesn't make it any truer. Sheesh, Ray, you're sinking to new lows with each new post.

Reply to
David Nebenzahl
Loading thread data ...

That is not the point. To us it is denatured by the act of modifying it irrespective of the motivation or means for doing so. That is where you and twibil are both missing the difference between the US usage and Ray's Australian usage - you are saying that in your definition, the motivation and nature of the modification are a key factor in whether it is denatured, whereas to him (and me) those aspects are irrelevant. Your very specific form of denaturing is just a small subset of our much more general concept of denaturing.

Again, the definitions are different. To us dilution IS a form of denaturing, as might more readily be apparent if we were discussing wine rather than isopropyl alcohol. Watered-down wine is highly denatured in several ways!

Reply to
a_a_a

Denaturing is the same worldwide. Quit dodging. You are wrong.

-- Ray

Reply to
Ray Haddad

I'm not Australian. Get over it. Denaturing is denaturing.

-- Ray

Reply to
Ray Haddad

So I should do like you? Change the argument just to win a point? Shameful, mate.

Denaturing is denaturing. End of story. Go play with your trains.

-- Ray

Reply to
Ray Haddad

No, Ray. To some people it has a very narrow meaning; to others, it has a very broad meaning. They are no more or less wrong than you are.

Reply to
a_a_a

Denaturing is denaturing. End of story.

-- Ray

Reply to
Ray Haddad

On Fri, 21 Aug 2009 01:32:46 +0800, Ray Haddad wrote, FOR THE UMPTEENTH TIME:

There's a joke about Alzheimer's: you only need one book. Ray evidently has only one rebuttal, a semantic twitch that chundered up from the depths of Western Oz.

Reply to
Steve Caple

On 8/20/2009 10:58 AM Steve Caple spake thus:

So for him, it *is* true, and becomes truer by repeating the assertion. Interesting.

By the way, it seems Ray recently disavowed being an Aussie, even though he lives there, so he must be a man with no country. How sad for him.

Reply to
David Nebenzahl

A fact is a fact. You want a different rebuttal? Change the subject. You can't win this one, Steve, but nice try.

-- Ray

Reply to
Ray Haddad

Oh, the irony of it all. You continue to repeat your denial of a fact and then use that on me. What a joke you have become.

And then to stoop into a nationality issue as if that wins the discussion. Not only are you a joke, but you are a dope. Good one, David. You keep up with that.

-- Ray

Reply to
Ray Haddad

You are wrong.

Reply to
Wim van Bemmel

LOL

English not your first language then?

-- Ray

Reply to
Ray Haddad

Ray Haddad wrote: [...]

I have no idea of what you mean by "denatured."

But it is amusing to see you repeat yourself. Reminds me of the Monty Python argument sketch. Except that the Monty Python sketchis actually witty.

cheers, wolf k.

Reply to
Wolf K

Ray, what the hell do you mean by "denatured"? I don't give a s**t what various dictionaries say - I want to know what _you_ mean by it. Just repeating "they are both denatured" is stoopid. Really. You must have some common factor or process in mind. What do you know, or believe you know, that makes your claim valid?

[...]

wolf k.

Reply to
Wolf K

[...]

No, it ain't. That's the problem.

What is it with you guys that you can't accept that words have different meanings in different parts of the English speaking world? So you use "denatured" to mean "other than its pure state". So what does that prove? It certainly doesn;t prove that "both are denatured." It only proves that Ozzies would call both denatured. Which is OK by me, if that's the way you want it. But if you want to be understood by people who use the words differently, you have to explain what you mean.

BTW a_a_a, all commercially available wine is denatured by your Ozzie definition. It's all mixed with water to bring it to some standard percentage of ethanol, as decided by the vintner. That's because of trade laws that require labelling of alcohol (ethanol) content, and regulations that allow little variation from what's stated on the label. I don't know about your legalities, but here tax on alcoholic beverages is tied to the alcohol content.

cheers, wolf k.

Reply to
Wolf K

On 8/20/2009 7:15 PM Wolf K spake thus:

Lordy, look at what has happened.

I don't think I've *ever* seen the polite, accommodating and normally unflappable Wolf Kirchmeier actually get pissed at someone. Never.

Leave it to Ray to be the one.

Reply to
David Nebenzahl

Wolf, I got my education in the USA and denaturing is denaturing. Why can't you accept that? The words are even spelled alike. See that?

DENATURING = DENATURING worldwide.

-- Ray

Reply to
Ray Haddad

As opposed to your reply. Both types of alcohol under discussion are denatured. End of story. Repetition may be necessary for the blockheads who believe they can nuance their way into being right.

-- Ray

Reply to
Ray Haddad

If you don't know what denatured alcohol is then you belong in another thread. Over there ====>

-- Ray

Reply to
Ray Haddad

PolyTech Forum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.