On 1/08/2023 3:02 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 31/07/2023 5:47 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 31/7/2023 7:24 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 31/07/2023 6:06 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>> On 31/7/2023 5:57 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 30/07/2023 9:55 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>> On 29/7/2023 2:08 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>> On 28/07/2023 9:06 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You have no idea what I have been contributing to *society*.
>>>>>>>> Just to clue you in - just a little, I have worked on three
>>>>>>>> major research projects and all resulted in 3 NESB people
>>>>>>>> attaining a PhD in Australian Unis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> NESB? Near Eastern Silly Buggers? So what work did you actually do
>>>>>>> on these projects? Did you actually do any of the research?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Se my other post on this. I have never claimed to be a *researcher*.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The most recent was a research project studying how students
>>>>>>>> from a Confucian Heritage Cultural (CHC) > background coped in a
>>>>>>>> western Student Centred Learning (SCL)
>>>>>>> environment.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I wouldn't have thought that that was PhD thesis material, more a
>>>>>>> project for social workers
>>>>>>
>>>>>> RMIT thought it was. After all, they were facing the disruptions
>>>>>> it causes with OS students in Australia and at their OS campus.
>>>>>> More a project for *educators*. Hey, the *graduate* was and is a
>>>>>> university lecturer and the issues were experienced and identified
>>>>>> by her.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> The one prior related to the underlying accountancy of the
>>>>>>>> carbon > credit scheme. That person is now the
>>>>>>>> Secretary-General of the ASEAN Federation of Accountants.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>  > A PhD in accountancy, such a high honour for such a mundane
>>>>>>> profession, what's next - a Nobel Prize in the subject? Anyway,
>>>>>>> what's your experience in the subject that would have made you an
>>>>>>> asset in the research?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> The *actual research* is for the *researcher*, got it?
>>>>>
>>>>> So your contribution was just some clerical work then.
>>>>
>>>> Ah, no, the term is *tutor* and that's what I was registered at RMIT
>>>> as.
>>>
>>> Tutor:
>>> verb - to teach or guide usually individually in a special subject or
>>> for a particular purpose
>>
>> Covers it rather well.
>>>
>>> noun - a teacher at a British college or university who teaches one
>>> student or a small group
>>>
>>> So what knowledge of the subject being researched did you have to
>>> impart to the tutee?
>>
>> Are you thick or what?
>
> Well that is a rhetorical question, of course he is and a flog with it.
> All he wants to do is denigrate other peoples achievements as if what he
> did was something special.
>
> Without evidence I see no reason to believe he achieved anything
> noteworthy at all.
>
> Ol' limey said it best in his own words...
>
"
"Prove it, prove it clocky wants a cracker"

Of course, I don't remember him ever proving anything.

On 31/07/2023 8:58 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 31/07/2023 7:37 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 31/07/2023 6:11 pm, Xeno wrote:
>
>>> It is the exact point *I* made when Darren scoffed at my mention of
>>> my *journeyman years*, and I've made it more than once in the past in
>>> this very forum. Completion of an apprenticeship is just the *basis*
>>> for and the *start* of one's learning.  But he didn't get it because,
>>> for a start, he's never done any apprenticeship ever.
>>>
>> As I have repeatedly said what you learn outside of the education
>> system is more important than what you learn within it.
>
> Agreed. And for the record, I "scoffed" as his "journeyman" claims (as
> did others) because they were utterly ridiculous. Assuming that they
> were even *true*, which is highly unlikely, he claimed to have spent
> time in 8 different roles over a 2 year period. That gives him an
> average of a mere 3 months in any one position, which would hardly be
> enough time to remember all the names of the people you worked with let
> alone gain any useful practical experience.
>
> Even if things didn't pan out like that and he spent more time in one or
> two particular roles, that would have given him less time in the others
> making his time in those capacities even *less* beneficial.

I've had 2 jobs that lasted for 6 months only. The first was at Uni of
WA, I had strong disagreement with the department Professor especially
when he said "When I call for a screwdriver, I expect to see a
technician on the end of it to turn it". Either he or I had to go, so I
moved on to a far better paying job. The other, I joined because they
expected to get a contract to supply a tech to support the F-18
simulators at Williamtown, unfortunately they didn't get the contract, I
ended up writing software acceptance test. Bored shitless, I moved on.

On 1/08/2023 1:56 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> Clocky wrote:
>> On 31/07/2023 6:41 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> On 31/7/2023 8:36 pm, Noddy wrote:
>>>> On 31/07/2023 6:03 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 27/07/2023 1:40 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mechanics can and do use LTFT data to diagnose faults. You don't
>>>>>> because until I schooled you you had no idea it existed and it was
>>>>>> very much a diagnostic aid.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're long on words but light on details of how LTFT would have
>>>>> diagnosed this particular problem.
>>>>
>>>> Don't you just love the "I schooled you" bullshit?
>>>>
>>>> I can tell you right now, as sure as I'm sitting here, that this
>>>> fucking sook couldn't school me on how to make a cheese & Tomato
>>>> sandwhich, and I could run rings around him on my *worst* day.
>>>>
>>>> Ain't that right, Junior? :)
>>>>
>>> Hey Darren, *school* is one place you *ran away from*. That meant
>>> that the rest of your life from then on was bluff, bluster, lies &
>>> bullshit*.
>>>
>>
>>
>> At least he is consistent. He digs his heels in and starts with the
>> vitriol as he's proven wrong. Throw run away in there somewhere too.
>> Decades worth of it in this group.
>
> yep
>
>>
>> It should be noted that his self-delusion and personality traits make
>> him the absolute worst kind or person to be diagnosing faults and
>> repairing anything.
>>
>> I've had to pick up after people like him too many times.
>>
>
> he soldered leads onto a phono pickup cartridge. no one in the audio
> business ever does that.
>

So proud he was of his solder job... and it was a nice job. But it's
like welding the wheels to the hub and then showing off the quality of
your welds.

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 31/07/2023 7:38 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
> Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 31/07/2023 4:15 pm, alvey wrote:
>>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 09:21:11 +1000, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 31/07/2023 6:50 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 20:59:31 +1000, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 30/07/2023 7:08 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 30/07/2023 3:54 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 13:45:28 +1000, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 30/07/2023 6:39 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There's a great big difference between someone making a
>>>>>>>>>>> statement
>>>>>>>>>>> and then refusing to explain/substantiate it, and someone
>>>>>>>>>>> refusing to answer grossly irrelevant and intrusive personal
>>>>>>>>>>> questions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Intrusive personal questions? I asked what you do/did not how
>>>>>>>>>> long
>>>>>>>>>> your dick is. Sheeeeesh!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tell you what Richo. If you can adequately answer the question
>>>>>>>>> that
>>>>>>>>> I'm *still* waiting for your (sensible) response to, *then* I'll
>>>>>>>>> tell you a few of the things I've done. So *again*; What does it
>>>>>>>>> matter what I've done in my life in regard to calling out The
>>>>>>>>> Fraudster as a serial liar,
>>>>>>>>> massive hypocrite, misoginist, fraud, and snivelling coward?
>>>>>>>>> And do
>>>>>>>>> note that these are all proveable, and *not* simply worthless
>>>>>>>>> opinions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Prove them then.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> has been done many times here
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not to any reasonable standard.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ooooooooh yes it has!
>>>>> (And you're way more likely to be under a Clapham bus than on it
>>>>> Richo.)
>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's a clue for you, not being able to find something does not mean
>>>>>> that it doesn't exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep your clue, here's a *fact* for you!
>>>>> Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to convict someone of
>>>>> murder.
>>>>> Just ask Chris Dawson, Lindy Chamberlain & Kelli Lane. "Beyond
>>>>> reasonable doubt" is all that's required Richo, and the weight of
>>>>> circumstantial evidence against the Fraudster is nearly as massive as
>>>>> your ego.
>>>>
>>>> Lindy Chamberlain? Not the best example for your argument. Beyond
>>>> reasonable doubt of 12 unbiased citizens is required not 3 bitter old
>>>> men with an axe to grind and 1 troll.
>>>
>>> You know, it doesn't matter whether you miss points deliberately or
>>> unknowingly Richo, the results are the same. Your responses read like
>>> version 0.1 of CHAT GPT. Garbled garbage.
>>
>> Interestingly, I was looking at some stats for this NG.
>
> where?

On a database of all messages since October 2020

On 1/08/2023 5:53 am, alvey wrote:
> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 17:50:16 +1000, Keithr0 wrote:
>
>> On 31/07/2023 4:15 pm, alvey wrote:
>>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 09:21:11 +1000, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 31/07/2023 6:50 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 20:59:31 +1000, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 30/07/2023 7:08 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>> On 30/07/2023 3:54 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 13:45:28 +1000, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 30/07/2023 6:39 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> There's a great big difference between someone making a
>>>>>>>>>>> statement and then refusing to explain/substantiate it, and
>>>>>>>>>>> someone refusing to answer grossly irrelevant and intrusive
>>>>>>>>>>> personal questions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Intrusive personal questions? I asked what you do/did not how
>>>>>>>>>> long your dick is. Sheeeeesh!
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Tell you what Richo. If you can adequately answer the question
>>>>>>>>> that I'm *still* waiting for your (sensible) response to, *then*
>>>>>>>>> I'll tell you a few of the things I've done. So *again*; What
>>>>>>>>> does it matter what I've done in my life in regard to calling out
>>>>>>>>> The Fraudster as a serial liar,
>>>>>>>>> massive hypocrite, misoginist, fraud, and snivelling coward? And
>>>>>>>>> do note that these are all proveable, and *not* simply worthless
>>>>>>>>> opinions.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Prove them then.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> has been done many times here
>>>>>>>
>>>>>> Not to any reasonable standard.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ooooooooh yes it has!
>>>>> (And you're way more likely to be under a Clapham bus than on it
>>>>> Richo.)
>>>>>
>>>>>> Here's a clue for you, not being able to find something does not
>>>>>> mean that it doesn't exist.
>>>>>
>>>>> Keep your clue, here's a *fact* for you!
>>>>> Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to convict someone of
>>>>> murder.
>>>>> Just ask Chris Dawson, Lindy Chamberlain & Kelli Lane. "Beyond
>>>>> reasonable doubt" is all that's required Richo, and the weight of
>>>>> circumstantial evidence against the Fraudster is nearly as massive as
>>>>> your ego.
>>>>
>>>> Lindy Chamberlain? Not the best example for your argument. Beyond
>>>> reasonable doubt of 12 unbiased citizens is required not 3 bitter old
>>>> men with an axe to grind and 1 troll.
>>>
>>> You know, it doesn't matter whether you miss points deliberately or
>>> unknowingly Richo, the results are the same. Your responses read like
>>> version 0.1 of CHAT GPT. Garbled garbage.
>>
>> Interestingly, I was looking at some stats for this NG. It seems that,
>> since October 2020, you've posted just under 3000 time. A quick estimate
>> of your posts that actually contained some information relevant to the
>> subject of this NG come up with about 10 instances, but lets be generous
>> and give you 20. That means that 99.3% of your posts are completely
>> irrelevant. Obviously, you aren't interested in the subject, just
>> showing off your self perceived "Debating skills" and stirring the local
>> flame war.
>
> This may be "interesting" to you Richo, but to me it's just another
> tedious and predictable instance of you being tattily evasive. Do you
> *really* need to have it spelt out what an unmoderated newsgroup is? Fork
> me Richo! If you were dipped in Superglue you still couldn't stick to the
> point. And you're not slippery in a devious and cunning way, you're much
> more sloppery than slippery.

That would go down well in you natural environment - a high school
debating society, unfortunately there aren't any 14 year olds around her.

>>> (And btw, Dawsons' trial was 'judge only').
>>>
>>>> When it comes to ego, I bow to your superiority, the size of yours
>>>> gives Alvin the paranoid androids brain a run for its money
>>>
>>> Like this nonsense frinstance. It wasn't me who was just trumpeting
>>> their (alleged) patents and how they were (allegedly) rewarded for this
>>> sterling work. Also it's not me who's forever braying, "When I was
>>> working in Merica...".
>>
>> Yet, when xeno claims to have saved society by doing clerical work for a
>> few PhD candidates and training some mechanics, you find that quite
>> acceptable. Hypocrisy much?
>
> lol!
> There you go *again* with the bobbing and weaving! Why didn't you
> introduce Elon Musk in that as well? It'd make just as much sense.

cop out!

> Now if you're not going to answer the question of who you say Clocky is
> "jealous" of, and why, then it's probably best if you don't reply. There
> you go! I'm giving you a free 'Run Awayyy' card!

Have you not noticed that I don't respond to demands.

On 1/8/2023 7:55 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 31/07/2023 8:21 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 31/7/2023 7:41 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 31/07/2023 6:25 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>>> On 31/7/2023 6:03 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>> On 27/07/2023 1:40 pm, Clocky wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Mechanics can and do use LTFT data to diagnose faults. You don't
>>>>>> because until I schooled you you had no idea it existed and it was
>>>>>> very much a diagnostic aid.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're long on words but light on details of how LTFT would have
>>>>> diagnosed this particular problem.
>>>>>
>>>> Why don't *you* ask *Darren* to explain why LTFT (and STFT, and
>>>> Freeze frame) is not relevant?
>>>>
>>> It's you and clocky who assert that LTFT would have diagnosed this
>>> particular problem, perhaps you can explain how. Full details would
>>> be relevant.
>>>
>>> In case you have forgotten, it was a transient occurrence some time
>>> previously.
>>
>> No it was not. A misfire DTC is an *emissions related DTC*. To set the
>> misfire DTC, the ECU would have made it a Permanent DTC and it was no
>> longer transient because PDTCs cannot be erased by any scantool.
>> What's more, a PDTC related to misfire would have set *other* DTCs
>> that would also have been permanent because a stuck and misfiring
>> injector will create a leaning at the O2 sensor that the ECU will see.
>> There will be a richening mixture that the STFT and LTFT fuel trims
>> would show and they would also likely set codes. Richening mixtures
>> can damage the catalytic converter so there would definitely be a limp
>> home mode set. You seem to forget, Darren claimed the owner had to
>> reset the DTC to use the car so he didn't get to see the DTC
>> initially. That was bullshit since, as stated above, PDTCs cannot be
>> erased by *any scantool*, not even the dealer's. This applies to *any
>> and all* vehicles on Australian roads *after* 2010-1012. It was
>> introduced precisely to stop people erasing emission codes immediately
>> prior to testing. As I said, something as serious as an emissions code
>> related to injection misfire will shut the system down, create a
>> multitude of related codes and, at a minimum, you will have a car in
>> limp mode only and no chance of clearing it.
>
> But a "Permanent" DTC isn't permanent though is it?

As far as the DTC being cleared, it is. A scantool cannot clear it,
disconnecting the battery cannot clear it and sometimes you cannot even
see it if the scantool doesn't have mode $0A. To get the PDTC to clear
you need to repair what caused it. Then the EMS will, after drive
cycles, clear it by itself. The EMS is the only entity that can clear
the PDTC.
>
> The intended use of the Permanent DTC is to prevent vehicles from
> passing an in-use inspection simply by disconnecting the battery or
> clearing DTCs with a scan tool prior to the inspection. A Permanent DTC
> will be erased one of two ways:
>
> After three consecutive confirmed fault-free monitoring cycles. The MIL
> is extinguished and the Permanent DTC is cleared at the start of the
> fourth fault-free monitoring cycle.
>
> After one confirmed fault-free monitoring cycle following a scan tool
> “clear DTC” request.

Nice bit of Googling but you are just muddying the water, deliberately I
suspect.

The EMS will do the clearing. The request can be made but the drive
cycles have to be fault free, then the EMS will clear the code for you.
It is done like that to prevent shonkies like Darren *cheating the system*.
>
> A driving cycle must include the following:
>
> The OBD monitor must run and determine that that fault is no longer
> present.
> Cumulative time since engine start (or propulsion system active for
> hybrid vehicles) is greater than 10 minutes.
> Cumulative vehicle operation above 40 km/h (25 MPH) occurs for greater
> than 5 minutes.
> Continuous operation at idle (i.e., accelerator pedal released by driver
> and vehicle speed less than 1 km/h or 1 MPH) for greater than 30 seconds.
>
> So, if the car has been driven more than 3 times for more than 10
> minutes after a single event, the "Permanent" DTC will be permanent no
> more. (I can cut and paste too)

Whoopee for you but my post above was *not* a cut and paste.
I know this stuff and I;ve known about it since it became a thing back
circa 2010. My scantool has been able to read and display PDTCs since I
bought it, and is *why* I bought it, and that must be close to 10 years
ago since it is now an *obsolete* model.

Darren's story is that the *owner* of the vehicle had to clear the codes
himself so he could use the car. See the problem right there? If the DTC
had affected the cars *driveability*, ie. by placing it into *limp home*
mode, then it would have to be a PDTC. Prior to the PDTC being set, the
code would be *flashing* the MIL. If the MIL is flashing, the code has
not yet been made permanent and limp home mode not yet entered. Once the
code goes permanent, it's limp home mode only, that's it - fix the issue.
As I said, and explained, if the code is emissions related, it won't be
a single permanent DTC. The EMS, in attempting to compensate for the
stuck injector, will create other issues and generate other codes, as I
previously explained, related to STFT, LTFT, pre-cat O2 sensor, post-cat
O2 sensor, and more. These additional codes may well be PDTCs also. The
whole idea, as explained previously, is to protect the cat and the
engine and the EMS does that by forcing limp mode. You can't clear the
codes, get it out of limp mode and just continue to drive. The problem
has to be fixed *first*.
>
>> When you sit down and analyse Darren's story, it's all bullshit. He
>> wasn't even aware of mode $0A and PDTCs yet a scantool I bought at
>> least 10 years ago shows them and it is mentioned in the scantool
>> manual as well.

Darren just created a story on the fly but didn't understand the system
operation thus fell flat on his face. Google let him down.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 1/08/2023 7:55 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 31/07/2023 8:21 pm, Xeno wrote:

>>> In case you have forgotten, it was a transient occurrence some time
>>> previously.
>>
>> No it was not. A misfire DTC is an *emissions related DTC*. To set the
>> misfire DTC, the ECU would have made it a Permanent DTC and it was no
>> longer transient because PDTCs cannot be erased by any scantool.
>> What's more, a PDTC related to misfire would have set *other* DTCs
>> that would also have been permanent because a stuck and misfiring
>> injector will create a leaning at the O2 sensor that the ECU will see.
>> There will be a richening mixture that the STFT and LTFT fuel trims
>> would show and they would also likely set codes. Richening mixtures
>> can damage the catalytic converter so there would definitely be a limp
>> home mode set. You seem to forget, Darren claimed the owner had to
>> reset the DTC to use the car so he didn't get to see the DTC
>> initially. That was bullshit since, as stated above, PDTCs cannot be
>> erased by *any scantool*, not even the dealer's. This applies to *any
>> and all* vehicles on Australian roads *after* 2010-1012. It was
>> introduced precisely to stop people erasing emission codes immediately
>> prior to testing. As I said, something as serious as an emissions code
>> related to injection misfire will shut the system down, create a
>> multitude of related codes and, at a minimum, you will have a car in
>> limp mode only and no chance of clearing it.
>
> But a "Permanent" DTC isn't permanent though is it?
>
> The intended use of the Permanent DTC is to prevent vehicles from
> passing an in-use inspection simply by disconnecting the battery or
> clearing DTCs with a scan tool prior to the inspection. A Permanent DTC
> will be erased one of two ways:
>
> After three consecutive confirmed fault-free monitoring cycles. The MIL
> is extinguished and the Permanent DTC is cleared at the start of the
> fourth fault-free monitoring cycle.
>
> After one confirmed fault-free monitoring cycle following a scan tool
> “clear DTC” request.
>
> A driving cycle must include the following:
>
> The OBD monitor must run and determine that that fault is no longer
> present.
> Cumulative time since engine start (or propulsion system active for
> hybrid vehicles) is greater than 10 minutes.
> Cumulative vehicle operation above 40 km/h (25 MPH) occurs for greater
> than 5 minutes.
> Continuous operation at idle (i.e., accelerator pedal released by driver
> and vehicle speed less than 1 km/h or 1 MPH) for greater than 30 seconds.
>
> So, if the car has been driven more than 3 times for more than 10
> minutes after a single event, the "Permanent" DTC will be permanent no
> more. (I can cut and paste too)
>
>> When you sit down and analyse Darren's story, it's all bullshit. He
>> wasn't even aware of mode $0A and PDTCs yet a scantool I bought at
>> least 10 years ago shows them and it is mentioned in the scantool
>> manual as well.

ROTFL :)

This is yet *another* example of the "teacher" inventing a scenario in
order to have something to scream about, and in a pathetic attempt at
making himself look "authoritative" he's padding it out with nonsensical
bullshit that exists nowhere other than in his mind.

To get back to the car in question which started all of this nonsense,
it was a 2012 VE Clubsport, and the fault code it would randomly throw
was a P0301 which is a cylinder #1 misfire error. It does *not* point to
a specific cause. It is *not* generate a permanent DTC, It is *not* an
"emissions code" and nor does it force the car into limp mode requiring
the code to be cleared before the car can be used. All it does is
indicate that an abnormal firing event took place in that cylinder for
whatever reason, and it pulls on the check engine light to let the
driver know.

As stated it was an intermittent fault that would occur totally at
random, and would sometimes go *weeks* between occurrences. It had zero
effect on the operation of the engine with the owner reporting that he
only ever cleared the code with his phone app and bluetooth dongle to
put out the dash light which he found annoying. Outside of that the car
performed faultlessly (in as much as any Commodore can).

For the fault to have tripped a permanent code that would put the
vehicle into limp mode it would have needed to exceed a set number of
cycle counts which the ECU monitors as the engine is running. I can't
remember what the count number is off the top of my head, but if for
example the cylinder failed 100 consecutive firings then the ECU would
determine that there was a "permanent" fault going on in that cylinder
and would shut it down by killing fuel and spark. It would also put the
thing into limp mode and pull on a bunch of DTC's to let people know
that there was a serious issue going on.

This never happened :)

What *did* happen was the car would experience a momentary misfire that
was enough to be noticed and pull on the Check Engine light, but as the
problem also corrected itself very quickly no further action was
required and the engine continued to run normally. After the owner
extinguished the light with his app the car would go through the
required number of fault free run cycles without the error occurring
again and the fault would be deleted permanently and no record of it
ever having taken place would remain.

This is how it works, and any suggestion to the contrary is complete and
utter horse shit :)

The two resident blowhards have been offering up *reams* of shit about
this, and it's been interesting to watch the position of these morons
evolve during the course of this "conversation". They started off by
claiming all data was continually and permanently recorded which is
completely ludicrous, and then they claimed that data can be retrieved
at will by using the "correct tools" which is equally nonsensical. The
claims that long and short term fuel trim data could have accurately
diagnosed the problem are an utter nonsense, as the issue was a
momentary misfire that would have made zero difference to the long term
readings, and as the DTC had been deleted and no freeze frame data
existing the short term fuel trim readings would have only ever been of
any use *if* the problem occurred while you were looking at them.

Claiming that "old" fuel trim data could be retrieved and read to
determine the cause of the problem is completely and utterly false.

They've stumbled around like newborn Fawns trying to walk as they've
desperately tried to educate themselves about this all while attempting
to pass themselves off as "knowledgeable experts", and all they've
managed to do is make themselves look like completely clueless idiots.
No prises for guessing why that fuckwit from Western Australia fits
mudflaps and snorkels for a living, but the "teacher" is far and away
the most amusing. He bangs on as if his understanding of this is
extremely detailed, yet seems completely oblivious of the fact that OBD2
wasn't even a compliant standard in Australia at the time that he faked
his back injury and retired "hurt", and the *only* "experience" he's had
with this has been whatever he's been able to Google along with whatever
his little toy scan tool can show him.

And boy, doesn't it show? :)

These morons have absolutely no idea what they're talking about, and the
more they try to exert their authority on the subject the more apparent
their *lack* of knowledge becomes.

I mean, for fuck's sake. You're not even a mechanic and you understand
this better than they do :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 1/08/2023 8:30 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 31/07/2023 8:58 pm, Noddy wrote:

>> Even if things didn't pan out like that and he spent more time in one
>> or two particular roles, that would have given him less time in the
>> others making his time in those capacities even *less* beneficial.
>
> I've had 2 jobs that lasted for 6 months only. The first was at Uni of
> WA, I had strong disagreement with the department Professor especially
> when he said "When I call for a screwdriver, I expect to see a
> technician on the end of it to turn it". Either he or I had to go, so I
> moved on to a far better paying job. The other, I joined because they
> expected to get a contract to supply a tech to support the F-18
> simulators at Williamtown, unfortunately they didn't get the contract, I
> ended up writing software acceptance test. Bored shitless, I moved on.

Given Clasener's *many* examples of complete ineptitude around here, I'm
willing to bet very good money that his "journeyman" period is his own
little cover story for his inability to hold a job for any length of
time due to his piss poor skill level combined with his detestable
character.

No wonder he moved into teaching, which is a life of permanent retirement.

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 1/8/2023 10:09 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 1/08/2023 7:55 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 31/07/2023 8:21 pm, Xeno wrote:
>
>>>> In case you have forgotten, it was a transient occurrence some time
>>>> previously.
>>>
>>> No it was not. A misfire DTC is an *emissions related DTC*. To set
>>> the misfire DTC, the ECU would have made it a Permanent DTC and it
>>> was no longer transient because PDTCs cannot be erased by any
>>> scantool. What's more, a PDTC related to misfire would have set
>>> *other* DTCs that would also have been permanent because a stuck and
>>> misfiring injector will create a leaning at the O2 sensor that the
>>> ECU will see. There will be a richening mixture that the STFT and
>>> LTFT fuel trims would show and they would also likely set codes.
>>> Richening mixtures can damage the catalytic converter so there would
>>> definitely be a limp home mode set. You seem to forget, Darren
>>> claimed the owner had to reset the DTC to use the car so he didn't
>>> get to see the DTC initially. That was bullshit since, as stated
>>> above, PDTCs cannot be erased by *any scantool*, not even the
>>> dealer's. This applies to *any and all* vehicles on Australian roads
>>> *after* 2010-1012. It was introduced precisely to stop people erasing
>>> emission codes immediately prior to testing. As I said, something as
>>> serious as an emissions code related to injection misfire will shut
>>> the system down, create a multitude of related codes and, at a
>>> minimum, you will have a car in limp mode only and no chance of
>>> clearing it.
>>
>> But a "Permanent" DTC isn't permanent though is it?
>>
>> The intended use of the Permanent DTC is to prevent vehicles from
>> passing an in-use inspection simply by disconnecting the battery or
>> clearing DTCs with a scan tool prior to the inspection. A Permanent
>> DTC will be erased one of two ways:
>>
>> After three consecutive confirmed fault-free monitoring cycles. The
>> MIL is extinguished and the Permanent DTC is cleared at the start of
>> the fourth fault-free monitoring cycle.
>>
>> After one confirmed fault-free monitoring cycle following a scan tool
>> “clear DTC” request.
>>
>> A driving cycle must include the following:
>>
>> The OBD monitor must run and determine that that fault is no longer
>> present.
>> Cumulative time since engine start (or propulsion system active for
>> hybrid vehicles) is greater than 10 minutes.
>> Cumulative vehicle operation above 40 km/h (25 MPH) occurs for greater
>> than 5 minutes.
>> Continuous operation at idle (i.e., accelerator pedal released by
>> driver and vehicle speed less than 1 km/h or 1 MPH) for greater than
>> 30 seconds.
>>
>> So, if the car has been driven more than 3 times for more than 10
>> minutes after a single event, the "Permanent" DTC will be permanent no
>> more. (I can cut and paste too)
>>
>>> When you sit down and analyse Darren's story, it's all bullshit. He
>>> wasn't even aware of mode $0A and PDTCs yet a scantool I bought at
>>> least 10 years ago shows them and it is mentioned in the scantool
>>> manual as well.
>
> ROTFL :)
>
> This is yet *another* example of the "teacher" inventing a scenario in
> order to have something to scream about, and in a pathetic attempt at
> making himself look "authoritative" he's padding it out with nonsensical
> bullshit that exists nowhere other than in his mind.
>
> To get back to the car in question which started all of this nonsense,
> it was a 2012 VE Clubsport, and the fault code it would randomly throw
> was a P0301 which is a cylinder #1 misfire error. It does *not* point to
> a specific cause. It is *not* generate a permanent DTC, It is *not* an
> "emissions code" and nor does it force the car into limp mode requiring

A stuck injector *is* an emissions code and the subcodes it will
generate are *also* emissions codes. I know it is difficult - for you -
but have a think about it.

<bullshit cleared>

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 1/8/2023 10:12 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 1/08/2023 8:30 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 31/07/2023 8:58 pm, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> Even if things didn't pan out like that and he spent more time in one
>>> or two particular roles, that would have given him less time in the
>>> others making his time in those capacities even *less* beneficial.
>>
>> I've had 2 jobs that lasted for 6 months only. The first was at Uni of
>> WA, I had strong disagreement with the department Professor especially
>> when he said "When I call for a screwdriver, I expect to see a
>> technician on the end of it to turn it". Either he or I had to go, so
>> I moved on to a far better paying job. The other, I joined because
>> they expected to get a contract to supply a tech to support the F-18
>> simulators at Williamtown, unfortunately they didn't get the contract,
>> I ended up writing software acceptance test. Bored shitless, I moved on.
>
> Given Clasener's *many* examples of complete ineptitude around here, I'm
> willing to bet very good money that his "journeyman" period is his own
> little cover story for his inability to hold a job for any length of
> time due to his piss poor skill level combined with his detestable
> character.

You may not be able to get it but the reasoning Keith is making above is
not a lot different to my own reasoning. Once I got to know the ins and
out of a job, I moved on when, or before, I became bored. I was
satisfying 2 itches, a desire to learn new things and a desire to
travel. You learnt nothing and barely travelled. You wouldn't understand!
>
> No wonder he moved into teaching, which is a life of permanent retirement.
>
Ah Darren, jealousy's a bitch, eh?

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 1/8/2023 10:34 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 1/8/2023 10:09 pm, Noddy wrote:
>> On 1/08/2023 7:55 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>>> On 31/07/2023 8:21 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>
>>>>> In case you have forgotten, it was a transient occurrence some time
>>>>> previously.
>>>>
>>>> No it was not. A misfire DTC is an *emissions related DTC*. To set
>>>> the misfire DTC, the ECU would have made it a Permanent DTC and it
>>>> was no longer transient because PDTCs cannot be erased by any
>>>> scantool. What's more, a PDTC related to misfire would have set
>>>> *other* DTCs that would also have been permanent because a stuck and
>>>> misfiring injector will create a leaning at the O2 sensor that the
>>>> ECU will see. There will be a richening mixture that the STFT and
>>>> LTFT fuel trims would show and they would also likely set codes.
>>>> Richening mixtures can damage the catalytic converter so there would
>>>> definitely be a limp home mode set. You seem to forget, Darren
>>>> claimed the owner had to reset the DTC to use the car so he didn't
>>>> get to see the DTC initially. That was bullshit since, as stated
>>>> above, PDTCs cannot be erased by *any scantool*, not even the
>>>> dealer's. This applies to *any and all* vehicles on Australian roads
>>>> *after* 2010-1012. It was introduced precisely to stop people
>>>> erasing emission codes immediately prior to testing. As I said,
>>>> something as serious as an emissions code related to injection
>>>> misfire will shut the system down, create a multitude of related
>>>> codes and, at a minimum, you will have a car in limp mode only and
>>>> no chance of clearing it.
>>>
>>> But a "Permanent" DTC isn't permanent though is it?
>>>
>>> The intended use of the Permanent DTC is to prevent vehicles from
>>> passing an in-use inspection simply by disconnecting the battery or
>>> clearing DTCs with a scan tool prior to the inspection. A Permanent
>>> DTC will be erased one of two ways:
>>>
>>> After three consecutive confirmed fault-free monitoring cycles. The
>>> MIL is extinguished and the Permanent DTC is cleared at the start of
>>> the fourth fault-free monitoring cycle.
>>>
>>> After one confirmed fault-free monitoring cycle following a scan tool
>>> “clear DTC” request.
>>>
>>> A driving cycle must include the following:
>>>
>>> The OBD monitor must run and determine that that fault is no longer
>>> present.
>>> Cumulative time since engine start (or propulsion system active for
>>> hybrid vehicles) is greater than 10 minutes.
>>> Cumulative vehicle operation above 40 km/h (25 MPH) occurs for
>>> greater than 5 minutes.
>>> Continuous operation at idle (i.e., accelerator pedal released by
>>> driver and vehicle speed less than 1 km/h or 1 MPH) for greater than
>>> 30 seconds.
>>>
>>> So, if the car has been driven more than 3 times for more than 10
>>> minutes after a single event, the "Permanent" DTC will be permanent
>>> no more. (I can cut and paste too)
>>>
>>>> When you sit down and analyse Darren's story, it's all bullshit. He
>>>> wasn't even aware of mode $0A and PDTCs yet a scantool I bought at
>>>> least 10 years ago shows them and it is mentioned in the scantool
>>>> manual as well.
>>
>> ROTFL :)
>>
>> This is yet *another* example of the "teacher" inventing a scenario in
>> order to have something to scream about, and in a pathetic attempt at
>> making himself look "authoritative" he's padding it out with
>> nonsensical bullshit that exists nowhere other than in his mind.
>>
>> To get back to the car in question which started all of this nonsense,
>> it was a 2012 VE Clubsport, and the fault code it would randomly throw
>> was a P0301 which is a cylinder #1 misfire error. It does *not* point
>> to a specific cause. It is *not* generate a permanent DTC, It is *not*
>> an "emissions code" and nor does it force the car into limp mode
>> requiring
>
> A stuck injector *is* an emissions code and the subcodes it will
> generate are *also* emissions codes. I know it is difficult - for you -
> but have a think about it.
>
> <bullshit cleared>
>
An addendum. Emissions codes are any codes related to;

fuel, ignition, exhaust, evap and EGR.

They are emissions codes because any fault can have a detrimental effect
on the vehicle's emissions compliance.

The codes will arise as a result of faults arising from a bank of tests
on components used in engine controls. These tests verify that the
controls are working properly in order to minimise any emissions coming
from the vehicle. These tests are known as system monitors and there are
11 related to emissions;

Engine misfire monitor
Evap system monitor
Heated catalyst monitor
Secondary air monitor
Fuel system monitor
O2 sensor monitor (pre-cat)
EGR system monitor
Catalyst efficiency monitor (post-cat)
PCV system monitor
Thermostat monitor
Comprehensive component monitor (CCM)

Most are obviously related to emissions. That last one is a bit
different. The CCM is the *overlord*, as it were, of all the sensors.
The EMS receives data from a variety of sensors and systems and its role
is to determine if the data received is valid and timely.

The above monitors are why more than the misfire code will be triggered
by a misfire. A misfire will trip up systems further down the chain, as
I explained in previous posts.

HTH ;-)

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Tue, 01 Aug 2023 20:47:12 +1000, Keithr0 wrote:

> On 1/08/2023 5:53 am, alvey wrote:
>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 17:50:16 +1000, Keithr0 wrote:
>>
>>> On 31/07/2023 4:15 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 09:21:11 +1000, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 31/07/2023 6:50 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 20:59:31 +1000, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 30/07/2023 7:08 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>> On 30/07/2023 3:54 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 13:45:28 +1000, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/07/2023 6:39 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> There's a great big difference between someone making a
>>>>>>>>>>>> statement and then refusing to explain/substantiate it, and
>>>>>>>>>>>> someone refusing to answer grossly irrelevant and intrusive
>>>>>>>>>>>> personal questions.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Intrusive personal questions? I asked what you do/did not how
>>>>>>>>>>> long your dick is. Sheeeeesh!
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Tell you what Richo. If you can adequately answer the question
>>>>>>>>>> that I'm *still* waiting for your (sensible) response to,
>>>>>>>>>> *then* I'll tell you a few of the things I've done. So *again*;
>>>>>>>>>> What does it matter what I've done in my life in regard to
>>>>>>>>>> calling out The Fraudster as a serial liar,
>>>>>>>>>> massive hypocrite, misoginist, fraud, and snivelling coward?
>>>>>>>>>> And do note that these are all proveable, and *not* simply
>>>>>>>>>> worthless opinions.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Prove them then.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> has been done many times here
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Not to any reasonable standard.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Ooooooooh yes it has!
>>>>>> (And you're way more likely to be under a Clapham bus than on it
>>>>>> Richo.)
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Here's a clue for you, not being able to find something does not
>>>>>>> mean that it doesn't exist.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Keep your clue, here's a *fact* for you!
>>>>>> Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to convict someone of
>>>>>> murder.
>>>>>> Just ask Chris Dawson, Lindy Chamberlain & Kelli Lane. "Beyond
>>>>>> reasonable doubt" is all that's required Richo, and the weight of
>>>>>> circumstantial evidence against the Fraudster is nearly as massive
>>>>>> as your ego.
>>>>>
>>>>> Lindy Chamberlain? Not the best example for your argument. Beyond
>>>>> reasonable doubt of 12 unbiased citizens is required not 3 bitter
>>>>> old men with an axe to grind and 1 troll.
>>>>
>>>> You know, it doesn't matter whether you miss points deliberately or
>>>> unknowingly Richo, the results are the same. Your responses read like
>>>> version 0.1 of CHAT GPT. Garbled garbage.
>>>
>>> Interestingly, I was looking at some stats for this NG. It seems that,
>>> since October 2020, you've posted just under 3000 time. A quick
>>> estimate of your posts that actually contained some information
>>> relevant to the subject of this NG come up with about 10 instances,
>>> but lets be generous and give you 20. That means that 99.3% of your
>>> posts are completely irrelevant. Obviously, you aren't interested in
>>> the subject, just showing off your self perceived "Debating skills"
>>> and stirring the local flame war.
>>
>> This may be "interesting" to you Richo, but to me it's just another
>> tedious and predictable instance of you being tattily evasive. Do you
>> *really* need to have it spelt out what an unmoderated newsgroup is?
>> Fork me Richo! If you were dipped in Superglue you still couldn't stick
>> to the point. And you're not slippery in a devious and cunning way,
>> you're much more sloppery than slippery.
>
> That would go down well in you natural environment - a high school
> debating society, unfortunately there aren't any 14 year olds around
> her.
>
>>>> (And btw, Dawsons' trial was 'judge only').
>>>>
>>>>> When it comes to ego, I bow to your superiority, the size of yours
>>>>> gives Alvin the paranoid androids brain a run for its money
>>>>
>>>> Like this nonsense frinstance. It wasn't me who was just trumpeting
>>>> their (alleged) patents and how they were (allegedly) rewarded for
>>>> this sterling work. Also it's not me who's forever braying, "When I
>>>> was working in Merica...".
>>>
>>> Yet, when xeno claims to have saved society by doing clerical work for
>>> a few PhD candidates and training some mechanics, you find that quite
>>> acceptable. Hypocrisy much?
>>
>> lol!
>> There you go *again* with the bobbing and weaving! Why didn't you
>> introduce Elon Musk in that as well? It'd make just as much sense.
>
> cop out!
>
>> Now if you're not going to answer the question of who you say Clocky is
>> "jealous" of, and why, then it's probably best if you don't reply.
>> There you go! I'm giving you a free 'Run Awayyy' card!
>
> Have you not noticed that I don't respond to demands.

You don't respond in a meaningful way to *anything* that questions you
Richo! Polite requests, enquiries, fair questions, *anything*. Like the
rest of The Enablers, you believe that you can say whatever you like
without then following the convention of defending/substantiating
yourself. The only question you've ever answered conclusively is, "Is
Richo someone you'd want to sit next to at a dinner party?"

Oh and btw... If you're going to try and weasel away with, "...I don't
respond to demands", then you are a Fraudster-sized hypocrite by
repeatedly making them to others.

alvey

On 2/08/2023 4:15 am, alvey wrote:
> On Tue, 01 Aug 2023 20:47:12 +1000, Keithr0 wrote:
>
>> On 1/08/2023 5:53 am, alvey wrote:
>>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 17:50:16 +1000, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 31/07/2023 4:15 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>> On Mon, 31 Jul 2023 09:21:11 +1000, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 31/07/2023 6:50 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 20:59:31 +1000, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 30/07/2023 7:08 pm, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> On 30/07/2023 3:54 pm, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 13:45:28 +1000, Keithr0 wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 30/07/2023 6:39 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> There's a great big difference between someone making a
>>>>>>>>>>>>> statement and then refusing to explain/substantiate it, and
>>>>>>>>>>>>> someone refusing to answer grossly irrelevant and intrusive
>>>>>>>>>>>>> personal questions.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Intrusive personal questions? I asked what you do/did not how
>>>>>>>>>>>> long your dick is. Sheeeeesh!
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Tell you what Richo. If you can adequately answer the question
>>>>>>>>>>> that I'm *still* waiting for your (sensible) response to,
>>>>>>>>>>> *then* I'll tell you a few of the things I've done. So *again*;
>>>>>>>>>>> What does it matter what I've done in my life in regard to
>>>>>>>>>>> calling out The Fraudster as a serial liar,
>>>>>>>>>>> massive hypocrite, misoginist, fraud, and snivelling coward?
>>>>>>>>>>> And do note that these are all proveable, and *not* simply
>>>>>>>>>>> worthless opinions.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Prove them then.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> has been done many times here
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Not to any reasonable standard.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Ooooooooh yes it has!
>>>>>>> (And you're way more likely to be under a Clapham bus than on it
>>>>>>> Richo.)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Here's a clue for you, not being able to find something does not
>>>>>>>> mean that it doesn't exist.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Keep your clue, here's a *fact* for you!
>>>>>>> Circumstantial evidence alone is sufficient to convict someone of
>>>>>>> murder.
>>>>>>> Just ask Chris Dawson, Lindy Chamberlain & Kelli Lane. "Beyond
>>>>>>> reasonable doubt" is all that's required Richo, and the weight of
>>>>>>> circumstantial evidence against the Fraudster is nearly as massive
>>>>>>> as your ego.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Lindy Chamberlain? Not the best example for your argument. Beyond
>>>>>> reasonable doubt of 12 unbiased citizens is required not 3 bitter
>>>>>> old men with an axe to grind and 1 troll.
>>>>>
>>>>> You know, it doesn't matter whether you miss points deliberately or
>>>>> unknowingly Richo, the results are the same. Your responses read like
>>>>> version 0.1 of CHAT GPT. Garbled garbage.
>>>>
>>>> Interestingly, I was looking at some stats for this NG. It seems that,
>>>> since October 2020, you've posted just under 3000 time. A quick
>>>> estimate of your posts that actually contained some information
>>>> relevant to the subject of this NG come up with about 10 instances,
>>>> but lets be generous and give you 20. That means that 99.3% of your
>>>> posts are completely irrelevant. Obviously, you aren't interested in
>>>> the subject, just showing off your self perceived "Debating skills"
>>>> and stirring the local flame war.
>>>
>>> This may be "interesting" to you Richo, but to me it's just another
>>> tedious and predictable instance of you being tattily evasive. Do you
>>> *really* need to have it spelt out what an unmoderated newsgroup is?
>>> Fork me Richo! If you were dipped in Superglue you still couldn't stick
>>> to the point. And you're not slippery in a devious and cunning way,
>>> you're much more sloppery than slippery.
>>
>> That would go down well in you natural environment - a high school
>> debating society, unfortunately there aren't any 14 year olds around
>> her.
>>
>>>>> (And btw, Dawsons' trial was 'judge only').
>>>>>
>>>>>> When it comes to ego, I bow to your superiority, the size of yours
>>>>>> gives Alvin the paranoid androids brain a run for its money
>>>>>
>>>>> Like this nonsense frinstance. It wasn't me who was just trumpeting
>>>>> their (alleged) patents and how they were (allegedly) rewarded for
>>>>> this sterling work. Also it's not me who's forever braying, "When I
>>>>> was working in Merica...".
>>>>
>>>> Yet, when xeno claims to have saved society by doing clerical work for
>>>> a few PhD candidates and training some mechanics, you find that quite
>>>> acceptable. Hypocrisy much?
>>>
>>> lol!
>>> There you go *again* with the bobbing and weaving! Why didn't you
>>> introduce Elon Musk in that as well? It'd make just as much sense.
>>
>> cop out!
>>
>>> Now if you're not going to answer the question of who you say Clocky is
>>> "jealous" of, and why, then it's probably best if you don't reply.
>>> There you go! I'm giving you a free 'Run Awayyy' card!
>>
>> Have you not noticed that I don't respond to demands.
>
> You don't respond in a meaningful way to *anything* that questions you
> Richo! Polite requests, enquiries, fair questions, *anything*. Like the
> rest of The Enablers, you believe that you can say whatever you like
> without then following the convention of defending/substantiating
> yourself. The only question you've ever answered conclusively is, "Is
> Richo someone you'd want to sit next to at a dinner party?"
>
> Oh and btw... If you're going to try and weasel away with, "...I don't
> respond to demands", then you are a Fraudster-sized hypocrite by
> repeatedly making them to others.
>

Ol' limey doesn't answer to anything because like the fraud he wants to
bang out all kinds of chest-beating nonsense without answering to any of
it when asked to.

Like his 'patent on the wall' rubbish. Since he won't prove the claim
the hypocrite must be lying.

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 22:45:41 +0000, alvey wrote:

> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 08:07:01 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>
>> On 30/07/2023 6:51 am, alvey wrote:
>>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 11:46:38 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 29/07/2023 7:43 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 01:33:48 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 28/07/2023 10:55 pm, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> There you go Gumps. You've managed to get the full support of the
>>>>> biggest *proven* liar, fraud, hypocrite and coward in the group.
>>>>>
>>>>> Happy with that are you?
>>>>
>>>> I haven't seen you, xeno, or clocky supporting me so i cant have the
>>>> full support of the biggest *proven* liars, fraud, hypocrites and
>>>> cowards in the group.
>>>
>>> Here we go again.
>>>
>>> Ok Gumps. There have been shedloads of *proven* episodes of The
>>> Fraudster performing all those behaviours. Now howabout you provide
>>> examples of my lying, fraud, hypocrisy and cowardice. Either do that
>>> or a provide a retraction thanks.
>>>
>>>
>> Sleep with dogs... you know the rest.
>
> So you can't provide any examples and you're not going to apologise or
> retract. Is that correct?

Well done Gumps.
Make any allegation you like and then refuse to prove or retract.
That's seriously pissweak.

On 4/08/2023 4:36 am, alvey wrote:
> On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 22:45:41 +0000, alvey wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 08:07:01 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>
>>> On 30/07/2023 6:51 am, alvey wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 11:46:38 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 29/07/2023 7:43 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 01:33:48 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On 28/07/2023 10:55 pm, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There you go Gumps. You've managed to get the full support of the
>>>>>> biggest *proven* liar, fraud, hypocrite and coward in the group.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Happy with that are you?
>>>>>
>>>>> I haven't seen you, xeno, or clocky supporting me so i cant have the
>>>>> full support of the biggest *proven* liars, fraud, hypocrites and
>>>>> cowards in the group.
>>>>
>>>> Here we go again.
>>>>
>>>> Ok Gumps. There have been shedloads of *proven* episodes of The
>>>> Fraudster performing all those behaviours. Now howabout you provide
>>>> examples of my lying, fraud, hypocrisy and cowardice. Either do that
>>>> or a provide a retraction thanks.
>>>>
>>>>
>>> Sleep with dogs... you know the rest.
>>
>> So you can't provide any examples and you're not going to apologise or
>> retract. Is that correct?
>
> Well done Gumps.
> Make any allegation you like and then refuse to prove or retract.
> That's seriously pissweak.
>

That's quite an understatement.

He has a long history of doing that and more including posting personal
information publicly and making defamatory comments.

--
In thread "May need to buy petrol soon" Sept 23 2021 11:15:59am
Keithr0 wrote: "He made the assertion either he proves it or he is a
proven liar."

On Sept 23 2021 3:16:29pm Keithr0 wrote:
"He asserts that the claim is true, so, if it is unproven, he is lying."

On 4/8/2023 1:22 pm, Clocky wrote:
> On 4/08/2023 4:36 am, alvey wrote:
>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 22:45:41 +0000, alvey wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 30 Jul 2023 08:07:01 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 30/07/2023 6:51 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 11:46:38 +1000, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 29/07/2023 7:43 am, alvey wrote:
>>>>>>> On Sat, 29 Jul 2023 01:33:48 +1000, Noddy wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 28/07/2023 10:55 pm, Grumpy Tech wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There you go Gumps. You've managed to get the full support of the
>>>>>>> biggest *proven* liar, fraud, hypocrite and coward in the group.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Happy with that are you?
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I haven't seen you, xeno, or clocky supporting me so i cant have the
>>>>>> full support of the biggest *proven* liars, fraud, hypocrites and
>>>>>> cowards in the group.
>>>>>
>>>>> Here we go again.
>>>>>
>>>>> Ok Gumps. There have been shedloads of *proven* episodes of The
>>>>> Fraudster performing all those behaviours. Now howabout you provide
>>>>> examples of my lying, fraud, hypocrisy and cowardice. Either do that
>>>>> or a provide a retraction thanks.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>> Sleep with dogs... you know the rest.
>>>
>>> So you can't provide any examples and you're not going to apologise or
>>> retract. Is that correct?
>>
>> Well done Gumps.
>> Make any allegation you like and then refuse to prove or retract.
>> That's seriously pissweak.
>>
>
> That's quite an understatement.
>
> He has a long history of doing that and more including posting personal
> information publicly and making defamatory comments.
>
IOW, Grumpy's a slimeball! Proven!

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 30/7/2023 10:32 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 30/07/2023 9:40 pm, Xeno wrote:
>> On 29/7/2023 1:33 am, Noddy wrote:
>
>>> Anyone who's ever been to any kind of trade school will tell you that
>>> the school based learning lagged behind what the industry was doing
>>> by *decades*, and most of the apprentices knew more about the current
>>> tech than the dust coat wearing nonces they were supposed to be
>>> learning from.
>>
>> Hmm, you just proved yet again that you have never ever sat in any
>> apprentice class. Well done you!
>
> Well, I sat in an apprentice class for months learning everything that

In the 50s Keith? Or the 60s? The world has long moved on from there -
and so has TAFE. Do you know who the automotive industry (car
manufacturers, importers, dealers) approach for skills upgrading? It's
TAFE. In fact some importers are using the facilities at TAFE; venue,
equipment, staff to carry out dealer training for them. In the late 90s
the college wanted me to do some work for Iveco in Dandenong. I declined
because it would have been a *logistics PITA* for me at that time.

> there was to know about valves (the electronic type). Unfortunately they
> were in the process of becoming obsolete to the new fangled transistor
> things about which the instructors knew nothing.
>
What people don't seem to realise, you included, is that TAFE colleges
should be all about *teaching principles* - first and foremost. Once the
apprentices have those *all stowed away*, then is the time to move onto
industry practice. TAFE, in Victoria at least, recognised the need for
lifelong learning and provided short courses to industry to cater to
that need. In order to maintain currency with industry, TAFE teachers
were required, through professional development programs, to *spend time
in industry*. That concept alone knackers Darren's opinion of TAFE
teachers. When industry required new specialised training in any area,
who did they turn to? TAFE of course! The people who developed *new
courses* to cover *new technology* would invariably be *TAFE teachers*.
In fact, a pair of my colleagues developed a complete new apprenticeship
curriculum including the syllabus, the learning materials and the all
important *accreditation process*. This was all done at the request of
and in collaboration with the relevant industry body. Darren's statement
about TAFE lagging behind industry by decades is just so much bullshit
from a person who has never sat foot in any apprentice class in any
trade whatsoever - and he just keeps on proving it time and time again.

Change was slow in the automotive industry right through to the end of
the 60s. The 70s brought with it the first signs of rapid changes coming
in automotive pushed by legislative changes related to emissions. The
problem for those within the industry was accessing the info related to
these changes. If you worked at a *dealership*, you might have been
covered by dealership training. Up until recently I still had my Ford
emissions supplement manual from that era. Ford and Holden had extensive
dealer training networks. Holden had an extensive apprentice training
school (Matec). Outside of the dealer network, a mechanic's *only
recourse* to relevant skills updating, new technical information, and
the like was *TAFE*. An example, I was working in a Ford dealership in
Hobart and they had a shiny brand new Engine Performance Tester which
included an oscilloscope, exhaust gas analyser, vacuum gauge, Tach,
power balance, dwell meter, cylinder leakage and more that I have
probably forgotten. Old tech (vacuum gauge) alongside new tech
(oscilloscope) and all integrated. The sad thing, was that it was
positioned in a bay out near reception and *looked schmick* but was
never used in the brief period of time I was there. I was in a different
department at the time so no opportunity to get my hands on it. My next
job was in Launceston and I immediately signed up for a course on using
one of those machines at the local TAFE. It was one of these;

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnDZlv7bP88

Maybe not the same model but covers the same things. Apart from a few
large dealerships, the college was the only enterprise that had such a
machine at that time (1973). Oddly enough, given that few machines were
out in industry, the demand for the course was great. I gained great
benefits from it. The snag with such a course is that you needed to be a
trained mechanic. The reason was that the machine relied upon you having
an intimate understanding of engine operation and, in particular,
electrical, in order to interpret what the machine was presenting to
you. That particular course was one of the first of many advanced trade
courses I signed up for. And I was doing that right up until I retired
from teaching.

In direct contrast to *your claim* that *the instructors knew nothing*,
in automotive, from *my experience*, the instructors knew and had access
to the latest technology long before it became common in automotive
workshops. The best and first example, as detailed above, was the latest
tuning and diagnostic equipment in Launceston TAFE. I also did full
brake training, with all the latest equipment, at Launceston TAFE, again
before the equipment filtered down to any but the odd dealership
workshop. I was learning about, and getting *hands on experience* at
*TAFE*, with equipment that wasn't widely available in general workshops
and from instructors who really knew their stuff. Post 1980, my own
experience with TAFE began and I really began to learn why the
instructors I knew from my early days were so up to date. For a start,
some of the people I taught with had worked in the Ford, Holden, Toyota
and Nissan development labs, primarily having A Grade and Technician
certification. One worked in the Holden training centre (Matec). In
fact, most of the TAFE teachers I worked with had Automotive technician
certification since it was a requirement. Quite a large number had been
service managers and some were ex-military. I was the exception
primarily because that certification wasn't a thing in Tasmania. That
said, I had to *upgrade my certification* to an equivalent level in
order to continue teaching. Took me an extra 4 years to do that and
qualify for my DipTT.

So, no, my experience does not match *your* experience in any way, shape
or form. But then, mine was automotive in Australia. Was yours in the
UK? I worked alongside Radio/Electronics teachers at Sunshine Tech and
they seemed to be well up with electronics tech and even computers as
far back as the 80s. Maybe you went to the wrong school? In 1981, they,
and I, had access to the mainframe computer at Footscray Institute and
the electronics department were teaching computer techs in 1981-5. They
were primarily ex RAF and ex RAAF and, IIRC, used to also teach FLEX OS
for 68xx processors. And this was from 1981-1985 that I know of. I
somehow have a feeling they were well up with current tech in their
industries.

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 8/08/2023 6:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 30/7/2023 10:32 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 30/07/2023 9:40 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> On 29/7/2023 1:33 am, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> Anyone who's ever been to any kind of trade school will tell you
>>>> that the school based learning lagged behind what the industry was
>>>> doing by *decades*, and most of the apprentices knew more about the
>>>> current tech than the dust coat wearing nonces they were supposed to
>>>> be learning from.
>>>
>>> Hmm, you just proved yet again that you have never ever sat in any
>>> apprentice class. Well done you!
>>
>> Well, I sat in an apprentice class for months learning everything that
>
> In the 50s Keith? Or the 60s? The world has long moved on from there -
> and so has TAFE. Do you know who the automotive industry (car
> manufacturers, importers, dealers) approach for skills upgrading? It's
> TAFE. In fact some importers are using the facilities at TAFE; venue,
> equipment, staff to carry out dealer training for them. In the late 90s
> the college wanted me to do some work for Iveco in Dandenong. I declined
> because it would have been a *logistics PITA* for me at that time.
>
>> there was to know about valves (the electronic type). Unfortunately
>> they were in the process of becoming obsolete to the new fangled
>> transistor things about which the instructors knew nothing.
>>
> What people don't seem to realise, you included, is that TAFE colleges
> should be all about *teaching principles* - first and foremost. Once the
> apprentices have those *all stowed away*, then is the time to move onto
> industry practice. TAFE, in Victoria at least, recognised the need for
> lifelong learning and provided short courses to industry to cater to
> that need. In order to maintain currency with industry, TAFE teachers
> were required, through professional development programs, to *spend time
> in industry*. That concept alone knackers Darren's opinion of TAFE
> teachers. When industry required new specialised training in any area,
> who did they turn to? TAFE of course! The people who developed *new
> courses* to cover *new technology* would invariably be *TAFE teachers*.
> In fact, a pair of my colleagues developed a complete new apprenticeship
> curriculum including the syllabus, the learning materials and the all
> important *accreditation process*. This was all done at the request of
> and in collaboration with the relevant industry body. Darren's statement
> about TAFE lagging behind industry by decades is just so much bullshit
> from a person who has never sat foot in any apprentice class in any
> trade whatsoever - and he just keeps on proving it time and time again.
>
> Change was slow in the automotive industry right through to the end of
> the 60s. The 70s brought with it the first signs of rapid changes coming
> in automotive pushed by legislative changes related to emissions. The
> problem for those within the industry was accessing the info related to
> these changes. If you worked at a *dealership*, you might have been
> covered by dealership training. Up until recently I still had my Ford
> emissions supplement manual from that era. Ford and Holden had extensive
> dealer training networks. Holden had an extensive apprentice training
> school (Matec). Outside of the dealer network, a mechanic's *only
> recourse* to relevant skills updating, new technical information, and
> the like was *TAFE*. An example, I was working in a Ford dealership in
> Hobart and they had a shiny brand new Engine Performance Tester which
> included an oscilloscope, exhaust gas analyser, vacuum gauge, Tach,
> power balance, dwell meter, cylinder leakage and more that I have
> probably forgotten. Old tech (vacuum gauge) alongside new tech
> (oscilloscope) and all integrated. The sad thing, was that it was
> positioned in a bay out near reception and *looked schmick* but was
> never used in the brief period of time I was there. I was in a different
> department at the time so no opportunity to get my hands on it. My next
> job was in Launceston and I immediately signed up for a course on using
> one of those machines at the local TAFE. It was one of these;
>
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnDZlv7bP88
>
> Maybe not the same model but covers the same things. Apart from a few
> large dealerships, the college was the only enterprise that had such a
> machine at that time (1973). Oddly enough, given that few machines were
> out in industry, the demand for the course was great. I gained great
> benefits from it. The snag with such a course is that you needed to be a
> trained mechanic. The reason was that the machine relied upon you having
> an intimate understanding of engine operation and, in particular,
> electrical, in order to interpret what the machine was presenting to
> you. That particular course was one of the first of many advanced trade
> courses I signed up for. And I was doing that right up until I retired
> from teaching.
>
> In direct contrast to *your claim* that *the instructors knew nothing*,
> in automotive, from *my experience*, the instructors knew and had access
> to the latest technology long before it became common in automotive
> workshops. The best and first example, as detailed above, was the latest
> tuning and diagnostic equipment in Launceston TAFE. I also did full
> brake training, with all the latest equipment, at Launceston TAFE, again
> before the equipment filtered down to any but the odd dealership
> workshop. I was learning about, and getting *hands on experience* at
> *TAFE*, with equipment that wasn't widely available in general workshops
> and from instructors who really knew their stuff. Post 1980, my own
> experience with TAFE began and I really began to learn why the
> instructors I knew from my early days were so up to date. For a start,
> some of the people I taught with had worked in the Ford, Holden, Toyota
> and Nissan development labs, primarily having A Grade and Technician
> certification. One worked in the Holden training centre (Matec). In
> fact, most of the TAFE teachers I worked with had Automotive technician
> certification since it was a requirement. Quite a large number had been
> service managers and some were ex-military. I was the exception
> primarily because that certification wasn't a thing in Tasmania. That
> said, I had to *upgrade my certification* to an equivalent level in
> order to continue teaching. Took me an extra 4 years to do that and
> qualify for my DipTT.
>
> So, no, my experience does not match *your* experience in any way, shape
> or form. But then, mine was automotive in Australia.  Was yours in the
> UK? I worked alongside Radio/Electronics teachers at Sunshine Tech and
> they seemed to be well up with electronics tech and even computers as
> far back as the 80s. Maybe you went to the wrong school? In 1981, they,
> and I, had access to the mainframe computer at Footscray Institute and
> the electronics department were teaching computer techs in 1981-5. They
> were primarily ex RAF and ex RAAF and,

For fucks sake, shit-fer brains.. you didnt even know what a cockpit
voice recorder was used for.. and now your super-human history is
because of some flogs in the raf/raaf? You're a silly old arse-wipe
with dreams or grandeur.... Time you give it all away.. you're just
making a bigger fool of yourself. Like your outboard 'mechanic"... and
the "ships navigator"... *Fail*. Again. As per usual.

IIRC, used to also teach FLEX OS
> for 68xx processors. And this was from 1981-1985 that I know of. I
> somehow have a feeling they were well up with current tech in their
> industries.

Fuck, you talk/plagiarise some shit, shit-fer-brains. Yours was a
failure to figure out what calf feeders were, after trying to tell us
all what calfs drink from, because "agriculture" was you best subject
was at school, (the school that *apparently* taught you oceanography in
primary and secondary geography class); you didnt know what tractor
hydraulics were after telling us how you rode tractors at 13 years of
age....

Face it, Tomas Clasener. You are just a lying, loud mouthed insipid cunt
who runs away from the truth.

A waste of oxygen.

>

On 8/08/2023 6:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
> On 30/7/2023 10:32 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 30/07/2023 9:40 pm, Xeno wrote:
>>> On 29/7/2023 1:33 am, Noddy wrote:
>>
>>>> Anyone who's ever been to any kind of trade school will tell you
>>>> that the school based learning lagged behind what the industry was
>>>> doing by *decades*, and most of the apprentices knew more about the
>>>> current tech than the dust coat wearing nonces they were supposed to
>>>> be learning from.
>>>
>>> Hmm, you just proved yet again that you have never ever sat in any
>>> apprentice class. Well done you!
>>
>> Well, I sat in an apprentice class for months learning everything that
>
> In the 50s Keith? Or the 60s? The world has long moved on from there -

Of course it has, more so in my line of work than yours.

<snip>
>
>> there was to know about valves (the electronic type). Unfortunately
>> they were in the process of becoming obsolete to the new fangled
>> transistor things about which the instructors knew nothing.
>>
> What people don't seem to realise, you included, is that TAFE colleges
> should be all about *teaching principles* - first and foremost. Once the
> apprentices have those *all stowed away*, then is the time to move onto
> industry practice.

Some principles endure, some get superseded, others just become
obsolete, those taught in school are not usually the latest

<snip lots of words>

> So, no, my experience does not match *your* experience in any way, shape
> or form. But then, mine was automotive in Australia.  Was yours in the
> UK? I worked alongside Radio/Electronics teachers at Sunshine Tech and
> they seemed to be well up with electronics tech and even computers as
> far back as the 80s. Maybe you went to the wrong school?

ROTFL, it was called the College of Electronics, for the reason that
that was what it taught and nothing else. It was attached to what was at
the time a leading electronics and physics research site. From the third
year on we were working in the labs on state of the art stuff, and two
days a week being taught about the previous generation gear.

> In 1981, they, and I, had access to the mainframe computer at Footscray > institute

Depends what you call a mainframe, a lot of people think that anything
bigger than a PC is a mainframe.

> the electronics department were teaching computer techs in
> 1981-5. They were primarily ex RAF and ex RAAF and, IIRC, used to also
> teach FLEX OS for 68xx processors. And this was from 1981-1985 that I know of.

MC68xx stuff is 70s tech, by 1980 the MC68xxx was current. The military
rarely use state of the art stuff, by the time it gets into use it's
usually at least a generation behind.

> I somehow have a feeling they were well up with current tech in their
> industries.

Two ex-managers of mine became TAFE teachers when industry got too much
for them, I wouldn't call either of them state of the art or especially
technical.

On 8/08/2023 7:58 pm, lindsay wrote:
> On 8/08/2023 6:24 pm, Xeno wrote:

<reams of irrelevant chest beating shit flushed>

.. An example, I was working in a
>> Ford dealership in Hobart and they had a shiny brand new Engine
>> Performance Tester which included an oscilloscope, exhaust gas
>> analyser, vacuum gauge, Tach, power balance, dwell meter, cylinder
>> leakage and more that I have probably forgotten. Old tech (vacuum
>> gauge) alongside new tech (oscilloscope) and all integrated. The sad
>> thing, was that it was positioned in a bay out near reception and
>> *looked schmick* but was never used in the brief period of time I was
>> there. I was in a different department at the time so no opportunity
>> to get my hands on it. My next job was in Launceston and I immediately
>> signed up for a course on using one of those machines at the local
>> TAFE. It was one of these;
>>
>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AnDZlv7bP88
>>
>> Maybe not the same model but covers the same things. Apart from a few
>> large dealerships, the college was the only enterprise that had such a
>> machine at that time (1973). Oddly enough, given that few machines
>> were out in industry, the demand for the course was great. I gained
>> great benefits from it. The snag with such a course is that you needed
>> to be a trained mechanic. The reason was that the machine relied upon
>> you having an intimate understanding of engine operation and, in
>> particular, electrical, in order to interpret what the machine was
>> presenting to you. That particular course was one of the first of many
>> advanced trade courses I signed up for. And I was doing that right up
>> until I retired from teaching.

Bwahahahahahahahaah :)

Jesus this flog is a brain dead *moron*. That's just an *engine
analyser*, and *anyone* can use one. They were common as much by the mid
70's when he claimed he was working in a dealership, and there was
nothing even remotely complicated about using one.

I had one of these:

> https://dygtyjqp7pi0m.cloudfront.net/i/13617/14440162_1.jpg?v=8CF80E2D084FD30&_ga=2.214346839.1966992114.1691495352-2118720191.1691495352

It was that exact same model and in fact I even offered it to anyone
here for free if they wanted it. It was in perfect working order
complete with all manuals and anyone with the most basic of
understanding could learn how to use one in a couple of hours.

And he had to do a course? Hahahahahaha :)

There was nothing "advanced" about using a machine like this, and if
this is what he thinka qualifies as such, then I'd *hate* to see him
have to deal with anything *really* complicated.

Talk about making a mountain out of a pimple. What a fuckwit :) :) :)

> For fucks sake, shit-fer brains.. you didnt even know what a cockpit
> voice recorder was used for.. and now your super-human history is
> because of some flogs in the raf/raaf?  You're a silly old arse-wipe
> with dreams or grandeur.... Time you give it all away.. you're just
> making a bigger fool of yourself. Like your outboard 'mechanic"... and
> the "ships navigator"... *Fail*.   Again.   As per usual.
>
> IIRC, used to also teach FLEX OS
>> for 68xx processors. And this was from 1981-1985 that I know of. I
>> somehow have a feeling they were well up with current tech in their
>> industries.
>
> Fuck, you talk/plagiarise some shit, shit-fer-brains. Yours was a
> failure to figure out what calf feeders were, after trying to tell us
> all what calfs drink from, because "agriculture" was you best subject
> was at school,  (the school that *apparently* taught you oceanography in
> primary and secondary geography class); you didnt know what tractor
> hydraulics were after telling us how you rode tractors at 13 years of
> age....
>
> Face it, Tomas Clasener. You are just a lying, loud mouthed insipid cunt
> who runs away from the truth.
>
> A waste of oxygen.

Yep, he is the most useless cunt of a thing to ever grace the pages of
this group, and the more he tries to show how "expert" he is about
everything being discussed around here the more absolutely clueless he
reveals himself to be.

Psychology professors could study this reject for *eons* and never fully
understand the true extent of his fucked up mind :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 8/08/2023 8:40 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
> On 8/08/2023 6:24 pm, Xeno wrote:

>>> Well, I sat in an apprentice class for months learning everything that
>>
>> In the 50s Keith? Or the 60s? The world has long moved on from there -
>
> Of course it has, more so in my line of work than yours.

He doesn't have a line of work. Not for the last 25 years :)

> <snip>
>>
>>> there was to know about valves (the electronic type). Unfortunately
>>> they were in the process of becoming obsolete to the new fangled
>>> transistor things about which the instructors knew nothing.
>>>
>> What people don't seem to realise, you included, is that TAFE colleges
>> should be all about *teaching principles* - first and foremost. Once
>> the apprentices have those *all stowed away*, then is the time to move
>> onto industry practice.
>
> Some principles endure, some get superseded, others just become
> obsolete, those taught in school are not usually the latest

They never were. Schools *always* lagged behind indusrty, and often by a
very long way. Government teaching institutions are seldom, if ever, at
the forefront of technology.

> <snip lots of words>

Most of it completely irrelevant to anything :)

>> So, no, my experience does not match *your* experience in any way,
>> shape or form. But then, mine was automotive in Australia.  Was yours
>> in the UK? I worked alongside Radio/Electronics teachers at Sunshine
>> Tech and they seemed to be well up with electronics tech and even
>> computers as far back as the 80s. Maybe you went to the wrong school?
>
> ROTFL, it was called the College of Electronics, for the reason that
> that was what it taught and nothing else. It was attached to what was at
> the time a leading electronics and physics research site. From the third
> year on we were working in the labs on state of the art stuff, and two
> days a week being taught about the previous generation gear.
>
>> In 1981, they, and I, had access to the mainframe computer at
>> Footscray  > institute
>
> Depends what you call a mainframe, a lot of people think that anything
> bigger than a PC is a mainframe.

Indeed, and why would someone training to be a general stream mechanics
teacher be anywhere near one?

>> the electronics department were teaching computer techs in 1981-5.
>> They were primarily ex RAF and ex RAAF and, IIRC, used to also teach
>> FLEX OS for 68xx processors. And this was from 1981-1985 that I know of.
>
> MC68xx stuff is 70s tech, by 1980 the MC68xxx was current. The military
> rarely use state of the art stuff, by the time it gets into use it's
> usually at least a generation behind.

Just like the "tech" at most trade schools.

>> I somehow have a feeling they were well up with current tech in their
>> industries.
>
> Two ex-managers of mine became TAFE teachers when industry got too much
> for them, I wouldn't call either of them state of the art or especially
> technical.

And that's pretty much what goes on. Most "trade teachers" move into
that role when the task of keeping up in the real world becomes too
much. It's a form of "semi retirement" if you will, for people who live
in a make believe world where they believe they operate in a relevant
trade world but it functions at *their* level of proficiency and
technical knowledge.

And as we've seen with the "instant expert" here, that's a *long* way
behind where the real trade lives :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.

On 8/8/2023 9:57 pm, Noddy wrote:

>
> Bwahahahahahahahaah :)
>
> Jesus this flog is a brain dead *moron*. That's just an *engine
> analyser*, and *anyone* can use one. They were common as much by the mid
> 70's when he claimed he was working in a dealership, and there was

No Darren, I was working in dealerships *from the late 60s*. I first
sighted an analyser in a dealership in 1973. I also sighted my first
analyser in a tech college the same year. There wasn't one to be seen in
a tech college during my apprentice days in the late 60s.

> nothing even remotely complicated about using one.

Ah, no, common they most definitely were not. The things were only
developed in the 60s and were only spreading around dealerships in the
early 70s. Small shops didn't have them. Hell, small shops were lucky to
have a stand alone exhaust gas analyser.

Oh, I get it, you were there in 1973. Ten year old Noddy! Yeah, right!
>
> I had one of these:

I believe you Darren.
>
>> https://dygtyjqp7pi0m.cloudfront.net/i/13617/14440162_1.jpg?v=8CF80E2D084FD30&_ga=2.214346839.1966992114.1691495352-2118720191.1691495352
>
> It was that exact same model and in fact I even offered it to anyone
> here for free if they wanted it. It was in perfect working order

Not much use today in the era of OBD, may as well have given it away! It
was probably obsolete when you picked it up for peanuts and it likely
sat unused in a corner until you realised you couldn't use it.

> complete with all manuals and anyone with the most basic of
> understanding could learn how to use one in a couple of hours.

Learning *how to use it* was not the point. You can learn how to use a
VOM in no time. But using it to diagnose electrical faults might just
take a lot longer. Might just need some underpinning electrical
knowledge, for a start!
>
> And he had to do a course? Hahahahahaha :)

The course was *not* about using the analyser, it was about advanced
tuning techniques of which the analyser merely formed a part. In
reality, it was no different to the dealer training I did whereby I
learned about new diagnostic equipment and how to use it to good effect.
>
> There was nothing "advanced" about using a machine like this, and if

At the time, 1973, it was. It enabled a tech to *see* the electrical
side of the ignition system in a new light. By the time you started
*lying* about being trade qualified, it was already old hat and, pretty
much, superseded. Hell, it was probably old hat when you *pretended* you
were doing *apprenticeships*. The difference Darren, I was there and
using them! You were still in short pants.

> this is what he thinka qualifies as such, then I'd *hate* to see him
> have to deal with anything *really* complicated.

Lots of really complicated stuff in cars these days Darren. The trans on
your Ranger for instance. Luckily, for the most part, it self diagnoses
else you'd be totally stuffed. But you would never be able to strip it
down and repair it. That would be way beyond a faker's ability.
>
> Talk about making a mountain out of a pimple. What a fuckwit :) :) :)
>
And you can't even use a scantool to good effect.

> Yep, he is the most useless cunt of a thing to ever grace the pages of
> this group, and the more he tries to show how "expert" he is about
> everything being discussed around here the more absolutely clueless he
> reveals himself to be.

Projection Darren!
>
> Psychology professors could study this reject for *eons* and never fully
> understand the true extent of his fucked up mind :)
>
Projection Darren!

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On 8/8/2023 10:13 pm, Noddy wrote:
> On 8/08/2023 8:40 pm, Keithr0 wrote:
>> On 8/08/2023 6:24 pm, Xeno wrote:
>
>>>> Well, I sat in an apprentice class for months learning everything that
>>>
>>> In the 50s Keith? Or the 60s? The world has long moved on from there -
>>
>> Of course it has, more so in my line of work than yours.
>
> He doesn't have a line of work. Not for the last 25 years :)
>
>> <snip>
>>>
>>>> there was to know about valves (the electronic type). Unfortunately
>>>> they were in the process of becoming obsolete to the new fangled
>>>> transistor things about which the instructors knew nothing.
>>>>
>>> What people don't seem to realise, you included, is that TAFE
>>> colleges should be all about *teaching principles* - first and
>>> foremost. Once the apprentices have those *all stowed away*, then is
>>> the time to move onto industry practice.
>>
>> Some principles endure, some get superseded, others just become
>> obsolete, those taught in school are not usually the latest

Principles do not in general get superseded. I suspect Keith is
referring to *practices*. For sure, they get superseded. TAFE colleges
were set up to teach the underlying scientific, mechanical, electrical
and fluid principles which *inform* trade *practices*. Having the
student perform *relevant tasks* gives application to and reinforces
those principles. Makes it all *real*. The trade practices are what the
student learns how to do *at work*. The underlying principle is the
point, not the practices. That's the whole idea of *apprenticeships*.
Learn the principles at school, make it *real* with tasks, then go into
the workplace and hone those practices and, hopefully, develop new
practices as the need arises. Lifelong learning and all that. That you,
Darren, don't get it comes as no surprise to me, you never did any
apprenticeship ever. Never even sat your arse in an apprentice class in
your entire life - and it shows. That *Keith* doesn't get it stuns me.
Obviously, when he was doing his apprenticeship, he missed the point.
It's not the role of TAFE to do *product training*. That's why, when we
get students to *do tasks*, we use *generic equipment and components*.
Apprentices, and mechanics, do the *product training* at work and, of
course, through *advanced courses* at TAFE and/or dealer training.
>
> They never were. Schools *always* lagged behind indusrty, and often by a
> very long way. Government teaching institutions are seldom, if ever, at
> the forefront of technology.

You would be surprised just how far ahead TAFE is. TAFE is driven by
*industry need* - but you would be blissfully ignorant of this.
>
>> <snip lots of words>
>
> Most of it completely irrelevant to anything :)
>
You wouldn't have a clue - blissful ignorance and all that! ;-)
>
>>> So, no, my experience does not match *your* experience in any way,
>>> shape or form. But then, mine was automotive in Australia.  Was yours
>>> in the UK? I worked alongside Radio/Electronics teachers at Sunshine
>>> Tech and they seemed to be well up with electronics tech and even
>>> computers as far back as the 80s. Maybe you went to the wrong school?
>>
>> ROTFL, it was called the College of Electronics, for the reason that
>> that was what it taught and nothing else. It was attached to what was
>> at the time a leading electronics and physics research site. From the
>> third year on we were working in the labs on state of the art stuff,
>> and two days a week being taught about the previous generation gear.
>>
>>> In 1981, they, and I, had access to the mainframe computer at
>>> Footscray  > institute
>>
>> Depends what you call a mainframe, a lot of people think that anything
>> bigger than a PC is a mainframe.

That is not me. I knew the difference. My wife's boss had a
minicomputer, a desk sized square box. Richmond TAFE had a PDP11. The
racking of the PDP was taller than me but it was still only a *mini*.
FIT's beast was way bigger than that.
>
> Indeed, and why would someone training to be a general stream mechanics
> teacher be anywhere near one?

We weren't *near* the mainframe Darren. That was situated in FIT down in
Footscray. What we had was *access* through a Decwriter III, IIRC. No
screen, what you typed on the keyboard was printed on paper, what came
back from the mainframe was also printed on paper if it was required to
do so. It was located in the electronics/radio department but all
teachers, and trainees, had access. I know this sounds over the top to
you Darren but it's because you have a small concrete mindset. Learn to
live with it, it isn't capable of dealing with abstract concepts.
>
>>> the electronics department were teaching computer techs in 1981-5.
>>> They were primarily ex RAF and ex RAAF and, IIRC, used to also teach
>>> FLEX OS for 68xx processors. And this was from 1981-1985 that I know of.
>>
>> MC68xx stuff is 70s tech, by 1980 the MC68xxx was current. The
>> military rarely use state of the art stuff, by the time it gets into
>> use it's usually at least a generation behind.
>
> Just like the "tech" at most trade schools.

Principles Darren, principles!
>
>>> I somehow have a feeling they were well up with current tech in their
>>> industries.
>>
>> Two ex-managers of mine became TAFE teachers when industry got too
>> much for them, I wouldn't call either of them state of the art or
>> especially technical.
>
> And that's pretty much what goes on. Most "trade teachers" move into
> that role when the task of keeping up in the real world becomes too
> much. It's a form of "semi retirement" if you will, for people who live
> in a make believe world where they believe they operate in a relevant
> trade world but it functions at *their* level of proficiency and
> technical knowledge.

And you just continue to proudly display your ignorance. Sad.
>
> And as we've seen with the "instant expert" here, that's a *long* way
> behind where the real trade lives :)

For sure it doesn't live in your shed. Only fakers in there!

--
Xeno

Nothing astonishes Noddy so much as common sense and plain dealing.
(with apologies to Ralph Waldo Emerson)

On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:17:37 PM UTC+10, Noddy wrote:
> On 20/07/2023 11:25 am, Trevor Wilson wrote:
> > On 15/07/2023 11:03 am, Yosemite Sam wrote:
>
> >> there's not a lot of choice for car purchasers nowdays. for example
> >> Mitsubishi doesn't offer any in their lineup.
> >>
> >
> > **I never realised that.
> It's the way the market has been heading for a while now. People by and
> large aren't interested in sedans, so manufacturers are gradually
> dropping them from their model line up. And it's way worse overseas than
> it is here. Particularly in the US were many are dropping long standing
> models due to poor sales.
>
> I think I read somewhat recently that Ford no longer makes a sedan based
> vehicle other than the Mustang, and while I couldn't care about the
> issue enough to bother checking if that's true I wouldn't be the
> slightest bit surprised if it was.
> > They do have these though:
> >
> > https://www.mitsubishi-motors.com.au/vehicles/eclipse-cross-plug-in-hybrid-ev.html?gclid=EAIaIQobChMI5Puo74-cgAMVu5hmAh2Fbw07EAAYASAAEgLLEvD_BwE&ef_id=EAIaIQobChMI5Puo74-cgAMVu5hmAh2Fbw07EAAYASAAEgLLEvD_BwE%3AG%3As&s_kwcid=AL%2112893%213%21638229506791%21e%21%21g%21%21mitsubishi%20phev%2114458048481%21127364322195&cid=au%3Aecp%3AAlwaysOn2021%3Abr%3Agoog%3Acpc%3Ana%3Ana&gclsrc=aw.ds&group=private
> >
> > Decent economy and low emissions.
> Nice. When are you getting one?
>
>
>
> --
> --
> --
> Regards,
> Noddy.
I've never liked SUVs. I do like that I've found my way back here though!

On 9/08/2023 9:33 pm, VYBerlinaV8 wrote:
> On Thursday, July 20, 2023 at 12:17:37 PM UTC+10, Noddy wrote:

> I've never liked SUVs. I do like that I've found my way back here though!

Did you go somewhere? :)

--
--
--
Regards,
Noddy.