Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-09 11:45 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-08 1:33 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2022-02-07 1:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2022-02-04 11:27 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-04 2:15 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > I have no interest of pictures of you in your
> > > > > > > > > > > > underwear with young boys or whatever your
> > > > > > > > > > > > untitled post might be.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > :-D
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > So you looked,
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > No, but I assume I guessed correctly then.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You made an ass of yourself again, then:
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > So your inference that I had looked was based on what if
> > > > > > > > not my guess?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I think you need a look in that mirror.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Drive to Win"
> > > > > > > > > "Prepare to Win"
> > > > > > > > > "Tune to Win"
> > > > > > > > > "Engineer to Win: Understanding Race Car Dynamics"
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > All by Carroll Smith. Heard of him? Probably not.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Race Car Aerodynamics" by Joseph Katz
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > "Race & Rally Car Source Book" by Allan Staniforth
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I recently threw out a a dozen or more gardening books.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > What would you have inferred if I had sent you a
> > > > > > > > picture of them on my book shelf?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > That you'd read a lot of books about gardening and so
> > > > > > > probably knew what you were talking about on that subject.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > ...and you'd be wrong.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Now ask yourself the purpose of posting an unsolicited
> > > > > > > > picture of you in your underwear or whatever it was.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > It was a picture of those books.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Then why did you assume I'd seen it when I alluded to it
> > > > > > being a picture of you in your underwear?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > A lot of talk,
> > > >
> > > > Lol, you can do better than that; it is a lot of making you look
> > > > stupid and ignorant.
> > > >
> > > > > but it still boils down to you being unable to
> > > > > apologize for being completely wrong about the depth of my
> > > > > knowledge on this subject...
> > > > >
> > > > > ...which makes your knowledge on the subject look laughable.
> > > >
> > > > What a ridiculous non-sequitur.
> > > >
> > > > What it boils down to is you proving that you are an ignorant
> > > > cunt who frequently reverts to falsehoods and
> > > > misrepresentations.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > I've been right about everything on this subject, sunshine.
> > >
> > > Deal with it.
> >
> > You are an habitual liar and have misrepresented me and my posts
> > like the habitual liar you have proven to be.
>
> No, I haven't.

Sorry, but you have done nothing but.

You are an habitual liar.

I have shown you up to be a liar many times and you have shown yourself
to be one here yet again.

>
> Your ignorance of the subject has led you to misinterpret things I've
> said and you've assumed they were lies because you have almost no
> clue about this stuff.

Wrong. Your lies cannot be explained away.

You are an habitual liar. You have demonstrated it before and have done
so again here.

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>> Never mind the unambiguous truth that you can't have
>>>>>>>>>> actually known what my knowledge in this area was when
>>>>>>>>>> you made those statements...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...and that you KNEW you couldn't have actually know.
>>>>>>>>> Yeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies come so
>>>>>>>>> easily to you.
>>>>>>>> What "pertinent facts", hmmm?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> What "lies"?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I knew what tire profile was...
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> ...you were clueless.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I clearly knew what a profile was I simply have never had
>>>>>>> reason to calculate it an overlooked something; algebra not
>>>>>>> ignorance.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> You didn't "do the math wrong".
>>>>>
>>>>> If you did one thing correctly you identified where my
>>>>> mathematics was at fault.
>>>>
>>>> No. I identified where your idea of what "profile" meant in the
>>>> context of tires was wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Wrong.
>>>
>>> Stop proving how stupid you are. We already have a pretty good idea.
>>>
>>> I read that the profile is the ratio of width to sidewall and
>>> miscalculated because I calculated the tyre width less the rim
>>> width.
>>
>> No. You misunderstood what you read and calculated profile based on
>> subtracting rim DIAMETER from overall diameter and failed to
>> understand that since profile IS the ratio of sidewall height to
>> overall tire section width that you would need to allow for the fact
>> that there are two instances of the sidewall height in overall
>> diameter.
>>
>
> Lol, you claim to know what I did better than I do.

I do because it's true.

Would you like to see the math?

>
> There is conceit and there is sheer stupidity.
>
>> If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures and demonstrate your
>> ignorance for you in more rigorous terms.
>
> You can't, you have only confirmed your own. I told you what I did and
> you lied like the lying cunt you are.

No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.

Do you want me to prove it to you mathematically?

Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim width" provided,
so you couldn't possibly have based any of your calculations on a figure
you didn't even have?

On 2022-02-09 1:34 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-09 11:45 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-08 1:33 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-02-07 1:49 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-04 11:27 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-04 2:15 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-02 2:25 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I have no interest of pictures of you in your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> underwear with young boys or whatever your
>>>>>>>>>>>>> untitled post might be.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> :-D
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> So you looked,
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> No, but I assume I guessed correctly then.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You made an ass of yourself again, then:
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> So your inference that I had looked was based on what if
>>>>>>>>> not my guess?
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I think you need a look in that mirror.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Drive to Win"
>>>>>>>>>> "Prepare to Win"
>>>>>>>>>> "Tune to Win"
>>>>>>>>>> "Engineer to Win: Understanding Race Car Dynamics"
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> All by Carroll Smith. Heard of him? Probably not.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Chassis Engineering" by Herb Adams
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Race Car Aerodynamics" by Joseph Katz
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "How to Make Your Car Handle" by Fred Puhn
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> "Race & Rally Car Source Book" by Allan Staniforth
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I recently threw out a a dozen or more gardening books.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> What would you have inferred if I had sent you a
>>>>>>>>> picture of them on my book shelf?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> That you'd read a lot of books about gardening and so
>>>>>>>> probably knew what you were talking about on that subject.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> ...and you'd be wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Now ask yourself the purpose of posting an unsolicited
>>>>>>>>> picture of you in your underwear or whatever it was.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> It was a picture of those books.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Then why did you assume I'd seen it when I alluded to it
>>>>>>> being a picture of you in your underwear?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> A lot of talk,
>>>>>
>>>>> Lol, you can do better than that; it is a lot of making you look
>>>>> stupid and ignorant.
>>>>>
>>>>>> but it still boils down to you being unable to
>>>>>> apologize for being completely wrong about the depth of my
>>>>>> knowledge on this subject...
>>>>>>
>>>>>> ...which makes your knowledge on the subject look laughable.
>>>>>
>>>>> What a ridiculous non-sequitur.
>>>>>
>>>>> What it boils down to is you proving that you are an ignorant
>>>>> cunt who frequently reverts to falsehoods and
>>>>> misrepresentations.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I've been right about everything on this subject, sunshine.
>>>>
>>>> Deal with it.
>>>
>>> You are an habitual liar and have misrepresented me and my posts
>>> like the habitual liar you have proven to be.
>>
>> No, I haven't.
>
> Sorry, but you have done nothing but.
>
> You are an habitual liar.
>
> I have shown you up to be a liar many times and you have shown yourself
> to be one here yet again.
>
>>
>> Your ignorance of the subject has led you to misinterpret things I've
>> said and you've assumed they were lies because you have almost no
>> clue about this stuff.
>
> Wrong. Your lies cannot be explained away.
>
> You are an habitual liar. You have demonstrated it before and have done
> so again here.
>

LOL!

On Wednesday, February 9, 2022 at 2:42:52 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> LOL!

fucking simpleton

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > Never mind the unambiguous truth that you can't
> > > > > > > > > > > have actually known what my knowledge in this
> > > > > > > > > > > area was when you made those statements...
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ...and that you KNEW you couldn't have actually
> > > > > > > > > > > know.
> > > > > > > > > > Yeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies come so
> > > > > > > > > > easily to you.
> > > > > > > > > What "pertinent facts", hmmm?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > What "lies"?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I knew what tire profile was...
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > ...you were clueless.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I clearly knew what a profile was I simply have never
> > > > > > > > had reason to calculate it an overlooked something;
> > > > > > > > algebra not ignorance.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Nope.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > You didn't "do the math wrong".
> > > > > >
> > > > > > If you did one thing correctly you identified where my
> > > > > > mathematics was at fault.
> > > > >
> > > > > No. I identified where your idea of what "profile" meant in
> > > > > the context of tires was wrong.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Wrong.
> > > >
> > > > Stop proving how stupid you are. We already have a pretty good
> > > > idea.
> > > >
> > > > I read that the profile is the ratio of width to sidewall and
> > > > miscalculated because I calculated the tyre width less the rim
> > > > width.
> > >
> > > No. You misunderstood what you read and calculated profile based
> > > on subtracting rim DIAMETER from overall diameter and failed to
> > > understand that since profile IS the ratio of sidewall height to
> > > overall tire section width that you would need to allow for the
> > > fact that there are two instances of the sidewall height in
> > > overall diameter.
> > >
> >
> > Lol, you claim to know what I did better than I do.
>
> I do because it's true.
>

:-)

You've lost your stupid little mind.

> Would you like to see the math?
>

The maths that proves you know what I did better than I do?
It's alright I'll leave your fantasies to you.

> >
> > There is conceit and there is sheer stupidity.
> >
> > > If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures and demonstrate your
> > > ignorance for you in more rigorous terms.
> >
> > You can't, you have only confirmed your own. I told you what I did
> > and you lied like the lying cunt you are.
>
> No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
>

Listen to yourself.

You're too stupid for words.

> Do you want me to prove it to you mathematically?

You can't.

I know exactly what I did.

Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but in a tiresome, bored of
watching the puppy eat it's own shit, kind of way.

>
> Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim width"
> provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any of your
> calculations on a figure you didn't even have?

The rim diameter you stupid twat.

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim width"
> provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any of your
> calculations on a figure you didn't even have?

Also WTF do you mean by "there was no "rim width" provided"?

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>> Never mind the unambiguous truth that you can't
>>>>>>>>>>>> have actually known what my knowledge in this
>>>>>>>>>>>> area was when you made those statements...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...and that you KNEW you couldn't have actually
>>>>>>>>>>>> know.
>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies come so
>>>>>>>>>>> easily to you.
>>>>>>>>>> What "pertinent facts", hmmm?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> What "lies"?
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> I knew what tire profile was...
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> ...you were clueless.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I clearly knew what a profile was I simply have never
>>>>>>>>> had reason to calculate it an overlooked something;
>>>>>>>>> algebra not ignorance.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> You didn't "do the math wrong".
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> If you did one thing correctly you identified where my
>>>>>>> mathematics was at fault.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. I identified where your idea of what "profile" meant in
>>>>>> the context of tires was wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop proving how stupid you are. We already have a pretty good
>>>>> idea.
>>>>>
>>>>> I read that the profile is the ratio of width to sidewall and
>>>>> miscalculated because I calculated the tyre width less the rim
>>>>> width.
>>>>
>>>> No. You misunderstood what you read and calculated profile based
>>>> on subtracting rim DIAMETER from overall diameter and failed to
>>>> understand that since profile IS the ratio of sidewall height to
>>>> overall tire section width that you would need to allow for the
>>>> fact that there are two instances of the sidewall height in
>>>> overall diameter.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Lol, you claim to know what I did better than I do.
>>
>> I do because it's true.
>>
>
> :-)
>
> You've lost your stupid little mind.
>
>> Would you like to see the math?
>>
>
> The maths that proves you know what I did better than I do?
> It's alright I'll leave your fantasies to you.
>
>>>
>>> There is conceit and there is sheer stupidity.
>>>
>>>> If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures and demonstrate your
>>>> ignorance for you in more rigorous terms.
>>>
>>> You can't, you have only confirmed your own. I told you what I did
>>> and you lied like the lying cunt you are.
>>
>> No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
>>
>
> Listen to yourself.
>
> You're too stupid for words.
>
>> Do you want me to prove it to you mathematically?
>
> You can't.
>
> I know exactly what I did.
>
> Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but in a tiresome, bored of
> watching the puppy eat it's own shit, kind of way.
>
>>
>> Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim width"
>> provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any of your
>> calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
>
> The rim diameter you stupid twat.
>

So you calculated "tire width less rim diameter" now?

Dude... ...you're thrashing.

The key point is that you didn't understand that the the profile height
is included twice in the overall diameter.

Your failure wasn't your arithmetic: it was your understanding of the
situation to begin with.

On 2022-02-10 5:54 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim width"
>> provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any of your
>> calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
>
> Also WTF do you mean by "there was no "rim width" provided"?
>

See this is what I mean by you assuming that I'm wrong or lying when
it's just that you're ignorant.

There was no figure for rim width provided in the tire sizes that were
under discussion.

The figures used to do the calculations to convert from racing tire
sizing nomenclature to street tire nomenclature were:

305/720R18 front and 405/720R18 rear.

There is no RIM width in there.

305 & 405 are the TIRE section widths.

So first you got your calculation wrong because you didn't understand
that there are two tire profile heights in the overall diameter.

Then you claimed you "calculated the tyre width less the rim
width", which makes no sense BOTH because the rim width wasn't given AND
because it doesn't give you any number that in any way figures into the
process of converting the nomenclature.

Then you said you mean "rim diameter" and so your statement became,
"calculated the tyre width less the rim diameter", and that result
doesn't figure into the calculation you were supposed to do.

Then, because I can actually understand what your stated numbers imply,
I can tell you what you actually DID.

"Unless I have figured it wrongly the rear tyre is a 405/65 R18 (like
many higher profile road cars) and the front a higher AR at 305/86 R18
(very much higher profile than most road cars."

What you actually DID was subtract the rim diameter (RD) from the
overall diameter (OD) and then divide by the section width. I know this,
because both of your figures for tire profile height ratio ("65" and
"86") are precisely TWICE the correct figure.

Ergo, you failed to understand that OD-RD is TWICE the tire profile height.

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Never mind the unambiguous truth that you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > can't have actually known what my knowledge
> > > > > > > > > > > > > in this area was when you made those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > statements...
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and that you KNEW you couldn't have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > actually know.
> > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies come
> > > > > > > > > > > > so easily to you.
> > > > > > > > > > > What "pertinent facts", hmmm?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > What "lies"?
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > I knew what tire profile was...
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > ...you were clueless.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I clearly knew what a profile was I simply have
> > > > > > > > > > never had reason to calculate it an overlooked
> > > > > > > > > > something; algebra not ignorance.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Nope.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > You didn't "do the math wrong".
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > If you did one thing correctly you identified where my
> > > > > > > > mathematics was at fault.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No. I identified where your idea of what "profile" meant
> > > > > > > in the context of tires was wrong.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Wrong.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Stop proving how stupid you are. We already have a pretty
> > > > > > good idea.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I read that the profile is the ratio of width to sidewall
> > > > > > and miscalculated because I calculated the tyre width less
> > > > > > the rim width.
> > > > >
> > > > > No. You misunderstood what you read and calculated profile
> > > > > based on subtracting rim DIAMETER from overall diameter and
> > > > > failed to understand that since profile IS the ratio of
> > > > > sidewall height to overall tire section width that you would
> > > > > need to allow for the fact that there are two instances of
> > > > > the sidewall height in overall diameter.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Lol, you claim to know what I did better than I do.
> > >
> > > I do because it's true.
> > >
> >
> > :-)
> >
> > You've lost your stupid little mind.
> >
> > > Would you like to see the math?
> > >
> >
> > The maths that proves you know what I did better than I do?
> > It's alright I'll leave your fantasies to you.
> >
> > > >
> > > > There is conceit and there is sheer stupidity.
> > > >
> > > > > If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures and demonstrate
> > > > > your ignorance for you in more rigorous terms.
> > > >
> > > > You can't, you have only confirmed your own. I told you what I
> > > > did and you lied like the lying cunt you are.
> > >
> > > No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
> > >
> >
> > Listen to yourself.
> >
> > You're too stupid for words.
> >
> > > Do you want me to prove it to you mathematically?
> >
> > You can't.
> >
> > I know exactly what I did.
> >
> > Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but in a tiresome, bored of
> > watching the puppy eat it's own shit, kind of way.
> >
> > >
> > > Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim width"
> > > provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any of your
> > > calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
> >
> > The rim diameter you stupid twat.
> >
>
>
> So you calculated "tire width less rim diameter" now?
>

Nope.

You really are making an ass of yourself.

To make such an inane suggestion after "correcting" my original numbers
calls into question your claimed understanding of the whole subject.

Are you lying about everything or just more stoopid than you realise?

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-10 5:54 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim width"
> > > provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any of your
> > > calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
> >
> > Also WTF do you mean by "there was no "rim width" provided"?
> >
>
> See this is what I mean by you assuming that I'm wrong or lying when
> it's just that you're ignorant.
>
> There was no figure for rim width provided in the tire sizes that
> were under discussion.
>

WTF do you mean?

I wasn't provided with any figures. I looked them up... and rim width
is among many specifications regarding tyre dimensions.

So now you admit that you cribbed your numbers from an undisclosed
source?

Does your ignorance know no bounds?

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 12:08:58 PM UTC-7, Bigbird wrote:

> Does your ignorance know no bounds?

or your trolling

On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Never mind the unambiguous truth that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't have actually known what my knowledge
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> in this area was when you made those
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> statements...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...and that you KNEW you couldn't have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies come
>>>>>>>>>>>>> so easily to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>> What "pertinent facts", hmmm?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> What "lies"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> I knew what tire profile was...
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> ...you were clueless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I clearly knew what a profile was I simply have
>>>>>>>>>>> never had reason to calculate it an overlooked
>>>>>>>>>>> something; algebra not ignorance.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> You didn't "do the math wrong".
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> If you did one thing correctly you identified where my
>>>>>>>>> mathematics was at fault.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No. I identified where your idea of what "profile" meant
>>>>>>>> in the context of tires was wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Stop proving how stupid you are. We already have a pretty
>>>>>>> good idea.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I read that the profile is the ratio of width to sidewall
>>>>>>> and miscalculated because I calculated the tyre width less
>>>>>>> the rim width.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. You misunderstood what you read and calculated profile
>>>>>> based on subtracting rim DIAMETER from overall diameter and
>>>>>> failed to understand that since profile IS the ratio of
>>>>>> sidewall height to overall tire section width that you would
>>>>>> need to allow for the fact that there are two instances of
>>>>>> the sidewall height in overall diameter.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Lol, you claim to know what I did better than I do.
>>>>
>>>> I do because it's true.
>>>>
>>>
>>> :-)
>>>
>>> You've lost your stupid little mind.
>>>
>>>> Would you like to see the math?
>>>>
>>>
>>> The maths that proves you know what I did better than I do?
>>> It's alright I'll leave your fantasies to you.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> There is conceit and there is sheer stupidity.
>>>>>
>>>>>> If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures and demonstrate
>>>>>> your ignorance for you in more rigorous terms.
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't, you have only confirmed your own. I told you what I
>>>>> did and you lied like the lying cunt you are.
>>>>
>>>> No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Listen to yourself.
>>>
>>> You're too stupid for words.
>>>
>>>> Do you want me to prove it to you mathematically?
>>>
>>> You can't.
>>>
>>> I know exactly what I did.
>>>
>>> Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but in a tiresome, bored of
>>> watching the puppy eat it's own shit, kind of way.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim width"
>>>> provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any of your
>>>> calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
>>>
>>> The rim diameter you stupid twat.
>>>
>>
>>
>> So you calculated "tire width less rim diameter" now?
>>
>
> Nope.
>
> You really are making an ass of yourself.

That is literally what you just said.

You said (earlier):

"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim width."

And when I pointed out that rim width was included in any figures we
were given you said:

"The rim diameter"

So if that was what imply you meant instead of "rim width", then your
statement becomes:

"because I calculated the tyre width less the rim diameter."

>
> To make such an inane suggestion after "correcting" my original numbers
> calls into question your claimed understanding of the whole subject.

No, actually.

It calls into question your ability to simply admit you didn't really
understand in the first place.

On 2022-02-13 11:08 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-10 5:54 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim width"
>>>> provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any of your
>>>> calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
>>>
>>> Also WTF do you mean by "there was no "rim width" provided"?
>>>
>>
>> See this is what I mean by you assuming that I'm wrong or lying when
>> it's just that you're ignorant.
>>
>> There was no figure for rim width provided in the tire sizes that
>> were under discussion.
>>
>
> WTF do you mean?
>
> I wasn't provided with any figures. I looked them up... and rim width
> is among many specifications regarding tyre dimensions.

Cite your source.

>
> So now you admit that you cribbed your numbers from an undisclosed
> source?

Rim width isn't needed to calculate the tire's profile number.

It is (overall diameter in millimetres minus rim diameter) then divided
by two, then divided by section width, then multiplied by 100 to be
expressed as an implicit percentage.

>
> Does your ignorance know no bounds?

So where does RIM width figure in the calculation you claim you mean to
make.

Write it out.

On Sunday, February 13, 2022 at 5:29:39 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:
> On 2022-02-13 11:08 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> >> On 2022-02-10 5:54 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> >>> Alan wrote:
> >>>
> >>>> Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim width"
> >>>> provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any of your
> >>>> calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
> >>>
> >>> Also WTF do you mean by "there was no "rim width" provided"?
> >>>
> >>
> >> See this is what I mean by you assuming that I'm wrong or lying when
> >> it's just that you're ignorant.
> >>
> >> There was no figure for rim width provided in the tire sizes that
> >> were under discussion.
> >>
> >
> > WTF do you mean?
> >
> > I wasn't provided with any figures. I looked them up... and rim width
> > is among many specifications regarding tyre dimensions.
> Cite your source.
> >
> > So now you admit that you cribbed your numbers from an undisclosed
> > source?
> Rim width isn't needed to calculate the tire's profile number.
>
> It is (overall diameter in millimetres minus rim diameter) then divided
> by two, then divided by section width, then multiplied by 100 to be
> expressed as an implicit percentage.
> >
> > Does your ignorance know no bounds?
> So where does RIM width figure in the calculation you claim you mean to
> make.
>
> Write it out.

you will lick big turds nut sack
you sick fuck

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Never mind the unambiguous truth that you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > can't have actually known what my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > knowledge in this area was when you made
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > those statements...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and that you KNEW you couldn't have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > actually know.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > come so easily to you.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What "pertinent facts", hmmm?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > What "lies"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > I knew what tire profile was...
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > ...you were clueless.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I clearly knew what a profile was I simply have
> > > > > > > > > > > > never had reason to calculate it an overlooked
> > > > > > > > > > > > something; algebra not ignorance.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > Nope.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > You didn't "do the math wrong".
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > If you did one thing correctly you identified where
> > > > > > > > > > my mathematics was at fault.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No. I identified where your idea of what "profile"
> > > > > > > > > meant in the context of tires was wrong.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Wrong.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Stop proving how stupid you are. We already have a
> > > > > > > > pretty good idea.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I read that the profile is the ratio of width to
> > > > > > > > sidewall and miscalculated because I calculated the
> > > > > > > > tyre width less the rim width.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No. You misunderstood what you read and calculated profile
> > > > > > > based on subtracting rim DIAMETER from overall diameter
> > > > > > > and failed to understand that since profile IS the ratio
> > > > > > > of sidewall height to overall tire section width that you
> > > > > > > would need to allow for the fact that there are two
> > > > > > > instances of the sidewall height in overall diameter.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Lol, you claim to know what I did better than I do.
> > > > >
> > > > > I do because it's true.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > :-)
> > > >
> > > > You've lost your stupid little mind.
> > > >
> > > > > Would you like to see the math?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > The maths that proves you know what I did better than I do?
> > > > It's alright I'll leave your fantasies to you.
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is conceit and there is sheer stupidity.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures and
> > > > > > > demonstrate your ignorance for you in more rigorous terms.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can't, you have only confirmed your own. I told you
> > > > > > what I did and you lied like the lying cunt you are.
> > > > >
> > > > > No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Listen to yourself.
> > > >
> > > > You're too stupid for words.
> > > >
> > > > > Do you want me to prove it to you mathematically?
> > > >
> > > > You can't.
> > > >
> > > > I know exactly what I did.
> > > >
> > > > Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but in a tiresome,
> > > > bored of watching the puppy eat it's own shit, kind of way.
> > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim width"
> > > > > provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any of your
> > > > > calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
> > > >
> > > > The rim diameter you stupid twat.
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> > > So you calculated "tire width less rim diameter" now?
> > >
> >
> > Nope.
> >
> > You really are making an ass of yourself.
>
> That is literally what you just said.
>
> You said (earlier):
>
> "because I calculated the tyre width less the rim width."
>
> And when I pointed out that rim width was included in any figures we
> were given you said:
>
> "The rim diameter"
>
> So if that was what imply you meant instead of "rim width", then your
> statement becomes:
>
> "because I calculated the tyre width less the rim diameter."
>

No those are your words, fuckwit.

> >
> > To make such an inane suggestion after "correcting" my original
> > numbers calls into question your claimed understanding of the whole
> > subject.
>
> No, actually.
>
> It calls into question your ability to simply admit you didn't really
> understand in the first place.

Didn't understand what, fuckwit?

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-13 11:08 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-10 5:54 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim width"
> > > > > provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any of your
> > > > > calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
> > > >
> > > > Also WTF do you mean by "there was no "rim width" provided"?
> > > >
> > >
> > > See this is what I mean by you assuming that I'm wrong or lying
> > > when it's just that you're ignorant.
> > >
> > > There was no figure for rim width provided in the tire sizes that
> > > were under discussion.
> > >
> >
> > WTF do you mean?

Yet another question ducked.

> >
> > I wasn't provided with any figures. I looked them up... and rim
> > width is among many specifications regarding tyre dimensions.
>
> Cite your source.
>

The FIA technical regulations as well as several sites who quoted
figures from Pirelli for the tyre dimensions.

> >
> > So now you admit that you cribbed your numbers from an undisclosed
> > source?
>
> Rim width isn't needed to calculate the tire's profile number.
>

Not an answer.

Why did you claim the figures "were not provided"?

> It is (overall diameter in millimetres minus rim diameter) then
> divided by two, then divided by section width, then multiplied by 100
> to be expressed as an implicit percentage.
>
> >
> > Does your ignorance know no bounds?
>
> So where does RIM width figure in the calculation you claim you mean
> to make.
>

It doesn't. I have not only implied this directly in answer to your
nonsense but also in my original, if flawed, calculations.

If you disbelieve me then come up with how I made those calculations
using rim width.

> Write it out.

You continue to misrepresent and lie.

You don't believe half the shit you write... and you know it is shit.

--
Bozo bin
Felicity
George R
Irving S
Texasgate
Enjoy!

On 2022-02-16 3:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Never mind the unambiguous truth that you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> can't have actually known what my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge in this area was when you made
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> those statements...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...and that you KNEW you couldn't have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, never mind pertinent facts when lies
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> come so easily to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What "pertinent facts", hmmm?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What "lies"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I knew what tire profile was...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...you were clueless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> I clearly knew what a profile was I simply have
>>>>>>>>>>>>> never had reason to calculate it an overlooked
>>>>>>>>>>>>> something; algebra not ignorance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't "do the math wrong".
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> If you did one thing correctly you identified where
>>>>>>>>>>> my mathematics was at fault.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No. I identified where your idea of what "profile"
>>>>>>>>>> meant in the context of tires was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Stop proving how stupid you are. We already have a
>>>>>>>>> pretty good idea.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> I read that the profile is the ratio of width to
>>>>>>>>> sidewall and miscalculated because I calculated the
>>>>>>>>> tyre width less the rim width.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No. You misunderstood what you read and calculated profile
>>>>>>>> based on subtracting rim DIAMETER from overall diameter
>>>>>>>> and failed to understand that since profile IS the ratio
>>>>>>>> of sidewall height to overall tire section width that you
>>>>>>>> would need to allow for the fact that there are two
>>>>>>>> instances of the sidewall height in overall diameter.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Lol, you claim to know what I did better than I do.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I do because it's true.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> :-)
>>>>>
>>>>> You've lost your stupid little mind.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Would you like to see the math?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> The maths that proves you know what I did better than I do?
>>>>> It's alright I'll leave your fantasies to you.
>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is conceit and there is sheer stupidity.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures and
>>>>>>>> demonstrate your ignorance for you in more rigorous terms.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can't, you have only confirmed your own. I told you
>>>>>>> what I did and you lied like the lying cunt you are.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Listen to yourself.
>>>>>
>>>>> You're too stupid for words.
>>>>>
>>>>>> Do you want me to prove it to you mathematically?
>>>>>
>>>>> You can't.
>>>>>
>>>>> I know exactly what I did.
>>>>>
>>>>> Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but in a tiresome,
>>>>> bored of watching the puppy eat it's own shit, kind of way.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim width"
>>>>>> provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any of your
>>>>>> calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
>>>>>
>>>>> The rim diameter you stupid twat.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> So you calculated "tire width less rim diameter" now?
>>>>
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>> You really are making an ass of yourself.
>>
>> That is literally what you just said.
>>
>> You said (earlier):
>>
>> "because I calculated the tyre width less the rim width."
>>
>> And when I pointed out that rim width was included in any figures we
>> were given you said:
>>
>> "The rim diameter"
>>
>> So if that was what imply you meant instead of "rim width", then your
>> statement becomes:
>>
>> "because I calculated the tyre width less the rim diameter."
>>
>
> No those are your words, fuckwit.

Those were YOUR words with "rim width" replaced with "rim diameter" as
YOU stated you had actually meant to do.

>
>>>
>>> To make such an inane suggestion after "correcting" my original
>>> numbers calls into question your claimed understanding of the whole
>>> subject.
>>
>> No, actually.
>>
>> It calls into question your ability to simply admit you didn't really
>> understand in the first place.
>
> Didn't understand what, fuckwit?

Didn't really understand what a tire's profile was a measure of.

If you had, you'd have done the math correctly.

On 2022-02-16 3:09 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-13 11:08 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-10 5:54 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim width"
>>>>>> provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any of your
>>>>>> calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
>>>>>
>>>>> Also WTF do you mean by "there was no "rim width" provided"?
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> See this is what I mean by you assuming that I'm wrong or lying
>>>> when it's just that you're ignorant.
>>>>
>>>> There was no figure for rim width provided in the tire sizes that
>>>> were under discussion.
>>>>
>>>
>>> WTF do you mean?
>
> Yet another question ducked.
>
>>>
>>> I wasn't provided with any figures. I looked them up... and rim
>>> width is among many specifications regarding tyre dimensions.
>>
>> Cite your source.
>>
>
> The FIA technical regulations as well as several sites who quoted
> figures from Pirelli for the tyre dimensions.

I note you don't actually provide a cite.

>
>>>
>>> So now you admit that you cribbed your numbers from an undisclosed
>>> source?
>>
>> Rim width isn't needed to calculate the tire's profile number.
>>
>
> Not an answer.
>
> Why did you claim the figures "were not provided"?

Because the rim width WASN'T provided, dimwit.

>
>> It is (overall diameter in millimetres minus rim diameter) then
>> divided by two, then divided by section width, then multiplied by 100
>> to be expressed as an implicit percentage.
>>
>>>
>>> Does your ignorance know no bounds?
>>
>> So where does RIM width figure in the calculation you claim you mean
>> to make.
>>
>
> It doesn't. I have not only implied this directly in answer to your
> nonsense but also in my original, if flawed, calculations.
>
> If you disbelieve me then come up with how I made those calculations
> using rim width.

I can't.

Because you were thrashing around...

....because you don't really understand this stuff.

>
>> Write it out.
>
> You continue to misrepresent and lie.

What did I misrepresent?

That you got your calculations wrong?

That you then tried to suggest that "rim width" was involved (""because
I calculated the tyre width less the rim width.") before saying you'd
meant "tire diameter" instead?

That "tyre width less tire diameter" was just as nonsensical?

What?

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-16 3:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Never mind the unambiguous truth that
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > you can't have actually known what my
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > knowledge in this area was when you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > made those statements...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and that you KNEW you couldn't have
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > actually know.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, never mind pertinent facts when
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > lies come so easily to you.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What "pertinent facts", hmmm?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What "lies"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I knew what tire profile was...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...you were clueless.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > I clearly knew what a profile was I simply
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > have never had reason to calculate it an
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > overlooked something; algebra not ignorance.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > You didn't "do the math wrong".
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > If you did one thing correctly you identified
> > > > > > > > > > > > where my mathematics was at fault.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > No. I identified where your idea of what "profile"
> > > > > > > > > > > meant in the context of tires was wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Wrong.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Stop proving how stupid you are. We already have a
> > > > > > > > > > pretty good idea.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > I read that the profile is the ratio of width to
> > > > > > > > > > sidewall and miscalculated because I calculated the
> > > > > > > > > > tyre width less the rim width.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No. You misunderstood what you read and calculated
> > > > > > > > > profile based on subtracting rim DIAMETER from
> > > > > > > > > overall diameter and failed to understand that since
> > > > > > > > > profile IS the ratio of sidewall height to overall
> > > > > > > > > tire section width that you would need to allow for
> > > > > > > > > the fact that there are two instances of the sidewall
> > > > > > > > > height in overall diameter.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Lol, you claim to know what I did better than I do.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I do because it's true.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > :-)
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You've lost your stupid little mind.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Would you like to see the math?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The maths that proves you know what I did better than I do?
> > > > > > It's alright I'll leave your fantasies to you.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > There is conceit and there is sheer stupidity.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures and
> > > > > > > > > demonstrate your ignorance for you in more rigorous
> > > > > > > > > terms.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You can't, you have only confirmed your own. I told you
> > > > > > > > what I did and you lied like the lying cunt you are.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Listen to yourself.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You're too stupid for words.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Do you want me to prove it to you mathematically?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You can't.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > I know exactly what I did.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but in a tiresome,
> > > > > > bored of watching the puppy eat it's own shit, kind of way.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim
> > > > > > > width" provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any
> > > > > > > of your calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > The rim diameter you stupid twat.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > So you calculated "tire width less rim diameter" now?
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Nope.
> > > >
> > > > You really are making an ass of yourself.
> > >
> > > That is literally what you just said.
> > >
> > > You said (earlier):
> > >
> > > "because I calculated the tyre width less the rim width."
> > >
> > > And when I pointed out that rim width was included in any figures
> > > we were given you said:
> > >
> > > "The rim diameter"
> > >
> > > So if that was what imply you meant instead of "rim width", then
> > > your statement becomes:
> > >
> > > "because I calculated the tyre width less the rim diameter."
> > >
> >
> > No those are your words, fuckwit.
>
> Those were YOUR words with "rim width" replaced with "rim diameter"
> as YOU stated you had actually meant to do.
>

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-16 3:09 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-13 11:08 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2022-02-10 5:54 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim
> > > > > > > width" provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any
> > > > > > > of your calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Also WTF do you mean by "there was no "rim width" provided"?
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > See this is what I mean by you assuming that I'm wrong or
> > > > > lying when it's just that you're ignorant.
> > > > >
> > > > > There was no figure for rim width provided in the tire sizes
> > > > > that were under discussion.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > WTF do you mean?
> >
> > Yet another question ducked.
> >
> > > >
> > > > I wasn't provided with any figures. I looked them up... and rim
> > > > width is among many specifications regarding tyre dimensions.
> > >
> > > Cite your source.
> > >
> >
> > The FIA technical regulations as well as several sites who quoted
> > figures from Pirelli for the tyre dimensions.
>
> I note you don't actually provide a cite.
>
> >
> > > >
> > > > So now you admit that you cribbed your numbers from an
> > > > undisclosed source?
> > >
> > > Rim width isn't needed to calculate the tire's profile number.
> > >
> >
> > Not an answer.
> >
> > Why did you claim the figures "were not provided"?
>
> Because the rim width WASN'T provided, dimwit.
>

Provided where, by who?

Why do you keep ducking the question by repeating yourself.

> >
> > > It is (overall diameter in millimetres minus rim diameter) then
> > > divided by two, then divided by section width, then multiplied by
> > > 100 to be expressed as an implicit percentage.
> > >
> > > >
> > > > Does your ignorance know no bounds?
> > >
> > > So where does RIM width figure in the calculation you claim you
> > > mean to make.
> > >
> >
> > It doesn't. I have not only implied this directly in answer to your
> > nonsense but also in my original, if flawed, calculations.
> >
> > If you disbelieve me then come up with how I made those calculations
> > using rim width.
>
> I can't.
>

Exactly.

> Because you were thrashing around...
>
> ...because you don't really understand this stuff.
>

Oh dear.

You can't explain any of your claims yet I am the one "thrashing
around", "not understanding".

> >
> > > Write it out.
> >
> > You continue to misrepresent and lie.
>
> What did I misrepresent?
>

Me, a number of times, starting with a claim along the lines that "I
always want to argue technical stuff".

> That you got your calculations wrong?
>

OMG, how long are you going to continue impersonating a retard.

Did I not admit my error?

> That you then tried to suggest that "rim width" was involved
> (""because I calculated the tyre width less the rim width.") before
> saying you'd meant "tire diameter" instead?

Yet, a non-retard would not only have realised I meant diameter, if he
understood as much as he claimed but would have accepted that
explanation when I pointed it out.

>
> That "tyre width less tire diameter" was just as nonsensical?
>

Isn't it yet you are the only one of us to keep writing that. I never
have, nor have I implied that I would.

> What?

In summary: you are an intransigent, thoroughly dishonest and rather
unintelligent... and heading for the Bozo bin imminently if you carry
on with your falsehoods and retarded commentary.

On 2022-02-16 3:52 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-16 3:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Never mind the unambiguous truth that
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> you can't have actually known what my
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> knowledge in this area was when you
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> made those statements...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...and that you KNEW you couldn't have
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> actually know.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Yeah, never mind pertinent facts when
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> lies come so easily to you.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What "pertinent facts", hmmm?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> What "lies"?
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I knew what tire profile was...
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> ...you were clueless.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> I clearly knew what a profile was I simply
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> have never had reason to calculate it an
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>> overlooked something; algebra not ignorance.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>>> You didn't "do the math wrong".
>>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>>> If you did one thing correctly you identified
>>>>>>>>>>>>> where my mathematics was at fault.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>> No. I identified where your idea of what "profile"
>>>>>>>>>>>> meant in the context of tires was wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Wrong.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> Stop proving how stupid you are. We already have a
>>>>>>>>>>> pretty good idea.
>>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>>> I read that the profile is the ratio of width to
>>>>>>>>>>> sidewall and miscalculated because I calculated the
>>>>>>>>>>> tyre width less the rim width.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> No. You misunderstood what you read and calculated
>>>>>>>>>> profile based on subtracting rim DIAMETER from
>>>>>>>>>> overall diameter and failed to understand that since
>>>>>>>>>> profile IS the ratio of sidewall height to overall
>>>>>>>>>> tire section width that you would need to allow for
>>>>>>>>>> the fact that there are two instances of the sidewall
>>>>>>>>>> height in overall diameter.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Lol, you claim to know what I did better than I do.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I do because it's true.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> :-)
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You've lost your stupid little mind.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Would you like to see the math?
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The maths that proves you know what I did better than I do?
>>>>>>> It's alright I'll leave your fantasies to you.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> There is conceit and there is sheer stupidity.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>> If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures and
>>>>>>>>>> demonstrate your ignorance for you in more rigorous
>>>>>>>>>> terms.
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> You can't, you have only confirmed your own. I told you
>>>>>>>>> what I did and you lied like the lying cunt you are.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Listen to yourself.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You're too stupid for words.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Do you want me to prove it to you mathematically?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> You can't.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> I know exactly what I did.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but in a tiresome,
>>>>>>> bored of watching the puppy eat it's own shit, kind of way.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim
>>>>>>>> width" provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any
>>>>>>>> of your calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> The rim diameter you stupid twat.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> So you calculated "tire width less rim diameter" now?
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Nope.
>>>>>
>>>>> You really are making an ass of yourself.
>>>>
>>>> That is literally what you just said.
>>>>
>>>> You said (earlier):
>>>>
>>>> "because I calculated the tyre width less the rim width."
>>>>
>>>> And when I pointed out that rim width was included in any figures
>>>> we were given you said:
>>>>
>>>> "The rim diameter"
>>>>
>>>> So if that was what imply you meant instead of "rim width", then
>>>> your statement becomes:
>>>>
>>>> "because I calculated the tyre width less the rim diameter."
>>>>
>>>
>>> No those are your words, fuckwit.
>>
>> Those were YOUR words with "rim width" replaced with "rim diameter"
>> as YOU stated you had actually meant to do.
>>
>
> I never stated that.
>
> You're being infantile.
>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> To make such an inane suggestion after "correcting" my original
>>>>> numbers calls into question your claimed understanding of the
>>>>> whole subject.
>>>>
>>>> No, actually.
>>>>
>>>> It calls into question your ability to simply admit you didn't
>>>> really understand in the first place.
>>>
>>> Didn't understand what, fuckwit?
>>
>> Didn't really understand what a tire's profile was a measure of.
>>
>> If you had, you'd have done the math correctly.
>
> What an ignorant non-sequitur.
>
> I see where you went wrong. You are claiming to be too stupid to
> believe what I told you I did and what my calculations bear out.
>
> Instead you have made a convoluted explanation in order to support a
> litany of falsehoods, lies and misrepresentations.
>
> You really are looking like an habitually dishonest person... to the
> core.
>
> As I told you. I found what the profile ratio represents then
> calculated that number but used the diameter instead of the radius.
>
> Your only reason to claim otherwise is to support your dishonest
> representations.
>
> You thought you were being clever in trying to belittle me for a simple
> error but all you have done is prove what a dishonest little twat you
> are.
>

On 2022-02-16 4:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-16 3:09 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-13 11:08 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-02-10 5:54 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim
>>>>>>>> width" provided, so you couldn't possibly have based any
>>>>>>>> of your calculations on a figure you didn't even have?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Also WTF do you mean by "there was no "rim width" provided"?
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> See this is what I mean by you assuming that I'm wrong or
>>>>>> lying when it's just that you're ignorant.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> There was no figure for rim width provided in the tire sizes
>>>>>> that were under discussion.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> WTF do you mean?
>>>
>>> Yet another question ducked.
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I wasn't provided with any figures. I looked them up... and rim
>>>>> width is among many specifications regarding tyre dimensions.
>>>>
>>>> Cite your source.
>>>>
>>>
>>> The FIA technical regulations as well as several sites who quoted
>>> figures from Pirelli for the tyre dimensions.
>>
>> I note you don't actually provide a cite.
>>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> So now you admit that you cribbed your numbers from an
>>>>> undisclosed source?
>>>>
>>>> Rim width isn't needed to calculate the tire's profile number.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Not an answer.
>>>
>>> Why did you claim the figures "were not provided"?
>>
>> Because the rim width WASN'T provided, dimwit.
>>
>
> Provided where, by who?
>
> Why do you keep ducking the question by repeating yourself.
>
>>>
>>>> It is (overall diameter in millimetres minus rim diameter) then
>>>> divided by two, then divided by section width, then multiplied by
>>>> 100 to be expressed as an implicit percentage.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Does your ignorance know no bounds?
>>>>
>>>> So where does RIM width figure in the calculation you claim you
>>>> mean to make.
>>>>
>>>
>>> It doesn't. I have not only implied this directly in answer to your
>>> nonsense but also in my original, if flawed, calculations.
>>>
>>> If you disbelieve me then come up with how I made those calculations
>>> using rim width.
>>
>> I can't.
>>
>
> Exactly.
>
>> Because you were thrashing around...
>>
>> ...because you don't really understand this stuff.
>>
>
> Oh dear.
>
> You can't explain any of your claims yet I am the one "thrashing
> around", "not understanding".
>
>>>
>>>> Write it out.
>>>
>>> You continue to misrepresent and lie.
>>
>> What did I misrepresent?
>>
>
> Me, a number of times, starting with a claim along the lines that "I
> always want to argue technical stuff".
>
>> That you got your calculations wrong?
>>
>
> OMG, how long are you going to continue impersonating a retard.
>
> Did I not admit my error?
>
>> That you then tried to suggest that "rim width" was involved
>> (""because I calculated the tyre width less the rim width.") before
>> saying you'd meant "tire diameter" instead?
>
> Yet, a non-retard would not only have realised I meant diameter, if he
> understood as much as he claimed but would have accepted that
> explanation when I pointed it out.
>
>>
>> That "tyre width less tire diameter" was just as nonsensical?
>>
>
> Isn't it yet you are the only one of us to keep writing that. I never
> have, nor have I implied that I would.
>
>> What?
>
> In summary: you are an intransigent, thoroughly dishonest and rather
> unintelligent... and heading for the Bozo bin imminently if you carry
> on with your falsehoods and retarded commentary.
>

Then get to it, asshole.

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 4:34:44 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> Dude... ...give it a rest.

Dude someone to their face
and get your ass handed to you
fucking pencil neck pussy

On Thursday, February 17, 2022 at 4:35:27 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> Then get to it, asshole.

he is all you have
you pathetic fuck

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-16 3:52 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-16 3:01 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2022-02-13 11:04 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2022-02-10 5:02 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-09 1:31 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-09 11:44 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-08 1:29 p.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On 2022-02-07 1:47 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Never mind the unambiguous truth
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > that you can't have actually
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > known what my knowledge in this
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > area was when you made those
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > statements...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...and that you KNEW you couldn't
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > have actually know.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Yeah, never mind pertinent facts
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > when lies come so easily to you.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What "pertinent facts", hmmm?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > What "lies"?
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I knew what tire profile was...
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > ...you were clueless.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Demonstrating your ignorance yet again.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > I clearly knew what a profile was I
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > simply have never had reason to
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > calculate it an overlooked something;
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > algebra not ignorance.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Nope.
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > You didn't "do the math wrong".
> > > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > If you did one thing correctly you
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > identified where my mathematics was at
> > > > > > > > > > > > > > fault.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > > No. I identified where your idea of what
> > > > > > > > > > > > > "profile" meant in the context of tires was
> > > > > > > > > > > > > wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Wrong.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > Stop proving how stupid you are. We already
> > > > > > > > > > > > have a pretty good idea.
> > > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > > I read that the profile is the ratio of width to
> > > > > > > > > > > > sidewall and miscalculated because I calculated
> > > > > > > > > > > > the tyre width less the rim width.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > No. You misunderstood what you read and calculated
> > > > > > > > > > > profile based on subtracting rim DIAMETER from
> > > > > > > > > > > overall diameter and failed to understand that
> > > > > > > > > > > since profile IS the ratio of sidewall height to
> > > > > > > > > > > overall tire section width that you would need to
> > > > > > > > > > > allow for the fact that there are two instances
> > > > > > > > > > > of the sidewall height in overall diameter.
> > > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > Lol, you claim to know what I did better than I do.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > I do because it's true.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > :-)
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You've lost your stupid little mind.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Would you like to see the math?
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The maths that proves you know what I did better than I
> > > > > > > > do? It's alright I'll leave your fantasies to you.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > There is conceit and there is sheer stupidity.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > > If you want, I'll take your erroneous figures and
> > > > > > > > > > > demonstrate your ignorance for you in more
> > > > > > > > > > > rigorous terms.
> > > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > > You can't, you have only confirmed your own. I told
> > > > > > > > > > you what I did and you lied like the lying cunt you
> > > > > > > > > > are.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > No. You got it wrong what you got wrong.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Listen to yourself.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You're too stupid for words.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Do you want me to prove it to you mathematically?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > You can't.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > I know exactly what I did.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Your conceit and dishonesty are amusing but in a
> > > > > > > > tiresome, bored of watching the puppy eat it's own
> > > > > > > > shit, kind of way.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > > Or how about I simply point out that there was no "rim
> > > > > > > > > width" provided, so you couldn't possibly have based
> > > > > > > > > any of your calculations on a figure you didn't even
> > > > > > > > > have?
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > The rim diameter you stupid twat.
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > So you calculated "tire width less rim diameter" now?
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Nope.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You really are making an ass of yourself.
> > > > >
> > > > > That is literally what you just said.
> > > > >
> > > > > You said (earlier):
> > > > >
> > > > > "because I calculated the tyre width less the rim width."
> > > > >
> > > > > And when I pointed out that rim width was included in any
> > > > > figures we were given you said:
> > > > >
> > > > > "The rim diameter"
> > > > >
> > > > > So if that was what imply you meant instead of "rim width",
> > > > > then your statement becomes:
> > > > >
> > > > > "because I calculated the tyre width less the rim diameter."
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > No those are your words, fuckwit.
> > >
> > > Those were YOUR words with "rim width" replaced with "rim
> > > diameter" as YOU stated you had actually meant to do.
> > >
> >
> > I never stated that.
> >
> > You're being infantile.
> >
> > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > To make such an inane suggestion after "correcting" my
> > > > > > original numbers calls into question your claimed
> > > > > > understanding of the whole subject.
> > > > >
> > > > > No, actually.
> > > > >
> > > > > It calls into question your ability to simply admit you didn't
> > > > > really understand in the first place.
> > > >
> > > > Didn't understand what, fuckwit?
> > >
> > > Didn't really understand what a tire's profile was a measure of.
> > >
> > > If you had, you'd have done the math correctly.
> >
> > What an ignorant non-sequitur.
> >
> > I see where you went wrong. You are claiming to be too stupid to
> > believe what I told you I did and what my calculations bear out.
> >
> > Instead you have made a convoluted explanation in order to support a
> > litany of falsehoods, lies and misrepresentations.
> >
> > You really are looking like an habitually dishonest person... to the
> > core.
> >
> > As I told you. I found what the profile ratio represents then
> > calculated that number but used the diameter instead of the radius.
> >
> > Your only reason to claim otherwise is to support your dishonest
> > representations.
> >
> > You thought you were being clever in trying to belittle me for a
> > simple error but all you have done is prove what a dishonest little
> > twat you are.
> >
>
> Dude... ...give it a rest.
>
> You got it wrong.
>