On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> 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.
>>
>
> Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to imply I have
> claimed otherwise.

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > 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.
> > >
> >
> > Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to imply I have
> > claimed otherwise.
>
> I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual analysis.

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > 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.
> > >
> >
> > Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to imply I have
> > claimed otherwise.
>
> I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual analysis.

On 2022-02-18 2:21 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to imply I have
>>> claimed otherwise.
>>
>> I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual analysis.
>
> There is nothing there that has not been discussed and/or refuted,
> rebutted or shown to be misleading or false representation.
>
> A lie told many times is still a lie.
>

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-18 2:21 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to imply I
> > > > have claimed otherwise.
> > >
> > > I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual analysis.
> >
> > There is nothing there that has not been discussed and/or refuted,
> > rebutted or shown to be misleading or false representation.
> >
> > A lie told many times is still a lie.
> >
>
> What lie did I tell in the text you snipped?

On 2022-02-18 3:59 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-18 2:21 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to imply I
>>>>> have claimed otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual analysis.
>>>
>>> There is nothing there that has not been discussed and/or refuted,
>>> rebutted or shown to be misleading or false representation.
>>>
>>> A lie told many times is still a lie.
>>>
>>
>> What lie did I tell in the text you snipped?
>
> Stop farting about. You are a mealy mouthed little cunt who's been
> fabricating and misrepresenting the facts since your first interject
> ion.
>

On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 3:13:52 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> You're a pussy.

and you a fucking idiot

On Friday, February 18, 2022 at 3:13:52 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> You snipped my text

oh poor, pathetic, stupid you.
please take care of your sad self
during this difficult time.

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-18 3:59 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-18 2:21 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > >
> > > > > > Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to imply I
> > > > > > have claimed otherwise.
> > > > >
> > > > > I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual analysis.
> > > >
> > > > There is nothing there that has not been discussed and/or
> > > > refuted, rebutted or shown to be misleading or false
> > > > representation.
> > > >
> > > > A lie told many times is still a lie.
> > > >
> > >
> > > What lie did I tell in the text you snipped?
> >
> > Stop farting about. You are a mealy mouthed little cunt who's been
> > fabricating and misrepresenting the facts since your first interject
> > ion.
> >
>
> You snipped my text and then claim it was lies...

On 2022-02-19 3:56 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-18 3:59 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-18 2:21 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to imply I
>>>>>>> have claimed otherwise.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual analysis.
>>>>>
>>>>> There is nothing there that has not been discussed and/or
>>>>> refuted, rebutted or shown to be misleading or false
>>>>> representation.
>>>>>
>>>>> A lie told many times is still a lie.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> What lie did I tell in the text you snipped?
>>>
>>> Stop farting about. You are a mealy mouthed little cunt who's been
>>> fabricating and misrepresenting the facts since your first interject
>>> ion.
>>>
>>
>> You snipped my text and then claim it was lies...
>
> Liar.
>
>>
>> You're a pussy.
>
> You're a dishonest cunt... and you know it.

On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 5:35:56 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> Dude: if you have any balls at all, put back the text you snipped and
> explain how ANY OF IT is a lie.

fuck off cunt hole
fuck are you dim

On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 5:35:56 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> snipped

your special needs father should have been snipped.
then unable to procreate a piece of shit.

On 2022-02-18 2:37 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> 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.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to imply I have
>>> claimed otherwise.
>>
>> I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual analysis.
>
> Okay, let's look at your"analysis"
>
> "YOU on the other hand tried to blame it on using a figure for the
> calculation that you were never given ("rim width") and then when that
> was pointed out to you, claimed you meant a figure you were given, but
> that made an even MORE nonsensical calculation ("tire width less
> overall diameter")."
>
> "a figure you were never given" like "figures provided" you keep
> repeating this yet refuse to explain WTF you mean by it.
>
> I was "given" any figures. What figures were you "given" an by whom?

On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 5:56:49 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> Why don't you come and make me, pussy.

lol

On Saturday, February 19, 2022 at 5:56:49 PM UTC-7, Alan wrote:

> Why don't you come and make me, pussy.

Is that your business motto at your
certified senior instructor racing school?

In article <sus3ke$fes$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
> Do you know what the rear tires of my BMW 135i are?
>

Is that a family car?

--
Alan LeHun

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-19 3:56 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-18 3:59 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > Alan wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > On 2022-02-18 2:21 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > Alan wrote:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > > On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > > > > > 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.
> > > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > >
> > > > > > > > Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to
> > > > > > > > imply I have claimed otherwise.
> > > > > > >
> > > > > > > I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual
> > > > > > > analysis.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > There is nothing there that has not been discussed and/or
> > > > > > refuted, rebutted or shown to be misleading or false
> > > > > > representation.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > A lie told many times is still a lie.
> > > > > >
> > > > >
> > > > > What lie did I tell in the text you snipped?
> > > >
> > > > Stop farting about. You are a mealy mouthed little cunt who's
> > > > been fabricating and misrepresenting the facts since your first
> > > > interject ion.
> > > >
> > >
> > > You snipped my text and then claim it was lies...
> >
> > Liar.
> >
> > >
> > > You're a pussy.
> >
> > You're a dishonest cunt... and you know it.
>
> Dude: if you have any balls at all, put back the text you snipped and
> explain how ANY OF IT is a lie.

Alan wrote:

> On 2022-02-18 2:37 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > Alan wrote:
> >
> > > On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> > > > 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.
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > > Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to imply I
> > > > have claimed otherwise.
> > >
> > > I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual analysis.
> >
> > Okay, let's look at your"analysis"
> >
> > "YOU on the other hand tried to blame it on using a figure for the
> > calculation that you were never given ("rim width") and then when
> > that was pointed out to you, claimed you meant a figure you were
> > given, but that made an even MORE nonsensical calculation ("tire
> > width less overall diameter")."
> >
> > "a figure you were never given" like "figures provided" you keep
> > repeating this yet refuse to explain WTF you mean by it.
> >
> > I was "given" any figures. What figures were you "given" an by whom?
>

On 2022-02-20 5:27 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-18 2:37 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to imply I
>>>>> have claimed otherwise.
>>>>
>>>> I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual analysis.
>>>
>>> Okay, let's look at your"analysis"
>>>
>>> "YOU on the other hand tried to blame it on using a figure for the
>>> calculation that you were never given ("rim width") and then when
>>> that was pointed out to you, claimed you meant a figure you were
>>> given, but that made an even MORE nonsensical calculation ("tire
>>> width less overall diameter")."
>>>
>>> "a figure you were never given" like "figures provided" you keep
>>> repeating this yet refuse to explain WTF you mean by it.
>>>
>>> I was "given" any figures. What figures were you "given" an by whom?
>>
>
> The first few lines are not an explanation of WTF you mean by the
> above...
>
> I must now assume you had no idea how to calculate these profiles and
> copied your versions from somewhere else and are referring to the
> figures provided in someone else's work. This is the only way your
> repetition of "provided"/"given" figures makes any sense. I was not
> provided with or given a limited set of figures like you. I looked them
> up for myself and in some of those places there are plenty of related
> figures which you were obviously not "provided" with.
>
> You following, as far as I read, are again nonsensical lies and
> misrepresentations that have been dealt with above.
>
> Your dishonesty is a mental disease.
>
> You duck and lie repeatedly... and your bad at it.
>
> You have fucked yourself.

Alan wrote:

Having seen Alan LeHun's post I thought I'd deal with this stupid
comment of yours.

> >
> > Perhaps you chose to ignore that because you are still ducking the
> > question about your claims that the tyres look like "high
> > performance tyres"... when my point was that they don't even look
> > like low profile road tyres at all.
>
> Really?
>
> Do you know what the rear tires of my BMW 135i are?
>
> 245/35R18
>
> That really isn't that far off the real F1 numbers of 405/32R18, now
> is it?

Those are numbers.

Are you STILL claiming your tyres look like F1 tyres?

You think a sidewall of 8.5cm on a low profile road tyre looks similar
to the 13cm sidewall on an F1 tyre?

Like I said before, and you ducked, the proportions have more in common
with the tyres on a van than a "high performance". You are just too
ignorant to appreciate it and/or admit it, aren't you?

YES or NO?

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

On 2022-02-20 5:50 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
> Having seen Alan LeHun's post I thought I'd deal with this stupid
> comment of yours.
>
>>>
>>> Perhaps you chose to ignore that because you are still ducking the
>>> question about your claims that the tyres look like "high
>>> performance tyres"... when my point was that they don't even look
>>> like low profile road tyres at all.
>>
>> Really?
>>
>> Do you know what the rear tires of my BMW 135i are?
>>
>> 245/35R18
>>
>> That really isn't that far off the real F1 numbers of 405/32R18, now
>> is it?
>
> Those are numbers.

Yes. Very good.

Those... ...ARE numbers.

>
> Are you STILL claiming your tyres look like F1 tyres?
>
> You think a sidewall of 8.5cm on a low profile road tyre looks similar
> to the 13cm sidewall on an F1 tyre?

Yup. Because what makes thing LOOK similar is PROPORTION.

>
> Like I said before, and you ducked, the proportions have more in common
> with the tyres on a van than a "high performance". You are just too
> ignorant to appreciate it and/or admit it, aren't you?
>
> YES or NO?

Sorry, but you precede from a false premise.

Just because the absolute number is similar to what you might find on a
van has almost nothing to do with whether they resemble a high
performance car's tires. That comes down to the PROPORTIONS.

Allow me to whip you up a quick example.

The F1 rear tire is 405/32R18, and a van tire might be (checking online
for a Ford Transit T350) 235/65R16 (so 712mm in overall diameter to the
F1 tire's 720), and my BMW's rear tire is just under 630mm in diameter so:

<https://www.dropbox.com/s/jevgt0jmysch2af/Screen%20Shot%202022-02-20%20at%203.23.03%20PM.png?dl=0>

From left to right, that's a 2021 F1 rear tire, a 2022 F1 rear tire,
the rear tire from my BMW, and the tire from a Ford Transit Van.

Can you really not see that the 2022 F1 tire is an evolution between the
2021 tire and the proportions of the BMW tire?

Reall?

On 2022-02-20 5:13 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
> Alan wrote:
>
>> On 2022-02-19 3:56 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>> Alan wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2022-02-18 3:59 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On 2022-02-18 2:21 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>> Alan wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> On 2022-02-18 2:15 a.m., Bigbird wrote:
>>>>>>>>> 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.
>>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>>> Again your habitual dishonesty has you attempting to
>>>>>>>>> imply I have claimed otherwise.
>>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> I can't help noticing you've snipped all the factual
>>>>>>>> analysis.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> There is nothing there that has not been discussed and/or
>>>>>>> refuted, rebutted or shown to be misleading or false
>>>>>>> representation.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> A lie told many times is still a lie.
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> What lie did I tell in the text you snipped?
>>>>>
>>>>> Stop farting about. You are a mealy mouthed little cunt who's
>>>>> been fabricating and misrepresenting the facts since your first
>>>>> interject ion.
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> You snipped my text and then claim it was lies...
>>>
>>> Liar.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> You're a pussy.
>>>
>>> You're a dishonest cunt... and you know it.
>>
>> Dude: if you have any balls at all, put back the text you snipped and
>> explain how ANY OF IT is a lie.
>
> Another dishonest misrepresentation.

On 2022-02-20 2:44 a.m., Alan LeHun wrote:
> In article <sus3ke$fes$1@dont-email.me>, nuh-uh@nope.com says...
>> Do you know what the rear tires of my BMW 135i are?
>>
>
> Is that a family car?
>
>

If the family is small...sure!

2-door performance coupe.

320hp