Add group to favorites
Back to post list
Send new message to groupPost Subject:
HK front suspension looks like it broke
Man I hope he's ok, that looked bad.. They need to pull Hambone off before
he crashes too imo..
he crashes too imo..
"John Smith" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:481473e7$0$9524$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
> Man I hope he's ok, that looked bad.. They need to pull Hambone off before
> he crashes too imo..
Tyre failure, better stop everyone.
"scaffers" <a@a.com> wrote in message
news:AB_Qj.257242$833.39741@newsfe17.ams2...
> on the replay it looked like the tyre de-laminated first
>
>
> scaff
>
Rim failure, then tire..
"John Smith" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:481479c3$0$9513$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
> "scaffers" <a@a.com> wrote in message
> news:AB_Qj.257242$833.39741@newsfe17.ams2...
>> on the replay it looked like the tyre de-laminated first
>>
>>
>> scaff
>>
>
> Rim failure, then tire..
Ah so you work for them and have already managed a full failure analysis,
nice of you to come here first.
Depresion wrote:
> "John Smith" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:481479c3$0$9513$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>
>>"scaffers" <a@a.com> wrote in message
>>news:AB_Qj.257242$833.39741@newsfe17.ams2...
>>
>>>on the replay it looked like the tyre de-laminated first
>>>
>>>
>>>scaff
>>>
>>
>>Rim failure, then tire..
>
>
> Ah so you work for them and have already managed a full failure analysis,
> nice of you to come here first.
>
ROFLMAO
"News" <News@Group.name> wrote in message
news:0bidncV6csQf4YnVnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
>
> Depresion wrote:
>> "John Smith" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:481479c3$0$9513$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>
>>>"scaffers" <a@a.com> wrote in message
>>>news:AB_Qj.257242$833.39741@newsfe17.ams2...
>>>
>>>>on the replay it looked like the tyre de-laminated first
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>scaff
>>>>
>>>
>>>Rim failure, then tire..
>>
>>
>> Ah so you work for them and have already managed a full failure analysis,
>> nice of you to come here first.
>
>
>
> ROFLMAO
Easily amused eh..
John Smith wrote:
> "News" <News@Group.name> wrote in message
> news:0bidncV6csQf4YnVnZ2dnUVZ_sLinZ2d@speakeasy.net...
>
>>
>>Depresion wrote:
>>
>>>"John Smith" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>>news:481479c3$0$9513$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>"scaffers" <a@a.com> wrote in message
>>>>news:AB_Qj.257242$833.39741@newsfe17.ams2...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>on the replay it looked like the tyre de-laminated first
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>scaff
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Rim failure, then tire..
>>>
>>>
>>>Ah so you work for them and have already managed a full failure analysis,
>>>nice of you to come here first.
>>
>>
>>
>>ROFLMAO
>
>
> Easily amused eh..
>
>
By self-styled "experts", you betcha.
"Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote in message
news:JNGdnUoZDq3v5onVnZ2dnUVZ8tGqnZ2d@plusnet...
>
> "John Smith" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:481479c3$0$9513$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>>
>> "scaffers" <a@a.com> wrote in message
>> news:AB_Qj.257242$833.39741@newsfe17.ams2...
>>> on the replay it looked like the tyre de-laminated first
>>>
>>>
>>> scaff
>>>
>>
>> Rim failure, then tire..
>
> Ah so you work for them and have already managed a full failure analysis,
> nice of you to come here first.
>
No, but HK's race engineer does, thats what he said smart ass!
"John Smith" <someone@microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:48147e16$0$9509$4c368faf@roadrunner.com...
>smart ass!
If the rest of the world were half as smart as my ass it would bring up the
average IQ substantially.
On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 14:24:51 +0100, "Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote:
>If the rest of the world were half as smart as my ass it would bring up the
>average IQ substantially.
>
the average IQ cannot be changed complete idiot !
>If the rest of the world were half as smart as my ass it would bring up the
>average IQ substantially.
>
the average IQ cannot be changed complete idiot !
"Max" <max@home.com> wrote in message
news:sf0914d5l0702alisdevhuuakbt4p60mmk@4ax.com...
> On Sun, 27 Apr 2008 14:24:51 +0100, "Depresion" <127.0.0.1> wrote:
>
>>If the rest of the world were half as smart as my ass it would bring up the
>>average IQ substantially.
>>
>
> the average IQ cannot be changed
Yes it can. Watch as it goes up as you enter my killfile.
In article <ELednQ5sOc7MG4nVRVnyvQA@plusnet>, "Depresion" <127.0.0.1>
says...
> >>If the rest of the world were half as smart as my ass it would bring up the
> >>average IQ substantially.
> >>
> >
> > the average IQ cannot be changed
>
> Yes it can. Watch as it goes up as you enter my killfile.
>
lol. It's a quotient. The average IQ, by definition, is 100. 100 is and
always will be the average IQ. There will not be an average IQ other
than 100. An IQ other than 100 is not average. I don't know how else to
explain it to you.
rofl. foot. mouth. contact.
--
Alan LeHun
says...
> >>If the rest of the world were half as smart as my ass it would bring up the
> >>average IQ substantially.
> >>
> >
> > the average IQ cannot be changed
>
> Yes it can. Watch as it goes up as you enter my killfile.
>
lol. It's a quotient. The average IQ, by definition, is 100. 100 is and
always will be the average IQ. There will not be an average IQ other
than 100. An IQ other than 100 is not average. I don't know how else to
explain it to you.
rofl. foot. mouth. contact.
--
Alan LeHun
Alan LeHun <try@reply.to> writes:
> In article <ELednQ5sOc7MG4nVRVnyvQA@plusnet>, "Depresion" <127.0.0.1>
> says...
>> >>If the rest of the world were half as smart as my ass it would bring up the
>> >>average IQ substantially.
>> >>
>> >
>> > the average IQ cannot be changed
>>
>> Yes it can. Watch as it goes up as you enter my killfile.
>>
>
> lol. It's a quotient. The average IQ, by definition, is 100. 100 is and
> always will be the average IQ. There will not be an average IQ other
> than 100. An IQ other than 100 is not average. I don't know how else to
> explain it to you.
>
> rofl. foot. mouth. contact.
That's not how it works at all, alas. Standardised IQs are
renormalised occasionally in order to return them to mu=100
sigma=15, but only after drift has been quantified. Google
"Flynn effect". And, as IQs are monotonically drifting in
almost every demographic, have been for decades, and probably
will for decades more, you can be pretty sure that the
majority of the time, the mean IQ is not 100.
You also seemed to have completely overlooked the fact that
in his previous comment he was referring specifically to the
IQ of a sample of the population, not the general populution.
It's perfectly possible for the IQ of a non-randomly
selected subset of the population to deviate significantly
from the IQ of the general population. Do you think that
the average IQ of Cambridge University students, say, is
100?
Phil
--
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
-- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration
> In article <ELednQ5sOc7MG4nVRVnyvQA@plusnet>, "Depresion" <127.0.0.1>
> says...
>> >>If the rest of the world were half as smart as my ass it would bring up the
>> >>average IQ substantially.
>> >>
>> >
>> > the average IQ cannot be changed
>>
>> Yes it can. Watch as it goes up as you enter my killfile.
>>
>
> lol. It's a quotient. The average IQ, by definition, is 100. 100 is and
> always will be the average IQ. There will not be an average IQ other
> than 100. An IQ other than 100 is not average. I don't know how else to
> explain it to you.
>
> rofl. foot. mouth. contact.
That's not how it works at all, alas. Standardised IQs are
renormalised occasionally in order to return them to mu=100
sigma=15, but only after drift has been quantified. Google
"Flynn effect". And, as IQs are monotonically drifting in
almost every demographic, have been for decades, and probably
will for decades more, you can be pretty sure that the
majority of the time, the mean IQ is not 100.
You also seemed to have completely overlooked the fact that
in his previous comment he was referring specifically to the
IQ of a sample of the population, not the general populution.
It's perfectly possible for the IQ of a non-randomly
selected subset of the population to deviate significantly
from the IQ of the general population. Do you think that
the average IQ of Cambridge University students, say, is
100?
Phil
--
Dear aunt, let's set so double the killer delete select all.
-- Microsoft voice recognition live demonstration
On Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:59:01 +0300, Phil Carmody
<thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Alan LeHun <try@reply.to> writes:
>> In article <ELednQ5sOc7MG4nVRVnyvQA@plusnet>, "Depresion" <127.0.0.1>
>> says...
>>> >>If the rest of the world were half as smart as my ass it would bring up the
>>> >>average IQ substantially.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > the average IQ cannot be changed
>>>
>>> Yes it can. Watch as it goes up as you enter my killfile.
>>>
>>
>> lol. It's a quotient. The average IQ, by definition, is 100. 100 is and
>> always will be the average IQ. There will not be an average IQ other
>> than 100. An IQ other than 100 is not average. I don't know how else to
>> explain it to you.
>>
>> rofl. foot. mouth. contact.
>
>That's not how it works at all, alas. Standardised IQs are
>renormalised occasionally in order to return them to mu=100
>sigma=15, but only after drift has been quantified. Google
>"Flynn effect". And, as IQs are monotonically drifting in
>almost every demographic, have been for decades, and probably
>will for decades more, you can be pretty sure that the
>majority of the time, the mean IQ is not 100.
>
>You also seemed to have completely overlooked the fact that
>in his previous comment he was referring specifically to the
>IQ of a sample of the population, not the general populution.
>It's perfectly possible for the IQ of a non-randomly
>selected subset of the population to deviate significantly
>from the IQ of the general population. Do you think that
>the average IQ of Cambridge University students, say, is
>100?
>
I'm pretty sure he mentioned "world" then "IQ average" in the same
sentence. Do note how you say above "average IQ".
ie: This group's average IQ is based on the currently perceived IQ
average. Which, as you say, has probably changed by the time i posted
this.
And not *because* i posted this, unless you want a bloody nose. ;-)
Just a play on words of course and it should've been but a giggle on
all sides instead of making a proverbial fucking mountain out of it.
Fair dinkum, sometimes i wonder if you guys have hormonal disturbances
during your periods...
--
Regards, Frank
<thefatphil_demunged@yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
>Alan LeHun <try@reply.to> writes:
>> In article <ELednQ5sOc7MG4nVRVnyvQA@plusnet>, "Depresion" <127.0.0.1>
>> says...
>>> >>If the rest of the world were half as smart as my ass it would bring up the
>>> >>average IQ substantially.
>>> >>
>>> >
>>> > the average IQ cannot be changed
>>>
>>> Yes it can. Watch as it goes up as you enter my killfile.
>>>
>>
>> lol. It's a quotient. The average IQ, by definition, is 100. 100 is and
>> always will be the average IQ. There will not be an average IQ other
>> than 100. An IQ other than 100 is not average. I don't know how else to
>> explain it to you.
>>
>> rofl. foot. mouth. contact.
>
>That's not how it works at all, alas. Standardised IQs are
>renormalised occasionally in order to return them to mu=100
>sigma=15, but only after drift has been quantified. Google
>"Flynn effect". And, as IQs are monotonically drifting in
>almost every demographic, have been for decades, and probably
>will for decades more, you can be pretty sure that the
>majority of the time, the mean IQ is not 100.
>
>You also seemed to have completely overlooked the fact that
>in his previous comment he was referring specifically to the
>IQ of a sample of the population, not the general populution.
>It's perfectly possible for the IQ of a non-randomly
>selected subset of the population to deviate significantly
>from the IQ of the general population. Do you think that
>the average IQ of Cambridge University students, say, is
>100?
>
I'm pretty sure he mentioned "world" then "IQ average" in the same
sentence. Do note how you say above "average IQ".
ie: This group's average IQ is based on the currently perceived IQ
average. Which, as you say, has probably changed by the time i posted
this.
And not *because* i posted this, unless you want a bloody nose. ;-)
Just a play on words of course and it should've been but a giggle on
all sides instead of making a proverbial fucking mountain out of it.
Fair dinkum, sometimes i wonder if you guys have hormonal disturbances
during your periods...
--
Regards, Frank
