The Shitbird

Scylla said:
If you weren't posting just to be an asshole than why didn't you modify your stance on the story based on the outcome?

Seeing as it actually supports your viewpoint, and agrees with you, what's the problem?
Click to expand...

Oh, really?

Scylla said:
On the bright side, I haven't seen the Shitbird since.


Here's the thing, though. If I do, I am going to kill the Motherfucker.
Click to expand...
 
When pellet guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have pellet guns. And pirates. Pirates will have pellet guns, too.
 
Scylla said:
kayT said:
Is everyone around here going nuts? I never saw Frank be so ridiculous. And really, Scylla, I think you need to stop engaging with mhendo as he is apparently in some other place. Why is he so upset that your story was in three parts? Is it the heat?
Click to expand...

Mhendo got triple raped by the Cookie Monster, Kermit, and Grover simultaneously, while the Count kept score.
Click to expand...

(bolding mine)

Easy, Pardner. All I did was mention a Lynyrd Skynyrd song in post 3. If anything, it should improve your aim.

And if it doesn't, I hope you didn't save a lot of money on car insurance by skimping on your coverage....

"Its those damn glass-termites, I tells ya..."
 
elucidator said:
When pellet guns are outlawed, only outlaws will have pellet guns. And pirates. Pirates will have pellet guns, too.
Click to expand...

And rabbits. Desperado and law-abiding alike. Obamaclypse goes down and I'm falling in with the Leporidae. Already working on my ears, one of Tug Ahoy's many off-label uses...
 
Frank:

Yeah, really the unrepentant narrator reinforces the moral. Not having learned his lesson, the implication is that he will continue to hunt the bird, wasting time and effort and only damaging himself.

It's not exactly a new idea, Road Runner, Elmer Fudd, others seem to have grasped it readily.
 
Scylla said:
Two cars with equal engines under 2006 California ULEV standards and different MPGs will still produce the same emissions per mile.
Click to expand...
Sure, but that's because the ULEV standards are calculated as absolutes.

The question is whether two engines with the same emissions technology, but with different MPG rates, will produce the same amount of emissions.

So, for example, say that Honda produces a 4-cyl, 1.6L engine and a 6-cyl, 2.5L engine. And say Honda uses exactly the same type of emissions-reducing technology for both engines. If the engine in the first car gets, say 30mpg and the engine in the second gets 20, then surely you agree that the first is burning more fuel every mile than the second. And even if each engine is equally emission-friendly, in terms of its efficiency at releasing emissions, the absolute amount of emissions will be greater for the larger engine than the smaller one.

But this, of course, is all a big hijack based on your original claim, which was that, because your car is a ULEV, it doesn't shit into the atmosphere at all. As i've noted before, and as you continue to conveniently ignore, low emissions does not mean no emissions. You car still shits in the bird's air, even if it does so at a rate "50% better than average."
 
Still, its an improvement, I always thought of him driving a 1500 HP car powered by whale oil and baby harp seal fat, with a vanity plate reading "FK GRN!"
 
Well, through the years, I've admired Scylla's wordsmithing, always worth a read.

Something useful to add to the thread: I had a mirror shitting bird last year, a bluebird. Bluebirds are amusing in their vanity with a found mirror image. The male would get all up in the car mirror, and flash his wings, while the female perched up on top of the mirror to admire him. So, double bird shit goodness in the morning all over the car--- they're gettin' it on gettin' on at sunrise.

Here's how I solved the problem, tired of birdshit streaking down the car, getting pissed off, too: put a plastic shopping bag around the mirrors , and, yay, voila, no problem. Just sayin'.
 
Having read a couple of previous Scylla adventures, I could see the ending coming
But it was still very enjoyable.
 
Scylla said:
Mhendo got triple raped by the Cookie Monster, Kermit, and Grover simultaneously, while the Count kept score.
Click to expand...

Wait, earlier on you said threesomes were a myth. On second thought, though: mhendo, the Cookie Monster, Kermit, and Grover make four. So that's OK, I think.

Although I'm still intrigued by this idea that threesomes are a myth. If so, there've got to be several million people out there warping time and space. Just not you, Scylla.
 
mhendo said:
Sure, but that's because the ULEV standards are calculated as absolutes.
Click to expand...

If by "absolutes" they actually measure it as opposed to making up shit off the top of their head, then yeah, I guess "absolutes" is fine.

The question is whether two engines with the same emissions technology, but with different MPG rates, will produce the same amount of emissions.
Click to expand...

No. that wasn't the question. Nobody asked that question. The real question that I'm curious about is if this latest attempt to change the issue and hide the fact that you have no clue at all about what you are talking about is going to work, or if you are just going to dig yourself in deeper.

I got ten bucks on "deeper."

So, for example, say that Honda produces a 4-cyl, 1.6L engine and a 6-cyl, 2.5L engine. And say Honda uses exactly the same type of emissions-reducing technology for both engines. If the engine in the first car gets, say 30mpg and the engine in the second gets 20, then surely you agree that the first is burning more fuel every mile than the second. And even if each engine is equally emission-friendly, in terms of its efficiency at releasing emissions, the absolute amount of emissions will be greater for the larger engine than the smaller one.
Click to expand...

Deeper it is.

No. I do not agree. There are a lot of problems with your assumptions and question. The most basic one is that you have the fundamental principle of the issue backwards.

You seem to think that that which increases mpg also lowers emissions. The truth is much closer to the opposite.

Another problem with your assumption is that you seem to think that you can have the identical emissions technology on a 4 banger as you do on a 6 cylinder.

Still another is that you consider the bolt on portion to be the primary component of emissions control, when in fact it is the design of the engine. That is what will determine the output at the exhaust manifold. That in turn will determine the nature of the appropriate bolt on.

If somebody were to actually try your little experiment and bolt on the catalytic convertor from a 6 cylinder onto a 4 cylinder engine, you are more likely to increase emissions (I'm thinking clouds of black smoke,) while decreasing horsepower, mpg, and all that, if you can keep the engine running.

Speaking generally, a high mpg 4 cylinder engine is going to be dirtier than a lower mpg 6 cylinder engine due to differences in the timing and combustion cycles.

I could go on, but the bottom line is that you basically have it almost completely backwards. Why do you think emissions are measured based on mile travelled rather than by fuel burned?

The equivalence you are trying to draw is false.


But this, of course, is all a big hijack based on your original claim, which was that, because your car is a ULEV, it doesn't shit into the atmosphere at all. As i've noted before, and as you continue to conveniently ignore, low emissions does not mean no emissions. You car still shits in the bird's air, even if it does so at a rate "50% better than average."
Click to expand...

Your being stupid (but that seems to be your role, so no surprise.) The point is, that if you are going to propose a vengeance minded bird, seeking recompense for air pollution generated by automobiles, than you would expect that bird to choose one of the most offensive examples of polluting rather than one the least offensive.
 
Scylla said:
Still another is that you consider the bolt on portion to be the primary component of emissions control, when in fact it is the design of the engine. That is what will determine the output at the exhaust manifold. That in turn will determine the nature of the appropriate bolt on.
Click to expand...
Never once even mentioned anything "bolt on." Not once. Never made any assumption about what catalytic converter goes on what engine. In fact, i specifically made a general comment about "type of emissions-reducing technology," which can include bolt-on portions as well as the design of the engine itself. The emphasis on "bolt-on" is a product of your fevered imagination, which you should probably devote to lame stories in the future.
Scylla said:
Your being stupid (but that seems to be your role, so no surprise.) The point is, that if you are going to propose a vengeance minded bird, seeking recompense for air pollution generated by automobiles, than you would expect that bird to choose one of the most offensive examples of polluting rather than one the least offensive.
Click to expand...
That was clearly not the point of your original comment at all.

First, elucidator made a mildly amusing comment, turning it around and positing the bird as the victim of your truck. Rather than simply take it for what it was, you felt the need to assert that, because your truck is a ULEV vehicle, it does not "shit in [the bird's] air." But, unless it has a California Smog Score of 10 (it doesn't), it does, in fact, release crap into the air. The main point of my initial response to you, which still stands, was that low emissions is not the same as no emissions. Something you still seem unwilling to concede.

Anyway, i'm done with you. Keep writing your shitty, three-part stories, if that's what tickles your fancy. But if they end up in the Pit, you shouldn't whine when some people don't just polish your cock out of gratitude for your literary genius.
 
I dunno, he said one in one sentence and the other in another.

Geez, the last three words of that sentence sounded dirtier than they had to be.
 
Is everyone around here going nuts? I never saw Frank be so ridiculous. And really, Scylla, I think you need to stop engaging with mhendo as he is apparently in some other place. Why is he so upset that your story was in three parts? Is it the heat?
 
kayT said:
Why is he so upset that your story was in three parts? Is it the heat?
Click to expand...
So upset about his story being in three parts? That's what you got from my posts? Are you a fucking moron, or what?

I made one single mention on the three-part nature of the OP, in passing, and said that it seemed a little self-indulgent.
 
Back
Top