[Arny Krueger]

"Dave Ryan" wrote in message
...
In rec.audio.tubes Peter Wieck wrote:
:
: On Sep 12, 12:18 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
:
: I am no motor-head, but like most Americans of a certain age who grew
: up in Michigan, some of this stuff inevitably got into my blood. But
: the Ford SHO engine,
:
: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Yamaha_V8_engine
:
: Two can play at that.
:
: 60-degree V8. Go for it.

You mean the one manufactured in the Bridgend plant in Great Britain for
the Volvo?

Still not American unless we've somehow co-opted GB without me knowing.

I checked it out and it was produced in the US for a while.


More info:

http://www.v8sho.com

Of all the engines Wieck listed, only this one is a production US car
engine.

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 12, 2:12 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Of all the engines Wieck listed, only this one is a production US car
engine.-

Y'all forgot the Lincoln and variants...

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Arny Krueger]

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 12, 2:12 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

Of all the engines Wieck listed, only this one is a production US car
engine.-

Y'all forgot the Lincoln and variants...

I didn't forget the Lincoln 60 degree V8, I didn't see any support for it.

I found some of my own at

http://www.conceptcarz.com/vehicle/z...L/default.aspx

It is said that less than 180 were produced back in the 1920s, so its
production status is arguable.

BTW here is a picture of a 60 degree SHO V8, disassembled enough to make the
point quite clear:

http://www.v8sho.com/SHO/images/engine/shov8-23.jpg

[Dave Ryan]

While pondering glazed doughnuts Peter Wieck mistakenly typed
:
: On Sep 12, 1:45 pm, Dave Ryan wrote:
: In rec.audio.tubes Peter Wieck wrote:
: :
: : On Sep 12, 12:18 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:
: :
: : I am no motor-head, but like most Americans of a certain age who grew
: : up in Michigan, some of this stuff inevitably got into my blood. But
: : the Ford SHO engine,
: :
: :http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Yamaha_V8_engine
: :
: : Two can play at that.
: :
: : 60-degree V8. Go for it.
: :
:
: You mean the one manufactured in the Bridgend plant in Great Britain for
: the Volvo?
:
: Still not American unless we've somehow co-opted GB without me knowing.
: -dave
:
: First made in the US, assembled by Yamaha in Japan until 1999, then
: adapted and made later in GB. And yes, now *adapted* for Volvo.
: Well... the history is:
:
:From the Detroit Free Press, 2002:
:
: About 19,730 SHOs were made from 1996 to 1999. The Taurus SHO was a
: limited-production, high-performance version of the Taurus family
: sedan, third-best-selling car in the country. The SHO -- for Super
: High Output -- differed from the everyday Taurus, with a pricier
: interior, stiffer suspension, tighter handling and a powerful 3.4-
: liter V8 Yamaha engine that could zip up to 140 m.p.h.
:
: While Yamaha assembled the engine in Japan, Ford built the engine
: components in Ontario. In a 1996 Car and Driver review of the SHO,
: Ford took credit for the development of its V8 engine.
:

Sure enough the 3.4 SHO did have a 60 degree V8. You're correct about
it's mixed origins, but it was sold in an 'American' car. A joint
Canadian(Ford) and Japanese(Yamaha) effort went into building these but
Ford manuafactured the blocks in Canada.

Many of the references I found only mentioned the offset for the 4.4L
model that was used in Volvo but it appears that the 3.4L V8 used in the
late model SHO's was also that style.

Interesting stuff. I had a friend that owned one of these and didn't
realize this was a 'new' engine at the time.
-dave

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...

In article .com,
Peter Wieck wrote:

On Sep 11, 6:24 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

For your information: all American V8 engines are 90 degree engines.

'Cept for a 1961 GM engine,

Peter, are you saying that GM had a 60 degree V8 gasoline engine that
was used in a 1961 US production automobile?

None that I know of.

True, the early 60s were a time of engine diversity for GM.

They had a relatively huge (3.3 liter) slant-4 cut out of a 90 degree V8.

They had that small aluminium V8 they eventually sold to Rover.

They made a car with an available I4 cut off of an I6, which was a real
throw-back in those days.

The I4 was later resurrected as the "Iron Duke"

Exactly. It was offered in the initial Chevy II, but about zero were ever
sold. GM redirected it into the industrial engine market and by all
acccounts, it sold and served well. It was just the ticket for a small
combine or big irrigation pump.

A friends mother had a Chevy II with the I4 and "three on the tree".
The Iron Duke was later used in several GM car lines in addition to the
uses you mention, and apropos the discussion of marine engines elsewhere
in this thread, it also saw service as a marine engine.

They had a flat 6 that was built like a motorcycle engine with jugs.

I had one of those, a great little engine.

As did I, 140 gross hp and 4 single-barrel carbs. I ran it long enough for
the jug gaskets to leak like sieves.

What, you didn't have the turbo version?

You forgot the SOHC I6 they had in the mid 1960s.

Note my OP - "early 60s". Yes, they did the OHC I6 for Pontiac in, if memory
serves, 1966. The Wikipedia agrees.

Noted.

I think this one may
have been the first automobile engine to use the now ubiquitous timing
belt to drive the cam.

You mean the now-ubiquitous steel-reinforced-rubber timing belt... There a
Fiat OHC I4 with one that was also introduced in 1966 - the 124. Fiat's
implementation included a camshaft that would go idle after belt breakage
with valves interfering with the pistons. Thus a minor belt failure became a
total engine failure.

Don't they all "go idle after belt breakage"? I thought whether a minor
belt failure becomes a major engine failure depends on other engine
design details that cause piston-valve interference when the cam "goes
idle"?

also owned one of these, I love most all GM 6
cylinder engines, except maybe the old Pontiac flathead six. I also
owned a couple of GM's cast iron 60 degree V6 engines.

My first driver was an old 1958 chevvy Biscayne with the old "Blue Flame"
235 I6. You know, the one that was in the first Corvette. ;-)

They had a 90 degree V6 in the days when conventional wisdom was that V6s
needed to be 60 degrees. (hold that thouught!) No balance shaft, either!
Can
we say rock and roll? ;-)

IIRC this engine was developed to replace the ill fated aluminum V6 that
they dumped on Rover,

The aluminum that Rover got was a 214 V8. There was a turbocharged version
of it with water injection - Oldsmobile.

Yes, sorry V6 was a typo, too many V6s and V8s in this thread to not get
confused while typing.

and IIRC it was derived from an existing V8 so it
could be built on the same line with existing tooling.

The V8 that begat the 90 degree V6 was the smalleruick "Nail head" cast iron
V8.

I Googled the history of this engine, and it is a lot more complex than
I thought, having been originally been derived from the aluminum V8 that
started all this, a detail I had forgotten. It actually sounds like it,
or variants of it, was built on three separate lines in its early years.

It soon went the
way of the aluminum V8 and was sold to Willis/Jeep, GM eventually bought
it back in the 1970s.

Agreed, except that by then Willys/Jeep was part of AMC.

They eventually converted it to an "even fire"
design with a special crank

That was the original design - a *special* crank. However they updated it,
and finally added a balance shaft.

No, the original design was not "even fire", it was "odd fire" like a V8
with two cylinders cut off. A few years after GM got it back they made
it "even fire" which required a special crankshaft with split throws.
The balance shaft came later and was not part of the original "even
fire" conversion. Even though I drive one I had completely forgotten
about the balance shaft, no wonder it is so smooth.

and both my and my wife's automobiles are
powered by this engine today. It seems smooth enough to me, with
minimal if any "rock and roll". The 60 degree V6 I mentioned above did
have a serious case of "rock and roll".

I've owned 7 60 degree V6s, Nissan (1) , GM (3) and Ford (3). One is
smoother than the next. OK, the first chevvy V6 I had was a little rough,
but it also had a carburator. I blame the carb. FI made all the difference
on its sucessor with the same everything else. A 60 degree V6 that rocks
and rolls does so for reasons other than inherent balance.

I misspoke above, the problem I had with the GM 60 degree V6 was not
"rock and roll" it was a gross high amplitude vibration that came in
over a narrow RPM band at just the engine speed you wanted to drive
around town at in the most natural gear. It was totally intolerable so
you were left with the choice of shifting to a higher gear and lugging
the engine, or shifting to a lower gear and using more revs than needed,
which was my choice, always being worried about engine damage resulting
from lugging the engine.

My daughter owned a recent copy Chrysler's 3.8L 90 degree V6 (Liberty), and
it still had a little rock-and-roll at idle. I've driven a prototype of the
upgraded NVH version of the same car, and it is better but still has a bit
of the classic 90 degree V6 lope. For some odd reason I've never knowingly
driven one of the General's 90 degree V6s with the balance shaft, so I don't
know about it. I kay have ridden on one or three, so if there's nothing to
report, it must be pretty good.

The GM 90 degree V6 I did drive was in a 1964 Buick Special, back in the
day.

I seriously doubt it if
that is what you are implying, if you are correct it surely must have
been GM's best kept secret ever, can you cite any references?

I'm waiting with bated breath!

Just don't hold your breath.

No, holding one's breath for most of these turkeys to take a correction with
grace could result in a very blue face.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 12, 2:09 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

However, I still nailed you twice for which you have no rebuttals and no
concessions. :-(-

Carving notches on your mouse, Arny?

Remember my note on "parsing"?

Oh, and as I was trying to be nice and not to have to exercise my
googling skills outside of lunch hour I left out all sorts of oddball
engines, such as Cat's 65-degree V8 (398 HP), the Cotsworth-Ford 70-
degree V8 (try finding references to that one - and you thought only
the Italians did that?), McLaren's 80-degree engines... yeah, the
latter-two are Brit-designed but used in US (very limited) production
cars.

The US has been a country of motor-heads since the Otto-cycle engine
crossed over from Germany. More-or-less over the last 100+ years of
piston-popping, if it can be dreamed, it likely has been done. For
some stroked-out neverwas burbling under a rock in Ireland to make
universal statements about American automotive history is just silly.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Peter Wieck" wrote in message
ps.com...
On Sep 12, 12:18 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

I am no motor-head, but like most Americans of a certain age who grew
up in Michigan, some of this stuff inevitably got into my blood. But
the Ford SHO engine,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ford_Yamaha_V8_engine

Two can play at that.

60-degree V8. Go for it.

Agreed. I knew you had it in you! ;-)

A couple of old bosses of mine had Mustang SHO V8 company cars in about
the 1990 time frame, give or take a bit. What were these Mustang SHO V8
engines, 90 degrees or 60 degrees, and were they related to the later
Taurus engine? I vaguely remember that there may have been a Yamaha
connection as with the Taurus engine.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[John Byrns]

In article om,
Peter Wieck wrote:

On Sep 12, 2:09 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

However, I still nailed you twice for which you have no rebuttals and no
concessions. :-(-

Carving notches on your mouse, Arny?

Remember my note on "parsing"?

Oh, and as I was trying to be nice and not to have to exercise my
googling skills outside of lunch hour I left out all sorts of oddball
engines, such as Cat's 65-degree V8 (398 HP), the Cotsworth-Ford 70-
degree V8 (try finding references to that one - and you thought only
the Italians did that?), McLaren's 80-degree engines... yeah, the
latter-two are Brit-designed but used in US (very limited) production
cars.

The US has been a country of motor-heads since the Otto-cycle engine
crossed over from Germany. More-or-less over the last 100+ years of
piston-popping, if it can be dreamed, it likely has been done. For
some stroked-out neverwas burbling under a rock in Ireland to make
universal statements about American automotive history is just silly.

Peter, the US production car example you found is more like the
exception that proves the rule, I think Andre essentially got it right.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 12, 3:32 pm, John Byrns wrote:
In article om,
Peter Wieck wrote:





On Sep 12, 2:09 pm, "Arny Krueger" wrote:

However, I still nailed you twice for which you have no rebuttals and no
concessions. :-(-

Carving notches on your mouse, Arny?

Remember my note on "parsing"?

Oh, and as I was trying to be nice and not to have to exercise my
googling skills outside of lunch hour I left out all sorts of oddball
engines, such as Cat's 65-degree V8 (398 HP), the Cotsworth-Ford 70-
degree V8 (try finding references to that one - and you thought only
the Italians did that?), McLaren's 80-degree engines... yeah, the
latter-two are Brit-designed but used in US (very limited) production
cars.

The US has been a country of motor-heads since the Otto-cycle engine
crossed over from Germany. More-or-less over the last 100+ years of
piston-popping, if it can be dreamed, it likely has been done. For
some stroked-out neverwas burbling under a rock in Ireland to make
universal statements about American automotive history is just silly.

Peter, the US production car example you found is more like the
exception that proves the rule, I think Andre essentially got it right.

Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Mpfffff.... So, you too are taking lessons from Mr. Clinton? This
depends on the meaning of "all" of course. Now Mr. Jute made a blanket
statement that was prima-facia dead-wrong. When caught, he brings in
his right-hand sock-puppet to blow smoke and blather. OK, so we won't
impeach Mr. Jute as he may be forgiven based on his condition.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Dave Ryan]

In rec.audio.tubes John Byrns wrote:
:
: In article ,
: "Arny Krueger" wrote:
:
: "John Byrns" wrote in message
: ...
: In article ,
: "Arny Krueger" wrote:
:
: "John Byrns" wrote in message
: ...
:
: In article .com,
: Peter Wieck wrote:
:
: On Sep 11, 6:24 pm, Andre Jute wrote:
:
: For your information: all American V8 engines are 90 degree engines.
:
: 'Cept for a 1961 GM engine,
:
: Peter, are you saying that GM had a 60 degree V8 gasoline engine that
: was used in a 1961 US production automobile?
:
: None that I know of.
:
: True, the early 60s were a time of engine diversity for GM.
:
: They had a relatively huge (3.3 liter) slant-4 cut out of a 90 degree V8.
:
: They had that small aluminium V8 they eventually sold to Rover.
:
: They made a car with an available I4 cut off of an I6, which was a real
: throw-back in those days.
:
: The I4 was later resurrected as the "Iron Duke"
:
: Exactly. It was offered in the initial Chevy II, but about zero were ever
: sold. GM redirected it into the industrial engine market and by all
: acccounts, it sold and served well. It was just the ticket for a small
: combine or big irrigation pump.
:
: A friends mother had a Chevy II with the I4 and "three on the tree".
: The Iron Duke was later used in several GM car lines in addition to the
: uses you mention, and apropos the discussion of marine engines elsewhere
: in this thread, it also saw service as a marine engine.
:
: They had a flat 6 that was built like a motorcycle engine with jugs.
:
: I had one of those, a great little engine.
:
: As did I, 140 gross hp and 4 single-barrel carbs. I ran it long enough for
: the jug gaskets to leak like sieves.
:
: What, you didn't have the turbo version?
:
: You forgot the SOHC I6 they had in the mid 1960s.
:
: Note my OP - "early 60s". Yes, they did the OHC I6 for Pontiac in, if memory
: serves, 1966. The Wikipedia agrees.
:
: Noted.
:

I owned a 76 Nova that I believe had this inline 6 in it. I think it
was a 250 if I recall correctly. It was a dream to work on as the
engine compartment was built to hold a much larger motor. Much easier
than my Maverick having a 302 somehow stuffed inside. I could barely
even get to the plugs on that thing. Lots of knuckles shredded.

-dave

[Dave Plowman (News)]

In article .com,
wrote:
The Healey 100/4 used basically a pre-war Austin engine which
struggled to make 100 bhp, but 6 cylinder models had post war C Series
units all of which were good for over 100 bhp. Although not by much in
standard trim. The last version with the Weslake head and separate
ports *could* be made to produce a fair amount. But was a desperately
heavy lump.

The Boss had a beautiful gunmetal gray Healey 3000 with walnut facia
and windup windows that he tooled around in when he could be bothered
to show for class. Eventually someone made him an offer of a Stingray
and cash pink slip exchange that he took.

I never really understood the attraction of the large Healeys as they're
not that pleasant to drive.

--
*I will always cherish the initial misconceptions I had about you

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.

[Arny Krueger]

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...

In article .com,
Peter Wieck wrote:

On Sep 11, 6:24 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

For your information: all American V8 engines are 90 degree
engines.

'Cept for a 1961 GM engine,

Peter, are you saying that GM had a 60 degree V8 gasoline engine
that
was used in a 1961 US production automobile?

None that I know of.

True, the early 60s were a time of engine diversity for GM.

They had a relatively huge (3.3 liter) slant-4 cut out of a 90 degree
V8.

They had that small aluminium V8 they eventually sold to Rover.

They made a car with an available I4 cut off of an I6, which was a
real
throw-back in those days.

The I4 was later resurrected as the "Iron Duke"

Exactly. It was offered in the initial Chevy II, but about zero were ever
sold. GM redirected it into the industrial engine market and by all
acccounts, it sold and served well. It was just the ticket for a small
combine or big irrigation pump.

A friends mother had a Chevy II with the I4 and "three on the tree".
The Iron Duke was later used in several GM car lines in addition to the
uses you mention, and apropos the discussion of marine engines elsewhere
in this thread, it also saw service as a marine engine.

They had a flat 6 that was built like a motorcycle engine with jugs.

I had one of those, a great little engine.

As did I, 140 gross hp and 4 single-barrel carbs. I ran it long enough
for
the jug gaskets to leak like sieves.

What, you didn't have the turbo version?

They didn't last...

You forgot the SOHC I6 they had in the mid 1960s.

Note my OP - "early 60s". Yes, they did the OHC I6 for Pontiac in, if
memory
serves, 1966. The Wikipedia agrees.

Noted.

I think this one may
have been the first automobile engine to use the now ubiquitous timing
belt to drive the cam.

You mean the now-ubiquitous steel-reinforced-rubber timing belt... There
a
Fiat OHC I4 with one that was also introduced in 1966 - the 124. Fiat's
implementation included a camshaft that would go idle after belt breakage
with valves interfering with the pistons. Thus a minor belt failure
became a
total engine failure.

Don't they all "go idle after belt breakage"?

Yes, but they vary as to whether the pistons and idled valves interfere.

I thought whether a minor
belt failure becomes a major engine failure depends on other engine
design details that cause piston-valve interference when the cam "goes
idle"?

Yes, that is what I was trying to convey, above.

also owned one of these, I love most all GM 6
cylinder engines, except maybe the old Pontiac flathead six. I also
owned a couple of GM's cast iron 60 degree V6 engines.

My first driver was an old 1958 chevvy Biscayne with the old "Blue Flame"
235 I6. You know, the one that was in the first Corvette. ;-)

They had a 90 degree V6 in the days when conventional wisdom was that
V6s
needed to be 60 degrees. (hold that thouught!) No balance shaft,
either!
Can
we say rock and roll? ;-)

IIRC this engine was developed to replace the ill fated aluminum V6
that
they dumped on Rover,

The aluminum that Rover got was a 215 V8. There was a turbocharged
version
of it with water injection - Oldsmobile.

Yes, sorry V6 was a typo, too many V6s and V8s in this thread to not get
confused while typing.

and IIRC it was derived from an existing V8 so it
could be built on the same line with existing tooling.

The V8 that begat the 90 degree V6 was the smalleruick "Nail head" cast
iron
V8.

I Googled the history of this engine, and it is a lot more complex than
I thought, having been originally been derived from the aluminum V8 that
started all this, a detail I had forgotten. It actually sounds like it,
or variants of it, was built on three separate lines in its early years.

It soon went the
way of the aluminum V8 and was sold to Willis/Jeep, GM eventually
bought
it back in the 1970s.

Agreed, except that by then Willys/Jeep was part of AMC.

They eventually converted it to an "even fire"
design with a special crank

That was the original design - a *special* crank. However they updated
it,
and finally added a balance shaft.

No, the original design was not "even fire", it was "odd fire" like a V8
with two cylinders cut off.

Oh, thats what you meant.

A few years after GM got it back they made
it "even fire" which required a special crankshaft with split throws.

My point is that the crank was always unusual.

The balance shaft came later and was not part of the original "even
fire" conversion. Even though I drive one I had completely forgotten
about the balance shaft, no wonder it is so smooth.

Technology works.

and both my and my wife's automobiles are
powered by this engine today. It seems smooth enough to me, with
minimal if any "rock and roll". The 60 degree V6 I mentioned above did
have a serious case of "rock and roll".

I've owned 7 60 degree V6s, Nissan (1) , GM (3) and Ford (3). One is
smoother than the next. OK, the first chevvy V6 I had was a little rough,
but it also had a carburator. I blame the carb. FI made all the
difference
on its sucessor with the same everything else. A 60 degree V6 that rocks
and rolls does so for reasons other than inherent balance.

I misspoke above, the problem I had with the GM 60 degree V6 was not
"rock and roll" it was a gross high amplitude vibration that came in
over a narrow RPM band at just the engine speed you wanted to drive
around town at in the most natural gear.

Could have been a NVH tuning issue, or carburation.

It was totally intolerable so
you were left with the choice of shifting to a higher gear and lugging
the engine, or shifting to a lower gear and using more revs than needed,
which was my choice, always being worried about engine damage resulting
from lugging the engine.

Good choice. A few revs above normal never hurt. Rembember, I said a few!
;-)

[Arny Krueger]

"Dave Ryan" wrote in message
...

I owned a 76 Nova that I believe had this inline 6 in it. I think it
was a 250 if I recall correctly.

Wikipedia agrees.

It was a dream to work on as the
engine compartment was built to hold a much larger motor.

much wider motor!

Much easier
than my Maverick having a 302 somehow stuffed inside.

Been there, done that. :-(

The good news - not my car, a friend's.

I could barely
even get to the plugs on that thing. Lots of knuckles shredded.

Also, the 390 Ford and Mercury they built on the fairmont body.

[Don Pearce]

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:32:40 -0500, John Byrns
wrote:

Peter, the US production car example you found is more like the
exception that proves the rule, I think Andre essentially got it right.

That saying is the old meaning of "prove", ie to test. So it reads, to
test a rule, find an exception. Find it, and the rule is dead.

d

--
Pearce Consulting
http://www.pearce.uk.com

[Jon Yaeger]

in article ,
at wrote on 9/12/07 11:55 AM:

Snip transparent sockpuppet rantings

HA HA HA HA HA HA HA !!!!!!!!

Jute, you sick ticket . . . .

[John Byrns]

In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Dave Ryan" wrote in message
...

I owned a 76 Nova that I believe had this inline 6 in it. I think it
was a 250 if I recall correctly.

Wikipedia agrees.

I thought GM's SOHC inline six was long gone by 76, I wouldn't trust
Wikipedia on this one. As far as I know the only inline 6 offered in
the Nova was the OHV model that was the big brother of the 4 cylinder
"Iron Duke".


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Keith G]

"Don Pearce" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:32:40 -0500, John Byrns
wrote:

Peter, the US production car example you found is more like the
exception that proves the rule, I think Andre essentially got it
right.

That saying is the old meaning of "prove", ie to test. So it reads, to
test a rule, find an exception. Find it, and the rule is dead.


No, the other way round - there can be no exception without the rule, so
if you find the exception you find/prove/demonstrate the rule.

I prefer a simpler, physical demonstration in the example of the person
not wearing a helmet who gets killed by a falling brick in a 'Hard Hat
Zone'....

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 12, 7:22 pm, "Keith G" wrote:

No, the other way round - there can be no exception without the rule, so
if you find the exception you find/prove/demonstrate the rule.


Uh, no.


http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_201.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excepti...roves_the_rule

http://www.bartleby.com/68/30/2330.html

YIKES....

I expect this sort of thing from John Byrns as he is the master of
finding the exception when one makes general statements around him.
That he should hide behind it when it goes against his seigneur
relates more to his position as amanuensis to Mr. Jute than to his
otherwise intellectual honesty when that relationship does not come to
bear. Or, the "exception that proves the rule".... *hee hee*.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Andre Jute]

On Sep 12, 5:22 pm, "Keith G" wrote:
"Don Pearce" wrote in message

...

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:32:40 -0500, John Byrns
wrote:

Peter, the US production car example you found is more like the
exception that proves the rule, I think Andre essentially got it
right.

That saying is the old meaning of "prove", ie to test. So it reads, to
test a rule, find an exception. Find it, and the rule is dead.

No, the other way round - there can be no exception without the rule, so
if you find the exception you find/prove/demonstrate the rule.

I prefer a simpler, physical demonstration in the example of the person
not wearing a helmet who gets killed by a falling brick in a 'Hard Hat
Zone'....

We were talking about Otto cycle V8 engines suitable for hotrodders.
Pearcey foolishly and totally erroneously interjected that a venerable
Ford engine was 60 degrees; I said that all US V8s are at 90 degrees,
meaning within the context of course;. Now Pearcey's acolyte in
spurious "accuracy", Worthless Wiecky, after John Byrns and Arny
Krueger stripped away his lies, his deceits and his outright
ignorance, is left with three examples he claims are a) US b)
production c) V8 engines with d) 60 degree included angle. These,
consisting of a Diesel engine, a Yamaha-built engine fitted to a few
thousand cars, and an 18 litre tank engine, are supposed to prove that
I'm a liar.

Instead it's a godsent opportunity to stomp Pearce some more for his
impertinent assumption in my bicycle thread that when I make a typo it
is a deliberate lie. But I'm not even wasting my time explaining to
these jerk-ups that the magnitude of the exception is relevant, and
that a microscopic exception rather proves the rule than disproves it.
They're not listening. They're blinded by hatred. We should feed them,
for what would we do for amusement without the fulminant droolers?

Andre Jute
A little inaccuracy sometimes saves tons of explanation. --H.H.Munro
("Saki")(1870-1916)
Visit Andre's books, including some of his automobile books at
http://members.lycos.co.uk/fiultra/

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 12, 7:46 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

I blew it, but I am a damned good spinner....

Spin as you will, you are still a liar.

And it would have been so easy just to let it be and be right... but
you HAD to climb up from under your little rock and pontificate. You
are your own worst enemy, Mr. Jute.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Andre Jute]

On Sep 12, 9:10 am, wrote:

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA
Kutztown Space 338

Get your body parts and ignorance here.

Laughing so hard my 100 year-old Penfold port is sloshing in the
glass; just as well I have it in a huge brandy snifter my wife bought
for flower arrangements.

Gray Glasser

But shouldn't Worthless Wiecky rather be in the market to buy body
parts to build up his self-image. My understanding is that people
become stalkers because they ae such perfect nobodies that they have
no personality at all of their own, just amorphous envy, as we can
observe in Peter Wieck's case any day of the week.

Andre Jute

[Keith G]

"flipper" wrote in message
...
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:42:24 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote:

On Sep 12, 7:22 pm, "Keith G" wrote:

No, the other way round - there can be no exception without the
rule, so
if you find the exception you find/prove/demonstrate the rule.


Uh, no.


http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_201.html

"Correct meaning
.
.
.
Thus, the exception ("parking allowed on Sundays") proves the
existence of the rule ("parking not allowed Monday through
Saturday")."

That's what Keith said.


Yep and the guy with a brick on his head proves the reason for the
rule - same mechanism, different application but you can't have an
exception without a rule like you can't have an outlaw without the law.
The original Latin : "exceptio probat regulam in casibus non exceptis"
is only one example of a whole pile of legal trickery devices designed
to help someone else get hold of your property/money or stop you doing
something you like and, as usual, is open to any amount of
interpretation...

[Arny Krueger]

"John Byrns" wrote in message
...
In article ,
"Arny Krueger" wrote:

"Dave Ryan" wrote in message
...

I owned a 76 Nova that I believe had this inline 6 in it. I think it
was a 250 if I recall correctly.

Wikipedia agrees.

I thought GM's SOHC inline six was long gone by 76, I wouldn't trust
Wikipedia on this one.

Wiki didn't say otherwise.

As far as I know the only inline 6 offered in
the Nova was the OHV model that was the big brother of the 4 cylinder
"Iron Duke".

That's how I interpreted Wiki.

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 13, 12:19 am, flipper wrote:
On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 17:42:24 -0700, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 12, 7:22 pm, "Keith G" wrote:

No, the other way round - there can be no exception without the rule, so
if you find the exception you find/prove/demonstrate the rule.

Uh, no.

http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_201.html

"Correct meaning
.
.
.
Thus, the exception ("parking allowed on Sundays") proves the
existence of the rule ("parking not allowed Monday through
Saturday")."

That's what Keith said.



http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Excepti...roves_the_rule

"A legal maxim of which the complete text is: exceptio probat [or
(con)firmat] regulam in casibus non exceptis--`the fact that certain
exceptions are made (in a legal document) confirms that the rule is
valid in all other cases.'"
.
.
.
Hmm. It grieves me to say this, but you're right. While the
interpretation I gave, namely that the exception tests the rule, has a
long history (it dates back at least to 1893), I'll concede that your
take on it is the original sense of the proverb."

http://www.bartleby.com/68/30/2330.html

Kenneth G. Wilson has, unfortunately, taken a Germanic etymology of
'prove' for 'test' and mistakenly retro misapplied it to Latin.

YIKES....

I expect this sort of thing from John Byrns as he is the master of
finding the exception when one makes general statements around him.
That he should hide behind it when it goes against his seigneur
relates more to his position as amanuensis to Mr. Jute than to his
otherwise intellectual honesty when that relationship does not come to
bear. Or, the "exception that proves the rule".... *hee hee*.

Providing sources where 2 out of 3 support your opponent is a debating
methodology I'm not familiar with.

Point being that the exceptions are listed under that scenario.

Under "English" law, what is not forbidden is permitted, a very old
principle of course. So, laws meant to be universal are stated without
exceptions with the general understanding that anything not specified
is not covered. Clear enough. Gets to the common misunderstandings of
such basic "rules" as the Ten Commandments: Thou Shalt Not Kill as one
of them. Admits to no exceptions as written. There are those who will
then parse the Aramaic to mean "Thou Shalt Not Murder", which puts and
entirely different spin on it, of course. Of course under Roman law,
what is not permitted is forbidden...

However, laws meant to be limited state the limits. Such as the NO
PARKING (Except Sundays). A simple NO PARKING sign would not admit to
exceptions and any individual parking under such a sign would have no
reason to complain about a ticket whenever he/she parked.

Mr. Jute made a blanket statement. He could well have stated "most",
"nearly every" or "the typical", or any variation thereof. He stated
"ALL", no exceptions granted or given.

The brick on the head is consequential to ignoring the rule, not an
exception to it. That same brick (presumably) would have fallen
whether the wearer had the hard-hat or not, just that the results
would have been different proving the _NEED_ for such rules.

However one slices or dices, parses or pontificates, universal
statements, simple declarative sentences do not admit to exceptions
but make the rule. If one wishes to be less than precise, or less than
universal, there is always that option... just as on the sign (Except
Sundays).

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 12, 9:51 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

Laughing so hard my 100 year-old Penfold port is sloshing in the
glass; just as well I have it in a huge brandy snifter my wife bought
for flower arrangements.

Australian Port? Might be interesting as Australia is making some very
good wines these days. But I have to ask, is it anything like your
"Vintage Jack Daniels" as you once mentioned before?

Somehow, given your general credibility and history of - shall we
allow - "polite" exaggerations, I suspect that the closest you have
ever come to a bottle of such port would be by walking past it in the
shop window - oh, that's right, such a port would never be exposed to
sunlight in that way.

Care to post a picture of said bottle on your website, together with
provenance. Actually PROVE something perhaps? Make sure there is
something with a location and date on it, perhaps a newspaper? I ask
because Penfolds shows no such port in their history, websites, nor is
it listed in any of the catalogs... most of their ports date from the
80s and 90s by cask, and by initiation from 1915 and forward. So... .

Now, had you written "Seppelt Para", you would have been on firm
ground... .

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Andre Jute]

More from the Don Pearce School of Miscalculation

flipper wrote:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 22:16:09 GMT, (Don Pearce)
wrote:

On Wed, 12 Sep 2007 14:32:40 -0500, John Byrns
wrote:

Peter, the US production car example you found is more like the
exception that proves the rule, I think Andre essentially got it right.

That saying is the old meaning of "prove", ie to test. So it reads, to
test a rule, find an exception. Find it, and the rule is dead.

That is an extremely popular explanation but I don't think it's
correct.

The phrase originates from the Latin "'exceptio probat regulam in
casibus non exceptis," a legalism which says "exception proves the
rule in cases not excepted." Or, put another way, there would be no
need for a 'exception' if there were no rule to be exempted from so
that an 'exception' is stated proves the existence of the general
rule, for cases not excepted.

As to the prove-test theory, I've seen that same explanation given
even when the author quotes the Latin but they only half quote it,
saying "exceptio probat regulam," and then go into the 'change in
meaning' of 'prove'. But the second half of the Latin, "in cases not
excepted," disproves that interpretation.


That this conversation should be necessary strikes me as very odd
indeed. Even without Latin, an engineer who doesn't know that the
exception in fact proves the rule, since otherwise there would be no
need for an exception to be stated because in an homogenous closed
environment the rule wouldn't be required, should ask for his tuition
to be returned at whatever rule-of-thumb tech school educated him so
inadequately.

Andre Jute
The trouble with most people is not what they don't know, but what
they know for certain that isn't true. ---Mark Twain

[Andre Jute]

The forger and netstalker Peter Wieck wrote:

On Sep 12, 7:46 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

I blew it, but I am a damned good spinner....

No, I didn't write that. It is a forgery by the forger and netstalker
Peter Wieck.

Spin as you will, you are still a liar.

So you keep screeching. But you know you can't ever prove such wishful
thinking, which is why you keep forging messages and trying to pretend
they're my words.


Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Unsigned out of contempt.

[Andre Jute]

Peter Wieck wrote:

On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:53:17 -0700, Andre Jute
wrote:

*Everything* I wrote was snipped:

Peter Wieck then forged this and pretended I wrote it:
__________________________________________________ ___

In 1958 she was in a serious car accident and took morphine for pain
and relapsed into drug and alcohol abuse. In 1959, Édith broke down
during a performance in New York and thereafter survived a number of
operations. She returned to Paris in poor health. Édith met her second
husband, Théo Sarapo, in the winter of 1961. Théo was a twenty-six-
year-old hairdresser-turned-singer and actor, and was twenty years
younger than Piaf. They married in 1962. He rejuvenated her enough to
make her last recordings and performances. Piaf went to a small town
(Cannes) in the South of France in early 1963 to recuperate but she
fell in and out of a coma beginning in April 1963. At the early age of
47 on October 10, 1963, Édith Piaf died of cancer. Her husband Théo
discretely drove her body back to Paris and announced her death on
October 11, 1963. Upon hearing of her death, Édith's long-time friend,
Jacques Cocteau suffered a cardiac arrest and died.
The Roman Catholic Church denied Édith Piaf a funeral mass because of
her lifestyle. Piaf was buried in cemetery Père Lachaise on October
14, 1963.
Théo Sarapo, Édith's husband died in an automobile accident in 1970
and is buried beside Piaf in Père Lachaise.
__________________________________________________ ______

I did not write that wretched, illiterate piece. What I wrote is, in
its entirety:

"Trivia for you: Edith Piaf's last lover, after she took the drugs
overdose that killed her, decided a French national icon should not
die anywhere but Paris, so he drove her body, sitting in the passenger
seat beside him, through the night from the Mediterranean coast to
Paris. The car was a Simca V8."

The sad sack Peter Wieck then tried to condemn me on hand of his
forgery:

Trust Mr. Jute to embelish interesting enough facts with enough legend
and falsehood to choke even 60 horses:

Nope, I didn't. The sad sack wannabe Peter Wieck is the one who
regurgitates the publicity puffery. He goes on with his deceit,
criticizing his own forgery, still trying to claim I wrote it:

The saddest part is that the bare facts are interesting enough to
stand on their own without additional tripe and twaddle afterwards.

My single short paragraph stands. Everything else was invented by
Worthless Wiecky to insert himself in the conversations of his
betters.

And all that we learn from Mr. Jute is that he cannot tell a story
straight. Kinda puts the whole Simca statement in question.

Then prove I'm wrong, scumface.

Peter Wieck is a forger and a liar. He is scum.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

With complete contemp for a worthless netstalker.

Andre Jute

[Andre Jute]

On Sep 13, 4:42 am, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 12, 9:51 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

Laughing so hard my 100 year-old Penfold port is sloshing in the
glass; just as well I have it in a huge brandy snifter my wife bought
for flower arrangements.

Australian Port? Might be interesting as Australia is making some very
good wines these days. But I have to ask, is it anything like your
"Vintage Jack Daniels" as you once mentioned before?

Somehow, given your general credibility and history of - shall we
allow - "polite" exaggerations, I suspect that the closest you have
ever come to a bottle of such port would be by walking past it in the
shop window - oh, that's right, such a port would never be exposed to
sunlight in that way.

Care to post a picture of said bottle on your website, together with
provenance. Actually PROVE something perhaps? Make sure there is
something with a location and date on it, perhaps a newspaper? I ask
because Penfolds shows no such port in their history, websites, nor is
it listed in any of the catalogs... most of their ports date from the
80s and 90s by cask, and by initiation from 1915 and forward. So... .

Now, had you written "Seppelt Para", you would have been on firm
ground... .

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA


Yes, people like you who window-shop for such things probably know all
the best names. But genuine 100-year old ports aren't available to
people like you. They are kept for the friends of people in whose
warehouses in dusty corners stand large, mysterious vats.

And a quick reading of your post above explains exactly why you will
remain forever on the outside, Worthless. You match your name.

Unsigned for the usual reason

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 13, 10:34 am, flipper wrote:

If only it were that simple, but the courts routinely 'discover' new
unstated limits, at least not stated in the particular 'law' in
question. And in some cases it's so unstated that practically no one
can figure out how they arrived at it even from the explanation of how
they arrived at it., with Roe V. Wade being a highly visible example.

Sure. But again English Law prevails. What is not specifically
forbidden is permitted. The constitution does not speak to Gay
Marriage, Abortion, Flag Burning, nor many other hot-button issues
that in present American society divert attention from the real issues
at hand. So the explanation becomes exceedingly simple: It ain't nohow
forbidden under the constitution. The constitution is SILENT on the
subject. As it is SILENT on the consumption of alcohol, tobacco,
drugs... So, in order to forbid something *constitutionally* it must
be amended. That was tried during prohibition with the inevitable
results. Otherwise, those activities may only be regulated... and we
go down that road with quite unsatisfactory results in many cases...
just look at the "illegal" drug laws as one "glaring" example: If a
specific substance is not listed in the forbidden pharmacopia, it is
perfectly legal... permitted. Not to mention that these laws support
an entire industry much larger than any Fortune company that would
evaporate overnight were the laws to change.

The Supremes (theoretically) actually do not discover new limits in
any meaningful way. They simply remove them if not supported by the
constitution and leave them intact if they are. So, they limit what
the law may do only. This is a very good thing. Theory and practice
are seldom much better than cousins. This can be a very bad thing.

The devil is in the details.

Of course, one wonders what language the Romans would use for the good
old 14 karat bamboozle (Pogo, 1956).

I took it as a tease... I tend to be very dry when I tease back.

Law and laws get complicated simply because they attempt to define the
territory, exceptions, and limitations within themselves. And that
because even two reasonable people apparently cannot define the word
"is" without discussion. And aphorisms are quite dangerous if neither
quoted in full nor understod.

Absence makes the heart grow fonder... Often quoted, rarely finished
Of whom let absent lovers ponder.

May you live in interesting times...
And may all your wishes come true.

There are many, of course.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote PA

[John Byrns]

In article om,
Andre Jute wrote:

The forger and netstalker Peter Wieck wrote:

On Sep 12, 7:46 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

I blew it, but I am a damned good spinner....

No, I didn't write that. It is a forgery by the forger and netstalker
Peter Wieck.

Spin as you will, you are still a liar.

So you keep screeching. But you know you can't ever prove such wishful
thinking, which is why you keep forging messages and trying to pretend
they're my words.

Peter likes to do that, put words in other peoples mouths so that it
later appears in the record as though they had actually said it. This
is an art that was honed to a fine edge many years ago by "the gang", so
I am very sensitive to it. Peter tried it on me just yesterday in
another usenet newsgroup.


Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 13, 11:03 am, Andre Jute wrote:
Peter Wieck wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:53:17 -0700, Andre Jute
wrote:

*Everything* I wrote was snipped:

Peter Wieck then forged this and pretended I wrote it:





__________________________________________________ ___

In 1958 she was in a serious car accident and took morphine for pain
and relapsed into drug and alcohol abuse. In 1959, Édith broke down
during a performance in New York and thereafter survived a number of
operations. She returned to Paris in poor health. Édith met her second
husband, Théo Sarapo, in the winter of 1961. Théo was a twenty-six-
year-old hairdresser-turned-singer and actor, and was twenty years
younger than Piaf. They married in 1962. He rejuvenated her enough to
make her last recordings and performances. Piaf went to a small town
(Cannes) in the South of France in early 1963 to recuperate but she
fell in and out of a coma beginning in April 1963. At the early age of
47 on October 10, 1963, Édith Piaf died of cancer. Her husband Théo
discretely drove her body back to Paris and announced her death on
October 11, 1963. Upon hearing of her death, Édith's long-time friend,
Jacques Cocteau suffered a cardiac arrest and died.
The Roman Catholic Church denied Édith Piaf a funeral mass because of
her lifestyle. Piaf was buried in cemetery Père Lachaise on October
14, 1963.
Théo Sarapo, Édith's husband died in an automobile accident in 1970
and is buried beside Piaf in Père Lachaise.
__________________________________________________ ______

I did not write that wretched, illiterate piece. What I wrote is, in
its entirety:

"Trivia for you: Edith Piaf's last lover, after she took the drugs
overdose that killed her, decided a French national icon should not
die anywhere but Paris, so he drove her body, sitting in the passenger
seat beside him, through the night from the Mediterranean coast to
Paris. The car was a Simca V8."

The sad sack Peter Wieck then tried to condemn me on hand of his
forgery:

Trust Mr. Jute to embelish interesting enough facts with enough legend
and falsehood to choke even 60 horses:

Nope, I didn't. The sad sack wannabe Peter Wieck is the one who
regurgitates the publicity puffery. He goes on with his deceit,
criticizing his own forgery, still trying to claim I wrote it:

The saddest part is that the bare facts are interesting enough to
stand on their own without additional tripe and twaddle afterwards.

My single short paragraph stands. Everything else was invented by
Worthless Wiecky to insert himself in the conversations of his
betters.

And all that we learn from Mr. Jute is that he cannot tell a story
straight. Kinda puts the whole Simca statement in question.

Then prove I'm wrong, scumface.

Peter Wieck is a forger and a liar. He is scum.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

With complete contemp for a worthless netstalker.

Andre Jute- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

a) Piaf died of cancer. The "overdose" is as unlikely as the Simca.
b) That she may have been taking pain killers is quite likely. That
she died of an overdose is not. Her husband (lover too, one expects)
would not have permitted that.

Edith Piaf's Death: Piaf died of cancer in 1963, near Cannes. The date
is disputed, it is said that she actually passed on October 10, but
her official date of death is October 11. Her husband, Theo Sarapo,
was with her at the time. Piaf is buried in Pere Lachaise Cemetery in
Paris. ( http://worldmusic.about.com/od/bands.../EdithPiaf.htm
)

Piaf and Sarapo sang together at the Bobino in early 1963, and Piaf
also made her final recording, "L'Homme de Berlin." Not long
afterward, Piaf slipped into a coma, brought on by cancer. Sarapo and
Simone Berteaut took Piaf to her villa in Plascassier, on the French
Riviera, to nurse her. She drifted in and out of consciousness for
months before passing away on October 11, 1963 -- the same day as
legendary writer/filmmaker Jean Cocteau. Her body was taken back to
Paris in secret, so that fans could believe she died in her hometown.
( http://www.starpulse.com/Music/Piaf,_Edith/Biography/ )

There is much more of course.

What Jute added was the unnecessary embellishment of "Lover" vs.
husband and the outright lie as a drug overdose being the cause of
death. Death was inevitable, the drugs were at best a bit-
contributor.

Proof. OK.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Peter Wieck]

Whoops... I missed that.

I never offered the writing between the

_____________________

____________________

as the product of Mr. Jute. What I did suggest is that the facts as
stated in that little bit taken from a brief biography of Ms. Piaf
were interesting enough of themselves without Jute's "puffery" and
creative lies to 'enhance' them. What I derived from his 53 words of
misrepresentation is that he cannot tell even a pretty fascinating
story straight without twisting it to his own warped perception.

Strokes do that, I guess.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 13, 11:21 am, Andre Jute wrote:
On Sep 13, 4:42 am, Peter Wieck wrote:





On Sep 12, 9:51 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

Laughing so hard my 100 year-old Penfold port is sloshing in the
glass; just as well I have it in a huge brandy snifter my wife bought
for flower arrangements.

Australian Port? Might be interesting as Australia is making some very
good wines these days. But I have to ask, is it anything like your
"Vintage Jack Daniels" as you once mentioned before?

Somehow, given your general credibility and history of - shall we
allow - "polite" exaggerations, I suspect that the closest you have
ever come to a bottle of such port would be by walking past it in the
shop window - oh, that's right, such a port would never be exposed to
sunlight in that way.

Care to post a picture of said bottle on your website, together with
provenance. Actually PROVE something perhaps? Make sure there is
something with a location and date on it, perhaps a newspaper? I ask
because Penfolds shows no such port in their history, websites, nor is
it listed in any of the catalogs... most of their ports date from the
80s and 90s by cask, and by initiation from 1915 and forward. So... .

Now, had you written "Seppelt Para", you would have been on firm
ground... .

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Yes, people like you who window-shop for such things probably know all
the best names. But genuine 100-year old ports aren't available to
people like you. They are kept for the friends of people in whose
warehouses in dusty corners stand large, mysterious vats.

And a quick reading of your post above explains exactly why you will
remain forever on the outside, Worthless. You match your name.

Unsigned for the usual reason- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No proof offered. Just smoke and mirrors. Typical.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Andre Jute]

On Sep 13, 8:43 am, John Byrns wrote:
In article om,
Andre Jute wrote:

The forger and netstalker Peter Wieck wrote:

On Sep 12, 7:46 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

I blew it, but I am a damned good spinner....

No, I didn't write that. It is a forgery by the forger and netstalker
Peter Wieck.

Spin as you will, you are still a liar.

So you keep screeching. But you know you can't ever prove such wishful
thinking, which is why you keep forging messages and trying to pretend
they're my words.

Peter likes to do that, put words in other peoples mouths so that it
later appears in the record as though they had actually said it. This
is an art that was honed to a fine edge many years ago by "the gang", so
I am very sensitive to it. Peter tried it on me just yesterday in
another usenet newsgroup.

This foul little piece of toilet slime Peter Wieck has another
mannerism reminiscent of a scumball we have already dealt with
permanently. Like Pasternack, Worthless Wiecky is in the habit of
screeching that whoever he has picked on is wrong, wrong, wrong -- all
the while just rewriting the other person's post in different words
but with exactly the same opinions and outcome. The poor dull little
janitor thinks he's being clever, but he's being stupid and
transparent. He is also a bully, a boor and a thief.

Makes one nostalgic for another janitor in the Magnequest Scum, Ron
Bales, who at least had a decent respect for the language.

Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

Andre Jute
No real corpses were harmed in the assembly of my golem Worthless
Wieckless. I made him by stuffing a cow's bladder with pig offal. --
CE Statement of Conformity

[Peter Wieck]

On Sep 13, 5:05 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

fulminated.

Touched a nerve, huh?

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

[Andre Jute]

On Sep 13, 9:06 am, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 13, 11:03 am, Andre Jute wrote:



Peter Wieck wrote:
On Mon, 10 Sep 2007 16:53:17 -0700, Andre Jute
wrote:

*Everything* I wrote was snipped:

Peter Wieck then forged this and pretended I wrote it:

__________________________________________________ ___

In 1958 she was in a serious car accident and took morphine for pain
and relapsed into drug and alcohol abuse. In 1959, Édith broke down
during a performance in New York and thereafter survived a number of
operations. She returned to Paris in poor health. Édith met her second
husband, Théo Sarapo, in the winter of 1961. Théo was a twenty-six-
year-old hairdresser-turned-singer and actor, and was twenty years
younger than Piaf. They married in 1962. He rejuvenated her enough to
make her last recordings and performances. Piaf went to a small town
(Cannes) in the South of France in early 1963 to recuperate but she
fell in and out of a coma beginning in April 1963. At the early age of
47 on October 10, 1963, Édith Piaf died of cancer. Her husband Théo
discretely drove her body back to Paris and announced her death on
October 11, 1963. Upon hearing of her death, Édith's long-time friend,
Jacques Cocteau suffered a cardiac arrest and died.
The Roman Catholic Church denied Édith Piaf a funeral mass because of
her lifestyle. Piaf was buried in cemetery Père Lachaise on October
14, 1963.
Théo Sarapo, Édith's husband died in an automobile accident in 1970
and is buried beside Piaf in Père Lachaise.
__________________________________________________ ______

I did not write that wretched, illiterate piece. What I wrote is, in
its entirety:

"Trivia for you: Edith Piaf's last lover, after she took the drugs
overdose that killed her, decided a French national icon should not
die anywhere but Paris, so he drove her body, sitting in the passenger
seat beside him, through the night from the Mediterranean coast to
Paris. The car was a Simca V8."

The sad sack Peter Wieck then tried to condemn me on hand of his
forgery:

Trust Mr. Jute to embelish interesting enough facts with enough legend
and falsehood to choke even 60 horses:

Nope, I didn't. The sad sack wannabe Peter Wieck is the one who
regurgitates the publicity puffery. He goes on with his deceit,
criticizing his own forgery, still trying to claim I wrote it:

The saddest part is that the bare facts are interesting enough to
stand on their own without additional tripe and twaddle afterwards.

My single short paragraph stands. Everything else was invented by
Worthless Wiecky to insert himself in the conversations of his
betters.

And all that we learn from Mr. Jute is that he cannot tell a story
straight. Kinda puts the whole Simca statement in question.

Then prove I'm wrong, scumface.

Peter Wieck is a forger and a liar. He is scum.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

With complete contemp for a worthless netstalker.

Andre Jute- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

So you admit you forged that piece of crap and tried to pass it off on
me. Where is your apology, Peter Wieck, slimeball.

a) Piaf died of cancer. The "overdose" is as unlikely as the Simca.

Prove it, toilet slime.

b) That she may have been taking pain killers is quite likely. That
she died of an overdose is not. Her husband (lover too, one expects)
would not have permitted that.

All this, poor worthless Peter Wieck seems to believe, is *proved* by
puffery written by PR flacks at record companies with a monetary
interest in keeping Piaf's image Persil-white. It's a three-hanky
movie but it is totally irrelevant to Worthless Wiecky's total
inability to prove it wasn't a Simca V8, and that Piaf didn't die of
an overdose.

Edith Piaf's Death: Piaf died of cancer in 1963, near Cannes. The date
is disputed, it is said that she actually passed on October 10, but
her official date of death is October 11. Her husband, Theo Sarapo,
was with her at the time. Piaf is buried in Pere Lachaise Cemetery in
Paris. ( http://worldmusic.about.com/od/bands.../EdithPiaf.htm

Snivel, snivel, three bags of useless drivel.

Piaf and Sarapo sang together at the Bobino in early 1963, and Piaf
also made her final recording, "L'Homme de Berlin." Not long
afterward, Piaf slipped into a coma, brought on by cancer. Sarapo and
Simone Berteaut took Piaf to her villa in Plascassier, on the French
Riviera, to nurse her. She drifted in and out of consciousness for
months before passing away on October 11, 1963 -- the same day as
legendary writer/filmmaker Jean Cocteau. Her body was taken back to
Paris in secret, so that fans could believe she died in her hometown.
( http://www.starpulse.com/Music/Piaf,_Edith/Biography/ )

More tearjerking by publicity flacks. But where's the proof it wasn't
a Simca, Worthless Wiecky?

There is much more of course.

Of course there is. But where's the beef, Worthless Wiecky. The Simca,
man, the Simca. You promised to disprove it. You haven't. Smoke and
mirrors won't help you.

What Jute added was the unnecessary embellishment of "Lover" vs.
husband

Crap. Nothing stops a husband from being a lover as well.

and the outright lie

Prove it, Worthless Wiecky.

as a drug overdose being the cause of
death.

"the outright lie as a drug overdose being the cause of death" --
you're really not up to this, are you Worthless. The slightest stress
and your English starts slipping.


Death was inevitable, the drugs were at best a bit-
contributor.

How could you possibly know this?

Proof. OK.

No proof of anything whatsoever. Lots of tearjerking and puffery from
paid flacks with a commercial interest in Piaf's legend, but buggerall
proof of anything.


Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Lying, fraudulent scumbag, forger and netstalker.

Insigned out of contempt for a worthless janitor.

[Andre Jute]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
In this post Worthless Peter Wieck confesses to plagiarism and to
being a netstalker and a member of an online gang of stalkers
gathering at
http://wordpress.com/tag/online-stalking/feed/

On Sep 13, 9:15 am, Peter Wieck wrote:
Whoops... I missed that.

I never offered the writing between the

_____________________

____________________

as the product of Mr. Jute.

There are hundreds of examples of Worthless Peter Wieck substituting
his own words for what other posters wrote and claiming that the words
are theirs. John Byrns and I are discussing just one current example
each in concurrent posts.

Where's your apology, toilet slime?

What I did suggest is that the facts as
stated in that little bit taken from a brief biography of Ms. Piaf

Worthless Peter Wieck plagiarized that text without recognition from:
"online-stalking « WordPress.com Tag Feed" which is at
http://wordpress.com/tag/online-stalking/feed/

So you confess, Worthless Peter Wieck, not only to your stalking but
to being a member of an organized gang of online stalkers?

were interesting enough of themselves without Jute's "puffery"
and
creative lies to 'enhance' them.

You have now made repeated failed attempts to prove that a single word
I said is a lie.

What I derived from his 53 words of
misrepresentation is that he cannot tell even a pretty fascinating
story straight without twisting it to his own warped perception.

What *you* derived? Holy ****, is that janitor-speak for "thought" or
even "understood"? Worthless, how can the opinion of an illiterate
like you be of the slightest interest to me?

Strokes do that, I guess.

Why don't you come to my door and say that, and when you come out of
hospital I'll explain how many weeks after I had a stroke forty years
ago I was racing cars and powerboats.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

You're a vicious, lying litte toerag, a loilet slime of a stalker,
envious of your betters, worthless in yourself, Peter Wieck. You're a
plagiarist, a thief of the intellectual property of others. You're
scum.

Unsigned out of contempt.

[Andre Jute]

On Sep 13, 9:17 am, Peter Wieck wrote: No proof
offered. Just smoke and mirrors. Typical.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Proof of what, Worthless? That I drank some old port? Now you want to
come into the lavatory with me? Have you stalkers no shame? That I
saw in warehouses in vineyards of friends and family in the dark dusty
corners large old vats with mysterious contents, spiderwebbed racks of
crusted bottles? No, I don't think I want to taunt you with what slime
like you will never be invited to enjoy.

Andre Jute
Sipping brandy at least 120 years old, laid down by my great-
grandfather, a teetotal grape grower...


On Sep 13, 9:17 am, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 13, 11:21 am, Andre Jute wrote:



On Sep 13, 4:42 am, Peter Wieck wrote:

On Sep 12, 9:51 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

Laughing so hard my 100 year-old Penfold port is sloshing in the
glass; just as well I have it in a huge brandy snifter my wife bought
for flower arrangements.

Australian Port? Might be interesting as Australia is making some very
good wines these days. But I have to ask, is it anything like your
"Vintage Jack Daniels" as you once mentioned before?

Somehow, given your general credibility and history of - shall we
allow - "polite" exaggerations, I suspect that the closest you have
ever come to a bottle of such port would be by walking past it in the
shop window - oh, that's right, such a port would never be exposed to
sunlight in that way.

Care to post a picture of said bottle on your website, together with
provenance. Actually PROVE something perhaps? Make sure there is
something with a location and date on it, perhaps a newspaper? I ask
because Penfolds shows no such port in their history, websites, nor is
it listed in any of the catalogs... most of their ports date from the
80s and 90s by cask, and by initiation from 1915 and forward. So... .

Now, had you written "Seppelt Para", you would have been on firm
ground... .

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Yes, people like you who window-shop for such things probably know all
the best names. But genuine 100-year old ports aren't available to
people like you. They are kept for the friends of people in whose
warehouses in dusty corners stand large, mysterious vats.

And a quick reading of your post above explains exactly why you will
remain forever on the outside, Worthless. You match your name.

Unsigned for the usual reason- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

No proof offered. Just smoke and mirrors. Typical.

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

Proof of what, Worthless? That I drank some old port? Now you want to
into the lavatory with me? Have you stalkers no shame? That I saw in
warehouses in vineyards of friends and family in the dark dusty
corners large old vats with mysterious contents? No, I don't think I
want to taunt you with what slime like you will never be invited to
enjoy.

Andre Jute
Sipping brandy at least 120 years old, laid down by my great-
grandfather

[Andre Jute]

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Another forgery from the thieving plagiarist, liar and stalker, Peter
"Worthless" Wieck.

******
To all these fully supported and argued accusaations....

******
Andre Jute wrote:

On Sep 13, 8:43 am, John Byrns wrote:
In article om,
Andre Jute wrote:

The forger and netstalker Peter Wieck wrote:

On Sep 12, 7:46 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

I blew it, but I am a damned good spinner....

No, I didn't write that. It is a forgery by the forger and netstalker
Peter Wieck.

Spin as you will, you are still a liar.

So you keep screeching. But you know you can't ever prove such wishful
thinking, which is why you keep forging messages and trying to pretend
they're my words.

Peter likes to do that, put words in other peoples mouths so that it
later appears in the record as though they had actually said it. This
is an art that was honed to a fine edge many years ago by "the gang", so
I am very sensitive to it. Peter tried it on me just yesterday in
another usenet newsgroup.

This foul little piece of toilet slime Peter Wieck has another
mannerism reminiscent of a scumball we have already dealt with
permanently. Like Pasternack, Worthless Wiecky is in the habit of
screeching that whoever he has picked on is wrong, wrong, wrong -- all
the while just rewriting the other person's post in different words
but with exactly the same opinions and outcome. The poor dull little
janitor thinks he's being clever, but he's being stupid and
transparent. He is also a bully, a boor and a thief.

Makes one nostalgic for another janitor in the Magnequest Scum, Ron
Bales, who at least had a decent respect for the language.

Regards,

John Byrns

--
Surf my web pages at, http://fmamradios.com/

Andre Jute
No real corpses were harmed in the assembly of my golem Worthless
Wieckless. I made him by stuffing a cow's bladder with pig offal. --
CE Statement of Conformity

******

.......as I was saying, to all these fully supported and argued
accusation, the forger, plagiarist, thief, stalker and liar Peter
"Worthless" Wieck can only reply by another forgery:

******

On Sep 13, 2:10 pm, Peter Wieck wrote:
On Sep 13, 5:05 pm, Andre Jute wrote:

fulminated.

Touched a nerve, huh?

Peter Wieck
Wyncote, PA

******

To call Peter "Worthless" Wieck tenthrate scum is to do an injury to
genuine tenth rate scum. This piece of toilet slime falls off the
bottom of the scale.

Unsigned out of contempt.