wood dust in the carb hard on the saw?

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
My post implied that you are the one who needs that reading. But I should not have posted it. It was a reaction top one of your stupid posts, but I deleted it within 10 seconds of posting it. Frankly, I wonder how you remain employed, since you seem to be on high alert for any reply to your posts, and you seem to post dozens of times each day across multiple threads. It seems you do not stay focused on your job as much as you should.
Its called email notifications and multi tasking, boomer.
 
Why would I trust you about anything?

Well you could trust him more than you can the dealer that told you that you tore your saw up with a tiny amount of oily fines that took the opportunity to jump inside the cylinder when you took the plug out! :D
 
Well you could trust him more than you can the dealer that told you that you tore your saw up with a tiny amount of oily fines that took the opportunity to jump inside the cylinder when you took the plug out! :D
No, I would not. Whatever the cause of my saw losing compression to the point of being unusable, it happened after I changed the sparkplug and got sawdust into the cylinder, and it happened very rapidly. If the dealer cheated me, that is better than wishing I would get hit by a truck.
 
No, I would not. Whatever the cause of my saw losing compression to the point of being unusable, it happened after I changed the sparkplug and got sawdust into the cylinder, and it happened very rapidly. If the dealer cheated me, that is better than wishing I would get hit by a truck.
Correlation isn't causation....
Alot of people probably have the same wish.
 
Correlation isn't causation....
Alot of people probably have the same wish.
The platitude "correlation isn't causation" has been much misused by people who do not understand science. The fact is that correlation is not a sufficient attribute to prove causation, but it is a necessary attribute of causation. I.E., without correlation you cannot prove causation. As for the other comment, I have gotten PM messages from several on this forum that agree that you are a rectal orifice, but they advise me not to engage with you. It is probably good advice, but I despise seeing misinformation spread on any forum by the willfully ignorant.
 
The platitude "correlation isn't causation" has been much misused by people who do not understand science. The fact is that correlation is not a sufficient attribute to prove causation, but it is a necessary attribute of causation. I.E., without correlation you cannot prove causation. As for the other comment, I have gotten PM messages from several on this forum that agree that you are a rectal orifice, but they advise me not to engage with you. It is probably good advice, but I despise seeing misinformation spread on any forum by the willfully ignorant.
That's another attempt by you to baffle us rubes with BS... in short you are a chump who got ripped off by a dealer despite being so smart, allegedly. I don't need a lecture on science from you. You lack an ability to apply scientific principles to the real world and it's pretty apparent to anyone with a clue.
And I can only imagine what collection of losers are pm'ing you. Guess what? I could care less.
 
That's another attempt by you to baffle us rubes with BS... in short you are a chump who got ripped off by a dealer despite being so smart, allegedly. I don't need a lecture on science from you. You lack an ability to apply scientific principles to the real world and it's pretty apparent to anyone with a clue.
And I can only imagine what collection of losers are pm'ing you. Guess what? I could care less.
You do need a lecture on science, but you are too stubborn in your ignorance to benefit from it. And when you say you could care less, that means you care. You cannot even communicate your views coherently.
 
You do need a lecture on science, but you are too stubborn in your ignorance to benefit from it. And when you say you could care less, that means you care. You cannot even communicate your views coherently.
This coming from the guy that didn't understand how different gasoline could affect carb tuning... or the genius that thought motor oil with tens of thousand of miles on could test as new.
Make no mistake, I could care less about you and your band of idiots.
 
I shoulda put a smiley face on my last post. Just kidding.

I conclude that a little wood dust might just be good for a saw to ingest. Made so by manufacturer design.

Correlation != Causation ??

How about gravity. We really don't understand what it is, yet we are all sure that a hammer dropped from the table will seek out the toes.
 
This coming from the guy that didn't understand how different gasoline could affect carb tuning... or the genius that thought motor oil with tens of thousand of miles on could test as new.
Make no mistake, I could care less about you and your band of idiots.
Wrong again. I always understood how different gasoline could affect carb tuning. I never said anything to the contrary. I also never said that oil with thousands of miles on it was "as good as new". When new, the oil in question exceeded requirements for new oil. After 30,000 miles, it was not "as good as new" but still met the requirements for viscosity, base number, detergency, etc., of a new oil. Can you comprehend the difference? And as for your last statement, if you could care less, that means you must care. You logically must care for it to be possible to care less. I am sure your meaning is "I couldn't care less", but you said the opposite.
 
I shoulda put a smiley face on my last post. Just kidding.

I conclude that a little wood dust might just be good for a saw to ingest. Made so by manufacturer design.

Correlation != Causation ??

How about gravity. We really don't understand what it is, yet we are all sure that a hammer dropped from the table will seek out the toes.
I think Einstein had a pretty good handle on it. The phenomenon you refer to is often called the Law of Selective Gravitation. It is responsible for such things as wrenches and sockets traveling horizontally while working on cars so as to land in the most inaccessible location. :)
 
Wrong again. I always understood how different gasoline could affect carb tuning. I never said anything to the contrary. I also never said that oil with thousands of miles on it was "as good as new". When new, the oil in question exceeded requirements for new oil. After 30,000 miles, it was not "as good as new" but still met the requirements for viscosity, base number, detergency, etc., of a new oil. Can you comprehend the difference? And as for your last statement, if you could care less, that means you must care. You logically must care for it to be possible to care less. I am sure your meaning is "I couldn't care less", but you said the opposite.
You are lieing piece of crap.. you don't have a clue about different gasoline effect on tuning until someone explained it to you. As for the oil. The language I used is exactly what I said..
To be clear I DO NOT CARE..
 
You are lieing piece of crap.. you don't have a clue about different gasoline effect on tuning until someone explained it to you. As for the oil. The language I used is exactly what I said..
To be clear I DO NOT CARE..
I always knew what you meant. But you seem to be rather illiterate, which is why you said the exact opposite of what you meant to say. And you just keep LYING (not lieing) about it, as you would not respond to my posts if you did not care at all. You also used incorrect grammar. Here is the corrected version: " You are a lying piece of crap. You didn't have a clue about the different gasolines' effects on tuning until someone explained it to you." The next group of words, "As for the oil", is a sentence fragment, not a sentence. The next sentence makes no sense at all. It seems to be saying something like "I said what I said."
 
Back
Top