Diesel vs. Gas long term cost of maintenance/repairs

[G..]

And Ford trucks are same.

[racrguy]

You seriously brought this back to the top for that? jebas, at least post when the thread is on the first page (or close to the top)

[Captain Crawfish]

diesels will continue to cost more due to the price of the fuel. by next year fuel prices will increase to over 4 bux a gallon. kinda tough to make an argument for a diesel unless its bi fuel.

[G..]

just read it. Saw you in here doing your normal feeble minded activity. Also provided the proof you requested.

[mustangguy289]

just read it. Saw you in here doing your normal feeble minded activity. Also provided the proof you requested.

That guy does not believe stuff written in a book.

[Sean88gt]

diesels will continue to cost more due to the price of the fuel. by next year fuel prices will increase to over 4 bux a gallon. kinda tough to make an argument for a diesel unless its bi fuel.

I assume you're talking about cost of operation?

The costs will continue to rise as urea sees more wide spread application, and so on. Subsystems add big cost.

[G..]

That guy does not believe stuff written in a book.

He unnecessarilly bashes or shit talks everyone. He went over when he was crackin a joke in the fallen officer thread.

[racrguy]

That guy does not believe stuff written in a book.

Depends on the book and author.

He unnecessarilly bashes or shit talks everyone. He went over when he was crackin a joke in the fallen officer thread.

and I said I was wrong for that, didn't I? And I bash/shit talk people that are unable to make logical conclusions.

Apparently niether of you understand how the burden of proof concept works. Like I said earlier in this very thread, I've got no problem being wrong, but be prepared to prove it. In fact, I'd actually PREFER it if people prove me wrong, after all, I dislike being incorrect.

What seems to have started the storm in this thread was me saying I'd seen no examples of what ruffdaddy was saying and asked him to name a few, politely and I didn't bash him. He got bent out of shape about it. So tell me, who is the rational one in that instance?

[G..]

Depends on the book and author.


and I said I was wrong for that, didn't I? And I bash/shit talk people that are unable to make logical conclusions.

Apparently niether of you understand how the burden of proof concept works. Like I said earlier in this very thread, I've got no problem being wrong, but be prepared to prove it. In fact, I'd actually PREFER it if people prove me wrong, after all, I dislike being incorrect.

What seems to have started the storm in this thread was me saying I'd seen no examples of what ruffdaddy was saying and asked him to name a few, politely and I didn't bash him. He got bent out of shape about it. So tell me, who is the rational one in that instance?

A quick google search would have given you the recommended service intervals of modern technically advanced vehicles and saved you all of this. Like I said you never have anything useful or nice to say. Everything is bashing or ignorant. You appear to be decent at racing. You should prolly stick to that instead of ethugging everyone.

[racrguy]

A quick google search would have given you the recommended service intervals of modern technically advanced vehicles and saved you all of this. Like I said you never have anything useful or nice to say. Everything is bashing or ignorant. You appear to be decent at racing. You should prolly stick to that instead of ethugging everyone.

Aaah the wonders of burden of proof. Something you still aren't grasping. I'll explain how this works. You say cars have service intervals of 7.5-10k miles, I say I've never seen any that match what you say and ask you to provide something that corroborates what you say. The onus is on you to prove what you say is true, not for me to do the research to see if you're correct in your claims. Then I examine the evidence you provide to see if it is credible. If it is not, then your claim is still unsubstantiated, if it is, then you are correct. I never said he was wrong, I just asked him to provide references because in personal experience I had not come across any.

As far as the "nothing useful or nice to say" I will agree with you to an extent, a majority of my posts are "ethugging" as you call it, but it is done with good reason. I never bash someone for absolutely no reason. They've either done or said something stupid that has caught my eye, and garnered my ire. You don't have to like what I say, nor do you have to read what I say. If what I say bothers you that much, put me on ignore. Your problem is solved.

[G..]

once again your reinforcing what i say. The sky is grey. Dont believe me. Slide out from under your rock and look up.People do not walk around having to prove themselves every word they say. Normally you dont agree, you do research and gather facts before opening your uneducated mouth and looking dumb. Take notes.
And did the fallen officer ask for you to joke about his death? Did coupe mike say anything negative in his HCI thread for you to lash out at him? No. You just like talking shit behind a keyboard and trying to look smart. Like the proof of DL thread. You argueed with a officer over something you have no idea about.

Aaah the wonders of burden of proof. Something you still aren't grasping. I'll explain how this works. You say cars have service intervals of 7.5-10k miles, I say I've never seen any that match what you say and ask you to provide something that corroborates what you say. The onus is on you to prove what you say is true, not for me to do the research to see if you're correct in your claims. Then I examine the evidence you provide to see if it is credible. If it is not, then your claim is still unsubstantiated, if it is, then you are correct. I never said he was wrong, I just asked him to provide references because in personal experience I had not come across any.

As far as the "nothing useful or nice to say" I will agree with you to an extent, a majority of my posts are "ethugging" as you call it, but it is done with good reason. I never bash someone for absolutely no reason. They've either done or said something stupid that has caught my eye, and garnered my ire. You don't have to like what I say, nor do you have to read what I say. If what I say bothers you that much, put me on ignore. Your problem is solved.

[racrguy]

once again your reinforcing what i say. The sky is grey. Dont believe me. Slide out from under your rock and look up.People do not walk around having to prove themselves every word they say. Normally you dont agree, you do research and gather facts before opening your uneducated mouth and looking dumb. Take notes.
And did the fallen officer ask for you to joke about his death? Did coupe mike say anything negative in his HCI thread for you to lash out at him? No. You just like talking shit behind a keyboard and trying to look smart. Like the proof of DL thread. You argueed with a officer over something you have no idea about.

1) I was making the joke to Matt, since that's his trademarked line
2) mike deserves every bit of shit he gets for being a dumbshit kid and posting it on the boards. And lol@ you thinking that was me lashing out.
3) in the DL thread, who ended up correct, me or the police?

I rest my case. I argue when I'm correct, or at least everything I've seen has reenforced that what I say is correct.

Again, if you don't like what I say, make use of the ignore function. It's really simple.