Late model pork chop to engine brace

[motoguzznix]

Most professional racers today could beat Mike Hailwood and his bike using todays tires and frames even if you reduced today's bikes to the dyno outputs of Hailwood's bike and had Hailwood ride the antiques.

 

The frames and tires have worked together as an evolution, producing better traction and tire longevity, not just for the stop go direction but also for cornering.

Power has something to do with the fat tire, but thin tires are used on underpowered bikes more because of rolling resistance, not cornering grip.

David

 

your first statement is one I doubt very much.

Tire development progress occured to handle the increased power of todays engines. With the fraction of engine power of an ancient bike the lower tire friction will outweigh the better handling capabilitys of a todays chassis. An ancient racing bike is optimised to make the best of the given combination engine/chassis. Underpowering a chassis with large sticky tires means you cannot apply the driving style it is made for.

 

There is a good example:

5 Years ago the "Klausen pass memorial" in Switzerland was reinvented - it was a classic mountain race prior to ww2. The mountain road is identic to the ancient road. It was only allowed for pre ww2 racing bikes to participate. These bikes were faster and had better tires than the original bikes in the 30s.

Even though the road was a gravel road in the 30s and today there is a sticky tarmac applied except some cobblestone U-turns and good drivers drove up the mountain, no one could beat the last record time of Tom Bullus in the 30s. And they really tried!

[dlaing]

David

 

your first statement is one I doubt very much.

Tire development progress occured to handle the increased power of todays engines. With the fraction of engine power of an ancient bike the lower tire friction will outweigh the better handling capabilitys of a todays chassis. An ancient racing bike is optimised to make the best of the given combination engine/chassis. Underpowering a chassis with large sticky tires means you cannot apply the driving style it is made for.

 

There is a good example:

5 Years ago the "Klausen pass memorial" in Switzerland was reinvented - it was a classic mountain race prior to ww2. The mountain road is identic to the ancient road. It was only allowed for pre ww2 racing bikes to participate. These bikes were faster and had better tires than the original bikes in the 30s.

Even though the road was a gravel road in the 30s and today there is a sticky tarmac applied except some cobblestone U-turns and good drivers drove up the mountain, no one could beat the last record time of Tom Bullus in the 30s. And they really tried!

Do you mean lower tire friction or less rolling resistance?

There is no benefit to lower tire friction.

I fully agree that less rolling resistance is important on a weak powered engine.

But if the engine is downtuned on a modern bike so that the top speed and quarter mile times are the same as an antique racer, I am pretty sure the modern bikes will win on just about any road.

I originally said if you made the dyno outputs equal. If that was the case it would depend on the road. If we are discussing cornering speed, I still insist that the modern bike will go around the turn faster. Yes there may be some open radius turns where acceleration through the turn could make a difference, but very few turns.

It seems to me your example is an anomaly, or there was some other reason for Bullus' success, like maybe the gravel walled up and created banked turns. And what does it have to do with fat tires?

[dlaing]

Are you sure that it's the same picture you used Dave? There are a whole lot of reference points that look different. Ie, the white line ahead of the front wheel, and emerging from the right shoulder. The white line visible in the angle created by the left knee, and even the distance between the front and rear wheels.

 

 

I was wrong!

You are right!

It is a different picture.

Sorry, no deceit was intended, again.

It still seems to have the camera tilted to the right, to my perspective.

Here it is before I rotated the cropped portion with photoshop.

Either that turn is banked or the camera is tilting to the right.

Why is the near grind point lower than the rear tire contact patch area?

I say follow the shadow lines to know what is level.

[Guest ratchethack]

I photochopped a larger version of the same picture to fit how I see it, not as the drunken photographer saw it.

So, yes it is more on the level than the initial shot.

Sorry I should have mentioned the photochopping.

No deceit intended.

Hoooooboy. This just gets curiouser and curiouser. Why, I do b'lieve there's abject mendacity afoot!

 

I beg the Forum's indulgence. Yes, there is a point to this post, and I'll get to it immediately.

 

Continuing to be a party to this, errrr, silly little brouhaha wouldn't particularly interest me much -- really now! -- except for the fact that it's over a photo I submitted in response to what I considered a bit of a challenge, and it seems to've launched a bit of, um, shall we just say, deliberate deception with malfeasance aforethought here. . . Some would call it what it is -- a cheap fraud.

 

Now if someone wants to disrespect Mike Hailwood, that's fine. But to do it in an attempt to deceive the Forum with blatant trickery and falsehood, along with an attempt to hide what you've done until someone starts to notice, and then -- and only then -- make a pretense of "confession" for having not made a full disclosure of what you've done up front, while actually continuing to omit full disclosure, as if this were simply an unimportant oversight -- well, Dave, I reckon your obvious attempt to pull it off, cover your tracks, and then minimize this pathetic little fraud by yet further mischaracterizing what you've done shouldn't be allowed to stand here.

 

It's not just another photo to me. Y'see, I find myself compelled here in some way to defend, as mentioned in my post where I submitted the original photo in question, the integrity of what is undoubtedly one of the most famous photo's in all of moto history. It's a photo that (again) I've long admired with some sentiment, and (dare I admit it) with some kind of romanticism over the years, one I've even found myself studying carefully in some detail every time I've seen it for 40 years, trying to comprehend the speeds, forces, strength, training, courage, force of will, and discipline that I believe it represents to many riders, myself included. I've always believed that photo was -- and still is -- pretty conclusive evidence of racing performance of both man and machine that was certainly close to, if not factually unprecedented -- at least in 1966.

 

Dave, you dodged my direct question to you in resonse to your "thanking me" (in a most insincere manner) for what you characterized as "reinforcing your point" by posting the Hailwood and Rossi shots side-by-side for comparison (again, at your request), with regard to your suggestion that comparable lean angles between Hailwood and Rossi were not, in your words, "anywhere near close" (contrary to what the photo comparison revealed). To refresh your memory, that question was this:

Um, if you've made a point above that I've somehow reinforced, Dave, it's completely escaped me. Could you kindly enlighten me. By what possible twisted contortion of illogic might I have managed to accomplish this??

You also ignored my attempt to head off what I'd already come to anticipate by past experience here, Dave -- sorry to say that this would be an expectation of your attempt to twist and distort straightforward, honest photography via (let's face it) dishonest Photoshop manipulation. Rather than heed my little warning, you very evidently proceded by doing not only exactly this, but on top of this, you also deceitfully and deliberately substituted a carefully selected impostor -- one which has not only been painstakingly rotated, but carefully and deliberately cropped, so that no telltale background frame of references whatsoever remained by which to determine "level" (suspiciously enough, not possible with the photo I provided), so that the most glaring differences between the two different shots were eliminated, and also so that to a casual observation, they would appear to be from the same photo. To refresh your memory, that little warning I gave you was this:

Hey, Dave -- no need for protractors, horizon level analysis, parallax compensation algorithms, or Photoshop...

Now having dodged my first Q, and also having ignored my little suggestion that I'd be watching for Photoshop trickery, Dave, it would now appear that you've ignored both the risks of dishonesty and my warning, and stepped into a sticky (and fairly smelly) little heap of something of your own making anyway. . . Frankly, regardless of the scale of the offense, this being not much larger than a gnat's ass, it's the principle of the thing. If you'd do this, what else would you do?? I sincerely abhor this flavor of manipulative dishonesty, along with it's usual dismissals as "just another point of view". It's so condescending. So vile. . . Since when have deliberate, deceitfully motivated and deceitfully executed distortions become "just another point of view"??

 

As anyone who ever followed a good classic courtroom drama knows, the trouble with deception is that lies compound so quickly by spinning their own interdependent network, that the perpetrator of deceit rapidly becomes ensnared in his own web, and eventually does himself in. Incredibly enough, a textbook deceit seems to've unfolded in the same classic pattern here in this thread! For the life of me, this seems reminiscent of an old re-run episode of Perry Mason or The Defenders. . .where the perp, being inherently dishonest, is incapable of resisting the temptation of any opportunity to twist and distort the truth to fit his agenda, and seems habitually compelled to commit fraud. Dave, here's another coupla Q's that follow from observing the futile gyrations in your posts that I also suspect you might have enough trouble with to ignore completely:

 

* Anyone who took the time and expended the effort to carefully and deliberately rotate, as well as "Photochop" (your term) the photo you used to ensure there would be no remaining background frame of reference for level whatsoever, and also to eliminate the most obvious differences between the two shots (see below) would of course have known very well that it's not the same photo as the one I posted. The fact that Hailwood has an entirely different helmet in each shot would be the dead give-away here -- my shot shows an all-white helmet and yours shows one with a conspicuous stripe -- but then, you'd conspicuously cropped this most glaringly obvious difference out of your impostor shot. . . Are you now suggesting that you hadn't noticed this, not to mention the entirely different backgrounds and bike positions relative to the inside white line, as you doctored up your impostor to suit your objective, Dave? Now why would you go to the trouble to search for, and then so carefully manipulate an altogether different photo, when the one I provided is so easily accessible -- not only as I provided it here in this thread, but all over the Web??

 

* Among your increasingly creative attempts at flips and twists above is a suggestion that the photographer in the shot I provided was drunk! This appears to be an unwarranted and rather sloppy implication that the level of the photo was an exaggerated distortion of the "true" lean angle. This, despite the fact that, as I quickly noticed 40 years ago as a starry-eyed kid with my first motorcycle, looking at the same shot for the first time in a moto magazine, the inside white line of the curve in the photo would indicate that the frame of the photo was at least very close to spot-on level. Er, by what possible evidence are you now suggesting a drunken photographer took what has become one of the most famous moto shots in the history of motorcycling, por favor?

 

* You apologized above for not mentioning up front what you only later confessed -- only after Phil started to unravel your trickery, that you'd "photochopped" (your term) a different photo by rotating and cropping it. Exactly why is it that you neglected to "mention" this little fact up front?? Did it simply slip your mind -- after all that effort?? Or did you imagine that no one here would notice that it was an entirely different photo??

 

* By what possible twisted distortion of all that's rational, sensible, obvious, honest, and logical would you now attempt to defend your statement that the substitute shot that you, in your words, "photochopped. . .to fit how I see it...[is]...more on the level than the initial shot", when, unlike the photo I provided, there being NOTHING REMAINING in the background after your handiwork -- not in any part of your entire photo -- to use as a frame of reference for "level"?? Would your reference to "initial shot" be to your photo or mine, Dave? In point of fact, when looked at side by side (again, below) your unmolested impostor shot and mine would both appear to be quite similar with regard to lean angle before you doctored yours up, n'est-ce pas??

I say follow the shadow lines to know what is level.

. . . [sigh] . . . Can't seem to avoid having to state the most thuddingly obvious again here. Um, this would appear to be a very poor indicator of level, don't you think? After all, shadow angles do change on the ground relative to the position of the sun with the hour of the day, don't they? Is the shadow of a tree trunk or a flag pole ever a valid indicator of true level -- let alone the irregular form of a shadow of a bike and rider on a track. . . ?!?!

 

* You've repeatedly posted above, "No deceit intended", Dave. Now if your little impostor switcheroo and Photoshop fraud here wasn't intentional deceit, what would you now say intentional deceit is?? Will you now say that this "depends" (in the modern classic Klintonian dependency sense) on what the meaning of "is" is?!?! Perhaps you consider my exposure of your deceit here to be the very definition of deceit??

 

If you really expect people to swallow fraud, Dave, you're gonna have to get lots better at it -- at least around here. Take some pointers from your Eco-Fraud Extortion Mentor, Algore. He's a well-paid professional fraud artiste and confidence man, and he's a Master at fabricating "plausible deniability". . . ;-)

 

* When you twice posted, "No deceit intended", Dave, didn't you really mean, "No deceit intended to be discovered"?? Do you take us ALL for such fools that we wouldn't notice what you've done here?!?!

 

Enquiring minds. . . (well, you just might be starting to "get the picture" -- so to speak -- eh, Dave?)

 

NOTE: Mine's the one on the left. Dave's "confessed" striped-helmet impostor follows.

#3 is Dave's doctored-up, headless "charmer". . . the way he "sees" mine -- err, or is it the way he sees "his"?!

[dlaing]

snip

You do not deserve a response until you apologize for slandering me.

[motoguzznix]

Do you mean lower tire friction or less rolling resistance?

 

I originally said if you made the dyno outputs equal. If that was the case it would depend on the road. If we are discussing cornering speed, I still insist that the modern bike will go around the turn faster. Yes there may be some open radius turns where acceleration through the turn could make a difference, but very few turns.

Rolling resistance is the correct term.

But rolling resistance and tire friction depend on each other.

My suggestion was the same dyno output at the rear wheel.

 

You always insist that the cornering speeds of a large tired bike are much higher than those of a small tired bike. I do not agree in this! The large tired bike will need a much tighter lean angle than a small tired to drive the same cornering speed. so you need more cornering clearance to drive a mdern bike as fast as an ancient oneat the same power level. The real difference is the rubber compound of the actual tires. If this was comparable, the difference would be zero. And I'm sure in fact it is very small!

The large tire has the advantage to allow more acceleration out of the corner, this is the real difference in the lap times and in the driving style it requieres. But this will get less important when the engine power is low.

If you look at some trck days, a tonti guzzi with comparable engine power is more than a match for any V11.

[mike wilson]

Say Skeeve.

 

I presume you refer to Tony Foale? It's long been my understanding (just ancient legend, far from documented fact) that Foale actually owed the spine frame design concept to Swiss Engineer Fritz Egli, of Vincent-Egli fame. Wot say you?

 

Hmmm. Now, who could Fritz Egli (of VINCENT-Egli fame) possibly owe the idea of a spine frame to?

 

Clue: not Vincent....

[macguzzi]

What a fuss over pork chops and motorcycle handling, good well designed frames go round corners the others don't simple. Except for genius's like Hailwood, Agostini and Rossi they can all get the best out of what they are riding.

[Baldini]

..Most professional racers today could beat Mike Hailwood....

 

This man thinks Hailwood was pretty good...

 

KB

[Baldini]

...The large tire has the advantage to allow more acceleration out of the corner, this is the real difference in the lap times and in the driving style it requieres. But this will get less important when the engine power is low.

If you look at some trck days, a tonti guzzi with comparable engine power is more than a match for any V11.

 

 

KB

[Guest ratchethack]

You do not deserve a response until you apologize for slandering me.

Well, you're right, Dave. I don't deserve merely a response.

 

Along with the rest of the Forum, I believe that we all deserve an apology from you for your behavior. Please don't add further insult to the injury of your assumption that ALL OF US would quietly fall for your Photoshop sleight-of-hand trickery.

 

Slander, Dave? Do you know what slander is?

 

Here's a summary legal definition of slander from Nolo Press, a source I know to be credible:

 

Slander is an untruthful oral (spoken) statement about a person that harms the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because slander is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement.

Other than the word "oral", which renders the term not applicable as you've used it here, the key word above would be UNTRUTHFUL, Dave. If you believe any part of what I've posted above about what you've done in this thread is UNTRUTHFUL, please do advise. . .

 

Now to your point of view, as you've suggested, and if you're at least honest about what you believe you've posted above, what you've done here may well seem to be "no intentional deceit" at all to you, but merely "just another perspective". Please allow me to suggest that on the scale of a real estate transaction, where you have deceitfully altered a photo to misrepresent the level of a building foundation, for example, to reflect the way you see things (to use your words from your post above), this is fundamentally different from "just another perspective", in a way that could be devastating to both your life and to the lives of others. Depending on how this information is relied upon by a buyer, it can easily become a criminal matter.

 

Let me just re-state, simplify, and conclude my point here. Should you find yourself the object of a criminal proceding over doing what you've done here on a real estate deal, your testimony in court such as this:

I photochopped a larger version of the same picture to fit how I see it, not as the drunken photographer saw it.

Since you obviously knew it was an entirely different photo, NOT "the same picture" -- not to mention the "alter the frame of reference to fit my agenda" operation you performed on it -- could very well be the key statement that wins you a considerable stretch in the slammer.

 

Capice?

[Greg Field]

This will be part of my winter fun, so I will start the questioning early!

I plan on adding the extra late model (2003 long frame) bracing to my 2000 short frame (the tubes that run from the lower pork chop, under the sides of the trans, to the engine). I have the late model parts in hand but I need to know 2 or 3 things.

1. Does anyone have late model cases to measure (+/- 0.015) the location for the necessary holes?

2. Are the early case castings different internally in a way (I would doubt) that would prevent this.

3. Anyone done this?

 

Actually it might help if someone has a broken set of cases (Scura?) I could buy/borrow to measure and compare.

FWIW-I was a machinist for 15 years, so be as technical as you like.

Thanks in advance,

Steve

 

Back to the original subject:

 

Fuelcooler: A friend of mine crashed his ballabio this summer and now he has decided to part it out. He came over to my garage yesterday with the engine block, asking to use my tools to get off the rear main bearing and the nuts on the cam and crankshaft. The block is in great shape. I can put you in contact with him. You might also want to just get all the bracing from him and bolt it all on.

[FuelCooler]

Back to the original subject:

 

Fuelcooler: A friend of mine crashed his ballabio this summer and now he has decided to part it out. He came over to my garage yesterday with the engine block, asking to use my tools to get off the rear main bearing and the nuts on the cam and crankshaft. The block is in great shape. I can put you in contact with him. You might also want to just get all the bracing from him and bolt it all on.

 

Cool Greg,

Sounds interesting. I will PM you tonight.

Thanks,

Steve

[Guest drknow]

heavy snip

 

Along with the rest of the Forum, I believe that we all deserve an apology from you for your behavior. Please don't add further insult to the injury of your assumption that we would all quitely fall for your Photoshop sleight-of-hand trickery.

 

Slander, Dave? Do you know what slander is?

 

Here's a summary legal definition of slander from Nolo Press, a source I know to be credible:

 

yet more snipping

 

 

Rachethack, I should thank you for the workout my right index finger gets. I've gotten pretty good at scrolling right past most of your posts, but that scrolling digit does get pretty tired. That must have been what allowed me to read the above post.

 

Libel is always a tough legal argument to win (often interchanged with slander, one could argue that this is a fleeting enough form of communication to require the term slander instead, haha), but it's certainly worth mentioning here. I read Dlaing's post and assumed the photo had been rotated and cropped, especially after reading his comment "Here is the camera angle lined up with the ground angle." It is obvious it had been manipulated/altered to better make an argument. It would have been more effective if spelled out in detail maybe, but beyond that your assertions are ridiculous in the extreme.

 

There is a valid argument that there is zero proof of intentional dishonesty, and to claim otherwise could be (slander) libelous. If there was anything really at stake here that is, I doubt Dlaing's reputation is going to be much besmirched by your posts. Regardless, it's obvious that there is a personal beef, which should be taken up outside this forum. I'd recommend PMs or email or paint-pistols at dawn, or whatever you guys want to arrange, arm wrestling maybe. Meanwhile, quit with the thread-jacking, we were talking about bracing V11s!

 

dk

[Guest ratchethack]

Thanks for the feedback, Dr. K.

 

My assertions are "ridiculous in the extreme"?!

 

I believe the facts here speak very clearly for themselves, exactly as laid out in this thread, Dr. K. Now if you're only reading Dave's posts and not mine, as you've said above, well then, spank me naked , but I reckon your perceptions will reflect exactly what you're reading, and nothing more. Would you have any other expectation, Dr. K?? If so, now wouldn't THAT be, err, "ridiculous in the extreme?!?!"

 

You've obviously missed a great deal of what's going on here. Let's take a closer look at this, shall we?

 

I read Dlaing's post and assumed the photo had been rotated and cropped, especially after reading his comment "Here is the camera angle lined up with the ground angle." It is obvious it had been manipulated/altered to better make an argument.

Yes, indeed! You're clearly focused in on Dave's posts, Dr. K. But if you'd read my reply to the one you refer above, and had a look for yourself, you might also have noticed that the rotated and cropped photo you refer to is not the one I posted at all. Had you failed to notice that Dave neglected to disclose this little fact up front? But not only this, Dr. K., he referred to it as "the same picture" (see direct quote below), knowing full well that this was not the case. He'd obviously carefully (and deceitfully) selected and doctored-up that shot by, in addition to the things you mentioned, eliminating every trace of background that could be used to determine the true lean angle, and hacking off its head in an obvious attempt to disguise the fact that it's an impostor. Hailwood had a striped helmet instead of a white one in this shot, which obviously wouldn't do here, as I believe I've made a compelling and conclusive point of clearly illustrating. If not for deceit to fit Dave's agenda, why rotate a view of just the bike with hacked-off Hailwood legs?!?! I thought this more than a bit blatantly presumptuous myself, but of course, if you're not reading my posts -- well, let's just say that this more'n likely would also have escaped your notice completely. Frankly, for someone with such a, err, dramatic perspective, you don't seem to've paid very much attention to what you've responded to here.

 

Now if you were to suddenly gain a sincere interest in what you've posted above regarding your suggestion of "zero proof of intentional dishonesty", and could bring yourself to stomach my posts, Dr. K., you might start your analysis again with Dave's post below and my posts that follow. This is where the deliberate deceit starts to become glaringly obvious, and is pretty well condensed into one quote, as both myself and Phil (as well as, no doubt, anyone paying any attention at all) had well begun to notice by then. This is the point where Dave had evidently just begun to realize that people had started to catch on to his shennanigans, and he was backpedalling hard (the "drunken photographer" ploy was cute, don't you think?), still hoping to obfuscate the extent of his deceit with a rather hasty, minor mea culpa, as if anyone following at that point would also fall for the deceit that he himself had failed to notice the difference between the two photo's. . .

I photochopped a larger version of the same picture to fit how I see it, not as the drunken photographer saw it.

So, yes it is more on the level than the initial shot.

Sorry I should have mentioned the photochopping.

No deceit intended.

Here he states that he doctored it up "to fit how I see it". Don't you just LOVE the "I reject both the photographers' perspectives (that'd be plural!), and the viewers' perspective, and substitute my own!" mentality?? Evidently Dave also expected that we'd ALL fall for the idea that the photographers of BOTH shots were drunk -- and on top of that, both tipsy in the same direction, at precisely the same angle?!?! How about you, Dr. K.? Did he fool you on that one, too? No. . .no, I reckon not, since you clearly weren't paying close enough attention to've noticed anyway.

 

But for me, the most charming part of Dave's backpedalling was his fiegned "surprise" in response to Phil's questioning of the identity and abject duplicity of the impostor photo (post #60), by way of minor mea culpa #2, when it became clear that there would be no getting around Phil's rightfully pointed out observations of the differences between the two photo's (post #63):

I was wrong!

You are right!

It is a different picture.

Sorry, no deceit was intended, again.

As someone who gets a great workout with his index finger from my posts, Dr. K., I must say that you seem to have a remarkable grasp of Dave's part of the exchange that you've posted about above. When replying to MY posts, however, if you'd actually read them, instead of selectively choosing just one or part of one, and ignoring the rest, assuming you possess both an intent and an ability to approach and analyze such an exchange with any measure of objectivity, might I suggest it may even be possible for you to achieve a similar grasp of MY perspective? Or not, as the case may be. . .

 

You aren't the first to state that you don't read my posts while offering strenuous objections to them, but without offering any specifics whatsoever about that with which you disagree. I reckon from your post, we understand what (or rather whom) you consider "ridiculous and extreme". I do b'lieve that'd be your opinion of moi, and not my posts, since you clearly don't read them, exactly as you've pointed out above. Now you may very well have hit the nail squarely on the head with your opinion of me, Dr. K, but please don't make the mistake of confusing your opinion of me with the accuracy and truthfulness of my posts! There are plenty of Forum posters here whose posts I'm quite certain contain at least some perfectly valid, truthful and (to some, at least) valuable points, yet I tend to ignore many of these posts (including yours, come to think of it), simply because I find that I consistently have no interest in much of what a select few ever have to say -- and isn't this the nature of any Web forum?? But the last thing I'd EVER do is barge an exchange I hadn't very carefully read and understood beforehand to interject comments like, "ridiculous in the extreme" over "assertions", the basis of which I haven't even read! Ah, but that's just me. . .

 

How about this: Read Dave's posts, address your observations to Dave. Reasonable enough, eh??

 

Now if you should happen to actually read any of MY posts at any time, Dr. K, as I've made the exception of doing in the case of your post above under the, um, circumstances here, and should you actually pay attention to the content, I'd welcome you with great enthusiasm to point out any statements I've made to Dave or to anyone else, or generally, for that matter, that you believe to be either inaccurate, or more importantly, UNTRUTHFUL, which (again) would be the key word in the definition of either slander or libel.

 

Libel is essentially slander that's widely published. Again, from Nolo Press, a source I consider credible, the summary legal definition:

 

Libel -- An

untruthful

statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person's reputation or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation , as is slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken, but not published in writing or broadcast through the media).

If you don't believe that Dave has demonstrated dishonesty, as well as an intent to deceive in this thread, you're certainly entitled to your opinion, but of course, I b'lieve that by any objective analysis, you're dead wrong. Since you're not reading my posts, it would seem that you're not much interested in objectivity, since you'd quite evidently already made your "analysis" (such as it was) beforehand, without much (if any) regard to both sides of the exchange, the circumstances, or the facts as they appeared in this thread.

 

Please understand that it's neither my intent by any means, nor do I consider it even remotely within my ability on this Forum to besmirch anyone's reputation. I find that on Web forums, one besmirches one's own reputation. I have no doubt that many consider that I've done such damage to myself in great measure -- just as I consider the same of others, Dr. K. . . .

...it's obvious that there is a personal beef, which should be taken up outside this forum...

To set the record straight here, I have no "personal beef" with Dave. He's a nice guy and we seem to get along fine in person. But he quite unfortunately has trouble with honesty, and he hasn't yet discovered that since I first became aware of this in another exchange on this Forum with me, I'm apt to call him on it here -- exactly as I believe anyone and everyone well should on a Web forum -- just as I expect anyone to call me on anything I provide here that would be INTENTIONALLY less than truthful. If I have a "beef" here, it's not personal. It's with anyone anywhere, any time, who attempts to use deliberate dishonesty and deceit to twist and distort the truth into a fraud to fit one's own agenda with an obvious expectation that I'll fall for it that I can't abide, and won't accept -- no matter by whom, nor by what "consensus" such dreck may be indiscriminately swallowed, hook, line and sinker. . . [sigh]. . .The oceans 'r always teeming with schools of hungry mackerel. . .aren't they?

 

BTW -- Ever notice that the very people most apt to fall for deceit are the same ones most apt to attempt to foist deceit upon others, Dr. K.? Why d'you suppose that is?? My take is that it's because principles of honesty and integrity habitually, and even subconsciously, fade to insignificance relative to their own personal agendas. The woods 'r full of 'em. Most of 'em (but by no means all!) are wot we refer to as "children" -- but of course, it's only the adults with such childish lack of principles who've developed mastery of the adult arts of guile and treachery that're the ones we need to keep an eye on, eh, Dr. K? . . .