On Dec 28, 10:50*am, Gael <breoganmacbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 8:23*am, "S'mee" <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 28, 7:17*am, Gael <breoganmacbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
> > > Exeunt BENEDICK and LEONATO
>
> > Yep using a non sequiter to PROVE you know nothing except your own
> > perversion.
>
> My allusion totally whooshed over your head, didn't it?
>
> Why can't you and Neil Murray just flush down the toilet, like normal
> turds?

What? You think I'm as poorly read as you that I'd have to look
something that trite up? ROTFLMAO unlike you chickenhawk...I are smart
and educated.

On Dec 28, 10:56*am, "S'mee" <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 10:50*am, Gael <breoganmacbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > My allusion totally whooshed over your head, didn't it?

> What? You think I'm as poorly read as you that I'd have to look
> something that trite up? ROTFLMAO unlike you chickenhawk...I are smart
> and educated.

Then at least *try* acting like an educated person instead of
constantly smashing beer cans on your forehead.

On Dec 28, 12:53*pm, Gael <breoganmacbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 10:56*am, "S'mee" <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 28, 10:50*am, Gael <breoganmacbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > My allusion totally whooshed over your head, didn't it?
> > What? You think I'm as poorly read as you that I'd have to look
> > something that trite up? ROTFLMAO unlike you chickenhawk...I are smart
> > and educated.
>
> Then at least *try* acting like an educated person instead of
> constantly smashing beer cans on your forehead.

heh this coming from an idiot that only knows what he googles or finds
on wiki (usually the FIRST link when you google your info)

On Dec 28, 1:24*pm, "S'mee" <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 12:53*pm, Gael <breoganmacbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Then at least *try* acting like an educated person instead of
> > constantly smashing beer cans on your forehead.
>
> heh this coming from an idiot that only knows what he googles or finds
> on wiki (usually the FIRST link when you google your info)

Posting a Wikipedia or Google link is a time saver when somebody asks
for information.

Other users tell me to google for info instead of taking time to type
the simplest answer.

So why should I be treated any differently when I post a link instead
of wasting
half an hour of my time to type a reply to somebody who isn't going to
appreciate the effort?

90% of the time nobody is going to read a reply anyway, they want to
get down to the real nitty gritty of posting schoolyard taunts, just
like you do.

I thought you might be an intelligent person at first, but your
content has really degenerated over that last few years.

It must be your psychiatric meds at work, you're too young for a
second childhood.

On Dec 28, 4:00*pm, Gael <breoganmacbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> On Dec 28, 1:24*pm, "S'mee" <stevenkei...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> > On Dec 28, 12:53*pm, Gael <breoganmacbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Then at least *try* acting like an educated person instead of
> > > constantly smashing beer cans on your forehead.
>
> > heh this coming from an idiot that only knows what he googles or finds
> > on wiki (usually the FIRST link when you google your info)
>
> Posting a Wikipedia or Google link is a time saver when somebody asks
> for information.

sometimes, but in you inept AND incompetant case it's the ONLY info
you have other than your perversions.

> Other users tell me to google for info instead of taking time to type
> the simplest answer.

That's because everybody KNOWS you aren't smart enough to dig it up on
your own without adult help.

> So why should I be treated any differently when I post a link instead
> of wasting
> half an hour of my time to type a reply to somebody who isn't going to
> appreciate the effort?

Because you putz it's the only attention you ever get...

> 90% of the time nobody is going to read a reply anyway, they want to
> get down to the real nitty gritty of posting schoolyard taunts, just
> like you do.

Really You assume much another proof of how mentally challenged you
are...I'd put your pathetic iq at around MAYBE 82.

> I thought you might be an intelligent person at first, but your
> content has really degenerated over that last few years.

Not really you just have improved your comprehesion skills above that
of a insane squirell.

> It must be your psychiatric meds at work, you're too young for a
> second childhood.

There you go again thinking you know what you are talking about when
you patently don't. Not surprising coming from a military reject that
got fired from grumman because he could run a vacume cleaner.

Gael <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

> Other users tell me to google for info instead of taking time to type
> the simplest answer.
>
> So why should I be treated any differently when I post a link instead
> of wasting
> half an hour of my time to type a reply to somebody who isn't going to
> appreciate the effort?

Because (a) you frequently present it as your own experience and/or
knowledge (or you don't acknowledge the source, which amounts to the
same thing) and (b) you frequently post something that is completely
*wrong*.

Simples.

Let's look at this thread, by the way. OP asks a basic tech question. I
give a basic reply, with a very small proviso, based on something I
remembered from years ago when I used to own a very similar bike to the
OP's (a GN400, as it happens).

S'mee pops up and confirms the little proviso (I'm sometimes worried
about the quantity of useless info rattling around in my skull). I'm
pleased, because it means I've remembered something correctly over a
timespan of about 20 years. And the OP has the answer to his problem.
Perfect.

Dave Emerson (whose knowledge is encyclopaedic) asks a curious related
technical question, and gets a correct reply.

And then you barge in with a load of ****.

Why?


--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

On Dec 29, 1:12*am, totallydeadmail...@yahoo.co.uk (The Older
Gentleman) wrote:

> Let's look at this thread, by the way. OP asks a basic tech question. I
> give a basic reply, with a very small proviso, based on something I
> remembered from years ago when I used to own a very similar bike to the
> OP's (a GN400, as it happens).

OK, the OP's *consumer question* was answered and there was *no
reason* for you (or anybody else) to go off on a tangent, discussing
*other* motorcycles, or the varied construction of oil filters, or how
many motorcycles you've owned.
>
> S'mee pops up and confirms the little proviso

S'mee desperately needs a friend. He would bake a cake and buy two
silver rings to celebrate this new "friendship", should you ever ring
him up on the phone and announce your arrival in Cut Bank, MT, the
colder-than-a-witch's-teat anus of North America.

> (I'm sometimes worried about the quantity of useless info rattling aroundin
> my skull). I'm pleased, because it means I've remembered something
> correctly over a timespan of about 20 years.

This may be one of the most important Open Public Secrets anybody will
ever tell you:

Your teacup is overflowing, Bertie.

Although a tea cup has a limited capacity, the mind does not have
similar limits.

This poses a barrier for Truth seekers with overflowing tea cup minds.
They cannot pass the barrier of obscurations attached to worn-out
memories and do not understand who they really are.

Such persons do not become enlightened.

> And the OP has the answer to his problem. Perfect.

But the ungrateful OP did NOT respond to your answer at all. He has
probably solved his problem and he has *passed* this particular knot
of the web he's living in.

However, you haven't gotten past the OP's knot, you're stuck on
somebody else's knot and you're working on making the knot even
tighter.

Clue: Before his enlightenment, Siddhartha was a Nigantha, knowing
that knots were obstacles to penetrate and pass beyond...

> Dave Emerson (whose knowledge is encyclopaedic) asks a curious related
> technical question, and gets a correct reply.

And then the information thread continued to bifurcate and trifurcate,
uselessly.

Don't make all information-seeking threads into an inescapable net.

Nobody is going to come *here* looking for technical information
anymore.

> And then you barge in with a load of ****.
>
> Why?

YOU have almost single-handedly turned this group into a quarrelsome
debate, just like you and a very few others are doing in reeky.

Other than the timeless wisdom that I freely give out, there's NO
trustworthy information here, just Much Ado About Nothing.

Gael <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>
> OK, the OP's *consumer question* was answered and there was *no
> reason* for you (or anybody else) to go off on a tangent, discussing
> *other* motorcycles, or the varied construction of oil filters, or how
> many motorcycles you've owned.

Why not? Threads don't remain on topic for long. Somebody asked another
technical question. I answered it. And I can't see *any* reference to
numbers of motorcycles anywhere in the thread either. hat are you
babbling on about?

You're just bitter because you keep getting exposed for the fraud you
are.

--
BMW K1100LT Ducati 750SS Honda CB400F Triumph Street Triple
Suzuki TS250ER GN250 Damn, back to six bikes!
Try Googling before asking a damn silly question.
chateau dot murray at idnet dot com

On Dec 29, 6:27*am, Gael <breoganmacbr...@yahoo.com> wrote:

Whining and ****ing and moaning about getting your ass handed to you
repeatedly snipped.

> I have almost single-handedly turned this group into a quarrelsome
> debate, just like I and a very few others are doing in reeky.

Fixed that for you asshat.

> Other than the timeless wisdom that YOU freely give out, there's quiet a bit of trustworthy information here, just me being an >psychotic prick and trouble making shithead.

There fixed that also you ignorant piece of trash.

On Dec 26 2009, 9:59*pm, flattrack38 <flattrac...@mailinator.com>
wrote:
> I have a Suzuki engine in a non OEM frame with this serial number
> DR400-1016XX. How do I find out what year it is so I can order an oil
> filter? I can't find a web site that helps. Thanks.




After reading all the replies, I'm kinda sorry I asked.

The bike has a re-useable (washable) filter located at the bottom of
the c'case. Nothing from the side. K&N, HiFlo, and other's filters do
not fit. The O.D. of the filter they say will fit is larger then the
hole in the c'case. I prefer a disposable filter. Anyone help?