Dodge Ram 1500 - 2 or 4 wheel drive

From : Annonymous

Q: anker thought everyone should know i am considering buying a dodge ram 1500 in the uk as i want something big intimidating and an expression of my manhood . i notice that most rams advertised are 2 wheel drive models the 4 wheel drive ones being relatively rare. i currently have a 4 x 4 mitsubishi and have noticed that it is virtually impossible to drive it in snow when it is in 2 wheel drive but is fine in 4 wheel drive. i would be grateful for anyones advice / experience regarding the handling of the dodge ram in slippery road conditions. is the 2 wheel drive model very difficult to handle in snow without snow chains i dont go off-road but should i opt for the 4 wheel drive model does dodge produce an srt-10 in automatic 4 wheel drive version what is the difference between the ram 1500 the 1500 slt and the laramie thanks in advance anker. uh i personally wouldnt be taking a srt-10 out in any kind of slick conditions. that thing has the viper v-10 under the hood. thats nothing to sneeze at. 4wd is definitely helpful under slick conditions such as snow. but ive never had my 2wd not get me where i needed to go. of course i live in the south and we dont see much of the white stuff round here....add to that my opinion that snow is only good for tearing up otherwise perfectly good vehicles and you see why i keep my butt home when its snowing *grin* sounds to me like what you really want is a 5.9l v8 with 4wd for your winter weather. trucks are light in the back and as you have experienced not the most stable in slippery conditions. its the nature of the beast..keep in mind the higher the hp the easier it is to get it out of shape fast....of course this depends on the driver experience and habits also. -- chris .

Replies:

From : tbone

on wed 4 jul 2007 103825 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on tue 3 jul 2007 210747 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on tue 3 jul 2007 080638 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on mon 02 jul 2007 202653 gmt snoman admin@snoman.com wrote on mon 02 jul 2007 193054 gmt theguy@whatever.net wrote how many times do you have to here that this type of studded tire is a good compromise between the gripping power of studs on ice and the loss of traction on wet roads. you do understand what compromise means...right let me explain it to you. while this type of studded tire doesnt have the same gripping power on ice as a full studded tire it also doesnt suffer as badly as a fully studded tire on wet road which is the compromise. i also said before it depends on your driving style if the reduced traction of this type of studded tire is going to adversely effect you under normal driving conditions. tom these friggin studded tires are one thing dangerous. the ones i had were side and staggered they sucked they were dangerous. you talk about traction but ya have to get the damn thing stopped as well. i would attribute much of this to yuor driving style. someone who buys a top line vette a ford lightening and an srt8 doesnt exactly do it to drive like a little old lady. i would say that you push your vehicles from time to time and in that case studded tires can prove to be dangerous. did it ever dawn on you that having owned and driven the cars you listed that i might just know how to drive at the limit of the capabilities of each one where did i say that you didnt. it still doesnt change the fact that for you the reduced traction with studded snows will seem dangerous because you push your vehicles as you put it to their limits and the reduced traction in that case will be significant ah tom you dont push to limits when driving a plow truck. dont you think that it might transfer over to plowing snow and thus the limit of the tires as well nah probably didnt. heres a clue for you thats why i advocate the blizzak. they work. i never said that they didnt. anyway this thing is real stale. like i said go by a set you ll love them i have owned them in the past and also never had any real trouble with them either although i really dont see any need to own another set. perhaps your driving skills arent all that you think that they are if they gave you so much trouble. no tom they didnt give me trouble just that they were dangerous on wet and dry pavement. trust me my driving skills are just fine although i do temper things as i get older. rather than go back and forth over what the idiot said or didnt say go read up on them. or go buy a set for yourself and hold on tight. again it depends on how i drive with them. many years ago i had a magnum and it had eagle gt tires on it and as big as it was i drove it hard and it did what i asked. my buddy had eagle sts on his car and when he got rid of the car he gave me his sts same size as my gts as my tires were wearing out i cant imagine why. a few days after installing them i was flying down the entrance ramp to 287 60 on a 40 mph ramp as usual and the car spun around on me luckly i used to drive like and idiot and kept it from hitting the curb and i thought what pieces of shit these tires were. the problem is that he never had any trouble with them at all but then again he didnt drive as hard as i did they just didnt have the grip that the gts did so it really want the tire but my driving style that caused the problem. see that is where we are different i work my way up to finding the limits of the car. yawn i had owned the car for years and knew what its limits were. what i didnt know was how much less grip the sts had compared to the gts but i keep the car somewhat under control and that never happened again. you on the other hand seem to just stand on the gas. glad you didnt injury anybody. as usual resorting to lame insults. i guess that i really shouldnt expect any more than that when someone disagrees with you. wtf! where is the insult lame or otherwise i said you seemed to stand on the gas with out knowing the cars limits. the tires you put on became part of the car and you hammered it before you knew where the tires would lose grip. i didnt say you were stupid i just said you seemed to stand on the gas. .

From : Annonymous

on wed 4 jul 2007 103825 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on tue 3 jul 2007 210747 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on tue 3 jul 2007 080638 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on mon 02 jul 2007 202653 gmt snoman admin@snoman.com wrote on mon 02 jul 2007 193054 gmt theguy@whatever.net wrote how many times do you have to here that this type of studded tire is a good compromise between the gripping power of studs on ice and the loss of traction on wet roads. you do understand what compromise means...right let me explain it to you. while this type of studded tire doesnt have the same gripping power on ice as a full studded tire it also doesnt suffer as badly as a fully studded tire on wet road which is the compromise. i also said before it depends on your driving style if the reduced traction of this type of studded tire is going to adversely effect you under normal driving conditions. tom these friggin studded tires are one thing dangerous. the ones i had were side and staggered they sucked they were dangerous. you talk about traction but ya have to get the damn thing stopped as well. i would attribute much of this to yuor driving style. someone who buys a top line vette a ford lightening and an srt8 doesnt exactly do it to drive like a little old lady. i would say that you push your vehicles from time to time and in that case studded tires can prove to be dangerous. did it ever dawn on you that having owned and driven the cars you listed that i might just know how to drive at the limit of the capabilities of each one where did i say that you didnt. it still doesnt change the fact that for you the reduced traction with studded snows will seem dangerous because you push your vehicles as you put it to their limits and the reduced traction in that case will be significant. dont you think that it might transfer over to plowing snow and thus the limit of the tires as well nah probably didnt. heres a clue for you thats why i advocate the blizzak. they work. i never said that they didnt. anyway this thing is real stale. like i said go by a set you ll love them i have owned them in the past and also never had any real trouble with them either although i really dont see any need to own another set. perhaps your driving skills arent all that you think that they are if they gave you so much trouble. rather than go back and forth over what the idiot said or didnt say go read up on them. or go buy a set for yourself and hold on tight. again it depends on how i drive with them. many years ago i had a magnum and it had eagle gt tires on it and as big as it was i drove it hard and it did what i asked. my buddy had eagle sts on his car and when he got rid of the car he gave me his sts same size as my gts as my tires were wearing out i cant imagine why. a few days after installing them i was flying down the entrance ramp to 287 60 on a 40 mph ramp as usual and the car spun around on me luckly i used to drive like and idiot and kept it from hitting the curb and i thought what pieces of shit these tires were. the problem is that he never had any trouble with them at all but then again he didnt drive as hard as i did they just didnt have the grip that the gts did so it really want the tire but my driving style that caused the problem. see that is where we are different i work my way up to finding the limits of the car. yawn i had owned the car for years and knew what its limits were. what i didnt know was how much less grip the sts had compared to the gts but ikeep the car somewhat under control and that never happened again. you on the other hand seem to just stand on the gas. glad you didnt injury anybody. as usual resorting to lame insults. i guess that i really shouldnt expect any more than that when someone disagrees with you. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

no the defination of a fence in your world can be what the property owner calls it. a flat out lie. in my world a fence is a fence no matter its height. in your world the government determines its height or its not allowed to be a fence. you have yet to address the issue... why is a 5 fence allowed but a 7 fence is not next question why is a fence agreed upon by the property owners on each side of said fence not agreed upon by the government because it can cause problems in the neighborhood. the answers should be based upon logic and reason not because the government said so. last i checked that sort of logic works on 5 year olds but not so much on adult citizens of a free country. this is still a society max which means that you cannot do whatever the hell you feel like even in a free country. if the fence looks like shit at 5 what then what i keep seeing is that your examples are predicated on a devaluation based on something other than the height of the fence. further the devaluation is based on something that isnt even next to the other guys property. lets say the entire neighborhoo

From : tbone

then what right would the borough have to step in a permit is required for a fence from the building inspector. if it was taller than what is permitted yes. you clearly are not getting this. there is no reason to regulate or enforce property codes in most instances. sure there is it keeps peace in the neighborhood. in pa fences are property code not building code. furthermore regulating such things as fence height unless the height is truly out of reason is an invasion of individual property rights. again i can show you documentation proving this. it really doesnt matter. making these rules provides for the public comfort that you said were part of the rules. if it was lettered and used for commerical puposes it is not allowed to parked overnight in a residential zoned district. why not what threat to the public welfare is a parked truck dont recite laws... give reason and fact. because it makes the neighborhood look like a white trash neghborhood and lowers property values. that and the noise and smell from it warming up every morning. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving . 222 337048 yo9ji.3490$rl1.3059@svr19..prodigy.net azwiley1 wrote since no one else said it. happy 4th. in dallas this year we didnt have to worry about fires started from fireworks. everything is very moist. it has rained at least 50 out of the last 60 days. lakes rivers and creeks are overflowing. my lawn is dying from too much water. the mosquitoes are insane. they literally dive bomb. just last year we were worried about the ongoing drought. we wished for rain ... and boy did we get it. on the positive side for the first time since i can remember we have yet to hit 100 degrees. usually that starts in april or may. in fact i think we have only had a handful of days over 90. craig c. .

From : tbone

temper temper dude. if you were half as smart as you think that you are you would have let this drop already. i still see no valid proof backing your claims just more name calling and temper tantrums. how about just answering my question. honestly. how old are you as i suspected nothing but spin. what difference does it make other than to try and spin the point of the discussion to something else. when you have something valid to discuss i will be glad to take part in it. i think that you are a bright guy for the most part and a real debate might be fun but this is just wasting my time so im done with this thread. feel free to replay if you must. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : Annonymous

im thinking of putting a tach on my 92 ram 150 / 318 mag didnt come with one how hard is it to install .

From : tbone

roy wrote roy wrote do you guys ever snip so this thread is readable! g! here ya go!! bfg lol much better! .

From : Annonymous

rather than go back and forth over what the idiot said or didnt say go read up on them. or go buy a set for yourself and hold on tight. again it depends on how i drive with them. many years ago i had a magnum and it had eagle gt tires on it and as big as it was i drove it hard and it did what i asked. my buddy had eagle sts on his car and when he got rid of the car he gave me his sts same size as my gts as my tires were wearing out i cant imagine why. a few days after installing them i was flying down the entrance ramp to 287 60 on a 40 mph ramp as usual and the car spun around on me luckly i used to drive like and idiot and kept it from hitting the curb and i thought what pieces of shit these tires were. the problem is that he never had any trouble with them at all but then again he didnt drive as hard as i did they just didnt have the grip that the gts did so it really want the tire but my driving style that caused the problem. see that is where we are different i work my way up to finding the limits of the car. you on the other hand seem to just stand on the gas. glad you didnt injury anybody. . 222 337053 bmdq83t4as5cenikhg53qm19rs5o8f8qjg@4ax.com on thu 5 jul 2007 122637 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote temper temper dude. if you were half as smart as you think that you are you would have let this drop already. i still see no valid proof backing your claims just more name calling and temper tantrums. you know tom you are sitting here pretending to be the expert on something again and demanding that some one prove themselfs correct. perhaps because he was the one to jump in first and say that someone else was wrong and has yet to back it up. yeah you are right tom. no dancing or finger pointing on your part. man you spin any faster and your gonna corkscrew yourself right into the ground. since what he was attacking was someone elses opinion it would be fairly difficult to do. i am not claiming to be a expert on anything here only that i see snowballs point and the type of studded tire that he uses is not as bad as a fully studded on wet and dry roads and i have yet to see so much as an ounce of proof otherwise. how about you provide proof that guy is incorrect why should i im not the one who initiated the claim that would be him. just how much experience do you have with using studded tires do you have enough to sit and say snotroll is correct and others are incorrect yawn as i said many times it really depends on the driving style of the one using them. they are not an all-purpose tire and nobody said that they were. they dont have the wet or dry traction of a boog conventional tire and again nobody said that they did. he did say that he had no problem with them on wet and dry roads and can you prove him wrong can theguy if not then what exactly is the purpose of this longwinded thread or the attack theguy made on snowball about it how can you say guy is wrong and not provide the proof that he is how can he say that snowball is wrong and not prove that he is. funny how you are not asking him to back up his claims. why is that larry as to my experience with them i know youll ask i have used them a few times and agree with roy and guy they are good if used for what they are intended for on ice. on dry pavement or even just in snow my experience showed me to stay with a good tire with out studs. nobody said that studded tires were good for everything or better than conventional in all situations. they are superior on wet ice and about equal on snow. they are inferior on wet or even dry roads for the most part some european versions have been tested to be equal to conventional tires here and nobody is saying anything different. the point is that although studded tires do offer less grip in situations that they were not designed for it is really a matter of driving style as to how dangerous the reduced traction is and nobody has been able to prove any different. .

From : roy

roy wrote dont take my word for it. look it up the info is out there. or take the idiots advice and buy yourself some studed tires. but do get back to use with what ya do put on your truck. studded tires are great if you live in an area thats mostly frozen all winter. not that many places in the usa. north dakota and parts of alaska come to mind. .

From : stephen harding

suddenly without warning azwiley1 exclaimed 7/5/2007 257 pm since no one else said it. the 4th was over for me some time ago quiet since when youre overseas theres not a lot of hoo-ha about a strictly american holiday g its 9pm on the 5th here. but happy 4th to those just getting started! jmc .

From : Annonymous

2005 dodge ram 3500. my drivers side air vents blow cold the passenger side vents blow hot. the difference is measured as high as 30 degrees after driving for 15 miles on the interstate. before i look at it im wondering if this is a common issue without having looked at it i suspect that the vent diverter is at the evaporator and the system is low on refrigerant.......but again i havent done a thing beyond measuring the vent temps. thanks nate the most common cause of this is as you suspected a low refrigerant charge. mike -- nathan in montana http//concealedcarryforum.com http//1911talk.com http//hipowertalk.com http//glockcarry.com http//inlinediesel.com .

From : tbone

a kid squealing his tires is as are the super bass stereos. but those infractions are covered in the crimes code and the vehicle code. in sound is usually only after a certian period of time and you can squeal those tires all day on your property according to you. actually that is not a true statement tom. in cochise county of az there is absolutely no time frame governing the disturbance of ones domicile. in other words for those that have a hard time following along this means that if you and i were neighbors god forbid and it is noon you are out in your yard doing what ever i can call the cops and they will respond because you are disturbing my peace. something that i think everyone in here is forgetting is that laws rules regulations et all are subjective to the area county city township state that you reside in and really cant be thrown around in the manner they have been in this thread. .

From : Annonymous

on thu 5 jul 2007 202847 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote niped for miles. did it ever dawn on you that having owned and driven the cars you listed that i might just know how to drive at the limit of the capabilities of each one where did i say that you didnt. it still doesnt change the fact that for you the reduced traction with studded snows will seem dangerous because you push your vehicles as you put it to their limits and the reduced traction in that case will be significant. dont you think that it might transfer over to plowing snow and thus the limit of the tires as well nah probably didnt. heres a clue for you thats why i advocate the blizzak. they work. i never said that they didnt. yeah tom. once again you sure dont do the fast shoe do you lol. you would make a great democrat. oh wait. you are one. show me exactly where i said that they dont work and dont worry ill wait. as long as ive waited to find out how old you are as i thought unable to back up your own bullshit. you would make a great republican oh wait you are one. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : bill p

max i am a little confused here. i have been following the thread and i have read it all. the part that confuses me is how you can make such a stretch from something being unconstitutional such as a few rules cc&rs call them what ever honestly from reading the thread it sounds more like there are some that are unhappy about some of the things you have done maybe rightfully so maybe not but you are being to stubborn and/or pigheaded to see anything other than what you want to. .

From : Annonymous

as usual resorting to lame insults. i guess that i really shouldnt expect any more than that when someone disagrees with you. -- a little sensitive here arent we tom i would like to know where roy insulted you too fyi you are not one to talk about how things go when some one disagrees with you. you are preaching but not living by what you preach starting to sound sort of like budd did. .

From : tbone

on thu 5 jul 2007 163520 -0700 bill p. yahoo@yahoo.com wrote how long have you lived out here in oregon studs seem to be pretty valuable in the ice which is a more common thing out here than snow is. and even with snow we end up with a crust of ice on top and snow tires on ice are pretty worthless. studs are nice. alot of times it is either studs or chains or no go. we chose studs. chains are a major pia. the nice thing with studded tires is when the weather changes which it does everey couple of days in oregon you can just take the studded tires off and put the highway tires on and go. i have lived in s. oregon for 43 years and ice is not a problem here. in the mountain passes i have used chains on a two wheel drive on occasion. the columbia river gorge high desert area or pendelton area may have the ice problem you describe. just how long have you lived out here in oregon more than 43 years. good for you. oh by the way your quote of me here in oregon didnt appear in my original post. on par with your accuracy. the majority of orgonians do not need or use studded tires. actually you would be very wrong on that. the use of stidded tires has been so

From : Annonymous

7 fence is not next question why is a fence agreed upon by the property owners on each side of said fence not agreed upon by the government because it can cause problems in the neighborhood. really what sort of problems problems that create a hazard to the safety of the public feel free to make a list. remember according to the document i have the reasons must pose a risk to the general public not the guy next door and must be a problem that infringes on the public right not just the eyes. sorry max but i believe that public comfort was also mentioned by you. as for the public right how things look and maintain property value is part of the public right. this is still a society max which means that you cannot do whatever the hell you feel like even in a free country. wrong. i can do whatever the hell i like unless it infringes on someones rights. lol and you keep thinking that. a 7 fence doesnt infringe on anyones rights as per the constitution. this is particularly true if the two property owners which the fence seperates agree on the existance of the fence. the problem is that it usually takes more than two to come to an agreement about a fence. now what happens if person a agrees with person b to let him build his 7 foot fence. afterwards person b desides he wants a fence as tall but person c the neighbor on the other side of b says that they are friggen ugly and he doesnt want it on his property line sounds like some real trouble will start then. you clearly are not getting this. there is no reason to regulate or enforce property codes in most instances. sure there is it keeps peace in the neighborhood. a 7 fence is not a disturbance of the peace. sure it is if people in the neighborhood think that its ugly and dont want them or it in their development. a kid squealing his tires is as are the super bass stereos. but those infractions are covered in the crimes code and the vehicle code. in sound is usually only after a certian period of time and you can squeal those tires all day on your property according to you. it really doesnt matter. making these rules provides for the public comfort that you said were part of the rules. no. making these rules provides for the governments ability to regulate that which doesnt need regulating. a fence doesnt make anyone uncomfortable nor do most of the things regulated in the property code. this is complete bullshit that you have no way in hell of backing up. sorry max but just because a huge fence doesnt bother you doesnt mean that it bothers nobody. because it makes the neighborhood look like a white trash neghborhood and lowers property values. that and the noise and smell from it warming up every morning. i know people whose teenagers make more noise and smells than a kenworth. are they against the property code it depends on the time and what the smell is comming from. again its not the object that is offensive but how it is used. those that argue for second amendment rights should easily see that the kenworth isnt a problem just as the gun isnt but the user can be. if people feel that is is a problem then it is one even if you dont agree. if the vehicle is huge and doesnt fit into the neighborhood this it very much is the object itself that is offensive. thus regulating the existance of an object is against the inherent rights of the property owner. sorry max but you are wrong. if it is ok to park the kenworth at his house why not the trailer as well. then hell what if he has two or three of them. why not park the entire fleet on his property. where exactly do you draw the line max regulating the use of those objects is generally covered in the crimes or vehicle codes. please list the specific crime or vehicle code that says you cannot warm up the kenworth on a cold day. the public has the right to have piece in their neighborhood -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : Annonymous

on thu 5 jul 2007 202847 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote niped for miles. did it ever dawn on you that having owned and driven the cars you listed that i might just know how to drive at the limit of the capabilities of each one where did i say that you didnt. it still doesnt change the fact that for you the reduced traction with studded snows will seem dangerous because you push your vehicles as you put it to their limits and the reduced traction in that case will be significant. dont you think that it might transfer over to plowing snow and thus the limit of the tires as well nah probably didnt. heres a clue for you thats why i advocate the blizzak. they work. i never said that they didnt. yeah tom. once again you sure dont do the fast shoe do you lol. you would make a great democrat. oh wait. you are one. show me exactly where i said that they dont work and dont worry ill wait. as long as ive waited to find out how old you are .

From : Annonymous

niped for miles. did it ever dawn on you that having owned and driven the cars you listed that i might just know how to drive at the limit of the capabilities of each one where did i say that you didnt. it still doesnt change the fact that for you the reduced traction with studded snows will seem dangerous because you push your vehicles as you put it to their limits and the reduced traction in that case will be significant. dont you think that it might transfer over to plowing snow and thus the limit of the tires as well nah probably didnt. heres a clue for you thats why i advocate the blizzak. they work. i never said that they didnt. yeah tom. once again you sure dont do the fast shoe do you lol. you would make a great democrat. oh wait. you are one. show me exactly where i said that they dont work and dont worry ill wait. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : azwiley1

on thu 5 jul 2007 180316 -0700 bill p. yahoo@yahoo.com wrote on thu 5 jul 2007 163520 -0700 bill p. yahoo@yahoo.com wrote how long have you lived out here in oregon studs seem to be pretty valuable in the ice which is a more common thing out here than snow is. and even with snow we end up with a crust of ice on top and snow tires on ice are pretty worthless. studs are nice. alot of times it is either studs or chains or no go. we chose studs. chains are a major pia. the nice thing with studded tires is when the weather changes which it does everey couple of days in oregon you can just take the studded tires off and put the highway tires on and go. i have lived in s. oregon for 43 years and ice is not a problem here. in the mountain passes i have used chains on a two wheel drive on occasion. the columbia river gorge high desert area or pendelton area may have the ice problem you describe. just how long have you lived out here in oregon more than 43 years. good for you. oh by the way your quote of me here in oregon didnt appear in my original post. on par with your accuracy. the majority of orgonians do not need or use studded tires. actually you would be very wrong on that. the use of stidded tires has been so prevelant that the state isoutlawing metal studs due to the damage that they are causing to the road surface. now that is a whole lot of studs man. look at the schwab stories the big o stories etc. etc. the banning of metal studs is really going to hurt them they were the bulk of their winter sales. the majority of orgonians live in the willamette valley which includes portland salem and eugene. as well as a host of other towns but thanks for that lttle tid bit of information. i seriously doubt if most of the people there run studded tires. in southern oregon it is probably less than 5 percent. contrary to your belief it doesnt take a whole lot of studded tires to tear up roads especially at highway speeds. ever notice how they scratch up a driveway you are exagerating here. i havent. i dont use studs on my personal car. 5%. where did you get your stats you just know because you been here for 43 years in case you didnt notice this is a very large state. oregon isnt that big. a whole lot out west and midwest are larger. a whole lot some but not a whole lot. but how does that change anything you dumb fuck. you are the one that brought it up not me. heck ill bet they dont need them on the 300 miles of coastline either. my original comments were in reference to people running studded tires in area where there is absolutely no need for them. iyo. if traveling to an area where they are needed take chains and quit chewing up the roads. oh good bill. you bet use chains and quit chewing up the roads with studs. are you tbones brother or something or maybe his mother you have no real argument so you turn to insults. people only drive a short distance with chains on as opposed to 4 to 5 months with studded tires. huh think that may add up to more damage to the road surface this discussion with you is going nowhere so whatever. yep. whatever. .

From : Annonymous

the damage that they are causing to the road surface. now that is a whole lot of studs man. look at the schwab stories the big o stories etc. etc. the banning of metal studs is really going to hurt them they were the bulk of their winter sales. the majority of orgonians live in the willamette valley which includes portland salem and eugene. i seriously doubt if most of the people there run studded tires. in southern oregon it is probably less than 5 percent. contrary to your belief it doesnt take a whole lot of studded tires to tear up roads especially at highway speeds. ever notice how they scratch up a driveway you are exagerating here. in case you didnt notice this is a very large state. oregon isnt that big. a whole lot out west and midwest are larger. a whole lot some but not a whole lot. but how does that change anything heck ill bet they dont need them on the 300 miles of coastline either. my original comments were in reference to people running studded tires in area where there is absolutely no need for them. iyo. if traveling to an area where they are needed take chains and quit chewing up the roads. oh good bill. you bet use chains and quit chewing up the roads with studs. are you tbones brother or something or maybe his mother you have no real argument so you turn to insults. people only drive a short distance with chains on as opposed to 4 to 5 months with studded tires. huh think that may add up to more damage to the road surface this discussion with you is going nowhere so whatever. .

From : Annonymous

niped for miles. did it ever dawn on you that having owned and driven the cars you listed that i might just know how to drive at the limit of the capabilities of each one where did i say that you didnt. it still doesnt change the fact that for you the reduced traction with studded snows will seem dangerous because you push your vehicles as you put it to their limits and the reduced traction in that case will be significant. dont you think that it might transfer over to plowing snow and thus the limit of the tires as well nah probably didnt. heres a clue for you thats why i advocate the blizzak. they work. i never said that they didnt. yeah tom. once again you sure dont do the fast shoe do you lol. you would make a great democrat. oh wait. you are one. anyway this thing is real stale. like i said go by a set you ll love them i have owned them in the past and also never had any real trouble with them either although i really dont see any need to own another set. perhaps your driving skills arent all that you think that they are if they gave you so much trouble. rather than go back and forth over what the idiot said or didnt say go read up on them. or go buy a set for yourself and hold on tight. again it depends on how i drive with them. many years ago i had a magnum and it had eagle gt tires on it and as big as it was i drove it hard and it did what i asked. my buddy had eagle sts on his car and when he got rid of the car he gave me his sts same size as my gts as my tires were wearing out i cant imagine why. a few days after installing them i was flying down the entrance ramp to 287 60 on a 40 mph ramp as usual and the car spun around on me luckly i used to drive like and idiot and kept it from hitting the curb and i thought what pieces of shit these tires were. the problem is that he never had any trouble with them at all but then again he didnt drive as hard as i did they just didnt have the grip that the gts did so it really want the tire but my driving style that caused the problem. see that is where we are different i work my way up to finding the limits of the car. yawn i had owned the car for years and knew what its limits were. what i didnt know was how much less grip the sts had compared to the gts but i keep the car somewhat under control and that never happened again. you on the other hand seem to just stand on the gas. glad you didnt injury anybody. as usual resorting to lame insults. i guess that i really shouldnt expect any more than that when someone disagrees with you. . 222 337065 6k2r83d8kbld6j3bau96krc7har3lrmocn@4ax.com on thu 5 jul 2007 163520 -0700 bill p. yahoo@yahoo.com wrote how long have you lived out here in oregon studs seem to be pretty valuable in the ice which is a more common thing out here than snow is. and even with snow we end up with a crust of ice on top and snow tires on ice are pretty worthless. studs are nice. alot of times it is either studs or chains or no go. we chose studs. chains are a major pia. the nice thing with studded tires is when the weather changes which it does everey couple of days in oregon you can just take the studded tires off and put the highway tires on and go. i have lived in s. oregon for 43 years and ice is not a problem here. in the mountain passes i have used chains on a two wheel drive on occasion. the columbia river gorge high desert area or pendelton area may have the ice problem you describe. just how long have you lived out here in oregon more than 43 years. the majority of orgonians do not need or use studded tires. actually you would be very wrong on that. the use of stidded tires has been so prevelant that the state isoutlawing metal studs due to the damage that they are causing to the road surface. now that is a whole lot of studs man. look at the schwab stories the big o stories etc. etc. the banning of metal studs is really going to hurt them they were the bulk of their winter sales. in case you didnt notice this is a very large state. oregon isnt that big. a whole lot out west and midwest are larger. heck ill bet they dont need them on the 300 miles of coastline either. my original comments were in reference to people running studded tires in area where there is absolutely no need for them. iyo. if traveling to an area where they are needed take chains and quit chewing up the roads. oh good bill. you bet use chains and quit chewing up the roads with studs. are you tbones brother or something or maybe his mother .

From : bill p

on thu 5 jul 2007 151617 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on thu 5 jul 2007 122637 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote temper temper dude. if you were half as smart as you think that you are you would have let this drop already. i still see no valid proof backing your claims just more name calling and temper tantrums. you know tom you are sitting here pretending to be the expert on something again and demanding that some one prove themselfs correct. perhaps because he was the one to jump in first and say that someone else was wrong and has yet to back it up. yeah you are right tom. this time i am. no dancing or finger pointing on your part. no need to you are doing more than enough of that for the both of us. man you spin any faster and your gonna corkscrew yourself right into the ground. pkb geez. more junior high shit. pkb. come on tom. you just keep me wondering how old you really are. you like to talk like youve been around and have some experience but when it comes right down to it you sound like a kid. some people are all talk. you would be one of those. .

From : craig c

1. when i grab the tie rod in the middle and put a bit of torque on it there is a lot of play at both ends of the grease fittings once it starts to move/rotate. are both the tie rod end and drag link end bad if you mean youre putting a pipe wrench or such on it and spinning it that movement is normal thats all the ball joints doing their job. your 3-9 wobble indicates that the ball joint in the tie rod end that connects to the steering knuckle is worn allowing side-to-side slop which allows your toe-in to change as you drive. 3a. how do i fix it! pretty simple but its the drag link end youre going to replace not a tie-rod end the 1/2 tons used a hokey steering setup. its actually the drag link that connects to the passenger side steering knuckle and the tie rod from the drivers side connects to the middle of the drag link. so youve got to ball joints to disconnect - the drag links joint at the steering knuckle and the tie rods joint at the drag link. when you remove the tie rod dont turn the end changing its length - just set it down wrap the end with a rag and dont change its orientation. measure the distance from the zerk fitting on the drag link end to the adjuster sleeve. this way you can get it back to the same length with the new one. loosen the retainer bar on the drag link adjusting sleeve then loosen the clamp on the passenger side. hold the adjuster sleeve steady with a pair of pliers/clannel locks and use a pipe wrench on the drag link end to back it out of the adjuster sleeve. grease the threads of the new drag link and thread it into the adjuster. get it back to your measurement but make sure the tapered hole for the tie rod is oriented the correct way smaller end of the taper faces front. tighten the adjuster clamp put the retainer back in place and tighten it pop both joints back into place torque the castle nuts and insall new cotter pins. then take it to an alignment shop. .

From : tbone

tbone wrote no dancing or finger pointing on your part. no need to you are doing more than enough of that for the both of us. cant we all just get along - or at the very least ... agree to disagree i have nitto terra graplers 325/60/18. they kick the ass of any tire yall mentioned. - craig c. .

From : roy

on thu 5 jul 2007 122637 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote temper temper dude. if you were half as smart as you think that you are you would have let this drop already. i still see no valid proof backing your claims just more name calling and temper tantrums. you know tom you are sitting here pretending to be the expert on something again and demanding that some one prove themselfs correct. perhaps because he was the one to jump in first and say that someone else was wrong and has yet to back it up. yeah you are right tom. this time i am. no dancing or finger pointing on your part. no need to you are doing more than enough of that for the both of us. man you spin any faster and your gonna corkscrew yourself right into the ground. pkb -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : roy

7 fence is not next question why is a fence agreed upon by the property owners on each side of said fence not agreed upon by the government because it can cause problems in the neighborhood. really what sort of problems problems that create a hazard to the safety of the public feel free to make a list. remember according to the document i have the reasons must pose a risk to the general public not the guy next door and must be a problem that infringes on the public right not just the eyes. this is still a society max which means that you cannot do whatever the hell you feel like even in a free country. wrong. i can do whatever the hell i like unless it infringes on someones rights. a 7 fence doesnt infringe on anyones rights as per the constitution. this is particularly true if the two property owners which the fence seperates agree on the existance of the fence. you clearly are not getting this. there is no reason to regulate or enforce property codes in most instances. sure there is it keeps peace in the neighborhood. a 7 fence is not a disturbance of the peace. a kid squealing his tires is as are the super bass stereos. but those infractions are covered in the crimes code and the vehicle code. it really doesnt matter. making these rules provides for the public comfort that you said were part of the rules. no. making these rules provides for the governments ability to regulate that which doesnt need regulating. a fence doesnt make anyone uncomfortable nor do most of the things regulated in the property code. because it makes the neighborhood look like a white trash neghborhood and lowers property values. that and the noise and smell from it warming up every morning. i know people whose teenagers make more noise and smells than a kenworth. are they against the property code again its not the object that is offensive but how it is used. those that argue for second amendment rights should easily see that the kenworth isnt a problem just as the gun isnt but the user can be. thus regulating the existance of an object is against the inherent rights of the property owner. regulating the use of those objects is generally covered in the crimes or vehicle codes. -- max join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author no the defination of a fence in your world can be what the property owner calls it. a flat out lie. in my world a fence is a fence no matter its height. in your world the government determines its height or its not allowed to be a fence. you have yet to address the issue... why is a 5 fence allowed but a 7 fence is not next question why is a fence agreed upon by the property owners on each side of said fence not agreed upon by the government because it can cause problems in the neighborhood. the answers should be based upon logic and reason not because the government said so. last i checked that sort of logic works on 5 year olds but not so much on adult citizens of a free country. this is still a society max which means that you cannot do whatever the hell you feel like even in a free country. if the fence looks like shit at 5 what then what i keep seeing is that your examples are predicated on a devaluation based on something other than the height of the fence. further the devaluation is based on something that isnt even next to the other guys property. lets say the entire neighborhood agreed that 7 fences were ok. what then what right would the borough have to step in a permit is required for a fence from the building inspector. if it was taller than what is permitted yes. you clearly are not getting this. there is no reason to regulate or enforce property codes in most instances. sure there is it keeps peace in the neighborhood. in pa fences are property code not building code. furthermore regulating such things as fence height unless the height is truly out of reason is an invasion of individual property rights. again i can show you documentation proving this. it really doesnt matter. making these rules provides for the public comfort that you said were part of the rules. if it was lettered and used for commerical puposes it is not allowed to parked overnight in a residential zoned district. why not what threat to the public welfare is a parked truck dont recite laws... give reason and fact. because it makes the neighborhood look like a white trash neghborhood and lowers property values. that and the noise and smell from it warming up every morning. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : Annonymous

on thu 14 jun 2007 135333 -0700 beryl terrapin@coolbits.net wrote heartburn theguy@whatever.net wrote on sat 12 may 2007 002550 -0700 beryl wrote heartburn beryl wrote heartburn wrote federal and state laws are both necessary. uh why did you bother even writing that uh because it is the truth. as are local ordinances. well no kidding. dolt. wow a fuck boy calls me a dolt. im really hurt. do you even live in the usa you dont seem to know much about how the system works. your regression to kindergarten-level there just kind of killed any motivation i might have had for continuing on with you. first off sheryll i dont think that will be a big loss to him. second he really had a good point. no loss at all. i deal with his kind every day at work. and prevail. ah thats how you deal with defeat. you wait a *month* to announce that youve prevailed after whoever has apparently left the building. hi sheryll. nice to see you still around. things were getting a little dull without your stupidity to play with. ive got beryl kill-filed but ill answer here. i wasnt defeated. your position is wrong and you cant back it up. if you must know ive had some health problems that were dealt with by a prolonged hospital stay and surgery. remember too youre the one who started name-calling. i just took it to the appropriate level. .

From : Annonymous

access to my service manual. the truck appears to run just fine. any ideas so wait - both ends are loose like bir said it sounds like its the rear axle breather hose. look on top of the rear axle drivers side. youll see a brake distribution block two hard lines running out to each wheel one flex line running up the the left-side frame rail. there should be a hose barb sticking up from this block and thats where the hose connects to. the other end with the white plastic piece in it thats the breather - its got tiny holes to allow air to pass but keeps any water spray out should have a metal clip on it and it clips up to the spare tire carrier frame. if the clip is gone just use a zip tie to secure it and use a small hose clamp to clamp the hose to the hose barb on the axle tube. be sure to leave a little slack in the hose so that the suspension can droop without straining the hose. .

From : Annonymous

on wed 4 jul 2007 125731 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on wed 4 jul 2007 103825 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com snipped for miles what you arent really this stupid are you i hope you are just being your usual stubborn self refusing to admit you are wrong again rather than really being serious about that argument. if you really believe that studded tires have the same road holding friction as a non studded tire..............well.......thats just plain stupid. lol i never said that it was the same and neither did snowball. how many times do you have to here that this type of studded tire is a good compromise between the gripping power of studs on ice and the loss of traction on wet roads. you do understand what compromise means...right let me explain it to you. while this type of studded tire doesnt have the same gripping power on ice as a full studded tire it also doesnt suffer as badly as a fully studded tire on wet road which is the compromise. i also said before it depends on your driving style if the reduced traction of this type of studded tire is going to adversely effect you under normal driving conditions. if you drive it like a sports car and many do then the reduced traction will probably be unacceptable and possibly dangerous but if you drive in a calm manor as in a heavy truck you will probably do just fine with them during the winter months. as for being my stubborn self and refusing to admit to error i really think that you need to take a look in the mirror this time. what fucking planet are you from tom really like i asked before how old are you i feel like im arguing with a child......or worse yet you make me feel like im arguing with an old lady. you jump back and forth so fast that you remind me of the fat little politician in the the play the best little whorehouse in.... can you dance the fast shoe you sure do it here. youve changed what you said or what you meant or what you meant to say or what you think that you meant to say.......or what you think that you think you meant to say....so many times you have confused even yourself. just when you profess to to be thenewtbone you revert back to the old tbone. oh well. .

From : miles

on wed 4 jul 2007 112349 -0400 roy roy@fhome.net wrote sniped some of the stuff so this would fit actually you hope that i will ignore it because as i said before you fucked up jumped in to be the hero but forgot to read the shit before you wrote your shit. if i ignore it then you dont have to try to explain your ignorance for posting what you did. did i or are you just trying to cover for the fact that it was not i but you who jumped the gun. once more time with the i know i am but so are you argument. we had this discussion once before and you refused to answer then but how fucking old are you are you out of junior high school really. i see nothing here backing up your point and your coefficient of friction argument doesnt hold water unless you can prove that most of the tread is off of the road and most of the load is being supported by the studs. what you arent really this stupid are you i hope you are just being your usual stubborn self refusing to admit you are wrong again rather than really being serious about that argument. if you really believe that studded tires have the same road holding friction as a non studded tire..............well.......thats just plain stupid. he isnt that stupid.bfg maybe.......im not always so sure of that. has his moments. but he may be a bit stubborn.g just read a article that tested studed tires blizzaks and a all season. the studded took 40% longer to stop on dry pavement than the other two. yeah studs are pretty slippery. ive never seen a pack of studs come without a never exceed 55 mph on dry pavement with studded tires but i dont think that gets passed onto consumers. for public safety there is a warning that studded tires should never exceed 60 and under no circumstances 70 mph due to lack of grip to dry pavement. .

From : roy

max dodge wrote out in rural america no one complains about fence height or composition. non one complains that the neighbor parked his kenworth in his driveway. no one worries about junk vehicles. in more open areas thats true. still i disagree that nobody cares about fence height or doesnt care about anything else neighbors do. ive seen people try to put up monster houses with huge 10+ foot gawdy fences etc. and there were complaints. the further apart the houses are the more tolerant the neighbors are but there are still limits. .

From : roy

on wed 4 jul 2007 103825 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on tue 3 jul 2007 210747 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on tue 3 jul 2007 080638 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on mon 02 jul 2007 202653 gmt snoman admin@snoman.com wrote on mon 02 jul 2007 193054 gmt theguy@whatever.net wrote you cant even begin to make this go away snotroll. studs definately change the amount of friction available on the raod surface over a non studded tire. the tire manufacturers the stud man. and all of the safety information talk about that all of the time. make what go away you maybe you havent done very good with that either. i have lived with and used them for many years on and off since 70s and i know them well. uh......maybe someone needs to let you know that this is 2007. the 70s are like 30+ years ago. technology and knowledge change snotard. at least for most of us that dont chose to live in the 70s. as i have said i have seen tires that are studded all the way across the tread years ago cosco in mt used to stock them but i have never used that style not would i recommand it unless you are in snow and ice all the time. number15 or 16 studs size of them just on edges of tires is a staggered patern is a good balance between traction on ice and wet roads and you would know this to if you really knew what you were talking about rather than maybe reading a thing or two and calling yourself a expert. so.........you are saying that the coefficient of friction is the same for an all rubber tire and one with 15 or 16 studs size of them of course my brilliant friend if that is the case my instructors at the northwestern university school of accident reconstruction totally fucked up their class. either that or you are totally fucked up. and as for being an expert............what constitutes an expert if i could testify in court as an expert would that suffice if so then you are fucked snotard. but i am sure that you will once again run away and hide moron. not trying to cause trouble here but you really are starting to make yourself look foolish. he never said anything about the coefficient of friction or even that the studded tires had the same wet grip as standard ones. his exact words were number15 or 16 studs size of them just on edges of tires is a staggered patern is a good balance between traction on ice and wet roads to me and i would think to just about anyone else would see this as him saying a good balance as meaning that even though there is a traction loss with studded tires this configuration minimizes the loss of traction on wet roads for gains they provide on ice. you need to read the whole thread before you jump in and try to be the referee tom. here is what he said...... i did read the entire thread and simply didnt say anything it the first post. studed tires are good on ice. but absolutly suck on wet pavement. talk about swapping ends. never even remotely have had that problem on wet roads and i have been using them for many years. sounds like his experience and just because you probably didnt have the same doesnt make his a lie or wrong. now i have seen some studded tires that are studded all the way across the tread and i could see where those could be maybe dicey on wet roads. i use ones that have two staggered rows on each outer edge part of tires and with none in center. now here he explains how the ones he uses are not fully studded and have better traction than the ones that are and that makes perfect sense to me. rubber is a flexible product and the studs on the outside of the tread are going to have little effect on the tread in the center and unless you have some data to say that this isnt true then like i said you are making a fool out of yourself. ----------------- thesnoman.com now........talk about making yourself look foolish tom. that happens when you set yourself up to be the judge. dont do that. im simply pointing out facts and dont have the bias of hatred against snowball that you and others seem to have. what you have is the anti hero mentality tom where you just love to be the lone voice against the pack. that is just as much of a bias as anything that you claim to address. more so perhaps. lol where do you get this stuff from from you he didnt say that his studded tires were as good as conventional on wet roads only that his were not fully studded and that he never had any problems with them. sounds ok to me and definitely didnt warrant the outburst that you gave him which is why i said what i said. im not about to start an argument or even a long winded discussion over it. i simply gave an unbiased opinion on it and do with it what you will even if it means ignoring it. oh come on tom why would i ignore what you have to say i mean it

From : Annonymous

1998 5.9l qc 4x4 yesterday i noticed a hose hanging down from the back of my truck. it was hanging down on the drivers side from the frame rail just above the spare tire. it is about 18 in length one end appeared to be clamped to something at one time the other end has a white coupling type fitting in it. i looked around as best i could without removing the spare and there was nothing obvious as to what it connected to. im on vacation now and dont have access to my service manual. the truck appears to run just fine. any ideas sounds like the rear axle vent just tie it up out of the way for now. .

From : miles

i have lived with and used them for many years on and off since 70s and i know them well. uh......maybe someone needs to let you know that this is 2007. the 70s are like 30+ years ago. technology and knowledge change snotard. at least for most of us that dont chose to live in the 70s. as i have said i have seen tires that are studded all the way across the tread years ago cosco in mt used to stock them but i have never used that style not would i recommand it unless you are in snow and ice all the time. number15 or 16 studs size of them just on edges of tires is a staggered patern is a good balance between traction on ice and wet roads and you would know this to if you really knew what you were talking about rather than maybe reading a thing or two and calling yourself a expert. so.........you are saying that the coefficient of friction is the same for an all rubber tire and one with 15 or 16 studs size of them of course my brilliant friend if that is the case my instructors at the northwestern university school of accident reconstruction totally fucked up their class. either that or you are totally fucked up. and as for being an expert............what constitutes an expert if i could testify in court as an expert would that suffice if so then you are fucked snotard. but i am sure that you will once again run away and hide moron. not trying to cause trouble here but you really are starting to make yourself look foolish. he never said anything about the coefficient of friction or even that the studded tires had the same wet grip as standard ones. his exact words were number15 or 16 studs size of them just on edges of tires is a staggered patern is a good balance between traction on ice and wet roads to me and i would think to just about anyone else would see this as him saying a good balance as meaning that even though there is a traction loss with studded tires this configuration minimizes the loss of traction on wet roads for gains they provide on ice. you need to read the whole thread before you jump in and try to be the referee tom. here is what he said...... i did read the entire thread and simply didnt say anything it the first post. studed tires are good on ice. but absolutly suck on wet pavement. talk about swapping ends. never even remotely have had that problem on wet roads and i have been using them for many years. sounds like his experience and just because you probably didnt have the same doesnt make his a lie or wrong. now i have seen some studded tires that are studded all the way across the tread and i could see where those could be maybe dicey on wet roads. i use ones that have two staggered rows on each outer edge part of tires and with none in center. now here he explains how the ones he uses are not fully studded and have better traction than the ones that are and that makes perfect sense to me. rubber is a flexible product and the studs on the outside of the tread are going to have little effect on the tread in the center and unless you have some data to say that this isnt true then like i said you are making a fool out of yourself. ----------------- thesnoman.com now........talk about making yourself look foolish tom. that happens when you set yourself up to be the judge. dont do that. im simply pointing out facts and dont have the bias of hatred against snowball that you and others seem to have. what you have is the anti hero mentality tom where you just love to be the lone voice against the pack. that is just as much of a bias as anything that you claim to address. more so perhaps. lol where do you get this stuff from from you he didnt say that his studded tires were as good as conventional on wet roads only that his were not fully studded and that he never had any problems with them. sounds ok to me and definitely didnt warrant the outburst that you gave him which is why i said what i said. im not about to start an argument or even a long winded discussion over it. i simply gave an unbiased opinion on it and do with it what you will even if it means ignoring it. oh come on tom why would i ignore what you have to say i mean it added so much to the whole conversation. lol. well i can understand how you would feel that way - thanks. actually you hope that i will ignore it because as i said before you fucked up jumped in to be the hero but forgot to read the shit before you wrote your shit. if i ignore it then you dont have to try to explain your ignorance for posting what you did. did i or are you just trying to cover for the fact that it was not i but you who jumped the gun. once more time with the i know i am but so are you argument. we had this discussion once before and you refused to answer then but how fucking old are you are you out of junior high school really. i see nothing here backing up y

From : roy

vista what a load of crap that one is. i dont know a whole lot about putors. sooo i depend on friends and those on here that seem to have a clue about them. i havent heard any of my friends suggest vista nor have any here. so to me that says a bunch. my last computer ran xp. i would leave it on for weeks maybe months without a reboot. it was stable as a rock. it died a horrible death a while back and was replaced with a new hp running vista. i was not impressed at first but after a few weeks of adjustment me not the computer it has been as good as win xp was for me. like others have said it is just the next version of xp. the only thing that ticked me off is it does not like to accept older hardware. if you go vista be prepared to replace you printer and scanner and what ever you have plugged in cuz it most likely will not run. i had a wireless mouse that vista would recognize and load drivers for but it would not run. likewise with the cheap printer i had. strange thing was i dug in the closet and found a couple old printers. one of them i found drivers for and it and it does run fine. strange thing is it is about 7 years old but the manufacturer was supporting vista unlike the other printer. greg .

From : roy

roy wrote on wed 4 jul 2007 103825 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on tue 3 jul 2007 210747 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on tue 3 jul 2007 080638 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on mon 02 jul 2007 202653 gmt snoman admin@snoman.com wrote on mon 02 jul 2007 193054 gmt theguy@whatever.net wrote you cant even begin to make this go away snotroll. studs definately change the amount of friction available on the raod surface over a non studded tire. the tire manufacturers the stud man. and all of the safety information talk about that all of the time. make what go away you maybe you havent done very good with that either. i have lived with and used them for many years on and off since 70s and i know them well. uh......maybe someone needs to let you know that this is 2007. the 70s are like 30+ years ago. technology and knowledge change snotard. at least for most of us that dont chose to live in the 70s. as i have said i have seen tires that are studded all the way across the tread years ago cosco in mt used to stock them but i have never used that style not would i recommand it unless you are in snow and ice all the time. number15 or 16 studs size of them just on edges of tires is a staggered patern is a good balance between traction on ice and wet roads and you would know this to if you really knew what you were talking about rather than maybe reading a thing or two and calling yourself a expert. so.........you are saying that the coefficient of friction is the same for an all rubber tire and one with 15 or 16 studs size of them of course my brilliant friend if that is the case my instructors at the northwestern university school of accident reconstruction totally fucked up their class. either that or you are totally fucked up. and as for being an expert............what constitutes an expert if i could testify in court as an expert would that suffice if so then you are fucked snotard. but i am sure that you will once again run away and hide moron. not trying to cause trouble here but you really are starting to make yourself look foolish. he never said anything about the coefficient of friction or even that the studded tires had the same wet grip as standard ones. his exact words were number15 or 16 studs size of them just on edges of tires is a staggered patern is a good balance between traction on ice and wet roads to me and i would think to just about anyone else would see this as him saying a good balance as meaning that even though there is a traction loss with studded tires this configuration minimizes the loss of traction on wet roads for gains they provide on ice. you need to read the whole thread before you jump in and try to be the referee tom. here is what he said...... i did read the entire thread and simply didnt say anything it the first post. studed tires are good on ice. but absolutly suck on wet pavement. talk about swapping ends. never even remotely have had that problem on wet roads and i have been using them for many years. sounds like his experience and just because you probably didnt have the same doesnt make his a lie or wrong. now i have seen some studded tires that are studded all the way across the tread and i could see where those could be maybe dicey on wet roads. i use ones that have two staggered rows on each outer edge part of tires and with none in center. now here he explains how the ones he uses are not fully studded and have better traction than the ones that are and that makes perfect sense to me. rubber is a flexible product and the studs on the outside of the tread are going to have little effect on the tread in the center and unless you have some data to say that this isnt true then like i said you are making a fool out of yourself. ----------------- thesnoman.com now........talk about making yourself look foolish tom. that happens when you set yourself up to be the judge. dont do that. im simply pointing out facts and dont have the bias of hatred against snowball that you and others seem to have. what you have is the anti hero mentality tom where you just love to be the lone voice against the pack. that is just as much of a bias as anything that you claim to address. more so perhaps. lol where do you get this stuff from from you he didnt say that his studded tires were as good as conventional on wet roads only that his were not fully studded and that he never had any problems with them. sounds ok to me and definitely didnt warrant the outburst that you gave him which is why i said what i said. im not about to start an argument or even a long winded discussion over it. i simply gave an unbiased opinion on it and do with it what you will even if it means ignoring it. oh come on tom why would i ignore what you have to say i mean it added so much to the whole conversat

From : tbone

tbone wrote vista what a load of crap that one is. its basically xp sp4 with some fancy do nothing graphics. why do we need a new os every few years anyways often the main desire is for stability and compatibility. companies still run decades old software applications under unix on modern computers. our unix server has been rebooted a total of 5 times in 10 years not counting power outages. two of those times were when the server was upgrade. i reboot any windows pc a few times a week. i was hoping in another few years xp would become stable...but now we have a new os and start all over again. .

From : miles

suddenly without warning chris thompson exclaimed 7/2/2007 213 am craig c. thought everyone should know chris thompson wrote man they just dont build them like they used to do they i mean shoot only 7 years out of this one case the power supply for my amd 1100 went south need i say it buy a mac ... you wont have these problems. - craig c. mac!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! pppppppppppppppffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffttttttttttttttttttttttt im sticking with kde besides i have a new powersupply and purdy case = ill give you props on unix though... p my case is purdy too! http//www.jodi.ws/blog/2005/06/i-feel-like-i-have-brand-new-computer.html wow..and you just installed xp for the first time vista is already out after only.....6 years! vista what a load of crap that one is. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

on wed 4 jul 2007 103825 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on tue 3 jul 2007 210747 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on tue 3 jul 2007 080638 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on mon 02 jul 2007 202653 gmt snoman admin@snoman.com wrote on mon 02 jul 2007 193054 gmt theguy@whatever.net wrote you cant even begin to make this go away snotroll. studs definately change the amount of friction available on the raod surface over a non studded tire. the tire manufacturers the stud man. and all of the safety information talk about that all of the time. make what go away you maybe you havent done very good with that either. i have lived with and used them for many years on and off since 70s and i know them well. uh......maybe someone needs to let you know that this is 2007. the 70s are like 30+ years ago. technology and knowledge change snotard. at least for most of us that dont chose to live in the 70s. as i have said i have seen tires that are studded all the way across the tread years ago cosco in mt used to stock them but i have never used that style not would i recommand it unless you are in snow and ice all the time. number15 or 16 studs size of them just on edges of tires is a staggered patern is a good balance between traction on ice and wet roads and you would know this to if you really knew what you were talking about rather than maybe reading a thing or two and calling yourself a expert. so.........you are saying that the coefficient of friction is the same for an all rubber tire and one with 15 or 16 studs size of them of course my brilliant friend if that is the case my instructors at the northwestern university school of accident reconstruction totally fucked up their class. either that or you are totally fucked up. and as for being an expert............what constitutes an expert if i could testify in court as an expert would that suffice if so then you are fucked snotard. but i am sure that you will once again run away and hide moron. not trying to cause trouble here but you really are starting to make yourself look foolish. he never said anything about the coefficient of friction or even that the studded tires had the same wet grip as standard ones. his exact words were number15 or 16 studs size of them just on edges of tires is a staggered patern is a good balance between traction on ice and wet roads to me and i would think to just about anyone else would see this as him saying a good balance as meaning that even though there is a traction loss with studded tires this configuration minimizes the loss of traction on wet roads for gains they provide on ice. you need to read the whole thread before you jump in and try to be the referee tom. here is what he said...... i did read the entire thread and simply didnt say anything it the first post. studed tires are good on ice. but absolutly suck on wet pavement. talk about swapping ends. never even remotely have had that problem on wet roads and i have been using them for many years. sounds like his experience and just because you probably didnt have the same doesnt make his a lie or wrong. now i have seen some studded tires that are studded all the way across the tread and i could see where those could be maybe dicey on wet roads. i use ones that have two staggered rows on each outer edge part of tires and with none in center. now here he explains how the ones he uses are not fully studded and have better traction than the ones that are and that makes perfect sense to me. rubber is a flexible product and the studs on the outside of the tread are going to have little effect on the tread in the center and unless you have some data to say that this isnt true then like i said you are making a fool out of yourself. ----------------- thesnoman.com now........talk about making yourself look foolish tom. that happens when you set yourself up to be the judge. dont do that. im simply pointing out facts and dont have the bias of hatred against snowball that you and others seem to have. what you have is the anti hero mentality tom where you just love to be the lone voice against the pack. that is just as much of a bias as anything that you claim to address. more so perhaps. lol where do you get this stuff from from you he didnt say that his studded tires were as good as conventional on wet roads only that his were not fully studded and that he never had any problems with them. sounds ok to me and definitely didnt warrant the outburst that you gave him which is why i said what i said. im not about to start an argument or even a long winded discussion over it. i simply gave an unbiased opinion on it and do with it what you will even if it means ignoring it. oh come on tom why would i ignore what you have to say i mean it added so

From : miles

roy wrote they are a thrill a minute in rain soaked pavement. now that i think about it i wonder how if used as the idiot suggested they would work with a abs truck. i dont know why they have studded tires in places that arent frozen solid almost all winter. in flagstaff az. many tire shops will put studs in. sure flagstaff can get deep snow and packed roads and highways. but it melts after 1 or 2 days between storms. only people i can see that may want them would be those that live deep in the forests down dirt roads. those roads stay frozen. .

From : Annonymous

on mon 02 jul 2007 202653 gmt snoman admin@snoman.com wrote on mon 02 jul 2007 193054 gmt theguy@whatever.net wrote well ive used them for a season some years ago. yes they were staggered. yes they were good on ice and hardpacked snow. yes they sucked on wet paved and concrete roads. they sucked so badly that i think some states have banned them in any weather. are these fully studded or just on the outside edges of the tread not doubting you just getting information since it has been a long time since i put any type of snow tire on my vehicles. outer edge staggered. try to think of a good footprint of a proper inflated tire with studs protruding. on bare pavement what is making contact with that pavement the bottom line with snow tires is this imo. ya gotta have a dedicated snow tire. further altough the idiot says he tried blizzaks he maintains studed tires are better. i would simply take that as a personal opinion and may have as much to do with his driving style as anything else. he is i believe again wrong. i believe that if you look on the side of a blizak you will see a snowflake stamped into the sidewall. that signifiys that you dont have to chain up in most mountains areas. i doubt you are afforded that with a studed tire. ill take your word for it and since i dont plan on driving down any mountain roads in the winter.... dont take my word for it. look it up the info is out there. or take the idiots advice and buy yourself some studed tires. but do get back to use with what ya do put on your truck. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : tbone

in addition to cc&rs deed restrictions or zoning regulations theres also private home owners associations. they make such rules and are approved by the residents of a neighborhood to keep property values up as well as create the environment the people who buy there want. point is there are reasons for restrictions and many home owners do want them enforced. and there are those of us who live in rural areas and wish to have the freedom to do as we please rather than worry about rules. sadly some idiots figure that being elected to office means making their own rules. -- max join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote i believe miles point was that in certain instances developments were being built with specific rules that went beyond what i believe to be constitutional. in these developments the rules stood legal challenge because they were put into effect as part of the neighborhood and the individual retained the right to live elsewhere. in addition to cc&rs deed restrictions or zoning regulations theres also private home owners associations. they make such rules and are approved by the residents of a neighborhood to keep property values up as well as create the environment the people who buy there want. point is there are reasons for restrictions and many home owners do want them enforced. .

From : tbone

on jul 3 506 am tbone tbonenos...@nc.rr.com wrote on mon 02 jul 2007 202653 gmt snoman a...@snoman.com wrote on mon 02 jul 2007 193054 gmt the...@whatever.net wrote you cant even begin to make this go away snotroll. studs definately change the amount of friction available on the raod surface over a non studded tire. the tire manufacturers the stud man. and all of the safety information talk about that all of the time. make what go away you maybe you havent done very good with that either. i have lived with and used them for many years on and off since 70s and i know them well. uh......maybe someone needs to let you know that this is 2007. the 70s are like 30+ years ago. technology and knowledge change snotard. at least for most of us that dont chose to live in the 70s. as i have said i have seen tires that are studded all the way across the tread years ago cosco in mt used to stock them but i have never used that style not would i recommand it unless you are in snow and ice all the time. number15 or 16 studs size of them just on edges of tires is a staggered patern is a good balance between traction on ice and wet roads and you would know this to if you really knew what you were talking about rather than maybe reading a thing or two and calling yourself a expert. so.........you are saying that the coefficient of friction is the same for an all rubber tire and one with 15 or 16 studs size of them of course my brilliant friend if that is the case my instructors at the northwestern university school of accident reconstruction totally fucked up their class. either that or you are totally fucked up. and as for being an expert............what constitutes an expert if i could testify in court as an expert would that suffice if so then you are fucked snotard. but i am sure that you will once again run away and hide moron. not trying to cause trouble here but you really are starting to make yourself look foolish. he never said anything about the coefficient of friction or even that the studded tires had the same wet grip as standard ones. his exact words were number15 or 16 studs size of them just on edges of tires is a staggered patern is a good balance between traction on ice and wet roads to me and i would think to just about anyone else would see this as him saying a good balance as meaning that even though there is a traction loss with studded tires this configuration minimizes the loss of traction on wet roads for gains they provide on ice. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving- hide quoted text - - show quoted text - wow tom youre doing great here. why thank you! first you defend beryl and jump on my now you defend snotroll and jump on guy and roy i think that you need to take both reading and comprehention lessons. first of all i dont recall defending berly. i simply suggested that if you dont want him to attack you stop giving him fuel to do so with. as for defending snowball i really did no such thing as he really doesnt meed it here anyway. this has nothing to do with roy and was simply point out to theguy that his attack on snowball was foolish and actually makes him look bad. all before you seemingly read the entire thread. i did read the entire thread and nowhere did snowball make any false claims or incorrect statements. at best what he said was personal opinion and experience and while you may disagree with it it doesnt make it worthy of an attack. now what was it that you were saying to me about a week ago i dont recall as there were many things. but now that you bring it up wasnt it you whining to me about not saying anything or defending snowball form anyone but you and not you are complaining about me defending him against roy and theguy. make up your mind already. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : azwiley1

riceguy66@comcast.net wrote try running it for a few minutes and feel the radiator for hot and cool spots. i changed out the radiator this morning and that did the trick all problems solved - guess it was at the last end of life along with the stuck thermalstat - nothing like two problems causing one symptom to drive one crazy .

From : Annonymous

on tue 3 jul 2007 211227 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on mon 02 jul 2007 202653 gmt snoman admin@snoman.com wrote on mon 02 jul 2007 193054 gmt theguy@whatever.net wrote you cant even begin to make this go away snotroll. studs definately change the amount of friction available on the raod surface over a non studded tire. the tire manufacturers the stud man. and all of the safety information talk about that all of the time. make what go away you maybe you havent done very good with that either. i have lived with and used them for many years on and off since 70s and i know them well. uh......maybe someone needs to let you know that this is 2007. the 70s are like 30+ years ago. technology and knowledge change snotard. at least for most of us that dont chose to live in the 70s. as i have said i have seen tires that are studded all the way across the tread years ago cosco in mt used to stock them but i have never used that style not would i recommand it unless you are in snow and ice all the time. number15 or 16 studs size of them just on edges of tires is a staggered patern is a good balance between traction on ice and wet roads and you would know this to if you really knew what you were talking about rather than maybe reading a thing or two and calling yourself a expert. so.........you are saying that the coefficient of friction is the same for an all rubber tire and one with 15 or 16 studs size of them of course my brilliant friend if that is the case my instructors at the northwestern university school of accident reconstruction totally fucked up their class. either that or you are totally fucked up. and as for being an expert............what constitutes an expert if i could testify in court as an expert would that suffice if so then you are fucked snotard. but i am sure that you will once again run away and hide moron. not trying to cause trouble here but you really are starting to make yourself look foolish. he never said anything about the coefficient of friction or even that the studded tires had the same wet grip as standard ones. his exact words were number15 or 16 studs size of them just on edges of tires is a staggered patern is a good balance between traction on ice and wet roads to me and i would think to just about anyone else would see this as him saying a good balance as meaning that even though there is a traction loss with studded tires this configuration minimizes the loss of traction on wet roads for gains they provide on ice. well ive used them for a season some years ago. yes they were staggered. yes they were good on ice and hardpacked snow. yes they sucked on wet paved and concrete roads. they sucked so badly that i think some states have banned them in any weather. are these fully studded or just on the outside edges of the tread not doubting you just getting information since it has been a long time since i put any type of snow tire on my vehicles. the bottom line with snow tires is this imo. ya gotta have a dedicated snow tire. further altough the idiot says he tried blizzaks he maintains studed tires are better. i would simply take that as a personal opinion and may have as much to do with his driving style as anything else. once again your attempts to be liberal come across as bs tom. there is a finite truth to the amount of friction that a tire can put on the roadway. in rain on ice and in snow different designs provide different types of friction. friction is simply what stops your car. without friction you would slide off into eternity. can you grasp that friction is measurable and what you and snotroll are trying to put forward could get someone hurt. friction is measureable tom. driving style is certainly a thing but it can not over rule the laws of physics. the laws of physics dont care if your name is tbone and you are trying to be a calm and peaceful force or if your name is snotroll and you are limping down the lane of senility spouting crap that doesnt make a lick of sense. the laws of physics are there. you cant make them go away by trying to be a pc human. they will get you any way. it isnt opinion at this point tom. there is some scientific fact behind this stuff. he is i believe again wrong. i believe that if you look on the side of a blizak you will see a snowflake stamped into the sidewall. that signifiys that you dont have to chain up in most mountains areas. i doubt you are afforded that with a studed tire. ill take your word for it and since i dont plan on driving down any mountain roads in the winter.... .

From : tbone

on tue 3 jul 2007 210747 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on tue 3 jul 2007 080638 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on mon 02 jul 2007 202653 gmt snoman admin@snoman.com wrote on mon 02 jul 2007 193054 gmt theguy@whatever.net wrote you cant even begin to make this go away snotroll. studs definately change the amount of friction available on the raod surface over a non studded tire. the tire manufacturers the stud man. and all of the safety information talk about that all of the time. make what go away you maybe you havent done very good with that either. i have lived with and used them for many years on and off since 70s and i know them well. uh......maybe someone needs to let you know that this is 2007. the 70s are like 30+ years ago. technology and knowledge change snotard. at least for most of us that dont chose to live in the 70s. as i have said i have seen tires that are studded all the way across the tread years ago cosco in mt used to stock them but i have never used that style not would i recommand it unless you are in snow and ice all the time. number15 or 16 studs size of them just on edges of tires is a staggered patern is a good balance between traction on ice and wet roads and you would know this to if you really knew what you were talking about rather than maybe reading a thing or two and calling yourself a expert. so.........you are saying that the coefficient of friction is the same for an all rubber tire and one with 15 or 16 studs size of them of course my brilliant friend if that is the case my instructors at the northwestern university school of accident reconstruction totally fucked up their class. either that or you are totally fucked up. and as for being an expert............what constitutes an expert if i could testify in court as an expert would that suffice if so then you are fucked snotard. but i am sure that you will once again run away and hide moron. not trying to cause trouble here but you really are starting to make yourself look foolish. he never said anything about the coefficient of friction or even that the studded tires had the same wet grip as standard ones. his exact words were number15 or 16 studs size of them just on edges of tires is a staggered patern is a good balance between traction on ice and wet roads to me and i would think to just about anyone else would see this as him saying a good balance as meaning that even though there is a traction loss with studded tires this configuration minimizes the loss of traction on wet roads for gains they provide on ice. you need to read the whole thread before you jump in and try to be the referee tom. here is what he said...... i did read the entire thread and simply didnt say anything it the first post. studed tires are good on ice. but absolutly suck on wet pavement. talk about swapping ends. never even remotely have had that problem on wet roads and i have been using them for many years. sounds like his experience and just because you probably didnt have the same doesnt make his a lie or wrong. now i have seen some studded tires that are studded all the way across the tread and i could see where those could be maybe dicey on wet roads. i use ones that have two staggered rows on each outer edge part of tires and with none in center. now here he explains how the ones he uses are not fully studded and have better traction than the ones that are and that makes perfect sense to me. rubber is a flexible product and the studs on the outside of the tread are going to have little effect on the tread in the center and unless you have some data to say that this isnt true then like i said you are making a fool out of yourself. ----------------- thesnoman.com now........talk about making yourself look foolish tom. that happens when you set yourself up to be the judge. dont do that. im simply pointing out facts and dont have the bias of hatred against snowball that you and others seem to have. what you have is the anti hero mentality tom where you just love to be the lone voice against the pack. that is just as much of a bias as anything that you claim to address. more so perhaps. he didnt say that his studded tires were as good as conventional on wet roads only that his were not fully studded and that he never had any problems with them. sounds ok to me and definitely didnt warrant the outburst that you gave him which is why i said what i said. im not about to start an argument or even a long winded discussion over it. i simply gave an unbiased opinion on it and do with it what you will even if it means ignoring it. oh come on tom why would i ignore what you have to say i mean it added so much to the whole conversation. lol. actually you hope that i will ignore it because as i said before you fucked up jumped in to be the hero but forgot to read the

From : azwiley1

temper temper dude. if you were half as smart as you think that you are you would have let this drop already. i still see no valid proof backing your claims just more name calling and temper tantrums. you know tom you are sitting here pretending to be the expert on something again and demanding that some one prove themselfs correct. perhaps because he was the one to jump in first and say that someone else was wrong and has yet to back it up. since what he was attacking was someone elses opinion it would be fairly difficult to do. i am not claiming to be a expert on anything here only that i see snowballs point and the type of studded tire that he uses is not as bad as a fully studded on wet and dry roads and i have yet to see so much as an ounce of proof otherwise. how about you provide proof that guy is incorrect why should i im not the one who initiated the claim that would be him. just how much experience do you have with using studded tires do you have enough to sit and say snotroll is correct and others are incorrect yawn as i said many times it really depends on the driving style of the one using them. they are not an all-purpose tire and nobody said that they were. they dont have the wet or dry traction of a boog conventional tire and again nobody said that they did. he did say that he had no problem with them on wet and dry roads and can you prove him wrong can theguy if not then what exactly is the purpose of this longwinded thread or the attack theguy made on snowball about it how can you say guy is wrong and not provide the proof that he is how can he say that snowball is wrong and not prove that he is. funny how you are not asking him to back up his claims. why is that larry as to my experience with them i know youll ask i have used them a few times and agree with roy and guy they are good if used for what they are intended for on ice. on dry pavement or even just in snow my experience showed me to stay with a good tire with out studs. nobody said that studded tires were good for everything or better than conventional in all situations. they are superior on wet ice and about equal on snow. they are inferior on wet or even dry roads for the most part some european versions have been tested to be equal to conventional tires here and nobody is saying anything different. the point is that although studded tires do offer less grip in situations that they were not designed for it is really a matter of driving style as to how dangerous the reduced traction is and nobody has been able to prove any different. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : Annonymous

have a problem with the above vehicle.it has an intermittant rough running problem.sounds like it is starving for fuel and when it starts to happen there is a loud vacuum sound.wont quite stall but also will not take the gas.it did trigger a check engine light.scanned it and scan tool indidcated that both 02 sensors were out of range and the upstream was shorted.replaced both sensors but didnt soilve problem.fuel pressure runs steady between 45-50 psi however when engine begins to run rough gauge needle vibrates rapidly between 40 and 50 psi.any thoughts would be appreciated. .

From : tbone

on wed 04 jul 2007 230055 -0700 beryl terrapin@coolbits.net wrote thedumbguy on wed 04 jul 2007 163221 -0700 beryl terrapin@coolbits.net wrote heartburn ive got beryl kill-filed but ill answer here. i wasnt defeated. your position is wrong and you cant back it up. my position is that the 2nd amendment doesnt follow michigans laws. please reply dumbguy so the dolt can answer indirectly again. sheryl im thanks dumbguy. dont go away we may need to use you again. no problem. just here to make your dismal life a little bit better. .

From : tbone

on thu 5 jul 2007 094625 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on wed 4 jul 2007 125731 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on wed 4 jul 2007 103825 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com snipped for miles what you arent really this stupid are you i hope you are just being your usual stubborn self refusing to admit you are wrong again rather than really being serious about that argument. if you really believe that studded tires have the same road holding friction as a non studded tire..............well.......thats just plain stupid. lol i never said that it was the same and neither did snowball. how many times do you have to here that this type of studded tire is a good compromise between the gripping power of studs on ice and the loss of traction on wet roads. you do understand what compromise means...right let me explain it to you. while this type of studded tire doesnt have the same gripping power on ice as a full studded tire it also doesnt suffer as badly as a fully studded tire on wet road which is the compromise. i also said before it depends on your driving style if the reduced traction of this type of studded tire is going to adversely effect you under normal driving conditions. if you drive it like a sports car and many do then the reduced traction will probably be unacceptable and possibly dangerous but if you drive in a calm manor as in a heavy truck you will probably do just fine with them during the winter months. as for being my stubborn self and refusing to admit to error i really think that you need to take a look in the mirror this time. what fucking planet are you from tom really like i asked before how old are you i feel like im arguing with a child......or worse yet you make me feel like im arguing with an old lady. temper temper dude. if you were half as smart as you think that you are you would have let this drop already. i still see no valid proof backing your claims just more name calling and temper tantrums. how about just answering my question. honestly. how old are you you jump back and forth so fast that you remind me of the fat little politician in the the play the best little whorehouse in.... can you dance the fast shoe you sure do it here. only in your desperate mind buddy. i havent changed my position at all in this thread no matter how desperately you wish it to be so. youve changed what you said or what you meant or what you meant to say or what you think that you meant to say.......or what you think that you think you meant to say....so many times you have confused even yourself. really please indicate exactly where and provide solid examples from this thread not your typical desperate spin. i never said that studded tires had the same gripping power as conventional tires on wet or even dry roads and if you think that i did prove it of shut up already and stop looking even more foolish than you already do. i also said that even with the reduced traction the persons driving style will make the determination if the tire is sutable or not and again show where i said different or you can just continue to make a fool out of yourself. just when you profess to to be thenewtbone you revert back to the old tbone. oh well. what i said was that i try not to start petty arguments anymore just to piss people off or get into endless arguments that have no winners for the same purpose not that im incapable of defending myself. i did offer to let it drop stating that it was just my opinion without putting blame or error on anyone but you couldnt allow that because god forbid it doing so might indicate in your own mind that you jumped the gun and were possibly wrong. .

From : beryl

thats a slightly different situation. its one thing to create rules and regs for a section of housing then advertise those regs as part of the deal. it is entirely another to enact codes that are restrictions of freedom that is already enjoyed by citizens and property owners. did i miss this situation in the other thread i guess i dunno.... -- max join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author .

From : roy

have a 1999 dodge van wagon v6 with cooling problems - i made it back home in time and the check engine light coming on just for a tick. i ended up pulling out the thermalstat and placing it in boiling water only to see that it never opened up. thinking that i found the gremlin i elected to just leave it out and tried running the engine again. this time after 5 - 10 minutes of running i turned off the motor and heard the water boiling in the engine no coolant added yet. thinking of no circulation i then pulled off the water pump hoping that the impeller was loose or something but that was not the case. the radiator passes water fine as i can tell. filled the cap and watch it drain out the petcock. im at a loss of why i have little or no water circulation when the thermalstat is out and the water pump seems to be intact and looks normal to me. im pulling my hair out trying to figure this out. any thoughts and comments are more than welcome. rice .

From : roy

suddenly without warning chris thompson exclaimed 7/2/2007 213 am craig c. thought everyone should know chris thompson wrote man they just dont build them like they used to do they i mean shoot only 7 years out of this one case the power supply for my amd 1100 went south need i say it buy a mac ... you wont have these problems. - craig c. mac!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! pppppppppppppppffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffttttttttttttttttttttttt im sticking with kde besides i have a new powersupply and purdy case = ill give you props on unix though... p my case is purdy too! http//www.jodi.ws/blog/2005/06/i-feel-like-i-have-brand-new-computer.html wow..and you just installed xp for the first time vista is already out after only.....6 years! jmc .

From : tbone

jmc wrote new system kicks butt though especially since i upgraded from a mere amd 64 3000+ w/1gb ram. what type of software are you running that would be slow on a amd 64 3000 windows. i used to upgrade every couple years because speeds would double and triple or more every year. now we see gains of 10-20% each year and only in certain specific areas of computing. hard drives are still the bottleneck. sata is an improvement but we still are using a mechanical disc & head mechanism. ive used scsi for years. expensive but ran circles around ata. still use scsi in servers. .

From : Annonymous

robert francis wrote exactly tbone. bob robert francis wrote actually the ballast should be centred over the rear axle not behind it. whys that placed behind the rear axle itll leverage a bit of weight off the front axle and add more than its own weight to the rear axle. because that leverage also acts as a lever to pull the rear end around the front of the vehicle in a turn and taking weight off of the front tires does not always help the situation especially when attempting to turn in slippery conditions. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving i could see it if a pickup truck was already pretty well balanced but it isnt. as roy said put the weight behind the axle like when you have a plow up front. how about like when you have a cummins ingot up front balance really isnt the issue in this case. if you could shift the existing weight from the front to the rear then it would make sense. to add weight behind the rear tires simply increases the mass and inertia of the vehicle which is always a bad thing in ice and snow. at the same time you are removing some of the down-force on the front axle while increasing the mass and inertia created by that mass which makes it even harder to turn the vehicle. roy suggested putting weight behind the rear axle in a plow situation to help unload the front suspension of some of the added mass of the plow hanging off of the front. since the plow is in front of the front tires it also has that lever effect and takes some of the weight off of the rear axle. putting weight behind the rear axle in that case counterbalances the plow and returns the weight back to the rear axle where it is needed. as for the cummins while it is heavy it is sitting over the front axle so there is no counter lever effect on the rear axle and most of its weight is being put to use holding the front tires down. -- i would think that with the 900 pounds of engine up front you have lightened the rear so a few hundred pounds in back might give a more favorable weight distribution in snow for traction purposes. thats without the plow. a scale would help answer the weight issue. .

From : Annonymous

on mon 02 jul 2007 202653 gmt snoman admin@snoman.com wrote on mon 02 jul 2007 193054 gmt theguy@whatever.net wrote you cant even begin to make this go away snotroll. studs definately change the amount of friction available on the raod surface over a non studded tire. the tire manufacturers the stud man. and all of the safety information talk about that all of the time. make what go away you maybe you havent done very good with that either. i have lived with and used them for many years on and off since 70s and i know them well. uh......maybe someone needs to let you know that this is 2007. the 70s are like 30+ years ago. technology and knowledge change snotard. at least for most of us that dont chose to live in the 70s. as i have said i have seen tires that are studded all the way across the tread years ago cosco in mt used to stock them but i have never used that style not would i recommand it unless you are in snow and ice all the time. number15 or 16 studs size of them just on edges of tires is a staggered patern is a good balance between traction on ice and wet roads and you would know this to if you really knew what you were talking about rather than maybe reading a thing or two and calling yourself a expert. so.........you are saying that the coefficient of friction is the same for an all rubber tire and one with 15 or 16 studs size of them of course my brilliant friend if that is the case my instructors at the northwestern university school of accident reconstruction totally fucked up their class. either that or you are totally fucked up. and as for being an expert............what constitutes an expert if i could testify in court as an expert would that suffice if so then you are fucked snotard. but i am sure that you will once again run away and hide moron. not trying to cause trouble here but you really are starting to make yourself look foolish. he never said anything about the coefficient of friction or even that the studded tires had the same wet grip as standard ones. his exact words were number15 or 16 studs size of them just on edges of tires is a staggered patern is a good balance between traction on ice and wet roads to me and i would think to just about anyone else would see this as him saying a good balance as meaning that even though there is a traction loss with studded tires this configuration minimizes the loss of traction on wet roads for gains they provide on ice. well ive used them for a season some years ago. yes they were staggered. yes they were good on ice and hardpacked snow. yes they sucked on wet paved and concrete roads. they sucked so badly that i think some states have banned them in any weather. the bottom line with snow tires is this imo. ya gotta have a dedicated snow tire. further altough the idiot says he tried blizzaks he maintains studed tires are better. he is i believe again wrong. i believe that if you look on the side of a blizak you will see a snowflake stamped into the sidewall. that signifiys that you dont have to chain up in most mountains areas. i doubt you are afforded that with a studed tire. .

From : bill p

jmc wrote nope. same drives as before - os and apps on a wd raptor sata the rest on a pair of seagate barracudas and another wd all sata. must have been a lousy sata interface on the motherboard or slow chipset & drivers. an amd 64 3000 should easily be able to handle data at the capabilities of sata and todays hard drives. the seek and latency time of a mechanical hard drive is far slower than the cpu. .

From : roy

heartburn ive got beryl kill-filed but ill answer here. i wasnt defeated. your position is wrong and you cant back it up. my position is that the 2nd amendment doesnt follow michigans laws. please reply dumbguy so the dolt can answer indirectly again. if you must know ive had some health problems that were dealt with by a prolonged hospital stay and surgery. remember too youre the one who started name-calling. right i called you a dolt. you cant make the 2nd amendment say what you wish it did so you think michigans constitution is a valid substitute. i just took it to the appropriate level. appropriate for you. .

From : snoman

on mon 02 jul 2007 202653 gmt snoman admin@snoman.com wrote on mon 02 jul 2007 193054 gmt theguy@whatever.net wrote you cant even begin to make this go away snotroll. studs definately change the amount of friction available on the raod surface over a non studded tire. the tire manufacturers the stud man. and all of the safety information talk about that all of the time. make what go away you maybe you havent done very good with that either. i have lived with and used them for many years on and off since 70s and i know them well. uh......maybe someone needs to let you know that this is 2007. the 70s are like 30+ years ago. technology and knowledge change snotard. at least for most of us that dont chose to live in the 70s. as i have said i have seen tires that are studded all the way across the tread years ago cosco in mt used to stock them but i have never used that style not would i recommand it unless you are in snow and ice all the time. number15 or 16 studs size of them just on edges of tires is a staggered patern is a good balance between traction on ice and wet roads and you would know this to if you really knew what you were talking ab

From : tbone

on tue 3 jul 2007 080638 -0400 tbone tbonenospam@nc.rr.com wrote on mon 02 jul 2007 202653 gmt snoman admin@snoman.com wrote on mon 02 jul 2007 193054 gmt theguy@whatever.net wrote you cant even begin to make this go away snotroll. studs definately change the amount of friction available on the raod surface over a non studded tire. the tire manufacturers the stud man. and all of the safety information talk about that all of the time. make what go away you maybe you havent done very good with that either. i have lived with and used them for many years on and off since 70s and i know them well. uh......maybe someone needs to let you know that this is 2007. the 70s are like 30+ years ago. technology and knowledge change snotard. at least for most of us that dont chose to live in the 70s. as i have said i have seen tires that are studded all the way across the tread years ago cosco in mt used to stock them but i have never used that style not would i recommand it unless you are in snow and ice all the time. number15 or 16 studs size of them just on edges of tires is a staggered patern is a good balance between traction on ice and wet roads and you would know this to if you really knew what you were talking about rather than maybe reading a thing or two and calling yourself a expert. so.........you are saying that the coefficient of friction is the same for an all rubber tire and one with 15 or 16 studs size of them of course my brilliant friend if that is the case my instructors at the northwestern university school of accident reconstruction totally fucked up their class. either that or you are totally fucked up. and as for being an expert............what constitutes an expert if i could testify in court as an expert would that suffice if so then you are fucked snotard. but i am sure that you will once again run away and hide moron. not trying to cause trouble here but you really are starting to make yourself look foolish. he never said anything about the coefficient of friction or even that the studded tires had the same wet grip as standard ones. his exact words were number15 or 16 studs size of them just on edges of tires is a staggered patern is a good balance between traction on ice and wet roads to me and i would think to just about anyone else would see this as him saying a good balance as meaning that even though there is a traction loss with studded tires this configuration minimizes the loss of traction on wet roads for gains they provide on ice. you need to read the whole thread before you jump in and try to be the referee tom. here is what he said...... studed tires are good on ice. but absolutly suck on wet pavement. talk about swapping ends. never even remotely have had that problem on wet roads and i have been using them for many years. now i have seen some studded tires that are studded all the way across the tread and i could see where those could be maybe dicey on wet roads. i use ones that have two staggered rows on each outer edge part of tires and with none in center. ----------------- thesnoman.com now........talk about making yourself look foolish tom. that happens when you set yourself up to be the judge. dont do that. .

From : tbone

on tue 03 jul 2007 113213 gmt snoman admin@snoman.com wrote on mon 02 jul 2007 233302 gmt theguy@whatever.net wrote on mon 02 jul 2007 202653 gmt snoman admin@snoman.com wrote on mon 02 jul 2007 193054 gmt theguy@whatever.net wrote you cant even begin to make this go away snotroll. studs definately change the amount of friction available on the raod surface over a non studded tire. the tire manufacturers the stud man. and all of the safety information talk about that all of the time. make what go away you maybe you havent done very good with that either. why because i do not buy into yours and others bs and ego trips i have lived with and used them for many years on and off since 70s and i know them well. uh......maybe someone needs to let you know that this is 2007. the 70s are like 30+ years ago. technology and knowledge change snotard. at least for most of us that dont chose to live in the 70s. gee no kidding what does the year have to do with this what worked in snow and ice then will work today as we are not talking anything here that would change that. yes there are bliizaak tires today i have tried them and while they are better than street tires in ice studs are better. also on car and engine techology has changed but only it its controls not its theory and operational physics. as i have said i have seen tires that are studded all the way across the tread years ago cosco in mt used to stock them but i have never used that style not would i recommand it unless you are in snow and ice all the time. number15 or 16 studs size of them just on edges of tires is a staggered patern is a good balance between traction on ice and wet roads and you would know this to if you really knew what you were talking about rather than maybe reading a thing or two and calling yourself a expert. so.........you are saying that the coefficient of friction is the same for an all rubber tire and one with 15 or 16 studs size of them of course my brilliant friend if that is the case my instructors at the northwestern university school of accident reconstruction totally fucked up their class. either that or you are totally fucked up. and as for being an expert............what constitutes an expert if i could testify in court as an expert would that suffice if so then you are fucked snotard. but i am sure that you will once again run away and hide moron. the only moron here is you. if it does not meet with your appproval you resort to name calling. sure the studs make it not the most fuel efficent tires but it will use less fuel with studs on a 2wd than a 4x4 without them and the 2wd with studs will outperform the 4x4 without them on ice by a wide margin. so what is your point none as usual other than you have to come out of your troll cave for a bit and beat on your chest and thump the ground for a bit and make yourself known. knock yourself out. you did exactly as i said you would snotroll. you ran and hid. all you did was change the subject you never answered a single question about your idiotic statement. talk about name calling that is all you just did to try to hide the stupidity in your first statement. you just didnt do it very well as usuall. and while i appreciate your offer to knock yourself out that would imply that i actually have to work at making a fool out of you. i dont though. it is actually very easy. you make it easy. you remind me of the old saying we used when we had completely worthless people that we were trying to straighten out what is the difference between snoman and a bucket of shit. ill give you the answer. the bucket. ----------------- thesnoman.com .

From : Annonymous

jmc thought everyone should know yuppers. my otherwise worthy asus board suffered from weird usb issues throughout its life. no *visible* damage to caps but as it came from that era im pretty sure they were marginal on my board. just replaced it with another asus an m2n-sli-deluxe plus a dual-core amd 64 x2 5600+ 4mb ram and between internal and external about 1.4tb of hd space. didnt have to replace the psu though coolermaster its still sound. new system kicks butt though especially since i upgraded from a mere amd 64 3000+ w/1gb ram. im pleasantly surprised there seems to be as many geeks in here as mechanics. guess i shouldnt be since the skillset/interests are definitely related! im a geek that can sometimes fix my truck rather than a mechanic that can fix a computer though jmc mine is a microstar ms 6340 with a amd processor. it has served me well when i get a chance though i think its time to upgrade though i want 2 gig of memory and at least 250 gig of hard disk space = as far as the caps im sitting here looking at them. i see no physical signs of damage. and the system still performs as well as it ever has. -- chris .

From : beryl

no the defination of a fence in your world can be what the property owner calls it. a flat out lie. in my world a fence is a fence no matter its height. in your world the government determines its height or its not allowed to be a fence. you have yet to address the issue... why is a 5 fence allowed but a 7 fence is not what is a fence what is constructed of next question why is a fence agreed upon by the property owners on each side of said fence not agreed upon by the government the answers should be based upon logic and reason not because the government said so. last i checked that sort of logic works on 5 year olds but not so much on adult citizens of a free country. well the answer is that it is law and enforcable. if the fence looks like shit at 5 what then what i keep seeing is that your examples are predicated on a devaluation based on something other than the height of the fence. further the devaluation is based on something that isnt even next to the other guys property. lets say the entire neighborhood agreed that 7 fences were ok. what then what right would the borough have to step in a permit is required for a fence from the building inspector. if it was taller than what is permitted yes. you clearly are not getting this. there is no reason to regulate or enforce property codes in most instances. in pa fences are property code not building code. furthermore regulating such things as fence height unless the height is truly out of reason is an invasion of individual property rights. again i can show you documentation proving this. if it was lettered and used for commerical puposes it is not allowed to parked overnight in a residential zoned district. why not what threat to the public welfare is a parked truck dont recite laws... give reason and fact. that is too bad. yup. hate the house and the location. currently looking for a bigger house in a better location or land with same qualities. that is why im pretty much out of there. emininant domain is one of the lessor problems. hell one of the larger problems left and is running for president. so the very reasons i say are bullshit are why you left yet youll stand by the laws as reasonable and enforceable. ok..... yes they are enforcable. do i think they are reasonable no in most cases yes in a few. -- max join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author 1 how lets say the 2 neighbors decided to put in a row of dumpsters and call it a fence.. but thats not a fence. so your example is moot. no the defination of a fence in your world can be what the property owner calls it. he should see an optomotrist for his eye problems. the fence has no effect on his property. if it looks like shit it certainly could. if the fence looks like shit at 5 what then what i keep seeing is that your examples are predicated on a devaluation based on something other than the height of the fence. further the devaluation is based on something that isnt even next to the other guys property. lets say the entire neighborhood agreed that 7 fences were ok. what then what right would the borough have to step in a permit is required for a fence from the building inspector. if it was taller than what is permitted yes. if it degrades his property value he sure does. no he does not. ill be glad to send you the document to which i refer. wrong. the tractortrailer is used for commercial use thus should be parked in a area zoned for residential use. huh i think i just said that. furthermore as i addressed with tbone its the operation of said truck not the presence of it that might be offensive. thus it should be enforced on a complaint about operation rather than a presence. that would be a crimes code violation not a property code violation. if it was lettered and used for commerical puposes it is not allowed to parked overnight in a residential zoned district. if he and i agree that a 7 fence should go on our mutually owned property line then there should be no isssue with anyone else. wrong. what a person does to his property in a residential area can easily impact a neighbor. not in this case. you bought your house with the understanding that it was residentially zoned no commerical industrial use just residential. sadly no. that is too bad. the next door neighbor sells his house and the guy who buys it decides to put 100 pigs under your bedroom window. that has a impact on your quality of life and the value of your property but his neighbor on the other side agreed to it. they didnt ask you. your okay with that again that is a residential vs. business use. thats not where i have an issue. further pigs would fall under the public health and s

From : miles

maybe maybe not. when i bought my house i looked for a neighborhood whose cc&rs prohibited such actions. the developers worked with the city to write the cc&rs to create the market for the neighborhood they wanted. people buying into that area bought the product they wanted. for them a clean nice looking neighborhood without big rigs broken down cars all over the front yard or other eye sores is why they bought there in the first place. the restrictions were part of the product being bought. thats a slightly different situation. its one thing to create rules and regs for a section of housing then advertise those regs as part of the deal. it is entirely another to enact codes that are restrictions of freedom that is already enjoyed by citizens and property owners. -- max join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author max dodge wrote thus if my neighbor parks his kenworth in his driveway overnight it should be legal for him to do so. maybe maybe not. when i bought my house i looked for a neighborhood whose cc&rs prohibited such actions. the developers worked with the city to write the cc&rs to create the market for the neighborhood they wanted. people buying into that area bought the product they wanted. for them a clean nice looking neighborhood without big rigs broken down cars all over the front yard or other eye sores is why they bought there in the first place. the restrictions were part of the product being bought. .

From : denny

no the defination of a fence in your world can be what the property owner calls it. a flat out lie. in my world a fence is a fence no matter its height. in your world the government determines its height or its not allowed to be a fence. you have yet to address the issue... why is a 5 fence allowed but a 7 fence is not next question why is a fence agreed upon by the property owners on each side of said fence not agreed upon by the government the answers should be based upon logic and reason not because the government said so. last i checked that sort of logic works on 5 year olds but not so much on adult citizens of a free country. if the fence looks like shit at 5 what then what i keep seeing is that your examples are predicated on a devaluation based on something other than the height of the fence. further the devaluation is based on something that isnt even next to the other guys property. lets say the entire neighborhood agreed that 7 fences were ok. what then what right would the borough have to step in a permit is required for a fence from the building inspector. if it was taller than what is permitted yes. you clearly are not getting this. there is no reason to regulate or enforce property codes in most instances. in pa fences are property code not building code. furthermore regulating such things as fence height unless the height is truly out of reason is an invasion of individual property rights. again i can show you documentation proving this. if it was lettered and used for commerical puposes it is not allowed to parked overnight in a residential zoned district. why not what threat to the public welfare is a parked truck dont recite laws... give reason and fact. that is too bad. yup. hate the house and the location. currently looking for a bigger house in a better location or land with same qualities. that is why im pretty much out of there. emininant domain is one of the lessor problems. hell one of the larger problems left and is running for president. so the very reasons i say are bullshit are why you left yet youll stand by the laws as reasonable and enforceable. ok..... -- max join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author 1 how lets say the 2 neighbors decided to put in a row of dumpsters and call it a fence.. but thats not a fence. so your example is moot. no the defination of a fence in your world can be what the property owner calls it. he should see an optomotrist for his eye problems. the fence has no effect on his property. if it looks like shit it certainly could. if the fence looks like shit at 5 what then what i keep seeing is that your examples are predicated on a devaluation based on something other than the height of the fence. further the devaluation is based on something that isnt even next to the other guys property. lets say the entire neighborhood agreed that 7 fences were ok. what then what right would the borough have to step in a permit is required for a fence from the building inspector. if it was taller than what is permitted yes. if it degrades his property value he sure does. no he does not. ill be glad to send you the document to which i refer. wrong. the tractortrailer is used for commercial use thus should be parked in a area zoned for residential use. huh i think i just said that. furthermore as i addressed with tbone its the operation of said truck not the presence of it that might be offensive. thus it should be enforced on a complaint about operation rather than a presence. that would be a crimes code violation not a property code violation. if it was lettered and used for commerical puposes it is not allowed to parked overnight in a residential zoned district. if he and i agree that a 7 fence should go on our mutually owned property line then there should be no isssue with anyone else. wrong. what a person does to his property in a residential area can easily impact a neighbor. not in this case. you bought your house with the understanding that it was residentially zoned no commerical industrial use just residential. sadly no. that is too bad. the next door neighbor sells his house and the guy who buys it decides to put 100 pigs under your bedroom window. that has a impact on your quality of life and the value of your property but his neighbor on the other side agreed to it. they didnt ask you. your okay with that again that is a residential vs. business use. thats not where i have an issue. further pigs would fall under the public health and safety definitions. the pigs would fall under farm use as well. what i am talking about is the zoning for land in ma. i think that you will find that although it is established by the u.s.

From : snoman

on mon 2 jul 2007 102502 -0400 bill bargerw@bellsouth.net wrote trailer brakes maybe i bought it pretty basic no pwr windows or locks no tilt steering or cruise control. got the quad cab and 4x4 instead. theres a blueish-gray wire tied up and laying next to the battery for *some* future use i suppose. anyone know what this is for gj i just had the dealership put one of their factory receiver hitches on with 4 and 6 prong connections. so no it must be something else. im thinking it has something to do with one of the features of the power package security cruise pwr windows and locks that funky green rearview bright-light blocker thing etc. that i dont have installed. anything that the factory includes would not be running directly off the battery except starter. they all go through the power distribution system. gj .

From : Annonymous

on jul 2 735 am roy r...@fhome.net wrote read more - hide quoted text - - show quoted text -- hide quoted text - - show quoted text - roy it appears that you have a new friend/stalker. damn larry snip some of the bs will ya! g regards my new best friend ya wanna bet sombody just reinvented himself i dont have much time to play you want him if not maybe theguy hes always looking for some entertainment. .

From : beryl

robert francis wrote actually the ballast should be centred over the rear axle not behind it. whys that placed behind the rear axle itll leverage a bit of weight off the front axle and add more than its own weight to the rear axle. because that leverage also acts as a lever to pull the rear end around the front of the vehicle in a turn and taking weight off of the front tires does not always help the situation especially when attempting to turn in slippery conditions. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : snoman

on mon 02 jul 2007 132014 -0500 balsofsteele@gmail.com balsofsteele@gmail.com wrote if youre down with this socialist bullshit roll your ass to china and leave us the fuck out of it. fucking hold my hand the world is too big and mean yankee. i smell tuna... nope thats just roy the pussy! well balls im not too sure that cc&rs constitute socialism or communism. you may need to go find some other rocks to turn over to unearth some commies. roy wrote if for the zoning district the two properties are located the max hieght is 5 feet for a fence. one could appeal and get a permit for a 6 foot. i some areas like those that are strictly residential a 7 foot is not permitted. i areas zoned commericial or industrial they are. why why is a 7 foot fence not ok if the properties it seperates have two agreeable owners what possible reason could the govenrment have to regulate something that is inherently the property owners right to decide just for this exercise. a 7 foot fence could degrade adjancent property value. their two properties is ok who is the government to step in and make a case out of it if one of the owners is in violation of the zoning laws the govt. is the enforcment party. why why is a 7 foot fence not ok if the properties it seperates have two agreeable owners what possible reason could the govenrment have to regulate something that is inherently the property owners right to decide what about the owner across the street that has to look at it. he bought his property pursuant to the zoning in place.5 foot max. you cant put a auto repair operation in a area zoned for single family homes. a multi family house or apartment building cant be built in a area zoned for industrial use. btw dont confuse property codes with building codes. im not. you are see above. i disagree. property utilization and what is placed on the propertry is under a zoning code. construction of the buildings in a given zoning district are governed by building codes. i dont have a problem with zoned use or building codes. i have a problem with government thta thinks it knows better than the owner of the property when it comes to use and modification that is not a public hazard. yup and to keep fly by night contractors from building pos structures and screwing those who buy them. in ma all contractors have to be licensed. you cant get up some morning and say im a builder and stick a sign on your truck. which is a good thing. however property codes do nothing but regulate things that are none of the governmentes business and 50% of the time the codes are ignored by the government.... such as one local code that stipulates all driveways must be paved. again if the code has nothing to do with the public saftey then it shouldnt be enforced but should be used as a guidleline in civil action between neighbors. i disagree again. if you look at a zoning district and decide to build in a area that is for single family residence with lots of 1 acre minimum that prevents your next door neighbor from starting a heavy trucking company on his property. dont you think that your properties value would drop if that happened a well thought out land use plan requires zoning laws to protect the individual homeowner and the large corporation. your idea imo would result in expensive avoidable litigation. the one with the most money would win. with zoning the situation for civil action does not arise as everybody knows the deal before they purchase the property. -- max join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author if it is a violation of a zoning law or restriction then the use that is in violation should be pursued by the zoning authority. in ma it is the city govt. and exactly why would say... a 6 fence be violation of a zoning code where a 511 fence is not if two adjacent neighbors feel that a 7 fence between if for the zoning district the two properties are located the max hieght is 5 feet for a fence. one could appeal and get a permit for a 6 foot. i some areas like those that are strictly residential a 7 foot is not permitted. i areas zoned commericial or industrial they are. their two properties is ok who is the government to step in and make a case out of it if one of the owners is in violation of the zoning laws the govt. is the enforcment party. again zoning should be a means for two individuals to find an equitable solution not a means for government to step in and persecute the individual. in ma zoning defines what can be built in certain areas size density and use of the building.. you cant put a auto repair operation in a area zoned for single family homes. a multi family house or apartment building cant be built in a area zoned for industrial use

From : roy

that the borough cannot pass a law against him doing so unless the kenworth poses a violation of one of the above. in this case that would be a matter of how its operated not just its existance. however the l= aw in many cases is enforced on the basis of the trucks existance not how its operated. that is where the problem comes in. but the truck is operated as a commericial business. is commericial busin= ess permitted in a residential area if a neighbor complained about its operation fine. but if the neighbor complains about its existance such as the camper in the op thats wher= e i call it bullshit. it all depends on how you look at it. if the trailer is almost as big as the house and takes up most of the front yard then it becomes an eye s= ore to the whole neighborhood and that is covered by your public comfort. define eyesore. herein lies the problem. further as you said it depends on how you look at it. in the case of property code the public comfort must be that not just one individual. my contention is that the ops neighbor should have used a civil action not public code if the ops camper was that offensive to her. i can see why with your junk car in your driveway. problem is as was determined by the courts five times it wasnt junk. and what exactly does this have to do with what i was talking about!!! the person said that he gets his kicks out of smogging pretty girls driving expensive cars that happen to be lined up with exhaust pipe. this has damn little to do with your story above and even with your story how exact= ly does two wrongs make a right how does complaining about one of those wrongs make it acceptable to whine about something so trivial that is simply your interpretation of what you read. incorrect it is the interpretation of the local government commission = on the case law which they have read and understood as put forth by the courts of pennsylvania. if youd like to read it i can send you the pd= f=2e wrong. if the buyer sees the camper sitting in the driveway next door and determins this to be an undesirable situation without even getting to know the owner then it directly effects the property value. as you said the buyer determines the value of the property not the camper in the driveway. the camper isnt buying the property the buyer is. how do you know that will be the case. what if the camper is a disast= er how exactly would you write a law taking this into account you seem = to forget that in a community or neighborhood you are not the only one there and what you do with your property effects others. if the camper is a disaster then the guidelines of being a hazard to t= he publics safety the public peace the public comfort or the public convenience are used. lol and thats the key issue how exactly do you prove that it can = be vermon free and still look like shit and still degrade the property va= lue of the homes around it. looking like shit would lead to structural questions and thus is covered by the building code. i knew that there was a reason for the way that you were reacting. is this car drivable or is it really just a junk pile sitting on your property. driveable. is it in plain sight or hidden in a garage or at least under a car cover. one is in plain sight one under a car cover. while you may only have one car what if your neighbor had 10 of them = and all of them complete junk. the local code stipulates that if the vehicle is disabled disassembled= or otherwise physically unusable then it is junk. what if you were trying to sell your house and couldnt get any serious offers because nobody wants to live next to t= he white trash that must own the house junk yard next to you i think that your opinion would change then. not at all. private property is private property. id put up a fence and go from there. i guess that the law makers in pa or at least in your town are a bunch= of backwoods idiots. had you lived where i did in nj that vehicle would have been long gone. one backwoods idiot and no the vehicle wouldnt be long gone. enforcin= g a law based on a requirement that is not written into the law is unconstitutional. if they do so again yeah my cars are right where t= hey belong in my driveway i will take legal action to cap their idiocy. it was that way in nj as well but was not enforced unless someone complained or there were more than one vehicle and they were in plain sight. if = the vehicle was a pro-stock or a race car you could get around that but t= he vehicle had to be stored properly ie out of sight. in all of the actions taken against me there was no complaint. i specifically asked the borough to produce if even with the name blacked out a document proving a complaint had been filed. they admitted that ther was no complaint. i specifically asked them if they felt the vehi

From : robert francis

if youre down with this socialist bullshit roll your ass to china and leave us the fuck out of it. fucking hold my hand the world is too big and mean yankee. i smell tuna... nope thats just roy the pussy! roy wrote if for the zoning district the two properties are located the max hieght is 5 feet for a fence. one could appeal and get a permit for a 6 foot. i some areas like those that are strictly residential a 7 foot is not permitted. i areas zoned commericial or industrial they are. why why is a 7 foot fence not ok if the properties it seperates have two agreeable owners what possible reason could the govenrment have to regulate something that is inherently the property owners right to decide just for this exercise. a 7 foot fence could degrade adjancent property value. their two properties is ok who is the government to step in and make a case out of it if one of the owners is in violation of the zoning laws the govt. is the enforcment party. why why is a 7 foot fence not ok if the properties it seperates have two agreeable owners what possible reason could the govenrment have to regulate something that is inherently the property owners right to decide what about the owner across the street that has to look at it. he bought his property pursuant to the zoning in place.5 foot max. you cant put a auto repair operation in a area zoned for single family homes. a multi family house or apartment building cant be built in a area zoned for industrial use. btw dont confuse property codes with building codes. im not. you are see above. i disagree. property utilization and what is placed on the propertry is under a zoning code. construction of the buildings in a given zoning district are governed by building codes. i dont have a problem with zoned use or building codes. i have a problem with government thta thinks it knows better than the owner of the property when it comes to use and modification that is not a public hazard. yup and to keep fly by night contractors from building pos structures and screwing those who buy them. in ma all contractors have to be licensed. you cant get up some morning and say im a builder and stick a sign on your truck. which is a good thing. however property codes do nothing but regulate things that are none of the governmentes business and 50% of the time the codes are ignored by the government.... such as one local code that stipulates all driveways must be paved. again if the code has nothing to do with the public saftey then it shouldnt be enforced but should be used as a guidleline in civil action between neighbors. i disagree again. if you look at a zoning district and decide to build in a area that is for single family residence with lots of 1 acre minimum that prevents your next door neighbor from starting a heavy trucking company on his property. dont you think that your properties value would drop if that happened a well thought out land use plan requires zoning laws to protect the individual homeowner and the large corporation. your idea imo would result in expensive avoidable litigation. the one with the most money would win. with zoning the situation for civil action does not arise as everybody knows the deal before they purchase the property. -- max join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author if it is a violation of a zoning law or restriction then the use that is in violation should be pursued by the zoning authority. in ma it is the city govt. and exactly why would say... a 6 fence be violation of a zoning code where a 511 fence is not if two adjacent neighbors feel that a 7 fence between if for the zoning district the two properties are located the max hieght is 5 feet for a fence. one could appeal and get a permit for a 6 foot. i some areas like those that are strictly residential a 7 foot is not permitted. i areas zoned commericial or industrial they are. their two properties is ok who is the government to step in and make a case out of it if one of the owners is in violation of the zoning laws the govt. is the enforcment party. again zoning should be a means for two individuals to find an equitable solution not a means for government to step in and persecute the individual. in ma zoning defines what can be built in certain areas size density and use of the building.. you cant put a auto repair operation in a area zoned for single family homes. a multi family house or apartment building cant be built in a area zoned for industrial use. btw dont confuse property codes with building codes. im not. while i find some of the building codes a bit stifling they are generally written with the cause of public safety and welfare in mind. yup and to keep fly by night contractors

From : roy

robert francis wrote actually the ballast should be centred over the rear axle not behind it. whys that placed behind the rear axle itll leverage a bit of weight off the front axle and add more than its own weight to the rear axle. because that leverage also acts as a lever to pull the rear end around the front of the vehicle in a turn and taking weight off of the front tires does not always help the situation especially when attempting to turn in slippery conditions. yup. the only time you want weight behind the rear end is for compensatory weight like when you have a plow up front. .

From : snoman

exactly tbone. bob robert francis wrote actually the ballast should be centred over the rear axle not behind it. whys that placed behind the rear axle itll leverage a bit of weight off the front axle and add more than its own weight to the rear axle. because that leverage also acts as a lever to pull the rear end around the front of the vehicle in a turn and taking weight off of the front tires does not always help the situation especially when attempting to turn in slippery conditions. -- if at first you dont succeed youre not cut out for skydiving .

From : snoman

chris snoman and bob many thanks for your replies. the information you have imparted is very helpful and i think i have now made up my mind and will go with the 2 wd. regards anker. .

From : mr spock

chris thompson wrote you know im glad to hear that someone up north has been choosing 2wd over 4wd because they felt they didnt need 4wd. ive always been of the opinion that if its too slick for a properly set up 2wd then its too slick for 4wd. at some point stopping is going to be a factor. id much rather drive a 4wd on snow packed roads. i agree that 4wd does not help stopping. but it does improve handling. most vehicles ive seen slid off the road were not trying to stop. chains on all 4 wheels ballast in the rear limited slip differential etc. will allow a 2wd to perform fairly well on snow but 4wd will do even better. .

From : rob

enforced on the basis of the trucks existance not how its operated. that is where the problem comes in. if a neighbor complained about its operation fine. but if the neighbor complains about its existance such as the camper in the op thats where i call it bullshit. it all depends on how you look at it. if the trailer is almost as big as the house and takes up most of the front yard then it becomes an eye sore to the whole neighborhood and that is covered by your public comfort. define eyesore. herein lies the problem. further as you said it depends on how you look at it. in the case of property code the public comfort must be that not just one individual. my contention is that the ops neighbor should have used a civil action not public code if the ops camper was that offensive to her. i can see why with your junk car in your driveway. problem is as was determined by the courts five times it wasnt junk. and what exactly does this have to do with what i was talking about!!! the person said that he gets his kicks out of smogging pretty girls driving expensive cars that happen to be lined up with exhaust pipe. this has damn little to do with your story above and even with your story how exactly does two wrongs make a right how does complaining about one of those wrongs make it acceptable to whine about something so trivial that is simply your interpretation of what you read. incorrect it is the interpretation of the local government commission on the case law which they have read and understood as put forth by the courts of pennsylvania. if youd like to read it i can send you the pdf. wrong. if the buyer sees the camper sitting in the driveway next door and determins this to be an undesirable situation without even getting to know the owner then it directly effects the property value. as you said the buyer determines the value of the property not the camper in the driveway. the camper isnt buying the property the buyer is. how do you know that will be the case. what if the camper is a disaster how exactly would you write a law taking this into account you seem to forget that in a community or neighborhood you are not the only one there and what you do with your property effects others. if the camper is a disaster then the guidelines of being a hazard to the publics safety the public peace the public comfort or the public convenience are used. lol and thats the key issue how exactly do you prove that it can be vermon free and still look like shit and still degrade the property value of the homes around it. looking like shit would lead to structural questions and thus is covered by the building code. i knew that there was a reason for the way that you were reacting. is this car drivable or is it really just a junk pile sitting on your property. driveable. is it in plain sight or hidden in a garage or at least under a car cover. one is in plain sight one under a car cover. while you may only have one car what if your neighbor had 10 of them and all of them complete junk. the local code stipulates that if the vehicle is disabled disassembled or otherwise physically unusable then it is junk. what if you were trying to sell your house and couldnt get any serious offers because nobody wants to live next to the white trash that must own the house junk yard next to you i think that your opinion would change then. not at all. private property is private property. id put up a fence and go from there. i guess that the law makers in pa or at least in your town are a bunch of backwoods idiots. had you lived where i did in nj that vehicle would have been long gone. one backwoods idiot and no the vehicle wouldnt be long gone. enforcing a law based on a requirement that is not written into the law is unconstitutional. if they do so again yeah my cars are right where they belong in my driveway i will take legal action to cap their idiocy. it was that way in nj as well but was not enforced unless someone complained or there were more than one vehicle and they were in plain sight. if the vehicle was a pro-stock or a race car you could get around that but the vehicle had to be stored properly ie out of sight. in all of the actions taken against me there was no complaint. i specifically asked the borough to produce if even with the name blacked out a document proving a complaint had been filed. they admitted that ther was no complaint. i specifically asked them if they felt the vehicles were in such a state that they fit the definitions provided for by the rest of the code. they admitted that my vehicles did not fit that definition. in an ironic twist my vehicles would be out of sight except i am not allowed to put up a fence. it was suggested by the borough attorney that i do so. i asked him if he was willing to change the fence code to allow me to do that. no. so bob are you sugg

From : tbone

suddenly without warning chris thompson exclaimed 7/2/2007 213 am craig c. thought everyone should know chris thompson wrote man they just dont build them like they used to do they i mean shoot only 7 years out of this one case the power supply for my amd 1100 went south need i say it buy a mac ... you wont have these problems. - craig c. mac!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! pppppppppppppppffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffffttttttttttttttttttttttt im sticking with kde besides i have a new powersupply and purdy case = ill give you props on unix though... p my case is purdy too! http//www.jodi.ws/blog/2005/06/i-feel-like-i-have-brand-new-computer.html jmc .

From : miles

why do you smell bs because property codes should inherently be a method for two individuals to settle a disagreement. codes should not be a way for government to restrict the use of private property. however as you mention codes are used to restrict silly things like boats motorhomes fence height etc. and how exactly are they going to work if there is no method to enforce anything i can see where property codes might be beneficial if the public welfare is at risk. i agree but you have a very narrow definition of public welfare. in fact pa law says exactly that. i have a pdf of the pa general assembly local government commission nuisance law framework if youd like to take a look. it basically states that the legislature cannot make something a nuisance just because they do not like it. it has to interfere with the public right and what exactly is the public right i would say that a group makes it public over individual. interference with a public right is unreasonable when the conduct involves a significant interference with the publics safety the public peace the public comfort or the public convenience... and once again fuzzy as ever not you - the law. also the law differentiates between a condition that is an infringement on the public right and one that infringes on an individuals right. this documant does not address infringement on an individuals right. i suspect that when private infringement is the case it becomes a matter of civil law rather than property code. thus my claim of bullshit. in the case here an individual was offended by a trailer which presented no other hazard than one of convenience lost. rather than pursue private action she invoked public code. that in and of itself is bullshit. next the public code forbids something that does not constitute a public hazard. yet it is illegal. thats bullshit. it all depends on how you look at it. if the trailer is almost as big as the house and takes up most of the front yard then it becomes an eye sore to the whole neighborhood and that is covered by your public comfort. thus i smell bullshit. i can see why with your junk car in your driveway. please explain how one has anything to do with the other. as for the asshole with the 10000 watt subwoofers i can see to a point making that assholes drive as uncomfortable as he is making others with noise pollution but smoging someone out for no other reason but jealousy is just being an ignorant asshole and as they say what comes around goes around. the point was not one of who was more deserving but one of why complain about one offensive act when both actions are offensive. iow each individual is as likely to commit an act that is found offensive yet the reply only addressed one act. how exactly is driving a convertable an offensive act i watched a bmw driver play games at an intersection aggressively showing that she would make a left turn in front of me but failing to do so because she was waiting for cross traffic. after three demonstrations which put her well into the intersection while she waited for one more car i made the right and she then followed. at such time as i stopped to back into my driveway to the left of the roadway she then attempted to drive into the right side of my truck. this after i had stopped all traffic made clear my intent to make a left turn further made clear by blocking the entire road for all of 5 seconds. she apparently had too much money and not enough time. it was fairly ironic that she wouldnt make a left turn into traffic waiting several minutes for sporadic traffic but would in turn come close to ramming my truck because i cost her 5 seconds. imo she deserves the smoke. and what exactly does this have to do with what i was talking about!!! the person said that he gets his kicks out of smogging pretty girls driving expensive cars that happen to be lined up with exhaust pipe. this has damn little to do with your story above and even with your story how exactly does two wrongs make a right whats the matter max some of these code pissing you off while i agree with the feeling some of these codes are unfortunately necessary in many communities. wrong. in fact as my document demonstrates they are unconstitutional at least in this state. that is simply your interpretation of what you read. not everyone gives a damn about the rights of others as seen in this very thread and because of this some rules need to be placed to retain the rights of the majority to maintain their property values. property value is determined by the buyer not the camper sitting in the driveway nextdoor. civil law covers the possible infringement of private rights. wrong. if the buyer sees the camper sitting in the driveway next door and determins this to be an undesirable situation without even getting to know the owner then it directl

From : chris thompson

just for this exercise. a 7 foot fence could degrade adjancent property value. 1 how 2 if both owners agree to it how is there any negative issue with the fence height what about the owner across the street that has to look at it. he bought his property pursuant to the zoning in place.5 foot max. he should see an optomotrist for his eye problems. the fence has no effect on his property. he has no right to dictate what happens on property he does not own unless it threatens his safety. i disagree again. if you look at a zoning district and decide to build in a area that is for single family residence with lots of 1 acre minimum that prevents your next door neighbor from starting a heavy trucking company on his property. dont you think that your properties value would drop if that happened a well thought out land use plan requires zoning laws to protect the individual homeowner and the large corporation. you say you understand but you dont. zoning for uses such as manufacturing business or residential is not the issue here. the issue is property codes pertaining to private use on private property within the definition of residential use. if my neighbor chooses to park his tractor trailer on his property when he arrives home he should do so with no complaint from anyone. if he and i agree that a 7 fence should go on our mutually owned property line then there should be no isssue with anyone else. your idea imo would result in expensive avoidable litigation. the one with the most money would win. with zoning the situation for civil action does not arise as everybody knows the deal before they purchase the property. you clearly do not understand my idea which is the basic tenent of property rights as established by the u.s. constitution and case law. you keep referring to zoning of land usage residential vs. business where i am referring to private homeowners and their use of their private land within the definition of residential use. if you would like i can send you the document to which i referred previously. as to the expensive litigation the boroughs improper prosecution against me cost them roughly $2000 each incident and they lost all five. my defense cost me almost nothing. iow thje public lost $10000 over a code that should never have been in place according to the state recommendations and case law supporting those recommendations. -- max join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author .

From : bob

actually the ballast should be centred over the rear axle not behind it. get a set four of dedicated good winter tires and you should be fine. ive driven in canadian winters for almost 30 years and only recently bought a 4x4. never felt i needed it. the only reason i got the 4wd was because i couldnt find a 2 wheeler with a manual trans. bob on sun 01 jul 2007 182149 gmt anker@hotmail.com wrote i would be grateful for anyones advice / experience regarding the handling of the dodge ram in slippery road conditions. is the 2 wheel drive model very difficult to handle in snow without snow chains i dont go off-road but should i opt for the 4 wheel drive model p/us by nature are heavy in front and light in rear and can be dicey or testy on slick roads in 2wd. diesel trucks are the worst about this because of heavy engine up front. it is quite possible to do quite well with a 2wd p/u with a little preperation and thought. one is to loose any big wide tires in snow because they make matters worse and consider running a nice set is real snow tires on the rear. next you want to add a bit of ballast behind rear wells in bed between 300 and 500 lbs or about 120 to 220 kg as this will help a lot. actually a 2wd truck can be a pretty good tank in snow with right tires and weight combo. case in point i have been plowing snow for many years and own a few plow trucks and i very rarely ever use 4x4 when transporting from job to job and i get around just fine and that is wiht about 800 lbs of plow hardware hanging on front too what is my trick ballast and good grippy 10 ply truck type bias ply snow tires. granted i run a lot more than 500lbs most of the time at least 1000 lbs and some times as much as 3000lbs and more when loaded with salt when i am carrying a good load 1500 lbs and more i can even plow light to moderate snow in 2wd without any problems. the problem with depending on 4x4 drive all the time is that you have basically no abilty to steer out of a skid in 4x4 because all tires have to more or less turn same speed and their paths in a skid are different and since they cannot free wheel the break traction on a slick surface. the only good 4x4 system that is safer and predictable for this is a fulltime system that has a differentail between front and rear axle but no major brand us truck come with this today. they have in past and i still have one that i have owned for 22 years and it was/is nice on slick roads granted you can drive a 4x4 and get by with 4x4 and no ballast with caution but you will pay a mpg penalty because dodges made for last five years or so have no abilty to disconnect front axle from wheels all models and they are constantly dragging the ring and pinion and driveshaft even in 2wd and this adds up to a fuel loss of 1 to 2 mpg over all worse when it is cold and lube is thicker gm and ford do not spin front drive shaft or ring and pinion in 2wd mode for what it is worth. given fuel prices in uk i would tend to suggest making do with a 2wd unit. ----------------- thesnoman.com .

From : robert francis

if for the zoning district the two properties are located the max hieght is 5 feet for a fence. one could appeal and get a permit for a 6 foot. i some areas like those that are strictly residential a 7 foot is not permitted. i areas zoned commericial or industrial they are. why why is a 7 foot fence not ok if the properties it seperates have two agreeable owners what possible reason could the govenrment have to regulate something that is inherently the property owners right to decide just for this exercise. a 7 foot fence could degrade adjancent property value. their two properties is ok who is the government to step in and make a case out of it if one of the owners is in violation of the zoning laws the govt. is the enforcment party. why why is a 7 foot fence not ok if the properties it seperates have two agreeable owners what possible reason could the govenrment have to regulate something that is inherently the property owners right to decide what about the owner across the street that has to look at it. he bought his property pursuant to the zoning in place.5 foot max. you cant put a auto repair operation in a area zoned for single family homes. a multi family house or apartment building cant be built in a area zoned for industrial use. btw dont confuse property codes with building codes. im not. you are see above. i disagree. property utilization and what is placed on the propertry is under a zoning code. construction of the buildings in a given zoning district are governed by building codes. i dont have a problem with zoned use or building codes. i have a problem with government thta thinks it knows better than the owner of the property when it comes to use and modification that is not a public hazard. yup and to keep fly by night contractors from building pos structures and screwing those who buy them. in ma all contractors have to be licensed. you cant get up some morning and say im a builder and stick a sign on your truck. which is a good thing. however property codes do nothing but regulate things that are none of the governmentes business and 50% of the time the codes are ignored by the government.... such as one local code that stipulates all driveways must be paved. again if the code has nothing to do with the public saftey then it shouldnt be enforced but should be used as a guidleline in civil action between neighbors. i disagree again. if you look at a zoning district and decide to build in a area that is for single family residence with lots of 1 acre minimum that prevents your next door neighbor from starting a heavy trucking company on his property. dont you think that your properties value would drop if that happened a well thought out land use plan requires zoning laws to protect the individual homeowner and the large corporation. your idea imo would result in expensive avoidable litigation. the one with the most money would win. with zoning the situation for civil action does not arise as everybody knows the deal before they purchase the property. -- max join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author if it is a violation of a zoning law or restriction then the use that is in violation should be pursued by the zoning authority. in ma it is the city govt. and exactly why would say... a 6 fence be violation of a zoning code where a 511 fence is not if two adjacent neighbors feel that a 7 fence between if for the zoning district the two properties are located the max hieght is 5 feet for a fence. one could appeal and get a permit for a 6 foot. i some areas like those that are strictly residential a 7 foot is not permitted. i areas zoned commericial or industrial they are. their two properties is ok who is the government to step in and make a case out of it if one of the owners is in violation of the zoning laws the govt. is the enforcment party. again zoning should be a means for two individuals to find an equitable solution not a means for government to step in and persecute the individual. in ma zoning defines what can be built in certain areas size density and use of the building.. you cant put a auto repair operation in a area zoned for single family homes. a multi family house or apartment building cant be built in a area zoned for industrial use. btw dont confuse property codes with building codes. im not. while i find some of the building codes a bit stifling they are generally written with the cause of public safety and welfare in mind. yup and to keep fly by night contractors from building pos structures and screwing those who buy them. in ma all contractors have to be licensed. you cant get up some morning and say im a builder and stick a sign on your truck.

From : Annonymous

if for the zoning district the two properties are located the max hieght is 5 feet for a fence. one could appeal and get a permit for a 6 foot. i some areas like those that are strictly residential a 7 foot is not permitted. i areas zoned commericial or industrial they are. why why is a 7 foot fence not ok if the properties it seperates have two agreeable owners what possible reason could the govenrment have to regulate something that is inherently the property owners right to decide their two properties is ok who is the government to step in and make a case out of it if one of the owners is in violation of the zoning laws the govt. is the enforcment party. why why is a 7 foot fence not ok if the properties it seperates have two agreeable owners what possible reason could the govenrment have to regulate something that is inherently the property owners right to decide you cant put a auto repair operation in a area zoned for single family homes. a multi family house or apartment building cant be built in a area zoned for industrial use. btw dont confuse property codes with building codes. im not. you are see above. i dont have a problem with zoned use or building codes. i have a problem with government thta thinks it knows better than the owner of the property when it comes to use and modification that is not a public hazard. yup and to keep fly by night contractors from building pos structures and screwing those who buy them. in ma all contractors have to be licensed. you cant get up some morning and say im a builder and stick a sign on your truck. which is a good thing. however property codes do nothing but regulate things that are none of the governmentes business and 50% of the time the codes are ignored by the government.... such as one local code that stipulates all driveways must be paved. again if the code has nothing to do with the public saftey then it shouldnt be enforced but should be used as a guidleline in civil action between neighbors. -- max join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author if it is a violation of a zoning law or restriction then the use that is in violation should be pursued by the zoning authority. in ma it is the city govt. and exactly why would say... a 6 fence be violation of a zoning code where a 511 fence is not if two adjacent neighbors feel that a 7 fence between if for the zoning district the two properties are located the max hieght is 5 feet for a fence. one could appeal and get a permit for a 6 foot. i some areas like those that are strictly residential a 7 foot is not permitted. i areas zoned commericial or industrial they are. their two properties is ok who is the government to step in and make a case out of it if one of the owners is in violation of the zoning laws the govt. is the enforcment party. again zoning should be a means for two individuals to find an equitable solution not a means for government to step in and persecute the individual. in ma zoning defines what can be built in certain areas size density and use of the building.. you cant put a auto repair operation in a area zoned for single family homes. a multi family house or apartment building cant be built in a area zoned for industrial use. btw dont confuse property codes with building codes. im not. while i find some of the building codes a bit stifling they are generally written with the cause of public safety and welfare in mind. yup and to keep fly by night contractors from building pos structures and screwing those who buy them. in ma all contractors have to be licensed. you cant get up some morning and say im a builder and stick a sign on your truck. -- max join www.devilbrad.com and find out what free exchange of info is all about. there are four boxes to be used in defense of liberty soap ballot jury and ammo. please use in that order. -ed howdershelt author why do you smell bs because property codes should inherently be a method for two individuals to settle a disagreement. codes should not be a way for government to restrict the use of private property. if it is a violation of a zoning law or restriction then the use that is in violation should be pursued by the zoning authority. in ma it is the city govt. .

From : chris thompson

on sun 01 jul 2007 182149 gmt anker@hotmail.com wrote i would be grateful for anyones advice / experience regarding the handling of the dodge ram in slippery road conditions. is the 2 wheel drive model very difficult to handle in snow without snow chains i dont go off-road but should i opt for the 4 wheel drive model p/us by nature are heavy in front and light in rear and can be dicey or testy on slick roads in 2wd. diesel trucks are the worst about this because of heavy engine up front. it is quite possible to do quite well with a 2wd p/u with a little preperation and thought. one is to loose any big wide tires in snow because they make matters worse and consider running a nice set is real snow tires on the rear. next you want to add a bit of ballast behind rear wells in bed between 300 and 500 lbs or about 120 to 220 kg as this will help a lot. actually a 2wd truck can be a pretty good tank in snow with right tires and weight combo. case in point i have been plowing snow for many years and own a few plow trucks and i very rarely ever use 4x4 when transporting from job to job and i get around just fine and that is wiht about 800 lbs of plow hardware hanging on front too what is my trick ballast and good grippy 10 ply truck type bias ply snow tires. granted i run a lot more than 500lbs most of the time at least 1000 lbs and some times as much as 3000lbs and more when loaded with salt when i am carrying a good load 1500 lbs and more i can even plow light to moderate snow in 2wd without any problems. the problem with depending on 4x4 drive all the time is that you have basically no abilty to steer out of a skid in 4x4 because all tires have to more or less turn same speed and their paths in a skid are different and since they cannot free wheel the break traction on a slick surface. the only good 4x4 system that is safer and predictable for this is a fulltime system that has a differentail between front and rear axle but no major brand us truck come with this today. they have in past and i still have one that i have owned for 22 years and it was/is nice on slick roads granted you can drive a 4x4 and get by with 4x4 and no ballast with caution but you will pay a mpg penalty because dodges made for last five years or so have no abilty to disconnect front axle from wheels all models and they are constantly dragging the ring and pinion and driveshaft even in 2wd and this adds up to a fuel loss of 1 to 2 mpg over all worse when it is cold and lube is thicker gm and ford do not spin front drive shaft or ring and pinion in 2wd mode for what it is worth. given fuel prices in uk i would tend to suggest making do with a 2wd unit. ----------------- thesnoman.com .