Grumpy AuContraire wrote:
>
>
> Nate Nagel wrote:
>> jim beam wrote:
>>
>
>
>
> snip
>
>
>>>
>>> what is smarter?
>>>
>>> 1. doing the same thing you did before, and expecting a different
>>> result [retesting]? or
>>>
>>> 2. fixing the freakin' car, /then/ retesting???
>>>
>>> denial will only get you so far dude. it certainly won't save you
>>> money or stop wasting electron on usenet!
>>>
>>
>> I think he has reasonable concerns that the test was not done
>> correctly and that there may not be a problem at all with the car.
>>
>> The *correct* answer, instead of shotgunning the car with parts when
>> it may or may not actually need them, is to take the car to a shop
>> with its own exhaust gas analyzer, NOT an emissions test station, and
>> find out if there is actually a problem.
>>
>> nate
>
>
> Pay no heed to beam as he resides in his "special" corner of the world
> having little to do with the rest of us free thinkers.

you're a "free thinker"??? on reflection, i suspect you probably are!


>
> I agree that the test may have been botched. Beam's assertion that the
> "machine" is infallible is, well, ah... fallible.
>
> BTW, how's JP doing these days?
>
> JT