ilogikal1

Mk2 MR2.

My turn now... That was actually my first thought as well but the vent is too outboard to be an F40. Which leaves me squarely without any other ideas.

Alright, show off

McLaren F1.

All evidence is fake anyway. Unless you agree with it.

That’s fake science that is!

I could compose a response that would address that “fine tuning” nonsense (for those capable, if the margins are so fine we simply wouldn’t exist to know it any other way; design or merely “coincidence” by necessity!?!). Instead I’ll just retort with; Fake facts. Fake physicists. Fake link. Fake. Fake. Fake.

Oh I dunno, the lighting’s pretty good and the sound production isn’t bad...

You’re just trolling now. You’ve got to be. Half evolved eyes and lungs, dogs giving birth to chickens... either you completely misunderstand the theory of evolution or you’re just trolling!

Good example of a rejected hypothesis. Now about this “fake science”? Well I tend to borrow books from the library rather than lend them, so... no. Apt that you would relate the Bible to Spiderman though. But expanding on Dan’s point, it’s okay to believe something that you know is false, despite being presented as an absolute truth, but not to accept that someone once presented as their understanding of a thing they found but that was actually later found to be something else and thus presented as such by the scientific community?

You certainly wouldn’t be able to apply that... let’s call it a “technique”, to a DA at all due to the pad moving around more than one axis. There would be no way to control it at all.

Disproven hypotheses are rejected by the scientific community. There is no such thing as “known fake” science, just disproven hypotheses previously accepted as the most reasonable explanation given the information at the time. All of that is also true of religion except for one rather major element - the disproven explanations are never rejected. Indeed the religious community goes to great extent to bury their heads in the sand when their explanations are disproven. You’re otherwise right though, Noah and his boat is no more made up than other things that are made up. But go on, let’s go down your route; who wrote the tale of Noah and where were you going with that? Just out of interest.

It’s completely irrelevant who made the story up, frankly.

Nobody will ever be able tell you that.

I see what his theory is, but all he’s doing is changing where the risk lies; Titling the pad means there’s more heat in that part of the pad, so more risk of burning through not less, except now you risk burning through over a larger area and further away from the edge. Not to mention the sheer amount of sling you will get everywhere by lifting a pad with compound on it! He must spend his entirely life washing off sling and buying more and more compound because he’s just firing everything he puts on pads around his workspace. His theory is flawed in that you shouldn’t ever have the pad overhanging an edge anyway, you use the leading edge of the pad to get right up to the edge of the panel, not the centre of the pad. Edges are always the risky area when machine polishing as the paint tends to be thinner there, but there’s never any reason to taken the pad that far over the edge of the panel, and with the appropriate taping up you’re eliminating the risk of burning through on the edges anyway. Contours are simply a case of controlling the pressure, not lifting the pad. That is exactly why you use different sized pads, his explanation of getting into the contour is actually a demonstration that he’s simply using too large a pad for the area he’s working on. I also just can’t trust a guy that will run a dry pad on the edge of a panel just to demonstrate a point he’s already explained in detail either *shudder*. Sorrybut I disagree, this isn’t really good advice at all I’m afraid.

Seven. Seven lottery winners walking up and onto the boat. And therein lies another issue with religion, it’s own interpretation is not even consistent with itself much less the evidence presented.

Provided it doesn't fall apart before completing a lap.

That’s a bit like saying I won’t find out what happens to Harry Potter by reading Star Wars though. The periodic table won’t offer much insight to a lot of things, just like the bible is unlikely to provide any real answers to anything substantial.

Well, flat earth...

^^^ That.

Good to know, cheers.

Out of interest, how easy was it to clean up where you've caught the paint (on that last picture)? Did it just wipe off easily enough? Regarding the Optima wipes, I have the same scepticism although I've not been able to find their website at all, let alone the MSDS again. In fact I've not even been able to find any pictures of the product except those on ECP. I'm always quite distrustful when there's any lack of information available about things, let alone a complete lack. Still, with summer coming up I spy the opportunity for a test....

I find it interesting that a person won’t accept science because it doesn’t explain absolutely everything (yet) but will accept flat earth that doesn’t explain anything.

It's potentially possible to restore them that easily; the oxidisation is just the top layer breaking down from UV damage, remove the top layer and hey presto "restored". That top layer is a coating, chemically bonded to the surface. Break the chemical bond and it should just wipe away. Think of it like nail polish remover. Now, whether it can protect again afterwards I couldn't say - again it's possible if the second wipe is essentially a simple coating delivery system - but suffice it to say that I'm incredibly sceptical of that. I would suspect that you'd find your headlights hazing over again very quickly due to there being no top coat left at all and the surface begins to breakdown instead - which will need sanding to fix. The fact that their website doesn't give any actual information about the product is highly suspicious too, frankly. Their website is bloody awful, full of pseudo-psychological sales techniques rather than useful information. I've also not been able to find any trace of an MSDS for this anywhere. So no, I'd say it's not legit personally.

Sorry to be pedantic (I'm not actually, but there you go). The definition of theory is; Ergo theory is based on fact and is different to an hypothesis, which is supposition. I appreciate that doesn't affect your point, Dan, but this confusion over the the term theory is just complicating things; the theory of evolution is not the equivalent of the hypothesis of intelligent design.