michael johnson pe is full of crap

On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:56:52 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> wrote:

>Injectors don't go bad very often. When they are off the car they can
>be cleaned easily and then used as replacements when, and if, the ones
>on the car stop working. Most all times the reason the stock injectors
>are sold is because the owner did mods that require greater fuel
>delivery, not because they are clogged.
>
>IsellJeeps wrote:
>> buying used injectors is a little weiry..... I dont mind used parts but used
>> injectors could be clogged as well
>>
>>
>>

lmfao
some can be" cleaned'
ultrasonically but more often their toast

h
u
r
c
a
s
t

foad

wrote:
> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:56:52 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> > wrote:
>
>
>>Injectors don't go bad very often. When they are off the car they can
>>be cleaned easily and then used as replacements when, and if, the ones
>>on the car stop working. Most all times the reason the stock injectors
>>are sold is because the owner did mods that require greater fuel
>>delivery, not because they are clogged.
>>
>>IsellJeeps wrote:
>>
>>>buying used injectors is a little weiry..... I dont mind used parts but used
>>>injectors could be clogged as well
>>>
>>>
>>>
>
>
> lmfao
> some can be" cleaned'
> ultrasonically but more often their toast
>
> h
> u
> r
> c
> a
> s
> t
>

Michael Johnson, PE wrote:

> foad
>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:56:52 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>

Whose the top posting ****** now?

wrote:
> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>> foad
>>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:56:52 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>
> Whose the top posting ****** now?

Dude, I wasn't the one that slammed you for top posting. I do it myself
on occasion. You top posted about one of several remarks I made so top
posting wasn't the best choice in that situation, IMHO, of course. I
couldn't case less, even if you posted upside down and backwards.

On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 00:15:06 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> wrote:

wrote:
>> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>>
>>> foad
>>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:56:52 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
>>>> > wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>
>> Whose the top posting ****** now?
>
>Dude, I wasn't the one that slammed you for top posting. I do it myself
>on occasion. You top posted about one of several remarks I made so top
>posting wasn't the best choice in that situation, IMHO, of course. I
>couldn't case less, even if you posted upside down and backwards.

who gives a fock
h
u
r
c
a
s
t

wrote:
> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 00:15:06 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> > wrote:
>
>
wrote:
>>
>>>Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>foad
>>>>
wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:56:52 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Whose the top posting ****** now?
>>
>>Dude, I wasn't the one that slammed you for top posting. I do it myself
>>on occasion. You top posted about one of several remarks I made so top
>>posting wasn't the best choice in that situation, IMHO, of course. I
>>couldn't case less, even if you posted upside down and backwards.
>
>
> who gives a fock

foad

Look who the bottom posting ****** is now...


Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
> wrote:
>
>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 00:15:06 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
>> > wrote:
>>
>>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> foad
>>>>>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:56:52 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Whose the top posting ****** now?
>>>
>>>
>>> Dude, I wasn't the one that slammed you for top posting. I do it
>>> myself on occasion. You top posted about one of several remarks I
>>> made so top posting wasn't the best choice in that situation, IMHO,
>>> of course. I couldn't case less, even if you posted upside down and
>>> backwards.
>>
>>
>>
>> who gives a fock
>
>
> foad

wrote:
>
> Look who the bottom posting ****** is now...

foad, frog

> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sun, 11 Sep 2005 00:15:06 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
>>> > wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> Michael Johnson, PE wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> foad
>>>>>>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> On Sat, 10 Sep 2005 14:56:52 -0400, "Michael Johnson, PE"
>>>>>>> > wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Whose the top posting ****** now?
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Dude, I wasn't the one that slammed you for top posting. I do it
>>>> myself on occasion. You top posted about one of several remarks I
>>>> made so top posting wasn't the best choice in that situation, IMHO,
>>>> of course. I couldn't case less, even if you posted upside down and
>>>> backwards.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> who gives a fock
>>
>>
>>
>> foad