Toyota Nation Forum banner
261 - 271 of 271 Posts
G

·
Discussion Starter · #261 ·
Re: (was) Toyota, GM, and Ford differences

"SgtSilicon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> "idiot" is not an intelligent counterpoint.


That depends on the veracity of the statement. In this case, I think it was
more of an observation than a counterpoint.

The best argument anyone
> has made for bottom posting so far is that an assumption is made that
> the quoted material will need to be read each and every time, and that
> going below the new material to get to it is too confusing.


I don't remember anyone saying "each and every time", but I think most times
would be accurate.

>
> I and others have shown that those assumptions are not always true,
> and in fact OFTEN aren't.


The only thing that you have shown is that you are too lazy to trim and
quote properly.

Just because someone at Intel wrote a memo
> and it was posted on a university node as a guide, is not a reason to
> start bottom posting.


It has nothing to do with who "wrote a memo", though you seem to be hung up
on that point. Whazza matter, they forget to run it by you, first?

I'm someone who deals in the practicality of it
> and that to me, is that one often (even mostly) doesn't need to
> re-read quoted material, and that on those times it is needed, it is
> NOT too confusing to do so.


Yes, it's all about YOU, isn't it. Whatever is easiest for YOU. To hell with
everyone else. (especially since YOU didn't write the memo)

>
> So if it has come down to an argument of quantifying how often the
> quoted material needs to be read or to extent it is confusing to look
> below the new material to see it if it is needed, then we could argue
> all day. Since I usually have ALREADY read the posts in the thread
> that are being quoted,

them over and over again.
> Also, when I do need to, I don't find it confusing in the least to
> look below for it. I supposed people's mileage may vary depending on
> their memory sharpness and reading comprehension skills.
>


"Since I usually have ALREADY read"

"I RARELY need to read"

"when I do need to, I don't find it"

"I supposed"

See what I mean? It's all about YOU. No consideration for anyone else.
I participate in ten different NG's, and read several others. It's not
obvious who the new posts are replying to, let alone what the context of the
message is, especially in long threads like this one. It is almost always
helpful to have a bit of quoted text before the reply to refresh the memory.
Otherwise I have to scroll down to get the context and in your case, you
often don't trim the quoted material below which makes it even worse.


> Now tell us how smart you are again.


No point in restating the obvious to a deaf person.

Dave
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #262 ·
Re: (was) Toyota, GM, and Ford differences

[email protected] (SgtSilicon) wrote:
snip
>
>So if it has come down to an argument of quantifying how often the
>quoted material needs to be read or to extent it is confusing to look
>below the new material to see it if it is needed, then we could argue
>all day. Since I usually have ALREADY read the posts in the thread
>that are being quoted, I RARELY need to read them over and over again.
>Also, when I do need to, I don't find it confusing in the least to
>look below for it. I supposed people's mileage may vary depending on
>their memory sharpness and reading comprehension skills.
>
>Now tell us how smart you are again.
>
>On Wed, 18 Jan 2006 21:55:15 -0600, "Hairy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>

You 'might' have a point if everyone only addressed one subject
in each post but after a thread develops for awhile it tends to
wander and branch and with that going on and the posts not
necessarily in order one tends to need to skip over the quoted
matter a little to see what the subject is.

If everyone would quote just a bit to define what they're
commenting on, then bottom posting I think is best
--

-Gord.
(use gordon in email)
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #263 ·
Re: (was) Toyota, GM, and Ford differences

Hey dipshit, it's not all about me. I'm merely using my experiences
as an example of not just what I, but many others also share. It
would have been more proper to say "we" to include others who agree,
but I normally don't like to be in the habit of speaking for others.
And you damn sure don't get to speak for me.

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:43:44 -0600, "Hairy" <[email protected]> wrote:

>
>"SgtSilicon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> "idiot" is not an intelligent counterpoint.

>
>That depends on the veracity of the statement. In this case, I think it was
>more of an observation than a counterpoint.
>
> The best argument anyone
>> has made for bottom posting so far is that an assumption is made that
>> the quoted material will need to be read each and every time, and that
>> going below the new material to get to it is too confusing.

>
>I don't remember anyone saying "each and every time", but I think most times
>would be accurate.
>
>>
>> I and others have shown that those assumptions are not always true,
>> and in fact OFTEN aren't.

>
>The only thing that you have shown is that you are too lazy to trim and
>quote properly.
>
> Just because someone at Intel wrote a memo
>> and it was posted on a university node as a guide, is not a reason to
>> start bottom posting.

>
>It has nothing to do with who "wrote a memo", though you seem to be hung up
>on that point. Whazza matter, they forget to run it by you, first?
>
> I'm someone who deals in the practicality of it
>> and that to me, is that one often (even mostly) doesn't need to
>> re-read quoted material, and that on those times it is needed, it is
>> NOT too confusing to do so.

>
>Yes, it's all about YOU, isn't it. Whatever is easiest for YOU. To hell with
>everyone else. (especially since YOU didn't write the memo)
>
>>
>> So if it has come down to an argument of quantifying how often the
>> quoted material needs to be read or to extent it is confusing to look
>> below the new material to see it if it is needed, then we could argue
>> all day. Since I usually have ALREADY read the posts in the thread
>> that are being quoted,

>them over and over again.
>> Also, when I do need to, I don't find it confusing in the least to
>> look below for it. I supposed people's mileage may vary depending on
>> their memory sharpness and reading comprehension skills.
>>

>
> "Since I usually have ALREADY read"
>
> "I RARELY need to read"
>
> "when I do need to, I don't find it"
>
> "I supposed"
>
>See what I mean? It's all about YOU. No consideration for anyone else.
>I participate in ten different NG's, and read several others. It's not
>obvious who the new posts are replying to, let alone what the context of the
>message is, especially in long threads like this one. It is almost always
>helpful to have a bit of quoted text before the reply to refresh the memory.
>Otherwise I have to scroll down to get the context and in your case, you
>often don't trim the quoted material below which makes it even worse.
>
>
>> Now tell us how smart you are again.

>
>No point in restating the obvious to a deaf person.
>
>Dave
>
>
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #264 ·
Re: (was) Toyota, GM, and Ford differences

I think everybody should bottom post. ;)


mike hunt


"SgtSilicon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Hey dipshit, it's not all about me. I'm merely using my experiences
> as an example of not just what I, but many others also share. It
> would have been more proper to say "we" to include others who agree,
> but I normally don't like to be in the habit of speaking for others.
> And you damn sure don't get to speak for me.
>
> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:43:44 -0600, "Hairy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>
>>"SgtSilicon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>news:[email protected]
>>> "idiot" is not an intelligent counterpoint.

>>
>>That depends on the veracity of the statement. In this case, I think it
>>was
>>more of an observation than a counterpoint.
>>
>> The best argument anyone
>>> has made for bottom posting so far is that an assumption is made that
>>> the quoted material will need to be read each and every time, and that
>>> going below the new material to get to it is too confusing.

>>
>>I don't remember anyone saying "each and every time", but I think most
>>times
>>would be accurate.
>>
>>>
>>> I and others have shown that those assumptions are not always true,
>>> and in fact OFTEN aren't.

>>
>>The only thing that you have shown is that you are too lazy to trim and
>>quote properly.
>>
>> Just because someone at Intel wrote a memo
>>> and it was posted on a university node as a guide, is not a reason to
>>> start bottom posting.

>>
>>It has nothing to do with who "wrote a memo", though you seem to be hung
>>up
>>on that point. Whazza matter, they forget to run it by you, first?
>>
>> I'm someone who deals in the practicality of it
>>> and that to me, is that one often (even mostly) doesn't need to
>>> re-read quoted material, and that on those times it is needed, it is
>>> NOT too confusing to do so.

>>
>>Yes, it's all about YOU, isn't it. Whatever is easiest for YOU. To hell
>>with
>>everyone else. (especially since YOU didn't write the memo)
>>
>>>
>>> So if it has come down to an argument of quantifying how often the
>>> quoted material needs to be read or to extent it is confusing to look
>>> below the new material to see it if it is needed, then we could argue
>>> all day. Since I usually have ALREADY read the posts in the thread
>>> that are being quoted,

>>them over and over again.
>>> Also, when I do need to, I don't find it confusing in the least to
>>> look below for it. I supposed people's mileage may vary depending on
>>> their memory sharpness and reading comprehension skills.
>>>

>>
>> "Since I usually have ALREADY read"
>>
>> "I RARELY need to read"
>>
>> "when I do need to, I don't find it"
>>
>> "I supposed"
>>
>>See what I mean? It's all about YOU. No consideration for anyone else.
>>I participate in ten different NG's, and read several others. It's not
>>obvious who the new posts are replying to, let alone what the context of
>>the
>>message is, especially in long threads like this one. It is almost always
>>helpful to have a bit of quoted text before the reply to refresh the
>>memory.
>>Otherwise I have to scroll down to get the context and in your case, you
>>often don't trim the quoted material below which makes it even worse.
>>
>>
>>> Now tell us how smart you are again.

>>
>>No point in restating the obvious to a deaf person.
>>
>>Dave
>>
>>

>
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #265 ·
Re: (was) Toyota, GM, and Ford differences

"SgtSilicon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> Hey dipshit, it's not all about me.


Sure it is.

I'm merely using my experiences
> as an example of not just what I, but many others also share.


I gave you an example of the problems your posting style causes and you
completely ignored it. Like I said, it's all about you.....no consideration
for others.

It
> would have been more proper to say "we" to include others who agree,
> but I normally don't like to be in the habit of speaking for others.


Yet, here you are, speaking for others.

> And you damn sure don't get to speak for me.


In order to speak for you, I'd have to get down to your level, which I
refuse to do.

Dave
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #266 ·
Re: (was) Toyota, GM, and Ford differences

That's nice.

On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 20:29:55 -0500, "Mike Hunter"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>I think everybody should bottom post. ;)
>
>
>mike hunt
>
>
>"SgtSilicon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>news:[email protected]
>> Hey dipshit, it's not all about me. I'm merely using my experiences
>> as an example of not just what I, but many others also share. It
>> would have been more proper to say "we" to include others who agree,
>> but I normally don't like to be in the habit of speaking for others.
>> And you damn sure don't get to speak for me.
>>
>> On Thu, 19 Jan 2006 14:43:44 -0600, "Hairy" <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>"SgtSilicon" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]
>>>> "idiot" is not an intelligent counterpoint.
>>>
>>>That depends on the veracity of the statement. In this case, I think it
>>>was
>>>more of an observation than a counterpoint.
>>>
>>> The best argument anyone
>>>> has made for bottom posting so far is that an assumption is made that
>>>> the quoted material will need to be read each and every time, and that
>>>> going below the new material to get to it is too confusing.
>>>
>>>I don't remember anyone saying "each and every time", but I think most
>>>times
>>>would be accurate.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> I and others have shown that those assumptions are not always true,
>>>> and in fact OFTEN aren't.
>>>
>>>The only thing that you have shown is that you are too lazy to trim and
>>>quote properly.
>>>
>>> Just because someone at Intel wrote a memo
>>>> and it was posted on a university node as a guide, is not a reason to
>>>> start bottom posting.
>>>
>>>It has nothing to do with who "wrote a memo", though you seem to be hung
>>>up
>>>on that point. Whazza matter, they forget to run it by you, first?
>>>
>>> I'm someone who deals in the practicality of it
>>>> and that to me, is that one often (even mostly) doesn't need to
>>>> re-read quoted material, and that on those times it is needed, it is
>>>> NOT too confusing to do so.
>>>
>>>Yes, it's all about YOU, isn't it. Whatever is easiest for YOU. To hell
>>>with
>>>everyone else. (especially since YOU didn't write the memo)
>>>
>>>>
>>>> So if it has come down to an argument of quantifying how often the
>>>> quoted material needs to be read or to extent it is confusing to look
>>>> below the new material to see it if it is needed, then we could argue
>>>> all day. Since I usually have ALREADY read the posts in the thread
>>>> that are being quoted,
>>>them over and over again.
>>>> Also, when I do need to, I don't find it confusing in the least to
>>>> look below for it. I supposed people's mileage may vary depending on
>>>> their memory sharpness and reading comprehension skills.
>>>>
>>>
>>> "Since I usually have ALREADY read"
>>>
>>> "I RARELY need to read"
>>>
>>> "when I do need to, I don't find it"
>>>
>>> "I supposed"
>>>
>>>See what I mean? It's all about YOU. No consideration for anyone else.
>>>I participate in ten different NG's, and read several others. It's not
>>>obvious who the new posts are replying to, let alone what the context of
>>>the
>>>message is, especially in long threads like this one. It is almost always
>>>helpful to have a bit of quoted text before the reply to refresh the
>>>memory.
>>>Otherwise I have to scroll down to get the context and in your case, you
>>>often don't trim the quoted material below which makes it even worse.
>>>
>>>
>>>> Now tell us how smart you are again.
>>>
>>>No point in restating the obvious to a deaf person.
>>>
>>>Dave
>>>
>>>

>>

>
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #267 ·
Re: (was) Toyota, GM, and Ford differences

"Hairy" <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

>
> I gave you an example of the problems your posting style causes and
> you completely ignored it. Like I said, it's all about you.....no
> consideration for others.



Similar to you -- refusing to listen to the logic, reasons, and preferences
of people who top post?

"hey pot, I'm the kettle".

JP
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #268 ·
> So come down off your "American made" high horse, its just not true...
> I am a red blooded American too....but I can see the truth....
>
> Look at the consumer reports reliability ratings,,,, hell even look at
> the the predicted reliabilty ratings..... I think there might be one
> American made car on the list....
>
> My next car will either be a Lexus or Toyota of some kind
>
>


I concur my brother!
I currently own a 2002 Monte carlo SS, and a 1994 Accord. Guess wich one I
rely on?



--
1984 RZ350
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #269 ·
dizzy <[email protected]> wrote in
news:[email protected]:

> Top-posting troll Mike Hunter wrote:
>
>>You are free to spend your money wherever you wish. However my real
>>world experience with several Lexus V8s is quite the opposite. I have
>>not had a bad vehicle, foreign or domestic in longer than I can
>>remember.

>
> You keep your cars for like a year, right? That's not enough time to
> see how good their quality is. How well they hold up over time is the
> key.
>
>


1994 Accord, 138,000 miles, and I tromp it daily, runs like *NEW*!



--
1984 RZ350
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #270 ·
"Ript" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
>> So come down off your "American made" high horse, its just not true...
>> I am a red blooded American too....but I can see the truth....
>>
>> Look at the consumer reports reliability ratings,,,, hell even look at
>> the the predicted reliabilty ratings..... I think there might be one
>> American made car on the list....
>>
>> My next car will either be a Lexus or Toyota of some kind
>>
>>

>
> I concur my brother!
> I currently own a 2002 Monte carlo SS, and a 1994 Accord. Guess wich one I
> rely on?
>


Neither. The Monte Carlo is junk and the Accords are usually driven by ricer
gang members.


>
>
> --
> 1984 RZ350
 
G

·
Discussion Starter · #271 ·
Wrong, I have four domestics cars with anywhere from 100K to 300K on the
clock. I drive my cars for two years then sell them to friends or
neighbors, or give them to relatives. I see them run to high mileages and
none of them have been problematic, foreign or domestic. Every manufacture
is building good dependable vehicles today, there is no need to spend the
extra bucks to buy foreign cars to get a good car.


mike hunt





"Ript" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]
> dizzy <[email protected]> wrote in
> news:[email protected]:
>
>> Top-posting troll Mike Hunter wrote:
>>
>>>You are free to spend your money wherever you wish. However my real
>>>world experience with several Lexus V8s is quite the opposite. I have
>>>not had a bad vehicle, foreign or domestic in longer than I can
>>>remember.

>>
>> You keep your cars for like a year, right? That's not enough time to
>> see how good their quality is. How well they hold up over time is the
>> key.
>>
>>

>
> 1994 Accord, 138,000 miles, and I tromp it daily, runs like *NEW*!
>
>
>
> --
> 1984 RZ350
 
261 - 271 of 271 Posts
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top