A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
08-20-2003 | 12:19 PM
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
"Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73da2590.0308190654.59531321@posting.google.c om...
> "AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message
news:<y6c0b.15766$yl6.13505@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>...
> > > > > This has to be one of the least helpful replies! I think Peter
has
> > > > > already determined that it is a 5-cyl lump (see the Subject header
for
> > > > > a clue!). What he wants to know, given that it *is* a 5 cylinder,
is
> > > > > whether it is the 115bhp or 140bhp version of the engine.
> > > >
> > > > You are correct Peter (not that it was hard to properly read the OP,
> > > > Spider) - since then I've had a bit more time to search and have
found
> > this
> > > > page:
> > > >
> > > > http://www.audilinks.co.uk/info/a6_overview.asp
> > > >
> > > > .....which tells me that the 140bhp models have a red "I" on the
badge
> > > > (assuming someone hasn't changed the badge!).
> > >
> > > Which means that my message has actually been received! Halleluia!
> >
> > And like I expained already, I didn't have time to search when I
originally
> > posted
>
> But you just assume that others should take their time out to answer
> what you are too lazy to look up for yourself. And then, when they do
> answer, you **** and moan because the answer isn't to your liking.
>
> If that's not arrogant, what is?
Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't Usenet used for the exchange of
information? In order to exchange this information, you need to ask a
question. Doing you see what i'm getting at?
Just because you mis-read the original post and posted some utter nonsense,
theres no need to get up on your high horse about the smallest little thing
in order to try and mask your stupidity.
I await your insults....
08-20-2003 | 01:30 PM
#22
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
> > > But you just assume that others should take their time out to answer
> > > what you are too lazy to look up for yourself.
> >
> > Yes. That's the point of usenet.
>
> You have quite a self-important view of what USENET is, then.
Dear or dear, are you going for the record number threads to drag out to the
point of tedium or something?
My view of usenet is that, as someone else put it, it is an exchange of
information - if I have a question that I'd like an answer to, then I'll
post it and await a answer (hopefully a useful one). If anyone else wants
to, then they can. If I feel I have something worth contributing to a
thread, then I'll post it up. Simple really. Hardly self-important.
> > > And then, when they do
> > > answer, you **** and moan because the answer isn't to your liking.
> > >
> > > If that's not arrogant, what is?
> >
> > Arrogance.
>
> And you're filled with it.
What was that expression about a pot and a kettle?
Peter
> > > what you are too lazy to look up for yourself.
> >
> > Yes. That's the point of usenet.
>
> You have quite a self-important view of what USENET is, then.
Dear or dear, are you going for the record number threads to drag out to the
point of tedium or something?
My view of usenet is that, as someone else put it, it is an exchange of
information - if I have a question that I'd like an answer to, then I'll
post it and await a answer (hopefully a useful one). If anyone else wants
to, then they can. If I feel I have something worth contributing to a
thread, then I'll post it up. Simple really. Hardly self-important.
> > > And then, when they do
> > > answer, you **** and moan because the answer isn't to your liking.
> > >
> > > If that's not arrogant, what is?
> >
> > Arrogance.
>
> And you're filled with it.
What was that expression about a pot and a kettle?
Peter
08-20-2003 | 05:31 PM
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
"Carl Gibbs" <cagmeister@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bi06qv$3sc65$1@ID-166528.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:73da2590.0308190654.59531321@posting.google.c om...
> > "AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message
> news:<y6c0b.15766$yl6.13505@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>...
> > > > > > This has to be one of the least helpful replies! I think Peter
> has
> > > > > > already determined that it is a 5-cyl lump (see the Subject header
> for
> > > > > > a clue!). What he wants to know, given that it *is* a 5 cylinder,
> is
> > > > > > whether it is the 115bhp or 140bhp version of the engine.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are correct Peter (not that it was hard to properly read the OP,
> > > > > Spider) - since then I've had a bit more time to search and have
> found
> this
> > > > > page:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.audilinks.co.uk/info/a6_overview.asp
> > > > >
> > > > > .....which tells me that the 140bhp models have a red "I" on the
> badge
> > > > > (assuming someone hasn't changed the badge!).
> > > >
> > > > Which means that my message has actually been received! Halleluia!
> > >
> > > And like I expained already, I didn't have time to search when I
> originally
> > > posted
> >
> > But you just assume that others should take their time out to answer
> > what you are too lazy to look up for yourself. And then, when they do
> > answer, you **** and moan because the answer isn't to your liking.
> >
> > If that's not arrogant, what is?
>
> Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't Usenet used for the exchange of
> information?
It is.
> In order to exchange this information, you need to ask a
> question.
That's correct.
> Doing you see what i'm getting at?
Of course I do. It's just that I do not agree with the basic premise.
The idea that my time is less valuable than yours is the foundation of
your assumption. You may not wish to see it that way, but it's true
nonetheless. If you do not make any attempt to learn the information
for yourself, then why should anyone take the time? In addition,
there are different types of questions, like "who is the best
independent Audi mechanic in Blackpool?" That's a question that might
be impossible to look up, but where USENET would be a good resource.
Unlike a technical specification question where the answer is
*probably* available outside of USENET, *and* is most like much more
authoritative. If you think this isn't true, ask in USENET what
octane number signifies, or the merits of synthetic oil over
non-synth.
Peter and I have discussed this before - you're coming in a bit late.
In any case, there is a remedy for those who feel negatively toward my
ideas - its called "learning to use your newsreader."
> Just because you mis-read the original post and posted some utter nonsense,
> theres no need to get up on your high horse about the smallest little thing
> in order to try and mask your stupidity.
>
> I await your insults....
The irony is delicious.
Spider
> "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:73da2590.0308190654.59531321@posting.google.c om...
> > "AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message
> news:<y6c0b.15766$yl6.13505@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>...
> > > > > > This has to be one of the least helpful replies! I think Peter
> has
> > > > > > already determined that it is a 5-cyl lump (see the Subject header
> for
> > > > > > a clue!). What he wants to know, given that it *is* a 5 cylinder,
> is
> > > > > > whether it is the 115bhp or 140bhp version of the engine.
> > > > >
> > > > > You are correct Peter (not that it was hard to properly read the OP,
> > > > > Spider) - since then I've had a bit more time to search and have
> found
> this
> > > > > page:
> > > > >
> > > > > http://www.audilinks.co.uk/info/a6_overview.asp
> > > > >
> > > > > .....which tells me that the 140bhp models have a red "I" on the
> badge
> > > > > (assuming someone hasn't changed the badge!).
> > > >
> > > > Which means that my message has actually been received! Halleluia!
> > >
> > > And like I expained already, I didn't have time to search when I
> originally
> > > posted
> >
> > But you just assume that others should take their time out to answer
> > what you are too lazy to look up for yourself. And then, when they do
> > answer, you **** and moan because the answer isn't to your liking.
> >
> > If that's not arrogant, what is?
>
> Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't Usenet used for the exchange of
> information?
It is.
> In order to exchange this information, you need to ask a
> question.
That's correct.
> Doing you see what i'm getting at?
Of course I do. It's just that I do not agree with the basic premise.
The idea that my time is less valuable than yours is the foundation of
your assumption. You may not wish to see it that way, but it's true
nonetheless. If you do not make any attempt to learn the information
for yourself, then why should anyone take the time? In addition,
there are different types of questions, like "who is the best
independent Audi mechanic in Blackpool?" That's a question that might
be impossible to look up, but where USENET would be a good resource.
Unlike a technical specification question where the answer is
*probably* available outside of USENET, *and* is most like much more
authoritative. If you think this isn't true, ask in USENET what
octane number signifies, or the merits of synthetic oil over
non-synth.
Peter and I have discussed this before - you're coming in a bit late.
In any case, there is a remedy for those who feel negatively toward my
ideas - its called "learning to use your newsreader."
> Just because you mis-read the original post and posted some utter nonsense,
> theres no need to get up on your high horse about the smallest little thing
> in order to try and mask your stupidity.
>
> I await your insults....
The irony is delicious.
Spider
08-20-2003 | 05:40 PM
#24
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
"AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message news:<sBO0b.15979$Kx1.251986@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> > > > But you just assume that others should take their time out to answer
> > > > what you are too lazy to look up for yourself.
> > >
> > > Yes. That's the point of usenet.
> >
> > You have quite a self-important view of what USENET is, then.
>
> Dear or dear, are you going for the record number threads to drag out to the
> point of tedium or something?
Takes two to tango, sir.
> My view of usenet is that, as someone else put it, it is an exchange of
> information
It can be that. Or, it's the lazy way of getting someone else to do
your homework for you. If you want to know something like what a good
tire for winter driving might be, then I think USENET is a fabulous
place for that. Or even a quick how-to for getting the belly pan off
for oil changes. The manual isn't all that clear, if you've never
done it before.
But for questions where all it takes is a like 'net search, why would
you do anything else, unless, as I say, you consider your time more
valuable than someone elses'?
"Post a little question, wait around for someone to answer." No work
for me, and I the info I get is free. Nice deal for me.
> > > > And then, when they do
> > > > answer, you **** and moan because the answer isn't to your liking.
> > > >
> > > > If that's not arrogant, what is?
> > >
> > > Arrogance.
> >
> > And you're filled with it.
>
> What was that expression about a pot and a kettle?
Please explain how that applies in this case.
My advice to you is this: if you don't like my tone or my commentary,
you may activate your newsreader's functions as is necessary to avoid
my postings. Or do you need a tutorial?
Spider
> > > > But you just assume that others should take their time out to answer
> > > > what you are too lazy to look up for yourself.
> > >
> > > Yes. That's the point of usenet.
> >
> > You have quite a self-important view of what USENET is, then.
>
> Dear or dear, are you going for the record number threads to drag out to the
> point of tedium or something?
Takes two to tango, sir.
> My view of usenet is that, as someone else put it, it is an exchange of
> information
It can be that. Or, it's the lazy way of getting someone else to do
your homework for you. If you want to know something like what a good
tire for winter driving might be, then I think USENET is a fabulous
place for that. Or even a quick how-to for getting the belly pan off
for oil changes. The manual isn't all that clear, if you've never
done it before.
But for questions where all it takes is a like 'net search, why would
you do anything else, unless, as I say, you consider your time more
valuable than someone elses'?
"Post a little question, wait around for someone to answer." No work
for me, and I the info I get is free. Nice deal for me.
> > > > And then, when they do
> > > > answer, you **** and moan because the answer isn't to your liking.
> > > >
> > > > If that's not arrogant, what is?
> > >
> > > Arrogance.
> >
> > And you're filled with it.
>
> What was that expression about a pot and a kettle?
Please explain how that applies in this case.
My advice to you is this: if you don't like my tone or my commentary,
you may activate your newsreader's functions as is necessary to avoid
my postings. Or do you need a tutorial?
Spider
08-20-2003 | 06:16 PM
#25
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
"Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73da2590.0308201331.12d81b52@posting.google.c om...
> "Carl Gibbs" <cagmeister@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:<bi06qv$3sc65$1@ID-166528.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:73da2590.0308190654.59531321@posting.google.c om...
> > > "AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message
> > news:<y6c0b.15766$yl6.13505@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>...
> > > > > > > This has to be one of the least helpful replies! I think
Peter
> > has
> > > > > > > already determined that it is a 5-cyl lump (see the Subject
header
> > for
> > > > > > > a clue!). What he wants to know, given that it *is* a 5
cylinder,
> > is
> > > > > > > whether it is the 115bhp or 140bhp version of the engine.
> > > > > >
> > > > > > You are correct Peter (not that it was hard to properly read the
OP,
> > > > > > Spider) - since then I've had a bit more time to search and have
> > found
> > this
> > > > > > page:
> > > > > >
> > > > > > http://www.audilinks.co.uk/info/a6_overview.asp
> > > > > >
> > > > > > .....which tells me that the 140bhp models have a red "I" on the
> > badge
> > > > > > (assuming someone hasn't changed the badge!).
> > > > >
> > > > > Which means that my message has actually been received!
Halleluia!
> > > >
> > > > And like I expained already, I didn't have time to search when I
> > originally
> > > > posted
> > >
> > > But you just assume that others should take their time out to answer
> > > what you are too lazy to look up for yourself. And then, when they do
> > > answer, you **** and moan because the answer isn't to your liking.
> > >
> > > If that's not arrogant, what is?
> >
> > Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't Usenet used for the exchange of
> > information?
>
> It is.
>
> > In order to exchange this information, you need to ask a
> > question.
>
> That's correct.
>
> > Doing you see what i'm getting at?
>
> Of course I do. It's just that I do not agree with the basic premise.
>
> The idea that my time is less valuable than yours is the foundation of
> your assumption. You may not wish to see it that way, but it's true
> nonetheless. If you do not make any attempt to learn the information
> for yourself, then why should anyone take the time? In addition,
> there are different types of questions, like "who is the best
> independent Audi mechanic in Blackpool?" That's a question that might
> be impossible to look up, but where USENET would be a good resource.
> Unlike a technical specification question where the answer is
> *probably* available outside of USENET, *and* is most like much more
> authoritative. If you think this isn't true, ask in USENET what
> octane number signifies, or the merits of synthetic oil over
> non-synth.
>
The answers to everything (within reason) are outside Usenet, but they're
also available within. Despite what you may believe, that gives people a
choice to how they want to find the answer to their question. The useful
thing about Usenet is you can post a question, let people argue of the
answer (or something completely off topic...) and by the time you next look
hopefully the correct answer will have emerged. Whereas something like
google, you have to shift thru all the static info, without being able to
ask the authors any further questions in order to validate their point.
I'm not saying that anyone elses time is more valuable than anyone elses,
you dont have to post an answer, you could have ignored it. If everyone
ignored Peter he would have been forced to Google it when he had some spare
time, but surely your first port of call should be the easiest option,
unless of course you like making things hard for yourself.
> Peter and I have discussed this before - you're coming in a bit late.
I know, but i like a good arguement
>
> In any case, there is a remedy for those who feel negatively toward my
> ideas - its called "learning to use your newsreader."
>
> > Just because you mis-read the original post and posted some utter
nonsense,
> > theres no need to get up on your high horse about the smallest little
thing
> > in order to try and mask your stupidity.
> >
> > I await your insults....
>
> The irony is delicious.
I'm sure it is, but my sweet and sour chicken was probably better.
08-20-2003 | 09:12 PM
#26
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
"Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73da2590.0308200740.3457a5a2@posting.google.c om...
> "Rachael" <rfearnhead@mybra.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<bhu9a3$an$1@hercules.btinternet.com>...
> > > But you just assume that others should take their time out to answer
> > > what you are too lazy to look up for yourself. And then, when they do
> > > answer, you **** and moan because the answer isn't to your liking.
> > >
> > > If that's not arrogant, what is?
> > >
> > > Spider
> >
> > Give it a rest.
>
> Who made you Queen of USENET?
>
> Ahh, OK. Good, well - run along, then.
>
> Spider
And who appointed you chief w*nker? Ah, ok. You won that title hands down,
on merit. Keep digging
08-21-2003 | 12:40 PM
#27
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
"Carl Gibbs" <cagmeister@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bi0rp0$46qmr$1@ID-166528.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:73da2590.0308201331.12d81b52@posting.google.c om...
> > "Carl Gibbs" <cagmeister@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<bi06qv$3sc65$1@ID-166528.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't Usenet used for the exchange of
> > > information?
> >
> > It is.
> >
> > > In order to exchange this information, you need to ask a
> > > question.
> >
> > That's correct.
> >
> > > Doing you see what i'm getting at?
> >
> > Of course I do. It's just that I do not agree with the basic premise.
> >
> > The idea that my time is less valuable than yours is the foundation of
> > your assumption. You may not wish to see it that way, but it's true
> > nonetheless. If you do not make any attempt to learn the information
> > for yourself, then why should anyone take the time? In addition,
> > there are different types of questions, like "who is the best
> > independent Audi mechanic in Blackpool?" That's a question that might
> > be impossible to look up, but where USENET would be a good resource.
> > Unlike a technical specification question where the answer is
> > *probably* available outside of USENET, *and* is most like much more
> > authoritative. If you think this isn't true, ask in USENET what
> > octane number signifies, or the merits of synthetic oil over
> > non-synth.
> >
> The answers to everything (within reason) are outside Usenet, but they're
> also available within.
"Answers" does not imply "accurate answers." Ref. "Octane" and "synth
vs. non-synth."
> Despite what you may believe, that gives people a
> choice to how they want to find the answer to their question.
What I believe has nothing to do with anything. What I know is that
people who are lazy come to USENET, drop their questions, and expect
correct answers. As I have pointed out, not all questions are equal.
> The useful
> thing about Usenet is you can post a question, let people argue of the
> answer (or something completely off topic...) and by the time you next look
> hopefully the correct answer will have emerged.
Costing you nothing. No time, no effort, no nothing. Lazy and
arrogant attitude.
> Whereas something like
> google, you have to shift thru all the static info, without being able to
> ask the authors any further questions in order to validate their point.
Ah, but at least you have looked. You have made an effort to answer
your own question, and come up confused.
"My manual says that to get the lightbulb out, I should turn the
socket anticlockwise, but when I do, it turns 5mm and stops. Any
hints on how to get the bugger to move?"
Rather than:
"How do I get the lightbulb out of my Type XX?"
The first instance showed that the person actually read, and tried to
do the thing, but was stymied. The second one says "solve my problem
for me, I am too lazy to think for myself." It also invites such
comments as "RTFM," and "take it to your mechanic" - just noise.
> I'm not saying that anyone elses time is more valuable than anyone elses,
No, of course those things aren't being said. Nobody wants to give
the impression that they think they are better than anyone else.
> you dont have to post an answer, you could have ignored it.
Which has nothing at all to do with the first part of the sentence.
> If everyone
> ignored Peter he would have been forced to Google it when he had some spare
> time, but surely your first port of call should be the easiest option,
> unless of course you like making things hard for yourself.
Right - a nice, tight google search, and then a posting that says:
"Hey, URL 1 says that this car should have this badging, but URL 2
says different. What is the real deal?"
> > > I await your insults....
> >
> > The irony is delicious.
>
> I'm sure it is, but my sweet and sour chicken was probably better.
An adult would be eating crow.
Spider
> "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> news:73da2590.0308201331.12d81b52@posting.google.c om...
> > "Carl Gibbs" <cagmeister@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:<bi06qv$3sc65$1@ID-166528.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > > Correct me if i'm wrong, but isn't Usenet used for the exchange of
> > > information?
> >
> > It is.
> >
> > > In order to exchange this information, you need to ask a
> > > question.
> >
> > That's correct.
> >
> > > Doing you see what i'm getting at?
> >
> > Of course I do. It's just that I do not agree with the basic premise.
> >
> > The idea that my time is less valuable than yours is the foundation of
> > your assumption. You may not wish to see it that way, but it's true
> > nonetheless. If you do not make any attempt to learn the information
> > for yourself, then why should anyone take the time? In addition,
> > there are different types of questions, like "who is the best
> > independent Audi mechanic in Blackpool?" That's a question that might
> > be impossible to look up, but where USENET would be a good resource.
> > Unlike a technical specification question where the answer is
> > *probably* available outside of USENET, *and* is most like much more
> > authoritative. If you think this isn't true, ask in USENET what
> > octane number signifies, or the merits of synthetic oil over
> > non-synth.
> >
> The answers to everything (within reason) are outside Usenet, but they're
> also available within.
"Answers" does not imply "accurate answers." Ref. "Octane" and "synth
vs. non-synth."
> Despite what you may believe, that gives people a
> choice to how they want to find the answer to their question.
What I believe has nothing to do with anything. What I know is that
people who are lazy come to USENET, drop their questions, and expect
correct answers. As I have pointed out, not all questions are equal.
> The useful
> thing about Usenet is you can post a question, let people argue of the
> answer (or something completely off topic...) and by the time you next look
> hopefully the correct answer will have emerged.
Costing you nothing. No time, no effort, no nothing. Lazy and
arrogant attitude.
> Whereas something like
> google, you have to shift thru all the static info, without being able to
> ask the authors any further questions in order to validate their point.
Ah, but at least you have looked. You have made an effort to answer
your own question, and come up confused.
"My manual says that to get the lightbulb out, I should turn the
socket anticlockwise, but when I do, it turns 5mm and stops. Any
hints on how to get the bugger to move?"
Rather than:
"How do I get the lightbulb out of my Type XX?"
The first instance showed that the person actually read, and tried to
do the thing, but was stymied. The second one says "solve my problem
for me, I am too lazy to think for myself." It also invites such
comments as "RTFM," and "take it to your mechanic" - just noise.
> I'm not saying that anyone elses time is more valuable than anyone elses,
No, of course those things aren't being said. Nobody wants to give
the impression that they think they are better than anyone else.
> you dont have to post an answer, you could have ignored it.
Which has nothing at all to do with the first part of the sentence.
> If everyone
> ignored Peter he would have been forced to Google it when he had some spare
> time, but surely your first port of call should be the easiest option,
> unless of course you like making things hard for yourself.
Right - a nice, tight google search, and then a posting that says:
"Hey, URL 1 says that this car should have this badging, but URL 2
says different. What is the real deal?"
> > > I await your insults....
> >
> > The irony is delicious.
>
> I'm sure it is, but my sweet and sour chicken was probably better.
An adult would be eating crow.
Spider
08-21-2003 | 06:28 PM
#28
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
"AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message news:<ss71b.976$L15.436@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>...
> > > Dear or dear, are you going for the record number threads to drag out to
> the
> > > point of tedium or something?
> >
> > Takes two to tango, sir.
>
> Indeed it does.
Then, for the benefit of those who are not quite as on-the-ball, maybe
you should quit posting replies, if you find it "tedious."
> > > My view of usenet is that, as someone else put it, it is an exchange of
> > > information
> >
> > It can be that. Or, it's the lazy way of getting someone else to do
> > your homework for you. If you want to know something like what a good
> > tire for winter driving might be, then I think USENET is a fabulous
> > place for that. Or even a quick how-to for getting the belly pan off
> > for oil changes. The manual isn't all that clear, if you've never
> > done it before.
> >
> > But for questions where all it takes is a like 'net search, why would
> > you do anything else, unless, as I say, you consider your time more
> > valuable than someone elses'?
>
> Not neccessarily, but as I have pointed out numerous times, even when I did
> do a google search it didn't come up with a particularly definitive answer
> (in the way that engine numbers are harder to change than badges on the
> tailgate).
I notice that your original post does not include that info. Now, how
am I to know that you even tried to look up something? Magic?
> So I would have still needed to ask the question.
It depends on how thorough your search was.
> Sure, it
> might have been in the 30th or so screen of google's findings
If the parameters you used generated 30 screens, then you really need
to learn how to properly use a search engine, and how to set up
parameters as to excluse false-positives.
> but it's a
> lot easier to spend my time doing something more important
Well, really, here's where you give up the game, isn't it? Here, you
are admitting, finally, that you consider your time "more important"
than the poor sap who is just trying to be helpful. This is exactly
the attitude I despise.
Part of the give and take of USENET is the idea that you actually have
some sort of respect for your fellow human. Part of that is that you
actually show that you have attempted to answer your own question, and
come up empty, or with answers that aren't complete. Like the A4
timing belt issue - USENET is the perfect forum for those questions,
because the manual, the revised TSB and the conventional wisdom are
all at odds.
> If more people helped each other in this way, then
> we'd all save a lot of time.
"Saving time" is your bottom line, I can see that very well. Too bad
it comes at the expense of others...
> > > > > Arrogance.
> > > >
> > > > And you're filled with it.
> > >
> > > What was that expression about a pot and a kettle?
> >
> > Please explain how that applies in this case.
>
> Because your attitude is that of "why should I help him on a public forum
> designed for such a purpose, when he hasn't even bothered to try every other
> conceivable option first"
If that's what I actually thought, then, yes, it would be arrogant.
But I have never even suggested such a thing, and trying to re-image
it thus is just base dishonesty on your part.
> does come across as very arrogant. Others seem to
> agree.
Then maybe you and others ought to look up the meaning of the word.
It is clear that you (and others) do not quite grasp it's definition.
> > My advice to you is this: if you don't like my tone or my commentary,
> > you may activate your newsreader's functions as is necessary to avoid
> > my postings. Or do you need a tutorial?
>
> I don't personally see the point of killfiles - if someone's got something
> to say I'd rather read it.
To say nothing of getting into a pissing match, hmm?
Spider
> > > Dear or dear, are you going for the record number threads to drag out to
> the
> > > point of tedium or something?
> >
> > Takes two to tango, sir.
>
> Indeed it does.
Then, for the benefit of those who are not quite as on-the-ball, maybe
you should quit posting replies, if you find it "tedious."
> > > My view of usenet is that, as someone else put it, it is an exchange of
> > > information
> >
> > It can be that. Or, it's the lazy way of getting someone else to do
> > your homework for you. If you want to know something like what a good
> > tire for winter driving might be, then I think USENET is a fabulous
> > place for that. Or even a quick how-to for getting the belly pan off
> > for oil changes. The manual isn't all that clear, if you've never
> > done it before.
> >
> > But for questions where all it takes is a like 'net search, why would
> > you do anything else, unless, as I say, you consider your time more
> > valuable than someone elses'?
>
> Not neccessarily, but as I have pointed out numerous times, even when I did
> do a google search it didn't come up with a particularly definitive answer
> (in the way that engine numbers are harder to change than badges on the
> tailgate).
I notice that your original post does not include that info. Now, how
am I to know that you even tried to look up something? Magic?
> So I would have still needed to ask the question.
It depends on how thorough your search was.
> Sure, it
> might have been in the 30th or so screen of google's findings
If the parameters you used generated 30 screens, then you really need
to learn how to properly use a search engine, and how to set up
parameters as to excluse false-positives.
> but it's a
> lot easier to spend my time doing something more important
Well, really, here's where you give up the game, isn't it? Here, you
are admitting, finally, that you consider your time "more important"
than the poor sap who is just trying to be helpful. This is exactly
the attitude I despise.
Part of the give and take of USENET is the idea that you actually have
some sort of respect for your fellow human. Part of that is that you
actually show that you have attempted to answer your own question, and
come up empty, or with answers that aren't complete. Like the A4
timing belt issue - USENET is the perfect forum for those questions,
because the manual, the revised TSB and the conventional wisdom are
all at odds.
> If more people helped each other in this way, then
> we'd all save a lot of time.
"Saving time" is your bottom line, I can see that very well. Too bad
it comes at the expense of others...
> > > > > Arrogance.
> > > >
> > > > And you're filled with it.
> > >
> > > What was that expression about a pot and a kettle?
> >
> > Please explain how that applies in this case.
>
> Because your attitude is that of "why should I help him on a public forum
> designed for such a purpose, when he hasn't even bothered to try every other
> conceivable option first"
If that's what I actually thought, then, yes, it would be arrogant.
But I have never even suggested such a thing, and trying to re-image
it thus is just base dishonesty on your part.
> does come across as very arrogant. Others seem to
> agree.
Then maybe you and others ought to look up the meaning of the word.
It is clear that you (and others) do not quite grasp it's definition.
> > My advice to you is this: if you don't like my tone or my commentary,
> > you may activate your newsreader's functions as is necessary to avoid
> > my postings. Or do you need a tutorial?
>
> I don't personally see the point of killfiles - if someone's got something
> to say I'd rather read it.
To say nothing of getting into a pissing match, hmm?
Spider
08-21-2003 | 06:53 PM
#29
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
> > Not neccessarily, but as I have pointed out numerous times, even when I
did
> > do a google search it didn't come up with a particularly definitive
answer
> > (in the way that engine numbers are harder to change than badges on the
> > tailgate).
>
> I notice that your original post does not include that info. Now, how
> am I to know that you even tried to look up something? Magic?
No, my original post didn't include that info, because, as I've explained in
subsequent posts, at the time of posting the original post, I hadn't done a
search. The fact that you're only prepared to help someone if they've made
every other effort possible to find out the information is your business.
> > So I would have still needed to ask the question.
>
> It depends on how thorough your search was.
>
> > Sure, it
> > might have been in the 30th or so screen of google's findings
>
> If the parameters you used generated 30 screens, then you really need
> to learn how to properly use a search engine, and how to set up
> parameters as to excluse false-positives.
Well pardon me for not being an expert on search engines. That's why I use
usenet.
Let's look at the facts for a minute. I post a question. You post an
answer that is absolutely no help in answering the question. A little while
later, someone other than me points this fact out. A while later other
different people point out that you are being a pedantic ****. A similar
amount of time later, and someone else posts a useful answer.
> > but it's a
> > lot easier to spend my time doing something more important
>
> Well, really, here's where you give up the game, isn't it? Here, you
> are admitting, finally, that you consider your time "more important"
> than the poor sap who is just trying to be helpful. This is exactly
> the attitude I despise.
Trying to be helpful? By posting an answer of no relevance to the question?
Well you tried I suppose. Pat on the back for you.
I don't consider my time any more or less important than anyone else's,
perse. I don't even know most of the other posters on usenet, so I wouldn't
be able to judge anyway. I just look at it this way - if they consider it
too much of an inconvenience to post a reply, then they need not bother - no
skin off my nose. If they don't mind helping, then I'll show my
appreciation. Simple really.
> Part of the give and take of USENET is the idea that you actually have
> some sort of respect for your fellow human. Part of that is that you
> actually show that you have attempted to answer your own question, and
> come up empty, or with answers that aren't complete. Like the A4
> timing belt issue - USENET is the perfect forum for those questions,
> because the manual, the revised TSB and the conventional wisdom are
> all at odds.
<yawn>
And I suppose the differences between the 115bhp and 140bhp 2.5TDI engines
are a very well documented affair, are they? I don't have a manual to hand,
as I don't yet own an A6.
> > If more people helped each other in this way, then
> > we'd all save a lot of time.
>
> "Saving time" is your bottom line, I can see that very well. Too bad
> it comes at the expense of others...
Well if it was that much of an inconvenience to them then they wouldn't
bother, would they.
> Then maybe you and others ought to look up the meaning of the word.
> It is clear that you (and others) do not quite grasp it's definition.
That's pretty much everyone so far who's replied to the post. That's it -
they're all wrong, and you are right.
Peter
did
> > do a google search it didn't come up with a particularly definitive
answer
> > (in the way that engine numbers are harder to change than badges on the
> > tailgate).
>
> I notice that your original post does not include that info. Now, how
> am I to know that you even tried to look up something? Magic?
No, my original post didn't include that info, because, as I've explained in
subsequent posts, at the time of posting the original post, I hadn't done a
search. The fact that you're only prepared to help someone if they've made
every other effort possible to find out the information is your business.
> > So I would have still needed to ask the question.
>
> It depends on how thorough your search was.
>
> > Sure, it
> > might have been in the 30th or so screen of google's findings
>
> If the parameters you used generated 30 screens, then you really need
> to learn how to properly use a search engine, and how to set up
> parameters as to excluse false-positives.
Well pardon me for not being an expert on search engines. That's why I use
usenet.
Let's look at the facts for a minute. I post a question. You post an
answer that is absolutely no help in answering the question. A little while
later, someone other than me points this fact out. A while later other
different people point out that you are being a pedantic ****. A similar
amount of time later, and someone else posts a useful answer.
> > but it's a
> > lot easier to spend my time doing something more important
>
> Well, really, here's where you give up the game, isn't it? Here, you
> are admitting, finally, that you consider your time "more important"
> than the poor sap who is just trying to be helpful. This is exactly
> the attitude I despise.
Trying to be helpful? By posting an answer of no relevance to the question?
Well you tried I suppose. Pat on the back for you.
I don't consider my time any more or less important than anyone else's,
perse. I don't even know most of the other posters on usenet, so I wouldn't
be able to judge anyway. I just look at it this way - if they consider it
too much of an inconvenience to post a reply, then they need not bother - no
skin off my nose. If they don't mind helping, then I'll show my
appreciation. Simple really.
> Part of the give and take of USENET is the idea that you actually have
> some sort of respect for your fellow human. Part of that is that you
> actually show that you have attempted to answer your own question, and
> come up empty, or with answers that aren't complete. Like the A4
> timing belt issue - USENET is the perfect forum for those questions,
> because the manual, the revised TSB and the conventional wisdom are
> all at odds.
<yawn>
And I suppose the differences between the 115bhp and 140bhp 2.5TDI engines
are a very well documented affair, are they? I don't have a manual to hand,
as I don't yet own an A6.
> > If more people helped each other in this way, then
> > we'd all save a lot of time.
>
> "Saving time" is your bottom line, I can see that very well. Too bad
> it comes at the expense of others...
Well if it was that much of an inconvenience to them then they wouldn't
bother, would they.
> Then maybe you and others ought to look up the meaning of the word.
> It is clear that you (and others) do not quite grasp it's definition.
That's pretty much everyone so far who's replied to the post. That's it -
they're all wrong, and you are right.
Peter
08-21-2003 | 09:12 PM
#30
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
> > And who appointed you chief w*nker?
>
> Looks like you just did. I guess in your capacity as Queen of USENET,
> you just get to bitch at posters whose content is not to yor liking?
Erm, you started the "of USENET" thing. I have hardly ever used this
wonderful information technology and I am indeed a novice. I think you also
started the "bitch<ing> at posters whose content is not to yor (sic) liking"
with your unhelpful and smartarse remark in response to AstraVanMan's
original post, followed by your ridiculous attempts to defend your pride and
to patronise me and the other posters. Given the form you have displayed so
far, I'm surprised and a little disappointed you didn't feel moved to have a
pop at the question I posted here recently.
> You know very little of USENET, then. I'm downright saintly in
> comparison.
As I said, I am a novice, as you have so masterfully deduced Sherlock.
However, that does not disqualify me from responding to your vacuous and
superior comments on other posters' efforts. I would feel stirred to respond
to a pseudointellectual twerp like you in any circumstance, not just on
"USENET." I agree I have come across much worse sorts than you, but I must
say the old joke about the internet disproving the theory that "an infinite
number of monkeys on typewriters would in time reproduce the works of
Shakespeare" is certainly borne out by you and your ilk.
> > Keep digging
>
> Hard to do when you are holding the shovel. But you are amusing
> nonetheless.
Well, in my job I usually get to watch others wield the shovel, but I'm not
averse to helping you dig your hole. I'm glad you find me amusing and hope
I have brightened up your little computer life.
> Get back to me when you learn how to use your newsreader, OK?
When you learn to read and to compehend, I'll learn to be a
sooper-dooper-power-user just like you.
Kind regards
Rachael
>
> Looks like you just did. I guess in your capacity as Queen of USENET,
> you just get to bitch at posters whose content is not to yor liking?
Erm, you started the "of USENET" thing. I have hardly ever used this
wonderful information technology and I am indeed a novice. I think you also
started the "bitch<ing> at posters whose content is not to yor (sic) liking"
with your unhelpful and smartarse remark in response to AstraVanMan's
original post, followed by your ridiculous attempts to defend your pride and
to patronise me and the other posters. Given the form you have displayed so
far, I'm surprised and a little disappointed you didn't feel moved to have a
pop at the question I posted here recently.
> You know very little of USENET, then. I'm downright saintly in
> comparison.
As I said, I am a novice, as you have so masterfully deduced Sherlock.
However, that does not disqualify me from responding to your vacuous and
superior comments on other posters' efforts. I would feel stirred to respond
to a pseudointellectual twerp like you in any circumstance, not just on
"USENET." I agree I have come across much worse sorts than you, but I must
say the old joke about the internet disproving the theory that "an infinite
number of monkeys on typewriters would in time reproduce the works of
Shakespeare" is certainly borne out by you and your ilk.
> > Keep digging
>
> Hard to do when you are holding the shovel. But you are amusing
> nonetheless.
Well, in my job I usually get to watch others wield the shovel, but I'm not
averse to helping you dig your hole. I'm glad you find me amusing and hope
I have brightened up your little computer life.
> Get back to me when you learn how to use your newsreader, OK?
When you learn to read and to compehend, I'll learn to be a
sooper-dooper-power-user just like you.
Kind regards
Rachael
