blah blah blah
Comprehension.......exactly which part of the phrase "A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp
(5-cylinder)" justified your starting a "discussion" about 4 and 6 cylinder
engines? Or is there something in it that I, the other contributors to this
"discussion" and the rest of the English speaking world have missed?
Is it not high time you took your hand off it and climbed back into your
tree? Now how do I do this? Messages.....block sender.....ah yes
Precisely why more than one person had a go at you for posting a link to a
dicussion mentioning that the 5-cylinder diesels were now discontinued, and
telling me that I should count the number of cylinders, and by doing so I
would be able to tell whether the engine had 4 or 6 cylinders. All in
response to a question about 5-cylinder engines, which happen to be no
longer available in new Audis.
And can I suggest spelling lessons for you - it's "curriculum".
If, by the word "precisely," you mean "not at all like."
The fundemental difference is this: your info was of zero value. To
anyone. Why? Becaue it was completely incorrect, not based on fact,
and totally without merit. My info, OTOH, was just not helpful to
your situation. It *was* accurate, and true.
Really? Who knew? [rolls eyes]
A *spelling* flame? How incredibly witty and perceptive.
So was mine - a chip and an uprated head gasket would have upped the power.
All I missed out was a forged crankshaft and an uprated turbo. Sorry about
that. Can't see how it was anything to do with you anyway - you didn't ask
Well you did, as that link you posted specifically stated that the
5-cylinder diesel engines had been discontinued. Did you not even read the
contents of the page you linked to? And it was fairly obvious it was to do
with 5-cylinder engines, as it was contained in the subject line.
Well, I do my best. Awfully sorry if it's not good enough for you.
Ah, Peter, that is a nice attempt at spin. *If* you had actually said
that, I would have agreed with you. But that's *not* the whole story,
now is it?
Intercooler? Exhaust? You *still* don't have it right, even after
all the info has been posted innumerable times!
I am simply amazed at your lack of anything resembling knowledge.
Somehow, I think that you're not sorry at all.
So what? What part of "alt" don't you get? Here's another clue for
the terminally clue-proof: if you don't want your comments seen by
the public, with the potential for response, send them by e-mail.
Peter, look up the word "sarcasm," and try and apply it.
If that's the best you have, then you're even more an idiot than I had
Nothing to do with "good" or "bad," it's just stupid and lame.
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....
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
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."
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.
I know, but i like a good arguement :)
I'm sure it is, but my sweet and sour chicken was probably better.
"Answers" does not imply "accurate answers." Ref. "Octane" and "synth
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.
Costing you nothing. No time, no effort, no nothing. Lazy and
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?"
"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.
No, of course those things aren't being said. Nobody wants to give
the impression that they think they are better than anyone else.
Which has nothing at all to do with the first part of the sentence.
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 give up, you're obviously just a miserable old todger with nothing better
to do than moan over the slightest little thing. Were you just having a bad
day when you started this arguement, or are you really that pathetic all the
time? You must be very lonely if you are!
Good luck Peter!
Motorsforum.com is a website by car enthusiasts for car enthusiasts. It is not affiliated with any of the car or spare part manufacturers or car dealers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.