Mercedes, Not US, To Bail Out Chrysler

"Dori A Schmetterling" wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@pipex.net:

The reason to bottom post is that people generally don't read books starting at the last page.

The reason to top-post is to put the most pertinent and recent elements of the discussion in the most convenient location. If any reader needs to be refreshed on the previous parts of the discussion, he or she may refer to the "footnotes," so to speak, preserved below the current discussion topic. This it the model used in the professional realm when replying to e-mail cc'd to numerous recipients, which is similar to the newsgroup model.

Actually I d> "Dori A Schmetterling" wrote in

Actually they had sold all their shares years earlier.

Well, they started in 1970 and used Mitsu products for what, 20+ years? Plus the Normal IL factory.

No they didn't. Colts were sold through 1994, 16 years after the Omni/ Horizon were introduced.

There was no hiatus. And the Colt was more the size of the Rabbit and Civic and Corolla FX, not the Fiesta. (I owned a Fiesta; it was smaller.)

The minivans offered the 3.0 sohc V6 from Mitsu long after Chrysler's

3.3 V6 was offered in them too. And the 2.5 V6 in Cirrus/Stratus, remember?

Well, again, from what I read, it was the Chrysler execs who convinced Daimler to tie up with Mitsu instead of Nissan.

Yep. For a while a wagon version of the mid-size was also planned instead of the sedan the Avenger became. The idea was Chrysler for sedans, Dodge for wagons and hatchbacks.

Imagine the mid-sizes on the Altima platform instead of a Lancer platform. The small on a Sentra instead of a Lancer. The Journey on a Murano platform instead of, you guess it, a Lancer.

Did you READ the Business Week quote?

Except for the Sebring, Avenger, Caliber, Compass, Patriot, Journey -- all on Mitsu platforms.

Let's go with your book analogy (usenet is not a book BTW, but let's pretend it is and go with it): Why would you want to read the entire book from the beginning each time you pick it up to read the next chapter?

Don't think so, but I could be wrong.

I didn't say they intended to ruin Chrysler. I'm only observing they did.

They were in charge. You'd perhaps like to blame, oh, Lynn Townsend or someone like that?

If your reading several books at once (to continue your book analogy) you may not be able to remember what just happened to whom and where.

Richard For caravanning tips and information visit

As Motor Trend points out this month, blame Iacocca for putting Eaton up as his successor instead of Lutz. Also I'd say blame Eaton for being the worst negotiator since the Indians sold Manhattan. Blame Americans who dumped their DC stock, instead of holding onto it and using it to influence the new company.

Oh, right, Sorry!

It reverses the logical order of a conversation.

Why is it confusing?

It's confusing.

Why not?

You really shouldn't top-post.

Although this is a Wikipedia reference it looks accurate. Alliance since

1999 with sharecross-holdings.

Carlos Ghosn was sent by Renault to turn Nissan around, which he did, so he got promoted to be boss of Renault as well.

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"

I am. What did I miss?

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"

I think you and other bottom-posters hark back to another era, the dawn of the internet and usenet...

I understand that some people still look at usenet groups in certain ways which makes it easier to follow a thread if bottom-posting is applied. I have actually seen this myself.

However, many of us now use, for example, Outlook Express, for usenet, where top-posting is preferable.

So, I am afraid, I (and, I think, quite a few other people) see no reason why we should bottom-post.

The best approach is mutual tolerance. Why get angry over such a trivial thing? Why not get angry with those people with all those people who don't snip, forcing one to scroll though loads of unimportant stuff?

Move on to more important things

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"

..... the three Yorkshire men vis a vis who has the slowest Diesel. To wit

when discussing their hard times when young, while drinking Chateua le Chateaulai (or some such thing): 'now we had it tough, lived in the bottom of a lake, got up half hour before we went to bed and our father would slash into us with breadknifes if....) you get the drift. Reminiscent of the diesel of old discussion and how slow they were... :-)

I guess it's just me.... I seem to associate a lot with the Python group.

cheers

...in which case, then you scroll down to refresh your memory, and then back up to get the status of the present. That's how business email communication is done almost universally, and for a good reason.

Selective and EFFICIENT quoting, and BOTTOM POSTING (or in-line quoting when useful) is the defacto correct and original method when constructing usenet posts.

Top-posting has become the norm for constructing e-mail replies (thanks to the default settings for Micro$haft Outlook and Outlook Express) and unfortunately many people either use that software (or carry on it's methods) when constructing usenet replies.

Unfortunately, many people full-quote, needlessly dragging along the entire past history of the thread into their reply. That is wrong.

I have a 21" monitor, with a 1600 x 1200 pixel resolution. In other words, I have a lot of on-screen real estate to display usenet posts. If I bring up a post, and see nothing but quoted material in the message pane, I will almost always skip the post instead of dragging the scroll bar down to bring new material into view.

If the respondant hasn't trimmed his post by keeping only relavent quoted material, then he isin't worth my time to read what-ever he did add to the thread in question.

I know this scene - saw it not that long ago on YouTube (my 11-yr-old loves Monty Python) but I didn't make the connection with reminiscing about old diesels (mine was slower than yours / I suffered more than you did...)

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"

I think that sums it up. See your last para below.

It underlines my point made elsewhere here, that the old 'netiquette' has been superseded by what clients people are using, so there is no point in opposing the tide. Bend with the wind, to mix my metaphors..

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"

If you had properly constructed your reply, you would not have had to say "see your last para below".

That is no excuse for you to NOT construct your replies properly, especially if you know the difference.

Or just be lazy...

I'll try a less polite way, then.

Moving your reply, above to its present position below mine allows it to be read as as part of a conversation.

Top posters have no interest in entering into a conversation, only in firing off essays, witty one liners, etc. which are intended to stand on their own rather than contributing to a conversation with other posters.

Top posters are revealing that they have no respect for others contributions, they assume that their brilliance simply replaces everything that has been said before , and that readers will not profit by knowing what they are replying to..

And you, being a full-quoter, are also showing no respect for the reader by not properly quoting specific material to which you are replying to.

There was no need for you to include 3 pages of quoted material as the "introduction" or prologue to the 4 sentences that was your lateast contribution to this thread. It is a waste of my time to scroll down all that material to see just what it is that you are about to say.

If you are a full-quoter, then it really doesn't matter if you top-post or bottom-post your new material. You are posting out-of-context just the same - and showing the reader the same degree of courtesy or respect in either case.