Maintenance Reminders redux

Depending on how you recount the tale, it is.

Look up "conversational implicature".

The reply was html formatted to highlight the following quotes from your original message.

Well, I dug out the owners manual, and looked for a schedule. Instead, it told me that the computer would tell me when the car needed service. No mileage schedule. I remembered the collective wisdom of this group and that this subject was *discussed, so I dug through the archives. No mileage schedule.* *I searched the internet. No mileage schedule.* So, I replied to the email from the service facility, explaining that all of the information I had was that the car would tell me when it needed service and if the service manager knew something I did not know, then he should share it with me. *Particularly, I wanted to know if there really was a mileage* *schedule that supplemented the maintenance minders.*

Okay, if you think I was asking for somebody on the list to supply a maintenance schedule and you thought you were doing a favor for me by supplying such a list, then I can see how you might have been offended.

I have already apologized. Thanks for your help.

Elliot Richmond Itinerant astronomy teacher Freelance science writer

When you come to the newsgroup and say something like that, the implication (remember "conversational implicature"?) is that you're asking the readers if THEY know of a mileage schedule.

The implication is NOT that you're just talking to hear yourself talk.

But, apparently you were talking just to hear yourself talk.

Elliot Richmond wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Nor do I. I do see copious evidence of cost-cutting, especially on non- critical components. This is not the same as building in obsolescence.

My dad had 140,000 miles on his '58 Dodge Regent (Royal) by 1970. It was the talk of the neighborhood at the time. The engine smoked and the 2- speed automatic leaked badly.

Try over 400K these days.

"Elmo P. Shagnasty" wrote in news:elmop- snipped-for-privacy@nntp1.usenetserver.com:

That, and the desire to not piss off the environment lobby, which has considerable political clout these days. Long oil change intervals are supposed to be more "environmentally friendly".

And a 10K interval IS too long if you're not using a synthetic.

there /definitely/ is built-in obsolescence, but it depends on manufacturer. honda & toyota are finally rumored to be getting into it, but for the vintage vehicles we drive, it's not an issue.

it's quite a difficult engineering task. in terms of technology development, it used to be detroit closely followed by the euros. did a project on it at uni. the crazy thing is, some of it costs more to implement, but it pays back with increased sales.

japanese, not domestic. they're better than they were, but when chevy make a big deal out of 200k, you know that's stratospheric for them. contrast that with the high mileage club over at toyota.com!

it depends. the latest engine computers keep combustion pretty clean, and that leads to better oil life.

The only implication I can construct is that the statement was directed to the service manager at the facility that had sent the message to me.

Here is the original paragraph in question:

You did not quote that part about "replied to the service facility."

The question of whether I thought there really was a mileage schedule had, I thought, already been settled. Here is the previous paragraph:

Notice the repetition for emphasis: "No mileage schedule." It was not a question; it was a statement.

Eric, and possibly others, were misled by my message and interpreted it as a request for information, in spite of the fact that I began the message with.

Clearly, my "tale" was not clear to some. But, I am now done with it. The rest of you may continue to discuss it if you wish, but I would suggest moving on to some other subject. Such as:

Do synthetics really extend the life of an engine when coupled with an extended oil change interval to compensate for the extra cost of synthetics over conventional oils?

Do synthetics really reduce dependency on petroleum based products to any significant degree considering that in the time it takes to "consume" five quarts of oil, which can actually be recycled, the car will consume over 300 gallons of gasoline.

Elliot Richmond Itinerant astronomy teacher Freelance science writer

Yeah, we had a 1956 Desoto with a 350 ci hemihead engine coupled to that model transmission. The gear selector was a set of push buttons at the far left side of the dashboard with a mechanical linkage to the transmission.

Even with a two-speed, that thing was a rocket.

Elliot Richmond Itinerant astronomy teacher Freelance science writer

run doubled service intervals on conventional in your own car, then report back.

they can, yes. true synthetics can offer better lubricity and therefore lower gas consumption. what's the break-even? 0.3% better gas consumption? anything better than break-even is a benefit. that's not including lower oil burn-off rates either.

Part of your original post was: "Particularly, I wanted to know if there really was a mileage schedule that supplemented the maintenance minders." Since this is a discussion group, rather than a storytelling one, I am sure that several people assumed you actually wanted to know the answer...

Elliot Richmond wrote in news: snipped-for-privacy@4ax.com:

Yes. And one thing we kids discovered was that you could push all the buttons behind the faceplate at the same time. Drove my parents nuts. :)

So, what you're saying is that there was nothing implied in what you said--that we were to take what you said solely and completely at face value.

In other words, you came to a discussion newsgroup, one with the goal of sharing information, simply to tell a story.

You were wrong in thinking that people here would want to hear your story and would know automatically to take it completely at face value. The people here are, generally, involved in DISCUSSING things. When you come here, the implication automatically is that you're looking to DISCUSS things.

But apparently you want this newsgroup to be like a newspaper or a magazine--strictly one-way expression, strictly the reader telling his story, with absolutely no actual discussion of the topic.

It was immaterial.

Look bub. Nobody cares about hearing your stories for the sake of hearing your stories. We don't know you, so when you came here to tell your story, you were doing one thing--telling a story with absolutely no expectation of discussing its details of the facts thereof--while the rest of the newsgroup was doing what we normally do in a newsgroup, which is discuss things. Further, we assumed--quite rationally--that you also wanted to discuss things, because coming to a newsgroup to spout a story without wanting to discuss it is just plain nonsense.

So when you said, "Particularly, I wanted to know if there really was a mileage schedule that supplemented the maintenance minders," there was no question in any rational person's mind: you wanted to know if there really was a mileage schedule that supplemented the maintenance minders.

We were wrong, but only because your expectations in coming here were TOTALLY out of whack. So actually, the people who thought you wanted to know that information *in general* were correct in their assumptions.

You came to Rome, but wanted to do what the Japanese do. Well, when in Rome, do as the Romans do.

No, because as you say that's the previous paragraph. Allow me:

• first you dig out owner's manual, look for schedule.

• you don't find one

• it says to pay attention to the computer instead

• you searched the newsgroup, found no schedule

• you searched the internet, found no schedule

• emailed the service facility, saying explicitly that you're looking for a schedule

• came to the discussion newsgroup and said explicitly, within the context of telling your story, "I'm looking for a schedule"

• received some discussion about a schedule

• started telling people here off about how you weren't looking for a schedule from them at all

So why did you come here if you weren't looking for information from us? 'Cuz we just don't care about your pathetic story about "I emailed the service department. I'm looking for a schedule."

YOU were misled--or rather, misled yourself--into thinking that this is a STORY newsgroup, where one tells STORIES.

You told a story, and within that story made it plain that you were looking for information that you had not yet found. What did you expect out of a DISCUSSION newsgroup?

And then, to make matters worse for yourself, you get mad at people who are doing what comes naturally in a DISCUSSION newsgroup. You get mad at the people who are DISCUSSING it, and who are TRYING TO HELP YOU. You tell them, pretty much in so many words, to f*ck off, you weren't asking them for anything.

You have just made the hall of fame for some newsgroup members, no doubt.

Clearly, you (a) came to the wrong place, (b) had the wrong expectations, and (c) were not clear in expressing what you wanted out of your post.

The ball was, and is, squarely in YOUR court to communicate clearly.

It's the same as not caring if the cost-cutting causes the car to become obsolete beyond a certain (short) point.

Absolutely there was. Go back and read what he wrote.

When he comes into a DISCUSSION group and expresses a desire to know something, he should expect it to be DISCUSSED.

But when he comes in and slams the group for daring to discuss it, he should be told to f*ck off.