Real easy to ruin engine thermostat?

I've nothing more to add that wouldn't be redundant with that which I've already stated multiple times in this thread alone, other than you're the only one that I've encountered in 20 plus years that pathetically and feebly attempted to blame another for your own stark inability to read, follow and comprehend usenet posts unless they strictly complied with your provincial, pretentious and imagined brand of otherwise non-existent "standards", nor could I possibly care less whether you do.

PS The sole reason for the edit of this post is due to the server rejecting (too many quiuoted lines) the entirety.

Not taking sides here, but I was told by a GM engineer that a missing thermostat could prevent proper cooling. It was his job to know these things, so I have to think that there was something to it. I have to assume that this would be under very high engine loads, and at high RPM.

Correct, a missing thermostat CAN most certainly prevent PROPER cooling by not allowing the engine to quickly attain or consistently maintain designed operational temperatures and flow rates.

Call them conventions if you wish, the fact of the matter is that when you don't follow them it's your fault if the message isn't understood. You can spew all the insults that you want, however the root cause failure is you not following convention. If you had been using usenet for 20 years you would know that what you did could result in exactly what happened. You also would have encountered discussions on how to post properly as they often happen when some newbie comes in and starts telling everyone else how it is their fault they didn't parse their own "provincial, pretentious and imagined brand" of how they handle quoted text.

You might as well post in Klingon and then rant about how people didn't understand you are stupid. It would make as much sense. This is a method of communication. You can either use it to be understood or post in your own format and risk not being understood. That is indeed your choice, but it is not the fault of the readers if you go against the grain for not understanding you.

Usenet convention is to trim quoted text. At least the server you are using enforces it.

Proper cooling means the engine reaches and stays within the designed range of operating temperatures. Not too hot, not too cool. If the thermostat could be deleted (and not replaced with something else) it wouldn't be there.

I think I have used just about every news client at one time or another starting with Tin and can accordingly inform that there are at best application defaults. But there simply are no universally agreed upon standards across readers for the text type size, font, color, quoting characters, line length ... in the body of messages, and your pretense that there are only serves to expose your ignorance of the fact that there are not.

You are calling me ignorant when you don't even understand the difference between reader display and the actual text in a post. There certainly is a convention for the actual text content of the post. How a reader displays it up to the reader and its users, however the convention in the actual post remains.

You're quite obviously unfamiliar with the broad range of news clients available that not only utilize different defaults for such things as format, encoding, quote and EOM characters ..., but also allow for configuring any number of different user choices.

As stated in your own reference above: " There is no standard declaring one way of quoting to be "right" and others to be "wrong" ". And, as I've stated before, there simply are no universally agreed upon standards across readers for quoting characters, among other settings, in the body of messages and your continuing pretense and whining that there are only further serves to expose your ignorance of the fact that there still are not.

Quite apparently you're not even aware that netizens do in fact post in other languages, perhaps even Klingon. And I can't imagine that anyone could possibly care less whether "you" understand them. You might want to consider all this as a form of intelligence test; if you still can't parse the intent of a given post, particularly when multiple posts consistently make the very same point repeatedly, within a single thread no less (as I repeat myself yet again), then you can likely safely assume that that poster probably neither needs nor desires that you either read or respond to his/her remarks.

And in the expected absence of your producing any new responses of an informative or interesting nature, I hereby conclude my replies wrt your ridiculous rationalizations.

Again, this is about the actual content of the posts, not what your news reader displays. What is bizarre is having this 'conversation' with someone who claims to have been around long enough to know better.

You deviated from the convention. You were misunderstood. It is your error. I notice that since then you have followed convention. Why is that? If any made up way is so great, why not continue to do it? Why be so conventional now?

I didn't mention other real languages. I mentioned made up nonsense languages.

*yawn* Lame. If you're going to troll do a better job. Meanwhile you still made the error.

You're posting to the convention now. Why is that? Why didn't you continue with the "********" nonsense?

As with your original complaint, undeniably already responded to, addressed in print, and clearly answered. But you're such a dolt you'll never figure that out either and just endlessly continue on with this risible nonsense.

In a last ditch desperate attempt to finally put this insanity to rest, here's even more spoonfeeding for my ignorant, inexperienced and dimwitted friend: "Outlook Express, as is well known, commonly fails to supply the right arrow (>) character to remarks that are responded to in a previous post...". Look familiar? It shoud, but probably doesn't to someone with such limited reading comprehension and as clearly memory challenged as you have so conspicuously demonstrated yourself to be.

To further elaborate, Outlook Express doesn't support a post that was originally formatted and sent as "quoted-printable" ("an encoding using printable ASCII characters [alphanumeric and the equals sign "="] to transmit 8-bit data over a 7-bit data path or, generally, over a medium which is not 8-bit clean. It is defined as mime content transfer encoding for use in e-mail"), by identing/supplying a right arrow (>) to original text in a reply.

Your software. Your problem.

BTW, there is a fix to make older versions outlook work properly. For newer versions there is an option.

It isn't a problem for anyone attempting to establish an intelligent dialog with you, it's an absolute impossibilty.

Wrong yet again. This OE6 version bundled with MS XP SP3 OS "IS" in fact the latest Microsoft version of Outlook Express, DOLT!

Quotefix for Outlook and Outlook Express:

How to set it in outlook:

How to set it in outlook express:

"The last item governs how quoted material is marked in replies. The greater-than sign (>) is the standard and traditional quote marker, so you should use it."

Do you need to be spoonfed any more?

Your software. Your problem.

You're truly a card carrying moron. You said: "there is a fix to make older versions outlook work properly". There is NO more recent version that that which I've already stated. Outlook and Outlook Express are two distinctly different programs.

Having humored you by scanning those links I can honestly report that only knuckle-dragging, mouth-breathing cretins such as yourself would actually so much as consider, or advise others to, apply third party "fixes" to proprietary, closed source, stand alone programs or operating systems.

And I gave you fixes and how to do settings in both. You're reaching troll levels.

I didn't advise you to do anything. You claimed neither settings nor the fixes existed. I provided you with both. Your software. Your problem. How you deal with it I really don't care, the fact remains when you could have just manually added the quote characters you chose to blame the software, which can be made to work properly for this task.

With your multiple insulting replies to the same post, you have proven yourself to be yet another troll. You can join gpstroll.

You've clearly demonstrated beyond any shadow of a doubt that you couldn't locate your own ass with a mirror, map and accompanied by a narrated video version of Gray's Anatomy.

If only you could possibly attain even that dubious distinction.