Ahhh, the old unsupported "premium" assertion. Just which comparable domestic cars are less expensive than a Camry? Go ahead, tell us. We can use a good laugh.
Well according to Edmunds
formatting link
specified black, 60K miles, no options except automatic on the Camry)and KBB, a Camry that was LESS expensive than a Crown Victoria in 2002 nowsells for $4K to $5K MORE than a Crown Victoria, so I guess you're just atad math-challenged. Or post some reliable data of your own. I won't hold my breath looking for it.
Or explain how "math" works on your planet.
So what? If the value of auto A is falling faster than that of auto B, it doesn't make any difference how long you keep auto A, you'll lose more money than you would have with auto B.
So what? Are you suggesting that because someone intends to keep a car longer, they'll be happier if it loses its value faster? When I buy a car, I usually intend to keep it for a long time but that doesn't mean I don't care whether or not it holds its value After all, my needs could change and I could end up wanting to sell it, rather than hold on to it for 16 years. Resale counts.
Top posting is actually the superior method. Having to continually scroll down to the end of the message, every message, is wasteful. It is wasteful because the context of the quoted text is often not actually necessary, due to a high probability that the message containing it was just or recently read by the viewer.
It is most especially gay, for those who additionally re-quote practically the entire thread thus far in every stinking message rather than just the more relevant bits necessary for context. Not only does it waste storage and bandwidth, it amplifies the tragedy of the bottom posting method as pointed out above. If one wants to see the all messages in the thread, it is but a relatively simple matter to browse through the posts and replies in the thread with their news reader, or web news reader like Google or what have you. If that is too much of a challenge, then who are the real idiots?
In the cases that the context is needed, the viewer can scroll down to obtain it. But only when they need to. Efficiency. Beauty. LOGICAL.
I'm not usually one to make an issue out of people's posting style. I like top posting for the reasons given, but recognize that others may place higher value on other aspects of trade offs. But I do not like when someone gets on their top posting is bad high horse like you have been doing. And even though you were directing your comments directly to someone else, the fact that I often top post caused me to feel insulted. Thus I felt compelled to weigh in on it.
And by the way, relating to the primary issue at hand here; if you think that being able to buy a vehicle that is close or closer to "just right" is not a factor in value, then to put it bluntly you are playing a fool. It is generally common understanding that value equals what you get, weighed against the cost. The "just right" concept is most definitely an important issue in the what you get part of the equation.
Regarding top posting, it violates nothing of the sort. Just because some self important jack-ass wrote a document and claimed it to be proper netiquette doesn't make it so. You need the context, you scroll down. If it's not the kind of message that requires context or you already got the context from the just previous message you read, then you don't need to scroll.
Long before usenet there were the BBSs. In that era, the ratio of hard core skilled computer people using such services was much higher than today. Message bases were almost exclusively top posted because it was all but universally recognized as the obvious way to go. Then comes the popularity of the internet. Some lame ass Johnny come friggin lately, who needs his dick held while he re-reads every stinking bit of a thread right before a new bit, decides to write down preferences and label them as if they were handed down from on high like the ten commandments or something. Then desciples like you preach the gospel as if it were holy writ. It isn't. Never was. Never will be.
I'm someone who's been doing this crap since like 1982 on my own
300bps (also baud at that time) modem. I say this not to imply any k>>
"SgtSilicon" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@nntp.charter.net...
Do you also drive on what ever side of the road you feel like regardless of normal convention?
Top-posting makes your message incomprehensible to many of your readers. In normal conversation, after all, you don't answer to something that has not yet been said. For your edification, widely observed Usenet etiquette dictates that top posting is absolutely INAPPROPRIATE!
When you quote, you're doing it to provide context. Requiring your readers to scroll down and then back, repeatedly (as they attempt to figure out what the heck you're talking about), is a rather difficult way for you to make the context available. Providing the context up-front will get you better results. There's no way to build a threaded discussion with top-posting. Top-posting severely inhibits others from understanding the conversation, because the context of the conversation is out of order, as in broken. Replying at the top confuses your readers, making any point you're trying to get across very unclear without them scrolling down and back repeatedly, searching to re-integrate context. That extra, wholly unnecessary work leads to reader irritation, or worse, to readers just not bothering with your words at all. Since your object is to get your message across, help your readers follow by placing your words in context, not prior to the context. Doing otherwise, forcing your readers to go to extra work unnecessarily, is often irritating, sometimes interpreted as insulting, or in severe cases taken as attempt by you to show your "power". Any way you cut that, delivering your words in an hard to read manner doesn't help your case. Instead, post in-line to preserve context and respect your readers.
formatting link
Top-posting means replying to a message above the original message. This may be a message in an Internet forum, an e-mail message or a Usenet post. Top-posting is considered improper by many definitions of Internet etiquette since it breaks down the flow of the thread:
formatting link
Top-posting vs bottom-posting Some people like to put reply after the quoted text, some like it the other way around, and still some prefer interspersed style. Debates about which posting style is better have lead to many flame wars in the forums. To keep forum discussion friendly, please follow the general preference, which is bottom-posting
formatting link
Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting By A. Smit and H.W. de Haan Below you can find our arguments why bottom-posting is better than top-posting.
"SgtSilicon" wrote in message news: snipped-for-privacy@nntp.charter.net...
Top-posting makes your message incomprehensible to many of your readers. In normal conversation, after all, you don't answer to something that has not yet been said.
When you quote, you're doing it to provide context. Requiring your readers to scroll down and then back, repeatedly (as they attempt to figure out what the heck you're talking about), is a rather difficult way for you to make the context available. Providing the context up-front will get you better results. There's no way to build a threaded discussion with top-posting. Top-posting severely inhibits others from understanding the conversation, because the context of the conversation is out of order, as in broken. Replying at the top confuses your readers, making any point you're trying to get across very unclear without them scrolling down and back repeatedly, searching to re-integrate context. That extra, wholly unnecessary work leads to reader irritation, or worse, to readers just not bothering with your words at all. Since your object is to get your message across, help your readers follow by placing your words in context, not prior to the context. Doing otherwise, forcing your readers to go to extra work unnecessarily, is often irritating, sometimes interpreted as insulting, or in severe cases taken as attempt by you to show your "power". Any way you cut that, delivering your words in an hard to read manner doesn't help your case. Instead, post in-line to preserve context and respect your readers.
formatting link
Top-posting means replying to a message above the original message. This may be a message in an Internet forum, an e-mail message or a Usenet post. Top-posting is considered improper by many definitions of Internet etiquette since it breaks down the flow of the thread:
formatting link
Top-posting vs bottom-posting Some people like to put reply after the quoted text, some like it the other way around, and still some prefer interspersed style. Debates about which posting style is better have lead to many flame wars in the forums. To keep forum discussion friendly, please follow the general preference, which is bottom-posting
formatting link
Why is Bottom-posting better than Top-posting By A. Smit and H.W. de Haan Below you can find our arguments why bottom-posting is better than top-posting.
Amen brother. I'll stop top posting when the other morons on the i-net quit including EVERY iteration of the conversation ad-infinitiuum. Honestly, if someone wants to post a reply at the bottom, I certainly respect their option to do so... However, please at least be curtious enough to cut out the chaff so I don't have page upon page to scroll through to get to somebody's 1-line response. THAT is what makes it hard to understand the context. JP
snipped-for-privacy@ihatespam.net (SgtSilicon) wrote in news:43c9dfdb.3322578 @nntp.charter.net:
~text that I'm sure SgtSillycon didn't read, snipped~
Some people just won't let facts, convention or common sense get in the way of doing things *their* way. If the posters that follow convention would ignore or KF those that refuse to, they might see the error of their ways. I agree with another poster that people that don't trim their posts are just as bad as top posters. FWIW
To educate you Mike it depends on the design of the brake pads and wheel covers. My 4 wheel disk brake Concord leaves only a modest amount of visible pad dust. My wife's 4 wheel disk Sebring leaves much more visible pad dust. One obvious difference in these cars is the much more open wheels on the Sebring which improves cooling of the brakes.
Just bull Mike. I've had Chrysler FWD 4 & 6 cyl vehicles from '79 to '01. They were all price competitive with similar RWD vehicles.
Recent Chrysler 300 vehicles are much more expensive than the mid sized cars they replaced. Economies of scale and similar cars on the same platform has always been with us, as even GM, Ford and Chrysler well know.
Nope. It not only prevents quality, point-by-point discussion, but if often multiplies the effort of reading and understanding a post, because one must scroll-down into the post to see what is being responded to, and then back up to the top to read the response.
It's obviously less effort than properly formatting and trimming your response as I am doing. This is not really "top vs. bottom" so much as "right vs. wrong". There's no way a top post can match the quality of communication of an interleaved post like this one.
Those who don't properly trim are indeed lazy, as you say. However, they are not "the lazy ones" - they are only a subset of the lazy ones.
The first thing I did when I read your follow up was to scroll down past all the quoted stuff because I ALREADY AM FOLLOWING THE THREAD. If, and ONLY if, It's not making sense, then I will quick check the quoted. Most of the time, probably 90%+, I just recently finished reading the quoted material in its original posting and I do not need to read any of it. I do not need to re-read it every time someone throws in 2 cents. See another posting I have made regarding so called self appointed preachers of what is netiquette.
Good thing there are standards then. Imagine if you thought people driving on the right side of the road instead of the left were idiots. Read RFC 1855.
There are laws proscribed for driving on public roadways. Individual preference is the rule here. Is that the best you can do? It's pretty lame.
I disagree. I think it is very comprehensible for most people most of the time, and in the times it isn't, the option is there to quick scroll down to check the context. That's my comment on the subjective point. Objectively you also are factually wrong about the not having yet been said. It HAS been said. That's how it was able to be quoted in the 1st place you doof!
It's as if you have this mental barrier that you just can't get past, that each posting stands alone. And as such, each posting must start off with (at the top) all previous parts of the discussion. Then the reader needs to read a complete history of all postings on the subject before reading a bit of new material. Then, when the reader goes to the next message in the thread (immediately after they read this one) they should do it all over again in the next message, because hey, after all, each message has to stand all alone right? NOT! In usenet, postings are part of a thread. I'll give you a big hint to help your problem. Stop doing primary sorting by date, and start organizing by thread 1st. It's the smart way to do it, regardless what posting styles are being used.
You can adopt the sheep mentality if you like. I think for myself. I wish you could "observe" my middle finger about now.
Funny, I hardly ever have a problem with that. You really need to primarily start organizing your reading by thread, not date.
Opinion. One I disagree with. You don't seem to have too much trouble responding to my posts. Honestly now, are you claiming it is too hard to scroll down to scan the context if needed, but it isn't a big deal to have to do the scrolling to get to the fresh material each and every time? If so that is soooo illogical.
Sure there is. Maybe you should better learn how to use a news reader to advantage.
It's right below new material! If you consider that a hard nut to crack, then I guess I'm starting to realize what I'm dealing with here.
Sigh. Can you say "bahh"? There is plenty of support for top posting too. I prefer to debate my stance on my own. There once was a man named Copernicus who suggested it was wise to understand that the earth and other planets revolved around the sun. Convention said that no, everything rotated around the earth. Oh the great ones that were quoted, even the great Aristotle and others. And yet even so, Calumnious was right; convention was wrong.
MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.