Digital Spedometer On 2010 Civic ?
02-03-2010 | 08:58 AM
#46
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital Spedometer On 2010 Civic ?
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:25:19 -0400, Brian Smith
<Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:
>On 2/3/2010 4:08 AM, Dave D wrote:
>>
>> It would take much more than you are obviously capable of! I am glad I am
>> way up here safely away from crash headed idiots like you....
>
> Have a nice day there, Dave.
Brian don't be too harsh on Dave. Remember how bright Palin was in
her Couric interview? I can only assume Alaska has special needs
starting from the Govenor's office all the way down to the people.
The really sad thing is if people have to resort to name calling
showing how mature or bright they are, imagine who you could be
driving next to? That's a scary thought.
<Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:
>On 2/3/2010 4:08 AM, Dave D wrote:
>>
>> It would take much more than you are obviously capable of! I am glad I am
>> way up here safely away from crash headed idiots like you....
>
> Have a nice day there, Dave.
Brian don't be too harsh on Dave. Remember how bright Palin was in
her Couric interview? I can only assume Alaska has special needs
starting from the Govenor's office all the way down to the people.
The really sad thing is if people have to resort to name calling
showing how mature or bright they are, imagine who you could be
driving next to? That's a scary thought.
02-03-2010 | 09:17 AM
#47
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital Speedometer On 2010 Civic ?
On 02/02/2010 11:13 PM, Guy wrote:
> On 03 Feb 2010 05:07:12 GMT, Joe<joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2010-02-03, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> On 02/02/2010 06:17 AM, Joe wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No, "dude", I said MY digital is very accurate. That is correct. I
>>>> claimed no comparison to any other gauge.
>>>
>>> that's not true - by definition, you /are/ comparing it.
>>
>> That's not true. You can say one thing is accurate without comparing
>> it to another. There's no need for comparison in the original context
>> of the question.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> That is you reading into
>>>> the statement and trying to make an argument out of it.
>>>
>>> your "argument" is my pedantry. many people wrongly portray digital as
>>> "accurate" when in reality, there's no greater accuracy whatsoever.
>>
>> I am not many people, and I made no such statement. It's no wonder
>> that so many people have you in their killfiles. The only real wonder
>> is why I took you out of mine.
>
>
> I'm with you Joe about Jim Beam. He at times shows knowledge but his
> personality gets in the way of that knowledge and often lessens the
> value of many of his posts. Too often he resorts to name calling
behold, the retard tries to disassociate himself from reality. pointing
out that you are a retard is not "name calling", retard, it's simply a
reflection of fact.
> just
> because someone doesn't see it his way. Normally I'd call this
> immature but in his case, I think his problem is something else just
> not sure what that is.
yeah, i have a problem alright - i just can't resist confronting retards
with their reality. see above, retard.
> On 03 Feb 2010 05:07:12 GMT, Joe<joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On 2010-02-03, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> On 02/02/2010 06:17 AM, Joe wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No, "dude", I said MY digital is very accurate. That is correct. I
>>>> claimed no comparison to any other gauge.
>>>
>>> that's not true - by definition, you /are/ comparing it.
>>
>> That's not true. You can say one thing is accurate without comparing
>> it to another. There's no need for comparison in the original context
>> of the question.
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> That is you reading into
>>>> the statement and trying to make an argument out of it.
>>>
>>> your "argument" is my pedantry. many people wrongly portray digital as
>>> "accurate" when in reality, there's no greater accuracy whatsoever.
>>
>> I am not many people, and I made no such statement. It's no wonder
>> that so many people have you in their killfiles. The only real wonder
>> is why I took you out of mine.
>
>
> I'm with you Joe about Jim Beam. He at times shows knowledge but his
> personality gets in the way of that knowledge and often lessens the
> value of many of his posts. Too often he resorts to name calling
behold, the retard tries to disassociate himself from reality. pointing
out that you are a retard is not "name calling", retard, it's simply a
reflection of fact.
> just
> because someone doesn't see it his way. Normally I'd call this
> immature but in his case, I think his problem is something else just
> not sure what that is.
yeah, i have a problem alright - i just can't resist confronting retards
with their reality. see above, retard.
02-03-2010 | 09:29 AM
#48
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital Speedometer On 2010 Civic ?
On 02/02/2010 09:07 PM, Joe wrote:
> On 2010-02-03, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>> On 02/02/2010 06:17 AM, Joe wrote:
>>>
>>> No, "dude", I said MY digital is very accurate. That is correct. I
>>> claimed no comparison to any other gauge.
>>
>> that's not true - by definition, you /are/ comparing it.
>
> That's not true. You can say one thing is accurate without comparing
> it to another. There's no need for comparison in the original context
> of the question.
then either post to a different thread or be more "accurate" about what
you're trying to say - this whole thread is a comparison, hence the
above comment.
>
>>
>>
>>> That is you reading into
>>> the statement and trying to make an argument out of it.
>>
>> your "argument" is my pedantry. many people wrongly portray digital as
>> "accurate" when in reality, there's no greater accuracy whatsoever.
>
> I am not many people, and I made no such statement.
see above. your first post expressed enthusiasm for digital, with your
reason being accuracy. if you just like digital, that's fine. if you
appreciate accuracy, that's great too - i know i do. but they are not
synonymous - as is conveyed when you try to reason one because of the
other, which is exactly what you did..
> It's no wonder
> that so many people have you in their killfiles. The only real wonder
> is why I took you out of mine.
my, you must live in a cotton-wool ball if you don't like minor bumps.
how do you hold down a job where management confronts you with reality
about /real/ things like "performance" and "pay"?
> On 2010-02-03, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>> On 02/02/2010 06:17 AM, Joe wrote:
>>>
>>> No, "dude", I said MY digital is very accurate. That is correct. I
>>> claimed no comparison to any other gauge.
>>
>> that's not true - by definition, you /are/ comparing it.
>
> That's not true. You can say one thing is accurate without comparing
> it to another. There's no need for comparison in the original context
> of the question.
then either post to a different thread or be more "accurate" about what
you're trying to say - this whole thread is a comparison, hence the
above comment.
>
>>
>>
>>> That is you reading into
>>> the statement and trying to make an argument out of it.
>>
>> your "argument" is my pedantry. many people wrongly portray digital as
>> "accurate" when in reality, there's no greater accuracy whatsoever.
>
> I am not many people, and I made no such statement.
see above. your first post expressed enthusiasm for digital, with your
reason being accuracy. if you just like digital, that's fine. if you
appreciate accuracy, that's great too - i know i do. but they are not
synonymous - as is conveyed when you try to reason one because of the
other, which is exactly what you did..
> It's no wonder
> that so many people have you in their killfiles. The only real wonder
> is why I took you out of mine.
my, you must live in a cotton-wool ball if you don't like minor bumps.
how do you hold down a job where management confronts you with reality
about /real/ things like "performance" and "pay"?
02-03-2010 | 09:31 AM
#49
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital Spedometer On 2010 Civic ?
On 02/03/2010 05:58 AM, Guy wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:25:19 -0400, Brian Smith
> <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:
>
>> On 2/3/2010 4:08 AM, Dave D wrote:
>>>
>>> It would take much more than you are obviously capable of! I am glad I am
>>> way up here safely away from crash headed idiots like you....
>>
>> Have a nice day there, Dave.
>
>
> Brian don't be too harsh on Dave. Remember how bright Palin was in
> her Couric interview? I can only assume Alaska has special needs
> starting from the Govenor's office all the way down to the people.
>
> The really sad thing is if people have to resort to name calling
> showing how mature or bright they are, imagine who you could be
> driving next to? That's a scary thought.
no, "scary" is someone who just can't resist the "retard" trigger. like
you, retard.
> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:25:19 -0400, Brian Smith
> <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:
>
>> On 2/3/2010 4:08 AM, Dave D wrote:
>>>
>>> It would take much more than you are obviously capable of! I am glad I am
>>> way up here safely away from crash headed idiots like you....
>>
>> Have a nice day there, Dave.
>
>
> Brian don't be too harsh on Dave. Remember how bright Palin was in
> her Couric interview? I can only assume Alaska has special needs
> starting from the Govenor's office all the way down to the people.
>
> The really sad thing is if people have to resort to name calling
> showing how mature or bright they are, imagine who you could be
> driving next to? That's a scary thought.
no, "scary" is someone who just can't resist the "retard" trigger. like
you, retard.
02-03-2010 | 09:35 AM
#50
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital Speedometer On 2010 Civic ?
On 2010-02-03, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:
> On 02/02/2010 09:07 PM, Joe wrote:
>> On 2010-02-03, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> On 02/02/2010 06:17 AM, Joe wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No, "dude", I said MY digital is very accurate. That is correct. I
>>>> claimed no comparison to any other gauge.
>>>
>>> that's not true - by definition, you /are/ comparing it.
>>
>> That's not true. You can say one thing is accurate without comparing
>> it to another. There's no need for comparison in the original context
>> of the question.
>
> then either post to a different thread or be more "accurate" about what
> you're trying to say - this whole thread is a comparison, hence the
> above comment.
You might want to re-read THIS thread. The question had nothing to do
with a comparison, the guy just asked if people liked the digital in
the civic.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> That is you reading into
>>>> the statement and trying to make an argument out of it.
>>>
>>> your "argument" is my pedantry. many people wrongly portray digital as
>>> "accurate" when in reality, there's no greater accuracy whatsoever.
>>
>> I am not many people, and I made no such statement.
>
> see above. your first post expressed enthusiasm for digital, with your
> reason being accuracy. if you just like digital, that's fine. if you
> appreciate accuracy, that's great too - i know i do. but they are not
> synonymous - as is conveyed when you try to reason one because of the
> other, which is exactly what you did..
My first response expressed enthusiasm for the digital in my car, and
made no comparison to any other. The only mention of Analog was in
the fact that I like the placement of the digital in the Civic better
than I like the placement of the analog in my Dodge truck, and never
mentioned accuracy, one way or the other, of the analog.
>
>
>> It's no wonder
>> that so many people have you in their killfiles. The only real wonder
>> is why I took you out of mine.
>
> my, you must live in a cotton-wool ball if you don't like minor bumps.
> how do you hold down a job where management confronts you with reality
> about /real/ things like "performance" and "pay"?
>
Management has never confronted me. I can't remember a single time
where my annual performance reviews were not stellar, and my pay raise
wasn't in line with that.
Perhaps your experience in that field further explains your **** poor
attitude and demeanor, and might be explained by your outrageous
pedantry. Not a further problem here, though, you are back where you
belong...
--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X
> On 02/02/2010 09:07 PM, Joe wrote:
>> On 2010-02-03, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>> On 02/02/2010 06:17 AM, Joe wrote:
>>>>
>>>> No, "dude", I said MY digital is very accurate. That is correct. I
>>>> claimed no comparison to any other gauge.
>>>
>>> that's not true - by definition, you /are/ comparing it.
>>
>> That's not true. You can say one thing is accurate without comparing
>> it to another. There's no need for comparison in the original context
>> of the question.
>
> then either post to a different thread or be more "accurate" about what
> you're trying to say - this whole thread is a comparison, hence the
> above comment.
You might want to re-read THIS thread. The question had nothing to do
with a comparison, the guy just asked if people liked the digital in
the civic.
>
>
>>
>>>
>>>
>>>> That is you reading into
>>>> the statement and trying to make an argument out of it.
>>>
>>> your "argument" is my pedantry. many people wrongly portray digital as
>>> "accurate" when in reality, there's no greater accuracy whatsoever.
>>
>> I am not many people, and I made no such statement.
>
> see above. your first post expressed enthusiasm for digital, with your
> reason being accuracy. if you just like digital, that's fine. if you
> appreciate accuracy, that's great too - i know i do. but they are not
> synonymous - as is conveyed when you try to reason one because of the
> other, which is exactly what you did..
My first response expressed enthusiasm for the digital in my car, and
made no comparison to any other. The only mention of Analog was in
the fact that I like the placement of the digital in the Civic better
than I like the placement of the analog in my Dodge truck, and never
mentioned accuracy, one way or the other, of the analog.
>
>
>> It's no wonder
>> that so many people have you in their killfiles. The only real wonder
>> is why I took you out of mine.
>
> my, you must live in a cotton-wool ball if you don't like minor bumps.
> how do you hold down a job where management confronts you with reality
> about /real/ things like "performance" and "pay"?
>
Management has never confronted me. I can't remember a single time
where my annual performance reviews were not stellar, and my pay raise
wasn't in line with that.
Perhaps your experience in that field further explains your **** poor
attitude and demeanor, and might be explained by your outrageous
pedantry. Not a further problem here, though, you are back where you
belong...
--
Joe - Linux User #449481/Ubuntu User #19733
joe at hits - buffalo dot com
"Hate is baggage, life is too short to go around pissed off all the
time..." - Danny, American History X
02-03-2010 | 09:49 AM
#51
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital Speedometer On 2010 Civic ?
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 06:17:26 -0800, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>On 02/02/2010 11:13 PM, Guy wrote:
>> On 03 Feb 2010 05:07:12 GMT, Joe<joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2010-02-03, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>> On 02/02/2010 06:17 AM, Joe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, "dude", I said MY digital is very accurate. That is correct. I
>>>>> claimed no comparison to any other gauge.
>>>>
>>>> that's not true - by definition, you /are/ comparing it.
>>>
>>> That's not true. You can say one thing is accurate without comparing
>>> it to another. There's no need for comparison in the original context
>>> of the question.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That is you reading into
>>>>> the statement and trying to make an argument out of it.
>>>>
>>>> your "argument" is my pedantry. many people wrongly portray digital as
>>>> "accurate" when in reality, there's no greater accuracy whatsoever.
>>>
>>> I am not many people, and I made no such statement. It's no wonder
>>> that so many people have you in their killfiles. The only real wonder
>>> is why I took you out of mine.
>>
>>
>> I'm with you Joe about Jim Beam. He at times shows knowledge but his
>> personality gets in the way of that knowledge and often lessens the
>> value of many of his posts. Too often he resorts to name calling
>
>behold, the retard tries to disassociate himself from reality. pointing
>out that you are a retard is not "name calling", retard, it's simply a
>reflection of fact.
>
>
>> just
>> because someone doesn't see it his way. Normally I'd call this
>> immature but in his case, I think his problem is something else just
>> not sure what that is.
>
>yeah, i have a problem alright - i just can't resist confronting retards
>with their reality. see above, retard.
Just as I predicted.
>On 02/02/2010 11:13 PM, Guy wrote:
>> On 03 Feb 2010 05:07:12 GMT, Joe<joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2010-02-03, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>> On 02/02/2010 06:17 AM, Joe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, "dude", I said MY digital is very accurate. That is correct. I
>>>>> claimed no comparison to any other gauge.
>>>>
>>>> that's not true - by definition, you /are/ comparing it.
>>>
>>> That's not true. You can say one thing is accurate without comparing
>>> it to another. There's no need for comparison in the original context
>>> of the question.
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That is you reading into
>>>>> the statement and trying to make an argument out of it.
>>>>
>>>> your "argument" is my pedantry. many people wrongly portray digital as
>>>> "accurate" when in reality, there's no greater accuracy whatsoever.
>>>
>>> I am not many people, and I made no such statement. It's no wonder
>>> that so many people have you in their killfiles. The only real wonder
>>> is why I took you out of mine.
>>
>>
>> I'm with you Joe about Jim Beam. He at times shows knowledge but his
>> personality gets in the way of that knowledge and often lessens the
>> value of many of his posts. Too often he resorts to name calling
>
>behold, the retard tries to disassociate himself from reality. pointing
>out that you are a retard is not "name calling", retard, it's simply a
>reflection of fact.
>
>
>> just
>> because someone doesn't see it his way. Normally I'd call this
>> immature but in his case, I think his problem is something else just
>> not sure what that is.
>
>yeah, i have a problem alright - i just can't resist confronting retards
>with their reality. see above, retard.
Just as I predicted.
02-03-2010 | 09:51 AM
#52
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital Spedometer On 2010 Civic ?
On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 06:31:55 -0800, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>On 02/03/2010 05:58 AM, Guy wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:25:19 -0400, Brian Smith
>> <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/3/2010 4:08 AM, Dave D wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It would take much more than you are obviously capable of! I am glad I am
>>>> way up here safely away from crash headed idiots like you....
>>>
>>> Have a nice day there, Dave.
>>
>>
>> Brian don't be too harsh on Dave. Remember how bright Palin was in
>> her Couric interview? I can only assume Alaska has special needs
>> starting from the Govenor's office all the way down to the people.
>>
>> The really sad thing is if people have to resort to name calling
>> showing how mature or bright they are, imagine who you could be
>> driving next to? That's a scary thought.
>
>no, "scary" is someone who just can't resist the "retard" trigger. like
>you, retard.
Thanks for proving my point.
>On 02/03/2010 05:58 AM, Guy wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:25:19 -0400, Brian Smith
>> <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:
>>
>>> On 2/3/2010 4:08 AM, Dave D wrote:
>>>>
>>>> It would take much more than you are obviously capable of! I am glad I am
>>>> way up here safely away from crash headed idiots like you....
>>>
>>> Have a nice day there, Dave.
>>
>>
>> Brian don't be too harsh on Dave. Remember how bright Palin was in
>> her Couric interview? I can only assume Alaska has special needs
>> starting from the Govenor's office all the way down to the people.
>>
>> The really sad thing is if people have to resort to name calling
>> showing how mature or bright they are, imagine who you could be
>> driving next to? That's a scary thought.
>
>no, "scary" is someone who just can't resist the "retard" trigger. like
>you, retard.
Thanks for proving my point.
02-03-2010 | 12:12 PM
#53
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital Spedometer On 2010 Civic ?
On 2/3/2010 9:58 AM, Guy wrote:
>
> Brian don't be too harsh on Dave. Remember how bright Palin was in
> her Couric interview? I can only assume Alaska has special needs
> starting from the Govenor's office all the way down to the people.
You're right Guy. Dave *might* just be a passenger on the short white bus.
> The really sad thing is if people have to resort to name calling
> showing how mature or bright they are, imagine who you could be
> driving next to? That's a scary thought.
It takes all kinds to make up this world, unfortunately a lot of them
have computers and phones and have a basic knowledge of how to use that
technology. :^)
>
> Brian don't be too harsh on Dave. Remember how bright Palin was in
> her Couric interview? I can only assume Alaska has special needs
> starting from the Govenor's office all the way down to the people.
You're right Guy. Dave *might* just be a passenger on the short white bus.
> The really sad thing is if people have to resort to name calling
> showing how mature or bright they are, imagine who you could be
> driving next to? That's a scary thought.
It takes all kinds to make up this world, unfortunately a lot of them
have computers and phones and have a basic knowledge of how to use that
technology. :^)
02-04-2010 | 03:06 AM
#54
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital Spedometer On 2010 Civic ?
"Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in message
news:hkbpvf$7mi$1@news.datemas.de...
> On 2/3/2010 4:08 AM, Dave D wrote:
>>
>> It would take much more than you are obviously capable of! I am glad I am
>> way up here safely away from crash headed idiots like you....
>
> Have a nice day there, Dave.
Same to you. Keep your head down and your powder dry.
DaveD
02-04-2010 | 03:08 AM
#55
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital Spedometer On 2010 Civic ?
"Guy" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:amvim55jn2vfkcelobpictc39769nq80j8@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:25:19 -0400, Brian Smith
> <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:
>
>>On 2/3/2010 4:08 AM, Dave D wrote:
>>>
>>> It would take much more than you are obviously capable of! I am glad I
>>> am
>>> way up here safely away from crash headed idiots like you....
>>
>> Have a nice day there, Dave.
>
>
> Brian don't be too harsh on Dave. Remember how bright Palin was in
> her Couric interview? I can only assume Alaska has special needs
> starting from the Govenor's office all the way down to the people.
>
> The really sad thing is if people have to resort to name calling
> showing how mature or bright they are, imagine who you could be
> driving next to? That's a scary thought.
You mean like the obvious attempts by T&A Couric during that exchange. I
refuse to call it an interview. Couric tried to talk down to Sarah but found
that she was totally outclassed.
DaveD
02-04-2010 | 03:09 AM
#56
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital Spedometer On 2010 Civic ?
"Guy" <void@void.com> wrote in message
news:l93jm59jfm77bfdkdmovptq3i8jrid5q1d@4ax.com...
> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 06:31:55 -0800, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>>On 02/03/2010 05:58 AM, Guy wrote:
>>> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 08:25:19 -0400, Brian Smith
>>> <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2/3/2010 4:08 AM, Dave D wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> It would take much more than you are obviously capable of! I am glad I
>>>>> am
>>>>> way up here safely away from crash headed idiots like you....
>>>>
>>>> Have a nice day there, Dave.
>>>
>>>
>>> Brian don't be too harsh on Dave. Remember how bright Palin was in
>>> her Couric interview? I can only assume Alaska has special needs
>>> starting from the Govenor's office all the way down to the people.
>>>
>>> The really sad thing is if people have to resort to name calling
>>> showing how mature or bright they are, imagine who you could be
>>> driving next to? That's a scary thought.
>>
>>no, "scary" is someone who just can't resist the "retard" trigger. like
>>you, retard.
>
>
> Thanks for proving my point.
You're wrong again...You never made a point to have proven....
DaveD
02-04-2010 | 03:10 AM
#57
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital Spedometer On 2010 Civic ?
"Brian Smith" <Halifax@NovaScotia.Canada> wrote in message
news:hkcapn$tst$1@news.datemas.de...
> On 2/3/2010 9:58 AM, Guy wrote:
>>
>> Brian don't be too harsh on Dave. Remember how bright Palin was in
>> her Couric interview? I can only assume Alaska has special needs
>> starting from the Govenor's office all the way down to the people.
>
> You're right Guy. Dave *might* just be a passenger on the short white bus.
>
>> The really sad thing is if people have to resort to name calling
>> showing how mature or bright they are, imagine who you could be
>> driving next to? That's a scary thought.
>
> It takes all kinds to make up this world, unfortunately a lot of them have
> computers and phones and have a basic knowledge of how to use that
> technology. :^)
Sorry to disappoint a Newfie but I have been using this technology as long,
probably longer than you....
DaveD
02-04-2010 | 09:35 PM
#58
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital Speedometer On 2010 Civic ?
On 02/03/2010 06:49 AM, Guy wrote:
> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 06:17:26 -0800, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 02/02/2010 11:13 PM, Guy wrote:
>>> On 03 Feb 2010 05:07:12 GMT, Joe<joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2010-02-03, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 02/02/2010 06:17 AM, Joe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, "dude", I said MY digital is very accurate. That is correct. I
>>>>>> claimed no comparison to any other gauge.
>>>>>
>>>>> that's not true - by definition, you /are/ comparing it.
>>>>
>>>> That's not true. You can say one thing is accurate without comparing
>>>> it to another. There's no need for comparison in the original context
>>>> of the question.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> That is you reading into
>>>>>> the statement and trying to make an argument out of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> your "argument" is my pedantry. many people wrongly portray digital as
>>>>> "accurate" when in reality, there's no greater accuracy whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>> I am not many people, and I made no such statement. It's no wonder
>>>> that so many people have you in their killfiles. The only real wonder
>>>> is why I took you out of mine.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm with you Joe about Jim Beam. He at times shows knowledge but his
>>> personality gets in the way of that knowledge and often lessens the
>>> value of many of his posts. Too often he resorts to name calling
>>
>> behold, the retard tries to disassociate himself from reality. pointing
>> out that you are a retard is not "name calling", retard, it's simply a
>> reflection of fact.
>>
>>
>>> just
>>> because someone doesn't see it his way. Normally I'd call this
>>> immature but in his case, I think his problem is something else just
>>> not sure what that is.
>>
>> yeah, i have a problem alright - i just can't resist confronting retards
>> with their reality. see above, retard.
>
>
> Just as I predicted.
"predicted"??? you didn't "predict" anything, retard.
> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 06:17:26 -0800, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>
>> On 02/02/2010 11:13 PM, Guy wrote:
>>> On 03 Feb 2010 05:07:12 GMT, Joe<joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On 2010-02-03, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 02/02/2010 06:17 AM, Joe wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>> No, "dude", I said MY digital is very accurate. That is correct. I
>>>>>> claimed no comparison to any other gauge.
>>>>>
>>>>> that's not true - by definition, you /are/ comparing it.
>>>>
>>>> That's not true. You can say one thing is accurate without comparing
>>>> it to another. There's no need for comparison in the original context
>>>> of the question.
>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>> That is you reading into
>>>>>> the statement and trying to make an argument out of it.
>>>>>
>>>>> your "argument" is my pedantry. many people wrongly portray digital as
>>>>> "accurate" when in reality, there's no greater accuracy whatsoever.
>>>>
>>>> I am not many people, and I made no such statement. It's no wonder
>>>> that so many people have you in their killfiles. The only real wonder
>>>> is why I took you out of mine.
>>>
>>>
>>> I'm with you Joe about Jim Beam. He at times shows knowledge but his
>>> personality gets in the way of that knowledge and often lessens the
>>> value of many of his posts. Too often he resorts to name calling
>>
>> behold, the retard tries to disassociate himself from reality. pointing
>> out that you are a retard is not "name calling", retard, it's simply a
>> reflection of fact.
>>
>>
>>> just
>>> because someone doesn't see it his way. Normally I'd call this
>>> immature but in his case, I think his problem is something else just
>>> not sure what that is.
>>
>> yeah, i have a problem alright - i just can't resist confronting retards
>> with their reality. see above, retard.
>
>
> Just as I predicted.
"predicted"??? you didn't "predict" anything, retard.
02-04-2010 | 09:50 PM
#59
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital Speedometer On 2010 Civic ?
On 02/03/2010 06:35 AM, Joe wrote:
> On 2010-02-03, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>> On 02/02/2010 09:07 PM, Joe wrote:
>>> On 2010-02-03, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>> On 02/02/2010 06:17 AM, Joe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, "dude", I said MY digital is very accurate. That is correct. I
>>>>> claimed no comparison to any other gauge.
>>>>
>>>> that's not true - by definition, you /are/ comparing it.
>>>
>>> That's not true. You can say one thing is accurate without comparing
>>> it to another. There's no need for comparison in the original context
>>> of the question.
>>
>> then either post to a different thread or be more "accurate" about what
>> you're trying to say - this whole thread is a comparison, hence the
>> above comment.
>
> You might want to re-read THIS thread. The question had nothing to do
> with a comparison, the guy just asked if people liked the digital in
> the civic.
<ACUTE_PEDANTRY>
you said:
"I wasn't sure if I'd like it or not, but it works great, is very accurate"
that is a direct comparison between the dial gauge that you used
previously, and digital. and you use the rationale of accuracy for
"working great".
it seems you didn't intend to mean that, but that is what your words
convey. and i'm not contesting your taste, but i am contesting the
rationale that "digital" is "accurate" because those are /not/ synonymous.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That is you reading into
>>>>> the statement and trying to make an argument out of it.
>>>>
>>>> your "argument" is my pedantry. many people wrongly portray digital as
>>>> "accurate" when in reality, there's no greater accuracy whatsoever.
>>>
>>> I am not many people, and I made no such statement.
>>
>> see above. your first post expressed enthusiasm for digital, with your
>> reason being accuracy. if you just like digital, that's fine. if you
>> appreciate accuracy, that's great too - i know i do. but they are not
>> synonymous - as is conveyed when you try to reason one because of the
>> other, which is exactly what you did..
>
> My first response expressed enthusiasm for the digital in my car, and
> made no comparison to any other.
untrue - you were comparing to to what you were used to previously.
> The only mention of Analog was in
> the fact that I like the placement of the digital in the Civic better
> than I like the placement of the analog in my Dodge truck, and never
> mentioned accuracy, one way or the other, of the analog.
but you did the digital, and with the above comparison, you absolutely
/do/ make the inference that digital is accurate.
>
>>
>>
>>> It's no wonder
>>> that so many people have you in their killfiles. The only real wonder
>>> is why I took you out of mine.
>>
>> my, you must live in a cotton-wool ball if you don't like minor bumps.
>> how do you hold down a job where management confronts you with reality
>> about /real/ things like "performance" and "pay"?
>>
>
> Management has never confronted me. I can't remember a single time
> where my annual performance reviews were not stellar, and my pay raise
> wasn't in line with that.
really??? and "stellar" performance means what exactly? annual pay
raises of 10%? 30%? 100%? compounded, how many years did it take you
to reach your current $1,000,000 p.a?
>
> Perhaps your experience in that field further explains your **** poor
> attitude and demeanor, and might be explained by your outrageous
> pedantry. Not a further problem here, though, you are back where you
> belong...
>
get over it. pedants make cars work, planes fly, computers compute, and
people who can't cook get out of the kitchen.
> On 2010-02-03, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>> On 02/02/2010 09:07 PM, Joe wrote:
>>> On 2010-02-03, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>> On 02/02/2010 06:17 AM, Joe wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>> No, "dude", I said MY digital is very accurate. That is correct. I
>>>>> claimed no comparison to any other gauge.
>>>>
>>>> that's not true - by definition, you /are/ comparing it.
>>>
>>> That's not true. You can say one thing is accurate without comparing
>>> it to another. There's no need for comparison in the original context
>>> of the question.
>>
>> then either post to a different thread or be more "accurate" about what
>> you're trying to say - this whole thread is a comparison, hence the
>> above comment.
>
> You might want to re-read THIS thread. The question had nothing to do
> with a comparison, the guy just asked if people liked the digital in
> the civic.
<ACUTE_PEDANTRY>
you said:
"I wasn't sure if I'd like it or not, but it works great, is very accurate"
that is a direct comparison between the dial gauge that you used
previously, and digital. and you use the rationale of accuracy for
"working great".
it seems you didn't intend to mean that, but that is what your words
convey. and i'm not contesting your taste, but i am contesting the
rationale that "digital" is "accurate" because those are /not/ synonymous.
>
>>
>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>> That is you reading into
>>>>> the statement and trying to make an argument out of it.
>>>>
>>>> your "argument" is my pedantry. many people wrongly portray digital as
>>>> "accurate" when in reality, there's no greater accuracy whatsoever.
>>>
>>> I am not many people, and I made no such statement.
>>
>> see above. your first post expressed enthusiasm for digital, with your
>> reason being accuracy. if you just like digital, that's fine. if you
>> appreciate accuracy, that's great too - i know i do. but they are not
>> synonymous - as is conveyed when you try to reason one because of the
>> other, which is exactly what you did..
>
> My first response expressed enthusiasm for the digital in my car, and
> made no comparison to any other.
untrue - you were comparing to to what you were used to previously.
> The only mention of Analog was in
> the fact that I like the placement of the digital in the Civic better
> than I like the placement of the analog in my Dodge truck, and never
> mentioned accuracy, one way or the other, of the analog.
but you did the digital, and with the above comparison, you absolutely
/do/ make the inference that digital is accurate.
>
>>
>>
>>> It's no wonder
>>> that so many people have you in their killfiles. The only real wonder
>>> is why I took you out of mine.
>>
>> my, you must live in a cotton-wool ball if you don't like minor bumps.
>> how do you hold down a job where management confronts you with reality
>> about /real/ things like "performance" and "pay"?
>>
>
> Management has never confronted me. I can't remember a single time
> where my annual performance reviews were not stellar, and my pay raise
> wasn't in line with that.
really??? and "stellar" performance means what exactly? annual pay
raises of 10%? 30%? 100%? compounded, how many years did it take you
to reach your current $1,000,000 p.a?
>
> Perhaps your experience in that field further explains your **** poor
> attitude and demeanor, and might be explained by your outrageous
> pedantry. Not a further problem here, though, you are back where you
> belong...
>
get over it. pedants make cars work, planes fly, computers compute, and
people who can't cook get out of the kitchen.
02-04-2010 | 10:04 PM
#60
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: Digital Speedometer On 2010 Civic ?
On Thu, 04 Feb 2010 18:35:28 -0800, jim beam <me@privacy.net> wrote:
>On 02/03/2010 06:49 AM, Guy wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 06:17:26 -0800, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/02/2010 11:13 PM, Guy wrote:
>>>> On 03 Feb 2010 05:07:12 GMT, Joe<joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2010-02-03, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 02/02/2010 06:17 AM, Joe wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, "dude", I said MY digital is very accurate. That is correct. I
>>>>>>> claimed no comparison to any other gauge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that's not true - by definition, you /are/ comparing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not true. You can say one thing is accurate without comparing
>>>>> it to another. There's no need for comparison in the original context
>>>>> of the question.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is you reading into
>>>>>>> the statement and trying to make an argument out of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> your "argument" is my pedantry. many people wrongly portray digital as
>>>>>> "accurate" when in reality, there's no greater accuracy whatsoever.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not many people, and I made no such statement. It's no wonder
>>>>> that so many people have you in their killfiles. The only real wonder
>>>>> is why I took you out of mine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm with you Joe about Jim Beam. He at times shows knowledge but his
>>>> personality gets in the way of that knowledge and often lessens the
>>>> value of many of his posts. Too often he resorts to name calling
>>>
>>> behold, the retard tries to disassociate himself from reality. pointing
>>> out that you are a retard is not "name calling", retard, it's simply a
>>> reflection of fact.
>>>
>>>
>>>> just
>>>> because someone doesn't see it his way. Normally I'd call this
>>>> immature but in his case, I think his problem is something else just
>>>> not sure what that is.
>>>
>>> yeah, i have a problem alright - i just can't resist confronting retards
>>> with their reality. see above, retard.
>>
>>
>> Just as I predicted.
>
>"predicted"??? you didn't "predict" anything, retard.
I didn't expect you to understand nor will I bother to explain it to a
person of your limitations.
>On 02/03/2010 06:49 AM, Guy wrote:
>> On Wed, 03 Feb 2010 06:17:26 -0800, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>
>>> On 02/02/2010 11:13 PM, Guy wrote:
>>>> On 03 Feb 2010 05:07:12 GMT, Joe<joe@spam.hits-spam-buffalo.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On 2010-02-03, jim beam<me@privacy.net> wrote:
>>>>>> On 02/02/2010 06:17 AM, Joe wrote:
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> No, "dude", I said MY digital is very accurate. That is correct. I
>>>>>>> claimed no comparison to any other gauge.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> that's not true - by definition, you /are/ comparing it.
>>>>>
>>>>> That's not true. You can say one thing is accurate without comparing
>>>>> it to another. There's no need for comparison in the original context
>>>>> of the question.
>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>> That is you reading into
>>>>>>> the statement and trying to make an argument out of it.
>>>>>>
>>>>>> your "argument" is my pedantry. many people wrongly portray digital as
>>>>>> "accurate" when in reality, there's no greater accuracy whatsoever.
>>>>>
>>>>> I am not many people, and I made no such statement. It's no wonder
>>>>> that so many people have you in their killfiles. The only real wonder
>>>>> is why I took you out of mine.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> I'm with you Joe about Jim Beam. He at times shows knowledge but his
>>>> personality gets in the way of that knowledge and often lessens the
>>>> value of many of his posts. Too often he resorts to name calling
>>>
>>> behold, the retard tries to disassociate himself from reality. pointing
>>> out that you are a retard is not "name calling", retard, it's simply a
>>> reflection of fact.
>>>
>>>
>>>> just
>>>> because someone doesn't see it his way. Normally I'd call this
>>>> immature but in his case, I think his problem is something else just
>>>> not sure what that is.
>>>
>>> yeah, i have a problem alright - i just can't resist confronting retards
>>> with their reality. see above, retard.
>>
>>
>> Just as I predicted.
>
>"predicted"??? you didn't "predict" anything, retard.
I didn't expect you to understand nor will I bother to explain it to a
person of your limitations.