Thomas Hern wrote:

> In article <6248kv0ab1i4q5id453ghptrc31n2mkg4v@4ax.com>, Steve Lee
> <hate@spam.com> wrote:
>
> ...>
> > When I was at the dealer to get my car serviced, I mentioned it to the
> > advisor and was given the usual "if we can't duplicate it, we won't
> > diagnose it" line, so I passed up on the testdrive with a technician.
> > I called up another dealer in town and was given the same line as
> > well.
> >
>
> I really hate this response, which is all too common these days.
> Irresponsible in my mind. They must teach this in tech school.

Sounds reasonable to me. Did you offer to pay for the diagnostic time
up front?


> Had
> District Service Manager say the same thing. Is this Honda policy?

Policy or not, who do you propose, pay for the time spent trying to
diagnose a "problem" that can not be duplicated?


--


Tp

-------- __o
----- -\<. ------ __o
--- ( ) / ( ) ---- -\<.
----------------- ( ) / ( )
---------------------------------------------

Freedom is not free; Free men are not equal; Equal men are not free.

 

Please note


Posted at the top and bottom, to please those that have a
preference. Particularly those that have a paranoia, to make it
easy from them to correct


HE'S back!



mike hunt



dizzy wrote:
>
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 03:29:24 GMT, "E. Meyer" <e.meyer@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >This reminds me of a really dense general when I was in the Army who would
> >totally ignore the content of briefings and spent all his time looking for
> >typographical errors because he could not actually understand the point of
> >anything that was going on.
>
> It reminds me of drooling morons, so lazy that they won't take the
> little extra effort to trim and organize their posts to make them more
> easily understandable. Morons so dense that they can't see the
> obvious inferiority of posting their response at the top of what they
> are responding to. Morons so selfish that they think the time *they*
> save by top posting is more important than the time wasted by the
> *many* readers who will have to struggle to understand it.






Please note


Posted at the top and bottom, to please those that have a
preference. Particularly those that have a paranoia, to make it
easy from them to correct


HE'S back!



mike hunt

 

Please note


Posted at the top and bottom, to please those that have a
preference. Particularly those that have a paranoia, to make it
easy from them to correct


HE'S back!



mike hunt



dizzy wrote:
>
> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 03:29:24 GMT, "E. Meyer" <e.meyer@ieee.org> wrote:
>
> >This reminds me of a really dense general when I was in the Army who would
> >totally ignore the content of briefings and spent all his time looking for
> >typographical errors because he could not actually understand the point of
> >anything that was going on.
>
> It reminds me of drooling morons, so lazy that they won't take the
> little extra effort to trim and organize their posts to make them more
> easily understandable. Morons so dense that they can't see the
> obvious inferiority of posting their response at the top of what they
> are responding to. Morons so selfish that they think the time *they*
> save by top posting is more important than the time wasted by the
> *many* readers who will have to struggle to understand it.






Please note


Posted at the top and bottom, to please those that have a
preference. Particularly those that have a paranoia, to make it
easy from them to correct


HE'S back!



mike hunt

 

On 8/23/2003 10:51 AM MelvinGibson@mailcity.com spake these words of
knowledge:

> Please note
>
>
> Posted at the top and bottom, to please those that have a
> preference. Particularly those that have a paranoia, to make it
> easy from them to correct
>
>
> HE'S back!
>
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
>
> dizzy wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 03:29:24 GMT, "E. Meyer" <e.meyer@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>> >This reminds me of a really dense general when I was in the Army who would
>> >totally ignore the content of briefings and spent all his time looking for
>> >typographical errors because he could not actually understand the point of
>> >anything that was going on.
>>
>> It reminds me of drooling morons, so lazy that they won't take the
>> little extra effort to trim and organize their posts to make them more
>> easily understandable. Morons so dense that they can't see the
>> obvious inferiority of posting their response at the top of what they
>> are responding to. Morons so selfish that they think the time *they*
>> save by top posting is more important than the time wasted by the
>> *many* readers who will have to struggle to understand it.
>
>
> Please note
>
> Posted at the top and bottom, to please those that have a
> preference. Particularly those that have a paranoia, to make it
> easy from them to correct
>
>
> HE'S back!
>
>
> mike hunt

How's that for evidence, E?

RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter.

 

On 8/23/2003 10:51 AM MelvinGibson@mailcity.com spake these words of
knowledge:

> Please note
>
>
> Posted at the top and bottom, to please those that have a
> preference. Particularly those that have a paranoia, to make it
> easy from them to correct
>
>
> HE'S back!
>
>
>
> mike hunt
>
>
>
> dizzy wrote:
>>
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 03:29:24 GMT, "E. Meyer" <e.meyer@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>> >This reminds me of a really dense general when I was in the Army who would
>> >totally ignore the content of briefings and spent all his time looking for
>> >typographical errors because he could not actually understand the point of
>> >anything that was going on.
>>
>> It reminds me of drooling morons, so lazy that they won't take the
>> little extra effort to trim and organize their posts to make them more
>> easily understandable. Morons so dense that they can't see the
>> obvious inferiority of posting their response at the top of what they
>> are responding to. Morons so selfish that they think the time *they*
>> save by top posting is more important than the time wasted by the
>> *many* readers who will have to struggle to understand it.
>
>
> Please note
>
> Posted at the top and bottom, to please those that have a
> preference. Particularly those that have a paranoia, to make it
> easy from them to correct
>
>
> HE'S back!
>
>
> mike hunt

How's that for evidence, E?

RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
I'll try being nicer if you'll try being smarter.

 

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 14:40:47 GMT, "E. Meyer" <e.meyer@ieee.org> wrote:

>On 8/23/03 6:47 AM, in article vfkekvc1i64thgsvofsujp6vr7gplmgjr0@4ax.com,
>"dizzy" <dizzy@nospan.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 03:29:24 GMT, "E. Meyer" <e.meyer@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>>> This reminds me of a really dense general when I was in the Army who would
>>> totally ignore the content of briefings and spent all his time looking for
>>> typographical errors because he could not actually understand the point of
>>> anything that was going on.
>>
>> It reminds me of drooling morons, so lazy that they won't take the
>> little extra effort to trim and organize their posts to make them more
>> easily understandable. Morons so dense that they can't see the
>> obvious inferiority of posting their response at the top of what they
>> are responding to. Morons so selfish that they think the time *they*
>> save by top posting is more important than the time wasted by the
>> *many* readers who will have to struggle to understand it.
>>
>This might have made some sense fifteen years ago when CompuServe printed
>everything out on the heat sensitive paper and you had to wait for it.
>There hasn't been a browser made since Windows 95 came out that doesn't pop
>up the postings from the top (not the bottom).

So what? You didn't refute anything I've said.

>If the thread is being bottom posted, continue to bottom post. If it is
>being top posted, continue to top post. If it makes sense to answer in-line
>with comments immediately following the questions, then do that.

A) It's not that simple. Top posting sucks, in almost all cases.
Top posting without appropriate trimming is downright rude.

B) Even what you suggest would be an improvement over the current
state of affairs, with stupid, lazy, selfish top posters
blabbering-away at the top, with zero chance for an intelligent
discussion.

>The only "drooling moron" activity I see going on here is from the "Dizzy"
>bozos who hijack a thread to scream about form while blocking any chance
>anyone else has of getting a substantive answer to the problem that was
>posted.

Someone's got to tell these idiots the straight scoop.

>I stand by my earlier analogy -

That's your problem.

>if you can't contribute useful information
>to the problem being discussed, stay out of it and quit wasting everybody
>else's time and bandwidth.

It's not a waste. There's a lot of stupid, clueless, newbie top
posters out there who just can't muster the mental capacity to see the
error of their ways, until someone slaps them on the head and says
"Hey, you stupid, lazy, inconsiderate jerk, trim your freaking posts,
and better yet, quit posting your freaking response BEFORE the post
you're responding to. People read top to bottom, you selfish, lazy
pile of dung."

 

On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 14:40:47 GMT, "E. Meyer" <e.meyer@ieee.org> wrote:

>On 8/23/03 6:47 AM, in article vfkekvc1i64thgsvofsujp6vr7gplmgjr0@4ax.com,
>"dizzy" <dizzy@nospan.com> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 03:29:24 GMT, "E. Meyer" <e.meyer@ieee.org> wrote:
>>
>>> This reminds me of a really dense general when I was in the Army who would
>>> totally ignore the content of briefings and spent all his time looking for
>>> typographical errors because he could not actually understand the point of
>>> anything that was going on.
>>
>> It reminds me of drooling morons, so lazy that they won't take the
>> little extra effort to trim and organize their posts to make them more
>> easily understandable. Morons so dense that they can't see the
>> obvious inferiority of posting their response at the top of what they
>> are responding to. Morons so selfish that they think the time *they*
>> save by top posting is more important than the time wasted by the
>> *many* readers who will have to struggle to understand it.
>>
>This might have made some sense fifteen years ago when CompuServe printed
>everything out on the heat sensitive paper and you had to wait for it.
>There hasn't been a browser made since Windows 95 came out that doesn't pop
>up the postings from the top (not the bottom).

So what? You didn't refute anything I've said.

>If the thread is being bottom posted, continue to bottom post. If it is
>being top posted, continue to top post. If it makes sense to answer in-line
>with comments immediately following the questions, then do that.

A) It's not that simple. Top posting sucks, in almost all cases.
Top posting without appropriate trimming is downright rude.

B) Even what you suggest would be an improvement over the current
state of affairs, with stupid, lazy, selfish top posters
blabbering-away at the top, with zero chance for an intelligent
discussion.

>The only "drooling moron" activity I see going on here is from the "Dizzy"
>bozos who hijack a thread to scream about form while blocking any chance
>anyone else has of getting a substantive answer to the problem that was
>posted.

Someone's got to tell these idiots the straight scoop.

>I stand by my earlier analogy -

That's your problem.

>if you can't contribute useful information
>to the problem being discussed, stay out of it and quit wasting everybody
>else's time and bandwidth.

It's not a waste. There's a lot of stupid, clueless, newbie top
posters out there who just can't muster the mental capacity to see the
error of their ways, until someone slaps them on the head and says
"Hey, you stupid, lazy, inconsiderate jerk, trim your freaking posts,
and better yet, quit posting your freaking response BEFORE the post
you're responding to. People read top to bottom, you selfish, lazy
pile of dung."

 

On 8/23/2003 10:37 AM TomP spake these words of knowledge:

>
> Thomas Hern wrote:
>
>> In article <6248kv0ab1i4q5id453ghptrc31n2mkg4v@4ax.com>, Steve Lee
>> <hate@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...>
>> > When I was at the dealer to get my car serviced, I mentioned it to the
>> > advisor and was given the usual "if we can't duplicate it, we won't
>> > diagnose it" line, so I passed up on the testdrive with a technician.
>> > I called up another dealer in town and was given the same line as
>> > well.
>> >
>>
>> I really hate this response, which is all too common these days.
>> Irresponsible in my mind. They must teach this in tech school.
>
> Sounds reasonable to me. Did you offer to pay for the diagnostic time
> up front?
>
>
>> Had
>> District Service Manager say the same thing. Is this Honda policy?
>
> Policy or not, who do you propose, pay for the time spent trying to
> diagnose a "problem" that can not be duplicated?


Tom, this is supposed to work the way nearly all service businesses work
in our capitalist society. The service provider takes the burden of the
cost of diagnosis, in return for the possibility or promise of being
paid to repair the problem.

This can and does lead to unscrupulous customers taking their business
elsewhere after diagnosis. It can and does lead to unscrupulous
providers providing (or even just charging for) services that are not
necessary.

But largely, it leads to people finding service providers they like and
trust, and *return* to with their next problem.

That's business, and that's how it works, in this and many, many other
fields. I'm surprised you didn't know that.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
As I said before, I never repeat myself.

 

On 8/23/2003 10:37 AM TomP spake these words of knowledge:

>
> Thomas Hern wrote:
>
>> In article <6248kv0ab1i4q5id453ghptrc31n2mkg4v@4ax.com>, Steve Lee
>> <hate@spam.com> wrote:
>>
>> ...>
>> > When I was at the dealer to get my car serviced, I mentioned it to the
>> > advisor and was given the usual "if we can't duplicate it, we won't
>> > diagnose it" line, so I passed up on the testdrive with a technician.
>> > I called up another dealer in town and was given the same line as
>> > well.
>> >
>>
>> I really hate this response, which is all too common these days.
>> Irresponsible in my mind. They must teach this in tech school.
>
> Sounds reasonable to me. Did you offer to pay for the diagnostic time
> up front?
>
>
>> Had
>> District Service Manager say the same thing. Is this Honda policy?
>
> Policy or not, who do you propose, pay for the time spent trying to
> diagnose a "problem" that can not be duplicated?


Tom, this is supposed to work the way nearly all service businesses work
in our capitalist society. The service provider takes the burden of the
cost of diagnosis, in return for the possibility or promise of being
paid to repair the problem.

This can and does lead to unscrupulous customers taking their business
elsewhere after diagnosis. It can and does lead to unscrupulous
providers providing (or even just charging for) services that are not
necessary.

But largely, it leads to people finding service providers they like and
trust, and *return* to with their next problem.

That's business, and that's how it works, in this and many, many other
fields. I'm surprised you didn't know that.


RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
As I said before, I never repeat myself.

 

On 8/23/03 10:08 PM, in article 58agkv49h3nq0k7vdgqhgrdn2n85gcvcps@4ax.com,
"dizzy" <dizzy@nospan.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 14:40:47 GMT, "E. Meyer" <e.meyer@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>> On 8/23/03 6:47 AM, in article vfkekvc1i64thgsvofsujp6vr7gplmgjr0@4ax.com,
>> "dizzy" <dizzy@nospan.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 03:29:24 GMT, "E. Meyer" <e.meyer@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This reminds me of a really dense general when I was in the Army who would
>>>> totally ignore the content of briefings and spent all his time looking for
>>>> typographical errors because he could not actually understand the point of
>>>> anything that was going on.
>>>
>>> It reminds me of drooling morons, so lazy that they won't take the
>>> little extra effort to trim and organize their posts to make them more
>>> easily understandable. Morons so dense that they can't see the
>>> obvious inferiority of posting their response at the top of what they
>>> are responding to. Morons so selfish that they think the time *they*
>>> save by top posting is more important than the time wasted by the
>>> *many* readers who will have to struggle to understand it.
>>>
>> This might have made some sense fifteen years ago when CompuServe printed
>> everything out on the heat sensitive paper and you had to wait for it.
>> There hasn't been a browser made since Windows 95 came out that doesn't pop
>> up the postings from the top (not the bottom).
>
> So what? You didn't refute anything I've said.
>
>> If the thread is being bottom posted, continue to bottom post. If it is
>> being top posted, continue to top post. If it makes sense to answer in-line
>> with comments immediately following the questions, then do that.
>
> A) It's not that simple. Top posting sucks, in almost all cases.
> Top posting without appropriate trimming is downright rude.
>
> B) Even what you suggest would be an improvement over the current
> state of affairs, with stupid, lazy, selfish top posters
> blabbering-away at the top, with zero chance for an intelligent
> discussion.
>
>> The only "drooling moron" activity I see going on here is from the "Dizzy"
>> bozos who hijack a thread to scream about form while blocking any chance
>> anyone else has of getting a substantive answer to the problem that was
>> posted.
>
> Someone's got to tell these idiots the straight scoop.
>
>> I stand by my earlier analogy -
>
> That's your problem.
>
>> if you can't contribute useful information
>> to the problem being discussed, stay out of it and quit wasting everybody
>> else's time and bandwidth.
>
> It's not a waste. There's a lot of stupid, clueless, newbie top
> posters out there who just can't muster the mental capacity to see the
> error of their ways, until someone slaps them on the head and says
> "Hey, you stupid, lazy, inconsiderate jerk, trim your freaking posts,
> and better yet, quit posting your freaking response BEFORE the post
> you're responding to. People read top to bottom, you selfish, lazy
> pile of dung."
>


Block sender, kill file.

 

On 8/23/03 10:08 PM, in article 58agkv49h3nq0k7vdgqhgrdn2n85gcvcps@4ax.com,
"dizzy" <dizzy@nospan.com> wrote:

> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 14:40:47 GMT, "E. Meyer" <e.meyer@ieee.org> wrote:
>
>> On 8/23/03 6:47 AM, in article vfkekvc1i64thgsvofsujp6vr7gplmgjr0@4ax.com,
>> "dizzy" <dizzy@nospan.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Sat, 23 Aug 2003 03:29:24 GMT, "E. Meyer" <e.meyer@ieee.org> wrote:
>>>
>>>> This reminds me of a really dense general when I was in the Army who would
>>>> totally ignore the content of briefings and spent all his time looking for
>>>> typographical errors because he could not actually understand the point of
>>>> anything that was going on.
>>>
>>> It reminds me of drooling morons, so lazy that they won't take the
>>> little extra effort to trim and organize their posts to make them more
>>> easily understandable. Morons so dense that they can't see the
>>> obvious inferiority of posting their response at the top of what they
>>> are responding to. Morons so selfish that they think the time *they*
>>> save by top posting is more important than the time wasted by the
>>> *many* readers who will have to struggle to understand it.
>>>
>> This might have made some sense fifteen years ago when CompuServe printed
>> everything out on the heat sensitive paper and you had to wait for it.
>> There hasn't been a browser made since Windows 95 came out that doesn't pop
>> up the postings from the top (not the bottom).
>
> So what? You didn't refute anything I've said.
>
>> If the thread is being bottom posted, continue to bottom post. If it is
>> being top posted, continue to top post. If it makes sense to answer in-line
>> with comments immediately following the questions, then do that.
>
> A) It's not that simple. Top posting sucks, in almost all cases.
> Top posting without appropriate trimming is downright rude.
>
> B) Even what you suggest would be an improvement over the current
> state of affairs, with stupid, lazy, selfish top posters
> blabbering-away at the top, with zero chance for an intelligent
> discussion.
>
>> The only "drooling moron" activity I see going on here is from the "Dizzy"
>> bozos who hijack a thread to scream about form while blocking any chance
>> anyone else has of getting a substantive answer to the problem that was
>> posted.
>
> Someone's got to tell these idiots the straight scoop.
>
>> I stand by my earlier analogy -
>
> That's your problem.
>
>> if you can't contribute useful information
>> to the problem being discussed, stay out of it and quit wasting everybody
>> else's time and bandwidth.
>
> It's not a waste. There's a lot of stupid, clueless, newbie top
> posters out there who just can't muster the mental capacity to see the
> error of their ways, until someone slaps them on the head and says
> "Hey, you stupid, lazy, inconsiderate jerk, trim your freaking posts,
> and better yet, quit posting your freaking response BEFORE the post
> you're responding to. People read top to bottom, you selfish, lazy
> pile of dung."
>


Block sender, kill file.