Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote in
news:7i0cc3tqc209nd46ss1cdl1ea0u8un1e42@4ax.com:

> On Fri, 17 Aug 2007 02:19:53 -0400, Joe LaVigne
> <jlavigne@hits-buffalo.com> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 16 Aug 2007 14:41:58 -0700
>>Eric <say.no@spam.now> wrote:
>>
>>> So, you asked for service mileage recommendations <snip>
>>He asked for Honda's recommendation. <snip>
>
> Thanks, but actually, I did not ask even for that. I told a tale,
> which included a report of my lack of success in finding a recommended
> service interval, but that is not the same as asking for one. It may
> be a fine point, but recounting an anecdote is not the same as
> requesting information.
>
> I am sorry that Eric was offended. Sometimes these things just happen.
> I noticed he did reply to the list, but the reply showed up in my
> Agent as a graphics file which I did not open.



Somehow it got converted to an HTML file. He does not appeared to have
added anything to the previous post, which was quoted in the HTML file.


--
Tegger

The Unofficial Honda/Acura FAQ
www.tegger.com/hondafaq/

 

In article <533ec3tmcji3h9rotsk0h9hgm0a5631v6d@4ax.com>,
Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:

> >In article <auc6c3h58i85rchcamapffi1t4iirpijt6@4ax.com>,
> > Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:
> >
> >> Particularly, I wanted to know
> >> if there really was a mileage schedule that supplemented the
> >> maintenance minders.
> >
> >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 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.

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.



> Here is the original paragraph in question:
>
> >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.
>
> You did not quote that part about "replied to the service facility."

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.




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

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."




> 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.
>
> >I thought the group might appreciate this short tale.

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 off, you weren't
asking them for anything.

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




> Clearly, my "tale" was not clear to some.

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.

 

In article <533ec3tmcji3h9rotsk0h9hgm0a5631v6d@4ax.com>,
Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:

> >In article <auc6c3h58i85rchcamapffi1t4iirpijt6@4ax.com>,
> > Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:
> >
> >> Particularly, I wanted to know
> >> if there really was a mileage schedule that supplemented the
> >> maintenance minders.
> >
> >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 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.

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.



> Here is the original paragraph in question:
>
> >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.
>
> You did not quote that part about "replied to the service facility."

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.




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

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."




> 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.
>
> >I thought the group might appreciate this short tale.

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 off, you weren't
asking them for anything.

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




> Clearly, my "tale" was not clear to some.

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.

 

In article <533ec3tmcji3h9rotsk0h9hgm0a5631v6d@4ax.com>,
Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:

> >In article <auc6c3h58i85rchcamapffi1t4iirpijt6@4ax.com>,
> > Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:
> >
> >> Particularly, I wanted to know
> >> if there really was a mileage schedule that supplemented the
> >> maintenance minders.
> >
> >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 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.

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.



> Here is the original paragraph in question:
>
> >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.
>
> You did not quote that part about "replied to the service facility."

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.




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

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."




> 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.
>
> >I thought the group might appreciate this short tale.

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 off, you weren't
asking them for anything.

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




> Clearly, my "tale" was not clear to some.

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.

 

In article <Xns999061A5F20C5tegger@207.14.116.130>,
Tegger <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote:

> >>Also, the car makers are building them to be obsolete.
> >
> > This may be true, but I see no compelling evidence.
>
>
>
> 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.

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

 

In article <Xns999061A5F20C5tegger@207.14.116.130>,
Tegger <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote:

> >>Also, the car makers are building them to be obsolete.
> >
> > This may be true, but I see no compelling evidence.
>
>
>
> 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.

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

 

In article <Xns999061A5F20C5tegger@207.14.116.130>,
Tegger <tegger@tegger.c0m> wrote:

> >>Also, the car makers are building them to be obsolete.
> >
> > This may be true, but I see no compelling evidence.
>
>
>
> 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.

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

 

On 8/18/2007 10:01 PM Elmo P. Shagnasty spake these words of knowledge:

> In article <533ec3tmcji3h9rotsk0h9hgm0a5631v6d@4ax.com>,
> Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:
>
>> >In article <auc6c3h58i85rchcamapffi1t4iirpijt6@4ax.com>,
>> > Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Particularly, I wanted to know
>> >> if there really was a mileage schedule that supplemented the
>> >> maintenance minders.
>> >
>> >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 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.
>
> 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.


There was nothing in anything he said that indicated he wanted the
newsgroup or its denizens to do a damn thing. He simply bothered to
explain what he actually meant. Give it a ing rest.

RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
I'm the quiet neighbor with the big freezer.

 

On 8/18/2007 10:01 PM Elmo P. Shagnasty spake these words of knowledge:

> In article <533ec3tmcji3h9rotsk0h9hgm0a5631v6d@4ax.com>,
> Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:
>
>> >In article <auc6c3h58i85rchcamapffi1t4iirpijt6@4ax.com>,
>> > Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Particularly, I wanted to know
>> >> if there really was a mileage schedule that supplemented the
>> >> maintenance minders.
>> >
>> >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 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.
>
> 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.


There was nothing in anything he said that indicated he wanted the
newsgroup or its denizens to do a damn thing. He simply bothered to
explain what he actually meant. Give it a ing rest.

RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
I'm the quiet neighbor with the big freezer.

 

On 8/18/2007 10:01 PM Elmo P. Shagnasty spake these words of knowledge:

> In article <533ec3tmcji3h9rotsk0h9hgm0a5631v6d@4ax.com>,
> Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:
>
>> >In article <auc6c3h58i85rchcamapffi1t4iirpijt6@4ax.com>,
>> > Elliot Richmond <xmrichmond@xaustin.xrr.xcom> wrote:
>> >
>> >> Particularly, I wanted to know
>> >> if there really was a mileage schedule that supplemented the
>> >> maintenance minders.
>> >
>> >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 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.
>
> 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.


There was nothing in anything he said that indicated he wanted the
newsgroup or its denizens to do a damn thing. He simply bothered to
explain what he actually meant. Give it a ing rest.

RFT!!!
Dave Kelsen
--
I'm the quiet neighbor with the big freezer.

 

In article <46c82753$0$24128$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> > 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.
>
>
> There was nothing in anything he said that indicated he wanted the
> newsgroup or its denizens to do a damn thing.

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 off.

 

In article <46c82753$0$24128$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> > 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.
>
>
> There was nothing in anything he said that indicated he wanted the
> newsgroup or its denizens to do a damn thing.

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 off.

 

In article <46c82753$0$24128$4c368faf@roadrunner.com>,
Dave Kelsen <invalid@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> > 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.
>
>
> There was nothing in anything he said that indicated he wanted the
> newsgroup or its denizens to do a damn thing.

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 off.