89 Audi 100 - No Start, Battery OK, What next?

In message >, Stephen Clark
> writes
>Thanks, Dave, now I understand what I did wrong. And, now that I know that,
>I'll be aware of the effect of changing the subject line. Although I do
>disagree with they way OE top posts, and I understand that this is an
>on-going controversy, I prefer to read a top post because I don't have to
>scroll all the way to the bottom of the message to read the latest comments.
>In other groups where the convention is bottom posting, and the subject line
>never changes, I often skip long threads without reading them, because it is
>simply too much trouble to scroll through all the repeated text. I often
>deleted repeated text in my replies for this very reason.

So, despite having been asked diplomatically not to top-post and even
opining that you disagree with it yourself, you still did it. Did you
have to be quite so contemptuous of me?

--
Dave N

N.B. Mail to nospam is rejected. Reply-To does work.

On Sat, 2 Jun 2007 09:35:20 +0100, Dave N >
wrote:

>In message >, Stephen Clark
> writes
>>Thanks, Dave, now I understand what I did wrong. And, now that I know that,
>>I'll be aware of the effect of changing the subject line. Although I do
>>disagree with they way OE top posts, and I understand that this is an
>>on-going controversy, I prefer to read a top post because I don't have to
>>scroll all the way to the bottom of the message to read the latest comments.
>>In other groups where the convention is bottom posting, and the subject line
>>never changes, I often skip long threads without reading them, because it is
>>simply too much trouble to scroll through all the repeated text. I often
>>deleted repeated text in my replies for this very reason.
>
>So, despite having been asked diplomatically not to top-post and even
>opining that you disagree with it yourself, you still did it. Did you
>have to be quite so contemptuous of me?

Although I'm not generally a fan of top posting, I also dislike how
certain posters here will leave ALL the text in their responses before
posting at the bottom. Surely, people, you can cut out all the
extraneous, already-responded-to stuff to give us less to scroll
through, as Dave did in his post to which I am now replying. Please
do it. Less is more. Thank you.

"Dave N" > wrote in message
...
> In message >, Stephen Clark
> > writes
>>Thanks, Dave, now I understand what I did wrong. And, now that I know
>>that,
>>I'll be aware of the effect of changing the subject line. Although I do
>>disagree with they way OE top posts, and I understand that this is an
>>on-going controversy, I prefer to read a top post because I don't have to
>>scroll all the way to the bottom of the message to read the latest
>>comments.
>>In other groups where the convention is bottom posting, and the subject
>>line
>>never changes, I often skip long threads without reading them, because it
>>is
>>simply too much trouble to scroll through all the repeated text. I often
>>deleted repeated text in my replies for this very reason.
>
> So, despite having been asked diplomatically not to top-post and even
> opining that you disagree with it yourself, you still did it. Did you
> have to be quite so contemptuous of me?
>
> --
> Dave N
>
> N.B. Mail to nospam is rejected. Reply-To does work.

Is this better? I don't see how you could take my reply personally. I simply
explained why I prefer top posting. I am not the least bit contemptuous of
you at all... you completely misinterpreted! In fact I thanked you for
helping me understand why some people are complaining. You see top posting
all the time in this group. I don't want to get embroiled in another posting
style controversy, because this one has no answer. People do it both ways in
this and other groups.

Can all this be easily solved by eliminating all of the old message then
there is no top nor bottom posting. <g>
But then no one will know what I am talking about?
--
later,
dave
(One out of many daves) & A Top Poster. ;-)

Apparently that will work if you don't change the subject line!

But, then when the conversation morphs into something other that the
original subject like this one did, no one would know what you are talking
about based on what's in the subject line.....that's the reason I deleted
all the old text and changed the subject line to reflect more accurately
what I was talking about, and that's what got some people's noses out of
joint.

You can't please all of the people all of the time.....

"Stephen Clark" > wrote in message
...
> Apparently that will work if you don't change the subject line!
>
> But, then when the conversation morphs into something other that the
> original subject like this one did, no one would know what you are talking
> about based on what's in the subject line.....that's the reason I deleted
> all the old text and changed the subject line to reflect more accurately
> what I was talking about, and that's what got some people's noses out of
> joint.
>
> You can't please all of the people all of the time.....

Ahhh now I see clearly! 8^)
thanks