A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
> You haven't the faintest idea of how to get to 225 from 150. No, a
> turbo and head gasket alone WILL NOT SUFFICE.
>
> Maybe you should just own up to the last five words of your statement
> above, and just call it good, hmm?
>
> > The mind boggles......
>
> Indeed. It's been a long time since I have seen someone make such a
> big fool of themselves in USENET.
>
I thought it was a reworked head and turbo, possibly a different turbo and a
different ecu/chip? Assumadly the head gasket will have to be changed as
well to take the strain of the extra power?
--
Dan
> turbo and head gasket alone WILL NOT SUFFICE.
>
> Maybe you should just own up to the last five words of your statement
> above, and just call it good, hmm?
>
> > The mind boggles......
>
> Indeed. It's been a long time since I have seen someone make such a
> big fool of themselves in USENET.
>
I thought it was a reworked head and turbo, possibly a different turbo and a
different ecu/chip? Assumadly the head gasket will have to be changed as
well to take the strain of the extra power?
--
Dan
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
"AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message news:<XQiRa.10656$ju6.203206@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> > If it has a technical answer, then it's a technical question.
>
> No it's not.
Then why posit an attempt at a technical answer? You can shout and
moan and whine that it wasn't, but you were offering (incorrect)
concrete steps to solve a problem. What is that, if not technical?
That's right, you want to re-cast it as a "suggestion." LOL.
[snip attempt to redefine "technical"]
If it makes you happy to believe that, don't let me stop you.
> > Since you gave a half-baked techincial answer, I will assume, for the
> > moment, that your attempts to recast your comments as a "suggestion"
> > are merely backpedalling.
>
> Assume what you like - I think you're boring everyone with this by now.
I see. You speak for "everyone", now? Mighty presumptuous of you.
And arrogant. Do you really think that anyone but the three of us
give a rat's *** about this thread? Most intelligent folk have
already marked "thread as read."
Keep backpeddaling. I like it.
Spider
> > If it has a technical answer, then it's a technical question.
>
> No it's not.
Then why posit an attempt at a technical answer? You can shout and
moan and whine that it wasn't, but you were offering (incorrect)
concrete steps to solve a problem. What is that, if not technical?
That's right, you want to re-cast it as a "suggestion." LOL.
[snip attempt to redefine "technical"]
If it makes you happy to believe that, don't let me stop you.
> > Since you gave a half-baked techincial answer, I will assume, for the
> > moment, that your attempts to recast your comments as a "suggestion"
> > are merely backpedalling.
>
> Assume what you like - I think you're boring everyone with this by now.
I see. You speak for "everyone", now? Mighty presumptuous of you.
And arrogant. Do you really think that anyone but the three of us
give a rat's *** about this thread? Most intelligent folk have
already marked "thread as read."
Keep backpeddaling. I like it.
Spider
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
"AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message news:<4OiRa.10651$ju6.202775@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> > How do two wrongs make a right?
>
> Double negative makes a positive. Dig up your maths textbooks
If this were a discussion over math, you might have a point. As it
is, you are just wanking.
> > > The right answer would be to get a car with more power in the first
> place.
> >
> > I did not notice you posting that opinion. But another nice try at
> > diversion.
>
> Well I mentioned getting a 2.5TDI. Ok, so it's got the same peak power
> output, but a *lot* more torque lower down the rev range, which would, IMHO,
> feel a lot more effortless to drive, and, dare I say it, quicker, in the
> average real world situation.
I didn't respond to that post, but to the one where you hilariously
claimed:
"In addition to my other post, there surely must be a way to uprate
the
engine to 225bhp, as it's the same basic engineas the Audi TT, isn't
it.
I'd have thought a chip, and an uprated head gasket would be all
that's
needed, but I may be wrong."
More to the point, about where someone was kind enough to point out to
you in private how half-baked your "suggestion" was. So, in order to
make yourself look like a complete fool, you've kept this up for these
days. Interesting.
> > > If the OP wants more
> > > power, then the best answer would not be to about with his current
> car
> > > (which would at best only produce slight improvements), but to get a
> more
> > > powerful version. There are plenty available.
> >
> > Then, the suggestion to get a "bigger turbo and a head gasket" was
> > what?
>
> A suggestion as to what he could do.
A "suggestion" that would not get him to his goal, and which is worth
precisely nothing in the realm of answering the question.
> This really is getting rather boring,
> going over the same ground again and again.
Then why don't you just own up to the last five words of the quote,
above, and just be done with it?
You must be getting your jollies out of being made to look a fool post
after post. Well, I'll certainly oblige.
Spider
> > How do two wrongs make a right?
>
> Double negative makes a positive. Dig up your maths textbooks
If this were a discussion over math, you might have a point. As it
is, you are just wanking.
> > > The right answer would be to get a car with more power in the first
> place.
> >
> > I did not notice you posting that opinion. But another nice try at
> > diversion.
>
> Well I mentioned getting a 2.5TDI. Ok, so it's got the same peak power
> output, but a *lot* more torque lower down the rev range, which would, IMHO,
> feel a lot more effortless to drive, and, dare I say it, quicker, in the
> average real world situation.
I didn't respond to that post, but to the one where you hilariously
claimed:
"In addition to my other post, there surely must be a way to uprate
the
engine to 225bhp, as it's the same basic engineas the Audi TT, isn't
it.
I'd have thought a chip, and an uprated head gasket would be all
that's
needed, but I may be wrong."
More to the point, about where someone was kind enough to point out to
you in private how half-baked your "suggestion" was. So, in order to
make yourself look like a complete fool, you've kept this up for these
days. Interesting.
> > > If the OP wants more
> > > power, then the best answer would not be to about with his current
> car
> > > (which would at best only produce slight improvements), but to get a
> more
> > > powerful version. There are plenty available.
> >
> > Then, the suggestion to get a "bigger turbo and a head gasket" was
> > what?
>
> A suggestion as to what he could do.
A "suggestion" that would not get him to his goal, and which is worth
precisely nothing in the realm of answering the question.
> This really is getting rather boring,
> going over the same ground again and again.
Then why don't you just own up to the last five words of the quote,
above, and just be done with it?
You must be getting your jollies out of being made to look a fool post
after post. Well, I'll certainly oblige.
Spider
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
"Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73da2590.0307180802.1c22b524@posting.google.c om...
> "AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message
news:<hLiRa.10648$ju6.202547@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> > Note: follow-up set to alt.autos.audi
> >
> > > > > And a "bigger turbo and a head gasket" is *not* one of the
methods!
> > > >
> > > > It could be.
> > >
> > > Prove it.
> >
> > So you're saying that putting a bigger turbocharger, with a higher boost
> > pressure, and an uprated head gasket, will *not* increase the power
output
> > of an engine?
>
> So, to save face, you've stooped to putting words in my mouth. It's a
> lovely straw man, but of course I never said any such thing.
>
> "In addition to my other post, there surely must be a way to uprate
> the
> engine to 225bhp, as it's the same basic engineas the Audi TT, isn't
> it.
> I'd have thought a chip, and an uprated head gasket would be all
> that's
> needed, but I may be wrong."
>
> You haven't the faintest idea of how to get to 225 from 150. No, a
> turbo and head gasket alone WILL NOT SUFFICE.
>
> Maybe you should just own up to the last five words of your statement
> above, and just call it good, hmm?
>
> > The mind boggles......
>
> Indeed. It's been a long time since I have seen someone make such a
> big fool of themselves in USENET.
>
> Spider
As far as I am aware you can chip it straight off to about 190BHP which will
cost you about Ł400 ish. or you can spend around (I think) 2.5k and get it
to 225 or even up to 250-260bhp. 40bhp for 400 is certainly better value,
but I imagine 250bhp in a A3 would be pretty quick.
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
"AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message news:<pJiRa.10646$ju6.203179@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> > > > > > Did you get the author's permission first?
> > > > >
> > > > > No.
> > > >
> > > > Why not?
> > >
> > > Because I didn't ask. Next.......
> >
> > Nice circular reasoning.
> >
> > You were an to post the stuff without asking. On top of being
> > an idiot for suggesting that a 150 motor could be made a 225 with a
> > "bigger turbo and head gasket."
>
> Wrong. It was wrong of me to post the sender's email address as part of the
> post - nothing wrong at all with sharing the contents of that email.
You are hilariously mistaken, as with most of the rest of the
unmitigated BS you've spewed here. From:
http://www.onlinenetiquette.com/courtesy1.html
"Keep in mind that all private email is considered to be copyrighted
by the original author. If you post private email to a public list or
board, or forward it to an outside party in whole or in part, you must
include the author's permission to post the material publicly. Not
doing so can get you into some deep doo-doo legally or with your
friends and associates. Think of it this way... how would you feel if
a personal private email that you had written for a specific
purpose/person is then plastered across the Internet or forwarded to
folks you don't know? Ask permission before forwarding/posting any
private emails!"
> And
> regarding my suggestion of the possibility that a 150 motor could be made a
> 225 with a bigger turbo and uprated head gasket wasn't too far off the mark,
> as you yourself said that basic mods like this could get it up to 210.
Obviously, you have mis-read my postings. Re-read (for comprehension
this time.)
> Astravanman > > Thank you. Now if you could kindly snip the headers a bit
> more, that'd be a
> Astravanman > > bit less bandwidth wasted.
> >
> Spider > Sorry, but you are wrong on this - quoting without attribution is
> Spider > rude. But anything to divert attention away from yourself is a
> good
> Spider > play. Keep it up.
>
> Yes, but just a big load of headers at the top only serves to confuse
> matters, neccessitating the need to scroll up and down to keep on reminding
> oneself of who posted what.
The fact of the matter is that you are grasping at straws in order to
divert attention from your own misdeeds. Nowhere is it written that
attribution lines should be trimmed - in fact, it is suggested that
they be *included*, your misguided opinion aside. Wish to try again?
> > > It wasn't
> > > an opinion. It was a suggestion.
> >
> > That's a very nice recasting of the words you wrote. I'll bet it
> > makes you feel all squishy inside knowing that you were just trying to
> > be helpful.
>
> It does actually. I like to help people.
That's good. Maybe if you actually offered REAL information, then it
would actually be helpful. Odd, the correlation, don't you think?
> > Sure - it only makes you look like a stupid . Why on earth you
> > would want to expose your foolishness even more than you already have
> > just boggles my mind.
>
> Jeez.......pot, kettle, black.
LOL. Hardly.
> There's nothing like making an issue out of
> something so bloody minor.
Quite. Which is why you've been rambling on for days over it,
hypocrite.
> > Because I'm teaching you a lesson. You may not like it, but you have
> > learned something. Maybe even more than one thing.
>
> Ah, thanks - it's nice to know you care so much.
I care about other Audi owners, sure. So much so, that I like to
upbraid those who give dumb, incorrect, or just plain idiotic info in
USENET.
Have you learned anything yet? (I'm sure your answer will be pithy,
and only part of the truth, but I asked, LOL.)
Spider
> > > > > > Did you get the author's permission first?
> > > > >
> > > > > No.
> > > >
> > > > Why not?
> > >
> > > Because I didn't ask. Next.......
> >
> > Nice circular reasoning.
> >
> > You were an to post the stuff without asking. On top of being
> > an idiot for suggesting that a 150 motor could be made a 225 with a
> > "bigger turbo and head gasket."
>
> Wrong. It was wrong of me to post the sender's email address as part of the
> post - nothing wrong at all with sharing the contents of that email.
You are hilariously mistaken, as with most of the rest of the
unmitigated BS you've spewed here. From:
http://www.onlinenetiquette.com/courtesy1.html
"Keep in mind that all private email is considered to be copyrighted
by the original author. If you post private email to a public list or
board, or forward it to an outside party in whole or in part, you must
include the author's permission to post the material publicly. Not
doing so can get you into some deep doo-doo legally or with your
friends and associates. Think of it this way... how would you feel if
a personal private email that you had written for a specific
purpose/person is then plastered across the Internet or forwarded to
folks you don't know? Ask permission before forwarding/posting any
private emails!"
> And
> regarding my suggestion of the possibility that a 150 motor could be made a
> 225 with a bigger turbo and uprated head gasket wasn't too far off the mark,
> as you yourself said that basic mods like this could get it up to 210.
Obviously, you have mis-read my postings. Re-read (for comprehension
this time.)
> Astravanman > > Thank you. Now if you could kindly snip the headers a bit
> more, that'd be a
> Astravanman > > bit less bandwidth wasted.
> >
> Spider > Sorry, but you are wrong on this - quoting without attribution is
> Spider > rude. But anything to divert attention away from yourself is a
> good
> Spider > play. Keep it up.
>
> Yes, but just a big load of headers at the top only serves to confuse
> matters, neccessitating the need to scroll up and down to keep on reminding
> oneself of who posted what.
The fact of the matter is that you are grasping at straws in order to
divert attention from your own misdeeds. Nowhere is it written that
attribution lines should be trimmed - in fact, it is suggested that
they be *included*, your misguided opinion aside. Wish to try again?
> > > It wasn't
> > > an opinion. It was a suggestion.
> >
> > That's a very nice recasting of the words you wrote. I'll bet it
> > makes you feel all squishy inside knowing that you were just trying to
> > be helpful.
>
> It does actually. I like to help people.
That's good. Maybe if you actually offered REAL information, then it
would actually be helpful. Odd, the correlation, don't you think?
> > Sure - it only makes you look like a stupid . Why on earth you
> > would want to expose your foolishness even more than you already have
> > just boggles my mind.
>
> Jeez.......pot, kettle, black.
LOL. Hardly.
> There's nothing like making an issue out of
> something so bloody minor.
Quite. Which is why you've been rambling on for days over it,
hypocrite.
> > Because I'm teaching you a lesson. You may not like it, but you have
> > learned something. Maybe even more than one thing.
>
> Ah, thanks - it's nice to know you care so much.
I care about other Audi owners, sure. So much so, that I like to
upbraid those who give dumb, incorrect, or just plain idiotic info in
USENET.
Have you learned anything yet? (I'm sure your answer will be pithy,
and only part of the truth, but I asked, LOL.)
Spider
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
"Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73da2590.0307180839.7315d005@posting.google.c om...
> "DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<bf5e86$b0js9$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:73da2590.0307161238.49c4312b@posting.google.c om...
> > [snip]
> [snipped]
>
> > > You accused me of putting words into your posts, and I did not.
> > >
> > > The question was: Do you think a lack of courtesy from all USENET
> > > comers is good and acceptable?
>
> I see you're having difficulty answering this very simple question. In
> your hurry to appear witty and morally superior, I guess it must have
> "slipped your mind."
Ho hum. Have we not just left this party?
> > > > > Then you are an ***.
> > > >
> > > > Your opinion and not a fact.
> > >
> > > So far, I have not seen anything to contravene this opinion. I must,
> > > therefore, accept is as fact.
> >
> > So you're basing your knowledge on insufficient facts? And accepting
it?
>
> Do I need to post those netiquette URLs for you? The ones that say
> posting private e-mail is quite rude?
Well you can do, but is there not a more relevant newsgroup for this sort of
behaviour?
> > > > So because you do not share my values you believe me to be wrong?
> > >
> > > In technical matters, yes, I do not only believe you to be wrong, you
> > > are indeed wrong.
> >
> > We've barely discussed technical matters!
>
> That is quite true.
Thank you.
> You have insisted on making it an argument about
> who can post what where.
It takes two to argue.
> My focus has been, and will continue to be,
> Peter's shoddy attempt at a technical answer.
Shullbit it has been! Now you're trying to ram home your own beliefs,
opinions, facts, whatever you decide to call them.
> Nice try at a subject change, and very nicely avoided on the meat of
> the subject, BTW.
>
> > > > > > When I ask a question about, hmm,
> > > > > > okay about brake pad wear, it's impossible to get a hard and
fast
> > answer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrong again. Each person's response is a "hard and fast answer."
A
> > > > > data point to be considered with all the others. They are not
> > > > > opinions, they are facts. I find it astounding that you cannot
> > > > > distinguish between the two.
> > > >
> > > > So what you're saying is that, when it comes to something like this,
> > there
> > > > are a great many facts.
> > >
> > > Brake pad life is dependent on so many other factors that the data
> > > points generated may have very little value from person to person.
> > > That does not render them "opinion," but makes them into facts with
> > > limited value.
> >
> > ROFL! You can twist and turn but you can't shake it.
>
> Another nice non sequitur. You can't dispute the facts, I see.
>
> > > > The brake pad question cannot be answered without
> > > > opinions.
> > >
> > > Yes, I'm sure the science of physics concurs. LOL!
> > >
> > > > If I'm just given a number, "50,000 miles, bosh, that's all there
> > > > is to is" this fact may be incorrect.
> > >
> > > What are the other factors?
> >
> > To name a few, how many cold start, how many long heat soaks the engine
has,
> > how it's drive, how long the donk spends at high revs (in other words,
the
> > total number of engine revolutions during the 75,000 kilometres).
>
> Throttle opening (hard acceleration) etc., etc.
And there are more bits, too, but we could debate that for a long while.
And this would get very boring.
> The factors regarding brake life are still increased an order of
> magnitude.
But you cannot disupte the point I made, yes?
> > > That "fact" is correct, but the other
> > > part "that's all there is to it" [assuming typo there] is baseless
> > > opinion, and in fact 100% INcorrect.
> >
> > Baseless opinion?
>
> Reading comprehension?
> > > > Errrrr, no, did you read the original post, which said, "Does
anybody
> > know
> > > > how I can improve the engine power of my 1999 A6 1.8T SE Auto
without
> > > > spending too much money, as for this size of car more power is
> > definately
> > > > needed."
> > >
> > > I am not talking about that post, and we both know it. I realize that
> > > a nice red herring is necessary to help you feel better about engaging
> > > in a losing argument, but let's just see "a bigger turbo and a head
> > > gasket." Hilariously wrong.
> >
> > When you replied to me, you wrote about the facts of the matter, not the
> > actual facts
>
> I am having difficulty understanding what you mean. Could you be more
> explicit?
Reading comprehension?
/okay, okay, so that's a cheap jibe/
> > > > Nothing about how Audi ups the ante from 150 to 225 PS in there.
> > >
> > > Of course there isn't. Would like to stick to the subject we are
> > > discussing,
> >
> > I've spent most of my posts discussing "netiquette" with a net nanny
>
> LOL. I guess when you've run out of things to say, an ad hominem
> argument is your last solace. Bravo.
Run out of things to say?
> > the
> > fact that we're talking about VW products does seem all rather
irrelevant.
>
> Since you are trying to take a stance of moral superiority, this
> surprises you why?
>
> > You seem full of your own self-importance.
>
> You are nothing if not ironic. LOL!
>
> > Perhaps you feel better after
> > teaching these ruffians what it's all about?
>
> Irony upon irony. I suppose you are not trying to "put me in my
> place?" Hilarious, your hypocrisy.
Not any more. Indeedy, I think you know your place.
> [snip]
>
> > > Or just blowing smoke because they really don't know. After all, if
> > > it's just hypothetical, we can assign knowledge as we see fit.
> > >
> > > > So what's the difference between a belt change and new brake pads?
One
> > has
> > > > more obvious wear. If either breaks, it's probably bad news for the
> > car.
> > >
> > > The factors leading to wear on a cam belt and the factors relating to
> > > brake wear are parallel in what way?
> >
> > Here's a clue: the car is for driving.
>
> So you have no concrete answer. Yet above, you're whining about lack
> of technical discussion. Tsk, tsk.
No, no, I was being lazy; if you don't drive the car, both will deterioate
over time. If you do drive the car, both will deterioate, but the rate of
wear will depend on how the car is driven.
> > > > > > Agreed in that there are known differences between two products,
but
> > as
> > to
> > > > > > how to get the lesser specified product to produce the same
power
> > and
> > torque
> > > > > > as the higher specified product, there's no clear, concise
method.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sophistry, and we both know it. The differences between the two
> > > > > motors, as they come from Audi, is well-documented.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your mental gymnastics aside, LOL!
> > > > >
> > > > > And a "bigger turbo and a head gasket" is *not* one of the
methods!
> > > >
> > > > So you're now saying that replacing the turbocharged for a larger
> > variant in
> > > > the family wouldn't up the poke from 150 to 225 PS, or thereabouts.
> > >
> > > All by itself? Probably not.
> >
> > Did I use the word, "just."
>
> Ah, the losing side must always turn pedantic in the end. Notice I
> never accused you of saying "just." Just to be clear.
>
> > Being pedantic isn't going to get you out of a
> > hole.
>
> More irony. My favorite part of USENET.
>
>
> > *sighs* I suppose I should say, "remapping the ECU, exchanging the
> > turbocharger for a larger one, and leaving it at that" and would that
make
> > you feel better?
>
> It might, if that's all it took. But it requires *more than that.*
Well, you see, here's the rub, in that I don't believe you. And you're all
for laughing at the suggestion, but you know, I remain unconvinced as to
your own technical knowledge.
> Twist and turn at your leisure, but a "chip and a headgasket" (the
> original claim made by Peter,) or a "turbo and a headgasket" will not
> get you from 150 to 225. I'm sorry if those facts are uncomfortable.
They're not uncomfortable. I'm sure that many people appreciate that there
are several ways to up the power from any given production turbocharged
donk. The above suggestion is one alternative. Unfortunately, I don't have
the money to go out and buy a 1.8T engine and pay for somebody to do just a
turbocharger to up the power, although I'm quite certain that it can be
done.
> Next time, maybe you should defend someone with a little more solid
> footing? Just a "suggestion." LOL!
>
> > So is it *impossible* to take the 1.8T-150 up to producing 225 PS by
just a
> > turbocharger. Course, the process would be much easier with an ECU
remap.
> > Ten a penny these days, heh.
>
> A chip, a new turbo and a headgasket might, together, get you close.
> The stock exhaust, I think, might cause problems. Heat increases in
> the intake due to insufficient charge cooling might make it
> impossible.
No, not impossible, just not really sensible, heh.
> > > > Ahh, probably not, elsewhere you discuss going from 150 to 225 PS.
Seem
> > to
> > > > be missing the final 15 PS, eh.
> > >
> > > And of course, your vast technical knowledge would tell you that the
> > > last 15 HP is easy to find, with a headgasket? Interesting.
> >
> > Heh heh heh heh. My speciality isn't in wheezy VW 1.8s, as you may have
> > guessed (or know, have you done any research). For this donk, I'd go
down
> > the tried and tested route of a water chargecooler, remap the ECU, and
leave
> > the turbocharger well alone. But ultimately, on something of this size,
> > it's more hassle than it's worth and replacing the vehicle with a more
> > powerful one is preferable. Slot the donk into a smaller car, where
it's
> > one of the upper engines, is a different argument.
>
> Indeed. The A4 is more suited to 1.8T tuning, and even then, by the
> time you can get S4 numbers, you have probably spent S4 money. All
> the better to just get the S4, hmmm?
Spot on.
> BTW, it's a nice avoidance of the issue. I *do* notice these things,
> as you might have guessed by now.
But it's not avoiding the issue, though.
> > > Show me how this might be possible, with URLs, if you don't mind.
> >
> > www.netnanny.org perhaps?
>
> Humorous, in your puerile way...
Thanks!
> > > > > > My response was something along the lines of, "if it's under
> > powered,
> > why
> > > > > > buy it in the first place?"
> > > > >
> > > > > Uhhh, which has exactly what to do with my question? It's exactly
as
> > > > > worthless as you wish to paint my postings.
> > > >
> > > > If you want a 300 PS car, buying a 150 PS and then fannying about
with
> > it to
> > > > get it up to the equivalent* is almost certainly going to cost you
more
> > than
> > > > simply going out and buying the 300 PS car.
> > > >
> > > > *and I don't just mean the engine.
> > >
> > > And what has this to do with making the hilariously ignorant
> > > suggestion that 225HP can be had from the 150HP motor with a "turbo
> > > and a head gasket?"
> >
> > Did I make this suggestion? I did not.
>
> You are de facto defending it. Now you are going to wash your hands
> of the whole mess?
> LOL!
>
> > > Not one damn thing, of course.
> >
> > Actually, it's very relevant, take off your blinkers.
>
> You have yet to show how. Please, enlighten me, O Learned One.
>
> > > One of the attractions to the 1.8T is the tunability. Going from 150
> > > -> 210 is cheap and easy (relatively.)
> > >
> > > Going from 210 -> 300 is not easy.
> >
> > It can be done, of course, but at the expense of what gives the 1.8T-150
> > it's appeal.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > The tunability is only because it has the turbocharger, as an
> > engine the 20 valve 1.8 is rather . . . well . . . limited in appeal.
You
> > can tune just about any turbocharged engine and get good results without
> > spending a lot of money. Going from 150 to 300 PS is fine as far as it
> > goes, but the rest of the A6 car won't be up to it.
>
> Agreed, again. A 1.8T with 300HP would be a driveability nightmare.
> But that's not really what I have been posting about, now is it?
>
> > That's relevant, unless you don't think it irresponsible to slap a 300
PS
> > engine in a car built for 150 PS (and, no, don't give me that "it's an
Audi
> > waffle, the upper models have differences to cope with the extra power).
>
> My issue has never been with the premise of the thread. You and I
> both know it. Your side-issues aside, the desireability of this is
> not of any issue, and has nothing at all to do with the technical
> issue of getting the 150HP motor to 225HP. I realize that you wish to
> focus on the desireability part, but that argument disappears quickly
> because I happen to agree with you.
Yeah, Usenet wouldn't be usenet without the arguments, heh.
> Any more red herrings you wish me to dismiss while we're here?
>
> > > > > > I don't see that you've bothered to answer the
> > > > > > original poster's response, instead, you're giving me your
opinion
> > of
> > how
> > > > > > Usenet should be "run."
> > > > >
> > > > > 100% strawman BS.
> > > > >
> > > > > I *have* answered the question, just not directly. If you had
> > > > > bothered to read before frothing at the mouth over your poor,
put-upon
> > > > > fellow USENET traveller, you'd have seen exactly how to get the
info.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you nearly through with your ****-take, sir?
> > > >
> > > > I'm almost through.
> > >
> > > Well, it's been fun playing with you.
> >
> > So do this for kicks?
>
> Why else does one come to USENET, if not for discussion? I remember
> someone said that to me once, but I just can't remember who it was...
>
> > > > I'm wondering how much longer you can keep this up.
> > >
> > > As long as it takes.
> >
> > We'll see who gets bored first, then.
>
> I find your petty moralizing plenty tedious.
>
> > > > Pity I'm at work during the day and don't have access to Usenet,
heh.
> > >
> > > Odd, I'm at work during the day, and DO have access to USENET. Good
> > > for me, hmmm?
> >
> > Right, nothing to do at work, patrol Usenet, heh heh heh.
>
> I'm sure it makes you feel better to think that this is all I do. Too
> bad that isn't true, hmmm?
No, I'm sure it doesn't.
> > I try to be
> > productive at work without distractions.
>
> Oddly enough, I am productive at work, and this is not really a
> distraction. But if you wish to imagine otherwise, I will certainly
> not attempt to stop you.
You're lucky, then, in that respect. I've deliberately turned off my usenet
and private email access, because I find it a big distraction. So I'm kinda
envious if you can do it; I can't.
/the above isn't a distraction, it's an observation, and it's not intended
otherwise/
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
news:73da2590.0307180839.7315d005@posting.google.c om...
> "DervMan" <dervman@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:<bf5e86$b0js9$1@ID-136275.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> > "Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> > news:73da2590.0307161238.49c4312b@posting.google.c om...
> > [snip]
> [snipped]
>
> > > You accused me of putting words into your posts, and I did not.
> > >
> > > The question was: Do you think a lack of courtesy from all USENET
> > > comers is good and acceptable?
>
> I see you're having difficulty answering this very simple question. In
> your hurry to appear witty and morally superior, I guess it must have
> "slipped your mind."
Ho hum. Have we not just left this party?
> > > > > Then you are an ***.
> > > >
> > > > Your opinion and not a fact.
> > >
> > > So far, I have not seen anything to contravene this opinion. I must,
> > > therefore, accept is as fact.
> >
> > So you're basing your knowledge on insufficient facts? And accepting
it?
>
> Do I need to post those netiquette URLs for you? The ones that say
> posting private e-mail is quite rude?
Well you can do, but is there not a more relevant newsgroup for this sort of
behaviour?
> > > > So because you do not share my values you believe me to be wrong?
> > >
> > > In technical matters, yes, I do not only believe you to be wrong, you
> > > are indeed wrong.
> >
> > We've barely discussed technical matters!
>
> That is quite true.
Thank you.
> You have insisted on making it an argument about
> who can post what where.
It takes two to argue.
> My focus has been, and will continue to be,
> Peter's shoddy attempt at a technical answer.
Shullbit it has been! Now you're trying to ram home your own beliefs,
opinions, facts, whatever you decide to call them.
> Nice try at a subject change, and very nicely avoided on the meat of
> the subject, BTW.
>
> > > > > > When I ask a question about, hmm,
> > > > > > okay about brake pad wear, it's impossible to get a hard and
fast
> > answer.
> > > > >
> > > > > Wrong again. Each person's response is a "hard and fast answer."
A
> > > > > data point to be considered with all the others. They are not
> > > > > opinions, they are facts. I find it astounding that you cannot
> > > > > distinguish between the two.
> > > >
> > > > So what you're saying is that, when it comes to something like this,
> > there
> > > > are a great many facts.
> > >
> > > Brake pad life is dependent on so many other factors that the data
> > > points generated may have very little value from person to person.
> > > That does not render them "opinion," but makes them into facts with
> > > limited value.
> >
> > ROFL! You can twist and turn but you can't shake it.
>
> Another nice non sequitur. You can't dispute the facts, I see.
>
> > > > The brake pad question cannot be answered without
> > > > opinions.
> > >
> > > Yes, I'm sure the science of physics concurs. LOL!
> > >
> > > > If I'm just given a number, "50,000 miles, bosh, that's all there
> > > > is to is" this fact may be incorrect.
> > >
> > > What are the other factors?
> >
> > To name a few, how many cold start, how many long heat soaks the engine
has,
> > how it's drive, how long the donk spends at high revs (in other words,
the
> > total number of engine revolutions during the 75,000 kilometres).
>
> Throttle opening (hard acceleration) etc., etc.
And there are more bits, too, but we could debate that for a long while.
And this would get very boring.
> The factors regarding brake life are still increased an order of
> magnitude.
But you cannot disupte the point I made, yes?
> > > That "fact" is correct, but the other
> > > part "that's all there is to it" [assuming typo there] is baseless
> > > opinion, and in fact 100% INcorrect.
> >
> > Baseless opinion?
>
> Reading comprehension?
> > > > Errrrr, no, did you read the original post, which said, "Does
anybody
> > know
> > > > how I can improve the engine power of my 1999 A6 1.8T SE Auto
without
> > > > spending too much money, as for this size of car more power is
> > definately
> > > > needed."
> > >
> > > I am not talking about that post, and we both know it. I realize that
> > > a nice red herring is necessary to help you feel better about engaging
> > > in a losing argument, but let's just see "a bigger turbo and a head
> > > gasket." Hilariously wrong.
> >
> > When you replied to me, you wrote about the facts of the matter, not the
> > actual facts
>
> I am having difficulty understanding what you mean. Could you be more
> explicit?
Reading comprehension?
/okay, okay, so that's a cheap jibe/
> > > > Nothing about how Audi ups the ante from 150 to 225 PS in there.
> > >
> > > Of course there isn't. Would like to stick to the subject we are
> > > discussing,
> >
> > I've spent most of my posts discussing "netiquette" with a net nanny
>
> LOL. I guess when you've run out of things to say, an ad hominem
> argument is your last solace. Bravo.
Run out of things to say?
> > the
> > fact that we're talking about VW products does seem all rather
irrelevant.
>
> Since you are trying to take a stance of moral superiority, this
> surprises you why?
>
> > You seem full of your own self-importance.
>
> You are nothing if not ironic. LOL!
>
> > Perhaps you feel better after
> > teaching these ruffians what it's all about?
>
> Irony upon irony. I suppose you are not trying to "put me in my
> place?" Hilarious, your hypocrisy.
Not any more. Indeedy, I think you know your place.
> [snip]
>
> > > Or just blowing smoke because they really don't know. After all, if
> > > it's just hypothetical, we can assign knowledge as we see fit.
> > >
> > > > So what's the difference between a belt change and new brake pads?
One
> > has
> > > > more obvious wear. If either breaks, it's probably bad news for the
> > car.
> > >
> > > The factors leading to wear on a cam belt and the factors relating to
> > > brake wear are parallel in what way?
> >
> > Here's a clue: the car is for driving.
>
> So you have no concrete answer. Yet above, you're whining about lack
> of technical discussion. Tsk, tsk.
No, no, I was being lazy; if you don't drive the car, both will deterioate
over time. If you do drive the car, both will deterioate, but the rate of
wear will depend on how the car is driven.
> > > > > > Agreed in that there are known differences between two products,
but
> > as
> > to
> > > > > > how to get the lesser specified product to produce the same
power
> > and
> > torque
> > > > > > as the higher specified product, there's no clear, concise
method.
> > > > >
> > > > > Sophistry, and we both know it. The differences between the two
> > > > > motors, as they come from Audi, is well-documented.
> > > > >
> > > > > Your mental gymnastics aside, LOL!
> > > > >
> > > > > And a "bigger turbo and a head gasket" is *not* one of the
methods!
> > > >
> > > > So you're now saying that replacing the turbocharged for a larger
> > variant in
> > > > the family wouldn't up the poke from 150 to 225 PS, or thereabouts.
> > >
> > > All by itself? Probably not.
> >
> > Did I use the word, "just."
>
> Ah, the losing side must always turn pedantic in the end. Notice I
> never accused you of saying "just." Just to be clear.
>
> > Being pedantic isn't going to get you out of a
> > hole.
>
> More irony. My favorite part of USENET.
>
>
> > *sighs* I suppose I should say, "remapping the ECU, exchanging the
> > turbocharger for a larger one, and leaving it at that" and would that
make
> > you feel better?
>
> It might, if that's all it took. But it requires *more than that.*
Well, you see, here's the rub, in that I don't believe you. And you're all
for laughing at the suggestion, but you know, I remain unconvinced as to
your own technical knowledge.
> Twist and turn at your leisure, but a "chip and a headgasket" (the
> original claim made by Peter,) or a "turbo and a headgasket" will not
> get you from 150 to 225. I'm sorry if those facts are uncomfortable.
They're not uncomfortable. I'm sure that many people appreciate that there
are several ways to up the power from any given production turbocharged
donk. The above suggestion is one alternative. Unfortunately, I don't have
the money to go out and buy a 1.8T engine and pay for somebody to do just a
turbocharger to up the power, although I'm quite certain that it can be
done.
> Next time, maybe you should defend someone with a little more solid
> footing? Just a "suggestion." LOL!
>
> > So is it *impossible* to take the 1.8T-150 up to producing 225 PS by
just a
> > turbocharger. Course, the process would be much easier with an ECU
remap.
> > Ten a penny these days, heh.
>
> A chip, a new turbo and a headgasket might, together, get you close.
> The stock exhaust, I think, might cause problems. Heat increases in
> the intake due to insufficient charge cooling might make it
> impossible.
No, not impossible, just not really sensible, heh.
> > > > Ahh, probably not, elsewhere you discuss going from 150 to 225 PS.
Seem
> > to
> > > > be missing the final 15 PS, eh.
> > >
> > > And of course, your vast technical knowledge would tell you that the
> > > last 15 HP is easy to find, with a headgasket? Interesting.
> >
> > Heh heh heh heh. My speciality isn't in wheezy VW 1.8s, as you may have
> > guessed (or know, have you done any research). For this donk, I'd go
down
> > the tried and tested route of a water chargecooler, remap the ECU, and
leave
> > the turbocharger well alone. But ultimately, on something of this size,
> > it's more hassle than it's worth and replacing the vehicle with a more
> > powerful one is preferable. Slot the donk into a smaller car, where
it's
> > one of the upper engines, is a different argument.
>
> Indeed. The A4 is more suited to 1.8T tuning, and even then, by the
> time you can get S4 numbers, you have probably spent S4 money. All
> the better to just get the S4, hmmm?
Spot on.
> BTW, it's a nice avoidance of the issue. I *do* notice these things,
> as you might have guessed by now.
But it's not avoiding the issue, though.
> > > Show me how this might be possible, with URLs, if you don't mind.
> >
> > www.netnanny.org perhaps?
>
> Humorous, in your puerile way...
Thanks!
> > > > > > My response was something along the lines of, "if it's under
> > powered,
> > why
> > > > > > buy it in the first place?"
> > > > >
> > > > > Uhhh, which has exactly what to do with my question? It's exactly
as
> > > > > worthless as you wish to paint my postings.
> > > >
> > > > If you want a 300 PS car, buying a 150 PS and then fannying about
with
> > it to
> > > > get it up to the equivalent* is almost certainly going to cost you
more
> > than
> > > > simply going out and buying the 300 PS car.
> > > >
> > > > *and I don't just mean the engine.
> > >
> > > And what has this to do with making the hilariously ignorant
> > > suggestion that 225HP can be had from the 150HP motor with a "turbo
> > > and a head gasket?"
> >
> > Did I make this suggestion? I did not.
>
> You are de facto defending it. Now you are going to wash your hands
> of the whole mess?
> LOL!
>
> > > Not one damn thing, of course.
> >
> > Actually, it's very relevant, take off your blinkers.
>
> You have yet to show how. Please, enlighten me, O Learned One.
>
> > > One of the attractions to the 1.8T is the tunability. Going from 150
> > > -> 210 is cheap and easy (relatively.)
> > >
> > > Going from 210 -> 300 is not easy.
> >
> > It can be done, of course, but at the expense of what gives the 1.8T-150
> > it's appeal.
>
> Agreed.
>
> > The tunability is only because it has the turbocharger, as an
> > engine the 20 valve 1.8 is rather . . . well . . . limited in appeal.
You
> > can tune just about any turbocharged engine and get good results without
> > spending a lot of money. Going from 150 to 300 PS is fine as far as it
> > goes, but the rest of the A6 car won't be up to it.
>
> Agreed, again. A 1.8T with 300HP would be a driveability nightmare.
> But that's not really what I have been posting about, now is it?
>
> > That's relevant, unless you don't think it irresponsible to slap a 300
PS
> > engine in a car built for 150 PS (and, no, don't give me that "it's an
Audi
> > waffle, the upper models have differences to cope with the extra power).
>
> My issue has never been with the premise of the thread. You and I
> both know it. Your side-issues aside, the desireability of this is
> not of any issue, and has nothing at all to do with the technical
> issue of getting the 150HP motor to 225HP. I realize that you wish to
> focus on the desireability part, but that argument disappears quickly
> because I happen to agree with you.
Yeah, Usenet wouldn't be usenet without the arguments, heh.
> Any more red herrings you wish me to dismiss while we're here?
>
> > > > > > I don't see that you've bothered to answer the
> > > > > > original poster's response, instead, you're giving me your
opinion
> > of
> > how
> > > > > > Usenet should be "run."
> > > > >
> > > > > 100% strawman BS.
> > > > >
> > > > > I *have* answered the question, just not directly. If you had
> > > > > bothered to read before frothing at the mouth over your poor,
put-upon
> > > > > fellow USENET traveller, you'd have seen exactly how to get the
info.
> > > > >
> > > > > Are you nearly through with your ****-take, sir?
> > > >
> > > > I'm almost through.
> > >
> > > Well, it's been fun playing with you.
> >
> > So do this for kicks?
>
> Why else does one come to USENET, if not for discussion? I remember
> someone said that to me once, but I just can't remember who it was...
>
> > > > I'm wondering how much longer you can keep this up.
> > >
> > > As long as it takes.
> >
> > We'll see who gets bored first, then.
>
> I find your petty moralizing plenty tedious.
>
> > > > Pity I'm at work during the day and don't have access to Usenet,
heh.
> > >
> > > Odd, I'm at work during the day, and DO have access to USENET. Good
> > > for me, hmmm?
> >
> > Right, nothing to do at work, patrol Usenet, heh heh heh.
>
> I'm sure it makes you feel better to think that this is all I do. Too
> bad that isn't true, hmmm?
No, I'm sure it doesn't.
> > I try to be
> > productive at work without distractions.
>
> Oddly enough, I am productive at work, and this is not really a
> distraction. But if you wish to imagine otherwise, I will certainly
> not attempt to stop you.
You're lucky, then, in that respect. I've deliberately turned off my usenet
and private email access, because I find it a big distraction. So I'm kinda
envious if you can do it; I can't.
/the above isn't a distraction, it's an observation, and it's not intended
otherwise/
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
"Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73da2590.0307180910.5014b965@posting.google.c om...
> "AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message
news:<pJiRa.10646$ju6.203179@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> > > > > > > Did you get the author's permission first?
> > > > > >
> > > > > > No.
> > > > >
> > > > > Why not?
> > > >
> > > > Because I didn't ask. Next.......
> > >
> > > Nice circular reasoning.
> > >
> > > You were an to post the stuff without asking. On top of being
> > > an idiot for suggesting that a 150 motor could be made a 225 with a
> > > "bigger turbo and head gasket."
> >
> > Wrong. It was wrong of me to post the sender's email address as part of
the
> > post - nothing wrong at all with sharing the contents of that email.
>
> You are hilariously mistaken, as with most of the rest of the
> unmitigated BS you've spewed here. From:
>
> http://www.onlinenetiquette.com/courtesy1.html
>
> "Keep in mind that all private email is considered to be copyrighted
> by the original author. If you post private email to a public list or
> board, or forward it to an outside party in whole or in part, you must
> include the author's permission to post the material publicly. Not
> doing so can get you into some deep doo-doo legally or with your
> friends and associates. Think of it this way... how would you feel if
> a personal private email that you had written for a specific
> purpose/person is then plastered across the Internet or forwarded to
> folks you don't know? Ask permission before forwarding/posting any
> private emails!"
>
> > And
> > regarding my suggestion of the possibility that a 150 motor could be
made a
> > 225 with a bigger turbo and uprated head gasket wasn't too far off the
mark,
> > as you yourself said that basic mods like this could get it up to 210.
>
> Obviously, you have mis-read my postings. Re-read (for comprehension
> this time.)
>
> > Astravanman > > Thank you. Now if you could kindly snip the headers a
bit
> > more, that'd be a
> > Astravanman > > bit less bandwidth wasted.
> > >
> > Spider > Sorry, but you are wrong on this - quoting without attribution
is
> > Spider > rude. But anything to divert attention away from yourself is a
> > good
> > Spider > play. Keep it up.
> >
> > Yes, but just a big load of headers at the top only serves to confuse
> > matters, neccessitating the need to scroll up and down to keep on
reminding
> > oneself of who posted what.
>
> The fact of the matter is that you are grasping at straws in order to
> divert attention from your own misdeeds. Nowhere is it written that
> attribution lines should be trimmed - in fact, it is suggested that
> they be *included*, your misguided opinion aside. Wish to try again?
>
> > > > It wasn't
> > > > an opinion. It was a suggestion.
> > >
> > > That's a very nice recasting of the words you wrote. I'll bet it
> > > makes you feel all squishy inside knowing that you were just trying to
> > > be helpful.
> >
> > It does actually. I like to help people.
>
> That's good. Maybe if you actually offered REAL information, then it
> would actually be helpful. Odd, the correlation, don't you think?
>
> > > Sure - it only makes you look like a stupid . Why on earth you
> > > would want to expose your foolishness even more than you already have
> > > just boggles my mind.
> >
> > Jeez.......pot, kettle, black.
>
> LOL. Hardly.
>
>
> > There's nothing like making an issue out of
> > something so bloody minor.
>
> Quite. Which is why you've been rambling on for days over it,
> hypocrite.
>
> > > Because I'm teaching you a lesson. You may not like it, but you have
> > > learned something. Maybe even more than one thing.
> >
> > Ah, thanks - it's nice to know you care so much.
>
> I care about other Audi owners, sure. So much so, that I like to
> upbraid those who give dumb, incorrect, or just plain idiotic info in
> USENET.
>
> Have you learned anything yet? (I'm sure your answer will be pithy,
> and only part of the truth, but I asked, LOL.)
>
> Spider
Take it outside
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
Spider wrote:
> "AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message news:<pJiRa.10646$ju6.203179@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
>>
>>Wrong. It was wrong of me to post the sender's email address as part of the
>>post - nothing wrong at all with sharing the contents of that email.
>
>
> You are hilariously mistaken, as with most of the rest of the
> unmitigated BS you've spewed here. From:
>
> http://www.onlinenetiquette.com/courtesy1.html
>
> "Keep in mind that all private email is considered to be copyrighted
> by the original author. If you post private email to a public list or
> board, or forward it to an outside party in whole or in part, you must
> include the author's permission to post the material publicly.
I'd like to see some legal documentation to support this, as opposed to
it just being the opinion of the people who run that site. As I see it,
if someone sends me something unsolicited, without my foreknowledge or
permission, it's mine to do with as I see fit. Don't like it? Then
don't send me email.
How could it be otherwise? I mean, if the sender retains ownership,
then someone could send me an unsolicited email, then sue me for
possession of copyrighted material!
--
Mike Smith
> "AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message news:<pJiRa.10646$ju6.203179@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
>>
>>Wrong. It was wrong of me to post the sender's email address as part of the
>>post - nothing wrong at all with sharing the contents of that email.
>
>
> You are hilariously mistaken, as with most of the rest of the
> unmitigated BS you've spewed here. From:
>
> http://www.onlinenetiquette.com/courtesy1.html
>
> "Keep in mind that all private email is considered to be copyrighted
> by the original author. If you post private email to a public list or
> board, or forward it to an outside party in whole or in part, you must
> include the author's permission to post the material publicly.
I'd like to see some legal documentation to support this, as opposed to
it just being the opinion of the people who run that site. As I see it,
if someone sends me something unsolicited, without my foreknowledge or
permission, it's mine to do with as I see fit. Don't like it? Then
don't send me email.
How could it be otherwise? I mean, if the sender retains ownership,
then someone could send me an unsolicited email, then sue me for
possession of copyrighted material!
--
Mike Smith
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
Mike Smith <mike_UNDERSCORE_smith@acm.DOT.org> wrote in message news:<vhkmsus6fjl620@news.supernews.com>...
> Spider wrote:
>
> > "AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message news:<pJiRa.10646$ju6.203179@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> >>
> >>Wrong. It was wrong of me to post the sender's email address as part of the
> >>post - nothing wrong at all with sharing the contents of that email.
> >
> >
> > You are hilariously mistaken, as with most of the rest of the
> > unmitigated BS you've spewed here. From:
> >
> > http://www.onlinenetiquette.com/courtesy1.html
> >
> > "Keep in mind that all private email is considered to be copyrighted
> > by the original author. If you post private email to a public list or
> > board, or forward it to an outside party in whole or in part, you must
> > include the author's permission to post the material publicly.
>
> I'd like to see some legal documentation to support this, as opposed to
> it just being the opinion of the people who run that site. As I see it,
> if someone sends me something unsolicited, without my foreknowledge or
> permission, it's mine to do with as I see fit. Don't like it? Then
> don't send me email.
If you think it's legal, then roll the dice.
> How could it be otherwise?
Easy. It's the *republication* that matters.
> I mean, if the sender retains ownership,
> then someone could send me an unsolicited email, then sue me for
> possession of copyrighted material!
Possession <> republication.
Spider
> Spider wrote:
>
> > "AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message news:<pJiRa.10646$ju6.203179@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> >>
> >>Wrong. It was wrong of me to post the sender's email address as part of the
> >>post - nothing wrong at all with sharing the contents of that email.
> >
> >
> > You are hilariously mistaken, as with most of the rest of the
> > unmitigated BS you've spewed here. From:
> >
> > http://www.onlinenetiquette.com/courtesy1.html
> >
> > "Keep in mind that all private email is considered to be copyrighted
> > by the original author. If you post private email to a public list or
> > board, or forward it to an outside party in whole or in part, you must
> > include the author's permission to post the material publicly.
>
> I'd like to see some legal documentation to support this, as opposed to
> it just being the opinion of the people who run that site. As I see it,
> if someone sends me something unsolicited, without my foreknowledge or
> permission, it's mine to do with as I see fit. Don't like it? Then
> don't send me email.
If you think it's legal, then roll the dice.
> How could it be otherwise?
Easy. It's the *republication* that matters.
> I mean, if the sender retains ownership,
> then someone could send me an unsolicited email, then sue me for
> possession of copyrighted material!
Possession <> republication.
Spider
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 1.8T 150bhp Is not enough!!
"The Incredible Swearing ManŠ" <nigel.ince@NOSPAMbtinternet.com> wrote in message news:<3f194fee$0$11380$cc9e4d1f@news.dial.pipex.co m>...
[100 lines snipped]
> Take it outside
Learn how to use your newsreader.
Spider
[100 lines snipped]
> Take it outside
Learn how to use your newsreader.
Spider