A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
#31
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
> I agree I have come across much worse sorts than you, but I must
> say the old joke about the internet disproving the theory that "an
infinite
> number of monkeys on typewriters would in time reproduce the works of
> Shakespeare" is certainly borne out by you and your ilk.
Dip me in tar and roll me in feathers. I should have said "a large number
of monkeys..."
An infinite number would get the job done in zero time. Unfortunately, since
there's only one born every minute we can't get together an infinite number,
though AOL seems to be working on that.
Cheers Rachael
> say the old joke about the internet disproving the theory that "an
infinite
> number of monkeys on typewriters would in time reproduce the works of
> Shakespeare" is certainly borne out by you and your ilk.
Dip me in tar and roll me in feathers. I should have said "a large number
of monkeys..."
An infinite number would get the job done in zero time. Unfortunately, since
there's only one born every minute we can't get together an infinite number,
though AOL seems to be working on that.
Cheers Rachael
#32
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
<snip>
>
> Spider
I give up, you're obviously just a miserable old todger with nothing better
to do than moan over the slightest little thing. Were you just having a bad
day when you started this arguement, or are you really that pathetic all the
time? You must be very lonely if you are!
Goodbye
Good luck Peter!
>
> Spider
I give up, you're obviously just a miserable old todger with nothing better
to do than moan over the slightest little thing. Were you just having a bad
day when you started this arguement, or are you really that pathetic all the
time? You must be very lonely if you are!
Goodbye
Good luck Peter!
#33
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
"Rachael" <rfearnhead@mybra.btinternet.com> wrote in message news:<bi3qlt$igi$1@hercules.btinternet.com>...
> > > And who appointed you chief w*nker?
> >
> > Looks like you just did. I guess in your capacity as Queen of USENET,
> > you just get to bitch at posters whose content is not to yor liking?
>
> Erm, you started the "of USENET" thing.
No, actually you did. By butting in to offer your high-and-mighty
"wisdom." Just sit down, shut up, and apply your filters and be done
with it.
> > You know very little of USENET, then. I'm downright saintly in
> > comparison.
>
> As I said, I am a novice, as you have so masterfully deduced Sherlock.
So, instead of following your own advice, you ironically jump right
into the mud. Hypocrite.
> However, that does not disqualify me from responding to your vacuous and
> superior comments on other posters' efforts.
Your feelings of inferiority are not my concern.
> I would feel stirred to respond
> to a pseudointellectual twerp like you in any circumstance, not just on
> "USENET."
No, like all those folks that have tons of "electronic courage" you
would sit quietly by while a discussion went on.
But I'm glad that you wish to imagine otherwise.
> I agree I have come across much worse sorts than you, but I must
> say the old joke about the internet disproving the theory that "an infinite
> number of monkeys on typewriters would in time reproduce the works of
> Shakespeare" is certainly borne out by you and your ilk.
What was that about superiority, again?
I love irony - it's really the best part of USENET.
> > > Keep digging
> >
> > Hard to do when you are holding the shovel. But you are amusing
> > nonetheless.
>
> Well, in my job I usually get to watch others wield the shovel, but I'm not
> averse to helping you dig your hole.
Except I am not in any way digging any "hole." See, when you're in
over your head, it's best to bow out as gracefully as possible.
That's your free clue.
> I'm glad you find me amusing and hope
> I have brightened up your little computer life.
Ah, yes, a little more of that irony that I love so...
> > Get back to me when you learn how to use your newsreader, OK?
>
> When you learn to read and to compehend, I'll learn to be a
> sooper-dooper-power-user just like you.
I comprehend just fine, but thanks for yet more irony.
You should have paid attention to that "whoosh!"
> Kind regards
No, really, the pleasure has been all mine.
Spider
> > > And who appointed you chief w*nker?
> >
> > Looks like you just did. I guess in your capacity as Queen of USENET,
> > you just get to bitch at posters whose content is not to yor liking?
>
> Erm, you started the "of USENET" thing.
No, actually you did. By butting in to offer your high-and-mighty
"wisdom." Just sit down, shut up, and apply your filters and be done
with it.
> > You know very little of USENET, then. I'm downright saintly in
> > comparison.
>
> As I said, I am a novice, as you have so masterfully deduced Sherlock.
So, instead of following your own advice, you ironically jump right
into the mud. Hypocrite.
> However, that does not disqualify me from responding to your vacuous and
> superior comments on other posters' efforts.
Your feelings of inferiority are not my concern.
> I would feel stirred to respond
> to a pseudointellectual twerp like you in any circumstance, not just on
> "USENET."
No, like all those folks that have tons of "electronic courage" you
would sit quietly by while a discussion went on.
But I'm glad that you wish to imagine otherwise.
> I agree I have come across much worse sorts than you, but I must
> say the old joke about the internet disproving the theory that "an infinite
> number of monkeys on typewriters would in time reproduce the works of
> Shakespeare" is certainly borne out by you and your ilk.
What was that about superiority, again?
I love irony - it's really the best part of USENET.
> > > Keep digging
> >
> > Hard to do when you are holding the shovel. But you are amusing
> > nonetheless.
>
> Well, in my job I usually get to watch others wield the shovel, but I'm not
> averse to helping you dig your hole.
Except I am not in any way digging any "hole." See, when you're in
over your head, it's best to bow out as gracefully as possible.
That's your free clue.
> I'm glad you find me amusing and hope
> I have brightened up your little computer life.
Ah, yes, a little more of that irony that I love so...
> > Get back to me when you learn how to use your newsreader, OK?
>
> When you learn to read and to compehend, I'll learn to be a
> sooper-dooper-power-user just like you.
I comprehend just fine, but thanks for yet more irony.
You should have paid attention to that "whoosh!"
> Kind regards
No, really, the pleasure has been all mine.
Spider
#34
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
"AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message news:<L4c1b.492$MS5.9837@newsfep4-glfd.server.ntli.net>...
> > > Not neccessarily, but as I have pointed out numerous times, even when I
> did
> > > do a google search it didn't come up with a particularly definitive
> answer
> > > (in the way that engine numbers are harder to change than badges on the
> > > tailgate).
> >
> > I notice that your original post does not include that info. Now, how
> > am I to know that you even tried to look up something? Magic?
>
> No, my original post didn't include that info, because, as I've explained in
> subsequent posts, at the time of posting the original post, I hadn't done a
> search.
So, my original comment was right on the money. Thanks for the
admission.
> The fact that you're only prepared to help someone if they've made
> every other effort possible to find out the information is your business.
That "fact" is one you just made up. Lying and/or hyperbole do not
make your argument any stronger.
The real "fact" is that I would prefer *some* effort, as a measure of
respect to those who you wish to spend time and effort in giving you
information that you do not currently possess. I'm not sure what part
of that you are having difficulty understanding.
> > > So I would have still needed to ask the question.
> >
> > It depends on how thorough your search was.
> >
> > > Sure, it
> > > might have been in the 30th or so screen of google's findings
> >
> > If the parameters you used generated 30 screens, then you really need
> > to learn how to properly use a search engine, and how to set up
> > parameters as to excluse false-positives.
>
> Well pardon me for not being an expert on search engines.
You are not pardoned. You obviously know how to type, so narrowing
parameters just isn't that hard. It doesn't take much expertise, just
a little, tiny, almost-not-worthy-of-mentioning bit of work.
> That's why I use
> usenet.
Because you're lazy and arrogant, yeah I got that already.
> Let's look at the facts for a minute.
Like the "fact" you posted above? THis ought to be rich...
> I post a question. You post an
> answer that is absolutely no help in answering the question.
Yet I took time and effort to try and help - which is more than you
were willing to do for yourself. Instead of being gracious, you
decide that you need to be holier-than-thou over the whole issue.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Pete, but I find your protestations of
innocence highly amusing, and completely hypocritical.
[snipped]
What other uninformed fools on USENET think of my postings is
irrelevant to me. If they want to engage in a flamewar, well, that's
fine with me.
> > > but it's a
> > > lot easier to spend my time doing something more important
> >
> > Well, really, here's where you give up the game, isn't it? Here, you
> > are admitting, finally, that you consider your time "more important"
> > than the poor sap who is just trying to be helpful. This is exactly
> > the attitude I despise.
>
> Trying to be helpful? By posting an answer of no relevance to the question?
> Well you tried I suppose. Pat on the back for you.
1.) The comment above was not specific to me, and I in no way wanted
to imply I meant myself. My apologies for not being clear on that.
My answer did have relevance, but was indeed not too helpful. But I
actually spent some time trying to get it, which was more than you did
for yourself.
> I don't consider my time any more or less important than anyone else's,
> perse.
That's not what you previously implied. Either you are just fooling
yourself, or you are not telling the truth. Either way, your
admission of "doing more important things" really says all that needs
to be said, and proves my point completely.
> > Part of the give and take of USENET is the idea that you actually have
> > some sort of respect for your fellow human. Part of that is that you
> > actually show that you have attempted to answer your own question, and
> > come up empty, or with answers that aren't complete. Like the A4
> > timing belt issue - USENET is the perfect forum for those questions,
> > because the manual, the revised TSB and the conventional wisdom are
> > all at odds.
>
> And I suppose the differences between the 115bhp and 140bhp 2.5TDI engines
> are a very well documented affair, are they?
Well, considering that you actually found a piece of correct
information, I would say "yes."
> I don't have a manual to hand,
> as I don't yet own an A6.
Nor would I expect you to in this case. By your own admission, you
just jumped right in and posted, assuming that you'd get your answer
with no effort on your part. I am amazed that you think that this
doesn't paint you in a selfish light.
> > > If more people helped each other in this way, then
> > > we'd all save a lot of time.
> >
> > "Saving time" is your bottom line, I can see that very well. Too bad
> > it comes at the expense of others...
>
> Well if it was that much of an inconvenience to them then they wouldn't
> bother, would they.
That's not the point, but it's an excellent attempt at obfuscation.
> > Then maybe you and others ought to look up the meaning of the word.
> > It is clear that you (and others) do not quite grasp it's definition.
>
> That's pretty much everyone so far who's replied to the post. That's it -
> they're all wrong, and you are right.
The three or four fools who "don't get it" have not offered anything
to alt.autos.audi in the way of information in this thread, so I'm
just dismissing their opinions as the ****-takes that they are.
Whether or not they coincide with your opinion has no meaning.
The funny thing is this: if you had spent as much time doing your
search as you have spent in heart-felt defense of your laziness, you'd
have had the info without having to post to USENET at all! The irony
is simply astounding.
LOL!
Spider
> > > Not neccessarily, but as I have pointed out numerous times, even when I
> did
> > > do a google search it didn't come up with a particularly definitive
> answer
> > > (in the way that engine numbers are harder to change than badges on the
> > > tailgate).
> >
> > I notice that your original post does not include that info. Now, how
> > am I to know that you even tried to look up something? Magic?
>
> No, my original post didn't include that info, because, as I've explained in
> subsequent posts, at the time of posting the original post, I hadn't done a
> search.
So, my original comment was right on the money. Thanks for the
admission.
> The fact that you're only prepared to help someone if they've made
> every other effort possible to find out the information is your business.
That "fact" is one you just made up. Lying and/or hyperbole do not
make your argument any stronger.
The real "fact" is that I would prefer *some* effort, as a measure of
respect to those who you wish to spend time and effort in giving you
information that you do not currently possess. I'm not sure what part
of that you are having difficulty understanding.
> > > So I would have still needed to ask the question.
> >
> > It depends on how thorough your search was.
> >
> > > Sure, it
> > > might have been in the 30th or so screen of google's findings
> >
> > If the parameters you used generated 30 screens, then you really need
> > to learn how to properly use a search engine, and how to set up
> > parameters as to excluse false-positives.
>
> Well pardon me for not being an expert on search engines.
You are not pardoned. You obviously know how to type, so narrowing
parameters just isn't that hard. It doesn't take much expertise, just
a little, tiny, almost-not-worthy-of-mentioning bit of work.
> That's why I use
> usenet.
Because you're lazy and arrogant, yeah I got that already.
> Let's look at the facts for a minute.
Like the "fact" you posted above? THis ought to be rich...
> I post a question. You post an
> answer that is absolutely no help in answering the question.
Yet I took time and effort to try and help - which is more than you
were willing to do for yourself. Instead of being gracious, you
decide that you need to be holier-than-thou over the whole issue.
Sorry to burst your bubble, Pete, but I find your protestations of
innocence highly amusing, and completely hypocritical.
[snipped]
What other uninformed fools on USENET think of my postings is
irrelevant to me. If they want to engage in a flamewar, well, that's
fine with me.
> > > but it's a
> > > lot easier to spend my time doing something more important
> >
> > Well, really, here's where you give up the game, isn't it? Here, you
> > are admitting, finally, that you consider your time "more important"
> > than the poor sap who is just trying to be helpful. This is exactly
> > the attitude I despise.
>
> Trying to be helpful? By posting an answer of no relevance to the question?
> Well you tried I suppose. Pat on the back for you.
1.) The comment above was not specific to me, and I in no way wanted
to imply I meant myself. My apologies for not being clear on that.
My answer did have relevance, but was indeed not too helpful. But I
actually spent some time trying to get it, which was more than you did
for yourself.
> I don't consider my time any more or less important than anyone else's,
> perse.
That's not what you previously implied. Either you are just fooling
yourself, or you are not telling the truth. Either way, your
admission of "doing more important things" really says all that needs
to be said, and proves my point completely.
> > Part of the give and take of USENET is the idea that you actually have
> > some sort of respect for your fellow human. Part of that is that you
> > actually show that you have attempted to answer your own question, and
> > come up empty, or with answers that aren't complete. Like the A4
> > timing belt issue - USENET is the perfect forum for those questions,
> > because the manual, the revised TSB and the conventional wisdom are
> > all at odds.
>
> And I suppose the differences between the 115bhp and 140bhp 2.5TDI engines
> are a very well documented affair, are they?
Well, considering that you actually found a piece of correct
information, I would say "yes."
> I don't have a manual to hand,
> as I don't yet own an A6.
Nor would I expect you to in this case. By your own admission, you
just jumped right in and posted, assuming that you'd get your answer
with no effort on your part. I am amazed that you think that this
doesn't paint you in a selfish light.
> > > If more people helped each other in this way, then
> > > we'd all save a lot of time.
> >
> > "Saving time" is your bottom line, I can see that very well. Too bad
> > it comes at the expense of others...
>
> Well if it was that much of an inconvenience to them then they wouldn't
> bother, would they.
That's not the point, but it's an excellent attempt at obfuscation.
> > Then maybe you and others ought to look up the meaning of the word.
> > It is clear that you (and others) do not quite grasp it's definition.
>
> That's pretty much everyone so far who's replied to the post. That's it -
> they're all wrong, and you are right.
The three or four fools who "don't get it" have not offered anything
to alt.autos.audi in the way of information in this thread, so I'm
just dismissing their opinions as the ****-takes that they are.
Whether or not they coincide with your opinion has no meaning.
The funny thing is this: if you had spent as much time doing your
search as you have spent in heart-felt defense of your laziness, you'd
have had the info without having to post to USENET at all! The irony
is simply astounding.
LOL!
Spider
#35
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
"Carl Gibbs" <cagmeister@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:bi5dgp$5eih5$1@ID-166528.news.uni-berlin.de...
> <snip>
> >
> > Spider
>
> I give up, you're obviously just a miserable old todger with nothing
better
> to do than moan over the slightest little thing. Were you just having a
bad
> day when you started this arguement, or are you really that pathetic all
the
> time? You must be very lonely if you are!
He does it all of the time, probably gets his kicks from it, heh heh!
> Goodbye
>
> Good luck Peter!
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
news:bi5dgp$5eih5$1@ID-166528.news.uni-berlin.de...
> <snip>
> >
> > Spider
>
> I give up, you're obviously just a miserable old todger with nothing
better
> to do than moan over the slightest little thing. Were you just having a
bad
> day when you started this arguement, or are you really that pathetic all
the
> time? You must be very lonely if you are!
He does it all of the time, probably gets his kicks from it, heh heh!
> Goodbye
>
> Good luck Peter!
--
The DervMan
www.dervman.com
#36
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
"Spider" <beelzebubba@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:73da2590.0308220849.511d72ce@posting.google.c om...
> "Rachael" <rfearnhead@mybra.btinternet.com> wrote in message
news:<bi3qlt$igi$1@hercules.btinternet.com>...
> > > > And who appointed you chief w*nker?
> > >
> > > Looks like you just did. I guess in your capacity as Queen of USENET,
> > > you just get to bitch at posters whose content is not to yor liking?
> >
> > Erm, you started the "of USENET" thing.
>
> No, actually you did. By butting in to offer your high-and-mighty
> "wisdom." Just sit down, shut up, and apply your filters and be done
> with it.
>
> > > You know very little of USENET, then. I'm downright saintly in
> > > comparison.
> >
> > As I said, I am a novice, as you have so masterfully deduced Sherlock.
>
> So, instead of following your own advice, you ironically jump right
> into the mud. Hypocrite.
>
> > However, that does not disqualify me from responding to your vacuous and
> > superior comments on other posters' efforts.
>
> Your feelings of inferiority are not my concern.
>
> > I would feel stirred to respond
> > to a pseudointellectual twerp like you in any circumstance, not just on
> > "USENET."
>
> No, like all those folks that have tons of "electronic courage" you
> would sit quietly by while a discussion went on.
>
> But I'm glad that you wish to imagine otherwise.
>
> > I agree I have come across much worse sorts than you, but I must
> > say the old joke about the internet disproving the theory that "an
infinite
> > number of monkeys on typewriters would in time reproduce the works of
> > Shakespeare" is certainly borne out by you and your ilk.
>
> What was that about superiority, again?
>
> I love irony - it's really the best part of USENET.
>
> > > > Keep digging
> > >
> > > Hard to do when you are holding the shovel. But you are amusing
> > > nonetheless.
> >
> > Well, in my job I usually get to watch others wield the shovel, but I'm
not
> > averse to helping you dig your hole.
>
> Except I am not in any way digging any "hole." See, when you're in
> over your head, it's best to bow out as gracefully as possible.
> That's your free clue.
>
> > I'm glad you find me amusing and hope
> > I have brightened up your little computer life.
>
> Ah, yes, a little more of that irony that I love so...
>
> > > Get back to me when you learn how to use your newsreader, OK?
> >
> > When you learn to read and to compehend, I'll learn to be a
> > sooper-dooper-power-user just like you.
>
> I comprehend just fine, but thanks for yet more irony.
>
> You should have paid attention to that "whoosh!"
>
> > Kind regards
>
> No, really, the pleasure has been all mine.
>
> Spider
blah blah blah
Comprehension.......exactly which part of the phrase "A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp
(5-cylinder)" justified your starting a "discussion" about 4 and 6 cylinder
engines? Or is there something in it that I, the other contributors to this
"discussion" and the rest of the English speaking world have missed?
Is it not high time you took your hand off it and climbed back into your
tree? Now how do I do this? Messages.....block sender.....ah yes
Rachael x
#37
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
> > The fact that you're only prepared to help someone if they've made
> > every other effort possible to find out the information is your
business.
>
> That "fact" is one you just made up. Lying and/or hyperbole do not
> make your argument any stronger.
>
> The real "fact" is that I would prefer *some* effort, as a measure of
> respect to those who you wish to spend time and effort in giving you
> information that you do not currently possess. I'm not sure what part
> of that you are having difficulty understanding.
The only time and effort I'd expect is the minute or so it takes to type a
quick reply. I wouldn't expect someone to go and research something for
me - I'd only expect them to post an answer that they already knew about, so
it wouldn't take much of their time at all. Anyway, I notice Jonathan
Morton (the one person that did post an answer that was bang on what I
required) didn't begrudge helping me out (even though he'd posted it
before!), so I can't see where the problem is.
> Sorry to burst your bubble, Pete, but I find your protestations of
> innocence highly amusing, and completely hypocritical.
As do I find yours.
> 1.) The comment above was not specific to me, and I in no way wanted
> to imply I meant myself. My apologies for not being clear on that.
Don't mention it.
> My answer did have relevance, but was indeed not too helpful. But I
> actually spent some time trying to get it, which was more than you did
> for yourself.
Well bless your little cotton socks for trying.
> > > Part of the give and take of USENET is the idea that you actually have
> > > some sort of respect for your fellow human. Part of that is that you
> > > actually show that you have attempted to answer your own question, and
> > > come up empty, or with answers that aren't complete. Like the A4
> > > timing belt issue - USENET is the perfect forum for those questions,
> > > because the manual, the revised TSB and the conventional wisdom are
> > > all at odds.
> >
> > And I suppose the differences between the 115bhp and 140bhp 2.5TDI
engines
> > are a very well documented affair, are they?
>
> Well, considering that you actually found a piece of correct
> information, I would say "yes."
Well, found the information via a post of someone else.
> > That's pretty much everyone so far who's replied to the post. That's
it -
> > they're all wrong, and you are right.
>
> The three or four fools who "don't get it" have not offered anything
> to alt.autos.audi in the way of information in this thread, so I'm
> just dismissing their opinions as the ****-takes that they are.
> Whether or not they coincide with your opinion has no meaning.
The above paragraph just typifies your "I'm right, everyone else is wrong"
attitude. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you any more. Well,
that sentence might come to be disproven.
> The funny thing is this: if you had spent as much time doing your
> search as you have spent in heart-felt defense of your laziness, you'd
> have had the info without having to post to USENET at all! The irony
> is simply astounding.
And that's coming from someone who's spent an equal amount of time on this
thread, for no other purpose than to come on here and slag me off.
Peter
> > every other effort possible to find out the information is your
business.
>
> That "fact" is one you just made up. Lying and/or hyperbole do not
> make your argument any stronger.
>
> The real "fact" is that I would prefer *some* effort, as a measure of
> respect to those who you wish to spend time and effort in giving you
> information that you do not currently possess. I'm not sure what part
> of that you are having difficulty understanding.
The only time and effort I'd expect is the minute or so it takes to type a
quick reply. I wouldn't expect someone to go and research something for
me - I'd only expect them to post an answer that they already knew about, so
it wouldn't take much of their time at all. Anyway, I notice Jonathan
Morton (the one person that did post an answer that was bang on what I
required) didn't begrudge helping me out (even though he'd posted it
before!), so I can't see where the problem is.
> Sorry to burst your bubble, Pete, but I find your protestations of
> innocence highly amusing, and completely hypocritical.
As do I find yours.
> 1.) The comment above was not specific to me, and I in no way wanted
> to imply I meant myself. My apologies for not being clear on that.
Don't mention it.
> My answer did have relevance, but was indeed not too helpful. But I
> actually spent some time trying to get it, which was more than you did
> for yourself.
Well bless your little cotton socks for trying.
> > > Part of the give and take of USENET is the idea that you actually have
> > > some sort of respect for your fellow human. Part of that is that you
> > > actually show that you have attempted to answer your own question, and
> > > come up empty, or with answers that aren't complete. Like the A4
> > > timing belt issue - USENET is the perfect forum for those questions,
> > > because the manual, the revised TSB and the conventional wisdom are
> > > all at odds.
> >
> > And I suppose the differences between the 115bhp and 140bhp 2.5TDI
engines
> > are a very well documented affair, are they?
>
> Well, considering that you actually found a piece of correct
> information, I would say "yes."
Well, found the information via a post of someone else.
> > That's pretty much everyone so far who's replied to the post. That's
it -
> > they're all wrong, and you are right.
>
> The three or four fools who "don't get it" have not offered anything
> to alt.autos.audi in the way of information in this thread, so I'm
> just dismissing their opinions as the ****-takes that they are.
> Whether or not they coincide with your opinion has no meaning.
The above paragraph just typifies your "I'm right, everyone else is wrong"
attitude. I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you any more. Well,
that sentence might come to be disproven.
> The funny thing is this: if you had spent as much time doing your
> search as you have spent in heart-felt defense of your laziness, you'd
> have had the info without having to post to USENET at all! The irony
> is simply astounding.
And that's coming from someone who's spent an equal amount of time on this
thread, for no other purpose than to come on here and slag me off.
Peter
#38
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
"Carl Gibbs" <cagmeister@yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message news:<bi5dgp$5eih5$1@ID-166528.news.uni-berlin.de>...
> <snip>
> >
> > Spider
>
> I give up
I thought you liked a good argument? Sheesh - people have no
fortitude any more.
> you're obviously just a miserable old todger with nothing better
> to do than moan over the slightest little thing
Wrong on both counts. I guess you should try a be a bit more
perceptive next time, hmmm?
> Were you just having a bad
> day when you started this arguement
As I recall, you flamed me first, Carl. Is your memory slipping?
> or are you really that pathetic all the
> time?
Pathetic, heh. I love irony.
> You must be very lonely if you are!
Nope, not lonely in the least. Thanks for playing, better luck next
time!
> Goodbye
Going so soon? We just got to the good part, LOL!
Spider
> <snip>
> >
> > Spider
>
> I give up
I thought you liked a good argument? Sheesh - people have no
fortitude any more.
> you're obviously just a miserable old todger with nothing better
> to do than moan over the slightest little thing
Wrong on both counts. I guess you should try a be a bit more
perceptive next time, hmmm?
> Were you just having a bad
> day when you started this arguement
As I recall, you flamed me first, Carl. Is your memory slipping?
> or are you really that pathetic all the
> time?
Pathetic, heh. I love irony.
> You must be very lonely if you are!
Nope, not lonely in the least. Thanks for playing, better luck next
time!
> Goodbye
Going so soon? We just got to the good part, LOL!
Spider
#39
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
"AstraVanMan" <Peter@SwerveWeb.com> wrote in message news:<dev1b.2027$L15.1397@newsfep4-winn.server.ntli.net>...
> > > The fact that you're only prepared to help someone if they've made
> > > every other effort possible to find out the information is your
> business.
> >
> > That "fact" is one you just made up. Lying and/or hyperbole do not
> > make your argument any stronger.
> >
> > The real "fact" is that I would prefer *some* effort, as a measure of
> > respect to those who you wish to spend time and effort in giving you
> > information that you do not currently possess. I'm not sure what part
> > of that you are having difficulty understanding.
>
> The only time and effort I'd expect is the minute or so it takes to type a
> quick reply.
Which is a minute more than you spent even bothering to look for what
you were after. Why are you so important that you should just expect
others to spend *any* time giving you free info?
> so I can't see where the problem is.
The problem is that you are lazy. The "exchange" of info you keep
talking about seems to be a one-way street. Interesting.
> > Sorry to burst your bubble, Pete, but I find your protestations of
> > innocence highly amusing, and completely hypocritical.
>
> As do I find yours.
Considering I have not proclaimed innocence anywhere, that's an
interesting response.
> > > And I suppose the differences between the 115bhp and 140bhp 2.5TDI
> engines
> > > are a very well documented affair, are they?
> >
> > Well, considering that you actually found a piece of correct
> > information, I would say "yes."
>
> Well, found the information via a post of someone else.
No, you found badging info via google. Unless, of course, that was
another fabrication on your part.
> > > That's pretty much everyone so far who's replied to the post. That's
> it -
> > > they're all wrong, and you are right.
> >
> > The three or four fools who "don't get it" have not offered anything
> > to alt.autos.audi in the way of information in this thread, so I'm
> > just dismissing their opinions as the ****-takes that they are.
> > Whether or not they coincide with your opinion has no meaning.
>
> The above paragraph just typifies your "I'm right, everyone else is wrong"
No, it typifies the truth. A few Johnny-come-latelys that have
offered no useful info, but instead have decided to flame have no
relevance at all. Again, I at least gave some info. It was even
correct, if not terribly helpful. And these others have offered what,
exactly? Where is your righteous indignation, hypocrite?
> I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you any more. Well,
> that sentence might come to be disproven.
You're in control of how and when you respond. If you're done, don't
respond. Jeez, do I have to tell you how to do every damn thing?
> > The funny thing is this: if you had spent as much time doing your
> > search as you have spent in heart-felt defense of your laziness, you'd
> > have had the info without having to post to USENET at all! The irony
> > is simply astounding.
>
> And that's coming from someone who's spent an equal amount of time on this
> thread, for no other purpose than to come on here and slag me off.
Wrong again, Peter. You'd think by now you'd be tired of being wrong.
My point was to teach you a lesson. I don't think you've learned it
well yet, but you may come to grow tired of my "slagging" your lazy
*** off, and actually put some effort in some information "exchange."
Spider
> > > The fact that you're only prepared to help someone if they've made
> > > every other effort possible to find out the information is your
> business.
> >
> > That "fact" is one you just made up. Lying and/or hyperbole do not
> > make your argument any stronger.
> >
> > The real "fact" is that I would prefer *some* effort, as a measure of
> > respect to those who you wish to spend time and effort in giving you
> > information that you do not currently possess. I'm not sure what part
> > of that you are having difficulty understanding.
>
> The only time and effort I'd expect is the minute or so it takes to type a
> quick reply.
Which is a minute more than you spent even bothering to look for what
you were after. Why are you so important that you should just expect
others to spend *any* time giving you free info?
> so I can't see where the problem is.
The problem is that you are lazy. The "exchange" of info you keep
talking about seems to be a one-way street. Interesting.
> > Sorry to burst your bubble, Pete, but I find your protestations of
> > innocence highly amusing, and completely hypocritical.
>
> As do I find yours.
Considering I have not proclaimed innocence anywhere, that's an
interesting response.
> > > And I suppose the differences between the 115bhp and 140bhp 2.5TDI
> engines
> > > are a very well documented affair, are they?
> >
> > Well, considering that you actually found a piece of correct
> > information, I would say "yes."
>
> Well, found the information via a post of someone else.
No, you found badging info via google. Unless, of course, that was
another fabrication on your part.
> > > That's pretty much everyone so far who's replied to the post. That's
> it -
> > > they're all wrong, and you are right.
> >
> > The three or four fools who "don't get it" have not offered anything
> > to alt.autos.audi in the way of information in this thread, so I'm
> > just dismissing their opinions as the ****-takes that they are.
> > Whether or not they coincide with your opinion has no meaning.
>
> The above paragraph just typifies your "I'm right, everyone else is wrong"
No, it typifies the truth. A few Johnny-come-latelys that have
offered no useful info, but instead have decided to flame have no
relevance at all. Again, I at least gave some info. It was even
correct, if not terribly helpful. And these others have offered what,
exactly? Where is your righteous indignation, hypocrite?
> I'm not going to waste my time arguing with you any more. Well,
> that sentence might come to be disproven.
You're in control of how and when you respond. If you're done, don't
respond. Jeez, do I have to tell you how to do every damn thing?
> > The funny thing is this: if you had spent as much time doing your
> > search as you have spent in heart-felt defense of your laziness, you'd
> > have had the info without having to post to USENET at all! The irony
> > is simply astounding.
>
> And that's coming from someone who's spent an equal amount of time on this
> thread, for no other purpose than to come on here and slag me off.
Wrong again, Peter. You'd think by now you'd be tired of being wrong.
My point was to teach you a lesson. I don't think you've learned it
well yet, but you may come to grow tired of my "slagging" your lazy
*** off, and actually put some effort in some information "exchange."
Spider
#40
Guest
Posts: n/a
Re: A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp (5-cylinder)
> > Comprehension.......exactly which part of the phrase "A6 2.5 TDI 140bhp
> > (5-cylinder)" justified your starting a "discussion" about 4 and 6
cylinder
> > engines?
>
> And exactly what useful information have YOU imparted, Queeny? None?
> Right in one.
Just about the same amount as the information you imparted.
> You missed the part where you butted in to a conversation to try and
> be a Net Cop. Just plain stupid.
Which is basically all you've done in this thread.
Peter
> > (5-cylinder)" justified your starting a "discussion" about 4 and 6
cylinder
> > engines?
>
> And exactly what useful information have YOU imparted, Queeny? None?
> Right in one.
Just about the same amount as the information you imparted.
> You missed the part where you butted in to a conversation to try and
> be a Net Cop. Just plain stupid.
Which is basically all you've done in this thread.
Peter