Another General Lee Wannabe

[Fred]

as are your "people" skills

Go ahead and provide an example of me attempting to employ so-called "people skills" and being unable to do so.

I don't have to show examples, you already have with your post count. Just click on your profile and scroll down to see all your past posts, all examples are there.

Come and spend some time downunder with me Bryan and you can look at this from a wholly different perspective.

[MaximRecoil]

as are your "people" skills

Go ahead and provide an example of me attempting to employ so-called "people skills" and being unable to do so.

I don't have to show examples, you already have with your post count. Just click on your profile and scroll down to see all your past posts, all examples are there.

Once again:

"Go ahead and provide an example of me attempting to employ so-called "people skills" and being unable to do so."

Does the bolding help? In other words, you have no examples, because there are none, which makes your assertion baseless, and it is therefore dismissed.

[djcarguy]

   max um reCALL  i totally discount and dis agree an dismissed ya reply long ago as boring an totally irrelavent to this thread ,car, discussion and time an space.. reply dis missed and boring and irrelavent and down right assin nine on a car site an thread,,...???thanks your dismissed ..


no need too reply as i will not bee hERE   too see it or reply .  CLASS dismissed on account of boredom ..BACK TOO THE CHEERLEADERS ...  SINCERELY BORED OUT OF GORD,YA DISMISSED. 

[djcarguy]

If this is turning into a school lecture, can we start studying the cheerleaders?  


[






DIS TRACTION   ,, HOT GALS     KEEP THE PEACE  ...  WARNING MAY BEE BAD FOR YOUR HEALTH AN FINANCES   /quote]

[MaximRecoil]

   max um reCALL  i totally discount and dis agree an dismissed ya reply long ago as boring an totally irrelavent to this thread ,car, discussion and time an space.. reply dis missed and boring and irrelavent and down right assin nine on a car site an thread,,...???thanks your dismissed ..


no need too reply as i will not bee hERE   too see it or reply .  CLASS dismissed on account of boredom ..BACK TOO THE CHEERLEADERS ...  SINCERELY BORED OUT OF GORD,YA DISMISSED. 

I always reply, with relevance, to an existing post in the thread. But given your obvious brilliance, you already know that, right?

[A383Wing]

Once again:

"Go ahead and provide an example of me attempting to employ so-called "people skills" and being unable to do so."

Does the bolding help? In other words, you have no examples, because there are none, which makes your assertion baseless, and it is therefore dismissed.

How original...you must have those words copied & pasted to your computer seeing as you use them all the time.
Again, all "examples" of your so-called "people skills", or lack there-of are in your profile, just scroll down to the bottom and click on "see the lasts posts of this person" and all are there for you to see.

[MaximRecoil]

How original...you must have those words copied & pasted to your computer seeing as you use them all the time.
Again, all "examples" of your so-called "people skills", or lack there-of are in your profile, just scroll down to the bottom and click on "see the lasts posts of this person" and all are there for you to see.

Is English your native language?

Once again:

------

"Go ahead and provide an example of me attempting to employ so-called "people skills" and being unable to do so."

Does the bolding help? In other words, you have no examples, because there are none, which makes your assertion baseless, and it is therefore dismissed.

------

There are no posts in my history in which I attempted to employ so-called "people skills" and was unable to do so. Is that clear?

[JB400]

Maxim, you're the one that is confused.  My question was about the context of a statement.  Here is the definition:noun 
1.
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context. 
2.
the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.
There is also a part of a mushroom with the same name, but it doesn't relate to this conversation fyi.

Why you want to have a discussion of "out of context" I have no idea. You're claim that I haven't supplied any missing context is correct, because there is no missing context. I actually never brought up out of context, Fred did (or perhaps Mrs. Fred).  I triple dog dare you to have this conversation with her.  I know better.

Say what? With regard to the responses, mine are structurally no different than how you have replied here; you've simply skipped the quoting part, which makes your reply less clear with regard to context.

In actuality, mine was different than yours up till now.  My first paragraph covered your whole post, therefore, I'd of had to quote the whole thing.  My 2nd paragraph was to clarify what I actually meant since it wasn't clear enough for you the first time. I resorted to segmenting on this reply because you brought up several different arguments, most of which didn't even have to deal with my original question.

The idea that you can teach me anything on this particular topic is laughable. Your knowledge in this area is sorely lacking.

It's quite apparent to me that you don't know what the context of my question was.  You can laugh all you want, you'll just make an ass of yourself.

[MaximRecoil]

Maxim, you're the one that is confused.

That claim is comically ironic.

My question was about the context of a statement.  Here is the definition:noun  
1.
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.  
2.
the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.

The definition of "context" isn't in dispute, at least not by me, but thanks for sharing.

Why you want to have a discussion of "out of context" I have no idea. You're claim that I haven't supplied any missing context is correct, because there is no missing context. I actually never brought up out of context, Fred did (or perhaps Mrs. Fred).  I triple dog dare you to have this conversation with her.  I know better.

Again, say what? You said:

Is it just me, or does it seem that once a members' statement is broken down into "segments", the context of their statement is lost; but if left together as posted, it makes sense as to what they're saying?

Lost context = missing context; content with missing context is out of context.

Again, you have no support for your idea that "segmenting" replies inherently results in lost context; you certainly can't provide an example supporting this idea from any of my posts, because I don't reply to things out of context.

In actuality, mine was different than yours up till now.  My first paragraph covered your whole post, therefore, I'd of had to quote the whole thing.

Everyone who fully replies to a post that contains more than one claim/issue/argument/point/etc. has to "segment"; it is impossible to fully reply to such a post otherwise. You've done it in this thread (including in this post of yours that I'm replying to now) and you've done it in previous threads.

My 2nd paragraph was to clarify what I actually meant since it wasn't clear enough for you the first time.

More comical irony.

I resorted to segmenting on this reply because you brought up several different arguments, most of which didn't even have to deal with my original question.

"Restorted"? The concept of "resorting" doesn't apply when there is only one way to accomplish something; i.e., the only way to address multiple arguments is by "segmenting". And everything I type is relevant to the content I am replying to.

It's quite apparent to me that you don't know what the context of my question was.  You can laugh all you want, you'll just make an ass of yourself.

Your baseless assertion is dismissed, and more comical irony is noted.

In summary:

1. "Segmenting" is the only possible way to fully reply to a post that contains more than one claim/issue/argument/point/etc.
2. The idea that "segmenting" automatically results in lost context is laughable, wholly unsupported, and demonstrably false.

Also, your statement above that is colored blue is your concession.

[ws23rt]

I always reply, with relevance, to an existing post in the thread.
[/quote]

Indeed you do.  There is a lot of time and effort spent on your part to find fault.  And you eek it out from almost every thing that is said.

What is your motive?   I scrolled down through your response history and there are hundreds of your replies that are pointing out errors that others have made. Is there satisfaction to be had from this?   Do you think that we will finally come to the realization that we are idiots.

A typical listener will grasp the intent of a statement and ignore the miss use of words or spelling or punctuation etc.
Some of our members from other countries speak very broken English here.  Do you jump on them with both feet when they err?

The question --- what is your motive is rhetorical -----

[Back N Black]

Maxim, you're the one that is confused.

That claim is comically ironic.

My question was about the context of a statement.  Here is the definition:noun  
1.
the parts of a written or spoken statement that precede or follow a specific word or passage, usually influencing its meaning or effect: You have misinterpreted my remark because you took it out of context.  
2.
the set of circumstances or facts that surround a particular event, situation, etc.

The definition of "context" isn't in dispute, at least not by me, but thanks for sharing.

Why you want to have a discussion of "out of context" I have no idea. You're claim that I haven't supplied any missing context is correct, because there is no missing context. I actually never brought up out of context, Fred did (or perhaps Mrs. Fred).  I triple dog dare you to have this conversation with her.  I know better.

Again, say what? You said:

Is it just me, or does it seem that once a members' statement is broken down into "segments", the context of their statement is lost; but if left together as posted, it makes sense as to what they're saying?

Lost context = missing context; content with missing context is out of context.

Again, you have no support for your idea that "segmenting" replies inherently results in lost context; you certainly can't provide an example supporting this idea from any of my posts, because I don't reply to things out of context.

In actuality, mine was different than yours up till now.  My first paragraph covered your whole post, therefore, I'd of had to quote the whole thing.

Everyone who fully replies to a post that contains more than one claim/issue/argument/point/etc. has to "segment"; it is impossible to fully reply to such a post otherwise. You've done it in this thread (including in this post of yours that I'm replying to now) and you've done it in previous threads.

My 2nd paragraph was to clarify what I actually meant since it wasn't clear enough for you the first time.

More comical irony.

I resorted to segmenting on this reply because you brought up several different arguments, most of which didn't even have to deal with my original question.

"Restorted"? The concept of "resorting" doesn't apply when there is only one way to accomplish something; i.e., the only way to address multiple arguments is by "segmenting". And everything I type is relevant to the content I am replying to.

It's quite apparent to me that you don't know what the context of my question was.  You can laugh all you want, you'll just make an ass of yourself.

Your baseless assertion is dismissed, and more comical irony is noted.

In summary:

1. "Segmenting" is the only possible way to fully reply to a post that contains more than one claim/issue/argument/point/etc.
2. The idea that "segmenting" automatically results in lost context is laughable, wholly unsupported, and demonstrably false.

Man! you must spend a lot of time in the emergency room, being constantly punched in the face.

[Fred]

How original...you must have those words copied & pasted to your computer seeing as you use them all the time.
Again, all "examples" of your so-called "people skills", or lack there-of are in your profile, just scroll down to the bottom and click on "see the lasts posts of this person" and all are there for you to see.

Is English your native language?

Once again:

------

"Go ahead and provide an example of me attempting to employ so-called "people skills" and being unable to do so."

Does the bolding help? In other words, you have no examples, because there are none, which makes your assertion baseless, and it is therefore dismissed.

------

There are no posts in my history in which I attempted to employ so-called "people skills" and was unable to do so. Is that clear?

There in lies the problem. You don't attempt to employ people skills. If you did, we'd all be getting on like a house on fire.

It's extremely insulting that you feel the need to dismiss members opinions for no other reason than you consider them to be baseless. We're all entitled to our opinions in whatever shape, size or form.  And (unless they're actually giving false or incorrect information that can in some way harm or cause harm) it's just common courtesy to let members state their opinion without finding fault and setting them right. Most of us don't come on here to argue. If we want an argument we can more than likely  find it at home. For some the forum is a place to get away from it all.

R E S P E C T!...............If you want respect, you need to respect as well.

[MaximRecoil]

Indeed you do.  There is a lot of time and effort spent on your part to find fault.  And you eek it out from almost every thing that is said.

What is your motive?   I scrolled down through your response history and there are hundreds of your replies that are pointing out errors that others have made. Is there satisfaction to be had from this?   Do you think that we will finally come to the realization that we are idiots.

A typical listener will grasp the intent of a statement and ignore the miss use of words or spelling or punctuation etc.
Some of our members from other countries speak very broken English here.  Do you jump on them with both feet when they err?

The question --- what is your motive is rhetorical -----

I point out errors in arguments; that's how arguments work. I also point out factual errors in technical information, such as the misconception that soldering splices in a car is superior to a proper crimp, because true information is better than false information, and the main purpose of this forum is an information resource.

You of course, failed to mention posts like these ...

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,104708.msg1248385.html#msg1248385

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,104607.msg1248300.html#msg1248300

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,104607.msg1248294.html#msg1248294

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,104607.msg1248245.html#msg1248245

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,104607.msg1246385.html#msg1246385

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,104607.msg1246376.html#msg1246376

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,104607.msg1245940.html#msg1245940

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,104485.msg1245606.html#msg1245606

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,104576.msg1245423.html#msg1245423

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,104485.msg1245335.html#msg1245335

(and so on)

... which isn't surprising.

Man! you must spend a lot of time in the emergency room, being constantly punched in the face.

I haven't been in a fight since I was a sophomore in high school (1990/1991), and I was never the one injured. Your crystal ball is clearly in need of repair.

There in lies the problem. You don't attempt to employ people skills. If you did, we'd all be getting on like a house on fire.

Not in an argument I don't; "people skills" have no function in an argument.

It's extremely insulting that you feel the need to dismiss members opinions for no other reason than you consider them to be baseless. We're all entitled to our opinions in whatever shape, size or form.  

Something is either baseless or it isn't; it has nothing to do with what I "consider". In an argument, baseless assertions are as useless as teats on a bull. If people don't like the results of arguing with me, why are so many people doing it?

[JB400]

Here you go DJ Volleyball cheerleaders.  Maybe you should start watching it.

[Ghoste]

There are worse things.

[JB400]

Boy, are you miss informed.    This forum is about the people in it that just happen to enjoy Chargers.  Info is just a bonus.

[ws23rt]

Indeed you do.  There is a lot of time and effort spent on your part to find fault.  And you eek it out from almost every thing that is said.

What is your motive?   I scrolled down through your response history and there are hundreds of your replies that are pointing out errors that others have made. Is there satisfaction to be had from this?   Do you think that we will finally come to the realization that we are idiots.

A typical listener will grasp the intent of a statement and ignore the miss use of words or spelling or punctuation etc.
Some of our members from other countries speak very broken English here.  Do you jump on them with both feet when they err?

The question --- what is your motive is rhetorical -----

I point out errors in arguments; that's how arguments work. I also point out factual errors in technical information, such as the idea that soldering splices in a car is superior to a proper crimp, because true information is better than false information, and the main purpose of this forum is an information resource.

You of course, failed to mention posts like these ...

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,104708.msg1248385.html#msg1248385

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,104607.msg1248300.html#msg1248300

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,104607.msg1248294.html#msg1248294

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,104607.msg1248245.html#msg1248245

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,104607.msg1246385.html#msg1246385

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,104607.msg1246376.html#msg1246376

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,104607.msg1245940.html#msg1245940

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,104485.msg1245606.html#msg1245606

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,104576.msg1245423.html#msg1245423

http://www.dodgecharger.com/forum/index.php/topic,104485.msg1245335.html#msg1245335

(and so on)

... which isn't surprising.

Man! you must spend a lot of time in the emergency room, being constantly punched in the face.

I haven't been in a fight since I was a sophomore in high school (1990/1991), and I was never the one injured. Your crystal ball is clearly in need of repair.

There in lies the problem. You don't attempt to employ people skills. If you did, we'd all be getting on like a house on fire.

Not in an argument I don't; "people skills" have no function in an argument.

It's extremely insulting that you feel the need to dismiss members opinions for no other reason than you consider them to be baseless. We're all entitled to our opinions in whatever shape, size or form.  

Something is either baseless or it isn't; it has nothing to do with what I "consider". In an argument, baseless assertions are as useless as teats on a bull. If people don't like the results of arguing with me, why are so many people doing it?

We (at least I) like pushing your button.  Just to see what happens.  Is there an end game?  

I think I asked you this weeks ago----Do you talk to people like this face to face?  

[MaximRecoil]

Boy, are you miss informed.    This forum is about the people in it that just happen to enjoy Chargers.  Info is just a bonus.

And even more comical irony from you.

Please remember: this is the place to discuss Chargers

This forum isn't for discussing the people in it, like some sort of online gossip fence.

We (at least I) like pushing your button.  Just to see what happens.  Is there an end game?

So you're admittedly a "troll", albeit an inept one who doesn't understand the concept of "pushing buttons". I have no "buttons" to push here, because nothing here affects my real life. In order to "push buttons" you have to find things that trigger emotional responses (that's what the term means), and I'm not emotionally invested in words on a screen. But, good luck nonetheless.  

I think I asked you this weeks ago----Do you talk to people like this face to face?  

If you asked this weeks ago, go read my response.

[JB400]

"A community for fans of the classic Dodge Charger"

  From the search engine.

[MaximRecoil]

"A community for fans of the classic Dodge Charger"

  From the search engine.

Of course it is for fans of the classic Dodge Charger, they are the ones who are discussing information concerning the classic Dodge Charger. It isn't about the fans themselves, as you falsely claimed.

[JB400]

I also point out factual errors in technical information, such as the idea that soldering splices in a car is superior to a proper crimp,

Are you 100% sure on this claim?  And can you prove it?

I can prove your wrong.

        http://xclusiveautoworks.com/soldering-or-crimping/

[69finder]

as are your "people" skills

Go ahead and provide an example of me attempting to employ so-called "people skills" and being unable to do so.

I didn't read all your posts or even half them, but I personally think you're a douchebag.  In real life I'm sure you're a douchebag as well.

We can take a vote on this one.  Who here thinks maximumrecoil is a douchebag?  

[JB400]

Time for more cheerleaders.

[Fred]

It's extremely insulting that you feel the need to dismiss members opinions for no other reason than you consider them to be baseless. We're all entitled to our opinions in whatever shape, size or form. 

Something is either baseless or it isn't; it has nothing to do with what I "consider". In an argument, baseless assertions are as useless as teats on a bull. If people don't like the results of arguing with me, why are so many people doing it?

Maybe it's a feeble attempt to try and sort you out!

[MaximRecoil]

I also point out factual errors in technical information, such as the idea that soldering splices in a car is superior to a proper crimp,

Are you 100% sure on this claim?  And can you prove it?

I can prove your wrong.

http://xclusiveautoworks.com/soldering-or-crimping/

Of course I can prove it, and no, you can't prove me wrong, and neither can your link. A proper crimp uses a copper terminal crimped tight enough to result in a cold weld. This is the lowest resistance connection you are going to get. Pure silver is a slightly better electrical conductor than copper, but it is too soft for making effective crimps.

Electrical solder (normally a 60/40 or 63/37 lead/tin alloy) has very high resistance in comparison to copper. It is also relatively brittle compared to copper, which means that soldered joints when exposed to significant temperature fluctuations and/or vibration (both being conditions common to a car environment) for a long enough period of time will crack. A crimped-on connector doesn't compromise the flexibility of the stranded copper wire whereas solder forms an alloy with the copper that is fairly brittle. Tin the end of a stranded copper wire with solder and then flex it all the way back and forth several times; it will crack.

So, a splice has two requirements:

1. Electrical conductivity
2. Durability

Soldered splices are substantially worse in both categories.

Every copper terminal in your car was crimped, and only crimped, on at the factory. It is next to impossible for a proper crimp to fail. The wire itself can fail and break off, but the strands that were originally crimped in the barrel will still be right in there. With soldering, the wire and the solder become one, so if the wire that gets alloyed with that solder fails (and solder makes it relatively fragile, so it is more likely to), it is also a case of the solder failing.

I didn't read all your posts or even half them, but I personally think you're a douchebag.  In real life I'm sure you're a douchebag as well.

We can take a vote on this one.  Who here thinks maximumrecoil is a douchebag?  

Gee, that's too bad. Your non sequitur is dismissed, and your reading disability is noted.