J
Jonesy
Guest
"SMMB" <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> "Jonesy" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de :
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Googling (or some other archive search) serves to EDUCATE. It
> > requires no additional input from any other source. And it shows that
> > one is willing to do a research before requesting to be spoon-fed. A
> > courtesy, if you will.
>
> I would have let it drop, but...
....there was less to say about chain cleaning, and more to whine about
responses that don't meet your politeness criteria?
> The necessary implication of your argument is that for all questions, there
> are already answers, and so there is no need to ask anything, here.
Wrong. The logical fallacy of a false dichotomy. Discussion does
imply discussion, after all! But some questions have been thoroughly
covered. Both in USENET, and in particular group FAQs. Why on earth
should there even be such a thing as a FAQ, if the Qs were not FA?
In other words, the implication is not at all necessary.
> And I'm
> not sure that opinions are "data".
The set of them are the data that is going to be available. Being
pedantic does not improve your positiion.
> You may have noticed the OP did, indeed, research before asking, even with
> your favorite search engine. Sounds exceptionally prepared to me.
Your lame attempt at condescension aside, the OP did not indicate
originally, even by implication, that he had done anything other than
rush to USENET. Regardless, I don't take issue with that as much as
with your idea that folks should be spoon-fed any info they desire,
especially on subjects that come up over, and over, and over, and
over, and over...
> Hope he
> got a right answer.
How could he possibly? After all, there are only "opinions" here,
right?
> And my use has varied by the countries I have lived in
> and what products are available, so I did not reply directly.
What, chemistry is different in other countries? Mineral spirits are
mineral spirits EVERYWHERE, even in France. Medium petroleum
distillate, kerosene, paint thinner, Stoddard Solvent, etc, etc.
Even as such, you STILL have not provided anything other than
complaining. Do you have anything of value to offer, or are you just
polishing your King Whiner badge?
> I imagine when you get together with your friends for a ride, and they ask
> you how your week went, you query them why they didn't look at your blog.
I don't have a blog, and the situations are not analogous.
> Chide away - you may just be able to alienate those who just
> simply want to ask a question, not reading or having read the FAQ, the
> encyclopedias, the journals, et c.
Or I could alienate the likes of you - officious jerks who have no
courtesy outside of "what can you do for me?" That'd be fine by me.
--
Jonesy
> "Jonesy" <[email protected]> a écrit dans le message de :
> news:[email protected]...
> >
> > Googling (or some other archive search) serves to EDUCATE. It
> > requires no additional input from any other source. And it shows that
> > one is willing to do a research before requesting to be spoon-fed. A
> > courtesy, if you will.
>
> I would have let it drop, but...
....there was less to say about chain cleaning, and more to whine about
responses that don't meet your politeness criteria?
> The necessary implication of your argument is that for all questions, there
> are already answers, and so there is no need to ask anything, here.
Wrong. The logical fallacy of a false dichotomy. Discussion does
imply discussion, after all! But some questions have been thoroughly
covered. Both in USENET, and in particular group FAQs. Why on earth
should there even be such a thing as a FAQ, if the Qs were not FA?
In other words, the implication is not at all necessary.
> And I'm
> not sure that opinions are "data".
The set of them are the data that is going to be available. Being
pedantic does not improve your positiion.
> You may have noticed the OP did, indeed, research before asking, even with
> your favorite search engine. Sounds exceptionally prepared to me.
Your lame attempt at condescension aside, the OP did not indicate
originally, even by implication, that he had done anything other than
rush to USENET. Regardless, I don't take issue with that as much as
with your idea that folks should be spoon-fed any info they desire,
especially on subjects that come up over, and over, and over, and
over, and over...
> Hope he
> got a right answer.
How could he possibly? After all, there are only "opinions" here,
right?
> And my use has varied by the countries I have lived in
> and what products are available, so I did not reply directly.
What, chemistry is different in other countries? Mineral spirits are
mineral spirits EVERYWHERE, even in France. Medium petroleum
distillate, kerosene, paint thinner, Stoddard Solvent, etc, etc.
Even as such, you STILL have not provided anything other than
complaining. Do you have anything of value to offer, or are you just
polishing your King Whiner badge?
> I imagine when you get together with your friends for a ride, and they ask
> you how your week went, you query them why they didn't look at your blog.
I don't have a blog, and the situations are not analogous.
> Chide away - you may just be able to alienate those who just
> simply want to ask a question, not reading or having read the FAQ, the
> encyclopedias, the journals, et c.
Or I could alienate the likes of you - officious jerks who have no
courtesy outside of "what can you do for me?" That'd be fine by me.
--
Jonesy