Please, do explain how I completely missed the boat; I'd be delighted to try
and understand, seeing as I can use big words and all.
Bruce
I think you've run into someone who doesn't realise the logical implications
of the language he/she uses in terms of word choice and grammar. Their
writing doesn't convey their intended meaning and they themselves don't
realise it.
Likewise they tend to misread statements which have not been hammered out.
Seeing as you rely heavily on your words to carry meaning for you(1), I'm
not surprised this situation has come to a head.
I had a similar run-in with someone on a Flemisch motorsport forum recently
and ended up saying: "I can't help it you people in Limburg(2) don't
understand Dutch!!", which didn't exactly endear me to the other users, but
what can you do if people fail to understand what is right in front of them?
Giving up is probably easier though...
Jan.
=---
(1): in the olden days I regularly had to defer to dictionaries and others
to understand you, especially for the satirical F1 pieces.
(2): province of Flanders which is a regular ***of "redneck-jokes",
because the dialect also has a slow drawl.
Apparently you are new, and you didn't know that. The best practice
is for newbies to lurk around and read a lot of posts before they
attempt to jump in and post something that makes them look like a
complete fool.
PLONK!
> >lol, whew. Step away from the pc, do you good. I'd explain how you
> >completely missed the boat on my response, but it would obviously be to
hard
> >for you to grasp, being as common sense is required.
> WHEW! Talk about "missing the boat"! I've kill-filled a bunch of
> people on this board because of their obvious lack of common sense.
> Bruce Kennewell is probably the LAST person I would kill-file. I've
> been a member of this board for going on five years, I can tell you
> that he demonstrates an enormous amount of common sense in his posts.
> Apparently you are new, and you didn't know that. The best practice
> is for newbies to lurk around and read a lot of posts before they
> attempt to jump in and post something that makes them look like a
> complete fool.
> PLONK!
Possibly. Or maybe, just maybe, Mr. Kennewell went ballistic for who
knows why, eh ? Nah, must be the "new" guys fault <g>
The entire point of my reply, "Just do as Dave said; the patches fix it.
You don't need to tweak
anything. " was that hacking isn't necessary to solve the problem you
mentioned Bruce(ai starts); in other words, trying to save you time and
effort.
Maybe my reply sounded like a smartass, but I don't see it. <shrugs>
"Yep, lots can be tweaked. Since you get so pissed at someone trying to
help, figure out yourself how to do
it."?
Why didn't you simply say that the ai launch could not be controlled by
tweaking anything?
Would've saved all this angst, don't you think?
And if it wasn't a smart-arse response, then it was certainly well
disguised.
Bruce.
Regarding my quote below, that has nothing to do with the ai starts.
I.e., lots, as in lots of things, can be tweaked. Since the ai problem had
been answered twice before, (patches) no idea how you tied that in it.
Oh well.
> "Yep, lots can be tweaked. Since you get so pissed at someone trying to
> help, figure out yourself how to do
> it."?
> Why didn't you simply say that the ai launch could not be controlled by
> tweaking anything?
> Would've saved all this angst, don't you think?
> And if it wasn't a smart-arse response, then it was certainly well
> disguised.
> Bruce.
> > The entire point of my reply, "Just do as Dave said; the patches fix
> it.
> > You don't need to tweak
> > anything. " was that hacking isn't necessary to solve the problem you
> > mentioned Bruce(ai starts); in other words, trying to save you time and
> > effort.
> > Maybe my reply sounded like a smartass, but I don't see it. <shrugs>
This is more akin to an attempt at comprehending the thinking process of an
alien lifeform.
Bruce.
> Regarding my quote below, that has nothing to do with the ai starts.
> I.e., lots, as in lots of things, can be tweaked. Since the ai problem
had
> been answered twice before, (patches) no idea how you tied that in it.
> Oh well.
> > Excuse me for being so obtuse as to not quite grasp your line of
> reasoning,
> > but if hacking (or tweaking the config file, more to the point) wasn't
> > necessary to solve the ai starts, why did you then come back with,
> quote,:-
> > "Yep, lots can be tweaked. Since you get so pissed at someone trying to
> > help, figure out yourself how to do
> > it."?
> > Why didn't you simply say that the ai launch could not be controlled by
> > tweaking anything?
> > Would've saved all this angst, don't you think?
> > And if it wasn't a smart-arse response, then it was certainly well
> > disguised.
> > Bruce.
> > > The entire point of my reply, "Just do as Dave said; the patches
fix
> > it.
> > > You don't need to tweak
> > > anything. " was that hacking isn't necessary to solve the problem you
> > > mentioned Bruce(ai starts); in other words, trying to save you time
and
> > > effort.
> > > Maybe my reply sounded like a smartass, but I don't see it.
<shrugs>
