Mercedes, Not US, To Bail Out Chrysler

Always someone who doesn't know proper netiquette for Usenet...

And someone who doesn't understand *WHY* top-posting is so annoying.

 

The reason to bottom post is that people generally don't read books
starting at the last page.

 

The reason to top-post is to put the most pertinent and recent elements
of the discussion in the most convenient location. If any reader needs
to be refreshed on the previous parts of the discussion, he or she may
refer to the "footnotes," so to speak, preserved below the current
discussion topic. This it the model used in the professional realm when
replying to e-mail cc'd to numerous recipients, which is similar to the
newsgroup model.

Actually I don't give a rip either way, its just chit-chat.

 

Actually they had sold all their shares years earlier.

Well, they started in 1970 and used Mitsu products for what, 20+
years? Plus the Normal IL factory.

No they didn't. Colts were sold through 1994, 16 years after the Omni/
Horizon were introduced.

There was no hiatus. And the Colt was more the size of the Rabbit and
Civic and Corolla FX, not the Fiesta. (I owned a Fiesta; it was
smaller.)

The minivans offered the 3.0 sohc V6 from Mitsu long after Chrysler's
3.3 V6 was offered in them too. And the 2.5 V6 in Cirrus/Stratus,
remember?

Well, again, from what I read, it was the Chrysler execs who convinced
Daimler to tie up with Mitsu instead of Nissan.

Yep. For a while a wagon version of the mid-size was also planned
instead of the sedan the Avenger became. The idea was Chrysler for
sedans, Dodge for wagons and hatchbacks.

Imagine the mid-sizes on the Altima platform instead of a Lancer
platform. The small on a Sentra instead of a Lancer. The Journey on
a Murano platform instead of, you guess it, a Lancer.

Did you READ the Business Week quote?

Except for the Sebring, Avenger, Caliber, Compass, Patriot, Journey --
all on Mitsu platforms.

 

Let's go with your book analogy (usenet is not a book BTW, but let's
pretend it is and go with it): Why would you want to read the entire
book from the beginning each time you pick it up to read the next chapter?

 

Don't think so, but I could be wrong.

I didn't say they intended to ruin Chrysler. I'm only observing they
did.

They were in charge. You'd perhaps like to blame, oh, Lynn Townsend
or someone like that?

 

Bill

If your reading several books at once (to continue your book analogy) you
may not be able to remember what just happened to whom and where.

Richard
For caravanning tips and information visit
http://www.caravanningnow.co.uk

 

As Motor Trend points out this month, blame Iacocca for putting Eaton
up as his successor instead of Lutz. Also I'd say blame Eaton for
being the worst negotiator since the Indians sold Manhattan. Blame
Americans who dumped their DC stock, instead of holding onto it and
using it to influence the new company.

 

Oh, right, Sorry!


It reverses the logical order of a conversation.



Why is it confusing?


It's confusing.


Why not?


You really shouldn't top-post.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Renault#The_Renault_Nissan_Alliance_.282000.E2.80.93_.29

Although this is a Wikipedia reference it looks accurate. Alliance since
1999 with sharecross-holdings.

Carlos Ghosn was sent by Renault to turn Nissan around, which he did, so he
got promoted to be boss of Renault as well.

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---

 

I am. What did I miss?

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---

 

I think you and other bottom-posters hark back to another era, the dawn of
the internet and usenet...

I understand that some people still look at usenet groups in certain ways
which makes it easier to follow a thread if bottom-posting is applied. I
have actually seen this myself.

However, many of us now use, for example, Outlook Express, for usenet, where
top-posting is preferable.

So, I am afraid, I (and, I think, quite a few other people) see no reason
why we should bottom-post.

The best approach is mutual tolerance. Why get angry over such a trivial
thing? Why not get angry with those people with all those people who don't
snip, forcing one to scroll though loads of unimportant stuff?

Move on to more important things

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---

 

...... the three Yorkshire men vis a vis who has the slowest Diesel. To wit

when discussing their hard times when young, while drinking Chateua le
Chateaulai (or some such thing): 'now we had it tough, lived in the bottom
of a lake, got up half hour before we went to bed and our father would slash
into us with breadknifes if....) you get the drift. Reminiscent of the
diesel of old discussion and how slow they were...

I guess it's just me.... I seem to associate a lot with the Python group.

cheers

 

....in which case, then you scroll down to refresh your memory, and then
back up to get the status of the present. That's how business email
communication is done almost universally, and for a good reason.

 

Selective and EFFICIENT quoting, and BOTTOM POSTING (or in-line quoting
when useful) is the defacto correct and original method when
constructing usenet posts.

Top-posting has become the norm for constructing e-mail replies (thanks
to the default settings for Micro$haft Outlook and Outlook Express) and
unfortunately many people either use that software (or carry on it's
methods) when constructing usenet replies.

Unfortunately, many people full-quote, needlessly dragging along the
entire past history of the thread into their reply. That is wrong.

I have a 21" monitor, with a 1600 x 1200 pixel resolution. In other
words, I have a lot of on-screen real estate to display usenet posts.
If I bring up a post, and see nothing but quoted material in the message
pane, I will almost always skip the post instead of dragging the scroll
bar down to bring new material into view.

If the respondant hasn't trimmed his post by keeping only relavent
quoted material, then he isin't worth my time to read what-ever he did
add to the thread in question.

 

I know this scene - saw it not that long ago on YouTube (my 11-yr-old loves
Monty Python) but I didn't make the connection with reminiscing about old
diesels (mine was slower than yours / I suffered more than you did...)

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---

 

I think that sums it up. See your last para below.

It underlines my point made elsewhere here, that the old 'netiquette' has
been superseded by what clients people are using, so there is no point in
opposing the tide. Bend with the wind, to mix my metaphors..

DAS

To send an e-mail directly replace "spam" with "schmetterling"
---

[...]

 

If you had properly constructed your reply, you would not have had to
say "see your last para below".

That is no excuse for you to NOT construct your replies properly,
especially if you know the difference.

Or just be lazy...

 

I'll try a less polite way, then.

Moving your reply, above to its present position below mine allows it to be
read as as part of a conversation.

Top posters have no interest in entering into a conversation, only in firing
off essays, witty one liners, etc. which are intended to stand on their own
rather than contributing to a conversation with other posters.

Top posters are revealing that they have no respect for others
contributions, they assume that their brilliance simply replaces everything
that has been said before , and that readers will not profit by knowing what
they are replying to..

 

And you, being a full-quoter, are also showing no respect for the reader
by not properly quoting specific material to which you are replying to.

There was no need for you to include 3 pages of quoted material as the
"introduction" or prologue to the 4 sentences that was your lateast
contribution to this thread. It is a waste of my time to scroll down
all that material to see just what it is that you are about to say.

If you are a full-quoter, then it really doesn't matter if you top-post
or bottom-post your new material. You are posting out-of-context just
the same - and showing the reader the same degree of courtesy or respect
in either case.