This isn't the first time in a massive usenet thread you've claimed you don't have the time to do something. Evidence would suggest that unless usenet is your day job, you're wrong. And who knows, you might find the document interesting - you might learn something new.
I'm not sure why sending the Australian documentation for a Mitsubishi car would help them with a problem with a Volkswagen in the UK.
In message , at
15:05:29 >> In message , atBeing online is my day job (which I do about 60hrs a week). Usenet is a small part of that. Reading every document isn't.
Sadly when roles are reversed, I usually get it the neck when I point people at a document and hope they read it. They repeatedly claim that if I can't be bothered to quote the relevant section, then my contribution is between worthless and a lie.
Yes, I'm in full "when in Rome, do as the Romans do" mode.
OK, so you fail the test of posting a small section wither to prove your point, or to get me interested in reading more.
Nor do I. So it's even less worthwhile me reading it.
You're one of the most prolific posters in at least two NGs I read, and a lot of it isn't that positive. There's plenty of opportunity for you to read that document instead.
Have I done that to you? I don't think I have.
You seem to be saying that because some people are nasty to you on the internet, you should be nasty to others. You are of course free to do so, but it does reduce the civility and usefulness of this place, and I don't think that's a good thing.
I'm not interested in your tests. The document is pretty straightforward with lots of nice pictures to tell you what to do. I thought it was moderately interesting - worth a quick skim at least. As I said, you might learn something new, and I generally consider that to be a good thing.
You're not the Cambridgeshire Fire Brigade, who have a professional interest in this and hence will have access to the documentation aimed at them. You're just a random person on the internet who might learn something interesting - UK and manufacturer specifics aren't as important.
Hey ho, ultimately it's your loss.
Funny how you don't have time to skim through an interesting link but plenty of time to defend your ignorance?
Tim
In message , at
16:37:46 on Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Clive George remarked:You are not my micro-manager.
It's not "nasty", it's just the accepted (by what seems like the majority) etiquette/excuse.
The majority of what happens on Usenet is vile, or trolling, or misinformation or general crap. uk.diy is better than average, though, but very far from perfect.
So why dive in with something that looked for all the world as if it might be an expose of the Fire Brigade's ignorance in knowing how to turn off a battery.
In message , at 15:51:20 on Thu, 30 Mar
2017, Tim+ remarked:
That's because you've made it personal. Changes the priority.
In any case the provider of the link has admitted it has no relevance to the recent Cambridge car fire, so any ignorance of Australian different makes is utterly irrelevant.
I don't claim to be.
"The others are behaving badly too" never cut it as an excuse.
You'd already taken the thread away from the Cambridgeshire Fire Brigade's problems into specific questions about Harry's car. You made that diversion, not me.
In message , at
17:15:35 >> In message , at"There's plenty of opportunity for you to read that document instead"
suggests otherwise.
So why don't you behave better, and paste in the relevant extracts?
No, you've lost the plot. The proposition was that the switch being below the passenger seat was somehow convenient for the driver. But they'd only want to "reset" it after a false alarm. I suggested that a manual "turn off you bastard" switch would likely be co-located, and that the position in question would be sub-optimal for the fire brigade [because by implication there might be an unconscious person sat on top of it, let alone the door jammed shut].
No it doesn't. I'm not managing you, but that doesn't prevent me making suggestions.
I don't accept that I'm behaving poorly. The document doesn't lend itself to that either, as you'd know if you'd spent the minmal amount of time required to look at it - rather less than you've spent on arguing about it already.
And this is where I started in this thread. You misunderstood what had been written, and you appear to persist in that misunderstanding. There was no proposition that the switch being under the passenger seat was convenient for the driver : it was merely pointed out that an automatic (not manual) switch existed, and it was under the passenger seat. Nobody apart from you has suggested that there is a manual "off" switch in that position. Harry and I have both pointed out that there isn't one, and I've given a link to a document confirming that for those who don't want to believe what people write here.
This diversion is entirely of your doing, from mistakes you have made. The fact that you won't admit error is a large factor in why this diversion continues.
The Perry motto. "War is peace. Freedom is slavery. Ignorance is strength."
Tim
In message , at
18:59:27 on Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Clive George remarked:I'm tired of trying to explain why that's not the case.
In message , at 18:06:55 on Thu, 30 Mar
2017, Tim+ remarked:I hope Clive is educated by seeing what I expect he may find to be "bad behaviour".
As I said earlier, your loss.
Yes, I am. Though not necessarily in the way you may hope.
I believe the worry is also about electrocution than fire. Though fire is aa possibility if the batteries are damaged (or cut).
The electrocution (via the fire hose water) risk arise with house fires when there are PV panels on the roof and (one for the future) large battery storage capacities in houses.
Robert
Do you mean that the fireman should download the manual and read it once he gets to the scene and can identify the type of car? At the moment there are only a few types so they can presumably know them all.
I imagine the fireman would prefer it if the 'fast off' mechanism looked the same and was in the same place on all cars.
Robert
In message , at
20:27:23 on Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Clive George remarked:Yes, a definite loss of persistence in my case. But we can't drain every swamp.
In message , at
20:27:56 on Thu, 30 Mar 2017, Clive George remarked:So it wouldn't be bad manners for me to say: "I hope you find strength in your ignorance"?
In message , at
01:25:42 on Fri, 31 Mar 2017, RobertL remarked:
Exactly. Unless the infamous document he's reluctant to quote an extract of, in fact says
"here is the fast-off switch, in the same place the construction and use regulations decree it shall be on every electric/hybrid car"
If that's the case, then perhaps Clive could simply say "yes, that's it" and we will all be no longer ignorant of that rule, and can conclude this debate.
no we, Roland
Only you give a damn
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.