Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 20:39:58 EST From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [LIB] battery check
In a message dated 1/31/2006 11:31:39 AM Mountain Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: > Date: Tue, 31 Jan 2006 12:24:50 -0800 > From: John Martin <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Subject: RE: [LIB] battery check > > Someone needs to tell you what to do... > > First, you (john-photoengineering) didn't answer Carval's question. They > asked what the contacts were. You may answer the question they asked, but > you didn't do that. If you don't know, (as is obvious you often do not in > other threads) there is nothing wrong with not knowing. It is ok, we are > all here to learn or share what we have learned. > Second, Carval CAN tell you to not reply posts. There is nothing to stop > you from doing so, but, in fact, Carval can tell you anything they wish. > (e.g. "boy-oh you don't tell me what to do.") > I have read this entire archive since the beginning and I have never seen a > person as smartass and reactive as you here on this Libretto site. Maybe > they got removed, or maybe they grew up a bit and learned to be helpful > without talking down to those with less knowledge. Your "off on a tangent" > type responses (not answers) often do not even directly relate to the > questions asked, as in this case. e.g. "you do NOT just connect li-ion > cells to an ohmmeter to test the resistance." Carval SAID "which ones do I > used to test for voltage." The device is called an ohm-meter. You didn't > read or comprehend the question. You just jumped on Carval like a child. > Third, Carval is correct... you (john-photoengineering) scolded, you didn't > just offer information. "if you have to ask that you don't know enough to > test them". That is name calling, if you need it clarified. Again, you > may answer the question, if you know the answer, and then suggest it might > be dangerous due to the nature of LI batteries, but all this other crap you > seem to think is a reply you need to keep to yourself. It is unlikely you > will read this post anyway. I have already blocked your emails anyway, so > I don't care what your response might be. > Fourth, the irony of your response to carval... you call them a "dummy" and > "ignorant". Then you determine their capabilities with "something you > shouldn't touch " and "you don't have the skills". How would you know? > There is not enough information in Carval's post for you to determine what > they are capable of. You assume more than anyone I have ever seen here on > this libretto site. > Fifth, All this attacking and name calling nature of yours is unacceptable > most anywhere in the world. In person you would be "corrected" through > assault should you be abusive as you are here on this system. This is just > one disadvantage to systems like this, allowing people like yourself being > able to hide behind keyboards and monitors. > > (almost done) > > Nearly everyone here has always been so helpful, non-judgmental, and in > general thorough, I really cringe every time I see one of your reactive > childish posts. Maybe you think you are trying to be funny, but in person, > you would be stopped... and it would probably hurt. I believe a post like > the forwarded letter you sent to the satellite service provider deserves > your removal from this system... but lucky for you (sad for the rest of us) > I don't control it. > > You may be intelligent and knowledgeable and it may serve you well, but > this site seems to be a place for people who are knowledgeable, people who > wish to increase their knowledge, and those with intelligence that wish it > to serve others well also. Note that these things are all without being > abusive or talking down to others. If you look around, there are some VERY > knowledgeable people here, who have never once been rude to least > knowledgeable people here. This could be a model for you... maybe you > (john-photoengineering) could learn more than just about librettos here... > maybe you could learn a bit about kindness and or sharing without all the > abusive, smart-ass remarks. > > Maybe you can tell from this post that I am trying to be helpful to you > (john-photoengineering) without being abusive. I hope I don't get removed > from the system for being off topic though. ; ) > > Kind regards, > > John Martin > Thank you, John Martin. I couldn't have said it better myself - or with greater restraint. But I've sure wanted to, and with much less restraint. Lee
