Subject:
|
Re: train track prservation
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.off-topic.debate
|
Date:
|
Tue, 23 Oct 2001 15:52:01 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
498 times
|
| |
|
|
Before you start new threads in .debate, perhaps you should address this one:
http://news.lugnet.com/off-topic/debate/?n=14172
In lugnet.off-topic.debate, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> In lugnet.loc.au, Scott Arthur writes:
> > In lugnet.loc.au, Larry Pieniazek writes:
> > > In lugnet.loc.au, Peter Callaway writes:
> > >
> > > <snip>
> > >
> > > In one of the previous threads on track dirtiness that Michael started, he
> > > said he lives by the sea.
...and were readers supposed to know that? Were readers supposed to check
Michael's every post? Why not mention it in your post?
> > >
> > > We don't keep a particularly clean house, we get dust and mud all over it,
> > > all the time.
Well, that's nothing to brag about.
> > > We have damp in the basement, we have must and mold in some
> > > places (and it's ruining other things in my collection like boxes) we have 4
> > > cats and the attendant cathair dustbunnies. Yet I don't have this track
> > > dirtiness problem, and some of my track is now going on 4 years old (yes,
> > > some people have much older track).
This is not about your track.
> > > However I also do not live anywhere near
> > > salt air.
Interesting. I can see a salty theme developing.
> > >
> > > The ONLY truly dirty track I have ever seen was when Chris Leach showed me
> > > some. His kids actually had taken it outside to play with it in the mud. But
> > > it cleaned up well with soap and water. *That's* what my mud comment
> > > referred to.
Your comment did not refer to anything. Were readers supposed to know that?
Were readers supposed to call Chris Leach and ask him? Why not mention it in
your post?
> > >
> > > THIS dirt that Michael refers to seems to be of a different nature than mud.
> > > Hence my question, does he have trouble keeping other sorts of stainless
> > > clean? "Stainless" isn't anywhere near truly *impossible* to stain, it does
> > > get corrosion and dirt under certain circumstances.
Michael has dirt on his track, now you are talking about stains. Does this
have anything to do with your salty air them?
> > > There are a lot of
> > > different types of stainless, though. It seems to get dirty faster in
> > > certain environments than others.
What is this supposed to mean? What do you mean by "dirty"? You appear to be
stating the obvious?
> > >
> > > I am no metallurgist but if it's possible to narrow down why it's getting
> > > dirty maybe it's possible to prevent it. That usually is less work in the
> > > long run than repeated cleaning.
So he should move away from the salty air?
> > >
> > > I do not know why this topic went unremarked in .trains before, it certainly
> > > is a valid and interesting topic for that group. I've XFUT there. Maybe now
> > > with a little more info something can be determined.
> > >
> > > On Ross's suggestion about mineral spirits (Isopropyl alcohol, I think some
> > > know it as)... be careful not to get that on rubber parts (12V gray wheel
> > > rings, the little black O rings on 9V) as I think it has a tendency to
> > > accelerate perishing of the rubber.
> > >
> > > > Now now! I Think Benjamin was referring to someone sniping about the "p"
> > > > word rather than Larry's light-hearted comment about mud and cleanliness.
> > >
> > > It wasn't meant to be either a light hearted jest, OR an attack. Merely an
> > > inquiry. Ignore any trouble Scott is trying to cause here, please, and stay
> > > focused on the topics if you would.
> >
> > I'm not trying to cause "trouble" Larry. I was just stating that I thought
> > your message was more rude than helpful,
>
> That's an issue with your reading comprehension, not the message.
Nope that is an issue related to *your* rudeness. You called this helpful:
==+==
Michael:
> Have asked the train people three times but nobody answers, so does any body
> have a good way to keep train track in good condition?
LP:
It's stainless steel. I've not heard of it getting dirty in the past except
when people do things like take it out in the mud.
Do you have trouble keeping other stainless steel things clean at your house?
==+==
Lets look at your words:
LP : "It's stainless steel."
I expect you are correct.
LP : "I've not heard of it getting dirty in the past except when people do
things like take it out in the mud."
Interesting, although you do say above:
==+==
There are a lot of different types of stainless, though. It seems to get
dirty faster in certain environments than others.
==+==
So in one post you say you have not heard of stainless steal getting dirty
except when people do things like "take it out in the mud". Then in another
post you tell us "There are a lot of different types of stainless, though.
It seems to get dirty faster in certain environments than others."
LP : "Do you have trouble keeping other stainless steel things clean at your
house?"
This is the bit I did not like:
1st you say you only think "mud" can get stainless steel dirty.
Then you ask Michael if he has problems keeping stainless steel clean in
his house.
That is pretty dam rude in my opionion
No mention of salt air. No mention of Chris Leach. No mention of the
cleanliness of your own home.
I know why I think it is rude. Perhaps you can say why it is "helpful".
>
> > and I still do despite your
> > squirming. If you want to continue bickering over this Larry, reply to this
> > message somewhere suitable and I shall take apart your squirming.
>
> When someone catches you in a lie, pointing it out is "bickering",
> apparently. That's another lie.
More pusillanimous accusations. Where is *this* "lie"?
>
> This "bickering" characterisation is the same lie you used to try to avoid
> responsibility when you were caught out posting off-topic.debate stuff in
> lego.direct.
I stand by the bickering comment.
> Lots of people pointed it out but you focused on ME because
> that way you could dodge the fact that you were wrong.
I think the number was 3.
>
> > No big deal. As Pete said, lets not get worked up about this.
>
> Funny, you're the one responding with more slime after I said "ignore
> Scott's tries to cause trouble".
Yes, I would have left this alone if you had not mentioned me. But you just
had toss more mud.
> Seems you're worked up already. After all
> you want to "take apart" my "squirming".
Nope. I could have done it after your "helpful" post. I could have done it a
further twice today in .au. But I chose not to.
>
> Go ahead. Take it apart. Keep it out of .trains though, please, so maybe
> Michael can get his question answered.
Did I even try to put it in .trains?
Scott A
|
|
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: train track prservation
|
| (...) That's an issue with your reading comprehension, not the message. (...) When someone catches you in a lie, pointing it out is "bickering", apparently. That's another lie. This "bickering" characterisation is the same lie you used to try to (...) (23 years ago, 23-Oct-01, to lugnet.loc.au, lugnet.off-topic.debate)
|
20 Messages in This Thread:
  
 
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
