oil on moving parts?
|
|
Thread rating:  |
grant walker - 16 Oct 2007 15:03 GMT I am new to model trains, should I use oil or a lubricant on the running gear on steam engins, internal cogs and worm screws and wheel bearings? tia, Grant.
pawlowsk002@gannon.edu - 16 Oct 2007 15:37 GMT > I am new to model trains, should I use oil or a lubricant on the running > gear on steam engins, internal cogs and worm screws and wheel bearings? > tia, > Grant. gw:
Most moving parts should use a light oil, plastic-compatible if there's any risk of it landing on plastic parts (and there almost always is). DON'T pour it on. Place a drop on a piece of glass, and then use a toothpick or needle to pick up a small amount and transfer it to the bearing, rod, or other thing being oiled. I use some unknown brand called Turbo Oil, which I bought from a RC model shop, and it seems to work fine. I don't know if it's entirely safe on plastics, though with the small amounts I use, I haven't had trouble as yet.
For gears, you don't want to use an oil, but a grease that will stay in place. Again, model RC shops have light greases that should work fine. I strongly suspect most of these to be common white lithium grease in small expensive tubes. Some people like moly greases, which are basically dry lubricants in a grease carrier. I'm no tribologist so I can't say yea or nay; I just use whatever light grease the model shop has. Don't overdo it. You want just enough grease to do the job. You can always add more.
For Kadee couplers, do not use grease or oil. Use dry powdered graphite. I use the stuff sold at the hardware store for door locks. It seems to work fine. Kadee sells their own brand, "Greas-Em".
Summary: Oil metal bearings, grease gears, and dry-graphite couplers. Leave the self-lubricating plastic bearings alone.
Cordially yours: Gerard P. President, a box of track and a gappy table.
trainfan1 - 16 Oct 2007 16:05 GMT >> I am new to model trains, should I use oil or a lubricant on the running >> gear on steam engins, internal cogs and worm screws and wheel bearings? >> tia, >> Grant.
> Most moving parts should use a light oil, plastic-compatible if > there's any > risk of it landing on plastic parts (and there almost always is). I have not been able to find "non-plastic compatible" light oil with any ease.
> Summary: Oil metal bearings I use Mobil 1 in a LaBelle needle oiler. A $4 quart will last 2-3 lifetimes.
, grease gears
I use Lucas Red 'N Tacky #2 Synthetic - it's amazing stuff.
, and dry-graphite
> couplers. Leave the self-lubricating plastic bearings alone. Sounds good.
Rob
> Cordially yours: > Gerard P. > President, a box of track and a gappy table. Whodunnit@earthlink.net - 16 Oct 2007 16:27 GMT >, grease gears > >I use Lucas Red 'N Tacky #2 Synthetic - it's amazing stuff. Red 'N Tacky #2 is outstanding on gears. Been using it on Lionel tinplate loco gears for about 5 years. It tends to NOT run as much when heated as other greases I've used.
Got mine at a NAPA store
Ray H.
Jon Miller - 17 Oct 2007 16:46 GMT >Red 'N Tacky #2 is outstanding on gears. Been using it on Lionel tinplate loco gears for about 5 years. It tends to NOT run as much when heated as other greases I've used.<
I looked this stuff up and it's a grease, right? The data says; "Red "N" Tacky #2 is a smooth, tacky, red Lithium 12-HO grease fortified with rust and oxidation inhibitors. It is fortified with a high degree of extreme pressure additives that give a True Timken load much higher than other greases of this type."
Doesn't seem to indicate this is a synthetic.
wim van bemmel - 17 Oct 2007 17:15 GMT > >Red 'N Tacky #2 is outstanding on gears. Been using it on Lionel tinplate > loco gears for about 5 years. It tends to NOT run as much when heated as > other greases I've used.< > > I looked this stuff up and it's a grease, right? The data says
> Lithium 12-HO grease > with rust and oxidation inhibitors. > extreme pressure additives > > Doesn't seem to indicate this is a synthetic. Read again !!!
Groet, salut, Wim.
Jon Miller - 18 Oct 2007 18:50 GMT OK, I did. The msds sheet calls it a petroleum hydrocarbon plus additives. The specification sheet calls it a Lithium grease. Where does it say synthetic? As it's designed for high speed ball bearings I have no doubt it's a very good grease for our model RRs!
Simply to compare the words or advertisements I have a grease that on the tube says "a synthetic multi-purpose grease"! The name is "Super Lube". The msds sheet calls it a _synthetic hydrocarbon_! This grease I've used and it seems to work well.
Neither product has plastic compatible statement that I could find but neither is designed for model gears so it's not going to say in the specs.
David Nebenzahl - 18 Oct 2007 19:20 GMT On 10/18/2007 10:50 AM Jon Miller spake thus:
> OK, I did. The msds sheet calls it a petroleum hydrocarbon plus > additives. The specification sheet calls it a Lithium grease. [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Neither product has plastic compatible statement that I could find but > neither is designed for model gears so it's not going to say in the specs. Alright, I just want to hammer a few nails into that particular coffin ("plastic compatibility").
Folks: it's *bullshit*, plain and simple. Or model-railroading urban legend. Call it what you want.
That's not to say that there may have been a time, back in the Paleolithic Lionel Era, where there actually were some types of plastic that could be harmed (softened, dissolved, deformed) by certains types of oil.
Those days are gone. I challenge anyone to find a type of plastic in use today that can be harmed by any lubricant that a model railroader might apply (assuming that said lubricant is one easily available on the market, not some super-exotic NASA brew or something like that).
No oil will harm your plastic models. (Which is not to say, of course, that you shouldn't be careful about slopping oil all over plastic surfaces; it still is a very good idea to use it *sparingly* and to only get it where it's needed, between the moving parts.)
Jon Miller - 18 Oct 2007 19:56 GMT >Folks: it's *bullshit*, plain and simple. Or model-railroading urban legend. Call it what you want.<
As of today I would totally agree that to be true. There might be a problem if you own _really old_ Athearn or simular engines. MR, I believe, did some soak tests (probably 30+ years ago) and published it. It clearly showed the plastics of that time expanding and cracking with certain types of lube. I certain modern engineering plastics (which most or all gears are made from) can't be hurt with any lub.
pawlowsk002@gannon.edu - 22 Oct 2007 18:16 GMT > Alright, I just want to hammer a few nails into that particular coffin > ("plastic compatibility"). [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > apply (assuming that said lubricant is one easily available on the > market, not some super-exotic NASA brew or something like that). DN:
I want to agree with you, but I have a copy of the Dec 1970 RMC with an article by Chuck Yungkurth, describing his experiments with plastic parts and Labelle 101. He didn't find any problems with the plastics used for mechanical parts, but he did find that styrene tended to soften drastically and become rubbery when it was soaked in Labelle 101 or had spillage sitting on it for an extended time (a few months, in most cases). He also found that sheet styrene, which is apparently laminated from thin sheets, tended to delaminate and crumble badly when affected.
Engineering plastics should be fine, in any case, but it does seem like some caution would be indicated.
Cordially yours: Gerard P. President, a box of track and a gappy table.
J. B. Wood - 18 Oct 2007 11:47 GMT > >Red 'N Tacky #2 is outstanding on gears. Been using it on Lionel tinplate > loco gears for about 5 years. It tends to NOT run as much when heated as [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > extreme pressure additives that give a True Timken load much higher than > other greases of this type." Hello, and its good stuff IMHO. I used it to replace the original gear grease used in the drive train of a Gilbert AF GP-7 loco. As the other poster indicated it holds up very well when heated. Sincerely,
John Wood (Code 5550) e-mail: wood@itd.nrl.navy.mil Naval Research Laboratory 4555 Overlook Avenue, SW Washington, DC 20375-5337
David Starr - 16 Oct 2007 15:40 GMT > I am new to model trains, should I use oil or a lubricant on the running > gear on steam engins, internal cogs and worm screws and wheel bearings? > tia, > Grant. If you have the manufacturer's instruction sheet, you won't go wrong following the maker's recommendations. If the locomotive came to you lacking the instruction sheet, there is a good chance google will turn one up for you. If no instruction sheet is available, you want to lubricate all metal to metal moving parts. Plastic-to-metal or plastic-to-plastic moving parts will work fine and last a long time without lube, the plastic is very slippery. However the urge to lubricate runs strongly in model railroaders, and its perfectly all right to put some lube on the plastic moving parts too. Gears ought to get grease, Kadee couplers want a puff of graphite, and everything else (rods, valve gear, axles, wheel bearings) wants a light oil. Back in the dark ages plastic sometimes broke down or lost its paint when exposed to ordinary oil. The Labelle company offers a line of "plastic compatible" oils. Many folk will tell you that Labelle is the only way to go, and I will confess to having a tube of it on hand. On the other hand I have used 3 in 1 oil and never had my plastic cringe away from it. Other folk recommend automatic transmission fluid because automatic trannies have plastic parts inside them which stand up to the fluid. I haven't tried it myself so your mileage may vary. Ordinary 10W30 motor oil is too thick for model use IMHO. Avoid brake fluid, it will eat paint and plastic. I have used ordinary automotive grease and Vaseline petroleum jelly for grease. There is probably something better out there but I don't have any, what ever it is. Go real easy on the oil. The motion of the parts tends to fling it off and it goes everywhere, onto the wheels, commutator, the rails, and makes the entire locomotive greasy.
David Starr
P. Roehling - 16 Oct 2007 20:09 GMT > Go real easy on the oil. The motion of the parts tends to fling it off > and it goes everywhere, onto the wheels, commutator, the rails, and makes > the entire locomotive greasy. Yes, but when you over-lubricate the bearing pads on an old open-framed motor, you get such a lovely smoke effect when you first twist the rheostat! (Not to mention the realistic smell of hot oil...)
Pete
Greg Procter - 16 Oct 2007 22:01 GMT > I am new to model trains, should I use oil or a lubricant on the running > gear on steam engins, internal cogs and worm screws and wheel bearings? > tia, > Grant. General rules: - Things that move slowly or are enclosed are adequately lubricated with oil. - Things not enclosed that spin fast need grease.(or pressure feed oil) - Things that will collect dirt and fluff need dry lubrication. (eg graphite)
Of your list above, all but the worm need oiling, the worm gear needs grease. Motor armatures, commutators and brushes should not be oiled. Motor bearings should be sparingly oiled to avoid oil getting to the brushes.
Greg.P.
azrock - 16 Oct 2007 22:54 GMT Everyone seems to use graphite powder as it don't drip on the roadbed. I would like to know were to buy it for myself .
Phil Anderson
 Signature Up hill slow, down hill fast, tonnage first, safety last.
>I am new to model trains, should I use oil or a lubricant on the running >gear on steam engins, internal cogs and worm screws and wheel bearings? > tia, > Grant. Ray Haddad - 16 Oct 2007 23:48 GMT >Everyone seems to use graphite powder as it don't drip on the roadbed. I >would like to know were to buy it for myself . In hardware stores in the lock and key section. -- Ray
Greg Procter - 17 Oct 2007 04:02 GMT > Everyone seems to use graphite powder as it don't drip on the roadbed. I > would like to know were to buy it for myself . > > Phil Anderson Locksmiths.
Greg.P.
Dan - 17 Oct 2007 05:26 GMT >> Everyone seems to use graphite powder as it don't drip on the roadbed. I >> would like to know were to buy it for myself . [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Greg.P. Mcmaster.com
Dan, U.S. Air Force, retired
BDK - 17 Oct 2007 05:37 GMT > > Everyone seems to use graphite powder as it don't drip on the roadbed. I > > would like to know were to buy it for myself . [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Greg.P. Just about any hardware store used to have it. I haven't bought it for years though.
I used to use a tiny bit of Aurora AFX oil on my N gauge trains, and I mean a tiny bit on all the moving parts. I never had anything wear out, even with trains running many hours a day for years. I had more problems with the two Con Cor Hudsons and their horrible drivetrain issues than anything else I had. I had no problems ever with my better locos, like the Trix F units and Con-Cor PA-1's and a half dozen Atlas/Rivarossi? 0- 8-0's. The 0-8-0's didn't pull well, but a couple of them could pull a decent train without spinning the wheels too much.
BDK
P. Roehling - 17 Oct 2007 06:09 GMT >> Everyone seems to use graphite powder as it don't drip on the roadbed. I >> would like to know were to buy it for myself . >> >> Phil Anderson > > Locksmiths. What movie did these lines come from?
Q: "Who are you, and how did you get in here?"
A: "I'm a locksmith. And I'm a locksmith."
Steve Caple - 17 Oct 2007 08:40 GMT > "I'm a locksmith. And I'm a locksmith." Police Squad
P. Roehling - 18 Oct 2007 00:47 GMT >> "I'm a locksmith. And I'm a locksmith." > > Police Squad Give the man a cigar! (Actually it was in one of the "Naked Gun" movies, but I'm easy.)
Greg Procter - 17 Oct 2007 08:57 GMT > >> Everyone seems to use graphite powder as it don't drip on the roadbed. I > >> would like to know were to buy it for myself . [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > A: "I'm a locksmith. And I'm a locksmith." LOL.
Paul Johnson - 20 Oct 2007 19:22 GMT Please quote in conversational order, the way English was designed; not where your editor expects you to start editing irrelevant quoted material. http://learn.to/quote/
> Everyone seems to use graphite powder as it don't drip on the roadbed. I > would like to know were to buy it for myself . Fred Meyer or some other similarly universal store with a locksmith. Graphite makes great lock grease, too.
Erik Olsen DK - 20 Oct 2007 19:36 GMT > http://learn.to/quote/ Why on earth don't you follow those simple rules yourself?
 Signature Venlig hilsen Erik Olsen http://www.modelbaneteknik.dk/
David Nebenzahl - 20 Oct 2007 22:15 GMT On 10/20/2007 11:36 AM Erik Olsen DK spake thus:
>> http://learn.to/quote/ > > Why on earth don't you follow those simple rules yourself? That's almost as funny as a "speeling flame" post.
Steve Caple - 20 Oct 2007 23:06 GMT > On 10/20/2007 11:36 AM Erik Olsen DK spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > That's almost as funny as a "speeling flame" post. He should be bottom posted by the demon Vlad for all eternity.
 Signature Steve
Paul Johnson - 21 Oct 2007 04:35 GMT > >http://learn.to/quote/ > > Why on earth don't you follow those simple rules yourself? Actually, I have been, fairly consistantly. I wasn't replying to a statement in the post at that point, so no lead-in was necessary there.
Erik Olsen DK - 21 Oct 2007 11:41 GMT >>> http://learn.to/quote/ >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > statement in the post at that point, so no lead-in was necessary > there. It seems that you haven't read or understood the text at http://learn.to/quote/ at all.
 Signature Venlig hilsen Erik Olsen http://www.modelbaneteknik.dk/
Ray Haddad - 21 Oct 2007 12:22 GMT Why should anyone do that?
>>>> http://learn.to/quote/ >>> [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >It seems that you haven't read or understood the text at >http://learn.to/quote/ at all. -- Ray
Erik Olsen DK - 21 Oct 2007 13:08 GMT > Why should anyone do that? Nobody asked you. Go back into your cave, it isn't spring yet.
 Signature Venlig hilsen Erik Olsen http://www.modelbaneteknik.dk/
Ray Haddad - 21 Oct 2007 13:39 GMT Does top posting really bother you so much that you turn a valid thread into one of your rants?
>> Why should anyone do that? > >Nobody asked you. Go back into your cave, it isn't spring yet. -- Ray
wim van bemmel - 21 Oct 2007 16:29 GMT > Does top posting really bother you so much Yes, top posting is very annoying indeed. It should be avoided if possible.
Groet, saalut, Wim.
Erik Olsen DK - 21 Oct 2007 16:44 GMT > Yes, top posting is very annoying indeed. > It should be avoided if possible. Cavemen like Ray will just tell you that it isn't possible to avoid top posting.
 Signature Venlig hilsen Erik Olsen http://www.modelbaneteknik.dk/
Ray Haddad - 21 Oct 2007 18:39 GMT Well, if it bothers you both so much I'll do my very best to avoid it.
Now, do trains run below the rail on your layout?
>> Yes, top posting is very annoying indeed. >> It should be avoided if possible. > >Cavemen like Ray will just tell you that it isn't possible to avoid top >posting. -- Ray
Paul Newhouse - 21 Oct 2007 21:03 GMT Actually,
> Well, if it bothers you both so much I'll do my very best to avoid > it. > > Now, do trains run below the rail on your layout? Most of my trains
run between the rails.
>>> Yes, top posting is very annoying indeed. >>> It should be avoided if possible. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > -- > Ray Why do you ask?
Paul -- Excuse me, I'll be right back. I have to log onto a server in Romania and verify all of my EBay, PayPal, bank and Social Security information before they suspend my accounts.
Working the rockie road of the G&PX
Ray Haddad - 21 Oct 2007 21:19 GMT >Actually, > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > >Why do you ask? Enquiring minds want to know. -- Ray
Paul Newhouse - 21 Oct 2007 21:49 GMT >>Actually, >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> >>Most of my trains You bottom posting extremist!!
>>run between the rails. >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > -- > Ray
 Signature -- Excuse me, I'll be right back. I have to log onto a server in Romania and verify all of my EBay, PayPal, bank and Social Security information before they suspend my accounts.
Working the rockie road of the G&PX
Steve Caple - 21 Oct 2007 16:58 GMT >> Does top posting really bother you so much > > Yes, top posting is very annoying indeed. > It should be avoided if possible. > > Groet, saalut, Wim. Stick that man on top of a post, too!
 Signature Vlad
David Nebenzahl - 22 Oct 2007 04:07 GMT On 10/21/2007 5:39 AM Ray Haddad spake thus:
> Does top posting really bother you so much that you turn a valid > thread into one of your rants? ?oot ,tfel ot thgir morf txet daer yllamron osla uoy oD .gnitsop-pot fo tnelaviuqe lacigol eht s'taht esuaceB
>>> Why should anyone do that? >> >>Nobody asked you. Go back into your cave, it isn't spring yet. Ray Haddad - 22 Oct 2007 04:36 GMT >On 10/21/2007 5:39 AM Ray Haddad spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] >?oot ,tfel ot thgir morf txet daer yllamron osla uoy oD >.gnitsop-pot fo tnelaviuqe lacigol eht s'taht esuaceB There's no excuse for demanding that anyone top, bottom or middle post. It's entirely up to the person posting. If you want to post at the top, do so. If you prefer the middle, go for it. If you prefer the bottom, do that. But whatever you do, don't ever demand that someone else conform to your way of thinking.
Does top posting really bother you so much that you turn a valid thread into one of your rants? -- Ray
David Nebenzahl - 22 Oct 2007 04:44 GMT On 10/21/2007 8:36 PM Ray Haddad spake thus:
>>On 10/21/2007 5:39 AM Ray Haddad spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Does top posting really bother you so much that you turn a valid > thread into one of your rants? ???taht teg uoy od woH ???"tnaR"
Ray Haddad - 22 Oct 2007 05:53 GMT >On 10/21/2007 8:36 PM Ray Haddad spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > >???taht teg uoy od woH ???"tnaR" Perhaps you should write in palindromes.
Straw warts? -- Ray
David Nebenzahl - 22 Oct 2007 06:13 GMT On 10/21/2007 9:53 PM Ray Haddad spake thus:
> Perhaps you should write in palindromes. > > Straw warts? Straw? No, too stupid a fad; I put soot on warts.
A man, a plan, a canoe, pasta, heros, rajahs, a coloratura, maps, snipe, percale, macaroni, a gag, a banana bag, a tan, a tag, a banana bag again (or a camel), a crepe, pins, Spam, a rut, a Rolo, cash, a jar, sore hats, a peon, a canal—-Panama!
And one of my all-time favorites:
Tulsa night life: filth, gin, a slut.
I got more where these came from.
Erik Olsen DK - 22 Oct 2007 08:58 GMT >> On 10/21/2007 5:39 AM Ray Haddad spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > the bottom, do that. But whatever you do, don't ever demand that > someone else conform to your way of thinking. Selvfølgelig er der det. Er det ikke fornuftigt at sikre at alle før bedst muligt udbytte af indlæggene? Ellers kunne alle jo bare skrive på hvilket sprog de ville.
> Does top posting really bother you so much that you turn a valid > thread into one of your rants? Ja, det gør det da i høj grad. Uartige børn som dig skal have en røvfuld.
 Signature Venlig hilsen Erik Olsen http://www.modelbaneteknik.dk/
Ray Haddad - 22 Oct 2007 09:44 GMT Just like now.
>>> On 10/21/2007 5:39 AM Ray Haddad spake thus: >>> [quoted text clipped - 19 lines] >Ja, det gør det da i høj grad. Uartige børn som dig skal have en >røvfuld. Oh, goody. Then I'll continue to top post. See the above. -- Ray
Greg Procter - 22 Oct 2007 10:27 GMT > Just like now. > [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > -- > Ray From my admittedly limited knowledge of the Danish language I'm fairly sure that Erik said that Danish butter goods-wagons run to Copenhagen! =8^]
Greg.P.
Ray Haddad - 22 Oct 2007 11:57 GMT >> Just like now. >> [quoted text clipped - 27 lines] >sure that Erik said that Danish butter goods-wagons run to Copenhagen! >=8^] Which changes my response why? -- Ray
Erik Olsen DK - 22 Oct 2007 19:13 GMT >>> Just like now. >>> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > > Which changes my response why? I wrote that it is wise to write your posts in a way that readers get the most out of it. I also gave an example on how not to do it (i. e. wiriting in Danish in an English-language group).
In my opinion how you quote means a great deal to how easy your posts are to read.
 Signature Venlig hilsen Erik Olsen http://www.modelbaneteknik.dk/
Ray Haddad - 22 Oct 2007 22:40 GMT >>>> Just like now. >>>> [quoted text clipped - 40 lines] >In my opinion how you quote means a great deal to how easy your posts >are to read. Eric, you are missing the point entirely. While I agree with you for the most part, it is more infuriating for you to become a NetKop telling everyone that they're posting wrong when there's really no wrong way to post. Try gritting your teeth and moving on to the next post rather than trying to get others to change to your way of thinking. It works much better for the newsgroup as a whole. -- Ray
Erik Olsen DK - 23 Oct 2007 17:27 GMT > Eric, you are missing the point entirely. While I agree with you for > the most part, it is more infuriating for you to become a NetKop > telling everyone that they're posting wrong when there's really no > wrong way to post. Try gritting your teeth and moving on to the next > post rather than trying to get others to change to your way of > thinking. It works much better for the newsgroup as a whole. Yes, I've better move on, and my next step will be to killfile you.
 Signature Venlig hilsen Erik Olsen http://www.modelbaneteknik.dk/
Ray Haddad - 24 Oct 2007 07:28 GMT >> Eric, you are missing the point entirely. While I agree with you for >> the most part, it is more infuriating for you to become a NetKop [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > >Yes, I've better move on, and my next step will be to killfile you. Erik, there are some of us here who look at that as a blessing and not a threat. Trust me on that. Kill file me at any time. -- Ray
Greg Procter - 22 Oct 2007 20:32 GMT > >> Just like now. > >> [quoted text clipped - 31 lines] > -- > Ray He's trying to butter you up?
PS double questions in a single sentence guarentee confusion.
Greg.P.
Ray Haddad - 22 Oct 2007 22:41 GMT >> >> Just like now. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 33 lines] > >PS double questions in a single sentence guarentee confusion. Read again for clarity, Greg. Where's that second question? -- Ray
Greg Procter - 22 Oct 2007 22:56 GMT > >> >> Just like now. > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 35 lines] > > Read again for clarity, Greg. Where's that second question? "Which?" and "why?" ;-)
Regards, Greg.P.
Ray Haddad - 22 Oct 2007 23:03 GMT >> >> >> Just like now. >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 38 lines] >"Which?" and "why?" >;-) Neither of which MUST be a question. They MAY be but don't have to be. That's the clarity bit I was referring to, Greg.
Which changes nothing. See how that works? It's a statement, not a questions. Which brings me to the next point. Rhetorical questions really aren't questions. Did you know that? Grammatically speaking they don't even require a question mark at the end. -- Ray
Greg Procter - 22 Oct 2007 23:19 GMT > >> >> >> Just like now. > >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 41 lines] > Neither of which MUST be a question. They MAY be but don't have to > be. That's the clarity bit I was referring to, Greg. I'm sitting here at my computer without the benefit of access to your thought processes - I can read any meaning that's possible from the words you transmit and some, all or none may be the meaning you intend. YOU push the 'send' button.
> Which changes nothing. See how that works? It's a statement, not a > questions. There was a question mark at the end - it's a fair assumption that you were asking a question!
> Which brings me to the next point. Rhetorical questions > really aren't questions. Did you know that? Grammatically speaking > they don't even require a question mark at the end. Where in your post did it say "Rhetorical question!"?
Regards, Greg.P.
Ray Haddad - 22 Oct 2007 23:22 GMT >> >> >> >> Just like now. >> >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 52 lines] >There was a question mark at the end - it's a fair assumption that you >were asking a question! Yes, but only one.
>> Which brings me to the next point. Rhetorical questions >> really aren't questions. Did you know that? Grammatically speaking >> they don't even require a question mark at the end. > >Where in your post did it say "Rhetorical question!"? What a dog's breakfast your question/statement is, Greg. It doesn't matter about the word rhetorical. I realize it's far too big a word for you so don't trouble your sheep herding head about it. -- Ray
Greg Procter - 23 Oct 2007 01:30 GMT > >> >> >> >> Just like now. > >> >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 54 lines] > > Yes, but only one. Just the one? (rhetorical)
Which one were you asking, which or why? (non-rhetorical in a rhetorical sense)
> >> Which brings me to the next point. Rhetorical questions > >> really aren't questions. Did you know that? Grammatically speaking [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > What a dog's breakfast your question/statement is, Greg. Strange Ray, I was effectively saying the same about yours! Your questions/statement came first, so your comments apply to you before they apply to me.
> It doesn't > matter about the word rhetorical. I realize it's far too big a word > for you so don't trouble your sheep herding head about it. Ok, ask your sheep to explain it to you.
> -- > Ray Ray Haddad - 23 Oct 2007 04:10 GMT >> >> >> >> >> Just like now. >> >> >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 77 lines] > >Ok, ask your sheep to explain it to you. Cut one out of your private stock for me, mate. The cute one over there maybe? -- Ray
Greg Procter - 23 Oct 2007 05:03 GMT > >> >> >> >> >> Just like now. > >> >> >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 80 lines] > Cut one out of your private stock for me, mate. The cute one over > there maybe? Unlike you, I don't distinguish between cute and otherwise ewes.
Ray Haddad - 23 Oct 2007 06:46 GMT >Unlike you, I don't distinguish between cute and otherwise ewes. Some of us do have standards, mate. -- Ray
David Nebenzahl - 23 Oct 2007 08:43 GMT On 10/22/2007 10:46 PM Ray Haddad spake thus:
>>Unlike you, I don't distinguish between cute and otherwise ewes. > > Some of us do have standards, mate. So you admit you had sex with that sheep, eh?
And did you stop beating your wife yet? Yes or no.
Ray Haddad - 23 Oct 2007 09:34 GMT >On 10/22/2007 10:46 PM Ray Haddad spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > >So you admit you had sex with that sheep, eh? Only that I have standards. Only cute sheep need apply.
>And did you stop beating your wife yet? Yes or no. I beat her up every day. She sleeps at least an hour more than I do. -- Ray
Greg Procter - 23 Oct 2007 17:57 GMT > On 10/22/2007 10:46 PM Ray Haddad spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > And did you stop beating your wife yet? Yes or no. He's Australian - it's compulsary.
Greg Procter - 23 Oct 2007 17:55 GMT > >Unlike you, I don't distinguish between cute and otherwise ewes. > > Some of us do have standards, mate. > -- > Ray You're Australian.
Ray Haddad - 24 Oct 2007 07:29 GMT >> >Unlike you, I don't distinguish between cute and otherwise ewes. >> >> Some of us do have standards, mate. > >You're Australian. Exactly. I'll have the cute sheep. You can have the ugly ones. -- Ray
Greg Procter - 24 Oct 2007 08:31 GMT > >> >Unlike you, I don't distinguish between cute and otherwise ewes. > >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Exactly. I'll have the cute sheep. You can have the ugly ones. You're welcome to all of them, I have other interests.
Ray Haddad - 24 Oct 2007 09:51 GMT >> >> >Unlike you, I don't distinguish between cute and otherwise ewes. >> >> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >You're welcome to all of them, I have other interests. Dressing them? -- Ray
Greg Procter - 24 Oct 2007 19:53 GMT > >> >> >Unlike you, I don't distinguish between cute and otherwise ewes. > >> >> [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > > Dressing them? This will probably come as a shock to you as an Australian, but in New Zealand the sheep tend to live where people and cows don't. I haven't seen a sheep in decades.
Greg.P.
Steve Caple - 24 Oct 2007 22:35 GMT >>>> >> >Unlike you, I don't distinguish between cute and otherwise ewes. >>>> >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Zealand the sheep tend to live where people and cows don't. I haven't > seen a sheep in decades. They do have those inflatable ones; saw one in a movie years ago, maybe it was Little Shop of Horrors, but not sure.
 Signature Steve
fht@fht.com - 25 Oct 2007 01:38 GMT >>>>> >> >Unlike you, I don't distinguish between cute and otherwise ewes. >>>>> >> [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] >They do have those inflatable ones; saw one in a movie years ago, maybe it >was Little Shop of Horrors, but not sure. Probably "Whoops,Apocalypse"..????
Steve Caple - 25 Oct 2007 03:11 GMT >>>>>> >> >Unlike you, I don't distinguish between cute and otherwise ewes. >>>>>> >> [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > Probably "Whoops,Apocalypse"..???? Never saw that one; did see "Pork Lips Now", but it wasn't in that.
http://www.muttonbone.com/
THey say you can get crotchless panties for sheep at Frederics of Auckland and Frederics of Darwin.
 Signature Steve
Ray Haddad - 24 Oct 2007 22:37 GMT >> >> >> >Unlike you, I don't distinguish between cute and otherwise ewes. >> >> >> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] >Zealand the sheep tend to live where people and cows don't. I haven't >seen a sheep in decades. Ah, then you prefer cows. -- Ray
Steve Caple - 23 Oct 2007 02:10 GMT > He's trying to butter you up? Last Tango in Perth??
 Signature Steve
Ray Haddad - 23 Oct 2007 04:11 GMT >> He's trying to butter you up? > >Last Tango in Perth?? LOL
Dear God, I do believe he's trying to fix us up, Greg. -- Ray
Greg Procter - 23 Oct 2007 05:04 GMT > >> He's trying to butter you up? > > [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Dear God, I do believe he's trying to fix us up, Greg. Well, if you're going to move in I'll have to tighten up the boxing ring ropes.
Steve Caple - 23 Oct 2007 07:37 GMT >>> He's trying to butter you up? >> [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > Dear God, I do believe he's trying to fix us up, Greg. Just don't call me Yentl.
 Signature Steve
Ray Haddad - 23 Oct 2007 08:08 GMT >>>> He's trying to butter you up? >>> [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >Just don't call me Yentl. Ok, Tevye. -- Ray
Paul Johnson - 22 Oct 2007 14:44 GMT > >On 10/21/2007 5:39 AM Ray Haddad spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > There's no excuse for demanding that anyone top, bottom or middle > post. Sure there is: Language contininuity. Since when is English read in random order (thus causing top posting to make sense)?
Ray Haddad - 22 Oct 2007 15:03 GMT >> >On 10/21/2007 5:39 AM Ray Haddad spake thus: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >Sure there is: Language contininuity. Since when is English read in >random order (thus causing top posting to make sense)? It's known as a conversation. -- Ray
David Nebenzahl - 22 Oct 2007 19:03 GMT On 10/22/2007 7:03 AM Ray Haddad spake thus:
>>> >On 10/21/2007 5:39 AM Ray Haddad spake thus: >>> [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > It's known as a conversation. But a conversation makes *no sense* in top-posting order. To wit:
>>>> OK, then I'd better use plaster instead. >>> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > > Sure, but first you have to cook it. Can I make models out of oatmeal?
See, it only takes a ridiculous example to show you why this is a bad idea.
Ray Haddad - 22 Oct 2007 22:44 GMT >On 10/22/2007 7:03 AM Ray Haddad spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 15 lines] > >But a conversation makes *no sense* in top-posting order. To wit: Of course it does. Just like any conversation around the barbecue switches from sports to trucks to fishing to the neighbor's shorts after a few brews. Simultaneously, no less!
> >>>> OK, then I'd better use plaster instead. > >>> [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > >See, it only takes a ridiculous example to show you why this is a bad idea. David, I agree that it makes more sense for the most part. What doesn't make sense is the NetKop attitude in demanding that others conform to YOUR way or NO way. Try as you may, if I want to post on the top, I will. Want to see me do it again? -- Ray
Paul Johnson - 24 Oct 2007 02:18 GMT > >> There's no excuse for demanding that anyone top, bottom or middle > >> post. [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > > It's known as a conversation. No, conversations follow an order of continuity. What I mean by random is answering the question before it's asked, which is what top posting does (especially if you missed the prior post in the thread originally for whatever reason or read a high volume of messages in a day). Top posting also makes it difficult to correct the goofed quoting to maintain proper context and continuity later.
Steve Caple - 24 Oct 2007 04:18 GMT Mindless bottom posting is a waste of bandwidth, sending the same ever-expanding trail of chipmunk droppings back and forth and forcing people wanting to read it to scroll down through the pile of dung to get to the new information. Threaded newsreaders aren't nything new, and if you DO miss a message they make it easy to go back up the thread tree and find what you missed or forgot.
 Signature Steve
David Nebenzahl - 24 Oct 2007 06:06 GMT On 10/23/2007 8:18 PM Steve Caple spake thus:
> Mindless bottom posting is a waste of bandwidth, sending the same > ever-expanding trail of chipmunk droppings back and forth and forcing > people wanting to read it to scroll down through the pile of dung to get to > the new information. I'll tell you what's a waste of bandwidth, my trollish friend: a pathetically transparent attempt to impersonate another regular around here. BZZZZZZZZZT!
Steve Caple - 24 Oct 2007 08:46 GMT > On 10/23/2007 8:18 PM Steve Caple spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > pathetically transparent attempt to impersonate another regular around > here. BZZZZZZZZZT! Spanky, is that you pretending to be Nebenzahl?
 Signature Steve
Erik Olsen DK - 24 Oct 2007 18:29 GMT > Mindless bottom posting is a waste of bandwidth, sending the same > ever-expanding trail of chipmunk droppings back and forth and forcing > people wanting to read it to scroll down through the pile of dung to > get to the new information. Threaded newsreaders aren't nything new, > and if you DO miss a message they make it easy to go back up the > thread tree and find what you missed or forgot. That's why Good Qouting Practice is not only about top or bottom posting but also about only qouting what is needed and deleting the rest. This is also covered by http://learn.to/quote/
 Signature Venlig hilsen Erik Olsen http://www.modelbaneteknik.dk/
Ray Haddad - 24 Oct 2007 22:39 GMT >> Mindless bottom posting is a waste of bandwidth, sending the same >> ever-expanding trail of chipmunk droppings back and forth and forcing [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] >but also about only qouting what is needed and deleting the rest. This >is also covered by http://learn.to/quote/ Enough, Erik. Put your handcuffs and badge away now. -- Ray
Paul Johnson - 25 Oct 2007 04:13 GMT > Threaded newsreaders aren't nything new, and if you > DO miss a message they make it easy to go back up the thread tree and find > what you missed or forgot. Unless you never received the previous message, it had an unusually short expiration or was cancelled. You keep forgetting propagation isn't a gaurantee, even in 2007.
Ray Haddad - 24 Oct 2007 07:30 GMT >No, conversations follow an order of continuity. Try making that point at a party. Or, better yet, make that point with a group of Australians. -- Ray
Paul Johnson - 25 Oct 2007 04:15 GMT > >No, conversations follow an order of continuity. > > Try making that point at a party. Or, better yet, make that point > with a group of Australians. It still stands. Even at parties, unless you're the guy who's too drunk to know they're too drunk, conversations don't go through the absolute non-sequitors top posting creates by definition.
Ray Haddad - 25 Oct 2007 05:13 GMT >> >No, conversations follow an order of continuity. >> [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >drunk to know they're too drunk, conversations don't go through the >absolute non-sequitors top posting creates by definition. Nonsense. Here in Australia, it's quite normal to have 5 or 6 people in a group all speaking at one time. No kidding. It has everything to do with my point.
Besides, post where you wish. That's all I'm stating. Stop being an idiot trying to define who can do what. You have no rights here as a NetKop. Take your badge elsewhere and make demands. -- Ray
Paul Johnson - 25 Oct 2007 16:02 GMT > >> >No, conversations follow an order of continuity. > [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > Nonsense. Here in Australia, it's quite normal to have 5 or 6 people > in a group all speaking at one time. That's not just an Australian thing, and yet people at the party still are not speaking in random order, just several distinct threads.
> Besides, post where you wish. That's all I'm stating. Stop being an > idiot trying to define who can do what. Stop being so retarded as to think that's what's going on. Quit getting butt-sore that you were called out for not making sense.
Ray Haddad - 25 Oct 2007 20:58 GMT They post on top because they can. And because you can't stop them. All your whining and complaining make no difference except to illustrate that you are willing to continue posting off topic ad nauseam simply because you are a NetKop on a mission.
See the balance of my post below.
>> >> >No, conversations follow an order of continuity. >> [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] >That's not just an Australian thing, and yet people at the party still >are not speaking in random order, just several distinct threads. You have no idea about Aussies. Trust me on this one.
>> Besides, post where you wish. That's all I'm stating. Stop being an >> idiot trying to define who can do what. > >Stop being so retarded as to think that's what's going on. Quit >getting butt-sore that you were called out for not making sense. Why not spend more time discussing railroading or modeling instead of trying to impose your warped standards of how to use a newsgroup?
Some people top post.
Some people middle post
Some people bottom post.
They can post any way they wish. When you complain about it, others do this: See the message at the start of this post. -- Ray
Paul Johnson - 26 Oct 2007 04:16 GMT > They post on top because they can. Americans /can/ drive on the left of the road on two way streets, but that doesn't make it right.
> Why not spend more time discussing railroading or modeling instead > of trying to impose your warped standards of how to use a newsgroup? They're not warped, yours are. I present RFC 1855 as evidence.
Ray Haddad - 26 Oct 2007 04:42 GMT >> They post on top because they can. > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > >They're not warped, yours are. I present RFC 1855 as evidence. A request for comments is not a rule you can enforce as a NetKop. It's also nothing more than a request for comments. Haven't you figured that out yet?
In case you missed this bit: This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind.
In other words, it allows you an official place to vent your feelings about this issue without annoying those who wish to post on the top of a message because they like that better.
See how that works? It's called freedom. -- Ray
Paul Johnson - 26 Oct 2007 16:15 GMT > >> They post on top because they can. > [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > In case you missed this bit: > This memo does not specify an Internet standard of any kind. And yet, you missed the important part:
) In the past, the population of people using the Internet had "grown ) up" with the Internet, were technically minded, and understood the ) nature of the transport and the protocols. Today, the community of ) Internet users includes people who are new to the environment. These ) "Newbies" are unfamiliar with the culture and don't need to know ) about transport and protocols. In order to bring these new users into ) the Internet culture quickly, this Guide offers a minimum set of ) behaviors which organizations and individuals may take and adapt for ) their own use.
Quit arguing that acting like a terminal newbie is a Good Thing when it's well established that it's not.
Ray Haddad - 26 Oct 2007 22:49 GMT TOP POSTING! See how that works?
>> >> They post on top because they can. >> [quoted text clipped - 29 lines] >Quit arguing that acting like a terminal newbie is a Good Thing when >it's well established that it's not. You're quoting that like it's important or something. To you? Oh, dear. A Request For Comments is nothing more than a collection of people whining.
There's nothing you can do about top posting. Give it up and resume discussing trains. Or, continue to act like a pork chop and do your best to try to get me to stop . . . (see above) -- Ray
Greg Procter - 22 Oct 2007 20:34 GMT > > >On 10/21/2007 5:39 AM Ray Haddad spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Sure there is: Language contininuity. Since when is English read in > random order (thus causing top posting to make sense)? Since GWB got into office(?)
Greg.P.
Paul Johnson - 24 Oct 2007 02:22 GMT > > > >On 10/21/2007 5:39 AM Ray Haddad spake thus: > [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Since GWB got into office(?) That's specific to the Georgonics dialect of English and not widespread...
Greg Procter - 24 Oct 2007 08:23 GMT > > > > >On 10/21/2007 5:39 AM Ray Haddad spake thus: > > [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > That's specific to the Georgonics dialect of English and not > widespread... Reporting of Georgonics is widespread.
jJim McLaughlin - 26 Oct 2007 16:46 GMT Paul Johnson wrote massive amounts of mercifully snipped crap.
Do you ever actually contribute anything to this newsgroup that is on topc?
Or are you merely a common scold, who getts off by trolling the group with meaningless and useless diatribes about usenet "culture"?
<PLONK>
Paul Johnson - 27 Oct 2007 06:29 GMT On Oct 26, 8:46 am, jJim McLaughlin <jimm.claugh...@comcast.com> wrote:
> Paul Johnson wrote massive amounts of mercifully snipped crap. > > Do you ever actually contribute anything to this newsgroup that is on topc? I did, but someone as clueless as you proved yourself to be on pdx.computers hijacked the thread.
Steve Caple - 23 Oct 2007 02:04 GMT > Sure there is: Language contininuity. Since when is English read in > random order (thus causing top posting to make sense)? Er, uh, are you not familiar with the concept of footnotes?
Threaded newsreaders are what makes the conversation flow; get one and learn to use it. That flow is impeded by idiots who quote an entire message tree without clipping and append their two cents worth to the bottom. That kind of stupid crap is worse than any amount of top posting.
 Signature Steve
Paul Johnson - 24 Oct 2007 15:08 GMT > > Sure there is: Language contininuity. Since when is English read in > > random order (thus causing top posting to make sense)? > > Er, uh, are you not familiar with the concept of footnotes? Yes, I am. The idea of the entire
> Threaded newsreaders are what makes the conversation flow; get one and > learn to use it. I do. That's no excuse for authors to not take into account factors such as propagation, filters or attention span constraints on the part of the reader.
> That flow is impeded by idiots who quote an entire > message tree without clipping and append their two cents worth to the > bottom. That kind of stupid crap is worse than any amount of top posting. That kind of stupid crap is just as bad as top posting for mostly the same reasons. Conversational quoting is the method I'm advocating.
Paul Johnson - 24 Oct 2007 15:40 GMT > > Sure there is: Language contininuity. Since when is English read in > > random order (thus causing top posting to make sense)? > > Er, uh, are you not familiar with the concept of footnotes? Yes, I am. The idea of the entire previous message in the footnotes is pretty stupid.
> Threaded newsreaders are what makes the conversation flow; get one and > learn to use it. I do. That's no excuse for authors to not take into account factors such as propagation, filters or attention span constraints on the part of the reader.
> That flow is impeded by idiots who quote an entire > message tree without clipping and append their two cents worth to the > bottom. That kind of stupid crap is worse than any amount of top posting. That kind of stupid crap is just as bad as top posting for mostly the same reasons. Conversational quoting is the method I'm advocating.
|
|
|