http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan?hl=en
alt.autos.nissan@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Almost lost a socket - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/d5bed8c3a936b40d?hl=en
* My Experience Driving a Chevrolet Traverse - 5 messages, 5 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/e05f241ae66f2cc9?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Almost lost a socket
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/d5bed8c3a936b40d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Mon, Sep 6 2010 5:43 pm
From: "E. Meyer"
On 9/6/10 2:20 PM, in article i63etc$4m5$1@news.eternal-september.org,
"Striker" <olliec@copper.net> wrote:
>
> "Jim Yanik" <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote in message
> news:Xns9DEAB32E24307jyaniklocalnetcom@216.168.3.44...
>> "E. Meyer" <epmeyer50@msn.com> wrote in
>> news:C8A91B7E.1FEBA%epmeyer50@msn.com:
>>
>>> On 9/3/10 8:27 AM, in article
>>> Xns9DE86055A560Ajyaniklocalnetcom@216.168.3.44, "Jim Yanik"
>>> <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "E. Meyer" <epmeyer50@msn.com> wrote in
>>>> news:C8A64D15.1FD2B%epmeyer50@msn.com:
>>
>>>>> There are about 3 people left on earth that even use usenet anymore
>>>>> and I have to think that these anal retentive top posting/bottom
>>>>> posting tirades are a large part of the reason why.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> the main reason many have "deserted" Usenet is because few ISPs
>>>> provide the service anymore.
>>>
>>> Yeah, but that's a chicken and egg argument. Most of the ISPs are
>>> dropping it because the usage isn't there anymore.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> second might be bacause of the difficulty in following a thread when
>>>> coming in after a few MFFY top posters have screwed up the continuity
>>>> and readability of the thread. "anal-retentive",I think not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just keep on thinking that. I, and I suspect many others, roll our
>>> eyes and immediately ignore the thread as soon it degenerates into
>>> complaints about how its posted.
>>
>> I fail to see how it's "anal-retentive" to read from top to bottom,the
>> NATURAL manner of reading. It's MFFY to top-post.It's egotistical people
>> who selfishly want to read their comments first,too lazy to scroll down to
>> the end.
>>>
>>>> Here's an example for ya;go to Townhall.com,pick an article with 50
>>>> or more posts and replies,and don't select the "oldest first" option.
>>>> They automatically post everything "newest first";why,I can't figure.
>>>> Now,try to read the posts and make sense of it in "newest first"
>>>> order.
>>>
>>> If you are actually following the thread this argument is moot. If
>>> there is a problem at all, it is only for someone trying to catch up
>>> with a thread (s)he has not been following.
>>
>> Oh,so that makes it all right?
>> It IS a "problem". the longer the thread,the more difficult it gets for
>> anyone to follow,and top posting makes it FAR worse,and sooner.
>>
>> AND,I suspect you didn't try my suggestion about trying one of Townhall's
>> fora.
>> It's a perfect example of top-posting screw-up. I dare you to TRY it,then
>> you will understand. Or maybe not.....but then there's no hope for you.
>> For one thing,you might only be able to come across the article -after-
>> there's been 100 posts and replies,and trying to read "newest first" is
>> impossible.Some of the articles originate at midnight,and by 7AM,there's a
>> slew of posts. That's the same as on the newsgroups.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> Third is probably the trolls who go looking for argument,or the
>>>> cross- posters who spam their crap across several NGs.
>>>
>>> No argument with this one. Most of the garbage landing in
>>> rec.autos.tech lately is being cross posted from various Toyota and
>>> Ford boards and I do find that irritating.
>>>
>>>
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Jim Yanik
>> jyanik
>> at
>> localnet
>> dot com
>
> Can we give it a break guys, I use outlook express and like email replies it
> wants to top post all news group replies. Lets just drop it and get on with
> our lives !
>
> Striker
>
>
Sorry. This anal retentive stuff just irritates the hell out of me.
Anything to avoid the point. It pops up every couple of months in the groups
and just serves to bury the on-topic discussion in favor of some old fart's
idea of how the world should work. We haven't been using non-scrolling TTY
terminals for what, 20 years now?
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 7 2010 7:04 am
From: Jim Yanik
"E. Meyer" <epmeyer50@msn.com> wrote in
news:C8AAF2ED.1FF96%epmeyer50@msn.com:
> On 9/5/10 4:36 PM, in article
> Xns9DEAB32E24307jyaniklocalnetcom@216.168.3.44, "Jim Yanik"
><jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>
>> "E. Meyer" <epmeyer50@msn.com> wrote in
>> news:C8A91B7E.1FEBA%epmeyer50@msn.com:
>>
>>> On 9/3/10 8:27 AM, in article
>>> Xns9DE86055A560Ajyaniklocalnetcom@216.168.3.44, "Jim Yanik"
>>> <jyanik@abuse.gov> wrote:
>>>
>>>> "E. Meyer" <epmeyer50@msn.com> wrote in
>>>> news:C8A64D15.1FD2B%epmeyer50@msn.com:
>>
>>>>> There are about 3 people left on earth that even use usenet
>>>>> anymore and I have to think that these anal retentive top
>>>>> posting/bottom posting tirades are a large part of the reason why.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>> the main reason many have "deserted" Usenet is because few ISPs
>>>> provide the service anymore.
>>>
>>> Yeah, but that's a chicken and egg argument. Most of the ISPs are
>>> dropping it because the usage isn't there anymore.
>>>
>>>>
>>>> second might be bacause of the difficulty in following a thread
>>>> when coming in after a few MFFY top posters have screwed up the
>>>> continuity and readability of the thread. "anal-retentive",I think
>>>> not.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Just keep on thinking that. I, and I suspect many others, roll our
>>> eyes and immediately ignore the thread as soon it degenerates into
>>> complaints about how its posted.
>>
>> I fail to see how it's "anal-retentive" to read from top to
>> bottom,the NATURAL manner of reading. It's MFFY to top-post.It's
>> egotistical people who selfishly want to read their comments
>> first,too lazy to scroll down to the end.
>>>
>
> I revert to my original assertion - this anal retentive BS is becoming
> the death of usenet. I have no use for anybody, business or pleasure,
> who focuses on the jots and commas to the exclusion of the message,
> which is part and partial what this amounts to.
Hardly comparable to commenting on "jots and commas" or typos,which I don't
do.
>
>>>> Here's an example for ya;go to Townhall.com,pick an article with 50
>>>> or more posts and replies,and don't select the "oldest first"
>>>> option. They automatically post everything "newest first";why,I
>>>> can't figure. Now,try to read the posts and make sense of it in
>>>> "newest first" order.
>>>
>>> If you are actually following the thread this argument is moot. If
>>> there is a problem at all, it is only for someone trying to catch up
>>> with a thread (s)he has not been following.
>>
>> Oh,so that makes it all right?
>> It IS a "problem". the longer the thread,the more difficult it gets
>> for anyone to follow,and top posting makes it FAR worse,and sooner.
>>
>> AND,I suspect you didn't try my suggestion about trying one of
>> Townhall's fora.
>> It's a perfect example of top-posting screw-up. I dare you to TRY
>> it,then you will understand. Or maybe not.....but then there's no
>> hope for you. For one thing,you might only be able to come across the
>> article -after- there's been 100 posts and replies,and trying to read
>> "newest first" is impossible.Some of the articles originate at
>> midnight,and by 7AM,there's a slew of posts. That's the same as on
>> the newsgroups.
>
> I have been following these groups for about 15 years, and I have yet
> to find a discussion I couldn't follow if I wanted to. Its just lame
> to assert that oldest fist is ideal but newest first is impossible to
> read. Get real. Scroll down to where you left off and then back up.
> Geez!
you STILL didn't try Townhall as I suggested.....so you have no idea what
you're talking about.
Evidently,there IS no hope for you.
--
Jim Yanik
jyanik
at
localnet
dot com
==============================================================================
TOPIC: My Experience Driving a Chevrolet Traverse
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/t/e05f241ae66f2cc9?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 7 2010 6:34 am
From: "C. E. White"
Recently we took a vacation to Yellowstone Park, Glacier Park, and other
points of interest in Montana and Wyoming. We flew to Montana and rented a
car. I asked for a Nissan Xterra, but Hertz rented me a Chevrolet Traverse
instead (apparently GM is dumping them to the fleets since they had at least
10 of them at the Helena airport and we constantly saw them in Yellowstone)
We wanted the Xterra so we would have room far a couple of bikes inside.
Fortunately the Traverse did have enough room for two bikes (with some
maneuvering of the bikes and luggage).
The Traverse was probably the most loaded up car I have ever driven. It had
just about every possible option (sun roof, heated and cooled power seats,
with power recline, multi CD player, rear seat entertainment, AWD, 3.6L V6,
power lift gate, etc, etc).
The good stuff - very comfortable seats, decent power even at high altitude
and with the lower octane gas they sell in Montana, quiet (except in cross
winds), stable, OK gas mileage (averaged around 20 mpg for 2000 miles),
decent ergonomics (although they are falling into the Toyota practice of
scattering similar looking controls all over the place), smooth
transmission, zero problems during the trip.
The bad stuff - horrible sight lines (it felt like riding around in a cave
but it did have a back-up camera and the ultrasonic rear parking aide to
somewhat compensate), numb handling (which was uncomfortable on some of the
narrow winding mountain roads we drove on), somewhat sensitive to winds
(which again was uncomfortable on some mountain roads), poor rear access for
loading the bikes, mediocre plasticky interior (except for the seats which
were nice), mediocre ride.
I don't have much experience with current crossover vehicles. My only other
experience has been with my parent's recent vehicles - a Ford Freestyle
(totaled in an accident) and a Toyota Highlander (the replacement for the
Freestyle).
Of the three, I preferred the Freestyle. It had the best handling,
ergonomics, and was the quietest and cheapest (but was also under powered -
it was the original 3.0L V6 version). It was also the most car like. The
Traverse is the most SUV like, with the Highlander somewhere in between.
It is difficult to fairly compare the loaded up top of the line Traverse to
my Mother's base Highlander. For sure the V6 in the Traverse was much
quieter, smoother and more powerful than the big four cylinder in my
Mother's Highlander. But, the Highlander was likely much less expensive and
gets better gas mileage. The passenger room is a wash, although I am sure
loading the bike's into the Highlander would have been even more difficult
than loading them into the Traverse. The interior quality was similar, with
the Traverse maybe having a slight edge. The Traverse's handling and
stability was better than the Highlander, but the ride was much worse (but
then the Traverse is AWD, the Highlander Front Wheel Drive Only). The vision
out of the Highlander is much better than out of the Traverse (a result of
GM's preference for appearance over function??). I think the Highlander
looks better than the Traverse, but I think if you buy one of these
vehicles, looks is not high on your list of requirements. I have no idea
regarding reliability. My Mom's Highlander has been flawless after 6 months,
the Traverse was flawless for 2000+ miles (It had 7500 on the odometer when
we dropped it off).
I am not really in the market for a Crossover myself. If I was I doubt I'd
buy either the Traverse or the Highlander. I'd more likely be attracted to a
Honda Pilot or the new Explorer (the new "Crossover" version coming soon).
If I am going to buy a truckoid, I want it to look like a truck, not some
muscled up mini-van or a station wagon.
I was disappointed we did not get the Xterra. I only saw one rental Xterra
on the trip (none were in the lot at the Helena airport). I think it is
somewhat dishonest for Hertz to show you the Xterra as the mid-sized SUV
choice and then rent you a beefed up mini-van instead, but I guess all was
well in the end.
Ed
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 7 2010 8:37 am
From: "Anyolmouse"
Nice SPAM!
--
We have met the enemy and he is us-- Pogo
Anyolmouse
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 7 2010 7:49 pm
From: "Daniel who wants to know"
"C. E. White" <cewhite3@mindspring.com> wrote in message
news:i65ert$gvt$1@news.eternal-september.org...
>
> I don't have much experience with current crossover vehicles. My only
> other experience has been with my parent's recent vehicles - a Ford
> Freestyle (totaled in an accident) and a Toyota Highlander (the
> replacement for the Freestyle).
>
>
>
> Of the three, I preferred the Freestyle. It had the best handling,
> ergonomics, and was the quietest and cheapest (but was also under
> powered - it was the original 3.0L V6 version). It was also the most car
> like. The Traverse is the most SUV like, with the Highlander somewhere in
> between.
>
>
Did you ever lay the hammer down in the Freestyle? It has a cone and belt
CVT and I have heard reports that it feels slow when it really isn't. A
friend of mine has one and she hasn't mentioned anything.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 7 2010 8:15 pm
From: Hachiroku ハチロク
On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 09:34:01 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
>
> Recently we took a vacation to Yellowstone Park, Glacier Park, and other
> points of interest in Montana and Wyoming. We flew to Montana and rented a
> car. I asked for a Nissan Xterra, but Hertz rented me a Chevrolet Traverse
Ed's got guts. He *admitted* driving a Chevy!
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Tues, Sep 7 2010 10:55 pm
From: "Sharx35"
"Hachiroku ハチロク" <anonymous@not-for-mail.invalid> wrote in message
news:i66v4q$a9i$4@tioat.net...
> On Tue, 07 Sep 2010 09:34:01 -0400, C. E. White wrote:
>
>>
>> Recently we took a vacation to Yellowstone Park, Glacier Park, and other
>> points of interest in Montana and Wyoming. We flew to Montana and rented
>> a
>> car. I asked for a Nissan Xterra, but Hertz rented me a Chevrolet
>> Traverse
>
> Ed's got guts. He *admitted* driving a Chevy!
>
>
What the Hell, at least it was only for a week or so. Can you imagine
actually BUYING one of those tin boxes and being stuck, for its
life..probably all of 5 years, with it?
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "alt.autos.nissan"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to alt.autos.nissan+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/alt.autos.nissan/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
No comments:
Post a Comment