Torque wrenches



On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:56:28 -0400, ML <[email protected]>
wrote:
>So tell me why I should?

No thanks. I'm sure we've both been over it enough times.

>BTW, you're right about g.daniels. He says he can write
>legibly but prefers not to. You know, style & all that
>****. What a waste.......

Not a waste. Entertainment.

>MOO,

Well, if you close your messages by mooing, I suppose I can
forgive top-posting...

...er, but where do I put my '--' and name? Before the
quote, effectively killing it, or after the quote, making my
signature hard to find?

>Rick Onanian wrote:
>> g.daniels wrote: <babble>
>>
>> On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 08:24:27 -0400, ML
>> <[email protected]> wrote:
>>
>>>????????????????????????????????????????????????? Can you
>>>repeat in some understandable dialect of English?
>>
>>
>> No, he can't. He's some sort of alien, or something.
>> Really. Google groups for his messages...
>>
>> Can you avoid top-posting?
>> --
>> Rick Onanian
--
Rick "Moo sed zcow" Onanian
 
S o r n i wrote:
> ML wrote:
>
>>No actually I would really like someone to tell me why
>>I should.
>
>
> Because people click on new posts and see your words with
> no idea what the hell you're talking about. (Not everyone
> reads entire threads from start to finish, much less all
> at one time.)
>
> It also totally screws up succeeding replies, as now
> there's this misplaced chunk of text that either has to be
> moved or snipped for coherency.
>
> It's not so bad in e-mail, as presumably the
> correspondents know what has been written previously, but
> in Usenet it's a sure sign of imbecilitude (ought to be a
> word if it ain't!)...
>
> Bill "sort of like an idiot at a blackjack table, wrecking
> the flow of cards" S.
>
>

I suspect it really depends on what newsreader a person
uses. I despise bottom posted threads but that's JMO. I end
up spending more time scrolling through all the previous
stuff just to find the bottom. That's a waste of time.

Matt
 
Alan Hoyle wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 12:29:09 -0400, ML wrote:
>
>>No actually I would really like someone to tell me why
>>I should.
>
>
> Because the standard convention for posting a follow-up
> is to bottom post after trimming away everything except
> what you're replying to. As it is, nobody can tell what
> context your message has unless they scroll down to the
> bottom of the message to find out. It's a little bit
> more work for you when you're writing your reply, but it
> makes everything clearer for the everyone else who reads
> it later.
>
> Also, not top-posting will prevent anyone from complaining
> about how you top-post. Isn't that enough?
>
> -alan
>

Alan:

What convention says top-posting is wrong. Point me to where
it is written that "thou shalt bottom post when replying".

In any event, I will change my setup.

MOO, Matt
 
[email protected] wrote:

[ re: top-posting versus other styles ]
> I suspect it really depends on what newsreader a
> person uses.

No, this is a style issue independent of newsreaders.
Some newsreaders do encourage bad habits more than
others, though.

> I despise bottom posted threads but that's JMO.

Messages that contain reams of quoted material before a
response at the bottom are almost as bad. Quote the relevant
sections to which you wish to respond, and put your
responses right below.

> I end up spending more time scrolling through all the
> previous stuff just to find the bottom. That's a waste
> of time.

That's due to lack of selected trimming of quoted material
which, again, is also annoying. If you interleave your
responses with trimmed quoted material, as I've done here,
your posts become much more readable.

--
Benjamin Lewis

A small, but vocal, contingent even argues that tin is
superior, but they are held by most to be the lunatic fringe
of Foil Deflector Beanie science.
 
John Everett wrote:
> I knw this is all tongue-in-cheek, but Mr. Chapman's full
> name was Anthony Colin Bruce Chapman. Thus the "ACBC" on
> the Lotus badge. The "A" didn't stand for Abarth.

Thanks very much!

--
Andrew Muzi www.yellowjersey.org Open every day since 1
April, 1971
 
Rick Onanian wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Apr 2004 08:56:28 -0400, ML
> <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>So tell me why I should?
>
>
> No thanks. I'm sure we've both been over it enough times.
>
>
>>BTW, you're right about g.daniels. He says he can write
>>legibly but prefers not to. You know, style & all that
>>****. What a waste.......
>
>
> Not a waste. Entertainment.
>
>
>>MOO,
>
>
> Well, if you close your messages by mooing, I suppose I
> can forgive top-posting...
>
> ...er, but where do I put my '--' and name? Before the
> quote, effectively killing it, or after the quote, making
> my signature hard to find?
>
>
>>Rick Onanian wrote:
>>
>>>g.daniels wrote: <babble>
>>>
>>>On Mon, 12 Apr 2004 08:24:27 -0400, ML
>>><[email protected]> wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>????????????????????????????????????????????????? Can
>>>>you repeat in some understandable dialect of English?
>>>
>>>
>>>No, he can't. He's some sort of alien, or something.
>>>Really. Google groups for his messages...
>>>
>>>Can you avoid top-posting?
>>>--
>>>Rick Onanian
>>
> --
> Rick "Moo sed zcow" Onanian

Rick:

Come on, I'm waiting for you to show me where it's written.
You're the one who started this so it's up to you to prove
your point. If you can't give me a definitive statement all
these posts are going back to the top! :)

g.daniels is entertainment the way having your gums scraped
is entertainment. Something I can do without. I pretty
much just ignore all his posts. For some reason I read
this one and couldn't believe that after all this time he
still writes like a moron. All in the pursuit of style!
Like I said, what a waste. Truthfully, I suspect that
somewhere in his brain lurks an intelligent person. You'd
never know it from his posts though.

h.daniels, if you read this take it to heart. Not for our
sake, for yours. Well, maybe for our sake too! :)

MOO (My Opinion Only), Matt
 
Benjamin Lewis wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
> [ re: top-posting versus other styles ]
>
>>I suspect it really depends on what newsreader a
>>person uses.
>
>
> No, this is a style issue independent of newsreaders.
> Some newsreaders do encourage bad habits more than
> others, though.
>
>
>>I despise bottom posted threads but that's JMO.
>
>
> Messages that contain reams of quoted material before a
> response at the bottom are almost as bad. Quote the
> relevant sections to which you wish to respond, and put
> your responses right below.
>
>
>>I end up spending more time scrolling through all the
>>previous stuff just to find the bottom. That's a waste
>>of time.
>
>
> That's due to lack of selected trimming of quoted material
> which, again, is also annoying. If you interleave your
> responses with trimmed quoted material, as I've done here,
> your posts become much more readable.
>

Benjamin:

Thanks for your post. Of all the posts thus far, this is the
only one that attempted to justify the argument. I think
I'll still argue that it's a newsreader issue. And the fact
that different newsreaders encourage one form of posting
over the other says to me that there is a large difference
of opinion on the subject.

I find that inteleaving is the worst form of response.
Unfortunately, sometimes it's necessary. The problem with
this is that now you end up with no clear time sequence to
the thread.

Personally, I will be bottom posting for a while to see how
I feel on the issue. If I find it revolting then I will
revert to top-posting. This to me is a "religion" issue, and
I'm really not religious.

MOO, Matt
 
ML <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]

[...]

> I suspect it really depends on what newsreader a
> person uses.

No, it doesn't. Questions should always precede answers.

> I despise bottom posted threads but that's JMO. I end up
> spending more time scrolling through all the previous
> stuff just to find the bottom. That's a waste of time.

You're confusing two different issues. Not snipping
extraneous quoted material is also wrong but it does not
justify top-posting.

--

"Posting at the top because that's where the cursor happened
to be is like shitting in your pants because that's where
your asshole happened to be." Andreas Prilop
 
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 08:02:03 -0400, ML <[email protected]>
wrote:
>Rick: Come on, I'm waiting for you to show me where it's
>written. You're the

Er...haven't enough others posted links?

>one who started this so it's up to you to prove your point.
>If you can't give me a definitive statement all these posts
>are going back to the top! :)

Whatever you like; us non-top-posters will just continue to
***** and complain. Like you said, it's a religious thing.

>g.daniels is entertainment the way having your gums scraped
> is entertainment. Something I can do without. I pretty
> much just ignore all his posts.

Just save yourself some time and killfile him. Personally, I
enjoy dissecting them and responding to bits and pieces as
if they were not insane ravings. Here's an example: http://-
groups.google.com/groups?&selm=p3knsvseppjrnht8t7ejl0hpp0h5-
528kt2%404ax.com

>MOO (My Opinion Only),

You're wrong. Moo is my opinion too.
--
Rick Onanian
 
[email protected] wrote:

> Thanks for your post. Of all the posts thus far, this is
> the only one that attempted to justify the argument. I
> think I'll still argue that it's a newsreader issue. And
> the fact that different newsreaders encourage one form of
> posting over the other says to me that there is a large
> difference of opinion on the subject.

I believe you have your cause and effect backwards. Before a
certain occurrence of a single newsreader with 90% (or
something) of the market share, top posting was a much rarer
beast than it is today.

> I find that inteleaving is the worst form of response.
> Unfortunately, sometimes it's necessary. The problem with
> this is that now you end up with no clear time sequence to
> the thread.

On the contrary, there is an extremely clear, unambiguous
time sequence, provided that no one top posts. Every
response occurs chronologically after the quote block
directly above it, and this is recursive. This is the
easiest possible time sequence for us to read, since we are
used to reading from top down, and it puts responses to
particular points physically closer together in the script.

It is in my feeling, although I can't prove it, that the
people who argue against top-posting tend to be those who've
thought about the issue carefully, and that arguments for
top-posting tend to be knee-jerk defenses of they way the
arguer was originally encouraged to do things. I see many
more people being converted from top-posting to bottom-
posting than the other direction, which I feel strongly
supports my argument, at least to myself.

> Personally, I will be bottom posting for a while to see
> how I feel on the issue. If I find it revolting then I
> will revert to top-posting. This to me is a "religion"
> issue, and I'm really not religious.

Well, we certainly can't force you. We can only try to
encourage you to appeal to reason, which is a much nicer way
to try to run society anyhow. :)

--
Benjamin Lewis

Now is the time for all good men to come to.
-- Walt Kelly
 
Benjamin Lewis wrote:
> [email protected] wrote:
>
>
>>Thanks for your post. Of all the posts thus far, this is
>>the only one that attempted to justify the argument. I
>>think I'll still argue that it's a newsreader issue. And
>>the fact that different newsreaders encourage one form of
>>posting over the other says to me that there is a large
>>difference of opinion on the subject.
>
>
> I believe you have your cause and effect backwards. Before
> a certain occurrence of a single newsreader with 90% (or
> something) of the market share, top posting was a much
> rarer beast than it is today.

Which unfortunately is the way of the world. The gorilla
gets the banana. In two years (+/-) everyone will be telling
you to quit bottom posting! :)

>
>
>>I find that inteleaving is the worst form of response.
>>Unfortunately, sometimes it's necessary. The problem with
>>this is that now you end up with no clear time sequence to
>>the thread.
>
>
> On the contrary, there is an extremely clear,
> unambiguous time sequence, provided that no one top
> posts. Every response occurs chronologically after the
> quote block directly above it, and this is recursive.
> This is the easiest possible time sequence for us to
> read, since we are used to reading from top down, and it
> puts responses to particular points physically closer
> together in the script.
>
Now if this thread continues over the course of a couple
weeks, all these inlne responses will be lost in the noise
of bottom posted responses. That is unless everyone posts
inline in response.

> It is in my feeling, although I can't prove it, that the
> people who argue against top-posting tend to be those
> who've thought about the issue carefully, and that
> arguments for top-posting tend to be knee-jerk defenses of
> they way the arguer was originally encouraged to do
> things. I see many more people being converted from top-
> posting to bottom-posting than the other direction, which
> I feel strongly supports my argument, at least to myself.
>

No knee-jerk reaction here. All my mail responses are top
posted, and all the people I deal with at work & outside top
post. We've all read the previous posts so the next one down
is what we are responding to. If there is more information
needed, then we just scroll down to find
it. If not, then it's just forwarded on as supporting
material for the note. Works fine.

>
>>Personally, I will be bottom posting for a while to see
>>how I feel on the issue. If I find it revolting then I
>>will revert to top-posting. This to me is a "religion"
>>issue, and I'm really not religious.
>
>
> Well, we certainly can't force you. We can only try to
> encourage you to appeal to reason, which is a much nicer
> way to try to run society anyhow. :)
>

Wow, a civil society. I love it!

Enjoy your day, Matt
 
ML <[email protected]> wrote in message
[email protected]

[...]

> Now if this thread continues over the course of a couple
> weeks, all these inlne responses will be lost in the noise
> of bottom posted responses. That is unless everyone posts
> inline in response.

Inline posting is merely a variation of bottom-posting. The
answer still follows the question.

[...]

> No knee-jerk reaction here. All my mail responses are top
> posted, and all the people I deal with at work & outside
> top post. We've all read the previous posts so the next
> one down is what we are responding to.

Not necessarily. That is an entirely unsafe assumption.

--

A: Top-posters.
B: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet?
 
On Thu, 15 Apr 2004 16:15:12 -0400, ML <[email protected]>
wrote:
>All my mail responses are top posted, and all the people I
>deal with at work & outside top post. We've all read the
>previous posts so the next one down is what we are
>responding to.

Private email is different from public discussion. In these
discussions, not only do you have people reading the thread
who haven't necessarily read any of it before, but each
thread branches off into many sub-threads, all with the same
"Subject:" line.

As a result, when skipping to the next new message, one
often finds one's self in the midst of a sea of branches of
a given thread. The only way to determine who and what the
current message is replying to is to read [part of] the
previous message.

Quoting just enough of the previous message to establish a
clear context results in a clear communication. Quoting it
above the new message doesn't force people to scroll down or
read out-of-order just to figure out whether Joe is replying
to Brad's post or Mike's post -- or whether Joe is replying
to Brad's first post or Brad's third post. The reader finds
out immediately that Joe is replying to Brad's idea that foo
is indeed part of bar but not part of fnord.

All names used in example above are fictional characters,
not based on any people in real life. Any resemblance to
existing people is purely coincidental. Should such a thread
actually exist, I will make absolutely sure to continue
doing whatever it was I was doing anyway.
--
Rick Onanian
 
In article <[email protected]>,
A Muzi <[email protected]> wrote:

>A woman who worked for me twisted the heads off crank
>bolts. More than once. "tightening the **** out of them" is
>a pretty wide range.

Yeah, I suppose I should amend that to say somewhere in the
range between tightening the **** out of em and tight enough
to strip the bolt head. I guess if you don't know what that
range is from experience, then you might want to get a
torque wrench.

I know it's a pretty wide range, but since manufacturers
can't even make up their mind about whether the tapers
should be lubed, I suspect that from a practical point of
view, the range of acceptable torque is pretty wide.

The point is that crank bolts don't need the precision of
head bolts on a type 4 VW engine, say. Not that it would
hurt anything, of course, to have that kind of precision,
but if you now you need 30 ft lbs, you can always go press
on the bathroom scale until it reads 30 lbs, and then push
with about that much force on a foot-long socket wrench. Not
precise enough for cylinder head bolts, but for crank bolts,
where undertorquing is far more common, it should get you in
the ballpark, anyways.
--
---
"I never had to pretend I felt the lyrics. I could always
relate to the words."
-- Teddy Pendergrass
 
A quick scan on the various topics floating at
rec.bicycles.tech will always show several topics involving
fastener tension (cranks loosening, chainring bolts, spoke
tension). There is a range of "correct" or acceptable torque
for any bolt. The idea of torque is to arrive at enough
tension in the fastener. If you could simply pull on the
bolt enough with your fingers, and run the nut down, it
would work as well. There are more accurate ways than a
torque wrench for determining thread tension. However, a
torque wrench is simply the most practical.

Again, a torque wrench in only a measuring tool. Using a
torque wrench cannot replace thinking and paying attention,
but it does give mechanics of all types a common language.
Working with a torque wrench can help a mechanic develop a
sense of what 360 inch pounds (many crank bots), or 4 inch
pounds (Hollowtech II crank caps) "feels" like. Experience
with measured torque will allow useful conversations between
mechanics themselves, and between engineers/manufacturers
and mechanics. Without knowledge or experience in torque, it
seems we will continue to exchange poetic verse, such as
"tighten the **** out of it", "snug it up", "thumb tight",
"loosey goosey", "pretty tight", or, "%@!$! Tight".
 
In article <[email protected]>,
[email protected] (Calvin Jones) wrote:

snip Without knowledge or experience in torque, it seems we
> will continue to exchange poetic verse, such as "tighten
> the **** out of it", "snug it up", "thumb tight", "loosey
> goosey", "pretty tight", or, "%@!$! Tight".

Great! You have a torque wrench from ShelBroCo too!

http://sheldonbrown.com/tork-grip.html

HAND

--
³Freedom Is a Light for Which Many Have Died in Darkness³

- Tomb of the unknown - American Revolution
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

highcadence
Are torque wrenches necessary for home bike maintenance?
Replies
11
Views
223
Cycling Equipment
highcadence
highcadence
K
Torque wrenches
Replies
16
Views
633
Cycling Equipment
Bob
B
T
Hex wrenches to fit torque wrench
Replies
9
Views
522
Cycling Equipment
Jasper Janssen
J
Q
Torque Wrenches
Replies
14
Views
713
Cycling Equipment
Alex Rodriguez
A
Q
Re: Torque wrenches
Replies
2
Views
846
Cycling Equipment
Qui si parla Campagnolo
Q
Top Bottom Back