OK I did transmission fluid flush on my 02 4.4i

[JCL]

Sunny:

The multi-quoting is getting difficult to follow. In one combined and relatively short post:

I never implied you were trying to deceive others. You are incorrect in that claim. I said it was difficult for me to follow it, because of the editing. The editing I witnessed myself. I provided you a time stamp if you have forgotten. I can't comment on whether others were deceived or confused. You would have to ask them. Some of them have posted their thoughts, but it is probably better if you ask them directly.

I don't have moderator privileges here, so I cannot undelete your messages or portions of messages and thus provide proof to you. Readers (other than you and I) are going to have to decide what to believe.

You wrote: "....you appear to have a poor grasp on the language given you're having such a difficult time understand the simple concepts I've written. There's nothing insulting about that." OK. Sounds insulting to me. Maybe the subtlety was lost in writing it.

The examples that I referred to in previous posts were from a shop I worked in, as you know. I previously explained to you that you can't have customer's and employee's names. I understand your request perfectly, I just won't play your game. You are anonymous here (at least to me, not sure about others), why would you expect real data? It isn't second hand info in my case, heard from a friend of a friend or read on a message board. It is from working on transmissions. It follows that since I was involved in working on those transmissions, that I know whether the transmission had pre-existing problems or not. I know if the correct fluid was used or not. And those examples, to the extent they exist, are not part of the data set under discussion. Your proof is a third hand reference to an anonymous mechanic who worked in a BMW dealership, where technicians typically aren't trained to fix transmissions. You say that I have to provide proof, but you don't (that is your particular strawman for this argument). Sorry. Again, readers are going to have to decide what to believe.

I disagree with you that a topic that has an apparent consensus cannot continue to be beaten to death. That is simply because consensus doesn't imply unanimity. I got that from my English language training, by the way. It only takes a few (or one persistent person) to continue to beat it.

Maybe we should go back to the famous "worst of the worst" thread and revisit whether the BMW driving experience is part of the feature set, and why can't BMWs be as reliable as Hondas for the same price? That was an entertaining one as well.

Have a nice day.

Jeff (Now less anonymous)

[sunny5280]

Originally Posted by JCL

Sunny:

The multi-quoting is getting difficult to follow. In one combined and relatively short post:

I never implied you were trying to deceive others. You are incorrect in that claim. I said it was difficult for me to follow it, because of the editing.

As I said I typically edit to correct spelling / grammar errors or make slight revisions to a thought in order to convey it better. None of this should have caused you any difficulty in following what I was saying.

With that said you stated I was deleting and modifying posts:

"Yes, it means you were deleting or modifying messages."

You were implying I had done so in an attempt to cover something up. That is being dishonest and I will not accept it when anyone accuses me of doing so, either implicitly or explicitly, without supporting facts. It's a shame because you do make very good points (I even think this theory is sound). But then you go and ruin your credibility with this kind of crap.

[JCL]

Originally Posted by sunny5280

As I said I typically edit to correct spelling / grammar errors or make slight revisions to a thought in order to convey it better. None of this should have caused you any difficulty in following what I was saying.

With that said you stated I was deleting and modifying posts:

"Yes, it means you were deleting or modifying messages."

You were implying I had done so in an attempt to cover something up. That is being dishonest and I will not accept it when anyone accuses me of doing so, either implicitly or explicitly, without supporting facts. It's a shame because you do make very good points (I even think this theory is sound). But then you go and ruin your credibility with this kind of crap.

Sunny:

I find your logical constructs confusing. I find your arguments about transmission fluid changes confusing. I find your insistence that others provide proof, whatever that is, while you sit back and insult others frustrating, but perhaps that is my problem. I have come across posts by you that were changed, while I was responding, and that added to my confusion. But to be fair, I was already struggling to follow your logic and the post editing didn't help. It did stick in my mind, but it wouldn't have been a factor without the initial confusion.

I apologize, I don't think your editing was malicious and I don't think you were trying to deceive.