....I think answers to questions, if asked in good faith, should be given with those things in mind. ....
I think it was supposed to be a jab but I'll take it as a compliment..
Yeah well, I thought I did the whole patient, benefit of the doubt, good faith answer thing, a couple times,
but it didn't work. (Of course certain people wouldn't know that if they didn't take the time to read all of my posts.)
When it got to "you owe me an answer because you have a degree and I don't and here's what teachers are supposed to do for student" it was just too much. My company used to charge CIA and NSA $150/hr for my time; I'm sure as hell not donating that to the citizens of Australia without a good reason. :lipsrsealed:
So then I pulled out the 2x4.
Seriously, the Q&A-by-forum-post method of learning this stuff simply
will not work in this case. The lack of understanding is simply too profound, the questions formulated too badly, and the impatience for a quick answer too embedded. My advice to read books (and I was not the only one to make that comment) was not intended to blow him off, it was intended to save him a lot of time and get him to a point where he could make his own good decisions. I thought I was doing him a favor. I still do.
When a newcomer walks into a technical area with the idea that it's a lot simpler than it really is, the teacher has two problems, first to back the student out of the "over-simplifying" mentality, and then to begin the teaching process. I know from long experience with sales and marketing people in a technical environment that the newcomer does not want to hear that he's into something deeper than he thought, and I understand that feeling. So that first task always generates huge resistance from the student. Upshot: it's just too much for this communication format to bear.
What he's getting is a lot of good but diffuse advice mixed in with comments based on anecdotal experience, because the fundamental parameters of the problem he's trying to solve haven't been articulated, and because the choices aren't being discussed in abstract terms. I know everybody thinks they're helping but I really think they aren't except in an
extremely inefficient way. Even if we got to a decison, let's say Windsor, then we're going into "webers or 4-bbl", and then "which camshaft" and then "what compression ratio". Clutches, transaxles, brakes, ... It's never going to end until an understanding of the underlying principles are in place. Excuse me but I have other ideas of what to do with the rest of my retirement.
Anyhow yes the unconditional unlimited common courtesy comment was a jab, but not at you....
I was serious about the phone call thing, but you're the only member or thread participant in "the land of wonder" that I could think of right then.
But more importantly I
really really think the vendors or potential vendors should be doing this.
It's their job. If I were with RCR Australia I'd be calling George every day (at least, once I'd qualified him as a viable cu$tomer

).