both of those points also true for me.I agree, the question serves as intro.pique! :-) I consider the title to be intro to the intro. I've repeatedly often read many times that repetition is a recommended communication technique (method, strategy, tool, modus operandi, tactic, approach.. hmm, i need a better thesaurus.)OTOH, you mentioned the need for verbosity vs readers' attentiveness problem. When my topic is unavoidably verbose, my best compromise is: I compose my 1st post already intending to fit further detail into *my* replies to readers' replies.

ahh, but perhaps that engine is not truly Metric. It might have been built in furlongs cubed, then labeled as 50cc. I betcha didn't think of that, didja?

i COMMAND you to provide a solution

I've always heard the only stupid question is the one you don't ask.

If you don't know something but you're afraid to show your ignorance by asking you're the one who suffers. Remember ignorance can be cured but stupidity can't. Although I've seen many a poster who acted as if he was born knowing what he knows the plain truth is no one was born knowing anything.

To digress a little from the original topic ...

Does it bug you if people start their message with something like :
WTF !

{ Yes you've got the kit, but what can you do with it ?
From your tone it appears that you need to calm down a wee bit.
This is a big subject involving many, many variables.
Do you know what a variable is ?
Well, back when people were young and life was easy, a few guys came up with a few ideas about automatic calculating machines. This idea grew and was transformed by the invention of the transistor. Since then, it's all been about on||off....}

It's about this stage that people stop listening.

But unless they understand what it is that they are dealing with (and by the attitude of the message, they don't..., they can never truly appreciate what they're doing, and what is happening. Sure you make a language as high level as you like, but that's not open source, surely ?
The aim of every answer (IMHO) is to cause the OP never to have to ask a question about that issue again. But how can you do that if the answer isn't "click this, select that" ?

little worlds, little worlds ...

Actually in the case you mention I blame the "friend" more than the poster. The poster is displaying his ignorance but letting you know his friend is stupid because he "thought" he knew what he was talking about.

I don't mind correcting misapprehensions in a post so long as the OP doesn't argue with those corrections. What really gets me are the folks that post something then argue with your response instead of realizing that your response was generated by what they posted. These folks often fall into one of two categories:
1) They asked the wrong question. In such a case I'll respond again - the likelihood I'll also tell them they need to be more polite (not always in polite terms) depends on how polite they were in the follow up.
2) They think they know it all already in which case my question is always "Then why did this putz have to ask a question?". I may or may not respond asking them that very thing. Sometimes the OP comes off their high horse and admits they were in error and you can continue the thread to conclusion.

I don't really mind having multiple posts to conclusion so long as each post seems to be getting somewhere (e.g. they add new information requested or restate questions showing they have a glimmer of what was wrong with their original question.)

A solution to what... ???

by the way its highly unusual to be cammanded by an unknown... you are judged by your works and results not your grasp of waffle...