View Single Post
Old May 11, 2010 | 03:26 PM
  #52 (permalink)  
rcompart's Avatar
rcompart
Senior Member
Joined: Apr 2008
Posts: 3,178
Likes: 23
From: Chicago, IL
Default Re: LED running lights (Audi replicas)

Originally Posted by Darticus
I really don't know why we are wasting so much space on a thread thats for running lights.
It really would have been much easier if you just allowed the questions posted in one post to be answered, which no one has. Also allow all members to post their questions and maybe we will get better more current answers. Who wants to stay in 2004 anyway its old info. People are sending me private messages supporting me and saying your a small group that jumps on them as well so don't feel bad. You really have some great stuff here and all the members have said follow the treads but don't rock the boat. Why do you guys continue to bust people as it takes longer and just gets bad feelings going between members. Including the loss of members. When I installed rcompart's mod we talked and got along fine. What changed. This is like a high school click thing. As all of you know many back treads have outdated info and I know you would like it brought to the front again, as stated earlier, but why, its mostly outdated. There is a lot of new info available and could be adding to the threads if we weren't researching the old and restricting the new. I have even been frowned on for bringing an old thread forward as at one point. I wanted to learn more about the ricer underbody lights and people didn't like me reading that thread or posting to it. So it really sounds like you are telling people what to read, what not to read , when you should post and when not to post. Does this sound ok to you? Does it sound familiar does it sound right. Maybe I just don't fit with your way of thinking. Maybe an open minded individual should think about whats going on here and comment. If they agree people should be censored than or controlled that will be the ruling. What the big deal! Your killing the fun! Ron
Nothing has changed. If anyone on this forum was doing this, I'd say something. Even if it was FP or any of the other very active members of the forum and I would hope someone would step up to the plate and do the same if it were me. You're dwelling on this like you're trying to prove a point. The point is use your noggin. If someone says search for it, take some time and search for it. If you really put in the effort to search and came up empty, then post your question. Do you see me posting tons of new threads about things I've figured out with this car? No. You know why? Because a lot of what I've figured out has already been asked in past posts and if you put all the relative information together, it makes searching for it a lot easier. Please do everyone on this forum a favor and go about business as you find fit. If it means that we have to avoid you, so be it. I really don't have any beef with you but you're really trying hard to strike a nerve with me and I'm not sure if my posting gives you the impression that it's working but I'm just trying to help you understand where a lot of the members are coming from. Sorry if I've sounded brash as that wasn't the intent, I just you want this place to be easier to use and for everyone to get along and use it together. And the part about people not wanting to read about your curb lights, you have to be thick skinned to be on here and think outside the box. I had people playing devils advocate (to put it nicely) about the Quick Touch Top and how people were going to lose fingers or hands or their kids because of it. If I curled up in a ball over every negative comment, nothing would happen. No one wants to stifle innovation but at the same time, people are very protective of what they think is acceptable. Sometimes you just have to tough it out and other times, present it in a different way or explain your rationale for doing something.

With all this, I hope the mods can make a new thread for this so we can get the clutter out here and get back to the original topic.
 
Reply