|
Title: Irrelevant Post by: ddillenger on February 02, 2016, 10:11:48 AM I don't know where that misinformation originated from, but I've used that particular EEPROM on many ECUs and it's worked fine. http://nefariousmotorsports.com/forum/index.php?topic=9746.0;topicseen If you don't know something to be a fact, don't state it as such. I'll shitcan your ass for misinformation so fast your head will spin. Title: Irrelevant Post by: gman86 on February 03, 2016, 09:31:10 AM The fact remains, I've used that EEPROM on two separate ECUs (other than its original) and it worked fine.
I see you've felt the need to re-bring this up after quoting your original post, I suspect you're trying to get a rise. I'm afraid the keyboard gangsterism is strong for a 31 year old.. Please do not be under any illusion that being "shitcanned" would affect me in the slightest. If you want to be a smart arse, point out where I "stated it as fact". I shared an experience. Whether it's been luck or otherwise, that's regardless. I think the only head spinning here is from your own self importance. Title: Irrelevant Post by: everydayparadise on February 03, 2016, 11:03:04 AM Did you load the EEPROM on 1K0 ECU's or just 8P0 ECU's?
Title: Irrelevant Post by: ddillenger on February 03, 2016, 11:56:01 AM The fact remains, I've used that EEPROM on two separate ECUs (other than its original) and it worked fine. I see you've felt the need to re-bring this up after quoting your original post, I suspect you're trying to get a rise. I'm afraid the keyboard gangsterism is strong for a 31 year old.. Please do not be under any illusion that being "shitcanned" would affect me in the slightest. If you want to be a smart arse, point out where I "stated it as fact". I shared an experience. Whether it's been luck or otherwise, that's regardless. I think the only head spinning here is from your own self importance. You specifically classified my comment as misinformation. When you do that, you are certifying something as correct. Had you said, "In my experience this is not required" it would have been an entirely different conversation. You did not. Instead, you stated for fact that which is not true. That's how "misinformation" get's spread. Do you understand? There is no ego involved here. My job is to keep "misinformation" from spreading. If that extends to removing you, so be it. Title: Irrelevant Post by: gman86 on February 03, 2016, 01:23:54 PM You specifically classified my comment as misinformation. When you do that, you are certifying something as correct. Had you said, "In my experience this is not required" it would have been an entirely different conversation. You did not. Instead, you stated for fact that which is not true. That's how "misinformation" get's spread. Do you understand? There is no ego involved here. My job is to keep "misinformation" from spreading. If that extends to removing you, so be it. You're not exactly in a position to give lessons in semantics with a post like that There were a hundred different ways you could have worded your last post, as perhaps could have I. The difference is, I'm not trying to swing my "ban hammer" penis in an attempt to try establish myself. Going by your last few posts, it's very clear there is an ego involved here. If banning folk for stuff like that gets your wee internet dick hard - go ahead. Folk like you make forums like this shit. The quality of information you bring to a forum is heavily diluted by the fact you are, quite simply, a cunt. Title: Re: Irrelevant Post by: ddillenger on February 03, 2016, 03:13:11 PM Egos aside.
Bottom line: You discounted my accurate post as misinformation, then posted your limited experience as fact. It's irresponsible, and has no place here. |