Quote:
Originally Posted by joedoh
nope. nope nope. being technically correct is the best kind of correct, but what you are describing is, if someone asked how long an engine was and you gave them a dimension, and then they found out they needed the extra for the trans mount because the cummins mounts higher in the engine compartment to clear the front suspension, you saying "well you just asked how long the ENGINE was". wont be a lot of solace. in reverse, they will be losing 5 inches of footwell they thought they could keep.
in the same vein, I did shipping layout work for china containers and if I gave a dimension I knew wouldnt possibly fit because it was exactly the correct answer, it would be revealed as they loaded the container and it would be my last day on the job.
|
man you're something else. It's ok to be wrong. It really is. 'technically correct' vs correct. That's a new one.
so you take a dimension which is known(fact) and add your opinion on to it(some amount of fluff), and label it as 'technically correct'.
in your 'technically correct' answer you assume the cummins will interfere with the front suspension and assumed this will cause it to move up. You assumed a different oil pan arrangement can't be fitted. What if these aren't valid assumptions? Maybe the bare number with no safety factor was just fine and the user can see how to best apply margin? oh man, riveting.
the best part is you then argue that your 'technically correct' value, shot from the hip while 'laying over the top' is more correct than an engineered drawing.
thats epic. I will have to share this with co-workers and friends. They will get a kick out of it.
he wasn't wrong, he was technically correct. Did you try this argument in college? I bet the instructors loved it.
when I took my PE, if I would have failed I guess I could have petitioned the board on being technically correct. They would have still giving me my license right?
wow. Enjoy your time bud. I now understand all of your posting.