OT: 3D printing...

[Don Y]

I assume (?) there are differences in mechanical strength
of the printed item relative to forces exerted along vs.
normal to the laminations. Is this a significant difference
(i.e., one that would suggest printing in one orientation
over another)?

Also, does this (?) generality apply to all materials?
Or, some moreso than others?

 

[DJ Delorie]

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> writes:

I assume (?) there are differences in mechanical strength
of the printed item relative to forces exerted along vs.
normal to the laminations. Is this a significant difference
(i.e., one that would suggest printing in one orientation
over another)?

Yes. 3D prints tend to break between layers. CNC Kitchen and Thomas
Sanladerer on Youtube have done many videos comparing such.

Also, does this (?) generality apply to all materials?
Or, some moreso than others?

Mostly, yes. Some have better layer adhesion than others (PETG is
better than PLA, for example, but there are some even better) but it\'s
rare that it\'s \"as good as injection molded strength\".

 

[Clifford Heath]

On 21/03/23 08:14, Don Y wrote:

I assume (?) there are differences in mechanical strength
of the printed item relative to forces exerted along vs.
normal to the laminations.  Is this a significant difference
(i.e., one that would suggest printing in one orientation
over another)?

Also, does this (?) generality apply to all materials?
Or, some moreso than others?

Yes.

 

[Don Y]

On 3/20/2023 2:57 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> writes:
I assume (?) there are differences in mechanical strength
of the printed item relative to forces exerted along vs.
normal to the laminations. Is this a significant difference
(i.e., one that would suggest printing in one orientation
over another)?

Yes. 3D prints tend to break between layers. CNC Kitchen and Thomas
Sanladerer on Youtube have done many videos comparing such.

This suggests it is likely more the norm than the exception (?).
Thanks, I will chase down their videos to see what specifics they
can add.

Also, does this (?) generality apply to all materials?
Or, some moreso than others?

Mostly, yes. Some have better layer adhesion than others (PETG is
better than PLA, for example, but there are some even better) but it\'s
rare that it\'s \"as good as injection molded strength\".

I wouldn\'t expect the same performance as an injected molded
part. But, if it is common enough to be a noteworthy
problem, then I\'m probably better off pursuing a different
technology.

Thanks!

 

[Martin Brown]

On 21/03/2023 01:35, Don Y wrote:

On 3/20/2023 2:57 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> writes:
I assume (?) there are differences in mechanical strength
of the printed item relative to forces exerted along vs.
normal to the laminations.  Is this a significant difference
(i.e., one that would suggest printing in one orientation
over another)?

Yes.  3D prints tend to break between layers.  CNC Kitchen and Thomas
Sanladerer on Youtube have done many videos comparing such.

This suggests it is likely more the norm than the exception (?).
Thanks, I will chase down their videos to see what specifics they
can add.

I think it will depend a lot on how much sheer force the part is likely
to suffer along the planes of printing. You invariably see edge
artefacts and on cheaper printers that don\'t enclose the workspace a
cold draft can make some parts much weaker than others.

It is a fine line between setting to solid and still being soft enough
to bond with the next layer. Enclosed units with heated beds seem to
manage this interlayer bonding a bit better than cheaper models.

I\'ve not seen any fail this way but the printer I cadge time on is
fairly high end heated bed and has a tame skilled operator. He spends
most of his time printing archaeological artefacts on it so any
foreigners tend to come out bone coloured or black by default.

Also, does this (?) generality apply to all materials?
Or, some moreso than others?

Mostly, yes.  Some have better layer adhesion than others (PETG is
better than PLA, for example, but there are some even better) but it\'s
rare that it\'s \"as good as injection molded strength\".

I wouldn\'t expect the same performance as an injected molded
part.  But, if it is common enough to be a noteworthy
problem, then I\'m probably better off pursuing a different
technology.

You could always make the master part that way and then use the
equivalent of lost wax casting to make a conventional mould from it -
provided that you obey the rules for a makable part in a convex mould.

--
Martin Brown

 

[Jasen Betts]

On 2023-03-20, Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

I assume (?) there are differences in mechanical strength
of the printed item relative to forces exerted along vs.
normal to the laminations. Is this a significant difference
(i.e., one that would suggest printing in one orientation
over another)?

Yes.

Also, does this (?) generality apply to all materials?
Or, some moreso than others?

Mostly for FDM printers, and then moreso to reinforced material,
because it is deposited in a stream parallel to the layer boundaries.

--
Jasen.
🇺🇦 Слава Україні

 

[Phil Hobbs]

On 2023-03-21 05:10, Martin Brown wrote:

On 21/03/2023 01:35, Don Y wrote:
On 3/20/2023 2:57 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:
Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> writes:
I assume (?) there are differences in mechanical strength
of the printed item relative to forces exerted along vs.
normal to the laminations.  Is this a significant difference
(i.e., one that would suggest printing in one orientation
over another)?

Yes.  3D prints tend to break between layers.  CNC Kitchen and Thomas
Sanladerer on Youtube have done many videos comparing such.

This suggests it is likely more the norm than the exception (?).
Thanks, I will chase down their videos to see what specifics they
can add.

I think it will depend a lot on how much sheer force the part is likely
to suffer along the planes of printing. You invariably see edge
artefacts and on cheaper printers that don\'t enclose the workspace a
cold draft can make some parts much weaker than others.

It is a fine line between setting to solid and still being soft enough
to bond with the next layer. Enclosed units with heated beds seem to
manage this interlayer bonding a bit better than cheaper models.

I\'ve not seen any fail this way but the printer I cadge time on is
fairly high end heated bed and has a tame skilled operator. He spends
most of his time printing archaeological artefacts on it so any
foreigners tend to come out bone coloured or black by default.

Also, does this (?) generality apply to all materials?
Or, some moreso than others?

Mostly, yes.  Some have better layer adhesion than others (PETG is
better than PLA, for example, but there are some even better) but it\'s
rare that it\'s \"as good as injection molded strength\".

I wouldn\'t expect the same performance as an injected molded
part.  But, if it is common enough to be a noteworthy
problem, then I\'m probably better off pursuing a different
technology.

You could always make the master part that way and then use the
equivalent of lost wax casting to make a conventional mould from it -
provided that you obey the rules for a makable part in a convex mould.

My late lamented 1992 Saturn had an engine block that was cast using a
lost-foam process--the core was injection-moulded from polyurethane
foam, then investment cast to make the aluminum block.

The level of detail was impressive--you could see the characteristic
starburst dot patten of the foam, reproduced in aluminum.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

--
Dr Philip C D Hobbs
Principal Consultant
ElectroOptical Innovations LLC / Hobbs ElectroOptics
Optics, Electro-optics, Photonics, Analog Electronics
Briarcliff Manor NY 10510

http://electrooptical.net
http://hobbs-eo.com

 

[olaf]

DJ Delorie <dj@delorie.com> wrote:

Mostly, yes. Some have better layer adhesion than others (PETG is
better than PLA, for example, but there are some even better) but it\'s
rare that it\'s \"as good as injection molded strength\".

I did some printing with TPU. That material is unbelievable strong.

I can print handcuff with 5mm diameter and you can not break them. .-)

Olaf

 

[olaf]

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

I wouldn\'t expect the same performance as an injected molded
part. But, if it is common enough to be a noteworthy
problem, then I\'m probably better off pursuing a different
technology.

It is possible to print with carbon fiber loaded nylon or PETG if
money is not your first problem.

Olaf

 

[Robert Roland]

On Mon, 20 Mar 2023 14:14:16 -0700, Don Y
<blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> wrote:

I assume (?) there are differences in mechanical strength
of the printed item relative to forces exerted along vs.
normal to the laminations. Is this a significant difference
(i.e., one that would suggest printing in one orientation
over another)?

There is a difference. Whether or not it is significant, does, of
course, depend.

The problem is often referred to as \"layer adhesion\", should you want
to research it further.

Choosing the orientation also depends. Strength is not always the only
parameter to worry about. Sometimes, a part can be printed without
support material in one direction, but not in another. Other times,
the part will only fit inside the print envelope in one particular
orientation.

As with any manufacturing process, it is a big advantage if the part
can be designed with 3D-printing in mind (design for manufacture).
That way, compromises can be balanced to get the best possible result.

Also, does this (?) generality apply to all materials?
Or, some moreso than others?

There is definitely a difference between materials. I seem to remember
having heard that PA (Nylon) offers very strong layer adhesion.
--
RoRo

 

[Tabby]

On Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 15:15:10 UTC, olaf wrote:

Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote:

I wouldn\'t expect the same performance as an injected molded
part. But, if it is common enough to be a noteworthy
problem, then I\'m probably better off pursuing a different
technology.
It is possible to print with carbon fiber loaded nylon or PETG if
money is not your first problem.

Olaf

Yes, but carbon loaded filament is not a win on strength.

 

[Don Y]

On 3/21/2023 2:10 AM, Martin Brown wrote:

Also, does this (?) generality apply to all materials?
Or, some moreso than others?

Mostly, yes.  Some have better layer adhesion than others (PETG is
better than PLA, for example, but there are some even better) but it\'s
rare that it\'s \"as good as injection molded strength\".

I wouldn\'t expect the same performance as an injected molded
part.  But, if it is common enough to be a noteworthy
problem, then I\'m probably better off pursuing a different
technology.

You could always make the master part that way and then use the equivalent of
lost wax casting to make a conventional mould from it - provided that you obey
the rules for a makable part in a convex mould.

Yeah, that\'s always the problem; the manufacturability of a
particular design requires a commitment to *how* you plan on
manufacturing the item. So, prototyping on a printer may get
you something to hold and play with -- but, it doesn\'t get you
any closer to having a manufacturable design. It\'s almost
better to make that decision up front and commit the resources
to \"doing it right\".

I\'m having a hard time leveraging printing technology in any
meaningful way, other than as a glorified dog-and-pony. Like
building an architectural model of a structure out of foam-core
which does nothing to illustrate how the real structure
would/could be built.

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 9:23:31 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:

On Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 15:15:10 UTC, olaf wrote:
Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote:

I wouldn\'t expect the same performance as an injected molded
part. But, if it is common enough to be a noteworthy
problem, then I\'m probably better off pursuing a different
technology.
It is possible to print with carbon fiber loaded nylon or PETG if
money is not your first problem.

Yes, but carbon loaded filament is not a win on strength.

Carbon fibre is remarkably strong - better than steel for the same weight. It\'s not clear that you can get enough carbon fibre into a 3-D printed part to beat something 3-D printed by laser-fusing steel powder.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[DJ Delorie]

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> writes:

So, prototyping on a printer may get you something to hold and play
with . . .

and see if it fits properly and functions as expected. Most of my \"art\"
bucket has parts that weren\'t quite the right shape, size, or were
missing a feature that wasn\'t obviously needed until you saw it in
place.

3D printed parts are also typically strong enough to test with, although
you have to be careful to stay within its strength envelope.

My electric motorcycle project has lots of 3D printed parts, typically
non-structural brackets and mount points for electronics et al.

I\'m having a hard time leveraging printing technology in any
meaningful way,

Yeah, it\'s not for everyone. There *are* projects where having a
prototype overnight, even if you just try it in place then throw it
away, is definitely worth it. Even if it\'s just to \"hold in your hand\"
- well, if it\'s a handle, that\'s the only way to test it

At the other end of the spectrum, with SLM metal printing, 3D printing
*is* how you manufacture the parts.

 

[Don Y]

On 3/22/2023 10:20 PM, DJ Delorie wrote:

Don Y <blockedofcourse@foo.invalid> writes:
So, prototyping on a printer may get you something to hold and play
with . . .

and see if it fits properly and functions as expected.

But, if the shape of the part had to change to be 3D printed -- or,
WILL have to change to be cast, molded, etc. -- then all of that
is suspect.

I recall building prototypes for hand tools -- only to find
something very different when the modelshop got done rendering
it into a manufacturable form.

Similarly, I can recall trying to approximate the behavior of
semi-custom and full custom parts using COTS components...
yeah, you can get the functionality approximately correct
but AC characteristics, impedances, etc. weren\'t even close.
So, anything that interfaced with it had to be assumed as
correct -- until First Silicon was available.

Most of my \"art\"
bucket has parts that weren\'t quite the right shape, size, or were
missing a feature that wasn\'t obviously needed until you saw it in
place.

3D printed parts are also typically strong enough to test with, although
you have to be careful to stay within its strength envelope.

My electric motorcycle project has lots of 3D printed parts, typically
non-structural brackets and mount points for electronics et al.

Those would all fall into the \"I need something of this size/shape\"
category -- they don\'t have to do much \"work\". You likely wouldn\'t
print a *wheel*. Or, fork.

I\'m having a hard time leveraging printing technology in any
meaningful way,

Yeah, it\'s not for everyone. There *are* projects where having a
prototype overnight, even if you just try it in place then throw it
away, is definitely worth it. Even if it\'s just to \"hold in your hand\"
- well, if it\'s a handle, that\'s the only way to test it

At the other end of the spectrum, with SLM metal printing, 3D printing
*is* how you manufacture the parts.

 

[Tabby]

On Sunday, 2 April 2023 at 04:19:49 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 2:32:46 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote:
On Saturday, 1 April 2023 at 14:31:34 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 7:12:31 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Friday, 31 March 2023 at 04:24:40 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:23:00 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Thursday, 30 March 2023 at 04:21:29 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 9:35:07 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 March 2023 at 06:45:19 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 3:15:20 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 06:22:37 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 3:45:13 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 04:36:47 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 10:32:52 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Friday, 24 March 2023 at 15:01:50 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 11:41:44 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 03:11:31 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 9:23:31 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 15:15:10 UTC, olaf wrote:
Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote:

I wouldn\'t expect the same performance as an injected molded
part. But, if it is common enough to be a noteworthy
problem, then I\'m probably better off pursuing a different
technology.
It is possible to print with carbon fiber loaded nylon or PETG if
money is not your first problem.

Yes, but carbon loaded filament is not a win on strength.

Carbon fibre is remarkably strong - better than steel for the same weight. It\'s not clear that you can get enough carbon fibre into a 3-D printed part to beat something 3-D printed by laser-fusing steel powder.

Commercially available Carbon fibre loaded filament is a much different animal to fibre mat impregnated with resin. Testing shows plain non-fibre plastic filament to be stronger.

Incompetents can always misuse materials. Trust Tabby to fixate on what some incompetent idiot - probably him - has got wrong.

another bs based ego fuelled comment from Sloman

Tabby\'s ego make it hard for him to accept what an obviously incompetent idiot he is. He does lash out when it is pointed out.

No need. I\'ve seen the tests. C fibre bearing filament doesn\'t work in terms of improving strength. It\'s not hard to work out why.

The fibres won\'t cross from one printed layer to the next. The individual elements may be stronger, but they don\'t bond any better to the next layer.
What\'s required are hairy filaments, but so far that is in the too hard basket, and Tabby is too dumb to be able to spell that out.

Yup, so you get thin layers of plastic without effective reinforcement. IIRC even within layers it wasn\'t effective, meaning the fibres are too short.

He edited the quoted text to make it look like I was saying yes to being dumb. That\'s funnily pathetic.

Tabby formated his response to evade the fact that I\'d pointed out that he was being dumb. He didn\'t argue the point - just made it less salient.

That really was pathetic.

I didn\'t waste my time on your childishness that time. But your deliberate misquote was too funny.

It wasn\'t any kind of misquote. I merely undid your test-chopping (which was childish).

lol. anyone can see what you did.

And what you did. If they have more sense than you they should be able to work out why I undid it.

Why are you so insecure & so desperate?

I don\'t recognise myself in that description.

doesn\'t surprise me

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 6:38:14 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote:

On Sunday, 2 April 2023 at 04:19:49 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 2:32:46 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote:
On Saturday, 1 April 2023 at 14:31:34 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 7:12:31 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Friday, 31 March 2023 at 04:24:40 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:23:00 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Thursday, 30 March 2023 at 04:21:29 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 9:35:07 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 March 2023 at 06:45:19 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 3:15:20 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 06:22:37 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 3:45:13 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 04:36:47 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 10:32:52 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Friday, 24 March 2023 at 15:01:50 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 11:41:44 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 03:11:31 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 9:23:31 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 15:15:10 UTC, olaf wrote:
Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote:

<snip>

It wasn\'t any kind of misquote. I merely undid your test-chopping (which was childish).

lol. anyone can see what you did.

And what you did. If they have more sense than you they should be able to work out why I undid it.

Why are you so insecure & so desperate?

I don\'t recognise myself in that description.

doesn\'t surprise me

More text-chopping.

What I actually posted was. \"I don\'t recognise myself in that description. Perhaps you are projecting.\"

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney

 

[Tabby]

On Tuesday, 4 April 2023 at 03:54:32 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:

On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 6:38:14 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote:
On Sunday, 2 April 2023 at 04:19:49 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 2:32:46 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote:
On Saturday, 1 April 2023 at 14:31:34 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 7:12:31 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Friday, 31 March 2023 at 04:24:40 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:23:00 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Thursday, 30 March 2023 at 04:21:29 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 9:35:07 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 March 2023 at 06:45:19 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 3:15:20 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 06:22:37 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 3:45:13 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 04:36:47 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 10:32:52 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Friday, 24 March 2023 at 15:01:50 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 11:41:44 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 03:11:31 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 9:23:31 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 15:15:10 UTC, olaf wrote:
Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote:
snip
It wasn\'t any kind of misquote. I merely undid your test-chopping (which was childish).

lol. anyone can see what you did.

And what you did. If they have more sense than you they should be able to work out why I undid it.

Why are you so insecure & so desperate?

I don\'t recognise myself in that description.

doesn\'t surprise me
More text-chopping.

What I actually posted was. \"I don\'t recognise myself in that description.. Perhaps you are projecting.\"

yes, it\'s normal to snip material one is not replying to in newsgroups. Speaking of which, your future time wasting here is now snipped

 

[Anthony William Sloman]

On Wednesday, April 5, 2023 at 6:08:58 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote:

On Tuesday, 4 April 2023 at 03:54:32 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, April 4, 2023 at 6:38:14 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote:
On Sunday, 2 April 2023 at 04:19:49 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Sunday, April 2, 2023 at 2:32:46 AM UTC+10, Tabby wrote:
On Saturday, 1 April 2023 at 14:31:34 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Saturday, April 1, 2023 at 7:12:31 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Friday, 31 March 2023 at 04:24:40 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, March 31, 2023 at 9:23:00 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Thursday, 30 March 2023 at 04:21:29 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, March 30, 2023 at 9:35:07 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Wednesday, 29 March 2023 at 06:45:19 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Wednesday, March 29, 2023 at 3:15:20 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 06:22:37 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 3:45:13 PM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Tuesday, 28 March 2023 at 04:36:47 UTC+1, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Tuesday, March 28, 2023 at 10:32:52 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Friday, 24 March 2023 at 15:01:50 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Friday, March 24, 2023 at 11:41:44 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Thursday, 23 March 2023 at 03:11:31 UTC, Anthony William Sloman wrote:
On Thursday, March 23, 2023 at 9:23:31 AM UTC+11, Tabby wrote:
On Tuesday, 21 March 2023 at 15:15:10 UTC, olaf wrote:
Don Y <blocked...@foo.invalid> wrote:
snip
It wasn\'t any kind of misquote. I merely undid your test-chopping (which was childish).

lol. anyone can see what you did.

And what you did. If they have more sense than you they should be able to work out why I undid it.

Why are you so insecure & so desperate?

I don\'t recognise myself in that description.

doesn\'t surprise me
More text-chopping.

What I actually posted was. \"I don\'t recognise myself in that description. Perhaps you are projecting.\"

Yes, it\'s normal to snip material one is not replying to in newsgroups. Speaking of which, your future time wasting here is now snipped.

Tabby seems to want the admiration he can\'t earn - which is also John Larkin\'s problem - and resents the criticism that he does earn, so he snips it without marking the snip. Posters normally mark the snip when they find parts of the post they are responding to be irrelevant to their response.

Text-choppers like Tabby just leave out the bits they can\'t answer.

--
Bill Sloman, Sydney