 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Saab Cars / March 2005Vintage SAAB Quiz: What's wrong with this picture?
There are four things wrong with this picture: http://tinyurl.com/5lcot ... Maybe more? Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ > There are four things wrong with this picture: > http://tinyurl.com/5lcot "GM Powered", it's a Sonett 1, the year is very wrong, and, er, I don't know. Maybe the class is wrong? > ... Maybe more? Probably. What else do folks see? >> There are four things wrong with this picture: >> http://tinyurl.com/5lcot [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > > Probably. What else do folks see? He's quick ... You overlooked a real newbie error :) Yup, "GM Powered" ... Still, it could have been worse if it was running a Ford V4, rather than the DKW. It is a Sonett I ... It's not a 1966 model ... And ... >>> There are four things wrong with this picture: >>> http://tinyurl.com/5lcot [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > Yup, "GM Powered" ... Still, it could have been worse if it was running a > Ford V4, rather than the DKW. Weeeellll, it's not technically a DKW engine at that point, although the internal measurements are identical. It's a Saab block by then. > It is a Sonett I ... It's not a 1966 model ... > And ... Yes, it really is RHD, if that's where you're going? I thought the hood emblem was too new, but it's not... >>>> There are four things wrong with this picture: >>>> http://tinyurl.com/5lcot [quoted text clipped - 13 lines] > Weeeellll, it's not technically a DKW engine at that point, although the > internal measurements are identical. It's a Saab block by then. >> It is a Sonett I ... It's not a 1966 model ... >> And ... > > Yes, it really is RHD, if that's where you're going? I thought the hood > emblem was too new, but it's not... Nope ... More basic than that! REEEEEAAAAALL newbie :) Both you and Johanes know the answer ... You keep writing the word. If I was a bit more clever, I'd write it as a 14 line verse. Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ > Nope ... More basic than that! REEEEEAAAAALL newbie :) Both you and Johanes > know the answer ... You keep writing the word. If I was a bit more clever, > I'd write it as a 14 line verse. Oh, FFS, I see it now. Nice... > >>>> There are four things wrong with this picture: > >>>> http://tinyurl.com/5lcot [quoted text clipped - 25 lines] > > Paul I zeee! And my name is not spellet johanes either. Hmm: Sonnet -> Sonett ? /Per > There are four things wrong with this picture: > http://tinyurl.com/5lcot > > ... Maybe more? I didn't continue looking after the first wrong thing -- the url. The tinyurl entity is *evil* and I will never follow any of their suspect links. | Hide your affiliate URLs | [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] | from the visitor, only the tinyurl.com address and the ending address | will be visible to your visitors. Why should anyone trust these urls after reading this text on tinyurl.com? Please post plain links so we can have a fair chance of pre-judging the contents of the link destination.  SignatureG?ran Larsson http://www.mitt-eget.com/saab/ >> There are four things wrong with this picture: >> http://tinyurl.com/5lcot [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > The tinyurl entity is *evil* and I will never follow any of their > suspect links. If it wasn't someone like Paul, I wouldn't have trusted it to follow it. Could we get back to the original topic? I also noticed the wrong year, Saab I and the GM reference, but what else is wrong? -Dima >>> There are four things wrong with this picture: >>> http://tinyurl.com/5lcot [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] > If it wasn't someone like Paul, I wouldn't have trusted it to follow > it. > I didn't continue looking after the first wrong thing -- the url. > The tinyurl entity is *evil* and I will never follow any of their [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Why should anyone trust these urls after reading this text on tinyurl.com? Because some people aren't overly paranoid? Long URLs are a hassle, especially in email and newsgroups where things can be wrapped unpredictably. Having a nice short URL is convenient because I can copy it from my text-only news reader and paste it to my browser without worrying about line breaks messing things up. > Please post plain links so we can have a fair chance of pre-judging the > contents of the link destination. http://www.pjgh.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/saab/misc/Vintage%20SAAB%20Quiz.jpg >> I didn't continue looking after the first wrong thing -- the url. >> The tinyurl entity is *evil* and I will never follow any of their [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > > Because some people aren't overly paranoid? Long URLs are a hassle, copy/paste works equally well with a character, or a line. > especially in email and newsgroups where things can be wrapped > unpredictably. A URL is pretty easy to recognize wrap in, and to reconstruct. > Having a nice short URL is convenient because I can copy > it from my text-only news reader and paste it to my browser without > worrying about line breaks messing things up. Or, wrap it <like this> and that works too. Or let people fix wrap if their newsreader causes it; this won't be new to them. Goran's point about it being used to hide affiliate links is valid. Someone I know well and trust, such as Paul, I don't worry about that from. Some random link from some random person? Nope, I'll pass. And if it _is_ an affiliate link or the message smells spammy, I'll investigate and report. Amazon, in particular, really really doesn't like affiliates who spam, for instance. > copy/paste works equally well with a character, or a line. True, but I hate having to copy and paste repeatedly, switching back and forth between my web browser and ssh session. In addition, IMHO email and usenet articles should contain lines of no more than 80 characters anyway. > Goran's point about it being used to hide affiliate links is valid. > Someone I know well and trust, such as Paul, I don't worry about that > from. Some random link from some random person? Nope, I'll pass. Perhaps a good compromise would be to provide both the original URL and a shortened version, and let the reader decide which to use. John >> copy/paste works equally well with a character, or a line. > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > Perhaps a good compromise would be to provide both the original URL and a > shortened version, and let the reader decide which to use. Yup, or just know that there's a real and valid reason people don't trust them from unknown sources. >> Please post plain links so we can have a fair chance of pre-judging the >> contents of the link destination. > > http://www.pjgh.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/saab/misc/Vintage%20SAAB%20Quiz.jpg Please post plain links ... Please don't post long links ... Please post both ... Well, what am I to do? Anyway, back to the point in hand since that's obviously going nowhere. What's wrong with the picture in the link that Shane has kindly reposted in full (hopefully it's not wrapped badly for some of your newsreaders, since it is a long link) ... Should I repost his return e-mail address without the *evil* bits? Or is that just pedantic? Well, I can see four things wrong with the picture, so lets get talking SAABs, eh? Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ >>> Please post plain links so we can have a fair chance of pre-judging the >>> contents of the link destination. [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > > Well, what am I to do? Sorry ... That spleen venting wasn't aimed at anyone in particular. My apologies if I offended any of you. I was actually smiling when I typed it, but it doesn't read that way! Paul 1989 900 Turbo S http://saab.go.dyndns.org/ >>> Please post plain links so we can have a fair chance of pre-judging the >>> contents of the link destination. [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > Please don't post long links ... > Please post both ... > Well, what am I to do? Long links aren't really a problem to anyone with even a partial clue, in my opinion. tinyurl's aren't a problem when they're from a trusted person (you, for example), again, in my opinion. > Well, I can see four things wrong with the picture, so lets get talking > SAABs, eh? How'd I do? Dave >>I didn't continue looking after the first wrong thing -- the url. >>The tinyurl entity is *evil* and I will never follow any of their [quoted text clipped - 18 lines] >>Please post plain links so we can have a fair chance of pre-judging the >>contents of the link destination. <http://www.pjgh.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/saab/misc/Vintage%20SAAB%20Quiz.jpg> I agree with being troubled by tinyURLs being the only link posted. As I have demonstrated it helps to bracket the URL with corresponding characters, in most cases this will defeat wordwrap. Best to post both if you can be bothered. Thx for the link in the 1st place though, TBerk > > There are four things wrong with this picture: > > http://tinyurl.com/5lcot [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > > Why should anyone trust these urls after reading this text on tinyurl.com? Seconded! Tinyurl is completely pointless. For security reasons, I never follow a tinyurl. >Seconded! Tinyurl is completely pointless. For security reasons, I never >follow a tinyurl. I'm not sure there's any security value to _not_ following a tinyurl. It's no more "good or evil" than any other link you might follow. > >Seconded! Tinyurl is completely pointless. For security reasons, I never > >follow a tinyurl. > > I'm not sure there's any security value to _not_ following a tinyurl. > It's no more "good or evil" than any other link you might follow. But they are still pointless. As you said: "I'm are not sure...". In fact that's the whole point! We don't know every weakness in our OS, browser etc., new security holes are discovered every day. I don't think posters of tinyurl are necessarily ill intended, but displaying the real url allow a second opinion. >>Seconded! Tinyurl is completely pointless. For security reasons, I never >>follow a tinyurl. > > I'm not sure there's any security value to _not_ following a tinyurl. > It's no more "good or evil" than any other link you might follow. Well, let's say I'm at work, and follow one that takes me to a site that my employer has decided needs to be blocked for one of several various legitimate reasons. Now, I've got a "hit" for going somewhere that I shouldn't. If the URL is obfuscated by being hidden in a tinyurl, I don't have knowledge of where I'm going to have informed consent before going there. If you run a good browser (anything but IE) or a secure OS (anything but windows), the actual system security issues are minimized to say the least, but it's just a "I don't know what I'm getting into" kind of thing. Again, from someone like Paul, I'm not going to worry, if it's from someone unknown, I'll ignore it & go on. Defeats the purpose of sharing a link if people won't click on it. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.