...
What I am asking is that we try to stay directly on the OPs question and not expand on it until we hear back from the OP and they ask further questions. Too often I see 20 posts that have great information but are only marginally related to the OPs question before the OP has even returned.
We are asking that if you have info that is not directly related to the OPs question, and you cannot wait for the OP to respond before you must share it with us .... open a new thread.
...
Thanks in advance for your consideration.
Bob
Without reading the whole thread (I would respond to, how to purge air from a hydronic system. Install the circs in vertical runs of pipe, install a Spirovent Jr at a select high point near the boiler, look for and open the air bleeder valves if any at high points on the radiators, let it self purge).
Forum's have the potential to be an extension of one's thought process, an accessory method of information supply and processing. As with any human thought process, you would give it up if you saw how the sausages are made.
Person A's thought process: He does not know or care to. Historically and based on the probabilities, he guesses and has a high probability of guessing the wrong answer. A's Long lifetime of living with this system has caused him to adapt to his own method, for better or worse).
Person B's thought process: Through long professional experience and training, B has a good estimate of what he does and does not know. Things he does not know receive additional research and study so that when a decision or action is necessary, it is achieved by some routine and established process, such as the scientific method. Where guessing is necessary, B's deep professional experience and formal training yield a high probability of guessing the right answer.
Person C's thought process: C has to try drinking from the firehose, something normally inadvisable but C has to make a living and it may be his continued living requires this, trying to drink from the firehose. C's long lifetime of living with this system has caused him to adapt to his own method, with obviously messy and inadvisable consequences.
Person D's thought process. D is unaware of the existence of persons A, B, C, E, F ... but D's numerical superiority allow them to consistently vote their own kind into office or recruit their own kind into their fellow management ranks, making their limited thought process a moot point. D can win most numbers games without trying or any serious professional type work effort. D need only copy the work of another D and hand it in as his own, to make his living.
It is possible that an OP would know of and be able to filter the responses for all the different thought processes, or to choose only one subset of aggregate. Is it possible for the moderators to filter this naturally occurring and technology assisted phenomena.
.....
My own view, I feel I may exercise a control over what I write but I have no control over how it is read or interpreted. Occasionally I may play into this by writing something I know has more than one interpretation or reading. I make a point of not telling the reader how he should interpret or read what I would write. There will be more than one interpretation. Is it possible any reader would know this is my thought process when I would write something.
