"Mrs" modifier - is that a typo or a comment?
My reply was actually the 4th post in the thread. Yours and one other were removed by the mods.
I beg to differ that my reply was nothing to do with the first post. I respectfully suggest you read it again.
The first post said "...why is it called reversed, doesn't the motor usually face that way with the bell end towards the axle?, or is that not correct?"
To me that clearly states that the thread originator was assuming the end bell drive was "normal" - as indeed it is for Scalextric. If the end bell drive was "reversed" that would indicate that the norm was for a can drive and that an end bell drive was not the norm. So there was clear confusion and the question was clearly "why?" He even used the word "why" in the bit I quoted even though the thread content started with the word "what".
To me, f1rem0uth was obviously under the impression that end bell drive was standard. Slot.It's approach would seem to contradict f1rem0uth's understanding of what is standard.
Bearing in mind that I was aware that f1rem0uth is relatively new to the hobby it is an easy thing to make assumptions based on what you know. I bought an HRS chassis hoping to use it to underpin an old Scalextric Escort with a badly broken chassis. I was confused when the chassis arrived and none of my stock of salvaged Scalextric Mabuchi S Cans would fit the right way round. Only at that point did I realise that the S can comes with a variety of configurations and so I ended up having to buy a 19k Slot.It motor (it was cheaper than the reversed motor mount). This reverse configuration was news to me and so I assumed that it would be news to f1rem0uth. I think it was probably a fair assumption.
So I think it is fair to conclude that my post was, in fact, everything to do with the first post and not "nothing" as you suggest.
Where we differ is in our approach. You treated f1rem0uth like an annoyance. I treated f1rem0uth as somebody wanting to learn more and was happy to help.
In your last post you state "which doesn't upset me that much apart from the time it took me to type and spell check it, but I'm sure f1remouth will not be put off by my wonderful whit and sarcasm and if you do I'm truly sorry". I wasn't put off by your "wonderful whit and sarcasm" because there was none; and there is no need to be sorry on my behalf (it's "wit" not "whit" by the way). Spell check? Have you read the bottom of your posts? I believe you are meaning to say "exiting" not "existing" - but maybe that's more "wonder" for us to marvel at your wit (that was irony by the way not sarcasm). As for the length of time it took you to type - how long exactly does it take you to type "Go away
" because that is EXACTLY what you typed along with some comment I can't remember exactly but effectively stated your disbelief at the stupidity of man.
I am sure that was designed to offend not dazzle with wit.
Sorry - but you asked for that.
Shall we stop now? I am going to - but it's your shout whether you do.
Note to Mods - please feel free to remove this post if I have overstepped the mark. I just felt I had to respond to the inaccuracy and false indignance.