Analysis Problem

My dearest Jeff Howard,

Let's imagine we're engineers and analyze the original post.
First, let's review.

"I am rewriting the instruction set to build Straight Tooth Bevel
Gears. I am incorporating new information and methodology found in
Wildfire 2 (WF2), the original was developed in 2001. The new
instructions are easier to follow and understand.
"The original models work well in WF2. The icons displayed in the
model tree are the pre-Wildfire ones. To me this signifies that the
legacy Pro is running. There are no problems in building a completed
gear or pinion, regardless of the ratio.
"The new method has a problem that must be associated with a flaw in
the program. The surface merge feature's reference direction flips
when the Pitch Cone Angle (PCA) is greater than 45°. This prevents
the solid tooth to be formed. Also, when this problem is fixed and the
tooth is rotated about the Z-axis, the directions flip yet again.
"This prevents a full pattern from developing.
"This prevents ANY tooth greater than a Miter to be made. I can only
develop the method using the student edition of WF2. Before I invest
in an upgrade to WF3, I want some assurance that the current available
method can be successfully used at high PCAs, above 45°. Has anyone
tried the old method with any success in WF3? For those of you who
want to try, the PDF is located at briefcase.yahoo.com.
"Login as: []
"Password is: []
"Any light on this matter would GREATLY be appreciated.
"Thank you,
"Mark N. McAllister "

Let the analysis begin.
<<SNIP>>
"...a bunch of pretentious bullshit..."
Granted, the first paragraph might be considered this. But it does
explain the 'why are you doing this?' question, or for some people,
"Why are you bothering me?" I cannot seem to find any superfluous
exaggerative adjectives or adverbs though, anywhere.
Some examples would be, "...definitely worthy of such a princely
sum..." or, "I am good, extremely good, at troubleshooting
models."

Perhaps I did use too much language to clearly define the problem.
But, it is clearly defined, unlike some of the shorter forms that can
lead to misinterpretation of what is needed.

[This is a whole new debate, verbal description of problems! How much
is too much?]

Therefore, it is relevant background information that should be
considered in the analysis.

<<SNIP>>
"Simplify your problem data set and post a model somewhere (as above)
so people don't have to go out of their way to help you"

Well, if I simplified it even more would the reader clearly understand
what is happening?


Now, let's move on to the fun part.

reply privately. There were a few readers though on both websites that
allowed the post. Why?

Greater than ninety-five percent of readers use the commercial version.
What good would Student Edition files be for them to 'hack'?

The remaining readers are using the Student Edition. They are most
likely looking for answers. It is highly doubtful a reply would be
generated by them.

Now, I went on to ask, nicely, "For those of you who want to try, the
PDF is located at...", and also acknowledged that this is an
imposition, "Any light on this matter would GREATLY be
appreciated."

For your last part:
<<SNIP>>
"When you put the shoe on the other foot and are offering help
instead of asking for it you can spice it up with some pretentious
bullshit like David. `;^)"

Well, I can see your master has trained you well, young Skywalker.
[Turn of phrase] It did earn you a pat on the head from the lord and
master himself.

 

<<SNIP>> a bunch of pretentious bullshit

Are you 1701?

 

For your last part:

disndat disndat
Now, datsa DIS!!!
Lykyer DJ's personal BYATCH

Cnyasay BOW WOW!?!

 

I really hate to think you are in a (teaching) position where you can influence young minds (like Greg's and I do hope you'll
encourage him to see a speech therapist).

If you haven't resolved your problem, follow my advice and post the model to mcadcentral. A great number of readers there do, in
fact, use SE.