>> Yes I was mistaken. I admit this. A small point - why is "completely
>> wrong"
>> necessary? If we were to  apply the "Grand Master Doug" approach, 
>> wouldn't
>> "incorrect" do? Looks to me as if the "completely" is completely
>> redundant.

>It's possible to be "partially wrong". Your statement was 100% incorrect. 
>:)

Yes, but this was not my point. To explain more clearly, I simply think a 
more amiable approach would be to skip the "completely" as per the 
disscussion on writing styles.
 Although I don't deny the original statement was incorrect in that context 
and that I missed the fact he was talking about inputs or that the pins had 
been set as such, it makes logical sense that an input "inputs" something, 
and in this case I was talking of current, i.e a current input/sink, not the 
desginated pin setting. I admit this confuses matters, and the original 
poster was "completely" correct. 


-- 
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist