Wouter van Ooijen <wouter@voti.nl> wrote:
>> General advice: =A0When you make a public blunder like this, trying to s=
ave
>> face to not look stupid has the opposite effect. =A0Anyone can make a mi=
stake,
>> and if you say something like "Oops, sorry for the confusion", it is qui=
ckly
>> forgotten without too much of a mental red mark for too long by your nam=
e in
>> most people's minds.
>
> In the hope of extinguishing a possible flame: to the credit of N.T,
> that is exactly what he did in a subsequent mail:

I said that I agree with you approx 4 hours earlier his post he tells
I should do that :-)
One should be on a special mission inhere to feel good, giving away
such delayed advices :-)


> =A0> I think I should agree with you. Though my original intent was just =
to
> =A0> confirm Olin's point that yes, PICs output would tolerate an output
> =A0> tied to a rail for at least few seconds without getting damaged, the
> =A0> phrase I used was not good, and when taken out of context can even b=
e
> =A0> misleading.
>
> And for N.T: most people (including myself) reply in order of arrival,
> so a reply will often NOT take subsequent mails in consideration. As
> often, Olin and I reply with the same opinion, but with some difference
> of expression :)

If I said "most people reply in order of arrival", the guy would blame
on me, - "How did I figure 'most'?" :-)
I would suggest that most people are looking through a thread before
replying to it. Gmail helps doing that quite nicely.
Definitely, posting lengthy messages teaching someone to do something
after he had done that already 4 hours before, looks a bit strange.

--=20
http://www.piclist.com PIC/SX FAQ & list archive
View/change your membership options at
http://mailman.mit.edu/mailman/listinfo/piclist
.