First of all, Kerry's answer was good.

Keep in mind that the people on this (and most other) forum aren't paid
to answer questions, they respond to questions that interest them.  Even
if your question is interesting, it can always happen that there is a
much more interesting thread that happens to have people's attention.

The opposite is also possible.  Some threads are very boring to some.
If there are some very busy threads that PIC-interested folks are
blowing off, it could easily be that your post was simply lost in the
noise.

It is also quite possible that you happened to post at time when most
folks were busy.  I certainly don't spend all day every day on the
PIClist, and a doubt many others do, either.

That being said, it is important to take reasonable steps to answer your
own question first.  Your original post pretty much answered your own
question, except perhaps for the recognition that in this case cell=3Drow.
Why would I add to the noise if I had nothing of significance to offer?
Kerry picked up on a couple of details that perhaps most of us glossed
over.

Your question was pretty good, but often there are questions that are so
poorly worded you don't know what the OP is asking, and then there are
the posts where the answer is obvious from the datasheet or Google.
Those kinds of posts tend to be pretty annoying indicating the poster
couldn't make even a little effort to answer his own post. Answering
someone who is simply lazy doesn't generally feel worthwhile.

I guess what I'm saying is that you shouldn't be horribly surprised if
you get no answer.  Most of the time asking again, perhaps with some
rephrasing of the question, will elicit an answer.

--McD


On Wed, 2014-07-09 at 07:43 +0000, Peter wrote:
> Sorry for pounding on on a dead horse, I am somewhat mystified by the
lack
> of participation on this thread which I started? Should I take this
> elsewhere? Is there no way to clarify these things other than by
talking to
> a fae or such, which I have no need to do for now?
>=20
> Reminder: This was about flash/row cell endurance for new midrange and
small
> pics, like 10F322, with examples of data from the datasheet which left
me
> more confused than before.
>=20
> tia for comments (flames etc.),
>=20
> -- Peter
>=20


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