On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 12:18:40 +0000, Pooh Bear
>John Fields wrote:
>> On Tue, 27 Dec 2005 00:47:47 GMT, "Anthony Fremont"
>> <spam@xxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>> >"John Fields" <jfields@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote
>> >> I haven't read through this whole thread, so I may be mistaken, but
>> >Before passing final judgment, perhaps you should. Sure the OP's
>> >question sounded naive to someone with decades of experience. However,
>> >you and even the great Pooh had to start with the basics too. I could
>> >be wrong, but I'm betting that you guys weren't born knowing this stuff
>> >inside out.
>> >> ISTM that what's got you riled up is that you were corrected in what
>> >> you think was an insulting way.
>> >I'm thinking that the OP thought this statement was just a tad bit
>> >"You're an idiot. Go learn something about Ohms Law for starters."
>> >Personally, I wouldn't classify that as constructive criticism, but
>> >that's just me. This is S.E.B. after all.
>> You're right. That was the first harsh statement made and was
>> uncalled for, IMO, this being seb.
>> John Fields
>> Professional Circuit Designer
>I admit it was harsh. Subsequent posts suggest I had the OP 'spot on'
>though. Call it second sense or whatever.
>His errors were pointed out on multiple occasions and not once did he
>apparently comprehend what was being explained. Indeed he dismissed some
>very relevant comments. I have no time for those who ask for help and then
>disregard the correct advice. They are truly worse than useless and there
>are way too many of them around these days. A classic example of 'dumbing
The thing I find problematical with some folks is trying to give
them information at a level they can comprehend. That is, it can be
frustrating to give someone a perfectly good answer but not have
them understand it, then have to get progressively more and more
basic until they do. Sometimes though, they never do...
Professional Circuit Designer