RE: Re: Interference

["Paul Gordon" <paul_gordon@xxxxxxxxxxx>]

Yes, I interpreted the sentence in entirely the opposite way... - isn't
English great!

I took it to mean when the PC that had the fault was moved to another room
it worked OK in that new location, and when a 2nd new PC was also placed in
that 2nd room the fault returned to the first PC... - obviously only one of
us can be right!!! :-)

Now that you've demonstrated another entirely valid interpretation of the
very same words (having re-read them) I can see that I could have the wrong
end of the stick too...

Ho-hum!

Paul G.



>From: "David Buckley" <db@xxxxxxx>
>Reply-To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
>To: ukha_d@xxxxxxx
>Subject: [ukha_d] Re: Interference
>Date: Wed, 18 Aug 2004 19:50:46 -0000
>
>--- In ukha_d@xxxxxxx, "Paul Gordon" <paul_gordon@h...>
>wrote:
> > No one seems to have spotted the clue in the original post...
> > (or at least not mentioned anything about it...)
>
>I think you have a different interpretation on this than I do.
>
>I got it as:
>
>When the PC that displays the fault was moved to another room, it
>was fine.
>
>When a working PC was placed on the desk whre the bad PC was removed
>from, it wobbled.
>
>Therefore, the problem is 100% environmental, and nothing to do with
>either PC.
>
>Of course, my interpretation may be exactly wrong...
>
>
>
>
>
>
>Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>