In article , Smitty Two wrote:
In article ,
(Doug Miller) wrote:

In article , wrote:
On Wed, 21 Nov 2007 06:52:09 -0800, Smitty Two
wrote Re 220 volt to 110 volt:

Yes, it is -- and you've made the same mistake that Steve did.

What mistake is that? Believing what the OP said? You may know
electricity, but Steve's "English language interpretation" of the
original post is correct. I'd say it's up to the OP to come back and
say, oops, I don't have a neutral, rather than you making that
assumption. No matter how reasonable and logical you think that
assumption is, it's one that absolutely contradicts the statements made
by the OP.

Well said and completely correct.

Well said, yes, but completely INcorrect. In no way does it contradict any
statements made by the OP.

Ahem. The OP said he had a common. You say he doesn't. Therefore, you
are contradicting him. That, sir, is about as simple as logic gets.

No, I didn't contradict him -- but I'm contradicting *you*. The OP did *not*
specifically say that he does have a common. He asked about connecting it to
"the common" but never explicitly stated that he verified that there is
actually such a conductor present.

As far as his ability to wire a light to that common, it matters whether
it really exists. But as far as you contradicting him, it doesn't matter
one ****ing bit whether he *saw* the common in real life, or only in his
dreams.

Of course it does -- to anyone with normal ability to comprehend written
English. He didn't say he actually had one. He's assuming he has one.

Since you always tell non-electricians to shut up on electrical issues,
I'll offer you this: If you don't understand logic, keep your mouth shut
on matters of logic.

Perhaps you should take the same advice. You're obviously unable to understand
what's going on.

--
Regards,
Doug Miller (alphageek at milmac dot com)

It's time to throw all their damned tea in the harbor again.