"Kevin" wrote in message
...
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Kevin wrote:
snipped
it might be just because I have a nack at fixing/taking things apart and
always have since I was quite young that I cannot believe some of the
obvious questions on here

Kevin R


Then why not start your own newsgroup? Please. Call it, and this is just a
suggestion mind, "uk.icandoitalljustbysnappingmyfingers" or sumfin'.
Remember, this is just a personal suggestion on my behalf. I do not have
any affiliation to newsgroup creation and serving companies.

I wish I had your brashness, because someone with such an attitude could be
popular with customers who love to listen to the stories about how good
their chosen handyman is. Even if it is their own handyman who is telling
them how good he is. They just love to hear about it anyway.

I would ask you one question. Just one easy to answer question. Are you
good at everything?

Kevin wrote:

Oh. ten years of Nu Laber,where theres a rule and a training course
for everything, and stupidity and ignorance are encouraged, and anyone
bothering to learn anything is elitist.

its not elitist to expect someone being paid to work as an electrician
to actually know about electricity or have I missed something?

I have met some qualified electricians who are fairly clueless about the
internal mechanisms of things like strip lights. They can wire them up,
or replace them, but would not know where to start when attempting to
repair one at module level.

Its sounds like when Dave goes to actually do the job, he will know
exactly how to get all the lights working quickly, without blanket
replacement of everything, and without spending hours titting about
swapping bits from here to there. No doubt if you were the customer you
would be satisfied with the result.

Hence, I am not quite sure what you are actually complaining about.
Researching how to do something effectively before diving straight in is
not a sign of weakness, or lack of skill - in fact quite the reverse.

If you have something against learning, and hence are going to limit
yourself to taking on only those projects where you believe you know all
the answers right from the outset, you seem destined to achieve
mediocrity. Personally I would hate to think that today is as good as I
will ever be.


--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

Ron Lowe wrote:
IME ballasts don't fail often in big tube lights - although they
seem more fragile on the small under cupboard type.


We have many, many, many fl. lights at work, and we have tube /
starter failures all the time.

We have also had occasional ballast failures, but these have always
presented as 'hot' smell, then 'very hot smell', then 'circuit
breaker trips when / shortly after the lights are switched on'.

Removing the diffuser and having a look shows the ballast as severely
discoloured ( and probably still very hot to touch ).

Thanks Ron. None of the ballasts had any discolouration, no smell reported
or evident, not 'very' hot to touch, no tripping of breaker. Seems more
like a starter mismatch to me.


--
Dave - The Medway Handyman
www.medwayhandyman.co.uk

"The Medway Handyman" wrote in message
. ..
Ron Lowe wrote:
IME ballasts don't fail often in big tube lights - although they
seem more fragile on the small under cupboard type.


We have many, many, many fl. lights at work, and we have tube /
starter failures all the time.

We have also had occasional ballast failures, but these have always
presented as 'hot' smell, then 'very hot smell', then 'circuit
breaker trips when / shortly after the lights are switched on'.

Removing the diffuser and having a look shows the ballast as severely
discoloured ( and probably still very hot to touch ).

Thanks Ron. None of the ballasts had any discolouration, no smell
reported
or evident, not 'very' hot to touch, no tripping of breaker. Seems more
like a starter mismatch to me.

Dave - The Medway Handyman


If you take a working starter and get the dud lamps to light with it, then
it does look to be a starter problem.

But it'll be sorted in no time, with all this new knowledge you have gained.
Any similar jobs you get, and you'll baffling everyone with science. You'll
be talking about how a faulty little discharge lamp can be the cause of
non-ionisation of the tube gases, which, if it continues over any period of
time, can cause the EMF coil to over current condition and burn it out.
What? It's not working properly. :-)

I can tell customers, using nine languages, that the appliance they want
repaired "Is ****ed". Beat that. LOL

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

IIRC the old starters had FSU or SSU printed on them. Looking at
the TLC site I think I need BG FS2's described as "Universal Series
Starter for fluorescent fittings with tubes between 4watts and
22watts".

Their description is useless (verging on the misleading), but the
picture of the starter looks to be the right thing.

Not being up on the technical terms, but having changed a fair number
of the bloody things, that sounds right.

An FSU (Universal) starter *ought* to work but often won't.
An FS2 works for 2 foot tubes.
An FS8 works for 4 & 5 foot tubes.
An FS10 works for 6-8 foot tubes.

The Philips ones (marked as S2, S8, S10) seem reliable and are clearly
marked: the Osram equivalents are also decent but are only
distinguishable by tiny moulded lettering around the top.

--
John

BigWallop wrote:
"Kevin" wrote in message
...
The Medway Handyman wrote:
Kevin wrote:
snipped
it might be just because I have a nack at fixing/taking things apart and
always have since I was quite young that I cannot believe some of the
obvious questions on here

Kevin R


Then why not start your own newsgroup? Please. Call it, and this is just a
suggestion mind, "uk.icandoitalljustbysnappingmyfingers" or sumfin'.
Remember, this is just a personal suggestion on my behalf. I do not have
any affiliation to newsgroup creation and serving companies.

I wish I had your brashness, because someone with such an attitude could be
popular with customers who love to listen to the stories about how good
their chosen handyman is.
I am far from brash and thats one of my problems (face to face) and most
behind a keyboard type things they would not have the balls to type
Even if it is their own handyman who is telling
them how good he is. They just love to hear about it anyway.

I would ask you one question. Just one easy to answer question. Are you
good at everything?


not everything and I doubt if anyone is, I never tried plastering or
building a brick wall or artexing a ceiling or jointing worktops apart
from those jobs I have never employed any other worker to work on my
house and no its not a **** hole before you ask :-), I just realise some
jobs need some skills or tools I dont have, I could build a wall or try
the other jobs but I could never get the required results first time
that's why training courses for some jobs are needed

but getting back to the OP's question its not hard to try the non
lighting tubes in a working fitting,then the starters so you have a pile
of working parts then try the known good ones in the non working ones


--
Kevin R
Reply address works

In article ,
Kevin writes:
its not bloody rocket science to fault find a item with three components
,especially when you have working ones to use as test rigs,
but then again I would not ask a MFI fitter to fix my lights

Actually it's nearer 10 components with some non-obvious
interactions between working and non-working parts.

its not elitist to expect someone being paid to work as an electrician
to actually know about electricity or have I missed something?

I've never met an electrician on-site who is able to logically
and correctly fix these two series-pair fluorescent fittings,
and I've seen plenty trying to. I've even got a couple of the
4 tube fittings which electricians removed and chucked in the
skip claiming they were dead, when it was simply the case they
they hadn't yet done the one of many tens of random substitutions
which resulted in enough working components in the right places
to make the thing run. (They make excellent lights for painting
a room if you prop them up against the opposite wall;-)

If Dave takes away the correct bits of information he has been
given in this thread, he will be able to do the job more
effectively than any electrician they are likely to call out.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article ,
"The Medway Handyman" writes:
Ron Lowe wrote:
IME ballasts don't fail often in big tube lights - although they
seem more fragile on the small under cupboard type.


We have many, many, many fl. lights at work, and we have tube /
starter failures all the time.

We have also had occasional ballast failures, but these have always
presented as 'hot' smell, then 'very hot smell', then 'circuit
breaker trips when / shortly after the lights are switched on'.

Removing the diffuser and having a look shows the ballast as severely
discoloured ( and probably still very hot to touch ).

Thanks Ron. None of the ballasts had any discolouration, no smell reported
or evident, not 'very' hot to touch, no tripping of breaker. Seems more
like a starter mismatch to me.

Electronic ballasts (usually smaller, lighter weight, and no starter
required) have been much less reliable than the older magnetic
ballasts. (In the US, it's the other way around, because their
magnetic ballasts are significantly less reliable than ours).
Manufacturers claim they've fixed the short life of electronic
ballasts, but reality is that such warm electronic parts are never
realistically going to routinely get up to 250,000 hours that
magnetic ballasts historically have no problem meeting. Electronic
ballasts may eventually get good enough that they mostly outlive
the typical service life of fittings between site refurbishment.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

In article ,
"jsabine" writes:

Not being up on the technical terms, but having changed a fair number
of the bloody things, that sounds right.

An FSU (Universal) starter *ought* to work but often won't.
An FS2 works for 2 foot tubes.
An FS8 works for 4 & 5 foot tubes.
An FS10 works for 6-8 foot tubes.

I haven't checked what you claim here, but you also have to
factor in series pair tubes which Dave has. They need different
starters (actually, they're the starters for 120V mains supplies).

Often the wrong starter will appear to work, at least until
the electrician has got out the door, or you try turning on
the lights at a different ambient temperature. You may not
get correct tube life though, even if it does appear to work.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Andrew Gabriel wrote:
In article ,
Kevin writes:
its not bloody rocket science to fault find a item with three components
,especially when you have working ones to use as test rigs,
but then again I would not ask a MFI fitter to fix my lights

Actually it's nearer 10 components with some non-obvious
interactions between working and non-working parts.

its not elitist to expect someone being paid to work as an electrician
to actually know about electricity or have I missed something?

I've never met an electrician on-site who is able to logically
and correctly fix these two series-pair fluorescent fittings,
and I've seen plenty trying to. I've even got a couple of the
4 tube fittings which electricians removed and chucked in the
skip claiming they were dead, when it was simply the case they
they hadn't yet done the one of many tens of random substitutions
which resulted in enough working components in the right places
to make the thing run. (They make excellent lights for painting
a room if you prop them up against the opposite wall;-)

If Dave takes away the correct bits of information he has been
given in this thread, he will be able to do the job more
effectively than any electrician they are likely to call out.

Being able to pass a relatively simple exam more concerned with the
right way and the wrong way to lay cables a la regulations, is a far cry
from understanding electrical engineering theory.

Most domestic sparkies have as little understanding of electricity as
domestic plumbers do of hydraulics. Or carpenters of geometry. To put it
bluntly, they don't need to.

Having worked as a professional design engineer for many years, the
amazing thing is just how few people understand any of it whatsoever:
its a triumph of productions engineering, systems and books of rules, to
ensure that this does not impact negatively on those that deploy the
technology.

Faced with one of my first exposures to fault finding and testing on the
production/repair line, I was amazed to see not the experience qualified
engineer, but a teenage girl on minimum wage. "I just remove all these
(pointing at the power transistors and drivers) "and anything burnt like
these" (pointing to a pile of scorched resistors) "and replace them with
these" (pointing to an equally scabby pile of used transistors) "that
Richard" (pointing to a half an engineer) has tested on his gadget
thing" (a basic test box to rest that transistors sill had diode junctions).

Her success rate was 95%, and the avergag time to fix was 8 minutes. At
the end of the day 'Richard" would take the pile of removed devices, and
test each one, throwing away the truly dead, and resurrecting the 'at
least half alive' to a pile of 'spares for repairs'

I got to look at the odd failed 5%. Probably took me an hour to trace
the faults. Eventually they just got scrapped.

Andrew Gabriel wrote:

In article ,
"jsabine" writes:

Not being up on the technical terms, but having changed a fair
number of the bloody things, that sounds right.

An FSU (Universal) starter ought to work but often won't.
An FS2 works for 2 foot tubes.
An FS8 works for 4 & 5 foot tubes.
An FS10 works for 6-8 foot tubes.

I haven't checked what you claim here, but you also have to
factor in series pair tubes which Dave has. They need different
starters (actually, they're the starters for 120V mains supplies).

I freely confess much ignorance ...

I *think* that FS2 starters are appropriate for 2 foot tubes in series:
that is, most of my experience is with 4-tube fittings which fail
either inner-inner or outer-outer, and where you can normally replace
one starter or one tube to relight both. [I dont think I've ever seen a
single totally dark tube in one of these fittings - a single tube
glowing very dully, however, is a different matter.]

4/5 foot tubes seem to fail as singles even in a twin fitting, so I
guess they're not in series, and I never see 6ft+ tubes. I know that
the FS8 starter at least appears to work: I confess I'm relying on the
product description when I say the FS10 is good for 6ft tubes.

This thread's been more than useful in terms of the trouble-shooting
tips to be gained - I am very, very ignorant of how fluo fittings work,
and, like Dave, I'm not happy about just playing swapsies with parts
until by chance it springs into life.

--
John

The message
from Kevin contains these words:


it might be just because I have a nack at fixing/taking things apart and
always have since I was quite young that I cannot believe some of the
obvious questions on here

And some of the rest of us can't believe the complete inability to spell
simple words such as "knack" and might prefer to trust the abilities of
someone who could read and write.

On Dec 22, 9:15*pm, Appin wrote:
The message
from Kevin contains these words:

it might be just because I have a nack at fixing/taking things apart and
always have since I was quite young that I cannot believe some of the
obvious questions on here

And some of the rest of us can't believe the complete inability to spell
simple words such as "knack" and might prefer to trust the abilities of
someone who could read and write.

Nah: Give it break! Always a chance to learn something!

And often by posting an incorrect reply and then being corrected, and
told, sometimes in no small way, that one is an ignoramus, or worse,
one also learns!

And there are always 'spell checkers'. But what can one do with a
spell-check that questions Churchill or Roosevelt but does not catch
'Flourescent' instead of 'Fluorescent'. Or even 'Florescent'! The
first one sounding like baking and the latter like some kind of
deodorant!

Now my question? Why the use of 'starters' in UK 230 volt fixtures?
Here in North America where the domestic lighting and wall outlet
voltages are mostly 115-120 volts 60 hertz AC, starters have
disappeared and one only sees them occasionally in very, very old
fixtures.
A few old ones we have rebuilt (for use over work benches etc.) we
have changed the ballasts eliminating the starters completely. Just
curious.

terry wrote:

Now my question? Why the use of 'starters' in UK 230 volt fixtures?
Here in North America where the domestic lighting and wall outlet
voltages are mostly 115-120 volts 60 hertz AC, starters have
disappeared and one only sees them occasionally in very, very old
fixtures.
A few old ones we have rebuilt (for use over work benches etc.) we
have changed the ballasts eliminating the starters completely. Just
curious.

Possibly because at 230+ volt you can reliably strike the tube without
any need for back EMF tricks etc. Hence a simple ballast and starter
make for a cheap and reliable solution.

--
Cheers,

John.

/================================================== ===============\
| Internode Ltd - http://www.internode.co.uk |
|-----------------------------------------------------------------|
| John Rumm - john(at)internode(dot)co(dot)uk |
\================================================= ================/

In article ,
terry writes:
Now my question? Why the use of 'starters' in UK 230 volt fixtures?
Here in North America where the domestic lighting and wall outlet
voltages are mostly 115-120 volts 60 hertz AC, starters have
disappeared and one only sees them occasionally in very, very old
fixtures.
A few old ones we have rebuilt (for use over work benches etc.) we
have changed the ballasts eliminating the starters completely. Just
curious.

Starters don't work well on 120V, so you have to have
significantly more complicated control gear to drive tubes.
Starters work fine on 230V.

--
Andrew Gabriel
[email address is not usable -- followup in the newsgroup]

Appin wrote:
The message
from Kevin contains these words:


it might be just because I have a nack at fixing/taking things apart and
always have since I was quite young that I cannot believe some of the
obvious questions on here

And some of the rest of us can't believe the complete inability to spell
simple words such as "knack" and might prefer to trust the abilities of
someone who could read and write.
fixing/making things has **** all to do with spelling, and you are
welcome to come round my house and see for yourself, but then you cant
hide behind a keyboard

--
Kevin R
Reply address works

Kevin wrote:
Appin wrote:
The message
from Kevin contains these words:


it might be just because I have a nack at fixing/taking things apart
and always have since I was quite young that I cannot believe some of
the obvious questions on here

And some of the rest of us can't believe the complete inability to spell
simple words such as "knack" and might prefer to trust the abilities of
someone who could read and write.
fixing/making things has **** all to do with spelling, and you are
welcome to come round my house and see for yourself, but then you cant
hide behind a keyboard

spelling is simply a question of making something - a word - according
to en external specification. the language definition.

Why would someone who cant be arsed to find the correct spelling be
arsed to construct according to principles?

Arguably in many cases its not that important, but sometimes it is, and
its good to be in the habit, maybe.

"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Kevin wrote:
Appin wrote:
The message
from Kevin contains these words:


it might be just because I have a nack at fixing/taking things apart
and always have since I was quite young that I cannot believe some of
the obvious questions on here

And some of the rest of us can't believe the complete inability to spell
simple words such as "knack" and might prefer to trust the abilities of
someone who could read and write.
fixing/making things has **** all to do with spelling, and you are
welcome to come round my house and see for yourself, but then you cant
hide behind a keyboard

spelling is simply a question of making something - a word - according to
en external specification. the language definition.

Why would someone who cant be arsed to find the correct spelling be arsed
to construct according to principles?

Arguably in many cases its not that important, but sometimes it is, and
its good to be in the habit, maybe.


Indeed, otherwise, in a similar vein, you read the above and concentrate on
the two "its" that should be "it's" and forget what was being said )


--
Bob Mannix
(anti-spam is as easy as 1-2-3 - not)

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Kevin wrote:
Appin wrote:
The message
from Kevin contains these words:


it might be just because I have a nack at fixing/taking things apart
and always have since I was quite young that I cannot believe some
of the obvious questions on here

And some of the rest of us can't believe the complete inability to spell
simple words such as "knack" and might prefer to trust the abilities of
someone who could read and write.
fixing/making things has **** all to do with spelling, and you are
welcome to come round my house and see for yourself, but then you cant
hide behind a keyboard

spelling is simply a question of making something - a word - according
to en external specification. the language definition.

Why would someone who cant be arsed to find the correct spelling be
arsed to construct according to principles?

Arguably in many cases its not that important, but sometimes it is, and
its good to be in the habit, maybe.



and you Nat **** Mr perfect never get any thing wrong do you?
you might as well **** off as well as your posting/typing is no better
than mine and I could quote loads but I cant be arsed

--
Kevin R
Reply address works

On Dec 23, 2:28*pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Kevin wrote:
Appin wrote:
The message
from Kevin contains these words:

it might be just because I have a nack at fixing/taking things apart
and always have since I was quite young that I cannot believe some of
the obvious questions on here

And some of the rest of us can't believe the complete inability to spell
simple words such as "knack" and might prefer to trust the abilities of
someone who could read and write.
fixing/making things has **** all to do with spelling, and you are
welcome to come round my house and see for yourself, but then you cant
hide behind a keyboard

spelling is simply a question of making something - a word - according
to en external specification. the language definition.

Why would someone who cant be arsed to find the correct spelling be
arsed to construct according to principles?

From one who can't be arsed to check his own postings for the frequent
spelling mistakes and/or typos. ROTFLMAO!

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Dec 23, 2:28 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Kevin wrote:
Appin wrote:
The message
from Kevin contains these words:
it might be just because I have a nack at fixing/taking things apart
and always have since I was quite young that I cannot believe some of
the obvious questions on here
And some of the rest of us can't believe the complete inability to spell
simple words such as "knack" and might prefer to trust the abilities of
someone who could read and write.
fixing/making things has **** all to do with spelling, and you are
welcome to come round my house and see for yourself, but then you cant
hide behind a keyboard
spelling is simply a question of making something - a word - according
to en external specification. the language definition.

Why would someone who cant be arsed to find the correct spelling be
arsed to construct according to principles?

From one who can't be arsed to check his own postings for the frequent
spelling mistakes and/or typos. ROTFLMAO!


and going by how the great Nats **** worked for NASA I wonder if he
worked on the shuttles???

--
Kevin R
Reply address works

Bob Mannix wrote:
"The Natural Philosopher" wrote in message
...
Kevin wrote:
Appin wrote:
The message
from Kevin contains these words:


it might be just because I have a nack at fixing/taking things apart
and always have since I was quite young that I cannot believe some of
the obvious questions on here
And some of the rest of us can't believe the complete inability to spell
simple words such as "knack" and might prefer to trust the abilities of
someone who could read and write.
fixing/making things has **** all to do with spelling, and you are
welcome to come round my house and see for yourself, but then you cant
hide behind a keyboard

spelling is simply a question of making something - a word - according to
en external specification. the language definition.

Why would someone who cant be arsed to find the correct spelling be arsed
to construct according to principles?

Arguably in many cases its not that important, but sometimes it is, and
its good to be in the habit, maybe.


Indeed, otherwise, in a similar vein, you read the above and concentrate on
the two "its" that should be "it's" and forget what was being said )


Yup. I admit it, and don't mind you pointing it out.

Kevin wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Kevin wrote:
Appin wrote:
The message
from Kevin contains these words:


it might be just because I have a nack at fixing/taking things
apart and always have since I was quite young that I cannot believe
some of the obvious questions on here

And some of the rest of us can't believe the complete inability to
spell
simple words such as "knack" and might prefer to trust the abilities of
someone who could read and write.
fixing/making things has **** all to do with spelling, and you are
welcome to come round my house and see for yourself, but then you
cant hide behind a keyboard

spelling is simply a question of making something - a word - according
to en external specification. the language definition.

Why would someone who cant be arsed to find the correct spelling be
arsed to construct according to principles?

Arguably in many cases its not that important, but sometimes it is,
and its good to be in the habit, maybe.



and you Nat **** Mr perfect never get any thing wrong do you?
you might as well **** off as well as your posting/typing is no better
than mine and I could quote loads but I cant be arsed

On the contrary, I get a lot wrong, and am often corrected, and don't mind.

It's really a question of the difference between trying to learn and
trying to help others to learn, and people who think they are well good
enough already.

Who ultimately one can't tell anything to, as they know it all, already.

Man at B&Q wrote:
On Dec 23, 2:28 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Kevin wrote:
Appin wrote:
The message
from Kevin contains these words:
it might be just because I have a nack at fixing/taking things apart
and always have since I was quite young that I cannot believe some of
the obvious questions on here
And some of the rest of us can't believe the complete inability to spell
simple words such as "knack" and might prefer to trust the abilities of
someone who could read and write.
fixing/making things has **** all to do with spelling, and you are
welcome to come round my house and see for yourself, but then you cant
hide behind a keyboard
spelling is simply a question of making something - a word - according
to en external specification. the language definition.

Why would someone who cant be arsed to find the correct spelling be
arsed to construct according to principles?

From one who can't be arsed to check his own postings for the frequent
spelling mistakes and/or typos. ROTFLMAO!


Absolutely.

The difference being I don't pretend its not a failing.

Kevin wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Dec 23, 2:28 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Kevin wrote:
Appin wrote:
The message
from Kevin contains these words:
it might be just because I have a nack at fixing/taking things apart
and always have since I was quite young that I cannot believe some of
the obvious questions on here
And some of the rest of us can't believe the complete inability to
spell
simple words such as "knack" and might prefer to trust the
abilities of
someone who could read and write.
fixing/making things has **** all to do with spelling, and you are
welcome to come round my house and see for yourself, but then you cant
hide behind a keyboard
spelling is simply a question of making something - a word - according
to en external specification. the language definition.

Why would someone who cant be arsed to find the correct spelling be
arsed to construct according to principles?

From one who can't be arsed to check his own postings for the frequent
spelling mistakes and/or typos. ROTFLMAO!


and going by how the great Nats **** worked for NASA I wonder if he
worked on the shuttles???

I never worked for NASA..dunno where you got that one from.

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Kevin wrote:
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Kevin wrote:
Appin wrote:
The message
from Kevin contains these words:


it might be just because I have a nack at fixing/taking things
apart and always have since I was quite young that I cannot
believe some of the obvious questions on here

And some of the rest of us can't believe the complete inability to
spell
simple words such as "knack" and might prefer to trust the
abilities of
someone who could read and write.
fixing/making things has **** all to do with spelling, and you are
welcome to come round my house and see for yourself, but then you
cant hide behind a keyboard

spelling is simply a question of making something - a word -
according to en external specification. the language definition.

Why would someone who cant be arsed to find the correct spelling be
arsed to construct according to principles?

Arguably in many cases its not that important, but sometimes it is,
and its good to be in the habit, maybe.



and you Nat **** Mr perfect never get any thing wrong do you?
you might as well **** off as well as your posting/typing is no better
than mine and I could quote loads but I cant be arsed

On the contrary, I get a lot wrong, and am often corrected, and don't mind.


It's really a question of the difference between trying to learn and
trying to help others to learn, and people who think they are well good
enough already.

Who ultimately one can't tell anything to, as they know it all, already.

you are such a sanctimonious arse wipe you get such a lot wrong then you
pick on me, you cant even be arsed to spell check most of the time and
do you actually "learn" No


--
Kevin R
Reply address works

The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Man at B&Q wrote:
On Dec 23, 2:28 pm, The Natural Philosopher wrote:
Kevin wrote:
Appin wrote:
The message
from Kevin contains these words:
it might be just because I have a nack at fixing/taking things apart
and always have since I was quite young that I cannot believe some of
the obvious questions on here
And some of the rest of us can't believe the complete inability to
spell
simple words such as "knack" and might prefer to trust the
abilities of
someone who could read and write.
fixing/making things has **** all to do with spelling, and you are
welcome to come round my house and see for yourself, but then you cant
hide behind a keyboard
spelling is simply a question of making something - a word - according
to en external specification. the language definition.

Why would someone who cant be arsed to find the correct spelling be
arsed to construct according to principles?

From one who can't be arsed to check his own postings for the frequent
spelling mistakes and/or typos. ROTFLMAO!


Absolutely.

The difference being I don't pretend its not a failing.
words fail me sometimes but I dont have a go at others spelling mistakes


--
Kevin R
Reply address works