🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <Cmka4HAd3rR0Ewzx@spacetime.demon.co.uk>,
Chris Lawrence <news@spacetime.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Re:<B06BBC939668CFFA2@petermc.demon.co.uk>
>On Thu, 16 Oct 1997, Peter McDermott wrote:
>
>>>You get a refund on anything which is out of spec - in this case, the
>>>plug and the socket.  The purpose of the spec is to avoid this
>>>situation.
>
>>Re-read the post. The socket isn't out of spec. It was simply
>>that the previous socket allowed the use of out of spec plugs
>>and the new one doesnt.
>
>My misreading of the example, I agree.  However, the plug is out of
>spec.  Demon imply that 3400s are out of spec by using this example.

No, they didn't do that either. They were just giving a hypothetical
example of how they could change something but it wouldn't 
necessarily be their fault that a customer's connection was broken.

IIRC, they were quite explicit in saying they *didn't* know whether
this was the case with the Motorola modems, but several Motorola
owners, perhaps feeling slighted somehow, began to take issue with 
the logic of the argument anyway.