🚀 go-pugleaf

In article <PKxZjSAK$3R0Eww5@spacetime.demon.co.uk>,
Chris Lawrence <news@spacetime.demon.co.uk> wrote:

>Re:<B06D27A596687989E@0.0.0.0>
>On Fri, 17 Oct 1997, Peter McDermott wrote:
>
>>>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.
>
>So it was a pointless example of no relevance to the problem.

Well, you could choose to see it that way, but if you did, you'll
be doomed to make Fuckwit of the Month eventually. 

>>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.
>
>So it could be of relevance - if so then it implies that the 3400 is out
>of spec, if not then it is simply not relevant, nothing more.  

The relevance was in rebutting the flawed logic that people were
using in this thread - ie, IF Demon have changed something AND
my modem worked prior to this change THEN the fault must lie with
Demon. The example shows the flaw in such logic. As I say, you
might not see that as relevant, but your failure to do so will
almost certainly condemn you to continue to thinking along these
lines in the future.