"Snowbird" wrote in message
om...
"SteveH" wrote in message
...
FYI - top posting is the current norm

What's your point here?

"If it is legit.." was not impuning any individual report but rather the
blanket assertion that flaws and failures in use are endemic to
Lightspeed

You appeared to be responding specifically to my post regarding
battery box melting. If you meant the above, a clearer way
to convey your meaning would be something like "if it's true
that Lightspeed has an endemic number of failures...."

You're correct, it would have been a better way of stating it. Early
morning fuzziness..



A battery pack that is hot enough to melt its casing and emit smoke is
on
the verge of combustion and even if it did not ignite itself it seems to
me
to present a risk that it could cause more flammable objects in contact
with
it to ignite.

Apples and oranges.

What is the voltage of a Dell battery pack? What is its current
draw?

14.8 volts, 5400 maHr
2.5 amp charging current

What is the voltage of a headset battery pack containing two
AA batteries? What is its current draw?

Lightspeeds 2-AA batteries specifically? 3 volts and I don't have a clue on
the current draw. But the 3 volts can produce a hell of a current for a
short time through a dead short, enough to heat a wire to the point of
melting and igniting surrounding materials should they be flammable.


And are you really asserting you'd find the above easier to
follow if I dumped it all up at the top of the post instead
of interspersing it so that you and everyone else can determine
to what I'm responding?

In most circumstances that is *almost* precisely what I am saying. The
exception is a message such as the one I'm now responding to where there are
several essentially independent conceptual threads interwoven, in which case
it makes more sense to deal with each as if it were an independent message.

Position isn't important - take your pick of the top or the bottom,
although the reply is easier to find on the top. But having the entire
conceptual context as a single block of contiguous text makes the traffic
far easier to read and comprehend in most cases than a little bit here and a
little bit there, interwoven with the text being replied to. The model
(preferred model, in my humble opinion) is the letter and reply discussions
that occur in many print journals. Thanks to whomever that the
character-based technology that made the no-top-post notion preferable has
been replaced with one that makes a more natural written discourse of
developed point and developed rebuttal and counter point viable, along with
the fact that just about the cheapest and fastest thing on the planet these
days is a few kilobytes of text transmitted down a fibre optic line. With
the reply as a single block of text, I can focus on what the writer is
saying. If I need to see the exact point to which he is responding, I can
always scroll down to the original text. If I need to remind myself of what
prompted that point now being responded to, I can easily scroll down
farther. But the ideas expressed at each stage remain a cohesive whole
within their original context and not disjointed snipits of thought,
idea-bites as it were. Sound-bites masquerading as discussion are bad
enough in the political arena.

Consider where we have a reply to a reply to a reply to a reply. You need
to count the indentation characters to figure out which message is the one a
given point is responding to. If each message stays together, replies being
top-posted on top of each other, it's not anywhere near the same problem to
figure out which is the point, the rebuttal, the re-rebuttal, etc.