I think you are about 30 degrees tangentally off the mark on the causes, but pretty much dead-on with the results.
Keep a couple of points in mind:
a) Most "Name" manufacturers, even Denon, Sony, Yamaha, and Nakamichi job out mostly all the content in their equipment. Vertical integration such as in the past (Use names lost in the dimness of time such as Philco or RCA that made _everything_ inside their equipment except the wire from tubes to coils to speakers to the cabinet itself) has pretty much vanished in the electronics industry.
b) Computerized manufacturing techniques within specialty manufacturing facilities pretty much makes "similar" parts in long or short runs commodity items vs. custom (bespoke) items after the first
50 or so roll down the line.
c) Keep in mind that WalMart is not the only end-user that chokes its vendors and suppliers for lower prices. Consumer electronics manufacturer end-users have an interesting technique of not paying for inventory until it is actually installed in the item. So the supplier is not about to make stock much further in advance than is certain to be needed. He might not get paid for them.
So, Denon/Yamaha/Sony wants 12,000 transformers to a certain specification. They _WILL NOT_ make them internally, but will job them out to a transformer maker who will then deliver them *just in time* as needed. Should the need be greater, the supplier will make more - also just in time. Should the contract be cancelled, you can also bet that he will have no surplus in his inventory either. Denon/Yamaha/ Sony then will make a bet on the number of spares that might be needed (if any), buy them and then stop. They will also make an actuarial decision as to how long they will support an item such that they might consider a later run of such specialty parts... And that will be a cold calculation: The cost of a later run vs. a very few pissed off customers who likely wanted something "new" anyway. Where do you think that calculation will fall? Especially if that costomer can be made to smile with a $25 gift certificate?
That they are slowly and almost inexorably putting the repair shops out of business is simply not their concern. As to warranty issues, it would be far cheaper for them to do again what is done in the US, pretty much replace any failed items (under warranty) out-of-hand with the 'latest' version and trash the failed unit rather than maintain an actual warranty service station with technician salaries, parts, shipping/receiving and so forth. All that they really need is the shipping/receiving bit. Keep in mind that if *you* are paying $499.99 at Best Buy/Circuit City for a AV receiver, it likely cost Denon/ Yamaha/Sony something under $100 to make and ship.
The "Government" has not a damned thing to do with it. It is the consumer that drives these things... and the average consumer is well- and-truly hypnotized into believing that "old" is junk and not worth fixing. And that same thoroughly hypnotized consumer will be damned before he is willing to subsidize his neighbor's job by supporting reasonable trade policies and the consequential higher prices.
As in most things, we pretty much get exactly what we deserve... and exactly what we wish for.
I agree with most of what you say, but the original point was that the ball game has changed again, and now "eco-policy" is playing a hand, and that eco policy is government driven, because they all want to be seen to be 'doing their bit' for saving the planet. It allows them to do more world stage posturing, and more 'mine's bigger than yours' speeches - look at the way Blair was before we finally got rid of him. It's as much about politics, as it is about any genuine desire to affect the planet for the better.
The RoHS directive dealing with lead-free solder is a classic example of government "we want to be seen to be doing something" pseudo-science driven eco policy. If everyone in the business is totally honest, I don't think there are very many that you would find that believed in the validity of the science that drove this legislation in the first place, or believe even now that the world is ecologically a better place for it, or that the equipment is just as reliable as it was. In short, the end result in terms of eco improvement is probably at best net zero, and more likely, it has actually had a net negative impact due to the higher temperatures involved in production, and the greater amount of kit being scrapped as a result of bad joints on LSIs that render it not economically viable to repair out of warranty. It just seemed to me that things like lead-free solder were a dubious waste of time and money that had no discernable impact on the environment, whereas an issue like spares availability, which would be actually quite easy to legislate on - if only on the cost that manufacturers sell them out at when they are still available - could have a huge and genuine impact on the amount of kit being scrapped for what amounts to no good reason. Does that make sense ?
Makes sense, but I think it is incomplete. I once made a bad joke to a Brit about how the included "u" (colo-u-r, flavo-u-r) is specifically responsible for the destruction of the British Empire, and had GB dropped such silly nonsense 300 years ago, the compounded savings in print, ink, paper, space and so forth would have made all the difference to their present third-tier status. (Do a search on: MEIHEM IN CE KLASRUM for giggles) He was furious, but laughing at the same time.
As to lead-free solder, it is a technology problem more-so than an environmental problem to get it right. I use it on occasion (5% silver content by choice) but I prefer my 63/37 and as I work 90% on vintage stuff, I have no "requirements" hanging over me, and as it is a hobby, not a business, even less so. My view is therefore distorted on the magnitude of the problem.
But, equipment failure and spares for it is an entire mind-set that is only accidentally and peripherally related to any level of Government regulation. Do a reality check: That Denon with the wonky transformer.... your customer who wants it repaired after 7 years is the exception, hardly the rule. And here in the US, such a customer would be a rare beast indeed as the US has near-perfected the tissue- paper economy and the need to keep the inventory turning. Also the US still operates under the delusion that there is infinite space and that one's trash miraculously disappears from the curb each week without fuss or concern. So, the Government ceases to regulate spares as companies may easily demonstrate that there is no demand for them, and where there is a tiny demand they can assuage a customer with a simple bribe.
You are at that point where the decision between repair and scrap is felt most keenly. It is a daily part of your reality and you see the volume of scrap generated directly relative to the total. The individual who tosses out a US$39 CD player for a bad internal fuse or slipped belt has no clue how much of this crap gets tossed, nor do they care... they have been hypnotized not to. But all-and-at-the-same- time, they will get all warm and fuzzy reading about how "their" representative or government has saved the world from heavy metal poisoning.
I sympathize, but I see the problem as being much closer to, if not "at" home, not in some governmental chamber. After all, 100% of the individuals responsible for the RoHS directives were either elected or appointed by those elected. We get exactly what we deserve. Joe and Jill Sixpack are not overly concerned with much of anything more than perhaps-3 meters beyond their line-of-site, and rely on what they are given by way of the tabloid press or pre-digested 30-second TV items.
At this point, I have to disagree. The political situation may be different either side of the Atlantic, but the people responsible for the RoHS directive certainly weren't directly elected individuals. Rather, they were 'scientific advisors', as you say, appointed by the elected officials, and we have no direct say over who they choose, and what drives them to make those choices. Also, bear in mind that more and more of my country's legislation now comes from Brussels, introduced by people that we definitely didn't vote for. It's a bit like your laws being created from Moscow, because you both belong to NATO ...
With the current eco hysteria that abounds in Europe, anyone who suggests anything that seems to address those dreadfully trite phrases "global warming" or "climate change" or "carbon footprint" are immediately embraced as heroes and given massive publicity and grants to carry on their good work, whilst anyone who dares to dissent, is practically thrown in jail. I am quite sure that the eco hysteria that these people generated over lead in solder, slid directly off the back of the 'lead in petrol' issue, with no reality to back up the theory, other than the shared use of the word "lead", which the great unwashed had been taught to associate with "brain poisoning"
As far as the customers go, I still think that you are missing the point. OK, I'll accept that the customer who keeps his kit for 7 years is probably something of a rarity in general now, but not so much so amongst the Denon / Yamaha / Marantz etc brigade, where the kit was bought as being 'good name' stuff, and a premium was paid for that. But take the average priced stuff - your Panasonics and Sonys and JVCs and so on. I think that most owners would realistically expect to get at least two years from their investment, and probably three. So imagine how they feel when the laser fails in their nice home cinema kit after 15 months, and then I have to tell them that even if I give them the parts at trade price, it's still going to cost three quarters of what they paid for it in the first place. Apart from Panasonic or whoever having just lost a customer for life, that bit of kit is going to wind up scrapped, and on its way to landfill. If the part had been available at a realistic cost, there would have been no such outcome.
No matter how you cut it, or 'justify' it even, it is simply wrong that manufacturers price the spares so high, when you consider what it cost them, that it makes repairing their equipment within a reasonable lifespan, financially impractical. Given that Euro-government managed to force the whole industry to adopt RoHS with all the problems both forseen and unforseen that that entailed, then the point that I make riding on this, is that it would be in comparison, very easy for them to legislate on the issue, and force manufacturers to make parts available at a practical price. This would then actually have a real measurable impact on the amount of electronic equipment being scrapped, unlike RoHS, which actually increases the amount from soldering failures which are impractical physically to repair.
Trust me when I tell you as a service engineer, that the scrapping of relatively new equipment for either lack of spares, or impractically priced spares, is now a huge problem compared to a few years ago, and getting bigger. Over here at least ...
Nope. What you're asking for are government mandated inventory levels. We already have some of that in the US in the auto industry, where manufacturers are required to make parts available for 5(?) years after date of manufacture. The result has been a flood of counterfeit parts, most of which are junk. The manufacturers also have disbursed the cost of stocking useless inventory to the buyers of new cars.
That's the problem with your suggestion. The $40 CD/DVD player will cost considerably more if the manufacturer is expected to inventory all the parts inside, in individual coin bags, as individual SKU's. Since the real cost is warehouse space and accounting overhead, the cost will be substantial. Incidentally, the most difficult problem with China manufacturing is storage space.
So, what percentage of a manufacturing run is ever expected to be repaired? Well, I'm only familiar with the wireless and communications business. In the public safety and government sector, it's 100% of the radios sold. Note that these are $1,000 radios. However, in the consumer sector, the radios are essentially throw away, and are rarely repaired. Fortunately, many of the parts are generic, but that was accidental, not intentional. So, what is the difference between a $50 (high end) FRS/GMRS/MURS radio, and a $1,000 public safety radio? Well, quite a bit, but little of it justifies charging 200 times more. What does justify the cost is that the manufacturers of high end radios stand behind their products, with extensive (authorized) dealer networks, and in depth parts stocking. Now, extrapolate the commodity $40 CD/DVD player into such an operation, and methinks you'll end up with a $1,000 player.
Is a $40 CD/DVD player even worth repairing? At my shop rate, that's about 30 minutes of repair time, assuming I use no parts. I can barely test the unit and fill out the paperwork in 30 minutes, much less fix anything.
The laws of unintended consequences also applies here. The intent is to have your Denon xformer available at a reasonable cost. Instead, you're going to be offered a "power supply sub-assembly" or some manner of board exchange program, instead of the individual parts. This would probably satisfy the letter of the proposed law, but would dramatically increase your cost of the parts to the point where the device would be easily deemed uneconomical to repair. For example, I can buy individual parts and pieces for the older HP LaserJet II, III, and 4 printers. However, parts for all of the recent HP economy printers are offered only as sub-assemblies.
Try to find some of the tiny and easily broken inkjet printer parts and pieces.
There are plenty of things that can be done to improve the land fill problem. My favorite is subsidized recycling and reclamation. This is being done locally by a senior citizen's group, where they break apart cell phones, computahs and electronics, and sell the scrap to metal recyclers.
What are you going to do with all the inventories of repair parts after the 5(?) year limit expires? More land fill? Incidentally, I bought the obsolete parts inventory from several repair shops and radio shops. The volume of the junk is far more than justifiable. I've tried to sell the mess but nobody was interested.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Yes, we have swap nets, but I don't participate. Too tedious. Hams are also notoriously cheap. I can sell complete radios, but not piles of parts.
I brought a huge pile of parts (nicely sorted and labelled) to several radio club meetings. Grab what you need, and leave a donation for the club. The Motorola Radius vintage parts went fast, but none of the older stuff. I had to haul almost the entire mess back home. There's just no demand for Micor, Mitrek, Pageboy I and II, etc parts. I'll probably throw together some kind of shopping site, or eBay store, and unload the mess.
The problem is that todays hams are no better than todays consumers. They just don't build or repair anything. Those that do, are in their
60's or older, and are not doing much. I've offered the pile to those that still build and repair things, but they weren't interested.
Most are as lazy as I am. If I need a small part, it's often easier to order it from a vendor, than to dig through the mess trying to find it. I have my parts pile fairly well organized in a mixture of coin bags, plastic bags, boxes, and drawers, but it's still a pain finding some obscure part. The other nice thing about ordering new parts is that I can be fairly sure they will actually work.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Oh dear, I'm losing the will to live here ... I'm really not proposing trying to make manufacturers hold mountains of spares at their governments' behest. That said, I do think that they should have to hold spares that are of a specialist nature in their kit, such as lasers, for a reasonable time. There is absolutely no reason at all why every new design that they produce, should have a new type of laser fitted. A DVD laser is a DVD laser is a DVD laser. Up until recently, most of the main manufacturers had a small array of their favourite types, that appeared in all of their products. In the last couple of years, that seems to have gone out of the window, which contributes to the scrap equipment situation.
As far as the $40 DVD goes, of course it's not worth repairing, but the reality is that it shouldn't be $40 in the first place. This is just a reflection of Chinese expansionism forcing itself on the global market, and not caring about the piles of junk going to landfill, that it is leaving behind because of the price. If world governments want to see landfill from scrapped equipment reduced, then they need to legislate against this nonsense of giving away DVD's at the supermarket checkout. And don't say that it can't be done, it can. Governments have imposed import levies on foreign goods many times to protect indiginous industries. I seem to recall that fairly recently, your government did it to mine over steel imports ... The only thing that's stopping them is the fear that if they are seen to be making $40 DVDs $100 by imposing a $60 recycling tax on them, the great unwashed will see them as money-grabbing killjoys, and they will lose their elevated pig-at-the-trough politician status. They can't have it both ways. Either they just shut up and ignore the environmental impact of allowing checkout DVDs, or they do something proper about it.
So what's wrong with passing on the cost of stocking spare parts to the consumer ? It makes the item a more realistic price in the first place, and will encourage owners to "mend and make do", instead of "toss and buy new"
Your argument about expensive kit being 100% repaired is self-defeating in the case of Denon, for instance. People buy Denon instead of Ying Tong because it is expensive, and they expect to have repair inventory available for it for a realistic time, because of that.
But aside from all that, the point that everyone is missing is that where spares *are* available, they are unrealistically priced by the manufacturers, and that leads to totally unecessary scrapping to landfill.
I don't care how big your warehouse is or where it's located, or how many times you have to ship an item around the world before it comes to rest, or how many bags you have to put it in or what your admin costs are or what your postage costs are or any of the other 'justifications' that get trotted out, NO manufacturer can justify marking up a laser that cost him $1 to buy to $150 as a suppliable spare part. If it really cost that to supply, then he must have some serious issues with his business model. If he really can't supply said part for a realistic $15 - $20, then the retail cost of every player needs to go up by 50c to cover the cost of spares inventory. The consumers can't bleat about ecology and landfill over their Sunday paper, and then refuse to pay for it. And the only way that will come about, is if governments do something to legislate for it, which they easily could.
I don't think it's necessary to commit suicide in order to prove a point on usenet.
Think of the wording for such a law. What constitutes spares? If the product is outsourced, who's responsible for the spare parts? If there are no spare parts left over after a production run, is the manufacturer responsible for obtaining such spares? How long is "reasonable". At what price structure? I would have extreme difficulty producing such a law that would not involve some level of mandatory parts inventory stocking levels.
Got it. Once a manufacturer is committed to a particular design, they are required to continue to use that design for some "reasonable" amount of time. Perhaps a government inspector should be invited to design review meetings to insure compliance with what appears to be the required use of obsolete parts?
The Bureau of Obsolescence Department of the Ministry of E-Waste perhaps?
Not so. Progress in design has also been through small incremental improvements in manufacturing. In the rush to deliver product, many designs contain fundamental inefficiencies that are only cost effective to replace as production volume increases. The result is a continuous series of somewhat compatible but different parts. Design changes in other areas of the DVD player may precipitate a mechanical change in the DVD laser, such as the ribbon cable, thus producing yet another DVD head mutation.
Sure. As long as the manufacturer supplied the parts to the outsourced vendor in China, it was highly beneficial to use common parts and sub-assemblies. However, once the design has been optimized, it gets sent out to clone houses, that bid on producing a "compatible" device, using the basic design owned by the manufacturer. When switching to the new outsourced vendor, they will have their own collection of favorite parts. In the case of the CD/DVD laser assembly, it will probably be similar, but not identical. Slight re-design for a change of vendor to accommodate parts handling variations is fairly common.
Got it. Just tax the hell out of consumer electronics, so that the price will be sufficiently high to convert the current throw away into a major investment worth keeping. Surely you jest.
However, let's pretend that the eco-mania continues and such a law is proposed. Of course, it wouldn't be a direct taxation on the consumer as there would be rioting in the streets. You can easily increase costs to the producers through mandatory inventory stocking levels and the associated documentation and storage costs. The math is easy enough. Break down the parts list for a $40 CD/DVD player and add up the total. Typical is about 20 times the cost of the finished unit. So, if you built the $40 CD/DVD player from components inventory, it would easily be made to cost $800. If you demand that parts inventory stocking levels be 10% of the production run, that would add about $80 to the cost of the $40 player, which should be sufficient for your purpose.
Of course that doesn't include handling, which can be substantial. An exercise I did for my (former) customers was to calculate the cost of shipping an empty box. That's a product that costs zero to produce and with zero components and labor costs (including production test). However, it still has all the necessary overhead, such as QA, packaging, documentation, support, parts, handling, warranty handling, etc. I refer to it as the "cost of shipping an empty box". It varies radically with manufacturer, but a manufacturer that has their own production facilities runs about $150 to $300. One's that are heavily outsourced and use fulfillment houses, is much less.
So, what's the cost of receiving your CD/DVD laser, if the manufacturer decides to give you the part for free? Probably about $100 in stocking and handling costs.
Really? Much of the world's e-Waste is going to China and India as scrap. They *WANT* the scrap because in those countries, it's still economical to re-use the parts. Officially, both countries have banned the importation of such hazardous waste, but unofficially, they welcome it.
(lots more...)
We have a start on your proposed solution. In California, we are charged a tax on CRT and LCD monitors at the time of purchase to support the inevitable disposal of the devices, due to their lead content. Never mind that most comply with RoHS and have very little lead in them. Never mind that LCD's have almost no lead. Never mind that glass encapsulation is what's used for nuclear waste disposal to insure that it doesn't leak into the environment. Never mind that the tax is not in any way related to the lead content. Is this the type of thoughtless law that you want? It's probably what you're going to get.
That's a very real fear. Whenever you generate an added expense through legislation, someone has to pay the price. It's invariably the consumer that pays. Governments don't produce anything. All that they can do is inefficiently take money from one group, and give it to another. If you want to give money to the scrap metal recyclers, to subsidize their worthy cause, the money has to come from some other group. I can also supply lots of examples of taxing unrelated groups to (inefficiently) support worthy causes.
Lousy value received for cost incurred.
"Realistic" and "over taxed" seems to be indistinguishable here. I still remember the days of $1,000 CD drives. I vaguely recall paying $400 for one that used a "cd caddy". Wanna bring back those days? I can afford a $40 player. I can't afford a $400 player.
A bit of topic drift. Actually, extended warranty sales peak in the mid range products. Nobody buys an extended warranty for throw away products because a replacement is expected to less than the cost of the warranty. For very expensive hardware, the warranty is usually included in the price, where the consumer has no choice and is generally expected to protect their investment. However, the mid range products (i.e. big LCD and Plasma displays) are where the extended warranty pays. These go for about 15% of the purchase price per year and are pure profit for the dealer, who does nothing other than sell the warranty, and then outsource the repairs. These people expect to have their expensive displays for much longer than the throw away $40 CD/DVD player. So, they invest in insurance.
So, how about a compromise? Instead of raising the initial cost of consumer electronics, just offer government backed electronics warranties. The money would go to the starving repairmen to subsidize their losses because nobody wants $40 CD/DVD players repaired. It would delay the dumping of the $40 player because the consumer would now get a "free" repair job instead of being force to purchase a replacement. A simple coupon labeled "good for one government sponsored out of warranty repair" in the box should work. If a free repair isn't sufficient incentive, the government might consider subsidizing the re-manufacture and rebuilding businesses and give the consumer rebuilt exchange. Since such an operation will require stocking parts, you just might get your spare parts.
Unrealistically or unprofitably? Try my exercise of "shipping an empty box". What it would cost for *YOU* to ship an empty box to a customer? You can get a clue by the handling costs charged by some eBay vendors. Most start out with fairly reasonable handling charges and rapidly escalate to much higher charges based upon losing money on small items. Anyway, your cost of shipping an empty box is the minimum charge for anything you sell and ship.
What most manufacturers do is unload their parts inventory to distributors and vendors that can handle the low volume and low per-shipment charges. Once that is done, there's no incentive to re-use those parts in future products.
I see. So $1 for the hardware cost is deemed reasonable, but $150 for the massive overhead required to stock, inventory, package, document, ship, warranty, and transact the part is not reasonable. Well, the charges are based on the same formula used to price the original $40 CD/DVD player. Figure on a minimum of about 5 times cost to sales for products, and about 20 times for anything that has to sit in inventory waiting for someone to purchase. Your laser was probably sitting in their warehouse for several years before you needed it. That's really lousy stock turnover compared to the CD/DVD player, that probably was delivered just in time and never saw a warehouse. The electricity, staffing, rent, paperwork, etc for the warehouse can just can't be ignored. At $150, you're probably correct that it's overpriced. However, much of that $150 are real expenses.
I see. You want the consumer to pay for the inevitable repair in advance. Well, that can be done by time of purchase taxation, where the revenue would go to subsidizing the expenses of the parts warehouse. I doubt that a "save the parts jobber" campaign would have much of an effect in Congress, but it's worth trying.
As for the business model, just put $20 in an envelope and let it sit for a few years. Disburse your expenses for storing the envelope over those years. Don't forget the cost of the envelope, guard service, verifying its contents (inspection), determining that it's still there (inventory control), finding it after someone moved it, and a proper percentage of your office rent. Also, shrinkage (theft), inventory taxes, depreciation, obsolescence, and inflation. You also have to make a profit to justify the exercise. Now, after a few years, someone wants to purchase your $20 envelope. What's it worth then?
Oh yes they can and do so quite effectively. The trend is that as long as someone else pays, it's just fine. Let the government pay, or let the evil manufacturers pay, or pass the cost back to the manufacturers. It really doesn't matter who gets to pay as long as it's not the consumer.
Locally, a group wanted to install a light rail rapid transit system. Are the expected light rail commuters suppose to pay for their own transit? Nope. The evil automobile drivers were expected to pay for it.
I think of government as more of a problem than a solution.
Sure. You're suggesting that every problem has a government solution. If you look to government for solutions to all your problems, soon all you will have left is government. If that's insufficient, please consider that of all the possible solutions to problems, the LEAST efficient is to have the government do it. The only reason we even have a government is that some problems (i.e. war) can only be solved by huge organizations, of which the government is the largest. When a huge organization tries to solve small problems, they usually fail miserably.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Actually, you deserve a fate worse than death for quoting 300 lines of my drivel to add just one line. Failure to edit quotes is a capital crime. I especially hate to read my own drivel again.
So, does this mean that you conceed the point, give up on suggesting that governments actually solve problems instead of creating them, and offer endless gratitude for me starting you on the road to righteous behavior? Or have you simply resigned yourself to paying $150 for a $1 part and getting on with life?
--
# Jeff Liebermann 150 Felker St #D Santa Cruz CA 95060
# 831-336-2558 jeffl@comix.santa-cruz.ca.us
# http://802.11junk.com jeffl@cruzio.com
# http://www.LearnByDestroying.com AE6KS
Did you count them all ? Actually, you deserve a fate worse than death for posting them in the first place ...
And, as always, you miss the point yet again. I did it purely to highlight that it *was* 300 lines of "drivel" - your word, and a very appropriate one, I might add.
Neither.
Now off you trot to bed - it must be getting late over there - past seven I would guess, and work on your next effort of "Does the US Postal Service lose $295 on every package it ships ?", for your next high school debating challenge ... d;~}
That's not quite what I was suggesting. Perhaps this will help:
I'll convert it to HTML one of these daze.
--
Jeff Liebermann jeffl@cruzio.com
150 Felker St #D http://www.LearnByDestroying.com
Santa Cruz CA 95060 http://802.11junk.com
Skype: JeffLiebermann AE6KS 831-336-2558
Oh boy. What are we gonna do with you then ? That's amusing, albeit written in a very jaded style. I'm not sure which categories you think apply to you and I.
As to my comment, it was exactly what I was intending. Are you familiar with the word "facetious" ? I expect that you probably spell it wrongly over there, so read it slowly, and it may well come to you. I was doing 'facetious' in my comment. Facetiousness is a big part of British humour, which of course you will not understand. It is often subtle in nature, which again will be a problem I guess, for a SoCal ... d;~}
And that, my friend, is about it. I think we have probably done it to death from every angle now, and kept the lurkers amused for a few days. Catch ya next time !
ElectronDepot website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here.
All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.