morph Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 open and read the document.If have anything further to say on this please PM me.
Chorlton Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 It's called a USER manual but has ENGINEER info in it! Like I said , your blue so you'll be right C.
Guest anguscanplay Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 Hmm i together ? and its a DIY panel ? and their tech support line talk to the vanilla public ? I cant see that it was an engineering document then - horses for courses IMO Angus ( not taking sides - just seeking clarification )
Service Engineer Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 It's called a USER manual but has ENGINEER info in it! So why then was the link posted.? Obviously you didn't know that the document had this info, and Colin did his Mod job and checked out the link. Colin correctly removed the offending link. And I think you owe him an apology as he hasn't lied. ........................................................ Dave Partridge (Romec Service Engineer)
Chorlton Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 I owe nothing to no-one. He claimed I posted a link to an engineer manual = I did not. I posted a link to a user manual which it transpires had engineer info contained. You'll be right as well though
amateurandy Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 So why then was the link posted.? Obviously you didn't know that the document had this info, and Colin did his Mod job and checked out the link.Colin correctly removed the offending link. And I think you owe him an apology as he hasn't lied. Call it quits for heavens sake? Then kiss and make up? You could equally say that Colin owes an apology for saying: "Link Removed. Please do not post links in the public forums to engineering manuals, as this is against the forum rules." When it was clearly a user manual that happened to contain engineering information. So he (Colin) wasn't being accurate either was he? I don't suppose Chorlton checked the contents in detail so why blame him for breaking the rules when he didn't? As Michael Winner says "calm down dears" And if the company wants to put engineering information in its user manuals they are hardly going to complain are they...............
Chorlton Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 Call it quits for heavens sake?Then kiss and make up? You could equally say that Colin owes an apology for saying: "Link Removed. Please do not post links in the public forums to engineering manuals, as this is against the forum rules." When it was clearly a user manual that happened to contain engineering information. So he (Colin) wasn't being accurate either was he? I don't suppose Chorlton checked the contents in detail so why blame him for breaking the rules when he didn't? As Michael Winner says "calm down dears" And if the company wants to put engineering information in its user manuals they are hardly going to complain are they............... Andy to the rescue
Guest anguscanplay Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 "Link Removed. Please do not post links in the public forums to engineering manuals, as this is against the forum rules." dont worry that post is itself against forum rules - woops so is this one now And if the company wants to put engineering information in its user manuals they are hardly going to complain are they............... thats what I`ve been trying to get an answer to
amateurandy Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 Where did you get my picture from - that's copyright! B)
amateurandy Posted September 18, 2007 Posted September 18, 2007 dont worry that post is itself against forum rules - woops so is this one now As Frank Carson says "It's the way you tell 'em!" If t'was me I would (maybe) have removed the link and said something like "Unfortunately this link also contains engineering information that this forums rules prevent us disseminating"
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.