--- Begin Message ---
Dear John
Maybe I should have been more explicit.
Over the course of this correspondence (and in earlier postings to emc-pstc)
you have cast doubt on the IEE's guide to EMC and Functional Safety without
being in any way specific.
Now you are saying that you haven't read it and don't wish to comment on it,
but you haven't retracting (or given any substantive reasons for) any of your
earlier negative comments.
OK, I'm not really happy with the result but if you like we can call it quits
and stop wasting emc-pstc members' time.
Regards, Keith Armstrong
In a message dated 02/01/02 21:19:53 GMT Standard Time, j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk
writes:
> Subj:Re: EMC-related safety issues
> Date:02/01/02 21:19:53 GMT Standard Time
> From: j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk (John Woodgate)
> Sender: owner-emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
> Reply-to: <A HREF="mailto:j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk";>j...@jmwa.demon.co.uk</A>
> (John Woodgate)
> To: emc-p...@majordomo.ieee.org
>
> I read in !emc-pstc that cherryclo...@aol.com wrote (in
> <63.44c9e61.29648...@aol.com>) about 'EMC-related safety issues', on
> Wed, 2 Jan 2002:
> > Once again, John, you seem to be trying to give a negative impression
> about
> > the IEE's guide on EMC and Functional Safety (which you now admit you
> > haven't read) instead of simply saying what it is that you think is
> wrong
> > with it.
>
> I quite specifically said that I refrained from comment on it and I did
> not comment on it. Furthermore, I don't intend to.
>
> Make that into a 'negative impression', if you can reasonably do so.
> --
> Regards, John Woodgate, OOO - Own Opinions Only.
> http://www.jmwa.demon.co.uk
>
--- End Message ---
