Flash meter users: a few questions...



B

Bay Area Dave

Guest
does the light work well for placing a sample on the strip in low or no light?

are the readings always accurate (based on your use over a long period of time of a Lifescan meter
such as the Ultra or SureStep? The Profile is reliable but IIRC, it gives lower readings overall
than the newer meters due to the calibration theory once used by meter makers). If you take several
readings, moments apart, are they essentially the same? (consistency)

Do you get unexplained system errors?

On their website, testing time is an "average" 7 seconds. What is it really? Ultra's testing takes
EXACTLY 5 seconds, so what's the deal with an "average" testing time? Does it take longer when the
ambient temp is low/high, or longer for higher bg readings?

What is it's operating temperature range?

How is Therasense's support?

TIA!

dave
 
W

William C Biggs

Guest
Dave,

We don't have enough users to give you feedback on accuracy yet for this one.

The built in light is fine. It turns on only when the strip is inserted plus you press the light
button. It provides enough light to find the blood and get it onto the strip in the dark.

Previous Therasense meters were of excellent quality and we had relatively few problems with them.

WCB

"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> does the light work well for placing a sample on the strip in low or no light?
>
> are the readings always accurate (based on your use over a long period of time of a Lifescan meter
> such as the Ultra or SureStep? The Profile is reliable but IIRC, it gives lower readings overall
> than the newer meters due to the calibration theory once used by meter makers). If you take
> several readings, moments apart, are they essentially the same? (consistency)
>
> Do you get unexplained system errors?
>
> On their website, testing time is an "average" 7 seconds. What is it really? Ultra's testing takes
> EXACTLY 5 seconds, so what's the deal with an "average" testing time? Does it take longer when the
> ambient temp is low/high, or longer for higher bg readings?
>
> What is it's operating temperature range?
>
> How is Therasense's support?
>
> TIA!
>
>
> dave
 
R

Rick Ayres

Guest
The Freestyle Flash (and the original Freestyle) works great for me. It gives repeatable results and
provides similar results to other meters I've used (Accu-Chek Compact, Accu-Check Advantage). The
light seemed adequate the few time I tried using it in dim conditions.

The test time varies with both sample volume and BG level. The smaller the volume and the higher the
BG level, the longer the test takes. Worst case is probably 15 seconds with a small (and I mean
extremely small ) sample.

Rick

"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> does the light work well for placing a sample on the strip in low or no light?
>
> are the readings always accurate (based on your use over a long period of time of a Lifescan meter
> such as the Ultra or SureStep? The Profile is reliable but IIRC, it gives lower readings overall
> than the newer meters due to the calibration theory once used by meter makers). If you take
> several readings, moments apart, are they essentially the same? (consistency)
>
> Do you get unexplained system errors?
>
> On their website, testing time is an "average" 7 seconds. What is it really? Ultra's testing takes
> EXACTLY 5 seconds, so what's the deal with an "average" testing time? Does it take longer when the
> ambient temp is low/high, or longer for higher bg readings?
>
> What is it's operating temperature range?
>
> How is Therasense's support?
>
> TIA!
>
>
> dave
 
I

Igor

Guest
Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<K6tWb.23788>
> Ultra's testing takes EXACTLY 5 seconds, so what's the deal with an "average" testing time? dave

Maybe the question should be "How can Ultra make a accurate measurement in all situations in EXACTLY
5 seconds???"... Unless they have developed an ultra fast enzyme, which reacts with the glucose
completely in 99.999% of cases in say less than 3 seconds they cannot deliver a precise number in 5
seconds... And I am a little bit suspicious that all the meters use the same enzyme...

Igor
 
B

Bay Area Dave

Guest
thanks, Rick for the info. My wife is a meter junky <g> and almost got a Freestyle the other day
when we had gone to the store to pick her up an UltraSmart. She liked the small size and the fact it
has a light. My concern was that since both of us have tried most popular meters on the market and
find the Ultra series to be the best choice for us right now, I encouraged her to not try yet
another "unknown". Both of us would like to have a meter that we can use inside a movie theatre or
dark car interior, but don't want to give up accurate readings. The UltraSmart has a lighted screen
but not a lighted test strip.

Would you say that the light that shines on the strip is sufficent to easily place the blood on the
sample area? Keep in mind I've never seen the strips, so I don't know if they have edge sampling
like the Ultra.

dave

Rick Ayres wrote:

> The Freestyle Flash (and the original Freestyle) works great for me. It gives repeatable results
> and provides similar results to other meters I've used (Accu-Chek Compact, Accu-Check Advantage).
> The light seemed adequate the few time I tried using it in dim conditions.
>
> The test time varies with both sample volume and BG level. The smaller the volume and the higher
> the BG level, the longer the test takes. Worst case is probably 15 seconds with a small (and I
> mean extremely small ) sample.
>
> Rick
>
>
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:[email protected]...
>
>>does the light work well for placing a sample on the strip in low or no light?
>>
>>are the readings always accurate (based on your use over a long period of time of a Lifescan meter
>>such as the Ultra or SureStep? The Profile is reliable but IIRC, it gives lower readings overall
>>than the newer meters due to the calibration theory once used by meter makers). If you take
>>several readings, moments apart, are they essentially the same? (consistency)
>>
>>Do you get unexplained system errors?
>>
>>On their website, testing time is an "average" 7 seconds. What is it really? Ultra's testing takes
>>EXACTLY 5 seconds, so what's the deal with an "average" testing time? Does it take longer when the
>>ambient temp is low/high, or longer for higher bg readings?
>>
>>What is it's operating temperature range?
>>
>>How is Therasense's support?
>>
>>TIA!
>>
>>
>>dave
>>
>
 
B

Bay Area Dave

Guest
IGOR, you don't know what you are talking about, regarding the Ultra's ability to deliver accurate
results in 5 seconds. You are talking out of your hat to insinuate that the meter isn't accurate.
MANY folks here will attest to it's accuracy.

dave

Igor wrote:

> Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<K6tWb.23788>
>
>>Ultra's testing takes EXACTLY 5 seconds, so what's the deal with an "average" testing time? dave
>
>
> Maybe the question should be "How can Ultra make a accurate measurement in all situations in
> EXACTLY 5 seconds???"... Unless they have developed an ultra fast enzyme, which reacts with the
> glucose completely in 99.999% of cases in say less than 3 seconds they cannot deliver a precise
> number in 5 seconds... And I am a little bit suspicious that all the meters use the same enzyme...
>
> Igor
 
I

Igor

Guest
Bay Area Dave wrote:
> IGOR, you don't know what you are talking about, regarding the Ultra's ability to deliver accurate
> results in 5 seconds. You are talking out of your hat to insinuate that the meter isn't accurate.
> MANY folks here will attest to it's accuracy.
>
I am not questioning the precision of any meter - I myself can attest that any meter including Ultra
will deliver BG reading with acceptable accuracy under normal conditions.

The question is not accuracy under normal conditions, but the principles, on which the measurement
is based. Some principles might be more robust than the other. E.g. I like to drive my Peugeot car,
as it is reliable under normal conditions, but I would never claim, that Peugeot cars are more
reliable than Toyota or safer than Volvo.

Freestyle measures the whole amount of electric charge, which is generated in the test strip by the
chemical reaction ("coulombometric method"). If for some reason the reaction is slower, the
measurement will take longer, and vice versa.

Ultra on the other hand measures only the electric current in the first 5 seconds. If the chemical
reaction is for some reason untypically slow (e.g. too cold), than god knows what will Ultra do...
BTW Ultra has to have some kind of thermometer and adjust its measurement based on the themperature.
Ultra should probably also deliver some message like "unable to measure due to low temperature" at
some point, in my opinion well above 0 degrees celsius...

Someone having problems with Ultra during skiing in the winter (==just guessing)..

Igor, T1, freestyle fan, not much hair on my head, dislike hats...
 
J

Joe Durusau

Guest
Igor wrote:
> Bay Area Dave wrote:
>
>>IGOR, you don't know what you are talking about, regarding the Ultra's ability to deliver accurate
>>results in 5 seconds. You are talking out of your hat to insinuate that the meter isn't accurate.
>>MANY folks here will attest to it's accuracy.
>>
>
> I am not questioning the precision of any meter - I myself can attest that any meter including
> Ultra will deliver BG reading with acceptable accuracy under normal conditions.
>
> The question is not accuracy under normal conditions, but the principles, on which the measurement
> is based. Some principles might be more robust than the other. E.g. I like to drive my Peugeot
> car, as it is reliable under normal conditions, but I would never claim, that Peugeot cars are
> more reliable than Toyota or safer than Volvo.
>
> Freestyle measures the whole amount of electric charge, which is generated in the test strip by
> the chemical reaction ("coulombometric method"). If for some reason the reaction is slower, the
> measurement will take longer, and vice versa.
>
> Ultra on the other hand measures only the electric current in the first 5 seconds. If the chemical
> reaction is for some reason untypically slow (e.g. too cold), than god knows what will Ultra do...
> BTW Ultra has to have some kind of thermometer and adjust its measurement based on the
> themperature. Ultra should probably also deliver some message like "unable to measure due to low
> temperature" at some point, in my opinion well above 0 degrees celsius...
>
> Someone having problems with Ultra during skiing in the winter (==just guessing)..
>
> Igor, T1, freestyle fan, not much hair on my head, dislike hats...

If you have an Ultra, read the info that comes with it. The temp range for the meter and the strips
is there for a reason.

Speaking only for myself,

Joe Durusau
 
R

Rick Ayres

Guest
Dave,

I just did a test with the Flash in total darkness to see how it would work. I was able to do it
without any problem. There's a light in the display and a green LED that lights up the test strip
and the area around it. Only one of the lights is on at a time. If you press the light button
without a test strip inserted, the display lights up. When you insert a strip and the meter is ready
to test, the light automatically switches to the LED. When the strip has received an adequate
sample, the light switches back to the display. Pretty neat.

The Freestyle test strips (same kind for both the original Freestyle and the Flash) use edge
sampling. There's a sample area on each side of the strip, so you can use whichever one is most
convenient. According to the specs, the test strips need only a 0.3 microliter sample, vs. 1.0. for
the Ultra. I don't know if these numbers are really meaningful, but I do know I can get accurate
readings from the Flash with incredibly small samples. By contrast, my old Accu-Chek Advantage now
seems like it takes a gallon of blood!

Rick

"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:pF7Xb.12232$%[email protected]...
> thanks, Rick for the info. My wife is a meter junky <g> and almost got a Freestyle the other day
> when we had gone to the store to pick her up an UltraSmart. She liked the small size and the fact
> it has a light. My concern was that since both of us have tried most popular meters on the market
> and find the Ultra series to be the best choice for us right now, I encouraged her to not try yet
> another "unknown". Both of us would like to have a meter that we can use inside a movie theatre or
> dark car interior, but don't want to give up accurate readings. The UltraSmart has a lighted
> screen but not a lighted test strip.
>
> Would you say that the light that shines on the strip is sufficent to easily place the blood on
> the sample area? Keep in mind I've never seen the strips, so I don't know if they have edge
> sampling like the Ultra.
>
> dave
>
> Rick Ayres wrote:
>
> > The Freestyle Flash (and the original Freestyle) works great for me. It gives repeatable results
> > and provides similar results to other meters
I've
> > used (Accu-Chek Compact, Accu-Check Advantage). The light seemed
adequate
> > the few time I tried using it in dim conditions.
> >
> > The test time varies with both sample volume and BG level. The smaller
the
> > volume and the higher the BG level, the longer the test takes. Worst
case is
> > probably 15 seconds with a small (and I mean extremely small ) sample.
> >
> > Rick
> >
> >
> > "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> > news:[email protected]...
> >
> >>does the light work well for placing a sample on the strip in low or no light?
> >>
> >>are the readings always accurate (based on your use over a long period of time of a Lifescan
> >>meter such as the Ultra or SureStep? The Profile is reliable but IIRC, it gives lower readings
> >>overall than the newer meters due to the calibration theory once used by meter makers). If you
> >>take several readings, moments apart, are they essentially the same? (consistency)
> >>
> >>Do you get unexplained system errors?
> >>
> >>On their website, testing time is an "average" 7 seconds. What is it really? Ultra's testing
> >>takes EXACTLY 5 seconds, so what's the deal with an "average" testing time? Does it take longer
> >>when the ambient temp is low/high, or longer for higher bg readings?
> >>
> >>What is it's operating temperature range?
> >>
> >>How is Therasense's support?
> >>
> >>TIA!
> >>
> >>
> >>dave
> >>
> >
> >
 
I

Igor

Guest
Joe Durusau <[email protected]> wrote
> If you have an Ultra, read the info that comes with it. The temp range for the meter and the
> strips is there for a reason.
>
> Joe Durusau

Just curious, what is the temperature range for Ultra (i.e. I don't have one at home...)???

Igor
 
R

Randy Sigman

Guest
Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
> dark car interior, but don't want to give up accurate readings. The UltraSmart has a lighted
> screen but not a lighted test strip.

> Would you say that the light that shines on the strip is sufficent to easily place the blood on
> the sample area? Keep in mind I've never seen the strips, so I don't know if they have edge
> sampling like the Ultra.

Dave,

I have had some success using the light on my pump to illuminate my Glucometer Elite whilst sitting
in a dark movie theater. It isn't an elegant solution, but it can be helpful. :)

Randy
 
B

Bay Area Dave

Guest
what a specious argument!!! the ultra will work within certain temperature limits outlined in the
manual. It won't work in the dead of winter while you are ice fishing.

dave

Igor wrote:

> Bay Area Dave wrote:
>
>>IGOR, you don't know what you are talking about, regarding the Ultra's ability to deliver accurate
>>results in 5 seconds. You are talking out of your hat to insinuate that the meter isn't accurate.
>>MANY folks here will attest to it's accuracy.
>>
>
> I am not questioning the precision of any meter - I myself can attest that any meter including
> Ultra will deliver BG reading with acceptable accuracy under normal conditions.
>
> The question is not accuracy under normal conditions, but the principles, on which the measurement
> is based. Some principles might be more robust than the other. E.g. I like to drive my Peugeot
> car, as it is reliable under normal conditions, but I would never claim, that Peugeot cars are
> more reliable than Toyota or safer than Volvo.
>
> Freestyle measures the whole amount of electric charge, which is generated in the test strip by
> the chemical reaction ("coulombometric method"). If for some reason the reaction is slower, the
> measurement will take longer, and vice versa.
>
> Ultra on the other hand measures only the electric current in the first 5 seconds. If the chemical
> reaction is for some reason untypically slow (e.g. too cold), than god knows what will Ultra do...
> BTW Ultra has to have some kind of thermometer and adjust its measurement based on the
> themperature. Ultra should probably also deliver some message like "unable to measure due to low
> temperature" at some point, in my opinion well above 0 degrees celsius...
>
> Someone having problems with Ultra during skiing in the winter (==just guessing)..
>
> Igor, T1, freestyle fan, not much hair on my head, dislike hats...
 
B

Bay Area Dave

Guest
thanks for the detailed description of how the lights work, Rick. I was hoping that the lighted
dial on the Ultrasmart would help use it in total darkness, but I can't seem to get the sampling
area filled properly when holding my finger SOMEWHERE against the test strip. Invariably the
sampling area doesn't quite get filled and I waste a strip or get an inaccurate reading because
it's not filled completely. Sounds like the Flash is the cat's meow for testing in the dark, like a
movie theater.

Could you do one more thing for me? could you measure the height of the numbers on the screen that
show the BG reading? My UltraSmart has smaller numbers than the preceeding Ultra. Thanks.

dave

Rick Ayres wrote:

> Dave,
>
> I just did a test with the Flash in total darkness to see how it would work. I was able to do it
> without any problem. There's a light in the display and a green LED that lights up the test strip
> and the area around it. Only one of the lights is on at a time. If you press the light button
> without a test strip inserted, the display lights up. When you insert a strip and the meter is
> ready to test, the light automatically switches to the LED. When the strip has received an
> adequate sample, the light switches back to the display. Pretty neat.
>
> The Freestyle test strips (same kind for both the original Freestyle and the Flash) use edge
> sampling. There's a sample area on each side of the strip, so you can use whichever one is most
> convenient. According to the specs, the test strips need only a 0.3 microliter sample, vs. 1.0.
> for the Ultra. I don't know if these numbers are really meaningful, but I do know I can get
> accurate readings from the Flash with incredibly small samples. By contrast, my old Accu-Chek
> Advantage now seems like it takes a gallon of blood!
>
> Rick
>
>
> "Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:pF7Xb.12232$%[email protected]...
>
>>thanks, Rick for the info. My wife is a meter junky <g> and almost got a Freestyle the other day
>>when we had gone to the store to pick her up an UltraSmart. She liked the small size and the fact
>>it has a light. My concern was that since both of us have tried most popular meters on the market
>>and find the Ultra series to be the best choice for us right now, I encouraged her to not try yet
>>another "unknown". Both of us would like to have a meter that we can use inside a movie theatre or
>>dark car interior, but don't want to give up accurate readings. The UltraSmart has a lighted
>>screen but not a lighted test strip.
>>
>>Would you say that the light that shines on the strip is sufficent to easily place the blood on
>>the sample area? Keep in mind I've never seen the strips, so I don't know if they have edge
>>sampling like the Ultra.
>>
>>dave
>>
>>Rick Ayres wrote:
>>
>>
>>>The Freestyle Flash (and the original Freestyle) works great for me. It gives repeatable results
>>>and provides similar results to other meters
>
> I've
>
>>>used (Accu-Chek Compact, Accu-Check Advantage). The light seemed
>
> adequate
>
>>>the few time I tried using it in dim conditions.
>>>
>>>The test time varies with both sample volume and BG level. The smaller
>
> the
>
>>>volume and the higher the BG level, the longer the test takes. Worst
>
> case is
>
>>>probably 15 seconds with a small (and I mean extremely small ) sample.
>>>
>>>Rick
>>>
>>>
>>>"Bay Area Dave" <[email protected]> wrote in message
>>>news:[email protected]...
>>>
>>>
>>>>does the light work well for placing a sample on the strip in low or no light?
>>>>
>>>>are the readings always accurate (based on your use over a long period of time of a Lifescan
>>>>meter such as the Ultra or SureStep? The Profile is reliable but IIRC, it gives lower readings
>>>>overall than the newer meters due to the calibration theory once used by meter makers). If you
>>>>take several readings, moments apart, are they essentially the same? (consistency)
>>>>
>>>>Do you get unexplained system errors?
>>>>
>>>>On their website, testing time is an "average" 7 seconds. What is it really? Ultra's testing
>>>>takes EXACTLY 5 seconds, so what's the deal with an "average" testing time? Does it take longer
>>>>when the ambient temp is low/high, or longer for higher bg readings?
>>>>
>>>>What is it's operating temperature range?
>>>>
>>>>How is Therasense's support?
>>>>
>>>>TIA!
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>dave
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
 
B

Bay Area Dave

Guest
HI, Randy. good idea. I've also got a watch with a light but I need 3 hands to use the light and get
the blood on the strip. It's doable but kinda a PITA, if you know what I mean. BTW I just tried the
Flash and returned it to the store after finding it gives high readings. So the UltraSmart will have
to do for the foreseeable future.

dave

Randy Sigman wrote:

> Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>>dark car interior, but don't want to give up accurate readings. The UltraSmart has a lighted
>>screen but not a lighted test strip.
>
>
>>Would you say that the light that shines on the strip is sufficent to easily place the blood on
>>the sample area? Keep in mind I've never seen the strips, so I don't know if they have edge
>>sampling like the Ultra.
>
>
> Dave,
>
> I have had some success using the light on my pump to illuminate my Glucometer Elite whilst
> sitting in a dark movie theater. It isn't an elegant solution, but it can be helpful. :)
>
> Randy
 
B

Bay Area Dave

Guest
the fact that you don't even know it works only with a certain temp range demonstrates your
unbounding IGNORANCE.

dave

Igor wrote:

> Joe Durusau <[email protected]> wrote
>
>>If you have an Ultra, read the info that comes with it. The temp range for the meter and the
>>strips is there for a reason.
>>
>>Joe Durusau
>
>
> Just curious, what is the temperature range for Ultra (i.e. I don't have one at home...)???
>
> Igor
 
I

Igor

Guest
Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in message news:<[email protected]>...
> the fact that you don't even know it works only with a certain temp range demonstrates your
> unbounding IGNORANCE.
>
> dave
>
Dave,

I am so glad you like me. When I checked the other thread "Freestyle Flash: Beware inaccurate
readings", which was also initiated by you, the "unbounding ingrorance" is one of the nicest words
you have used. I am so glad that I can stand beside people like: David (Batezee) = moron OldFartJAC
= twit bait Jim Dumas = DUDE Tony Pacc = idiot + moron Bob = twit with moronic posts

There are times, when I just enjoy being only ignorant...

Igor
PS: Thanks for your posts, my english vocabulary was extended by several nice phrases...
 
B

Bay Area Dave

Guest
YOu missed a few salient points, like JIm calling me dude first, which I was mimicking. OFJ is
DEFINITELY "twit bait". Batezee is arguably a "moron". Bob is in a class by himself and I've had him
filtered for a long time. Do you REALLY want to be associated with a couple of those fellows? Jim
isn't bad; just thick headed about certain things. You don't see me calling him as derogatory names
as the others on your short list.

I reiterate that you are ignorant of the temperature operating range of the Ultras. That is FACT.
Doesn't mean you are a bad person; means you lack some specific knowledge of the topic at hand.
Don't get so riled up. I am ignorant about T2 DM management. It ISN'T a character flaw to be
ignorant of something. Relax, Igor.

dave

Igor wrote:

> Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote in message
> news:<[email protected]>...
>
>>the fact that you don't even know it works only with a certain temp range demonstrates your
>>unbounding IGNORANCE.
>>
>>dave
>>
>
> Dave,
>
> I am so glad you like me. When I checked the other thread "Freestyle Flash: Beware inaccurate
> readings", which was also initiated by you, the "unbounding ingrorance" is one of the nicest words
> you have used. I am so glad that I can stand beside people like: David (Batezee) = moron
> OldFartJAC = twit bait Jim Dumas = DUDE Tony Pacc = idiot + moron Bob = twit with moronic posts
>
> There are times, when I just enjoy being only ignorant...
>
> Igor
> PS: Thanks for your posts, my english vocabulary was extended by several nice phrases...
 
A

Alan

Guest
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 18:59:26 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

>Don't get so riled up. I am ignorant about T2 DM management. It ISN'T a character flaw to be
>ignorant of something. Relax, Igor.
>
>dave

That may be a matter of opinion. It may not be a character flaw to be ignorant of tact or diplomacy,
but their use sure can assist in converting someone to your point of view.

One of the difficulties of communicating on the net is that you fail to see that glazed look in
their eyes when they're bored silly(lucky for me, and you:), or that glare when invective
eliminates comprehension.

IOW, if you call someone names, they are looking to justify their point, not listen to yours.

Cheers, Alan
 
B

Bay Area Dave

Guest
ah, like the glazed look I get when trying to read one of Rainbow's infamous 500+ word paragraphs?

I KNOW when I'm being undiplomatic, Alan. It's not like I'm stupid. I just don't always give a rat's
ass, that's all. :) For those folks who are dignified, well bred, and decent, I accord them the
utmost respect. For those who fall outside the confines of those parameters, there's no holds
barred. On a further note, if someone cleans up their act, then I will be civil to them. I don't
really worry about giving back what I receive.

For the truly unrepentant miscreants such as Bob I find that filters save the day. Nothing he writes
is of any interest to me.

You hold my interest from time to time, even when you go into admonishment mode like a teacher
scolding his pupil. I understand your motive (to SOME extent) and appreciate the sincerity.

Cheers!

dave

Alan wrote:

> On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 18:59:26 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:
>
>
>>Don't get so riled up. I am ignorant about T2 DM management. It ISN'T a character flaw to be
>>ignorant of something. Relax, Igor.
>>
>>dave
>
>
> That may be a matter of opinion. It may not be a character flaw to be ignorant of tact or
> diplomacy, but their use sure can assist in converting someone to your point of view.
>
> One of the difficulties of communicating on the net is that you fail to see that glazed look in
> their eyes when they're bored silly(lucky for me, and you:), or that glare when invective
> eliminates comprehension.
>
> IOW, if you call someone names, they are looking to justify their point, not listen to yours.
>
> Cheers, Alan
 
A

Alan

Guest
On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 21:40:59 GMT, Bay Area Dave <[email protected]> wrote:

>You hold my interest from time to time, even when you go into admonishment mode like a teacher
>scolding his pupil. I understand your motive (to SOME extent) and appreciate the sincerity.
>
>Cheers!
>
>dave

Thanks for the compliment - I think. Was that admonishment mode when I posted? I suppose it must
have been. Did it work ? :)