Candace Lemarr wrote:
> OK, Moose, I am so sorry...I meant to say this morning that it is YOU who
> are too smart for me, especially that early in the morning without another
> cup of coffee. See....I was right! I said Walt...and heck, I'm sure he is,
> too. ;-)) But I meant to say "Moose".
>
Natural mistake. Walt and I are one of those sets of good/evil
"separated at birth" pairs. Problem is that over 6 decades later, nobody
can decide which is which. :-)
On thing is clear, though, neither of us has thin skin.
> What you said makes sense...Thanx for taking the time to *try* to 'splain it
> to me. ;-))
>
Just don't forget to mention the loss of date/time/settings with change
of battery bit when you send it back again. The truth is that repair
people don't have the luxury of time, and in many cases don't have the
interest anyway, to test the camera throughly beyond the reported
problem(s). And this will be particularly true for an unusual and/or
apparently intermittent problem.
Get it in writing and they have to pay some attention to it.
> Oh, and I don't know how many times I've told people exactly what you ended
> your email with...the E-300 is really a computer.
>
So's a contemporary car, refrigerator, etc. etc., but less obviously and
completely so - yet.
Moose
==============================================
List usage info: http://www.zuikoholic.com
List nannies: olympusadmin@xxxxxxxxxx
==============================================
|