> Are you saying Dan Masters is a dummy for writing it or I'm a
> dummy for buying and reading it? Or
> maybe we're just all dummies in your opinion. LOL...
My apologies, Don, I was NOT trying to say *anyone* was a dummy. What I
meant was that Dan has done a very good job of simplifying a complicated
topic for non-electrical engineers. Saying his book is "Electricity for
Dummies" was intended only to indicate that it _is_ simplified (with a
hopefully humorous reference to the "___ for Dummies" series of books that
seemed to be so popular a few years ago).
> and that I bought and
> read Dan Masters book to compensate
> for being so stupid in that regard,
Don, anyone that knows me will tell you that I NEVER confuse ignorance with
stupidity. You recognized your limited knowledge, and bought one of the
very best books to learn from ... clearly you are not stupid ! And perhaps
as a result, soon you won't be ignorant either <G>
I know nothing about how to plant beans, for example, but hopefully that
doesn't make me stupid. (And yes, now you can tell all your friends that I
don't know beans.)
> I sure am glad Dan had just little old me in mind when he wrote
> the book, and that no one else in
> this Triumph community has need for such a book written only for dummies.
On the contrary, it seems to be characteristic of most good mechanics that
electricity is a mystery to them. (Something about it being invisible, I
guess.) I've even shown Dan's book to my friends (who definitely are not
stupid) as a valuable resource. I heartily recommend it to all.
But, and this was also my point earlier, simplifying a complex topic
frequently leads to contradictions. And I think that is what has happened
here. As someone once said, a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
Randall
|