[ILUG] [Q] broken mouse work-arounds / replacements

[Brian Foster]

  | Date: Fri, 29 May 2009 07:08:32 +0100
  | From: Josh Glover <jmglov at gmail.com>
  | >> On Thursday 28 May 2009 08:41:30 Josh Glover wrote:
  | >>> 2009/5/26 Brian Foster <blf at utvinternet.ie>:
  | >>>> I'm presuming the impact of rechargeable[s]
  | >>>> is less than the impact of all the non-rechargeables.
  | >>>
  | >>> I hope this is true, as I labour under the same presumption. :)
  | >>> Has anyone pointers to research on this topic?
  | >[ ... ]
  | > As I read it, they seem to be saying [...] that the environmental
  | > impact of the rechargeable "is less than the impact of all the
  | > non-rechargeables".
  | 
  | That's what I thought Brian was saying as well, and my editing (above)
  | seems to support that fact. Once I removed all the supporting clauses
  | and qualifiers, his sentence is quite clear.

 yes, that's indeed what I was saying, as Josh's editted version
 clearly points out.  my apologies for not saying so perhaps as
 clearly as I should have.  I was educated as a scientist, and
 tend to try to qualify my statements.  this can lead to both
 verbosity and opaqueness, albeit as Josh has shown, underneath
 the word salad it can be quite clear.  of course, better writers
 than I can be clear without loosing the advisable qualifications
 and supporting statements.

cheers!
	-blf-

  | Common sense would dictate that recyclables have less of an
  | environmental impact, but common sense is sometimes, er, a little too
  | common. ;)
-- 
“How many surrealists does it take to    |  Brian Foster
 change a lightbulb?  Three.  One calms  |  somewhere in south of France
 the warthog, and two fill the bathtub   |     Stop E$$o (ExxonMobil)!
 with brightly-coloured machine tools.”  |       http://www.stopesso.com