another small breakthrough on our NERD technology.

[poynt99]

Poynty Point.  This is my proposed test.  I've looked everywhere.  Why are you not commenting?

You missed it then. Reply #1078

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315662/#msg315662

[Rosemary Ainslie]

No Poynty Point.  That post has nothing to do with me.  Nor, for that matter has this.  I thought we'd undertaken some rules here Poynty. I am under no obligation to address any posts that are not addressed to me.  And I certainly WON'T acknowledge them when my own posts are IGNORED.  Kindly NOTE the amended list.  And then COMMENT.  Then I'll comment on your proposed amendments.  You see how it works Poynty?  That way you'll not be in any danger of talking to yourself.  And that way I'll find that I'm not wasting my time when I post here.

You missed it then. Reply #1078

http://www.overunity.com/11675/another-small-breakthrough-on-our-nerd-technology/msg315662/#msg315662

Kindest regards
Rosie Pose

[poynt99]

No Poynty Point.  That post has nothing to do with me.  Nor, for that matter has this.  I thought we'd undertaken some rules here Poynty. I am under no obligation to address any posts that are not addressed to me.  And I certainly WON'T acknowledge them when my own posts are IGNORED.  Kindly NOTE the amended list.  And then COMMENT.  Then I'll comment on your proposed amendments.  You see how it works Poynty?  That way you'll not be in any danger of talking to yourself.  And that way I'll find that I'm not wasting my time when I post here.

Kindest regards
Rosie Pose

Rosemary, I don't understand. That post's first line is this:

"Rosemary, some points that require clarification:"

Is that not addressing you?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

That is NOT the bullet scheduled list that I'm referring to.  I see NOTHING WHATSOEVER related to my list scheduled above.  Not even the amendment you seem to require of numbering those items.  I get the distinct impression that you're passing over the required changes that I propose.  And I'm inclined to think that this is deliberate.  Are my proposals simply to be ignored?  That's a bit harsh Poynty Point.

I think you'll agree that I need to cater to Harti's 'grounding' concerns.  I've done so.  There is, therefore, no need for the 555 test.  I would have thought?

Again,
Rosie Pose

Rosemary, I don't understand. That post's first line is this:

"Rosemary, some points that require clarification:"

Is that not addressing you?

[Rosemary Ainslie]

And may I add this. 

This post of yours Poynty Point is entirely COUNTER PRODUCTIVE.  IF you have any concerns at all SHARE THEM.  Do not try and put my competence at test.  It is tiresome and insulting.  We are not here to 'dance to your tune'.  We're here to discuss and engage.  Nothing else.  I thought we'd agreed to OSTENSIBLY drop our 'agendas' in the interest of furthering this discussion.  Therefore?  Kindly keep your comments appropriate.

Rosie Posie,

I have an answer for that question, but let's give Rosemary herself an opportunity to speak to the question of battery type and minimum amp-hour rating.