Robert P. J. Day wrote: >>> please, no notes along the lines of "well, you might want to try >>> *this* ..." i've "tried" a number of alleged solution -- now i'm >>> ready for one that simply works. why is that such an unreasonable >>> request? Tim: >> If you want new suggestions, you need to have provided a list of >> what you've already done. We don't know what you don't know. Robert P. J. Day: > no, that is precisely the *wrong* approach. (and, at this point, > i'm actually addressing more general documentation shortfalls than > just wireless.) > > there is little value in listing the 6 variations i've tried, just > so someone can say, "here, here's a 7th possibility, maybe *that'll* > work." > p.s. i might write up what i think i've established so far and post > it to my wiki, so others can peruse it and tell me where i screwed up. > maybe that will help narrow things down. Make up your mind! How's that different from what I said? You asked for an alleged solution that simply works, obviously you need one different than what you've tried before, and nobody can do that without knowing what you've tried or giving you the same things to try. Yes, I don't like that approach either - in the other part of what you discussed, recipes versus details of what's involved are two different methodologies, and I'd prefer good instructional information than just a list of steps that work for someone, and may not for another. But you *did* discuss both ways (another suggestion, as well as good descriptions of the processes). -- (This box runs FC5, my others run FC4 & FC6, in case that's important to the thread.) Don't send private replies to my address, the mailbox is ignored. I read messages from the public lists.
