sorry storage heater ?

grahamc2003

Richie-from-the-Boro wrote: »

I've no reason to change my advice, the way I said it in the first case was / is simple, easy to understand, correct, and succinct, it needs no further embellishment.

Well, I thought proving that your method resulted in a higher 'leakage' during the night was a pretty unassailable reason to change your advice.

luvchocolate

can only think no1 on mine is closed as there is no other way to "close" it. Thanks again

Richie-from-the-Boro

Embellishment : a fictitious addition, as to a factual statement, or an ornament or decoration.

No I certainly don't want to change my advice to others or have it changed by others on my behalf. You and I disagree on this, nothing whatsoever wrong with that. I don't post adversarial intro's to my opinions telling you you are wrong, I just post my views.

No, that categorically is NOT the cheapest way to operate them at all
That's just nonsense
very strange view (which seems to have passed to another poster too!

You on the other hand could do with a 'refresher' in interpersonal skills my friend when writing in this forum, the fact that you don't agree with a~n~other poster is no reason to take it personal. Now this thread which was luvchocolate's is corrupted, shame for luvchocolate and others reading, so I'll leave the thread.

.1. Yes I do expect you to 'stalk' me in other threads, but I'm uncomfortable that I allowed myself to ruin another posters thread.

.2. Yes, everyone has an exception to the rule, and my single issue repudiation of salesmen and snake~oil~sellers who try to delude the vulnerable in this forum can be .. .. very very adversarial, for which I offer no apologies.