Hi again John, Your last post contains some entirely valid points which I'm very happy to accept. I think they call this sort of thing peer review, and you certainly make a worthy peer!
I'm going to go back and review the post. I'm happy with the number of light fittings as that's transparent and any way replacement would be pro rata in terms of cost if you started with fewer fittings. The running times do though, as you say, need looking at again and perhaps breaking down to provide greater transparency / illustrate how they're arrived at. Watch this space.
This isn't a joke: would you be interested in proof reading some of my future work?
I'm going to go back and review the post. I'm happy with the number of light fittings as that's transparent and any way replacement would be pro rata in terms of cost if you started with fewer fittings. The running times do though, as you say, need looking at again and perhaps breaking down to provide greater transparency / illustrate how they're arrived at. Watch this space.
This isn't a joke: would you be interested in proof reading some of my future work?