Good Samaritan Rule?

From: Wayne M. Smith <>
Date: Tue Jun 26 01:53:15 2001

> >
> > There is nothing quite like thinking you are doing
> > good thing" and being criticized for the "way" you
> > doing it. There's something inherently offensive
> > it. That's why so many states have passed
> If this is aimed at me, and I think it most
certainly, is, then you might
> say so...

Obviously, it was aimed in part at you, but you are not
alone. You weren't the first to criticize my rehab
methods so I thought it unfair to single you out.
Perhaps it was chickenshit not to address you directly.
Your comments were just the trigger.
> There's something that I find offensive too. And that
is being flamed for
> offering what I consider to be correct advice. Please
remember that I
> give my time, knowledge, and experience freely. If
people here don't want
> such advice, then tell me and I will leave. I've
thought about leaving
> several times due to being flamed for things like
this. And I can assure
> you that _I_ will not be the loser....
Of course your advice is valued, extremely so, and my
separate thanks for it was sincere. That advice did
come, however, with a morsel of baggage. Consider, for
a moment, your statement to me that you "have a major
objection to 'whacking' anything near a CRT." Stipped
to the essential message, it is excellent cautionary
advice. The phrasing, however, and particularly the
inclusion of "major objection," turns it into
criticism. You could have said "I would be careful
about 'whacking" anything near a CRT." Same advice; no
criticism. (So, call me sensitive.)

I think I understand the dangers of CRT implosion, and
I tried to be careful. Placing a chisel firmly against
the side of a brass washer on the outside of a heavy
metal frame in which the CRT sits, well to the rear of
the CRT, and then 'whacking" it with a hammer while
bracing the unit, did not, in my view, imperil the CRT.
The force was narrowly contained. Blame my imprecise
description, which probably made it sound like I was
taking wild hammer swings near the display.
> > "good Samaritan" laws, which prevent lawsuits such
> > malpractice actions against doctors who stop and
> > aid to accident victims.
> >
> > Do the same rules apply to collecting and
attempting to
> > fix computer equipment?
> Oh, for %deity's sake. Nobody is going to sue
anybody, surely.
Clearly, you live across the pond.

> > Today I posted some questions regarding an IBM S/23
> > am trying to get working (VCF 5.0 is coming up
> > The 5322 unit I saved from a dumpster and found
> > the display was badly burned and feeble. A year
and a
> > half later I found someone who had a number of 5324
> > displays that he was going to pitch. I paid to
> > one of the displays shipped from St. Loius to L.A.,
> > I could swap them. I suspected that this would
> > because the IBM part nos. for the internal display
> > were identical. Today I swapped the displays, and
> > was mostly a success. But, I think I've offended
> Also, you now say that the 2 monitor chassis
assemblies have the same
> part number. In this case, I think it's safe to
assume they _are_
> compatible (in fact they might well be identical). So
the height problem
> is certainly not an incompatability. It's most likely
a fault.
Not identical, as inicated separately, but I assume

> In the circumstances, the first thing to try when the
height is too low
> is, most liklely, a tweak of the height control. To
be honest, I'd
> probably have tried that too

But you said, "the last thing to do is tweak the

(knowing that a height controller, as

> Now, as to what I would have done differently, had it
been my machine....
> My first thought would have been to swap the CRT
only. Not the entire
> monitor. For at least 2 reasons it's a good idea to
replace as small a
> part as possible.
I thought of this initially. The reason I didn't is
because the yokes were glued on and the wiring from the
yokes was soldered to the boards. Would have been a
lot of effort. Granted, it is probably something I
will now have to do in any case.

> My second thought would be to look for faults when
tweaking an adjustment
> doesn't have the desired effect.
That is where I am at now. However, I still intend to
do this, at this juncture, at the macro level by
swapping the video boards.

> OK, so you have a monitor that's not working right,
how do you learn
> about it?
> Well, I am going to assume that the manufacturer
never provided a
> schematic or component level repair manual.
That's right. I have the maintenance manuals. The
solution given for every problem that cannot be solved
by tweaking or moving the yoke is to replace the entire

> > Although I'm an engineer, I'm an ME and my
> If 'ME' = Mechanical Engineer,

It does.

then I am even more suprised by the use of
> a hammer. I've never used a hammer for any mechanical
engineering that I
> can remember.

Well, my degree is 20 yrs. old and vestigal -- I work
in the entertainment biz. :-|

> But, more important that tools or test equipment,
IMHO, is the ability to
> think about what you are doing and to stop and think
if there's a better
> way to do it. Nobody is going to flame you for making
a mistake.
Hopefully not, but it does happen.
> No, please carry on. The only way to learn is by
doing things. And keep on
> asking questions -- that's another good way to learn.
I will, and I hope you'll keep providing useful advice.
But bear in mind
> that if you ask for advice it may not be what you
want to hear. It may
> help you in the end, though.
It did here, but also bear in mind that some of us are
simply do not have the tools and knowledge to repair
things at the component level -- yet.
Received on Tue Jun 26 2001 - 01:53:15 BST

This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0 : Fri Oct 10 2014 - 23:34:00 BST