Posted by rob on 10/11/06 07:05

On Tue, 10 Oct 2006 22:23:40 -0700, JoeBloe
<joebloe@thebarattheendoftheuniverse.org> wrote:

>On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 14:10:26 +1000, jd <jd@syd.net> Gave us:
>
>>Big deal. One hardly notices the longer running time. PAL is still
>>superior to NTSC in every way.
>
>
> You fucking know NOTHING retard. 4% faster would yield a SHORTER
>running time. D'OH!
>
>
> It is always amusing to catch a know nothing twit that merely posts
>peanut gallery comments based on brainless assumptions.
>
> Especially when his mistake is so stupid as that of inverting the
>math!
>
> Hahahahaha! Good one, asswipe!

Go wipe that shit off your face dogbreath. The OP was talking about
the LONGER RUNNING TIME OF NTSC you TERMINAL FUCKHEAD

HAHAHAHA to you, COCK HEAD

• Next in forum: Re: IMHO, Digital SECAM video is better than Analog NTSC video
• Prev in forum: Re: using stills
• Thread view: Re: IMHO, Digital SECAM video is better than Analog NTSC video

[Reply to this message]