Posted by Roderick Stewart on 10/11/06 10:34

On Wed, 11 Oct 2006 17:05:00 +1000, rob <rob@nospam.net> wrote:

>>>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

Ah, I see an amiably conducted well-reasoned debate between
intelligent rational-minded adults has sprung up again. Points of view
expressed in such a manner really deserve everyone's fullest
consideration, don't they.

Rod.

• Next in forum: Re: Question about SECAM and Subcarriers
• Prev in forum: Re: IMHO, Digital SECAM video is better than Analog NTSC video
• Thread view: Re: IMHO, Digital SECAM video is better than Analog NTSC video

[Reply to this message]