|
|
Posted by guv on 10/15/06 22:02
On Sun, 15 Oct 2006 21:45:22 GMT, Lordy.UK <spam@recycle.bin> wrote:
>> You've proved what a prat you are. PLONK
>
>Yes indeed; he's the prat.
>
>Not you, the one who started name calling without any provocation.
>
>Not you, the one who started doing so because of someone's grammar.
>
>And certainly not you, the one who derides people's for making mistakes
>despite being unable to spell the relevant words - yet somehow feels
>qualified enough to instruct other people in their correct useage.
Thankyou for noticing! ;-)
Whilst the object under discussion and point being made may be
completely accurate - certainly he nor I can say with 100% certainty.
My take is if there is completely no mileage with it, but they
advertise with false claims, they would be rather foolish. Its only
that, plus the fact I have seen several reviews of optical cables
where users have claimed a big difference in quality depending on the
cable used. (Not just the length) There must be more than just a red
light sending 0s and 1s if that is the case.
It is finda funny though when people think themselves clever by
correcting grammer - and fuck up their own reply. Priceless! I wasnt
sure if the comment was aimed at me in the first post, but the second
proved to me without doubt the guy is a 100% arsehole of the first
order.
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|