[time-nuts] Tight-PLL - YOU DON'T NEED TO READ IT IF YOUR FED-UP WITH THE...

GandalfG8 at aol.com GandalfG8 at aol.com
Sun Jun 6 10:39:21 UTC 2010


 
In a message dated 06/06/2010 09:59:44 GMT Daylight Time,  
sar10538 at gmail.com writes:

So who  has made this assertion, all along it's been understood that
this was an  improved way of implementing the tight-PLL method. Did you
not get  that?

Now I'm finding this petty attack on someone else's research,  without
fully understanding it, quite tiresome, it's seriously cutting into  my
quality porn time but  won't lay down and play  dead.



------------------
Steve
 
You're becoming more and more offensive as your contributions continue  and 
it's starting to get unpleasant.
 
Whether or not one agrees with Warren or Bruce, or in some respects with  
either, tends not to alter the fact that their ongoing discussions via the 
list  are now of questionable value since both are firmly entrenched with 
their own  points of view and neither is ever likely to concede.
 
Unfortunately, your achievement has been to plumb new depths of  
irrelevance and you do yourself no favours.
 
It doesn't come across that this is cutting into your porn time, there's  
enough obscenity floating around to suggest you could be living it here and  
now.
 
PLEASE, give this, and all of us, a well deserved rest.
 
regards
 
Nigel
GM8PZR
 
 
 
 


More information about the time-nuts mailing list