[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