In a message dated 06/06/2010 09:59:44 GMT Daylight Time, [email protected] 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 _______________________________________________ time-nuts mailing list -- [email protected] To unsubscribe, go to https://www.febo.com/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/time-nuts and follow the instructions there.
