Message from discussion iPhone 5 Quality Control Slipping
Received: by 10.68.138.14 with SMTP id qm14mr3582071pbb.5.1349582372322;
Sat, 06 Oct 2012 20:59:32 -0700 (PDT)
From: owl <o...@rooftop.invalid>
Subject: Re: iPhone 5 Quality Control Slipping
Date: Sun, 7 Oct 2012 03:59:31 +0000 (UTC)
Organization: ok by me, so long as it doesn't get out of hand
References: <email@example.com> <CC95F85C.C850firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <CC95FD56.C85Bfirstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <CC9601D8.C85Efirstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <CC960949.C864firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <CC964660.C898firstname.lastname@example.org>
User-Agent: tin/1.9.5-20091224 ("Lochruan") (UNIX) (Linux/3.0.0-24-generic (x86_64))
Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> On 10/6/12 8:16 PM, in article d55...@rooftop.invalid, "owl"
> <o...@rooftop.invalid> wrote:
> > Snit <use...@gallopinginsanity.com> wrote:
> >> On 10/6/12 4:00 PM, in article
> >> email@example.com, "fungus"
> >> <fungee2...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >>> On Saturday, October 6, 2012 6:42:19 PM UTC-4, Snit wrote:
> >>>> Yes, it is funny how much of a failure you have been in backing your claim.
> >>>> Anyway, step up your game if you want another response from me. As I
> >>>> noted, you are boring.
> >>> That's the difference between you and I snit.
> >> Sure: I back my accusations and you do not.
> > Hmm. "Between you and I".
> > Where have I seen that sort of illiteracy before?
> You only confuse COLA with all of Usenet, so not you. LOL!
Are you lost again? That reply makes no sense.