Ink for Dell A920
L...@unreal.invalid
TIA
Lou
Education is about knowing where to look for answers.
measekite
zakezuke
Unless you take a hacksaw to your printer, your options are "very"
limited. It's a Lexmark 1150 with an extra bump, and unless you cut
the bump lexmark tanks will not fit. There might be some form of
electronic protection as well, but I don't own one I can't speak on the
subject.
Lasermonks actually now carry remanufactured "lexmark" cartridges. as
does atlantic inkjet.
http://www.lasermonks.com/
http://atlanticinkjet.com/
While aftermarket ink would cut your costs in 1/2... the a920 is not a
cheap printer to run. There are many printers which you can buy for
under $100 which come with more ink than Lexmark a920, that cost less
to operate. It would be wise to consider one.
MCheu
For ink, you should be able to refill them using kits intended for the
Lexmark X1150, as it's essentially the same printer with one "minor"
modification to the cartridge shape at DELL's request.
For cartridges, you may have to get them from DELL, because DELL
modification to the cartridge shape makes the Lexmark cartridges
incompatible.
---------------------------------------------
Thanks.
MCheu
L...@unreal.invalid
Thanks to you and zakezuke for the quick replies!
Another Q. When I googled for the answer I did get sources other than
Dell which seem quite a bit less expensive. Anyone have any comments or
experiences with non-Dell sources?
TIA again.
Lou
Arthur Entlich
The printers are usually Lexmark but they were designed not to take
Lexmark cartridge, and instead now only accepts certain Dell rebranded
cartridge, for which Dell gets some profit.
Art
mcheu
L...@UnReal.invalid wrote:
>
> Thanks to you and zakezuke for the quick replies!
>
> Another Q. When I googled for the answer I did get sources other than
> Dell which seem quite a bit less expensive. Anyone have any comments or
> experiences with non-Dell sources?
>
> TIA again.
>
> Lou
The aftermarket cartridges for the Lexmark printers (and also the DELL
printers made by Lexmark) are made from recycled cartridge hulls. You
may have noticed that some stores and organizations have drop off boxes
for recycling of ink cartridges. The aftermarket Lexmark cartridges
that you see are these recycled hulls. They refurbish them, refill
them with their own inks, and sell them as aftermarket carts. (the
packaging should indicate that they're remanufactured). It's pretty
rare to find compatibles that are 100% new, as the Lexmarks tend to
have integral printheads, which makes them expensive to manufacture.
As the remanufactured cartridges are made from the original OEM hulls,
they're every bit as compatible as the originals. Your biggest issue
is likely with the colour cartridges, where the colours are sometimes a
bit off compared to the originals -- a problem you might encounter if
you refilled yourself.
That said, the recommendation about pitching this printer and buying
another (preferably not from DELL or Lexmark) should be given serious
consideration. Even if you buy the remanufactured cartridges for your
printer, it's still going to be pretty pricy. Consider buying
something like one of the multi-tank Canon printers. Your printing
costs will be considerably lower, and you won't be locked into one
retailer as you are with the DELL printers.
measekite
mcheu wrote:
>L...@UnReal.invalid wrote:
>
>
>
>>Thanks to you and zakezuke for the quick replies!
>>
>>Another Q. When I googled for the answer I did get sources other than
>>Dell which seem quite a bit less expensive. Anyone have any comments or
>>experiences with non-Dell sources?
>>
>>TIA again.
>>
>>Lou
>>
>>
>
>The aftermarket cartridges for the Lexmark printers (and also the DELL
>printers made by Lexmark) are made from recycled cartridge hulls. You
>may have noticed that some stores and organizations have drop off boxes
>for recycling of ink cartridges. The aftermarket Lexmark cartridges
>that you see are these recycled hulls.
>
THEY ARE WORSE THAN THE OEM LEXMARK AND THEY ARE BAD. LEXMARK CANNOT
EVEN BE CONSIDERED A PRINTER. IT IS AN INK DISPENSER. CUT YOUR LOSSES
AND GET A CANON OR HP
> They refurbish them, refill
>them with their own inks
>
AND WILL NOT DISCLOSE WHAT THEY PUT IN THEM
>, and sell them as aftermarket carts. (the
>packaging should indicate that they're remanufactured). It's pretty
>rare to find compatibles that are 100% new, as the Lexmarks tend to
>have integral printheads, which makes them expensive to manufacture.
>As the remanufactured cartridges are made from the original OEM hulls,
>they're every bit as compatible as the originals.
>
CRAP WHO KNOWSS WHAT INK WITH OLD USED PRINTHEADS. A REAL GOOD
COMBINATION. THINK ABOUT IT.
>Your biggest issue
>is likely with the colour cartridges,
>
NOW I SEE IT IS COLOUR INSTEAD OF COLOR
>where the colours are sometimes a
>bit off compared to the originals -- a problem you might encounter if
>you refilled yourself.
>
>That said, the recommendation about pitching this printer and buying
>another (preferably not from DELL or Lexmark) should be given serious
>consideration.
>
ALL THIS VERBAGE JUST TO SAY WHAT I SAID. BUY A CANON OR HP AND USE OEM INK
measekite
Arthur Entlich wrote:
> I believe Dell holds a monopoly on the cartridges for this printer.
>
> The printers are usually Lexmark but they were designed not to take
> Lexmark cartridge, and instead now only accepts certain Dell rebranded
> cartridge, for which Dell gets some profit.
YEP THIS IS MORE OF A SCREW JOB THAN BUYING A LEXMARK
measekite
L...@UnReal.invalid wrote:
>MCheu wrote:
>
>
>
>>On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 02:55:20 GMT, L...@UnReal.invalid wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>Places to get ink for Dell A920?
>>>
>>>TIA
>>>
>>>Lou
>>>Education is about knowing where to look for answers.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>For ink, you should be able to refill
>>
GOD FORBID. THAT IS GOING FROM VERY BAD TO WORSE
>>them using kits intended for the
>>Lexmark X1150, as it's essentially the same printer with one "minor"
>>modification to the cartridge shape at DELL's request.
>>
>>For cartridges, you may have to get them from DELL, because DELL
>>modification to the cartridge shape makes the Lexmark cartridges
>>incompatible.
>>---------------------------------------------
>>Thanks.
>>
>>MCheu
>>
>>
>
>Thanks to you and zakezuke for the quick replies!
>
>
LOOK WHO HE IS THANKING
>Another Q. When I googled for the answer I did get sources other than
>Dell which seem quite a bit less expensive. Anyone have any comments or
>experiences with non-Dell sources?
>
>
YEAH. A REAL JOKE
IN THIS CASE I DO NOT EVEN RECOMMEND OEM LEXMARK BUT TRASH THE
INDISPENSER AND BUY A CANON OR AN HP PRINTER. IF YOU RARLY PRINT AN HP
WITH AN INTEGRATED PRINTHEAD IS AN ADVANTAGE. IF YOU ARE A MODERATE
USER THAN THE CANON IP4200 BUT IF YOU WANT SPEED THAN THE CANON IP5200.
>TIA again.
>
>Lou
>
>
>
>
zakezuke
mcheu wrote:
> L...@UnReal.invalid wrote:
>
> >
> > Thanks to you and zakezuke for the quick replies!
> >
> > Another Q. When I googled for the answer I did get sources other than
> > Dell which seem quite a bit less expensive. Anyone have any comments or
> > experiences with non-Dell sources?
> >
> > TIA again.
> >
> > Lou
>
> The aftermarket cartridges for the Lexmark printers (and also the DELL
> printers made by Lexmark) are made from recycled cartridge hulls. You
> may have noticed that some stores and organizations have drop off boxes
> for recycling of ink cartridges. The aftermarket Lexmark cartridges
> that you see are these recycled hulls. They refurbish them, refill
> them with their own inks, and sell them as aftermarket carts. (the
> packaging should indicate that they're remanufactured).
This is 100% correct. I can't speak for dell compatables but I have
ordered from Lasermonks before for my hp psc 950. It looked pretty
good, but the prints did fade faster than the offical HP ink. I don't
know how dell is in this department but dell sells cartridges for the
a920 for some serious buckage, with very limited volume.
Because of the nature of the technology, expect a higher failure rate
on a referb cartridge with a head. This is to be expected as they do
have a limited life, and they are essentally being reused, and most
often any place who sells them with any sort of integrity will give
you a free replacement with no questions asked. I'm sure the percent
is low, I've never had an issue, but it is very possible esp since near
as i'm aware, the Lexmark a920 allows you to print till empty and
beyond, which shortens the head life.
I have no idea how aftermarket ink or compatables fair against OEM
lexmark/dell tanks. Just on the subject of print quality they are
sub-par and IMHO not worth the premium. They do have better inkjets,
but those free or almost free printers cost an arm and a leg, twice to
four times that of other pritners you can buy for under $150.
> That said, the recommendation about pitching this printer and buying
> another (preferably not from DELL or Lexmark) should be given serious
> consideration. Even if you buy the remanufactured cartridges for your
> printer, it's still going to be pretty pricy. Consider buying
> something like one of the multi-tank Canon printers. Your printing
> costs will be considerably lower, and you won't be locked into one
> retailer as you are with the DELL printers.
Yes, you can buy into something like the ip4200, it comes with a hell
of alot of more ink, and costs you less in the long run.
If photo printing is your bag, and you want compatables I was just told
that outpost.com has the ip6000D for $100
http://shop1.outpost.com/product/4235794?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG
The new canons don't have compatables yet, but this isn't a new one
it's last years model. In photo printing it's no doubt better, and no
doubt cheeper to operate. It's not as cheap as the ip4200 for text
printing assuming you buy oem ink, and not as good. And it's by no
means their best photoprinter. It's a 6 tank model, and it sucks up
light cyan and light magenta like candy, but even taking this into
account the ink is 1/3 th the price in volume than lexmark.
Unlike lexmark, Canon tanks for the consumer level models, are just
bits of plastic with foam and ink, the head is seperate, so aftermarket
inks don't suffer the same issue as the head on the cart type, and they
are easy to refill your self. Epson is similar, but not so easy to
refill your self, best to buy refillable clear tanks.
The epson website offers referbished c86 printers for $60 ships
(www.epson.com). While these suckers are prone to clogging, and can be
a whole bunch of NO fun, the printer costs the same as the ink for the
a920, and comes with alot more of it. It's a pigment printer, while
not as spiffy on photopaper as dye printers, on the right paper it
looks decent and print life is outstanding. It does have a year
warranty so when it buggers up you get another one with free ink, but
even if that's not the case it's cheaper by far to buy printers than it
is to buy dell ink. The c86 comes with the equilivent of like three
dell black cartridges. and I guess two dell color cartridges. I.e.
for the same amount of money, you save $20 if you bought a referb
tanks, $90 if you bought tanks from dell. Actually this printer, now
that I look, is cheaper than the ink by $11.00
Buying printers and chucking them when empty will save you money in the
long term than ever buying ink from Dell. Buying better printers and
chucking them when empty is cheaper.
L...@unreal.invalid
Interesting!
Thanks
Lou
measekite
L...@UnReal.invalid wrote:
THAT IS STUPID ADVICE. YOU CAN BUY FORM (FRYS/OUTPOST.COM) AN NEW
IP4200 FOR $79.00. MOST PEOPLE DO NOT NEED THE LCD AND WHILE YOU DO
GET 6 CARTS (MAY BENEFIT OCCASSIONALLY ON SOME PHOTOS) THE EXTRA BLACK
ADDS CONTRAST IN ALL OF THE PHOTOS. OF COURSE THE IP5200 WILL PRODUCE
THE SAME RESULTS MUCH FASTER BUT IT COSTS ALMOST TWICE AS MUCH.
JUST INSTALLED ONE FOR A CLIENT AND THE RESULTS ARE AS GOOD AS MY IP4000
USING BOTH CANON PHOTO PAPER PRO OR COSTCO/KIRKLAND FULL SHEET GLOSSY.
THE COSTCO PAPER IS ALMOST AS GOOD AS PHOTO PAPER PRO AT 1/7 OF THE PRICE.
BE SURE YOU USE ONLY CANON INK.
>>http://shop1.outpost.com/product/4235794?site=sr:SEARCH:MAIN_RSLT_PG
>>
>>The new canons don't have compatables yet,
>>
THATS GOOD NOBODY WITH INTELLIGENCE CARES
>>but this isn't a new one
>>it's last years model. In photo printing it's no doubt better,
>>
NOT TRUE
>>and no
>>doubt cheeper to operate.
>>
NOT TRUE
>> It's not as cheap as the ip4200 for text
>>printing assuming you buy oem ink, and not as good.
>>
DO NOT READ ON. THE INFORMATION IS NO GOOD
>> And it's by no
>>means their best photoprinter. It's a 6 tank model, and it sucks up
>>light cyan and light
>>
THESE ARE LIGHTLY LOADED COLORS THAT HAVE A GREATER TENDANCY TO FADE.
>>magenta like candy, but even taking this into
>>account the ink is 1/3 th the price in volume than lexmark.
>>
>>Unlike lexmark, Canon tanks for the consumer level models, are just
>>bits of plastic with foam and ink, the head is seperate, so aftermarket
>>inks don't suffer the same issue as the head on the cart type,
>>
THEY JUST CLOG THE PRINTER AND RUIN THE HEAD.
>>and they
>>are easy to refill your self.
>>
WHAT A MESS WHAT A PAIN
>> Epson is similar, but not so easy to
>>refill your self, best to buy refillable clear tanks.
>>
>>
BEST TO BUY OEM INK
>>The epson website offers referbished c86 printers
>>
THESED ARE KNOWN FOR CLOGGING QUICKLY
>>for $60 ships
>>(www.epson.com). While these suckers are prone to clogging, and can be
>>a whole bunch of NO fun, the printer costs the same as the ink for the
>>a920, and comes with alot more of it. It's a pigment printer, while
>>not as spiffy on photopaper as dye printers,
>>
SPIFFY IS NOT AN APPROPRIATE DESCRIPTIVE WORD. THE CORRECT DESCRIPTION
IS VIBRANT. DYE INKS ARE MORE VIBRANT AND WORK BETTER ON GLOSSY PAPER.
>> on the right paper it
>>looks decent and print life is outstanding. It does have a year
>>warranty so when it buggers up
>>
BUGGERS UP IS NOT AN ENGLISH WORD IT MUST BE A BRIT TERM
>>you get another one with free ink, but
>>even if that's not the case it's cheaper by far to buy printers than it
>>is to buy dell ink. The c86 comes with the equilivent of like three
>>dell black cartridges. and I guess two dell color cartridges. I.e.
>>for the same amount of money, you save $20 if you bought a referb
>>tanks,
>>
A REAL DUMB MOVE. I DO NOT ADVISE ANY OF IT
zakezuke
What's really sad is your taking your personal vendeta to new threads
of people with legit questions, such as where to get Dell a920 ink
cheaper. Even more funnny is you're taking the time to correct my
english. But at least you are harrassing me and not new people popping
up in this group who have legit questions and can benifit from other's
experence.
The ip4200 would be a good deal at $80 from outpost, but they are
selling it for $99, and it costs $20 to ship. That's $120. You can
get it from Amazon.com for $90 with free supersaver shipping. Buy.com
has it for $110ish shipped. The best deal, the best deal is newegg.com
at $94.00 shipped with a free DVD player.
As far as compatables, people do care about them, and the canon ip6000D
will take them, and is available from output.com for $100 free
shipping, or amazon.com for $125+shipping. It is last years model, but
takes seperate tanks unlike the budget model ip6220, the same
resolution, and is a better printer. Sure it has a screen, not
everyone needs, but you are not paying "extra" for the screen as you'd
be spending less for the screen than the screenless model, and less per
print.
As for the c86 referb , it's $60 shipped from epson.com so the same
cost as the a920 ink from dell. The prints will last an absolute age,
just the printer won't judging from seeing them at GoodWill. But a
broken epson = free ink during the warranty period.
Actually the Epson r200 is onsale again from the epson store in it's
referb state for $60 shipped. This is about $17 less than the ink at
office depot. One sweet photo printer, though also fickle in the fact
that odds are it won't last a year.
While I agree these two units are not the best choice if you are
looking for a reliable printer, but they don't cost anything beyond
ink, and infact cost less than the ink they come with. They cost the
same or less than a920 ink, and offer either an improvment in text and
print life (c86) or photo quality (r200, ip6000/ip4200 ). And i'll
even agree I went for the ip5200, a more spendy printer, but a good
general purpose one which I plan to keep a while. But I can not assume
what I like and use is what someone else needs.
As far as good or bad advice goes, anything that keeps someone from
paying extra for dell ink, is good advice. The person asked where to
get Dell ink cheaper, which the sad truth is it's cheaper to buy
printers than Dell ink in the long run. And heck, I know of printers
that cost the same as dell ink that will give you more pages. Each
printer offers it's own unique benifit, which for someone spending
$10,000/gal they ought to have some benifit. Spiffy prints, long
lasting prints, swift prints, something.
If my advice gets someone away from the a920.... well it's good advice.
Even if the printer explodes after a few hundrad papers, it's still
cheeper. Perhaps when all people who got free printers from Dell
realize that the the deal being offered for ink is double to quadruple
that of other printers, they'll accept the free printer and never buy
ink for it again, and Dell will be forced to change their business
model and lower the cost of ink.
L...@unreal.invalid
Another interesting response - and I never saw measekite's stuff since he
is filtered to delete:-))
Lou
measekite
L...@UnReal.invalid wrote:
>zakezuke wrote:
>
>
>
>>Measekite said <Snipped per request>
>>
>>
>>
snipped per request
>>
>>The ip4200 would be a good deal at $80 from outpost, but they are
>>selling it for $99, and it costs $20 to ship. That's $120.
>>
da kook can't add or read. FRYS/OUTPOST IS THE SAME COMPANY. MY CLIENT
JUST PURCHASED (FRYS) A CANON IP4200 FOR $79.95. YOU SEE KNOW IT ALL
THEY ARE HAVING AN INSTORE INSTANT REBATE SO THAT IS THE PRICE. YOU ARE
SUCH A KNOW IT ALL THAT YOU DO NOT KNOW WHAT YOU THINK YOU KNOW AND COME
ACCROSS VERY VERY VERY STOOOOOOPID.
MORE DRIVEL SNIPPED
>>SNIPPED SPIFFY AS MEANINGLESS
>>
>>
>>
>>
>
>
>
>
>
>
zakezuke
Wow, frys and outpost is the same company? So why did you tell me they
are different companies a while back. Good rule of thumb, when you say
Fry's Outpost, people think the website. When you say Fry's they think
the store. When you say Fry's/Outpost people think the store and the
Outpost website. As discussed before Fry's doesn't have their instore
prodcuts listed on their website, only store locations and ISP info.
I'm willing to give credit were credit is true, and it's very true the
ip4200 was advertised in the SF and Houston sunday circular for $99.00
with a $20 "gift rebate" April 2nd, as well as the 12th of April. As
to whether this deal is still going on, I have no idea. But hey $80 is
a good deal, and if Fry's still have them at that price, great. But I
suspect this was an "Easter Sale" and not a price you can get today.
http://www.marketplacelocal.com/PortalWeb/Portal.aspx?groupid=58&pagename=addetails&channelid=9&categoryid=89&subcategoryid=&itemid=12633942&adid=10554098&adtype=#
Note the part prices change after Tuesday.
This is all very academic because
1 The website doesn't reflect store prices. Be sure to say "fry's" or
"outpost" in the future, or "Fry's Outpost", not Frys/Outpost.
2. The deal you spoke of covers only people within driving distance to
Fry's, and assumes a given person's local frys has the same deal your
Frys. "Advertised Prices valid only in metropolitan circulation area
of the newspaper"
3. The OP was actually interested in a printer.
#3 is most important, I was giving examples on other printers which
will have lower operating costs. And I even checked my facts, and
current prices, after all I bought my printer only a short time ago and
the sale price has since changed. "My Friend got this printer at this
price" is worthy of note, but you didn't say that, you said "you can
buy it form (fry's/outpost.com)an new for $79. Which you could, in
Houston, and SF, before April 18th.
But I can't honestly say Fry's doesn't have that printer for $79.99, I
do however know that Newegg has it $93.99 shipped, just now without the
free dvd player.
MCheu
wrote:
>Measekite said <Snipped per request>
>
>What's really sad is your taking your personal vendeta to new threads
>of people with legit questions, such as where to get Dell a920 ink
>cheaper. Even more funnny is you're taking the time to correct my
>english. But at least you are harrassing me and not new people popping
>up in this group who have legit questions and can benifit from other's
>experence.
1. Taking credit for someone else's words is considered plagiarism.
2. For the record, the quote he responded to was mine, and he
corrected *NOTHING*. The proper Canadian spelling of the word is
"COLOUR." Confuses the heck out of the rednecks -- almost as much as
"ZED" and "TOQUE".
"ZED" - Canadian pronunciation of the letter "Z"
"TOQUE" - Bell shaped, knitted hat. Americans also wear toques, but
they call them "knitted ski hats." The fuzzy pom-pom on top is
entirely optional.
3. "But at least you are harassing me and not new people popping
up in this group..." (zakezuke)
*sigh*
---------------------------------------------
Thanks.
MCheu
measekite
MCheu wrote:
>On 19 Apr 2006 06:46:21 -0700, "zakezuke" <zakez...@yahoo.com>
>wrote:
>
>
>
>>Measekite said <Snipped per request>
>>
>>
>>
>>
ZUK SAID <SNIPPED PER REQUEST>
>
>
>
>"
>---------------------------------------------
>Thanks.
>
>
>MCheu
>
>
zakezuke
I appricate your position, but if you actually reviewed the post in
question the gent was responding to me. He also responded to you as
well. I welcome you to review the message I replyed to.
http://groups.google.com/group/comp.periphs.printers/browse_frm/thread/30028b4ae083afdb/40f3a674d63745c8#40f3a674d63745c8
I know your confusion is a direct result of not quoting what I was
responding to, which in most news threaded news readers isn't an issue.
As far as zed and colour... I have no issue with those words... I
consider both spellings to be acceptable, and in fact have noted that
Zed resolves the confusion when spelling out names with Z in them over
the phone as in American Enlgish it sounds just like "C", though I tend
to say Zulu as is the stanard for radio. But Zed, Zulu, Z as in Zebra,
which ever. Toque I was not aware of but Vancouver isn't a snowy city
and can't say i've even noticed anyone wearing a knitted ski cap. But
if not knowing about toque makes one a redneck, I guess i'm branded a
redneck. I was just branded a user of "stupid brit terms" so I guess
another inaccurate label wouldn't hurt.
I'm not sure if dolly would be handtruck or lorry in the north... but
if you ever need one in Mexcio according to who I spoke to it's called
a "?diablca?" (Dia-bli-ca) or "little deamon".
As far as plagiarism, I no idea what you are on about, I did quote you
and used the little ">" to denote what I was quoting. I have my own
words thanks.
mcheu
zakezuke wrote:
>
> I appricate your position, but if you actually reviewed the post in
> question the gent was responding to me. He also responded to you as
> well. I welcome you to review the message I replyed to.
> http://groups.google.com/group/comp.periphs.printers/browse_frm/thread/30028b4ae083afdb/40f3a674d63745c8#40f3a674d63745c8
>
> I know your confusion is a direct result of not quoting what I was
> responding to, which in most news threaded news readers isn't an issue.
The only part I was talking about, and I was sort of jokingly accusing
you of plagerism on that basis.
--------------------------------
(This is a snippit from a post Measekite made replying to me, I'm sure
you can figure out which part was Measekite's):
>>>Your biggest issue
>>>is likely with the colour cartridges,
>>
>>NOW I SEE IT IS COLOUR INSTEAD OF COLOR
--------------------------------
That seemed to be the only time in this thread that he corrected anyone
on grammar or spelling.
> As far as zed and colour... I have no issue with those words... I
> consider both spellings to be acceptable, and in fact have noted that
> Zed resolves the confusion when spelling out names with Z in them over
> the phone as in American Enlgish it sounds just like "C", though I tend
> to say Zulu as is the stanard for radio. But Zed, Zulu, Z as in Zebra,
> which ever. Toque I was not aware of but Vancouver isn't a snowy city
> and can't say i've even noticed anyone wearing a knitted ski cap. But
> if not knowing about toque makes one a redneck, I guess i'm branded a
> redneck. I was just branded a user of "stupid brit terms" so I guess
> another inaccurate label wouldn't hurt.
Sort of confusing as heck, but I was referring to Measekite taking me
to task for not using the American spelling. I was referring to
Measekite as the "redneck," not you. Sorry that I didn't make it more
clear. The reason why I replied to your posting was because you seemed
to accept the correction and the "mistake" as your own. I prefer to
take responsibility for my own mistakes, and as such, if this was all a
misunderstanding, I apologize to you.
mcheu
It after reviewing the thread, it seems he did insult you in this
thread on your language usage, and it didn't have anything to do with
me at all. I'm sorry for the plagerism accusation, it was uncalled
for. Excuse me while I pull my foot from my mouth.
MCheu
zakezuke
It is understandable, I didn't quote him for obvious reasons and he
insuted the both of us for our language use, which is quite funny
considering most days Measekite's posts can't be said to be English at
all. What's odd is while colour is the accepted spelling of English
speaking nations except America, bugger is a term used in America just
simply meaning damn rather than the more... sodimistic meaning. And
it's not unusual for someone living in Texas to assume that any they
don't typicaly use to be a wacky foreign word.
As for plagerism, that just confused me as I didn't see a case where I
or anyone else in the thread plagerized something, though Measekite has
been accused of this before.
As for the sorry, apology accepted... not me quoting measekite lead to
part of this confusion, and his assumption that anyone that isn't a
Texan is a wacky foreigner.