Fat Freddy's Cat wrote:

Dr Teeth wrote:
On Tue, 05 Oct 2004 19:46:33 GMT, Johannes H Andersen
wrote:


Hmm, I'm still skeptical. 'Perfect condition' relative to some industry
standard? The only phrase that would convince me would be: "No pixel errors".
Why beat about the bush if that's what it means?


Exactly.
--
Cheers,

Guy


Although I am usually a firm believer in prolonging the spectacle of
****s floundering about with half-hearted attempts to cover their own
idiocy, I think its time I let the 2 of you off the hook on this point.

Its clear you've made big enough arses of yourselves without further
input from me. It was funny at first letting the guys at work read your
ever-more desperate responses, but alas all good things have to come to
an end.

See you in another thread,
g.

Nice try, but water down a duck's back. Too old to be so sensitive,
especially when I'm in the right...

I ask again, why beat about the bush with weasel words? Why don't they
state loud and clearly that the check will guarantee zero pixels!

Whether this is appropriate or not is not the issue, this another
discussion which we've already had ad nausea.