NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 17 Dec 2002 18:10:01 -0600
From: "John Fields"
References: <3DFCDCB1.firstname.lastname@example.org> <email@example.com> <firstname.lastname@example.org> <3DFD12F9.email@example.com> <4_adnQ-GCulVimCgXTWcqQ@texas.net> <3DFD1B22.firstname.lastname@example.org> <3DFD29D9.email@example.com>
Subject: Re: Digital circuit help needed
Date: Sun, 15 Dec 2002 21:23:44 -0800
X-Newsreader: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2919.6700
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers
X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly
> Why did you miss it? Don't bother telling us you can't hack employment
> as an engineer because you screw everything up you get your hands on...
I don't expect you to be able to understand this, but it doesn't matter much
whether I missed a simple polarity inversion the first time around, since
after a more detailed look at the requirement it would have become obvious.
More to the point, you thought that you had a solution for the OP locked
down (remember telling him that he _had_ to do it a certain way?) when what
you really had was a suboptimal piece of shit which would only cost him more
than he needed to pay for a _real_ solution. And now, I notice you've
posted another "solution" to replace the bogus first one, but why? If the
first one was all that good why not let it be?
Or if it wasn't, why not admit you were wrong and be done with it?
As far as employment goes, dumbfuck, as you well know I've been in business
for myself for the last 20 years.
And you? you still don't even have the balls to show your real face, do
you? Just sit in the dark making trouble and causing dissention, as usual.