On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 05:40:30PM +0000, Steve McIntyre wrote: > [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: > >On Wed, Dec 15, 2004 at 05:00:12PM +0000, Andrew Suffield wrote: > >> > >> Ah, you misinterpreted my point in quite an impressive way. Valid > >> numbers or not, his statement was of the form "Here is how we do it, > >> and our way is the only way in which it is possible to do it". And > >> we've heard that one before. > > > >I really don't care about the numbers. I don't actually even care about > >this thread, especially now that Bruce and others have given us numbers > >that make most of the discussion moot. What annoys me is your constant > >pounding on other people's credibility, especially since you don't ever > >seem to accept anyone else's criticism of your credibility. > > That's just Suffield being an annoying prick, as usual. Common > consenus is that he's generally best ignored...
Yeah, I know. I just feel better after saying it. :-) > Getting a SCSI chain working is perfectly simple if you remember that there > must be exactly three terminations: one on one end of the cable, one on the > far end, and the goat, terminated over the SCSI chain with a silver-handled > knife whilst burning *black* candles. --- Anthony DeBoer Heh. KEN -- Kenneth J. Pronovici <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
pgpDKmKlXpM0k.pgp
Description: PGP signature
