On Tue, 13 Jun 2006 14:33:26 +0000, Sinister Midget wrote:
> S/H/It tried to dance away from it by claiming s/h/it was legally
> entitled to use it due to some work for someone, and that said
> entitlement carried on long after the work was completed.
>
> That was almost as authentic an excuse as the after-the-fact claims
> that MDK didn't work properly, and that's why s/h/it returned it for a
> refund. Despite that not being believable because it was only brought
> up after s/h/it was cornered, it *still* doesn't explain the bragging
> s/h/it did about making copies for friends prior to returning it.
>
> I'd expect some more Flatso shuffling along the lines of "Prove it or
> STFU." Flathead used X-No-Archive almost exclusively then and knows the
> only existing evidence is that quoted by others on google (other
> archives exist, however). Then s/h/it tries to pretend every person
> pointing this all out must have been making everything up that they
> were quoting because there's nothing directly attributable to s/h/it.
Yet you totally ignore the post I made a couple of days ago explaining why
your urban legend is just that.
I did nothing wrong and that's a fact.
You see, you and the rest of the gang are proving my point quite nicely
and that is if it had been Erik or me instead of Roy, you guys would have
diced and sliced us mercilessly.
Hell, you can't even let go something that happened years ago!
That's the gang mentality of COLA and the children that inhabit it like
some kind of a filthy sandbox.
--
flatfish+++
"Why do they call it a flatfish?"
|
|
