"Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.li> wrote in message

>>> I get feedback and many people are happy I turned them on to Ubuntusux

>>> through this group. Get over it and live with it because it ain't going

>>> away. You will see more and more people posting here about Ubuntusux.

>>> Ain't life grand?

>>>

>>> Alias

 

And this feedback is accomplished how? Your address is munged. Are your fans

mind readers? What a liar! I have you in my kill file under a similar fake

address, and this one will be added.

 

m

Its the little voices in his head.

 

 

"miss-information" <invalid@invalid.net> wrote in message

news:%23dTFneU0HHA.2312@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...

>

> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.li> wrote in message

>

>>>> I get feedback and many people are happy I turned them on to Ubuntusux

>>>> through this group. Get over it and live with it because it ain't going

>>>> away. You will see more and more people posting here about Ubuntusux.

>>>> Ain't life grand?

>>>>

>>>> Alias

>

> And this feedback is accomplished how? Your address is munged. Are your

> fans mind readers? What a liar! I have you in my kill file under a similar

> fake address, and this one will be added.

>

> m

miss-information wrote:

>

> "Alias" <aka@masked&anonymous.li> wrote in message

>

>>>> I get feedback and many people are happy I turned them on to

>>>> Ubuntusux through this group. Get over it and live with it because

>>>> it ain't going away. You will see more and more people posting here

>>>> about Ubuntusux. Ain't life grand?

>>>>

>>>> Alias

>

> And this feedback is accomplished how? Your address is munged. Are your

> fans mind readers? What a liar! I have you in my kill file under a

> similar fake address, and this one will be added.

>

> m

 

In this group, no. I meant to write these groups. On the Me group,

people know me there, and have told me right on the newsgroup. Do you

think I am only promoting Ubuntu on the Vista group?

 

Alias

Frank wrote:

> Alias wrote:

>

>> *711 wrote:

>>

>>> I would be glad if my problems stoped on the incompatibility issues

>>> since at this point in time (july 2007) most of things are already

>>> compatible (safe NVIDIA, but that is because they are too inconpetent to

>>> write a working driver so I don't blame Microsoft for this)...

>>

>>

>> nVidia is too busy writing drivers for Linux to be bothered with an OS

>> that was born to die.

>>

>>

> hehehe...now that's a statement you can take to the

> bank...hahahaha...that's down right hilarious..!

> You're becoming very delusional about linux aren't you.

>

> It's really a sickness, eh, cause with you isn't it?

> Frank

 

Are you saying that nVidia isn't making drivers for Linux?

 

Alias

*711 wrote:

> The problem for me is that I work w/ Maya and sadly Linux is not up for

> the task in this department :(

>

> Also, all the softwares I use on daly basis are not there, and keep

> switching for alternatives is not exactely what I am looking for right

> now... nor the entire world warket.

>

> Anyway, kinda 2 bright for me the Linux thing, but that "4 desktops"

> sounds promissing... I might give it a shot sometime.

>

>

 

From

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maya_%28software%29

 

"Maya was developed by Alias (Heh). It was originally released for the

IRIX operating system, and subsequently ported to the Microsoft Windows,

Linux and Mac OS X operating systems. IRIX support was discontinued

after the release of version 6.5. When Autodesk acquired Alias in

October 2005, they continued Maya development. The latest version, 8.5,

was released in January 2007"

 

What other software do you use that you think can't be run on Linux?

 

Alias

Well you seem to have missed my last post so here it is again.

 

There are no color displays the use anything other then some value of RBG

when is comes to displaying the image on the CRT, Plasma, LCD etc. Doesn't

matter what "many color spaces " you work with it always starts in your

video card as a value of RBG and ends up on the display as some value of RBG

you dumb ass. NTSC is converted to what? A value of RBG DUH! and a value of

0,0,0 for RBG is the only possible combination for black. The NTSC 16 you

talk about is converted back to RGB value of 0,0,0. Do you get it yet? No

well got to the local electronics store and stick you thick skull up to any

display device and you will see some value of RBG. You just don't get it do

you. What a ignorant fool you are.

 

 

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

news:8bsja3tb7i28oueqh7k5oc5dv3etmocb5s@4ax.com...

> On Thu, 26 Jul 2007 20:38:17 -0700, "Gary" <Gary@somewhere.usa> wrote:

>

>>You crack me up. You don't even know your video card and monitor are all

>>based on RGB.

>>You need a couple of computer classes. Get a tin cup and maybe you can

>>take

>>up a collection to pay for them.

>

> Pathetic how many loud mouth clueless fools hang out in this newsgroup

> and never tire of building strawmen in some silly effort to prop up

> their delusional view of the world.

>

> You freaking a-hole, I know perfectly well how monitors and video

> cards work. Obviously you have very limited knowledge since you fool

> yourself into thinking they can be configured only one way. RGB is

> only one of many color spaces possible that people may work in. That

> has NOTHING to do with how colors are generated by the RGB method.

>

> As usual idiots like you simply refuse to learn, you can't even read

> for comprehension. It isn't my job to try to educate the mindless

> legions of dopes like you that stumble into groups like this, but I

> try. -)

>

> While some nut job was mindlessly babbling about transmitted and

> reflected light I was attempting to educate you on learning something

> that is useful, ie under NTSC specs used for video work black isn't 0

> like the mindless clowns keep cackling it always must be, it is

> remapped to 16 while white isn't 255, it becomes 235. Why that is done

> is clearly far too technical for a jackass like you to grasp, so I

> won't bother even trying to explain it further.

>

> If you're auditioning for newsgroup clown, shouldn't you ask Frankie

> first if you intend to replace him? He already has a firm grip on that

> position and obviously enjoys making an ass of himself. Seems you do

> too.

>

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:12:49 -0700, "Gary"

<Gary@NoSpam.california.usa> wrote:

>Well you seem to have missed my last post so here it is again.

 

I'll give you this much... you're a glutton for punishment. You must

enjoy me hitting you over the head with facts that make you look

foolish.

>

>There are no color displays the use anything other then some value of RBG

>when is comes to displaying the image on the CRT, Plasma, LCD etc.

 

You keep harping on a point that has nothing to do with what I've been

telling you. Doing that is a typical fanboy loser trick. You're just

trying to sneak in a fallacy or you're just plain dumb Your choice.

Well, since you seem to be one of the dumber fanboys, maybe your don't

really know what a fallacy is, so let me try to educate you.

 

In it's simplest form a fallacy is saying something often plausible

even factual on the surface but with an invalid inference for the

purpose of deliberately trying to confuse cause and effect. This

happens when one event is suggested to cause or follow another.

 

You keep implying I don't know that color displays use RGB colors on a

scale of 0 to 255. That's a fallacy! Hell man, you can't even get the

acronym right, since you incorrectly typed RBG, where the term is RGB.

 

>Doesn't matter what "many color spaces " you work with it always starts in your

>video card as a value of RBG and ends up on the display as some value of RBG

>you dumb ass. NTSC is converted to what? A value of RBG DUH! and a value of

>0,0,0 for RBG is the only possible combination for black. The NTSC 16 you

>talk about is converted back to RGB value of 0,0,0. Do you get it yet? No

>well got to the local electronics store and stick you thick skull up to any

>display device and you will see some value of RBG. You just don't get it do

>you. What a ignorant fool you are.

 

Your talent seems limited to name calling. Hey, I can do that too, but

reserve it for knuckleheads that refuse to listen and refuse to admit

it when they're proven wrong. That seems to be a bad habit you have.

 

You further show your ignorance by repeatedly using the incorrect

term. It isn't RBG has you've typed SEVEN times in this post, you

can't run away from trying to pretend you just made a typo. You don't

make the same typo seven times in one post. You simply don't know and

you call me a dumb ass.

 

Now as far as what you still don't understand. You keep babbling the

only value for black is 0,0,0. Well no. That is wrong. It all depends

on what topic we're talking about. Since I limited my discussion to

NTSC usage, I'm correct and you are wrong, but you still being the

obviously clueless hot head country bumpkin you obviously are you

still won't admit it.

 

So let me explain it even further for those WILLING to listen and

learn. Take a look a little tutorial linked below that shows how to do

color correction. The main thing I want you to look at are the scopes

that show waveforms.

 

Note how the histogram is scaled from 0 to 255. That much Gary

understands. Where he falls flat on his face is HOW levels get

applied. If the video is intended for TV broadcast, then the waveform

gets clipped. Values on the left end, the darkest, BEGIN at 16 and end

at 235 for the highest. In lay terms black and white points are now

redistributed and no longer are 0 to 255 like Gary keep blabbering

they have to be.

 

The REASON smarter videographers apply a NTSC broadcast filter that

clips levels or simply do it manual is if not done, the resulting

video is too "hot" and may introduce video noise which may appear as

visible artifacts within the video and/or be heard as cross channel

buzz.

 

http://www.microfilmmaker.com/tipstrick/Issue11/VegasCol.html

You are the one that started talking about other color spaces and continue

to cloud the point that the only possible RGB combination to produce black

is 0,0,0.

 

All displays regardless of what input your use will always display the image

in some value of RGB. You just can't admit that can you.

You will do anything to try and cloud that fact with anything to try and

prove its not true.

 

You must like being made a fool of.

 

Just answer me this what value of RGB would make black?

And on any display every pixel is made up of three colors what are they.

 

Are you seeing the light yet?

 

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

news:emppa35edpa27nibg58e8oo633g337l2c2@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 10:12:49 -0700, "Gary"

> <Gary@NoSpam.california.usa> wrote:

>

>>Well you seem to have missed my last post so here it is again.

>

> I'll give you this much... you're a glutton for punishment. You must

> enjoy me hitting you over the head with facts that make you look

> foolish.

>>

>>There are no color displays the use anything other then some value of RBG

>>when is comes to displaying the image on the CRT, Plasma, LCD etc.

>

> You keep harping on a point that has nothing to do with what I've been

> telling you. Doing that is a typical fanboy loser trick. You're just

> trying to sneak in a fallacy or you're just plain dumb Your choice.

> Well, since you seem to be one of the dumber fanboys, maybe your don't

> really know what a fallacy is, so let me try to educate you.

>

> In it's simplest form a fallacy is saying something often plausible

> even factual on the surface but with an invalid inference for the

> purpose of deliberately trying to confuse cause and effect. This

> happens when one event is suggested to cause or follow another.

>

> You keep implying I don't know that color displays use RGB colors on a

> scale of 0 to 255. That's a fallacy! Hell man, you can't even get the

> acronym right, since you incorrectly typed RBG, where the term is RGB.

>

>

>>Doesn't matter what "many color spaces " you work with it always starts in

>>your

>>video card as a value of RBG and ends up on the display as some value of

>>RBG

>>you dumb ass. NTSC is converted to what? A value of RBG DUH! and a value

>>of

>>0,0,0 for RBG is the only possible combination for black. The NTSC 16 you

>>talk about is converted back to RGB value of 0,0,0. Do you get it yet? No

>>well got to the local electronics store and stick you thick skull up to

>>any

>>display device and you will see some value of RBG. You just don't get it

>>do

>>you. What a ignorant fool you are.

>

> Your talent seems limited to name calling. Hey, I can do that too, but

> reserve it for knuckleheads that refuse to listen and refuse to admit

> it when they're proven wrong. That seems to be a bad habit you have.

>

> You further show your ignorance by repeatedly using the incorrect

> term. It isn't RBG has you've typed SEVEN times in this post, you

> can't run away from trying to pretend you just made a typo. You don't

> make the same typo seven times in one post. You simply don't know and

> you call me a dumb ass.

>

> Now as far as what you still don't understand. You keep babbling the

> only value for black is 0,0,0. Well no. That is wrong. It all depends

> on what topic we're talking about. Since I limited my discussion to

> NTSC usage, I'm correct and you are wrong, but you still being the

> obviously clueless hot head country bumpkin you obviously are you

> still won't admit it.

>

> So let me explain it even further for those WILLING to listen and

> learn. Take a look a little tutorial linked below that shows how to do

> color correction. The main thing I want you to look at are the scopes

> that show waveforms.

>

> Note how the histogram is scaled from 0 to 255. That much Gary

> understands. Where he falls flat on his face is HOW levels get

> applied. If the video is intended for TV broadcast, then the waveform

> gets clipped. Values on the left end, the darkest, BEGIN at 16 and end

> at 235 for the highest. In lay terms black and white points are now

> redistributed and no longer are 0 to 255 like Gary keep blabbering

> they have to be.

>

> The REASON smarter videographers apply a NTSC broadcast filter that

> clips levels or simply do it manual is if not done, the resulting

> video is too "hot" and may introduce video noise which may appear as

> visible artifacts within the video and/or be heard as cross channel

> buzz.

>

> http://www.microfilmmaker.com/tipstrick/Issue11/VegasCol.html

>

>

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 14:03:05 -0700, "Gary"

<Gary@NoSpam.california.usa> wrote:

>You are the one that started talking about other color spaces and continue

>to cloud the point that the only possible RGB combination to produce black

>is 0,0,0.

 

Boy can Gary backpedal fast. Read your own posts again. YOU are the

one that claimed the only possible value for black could be 0,0,0, now

are you try to say it was me? Damn man, what gives?

>

>All displays regardless of what input your use will always display the image

>in some value of RGB. You just can't admit that can you.

 

Another lame fallacy. I never said they wouldn't. Why are you lying?

Oh I know, you're trying to save face and think the fanboy crowd will

buy it.

>You will do anything to try and cloud that fact with anything to try and

>prove its not true.

 

Give it a rest. You lost and lost big time. Be a man and admit you

were wrong.

>

>You must like being made a fool of.

 

Oh the irony.

>

>Just answer me this what value of RGB would make black?

>And on any display every pixel is made up of three colors what are they.

>

>Are you seeing the light yet?

 

I see you for what you are. So does everyone else.

Yup didn't think you could answer.

I have always said the only possible value of RGB for black is 0,0,0. Your

the one who changed it to NTSC and refuse to answer my question.

 

 

 

Thanks for playing!

 

Just shows the kind of arrogant jerk you are.

 

 

 

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

news:ng3qa3tvupkgqjbj092b1vrqv36g4l5h2h@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 14:03:05 -0700, "Gary"

> <Gary@NoSpam.california.usa> wrote:

>

>>You are the one that started talking about other color spaces and continue

>>to cloud the point that the only possible RGB combination to produce black

>>is 0,0,0.

>

> Boy can Gary backpedal fast. Read your own posts again. YOU are the

> one that claimed the only possible value for black could be 0,0,0, now

> are you try to say it was me? Damn man, what gives?

>>

>>All displays regardless of what input your use will always display the

>>image

>>in some value of RGB. You just can't admit that can you.

>

> Another lame fallacy. I never said they wouldn't. Why are you lying?

> Oh I know, you're trying to save face and think the fanboy crowd will

> buy it.

>

>>You will do anything to try and cloud that fact with anything to try and

>>prove its not true.

>

> Give it a rest. You lost and lost big time. Be a man and admit you

> were wrong.

>>

>>You must like being made a fool of.

>

> Oh the irony.

>>

>>Just answer me this what value of RGB would make black?

>>And on any display every pixel is made up of three colors what are they.

>>

>>Are you seeing the light yet?

>

> I see you for what you are. So does everyone else.

>

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 15:50:08 -0700, "Gary"

<Gary@NoSpam.california.usa> wrote:

>Yup didn't think you could answer.

 

How many more fallacies are you going to try to use?

>Just shows the kind of arrogant jerk you are.

 

The thing I like about you most Gary is you're always so calm,

reasoned, willing to comprise and of course you such a gentleman and

always admit it when you're in error.

 

Sure, right.

 

LOL!

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 15:50:08 -0700, "Gary"

> <Gary@NoSpam.california.usa> wrote:

>

>

>>Yup didn't think you could answer.

>

>

> How many more fallacies are you going to try to use?

>

>

>>Just shows the kind of arrogant jerk you are.

>

>

> The thing I like about you most Gary is you're always so calm,

> reasoned, willing to comprise and of course you such a gentleman and

> always admit it when you're in error.

>

> Sure, right.

>

> LOL!

>

Hahahah...you still didn't answer his question mr genius!

Hahahaha...maybe you're just plain wrong and can't admit it?

Frank

What's wrong just can't answer a simple question without trying to take it

in a different direction and blowing smoke all over the place.

 

Yup still don't think you have any idea how your video card or display

works. Just can't answer a simple question.

 

 

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

news:d67qa3hkas7k1ttfkim08c46h3rr48jv7u@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 15:50:08 -0700, "Gary"

> <Gary@NoSpam.california.usa> wrote:

>

>>Yup didn't think you could answer.

>

> How many more fallacies are you going to try to use?

>

>>Just shows the kind of arrogant jerk you are.

>

> The thing I like about you most Gary is you're always so calm,

> reasoned, willing to comprise and of course you such a gentleman and

> always admit it when you're in error.

>

> Sure, right.

>

> LOL!

>

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 17:13:33 -0700, Frank <fb@nospaner.cnm> wrote:

>Adam Albright wrote:

>

>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 15:50:08 -0700, "Gary"

>> <Gary@NoSpam.california.usa> wrote:

>>

>>

>>>Yup didn't think you could answer.

>>

>>

>> How many more fallacies are you going to try to use?

>>

>>

>>>Just shows the kind of arrogant jerk you are.

>>

>>

>> The thing I like about you most Gary is you're always so calm,

>> reasoned, willing to comprise and of course you such a gentleman and

>> always admit it when you're in error.

>>

>> Sure, right.

>>

>> LOL!

>>

>Hahahah...you still didn't answer his question mr genius!

>Hahahaha...maybe you're just plain wrong and can't admit it?

>Frank

 

You're full of sh*t Frankie. Gary doesn't understand the answer.

Neither do you. Maybe you two should get a room and you can take turns

kissing each other's ass. If you take it further is up to you guys and

we DON'T want to hear about it.

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 17:29:30 -0700, "Gary"

<Gary@NoSpam.california.usa> wrote:

>What's wrong just can't answer a simple question without trying to take it

>in a different direction and blowing smoke all over the place.

 

Frank "thinking" what he should type next:

 

http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/redcardshoe/rosieksm.jpg

Yup still can't answer the question can you.

 

You are the one that started talking about other color spaces and continue

to cloud the point that the only possible RGB combination to produce black

is 0,0,0.

 

All displays regardless of what input your use will always display the image

in some value of RGB. You just can't admit that can you.

You will do anything to try and cloud that fact with anything to try and

prove its not true.

 

You must like being made a fool of.

 

Just answer me this what value of RGB would make black?

And on any display every pixel is made up of three colors what are they.

 

Are you seeing the light yet?

 

 

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

news:9efqa3hgrg15fosafovalp7201sl53d5ne@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 17:13:33 -0700, Frank <fb@nospaner.cnm> wrote:

>

>>Adam Albright wrote:

>>

>>> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 15:50:08 -0700, "Gary"

>>> <Gary@NoSpam.california.usa> wrote:

>>>

>>>

>>>>Yup didn't think you could answer.

>>>

>>>

>>> How many more fallacies are you going to try to use?

>>>

>>>

>>>>Just shows the kind of arrogant jerk you are.

>>>

>>>

>>> The thing I like about you most Gary is you're always so calm,

>>> reasoned, willing to comprise and of course you such a gentleman and

>>> always admit it when you're in error.

>>>

>>> Sure, right.

>>>

>>> LOL!

>>>

>>Hahahah...you still didn't answer his question mr genius!

>>Hahahaha...maybe you're just plain wrong and can't admit it?

>>Frank

>

> You're full of sh*t Frankie. Gary doesn't understand the answer.

> Neither do you. Maybe you two should get a room and you can take turns

> kissing each other's ass. If you take it further is up to you guys and

> we DON'T want to hear about it.

>

Yup still can't answer the question can you.

 

You are the one that started talking about other color spaces and continue

to cloud the point that the only possible RGB combination to produce black

is 0,0,0.

 

All displays regardless of what input your use will always display the image

in some value of RGB. You just can't admit that can you.

You will do anything to try and cloud that fact with anything to try and

prove its not true.

 

You must like being made a fool of.

 

Just answer me this what value of RGB would make black?

And on any display every pixel is made up of three colors what are they.

 

Are you seeing the light yet?

 

 

"Adam Albright" <AA@ABC.net> wrote in message

news:s8gqa3dthpcbj159nqpb46fchkf0kgh0ba@4ax.com...

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 17:29:30 -0700, "Gary"

> <Gary@NoSpam.california.usa> wrote:

>

>>What's wrong just can't answer a simple question without trying to take it

>>in a different direction and blowing smoke all over the place.

>

> Frank "thinking" what he should type next:

>

> http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/redcardshoe/rosieksm.jpg

>

>

"Gary" <Gary@NoSpam.california.usa> wrote in message

news:eCGvb2k0HHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

> Yup still can't answer the question can you.

>

> You are the one that started talking about other color spaces and continue

> to cloud the point that the only possible RGB combination to produce black

> is 0,0,0.

>

> All displays regardless of what input your use will always display the

> image

> in some value of RGB. You just can't admit that can you.

> You will do anything to try and cloud that fact with anything to try and

> prove its not true.

>

> You must like being made a fool of.

>

> Just answer me this what value of RGB would make black?

> And on any display every pixel is made up of three colors what are they.

>

> Are you seeing the light yet?

 

Give it up Gary. Trolls can *never* admit to being wrong - even though

everyone is laughing at them. Adam NotTooBright and AliDumbAss will never

admit when they are wrong.

 

Mike

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 19:01:55 -0700, "Gary"

<Gary@NoSpam.california.usa> wrote:

>Yup still can't answer the question can you.

 

You're worse than a old lady. You've been soundly defeated with facts.

Accept it and move on or don't. Look what happened to Frank. Keep

babbling and I'll guarantee you'll be known as the newsgroup's second

certified nut case. Your choice.

>

>You are the one that started talking about other color spaces and continue

>to cloud the point that the only possible RGB combination to produce black

>is 0,0,0.

 

You can't read can you.

>

>All displays regardless of what input your use will always display the image

>in some value of RGB.

 

Never said they didn't. Think I did, ok fine. SHOW ME. Put the exact

quote and newsgroup control number reference right here =====>

 

Hint: I'm talking OUTPUT not input.

>You will do anything to try and cloud that fact with anything to try and

>prove its not true.

 

I gave you several web sites to PROVE what I said is true. Obviously

you didn't understand or didn't bother to go look. What have you

offered accept to flap your gums and stamp your feet just like you did

with news servers. Finally you sheepishly ADMITTED you were wrong.

You're wrong again now. A smarter person would have simply shut up and

drop it. Not you, you prefer to keep bringing it up, so as long as you

do I'll make you eat your words. Again, you choice. You can end this

anytime you want.

>

>You must like being made a fool of.

 

I'm using your own words to paint you as the fool. I simply supply

the rope. If not you choose to hang yourself is completely up to you.

Adam Albright wrote:

 

>

> You're full of sh*t Frankie. Gary doesn't understand the answer.

 

Nooo...you my small brained minkie, don't understand the question!

Frank

How true.

 

But making the monkey dance was fun for awhile.

 

"Mike" <no@where.man> wrote in message

news:%23b4qA7k0HHA.5772@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...

> Give it up Gary. Trolls can *never* admit to being wrong - even though

> everyone is laughing at them. Adam NotTooBright and AliDumbAss will

> never admit when they are wrong.

>

> Mike

>

Adam Albright wrote:

> On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 17:29:30 -0700, "Gary"

> <Gary@NoSpam.california.usa> wrote:

>

>

>>What's wrong just can't answer a simple question without trying to take it

>>in a different direction and blowing smoke all over the place.

>

>

> Frank "thinking" what he should type next:

>

> http://i14.photobucket.com/albums/a324/redcardshoe/rosieksm.jpg

>

>

 

Oh geeze georgie-boy. Don't post embarrassing pics of your wife,ok?

I hope she beats the crap out of you for doing that, as you deserve

every blow [sic]...hahaha...but you're a glutton for punishment aren't you.

Which kind of leads us all to believe you're one of those masochistic

types right?

Hey, whatever floats your boat!

Frank

On Sun, 29 Jul 2007 22:10:05 -0400, "Mike" <no@where.man> wrote:

>"Gary" <Gary@NoSpam.california.usa> wrote in message

>news:eCGvb2k0HHA.4916@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...

>> Yup still can't answer the question can you.

>>

>> You are the one that started talking about other color spaces and continue

>> to cloud the point that the only possible RGB combination to produce black

>> is 0,0,0.

>>

>> All displays regardless of what input your use will always display the

>> image

>> in some value of RGB. You just can't admit that can you.

>> You will do anything to try and cloud that fact with anything to try and

>> prove its not true.

>>

>> You must like being made a fool of.

>>

>> Just answer me this what value of RGB would make black?

>> And on any display every pixel is made up of three colors what are they.

>>

>> Are you seeing the light yet?

>

>Give it up Gary. Trolls can *never* admit to being wrong - even though

>everyone is laughing at them. Adam NotTooBright and AliDumbAss will never

>admit when they are wrong.

>

>Mike

 

Kiss my ass Mike, you're another retard I kick around for sport.