"Andys cam" <andyscam@aol.com> wrote in message

news:20040426111204.27600.00000121@mb-m05.aol.com...

> >As always, you combine sometimes useful info with silly insults

> >(have you asked yourself why...? ;-). I reported info that was

> >(and is) correct *as stated* (some people are unable to handle

> >subtleties, I guess...;-). But yes, do send me the quarter, and

> >the 'phone number also, if you please, and I will report the

> >results, whatever they may be...!;-)

> >--

> > David Ruether

> As usual, your arrogance prevents you from making a simple call to Sony that

> would answer the question and prove your statements wrong - again. You have a

> mad desire to be known as some kind of an 'expert' with an answer for most

> everything but won't even make a free call to a trusted and authoritative

> source for the accurate information. Too bad 'accuracy' isn't a necessary

> component of your 'expert' statements.

Ignoring the gratuitous personal comments, I asked you for a Sony

'phone number since Sony tends to be rather "opaque" to the public,

and I thought that, with your "obvious" expertise, you may have

a better number available than the one that connects one with the

totally infuriating "robot" 'phone-character that Sony has created

(one that resists all efforts to get to a "real person", and which

cannot understand, with its poor voice-recognition software,

anything one says in response to its canned questions - YUCK!),

and that that 'phone number you may give me may also be useful

for others here (kinda the point of posting publically on the NGs...;-).

But, rather than useful info, you have again provided "junk"...

Gee, thanks.....;-)

--

David Ruether

d_ruether@hotmail.com

http://www.David-Ruether-Photography.com