"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article i,
Iain Churches wrote:

"Dave Plowman (News)" wrote in message
...
In article ,
Iain Churches wrote:
I have access to groups you don't have Iain, so what's your point?

Your TV sound forum would bore me to tears:-((

So you'd be bored to tears by something concerning my work, but think I
should be interested in yours?

If you do not appreciate or know anything about music, then it
might not be too interesting for you, but you would probably be
more than happy to exchange pay.slips:.-)))

Another of those bitchy comments you say you hate so much in others.
Including boasting on how much you earn. How very juvenile.

As you well know. Dave, levels of pay in our industry are skill related.


Given the little spat you've had with our foul mouthed Oz cousin, you
seem to be rather concerned with some ancient glass enclosed
technology. So just as well you stick to discussing it with your
anorak pals.

Oh you mean Phil? If you read between the asterisks in his posts, you
will find that, despite is lack of social skills, he is actually a
pretty clever bloke, and, as Patrick Turner points out, is rarely
wrong. He insults everyone, including the leading lights here, Jim and
Don. If you haven't been insulted by Phil, that means you haven't
posted anything of interest.

More acid. Obviously being oh so polite on all those private groups you
inhabit has taken its toll.

Most broadcasting companies and many record companies are
corporations, so I wonder if your use of the word "private" is appropriate?

Nothing acid there. I have quite a soft spot for poor old Phil, even though
he does behave oddly. In his own particular area of expertise he is rarely
wrong.

Cheers
Iain