Lighting on can actually make the black levels look darker but, it can also add a "frosting" effect as well. That being said, I agree with siliconnerd's post about it not being a good comparison as the lighting conditions need to be as identical as possible. Lighting is too large of a variable to just shrug off.
![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
For people complaining about less aggressive AG coating..
- Thread starter spincut
- Start date
- Status
The people complaining about the coating have typically seen the coating in person or own/have owned a display with it. Using pictures as one's only guide is a fool's errand but, saying a picture can't give someone insight is like saying a picture comparing two different textures or two different types of finish on a piece of glass or wood would make people make things up or see things that aren't there. Again, pictures are not a substitute for an actual IRL comparison but don't just assume an entire group of people have no idea what they're talking about or that people are only using pictures to form an opinion on the matter.
Namelessme
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,161
@spincut
As racer_J said, everyone who complains about the AG coating either owned an AG coated monitor previously or saw one in person. It'd be silly to complain about a monitor/coating you never actually saw.
The fact there are several threads about people going to great lengths to remove the AG coating on their monitor should tell you all you really need to know. They risk damaging their monitors, as they find it unusable with the coating. Nobody would do that just based off a picture found on the web.
As racer_J said, everyone who complains about the AG coating either owned an AG coated monitor previously or saw one in person. It'd be silly to complain about a monitor/coating you never actually saw.
The fact there are several threads about people going to great lengths to remove the AG coating on their monitor should tell you all you really need to know. They risk damaging their monitors, as they find it unusable with the coating. Nobody would do that just based off a picture found on the web.
Last edited:
Chrisroman
Gawd
- Joined
- May 29, 2011
- Messages
- 692
Many.. many of the complaints regarding AG coating would be eliminated by proper calibration. Factory settings even on high end IPS like Dell U3011 are pretty aweful. That said, the AG is still noticable after calibration, but the annoyance is greatly reduced.
Glossy is annoying too, but you get used to either after a while anyway.
Glossy is annoying too, but you get used to either after a while anyway.
blackhand1001
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 13, 2009
- Messages
- 382
You can't calibrate out the sparkle effect. Anyways, even on the same model I have seen ag coatings that are horrible and other ones that are fine. There is too much variability on how aggressive the coatings are.
I have a 27in achieva shimian and it looks great and is advertised as glossy. One of the best I've seen right up there with the CinemaDisplay (almost identical). I've seen a specific HP 24in monitor at a client site that nobody wants to use because the wall of windows behind everyone makes the picture extremely bad. It looks fine in the server room but horrible next to windows. I always thought it was glossy I hated but I now think it may be AG coating.
Just like in the other thread you made it seems like you just want to argue with people when really you don't know what you are talking about.
Evidence:
LG's coating
http://i50.tinypic.com/106wnlv.jpg
Semi-Glossy
http://i50.tinypic.com/2ujjdz4.jpg
One more:
http://www.overclockers.ru/images/lab/2012/04/23/1/52_kristaleffect_big.jpg
The entire top row uses aggressive AG coating. This pixels are obviously distorted.
Just for the heck of it here are 2 images of the removed AG coating
http://imgur.com/uW5z8
http://imgur.com/aCjSO
Obviously the coating has no effect on image quality
Changing the colours and brightness does not change the fact that there is a grainy peice of plastic on your display.
When you clean a car window, it still looks worse looking through the window than when it is rolled down.
Funny, because I have owned plenty of Matte as well as a glossy screen or two as well, which is why I think some of the comments lauding the very false superiority of a glossy display to be just as silly to me.
Just like in the other thread you made it seems like you just want to argue with people when really you don't know what you are talking about.
Evidence:
LG's coating
http://i50.tinypic.com/106wnlv.jpg
Semi-Glossy
http://i50.tinypic.com/2ujjdz4.jpg
One more:
http://www.overclockers.ru/images/lab/2012/04/23/1/52_kristaleffect_big.jpg
The entire top row uses aggressive AG coating. This pixels are obviously distorted.
Just for the heck of it here are 2 images of the removed AG coating
http://imgur.com/uW5z8
http://imgur.com/aCjSO
Obviously the coating has no effect on image quality
Changing the colours and brightness does not change the fact that there is a grainy peice of plastic on your display.
When you clean a car window, it still looks worse looking through the window than when it is rolled down.
Clearly you didn't really read this "other" thread. you're acting like there is this global conspiracy to make poor monitors with "Grainy pieces of plastic" covering it to mask the true superiority of glossy panels, which is hardly the case. Also please stop with the ulta close up pixel images, it only further validates my conclusion that people just have extremely touchy compulsions that specifically affect them. Only assume that it means "they" know what they're talking about and others don't, a blind bias I find very disconcerting.
Last edited:
Namelessme
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,161
As stated already, it's preference. In good lighting conditions, a glossy or semi-glossy display should offer superior images compared to one with heavy AG coating, as logically there isn't a thick sheet of AG blocking the pixels. Note, I said in good lighting conditions.
If you are fine with heavy AG coating, that's all well and good. But I see no reason for you to argue with people who dislike the coating and prefer something a little less obtrusive. My personal preference would probably be glossy or semi-glossy. Again... that's my preference. Do you want to argue that my preference is wrong somehow?
*rubs eyes to see if he's seeing this right*,so, no comment about any of the many posts on here outright claiming glossy is outright "superior"? That's what I am arguing against...not sure why you're specifically pegging me as the one arguing against ones preferences when the glossy supporters are far more fervent over the idea that it's "better".
Namelessme
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,161
The only post I recall saying glossy was outright superior was outbreaker's, which he qualified with also stating not to put the monitor near a window or anything -- by implication he means using it under proper lighting conditions.
I also noticed he hasn't followed up with any posts afterwards, so I'm not sure who you are arguing against exactly. Most of the others here said it was down to preference. Granted, I didn't go through the entire thread with a fine-tooth comb, but I don't recall many here saying glossy is best, matte is terrible, as a fact that applies to all.
I did read it. You asked for help when choosing between the U2412 and U2410 then went on to argue with people as to why wide gamut displays are superior when it is clear you have never seen a wide gamut display. Why ask for help only to ignore the advice given when you are clearly set on buying something?
In this thread it is obvious you have never used a display with less AG coating and compared, otherwise you would not be arguing. I never said glossy was the best or even hinted at their being a conspiracy, you are just twisting my words.
The pixel pictures are the only way you can properly see the difference. If the pixels are that affected how can the rest of the display not be? You are ignoring the evidence which prove that LG's coating distorts image quality over semi-glossy coating then claiming that people who don't like aggressive AG are just being to picky. Semi-glossy coating is just a less harsh form of matte coating, there is nothing glossy about it really.
If you look at the pictures of the removed coating, it is a grainy piece of plastic, which not an exaggeration.
http://imgur.com/uW5z8
You call that "arguing"? That was hardly an argument, it was just a discussion, and an informative one at that, for everyone involved. Sheesh. Also don't stalk other threads to try and draw comparisons that aren't there. It's rather accusatory considering it wasn't how you categorized it at all.
I have had notebook displays and other displays that were glossy, sure they seemed sharper, but the reflection was terrible and it ultimately seemed to be a gimmick (which I have seen people fervently defend before this way), so despite your insistance to the contrary, I do have that experience, but that's not saying much, no moreso than someone being a foremost expert just because they have an opinion. If this poor AG coating was really a problem over the comprable problems glossy displays has, I would have not even had to ask like it's some new thing.
Last edited:
Outbreaker
Limp Gawd
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2012
- Messages
- 472
@spincut
My brother asked me what Laptop he should buy, I answered him that it doesn't this days what Laptops he buys because they all fast enough for Office work and Multimedia. Next week he bought a Laptop after 2 days he asked me way the picture quality is better on my Laptop, I said to him that's probably because of the aggressive AG coating on the screen in shops with the bright lights you think they oky but after sitting in a room with dimmed lights on you notice the bad quality. He returned his Laptop and got a semi glossy Laptop and he is happy now.
My brother asked me what Laptop he should buy, I answered him that it doesn't this days what Laptops he buys because they all fast enough for Office work and Multimedia. Next week he bought a Laptop after 2 days he asked me way the picture quality is better on my Laptop, I said to him that's probably because of the aggressive AG coating on the screen in shops with the bright lights you think they oky but after sitting in a room with dimmed lights on you notice the bad quality. He returned his Laptop and got a semi glossy Laptop and he is happy now.
Last edited:
Matte TN panels on a laptop/monitor are not what we are talking about. It's not what anyone is talking about. Everyone is talking about the aggressive coating on LG IPS panels found in monitors. It is a substantial difference between the two. The matte TN panel coating isn't aggressive enough to make it "sparkle" nor does it make anything look a bit "smudged". My U2311H looks great compared to the 27" Ultrasharp which has an absurd amount of "sparkle". If you compare my U2311H to any typical 32" LCD TV though, or even a TN panel in a monitor or laptop (even as far back as 1998) you can see the aggressive coating absolutely alters the I/PQ and it's not in a good way.
Owning plenty of matte displays doesn't mean anything in this discussion if they haven't been one of LG's aggressive coated IPS panels as those are the only ones being discussed. How people react to those coatings is a matter of preference. How they affect the screen varies (barring the fact they will all "sparkle") but, they absolutely have an affect on the panel that lesser aggressive coatings simply do not have.
This topic has been discussed multiple times in multiple different places. Just because you are unfamiliar with it doesn't mean that's it's not well known and doesn't exist. Until you actually own a panel with this coating or physically go and see one, your counter-arguments/discussion has no ground to stand on at all. If you don't want to believe anything that's been said (which looks like it's the case given your posts), that is entirely up to you but, don't sit there and put forth arguments that have absolutely no basis whatsoever as the will not stand up to the first hand experience that other people have actually had on this issue. I'm all for discussion and sharing different lines of thought but, your posts are starting to like like you're being argumentative for the sake of being argumentative rather than being made to try and actually figure the issue out (especially since you keep just brushing the things you don't agree with off to the side if it's not valid and trying to turn this into a discussion about glossy versus matte when it's about glossy versus aggressive matte).
So it runs in the family, what's your point, it's still your (and your brothers) opinion, and anectode about a family members preference matching yours does not a proof make.
I had a lap top in college that I got to replace my desktop and it too had a glossy screen, I was really not that much wowed at all by it, and it did not make me yearn for nor remind me of the days when I did have a CRT...does that make me right instead?
I've said multiple times that I have seen and owned said things, so it appears as if there are some attention issues, and it renders the rest of your statement rather moot. If you're not going to pay attention, we cannot have a discussion.
Multiple times? You said you have owned matte and glossy displays in this thread once and you never specified what the matte monitors were. Given that your ownership of glossy panels were on laptops it wasn't a stretch to assume your matte panels were laptops as well. If your "multiple times" were in other threads, I (nor do most people) read every single thread. Most people don't even read every single post in the threads they participate in. Your OP makes it sound like you are trying to research the issue prior to a purchase although it doesn't explicitly state it.
The only time you have mention ed a specific model in this thread is on the first page when you said you still owned a 2007wfp but with no indication of how long you've owned it. Eyes can/will adjust to a lot of different things and it's already been said the coatings can vary from panel to panel. Even then, the threads dedicated to removing the anti-glare film are about the last two years worth of Ultrasharp monitors not one from 2006 (EoL in 2007).
Don't try to "scold" someone for "not paying attention" when you have failed to provide details in said discussion to pay attention to. That's the second time you've had to make a quip/try to bait an argument in this thread. Are you sure you're really that interested in discussion? Your posts keep indicating otherwise . . .
Welp, had to stop you again. I have said it more than once and beyond that, well "stretch" your imagine away, but that doesn't mean you're right, and it doesn't mean I want to have a conversation with someone who proclaims they "dont know what "i'm" talking about" after proposing a silly argument based on a silly assumption. Try again.
And yes I'm very interested in having a discussion, but not with people who hypocritially try to bait my while saying I'm trying to bait them while not paying attention and making comments like "you "obviously" don't know what you're talking about", so sorry, spin again.
Go troll somewhere else.
I would if I was....except I'm not. In an ironic twist, I am refusing to feed the trolls and will just stop a conversation as soon as I see a glaring contradiction in it that is being used to condescend, especially one that is showing the user is going to only pay so much attention to things so to argue with me while accusing me of being argumentative.
So I would in turn ask you go accuse somewhere else.
Namelessme
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,161
I just checked this thread again and realized spincut actually started the thread. Based on his posts, I didn't realize he was the one asking about less aggressive coating -- his followup posts almost seemed contradictory to what he was originally asking about.
Anyway... in an effort to get the thread on track a little bit, the only non-aggressive AG coated IPS panels I know of, which admittedly may not be all of them, are the AOC (cheapo 23") IPS, which supposedly has less AG coating than some IPS panels, the Samsung PLS monitors, including the Eizo with the same panel. And the VA panels with semi-glossy coating. There is of course the Apple displays, but I feel it's safe to say that wouldn't be to spincut's liking.
Spincut, out of curiosity, what aggressive AG coated IPS monitors do you own, or have seen in person? Strangely there not only seems to be varying levels of coating per model, but monitors themselves -- so if a Dell ultrasharp looks good to one person, and not another, it may not only be due to preference, but the fact his or her monitor may actually have less coating than someone else's. At least that is what some have reported here.
Anyway... in an effort to get the thread on track a little bit, the only non-aggressive AG coated IPS panels I know of, which admittedly may not be all of them, are the AOC (cheapo 23") IPS, which supposedly has less AG coating than some IPS panels, the Samsung PLS monitors, including the Eizo with the same panel. And the VA panels with semi-glossy coating. There is of course the Apple displays, but I feel it's safe to say that wouldn't be to spincut's liking.
Spincut, out of curiosity, what aggressive AG coated IPS monitors do you own, or have seen in person? Strangely there not only seems to be varying levels of coating per model, but monitors themselves -- so if a Dell ultrasharp looks good to one person, and not another, it may not only be due to preference, but the fact his or her monitor may actually have less coating than someone else's. At least that is what some have reported here.
Nameless, if you looked at posts other than mine you'll see some really affected way of thinking that required me to respond the way I did, but thank you for not being one of them and trying to get the thread back on track. Perhaps to disprove some of the more annoying and affected posters on here, as well as yourself, I will respond in turn.
I own some Dells, have used a few matte apple screens (was a bit ago, but I am pretty sure), have a very random no name brand at work which escapes me at the moment (but if anything is going to have a poor AG coating I would imagine that would be it), a smattering of other random stuff I have picked up at Frys over the past few years when I went to college, HP and Viewsonic models.
The original question was more because back when I got my Dell 2007wfp (which took a lot of research due to that panel lottery) I cared a lot about the panel, but there was ZERO discussion about AG coating. Even with people comparing it the NEC's competing widescsreen that was in fact glossy, the only point that came up was "gee, that NEC monitor is tops, but it's like a friggin' mirror". Seriously, aside from the higher cost, that was the only other downside that I recall, and yet it was enough to drive plenty of people toward gambling int he 2007wfp lottery.
So anyway, all the sudden I am glancing and seeing several people talk about "levels" and agressiveness about AG coating. This was not really a hot topic a few years ago from what I gather. And based on some of the manic nature of the people posting, I am getting the distinct impression it's some peoples highly sensitive and recent affliction to certain matte monitors (matte is what we used to call them, "AG" while a common term, seemingly was not really the terminology used for non-glossy monitors a few years ago).
I own some Dells, have used a few matte apple screens (was a bit ago, but I am pretty sure), have a very random no name brand at work which escapes me at the moment (but if anything is going to have a poor AG coating I would imagine that would be it), a smattering of other random stuff I have picked up at Frys over the past few years when I went to college, HP and Viewsonic models.
The original question was more because back when I got my Dell 2007wfp (which took a lot of research due to that panel lottery) I cared a lot about the panel, but there was ZERO discussion about AG coating. Even with people comparing it the NEC's competing widescsreen that was in fact glossy, the only point that came up was "gee, that NEC monitor is tops, but it's like a friggin' mirror". Seriously, aside from the higher cost, that was the only other downside that I recall, and yet it was enough to drive plenty of people toward gambling int he 2007wfp lottery.
So anyway, all the sudden I am glancing and seeing several people talk about "levels" and agressiveness about AG coating. This was not really a hot topic a few years ago from what I gather. And based on some of the manic nature of the people posting, I am getting the distinct impression it's some peoples highly sensitive and recent affliction to certain matte monitors (matte is what we used to call them, "AG" while a common term, seemingly was not really the terminology used for non-glossy monitors a few years ago).
Namelessme
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,161
@spincut
Ah, I think the issue is, and why you may percieve it as being odd, is the fact that the aggressive coating only seems to be on semi-recent IPS screens. Say monitors from the last 2 or so years. I can't say for certain, as I don't have an older IPS to compare to, but it's a semi-recent thing.
I have a matte display from several years ago, a generic, lousy TN panel. I don't care for the coating, but I could live with it. It's only a tiny bit grainy. I don't use the monitor for much at all, besides as a back-up, because of angle issues.
I previously had a Dell U2412, a modern IPS display. It was grainy, sparkly and made my eyes hurt when reading text. And it supposedly was one of the IPS displays with less coating than other Dell ultrasharps.
So it's not really matte vs glossy, as matte from years past, or matte in VA form, seem fine to most people. I hated the U2412's coating, but even I can live with standard matte coating. This was much, much worse. It's the IPS screens from the last 2-3 years with heavy, sparkly coating that bothers people. And to confuse matters, it seems some of the LG IPS panels, even from perhaps the same model, have varying degrees of coating.
The 2007wfp you own most likely predates this heavy AG problem, so that's why matte doesn't seem bad to you. Pretend your white screens 'sparkle' or looks like it has been in an attic for 2 years and is covered in dust -- that's pretty much what people here are complaining about.
By the way, do you recall the NEC glossy model you referenced? I may actually like that one...
Ah, I think the issue is, and why you may percieve it as being odd, is the fact that the aggressive coating only seems to be on semi-recent IPS screens. Say monitors from the last 2 or so years. I can't say for certain, as I don't have an older IPS to compare to, but it's a semi-recent thing.
I have a matte display from several years ago, a generic, lousy TN panel. I don't care for the coating, but I could live with it. It's only a tiny bit grainy. I don't use the monitor for much at all, besides as a back-up, because of angle issues.
I previously had a Dell U2412, a modern IPS display. It was grainy, sparkly and made my eyes hurt when reading text. And it supposedly was one of the IPS displays with less coating than other Dell ultrasharps.
So it's not really matte vs glossy, as matte from years past, or matte in VA form, seem fine to most people. I hated the U2412's coating, but even I can live with standard matte coating. This was much, much worse. It's the IPS screens from the last 2-3 years with heavy, sparkly coating that bothers people. And to confuse matters, it seems some of the LG IPS panels, even from perhaps the same model, have varying degrees of coating.
The 2007wfp you own most likely predates this heavy AG problem, so that's why matte doesn't seem bad to you. Pretend your white screens 'sparkle' or looks like it has been in an attic for 2 years and is covered in dust -- that's pretty much what people here are complaining about.
By the way, do you recall the NEC glossy model you referenced? I may actually like that one...
Well then there is really something wrong with the people in this thread, because that could have been said from the get go instead of a bunch of ironic trolls jumping in insisting about the superiority of one over the other. For those that keep pointing to my original post, it was really asking "where did this critique suddenly come from? It wasn't really around before."
It would make sense if it was a semi recent issue instead of a thing that has always plagued matte monitors, because otherwise people have seemingly and suddenly lost their minds.
But yeah, I still use my 2007wfp at home and I see no sparkly or graininess of any sort. Why they would decide to alter how a matte monitor looks in the past recent years to something worse is beyond me, as I chose this monitor very specifically over a glossy one that many said otherwise was better overall (well aside from the monitor effectively being a mirror).
I don't recall the NEC model, just that it started with a 2
....and had a G and an X in it I think? and maybe a U.Wouldn't the AG coating be the monitor companies choice though? So why all IPS monitors? Wouldn't it differ from company to company and not panel to panel?
Namelessme
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Messages
- 1,161
I believe racer_j more or less said it applied to IPS panels only, not regular panels, in a previous post:
The coating seems to apply to almost all LG IPS panels, as they seem to be the ones who put the coating on. And since LG makes all IPS panels...that's why manufacturers of monitors end up with the same heavily coated panels. However, there are some panels which don't have the coating, such as the Apple display and the Korean monitors. But those are a rarity, and I expect they simply order different panels with no coating on them. I'm not sure why there isn't more variation out there, but it could be due to the fact companies like Dell sell mostly to business users, and a glossy or semi-glossy display won't sell to them. But I have no idea why LG feels a need to lather on so much coating compared to normal matte solutions.
The coating seems to apply to almost all LG IPS panels, as they seem to be the ones who put the coating on. And since LG makes all IPS panels...that's why manufacturers of monitors end up with the same heavily coated panels. However, there are some panels which don't have the coating, such as the Apple display and the Korean monitors. But those are a rarity, and I expect they simply order different panels with no coating on them. I'm not sure why there isn't more variation out there, but it could be due to the fact companies like Dell sell mostly to business users, and a glossy or semi-glossy display won't sell to them. But I have no idea why LG feels a need to lather on so much coating compared to normal matte solutions.
You're actually going to sit there and debate the phrase "more than once" with the phrase "multiple times"? You said multiple times. It was a direct quote of something you posted not something I paraphrased or made up. Where exactly did I make an assumption or an argument based on it? You still have yet to ever identify any specific displays which you have owned except for the 2007wfp and, if you had bothered to read my post rather than simply react to it, you would have seen why I said you didn't have complaints about it.
Good lord grow up. That was an observation not an attempt to troll you and I'm not the only one that has drawn that observation. There is no spin going on here. What is going on is you being pressed for more details on your ownership of aggressively coated IPS displays and then you not providing any information, calling people trolls for asking, and trying to steer the conversation in another direction.
Let me put this as clearly as possible since you have either failed to understand or have chosen not to:
What are the specific displays that you have owned that people say have an aggressive anti-glare coating?
I did say that Namelessme but spincut was to busy trying to call me a troll to notice it. In fact the post of mine he quoted and used to label me as a troll had even further specification on that issue:
Apparently it was trolling when I said it though and discussion when you said it. I had assumed it was because spincut didn't agree with what I was saying but now it just looks like it's a personal issue rather not liking the information provided.
I really don't know how much more specific I can be as to what displays have aggressive coatings and which displays do not. I can't even get him to answer what displays he has owned and apparently neither can anyone else. He always answers as vaguely as possible. I don't think it's to much to ask someone to cite specific examples when the aggressive coating affects specific makes/models. Apparently you're a troll when you want details someone either can't or won't provide though. In addition to that, you get lumped into being a troll even though not a single one of my posts have stated either anti-glare nor glossy are better than the other. In fact I flat out said twice that is was a matter of preference and that the coating wouldn't affect everyone the same way but, that the coating would have an impact on the display and that it would make it "sparkle".
As for sipncut wanting someone to point out what Namelessone and I have on pages three and four sooner, well I wish they would have. It really couldn't have been pointed out any sooner though as my first post was about clarification to the topic title, my second post was about it being an issue of preference as to what was better, my third post was about lighting conditions, my fourth post was about using pictures for comparison purposes, my fifth post explained why some displays had issues and not others after I realized what displays spincut was trying to deem as having aggressive anti-glare coatings, and everything since then has been about those coatings. Prior to my fifth post there wasn't enough information for me or for anyone else to know he had been trying to compare non-aggressive anti-glare coatings to one another. All the information anyone had prior to that was that he owned a 2007wfp and his opening post made it sound like he was looking for an alternative to aggressive anti-glare coatings.
All of his posts since then have been an incredible deviation from that and he's now saying he meant his OP to be from the point of view of five years ago. Why on earth would you wait four pages to clarify what you meant and were asking in the OP? He has even gone so far as to say people are making things up while he fails/refuses to give anyone specific models of displays that he has owned besides the 2007wfp which obviously doesn't have an aggressive anti-glare coating. I don't know how someone can be "upset" that they didn't receive certain information sooner when they didn't even give any context for the information they were looking for until after said information had been given. What was the point of waiting until after the information was given to say (paraphrased) "oh thanks that's what I was looking for wish I would have gotten it sooner" (even though you did twelve posts and six posts before you said this) when you never asked for it?
^^
One big ironic and whiny tldr; later:
Wow racer j, the conversation had just gotten back on track and you still felt the need to come back in and try and derail it again? Perhaps you should take your own advice and grow up, realize that you were (and especially now are) a problem and slink away, before you further prove my point that your antagonistic rants are not worth responding to. You're making zero contributions to the topic and have only further proved my rationale towards not dignifying your whiny posts with a response in the first place.
In closing, rather than putting so much effort in lecturing others realize your presence is not a useful one and take your own advice, enjoy the cheese with your wine.
If I was a troll I wouldn't have been relieved that the conversation got back on track with an adult, unlike yourself who is desperately grasping to further obfuscating the topic while proclaiming some kind of superiority to it, it's ironic and funny, but it's old, so please go away.
One big ironic and whiny tldr; later:
Wow racer j, the conversation had just gotten back on track and you still felt the need to come back in and try and derail it again? Perhaps you should take your own advice and grow up, realize that you were (and especially now are) a problem and slink away, before you further prove my point that your antagonistic rants are not worth responding to. You're making zero contributions to the topic and have only further proved my rationale towards not dignifying your whiny posts with a response in the first place.
In closing, rather than putting so much effort in lecturing others realize your presence is not a useful one and take your own advice, enjoy the cheese with your wine.
If I was a troll I wouldn't have been relieved that the conversation got back on track with an adult, unlike yourself who is desperately grasping to further obfuscating the topic while proclaiming some kind of superiority to it, it's ironic and funny, but it's old, so please go away.
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Messages
- 25,321
Since we are no longer conversing about the topic, but rather about who said what, I see no reason for this to continue
- Status