George Hammond wrote:
>> > [Oildick]
> owt sah ti dnA !tsitneics a eb *tsum* yug ehT !tsil desab-orez A !LOL > >
> !suineg a *dna* ,tsitneics A !2 rebmun > >
> > >
>>esnesnon lanoisuled pins< > >
> >
>
> [GMT]
> eton ot gnitseretni si tI .fo draehnu t'nsi ylniatrec yarra desab 0 A >
> .hguoht secneics retupmoc eht fo tsom sessimsid ]dnommaH[ taht >
> >
> siH .liated ot noitnetta yppols sih swohs tsuj s"2" gnitaeper ehT >
> .rM t'nsi yllaer "ecneicS" .raelc taht lla t'nsi tsuj gnikniht >
> .dleif s']dnommaH[ >
An immature reply that rather than admitting a humble mistake, attempts to
sustain presence; nothing more!
I too used to enumerate in hexadecimal, but only when numbering CD volumes.
I frankly doubt whether Hammond has any computer science background. What
appears to be 'sophistication' was nothing more than laziness, sloppiness.
Roy
--
Roy Schestowitz
http://schestowitz.com
|
|