"Mitch" <mitch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote in message
news:110520082053282610%mitch@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> In article
> <ba8f8749-48f9-492e-862c-02fdef109513@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>,
> Edwin <thorne25@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> On May 11, 2:50 pm, Mitch <mi...@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>> > > Who would it's peers be?
>
>> > The first sentence sounds like you don't think it has many peers, and
>> > the last sounds like you know of many. Whazzup?
>> >
>> > I was looking at this comparison from
>> >
PCWorld:http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,123867-page,1-c,notebooks/article.
>> > html
>
>> Please point out where anything with the specs you snipped out appears
>> at that site:
>>
>> "HP:
>> 2GB RAM, 120 GB 5400 HD
>> 1280x768 display (8.9 inch), too reflective
>> 2.86 pounds, est. 85 cu in volume
>> Ethernet, Expresscard, SD slots
>> bigger battery option, but adds half pound
>> loud fan, small trackpad, BT optional
>> re****tedly poor CPU, poor GPU -- horrible reviews
>> $750 "
>>
>> Did you snip them because you made them up, Mitch?
>
> Are you kidding me? You think you can twist the last couple messages to
> make people think someone else is as clueless as you are?
>
> I did not write that the items on that list reflected the specs I cited
> in my first post. I was responding to YOUR request for a list of peers
> in that category.
Confused? He didn't ask for a list of "peers". I did.
|
