Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)
On 19 May 2005 01:43:02 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>kashe@sonic.net wrote:
>>>
>>>This is a misrepresentation of what actually is occuring here.
>>
>> It's the RATE, boy, the RATE. Duration not implied.
>>
>
>The ONLY rate that it is measuring is the rate at which you can get your
>money back if you are similarily spending $1200/hour ... which is
>assinine!
>
Par'me, but is the rference to "spending" intended to mean
anything? Rate is rate, without respect to any other activity.
On 19 May 2005 01:43:02 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" <veldy71@yahoo.com>
wrote:
>kashe@sonic.net wrote:
>>>
>>>This is a misrepresentation of what actually is occuring here.
>>
>> It's the RATE, boy, the RATE. Duration not implied.
>>
>
>The ONLY rate that it is measuring is the rate at which you can get your
>money back if you are similarily spending $1200/hour ... which is
>assinine!
>
Par'me, but is the rference to "spending" intended to mean
anything? Rate is rate, without respect to any other activity.
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram