Sandman
In article <kg7rk9t0pf9cf0e3fm8fp0vgj5sn7vjnn4@4ax.com>, Eric Stevens wrote:

Tony Cooper
I think, based on a comment by you some time ago, I did check a Best Buy and found one of 24 that wouldn't turn on and reported that information here. I wouldn't call that "often".

nospam
you think wrong.

Tony Cooper
Well, you consider 4-point-something percent of the display models to be without a battery to be enough to be "often", so that shows your aptitude in assessing a problem. It does cast doubt on your use of "numerous", though.

nospam
where did you come up with 4.something% ? oh yea, your ass.

Tony Cooper
24 cameras on display, 1 non-working (presumably w/o battery) 4.something percent non-working. An even 4% would be less than one unit.

Sandman
Ironic that you should talk about problem-assesing when your number is based on one visit to one store.

Eric Stevens
Yep. That's what he said, right at the beginning. It was entirely clear what his calculations were based on.

Sandman
Huh? I was talking to Tony here, did you reply to the wrong message?

Tony visited one store and then were all sarcastic about nospam's "problem assesing" aptitude, which was hilariously ironic, when his own was pretty much non-existant.

Tony Cooper
It's right up above. You need to download an app to do the math?

Sandman
And classic troll insults.

Eric Stevens
Well, nospam's inability to recognise what was being calculated was a little disconcerting. If I had made the same error at the age of 10 I expect my teacher would have made an equivalent comment.

Sandman
No, nospam just didn't assume that Tony would be stupid enough to make a general claim about camera functioning based on ONE visit to ONE store and then claim it was the actual percentage.