> andreas you dimwit post stalker

You know very well that I don't mind your foul language. Only makes you look bad. And maybe you should follow my example and "stalk" posts some more in order for you to grasp what they actually say.

> I was referring to the OP's post.

Ah, that must be the reason you explicitly addressed geit when you wrote "Thanks for the clarifications". Makes sense. And that also explains why you replied to me saying "I read geit's statement as more like saying the opposite" with a quote from Jupp3 who we all know must be geit's sock puppet account.

> Read it again robot.

I did, schizo. And now?