"Bill Turner" wrote in message
...
On Sat, 15 Nov 2003 19:15:09 -0600, "jakdedert"
wrote:

No, there is no person so named. Would you prefer that he had used the
sort
of expletives that those symbols generally represent? Have you never
seen
profanity annotated that way (think: comic strip)?

I've never seen "465" included in symbolic profanity before. Remove
that and the rest becomes recognizable.

Didn't notice that...finger must've slipped off the shift key.


The 'Sanford & Son'
reference was made by the service rep, apparently referring to the gall
of
the OP, for wasting the rep's valuable time asking for information about
equipment that he (the rep) considered to be nothing but junk (you'll
recall
the TV series of that name was about a junk dealer).

Pretty obscure, but makes sense now.

Does that wrap it up for you...or--OP--did I get that right?

Got it all, thanks. Plain 'ol English beats speaking in tongues though.
Actually, this was kind of fun. Maybe we should all start posting with
obscure references and irregular grammar. Not.

Glad to be of service. Actually I think the obscure reference was actually
a paraphrased quotation of the service rep, which the OP repeated...probably
should have used quote marks there to clear it up.

jak
--
Bill, W6WRT