Re: Vi` sao to^i chu+?i bo.n cho' dde?

On May 5, 7:37 pm, Soda Chanh <kyanh.p...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Cha`o anh,

Anh kho^ng no'i thi` cha('c em cu~ng bie^'t, la` SCV nga`y nay kho^ng
gio^'ng nhu+ SCV mu+o+`i ma^'y na(m ve^` tru+o+'c. Mu+o+`i ma^'y na(m ve^`
tru+o+'c, SCV go^`m nhie^`u ngu+o+`i co' tri`nh ddo^., vo+'i dda^`u o'c
ro^.ng mo+?, va` vo+'i tinh tha^`n ho.c ho?i. Ca'c tranh lua^.n dde^`u
die^~n ra xung quanh ca'i mu.c ddi'ch ho.c ho?i ddo'.
Nhu+ng SCV nga`y nay thi` kha'c. Co' nhu+~ng tha`nh pha^`n ddo'ng ddo^ o+?
dda^y, post 24/24 vo^ to^.i va. Cha^'t lu+o+.ng thi` co+~ ba(`ng ha`ng made
in China, va` so^' lu+o+.ng cho du` nhie^`u cu~ng kho^ng dde^`n bu` ddu+o+.c
su+. te^. ha.i ve^` cha^'t lu+o+.ng.


SCV ho^`i ddo' va^~n co' va^'n dde^` cu?a no', va^~n chu.p mu~, va^~n
na`y va^~n no.. Nhu*ng anh no'i ddu'ng, ho^`i ddo' co' va(n tho* va`
ddo^'i thoa.i ra^'t vui, (TD, be' li`, lilac, ..), va` so^' lu*o*.ng
va` cha^'t lu*o*.ng tin tu*'c va` kie^'n thu*'c  cao ho*n (CTN,
kimnguyen, etc..)


Hi,

I've seen this argument/complaint before: The quality of the
discussion has declined over the years; this board has been polluted,
poisoned; there are less qualified participants in the field... Oh,
how I long for those old days!!!

Truthfully, I think the current pool of participants is neither more
nor less qualified than any prior groups. A while back, haimbui, in
his “private” conversation with another poster (BG), held similar
discussions. He (well, he and his pseudonym) then promptly attacked
me with some of the most vile posts this board has ever seen. Those
screen names didn't bother me then, nor has the currently clown. I
just find it funny that this clown is pulling the same tricks, spewing
the same poisons!
.