an author is judged by their words, specifically their selection and arrangement
so when someone says:
"It's a clever amalgamation of a small foot-print (allowing the CPU to "breath") Cascade "type" impingement into heat-voids, which re-contour into channels propagating rapid bi-lateral uptake of the heated water."
I, BillA here only, conclude that the writer does NOT know their English vocabulary; "allowing the CPU to "breath"", did you mean breathe ??); "propagating rapid bi-lateral uptake", did you mean facilitating or promoting ?
and when they say:
"Their inverted to show where the water will exit (the paper on number-5 protects adhesive);", and
"Extrapolating from this data shall emphasis the difference between nozzle's and the cooling prowess innate to the RBX block itself!"
I will also conclude that English grammar is another deficiency of the writer; "Their" for they're, no period; "emphasis" for emphasize, "nozzle's" for nozzles.
and when they say:
"From the preponderance of data, I've extrapolated the following. The RBX number-5 accelerator nozzle's dispersion pattern is adept at conducting the intense heat signature innate to P4 overclocking."
I conclude that the writer is functionally illiterate, and technically incompetent.
pHaestus, you are guilty of trolling
lol
|