░ To whom it may concern, ░ ░ Hi, there. I want to talk to you about ducts. Do your ducts seem old- ░ fashioned? Out-of-date? Central Services' new duct designs are now ░ available in hundreds of different colours to suit your individual taste. ░ ░ "RARed" source sample of TBBT from CTV HD is included as last wasn't ░ RARed and was thus worth nuking. On that note, this release was certainly ░ worth nuking because there indeed is a notable difference in cropping ░ and between IMMERSE's and ours. As shown in the TS and sample comparison ░ images, CTV added black borders to what would have been picture in CBS' ░ version. ░ ░ "TheyLickAssholes" (who may be yet another Three Letter Abbreviation ░ himself) claims "a lot of the CA rips have a solid green line along the ░ bottom of their caps [which would] sugest [sic] that it may not be directly ░ capped and should be labled [sic] as AHDTV." There is no evidence of such ░ a green line in our included TS sample nor in the 720p screenshot from the ░ comparison. The mere fact that we are providing a valid source sample ░ invalidates the second claim. ░ ░ He also claimed that "TLA failed to provide source proof for a couple of ░ their releases." Only two of our releases (this + Hiccups) have been nuked ░ with a request for source proof, and contrary to his claims, we have indeed ░ followed the rule and provided valid proof. If he wishes to rebuke a group ░ for not following the rule, then consider BiA whose release was nuked with ░ a request for source sample only to be counterintuitively unnuked with: ░ fine_E4HD.can.be.capped.digitally (Shameless.S08E15.720p.HDTV.x264-BiA). ░ ░ Lastly, QCF's proper is invalid for breaking lines 36-37 of the rules, ░ which suggests that a proper of release of which its source sample is ░ requested must only be pred if the source proof has not been provided in ░ 24 hours or if the source proof is invalid. But cheers for including subs! ░ ░ With appropriate respect, ░ ░ Yet another TLA
Hast du das verstanden? Ja! | Nein!
#