> not a re-skin
Is that something you're frequently accused of, or why the "disclaimer"?
They were directly answering the post above which asked if it's a re-skin.
The comment they were replying to specifically asked if it was a re-skin.
Ah yes of course, finally paid the price of reading comments in isolation. Thanks and sorry :)
Not really, I just picked it up from the initial question from stakhanov.
They were directly answering the post above which asked if it's a re-skin.
The comment they were replying to specifically asked if it was a re-skin.
Ah yes of course, finally paid the price of reading comments in isolation. Thanks and sorry :)
Not really, I just picked it up from the initial question from stakhanov.