潘焯鴻講大話唔眨眼又唔滴汗

standbyme

有人提供"資訊"，話淘寶網充拆每套才港幣30元的冒牌T5管連支架套裝。

Singasing

坦白講，一曰癲佬仲喺港灣，港灣所有住户都有損失。唔知當年嗰個梅健聰三更半夜叫人讓位畀癲佬、而家知道原來癲佬準備收25%回佣，梅健聰會唔會覺得好醜，信錯咗個癲佬？

TKT

心理質素低何止癲佬一個？要天下太平，除非人人都可以在知道自己唔妥即刻睇医生、食药…最淒涼就係明知有病都唔食药，唔睇医生哩   你最清楚啦

dino246

食C呀食C呀，點解資質咁差考試就快到，仲唔溫習反而躲在陰暗一角寫埋下面啲狗屎垃圾，遲下肥左佬鬼可憐啦

re: <公開信-BEEFS> Request for Clarification on Energy Saving Performance in Metro Harbour View Application

Dear Building Energy Efficiency Funding Scheme,

It is came to our concern that the Management Committee of Metro Harbour View Incorporated Ownership Incorporated Owners呀，死蠢announced in late March 2012 during a general meeting that she is proposing to invest approx HK$2million on replacing of apprxo 8,000units of existing T8/T10 linear luminaries and exit signs into T5 and LED respectively, in order to fulfill your BEEFS and thus for energy saving funding.

They had reported in the meeting that there were significant delay and in fact your department had visited our estate to verify "one-by-one" of the proposed replacement so that the checklist of the proposed lighting was established for tendering exercise.

However it was came to a criticism that we checked against the checklist of the proposed replacement and summarized that the relevant monthly energy consumption is originally at most 180,000kwh, while the Management Committee announced that this scheme may save 118,000kwh in monthly basis, ie over 60% saving on the original energy consumption. Please thus reply as follow:

1. Is the aforesaid monthly saving of 118,000kwh, ie 66% of the original consumption reliable?

2. Will your Department still commit the funding release if finally the energy saving performance is remote from the aforesaid planned saving?唔知人地個基金審批程序就去政府網頁查下啦，lazy pig!

3. When the IO is reluctant 計算表連法團通告一齊貼，食C一味扮盲，無恥to give further information to the general owners and our NGO, will your Department proactively investigate if there is any wrongful assumption or calculation made so that the energy saving capacity was over-estimated and thus misled all general owners?

4. In a case that the IO insist on a wrongful energy saving capability and thus the general owner was misled for voting.  What will your Department react?

As a matter of urgency, please feedback in 7 working days.弊，叫人地下星期四（10&#8226;5&#8226;2012）先答，配合唔到它恐嚇的  7&#8226;5&#8226;2012 重撃添

總結：自暴其醜，又話吃這行飯，問哂啲行外人問題，另英文何奇屎，什麼it is came,it was came睇到眼都突

dino246

仲搞笑就係作了封所謂公開信給今次的節能工程投標商

敬啟者,

本論壇是服務大角咀區的一個非政府組織, 就港灣豪庭於2012年1月19日登報招標, 於2012年2月7日截標和於2012年3月17日見標的一個節能合約,  本論壇接獲不少業主反映對其中節能方法和效益的關注.

由於法團管委會直到目前仍未能就業主的關注作出解釋, 故情 貴方考慮回答下列問題, 讓業主能更清楚法團管委會在該節能合約的工作. 貴方有權不作回應, 無論回應否都不會影響中標的機會:

<本問卷調查目的並不涉及投票選擇承辦商, 反而會著重節能方法和效益的表現>講到食C拃哂fit咁，強烈自卑心的後面：自大

1. 法團管委會在提供給業主的分析中說明, 預計該節能合約能夠每年節省1,418,840度電, 即每月節省118,237度電.  請問貴司該節能合約能否達到法團管委會的目標?

2. 法團管委會選擇採用T5光管作為主要節能方案. 請問貴司T5光管作為節能方案是否在效益和回報方面最為理想的選擇?

3. 香港市場上有另一類名為LED燈具作為節能方案. 請問貴司的經驗曾否遇到過熱毀壞, 光衰嚴重, 燈珠色溫及流明不一等問題?

4. 就法團管委會是次招標, 請問貴司可有運作上的改善建議?

總結：講到自已係行業先進，自己反而無資料仲要問對手？最搞笑，問的對象是它所謂由法團抱攬的承辦商，自己一巴一巴打緊自已都唔知，正死蠢

Singasing

食緊宵夜，笑到噴粥！佢亞媽生义燒好過啦，咁屎嘅中英文，寫出黎献世！仲話讀法律？咁嘅邏輯，死得！癲佬好勇，又要鬥狠，替佢亞媽淒涼；咁嘅癲喪麻甩考法律？PASS至奇 收到信嗰個會唔會問返癲佬：你屋苑投票？関我乂事 七日內回信？一定……唔回

海龙

癲佬狗心腸黑毒, 不務正業, 專走短徑, 謀暴利.
所為問卷, 你又信.  只不過做下煙幕.
到時又老作問卷回復, 來欺騙無知街坊.
再吹捧他的LED價廉物美. 淘寶貨仔可靠.
等睇他的新老作老屈.

dino246

潘焯鴻見到法團囘應後才氣急敗壞地做了這麼多此地無銀的出醜動作，一句講哂它用盡千方百計造謠之目的是，要去干擾屋苑正常運作，萬事都要搗亂，企圖上位的陰謀。

食C繼續躲在陰暗一角不務正業去搞事吧！

standbyme

怎麼沒有發信人的姓名和職位？

TKT

好心啦，我唔會嘥時間教人渣文法，中、英文，格式…人蠢冇药医，佢已到冇药医階段，仲唔怕面懵懵話5月7考碩士，笑死冇命賠