Quote:
Originally posted by Grojlach:
For the record, I never said that it shouldn't be discussed a second time; that's how you interpreted it. 
I merely pointed out it was discussed before recently (in a similar manner, even), and provided Arvon with a link to that particular topic with for him a most likely new perspective on the case, which also happens to explain the strange situation a bit better and fairer than his American Rifleman-thingy did. Just some additional clarification before someone uninformed barges in and yells things he might regret later, just because the openingspost was a bit incomplete in the facts-department and made an unfair impression of the actual situation.
But if you want to discuss it again, then by all means, feel free to do so; Don't let me stop you. [img]smile.gif[/img] Just keep in mind that the topic has been discussed only recently, and people might still be tired of the subject from the last time around and might just refer back to the original topic.
|
If I missintereted you then it my mistake, but to me it sounded if you were. Maybe it's your posting style and I'm not used to it but your post sounded a bit harsh and commanding but like I said I probably missunderstood.
But at least we agree the if poeple want to talk about it again, then let them. If people don't they probably won't get involded but not everyone has here for last month talk, me and Avon for example. But I some one to say somethng uninformed let them how else will they learn? Or is some choose to use last month post or the the one from when this case when to trial to reforce their statement fine.