Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="TheBaron" data-source="post: 1922724" data-attributes="member: 25669">I'm not going to sully this board with argumentative diatribes. Feel free to contact me privatly if you truly wish to continue such exchanges. I will attempt to comment constructively on most of your statments.This is not your full text and out of context. Not to show you in poor light, but illustrates the points of my next comments. From what the general vibe of what I've read unless it's in black and white text specifically outlining it there is no challenging a rule. I think that is true hubris when discussing rules as this leaves no room for interpretation. I think there is a difference between being presumptious and being rational when interpreting rules. To believe something is the sole truth simply because it is stated or not stated in a limited text description and not allow interpretation of the text unless further text is provided is in my opinion breeding ignorant conformity. The Baron</blockquote>

[QUOTE="TheBaron, post: 1922724, member: 25669"] I'm not going to sully this board with argumentative diatribes. Feel free to contact me privatly if you truly wish to continue such exchanges. I will attempt to comment constructively on most of your statments. This is not your full text and out of context. Not to show you in poor light, but illustrates the points of my next comments. From what the general vibe of what I've read unless it's in black and white text specifically outlining it there is no challenging a rule. I think that is true hubris when discussing rules as this leaves no room for interpretation. I think there is a difference between being presumptious and being rational when interpreting rules. To believe something is the sole truth simply because it is stated or not stated in a limited text description and not allow interpretation of the text unless further text is provided is in my opinion breeding ignorant conformity. The Baron [/QUOTE]

Verification