Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="Desdichado" data-source="post: 65007" data-attributes="member: 2205">I certainly never assumed the converse of what you said.&nbsp; Instead, I assumed --at most-- the next logical step from what you said.&nbsp; That's when you typically back down from your apparent stance and assert that it hasn't been your stance at all.You've certainly been able to say that your opinion does not match what you seemed to have said.&nbsp; I've tried hard to be more gracious than is my wont and assume that I was reading too quickly and jumping to conclusions.&nbsp; However, that only goes so far.I doubt it.&nbsp; The assumptions that I've made were logical steps to take from what you wrote.I don't have the inclination to comb through 11 pages of thread to do that.&nbsp; How about we do this objectively yet with a slight shortcut?&nbsp; You claim that your position has been clear and precise from the beginning.&nbsp; Almost half a dozen people -- in fact, everyone who's posted on this thread for the last 5 pages or so, has made the same assumptions I have based on what you said.&nbsp; Sure, you've come back and clarified, but I think that's sufficient objective &quot;proof&quot; right there that you have lacked both clarity and consistency in your posts so far.Now.&nbsp; I've grown fairly tired of this thread as nothing new has been added in several pages.&nbsp; I wouldn't have posted at all if it didn't sit uneasily with me to let stand a number of veiled implications that we're all too stupid to figure out what it is that you're talking about.&nbsp; What?&nbsp; Another assumption based on misrepresentation and convolution of what you said?&nbsp; Yeah, I guess so.&nbsp; <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f644.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":rolleyes:" title="Roll eyes&nbsp; &nbsp; :rolleyes:"&nbsp; data-smilie="11"data-shortname=":rolleyes:" /></blockquote>

[QUOTE="Desdichado, post: 65007, member: 2205"] [i][/i] I certainly never assumed the converse of what you said. Instead, I assumed --at most-- the next logical step from what you said. [i]That's[/i] when you typically back down from your apparent stance and assert that it hasn't been your stance at all. [i][/i] You've certainly been able to say that your opinion does not match what you seemed to have said. I've tried hard to be more gracious than is my wont and assume that I was reading too quickly and jumping to conclusions. However, that only goes so far. [i][/i] I doubt it. The assumptions that I've made were logical steps to take from what you wrote. [i][/i] I don't have the inclination to comb through 11 pages of thread to do that. How about we do this objectively yet with a slight shortcut? You claim that your position has been clear and precise from the beginning. Almost half a dozen people -- in fact, everyone who's posted on this thread for the last 5 pages or so, has made the same assumptions I have based on what you said. Sure, you've come back and clarified, but I think that's sufficient objective "proof" right there that you have lacked both clarity and consistency in your posts so far. Now. I've grown fairly tired of this thread as nothing new has been added in several pages. I wouldn't have posted at all if it didn't sit uneasily with me to let stand a number of veiled implications that we're all too stupid to figure out what it is that you're talking about. What? Another assumption based on misrepresentation and convolution of what you said? Yeah, I guess so. :rolleyes: [/QUOTE]

Verification