Re: Need a ruling on this one from a Higher Authority.
Techno, why then did you edit your post? Why not stand proud behind your words, rather than remove them and further confuse the conversation? As you stated your point was clear stand by your words. Your actions are inconsistant with your words especially in light of your propensity to quote someone in almost every one of your posts, yet modify yours before they can be scrutinized and evaluated by all who visit. Leaving your post in its original form would have allowed for others to make up their own minds the intention of your post. Puzzling. I am missing the intellectual high ground you strive for in all your posts.<br /><br />Your answer was nothing more than a regurgitation of Alden's. So your answer was his, I hope you footnoted him in your discussion with your Minister friend. And in staying with the spirit, I noticed you didn't footnote the name of the minister. This renders your post useless due to the fact you have no incontrivertable source.<br /><br />Then there is the facts not in evidence. Sir this is not a court. And CJY was right on the mark. You simply stating it isn't is bather. And someone erased some of the evidence. That still confuses me. But staying with your analogy, approx. 12 of your peers unanimously found you guilty of at least being rude. <br /><br />You may be satisfied that your explanation was as well founded as any other, but your explaination was vague and nowhere near as precise as Aldens and really just a cliff notes version of his original post. Which was very informative with or without footnotes to me and perhaps others here on the site.
<br />(edited)
