Cannonpointer » 10 Jul 2024, 1:34 pm » wrote: ↑
And did that confute the OP? Was it INTENDED to confute the OP? To agree with/cosign the OP?
What was the INTENTION of your post? I will tell you mine. MY post was intended to SUPPORT the OP.
You could only have had three possible motives for your post:
1. To support the OP - in which case you and I are of one accord;
2. To refute the OP - in which case, my response to you was on point, since I support the OP; and
3. To derail the thread/passive-aggressively and sneakily confute the OP - and then demand that I respond EXCLUSIVELY within the limits of the passive/aggressive reframe, thus derailing the OP without truly addressing it.
Just tell me which one of those motives you had, and we might settle on whether my response to you was called for, sir.

Go with #3 if you need this win.
One comment about charging interest (sort of) sure gets your usury ruffled.
btw
Out of context **** is what we live on. Look at some of your own stuff for chrissakes.
btw2
**** the OP.
Please seat yourself.
I like the very things you hate.