Quote:
Originally Posted by Fourputt
You point out what you think are inconsistencies, what you see as flaws.. We point out why they are not inconsistent within the context and intent of the rules. We give examples and explain our reasoning, which is essentially the same reasoning process that the governing rules bodies would use in discussing a proposed change.
Then you just start repeating the same things over and over, without ever proposing a solution which remains true to the intent of the rules, or that refutes anything I or AF have said. Most of the time you don't even refer back to anything we have said, instead you just ignore it. I don't really even know why I'm still typing this, except that I'm astounded that this can be such a difficult concept to grasp. It would be easier to convince the Pope that Jesus is alive and living in Beverly Hills...
|
You weren't around much during football season were you
fourputt. 
Do yourself a favor and get out while you can.
