How odd Brum6y. I can usually rely on you to be the one who sees things for what they are and not what you'd like them to be. You don't usually stoop to having a dig when others do. I'll put that down to a late night.
Dismiss it as you will.
However the time of day has no bearing on the fact that you claimed my challenge on the statement offered was based on who you are and not on the statement itself. Since you seem familiar with my posting style, such a claim would surely be incongruous with that understanding.
I am uncertain as to whether your 'take' derives from arrogance - that I should dare question the 'evidence' - from playing the role of 'victim' or from desperation - should you feel you have no other retort.
The fact remains that the statement offered is ambiguous and my fictional annotations were offered to demonstrate exactly that and are quite independent of the source.
You, or anybody who has observed my posts, should be well aware that I will concede a valid point even if it is 'in opposition' to a stated opinion and equally as true that I will not let an invalid argument stand unchallenged, especially if it is the basis of further discussion. Also, that when I have been wrong, I admit it. To do otherwise would compromise the validity of discussion and render any conclusions as highly suspect.
Brum6y, you chose to question the validity of the statement because I presented it.
I still find this claim fascinating
Why would that statement be any less valid than a quote from your 'seller friend'.
It is no less valid, nor is it any more valid. If the roles were reversed, I would be seeking clarification from my source and presenting additional details to underpin the veracity of the original statement - yet you have not even indicated an interest in doing so.
The only reason I would think is because it sways towards supporting something you 'disagree' with.
Already covered this misdirection ... and I still haven't bought any flyscreen doors for my submarine, either.
I do understand,
I am very sure you do.
I'm not sure you do.
Oh, but I do and only too well.
I find this diversion from the discussion is the 'storm in a teacup'. The cited statement is lacking. It needs more detailed support. Any personal interactions are a distraction. If you want to continue in this vein, then I must honestly question your motives since objective discussion of the thread topic is becoming a distant memory - but bring it on.
I would much rather get back to the topic, but if you insist.....