Fair enough...which is why I explained myself.

That response was directed at the follow-up.

"If the OP said it, I would have given you the benefit of the doubt because that is a totally wad-like thing to say."

Basically, I have taken this to mean that he's saying that he'd have believed the explanation from the OP, but he doesn't believe it from me. As such, it seems to me that he's already made up his mind to disregard what I have to say in my defense. In such cases, I do say "whatever" as I'm not going to expel a ton of energy to convince him otherwise. Really, it may come down to the very same thing that you are saying. Perception.


In the end, we are in a he said/he said situation as someone else earlier said. It really isn't worth going into.

What I meant was if the OP had said, "When I questioned Harpua, he said "Here is the rulebook, prove I'm wrong" I would not have believed him as, even though I disagree with you sometimes, you've taken the time to explain the rules as you see them.

But seeing as how you said, "I told you about that one and you questioned me. You asked to see the rules, so I allowed you to peruse my copy of the rulebook to dispute me. In failing to find support for your position, you called over the judges", I can sympathize with the OP.

You then explained that you did point out the correct rules, which was my only beef.

So I was actually expressing my formally positive viewpoint regarding you, which changed to a negative, but then back to positive, but now wavering on apathetic.



Seriously, though, I apologize if you took offense.

Smilies left off on purpose...

So we cool?

Who said that straight text isn't always 100% clear?

Furthermore, the Steelers should NOT have lost that game to the Jets but I think they are still the 3rd best team in the AFC.

And........go Giants ^_^

Edit: This was meant to be directed to Harpua since I saw "Go Steelers!"