"bryanska" wrote in message
oups.com...
Nope, not the same guy. I just feel strongly about my position and am
willing to patiently discuss it. I wish FOM would post a bit more, this
is rapidly deteriorating into futility.

It's not really a debate about facts, Bryan, but rather an issue of
perception. There is only so much interest most of us can gather once the
discussion has covered "You interpreted him wrong." "No I didn't, you
did.". I doubt you're ever going to get much of a debate.

Of the posts to this thread that I've seen, every single person but one
(that would be you) got the same impression from the way FOM phrased his
initial post, namely, that he was either trolling (my guess, at this point)
or wanted to make a buck off a benign, common situation. I was always
taught that it is the responsibility of the writer to accurately convey
his/her message. If everyone is getting an incorrect message (btw, not
what I think is happening. I think the group has tagged FOM's post's
gestalt accurately), then it is up to the OP to correct this. He has
chosen not to. shrugs That makes me think we (TINW) were correct.

Hell - I'm considering posting under a second name to argue the group's
point, as a debate exercise. I'd like to understand the other side.

It's not a 'side', thing. It's a perception thing. And when N-1 perceives
a message one way, that is generally the way it was meant to be perceived,
IME.

You read it differently, which is totally ok.

Donna