Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dakota
What hyperbole does? That is was hype is obvious. That is was not a serious comparison was also obvious. At least I thought so.
|
Whereas it was the sine qua non of your argument (hows that bkb
) against the change, I addressed it as overreach it was.
Quote:
|
You made a defense of the rule wording change in another thread whereby you stated that it would change the way interference was SUPPOSED to be called. Yet, the NUS says no change. Yet, you think it is good. Go figure. Your thread nearly makes my case on this.
|
It HAS changed the way it is presented in scenario and worded. It will change the way it is called. The NUS is full of crap IMO because this is a case where they are saying one thing and putting out written info as another. Maybe that would be a better argument than "dodge ball", but thats not the argument you made.