Quote:
Originally Posted by MD Longhorn
I truly don't appreciate you calling my explanation of what I've been told the rule is meant to cover, "Bullshit". That's beneath you.
|
I didn't. I was referring to your alteration of the discussion.
Quote:
Not one of us? Didn't you just quote me discussing that rule? Didn't I mention that particular rule very early in this conversation? Didn't I invite you, specifically, to explain to us why you would apply that specific rule to this case?
What's with the belligerence on this thread, sir?
|
I don't like wasting teaching moments. The rule was changed and as much as 8.7.Q has been mentioned on other threads on this and other boards, not once have I seen this change mentioned. So I decided to push a few buttons to get a conversation about it going. I went out of my way to lock the scenario so tight there was no room for multiple conclusions. Yet, there were and achieved by basically ignoring the parameters of the play to suit a predetermined response.
It is a frustration of many in clinics, schools and social media outlets. How can anyone know what is or is not when there is so much static and people looking for loopholes in a rule that the original question is contorted almost to the point of obliteration?