Now that Im no longer muted, but require approval before a post is allowed. I would like to use respect and articulation to say that I stand by my original comment, although different vocabulary would have been mere affective. There is no need for anyone, from any walk of life, to talk (or type) down to another individual in these circumstances. These are conversations that are chosen to be read by people that can only view them by consciously clicking on the thread. George is clearly an individual that is curious as to what is being written regarding things that seemingly have nothing to do with him, and if I didnt know better (which i dont) Id say that Curious George was just clicking on this thread looking for an opportunity to talk down (or type down) to a person like Verge. Whether it be that Curious George is an old war-hardend gritty guy that is frustrated by young punk recruits like us,,, or just a jaded guy that likes picking on people on line - I have no idea and would never dream of making that assumption.
Regardless, Verge seems to be a guy excited about going to BMQ, hes sharing information that he feels is relevant, and that information is nothing more than available for us as intelligent human beings to read and either blindly believe at face value, or take into consideration while we do our own research. To describe it as 'constant drivel' is out of line and a great display of a person that doesnt have the self control of choosing NOT to click on a thread, and choosing NOT to read a comment. I recognize that 'jackass' was not the terminology that I should have used as it suggests that I am personally disrespecting the individual that is George Wallace - that was not my intention, my intention was to describe the isolated action of clicking, reading, and replying to, a harmless comment with nothing more than malicious motives.
Ive spent entirely far too much time on this. Have a nice day.
!
