Haqi,
Maybe you did miss that post? But, since it was #32515 at 3am while your response (using his own "loss of control" phrasing, but adding you "total" characterization) came in a #32517 at 9am, some 6 hours later, I find this explanation tired, weak and unbelievable. Nice try though.
You really would have been better off if you had kept your word about not posting to him. Your gallant response came AFTER you attacked him! Shall I break that chronology down for you too?
I applaud someone who stands up for there friend or wife. I don't know Shalom, but I suspect he can handle himself. Are you sure you handled this how he would have you do so? But, when you attack someone and they retaliate, what do you expect?!
I am not falling for your attempt to divert attention away from you and to try and focus on what Santiago said later. You defend you failure to follow what you say by pointing the finger at someone else. Nice, very nice.
What little hope was left of any continuing discussion on the subject was dashed when you decided to launch your assault. Even though Santiago's critique of Shalom had some sting, you just launched a barrage of insults. Making all sorts of accusations. How was that supposed to help anything? I was only hoping to help ease things before they got out of hand. If you want to defend your actions, so be it. I'm done with you.
Greg is definitely right about one thing, there's enough lumber in the room to start a sawmill. We all need a visit to the Great Optometrist.
Bluefish |
