amateuraficionado
Active Member
I agree Anthony. It just doesn't seem copesthetic for a member to call another member out for a trangression of which they themselves are or were guilty. PM would have been more ideal and then Jeff could have edited his post to reflect the reason.
Whatever the case Jeff, Gary is correct that you should edit the second post to include the link rather than the pasted info.
Please provide a linky regarding this implication.
Here you go
Let's see, January 2009...over one year ago.
You need to try a little harder my pet!![]()
Where was I calling him out...or are you just trying to stir up the dust?
Your pet? No need to attempt to patronize me Gary. You've committed the same sin, as have I, as have a few others in this thread. It's as plain as day. I didn't realize there was a statute of limitations on infractions at CP!? Who cares if it was a year ago or 3 years ago.... it happened. If I'm not mistaken I'm pretty sure those same rules were in effect a year ago. Though there do appear to be many around here as of late, I think one of the last things anyone would refer to me as is a dust stirrer.... just merely pointing out the obvious.
Where did I call him out?
As for the 'my pet'...it was more a joke that came out flat in 2D...my apologies.
No need for apologies but accepted nonetheless. As for "calling him out", you're just playing semantics, and misdirection. Call it what you want but you and everyone else know exactly what I mean. I think this could have been handled differently. If you still believe that you handled this the best way possible given the facts on the table then we just agree to disagree. That's all.