No, I didn't misconstrue anything. That's what you do quite consistently as one reads your posts and now you are also becoming a copycat, saying I do the same thing whatever I say you are doing. Sophomoric but understandable. There was nothing ABOUT me in my post. I simply wanted to disagree with your statement that the vplm story was same as the wiper story, and I did so very simply but I saw there was the need to mention also that my opposite opinion was not based on the usual rebuttals, so I added that with an example, to save anyone going down that same old road again. You're problem is you're ornary in your replies and you keep twisting words or misunderstanding them and you seem to be missing those particular neurons that would allow you to otherwise be able to discern the difference between posting a differing opinion vs posting ABOUT oneself. That's ok, I lend you those neurons so you can see the difference. When someone posts their OPINION, that's not the same as someone talking about oneself. Pretty simple concept, both things. As to me replying to you "as if" you asked me, lol, I would have to judge that as your ego or similar to when peeps think others are talking about them when they aren't. Fact o matter is that I went out of my way to explain why I added the additional comment above and beyond my simple comment that it's not the same as the wiper story. You see, I mentioned, for your benefit of understanding, that this issue about the wiper story had been gone over here multiple times and normally, I don't like to make short statements about something without in some way supporting it or backing it up. So since I didn't want to go thru my whole set of reasons for why I don't see the wiper story same as the vplm story, instead I thought to just mention that my reasons were not the usual ones that are always shot down. That was INTENDED to help you see that I wasn't just disagreeing for the sake of itself but surprise, you missed that and turned into it's all about me. . And of course posters do not need to reply to a post made to them in oder to want to chime in. You imply that's not good but there's nothing wrong with doing so I'm here to tell you.
Lastly, I don't at the moment recall exactly what court info your referring to OR that I needed you to explain. I'd have to go back and relook, but I have the sense that you THOUGHT I needed you to explain something when in fact I was rather looking for you to show what YOU thought about the court info. Again, I don't really recall the details at the moment but if you choose to belabor it (which reminds me, I remember giving my opinion and saying you gave yours and I gave mine and we might lay it to rest but that wasn't good enough for you and you opted to go on about it), you will quote it and I will most likely show again how you did the chubby checker or needed those unfortunately missing neurons (not your fault). Actuality, you seem to think you have to explain alot of things that don't need splainin
All my commentary is to be considered as my personal opinions, to which I am entitled. And there is no proof of said opinions unless I offer it in the comments.
