In Reply to: RE: Merman, any setting changes? posted by Jeff Starr on June 23, 2016 at 20:05:27:
Jeff, again you seem to take what you wish and ditch the rest. I think it clear that the Orlando reference was in relation to the point being made which was about balancing entitlements and obligations not to you personally. I apologise to you if you misunderstood. Please understand I am not your enemy here. Why is it that you want to make me the bad guy; does it relieve you of your obligations? As for Mercman, his post is below; read it. Am I a liar or not? You have again formed your opinion without the evidence (and continue to publish it). Mercman's testimony seems to suggest he is not sure as he reset it. What is clear is that you interpret to suit yourself and, yes, I am serious about the truth.
P.S. Respect to all!
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- RE: Merman, any setting changes? - Audio Bling 22:30:28 06/23/16 (0)