In Reply to: Gee, no need to be so defensive ... posted by Christine Tham on February 14, 2007 at 11:11:39:
Christine writes:It's hard to infer intention over the Internet, and arguably your posts could be interpreted as you already knowing the answer but issuing a challenge to Duilawyer, hence my question.
That would be a reasonable assumption if the challenge was going to go in my favour.
Why would I challenge DUI with an alternative (i.e. "bare") when he said "bald" (which turned out to be correct) if I knew that "bald" was correct. I'd just look silly.
Regards,
Geoff
This post is made possible by the generous support of people like you and our sponsors:
Follow Ups
- Wait one second - Metralla 21:36:30 02/14/07 (1)
- Precisely - Christine Tham 22:24:47 02/14/07 (0)