(March 19, 2015 at 4:48 pm)Pandæmonium Wrote: The above reply of course completely omits any input from the poster whereby they have repeatedly and consistently acted dishonestly with regards to the concepts they are talking about through the replies they are posting.
The point, which you miss Huggy, is that you've purposefully omitted the rest of the context where FaF admitted a mistake following clarification of the post/question you initially posited. Your signature seeks to posit that that's where the conversation began and ended, when in fact everyone, including you especially, knows that to be false. It misrepresents FaF's contribution to the conversation and indeed the conversation itself.
If you want to presume to lecture us on dishonesty, perhaps get your own house in order. Nobody has mentioned insults, and neither has anybody mentioned flaming. These are entirely separate subjects to the one at hand and everyone, including you, knows it.
He didn't admit a mistake, he made an excuse, big difference.
(August 13, 2014 at 3:31 pm)FatAndFaithless Wrote: Alright, I thought you meant immediately post-observation, but that's fine. Yes, observation is the first step.Even if he "thought" I meant immediately post-observation, he would still be wrong. Verifying the result would be the very last step.
