Round 3 voting

[moot]

The 38's pretty much the gold standard for twin performance.

And lest someone misread what I wrote because of Krusty's interpretation - I'm not asking for the 410 to be only single seater.  I'm saying itd be a great option in the hangar.  Along with, and at the cost of none of the rest of the options.  Which looks doable, I ran thru it in one of those threads +-1 year ago.

[Krusty]

[Edited: It's not worth the aggravation]

And it wasn't personally meant to get you riled up. Sorry

[moot]

Yeah.  I sound upset.  You keep saying that.  It's just as incorrect every single time.  How many times before you notice a pattern?

you keep alternating between praise and disparaging comments on the 410 in general. Hence my "admitted you only care about the single seater" conclusion.

They both were accurate and non-contradictory. 

I wouldn't have voted 410 without likelihood of SS'er because without it it's too redundant to say with a straight face that we (we, IMO) need it more than a Beaufighter or Meteor or Ki-something-early-war or whatever.

It was simply meant to suggest we explore more of the game than one narrow field.

Where you pull this stuff from like you could be so sure of it is a mystery to me.

[Krusty]

They both were accurate and non-contradictory. 

Fair enough... The signals you sent were mixed, and I wasn't the only one to mention it (I wasn't even the first). You can't blame me for that.

I wouldn't have voted 410 without likelihood of SS'er because without it it's too redundant to say with a straight face that we (we, IMO) need it more than a Beaufighter or Meteor or Ki-something-early-war or whatever.

...and comments like that are where I get this from:

Where you pull this stuff from like you could be so sure of it is a mystery to me.

Saying something like that, with that choice of words, suggests you only care about the single seater. If that's not the case, then I'm sorry for the misunderstanding. You might want to re-read before posting. It could be read as saying you only care about the single seater (for example), or it could mean as you suggest now it's true meaning is that the single seater puts it above the others on the list, but isn't the only reason you want it. This latter message doesn't come through as strongly.

So, again: sorry for the mixup.





EDIT: P.S. If we're going to nitpick, in my comment I said "IF"... IF. If not, then it's not a problem.

[moot]

Again.  Who said anything about blame?  Blame for what and what for?  Why do you keep bringing these nagging emotional worries into every single technical argument?

This is why I don't bother anymore.  Not even for something I want as much as this pixel plane.

[TDeacon]

Again.  Who said anything about blame?  Blame for what and what for?  Why do you keep bringing these nagging emotional worries into every single technical argument?

This is why I don't bother anymore.  Not even for something I want as much as this pixel plane.

What he is referring to, Moot, is that the tone of your most recent posts implies that you are irritated with him.  The result is unpleasant to read.  The "nagging emotional worries" which you disparage appear to be an attempt on his part to return the conversation to a more friendly plane.  Regardless of his previous transgressions (numerous though they may be), this attempt on his part would appear to be a good thing.  What is the problem with this? 

MH

[Krusty]

Your own words. to "Krusty's misinterpretation" and saying I'm spreading this misunderstanding to others. I wasn't the first, and I wasn't the only one. It's not my fault folks were misunderstanding your comment.

There was the blame, directly from you, to me. You claim you're all emotionless, all technical, but you're not.

That's all I'm going to say on it. I explained my reactions which were based only on your own words. I said I'm sorry. Don't villify me for no reason.


EDIT: Thanks TDeacon. I think most people understand me and only a few are having issues right now. I try not to hold it against 'em.

[Bronk]

What he is referring to, Moot, is that the tone of your most recent posts implies that you are irritated with him.  The result is unpleasant to read.  The "nagging emotional worries" which you disparage appear to be an attempt on his part to return the conversation to a more friendly plane.  Regardless of his previous transgressions (numerous though they may be), this attempt on his part would appear to be a good thing.  What is the problem with this? 

MH

What you don't see is krusty's edited stuff.... context.

[moot]

What he is referring to, Moot, is that the tone of your most recent posts implies that you are irritated with him.  The result is unpleasant to read.  The "nagging emotional worries" which you disparage appear to be an attempt on his part to return the conversation to a more friendly plane.  Regardless of his previous transgressions (numerous though they may be), this attempt on his part would appear to be a good thing.  What is the problem with this? 

MH

I am irritated after years of trying. 

[Krusty]

See Rule #4

[moot]

See Rule #2

[Bronk]

See Rule #4

[Krusty]

See Rule #4

[Krusty]

See Rule #2

[FireDrgn]

Yak3


problem solved  Muahahahahaha