Acutally, I said "I just read something that made me see the Duel in a new light", followed by an aside that I'd been reading about RVS. Personally I'd been puzzled by the skirmish for a while (see post 104). The 'something' I read was external and a priori
had nothing to do with your posts. NotFrenchYet:
Sorry. Couldn't resist..!
Heh heh :P Okay.
My issue is that you say I drew attention to it, but that's clearly not the case. If you read, you'll note that the only reason why I voiced it at the particular moment is because it was claimed that the whole thing was pointless. I didn't press it, ask for others opinions, for anyone to take note or even repeat it again. If you hadn't brought it back up, I doubt it would have even been mentioned again! :)
Thanks for the clarification though - all that mischief from a misinterpreted and out-of-game comment..! One last question, if I may... You said you voiced your conclusions "about him to him
." If you had incurred that same disagreement in private, would you have behaved in the same way?
Pretty much. I always get annoyed when people are inconsistent or ignoring the arguments/explanations put before them. As bazilisek seems to have figured, I'm a logically minded person so such things are probably particularly annoying for me. You can probably see it in any debate I've been in on these forums :P
As I said though, I probably wouldn't have voiced my "conclusion" as I wouldn't have such a prompt, but I would point out inconsistencies, where I was ignored etc.