Originally Posted by Veri:
“Why?
My OP did contain plain facts and did report things that were said. I never said that was all it contained. (Don't leave out the "Much of my post" that was before the "simply reported things that were said".)
But someone who did not "agree with a single word" was disagreeing with the factual parts, not only with the interpretations.
I have not changed my stance in any way.
We're not. My OP contained plain facts (along with interpretations and opinions). Everything I said people said, they actually said. Watch the recording on the BBC site if you don't believe me.”
“Why?
My OP did contain plain facts and did report things that were said. I never said that was all it contained. (Don't leave out the "Much of my post" that was before the "simply reported things that were said".)But someone who did not "agree with a single word" was disagreeing with the factual parts, not only with the interpretations.
I have not changed my stance in any way.
We're not. My OP contained plain facts (along with interpretations and opinions). Everything I said people said, they actually said. Watch the recording on the BBC site if you don't believe me.”
My understanding of your post was that it put your spin/interpretation on the 'plain facts' of what people 'actually said'. The 'plain facts' were not reported in isolation of your interpretation. Your OP, quotes notwithstanding, was very much your opinion.
I remain in disagreement with your OP in its entirety, and with your subsequent posts on the subject. Unless you bring something new to this particular discussion, I have said all I have to say on this point, and bid you good night.









