Quite frankly, these questions are somewhat pointless, butJuly 17 2003 at 2:27 PM
|Thomas Pabst (no login)|
Response to Thomas, Jim and Alex ask fair questions. I am curious too...(nt)
I will still take the time with you guys to elaborate.
a) I never said that Alex blamed Richemont for anything. Please re-read my post. I merely said that I disagree with Alex, which I do (on more than one thing). I was even nice enough to point out that this is not on a personal level.
b) Alex has blamed Richemont on numerous occasions in other fora. It's somewhat 'disappointing' that he now acts as if he's suffering from sudden amnesia. I am happy to freshen up his memory and post his past comments here in this forum.
c) Alex as well as Jim's "question" was not meant to discuss anything about the situation at hand, but to simply use something to attack me. It's a bit too easy to spot and rather shallow. While I even made a point that my comments weren't personal, Jim and Alex had nothing better to do than asking me a pointless question which was only meant to attack me personally.
Hope that satisfied you supposed "curiosity".
Let's be frank, Thomas, just for a refreshing change. I committed another crime by again daring to differ from the rigid opinion of "the good old boys". Some take this lightly and with style (e.g. Bernard), but others (and I'm afraid I am strongly including you here too) hate to see stuff posted here that is diametrally opposed to their divine conviction.
Last but not least, please enlighten me, Thomas, in which way this ridiculous discussion that once more is based on a deliberate misunderstanding would possibly be "on topic". Then again, I guess your "curiousity" is good enough to discuss even off-topic stuff here. Vivé la Liberté!