Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
Articles
Latest reviews
Author list
Classifieds
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles and first posts only
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Are we too critical of modern bullets?
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Pdvdh" data-source="post: 908316" data-attributes="member: 4191"><p>It was worse than misrepresentation. It was a fabrication you're still publicly holding on to. Could you possibly believe that MC would make a blanket, broad, all encompassing claim that bullet manufacturers don't test their products? And then proceed to tell him that he made such a proclamation? Ludicrous. </p><p></p><p>I have no doubt MC can represent himself here without anyone's assistance. He's smart. He's a PhD. People hire him to perform research they don't know how to complete on their own. I've read some of his reports. For your information, he's demonstrated that you're not the only one "pretty adept at the language". Enough so that he doesn't need to be told what he expressed or meant - let alone be challenged to prove claims never made.</p><p></p><p>If you intend to maintain a two way, private, or privileged communication with solely one other member, there are e-mailing and private messaging options. You can pretend your Posts were a one-on-one communication, after-the-fact, if you want. But that's no more credible than your pretending "there was no misrepresentation". Too late. Your misrepresentation was stated publicly. </p><p></p><p>For illustration purposes, I'm going to copy and largely paste your justifications for challenging MC, and adopt those justifications for my challenging you. <u>Here we go</u>: </p><p><em>When someone (WR) makes a categorical statement of fact it's up to them (WR) to support such a statement.</em></p><p><em></em></p><p><em>I merely asked you to do so, I didn't argue you were wrong, I simply asked for some supporting evidence of your claims. I think you're a good guy and have provided a lot of good information here as well, but I am well within my rights to try and clarify which are facts and which are assumptions and opinions. There is no insult in my attempting to do so.</em></p><p></p><p>Sound familiar? If not re-read your prior statement within Post #49 of this Thread. There's one HUGE difference. <strong>MC never made the statement you gave him credit for</strong>.</p><p></p><p>So unless you're intent on restricting criticism of bullets or bullet manufacturers, (which may or may not have been your intent - notice I didn't tell you what your mindset or intention was), it seems fairest to let other members speak and express themselves. I doubt they need your help expressing themselves, any more than you need or desire mine.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Pdvdh, post: 908316, member: 4191"] It was worse than misrepresentation. It was a fabrication you're still publicly holding on to. Could you possibly believe that MC would make a blanket, broad, all encompassing claim that bullet manufacturers don't test their products? And then proceed to tell him that he made such a proclamation? Ludicrous. I have no doubt MC can represent himself here without anyone's assistance. He's smart. He's a PhD. People hire him to perform research they don't know how to complete on their own. I've read some of his reports. For your information, he's demonstrated that you're not the only one "pretty adept at the language". Enough so that he doesn't need to be told what he expressed or meant - let alone be challenged to prove claims never made. If you intend to maintain a two way, private, or privileged communication with solely one other member, there are e-mailing and private messaging options. You can pretend your Posts were a one-on-one communication, after-the-fact, if you want. But that's no more credible than your pretending "there was no misrepresentation". Too late. Your misrepresentation was stated publicly. For illustration purposes, I'm going to copy and largely paste your justifications for challenging MC, and adopt those justifications for my challenging you. [U]Here we go[/U]: [I]When someone (WR) makes a categorical statement of fact it's up to them (WR) to support such a statement. I merely asked you to do so, I didn't argue you were wrong, I simply asked for some supporting evidence of your claims. I think you're a good guy and have provided a lot of good information here as well, but I am well within my rights to try and clarify which are facts and which are assumptions and opinions. There is no insult in my attempting to do so.[/I] Sound familiar? If not re-read your prior statement within Post #49 of this Thread. There's one HUGE difference. [B]MC never made the statement you gave him credit for[/B]. So unless you're intent on restricting criticism of bullets or bullet manufacturers, (which may or may not have been your intent - notice I didn't tell you what your mindset or intention was), it seems fairest to let other members speak and express themselves. I doubt they need your help expressing themselves, any more than you need or desire mine. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Hunting
Long Range Hunting & Shooting
Are we too critical of modern bullets?
Top