Reply #88: I was never debating a false premise

[Heddi]

I had read the article. I was debating what this guy said happened versus what three articles--the OP and the 2 I posted later on -- I NEVER debated that this guy had been in the pool since day one. I had NEVER debated that this was a case of shitty co-workers and their right to be shitty co-workers.

THe THREE articles state that this guy was NEVER in the pool, had not BEEN in a pool for nearly a year, and that there wasn't even a REGULAR pool with the same recurring characters.

I'm sorry that *YOU* didn't read the article(s) and YOU were debating some made-up scenario in your head.

I was posting my opinion on THIS story and THESE claims made in THIS case. It was not until *I* posted the relevant parts of the story and asked if anyone read the fsking articles did you come up with the "Oh, well, I was arguing a hypothetical, not necessarily this case." You certainly wrote and debated as if you were arguing about THIS instance, an instance that you did not read the articles about, which is why YOUR position throughout this thread has been flawed, since YOU DIDN'T KNOW THE DETAILS BEHIND THE CASE BEFORE I POINTED IT OUT. You even ADMITTED that you didn't read the articles.

It appears that you are the only one on this thread arguing "hypotheticals." Everyone else is dealing with THIS case and THESE circumstances with THESE People and THIS lotto pool with THIS guy.