Reply #71: it's sooooo confusing, isn't it?

[iverglas]

I think I just understood your posts differently than you intended them to be understood...and vice versa.

I actually haven't been saying a single thing about how you "understood" MY posts. That's just a silly tangent that someone invented.

And I don't think I understood your posts differently from what you intended at all ... well, except that I saw through them and wasn't sent off track by their apparent intention ...

Lemme make this absolutely clear, just so there isn't room for any further "misunderstanding".

You represented the story in question as being about self-defence, and only about self-defence, by commenting on the self-defence aspect of it -- about which there would quite obviously have been no controversy unless you had happened to find yourself at a meeting of Friends or in some similar place.

You persistently inquired as to what problems anyone might have with the instance of self-defence in question, when no one had suggested that s/he had any problems with that, and you had absolutely no reason to think that the posting of the story here implied that anyone had a problem with it.

You studiously ignored the fact that there was another firearm involved in the story, that was *not* used for self-defence.

You studiously ignored the extremely obvious point behind the posting of the story in this thread, which was that *that* firearm was the "gun in the news", and *that* firearm had been used in a manner that endangered the public and that could easily have resulted in tragedy.

And your intent was plain as day to me.

.