(04-11-2018 05:53 PM)tanqtonic Wrote:  Lad:

to make you happy -- the Times described a correct structure and procedure for such an event. They don't describe the actual workings of it, mind you. They just describe how it works in 'theory'. 'Theory' being the operative point.

You say describe 'how it has worked'. No you haven't. Perhaps I missed the reporting line saying that 'it is working exactly as described.' I didn't see that and perhaps you will point that item out to me. But I guess this is my jaundiced, cynical, dickish (and perhaps hysterical?) way of saying perhaps you need to read a little closer to what is printed.

The Times describes how it 'should work'. Distinct difference.

You being the fanboi assumes it works like clockwork in the way the Times describes how it 'should' work. I see no reporting at all that it, in fact, works as it should in 'theory'.

But how it works in any actual real world environment that I have ever experienced, and how flash describes, I guess is really not worth much more than a warm bowl of spit. To you, or to the (I assume mind you) other inexperienced in this type of setup reporter that slathered the page with that information.

You are completely misinterpreting me again, and again ignoring that what I said has happened is the warrants execution. My whole point about the taint room was that, since it hadn’t been utilized yet, we really don’t know if your concerns were borne out. And that’s why I said I understoodyour concerns.

What’s your deal? I’ve literally said this multiple times now.