Jump to content

Solved Mysteries


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, butterweedstrover said:

I don't drink.

Wait...you don't consume any liquids, like, at all?  I'm kidding:)  I don't think @The Bard of Banefort meant that the drink had to be wine or even alcoholic.  But Martin did foreshadow the poison (The Strangler) in the wine in the Maester Cressen prologue, as he says in the EW interview.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/25/2022 at 12:46 PM, Frey family reunion said:

Eh, not really.  Like everything else George dances around the topic quite skillfully.

I will add that George has made commentaries on the HBO series in the past.  In one of the commentaries he talks about how his mother was always able to spot the plot twists in the shows they watched before they were revealed.  GRRM added that when he wrote Ice and Fire, he wrote it wanting to surprise careful viewers (or readers) like his mother.

So what are we to take from this: that we should read the books carelessly? :wacko:

That thoughtful analysis and extrapolation and logic are all just pointless as the rug pull is his objective?  I mean there's something in the idea that he subverts expectations and wrong foots the reader but aren't the people claiming that certain mysteries aren't solved after all basing their arguments on their own careful reading of the text?  Which would leave them where exactly?

2 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

Nonsense. This is just more Martin dissembling. No one chokes on wine. You can only choke on food, so there is no way the murderers would expect anyone to think he choked when he is only drinking, not eating.

Die on this hill if you want, but the abundance of facts in the book makes it perfectly, irrefutably clear: the poison was in the pie and Tyrion was the target.

I'm curious as to how you think Cressen died and how you think everyone present think he died.

And if the facts of the book make it irrefutably clear why do so few people agree with you?

We know what you think.  Let's leave it at that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

You really don’t get GRRM’s interview style at all.  George loves to talk about his books, he just doesn’t like committing to anything.  So for the most part, it’s kind of a waste of time to try and figure out “the truth” of anything George writes via his interviews.  He intentionally likes keeping things ambiguous, and letting his readers debate it out.  For all we know, he himself hasn’t completely decided on the culprit behind the purple wedding, because at the time of the interview he probably hasn’t completely figured out how he wants the story to conclude.  

That's all well and good but it really only deals with the first part of the quote and not the second part:

The reason I bring this up is because that’s an interesting question of redemption. That’s more like killing Hitler. Does the Queen of Thorns need redemption? Did the Queen of Thorns kill Hitler, or did she murder a 13-year-old boy? Or both? She had good reasons to remove Joffrey. Is it a case where the end justifies the means? I don’t know. That’s what I want the reader or viewer to wrestle with, and to debate.

That's not refusing to confirm anything or leaving something open.  It's choosing to bring something up and inviting the reader to think about these things.  Just as he mentions both Jaime and Cersei and expounds on the theme of redemption, he specifically says this about Olenna.  Why invite that if Olenna doesn't need redemption?  If he misleads us in the text and misleads us in interviews it never ends surely?

Is LF wanting to kill Tyrion a big enough mystery to conceal in story and go to these lengths of obfuscation outside of it over?  Just whisper in Joffrey's ear and he would oblige.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

So what are we to take from this: that we should read the books carelessly? :wacko:

That thoughtful analysis and extrapolation and logic are all just pointless as the rug pull is his objective?  I mean there's something in the idea that he subverts expectations and wrong foots the reader but aren't the people claiming that certain mysteries aren't solved after all basing their arguments on their own careful reading of the text?  Which would leave them where exactly?

No, I don't think that's the takeaway.  There are people who just read the books for the plot, they want to see what happens next.  They're not terribly interested in any subtext nor do they try to figure out any mysteries or plot twists.  They are more than happy just to read, take everything at face value and are happy to be surprised when any surprise twists develop in the story.

Than there are others, who like to try and spot any plot twists ahead of time, and figure out the mystery before it's revealed to them.  This is the type of viewer/reader that GRRM classified his mother as.  He's looking to surprise/fool those that are actively engaged in figuring out the plot twists and mysteries ahead of time.

As an aside, when he said that the careful reader would have come away with the conclusion that Olenna poisoned Joff, it made me raise my eyebrow a bit.  There doesn't seem to be anything that would require the reader to be terribly careful to come to that conclusion.  

Edited by Frey family reunion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
2 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

That's all well and good but it really only deals with the first part of the quote and not the second part:

The reason I bring this up is because that’s an interesting question of redemption. That’s more like killing Hitler. Does the Queen of Thorns need redemption? Did the Queen of Thorns kill Hitler, or did she murder a 13-year-old boy? Or both? She had good reasons to remove Joffrey. Is it a case where the end justifies the means? I don’t know. That’s what I want the reader or viewer to wrestle with, and to debate.

That's not refusing to confirm anything or leaving something open.  It's choosing to bring something up and inviting the reader to think about these things.  Just as he mentions both Jaime and Cersei and expounds on the theme of redemption, he specifically says this about Olenna.  Why invite that if Olenna doesn't need redemption?  If he misleads us in the text and misleads us in interviews it never ends surely?

Is LF wanting to kill Tyrion a big enough mystery to conceal in story and go to these lengths of obfuscation outside of it over?  Just whisper in Joffrey's ear and he would oblige.

I kind of fail to see what you're getting at.  You seem to be saying that the second part of the quote confirms that it was Olenna who had Joffrey killed.  Which of course ignores the first part of the quote where he is very specifically stating that as to the identity of Joffrey's killer he may or may not have a further surprise up his sleeve.

I think what he's saying is very simple:

1.  He wants the careful reader to come away with the conclusion that Olenna killed Joffrey.

2.  He wants the reader to wrestle with the morality of that action, whether killing a thirteen year old boy, aleit an evil thirteen year old boy, is justified.  

3.  But while he wants the reader to come up with the conclusion that Olenna killed Joffrey, he makes no promises that this is necessarily the case, that he may or may not have another surprise up his sleeve.

Edited by Frey family reunion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

That's all well and good but it really only deals with the first part of the quote and not the second part:

The reason I bring this up is because that’s an interesting question of redemption. That’s more like killing Hitler. Does the Queen of Thorns need redemption? Did the Queen of Thorns kill Hitler, or did she murder a 13-year-old boy? Or both? She had good reasons to remove Joffrey. Is it a case where the end justifies the means? I don’t know. That’s what I want the reader or viewer to wrestle with, and to debate.

That's not refusing to confirm anything or leaving something open.  It's choosing to bring something up and inviting the reader to think about these things.  Just as he mentions both Jaime and Cersei and expounds on the theme of redemption, he specifically says this about Olenna.  Why invite that if Olenna doesn't need redemption?  If he misleads us in the text and misleads us in interviews it never ends surely?

Is LF wanting to kill Tyrion a big enough mystery to conceal in story and go to these lengths of obfuscation outside of it over?  Just whisper in Joffrey's ear and he would oblige.

Clearly we are not evolved enough to understand this treatise about incest and ice zombies. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
17 hours ago, The Bard of Banefort said:

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/george-r-r-martin-the-rolling-stone-interview-242487/amp/
 

I would call this “explicit.” If you want to get hung up on the prospect of GRRM possibly retconning it based on the first sentence, go ahead, but it seems pretty clear to me that this case is closed. 

You purposely misrepresent what GRRM says and spread misinformation.

Edited by chrisdaw
Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Frey family reunion said:

No, I don't think that's the takeaway.  There are people who just read the books for the plot, they want to see what happens next.  They're not terribly interested in any subtext nor do they try to figure out any mysteries or plot twists.  They are more than happy just to read, take everything at face value and are happy to be surprised when any surprise twists develop in the story.

Than there are others, who like to try and spot any plot twists ahead of time, and figure out the mystery before it's revealed to them.  This is the type of viewer/reader that GRRM classified his mother as.  He's looking to surprise/fool those that are actively engaged in figuring out the plot twists and mysteries ahead of time.

As an aside, when he said that the careful reader would have come away with the conclusion that Olenna poisoned Joff, it made me raise my eyebrow a bit.  There doesn't seem to be anything that would require the reader to be terribly careful to come to that conclusion.  

I think we need to account for degree. How many confirmed revelations were all that elaborate? R+L=J was supposed to catch most off guard, and GRRM was openly surprised how many figured it out. Admittedly the cats paw was harder to figure, but more because of how prosaic and unsophisticated it was. I can’t think of any other revelations that could support GRRMs aim to fool the ‘careful’ reader even if we coun that one. I’m not saying George doesn’t intend those things, but his mother didn’t have access to an internet hive and many years during which the cleverly deceptive becomes reasonably well understood. 
 

The one point you raise about no one being fooled by choking on wine is interesting, but depends on the killers needing people to think it was natural causes AND not be trying to frame, say, Tyrion, and I’m not sure either is particularly true. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If Tyrion was the target; how does this play out in the story?  How is it paid off as a loose end?  I don't see the purpose as a plot development.

10 hours ago, James Arryn said:

 I can’t think of any other revelations that could support GRRMs aim to fool the ‘careful’ reader even if we coun that one.  

I have become skeptical when GRRM uses the term "careful reader" because he is such a tricksy bird.  Does he say this to reinforce conclusions that he wants the reader to believe? Is he misdirecting?  Especially, if they seem a little too easy to figure out?  Did he underestimate the reader or do we overestimate our own ability?  This is what his ambinguity and avoidance of a direct answer has done to me.  

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can only see one merit in Olenna NOT being Joff's murderer . Joff's murder did not stay a "mystery" for far too long and I think a lot of us did draw the conclusion that it's Olenna's doing . however , if George does have more  to reveal and show us that we were wrong , purple wedding can potentially become a better mystery . something like Jon Arryn's murder when the reader and Ned draw the conclusion that Cersei's behind it and some may doubt Varys for the conversation Arya hears but at the end it is none of those speculations.

story wise, however, I see Olenna a better choice as Joff's murderer and a more morally ambiguous act.  Joffrey was indeed a monster and ,13 or not, no character would have a hard time to be redeemed for that in reader's eye in any case . but while a complete political murder would make a 13 year old's death a worse action and an error in target would make it a little cheap , the worried grandma* murderer makes it all more interesting ... 

 

* yes, Olenna may think Tommen is more biddable than Joffrey but it was a risk to kill him and hope that Cersei and Tywin won't delay the marriage with Tommen on account of age, which leaves her to be the worried grandma 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, the trees have eyes said:

So what are we to take from this: that we should read the books carelessly? :wacko:

That thoughtful analysis and extrapolation and logic are all just pointless as the rug pull is his objective?  I mean there's something in the idea that he subverts expectations and wrong foots the reader but aren't the people claiming that certain mysteries aren't solved after all basing their arguments on their own careful reading of the text?  Which would leave them where exactly?

I'm curious as to how you think Cressen died and how you think everyone present think he died.

And if the facts of the book make it irrefutably clear why do so few people agree with you?

We know what you think.  Let's leave it at that.

Lol, no. You should read the books carefully. This is how you could have seen who really killed Jon Arryn before it was revealed. How you could tell that Robb was being set up all the way back at the green fork. All the evidence was there in plain sight, just like it is with the purple wedding.

Thoughtful analysis and careful extrapolation is exactly how you get to the truth here. Literally every fact related to any and all aspects of the killing point to the pie while absolutely nothing points to the wine. The only thing suggesting the wine are the lies told be two of the biggest liars in the book, and it doesn't even take much analysis and extrapolation to see that they are lying.

Cressen died from the strangler, mere seconds after drinking only a half-swallow. That's the fact. Joffrey showed no reaction, none at all, after drinking huge chug after chug after chug of wine that is supposed to be so thoroughly poisoned that it has turned deep purple. He didn't even give off his first tiny kof until a few seconds after eating the pie, and then he didn't start actually choking until a few seconds after washing the pie down his throat with wine -- exactly like Cressen. And then after he has had just wine in his mouth and then just pie in his mouth and then both, he literally tells us "It's kof the pie kof -- noth pie." Is he lying here? He's gasping for breath and yet he's going to lie so that people don't think it was his hated uncle who poisoned him? Come on.

Many and more people see that it's the pie. Only a few are willing to endure the abuse that winers throw at them after they've been proven wrong. Like he's done so often in the past, Martin has skillfully placed the facts under layers of subtext so that it takes a fair bit of analysis and extrapolation to see it. But the facts are the facts, and like most cases, it's just easier to believe what we are told rather than determine the truth for ourselves. But like Syrio taught Arya, if you just listen to words you are a dead girl.

It is not what I think. It is what the actual facts, all of the facts, confirm as the truth. Some people just have to be told what to think while others think for themselves.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 5/26/2022 at 12:28 AM, The Bard of Banefort said:

https://www.rollingstone.com/culture/culture-news/george-r-r-martin-the-rolling-stone-interview-242487/amp/
 

I would call this “explicit.” If you want to get hung up on the prospect of GRRM possibly retconning it based on the first sentence, go ahead, but it seems pretty clear to me that this case is closed. 

Explicit? Really? He is literally telling you that he makes no promises for the books and that he may have more secrets to reveal. Why would he even say that if in his mind the whole thing is all wrapped up nice and neat?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, LynnS said:

If Tyrion was the target; how does this play out in the story?  How is it paid off as a loose end?  I don't see the purpose as a plot development.

I have become skeptical when GRRM uses the term "careful reader" because he is such a tricksy bird.  Does he say this to reinforce conclusions that he wants the reader to believe? Is he misdirecting?  Especially, if they seem a little too easy to figure out?  Did he underestimate the reader or do we overestimate our own ability?  This is what his ambinguity and avoidance of a direct answer has done to me.  

 

Littlefinger was the murderer of Jon Arryn. When we finally learned that, Ned was dead, Robert was dead, Cat was dead -- anybody who had any interest in it at all was dead. How did it play out in the story? How did it pay off as a loose end? How did it affect plot development?

Meanwhile, in the case of the purple wedding, Tyrion is still alive, Littlefinger is still alive, Lady Olenna is still alive, Sansa is still alive. So discovery of this truth could have all manner of affects on the plot going forward.

Yes, this is why we should take all SSMs with a grain of salt. Martin is an expert wordsmith and we can see him dancing around this subject and many others all the time. What's important here are the facts, and literally every fact in the book, every last one, disproves the wine and 100 percent confirms the pie.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, EggBlue said:

I can only see one merit in Olenna NOT being Joff's murderer . Joff's murder did not stay a "mystery" for far too long and I think a lot of us did draw the conclusion that it's Olenna's doing . however , if George does have more  to reveal and show us that we were wrong , purple wedding can potentially become a better mystery . something like Jon Arryn's murder when the reader and Ned draw the conclusion that Cersei's behind it and some may doubt Varys for the conversation Arya hears but at the end it is none of those speculations.

story wise, however, I see Olenna a better choice as Joff's murderer and a more morally ambiguous act.  Joffrey was indeed a monster and ,13 or not, no character would have a hard time to be redeemed for that in reader's eye in any case . but while a complete political murder would make a 13 year old's death a worse action and an error in target would make it a little cheap , the worried grandma* murderer makes it all more interesting ... 

 

* yes, Olenna may think Tommen is more biddable than Joffrey but it was a risk to kill him and hope that Cersei and Tywin won't delay the marriage with Tommen on account of age, which leaves her to be the worried grandma 

Well, Olenna was Joff's murdered. She put the poison in the pie and Joff ate it and died. Even if you don't kill your intended victim it's still murder.

Not only was it a risk to count on a betrothal to Tommen, it is also a far less valuable prize for the Tyrells. With Joffrey, Margaery could have given him an heir with the year; two or even three heirs within two years. With Tommen, they have to wait five years for him to even consummate, and until then the marriage can be set aside at any time for any reason. But even if the marriage does take place, all that gets the Tyrells is Margaery as queen consort, a relatively powerless position. With Joffrey, they can off him at any time -- quietly, in private and made to look like an accident -- and then Margaery rules the kingdom as queen regent for the next decade or more, and her son, who will come to think of himself as a Tyrell, not a Lannister, will rule for decades after that. No matter how you look at it, their fortunes are far better with Joffrey than with Tommen.

And yes, Joffrey is a rotten little shit, but it is clear in the text that he poses absolutely no threat whatsoever to Margaery. Just look at him at the wedding, grabbing her by the hand with a "come, my lady", twirling her around "merrily." He's not faking this. We've seen him fake it before and it's laughably transparent, even Sansa sees through it. And there is no reason for him to fake anything because there is no reason, absolutely none, for him to be even slightly annoyed by Margaery.

Contrary to what most people believe, and what the show presents, Joffrey does not just go around dealing out torture and abuse to highborn maidens at random. What happened to Sansa, just like what happened to everyone else who's run afoul of Joffrey, happened for reasons that are unique to Sansa:

  • Sansa is completely alone in the capital, with no father, brothers, guards, men-at-arms, soldiers, no nobody to protect. Margaery has the full might of Highgarden at her back.
  • Sansa and Joffrey have a bad history going all the way back to the Trident, and frankly, she seems to go out of her way to antagonize him. Margaery is way to smart for that. Look at the way she deftly manipulates him over the simple matter which sword to use on the pie. She doesn't just say, "no, Joffrey, you can't" like Sansa, Cersei, Tyrion, Tywin and virtually everyone else does. A gentle hand and a soft whisper "Widows Wail is not meant for cutting pies," and now Joffrey gets to take ownership of the decision she wants him to make. And you might notice that the only other person who has figure out how to manipulate Joffrey in this way is Littlefinger.
  • Sansa's family is in open rebellion to the crown and her brother is winning battles in the Westerlands, killing Lannisters on Lannister soil. That's what the beating in the bailey was all about. Did Joffrey enjoy it? Absolutely, because of his personal disdain for Sansa. But it would not have happened if not for Oxcross, just as Joffrey says, and the broader intent was to send a message to the any lords who might be thinking of joining Robb's cause: do that and this is what will happen to your daughter, because the Iron Throne will win in the end.

Plus, the evidence is overwhelming that Lady Olenna already knew all about the little lion long before she agreed to wed him to Margaery, and she is more than capable of hectoring Mace out of his decisions whenever she wants.

So in the end, we have Lady Olenna making a simple calculation: is the Iron Throne worth the highly unlikely potential that someday, way in the future, Joffrey might give Margaery a bruise or a black eye? Of course it is. Plenty of queens have suffered far worse for their crowns, there is no reason why Margaery could not do the same. But again, she is way to smart and way to seductive to let it get to that point.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, EggBlue said:

I can only see one merit in Olenna NOT being Joff's murderer . Joff's murder did not stay a "mystery" for far too long and I think a lot of us did draw the conclusion that it's Olenna's doing . however , if George does have more  to reveal and show us that we were wrong , purple wedding can potentially become a better mystery . something like Jon Arryn's murder when the reader and Ned draw the conclusion that Cersei's behind it and some may doubt Varys for the conversation Arya hears but at the end it is none of those speculations.

story wise, however, I see Olenna a better choice as Joff's murderer and a more morally ambiguous act.  Joffrey was indeed a monster and ,13 or not, no character would have a hard time to be redeemed for that in reader's eye in any case . but while a complete political murder would make a 13 year old's death a worse action and an error in target would make it a little cheap , the worried grandma* murderer makes it all more interesting ... 

 

* yes, Olenna may think Tommen is more biddable than Joffrey but it was a risk to kill him and hope that Cersei and Tywin won't delay the marriage with Tommen on account of age, which leaves her to be the worried grandma 

I forget to mention one more thing about Sansa's beatings:

Harsh as they were, this is nothing unusual in the eyes of the realm. Sansa may have been Joffrey's betrothed, but she is also his hostage, and this is what happens to hostages when their lords rebel. If Balon Greyjoy had started up again, nobody would think Ned was a mad, insane Tyrant who must be deposed immediately if he had Theon beaten, tortured or even executed. This is why he was at Winterfell. In fact, most lords, and king Robert, would probably question Ned's fitness as lord, and warden, if he did not do this.

So again, all of this is unique to Sansa and there is nothing in the relationship between Joffrey and Margaery to suggest that she is in the slightest danger. Trying to argue that the beating of Sansa proves that Margaery will be beaten as well is like saying Joffrey will execute Mace just because he executed Ned. These are different people, in different circumstances, with different relationships to Joffrey, with different results.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Posted (edited)
3 hours ago, EggBlue said:

I can only see one merit in Olenna NOT being Joff's murderer . Joff's murder did not stay a "mystery" for far too long and I think a lot of us did draw the conclusion that it's Olenna's doing . however , if George does have more  to reveal and show us that we were wrong , purple wedding can potentially become a better mystery . something like Jon Arryn's murder when the reader and Ned draw the conclusion that Cersei's behind it and some may doubt Varys for the conversation Arya hears but at the end it is none of those speculations.

story wise, however, I see Olenna a better choice as Joff's murderer and a more morally ambiguous act.  Joffrey was indeed a monster and ,13 or not, no character would have a hard time to be redeemed for that in reader's eye in any case . but while a complete political murder would make a 13 year old's death a worse action and an error in target would make it a little cheap , the worried grandma* murderer makes it all more interesting ... 

 

* yes, Olenna may think Tommen is more biddable than Joffrey but it was a risk to kill him and hope that Cersei and Tywin won't delay the marriage with Tommen on account of age, which leaves her to be the worried grandma 

The one thing no one is really bothering to address regarding Olenna being the poisoner, is how is she able to poison the chalice?  Or even the pie for that matter?

Visualize the table where everyone is seated.  Presumably it’s a long table, on top of a dias where they can look down on everyone else at the party.  

To Tyrion’s right is Sansa.  To Tyrion’s left is Garlan.  To Garlan’s left is his wife.  Tyrion is seated to Jeffrey’s right and notes that a dozen people are seated closer to the King than him.  Tyrion notes that he’s seated so far away from Joffrey that it’s probably intended as an insult.  Presumably Olenna, being the grandmother of the bride, was seated closer to Joffrey than Tyrion to avoid insult to the grandmother of the bride.  So the closest Olenna can be from Tyrion is three seats away to his left.

We also know that Olenna has two fairly significant physical limitations.  She is under five feet tall and she walks with a cane.

As for the chalice, we know that after the chalice is dumped on Tyrion’s head Tyrion refills it from a serving girl, presents it to Joffrey, who drinks from it without any ill effect.   The chalice is left on the table in front of Tyrion’s chair.  We know this because when Joffrey demands that Tyrion refill his chalice, Tyrion has to stand up on his chair get the chalice.  We also know that the chalice is three feet high and the chalice is positioned far enough away from the side of the table the guests are sitting that Tyrion has to stand up on his chair to reach it.  Thereby making it impossible that Olenna, even if she were able to walk up to Tyrion without him noticing, could have reached the top of the chalice to drop the poison.  

Now after Joffrey approaches Tyrion the second time after the pie is served, all eyes were on Joffrey and Tyrion and the chalice would have been in front of them.  Making it very unlikely that anyone could have dropped the poison without notice.  After Joffrey takes his first gulp the chalice is positioned to Tyrion’s right, almost in Sansa’s lap:

Quote

Assuming Joffrey had not simply choked to death on a bit of food, which even Tyrion found hard to swallow, Sansa must have poisoned him. Joff practically put his cup down in her lap, and he’d given her ample reason.

So Sansa could have potentially been in a position to poison the chalice between Joffrey’s first gulp and his second gulp while Joffrey was eating the pie.  In fact she would have been the only one with the opportunity to do that. Assuming that the poison was in the wine.

The problem with Olenna poisoning the pie, is that while easier to reach than the top of the chalice, the time frame when she could have done it is even less.  The pie is in put in front of Tyrion and while he and Sansa do get up to leave they are not given an opportunity to leave before Joffrey approaches them.  And once again at this point all eyes are on Joffrey and Tyrion with the pie positioned between them.  Making it unlikely that anyone could have poisoned the pie without notice.

Once again the only person really in a position to drop the poison even in the pie is Sansa.  Joffrey approaches Tyrion from the left and all eyes are on them.  The only one to Tyrion’s right is Sansa.

 

 

Edited by Frey family reunion
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, John Suburbs said:

It is not what I think. It is what the actual facts, all of the facts, confirm as the truth. Some people just have to be told what to think while others think for themselves.

I invited you to start a different thread so you would avoid hijacking this one but it seems you just can't let it go.  It's truly remarkable you constantly conflating opinion with fact but no matter how you jump up and down it doesn't make it so.  You think you're right.  We get that.  We don't agree.  Agree to disagree and move on :dunno:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...