No! This is a total misrepresentation of the facts because:
1. I would not have asked for peoples' opinions on the matter if I wanted Dana to be an entrant
and
2. It is already accepted as a given in The Punther's Protocol that an entrant cannot be placed here without the empirical evidence specifically as it relates to the picture(s).
I have to say sometimes you see things in my words that do not exist but otherwise occur in your thinking and biases
LOL ....WTF??||
i could say the same about you to be honest... the reason being is that there are no facts in what i said..... it was a hypothetical scenario . the scenario i put to you hasnt actually happened yet.. i.e "pp says etc etc etc etc"
i thought the purpose of the vote was to vote on that line of thinking / the philosophy behind the rules with regards to entrants. which initially i say "yes" because i thought it was literal and current ..i.e can we place her as an entrant cause you actaully saw her...then "no" because i thought you were trying show the rules in how they currently are and i wouldnt place her as an entrant on the evidence alone
In the next post that seems to ruffle your tail feathers....i give an EXAMPLE as to why i would have voted yes and then i look into MY OWN VOTE AND REASONING and deduce there is something wrong with MY reasoning
i didnt think we were voting on anything factual as opposed to a possible change or alteration of the rules... like a board discussion...
punther seems to get it but its flown over you.
i'll be sure to elaborate on everything even more so that i do now when replying to you.
