[ELA]

Originally Posted by Rupert Pupkin

If this was a jury trial and I was a prosecutor, I would make sure I had the data to present to the jury. But this is not a trial and I am not a prosecutor.

If you don't want to believe what I'm saying about Lukas, then don't believe it. It's fine with me. I try to give you guys some insights into the business. I have no idea why you always give me a hard time when it comes to Lukas. You obviously are a fan of his and you don't want to hear anything negative about him.

I don't think you care about the numbers. If I had the numbers and posted them, you would question the authenticity of the numbers. In the past, when you wanted corroboration from others in the business about what I was saying, even after you got the corroboration, that still wasn't good enough for you.

When I think about it, if this was a jury trial over the past couple of years, you have been presented with more than enough information from several witnesses including Honu, LBigDog, BCMile10, PP, and numerous others. They have all confirmed what I have said. If you think we're all full of it, that is your prerogative.

It's not that I don't believe what you are saying . . . wait a minute, hang on . . . yes, it is that I don't believe what you are saying. LOL. Seriously, you are correct in that this is not a trial nor are you are prosecutor. However, you made some very specific claims, and in my opinion, if you want credibility -- at least with me -- very simply, prove it! Back up your claims. If not, then you should expect to get called out. You use the word "we're" referring to being full of it. In this case, I am not sure that I see anyone more than "you" but if I am wrong, I say the same thing to everyone -- prove it. Back up the claims.

As far as you providing insight, as far as I am concerned -- go right ahead. I would think many people would appreciate it. However, to me, it is not your motivation that I have a problem with -- it's your delivery. In this case, the way it landed with me was that you were doing whatever you were doing in a condescending way, with negativity, criticisms, and by making specific claims. All I said was back it up. I've been in this business my entire adult life. To me, it's got nothing to do with the # of posts one has, who knows who, how many trophies one may have, or anything like that. Opinion is opinion. Sometimes it's a qualified one, sometimes it's not. And, of course, facts are facts.

It's not about Lukas. I have no problem hearing anything negative -- if it is supported, and factual. I would have asked the same questions and asked for the same proof it this was about Pletcher as well. It is merely supposition and hypothetical that I or anyone would question the authenticity of your numbers. Reason being -- you don't have them!

Your claim about being presented with "more than enough information" -- of course you say that. You have to. Just because you and several others say the same thing -- that doesn't make it right. Same thing applies to anyone who agrees with you -- Prove it.

Now, if you want to say it's your opinion, or you think, or it appears to you, or anything along those lines -- that's great. I have no problem with that. I didn't see that here however.

Eric

PS -- your anology to Strawberry is superfluous. Documented facts, proof, evidence, and so many more thinks that you do not have.

You are truly missing the point. That's OK though.