[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
That's the second time you say you haven't read the thread or a critical post. In the nicest possible way, what are you doing replying?

[/ QUOTE ]

???

I replied to you/mosdef. Afterwards, Phil posted a reply to someone else. Why is this post necessarily "critical" to what I was asking you? I didn't have time to read it, but I did notice a "Re: ALawPoker," so I read your post.

Rather than address me in your own right, you said to me "read Phil's post". Umm, OK. I responded by saying I don't have time to address it right now, but that I'll address what you have said in the meantime and that I'll read his post in a bit.

Why is this some sort of problem? Calm down.

I mean, the thing about Phil is that he is actually capable of raising tough arguments, so I can see why you'd want to deflect me to just read his post. But since when has it been against the rules to respond to *your* point without having read someone else's arguments. I was just being honest and admitting that I haven't yet read the thing you were asking me to read.

"In the nicest possible way," you really do come off as a very confused individual.