[.Alex.]

[ QUOTE ]
"Apparently I was wrong. I don't know why you think I'm not satisfied."

Maybe because you keep posting things like, "Waaaaaah, why did you lock my post?"

[/ QUOTE ]
I'm not the only one who pointed out that the PMs plus the first half of the thread were full of contradictions and inconsistency. Now that that has gotten cleared up to an extent, I feel much better.

[ QUOTE ]
write an OP that can go somewhere. Your OP may as well have been a link to the IMDB page of "An Inconvenient Truth," and the title, "Is global warming for real?"

[/ QUOTE ]
That's a terrible analogy, and you know it. For one thing, global warming is a topic that has already been debated endlessly and is unlikely to lead to a productive conversation, while this is an new issue with constant breaking news and little existing analysis. You really don't think that thread would have lead to a good discussion?

[ QUOTE ]
What RDH said.

Also,

"I may not have read this version until after my post..."

...so you made a bad post, complained that it got locked, then went back to look at the rules to justify your position. Guide to crappy ATF posting, chapter 1: Post-hoc OOT rules interpretation for crybabies.

[/ QUOTE ]
Guide to crappy debating, chapter 1: Taking a sentence out of context and mischaracterizing it, while ignoring the actual points.

See I can do it too, but these kinds of tactics are what derail threads and waste everyone's time. To actually address your argument though, the OOT rules haven't really changed much over time, so I think my understanding is better than the majority of posters'. YOU went to the rules to justify your position. I just responded by saying that "no effort" isn't clear.