Give your head a shake.

Engage brain before keyboard.

Evidently, you haven't been paying attention. Above you said:

"I am somewhat of a newbie to this forum and I didn't think there was anything wrong with the information presented."

I replied that that's not really the issue. I said that because the issue isn't with what was said, it's with what wasn't said.

The controversial statement is:

"Also, check out: they are the national Z car club and they have a great event coming up in September.

Please show us exactly where he mentions his personal involvement with the club/event he's endorsing. And, explain, in your opinion, why The President & Event Chairperson would use "they" instead of "I/we" (twice!).

The rest of his reply he gives useful Z3 advice to the orig. poster, and here's the link:

To reiterate, where EXACTLY does he mention his involvement with the club? That's the issue!

Not paying attention, II. After being challenged, the critical omission was called "an oversight". "Oversight". Whether that's a lame-a$$ excuse that any politician would give after being 'caught' or indeed the genuine reason, is another aspect that probably should be discussed separately.


Regardless of intent, the fact that the term "oversight" was used serves as *CONFIRMATION* that certain key info was omitted. If there was no problem then, he wouldn't later have admitted to the "oversight". Hence, my challenge had/has merit.


Not paying attention, III. I believe you said that you're relatively new here. BTAIM, I'm sure you realize every 'community' has cliques or whatever. The dynamics here include a specific gaggle; one member is the 'perp in this issue. It should be no surprise that, righly or wrongly, they'll support their fellow gaggler. Consequently, that's why we've been seeing all of the attacks against me by that meeley-mouth-motherfooker-piece-of-fookin'-milquetoast-from-Madison --> It's a smokescreen to divert attention away from their gaggle.