What you so cleverly call hedging, Saucy, I call 'defending myself with the certainty of my innocence.' I am beginning to doubt you, although at the beginning I did not, just because you appear (intentionally?) blind to what I have been saying.
In the beginning, there was a plan and that plan was good. Then the plan was bad, and suddenly everyone in favour of it was on the suspect list. Weirdly enough how this resembles a political tactic (stress on 'tactic'). Changing sides in the middle of the debate, just as you get wind of the unpopularity of an idea looks very much like wolfish sneaky behaviour to me. And this is exactly what the phantom has done, without showing up then to see where the debate would lead...perhaps being certain that he had secured a good cover for himself.
Despite the 'hedging' you guys keep accusing me of, I have been, since I saw his post, constantly suspicious of the phantom.
And now, seeing as so very little time is left for us to come to a decision, I shall cast my vote for
++the phantom
PS: Shelob, you say:
Quote:
|
Out of all the behavious and tendencies I saw there the most suspicious to me is agreeing with what either was or will be clear to everyone (ie: the the plans are flawed) but still wishing to use them.
|
Without getting into the theory of relativity and probabilities, which I expect everyone had enough of today
, any plan is flawed, no theory to be put in practice is perfect or risk free. And a seemingly perfect utopia is the most dangerous of all theories. In any case, the fact that I was willing to test Fordim's theory should speak for my optimism and open-mindness, not for my guilt.