case adjourned ---latest, page-213

This is precisely the type of post that causes me to refrain from posting.

Seriously, this incredibly low value - churlish nonsense is unworthy of all who contribute to this debate.

Just examine what is provided as commentary.

In my opinion - the post contains a quote from a post that I made - according to this poster - some 37 days ago and nothing else. I will accept the maths and trust that it is not as deficient as the English.

The difficulty, it seems, is the qualifier - in all likelihood. How is this completely ignored? It is an important term. It seems that that part of the sentence is invisible! Is the term, in all likelihood, too confusing?

Further, when I provided my opinion re this issue, I did so using my knowledge of what what can and commonly does occur. Does this poster have better insight? Or does he just rely on hindsight?

It should be blindingly clear (even to the most casual observer) that unless you are representing the company you can not actually know what will occur. Even then - a definitive statement would be difficult.

And whilst the purpose of this one dimensional post purports to rebut what I have noted - it actually offers nothing of value to the forum. It is perplexing to say the least.

Is this what passes off for debate? Nothing more than churlish quips that provide no factual counter points?