"
...Wrong ! - this is 'not' a 'kick' ... these maybe some actions the drill-floor may perform during a 'kick' ..." How the English language works is this; as you are reading a sentence and it says the word "this" you should be able to stop and recognise what "this" means from the preceding words.
I even highlighted it for you... not sure how you could miss it. This was a kick by any definition. I went on to provide further evidence that it was a kick because of what they did to control the kick (in case you didn't believe it), in other words, you don't need to perform actions to control a kick if a kick isn't present... I understand finding out that there were multiple kicks in Alameda-1 is hard for you to swallow because it decimates 99% of the posts you wrote over the last few months, but this is just the reality of the situation.
"
... what !? ... I never posted anything like that ... oh it's another 'I think you think' moment ... no idea ..."
Then why else did you say the post was late? Either you meant it literally ( which I proved to be categorically wrong) or you meant it another way, and the most common sense interpretation was also refuted. Obviously, you didn't mean my post was late literally, which tells me you were alluding to the knowledge of oil in the cuttings not being an indicator of danger/blow out was "late" to the forums. No matter how you want to interpret your "late" comment, I covered all the bases and refuted every interpretation. You are now running at high speed away from any detailed discussion on the topic because you know you were wrong.
"I think you think"First of all, I interpreted it literally, and I refuted it. I thought there was a possibility you were trying to say something more than the literal interpretation, in regards to the "2 years too late" comment. Because... obviously, I was not literally 2 years too late... Either way, with either interpretation, I refuted the comment. I understand why you don't want to address the refutation and instead criticise me for first interpreting what you wrote literally, then just in case you meant it another way, refuting that as well.
Why did you say "2 years too late"? (source:
71822847). Did you mean it literally or did you mean it another way? (no matter what you say, you still need to address my refutation of it).
Lastly, what an absolute hide you have to try to pretend I didn't also interpret what you wrote literally and instead insinuate I am misinterpreting you on purpose. I would be fine if you said "you did interpret what I wrote literally, and you did go to great lengths to respond to any other possible interpretation, however, I don't like it that you assumed what I was thinking" if you wrote that, that is fine with me. Nevertheless, I do genuinely believe you didn't mean it literally. I will await your answer about why you said "2 years too late" (source:
71822847).
(20min delay)