After the 15th time, yes it gets old.
It would be much more constructive to try to understand why that bullet trashed so much meat in that scenario, but thats not what we are about here is it paul? I mean what fun is it if it doesnt turn to a personal attack? Right?
If you hadn't stated lower in your Post "I make no assumptions about your intentions or interest, i debate on the merit of what was said", I'd have thought that's exactly what you just did in your preceeding statement "but thats not what we are about here is it paul?".
One question, please. Is it the 16th time when you move to reign in discussions you feel have grown old? Because others might feel justified moving in the 1st or 2nd. I'll give you some credit for holding out until 16. And then I'll add 16 times still isn't justification.
Pretty good paul. This time you only needed one word to to change the context of what i said. Efective and efficient.
Maybe the problem is you've conveyed more than you understood. I've done my best to understand your intent, and based on the totality of your Posts in this Thread, I sure think I get it. After all, if your only interest was to inform us that bullets damage meat when they're shot into meat - well you accomplished that right from the get-go. That position could have been credible if you hadn't continued to post and ultimately expose underlying irritation, which was clarified again in your last Post. I didn't just start posting yesterday. Maybe choose to post more clearly. Akin to don't blame the bullet if you choose to shoot meat and it destroyed meat. Don't blame me if you shoot subtle scorn / disapproval and it results in a predictable result - pushback.
No thats a factual experiment, that led to understanding the velocity window of the 210 on that animal, which was a bear if i recall correctly.
I never considered it an experiment and never said it was. I could just as easily claim you've changed the context of what I said. Yup, putting words in my mouth. I hate it when that happens. That bullet performed on its own under those circumstances, from the time it left the muzzle until its motion stopped. You can focus on the bullet. Or you can focus on me. It was what it was, and it is what it is. I identify it as a Berger and it offends. Is that it? Maybe I misunderstand you again.
Where is goes south is when someone now lumps every other berger bullet into suffering from the same problem without understanding why that bullet did what it did.
You reporting an experience doesnt offend anyone. They way you do it often does.
Now do you mean I often offend you? You stated earlier you always had respect for my Posts. How did that now change retroactively? Did you mean what you said earlier, or do you mean what you're saying now? How am I supposed to understand your Posts? Do you mean I often offend everyone? Do you mean I offend members that disagree with and/or dislike my accounting of my experience? Do you mean I offend members that agree with and like my accounting of my experience. I'm trying really hard now to minimize any misunderstanding of your two sentences. Or do you mean, I'm going to make this difficult in the effort to stifle/stop Paul so he'll stop talking about those pesky bullet experiences. I think an average person would be apt to conclude this communication has shifted from subject oriented to personal.
I beginning to think you dont respect anyone who disagrees with you, and im begining to think my time invested in this thread is coming to an end.
I very commonly respect people and members that disagree with me. I respect members posting on this Forum that disagree with my posts, positions, experiences, and opinions as a standard practice, until they come after me personally due to their disagreement with the long range hunting subject matter under discussion. Some implement the direct raw brute force frontal approach. Many refer to those sorts as bullies. More common is the approach you've employed in this Thread. Make it cost someone personally on the Forum to the extent that they'll not discuss the items, issues, subjects, opinions, and brands that you personally disagree with. The items you feel in your own quoted words get old. For the record, that's what I've concluded about your intent. I'm stating that very clearly for your complete understanding. Having stated that, I'll also state that effort doesn't mean I don't respect you.
I am basing my post of respectful disagreement on exactly what was said. I quote your post, accurately, not paraphrase. I make no assumptions about your intentions or interest, i debate on the merit of what was said. I do not name call. I do not spin what you say. I do not throw it into different context to suit my rebuttle. Yet im the one being accused of not showing respect.
Didn't you just paraphrase incorrectly? In the effort to give me credit for having "accused you of not showing respect"? Sure enough, I went back to the post of mine that you reference and low and behold, it's different: "If you desire respect, then respect the equal right of other members to express their experiences and thoughts on this Forum, on all subjects allowed for discussion." Did I accuse of not showing respect? I don't see that in my statement. What I read is if you desire respect, then respect the equal rights of others. If I'd wanted to accuse of you showing no respect, I'd have simply stated that. I didn't because that wasn't my intention. My my how the critique comes back home to roost. I was beginning to wonder if only I paraphrased, solely based on your repetitive accusations.
You have the right to post a berger bullet did what ever you say it did. I have the right to say in my experience ive never seen that happen.
You can mis quote it and call it whatever you want. I got things that need my attention.
