the definite implication was that by supporting chora I was an idiot and that WW was being reasoned. Of course if you then say that I was being stupid for attacking him, apparently he wasn't being stupid for attacking chora. You were displaying clear bias there. Why attack one person and not another?Well that was not my meaning, i was calling you stupid, for just using insults at the start of your post.I wasn't calling chora stupid or WW, just you.
oh and your words here again...... 'I was just Saying that WW made fair points and i thought chora was being a unfair on him, i never said anything about the MAY thing?' How? chora never attacked WW until after he attacked him. So apparently chora was being unfair on him but WW was not being unfair to chora. Lovely bias.I did think WW was being fair on chora. If that makes me bias in your mind then so be it.I won't change it and im sick of repeating my self to you.WW said a few things to chora which i "wouldn't" have found insulting, then chora takes the petted lip and starts throwing insults about the place.I will stnad by my original statement, i dont know WW doubt i have conversed with him, and I wouldn't fight his battles for him.As i state quite a bit i dont need "mouthpieces" to talk for me.
"Sorry. Can't stand reflexive used as a subject."
Funniest thing me and my mates have ever heard/seen.
No one would set up a firing squad just to give people a job