User:SOTO/Forum Archive/The Panopticon/@comment-45314928-20200610043202/@comment-45314928-20200723214450: Difference between revisions
From Tardis Wiki, the free Doctor Who reference
(Bot: Automated import of articles) |
m (Bot: Automated text replacement (-'''User:(SOTO/Forum Archive)/(.*?)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)/\@comment-([\d\.]+)-(\d+)'''\n([\s\S]*)\[\[Category:SOTO archive posts\]\] +\7\2/\4-\3/\6-\5)) |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Her ruling was about validity, because that was all the discussion was about. She did not rule in regards to coverage because that was never brought up, hence the existence of this thread - to discuss its coverage. So I don’t understand, at all, how you could try to dismiss this thread by suggesting that Shamblar had already ruled on the subject “to neither of our personal satisfactions” when she hadn’t ruled about coverage at all. | Her ruling was about validity, because that was all the discussion was about. She did not rule in regards to coverage because that was never brought up, hence the existence of this thread - to discuss its coverage. So I don’t understand, at all, how you could try to dismiss this thread by suggesting that Shamblar had already ruled on the subject “to neither of our personal satisfactions” when she hadn’t ruled about coverage at all. | ||
Once again, the previous discussion was NOT about coverage - but about validity. Completely different. So I am not breaking any rules by discussing this, and if I were I’d appreciate you leave it to an admin to tell me. | Once again, the previous discussion was NOT about coverage - but about validity. Completely different. So I am not breaking any rules by discussing this, and if I were I’d appreciate you leave it to an admin to tell me. | ||
<noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts]]</noinclude> | <noinclude>[[Category:SOTO archive posts|The Panopticon/20200610043202-45314928/20200723214450-45314928]]</noinclude> | ||
Latest revision as of 23:43, 27 April 2023
Her ruling was about validity, because that was all the discussion was about. She did not rule in regards to coverage because that was never brought up, hence the existence of this thread - to discuss its coverage. So I don’t understand, at all, how you could try to dismiss this thread by suggesting that Shamblar had already ruled on the subject “to neither of our personal satisfactions” when she hadn’t ruled about coverage at all.
Once again, the previous discussion was NOT about coverage - but about validity. Completely different. So I am not breaking any rules by discussing this, and if I were I’d appreciate you leave it to an admin to tell me.
