|
As I wrote in post 9, it read to me as though Seaver was positing about what may have (or part of what likely has?) gone wrong with this reconstruction effort. That's what I just said, and I think it is the most reasonable interpretation of what he wrote in post 6.
I suppose you could choose to read it in a way that makes it look like you guys are taking sides - but I don't see the point.
Also as I wrote in post 9, hopefully Seaver will clarify his post more - why he posted it and where it leads. Until then, I'm not interested in picking fights.
__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam
|