Quote:
Originally Posted by JustinD
Brunners may have been ugly, but still had a more layered print process than this.i also did not say it wasn’t real, I said I would not be comfortable on faith and no supporting evidence as to period. Did you read it?
Are you personally involved with this item? With 400 posts in 14 years and 6 just on this thread it’s a little odd.
|
No Justin, I'm not personally involved. I'm just tired of the usual "one take" posts that happen here too often so I thought I'd put some effort into this one. Yes, I had to read the post in order to pull one line out of it that helped me make fun of D304's. Then I left a space to seperate my thought and continued with my effort to discuss this item I find interesting.
(space for seperate thought)
Its funny that someone would have to be "involved with the item" to take interest in it. I'm reminded why I prefer lurking most of the time, so I'll just stick to that from now on...and I've been here for 21 years now, there was a site move in 2009 that changed the dates in everyones bio pages at the time.