by Kate <weller_4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
>
Apr 20, 2008 at 04:14 PM
On Sun, 20 Apr 2008 02:45:03 -0700, "alooo" <uh@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote:
>
>"Kate" <weller_4@[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> wrote
>
>>>I said I've been a little harsh with the people who don't get these
>>>questions. It's impossible to be too harsh with the conspiracy freaks.
>>>
>> And yet you manage to insult them every time you mention them. It was
>> a trick question, but low-down because it came at such a crucial time
>> in an im****tant competition and it *did* change the direction and the
>> outcome. If you can't see why people are a little upset about that
>> you're not looking at all sides. Instead you call us conspiracy
>> freaks or idiots because we have a different point of view.
>
>
>No, I rail on the conspiracy freaks because they have no proof. They're
>accusing BB of having the incorrect answer on the card ("fiction") and
then
>changing it to the correct answer ("fact") in order to benefit one
player. I
>don't see why it's so hard to believe they planned to give the correct
>answer all along.
>
Fair enough. Both sides have a point and neither side has proof. I'm
just saying it's not really necessary to call people names to get your
point across.
