Post by kaemaril on Jan 25, 2011 18:19:26 GMT

but also that you are absolutly not saying they are lying.
Oh, for the love of Christ.
Poster A: Looks like it's slipped again.
Poster B: Yeah, well, that's probably 'cos of the rebranding.
Poster C (ME!): Almost certainly not this late in the day.
Show me where I've said 'Yeah, well, Cubicle 7 have said it's down to the rebranding but it can't be that, so they're liars! Liars I tell you! Liars, liars, their pants are on ... er ... fires!'
All I said was, when somebody said this (presumed) slight slippage was down to rebranding, was that this late in the day that was unlikely. I even offered, in a subsequent post after I was given the 'How DARE you, sir!' treatment, some alternate reasons for a slight delay.
edit: As far as I was aware (as mentioned in my previous post, which you still took issue with) this 'slip' (if indeed, it's there) is no more than a month/six-weeks. This late in the day, after a rebranding exercise that the BBC announced in October 2009, and IIRC we knew C7 would need to do around Feb/Mar 2010, this conversation was rather akin to:
two months before D&D 4e was released:
Poster A: I see the Player Handbook has slipped.
Poster B: Yeah, well, that's 'cos they needed to convert it for 4e.
Me: Not this late in the day, I wouldn't have thought.
For pete's sake, nowhere have I said that CUBICLE 7 are lying about the reasons for this delay (if, indeed, it's there). As far as I'm aware C7 haven't said Jack about it. All I said was it was unlikely that the reason postulated for this delay was the correct one. And that reason was not, as far as I can tell, offered by a C7 staffer so where are you getting this 'Well, you said they were lying' from?
Sod it, I'm out of here.