Post by kaemaril on Jan 25, 2011 18:19:26 GMT
You say 'it can't possibly be late for the reason they are saying'
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.