Pitt

[believe_it]

Sorry if I've insulted you with a comment that wasn't even directed at you.

Comment was very dismissive of the merits of the thread I made. However I do realise I overreact quite often , particularly if it appears that somebody strays from constructive discussion to just dumping on one of my posts.

 

[IAMJUNGLEMUFFIN]

Comment was very dismissive of the merits of the thread I made. However I do realise I overreact quite often , particularly if it appears that somebody strays from constructive discussion to just dumping on one of my posts.

Like I said, it had nothing to do with your post. It was a comment made with regards to all the Pitt v Darling talk about on the boards, which considering this thread is named after one of them, I felt was worth posting. Just because you started a thread, it doesn't make it all about you.

If you don't agree that the Pitt v Darling thing is Hill v Rich MKII, go for it by all means, but I do think it is somewhat hypocritical to claim you're insulted by a post, and then go about dismissing them as not a part of valid discussion.

Anyways, back at the cricket, so you don't see the similarities between the Rich v Hill talk of a few years ago?