Fisherman: Well, I stated that the JW elder should be heard in all fairness.
So did everyone else. At least I can't find where anyone here convicted him before he had a trial.
What you said was "...someone could construe that he is convicting the man before a fair trial." That is exactly what you did, you construed it that way, and you said it as if Flipper in fact had the JW elder convicted without a trial. But now you seem to be backing down from it by saying it could be 'construed that way.' Am I misunderstanding you, are you really not backing down from your incorrect information about Flipper's post?
He is the author of his post and he is responsible for what he wrote and so are you.
And neither he nor I wrote anything improper regarding the JW elder. You know that.
All I said is that he did not explain what he meant in his post about the JW elder.
Then why were you so quick-on-the-draw to make negative assumptions about his post? Shouldn't you have waited for an explanation from him [Flipper]? You know he never shys away from explaining himself, and you know he will be back.
Oh yes, weren't you going to copy and paste the explanation of why you posted the 2 detectives article?