Rich, respectfully, I did read the thread very carefully.
You said several assumptive things when he said:
TJR, read the entire context more carefully.
I read it several times, carefully each time, thank you. Why would you assume that I didn't read it carefully before sticking my nose into this?
Bill makes a statement strongly implying that Pyrodex solves the problem of needing to clean a black powder gun.
Did he, or did you ASSUME he implied such a statement. Seems to me you assumed that implication and because of that then suggested to him in your very next post the relative merits of Pyrodex use and that its use still requires the good cleaning of a gun. Note how Bill AGREED with you. Read his very next post where Bill said:
True Rich, but nowhere as bad as real black powder.
Also, Rich said:
I described and then demonstrated how quickly Pyrodex will rust a gun because of the properties it shares with black powder, simply by introducing humidity, which turns Pyrodex into a corrosion inducing compound.
I'm not sure why you even offered to run such a test, given that Bill had already agreed with you on the merits of Pyrodex. At that point in the thread what was the point?
Lastly, Rich said:
I'm sorry if my semantic approach confused you.
I wasn't confused at all. But if you think that I may have been or if something I said implied that I was confused why not ASK me if I am confused or ask me what in the thread confused me, if anything. Wouldn't that be more civil; more respectful?
I've said it before, I'll say it again, most of the posturing and debating on this website comes from perceived implications in the typed word, and people jumping on them. Often is the case that an author has some idea they want to convey; they then conjure up some text in their head to describe it, and they post that text. That posted text can have any number of meanings when read by different people. What the author of the post is trying to imply, or what, specifically the author meant by the text in question is best left for the author to define.
When I see someone post something that I think is wrong, given the way I am reading it, I try to follow it up with a question of the type: "So, when you say ______ are you also saying that ____?", and in that way I can clear up any confusion. If the author then agrees with my supposition, then we discuss why I disagree. If they dont agree with the supposition, then I am educated by what they meant.
It seems to me that you tried to do this. You clarified what you believed the relative merit of Pyrodex use is
and then Bill agreed with you. The only thing I am confused by is why the debate continued after that? Were you simply looking for Bill to say: "I originally misspoke?", or "I was wrong when I said..."???? If so, why? He already said you were right.
TJR