Where in this exchange (because that's where you falsely claimed I misrepresented you) did I claim that you said "Bowley arrived at 1:17".
What I said was;
Bowley said in his affidavit that when he arrived at the scene he looked at his watch and it said 1:10 PM. By having him arrive at about 1:17, you are basically claiming that his watch was wrong by 7 minutes.
The difference is easy to understand. I'm sorry that you seem to be struggling to understand. Do you really have so much ego that you actually thought that by using the word "you" I was actually talking to you and not in general?
You most likely won't (for obvious reasons) but why not simply tell us at what time you (now) believe Bowley arrived, so that we can determine by how much you are actually claiming his watch was wrong?
I've said this once before; if you write your replies less vague people might better understand what it is that you are actually saying, but I seriously doubt you will comply with that request because your replies are basically intended to provoke petty little discussions like this. After all why discuss the actual narrative when you can play around discussing everything else but the narrative and make up your own stuff as you go along.
Do you really have so much ego that you actually thought that by using the word "you" I was actually talking to you and not in general?I thought you were talking to BillB
Pretty sure, in fact: Addressing Biil directly with 'you' while posting to Bill in the first-person was my first clue.
---------
EDIT
BONUS
---------
> edited-in
'addressing'
