And how did I take it out of context? He wasn't asking where it said "underwater", he was asking if it necessarily HAD to be underwater. You then misinterpreted COMPLETELY what he had said. The people who started the argument in fact specified it did not have to be underwater, then someone was saying some stuff about drowning when under water and BWS simply asked where it said that it had to be underwater that was the basis for the argument in the first place.Ultimatum479 wrote:Ren, BwS' post, which you quoted, was in response to the post about underpetrol versus underwater. My interpretation of the meaning of his post is logically defensible if you don't take it out of context like you did. Classic Republican campaign tactics... v_V
Now, if you can't understand that...