ItsaBass
New member
Paint alternatives
That isn't what happened, and that isn't what my motivation's were at all. It had ZERO to do with me "not lik[ing]" the oil suggestion. I had not even bothered to opine about it one way or the other, because it was obviously not a good solution, objectively speaking. So I passed it over and forgot about it.
This has nothing to do with the initial oil posts, and everything to do with today's posts. I found it ridiculous that Oinkus would ask that question, especially the way he did, implying that oil was obviously the way to go. I was like, "Give me a break; of course not. You know that very well." I replied with the obvious reason why the answer was a more than likely "no. " Then you responded, and so on.
We have a different comprehension of the OP, and that isn't going to change. But the bottom line, the answer to Oinkus' question is OBVIOUSLY "no," for many reasons, most of which I think were already noted. That was the point. It had nothing to do with how I feel about one person or another. I was simply stating the obvious: the answer is no, for this basic reason. But you challenged the obviousness of that answer, so I had to explain why I thought it was so obvious.
Sounds like someone annoys very easily... :flowers1:
Not personal? :bsflag: why keep on posting about how completely opposite oil is if it is not personal? The original post asked for any help and insights (corrective spelling) and a couple of us offered oil as a cheap alternative. You didn't like that and I gave my reason...the $600-$1,000 savings on a $200 guitar. You didn't like that so you posted a response to which I posted a response etc. :argue: We can keep going on if you like
Its knight_yyz's thread, and I will assume he would rather have a post about a cheap alternative/insight rather than you and me going back and forth![]()
That isn't what happened, and that isn't what my motivation's were at all. It had ZERO to do with me "not lik[ing]" the oil suggestion. I had not even bothered to opine about it one way or the other, because it was obviously not a good solution, objectively speaking. So I passed it over and forgot about it.
This has nothing to do with the initial oil posts, and everything to do with today's posts. I found it ridiculous that Oinkus would ask that question, especially the way he did, implying that oil was obviously the way to go. I was like, "Give me a break; of course not. You know that very well." I replied with the obvious reason why the answer was a more than likely "no. " Then you responded, and so on.
We have a different comprehension of the OP, and that isn't going to change. But the bottom line, the answer to Oinkus' question is OBVIOUSLY "no," for many reasons, most of which I think were already noted. That was the point. It had nothing to do with how I feel about one person or another. I was simply stating the obvious: the answer is no, for this basic reason. But you challenged the obviousness of that answer, so I had to explain why I thought it was so obvious.