We could just all admit that and go on...I think that is the Kids point.
Well, you left off the part about us all having a chuckle... but otherwise, Yup.
This has become argument for the sake of argument. If he was so concerned he would seek the answers but he will not do it
"recreational" implies enjoyment... no, it is like pulling teeth
Lets keep something in mind here:
This is not KidEpoxy's theories vs 804/Robo theories.
Look at the facts-
a) Insider/MA put forth a photo as a PPP club. In that pic is a non-PPP plane
b) P51b posted a thread here informing us of Insider showing that club as PPP
c) Advocates for the club's defense hypothesize excuses could exist,
......which means Insider is wrong to put that pic forth as PPP
d) Then Kid Epoxy asks for them to support their claim that Insider is wrong
Here is my stand, my theory: Until I see some proof that Insider is wrong, they are right
All I have been doing for like 6 pages is trying to get folks to support their claims that Insider erred in calling that group pic PPP.
I acknowledge that proof
could exist, its possible that Insider/MA erred,
and easily be presented by the ones disputing Insider/MA presentation of that photo as PPP.
I wonder what they would do if I gave up
and endorsed their stand that Insider is to be assumed wrong until proven right.
Insider called them PPP, and folks here are trying to extend modify and limit what PPP club means
... fine, just support that claim of additions changes and exclusions actually existing at that club.