In post 2744, Flea The Magician wrote:ddn't ctlly gnr th "r" n yr pst, smply sd prt f yr pst t shw wht y wr dng n tht sng crcmstncl vdnc s wrng.
Yr pnn n m, s yr pnn n m. Tht y'v tkn my xmpl s y hv s ntrstng, thgh.
I hate this PR. It makes it really hard to understand you, thus harder to work with you, and extremely hard to see your points.
----
Don't exactly [something] the or in your post, simply said part? of your post to show what you were doing in? that single circumstantial evidence's wrong.
Your opinion on me, is your opinion on me. That you've taken my example is you have is understanding, though.
-------------------------------
[What I think you're trying to communicate is that you didn't miss the "or" in my post at all but you did that to show that selective parts of a post can be taken out of context?]
I'm guessing here. Bear with me.
What do you think is the better way of interpreting Bell's posts?