You're talking in circles, you know exactly what I meant. You stated that you LET him ride the board anyway did you not? By stating that, you are implying that you gave him permission, which couldn't be possible if he did so without your knowledge, as stated also. You can't have it both ways. Either you LET him ride the board, or he took it upon himself, can't be both. Therefore you contradicted yourself. Just pointing out your flawed argument. That is all.
You are confused.
There is no contradiction at all.
As stated previously I did not request that Randy ride the board ( which was claimed to be the case by a poster on this thread) I heard from the person who was looking after the board that Randy had decided to ride it. I had no contact with Randy until after he rode it.
So, Randy rode the board at his own request not mine, and I did not say that he rode the board without my knowledge, as you have claimed. What you have done is change what I have said in an attempt to create a 'contradiction' where none exists. That is a classic informal fallacy in argument known as the 'straw man'.
Which part of that do you fail to understand?
Last edited by Roy Stuart; Sep 19, 2013 at 09:29 PM.