btflash said:
As a courtesy to
btflash, I've decided not to post the contents of his last PM to me (he/she has sent
3 about this subject) as they were private correspondence be tween the two of us and I don't think it would be right to post those comments without his/her permission (sorry, I have no idea what your gender is), but needless to say
btflash is worked up about this and here is my response:
"Why are you getting so worked up over this? We're not curing cancer here, we're talking about the Shat's melon.
You're right, apparently I was mistaken about what was in the book, but it still doesn't change my position. And I think you're misunderstanding my position anyway. I'm not suggesting that Shat's not bald, I'm suggesting that there's no verifiable proof that he is. I'm sorry but Bob Justman's statement doesn't really carry that much weight with me for a couple of reasons. What is he defining as a toupee? He's not specific? If it's a hair piece to make it look fuller and more forward on his head, that doesn't make it a toupee as you would think of it.
What I'm getting at is that there's never been any proof that he's bald... not that his hairline has receded or that he has thin hair. I'm talking bald.
Stop fucking PMing me over this, it's fucking retarded!"
Biut seriously, why is anyone getting worked up about this thread, I had
Red Ranger go off on me for no reason,
btflash is having kittens because I refuse to believe, other posters are whipping out their copies of
The Making of Star Trek... c'mon now... this isn't the Warren Commission, here.
Relax, already.
-Shawn