Peter Duniho wrote:

"Jessica Taylor" wrote in message
...
Actually he gave two reasons for this post. I believe the first reason
was to
share the experience, which he thought was pretty unbelievable. The
secondary
reason was because it was fun to watch the reactions from other posters
who are
predictable, such as yourself. There was not "would" involved.

correction: should be no "would" involved.



Wow...having trouble with the English language too?

Not at all, thank you for asking. But I speak several other languages, if
you'd prefer another. I hope you don't make any typos!



First of all, the presence of any other reason is irrelevant. If trolling
was ANY reason for posting according to Jay, then he's trolling. Having
other reasons doesn't take away from the desire to troll.

And where can we find this new law of trolling that apparently doesn't need
any support other than you say so?
I found Jay's story entertaining and interesting to read. Since you knew that
you thought it was just a troll, why would you respond to a troll?

Secondly, the word "would" is an English language construct to describe a
future outcome.

Among other definitions.

Given that Jay's reasons (both of them) related to his
desire for a future outcome, it is simply *absurd* for you to claim that
"there was no 'would' involved" (even if that were a grammatically correct
phrase).

I disagree. I also find it amazing that you think Jay has some crystal ball
and knew that you *would* post.