No I don't agree. Rather, I'd suggest that if you are going to ascribe non-specific, and far reaching unintended meanings to posts, without being SURE yourself what is meant, than YOU should be sure that someone "went too far" prior to flagging a post.
In fact, how did you manage to take it the wrong way?
Anyone who has read milestone's posts, knows that he claims to have studied law to a doctorate level, but that he doesn't practice law. Further in the post I responded to, he stated that he doesn't use 20/20 hind sight with which to base his criticisms of the BOD, which I think is pretty silly, as for example, it is only through 20/20 hindsight that we get to see the details of agreements that the BOD approved long PRIOR to their revelation to us that inexplicably indemnify certain parties like they did in the Crossflo acquisition.
I tied that "silly" perspective to the fact that practicing attornies litigate almost solely from a 20/20 hindsight paradigm which considering his prior comments that I cited would be consistent with his statements of not practicing law.
Rather, it's your narrow paradigm that took the meaning to a place that YOU shouldn't have taken it.
