Quote:
Originally Posted by Thomas J Stamp
i said i could be wrong, i dont see the need for smart-arsery.
|
Don't see what your problem is to be honest. I still don't know why two randomly selected sets (60 and 61) out of 17 new sets (47 to 63) could be deemed a replacement for sets 10 and 11. You were speculating (which is fair enough), I was merely questioning your conclusion.
If you know sets 60 and 61 replace 10 and 11, fair enough, if not I don't think it is unreasonable to point out that what you are suggesting isn't particularly logical.
Sorry if I upset you.