> It wasn't an attack, but a genuine question, for which I provided two possible interpretations. I was (am) interested in what you were saying.
No worries at all! I wasn't taking it as an attack and apologies if my response seemed combative. I just honestly didn't understand where the point of confusion was.
> Thanks for explaining.
My pleasure! If you're still interested in discussing, I am interested in the point you made that 'They secure things from top to bottom' - if I may ask, why do you think this is the case? It's not a statement I would ever make myself.
No worries at all! I wasn't taking it as an attack and apologies if my response seemed combative. I just honestly didn't understand where the point of confusion was.
> Thanks for explaining.
My pleasure! If you're still interested in discussing, I am interested in the point you made that 'They secure things from top to bottom' - if I may ask, why do you think this is the case? It's not a statement I would ever make myself.