Originally Posted by
theUpsideDown
He's referencing the 35 RJ issue in the 35 RJ thread, while asking about the arbitration for the 35 RJ issue in the 35 RJ thread. I understand trying to give the benefit of the doubt, but the readers can only read what he said, not what he meant. I also think you are incorrectly assuming he had a wider point.
And even if he did, he acts like NOTHING is being done and we are just rolling over though we just presented our case to an arbitrator.