OP said himself he doesn't care for a Defending Ring. Which means, he's only after the tongue. Which means, it was a good deal.
How can you argue with that? How is that not better for him (twice as good)?Originally Posted by Math
And the OP understood him wrong, that's all that happened. There's no arguing there, it's not a matter of opinion, the deal couldn't be clearer, there was no need for an additional clause "You lot tongues, we lot shanks", how hard is that to understand? Where is the ambiguity?


Reply With Quote