Indeed sir, I would sir.
And I have way to manage this duel that will be hopefully acceptable.
1: both parties name a second (many thanks to you, good sir, for stepping into the breach, at the eleventh hour) and be accompanied by his physician.
2: the challenged party chooses weapon to be used: sword, pistol or cannon.
3: a constable or impartial referee is selected (who must be a gentleman of no small character and repute).
4: the time is selected for satisfaction by the aggrieved party.
5: the aggrieved party decides whether to seek 'first blood' or 'to the death'
This is where we diverge from the Code Duello (and many thanks to that renown brain-box Mr Ager-Cawley for making the relevant adaptions to the modern electronic Field of Honour).
6: both parties roll a dice at the prescribed time and PM the opposing second with the result. Failing to PM the opposing second with the result is considered cowardly and base behaviour and forfeits all honour. Man will shun him and God will turn His face from him.
7: one hour after the agreed time the constable or referee flips a coin. This result is PM to all parties. If heads, the highest dice roll wins. If tails, the lowest rolls win. A tie indicts both parties suffer the consequence of loosing (see below) but honour is satisfied and all animosity and grievance is forgotten.
8: if to first blood the looser must refrain from posting for one day if sword was the weapon of choice, two if pistol or three if cannon were used. These values are trebled if the duel was to the death.
9: once the looser has refrained from posting in the relevant thread for the appropriate length of time honour is considered satisfied and all animosity and grievance is forgotten.
It is my hope that Code Duello de Larni will regulate uncivil behaviour in discussion forums from now ever after.
The above ontological example models the zero premise to BB theory. It does so by applying the relative uniformity assumption that the alleged zero event eventually ontologically progressed from the compressed alleged sub-microscopic chaos to bloom/expand into all of the present observable order, more than it models the Biblical record evidence for the existence of Jehovah, the maximal Biblical god designer.
-Attributed to Buzsaw Message 53
Moreover that view is a blatantly anti-relativistic one. I'm rather inclined to think that space being relative to time and time relative to location should make such a naive hankering to pin-point an ultimate origin of anything, an aspiration that is not even wrong.
Well, Larni, let's say I much better know what I don't want to say than how exactly say what I do.