--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_re...@...> wrote: > > Since I have already blown my New Year's > Resolution, and because this is fun, I > will reply. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <jstein@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, TurquoiseB <no_reply@> wrote: > > > > > > ...and who [Judy] nonetheless claims to not be > > > able to tell who the poster in question really is. > > > > Um, no, don't believe I've done that. > > That is true, but you seem to be quite > sure about the poster's sex. For example, > just yesterday you said, referring to ed11 > (emphasis mine): > > >>> "No, Barry, *she* blew you off, as you inadvertently > >>> acknowledge above. *She's* been laughing at you. *She* > >>> hasn't risen to your incredibly long-winded bait as > >>> you had hoped, and you're pissed. In the post you quote > >>> above, *she's* blown you off again." > > I may be mistaken about this, but that > seems to indicate to me that you accept > who enlightened_dawn11 has said "she" is, > or at the very least that "she" is female.
Don't see any reason not to accept what ed11 says. > I'm going into this in some depth because > I'm curious as to how a professional editor > such as yourself, if you indeed believe ed11 > to be female (as the above quote would seem > to indicate), can have failed to not notice As an editor, I detect that you meant to write "failed to notice," not "failed to not notice" (which would mean I *did* notice). > the things that have convinced a number of > other posters on this forum that "she" is > not only not female, but is not "new here," > as "she" claimed. > > I mean, aren't you the person who, in the > past, has said things like: > > >>> I've written before here about how a > >>> person's writing style tends to exhibit what I call a > >>> certain "music." But if you're sensitive to a person's > >>> "music," you can tell when it's slightly off-key, or > >>> when there are wrong notes in it, or the rhythm departs > >>> from the usual. That gives you a clue that what they're > >>> saying isn't what they're really thinking or feeling. > > and > > >>> If I ever > >>> did think you were <another poster>, it would have had > >>> to have been very early on, because your styles are > >>> noticeably different, and I would have registered > >>> that pretty quickly. > > Those quotes seem to indicate to me that you > have a sense of comfort with your editor's > ability to compare writing styles and tell > whether a person is, say, a real newcomer to > the forum or someone whose posts you have been > reading (and whose writing style you are thus > familiar with) for almost four years. > > I'm wondering how such a competent editor can > miss the things that others -- lesser trained > and experienced in evaluating writing than you, > and thus lower than pond scum by comparison -- > have been able to detect. > > So can you explain this to us? Sure, even without your telling me the specifics of what you and your fellow pond scum believe you've detected. Not being experienced editors, you may have detected superficial points of similarity with a previous poster's style and completely missed the more subtle but more profound differences. Or you may even have overlooked pretty obvious differences, say those of content, approach to interaction, even personality. > Are you just incompetent as an editor, or are > you lying about ed11's gender in an attempt to > help "her" perpetuate "her" own lie because > "she's" often "on your side?" > > Seems to me that them's the only two choices. Nope, just gave you another choice. I note that you didn't provide any examples of what you and all these other posters believe you have detected that has convinced you that ed11 is really a previous poster. I don't think that was accidental; I don't think you want to have them examined and possibly challenged. You could prove me wrong on this, of course, by posting them in response. It's even possible I would find them convincing. But you'll have to take your chances on that.
