--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" <anartaxius@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Xenophaneros Anartaxius" > > > > > <anartaxius@> wrote: > > > <snip> > > > > >> Now as for you Ann, you breezed in on Robin's backdraft, and > > > > >> then vanished for a while after he disengaged until he returned, > > > > > > > > > > In fact, Ann made 186 posts here between the time Robin left > > > > > (January 22) and the time he returned (June 12). She took a > > > > > brief break from April 12 to April 26, but she was posting > > > > > consistently before and after that while Robin was absent. > > > > > > > > > >> so you are sort of a mystery, as to whether you are here for > > > > >> additional reasons. > > > > > > > > > > Given your blooper about Ann's posting habits, Xeno, perhaps > > > > > you'd consider withdrawing that innuendo. > > > > > > > > Seeing 1) I have not been very focused in the past few days, > > > > and, 2) I will take your word for it that Ann posted those > > > > other times, > > > > > > As it happens, you shouldn't take my word for it, because > > > I looked again and realized I got my signals partially > > > crossed. Ann took *another* break from April 27 to June 11 > > > and resumed posting when Robin returned on June 12. > > > > > > So those 186 posts were made from January 22 (when Robin > > > left) to April 26. > > > > > > IOW, you remembered correctly that Ann returned from an > > > absence after Robin started posting again in June; you > > > were mistaken to think that absence had begun when Robin > > > left in January. > > > > > > Bottom line, you still need to withdraw your insinuation > > > that Ann posts here only because of Robin. > > > > Well I did say (and you snipped it out) > > > > 'I think withdrawing my comments would probably be the > > least unintelligent thing to do > > Yes. My point was, of course, that you still need to > withdraw your insinuation that Ann posts here only > because of Robin, given that she posted here regularly > for three months after Robin left. That I missed her > absence in May and mid-June does not relieve you of the > responsibility to withdraw this smarmy and gratuitous > insinuation: > > "...so you are sort of a mystery, as to whether you are > here for additional reasons." > > No matter how "spiritually advanced" you believe someone > is, you shouldn't just reflexively echo his opinions > without making sure they have some basis in reality. > I was just expressing my curiosity about Ann's presence here. She seemed to come in with Robin's appearance, I was wondering what else she might have on her mind. Since I do not know, I have not been following a lot of posts here, it is thus a mystery to me. Perhaps if I read all her posts, I would find out more. As it is I kind of duck in and out of the forum and miss those great trends someone talks about. I tend not to follow just conversations between the ladies, as they tend to be an alien sort of world to me.
As are all conversations with women. Women seem to have different shades of meaning associated with what they say, things that totally escape me, emotional innuendos, and certain kinds of indirection. For example, someone in my family, female, might ask me, 'Would you like to have 'such and such' to eat?'. This might be direct, but in some contexts this actually meant 'I want to have a certain kind of food, and want to go out to lunch at a place that serves such-and-such'. My mother used to say I had a very literal way of interpreting things, and these subtleties of intention expressed in language escape me. Guys tend to be kind of unvarnished in this respect. > > > > I guess in my stumbling about that does not exactly mean 'I > > hereby withdraw my comment in the name of accuracy'. > > > > I better say it explicitly: I withdraw my comment about Ann's > > posting history. > > That and, one hopes, the insinuation that accompanied it. There was no insinuation. That is your addition to the mix. I think you attribute a greater depth to my meaning than is there. If you think there was genuinely some kind of hidden insinuation, let me know what it is, and I will tell you if you are correct, in which case it would prove me incorrect as to one not being there. I am not entirely aware of everything this old brain does. One is not always aware of one's hidden biases, or motives. Guys are much shallower than you can imagine when it comes to meaning. Maybe that is one of the attractions of Robin as he has a much richer palette of meaning than most of us. I see Ann posted a picture of herself here recently. She looks as if she could take down Barry, or me.
