--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > <snip> > > No, I was not aware that Robin posted "on my account." But > > thanks for letting me know, Steve. > > Of course, he didn't post on your account but under his > own name and handle. Here's the post: > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319794 > > > I will admit that I was talking on the phone while reading > > FFL last night - a "dangerous" thing to do if you take this > > seriously and want to be able to defend yourself here. > > Anyway, I gather I was responding to a single post of > > Emily's when apparently I had missed an earlier one. > > Interesting, because last night you claimed to have read > Emily's earlier post too: > > ====================================================== > I did read Emily's post.
Yes, I did write that I had read Emily's post, but I was referring to the one post of hers I had read, not the prior one that I was not aware of. There was no deceit on my part, simply that I did not know there was an earlier post I had not read. I was distracted by my phone call, so I must have missed it. > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Robin Carlsen" <maskedzebra@> wrote: > > > > You have the strangest compulsions, Susan. Read Emily's > > post which came before this one. Answer that. You're a > > funny lady. But you're right: 90% does it. I feel this > > right in my bones. Casey hit a home run. > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hey now, I'm standing up for Curtis, aren't I :) It's O.K. > > > > Curtis...your reputation is safe. No worries. > > > > > > I'm with you, Emily, and Curtis, on this. Altho most people > > > won't bother to spend a minute reading this argumentative, > > > odd stuff (good for them!), my guess is that if they did, > > > about 99% would side with Curtis. Thing is, the other 1% > > > are the ones making the fuss, the noise. > ==================================================== > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319735 > > And then you denied you did any "selective reading": > > ========================================================= > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: > > > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@> wrote: > > > > > > > > Hey now, I'm standing up for Curtis, aren't I :) It's O.K. > > > > Curtis...your reputation is safe. No worries. > > > > > > I'm with you, Emily, and Curtis, on this. Altho most people > > > won't bother to spend a minute reading this argumentative, > > > odd stuff (good for them!), my guess is that if they did, > > > about 99% would side with Curtis. Thing is, the other 1% > > > are the ones making the fuss, the noise. > > > > JESUS. Poor Susan! Maybe she should give a course in > > selective reading. > > Nothing selective about my reading on this. I read the posts. > I just don't "side" with you, which is a very different thing > than selective reading. > =============================================================== > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/319736 > > And of course my comment had zero to do with whether you > were on *my* side. My point was that you read Emily's > second post and assumed, incorrectly, that *she* was siding > with Curtis. But you had just got done telling Robin that > you'd read the earlier one as well, and here you appeared > to confirm this ("I read the posts"). >
