--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Susan" <wayback71@> wrote: <snip> > > > 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. <snip>
Oh, for chrissakes, Susan, get real! The post you were responding to *called to your attention exactly that prior post*. What did you think "Read Emily's post which came before this one" meant? How is one to interpret "I did read Emily's post" as referring to anything other than that prior post you'd just been told to read? Look down here at what Robin had written that you were responding to--that you quoted in your post-- the second sentence (I put it in capital letters so you won't miss 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. And you responded: "I read Emily's post." Later, in response to me, you wrote, "I read the posts" (plural). Are you on the telephone now as you're reading and responding? It seems like you must be, because you sure aren't paying attention. > > > > > > --- 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"). > > >
