Never mind, Susan. Just keep on truckin'.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "wayback71" <wayback71@...> wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@> wrote: > > > > --- 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). > > Yes, the posts (plural) by other people that led up to Emily's single post to > which I responded (and which she fully understood). You see, I did read > other people's posts, and then 1 by Emily to which I responded. Is that > clear now? Can you see how that might happen? > > > > 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. > > Wow, this should be the worst problem in my life, and yours too. Seriously. > Judy, I don't care about this now. And since I was distracted on the phone > last night - and apparently missed a post, I don't care about that either, > nor do I feel guilty or as if I made a big mistake. I made a brief post in > response to few words in a post by Emily. Emily was fine with it (as she > wrote), and so am I. > > > > > > > > > > > > > --- 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"). > > > > > > > > > >
