--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 <no_reply@...>
wrote:
>
> --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" authfriend@ wrote:
> >
> > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108 <no_reply@>
wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@>
wrote:
> > > >
> > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues"
<curtisdeltablues@> wrote:
> > > > >
> > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, laughinggull108
<no_reply@> wrote:
> > (snip)
> > > > > > FWIW Curtis, this was my understanding when I first read
> > > > > > your response of "...from the outset" as being the *current*
> > > > > > exchange...not going back to the beginning. It surprises me
> > > > > > that Robin, in his response, doesn't seem to understand
this,
> > > > > > but at least he's consistent...or maybe he's being ironic
> > > > > > (disingenuous smiley face).
> > > >
> > > > FWIW, when I read Curtis's response, I also thought he meant
> > > > going back to the beginning (this was before I'd read Robin's
> > > > reply saying the same thing).
> > >
> > > on·set
> > > noun
> > > 1. a beginning or start: the onset of winter.
> > > 2. an assault or attack: an onset of the enemy.
> >
> > Actually the word you used was "outset," not "onset."
> >
> > "Outset" can't be used in your sense #2 for "onset"
> > above. "Outset" just means "beginning" or "start."
>
> In this case, you are absolutely correct Judy. "Outset", not "onset",
was used which narrows the field of possible meanings. However, I still
trust *my* initial reaction when I first read it as meaning the outset
of this more recent exchange between the two because it has been a long
time since there had been exchanges of any kind. I also think that
everyone is aware that very rarely do exchanges between posters on this
forum start out at the very beginning as hostile or negative.
>
> > But you knew that.
>
> I don't think so.
>
> > Since you have no substantive comments, let alone any
> > refutations, of any of the case I made, there's
> > nothing else in this post for me to respond to,
> > thankfully.
> >
> > Stevie and laughinggull and possibly even feste will
> > no doubt find your rejoinder brilliant, however, so
> > it will have been worth your time.
> >
> > *plonk*
>
> Not much of a rejoinder to find brilliant. I *do* appreciate what
Curtis, Steve, and others contribute on this forum because on the
outset, it *feels* good-hearted and well-intentioned, even when
defending someone. Not so the case with others. But you knew that.
>
> [snip]
>
Raunchy! Raunchy! Where the hell are you?!!
