Thanks Judy. I did read it the first time soon after you posted it and was thinking of responding but you beat me to the punch. Of course apology accepted.
--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > LG, please see my post to Curtis-- > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/FairfieldLife/message/340307 > > --if you haven't already, for my apology for my confusion > about who wrote the post I'm now responding to. > > > --- 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. > > That's not really the case. Robin wasn't here at all > from shortly before Christmas till the past week, but he > and Share had had numerous encounters from the time of > their big blow-up until he left before Christmas (mostly > due to Share making various provocative comments about or > to Robin). > > As I pointed out to Curtis, Curtis's first awareness of > the exchanges between Share and Robin was that very > conflict, which he himself joined on Share's side. So > it would have been only natural (albeit mistaken) for > him to assume Robin had started their discussions with > unfriendly motivations. > > > 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. > > It's not that rare, in fact. Barry does it all the time > to newbies. He did it to Robin shortly after Robin joined > us. > > > > But you knew that. > > > > I don't think so. > > I thought you were Curtis when I wrote that. He'd have known > what he had written. > > Again, my apologies. > > > > > > > > > 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] > > >
