On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 9:25 PM, Rceeberger<rceeber...@comcast.net> wrote: > > On 8/17/2009 11:09:15 PM, John Williams (jwilliams4...@gmail.com) wrote: >> On Mon, Aug 17, 2009 at 8:58 PM, Jo Anne<evens...@hevanet.com> wrote: >> >> > And there I rest my case on the tone thing. >> >> I wrote that as clearly and as sincerely as I could. I assure you >> there were no undertones intended. >> >> > Well, first I'd have a good laugh and then I'd ask Charlie what we could >> do >> > to keep speaking to each other, and could I help him get his panties >> all >> > un-bunched up because that could be pretty uncomfortable. Unfortunately, >> my >> > panties are riding up after trying to talk to you about health care, >> like >> > his did about pollution regulation. >> >> He did not try to discuss pollution regulation with me at all -- I >> would have been happy to discuss it with him, and to clear up the >> apparent question that he had about me allegedly changing my mind. But >> he just wrote FUCK YOU and then said that he kill filed me. >> > > That is what I mean by "intentionally obtuse". > Add "intentionally selective memory" to the list.
What is what you mean? I assure you, I am not being intentially "obtuse". I find your posts very difficult to understand. When I do read between the lines, you tell me I am jumping to conclusions, and when I do not, you tell me I am intentionally obtuse. You tell me there is a group of "we" that all know what everyone else thinks, and then you and another of the "we"s answer one of my questions oppositely. Perhaps I am obtuse, but it is not intentional. I am definitely confused. _______________________________________________ http://mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l_mccmedia.com
