Quoting [EMAIL PROTECTED]: > -- > On 5 May 2001, at 17:14, Faustine wrote: > > I can't see why, when I make a general statement about the > > importance of not coming across like a paranoid, someone > mistakenly thinks I'm referring to him, I explain I wasn't and apologize > > But your "apology" presupposed that he, (snip) No it didn't. Look, if I really had busted right into the thread and insulted him, I think he would have been right to respond that way. I saw that I didn't make myself clear enough that it was just a general point--something I had been thinking about from my own experience--and didn't think it would be right to chime in with anything other than a plain old explanation and apology. What was there to "present", I just wasn't clear enough about what I was referring to. That's an entirely different issue from the other ones you raised about my beliefs and motivations, which totally aren't warranted. It seems like you've reached a critical mass where all your perceptions and ideas about me are self- validating: from now on, absolutely anything I'll ever say or do or cite, you'll always be able to find the "hidden nasty meaning" in it. No need to be so binary: someone being "rude and wrong" doesn't automatically equal being "evil and idiotic". With the first, there's always room to talk, but when it devolves into throwing around absolutes, you know it's time to give it up. So now that you explained all the reasons you think I'm not worth talking to, isn't it about time to quit talking, put me in the filter file and move on? ~Faustine.
