--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltabl...@...> wrote: > > Yeah Joe don't you get it? If I don't understand what > she has written it is my inability to understand her > perfect writing.
Well, let's correct the record here. I never suggested my writing was "perfect," as Curtis knows. In fact, his misunderstanding was quite reasonable given that he was looking for something from me to be offended about. What I had written wasn't explicit enough to keep him from taking it the wrong way, and I never said or implied that it was. I *did* point out, however, that my response to his initial sally, in which I acknowledged that many non- TMers had surely donated on their own hook rather than to the FFL fund, should have cleared up for him that I hadn't been trying to suggest that non-TMers were heartless tightwads, as he had at first thought and wanted to rebut (understandably). It isn't a matter of "perfect writing." It's simply a matter of paying attention and being willing to let go of a mistaken idea when it becomes obvious that it's wrong. Once it was clear what his misunderstanding had been, I stopped accusing him of trying to suggest that TMers had contributed to the fund for purposes of one- upsmanship. Eventually he reciprocated. But it *was* ironic that he declared himself to be the only one who was misunderstood, when it was his misunderstanding that started the whole brouhaha. > If she doesn't understand me it is because I am a bad > writer. Actually, Curtis is usually a pretty good writer. It's when he gets upset that his writing becomes unclear. > It is the Las Vegas of shame,heads she wins tails I lose! Or so Curtis enjoys telling himself. "The game is rigged! That's why I made such a mess of it!" And BTW, in general, it isn't a matter of "winning," just a matter of *losing*. One person being a loser does not make the other person a winner. > She did declare you "not stupid." But before you break > out the champagne I gotta warn you, that means that now > if you disagree you are lying. Only if he asserts factual falsehoods that there's reason to believe he knows are false. I've never seen him do that here; that doesn't seem to be how he rolls. As I said, his problem is his tendency to make snap judgments and stick with them without ever examining the actual evidence.
