--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "authfriend" <authfriend@...> wrote: > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "curtisdeltablues" <curtisdeltablues@> > wrote: > > > > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Emily Reyn <emilymae.reyn@> wrote: > [Curtis wrote:] > > > > So first she got me to write by calling me a liar, and now > > > > she is hoping to get everyone going including Emily, who has > > > > escaped this nut house with this troll move by claiming I > > > > was calling her a liar.
I think it was just missing a comma. > > > > So first she got me to write by calling me a liar, and now > > > > she is hoping to get everyone going including Emily, who has > > > > escaped this nut house, with this troll move by claiming I > > > > was calling her a liar. > > > > > > Emily: Did I call you a liar? > > > > > M: No Judy did, repeatedly. Thus this whole exchange. > > > > Emily: > > > I'm soooo passive aggressive, aren't I? Oh, wait, that sounds > > > directly aggressive. When oh when did I call you a liar? > > > > M: I see what happened now, my bad. By not specifying that > > "she" refers to "Judy" you got confused. Since the whole > > thing was predicated on Judy calling me a liar I thought I > > was safe. > > No, Curtis, it wouldn't have helped if you'd written "Judy" > instead of "she" in that sentence. Grammatically, "by > claiming" refers to "who," which refers to "Emily," not "she." > Also content-wise: "who" is the person who "escaped this nut > house," i.e., Emily, not Judy. > > (No, I'm not claiming you *meant* that Emily called you a > liar, I'm just pointing out why it sounded as if you did. > It wasn't that you weren't "safe," it was that you wrote > a thoroughly bollixed-up sentence to express what you *did* > mean.) >
