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] >
