--- In [email protected], "seventhray27" <steve.sundur@...> wrote: > > > > --- In [email protected], "Ann" wrote: > > > Happy Birthday Steve. Thank you for your acknowledgement of my post. > Did you want to corroborate any of your assertions you made or just let > it lie as is? Do you still feel the same way you did before I responded > to you and if so why not show me some evidence of "getting nasty" with > LK or any other archival "proof" of your assertions. Or, we can just > move on - your choice. > > > Hi Ann, > > Good morning! Thank you for my birthday acknowledgement. Since we just > heard from Raunchy a moment ago, there was an event sometime ago, where > it was debated whether Ranchy owed, or did not owe, Sunshine Sal an > apology for something. And of course no resolution was reached, and it > went on for days and days.
I am not looking for any apology. Whatever you felt or feel is your prerogative to feel. It does not change the facts whether you think one thing or the other. I just felt it incumbent on myself to straighten out a few misconceptions you were holding based on, I don't know what, because you certainly wouldn't have gleaned them from words written. As far as I am concerned, the whole subject, as it unfolded last summer, is over. > > So, no Ann, I really don't care to revisit those posts during the time > we heard from LK and others. If I have been mistaken in my analysis, > then I apologize, but from my side, I don't see any point in bringing > those issues up again and trying to make a determination about them. Well, you brought them up, not me! And some of them were pretty incendiary so maybe think a bit more before you open up an old can of worms and start spouting theories that are not actually based on fact. Because when you, or anybody else, does that most people in my position would likely want to clarify a few misconceptions about what the other person is claiming. I daresay even you would do the same. > > There was some kind of interaction between you and LK, and I > characterized it as becoming nasty. Perhaps that was too strong a word. > But yes, I stand by the overall points I made in my post. Probably, > they could stand some tweaking, but there is nothing I would care to > retract. Again, I don't care whether you retract anything or not, I am not looking for you to apologize or kneel before me in abject shame; I just wanted to give you the opportunity to understand much more about what was actually going on, not only at FFL, but behind the scenes. What you choose to do with what I wrote is up to you - ignore it, pooh-pooh it or give it intelligent consideration. Your call. I'm moving on. >
