Oh, please, Share, your desperation is palpable. You just keep digging yourself in deeper. Most spouses who both work outside the home do not work in the same place. There are some who do, but, you know, that's why I said it was *verging on* a tautology, to leave room for those few. And in any case, that isn't why you said "I think..." See, there was nothing wrong with the point you made (although it didn't address what Ann was saying). You could have just made it straightforwardly, without the "I think," and nobody would have said Boo. You'd have had no reason to defend it the way you're tying yourself into knots trying to do now. Share wrote: > Judy, outside the home does not almost create a tautology because, as in my > family, > spouses work outside the home, but in the same place thus are not separated > in the way > that was being discussed. As for attempting to accurately read my mind > regarding my use > of I think, you failed IMO. Your motives are deeply hidden from your conscious mind, Share. But they're pretty clear to most of the rest of us. > As for my alleged attempt regarding my alleged dishonesty, keep projecting Nope, no projecting. I'm not dishonest, so no need. Your problem is that when other people recognize your motivations, you resort to dishonesty because they're hidden from you, so you have to make stuff up to explain them away. and Happy Mental Health Day tomorrow!
Share wrote: > Judy, unlike you who simply asserts > your opinions as facts, I say I think to designate that in > this day and age of many working at home, my statement is > qualified in that I don't know all the statistics involved. Nope, sorry, you specified spouses who work *outside the home*: "I think many spouses who work outside the home are separated from each other from [sic] most of the day." That isn't even an opinion; it's a truism, verging on a tautology. And your "I think" qualification didn't have a thing to do with not knowing the statistics. "Many" was sufficiently vague to cover any uncertainty about numbers. > > It was the "I > > think" that cracked me up, as if you might not be quite > > sure about such a trivial and obvious fact. False > > humility on your part, in other words. You do it a lot; > > it's a function of the general inauthenticity of your > > FFL persona. As is your attempt here to dishonestly extricate yourself from what I pointed out.
