--- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
wrote:
>
> --- In [email protected], "jim_flanegin" <jflanegi@>
wrote:
> >
> > --- In [email protected], TurquoiseB <no_reply@>
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > --- In [email protected],
> > > "tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlis"
> > > <tomandcindytraynoratfairfieldlist@> wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Large S Self Knows Large S Self. What else do you need to
Know.
> > >
> > > I can buy this one. I was speaking specifically to
> > > those who throw around the term 'enlightened' but
> > > who make no claim to be other than small s self.
> > > So far I liked MDixon's take on the question, and
> > > Curtis', and Alex's, and Bhairitu's, and Robert's,
> > > and new.morning's, and Jonathan's funny ones, and
> > > even Judy's, when she wasn't turning it into Yet
> > > Another Excuse To Trash Barry. :-)
> > >
> > > As for those who do, I reserve the right to make
> > > my own determination of whether their claims are
> > > true or not. For the record, in your case and in
> > > Rory's I'm willing to give you both the benefit of a
> > > doubt.
> >
> > Even though you've never met either of them in person?? LOL!
>
> You failed to notice that I only give them the
> benefit of a doubt and cut them some slack. I
> didn't deem them enlightened.
>
> You (and I do mean small s you) are trying to
> turn that into a slam because I didn't include
> you. It wasn't an oversight.
>
OK, fair enough I didn't read your response carefully enough to pick
up on that. As for not including me, I'm OK with that. Your choice.
