I disagreed, as I granted. I took a wryer view of the TOU than is X's view, as I granted. My posts were not nasty, and you don't claim they were. They were civil discourse, appropriate on this or any other thread. They were not personal.
The point not being that X didn't have a right to post personally nastily to me if she felt the disagreement had an "edge" that provoked her to do so. Let X be X.
The point being that the comment below to Rambi was unfair and revisionist since X was nasty and personal and I was not -- I was specifically personally pleasant, commenting positively (and sincerely) about her poetry postings, while at the same time expressing wryness or cynicism in my view of the TOU.
Sadly things were just too pleasant here, I think.
Interesting and non-combative conversations always seem to be like magnets for other forces.
P.S.
Sure you were defending X. She did something clearly wrong, and it took only 3 posts to show it when similar situations have been long and convoluted, and you 1) characterized the simple, simple situation as having required a lot of research, and 2) proposed the blame for the unfairness was equal.
TEOMOP, Karen. It's true for all of us. |
