Re: What time does to 5100

Briarroot wrote:

>Having read the entirety of your post, it is evident that we are *not*
>reading the same thread! ..snipping randomly for brevity....

>That's not how it read to me. If Lee had specific knowledge of this
>"littledog" fellow, he ought to have indicated that. It appeared to me
>that Lee was relating how he stored his *own* tobacco.

Tim, you are right. I keep several days on my reader. But perhaps he
deletes as he reads, was giving his method of storing, and it just
appeared in the wrong place because the right place was gone. Happens
all the time with people who delete. Since that is how you read the
post, you could have saved the day by just ignoring his post like we
usually do with misplaced posts and either waited for
littledog/dkorol's answer or emailed him.

>I asked a very simple question but the original poster did not answer,
>Since Lee von Erck answered a question that I put to
>dkoroll1@xxxxxxxx (whoever that may be), I inquired if he (von Erck) was
>the same person using another ID. Simple, no? ......

Not in my opinion. You've both been here a long time and you have
been reading have both only posted under your own names/nicks as far
as I can tell. He rarely posts and is a one-line response guy. So
it's seems obvious to me that he wouldn't suddenly change nicks ...
and personalities ... and become verbose enough to post as someone who
uses as many words as littledog did. Oh yeah, and instantly find that
his longtime favorite tobacco doesn't agree with his body chemistry. I
didn't think a long time reader would ever think that he wrote
littledog's posts. Based on that idea, your post had me a tad
confused too.

But he thought the note about easily spelled nicks referred to
him..... Because you did the same thing he did to begin with and
*also* posted it in an unfortunate place ... a direct reply to Lee
instead of one to "dkoroll". Hence, he was probably as befuddled by
the placement of your note as you were by the placement of his initial
response.

> ...predisposed to look unfavorably upon myself, or upon those who prefer
> a certain amount of clarity in online communication.

Not unfavorably ... but yes, I'm probably pre-disposed somewhat
because I often do find your posts a bit picky towards those who do
not possess your writing skills... sorry. I am not trying to be
critical. And this time (the thread, not the last post), I found
less clarity in your words than usual.

The fact that the Novocain had worn off and my jaw was in too much
pain to sleep (or post) late last night probably accounts for my
flying off the handle in a mindless defense of another person in the
first (and only) thread I read. But it was certainly not an excuse
for me to assume things and take off on a public rant. For that, I
sincerely apologize to you, to ASP.... and especially to Lee, who is
undoubtedly embarrassed by all this.

I just noted that Lee was frustrated by your responses and did not
know how to reply. Written words are not his forte'. I do not like
to see hurt feelings, so I sometimes have a bad habit of jumping in
where I do not belong.

>Instructs? Sheesh! Lady, you *are* on a roll, aren't you?

Yes, unfortunately I was. And I'm not very proud of it. I had more
productive things I should have been doing instead. And I wouldn't be
spending this afternoon trying to set things straight.

>did say "please" when making what should have been an obviously humorous
>request. Kindly tell me how you can possibly turn that into an
>instruction, if you please!
>>[Note: Folks, if you're going to use an online nickname, please make it
>>something simple and easily spelled!]

Sorry, in considering the post as a whole and the note's unfortunate
placement (even though not uncommon in usenet) .... it just sounds
like that to me. A wink or grin might have helped for 'clarity' if
humor was your intent ;-)

>...Furthermore, you ought to be aware that poster's "Sender" names are used...

>....I didn't even notice that dk~whats-his-name had signed himself as "littledog."

I noticed that lack of observation and I suspect you were not alone.
Some people, esp. those fairly new to usenet, do not know how to set
their reader so the nick appears instead of their email. It's not a
mortal sin, just a tad confusing if it doesn't match their name.
However, all of his posts are signed "littledog", so it isn't hard to
find. If you notice, I am aware of how this works and my real name
does appear.

>Abject nonsense. If Lee von Erck felt insulted (which was also the
>impression I got), he has no one to blame but himself for not making
>himself clear in the first place....

Perhaps. But perhaps he didn't realize that his post appeared in a
different part of the thread than intended. However, since you
realized that he felt insulted, it might have been the gentlemanly
thing to do not to continue the insult. Since you ARE good with
words, it would have been more helpful and far kinder to determine the
cause and clarify it yourself instead of responding with:
>> How extraordinarily curious!

> If anyone has been insulted, it has been me - by you - just now.
> But that's all right. I forgive you. Perhaps I am made of sterner stuff than some. :-/

Tim, you *are* made of "sterner stuff". That's obvious.

Once again, I apologize. Since this is the second time I've had to
apologize this week, (and I may have just given myself a third), I
guess my return to ASP posting was a bit premature. I will try to
refrain from posting until I am feeling a bit better and more myself
again. Sorry folks.

Cheryl
.

Relevant Pages