Re: "Dollhouse" = Duh-house
- From: David Johnston <david@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 22 Feb 2009 01:23:22 GMT
On Sat, 21 Feb 2009 16:18:15 -0800 (PST), WQ <WQieue@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
--- So what because when you provided the examples, they read as a
response of assumptions
"what could possibly" does not mean "what is"
--- Pay attention now, you might have to read this several times, the
wording is tricky, but it really does make sense, like, you know, a
typical Dollhouse episode? Ready? Ok, here goes:
What part of "so I thought you might've been bluffing" that your
"assumptions/examples" read as knowing what the idealism was did you
not get?
The part where it makes sense to leap to that conclusion.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: "Dollhouse" = Duh-house
- From: WQ
- Re: "Dollhouse" = Duh-house
- References:
- Re: "Dollhouse" = Duh-house
- From: David Johnston
- Re: "Dollhouse" = Duh-house
- From: WQ
- Re: "Dollhouse" = Duh-house
- From: David Johnston
- Re: "Dollhouse" = Duh-house
- From: WQ
- Re: "Dollhouse" = Duh-house
- From: David Johnston
- Re: "Dollhouse" = Duh-house
- From: WQ
- Re: "Dollhouse" = Duh-house
- From: David Johnston
- Re: "Dollhouse" = Duh-house
- From: WQ
- Re: "Dollhouse" = Duh-house
- Prev by Date: Re: "Dollhouse" - The Critics' View
- Next by Date: Re: So do the actors on "Lie to Me" get training in "micro-acting"?
- Previous by thread: Re: "Dollhouse" = Duh-house
- Next by thread: Re: "Dollhouse" = Duh-house
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|