At 12:42 PM 6/23/00 -0700, Brian wrote:
>> >Goodness, Natasha, it was a joke, quite obviously so, going by
>> >the reactions of others. The point was: under the assumption
>> >that these emails have no basis in fact, there has to be
>> >something highly irrational going on.
>>> Why on Earth would I know
>>> the particular person you happened to be
>>> involved with pre-Max?
>> I wouldn't expect you to know; that is why your
>> asumption was so strange and irrelevant.
>Not an assumption -- that was corrected earlier, yes?
No, it was not corrected. Your trying to use me as a side kick was mean
spirited. I don't take jabs like this lightly.
>>> Before pulling out the barf bag, check alternate
>>> assumptions -- may I suggest.
>> And what might that be?
>Already mentioned one (a jesting attempt to show just how
>extreme one would have to reach to make sense of this guy's
>motivations); Max can probably explain the other more easily:
>Ask him about the old "Hesperus" and "Phosphorus" question --
>you suffered a reference trauma (for which I think I'm slightly
>responsible, but not mostly).
Your so called jest was not stated in a fun way, Brain. I don't know who
this guy or gal was. But making a remark that it was a past romance of
mine was quite rude. The above paragraph is another of your snide remarks.
>I'm not absolutely certain it is, though I feel fairly confident
>it is. The same tactic was used in both cases: an attempt to get
>me on his side by constant reference to Max's having "stolen" my
I now don't think it was your term at all.
>Towards the Good,
I don't believe this.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Thu Jul 27 2000 - 14:14:13 MDT