*sigh*
As for the "missed point" debacle, I get it now. No longer offended. And yes, I agree about the differences in Paris and Briseis. However, I don't think editorials in our paper are analogous.
Looks like I'm just as guilty for being unclear.
I wrote this:
"I assume after having read the post where I originally linked to Christa's post, Ian went and read the post and then made this comment on the post. Or more accurately, on my comment about it."
When I wrote "this comment", I meant the comment he quotes himself as making in the post that I linked to. And when I wrote "on my comment about it", I was referring to an earlier post on my blog, the one where I linked to Christa's blog. My bad for being opaque.
Honestly, I don't have any idea anymore what Ian was specifically commenting on. Even after he clarified it in this post.
If any of you are confused by who said what in response to what, you're not alone.
Looks like I'm just as guilty for being unclear.
I wrote this:
"I assume after having read the post where I originally linked to Christa's post, Ian went and read the post and then made this comment on the post. Or more accurately, on my comment about it."
When I wrote "this comment", I meant the comment he quotes himself as making in the post that I linked to. And when I wrote "on my comment about it", I was referring to an earlier post on my blog, the one where I linked to Christa's blog. My bad for being opaque.
Honestly, I don't have any idea anymore what Ian was specifically commenting on. Even after he clarified it in this post.
If any of you are confused by who said what in response to what, you're not alone.
