Hasini had written:
And Carol, I think you're being over-sensitive. When you purposely chuff up the embers of a fire, you must expect to get singed a little.
I assumed that the pronoun in the second sentence referred to me since my name was mentioned in the preceding sentence. As well, those two sentences were isolated in a separate paragraph from what followed. I don't think I was being either illogical or over-sensitive to assume that "you" referred back to "Carol".. Rules of grammar and all that.
I also assumed that Labrat (and others for that matter
) would take that sentence's meaning from its grammatical structure.
I had no idea that Labrat would not, so when she congratulated people on not insulting anyone, I wondered why she had ignored what Hasini had written about me and frankly felt "hurt" that she'd overlooked that.
I certainly can't feel hurt when someone lauds tolerance, however:) I would have thought that, given that tolerance was what I had been stressing throughout my posts, that Labrat would have not thought that I *would* be hurt by her reference to it. As well, I cited in that post the part that had bothered me, and so I assumed that Labrat would understand that that particular quote was what I was addressing. But she didn't, and that's my fault perhaps for not beginning with a repeat of my plea for tolerance.
Saying that we find something that she insinuates as offensive, is not an attack on her; it's a defense of ourselves.
Yes, indeed.
I guess that's what we were all doing, a bit of self-defense
It's a two-way street. Although, it's beginning to seem like a round-about.
But, Hasini, I appreciate your clarification of what you really intended.: ) Not many people here have done that.
Alcyone wrote:
The implication is that Labrat has personally attacked Carol,
Perhaps it's for me to say whether I felt personally attacked by Labrat's saying I should stop posting, and also for Labrat to say whether she intended to attack me or not, and for Ann to say what she was "implying"
But thanks, Ann.
c.
