Re: Okay...

>Um, all you said was:
"He didn't stomp on her head."<

That wasn't *all* I said.

>It's not unreasonable to interpret that as saying "he's not guilty."  <

Yes it is, especially with what else I said that you haven't included, (and I'm 
not going to since it would mean I have to go to archives to get it).  It would 
not have been unreasonable to interpret it as saying "he's not guilty of 
stomping on her head."  Big difference.

>So, when you explained that you were not defending the guy and that you feel he 
>should not be accused of stomping on her head because he stepped on her...that 
>wasn't a clarification? <

Two thing - I think that is more of a qualifier than a clarifier especially 
considering the other thing and that is that you made it sound like I clarified 
it in a subsequent email and I did no such thing.  I said everything I meant to 
say and that was quite understandable in my first email.  You assumed that 
because I didn't but your characterization hook, line and sinker, that I was 
defending the guy in the general sense, when my first email on its face made it 
clear I wasn't doing that.

<Oooookay.  So, I guess I shouldn't have apologized for misunderstanding you and 
your intent?  This is getting confusing.<

I don't know that an apology is necessary, but if  you insist on making one I'd 
rather you were apologizing for misunderstanding what I actually said.

Mike F. 

-- 
dadl-ot mailing list
http://mail.thehood.us/mailman/listinfo/dadl-ot_thehood.us
http://news.gmane.org/gmane.music.dadl.ot