Re: Results in Parallel columns

x wrote:
> "Marshall" <marshall.spight_at_gmail.com> wrote in message
> news:1150384684.643661.38470_at_f6g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> > x wrote:
> > >
> > > My "style" was not cryptographical at all.
>
> > I often have quite a difficult time understanding what
> > you are trying to get at.
>
> In this case I was not cryptographical at all.
> You should not try to understand what I'm "trying to get at".

What I am saying is, it is often the case that I read you posts and go "huh? What was that about?"

If you don't like the "trying to get at" phrase, I'll just say instead that I often don't understand your posts.

> > It is not uncommon that I
> > completely fail to detect any point to your posts at
> > all.
>
> I sometimes asked questions. The point was to get an answer.
> I don't enjoy playing cat and mouse but there are some occasions that beg
> for it.

I am a bit sceptical of your claim that you don't like cat and mouse. It strikes me that if you really didn't like something, you wouldn't do it very much or at all, whereas this is something you do often.

> >I do not believe this is because you don't have
> > one; rather it is because I find you manner of
> > writing largely opaque.
>
> Sorry about that. I'll try to improve my manners.

I'm not sure if this is humor in the form of a pun, a misunderstanding, or what, but I want to make sure I get the point across: I have no complaint about your manners. Instead, it is your diction, your idiom, your writing style, your phrasing, that I have trouble with. The trouble comes in trying to discern the point of it, or the intended message.

You seem a fine sort of fellow to me. Just a bit opaque is all.

Marshall Received on Thu Jun 15 2006 - 17:35:07 CEST