> John Palmer ix.netcom.com> writes:

>> On 09 May 2008 01:12:51 -0400, Ann Burlingham panix.com> wrote:

>>>John Palmer ix.netcom.com> writes:
>>>

>>>> Sure. But I'm virtually certain that's not what was meant. I don't
>>>> quite know why I have that certainty, though.

>>>
>>>Are we talking mind-reading? I generally try to avoid it.
>>>

>>>> You know, it's a funny thing. For a good many years, I used to think
>>>> everyone saw these alternate meanings and just didn't care, which was
>>>> pretty awful... like it was a constant choice to look at the
>>>> negative.
>>>> Then, for a mixed set of feelings, I realized that a lot of folks
>>>> *can't*... at least, not locally, in the moment. (But sometimes, not
>>>> at all.)

>>>
>>>Just to get the gist of this, are you suggesting that *I* am prone to
>>>a) missing alternative readings or b) always seeking a negative
>>>connotation? Or c) just "*can't*"? I would find this a surprising
>>>thing to suggest from someone who's read my writing for any length of
>>>time, but I'm not sure what other point I'm supposed to be getting
>>>here.

>>
>> If this is a joke, it's really funny.

>
> I'm glad it's funny, but no, I didn't intend it so.
>

>> If it's not, I don't think it's safe for me to continue the
>> discussion.

>
> ?
>

>> But I was relating information about myself, for no reason other than
>> the thought that this is something people sometimes do. I generally
>> get it wrong when I try, which is one of the many reasons I try not to
>> do so.

>
> Okay, the part that I read about you was your confusion about how
> "everyone" either missed alternate meaning you could see, or they
> somehow "can't" see them - most of which seems to me to be about other
> people and how they read and/or understand/misunderstand what you,
> apparently, find clear.