Jake wrote:
>Professor,
>
>I don't think that this is where the "rubber meets the road". You assume
that
>I am dissatisfied with the situation. I am not. In this case, I am just
>providing commentary. Yes, it is reality. I think KJS can articulate his
own
>justifications without my help. If he/she hasn't sorted out who is agreeing
>to disagree, and who isn't, and who is evading discussions, I am sure he can
>figure it out. If he/she is just looking for something entertaining, Reed is
>entertaining. If he/she is looking for emotional connection in cyberspace,
>Reed does that too. He is pretty good at letting it all hang out for people
>craving that kind of stuff. Although we appear in conflict, Reed and I are
>not playing a zero-sum game. He is getting what he wants, and I am getting
>what I want.
Boy, am *I* ever confused over my own gender after that paragraph!
Ok, I don't think I'm justifying anything here. I'm not part of the argument, remember? And I already agreed about agreeing to disagree. I hardly think you are evading discussions. Next, I don't find Reed particularly entertaining. In a way, I am looking for "emotional connection" in cyberspace, but not *that* kind of emotional connection! You should recall that I had the same problem as you with Reed awhile back. I felt that he was constantly misinterpreting most of my words. At least that I can understand. Water under the Charles Bridge, though. And I'm only glad he's "letting it all hang out" as opposed his style in responding to me before. I remember telling him that his posts gave me *no* information about him whatsoever, and now they do. I crave stuff, but I don't know if it is Reed. Hell, I'm all confused now! Thanks a lot!
>BOOGIE!! BOOGIE!! BOOGIE!!
>
>Reed---> 0^8E
>
>;^) <---Jake
>
>>:->~ <---"Logic Nazi"
Er, you don't think that was uncalled for?
~kjs, the She-Male (making fun of myself before Tim does)